4 -
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
For Henrico County, Virginia
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Philadelphia, Pa.
March 20, 1978
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Prepared Jointly in a
"Piggyback Approach" with the
HENRICO COUNTY 201
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING STUDIES
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Jack J. Schramm
Regional Administrator
March 20, 1978
Project Monitor:
Robert Pickett
U.S. EPA, Region III
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(215) 597-8337
Project Manager:
Carl Mitchell
EcolSciences, inc.
127 Park Street, N.E.
Vienna, Virginia 22180
(703) 938-5560
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I- 1
A. INTRODUCTION I- 1
B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I- 6
II. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PLANT SITE PROFILES II- 1
A. DEEP BOTTOM WEST (Applicant's Proposed Site) II- 1
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures II- 1
2. Site Description II- 8
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transporta-
tion (Alternative E-4B Modified) 11-10
B. CORNELIUS CREEK 11-14
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures 11-14
2. Site Description 11-19
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transporta-
tion (Alternative E-8A) 11-20
C. VARINA FARMS 11-23
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures 11-23
2. Site Description 11-28
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transporta-
tion (Alternative E-4B) 11-29
D. DARBYTOWN ROAD 11-32
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures 11-32
2. Site Description 11-36
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transporta-
tion (Alternative E-5) 11-36
E. DEEP BOTTOM 11-39
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures 11-39
2. Site Description 11-44
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transporta-
tion (Alternative E-7) 11-45
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page
III. EIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS III- 1
A. TREATMENT PLANT SITE III- 1
1. Future Land Use Plan III- 1
2. Potential Gravity Sewer Service Area III- 1
3. Public Participation III- 1
4. Primary Impacts III- 1
B. TREATMENT PROCESSES AND WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION III- 2
C. AEROSOL. CONTAMINATION III- 3
D. MULTIPLE USE III- 3
E. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGIC SITES III- 4
F. 1-95 WESTERN ALTERNATES III- 5
G. ROUTE FIVE SCENIC BYWAY ZONING III- 5
H. MITIGATING MEASURES III- 5
FINAL EIS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IV- 1
A. DESIGN SEWAGE FLOWS IV- 1
1. Engineer's Projections IV- 1
B. WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS IV- 4
1. Western Henrico County IV- 4
2. Mid-eastern Henrico County IV- 4
3. South-eastern Henrico County IV- 7
4. Goochland County IV- 7
5. Hanover County IV- 9
C. TREATMENT PLANT SITE IV- 9
D. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS IV- 9
E. DISINFECTION IV-10
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page
F. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL IV-10
G. RESIDUALS DISPOSAL IV-10
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION V- 1
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING
MEASURES OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED
PROJECT V- 1
1. Surface Water and Erosion V- 1
2. Groundwater V- 2
3. Natural Resources (wetlands, agri-
culture, vegetation and wildlife) V- 2
4. Aesthetics, Public Health and Safety V- 4
5. Recreation V- 5
6. Historic and Archeological Resources V- 6
7. Flooding V- 8
8. Social Environment V- 8
9. Growth and Future Development V- 9
B. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED V-14
C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE
OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY V-16
D. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMIT-
MENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED
IN THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD
IT BE IMPLEMENTED V-17
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION VI- 1
A. CHRONOLOGY VI- 1
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS VI- 3
1. Draft EIS Public Hearing VI- 3
a. Choice of a Treatment Plant Site VI- 4
b. Degree of Treatment Required VI- 5
2. Draft EIS Addendum Number One Public
Hearing VI- 5
C. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
AND ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE VI- 8
XII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
D. WRITTEN GOVERNMENTAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS VI-114
AND ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE
E. EPA RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT
EIS AND ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE VI-128
Appendices
A. Additional and Corrected Data A- 1
1. Threatened and Endangered Species in
Virginia A- 1
2. Soil Associations in the Henrico County
201 Study Area A- 9
B. Henrico County Position Statements B- 1
C. Effluent Criteria Correspondence C- 1
D. Historic and Archeologic Resources
Correspondence D- 1
E. 1-95 Data and Correspondence E- 1
F. NABISCO Correspondence F- 1
REFERENCES R- 1
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
IV- 2 Equivalent Populations and Flows used in
Plant and Transport System Design IV- 2
V- 1 Potential Gravity Sewer Service Areas of
Proposed Plant Sites V-ll
VI- 1 Summary of Public Comments at the June 21,
1977 Public Hearing Regarding Advantages and
Disadvantages of the Four Proposed Treatment
Plant Sites VI- 6
VI- 2 Summary of Public Comments at the December 13,
1977 Public Hearing Regarding Advantages and
Disadvantages of Two of the Proposed Treat-
ment Plant Sites VI- 9
A- 1 Endangered Flora A- 2
A- 2 Endangered Fauna A- 4
A- 3 Threatened Flora A- 6
A- 4 Threatened Fauna A- 8
A- 5 Soil Associations in the Henrico County 201
Study Area. Corrected Utilizing SCS
Comments on the Draft EIS A-10
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page.
II- 1 Aerial Photo of Proposed Deepbottom West
Site II- 5
II- 2 Conceptual Site Layout of the Proposed
Deepbottom Road West Wastewater Treatment
Plant II- 6
II- 3 Potential Sewer Service Area of the Proposed
Deepbottom West WTP and Associated Sewers II- 7
II- 4 Engineer's Selected Plan Including Deep-
bottom Road West Wastewater Treatment
Plant 11-11
II- 5 Aerial Photo of Proposed Cornelius Creek
Site 11-16
II- 6 Existing Topography of Proposed Cornelius
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 11-17
II- 7 Potential Sewer Service Area of the Proposed
Cornelius Creek WTP 11-18
II- 8 Cornelius Creek Site-Related Wastewater
Transportation 11-21
II- 9 Aerial Photo of Proposed Varina Farms Site 11-25
11-10 Existing Topography of Proposed Varina Farms
Wastewater Treatment Plant 11-26
11-11 Potential Sewer Service Area of the Pro-
posed Varina Farm WTP 11-27
11-12 Varina Farms Site-Related Wastewater
Transportation 11-30
11-13 Aerial Photo of Proposed Darbytown Site 11-33
11-14 Existing Topography of Proposed Darbytown
Road Wastewater Treatment Plant Site 11-34
11-15 Potential Sewer Service Area of the Pro-
posed Darbytown WTP 11-35
11-16 Darbytown Site-Related Wastewater
Transportation 11-37
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
Figure Title Page
11-17 Aerial Photo of Proposed Deepbottom Site 11-41
11-18 Existing Topography of the Proposed Deep-
bottom Road Wastewater Treatment Plant 11-42
11-19 Potential Sewer Service Area of the Pro-
posed Deepbottom WTP 11-43
11-20 Deep Bottom Site-Related Wastewater
Transportation 11-46
IV- 1 Western Henrico County Wastewater
Transportation IV- 5
IV- 2 Mid-Eastern Henrico County Wastewater
Transportation IV- 6
IV- 3 Goochland County Wastewater Transportation IV- 8
Photos used for Sections III and V, courtesy of Conklin and Rowan;
EPA-Documerica.
