D^ϰEEh>ZWKZd   ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨWĞƌŵŝƚzĞĂƌϱ  ŚĞƐƚĞƌĨŝĞůĚŽƵŶƚLJ͕sŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ  s^DWWĞƌŵŝƚEŽ͘sϬϬϴϴϲϬϵ  0DUFK 







    

 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   TableofContents d>K&KEdEd^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘/ >ŝƐƚŽĨdĂďůĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ŝŝ >ŝƐƚŽĨďďƌĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ŝŝŝ >ŝƐƚŽĨƉƉĞŶĚŝĐĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ǀ ^d/KEϭ͘<'ZKhE/E&KZDd/KE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ ĂͿ dŚĞWĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĞĂŶĚWĞƌŵŝƚEƵŵďĞƌ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ ďͿ DŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞD^ϰWƌŽŐƌĂŵWůĂŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ ĐͿ ZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂƚĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ ĚͿ ĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂƐƉĞƌWĂƌƚ//͘<͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯ ^d/KEϮ͘^dKZDtdZDE'DEd/DW>DEdd/KE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯ WĂƌƚ/͘͘ϭ͘WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ĂͿŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ^ŝƚĞZƵŶŽĨĨĂŶĚWŽƐƚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶZƵŶŽĨĨĨƌŽŵƌĞĂƐŽĨEĞǁĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶWƌŝŽƌĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ>ĂŶĚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ďͿZĞƚƌŽĨŝƚƚŝŶŐŽŶWƌŝŽƌĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ>ĂŶĚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ĐͿZŽĂĚǁĂLJƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϴ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ĚͿWĞƐƚŝĐŝĚĞ͕,ĞƌďŝĐŝĚĞ͕ĂŶĚ&ĞƌƚŝůŝnjĞƌƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϵ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ĞͿ/ůůŝĐŝƚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐĂŶĚ/ŵƉƌŽƉĞƌŝƐƉŽƐĂů͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϮ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ĨͿ^ƉŝůůWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϯ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ŐͿ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůĂŶĚ,ŝŐŚZŝƐŬZƵŶŽĨĨ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϰ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ŚͿ^ƚŽƌŵ^ĞǁĞƌ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϲ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ŝͿŽƵŶƚLJ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϵ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ũͿWƵďůŝĐĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶͬWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϮϬ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ŬͿdƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϯ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ůͿtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ^ĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϰ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘ŵͿ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϲ ^d/KEϯ͘DKE/dKZ/E'WZK'ZDZWKZd^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϳ WĂƌƚ/͘͘ϭ͘ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů^ƚƌĞĂŵDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϳ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘/ŶͲ^ƚƌĞĂŵDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϳ WĂƌƚ/͘͘ϯ͘&ůŽĂƚĂďůĞƐDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϴ WĂƌƚ/͘͘ϰ͘^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĂŶĚ^ŽƵƌĐĞŽŶƚƌŽůƐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂŶĚdƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϵ ^d/KEϰ͘dD>/DW>DEdd/KE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϬ WĂƌƚ/͘͘ϭ͘ŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϬ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘dD>ĐƚŝŽŶWůĂŶƐŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJdD>͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϮ ^d/KEϱ͘^W/&/ZWKZd/E'ZYh/ZDEd^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϯ WĂƌƚ/͘͘Ϯ͘WĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĞZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ WĂƌƚ/͘͘ϰ͘D^ϰWƌŽŐƌĂŵZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ WĂƌƚ/͘͘ϱ͘WĞƌŵŝƚDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ&ĞĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ WĂƌƚ/͘͘ϳ͘D^ϰWƌŽŐƌĂŵZĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚhƉĚĂƚĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ  

ƒ„Ž‡‘ˆ‘–‡–• ‹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   ListofTables

Table1.LandDisturbanceandSingleǦFamilyResidencePermitsIssuedandtheAssociated DisturbedAcres...... 4 Table2.LandDisturbanceActivityInspectionsandNumberandTypeofEnforcement Actions...... 4 Table3.ProjectConstructionStatusUpdates...... 6 Table4.PermitteePropertiesCoveredUnderTurfandLandscapeNutrientManagement Plans...... 10 Table5.SanitarySewerInspections...... 12 Table6.IHRRProgramInspectionsPerformed...... 14 Table7.IHRRProgramDischargesReferredtoDEQ...... 15 Table8.StormwaterInspections,Maintenance,andRepairs...... 17 Table9.ActivitiesPerformedforPrivatelyMaintainedFacilities...... 17 Table10.ListofFloatableMonitoringSites...... 28 Table11.ControlMeasuresImplementedfortheChesapeakeBayTMDLThroughPY5....30 Table12.ControlMeasuresImplementedandEstimatedReductionAchievedforthe ChesapeakeBayTMDLinPY5...... 31 Table13.ControlMeasuresExpectedtobeImplementedfortheChesapeakeBayTMDLin NextReportingYear...... 31 Table14.LocationofSpecificReportingRequirementswithintheAnnualReport...... 33  



  

‹•–‘ˆƒ„Ž‡• ‹‹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   ListofAbbreviations

  ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ—‹Ž†‹‰ •’‡ –‹‘•  ‡•–ƒƒ‰‡‡–”ƒ –‹ ‡• Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–› ‡‡”ƒŽ‡”˜‹ ‡•Ǧ—‹Ž†‹‰ƒ† ”‘—†•    Ƭ  ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡‹˜‹•‹‘  Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ‘—‹–›Šƒ ‡‡–  ‘–‹—‹‰†— ƒ–‹‘‹–   ƒ’‹–ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–Žƒ  Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‰‹‡‡”‹‰  ‹”‰‹‹ƒ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ—ƒŽ‹–› Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‰‹‡‡”‹‰    Ǧƒ–‡”•Š‡†ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹˜‹•‹‘”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡‡ –‹‘  ‹• Šƒ”‰‡‘‹–‘”‹‰‡’‘”–•  –‡”’”‹•‡ƒ†ƒƒ‰‡‡–  ”‘•‹‘ƒ†‡†‹‡–‘–”‘Ž   Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‘‘’‡”ƒ–‹˜‡š–‡•‹‘ Ƭ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–› ‹”‡Ƭ‡”‰‡ ›‡†‹ ƒŽ‡”˜‹ ‡• Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–› ‹”‡Ƭ‡”‰‡ ›‡†‹ ƒŽ‡”˜‹ ‡•Ǧ ‹”‡   ƒ”•ŠƒŽ̵•ˆˆ‹ ‡ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–› ‡‡”ƒŽ‡”˜‹ ‡•Ǧ Ž‡‡–ƒƒ‰‡‡–  ‹˜‹•‹‘   ‹‰Š”‹‘”‹–›—‹ ‹’ƒŽ ƒ ‹Ž‹–›   ŽŽ‹ ‹–‹• Šƒ”‰‡•ƒ† ’”‘’‡”‹•’‘•ƒŽ  †—•–”‹ƒŽƬ ‹‰Š‹•—‘ˆˆ  –‡‰”ƒ–‡†ƒƒ‰‡‡–”ƒ –‹ ‡  Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–› ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘›•–‡•‡ Š‘Ž‘‰›  ƒ†‹•–—”„ƒ ‡‡”‹–  Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‡ƒ”‹‰ƒ†‡”ˆ‘”ƒ ‡‡–‡”  ‹––Ž‡‘ƒŠƒ™”‡‡ Ͷ —‹ ‹’ƒŽ‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡–‘”‡™‡”›•–‡ Ͷ  —‹ ‹’ƒŽ‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡–‘”‡™‡”›•–‡”‘‰”ƒŽƒ  —–”‹‡–ƒƒ‰‡‡–Žƒ  ‘–‹ ‡‘ˆ‹‘Žƒ–‹‘ Ƭ  Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆƒ”•ƒ†‡ ”‡ƒ–‹‘  Š‡•ƒ’‡ƒ‡ƒ›‘–ƒŽƒš‹—ƒ‹Ž›‘ƒ† –‹‘Žƒ   Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‘Ž‹ ‡‡’ƒ”–‡–  ƒ‹–—–‘ŽŽ—–‹‘ ͳ ‡”‹–‡ƒ”ͳ ʹ ‡”‹–‡ƒ”ʹ ͵ ‡”‹–‡ƒ”͵

 ‹•–‘ˆ„„”‡˜‹ƒ–‹‘• ‹‹‹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   ListofAbbreviations(Cont.)

Ͷ ‡”‹–‡ƒ”Ͷ ͷ ‡”‹–‡ƒ”ͷ Ȁ —ƒŽ‹–›••—”ƒ ‡Ȁ—ƒŽ‹–›‘–”‘Ž    Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ‹•ƒƒ‰‡‡–   Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›—„Ž‹  Š‘‘Ž•  –ƒ†ƒ”†’‡”ƒ–‹‰”‘ ‡†—”‡ȋ•Ȍ   –‘”™ƒ–‡” ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘”ƒ ‡”  –‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•  –‘”™ƒ–‡”‘ŽŽ—–‹‘”‡˜‡–‹‘Žƒ  ‘–ƒŽƒš‹—ƒ‹Ž›‘ƒ†     Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ–‹Ž‹–‹‡•  ‹”‰‹‹ƒ‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘••‹•–ƒ ‡”‘‰”ƒ  ‹”‰‹‹ƒ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘  ‹”‰‹‹ƒ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡–”‘‰”ƒ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–› ‡‡”ƒŽ‡”˜‹ ‡•Ȃƒ•–‡ƒ†‡•‘—” ‡  ‡ ‘˜‡”›ȋ’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›”‡’‘”–‡†ƒ• Ȍ  ƒ•–‡ƒ–‡””‡ƒ–‡–Žƒ– 





 ‹•–‘ˆ„„”‡˜‹ƒ–‹‘• ‹˜ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   ListofAppendices

’’‡†‹š  Ǥͳ ‘Ž‡•ƒ†‡•’‘•‹„‹Ž‹–‹‡•  Ǥʹ ʹͲʹͲ ‹• ƒŽ‡ƒ”—†‰‡–Ǧ„”‹†‰‡†  ’’‡†‹š  Ǥͳ ‹•–‘ˆ ŽŽ‹ ‹–‹• Šƒ”‰‡•ƒ† ’”‘’‡”‹•’‘•ƒŽ‡’‘”–•  Ǥʹ ’‹ŽŽ‡•’‘•‡• ’‡”˜‹‘—•ǡ‡”˜‹‘—•ǡƒ†‘–ƒŽ ”‡•‡”˜‡†„›–Š‡Ͷƒ†”‡ƒ–‡†„› Ǥ͵  –‘”™ƒ–‡”‘–”‘Ž•  ǤͶ —„Ž‹ †— ƒ–‹‘Ȁƒ”–‹ ‹’ƒ–‹‘—–”‡ƒ Š  Ǥͷ ”ƒ‹‹‰˜‡–•  Ǥ͸ ”›‡ƒ–Š‡” ”‡‡‹‰ •’‡ –‹‘•ǡ‡•—Ž–•ǡƒ† ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǧ—’ –‹˜‹–‹‡•  Ǥ͹ ‡–‡ƒ–Š‡” ”‡‡‹‰ •’‡ –‹‘•ǡ‡•—Ž–•ǡƒ† ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǧ—’ –‹˜‹–‹‡•  Ǥͺ ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘‡‡–‹‰   ’’‡†‹š Ǥͳ ʹͲͳͻ••‡••‡–‘ˆ–Š‡‹‘Ž‘‰›ǡ ƒ„‹–ƒ–ǡƒ† Ǧ–”‡ƒŠ‡‹•–”›‘ˆ‡Ž‡ – –”‡ƒ•‹Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ  Ǥʹ –”— –—”ƒŽƒ†‘—” ‡‘–”‘Ž•‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡‘‹–‘”‹‰ƒ†”ƒ ‹‰       





 ‹•–‘ˆ’’‡†‹ ‡• ˜ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Section1.BackgroundInformation  a) ThePermitteeandPermitNumber 

‡”‹––‡‡ǣ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–› ‡”‹–—„‡”ǣ ͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ  b) ModificationstotheMS4ProgramPlan 

Ͷ ”‘‰”ƒ Žƒ ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ƒ† —’†ƒ–‡• Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ †‘ —‡–‡† ‹ –Š‡ Ͷ ”‘‰”ƒŽƒ—†‡”–Š‡ ‘””‡•’‘†‹‰’‡”‹–•‡ –‹‘ǤŠ‡‘•–”‡ ‡–˜‡”•‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ Ͷ”‘‰”ƒŽƒ ƒ„‡ˆ‘—†‘–Š‡ ‘—–›™‡„•‹–‡ƒ–ǣ Š––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†Ǥ‰‘˜ȀʹͻͻȀ–‘”™ƒ–‡”Ǧƒƒ‰‡‡–Ǧ”‘‰”ƒǤ  c) ReportingDates 

Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰†ƒ–‡•ˆ‘”–Š‡MS4AnnualReport–ASummaryofPermitYear5ƒ”‡ ƒ—ƒ”› ͳ•–ǡʹͲͳͻ–Š”‘—‰Š‡ ‡„‡”͵ͳ•–ǡʹͲͳͻǤ











 ‡ –‹‘ͳǤƒ ‰”‘—† ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ ͳ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   d) CertificationasperPartII.K. 

̶  ‡”–‹ˆ›—†‡”’‡ƒŽ–›‘ˆŽƒ™–Šƒ––Š‹•†‘ —‡–ƒ†ƒŽŽƒ––ƒ Š‡–•™‡”‡’”‡’ƒ”‡† —†‡”›†‹”‡ –‹‘‘”•—’‡”˜‹•‹‘‹ƒ ‘”†ƒ ‡™‹–Šƒ•›•–‡†‡•‹‰‡†–‘ƒ••—”‡–Šƒ– “—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†’‡”•‘‡Ž’”‘’‡”Ž›‰ƒ–Š‡”ƒ†‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡–Š‡‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘•—„‹––‡†Ǥƒ•‡†‘ ›‹“—‹”›‘ˆ–Š‡’‡”•‘‘”’‡”•‘•™Š‘ƒƒ‰‡–Š‡•›•–‡ǡ‘”–Š‘•‡’‡”•‘•†‹”‡ –Ž› ”‡•’‘•‹„Ž‡ˆ‘”‰ƒ–Š‡”‹‰–Š‡‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ǡ–Š‡‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘•—„‹––‡†‹•ǡ–‘–Š‡„‡•–‘ˆ› ‘™Ž‡†‰‡ƒ†„‡Ž‹‡ˆǡ–”—‡ǡƒ —”ƒ–‡ǡƒ† ‘’Ž‡–‡Ǥ ƒƒ™ƒ”‡–Šƒ––Š‡”‡ƒ”‡•‹‰‹ˆ‹ ƒ– ’‡ƒŽ–‹‡• ˆ‘” •—„‹––‹‰ ˆƒŽ•‡ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ǡ ‹ Ž—†‹‰ –Š‡ ’‘••‹„‹Ž‹–›‘ˆˆ‹‡ƒ† ‹’”‹•‘‡–ˆ‘”‘™‹‰˜‹‘Žƒ–‹‘•Ǥ̶







  ‘––Ǥ‡†Ž‡›ǡǤǤ ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‰‹‡‡”‹‰ǡ‹”‡ –‘” 

 ƒ–‡ 





 ”Ǥ ‘•‡’ŠǤƒ•‡› ‘—–›†‹‹•–”ƒ–‘” 

 ƒ–‡ 

 ‡ –‹‘ͳǤƒ ‰”‘—† ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ ʹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Section2.StormwaterManagement Implementation  PartI.B.1.Planning SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‹•’”‘‰”ƒ‹•–‘’”‘˜‹†‡ˆ‘”ƒ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒ’‹–ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–Žƒ ȋ Ȍ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰’”‘Œ‡ –•™‹–Š‹Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ˆ‘”‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘†—”‹‰–Š‡–‡” ‘ˆ–Š‡Ͷ’‡”‹–ǤŠ‡–‘”™ƒ–‡” ‹ Ž—†‡• ‘•–Ǧ„‡‡ˆ‹–ƒƒŽ›•‹•ƒ†ƒ–‡–ƒ–‹˜‡ • Š‡†—Ž‡ˆ‘”’”‘Œ‡ –‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘Ǥ—’†ƒ–‡†–Š‹•’Žƒ–‘”‡ˆŽ‡ – ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•ǡ ’”‘‰”‡••ǡƒ† ‘’Ž‡–‹‘‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡ –•Ǥ††‹–‹‘ƒŽŽ›ǡ‹ ‘”’‘”ƒ–‡†–Š‹•’Žƒ‹–‘–Š‡   ˆ‘” Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž† ‘—–›ǡ ƒ ‘Ž‹‡ ‡‘’ƒ ‡ ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ –‘‘ŽǤŽ‹–‘ —””‡– ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘‘–Š‡ ‘—–›ǯ•–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒ’‹–ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–”‘Œ‡ –•ǡ–Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ –‘‘Žƒ††ƒ–ƒ‘–Š‡•‡’”‘Œ‡ –• ƒ„‡ˆ‘—†‘̵•™‡„•‹–‡ƒ–ǣ  Š––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†Ǥ‰‘˜Ȁ͵ʹͲȀ–‘”™ƒ–‡”Ǧƒ’‹–ƒŽǦ ’”‘˜‡‡–ǦŽƒǤ  PROGRAMEVALUATION Š‡Žƒ‹‰ ‘’‘‡–™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡••–Š”‘—‰Š̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™ ’”‘ ‡••Ǥ  ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘” ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ‹ Ž—†‡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ †‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘ •–ƒ†ƒ”†‹œƒ–‹‘‡‡†•ƒ†‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰‡–Š‘†•ˆ‘”–”ƒ ‹‰‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ 





 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͵ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.a)ConstructionSiteRunoffandPost ConstructionRunofffromAreasofNewDevelopment andDevelopmentonPriorDevelopedLands

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‹• ‘’‘‡– ‹• –‘ ‹’Ž‡‡– ’”‘‰”ƒ• –‘ ”‡†— ‡ –Š‡ ƒ‘—– ‘ˆ •‡†‹‡–‰‡‡”ƒ–‡†ˆ”‘ ‘•–”— –‹‘•‹–‡•ǡ”‡†— ‡–Š‡‘ˆˆǦ•‹–‡–”ƒ•’‘”–‘ˆ•‡†‹‡– ƒ† ‘•–”— –‹‘Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡† Š‡‹ ƒŽ•–‘–Š‡Ͷǡƒ†”‡†— ‡–Š‡’‘•–Ǧ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– Ž‘ƒ†‹‰Ǥ ‘–‹—‡†‹’Ž‡‡–‹‰’”‘‰”ƒ•™‹–Š‹–Š‡‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‹˜‹•‹‘ǡ ‡•—”‹‰ –Š‡ ‡š‹•–‹‰ ’”‘‰”ƒ ‘„Œ‡ –‹˜‡• ƒŽ‹‰‡† ™‹–Š–Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹– ”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Ǥ  Š‡ ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ •–ƒˆˆ ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†  ‡”–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ƒ†Ȁ‘”  ‡”–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ‹ Ž—†‹‰ ‡”–‹ˆ‹‡† †—ƒŽ ‘„‹‡† ƒ†‹‹•–”ƒ–‘”•ǡ †—ƒŽ ‡”–‹ˆ‹‡† ’Žƒ ”‡˜‹‡™‡”•ǡƒ††—ƒŽ ‡”–‹ˆ‹‡†‹•’‡ –‘”•‘•–ƒˆˆ†—”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”Ǥ‹••—‡† ͳͶ͹•ˆ‘”ƒ–‘–ƒŽ‘ˆͳǡͲ͵ʹ†‹•–—”„‡†ƒ ”‡•ƒ†‹••—‡†ͳǡͷͳͻ•‹‰Ž‡Ǧˆƒ‹Ž›†™‡ŽŽ‹‰ „—‹Ž†‹‰’‡”‹–•ˆ‘”ƒ–‘–ƒŽ‘ˆͳ͹Ͷ†‹•–—”„‡†ƒ ”‡•Ǥ–‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ͵ʹǡ͸ͻͷ‹•’‡ –‹‘•ƒ† ͵ǡ͵ͳͳ‹•’‡ –‹‘•™‡”‡’‡”ˆ‘”‡†„›ƒ† Ǥ ”‘–Š‘•‡‹•’‡ –‹‘•ǡ–Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰™‡”‡‹••—‡†ǣͻͷ‘–‹ ‡•–‘ ‘’Ž›ǡ•‹šȋ͸Ȍ‘–‹ ‡•‘ˆ˜‹‘Žƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†ˆ‹˜‡ȋͷȌ ‹˜‹Ž ’‡ƒŽ–‹‡•Ǥ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS  x Each annual report shall contain the number of regulated land disturbing activitiesapprovedandthetotalnumberofacresdisturbed.  Table1.LandDisturbanceandSingleǦFamilyResidencePermitsIssuedandtheAssociated DisturbedAcres Disturbed LDP SingleǦFamilyResidence DisturbedAcres Acres ͳͶ͹ ͳǡͲ͵ʹ ͳǡͷͳͻ ͳ͹Ͷ  x Each annual report shall contain the number of land disturbing activity inspections conducted and the number and type of each enforcement action taken.

Table2.LandDisturbanceActivityInspectionsandNumberandTypeofEnforcement Actions Noticesto Noticesof CivilPenalties 2019 Inspections Comply Violation Issued  ͵ʹǡ͸ͻͷ ͻͷ ͸ ͷ  ͵ǡ͵ͳͳ  

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ Ͷ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   x Eachannualreportshallincludeasummaryofactionstakenbythepermittee toimplementPartI.B.2.a)1)and2)ofthisstatepermit.  ǡ‹ ‘Œ— –‹‘™‹–Š ǡ ‘–‹—‡†’Žƒ‹‰–‘—’†ƒ–‡–Š‡ ‘—–›–”ƒ ‹‰†ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡ ˆ‘” ‘•–”— –‹‘ƒ††‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•–‘‹ Ž—†‡‡™Ž›ƒ’’”‘˜‡†Ȁ–›’‡• ƒ† ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– ”‡‘˜ƒŽ ‡ˆˆ‹ ‹‡ ‹‡•Ǥ  Š‡ ‘—–› ƒŽ•‘ ‘–‹—‡† †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘ˆ ƒ ‡–‡”’”‹•‡ Žƒ† ƒƒ‰‡‡– ȋȌ †ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡ –‘ ”‡’Žƒ ‡ ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ †‡’ƒ”–‡–ƒŽ –”ƒ ‹‰ †ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡•Ǥ  Š‹• ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‡† •›•–‡ ‹• „‡‹‰ †‡•‹‰‡† –‘ ‹ ‘”’‘”ƒ–‡ ƒŽŽ †‡’ƒ”–‡–•‹˜‘Ž˜‡†‹Žƒ†ƒƒ‰‡‡–ƒ†ƒŽŽ‘™ˆ‘”–Š‡‹ ‘”’‘”ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ—’Ǧ–‘Ǧ†ƒ–‡ –‡ Š‘Ž‘‰› –‘ ‹ Ž—†‡ •–”‡ƒŽ‹‹‰ ƒ† ‹’”‘˜‹‰ ˆ‹‡Ž† ‹•’‡ –‹‘• ƒ† ’Žƒ• ”‡˜‹‡™ ’”‘ ‡••‡•ǤŠ‡‘ƒ”†‘ˆ—’‡”˜‹•‘”•ƒŽŽ‘ ƒ–‡†ƒ‘–Š‡”̈́ͳǤ͹‹ŽŽ‹‘†‘ŽŽƒ”•ˆ‘”‹ ‡ ‡„‡” ʹͲͳͻ ™‹–Š ƒ ‡š’‡ –‡† ‘’Ž‡–‹‘ †ƒ–‡ ‘ˆ ‘˜‡„‡” ʹͲʹͲǤ‹–Š–Š‡ ƒ••‹•–ƒ ‡ ‘ˆ ƒ ‘•—Ž–ƒ– ‹ ʹͲͳͻǡ  ‘’Ž‡–‡† —’†ƒ–‹‰ –Š‡ ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‰‹‡‡”‹‰ ‡ˆ‡”‡ ‡ ƒ—ƒŽ –‘ ”‡ƒ‹ ‘•‹•–‡– ™‹–Š —””‡– ”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘• ƒ† •–ƒ†ƒ”†•ǤŠ‹•†‘ —‡–™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ†‡ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡‹†ǦʹͲʹͲǤ

PROGRAMEVALUATION  Š‡‘•–”— –‹‘Ȁ‘•–Ǧ‘•–”— –‹‘—‘ˆˆ ‘’‘‡–™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• –Š”‘—‰Š̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™’”‘ ‡••Ǥ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰†‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘•–ƒ†ƒ”†‹œƒ–‹‘‡‡†•ǡ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰Ȁ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘‡‡†•ǡ ƒ†‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰‡–Š‘†•ˆ‘”–”ƒ ‹‰‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͷ Chesterfield County, Virginia Permit No. VA0088609 2019 MS4 Annual Report – PY5

Part I.B.2.b) Retrofitting on Prior Developed Lands

SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose of this component is to document the county’s progress to manage, improve, and maintain existing stormwater infrastructure to ensure the integrity of the MS4. Five (5) projects outlined in the Stormwater CIP will be completed within 54 months of the effective date of the state permit. A link to current information and project data on the county’s Stormwater CIPs can be found on DEE's website at:

https://www.chesterfield.gov/320/Stormwater-Capital-Improvement-Plan.

At the time of this report, all five (5) projects selected for implementation will serve to meet the requirements of Part I.D. (TMDL Action Plan and Implementation) of the state permit. Two (2) projects were completed in PY2, two (2) projects were completed in PY3, and one (1) project was completed during PY4, for a total of five (5) projects completed. An additional project was completed during PY5 for a total of six (6) projects completed during the Permit Cycle. These projects are described in detail in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action Plan listed on DEE’s website at:

https://www.chesterfield.gov/315/Chesapeake-Bay-TMDL-Action-Plan.

SPECIFIC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

 Each annual report shall include a status update for those projects for which implementation began during the reporting period.

Table 3. Project Construction Status Updates Project PY5 Status Summary Regional Stormwater Facility - Completed LTC 20/25 Construction Mid-Lothian Mines Park Completed Stream Restoration Construction Wrens Nest Stream Completed Further information can be found in Restoration Construction the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action Plan Proctor’s Creek WWTP Outfall Completed and Stormwater Capital Improvement Retrofits Construction Plan located on the county website. James River High School BMP Completed Retrofits Construction Bailey Bridge Middle School Completed Outfall Retrofits Construction

Section 2. Stormwater Management Implementation 6 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡‡–”‘ˆ‹––‹‰‘”‹‘”‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†ƒ†• ‘’‘‡–™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• –Š”‘—‰Š̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™’”‘ ‡••Ǥ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰†‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘•–ƒ†ƒ”†‹œƒ–‹‘‡‡†•ƒ†‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰‡–Š‘†•ˆ‘”–”ƒ ‹‰ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.c)Roadways

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‹• ‘’‘‡–‹•–‘†‡˜‡Ž‘’’”‘‰”ƒ•–‘ƒ‹–ƒ‹ ‘—–›‘™‡†‘” ‘’‡”ƒ–‡†”‘ƒ†™ƒ›•ƒ†’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–•‹ƒƒ‡”–‘‹‹‹œ‡–Š‡”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡‘ˆ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–• ˆ”‘ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†™‡ƒ–Š‡”Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡†ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•–‘™ƒ–‡”•ƒ†‘–Š‡”ƒ–—”ƒŽ”‡•‘—” ‡•Ǥ Š‡”‘ƒ†™ƒ›•ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡’”ƒ –‹ ‡•‘ˆ ‘—–›‘™‡†‘”‘’‡”ƒ–‡†”‘ƒ†™ƒ›• ‘–‹—‡† –‘ ƒŽ‹‰ ™‹–Š –Š‡ •–ƒ–‡ ’‡”‹– ”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Ǥ  ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž› ͳΨ ‘ˆ–Š‡˜‡Š‹ Ž‡ –”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡™‹–Š‹–Š‡ ‘—–›ǡ–‘‹ Ž—†‡•‘‡Ž‘ ƒŽ”‘ƒ†•ǡ ‘‡ –‘”•ǡ ƒ†’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–•ǡ‹•ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†„› ‘—–›•–ƒˆˆ‘” ‘–”ƒ –‘”•ǤŠ‡—„‡”‘ˆ‹Ž‡•‘ˆ ”‘ƒ†™ƒ›•–”‡ƒ–‡†„›•ƒ†‘––”‡ƒ–‡†„›• ‘–‹—‡•–‘„‡”‡ˆ‹‡†ƒ•–Š‡Ͷ •‡”˜‹ ‡ ƒ”‡ƒ †‡Ž‹‡ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† –”— –—”ƒŽƒ†‘—” ‡‘–”‘Ž”ƒ ‹‰ƒ”‡‹’”‘˜‡†Ǥ ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ ‘–‹—‡†–‘„‡’‡”ˆ‘”‡†„›ƒ”•Ƭ‡ ”‡ƒ–‹‘ǡǡ Ž‡‡–ǡ—‹Ž†‹‰Ƭ ”‘—†•ǡƒ† ‘–”ƒ –‘”•Ǥ‡‹ ‹‰ƒ‰‡–•‘– ‘–ƒ‹‹‰—”‡ƒǡ‹–”‘‰‡ǡ‘”’Š‘•’Š‘”—• ƒ†ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ•—–‹Ž‹œ‡†ˆ‘”•ƒ†‹‰ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡• ‘–‹—‡†–‘„‡•–‘”‡†‹†‘‘”•Ǥ—”‹‰–Š‡ ”‡’‘”–‹‰’‡”‹‘†ǡ‡–™‹–Š‹•ƒƒ‰‡‡––‘†‹• —••–Š‡—Ž–‹’Ž‡†‡’ƒ”–‡–• ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ™”‹––‡ ’”‘–‘ ‘Ž•Ǥ  —”‹‰ –Š‡ ‡š– ”‡’‘”–‹‰ ’‡”‹‘†ǡ ‹• ƒƒ‰‡‡–™‹ŽŽ‹‹–‹ƒ–‡ƒ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘‡‡–‹‰™‹–ŠƒŽŽ†‡’ƒ”–‡–•‹˜‘Ž˜‡†‹–Š‡ ‘ƒ†™ƒ›••‡ –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡‡”‹–Ǥ‹ƒ‹•‘•™‹ŽŽ„‡–”ƒ‹‡†„›‹•ƒƒ‰‡‡––‘‘™ ƒŽŽƒ•’‡ –•‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘‰”ƒƒ†–Š‡†‡’ƒ”–‡–•™‹ŽŽ„‡–”ƒ‹‡†„› –Š‹• ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽǤ ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ’”‘–‘ ‘Ž•™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ••‡••‡†–Š”‘—‰Šƒƒ—†‹–’”‘‰”ƒ —””‡–Ž›—†‡” †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ†‹•’Žƒ‡†–‘„‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†‹ʹͲʹͲǤ

PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡‘ƒ†™ƒ›• ‘’‘‡–™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡••–Š”‘—‰Š̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™ ’”‘ ‡••Ǥ  ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘” ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ‹ Ž—†‡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ †‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘ •–ƒ†ƒ”†‹œƒ–‹‘‡‡†•ǡ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡•ˆ‘”‹ ”‡ƒ•‡† ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘‡ˆˆ‘”–•ǡƒ† ‡•—”‹‰–Š‡’”‘–‘ ‘Ž•ƒ”‡‘†‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ•‡ ‡••ƒ”›ƒ†’”‘’‡”Ž›‹’Ž‡‡–‡†Ǥ 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͺ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.d)Pesticide,Herbicide,andFertilizer Application

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‹• ‘’‘‡–‹•–‘‡•—”‡–Šƒ– ‘—–›•–ƒˆˆ‡’Ž‘›•–Š‡ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ ‡–Š‘†•ˆ‘”–Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ƒ†•–‘”ƒ‰‡‘ˆ’‡•–‹ ‹†‡•ǡŠ‡”„‹ ‹†‡•ǡƒ†ˆ‡”–‹Ž‹œ‡”•™‹–Š–Š‡ ‰‘ƒŽ‘ˆ”‡†— ‹‰’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–•ˆ”‘‡–‡”‹‰–Š‡ͶǤ‡•–‹ ‹†‡ǡŠ‡”„‹ ‹†‡ǡƒ†ˆ‡”–‹Ž‹œ‡” ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ ’”ƒ –‹ ‡• ƒ– ‘—–› ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‘–‹—‡† –‘ ƒŽ‹‰ ™‹–Š –Š‡ •–ƒ–‡ ’‡”‹– ”‡“—‹”‡‡–•ǤŠ‡Ž‹•–‘ˆƒŽŽ‘™’‡”‹––‡‡Žƒ†•–‘™Š‹ Š—–”‹‡–•™‡”‡ƒ’’Ž‹‡†–‘ ƒ ‘–‹‰—‘—•ƒ”‡ƒ‘ˆ‘”‡–Šƒ‘‡ȋͳȌƒ ”‡™ƒ•—’†ƒ–‡†’‡”–Š‡”‡“—‹”‡‡–•‘ˆƒ”– ǤǤʹǤ†ȌǤ™‘ȋʹȌ ‘—–›‡’Ž‘›‡‡•‹”‡ ‡‹˜‡†–Š‡‹”—–”‹‡–ƒƒ‰‡‡–Žƒ‡” ‡”–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘–‘†‡˜‡Ž‘’ƒ†ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡–Š‡‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡•Ǥʹ͸•ǡ–‘–ƒŽ‹‰ ͷ͵ǤͲͺ ƒ ”‡•ǡ ™‡”‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡† ‹ ʹͲͳͻ ˆ‘” ƒ ——Žƒ–‹˜‡ –‘–ƒŽ ‘ˆ ͳͻ͹Ǥ͵ͻ ƒ ”‡• ‘ˆ  ‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡ǤŠ‡ ‘—–› ‘–‹—‡†–‘‡’Ž‘›‰‘‘†Š‘—•‡‡‡’‹‰ƒ†’‘ŽŽ—–‹‘’”‡˜‡–‹‘ ‡ƒ•—”‡• –Š”‘—‰Š ‘—–›™‹†‡ ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‘–”‘Ž• †‡–ƒ‹Ž‹‰ ’‡•–‹ ‹†‡ ƒ† Š‡”„‹ ‹†‡ ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ƒ†•–‘”ƒ‰‡•ǤŠ‡ ‘—–›ƒŽ•‘Šƒ•†‡’ƒ”–‡–•’‡ ‹ˆ‹  • ƒ† ’”ƒ –‹ ‡•–Šƒ–’‡”–ƒ‹–‘–Š‡ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ ‡‘ˆ‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡†—”‹‰ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ǡ–Š‡ Ž‡ƒ‹‰ ƒ† ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ ‘ˆ ‡“—‹’‡–ǡ ƒ† –Š‡ ‹•’‡ –‹‘ ‘ˆ •–‘”ƒ‰‡ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ  —”‹‰ –Š‡ ”‡’‘”–‹‰ ’‡”‹‘†ǡ  ‡– ™‹–Š ‹• ƒƒ‰‡‡– –‘ †‹• —•• —’†ƒ–‹‰ –Š‡ ™”‹––‡ ’”‘–‘ ‘Ž•–‘‹ Ž—†‡–Š‡—•‡‘ˆŠ‡”„‹ ‹†‡•ƒ†ˆ‡”–‹Ž‹œ‡”•Ǥ ‘”–Š‡‡š–”‡’‘”–‹‰’‡”‹‘†ǡ  ƒ† ‹• ƒƒ‰‡‡– ™‹ŽŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ †‡’ƒ”–‡–ƒŽ ™”‹––‡ ’”‘–‘ ‘Ž• ‹ ‘”†‡” –‘ †‡–‡”‹‡–Š‡‡‡†ˆ‘” ‘—–›™‹†‡ǤŠ‡”‡™‡”‡‘‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‡‡†•ˆ‘” ’Žƒ•Ǥ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Each annual report shall report on compliance with the turf and landscape nutrientmanagementplanimplementationscheduleandincludealistofthe permittee’s properties for which turf and landscape nutrient management planshavebeenimplementedduringthe reporting yearandthecumulative totalofacreageunderturfandlandscapenutrientmanagementplans.

Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹–”‡“—‹”‡•†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ†‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆƒŽŽ‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ ”‡•–‘„‡ ‘˜‡”‡†„›–—”ˆƒ†•™‹–Š‹͸Ͳ‘–Š•‘ˆ–Š‡‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡†ƒ–‡‘ˆ–Š‡’‡”‹–Ǥ–‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ ͳͲͲΨ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡† ‘–‹‰—‘—• ƒ ”‡• ”‡ ‡‹˜‹‰ —–”‹‡– ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ ™‡”‡ ‘˜‡”‡† —†‡”•Ǥ•™‹ŽŽ ‘–‹—‡–‘„‡—’†ƒ–‡†ƒ•”‡“—‹”‡†‡˜‡”›–Š”‡‡ȋ͵Ȍ›‡ƒ”•—†‡” –Š‡”‡“—‹”‡‡–•‘ˆͶͷͲǦͺͷǦͳͶͲǤRequiredNutrientManagementPlanProceduresǤ

 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͻ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Table4.PermitteePropertiesCoveredUnderTurfandLandscapeNutrientManagement Plans Property Address Acreage ƒ‹Ž‡›”‹†‰‡ ͳʹͷͲͳƒ‹Ž‡›”‹†‰‡‘ƒ† ʹǤͳͶ ƒ”˜‡”‘ŽŽ‡‰‡ƒ†ƒ”‡‡” ͳʹͶͲͲ”ƒ†‡”•”‹†‰‡‘ƒ† ͳǤͺͳ  ƒ†‡› ƒ”˜‡” ͵ͺͲͲ‘—‰ƒ””ƒ‹Ž ʹǤͲͷ ŠƒŽŽ‡› ͵͵Ͳͳ—”‡”‘ƒ† ͳǤ͸ͳ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–› ͸ͻͲͲ‹•”‹˜‡ ͳͶǤͲͺ ‘˜‡”‡–‘’Ž‡š Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‡ Š‹ ƒŽ ͳ͵ͻͲͲ —ŽŽ–”‡‡–‘ƒ† ͳǤͻ͹ ‡–‡” ”‡•Šƒ™ ͳͳͻͲͳƒ‹Ž‡›”‹†‰‡‘ƒ† ͳǤͷ͵ ƒ˜‹• ͸Ͳͳ‘”˜—•‘—”– ͳǤ͸ͳ ––”‹ ƒ” ʹͲ͸ʹͳ‘‘†’‡ ‡”‘ƒ† ͳǤ͸Ͷ ƒŽŽ‹‰”‡‡ Ͷ͹ʹͶ ‘’‹•‘ƒ† ͳǤͶͷ ‘”†‘ ͳͳ͹Ͳͳ ‘”†‘ Š‘‘Ž‘ƒ† ͳǤͶͺ ”‡‡ˆ‹‡Ž†‘’Ž‡š ͳͲ͹ͷͳƒ˜‘›‘ƒ† ʹǤʹͲ ƒ‡•‹˜‡”  ͵͹ͲͲ ƒ‡•‹˜‡”‘ƒ† ͳǤͶͷ ƒ Š‡•–‡”‘’Ž‡š ͹ͶͲͳ —ŽŽ–”‡‡–‘ƒ† ͳǤ͹ͻ ƒ–‘ƒ ƒƒ” ͳͻͻͲͲ ƒŽŽ‘™ƒ›˜‡—‡ ͳǤ͸ͳ ‘ƒ ƒ‘’Ž‡š ͳͳͷͲͳ‘‡–”‡‡”‹˜‡ ʹǤͻͷ ƒŽ‡Š—” Š ͻ͹ͲͲƒŽ‡Š—” Š‘ƒ† ͳǤ͸͹ ‹–Š ͳ͵ʹͲͲƒ‹Ž‡›”‹†‰‡‘ƒ† ͳǤͺ͵ ’”‹‰— ͳ͵ͻͲͳ’”‹‰—‘ƒ† ͳǤ͵͹ Š‘ƒ•ƒŽ‡ ȋͻ–ŠȌ ͵ͻͲͲ —†”‡†‘ƒ† ͳǤͷͺ ƒ–‹•‡š ͳ͵ͺͲͳ‡•–ˆ‹‡Ž†‘ƒ† ͳǤͷ͸ ƒ–‹• ͷͲͳ‘ƒŽˆ‹‡Ž†‘ƒ† ͳǤ͸Ͷ ‡ƒ˜‡” ͵͸ͲͲ ƒ‡•‹˜‡”‘ƒ† ʹǤͲ͸ PY2NMPImplementation ͶͺǤͷ͵ PY3NMPImplementation ͷͺǤʹͻ PY4NMPImplementation ͵ͷǤͳʹ PY5NMPImplementation ͷ͵ǤͲͺ CumulativeTotalAcreageofNMPs ͳͻͷǤͲʹ TotalAcreageWhereNMPsare ͳͻͷǤͲʹ Needed PercentageofImplementedNMPs ͳͲͲΨ 



 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳͲ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   x Each annual report shall include the number of acres managed under IntegratedPestManagementPlans.  ƒ•‡†‘ —””‡–ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘’”ƒ –‹ ‡•ǡ–Š‡”‡Šƒ˜‡„‡‡‘‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‡‡†•ˆ‘” ’Žƒ•Ǥ

PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡ ‡•–‹ ‹†‡ǡ ‡”„‹ ‹†‡ǡ ƒ† ‡”–‹Ž‹œ‡” ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ ‘’‘‡– ™ƒ• ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡† ˆ‘” ‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• –Š”‘—‰Š ̵• ‹–‡”ƒŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ ’”‘ ‡••Ǥ  ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘” ‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡•ˆ‘”‹ ”‡ƒ•‡† ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘‡ˆˆ‘”–•Ǥ 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳͳ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.e)IllicitDischargesandImproperDisposal

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‹•’”‘‰”ƒ‹•–‘‹‹‹œ‡–Š‡‘ —””‡ ‡‘ˆ  •–‘–Š‡ͶǤ ‘–‹—‡† –‘ ‹’Ž‡‡– –Š‡   ’”‘‰”ƒǡ‡•—”‹‰ –Šƒ– ‡š‹•–‹‰’”‘‰”ƒ‘„Œ‡ –‹˜‡• ƒŽ‹‰‡† ™‹–Š –Š‡ •–ƒ–‡ ’‡”‹– ”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Ǥ   ”‡•’‘†‡† –‘ ͸ʹ ”‡’‘”–• ‘ˆ ‹ŽŽ‹ ‹– †‹• Šƒ”‰‡• ƒ† ͷͳ ”‡’‘”–• ‘ˆ ‹’”‘’‡” †‹•’‘•ƒŽǡ ˆ‘” ƒ –‘–ƒŽ ‘ˆ ͳͳ͵ ‹ ‹†‡–•Ǥ   ƒŽŽ ‹ ‹†‡–•ǡ –Š‡ ‹ŽŽ‹ ‹– †‹• Šƒ”‰‡ ‘” ‹’”‘’‡” †‹•’‘•ƒŽ ™ƒ• ‡Ž‹‹ƒ–‡†ǡ ”‡ˆ‡””‡† –‘ –Š‡ ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ ƒ‰‡ › ˆ‘” ‡ˆ‘” ‡‡– ‘” ‘–‹—‡• –‘ „‡ ‘‹–‘”‡† ƒ†Ȁ‘” ƒ††”‡••‡† –Š”‘—‰Š”‡‡†‹ƒŽƒ –‹‘•Ǥ–‘–ƒŽ‘ˆͳͺ•ƒ†ˆ‘—”ȋͶȌ‘–‹ ‡•‘ˆ‘Ǧ ‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡ ™‡”‡‹••—‡†„›Ǥ‡ ‘”†•‘ˆ”‡•’‘•‡ ‘–‹—‡–‘„‡ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†‘ˆ‹Ž‡Ǥ–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‘–‹—‡†–‘‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ•ƒ‹–ƒ”›•‡™‡”‹•’‡ –‹‘’”‘‰”ƒ–‘‹‹‹œ‡‹ˆ‹Ž–”ƒ–‹‘–‘ –Š‡•ƒ‹–ƒ”›•‡™‡”•›•–‡„› ‘†— –‹‰ͳͷͻǡͻͶ͸Ž‹‡ƒ”ˆ‡‡–‘ˆ•‡™‡”Ž‹‡‹•’‡ –‹‘• ƒ†’‡”ˆ‘”‹‰ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡™Š‡”‡‡ ‡••ƒ”›Ǥ‘”‡†— ‡–Š‡†‹• Šƒ”‰‡‘ˆˆŽ‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡•–‘ –Š‡Ͷǡ ‘–‹—‡†–‘‹’Ž‡‡–‹–•ƒ–‹ǦŽ‹––‡”’”‘‰”ƒǡ ‘ŽŽ‡ –‹‰ʹͶͶǡ͵ͷͲ’‘—†•‘ˆ Ž‹––‡”Ǥ††‹–‹‘ƒŽŽ›ǡ ‘–‹—‡†–‘‘’‡”ƒ–‡‹–•–™‘ȋʹȌ ‘˜‡‹‡ ‡ ‡–‡”•‹–Š‡ ‘—–›–‘’”‘˜‹†‡•‡”˜‹ ‡•–‘”‡•‹†‡–•ˆ‘”’”‘’‡”†‹•’‘•ƒŽ‘ˆƒ˜ƒ”‹‡–›‘ˆŠ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†ǡ›ƒ”†ǡ ƒ†ƒ—–‘‘–‹˜‡™ƒ•–‡•Ǥ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Eachannualreportshallincludealistofillicitdischargesidentified,thesource, adescriptionoffollowǦupactivitiesandwhethertheillicitdischargehasbeen eliminated.

Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤͳDzListofIllicitDischargesandImproperDisposalReportsdzǤ

x Eachannualreportshallincludetheamountoflinearfeetofsanitarysewer inspectedduringthereportingyear.

Table5.SanitarySewerInspections 2019 LinearFeetofSanitarySewerInspected ͳ•–—ƒ”–‡” ͵ʹǡʹͶ͹ ʹ†—ƒ”–‡” ͵ͳǡͲͷ͹ ͵”†—ƒ”–‡” ͳͺǡͲ͹Ͳ Ͷ–Š—ƒ”–‡” ͹ͺǡͷ͹ʹ TotalInspected ͳͷͻǡͻͶ͸  PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡   ‘’‘‡–™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡••–Š”‘—‰Š̵• ‹–‡”ƒŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ ’”‘ ‡••Ǥ  ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘” ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ‹ Ž—†‡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡•ˆ‘”‹ ”‡ƒ•‡† ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘‡ˆˆ‘”–•Ǥ

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳʹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.f)SpillPreventionandResponse

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‹• ’”‘‰”ƒ ‹• –‘ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‡ ™‹–Š ‹”‡ Ƭ  ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ‘—–› †‡’ƒ”–‡–•–‘’”‡˜‡–ǡ ‘–ƒ‹ǡƒ†”‡•’‘†–‘•’‹ŽŽ•–Šƒ–ƒ›†‹• Šƒ”‰‡‹–‘–Š‡ͶǤ  ‘–‹—‡† ‹–• •’‹ŽŽ ’”‡˜‡–‹‘ ƒ† ”‡•’‘•‡ ’”‘‰”ƒ „› ‡•—”‹‰ –Šƒ– ‡š‹•–‹‰ ’”‘‰”ƒ‘„Œ‡ –‹˜‡•ƒŽ‹‰‡†™‹–Š–Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹–”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Ǥ•–ƒˆˆ ‘–‹—‡†–‘ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‡™‹–Š’‡”•‘‡Žˆ”‘—Ž–‹’Ž‡ ‘—–›ƒ‰‡ ‹‡•†—”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”–‘ Š‘‘‰‡‹œ‡ ‘–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ’”‘ ‡†—”‡• ˆ‘” •’‹ŽŽ• ƒ† ‹ŽŽ‹ ‹– †‹• Šƒ”‰‡•Ǥ  ‘—–› ƒ‰‡ ‹‡• ”‡•’‘†‡†–‘ͳͻ•’‹ŽŽ•ǡ‹™Š‹ Š‡ƒ•—”‡•™‡”‡’—–‹’Žƒ ‡–‘’”‡˜‡–†‹• Šƒ”‰‡•–‘ƒ† ˆ”‘–Š‡ͶǤ  ‹†‡–•–Šƒ–”‡•’‘†‡†–‘ƒ”‡–”ƒ ‡†‹–Š‡  †ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡ƒŽ‘‰ ™‹–Š‹ ‹†‡–•”‡•’‘†‡†–‘ƒ•†‡ˆ‹‡†‹ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤ‡Ȍ‘ˆ–Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹–Ǥ††‹–‹‘ƒŽŽ›ǡ ‹”‡ Ƭ  ’‡”•‘‡Ž ”‡•’‘†‡† –‘ —Ž–‹’Ž‡ ‹ ‹†‡–• ‹˜‘Ž˜‹‰ ˆŽ—‹† ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡• ˆ”‘ ˜‡Š‹ Ž‡ ”ƒ•Š‡•‘–ƒˆˆ‡ –‹‰–Š‡ͶǤ –Š‘•‡ ƒ•‡•ǡƒ„•‘”„‡–•™‡”‡ƒ’’Ž‹‡†–‘’”‡˜‡– –Š‡•’”‡ƒ†‘ˆ–Š‡ˆŽ—‹†•ƒ† Ž‡ƒ—’™ƒ• ‘†— –‡†ƒ•”‡“—‹”‡†Ǥ‡–ƒ‹Ž‡†”‡’‘”–•‘ˆ‡ƒ Š ‹ ‹†‡– ‹”‡Ƭ”‡•’‘†‡†–‘ƒ”‡ƒ” Š‹˜‡†ƒ†ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ˆ‘””‡˜‹‡™™‹–Š–Š‡ ‹”‡ ƒ”•ŠƒŽ̵•‘ˆˆ‹ ‡Ǥ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Eachannualreportshallincludealistofspills,thesource(identifiedtothebest ofthepermittee’sability),andadescriptionoffollowǦupactivitiestaken.

Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤʹDzSpillResponsesdzǤ

PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡’‹ŽŽ”‡˜‡–‹‘ƒ†‡•’‘•‡ ‘’‘‡–™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡••–Š”‘—‰Š ̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™’”‘ ‡••Ǥ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ †‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘ •–ƒ†ƒ”†‹œƒ–‹‘ ‡‡†• ƒ† ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡• ˆ‘” ‹ ”‡ƒ•‡† ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘‡ˆˆ‘”–•Ǥ 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳ͵ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.g)IndustrialandHighRiskRunoff

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‡  ‘’‘‡–‹•–‘‹†‡–‹ˆ›ƒ† ‘–”‘Ž’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–•‹•–‘”™ƒ–‡” †‹• Šƒ”‰‡•–‘–Š‡Ͷˆ”‘‹†—•–”‹ƒŽƒ†Š‹‰Š”‹•”—‘ˆˆˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•ƒ†‹†—•–”‹ƒŽ‘” ‘‡” ‹ƒŽ†‹• Šƒ”‰‡•†‡–‡”‹‡†–‘„‡ ‘–”‹„—–‹‰ƒ•‹‰‹ˆ‹ ƒ–’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–Ž‘ƒ†‹‰–‘ –Š‡ͶǤ ‘–‹—‡†–‘‹’Ž‡‡––Š‡ ’”‘‰”ƒǡ‡•—”‹‰–Šƒ–‡š‹•–‹‰’”‘‰”ƒ ‘„Œ‡ –‹˜‡•ƒŽ‹‰‡†™‹–Š–Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹–”‡“—‹”‡‡–•ǤŽ‹•–‘ˆƒŽŽ‘™‹†—•–”‹ƒŽƒ† Š‹‰Š”‹•†‹• Šƒ”‰‡”•™ƒ•—’†ƒ–‡†‹–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”ǡ—–‹Ž‹œ‹‰–Š‡Ͷ•‡”˜‹ ‡ƒ”‡ƒ †‡Ž‹‡ƒ–‹‘ǤŠ‹•—’†ƒ–‡†Ž‹•–‹ Ž—†‡†ʹͺƒ–‡‰‘”›ͳˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•ƒ†‡‹‰Š–ȋͺȌƒ–‡‰‘”›ʹ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ•ˆ—”–Š‡”†‡• ”‹„‡†‹–Š‹•’”‘‰”ƒǯ•ǡƒ–‡‰‘”›ͳˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•‡‹–Š‡”’‘••‡••  ‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡‘”ƒ”‡Š‹‰Š”‹•ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•–Šƒ–†”ƒ‹–‘–Š‡ ‘—–›ǯ•Ͷǡ™Š‹Ž‡ƒ–‡‰‘”› ʹˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•ƒ”‡Ž‘™‡””‹•ǡ‘Ǧˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•ǡ•— Šƒ• ‘‡” ‹ƒŽ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ‹šȋ͸Ȍ ‹•’‡ –‹‘• ™‡”‡ ’‡”ˆ‘”‡† ƒ– •‹š ȋ͸Ȍ ‹†—•–”‹ƒŽ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‹ –Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”Ǥ‘ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•™‡”‡”‡ˆ‡””‡†–‘–‘‘„–ƒ‹•–‘”™ƒ–‡”’‡”‹– ‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡Ǥ‡ȋͳȌ™ƒ• •—„‹––‡† ƒ† ”‡˜‹‡™‡† „›  –‘ †‡–‡”‹‡ ‹ˆ –Š‘•‡ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‡‡†‡† ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ ‘‹–‘”‹‰‘”•–‘”™ƒ–‡” ‘–”‘Ž•Ǥ•ƒ”‡•—Ž–‘ˆ”‡˜‹‡™‘ˆ–Š‡•—„‹––‡†•ǡ †‹†‘–”‡“—‹”‡ƒ›ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽƒ –‹‘•Ǥ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS  x Eachannualreportshallreportonimplementationoftheinspectionschedule andincludealistofthefacilitiesand/orfacilityoutfallsinspectedduringthe reportingperiod.  •–ƒˆˆ ‘–‹—‡†–‘‹’Ž‡‡––Š‡’”‹‘”‹–‹œ‡†‹•’‡ –‹‘’”‘ ‡†—”‡•ǡ™Š‹ Š”‡•—Ž–‡† ‹•‹šȋ͸Ȍƒ–‡‰‘”›ͳˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•‹•’‡ –‡†Ǥ‘ƒ–‡‰‘”›ʹˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•™‡”‡‹•’‡ –‡†‹–Š‡ ”‡’‘”–‹‰’‡”‹‘†Ǥ•–ƒˆˆ™‹ŽŽ ‘–‹—‡‹–•‹•’‡ –‹‘‘ˆƒ–‡‰‘”›ͳƒ†ƒ–‡‰‘”›ʹ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•‹–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”•Ǥ

Table6.IHRRProgramInspectionsPerformed DateInspected FacilityName Address ͲͻȀʹ͵ȀʹͲͳͻ ‡›‘Ž†•‘•—‡””‘†— –• ʹͲͲͳ‡›‡–† ͳͳȀͳͺȀʹͲͳͻ œƒ‡–ƒŽ ‘Ž†‹‰•   ͳ͵ͳͶͲƒ”‡”•ƒ––‡”›† ͳͳȀͳͺȀʹͲͳͻ ‘—–Š‡ƒ•–‡” ”‡‹‰Š–‹‡•Ȃ‹ Š‘† ͳͷͷͳƒ”‡‘––‘’”‹‰•† ͳʹȀͳͻȀʹͲͳͻ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž† ‹”‡–ƒ–‹‘͓ͷ ͳ͵ͶʹͲ‹†Ž‘–Š‹ƒ’ ͳʹȀͳͻȀʹͲͳͻ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž† ‹”‡–ƒ–‹‘͓ͳͻ ͳͶͲͳͲ‡ƒ Š† ͳʹȀʹ͸ȀʹͲͳͻ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž† ‹”‡–ƒ–‹‘͓ͺ ʹͳͷͲͲ‹ ‡––˜‡ *DenotesaDetailedFacilityInspectionwasperformed.  

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳͶ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   x EachannualreportshallincludealistofreferralstotheDepartment.  Š‡”‡™‡”‡‘ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›”‡ˆ‡””ƒŽ•–‘–Š‡†—”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”Ǥ

Table7.IHRRProgramDischargesReferredtoDEQ FacilityName Address ReasonforReferral ‘ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•”‡ˆ‡””‡†–‘‹ͷǤ  PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡  ”‘‰”ƒ ™ƒ• ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡† ˆ‘” ‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• –Š”‘—‰Š ̵• ‹–‡”ƒŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ ’”‘ ‡••Ǥ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰Ȁ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ‡‡†•Ǥ 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳͷ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.h)StormSewerInfrastructureManagement

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‹• ‘’‘‡–‹•–‘‹’Ž‡‡–ƒͶƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡’”‘‰”ƒ†‡•‹‰‡† –‘’”‘˜‹†‡ˆ‘”–Š‡‡ ‡••ƒ”›Ž‡˜‡Ž‘ˆ•‡”˜‹ ‡–‘ƒ‹–ƒ‹–Š‡ƒ‡•–Š‡–‹ •‘ˆ’—„Ž‹ ƒ”‡ƒ•ǡ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ’—„Ž‹  •ƒˆ‡–›ǡƒ‹–ƒ‹ ’—„Ž‹  ‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ǡ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ˆŽ‘‘†ƒƒ‰‡‡–ǡƒ† ‹’”‘˜‡‡–‘ˆ•–‘”™ƒ–‡”“—ƒŽ‹–›Ǥ ‘–‹—‡†–‘ƒ‹–ƒ‹ˆ‹˜‡ȋͷȌˆ— –‹‘ƒŽŽƒ„‘” ”‡™•ǡƒ†‡—’‘ˆ ‘—–›‡’Ž‘›‡‡•ǡ†‡†‹ ƒ–‡†–‘–Š‡‹•’‡ –‹‘ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘—–›̵••–‘”™ƒ–‡”‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ƒ†Ȁˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ ”‡ƒ–‡†–Š‡ ƒƒ‰‡‡–‡ –‹‘™‹–Š–™‘ȋʹȌ’‘•‹–‹‘•–‘ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ȁ ‘—–›‹•’‡ –‹‘•ƒ† ‘–‹—‡†–‘‹’”‘˜‡–Š‡’”‘‰”ƒƒ†–Š‡ƒ—–‘ƒ–‡††ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡–Šƒ––”ƒ •‘–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•ǡ ‹•’‡ –‹‘•ǡƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•’‡”ˆ‘”‡†ˆ‘”Ȁˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•™‹–Š‹ ‘—–› Œ—”‹•†‹ –‹‘Ǥ‘‰‘‹‰‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‹–‡”ƒŽƒ†‹‹•–”ƒ–‹˜‡’”‘ ‡••‡•™ƒ•‹‹–‹ƒ–‡†–‘ ‹’”‘˜‡‘–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ƒ†”‡ ‘”†ƒ–‹‘‡ˆˆ‹ ‹‡ ›Ǥ•–ƒˆˆ‹•’‡ –‡† ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž› ͵ͺ͵ǡͶʹ͵Ž‹‡ƒ”ˆ‡‡–‘ˆ•–‘”•‡™‡”‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ƒ†ƒ••‘ ‹ƒ–‡†ƒ••‡–•ǡˆ‘”ƒ–‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ ͸ǡͳ͹ͳ ƒ••‡–• ‹•’‡ –‡† ‹ –Š‡ ”‡’‘”–‹‰ ›‡ƒ”Ǥ   –‘–ƒŽ ‘ˆ ͶͺͲ ‘—–›Ǧƒ‹–ƒ‹‡† Ȁˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•™‡”‡‹•’‡ –‡†ǡ”‡•—Ž–‹‰‹ ‘†— –‹‰Ͷͺ͵ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡• ƒ†–™‘ȋʹȌ”‡’ƒ‹”•Ǥ•–ƒˆˆ˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡†ͳ͸‹•’‡ –‹‘•‘ˆ’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ž›ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ –‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ͵͹ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†Ȁ‘””‡’ƒ‹”•™‡”‡”‡“—‹”‡††—”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”ǡ‘ˆ ™Š‹ Šͳ͵™‡”‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡†ǤŽ›ͳͲ‘™‡”•”‡“—‡•–‡†ƒ†”‡ ‡‹˜‡†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†Ȁ‘” ”‡’ƒ‹”‡š–‡•‹‘•ǤŠ‡•–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒ••‡–‹˜‡–‘”›ǡͶ•‡”˜‹ ‡ ƒ”‡ƒǡ ƒ† ‹–‡”ƒŽ ƒ†‹‹•–”ƒ–‹˜‡’”‘ ‡••‡•™‹ŽŽ ‘–‹—‡–‘„‡”‡ˆ‹‡†ƒ†‹’”‘˜‡†ˆ‘”ƒ —”ƒ ›Ǥ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Eachannualreportshallincludeaprogressreportoneffortstorepairfailed stormseweroutfalls.  —”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰’‡”‹‘†ǡ–Š‡”‡™‡”‡‘ˆƒ‹Ž‡†•–‘”•‡™‡”‘—–ˆƒŽŽ•‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†–Š”‘—‰Š ‘—–ˆƒŽŽ• ”‡‡‹‰ƒ†‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡‹•’‡ –‹‘’”‘‰”ƒ•ƒ†–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡‘‘—–ˆƒŽŽ”‡’ƒ‹”• ™‡”‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‡†Ǥ

x Each annual report shall include a list of activities including inspections, maintenance, and repair of stormwater infrastructure operated by the permittee as required in Part I.B.2.h)1), including the total number of stormwater structures operated by the permittee, the type and number of stormwater structures, inspected and maintained; the linear feet of storm sewersystemownedand/oroperatedbythepermittee,andthelinearfeetof stormsewersysteminspected.

 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳ͸ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Table8.StormwaterInspections,Maintenance,andRepairs LinearFeet Linear AssetsOwned Owned AssetType Inspections Feet Maintenance Repair and/orOperated and/or Inspected Operated ‹– Š ͸ǡʹͳ͵ ͳǡʹͺͶ ͻ͸ͻǡͶͳ͹ ͳ͹ʹǡͲͳ͸ ͵͹ͺ ͷͲ ‹’‡ ͻǡͺ͵͵ ͳǡͻͶͳ ͳǡͳͷͷǡͷ͸ͻ ʹͳͳǡͶͲ͹ Ǧ ͹͹ –”— –—”‡ȗ ͻǡ͵ͳ͵ ͳǡͻ͹Ͳ Ǧ Ǧ ʹͳ ʹͷ Ž‡– ͶǡͻͻͶ ͻ͹͸ Ǧ Ǧ Ǧ Ǧ Total 30,353 6,171 2,124,986 383,423 399 152 ȗ  Ž—†‡•ƒŠ‘Ž‡•ǡŒ— –‹‘„‘š‡•ƒ†‘–Š‡”ƒ••‡––›’‡•‘–†‡ˆ‹‡†ƒ•†‹– Š‡•ǡ’‹’‡•ǡ‘”‹Ž‡–•†—”‹‰‹•’‡ –‹‘Ǥ  Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹–”‡“—‹”‡•‹•’‡ –‹‘‘ˆ‘Ž‡••–ŠƒʹͲΨ‘ˆ–Š‡Ͷƒ—ƒŽŽ›Ǥ—”‹‰–Š‡ ”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”ǡʹͲǤ͵Ψ‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ••‡–•™‹–Š‹–Š‡ —””‡–Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†Ͷ•‡”˜‹ ‡ƒ”‡ƒ™‡”‡ ‹•’‡ –‡†Ǥ  x Eachannualreportshallprovideasummaryofactionstakenbythepermittee toaddressfailureofprivatelymaintainedSWMfacilitiesownerstoabideby maintenanceagreements.  ‘”ƒ•—ƒ”›‘ˆ’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ž›ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›‹•’‡ –‹‘•˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡‘” ”‡’ƒ‹”•”‡“—‹”‡†ǡ’Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘–Š‡•—ƒ”›‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤŠȌǤ•‘ˆ –Š‡ƒ††‹–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–•‡ –‹‘ǡŽ‡––‡”•™‡”‡ƒ‹Ž‡†–‘’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ž›ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡† ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›‘™‡”•™Š‘™‡”‡‘–ƒ„‹†‹‰„›–Š‡ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ‰”‡‡‡–‹ƒ‡ˆˆ‘”––‘ ‘–‹—‡Ž‘‰–‡”ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡‘ˆˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ  x Each annual report shall include a list of activities including inspections performedandnotificationsofneededmaintenanceandrepairofstormwater facilitiesnotoperatedbythepermitteeasrequiredbyPartI.B.2.h)2).

Table9.ActivitiesPerformedforPrivatelyMaintainedFacilities PrivatelyMaintainedFacilityActivities ”‹˜ƒ–‡ •’‡ –‹‘•‡”‹ˆ‹‡† ͳ͸ ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡Ȁ‡’ƒ‹”•‡“—‹”‡† ͵͹ ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡Ȁ‡’ƒ‹”•‡”ˆ‘”‡† ͳ͵ š–‡•‹‘• ”ƒ–‡† ͳͲ 



 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳ͹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   x The fourth annual report shall include an updated list of all information requestedinPart1.B.2.i)5).

