UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMt N 1 ;AL f'Hi iT I i. T K )N
AGENCY-REGi'.'U III
v>EPA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES PLANNING
FOR
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
PHASE II AREA
JANUARY 1979
-------
\
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 111
6TH AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106 February 15, 1979
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Hanover County, Virginia, Phase II Area, Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Plan.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regula-
tions promulgated by this Agency (40 CFR Part 6, April 14, 1975),
comments or inquiries concerning this Draft EIS should be submitted to
the above address to the attention of the EIS Preparation Section by
April 15, 1979.
A joint public hearing to solicit testimony concerning both the Draft
EIS and corresponding Facilities Plan (available from the County under
separate cover) will be held on April 4, 1979, at 8:00 p.m. in the
Hanover Court House, Hanover County, Virginia . Individuals and repre-
sentatives of organizations wishing to testify at the public hearing
are requested to furnish a copy of their proposed testimony (if possible)
along with their name, address, telephone number and the organization
represented, if any, to the EIS Preparation Section not later than the
close of business on March 30, 1979. Witnesses should limit their
oral presentation to a five-minute summary of their written testimony.
If time permits, others present at the hearing who wish to testify may
do so after the witness list has been called.
I welcome your interest and participation in the EIS process.
Sincerely yours,
Jack J. Schramm
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PHASE II FACILITIES PLAN
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Prepared for
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
By
Engineering-Science
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
October 1978
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES viii
PREFACE x
I. BACKGROUND
A. Introduction I~l
B. History of Wastewater Management in Hanover County 1-3
C. Water Quality Management in Hanover County 1-8
D. Location of Planning Area I-10
1. The County 1-10
2. The Planning Area 1-12
3. Service Areas 1-12
E. The Need for this EIS 1-12
F. The Objectives of this EIS 1-17
G. Report Organization 1-17
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Introduction II-l
B. Man-made Environment II-l
1. Institutional and Governmental Jurisdictions II-l
2. Land Use II-2
a. Existing Land Use II-2
b. Development Trends II-3
c. Survey of Major Subdivisions II-3
d. Growth Management Plan II-3
e. Local Planning Input II-4
f. Land Use Planning and Regulation II-4
g. The Comprehensive Plan for Hanover County II-6
h. Growth Management Plan for Eastern Hanover II-9
i. Land Use Regulation 11-10
j . Future Land Use 11-12
3. Employment and Economic Forecasts 11-13
a. Employment 11-13
b. Housing 11-13
c. Education 11-15
d. Economy 11-15
4. Facilities Plan Service Areas 11-17
5. Existing (and Near-Term) Sewered Areas 11-20
a. Major Sewered Areas 11-20
b. Other Sewered Areas 11-23
6. Aesthetics 11-25
7- Community Resources 11-25
a. Transportation 11-25
C. Natural Environment 11-26
1. Climate 11-26
2. Topography 11-27
a. Piedmont 11-27
b. Fall Zone 11-27
c. Coastal Plain 11-29
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
3. Geology 11-29
4. Soils H-29
5. Hydrology 11-31
a. Water Quality 11-33
b. Water Quantity 11-34
c. Problems of Water Quality and Quantity 11-36
d. Water Use 11-38
e. Groundwater 11-41
6. Biology 11-43
a. Terrestrial Ecosystems - Flora 11-43
b. Flood Plains 11-43
c. Flooded Bottomlands 11-44
d. Coastal Plain Wooded Slopes 11-44
e. Piedmont Wooded Slopes 11-44
f. Disturbed Areas 11-44
g. Terrestrial Ecosystems - Fauna 11-45
h. Aquatic Ecosystems - Flora and Fauna 11-45
7. Air Quality 11-46
D. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 11-48
1. Flood Hazard Areas 11-48
2. Groundwater Recharge Areas 11-49
3. Areas of Sensitive Ecologies 11-49
4. Recreational Resources: Scenic River Areas 11-54
5. Habitats of Endangered or Threatened Species 11-54
6. Steep Slope Areas 11-55
7. Forest and Woodlands 11-55
8. Prime Agricultural Land 11-55
9. Archaeological Sites 11-56
10. Historic Sites 11-56
11. Public Outdoor Recreation Areas: Parks 11-59
III.FACILITIES PLANNING ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction III-l
B. Flow and Wasteload Projections III-2
1. EPA Policy: Wastewater Flow Projections III-2
2. Phase II Service Area: Wastewater Flow Projections III-3
C. Effluent Treatment and Disposal III-8
1. Stream Discharge III-8
2. Land Application and Wastewater Reuse III-8
3. Sludge Disposal 111-15
D. Development of Facilities Planning Alternatives 111-15
1. Optimization of Existing Facilities (Local Strategy) 111-15
2. Regional Alternatives (Limited Build, Existing
Facility Interconnection) 111-19
3. Subregional Alternatives 111-22
a. Sewer and Treatment Plant Configurations 111-24
b. Ashland/Ashcake Alternatives 111-24
c. Southern Corridor Alternatives 111-27
d. Industrial Corridor Alternative 111-27
e. Totopotomoy Basin Alternatives 111-32
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
4. Synthesis of Alternatives for Impact Analysis III-39
a. Local Alternatives 111-39
b. Subregional Alternatives 111-40
c. Areawide Alternatives 111-40
IV. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
A. Introduction IV-1
B. Land Use IV-1
1. Areawide Alternatives and Land Use IV-4
2. Subregional Alternatives and Land Use IV-7
3. Local Alternatives and Land Use IV-10
C. Socioeconomic Impact IV-10
1. Population IV-11
2. Households IV-11
3. Employment IV-11
4. Community Facilities IV-17
D. Cost Analysis and Financing IV-18
E. Water Quality and Quantity IV-20
1. Surface Water IV-20
a. Effects of Land Application IV-21
b. Construction Impacts: Sedimentation
of Streams IV-21
c. Construction Impacts: Stream Crossings IV-23
d. Operation Impacts: Pump Stations IV-23
2. Ground Water Impacts IV-24
3. Mitigation Procedures IV-24
F. Biology IV-25
1. Aquatic Biology IV-25
2. Terrestrial Biology IV-26
3. Mitigation Procedures IV-27
G. Environmentally Sensitive Areas IV-27
1. Flood Hazard Areas IV-28
2. Ground Water Recharge Areas IV-29
3. Areas of Sensitive Ecologies IV-29
4. Scenic Rivers IV-31
5. Prime Agricultural Land IV-31
6. Historical and Archaeological Features IV-32
H. Air Quality, Odor, and Noise IV-33
I. Public Health IV-34
J. "No Action" Impacts IV-35
1. Private Sewerage Facilities IV-35
2. Low Growth Impacts IV-36
K. Summary of Environmental Impacts IV-36
V. IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES
A. Regulatory Water Quality Policies and Constraints V-l
1. Water Quality Standards V-2
2. Continuing Planning Process Classifications V-5
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT"D)
3. Wasteload Allocations and Effluent
Limitations V-7
4. EPA Policy: Advanced Treatment
Requirements V-ll
5. Land Application V-13
B. Treatment Capacity/Phased Construction V-15
C. Flow Reduction Techniques V-19
D. Alternative Treatment Methods for Stream
Discharge V-20
1. Secondary Treatment V-24
2. Advanced Treatment V-25
E. Alternatives Development by Growth Scenario V-25
F. On-Site Disposal Systems V-27
G. Alternative Design Criteria: Land Application
of Effluent V-31
H. Alternative Sludge Management Options V-32
1. Landfilling V-32
2. Land Application V-32
VI. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS VI-1
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDICES
A. Hanover County Surface Water Classification
and Water Quality Data A-l
B. Formulation of Per Capita Flows B-l
C. Population and Growth Projection Methodology C-l
D. Characteristics of Richmond Regional Planning
District D-l
E. Service Area Planning Unit Population
Projections E-l
F. Geologic Formations and Soil Associations
Within Hanover County, Virginia F-l
G. Existing Point Source Discharges: Hanover
County, Virginia G-l
H. Matrix Summary and Compilation of Environ-
mental Impacts of Proposed Alternatives H-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title
1-1 Planning Unit Delineations
II-l Zoning Classifications Hanover County, Virginia
II-2 Place of Work for Richmond Metropolitan Area Residents,
April 1970 11-14
II-3 Distribution of Housing Units in Hanover County,
1970-1995 H-16
II-4 Phase II Service Area Population Projections by Service
Area Planning Unit (SAPU) 11-18
I1-5 Phase II Projections of Population and Sewerable Population
in the Year 2003 II-19
II-6 Sewered Subdivisions in Hanover County (Outside Phase I Area) 11-24
II-7 Average Daily Traffic Volume 11-26
II-8 Hydrologic Data for Hanover Streams 11-35
II-9 Water Quality Characteristics of Selected Wells in Hanover
County, Virginia 11-42
11-10 Air Quality for Sulfur Dioxide and Total Suspended
Particulates 11-47
11-11 Historic Sites and Structures in the Phase II Service Area 11-60
III-l Service Area Planning Units, (SAPU) III-l
III-2 2003 Projected Flow - (gpd) III-4
III-3 Population Projections/Wastewater Flows - Year 2003 III-5
III-4 Phase II Wastewater Flow Projections: Planning
Period (2003) III-7
III-5 Comparative Characteristics of Land Application Approaches 111-10
III-6 Intensive Crop Rotation III-ll
III-7 Costs of Land Application 111-13
III-8 Ashland Upgrading Approaches 111-20
III-9 Hanover County Treatment Plants: Upgrading Costs 111-21
111-10 Ashland/Ashcake Treatment Plant Costs 111-26
III-ll Industrial Corridor Sewer Costs 111-31
111-12 Upper and Lower Totopotomoy Interconnection Costs 111-37
111-13 Totopotomoy Sub-regional Treatment Plant Costs 111-38
111-14 Ashland Upgrade: Revised Cost 111-39
111-15 Ashland Wastewater Treatment 111-42
111-16 Ashland/Ashcake Treatment Alternative 111-43
111-17 Costs of Areawide Inter-Connection 111-45
111-18 Limited Build Alternative - Costs of Upgrading 111-47
IV-1 Phase II Service Area Alternatives IV-2
IV-2 Projected Changes Affecting Land Use in the Phase II
Service Area IV-9
IV-3 Projected Population of the Phase II Service Area in 2003 IV-12
IV-4 Projected Number of Additional Households in the Phase II
Service Area IV-13
IV-5 Projected Employment and Potential Job Creation, Phase II
Service Area, Hanover County, Virginia IV-15
IV-6 Estimates of the Potential Impact of the Phase II Facilities
Plan on Industrial Development and Job Creation Year 2003 IV-16
IV-7 Comparison of Areawide Costs IV-19
IV-8 Local Financing Impacts of Alternatives RI and 81 IV-19
IV-9 Limited Build Effluent Discharge IV-26
IV-10 Significant Environmental Impacts of Proposed Alternatives IV-37
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D)
Table Title
V-l Water Quality Standards for Primary Classifications
in Hanover County V-2
V-2 Special Effluent Standards for Chickahominy Watershed
in Hanover County V-4
V-3 Secondary Treatment Discharge Limitations for Publicly-
Owned Treatment Works V-6
V-4 Facility Planning Wasteload Allocations V-9
V-5 Virginia Preapplication Treatment Requirements V-15
V-6 Staging Periods for Treatment Plants V-16
V-7 Retrofit Savings for Installing Devices in Typical
Household (Suburban) V-21
V-8 Potential Costs/Savings for Installing Water Saving
Devices in New Homes (Suburban) V-22
V-9 Alternative Wasteload Allocations V-23
V-10 Comparison of Wasteload Allocation Scenarios V-24
V-ll Facility Planning Growth Scenarios V-26
V-12 Comparison of Conventional and On-Site Treatment
for Haysi and Hurley, Virginia V-29
V-13 Per Capita Costs of Upgrading Package Facilities V-30
V-14 Revised Per Capita Costs: Package Facilities V-30
V-15 Land Required for Various Application Rates V-31
A-2 Water Quality Data A-2
D-l Population Projections by County D-2
D-2 Components of Population Change by County in the Richmond
Regional Planning District, 1960-1970 & 1970-1974 D-3
D-3 Age Distribution of Population by County D-4
D-4 Traffic Zone Analysis of Hanover County Population D-5
D-5 Population Densities by County in the Richmond Planning
District D-6
D-6 Land Use by Planning Areas, Hanover County, Virginia D-8
D-7 Economic Forecasts for the Richmond Metropolitan Area D-10
D-8 Farms by Economic Class (Value of Farm Products Sold) D-ll
D-9 Hanover County Employment Sector Trends, 1970-1975 D-12
E-l Phase II Service Area Population Projections for SAPU 1 E-l
E-2 Phase II Service Area Population Projections E-2
F-l Geologic Formations Within Hanover County, Virginia F-l
F-2 Soil Associations of Hanover County, Virginia F-3
G-l Point Source Loadings to Hanover County Streams G-l
H-l Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix H-l
H-2 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Alternatives H-2
VI1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1-1 Location of Hanover County, Virginia 1-11
1-2 Service Area Planning Units 1-13
II-l Planning Districts, Hanover County, Virginia D-7
II-2 Existing Land Use, Hanover County, Virginia II-5
II-3 General Land Use Plan, Hanover County, Virginia II-8
II-4 Existing and Near Term Sewered Areas, Hanover 11-21
County, Virginia
1-5 Physiographic Provinces, Hanover County, Virginia 11-28
II-6 Soil Association Map, Hanover County, Virginia F-6
II-7 Drainage Basins, Hanover County, Virginia 11-32
II-7A Soil Association and Septic Tank Failures II-37A
II-8 Flood Hazard Areas, Hanover County, Virginia 11-50,
II-9 Groundwater (Artesian Aquifers) Recharge Areas, 11-51
Hanover County, Virginia
11-10 Areas of Sensitive Ecologies and Scenic River 11-52
Recreational Areas, Hanover County, Virginia
11-11 Prime Agricultural Land, Hanover County, Virginia 11-57
11-12 Archeological and Historical Sites in the Phase II 11-58
Service Area, Hanover County, Virginia
III-A Service Area Planning Units III-1A
III-B Potential Stream Discharge Points for Wasteload III-8A
Allocations
III-l Land Application Sites 111-12
III-2 Spray Irrigation Site for Ashland Wastewater 111-16
Treatment System
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
III-3 Spray Irrigation for Ashland/Ashcake Wastewater 111-17
Treatment System
III-4 Public Sewerage System, Henrico County, Virginia 111-23
III-5 Ashland/Ashcake Treatment Plant 111-25
III-6 Southern Corridor Interconnection 111-28
III-7 Southern Corridor Interbasin Transfer 111-29
III-8 Industrial Corridor Interconnection 111-30
III-9 Upper Totopotomoy Interconnection 111-33
111-10 Lower Totopotomoy Interconnection 111-34
III-ll Upper Totopotomoy Intra-Basin Transfer 111-35
111-12 Lower Totopotomoy Intra-Basin Transfer 111-36
111-13 Transmission Route to Land Application Sites 111-41
111-14 Areawide Alternative 81 111-46
111-15 Areawide Alternative RI 111-49
V-l Potential Stream Discharge Points for Wasteload V-10
Allocations
1 v
J^ 4 i.
-------
TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The completion of this Draft EIS has been undertaken prior to the completion
of a comprehensive Facility Plan for the Phase II service area. Information con-
tained in this EIS is based on Bremner, Youngblood & King's Preliminary Draft
Facility Plan dated August, 1978. Several additional alternatives to BYKfs
recommended plan not found in the Preliminary Draft 201 are discussed in this
EIS. Due to the independence in format and content of the EIS and 201 Plan, the
reader should review the documents concurrently.
Certain information normally contained in a wastewater facility plan has not
been provided to the environmental consultant for incorporation into this EIS,
therefore, comprehensive environmental impact analyses cannot be undertaken at
this time. The following items must be received from BYK in order to complete
the Environmental Impact Statement:
0 Comprehensive discussion of the alternatives screening process from
local to subregional to regional alternatives including costs;
° Consideration of phasing of sewerage facilities and details of Federal
and state/local financing considerations;
Energy requirements for proposed facilities discussed in the recommended
plan;
° Facility Plan design flows by contributing component (i.e., residential,
commercial, etc.) current and ten year incremental increases;
° Sludge management considerations for feasible alternatives.
For all of the above items, preliminary analyses forced by time restraints
and the late submittal of the 201 Plan are provided in this EIS. Various assump-
tions are made based on technical literature and the specific characteristics of
the study area. Due to the piece-meal approach and numerous delays in developing
the Facility Plan, comprehensive environmental analysis and continuous development
of the EIS has been difficult. The two most significant delays are summarized
°
below:
1. October 1977 to April 1978 - delay by the State Water Control Board
in releasing wasteload allocations needed for alternatives development;
2. February 1978 to October 1978 - delay in receiving alternatives data
from BYK.
The effect of these two factors together with numerous other postponments
x
-------
in the facility planning process has delayed the completion of the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement from December, 1977 until December 1978. Even though
these restraints have significantly affected the development of this document,
the information contained herein will enable the reader to objectively analyze
all the major issues and possible solutions associated with the Hanover County
Phase II Facility Plan.
xx
-------
-------
SECTION I
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
In 1969 a law of far-reaching significance for Federal agencies was
passed by Congress. This law, entitled the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) requires a Federal agency to take account of and make known the
environmental impacts of any major action it is about to undertake. The
agency must decide whether a given action is a major one that will have a
significant effect on the environment, or have environmental impacts which
are likely to be highly controversial. The document that a Federal agency
must prepare on such a major action is an environmental impact statement
(EIS).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing
the majority of the environmental laws passed by Congress; however, it is
also one among many Federal agencies which must comply with NEPA in its own
actions.
One of the many EPA programs involving actions which are candidates for
EIS's is the construction grants program as authorized by Section 201 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) . Section 201
of the Act provides for a three-step facilities planning, design, and construc-
tion approach to secure Federal funds for municipal wastewater treatment works.
Step I involves the development of a "facilities plan" that evaluates treatment
needs, system capacities, and alternatives and develops a preliminary design
for the project. EPA is charged with the review and approval of such Step I
plans before design (Step II) and Construction (Step III) funds can be obtained.
An integral part of the facilities planning process is a review which involves
an assessment of environmental and socioeconomic impacts that the facilities
plan defines. In addition to evaluating the effects of the proposed project
upon the cultural and environmentally-sensitive resources, as required by
Federal regulations, EPA or a state agency reviews the environmental assessment
contained within the facility plan and, by applying the NEPA criteria, determine
if an EIS should be prepared. If the impacts are determined to be significant
or controversial, a decision is made to prepare an EIS on the facilities plan.
To be consistent with State, Federal, and Regional water quality and
wastewater treatment goals, Hanover County applied for and was awarded a
1-1
-------
Federal grant under Section 201 of P.L. 92-500, to prepare a Step I Facilities
Plan. The scope of the Plan was conceived as the second phase of a two-stage,
County-wide, wastewater management program already under way. The first stage,
or Phase I, of the program is the current construction of a central sewerage
system serving the Mechanicsville area. Sewage generated in the Phase I area
will be collected and pumped to Henrico County and then the City of Richmond
for treatment and disposal.
Hanover County secured the services of Bremner, Youngblood, and Sharp,
Inc. to prepare the original Phase II Facilities Plan. This plan was issued
on 24 November 1975 with an addendum submitted 9 February 1976 (References
1, 2). The plan generated significant public controversy almost from the outset
and the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) could not recommend approval.
Controversy centered on the proposed regional wastewater collection and treat-
ment system, the unsatisfactory investigation of other alternatives, and many
of the planning and engineering assumptions upon which the selection of the
regional system was based. As a result, Hanover County requested additional
Step I funds for increasing the scope of work of the Phase II Facilities Plan
so that these outstanding concerns could be addressed. The County retained
the consulting engineering firm of Bremner, Youngblood, and King, Inc. for this
purpose. At the same time, the County requested that EPA prepare a EIS on
the Facilities Plan. EPA, recognizing the significant controversy surrounding
the Facilities Plan project, issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and
secured the services of Engineering-Science to prepare the document.
To describe the expanded Hanover County Facilities Planning study as just
another addendum to the original November 1975 report would be to understate
the effort. In reality, most of the major steps required of the facilities
planning process have been reexamined within a framework defined as a result
of the public and regulatory-agency reaction to the first report. Major
planning steps receiving close scrutiny included:
• Effluent limitations applicable to the facility(ies) being planned.
• Assessment of the current (1977) situation in the planning area.
• Reassessment of land use, population, and wastewater flow projections.
« Development and evaluation of alternatives with equal consideration
given to optimization of existing facilities, regional solutions,
sewage management for various arrangements of service areas, and land
application of treated effluents.
1-2
-------
Selection of a new proposed action(s) based on the results of cost-
benefit analysis of alternatives and on public input.
In order to exert more influence on the selection of alternatives con-
sidered in the Facilities Plan, and thereby serve more effectively as a
decision making tool, it was decided that the EIS would be prepared jointly
with the expanded Facilities Plan. This integration of the EIS and Facilities
Planning processes will also serve to avoid further unnecessary delays in the
three-step construction grants program for Hanover County while ensuring that
environmental perspectives are considered throughout the planning process.
The EIS is, thus, closely coordinated with the revised Facilities Plan being
prepared by the County's consulting engineer. Beyond saving time, the joint
EIS/Facilities Plan approach allows for an evaluation of a variety of alterna-
tives and the ability to discard those deemed unsound early in the planning
process, and provides for a greater degree of public participation in the
decision making process.
The EIS will not duplicate engineering details in the Facilities Plan.
Rather, it focuses on the evaluation of alternatives from an environmental
perspective, and discusses the major issues raised during the planning process
(such as the validity of certain facilities planning assumptions and their
environmental consequences). Conversely, the Facilities Plan references,
rather than duplicates, the environmental analyses in the EIS. The primary
role of the EIS is that of a public information document. In addition to
objectively including all environmental considerations in the planning process,
the EIS provides an opportunity for citizen participation. The EIS identi-
fies all known potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of the
feasible facilities plan alternatives.
HISTORY OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IN HANOVER COUNTY
Ps was mentioned previously, wastewater management in Hanover County has
evolved as a two-stage program; this is primarily because of area priorities
for sewage service. The Phase I portion of the program, which is nearing
completion, is concerned with the immediate abatement of public health and
water pollution problems created by the widespread failure of on-site sewage
disposal syster.is in the Mechanicsville-Beaverdam Creek drainage area of the
County.
1-3
-------
The Phase I system is comprised of a network of gravity sewers, and a raw
sewage pumping station and force main which will convey the sewage to nearby
Henrico County for treatment at the City of Richmond system. Ultimately, the
Phase I area will be serviced by the proposed Henrico County Regional Treat-
ment Facility when it comes on line. Construction of the Phase I system is
scheduled for completion by the end of 1978.
Phase II of the Hanover County wastewater management program, which is the
subject of this joint Facilities Plan/EIS effort, is concerned with providing
some form of sewage service to the remaining portions of the County where some
type of non-rural, higher-density development currently exists and/or is planned
to continue or occur. Among the alternatives to be considered for managing
wastewater from the Phase II area will be partial connection to the Phase I
system, as well as the total interconnection with the nearby proposed Henrico
County facilities. It can therefore be seen that, although the Phase I area
itself is distinct from the Phase II area, the selected form of wastewater
management for the Phase II area is very much dependent on the Phase 1 sewerage
system.
A chronological list of key events in the recent history of wastewater
management in Hanover County is offered so as to bring this joint EIS/Facilities
Planning effort into perspective:
Date
Event
January 1968
March 1971
April 1973
Master Plan for Hanover County Sewerage Facilities (R. Stuart
Royer and Associates) recommended two-stage sewerage develop-
ment program.
Virginia SWCB established stringent effluent discharge
standards for entire Chicahominy watershed in or near Hanover
County.
R. Stuart Royer recommended, in an updated report, the
construction of a central sewerage system and pumping
station for the Mechanicsville-Beaverdam Creek drainage area
which would pump wastes to a proposed pumping station in
Henrico County and then to the City of Richmond Sewage Treat-
ment Plant. This became known as "Phase I" of the Hanover
County sewerage improvement program.
Based on these recommendations, the County Board of Super-
visors authorized preliminary design of the project.
1-4
-------
(Continued)
Date
Event
November 1973
February 1974
June 1974
July 1974
March 1975
April 1975
July 1975
August 1975
October 1975
November 1975
December 1975
Board of Supervisors authorized EcolSciences, inc. to pre-
pare an environmental impact assessment of the proposed
Phase I action to satisfy EPA's construction grant program
requirements.
The Virginia State Water Control Board in the James River
Comprehensive Water Quality Management Study [3(c) Study]
recommended that sewage from the Phase I area be collected
and pumped out of Hanover County for treatment in order to
protect the Chicahominy River from pollution.
Environmental Impact Assessment on Phase I sewerage system
recommended the system be designed and constructed.
Public hearing on Phase I Environmental Assessment.
Hanover County awarded a Step I grant by EPA to prepare a
Facilities Plan for Phase II of the County's wastewater
management program.
EPA approves Phase I sewerage system project.
Hanover County requested and received from the Virginia SWCB
the preliminary effluent limitations for treatment plant
discharges being investigated in the Phase II Facilities Plan.
The County's engineering consultant, Brenmer, Youngblood, and
Sharp, Inc. released draft Facilities Plan for Phase II for
public review.
Public hearing on Phase II Facilities Plan.
Final Phase II Facilities Plan issued for State review.
Virginia SWCB issues revised, more stringent, effluent limita-
tions for the Town of Ashland discharge alternative in the
Phase II Facilities Plan.
May 1976
July 1976
August 1976
Public hearing on Draft NPDES permit for proposed Phase II
regional treatment facility.
Virginia SWCB released York River Basin Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan with EPA-approved wasteload allocations for
discharges to the South Anna and Pamunkey Rivers in Hanover
County.
Hanover County Board of Supervisors requested EPA to initiate
EIS on Phase II Facilities Plan, in order to resolve concerns
that the Town of Ashland,Hanover County citizens, the SWCB,
and the State Department of Health had with the Plan.
1-5
-------
(Continued)
Date
Event
November 1976
March 1977
May 1977
May 1977
July 1977
September 1977
September 1977
October 1977
October 1977
November 1977
November 1977
EPA issued Notice of Intent to prepare EIS on Phase II Facil-
ities Plan.
EPA secured services of Engineering-Science to prepare EIS
on Phase II Facilities Plan.
EPA approved additional Step I grant funding request for
continuation of Phase II Facilities Planning by Hanover
County and their engineering consultant, Bremner, Youngblood,
and King, Inc.
EPA, SWCB, Hanover County, Town of Ashland, Environmental and
Engineering Consultants met to discuss issues associated
with Phase II Facilities Plan, including coordination of
EIS/Facilities Planning development and evaluation of alterna-
tives.
Public informational meeting held at Hanover County Courthouse
discussing the refined alternatives development approach to
be taken as part of the continuing Facilities Planning process.
Proposal to finance the Hanover County share of the Phase I
sewerage system through a long-term bond was defeated by
County-wide referendum.
EPA modified EIS contract to conform with the continued
Facilities Planning approach taken by Hanover County and
their engineering consultant. The modified scope of work
has the EIS being conducted concurrently with the continued
Facilities Planning work.
Ashland Town Council passed a resolution which expressed
the Town's desire for the Hanover County Phase II Facilities
Plan to recommend the wastewater management alternative which
would involve the upgrading and continued operation of
Ashland's present treatment system.
BYK, Inc. requested wasteload allocations from the Virginia
SWCB for the various discharge alternatives being considered
in the Facilities Plan.
Second referendum to Phase I sewer bond issue failed.
EPA, SWCB, the State Department of Health, Hanover County,
and Engineering and Environmental Consultants met to resolve
issues concerning wasteload allocations, per capita waste
generation rates, and land application system design criteria
to be used in Facilities Plan/EIS effort.
-------
January 1978
Feb.-March 1978
March 1978
April 1978
June 1978
June 1978
June 1978
July 1978
July 1978
August 1978
August 1978
August 1978
September 1978
November 1978
Hanover County, SWCB, and engineering consultant met to
discuss new wasteload allocations for Doswell, Ashland,
and Totopotomoy Creek.
Delay in awaiting revised wasteload allocations from SWCB.
BYK, Inc. receives wasteload allocations for Ashland and
Totopotomoy Creek discharges.
Preliminary alternatives are identified and submitted to
environmental consultant (ES) for identification of key
issues and further analysis.
Local share of Phase I sewerage system to be financed
through local taxes; county tax structure changes July 1.
Hanover County and engineering consultant met with Henrico
County to consider possible reserve capacity for portions
of Phase II flow to Henrico system, (no decision made).
Holly Farms decides to interconnect to Henrico sewerage
system.
Ashland treatment alternative discussed by engineering
consultant in presentation to Ashland Town Council.
Preliminary Draft EIS submitted to EPA.
Public environmental conference held, "Hanover's Environ-
ment in 1978: Perspective on Air, Water and Land."
BYK, Inc. meets with Ashland Town Council and County Board
of Supervisors to discuss recommended alternative in Draft
Facility Plan.
Engineering-Science receives contract extension from EPA
to account for continual delays in facility planning process,
Engineering-Science receives preliminary draft Facilities
Plan from BYK, Inc.
Draft EIS submitted to EPA.
1-7
-------
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN HANOVER COUNTY
Water quality management involves the protection of water quality and
existing and potential water uses from the adverse effects of wastewater
discharges and non-point sources of pollution. Hanover County has been
the subject of numerous water quality management plans: comprehensive
regional and river basin water quality management plans, areawide waste
treatment management plans, and a wastewater management facility plan.
County-wide land use planning also influences water quality management in
Hanover County.
The Greater Richmond Metropolitan Area and the York River Basin Water
Quality Management (WQM) Plans were developed by the Virginia State Water
Control Board as part of the State continuing planning process pursuant
to Section 303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (PL 92-500). These plans set forth the measures to attain and
maintain the applicable water quality goals for the Richmond Metropolitan
Region and the York River Basin, both of which Hanover County is a part.
The development of these plans was a requisite for the Commonwealth of
Virginia's participation in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and to allow the awarding of federal grants to municipalities
for the construction of Sewage Treatment Works (References 3, 4).
The Greater Richmond Metropolitan Area WQM Plan which was made effective
8 November 1974 was an extraction of an earlier, large-scale, comprehensive
water quality management study for the lower James River Basin. This study,
known as the James River 3(c) Study, was adopted in 1974 by the SWCB and
included broad scale planning for wastewater treatment systems and their
financing, and the development of recommendations for institutional arrange-
ments needed to implement the recommended systems. The study area for the
James River 3(c) Study included all of the area within the boundaries of
the four regional planning districts adjacent to the lower James River
(i.e., Richmond, Crater, Southeastern Virginia, and Peninsula Regional
Planning Districts). Hanover County is within the Richmond Regional Planning
District, and therefore was included in the James River 3(c) Study. One of
the final recommendations of that Study, based on cost-effectiveness, was to
pump wastewater generated within Hanover County to a Henrico County circum-
ferential interceptor system around the City of Richmond which ultimately
1-8
-------
would convey wastewater to a treatment plant located in eastern Henrico
County. More recent developments in Hanover County water quality management
suggest that further investigation should be made as to the feasibility of
treating Hanover County sewerage within the County. However, the James River
3(c) Study has played an important part in water quality management, and
served to identify major water quality management issues for the area, thereby
laying the groundwork for current water quality management in Hanover County
(Reference 5).
In addition, an areawide waste treatment management plan pursuant to
Section 208 of PL 92-500 is being developed for the Richmond Regional Area.
This plan should be completed in 1978. The focus of the Richmond 208 plan
will be to update and refine the general directions established by the
Greater Richmond Metropolitan Area and the York River Basin Water Quality
Management Plans for the Richmond Region into more specific and more de-
tailed information leading to local wastewater management programs compatible
with regional, basin, State, and national water quality objectives. It
will include structural and non-structural programs for the abatement of
both point and non-point sources of pollution in the area. Clearly a major
objective of the 208 Planning Study will be to introduce water quality
management as one of the major factors to be considered in comprehensive
planning.
Facilities Planning efforts in Hanover County are also involved in
water quality management on a community level. The completed Phase I
Environmental Assessment and the ongoing Phase II Facilities Planning
process in Hanover County must consider the control of non-point pollu-
tion (erosion and stream siltation) that results from land disturbance
in addition to the primary objectives of managing point sources of waste-
water. Those direct land-use changes caused by the selected wastewater
management alternative such as sewer line and treatment plant construction,
and those secondary changes, such as provision of sewer service (thus
encouragement of land development in a particular area that may result in
sediment and nutrients entering watercourses), should be considered in
the facilities planning process. Point source discharges resulting from
alternative wastewater management systems proposed in Facility Planning
1-9
-------
studies are designed to meet the effluent limitations established by the
303(e) and Virginia SWCB waste loading allocations for streams in Hanover
County.
Finally, land-use planning in Hanover County can be an effective tool
in the management of water quality in the study area. The future land uses
provided for by the Comprehensive Plan for Hanover County will directly
affect the nature of both point and non-point sources of pollution to area
waters. The extent that agriculture, silvaculture, and extraction activities,
which constitute the primary non-point sources of pollution for the rural
area of the County, are practiced will be controlled by the corresponding
future land-uses established by the Plan. Non-point sources of pollution
as a result of urban (and suburban) storm runoff, such as from the Mechanics-
ville area, is also significant in the planning for water quality management
in the County. Adherence to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan for Hanover County, in particular, the preservation of major stream
valleys, by promulgation and enforcement of zoning ordinances and regula-
tions governing erosion control will serve to protect the quality of the
area waters (Reference 6).
LOCATION OF PLANNING AREA
During the course of the joint EIS/Facilities Planning process, the focus
will be upon areas whose geographic boundaries are somewhat different. These
areas include all of Hanover County, the Phase II Facilities Planning Area,
and various alternative sewage service areas within the Planning area.
The County
Hanover County lies within the east-central portion of Virginia as shown
on Figure 1-1, the regional location map. Hanover County is bounded by Henrico
County on the South and is in close proximity to the City of Richmond, which
lies in the north central portion of Henrico County. There are two major areas
of development in the County: Ashland and the Mechanicsville areas. Ashland,
the only incorporated town in the County, is located in the approximate geo-
graphical center of Hanover. The Mechanicsville area is in the southernmost
portion of the County and is considered a suburb of nearby Richmond. Both of
these major developing areas are connected to Richmond by good transportation
corridors: Ashland with Interstate 95 and Mechanicsville area with U.S. Routes
1-10
-------
FIGURE I-I
LOCATION OF
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
-------
301 and 360. The remaining areas of Hanover County still maintain a rural
atmosphere with open woodlands and agricultural lands with scattered low
density residential and commercial development.
The baseline environmental conditions of the entire County are presented
in the EIS so as to enable full assessment of the environmental impacts of the
Phase II Facilities Plan.
The Planning Area
The Phase II Facilities Planning Area, as delineated by the Facilities
Planning engineer in conjunction with Hanover County, the Town of Ashland, EPA,
and the Virginia SWCB is shown in Figure 1-2. This area encompasses the Town
of Ashland and surrounding area, that portion of the County referred to as the
"industrial corridor" along 1-95 and U.S. Route 1, and the area in and adjacent
to the Totopotomoy Creek drainage basin west of County Route 643. The study of
wastewater management alternatives will be directed toward establishing the most
cost-effective and environmentally sound means of accommodating the wastewater
treatment needs of the Planning Area. The study of the needs of the remaining
portions of the County is beyond the scope of the joint Phase II Facilities
Planning/EIS process.
To facilitate the analysis of the treatment needs of the Planning Area,
the Facilities Planning Engineer has subdivided it into smaller, discrete,
Planning Units. These Planning Unit delineations are also shown in Figure 1-2.
A tabulation of the Planning Units and the areas within the Planning Area they
represent is presented in Table 1-1.
Service Areas
Some of the alternatives investigated in the EIS and Facilities Plan differ
according to the portions of the Planning Area for which they provide sewage
collection and treatment service. Therefore, the Phase II sewage service area
will be dependent upon which proposed alternative is selected as a result of
the joint EIS/Facilities Planning process. Alternative sewage service areas
are shown in Section III of this report.
THE NEED FOR THIS EIS
As mentioned previously, EPA is concerned about the significant controversy
generated by the Phase II Facilities Planning in Hanover County, and the ques-
tions left unresolved by the original Plan, completed in 1975. The original need
1-12
-------
FIGURE 1-2
SERVICE AREA PLANNING UNITS
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
SCALE
-------
TABLE 1-1
PLANNING UNIT DELINEATIONS
Planning
Unit Area
1 Greater Ashland
2 Western Industrial Corridor
3 Eastern Industrial Corridor
4 Upper Totopotomoy Basin
5 Lower Totopotomoy Basin
6 Crump Creek Basin
7 Kersey Creek Basin
1-14
-------
for this EIS arose out of the issues raised by the 3.0-mgd regional wastewater
treatment plant proposed in the 1975 Phase II Facilities Plan. EPA recognized,
however, that an EIS which addresses the impacts of the so-called "proposed
action" in that Plan simply could not adequately address the issues raised
regarding Phase II Facilities Planning since that time. Instead, they saw the
need for an entirely new Facilities Planning effort that would involve the
concurrent, yet independent, preparation of an EIS. It is believed that this
approach will serve to more adequately address the issues as they have emerged
during the facility planning process.
One of the major issues that has surfaced during the Phase II Facilities
Planning process is the question of how much wastewater treatment capacity
should be provided. A marked influence of wastewater treatment capacity on
future area growth rates and growth patterns has been reported frequently.
Conversely, the basis for estimating future sewage treatment capacity is the
growth rate of the population to be served. Many County citizens prefer non-
growth policies because they fear the destruction of the rural character of the
County to which they are attracted. Others favor growth policies that will
ensure the County's economic well-being.
There are conflicts inherent in beneficient public policies. No growth,
or slow growth, may be wise policies when necessary to correlate resources to
population and to preserve important environmental assets. Sewage systems with
limited treatment capacity may make resource management possible as well as
reduce costs for communities. However, while the intent of Federal assistance
for sewerage systems is not to subsidize subdivisions and shopping centers,
limited treatment capacity must be carefully assessed for unnecessary constraints
on the County's environment. There must be an equitable approach to environ-
mental benefits. With good planning and an informed public involved in decision
making, environmental, social, and economic imbalances can be avoided and sound
development encouraged. Thus, it was felt necessary in the joint EIS/Facilities
Plan to:
1. Make an up-to-date assessment of projected population growth to conform
with State, County and Richmond 208 planning projections.
2. Assess the wastewater generation rates associated with the projected
population.
3. Look at alternative arrangements of sewer service areas within the
Facilities Planning Area.
1-15
-------
Another major issue examined in the joint EIS/Facilities Planning
process is the reconsideration of a broader group of wastewater management
alternatives for the Phase II area. In particular, EPA is requiring a
conscientious and vigorous analysis of alternatives utilizing land application
and reuse of wastewater. EPA believes that land treatment systems have the
capability of achieving removal levels comparable to the best available
advanced waste treatment technologies, while the recovery and reuse of wastewater
and its nutrient resources through crop production may allow land treatment
systems to accomplish the same objectives as conventional waste treatment. EPA
is also interested in alternatives to conventional centralized waste collection
and treatment for the Phase II area. Concepts to be investigated include lower
costs technologies for on-site sewage disposal and package systems for clusters
of houses.
EPA is aware that the problem of conversion of prime agricultural land to
suburban or urban uses as a result of projected growth is an important issue
in Hanover County. The EIS will investigate the extent to which prime agri-
cultural lands will be lost to projected development and discuss reasonable
strategies for mitigating such land losses in Facilities Planning.
The issue of potential impacts of wastewater treatment alternatives (both
primary and growth-induced) on environmentally sensitive areas unsuitable for
development is recognized as being necessary to address in the EIS. Hopefully,
the joint EIS/Facilities Planning process will develop strategies to ensure
that maximum protection will be given to areas identified as important. This
evaluation will include identifying impacts on historic sites.
Water resources are a highly valued commodity in and around Hanover County
and, as such, have become an issue in the joint EIS/Facilities Planning process.
The EIS will attempt to identify the primary and secondary impacts that the
Facility Planning alternatives will have on water resources in terms of
recreation and commercial uses, use as a water supply, use for waste assimila-
tion, and as valuable aquatic ecosystems.
Socioeconomic and financial impacts tend to receive little attention in
wastewater facilities planning. However, in Hanover County, a major considera-
tion in the selection of the course of action to pursue with regards to
wastewater management will be the citizens' ability to finance the needed
facilities. The EIS will pay particular attention to this issue.
1-16
-------
Finally, the involvement of two governmental entities, namely the Town of
Ashland and Hanover County, as the co-participants in the EIS/Facilities
Planning process has created political and institutional issues. Clearly, the
Town of Ashland in various meetings with BYK discussing preliminary alternatives,
favors a self-sufficient course of action in which they would continue to own
and operate their own wastewater management system and pursue Step II and Step III
construction grant funding independent of Hanover County. On the other hand,
the County, through the Board of Supervisors, would prefer that the Town partic-
ipate in a regional system. The question of participation by each entity in a
plan acceptable to both will effectively be addressed in the Facility Plan and
EIS by developing and evaluating alternatives which offer a number of possibili-
ties for compromise.
THE OBJECTIVES Of THIS EIS
As an overall perspective, the following general objectives were identified
for this EIS based on the above discussion.
1. To present a candid discussion of the issues involved in the joint
EIS/Facilities Planning process, particularly growth-related issues.
2. To evaluate from an environmental perspective all feasible alternatives
for wastewater management in the Phase II Planning Area.
3. To define EPA policy and direction for the resolution of issues
identified and options for mitigation of impacts.
4. To present all available information which has been developed through
the planning process in a form and context which will allow the public
to formulate a judgment and reach a decision on the final selected
plan to be forwarded to EPA for grant funding approval.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into a progressive sequence of discussions
addressing issues which must be resolved. EPA, State of Virginia, and
Hanover County must make a decision about the most effective way to spend
grant funds. Several options are available concerning the level of treat-
ment of wastewater, what wastewater treatment capacities are most appropriate,
what standards are appropriate to meet water-use goals, and others. The
environmental consequences of these options are an integral part of this
draft Environmental Impact Statement. This draft EIS, together with the
public review and input it will stimulate, will form the basis for a
final EIS which will address the environmental effects of the selected
course of action.
1-17
-------
The following section of this report discusses the current environment in
Hanover County. What environmental problems now exist, or are anticipated,
given existing trends, are also addressed. Next, in Section III, the facility
planning alternatives and the planning assumptions upon which they were pre-
dicated are presented and discussed. The environmental evaluations developed
by the EIS to assist the Facilities Planning engineer in synthesizing a set of
manageable alternatives are included in this third section. Section IV describes
in detail the environmental impacts of the feasible Facilities Plan alternatives,
and the means of mitigating these impacts. Section V will discuss some addition-
al feasible alternatives which the Facility Plan may have failed to consider.
A final section summarizes major conclusions developed in the EIS. Subsequent
discussions in this draft EIS plus public review and input will modify and evolve
one of the alternative strategies into an appropriate course of action.
1-18
-------
-------
SECTION II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
INTRODUCTION
As mentioned in Section I, an environmental assessment for the Phase I
project has been previously prepared (Ref. 7). Much of the information
contained in that report, particularly with regard to the general environ-
mental conditions within Hanover County, will be briefly discussed in this
Section. Where necessary, the information will be updated to reflect
current situations.
Information will be presented in three main sub-sections, namely
(1) the Man-made Environment, (2) the Natural Environment, and (3) Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas. The third sub-section is included so that those
environmental areas of special importance which should receive preferential
attention and protection from any adverse impacts may be identified and
discussed separately.
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
Institutional and Governmental Jurisdictions
Hanover County is governed by a seven-member Board of Supervisors.
Each member is elected for a four-year term to represent one of the seven
Magestirial Districts. The County Administrator, who is appointed by the
Board of Supervisors, is the administrative manager of the County.
The Town of Ashland is the only incorporated jurisdiction in Hanover
County. Its internal affairs are managed by a Town Council with five members,
who select one council member for mayor. The Town Manager is appointed by the
Council. While the Town can pass ordinances governing its internal affairs,
it is subject to the higher authority of the County Board of Supervisors.
Ashland residents can vote for both the Town Council and the County Board of
Supervisors.
Hanover County is a part of the Richmond Standard Metropolitan Statis-
tical Area. To provide better planning and coordination of growth and develop-
ment, the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission has been established.
II-l
-------
Hanover County is a member of the commission along with Goochland, Powhatan,
Chesterfield, Henrico, Charles City and New Kent Counties and the City of
Richmond. In addition to the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission,
planning activities are also conducted by the Hanover County Planning Commis-
sion and the planning commission for the Town of Ashland.
Hanover County and the Town of Ashland independently manage, operate, and
finance the publicly-owned wastewater systems within their respective juris-
dictions.
Land Use
Existing Land Use
The pattern of land use in Hanover County is the result of several comp-
lementary factors, including location within the state, physical features, loca-
tion of natural resources, and transportation routes. Hanover County's proximity
to Richmond and the availability of a number of excellent access routes to the
Richmond area are unquestionably the major forces which have shaped the distri-
bution of land uses. This locational advantage, along with the unspoiled beauty
of many areas and relatively lower costs for housing, has encouraged many workers
in the Richmond metropolitan area to live in Hanover County. Nearly two-thirds
of the county's current labor force commute to work outside the county. So,
despite improved employment opportunities within Hanover County in recent years,
the majority of the county's working populace still commutes to jobs in other
locations within the Richmond metropolitan area.
The only complete survey of land use in Hanover County was compiled dur-
ing the summer of 1969, as part of the effort to prepare a comprehensive plan
(Ref. 1). The information gathered during that survey is presented in Appendix D
Several interesting facts about the distribution and use of land in the county
at that time should be noted. Points of interest include:
1. More than 94 percent of the available land was agricultural,
forest, or vacant.
2. Only 2.7 percent of the land was developed for residential
use. However, residential uses accounted for nearly 47
percent of the 17,151.8 developed acres within the county.
II-2
-------
Thus, residential development used more acreage than any
other land use except agriculture and forestry. Nor sur-
prising, the bulk (97.4%) of the residential acreage was
utilized for single family developments.
3. Streets and roads were second only to residential develop-
ment in consuming land within the developed area of the
county. As of mid-1969, almost 5,500 acres were used for
streets and roads.
4. Figure II-l (located in Appendix D) illustrates the boundaries
of the planning districts identified in Appendix D. Analysis
of the land use data in Appendix D indicates that more than
one-half of the developed acreage in the county was located
in an area encompassing several planning districts. More
than half of all the county's residential land use was located
in the same band of planning districts situated between Ash-
land and Cold Harbor near the Henrico County line.
5. With the exception of significant industrial land uses in
planning districts 1 and 2, most of the industrial uses in
the County were located in the U.S. 1 and 1-95 Corridor.
This is as expected because of the importance of good trans-
portation routes to industry.
6. Similarly, about three-fourths of the commercial development
in Hanover County was concentrated in the U.S. 1/1-95 Trans-
portation Corridor and in areas east of the Corridor nearest
the Henrico County line.
Development Trends
There has been no comprehensive survey of land use since 1969. However, there
are several, more recent sources of information which are useful in assessing the
major changes in land use. These include:
1. A survey of major subdivisions in the County.
2. A growth management plan for the eastern portion of Hanover County (Ref.8).
3. Discussion with local planners.
Survey of Major Subdivisions - The Hanover County Planning Department recent-
ly completed a survey of 222 subdivisions in the County. Each subdivision has
been included in Figure II-2, Existing Land Use in Hanover County. The County
survey identified a total of 10,394 residential lots in local subdivisions. Of
the total, 7,971 lost (76.7 percent) were improved lost, and 2,423 were vacant.