Vll
-------
I. Introduction
and
Executive Summary
-------
FINAL
"PIGGYBACK" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
201 FACILITIES PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
This is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
which has been prepared in conjunction with the Henrico
County 201 Facilities Plan (separate cover) to fulfill, in
part, the requirements necessary for seventy-five percent
Federal grant funding for the Henrico County, Virginia,
Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTF). This Final EIS is
preceded by a Draft EIS, issued May 18, 1977, and Addendum
Number One, issued November 25, 1977. Rather than reprinting
the text, appendices, and figures of the Draft and its Addendum,
this Final EIS is formatted to be read in conjunction with
these documents. The Final EIS has been prepared in two
separate volumes. The Final EIS Supplement provides the
supportive information, including a reprinting of all comments
received on this project, which leads to the conclusions as
stated in this volume. Both documents constitute the Final EIS
and are being distributed jointly to all recipients. Anyone
who receives this Final EIS who has not received a copy of the
Draft or the Addendum may request a copy of the Draft from the
EPA Project Monitor, Mr. Robert Pickett, by calling (215) 597-8337
or writing EPA, Region III while supplies last. Thereafter,
copies of the Draft, Addendum, and Final may be purchased at
nominal cost from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
The facilities planning process was begun by Henrico
County together with the other members of the Richmond met-
ropolitan region following the guidance of the State Water
Control Board as prescribed in the report "Water Quality
Management Plan for the Greater Richmond Metropolitan Area,
August 26, 1974." The Water Quality Management Plan pro-
duced an area-wide wastewater management program which recog-
nized that multiple regional-size treatment plants in the
Richmond area would improve operational reliability. The
plan described a Henrico facility incorporating a treatment
plant and wastewater transport system which would serve
most of Henrico County, the eastern portion of Goochland
County, Mechanicsville area of Hanover County, the Bottoms
Bridge area of New Kent County, a small portion of the City
of Richmond, and some flow from the Wayside Area of Charles
1-1
-------
City County. New Kent County and Charles City County were
subsequently deleted from the Facilities Plan.
An integral part of the Henrico Wastewater transport
system would be a major circumferential interceptor emanating
from the western portion of the County, circling the City
to the north and east, and terminating at a new wastewater
treatment plant in the vicinity of Fourmile Creek on the
James River. The general goals of Henrico County's waste-
water planning effort were to be:
To develop a master plan which would be consistent
with the State, Federal and Regional goals and have
sufficient flexibility to provide for reasonable re-
vision of these goals as a result of a dynamic
planning process.
To formulate a plan for transportation and treatment
of domestic and industrial wastewater which would
minimize total resource utilization for the maximum
benefit of water quality standards.
To provide a specific plan of development for the
immediate needs of Henrico County and portions of
the adjoining Counties of Goochland, Hanover, New
Kent and Charles City. (As previously mentioned,
New Kent and Charles City Counties were subsequently
deleted from the Facilities Plan.)
As the first phase of a long range program, Henrico County
applied for and received approval of a Federal grant under
Section 201 of P.L. 92-500, to prepare a Facilities Plan.
The County secured the services of the engineering consulting
firm of Wiley & Wilson and Royer to prepare the Facilities
Plan, which identified the sewerage service area, presented
an intensive economic, environmental and social evaluation
of the range of alternative methods for servicing these
areas, and recommended the most advantageous method of
providing wastewater facilities to the identified service
area. This plan was prepared and first submitted for public
review on January 9, 1977.
The proposed facilities provide for two types of sewerage
systems. Those facilities which serve more than one govern-
mental jurisdiction are proposed to be operated as the
Henrico Regional Wastewater Facilities. As such, the
regional system would charge all users equally, based on a
proportional share of the total cost to finance and operate
the facilities. The second type of system, proposed to
serve only a single jurisdiction-, would be constructed and
operated by the affected jurisdiction.
The Facilities Plan addressed those alternatives which
would constitute the Henrico Regional Wastewater Facilities
1-2
-------
as well as the required facilities to serve the single
governmental jurisdiction of Henrico County. Additional
participating Regional Wastewater Facilities jurisdictions,
who will be responsible for construction and operation of
their individual sewerage systems, are portions of Goochland
County, Hanover County and the City of Richmond, as identi-
fied in the Facilities Plan. Descriptions of the various
alternatives originally proposed for the Facilities Plan
can be found in the Draft EIS.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires the preparation of an EIS whenever federal funds
or approval are considered for projects with potentially
significant environmental impacts. Recognizing the poten-
tial air and water quality impacts from the expected growth
in the service area "generated by the provision of sewer
service and because of concerns and objections raised by
local citizens, EPA decided in the spring of 1976 that an
EIS was necessary for the proposed Henrico Regional Waste-
water Facilities.
The primary role of the EIS is that of a public infor-
mation document. The EIS allows the lead agency, in this
case EPA, to not only objectively include all environmental
considerations into the planning process, but to provide an
opportunity for citizen participation. The EIS should iden-
tify all known potential environmental, economic and social
impacts of the project alternatives. In the Draft EIS and
'Addendum, information and data were submitted to allow an
independent comparison of the economic and environmental
costs and benefits among the available alternatives without
nominating one alternative for implementation. This Final
EIS discusses the applicant's final proposed plan and EPA's
recommendations based on the Draft EIS, Addendum Number One,
and public participation.
At first, Henrico County secured the services of Ecol-
Sciences, inc. to prepare those portions of the Facilities
Plan pertaining to environmental impacts, and to help the
engineers and the county choose a cost-effective, environ-
mentally acceptable recommended plan. Early in the project,
when it was recognized by both Henrico County and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, that the pro-
ject's potential environmental impacts were significant
enough to justify preparation of an EIS, the decision was
made to prepare the Facilities Plan and the Draft EIS con-
currently. The concurrent preparation of the Facilities Plan
and Draft EIS (defined in EPA Program Guidance Memorandum 58)
has been called a "piggyback" or "cooperative" approach.
Normally, the Facilities Plan would include an environmental
assessment of the proposed actions. This completed Plan
1-3
-------
would be forwarded to EPA for review at which time the deci-
sion to prepare an EIS would be made. This often time-
consuming process may be significantly reduced by preparing
the environmental assessment at a more detailed level of
analysis as a separate, but integral part of the Facilities
Plan. This detailed environmental assessment then can
serve as EPA's EIS, substantially reducing the time of the
planning process. Beyond saving time (therefore, money), the
"Piggyback" EIS approach allows for an evaluation of a
variety of alternatives and the ability to discard those
deemed unsound early in the planning process, and providing
a greater degree of public participation in the decision
making process. EcolSciences, inc., therefore, prepared
this EIS in close coordination with the Facilities Plan pre-
pared by the engineers, and the two documents reference
each other frequently to avoid unnecessary duplication.
The Draft EIS was released with the final Facilities
Plan on May 18, 1977. A joint public hearing was held on
the Facilities Plan and the Draft EIS on June 21, 1977.
Following this hearing, the Board of Supervisors of Henrico
County met on July 13, July 20, August 3, and August 10, of
1977, to discuss the Facilities Plan. At several of these
meetings, concerned citizens made presentations. Most of
the adverse effects of the draft plan appeared to be related
to the location of the proposed treatment plant. The Board
of Supervisors, in an effort to mitigate as many adverse
impacts as practical, asked the engineers to investigate
other alternatives for the location of the proposed waste-
water treatment plant site.
A review of previous discussions, letters, and other
citizen input seemed to indicate three criteria for a new
site selection. These were:
1. Any alternative plant site should have minimal
effect on the total project cost.
2. A new site should minimize the adverse impacts with
respect to historic areas such as Varina Farms.
3. The displacement of persons should be minimized.
After a review of the four original alternative sites,
the engineer determined that a modification of the original
Deep Bottom Site would meet the three criteria established
above. By moving the proposed western boundary of the
original Deep Bottom Site westward several thousand feet,
the new plant could be constructed without displacement of
persons. The plant would not infringe on the historic area
1-4
-------
of Varina Farms, and the cost was changed very little. Routing
of the influent sewer follows the location originally proposed
for Alternative E-4-B, from Fort Lee to Buffin Road. Therefore,
the potential service area would be approximately the same.
Actually the service area is approximately 500 acres less than
that of E-M-B. Wastewater flow enters and leaves the site by
gravity. This new site, referred to as Deep Bottom West, and
the rerouted trunk sewer was presented to the Henrico County
Board of Supervisors and subsequently adopted. A public infor-
mation meeting was held on October 25, 1977 and a Public Hearing
was held on December 13, 1977 by EPA.
This Final EIS summarizes the County's proposed project
as described in the Facilities Plan and presents a detailed
environmental analysis. Since the major issue during pre-
paration of the Facilities Plan and EIS has been the site
to be selected for wastewater treatment facilities, detailed
profiles of the five alternatives are presented in Section II.