ƒ‹Ž ‘””‡•’‘†‡ ‡™‹–Š•–ƒˆˆǡ†ƒ–‡† –‘„‡”͵ͳǡʹͲͳͺǡƒ ‘™Ž‡†‰‡†–Š‡ƒ„‘˜‡ ‹–ƒ–‹‘‡””‘”ƒ•ƒ–›’‘ƒ†’”‘˜‹†‡†‰—‹†ƒ ‡‘–Š‡ ‘ˆŽ‹ –‘ˆ –Š‹• ”‡’‘”–‹‰ ”‡“—‹”‡‡–Ǥ  Š‡ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ ”‡“—‹”‡† ‹ ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤŠȌͷȌ ‘ˆ –Š‹• ’‡ ‹ˆ‹  ‡’‘”–‹‰ ‡“—‹”‡‡–‹•ƒ––ƒ Š‡†ƒ•’’‡†‹šǤ͵ImperviousPerviousandTotalAcresServedby theMS4andTreatedbyStormwaterControlsǤ

PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡–‘”‡™‡” ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‘’‘‡–™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• –Š”‘—‰Š̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™’”‘ ‡••Ǥ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰†‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘•–ƒ†ƒ”†‹œƒ–‹‘‡‡†•ǡ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰Ȁ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘‡‡†•ǡ ƒ†‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰‡–Š‘†•ˆ‘”–”ƒ ‹‰‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ”‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•‹ Ž—†‡ ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• –‘ ‹’”‘˜‡ –Š‡ ”‡•—Ž–• ‘ˆ ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘–‘‹’”‘˜‡ƒŽ‹‰‡–™‹–Š–Š‡”‡“—‹”‡‡–•‘ˆ–Š‡ ’‡”‹–Ǥ 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͳͺ Chesterfield County, Virginia Permit No. VA0088609 2019 MS4 Annual Report – PY5

Part I.B.2.i) County Facilities

SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose of this component is to ensure proper operational and maintenance practices are used at county facilities in order to reduce the potential for pollutants to enter the MS4. DEE continued to assist HPMFs with implementation of their SWPPPs. In PY5, one (1) HPMF was closed down and operations moved to a new facility, for which a new SWPPP was created and implemented. DEE staff completed installation of storm drain placards at county facilities having two (2) acres or more of impervious cover and will add or replace placards as necessary. Good housekeeping practices at county facilities continue to be implemented through enforcement of the county's ordinance prohibiting illicit discharges, countywide and departmental SOPs, and proper municipal vehicle inspections and maintenance. In PY5, DEE coordinated with Risk Management on development of a new countywide good housekeeping SOP to ensure ongoing compliance with permit requirements.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The County Facilities component was evaluated for effectiveness through DEE's internal review process. Recommendations for improvements include identifying QA/QC modification needs and evaluating potential opportunities for increased coordination efforts.

Section 2. Stormwater Management Implementation 19 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.j)PublicEducation/Participation

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‹• ‘’‘‡– ‹• –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ –‘ –Š‡ ’—„Ž‹  –‘ ‡†— ƒ–‡ ”‡•‹†‡–• ‘ •–‘”™ƒ–‡” ”—‘ˆˆ ƒ† Š‘™ –Š‡› ƒ Š‡Ž’ ‹’”‘˜‡ –Š‡ ™ƒ–‡” “—ƒŽ‹–› ‘ˆ ™ƒ–‡”™ƒ›•ƒ†‘–Š‡”ƒ–—”ƒŽ”‡•‘—” ‡•Ǥ ‘–‹—‡†–‘’”‘‘–‡‡†— ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ‘—–”‡ƒ Š ƒ†’ƒ”–‹ ‹’ƒ–‹‘‘—–Ž‹‡†‹–Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹–‘–Š‡ ‘—–›™‡„•‹–‡ǡ–Š”‘—‰ŠˆŽ›‡”ƒ† ’‘•–‡” †‹•–”‹„—–‹‘ǡ ‡†— ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ˜‹†‡‘• ‘ •‘ ‹ƒŽ ‡†‹ƒǡ –ƒ”‰‡–‡† ƒ‹Ž‹‰•ǡ ƒ† ’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘• „› ‘—–› •–ƒˆˆǤ   ͷǡ ‹ ‘”†‡” –‘ •–”‡ƒŽ‹‡ ƒ˜‹‰ƒ–‹‘ƒ†”ƒ‹•‡ ˜‹•‹–ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘” ƒŽŽ ’”‘‰”ƒ ƒ–‡‰‘”‹‡•ǡ –Š‡ ‡†— ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ƒ† ‘—–”‡ƒ Š ‘–‡–™ƒ• ‘•‘Ž‹†ƒ–‡†‘–Š‡ ‘—–›ǯ•™‡„•‹–‡—†‡”–Š‡™‡„’ƒ‰‡Dzƒ‡ƒ‹ˆˆ‡”‡ ‡dzǤ•ƒ”‡•—Ž–ǡ ™‡„•‹–‡ –”ƒˆˆ‹  ”‡’‘”–‹‰ ‹ ”‡ƒ•‡† ˆ‘” ƒŽŽ ’”‘‰”ƒ•Ǥ   ͷǡ  ‹‹–‹ƒ–‡† –Š‡ ’”‘‘–‹‘ƒŽ ˜‹†‡‘ ‘’‘‡– ‘ˆ ‹–• ‘—‹ ƒ–‹‘ ƒ’ƒ‹‰Ǥ  Š‡‹‹–‹ƒŽ˜‹†‡‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡†ƒ‘˜‡”˜‹‡™‘ˆ–Š‡•‡”˜‹ ‡•ƒ†’”‘‰”ƒ•‘ˆˆ‡”‡†„›–Š‡ǤŠ‹•Dz ‡––‘ ‘™dz˜‹†‡‘ǡ™Š‹ Š ƒ„‡˜‹‡™‡†‘–Š‡ ‘—–›ǯ•™‡„•‹–‡ǡ™ƒ••–”— –—”‡†–‘’”‘˜‹†‡ –Š‡˜‹‡™‡”™‹–Šƒˆ‘—†ƒ–‹‘‘†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ–‘’‹ •ǡ™Š‹ ŠŽƒ–‡”™‹ŽŽƒŽŽ‘™ˆ‘” –Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ‘”‡†‡–ƒ‹Ž‡†ˆ—–—”‡˜‹†‡‘•Ǥ

(a)ReportingIllicitDischarges  ‘–‹—‡†‡ˆˆ‘”–•–‘’”‘‘–‡–Š‡  ’”‘‰”ƒ„›†‹•–”‹„—–‹‰†‘‘”Šƒ‰‡”•ƒ† –ƒ”‰‡–‡†‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†•ƒ‹Ž‹‰•Ǥ ͷǡ–™‘ȋʹȌƒ‘— ‡‡–•‹Ž‘ ƒŽ‡™•’ƒ’‡”• ™‡”‡”—–‘’”‘‘–‡ǯ•’ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’™‹–Š–Š‡ƒ‹–—–‘ŽŽ—–‹‘ȋȌ’”‘‰”ƒǤ –‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ͵͵•–‘”†”ƒ‹•‘ ‘—–›’”‘’‡”–‹‡•™‡”‡’ƒ‹–‡†™‹–Š™‹Ž†Ž‹ˆ‡•–‡ ‹Ž•ƒ†–Š‡ ‡••ƒ‰‡DzŽ›ƒ‹‘™–Š‡”ƒ‹dz–Š”‘—‰Š–Š‡’”‘‰”ƒǤ

(b)Individual&GroupInvolvement ’’‘”–—‹–‹‡•ˆ‘”’—„Ž‹ ‹˜‘Ž˜‡‡– ‘–‹—‡†™‹–Š‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡†˜‘Ž—–‡‡”•–”‡ƒƒ† ”‹˜‡” Ž‡ƒ—’•ǡ™ƒ–‡”“—ƒŽ‹–›‘‹–‘”‹‰ǡƒ†•–—†‡–ƒ†’—„Ž‹ ‡†— ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ’”‘‰”ƒ•Ǥ ͷǡ‘˜‡”ʹͶͲͲ”‡•‹†‡–•’ƒ”–‹ ‹’ƒ–‡†‹–Š‡•‡’”‘‰”ƒ•Ǥ

(c)GolfCourseOutreach  ™‡„•‹–‡ –ƒ”‰‡–• ‘—–”‡ƒ Š –‘ ‡ ‘—”ƒ‰‡ –Š‡ ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ’Žƒ•ƒ† –‡ Š‹“—‡•ƒ–’”‹˜ƒ–‡ƒ†’—„Ž‹ ‰‘Žˆ ‘—”•‡•†”ƒ‹‹‰–‘–Š‡ͶǤ

(d)DisposalofOilandHHW  ‘ Ž‘‰‡” ‡’Ž‘›• ‡†— ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‘—–”‡ƒ Š ’‡”•‘‡Ž †—‡ –‘ •–ƒˆˆ –”ƒ•ˆ‡”• –‘ ‘–Š‡”†‡’ƒ”–‡–•Ǥ ͷǡ–Š‡‡•–‹ƒ–‡†”‡ƒ Š‘ˆ–Š‡—•‡†‘‹Žƒ†Š‘—•‡Š‘Ž†Šƒœƒ”†‘—• ™ƒ•–‡’”‘‰”ƒ™ƒ•„ƒ•‡†‘™‡„•‹–‡–”ƒˆˆ‹ ˆ‘”ǯ• ‘˜‡‹‡ ‡ ‡–‡”•Ǥ

(e)PetWaste&YardWaste  ’ƒ”–‹ ‹’ƒ–‡† ‹ –Š‡ ƒ‡• ‹˜‡” ‡– ƒ•–‡ ‘ƒŽ‹–‹‘ •‘ ‹ƒŽ ‡†‹ƒǡ ™Š‹Ž‡ ƒ”• Ƭ ‡ ”‡ƒ–‹‘ ‘–‹—‡†‹–•ƒƒ‰‡‡–‘ˆͳͺ’‡–™ƒ•–‡•–ƒ–‹‘•ƒ– ‘—–›’ƒ”•Ǥ



 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ʹͲ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   (f)LitterPreventionProgram  ‘–‹—‡† ‹–• ’ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‡–”ƒŽ ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ƒ•–‡ ƒƒ‰‡‡– —–Š‘”‹–›ǯ• —”„•‹†‡ ”‡ › Ž‹‰ ’‹ —’ ’”‘‰”ƒǤ   ‘–‹—‡† ‹–• ‡‡’ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž† ‡ƒ—–‹ˆ—Ž’”‘‰”ƒ—–‹Ž‹œ‹‰•–ƒˆˆƒ†˜‘Ž—–‡‡”•–‘ ‘†— –‡†— ƒ–‹‘’”‘‰”ƒ•ƒ†Ž‹––‡” Ž‡ƒ—’•Ǥ

(g)ResidentialCarWashing ‘—‹–›‰”‘—’• ‘†— –‹‰ Šƒ”‹–› ƒ”™ƒ•Š‡˜‡–• ‘–‹—‡–‘—–‹Ž‹œ‡ǯ• ƒ”™ƒ•Š ‘–ƒ‹‡– ‹–•Ǥ  ™‘ ȋʹȌ ‡™•’ƒ’‡” ƒ†˜‡”–‹•‡‡–• ’”‘‘–‹‰ •—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡ ƒ” ™ƒ•Š‹‰™‡”‡’—„Ž‹•Š‡†‹ͷǤ

(h)Pesticide,HerbicideandFertilizers –ƒˆˆ ˆ”‘ „‘–Š  ƒ† š–‡•‹‘ ‘†— –‡† –”ƒ‹‹‰ Žƒ••‡• ˆ‘” ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ƒ•–‡” ƒ”†‡‡”˜‘Ž—–‡‡”•ǤŠ‡š–‡•‹‘ ‘–‹—‡†‹–• ”ƒ••‘‘–•ƒ†ƒ†• ƒ’‡ˆ‘”‹ˆ‡ ’”‘‰”ƒ•ǤŠ‡ˆ‹”•–‹ƒ•‡”‹‡•‘ˆ‡†— ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ˜‹†‡‘•‘ƒ”ƒ‰‡‘ˆ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ–‘’‹ • ™ƒ•’”‘†— ‡† ƒŽŽ‡†Dz‡•– ‡”–‹Ž‹œ‡””ƒ –‹ ‡•dzǤ

(i)PrivatePropertyStormwaterManagementTechniques ’”‘˜‹†‡†˜‘Ž—–ƒ”›”‡–”‘ˆ‹–”ƒ‹„ƒ””‡Ž™‘”•Š‘’•ƒ†’”‘‘–‡†–Š‡‹™Š‹ Š ‡‹‰Š–ȋͺȌ’”‘Œ‡ –•™‡”‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡†‘’”‹˜ƒ–‡’”‘’‡”–›Ǥ

(j)TargetedStrategies •ƒ”‡•—Ž–‘ˆ‹•’‡ –‹‘• ‘†— –‡†„›ǡƒ‹Ž‹‰• ‘–ƒ‹‹‰–‘”™ƒ–‡”‘ŽŽ—–‹‘ ”‡˜‡–‹‘Ƭ’‹ŽŽ‡•’‘•‡Žƒ•™‡”‡†‹•–”‹„—–‡†–‘–ƒ”‰‡–‡†—–‘‘–‹˜‡ƒ† ‘‘† ‡”˜‹ ‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡–•‹ͷǤ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Each annual report shall include a list of permittee public outreach and educationactivitiesandtheestimatednumberofindividualsreachedthrough theactivities.Anevaluationofprogrameffectiveness,asoutlinedintheMS4 ProgramPlanwithrecommendationsforfuturechangesshallalsobeincluded.  Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤͶDzPublic Education/Participation OutreachdzǤ ‘”ƒ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘‰”ƒ•ǡ’Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘–Š‡’”‘‰”ƒ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤŒȌƒ† ˆ‘””‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”ˆ—–—”‡ Šƒ‰‡•ǡ’Ž‡ƒ•‡•‡‡–Š‡Ͷ”‘‰”ƒŽƒ‘–Š‡ ‘—–› ™‡„•‹–‡ƒ–ǣ  Š––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†Ǥ‰‘˜ȀʹͻͻȀ–‘”™ƒ–‡”Ǧƒƒ‰‡‡–Ǧ”‘‰”ƒǤ



 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ʹͳ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   x Eachannualreportshallprovideasummaryofvoluntaryretrofitscompleted on private property used to demonstrate pollutant reduction requirements. Note that any voluntary project for which the permittee seeks to use for pollutantreductionrequirementsmustbetrackedandreported.

Š”‡‡ȋ͵Ȍ ‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘Žƒ†• ƒ’‡•ǡ–™‘ȋʹȌ”ƒ‹‰ƒ”†‡•ǡ–™‘ȋʹȌ ’‡”‡ƒ„Ž‡ ’ƒ˜‡” ’”‘Œ‡ –•ǡƒ†‘‡ȋͳȌ†”›Ǧ™‡ŽŽ™‡”‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†‹Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›‹ͷ–Š”‘—‰Š–Š‡ ‹”‰‹‹ƒ‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘••‹•–ƒ ‡”‘‰”ƒǤŠ‡•‡’”‘Œ‡ –•™‡”‡ˆ—†‡†ƒ† ‘•–”— –‡† –Š”‘—‰Šƒ†™‹ŽŽ‘–„‡—•‡†–‘†‡‘•–”ƒ–‡–Š‡’‡”‹––‡‡̵•’‘ŽŽ—–‹‘”‡†— –‹‘ ”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Ǥ

x Each annual report shall provide a summary of voluntary stormwater managementtechniquesencouragedonprivateproperty.

Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘–Š‡•—ƒ”›‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤŒƒ†ƒŽ‹•–‘ˆƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•‹ ’’‡†‹šǤͶDzPublicEducation/ParticipationOutreachdzǤ

PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡—„Ž‹ †— ƒ–‹‘Ȁƒ”–‹ ‹’ƒ–‹‘”‘‰”ƒ™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• –Š”‘—‰Š ̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™’”‘ ‡••Ǥ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ †‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘•–ƒ†ƒ”†‹œƒ–‹‘‡‡†•ǡ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡•ˆ‘”‹ ”‡ƒ•‡† ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘ ‡ˆˆ‘”–•ǡ ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• –‘ ‹’”‘˜‡ –Š‡ ”‡•—Ž–• ‘ˆ ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ǡ ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ –‘ ‹’”‘˜‡ ƒŽ‹‰‡– ™‹–Š –Š‡ ”‡“—‹”‡‡–•‘ˆ–Š‡’‡”‹–ƒ†‡•—”‡‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆͶ”‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ʹʹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.k)Training

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‹• ‘’‘‡– ‹• –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ’‘ŽŽ—–‹‘ ’”‡˜‡–‹‘ –”ƒ‹‹‰ –‘ ‘—–› ‡’Ž‘›‡‡• –‘ ‹ˆ‘” –Š‡ ‘ˆ ’”‘’‡” ’”ƒ –‹ ‡• –‘ ”‡†— ‡ –Š‡ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘ˆ ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–• ‡–‡”‹‰–Š‡Ͷƒ†‡•—”‡’”‘’‡” ‡”–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•ƒ”‡‘„–ƒ‹‡†ƒ† ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡† ƒ• ‡ ‡••ƒ”›Ǥ

1),2),3)&7)BiennialTrainingofIDID,GoodHousekeeping,andPollutionPrevention –‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ͸ǡͺͶͻ’‡”•‘‡Žˆ”‘˜ƒ”‹‘—•†‡’ƒ”–‡–•”‡ ‡‹˜‡†–”ƒ‹‹‰‹”‡ ‘‰‹–‹‘ƒ† ”‡’‘”–‹‰ ‘ˆ ‹ŽŽ‹ ‹– †‹• Šƒ”‰‡• ƒ† ‹ ‰‘‘† Š‘—•‡‡‡’‹‰ ƒ† ’‘ŽŽ—–‹‘ ’”‡˜‡–‹‘ ’”ƒ –‹ ‡•‹ͷǤŠ‡ƒŒ‘”‹–›ȋ͸ǡͷͻͷȌ‘ˆ–Š‘•‡’‡”•‘‡Žƒ”‡‡’Ž‘›‡†„› Ǥ —””‡– ’‘Ž‹ ›‹•–‘’”‘˜‹†‡ƒ—ƒŽ–”ƒ‹‹‰–‘ƒŽŽ‡’Ž‘›‡‡•ǡ –Š‹• ‹ Ž—†‡• ƒ†‹‹•–”ƒ–‹˜‡ǡˆƒ —Ž–›ǡƒ†‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘•ȋ‡Ǥ‰Ǥˆ‘‘†•‡”˜‹ ‡ǡ —•–‘†‹ƒŽƒ†ˆŽ‡‡–Ȍ’‡”•‘‡ŽǤ Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰˜ƒŽ—‡ˆ‘”–Š‹••‡ –‹‘‹ Ž—†‡• ‘—–›•–ƒˆˆ‡’Ž‘›‡†‹’‘•‹–‹‘• ™Š‹ Š ‘—Ž†„‡ ‘•‹†‡”‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡–”ƒ‹‹‰”‡“—‹”‡‡–•‘ˆ–Š‹••‡ –‹‘Ǥ

4)TrainingandCertificationforApplyingPesticidesandHerbicides –‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ͵Ͳƒ”•Ƭ‡ ”‡ƒ–‹‘‡’Ž‘›‡‡•ƒ––‡†‡†ƒ Žƒ••–Š”‘—‰Šƒ†• ƒ’‡—’’Ž›  Ǥˆ‘”’‡•–‹ ‹†‡ƒ†Š‡”„‹ ‹†‡”‡ ‡”–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘Ǥ

5)&6)TrainingandCertificationinESCandVSMP –‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ͵Ͳ ‡’Ž‘›‡‡•ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†–Š‡‹” ‡”–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•‹–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”ƒ† ʹͶ  •–ƒˆˆ ‡„‡”•ǡ ‹ Ž—†‹‰ ’”‘‰”ƒ ƒ†‹‹•–”ƒ–‘”•ǡ ’Žƒ ”‡˜‹‡™‡”•ǡ ƒ† ‹•’‡ –‘”•ǡƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†–Š‡ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ƒ† ‡”–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ

8)SpillResponseTrainingforEmergencyPersonnel ‹”‡ Ƭ  ’‡”•‘‡Ž ƒ† ‘Ž‹ ‡ ”‡ ”—‹–• ‘–‹—‡ –‘ ”‡ ‡‹˜‡ Šƒœƒ”†‘—• ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ• ‘—”•‡•ƒ•Ž‹•–‡†‹–Š‡ͳ’‡ ‹ˆ‹ ‡’‘”–‹‰‡“—‹”‡‡–•ˆ‘”ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤȌǤ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS  x Each annual report shall include a list of training events, the date, and the estimatednumberofindividualsattendingeachevent.  Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤͷDzTrainingEventsdzǤ  PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡”ƒ‹‹‰ ‘’‘‡–™ƒ•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡••–Š”‘—‰Š̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™ ’”‘ ‡••Ǥ  ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘” ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ‹ Ž—†‡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ †‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘ •–ƒ†ƒ”†‹œƒ–‹‘ ‡‡†•ǡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡• ˆ‘” ‹ ”‡ƒ•‡† ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘ ‡ˆˆ‘”–•ǡƒ†‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•–‘‹’”‘˜‡–Š‡”‡•—Ž–•‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘Ǥ

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ʹ͵ Chesterfield County, Virginia Permit No. VA0088609 2019 MS4 Annual Report – PY5

Part I.B.2.l) Water Quality Screening Programs

SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose of this component is to implement programs to help identify and investigate potential unauthorized discharges to the MS4. DEE continued implementation of the dry weather screening program resulting in the screening of 95 outfalls, for a total of 508 outfalls screened over the reporting years. Outfalls were screened for physical indicators and, when applicable, in situ and laboratory chemical testing and analysis of dry weather flows. A total of 14 outfalls were referred for maintenance issues. None of the outfalls inspected as part of the dry weather screening program were found to have unauthorized discharges. Results of dry weather screenings performed continue to be maintained on file. DEE continued to implement the wet weather screening program resulting in three (3) outfalls screened, which included outfalls with large residential drainage areas. Outfalls were screened utilizing physical indicators and in situ analysis, and when applicable, laboratory chemical testing and analysis of wet weather flows. None of the outfalls inspected as part of the wet weather screening program were found to have unauthorized discharges. Wet weather screenings results are maintained on file. Long- term trends analysis of the wet weather screening data collected over the previous permit years has been mostly inconclusive, only providing evidence that levels of nutrient pollutants found in stormwater flows was influenced by elapsed time between rainfall events.

SPECIFIC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

 Each annual report shall include a list of locations upon which dry weather screening was conducted, the results, and any follow‐up actions including maintenance and/or repair of infrastructure or outfalls performed as a result of the dry weather screening.

Please refer to Appendix B.6 “Dry Weather Screening Inspections, Results, and Follow‐up Activities”.

 Each annual report following the initial annual report shall include a list of locations upon which wet weather screening was conducted, the results, weather conditions at the time sample was collected to include date and approximate time of most recent storm event preceding sample collection, long term trends analyses, and any follow‐up actions including maintenance and/or repair of infrastructure or outfalls performed as a result of the wet weather screening.

Please refer to Appendix B.7 “Wet Weather Screening Inspections, Results, and Follow‐up Activities”.

Section 2. Stormwater Management Implementation 24 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡ ƒ–‡” —ƒŽ‹–›  ”‡‡‹‰ ”‘‰”ƒ• ‘’‘‡– ™ƒ• ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡† ˆ‘” ‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• –Š”‘—‰Š̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™’”‘ ‡••Ǥ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡ ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•–‘‹’”‘˜‡–Š‡”‡•—Ž–•‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘Ǥ 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ʹͷ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.B.2.m)InfrastructureCoordination

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‹• ’”‘‰”ƒ ‹• –‘ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‡ ™‹–Š  ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ ‹••—‡• ‘ˆ Ͷ ’Š›•‹ ƒŽǦ‹–‡” ‘‡ –‹˜‹–›Ǥ   ‘–‹—‡† ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘ ‡ˆˆ‘”–•ǡ ‡•—”‹‰ –Š‡ ‡š‹•–‹‰ ’”‘‰”ƒ‘„Œ‡ –‹˜‡•ƒŽ‹‰‡†™‹–Š–Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹–”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Ǥ•–ƒˆˆŠ‘•–‡†ƒ ‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘ ‡‡–‹‰ ‘ ‘˜‡„‡” ͳͻ–Šǡ ʹͲͳͻ ‹ ™Š‹ Š –Š”‡‡ ȋ͵Ȍ ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡•ˆ”‘ǡ–™‘ȋʹȌ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡•ˆ”‘ ‡”‹ ‘‘—–›ǡ ƒ† •‹š ȋ͸Ȍ ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡•ˆ”‘™‡”‡‹ƒ––‡†ƒ ‡Ǥ ‘”†‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ—ƒŽ ‡‡–‹‰ǡ’Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤͺDzInfrastructure Coordination MeetingdzǤ  – –Š‹• ‡‡–‹‰ǡ‡ƒ Š‘ˆ–Š‡‹–‡•‘—–Ž‹‡†‹ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤȌ‘ˆ–Š‡’‡”‹–™‡”‡†‹• —••‡†™‹–Š •‹‰‹ˆ‹ ƒ–†‹• —••‹‘••—””‘—†‹‰–Š‡•–ƒ–—•‘ˆ„‘–Š ‘—–‹‡•ǯƒ†ǯ•Š‡•ƒ’‡ƒ‡ ƒ› –‹‘Žƒ•ƒ†”‘Œ‡ –•ǡƒ’’‹‰‘ˆ‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ǡ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ ”‡’‘”–‹‰‹ŽŽ‹ ‹–†‹• Šƒ”‰‡•™Š‡„‘–ŠͶ•ƒ”‡‹’ƒ –‡†ǡƒ††‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ•–ƒ†ƒ”† ’‘•–Ǧ ‘•–”— –‹‘ •–‘”™ƒ–‡” ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Žƒ• ‹ Ž—†‹‰ ‹•’‡ –‹‘• ‘ˆ Š‹‰Š ”‹• ‹†—•–”‹ƒŽˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•ǤŠ‡”‡™‡”‡͸ͺ†”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡‹••—‡•”‡ˆ‡””‡†–‘ǤŠ‡  ’”‘‰”ƒ Šƒ†‹‡ȋͻȌ‹••—‡•”‡•—Ž–‹‰‹ˆ‘—”ȋͶȌ”‡ˆ‡””ƒŽ•–‘ƒ† ˆ‹˜‡ ȋͷȌ ‹•–ƒ ‡• ‘ˆ ”‡ˆ‡””ƒŽƒ†‡ˆ‘” ‡‡– ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘Ǥƒ•–Ž›ǡ–Š”‘—‰Š–Š‡’‹ŽŽ ”‡˜‡–‹‘ ƒ† ‡•’‘•‡’”‘‰”ƒǡ–Š‡”‡™‡”‡ˆ‘—”ȋͶȌ•’‹ŽŽ•‹™Š‹ Š„‘–Šƒ‰‡ ‹‡•’ƒ”–‹ ‹’ƒ–‡†‹ƒ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‡†”‡•’‘•‡Ǥ

PROGRAMEVALUATION

Š‡ ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘’‘‡– ™ƒ• ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡† ˆ‘” ‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• –Š”‘—‰Š ̵•‹–‡”ƒŽ”‡˜‹‡™’”‘ ‡••Ǥ‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‹ Ž—†‡‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰ Ȁ ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ‡‡†• ƒ† ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡• ˆ‘” ‹ ”‡ƒ•‡† ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘ ‡ˆˆ‘”–•Ǥ 

 ‡ –‹‘ʹǤ–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ʹ͸ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Section3.MonitoringProgramReports  PartI.C.1.BiologicalStreamMonitoring

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‹‘Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ –”‡ƒ ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ‹• –‘ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡ ‡š‹•–‹‰ „‡–Š‹  ƒ ”‘‹˜‡”–‡„”ƒ–‡ ‘—‹–› ƒ† Šƒ„‹–ƒ– ‘†‹–‹‘• ‘ˆ •‡Ž‡ – •–”‡ƒ• ™‹–Š‹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǤŠ‡ ‘—–› ‘–‹—‡†–‘‘‹–‘”ˆ‹˜‡ȋͷȌ•–”‡ƒ•‹–‡•™‹–Š‹–Š‡ ƒ‡•‹˜‡”™ƒ–‡”•Š‡†ˆ‘”„‹‘ƒ••‡••‡–ƒ†Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘‹–‘”‹‰†—”‹‰•’”‹‰ȋƒ” ŠȌ ƒ†ƒ—–—ȋ‘˜‡„‡”ȌǤ—–—•ƒ’Ž‹‰‹ʹͲͳͻ‘ —””‡†‹‡ƒ”Ž›‘˜‡„‡”†—‡–‘ †”‘—‰Š–‡‰ƒ–‹˜‡Ž›ƒˆˆ‡ –‹‰•–”‡ƒˆŽ‘™†—”‹‰ –‘„‡”Ǥ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Each annual report shall include a summary of the monitoring results and analyses and an interpretation of the data with respect to longǦterm patterns/trends.  Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤͳDz2019 Assessment of the Biology, Habitat, and InǦStream ChemistryofSelectStreamsinChesterfieldCounty,VirginiadzǤ PartI.C.2.InǦStreamMonitoring

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‡ Ǧ–”‡ƒ‘‹–‘”‹‰‹•–‘‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡–Š‡ Š‡‹ ƒŽ ‘†‹–‹‘‘ˆ•‡Ž‡ – •–”‡ƒ•™‹–Š‹Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǤŠ‡ ‘—–› ‘–‹—‡†–‘‘‹–‘”ˆ‹˜‡ȋͷȌ•–”‡ƒ •‹–‡•™‹–Š‹–Š‡ ƒ‡•‹˜‡”™ƒ–‡”•Š‡†ˆ‘”‹Ǧ•–”‡ƒ‘‹–‘”‹‰‡˜‡”›‘–Š‡”‘–Š •–ƒ”–‹‰‹ ƒ—ƒ”›‘ˆʹͲͳͻǤ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Each annual report shall include a summary of the monitoring results and analyses and an interpretation of the data with respect to longǦterm patterns/trends.  Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤͳDz2019 Assessment of the Biology, Habitat, and InǦStream ChemistryofSelectStreamsinChesterfieldCounty,VirginiadzǤ   

 ‡ –‹‘͵Ǥ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‘‰”ƒ‡’‘”–• ʹ͹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.C.3.FloatablesMonitoring

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ Ž‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡• ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ‹• –‘ †‘ —‡– –Š‡ ‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• ‘ˆ Ž‹––‡” ‘–”‘Ž’”‘‰”ƒ•ƒ†–‘†‡–‡”‹‡–Š‡Ž‘ƒ†‹‰‘ˆˆŽ‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡•ˆ”‘–Š‡Ͷ–‘•–”‡ƒ• ™‹–Š‹–Š‡ ‘—–›Ǥ ‹˜‡ȋͷȌͶ‘—–ˆƒŽŽ•™‡”‡‘‹–‘”‡†“—ƒ”–‡”Ž›ˆ‘”ˆŽ‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡•’‡”–Š‡ Dz Ž‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡•‘‹–‘”‹‰dz•—„‹––‡†‹–Š‡•‡ ‘†ƒ—ƒŽ”‡’‘”–Ǥ Ž‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡•™‡”‡ ˆ‘—†ƒ–‡ƒ Š‘ˆ–Š‡•‹–‡•ƒ†–Š‡ ‘—–‘ˆˆŽ‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡•‘„•‡”˜‡†ˆ‘”–Š‡›‡ƒ””ƒ‰‡†ˆ”‘ ʹͲ–‘ͳͻ͸ǤŠ‡‘•– ‘‘ ƒ–‡‰‘”‹‡•‘ˆˆŽ‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡•ˆ‘—†‹ Ž—†‡†’Žƒ•–‹ „ƒ‰•ƒ† ‘–ƒ‹‡”•ǡ ‹ ƒ††‹–‹‘ –‘ ’ƒ’‡”ǡ ƒ”†„‘ƒ”†ǡ ƒ† Ž‘–Š ’”‘†— –•ǤŠ‡‡–Š‘†•ˆ‘” ƒƒŽ›•‡•ƒ”‡†‡–ƒ‹Ž‡†‹DzͶǤͶǤ͸ǦͲʹ͸ ‡‡”ƒŽ”‘‰”ƒ—’’Ž‡‡–”ƒˆ–dzǤ‹–‡ͳŠƒ† –Š‡Š‹‰Š‡•–Ͷ—‹–Ž‘ƒ†‹‰”ƒ–‡ƒ†‹•–Š‡‘Ž›‘—–ˆƒŽŽ–Šƒ–‹ Ž—†‡•ƒ ‘‡” ‹ƒŽŽƒ† —•‡ Žƒ••‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š‹‹–•†”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡ƒ”‡ƒǤ‹–‡ʹŠƒ†–Š‡Ž‘™‡•–Ͷ—‹–Ž‘ƒ†‹‰”ƒ–‡ ƒ†‹•Ž‘ ƒ–‡†‹‘‡ȋͳȌ‘ˆ–Š‡‹†Ǧ•‹œ‡††”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡ƒ”‡ƒ•™‹–Š”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽŽƒ†—•‡•Ǥ–Š‡” ˆƒ –‘”•–Šƒ–ƒ›‹’ƒ ––Š‡Ͷ—‹–Ž‘ƒ†‹‰”ƒ–‡‹ Ž—†‡–Š‡ƒ‰‡‘ˆ–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ǡ –‘–ƒŽ†”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡ƒ”‡ƒǡƒ†Žƒ†—•‡Ǥƒ•‡†‘ƒ ‘’ƒ”‹•‘‘ˆ–Š‡™‡‹‰Š–‘ˆˆŽ‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡•ƒ– ‡ƒ ŠͶ‘—–ˆƒŽŽƒ†–Š‡‡•–‹ƒ–‡†™‡‹‰Š–‘ˆ–”ƒ•Š”‡‘˜‡†‹‡ƒ Š†”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡ƒ”‡ƒǡ‹–™ƒ• †‡–‡”‹‡†–Šƒ––Š‡Ž‹––‡”’”‡˜‡–‹‘’”‘‰”ƒ™ƒ•‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡Ǥ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ‘ˆ –Š‡ •‹–‡• Ž‹•–‡†„‡Ž‘™™‹ŽŽ ‘–‹—‡‹–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”•

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Eachfollowingannualreportshallincludealistofsitesmonitored,asummary ofthemonitoringprotocolsused,andasummaryofthemonitoringresultsand analyses.