Growth Management Plan - In April 1977, Hanover County's Planning Office
published a growth management plan for Eastern Hanover (Ref. 8). As part of the
II-3
-------
assignment, the planning staff conducted an inventory of current land use in
the eastern portion of the County - an area which encompassed lands east of
Interstate 95, with the exception of a specific area bounded by Route 657,
Route 301, Interstate 95, and the Caroline County line. This current land use
information has been incorporated into Figure II-2. The land use information
depicted in the figure provides a current view of land use for most areas in
the County from 1-95 eastward.
The pattern of land use in Eastern Hanover has been affected by a combi-
nation of factors, including good access along U.S. Routes 301 and 360, low
property taxes, a "rural" atmosphere, and relatively lower land prices. Origi-
nally, most of the growth in this area of the County was around Mechanicsville.
By the 1970's, much of the land suitable for septic systems around Mechanics-
ville had been developed, and much of the new residential development has occurred
to the east of Mechanicsville. Strip commercial development along major road-
ways accompanied the urban sprawl, as evidenced by the commercial land uses in-
dicated in Figure II-2. The result is a pattern of scattered low density devel-
opment throughout the eastern portion of the County, with more intense develop-
ment, including some industrial development, near the major transportation arteries.
Local Planning Input - Local planners were interviewed to assist in iden-
tifying major land use changes in the County. With certain exceptions already
mentioned, the most notable changes in land use have taken place in the Doswell
area, east of Interstate 95. Since 1968, Kings Dominion - a major recreation
attraction - has been developed on a tract of land just south of Doswell. Other
major developments include the Bato paper mill, the W. Rons Industrial Park, and
the Atlee Roads Shopping Center.
The foregoing information indicates that there is considerable pressure
for growth in Hanover County. However, the limited availability of land suit-
able for septic systems, and the increased costs of providing services to
scattered developments will affect future land use in the country.
Land Use Planning and Regulation
The Comprehensive Plan for Hanover County (Ref. 6) and the more recent
growth management plan for Eastern Hanover (Ref. 8) provide the best indication
of the overall status of land use planning in Hanover County. Each is discussed
in this section of the report as a guide to the direction and objectives of the
County's planning efforts. Additionally, a brief discussion of the Hanover
County zoning regulations as they affect development patterns and the proposed
Phase II Wastewater Management Facilities Plan has been included.
II-4
-------
SPOTS YLVANIA
COUNTY
LEGEND
Residential Excluding Single Dwellings
Commercial
FIGURE H-2
EXISTING LAND USE (1977)
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
| ] Industrial
Public
Agricultural
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
SCALE
-------
The Comprehensive Plan for Hanover County - On June 28, 1972, a plan which
set forth the basic development policy and strategy for the long-term development
of Hanover County was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive
Plan for Hanover County was based upon an extensive planning study prepared by
Harland Bartholomew and Associates which included public hearings, revisions,
and subsequent analyses prior to its adoption in mid-1972. The plan was
essentially a forecast of trends, needs, and logical steps and/or strategies
to be adopted for the purpose of guiding the sound and well managed development
of the County. As such, the plan was prepared with the understanding that con-
ditions would change, and the plan would have to be periodically re-examined to
assess its applicability in the future.
Contained within the Comprehensive Plan were several interdependent, inter-
locking planning entities — a Land Use-Development Strategy Plan, a Population-
Housing Resources Program, a Transportation Improvement Plan, a Community Facili-
ties and Services Plan, and an Implementation Plan, which included a capital
improvements program. Only the issues relating to land use development policies
are of concern in this section of the analysis.
The Comprehensive Plan for Hanover County was prepared to satisfy the
following objectives (Ref. 6):
1. Concentration of the bulk of all truly urban development in that
section of the county nearest Richmond, Ashland, and Mechanicsville,
and which generally drains into the ChickahominyRiver, in order
that urban services, especially water and sewers might be more
economically provided.
2. Encouragement of strong multi-purpose centers for commerce and
services in a few locations such as Ashland and Mechanicsville,
rather than indiscriminate scattering of commercial and service
facilities across the county.
3. Encouragement of well-organized secondary commercial centers and
the preservation of prime locations for highway services.
4. Encouragement of industry in areas that are best served by trans-
portation facilities and required utilities.
5. Preservation of the county's most valuable natural features,
particularly the major stream valleys.
6. Preservation of the openness of the more remote sections of the
county for agriculture, forests, and recreation.
7. Encouragement of an organization of residential areas which will
accommodate a variety of housing types for people of all income
levels while preserving natural features of local value.
8. Foster a continuing effort to preserve and enhance historic places,
houses, churches, public buildings and historic sites.
II-6
-------
Figure II-3 presents the recommended general land use plan prepared by
Harland Bartholomew and Associates for Hanover County, Virginia. In general,
the plan illustrates a desirable overall arrangement of future land uses in
the County through 1990.
The land use plan set forth in the Comprehensive Plan delineates a dis-
tinct direction and intensity of development thorugh 1990 in Hanover County.
The proposed range of development criteria and land development strategies set
forth in the plan for different land uses are summarized below:
A. Commercial and Industrial Employment Centers
Generally, should be located proximate to major transportation
routes, especially in the transportation corridor served by
Interstate 95, U.S. Route 1, and the railroad.
Major concentrations of industry should be encouraged in the
1-95 corridor north of Ashland, at Doswell, in the vicinity
of the interchange between U.S. 301 and the planned 1-295
circumferential, and near the County airport.
Industry in other locations should be limited to areas where
physical appearance is not a significant factor and where
open storage of materials, etc., is not visually detrimental.
Commercial concentrations at interchanges with 1-95 would
consist primarily of service facilities (e.g., filling stations,
restaurants, service depots) related to highway traffic. Some
office buildings may also be suitable at these locations.
B. Retail Center Development
Centers for retail trade would be concentrated in the vicinity
of the 1-95 and 1-295 interchange, and at intersections of
major thoroughfares.
Regional shopping centers (300,000 square feet or more of
gross leasable area) would probably not be developed in the
County.
The most probable locations for community and neighborhood
shopping centers (with less than 300,000 square feet of gross
leasable area) would be in the vicinity of Ashland, Mechanics-
ville, and along U.S. Route 1, where population densities are
greatest.
In all instances, every effort should be made to discourage
strip/scattered retail development.
C. Residential Development
Residential development would ideally be concentrated in the
urban crescent to minimize the cost of providing utilities and
to discourage sprawl. This may entail the provision of
II-7
-------
SPOTSYLVANIA
COUNTY
LEGEND
Agriculture, Forest, Widely Scattered
Residences, Or Vacant Land
Low Density Residence
Low-Medium Density Residence
Medium Density Residence
Commerce
Industry
Public And Semi-Public, Schools
Golf Cources, Institutions
Parks And Recreation
FIGURE H- 3
GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
HH Stream Valley Open Space
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
30000
SCALE
FEET
-------
centralized sewer and water systems to many of the proposed
areas for residential development, illustrated in Figure II-3.
Suggested residential densities are as follows:
1. Agricultural areas at less than one dwelling unit per gross
acre.
2. Low density residential areas - one to two dwelling units
per gross acre.
3. Low-medium density residential areas - two to four dwelling
units per gross acre.
4. Medium density residential areas - four to fifteen units per
gross acre.
Low and low-medium density areas are intended for single family
development, except in the case of planned unit developments,
where some higher density residential areas may be established.
Medium density development includes townhouses and apartments.
Medium density development would generally be located near major
traffic thoroughfares, employment centers or retail concentrations.
The plan also designates several small residential concentra-
tions in outlying sections of the County near Beaverdam, Mont-
pelier, Rockville and Doswell. In these areas, the provision
of sewer systems was not resolved.
D. Agricultural, Forest and Vacant Land Areas
The vast area designated as agricultural, forest, and vacant
land should be managed to preserve the rural quality of these
areas of the County.
Growth Management Plan for Eastern Hanover - The Hanover Planning Office
completed a growth management plan for the eastern portion of Hanover County in
April 1977 (Ref. 8). In essence, the growth management plan set forth strat-
egies for accommodating and managing growth in eastern Hanover. Like the Compre-
hensive Plan, this recent plan suggests that the best way to manage growth is by
confining intensive development to designated urban areas, thereby terminating
the sprawl or patchwork pattern of development found in many rural areas of the
County. However, the growth management plan points out that the area designated
in the Comprehensive Plan for urbanized development is much larger than is needed
to accommodate the growth projected for Hanover County-, and therefore the objec-
tive of concentrating urban residential use will not be realized. Instead, there
will be a continuing trend toward widely scattered residential subdivisions among
otherwise rural land uses. In order to channel growth into a more compact devel-
opment pattern, the growth management plan recommends incorporating more specific
geographical constraints to urban uses in the Comprehensive Plan. A long-range
II-9
-------
perspective to community development through a series of short-term phases of
growth guidance in designated urban areas is also recommended. Should these
recommendations be adopted, the Comprehensive Plan would provide a smaller size
in the area of development with a corresponding increase in the size of the area
planned for rural land use. In this way, growth would continue to be accommodated,
yet the management strategy of channeling growth into a relatively compact pat-
tern of development would continue. The separation of urban and non-urban land
uses would still be preserved (Ref. 8).
Land Use Regulation
Zoning is probably the most commonly used development control device for
implementing the land use plan. It is essentially a means of insuring that
land uses are properly situated in relation to one another. As such, it
seeks to segregate imcompatible uses in order to protect existing property,
while directing new growth into appropriate areas where it can be provided
with public services in an efficient manner. Consequently, the implementa-
tion of the growth management oriented comprehensive plan depends on the
strategic use of zoning controls. Zoning, if strictly and consistently
enforced, can be an invaluable regulatory device for channeling growth into
predetermined locations (Ref. 8).
The use of land in Hanover County is governed by regulations identified
in Title 1 of the zoning ordinance (Ref. 9). Title 1 delineates 16 founda-
mental zoning classifications. A listing of these classifications is shown in
Table II-l.
Title 2 of the zounty zonin^ regulations is the "Subdivision Ordinance"
which governs the development of agriculturally zoned land. As of 1974, the
ordinance required a minimum initial tract size of three acres and a minimum
lot size of one acre. The original provisions of the subdivision ordinance
which was enacted in 1959, only require a minimum tract of two acres and a
minimum lot size of 18,000 square feet. It is expected that the increased
requirements, including provisions for access roads (Title 4), will have the
effect of delimiting the extensive, scattered development of subdivisions
characteristic of earlier years.
The growth management plan for Eastern Hanover County recommends that,
in order to assure the proper use of land in relation to the objectives of the
land use management strategy, the County should be comprehensively rezoned
11-10
-------
TABLE II-l
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(APRIL 10, 1974)
Alphanumerical
Designation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7-
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
A-C
A-l
R-l
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
PUD
B-l
B-2
B-3
M-l
M-2
M-3
H-P
Land Use Classification
Agricultural Conservation
Agricultural
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Residential Cluster/Condominium
Multiple Family Residential
Residential Mobile Home
Planned Unit Development
Neighborhood Business
Community Business
General Business
Limited Industrial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Historic Preservation
Source: Ref. 9.
11-11
-------
(Ref. 8). Moreover, the plan recommends that the zoning classifications be
revised to implement the geographical restraints to development. According
to the plan, the recommended new zoning districts will improve the regulation
of land use in the County by classifying land with special and/or limiting
characteristics more specifically, thereby encouraging the most appropriate
development for a particular parcel. The suggested zoning regulations will
encourage high quality development, limiting any adverse impacts on the
surrounding environment associated with the land use. Finally, the proposed
changes reflect new concepts and techniques in land use control which would
be of benefit to the regulation of development in Hanover (Ref. 8).
A detailed discussion of these proposed changes is presented in the above
mentioned document.
The growth management plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plan, acknowledges
that the planning, design and construction of major public facilities is a power-
ful method available to the County to guide the location of growth. As a result,
the major emphasis in the growth management strategy is to guide growth into
locations where public services and facilities can be efficiently and economically
provided, while separating urban from non-urban uses. Thus, capital improvements,
in combination with other land use controls such as zoning regulations, can be
used to manage growth. Hanover County wastewater management facilities planning,
therefore, should be viewed as part of the overall County comprehensive planning
effort so that the selected wastewater management plan will guide and concentrate
projected growth into the appropriate areas and contribute toward the realiza-
tion of the ultimate objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Sewer facilities
availability can undoubtedly be used to locate growth.
Future Land Use
The examination of past land use trends has shown that in the past growth
has been uncontrolled. As a consequence, residential development has occurred
in widely scattered areas where soil permeability, water table, natural
drainage and lack of flood hazard permitted the use of septic systems, and
commercial development has been confined to dispersed strips along major high-
ways . Because the location of industrial development is much more dependent
on transportation, most of the county's industrial growth has taken place in the
1-95 and Route 1 Corridors. Continued growth throughout the 1970's in Hanover
County is resulting in a patchwork pattern of low density residential subdivision
development scattered throughout the rural areas. This sprawling pattern of
11-12
-------
development has many problems associated with it including (Ref. 8):
Traffic congestion on urban secondary roads.
Interference with agricultural operations and damage to the rural
environment.
Excessive expense for the provision of public services and the con-
comitant necessity to increase taxes to finance these necessary
services.
Many residents are demanding an end to growth because they believe these
growth associated problems are threatening the rural character and life style
which originally attracted them to the area. Still others are arguing in favor
of growth management policies which would encourage future development only in
those areas of the County where public facilities and services can be provided
economically and efficiently.
The Hanover County Planning Office is clearly in favor of managing future
growth, and the Phase II Facilities Plan is perceived as a means of encouraging
new major developments toward areas where public sewer service would be available.
Moreover, the Hanover County Planning Office believes it would be possible to
encourage higher density development in sewer service areas assuming that there
was a market for residential units on smaller parcels of land.
Employment and Economic Forecasts
Employment
Employment in Hanover County in 1975 was 18,882. The leading employment
sectors are wholesale and retail trade with 3,052 employees, followed my manu-
facturing with 1,981 employees. Population increased between 1960 and 1975
at an annual rate of 4.5 percent, whereas employment increased at an annual rate
of 5.4 percent. Commuting patterns for workers in the Richmond area and the
Hanover County area are shown in Table II-2. In Hanover County, 31 percent of
the working residents are employed in the county and 47 percent work in the City
of Richmond. Hanover County compares favorably with other suburban counties be-
cause of its ability to provide employment for its residents. The percent work-
ing residents employed in their home county range between 27.4 percent in
Henrico County to 42.9 percent in Powhatan County.
Housing
In 1975, Hanover County had an estimated 15,460 housing units comprised
of 14,441 single family units and 1,028 multi-family units. By 1995, it is
11-13
-------
TABLE 11-2
PLACE OF WORK
Hanover County Richmond Citv
Number
Total Resident
Workers Reporting
a Place of Work 14,801
Places of Work
Reported :
Richmond Metro.
Area 14,228
Richmond City 6,015
Chesterfield
County 313
Henrico County 2,216
Hanover County 4,640
Goochland County 44
Powhatan County —
Out Commuters 573
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the
Percent
of Total Number
100.0% 95
96.1 92
47.4 77
2.1 5
15.0 8
31.3
0.3
—
3.9 2
Census, 1970
,118
,438
,486
,663
,610
465
169
45
,680
Percent
of Total
100.0%
97.2
81.5
6.0
9.1
0.5
0.2
—
2.8
FOR RICHMOND METROPOLITAN AREA RESIDENTS, APRIL 1970
Chesterfield
County
Number
29,782
25,065
14,245
9,059
1,674
45
18
24
4,717
Census of Population
Percent
of Total
100.0%
84.2
47.8
30.4
5.6
0.2
—
0.1
15.8
(unpublished
Henrico County
Number
64,826
63,119
42,299
2,229
17,774
573
196
48
1,707
Percent
Goochland
County
of Total Number
100.0%
97.4
65.3
3.4
27.4
0.9
0.3
0.1
2.6
tabluations based
3,298
2,886
1,150
—
237
70
1,390
39
412
on a
Percent
of Total
100.0%
87,5
34.9
—
7.2
2,1
42.1
1.2
12.5
15 percent
Powhatan County
Number
2,409
2,224
851
256
45
—
38
1,034
185
sample)
Percent
of Total
100.0%
92.3
35.3
10.6-
1.9
—
1.6
42.9
7.7
, Division
Total Richmond
Metropolitan
Area
Number
210,234
199,960
143,046
17,520
30,556
5,793
1,855
1,190
10,274
of State
Percent
of Total
100.0%
95.1
68.0
8.3
14.5
2.8
0.9
0.6
4.9
Planning
and Community Affairs; and Economics Research Associates.
-------
estimated that the County will have 30,451 housing units, as shown in Table
II-3. As the housing stock increases by nearly 100 percent between 1975 and
1955, multi-family units, as a percent of the total stock, will increase from
seven to 12 percent. The east section of the county will experience the most
dramatic increase in multi-family units, going from 78 units in 1975 to 1,585
by 1955. In the middle section, the number of multi-family units will double,
and in the west section, only eight multi-family units are projected by 1955.
Education
The Hanover County public school system, with grades kindergarten through
12, has a current enrollment of 11,300. As shown in the following text table,
this is a slight decline from the 1975 level of 11,600. For 1977-1978, the
Year Enrollment
1970-19719,670
1972-1973 10,369
1974-1975 11,600
1976-1977 11,300
1977-1978 11,500 (estimated)
school board estimates an enrollment of 11,500. Based on the current ratio of
population to school enrollment of 0.2426, future enrollment levels are projected
as follows:
Year Projected Enrollment
1980 14,556
1985 17,224
1990 20,305
1995 23,047
Economy
The major components of the Richmond metropolitan area economy are manu-
facturing, wholesale and retail trade, government, and services. Combined,
these sectors account for over 75 percent of wage and salary payments. Pro-
jections of economic growth located in Appendix D, indicate that the economy
will undergo only minor changes between sectors through 1990. The sectors with
declining shares of the total economy are manufacturing, transportation, com-
munications and utilities, and government.
Although agriculture accounts for only 0.4 percent of wage and salary
earnings in the Richmond metropolitan area economy, it is a very important sector
due to its extensive use of land and relationship with growing suburban areas.
11-15
-------
TABLE II-3
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING UNITS IN HANOVER COUNTY, 1970-1995
Section of County NumberjgJMJnits
and Type of Unit 1975 1995
East Section '
Single Family 6,214 11,632
Multiple Family 78_ 1,585
Total 6,292 13,217
(2)
Middle Section
Single Family 3,916 7,572
Multiple Family 950 2,040
Total 4,866 9,612
(3)
West Section
Single Family 4,311 7,614
Multiple Family - 8
Total 4,311 7,622
Total County
Single Family 14,441 26,818
Multiple Family 1,028 3,633
Total 15,469 30,451
(1) Includes area east of U.S. 301.
(2) Includes area between U.S. 301 and 1-95 Corridor (including Town of
Ashland.
(3) Includes area west of 1-95.
Sources: Richmond Regional PDC and Economics Research Associates.
11-16
-------
One measure of the value of the agricultural sector is the value of farm output.
The value of products and use of Hanover County farms is similar to that of
statewide characteristics. In Hanover County, approximately 53 percent of all
farms are commercial farms compared to 60 percent statewide. Comparing the
value of farm output, 20.9 percent of Hanover County farms have annual sales
of over $10,000 compared to 18.1 percent statewide.
Facilities Plan Service Areas
To aid the development of alternatives, the Phase II Service Area was
divided into seven (7) Service Area Planning Units (SAPU). Figure 1-2 illustrates
the relationship between the SAPU's and Hanover County. The SAPU's were formu-
lated by BYK on the basis of existing highways, land use, streams and other en-
vironmental factors.
Population projections for each SAPU were also developed by BYK with the
assistance of the county planning staff. Essentially these projections are an
extrapolation of historical growth trends into the future. We have reviewed
these projections and believe they are consistent with the state and county's
expectations for growth in the county during the next 20 years. These pro-
jections are shown in Table II-4. It can be seen from the table that the Phase
II Service Area is expected to grow from a 1977 population of 13,983 to a 2003
population of 30,011, representing a growth in magnitude of 2.15. Comparison
of Phase II population data with the county-wide population for the year 2000,
30,000 to 88,000, shows that 27.7 percent of the year 2000 Hanover County
population will be residing in the Phase II Service Area.
Regarding the Phase II Service Area Population Projections, (Table II-4),
there are several interesting points to note. The greatest percentage increase
in overall population is in the period between 1980 and 1985. Although SAPU
VI and VII initially appear to have extraordinarily high percentage increases
in population, one must take into account their considerably lower base popu-
lation in 1977 when compared with the five remaining planning units. Planning
Unit V clearly shows the largest absolute increase in population, although SAPU
I is the most densely populated planning unit.
In most service area planning units there are relatively minor, if any,
discrepancies (ranging from zero to two percent) between the projected popula-
tion and sewerable population in the year 2003 (Table II-5) . Special note
should be made, however, of SAPU V, where 1,444, or 19.5 percent of the popula-
tion, could not be serviced by the Phase II Facilities Plan. It appears,
11-17
-------
TABLE H-4
i
i-1
co
PHASE II
SERVICE AREA POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
BY SERVICE AREA PLANNING UNIT (SAPU)
1977-2003
Year
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
Absolute Change
1977-1980
1980-1985
1985-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
2000-2003
Percent Change
1977-1980
1980-1985
1985-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
2000-2003
I
5,775
6,038
6,780
7,617
8,383
9,097
9,512
263
742
837
766
714
415
4.4
10.9
11.0
9.1
7.8
4.4
II
804
841
946
1,050
1,145
1,242
1,298
37
105
104
95
97
56
4.4
11.1
10.0
8.3
7.8
4.3
III
872
911
1,025
1,138
1,242
1,346
1,406
39
114
113
104
104
60
4.3
11.1
10.0
8.4
7.7
4.3
IV
2,099
2,314
2,753
3,254
3,727
4,217
4,541
215
439
501
473
490
324
9.3
15.9
15.4
12.7
11.6
7.1
V
3,290
3,668
4,425
5,287
6,072
6,870
7,398
387
757
862
785
798
528
10.3
17.1
16.3
12.9
11.6
7.1
VI
448
677
1,038
1,399
1,760
2,121
2,337
229
361
361
361
361
216
33.8
34.8
25.8
20.5
17.0
9.2
VII
695
1,054
1,657
2,231
2,753
3,238
3,519
359
603
574
522
485
281
34.1
36.4
25.7
19.0
15.0
8.0
Total Population
Phase II
Service Area
13,983
15,503
18,624
21,976
25,082
28,131
30,011
1,520
3,121
3,352
3,106
3,049
1,880
9.8
16.8
15.3
12.4
10.8
6.3
Source: Bremner, Youngblood and King, Inc.
-------
TABLE H-5
PHASE II PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION
Service Area
Planning Unit
(SAPU)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Totals
AND SEWERABLE
Projected
Population
9,512
1,298
1,406
4,541
7,398
2,337
3,519
30,011
POPULATION IN THE
Sewer able
Population
9,396
1,276
1,394
4,568
5,954
2,337
3,519
28,444
YEAR 2003
Difference Between
Projected Population and
Sewerable Population
116
22
12
(27)
1,444
0
0
1,567
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates,
11-19
-------
according to the population projections presented in Table II-4, that the
period between 1990 and 1995 is when the maximum sewerable population will
be reached in SAPU V.
Existing (and Near-Term) Sewered Areas
The existing and near-term sewered areas in Hanover County can be classified
according to whether they are major residential/commercial centers sewered by
integrated wastewater management systems, or whether they are subdivisions,
industrial, or institutional complexes served by self-contained sewerage and
treatment systems in lieu of on-lot disposal systems (i.e., septic tank systems).
The three major sewered areas in Hanover County are the Town of Ashland and
adjacent areas, the Phase I Sewers area, and the Doswell-Kings Dominion area.
Other sewered areas include six residential subdivisions, the Hanover Indus-
trial Airpark complex, and the Hanover Court House/County Offices complex.
In each of these areas wastewater is collected, treated, and discharged (with
the exception of the Phase I Sewer System where sewage will only be collected
and pumped to the City of Richmond's system). Figure II-4 shows the locations
and extent of these sewered areas. For the purposes of this study, schools,
industries, and commercial operations which independently treat, and discharge
their own wastewater in lieu of using septic tank systems are not considered
sewered areas. These dischargers are discussed (flows, effluent quality, type
of treatment) later in this section under the heading of Problems of Water
Quality and Quantity.
Major Sewered Areas
Town of Ashland - The existing wastewater management system currently
serves the Town, and small area immediately to the west of the town on State Route
1036 (Hanover Avenue), and the major commercial, institutional, and light
industrial area between U.S. Route 1 and Interstate 95 to the east of the Town.
The system which is owned and operated by the Town of Ashland is comprised of
approximately 27,000 metres (88,000 ft) of gravity sewer, 1800 metres (6000 ft)
of force main, 8 pumping stations, and a 2877 m3/day (0.76 mgd) capacity
stabilization pond treatment facility which discharges to Falling Creek. An
estimated 4300 persons are currently being served (Ref. H-i)
Annual flows recorded at the treatment plant averaged 2320 m /day (613,000
gpd) for 1976 (Ref. 12). Using the average per capita water consumption for
the Town of Ashland computed earlier, and assuming 80 percent will become sewage,
a per capita domestic wastewater flow of 0.32 m /capita-day or, 84 gallons per
11-20
-------
SPOTS YLVAN/A
COUNTY
LEGEND
Major Wastewater Management Systems
Sewered Subdivisions, Industrial And
Institutional Complexes
*/,
NEW
MONTPEUER
HANOVEFQj
\NOVEIi
cot
-» SJ
1
-
f4h
5HLANC
ASHLAC
HILL
-ESTATES
«&
UJI
orl
Ol
CRUMP
SOUTH
.3VER INDUSTRI
AIRPARK
v
-------
3
be generating an average of approximately 1370 m /day (360,000 gpd). The total
infiltration/inflow (I/I) to the Town of Ashland system is the difference between
the flow recorded at the treatment plant and the wastewater produced by the
service population. That portion of the total I/I which has been determined to
be excessive is approximately 568 m /day (150,000 gpd) (Ref. 12). Excessive
infiltration/inflow is the quantity that can be economically eliminated from a
sewer system by rehabilitation, as determined by cost effective analysis that
compares the costs for correcting the I/I conditions with the total costs for
transportation and treatment of the I/I.
Phase I Sewers - The County-owned and operated Phase I sewerage system is
currently.under construction and should be substantially complete by the end
of 1979. The area to be served is shown on Figure II-4 and includes the
Beaverdam Creek drainage area and the Chickahominy River drainage area from
the Beaverdam Creek Confluence to U.S. Route 301. Sewage is to be collected
and conveyed through oven 107 km (66 miles) of trunk and interceptor
3
sewers to a 11,355 m /day (3 mgd) average capacity pumping station (26,495
3
m /day or, 7 mgd, peak capacity). Wastewater will be pumped from the station
to the City of Richmond's Strawberry Hill pumping station in Henrico County
which in turn will pump the sewage to the Richmond Treatment Facility.
Ultimately, Phase I sewage from Hanover County is to be treated at a Henrico
County regional treatment facility via a circumferential Henrico County
interceptor system. This County of Henrico system is still in the preliminary
design stages.
The Hanover County Department of Public Utilities initially anticipates
2860 connections to the Phase I System, 85 percent of which will be residential
connections (Ref. 13). The remaining 15 percent will be connections to
commercial users and the sanitary wastes from the Richfood Industries operation
in the area.
The initial amount of wastewater flow to be pumped to Richmond from the
Phase I Sewerage System may be estimated from current water use statistics and
the anticipated number of connections to the system. Assuming an average water
3
use rate of 0.95 m /day (250 gpd) per connection, and that 80 percent of this
will become sewage, the initial amount of wastewater flow generated will average
3
2165 m /day (572,000 gpd). The total flow in the system is roughly estimated
3
to initially approach 3785 m /day (1 mgd) when a groundwater infiltration design
allowance is taken into consideration. It is assumed that approximately 757 to
11-22
-------
1514 m /day (200,000 gpd to 400,000 gpd) of allowable infiltration will exist
in a properly constructed sewer system of the type and size of Phase I
(Ref. 14).
3
Doswell - A newly constructed 3785 m /day (1 mgd) capacity conventional
activated sludge treatment facility currently serves the sewage treatment
needs of Kings Dominion, Jarrel's Truck Stop (off the 1-95 interchange), and
a small amount of contigous commercial area. At present there are no resident-
ial connections to this wastewater management system. The treatment facility,
which is owned and operated by the County, includes flow equalization, post
aeration of effluent, and chlorine stabilization of sludge in addition to the
conventional processes. Effluent is discharged to the North Anna River.
Wastewater flows vary over the course of the year due to the seasonal
operating nature of Kings Dominion. During the late spring, summer, and early
3
fall of the year flows at the plant average 1325 m /day (350,000 gpd)- Flows
3
decrease to an average of 303 m /day (80,000 gpd) during the winter months.
These off-season flow volumes are generated at the truck stop and serviced
commercial areas and by the year-round employees of Kings Dominion. Waste-
water flow rated indicate approximately 2271 m^/day (600,000 gpd) of addition-
al capacity exist at the Doswell Facility.
Other Sewered Areas
As previously mentioned, there are presently six sewered subdivisions
(outside of the Phase I area) as well as the Hanover County office complex
and the Hanover Industrial Airpark complex that have sewerage and treatment
systems in the County. With the exception of the Kinsgwood Court subdivision
all of these sewered areas have been issued NPDES permits to discharge to
surface waters by the Virginia State Water Control Board. Subdivision sewered
area data are shown in Table II-6. Three of the systems are County-owned and
operated.
The Hanover County Courthouse and new office complex is scheduled to be
served by a sewerage system and a 151 m /day (40,000 gpd) extended aeration
activated sludge treatment facility that will discharge to the Pamunkey River.
The sewerage system will serve the Courthouse area, as well as provide service
to some of the residential area on the west side of Route 301 across from the
County office complex. The pumps and sewers which comprise the sewerage
system have a design capacity of 946 m /day (250,000 gpd).
11-23
-------
TABLE 11-6
SEWERED SUBDIVISIONS IN HANOVER COUNTY
(Outside Phase I Area)
Subdivision
Totopotomoy
Estates(^)
Kingswood
Beechwood
Farms
Blue Star
Estates
Country Club
Hills
Oak Hill
Totals
Sewer ,..,
Connections
169
71
111
50
248
78
727
Estimated , „.
Population
523
220
343
155
767
242
2,250
Estimated
gpd
51,000
21,000
33,000
15,000
74,000
23,000
217,000
Flow(3)
m-Vday
193
79
125
57
280
87
821
(1) Hanover County Planning Office (August 1977).
(2) Based on 3.09 persons per dwelling unit (Hanover County Planning
Office, 1977).
(3) Based on 80 percent of water use (250 gpd/connection) plus infiltration
design allowance of 100 gpd/connection= 300 gpd/connection.
(4) Owned and operated by Hanover County.
11-24
-------
The Hanover Industrial Airpark complex is sewered and served by a series
of stabilization ponds which discharge to Lickinghole Creek, a tributary of
the South Anna River. The treatment capacity is 79 m /day (21,000 gpd) and
the area served is approximately 250 acres.
Aesthetics
Amentities which make a strong contribution to the quality of life in
Hanover County include the recreation potential of the swift moving rivers
and falls of the western part of the County; the slow moving streams and
wide, shallow stream valleys of the east for their diversity of wildlife and
vegetation and attraction for the naturalist; the good air quality and lack
of noise pollution (with the exception of the 1-95 and Route 1 transportation
corridor which are buffered by forested areas); and the overall rural nature
that has characterized the County for the past 150 or more years. Rural
visual perceptions range from the wooded slopes and ridges of the west to
the checkerboard pattern of cropland and woodlots of the farms to the east.
These perceptions are experienced with the aid of the charming County roads
that gently traverse the County countryside. The proliferation of subdivision
development in a patchwork sprawl pattern that is encroaching on rural forested
and agricultural land in the eastern portion of the County can significantly
alter this high visual quality.
Community Resources
Transportation
Hanover County is well served by an extensive highway network. The
primary highways in the county are Interstate and U.S. Routes 1 and 301. Other
important highways are U.S. Routes 33 and 360 and State Route 2. The average
daily traffic volumes for these highways are shown in the following text table
(Ref. 11).
11-25
-------
TABLE H-7
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
Route ADT
Interstate 95 41,150
U.S. Route 1 12,110
U.S. Route 33 5,760
U.S. Route 360 19,570
State Route 2 11,930
Transportation planning was an integral part of the County Comprehensive
Plan. In this report, highway improvements were suggested for the five types of
roadways - expressways, primary highways, secondary highways, scenic drives,
and collector streets. Improvements necessary to accomplish the Major Thorough-
fare Plan for 1990 are also discussed.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Climate
The climate of Hanover County is influenced by air masses from the interior
of North America which are modified by the Appalachian and Blue Ridge Mountains
to the west. Although sub-zero temperatures occur occasionally in Hanover County,
warm air from the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean tends to moderate the climate
to a temperate one. Mean monthly temperatures in Hanover County range from
approximately 2°C (36°F) in January to 25°C (77°F) in July, while the mean annual
temperature is approximately 14°C (57°F) (Ref. 1). The average of monthly mean
temperatures for the crop-growing and harvesting season (April through October)
is approximately 20 C (68 F) while for the non-growing season the average is
approximately 5°C (41°F) (Ref. 7).
Annual precipitation averages about 112 cm (44 inches), and is generally
evenly distributed throughout most of the year. August is usually the month
of lowest precipitation, while February is the month of highest precipitation;
the values averaging 11 cm (4.3 inches) and 7 cm (2.8 inches), respectively.
During the crop growing season the average monthly rainfall is about 9 cm
(3.5 inches), while during the non-growing season the average monthly rainfall
is about 8 cm (3 inches). Hunidity in Hanover County averages 60 percent
11-26
-------
annually with extremes of 90 percent in the summer and 30 percent in the winter
(Ref. 7).
Droughts create a lack of soil moisture during the growing season and
seriously affect beth river flow and surface water supply. The most severe
drought in Hanover County occurred during the years 1930 to 1932; the rainfall
in 1930 averaging 46 to 56 cm (18 to 22 inches) below normal. More recent
droughts have occurred in the years 1954, 1964, 1966, 1967, and 1977, and were
of lesser severity than that in 1930.
Topography
Hanover County topography is characterized by three physiographic provinces.
From west to east they are (1) the Piedmont, with gently rolling hills and an
elevation of approximately 110 metres (360 feet), (2) the Fall Zone with relief
similar to that of the Piedmont, and (3) the Coastal Plain, with slightly rolling
hills about at sea level (see Figure II-5). The following information is taken
directly from the Hanover County Facilities Plan, Phase II (Ref. 1).
Piedmont
The western half of Hanover County lies within the eastern extent of the
Piedmont Province. This area is a highly dissected plateau sloping gently sea-
ward from the Appalachian Mountains. Stream valleys are V-shaped containing
streams actively down-cutting through bedrock channels. Major rivers and
streams flowing through this area occupy narrow flood plains and display minor
meandering. Stream density is high, with channel slopes averaging 0.6 metres
per kilometre (3 feet per mile). The average erosion rates in the Piedmont
Province form all land uses is 0.9 metric tons per square kilometre per year
(2.56 tons per square mile per year).
Fall Zone
The Fall Zone, a transition area between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain
Provinces, passes through the center of Hanover County in a north-south direction.
The topography of the Fall Zone approximates that of the Piedmont Province. The
major rivers crossing the Fall Zone have eroded through the thin cover of the
Coastal Plain and their stream beds are on resistant basement rocks. Falls and
rapids are common to this area and, the stream channels have slopes up to 1.9
metres per kilometre (10 feet per mile). Streams occupy narrow flood plains and
11-27
-------
SPOTS YLVAN/A
COUNTV
FIGURE H-5
LEGEND
Coastal Plain
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(Source: Reference I )
SCALE
-------
are active agents of erosion and sediment transport. As such, the erosion rates
of the Fall Zone can be expected to be similar to those of the Piedmont Province.
Coastal Plain
The Coastal Plain Province can be described as a series of steplike,
Pleistocene, marine terraces in variuos stages of dissection. Topography ranges
from flat to gently rolling hills. Generally, the small tributaries form steep,
V-shaped valleys and discharge into larger valleys which contain slow moving
streams which meander towards the York and James Rivers. The flood plains of
almost all the major creeks and rivers are covered by extensive marsh and swamp
deposits. The drainage and topography of the Coastal Plain Province is also a
result of recent regional uplift. However, the average elevation of the Coastal
Plain Province is much less than that of the Piedmont Province, decreasing the
potential for local erosion. After leaving the Fall Zone, rivers flow onto the
Coastal Plain sediments at a much reduced slope of 0.2 metres per kilometre
(one foot per mile) or less, and consequently are not active erosion or trans-
porting agents. The average erosion in the Coastal Plain Province form all
land uses is 0.4 metric tons per square kilometre per year (1.06 tons per square
mile per year).
Geology
Much like the topography, the geology of Hanover County is dominated by the
transition from the Piedmont Province to the Coastal Plain. In general, the
geology of Hanover County is such that the older stratigraphic units such as
Palezoic (or PreCambrian) and Triassic are prevalent in the Piedmont Province,
whereas younger units such as Miocene, Eocene, and Lower Cretaceous are more
prevalent in the Coastal Plain. Geologic formations within Hanover County are
presented in Appendix F.
Soils
A soil survey of Hanover County conducted by the Agronomy Department,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Research Division in cooperation
with the Hanover County Board of Supervisors, USDA Soil Conservation Service, and
the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission forms the basis for the in-
formation presented in this section (Ref. 15).
The location of Hanover County within both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain
physiographic provinces results in a wide range of soil types and conditions.
Soils in the Piedmont are typically shallow with bedrock only a few feet below
11-29
-------
the surface. The shallow bedrock in many areas render them unsuitable for
septic tank systems. Coastal Plain soils, on the other hand, may be up to
670 metres (2,200 feet) deep and many are better suited to septic systems and
drainfields. They are comprised of unconsolidated clays, silts, and sands.
In general, soils in Hanover County are dominated by light, colored, light
textrued surface soil and yellowish or reddish clayey subsoil or fragipan (Ref. 7).
Soils are grouped into soil associations which cover large areas. Major
soils in each association are denoted by the name of the association. Other
minor soils are also found in each association. The locations of the soil
associations of the County are shown in Figure II-6 (presented in Appendix F)
and selected important characteristics are also presented in Appendix F.
Soil characteristics particularly important to the development and eval-
uation of the wastewater management alternatives are suitability for septic tank
drainfields and for land disposal of treated wastewater effluent and sewage
sludge. Consideration of prime agricultural soils must also be included in the
assessment of secondary impacts of proposed alternatives. The discussion of
prime agricultural soils will be presented later in this Section.
Factors to be considered in the evaluation of soil suitability for septic
tank drainfields include soil permeability, depth to seasonally high water
table, depth to bedrock, natural drainage, slope and hazard of flooding (Ref. 15).
Each soil type in the County has been assigned a suitability rating, either poor,
fair, or good. An evaluation of the individual soil types comprising the soil
associations within the Phase II study area by the Hanover County Health Depart-
ment indicates that approximately 60 percent are rated poor; and 10 percent are
rated good (Ref. 16). Slow percolation rates and seasonally high water tables
(October through April) are responsible for the unsuitable ratings. Generally,
the soils in the area around Ashland and along the 1-95 - Route 1 corridor are
considered poor for septic tank drainfields. Alternatively, the soils in the
Phase II study area east of Route 301 are considered fair to good. A discussion
of existing problems with septic tank systems in the County will be presented
later in this Section.
Soil characteristics are some among many factors important in the selection
of a site for land application of wastewater. These soil related criteria in-
clude soil permeability and depth, depth to seasonally high water table, ground-
water movement, flooding capacity and slopes. The suitability of soils for land
application of waste water is closely correlated with their suitability for
11-30
-------
septic tank drainfields due to the similarity in site selection factors. Con-
sequently, the septic tank suitability ratings for each soil association shown
in Appendix F may be generally interpolated to apply to land application suit-
ability. Potential land application sites will be determined by considering
the above soil-related characteristics in context with other important factors
such as land requirements, isolation from the public, and distance from the
source of wastewater.
Sludge disposal, an important portion of any wastewater management system,
is also affected by soil characteristics if land disposal methods are practiced.
Sludge may be disposed on land via cropland disposal or in a sanitary landfill.
Sludge is viewed as a resource if disposed on land for the purposes of aiding
in the production of crops. Municipal sewage sludges possess nutrient and
soil conditioning values that afford agricultural benefits if properly managed
disposal techniques are pursued. Most soils suitable for any type of
agriculture are suitable for sludge disposal. Soils most likely to be
unsuitable are extremely fine textured soils, soils with shallow depths
to bedrock or water, and wet, undrained soils.
Hydrology
Hanover County lies within both the Middle James and the York River
Basins. The Pamunkey River drains that portion of the County within the
York River Basin; the Chickahominy River drains the remaining small portion
of the County within the Middle James River Basin. Both of these major
water courses drain predominately rural agricultural areas. Most of the
streams in the County flow into the Pamunkey River. The Pamunkey is formed
by the North and South Anna Rivers. Streams in eastern Hanover County are
affected by tidal flow in the Pamunkey River since it changes to a tidal
river in the vicinity of its confluence with Totopotomoy Creek, or about
River Mile 56.
The Chickahominy River drains lesser areas in the southern-most portion
of the County adjacent to Henrico County. As a result of a tidal dam down-
stream the Chickahominy does not experience salt water intrusion in the
Hanover County segment. The Pamunkey and Chicahominy drainage basins
are shown in Figure II-7. The reader is referred to Table 8 of the Environ-
mental Assessment of the Phase I Project for Hanover County for a detailed
breakdown of the base hydrologic characteristics of the rivers and streams
in the County (Ref. II-7).
11-31
-------
SPOTS YLVAN/A
COUNTY
LEGEND
Pamunkey River Drainage Basin
Chickahominy River Drainage Basin
Approximate Locations Of Virginia SWCB
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Approximate Locations Of USGS
Gaging Stations
FIGURE n-7
DRAINAGE BASINS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(Source: Reference 7 )
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
SCALE
-------
Water Quality
Several water quality monitoring stations have been established by the
State Water Control Board on selected streams in the area. Appendix A presents
recent data generated by this monitoring program. The locations of these water
quality monitoring stations are shown on Figure II-7.
Dissolved oxygen levels have remained relatively high over the past five
years in both the North Anna and the Pamunkey Rivers. For the most part these
high levels approach the dissolved oxygen saturation concentrations for the
respective ambient temperatures characteristic of the months indicated. Appar-
ently, the assimilative capacities of these watercourses are not exceeded by
the present amounts of waste inputs to them and their tributaries (a discussion
of the various point sources of pollution to the waters of Hanover County is
presented later in this Section). The assimilative capacities are enhanced
because the streams pass through the Fall Zone where the steep channel gradients
provide good reaeration.
The Chickahominy River annually exhibits low dissolved oxygen concentrations
during the summer months. Minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations recorded were
1.0 mg/1 which is substantially below the minimum standard of 4.0 mg/1 estab-
lished by the VSWCB for this river. These low dissolved oxygen levels corres-
pond to the annual period of low flow in the river. This temporary seasonal
degradation in the Chickahominy is a result of pollutant loadings from the Holly
Farms Poultry processing facilities, other private waste treatment system dis-
charges, and malfunctioning septic tank systems, as well as urban and rural
area runoff.
Incidents of high fecal coliform values were recorded on the Pamunkey River
at the Route 301 Bridge. The Pamunkey River at this location receives sanitary
waste discharges from the Hanover Courthouse complex and also receives runoff
that may be contaminated by malfunctioning septic tank systems. Fecal coliform
bacteria, while nonpathogenic, indicate that pathogenic organisms may be present.
The highest concentrations of nitrogen and phosphates were found in the
Chickahominy River. Phosphates and nitrogen in large quantities in natural
waters, particularly in fresh waters, can lead to nuisance algal growths and to
eutrophication. There are no VSWCB stream standards for phosphate and there are
no EPA national criteria for phosphate for control of eutrophication. However,
to prevent the development of biological nuisances and to control eutrophication
in streams or other flowing waters, in-stream phosphate levels should not exceed
11-33
-------
0.1 mg/1 as phosphorus (or 0.3 mg/1 as phosphate). This level was exceeded on
four occasions in the Chickahominy River at the VSWCB monitoring station over
the past five years. Sawyer (in Harms & Southerland, 1975) reported concen-
trations of 0.01 mg/1 soluble phosphorus and 0.30 mg/1 inorganic nitrogen
were capable of supporting algal blooms in certain Wisconsin lakes. Sylvester
(in Harms & Southerland, 1975) evaluated limiting concentrations for Green
Lake, Washington, at 0.01 mg/1 phosphorous and 0.2 mg/1 nitrogen. (Ref. 17).
Water Quantity
The major streams and rivers in Hanover County are characterized by relative-
ly small drainage areas. As such, they tend to exhibit wide variation in flows.
Table II-8 displays hydrologic characteristics and flow data for selected major
streams as recorded by the six U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations
maintained in or adjacent to Hanover County.
High streamflows generally occur during the winter and spring, a period of
low precipitation. Runoff into streams is greater during this period than during
the summer because of the general impermeability of the ground. Large amounts
of sediments occur in the rivers after heavy rains. Much of the summer and
autumn rainfall enters the ground and does not flow into the streams. Water is
also utilized and transpired by plants during these seasons. For these reasons,
streamflow is lower during the summer than during the winter (Ref. 7).
The mean flow per unit drainage area parameters for each of the water
courses shown in Table II-8 may be used to indicate the relative amounts of
impermeable surfaces in each of the drainage areas. These impermeable surfaces
such as asphalt and concrete can be associated with development in the respective
watersheds. It is interesting to note that the Chickahominy River and the Toto-
potomoy Creek drainage areas have the two highest mean flows per drainage area
of the streams monitored in Hanover County. As will be discussed later, most of
the development in the County is within these two watersheds. In addition to
impacting rainfall/runoff characteristics, watershed development can result in
increased waste loadings to area watercourses from stormwater runoff.
The hydrology of the North Anna River, and to some extent the Pamunkey
River, has been affected by Lake Anna since 1972. This impoundment was created
to provide a cooling water source for the Virginia Electric and Power Company
nuclear generating station in Louisa County. The impoundment is required to
3 3
discharge a minimum of 68 m /min (40 cfs) from October to May, and 204 m /min
(120 cfs) from June to September (Ref. 1).
11-34
-------
TABLE II-8
HYDROLOGIC DATA FOR HANOVER STREAMS
Stream
Chickahominy R.
@ Providence
(USGS #02045200)
Pamunkey R. near
Hanover
(USGS #01673000)
North Anna R.
near Doswell
(DSGS #01671000)
South Anna R.
near Ashland
(USGS //01672500)
Totopotomoy Creek
near Atlee
(USGS #01673550)
Little River
near Doswell
(USGS #01671100)
Drainage
Area
km
(sq mi)
642
(248)
2800
(1081)
1142
(441)
1020
(394)
15.26
(5.89)
277
(107)
Average
Period of Discharge
Record 3 , .
m /mm
(cfs)
1942-1975 440
(259)
1941-1975 1678
(987)
1926-1975 655
(385)
1930-1975 615
(362)
1948-1975 9.7
(5.8)
1961-1975 170
(100)
Minimum Flow
m /min
(cfs) (yr)
1.87 1970
(1.1)
2.04 1966
(1.2)
1.7 1932
(1.0)
0.2 1966
(0.1)
0.0 1963
(0.0)
0.2 1968
(0.1)
Peak Flow
m /min
(cfs) (yr)
13,107 1955
(7,710)
68,510 1969
(40,300)
42,160 1969
(24,800)
29,070 1969
(17,100)
1,272 1955
(748)
20,400 1969
(12,000)
10 yr
MA7CD *
m /min
(cfs)
13.6
(8.0)
71.4
(42.0)
11.1
(6.5)
24.0
(14.1)
0
(0)
0
(0)
Mean Flow
Per Area
m /min-km
(cfs/sq mi)
0.68
(1.04)
0.60
(0.91)
0.57
(0.87)
0.60
(0.92)
0.64
(0.98)
0.61
(0.93)
* Minimum average 7 consecutive day flow.