Following the issuance of this Final EIS, a thirty day public
comment period will subsequently transpire. At this time, the
Virginia State Water Control Board will certify the approved
facilities plan to EPA for consideration, after which the EPA
Regional Administrator will announce his decision concerning
a grant award for the County. This action will conclude the first
step of three steps necessary for the eventual construction of
the project. The second step involves the submittal to EPA
of completed engineering plans and construction specifications which
will result in the award of funds for actual construction of
the approved facilities in step three as concluded through the
EIS process. It can be anticipated that the facilities will be
completed and operating by summer of 1982.
EPA is currently involved with the preparation and the review
of several other Richmond area water pollution control grant
projects. The Henrico County Facilities Plan identifies
a portion of Hanover County (the Mechanicsville area)
which will be serviced by the proposed Henrico Regional
Facilities. A separate Facilities Plan, prepared
by Hanover County, has been completed and approved by EPA.
Construction of these interceptors, which will eventually
convey sewerage flows to the proposed Henrico System, are
now under progress. A second Facilities Plan is being pre-
pared by Hanover County for the rest of Hanover County,
1-5
-------
including Ashland and lands east; EPA has initiated an EIS
on this project. One of the alternatives considered will
be to tie into the proposed Henrico facilities. This could
conceivably increase the sizing of the Henrico plant by one
to three mgd while reducing the costs of sewer service to
all Henrico Regional Facilities users by increasing the
number of serviced homes who will share the costs of the
Regional Falilities.
In addition, an Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan
is being developed for the Richmond Regional area pursuant
to Section 208 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The proposed
plan will be completed in June of this year. It will
include structural and nonstructural programs for the abate-
ment of point and nonpoint pollution sources in the area.
In addition, wastewater load allocations for the James River
will be analyzed to determine the allocable quantity of
discharge to be permitted for the existing and proposed
sewerage facilities in the service area. The City of Rich-
mond is currently preparing two studies. A combined sewer
overflow study is evaluating alternatives to cost-effectively
treat these flows. This information will be incorporated
into the Richmond Facilities Plan for the possible upgrading
and expansion of the Richmond Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Inasmuch as the wastewater allocations to be developed for
the James River in the 208 study are not known at this time,
it is impossible to determine what the final Richmond
Facilities Plan will recommend or what effect these recommen-
dations will have on the Henrico Regional Facilities.
B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Profiles
Five alternative sites in eastern Henrico County were
identified for wastewater treatment facilities. Since
the selection of a site by EPA remains a major issue
in the Facilities Planning process, detailed profiles of
these sites are presented including maps, aerial photo-
graphs, and lists of environmental impacts and mitigating
measures.
EIS Recommendations and Conclusions
Of the five alternative sites, two (Darbytown and
Deep Bottom) are identified as environmentally unaccept-
able. The three remaining sites (Deep Bottom West,
Cornelius Creek and Varina Farms) have been found by the
EIS to be environmentally acceptable. This includes both
the applicant's selected site; Deep Bottom West, and the
site identified in the EIS as the most environmentally
acceptable; Cornelius Creek. Recommendations are made
regarding aerosol contamination, multiple-use of facilities,
archelogical sites,, western alternates for 1-95, Route 5
Scenic Byway zoning, and mitigating measures.
1-6
-------
FINAL EIS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action involves seventy-five percent
Federal grant funding under Public Law 92-500, The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, for the
construction of a wastewater treatment plant and a
system of interceptor sewers to serve Henrico County
and parts of Goochland and Hanover Counties, Virginia.
The Henrico County 201 Facilities Plan is an out-
growth of the Richmond Regional Water Quality Management
Plan which was approved by the State Water Control Board
in July, 1974. Briefly stated, this plan called for an
interceptor system which would begin in the far west
end of Henrico County and proceed in an easterly
direction around the City of Richmond and would terminate
in the eastern portion of the county at a new wastewater
treatment plant. The treated effluent would then be dis-
charged in the James River upstream from Jones Neck Cut-
off. The proposed circumferential interceptor system
would serve to prevent nearly all county wastewater
from entering the City of Richmond's collection system
and eventually being disposed of through their combined
sewer system. The assumptions and cost analysis per-
taining to this plan were reviewed, and it was concluded
that the selected plan is the most cost-effective of the
feasible alternatives.
A large number of alternatives for wastewater trans-
portation and treatment were considered in the 201
Facilities Plan/EIS process, including:
no action;
design flow - both "no growth'1 and water con-
servation were considered;
transportation - four (4) alternative interceptor
routings in the western end of Henrico County,
three (3) in mid-eastern Henrico County, seven
(7) in eastern Henrico County, and three (3)
in Goochland County were evaluated. In addition,
alternative routes to the various treatment plant
sites were evaluated;
treatment plant sites - five (5) treatment plant
sites, all in eastern Henrico County, were eva-
luated in detail. Four (4) of these sites were
evaluated in the Draft EIS and the fifth site in
Addendum Number One;
treatment process - over forty (40) treatment
schemes were evaluated in detail;
1-7
-------
disinfection - alternatives using chlorine and
ozone were evaluated;
effluent disposal - two locations on the James
River were considered;
' land application - preliminary land requirements
and cost estimates were made for application of
effluent in Henrico County. Examination of raw
sludge composting and subsequent land application
will be reviewed in step two;
regional alternatives - the assumptions and cost
analysis pertaining to the selection of regional
water quality alternatives were reviewed.
The 201 Facilities Plan (Revised) has recommended
that a 28.6 mgd secondary treatment plant be constructed
at Deep Bottom West, with discharge to the James River at
Segment 24.
The associated transportation system alternatives
proposed by the applicant include Goochland County Alter-
native G-l, Henrico County Western Alternative W-2a,
Henrico County Mideast Alternative E-2, and a modified
Henrico County Far-East Alternative E-4B (to transport
wastewater to the Deep Bottom West site rather than to
Varina Farms). Alternative E-8A rather than E-4B Modified
would be used with the Cornelius Creek site. Total present
worth of the applicant's proposed action is estimated
to be $98,001,719; with the substitution of the Cor-
nelius Creek site for the Deep Bottom West site total
present worth is estimated to be $98,192,021.
Environmental Evaluation
A detailed environmental evaluation of the impacts
of the applicant's proposed project on surface water and
erosion, groundwater, flooding, wetlands, vegetation,
wildlife, aesthetics, public health and safety, agri-
culture, recreation, historic and archeologic resources,
the social environment, and growth and future develop-
ment is performed. This analysis identifies both im-
pacts and appropriate mitigating measures. Adverse
impacts which cannot be mitigated include commitments
of land to facilities, some limited erosion and sedi-
mentation, removal of vegetation at the plant site and
in sewer corridors, some limited noise, odor, and dust
1-8
-------
effects, and secondary impacts associated with planned
levels of growth.
Public Participation
An extensive public participation program, including
six Public Information Meetings, was conducted for the
201 Facilities Plan and the EIS. A Public Hearing on the
201 Facilities Plan and Draft EIS was held at the Hermi-
tage High School, Henrico County, Virginia, on June 21,
1977. A transcript of this meeting is available. Follow-
ing this hearing the Henrico County Board of Supervisors
added a fifth site to the four alternative locations for
the wastewater treatment plant discussed in the Draft
EIS. For this reason, EPA held a second public hearing
to discuss this alternative on December 13, 1977, at
the Varina High School. A transcript of this meeting
is also available. Public participation indicated some
disapproval of all five proposed sites; the Cornelius
Creek site generated the only substantial support and
was the least opposed site.
Federal, State and Local Agencies and Other Sources
from which Comments have been Requested
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highways Administration
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Presquile National Wildlife Refuge
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Geological Survey
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Public Health Service
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Water Resources Council
Council on Environmental Quality
1-9
-------
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Harry F. Byrd, Jr.