Table10.ListofFloatableMonitoringSites Estimated MS4Unit Weightof Study Countof Weightof Loading Floatables Site MS4Outfall Area(sq Floatables Floatables Rate Removedin ft) Observed (lbs) (lbs/ac/yr) Drainage Area(lbs) ‘–”‘Ž ǦͲͲʹͳͳͻ ʹǡͲʹͶ ͳ͸ͷ ʹ͸Ǥͳ ͲǤʹͻͻ ȗ ͳ ǦͲͲ͹Ͷͳ͸ Ͷͳͻ ͻ͵ ͳͲǤͶ ͳǤͲͻͻ ͵Ͳ ʹ ǦͲͲʹͲͻ͹ ͻͺͲ ʹ͹ ͲǤͷ ͲǤͲͲͷ ͳͲͲ ͵ ǦͲͳͳͶͳͶ ͳǡͻͳͶ ʹͲ ͲǤ͹ ͲǤͲͲ͸ ͺͲ Ͷ ǦͲͲ͹ͻ͹ͺ ͳǡͷͻͶ ͳͻ͸ ͳ͹Ǥʹ ͲǤ͵ͲͲ ͺͲ *Litter/trashisnotremovedfromthedrainageareaofControlsite.

Ž‡ƒ•‡ ”‡ˆ‡” –‘ –Š‡ •—ƒ”› ‘ˆ ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘” ƒ”– ǤǤ͵Ǥ ˆ‘”ƒ•—ƒ”›‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘‹–‘”‹‰’”‘–‘ ‘Ž•—•‡†ƒ†ƒ•—ƒ”›‘ˆ–Š‡‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡•—Ž–•ƒ†ƒƒŽ›•‡•Ǥ



 ‡ –‹‘͵Ǥ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‘‰”ƒ‡’‘”–• ʹͺ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.C.4.StructuralandSourceControlsCompliance MonitoringandTracking

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ –”— –—”ƒŽ ƒ† ‘—” ‡ ‘–”‘Ž• ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ƒ† ”ƒ ‹‰ ‹• –‘ ƒ‹–ƒ‹ ƒ —’†ƒ–‡† ‡Ž‡ –”‘‹  †ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡ ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ ‘™ ’‡”‹––‡‡ ƒ† ’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ž› ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†Ȁˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ ‘–‹—‡†–‘—•‡ ǡƒ†ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡†‡•‹‰‡†–‘ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡†”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡ƒ†Ȁƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡’”‘ ‡••‡•Ǥ ƒŽŽ‘™•ˆ‘”ƒ—Ž–‹–—†‡ ‘ˆƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•”‡Žƒ–‡†–‘Ȁƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡‹ Ž—†‹‰–”ƒ ‹‰—’ ‘‹‰Ȁ ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ ‡‡†• ȋ„‘–Š ‘—–› ƒ† ’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ž› ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†Ȍ ƒ† ‹••—‹‰ ‹•’‡ –‹‘ ‘–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘Ž‡––‡”•–‘‘™‡”•‘ˆ’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ž›ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ ”‡ƒ–‡†–Š‡ ƒƒ‰‡‡–‡ –‹‘™‹–Š–™‘ȋʹȌ’‘•‹–‹‘•–‘ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ȁ ‘—–›‹•’‡ –‹‘•ƒ† ‘–‹—‡–‘‹’”‘˜‡–Š‡’”‘‰”ƒǤ ‡”–‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ–‘–ƒŽ‘ˆ͹ͲȀ•–”— –—”‡•Ǥ ƒŽ•‘ ‘–‹—‡†–‘‹†‡–‹ˆ›ƒ”‡ƒ•‘ˆ‘’’‘”–—‹–›ˆ‘”‹’”‘˜‡‡–‘ˆ —””‡–’”‘ ‡••‡•ƒ† ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘–”ƒ ‹‰–Šƒ–™‹ŽŽ ‘–‹—‡–‘„‡ƒ††”‡••‡†‹–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”•Ǥ

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Eachannualreportshallincludeacopyoftheupdateddatabaseinelectronic format.

Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤʹDzStructuralandSourceControlsComplianceMonitoringand TrackingdzǤ

x Each annual report shall include a summary of the program to ensure maintenanceofprivatestormwatermanagementfacilities.

Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘–Š‡•—ƒ”›‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤŠȌŽ‘ ƒ–‡†‹‡ –‹‘ʹ‘ˆ –Š‹•”‡’‘”–Ǥ

x Each annual report shall include a summary of the program to ensure maintenance of stormwater management facilities maintained by the permittee.  Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘–Š‡•—ƒ”›‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤŠȌŽ‘ ƒ–‡†‹‡ –‹‘ʹ‘ˆ –Š‹•”‡’‘”–Ǥ

 ‡ –‹‘͵Ǥ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‘‰”ƒ‡’‘”–• ʹͻ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Section4.TMDLImplementation  PartI.D.1.ChesapeakeBaySpecialCondition

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‹• ‘’‘‡–‹•–‘†‡˜‡Ž‘’ƒ†‘ —‡–™Š‹ Š‹•‹ ‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡™‹–Š–Š‡ ”‡“—‹”‡‡–•‘ˆ–Š‡Š‡•ƒ’‡ƒ‡ƒ›’‡ ‹ƒŽ‘†‹–‹‘ƒ”– ǤǤͳǤ‘ˆ–Š‡•–ƒ–‡’‡”‹–ǤŠ‡ •‡ –‹‘’”‘˜‹†‡•–Š‡ˆ”ƒ‡™‘”ˆ‘”–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆƒ’Žƒ–Šƒ–†‡–ƒ‹Ž•–Š‡ ‘—–›ǯ• ’”‘‰”ƒ•ǡ‡ƒ•Ƭ‡–Š‘†•ǡƒ†’”‘Œ‡ –•–‘„‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†–‘”‡†— ‡–Š‡”‡“—‹”‡† Ž‘ƒ†‹‰•‘ˆ—–”‹‡–•ƒ†•‡†‹‡–ˆ”‘‡š‹•–‹‰Ͷ•‘—” ‡•Ǥǡ‹ ‘•—Ž–ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š ‹–• ‘•—Ž–ƒ–•ǡ”‡•’‘†‡†–‘–Š‡ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ ‘‡–•”‡ ‡‹˜‡†ˆ”‘–‘–Š‡ ‘—–›̵• †”ƒˆ–Š‡•ƒ’‡ƒ‡ƒ› –‹‘Žƒ•—„‹––‡†–‘‹ʹͲͳ͸ǤŠ‡†‘ —‡–™ƒ• —’†ƒ–‡†–‘ƒ††”‡••–Š‡ ‘‡–•ƒ†”‡ƒ‹•‹†”ƒˆ–ǡƒ™ƒ‹–‹‰ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽˆ”‘ǤŠ‡ †‘ —‡– ‘˜‡”•‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”–Š‡ˆ‹”•–’‡”‹– › Ž‡ƒ†ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™•–Š‡•–”— –—”‡‘ˆ –Š‡’‡”‹–ƒ††”‡••‹‰–Š‡ ‘’‘‡–•Ž‹•–‡†—†‡”ƒ”– ǤǤͳǤ ‘”ƒ—ƒŽ—’†ƒ–‡•ǡ–Š‡ ‘•–”‡ ‡–˜‡”•‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡Š‡•ƒ’‡ƒ‡ƒ› –‹‘Žƒ ƒ„‡ˆ‘—†‘–Š‡ ‘—–› ™‡„•‹–‡ƒ–ǣ

Š––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†Ǥ‰‘˜Ȁ͵ͳͷȀŠ‡•ƒ’‡ƒ‡Ǧƒ›ǦǦ –‹‘ǦŽƒ

ANNUALREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Each subsequent annual report shall include a list of control measures implementedduringthereportingperiodandthecumulativeprogresstoward meeting the compliance targets for total nitrogen, phosphorus, and total suspendedsoils.

Table11.ControlMeasuresImplementedfortheChesapeakeBayTMDLThroughPY5 TNReductions TPReductions TSSReductions ControlMeasure (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) ‡–”‘ˆ‹–• ͹ͲǤ͹ ʹ͸Ǥͳ ͹ǡͶͺͲǤͳ —–ˆƒŽŽ‡–”‘ˆ‹–• ͵͸ͷǤ͹ Ͷ͸ǤͲ ʹͲǡ͵ͺͳǤͺ –”‡ƒ‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ͳͻͷǤͷ ͳͺ͹Ǥʹ ͳʹͷǡͳʹ͸Ǥʹ –‘”™ƒ–‡”• ͹͸͵Ǥʹ ͳʹͻǤʹ ͷͲǡͺͶͲǤ͸ TotalReductionsAchieved 1,395.1 388.4 203,828.7 ComplianceTargets 981.6 154.3 59,843.4 PercentCompliance 142.13% 251.77% 340.60%  

 ‡ –‹‘ͶǤ ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͵Ͳ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   x Each subsequent annual report shall include a list of control measures that were implemented during the reporting cycle and the estimated reduction achievedbythecontrol.Forstormwatermanagementcontrols,thereportshall includetheinformationrequiredinPartI.C.4.a)andshallincludewhetheran existingstormwatermanagementcontrolwasretrofitted,andifso,theexisting stormwatermanagementcontroltyperetrofitused.

Table12.ControlMeasuresImplementedandEstimatedReductionAchievedforthe ChesapeakeBayTMDLinPY5 TN TP TSS Control Project Reductions Reductions Reductions Measure (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) ƒ‹Ž‡›”‹†‰‡‹††Ž‡ Š‘‘Ž—–ˆƒŽŽ —–ˆƒŽŽ‡–”‘ˆ‹– ʹͲͳǤͳ ʹ͹ǤͶ ͳͶǡͲͻͻǤ͹ ‡–”‘ˆ‹–•  Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤʹDzStructuralandSourceControlsComplianceMonitoringand Trackingdzˆ‘”–Š‡‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘”‡“—‹”‡†‹ƒ”– ǤǤͶǤƒȌǤ

x Eachannualreportshallincludealistofcontrolmeasuresthatareexpectedto beimplementedduringthenextreportingperiodandtheexpectedprogress toward meeting the compliance targets for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, andtotalsuspendedsolids.

Table13.ControlMeasuresExpectedtobeImplementedfortheChesapeakeBayTMDLin NextReportingYear TNReductions TPReductions TSSReductions ControlMeasure (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) ‡–”‘ˆ‹–• ͳͳ͹Ǥ͸ ͵ͶǤͶ ͳͲǡ͹ͶʹǤͶ —–ˆƒŽŽ‡–”‘ˆ‹–• ͵͸ͷǤ͹ Ͷ͸ǤͲ ʹͲǡ͵ͺͳǤͺ –”‡ƒ‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ͳͻͷǤͷ ͳͺ͹Ǥʹ ͳʹͷǡͳʹ͸Ǥʹ –‘”™ƒ–‡”• ͹͸͵Ǥʹ ͳʹͻǤʹ ͷͲǡͺͶͲǤ͸ TotalReductionsAchieved 1,442.0 396.7 207,091.0 ComplianceTarget* 6,870.9 1,079.9 418,903.7 PercentCompliance 20.99% 36.74% 49.44% *ComplianceTargetvaluesarebasedonthe35%reductionrequirementsofthe2ndPermitCycle.  

 ‡ –‹‘ͶǤ ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͵ͳ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.D.2.TMDLActionPlansotherthantheChesapeake BayTMDL

SUMMARYOFIMPLEMENTATION

Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‹• ‘’‘‡–‹•–‘†‡˜‡Ž‘’ƒ†‹’Ž‡‡–Ž‘ ƒŽ –‹‘Žƒ•–‘ ”‡†— ‡’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–•‘ˆ ‘ ‡”Ž‘ƒ†‹‰•ˆ”‘ ‘–”‘ŽŽƒ„Ž‡ǡƒ–Š”‘’‘‰‡‹ •‘—” ‡•–‘–Š‡ ƒš‹—‡š–‡–’”ƒ –‹ ƒ„Ž‡ǤŠ‡•‡ –‹‘’”‘˜‹†‡•–Š‡ˆ”ƒ‡™‘”ˆ‘”–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘ˆ ’Žƒ• –Šƒ– †‡–ƒ‹Ž• –Š‡ ‘—–›ǯ• ’”‘‰”ƒ• ƒ† ‹†‡–‹ˆ› „‡•– ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’”ƒ –‹ ‡• ȋ•Ȍ ƒ† ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡• ‹’Ž‡‡–‡† –‘ ƒ††”‡•• ™ƒ•–‡• Ž‘ƒ† ƒŽŽ‘ ƒ–‹‘• ȋ•ȌǤ   ‘–‹—‡†–Š‡‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–’”ƒ –‹ ‡•ǡ–‡ Š‹“—‡•ǡƒ†‡–Š‘†• ‘†— –‡†–Š”‘—‰Š‡š‹•–‹‰’”‘‰”ƒ•ƒ•‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‹’’‡†‹š‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘—–›̵•ʹͲͳ͸ǡ ƒ†—’†ƒ–‡†ʹͲͳͻǡƒ –‡”‹ƒ –‹‘ŽƒǤ•‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‹’’‡†‹š‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ –‡”‹ƒ   –‹‘ Žƒǡ  ‹ ‘”’‘”ƒ–‡† ƒŽŽ ‘ˆ ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ ‘–”‘Ž ‡ƒ•—”‡• –‘ ‡š‹•–‹‰ ’”‘‰”ƒ•Ǥ‘‡‘ˆ–Š‡•‡‡ƒ•—”‡•‹ Ž—†‡†‘‹–‘”‹‰ˆ‘”„ƒ –‡”‹ƒ ‘–ƒ‹ƒ–‹‘‘” „‹‘ˆ‹Ž•†—”‹‰‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡‹•’‡ –‹‘•ǡ‹ ‘”’‘”ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‰‘‘†Š‘—•‡‡‡’‹‰’”ƒ –‹ ‡• ƒ–Š‹‰Š’”‹‘”‹–›—‹ ‹’ƒŽˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•ǡƒ†‡†— ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ”‡•‹†‡–•‹”‡ ‘‰‹–‹‘ƒ†’”‘’‡” †‹•’‘•ƒŽ‘ˆ’‘‘Žƒ†‰”ƒ›™ƒ–‡”Ǥ ‘”ƒ—ƒŽ—’†ƒ–‡•ǡ–Š‡‘•–”‡ ‡– ˜‡”•‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ –‡”‹ƒŽ –‹‘Žƒ ƒ„‡ˆ‘—†‘–Š‡ ‘—–›™‡„•‹–‡ƒ–ǣ

Š––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†Ǥ‰‘˜Ȁ͵ͳͶȀƒ –‡”‹ƒǦǦ –‹‘ǦŽƒ

ANNUALREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x ThepermitteeshallreportontheimplementationoftheTMDLActionPlansand associatedevaluationincludingtheresultsofanymonitoringconductedaspart oftheevaluation.

Š‡ʹͲͳ͸ȋ—’†ƒ–‡†ʹͲͳͻȌƒ –‡”‹ƒŽ –‹‘Žƒ‹•‹†”ƒˆ–ˆ‘”ƒ†—†‡” ”‡˜‹‡™Ǣ’Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘–Š‡•—ƒ”›‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤŽ‡‡–•ˆ”‘ ‡š‹•–‹‰’”‘‰”ƒ•‹ Ž—†‡†‹–Š‡ƒ –‡”‹ƒŽ –‹‘Žƒƒ”‡‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†ƒ—ƒŽŽ›ƒ† ‹ Ž—†‡†™‹–Š–Š‡’”‘‰”ƒ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘‹‡ –‹‘ʹ‘ˆ–Š‹•”‡’‘”–Ǥ‡–ƒ‹Ž•‘ˆ–Š‡ Ǧ–”‡ƒ ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ’”‘‰”ƒ ”‡’‘”– ‡–‹–Ž‡† 2019 Assessment of the Biology, Habitat, and InǦ Stream Chemistry of Select Streams in Chesterfield County, Virginia ƒ„‡ˆ‘—†‹ ’’‡†‹š‘ˆ–Š‹•”‡’‘”–Ǥ•”‡’‘”–‡†ǡ–Š‡‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡•—Ž–•ˆ‘”E.coli™‹ŽŽ ‘–‹—‡–‘ ‡š ‡‡†•–ƒ–‡™ƒ–‡”“—ƒŽ‹–›•–ƒ†ƒ”†•Ǥ—”‹‰–Š‡‡š–”‡’‘”–‹‰’‡”‹‘†ǡƒ”‡˜‹‡™‘ˆ–Š‡ ™ƒ–‡”“—ƒŽ‹–›‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡•—Ž–•™‹ŽŽ„‡ ‘†— –‡†–‘’Žƒƒ’”‘‰”ƒ–‘†‡–‡”‹‡‹ˆ –Š‡”‡‹•ƒ ‘””‡Žƒ–‹‘„‡–™‡‡‘„•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†•–‘”™ƒ–‡” ‘–”‹„—–‹‘•Ǥ”‘‰”ƒ• ‹’Ž‡‡–‡†—†‡”–Š‡ –‹‘Žƒ™‹ŽŽƒŽ•‘„‡”‡˜‹‡™‡†‹‘”†‡”–‘’Žƒ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ’”‘‰”ƒ•™Š‹ Š™‹ŽŽ„‡—•‡†–‘’”‘˜‹†‡–Š‡‡ ‡••ƒ”›‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘” ƒ••‡••‹‰ ”‡†— –‹‘•‹‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†•‘—” ‡•‘ˆˆ‡ ƒŽ„ƒ –‡”‹ƒǤ



 ‡ –‹‘ͶǤ ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ͵ʹ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Section5.SpecificReporting Requirements

Table14.LocationofSpecificReportingRequirementswithintheAnnualReport Program ReportingRequirements Location Reference DischargesAuthorizedUnderThisStatePermit ‹•–‘ˆ‘Ž‡•ƒ†‡•’‘•‹„‹Ž‹–‹‡• ’’‡†‹šǤͳ ‡”‹– ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤ ‹” —•–ƒ ‡•‘ˆ‘Ǧ ‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡ ‡•’‘•‹„‹Ž‹–› ‡ –‹‘ͷ ‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ’‡”‹––‡‡ ‘–”‘Ž Ͷ”‘‰”ƒ ƒ”– ǤǤͶǤ ‘’›‘ˆˆ‹• ƒŽ›‡ƒ”„—†‰‡– ’’‡†‹šǤʹ ‡•‘—” ‡• ‡”‹– –ƒ–‡‡–”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰’ƒ›‡–‘ˆ–Š‡ ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ ƒ”– ǤǤͷǤ ‡ –‹‘ͷ Ͷ’‡”‹–ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ˆ‡‡ ‡‡ Ͷ”‘‰”ƒ Žƒ‡˜‹‡™ ƒ”– ǤǤ͹Ǥ ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•–‘–Š‡Ͷ ‡ –‹‘ͷ ƒ†’†ƒ–‡• StormwaterManagement ƒ††‹•–—”„‹‰ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ’’”‘˜‡†ƒ† ‡ –‹‘ʹ –‘–ƒŽƒ ”‡•†‹•–—”„‡† ‘•–”— –‹‘Ȁ ƒ††‹•–—”„‹‰ƒ –‹˜‹–›‹•’‡ –‹‘• ‘•–Ǧ ƒ”– ’‡”ˆ‘”‡†ƒ†‡ˆ‘” ‡‡–ƒ –‹‘• ‡ –‹‘ʹ ‘•–”— –‹‘ ǤǤʹǤƒȌ –ƒ‡ —‘ˆˆ —ƒ”›‘ˆƒ –‹‘•–ƒ‡ˆ‘”ƒ”– ‡ –‹‘ʹ ǤǤʹǤƒȌͳȌƒ†ʹȌ ‡–”‘ˆ‹––‹‰ ‘”‹‘” ƒ”– ’†ƒ–‡ˆ‘”’”‘Œ‡ –•‹’Ž‡‡–‡† ‡ –‹‘ʹ ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡† ǤǤʹǤ„Ȍ †—”‹‰”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ” ƒ† ‡’‘”–‘ˆ—–”‹‡–ƒƒ‰‡‡–’Žƒ ‡ –‹‘ʹ ‡•–‹ ‹†‡•ǡ ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘• Š‡†—Ž‡ ‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡ ‡”„‹ ‹†‡•ǡƬ ƒ”– ƒ†•™‹–Š•‹’Ž‡‡–‡†ƒ† ‡ –‹‘ʹ ‡”–‹Ž‹œ‡” ǤǤʹǤ†Ȍ ——Žƒ–‹˜‡–‘–ƒŽƒ ”‡ƒ‰‡—†‡”• ’’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ ƒ†•™‹–Š –‡‰”ƒ–‡†‡•– ‡ –‹‘ʹ ƒƒ‰‡‡–Žƒ• 

 ‡ –‹‘ͷǤ’‡ ‹ˆ‹ ‡’‘”–‹‰‡“—‹”‡‡–• ͵͵ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Table14.LocationofSpecificReportingRequirementswithintheAnnualReport Program ReportingRequirements Location Reference StormwaterManagementCont. ŽŽ‹ ‹–†‹• Šƒ”‰‡•ǡ•‘—” ‡ǡˆ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǧ—’ ŽŽ‹ ‹– ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ†•–ƒ–—•‘ˆ‡Ž‹‹ƒ–‹‘ ’’‡†‹šǤͳ ‹• Šƒ”‰‡Ƭ ƒ”–Ǥ †—”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ” ’”‘’‡” ǤǤʹǤ‡Ȍ ‹•’‘•ƒŽ ‹‡ƒ”ˆ‡‡–‘ˆ•ƒ‹–ƒ”›•‡™‡”‹•’‡ –‡† ‡ –‹‘ʹ ƒ”– ’‹ŽŽ•ǡ•‘—” ‡ƒ†ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǧ—’ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡• ’‹ŽŽ‡•’‘•‡ ’’‡†‹šǤʹ ǤǤʹǤˆȌ †—”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ” ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‹•’‡ –‹‘• Š‡†—Ž‡ ‡ –‹‘ʹ †—•–”‹ƒŽƬ ‹•–‘ˆ–Š‡ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•ƒ†Ȁ‘”ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–› ƒ”– ‹‰Š‹• ‘—–ˆƒŽŽ•‹•’‡ –‡††—”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰ ‡ –‹‘ʹ ǤǤʹǤ‰Ȍ —‘ˆˆ ’‡”‹‘† ‹•–‘ˆ”‡ˆ‡””ƒŽ•–‘–Š‡‡’ƒ”–‡– ‡ –‹‘ʹ ‡’‘”–‘‡ˆˆ‘”–•–‘”‡’ƒ‹”ˆƒ‹Ž‡†•–‘” ‡ –‹‘ʹ •‡™‡”‘—–ˆƒŽŽ• ‹•–‘ˆ‹•’‡ –‹‘•ǡƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ǡƒ† ”‡’ƒ‹”‘ˆ•–‘”™ƒ–‡”‹ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ ‡ –‹‘ʹ ‘’‡”ƒ–‡†„›–Š‡’‡”‹––‡‡  –‹‘•–ƒ‡–‘ƒ††”‡••ˆƒ‹Ž—”‡‘ˆ ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ ƒ”– ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†”‡’ƒ‹”‘ˆ’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ž› ‡ –‹‘ʹ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ǤǤʹǤŠȌ ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†•–‘”™ƒ–‡”ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‹•–‘ˆ‹•’‡ –‹‘•ƒ†‘–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•–‘ ’”‹˜ƒ–‡Ž›ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†•–‘”™ƒ–‡” ‡ –‹‘ʹ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‹•–‘ˆƒŽŽ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘”‡“—‡•–‡†‹ƒ”– ’’‡†‹šǤ͵ ͳǤǤʹǤŠȌͷȌ —–”‡ƒ Šƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ†—„‡”‘ˆ ’’‡†‹šǤͶ ’‡‘’Ž‡”‡ƒ Š‡†

—„Ž‹  ˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ’”‘‰”ƒ‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡‡•• ‡ –‹‘ʹ ƒ”– †— ƒ–‹‘ƒ† ǤǤʹǤŒȌ —ƒ”›‘ˆ˜‘Ž—–ƒ”›”‡–”‘ˆ‹–• ƒ”–‹ ‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‡ –‹‘ʹ ‘’Ž‡–‡†‘’”‹˜ƒ–‡’”‘’‡”–› —ƒ”›‘ˆ˜‘Ž—–ƒ”›–‡ Š‹“—‡• ‡ –‹‘ʹ ‡ ‘—”ƒ‰‡†‘’”‹˜ƒ–‡’”‘’‡”–› ƒ”– ”ƒ‹‹‰‡˜‡–ǡ†ƒ–‡ƒ†—„‡” ”ƒ‹‹‰ ’’‡†‹šǤͷ ǤǤʹǤȌ ƒ––‡†‹‰ 

 ‡ –‹‘ͷǤ’‡ ‹ˆ‹ ‡’‘”–‹‰‡“—‹”‡‡–• ͵Ͷ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   Table14.LocationofSpecificReportingRequirementswithintheAnnualReport Program ReportingRequirements Location Reference StormwaterManagementCont. ”›™‡ƒ–Š‡”• ”‡‡‹‰ǡ”‡•—Ž–•ƒ† ’’‡†‹šǤ͸ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǧ—’ƒ –‹‘• ƒ–‡”—ƒŽ‹–› ƒ”–  ”‡‡‹‰ ‹•–‘ˆŽ‘ ƒ–‹‘•‘ˆ™‡–™‡ƒ–Š‡” ǤǤʹǤŽȌ • ”‡‡‹‰ǡ”‡•—Ž–•ǡ™‡ƒ–Š‡” ‘†‹–‹‘•ǡ ”‘‰”ƒ• ’’‡†‹šǤ͹ Ž‘‰–‡”–”‡†•ƒƒŽ›•‡•ǡƒ†ƒ› ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǧ—’ƒ –‹‘• ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ ƒ”– ‘ —‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘‡ˆˆ‘”–• ’’‡†‹šǤͺ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘ ǤǤʹǤȌ ȋ”‡“—‹”‡‡–™‹–Š‹’‡”‹–Žƒ‰—ƒ‰‡Ȍ MonitoringRequirements ‹‘Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ —ƒ”›‘ˆ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡•—Ž–•ƒ† –”‡ƒ ƒ”– ǤǤͳǤ ’’‡†‹šǤͳ ƒƒŽ›•‡• ‘‹–‘”‹‰ Ǧ–”‡ƒ —ƒ”›‘ˆ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡•—Ž–•ƒ† ƒ”– ǤǤʹǤ ’’‡†‹šǤͳ ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ƒƒŽ›•‡• ‹•–‘ˆ•‹–‡•‘‹–‘”‡† ‡ –‹‘͵ Ž‘ƒ–ƒ„Ž‡• ƒ”– ǤǤ͵Ǥ —ƒ”›‘ˆ‘‹–‘”‹‰’”‘–‘ ‘Ž•—•‡† ‡ –‹‘͵ ‘‹–‘”‹‰ —ƒ”›‘ˆ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡•—Ž–•ƒ† ‡ –‹‘͵ ƒƒŽ›•‡• ’†ƒ–‡††ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡‹‡Ž‡ –”‘‹ ˆ‘”ƒ– ’’‡†‹šǤʹ –”— –—”ƒŽƬ —ƒ”›‘ˆ’”‘‰”ƒ–‘‡•—”‡ ‘—” ‡ ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡‘ˆ’”‹˜ƒ–‡•–‘”™ƒ–‡” ‡ –‹‘͵ ƒ”– ǤǤͶǤ ‘–”‘Ž• ƒƒ‰‡‡–ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡ —ƒ”›‘ˆ’”‘‰”ƒ–‘‡•—”‡ ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡‘ˆ’‡”‹––‡‡ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡† ‡ –‹‘͵ •–‘”™ƒ–‡”ƒƒ‰‡‡–ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• TMDLActionPlan&Implementation Š‡•ƒ› ƒ”– —ƒ”›‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘  –‹‘ ‡ –‹‘Ͷ ǤǤͳǤ†Ȍ ȋ”‡“—‹”‡‡–™‹–Š‹’‡”‹–Žƒ‰—ƒ‰‡Ȍ Žƒ’†ƒ–‡•  –‹‘ Žƒ•ȋ–Š‡” ƒ”– —ƒ”›‘ˆ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ‡ –‹‘Ͷ –ŠƒŠ‡• ǤǤʹǤˆȌ ȋ”‡“—‹”‡‡–™‹–Š‹’‡”‹–Žƒ‰—ƒ‰‡Ȍ ƒ›Ȍ

 ‡ –‹‘ͷǤ’‡ ‹ˆ‹ ‡’‘”–‹‰‡“—‹”‡‡–• ͵ͷ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   PartI.A.2.PermitteeResponsibilities

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Eachannualreportshallincludealistofcurrentrolesandresponsibilities.

Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤͳDzRolesandResponsibilitiesdzǤ

x Each annual report shall include a list of those circumstances of nonǦ complianceoutsideofthepermittee’scontrol.

Š‡”‡™‡”‡‘ ‹” —•–ƒ ‡•‘ˆ‘Ǧ ‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡’‡”‹––‡‡̵• ‘–”‘Ž–‘ ”‡’‘”–†—”‹‰–Š‡”‡’‘”–‹‰›‡ƒ”Ǥ PartI.A.4.MS4ProgramResources

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Acopyofthefiscalyear’sbudgetincludingitsproposedcapitalandoperation andmaintenanceexpendituresnecessarytoaccomplishtheactivitiesrequired bythisstatepermitshallbesubmittedwitheachannualreport.

Ž‡ƒ•‡”‡ˆ‡”–‘’’‡†‹šǤʹDz2020FiscalYearBudgetǦAbridgeddzǤ PartI.A.5.PermitMaintenanceFees

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x AstatementregardingpaymentoftheapplicableMS4permitmaintenancefee, including check date and check number shall be included with each annual report.Note:Pleasedonotincludecopiesofchecksorotherbankrecords.

Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›’ƒ‹†–Š‡Ͷ’‡”‹–ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ˆ‡‡™‹–Š Š‡ —„‡”ʹͲͳͺͺͺͷʹ ‘—‰—•–ʹͻǡʹͲͳͻǤ PartI.A.7.MS4ProgramReviewandUpdates

SPECIFICREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

x Allmodificationsandproposedmodificationsshallbereportedinaccordance withthissectionofthepermit.

Ͷ”‘‰”ƒŽƒ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†—’†ƒ–‡•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡†‘ —‡–‡†‹–Š‡ͶǤŠ‡ ‘•–”‡ ‡–˜‡”•‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡Ͷ ƒ„‡ˆ‘—†‘–Š‡ ‘—–›™‡„•‹–‡ƒ–ǣ

Š––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†Ǥ‰‘˜ȀʹͻͻȀ–‘”™ƒ–‡”Ǧƒƒ‰‡‡–Ǧ”‘‰”ƒǤ

 ‡ –‹‘ͷǤ’‡ ‹ˆ‹ ‡’‘”–‹‰‡“—‹”‡‡–• ͵͸ Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 AppendixA 













 ’’‡†‹š Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 A.1Roles&Responsibilities 











 ’’‡†‹š Roles & Responsibilities Permit Section Roles & Responsibilities Administer Manage Implement Part I.A. 1. Authorized Discharges 2. Permittee Responsibilities 3. Legal Authority 4. MS4 Program Resources DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit) 5. Permit Maintenance Fees 6. MS4 Program Plan 7. MS4 Program Plan Review and Updates Part I.B. 1. Planning DEE (Administration) DEE (Development Management, Stormwater Permit) Budget & Management 2. MS4 Program Plan Implementation a) Construction DEE (Administration) DEE (Development Management) DEE (Inspections, Plans Review, Contractor) BI b) Retrofitting DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Drainage) DEE (Drainage, Contractor) c) Roadways DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Drainage) Risk Management Parks & Recreation General Services (WARR, Building & Grounds, Fleet) Schools (F&M) d) Pesticide, Herbicide & Fertilizer DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Drainage) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Drainage) Risk Management Risk Management General Services (Building & Grounds) General Services (Building & Grounds) Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Utilities Utilities Schools (F&M) e) IDID DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Contractor) Utilities (O&M) Utilities (O&M) Risk Management Community Enhancement Community Enhancement Fire & EMS (Emergency Response, Fire Marshal) General Services (WARR) General Services (WARR) Utilities (O&M) Community Enhancement General Services (WARR) f) Spill Prevention & Response DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Drainage, Contractor) Fire & EMS (Emergency Response, Fire Marshal) Fire & EMS (Emergency Response, Fire Marshal) Fire & EMS (Emergency Response, Fire Marshal) Risk Management Police (Emergency Response) General Services (WARR) Utilities (O&M) Schools (F&M) g) IHRR DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit) h) Infrastructure Management DEE (Administration) DEE (Development Management, Stormwater Permit, Drainage) DEE (Plans Review, Stormwater Permit, Drainage, Contractor) IST Part I.B. 2. MS4 Program Plan Implementation i) County Facilities DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Drainage) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Drainage) General Services (WARR, Building & Grounds, Fleet) General Services (WARR, Building & Grounds, Fleet) Utilities (O&M) Utilities (O&M) Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Schools (F&M) Schools (F&M) Police (Office of the Chief, Community Services, Personnel & Police (Community Services, Personnel & Training, Management Training, Management Services) Services) Fire & EMS (Resource Management, Training & Education) Fire & EMS (Training & Education) Risk Management

1 of 2 Roles & Responsibilities Permit Section Roles & Responsibilities Administer Manage Implement j) Education DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit) General Services (WARR) General Services (WARR) General Services (WARR) Community Enhancement Community Enhancement Community Enhancement Extension Extension Extension k) Training DEE (Administration) DEE (Development Management, Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Inspections, Plans Review, Drainage) Fire & EMS (Resource Management Division) LPC LPC Police (Personnel & Training) Fire & EMS (Resource Management) BI Police (Personnel & Training) Fire & EMS (Resource Management) Risk Management Police (Personnel & Training) General Services (Building & Grounds) General Services (Building & Grounds) Schools (F&M) Parks & Recreation Utilities (O&M) Utilities (O&M) BI Schools (F&M) Community Enhancement Parks & Recreation l) Screening Programs DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit) m) Infrastructure Coordination DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Drainage) Part I.C. 1. Biological Stream DEE (Administration) DEE (Water Quality) DEE (Water Quality) 2. In-Stream DEE (Administration) DEE (Water Quality) DEE (Water Quality) 3. Floatables DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit) DEE (Stormwater Permit) General Services (WARR) 4. Structural & Source Controls Compliance DEE (Administration) DEE (Plans Review, Drainage, Stormwater Permit) DEE (Plans Review, Drainage, Stormwater Permit) Part I.D. 1. Chesapeake Bay Special Condition DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Consultant) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Consultant) 2. Other TMDL Action Plans DEE (Administration) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Consultant) DEE (Stormwater Permit, Consultant)

2 of 2 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 A.22019FiscalYearBudgetǦAbridged 









 ’’‡†‹š FY2020 BUDGET FY2020-2024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA BUDGET AWARD

The Government Finance Officer’s Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an award for Distinguished Budget Presentation to Chesterfield County, Virginia for the annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 (FY2019).