Sources: References II-l and II-6.
-------
Problems of Water Quality and Quantity
As stated earlier, the existing water quality of the Virginia SWCB
monitored rivers in Hanover County is good. With the exception of the
Chickahominy River at low flows, the various streams and rivers in Hanover
County meet the applicable water quality standards as established by the
Virginia SWCB. A discussion of these standards and of other laws and regu-
lations related to water quality is presented in Section IV.
The Chickahominy River does not presently meet the stream standards for
its classification (refer to Section V) during the low flow summer months.
Specifically, the dissolved oxygen standard of 4.0 mg/1 minimum is violated
during these periods. It is anticipated that when the Holly Farms Poultry
processing facility is linked into the Henrico County sewerage system the dissolved
oxygen standard will no longer be violated.
A list of existing point source discharges to streams in Hanover County
that includes municipal, industrial and private facilities is presented in
Appendix G. This may be referred to in order to determine the present state
of point source waste loading to the various streams in the County. It is im-
portant to note that a number of these point sources discharge to small tribu-
taries and creeks in Hanover County. During periods of drought and low flow
in the major rivers and streams, these smaller tributaries and creeks may very
well be experiencing periods when virtually no streamflow is occurring. This
fact is evidenced by the MA7CD-10 year flow for Totopotomoy Creek (Table II-8)
3
of 0.0 m min (0.0 cfs). Consequently, most or all the flow in a particular
creek or tributary during drought conditions could conveivably be attributed to
the contributing wastewater discharges. For example, the flow in Totopotomoy
Creek would be reduced to being just the effluents discharged from the three
contributing point sources listed in Appendix G or a regional sewage treatment
facility. This type of situation may have adverse effects on the respective
creek ecosystems, as well as significantly degrade water quality.
Non-point sources of pollution as a result of agriculture and silva-
culture activities do not presently constitute a threat to water quality in
Hanover County. The York River Basin water quality management plan does,
however, acknowledge possible natural non-point source water quality pro-
blems in the tidal Pamunkey River due to the flux of organic matter and
nutrients discharged from the many marshes that line its banks. The York
River Basin plan postulates that the slow-moving and swampy character of the
11-36
-------
tidal Pamunkey River provides the opportunity for organic matter created
from marsh ecosystem dynamics to settle and cause a continuous benthic
oxygen demand.
As a result of the poor suitability of some of the County soils for
septic tanks (as discussed in the "Soils" sub-section) there have been a
number of septic tank system failures within Hanover County. As of July
1977, 42 failures within the proposed Phase II service area boundaries were
reported to the Hanover County Health Department (Ref. 16). According
to the Supervisory Sanitarian of the County Health Department, the number
of reported cases of septic tank system failures are only a fraction of
the extant failures because the cost of correcting these tends to discourage
some homeowners from reporting. It suffices to note that, in many cases,
a failure is reported only when the drainfield malfunction is intolerable to
the owner or nearby residents.
The following areas in the Phase II study area are no longer issued
septic tank permits by the County Health Department because of the potential
health involved: Kingswood Court, Totopotomoy Estates, Beechwood Farms,
Blue Star Estates, and Hanover Industrial Air Park. As a result, each of
these areas has installed central sewerage (see Figure II-4) . In other areas
such as Sharon Park, Laurel Grove, Henry Clay Heights, Patrick Henry Heights,
Forest Lake Hills, Lincoln Park, and the Elmont area extreme care is taken by
the County Health Department in evaluating soil conditions for septic tank
location and proposed drainfield installation.
Failing septic systems may affect water quality in streams, ponds, or
estuaries, but is in most cases a much more direct threat to the health of
the citizens in the area where the failures occur. Sewage from failing
systems usually is found in the ditch alongside the yard; in the yard;
backing up in the fixtures in the house; or seeping into walls. Land run-
off may carry backed-up sewage into streams as a non-point source pollutant
load.
One other type of septic system failure should be discussed at this
point. This is the type of failure where no evidence of overflow or backup
occurs. The septic effluent goes directly into groundwaters utilized for
water supplies because of substrata conditions. The situation represents a
dangerous health hazard; however, very rarely does this affect river water
quality. It can occur where deep septic systems are installed on lots with
shallow wells or can result even from shallow septic installations where
fissures in the underlying rock formations typical of the Piedmont and Fall
Zone geology allow direct access by the septic effluent to water tables
11-37
-------
SPOTSYI VAhlA
COUNTY
FIGURE E-7A
SOIL ASSOCIATION AND
SEPTIC TANK FAILURES
PRIORITY TREATMENT AREAS
LEGEND
— — — STUDY AREA
—— SOIL ZONE
* SEPTIC TANK FAILURES
G = GOOD , F = FAIR , P = POOR
PHASE H PRIORITY AREAS NEEDING
TREATMENT FACILITIES
-------
utilized for wells. The situation can be avoided by careful attention to
underlying geology and by prohibiting deep septic systems and shallow wells in
the same area. The situation can be corrected by construction and connection
to water lines, or perhaps by the installation of deep drilled wells. Areas of
greatest need for providing sewerage service to alleviate water quality problems
are shown in Figure II-5A.
Water Use
Approximately 60 percent of the existing County water supply is withdrawn
from groundwater, and surface waters supply the remaining 40 percent (Ref. 7).
A breakdown of water withdrawals as to type and source is as follows:
Type Source
Public Water Supply Surface and Ground
Private Water Supply Ground
Industrial Water Supply Surface and Ground
Surface waters are being withdrawn by the Town of Ashland from the South
o
Anna River and are being treated at a 3785 m /day (1 mgd) capacity water purifica-
tion plant. Present water consumption is 2650 m /day (0.7 mgd). The Feldspar
Corporation, the only industry utilizing surface water supply, withdraws 1665
m3/day (0.44 mgd) from the South Anna River (Ref. 1). A new 7570 m3/day (2.0 mgd)
capacity water treatment facility serving Kings Dominion and the Doswell area is
withdrawing up to 3785 m3/day (1.0 mgd) from the North Anna River. At present,
no other surface waters are being used for water supply purposes.
Groundwaters serve as the source of water for the remaining publicly-owned
and industrial system users, as well as for all of the privately-owned water
system users.
Mechanicsville is served by a system owned by the Mechanicsville Sanitary
District. The system consists of six wells which furnish untreated water to
its customers. Hanover County operates a water-supply well and is developing
four more wells for future use. Fifteen privately-owned wells furnish untreated
water to subdivisions in the County (Ref. 7).
Industrial water systems which furnish untreated well water are operated
at Fearnow Brothers Cannery, Ellerson Industrial Park, Evans Products, T.O.
11-38
-------
Leadbetter Industrial Park, and Natkin & Company. A system owned by Holly
Farms obtains water from the Henrico County-City of Richmond System. The
Richmond Food Stores, Inc., owns three wells and two 1893 m (500,000 gallon)
storage tanks (Ref. 7).
The State of Virginia owns water systems which supply untreated well
water to Janie Porter Barrett School for Girls, Hanover School for Boys,
and Hanover Wayside Park (Ref. 7).
A complete tabulation of current water withdrawal statistics in Hanover
County, including the type and withdrawal rates, may be found in the Current
County Data Summaries prepared by the Virginia Bureau of Water Control
Management.
State Water Control Board projections of public and private water
supplies indicate a trend towards the phasing out of the use of groundwater
and the reliance on surface water supplies to satisfy future water demands
in Hanover County. Wells in the County have been inadequate during periods
of high water demand, and continued reliance on groundwater is not recommended
since the quality and quantity vary depending on the location of wells
(Ref. 7). Future public water supplies will be principally drawn from
3
the Pamunkey River which has a safe yield of 189,250 m /day (50 mgd) and
the South Anna River, with lesser amounts from groundwater as time progresses
(Ref. 1). Because of its good quality and great quantity, the Pamunkey
River is the best source of water for Hanover (Ref. II-3). However, the
Pamunkey River, and other potential surface water supplies, must be protected
in order to preserve the water quality for supply use. The water treatment
•3
facility at Ashland can be readily expanded to withdraw and treat 45,420 m /day
(12 mgd) of water from the South Anna River. Moreover, should the City of
Richmond find it necessary to tap the Pamunkey River for additional water
supplies the construction of three reservoir impoundments on the river could
Q
increase the safe yield of the Pamunkey to 473,125 m /day (125 mgd) (Ref. 1).
Because of the expected demand for water over the next 20 years, a public
water facility project is currently under analysis. According to a proposed
water facility study completed in 1976, the annual average consumption of
water per capita per day to be accommodated by such a facility is as follows
(Ref. 19):
11-39
-------
Component
Domestic, Commercial, Industrial,
Public Use
Loss and Waste
Total
m-Vcapita day
0.284
0.038
0.322
gpcd
75
10
85
Water use in an area or region is directly related to the amounts of
wastewater being, or to be, generated. In general, about 60 to 80 percent
of the per capita consumption of water will become sewage. The type and
condition of sewers and the associated groundwater infiltration also have
an effect on sewage flow rates. However, with well built sewers and with
sources of sewer system inflow excluded, the variation from year to year
in the ratio of sewage to water use is not great. For this reason, the
expected consumption of water in the Phase II area of Hanover County will
afford basic data for the projection of wastewater flows and concomitant
design of wastewater management facilities.
According to Hanover Department of Public Utilities' data for water
supply systems owned and operated by the County, current water use averages
3
0.76 to 0.95 m /day-connection (200 to 250 gallons per day connection
(Ref.20). The newer customers probably use closer to 0.95 m^/day-
connection (250 gpd/connection). Using the official 1977 Hanover County
Planning Office figure of 3.09 persons per dwelling unit and the afore-
3
mentioned projected per capita water use of 0.322 m /day-capita (85 gpcd),
3
a per-household rate of 0.99 m /day (263 gpd) can be computed (3.09 x 85
gpcd = 263). This computed rate compares favorably with actual County water
usage rates considering that the computed value also includes an average
industrial and commercial consumption allowance.
Water usage rates for the Town of Ashland are currently greater than
the rates experienced by the County-operated systems. Neglecting the large
volume of water consumed by industrial users in the system to the south
3
of town, the per capita water consumption approximates 0.379 m /day-capita
(105 gpcd). This rate is computed assuming a total domestic, commercial,
3
and light industrial consumption in the service area of 1700 m /day
(450,000 gpd) and a population of 4300 persons (Ref. 10. Among the possible
reasons for the discrepancy may be a higher percentage of loss and waste in
the system, or an above-average non-domestic consumption component.
11-40
-------
Groundwater
Each of the physiographic provinces has its own unique hydrogeologic
characteristics. The occurrence of groundwater in the Piedmont Province is
restricted to soil and alluvial recharge zones which recharge underlying fissures
and fault zones in the basement rock. The groundwater is under water table
conditions and is generally found in small quantities. In the Coastal Plain
Province, groundwater occurs in three major aquifier systems. The uppermost
system is the water table aquifer found throughout the county. It consists
of deposits of Tertiary, Pleistocene, and Recent Age. The second aquifer system
is the upper artesian aquifer system, consisting of sediments of Miocene and
Eocene age. The third system is the principal artesian aquifer system, con-
sisting of deposits of Paleocene and Cretaceous Age. (Ref. 1).
The groundwater potential of the Piedmont is limited by the generally im-
permeable igneous and metamorphic formations which lie close to the surface.
Approximately 90 percent of the wells drilled into bedrock yield less than 1.58
1/s (25 gpm). The average yield for these wells is 0.32 1/s (5 gpm). The most
productive wells in the Piedmont tap water in bedrock fractures. Usually, nothing
is gained by drilling deeper than 61 to 91 metres (200 to 300 feet) in the
Piedmont. The igneous and metamorphic rock underlying the Piedmont usually pro-
duces a soft to moderately hard water. An average hardness of 92 mg/1 was re-
ported for samples from crystalline rock in the James, Rappahanock, and York
River Basins. Iron is often present in troublesome amounts (0.3 mg/1 maximum)
as well as sulfides. Acidic conditions are often encountered (Ref. 7).
Groundwater potentials in the Fall Zone are similar to that of the Piedmont.
Here, water is received from wells tapping basement rock fractures and water
table aquifers consisting of a series of unconsolidated sediments ranging in
thickness from a few feet upward (Ref. 1).
Groundwater potentials in the Coastal Plain Province are much greater than
the Piedmont Province and Fall Zone. Most wells tapping these aquifers produce
at least 1.89 1/s (30 gpm), and yields of 6.31 1/s (100 gpm) are not uncommon.
Tables summarizing the yields and chemical characteristics of selected wells in
Hanover County may be found in the Environmental Assessment of the Phase I
Sewerage Project in Hanover County (Ref. 7).
Table II-9 presents the chemical characteristics of water collected from
various wells in Hanover County.
11-41
-------
TABLE H-S
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS
HANOVER COUNTY,
Well Name and
Location
R. W. Herzog
Beaverdam
L. B. Morris
Montpelier
J. H. Cochrame
Rockville
A. W. Hargrove
Elmont
Speed & Briscoe
3 mi SE Ashland
Beechwood Farms
Craney Island
Estates
OF SELECTED WELLS IN
VIRGINIA*-1-1
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (rng/1) , , _
Si02 Fe Ca HC03
0.2 37.6 182
0.2 35.7 181
8.0 2.6 41.0 210
31.8 0.07 71.3 287
0.82 56.1 289
3.0 0.4 38.0 198
0.08 20.4 127
504
7.16
30.4
7.7
2.55
28.2
5.30
13.5
Cl N03 TDS , arcripoŁ\ or Geolo§ic A§e
15.8 0.26 203 106 Patuxent
12.3 - 207 106 Aquia
23.0 0.0 224 - Cretaceous
4.5 0.25 313 216 Petersburg
granite
320.5 0.04 1012 221 Petersburg
granite
10.0 0.20 235 118 Cretaceous
2.07 0.49 - - Petersburg
granite
(1)
Source: Ref. II-l
-------
Biology
Terrestrial Ecosystems - Flora
Hanover County lies within the temperate deciduous forest biome of the
United States. Covering much of North America east of the grasslands of the
plains states and south of the coniferous forests of Canada, it is subdivided
into several climax forest types. Oak-hickory forest covers much of Hanover
County. In some areas this vegetational type is modified by local edaphic
conditions of soil and water, or is in some immature phase of climatic devel-
opment as a result of historic influences. Edaphic relates to differences
in soil type, slope aspect, and parent material. Historic influences include
cultivation, grazing, logging, and fire history.
The local conditions of soil, moisture, and light in flooded bottomlands
of the County are conducive to the dominance of sweet gums, red maples and
river birches in lieu of the oak-hickory forest. Subclimax vegetation types
such as loblolly pine forest and oak-pine forest occupy substantial acreage
that has been recently retired from cultivation. Other historically disturbed
areas and old fields are in successional stages with characteristic tree species
such as red cedar, loblolly pine, locusts and a host of others interacting
with grasses and other ground cover. These varied vegetational patterns offer
diversity and complexity to the ecosystem (Ref. 7).
There are five vegetational types within Hanover County. These differ
from each other in the nature of the modifications and degree of departure
from the general climax oak-hickory forest type as a result of well-defined
edaphic or historic conditions. These are: (1) flood plains, (2) flooded
bottomlands, (3) Coastal Plain wooded slopes, (4) Piedmont wooded slopes, and
(5) disturbed areas.
Flood Plains - Flood plain communities differ in that the frequency of
oaks and yellow poplars is greater, with black willow, red cedar and mountain
laurel dominant as understory species. Moss and sedges are occasionally
abundant as ground cover with leaflitter heavy in most areas. Dominant vines
include greenbriar, grape, poison ivy, and raspberries. The understory includes
ironwood, holly, blueberries, alder, and sweetbay. Canopy trees most frequently
11-43
-------
encountered in these flood plains include river birch, red maple, sweet gum,
yellow poplar, and oaks. Most of the trees in the flood plains are considered
mature trees and there is no evidence of commercial lumbering in most of these
areas (Ref. 1).
Flooded Bottomlands - The flooded bottomlands within Hanover County are
similar in species composition to the flood plains except that the bottomland
tree species are more mature and more diverse.
Communities associated with the bottomlands are considered thick and
diverse; understory is heavy including holly, blueberries, red cedar, and
greenbriar. Trees which have a wide range of adaptability and have become
dominant mature trees in the bottom lands include black willow, river birch,
sweet and black gum, tupelo, red maple, American sycamore, and bald cypress
(Ref. 1).
Coastal Plain wooded slopes - The Coastal Plain wooded slopes differs
from the other two areas in that the slope is more gentle, while still supporting
a diverse flora. Dominant tree species include oaks and hickories with American
beech and yellow poplar often exerting influence on the habitat. Ground cover
and understory are sparse, composed primarily of scattered grasses, ferns,
and mosses; vines include grape, Virginia creeper and poison ivy. Other under-
story species include holly, ironwood, dogwood, red bud, hornbean, and hack-
berry.
Piedmont wooded slopes - Canopy tree species of wooded Piedmont slopes
include those found in slopes of the Coastal Plain (walnut, hickory, pine, oak),
but the relative abundance of some species, particularly oaks, is greater in
the Piedmont, reflecting generally dryer conditions (Ref. 7).
Disturbed areas - Disturbed areas form a significant portion of the
vegetation pattern in the Piedmont wooded slopes and are actually considered
a distinct vegetational type. Old fields, road sides, and abandoned cleared
spaces near developed areas exhibit typical successional patterns. Tree species
encountered in the Piedmont wooded slopes include: scrub pine, loblolly pine,
red cedar, black willow, cottonwood, bitternut hickory, white oak, pin oak, red
mulberry, yellow poplar, sweet gum, hawthornes, black locust, staghorn sumac, and
red maple
11-44
-------
Terrestrial Ecosystems - Fauna
Each of the five naturally occurring vetetational types offer excellent
habitats for wildlife. The large number of oaks and pines on the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain wooded slopes provide nesting sites, cover, and mast for deer,
squirrels, and other animals which utilize this food supply. These wooded
tracts are extensive enough to meet the territorial requirements of animals
requiring several acres of forage range. Disturbed area sites offer habitat to
animals which can acclimate to human activity and whose territorial requirements
are small. Animals present are usually restricted to birds and small mammals.
The wetland areas of the flooded bottomlands and floodplains provide habitats
for wildfowl, muskrats, beavers,reptiles, and amphibians. The species diversity
in these areas is the greatest of the terrestrial ecosystems in Hanover County.
Provisional checklists of floral and faunal species found in Hanover County
can be found appended to the Environmental Assessment of the Hanover Phase I
Sewerage Project (Ref. 7).
Aquatic Ecosystems - Flora and Fauna
The biology of the streams and rivers in Hanover County differs between
the Piedmont and Coastal Plain areas. Streams in the Coastal Plain are
sluggish and slow-moving with silt or sand bottoms. Piedmont streams and
rivers are faster moving with occasional rubble and bedrock bottoms with
stretches of riffles and seasonal white water (e.g., the Little River).
Streams with riffle bottoms are excellent spawning grounds for many native
fresh water fish species. Anadromous fish such as striped bass, blueback
herring, and white perch spawn in Coastal Plan river segments of the
Chicakhominy and Pamunkey Rivers. A few fish species are found throughout
both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain watercourses. These species include the
chain pickeral, which is found mostly in the Coastal Plain but ranges to
the mountain headwaters, and the redbreast sunfish and the spottail shiner,
which have a similar distribution. A list of all the fish species found in
Hanover County may be found appended to the Environmental Assessment of the
Phase I Sewerage Project (Ref. 7).
11-45
-------
The freshwater swamps of the Coastal Plain streams are inhabited by two
main groups of aquatic plants: phytoplankton and various types of marsh
plants. Green and blue-green algae dominate the phytoplankton. Terrestrial
flora (i.e., trees) dominate the extremely diverse freshwater marshes; how-
ever, aquatic plants such as bullrushes, cattails, lotus, and water willows
may be found. The Totopotomoy Creek freshwater swamp is a unique wetland
habitat that will be discussed in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Section.
Air Quality
Hanover County is located within the Virginia State Air Quality Region
5 (Federal Air Quality Control Region 225). This region is basically
centered around the city of Richmond. Air quality goals for this Region are
summarized in the Facilities Plan for the Hanover County Phase II Sewerage
Project (Ref. 1).
None of the 18 air quality monitoring stations in Region 5 is located in
Hanover County. However, two of the stations located in nearby Henrico County
may be assumed to be representative of areas within Hanover County in terms of
air quality. Suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide are monitored at these
stations. The two stations are at the Varina Elementary School, which is
located in eastern rural Henrico County, and the Glen Lea School, which is
located in suburban Henrico County. The area around Glen Lea School is similar
to the developing areas of Ashland and Mechanicsville in Hanover County.
Table 11-10 shows a summary of the quarterly air quality data for July 1974
through June 1975 and annual air quality data for the years 1976, 1977, and
1978. Both the suspended particulate and the sulfur dioxide concentrations are
well within the state and national (EPA) standards; however, the data show an
increasing concentration of total suspended particulates for the period 1974-
1978.
Although there are no monitoring stations along the 1-95 and U.S. Route 1
transporation corridor to corrobrate the following conclusion, this area is
considered to be the only potential problem area in Hanover County in regard
to air quality. In particular, during summer air stagnation periods, auto-
mobile emissions and resultant photochemical oxidants may accumulate. Moreover,
carbon monoxide "hot spots" may be created along these corridors and in
urbanized areas near intersections and parking lots for shopping centers.
11-46
-------
TABLE 11-10
STATION
Glen Lea School
(Henrico County)
Varina Elementary
School
(Henrico County)
National Ambient
Quality Primary
Standards
AIR QUALITY DATA FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE
AND TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
JULY 1974 - JUNE 1975
TSP: 1976 - 1978
TOTAL SUSPENDED
QUARTER PARTICULATES
(y g/m3)
24-hr. Annual
Max. Geo. Mean
1 85 43
2 107 40
3 103 39
4 88 34
1 64 32
2 51 30
3 42 30
4 87 29
Air
260 75
SULFUR DIOXIDE
(ppm)
24-hr.
Max.
0,02
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.14
Annual
Arith. Mean
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
STATION
Glen Lea School
Varina Elementary
YEAH
1976
1977
12 mos.
ending 6/30/78
School 1976
1977
12 mos.
ending 6/30/78
TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICUTATES
( g/m3)
24-hr.
Max.
116
104
103
124
114
114
Annual
Geo. Mean
48
51
45
42
47
43
Source: Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board (1974-1978)
11-47
-------
The revised Section 107 air quality designations provide Hanover County
with an unclassifiable designation for photochemical oxidants. Air quality
should be closely monitored due to Hanover's contiguous boundaries with
Henrico County, which is classified "non-attainment".
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Environmentally sensitive areas are areas which contain valuable
natural and cultural resources. During planning and subsequent development
of an area, preservation of these resources is an important consideration.
Development or disturbance of certain environmentally sensitive areas may
result in significant environmental, social and economic costs. Loss of
environmentally sensitive areas to development often represents irretrievable
loss of limited, non-renewable resources. Many environmentally sensitive
areas are also important recreational resources. Natural, scenic and historic
areas which merit protection provide ideal opportunities for passive recrea-
tion. Hanover County is characterized by the following environmentally sensi-
tive areas.
Flood Hazard Areas
Flooding can be expected to occur on the rivers and major streams in
Hanover County during all seasons of the year as a result of the relatively
small size of the drainage areas that serve the watercourses. Flooding may
be caused by heavy, general rains at any time, or as a result of localized
summer thunderstorms or tropical disturbances such as hurricanes which move
into the area from the Gulf or Atlantic Coasts. These hurricanes are
responsible for some of the larger and more infrequent floods and are more
likely to occur during the summer and fall. The duration of flooding
depends on the duration of runoff-producing rainfall. In some cases, floods
may last for several days, whereas floods occurring as a result of short
duration summer thunderstorms usually rise to a maximum peak stage and sub-
side to near normal levels in a couple days. During all major floods, high
velocity floodflows and hazardous conditions would exist in the main stream
channel and in some parts of the flood plain. Flood plains are areas adjacent
to streams which are subject to periodic inundation.
11-48
-------
The amount and extent of damage caused by any flood depends on the
topography of the area flooded, depth and duration of flooding, velocity
of flow, rate of rise, and the extent to which damageable property has been
placed in the flood plain. Damaged sanitary sewer lines and wastewater treat-
ment plants could result in the pollution of floodwaters creating health
hazards.
Figure II-8 shows the locations of those areas adjacent to the major rivers
and streams subject to a 100-year flood, based upon the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Flood Plain Studies and information provided by the U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development. A more detailed mapping of these areas can
be found appended to the Hanover County Facilities Plan, Phase II, Volume I
(Ref. 1). It should be noted that these detailed delineations of the flood
plain areas for all of the Hanover County watercourses will be used to establish
siting constraints of various wastewater management alternatives, and, moveover,
will be used in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of the alternatives.
With the proposed project located in a flood plain, appropriate mitigative
measures are recommended in Section IV to minimize adverse impacts.
Groundwater Recharge Areas
Three Coastal Plain aquifers outcrop in Hanover County: the Nanjemoy and
Aquia formations (which comprise the Pamunkey Group) and the Potomac Group
formation. The recharge areas for these aquifers are located in the north
central and north eastern portions of Hanover County, adjacent to the Pamunkey
and North Anna Rivers. Mechanicsville and many private subdivision developments
in the Coastal Plain area of Hanover County draw water supplies from the Aquia
formation. The locations of these groundwater recharge areas are shown in Figure
II-9.
Areas of Sensitive Ecologies
The discussion of vegetation, fish and wildlife should include considera-
tion of the larger ecological context. In Hanover County there are special
habitat areas which are important to plant and wildlife ecology and do not
tolerate great changes. Moreover, the maintenance of the relationships
between these natural resources is important to environmental stability and
productivity. Within Hanover County, sensitive ecological areas are asso-
ciated with watercourses, marshes, wetlands, and bottomlands. Figure 11-10
may be referred to for the locations of these areas.
11-49
-------
FIGURE H- 8
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(Sources: References 1,2,6,7)
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
SCALE
-------
LEGEND
Pamunkey Group, Nanjemoy Formation
Pamunkey Group, Aquia Formation
[ Potomac Group
FIGURE IT-9
GROUNDWATER (ARTESIAN
AQUIFERS) RECHARGE AREAS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(Sources: References I ,7 )
>. (Z95
MECHANICS VIL&E ^ v
SCALE
-------
LEGEND
Bottomlands With Sensitive Ecologies
Scenic And Recreational Rivers
Bottomlands With Sensitive Ecologies
Scenic And Recreational Rivers
FIGURE IE- 10
AREAS OF SENSITIVE
ECOLOGIES AND SCENIC
RIVER RECREATIONAL AREAS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(Sources: References 1,7)
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
SCALE
-------
The Chickahominy River and Pamunkey River Bottomlands are considered
critical wildlife and fish habitats unsuitable for development. These
areas were identified as "Critical Environmental Areas" by the Division of
State Planning and Community Affairs (DSPCA) in a 1972 statewide study
(Ref. 21). These Bottomlands are important wildlife habitat and wetland
areas. Chickahominy Swamp is an important water storage and flood area;
Critical wetland areas along the Pamunkey River include Lilly Point Marsh,
Chamberlayne Point, West Island, Corisaic Marsh, and Eltham Marsh (Ref. 21).
The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 defined wetlands as being the area between
the mean high and low tides. Consequently, these areas along the tidal
portion of the Pamunkey River (and its tributaries) in Hanover County are
classified as wetlands and should be preserved according to the requirements
of the Act. Further discussion of the Wetlands Act will be presented later
in this report.
The Totopotomoy Creek, Pollard Creek, and Crump Creek bottomlands are
also considered to be sensitive ecological areas although not formally
identified by DSPCA in the above mentioned 1972 study (Ref. 1).
The Totopotomoy Creek bottomlands east of Route 643 support a delicate,
highly diverse, and complex functioning ecosystem. It is a significant
area for migratory and nesting waterfowl. It is particularly important as
a water storage area during periods of drought for numerous wildlife.
According to the Phase II Facilities Plan for Hanover County, "...Totopotomoy
Creek below Route 643 is definitely one of the last remaining wooded
swamps occurring in the State of Virginia, and as such, should be preserved
and maintained for its unique richness and diversity...the Totopotomoy serves
as an important aquatic nursery and is extremely important to the preserva-
tion of the diverse and stable ecosystem(s) in eastern Hanover County."
(Ref. 1).
The Crump and Pollard Creek bottomlands east of Route 651 are also
considered to be extremely diverse ecosystems and rare primitive flooded
bottomlands that also should be preserved. Most of each Creek's bottom-
lands are in undisturbed, mature, climax forest which is generally uncommon
in this portion of the County.
11-53
-------
Recreational Resources: Scenic River Areas
Many of the rivers in Hanover County are considered to be environmentally
sensitive areas not so much because of their ecological diversity but because
of aesthetic and recreational use purposes. The North and South Anna Rivers,
the Little River, and the Pamunkey River are included in this category.
Refer to Figure n_8 for the locations of these areas.
The DSPCA in 1972 classified the North and South Anna and the Little
Rivers as "critical environmental areas" because of their scenic character
with gorges and falls and good canoeing and recreational potential (Ref. 11-20),
The Little River, particularly the segment between Interstate 95 and the North
Anna River, is unique because of its being a white-water river during certain
times of the year when adequate streamflows occur. The falls of the Little
River near Route 685 are among the most impressive in the State. The segment
of the river from Interstate 95 to its confluence with the North Anna River
is quite scenic having cut through the bedrock layer of geologic substrate to
form areas of white water and fast riffles (Ref. 1). These riffle areas
are excellent spawning grounds for clear water fish.
In addition to its classification as a bottomland with sensitive ecologies
because it is a critical fish and wildlife habitat, the Pamunkey River is also
considered scenic and recreational river area. Fishing and canoeing along
the Pamunkey are popular recreational pursuits.
Habitats of Endangered or Threatened Species
Forty-three plants and seven vertebrate animals which occur in Virginia
are listed as threatened or endangered species. None of these are known to
occupy habitats within Hanover County (Ref. 7, 22).
Nesting sites of the Southern Bald Eagle, one of the endangered bird
species in Virginia, are located throughout the western tidewater region of
the State (Ref. 22). Several are known to be within 50 miles of the
Richmond Area and along the lower portions of the Pamunkey River. All known
nests are below the fall line or on very large lakes with extensive open
water areas since the food supply consists mainly of fish.
Recent sitings of a Southern Bald Eagle have been reported in Hanover
County in the vicinity of Ashcake and Georgetown Roads (May 1977). However,
the species' preference for large water bodies suggests that the siting was
11-54
-------
a transient bird roaming at the limits of its range. The reason that there
are no known nest sites in Hanover County is that the area is not a suitable
eagle habitat and would not support an eagle population (Ref. 23).
Steep Slope Areas
Areas of steeply sloping land are located adjacent to the rivers and
their major tributaries in the Western half of the County (i.e., the Piedmont
Province and Fall Zone). Also, the small tributaries of the Coastal Plain
area of the County are characterized by steeply sloping, V-shaped valleys.
Steeply-sloping land may limit certain types of development or preclude the
use of septic tanks or land application of sewage sludge or effluent.
Forest and Woodlands
The forests of Hanover County are a valuable natural, recreational,
and economic resource. Because they are multiple use resources, forests
provide wildlife habitats, watershed protection, and aesthetic value in
addition to commercial opportunities. Approximately 60 percent of the
total land area in Hanover is Commercial forest (Ref. 8).
Prime Agricultural Land
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, prime farmlands are
those whose value derives from their general advantage as cropland due to
soil and water conditions, while unique farmlands are those whose value
derives from their particular advantages for growing specialty crops. Prime
agricultural soils occupy 22,608 ha (55,822 acres), or 18.5 percent of the
land area in Hanover County. The natural soil groups included in the prime
agricultural classification were obtained from the soil survey of Hanover
County developed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and VPI and State
University (Ref. 15). The SCS has designated soils with land capability
groupings of Class I or Class II in the standard SCS eight class grouping
scheme to be prime agricultural. Soil association numbers 9, 13, and 20
(Generalized Soil Associations) are included in this category. Most of these
soils are located in the central and eastern portions of the County along
the Pamunkey River terraces and on middle Coastal Plain terraces (e.g., the
upper reaches ot Totopotomoy Creek). Additionally, two small areas of prime
agricultural soils are along broad ridges in the northwestern section of the
County on either side of the Little River. Most of the Pamunkey River terrace
soils are being farmed whereas the majority of the remaining prime agricultural
11-55
-------
soils are in forest. Corn, small grains, and soybeans are the major farm crops,
Figure 11-11 shows the locations of the prime agricultural soils in Hanover
County.
Archaeological Sites
Within the Phase II Service Area, there are six known prehistoric sites.
A brief summary of information provided by the Virginia Historic Landmards
Commission, Research Center for Archaeology, is provided below (Ref. 24):
1. 44 hn 3: Archaic period. This site was originally several
acres in size but has been partially destroyed by construc-
tion of 1-95.
2. 44 Hn 15: Archaic and Woodland periods (6000 B.C.? - ?A.D.).
The site is one acre in size and was being cleared for devel-
opment in 1975.
3. 44 Hn 16: Woodland period (1000 B.C. - ?A.D.). This site
covers one acre. It may be affected by future highway
construction.
4. 44 Hn 43: Archaic period (4000 - 1000 B.C.). This site,
several acres in extent, dates primarily to the Middle and
Late Archaic periods.
5. 44 He 16: Extending 350' x 150' along the Chickahominy
River, this site dates primarily to the Woodland period.
Most of the site has been previously destroyed.
6. 44 He 66: Detailed information is lacking on this site.
It has been destroyed by 1-95 construction.
The approximate location of each site is illustrated in Figure 11-12.
These sites represent only a small percentage of the expected archaeo-
logical potential of the project area. Therefore, it will be necessary
to conduct a more intensive survey of the project area once the alter-
natives for placement of sewer lines and facilities have been specified.
Historic Sites
Within the boundaries of Hanover County, there are 93 sites of signi-
ficant national, state, regional, and local historical importance. The
11-56
-------
SPOTS YLVANIA
COUNTY
FIGURE H-ll
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(Sources: References 8, 15)
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
15000
SCALE
FEET
-------
SPOTS YLVAN/A
COUNTY
FIGURE H- 12
I—»
I
\
: ROAM
•iRDAJl
*Pfc
NEW
-ELIER
SOUTH
300CHLAND COUNTY
>°*/n
-------
county's historic sites date form colonial times and include farms, homes,
churches, and other buildings.
Only ten of the county's historic sites appear to fall within the broad
impact area delineated for the Phase II wastewater management Facilities Plan.
Each site is identified in Figure 11-12, and a brief description of the sites
is provided in Table 11-11.
Although outside the Phase II Service Areas, the Old Church District is
a notable historic area along U.S. 360 and Virginia Route 606. This area centers
on the Broaddus Flats and contains the Edmund Ruffin Plantation and other early
farms. The Virginia DSPCA classified the Old Church District in Hanover County
as a "critical environmental area" in 1972 because its unique historic character
is believed to be representative of Virginia and worthy of protection (Ref. 21).
Public Outdoor Recreation Areas: Parks
Many of the previously described environmentally sensitive areas represent
important natural recreational resources in Hanover County. Among these are
the scenic rivers in the western portion of the County that offer a variety
of challenging canoeing experiences (as previously discussed). In addition to
these natural recreation areas there are a limited number of outdoor parks main-
tained for active and/or passive recreational uses. The County's park system
includes the three National Battlefield Parks in southeastern Hanover (administered
by the U. S. Department of Interior at the Beaverdam Creek site), the Garthright
House and Cemetery, and Watt House, and Cold Harbor.
A number of facilities are planned for acquisition and development. The
County is proposing several parks as part of their comprehensive planning process.
These are the 700-acre Hanover Wildlife and Recreation Area on the Pamunkey
River just east of Hanover, and 80-acre park (Patrick Henry Park) west of Ashland,
and the 115-acre Little River Falls Park (Ref. 1).
Apart from existing and planned public recreation areas, there are numerous
other privately owned recreational facilities, including campgrounds, a country
club and the Kings Dominion theme park. In all, it is estimated that private
recreational facilities encompass about 2,300 acres.
ncn
u j
-------
TABLE 11-11
i
c^
o
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES IN THE PHASE II SERVICE AREA
Figure
Key
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Name
Kings Pond Mill
Randolph-Macon College
Brockspring
Clay Springs
Slash Church
Salem Church
Rural Plains
Pine Slash
Honeymoon Cottage
Laurel Meadow
Date
n. a.
n. a.
n. a.
Pre-1977
1729-1730
Unknown
1690-1700
n. a.
n.a.
Mid-18th Century
Listing
National*-1-1 State*"2-1
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
Regional^3-*
X
X
X
X
X
(1) Listed by the National Register of Historic Places.
(2) Listed by Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission.
(3) Listed by Richmond Regional Planning District Commission.
-------
-------
SECTION III
FACILITY PLANNING ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The Phase II service area was divided into seven service area planning
units (SAPU). Table III-l delineates each of these units and their predominate
characteristics. The facility planner developed this classification on the
basis of existing highways, land use, streams, and other environmental factors.
Figure HI-A illustrates the location of each SAPU within the Phase II service
area.
TABLE III-l
SERVICE AREA PLANNING UNITS, (SAPU)
Service Area
Planning Units General Description
1 Town of Ashland
2 & 3 Industrial Corridor (Routes 1 & 1-95)
4 Upper Totopotomoy Basin (west of
Route 301)
5 Lower Totopotomoy Basin (east of
Route 301)
6 Crump Creek-Patrick Henry Heights and
Mimosa Hills subdivisions and surround-
ing areas
7 Kersey Creek-Hanover small farms and
Forest Lake Hills subdivisions and
surrounding areas
The facility planning period selected for this study is the 20 year planning
period from the project's initial operation in 1983 to the year 2003. Popula-
tion projections, flow and wasteload projections were developed for this planning
period.
Three basic strategies are detectable in the alternatives developed by the
facility planner. They involve local, subregional, and regional approaches to
wastewater treatment needs of the service area. The "local" approach or
III-l
-------
SPOTS YLVAN/A
COUNTY
SERVICE AREA PLANNING UNITS
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
SCALE
-------
strategy involves upgrading the reliability and effluent quality of existing
wastewater treatment facilities with incidental increased in capacities. For
this reason, this strategy is sometimes called the "limited growth" strategy
as very little additional development could be accommodated. The other two
strategies are growth accommodating. The subregional strategy involves various
combinations of service area planning units into subregional groups whereby
their combined wastewater flow may be efficiently collected and treated at
expanded existing, new, or out-of-county treatment facilities. The regional
strategy involves the pursuit of one of two basic philosophies for the entire
service area. These are export of a portion of projected wastewater flows to
existing or planned facilities in Henrico County, and treatment of Tototopotomoy
Basin flow at a new regional treatment facility in Hanover County.
The alternatives developed by the facility planner are based on the pro-
jected need for wastewater treatment, and constrained by the regulations and
policies of the EPA and agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia. These factors
are important on future decisions by local, state, and federal authorities. The
following flow and wasteload projections provide guidelines to developing
accurate capacities for facility planning alternatives.
FLOW AND WASTELOAD PROJECTIONS
Wastewater flow projections are one of the most important components of a
sewerage facilities plan. Inaccurate or excessive projections can lead to un-
necessary treatment capacity and increased costs to the user. Excess capacity
may lead to induced growth and excessive costs for public services. On the
other hand, lack of adequate treatment capacity can inhibit development, foster
sewer connection moratoria and lead to spiralling costs for sewered land. The
following discussion presents EPA's position regarding flow projections, pro-
jections developed during the preparation of this EIS, and facility plan design
flows.
EPA Policy: Wastewater Flow Projections
The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that "wastewater flow
estimates...should reflect a realistic assessment of the contributions of dry
and wet weather flows" (Ref. 25). EPA has adopted the policy that proposed
treatment facilities which are based on unrealistic wastewater flow projections
and cost-effective analysis will not be eligible for federal funds. The Agency
III-2
-------
has recommended two methods for determining average daily base flows (ADBF)
to ensure compliance with this policy.
The first and preferred method is to estimate ADBF by determining exist-
ing per-capita flows, and multiplying this figure by the service area's
future population. Allowances are made to convert seasonal population to
equivalent full-time residents. To use this method, accurate water supply
records or wastewater flow data must exist in usable form.
The second optional method is to multiply the estimated total existing
and future populations served by the following per-capita-per-day rates.
Gallons Litres
1. Cities and Towns with projected total
10-year populations of 5,000 or less 60-70 227-265
2. Other Cities and Towns 65-80 246-303
Lastly, "allowances for future increases of per-capita flows over time
will not be approved unless a complete justification for such increase is
provided and conservation factors tending to decrease per-capita flows have
been fully analyzed in the facility plan." (Ref. 25).
Phase II Service Area: Wastewater Flow Projections
Existing subdivisions, other residential areas, existing point sources,
commercial and public sources, and industrial areas were analyzed to deter-
mine wastewater flow projections for the year 2003. Flows were determined from
information provided by the facilities planner for each SAPU and several sub-
divisions adjacent to a SAPU as shown in the following figure. The results
are given in Table III-2.
As shown in Table III-2, the estimated total flow for year 2003 Phase II
3
service area is 15,106 m /day (3.991 mgd). Ashland is the largest contributor
«rith a flow slightly greater than one fourth of the total. A comparison of
population projections and wastewater flows developed by BYK for the year 2003
service area is presented in Table III-3. Examination of per-capita flows
indicate inaccurate and excessive flow projections within all planning units.
Several factors contribute to the increased factor:
3
1. Use of .38 m cd (100 gpcd) as required by the Commonwealth of
Virginia for residential per-capita flow rather than actual values;
III-3
-------
TABLE III-2
2003 PROJECTED FLOW - (GPP)
HANOVER COUNTY
PHASE II
PLANNING UNIT
DESIGNATION
#1 - Greater Ashland
#2 - Industrial Corridor
(West)
#3 - Industrial Corridor
#4 - Upper Totopotomoy
#5 - Lower Totopotomoy
#6 - Crump Creek
#7 - Kersey Creek
Outlying Subdivisions
TOTALS
TOWN OF
ASHLAND -1
770,000
(2,914m3)
—
—
—
—
—
777,000.
(2,914m3)
EXISTING
SUED IV. TO
CAPACITY 2
8,000
(30m3)
26,300
(100m3)
228,000
(863m3)
256,000
(969m3)
41,000
(155m3)
100,000
(378m3)
75,000
(284m3)
734,300
(2,779m3)
REMAINING
RESIDENTIAL3
228,300
(864m )
127,600
(483m )
111,900
(424m3)
204,000
(772m3)
330,000
(1,249m3)
187,700
(710m3)
251,200
(951m3)
—
1,440,700
(5,453m3)
EXISTING POINT
SOURCES 4
7,000
(26m )
"
120,000
(454m3)
25,000
(95m3)
6,000
(23m3)
—
—
158,000
(598m3)
COMMERICAL AND
PUBLIC SOURCES5
included
in (1)
29,500
(112m3)
90,000
(341m3)
12,500
(47m3)
"
—
—
—
132,000
(500m3)
INDUSTRIAL AREAS 6 TOTALS
(acres in Parem.) (mgd)
included -^ Q-^-J
in (1) (3,834m3)
328,000
(820 acres)
(1,241m3)
396,000
(990 acres)
(1,499m3)
28,000
(70 acres)
(106m3)
4,000
(10 acres)
(15m3)
--
—
—
756,000
(2,861m3)
0.485
fl,836m3)
0.744
(2,816m3)
0.498
(1,885m3)
0.590
(2,233m3)
0.235
(889m3)
0.351
(1,329m3)
0.075
(284m3)
3.991
(15,106m3)
1. BYK, Inc. Wastewater generation overlays: Ashland (Map No. 2)
2. BYK, Inc. Wastewater generation overlays: Ashland, Yellow Tavern, Studley (Map Nos. 2,5,6)
3- Table "Sewerable population by planning unit" (13 Dec., 1977, BYK, Inc.)
4. BYK, Inc. Wastewater generation overlays: Ashland, Yellow Tavern, Studley (Map Nos. 2,5,6)
5. BYK, Inc. Letter of 8 Dec., 1977 and Wastewater generation overlays: Ashland (Map No. 5)
6- BYK, Inc. Letter of 8 Dec., 1977 and Wastewater generation overlays: Ashland (Map No. 5) Assumed 400 gallons/acre day.
Acreage shown in Parenthesis.
-------
TABLE III - 3
POPULATION PROJECTIONS/WASTEWATER FLOWS-YEAR 2003
Planning Unit
Designation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TOTAL
1. BYK flow
H 2. Excludes
H
Population
9,512
1,298
1,406
4,541
7,398
2,337
3,519
30,011
projections.
flow of 0.075 mgd
Percent
of Total
Population
31.7
4.4
4.7
15.1
24.6
7.8
11.7
100.0
(14
from outlying subdivisions.
Flow
(MGD)
1.013
0.485
0.744
0.498
0.590
0.235
0.351
3.9162
,822 m /day)
Percent
of Total
Flow
25.9
12.4
19.0
12.6
15.1
6.0
9.0
100.0
Flow
Per Capita,
Gallons
106
374
529
110
80
100
100
130
(0.492m3)
-------
2. Projected industrial flow of 19% of total flow rather than
using EPA projection methodology outlined in Appendix A,40CFR
Part 35, Subpart E.
Actual per capita wastewater generation rates for the Phase II study
area should be based on water consumption analyses. County-wide water use was
•j
estimated in 1976 to be 0.32 m cd (85 gpcd) (Ref. 19). However, according to
water use records for the Town of Ashland, existing water uses averages
3
0.4 m cd (105 gpcd). Per-capita wastewater flows are assumed to be 80% of
the per capita water consumption (Ref. 14). This analysis yields the following
per capita flows:
AREA
RESIDENTIAL
NON-RESIDENTIAL
TOTAL
Ashland
Phase II Area
0.23m3cd
(60 gpcd)
0.23m3cd
(60 gpcd)
0.09m3cd
(24 gpcd)
0.03m3cd
( 8 gpcd)
0.32m3cd
(84 gpcd)
0.26m3cd
(68 gpcd)
Considering infiltration, per-capita wastewater flows for the Phase II
area excluding Ashland are: 0.23m3cd (60 gpcd) base residential, 0.03m3cd
(8 gpcd) non residential, 0.05m3cd (14 gpcd) allowable infiltration for a
total of 0.31 m3cd (82 gpcd). For the Town of Ashland, per capita flows
excluding allowable infiltration are 84 gpcd (0.32m3cd). Allowable infiltra-
tion will increase from 344m3 to 379m3 (91,000 to 100,000 gallons) over the
20 year planning period. Total per-capita flows for the Town of Ashland
would be0.35m3cd (94.5 gpcd).
Table III-4 presents flow projections based on EPA's cost effective
methodology contained in 40 CFR Part 35 Appendix A, September 27, 1978. Since
existing industrial flow figures and letters of intent for future industrial
flow contributions have not been provided, ten percent of the projected resi-
dential flow has been added to calculate the total Phase II Service Area flow
for the planning year. This flow projection is the most accurate estimate
that can reasonably be predicted based on available information from the
facility planner.
