V  -»,(,(-                                            903R78002
          ^

       I'N

          ^
I




I




I
|                            /AN
                                                        U.S. EPA Region III

                                                        Regional Center for Environment;
                                I'lLppO^                    T r    ,.
                                                          Information

                         RegionaircntcrforFmironmen^Informahou        '   1650 Arch Str66t (3PM52)
                               "S™SW                 Philadelphia, PA 19103
                              Philadelphia. P-\ 19103
                                                    PRELIMINARY CASE REPORT


                                                            For the
I


I


I


                                                    IHenrico County, Virginia
                                                 Wastewater Treatment Facilities

•                                                      DEEP BOTTOM WEST

                                                          July,  1978

I


I


I


I


I


I


I


I

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                         Table of Contents

                                                              Page

   Introduction	 1
            I  Background.
I               A.  NEPA Compliance	 3
               B.  Description of the Proposed Action	 4
               C.  Treatment Plant Site Selection Process	 7
 •             D.  EIS Conclusions	 8


           II  Description of the Effect Properties	 9


 •        III  Determination of Effect	 14


           IV  Avoidance of Adverse Effect	 16
V  Mitigation of Adverse Effect	18


   APPENDIX 1 - Official Correspondence

-------
 I

 I
          Introduction
               The following report constitutes the Environmental Protection
 |        Agency's additional compliance with the National Historic Preser-
 wm        vation Act of 1966 and the associated regulations as established by
          the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800).  This
 I        preliminary case report will serve as the basis for the preparation
          of the Memorandum of Agreement .
 I
               An Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for the
 I        proposed action with the Final EIS being released in March of 1978.
 _        Most of the information found in this report has been taken from the
 ™        Final EIS.  More detail can be found in the Final EIS, specifically
I
I
I
I
I
          Appendix D, "Historical and Archeological Resources".
               An  appendix  is  included with  this  case  report which  includes
•

          the more important agency actions and position.

               The County of Henrico, Virginia, acting as the grant applicant,

•        has proposed construction of a wastewater treatment plant at a site

          identified as Deep Bottom West.  As a result of the EIS Process, this
          site has  recently been  identified by the Keeper  of the Register  as  an

          eligible  site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Sites.

-------
-2-
 I

 I

 I

         As required under 36 CFR  800.4(e), EPA has prepared this preliminary
 •       case report for  review  and  comment.

 B            The site is presently  privately owned and afforded no protection
         from private developmental  interests.  EPA feels strongly that a major
         factor in determining the effect of the undertaking on the identified
 •       site should be the consideration of alternative uses of this identified
         historical resource if  the  proposed project is not implemented.

 ™            In accordance with the definition of adverse effects (36 CFR 800.9),
 •       EPA has concluded that an adverse effect determination is necessary.
         However, through consultation with the County of Henrico and the Virginia
 •       State Historic Preservation Officer (Mr. Tucker Hill), a very definative
         set of mitigative measures  have been proposed which could not only allow
 ™       for the perpetual preservation of the identified Civil War related
 •I       historic sites, but would culminate in the establishment of a County
         Park, designed to make these sites and their educational resources readily
 •       available and accessable to the general public.  A unique nature of the
         mitigative measures include the required review and approval of the
 ~       proposed park plan by the Advisory Council prior to the release of any

 I

I

I

-------
I

I

•       EPA federal funds for any treatment plant site-specific work.

||       I.  Background

•           A.  NEPA Compliance

•            The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
         the preparation of an EIS whenever federal funds or approval are
|       considered for projects with potentially significant environmental
•|       impacts.  Recognizing the potential air and water quality impacts
         from the expected growth in the service area generated by the pro-
•       vision of sewer service and because of concerns and objections raised
         by local citizens, EPA decided in the spring of 1976 that an EIS was
•       necessary for the proposed Henrico Regional Wastewater Facilities.

f            The decision to prepare an EIS early in the planning process has
_       allowed it's preparation concurrently with the development of the
         Facilities Plan.   This permits a greater amount of environmental
V       coordination and integration in the project's development than might
         be normally anticipated from the preparation of the EIS subsequent to the
I       completion of the Facilities Plan.  It is for this reason that the reader

I

I

I

I

-------

I

I

I
         will note that  the applicant  did not  select  a recommended  plan
•       (including a recommended  treatment  plant  site)  until  after the  Draft
•       EIS was made available  for  their consideration.   Under  this process,
         EPA would then  address  the  applicant's  recommended  plan in the  Final
•       EIS and make it's  final recommendations and  conclusions on the  pro-
         posed action.

              The issue  which  this preliminary case report will  discuss  is  the
£       archeologic impacts associated with the treatment plant site location.
_       Of  the five treatment plant sites evaluated  through the EIS Process,
         only three were determined  to be acceptable  for EPA funding.  The
I       applicant's proposed  site,  Deep  Bottom  West,  is one of  these three
         acceptable sites.
I
             B.   Description of  the  Proposed Action
              The proposed  action  involves seventy-five  percent  federal  grant
A       funding under Public  Law  92-500,  The  Federal Water  Pollution Control
         Act Amendments  of  1972, for the  construction of a wastewater treatment
(       plant and a system of interceptor sewers  to  serve Henrico  County and
M       parts of Goochland and  Hanover Counties,  Virginia.