In order to receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. The FY2019 budget represents the 33rd consecutive year that Chesterfield County has received this award. In addition, the County received overall ratings as proficient or outstanding in all review categories. This is the highest form of recognition for excellence in local government budgeting. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors (listed from left to right): Steve Elswick - Vice-Chair (Matoaca District), James “Jim” M. Holland (Dale District), Dorothy Jaeckle (Bermuda District), Leslie Haley - Chair (Midlothian District), and Christopher Winslow (Clover Hill District) SPECIAL THANKS

This document was prepared by the Budget and Management Department.

(Listed from left to right) Front Row: Joni Robinson, Karen Bailey, Meghan Coates (Director) Second Row: Samantha Leggett, Natalie Spillman, Casey Boyette, Joann Romero, Lindsey Dougherty Third Row: Courtney Farrell, Gerard Durkin, David Oakley

In addition, the Budget and Management Department would like to thank all County departments, County leadership, the Board of Supervisors, and county citizens for their assistance during the budget process. TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY2020 BUDGET

(For quick access to specific sections of this document, please use the bookmark tab on the left.) County Administrator’s Transmittal Letter 1 Describes the overall vision of the proposed financial plan. FY2020 Budget in Brief 9 Reader’s Guide and Organizational Structure 25 Budgeting and Financial Policies 31 This section provides an overview of the complete budget process, financial policies, the basis of accounting, structure of County funds, and basis of budgeting. Revenue and Expenditure Summaries 49 This section provides a revenue analysis overview, and multi-year, numerical summaries by major fund and appropriation category as well as breakdowns by personnel, operating, and capital. Revenue Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….... 51 Consolidated Revenue and Expenditure Summaries……………………………………………………………………………. 68 Airport & Fleet Management/Radio Shop…………………………………………………………………………….……………... 72 Comprehensive Services Fund……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74 General Fund Expenditures…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 76 Grants Fund…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 80 Healthcare Fund………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 82 Mental Health Support Services Fund………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 84 Risk Management Fund……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 86 Schools Fund……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 88 Stormwater Utility Fund………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 90 Utilities Fund……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 92 General Fund Balance Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 94 General Government and Schools Five-Year Plan 95 This section provides the layout for the General Government financial plan over the next five years inclusive of revenues, baseline expenditures, and enhancements. Detailed summaries of each Five- Year Plan enhancement are also included and explain the strategic significance of each item. Departmental Summaries 115 This section provides a complete financial summary and brief narrative summary for all County departments. Building Inspection………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 117 Circuit Court Clerk……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 119 Citizen Information and Resources………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 121 Commissioner of the Revenue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 125 Commonwealth’s Attorney…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 127 Communications and Media………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 129 Community Corrections…………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 131 Community Enhancement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 133 Cooperative Extension………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 136 County Administration/Board Office…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 138 County Attorney……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 140 Courts……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 141 Debt Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 144 Economic Development………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 149 FY2020 Budget

Environmental Engineering……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 151 Finance………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 154 Fire and EMS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………….. 157 General Services………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………… 160 Human Resources………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 163 Information Systems Technology……………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 166 Internal Audit…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 168 Juvenile Detention Home…………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………… 170 Library……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 172 Mental Health Support Services………………………………………………………………………………..………………………… 174 Non-departmental………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 178 Parks and Recreation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 181 Planning…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 183 Police…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 185 Registrar…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………… 189 Risk Management………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 191 Sheriff..……..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………. 194 Social Services……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 196 Training/Learning & Performance Center……………………………………………………………………………………………. 198 Transportation………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………. 200 Treasurer……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 202 Utilities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 204 Schools Budget Summary 209 This section provides a summary of the School Boards’ FY2020 approved budget. Capital Improvement Program 215 This section provides an overview of the FY2020-FY2024 Capital Improvements Program. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 215 Reader’s Guide…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 227 Composition of the Capital Improvement Program……………………………………………………………………………………………. 229 Project Narratives General Government General Government Capital Improvement Program Summary…………………………………………………………… 232 Airport Airport Apron and Facility Maintenance………………………………………………………………………………………………. 234 Airport Runway Extension……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 235 Fuel Farm Phase II……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 236 Libraries Clover Hill Library Renovation/Expansion…………………………..……………………………………………………………….. 237 Enon Library Replacement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 238 Ettrick-Matoaca Library Renovation/Expansion…………………..………………………………………………………………. 239 Midlothian Library Replacement……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 240 Major Maintenance Courts’ Audio-Visual Upgrade…………………………………………..………………………………………………………………… 241 Courts’ Major Maintenance………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………… 242 Fire Stations Major Maintenance………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 243 Fleet Facility………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 244 General Major Maintenance ………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 245 Jail Major Maintenance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 247 Juvenile Detention Home Major Maintenance…………………………………………………………………………………….. 248 Park Major Maintenance.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 249 Post-Closure Care………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 250 Public Safety Mobile Computer Replacement……………………………………………………………………………………… 251 Rogers Building Renovation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 252 FY2020 Budget

Stormwater Infrastructure Major Maintenance………………………………………………………………………………….. 253 Technology Infrastructure Major Maintenance…………………………………………………………………………………… 254 Parks and Recreation Conservation Area Access……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 255 Historic Site Matching Funds……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 256 Horner Park…………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 257 Parks Development…………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………. 258 River City Sportsplex……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 259 Public Safety Chester Fire Station Replacement……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 260 Matoaca Fire Station Replacement………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 261 Midlothian Fire Station Replacement…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 262 Midlothian Police Station …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 263 Revitalization Beulah/Parks and Recreation Renovation……………………………………………………………………………………………. 264 Blight Eradication………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 265 Future Facility Land Acquisition………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 266 Referendum Project Enhancements…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 267 Special Area Plans………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 268 Technology Enterprise Business Intelligence………………………….…………….………………………………………………………………… 269 Enterprise Resource Planning Replacement Study…………….………………………………………………………………… 270 GIS Enterprise Capabilities…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 271 Mental Health Electronic Health Record………………………………………………………………………………………………. 272 Technology Improvement Program (TIP)……………………………………………………………………………………………… 273 TMDL Chesapeake Bay TMDL Compliance……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 274 Transportation Community Connectivity – Sidewalks………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 276 General Road Improvements and Smart Scale…………………………………………………………………………………….. 277 Otterdale Road Widening……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 278 Revenue Sharing …………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 279 Schools Schools Capital Improvement Program Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 282 Schools 2013 Referendum Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 283 Referendum School Projects….………………….……………………………………………………………………..………….……… 284 New School Projects……………………………..…………………………………………………….………………………………..…….. 285 Recurring School Projects……………..……..…………………………………………………….………………………………..…….. 287 Utilities Utilities Capital Improvement Program Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 290 Wastewater Lines………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 291 Wastewater Plants………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 292 Wastewater Pump Stations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 293 Addison-Evans Water Treatment Plant………………………………………………………………………………………………… 294 Richmond Capacity – Replacement……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 295 Water Lines…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 296 Water Pump Stations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 297 Water Resource Development…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 298 Water Tanks………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 299 Appendices 301 Appendix A – Authorized Positions………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 301 Appendix B – Capital Outlay………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 307 Appendix C – General Fund Revenue Estimates………………………………………….……………………………………….. 309 Appendix D – General Fund Revenue Projections……………………………………….……………………………………….. 315 FY2020 Budget

Appendix E – Community Contracts………………………………………………………….…………………………………………. 321 Appendix F – Commission on Local Government…………………………………………………………………………………. 323 Appendix G – Summary of Outstanding and Repayment Requirements….…………………………………………… 325 Appendix H – Bond Referendum Information………………………………………………………………………………………. 333 Appendix I – Unfunded Transportation Requests……………………………………….………………………………………… 335 Appendix J – Statistical Section ………………………………………………………………….……………………………………….. 341 Appendix K – Program and Service Inventory………………………………………………..…………………………………….. 351 FY2020 Appropriations Resolution 369 Glossary 377

Chesterfield County, Virginia Dr. Joseph P. Casey, County Administrator 9901 Lori Road – P.O. Box 40 – Chesterfield, VA 23832 Phone: 804-748-1211 – Fax: 804-717-6297 – chesterfield.gov

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LESLIE HALEY Chairman Midlothian District STEPHEN A. ELSWICK Vice Chairman Matoaca District DOROTHY JAECKLE Bermuda District CHRISTOPHER WINSLOW Clover Hill District JAMES M. “JIM” HOLLAND Dale District

Dear Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: As I reflect on the community we serve, I continue to be amazed by its willingness to serve alongside us and to engage in dialogue on how to preserve and enhance the attributes which have become synonymous with Chesterfield over the years. A high quality of life, unparalleled public safety, and unquestionably one of the best public education systems in the Commonwealth are the hallmarks of who we are. Each year as we evaluate resource availability and opportunities to invest in the hundreds of services we provide, those bedrock programs are always at the forefront of the discussion and fiscal year 2020 (FY20) is no different. That said, 76 percent of available resources are dedicated to public safety, education, and infrastructure in this plan.

It is easy to get distracted by passing trends or topics of the day; however, in the FY20 budget Chesterfield remains focused on fundamentals. By keeping core principals at the forefront of investment decisions, this plan makes great strides on the following fronts:

1. K-12 Education – including a 3 percent raise for teachers, staffing resources to accommodate an additional 520 students, the opening of Old Hundred Elementary School, significant movement on the remaining six referendum projects, continued progress in funding major facility maintenance needs, and additional resources for pupil transportation. 2. Safe and Secure Community – enhanced recruitment and retention initiatives, improved staffing levels amongst all public safety agencies, the opening of Magnolia Green Fire Station, new mobile broadband technology for first responders, and higher starting salaries for Sheriff’s deputies. 3. Investing in the Workforce – up to a 3 percent merit for qualifying employees, career development plan implementation for significant portions of the workforce, additional funding for training and tuition reimbursement, and implementation of a five-year computer replacement cycle for all staff. 4. Care and Maintenance of Infrastructure – capital funding for major maintenance that meets the 2.5 percent of replacement value funding target two years ahead of schedule, continued transition of the vehicle registration fee to accommodate transportation projects, additional maintenance workers in Buildings and Grounds and new parks maintenance staff, vehicle and small equipment replacement funding, and a capital projects manager to ensure timely implementation of planned capital projects. 5. Fiscal Stewardship – compliance with all financial policies and ratios, decreased reliance of one-time resources, conservative management of contracted costs and service agreements, five-year planning projections, and ongoing monitoring of key economic indicators.

The County has recently enjoyed what has been one of the nation’s longest economic expansion to date. That economy has allowed incremental reinvestment in core services while dedicating significant resources to emerging topics such as shifting demographics and transportation infrastructure. However, staff remains ever diligent and mindful that what goes up must come down. This budget ensures that the

1 underlying assumptions in this plan are conservative, realistic, and mindful of many topics in recent headlines that suggest the law of gravity will start to play out in the not-too-distant future.

This plan ensures the County is well-positioned to operate existing programs and services, to reinforce a culture of continuous improvement and enhanced efficiency in our workforce, and to ensure the lifecycles of our facilities and equipment are maximized to the extent possible through proper care and maintenance. At its core, the FY20 budget is focused on sustainability over accoutrements and will position us well to quickly pivot with any future economic shifts.

Continued Partnership with Schools The County’s commitment to providing a world class education to our students has remained steadfast as evidenced by the progress made in key areas with the FY20 plan. Dr. Daugherty has quickly established strong working relationships with County staff. And, while much time with him has been spent discussing recent investment the school division, equally as much time has been dedicated to understanding his vision for the school division. Under Dr. Daugherty’s leadership, the school division also remains committed to fundamentals with the bulk of new resources in this budget being directed to facility needs, appropriate staffing levels, and teacher pay.

As a demonstration of the County’s commitment to that vision and to K-12 education, the Board of Supervisors has appropriated an additional $150 million to the school system’s budget since the depth of the recession in FY12 and, of that, at least $70 million has come from local coffers over the same span. On the capital side, the 2013 referendum has been supplemented by nearly $100 million to allow full replacement – rather than renovation – of eight of our older facilities. We continue to work with school division staff to develop a sustainable path for facility maintenance moving forward and that topic will become a focal point of the next referendum.

All the additional funding that has been received by the school division has resulted in a local per student spending amount which is up nearly 25 percent since FY12 compared to general government per capita, that is up around 15 percent over the same period. Stated another way, between FY12 and FY20, the County invested 1.7 times more in education than in all other general government functions on a per person basis. Local Per Student and Per Capita Funding $5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 More specifically for FY20, the additional $9.6 million in recurring local funding being invested in education will allow the school division to accomplish some key initiatives that were part of the division’s five-year plan. Those accomplishments include: a 3 percent salary increase for teachers (one percent more than what was previously envisioned), a ramp up of pay-as-you-go funding for the CIP, baseline debt service increases that accommodate the enhanced referendum package, additional baseline Supplemental Retirement Plan funding, the final phase of a multi-year bus replacement funding plan, a third class at CodeRVA, the opening of Old Hundred Elementary, and staffing needs to accommodate student population growth of 520 students. The recurring transfer to schools in the out-years of the plan

2 increase by an average of 2.7 percent each year, demonstrating the County’s continued commitment to make local funding for education a priority.

Enhanced Focus on Public Safety In a similar vein, collectively public safety agencies are funded 19 percent more on a per capita basis than all other general government departments combined. Much of the available resources for FY20 have been directed to programs that will provide our first responders with some of the best technology available. Implementation of the replacement public safety communication system and computer aided dispatch system are well underway. In FY20, our officers will be equipped with mobile broadband service so that they are able to access critical information and data systems from anywhere, anytime. Additional focus is also being placed on the safety of our public servants by replacing those vehicles which transport our sheriff’s deputies and police officers many miles every day as they serve on a more frequent, regular cycle.

There have only been two fire stations added in the County since 2005 – Courthouse Road and Harrowgate; during the same period the county’s population grew by nearly 60,000 residents. The Magnolia Green Fire Station, slated to open in FY20, will serve one of the fastest growing and most densely populated areas of the County with more than 8,000 parcels zoned residential in its first due response zone. The five-year plan also includes the addition of a ladder company to the Midlothian Fire Station which will allow our first responders to appropriately respond to the new, more dense, vertical construction that is taking place in the village.

I am thrilled to see our focus on the safety and security of our residents paying off as our crime rate dropped by 4.1 percent between 2017 and 2018. We also saw, for the first time in five years, a slowing of growth in opioid overdoses and deaths; a trend we hope to expedite with the recent launch of our regional opioid awareness campaign. Further evidence of the success of our public safety efforts can be seen in the declining trends of our average daily population (ADP) at both the local and Riverside Regional jails. Even with a drop in ADP, we have ensured that our local budget is sufficient to fund per diems should our ADP rise back to longer run averages or if the Riverside Regional Jail budget was built without a use of fund balance to support ongoing operations.

Unfortunately, however, national headlines continue to complicate the recruitment process for our public safety agencies and have forced retention strategies to become a topic of frequent conversation. Locally, our agencies have realigned resources to focus on recruitment, being ever mindful that in Chesterfield we will not lower our standards to fill an open seat. Signing bonuses for police officers who succeed through the hardest part of the training academy, our robust career development plans, a higher starting salary for sheriff’s deputies, and an increased social media presence are beginning to show some returns as new, more frequent academies are slated to begin soon.

More specifically in our Police Department, the FY20 plan puts resources in place to continue to strengthen recruitment efforts as well as to curtail retirements, in the short run, until those new recruitment practices begin to return dividends in the form of additional, new officers. Our first class of Police Service Aides should begin in January 2020 providing the first ever opportunity for a younger group of people to serve our community beginning at age eighteen. Those employees will then be primed with both the knowledge and experience to enter a traditional police academy when they reach the age requirements, if so desired. We also continue to focus on retaining more tenured staff and transitioning the knowledge of our long-term employees as newer staff come on board. This budget implements a police retention plan aimed to financially reward additional years of service so that the most tenured portion of our force will continue to serve the community as we train a new generation of public servants. Moving forward, we turn our attention to ensuring that our public safety teams are poised to react as our population continues to grow and as the needs of those who live here evolve as demonstrated in planned

3 additions to staffing levels of the Police Department, Fire and EMS Department, and the Sheriff’s Office in this five-year plan.

Strengthening Investment in Infrastructure A key accomplishment of this Board has been the renewed emphasis on maintaining our existing assets. The FY2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) maintains a targeted focus on the care and maintenance of our infrastructure and facilities and, thus, the communities that they serve. This CIP reaches our general government major maintenance investment goal of 2.5 percent of facility replacement value in FY2020, two years ahead of the original schedule. Major Maintenance Summary Table FY2014 FY2019 FY2020 General Services $2,105,000 $3,250,000 $6,079,100 Park Improvements 600,000 2,700,000 2,400,000 Courts - 50,000 50,000 Jail - 550,000 950,000 Juvenile Detention Home - 96,600 500,000 Fire Stations 350,000 600,000 650,000 Total $3,055,000 $7,246,600 $10,629,100

In addition, the plan continues to place additional priority on local funding for transportation, making resources available for key road projects that are critical to the county’s future. The continued transition of vehicle registration fee proceeds to the capital plan will create a locally funded road program that crests $17 million in FY2023; and, currently more than $250 million in road projects are being administered locally by County staff. Moreover, our transportation team has initiated studies to determine the demand for transit services along the Jeff Davis corridor and applied for a demonstration grant to test the concept and collect data on ridership over a multi-year period. This five-year plan includes acknowledgement of the need for additional local funding for this topic should the demonstration project prove successful with consistent, strong service utilization.

This CIP remains attentive to the need to renovate or replace many of the older facilities throughout the County. These types of projects will ensure that the ability to provide services throughout the County is more uniform while limiting impacts on the operating budget via minimal additional staffing or operating needs. Most recently this was accomplished with the renovation of the Central Library. Likewise, as established communities in Chesterfield continue to age, we must remain committed to reinvesting in those areas. As we do so, we must also encourage and sometimes incentivize private investment to ensure the continued viability of these neighborhoods and high quality of life for their residents. A great example of our plans in this area include a project to repurpose the former Beulah Elementary School into a community center as well as the home of our parks and recreation team. In addition, this plan begins to put in place dedicated funding for the implementation of projects identified in special area plans, beginning with the Northern Jeff Davis Special Area Plan. As a complement to this focus on revitalization, the County’s CDBG funding for FY20 is being strategically deployed to address housing related issues with special emphasis on the Jeff Davis corridor.

We hope to celebrate several substantial milestones this year for projects funded in prior budgets. Some of those bring various forms of public-private partnerships to best serve the needs of the community. This summer the County will break ground on the Baxter Perkinson Center for the Arts, a facility to be located in the heart of the Chester Village Green that will be managed and operated by the Chesterfield Cultural Arts Foundation. Similarly, a new pet adoption center is currently under design. Staff is actively exploring more innovative ways to operate the facility, including the possibility of bringing in a non-profit operator with the skills and volunteer base to more quickly place animals in loving homes. This plan does not include

4 any funding to address impacts to Henricus Historical Park or the Dutch Gap Conservation Area resulting from Dominion’s coal ash project. However, the County is actively working to craft a MOU with Dominion to ensure adequate protection of, and continued community access to, those treasured assets.

Looking ahead, this plan exhausts the remaining general obligation financing authority granted by the voters in 2013. This prompts the need to consider the timing and scope of a next referendum that, based on planning thus far, would occur no earlier than November of 2020. Staff has evaluated our capacity to handle additional debt in the future; both the general government and school division CIPs are built at a level that is affordable at current revenue levels. Parallel to that effort, staff on both sides of the organization have been working to document and detail a comprehensive listing of future project needs which will be refined over the course of the next year or so into a program that could be placed on a future ballot.

Further evidence of our long-range capital planning efforts can be seen in the recent announcement of plans for a fourth water source in Chesterfield. The FY20 Utilities CIP is positioned to begin a project that will result in a 40 million gallons per day water treatment plant along the tidal Appomattox River. Once completed, the facility will provide reliable and high-quality raw water that will address the county’s water supply needs for an additional 100 years. And, as a testament to the Utilities Department’s strong financial position, this is all being done with just a 1.1 percent rate increase on a typical household’s bi-monthly bill.

Maintaining Equipment and Infrastructure Recognizing that there is considerable interplay between our day-to-day efforts to maintain facilities and those more expensive large-scale projects, the FY20 operating budget has additional resources slated to ensure that smaller maintenance needs are promptly addressed before they turn into large facility needs that necessitate heavy financial investments in the CIP.

On many fronts the County remains diligent to monitor per capita staffing or funding levels, and as we looked forward to FY20 it became clear that more attention needed to be placed on day-to-day, preventative maintenance efforts. The buildings and grounds crew has taken on more than 100,000 square feet of facilities since they last received additional staffing or operating funds. Harnessing the power of the five-year plan, funding for operating supplies and small equipment purchases are phased in over the next few years in addition to one new full-time employee in each of the next four years. These positions will be trade focused, with the addition of an electrician in FY20.

A similar situation exists in the Parks and Recreation Department, where an additional 1,240 acres of park land has been added to the system since the department last added a grounds maintenance position in FY09. In response, the FY20 plan adds two parks maintenance workers annually in FY20-FY22 and one more in FY23. Additional parks vehicle and equipment replacement funding is also programmed into this plan. A final example of these efforts exists in the capital projects management office where staffing levels have historically been adjusted, both upwards and downwards, based on workload. As our investment in major maintenance continues to grow and in preparation for a future referendum, another project manager is being added in FY20 to ensure that resources do not sit idle and that projects are delivered timely. At the core of these efforts, we are endeavoring to ensure that these parts of our organization are adequately resourced to perform the duties expected of them today, before adding the additional demands of tomorrow.

Remaining Customer Focused Everyday excellence has become engrained in the DNA of Chesterfield’s employees. Each month at our Board meeting we celebrate some of those who have gone above and beyond the roles of their job to truly impact the lives of our citizens. With personnel costs representing 63 percent of our total

5 consolidated budget, we must always be mindful of our employees, ensuring that core service areas are staffed to accommodate workload and that they are equipped to do so in the most efficient way possible. Our workforce has embraced do more with less as a mantra, and this plan deploys some strategic initiatives to allow them to continue that culture of innovation.

For many years the county has had career development plans in public safety areas. Those formal development plans encourage job-specific skill enhancement as well as additional education and training that allow employees to be larger contributors to the overall mission. Recognizing the value of a more skilled workforce, that is actively seeking new knowledge to be deployed in their corner of the organization, this plan begins to more broadly deploy career development plans to the overall workforce. And, recognizing a decade of relatively lower merit increases, FY20 marks the first time since 2009 that all qualifying employees may receive up to a 3 percent merit increase.

Local government can sometimes be averse to an increase in number of full-time employees, so it is important to be able to differentiate between providing adequate service based on population growth or other mandates forced upon us and true growth. In the general fund, several positions are being added in FY20 – all to address existing demand for service. More than half of those are dedicated to staffing the new Magnolia Green Fire Station, which as previously stated, will serve a densely populated and growing area of the County. The balance is a mix of positions required to address existing demand for services, like the part-time to full-time conversions at our convenience centers, and positions required to accommodate mandates placed upon us, like the financial reporting analyst being added to alleviate workload required to satisfy GASB requirements. All those things combined still result in just a 1 percent increase in general government staffing levels.

Funding for consulting services are being added in the Planning Department as recognition that it is not always cost effective to provide services in house and that, at times, we must know where special subject matter experts should be brought in to assist on a one-time basis. Most immediately, consulting services might assist with development of the Midlothian Special Area Plan or to comprehensively update the zoning ordinance. The County’s zoning ordinance has not been substantially updated since the early 1990s and does not acknowledge many current design and development practices now utilized by our customers.

Significant strides in improving customer service related to the election process will continue to be made during FY20. Because of the high-turnout November 2018 election, some polling locations experienced longer than normal lines and higher than average wait times. Since then, staff has analyzed all aspects of the process to correct inefficiencies and ensure a consistent voting experience throughout the county, including reasonable wait times. In January 2019, the Board appropriated nearly $800,000 for replacement and additional equipment. Staff estimates that 400-500 more election day poll workers are required to operate optimally, and in FY20 more than $100,000 will be dedicated to election day stipends for poll workers.

Fiscal Stewardship True fiscal stewardship comes in many forms – conservative planning, strong financial policies, recognizing the constraints of a community and knowing how to overlay that against demand for service, and constant evaluation of best practices that may provide cost savings. The fingerprints of each of those methods can be found on the FY20 plan. Since FY15, Chesterfield has been utilizing the five-year plan as a tool for evaluating future needs. As time has progressed the plan has become more thorough and thoughtful as evidenced in a quick comparison of year-to-year changes in the plan. Excluding the additional one percent merit, 81 percent of the FY20 program enhancements were in (or at least acknowledged) in the FY19 five- year plan. Of the remaining items, 9 percent are structural adjustments to address existing pressure on

6 departmental budgets, and just 10 percent of the initiatives are new. While much attention and focus are rightfully placed on the first year of the plan, we also ensure due diligence by properly planning ahead.

Knowing that our community continues to face shifting demographics in the years ahead, this plan allocates an additional $1.3 million to the tax relief for the elderly and disabled program. That increase raises the total amount of tax relief granted to more than $9 million in FY20 – a total projected to surpass $12.5 million by FY24. Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Projections

$12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 FY19 Budget FY20 Budget FY21 Projected FY22 Projected FY23 Projected FY24 Projected

Protecting our citizens from cost increases comes in many other forms as well and will manifest in an overhaul of the current recycling program in the upcoming fiscal year. The county began its recycling program decades ago when private haulers didn’t offer such services. Since that time, the County has been subsidizing the cost of the program by approximately a quarter million dollars per year – a local subsidy that, absent any changes to the program, would grow to more than $800,000 in FY20 due to the rising costs of contractual services. Knowing that the market has changed, and that private options are now widely available, the County is evaluating ways to transition our recycling customers to direct billing options during calendar year 2019. This would ensure that the current program participation fees do not have to be substantially increased and to protect the general tax base from providing additional subsidies for the program.

Two financial policy changes are recommended with adoption of this plan. They include a transitional focus from debt per capita to debt to personal income, which is the measure now used by rating agencies (added as a county policy in 2018). Debt to personal income is a more accurate indication of a community’s ability to service its debt as it accounts for the level of affluence that exists. That said, debt per capita will continue to be tracked as it clearly illustrates to citizens the low debt burden of the county (~$1,400 per capita) compared to the high debt burden of the federal government (~$64,600 per capita). An operating budget policy on the monitoring and elimination of vacant positions will be implemented in FY20. This policy will ensure that if positions are not being utilized that they are eliminated, and not funded, moving forward. This new policy will eliminate significant financial liabilities related to position control.

While economic forecasts for the near-term remain positive, economic headwinds cloud the outlook and some indicators suggest that peak growth may have passed. The housing market enters 2019 with uncertainty due to rising construction costs, low inventory for first-time home buyers, and increasing interest rates impacting borrowing capacity. Likewise, rising rates could also lead to a decline in auto sales that could affect vehicle registrations and personal property tax assessments in the years ahead. For now, the economies of Virginia and metro-Richmond are still performing well. Here in Chesterfield, unemployment is at 2.5 percent, its lowest level since 2007. Reflecting the strength of the local real estate market, 2019 revaluations in the County increased 3.25 percent while commercial revaluations grew 3.65 percent - the highest in over a decade. Current outyear forecasts have assessments projected to grow slower than 2019, but in line with longer-run averages. These trends, and many others, will continue to be monitored very closely and published in our quarterly Key Financial Indicators Report.

7 Final Thoughts We enter FY20 with a renewed sense of purpose and focus with the launch of the updated strategic plan. We will evaluate our successes and challenges through that lens, ensuring that our limited resources – time, talents, and financial – are properly dedicated to the goals of everyday excellence, safe and secure community, robust economy, healthy living and well-being, thriving communities, and learning for a lifetime. A single graphic, representing a tax dollar, below can quickly demonstrate the focused investments in core service areas – and indirectly in each of these goals – in the FY20 budget.

There is so much to be thankful for here in Chesterfield – a supportive and engaged community who has become more active in local government than ever before; a population of employees who have been called to public service, who truly understand why their roles are important and how that translates into direct impact to our citizens; and, a growing base of more than 61,000 high-performing students who are preparing to be the future of this County. As we embark on what is sure to be a challenging, but exciting, year ahead I am grateful for the support of the Board, our counterparts in the school division, our numerous businesses and citizen groups, and all the staff who have committed themselves to ensuring that Chesterfield remains known for excellence in public service – now and as we move ahead.

There are many great quotes that could be a fitting conclusion as I present the FY20 plan, however, there is one with which we have all become familiar over the past year which still seems to encapsulate our greatest strength and possibly our biggest challenge in the days to come. We must remain focused on collaboration and a collective vision that will result in the greatest good for all.

And still I say – go far, go together.

Sincerely,

Dr. Joseph P. Casey, County Administrator

8 FY2020 BUDGET-IN-BRIEF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA

9

FY2020 Budget Revenue and Expenditure Summaries Stormwater Utility Fund FY18-FY20

FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 YoY Actuals Adopted Adopted Change REVENUES Stormwater Utility Fee $4,597,004 $4,500,000 $4,525,000 0.6% State Funding - - 4,000,000 n/a Use of Unrestricted Net Assets1 - 589,000 180,000 -69.4% Project Balances (existing) and/or Transfer from the General Fund 647,129 2,011,000 937,000 -53.4% TOTAL REVENUES $5,244,133 $7,100,000 $9,642,000 35.8% EXPENDITURES CIP - Stormwater $647,129 $7,100,000 $9,642,000 35.8% Addition to Unrestricted Net Assets1 4,597,004 - - 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,244,133 $7,100,000 $9,642,000 35.8%

Notes: 1 Includes Committed, Restricted, or Assigned. 2 Funds appropriated in prior year in the Stormwater Utility Fund.

 The Stormwater Utility Fund is a special revenue fund that was established to operate, maintain, and improve the County’s stormwater management system covering the costs of municipal services directly related to the control and treatment of stormwater. The Utility will be administered and funded separately from revenues in the general fund, ensuring a dedicated revenue source for compliance with the federally mandated Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily load (TMDL) program.  The Stormwater Utility fee is applied to all developed properties in the County. All developed residential parcels are subject to a flat base rate of $25. Condominiums and townhomes will be charged a flat rate of 30% of the base rate ($25) per dwelling unit. Developed nonresidential property will be charged based on the total amount of impervious area on the site. Nonresidential properties that have Best Management Practices (BMPs) or participate in pollution reduction programs will receive a partial credit against the stormwater utility fee.  For additional information regarding the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit and the TMDL, please reference the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Project Plan in the Capital Improvement Program.

90

FY2020 Budget Revenue and Expenditure Summaries Stormwater Utility Fund FY21-FY24

FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUES Stormwater Utility Fee $4,550,000 $4,633,200 $4,600,000 $4,600,000 State Funding - - - - Use of Unrestricted Net Assets1 - - - - Project Balances (existing) and/or Transfer from the General Fund 1,008,000 - - - TOTAL REVENUES $5,558,000 $4,633,200 $4,600,000 $4,600,000 EXPENDITURES CIP - Stormwater $5,558,000 $3,481,200 $2,840,000 $1,600,000 Addition to Unrestricted Net Assets1 - 1,152,000 1,760,000 3,000,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,558,000 $4,633,200 $4,600,000 $4,600,000

Notes: 1 Includes Committed, Restricted, or Assigned. 2 Funds appropriated in prior year in the Stormwater Utility Fund.

