The purposes of the water quality impact assessment are to:
A.
Identify the impacts of proposed land disturbance, development, or
redevelopment on water quality and lands within the RPA and other
environmentally sensitive lands;
B.
Ensure that where land disturbance, development, or redevelopment
does take place within the RPA and other sensitive lands, it will
occur on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least
disruptive to the natural functions of the RPA and other sensitive
lands;
C.
To protect individuals from investing funds for improvements proposed
for location on lands unsuited for such development because of high
ground water, erosion, or vulnerability to flood and storm damage;
D.
Specify mitigation which will address water quality protection.
A.
A water quality impact assessment shall be required for:
(1)
Any proposed land disturbance, development or redevelopment
activity within the RPA, including any buffer area encroachment as
provided for in this article; and
(2)
Any proposed development in the RMA when required by the Administrator
after determination by the Administrator that the development warrants
such assessment because of the unique characteristics of the site
or intensity of the proposed development, and that such assessment
is necessary to determine consistency of the development with the
goals and objectives of the Act, the regulations promulgated thereunder
and this chapter.
A.
When required. A minor water quality impact assessment shall be required
for any proposed land disturbance, development, or redevelopment within
the Overlay District which causes no more than 5,000 square feet of
land disturbance and requires any encroachment into the landward 50
feet of the one-hundred-foot buffer area component of the RPA.
B.
General criteria. A minor water quality impact assessment must demonstrate
through acceptable calculations that the undisturbed buffer area,
enhanced vegetative plantings and any required best management practices
will result in removal of no less than 75% of sediments and 40% of
nutrients from post-development stormwater runoff, and that will retard
runoff, prevent erosion, and filter non-point source pollution the
equivalent of the full undisturbed one-hundred-foot buffer area.
C.
Submission requirements. A minor water quality impact assessment
shall be performed and certified as complete and accurate by individuals
qualified to perform such assessment. Such assessment shall be submitted
to and reviewed by the Administrator in conjunction with the plan
of development review process as required by this article, and shall
be made a part of any application for a rezoning, conditional use
permit or variance pertaining to the subject land. The Administrator
may require the assessment to be modified, resubmitted and certified
as complete and accurate by a professional engineer or a certified
land surveyor, licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia if the Administrator
is unable to complete his review due to the quality of information
originally submitted.
D.
Required information. Submission of a minor water quality impact
assessment shall include six copies of all information required by
this section and site drawings to scale, which show the following:
(1)
Location of the components of the RPA, including the one-hundred-foot
buffer area and any water body with perennial flow;
(2)
Location of any structures, drives or other impervious cover,
sewage disposal systems including reserve drainfield sites, and all
areas of clearing or grading;
(3)
Location and nature of the proposed effects of the encroachment
into the buffer area;
(4)
Types and location of proposed best management practices to
mitigate the proposed encroachment into the buffer area;
(5)
Location of existing vegetation onsite, including the number
and type of trees and other vegetation to be removed in the buffer
to accommodate the encroachment or modification; and
(6)
Revegetation plan that supplements the existing buffer vegetation
in a manner that provides for pollutant removal, erosion and runoff
control.
E.
Evaluation criteria. Upon completion of review of the minor water
quality impact assessment, the Administrator shall determine if any
proposed encroachment into the buffer area is consistent with the
provisions of this article and shall make a finding based upon the
following criteria:
(1)
The proposed encroachment into the buffer area shall be necessary
to enable reasonable development of the site, and proposed improvements
cannot reasonably be located elsewhere on the site to avoid disturbance
of the buffer area;
(2)
Impervious surface shall be minimized to the greatest extent
possible;
(3)
Proposed best management practices, where required, shall achieve
the requisite reductions and pollutant loadings;
(4)
The cumulative impact of the proposed development, when considered
in relation to other existing or proposed development on the site,
shall not result in significant degradation of water quality.
F.
Mitigation. The Administrator shall require additional mitigation
where potential impact has not been adequately addressed. Evaluation
of the impact shall be made by the Administrator based on the criteria
set forth in this section.
G.
Absence of mitigation is inconsistent. The Administrator shall find
the proposal to be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of this
article when the impact created by the proposal cannot be mitigated.
Evaluation of the impact shall be made by the Administrator based
on the criteria set forth in this section.
A.
When required. A major water quality impact assessment shall be required
for any proposed development which:
(1)
Exceeds 5,000 square feet of land disturbance within the Overlay
District and proposes any encroachment into the landward 50 feet of
the one-hundred-foot buffer area component of the RPA;
(2)
Proposes to disturb any portion of any other component of the
RPA or buffer area within 50 feet of any other component of the RPA;
or
(3)
Is located within the RMA and exceeds 5,000 square feet of land
disturbance, when such assessment is required by the Administrator
after determination by the Administrator that the development warrants
such assessment because of the unique characteristics of the site
or the intensity of the proposed development, and that such assessment
is necessary to determine consistency with the goals and objectives
of the Act, the regulations promulgated thereunder and this chapter.
B.
General criteria. A major water quality impact assessment must demonstrate
through acceptable calculations that the remaining buffer area and
the necessary best management practices will result in removal of
no less than 75% of sediments and 40% of nutrients from post development
stormwater runoff.
C.