III-6
-------
TABLE III-4
PHASE II WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS:
FLAMING PERIOD (2003)
Planning Unit Designation Population
#1 - Greater Ashland
#2 - Industrial Corridor (west)
#3 - Industrial Corridor
#4 - Upper Totopotomoy
#5 - Lower Totopotomoy
//6 - Crump Creek
#7 - Kersey Creek
Outlying Subdivisions
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL INCREASE (10%)
TOTAL PHASE II FLOW
9,512
1,298
1,406
4,541
7,398
2,337
3,519
750
30,761
Projected
3,402
401
435
1,407
2,296
726
1,093
234
9,994
999
10,993
3
Flow m (mgd)
(.899)
(.106)
(.115)
(.372)
(.607)
(.192)
(.289)
(.062)
(2.64)
( .26)
m3(2.90 mgd)
SOURCE: Engineering-Science
III-7
-------
The generation rates shown in Table III-4 indicate the total projected flow
3
would be on the order of 10,993 m per day (2.90 mgd) as opposed to approxima-
tely 15,000 m3 per day (3.99 mgd) from Table III-2 proposed by the facility
planner. Further discussion of this discrepancy is located under the cost impact
portion of Section IV and the development of additional alternatives in Section V.
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
The following discussion outlines the treatment and disposal options avail-
able to the facility planner in developing alternatives.
Stream Discharge. Waste load allocations promulgated by the SWCB have
governed the development of stream discharge alternatives. The Ashland discharge
alternative utilizes the South Anna River with wasteload allocations of CBOEU and
3
TKN of 16 mg/1 and 20 mg/1 respectively, for an effluent flow of 5,299 m /d
(1.4 mgd), and 28 mg/1 and 20 mg/1 respectively, for an effluent flow of 3,028
3
m /d (0.8 mgd). The South Anna River discharge replaces the existing outfall on
Falling Creek. The following figure presents each effluent discharge point.
A regional treatment plant alternative has been developed which includes
surface discharge to Totopotomoy Creek. The discharge point is located at the
confluence of Totopotomoy and Strawhorn Creeks. Wasteload allocations developed
by SWCB relate to four design flow alternatives. A discussion of these allo-
cations is presented in Section V. (See also Figure III-B)
Alternative 8-1 from the 1975 plan would have a discharge point to the
Pamunkey River in the vicinity of Nelson's Bridge. Advanced treated effluent
3
with a design flow of 13,247 m /day (3.5 mgd) is released at this point. A
wasteload allocation was developed in the York River Basin Plan, and is utilized
as the appropriate allocation for the 201 Facility plan (see Table V-4).
Assimilative capacities are routinely included in the formulation of waste-
load allocations.
Land Application and Wastewater Reuse. In terms of recycling of waste
products, land application presents a more viable alternative than stream
discharge. Various land application alternatives have been developed during
the preparation of this study. Consideration has been given to proximity to
treatment facilities, soil characteristics, environmental and socioeconomic
impacts.
The effluent loading rate may be limited by any of several factors such as
1) the infiltration capacity of the soil; 2) the permeability of the root
III-8
-------
SPOTS YLVAN/A
COUNTY
8EAVERDAH
NEW
ASHLAND
DISCHAI
HAIMOVERJ
co,
POTENTIAL STREAM
DISCHARGE POINTS FOR
FACILITY PLANNING
WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
RT
MONTPELiER
6)0
SOUTH
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
I.'
AMD
Of /VV30I'
-G^ /*,
HENRICO COUNTY
•/&
CRUMP
)MOY
yf NELSON'$
BRIDGE g
ii
STUDLEY/
^
)WER TOfOPOl
60.6,
-------
zone and underlying geologic materials; 3) soil and plant capacity to remove
major plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus); 4) the soil capacity to filter
and remove suspended solids and organic and inorganic compounds; and 5) climatic
influences such as precipitation, evapotranspiration and growing season (Ref.27).
The development °f land ^application systems routinely considers three
approaches: overland flow, irrigation, and infiltration-percolation. Irrigation
is the most common method of application and is used on forestland, agricultural
lands, parks, golf courses, and other land areas. Infiltration-percolation is
used as a groundwater recharge method where wastewater is partially treated as
it percolates through the soil. Excessive nitrogen buildup in the groundwater
is often a serious concern associated with the use of this method. Overland
flow may also be used as a pretreatment surface discharge. Treatment of the
wastewater is accomplished by bacterial action and vegetation as the wastewater
flows over sloped surfaces. Table III-5 compares pertinent factors among the
three alternatives.
Another key factor affecting the selection of the land application method
is soil composition. Spray irrigation requires soils that are well drained,
such as clay loams and sandy loams. To minimize surface leakage, heavy clay
and clay loams must be prevalent in an area utilizing overland flow. An in-
filtration rate of 10 to 30 cm (4 to 12 inches) per day is necessary for in-
filtration-percolation. Sand, sandy loams, loam sands and gravels are accept-
able.
Geological conditions of the potential land application sites must also be
factored. Bedrock depths required include: 1.5 to 1.8 metre:- (5 to 6 feet) for
spray irrigation, 1.2 metres (4 feet) for overland flow, and 3 to 4.6 metres(10 to 15
feet) for infiltration-percolation. Direction, depth, and rate of flow of
ground water must be evaluated. Minimum groundwater depth for spray irrigation
is generally considered to be 1.5 metres (five feet). Overland flow requires
a minimum depth of 0.6 metres(two feet),and infiltration-percolation requires
4.6 metres (15 feet) or more. The additional depth required for the infiltration-
percolation method accounts for long term loading rates and the higher potential
of groundwater contamination.
Nitrogen uptake and nutrient recycling is a critical design consideration.
An application rate of five cm (2 inches) per week was used in formulating
land application alternatives. Higher loading rates may be utilized if adequate
pretreatment facilities are provided. Intensive crop rotation fosters maximum
nitrogen uptake and crop yields. Table III-6 illustrates the nitrogen uptake
of selected crops.
III-9
-------
TABLE III-5
COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND
APPLICATION APPROACHES
i
M
O
Factor
Liquid Loading Rate
Annual Application
Land Required for
1 mgd Flow (3,785 m3/day)
Soil
Influence on
Groundwater Quality
Minimum Depth Needed
to Groundwater
Efficiency in Cold
Climates
Irrigation
0.5-4 in/wk
(1.3-10.1 cm/wk)
2-8 ft/yr
(.61-2.45 m/yr)
62 - 560 Ac. +
Buffer Zone
(25 - 227 ha)
Moderately
Permeable
Moderate
Approximately
5 feet (1.5 m)
Fair
Overland
Flow
2-5.5 in/wk
(5.1-14 cm/wk)
8-24 ft/yr
(2.45-7.32 m/yr)
46 - 140 Ac. +
Buffer Zone
(19 - 57 ha)
Slightly
Permeable
Slight
Undetermined
Insufficient
Data
Infiltration-
Percolation
3.6 - 12 in/wk
(9.1-30.5 cm/wk)
18 - 500 ft/yr
(45.7-1270 m/yr)
2 - 62 Ac. +
Buffer Zone
(.8 - 25 ha)
Very
Permeable
Certain
Approximately
15 feet (4.6 m)
Excellent
Source: Bremner, Youngblood and King
-------
TABLE IH-C
INTENSIVE CROP ROTATION
NITROGEN*
UPTAKE
ALTERNATIVE (Ib/ac/yr) (kg/ha/yr) YIELD/ACRE/YR
1. Wheat followed by corn 275 308 60 tons + 100 bu
2. Barley followed by corn 270 302 90 bu + 100 bu
3. Wheat followed by soy beans 340 381 60 tons + 40 bu
4. Barley followed by soy beans 335 375 90 bu + 40 bu
5. Wheat followed by clover 300 336 60 tons + 3 tons
6. Barley followed by clover 295 330 90 bu + 3 tons
7. Alfalfa - 4 cuttings/year 900 1,008 15 tons
*Source - "Sewerage Regulations," Virginia State Water Control Board,
February 1977 & Bremner, Youngblood, & King
Other factors which must be considered for land application include socio-
economics/land use and climate. Projected land use and development projections
must be carefully assessed for proper selection of land application sites.
Precipitation quantities, seasonal distribution, storm intensities, and
evapotranspiration also aid the determination of loading rates and storage
capacities. Other considerations include the following criteria:
0 Proximity to surface water
0 Potential for residential relocation and land depreciation
° Existence of historical sites or rare and endangered species or their habitats
0 Number and size of available land parcels and political factors
Based on preliminary analysis, irrigation was chosen as the best land
application method for consideration in Hanover County. Infiltration-percolation
was rejected primarily on the basis of excessive nitrate percolation to a high
groundwater level. Still in its initial implementation phase, assessment of
the overland flow technique is difficult, and improper site operation and
maintenance techniques may result in inadequate phosphorus removal.
Sixteen sites in Hanover County were chosen as potential land application
parcels. Figure III-l illustrates the location of each site. Sites 1, 2, 15
and 16 were chosen for further study. Criteria used to screen sites included:
o Location o Land acquisition
° Land use ° Groundwater depth
° Ecological sensitivity ° Bedrock depth
° Site size o Topography
0 Agricultural suitability
Costs for developing each site are presented in Table III-7-
III-ll
-------
SPOTSYLVANIA
COUNTY
FIGURE nr-i
LAND APPLICATION SITES
SPRAY SITE
WATER/SWAMP
OOCHLAND
SCALE
14000
280OO
Source : Bremner, Yougblood 8 King
-------
TABLE III-7
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Storage
Field Preparation
Distribution
Recovery
Additional Operative
Costs
Land
TOTALS
COSTS
2,082
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
$
161,702
170,602
207,690
127,581
206,561
552,000
1,426,136
OF LAND APPLICATION
Site 1
m3/day (0.55 mgd)
AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST 0 & M COST
0/1000 GAL. 0/1000 GAL.
7.6 2.5
8.0
9.8 13.7
5.9 4.3
9.7 6.1
25.9
66.9 26.6
TOTAL COST
0/1000 GAL
10.1
8.0
23.5
10.2
15.8
25.9
93.5
Site 2
3,785 m3/day (1.0 mgd)
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Storage
Field Preparation
Distribution
Recovery
Additional Operative
Costs
Land
TOTALS
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
$
228,459
315,985
329,337
194,338
258,009
1,488,800
2,814,928
AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST 0 & M COST
0/1000 GAL. 0/1000 GAL.
5.9 1.9
8.1
8.5 11.7
5.0 3.3
6.7 4.4
38.5
72.7 21.3
TOTAL COST
0/1000 GAL
7.8
8.1
20.2
8.3
11.1
38.3
94.0
111-13
-------
TABLE III-7 (Cont.)
COSTS OF LAND APPLICATION
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Storage
Field Preparation
Distribution
Recovery
Additional Operative
Costs
Land
TOTALS
Site 2
5,678 -m3/day (1.5 mgd)
TOTAL AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST CAPITAL COST
$ C/1000 GAL.
296,700 5.2
563,730 9.7
416,863 7.2
259,612 4.5
315,373 5.4
1,488,000 25.6
3,340,278 57.6
0 & M COST TOTAL COST
C/1000 GAL. C/1000 GAL.
1.7 6.9
9.7
10.6 17.8
2.8 7.3
3.7 9.1
25.6
18.8 76.4
Sites 15 and 16
3,407 m3/day (0.9 mgd)
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
TOTAL AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST CAPITAL COST
$ C/1000 GAL.
Additional Transmission 154,432 4.4
for Multiple Site Use
Storage
Field Preparation
Distribution
Recovery
Additional Operative
Costs
Land
Relocation Costs
TOTALS
219,558 6.3
296,700 8.5
311,535 8.9
191,372 5.5
263,231 7.6
1,153,260 25.7
1,800,000 51.7
4,130,828 H8.6
0 & M COST TOTAL COST
C/1000 GAL. C/1000 GAL.
1.8 6.2
2.1 8.4
8.5
12.5 21.4
3.6 9.1
5.0 12.6
25.7
51.7
25.0 143.6
Source: Bremner, Youngblood, and King
111-14
-------
Figures III-2 and III-3 present preliminary details for utilizing land
application sites 1 and 2.
Sludge Disposal. Sludge management may utilize six processes including
thickening, stabilization, conditioning, dewatering, reduction, and ultimate
disposal. Dewatering processes may include sand drying beds, centrifugation,
vacuum or gravity filtration, and lagoons. Alternatives for stabilizing
sludge include anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, and incineration.
Final disposal may be accomplished by burial or liquid land application. De-
tails concerning each of the above methods may be found in the 201 Facility
Plan.
Several sludge disposal options have been formulated during the develop-
ment of alternatives. In upgrading the existing Ashland treatment plant, a
mechanical sludge thickener has been recommended along with three sludge de-
watering lagoons. Several sludge handling facilities have been proposed for
the Ashland/Ashcake advanced treatment facility alternative. The facilities
include a mechanical thickener, two aerobic digesters, and an optional dewater-
ing sludge lagoon.
DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITY PLANNING ALTERNATIVES
Due to the increasing number of failing septic systems and package facili-
ties, and overall growth increase in Hanover County, adequate sewerage service
must be provided to the Phase II Service Area. A number of alternative solu-
tions have been proposed by the facility planning engineer, and the discussion
throughout the remainder of this section presents the alternatives developed
by BYK. Alternatives have been developed on a local, subregional, and regional
basis. Section V presents additional feasible alternatives investigated by
the EIS.
Optimization of Existing Facilities (Local Strategy)
Several approaches to upgrading have been developed for the Town of
Ashland and the other existing treatment plants within Hanover County. Be-
cause most point discharges within the County use some form of a sewage lagoon,
upgrading was chosen to be more applicable than improvement of plant operation.
Upgrading approaches were developed as a "limited build" approach to providing
sewerage service to the Phase II service area.
Six approaches have been developed for upgrading the existing 0.75 mgd
stabilization pond at Ashland. These approaches are based on the following
conditions:
111-15
-------
STORAGE
POND
BUFFER
MAIN LINE
LATERAL LINE
TESTWELL
• TAILWATER RETURN
$ GATE VALVE
.I UHMIII COLLECTION DITCHES
FIELD AREA
CHLORINATOR CONTACT TANK
ROADWAY
SITE BOUNDRYS
(X STORAGE BUILDING
A*
8" FORCE MAIN
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
SPRAY IRRIGATION SITE
FOR
ASHLAND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM
FIGURE 3E-2
-------
ff
II
I
/
AREA AVAILABLE
FOR
FUTURE EXPANSION
STORAGE
POND
PARKING
STORAGE BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
PUMP STATION
\ :
800 1600
I = 800
LEGEND
BUFFER
MAIN LINE
LATERAL LINE
TESTWELL
TAILWATER RETURN
GATE VALVE
COLLECTION DITCHES
FIELD AREA
ROADWAY
SITE BOUNDRYS
10 FORCE MAIN
Source: Bremner, Youngblood Q King
FIGURE TH-3
SPRAY IRRIGATION SITE
FOR
ASHLAND/ASHCAKE
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
0 Year 2003 population of 7,700 residents
0 Effluent disposal in the South Anna River replacing the existing
outfall to Falling Creek
0 BOD5 and TKN allocation of 24 mg/1 and 10 mg/1 respectively
0 Design flow of 2,914 m3 (0.77 mgd). = 100 gpd
The first approach developed for Ashland is to aerate the existing lagoon
Surface aerators or diffused aeration units are used to supply oxygen to the
lagoon. The aeration process considerably reduces the volume of the lagoon
required to produce adequate treatment. For Ashland, the maximum detention
time would be reduced from 31 days to 12.5 days. State health regulations re-
quire aerated lagoons to have, as a minimum, a depth of three metres (ten
feet). The existing Ashland lagoon is presently 1.2 metres (four feet) deep.
Increasing the depth to three metres (ten feet) with aeration would decrease
the required surface area from 7.6 hectares (18.8 acres) to approximately
1.2 hectares (3 acres).
Polishing ponds augmented with biological discs can achieve a 90%
removal of 6005. The major components of this approach include:
o Maximum detention time of three days
o Increased lagoon depth to 1.5 metres (five feet)
o Surface area of 0.57 hectares (1.4 acres)
o Low dissolved oxygen thereby requiring postaeration
o Digestion, dewatering and land disposal oi sludge
The third approach developed for upgrading the Ashland lagoon utilizes
an equalization basin. Flow equilization can significantly improve the per-
formance of an existing treatment facility and reduce the required size of
additonal downstream components. To implement flow equalization at Ashland,
two basins would be required totaling 0.05 hectares (0.12 acres). As deter-
mined by the facility planner, a four hour detention time would be expected.
The most cost effective approach in terms of total cost per thousand
gallons treated consists of expansion of the Ashland lagoon and treatment of
the lagoon effluent. The following characteristics of this approach include
consideration of state stabilization pond regulations specifying an organic
loading of 200 persons per acre (8.10 persons per ha) surface area:
o Provision of two additional lagoons with a combined area of 5.2 ha
(12.9 ac) to be added to the existing lagoon of 7.6 ha (18.8 acres).
Total lagoon area would be 11.8 ha (31.7 ac).
111-18
-------
o Aeration facilities provided in accordance with State regulations to
supplement a deficit of 2.75 ha (6.8 acres) in basin facilities
o Dredging of the existing lagoon to obtain the necessary 48 mg/1 BOD
and SS effluent quality
o Effluent treatment consisting of coagulation by ferric chloride and
polymer addition followed by flocculation and sedimentation
o Sludge handling by dewatering and land disposal
The final two approaches analyzed for use by the Town of Ashland involve
the operation of a sludge lagoon. Under these approaches, three sections of
the existing lagoon are utilized intermittently. Operation of each section
consists of loading for one year, drying for 18 months, and allowing the section
to remain unused for 6 months. Dewatered sludge is applied to cropland or
placed in a landfill.
One of the treatment processes associated with the sludge lagoon uses
aeration followed by coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation. The other
approach incorporating the joint use of a sludge lagoon includes an oxidation
ditch composed of an aeration ditch, cage rotors, and final settling tanks.
In the case of the aerated lagoon approach, sludge thickening may be necessary
prior to utilization of the lagoon.
Table III-O delineates the cost of the six basic approaches for up-
grading the Ashland Facility. In comparing capital costs, the sludge lagoon/
aerated lagoon approach contains the lowest estimate. For operation and main-
tenance purposes, the treated effluent approach is cheapest. This approach
is also the most cost effective in terms of total cost per thousand gallons
treated. The reader is referred to the 201 Facilities Plan for details on
preliminary engineering design and associated costs.
Costs of regulatory compliance were developed by the facility planner for
upgrading each of the remaining treatment facilities within Hanover County.
These costs were estimated under a "limited build" scenario and are presented
in Table III-9.
Regional Alternatives (Limited Build, Existing Facility Interconnection)
Consideration has been given to interconnection of Hanover County facili-
ties with the facilities of the city of Richmond and Henrico County. Treat-
ment facilities for the city of Richmond have not as yet been finalized, and
there are presently five active projects associated with the Richmond waste-
water treatment plant. These include:
111-19
-------
TABLE HI-8
M
I
ho
O
Capital Costs
Pretreatment
Primary
Secondary
Sludge Handling
Structures
Miscellaneous
Total Capital Costs
Amortized Capital
Costs
0 & M Costs
Pretreatment
Primary
Secondary
Sludge Handling
Structures
Miscellaneous
Total 0 & M Costs
Total Annual Costs
Total Cost
$/1000 gallons
ASHLAND UPGRADING APPROACHES
Aerated
Lagoon
$ 40,000
450,000
300,000
68,500
85,850
$944,350
$ 88,770
$ 8,000
65,000
55,000
13,000
14,100
$155,100
$243,870
Polishing
Pond
$ 40,000
175,000
400,000
475,000
68,500
115,850
$1,274,350
$ 119,800
$ 8,000
13,000
25,000
45,000
13,000
10,400
$ 114,400
$ 234,200
Equalization
Basin
$ 100,000
625,000
475,000
68,500
126,850
$1,395,350
$ 131,170
$ 8,000
73,500
45,000
13,000
14,000
$ 154,000
$ 285,170
Treat
Effluent
$ 40,000
175,000
250,000
200,000
68,500
73,350
$880,200
$ 82,740
$ 8,000
13,000
35,000
20,000
13,000
8,900
$ 97,900
$180,640
Sludge
Lagoon
Aerated
Lagoon
$ 40,000
450,000
150,000
68,500
70,850
$779,350
$ 73,260
$ 8,000
65,000
35,000
13,000
12,100
$133,100
$206,360
Sludge
Lagoon
Oxidation
Ditch
$ 40,000
550,000
150,000
68,500
80,850
$889,350
$ 83,600
$ 8,000
60,000
35,000
13,000
11,600
$127,600
$211,200
0.87
0.83
1.01
0.64
0.73
0.75
Source: Bremner, Youngblood, & King
-------
TABLE III-9
H
H
Facility
Ashland
Totopotomoy
Kingswood
Oak Hill
Pearson's Corner
Blue Star
Beechwood Farms
Hanover House
Hanover Truck
Restover Motel
Kosmos Village
Leadbetter Construction
Speed & Briscoe Truck
Dixie Steel
MCV Animal Research
Ashland Mobil
Hanover Academy
Total
HANOVER COUNTY TREATMENT
Flow (gpd)
770,000
100,000
25,000
50,000
6,000
36,000
75,000
30,000
10,000
5,000
40,000
21,000
10,000
5,000
60,000
2,000
5,000
1,250,000
PLANTS: UPGRADING COSTS
Total
Capital Cost $
2,300,000
700,000
230,000
470,000
105,000
260,000
600,000
230,000
120,000
90,000
315,000
125,000
120,000
90,000
500,000
70,000
90,000
6,415,000
Amoritized
Capital Cost
$/1000 gal
0.77
1.81
2.38
2.43
4.53
1.87
2.07
1.98
3.10
4.65
2.04
1.54
3.10
4.66
2.16
9.05
4.65
O&M Cost
$/1000 gal
0.36
2.19
3.83
2.74
5.94
3.35
2.56
3.29
5.48
6.58
3.22
4.31
5.48
6.58
2.65
9.59
6.58
Total Cost
$/1000 gal
1.13
4.00
6.21
5.17
10.47
5.22
4.63
5.27
8.58
11.23
5.26
5.85
8.58
11.24
4.81
18.64
11.23
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
-------
0 A "mini" 201 facilities plan
° Combined sewer overflow study
0 Fulton Bottom interceptor construction
0 Strawberry Hill pumpstation construction
0 Shockhoe retention basin construction
° Richmond/Crater 208 study
Due to the large number of ongoing activities and uncertainties involved,
interconnection with the city of Richmond cannot be adequately addressed at the
present time.
A more feasible interconnection alternative exists with Henrico County. A
201 facilities plan and environmental impact statement have been prepared to
address the Henrico wastewater treatment needs. In brief, this plan recommends
the construction of a circumferential interceptor system originating at the
western end of Henrico County, proceeding in an easterly direction around the
city of Richmond, and terminating at the eastern end of the county at a treat-
ment plant site designated as Deep Bottom West. Partial flows to the interceptor
system would be received from Goochland County and the Phase I (Mechanicsville)
service area of Hanover County. A 108,251 m3/day (28.6 mgd) secondary treatment
plant would be constructed at the Deep Bottom West site. (Ref. 26).
Figure III-4 illustrates the proposed Henrico County Facilities. Since the
Mechanicsville area is presently scheduled to be serviced by Henrico County,
additional modifications could be accommodated to receive Phase II flows.
These modifications would mainly be associated with the Beaverdam Creek and
Strawberry Hill Pumping Stations.
The 1975 version of the Phase II Facility Plan recommended a regional
approach wherein all area flows would be transported to a new regional treat-
ment plant, near Nelson's bridge. Effluent would be discharged to the Pamunkey
River. This alternative was designated"8-1", and will be reviewed in more
detail later in this Section,
Subregional Alternatives
The development and planning of wastewater systems requires that several
choices be made concerning sewer and treatment plant configuations, methods
of reducing wastewater flows, methods of treatment and disposal and sludge
disposal.
111-22
-------
LEGEND
EXIST. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
TO BE ABANDONED
PROR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXIST. WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION
TO BE ABANDONED
• EXIST. WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION
TO BE EXPANDED
Q PROP. WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION
Q EXIST. WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION
—• EXIST. GRAVITY SEWER
— — EXIST. FORCE MAIN
— PROP. GRAVITY SEWER
— — PROP. FORCE MAIN
FIGURE m-4
PUBLIC SEWERAGE SYSTEM
HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA
-------
Sewer and Treatment Plant Configurations
The development of sewer configurations was initiated under the following
assumptions:
0 Locate sewers in the center of growth to provide the most service for the
least cost
0 Route outfall sewers in swales and creek beds lying between higher
elevations to intercept gravity collectors
0 Route sewers along roadways where development is usually located
0 Avoid whenever possible construction in congested conditions, marshes,
shallow bedrock and crossing of creeks, railroads, or major roadways.
Within the framework of these assumptions, system alternatives were
developed for the following planning areas: Ashland, Ashland/Ashcake,
Southern Corridor, Industrial Corridor and Totopotomoy Creek. The Ashland
alternative will be discussed in the later portion of this section.
Ashland/Ashcake Alternatives. Provisions of centralized wastewater treat-
ment for the Ashland and Ashcake areas involves the development of two basic
alternatives utilizing the existing Ashland treatment site. Areas which would
be serviced under these alternatives include Ashland, Ashcake, the northern
portion of the industrial corridor, and Oakhill Estates. According to the
facility planner, elimination of the infiltration/inflow problem in Ashland
3
would yield a total area flow of 5,602 m /day (1.48 mgd) for the planning
period.
3
The first Ashland alternative recommends the construction of a 5,602 m /d
(1.48 mgd) advanced wastewater treatment plant. The treatment plant utilizes
a biological process consisting of one of the following alternative processes
such as an aerated lagoon, complete mix activated sludge, oxidation ditch, or
rotating biological discs each followed by chemical precipiation and filtration.
Expected effluent quality includes the following concentrations:
0 BOD5 - 6 to 11 mg/1
0 SS - 0 to 11 mg/1
0 P04 - 0.1 to 10 me/1
o NH3 - NI - 5 to 30 ms/1
Figure III- 5 delineates the sewer configuration associated with the Ashland
treatment plant alternative. The following characteristics are incorporated:
0 Gravity sewer traversing the Stony Run drainage basin initiating at a
point immediately below Ashland and terminating below Route 660
0 Stony Run flow pumped northeast to gravity sewer along U.S. Route 1
0 Pumped flow from the Upper Lickinghole Creek basin and U. S. Route 1 is
forced through a series of three pump stations to Ashland connection point
111-24
-------
Hanover
Academy n
,:.-J =.-.^J:
LEGEND
CONNECTION POINT
REMAINING SERVICE
AREA SURROUNDING
ASHLAND
TRUNK SEWER \
iiiiiiuiii FORCE MAIN ••••••••••••••
PUMP STATION D
..
9W V
-------
Table III-10 presents the estimated costs for implementing the Ashland/
Ashcake treatment plant alternative. One variance in sewer routing which was
considered provided for further utilization of the Lickinghole Creek basin. The
use of the existing U. S. 1 easement was determined to be more environmentally
acceptable.
The second basic alternative for providing treatment utilizes a pre-
application aerated lagoon system followed by land application of effluent. To
comply with state preapplication criteria and for cost effectiveness, the
aerated lagoon was selected over the use of a trickling filter or oxidation
ditch. Average design flow is approximately 5,678 m3/day (1.5 mgd). Land
application of the effluent will be discussed in detail in a separate presentation
of land application alternatives.
TABLE III- 10
ASHLAND/ASHCAKE TREATMENT PLANT COSTS
Capital Costs
Lines $1,195,000
Pump Stations 272,000
Treatment Plant 2,348,500
Total Capital Cost $3,815,500
Amortized Capital Costs
(7%/20 years) $ 358,657
0 & M Costs
Pump Stations $ 11,500
Treatment Plant 222,200
Total 0 & M Costs $ 233,700
Total Annual Costs $ 592,357
$/1000 gallons $ 1.10
Source: Bremner, Youngblood, and King
111-26
-------
Southern Corridor Alternatives. Two alternatives were developed for
sewering the southern industrial corridor. Both are similar in configuaration;
one utilizing inter-county routing to the Henrico County system, the other
providing for inter-basin transfer of wastes to a regional sewage treatment
plant located along the Totopotomoy Creek Basin. To alleviate the potential
for growth inducement and high capital costs of serwer lines and pump stations,
the following areas have been deleted from the service area:
0 Residential clusters along Route 657 (north of Hanover Air Park)
0 Oakland subdivision along Route 656 (northeast of Hanover Air Park)
o Residential clusters along Routes 626 and 623
Figure III- 6 depicts the interconnection routing configuration. Eight -
inch (20.3 cm) gravity sewer runs along Stony Run Creek converging with eight-
(20.3 cm) and-ten inch (25.4 cm) gravity lines from Lickinghole Creek Basin.
Sewage from an eight-inch (20.3 cm) gravity line running east along the Chick-
ahominy River will run into a fifteen-inch (38.1 cm) sewer following south
along 1-95. The total flow is then pumped toward Turner Run Creek to a proposed
thirty-inch (76.2 cm) sewer.
The interbasin transfer configuration is shown in Figure III-7. This
routing scheme is very similar to the previous alternative; however, the
following differences should be noted:
o Force main and gravity sewer serving the southern portion of the basin
runs north on Route 1 to gravity sewer in Stony Run Creek
o Sewage is pumped up Sliding Hill to gravity sewers along Route 637
and Kingswood Court
Industrial Corridor Alternative. Figure III-8 presents the planned con-
figuration for sewering the entire Industrial Corridor. Most of the depicted
routes have been previously described in illustrating sewer routing for Ashland/
Ashcake and the Southern Corridor. As shown in Figure III-8, the Industrial
Corridor route places gravity sewers along the Stony Run and Lickinghole Creek
Basins before transferring the flow via Turner Run to Henrico County for
treatment. Table III-ll presents associated costs for sewering the industrial
corridor and for pumping the flow to Henrico County.
111-27
-------
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
INTERCONNECTION
PUMP STATION
' ETmont
vl •. ;•
•.^f.^iL^-.-- ^
-------
• (,em
• -—_ —- .^ ' _ -wo
Brown Grove
'..' Kingswood Court
Sbq|e In Feet
x
LEGEND
GRAVITY SEWER •
FORCE MAIN miiiimiiiimmiii
PUMP STATION
-------
Scale In Feet
GRAVITY SEWER -
FORCE MAIN iiimiiiHimmiiiii
INTERCONNECTION
PUMP STATION
H O
m c
CO m
Holly Glen Estates
. v-v-
; __
-------
TABLE III-ll
INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR SEWER COSTS
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Collectors
Interceptors
Pump Stations &
Force Mains
Treatment*
TOTALS
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
$
2,346,500
2,060,634
245,333
3,000,000
7,652,467
AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST 0 & M COST
$/1000 GAL $/1000 GAL
.47 .16
.41
.05 .01
.60 .30
1.53 .47
TOTAL COST
$/1000 GAL
.63
.41
.06
.90
2.00
Contribution to Henrico System (1.29 mgd flow).
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
111-31
-------
Totopotomoy Basin Alternatives. Two wastewater management strategies
were investigated for the Totopotomoy Basin. Excluded from consideration were
the Colonial Forest subdivision, residential clusters along Route 627, develop-
ment south of Atlee, and subdivisions east of the originally proposed Totopo-
tomy treatment plant site.
An inter-county sewer route via Mechanicsville was developed to serve the
Basin. Proposed facilities include a 70 cm (24 inch) sewer located on Route
301 near the Chickahominy River. All of the service area bordering and west of
Route 301 will tie into this sewer. Twenty cm (eight-inch) trunk sewers will
run east of Kersey Creek, Crump Creek, and Totopotomoy Creek. The Totopotomoy
line will service the Totopotomoy Subdivision, Kingswood Court, and Beachwood
Court. A 20 cm (8 inch) gravity sewer would be placed in Opposum Creek along
with 25cm (10 inch) gravity sewers running to the confluence of Totopotomoy and
Strawhorn Creeks. This sewage would then be pumped through a 20 cm (8 inch)
force main south on Route 710 and east on Route 627 to tie into a proposed
38 cm (15 inch) sewer in the Meadowgate Subdivision. Figures III-9 and 111-10
illustrate the routing schemes of the upper and lower Totopotomoy Basins.
The intra-basin routing alternatives are developed with similar configura-
tions; the major exception being all trunk lines converge at the confluence of
the Totopotomoy and Strawhorn Creeks. Figures III-ll and 111-12 present routing
possibilities developed under the regional plant scenario.
In the revised Preliminary Draft of the Phase II Facility Plan (August 1978),
BYK modified the sub-regional alternatives associated with the Totopotomoy Basin
in the following manner:
1. The Upper and Lower Totopotomoy areas would be considered separate
and interconnection to Henrico County individually provided by two
interconnection points;
2. Upper and Lower Totopotomoy areas linked together and separated from
the remaining Phase II area with treatment of the Totopotomoy flow
provided by a sub-regional treatment plant.
Table 111-12 presents costs associated with the Upper and Lower Totopotomoy
interconnection. Table 111-13 provides costs for the sub-regional treatment
plant.
111-32
-------
r
LEGEND
GRAVITY SEWER — — — — — — —
FORCE MAIN mmi i
INTERCONNECTION —• — •-•-•-
PUMP STATION a
••I flK^i
Scale Jn ..Feet Wly
n!
\J
Forest Lake Hills
Larxtu^ i,//j
, Strip A-^\
Landing Strip ,
HanoveirHifls "/:
' Wayside
;rs
\
V .
] ..' Kingswood Court
.^
Lui*»lj(( Park Ctf
" ^f\ 9G r
• '*\
'' 5\'.
•\K Landing Strvp
1\ '»"
X ;9* •— I
V .- X
^l \ Ł
"ft . " \ :
f\ r
*W i
Patrick Henry T*^ J
Heights 1 ^^ Hi
landing. '... "
,' Str* 1N- ' /'"j-^
\ V. • • x_'\- /
t
.
}- ' '\v:
/ Pottomoi Ch /;
pttomoi
P '
iftnry Clay
feignts
-Pearsons'(Mj;
Corner
•'fo-
\
A
\.
, \
\
Laurel Gtov^ Estates'- * •
("ool Spring
\\
irmg ch^.H Atlee
Oaneyj Isla
Est
l-» <
x.».
t ^>.
^.
o
.%
\.
\f?»
• \
A
f
%
H^.
iO^
Northfteld
Aif po't
\
BM 192
t
\
\
V
^'
a
^WwJUnfrton-Hein-y Sch«
•!•'
• KO:-
lo
X .
-1
BorJ<
^ -
PK '
/.
,?oO-
-------
^Vfsfc
» —- *. \ •%%
s ' \,
"A -••Ji
•&-!)<'
\\.k. ; 3^ ^s
'wv,^,^',^ >
LEGEND
GRAVITY SEWER -
FORCE MAIN
INTERCONNECTION
PUMP STATION
-------
F ".'"^ J^^V
LEGEND
GRAVITY SEWER '
FORCE MAIN miniiiiimiiiiiiiii
PUMP STATION
:r^ \sc^
lo • .1
-------
/s«K Rural Point
LEGEND
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
PUMP STATION
W.W.T. P.
-------
TABLE 111-12
ITEM
UPPER AND LOWER TOTOPOTOMOY
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
$
INTERCONNECTION COSTS
AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST 0 & M COST
$/1000 GAL $/1000 GAL
TOTAL COST
$/1000 GAL
Upper Totopotomoy
(flow 1.02 mgd)
Collectors
Interceptors
Pump Stations
Force Mains
Treatment*
TOTALS
2,226,400
1,421,700
and 276,340
2,400,000
6,324,440
.56 .19
.36
.07 .04
.61 .30
1.60 .53
.75
.36
.11
.91
2.13
Lower Totopotomoy
Collectors
Interceptors
Pump Stations
Force Mains
Treatment*
TOTALS
(flow .48
1,047,271
1.026,500
and 88,200
1,200,000
3,361,971
mgd)
.56 .19
.55
.05 .02
.65 .30
1.81 .51
.75
.55
.07
.95
2.32
Contribution to treatment in Henrico System
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
111-37
-------
TABLE 111-13
TOTOPOTOMOY SUB-REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT COSTS
(flow 1.5 mgd)
ITEM
Collectors
Interceptors
Pump Stations
and Force Mains
Secondary Treatment
TOTALS
AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST CAPITAL COST 0 & M COST TOTAL COST
$ $/1000 GAL $/1000 GAL $/1000 GAL
3,275,000 .56 .19 .75
2,230,000 .38 - .38
356,110 .06 .03 .09
1,500,000 .26 .30 .56
7,361,110 1.26 .52 1.78
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
111-38
-------
SYNTHESIS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS
Local Alternatives
Three basic approaches were considered for upgrading the present Ashland
facilities. The aerated lagoon, polishing pond, and equalization basin
alternatives require a more extensive amount of land (under state design regu-
lations) than is presently owned by Ashland. Additional problems would be
encountered in upgrading the lagoon by adding more effluent treatment. These
modifications would involve dredging of the existing pond and the construction
of two new lagoons. The most reasonable approach to upgrading uses the
lagoon for sludge dewatering. Various tradeoffs exist for the two lagoon treat-
ment schemes presented (the aerated lagoon and oxidation ditch). More land is
required for the oxidation ditch but the excavation spoil can be utilized as
sectioning fill for sludge lagoons. Sludge produced from an oxidation ditch is
also more readily dewatered. Based on site characteristics and cost-effective-
ness, the upgrading alternative consisting of an oxidation ditch and sludge
lagoon was chosen for detailed consideration. Table 111-14 presents BYK's
revised cost estimate for this alternative.
TABLE 111-14
Item
Collection System
Treatment Plant
Total
ASHLAND UPGRADE:
Total
Capital
Cost
$ 400,000
750,000
$1,150,000
REVISED COST
Amoritized
Capital
Cost
$/1000 gal
$.13
.24
$.37
O&M Cost
$/1000 gal
$ -
.27
$.27
Total Cost
$/1000 gal
$.13
.51
$.64
The second major Ashland treatment alternative chosen for further analysis
involves the use of the existing Ashland facility as a preapplication site and
land application of effluent at site #1, (see Figure III-l). Upgrading of the
existing stabilization pond would be achieved through multiple ponds and aera-
tion. Other pretreatment alternatives may also be considered as the upgrading
III-39
-------
scheme can only treat current domestic sewage and cannot treat the year 2003
projected design flow.
Transmission of pretreated effluent to the land application site could be
accomplished by gravity pipe, open channels, or force mains. Figure 111-13
depicts the proposed route. The force main crosses the R.F.&P- Railroad to
Route 698. Existing rights-of-way are utilized for the remaining areas along
Routes 698, 646, and 738.
Site application facilities will include a storage pond with a 60 day hold-
ing capacity, tailwater return, and underdrain collection. Chlorination will
precede application. Effluent will be applied by irrigation equipment consis-
ting of underground plastic piping and central pivot spray equipment. Tail-
water return ditches will be constructed at key locations to control surface
water runoff. An underdrain system installed five to six feet below the sur-
face will control seasonal high water tables and aid in preventing nitrate
contamination of groundwater. Initial costs developed by BYK and revised esti-
mates associated with this alternative are presented in Table 111-15.
Subregional Alternatives
Two alternatives will be given detailed consideration for providing service
to the Ashland and Ashcake areas. The first alternative, previously discussed,
recommend the modification of the existing Ashland facility to accommodate an
advanced wastewater treatment plant. The second alternative consists of an
aerated lagoon preapplication facility followed by land application at Site #2.
Trickling filters or an oxidation ditch were rejected as preapplication alterna-
tives due to high costs and climate dependency, and large land requirements.
Pretreated effluent would be punped via a 25m (10 inch) force main utilizing much of
the same right-of-way as the transmission route associated with land application
Site //I. The transmission route and site location are shown in Figure 111-13 •
The constituents of the irrigation system have been presented in the discussion
of the first land application site. Site #2 possesses a more diverse creek
system and will require more tailwater return ditches. Table 111-16 presents the
associated costs for developing the Ashland/Ashcake land application alternative.
111-40
-------
FIGURE HE -13
TRANSMISSION
FORCE MAIN
STORAGE POND
-------
TABLE III- 15
ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SITE #1, 2,914 m3/day (0.77 mgd)
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Pretreatment Facilities
Transmission
Storage
Field Preparation
Distribution
Recovery
Additional Operative
Costs
Land
TOTALS
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
$
133,515
646,161
195,080
434,988
268,514
160,960
232,200
207,690
2,279,108
AMORITIZED
CAPITAL COST 0 & M COST
0/1000 GAL. 0/1000 GAL.
4.5 8.0
21.7 2.2
6.6 2.2
16.4
9.0 12.6
5.4 3.7
7.7 5.2
7.0
78.3 33.9
TOTAL COST
0/1000 GAL.
12.5
23.9
8.8
16.4
21.6
9.1
12.9
7.0
112.2
Source: Bremner, Youngblood, and King
LAND APPLICATION: SITE 1 (REVISED)
CAPITAL COST
ITEM & DBS CRIP ITON $
Rehabilitation
Land Application
System
TOTALS
400,000
1,136,000
1,536,000
AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST 0 & M COST
0/1000 GAL. 0/1000 GAL.
.13
.38 .16
.51 .16
TOTAL COST
0/1000 GAL.
.13
.54
.67
111-42
-------
TABLE III-16
ASHLAND/ASHCAKE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
Site 2, 5,678 m3/day (1.5 mgd)
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
ITEM & DESCRIPTION $
Pretreatment Facilities
Transmission
Storage
Field Preparation
Distribution
Recovery
Additional Operative
Costs
Land
TOTALS
184
757
235
485
309
230
251
570
3,023
,030
,130
,555
,900
,170
,300
,560
,000
,645
AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST
C/1000 GAL.
3
13
4
8
5
4
4
9
52
.2
.0
.1
.4
.3
.0
.3
.8
.1
0 & M COST
C/1000 GAL.
6.9
1.4
1.7
10.6
2.8
3.7
27.1
TOTAL COST
C/1000 GAL
10
14
5
8
15
6
8
9
79
.1
.4
.8
.4
.9
.8
.0
.8
.2
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
111-43
-------
To provide sewerage service to the Southern Corridor area, the inter-
county routing and inter-basin transfer alternatives were developed, as previous-
ly discussed. Both of these alternatives will be further screened for potential
environmental impacts.
The two basic approaches to sewering the Totopotomoy Basin consist of:
1) inter-county routing through Mechanicsville, and 2) construction of a treat-
ment facility near the confluence of the Totopotomoy and Strawhorn Creeks.
Two treatment plant locations have been proposed. The first location is a 48
to 52 acre site at the connection of the two creeks. The second site is located
east of Route 643 and west of Route 615. Both of these sites will be analyzed
for primary and secondary environmental impacts.
Areawide Alternatives
Under the original submission of facility planning alternatives, the
synthesis of sub-regional solutions led to the development of two areawide alter-
natives. The first alternative provided for the Town of Ashland treating only its
own wastes. The remaining wastes for the Phase II service area would be pumped
to the Henrico County facility. Costs are presented in Table 111-17.
The second areawide alternative proposed by the facility planner was
designated as "8-1" (Phase II Facility Plan, November, 1975). 8-1 was the
recommended plan selected in the November, 1975 facility plan. The sewer con-
figurations for this areawide alternative are shown in Figure 111-14. Major
components of this alternative include:
0 Construction of a 3.0 mgd advanced waste treatment plant in the
vicinity of Nelson's Bridge
° Town of Ashland sewage will be pumped into Stony Run drainage basin
° Interceptor will service Stony Run Creek area and the industrial
corridor between R. F. & P. Railroad and Route 1
° Force main will transfer wastes from Lickinghole and Stony Run
Creeks to Totopotomoy drainage basin
° Interceptor will service Totopotomoy Creek subdivisions
° Force main will pump sewage from Totopotomoy Creek interceptor
to treatment plant
A final areawide alternative involved the "limited build scenario". Under
this alternative, the facility planner developed costs for upgrading treatment
111-44
-------
TABLE III-17
COSTS OF AREAWIDE INTER-CONNECTION
CAPITAL COSTS 0 & M COSTS
Treatment Plant $ 842,000 $59,000
Trunk Lines and
Force Mains 4,416,720
Pump Stations 736,080 36,160
TOTAL $5,994,800 $95,160
Amortize Capital Costs
(7% - 20 years) $ 565,850
Total Annual $ 661,010
Flow 3.5 mgd
Total Unit Cost
per 1000 Gallons $2.35
111-45
-------
LEGEND
FIGURE m-14
AREA WIDE ALTERNATIVE 81
COUNTY REGIONAL W.W.T.R
TRUNK SEWER
FORCE MAIN
PUMP STATION
. )
MECHANICSVILLE
Source: Bremner, Youngblood 8 King
-------
at Ashland, Totopotomoy, Kingswood, Oak Hill, and Pearson Corner. These costs
are presented in Table 111-18. Associated environmental impacts will be pre-
sented in the following section.
TABLE III-18
LIMITED BUILD ALTERNATIVE - COSTS OF UPGRADING
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
ITEM & DESCRIPTION $
Ashland Wastewater
Facilities 880,200
Totopotomoy Waste-
water Facilities 275,000
Kingswood Waste-
water Facilities 125,000
Oak Hill Waste-
water Facilities 455,000
Pearson Corner 50^000
TOTALS 1,785,200
Source: Bremner, Youngblood, and King
BYK's Preliminary Draft Facility Plan (August, 1978), presents several
changes to the areawide alternatives outlined above. Alternative one in the
new document consists of the following elements:
0 elimination of excessive infiltration/inflow from the Ashland
system
° upgrade of existing Ashland system providing secondary sewage
treatment with discharge to South Anna River
0 construction of an advanced treatment plant on Totopotomoy Creek
near Route 643 with discharge to Totopotomoy Creek (1.5 mgd flow)
° placement of a sub-regional collection system in the Industrial
Corridor with interconnection to new Henrico County Facilities
111-47
-------
The associated configuration for this system is presented in Figure 111-15
(Regional Interconnect). The second areawide alternative again shown in the
Facility Plan is "8-1". The description and illustration of this alternative
was previously presented. Impacts of all three areawide alternatives (Henrico
Interconnect, Regional Interconnect, 8-1) are evaluated in the following
section.
111-48
-------
LEGEND
FIGURE HI-15
AREA WIDE ALTERNATIVE RI
ASHLAND W.W.T.R / TOTOPOTOMOY W.W.TP./ INTERCONNECT
"»»u TRUNK SEWER
FORCE MAIN
PUMP STATION
ASHLAND W.W.PT
ASHLAND
TOTOPOTOMOY W.W.PT.
Source: Bremner, Youngblood 8 King
-------
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
-------
SECTION IV
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
INTRODUCTION
Facility planning alternatives were presented in the previous section.
Section IV describes the environmental impacts associated with these alter-
natives and recommends possible mitigation procedures to alleviate adverse
impacts. Environmental impacts are grouped by parameters rather than by
specific alternatives. This method was undertaken to avoid the repetition
of common impacts associated with several alternatives. Major items of
discussion include:
0 Land Use ° "No Action" Impacts
0 Socioeconomics ° Biology
° Cost Analysis and Financing ° Environmentally Sensitive Areas
0 Water Quality and Quantity ° Air, Odor, and Noise
0 Public Health
In order to aid the discussion of alternatives, abbreviations will be
used in this section. Table IV-1 describes the abbreviations utilized.
LAND USE
Implementation of the Phase II Facilities Plan would enable Hanover
County to introduce a program of managed growth. Thus, in place of a
helter-skelter pattern of development, the County could reasonably argue
for permitting the growth of major residential, commercial, and indus-
trial projects in areas to be served by the Phase II Facilities Plan.
Institution of a managed growth strategy would produce the following
benefits to residents of Hanover County.