U. S. Senate
William L. Scott
U. S. Senate
J. Kenneth Robinson
U. S. House of Represen-
tatives
David E. Satterfield, III
U. S. House of Represen-
tatives
STATE
Council on the Environment
Division of State Planning
and Community Affairs
(Department of Inter-
governmental Affairs)
State Water Control Board
State Department of Health
Commission of Game and
Inland Fisheries
Marine Resources Commission
Air Pollution Control Board
Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences
Soil and Water Conservation
Commission
Commission of Outdoor Re-
creation
Historic Landmarks Commission
Department of Agriculture
and Commerce
State Corporation Commission
Department of Conservation
and Economic Development
Virginia Port Authority
Department of Highways and
Transportation
Virginia State Energy Office
Virginia Advisory Legislative
Council
LOCAL AGENCIES, PRIVATE GROUPS, AND OTHER
INTERESTED PARTIES
Administrations of:
Charles City County
Goochland County
Hanover County
Henrico County
New Kent County
City of Richmond
Richmond Regional Planning
District Commission
Richmond-Crater Consortium
Sierra Club
The,Nature Conservancy
League of Women Voters
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
WRVA Radio
Jones Realty and Con-
struction Corp.
McGoodwin, Williams & Yates
Hopewell Public Works
Department
NABISCO, Inc.
Conservation Council of
Virginia, Inc.
Izaak Walton League of
America, Inc.
Varina Homeowners Association
Hanover County Historical
Society
Henricopolis Soil and Water
Conservation District
Virginia Wildlife Federation,
Inc.
Henrico County Public Li-
braries
Local Civic Associations
Hampton Roads Sanitation
District
Engineering Science, Inc.
Va. Farm Bureau Insurance
Service
Mays, Valentine, Davenport
& Moore
1-10
-------
United Virginia Bank
Colorado State University,
Documents Library
Gilbert/Commonwealth
Engineering & Construction
Sadler Material Corp.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern &
Mattern
Chessie System
D'Appolonia Consulting Engi-
neers, Inc.
INDIVIDUALS
Frederick S. Fisher
Boris Osheroff
R. S. Hummel, Jr.
G. M. Delano
Mr. Newton H. Ancarrow
Mrs. W. N. Stoneman, Sr.
Mr. and Mrs. T. P. Crowder
R. P. Geary
W. Dundorf
B. Johnson
Morris S. Moore, Jr.
Sadie Burton
C. L. Holmes, Jr.
Mrs. Frank Aigner
Mr. C. E. Baughan
Barbara Baughan
Watson Marshall
Mr. & Mrs. G. Heidelberg
Mr. A. B. Moody
Waverly Crouch
Claude E. Baughauff
Mrs. R. G. Wilcox
C. J. Siegrist, Jr., P.E.
J. R. Brinkley
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Booker
Edward H. Winks
Mrs. Theodore Crawley
Calvin S. & Mary C. Arnold
James D. Williams
Bremmer Carter
Benzinia & P. Walla Harrell
Carolyn A. Whitehead
Petronius S. Jones
William T. & Lois W. Pryor
William W. & J. W. Yarbrough
John R. Hubbard
Frank A. Toth
Richard D. Cunningham
III
Mrs. L. R. Robinson
G. Fiotakis
W. F. Gabsky
Mrs. Margaret Miller
Mr. John S. Davenport,
Mrs. Edward P. Rankin
Charles E. Wright
Lucy Dandredge
John Murdock
E. L. Hammond
Mrs. John Yahley, Sr.
Paul & Dottie Parrish
Mr. & Mrs. O. B. Meade
Gabriel A. Poulin
M. K. Jones
Ronald E. Yarbrough
Mrs. W. A. Lemon
Thomas L. Athen
Calvin Sarnold
Margaret Wilcox
Nikki Grandberry
Mr. Steele
J. P. Rapisarda, Jr.
E. R. Small
Evelyn 0. Larden
Lucille Hall
Michael Klotzek
Reginald H. & V. M. Nelson, Jr,
Lucy E. & William M. Johnson
Thomas L. & J. P. Wilkerson
Nathaniel Frooks
Marion & Lillie S. Grooms
William S. Green
Samuel & Claranell Chavis
Fred T. Pribble
Bruce V. English
Robert E. Madison
Draft EIS Available May 18, 1977.
Draft EIS Addendum Number One Available November 25, 1977.
Final EIS Available March 20, 1978
1-11
-------
I. Alternate Treatment Plant
Site Profiles
-------
A. Deep Bottom West
-------
II. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PLANT SITE PROFILES
A. DEEP BOTTOM WEST (Applicant's Selected Site)
Total Present Worth: $98,001,719
Current Land Use: Agriculture, undeveloped
Adjacent Land Use: Agriculture, rural residential,
undeveloped
Planned Land Use: Prime agriculture
Residential Displacement: None (surrounds five families
who may elect to relocate)
Planning Commission Finding: Yes (3 to 3), constitutes
approval after 60 days
Public Participation: Strong opposition from nearby
residents; moderate opposition
and very limited support from
Eastern Henrico.
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures
Environmental impacts associated with use of the Deep
Bottom West Site include:
removal of 150 to 170 acres of young pine/hardwood
vegetation and subsequent loss of suitable wildlife
habitat;
accelerated erosion and sedimentation of Roundabout
Creek from clear-cutting and construction activities,
particularly on the central portion of the site;
somewhat accelerated erosion and sedimentation of
Fourmile Creek from landfilling operations east of
Deep Bottom Road with potential increases in silta-
tion of a large area of wetland below the plant site;
potential contamination of groundwater due to land-
filling operations;
occupation of 420 acres of land designated as 'prime
agriculture' by the County (see the discussion of
prime agricultural soils in Section V-A-3, Natural
Resources);
occupation of 40 acres of land now in active culti-
vation;
II-l
-------
negative visual impact on users of Kingsland Road
and Deep Bottom Road;
negative impact on users of Deep Bottom Boat Landing
due to simultaneous use of Deep Bottom Road by car-
towed boat trailers and trucks transporting sludge
to the landfill site. In addition, Deep Bottom
Boat Landing may be expanded by the county- Al-
though this possible expansion is not in conflict
with the proposed landfill site (LaVecchia, 1977) ,
increased future use may exacerbate any traffic
problem on Deep Bottom Road;
potential noise and odor effects upon remaining
adjacent property owners;
potential stress and social disorientation of more
vulnerable low-income residents desiring relocation;
and
"Special Flood Hazard Areas" (identified by HUD
under the National Flood Insurance Program) are
located in the eastern portion of the proposed land-
fill site (see Figure II-2). In the event a flood
should occur while active landfilling is underway
in this portion of the landfill site, disruption
of operations and surface water contamination
could occur.
occupies a battlefield where black soldiers fought
during the Civil War. The site has been suggested
for the National Register of Historic Places by
a local citizen; however, the Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission (VHLC) has determined that
the site is not eligible (1978). For this deter-
mination, see Appendix D;
destruction of breastworks surviving from the
Civil War period at the landfill site;
potential odor and visual conflicts due to con-
struction and operation of the facilities near
the historic Yarborough House. The VHLC has
determined that, while the house has architec-
tural significance and should be preserved, it
is not eligible for the National Register of His-
toric Places (1978);
possible damage to unprotected historic breastworks
by sewer corridor construction at four points; and
II-2
-------
excavation and construction on a site with known
archeological sites of undetermined significance;
Mitigating measures should include appropriate erosion
and sedimentation controls during construction (see Section
V-A-3). Other mitigating measures should include:
landfill areas should be maintained above the
thirty foot contour as preliminary plans indicate;
if the boundaries of the "Special Flood Hazard Area"
prove to be accurate where they extend above this
contour, landfill areas should also remain outside
of this area (see Section II-A-2). This will miti-
gate any effects on wetlands and Fourmile Creek;
utilize appropriate techniques for lining landfill
areas and draining leachate for retreatment to
avoid contamination of groundwater and Fourmile
Creek (refer to Section IV-G, Residuals Disposal);
maintain a 200 foot wooded buffer strip along Deep
Bottom and Kingsland Roads, using existing and
planted trees;
accomplish construction of a landfill access road
from the treatment facility perpendicular to Deep
Bottom Road for use by sludge trucks;
curtail use of Deep Bottom Road by construction ve-
hicles and sludge trucks on weekends during warm-
weather months;
in order that adjacent residents desiring relocation
are promptly and efficiently relocated to adequate
replacement housing, EPA guidelines for relocation
under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 should
be utilized;
proper operation and maintenance of the facilities
to eliminate possible plant operation malfunctions.