I

I

I

-------
I
I
I
f
I
I
                               -5-
_             The Henrico  County  201 Facilities  Plan  is  an outgrowth  of  the

         Richmond Regional Water  Quality Management Plan which was  approved

fl       by  the  State Water  Control Board  in  July, 1974.  Briefly stated,  this

         plan  called for an  interceptor system which  would begin in the  far

j|       west  end of Henrico County and proceed  in an easterly direction around

•       the City of Richmond and would terminate in  the eastern portion of

         the county at a new wastewater treatment plant.  The treated effluent

M       would then be discharged in the James River  upstream from  Jones Neck

         Cutoff.  The proposed circumferential interceptor system would  serve

         to  prevent nearly all county wastewater from entering the  City  of

«|       Richmond's collection system and  eventually  being disposed of through

         their combined sewer system.  The assumptions and cost analysis per-

•       taining to this plan were reviewed,  and it was  concluded that the

         selected plan is  the most cost-effective of  the feasible alternatives.

I
               A  large number of alternatives  for wastewater  transportation and

W       treatment were considered in the  201 Facilities Plan/EIS process,

_       including:



               -  no action;

I
- design flow - both "no growth" and water conservation


  were considered;

-------
 I
 I
 I
-6-
 <•            -  transportation - four (4)  alternative interceptor


                 routings  in the western end of  Henrico County,


 |              three (3)  in mid-eastern Henrico County,  seven  (7)


 «              in eastern Henrico  County, and  three (3)  in


                 Goochland County were evaluated.  In addition,


 •              alternative routes  to the  various treatment plant


                 sites were evaluated;


 4|            -  treatment plant sites - five (5) treatment plant


 mt              sites,  all in eastern Henrico County, were evalu-


                 ated in detail.   Four (4)  of these sites  were


 •              evaluated in the Draft EIS and  the fifth  site


                 in Addendum Number  One;

 W            -  treatment process - over forty  (40)  treatment


 •r              schemes were evaluated in  detail;

               -  disinfection - alternatives using chlorine and

 V              ozone were evaluated;

               -  effluent  disposal - two locations on the  James

 w              River were considered;


 m            -  land application -  preliminary  land  requirements


                 and cost  estimates  were made for application


 •               of effluent in Henrico County.   Examination of




I



 I

-------
I
I
I
-7-
M               raw sludge  composting  and  subsequent  land  application


                 will be  reviewed  in  step two;


*••            •-  regional alternatives  - the  assumptions  and cost


•               analysis pertaining  to the selection  of  regional


                 water  quality  alternatives were  reviewed.



               The  201  Facilities  Plan  has  recommended that a 28.6  mgd secondary


ff        treatment plant be constructed at Deep  Bottom West,  with  discharge  to

                                                             \
          the James River at Segment  24.


I
             C.  Treatment  Plant  Site  Selection  Process



               The  Draft  EIS was released with  the Facilities Plan  on  May  18,


I        1977.   Four treatment plant sites were  identified and  evaluated:



V             1) Deep  Bottom


               2) Varina  Farms


•             3) Darbytown  Road


_             4) Cornelius  Creek



               A  joint  public hearing was held  on the  Facilities  Plan  and  the


•        Draft EIS on  June  21, 1977.   Following  this  hearing, the  Board of


A        Supervisors of  Henrico County met on  July  13, July 20,  August 3, and


          August  10,  of 1977, to select a single  treatment  plant  site  to


•        complete  the  Facilities  Plan  and  allow  EPA to evaluate  the appli-


          cant's  proposed action in the Final EIS.   During  these  meetings,

-------
I
I
I
                                              -8-
 •         it became evident that even though the general consensus may had
            favored the Deep Bottom Site,  the displacement of homes and excessive
 j|         costs which would have had to  be born by the local residents prompted
 M         the Board to reject this site.   As a result of these considerations,
            a fifth site was identified and approved by the Board which would not
 •         require the displacement of families and would result in a substantial
            monetary savings.  This new site was identified as the Deep Bottom
 V         West Site.
 W              Since  this was,  in a sense, a new site, an addendum to the Draft
            EIS was released in November of 1977 and both a public information
 ™         meeting was held on October 25, 1977 and a Public Hearing was held on
 •         December 13, 1977 by EPA to allow public comment on the Deep Bottom

 1

 *•              The 201 Facilities Planning/EIS process identified five alter-
 W         native sites for wastewater treatment facilities,  all in eastern
            Henrico County.   After careful  examination of all available information
 •         and consideration of  public input,  the EIS concludes that two of the

 I

I

I
           West Site.
               D.   EIS Conclusions

-------
-9-
 I

 I

 1

 •         alternative sites,  Darbytown Road and Deep Bottom,  are environmentally
 M         unacceptable.   This determination is based on the social impacts which
            would result from the relocation of local residents.   It is EPA's
 B         position that because there are acceptable alternatives available,  the
 -_         relocation of residents  is  unnecessary.   The other  three sites,  Deep
 f
 ™         Bottom West, Varina Farms,  and Cornelius  Creek,  are environmentally
 M         acceptable.