91 FY2020 Budget Departmental Summaries Environmental Engineering Environmental Engineering Description The Department of Environmental Engineering is divided into two functional divisions: Development and Watershed Management. The Development division consists of plans review; customer service; and inspections and floodplain management. Watershed Management consists of drainage maintenance operations; water quality; street signing; and BMP maintenance and inspections. This structure’s efficient design allows the Department to implement the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) and the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS-4) permit.

The Development division strives to meet federal and state mandates, as well as County requirements, for administration and inspection of plans of development. In addition, the Development division reviews building permits for erosion and sediment control. In FY2015, the Department assumed additional responsibilities associated with the State mandated VSMP, as regulated by the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). In FY2015, the VSMP program was successfully implemented at the County level.

Activities in Watershed Management include a mix of traditional environmental functions, such as drainage maintenance, BMP maintenance, and street signing, combined with the management of County’s MS-4 permit. The County has been a MS-4 Phase I locality operating under a Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit, and in December 2014, the County’s MS-4 permit was issued by DEQ. The new permit imposes a significant number of new mandates primarily associated with the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). These will have significant operational impacts on the division’s activities as well as the County’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Financial Summary General FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 YoY FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 Fund Actual Adopted Adopted Change Projected Projected Projected Projected Personnel $4,264,003 $4,544,300 $4,830,600 6.3% $4,947,900 $5,071,900 $5,200,500 $5,333,800 Operating 910,298 786,100 860,900 9.5% 860,900 860,900 860,900 860,900 Capital 219,752 48,000 76,000 58.3% 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 Five-year plan - - - n/a - - - - Total $5,394,053 $5,378,400 $5,767,500 7.2% $5,884,800 $6,008,800 $6,137,400 $6,270,700 Revenue $1,384,879 $1,225,000 $1,313,000 7.2% $1,313,000 $1,313,000 $1,313,000 $1,313,000 Net Cost $4,009,174 $4,153,400 $4,454,500 7.2% $4,571,800 $4,695,800 $4,824,400 $4,957,700 FT. Pos. 64 66 67 1 67 67 67 67 Note: One position was created with the adoption of the FY2020 budget.

Department Blueprint: Priorities, Programs, and Performance Priorities • Manage the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) • Implement the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS-4) permit • Maintain the County’s drainage infrastructure • Maintain an active inspection program for private Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Perform plan review and inspection of development projects to regulatory standard

151 FY2020 Budget Departmental Summaries Environmental Engineering

Programs Program Financial Summary FY2019 Adopted FY2020 Adopted FTEs Revenue Expenditures FTEs Revenue Expenditures Administration 8.0 $- $768,600 7.0 $- $724,500 Drainage 17.0 - 1,172,400 16.0 - 1,191,100 BMP Maintenance 11.0 280,300 604,400 13.0 230,300 849,800 Stormwater 5.0 - 543,600 5.0 - 517,900 Street Signs 1.0 18,000 85,700 1.0 18,000 99,400 Inspectors 12.0 382,500 988,500 11.0 470,300 927,700 Engineering Review 8.0 544,200 892,700 10.0 594,400 1,138,800 Water Quality 4.0 - 322,500 4.0 - 318,300

Performance Key Performance Measures FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Percent of total BMP facilities inspected annually 68.8% 68.8% 50.0% Why is this important? BMP inspections are required as a facet of the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. Percent of resolution of investigations into illegal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% discharges to the county storm sewer system Why is this important? This is required to prohibit any individual non-stormwater discharge, a requirement of the county MS4 permit. Percent of County staff trained during the two-year 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% training cycle Why is this important? Training increases awareness and vigilance to result in pollutant reductions, a requirement of the county MS4 permit. Percentage of RPAD confirmations completed within 60 98.6% 98.7% 98.81% days of submittal Why is this important? Locality approval of RPA site specific determinations is required by Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act/County Ordinance. Average number of inspections per month for land 1.7 1.7 1.5 disturbance permitted projects Why is this important? Inspections are conducted as a quality-control activity to ensure builders are adhering to the terms of their Land Disturbance Permit.

FY2020 Budget Highlights and Future Outlook • Environmental Engineering is responsible for compliance with the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit which requires all Best Management Practices (BMP) facilities be inspected and have operational maintenance on an annual basis. • The FY2020 budget includes additional funding of $75,000 to support an existing contract for required stormwater management plan review.

152 FY2020 Budget Departmental Summaries Environmental Engineering

• Additionally, the FY2020 budget includes funding for one full-time Water Quality Compliance Specialist to serve as the Assistant Superintendent for BMP operations. This position will coordinate major maintenance dredging operations and respond to resident related stormwater concerns. Additional funding includes personnel and operating costs, as well as one-time vehicle cost. • As an offset to the increased costs of BMP maintenance, an ordinance change was reviewed by the Planning Commission in April 2017 and approved by the Board of Supervisors in May 2018. This change increased the fee revenue for both residential and commercial development, accordingly the FY2020 adopted budget reflects the revenue increase as shown in the chart above. • Compliance with the County’s MS4 permit also includes provisions for implementation of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL for water pollution reduction. The County continues to remain in compliance with TMDL regulations and during FY2019 applied for a grant with the Stormwater Local Assistance Fund, as administered by the Department of Environmental Quality, to aid in offsetting the costs of approximately $22 million for the five-year CIP (FY2020-24).

153 FY2020 – FY2024 CIP Major Maintenance

Stormwater Infrastructure Major Maintenance Department Total Project Budget Project Location Environmental Engineering Ongoing Various Magisterial District Identified Plan Project Type Countywide Strategic Plan Recurring Project Description: Service Impact: The County owns and maintains several hundred miles of • Infrastructure – Some projects involve stormwater infrastructure. Stormwater infrastructure drainage and infrastructure projects include repair or replacement of failed/degraded improvements. storm sewers, installation of storm sewers or retention basins • Environment – Completion of projects to reduce flooding, repair of BMPs (Best Management improves environmental conditions in Practices), maintenance dredging of BMPs, and other related the County. projects to ensure the integrity of the stormwater infrastructure. A BMP maintenance crew implements these Operating Impacts: repairs. There are no additional impacts to the operating budget anticipated from these projects. FY2020 planned projects include: • Drainage channel improvements Project Milestones: • Maintenance dredging • Stormwater infrastructure maintenance is an ongoing initiative. Strategic Plan Goal: Thriving communities

Financing/Operating Budget Impacts Total Prior Years FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2020-24 Financing Reserve for CIP $- $- $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 Balances/Reserves - 300,000 - - - - 300,000 Total $- $300,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,300,000 Operating Budget Impacts Personnel (incremental) $- $- $- $- $- $- Operating (incremental) ------Debt Service (annual) ------Total Operating Impact $- $- $- $- $- $-

253 FY2020 – FY2024 CIP TMDL

Chesapeake Bay TMDL Compliance Department Total Project Budget Project Location Environmental Engineering Ongoing Various Magisterial District Identified Plan Project Type Countywide Strategic Plan Recurring Project Description: Operating Impacts: The Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) There should be no additional impact to the mandate is a special condition of the County’s Municipal operating budget from these projects. Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4). TMDL requires the County to reduce the discharge of nitrogen, phosphorus, Strategic Plan Goal: and total suspended solids from the County's MS4 system. Thriving communities

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL compliance plan includes further Project Milestones: progress on the Falling Creek Reservoir Restoration project. • FY2015 – The State Department of Design and permitting will complete in FY2019 and the Environmental Quality issued the physical restoration of the reservoir will begin in FY2020. County’s MS4 permit and the first phase of TMDL requirements for water pollution reduction. Service Impact: • FY2018 – The compliance plan • Compliance – Meeting TMDL requirements enables incorporated funding for a stormwater retention of the County’s MS4 permit. data analyst to support the ongoing • Environment – Completion of TMDL projects operations of the stormwater utility. improves environmental conditions both inside and • The TMDL project plan utilized to ensure outside of the County. continued permit compliance is displayed on the following page.

Financing/Operating Budget Impacts Total Prior Years FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2020-24 Financing Reserve for CIP $- $- $71,000 $- $- $- $71,000 State/Federal - 4,000,000 - - - - 4,000,000 Balances/Reserves - 937,000 937,000 - - - 1,874,000 Stormwater Reserve - 180,000 - - - - 180,000 Stormwater Utility - 4,525,000 4,550,000 3,481,200 2,840,000 1,600,000 16,996,200 Total $- $9,642,000 $5,558,000 $3,481,200 $2,840,000 $1,600,000 $23,121,200 Operating Budget Impacts Personnel (incremental) $- $- $- $- $- $- Operating (incremental) ------Debt Service (annual) ------Total Operating Impact $- $- $- $- $- $-

274 FY2020 – FY2024 CIP TMDL

Chesapeake Bay TMDL Project Plan FY2020-FY2024 Total Project Name FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2020-24 Falling Creek Reservoir Restoration $6,042,000 $4,958,000 $- $- $- $11,000,000 County BMP Credit Program 2,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 Swift Creek Watershed Outfall Retrofits 1,500,000 - - - - 1,500,000 Stonehenge Stream Restoration - 250,000 616,600 - - 866,600 Rosemont Stream Restoration 250,000 883,400 - - 1,133,400 Robious Park East & West Stream Restoration - - 1,881,200 - - 1,881,200 Southern Convenience Center BMP Retrofit - - - 1,440,000 - 1,440,000 Matoaca High School BMP Retrofit - - - 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 Falling Creek Stream Restoration - - - - 1,500,000 1,500,000 Administrative Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Total $9,642,000 $5,558,000 $3,481,200 $2,840,000 $1,600,000 $23,121,200

Chesapeake Bay TMDL Project Plan Summary: The Chesapeake Bay TMDL compliance plan includes three projects for FY2020, continuation of the Falling Creek Reservoir Restoration, the BMP Credit Program project, as well as the Swift Creek Watershed Outfall Retrofits project. FY2020 funding for the Falling Creek Reservoir Restoration project will complete design and permitting and the physical restoration of the reservoir will begin in FY2020.

275 FY2020 Budget Appendices Appendix B – Capital Outlay

Department and Item Quantity Replacement New Cost GENERAL FUND Animal Services Truck and SWAB body 1 x 38,900 Total $38,900 Buildings and Grounds Replacement Vehicles 3 x $75,000 Total $75,000 Environmental Engineering Vacuum Truck 1 x 48,000 Total $48,000 Fire and EMS Car 1 x 31,000 Engine 2 x 1,396,600 Ladder Truck 1 x 1,250,000 PT Equipment 2 x 10,500 SUV 2 x 150,000 Truck 2 x 70,000 Truck (F-350) 1 x 34,000 Truck (pickup) 2 x 48,000 Van 3 x 94,000 Total $3,084,100 Parks and Recreation 1-Ton 4WD Dump Truck with snow plow 1 x 50,000 Riding mowers and turf maintenance equipment TBD x 80,000 Total $130,000 Police Detective Vehicles 24 x 480,000 Patrol Vehicles 65 x 1,840,000 Specialty Vehicles 4 x 100,000 Total $2,420,000 Waste and Resource Recovery 40 YD3 Compactor Receiver Box 1 x 7,000 40 YD3 Dumpsters 5 x x 30,000 AC Unit 1 x 5,000 Security Equipment (server/cameras) 1 x 17,500 Used Oil Tanks 4 x x 20,000 Total $79,500 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $5,875,000 OTHER FUNDS Airport Vehicle (SUV) 1 x 26,000 Total $26,000 Fleet AC Machine 1 x 5,500 Air Compressor System 2 x 24,000 Air Conditioning Evacuator 2 x 14,000 Bay Door 2 x 10,000 Calibration Machine 1 x 90,000 Diagnostic Software 4 x 38,600 DPF Cleaning Machine 2 x 13,800

307 FY2020 Budget Appendices

Quantity Replacement New Cost Replacement Lift 2 x 122,000 Scanner 1 x 15,000 Tire Machine 1 x 6,000 Total $338,900 Radio Communications A/C Equipment 2 x 50,000 Service Monitor 1 x 28,000 Total $78,000 Revenue Recovery-Fire and EMS Ambulance 3 x 930,800 EMS Training Simulators 3 x 75,000 Radios for Ambulances 3 x 39,000 Stretchers 3 x 48,000 Total $1,092,800 Utilities 1-Ton Truck 1 x 29,500 20-Ton Trailer 1 x 25,000 A/C Unit 1 x 30,000 Bosker “clamshell” 1 x 75,000 Catwalks for Primary Clarifier #5 1 x 35,000 Construction Truck 1 x 135,000 Core Network Switches 2 x 90,000 Digestor Gas Compressors 4 x 75,000 Equipment Shed 1 x 45,000 Excavator 1 x 160,000 Fire Suppression System 1 x 30,000 Flow Monitoring Meters 5 x 60,000 Flowcam Cyano 1 x 100,000 Fume Hoods 2 x 20,000 Generator/Light Tower 1 x 20,000 Hammerhead Tool 1 x 6,400 Hydraulic Hammer 1 x 12,000 Jet/Vac Truck 1 x 400,000 Large Plant Equipment 1 x 100,000 Pickup Truck 1 x 27,500 Pumps & Drives 1 x 95,000 Primary Vault Sludge Pump 2 x 100,000 Rotating Assembly 1 x 65,000 Sanitary Drain Pumps 1 x 15,000 SCADA System Software Upgrades 6 x 30,000 Storage for Storage Area Network (SAN) 1 x 50,000 Storage Shed 1 x 45,000 Tandem Dump Truck 1 x 130,000 Trailer Mounted Valve 1 x 65,000 Vehicles for Senior Meter Readers 3 x 84,000 Virtualization of Utilities Servers 1 x 40,000 Total $2,194,400 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $3,730,100 TOTAL ALL FUNDS (excluding Schools) $9,605,600

308 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 AppendixB 











 ’’‡†‹š Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 B.1ListofIllicitDischargesandImproperDisposal Reports 











 ’’‡†‹š List of Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Reports MS4 Illicit Discharge/ Has IDID been PC Number Date Site Address Service Identify IDID Source Follow Up Activities Improper Disposal eliminated?** Area* PC2019-01 01/02/2019 14618 Duckridge Ter Yes Illicit Discharge Unknown Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-02 01/04/2019 115 Browns Way Rd No Illicit Discharge Grease Poor Housekeeping Yes Owner Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Cleanup by Responsible Party, PC2019-03 01/08/2019 1624 & 1700 Greenfield Dr Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Education Outreach Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-04 01/11/2019 3201 Tanners Way Yes Improper Disposal Trash Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-05 01/11/2019 9007 Penny Bridge Mews Yes Improper Disposal Cement Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Cleanup by Responsible Party Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-06 01/14/2019 10051 Midlothian Tpk No Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Poor Housekeeping Yes Owner PC2019-07 01/14/2019 613 Research Rd No Illicit Discharge Washwater Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach N/A PC2019-08 01/14/2019 8636 Sunset Knoll Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Education Outreach Yes PC2019-09 01/22/2019 6500 Caymus Way No Improper Disposal Trash Dumping Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Referred to CE N/A Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Issued NOV, Cleanup by PC2019-10 01/25/2019 1238 Woodcroft Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Responsible Party PC2019-11 02/03/2019 3901 Fordham Rd No Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Vehicle Accident Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to VDOT N/A PC2019-12 02/05/2019 2600 Galena Ave No Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Referred to DEQ N/A Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Issued NOV, Cleanup by PC2019-13 02/07/2019 14100 Granite Pointe Ct Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Responsible Party PC2019-14 02/07/2019 6800 Lucy Corr Blvd Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Unknown Visual Assessment, Referred to Utilities Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-15 02/11/2019 14103 Pensive Pl Yes Improper Disposal Branches Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-16 02/15/2019 1900 W Hundred Rd No Improper Disposal Grease/Washwater Dumping Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by Contractor N/A PC2019-17 02/18/2019 7803 Winding Ash Pl Yes Illicit Discharge Paint Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Cleanup by Contractor Yes Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Referred to VDH, Repairs by PC2019-18 02/21/2019 14350 Ranger Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Failing Septic System Yes Property Owner Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, PC2019-19 02/21/2019 9500 Newbys Bridge Rd No Illicit Discharge Fuel Unknown Yes Referred to VDOT, Cleanup by Contractor PC2019-20 02/23/2019 3225 Sailview Dr Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Sanitary Sewer Overflow Visual Assessment Yes PC2019-21 02/25/2019 309 Dunlin Ct No Illicit Discharge Sewage Sanitary Sewer Overflow Visual Assessment, Referred to Utilities N/A PC2019-22 02/25/2019 5228 Castlewood Rd No Improper Disposal Leaves Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach N/A PC2019-23 02/27/2019 9301 Lost Forest Dr No Illicit Discharge Washwater Straight Pipe Discharge Visual Assessment, Referred to VDH, Referred to DEQ N/A PC2019-24 02/28/2019 Hull Street WB @ Southshore Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Diesel Fuel Vehicle Accident Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by Contractor Yes PC2019-25 03/01/2019 14746 Village Square Pl Yes Illicit Discharge Fuel Unknown Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ Yes PC2019-26 03/04/2019 21502 Pickett Ave Yes Illicit Discharge Washwater Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Referred for VPDES Permit Coverage Yes PC2019-27 03/07/2019 9725 Kerwin Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Sanitary Sewer Overflow Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ Yes PC2019-28 03/08/2019 101 Courthouse Rd No Illicit Discharge Sewage Straight Pipe Discharge Visual Assessment, Referred to VDOT, Referred to DEQ N/A PC2019-29 03/11/2019 5200 & 5403 Rock Harbour Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach N/A PC2019-30 03/18/2019 15700 Westchester Main St No Improper Disposal Grease Unknown Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ N/A PC2019-31 03/20/2019 11125 Midlothian Tpk Yes Illicit Discharge Washwater Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Issued NON, Education Outreach Yes *MS4 service area determined based on a desktop assessment of the most recent MS4 service area layers in GIS. Service area may change based on continuing efforts to update the MS4 service area. **N/A indicates that either the IDID was unsubstantiated or was referred to another agency for enforcement and follow-up.

Page 1 of 4 List of Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Reports MS4 Illicit Discharge/ Has IDID been PC Number Date Site Address Service Identify IDID Source Follow Up Activities Improper Disposal eliminated?** Area* PC2019-32 03/25/2019 6701 Lake Harbour Dr Yes Illicit Discharge Grease Grease Trap Overflow Visual Assessment, Issued NON (2), Cleanup by Responsible Party Yes PC2019-33 03/26/2019 6641 Lake Harbour Dr Yes Illicit Discharge Washwater Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Education Outreach Yes PC2019-34 03/27/2019 12001 Southshore Pointe Dr No Illicit Discharge Diesel Fuel Punctured Saddle Tank Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by Contractor Yes PC2019-35 03/27/2019 1701 Touchstone Rd No Illicit Discharge Sewage Equipment Failure Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by Property Owner N/A Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-36 03/28/2019 2219 Water Horse Ct Yes Improper Disposal Branches Dumping Yes Owner Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Issued NOV, Cleanup by PC2019-37 03/28/2019 3913 Pretty Ln Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes County Forces PC2019-38 03/29/2019 11605 Hillside Dr Yes Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Leaking Vehicle Visual Assessment, Cleanup by Contractor Yes PC2019-39 04/04/2019 4412 W Hundred Rd No Illicit Discharge Grease/Sewage Poor Housekeeping Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ N/A Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-40 04/08/2019 11420 Rochelle Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Owner Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-41 04/10/2019 3601 Ellerton Dr Yes Improper Disposal Trash Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-42 04/10/2019 5802 Castlewood Rd No Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Referred to DEQ Yes PC2019-43 04/10/2019 7106 Full Rack Dr No Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment N/A Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-44 04/17/2019 11918 Riverpark Way Yes Improper Disposal Branches Dumping Yes Owner Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, PC2019-45 04/22/2019 16820 Sandy Ford Rd No Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Vehicle Accident Yes Cleanup by Responsible Party Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Issued NOV (2), Cleanup PC2019-46 04/24/2019 642 Coralberry Dr Yes Improper Disposal Branches Dumping Yes by Property Owner Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-47 04/26/2019 6631 Manuel St Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-49 05/02/2019 14405 Michaels Ridge Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Referred to VDOT N/A Visual Assessment, Cleanup by Contractor, Referred to VDOT, PC2019-50 05/02/2019 Willis Rd WB @ I-95 No Illicit Discharge Hydraulic Fluid Equipment Failure Yes Referred to DEQ PC2019-51 05/05/2019 12001 Southshore Pointe Dr No Illicit Discharge Fuel Vehicle Accident Visual Assessment, Cleanup by Contractor Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by County PC2019-52 05/08/2019 9513 Cascade Creek Ln Yes Improper Disposal Mud/Leaves Dumping Yes Forces PC2019-53 05/13/2019 2133 Williamstowne Rd No Illicit Discharge Heating Oil Leaking Tank Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by Contractor N/A Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Issued NOV, Cleanup by PC2019-54 05/14/2019 100 Heppel Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Property Owner PC2019-55 05/14/2019 7224 Cherry Hill Park Ave No Illicit Discharge Sewage Overflowing Manhole Visual Assessment, Response by Utilities, Referred to DEQ N/A Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-56 05/16/2019 10712 Bethany Ridge Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves/Branches Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-57 05/17/2019 10917 Olympic Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes PC2019-58 05/22/2019 6500 Jefferson Davis Hwy No Improper Disposal Trash Poor Housekeeping Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes PC2019-59 05/23/2019 7106 Midlothian Tpk No Illicit Discharge Washwater Failure to CCD Education Outreach N/A PC2019-60 05/29/2019 1324 Braisden Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Herbicide Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment N/A PC2019-62 06/05/2019 4201 Meadowdale Blvd No Illicit Discharge Washwater Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes PC2019-63 06/05/2019 7400 Whitepine Rd No Illicit Discharge Diesel Fuel Leaking Saddle Tank Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by Contractor N/A *MS4 service area determined based on a desktop assessment of the most recent MS4 service area layers in GIS. Service area may change based on continuing efforts to update the MS4 service area. **N/A indicates that either the IDID was unsubstantiated or was referred to another agency for enforcement and follow-up.

Page 2 of 4 List of Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Reports MS4 Illicit Discharge/ Has IDID been PC Number Date Site Address Service Identify IDID Source Follow Up Activities Improper Disposal eliminated?** Area* Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-64 06/10/2019 3900 Grizzard Dr Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-65 06/14/2019 2925 Bayfront Way Yes Illicit Discharge Washwater Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-66 06/19/2019 12406 Bay Knolls Trl Yes Improper Disposal Branches Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-67 06/20/2019 6001 Iron Bridge Rd No Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Equipment Failure Visual Assessment, Cleanup by Property Owner Yes PC2019-68 06/21/2019 Old Bermuda Hundred Rd @ RamblewoNo Illicit Discharge Pool Shock Chemical Vehicle Accident Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Referred to VDOT N/A PC2019-70 07/11/2019 3736 Medora Pl Yes Improper Disposal Trash Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach N/A PC2019-71 07/19/2019 4950 Jefferson Davis Hwy No Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Unknown Visual Assessment, Response by Utilities, Referred to DEQ N/A PC2019-72 07/22/2019 5937 Hopkins Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Overflowing Manhole Visual Assessment, Response by Utilities Yes Visual Assessment, Issued NON, Education Outreach, Cleanup by PC2019-73 07/25/2019 9807 Brenspark Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Failure to CCD Yes Responsible Party PC2019-74 07/26/2019 15527 Fox Gate Ct Yes Illicit Discharge Hydraulic Fluid Equipment Failure Visual Assessment, Cleanup by Responsible Party Yes PC2019-75 07/29/2019 6042 Walking Path Ln Yes Illicit Discharge Mulch Dye Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment N/A PC2019-76 08/01/2019 14200 Key Deer Dr Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Clogged Lateral Visual Assessment, Referred to Utilities Yes PC2019-77 08/06/2019 14706 Waters Shore Dr Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Overflowing Manhole Visual Assessment, Response by Utilities Yes PC2019-78 08/06/2019 9738 Snowhill Rd No Illicit Discharge Sewage Overflowing Manhole Visual Assessment, Referred to Utilities Yes PC2019-79 08/22/2019 4300 W Hundred Rd No Improper Disposal Washwater Dumping Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Responsible PC2019-80 08/26/2019 1401 Darrell Dr Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Party PC2019-81 08/26/2019 7519 Jefferson Davis Hwy No Improper Disposal Automotive Fluids Dumping Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ N/A PC2019-82 08/27/2019 4724 Hopkins Rd Yes Improper Disposal Floor Stripper/Wax Dumping Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Cleanup by Responsible Party Yes PC2019-84 09/01/2019 901 Walmart Way No Illicit Discharge Fuel Vehicle Fire Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ N/A PC2019-85 09/03/2019 10724 Jefferson Davis Hwy No Illicit Discharge Sludge Unknown Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by Contractor Yes PC2019-86 09/04/2019 9000 Elementary Way Lp Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Overflowing Tank Visual Assessment Yes Visual Assessment, Referred to Inspections, Cleanup by PC2019-87 09/09/2019 8443 Timberstone Dr No Illicit Discharge Hydraulic Fluid Equipment Failure N/A Responsible Party PC2019-88 09/09/2019 8511 Royal Birkdale Dr Yes Illicit Discharge Grass Clippings Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Cleanup by Responsible Party Yes

PC2019-89 09/10/2019 9848 Lori Rd No Illicit Discharge Sediment Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Referred to Inspections Yes PC2019-91 09/25/2019 9410 Tuxford Rd No Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Vehicle Fire Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Referred to VDOT N/A PC2019-92 10/01/2019 901 Grove Rd No Illicit Discharge Diesel Fuel Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Cleanup by Responsible Party Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Responsible PC2019-93 10/02/2019 14407 Glenmorgan Dr Yes Improper Disposal Trash Dumping Yes Party Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Issued NOV, Cleanup by PC2019-94 10/02/2019 Harrowgate Place Subdivision Yes Improper Disposal Leaves/Branches Dumping Yes Responsible Parties PC2019-95 10/03/2019 1331 Queens Pl No Improper Disposal Sewage Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Response by CE, Referred to Police N/A Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Education Outreach, PC2019-96 10/08/2019 5802 Castlewood Rd No Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Cleanup by Responsible Party PC2019-97 10/15/2019 4724 Hopkins Rd Yes Improper Disposal Cement Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Responsible PC2019-98 10/16/2019 13624, 13630, and 13700 Cannonade L Yes Improper Disposal Leaves/Branches Dumping Yes Parties PC2019-99 10/17/2019 13607 Hickory Glen Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Oil Leaking Vehicle Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Referred to VDOT N/A *MS4 service area determined based on a desktop assessment of the most recent MS4 service area layers in GIS. Service area may change based on continuing efforts to update the MS4 service area. **N/A indicates that either the IDID was unsubstantiated or was referred to another agency for enforcement and follow-up.

Page 3 of 4 List of Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Reports MS4 Illicit Discharge/ Has IDID been PC Number Date Site Address Service Identify IDID Source Follow Up Activities Improper Disposal eliminated?** Area* PC2019-100 10/20/2019 1401 Darrell Dr Yes Improper Disposal Limbs Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach N/A Visual Assessment, Referred to Parks & Rec, Cleanup by County PC2019-101 10/24/2019 13101 S Chester Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Sediment Erosion Yes Forces, Repair by Contractor PC2019-102 10/24/2019 Swiftrun Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Automotive Fluids Failure to CCD Visual Assessment No PC2019-103 10/28/2019 11100 Hull Street Rd Yes Illicit Discharge Washwater Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Issued NOV, Cleanup by Contractor Yes PC2019-104 10/28/2019 9901 Hull Street Rd No Illicit Discharge Washwater Failure to CCD Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Responsible PC2019-105 11/06/2019 1531 Laurel Top Dr Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Party Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Responsible PC2019-106 11/07/2019 9609 Farr Ln Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Party Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-107 11/18/2019 14202 Flagstone Ct Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-108 11/19/2019 12700 Jefferson Davis Hwy No Improper Disposal Grease Dumping Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by Contractor N/A PC2019-109 11/21/2019 501 Southlake Blvd Yes Illicit Discharge Sewage Lift Station Failure Visual Assessment, Repairs by Contractor Yes PC2019-110 11/21/2019 7900 Valencia Dr Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by Property PC2019-111 11/26/2019 1919 Creek Bottom Way Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Owner PC2019-112 12/03/2019 14300 Fox Club Pkwy Yes Illicit Discharge Glycol Leaking HVAC Equipment Visual Assessment, Response by Risk Management No PC2019-113 12/12/2019 14405 Michaels Ridge Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Visual Assessment, Issued NOV (2), Cleanup by Responsible Party Yes PC2019-114 12/12/2019 8731 and 8813 Firethorne Ln Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Visual Assessment, Education Outreach Yes Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Cleanup by County PC2019-115 12/17/2019 6900 Mimms Dr Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Yes Forces PC2019-116 12/19/2019 14101 Southshore Rd Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Dumping Visual Assessment, Education Outreach, Referred to VDOT N/A PC2019-117 12/20/2019 7419 Orchardhill Dr Yes Illicit Discharge Paint Thinner Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Education Outreach N/A PC2019-118 12/31/2019 Greenfield Subdivision/Woodmont Yes Improper Disposal Leaves Unsubstantiated Visual Assessment, Referred to Outreach Coordinator N/A *MS4 service area determined based on a desktop assessment of the most recent MS4 service area layers in GIS. Service area may change based on continuing efforts to update the MS4 service area. **N/A indicates that either the IDID was unsubstantiated or was referred to another agency for enforcement and follow-up.

Page 4 of 4 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 B.2SpillResponses 



















 ’’‡†‹š Spill Responses Date Site Address Source of Spill Follow Up Activities 01/10/2019 Hickory Rd & Church Rd Ruptured Hydraulic Line Response by Fire & EMS, Cleanup by Responsible Party Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to VDOT, Referred to 02/03/2019 3901 Fordham Rd Vehicle Accident DEQ, Cleanup by Contractor 02/18/2019 7803 Winding Ash Pl Spilled Paint Visual Assessment, Response by Police, Issued NOV, Cleanup by Contractor Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by 02/20/2019 9500 Newbys Bridge Rd Unknown Contractor Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by 02/28/2019 Hull Street & Southshore Dr Vehicle Accident Contractor 03/01/2019 6511 Woodlake Village Pkwy Fuel Leak Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ 03/21/2019 17400 Beach Rd Vehicle Accident Response by Fire & EMS Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by 03/27/2019 12001 Southshore Pointe Rd Damaged Fuel Tank Contractor 05/02/2019 2300 Willis Rd Ruptured Hydraulic Line Visual Assessment, Referred to DEQ, Referred to VDOT, Cleanup by Contractor 05/05/2019 12001 Southshore Pointe Rd Damaged Fuel Pump Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS,, Cleanup by Contractor Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by 05/13/2019 2133 Williamstowne Rd Leaking Fuel Tank Contractor Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, Cleanup by 06/05/2019 7400 Whitepine Rd Leaking Fuel Tank Contractor Old Bermuda Hundred Rd & Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, Referred to 06/21/2019 Vehicle Accident Ramblewood Rd VDOT, Cleanup by Responsible Party

06/27/2019 2237 Brookwood Rd Leaking Fuel Tank Response by Fire & EMS, Cleanup by Contractor

07/15/2019 4540 Centralia Rd Vehicle Accident Response by Fire & EMS

09/01/2019 901 Walmart Wy Vehicle Fire Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS

09/06/2019 2126 Ruffin Mill Rd Leaking Fuel Tank Response by Fire & EMS, Cleanup by Contractor

Visual Assessment, Response by Fire & EMS, Referred to DEQ, Referred to 09/25/2019 9410 Tuxford Rd Vehicle Fire VDOT, Cleanup by Responsible Party

12/12/2019 Hull Street & Turner Rd Leaking Fuel Tank Response by Fire & EMS, Cleanup by Contractor

Page 1 of 1 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 B.3ImperviousPerviousandTotalAcresServedbythe MS4andTreatedbyStormwaterControls 











 ’’‡†‹š List of Total, Impervious and Pervious acres served by the MS4 Service Area and Storwmater Controls MS4 Service Area MS4 Service Area MS4 Service Area BMP Treatment Total BMP Treatment BMP Treatment Basin/ Watershed Level Total (acres) Impervious (acres) Pervious (acres) (acres) Impervious (acres) Pervious (acres) Chesapeake Segment James River 44842.19 7833.66 37008.53 6892.72 1769.40 5164.94 VAHUC6 JA23 ------JA28 8.55 4.69 3.86 - - - JA34 ------JA35 264.09 26.68 237.41 - - - JA36 140.95 11.32 129.63 - - - JA39 528.32 35.65 492.67 - - - JA40 1205.35 144.21 1061.14 58.44 20.17 35.42 JA41 5396.85 1022.47 4374.38 1678.83 383.97 1311.17 JA42 5399.68 841.98 4557.70 1774.54 414.94 1360.80 JA43 1577.88 124.93 1452.96 0.10 0.08 0.02 JA44 2374.49 289.38 2085.11 189.28 53.81 135.47 JA45 3290.91 495.64 2795.28 524.75 127.14 401.61 JL01 - - - - - JL02 13265.28 2852.11 10413.17 1632.12 461.89 1193.51 JL03 6164.67 1073.31 5091.36 471.71 153.11 318.60 JL06 770.67 92.50 678.16 205.68 49.49 156.18 JL07 ------JM83 1596.37 281.27 1315.10 187.33 63.47 123.86 JM85 841.42 128.99 712.43 160.75 35.09 125.66 JM86 2016.71 408.54 1608.17 9.19 6.25 2.64

Page 1 of 1 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 B.4PublicEducation/ParticipationOutreach 











 ’’‡†‹š Public Education/Participation Outreach Attendance/ Activity Approximate Reach Part I.B.2.j)1)(a) Storm Drain Marking 33 Targeted Mailing 510 EE Staff Presentations 29 Newspaper Articles 24,937 Door Hanger Distribution 177 Emails to Residents 250 Part I.B.2.j)1)(b) Stream and River Cleanups 843 Education Programs for Schools/Students 461 Public Events/Fairs/Other Volunteer Projects 1,082 Citizen Water Quality Monitoring 46 Part I.B.2.j)1)(c) Website Traffic 477 Part I.B.2.j)1)(d) Website Traffic* 63,082* Part I.B.2.j)1)(e) James River Pet Waste Coalition Social Media 2,226 Pet Waste Station Usage at County Parks 23,227 Website Traffic* 63,082* Part I.B.2.j)1)(f) Community Enhancement Staff Presentations/Events 3,613 Anti-Litter Program Cleanup Volunteers 530 Part I.B.2.j)1)(g) Car Wash Kit Demonstration/Charity Car Washes 85 Car Wash Newspaper Advertisements 209,681 Educational Flyer Distribution 25 Part I.B.2.j)1)(h) Extension Grass Roots Program 189 Extension Landscape for Life Program 61 Master Gardener Training 25 Fertilizer Management Video on Social Media 599 Part I.B.2.j)1)(i) Rain Barrel Workshops 85 Virginia Conservation Assistance Program Projects 8 Part I.B.2.j)1)(j) Targeted Mailing 41 *In PY5, outreach numbers for these services are based on webiste traffic due to staff changes in WARR.