1. From the standpoint of land use, institution of a
managed growth policy would allow the County to
concentrate the bulk of the anticipated population
growth in the geographic area to be served by the
Phase II Facilities Plan. This would enable the
County to plan a more economical and efficient system
IV-1
-------
TABLE IV-1
PHASE II SERVICE AREA ALTERNATIVES
Description Abbreviations
Local
Ashland Upgrade (effluent disposal) Al
Ashland Upgrade (land application) A2
ji lib-regional
Ashland/Ashcake (AWT) Bl
Ashland/Ashcake (land application) B2
Southern Corridor (Henrico interconnect) SCI
Southern Corridor (interbasin transfer) SC2
Industrial Corridor 1C
Totopotomoy Basin (Henrico interconnect) Tl
Totopotomoy Basin (regional STP) T2
Totopotomoy Basin (lower Tot. STP) T3
Areawide
Regional Interconnection and Treatment RI
(Henrico interconnect & Totopotomoy STP)
Areawide Treatment (8-1) 81
Areawide Interconnection (Henrico) AI
"No Action" (Limited Build) LB
IV-2
-------
of public services for its resident population. By
contrast, today the county must attempt to provide
a broad array of public services to a dispersed
resident population. The result has been increased
expenditures for the provision of existing services,
and the concomitant necessity to raise taxes in order
to finance county services.
2. It would permit a reduction of the number of resi-
dences and subdivisions which employed septic tanks
or drainage fields to dispose of wastes. This would
have the effect of limiting the number of septic fields
in the county, which could ultimately pose a hazard
to local fresh water supplies, streams, and so forth.
3. Provision of public sewer facilities would permit
the county to establish a sound and acceptable program
to provide new employment opportunities within Hanover
County. The additional sewer capacity envisioned for
both commercial and industrial development would
enable the county to compete more effectively for new
industries or commercial projects. Currently, the
costs associated with providing an environmentally
acceptable treatment plan are sufficient to render
many proposed projects infeasible.
4. It would provide a more effective basis to argue for
the preservation of the county's natural assets such
as major stream valleys, vast open areas, prime agri-
cultural lands, forests, and natural recreation areas.
In short, the county would not have to adopt a limited
or no-growth policy in order to maintain its natural
assets.
BYK has proposed fourteen alternatives for implementation of the Phase
II Facilities Plan. These alternatives, which are listed in
Table IV-1, differ in terms of the proposed extent of sewer construction
in the Phase II Service Area, and the proposed alternative methods for
disposal of effluent. As shown in Table IV-1, the fourteen proposed alter-
natives have been grouped into three broad categories: (1) local, (2) sub-
regional, and (3) areawide, that provide some indication of the extent of
proposed sewer implementation for each alternative. We have employed
IV-3
-------
these categories to describe the anticipated effects of each alterna-
tive on land use in Hanover County. Beginning with areawide alternatives
for implementation of the Phase II Sewer Facilities Plan, a discussion
of the impact of the various proposed alternatives on land use is presented
in the following paragraphs of this subsection.
Areawide Alternatives and Land Use
There are two alternatives proposed by BYK for providing sewer
service to the entire Phase II Service Area. Both proposed alternatives
would provide public sewer service to the majority of the Phase II area.
One alternative (81) involves construction of the necessary facilities
for areawide treatment locally. The other alternative (RI) is based upon
interconnection of sewer lines to be constructed in the county with treat-
ment facilities in Henrico County and in Hanover County.
In either case, each of the areawide alternatives are predicated on
full implementation of the Phase II Facilities Plan. Provision of public
sewers in this area of the county would attract a significant amount of
the expected growth in population and business over the next twenty years
to the Phase II Service Area. Earlier we noted that the estimated 1977 popu-
lation of the Phase II Service Area was 13,983 persons. By 2003, BYK has
projected that the total Phase II area population would be 30,001 - an
increase of some 16,000 persons. A population increase of this magnitude
(i.e., more than double the existing level) would clearly result in a
substantial demand for new homes, schools, recreation areas, and retail
facilities. We have projected that full implementation of the Phase II
Sewer Plan would spur the following changes in the area of impact between
1977 and 2003.
IV-4
-------
Projected Changes in Area of Impact Amount
Population Increase 16,028
Increase in Number of Households 5,560
New Housing Constructed to Satisfy
Demand:
Total 5,560
Single Family 4,760
Multi-Family 800
Increased Number of School Age Children 7,600
Number of New Jobs ' 1,755-
1,950
Square Feet of New Retail Facilities
Required to Satisfy Demand 260,000
In view of the projected changes in the Phase II Service Area, there would
have to be a significant change in land use within the area of impact.
While it is not possible to quantify the change in the number of acres
of land in different uses with any accuracy, we can discuss the probable
impacts of the projected changes in the Phase II Service Area and in the
remainder of Hanover County.
Full implementation of the proposed sewer project would have a con-
siderable impact on land use in Hanover County. Construction of the pro-
posed sewer facilities would serve as an important vehicle for. implementing
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted by Hanover County in 1972. The
Comprehensive Plan was directed toward achieving the following objectives.
1. Focusing the bulk of the future urban development in
the area nearest Ashland, Mechanicsville, and Richmond
to enable the provision of services such as sewer and
water in a more economical manner.
2. Reduction of the current indiscriminate scattering
of residential, commercial and service development
in the county by encouraging future development in
a few locations such as Ashland and Mechanicsville.
3. Encouragement of industrial development in areas
that are best served by transportation and required
utilities.
1) Excluding potential industrial employment growth which has been
forecast separately.
IV-5
-------
4. Preservation of valuable natural resources and open
areas of the county.
5. Preservation of historic places and sites.
In the absence of an areawide sewer system, it is unlikely that the
county could realize the foregoing objectives. The result could very well
be a continuation of the current dispersed, inefficient patterns of
development. However, implementation of the Phase II Sewer Facilities
Plan would also involve adverse impacts which must be weighed against
the impacts which have accompanied uncontrolled growth.
The Phase II system would require some taking of land for sewer line
easements, holding ponds, pump stations, treatment plants and land application
sites. However, the amounts of land required for the system are rather
insignificant when compared with the land requirements of the development
that would be fostered by construction of the sewer system.
The residences, shopping centers, schools and other public facilities
that would be required to serve the needs of an expanding population base
would absorb substantial amounts of land in the Phase II area. So some
open space would be lost as a result of such development.
Currently, the county is experiencing growth without the means to
foster development in any specific area of the county. These growth pres-
sures have had a considerable impact on local conditions and patterns of
land use in the 1970's. During the 1970's, the limits of residential devel-
opment utilizing septic systems was reached in areas such as Ashville and
Mechanicsville. In search of suitable soils for continued residential
developments, developers have constructed subdivisions in scattered locations
throughout the county. Continuance of the so-called "urban sprawl" has many
faults. Among the more obvious are the following.
1. Utilization of aeptic systems leads to low density
residential development which absorbs more of the
available inventory of land in the county.
IV-6
-------
2. Because prime agricultural land is also ideally
suited for septic systems, the risk of losing
valuable agricultural lands to residential devel-
opment is greatly enhanced.
3. Existing septic systems in many areas of the county
have failed and represent a threat to public health
and valuable natural resources. Further development
utilizing septic systems would only increase the
risk of additional septic failures to the public
and the natural environment.
4. Sprawl or scattered development has increased
commuting distances and traffic congestion on many
of the county's major roads. Assuming growth pressures
continued, with additional dispersed development, there
will be a need to expand the transportation network.
Construction of road improvements or new roads would
reduce the total inventory of land for other uses.
In view of the adverse impacts of continued urban sprawl and the use of
septic systems on land use in Hanover County, it would appear that the full
implementation of the Phase II Sewer Facilities Plan would enable the
county to focus the bulk of the future population growth in the Phase II
planning area. By concentrating the majority of the expected growth in an
area served by the proposed sewer system, the impacts associated with a
larger population base could be managed more effectively. By delimiting
the area of impact, the county's people should be able to preserve much of
the generally rural character of the remaining land area within Hanover County
Subregional Alternatives and Land Use
BYK has proposed eight alternatives for providing sewer service to
various subareas within the Phase II Service Area. The following paragraphs
present a discussion of the geographic area to be provided with sewer
service under each alternative and the effect of implementing each alterna-
tive on land use in the Phase II Service Area.
Alternatives Bl and B2 differ primarily according to the means of
disposing of effluent. Because Alternative B2 involves land application,
the land requirements are considerably greater than those for Alternative
Bl. Both alternatives are based on providing sewer service to SAPU 1 -
the Ashland/Ashcake portion of the planning area. According to the general
land use plan, zoning within this area will include low-medium density
residence, medium density residence, and commerce.
IV-7
-------
Sewer service to the lower portion of the Southern Corridor (or the
lower portion of SAPU 2 and SAPU 3) would be accomplished by implementing either
Alternative SCI or Alternative SC2. Alternative SCI is based on interconnection
with Henrico County's sewer treatment plant. Alternative SC2 provides sewer
facilities to the same geographic area, but treatment is by means of interbasin
transfer of wastes to a regional sewer treatment plant located along the Toto-
potomoy Creek Basin.
Sewer service to the industrial corridor would be facilitated by implementing
Alternative 1C. This alternative would provide sewer service to all of SAPU 2
and SAPU 3. Planned zoning classifications for the area encompassing the southern
and industrial corridors include industry, medium density residence, and commerce.
Finally, Alternatives Tl, T2 and T3 would provide sewer service to the
Totopotomoy Basin - an area that encompasses SAPUs A,5,6, and 7- Alternative
Tl involves interconnection with the Henrico County sewage treatment plant. Con-
struction of a regional sewer treatment plant is considered under Alternative T2.
Alternative T3 is based upon construction of a sewer treatment plant in the lower
portion of the Totopotomoy Basin. The general land use plan recommends the Toto-
potomoy Basin to be zoned as low density residence, stream valley open space,
and low-medium density residence.
The major impact on land use resulting from implementation of the fore-
going alternatives would be the substantial amounts of land required to service
the demands of the residential and other developments encouraged by the provision
of public sewer facilities. With the exception of Alternatives SCI and SC2, we
have projected the magnitude of changes in population, households, housing units,
school enrollments, local employment and retail facilities. These projected
changes, which would have a significant impact on land use in the Phase II Service
Area, are presented in Table IV-2. We have not projected the extent of changes
for SCI and SC2 because information was not provided regarding the numbers of
people to be served by either of these alternatives.
Reference to Table IV-2 clearly indicates that the construction of
additional housing would consume the majority of the land required to
serve the needs and an expanded population base. Provision of schools would
IV-8
-------
Table IV-2
PROJECTED CHANGES AFFECTING LAND USE IN THE PHASE II SERVICE AREA
ASSUMING IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS SUBREGIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR PROVISION OF SEWER FACILITIES
Proposed
Service
Alternatives
Bl
B2
SCI
SC2
1C
Tl
T2
T3
Area of Impact
Subregional
Designation
Ashland/Ashcake —
2/
Ashland/Ashcake —
3/
Southern Corridor —
4/
Southern Corridor —
Industrial Corridor
Totopotomoy Basin —
Totopotomoy Basin —
Totopotomoy Basin —
SAPU
Number (s)
1
1
2,3*
2,3*
2,3
4,5,6,7
4,5,6,7
4,5,6,7
Population
Increase
3,737
3,737
1,028
11,263
11,263
11,263
Increase in
Number of
Households
1,240
1,240
340
3,730
3,730
3,730
Increased
School
Enrollments
1,710
1,710
530
5,080
5,080
5,080
Increases
in Local
Employment
425
425
130
1,295
1,295
1,295
Additional
Housing Units Required
Total
1,240
1,240
340
3,730
3,730
3,730
Single
Family
1,090
1,090
300
3,170
3,170
3,170
Multi-
Family
150
150
40
560
560
560
Additional
Retail
Facilities
Required
(sq. ft.)
59,800
59,800
18,200
182,000
182,000
182,000
*0nly lower portions of these SAPUs (small area planning units) would be affected. However, we have no information regarding the population to be
served, or the system capacity under Alternatives SCI or SC2. Consequently, we have made no projections of the anticipated changes that would
follow implementation of either alternative.
_!_/ Advanced waste treatment.
2J Land application.
_3/ Henrico interconnection.
4/ Interbasin transfer.
5/ Henrico interconnection.
j>/ Regional sewer treatment plant.
TJ Lower Totopotomoy sewer treatment plant.
Source: Bremner, Youngblood and King; and Economics Research Associates.
-------
also require a substantial amount of land area in the area of impact.
However, provision of sewer service in all or part of the Phase II Service
Area should be weighed in light of the many adverse impacts of continued
sprawl which were discussed earlier.
Local Alternatives and Land Use
Two alternatives for treatment of sewage in the Town of Ashland have
been proposed by BYK. Alternative Al would be implemented by construction
of an advanced waste treatment plant on the existing treatment site in
Ashland. Alternative A2 would employ a land application method for treat-
ment of effluent. The second treatment alternative would require more
land because the existing Ashland facility would serve only as a preappli-
cation site. An additional site (see Figure III-l) would be required for
land application of effluent. However, the major impacts on land use
would be the result of population growth stemming from the improvements
to the existing sewer system.
The population of the Town of Ashland is projected to increase to
7,044 persons by 2003. The projected expansion of the Town's population
base would have the greatest impact on land use in Ashland. We have projected
the following changes in the Town of Ashland between 1977 and 2003.
Projected Changes in Area of Impact Amount
Population Increase 2,769
Increase in Number of Households 920
New Housing Constructed to Satisfy
Demand :
Total 920
Single Family 740
Multi-Family 180
Increased Number of School Age Children 1,,230
Number of New Jobs1) 300-330
Square Feet of Retail Facilities Required
to Satisfy Demand 44,500
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT
Construction of the Phase II sewer facilities would have a marked
effect on the extent and location of housing and commercial and industrial
activities within the county. The probable impact of the proposed Phase
II Plan on population, employment, and housing is described in the following
paragraphs.
1) Excluding potential industrial employment growth which has been forecast
separately.
IV-10
-------
Population
Based on 1977 estimates, the total population of the Phase II
Service Area was 13,983. Assuming full implementation of the Phase II
Sewer Facilities Plan, the population of the service area is projected
to increase to 30,011 persons by 2003. The bulk of this additional popu-
lation would be the product of households migrating to the area because of
new residential development. The Phase II sewer facilities would also
provide service to some existing residences that have faulty septic systems.
As shown in Table IV-3, if the entire Phase II project is implemented, approx-
imately 71 percent of the service area's population in the year 2003 would
be served by the Phase II sewer system. In the absence of the proposed
sewer facilities, current projections for the area's 2003 population would
have to be revised downward.
Households
The population projections described in earlier portions of this
report have been used to derive the projected number of households in the
service areas that would be served by the Phase II Facilities Plan. As
shown in Table IV-4, an increase of nearly 5,560 households is anticipated
over current levels by 2003. Because each household will require a home,
the average demand for housing in the Phase II service area would be approx-
imately 214 units per year. If we assume that 80 percent of this demand
would be for new housing, then the average annual demand for new housing
(both rental units and units for sale) would be 170 units.
Employment
Implementation of the Phase II sewer system would also contribute
substantially to the growth of employment opportunities in Hanover County.
The demands of a larger population in the Phase II service area would create
a need for new housing construction, additional retail facilities, schools
and other community facilities.
IV-11
-------
Table IV-3
<
i
PROJECTED
POPULATION OF THE PHASE
ASSUMING FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PHASE II
Phase
II SERVICE AREA
FACILITIES PLAN
II Service Area
IN 2003
, HANOVER COUNTY
Population in Year
Additional Projected Sewerable Population —
Planning Unit
Number Name
1 Great Ashland
2 Industrial Corridor
(Western Portion)
3 Industrial Corridor
(Eastern Portion)
4 Upper Totopotomoy
5 Lower Totopotomoy
6 Crump Creek
7 Kersey Creek
Outlying Subdivisions
Remaining Land
in Existing
Subdivisions
80
—
263
2,280
2,558
411
1,001
750
Other New
Residential
Development
2,283
1,275
1,119
2,040
3,300
1,878
2,511
—
Residential
Increment
2,363
1,275
1,382
4,320
5,858
2,289
3,512
750
2003
Projected
Population
of the
Service Area
9,512
1,298
1,406
4,541
7,398
2,337
3,519
750
Total
7,343
21,749
14,406
1. Based upon projected wastewater flows from Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc., and the following
assumptions:
a) At 300 gpad wastewater flow per lot and a population of 3.09 persons per lot
on the average in existing subdivisions.
b) At 300 gpad wastewater flow per acre in new or developing residential areas, and a
population of three persons per acre on the average.
30,761
Source: Economics Research Associates.
-------
Table IV-4
PROJECTED NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL HOUSEHOLDS IN THE PHASE II SERVICE AREA
ASSUMING FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PHASE II FACILITIES PLAN
YEAR 2003
Number
Planning Unit of New
Number Name Households
1 Greater Ashland 1,240
2 Industrial Corridor (Western Portion) 160
3 Industrial Corridor (Eastern Portion) 180
4 Upper Totopotomoy 810
5 Lower Totopotomoy 1,360
6 Crump Creek 620
7 Kersey Creek 250
Outlying Subdivisions 940
Totals 5,560
Source: Economics Research Associates.
IV-13
-------
Construction of the proposed sewer system, new housing and so
forth would generate many man-years of labor. Although these would not be
permanent jobs, a substantial number of construction workers would be em-
ployed on these projects.
The anticipated increase in population would also augment the number
of employed persons residing in the county. Many of the new residents
would move to the area in search of housing and a different lifestyle
than one typically finds closer to Richmond. On the basis of population
increases in the Phase II service, area, it is estimated that the total
number of employed residing in the service area would increase by 6,430
during the 1980-2000 interval. Many of the new residents would already
have jobs. Nevertheless, the expected change in the population of the
Phase II service area will create a need for expansion of the local commer-
cial base (i.e., grocery stores, restaurants, etc.) and increase services.
In view of these changes, we have made estimates of the number of new local
jobs required to satisfy the demands of a larger population in this portion
of Hanover County. As indicated in table IV-5, we have estimated that imple-
mentation of the Phase II Facilities Plan would foster the growth of between
1,755 and 1,950 local jobs.
Construction of the Phase II sewer system as proposed by BYK would
provide a substantial amount of additional sewer capacity to support the
growth of industry. Table IV-6 presents a summary of projected waste-
water flows, supportable acres of industrial development and estimates of
the potential number of new local jobs which could be created by the
attraction of new industry to the area.
As shown in the table, the additional sewer capacity would support
nearly 1,900 acres of new industrial development. Thus, depending on
Hanover County's objectives in this regard, a substantial amount of new in-
dustry could be encouraged to locate in Hanover County. Moreover, lack of
sewer and other utilities is typically a major hindrance to local efforts to
attract new industries. Consequently, implementation of the Phase II
Facilities Plan would be a benefit in this regard.
IV-14
-------
Table IV-5
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT AND POTENTIAL JOB CREATION,
Year
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
Total
PHASE
HANOVER
II SERVICE AREA
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1980-2003
Phase II Service Area
Incremental
Growth
of Total
Employment
600
1,250
1,350
1,250
1,220
760
Estimated
New Jobs in
Low
165
340
370
340
330
210
Number of
the County
High
380
380
410
380
370
230
6,430
1,755
1,950
IV-15
-------
Table IV-6
<
I—1
Planning
Unit
2
3
4
5
Total
ESTIMATES OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE
PHASE II FACILITIES PLAN ON INDUSTRIAL
Projected
Wastewater
Flows (GPD)I/
328,000
396,000
28,000
4,000
756,000
YEAR 2003
Supportable Number
of Acres - New
Industrial
Development ±/
820
990
70
10
1,890
DEVELOPMENT AND JOB
CREATION
Potential Number of New Jobs
Created in Hanover County by
New Industrial Development — '
Low
12,300
14,850
1,050
150
28,350
High
20,500
24,750
1,850
250
47,250
1. Based upon projections by Bremner, Youngblood, and King.
2. Based upon an average requirement of 400 gpd per acre of developed industrial land.
3. Assuming a range of between 15 and 25 employees per acre of industrial land.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
-------
In order to furnish some notion of the impact of new industrial devel-
opment on job creation, Table IV-6 also provides estimates of the number of
new jobs which would be generated if all 1,890 acres of industrial devel-
opment were realized. As shown in the table, the potential for industrial
job creation is enormous. However, it is the consultant's opinion that the
demand for industrial space in the area is not sufficient to warrant devel-
opment of 1,890 acres of industrial space in Hanover County. Instead, utiliz-
ing the wasterwater flow projections prepared by the consultant (refer to
Table III-4), it would be possible to encourage about 650 acres of industrial
land use. This would have the potential for operating between 9,750 and
16,250 additional industrial jobs in the county by 2003.
Community Facilities
Increases in population and employment as a result of the Phase II
Sewer Facilities Plan would also generate a demand for additional community
facilities such as schools, parks and retail facilities.
We estimated earlier that construction of the Phase II sewer system
would support an additional 5,560 households in the service area. These
additional households are expected to add approximately 7,600 school age
children to the public school system. Consequently, we expect that the
construction of new schools would be required to accommodate the expanded
school enrollments. However, in the absence of a phased construction
schedule for the Phase II system, it is not possible to quantify the
impact of school enrollments in more detail.
Additions to the available public parklands would also be necessary
to serve the needs of a larger population. The National Recreation Assocation
recommends that 10 acres of parkland be maintained for very 1,000 persons in
an area. A population increase of 16,028 persons should therefore be
accompanied by provision of an additional 16 acres of parkland. Because
Hanover County already has a substantial amount of open space, it may not
be necessary to construct but a fraction of the recommended space for public
recreational use.
The expanded population base would also create a demand for additional
retail space in the Phase II service area. We have estimated that some
260,000 square feet of retail space would be needed to satisfy the increased
demand for services.
IV-17
-------
COST ANALYSIS AND FINANCING
Complete cost data for all alternatives has not yet been provided by the
facility planning engineer. Preliminary incomplete costs have been provided for
Alternatives Al, Bl, A2, AI, RI, 1C, partial Tl, and T2. Especially lacking are
detailed costs associated with all the areawide alternatives. Data concerning
phasing of treatment facilities has also not been provided by BYK, and con-
sequently, specific phasing possibilities and bond requirements cannot be dis-
cussed in this E1S.
Preliminary costs should be developed for each local, subregional and area-
wide alternative. Local Alternative Al (Ashland Upgrade with effluent disposal)
shows the most cost-effective measures are treatment of effluent or the two
sludge lagoon alternatives. Greater costs are associated with treatment for adding
the Ashcake area with Ashland (Alternative Bl). Comparison of the Ashland/Ashcake
treatment plant (Bl) and land application alternatives (B2) show a treatment cost
of $1.10 per 1000 gallons treated for the treatment plant and 79. 2C per 1000
gallons treated for land application at Site #2. For cost-effective purposes,
the land application alternative for this subregional area is clearly the best.
Two sets of cost projections have been developed for Alternative A2. The
first projection placed total cost at $1.12 per 1000 gallons treated; a sub-
sequent projection (August 1978) placed the figure at $0.67/1000 gallons. These
projections must be clarified by the facility planner and agreement reached on
a correct cost.
Evaluation of Alternative 1C costs reveals a rather high $2.00 per 1000
gallons treated. The major contribution to this cost is the associated user
charge to be paid to Henrico County for usage of treatment facilities (90C per
1000 gallons). No justification of this charge is given in the facility plan,
and all costs associated with interconnection to Henrico County should be
seriously examined.
As noted in Section III, the Totopotomoy Basin sub-regional alternatives
(Tl, T2) have been separated into Upper and Lower Totopotomoy Creek for consider-
ing interconnection to Henrico County and kept together for considering regional
treatment. Interconnection costs were estimated to be $2.13 per 1000 gallons
for the upper and lower areas. The sub-regional Totopotomoy STP places total
cost at $1.78 per 1000 gallons treated. For cost-effective comparison, the
Totopotomoy Basin STP is the preferred alternative.
IV-18
-------
Preliminary total areawide inter-connection (AI) costs have been presented
at approximately $2.35 per 1000 gallons. Complete costs for Alternatives RI
and 81 have not been made available. Preliminary costs for the areawide alter-
natives are presented in Table IV-7.
TABLE IV-7
COMPARISON OF AREAWIDE COSTS
Alternative Capital Cost (Total) O&M Cost (Annual) Total Cost (Annual)
Areawide Interconnect (Al) $ 5,994,800 $ 95,160 $ 661,010
Regional Interconnect (RI) 16,163,577 581,884 2,054,626
Areawide Treatment (81) 22,260,315 568,809 2,101,374
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
Costs for Alternative AI are clearly inaccurate as compared to the other two.
Revision of this figure needs to be made by the facility planner. Financing for
each of the three major components of Alternative RI and Alternative 81 has been
estimated by the facility planner and is shown in Table IV-8.
TABLE IV-8
LOCAL FINANCING IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES RI AND 8T
Component Total Local Cost Connection Fee Service Charge
Ashland STP $ 587,500 $500 $ 56.28/yr
Industrial Corridor 3,672,992 500 145.44
Totopotomoy STP 4,296,527 500 151.92
TOTAL 8,557,019 500 128.76
81 10,946,427 500 148.56
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
Financing considerations cannot be finalized until implementation issues
such as the separation of Ashland from the remaining Phase II area is are settled.
With respect to the Industrial Corridor, final financing impacts should in-
clude major contributions from industrial cost recovery.
Total cost for Alternative LB range from $1.13 to $18.64 per 1000 gallons
with the majority of the costs located in the upper portion of the range.
IV-19
-------
Consideration of this alternative should be rejected as a total system; however,
specific components are discussed as sub-alternatives in Section V. It must
be remembered that all costs which have been developed in this section are based
on flow projections and needs perceived by the facility planning engineer. Since
alternatives and associated costs have not been developed by the Service Area
Planning Unit (SAPU) concept, comparison of costs developed by the facility
planner with flow projections based on EPA methodology is impossible to under-
take. Two of the largest factors affecting costs will be 1) correct design
per-capita sewage flow, and 2) the amount of permissible industrial flow and
additionl revenue obtained through industrial cost recovery.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Impacts on surface and ground water vary with each proposed alternative.
Major differences exist between the effluent discharge and land application
alternatives. Degree of impact also varies with alternative treatment processes
and sewer configurations.
Surface Water
All proposed alternatives will improve Hanover County surface and ground
water quality by replacing malfunctioning septic systems and package treatment
plants. Malfunctioning septic systems have been reported throughout the Phase
II service area, especially in the Hanover Hills and Forest Lake Hills areas.
Effluents from malfunctioning septic systems contain high concentrations of
coliform bacteria, BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus. The purpose of the
centralized sewerage project is to relieve septic systems and small treatment
facilities, and all alternatives reflect this purpose.
Alternatives designated for providing treatment to Ashland will result in
improved surface water quality in Falling Creek. The existing outfall to
Falling Creek will be extended for discharge to the South Anna River under Alter-
natives Al, Bl, and RI. Effluent land application Alternatives A2 and B2 will
eliminate the surface water discharge. All Phase II treated effluent would be
released to the Pamunkey River at Nelson's Bridge under Alternative 8-1. De-
creased surface water flow will result in Falling Creek due to the elimination
of the present Ashland discharge.
Increased BOD and nutrient loadings will occur in the South Anna and Pamunkey
Rivers and Totopotomoy Creek under various effluent discharge alternatives. Sec-
ondary treated effluent will be discharged to the South Anna River under Alter-
IV-20
-------
native Al. Advance treated effluent with lower concentrations of nutrients would
be released to the South Anna River under Alternative Bl. The higher level of
treatment is required so that waste load allocations can be met while accommodating
additional flow from the Ashcake area. Effluent would be discharged to the
Pamunkey River under Alternative 8-1. In this case, total Phase II effluent
treated by advanced processes (3.5 mgd) is discharged. Significant augmenta-
tion of flow to the lower marshes of the Pamunkey River could be expected.
Totopotomoy Creek receives treated effluent under Alternatives T2 and T3.
Significant impacts of increased BOD, nutrient, and sediment loadings would
occur in the critical bottomlands of Totopotomoy Creek. A significant adverse
impact exists with effluent discharge during low flow conditions. As previously
mentioned in Section II, the 7 day-10 year low flow for Totopotomoy Creek is
zero. Under extreme conditions, the entire Totopotomoy flow may consist of
secondary treated effluent. Effluent is released in an extremely sensitive
area of Totopotomoy Creek under Alternative T3. Significant adverse water
quality impacts can be expected. Under normal conditions, increased Totopotomoy
flow will result under Alternatives T2 and T3. Effluent from a 5,678 m3/day
(1.5 mgd) tertiary treatment plant will be released into Totopotomoy Creek under
Alternative RI. Given the 7 day-10 year low flow of 0.0 cfs, deteriation of
water quality will occur in low flow conditions. Caution must be taken to mini-
mize erosion during periods of high flow as the effected portion of the Toto-
potomoy Basin is composed of narrow V-shaped stream beds.
A brief discussion of point and non-point source influences on water qual-
ity is presented in Section V. The important point of this discussion is to
emphasize the rural agricultural nature of Hanover County and that non-point
runoff will have a great impact on the water quality of County streams. Pollu-
tants that are most often carried are bacteria, sediment and nutrients.
Effects of Land Application
Due to the close proximity of the proposed land application sites to county
streams, runoff from spray irrigations operations can be expected. Alternatives
A2, B2, and AI utilize sites characterized by intricate small streams. In addi-
tion, the Pamunkey River borders the eastern limits of each site. Increased
nitrate levels to the Pamunkey River may result especially during winter when
nitrogen uptake by plants and crops is reduced.
Construction Impacts: Sedimentation of Streams
Construction of gravity sewers, interceptors, and force mains along stream
beds will result in short-term increased erosion and sedimentation. The follow-
ing streams will be impacted under the designated alternatives:
IV-21
-------
0 Stony Run Creek - Alternatives Bl, B2, SCI, SC2, 1C, RI, and
8-1
o Lickinghole Creek - Alternatives Bl, B2, SCI, SC2, 1C, AI, RI,
and 8-1
0 Chickahominy River - Alternatives SCI, 1C, RI, and AI
o Totopotomoy Creek - Alternatives SC2, Tl, T2, T3, AI, RI, and 8-1
0 Kersey Creek - Alternatives Tl, T2, AI, RI, and 8-1
° Crump Creek - Alternatives Tl, T2, AI, RI, and 8-1
0 Opossum Creek - Alternatives Tl, T2, and AI
o Strawhorn Creek - Alternatives Tl, T2, RI, and AI
The amount of sediment generated by an area of land depends on its use.
The following information indicates the expected sediment yield of various
land uses, and of construction sites.
Sediment Yield
Land Use (tons/mi.2/year)
Wooded Areas 100
Agricultural Areas 300
Vacant Land and Open Space 200
Developed, Urban Areas 700
Construction Areas 2,300
Source: Real Estate Research Corporation (1974)
Permanent long-term sedimentation impacts will result from implementation
of all the recommended alternatives. The Southern Corridor and Totopotomoy
Basin areas are especially susceptible to increased development and sedimenta-
tion of stream beds. Increased concentrations of heavy metals, petroleum
extracts, pesticides, organic wastes, suspended solids, and nutrients will re-
sult as urbanization occurs. Composition of urban runoff in a typical lignt-
commercial, residential area includes the following:
Average Total Load
Constitutent Concentration (mg/1) (Ibs/mi.2/yr)
Suspended Solids 226 366,000
COD 111 178,000
BOD 17 27,000
Inorganic Nitrogen 1.0 1,600
Total Phosphorus 0.36 600
Source: Weibel (1969)
IV-2 2
-------
The most significant non-point impacts will occur with the increase in
impervious surface areas of the industrial corridor and upper Totopotomoy Basin.
With the provision of increased development, a total of approximately 2.1 x 10
pounds of suspended solids and 1.6 x 105 pounds of biochemical oxygen demand
will be deposited in Totopotomoy Creek annually from surface runoff,
Comparison of this BOD waste load with the 4.6 x 10 annual pounds of BOD
from the proposed Totopotomoy Creek advanced treatment facility yields the
following analysis:
Percentage of total pollutant load (BOD): treatment plant - 74%
Percentage of total pollutnat load (BOD): development and other runoff - 26%
Increase in total flow (average) from treatment plant - 3.94 m /min (2.31 cfs)
Percentage increase in total flow - 40%
Increasing concentrations of the pollutants mentioned above will also occur in
Stony Run.
Construction Impacts: Stream Crossings
Excavation of stream channels for pipe crossings must be carefully controlled
to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Improperly designed or constructed crossings
may be a source of raw sewage leaks during system operation. Since the alter-
natives developed by the facility planner contain a large number of crossings,
special attention must be placed upon this aspect of the proposed facilities.
The following stream crossings are proposed:
o Alternative Bl; 9 crossings
o Alternative B2; 2 crossings
o Alternative SCI; 5 crossings
o Alternative 1C; 12 crossings
o Alternative Tl; 6 crossings
o Alternative T2; 8 crossings
o Alternative AI; 18 crossings
o Alternative RI; 16 crossings
o No data available on Alternative 8-1
Due to the high number of stream crossings, further consideration should be
given to reducing crossings and thereby cutting capital costs.
Operation Impacts: Pump Stations
Several pump stations have been proposed along various stream corridors.
Improperly operated pump stations may spill raw sewage into adjacent waterways
posing a risk to public health and degrading local stream water quality. Stream
corridor pump stations have been proposed under Alternatives Tl, T2, AI, and
IV-2 3
-------
8-1. The use of wet wells in pump stations curtails the severity of this impact;
however, the significant flooding potential in Hanover County streams and asso-
ciated possible pump station failure must be considered.
Ground Water Impacts
Beneficial impacts will result from the discontinued use of malfunctioning
septic systems and improperly operated small treatment facilities. Most reported
septic tank failures have occurred outside important ground-water recharge
areas, however, leakage has been expected into the Pamunkey Group Aquifer
(Aquia Formation). Nitrate contamination of ground water resulting from land
application of effluent is a serious concern associated with Alternatives A2,
B2, and AI. In addition, increases in total dissolved solids (IDS) will re-
sult. A complete site analysis is necessary to determine exact impacts, but
the application rate used should not exceed the capacity of the soil. Applica-
tion rates should be reduced during seasonally high ground-water levels, as the
capacity to contaminate ground water and water supplies is far greater at those
times.
Mitigation Procedures
The following mitigating measures are suggested to offset the potential
adverse environmental impacts discussed above:
° Use of sedimentation controls during stream corridor construc-
tion - siltation dams in creek beds
0 Buffer zone between sewer line and stream bed incorporating
riparian vegetation when available
0 Berms or filtering devices such as hay bales between routes
and streams
° Relocation of sewer lines along roadways
0 Phasing of interceptors to minimize annual yields of sediment
resulting from urbanization
0 Utilize land application of effluent at Totopotomoy Creek
treatment plant
0 Use of tailwater return system and underdrains at recommended
land application sites (design regulation)
0 600 foot buffer zone between land application area and Pamunkey
River and 50 foot buffer zone between area treated and small
creeks (required by law)
IV-24
-------
BIOLOGY
Biological impacts are divided into aquatic and terrestrial biological
environmental impacts. Most impacts on aquatic biology are as a consequence
of water quality impacts. Terrestrial impacts are mainly related to treatment
plant sites and transmission corridors.
Aquatic Biology
Improvement of biological diversity in Falling Creek will be seen as a
result of eliminating the effluent discharge to that waterway. This impact
is associated with Alternatives Al, A2, Bl, B2, AI, RI, and 8-1. A secondary
adverse impact is expected as sedimentation increases with development near all
county streams. Bottom habitats, spawning grounds, and sensitive environmental
areas will be damaged by increased urban runoff and erosion. Preliminary cal-
culations of urban runoff impacts were presented in the Water Quality section.
Chlorine toxicity is a growing concern as evidenced by a recent Government
Accounting Office report. Chlorine is toxic to fish and other aquatic life,
and not much data exists on long-term effects. It has been recently shown that
chlorine can react with organic compounds to produce carcinogenic chlorinated
hydrocarbons. Further, these reactions can occur when treated wastewaters are
disinfected by chlorination. Chlorinated effluent will be released to the South
Anna and Pamunkey Rivers under Alternatives Al, Bl, RI, and 8-1. The Pamunkey
River will receive chlorinated effluent under Alternatives Al, Bl, RI, and 8-1.
Totopotomoy Creek will receive chlorinated effluent under Alternatives T2, T3,
and RI. The low flow of Totopotomoy Creek necessitates serious concern for
chlorine impacts under Alternative RI as does the large Pamunkey discharge pro-
posed under Alternative 8-1.
Land application Alternatives A2, B2, and AI offer the potential for in-
creased eutrophication of the small streams traversing the application sites.
Increased BOD and subsequent reductions in dissolved oxygen, may cause damage
to sensitive aquatic organisms. Temporary disruption of benthic organisms,
food supply, and other aquatic biota will result from sewer line construction
in stream corridors. This impact is associated with Alternatives Bl, B2, SCI,
SC2, 1C, Tl, T2, and T3. Stream fauna which may be impacted with increased
development include muskrat, beaver and various reptiles and amphibians.
The "No Action" Alternative (LB) recommends upgrading of the following
treatment facilities discharging into three (3) streams:
IV-2 5
-------
TABLE IV-9
Plant
Totopotomoy
Kingswood
Pearson's Corner
Blue Star
Oak Hill
Beachwood Farms
Hanover House
Hanover Truck
Restover Motel
Kosmos Village
Leadbetter Construction
Speed & Briscoe Truck
Dixie Steel
MCV Animal Research
Ashland Mobil
Hanover Academy
1ITED BUILD EFFLUENT
Flow m d
378.5
94.6
22.7
136.3
189.2
283.9
113.6
37.8
18.9
151.4
79.5
37.8
18.9
227.1
7.6
18.9
(mgd)
(-10)
(.025)
(.006)
(.036)
(.05)
(.075)
(.030)
(.010)
(.005)
(.040)
(.021)
(.010)
(.005)
(.060)
(.002)
(.005)
Discharge
Totopotomoy Creek
Totopotomoy Creek
Totopotomoy Creek
Totopotomoy Creek
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Chickahominy River
Pamunkey River
As shown in Table IV-9, 1,165.7 m^d (.263 mgd) would be discharged to the
Chickahominy River. Special emphasis should be placed upon protection of the
Chickahominy River and its sensitive spawning grounds. Marsh areas of the
Pamunkey and Chickahominy Rivers and Totopotomoy Creek should be similarly
protected. Construction activities within the lower Totopotomoy Creek Basin
would severly impact the varied marsh ecosystem. Physical stream conditions
in other waterways would be restored by the natural scouring and restoration
effects of spring flows or seasonal upstream flow increases.
Terrestrial Biology
Construction of effluent outfalls will result in temporary disruption of
outfall corridor vegetation. Alternatives Al, Bl, RI, and 8-1 are associated
to this impact with varying degrees of severity.
Alternative 8-1 contains the longest transmission distance and most severe
impact. Transmission of pretreated effluent to land application sites will
require clearing of transmission corridors as recommended in Alternatives A2,
B2, and AI. The distance to land application site #2 is approximately 6.9 kilo-
metres (4.3 miles) longer and will require more clearing. The extensive use of
existing highway right-of-ways will alleviate major adverse impacts.
Clearing and limited landscaping of land application sites will result in
the disruption of site wildlife and vegetation. Minimal vegetation removal will
IV-26
-------
be required on the northern portions of site #1 thereby resulting in a non-
significant impact. Total surface area of site #1 is approximately 107 hectares
(265 acres).
Excessive removal of vegetation will lead to increased sedimentation of the
area's small creeks and the Pamunkey River. Large portions of the 200 hectares
(495 acres) of site #2 are characterized by farmland, and little clearing will
be necessary in these areas.
Disruption of wildlife and vegetation will also occur at proposed treat-
ment plant sites described under Alternatives T2, T3, RI and 8-1. Site T2 and RI
is now partially cleared, and site preparation activities will impact the surround-
ing environment to a lesser degree. The clearing of the T3 site will have signif-
icant adverse impacts on a critical environmental area. Extensive forest cover-
ing characterizes the rural point STP site (Alternative 8-1) including several
significant hardwood growths. Major clearing impacts are associated with this
alternative.
Temporary disruption of stream corridor vegetation will occur under Alter-
natives Bl, B2, SCI, SC2, 1C, Tl, T2, T3, AI, RI and 8-1. Impacted areas were
listed under construction impacts on water quality. More significant destruction
will take place under Alternatives T3 (placing sewers in the lower Totopotomoy)
and 8-1 (large sewers in the Totopotomoy Basin). No losses would be anticipated
for rare and endangered plant or animal species.
Mitigation Procedures
Mitigating measures designed to alleviate adverse impacts on biota are as
follows:
° Stream erosion controls previously mentioned under water quality -
siltation dams, buffer zones, filtering devices
° Minimum clearing of land application and treatment plant sites
o Revegetation of all cleared areas
0 Construction of stream crossings during period of minimal bio-
logical activity (winter months)
° Revegetation of land application sites with more moisture tolerant
species
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
The preservation of important natural and cultural resources is a key
factor to planning centralized sewerage facilities. Relevant sensitive areas
IV-2 7
-------
in the Phase II service area include flood plains, ground-water recharge areas,
areas of sensitive ecology, scenic rivers, prime agricultural land, historical
and archaelogical features, and outdoor recreation areas.
Flood Hazard Areas
Partial flooding of land application sites represents a significant adverse
impact associated with Alternatives A2, B2, and AI. Land application sites 1
and 2 are located in special flood hazard areas. Flooding of land application
sites fosters adverse public health effects and damages site crops and soils.
Large discharges of soil nutrients (nitrate contamination) and soil clogging
by suspended solids may result from severe flooding. Breakage of pipes may occur
under severe flood conditions. Alternatives SCI, SC2, 1C, Tl, T2, T3, AI, RI and
8-1 incorporate stream routing of sewers.
Treatment plants may also be damaged by flooding. Alternatives T2, RI and T3
recommending construction of a treatment plant along Totopotomoy Creek place
these plants near flood plains along a deep narrow stream corridor. The lower
treatment plant site (T3) is in a semi-marsh area.
Executive Order 11988 (May 24, 1977) provides an administrative framework
for flood plain management. In considering proposals for flood plain development,
the following requirements must be addressed:
o justification for locating proposed action in a flood plain
o statement indicating compliance or noncompliance with state or local
flood plain protection standards
o list of alternatives considered
The most serious potential for adverse impacts exists from the land appli-
cation alternatives. As noted in Section III, other sites have been investigated
but eliminated from consideration due to distance from pre-application facility,
area size, development, soils capacity, and land costs. Alternative disposal
methods such as stream discharge of effluent should be considered. The treat-
ment plant site mentioned in Alternatives T2, RI, and AI is located above the
100 year and 500 year flood hazard area.
Mitigating measures associated with flood hazard areas include relocation
of land application sites and treatment plant sites. Adequate flood prevention
methods may also be incorporated into treatment plant design.
IV-28
-------
Ground-water Recharge Areas
Within Hanover County, significant aquifer formations are located in the
northern portion along the Pamunkey River. Land application sites 1 and 2 pro-
posed under Alternatives A2, B2, and AI are located within ground-water recharge
areas. Site #1 is a key area for recharging the Potomac Group Aquifer. The
Pamunkey Group, Aquia Formation aquifer is partially recharged by the land area
proposed for Site #2. Nitrate contamination of these artesian aquifers is a
serious concern. In addition to nitrate, long-term impacts on ground water may
include contamination by heavy metals, phosphorus, and total dissolved solids.
The proposed land application alternatives could change soil characteristics
at each site. Clogging by suspended solids, changes in permeability caused by
salts and buildup of toxic levels of nitrate and other pollutants mentioned
above are associated with spray irrigation. Minimal ground water contamination
will result from the South Anna River discharge associated with Alternatives Al,
Bl and RI. Sewer route construction in the Phase II area will not significantly
impact recharge areas. Alternative LB could foster serious adverse impacts due
to the continuing use of septic systems and anticipated frequency of malfunction.
Measures designed to protect ground-water recharge areas include:
o Use of underdrains on land application sites and reapplica-
tion of collected spoil to prevent nitrate contamination and
unnecessary build-up of heavy metals, phosphorus, organics,
and dissolved solids
o Complete investigation of land application sites for soil
composition, ground-water flow rate and direction of movement
o Proper agricultural management practices and cropping to ensure
maximum nitrogen uptake, maintain soil permeability, and control
of toxic metals accumulation.
Areas of Sensitive Ecologies
Executive Order 11990 (May 24, 1977) requires special consideration of
Federal projects impacting wetlands. In maintaining control over development
in wetlands, the order requires the consideration of the following factors:
o public health, safety and welfare
o maintenance of natural systems, including conservation and long
term productivity
o other uses of wetlands in the public interest
IV-2 9
-------
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science is presently conducting an in-
ventory of Virginia tidal wetlands, part of which are located in Hanover County.
The classification inventory covers tidal influences only, and VIMS has determined
that the tidal influence in the Pamunkey River dissipates approximately two miles
above the Route 360 bridge; therefore, wetlands located within Phase II area
boundaries will not be included in the inventory. There are about thirteen
individual marshes along the Pamunkey River between Route 360 and Matadequin
Creek. These vary in size from 1/4 acre to 5 or ten acres (Ref. 36).
Martin et al (1953) classified wetlands as they pertain to the State of
Virginia. Classifications pertinent to the inland fresh water wetlands of the
Phase II area are as follows:
o Type 1 - seasonally flooded basins or flats; bottomland hardwood
forests subject to overflow,
o Type 2 - inland fresh meadows; meadows waterlogged within a few
inches of the surface during growing season, and
o Type 7 - wooded swamps; soil normally waterlogged.
The most important wetlands influenced by proposed projects in the Phase II
area are located along Totopotomoy Creek. Alternatives T2, AI and RI recommending
the construction of a treatment plant, place gravity sewer and force main within
wetland areas. This area is above wetland locations classified as "critical."
Alternatives T3 and 81 severely impact critical wetlands of Type 7 along the
lower Totopotomoy Creek, and alternative locations for proposed facilities must
be considered.
Minimal environmental impact will occur to Pamunkey River bottomlands as
a result of surface runoff to land application sites. Sites 1 and 2 developed
in Alternatives A2, B2, and AI are located well upstream from critical bottom-
land areas. Increased urban runoff to sensitive areas is a common impact asso-
ciated with all alternatives except treatment for the Town of Ashland only.
Development will increase non-point loads to the sensitive ecological habitats
of Totopotomoy Creek and Crump Creeks.
Construction of interceptors in the Totopotomoy s'tream corridor may lead
to temporary disruption of the wooded swamp below Route 643. Alternatives S2,
Tl, T2, T3, AI, RI, and 8-1 utilize Totopotomoy Creek for sewer routing. A
similar impact exists for construction in the Crump Creek corridor and potential
damage to bottom lands east of Route 651. Alternatives 1C, AI, and RI recommend
construction in the Chickahominy River corridor. Construction within this area
IV-30
-------
should be avoided as the Chickahominy bottomlands are critical wildlife and fish
habitat areas.
Another area of sensitive ecology is the steep slopes along Totopotomoy
Creek. Totopotomoy sewer lines recommended in Alternatives Tl, T2, and T3 must
be carefully located and constructed in this sensitive area. Mitigation pro-
cedures related to areas of sensitive ecology include:
0 Relocation of sewers from Chickahominy River
0 Development and enforcement of urban and agricultural non-
point sediment controls
° Relocation of sewers to highway, utility, or railroad right-
of-ways
° Use of alternative land application sites
o Relocation of lower Totopotomoy Creek treatment plant and 81
treatment plant.
Scenic Rivers
The North and South Anna Rivers and the Pamunkey River are designated as
"scenic river areas". Effluent will be directly discharged to the South Anna
River under Alternatives Al and Bl. Minimal impact on aesthetics is expected.
Land application sites 1 and 2 (Alternatives A2, B2, AI) border the Pamunkey
River shoreline. The presence of an adequate buffer zone and minimal site
structures will alleviate adverse impacts. Under Alternative 8-1, total Phase
II treated effluent will be discharged to the Pamunkey River at Nelson's Bridge.