 A              Although among these three sites there would,  by necessity,  be
            a relative range of acceptability,  it is  the responsibility of the
 M         locally elected governing body to determine which of  the acceptable
            alternatives best meets  the needs of the  community.   The Board of
 •         Supervisors has reviewed the Final EIS and has resolved to maintain
 jm         their support for the Deep  Bottom West Site.   As this has been identified
            as acceptable in the Final  EIS,  EPA is presently ready to approve federal
 W         funds for this site, pending resolution of this  issue through the
            development of a Memorandum of Agreement.
 I
            II.   Description of the  Affected Properties

                 The proposed Deep Bottom West Wastewater Treatment Facility site
 •          is located south of Kingsland Road, west  of Fourmile  Creek and east
            and west of Deep Bottom  Road in eastern Henrico  County.   Treatment  Facil-


1

-------
-10-
I

1
I
           ities are proposed for the  155 acre west of Deep Bottom Road; a sludge
fl         landfill is proposed for the 300 acre area east of Deep Bottom Road.
           The entire site is currently composed of twenty separate parcels and
^         is bordered by an additional fifty, fourteen of which are occupied by
«         rural residences.

                This proposed site is  essentially the original proposed Deep
           Bottom Wastewater Treatment Facility modified in order to avoid taking
•         residences along Deep Bottom Road, to avoid extensive areas of potential
           gravity sewerage outside the County 1995 phasing line, and to avoid re-
I         location of Deep Bottom Road.  This was accomplished by splitting
           the sites for treatment and landfill, locating the faciliites west
™         of the road and the landfill to the east.

B              Approximately 50% of the facilities site is in agricultural use
«»         and 50% is wooded.  The entire 155 acres has been designated 'prime
           agricultural' land by the Henrico County Future Land Use Plan, and
•         the western portion of the  area is currently in agricultural pro-
           duction (soybeans).  The wooded or eastern portion of the facilities
•         area is in second and third growth pine/hardwood and young hardwood

I

I

I

1

-------
I
1
I
I
                                            -11-
           forest.   It includes a patchwork of brushy hardwood and pioneer
           species  bordering the agricultural uses.   This woodland habitat
           supports a variety of animal species including game birds and
•         mammals.  A man-made pond of approximately 1/8 acre is located
           in the open field on the western portion  of the facilities area
^         and is surrounded by brushy hardwood vegetation.

                The presence of hardwood species such as sweet gum and sweet
•|         spices suggests soils on the plant site are poorly drained and
           subject  to flooding.  Since older hardwoods on the plant site are
W         characterized by slow growth and reduced  vigor, soils  in this area
           may be nutrient deficient with respect to certain kinds of climax
           vegetation.   Slopes on the plant site range from zero  to fifteen
••         percent  and runoff is generally slow in the eastern and western
           portions of the area.   On the central portion of  the site, soils
«         may be subject to moderate or severe erosion hazard with rapid
           runoff if vegetation is removed for construction.
t
                All of the 300 acre landfill area is wooded;  vegetational types
J|         range from successional woodlots to upland and bottomland forests.

I

t

I

I

-------
 I

 1

 I
 •         Most of the landfill area (above the thirty foot contour) has been
            cleared at one or more times and is in various stages of recovery.
 *         An area to the east" of the landfill site consists of bottomland
 fl         forests bordered by a fresh water marsh in Fourmile Creek.  This
            portion of the site is within the Flood Prone Area identified by HUD
 •         under the National Flood Insurance Program.  The bottomland hardwood
 _         forest is one of the most diverse terrestrial plant communities in the
 ™         Atlantic Coastal Plain.  In addition to this diversity and the wild-
 IB         life population it supports, these areas act to control drainage to the
            wetlands.  The wetlands act as settling or filtering basins which collect
 M         sediments and other suspended material.  Wetlands constitute a habitat
 _         that is essential to waterfowl and numerous other aquatic and terrestrial
            animals.  Preliminary plans indicate this area, which falls below the
 *•         30 foot contour, will not be cleared or used.
 •              Slopes in the area to be filled are shallow, ranging from 0-5%;
            however, slopes below the 30 foot contour range from 10-20%.  Existing
1         vegetation below the 30 foot contour should provide an adequate barrier
            to construction-related erosion and siltation, if properly controlled.
I
I
t
Erosion hazards from the landfill site appear slight to moderate unless
slopes below the 30 foot contour are cleared.

-------
 I
 1
 I
 I
 I
I
I
1
I
                                            -13-
                 Surrounding land uses  include  scattered rural residences, as


           well  as forested and agricultural lands.  The projected facilities


           and landfill will not be incompatible with forested or agricultural


M         areas; compatibility with nearby rural residences will depend on


           effective odor control and  visual screening with vegetated buffers.


™         Henrico County has  stated its willingness to relocate adjacent re-


fl         sidents if  they so  desire.  Responses at public meetings held by the


           County indicate skepticism  that adequate relocation assistance will


•         be made available.  Fifteen to twenty residences occur directly or


_         nearly adjacent to  the proposed site.  Recent relocation studies con-


           ducted in connection with the proposed routing of 1-95 through eastern


W         Henrico County conclude that adequate local sale and rental properties


           exist for necessary relocation (Federal Highway Administration and


J|         Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, 1977).



W               Except for the slopes  bordering Fourmile Creek to the east, the


           site  is designated  as 'prime agriculture' by the Henrico County Future
           Land Use Plan.  This designation does not represent a violation of  the


           plan, but does represent a conflict regarding  the compatibility of

-------
 I

 1
                                             -14-
 I
            nearby land uses  with a sewerage facility.   The site's  eastern slopes
 I         are designated as an 'environmental protection area'  by the Plan;
            use as a buffer would not conflict with this designation.
            III.   Determination of Effect
 I
                 The following determinations have been made utilizing the
 •         Procedures  For the Protection of Historic and Cultural  Properties  as
            set forth by the  Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800).
 I
                 On May 11,  1978, EPA requested a  determination of  eligibility for
 |         inclusion in the  National Register pursuant to the National Historic
 m         Preservation Act  of 1966.
                 On July 14,  1978,  the Keeper of the Register responded in two
            parts:
 J§              1)   The Deep Bottom West Site is  eligible for inclusion in the
 m         National Register resulting from it's  historic nature (site of a battle
            fought during the Civil War)  and identified historic archeologic
I
1
           features associated with the Civil War;
•               2)   As  requested by  the  State  Historic  Preservation Officer (SHPO),
            a more detailed  survey  of certain prehistoric  archeologic sites  is
fl          necessary prior  to  a determination  of  eligibility.