Page 1 of 1 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 B.5TrainingEvents 









 ’’‡†‹š Training Events Training Class Date Attendance Part I.B.2.k)1), 2), 3) & 7) Stormwater Training Module - Building & Grounds 1/8/2019 52 Stormwater Training Module - Parks & Recreation 1/17/2019 2 Stormwater Training Module - Parks & Recreation 2/8/2019 19 Stormwater Training Module - Parks & Recreation 2/28/2019 2 Stormwater Training Module - Community Enhancement - Code Enforcement 3/12/2019 10 Stormwater Training Module - Parks & Recreation 5/1/2019 1 Stormwater Training Module - Parks & Recreation 5/8/2019 1 Stormwater Training Module - Parks & Recreation 6/20/2019 2 Stormwater Training Module - SCHOOLS Online 6/26/2019-12/30/2019 6,595 Stormwater Training Module - Utilities 9/17/2019 17 Stormwater Training Module - Utilities 9/17/2019 13 Stormwater Training Module - Parks & Recreation 9/26/2019 1 Stormwater Training Module - Utilities 9/26/2019 21 Stormwater Training Module - Utilities 9/30/2019 6 Stormwater Training Module - Utilities 10/2/2019 52 Stormwater Training Module - Utilities 10/16/2019 11 Stormwater Training Module - Utilities 10/16/2019 30 Stormwater Training Module - Various Departments Online 1/1/2019-12/31/2019 14 Part I.B.2.k)4) Landscape Supply Recertification Training - Parks 2/20/2019 30 Part I.B.2.k)5) & 6) Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association Meeting 1/8/2019 2 Monthly Inspectors' Meeting 1/15/2019 13 CE: Inspecting Non-Standard Practices - DEQ 1/31/2019 1 CE: Basic Plan Reading Skills - DEQ 2/12/2019 4 Monthly Inspectors' Meeting 2/19/2019 12 Program Administrator for ESC - DEQ 2/20/2019 1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Refresher - DEQ 2/28/2019 1 Dry Swale for VSMP Inspectors 2/28/2019 1 CE: Inspecting Non-Standard Practices 2/21/2019 2 Stormwater BMP - Grass Channel - DEQ 2/28/2019 1 Stormwater BMP - Permeable Pavement - DEQ 3/1/2019 1 Stormwater BMP - Rooftop Disconnection - DEQ 3/1/2019 1 Stormwater BMP - Constructed Wetlands - DEQ 3/1/2019 1 Stormwater BMP - Constructed Wetlands - DEQ 3/4/2019 1 Stormwater BMP - Bioretention - DEQ 3/4/2019 1 Stormwater BMP - Wet Ponds - DEQ 3/4/2019 1 Stormwater BMP - Sheet Flow to Filter Strip or Conserved Open Space - DEQ 3/5/2019 1 Stormwater BMP - Extended Detention (ED) Pond - DEQ 3/5/2019 1 CE: Soil Amendments for Inspectors - DEQ 3/5/2019 1 VEGIS Demonstration 3/5/2019 1 Virginia Lakes and Watersheds Annual Conference 3/4/2019-3/5/2019 3 Monthly Inspectors' Meeting 3/12/2019 11 CE: Inspecting Non-Standard Practices - DEQ 3/13/2019 2 New Tools for Comprehensive EC and Revegetation Specifications 3/14/2019 1 Economic Ecology: Maximizing Economic & Environmental Returns through 3/28/2019 1 CE: Applied Soil Concepts for ESC and SWM Professionals - DEQ 4/5/2019 21 Plants for Bioretention 4/8/2019 1 Monthly Inspectors' Meeting 4/9/2019 12 CE: Applied Soil Concepts for ESC and SWM Professionals - DEQ 4/15/2019 21 CE: Construction General Permit - DEQ 4/29/2019 3 Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association Meeting 5/9/2019 2 Stormwater Plan Review 5/9/2019 1 Monthly Inspectors' Meeting 5/14/2019 13 CE: Where the Water Goes - DEQ 5/15/2019 2 CE: Inspecting Non-Standard Practices - DEQ 5/16/2019 1

Page 1 of 2 Training Events Training Class Date Attendance Part I.B.2.k)5) & 6) Continued Dig Once: Integrating Green Infrastructure into Capital Improvement Planning 5/22/2019 1 Culvert Hydraulic Analysis and Design Program (HY-8) 5/22/2019 1 Monthly Inspectors' Meeting 6/11/2019 11 Land Development Design Initiative 7/12/2019 1 Asphalt Pavement In-place Recycling Techniques 7/18/2019 1 Stormwater Solutions Seminar ACF Environmental 8/26/2019 9 Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association Meeting 9/19/2019 1 Earthwork Series: Fill Placement 9/24/2019 1 Air Quality Planning: SIP Development Process 9/24/2019 1 Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association Meeting 10/8/2019 2 Bioretention EcoTalk - Luckstone Corp. 11/13/2019 3 Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association Meeting 12/5/2019 1 Concepts in Underground Stormwater Management Lane Enterprises 12/12/2019 4 Resilience Strategies from Concept to Construction - Arcadis 12/13/2019 1 Letter of Map Change Conference - FEMA 12/18/2019 2 Part I.B.2.k)8) Introduction to Hazardous Materials - Fire & EMS 1/2/2019 1 Introduction to Hazardous Materials Fire & EMS 1/6/2019 1 Hazardous Materials Awareness - Fire & EMS 2/7/2019 1 Introduction to Hazardous Materials - Fire & EMS 2/11/2019 1 Hazardous Materials Awareness - Police 4/3/2019 18 Introduction to Hazardous Materials - Fire & EMS 5/20/2019 1 Hazardous Materials Awareness and Operations - Fire & EMS 5/21/2019 18 Introduction to Hazardous Materials - Fire & EMS 6/12/2019 1 Introduction to Hazardous Materials - Fire & EMS 6/19/2019 1 Hazardous Materials Awareness - Fire & EMS 7/23/2019 1 Hazardous Materials Awareness - Police 8/14/2019 8

Page 2 of 2 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 B.6DryWeatherScreeningInspections,Results,and FollowǦupActivities 











 ’’‡†‹š Dry Weather Screening Inspections, Results, and Follow‐Up Activities Outfall ID Date Location Follow Up OTLT-004287 2/6/2019 10410 CHRISTINA ROAD Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2019-1102) OTLT-004320 2/6/2019 11800 CHRISTINA WAY OTLT-004321 2/6/2019 10320 CHRISTINA ROAD OTLT-004391 2/6/2019 10210 EDGECLIFF LANE OTLT-011947 2/6/2019 11833 CLEARWOOD COURT OTLT-017251 3/7/2019 16518 BINLEY ROAD OTLT-017253 3/7/2019 16531 BINLEY ROAD OTLT-017549 3/7/2019 16425 BINLEY ROAD OTLT-011414 3/25/2019 14105 BRIDGETOWN CT OTLT-016820 3/25/2019 2000 DRUMONE CT OTLT-016822 3/25/2019 1700 BRIGHTWALTON CT OTLT-017242 3/25/2019 16513 MASSEY HOPE ST OTLT-017245 3/25/2019 WEBSTER CRES LN OTLT-017246 3/25/2019 16512 LAMBOURNE ROAD OTLT-006820 4/9/2019 1301 W HUNDRED RD OTLT-000034 4/18/2019 1901 LIMBECK LANE OTLT-000027 4/18/2019 16001 DRUMONE ROAD OTLT-016809 4/18/2019 2201 FAWLEY CT Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2019-1614) OTLT-000052 5/22/2019 14349 CHARTER LANDING CR Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2019-1858) OTLT-000870 5/22/2019 12701 SOUTHWICK PL OTLT-010149 5/22/2019 14737 CHARTERS BLUFF TRL Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2019-1857) OTLT-010211 5/22/2019 1223 OLD BURY ROAD Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2019-1859) OTLT-015044 5/22/2019 12703 SOUTHWICK PL OTLT-000865 5/23/2019 12810 OLDBURY CT OTLT-014112 5/23/2019 12601 STAFFORDSHIRE ST OTLT-015046 5/23/2019 1123 LETCHWORTH LN OTLT-006441 5/30/2019 6830 LUCY CORR BLVD OTLT-006442 5/30/2019 6830 LUCY CORR BLVD OTLT-006446 5/30/2019 6830 LUCY CORR BLVD Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2019-1864) OTLT-006448 5/30/2019 6830 LUCY CORR BLVD Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2019-1863) OTLT-006467 5/30/2019 6830 LUCY CORR BLVD OTLT-006509 5/30/2019 6830 LUCY CORR BLVD OTLT-006435 6/17/2019 6801 LUCY CORR BLV OTLT-006436 6/17/2019 6801 LUCY CORR BLVD OTLT-006437 6/17/2019 6801 LUCY CORR BLVD OTLT-007108 6/17/2019 9722 LORI LN OTLT-011844 6/17/2019 9722 LORI LN OTLT-013745 6/17/2019 9722 LORI LN OTLT-016773 6/17/2019 9710 KRAUSE RD Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2020-64) OTLT-016897 6/17/2019 6801 LUCY CORR BL OTLT-017856 6/17/2019 9200 PUBLIC WORKS RD OTLT-017877 6/17/2019 PKWY OTLT-017878 6/17/2019 PKWY OTLT-017879 6/17/2019 9501 LUCY CORR CR OTLT-017880 6/17/2019 9501 LUCY CORR CR OTLT-017881 6/17/2019 9501 LUCY CORR CR OTLT-017882 6/17/2019 9501 LUCY CORR BLVD OTLT-002332 6/24/2019 5900 WATCH HARBOUR RD OTLT-002334 6/24/2019 13806 WATCH HARBOUR CT OTLT-002383 6/24/2019 13704 HARBOURWOOD RD OTLT-017149 6/24/2019 4001 CAMBRIA COVE CT OTLT-003143 6/26/2019 16400 BENMORE RD OTLT-003144 6/26/2019 4601 BENMORE CT OTLT-003158 6/26/2019 4411 TWEEDSMUIR CT OTLT-003159 6/26/2019 4421 TWEEDSMUIR PL OTLT-003160 6/26/2019 4001 TWEEDSMUIR RD

Page 1 of 2 Dry Weather Screening Inspections, Results, and Follow‐Up Activities Outfall ID Date Location Follow Up OTLT-008723 6/26/2019 16232 HOBBLEBUSH CIR OTLT-008908 6/26/2019 4221 HOBBLEBUSH TER OTLT-008909 6/26/2019 4240 HUNTERS RIDGE DR OTLT-011553 6/26/2019 4415 TWEEDSMUIR TER OTLT-012823 6/26/2019 4513 TWEEDSMUIR TURN OTLT-002722 7/3/2019 5500 FOX MARSH PL OTLT-002724 7/3/2019 5508 FOX MARSH CT OTLT-002727 7/3/2019 5508 FOX MARSH CT OTLT-002729 7/3/2019 15943 FOX MARSH DR OTLT-002788 7/3/2019 5401 TRAIL RIDE CT OTLT-003617 7/16/2019 4302 N HERITAGE WOODS RD OTLT-003658 7/16/2019 4411 OLD FOX TRL OTLT-003659 7/16/2019 4461 OLD FOX TRL OTLT-009358 7/16/2019 14204 HUNTGATE WOODS ROAD OTLT-009364 7/16/2019 2806 COVE RIDGE ROAD OTLT-009373 7/16/2019 14308 LONG GATE ROAD OTLT-001999 7/17/2019 16213 HEARTQUAKE TRCE Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2020-241) OTLT-002228 7/17/2019 16325 RAVENCHASE WAY OTLT-009584 7/17/2019 14107 SPREADING OAK CT OTLT-008983 7/26/2019 14400 FOUNTAIN VIEW DR OTLT-008987 7/26/2019 2801 COVE VIEW LN OTLT-000779 7/29/2019 2773 MILL FLUME DR OTLT-008981 7/29/2019 14412 SAVAGE VIEW PLACE OTLT-009062 7/29/2019 2701 MILL FUME DR OTLT-009067 7/29/2019 15212 TOMAHAWK MEADOWS LN OTLT-009068 7/29/2019 15012 CASCADE RIDGE LN Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2020-243) OTLT-009070 7/29/2019 2524CASCADE MEADOWS DR OTLT-009071 7/29/2019 2312 CASCADE MEADOWS DR OTLT-009073 7/29/2019 2124 TOMAHAWK RIDGE PL Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2020-242) OTLT-001518 8/12/2019 9020 ARCH WIND CT OTLT-001519 8/12/2019 9100 ARCH HILL CT Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2020-328) OTLT-001520 8/12/2019 9024 RESCA ROAD OTLT-001529 8/12/2019 1136 TILLERS RIDGE DR Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2020-327) OTLT-002346 8/12/2019 3924 ACORN RIDGE CT OTLT-002365 8/12/2019 14713 MILL SPRING DR Maintenance Referral, Maintenance to be performed (2020-329) OTLT-002366 8/12/2019 6013 MILL SPRING CT OTLT-002388 8/12/2019 14702 ACORN RIDGE PL OTLT-008314 8/12/2019 919 SONNEL HILL DR OTLT-018524 8/12/2019 9030 RESCA ROAD

Page 2 of 2 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 B.7WetWeatherScreeningInspections,Results,and FollowǦupActivities 













 ’’‡†‹š Wet Weather Screening Inspections, Results, and Follow‐Up Activities Days Since Weather Outfall Outfall ID Date Location Recent Storm Follow up Activities Conditions Characterization Event OTLT-008929 1/29/2019 420 MICHAUX CT Heavy Rain 5 Unlikely None OTLT-008930 1/29/2019 415 MICHAUX CT Heavy Rain 5 Unlikely None OTLT-006820 4/26/2019 901 WEST HUNDRED RD Moderate Rain 6 Unlikely None

Page 1 of 1 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 B.8InfrastructureCoordinationMeeting 









 ’’‡†‹š Chesterfield County ‐ Department of Environmental Engineering Stormwater Management ‐ Permit No. VA0088609

Infrastructure Coordination Meeting

Date of Meeting: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 Time: 9:00 AM – 12:00 PM Location: VDOT Central Office Annex, L&D Conference Room, 7th Floor 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219

List of Attendees:

Scott Flanigan – CC Scott Crafton – VDOT David Taylor – CC Alex Fornste – VDOT Kim Mervine – CC Michelle Fults – VDOT Chris Swanson – VDOT Keith White – Henrico Co. Jacob Bauckman – VDOT Deana Williams – Henrico Co. Tracey E. Harmon – VDOT

Agenda Items

1) Call to Order & Introductions 2) Mapping Program a. Status of the mapping program i. VDOT updating GIS database. Will be migrating from ArcGIS online to Portal within 3 to 6 months. Once online, live data for outfalls and BMPs will be available at anytime. ii. Henrico continuing updates to their databases. iii. VDOT updating their residential roadways which may have useful data for other localities. iv. The County provided an update on its mapping strategies. b. Action Item: County to provide updated mapping data to VDOT as requested. 3) TMDLs a. VDOT provided update on planning and implementation of their TMDL status. Purchase of nutrient credits specifically for Nitrogen. b. VDOT planning BMP projects at Proctors Creek (65% design) which is the only one in development in Chesterfield currently. c. Henrico has two upcoming projects in the spring 2020 and recently completed a stream restoration. d. VDOT and contractor working on research on level spreaders. e. VDOT looking at an outfall stabilization at Harbour Point medical office. Property has flooding issues. f. Henrico has easements in all floodplains making it easier to deal with TMDL projects where obtaining private property is difficult.

Page 1 of 2

Chesterfield County ‐ Department of Environmental Engineering Stormwater Management ‐ Permit No. VA0088609

g. Henrico got Bay Plan approval with no comments. Mentioned catch basin cleanout for sediment removal to replace street sweeping. h. The County provided an update on TMDL projects that were recently completed (Bailey Bridge Middle School) and projects moving forward in 2020 i. Henrico had inspection that focused on TMDL projects in August 2019 by the EPA. 4) Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination a. VDOT has created more training materials for IDID included a pamphlet book for the field. This pamphlet will be housed in all state vehicles. New online training for all employees will be posted next year. b. VDOT and the County working together on the Rio Car Wash incident. 5) Water Quality Monitoring a. Monitoring continues as required and data is available as needed by all parties. 6) High Risk Industrial Facilities a. County discussed inspection of industrial facilities at point of connection with VDOT’s MS4. The County continues to inspect those facilities. i. Action Item: Provide inspection information for those facilities that connect to VDOT’s MS4. b. Henrico does not inspect facilities because there is no discharge at their facilities. c. VDOT is updating their inspection manual. 7) Next Meeting a. Will plan next meeting in October 2020, Henrico volunteered to host.

Page 2 of 2

Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 AppendixC 











 ’’‡†‹š Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 C.12019AssessmentoftheBiology,Habitat,andInǦ StreamChemistryofSelectStreamsinChesterfield County,Virginia 









 ’’‡†‹š

2019 Assessment of the Biology, Habitat and In-Stream Chemistry of Select Streams in Chesterfield County, Virginia

Powhite Creek, Upstream of Old Bon Air Road in Bon Air, Virginia, March 2019

Chesterfield County Department of Environmental Engineering Water Quality Section

February 2020

2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Table of Contents: Page

Executive Summary ...... 2

Introduction ...... 3

Protocols ...... 4

Site Descriptions and Summaries ...... 7

Discussion ...... 21

Conclusion ...... 25

References ...... 26

List of Tables and Figures:

Table 1. Virginia Stream Condition Index Aquatic Life Use Tiers ...... 5 Table 2. Evaluation Criteria for Chesterfield County Habitat Assessment ...... 5 Table 3. Permit Specified Parameters and Associated Analytical Methods, 2019 ...... 6 Table 4. Monitoring site overall water quality comparability to reference condition ...... 23 Table 5. Monitoring site annual percent meeting state water quality standards ...... 25 Table 6. Monitoring sites assessed that are listed as impaired state waters VADEQ ...... 26

Figure 1. Water quality monitoring sites for 2015-2019...... 3 Figure 2. Tributary to Falling Creek Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019 ...... 10 Figure 3. Tributary to Falling Creek (FC-02) Habitat Score 2015-2019 ...... 10 Figure 5. Pocoshock Creek (FC-11) Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019 ...... 13 Figure 6. Pocoshock Creek (FC-11) Habitat Score 2015-2019 ...... 13 Figure 7. Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019 ...... 16 Figure 8. Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) Habitat Score 2015-2019 ...... 16 Figure 9. Powhite Creek (POW-05) Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019 ...... 19 Figure 10. Powhite Creek (POW-05) Habitat Score 2015-2019 ...... 19 Figure 11. Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11) Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019 ...... 22 Figure 12. Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11) Habitat Score 2015-2019 ...... 22

1 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Executive Summary

This report presents the biological, habitat and in-stream data collected by the Chesterfield County Department of Environmental Engineering - Water Quality Section staff from January through December of 2019. This report satisfies the requirements for the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit No.VA0088609 Part I.C.1 Biological Stream Monitoring and Part I.C.2 In-Stream Monitoring. Five stream sites were investigated during the year to evaluate the existing conditions and to assess for long-term water quality trends and patterns.

Bioassessment and habitat monitoring occurred during spring (March) and fall (November) following the protocols outlined in the USEPA’s 1999 Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers (Second Edition). A summary of the bioassessment tiers of the monitored sites indicate that the majority of samples (n=9) scored in the lowest VSCI tier “Severe Stress” and one sample scored in the “Stress” tier in 2019. Habitat scores indicated “Non- Supporting” and “Partially Supporting” conditions during five surveys each.

In-stream monitoring occurred every other month starting in January 2019. Stream physical parameters were measured in situ and included the following permit specified parameters: pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature. Water samples for the remaining eight permit-required parameters were collected and transferred to the county’s contract laboratory for analysis. All annual means of dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH were within acceptable state water quality standard ranges during 2019. E. coli counts indicated that all sites experienced frequent elevated concentrations throughout the year. Each site demonstrated a degree of nutrient enrichment of either nitrogen or phosphorus species.

The bioassessment, habitat and chemical water quality observations were compiled, analyzed and classified into four quartiles to provide for the interpretation and trending of water quality for each stream site. The results of the multivariable approach used to analyze the data yielded two streams in the first (lowest) quartile (Pocoshock Creek and Tributary to Proctors Creek) and three streams (Tributary to Falling Creek, Kingsland Creek and Powhite Creek) in the second quartile. When compared with 2018, all stream sites maintained their quartile comparability. The most commonly observed impacts to the streams affecting the quartile classification were impaired bioassessment scores, habitat scores and the elevated E. coli concentrations.

Each of the streams monitored was assessed for its percent meeting state water quality standards. Parameters measured for meeting the referenced state water quality standards were pH, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, and E. coli concentrations. Percentages for meeting the state water quality standards among the sites ranged from 87.5 – 100.0% in 2019. Exceedances in the state water quality standard for E. coli concentration were the most commonly observed. Three of the five monitored sites are currently listed on VADEQ’s final 2018 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report identifying impaired waters of the state. Strategies for addressing the water quality standards in these streams will be developed by VADEQ.

2 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Introduction

This report presents the biological, habitat and in-stream data collected by the Chesterfield County Department of Environmental Engineering - Water Quality Section staff from January through December of 2019. This report satisfies the requirements for the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit No.VA0088609 Part I.C.1 Biological Stream Monitoring and Part I.C.2 In-Stream Monitoring. For this program element, five stream sites were investigated during the year to evaluate conditions and to assess long-term water quality trends and patterns. The sites were monitored on a bi-monthly basis for in-stream chemistry and twice per year (March and November) for benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat.

Figure 1. Water Quality Monitoring Sites for 2015-2019

Sites were selected in five of the county’s major watersheds with a dual goal of meeting permit required monitoring and assisting toward meeting goals outlined in the County’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL project plan. The monitoring conducted in 2019 represented the fifth consecutive year of sampling at these five sites.

3 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Protocols

Biological Stream Monitoring Protocols

Sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates was conducted at five established monitoring sites in Chesterfield County during spring (March) and fall (November) and followed the guidelines outlined in the USEPA’s 1999 Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers (Second Edition). A total of twenty jabs and/or kicks with a D-frame dip net were conducted along an approximate 100-meter sample reach relative to the proportion of represented in-stream habitat. Aquatic organisms entrained in the net were then separated from course particulate organic matter in the field by use of a series of sieve buckets. Large, easily identified animals such as crayfish and vertebrates were noted on field sheets and returned to the stream. Samples were placed in double polyethylene freezer bags, labeled and preserved in the field with 95% ethanol.

Upon return to the laboratory, samples were stored at <4.0oC in the laboratory refrigerator. Samples were washed through a #30 sieve with tap water to remove ethanol and placed in a white- bottomed tray. All visible benthic macroinvertebrates were removed from the debris, counted and placed in a 60 ml labeled glass jar containing 95% ethanol. Benthic macroinvertebrates were then sorted, identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level (most often genus) and enumerated using a 40x binocular microscope. Sample composition for each site was entered into EXCEL spreadsheets and compiled for data analysis via the Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI). The VSCI is in current use by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and consists of the following eight core metrics:

 Total Taxa Richness (variety of different organisms present)  EPT Taxa Richness (summarizes the taxa richness of pollution-sensitive species)  Percent Ephemeroptera (proportion of pollution sensitive mayflies)  Percent Plecoptera+Trichoptera - Hydropsychidae species (proportion of pollution sensitive stoneflies and caddisflies)  Percent Chironomidae (proportion of pollution tolerant midge larvae)  Percent Scrapers (percent of macrobenthos that “scrape” their food from a substrate surface)  Percent Top Two Dominant Taxa (a measure of community balance)  Modified Family Level Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (assigns a single value from 0 to 10 to describe a benthic macroinvertebrate community’s tolerance to organic pollutants with 0 being the least tolerant and 10 the most tolerant)

Benthic macroinvertebrate sample composition was entered into the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s Ecological Data Application System (EDAS) database for analysis comparable to the state’s biological monitoring efforts. After entry, a rarefication algorithm was used to normalize each data set to a random sample of 110 organisms for each site from which the VSCI metric scores were calculated. The final VSCI value was the mean of the eight separate calculated unit-less metric scores. From this VSCI value, “Aquatic Life Use Tiers” were discerned (Table 1) and applied for categorizing biological stream condition.

4 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Table 1. Virginia Stream Condition Index Aquatic Life Use Tiers.

Index Score Tier ≥73 Excellent 60 – 72 Good 43 – 59 Stress ≤42 Severe Stress

Habitat Metric Calculations and Analysis

The EPA’s Habitat Assessment for Low Gradient Streams has been used since 1999 to describe the instream and riparian characteristics of monitored sites in Chesterfield County. This approach assigns scores to 10 individual parameters subsequently summed to obtain a final overall value. Worksheets detailing these parameters are completed in the field by two independent analysts. The resulting parameter scores of each analyst are subsequently averaged and summed. From 1999 to 2005, average scores from a reference watershed (Swift Creek) were analyzed using cumulative percentile plots to determine ranges for assigning impairment categories for the county. A quadrisection approach was used based on upper and lower 25th percentiles and the median value to generate four impairment categories (Table 2). Total habitat scores obtained in 2019 were compared against these criteria to categorize the collective condition of the monitored stream’s in- stream and riparian habitat.

Table 2. Evaluation Criteria for Chesterfield County Habitat Assessment.

Total Habitat Score Category ≥ 161 Comparable to Reference 147 - 160 Supporting 132 - 146 Partially Supporting ≤ 131 Non-Supporting

In-Stream Monitoring Protocols

Five stream sites in Chesterfield County were sampled every other month starting in January 2019. Stream physical parameters were measured in situ by use of a calibrated Hydrolab® MS5 Minisonde water quality multiprobe in conjunction with a Surveyor 4a data logger system. Permit specified parameters measured in the field included pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature. Water samples for the remaining eight permit-required parameters were obtained from the bank of each site just below the surface of the water by hand. Appropriate pre-labeled containers specific to each parameter were provided by the county’s contract laboratory. Samples were immediately placed in a cooler on ice for transfer to the contract laboratory where sample analysis was conducted. Care was taken in the field and during transfer to adhere to analytical holding times for specific chemistries. Chain of custody forms provided by the contract laboratory were

5 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

completed prior to delivery to the laboratory and signed at sample transfer by each party. Copies were then archived in the department files for documentation and reference. Resulting data was reviewed, verified and entered into EXCEL spreadsheets for compilation and statistical analysis. Note: for values reported as less than the method detection limit of the contract laboratory, a value one-half the reporting limit was substituted and applied for statistical analysis. A summary of the parameters and analytical methods is outlined in Table 3.

Table 3. Permit Specified Parameters and Associated Analytical Methods, 2019.

Parameter Analytical Method Reporting Limit Analysts pH Probe: Hydrolab® 0.2 units Chesterfield County Minisonde WQS Dissolved Oxygen Probe: Hydrolab® 0.1 mg/L Chesterfield County Minisonde WQS Temperature Probe: Hydrolab® 0.1 oC Chesterfield County Minisonde WQS Total Suspended SM22 2540D-2011 1.0 mg/L Contract Laboratory Solids Ammonia as EPA 350.1 R2.0 0.02 mg/L as N Contract Laboratory Nitrogen Nitrate/Nitrite SM22 4500-NO3F-2011 0.02 mg/L as N Contract Laboratory Nitrogen Total Kjeldahl EPA 351.2 R2.0 0.20 mg/L Contract Laboratory Nitrogen Total Nitrogen Calculated 0.20 mg/L Chesterfield County WQS Dissolved SM18 4500-PE/SM22 0.02 mg/L as P Contract Laboratory Phosphorus 4500PE-2011 Total Phosphorus SM22 4500PE-2011 0.02 mg/L as P Contract Laboratory E. coli Colilert 18 QT 1.0 MPN per 100ml Contract Laboratory

Trending Analysis Protocol

A multivariable approach integrating select annual mean chemistry values and seasonal bioassessment and habitat scores was established in 2015 to provide for the interpretation and trending of water quality for each stream site. This analysis compiled the bioassessment and habitat categorical data, and chemical observations with a VADEQ water quality standard, into a single value. The approach involved reviewing the seasonal VSCI and habitat scores for each site and assigning a numerical value to the final categorical assessment. The values ranged from zero to three and increased according to assessment (e.g. “Severe Stress” = 0; “Stress” = 1, etc.). The annual mean of water chemistry parameters that had documented Virginia water quality criteria (pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and E. coli) were assigned a value reflective of whether or not they met the state standard (e.g. met standard = 1; exceeded standard = 0). All annual and seasonal observations and resulting numerical scores were entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet where the values were summed and compared to an ideal value. The final percent comparison of the stream’s value to the ideal was then categorically identified by quartile to express overall relative water

6 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations quality. Quartiles ranged from one to four. The first quartile corresponded to 0-25% comparability to ideal with the remaining three quartiles following the same 25% incremental pattern.

Site Descriptions and Summaries

The following pages describe each site and contain a summary of the observations made during the course of the year. All photos depict upstream views. Left and right banks are referenced from the perspective of looking upstream.

7 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Site Number FC-02

Stream: Tributary to Falling Creek

Site: Approximately 5 meters upstream of Queensgate Road, Midlothian, Virginia

Latitude: 37.48659 Longitude: -77.64034

Watershed: James River

Stream Order: 1

Land use: Residential, County Park and Forest

Tributary to Falling Creek is a perennial stream in the James River watershed located in the Piedmont and Alluvium region of Chesterfield County. The tributary is a first order stream with residential areas and a forested county park in its immediate watershed. A 1,450 linear foot stream restoration project located immediately upstream of this site and within the County’s Midlothian Mines Park was completed in late 2016.

Biological Monitoring Observations:

Date VSCI Score VSCI Tier Habitat Score Habitat Category 03/27/19 28.1 Severe Stress 132 Partially Supporting 11/04/19 18.5 Severe Stress 127 Non-Supporting

The 2019 bioassessment tier for the spring and fall benthic macroinvertebrate samplings indicated a “Severe Stress” condition, similar to previous years’ bioassessments. The VSCI score for the fall (18.5) was among the lowest observed among the sites and throughout the year. Total taxa richness was marginal during the spring sampling (n=10) and fall (n=6). The spring sample had two EPT taxa represented in the sample, minimally increasing the percentage of Ephemeroptera (3.6%) but not the Plecoptera + Trichoptera - Hydropsychidae (PT-H) metric (0.0%). The fall sample had zero EPT taxa represented, negatively affecting the percentage of Ephemeroptera (0.0%) and PT-H metric (0.0%). Scrapers were well represented in the spring (12.7%) and declined in the fall (9.1%); the scraper abundance was reversed as compared to the two previous years’ results. The preponderance of percent Chironomidae composition was similar in the spring (67.3%) and the fall (77.3%). The percentage comprised of the top two dominant taxa was elevated during both the spring (76.4%) and the fall (87.3%). The spring Hilsenhoff Biotic Index was 5.7 and the fall score was 5.8; the scores indicating a community comprised largely of pollution tolerant organisms. Overall, the benthic community composition remained relatively consistent during the year.