The advanced treatment received prior to discharge will mitigate adverse aes-
thetic impacts.
Prime Agricultural Land
Central sewerage facilities, collectors and interceptors can facilitate the con-
version .of prime agricultural land to suburban and urban uses. Land application
sites recommended in Alternatives A2, B2, and AI utilize prime agricultural
land for spray irrigation. Site #1 is classified prime agricultural in its
entirety, while prime agricultural land is found only in the western portion
of site #2.
Various proposed interceptors traverse prime agricultural areas within
the Phase II service area. Large portions of the Stony Run Creek drainage basin
are classified prime agricultural, and sewers within the stream corridor are
recommended under Alternatives SCI, SC2, 1C, AI and 8-1. The areas surrounding
the Upper Totopotomoy and Upper Kersey Creeks are also considered prime agri-
IV-31
-------
cultural lands. Alternatives Tl, T2, AI, and 8-1 recommend sewer placement in
these areas. Alternative 8-1 utilizes prime farmland in the north eastern por-
tion of the county as an outfall right-of-way for effluent discharge to the
Pamunkey River. Mitigating measures associated with impacts on prime agricultural
land include phasing of interceptors through prime areas to reduce excess growth
potential, relocation of sewers to other areas, and use of package treatment
plants and septic systems to eliminate central sewering of prime agricultural
areas.
Prime agricultural land occupies approximately 18.5 percent of the total
land area of Hanover County. The proposed sewer lines for Phase II Facilities
Plan in the south central portion of the County would be located in areas which
have been designated as prime agricultural land. However, a significant amount
of the farmland in these areas has already been developed for residential use
because the soils were suitable for septic systems. Yet, unless Hanover County
establishes a policy of providing tax relief to individuals who are engaged in
agriculture, there is little likelihood of saving the remainder of the prime
agricultural land from the same fate. In the event that the County were to
adopt an effective policy to save prime agricultural land, it would probably
not be necessary to consider alternative routes for the Phase II sewer system
except in the few instances where placement of the sewer line presented an
environmental hazard to agricultural operations.
Historical and Archaeological Features
The impact of the Phase II Facilities Plan on archaeological and historic
sites in the service area can only be properly determined by an intensive survey
of the project area once the final locations of sewer lines, pumping stations,
and land application sites have been established. Based on preliminary dis-
cussions with the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, areas where the soils
have not previously been disturbed by grading for roads or similar efforts, have
a high probability of containing important prehistoric or historic sites. Con-
sequently, it is imperative that such a survey be conducted once a precise plan
for the proposed sewer system is available.
Preliminary comparison of the facility planner's local, subregional and
areawide alternatives with the archaelogical and historic sites mentioned
in Section II yields the following probable impacts (see Table 11-11):
IV-3 2
-------
o Brookspring #3 Historical Site - approximately 457 meters (1,500 ft)
from proposed gravity sewer of Alternatives SCI, SC2, 1C, AI, RI and
8-1
o Archaic and Woodland periods Archaeological Site 44 Hn 15 - approximately
76 meters (250 ft) from proposed force main of Alternatives Tl, T2, AI,
RI, and 8-1
o Woodland period Archaeological Site 44 Hn 16 - approximately 76 meters
(250 ft) from proposed sewer of Alternatives Tl, T2, AI, RI and 8-1
o Salem Church #6 Historic Site - approximately 152 meters (500 ft) from
proposed gravity sewer of Alternatives Tl, T2, AI, RI, and 8-1
o Rural Plains #1 Historic Site - approximately 305 meters (1,000 ft)
from proposed gravity sewer of Alternatives Tl, T2, AI, RI, and 8-1
o Pine Slash #8 Historic Site - approximately 46 meters (150 ft) from
proposed sewer of Alternatives T3 and 8-1
o Honeymoon Cottage #9 Historic Site - approximately 152 meters (500 ft)
from proposed sewer of Alternatives T3 and 8-1
AIR QUALITY, ODOR, AND NOISE
Operation of treatment facilities will have minimal impact on the areas
air quality, odor, and noise environment. A common impact associated with all
alternatives is the secondary impact of increased air pollutants resulting from
increased population, upgrading of transportation routes, and growth of sub-
divisions, commercial areas, and industry. Minimal adverse odor and noise im-
pacts will result from the treatment plant operations associated with Alternatives
AI, Bl, T2, T3, and 8-1. Plant operations will entail equipment noise, processing
odors, incidental lighting and traffic from maintenance vehicles the more complex
treatment operations and pumps (Alternatives T2, T3, 8-1) produce a greater noise
impact. Treatment facilities operating with improper operation and maintenance
procedures may produce significant adverse odors.
Aerosol from land application of effluent offers minimal to moderate poten-
tial for contamination of air, transmission of pathogens and unpleasant odors.
Spray irrigation alternatives include A2, B2 and AI. Temporary construction
activities for treatment plants and sewers will produce minimal adverse impacts
on air quality and noise. Care should be taken in the critical environmental
area of Totopotomoy Creek.
Mitigation procedures designed to alleviate adverse impacts include:
° Muffling devices on pumps and other treatment plant equipment
° Suspension of spray irrigation during periods of high wind
o Appropriate O&M procedures* to control odors
o Fugitive dust controls at construction sites
IV-33
-------
PUBLIC HEALTH
The provision of centralized sewers is designed to reduce the risks to
the health of the Hanover County residents. One beneficial impact common to all
alternatives except Ashland Alternatives Al and A2, is the relief of malfunc-
tioning septic systems and small treatment facilities. Leakage of improperly
treated sewage will be greatly reduced. Ashland Alternatives Al and A2 are
designed, in part, to reduce the excessive infiltration of the existing system
and reduce the number of inadequate wastewater discharges.
There is a potential for ground-water contamination associated with Alter-
natives A2, B2 and Al. The greater potential exists with site #2 as opposed to
site //I because greater quantities of effluent would be applied to site #2.
Site #2 is also part of the recharge area for the ground-water aquifer used for
water supply by lower County residents. The transmission of pathogens by aerosols
generated during spray irrigation for land application Alternatives A2, B2 and
and Al may pose risks to public health. However, this risk is considered minimal
because sprayed effluent will be pretreated in compliance with Commonwealth of
Virginia regulations.
Improper operation of land application facilities may result in contamina-
tion of surface waters near land application sites 1 and 2. The more complex
creek system and increased application rate at site 2 (Alternative B2) indicates
a greater potential for a significant impact. Release of treated effluent to the
Totopotomoy Creek during critical low flow conditions is an adverse impact asso-
ciated with Alternatives T2 and T3. Final treatment processes have not yet been
determined, and as such, impacts can't be more precisely predicted; however, the
potential for transmitting pathogens does exist. Alternatives SCI, SC2, 1C, Tl,
T2, AT, RI and 8-1 recommend the placement of pump stations within stream corridors
The potential for leakage of raw sewage into the waterways is considered a minimal
adverse impact.
The potential for local serious public health impacts is associated with
Alternative LB. Disease transmission via malfunctioning septic systems is one
of the major arguments for centralized sewerage facilities. Local contaminated
areas may be a result of "no action."
Mitigating measures associated with protection of public health include:
0 Proper operation of land application facilities - adequate
pretreatment and adherence to correct application rates
IV-34
-------
o Curtailment of effluent application during abnormal periods of
high ground water
o Cease spray irrigation during high winds
o Use of wet well pump stations
"NO ACTION" IMPACTS
From EPA's point of view, "no action" is a determination that the proposed
project is not needed. The consequences of this EPA decision would enable the
County to choose between a range of doing essentially nothing to building a
complex regional system with private and local capital. Given the substantial
cost of sewerage facilities, it is doubtful Hanover County could fund the system
proposed. On the other hand, the poor suitability of soils for septic tank
systems, and NPDES permit requirements force some type of solution to the
problem of providing sewage treatment in the Phase II service area. For this
reason, there is a clear need for the proposed project and subsequent Federal
funding.
"No action" within the Phase II area would result in continued reliance on
private facilities, such as on-site package plants and septic systems, and con-
sequently restrict growth.
Private Sewerage Facilities
Continued reliance on existing septic systems and package treatment plants
means there will continue to be episodes of septic tank system failures and
violations of discharge requirements by package treatment facilities. In the
latter case, enforcement actions may be taken against the owners which may re-
sult in fines and/or private capital expenditures to upgrade facilities. In
either case, these episodes can result in significant risks to public health
through direct contact with inadequately treated effluents by contamination of
surface or ground-water supplies, or by contact from disease vectors such as
mosquitoes and rodents. Severe though probably localized impacts on terrestrial
and acquatic ecosystems would periodically occur. Residents will occasionally
be exposed to unpleasant odors and unsightly conditions.
Unacceptable soils for septic tank systems are found east of Ashland.
Poor to fair soils for septic percolation are located in the Industrial Corridor
and Upper Totopotomoy Basin. Similar soils are located throughout western Han-
over County. Soils rated fair are found in the Mechumps Creek and Kersey Creek
areas. Mechanicsville and the Lower Totopotomoy Basin possess good soils for
percolation of septic effluent.
IV-35
-------
Private sewerage facilities are generally more expensive to build and main-
tain in an area with sporadic development such as is found in Hanover County.
If no county taxes or bonds are utilized to fund a "no action" program, those
residents building or presently residing in an area possessing good soils will
benefit from the cheaper capital expense. County residents in much of the
current undeveloped areas will experience excessive capital burdens to comply
with required treatment levels. Greatly increased per capita treatment costs
will hinder overall county development.
Low Growth Impacts
Present and future reliance on private treatment facilities will seriously
affect the amount, location and type of growth in Hanover County. The present
patchwork character of county development will continue. Existing developments
with no sewage problems will increase in value. Unrealistically high prices
for land suitable for septic systems will influence the types of development.
Industrial growth will be inhibited, and will be more likely to occur in the
Mechanicsville area.
An important mechanism for implementing strategies for orderly and efficient
growth and patterns of development will be denied to Hanover County.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental impacts of sub-regional and areawide alternatives have been
addressed in this section. Table IV-10 presents a tabularized summary of all
significant beneficial and adverse environmental impacts and their associated
alternatives. A comprehensive listing of environmental impacts and mitigating
measures is located in Appendix H.
IV-36
-------
TABLE IV-10
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Mitigation Measure
Ashland (A2)
Ashland/Ashcake (Bl)
Ashland/Ashcake (B2)
Ashland/Ashcake (B2)
Ashland/Ashcake (B2)
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater Quality
Terrestrial Biology
Public Health
Southern Corridor (SCI) Water Quality
Southern Corridor (SCI) Land Use
Southern Corridor (SC2) Water Quality
Southern Corridor (SC2) Surface Water Quality
Industrial Corridor (1C) Water Quality
Totopotomoy Basin (Tl)
Water Quality
Totopotomoy Basin (Tl) Surface Water Quality
Totopotomoy Basin (Tl) Land Use
Contamination of aquifer
Elimination of malfunc-
tioning septic systems
Contamination of aquifer
Site clearing
Aerosol transmission from
spray irrigation site
Elimination of malfunc-
tioning septic systems
Gravity sewer placement in
prime agricultural area
Elimination of malfunc-
tioning septic systems
Increased erosion and
sedimentation
Elimination of malfunc-
tioning septic systems
Elimination of malfunc-
tioning septic systems
Increased erosion and
sedimentation
Gravity sewer placement in
prime agricultural area
Drain collection system
Drain collection system
Erosion control and revegeta-
tion
Temporary curtailment of
operations
Individual treatment units
Erosion control ordinances
Erosion control ordinances
Relocation of gravity sewer
-------
TABLE IV-10
(continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Mitigating Measure
i
to
00
Totopotomoy STP (T2)
Totopotomoy STP (T2)
Totopotomoy STP (T2)
Totopotomoy STP (T2)
Totopotomoy STP (T2)
Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Aquatic Biology
Land Use
Elimination of malfunc-
tioning septic systems
Increased sedimentation
of creeks
Pollutant loading of
bottom habitats
Sedimentation of bottom
habitats
Gravity sewer placement in
prime agricultural area
Lower Totopotomoy (T3) same as (T2) with following additions:
Lower STP (T3) Surface Water Quality
Lower STP (T3)
Lower STP (T3)
Lower STP (T3)
Sensitive Ecology
Terrestrial Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Areawide (AI): Compilation of (1C), (A2) and (Tl)
Areawide (AI) Land Use
Areawide (AI)
Areawide (AI)
Water Supply
Socioeconomics
Pollutant loading of Toto-
potomoy Creek marsh
Increased flow to marsh
Disruption of wetland
fauna
Vegetation destruction
of STP site
with following additions:
Basis for orderly County
development
Increased demand for
potable water
Sewerage systems and
growth increase
Erosion control ordinances
Land treatment of effluent
Land use planning, erosion
control
Relocation of gravity sewer
Relocation of STP
Relocation of STP
Relocation of STP
Relocation of STP
Comprehensive water supply
-------
TABLE IV-10
(continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Mitigating Measure
H
LO
Rural Point (81)
Rural Point (81)
Rural Point (81)
Rural Point (81)
Rural Point (81)
Regional Area (RI)
Regional Area (RI)
Regional Area (RI)
Regional Area (RI)
Regional Area (RI)
Water Quality
Sensitive Ecology
Terrestrial Biology
Water Supply
Land Use
Land Use
Water Quality
Land Use
Water Supply
Economics
Elimination of malfunc-
tioning septic systems
Sewers in Lower Toto-
potomoy Creek
STP site clearing and
landscaping
Increased demand for
potable water
Gravity sewer placement
in prime agricultural
area
Basis for orderly County
development
Elimination of malfunc-
tioning septic systems
Sewer placement in prime
agricultural area
Increased demand for
potable water
System costs to County
residents
Alternative sewer right-of-
way
Minimal landscaping
Comprehensive water supply
facilities
Phased implementation,
individual treatment
Phased implementation,
individual treatment
Comprehensive water supply
facilities
Least cost treatment
facilities
-------
-------
SECTION V
IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives analyzed in the previous section were primarily formulated
by the facility planner. Section V discusses additional measures to curtail
and treat wastewater in the Phase II service area. The purpose of this
section is not to duplicate the facility planning process, but instead,
identify reasonable or unique modifications to wastewater treatment which may
reduce economic or environmental impacts. Constraints to formulating alter-
natives are first discussed to provide a framework for consideration of
additional alternatives. Recent EPA concerns in the areas of water conser-
vation and phasing of treatment facilities will also be discussed. Topics
developed in this section include:
o Regulatory water quality policies and constraints
o Treatment capacity/phased construction
o Flow reduction techniques
o Alternative methods of stream discharge
o Alternatives development by growth scenario
o On-site disposal systems
o Alternative design criteria for land application of effluent
o Alternative sludge management options
REGULATORY WATER QUALITY POLICIES AND CONSTRATINS
Applicants requesting funding under EPA's Construction Grants Program are
required to comply with relevant water quality policies and constraints. Waste-
water management in Hanover County must be administered within the framework of
Federal and State regulatory policies. In particular, these Federal and State
regulatory control efforts are directed toward definition and control of water
quality in the natural environment. To fulfill its role in protecting public
V-l
-------
health and welfare, the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) has directed
its efforts toward specification of quality levels for discharged wastewaters
in relation to their particular receiving environments. In the development
of the Hanover County facilities plan, the alternative solutions that are being
proposed to accommodate existing, as well as projected, wastewater management
needs must be considered within this regulatory context.
Water Quality Standards
Pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), the SWCB has established receiving water
quality standards for the surface waters of Hanover County. In general,
surface waters in the County fall into two major classifications:
estuarine waters (Class II) or free flowing streams (Class III) (Ref. 28).
Water quality stream standards for each of these classifications are given in
Table V-l.
TABLE V-l
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY CLASSIFICATIONS
IN HANOVER COUNTY
Standard
Parameter
Estuarine
Class II
Free Flowing Streams
Class III
Dissolved Oxygen
Min itnum
Daily Average
PH
Temperature (°F)
Rise above natural
Max imum
Maximum hourly
change
4.0
5.0
6.0 - 8.5
4.0 (Sept. - May)
1.5 (June - August)
4.0
5.0
6.0 - 8.5
5
90
2
Source:
To supplement these classifications and standards, the following sub-class
standards for fecal coliform concentrations also apply:
V-2
-------
Subclass A
Waters generally satisfactory for use as public or municipal water
supply, secondary contact recreation, propagation of fish and aquatic
life, and other beneficial uses.
Coliform Organisms - Fecal coliforms (multiple-tube fermentation or
MF count) not to exceed a log mean of 1,000/100 ml. Not to equal or
exceed 2,000/ml in more than 10 percent of samples. Monthly average
value not more than 5,000/100 ml. (MPN or MF count). Not more than
5,000 MPN/100 ml in more than 20 percent of samples in any month.
Not more than 20,000/100 ml in more than 5 percent of such samples.
Subclass B
Waters generally satisfactory for use as public or municipal water
supply, primary contact recreation (prolonged intimate contact;
considerable risk of ingestion), propagation of fish and other
aquatic life, and other beneficial uses.
Coliform Organisms - Fecal coliform (multiple-tube fermentation
or MF count) within a 30-day period not to exceed a log mean of
200/100 ml. Not more than 10 percent of samples within a 30-day
period will exceed 400/100 ml. Monthly average not more than
2,400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of samples in any month.
Not applicable during or immediately following periods of rain-
fall.
All surface waters in the County are assigned a major class (II or III)
and a subclass (A or B) as described above. Within Hanover County, the
Chickahominy River and its tributaries, and the tidal Pamunkey River and tidal
portions of its tributaries have also been assigned special standards by the
SWCB. Effluents discharged to the Chickahominy River or its tributaries must
meet the requirements given in Table V-2. Additional standards have been
promulgated for the tidal portion of the Pamunkey River which has shellfish
beds. For these areas, the following special bacterial standards take pre-
cedence over the general subclass standards:
Coliform Organisms - The median MPN shall not exceed 70/100 ml and
not more than 10 percent of the samples ordinarily shall exceed a
MPN of 230/100 ml for a 5-tube decimal dilution test (or 330/100 ml
where a 3-tube decimal dilution is used) in those portions of the
area most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most
unfavorable conditions.
V-3
-------
TABLE V-2
SPECIAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR CHICKAHOMINY WATERSHED
IN HANOVER COUNTY
Constituent
Effluent Concentration Limit
1. Dissolved Oxygen
2. Biochemical Oxygen
Demand, 5-day at 20'
(BOD5)
3. Settleable Solids
4. Suspended Solids
5. Ammonia-Nitrogen
6. Residual Chlorine
7. Coliform Organisms
8. pH
9. Total Phosphorus
10. Other Physical and
Chemical Constituents
5.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1 average, with not more than 5% of individual
samples to exceed 8.0 mg/1
Not to exceed 0.1 mg/1
5.0 mg/1 average, with not more than 5% of individual
samples to exceed 7.5 mg/1
Not to exceed 2.0 mg/1
2 mg/1
Fecal coliforms (multiple-tube fermentation or ME
count) within a 30-day period not to exceed a log
mean of 200/100 ml. Not more than 10% of samples
within a 30-day period will exceed 400/100 ml.
Not less than 6.0 and not greater than 8.5
Total phosphorus not to exceed 0.10 mg/1
Other physical or chemical constituents not specifi-
cally mentioned will be covered by additional
specifications as conditions detrimental to the
stream arise. The sDecific mention of items 1 through
9 does not necessarily mean that the addition of other
physical or chemical constituents will be condoned.
Source: Ref.28
V-4
-------
Surface waters in the County whose existing quality exceeds the assigned
stream standards are also governed by the State-wide anti-degradation policy.
This policy is summarized below:
Waters whose existing quality is better than the established
standards...will be maintained at high quality...provided that
the necessary degree of waste treatment to maintain high water
quality will be required where physically and economically
feasible.
The implementation of this policy was addressed in the York River Basin Water
Quality Management Plan (July, 1976). Under the anti-degradation policy, waste
loads must not decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations more than 0.2 mg/1 be-
low ambient stream conditions. Specific state stream classifications for waters
adjoining or within Hanover County are defined in the Appendix.
Continuing Planning Process Classifications
Section 303(e) of PL 92-500 requires the SWCB, as part of its continuing
planning process, to classify streams as either water quality limiting (WQL)
or effluent limiting (EL). Classifications are based on point source wasteloads
and discussed here in reference to publicly-owned treatment facilities. As
defined by EPA, these designations indicate whether or not applicable water
quality standards can be met through the application of secondary treatment.
In certain instances, best practicable treatment (BPT) is needed for other point
sources of pollution. EPA's secondary treatment effluent requirements are shown
in Table V-3.
A WQL designation constitutes a finding that water quality standards cannot
be maintained if only secondary treatment is required for municipal treatment
facilities and BPT for other point sources of pollution discharging to that
stream segment. This means that more stringent discharge limitations need to
be established for point sources of pollution. It also means that greater
consideration must be given to the effect of non-point sources of pollution.
In streams which have an EL designation, water quality standards can be
maintained if secondary treatment is required for municipal treatment facilities
and BPT for other point sources of pollution.
In Hanover County all streams have been classified by the SWCB as effluent
limited; however, implementation of the Virginia anti-degradation policy will
require advanced waste treatment for discharges greater than 1 mgd. In this
instance, the stream would be considered WQL.
V-5
-------
TABLE V- 3
SECONDARY TREATMENT DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS1
Parameter
Effluent Limit
Seven Consecutive Thirty Consecutiv.e
Day Average Day Average
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5-day)
7
Suspended Solids
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
PH
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1 30 mg/1
no limitation
6.0 to 9.0
1. Promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (40CFR133). Effective
November 7, 1977.
2. Where waste stabilization ponds are the sole process used, the facility
design capacity is 2 mgd or less, and the effluent limits shown cannot
be achieved, as less stringent suspended solids limitation in concert
with best waste stabilization pond technology may be imposed.
V-6
-------
Wasteload Allocations and Effluent Limitations.
Implementing the Construction Grants Program for the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the State Water Control Board's responsibility is to establish the
wasteload allocations and effluent limitations for all alternatives being
investigated in the facility planning process. During the preparation of the
Hanover County wastewater facilities plan, three vehicles have been used by the
SWCB to establish wasteload allocations and effluent limitations for the alterna-
tives. These are: existing NPDES permits, allocations previously developed in
the York River Basin Water Quality Management Plan pursuant to Section 303(e)
of PL 92-500, and allocations developed by the SWCB specifically upon request
by the facility planner, BYK. All three of these sources are used in establish-
ing the degree and type of treatment required in each of the wastewater manage-
ment alternatives under consideration.
The process of developing wasteload allocations for the York River Basin
Plan and those allocations established by special request to the SWCB is
presented in the following discussion. It is these allocations and limitations
that affect the majority of the alternatives which were developed. Effluent
limitations contained in the existing NPDES permits were briefly discussed in
the impacts section, together with the description of the alternatives to which
they are related. Effluent limitations will be presented for the limited-build,
or baseline expansion/upgrading of existing on-site facilities currently serving
subdivisions, schools, and commercial and light industrial operations.
In the York River Basin Water Quality Management Plan, the SWCB developed
wasteload allocations for two potential points of discharge in the Hanover County
Phase II planning area:
0 Ashland STP discharge to the South Anna River at its confluence
with Falling Creek; and
° Hanover County regional STP discharge to the Pamunkey River in the
proximity of Nelson's Bridge.
The development of wasteload allocations was predicated upon compliance
with the State-wide anti-degradation policy since the ambient quality of the
South Anna and Pamunkey Rivers exceeds the stream standards established for these
waters (see Section II, Water Quality). Allocations for discharge to the other
V-7
-------
major surface waters in the Hanover Phase II planning area, the Chickahominy
River and its tributaries, were not developed due to the primacy of the special
effluent standards for the Chickahominy watershed shown in Table V-2.
Wasteload allocations in the York River Basin Plan were developed with re-
gard to oxygen demanding materials and determined by mathematically modeling the
water quality conditions of the South Anna and Pamenkey Rivers. All stream
loading capacities were set at the point source load levels which caused a 0.2
mg/1 deficit in dissolved oxygen downstream in each surface water segment. In
order to represent critical low flow conditions, the 7-day average low flow for
a 10-year period was used in the model analysis.
It is important to note that for the Pamunkey River discharge allocation,
the critical low flow conditions also considered the Lake Anna minimum allow-
3
able upstream discharge of 68 m /min (4 cfs). This assumption allows for a
higher level of critical stream flow and, therefore, a greater assimilative
capacity for the river than if the 7-day, 10-year low flow were used alone.
There are some additional discharge alternatives being investigated in the
Hanover Phase II Facility Plan for which wasteload allocations were not devel-
oped in the York River Basin Plan. Upon request from the facility planner, the
SWCB developed an allocation for a potential wastewater discharge to the Toto-
potomoy Creek. In addition, the SWCB developed a new allocation for the poten-
tial Ashland discharge superseding the original one contained in the York River
Basin Plan.
A tabular summary of the wasteload allocations and related effluent limita-
tions that was used in the development of Facility Planning alternatives by BYK is
presented in Table V-4. Information is presented in terms of ultimate bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) and its two components: 5-day carbonaceous bio-
chemical oxygen demand (CBOD ) and nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD). NOD is
analytically related to total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) by the equation, NOD =
4.57 (TKN). The location of these discharge points is shown on Figure V-l.
It is worth noting that each of the approximate effluent limitations shown
in Table V-4 is r.:ore stringent that the EPA-defined minimum level of effluent
quality attainable by secondary treatment. For this reason each of the waste
treatment alternatives, incorporating stream discharge of effluent, developed
-------
TABLE V-4
<
LOCATION
OF
DISCHARGE
1. Ashland
2. Nelson's
Bridge
3. Totopotomoy
Creek
ESTIMATED
DISCHARGE
QUANTITIES
mgd
0.8
1.4
3.0
0.5
1.5
2.1
2.7
3.5
FACILITY
VA.
BOD
787
1,238
820
442
1,264
1,734
2,185
2,802
PLANNING WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
SWCB ALLOCATION (Ibs/day)
CBOD5
187
187
280
67
138
158
158
175
NOD
600
1,051
540
375
1,176
1,576
2,027
2,627
TKN
131
230
118
82
246
345
443
575
APPROXIMATE EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS (mg/1)
CBOD5
28
16
11
16
11
9
7
6
TKN
20
20
5
20
20
20
20
20
1. York River Basin Water Quality Management Plan, July 1976
-------
COUNTY
FIGURE 3E -
BEAVERDAM
NEW
MONTPELIER
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
•&/0
•<.<>>
DOSWELL'
\ND
ASHLAND
°o,
POTENTIAL STREAM
DISCHARGE POINTS FOR
FACILITY PLANNING
WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
HENRICO COUNTY
NELSON'
BRIDGE'
CRUMP
OP010MOY
LOWER
-------
and evaluated in the facility planning process, is expected to be of the
advanced waste treatment type.
EPA Policy: Advanced Treatment Requirements
EPA is becoming increasingly concerned about advanced waste treatment plan-
ning procedures in state water quality management programs. In many cases, costly
advanced waste treatment plants are being required in areas because of unreal-
istically demanding requirements for pollution control. These requirements
result from the imposition of stiff, inaccurate water quality standards, and
from the use of technically unsound mathematical models to simulate receiving
stream conditions. A report recently prepared by Vertex Corporation discusses
unrealistic state water quality standards and their use in justifying costly
AWT facilities (Ref. 29 ).
As a result of these excessive standards, the cost of advanced wastewater
treatment may become particularly burdensome to the communities charged with
financing these systems. Moreover, it is uncertain as to whether the incre-
mental water quality benefits attributable to advanced waste treatment are
justified by the additional costs.
With regard to the Hanover County Phase II Facility Plan, the controlling
or limiting conditions that necessitate advanced waste treatment for any al-
ternative incorporating the discharge of effluent to streams is the SWCB-imposed
anti-degradation policy. The strict application of this policy toward the
maintenance of Hanover County's existing high in-stream levels of dissolved
oxygen limits the self-purification capacity, or assimilative capacity, of
oxygen-demanding materials that can be safely utilized.
The dissolved oxygen of a water body plays an important role in water
quality in that it reflects the general "health" of the stream and its ability
to maintain and propagate a balanced ecological system. When dissolved oxygen
levels are low, the propagation of fish and other aquatic life may be impaired
and high mortalities may occur. The SWCB standards for minimum allowable
levels of dissolved oxygen in Hanover streams (Table III-5) assure that, if
standards are maintained, no undesirable conditions will occur. The SWCB
daily average standard of 5.0 mg/1 dissolved oxygen (DO) and minimum of 4.0
mg/1 DO are in accordance with EPA's water quality criteria, and adequate to
sustain a varied stream ecosystem.
V-ll
-------
Existing DO levels within the majority of Hanover County's streams are
well above SWCB standards (see Section II, Water Quality). Implementation of
the strict 0.2 mg/1 decrease in ambient DO conforming with the anti-degradation
policy for the Pamunkey River requires the use of advanced waste treatment for
effluent discharges greater than 1 mgd.
Given the existence of non-point runoff and flood conditions, it is doubtful
that the quality of the county's waters will be enhanced substantially in propor-
tion to the added costs of complying with the requirements of the State anti-
degradation policy. The development of environmental standards from which pollution
control requirements are established must consider equally the biological,
technological, and economic ramifications if they are to be fairly promulgated.
The Town of Ashland's situation with regard to effluent discharge require-
ments is presented to illustrate the impacts of the SWCB's anti-degradation
policy. Assuming that the ambient dissolved oxygen levels in the South Anna
River near Ashland will approach 7.0 mg/1 during critical, low-flow, conditions
(see Section II — Water Quality), a deficit of 2.0 mg/1 would be allowed in
order to meet the stream standard of 5.0 mg/1 DO. As compared with the allow-
able 0.2 mg/1 deficit, the difference represents a magnitude of ten. Consequently,
it would appear that utilizing EPA's definition of secondary treatment, treat-
ment of Ashland's sewage by secondary means would be sufficient to ensure that
the discharge would not violate stream standards. That is, an effluent BOD^
of 30 mg/1 (EPA secondary requirement) would be required instead of the 16 mg/1
(or 28 mg/1) currently required by the SWCB (see Table V-4) . The requirement
of 20 mg/1 TKN could also be substituted; however, the higher BOD loadings in
conjunction with the 7 day - 10 year low flow could adversely alter stream
species diversity.
An additional factor to consider is that Ashland may qualify to use the
stabilization pond process to achieve EPA secondary treatment (see Table III-7).
With the exception of performance during winter months, effluent BOD5 concen-
trations of 15 - 40 mg/1 and suspended solids concentrations of 25 - 50 mg/1
are achievable with a properly designed and operated stabilization pond system.
Adequate TKN removals are also achievable with a stabilzation pond. The
degree of TKN removal, although highly dependent on environmental conditions,
may approach that obtainable by conventional activated sludge treatment schemes.
The economic impacts on Ashland of the SWCB anti-degradation policy can
now be evaluated. Without the policy, Ashland would at most need only to
expand, and possibly make some minor modifications to, their present stabiliza-
V-12
-------
tion pond facility. The desired treatment capacity would also need to be
considered in determining the adequacy of the existing facility. Moreover,
the Town would be responsible for financing just 25% of these costs. With
present treatment requirements, the Town will need to upgrade significantly
its treatment facility if discharge to Falling Creek and the South Anna River
is to continue. These economic benefits must be integrated with environmental
considerations to approach the issue in an objective manner. Effluent disposal
by land application is discussed in the next section, and from the economic
viewpoint of county residents offers a cost-competitive solution to providing
waste treatment.
Land Application
A thorough evaluation of land-application alternatives is required within
the facilities planning process. These alternatives must be cost-effectively
compared with other waste treatment management techniques in order to determine
the selected best alternative. There are both EPA and Virginia State design
criteria and standards which must be considered in the development of land
application alternatives. Additional information concerning site criteria
and pretreatment requirements is discussed in the description of specific
alternatives.
EPA reviews and evaluates construction grant applications involving
land application techniques according to the procedures established in the
EPA Technical Bulletin titled "Evaluation of Land Application Systems, EPA-
430/9-75-001." In addition, the Virginia State Water Control Board and
Department of Health require that systems which utilize this method of treat-
ment and disposal adhere to the design criteria specified in the current
State Sewerage Regulations (February 1977). The basic criteria that are
discussed in each of the documents are related to the following:
« Site evaluation criteria,
• Alternative methods for land application, and
« Design considerations and criteria.
The criteria used to determine the suitability of a land application site
include topography, distance to surface waters, soil characteristics, subsurface
geology, groundwater characteristics, and method of land acquisition or control.
Also of significant importance in site selection is compatibility with current
and planned land use, with emphasis on potential impacts to current and planned
developed residential areas.
V-13
-------
On the basis of the project objectives and the characteristics of the
potential sites, both EPA and Virginia encourage consideration of three basic
approaches to land application: irrigation, infiltration-percolation, and
overland flow. Each of these alternatives differs considerably with respect
to requirements for site characteristics and the purpose for which the system
is designed. Typical factors which must be evaluated include potential for
fertilizing crops, recycling to the land, and recharge of groundwater. In all
three approaches, wastewater may be applied by spraying or surface application.
Municipal wastewater, usually pretreated to some extent, has been applied to
land mainly by irrigation and infiltration. Irrigation is the most widely used
method. Further discussion of land application techniques is addressed in the
evaluation of alternatives.
Design considerations and criteria differ greatly depending on whether
irrigation, infiltration-percolation, or overland flow is selected. The major
criteria established by the State and EPA are: storage requirements, loading
rates, land requirements, crop selections (where applicable), and management
considerations (monitoring, security, and maintenance). EPA defers require-
ments concerning the degree of treatment prior to land application to the
individual states. The characteristics of the applied influent wastewater
required in Virginia are shown in Table V-5. It is important to note,
however, that EPA recognizes that some state-imposed preapplication treatment
requirements are unnecessarily stringent. In the past, the imposition of
stringent wastewater treatment requirements prior to land application has quite
often nullified the cost-effectiveness of land treatment processes and precluded
this waste treatment alternative technology from being utilized. In order to
ensure that appropriate Federal, State, and local regulations and requirements
are not used in a manner that may arbitrarily block land treatment projects,
EPA will not fund "unnecessary treatment facilities" resulting from overly
stringent standards. In any proposed land application alternative, standards
must be balanced with site specific considerations to insure protection of
public health and the environment.
For detailed discussions of site selection and design criteria, the reader
is referred to the two documents discussed above.
V-14
-------
TABLE V-5
VIRGINIA PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Parameter Standard
BOD,- Maximum of 48 mg/1 (monthly
average) prior to holding
Suspended Solids Maximum of 48 mg/1 (monthly
average) prior to holding
Chlorine Residual Minimum of 2.0 mg/1
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, land application of pretreated wastewater
is regulated by permit. Irrigation and infiltration-percolation methods are
regulated by a no-discharge permit. Cases involving overland flow methods
will be regulated by a surface water discharge permit.
EPA's Best Practicable Treatment document provides guidelines for the
protection of groundwater quality for land application systems where waste-
water is percolated through the soil and becomes part of the permanent ground-
water. Critera are set forth for chemical, pesticide, and bacteriological
constituents. In addition, groundwater used as a water supply source which is
affected by the land application of wastewater must comply with EPA's standards
for drinking water supply sources.
TREATMENT CAPACITY/PHASED CONSTRUCTION
In order to maintain cost-effective treatment facilities, the capacity
of the proposed facilities must be carefully evaluated. This important
component of the facility planning process was addressed in the previous
section. Phasing the construction of collectors and treatment facilities is
one method to control sewage capacity and service area growth. To aid the
preparation of facility plans, the EPA has proposed guidelines for cost-
effective analysis that include staging periods for treatment plants and
interceptors.
V-15
-------
"The capacity of treatment plants, i.e., new plants, upgraded plants or
expanded plants,...shall not exceed that necessary for wastewater flows
projected during an initial staging period determined," by one of the
following two methods:
0 Staging periods of 10, 15, and 20 years are to be analyzed,
and the least-cost staging period selected,
0 Staging period determined according to the following table:
TABLE V-6
STAGING PERIODS FOR TREATMENT PLANTS
Flow Growth Factor Maximum Initial Staging Period (years)
(20 yr)* Qo < 1 mgd Qo > 1 mgd
1.3 or less
1.3 to 1.8
1.8 or greater
20
20
10
20
15
10
* Ratio of wastewater flow expected at end of 20 year planning period
to initial flow when plant is expected to become operational
(Q20/Q0)> (Ref. 25 ).
Staging periods less than the maximum allowed under the two methods are
also permissable when adequate justification is provided; however, no staging
period may be less than ten years. Data pertaining to existing flow has not
yet been provided by the facility planning engineer; therefore, staging period
calculations cannot be made for the upgrading of the Ashland facility and the
construction of the Totopotomoy Creek facility.
In addressing the staging of interceptors, EPA permits construction only
to serve existing developments or areas where development is underway, or to
eliminate existing point source discharges. Interceptor pipe sizes are to be
staged for a period of 20 years. Longer staging periods are not to exceed
40 years and normally involve less frequent construction, less disruption of
traffic, business and other daily activities, and less disruption of flora
and fauna, noise, erosion and sedimentation. Shorter staging periods relieve
pressure to rezone or accelerate growth enabling quicker recovery of the non-
Federal share of interceptor investment. Interceptor peak flows are to be
formulated under the following considerations:
V-16
-------
0 Daily and seasonal variations of pipe inflows, timing of inflows
and pipe storage effects,
° Feasibility of off-pipe storage in reducing peak flows,
0 Use of peak flow factor that decreases as average daily flow
increases, (Ref. 25 ).
Since the above draft regulations were published after the iniation of both
the Facility Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, the standard 20-year design
period was selected for formulation of treatment plant and interceptor
alternatives. Staging periods for treatment plants and interceptors are to
be developed by the facility planner, but as of October, 1978, this data has
not been received for incorporation and evaluation in this document.
Numerous alternatives could be developed for staging interceptors within
the Phase II service area. Delay in constructing certain interceptors may
contribute to more orderly county development and greater compatability with
current county growth plans. The greatest advantage in a 5, 10, or 20 year
phasing period is the more equitable financial impact on county residents.
Five basic alternatives relating to delayed construction of Phase II inter-
ceptors are presented in the following discussion, (please refer to Section III
for discussion and illustration of alternatives).
1. Totopotomoy Creek Interceptor - East of Route 301
Placement of sewerage facilities east of Route 301 has consistently been
a controversial element of Phase II Area Plans. Due to the sporadic develop-
ment and environmental features of this area, interceptor construction must
be carefully evaluated. Delay in constructing the Totopotomy Creek Intercep-
tor between Routes 301 and 606 would affect flow in Planning Unit Five. Flow
3
from new development of approximately 1,100 households or 1,249 m /d
(330,000 gpd using 100 gpcd) may be saved from the initial system if construction
is delayed ten or fifteen years. The feasibility of this alternative is extremely
limited by the fact that under the existing areawide interconnection alternative
(AI), the major interconnection for Upper Totopotomoy and possible Industrial
Corridor flow is the Totopotomoy Crrek interceptor. Alternative interconnection
schemes such as utilizing Route 640 should be considered.
The area east of Route 301 also represents an important ecological habitat
of mature hardwood forests, and is characterized downstream by sensitive wet-
land areas. Soils in this area are considered fair to good for septic tank
percolation, and the number of incidents of reported septic tank failures is
V-17
-------
relatively low. For these reasons, the separate Totopotomoy Creek system
proposed under Alternative RI must be carefully evaluated for phasing. One
possible alternative is to delay construction east of Route 301 and inter-
connect the Upper Totopotomoy Creek Basin flow to Henrico County.
2. Upper Totopotomoy Creek Interceptor
Three major factors contributed to the routing of the upper Totopotomoy
Creek interceptor:
a. Placement of the sewer along Totopotomoy Creek was considered more
cost-effective than utilizing alternate right-of-ways,
b. The interceptor is effectively placed to receive flow from the
Kingswood Court Subdivision, and
c. Industrial Corridor flow may possibly be received by utilizing the
Totopotomoy Creek Easement.
Significant parcels of undeveloped land are located along Totopotomoy
Creek between Kingswood Court and Henry Clay Heights. Development may be
more orderly by sewering this land at a later date. Under this alternative,
the Kingswood Court treatment facility could be upgraded at an approximate
cost of $125,000, and an alternative Industrial Corridor interconnection
route along Route 637 to Route 301 could be constructed.
3. Kersey Creek Interceptor
As shown in Section III, the Kersey Creek Interceptor is a component of
the Upper Totopotomoy Creek alternative. The largest existing development in
this area is Hanover Hills, and a pump station is required to transfer this
flow to treatment facilities. Possible significant cost and energy savings
could be realized by implementing a package treatment facility at Hanover
Hills. Adequate central sewer facilities must be provided to Hanover Hills
as this area has experienced a high frequency of failing septic tanks.
4. Stony Run Interceptor
Major development within the areas adjacent to Stony Run is expected to
be of industrial nature. Extensive placement of gravity sewer has been
recommended to connect sporadic placement of existing industry. Delay in the
construction of the entire Stony Run interceptor may alleviate high capital
O
costs and save a significant portion of 1,240 m /d (330,000 gpd) of future
industrial flow. Existing industry would be burdened by facing the high
costs of meeting NPDES permit requirements. Future industry would be
severly curtailed in the Stony Run areas where no centralized sewerage
facilities would be provided.
V-18
-------
Alternative RI recommends interconnection of the Industrial Corridor to the
Henrico County facilities. A flow of 4,883 m3/d (1.29 mgd) is expected accord-
ing to the Facility Plan. This interceptor should be delayed until firm docu-
mentation is obtained on future industrial flow.
5. Lickinghole Creek Interceptor
The Lickinghole Creek transmission route serves industrial development
along 1-95 and traverses parallel to the Stony Run Interceptor. Phasing
portions of the Lickinghole Creek interceptor could control the other element of
future Industrial Corridor flow. Delay in constructing gravity sewer along
Upper Lickinghole Creek or re-routing sewer along Route 1 is feasible.
FLOW REDUCTION TECHNIQUES
A viable alternative towards reducing excessive capital costs of cen-
tralized sewerage facilities is to reduce water consumption and therefore,
the generation of wastewater. Flow reduction controls may consist of struc-
tural and non-structural measures. Education is usually the first step
towards achieving flow reduction. The development and implementation of
water conservation programs is an effective non-structural measure. Laws or
ordinances requiring installation of water saving plumbing fixtures and
appliances in new homes and other habitations could reduce wastewater flows
from nr--7 developments by 30 to 35 percent.
Flow control devices range from bricks or plastic bottles placed in
toilets to complex recycling systems. Approximately one quart per flush is
saved in the utilization of a brick or bottle. Limited flow valves for
showers, lavatories, and sinks, and faucet aerators may be utilized to reduce
or even flow and reduce splashing. Smaller water reservoir toilets consume
approximately 3.5 gallons per flush as opposed to the normal 5 or 6. A two
cycle toilet marketed in Great Britian requires 2.5 gallons for flushing
solids and 1.25 gallons for disposing liquid, (Ref. 30 ). Other low flow
fixtures include:
0 Toilets with shallow-trap water closets
0 Vacuum-flush toilets
0 Compressed air-assisted toilets
0 Level controls on washing machines
0 Warm recycled air from showers combined with small volume of
water (Ref. 31 ).
V-19
-------
Several water recycling toilet systems have been proposed for industrial
uses. These systems operate via a closed loop system through a series of
chambers. In some industries, these systems may save 600,000 gallons per
year. Costs for the recycling systems range from $12,000 to $32,000
depending on the system's size. The State of California presently requires
that the tank-type water closets installed in newly constructed hotels, motels,
apartments, and dwellings must operate on less than 3.5 gallons per flush.
Flow reduction devices are effective, as shown by several studies. One
study evaluated the extensive use of water conservation devices in travel
trailers. A 70 percent reduction in water consumption was achieved, (Ref.31).
Table V-7 presents data related to retrofitting of existing households for
increased water savings. The analysis indicates that a reduction of 19 percent
in water consumption can be achieved. Table V-'8 describes further savings
associated with installing water saving devices in new homes.
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT METHODS FOR STREAM DISCHARGE
Adequate discussion of possible cost savings associated with utiliz-
ing alternative treatment processes cannot be undertaken until a com-
plete description of the Totopotomoy Treatment Plant alternative is
provided. In the interim, alternative treatment processes leading to
stream discharge of effluent, will be briefly described.
The major limitation on permitted treatment processes is wasteload
allocations. Table V-4 previously presented the applicable wasteload
allocations for the Phase II Facility Plan. BODU allocations are shown
in Ibs/day. The given TKN effluent limitations for the Ashland and
Totopotomoy Creek discharges are 20 mg/1. Table V-9 presents an alter-
native set of wasteload allocations utilizing a variable TKN limitation
based on flow. BOD allocations are equivalent in both tables account-
ing for identical assimilative capacities.
Table V-10 illustrates the major difference associated with the
two sets of wasteload allocations.
V-20
-------
TABLE V- 7
Functions
and
Fixtures
RETROFIT
Assumes %
Total
Use
Toilets (5 gal) 40%
SAVINGS FOR INSTALLING DEVICES IN TYPICAL HOUSEHOLD (SUBURBAN)
(60 gpd1 x
Assumes
Device Savings
Dis- 20%
place-
ment Dam
(1 sal)
Bathing (1/4 Bath 30% Fine Spray 50% of
tub - 3/4 shower) Shower Heads Shower
Laundry
Culinary,
Misc.
Total
Percent Water
^Assumed
Analysis: 1.
2.
3.
4.
20% None Assumed 0%
10% None Assumed 0%
Savings
3.5 persons - 210 gal/day)
Use
Without
Device
84
63
42.0
21.0
210
7 year life and 6 3/8% interest
Annual savings - water supply cost - treat
Water supply plus adequate treatment cost
Annual savings per household = $2.00/1000
Annual savings per 1000,000 persons (28570
Use
With Cost Annual
Device of Cost of
(gal) Device Device
67.2 2 @ $5 $1.82
each
39.4 1 @ $3 $0.54
each
42.0
21.0
169.6 $2.36
19%
ment cost - device cost
assumed equal to $2.00 per 1000 gallons
gallons x 40 gal x 365 days - $2.36 = $27.13
households) = $755,100 + energy savings.
In-house
Energy
Savings
No
Yes
-
-
Footnote:
1. GPCD means gallons per capita per day
-------
TABLE V-
I
M
POTENTIAL COSTS/SAVINGS FOR INSTALLING WATER SAVING DEVICES IN NEW HOMES (SUBURBAN)
Functions
and
Fixtures
Toilets
(5 gal)
Bathing
(1/4 Bathtub—
3/4 Shower
Automatic
Clothes
Washer
Kitchen and
Lavatory
Faucets
Automatic
Dish Washer
Totals
* Assumed 7 year
Analysis: 1.
As s ume s
Total
Use
40%
30%
35
gal/load
17%
7%
12
gal/load
6%
life and 6
(60 gpcd x 3.5 persons = 210 gal/day)
% Use Without Use With Increased Annual
Assumes Devices Devices Cost of Cost of
Device Savings (gal) (gal) Device Device*
3.5 30% 84.0 58.8 0 0
gal
Flush
Tank
Fine 50% of 63.0 39.4 0 0
Spray Shower
Shower Use
Heads
18 50% 35.7 18.0 0 0
gal/load
Washer
Spray on 20% 14.7 11.8 $10.00 $1.82
Lavatory
Faucets
7.5 38% 12.6 7.8 0 0
gal/load
210 135.8 $10.00 $1.82
3/8% interest % Savings 35%
In-house
Energy
Savings
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
Annual savings per household = $2.00/1000 gal x 74.2 gal x 365 days - $1.82 - $52.35
day year
2. Annual savings per 100,000 persons (28,570 households) = $1,496,000 + energy savings
-------
TABLE V-9
ho
ALTERNATIVE WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
Est,
Discharge
Location (mgd.)