I

1

-------
 I
 1
 1
_
I

I

1
                                           -15-
                As defined in 36 CFR 800.8, EPA has determined that the proposed


           undertaking will have an effect on the property now eligible for in-


           elusion in the National Register.



 W             In addition, the following has been established:



 £             For Prehistoric Archeologic Resources; a determination of "No


 »        Adverse Effect" has been made based on the following grant conditions.



                1 .  A Phase II archeologic survey will be conducted on the five


 •        sites as identified by the SHPO and the Keeper of the Register.  On


 4        completion of this work, all of the necessary information will be


           forwarded to the SHPO and subsequently to the Keeper of the Register


 •        for a determination of eligibility for inclusion on the National


           Register.



                2.  No identified archeologic sites will be disturbed prior to a


           determination of eligibility and the appropriate treatment of resources


 *m        has been made.



                3.  No identified archeologic sites will be disturbed for which
          data retrieval or salvage is not an acceptable and appropriate treatment


          of resources.

-------
I
1
                For Historic Archeologic Resources (specifically, the Civil
           War archeologic sites) :  a determination of "Adverse Effect" has
           been made.   As will be discussed in Section V,  EPA has proposed
•         certain specific  grant conditions which it feels will satisfactorily
           mitigate the adverse effect of the project and  would permit the
£         execution of a Memorandum of Agreement.

•         IV,  Avoidance of  Adverse  Effect

•              In the context of considering alternatives to the proposed action
           which would avoid the adverse effect,  the Final EIS identified two other
if         acceptable  alternatives;  Varina Farms  and Cornelius Creek.

I
                Varina Farms
•              As part of the Facilities Plan, a preliminary archaeologic survey
           was conducted in June of 1977 to determine the existence and probable
9         significance of any prehistoric or historic artifacts.  The conclusions
A         of the survey included the discovery of three prehistoric sites; two
           which were likely to be significant based on available data and location.
•         It was strongly recommended that a more detailed survey of the two sites

I

t

1

I
          be made.

-------
 I
 1
 I
1
                                 -17-



     Based upon this information, it can be concluded that similar


coordination efforts would be necessary with the SHPO and Keeper


of the Register with no assurance that this site might be eventually
 im

             determined to have any less adverse effect on historic or cultural

 V          resources than the Deep Bottom West Site.



 •              Cornelius Creek               i



 •              Although this site offers some environmental advantages, the

             location of a major Nabisco factory directly adjacent to this site

 V          significantly threatens the feasibility of this sites' implementation.


             It  is EPA's stated position in the EIS that certain special control


 V          measures could be introduced at the treatment plant which should prevent


 m          any anticipated adverse effects from effecting the operations of the

             Nabisco bakery.  However, noting the effect on the local economy and


 •           employment should the factory be forced to relocate, and the most

             probable prolonged negotiations and delays which would be anticipated

 •           should this site be chosen, it would be highly advantageous for the

             County to consider other, possibly more implementable, alternative


             sites.



                 Thus, although certain alternatives to the proposed action are


 •           available which would avoid the adverse impacts on the archeologic

             resources of the Deep Bottom West Site, those sites similarly have


I



I

-------
 I
 I
 I
           serious obstacles associated with them which would, by necessity,
 (        consume substantial time commitments before they could be implemented.
I
1
                                 -18-
V. Mitigation of Adverse Effects
 •              The proceeding mitigative measures have been developed in con-
           sultations with the SHPO and the County of Henrico (the project
 0         applicant).   It is the opinion of these representatives and EPA
 «         that selection of the Deep Bottom Site for the treatment plant will
           have two advantageous effects on the identified Civil War-related
archeologic sites:
fl              1.  All but one of the sites will be located in the proposed
           undisturbed buffer zone, thus afforded protection by their public
•         ownership and perpetual preservation, and;

•              2.  The implementation of a park program which will make
           publicly available a local educational resource.
                As special mitigative measures, the following will be required
£         as grant conditions to the approval of the Facilities Plan and sub-
_         sequent Step II grant awards in addition to those grant conditions
           previously mentioned in Section III (Prehistoric Archeologic Sites):
I

I

I

-------
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
1
I
I
I
t

-------
I
I
I
-19-
 _               1.  With  the exception of Site Number 44 He  124, the sludge

            disposal area  will be restricted so that all of the identified

 •          Civil War-related archeologic sites will remain in the undisturbed

            buffer  zone.


 I
                 2.  Site  Number 44 Hel24 will not be disturbed if data

 •          retrieval or salvage is determined by the SHPO and Advisory Council

            not  to  be an appropriate treatment of resources.



                 3.  The southern boundary of the sludge disposal property shall

 |          be extended south to connect the sludge disposal property to  the

 M          existing publicly owned boat launch with a minimum width of 40 feet.