8 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

The spring habitat assessment score indicated a “Partially Supporting” condition and the fall habitat assessment scores indicated a “Non-Supporting” condition. The difference between the two sampling events were minor shifts in the habitat structure with most categories slightly declining from the spring to the fall and a decrease in the channel flow status resulting in an overall quality category difference. The streambed was comprised primarily of sand and clay with suboptimal epifaunal substrate cover. The majority of pools were large and deep in the spring and shallow pools were prevalent in the fall, reflecting the lower channel flow status observed. During, both the spring and fall sampling fine sediment deposition was common throughout the site’s length. The channel flow status was optimal in the spring and marginal in the fall. The stream’s channel did not show evidence of historic channelization and sinuosity was suboptimal with long lengths of the reach comprised of straight sections. Both stream banks were stable with moderate vegetation common but exhibited visible areas of scour and erosion. The riparian area depths along both banks were slightly impacted due the homes surrounding the stream.

In-Stream Monitoring Observations:

Flow was observed consistently throughout the year with clear water noted during each survey. Periphyton was frequently observed during site visits with one observation of iron bacteria. Samples were obtained from the left bank at an average depth of 0.05 meters. All annual means of the chemical parameters were within acceptable ranges. The measured parameters of pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature were within the state water quality standards throughout the year. The annual mean E. coli concentration was 178 MPN/100mL, an average decrease from the previous year, with only one observation exceeding the state water quality standard. The annual mean total suspended solids (TSS) concentration was 4.7 mg/L supporting observations of clear water throughout the year. The annual mean ammonia concentration (0.08 mg/L as N) was the highest mean ammonia concentration observed among sites during the year. The annual mean for nitrate+nitrite (0.27 mg/L as N) was the second lowest observed among all sites, and the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) annual mean (0.37 mg/L as N) was decreased from the previous year. The annual mean total nitrogen value of 0.64 mg/L as N was also decreased from the previous year. The annual mean dissolved phosphorus concentration (0.02 mg/L as P) was among the lowest observed among sites. The total phosphorus annual mean concentration was 0.07 mg/L as P, increased from the previous year.

9 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Trends Analysis:

The spring VSCI score consistently yielded a Severe Stress condition (Figure 2). The fall VSCI score vacillated between a Severe Stress condition (2015, 2017 and 2019) and a stress condition (2016 and 2018). Spring VSCI scores typically trended lower than the fall VSCI scores except for 2019 results indicating a slightly improved community composition during the fall than in the spring. This trend in higher fall scores is consistent among all monitoring sites. The range of scores for the spring (12.4) was narrower than the fall (28.5) supporting the observation in vacillation between severe stress and stress. Overall, the majority of the VSCI scores (8) calculated during the during the five-year monitoring period indicate a benthic macroinvertebrate community experiencing severe stress.

Figure 2. Tributary to Falling Creek (FC-02)Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019

The spring habitat assessment scores suggested potential improvement during the monitoring cycle moving from scoring as Non-Supporting (2015-2017) to Partially Supporting (2018-2019) (Figure 3). The fall habitat assessment score consistently indicated a Non-Supporting condition during the five-year monitoring period. The fall habitat assessment score was typically lower than the spring assessment score except for 2016 when the fall score exceeded the spring score. Overall, the majority of the habitat assessment scores (8) during the past five years indicated a habitat not conducive to fully supporting life in stream system. This observation is supported by the severe stress observations noted in the benthic macroinvertebrate community.

Figure 3. Tributary to Falling Creek (FC-02) Habitat Score 2015-2019

10 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Site Number FC-11

Stream: Pocoshock Creek

Site: Approximately 50 meters upstream of outfall west of Pocono Drive, N. Chesterfield, Virginia

Latitude: 37.49650 Longitude: -77.58730

Watershed: James River

Stream Order: 1

Land use: Commercial, Residential and Forest

Pocoshock Creek is a perennial tributary of Falling Creek and lies in the Piedmont region of Chesterfield County. At this reach, Pocoshock Creek is a first order stream with a mix of residential and commercial land use in its watershed.

Biological Monitoring Observations:

Date VSCI Score VSCI Tier Habitat Score Habitat Category 03/27/19 25.7 Severe Stress 128 Non-Supporting 11/04/19 18.5 Severe Stress 118 Non-Supporting

The 2019 bioassessment tier for the spring and fall benthic macroinvertebrate sampling indicated a “Severe Stress” condition, consistent with the previous four years’ observations. The VSCI score for the fall (18.5) was among the lowest observed among the sites and throughout the year. Total taxa richness was similar during both the spring sampling (n=9) and fall sampling (n=10) events. Both the spring (n=2) and fall (n=2) sampling had identical EPT taxa representation in the sample with the spring recording a lower percentage of Ephemeroptera (3.6%) represented in the sample than in the fall (7.3%). The PT-H metric in both the spring and autumn (0.0% and 0.0%) were identical. The percentage of scrapers present was similar in both the spring (10.0%) and the fall (10.9%). Chironomids composed the majority of the spring sample with 70.0% present, but their composition percentage declined significantly in the fall to 47.3%. The percentage comprised of the top two dominant taxa was elevated during both the spring (80.0%) and the fall (80.0%). Both the spring (5.8) and autumn (5.9) Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores indicated a community comprised largely of pollution tolerant organisms throughout the year.

The spring and fall habitat assessment scores indicated a “Non-Supporting” condition. The streambed was primarily composed of sand and fine sediment embedding large cobble and gravel. Fine sediment deposition was prevalent throughout the site’s length with greater than 50% of the stream bottom affected by sediment deposition, resulting in the creation of bars and benches along

11 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations the banks. The epifaunal substrate cover appeared suboptimal in the spring and fall. The majority of pools were large and deep with few shallow pools observed. The channel flow status was optimal in the spring and suboptimal in the fall. The stream’s channel did not show evidence of historic channelization. Along the length of the reach, the stream banks exhibited areas of heavy scour and erosion and were sparsely vegetated. The stream channel experienced a major shift during the year when a bank tree on a point bend fell across the stream creating a new channel opening and blocking the previous course of water flow. During the previous two monitoring years, the stream course and interior stream architecture has seen significant changes because of the hydrologic volatility of the system. The riparian areas along both banks were relatively undisturbed with natural walking paths present throughout.

In-Stream Monitoring Observations:

Flow was observed consistently throughout the year with clear water present during all surveys. Periphyton was commonly observed during site visits with two observations of algae noted. Samples were obtained from the left bank at an average depth of 0.11 meters. All annual means of the chemical parameters were within acceptable ranges. The measured parameters of pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature were within state water quality standards throughout the year. E. coli concentrations exceeded the state water quality standard two times resulting in an annual mean concentration of 208 MPN/100mL, decreased from the previous year. The annual mean total suspended solids (3.3 mg/L) supported observations of clear water throughout the year. The annual mean ammonia concentration (0.04 mg/L as N) was the among the lowest ammonia means observed among all sites. The annual mean for nitrate+nitrite was 0.40 mg/L as N, a decrease from the previous year, and the TKN mean was 0.33 mg/L as N, the lowest TKN mean observed among all sites. The annual mean total nitrogen value (0.64 mg/L as N) indicated the stream experienced a degree of nitrogen enrichment throughout the year. The annual mean dissolved phosphorus concentration was 0.02 mg/L as P and the total phosphorus annual mean concentration was 0.05 mg/L as P. Both phosphorus concentrations were among the lowest observed among all sites.

12 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Trend Analysis:

The spring VSCI scores indicated a consistent Severe Stress condition for the benthic macroinvertebrate community during the five-year monitoring period (Figure 5). The fall VSCI scores indicated Severe Stress conditions for the majority of the monitoring period with only one observation of a Stress condition (42.2) observed in the fall of 2016. Consistent with other monitoring sites, the fall VSCI scores were typically higher than the spring scores. The exception was the 2019 score when the spring (25.7) outscored the fall (18.5). The range in VSCI scores was greater among the fall samples (23.7) than among the spring samples (9.4) with both ranges signaling minimal variation during the respective seasons. Overall, the majority of the VSCI scores (9) calculated denote a benthic macroinvertebrate community experiencing severe stress.

Figure 5. Pocoshock Creek (FC-11) Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019

The initial spring 2015 habitat assessment score signaled a Supporting habitat and was the highest habitat assessment score observed during the monitoring period (Figure 6). The spring habitat scores declined overall yielding a Non-Supporting habitat condition in the last two years of monitoring. The fall habitat assessment consistently scored as Non-Supporting throughout the five years of monitoring, continuing the overall trend of lower habitat scores in the fall. During the five years of monitoring, this site experienced several dynamic shifts in the channel because of treefalls along the banks and historic rain events. Overall, the habitat assessment scores during the past five years indicate a habitat that is not conducive to fully supporting life in a stream system. This observation is supported by the Severe Stress VSCI observations noted in the benthic macroinvertebrate community.

Figure 6. Pocoshock Creek (FC-11) Habitat Score 2015-2019

13 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Site Number KGC-01

Stream: Kingsland Creek

Site: Approximately 20 meters upstream of Jefferson Davis Highway, N. Chesterfield, Virginia

Latitude: 37.40773 Longitude: -77.43392

Watershed: James River

Stream Order: 3

Land use: Commercial and Residential

Kingsland Creek is a perennial tributary of the James River located in the Low River Terrace and Alluvium region of Chesterfield County. At this reach, Kingsland Creek is a third order stream with a mix of residential and commercial land use in its watershed.

Biological Monitoring Observations:

Date VSCI Score VSCI Tier Habitat Score Habitat Category 03/28/19 42.3 Severe Stress 135 Partially Supporting 11/07/19 47.4 Stress 133 Partially Supporting

The 2019 bioassessment tier results yielded close VSCI scores; the spring sampling was slightly lower indicating a “Severe Stress” condition and the fall sampling indicated a “Stress” condition. Both the spring and fall VSCI scores for this site were the highest observed among all sites throughout the year. Total taxa richness was moderate during both the spring (n=14) and during the fall (n=14); the spring richness was the highest score for the respective season and the fall score was among the highest. The spring and fall both had four EPT taxa represented in the sample. The EPT taxa richness percentage was slightly higher in the spring (7.3%) than in the fall (4.6%). However, the fall PT-H metric (11.8%) as compared with the spring PT-H metric (0.9%) indicated the higher EPT taxa richness in the spring may be attributable to the increased influence of Hydropsychidae presence. Both the sampling events had a strong percentage of scrapers present with 24.5% in the spring and 20.9% in the fall. The Chironomidae percentage decreased by nearly half from the spring (44.5%) to the fall (28.2%) sampling. The percentage comprised of the top two dominant taxa was nearly equivalent during both the spring (62.7%) and the fall (59.1%). The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores remained consistent during both sampling events (5.4, spring and fall) and indicated a community comprised dominantly of pollution tolerant organisms.

The habitat assessment score indicated a “Partially Supporting” condition in both the spring and the fall. The stream exhibited suboptimal substrate with firm sand, gravel and cobble present

14 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations through most of the reach and suboptimal epifaunal habitat for the maintenance of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Sediment deposition was suboptimal throughout the year with a slight enlargement of point bars and benches within the channel. The majority of the pools were large and deep throughout the year. The channel flow status was optimal with water reaching the base of both banks in the spring, and suboptimal in the fall with the exposure of the larger cobble substrate. The channel sinuosity remained marginal with long straight sections in the reach and only slight shifts noted in the thalwag. The stream was in its natural state with no recent channel alterations. There were indications however of historic channel alterations that may have occurred when the county sewer trunk line was installed. Both stream banks were vegetated with minimal signs of scour or erosion. The riparian area along the left bank was narrow because of an overgrown abandoned paved parking area and the right bank riparian area appeared mostly undisturbed.

In-Stream Monitoring Observations:

Flow was observed consistently throughout the year with clear water seen during all surveys. Periphyton was frequently observed and the presence of algae was noted twice during site visits. Samples were obtained from the left bank at an average depth of 0.10 meters. All annual means of the chemical parameters were within acceptable ranges. The measured parameters of pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature were within the state water quality standards throughout the year. E. coli concentrations exceeded the state water quality standard once during the year. The annual mean concentration (162 MPN/100mL) was a significant decline from the previous year’s mean that exceeded the state standard. The annual mean total suspended solids (1.4 mg/L) value supported the frequent observations of clear water during the year and was the lowest observed mean among sites. The annual mean ammonia concentration was 0.04 mg/L as N and was among the lowest ammonia means observed among sites. The annual mean nitrate+nitrite concentration was 0.73 mg/L as N, the TKN annual mean was 0.43 mg/L as N and the annual mean total nitrogen value was 1.16 mg/L as N. The annual mean nitrate+nitrite concentration, TKN and total nitrogen concentration were the highest observed among all sites. Each of these nitrogen parameters indicated the stream experienced substantial nitrogen enrichment throughout the year. The annual mean dissolved phosphorus concentration was 0.02 mg/L as P. The total phosphorus mean concentration was 0.08 mg/L as P and was the highest observed mean among sites.

Trend Analysis:

15 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

The spring VSCI scores indicated a Stress condition in 2015, declining to a Severe Stress VSCI condition that the stream maintained during the spring for the remainder of the monitoring period (Figure 7). The fall VSCI scores followed a similar pattern yielding a Good condition in 2015 then declined to a Stress condition for the next four years. The pattern among sites continued with the fall VSCI scores higher than the spring VSCI scores. The range of VSCI scores for the spring (9.6) was narrower than the fall (16.6) but both ranges indicate a stream that has relatively consistent benthic macroinvertebrate community structure in the spring and fall. Overall, the annual VSCI scores calculated during the five-year monitoring period indicate a benthic community experiencing stress.

Figure 7. Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019

The spring habitat assessment scores vacillated between a Supporting (2015 and 2017) and Partially Supporting (2016, 2018 and 2019) condition during the monitoring period (Figure 8). The fall habitat assessment also vacillated between a Supporting (2015 and 2018) and Partially Supporting (2017 and 2019) condition with one instance of a Non-Supporting (2016) condition. The variation in the habitat conditions from season to season and year to year are a reflection of the dynamic changes to instream habitat within the channel. Consistent with the observations among the monitoring sites, the fall habitat assessment typically scored lower than the spring except for 2018 when the fall score exceeded the spring score. Overall, the assessment scores during the monitoring period reflect a habitat mostly supportive of life within the stream.

Figure 8. Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) Habitat Score 2015-2019

16 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Site Number POW-05

Stream: Powhite Creek

Site: Approximately 50 meters upstream of Old Bon Air Road, Bon Air, Virginia

Latitude: 37.52334 Longitude: -77.56974

Watershed: James River

Stream Order: 1

Land use: Residential and Forest

Powhite Creek is a perennial tributary of the James River located in the High River Terrace region of Chesterfield County. At this reach, Powhite Creek is a first order stream with a mix of residential and forested areas in its watershed.

Biological Monitoring Observations:

Date VSCI Score VSCI Tier Habitat Score Habitat Category 03/28/19 25.2 Severe Stress 145 Partially Supporting 11/04/19 30.1 Severe Stress 137 Partially Supporting

The 2019 bioassessment tier for both the spring and fall benthic macroinvertebrate sampling indicated a “Severe Stress” condition; consistent with the previous four years’ observations. Total taxa richness was marginal during the spring sampling event (n=8) but improved during the fall sampling event (n=13). Both the spring and fall had two EPT taxa represented in the sample. The low EPT taxa richness quantities were reflected in the percentage of Ephemeroptera collected in both seasons (0.09%). Both seasons’ samples were absent a percentage of the PT-H metric (0.0%). A moderate percentage of scrapers were present during both the spring (14.5%) and fall (15.5%) sampling. The Chironomidae percentage composed the majority of both the spring sample (70.0%) and fall (63.6%) sampling. The percentage comprised of the top two dominant taxa was higher in the spring (84.5%) than during the fall (78.2%) and reflected the trending with the Chironomidae concentrations. The spring (5.7) and fall (5.6) Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores were similar indicating a community comprised primarily of pollution tolerant organisms.

The habitat assessment score indicated a “Partially Supporting” condition in both the spring and the fall. This site had the highest rated habitat assessments for both the spring and fall among all sites. The stream exhibited suboptimal substrate with firm sand, gravel, and some cobble present through most of the reach. The in-stream habitat characteristics for the maintenance of a benthic macroinvertebrate community were optimal in the spring and suboptimal in the fall. The majority of the pools were large and deep and there were indications of sediment deposition throughout the

17 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations year with a slight enlargement of point bars and benches within the channel. Channel flow status was optimal in the spring with water reaching the base of both banks, but suboptimal in the fall with areas of riffle substrate exposed. Stream channel sinuosity was excellent along the length of the reach. The stream was in its natural state with no recent or historic alterations. Both banks were stable and well vegetated with minimal erosion or scour. The riparian areas were wide and largely undisturbed with a mix of older hardwood trees and scattered pines.

In-Stream Monitoring Observations:

Flow was observed consistently throughout the year with clear water seen during all surveys. Periphyton was commonly observed during site visits with one observation of iron bacteria noted during the year. Samples were obtained from the right bank at an average depth of 0.07 meters. All annual means of the chemical parameters were within acceptable ranges. The measured parameters of dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature were all within state water quality standards throughout the year. E. coli concentrations did not exceed the state water quality standard during the year and had the lowest mean (157 MPN/100mL) observed among all sites. The annual mean total suspended solids concentration (6.2 mg/L) supported the observation of clear water during the year but was also the highest mean of total suspended solids observed among all sites. The annual mean ammonia concentration was 0.05 mg/L as N. The annual mean nitrate+nitrite observation was 0.52 mg/L as N and the TKN annual mean was 0.40 mg/L as N, consistent with the annual means observed in 2018. The annual mean total nitrogen value was 0.91 mg/L as N. Each of these nitrogen parameters indicated the stream experienced nitrogen enrichment throughout the year. The annual mean dissolved phosphorus concentration was 0.03 mg/L as P and the total phosphorus annual mean concentration was 0.05 mg/L as P, consistent with previous years observations.

18 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Trend Analysis:

The spring VSCI scores indicated a Severe Stress condition during the past five monitoring years (Figure 9). The fall VSCI scores also consistently yielded a Severe Stress condition. The spring scores were consistently lower than the fall score with an instance of the spring (22.2) and fall (23.5) score being nearly equal in 2017. The 2017 scores were also the lowest scores at this monitoring location and represented a noticeable dip along the trendline followed by a score increase for both the spring and fall. The range of scores for the spring (4.9) and fall (17.6) were relatively narrow indicating the community was relatively stable despite the fluctuation observed in 2017. Overall, the VSCI scores indicated the benthic macroinvertebrate community experienced a condition of Severe Stress during the five-year monitoring period.

Figure 9. Powhite Creek (POW-05) Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019

The spring habitat assessment scores indicated a Comparable to Reference in 2016 and a Supporting condition during all other years monitored (Figure 10). The spring assessments had a general declining score during the monitoring period. The fall habitat assessment scores followed the same declining pattern with a Comparable to Reference condition in 2015, declining to a Supporting condition in 2016 and 2017 and finally to a Partially Supporting condition in 2018 and 2019. The fall habitat assessment score was typically lower than the spring assessment score except for 2015 when the fall score exceeded the spring score. Overall, while the habitat assessment scores indicated a functional habitat throughout the years, the declining scores indicate potentially increasing habitat stressors.

Figure 10. Powhite Creek (POW-05) Habitat Score 2015-2019

19 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Site Number PRC-11

Stream: Tributary to Proctors Creek

Site: Approximately 100 meters upstream of Krause Road crossing, Chesterfield, Virginia

Latitude: 37.38373 Longitude: -77.49883

Watershed: James River

Stream Order: 1

Land use: County Complex and Forest

Tributary to Proctors Creek is a perennial stream in the James River watershed located in the Deep Coastal Plain region of Chesterfield County. The tributary is a first order stream whose immediate watershed is almost entirely contained within the county government office complex.

Biological Monitoring Observations:

Date VSCI Score VSCI Tier Habitat Score Habitat Category 03/27/19 19.4 Severe Stress 114 Non-Supporting 11/07/19 20.9 Severe Stress 99 Non-Supporting

The 2019 bioassessment tier for both the spring and autumn benthic macroinvertebrate sampling indicated a “Severe Stress” condition; consistent with the previous four years’ observations. Total taxa richness was marginal during the spring (n=9) and good during the fall (n=14) with the fall richness taxa was the highest among the streams consistently in the Severe Stress tier. The spring and fall sampling had only one EPT taxa represented in the sample, negatively affecting the percentage of Ephemeroptera (0.9% and 0.0%, respectively) and the PT-H (0.0%, spring and fall) metric. A greater percentage of scrapers was collected in the fall (11.8%) than in the spring (2.7%). Chironomidae comprised the majority of the spring sample (85.5%) with a significant decline in composition during the fall sample (18.2%). The percentage comprised of the top two dominant taxa during the spring (85.5%) and the fall (45.5%) reflected the dominance of the percent Chironomidae composition. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores were marginal, with the spring score (6.0) lower than the fall (6.7). The fall Hilsenhoff Biotic Index score was the highest observed among all sites throughout the year and indicated a community comprised largely of pollution tolerant organisms.

The spring and fall habitat assessment scores indicated a “Non-Supporting” condition. This site had the lowest rated habitat assessments among all sites. The streambed was comprised primarily of sand and some gravel overlaying clay with marginal epifaunal substrate cover. Pool substrate

20 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations was characterized by a mixture of soft mud and silt with little vegetation, and the reach contained a few shallow pools with most of the reach lacking pooled water. Fine sediment deposition was prevalent throughout the reach length with large, frequently shifting bars. The channel flow status was optimal in the spring and marginal in the fall with most bars above water surface. The stream channel did not show significant evidence of historic channelization and sinuosity was adequate. The channel was deeply incised. Both stream banks exhibited areas of heavy scour and erosion and had minimal vegetative protection. The riparian area depth along the left bank was mostly undisturbed, and the right bank riparian area was impacted by a county sewer easement and a walking trail running parallel to the lower portion of the reach.

In-Stream Monitoring Observations:

Flow was observed the majority of the year with one observation of dry conditions in September and one observation of low flow in November. The September sampling was delayed until October to account for the drought condition in September. Clear water was observed during five of the monitoring events and stained water was observed once. Iron bacteria was commonly observed during site visits along with periphyton, algae and water striders frequently noted. Samples were obtained from the left bank at an average depth of 0.08 meters. All annual means of the chemical parameters were within acceptable ranges. The measured parameters for dissolved oxygen and temperature were within state water quality standards throughout the year. A single pH measurement exceeded the state water quality standard range in November (5.2 units) with the annual mean pH (6.1 units) within the acceptable range. E. coli concentrations exceeded the state water quality standard during two visits resulting in an annual mean concentration (640 MPN/100mL) above the state water quality standard. As a result of the exceptionally high E. coli concentration from the January sampling, staff resampled two weeks later and again the concentration was exceptional. Stormwater section staff investigated (PC2019-14) and found a clogged sewer main that was overflowing into the stream system. The sewer was repaired, and E. coli concentrations returned to an acceptable level. The annual mean total suspended solids concentration was 2.0 mg/L and supported observations of clear water. The annual mean ammonia concentration was 0.07 mg/L as N. The annual mean for nitrate+nitrite (0.24 mg/L as N) was the lowest observed among all sites, and the TKN annual mean was 0.36 mg/L as N, the second lowest TKN mean observed among all sites. The annual mean total nitrogen value was 0.61 mg/L as N, the lowest observed among sites. The annual mean dissolved phosphorus concentration was 0.03 mg/L as P and the total phosphorus mean concentration was 0.07 mg/L as P.

21 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Trend Analysis:

Both spring and fall VSCI scores indicated a Severe Stress condition consistently during the five- year monitoring period (Figure 11). The spring VSCI scores had a continually downward sloping trend while the fall scores vacillated up and down within the category. The fall VSCI score vacillations extended the range among the fall VSCI scores (13.0) as compared to the continual downward slope limiting the spring VSCI score range (4.3). Both the spring and fall VSCI scores at this monitoring site had the lowest scores among all sites during the monitoring period with all VSCI scores indicating a Severe Stress condition. Overall, the VSCI scores for this site indicate a benthic macroinvertebrate community experiencing Severe Stress.

Figure 11. Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11) Virginia Stream Condition Index 2015-2019

The spring and fall habitat assessment score consistently returned a result of Non-Supporting during each of the surveys (Figure 12). The habitat assessment scores observed at this location were among the lowest of all sites each year of the monitoring period. In a reverse of the observed trend at other sites, the fall habitat assessment scores were generally higher than the spring habitat assessment scores. The habitat scores reflect the overall degraded condition of a dynamic stream system prone to flash flows after rainfall that repeatedly disturbed the development or stabilization of instream habitat. Overall, the habitat assessment scores indicate a habitat that is not conducive to supporting aquatic life. This observation is supported by the Severe Stress VSCI observations noted in the benthic macroinvertebrate community.

Figure 12. Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11) Habitat Score 2015-2019

22 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

Discussion

In 2019, five stream sites representing 40.6 rivers miles were assessed in five major watersheds within the county. These watersheds included Falling Creek, Pocoshock Creek, Kingsland Creek, Powhite Creek and Proctors Creek. Each of these watersheds drains to the James River. The results of the multivariable approach used to synthesize the bioassessment, habitat and chemical data yielded three streams in the second quartile and two streams in the lowest, first quartile (Table 4).

All stream sites have maintained their quartile comparability from the previous year. Of note, the percentage comparison to reference improved at Pocoshock Creek (FC-11) from 18.8% comparable to reference to 25% comparable to reference, although the site remained in the first quartile. The improvement in the water quality condition can be attributed an improvement in the mean E. coli concentration mean. Each site has maintained a relatively consistent percentage to comparability to reference during the past five years. Four sites have ranges of less than 12.5% difference from the minimum percentage to the maximum percentage. Kingsland Creek (KGC- 01) had the largest fluctuation range (31.3%) between 2015 (56.3%) and 2016 (25.0%). Both Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) and Tributary to Falling Creek (FC-02) were the only monitoring sites to demonstrate variation in its water quality quartile rankings over time.

Table 4. Monitoring site overall water quality comparability to reference condition.

Powhite Creek (POW-05) scored in the second quartile for the fifth consecutive year with 37.5% comparability to reference. Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) scored in the second quartile (43.8%) for the third consecutive year. The chemical water quality at both sites was good and met each of the state standards for pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and E. coli concentrations. The bioassessment score during the spring indicated the benthic macroinvertebrate community was under “Severe Stress” at both sites. However, the Kingsland Creek benthic macroinvertebrate community improved in the fall with a “Stress” ranking thus accounting for the slight percentage difference. The habitat scores for these sites were marginal, scoring as “Partially Supporting” during the year. The strong chemical score and habitat score were counter-balanced by the poor bioassessment scores resulting in the second quartile assessment.

Consistent first quartile comparability was observed at two sites in 2019: Pocoshock Creek (FC- 11; 25.0%) and Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11; 18.8%). These streams had several attributes in common that resulted in the consistent low comparability scoring. The bioassessment tier was

23 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations calculated as “Severe Stress” for each of these streams during the spring and fall. The habitat scores for both the spring and fall indicated a “Non-Supporting” habitat both sites. The pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen water chemistries at both monitoring sites were acceptable. Additionally, exceedances of the state water quality standard in E. coli concentrations negatively affected the Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11) overall assessment. The combination of low bioassessment scores, habitat scores and exceedances of the E. coli state water quality standards resulted in the continual first quartile assessment of these streams.

The five-year trending for the Percent Comparison to Reference metric does not signal a distinct pattern for the monitored sites. Three sites have maintained a consistent quartile comparability during the monitoring period (Pocoshock Creek, FC-11, Powhite Creek, POW-05, and Tributary to Proctors Creek, PRC-11) while two sites have signaled some variability in the Percent Comparison to Reference (Tributary to Falling Creek, FC-02 and Kingsland Creek, KGC-01). Tributary to Falling Creek (FC-02) ranked in the first quartile in 2015-2017 then showed improvement to the second quartile in 2018-2019. Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) had the most dynamic quartile shifts. The stream site had the highest initial comparability in 2015, ranking in the third quartile, but declined to the first quartile in 2016, finally stabilizing to the second quartile from 2017-2019.

Each of the streams monitored was assessed for its percent in meeting state water quality standards (Table 5). The percentage was calculated for pH, dissolved oxygen, water temperature and E. coli concentration.

Table 5. Monitoring site annual percent meeting state water quality standards.

The highest percentage of measured parameters meeting state water quality standards in 2019 was 100.0% for Powhite Creek (POW-05) and the lowest percentage (87.5%) was observed at Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11). The 2019 Powhite Creek (POW-05) percent standard met was the highest percent of both 2019 and among all sites since 2015. Overall, each stream saw improvement in the percent standard met metric. All the streams met the dissolved oxygen and temperature standard throughout the year. Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11) had one exceedance of the state pH standard range. The remaining exceedances, for the streams with exceedances, were of the E. coli concentration standard. VADEQ criteria for identifying a stream as impaired for bacterial contamination is that no more than 10% of samples taken should exceed the standard of 235 CFUs/100mL. Based on the state standard, four streams examined this year would have exceeded the bacteria standard because each surpassed the E. coli concentration standard at least once. Two sites had two E. coli concentrations greater than the state standard (Pocoshock Creek, FC-11 and Tributary to Proctors Creek, PRC-11) during the year. The March sampling event was the only sampling event where each E. coli concentration met the state standard.

24 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations

The five-year trending for the percent standard met does not reveal a discernable pattern or an upward or downward pattern. The between year variations typically had a range of approximately ten percent indicating the stream sites variability was minimal when considered to the previous year. The largest year to year difference was a 16.6% improvement at Kingsland Creek (KGC- 01) from 2018 (79.2%) to 2019 (95.8%). When considering the percent standard values throughout the previous five years of monitoring, there has again been little variation between the 2015 percentages and the 2019 percentages. Two streams (Tributary to Falling Creek, FC-02 and Pocoshock Creek, FC-11) had the same score for percent standard met in 2015 and 2019. Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11), saw a minimal fluctuation from 2015 (79.2%) to 2019 (87.5%). Powhite Creek (POW-05) saw a minimal progressive improvement from 2015 (87.5%) to 2019 (100.0%) with a limited range (12.5%) between the minimum and maximum percentage. The largest differential to indicate an improvement was observed as Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) with a 20.8% improvement from 2015 (75.0%) to 2019 (95.8%). The most common cause for lost percentage points across all stream systems were exceedance in the state E. coli concentration standard followed by exceedances of the pH state standard range. Overall, the stream systems have demonstrated relatively stable ranges of percent at which they meet state standard.

Three of the five monitored sites are listed on the VADEQ’s final 2018 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report that identifies impaired waters of the state (Table 6). The Kingsland Creek (KGC-01) site is listed as impaired for both aquatic life and recreational contact. The Powhite Creek (POW-05) monitoring site is listed as impaired for not supporting aquatic life. The Pocoshock Creek (FC-11) monitoring site is listed as impaired for recreational contact. The remaining two sites, Tributary to Falling Creek (FC-02) and Tributary to Proctors Creek (PRC-11) are both catalogued under Impaired Category 2B, indicating that these are waters of concerns, but more information is needed prior to inclusion on the impaired waters list. Strategies for addressing the water quality standards in these streams will be developed by VADEQ.

Table 6. Monitoring sites assessed that are listed as impaired state waters VADEQ.

Conclusion

The report presents the data from the fifth of five monitoring years required by the county’s MS4 permit. The site evaluations indicated a relatively stable condition from 2018 to 2019 with no large observable shifts in habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate communities or in-stream chemistries. Long-term trending indicates these sites are experiencing active degradation; supporting the initial reason for selecting these sites for monitoring five years ago. These sites were selected due to their potential as stream restoration locations and as such, these stream locations were known to exhibit clear anthropogenic impacts. Monitoring has demonstrated the impacts range from habitat degradation along the banks, decreased aquatic life and in-stream chemistry effects as the result of

25 2019 Report of Water Quality Observations run-off and erosion from the contributing watershed areas. The overall multivariate assessment of these streams indicates stream ecosystems in distress with poorly rated biotic communities, habitat and chemistry.

References

Barbour, M.L., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Chesterfield County Water Quality Section, 2018. Chesterfield County Water Quality Section Field and Laboratory Instrument Standard Operating Procedures. Chesterfield County, Virginia.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins, eds. 1984. An Introduction to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of North America, 2nd Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Dubuque, Iowa.

Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton and D.J. Conklin, Jr. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003. A Stream Condition Index for Virginia Non-Coastal Streams. Prepared for USEPA Office of Water, EPA Region 3 and VADEQ. Tetra Tech, Owings Mills, Maryland.

VADEQ, 2016. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Assessments Webpage:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/Water QualityAssessments/2016305(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx

VADEQ, 2011. Water Quality Standards 9 VAC 25-260 Virginia Water Quality Standards. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia.

VADEQ, 2006. Using Probabilistic Monitoring Data to Validate the Non-Coastal Virginia Stream Condition Index. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia.

26 Š‡•–‡”ˆ‹‡Ž†‘—–›ǡ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡”‹–‘ǤͲͲͺͺ͸Ͳͻ ʹͲͳͻͶ—ƒŽ‡’‘”–Ȃͷ   

 C.2StructuralandSourceControlsCompliance MonitoringandTracking 

Ž‡ –”‘‹ —„‹••‹‘

 ’’‡†‹š