1. Ashland 0.8
1,4
2. Totopotomoy 0.5
Creek
2.1
2.7
3.5
Lbs/day Allocation
BODU
787
1,238
442
1,264
1,734
2,185
2,802
CBOD5
187
345
213
363
473
665
832
NOD
600
893
319
901
1,261
1,520
1,970
Effluent Limitation
(mg/1)
TKN
131
195
70
197
276
333
431
CBOD5
28
30
29
29
27
30
28
TKN
20
17
17
16
16
15
15
-------
TABLE V-10
COMPARISON OF WASTELOAD ALLOCATION SCENARIOS
Removal Efficiencies
Discharge
Location
1. Ashland
2. Totopotomoy
Creek
Discharge
Quantity
(mgd)
0.8
1.4
0.5
1.5
2.1
2.7
3.5
Facility Plan
CBOD
88%
93%
93%
95%
96%
97%
98%
TKN
35%
34%
34%
34%
34%
34%
34%
Alternate
CBOD
88%
88%
88%
88%
89%
88%
88%
TKN
35%
44%
46%
47%
47%
51%
51%
As seen in Tables V-4 and V-5, decreasing the TKN effluent limitation en-
ables an increase in CBOD . In all cases, the BODu discharged to the receiving
waterway is identical to the volume of BOD calculated under the Facility Plan
wasteload allocations. The BOD removal efficiencies required under alternative
wasteload allocations are 88% or 89%. These values are within the range of re-
moval efficiencies of secondary waste treatment.
The following discussion focuses on possible alternatives for effluent
discharge. Details are provided in the 201 Facility Plan.
Secondary Treatment
Trickling Filters
This form of treatment has been in use for many years and involves the
trickling of wastewater through a bed of stones from one to three metres
(3 - 10 ft) in depth. Microbes within the stone bed decompose the wastewater
before final clarification and disinfection. In some cases, two filters are
utilized for a "two-stage" treatment approach.
Activated Sludge
This biological treatment process utilizes agitation and aeration of a
mixture of wastewater and biological sludge. Continuous air injection
stimulates microbe growth and more rapid wastewater treatment. Following
aeration, the mixture is allowed to settle, and the solids are normally returned
to the aeration tank while the effluent is disinfected and discharged. Vari-
ances in the activated sludge process include tapered aeration, step aeration,
complete mix, and contact stabilization.
V-24
-------
Oxidation Ponds
These ponds of 0.4 to 1.2 metres (2-4 ft) depth treat wastewater through
the interaction of sunlight, wind, algae, and oxygen. Wastewater enters the
pond at an edge or the middle and allowed to decompose. Many communities of
less than 10,000 people utilize this form of treatment.
Advanced Treatment
Removal of other pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals
is not a major factor in the SWCB's development of wasteload allocations. For
this reason, the alternative allocations previously discussed were developed
in the same manner. Removal of nitrients and heavy metals involve advanced
wastewater treatment, (AWT). AWT treatment options are briefly described in
the following:
0 Coagulation with alum, lime or ferric chloride for phosphorus
removal
0 Filtration through sand or coal to remove suspended or collodial
matter
° Carbon adsorption for removal of organic contaminants
o Biological nitrification-denitrification for nitrogen control by
ultimate conversion to nitrogen gas
o Ammonia stripping for removal of gaseous ammonia from water
o Selective ion exchange for exchange of ammonium ions with
sodium or calcium ions.
o Breakpoint chlorination for conversion of ammonium nitrogen to
nitrogen gas
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT BY GROWTH SCENARIO
Local, subregional, and regional alternatives formulated by the facility
planner can be grouped by growth scenario. Table V-ll illustrates this re-
lationship.
V-25
-------
TABLE V-ll
FACILITY PLANNING GROWTH SCENARIOS
Alternative
Ashland Upgrade (Al)
Ashland Upgrade (A2)
Ashland/Ashcake (Bl)
Ashland/Ashcake (B2)
Southern Corridor (SCI)
Southern Corridor (SC2)
Industrial Corridor (1C)
Totopotomoy Basin (TI)
Totopotomoy Basin (T2)
Totopotomoy Basin (T3)
Regional Interconnection (RI)
Areawide Interconnection (AI)
Areawide Treatment (81)
Limited Build (LB)
Type
Growth
Local
Local
Subregional
Subregional
Subregional
Subregional
Subregional
Subregional
Subregional
Subregional
Areawide
Areawide
Areawide
Areawide
Low
Low
Low-medium
Low-medium
Medium
Medium
Medium-high
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium-high
Medium-high
High
Low
Additional alternatives have been developed to correspond to the low,
medium, and high growth scenarios. Low growth may be accomplished by installing
adequate facilities to existing development clusters without provision for future
growth. One alternative to upgrading facilities within the Town of Ashland would
3
consist of utilizing the 1,893 m d (0.5 mgd) excess capacity at the Doswell treat-
3
ment plant. The remaining 1,514 m d (0.4 mgd) Ashland flow would be treated at
the existing Ashland facility. The use of the Doswell facility would depend upon
utilization of the plant by the Bato Corporation and institutional arrangements
between Hanover County, Ashland, and Doswell.
Other low growth alternatives include the use of package treatment plants
and on-site disposal systems. These items are discussed under a separate heading
within Section V. Low to medium growth rates would be experienced in the sub-
regional Ashland/Ashcake area under the facility planning Bl and B2 alternatives.
The major factor affecting the growth rate will be the amount of commercial and
industrial development. One alternative to controlling development would be
phased implementation or sewering of only the upper portion of the Ashcake area.
Medium growth rates would be expected from a normal phasing of sewers within
the Southern Corridor and Totopotomoy Basin. Due to (1) the necessity to main-
tain water quality standards, (2) lack of suitable effluent discharge locations
within the Southern Corridor, and (3) close proximity of 1-95, service should
be provided to the Lickinghole Creek Basin between Routes 660 and 656. Within
V-26
-------
the Totopotomoy Basin, a comparison should be made between upgrading the Kings-
wood Court package facility and elimination of the Upper Totopotomoy Creek Inter-
ceptor, with the proposals of Alternatives Tl and T2. The ecological habitat
of Upper Totopotomoy Creek would remain unchanged, cost savings of approximately
10,000 feet of sewer and one pumping station would be realized, and interconnection
with Henrico County facilities could easily be made.
Growth within the Industrial Corridor could range from a medium to high level
depending on the extent of the sewer system provided. Significant discrepancy
exists between flow projections made for this area by the facility planner and
in the absence of documentation, allowable industrial increases which will be
funded by EPA. Several alternatives can be developed within this framework.
The Lickinghole Creek sewer could be constructed with Federal funding while a
package facility could be constructed along Stony Run utilizing monies provided
locally or by industry. This alternative would in effect limit industrial growth
within the Stony Run Basin.
Medium to high growth rates within the Phase II area as a whole will result
from the systems proposed under Alternatives RI and AI. The extent of sewers
implemented for industrial growth will greatly affect the magnitude of areawide
growth. County officials must first decide on the growth approach which will be
taken and second on the funding mechanism (Federal, local, or private) to
accomodate the selected approach.
The highest growth rate will be witnessed under Alternative 81, as this
alternative permits the highest amoung of Phase II land to be sewered. An
additional alternative to 81 would include construction of trunk sewer and force
main as planned with interconnection of the Industrial Corridor flow to Henrico
County and the remaining Phase II area served by a treatment plant on Totopotomoy
Creek.
ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
In communities containing a population of 50,000 or less, the provision of
centralized sewerage facilities has become increasingly financially burdensome.
Expensive treatment facilities in an area such as the Hanover County Phase II
Service Area (population 13,893), must be carefully evaluated for cost-effective-
ness and impact on the county residents. In many cases, small communities should
place more emphasis on technically efficient, least-cost disposal systems.
V-27
-------
Common on-site treatement methods may consist of one of the follow-
ing:
o Septic tank - disposal directly to drain field
o Septic tank - disposal through intermittent sand filter
o Individual aerobic treatment system
Most on-site systems consist of a septic tank with effluent dis-
charged to a drain field. Septic systems offer a distinct cost ad-
vantage in low density, high cost sewer areas. A typical household
septic tank plus 500 square feet of leaching field, plus annual main-
tenance, costs approximately $150 annually per household (Ref. 32).
Alternate leaching fields may also be used to relieve continuous septic
load on one drainage area.
Septic tile systems utilize treatment by the soil to decompose
organic matter. Effluent total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen
demand, and soluble organic carbon may be reduced from 75 to 90 percent.
Reductions in phosphate may range from 25 to 50 percent. An 80 to 90
percent reduction in ammonia may be expected; however, this reduction is
counteracted by increasing nitrification and nitrate increases in ground-
water. Better efficiencies are achieved in late summer and early fall
as higher air and soil temperatures are prevalent (Ref. 33).
On-site treatment methods have proven their worth; collection costs
may be reduced by 20% over conventional methods. In addition, user
costs may be halved, and total project costs reduced by 40%
Table V-ll illustrates the cost savings associated with on-site systems
utilized in the small communities of Haysi and Hurley, Virginia (popu-
lations 3,030 and 3,900, respectively).
V-28
-------
TABLE V-12
COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND ON-SITE TREATMENT
FOR HAYSI AND HURLEY, VIRGINIA
Construction Cost
Related Project Costs
(35%)
Total Project Cost
Amount Financed
Annual Budget
Customer Cost (Annual)
Hay
Case A1
?6, 255, 110
2,189,289
8,444,399
1,688,880
174,329
202.00
si
Case B2
?2, 476, 085
866,630
3,342,715
668,543
80,425
93.19
Hurley
Case A1
$6,653,085
2,328,580
8,981,665
1,796,333
228,120
204.78
2
Case B
$2,708,975
948,140
3,657,115
731,423
98,232
102.22
1. Conventional collection and treatment to serve entire area.
2. Conventional treatment for concentrated development and individual
treatment units for remaining areas.
Source: Virginia Record, July 1977.
The use of septic systems within the Phase II Area of Hanover
County is extremely limited by soil composition. Generally, the best
soils for leachate drainage are located in the Middle and Lower
Totopotomoy Creek and Crump Creek regions. Septic tank permits are no
longer issued for Kingswood Court, Totopotomoy Estates, Beechwood Farms,
Blue Star Estates, and Hanover Industrial Air Park. Other subdivisions
have also experienced septic tank failures. The continued use of
septic systems has been rejected as a viable alternative due to ground-
water level, soil composition, and spatial distribution of Phase II
Area development.
Extended aeration package treatment plants are used extensively to
treat wastes generated by specific subdivisions. These facilities are
capable of achieving removals of 85 percent of BOD and 60 percent for
suspended solids. Initial costs range from $60 to $250 per person served
or $200 to $600 per house, (Ref.35). Totopotomoy Estates, Kingswood Court
and Oak Hill Estates presently provide package facilities.
V-29
-------
The costs for upgrading the Totopotomoy, Kingswood, and Oak Hill
facilities were presented in Section III. Utilizing subdivision popu-
lation estimates (see Section II), the following comparisons are
formulated:
TABLE V-13
PER CAPITA COSTS OF UPGRADING PACKAGE FACILITIES
Subdivision
Totopotomoy Estates
Kingswood Court
Oak Hill Estates
1977
Population
523
220
242
Upgrading Capital
Costs
$ 275,000
125,000
455,000
Per Capita
Capital Costs
$ 526
568
1,880
As shown in Table V-7, per capita costs for upgrading the above
mentioned facilities is high; upgrading costs were formulated
on the basis of meeting state water quality standards. In addition,
the provision of upgraded facilities only in these areas would severely
limit orderly county development. Other limited growth and "no action"
impacts were discussed in the previous section. Revised package facility
costs are provided in the August 1978 version of the Phase II plan.
Table V-13 illustrates this analysis:
TABLE V-14
Per Capita
Capital Costs
$1,338
1,045
1,942
1,749
1,677
Upgrading costs shown in Table V-13 yield an unbelieveably burdensome
capital expenditure; however, justification of these costs must be pro-
vided by the facility planning engineer.
REVISED
Subdivision
Totopotomoy
Kingswood
Oak Hill
Beachwood
Blue Star
PER CAPITA COSTS:
1977
Population
523
220
242
343
155
PACKAGE FACILITIES
Upgrading Capital
Costs
$700,000
230,000
470,000
600,000
260,000
V-30
-------
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERIA: LAND APPLICATION OF EFFLUENT
The development of land application alternatives in Section Til was pre-
dicated on design requirements promulgated by the State of Virginia. The rec-
ommendations contained in EPA's "Evaluation of Land Application Systems" offer
additional alternatives. Variances may be implemented in both land application
site facilities and pretreatment requirements.
Assuming spray irrigation is the chosen method of application, the Common-
wealth of Virginia sets a maximum application rate of two inches per week. An
application rate of 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week on a seasonal basis is acceptable
to EPA. Higher application rates permit increased loading over a smaller sur-
face area; however, in many cases, higher application rates are impractical due
to excessive disruption of the nitrogen balance. Additional pre-treatment pro-
cesses may be added to permit increased application. The following relationships
exist for land application sites 1 and 2 between system size, actual sprayed
area, and application rates:
TABLE V-15
LAND REQUIRED FOR VARIOUS APPLICATION RATES
System Size
0.4 hectares
2
4
8
16
Sprayed Area
( 1 acre)
( 5 " )
(10 " )
(20 " )
(40 " )
0.
1.
3.
6.
12.
3
5
1
3
5
hectares (0.
(3.
(7.
(15.
(31.
79 acre)
9 " )
9 " )
7 " )
4 " )
10
5
4
4
4
Application Rate
cm/ day
cm/ day
cm/ day
cm/ day
me /day
( 4
( 2
(1.
(1.
(1.
in.
in.
5 in
5 in
5 in
)
)
•
.
m
Source: Bremner, Youngblood & King
The feasibility of using an increased application rate must be carefully
evaluated by detailed site specific analyses. Due to the seasonal high ground
water and relatively poor soil percolation, it is doubtful a higher application
rate could be successfully utilized at the selected land application sites.
The excessive cost of an extensive underdrain collection system and preapplica-
tion facilities would limit the feasibility of implementation.
As mentioned in Section III, Virginia requires pre-application treatment
at the levels of 40 mg/1 monthly average prior to holding, for both BOD^ and
suspended solids. A minimum chlorine residual of 2.0 mg/1 is also required.
V-31
-------
Specific preapplication requirements are not recommended by EPA but instead
are to be formulated on a case-by-case basis. Pretreatment is based on public
health considerations, relationships to loading rates, and compatibility with
physical equipment. An important preapplication effluent parameter is the
concentration of suspended solids and associated possibility of soil clogging
and damage to physical equipment.
ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Exact sludge management alternatives cannot be formulated until details of
the site facilities of the Totopotomoy Treatment Plant alternative are made
available. Ultimate disposal options may be addressed at this time. Presently,
sludge generated at the Ashland Plant is applied to Hanover County farmland.
Additionally, sludge produced by the City of Richmond Treatment Plant is also
applied to Hanover County farms. Disposal alternatives include landfilling and
land application of either liquid or dried sludge.
Landfilling
Dried stabilized sludge or incinerator ash is buried under the
landfilling option. Landfilling operations normally involve low energy
utilization and flexibility of operation. Potential problems include
loss of nutrients, nuisance odors and gases, and potential groundwater
or surface water contamination.
Land Application
Alternatives for applying sludge to the land vary with the mois-
ture content of the sludge. Application may be undertaken as a liquid
sludge, dewatered cake, or as a dry fertilizer. Dewatered sludge may
be utilized for a variety of purposes including a nutrient source or
soil conditioner. After the sludge cake is applied to the ground and
plowed over, better aeration results as the sludge is assimilated into
the soil. In addition, certain dewatered sludges may be disposed of with
solid wastes depending on the volumes of each.
Typical sludge generated from a municipal treatment plant con-
tains approximately 3 percent phosphorus, 1-7 percent nitrogen and
1 percent potassium. Exact amounts of sludge that may be applied to the
V-32
-------
land depend on specific site and sludge characteristics such as type
of soil, land use, and nitrogen content of the sludge. Under State of
Virginia design regulations, the initial design application rate shall
not normally exceed five tons per year (4,535 kg/yr.). In addition,
single applications may not exceed a soil depth of 0.5 inches (1.3 cm).
Liquid sludge is normally applied by one of three methods: spray
irrigation, ridge and furrow infiltration, and spreading from tank
trucks. The use of a land application method for Hanover County depends
largely on access to sufficient land, equipment for transport and
application, and a monitoring program for measuring effects on surface
and groundwater. Application of sewage sludges along the Pamunkey and
Chickahominy River Watersheds should be avoided to protect water
quality.
Composting is a feasible land application method utilizing
a wind-row process or mechanical aeration system. Sludge is mixed
with wood chips or shredded paper and arranged in windrows which are
turned daily for aeration. Under the mechanical aeration system, com-
post piles are not turned, but instead thru-aerated at a predetermined
rate. Composting advantages over liquid application include compost's
retention of nutrients, excellent ability as a soil conditioner, and
odor control. An effective composting program within Hanover County
should be undertaken in conjunction with sludge material produced
from the Richmond Treatment Plant.
V-33
-------
-------
SECTION VI
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
The following preliminary conclusions have been developed based upon informa-
tion collected and analyzed during the preparation of the Draft EIS. A plan for
providing sewerage facilities to the Phase II Service Area has not been selected
at this time. As noted in the Preface and Item One of the following discussion,
several components of the 201 Facility Plan are missing. Completion of the Facility
Plan must be undertaken so that conclusions reached in the EIS and Facility Plan
can be interwoven with response to comments provided during public review. A
final recommendation will be made following the public review period.
1. The Phase II Service Area Facilities Plan needs to be completed and
organized in a format which permits sequential development and
analysis of alternatives. Items of importance to the citizens of
Hanover County which should be addressed were noted in the Preface
of this Draft EIS.
2. Due to existing growth pressures and malfunction of sewerage facilities
within the Phase II Area, the need exists for the provision of public
sewerage facilities. Emphasis should be placed on providing adequate
service to existing subdivisions and developed areas having a high
potential for future water quality problems (see discussion in
Section II).
3. The extent of sewerage facilities provided will directly affect the
magnitude of growth within the Phase II Service Area and Hanover
County as a whole. The county must decide on the type of growth
desired and the funding mechanism utilized. Institutional and
financial considerations must be agreed upon by Hanover County and
the Town of Ashland.
4. Excess capacity exists with flow projections developed by the
facility planner. The major differences occur in the residential
daily wastewater generation rates and future industrial flow (see
discussion in Section III).
VI-1
-------
5. This Draft EIS utilizes alternatives developed by the facilities
planner and builds on this basis to provide a comprehensive examina-
tion of wastewater treatment options for the Phase II area. Due to
the independence in both content and format of the EIS and Facility
Plan, both documents should be reviewed concurrently for alternatives
development.
6. The land application local and subregional alternatives should receive
further consideration. Recent changes in Federal funding of land
application projects make this form of treatment generally more
cost-effective on the local level. Detailed site specific surveys
should also be conducted as a component of the planning process to
further determine environmental impacts.
7. As identified in Section IV, Alternative 81 is associated with
numerous significant adverse environmental impacts. These impacts
relate to the Totopotomoy Creek sensitive ecological area, extensive
clearing of the treatment plant site, land use and development of
prime agricultural land, and impact on historic sites. Due to this
finding, the other identified areawide alternatives with the exception
of Limited Build should be considered as more feasible alternatives.
8. Subregional Alternative T3 is environmentally unacceptable. Sewerage
facilities should not be placed in the Lower Totopotomoy Basin, a
critical environmentally sensitive area.
9. As an aid to selecting the most feasible sewerage Facilities Plan,
the following alternatives presented by growth scenario should be
considered acceptable and receive further consideration.
A. Low to Moderate Growth
1. Ashland Upgrade Alternatives Al and A2,
2. Southern Corridor Alternative SCI,
3. Totopotomoy Basin Alternatives Tl and T2.
B. Moderate to Potential High Growth
1. Industrial Corridor Alternative 1C,
2. Areawide Alternatives RI and AI.
VI-2
-------
Given the political, institutional, and environmental constraints presented in
this document, it appears that the most feasible options available to the Phase
II Area consists of either Alternative Al and A2 and Alternatives RI or AI with
possible phasing and local treatment modifications as discussed in Section V of
this EIS.
VI-3
-------
-------
REFERENCES
1. Bremner, Youngblood & Sharp, Inc., "Hanover County Facilities Plan,
Phase II, Volumes I and II (The Plan, Appendix)," Mechanicsville,
Virginia (November 1975).
2. Bremner, Youngblood & Sharp, Inc., "Addendum: Hanover County Facilities
Plan: Final Report," Mechanicsville, Virginia (February 1976).
3. Roy F. Weston Environmental Consultants, "York River Basin Water Quality
Management Plan, Volume V-A," Planning Bulletin 229-A.
4. Commonwealth of Virginia State Water Control Board, "Water Quality
Management Plan for the Greater Richmond Metropolitan Area (Planning
District No. 15)," Richmond, Virginia (August 1974).
5. Engineering-Science, Inc., "James River Comprehensive Water Quality
Management Study," Richmond, Virginia (August 1974).
6. Harland Bartholomew and Associates, "The Comprehensive Plan for Hanover
County, Virginia," (June 1972).
7. EcolSciences, inc., "Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Hanover
County, Virginia Phase I Sewerage Improvement Program," Vienna, Virginia
(June 1974).
8. Hanover County Planning Office, "Controlling the Impact of Development:
A Growth Management Plan for Eastern Hanover," Hanover, Virginia
(April 1977).
9. Hanover County, Virginia, Zoning Ordinance.
10. U. S. Water Resources Council, PEERS Projections: Regional Economic
Activity in the U.S., Washington, D.C. (April 1974).
11. Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, "Annual Transportation
Report, Richmond Regional Area Transportation Study," (1976).
12. Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc., "Town of Ashland Sewer System
Evaluation Survey," Mechanicsville, Virginia (August 1977).
13. Personnel Communication with James Bruce, Director of Department of Public
Utilities, Hanover County, by Stephen W. Bailey, P.E. of Engineering-
Science (July 1977).
14. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment,
and Disposal, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York (1972).
15. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division,
"Soils of Hanover County, Virginia," Report No. 17, Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Blacksburg, Virginia
(June 1975).
R-l
-------
REFERENCES
(continued)
16. Personal Communication with William L. Jackson, Supervisory Sanitarian,
Hanover County Health Department, by Richard C. Green, Environmental
Planner, Bremner, Youngblood and King, Inc. (21 June 1977).
17. Harms, L.L. and Southerland, E. V., "A Case Study in Non-Point Source
Pollution in Virginia," Virginia Water Resources Research Center Bulletin
88, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1975).
18. U. S. Geological Survey, "Water Resources Data for Virginia, Water Year
1975," Water Data Report VA-75-1, Richmond, Virginia (September 1976).
19. R. Stuart Royer and Associates, "Report: Hanover County, Virginia,
Proposed Water System Facilities," Richmond, Virginia (February 1976).
20. Hanover County Department of Public Utilities, Water Use Data, 1976-1977,
(July 1977).
21. Virginia Division of State Planning and Community Affairs, "Critical
Environmental Areas," Richmond Virginia (December 1972).
22. Personal Communication with Virginia State Fish and Game Department by
Stephen W. Bailey, P.E. of Engineering-Science (July 1977).
23. Personal Communication with Margaret O'Bryan, Past President of Richmond
Audobon Society, by Robert Bremner, Jr. of BYK, Inc., Mechanicsville,
Virginia (July 1977).
24. Personal Communication with the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission,
Research Center for Archeology by Mr. Fred Kennedy of Economic Research
Associates (July 1977).
25. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposed Regulations Implementing
Clean Water Act of 1977," [40CFR Part 35] (25 April 1978).
26. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Final EIS Supplemental Information
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Henrico County, Virginia," (20 March
1978).
27. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Evaluation of Land Application
Systems," (March 1975).
28. Virginia State Water Control Board, "Water Quality Standards," (November
1974).
29. Vertex Corporation.
R-2
-------
REFERENCES
(continued)
30. Sharpe, W. E., "Water Conservation Devices," American Water Works
Association (1976).
31. Bohac, Charles E. and Raymond A. Sierke, "Domestic Water Conservation's
Effect on Activated Sludge," (1975).
32. Hudson, James F., "Environmental Impact of On-site Systems."
33. Viraraghanan, T. and R. G. Warnock, "Efficiency of a Septic Tile System,"
WPCF Journal Vol. 48, No. 5 (May 1976).
34. Breeding, Steven G., "How to Deal with the Cost of Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for Small Rural Communities," Virginia Record (July 1977).
35. Chanlett, Emil T., Environmental Protection (1973).
36. Personal Communication with Dr. Silberhorne, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (4 October 1978).
R-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
HANOVER COUNTY SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION
AND WATER QUALITY DATA
-------
APPENDIX A
HANOVER COUNTY
SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION
Class
IIB
IIIA
IIIA
Section Basin and Description
York River Basin
1 Pamunkey River and the tidal
portions of its tributaries
from Thorofare Creek near West
Point to the end of tidal waters.
3 Free flowing portions of the
Pamunkey River and free flowing
tributaries of the Pamunkey above
Romancoke, unless otherwise
designated.
3 a South Anna River from Ashland's
raw water intake to a point five
miles upstream.
3 e The North Anna River and its trib-
utaries from Hanover County's raw
water intake near Doswell (approxi-
mately 1/2 miles upstream from State
Route 30) to a point five miles up-
stream.
James River Basin
5 Chickahominy River and its tribu- IIIA
taries, unless otherwise designated,
from Bottoms Bridge (Route 60
bridge) to its headwaters.
5 a Brandy Branch (a tributary to IIIB
Beaverdam Creek).
5 b Unnamed tributary to Lickinghole IIIB
Creek which has its confluence 1.38
miles above the mouth of Licking-
hole Creek.
9 a Tuckahoe Creek from its confluence IIIB
with the James River to its head-
waters.
10 a James River and its tributaries IIIA
from, and including, Little River to
5 miles above State Farm's raw water
intake, including Beaverdam and Court-
house Creeks, to their headwaters.
Special
Standards
Public Water
Supply
m
m
m
Public Water
Supply, o
Public Water
Supply
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A- 2
WATER
PAMUNKEY RIVER
QUALITY DATA(
@ ROUTE 2/301
1)
BRIDGE
RIVER MILE 88.1
Sampling Date
January 1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
April 1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
August 1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Dissolved
Oxygen ^ '
(mg/1)
12.8
8.4
11.4
13.9
-
11.6
11.0
11.4
9.9
9.0
7.0
8.0
7.8
7.4
7.6
Fecal
Coliforms '
(per 100 ml)
< 100
-
< 100
100
-
< 100
1800
1700
< 100
< 100
< 100
200
< 100
< 100
< 100
Total Kjeldahl Total
3) Nitrogen (4) Phosphate*^
(mg/1) (mg/1)
0.3 <0.1
0.1 <0.1
-
0.2
-
0.4 <0.1
0.4 <0.1
0.3
-------
APPENDIX A-2
(1)
WATER QUALITY DATA
PAMUNKEY RIVER @ ROUTE 360 (PAMUNKEY R. BRIDGE)
(BELOW CONFLUENCE WITH TOTOPOTOMOY CREEK)
RIVER MILE 56.87
Sampling
January
April
August
Date
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Dissolved
Oxygen (2'
(mg/1)
-
12.8
10.0
-
-
11.0
9.6
7.6
9.2
10.0
7.0
8.2
7.0
6.6
6.8
Fecal
Coliforms ^ ;
(per 100 ml)
-
200
<100
-
-
100
200
200
100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
100
Total Kjeldahl Total ,,,
Nitrogen (4) Phosphate
(mg/1) (mg/1)
-
0.3 <0.1
0.2 <0.1
-
-
0.5 0.1
0.5 <0.1
0.3 <0.1
0.5 <0.1
0.3 <0.1
0.3 <0.1
0.4 <0.1
0.4 <0.1
0.2 <0.1
0.3 <0.1
(1) Monthly grab samples.
(2) VSWCB stream standards are 5.0 mg/1 daily average and 4.0 mg/1
minimum.
(3) VSWCB stream standards are not to exceed a log mean of 200/100 ml
and not to exceed 400/100 ml in more than 10 percent of the
samples.
(4) No VSWCB stream standard.
Source: Virginia Ftate Water Control Board (VSWCB) Water Quality
Monitoring Program —STORET Retrieval (May 1977).
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A-2
WATER QUALITY DATA
Sampling Date
January 1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
April 1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
August 1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
NORTH
Dissolved ,
Oxygen
(mg/l)
-
14.0
11.8
12.6
-
-
9.6
8.4
10.9
9.0
8.0
8.4
7.8
7.8
7.6
ANNA RIVER @ DOSWELL
RIVER MILE 5.42
Fecal ,3, Total Kjeldahl Total /^
Coliforms Nitrogen (4) Phosphate
(per 100 ml) (mg/l) (mg/l)
-
<100
<100
100
-
-
<100
100
<100
<100
400
<100
<100
<100
<100
-
0.4 <0.1
0.2 <0.1
0.3 0.1
-
-
0.7 <0.1
0.3 <0.1
0.4 <0.1
0.3 <0.1
0.5 <0.1
0.5 <0.1
0.3 <0.1
0.3 0.1
0.2 <0.1
(1) Monthly grab samples.
(2) VSWCB stream standards are 5.0 mg/l daily average and 4.0 mg/l
minimum.
(3) VSWCB stream standards are not to exceed a log mean of 1000/100 ml
and not to exceed 2000/100 ml in more than 10 percent of the
samples.
(4) No VSWCB stream standard.
Source: Virginia Ptate Water Control Board (VSWCB) Water Quality
Monitoring Program — STORET Retrieval (May 1977).
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A- 2
*-1'*
WATER QUALITY DATAV
CHICKAHOMINY RIVER @ ROUTE 627 BRIDGE
RIVER MILE 64.64
Sampling
January
April
August
Date
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Dissolved
Oxygen (2)
(mg/1)
11.0
10.4
10.0
11.0
11.0
10.6
10.2
6.4
9.7
9.4
4.8
2.6
3.0
1.0
1.1
(per 100 ml)
200
<100
<100
<100
<100
100
<100
<100
<100
<100
400
300
<100
<100
100
Total Kjeldahl
1 NitrogenC^)
(mg/1)
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.3
0.4
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.5
2.0
1.5
0.4
0.6
Total
Phosphate (4)
(mg/1)
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.08
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.2
(1) Monthly grab samples.
(2) VSWCB stream standards are 5.0 mg/1 daily average and 4.0 mg/1
minimum.
(3) VSWCB stream standards are not to exceed a log mean of 1000/100 ml
and not to exceed 2000/100 ml in more than 10 percent of the
samples.
(4) No VSWCB stream standard.
Source: Virginia Ftate Water Control Board (VSWCB) Water Quality
Monitoring Program — STORET Retrieval (June 1977).
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
FORMULATION OF PER CAPITA FLOWS
-------
APPENDIX B
PER CAPITA WASTEWATER GENERATION RATES
FOR FUTURE WASTEWATER FLOW ESTIMATES
1. Per capita wastewater generation rates for the Phase II study area are based
on water consumption analyses. With the exception of the Town of Ashland,
the per capita annual average consumption of water per day for the Phase II
study area is assumed to approximate that of Hanover County which has been
estimated to be 85 gpcd by R. Sutart Royer and Associates in a County-wide
water facilities study (Proposed Water System Facilities, Hanover County,
Va. , 1976). This figure includes domestic, commercial, public use consumption,
and losses and waste.
2. Existing per capita water use for the Town of Ashland is considerably higher
that the above-mentioned County average. According to water use records for
the Town, existing per capita water uses averages 105 gpcd (4275 persons
consumed an estimated average of 450,000 gpd in 1977 — BYK, Inc., in the Ashland
SSES, August 1977). This figure includes domestic, commercial, public use,
and in-Town industrial consumption. A reason that might explain the relatively
high per capita consumption in the Town of Ashland as compared to the remainder
of the Phase II Area and the County is the higher level of commercial activity,
hence water use, per capita.
3. Per capita wastewater flows are assumed to be 80% of the per capita water
consumption (Metcalf & Eddy, 1972). Therefore, the Town of Ashland's per
capita flows are 80% (105 gpcd) or 84 gpcd of wastewater; and the remainder
of the Phase II study area per capita wastewater flows are 80% (85 pgcd), or
68 gpcd.
4. It may be helpful to look at these per capita flows as follows:
Residential Non-Residential Total
Ashland 60 gpcd 24 gpcd 84 gpcd
Phase II Area 60 gpcd 8 gpcd 68 gpcd
It should be noted that these figures do not include allowable infiltration.
5. Allowable sewer line infiltration may be expressed in terms of per capita
wastewater generation for planning purposes. This may be done by converting
B-l
-------
from allowable infiltration expressed as gpd per inch-mile of sewer to gpd
per capita.
6- Allowable infiltration is based on a rate of 500 gpc per inch-mile of
existing sewer (Metcalf & Eddy, 1972) and 200 gpd per inch-mile of new
sewer (Commonwealth of Virginia Sewerage Regulations, 1977).
7. The allowable per capita infiltration component for the Phase II study area
(with the exception of the Town of Ashland) can be computed with the assump-
tion that the ratio of sewer inch-miles per person in areas that are already
sewered will be the same for newly developing areas to be sewered in the
remainder of the Phase II study area. The existing ratio for Ashland is:
182 in.-miles of sewer
. „-,. = 0.04.
4j>00 persons
Therefore, new sewers (200 gpd per in-mile) convert to an allowable per
capita rate of:
0.04 in.-miles 200^ =
person in.-mile 6F
And, established sewers (500 gpd per in-mile) convert to:
0.04 in.-miles 500 gpd = 2Q
person in.-mile 6F
8. For planning purposes, the allowable per capita infiltration rate over a 20
year period in the Phase II study area is assumed to be the average of the
rates for new and established sewers, or 14 gpcd allowable infiltration.
9. For the Town of Ashland, allowable infiltration will be expressed in absolute
values rather than as a per capita figure because of the data available. The
town of Ashland has 181.9 inch-miles of sewer at present (BYK, Inc. in
Ashland SSES, 1977). Therefore, the current allowable infiltration for the
Town is:
(181.9 in.-miles) (500 gpd per in.-mile) = 91,000 gpd infiltration.
Now assume 25% more sewer is added to the Town of Ashland's system in the
20-year facility planning period: 45 inch-miles. Therefore, at the end of
the planning period, and additional infiltration allowange of
(45 in.-miles) (200 gpd per in.-mile) = 9000 gpd infiltration will occur.
-------
Assuming all excessive I/I is removed from the Town of Ashland System by the
year 1983 (the beginning of the planning period), the 20-year absolute allowable
infiltration for the Town will be:
91,000 gpd @ 1983, and
100,000 gpd @ 2003.
10. In summary, for the purpose of estimating future wastewater flows for the
Hanover Phase II Facility Plan EIS, the following is assumed:
• For the Phase II area excluding Ashland, per capita wastewater flows
are:
60 gpcd base residential
8 gpcd non-residential
14 gpcd allowable infiltration
82 gpcd total.
• For the Town of Ashland, per capital flows excluding allowable infil-
tration are 84 gpcd. Allowable infiltration will increase from 91,000
to 100,000 gpcd over the planning period.
11. Industrial wastewater flows will be computed separately.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
POPULATION AND GROWTH PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
-------
POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Population projections for the Richmond region and Hanover County were
developed by the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs (DSCPA) (Ref
11-15). The methodology employed in developing projections follows the basic
steps outlined below.
1. Define the boundaries of the economic region under study
through an analysis of commuting patterns, regional mar-
keting patterns, and community ties.
2. Identify the basic industries in the area.
3. Assemble historical employment data for the basic indus-
tries, aggregate the data and subtract basic employment
totals from a total employment figure to derive supporting
employment. Analyze the assembled data and project basic
and supporting employment to the desired time period.
4. Aggregate the projected basic employment, analyze the
historic relationship between the size of the basic and
supporting sectors, select an appropriate basic-supporting
multiplier and apply the multiplier. This process yields
a total labor force projection.
5. Analyze the historic relationships between population and
size of labor force, select an appropriate population labor
force multiplier and apply the multiplier. This procedure
yields a total population projection.
6. Adjust the population total where necessary to better re-
flect specific demographic trends (i.e., trends in natural
increase rates, density rates, and rates of in-migration),
commuting pattern trends, and special population character-
istics (..eg., the presence of large military populations or
retirement commurities).
C-l
-------
The underlying assumptions of this methodology are given below.
1. Employment in any economic area can be divided into two sec-
tors - basic and supporting. Basic employment is that type
of employment utilized in the production of goods and ser-
vices which will be exported from the area and thereby cause
income to flow into the area (e.g., manufacturing employment).
On the other hand, supporting employment is directed toward
the provision of services for the population within the eco-
nomic area (e.g., local government employment).
2. Growth in the basic sector is the key to growth in the sup-
porting sector. As basic industry expands, more commodities
are exported and additional income flows into the area. In-
creased community income levels tend to stimulate the demand
for services supplied by the the supporting sector. The in-
creased employment opportunities which develop in these sec-
toral expansions encourage in-migration and population growth.
3. The historical relationships between income, employment, and
population in an area are important in projecting their
future relationships.
4. Political boundaries between jurisdictions will remain
unchanged.
5. The relationship between employment and population in a
given area is altered by heavy in-commuting to the area
and the presence of a large female labor force. In these
cases, employment opportunities are filled by in-commuters
or resident females rather than by in-migrants, thereby
slowing population growth.
6. Growth of the supporting sector occurs most rapidly in
areas with high income civilian populations.
7. In cases where sizable portions of a community's income
are derived from transfer payments or sources other than
the export of commodities, employment in the supporting
sector may grow independently of employment in the basic
sector.
8. In instances where a city serves as a regional trading
center, portions of employment which would otherwise be
classified as supporting might be assigned to the basic
sector to reflect those services which the city provides
to areas outside the economic region.
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
CHARACTERISTICS OF RICHMOND
REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT
-------
Richmond Regional Planning District
Hanover County is in Planning District Fifteen, the Richmond Regional
Planning District Commission area, as designated by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. This includes the City of Richmond, and the Counties of Charles
City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Henrico, New Kent, Powhatan, and Hanover.
As shown in Table 11-20, the total population of the Richmond Regional
Planning District was 576,300 in 1974. The four most populous jurisdictions
are Richmond City, Henrico County, Chesterfield County, and Hanover County.
The Richmond metropolitan area has been undergoing rapid suburbanization
in the last decade and the data in Table D-l demonstrate the growing propor-
tion of population in the suburban counties. Richmond City's share of the area
population is gradually declining from 53.5 percent in 1960 to a projected share
of 25.9 percent by 2000. The counties registering the most dramatic gains are
Hanover, going from 6.0 percent in 1960 to 12.1 percent by 2000, and Chester-
field County, increasing from 9.5 percent to 22.8 percent over the same period.
An analysis of the components of population change in Table D-2 indi-
cates that recent growth for the Richmond region has been balanced between a
natural increase and migration.. Further analysis of the counties indicates that
there has been a net out-migration from Richmond City and Goochland County and
large in-migrations to Hanover, Chesterfield, and Henrico Counties. In Hanover
County, from 1970-1974, the ratio of natural population growth to migration was
one to seven. In the Richmond region, this ratio was 1 to 1.08.
The age distribution of the population will show only minor changes through
1980. As shown in Table D-3, the 0-19 age group will be a smaller part of the
total population by 1980, declining from 36.7 percent in 1970 to 32.3 percent in
1980. The 20-64 age group will represent an increased portion of the population
growing from 54.6 percent to 58.6 percent over the same period. The portion of
the population over 65 will increase slightly, as a percent of the total, from
8.7 percent to 9.1 percent.
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l
POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY COUNTY
Percent
County of
1960 Total 1970
IN
Percent
of
Total 1974
THE RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT - 1960-2000
Percent
of
Total
Percent
of
1980 Total
Percent
of
1985 Total
Percent
of
1990 Total
Percent
of
1995 Total
Percent
of
2000 Total
Hanover County 27,550 6.0% 37,479 6.8% 45,500 7.9%
Charles City County 5,492 1.2 6,158 1.1 6,500 1.1
Chesterfield County 43,855 9.5 77,045 14.1 97,700 17.0
Goochland County
Henrico County
New Kent County
Powhatan County
Richmond City
9,206 2.0 10,069
10,200
1.1
60,000 9.4% 71,000 10.3% 83,700 11.4% 95,000 12.1% 108,000 12.9%
7,500 1.2 8,100 1.2 8,700 1.2 9,400 1.2 10,100 1.2
125,000 19.6 142,800 20.8 162,000 22.0 179,600 22.8 198,000 23.6
12,000 1.9 13,400 2.0 15,100 2.0 17,000 2.2 19,100 2.3
117,339 25.4 154,364 28.2 166,200 28.8 194,500 30.5 209,500 30.5 224,500 30.5 240,000 30.5 255,800 30.4
4,504 1.0 5,300 1.0 6,800 1.2
6,747 1.5 7,696 1.4 10,300 1.8
7,500 1.2 8,500 1.2 9,600 1.3 10,700 1.4 11,900 1.4
12,000 1.9 13,700 2.0 15,400 2.1 17,300 2.2 19,300 2.3
Total 461
,993 100.
. 0% 547,542
100.0% 576,300
100.
, 0% 638,500
100.0%
686,000 100.
0% 737,000
100.
0% 787,000
100.0% 840,200 100.0%
County
Hanover County
Charles City County
Chesterfield County
Goochland County
Henrico County
New Kent County
Powhatan County
Richmond City
Average
1960-1970
3.
1.
5.
0,
2,
1
1,
0
1
. 1
.2
.8
.9
.8
.6
.3
.1
.7
1970-1972
5.6
1.1
5.2
0.2
2.6
5.5
9.3
-3.0
0.8
Average
1972-1980
4,
2.
4,
2
2
3
3,
-0
1
.6
.2
.9
.2
.3
.0
.4
.8
.7
Annual Rate of Change
1980-1985
3.4
1.6
2.7
2.2
1.5
2.5
2.7
-0.1
1.4
1985-1990
3.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
2.
-0.
1.
3
4
6
4
4
5
4
1
4
1990-1995
2.
1,
2.
2.
1.
2,
2.
1.
,6
.5
,1
,4
.3
.2
.4
.3
1995-2000
2.6
1.4
2.0
2.4
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.3
Source: Va. DSPCA anci Economics Research Associates.
-------
TABLE D-2
COMPONENTS
OF POPULATION CHANGE BY COUNTY IN THE RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT, 1960-1970 AND
1960-1970
Natural Increase
County
Hanover County
Charles City County
Chesterfield County
Goochland County
Henrico County
a New Kent County
i
Powhatan County
Richmond City
Total, Richmond
Regional PDC
Births
6,415
1,476
18,483
1,795
26,798
1,041
1,219
42,738
99,965
Deaths
2,789
539
5,352
865
9,175
508
655
28,852
48,735
Absolute
3,636
937
13,131
930
17,623
533
564
13,886
51,230
Average
Annual
Rate
1.2
1.6
2.7
1.0
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.5
1.1
Migration
Absolute
6,303
-271
20,059
-67
19,402
263
385
-11,755
34,319
Average
Annual
Rate
2.1
-0.5
3.8
-0.1
1.5
0.6
0.6
-0.5
0.7
Births
2,389
429
5,913
663
10,107
457
458
16,014
36,430
1970-1974
1970-1974
Natural Increase
Deaths
1,391
243
1,986
364
5,140
232
316
12,915
22,587
Absolute
998
186
3,927
299
4,967
225
142
3,099
13,843
Average
Annual
Rate
0.7
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.6
Migration
Absolute
7,023
156
16,728
-168
6,869
1,275
2,462
-19,430
14,915
Average
Annual
Rate
4.4
0.6
5.0
-0.4
1.1
5.5
7.2
-2.0
0.7
Source: Division of State Planning and Community Affairs; and Economics Research Associates.
-------
TABLE D-3
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY COUNTY IN THE RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT, 1960-1980
0-19
1960
20-64
1970
1980
65-over
o-iy
20-64
65-over
0-19
20-64
65-over
Per- Per- Per-
Absolute cent Absolute cent Absolute cent
Per- Per- Per-
Absolute cent Absolute cent Absolute cent
Per- Per- Per-
Absolute cent Absolute cent Absolute cent
Hanover
County
Charles City
County 2,725 49.6
Chesterfield
County
Goochland
County
Henrico
County
New Kent
County
Powhatan
County
11,403 41.4% 14,037 51.0% 2,110 7.7%
2,356 42.9 411 7.5
29,528 41.5 38,151 53.6 3,518 4.9
4,680 50.8 862 9.4
46,113 39.3 65.012 55.4 6,214 5.3
2,209 49.0 406 9.0
3,353 49.7 658 9.8
72,624 33.0 123,583 56.2 23,751 10.8
3,664 39.8
1,889 41.9
2,736 40.6
14,861 39.7% 19,735 52.7% 2,883
2,891 46.9 2,816 45.7 451
31,656 41.2 41,792 54.4 3,407
3,997 39.7 5,180 51.4 892
56,586 36.7 87,329 56.6 10,449
2,156 40.7
2,971 38.6
2,740 51.7 404
4,046 52.6 679
7.7%
7.3
4.4
8.9
6.8
7.6
Richmond
City
TOTAL,
Richmond
Regional PD 170,682 36.9 253,381 54.8 37,930 8.2
85,897 34.4 135,451 54.3 28,273 11.3
201,015 36.7 299,089 54.6 47,438 8.7
20,367 33.9% 35,033 58.4% 4,600 7.7%
3,013 40.2 3,939 52.5 548 7.3
44,945 35.6 74,758 59.8 5,747 4.6
4,238 35.3 6,705 55.9 1,057 8.8
59,028 30.3 118,790 61.1 16,682 8.6
2,645 35.3 4,252 56.7 603 8.0
3,971 33.1 7,128 59.4 901 7.5
68,164 31.0 123,617 56.2 28,219 12.8
205,921 32.3 374,222 58.6 58,537 9.1
Source: Richmond Regional PDC, Economics Research Associates.
a
i
-------
The pattern of population densities in the Richmond region (refer to
Table D-4) can be broken down into four distinct categories. The City of
Richmond, with high density development and a population density per square
mile of 3,885 in 1974, is the most intensely developed. The next area is the
close-in suburban area of Henrico and Chesterfield Counties, with population
densities of 725.8 and 221, respectively. The third area is the fringe
suburban area, Hanover County, with a population density of 97.8 in 1974.
The remaining counties, Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan are
basically rural in character and all have population densities in the range
of 32 to 38 persons per square mile.
Study Area
Hanover County is comprised of 70 traffic zones. These zones have been
established by the Richmond Regional PDC and, for each zone, current estimates
and projections are made for population, housing units, and automobile ownership.
As part of this preliminary analysis, the County has been divided into three
sections by using traffic zones. A review of population growth projections
indicates that growth will be relatively uniform across the County in the next
20 years.
TABLE D-4
Section
East
Middle
West
TRAFFIC
HANOVER
1975
19,062
14,814
10,617
ZONE ANALYSIS OF
COUNTY POPULATION
1995
40,266
27,992
19,743
Percent Increase
111%
89%
86%
Source: Richmond Regional PDC.
For the eastern section of the county, the area east of U.S. 301, population is
projected to increase 111 percent to 40,266. For the other two sections, the
middle and western sections, the population is projected to increase by 89
percent and 86 percent, respectively.