This would effectively eliminate any possible odor
problems from affecting nearby residents and the
Yarborough House;
wooded buffers will be utilized to minimize visual
effects on nearby residents, the Yarborough House,
and users of Kingsland and Deep Bottom Roads;
recommendations of citizens and the VHLC con-
cerning the historical significance of the Deep
II-3
-------
Bottom West site will be forwarded to the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation for final review;
a Stage 1 archeological survey of the Deep Bottom
West Site is now underway, and should be completed
by late February, 1978. Subsurface testing and
surface reconnaissance will identify potentially
significant archeological sites;
when the above mentioned study is completed, the
State Historic Preservation Office will utilize
its findings and existing information to recom-
mend any necessary actions; these could include
mapping and/or excavation of artifacts of his-
toric or archeologic significance prior to project
construction and landfill excavation. Certain areas
of on-site breastworks may also be recommended for
restoration following initial construction. Such
excavations and restoration are eligible for 75%
EPA funding up to 1% of the total project cost.
II-4
-------
N
FIGURE II-l.
AERIAL PHOTO OF PROPOSED DEEPBOTTOM
WEST siTE.
H-5
-------
HfS
\ i , 1 r% \ \~-.\-
\ \ / A \ [ \ \*-», \ v
\ \ il i ». ; \ \ \ \ -'. \
ITEM. NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
\2
13
14
DESCRIPTION
TRASH SCREEN
GRIT REMOVAL
CO»MINUTCR
PRIMARY CLARIFIES
AERATION EASIN
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
CHLORINE CONTACT
POST AERATION BASIN
GRAVITY THICKENER
AEROBIC DIGESTERS
CONTROL EUILOIN"5
DEWATERING BUILDING
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
/°v>^
' //0<=%- -
s^J^/x
xx\\fc^>// .
V--"^C/ /*
\ * '' /
'J
\
f- . , ,-T-
f ; ! ! !
"~~f.OM>
/
\
^ -^1 \
-LJ LA__L_
14
D
LEHEND
EXISTING PROPERTY LINES
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY FOR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT AND SLUDGE LANDFILL
SITE
"SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA"
(National Flood Insurance Association)
PROPOSED LANDFILL AREA WITHIN
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
\ , VL~ V. 1
v/ w
60 s" ( ^^'
1-2
CONCEPTUAL SITE
OUT OF THE PROPOSEC'
DEEPBOTTOM ROAD WES'
WASTEWATER TREATMEN*-
PLANT!
_ Source : Wiley&Wilson and Roy«'
J-J-fa
-------
^3^"*J- -&S>*J!Q:'^-^:i
Z Ul
O 35
« Ul Z
H CO f- Ul
< < Z
H > S -
in H _i
M Ul
QL > (_? O
s: < a z
3 ct o «
a. o u_ y>
Q Q o i
ui ui ui cu
U) U) C^
O O 0
OL 0- Q. f>
O O O en
(X Ct £T £T>
O_ Q_ Q- r-l
IIS
< o
UJ Z
a -
< a.
^
UJ O
O D-
>-*
> X
o: i-
UJ -«
FIGURE II-3
POTENTIAL SEWER SERVICE
AREA OF THE PROPOSED
DEEPBOTTOM WEST WTP
AND ASSOCIATED SEWERS
-------
2. Site Description
The proposed Deep Bottom West Wastewater Treatment Facility
site is located south of Kingsland Road, west of Fourmile
Creek and east and west of Deep Bottom Road in eastern Henrico
County. Figures II-l and II-2 show aerial photography and a
conceptual site plan, respectively. Potential gravity sewer
service areas are shown in Figure II-3. Treatment facilities
are proposed for the 155 acre area west of Deep Bottom Road;
a sludge landfill is proposed for the 300 acre area east of
Deep Bottom Road. The entire site is currently composed of
twenty separate parcels and is bordered by an additional
fifty, fourteen of which are occupied by rural residences.
This proposed site is essentially the original proposed
Deep Bottom Wastewater Treatment Facility modified in order
to avoid taking residences along Deep Bottom Road, to avoid
extensive areas of potential gravity sewerage outside the
County 1995 phasing line, and to avoid relocation of Deep
Bottom Road. This was accomplished by splitting the sites for
treatment and landfill, locating the facilities west of the
road and the landfill to the east.
Approximately 50% of the facilities site is in agricultural
use and 50% is wooded. The entire 155 acres has been desig-
nated 'prime agricultural1 land (refer to the discussion of
prime agricultural soils in Section V-A-3, Natural Resources)
by the Henrico County Future Land Use Plan, and the western
portion of the area is currently in agricultural production
(soybeans). The wooded or eastern portion of the facilities
area is in second and third growth pine/hardwood and young
hardwood forest. It includes a patchwork of brushy hardwood
and pioneer species bordering the agricultural uses. This
woodland habitat supports a variety of animal species including
game birds and mammals. A man-made pond of approximately 1/8
acre is located in the open field on the western portion of
the facilities area and is surrounded by brushy hardwood
vegetation.
The presence of hardwood species such as sweet gum and
sweet spices suggests soils on the plant site are poorly
drained and subject to flooding. Since older hardwoods on the
plant site are characterized by slow growth and reduced vigor,
soils in this area may be nutrient deficient with respect to
certain kinds of climax vegetation. Slopes on the plant site
range from zero to fifteen percent and runoff is generally
slow in the eastern and western portions of the area. On the
central portion of the site, soils may be subject to moderate
or severe erosion hazard with rapid runoff if vegetation is
removed for construction.
All of the 300 acre landfill area is wooded; vegetational
types range from successional woodlots to upland and bottom-
land forests. Most of the landfill area (above the thirty
II-8
-------
foot contour) has been cleared at one or more times and is in
various stages of recovery. An area to the east of the land-
fill site consists of bottomland forests bordered by a fresh
water marsh in Fourmile Creek. This portion of the site is
within the Flood Prone Area identified by HUD under the
National Flood Insurance Program (see Figure II-2). The
bottomland hardwood forest is one of the most diverse terres-
trial plant communities in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. In
addition to this diversity and the wildlife population it
supports, these areas a^:t to control drainage to the wetlands.
The wetlands act as settling or filtering basins which collect
sediments and other suspended material. Wetlands constitute
a habitat that is essential to waterfowl and numerous other
aquatic and terrestrial animals. Preliminary plans indicate
this area, which falls below the 30 foot contour, will not be
cleared or used.
Slopes in the area to be filled are shallow, ranging from
0-5%; however, slopes below the 30 foot contour range from 10-
20%. Existing vegetation below the 30 foot contour should
provide an adequate barrier to construction-related erosion
and siltation, if properly controlled. Erosion hazards from
the landfill site appear slight to moderate unless slopes below
the 30 foot contour are cleared.
Surrounding land uses include scattered rural residences,
as well as forested and agricultural lands. The projected
facilities and landfill will not be incompatible with forested
or agricultural areas; compatibility with nearby rural resi-
dences will depend on effective odor control and visual
screening with vegetated buffers. Henrico County has stated
its willingness to relocate adjacent residents if they so de-
sire. Responses at public meetings held by the County indicate
skepticism that adequate relocation assistance will be made
available. Fifteen to twenty residences occur directly or
nearly adjacent to the proposed site. Recent relocation
studies conducted in connection with the proposed routing of
1-95 through eastern Henrico County conclude that adequate
local sale and rental properties exist for necessary relocation
(Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, 1977).