Submission requirements. A major water quality impact assessment
and the information required relative thereto shall be certified as
complete and accurate by a professional engineer or a certified land
surveyor licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Administrator
may accept such assessment performed by an individual qualified to
perform such assessment who is not a licensed professional engineer
or certified land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia
if, in the sole discretion of the Administrator, the Administrator
determines that such assessment contains sufficient information to
allow the Administrator to complete his review and such assessment
is certified by such qualified individual as complete and accurate.
Such assessment shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Administrator
in conjunction with the plan of development review process as required
by this article, and shall be made a part of any application for a
rezoning, conditional use permit or variance pertaining to the subject
land.
D.
Review by CBLAD. As part of any major water quality impact assessment
submittal, the Administrator may request review by the Chesapeake
Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD). Upon receipt of the major
water quality impact assessment, the Administrator shall determine
if such review is warranted and may request CBLAD to review the assessment
and respond with written comments. Any comments by CBLAD shall be
incorporated into the final review by the Administrator, provided
such comments are provided by CBLAD within 90 days of the request.
E.
Required information. The following elements shall be included in
the submission of a major water quality impact assessment. The information
required herein and elsewhere in this section shall be considered
the minimum for submission, unless the Administrator determines that
certain elements are unnecessary due to the limited scope and nature
of the proposed development. Submission shall include six copies of
all information required by this section.
(1)
All of the information required for a minor water quality impact assessment as set forth in § 175-22.20 of this article;
(2)
A hydro geological element that:
(a)
Describes the existing topography, soils, and hydrology of the
site and adjacent lands;
(b)
Describes the impacts of the proposed development on topography,
soils, hydrology, and geology on the site and adjacent lands;
(c)
Indicates the following:
[1]
Disturbance or destruction of wetlands and justification
for such action;
[2]
Disruptions or reductions in the supply of water
to wetlands, streams, lakes, rivers, or other water bodies;
[3]
Disruptions to existing hydrology including wetlands
and stream circulation patterns;
[4]
Source location and description of proposed fill
material;
[5]
Location of dredge material and location of dumping
area for such material;
[6]
Estimation of pre- and post-development pollutant
loads in runoff;
[7]
Estimation of percent increase in impervious surface
on site and type(s) of surfacing materials used;
[8]
Percent of site to be cleared for project;
[9]
Anticipated duration and phasing schedule of construction
project; and
[10]
Listing of all requisite permits from all applicable
agencies necessary to develop project.
(d)
Describes the proposed mitigation measures for the potential
hydro geological impacts. Potential mitigation measures include:
[1]
Additional proposed erosion and sediment control concepts beyond those normally required under § 175-22.10D; these additional concepts may include minimizing the extent of the cleared area, perimeter controls, reduction of runoff velocities, measures to stabilize disturbed areas, schedule and personnel for site inspection;
[2]
Proposed stormwater management system for non-point
source quality and quantity control;
(3)
A landscape element that:
(a)
Identifies and delineates the location of all woody plant material
on site, including all trees six inches or greater diameter at breast
height. Where there are groups of trees, stands may be outlined.
(b)
Describes the impacts the development will have on the existing
vegetation. Information should include:
(c)
Describes the proposed measures for mitigation. Possible mitigation
measures include:
[1]
Proposed design plan and replanting schedule for
trees and other woody vegetation removed for construction, including
a list of proposed plants and trees to be used;
[2]
Demonstration that the design of the plan will
preserve to the greatest extent possible any woody trees and vegetation
on the site and supplement the existing buffer vegetation in a manner
that provides for pollutant removal, erosion and runoff control; and
[3]
Demonstration that indigenous plants are to be
used to the greatest extent possible.
F.
Evaluation criteria. Upon completion of review of a major water quality
impact assessment, the Administrator shall determine if the proposed
development and any proposed encroachment into the buffer area are
consistent with the provisions of this article and shall make a finding
based upon the following criteria:
(1)
Any proposed development within the RPA shall be water-dependent
or redevelopment;
(2)
Disturbance of wetlands shall be minimized;
(3)
The development shall not result in significant disruption of
the hydrology of the site;
(4)
The development shall not result in significant degradation
to aquatic vegetation or life;
(5)
The development shall not result in unnecessary destruction
of plant materials on the site;
(6)
Proposed erosion and sediment control concepts shall be adequate
to achieve the reductions in runoff and to prevent off-site sedimentation;
(7)
Stormwater management proposals shall be adequate to control
stormwater runoff to achieve the required performance criteria for
pollutant control set forth in this article;
(8)
Proposed revegetation of disturbed areas shall provide optimum
erosion and sediment control benefits;
(9)
The design and location of any proposed drainfield shall be in accordance with the requirements of § 175-22.10 of this article;
(10)
The proposed development shall be consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Overlay District; and
(11)
The cumulative impact of the proposed development, when considered
in relation to other existing or proposed development on the site,
shall not result in a significant degradation of water quality.
G.
Mitigation. The Administrator shall require additional mitigation
where potential impacts have not been adequately addressed. Evaluation
of mitigation measures will be made by the Administrator based on
the criteria set forth in this section.
H.
Absence of mitigation is inconsistent. The Administrator shall find
the proposal to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this
article when the impacts created by the proposal cannot be mitigated.
Evaluation of the impacts will be made by the Administrator based
on the criteria set forth in this section.