D-5
-------
TABLE D-5
a
i
ON
POPULATION DENSITIES BY COUNTY IN THE RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT
1960
County
Hanover County
Charles City County
Chesterfield County
Goochland County
Henrlco County
New Kent County
Powhatan County
Richmond City
Total, Richmond
Regional PDC
Land Area
(Square Miles)
466
184
460
289
232
212
268
37
2,148
Population
Density
59.1
29.8
154.8
31.9
505.8
21.2
25.2
5,944.8
215.1
1970
Land Area
(Square Miles)
465
181
442
289
229
210
269
60
2,145
Population
Density
80.6
34.0
174.3
34.8
674.1
25.2
28.6
4,157.2
255.3
1974
Land Area
(Square Miles)
465
181
442
289
229
210
269
60
2,145
Population
Density
97.8
35.9
221.0
35.3
725.8
32.4
38.3
3,885.0
268.7
1980
Land Area
(Square Miles)
465
181
442
289
229
210
269
60
2,145
Population
Density
129-0
41.4
282.8
41.5
849.3
35.7
44.6
3,666.7
297.7
Source: Richmond Regional PDC.
-------
FIGURE IT-1
PLANNING DISTRICTS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
SCALE
-------
TABLE D-6
LAND USE BY PLANNING AREAS, HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
JUNE 1969
Planning Area
Number and Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Beaverdam
Montpelier
Rockville
Doswell
Ashland West
Elmont
Ashland
Ashland East
Atlee
Hanover
Pierson
Rural Point
Mechanics ville
Studley
Cold Harbor
Old Church
COUNTY TOTAL
Agriculture /Forest /Vacant
Total
51,087,4
37,733.6
21,005.4
26,799.5
14,313.9
18,183.3
209.7
10,817.4
10,111.5
7,704.0
5,130.3
9,864.0
7,051.3
17,850.7
14,670.9
30,110.8
282,625.7
Percent of
Total Acreage
In These Uses
18.1%
13.4
7.4
9.5
5.1
6.4
0.1
3.8
3.6
2.7
1.8
3.5
2.5
6.3
5.2
10.6
100.0%
Commercial
Hotel/
Motel
2.3
2.7
7.7
2.7
4.6
15.2
2.8
1.2
39.2
Services
11.8
29.4
4.0
2.7
78.3
9.3
43.9
23.0
11.4
49.1
23.0
13.0
70.6
104.6
16.1
409.2
Trade
10.4
10.9
8.1
25.0
6.0
16.4
20.2
20.5
15.9
4.1
6.2
5.2
26.1
2.5
11.8
4.1
193.4
Total
22.2
40.3
12.1
30.0
87.0
33.4
66.8
48.1
42.5
53.2
32.0
18.2
97.9
107.1
27.9
4.1
722.8
Percent of
Total Acreage
in These Uses
3.1%
5.6
1.7
4.2
12.0
4.6
9.2
6.7
5.9
7.4
4.4
2.5
13.5
14.7
3.9
0.6
100.0%
Industrial
Total
71.8
61.5
9.9
39.3
17.7
69.5
2.7
23.3
16.5
3.8
3.2
30.4
1.0
6.5
4.0
361.1
Percent of
Total Acreage
in This Use
19.9%
17.0
2.7
10.9
4.9
19.2
0.7
6.5
4.6
0.0
1.0
0.9
8.4
0.3
1.8
1.1
100.0%
o
I
oo
-------
APPENDIX
(Continued)
Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Beaverdam
Montpelier
Rockville
Doswell
Ashland West
Elmont
Ashland
Ashland East
Atlee
Hanover
Piersons
Rural Point
Mechanics ville
Studley
Cold Harbor
Old Church
COUNTY TOTAL
Residential
Single
Family
565.0
541.0
396.0
380.8
518.1
645.1
202.9
241.3
442.6
176.0
625.0
499.5
1,263.4
211.7
674.9
405.0
7,788.5
Multi-
Family
1.2
1.0
13.4
4.4
0.7
20.7
Trailers/
Trailer
Parks
7.5
20.5
16.0
11.0
13.4
56.2
2.1
6.0
3.5
3.0
7.5
6.5 1
8.0
13.0
8.5
182.7 7
Total
572.5
561.5
412.0
391.8
532.7
702.3
218.4
241.3
448.6
179.5
628.2
507.0
,274.3
219.7
688.6
413.5
,991.9
Percent of
Total Acreage
in This Use
7.2%
7.0
5.2
4.9
6.7
8.8
2.7
3.0
5.6
2.2
7.9
6.3
15.9
2.7
8.6
5.2
100.0%
Religious/
Cultural/
Recreation
Percent of
Total Acreage
Total in This Use
52.3 7.4%
32.6 4.6
29.5 4.2
37.4 5.3
99.3 14.1
70.2 9.9
35.3 5.0
18.4 2.6
48.5 6.9
7.4 1.0
6.4 0.9
14.9 2.1
80.1 11.3
29.5 4.2
25.3 3.6
118.8 16.8
705.9 100.0%
Transportation/Communications/Utilities
Roads
568.9
462.7
349.9
646.2
291.9
317.3
121.5
424.0
393.0
145.6
237.1
203.4
440.7
205.9
320.8
362.8
5,491.7
Other
176.9
93.8
117.2
427.8
212.5
364.0
13.6
203.0
48.4
98.3
71.2
4.3
34.3
3.1
10.0
1,878.4
Percent of
Total Average
Total in This Use
745.8 10.1%
556.5 7.6
467.1 6.3
1,074.0 14.6
504.4 6.9
681.3 9.2
135.1 1.8
627.0 8.5
441.4 6.0
243.9 3.3
308.3 4.2
207.7 2.8
475.0 6.4
209.0 2.8
330.8 4.5
362.8 4.9
7,370.1 100.0%
Total-
All
Land Uses
52,552
38,986
21,936
28,374
15,555
19,740
668
11,782
11,109
8,188
6,109
10,597
9,009
18,417
15,750
31,014
299,784
a
i
Source: Ref. I1-9.
-------
TABLE D-7
7
h-'
O
ECONOMIC
FORECASTS FOR THE RICHMOND
1970
Wage & Salary Earnings
Agriculture, Forestry
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation,
Communications ,
Utilities
Wholesale and Retail
Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Government
Total
Amount
7
0
118
387
145
330
143
241
333
$1,721
.6
.8
.5
.3
.3
.0
.1
.2
.4
.1
Percent
of Total
0.
0.
6.
23.
8.
19.
8.
14.
19.
100.
4%
1
9
1
5
4
3
0
3
0%
1980
Amount
10
1
183
600
220
470
239
449
515
$2,690
.4
.8
.1
.3
.3
.0
.8
.4
.1
.6
Percent
of Total
04
0.
6.
22.
8.
17.
8.
16.
19.
100.
.%
1
8
3
2
5
9
5
2
0%
METROPOLITAN AREA ($ MILLIONS)
1985
Amount
10
2
218
716
262
546
294
575
615
$3,243
.8
.0
.1
.6
.2
.6
.9
.3
.1
.7
Percent
of Total
0
0
6
22
8
16
9
17
19
100
.3%
.1
.7
.1
.1
.9
.1
.7
.0
.0%
1990
Amount
11
2
259
855
312
645
362
736
734
$3,910
.2
.1
.9
.5
.0
.6
.6
.7
.5
.5
Percent
of Total
0.
0.
6.
21.
8.
16.
9.
18.
18.
100.
3%
1
7
9
0
3
3
8
8
0%
Includes Richmond City and the Counties Hanover, Henrico, and Chesterfield.
Sources: Ref. 11-14 and Economics Research Associates
-------
o
I
TABLE D-8
FARMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS (VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD),
CHESTERFIELD, GOOCHLAND, HANOVER, HENRICO, AND POWHATAN COUNTIES AND
THE STATE, 1969
Type and Class
of Farm
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Class VI
Number
2,816
3,525
5,313
8,760
10,677
7,343
Virginia
Percent of
All Farms
4.4%
5.5
8.2
13.6
16.5
11.4
Richmond
Number
92
91
140
163
249
143
Metro. Area
Percent of
All Farms
5.2%
5.2
8.0
9.4
14.3
8.2
Hanover
Number
43
43
57
76
100
55
County
Percent of
All Farms
6.3%
6.3
8.3
11.1
14.6
8.0
Total Commercial
Farm 38,434
Other Farms, In-
cluding Part-Time
& Institutional 26,138
Total, All Farms 64,572
59.5
40.5
100.0%
940
800
1,740
54.0
46.0
100.0%
365
319
684
53.4
46.6
100.0%
Note: Class sizes are as follows: I - Sales of $40,000 or more; II - Sales of $20,000 to $39,999;
III— Sales of $10,000 to $19,999; IV - Sales of $5,000 to $9,999; V - Sales of $2,500 to $4,999;
VI - Sales of $50 to $2,499.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1969 U.S. Census of Agriculture; and
Economics Research Associates.
-------
TABLE D-9
HANOVER COUNTY EMPLOYMENT SECTOR TRENDS,
Work Force
Population
Civilian Work Force
Percent of Population
Unemp loyment
Percent of Work Force
Employment
Nonagricultural Employment
Manufacturing
a Nonmanufacturing
i
K> Contract Construction
Transportation and Public
Utilities
Wholesale and Retail
Trade
Finance, Insurance and
Real Estate
Service
Government
All other non-
manufacturing
All Other Nonagricultural
Agricultural
1960
27,550
9,025
25.5
389
5.5
6,636
5,496
1,100
2,829
288
139
702
67
726
814
89
1,571
1,140
1970
37,479
8,813
23.5
281
3.2
8,532
7,796
1,801
4,919
591
69
1,560
103
818
1,265
113
1,476
736
1971
38,651
9,536
24.7
420
4.4
9,116
8,404
1,726
5,164
666
60
2,119
104
782
1,336
97
1,514
712
1974
45,500
18,518
41.0
372
2.0
18,146
10,324
2,098
8,226
1,600
126
3,600
158
782
1,641
128
N/A
N/A
1975
47,397
19,501
41.0
619
3.2
18,882
10,275
1,981
8,294
1,274
125
3,502
169
973
1,703
78
N/A
N/A
1970-1975
Percentage
1960
100.0%
20.0
51.5
5.2
2.5
12.8
1.2
13.2
14.8
1.6
28.5
Distribution of Nonagricultural Employment
1970
100.
23.
63.
7.
0.
20.
1.
10
16.
1.
18.
0%
1
1
6
9
0
3
5
2
4
9
1971
100.0%
20.5
61.4
7.9
0.7
25.2
1.2
9.3
15.9
1.2
18.0
1974
100.0%
20.3
79.7
15.5
1.2
34.9
1.5
9.4
15.9
1.. 2
-
1975
100.0%
19.3
80.7
12.4
1.2
34.1
1.6
13.1
16.6
0.8
-
Sources: Virginia Employment Commission and Economics Research Associates.
-------
APPENDIX E
SERVICE AREA PLANNING UNIT POPULATION PROJECTIONS
-------
Appendix TableJE-1
PHASE II SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR SAPU I -
TOWN OF ASHLAND AND ENVIRONS
Town of Ashland
Area Outside Ashland
SAPU 1
Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Total
Year Growth Rate Population Growth Rate Population Growth Rate Population
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
—
1.5%
2.3
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.5%
4,275
4,470
5,007
5,639
6,223
6,737
7,044
—
1.5%
2.6
2.3
1.8
1.9
1.5%
1,500
1,568
1,773
1,978
2,160
2,360
2,468
—
1.5%
2.5
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.5%
5,775
6,038
6,780
7,617
8,383
9,097
9,512
Source: Bremner, Youngbiood & King, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates,
E-l
-------
TABLE E-2
PHASE II SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SAPU 2 - INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR, 1977-2003
Average Annual
Year Growth Rate Population
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
—
1.5%
2.5
2.2
1.8
1.7
1.5%
804
841
946
1,050
1,145
1,242
1,298
PHASE II SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SAPU 3 - INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR, 1977-2003
Average Annual
Year Growth Rate Population
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
—
1.5%
2.5
2.5
1.8
1.7
1.5%
872
911
1,025
1,138
1,242
1,346
1,406
Source: Bremner, Youngblood, & King, Inc.; and
Economics Research Associates.
E-2
-------
APPENDIX TABLE
PHASE II SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SAPU 4 - UPPER TOTOPOTOMOY, 1977-2003
Average Annual
Year Growth Rate Population
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
—
3.3%
3.5
3.4
2.9
2.6
2.6%
2,314
2,753
3,254
2,727
4,217
4,541
PHASE II SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SAPU 5 - LOWER TOTOPOTOMOY BASIN, 1977-2003
Average Annual
Year Growth Rate Population
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
—
3.7%
3.9
3.6
2.8
2.5
2.5%
3,290
3,668
4,425
5,287
6,072
6,870
7,398
Source: Bremner, Youngblood, & King, Inc.;
and Economics Research Associates.
E-3
-------
PHASE II SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SAPU 6 - INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR, 1977-2003
Average Annual
Year Growth Rate Population
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
—
.5%
10.6
7.0
5.2
4.1
3.4%
448
677
1,038
1,399
1,760
2,121
2,338
PHASE II SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SAPU 7 - INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR, 1977-2003
Average Annual
Year Growth Rate Population
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
—
17.2%
11.4
6.9
4.7
3.5
2.9%
695
1,054
1,657
2,231
2,753
3,238
3,519
Source: Bremner, Youngblood, & King, Inc.;
and Economics Research Associates.
E-4
-------
APPENDIX F
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS AND SOIL ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
-------
TABLE F~
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS WITHIN HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Name
Age
Lithology
Groundwater Characteristics
Petersburg Granite
Paleozoic or
Precambrian
Microcline, biotite granite
and chlorite granite
Reported yields range from 0.3 to
more than 1.9 I/sec (5 to more
than 30 gpm).
Granite gneiss
Uncertain
Biotite and muscovite
gneiss, granodiorite
gneiss
Yields range from 0.1 to 4 I/sec
(1.5 to 62 gpm) in wells 39 to
160 m (128-525 feet) deep in
Spotsylvania Co. Hanover Co. yields
less than 1.2 I/sec (20 gpm).
Newark Formation
(undivided)
Triassic
Sandstone, gray and brown;
shale, red to gray
Reported yields range from 0.3 to
7.5 I/sec (5 to 119 gpm).
Patuxent
Formation
(Potomac Group)
Lower
Cretaceous
Sandstone, arkosic; sand-
stone gray to buff, cross-
bedded with interbedded
clays; and gravel
Best water source in Virginia
Coastal Plain. Reported yields 3.2
to over 6.3 I/sec (50 to over 100
Aquia
Formation
Tertiary
(Eocene)
Sand, glauconitic, fine to
medium grained, fossilif-
erous
Reported yields range from a "few"
gpm to 2-3 I/sec (35 to 46 gpm).
Nanj emoy
Formation
Tertiary
(Ecocene)
Sand, argillaceous, glau-
conitic, locally gypsi-
ferous
No water-bearing zones are known
in this formation in Hanover County.
-------
TABLE F-
(continued)
Name
Age
Lithology
Groundwater Characteristics
Calvert
Formation
Tertiary
(Miocene)
Clay, dark gray, olive or
buff, sandy, diatomaceous;
and sand, fine grained buff
Not an important aquifer, may
serve as aquiclude confining water
to underlying water-bearing sands.
St. Mary's
Formation
Tertiary
(Miocene)
Sand, gray, yellow or brown,
locally glauconitic; and
clay, blue to gray, uncon-
solidated, fossiliferous
Not considered to be a water-bearing
formation.
Yorktown
Formation
Tertiary
(Miocene)
Coquina, Tan to reddish
brown, crossbedded; and sand
buff, clay, blue to gray,
unconsolidated, fossiliferous
Most important Miocene aquifer;
reported yields range from 0.4 to 1.3
I/sec (6 to 20 gpm).
Metamorphosed
volcanic and
sedimentary rock
Unknown
Extrusive igneous rocks
and interlayered sedimentary
rocks
Reported yields range from 1 to 3.6
I/sec (17 to 57 gpm).
Source: Ref. II-1
-------
TABLE F-2
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS OF HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Figure
II-2 Iden- Soil Association
tification
Characteristics
Topography
Location
Suitability/Comments
1 Wedowee-Pacolet-
Appline
Deep, well drained, light
colored, textured surface.
Red, yellow, acid subsoil.
Sloping to steep
Piedmont Uplands
Suited to general farming.
Flooding is hazard on narrow
bottom lands. Poor to fair
suitability for septic tank
drainfields.
Vance-Orange
Deep, to moderately deep,
moderately well drained.
Light colored, textured
surface, firm, sticky
clay subsoil.
Gently sloping to
sloping
Piedmont Uplands
Not well suited to farming
or construction activities.
Structural foundations re-
quire special design. Poorly
suited for septic tank drain-
fields.
Pacolet-Cullen-
Madison
Deep and less deep, well
drained. Light colored
textured surface. Red
and dark red clay sub-
soil.
Gentle sloping to
moderately steep
Piedmont Uplands
Well suited to farming. Poor
to fair suitability for septic
tank drainfields.
Wedowee-Vance-
Appling
Pacolet-Cecil-
Poindexter
Fluvanna-Colfax-
Worsham
[Pinks ton-Mayodan-
Creedmoor]-Bourne-
Marlboro
Moderately deep and deep,
well drained. Light
colored and textured
surface.
Moderately deep and deep,
well drained clayey and
loamy soils. Red and
brown subsoils.
Moderately deep and deep,
well to poorly drained,
clayey soils. Loamy
subsoils and fragi-
pan.
Moderately deep and deep,
well to moderately drained,
clayey and loamy soils.
Gently sloping to
steep
Sloping to very
steep
Gently sloping to
sloping
Gently sloping to
very steep. Also,
along ridgetops
Piedmont Uplands
Piedmont Uplands
near creeks and
rivers
Piedmont Uplands
and wet "flats"
Area around Gum-
tree and Doswell
communities.
Well suited to farming.
Flooding is hazard along the
branches, creeks and rivers.
Well suited to forestry,
general farming. Poor to fair
suitability for septic tank
drainfields.
Well suited to forestry,
general farming, generally
poor suitability for septic
tanks.
Suited to general farming.
Flooding is a hazard on narrow
bottom lands. Poor to fair
suitability for septic tank
drainfields.
Vance-Chesterfield-
Pouncey
Deep to moderately deep,
clayey soils on thin
overlay. Well to poorly
drained.
Gently sloping to
sloping
Area from Chicka-
hominy River to west
of Ashland
Well suited to forestry. Poor
to fair suitability for septic
tank drainfields.
-------
TABLE F-2
(continued)
Figure
II-2 Iden- Soil Association
tification
Charactersties
Topography
Location
Suitability/Comments
Marlboro-Bourne-
Faceville
10
11
Marlboro-Coxville-
Faceville
Coxville-Duplin-
Ma r 1 b o r o
Deep to moderately deep,
well to moderately well
drained, light colored
and textured surface.
Red or yellow sandy clay
loam subsoil. Restrictive
layers.
Very deep, well and poorly
drained. Light colored
and medium textured sur-
face. Restrictive layers
beneath subsoil.
Very deep. Well to poorly
drained, clayey soils.
Sandy, clay loam subsoil.
Gently sloping to
nearly level
Coastal Plain over-
lying Piedmont
Gently sloping to
nearly level
Level and gently
sloping
Coastal Plain Uplands
and "flats" along fall
line near Ashland
Coastal Plain Uplands
and "flats" near the
Doswell, Ashland, and
Gum Tree communi-
ties.
Suitable for general farming.
Poor to fair suitability for
septic tank drainfields.
Suitable for general farming.
Poor to fair suitability
for septic tank drainfields.
Suited to forestry. Poor
suitability for septic tank
drainfields.
12
[Gravelly and Clayey
soils]-Vaucluse-
Kempsville
Deep, well-drained. Light
colored loamy, gravelly,
and clayey soils. Acid
sandy clay loam subsoil.
Gently sloping to
steep
Coastal Plain Uplands
Suitable for general farming.
Flooding is a hazard along
narrow bottom lands, poor to
fair suitability for septic
tank drainfields.
i 1J
14
15
16
Marlboro-Faceville-
Bourne Association
Faceville-Kempsville-
Sassafras
Sassafras-Faceville-
Orangeburg
Sassafras-Sassafras
(Thick surface Phase)-
Faceville
Very deep, well and
moderately well-drained,
loamy and loamy to clayey
soils.
Deep and very deep. Well-
drained. Loamy marginal
to clayey and loamy soils.
Very deep and deep. Well-
drained. Loamy and loamy
marginal to clayey soils.
Deep and very deep. Well-
drained. Loamy and loamy
marginal to clayey soils.
Gently sloping
Gently sloping
Gently sloping
Gently sloping to
steep
Middle Coastal Plain
Terraces
Middle Coastal Plain
Terraces
Middle Coastal Plain
Terraces
Middle Coastal Plain
Terraces
Suitable for general farming.
Poor to fair suitability for
septic tank drainfields.
Suitable for general farming.
Generally, fair suitability for
septic tank drainfields.
Suitable for general farming.
Flooding is a hazard along
major streams. Good to fair
for septic tank drainfields.
Suitable for general farming.
Flooding hazard on narrow
bottom lands. Good to fair
for septic tank drainfields.
-------
TABLE F-2
(continued)
Figure
II-2 Iden-
tification
Soil Association
Characteristics
Topography
Location
Suitability/Comments
17
18
19
20
21
22
Sassafras-Kempsville-
Marlboro
Craven-Marlboro-
Caroline
Augusta-Chewacla-
Altavista
Pamunkey-Altavista-
Molena
Roanoke-Mixed
Alluvial Soils-
Altavista
Chewacla-Wehadkee-
Fresh Water Swamps
Deep to very deep. Well-
drained. Loamy and loamy
marginal to clayey soils.
Deep and very deep. Well-
to moderately well-drained.
Clayey soils.
Moderately deep. Somewhat
poorly to moderately well-
drained. Loamy soils.
Deep. Excessively to
moderately well-drained.
Loamy and sandy soils.
Deep. Poorly to
moderately well-drained.
Clayey and loamy soils.
Deep. Moderately well-
to poorly-drained. Loamy
soils.
Gently sloping
Gently sloping
Gently sloping
Gently sloping
Nearly level to
gently sloping low
river terraces
Nearly level to
undulating
Middle Coastal Plain
Terraces
Isolated Coastal Plain
Uplands
Along river terraces
and flood plains in
western half of
county
Pamunkey River
Terraces
Chickahominy River
Terraces
Piedmont River Flood
Plains, Swamps
Suitable for general farming.
Flooding hazard on narrow
bottom lands. Fair for septic
tank drainfields.
Best suited to forestry. High
water table in wet season limits
agricultural practices. Poor to
fair for septic tank drainfields.
Most suited to forestry.
Subject to frequent flooding.
Poor suitability for septic
tank drainfields.
Highly suited to farming. Pro-
blems with wetness and ponding
after heavy rainfall. Frequent
flooding is hazard on flood
plains. Poor to good suitability
for septic tank drainfields.
Majority in flood plain of
Chickahominy River. Poor suit-
ability for septic tank drain-
fields.
Suited for recreation, wildlife.
Flooding is a hazard. Poor
suitability for septic tank
drainfields.
SOURCE: Refs. II-1 and II-3.
-------
FIGURE H-6
SOIL ASSOCIATION MAP
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(Source: Reference 15)
NOTE: Refer to Table F2 for Discussion
of Soil Associations.
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
SCALE
-------
APPENDIX G
EXISTING POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES:
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
-------
TABLE G-l
POINT SOURCE LOADINGS TO HANOVER COUNTY STREAMS
Point Discharge
(Type of Treatment)
Chickahominy River
Basin
(2)
Beechwood Farms
(2 Stabilization
Ponds)
Hanover House Res-
taurant and Motel
(2 Stabilization
Ponds)
Hanover Industrial
Air Park ^ '
(3 Stabilization
Ponds)
Holly Farms ...
Poultry Industries
(Stabilization Ponds)
Kosmos Village
(Stabilization Pond)
Lee-Davis High School
(Lagoon)
(2)
Oak Hill Estates '
(2 Stabilization
Ponds)
Restover Motel
(Lagoon)
Richfood Stores, Inc.
(2 Lagoons)
Pamunkey River Basin
Ashland Mobil Station
(Package Activated
Sludge STP)
Barksdale Theater
(Underground Sand
Receiving Waste
Stream Code
Chickahominy R. D
Stony Run D,C.
Lickinghole D,C.
Creek
Chickahominy R. I
Stony Run D
Brandy Branch D
Stony Run D
Tributary to D,C.
Chickahominy R.
Tributary to D,C.
Chickahominy R.
N. Mechumps D,C
Creek
Tributary to D,C
Mechumps Creek
Flow BODC SS
m /day mgd kg/day Ibs/day kg/day Ibs/day
125 0.033 6 13 6 13 Flows estimated from sewer
connections. Loads based on
48 mg/1 BOD SS in NPDES Permit.
38 0.01 - Flows from Ref. II-2
79 0.021 3.8 8.4 3.8 8.4 Flows and loads from NPDES
2650 0.70 302 665 171 376 Flows and loads from NPDES
Poultry process waste.
151 0.04 5 12 5 12 Flows and loads from NPDES
121 0.032 - Flows from Ref. II-2
87 0.023 4.3 9.4 2.2 4.8 Flows estimated from sewer
nections. Loads from Ref.
19 0.005 - Flows from Ref. II-2
58 0.015 - Flows from Ref. II-2
26 0.007 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.4 Flows and loads from Ref.
5.3 0.0014 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.5 Flows and loads from Ref.
Permit
Permit.
Permit.
con-
II-6.
II-6
II-6.
Filter)
-------
Point Discharge
(Type of Treatment)
TABLE G-l
(Continued)
„ ,.,„._„ „ _ (1) Flow BODC SS
Stream Code m /day mgd kg/ day Ibs/day kg /day Ibs/day
Remarks
Battlefield Park
School
(Stabilization Pond)
Field Unit //14-A
(Package STP)
Hanover Courthouse
(Existing Imhoff Tank
and Trickling Filter)
Hanover School for
Boys
(Imhoff Tank and
Trickling Filter)
Janie P. Barrett
(2)
School for Girls"
(Imhoff Tank and
Trickling Filters)
Pearson's Corner
(2)
Tributary to D
Matadequin Creek
Tributary to D
Pamunkey River
Mechumps Creek D
Pamunkey River D
Crump Creek
Crump Creek
Elementary School
(Septic Tank to
Holding Pond Dis-
charge)
North Anna River
Basin
Doswell STP(2'1
(Conventional Acti-
vated Sludge Facility)
(2)
Evans Products
(Sedimentation -
Lagoon)
South Anna River
Basin
North Anna R. D,C
Tributary to
North Anna
River
Town of Ashland
(Stabilization Pond)
Falling Creek D
34 0.009 1.
49 0.013 0.6
19 0.005 0.5
174 0.046 28
95 0.025
24 0.0063 1.1
1325 0.35
(303) (0.08)
23
2460
0.006
0.65
33
(8)
13
43
3.6
1.4
1.2
62
2.5
73
(16)
28
94
1.6
0.6
0.6
21
1.1
33
(8)
18
118
3.6 Flows and loads from Ref. II-6
1.4 Flows and loads from Ref. 11-6
1.3 Flows from Ref. II-2; loads from
Ref. II-6. Treatment system is
being expanded/upgraded.
46 Flows and loads from Ref. II-6
7 Flows and loads from Ref. II-6
2.5 Flows and loads from Ref. II-6
73 Figures in parenthesis represent
(16) off-season (winter) values.
Seasonal flow due to Kings Dominion.
40 Flows and loads from NPDES Permit.
No longer in production as of 1976.
260 Flows from Ref. II-2. Loads extra-
polated from Ref. II-6.
-------
Point Discharge
(Type of Treatment)
(2)
Best Products Co.
(2 Lagoons & C1o^
Bethany Elem. School
(Secondary - Sand
Filter)
Country Club Hills(2)
(Stabilization Pond)
Patrick Henry High
School (Stabilization
Pond, Post Aeration)
Totopotomoy Creek
Basin
(21
Blue Star Estates
(Stabilization Pond)
Kingswood Court
(Stabilization Pond)
(2)
Totopotomoy Estates
(Aerated Lagoon,
Settling Tank)
fl 1 F"
T?nrrfiiHnCT Uacf-o
ivccc-Lving waste ~
Stream Code m /day
Tributary to I(D) 2.6
South Anna River
Tributary to D 19
South Anna River
South Anna River D 280
Stagg Creek D 45
Opossum Creek D 57
Totopotomoy Creek D 79
Totopotomoy Creek D 193
TABLE G-l
(Continued)
Low BOD SS
mgd kg/day Ibs/day kg/day Ibs/day
0.0007 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.19 Flows and loads from Ref. II-6.
Employee sanitary waste.
0.005 0.5 1 0.5 1 Flows and loads from Ref. II-6.
0.074 8 19 8 19 Flows estimated from connections.
Loads from NPDES permit.
0.012 2.3 5 2.3 5 Flows and loads from Ref. II-6.
0.015 2.7 6.0 2.7 6.0 Flows are estimated from connec-
tions. Loads based on NPDES Permit.
0.021 3.8 8.4 3.8 8.4 Flows are estimated from connec-
tions. Loads estimated from
typical performance.
0.051 4.8 10.6 4.8 10.6 Flows are estimated from connec-
tions. Loads from NPDES Permit.
Notes: (1) D = Domestic Wastewater
C = Commercial Wastewater
I = Industrial Wastewater
(2) Issued NPDES permits by Va. SWCB.
-------
APPENDIX H
MATRIX SUMMARY AND COMPILATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
-------
TABLE H-l
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Environmental Impacts
Alternative
Local
Al
A2
LB
Bl
B2
Sub-regional
SCI SC2 1C
Tl
T2
T3
Are,awide
AI
81
RI
Effluent Discharge: Surface water
Effluent Discharge: Ground water
Effluent Discharge: Wetlands
Stream Corridor Construction:
Terrestrial Biology
Treatment Facilities: Odor and noise
Effluent Discharge: Aquatic biology
Treatment Facilities: Land use
Stream Corridor Construction:
Surface water
Treatment Facilities: Recreation
Treatment Facilities: Public Health
Stream Corridor Construction:
Wetlands
Treatment Facilities: Terrestrial
biology
Regional Build Scenario: Water
supply
Regional Build Scenario: Socio-
economics
Regional Build Scenario: Land use
SCALE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Magnitude Importance
Indicates Beneficial Impact
3 -
7. _
1 -
Greatest
Least
n
3 -
1:
Greatest
Least
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Heasures
Ashland Upgrade
(Effluent Disposal)
(AJ)
ho
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Groundwater Quality
Area of Sensitive Ecology
Scenic River/Recreation
Terrestrial Biology
Odor and Noise
Land Use
Elimination of Falling Creek
discharge/improvement in
water quality
Effluent discharge to South
Anna River, increased BOD
and nutrient loadings
Effluent discharge to Potomac
and Pamunkey, Aquia Formation
groundwater recharge areas
Increased BOD and nutrient
loading to Pamunkey River
hot tomlands
Degradation of South Anna
River water quality
Disruption of outfall
corridor vegetation
Ashland Treatment Plant
operation
Construction of effluent
transmission line
Primary, beneficial
long-term moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
Advanced wastewater treatment or
land application effluent
Relocation of surface discharge
Advanced waste treatment
Relocation of surface discharge
Erosion control and vegetation
Proper operation and maintenance
Minimize clearing of land
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Ashland Upgrade
(Land Application)
(A2)
f
oo
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Groundwater quality
Environmentally
Sensitive Area
Scenic River/Recreation
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Air Quality and Odor
Public Health
Land Use/Prime
Agricultural Land
Elimination of Falling Creek
discharge/improvement in
water quality
BOD and nitrate runoff to site
creeks and Pamunkey River
Contamination of Potomac
Group Aquifier
Flooding of land application
site, damage to crops, soils,
and application facilities
Site runoff to Pamunkey
River
Increased nitrate buildup
in site creeks and near
shore Pamunkey River
Disruption of transmission
route vegetation land-
scaping of land application
site
Transmission of effluent
aerosols (pathogens) from
land application site/un-
pleasant odors
Contamination of Potomac
Group Aquifer, Water Supply
Land application of sewage
effluent
Primary, beneficial
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Tailwater return collection
ditches
Underground drain collection
system
Relocation of land application
site
Tailwater return collection
system
Tailwater return collection
system
Revegetation with moisture
tolerant species
Curtailment of spray irriga-
tion during high winds, proper
odor maintenance controls
Underground drain collection
system
Alternative land application site
-------
TABLE H-2
Alternative
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Ash land/Ash cake
(Effluent Disposal)
(Bl)
EC
I
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Ground Water Quality
Aquatic Biology
Elimination of Falling Creek
discharge/improvement in
water quality
Increased BOD and nutrient
loading to South Anna River
Increased erosion and sedi-
mentation of Stony Run and
Lickinghole Creeks
Elimination of malfunction-
ing septic systems
Increased chlorine concen-
tration in South Anna River
Primary, beneficial
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Primary, beneficial
short-term, signif-
icant
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Land application of effluent
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances.
Alternative disinfection - ozone
Terrestrial Biology
Odor and Noise
Disruption of approximately
15,000 feet of outfall and
stream corridor vegetation
Wastewater treatment process
and pump operation
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Erosion control and revegetation
Proper operation and maintenance
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Ash land/Ashcake
(Land Application)
(B2)
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Ground Water Quality
Environmentally Sensi-
tive Area
Recreation/Scenic River
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Elimination of Falling Creek
discharge
Increased erosion sedimenta-
tion of Stony Run and Lick-
inghole Creeks
Increased BOD and nitrate
runoff to Pamunkey River
Contamination of Pamunkey
Group (Aquia Formation),
aquifer recharge
Flooding of land applica-
tion site, contamination
of surface and ground water,
damage to crops, soil and
facilities
Destruction of recreation
potential of land applica-
tion site
Sedimentation of bottom
habitats of Pamunkey River,
Stony Run and Lickinghole
Creeks
Stream corridor vegetation
destruction, land applica-
tion site clearing, clearing
of transmission corridor
Primary, beneficial
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Secondary, adverse
long—term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
to significant
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Tailwater return collection
system
Underground drain collection
system
Relocation of land application
site, secondary treatment of
effluent
Relocation of land application
site
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Erosion control measures and
revegetation
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Ashland/Ashcake
(Land Application)
(B2)
Continued
Odor
Public Health
Public Health
Land Use/Prime
Agricultural Land
Operation of land applica-
tion facility
Transmission of pathogens
by aerosols generated by
spray irrigation
Elimination of malfunction-
ing septic systems
Spray irrigation of sewage
effluent
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to locally signif-
icant
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to locally signif-
icant
Primary, beneficial
long-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Proper operation and mainte-
nance procedures
Curtailment of spray irrigation
during high winds
Alternative land application
site, secondary treatment and
stream discharge of effluent
Southern Corridor
(Henrico Inter-
connection)
(SCI)
Surface and Ground Water
Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Elimination of malfunction-
ing septic systems and small
treatment facilities
Increased erosion and sedi-
mentation of Stony Run Creek,
Lickinghole Creek, and
Chickahominy River
Breakage of stream corridor
sewer lines during flooding
Primary, beneficial
long-term significant
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Use of alternative sewer right-
of-ways
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Southern Corridor
(Henri co Inter-
connection)
(SCI)
Continued
ffl
I
Environmentally Sensi-
tive Area
Aquatic Biology
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Placement of 8" gravity sewer Primary, adverse
in Chlckahominy River Corridor long-term, moderate
Sedimentation of bottom habi-
tats at Stony Run Creek and
Lickinghole Creek
Disruption of Chickahominy
River spawning grounds
Destruction of stream
corridor vegetation
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Alternative sewer routing
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Construction erosion control tech-
niques or relocation of Chicka-
hominy gravity sewer
Erosion control measures and
revegetation
Air Quality and Noise
Public Health
Land Use/Prime Agri-
cultural Area
Placement/construction of
sewer lines
Raw sewage leakage from
stream corridor pump stations
Placement of gravity sewer
in Stony Run Drainage Basin
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to locally signif-
cant
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Use of wet well pump stations
"Low growth" scenario - individual
treatment units
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternat1ve
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Hitigating Measures
i
CD
Southern Corridor Surface and Ground Water
(Interhasin Transfer) Quality
(SC2)
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Elimination of manfunctioning Primary, beneficial
septic systems and small treat- long-term, slgnif-
ment facilities icant
Increased erosion and sedi-
mentation of Stony Run and
Lickinghole Creeks and Toto-
potomoy Creek
Breakage of stream corridor
interceptors during flooding
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to si gnifleant
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Use of alternative sewer right-
of-ways
Area of Sensitive Ecology
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Air Quality and Noise
Disruption of sensitive hab-
itat in Totopotomoy Creek
Sedimentation of bottom hab-
itats of Stony Run, Licking-
hole, and Totopotomoy Creeks
Destruction of stream corri-
dor vegetation
Construction of transmission
facilities
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to locally signif-
icant
Use of alternative interceptor
alignment
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Erosion control measures and
revegetation
Public Health
Raw sewage leakage from
stream corridor pump stations
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Use of wet well pump stations
Land Use/Prime Agri-
cultural Area
Placement of gravity sewer in
Stony Run drainage basin
Secondary, adverse-
long-term, moderate
"Low growth" scenario - individ-
ual treatment units
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Industrial Corridor
(1C)
Surface and Ground Water
Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Environmentally Sensi-
tive Area
Elimination of failing septic
tanks and small treatment
facilities
Increased erosion and sedi-
mentation of Stony Run and
Lickinghole Creeks and
Chickahominy River
Breakage of stream corridor
pipelines during flooding
Placement of 8" gravity
sewer in Chickahominy River
corridor
Primary, beneficial
long-term, signif-
icant
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Use of alternative sewer routing
Alternative sewer routing
Aquatic Biology
Sedimentation of bottom habi- Secondary, adverse
tats of Stony Run and Licking- long-term, moderate
hole Creeks and Chickahominy
River
Land use planning and enforcement
of erosion control ordinances
Terrestrial Biology
Destruction of stream corri-
dor vegetation
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Erosion control measures and re-
vegetation
Air Quality and Noise
Construction of transmission
facilities
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to locally signif-
icant
Public Health
Raw sewage leakage from stream Primary, adverse
corridor pump stations long-term, minimal
to moderate
Use of wet well pump stations
Land Use/Prime Agri-
cultural Area
Placement of gravity sewer
in Stony Run drainage basin
Secondary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
"Low growth" scenario - Individ-
ual treatment units
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative Parameter Impacted Impacting Action Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Totopotomoy Basin
(Inter-County
Connection)
(Tl)
I
M
O
Surface and Ground Water
Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Area of Sensitive Ecology
Environmentally Sensi-
tive Area
Elimination of failing
septic tanks and small
treatment facilities
Increased erosion and sedi-
mentation of Kersey, Crump,
Opossum, Totopotomoy, and
Strawhorn Creeks
Leakage of stream crossing
pipelines during flooding
Placement of gravity sewer
in Totopotomoy and Crump
Creek corridors
Sewering along steep slopes
of Totopotomoy Creek corridor
Primary, beneficial
long-term, signif-
icant
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Use of alternative sewer routing
Alternative route for gravity
sewer
Strict use of environmentally
sound construction technique
Aquatic Biology
Sedimentation of bottom habi- Secondary, adverse
tats of Kersey, Crump, Opossum, long-term, moderate
Totopotomoy and Strawhorn
Creeks
Land use planning and enforcement
of erosion control ordinances
Terrestrial Biology
Destruction of stream corri-
dor vegetation
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Erosion control measures and
revegetation
Air Quality and Noise
Construction of sewage trans-
mission facilities
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to locally signif-
icant
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Totopotomoy Basin
(Inter-County
Connection)
(Tl)
Continued
Public Health
Land Use/Prime Agri-
cultural Area
Raw sewage leakage Into streams Primary, adverse
from pipe breakage and pump long-term, minimal
station failure to moderate
Placement of sewers In Kersey
and Totopotomoy Creek basins
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Use of wet well pump stations
Relocation of gravity sewer
Totopotomoy Basin
(Regional STP)
(T2)
Surface and Ground Water
Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Area of Sensitive Ecology
Elimination of failing septic
tanks and small treatment
facilities
Increased sedimentation of
Kersey, Crump, Opposum, Toto-
potomoy and Strawhorn Creeks
Heavily increased BOD and
nutrient loading of Toto-
potomoy Creek during critical
low flow conditions
Leakage of stream crossing
pipelines during flooding
Placement of gravity sewer
and force mains in Totopoto-
moy and Crump Creek corridors
Primary, beneficial
long-term, signif-
icant
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long—term, moderate
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Land treatment of effluent
Use of alternative sewer routing
Alternative routing of trans-
mission facilities
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Eti
I
Totopotomoy Basin
(Regional STP)
(T2)
Continued
Environmentally Sensitive
Area
Area of Sensitive Ecology
Aquatic Biology
Sewering along steep slopes Primary, adverse
of Totopotomoy Creek corridor long-term, moderate
Low flow effluent discharge Primary, adverse
and increased BOD and nutri- short-term, moderate
ent loading to critical bottom-
lands of Totopotomoy Creek
Sedimentation of bottom habi- Secondary, adverse
tats of Kersey, Crump, Opossum, long-term, moderate
Totopotomoy and Strawhorn to significant
Creeks
Strict use of environmentally
sound construction techniques
Land application of effluent
Land use planning and enforcement
of erosion control ordinances
Aquatic Biology
3.5 mgd discharge of chlori-
nated effluent to Totopotomoy
Creek
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Alternative method of disinfection
or land application of effluent
Terrestrial Biology
Disruption of stream corridor
vegetation
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Erosion control measures and re-
vegetation
Terrestrial Biology
Air Quality and Noise
STP site clearing and land-
scaping, disruption of plant
and animal communities, in-
creased sedimentation of Toto-
potomoy Creek
Construction of sewage trans-
mission facilities
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to locally signif-
icant
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to locally signif-
icant
Minimal landscaping, use of sound
construction practices
Odor and Noise
Operation of sewage treat-
ment plant
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Proper operation and maintenance
techniques
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Totopotomoy Basin
(Regional STP)
(T2)
Continued
Public Health
Land Use/Prime Agri-
cultural Area
Raw sewage leakage to streams
from pipe breakage, pump
station failure, and flooding
of STP
Placement of gravity sewer
and force mains In Totopotomoy
and Crump Creek corridors
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Secondary, adverse
long—term, moderate
to significant
Alternative STP site, use of wet
well pump stations
Relocation of sewage trans-
mission facilities
I
M
OJ
Totopotomoy Basin
(Regional STP -
Lower Site)
(T3)
(impacts general-
ly equivalent to
those listed
under T2; addition-
al impacts are
listed)
Surface Water Quality
Area of Sensitive
Ecology
Terrestrial Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Increased BOD, nutrient and
chlorine load to critical
lower marshes of Totopotomoy
Creek
Augmentation of surface water
flow to Totopotomoy marsh
Disruption of marsh plants
and proliferation of algae
Extensive vegetation de-
struction of STP site
Primary, adverse
long-term signif-
icant
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
long-term, signif-
icant
Relocation of STP site
Relocation of treatment facilities
Relocation of treatment facilities
Relocation of treatment facilities
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative Parameter Impacted
Areawide (Ash- Land Use
land interconnect)
(Al)
(areawlde Impacts
are a compilation Surface and Ground Water
of Alternatives Quality
1C, A2, and Tl;
cumulative im-
1 pacts are list- Surface Water Quality
M ed)
Impacting Action
Implementation of central-
ized sewers and provision
for orderly county dev-
elopment
Elimination of septic
facilities and small treat-
ment plants
Increased erosion and sedi-
mentation of Phase II area
Type/Degree
of Impact
Secondary, beneficial
long-term, signif-
icant
Primary, beneficial
long-term, signif-
icant
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Mitigating Measures
-
Enforcement of erosion and sedi-
mentation control ordinances
Land Use/Prime Agri-
cultural Area
Water Supply
Air Quality
Surface Water Quality
Socioeconomics
streams
Placement of sewers in rural
areas of county
Increased demand for potable
water
Increased automobile air
pollution emissions
Increased sedimentation to
Pamunkey River from con-
struction of stream corridor
interceptors
Implementation of system and
subsequent population growth
and employment increase
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Secondary, adverse
long-term, signifi-
cant
Secondary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
to locally signifi-
cant
Secondary, beneficial
long-term, moderate
to significant
Phasing of planned facilities,
use of Individual treatment units
Development and construction of
comprehensive water supply facil-
ities
Air quality maintenance programs
Sound construction techniques
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Areawide (Rural
Point STP)
(8-1)
M
Ln
Surface and Ground Water
Quality
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Area of Sensitive
Ecology
Recreation/Scenic
River
Aquatic Biology
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Elimination of failing septic
tanks and small treatment
facilities
Increased erosion and sedi-
mentation of Stony Run,
Kersey, Crump, Lickinghole,
and Totopotomoy Creeks
Increased BOD, nutrient and
chlorine loading to Pamunkey
River
Placement of 27" diameter
sewers In Totopotomoy
Creek corridor
Direct effluent discharge to
Pamunkey River
Sedimentation of bottom habi-
tats of Stony Run, Kersey,
Crump, Lickinghole, and Toto-
potomoy Creeks
Discharge of chlorinated
effluent to Pamunkey River
Disruption of stream
corridor vegetation
Primary, beneficial
long-term, signifi-
cant
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, moderate
to significant
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to moderate
Enforcement of erosion control
ordinances
Land application of effluent
Alternative sewer right-of-way
Relocation of outfall, land appli-
cation of effluent
Land use planning and enforce-
ment of erosion control ordinances
Land application of effluent
Erosion control and revegetation
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative
Parameter Impacted
Impacting Action
Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
Areaw1.de (Rural Terrestrial Btology
Point STP)
(8-1)
Cont inued
Rural Point STP site
clearing and landscaping,
disruption of plant and
animal communities
Primary, adverse
short-term, minimal
to locally signifi-
cant
Minimal landscaping, use
construction practices
of sound
I
M
C^
Air Quality and Noise
Odor and Noise
Construction of sewage trans-
mission facilities
Operation of Rural Point
STP
Primary, adverse
short-terra, minimal
to locally signifi-
cant
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
to moderate
Adequate operation and maintenance
procedures
Public Health
Water Supply
Air Quality
Land Use/Prime Agri-
cultural Area
Raw sewage leakage from line
breakage and pump station
failure
Increased demand for potable
water
Increased automobile air
emissions
Placement of gravity sewers
in undeveloped areas of the
county
Primary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Secondary, adverse
long-term, signifi-
cant
Secondary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Use of wet well pump stations
Development and construction of
comprehensive water supply facil-
ities
Enforce air quality maintenance
programs
Phased implementation of system,
use of individual treatment units
-------
TABLE H-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Alternative Parameter Impacted Impacting Action Type/Degree
of Impact
Mitigating Measures
PC
I
h-1
Areawide Land Use
(Regional Interconnect)
(RI)
(Compilation of Alter-
natives 1C, Al, and T2; Surface and ground
Cumulative impacts water quality
are listed)
Surface water quality
Land use/Prime Agri-
cultural Area
Water Supply
Implementation of Central-
ized sewers and provision
for order county development
Elimination of septic facili-
ties and small treatment
plants
Increased erosion and sedi-
mentation of Phase II area
streams
Placement of sewers in rural
areas of county
Increased demand for potable
water
Secondary/beneficial
long term signifi-
cant
Primary, beneficial
long-term, signifi-
cant
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
Secondary, adverse
long-term, moderate
to significant
Secondary, adverse
long-term signifi-
cant
Enforcement of erosion and sedi-
mentation control ordinances
Phasing of planned facilities,
use of Individual treatment units
Development and construction of
comprehensive water supply facili-
ties
Air Quality
Socioeconomics
Economics
Increased automobile air
pollution emissions
Implementation of system and
subsequent population
growth and employment in-
crease
Implementation of system
and subsequent costs to
county residents
Secondary, adverse
long-term, minimal
Secondary, benefi-
cial, long-term,
moderate to signifi-
cant
Primary, adverse,
short-term, moderate
to significant
Air quality maintenance program
Least cost treatment systems
------- |