Except for the slopes bordering Fourmile Creek to the east,
the site is designated as 'prime agriculture1 by the Henrico
County Future Land Use Plan (refer to the discussion of prime
agricultural soils in Section V-A-3, Natural Resources). This
designation does not represent a violation of the plan, but
does represent a conflict regarding the compatibility of nearby
land uses with a sewerage facility- The site's eastern slopes
are designated as an 'environmental protection area" by the
Plan; use as a buffer would not conflict with this designation.
At the present time the proposed Deep Bottom West site con-
tains no areas or structures listed in or eligible for inclusion
II-9
-------
on the National Register of Historic Places. However, accord-
ing to the Virginia Research Center for Archeology, the area
is bordered by prehistoric sites of archeological significance
and contains one site of the Civil War period. In addition,
potential for new sites is high (Kelso, 1977). A field sur-
vey similar to one conducted in June, 1977 on the Varina
Farms site (Ottesen and Druss, 1977) will be conducted on
the Deep Bottom West site to explore this possibility. If
areas of archeological significance are identified, they
will be excavated by a trained archeologist prior to con-
struction.
Two individual grave sites dated 1947 and 1953 are lo-
cated in the center of the proposed landfill site. These
will need to be relocated before clearing operations begin.
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transportation (Alternative E-4B
Modified)
The gravity interceptor line (Figure II-4) as it has
been modified from Transportation Alternative E-4B will run
from Buffin Road south and east to Kingsland Road approxi-
mately one-fourth mile east of the Kingsland-Wallo Road inter-
section; it will then run south and east to the proposed
treatment site. The outfall line will run south from the
plant and then southwest along the slopes of Roundabout
Creek for about three-quarters of a mile where it will turn
south along a ridge line to Varina Road. It will cross
Varina Road approximately one mile north of the James and
continue southwest to the river discharge point. The inter-
ceptor corridor runs through a mixture of wooded areas
ranging from edge and streambank vegetation to mature hard-
wood forest on rich, well-drained soils of the steeper
slopes. Much of the proposed corridor either borders or
crosses pasture and croplands now in active use.
The proposed line will skirt a small man-made pond north
of Varina Road which has been colonized by beaver. Freshwater
ponds adjacent to the southern portion of the interceptor
may also provide resting and feeding habitat for migrating
and over-wintering waterfowl.
Soils on which the proposed transportation route will
run are generally stable but subject to seasonal flooding,
and erosion hazard is slight to moderate throughout much of
the area. On slopes of greater than 6%, however, removal of
vegetation represents a severe erosion hazard.
Environmental impacts associated with use of this site
include:
disturbance of approximately 7 to 7.5 miles of stream
valley vegetation by sewer corridor construction
11-10
-------
LEGEND
EXIST. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
TO BE ABANDONED
E2EJ PROR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
& EXIST. WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION
TO BE ABANDONED
EXIST. WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION
TO BE EXPANDED
PROP. WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION
EXIST. WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION
EXIST. GRAVITY SEWER
EXIST, FORCE MAIN
PROP, GRAVITY SEWER
_ PROP. FORCE MAIN
FIGURE II-4. ENGINEER'S SELECTED
PLAN INCLUDING DEEPBOTTOM
ROAD WEST WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
11-11 Source: Wiley & Wilson and Royer
-------
including removal of both streambank and mature
hardwood vegetation;
subsequent erosion and sedimentation in Fourmile
and lower Roundabout Creek and two unnamed inter-
mittent streams, particularly in steeply sloping
areas;
disturbance of stream valley vegetation from crossing
two intermittent and six permanent streams;
the interceptor corridor will fall in a "Special
Flood Hazard Area" (identified by HUD under the
National Flood Insurance Program) just north of its
discharge point on the James River; this is not
anticipated to cause adverse effects;
disturbance of a beaver community and possible dis-
ruption of feeding waterfowl adjacent to the area;
if soils are left bare of vegetation for a lengthy
period of time, erosion and nutrient loss may en-
courage regeneration in brush hardwood vegetation.
On some sections of the construction corridor this
effect may be incompatible with future recreational
use as a hiking trail;
opening of approximately 8,600 acres to development
on gravity sewer, 500 of which fall outside Henrico
County's 1995 phasing line. For a discussion of
growth inducement refer to Section V-A-9.
Mitigating measures should include appropriate erosion
and sedimentation controls during construction (see Section
V-A-3). Other mitigating measures should include:
limit exposure of bare soils to a maximum of one
year on each section of transportation corridor
construction;
in order to preserve the wildlife corridor function
of the unnamed tributary of Fourmile Creek which
borders the southern edge of the landfill, all
operations should be confined to the area north of
this stream;
removal of large hardwood trees along the banks of
Roundabout Creek should be avoided wherever possible;
whenever possible during vegetation removal for
interceptor construction, larger pines should be
cut, in lieu of mature, vigorous hardwoods;
11-12
-------
in order to avoid disturbance of beaver habitat and
to minimize removal of larger hardwood specimens, a
qualified biologist should be included in interceptor
survey operations on the section from Varina Road
north three-quarters of a mile.
11-13
-------
B. Cornelius Creek
-------
B. CORNELIUS CREEK
Total Present Worth: $98,192,021
Current Land Use: Industrial park: borrow
(gravel) pit site
Adjacent Land Use: Industrial park: railroad
yard, borrow pits, NABISCO
baking facility
Planned Land Use: Industrial park
Residential Displacement: None
Planning Commission Finding: Yes (4 to 2)
Public Participation: Moderate opposition from near-
by residents, strong support
from eastern Henrico through a
petition opposing Varina Farms
and other eastern sites.
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures
Environmental impacts associated with use of the Corne-
lius Creek Site include:
removal of 50 to 70 acres of young successional
communities, primarily pines, sweet gum, and red
maple;
increased erosion and sedimentation effects on
Cornelius Creek and remaining borrow pits from con-
struction;
potential groundwater contamination by landfilling
(see Section IV-G);
increased runoff due to increased sealed surfaces
and decreased moderation by vegetation;
a low potential for aerosol contamination of NABISCO
baking operations (see Section VI-E).
Mitigating measures should include appropriate erosion
and sedimentation controls during construction (see Section
V-A-3). Other mitigating measures should include:
employ standard techniques to minimize potential for
groundwater contamination from landfilling (see
Section IV-G);
11-14
-------
when the treatment process is selected after pilot
studies, conduct an aerosol sampling program at a
plant of similar design. This will determine if
further protection is needed. If protection is
deemed necessary, implement these measures:
locate the aeration tanks at the opposite end
of the site from NABISCO
enclose the aeration tanks with a cover, or
choose the pure oxygen or Bio-surf alternatives,
which are routinely covered;
install scrubbers in the vents from covered tanks;
sample the Henrico facility after startup to con-
firm effectiveness of protective measures.
11-15
-------
/v
FIGURE 11-5. AERIAL PHOTO OF PROPOSED CORNELIUS CREEK SITE
11-16
-------
FIGURE
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY OF PROPOSED CORNELIUS CREEK
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT .
-------
o m en
73 m
m ~o s
m zi m
A o 73
u
X O CO
I u> m
T> m 3D
o <
tn
c
33
m
(_H
n -J
m
PROPOSED WTP SITE
POTENTIAL GRAVITY SEWER SERVICE AREA
ADDITIONAL SERVICE AREA WITH PUMPING
*1995 PHASING LINE
-------
2. Site Description
The Upper Cornelius Creek site is located southeast of
the intersection of Darbytown Road and the Chesapeake and
Ohio railroad tracks in an old gravel pit. An aerial photo
of the site is shown in Figure II-5. The proposed 260-acre
tract is substantially owned in two parcels by Laburnum In-
dustrial Corporation. A third parcel (approximately 18
acres) is owned by Sarah M. Warwick. Existing topography is
shown in Figure II-6. Potential gravity sewer service
areas are shown in Figure II-7.
Surrounding land uses include extensive gravel pits, a
railroad switching yard, a large NABISCO plant, and a VEPCO
power transmission corridor. None of these uses would be
incompatible with the proposed WTP. Effective odor control
would still be important, since some residences occur 3/4
mile to the north arid one mile to the southwest.