                 4.  The County shall prepare and implement a Park Plan to in-

 '          elude the following elements as a minimum:



 I               a.  a graded path linking the identified Civil War-related

 A          archeologic sites with the existing boat launch on the James River.



 —               b.  four  permanent trail markers at appropriate locations with

 *          narrative descriptions of the sites.



 V               c.  a permanent marker at the path entrance from the boat

 •          launch which in sufficient detail discussing the nature and significance





I



I

-------
 I

 I
                                            -20-
 I
           of the area, persons associated with the area, and any other
 •        appropriate information.
 B             d.  a public information brochure describing the actions and
           significance of the area, description of the path and other appro-
 Q        priate information suitable for distribution for local schools,
 «        libraries, tourist information centers, adjacent historical
           parks, etc.
 «•             5.  The County shall submit five copies of the Park Plan to EPA
 •        within 120 days of the initial grant award.  The Plan shall include
           all of the information necessary for immediate implementation including
 •        costs and time schedule for development.
 •             EPA and the Advisory Council will review and comment on the Plan
           within 15 working days from reception.  Based upon the County's com-
 •        plation of the preceding conditions, the Advisory Council and EPA will
 A        concur with the Plan.  (It is understood that the County is responsible
           for the development of, the Plan in accordance with these predetermined
 1

 I

 I

 I

I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
                                             -21-

            elements;  thus,  approval by EPA and the Advisory Council must be
            based solely upon the satisfactory performance of these stated
            elements.   Conversely,  the County must  prepare the Plan in accord-
 _
            ance with these elements  in good faith;  with the goal of developing
 •          a viable, educational and implementable  Plan).   The concurrence of
            the Plan by EPA and the Advisory Council will conclude the Memorandum
 I
of Agreement.   Only after the conclusion of the Memorandum of Agree-
ment will EPA approve any Step II grant awards for any site-specific
contracts.

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
     APPENDIX ONE
OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
                 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

                      Virginia Historic Landmarks  Commission

                            Virginia Research Center for Archaeology
                                      Wren Kitchen
                             THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
                                  Wtlliamsburg, Virginia 23 1 86
                                   October 26, 1977
   MEMORANDUM




   T0: T.F. Turner


   FROM:   W. M. Kelso, Commissioner
    CT TT5 TpPT •
           Deep bottom  201  Facilities Plan
   COMMENTS:


          d   There are no known archaeological sites affected by this project.


          CS   There are archaeological sues affected by this project.


          CS   Survey is necessary for adequate evaluation of archaeological resources affected by thii projec
&   ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.    T,         +.   L,        <  •  +   •      ui-i-vi^.
                           There are two known premstoric  archaeological sites  located
   jacent to the project  area,  as well  a known sites of  the Civil War period  is  located
 within the project area.   This location has excellent potential for the presence of
   «ditional archaeological  sites of the prehistoric  and  historic periods and  there-
   re should be surveyed  prior  to submission of the  preliminary engineering  report.
   ap reference: J.F. Gilmer's  "Richmond and Part of the Peninsula," 1364.)   Please
   fnd enclosed a list of  educational  institutions which  have satisfactorily  completed
   rveys in the state.
I

I
                                  Wayne  E.  Clark
                                  Martha W.  M

 c: Wayne  Burgess,  State Water Control  Board
_  ,  ,             ,            Martha  W.  McCartney        nu   804-253-4336
ror further information please contact 	rh. 	

-------
  I
RS
RICK HERMAN, CHAIRMAN
R •DRT VICE CHAIRMAN
FH HvMAN
IILlBw 0 BUNQY JR
A HARRISON. Ill
.0 HAYNES
   TH R HIGGINS
     NICHOLS
N fUTHERLANO
                COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
                     Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission
                                February 6,  1978
        TUCKER HILL
   EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

  221 GOVERNOR STREET
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
    TELEPHONE 786 3143
                                                                                             I?
 I
 Miss Helen Waldorf,  Ecologist
 Ecol Sciences,  Inc.
 127 Park Street,  N.E.
 Vienna, Virginia 22180
                        Re:  Project #20-14
                             Sewerage treatment plant and attendant pipelines
                             Deep Bottom, Henrico County, Virginia
     Dear Miss Waldorf:
 I

 I

 I
 I
 Mr. Tucker Hill has  asked me to  thank you  for  your  inquiry of  January 20.  While
 the Civil War associations of Deep  Bottom  may  be  of interest and some importance,
 the staff of the Landmarks Commission believes  that such associations would not
 qualify Deep Bottom  for the National  Register  of  Historic Places.  The Yarborough
 House is of architectural significance to  Henrico County and should be preserved
 although our staff believes that it would, not  be  eligible for  the National Register.
 Because of its proximity to the  proposed location of the sewerage plant,  the
 Yarborough House apparently would be  affected  by  the facility, visually and other-
 wise.  Any pronouncements of possible National  Register eligibility of archaeo-
 logical sites at Deep Bottom must await our  review  of Mr. James Cleland's archaeo-
 logical survey which should be available to  us shortly.