This site is designated as 'light1 industrial on the
Henrico County Future Land Use Plan. This is an appropriate
match between the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant and
the plan's projected land use.
The site is characterized by numerous water filled borrow
pits and a heterogeneous assortment of second growth pine
communities. Approximately 30 to 40 percent of the site is
wooded. Most communities on the site appear to be younger
than twenty years. Pines dominate with occasional scattered
stands of hardwoods. Understory is extremely variable, most
frequently honeysuckle, greenbrier, or dense groups of
saplings and seedlings. Strongly variable sites such as
this support a diverse but unstable community of birds,
insects and small mammals. Tracks indicate the site is fre-
quented by deer. The site's character is highly disturbed
with many distinct ecotones. Pioneer and edge species
predominate.
No wetlands or "Special Flood Hazard Areas" conflict
with this site.
Soils information is not available from the Soil Con-
servation Service due to the site's disturbed nature. The
many water-filled borrow pits indicate a relatively high
water table. On-site soil surveys would be necessary to
accurately assess the suitability of the site for landfill
operations. Filling would be necessary to prepare the site
for structures; a determination of the extent of filling
which will be necessary and its effects would require more
detailed site plans. A determination of associated changes
in runoff would require more detailed topographic and hydro-
logic data. Existing borrow pits appear to intercept most
runoff.
11-19
-------
3- Site-Related Wastewater Transportation (Alternative E-8A)
This alternative routing begins at the proposed Upper
Cornelius Creek wastewater treatment plant; a diagram is
given in Figure II-8. Effluent from this plant is to follow
Cornelius Creek south to the intersection of Laburnum
Avenue and Darbytown Road. At this point the discharge line
is to cross under Laburnum Avenue and follow Darbytown Road
to Miller Road where it will turn south on Miller Road for
one thousand feet. From here the line leaves Miller Road
and extends south, crossing Yarnell Road and meeting a VEPCO
power right-of-way near Wilson Road. After traveling
approximately five hundred feet southeast along the right-of-
way, the sewer turns due south for one mile to where it meets
Route 5, runs two hundred feet southwest along Route 5 and
turns south onto Recreation Road. The sewer then passes
behind Varina School and begins to follow Roundabout Creek
south, passing east and south of a gravel pit and eventually
crossing Kingsland Road near Bethel Church. Here the line
turns southeast along the northern slopes of Roundabout
Creek for approximately one-half mile. From this point it
turns southwest, crosses the creek and extends overland to
Varina Road, running three thousand feet southwest along
Varina Road to a point where Varina Road turns abruptly
east. At this point the discharge extends south one and
one-half mile down the slope, crosses a small tributary,
and moves across a cultivated field to a discharge point
on the James River just downstream of Dutch Gap. Environ-
mental impacts from this route include:
disturbance of approximately 3 to 3.5 miles of
stream valley vegetation by sewer corridor construc-
tion;
the interceptor corridor will fall in a "Special
Flood Hazard Area" (identified by HUD under the
national Flood Insurance Program) just north of its
discharge point on the James River; this is not
anticipated to cause adverse effects;
construction-associated erosion and sedimentation
in Cornelius and Roundabout Creeks;
disturbance of stream valley vegetation from
crossing three permanent streams;
possible modifications to unprotected historic
breastworks at three points, two of them relatively
major;
opens 4600 acres to potential gravity sewer, for a
discussion of induced growth, refer to Section
V-A-9;
11-20
-------
H Proposed Wastewoter Pumping
Station
- Proposed Gravity Sewer
Proposed Force1 Main
Existing Wastewater Treatment
Plant to be Abandoned
Proposed Wastewoter Treatment
Plant
MODIFIED .
ALTERNATIVE "
r1
-X
* FIGURE II-8. CORNELIUS CREEK SITE-RELATED WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION.
-------
temporary noise, dust, and disruption of traffic due
to construction along approximately four miles of
rural roads; and
places constraints on expansion of the eastern edge
of an existing gravel pit between Strath and Varina
Roads.
Mitigating measures should include appropriate erosion
and sedimentation controls during construction (see Section
V-A-3).
11-22
-------
C. Varina Farms
-------
C. VARINA FARMS
Total Present Worth: $95,261,412
Current Land Use: Agricultural, undeveloped
Adjacent Land Use: Agricultural, undeveloped
Planned Land Use: Prime agriculture
Residential Displacement: None
Planning Commission Finding: No (6 to 0)
Public Participation: Strong opposition from nearby
residents, strong opposition
mixed with some limited support
from eastern Henrico.
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures
Environmental impacts associated with use of the Varina
Farms Site include:
removal of vegetation in approximately forty acres
of stream valley and associated watershed;
an increase in runoff by two to three times at a
point just below the site as a result of greater
sealed surfaces and decreased moderation by vege-
tation;
greater erosion and scouring in remaining stream
sections;
somewhat lower low-flow levels in the eastern stream
as a result of decreased moderation by vegetation;
removal of 30-35 acres of currently productive ag-
ricultural land from production, as well as occupa-
tion of 300 acres of land designated 'prime agricul-
ture1 by the county (refer to the discussion of
prime agricultural soils in Section V-A-3, Natural
Resources);
greater siltation in the lower reaches of the eastern
stream from construction activity;
modifications of movement patterns of local animal
populationspossible increased usage of western
stream valley; and
11-23
-------
some siltation in the western stream valley due to
construction activity near the ridge line between
the two valleys.
Mitigating measures identified include:
appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls
should be used during construction (see Section V-A-3);
at a point just below the actual plant site some
type of permanent retention measure should be uti-
lized to moderate runoff (e.g., a wet-dry retention
pond);
every effort should be made to keep construction
activity east of the ridge line separating the two
streams, thereby reducing impacts on the western
valley;
arrangements should be pursued, if deemed appropriate,
to maintain agricultural usage of the 30-35 acres
to be affected, either through leasing or a reduc-
tion of the parcel to be purchased; and
should 1-95 (currently planned to pass just east of
the site) be moved to another location, consideration
should be given to moving the site eastward, there-
by avoiding significant stream valley modification.
11-24
-------
N
FIGURE II-9. AERIAL PHOTO OF PROPOSED VARINA FARMS SITE
11-25
-------
FIGURE 11-10.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY OF
PROPOSED VARINA FARMS WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT PLANT.
11-26
-------
',-'" ~~~"^8£_'XX J x\«!v.
^" , "4- .""'^ S-1 *°,
- ^'v --* « '
'''J--'
'--
/y.:A*si>^fw^v &\*s^
1*^^-V^W"'.tSLT. *x-Vv. ^S'fK^,. \ ~ ,
111
cr
111
o
co
a:
m
3
111
CO
111
w >- z
h- h- M
II M I
CO >
< (3
n Q^ 2
I CD 1-1
X U)
-I <
Q < X
111 M Q.
10 t-
O Z
Q- LU un
O h-
-------
2. Site Description
The Varina Farms site is located approximately one mile
south of the intersection of Kingsland and Varina Roads. An
air photo of this site is shown in Figure II-9. The pro-
posed 300-acre parcel is part of an 867-acre tract owned by
Irene Stoneman. Except for one agricultural portion (approxi-
mately 35 acres) on the eastern edge of the site, the parcel
is completely wooded. Existing topography is shown in
Figure 11-10. Potential gravity sewer service areas are
shown in Figure 11-11.
Surrounding land uses include primarily agricultural
and forested areas. These present no direct incompatibility
with a WTP. The projected plant would also fall within one-
half mile of a part of Richmond National Battlefield Park
(Fort Brady) and within one mile of the historic Varina
Farms plantation. Compatibility with the park is dependent
on projected maintenance of a forested buffer and effective
odor control. Compatibility with Varina Farms plantation
is likely due to the greater distance and the anticipated
intervention of 1-95 between the WTP and the area of the
historic farm.