 I have discussed with you the Civil War breastworks at  Deep Bottom and the
 Tuckahoe Creek Canal in upper Henrico County as these would be affected by the
 sewerage plant and a sewer line, respectively.  A good many breastworks or earth-
 works yet remain in  lower Henrico County,  but  the number is dwindling as  a result
 of development.  Ordinarily such structures  would not qualify  for the National
 Register, unless associated with an important  battle.  We believe that the earth-
 works at Deep Bottom would not qualify for the  Register.  Though, as the  region
 suburbanizes, hopefully as many  Civil War  earthworks as possible will be  pre-
 served concurrent with development.   In that interest we would like to see the
 breastworks at Deep  'Bottom either preserved  or  restored after  contraction, where-
 ever feasible.  We have no immediate  plan  to nominate the Tuckahoe Creek  Canal to
 the National Register, but in order that the structure's integrity remain intact,
 we would like to see the sewer line there  buried  beneath the canal bed,

 I hope that I have adequately answered your  questions.

 Yours,                  *      /

r>-^^^/  i^
 Robert E. Swisher
 Environmental Officier
    RES/cw

-------
  I
BeflS
ERH^HERMAN. CHA:PMAN
5 f»*ORT, VICE CHAIRMAN
4mflPbwMAN
VWUJAM D. BUNOY. JR.
) A. HARR5ON, III
      R. HIGGINS
iRICX O. NICHOLS
  I
                  COMMONWEALTH o/ VIRGINIA
                      Virginia  Historic  Landmarks  Commission
                                   April 27, 1978
        TUCKER HIU.
   EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

  221 GOVERNOR STRECT
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23219
   TELEPHONE 736-3143
 Mr.  E.  R.  Simmons,  Director
 Division of Construction Grants
 P»t Office Box 11143
 Richmond,  Virginia  23230
  I
                         Re:  Hsr.rico County 201 Facilities Plan.
 Dear Mr.  Sirninons:
Wwh regard to possible historical resources in the area of the proposed sewage  treatment
plant at Deep Bottom in Henrico County, this office has completed its initial  evaluation.
AM its meeting of February 21, 1978, the Register Committee of the Virginia Historic
L^dmarks Commission reaffirmed the Commission's long-standing policy of not registering
battlefields as landmarks, unless they are.the subject of on-site interpretation programs.
     , archaeological resources would be the only basis for considering the area  for land-
     registration.

To determine the extent of the area's archaeological resources, a Phase I study  (that is
aBreliminary assessment based on artifacts recovered from the ground surface  and from
vBry small test pits) of the area was prepared by archaeologists at Virginia Commonwealth
University under contract with Henrico County.  That study was submitted to the  Landmarks
Cftmission for review.  Because such a Phase I study is inherently an initial, cursory
sjfvey an^ not a definitive examination, this study should have been conducted in the
early planning stages for the treatment plant, so that any further testing or  adjustment
oiconstruction plans could have been accommodated within the development of plans for
tB facility.

The Phase I report lists two archaeological sites that would be directly affected by
cBstruction of the sewage plant, eight  sites  adjacent to the construction area and
p™sibly affected, three sites within the proposed boundaries of the sludge dump area,
and thirty-five sites downhill from the sludge dump area and possibly by soil  chemistry
cflln§es.~"~ Many sites date from the prehistoric period, many others from the eighteenth
aV nineteenth centuries.

Tjtt Phase I report, concurred in by the Landmarks Commission staff archaeologists, notes
tHt a number of the sites found may be eligible for the National Register of  Historic
Places.  The report and the Commission staff recommend  Phase  II  testing  of  certain
      within the area.  Such testing through more extensive excavation work, will deter-
     1. the extent and significance of the sites tested, 2. whether the sites  are eligible
    the National Register, and 3. necessary measures and costs for.mitigation  of any
adverse effects from the proposed sewage treatment plant.

C™sequently, upon recommendation of the Commission's archaeological staff,  I  request that
Phase II testing be conducted on the two sites directly affected by construction (sites
4fcte93 and 44H3102) and on the three sites  within the proposed sludge dump  area  (sites
                                                                                             •
                                                                                             I?*
                                                                                             r.
                                                                                             !C

-------
>yr. E. R. Sinmons ,,-Director
April 27, 1978
     - 2 -
 I
 »
3ft
4tel23, 44Hel24, and 44Hel39).  Upon completion of such testing, the final comments
of this office will be issued forthwith.
   tker Hill
Executive Director
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
     EIS Preparation Section
     EPA
     The Honorable Clive L.  Duval,  2d
     Chairman,  Henrico County Board of Supervisors
     Mrs.  Walter Lemon
     Miss  Helen Waldorf
     Ecol  Science,  Inc.
     Bill  Kelso

-------
 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

I

I
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               REGION 111
                        6TH AND WALNUT STREETS
                    PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106


In Reply Refer To (3IR60)


  MAY 11 1978

Mr. William J. Murtagh
Keeper of the National Register
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
United States Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.  20240

Dear Mr. Murtagh:

In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
procedures (36 CFR 800), which implement the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966,  I am requesting that a determination of
eligibility for inclusion in the National Register be made by your
office regarding the following property.   This site, being considered
for development by Federally-funded sewage treatment facilities, is
known as the Deep Bottom West Site.

The opinion of the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, Mr.
Tucker Hill, is enclosed.   In addition, the archeological survey and
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) discussing this site
is Included.  In the Final EIS, please note pages II-2 through II-4,
II-9, 11-10, III-4, V-6 through V-8, and Appendix d.

As you are aware, I am very concerned about any excessive delays  which
could jeopardize the availability of State funds  for this project.

I am aware of our responsibilities tc coordinate our project with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)  should your office
make a positive determination of eligibility.  In an effort to expedite
this total process, I am forwarding, the same enclosures to Amy Schlagel
(ACHP) for her information.

I understand Bob Pickett,  of my staff, has been in contact with your
staff with regards to this issue already.

If you feel that a joint meeting of our respective offices could be
beneficial in defining the most expeditious roles in resolving this
issue, please contact Mr.  Pickett by phorie (597-8337) and we will be
glad to set up the arrangements for a D.C. meeting.

-------
   1  -                         i
r
i
i
         Sincerely yours,
I
        "George D. Pence, Jr.. Chief   t^
•       Environmental Impact Branch



•       cc:  Amy Schlagel, ACHF
              Tucker Hill, SHPO
I              Wayne Burgess, SWCB
              Pat Brady, Henrico County
              Taylor Turner, WWR
I              Carl Mitchell, Ecol Sciences
              James Cleland, UCU



I


I


I


I


I
                                             *


I


I


I


I


I

-------
                      United States Department of the Interior

                          HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
                                     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

 I

 I

 I
IN REPLY REFER TO.
      H32-NR
 I

 I

 I

 I
      George D.  Pence Jr., Chief
      Environmental  Impact Branch
      U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
      Region III
      6th and Walnut Streets
      Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania  19106

       Dear Mr. Pence:

       Thank you for your letter requesting a detsrmiration of eligibility
       for inclusion in the National Register pursuant" to Executive Order
       11593 or the  National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
       Our determination  appears on the enclosed material.

       As you understand, your request for our professional judgment consti-
       tutes a part  of ths Federal planning process.  We urge that this
       information be integrated into the National Environmental Policy Act
       analysis  in order  to bring about the best possible program decisions.
       This determination does not serve in any manner as a veto to uses of
       property,  with or  without Federal participation or assistance.   Aay
       decision on the property in question and che responsibility for
       program planning concerning such properties lie with the agency oc
       block grant recipient after the Advisory Council on Historic Preser-
       vation has had an  opportunity to comment,

       We are pleased to  be of assistance in the consideration of historic
       resources  in  the planning process.
                                            '*                 /
                                        Sincerely yours, /J /
                                           William J. Murtagh           V
                                           Keeper of the National Register
          Enclosure

-------
 I                    B.
 -            DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY  NOTIFICATION
 *              NATIONAL REGISTER  OF  HISTORIC  PLACES
 •          OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND  HISTORIC  PRESERVATION

             ^HERITAGE CONSERVATION  AND RECREATION SERVICE
    St Submitted by: Mr. George P. Pence _ 'EPA _
ate request received: 5/16/78
I
    Of property:.  Deep Bottom Site'	 State:  Virginia
   Hnn*   Richmond vicinity

pjiion of the State historic Preservation Officer:
 ( )  Eligible   {  ) Not eligible    (  ) No response
 I
h«Secretary of the Interior has determined  that  this  property  is:
 (  ) Eligible   Applicable criteria:
 •mments:

 I
 U) Not' eligible
 CTmraents:                               "
 I
 •) Documentation insufficient (see accompanying sheet explaining
     additional  materials required)
 I

 •   .           -
                                     . Keeper of the National Register
                                       Date: -                    WASO-m
                                                                     9/75

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                            E
        REQUEST FOR  ADDITIONAL  INFORMATION TO  DETERMINE  ELIGIBILITY


            OF  PROPERTY(S)  FOR  INCLUSION  IN THE NATIONAL  REGISTER



   NAME OF PROPERTY  DeeP Bottom West                   STATE   Virginia


   Description:      Please locate and describe the sites (both historic and
     archeological)  in  terms of their context in the local cultural-historical
     framework and discuss  the complete nature of the survey that identified
     the properties.  Please note, we are interested in the full range of historic
     and archeological  resources, including not only the prehistoric sites, but
     also the 19th century  historic sites.  Appendix 3, which was left out of
     the submission sent  to us, may provide some of this information.
   Statement of Significance:  Please discuss the significance of the full range of

     the resources in terms of specific research and interpretive potential for all
     the sites,  historical  as well as archeological.
   Bibliography:  Please  provide a bibliography that refers to all the disciplines
     that are involved  in the  resource evaluations.
   Geographical Data — Acreage: Please provide for each of the sites and for the
                                entire complex.
                        UTM Reference(s):


                        Verbal Boundary Description:  please provide for all the sites.
   Photographic Coverage:
I
I
I
I
   Map Coverage:  Please provide  for  all  the  sites and please provide an overall map
                  that shows  the  sites  in regional context.



   Other: 'We are concerned that the archeological and historic survey was not designed
     to identify the full range of historic properties within the project area.  It
     must be recognized that  the  National Register considers not only unusual sites
     but also sites representative of the history and development of an area.  Hence,
     "common sites" may also  be considered eligible.  Statements on pages 4 and 5 (con't)
   Questions concerning additional information may be directed to Lucy Franklin or

                                                                  Sarah Bridges
   on the National Register staff,  telephone  202-523-5483
   Thank you for your attention to the above items.
                                                  Keeper  of the Rational  Reg/ister

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E.G. SHEET CONTINUED;


of the survey report and in the appended research proposal indicates a
possible bias in the approach against historic period sites, in particular,
the Black Civil War site.  The Federal agency is responsible for the identi-
fication and evaluation of all historic and archeological resources, not
just those that are of interest to the individuals conducting the research
for the agency.  Pursuant to our conversation of June 2 with Mr. Bob Pickett
of Region III, the National Register staff will continue to coordinate the
gathering of historical information with historians from a local university.

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
In Reply Refer To  (3IR60)
   JUN
1978
Lucy Franklin
Office of the National Register
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.  20240


Dear Lucy:

In order to expedite the archeologic and historic review of the
"Deep Bottom West" sewage treatment plant site, I am forwarding
the Appendix 3 of the Archeological Survey to you.  The author
has requested this not be released for public review due to
security purposes.

Sarah Bridges read your office's letter to me which requests
additional information from EPA.  This Appendix 3 is all of the
additional information available to EPA at this time.  In response
to certain specific requests, an aerial photo of the area is an
page II-5 of the Final EIS (which you have) and a bibliography
of references is on page 22 of the Phase I archeological survey
which you also have.

This document and my letter is our response to your office's
request.  Therefore, I will assume that your review will continue
when this is received.

I do appreciate your involvement in this project.  Understanding
that we both don't want to further delay this project, I urge
you to call me if you have any further needs.


Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Pickett
EIS Preparation Section
Enclosure

cc:  Amy Schlagel, ACHP
     Tucker Hill, S11PO
     Wayne Burgess, SWCB
                           Pat  Brady,  Henrico County
                           James Cleland,  VCU

-------
                      United States Department of the Interior
                          HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
                                     WASHINGTON, D.C 20240
I
IN REPLY REFER TO.
    H32-NR
ib/8
I

I

I

I

I

I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I
       Mr. George D. Pence Jr.
   I'  .  Chief, Environmental Impact  Branch
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Region III
•     6th and Walnut Streets
       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
     Dear   Mr. Pence;

     Thank you for your letcer requesting a determination of eligibility
     for inclusion in the National Register pursuant to Executive Order
     11593 or the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,  as  amended.
     Our determination appears on the enclosed material.

     As you understand, your request for our professional judgment consti-
     tutes 3. part of the Federal planning process.   We urge  that  this
     information oe integrated into the National Environmental Policy Act
     analysis in order to bring about the best possible program decisions.
     This determination doss net serve in any manne'r as a veto to uses'of
     property, with or without Federal participation or assistance.  Any
     decision on the property in question and the responsibility  for
     program planning concerning such properties lie with the  agency or
     block grant recipient after the Advisory Council on Historic Preser-
     vation has had an opportunity to comment.

     We are pleased to be of assistance in the consideration of historic
     resources in the planning process.
                                      William J. Murtagh
                                      Keeper  of  the National Register
    Enclosure

-------
                            :.    	
                        ITTTB  /f^s  -fl
                        E.O.I

  |             DETERMINATION OF  ELIGIBILITY  NOTIFICATION


  -               NATIONAL REGISTER  OF  HISTORIC PLACES


  ™           OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND  HISTORIC PRESERVATION


  I           HERITAGE CONSERVATION  AND RECREATION SERVICE

Request submitted by:   Mr« George Pence _ EPA _
  qu


  le
)ae request received:   5/16/78    additional information received 6/9/78, 6/20/78


laBe of property:   Peep  Bottom Site _ State -.Virginia


.OCati on :       Richmond vicinity
  i
3pinion of the State I'istoric Preservation  Officer:


 | )  Eligible   ( ) Not eligible    (  )  No  response


   tOimnents:  " (It is) the Conmiission's long-standing policy Of  not registering
                                                                 ex vation


The Secretary of the  Interior  has  determined that this property is:


      Eligible   Applicable  criteria:   A, B, c, and D


   omments:,  Please see attached comments.
 C






 *
    )  Not -€l igibl e

 ftomments:



 I
  (  )  Documentation insufficient (see accompanying  sheet  explaining

 I    additional  materials required)


I
                                  ^                             J^
m                              &-&££]   Keeper of the National Register

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Deep Bottom West site, made up of 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 112a, 113,
114, 115, 116, 117, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, approximately
500 acres in which is located the EPA sewage treatment plant site,
is the important historical site of a battle fought during the Civil
War in July 1864.  Four Black regiments withstood an assault at this
site and Major Thomas Hawkins received the Medal of Honor for
rescuing the regimental flag during this campaign.  Thus, because
of this site's association with important historical events, trends,
and individuals and because of the structural and archeological
remains of this site, it has been determined that it is eligible for
listing in the National Register under criteria A, B, C, and D.
This determination includes the entire historic site identified in
the documentary records and the archeological features associated
with this Civil War site located during the preliminary reconnaissance.
We note that Mr. Tucker Hill, Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer,
asks for additional information on archeological sites 44He98, 44Hel02,
44Hel23, 44Hel24, 44Hel39, because they are in the areas of direct
impact.  Therefore, we ask that you provide the SHPO with the descrip-
tive and significance information that we outlined in our letter of
June 9, 1978, for those sites which may be affected after you have
conducted the more intensive survey recommended by Mr. Hill and request
Mr. Hill's opinion on the eligibility of these sites.  Subsequent to
the receipt of Mr. Hill's opinion, please send us the full documen-
tation on this site, including the additional descriptive, contextual,
and significance data and the SHPO opinion letter so that we may give
you our determination of these sites' eligibility.

We understand from Mr. Robert Pickett of your office that the final
design of the facility has not been approved and that there is some
possibility the final design may avoid some or all of the 43 other
identified historic and prehistoric archeological sites.  We await
your final decision and look forward to reviewing the complete docu-
mentation on those sites which may be within the area of probable
impact so that these properties may be afforded appropriate treatment
during the course of your project planning.  If we may be of additional
assistance, please do not hesitate to call either Sarah Bridges or
Lucy Franklin of the National Register staff.

-------