This site is designated as 'prime agriculture1 by the
Henrico County Future Land Use Plan, as is most of the
James River flood plain in the eastern county (refer to
the discussion of prime agricultural soils in Section V-A-3,
Natural Resources). This conflict does not represent a
major violation of the plan, but the precedent it would set
may represent such a violation.
The majority of the site falls above a bluff overlooking
the James River. Overstory in this upland portion is com-
posed of mixed hardwoods and pines. Selective cutting at
varying times has left a heterogeneous mixture of second-
growth communities, all over 25 to 30 years old. The canopy
is essentially closed over this area; ecotones (distinct
edges) are scarce. Understory character varies from extreme-
ly open to somewhat closed with smaller hollies, greenbrier,
and spicebush. This community provides habitat of moderate
productivity and quality for a limited number of animals
(e.g. deer and squirrels) and such canopy-dwelling species
of birds as raptors, owls and crows.
The bluff along the southern portion of the site is
deeply dissected by two stream valleys. These two valleys
exhibit highly varied habitats, ranging from oak-beech-
hickory associations, closed canopies and little understory,
to areas with very open canopies, sweet gum and maple
associations, and understories dominated by large numbers
of saplings and extensive growths of honeysuckle. This
heterogeneous mixture of habitats provides cover and
11-28
-------
forage for a much larger number of species, including many
ground-nesting birds, amphibians, scavengers such as raccoons
and opossum, and other mammals (e.g. voles and mice). In
addition, stream valleys function as major corridors for
nutrient and sediment transport as well as providing path-
ways for numerous species of birds and mammals (Thurow,
et al., 1975.) This combination of resources results in a
habitat of relatively high productivity and quality. The
proximity of this area to the less productive uplands allows
them to function as cover for animals frequenting the stream
valleys and nearby fields.
Soils in the upper portion of the site exhibit several
constraints over landfill operation. Pamunkey soils (15-
20% of the upper terrace) provide few limitations on land-
fills with the exception of the limited possibility of
polluting groundwater and nearby streams in some places due
to high permeability. However, Angle and Leniqr soils (70-
75% of the upper terrace) place one important limitation
on the proposed landfill, the danger of groundwater contamina-
tion due to a seasonally high water table.
No wetlands or "Special Flood Hazard Areas" conflict
with this site.
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transportation (Alternative E-4B)
In this alternative (see Figure 11-12) gravity sewer
extends overland from the Fort Lee area south to the upper
end of Fourmile Creek, then follows Fourmile Creek approxi-
mately three miles south to Doran Road. From here the
gravity sewer will follow the western slopes above Four-
mile Creek, south, crossing Route 5 at a point one-half
mile west of the creek. The gravity sewer continues south-
west another two miles, leaving Fourmile Creek and crossing
Buffin and Kingsland Roads to an area near Bethel Church.
The line turns southeast to run along the northern slopes
of Roundabout Creek for approximately one-half mile. Here
it turns southwest, crosses the creek and extends overland
to Varina Road, which it follows to the proposed Varina
Farms wastewater treatment plant site. Effluent from this
plant will be discharged south, one mile across a culti-
vated field to a point on the James River just downstream
of Dutch Gap.
Environmental impacts associated with this route include:
disturbance of approximately 4 to 4.5 miles of
stream valley vegetation by sewer corridor con-
struction;
construction-associated erosion and sedimentation
in Fourmile and Roundabout Creeks;
11-29
-------
StOl4 on
Piopot*d C'ovtty **«'
* ^« Opo*»d f Of t * Main
ry* E i 111 n Q VV o 11 * v* a'«i l*«at
>-' floni 'o b» Aboftdo««d
Woittwo!«i
CX Vv*«.di
*4 Al^rl
'i &v 3*^:
VARINA FARMS SITE-RELATED WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION.
-------
disturbance of stream valley vegetation from
crossing four intermittent and two permanent
streams;
possible modifications to unprotected historic
breastworks at four points;
temporary noise, dust, and disruption of traffic
due to construction along approximately 3.5 miles
of rural roads;
opening of approximately 9100 acres to development
on gravity sewer, with approximately 700 of these
acres falling outside Henrico County's 1995 phasing
line. Most of the area opened to development on
gravity sewer outside the 1995 phasing line exhibits
slight constraints to residential development
(RRPDC, 1973). Refer to Section V-A-9 for a dis-
cussion of growth inducement;
the interceptor corridor will fall in a "Special
Flood Hazard Area" (identified by HUD under the
National Flood Insurance Program) just north of its
discharge point on the James River; this is not
anticipated to cause adverse effects.
11-31
-------
D. DARBYTOWN ROAD
Total Present Worth: $95,884,613
Current Land Use: Agricultural, rural residential
Adjacent Land Use: Agricultural, rural residential,
undeveloped
Planned Land Use: Active recreation
Residential Displacement: Three families
Planning Commission Finding: No (6 to 0)
Public Participation: Strong opposition from nearby
residents, moderate opposition
from eastern Henrico
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures
Environmental impacts associated with use of the Darby-
town Road Site include:
little clearing of vegetation required?
minimal increase in erosion and sedimentation;
displacement of three tenant families;
removal of approximately 250 acres of currently
productive agricultural land from production; and
occupation of a site designated by County plans as a
future park.
Mitigating measures should include appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls during construction (see Section V-A-3).
11-32
-------
D. Darby Town Road
-------
N
FIGURE 11-13. AERIAL PHOTO OF PROPOSED DARBYTOWN SITE
11-33
-------
FIGURE 11-14. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY OF PROPOSED
DARBYTOWN ROAD WASTEWATER TREAT
MENT PLANT SITE.
n-34
-------
M M _J
O) >
< 0
D- Qi 7.
H U> u
3= «
J <
a < i
LU IH Q-
W H
O 'Z.
Q. UI ^
O t- ffi
a a OT
D_ 0- ^
FIGURE II-l5
POTENTIAL SEWER SERVICE
AREA OF THE PROPOSED
DARBYTOWN WTP
-------
2. Site Description
The Darbytown Road Site is located just south of Darby-
town Road between Strath Road and Doran Road. The site is
a 321 acre tract owned by Belle F. Dovey. The site is pres-
ently approximately 80 percent agricultural lands. An aerial
photo of the site is shown in Figure 11-13; existing topo-
graphy is shown in Figure 11-14. Potential gravity sewer
service areas are shown in Figure 11-15. The remaining land
is made up of edge vegetation, transitional areas, and wood-
land. The wooded area is a mixture of hardwoods and lob-
lolly pine, with several stands of pine scattered in the
southern end of the site. The mixed oak-pine forest is in-
dicative of a later stage of successional development. The
abundance of mast (windfall food sources such as nuts) and
a well-developed understory make these woodlands conducive
to deer and squirrel populations. Tracks found along stream
beds during field surveys, support this conclusion. In the
transitional communities or open fields that have resulted
from lumbering, there is a dense growth of shrubs and vines.
The ecotones found at interfaces of communities, support a
diverse shrub-tree association. Both of these pioneer com-
munities are excellent food sources for quail, rabbit, and
numerous small mammals. In addition, various songbirds and
raptors thrive in this habitat.
No wetlands or "Special Flood Hazard Areas" conflict with
this site. Surrounding land uses include some scattered rural
residences, forest stream valleys, and agricultural land.
This site is under a flight path for Richmond Municipal Air-
port (Byrd Field) but does not fall within current or pro-
jected NEF zones (Arnold Thompson Associates, 1974). The
projected use is not incompatible with surrounding natural
or agricultural areas. Compatibility with existing or future
residences would depend on effective odor control and appro-
priate buffers.
This site is designated as 'active recreation1 open space
on the Henrico County Future Land Use Plan. In addition, the
Henrico County Park and Recreation Advisory Commission in a
recently released "Recommended Interim Open Space Plan," has
suggested this site for use as a county park. Due to this,
acquisition of the site was included in a planned $7.5 million
recreation bond referendum which was approved on June 14, 1977
Therefore, although acquisition of the site has not begun, it
appears that the site will eventually be utilized as a park.
The area served by the Darbytown Road site is largely within
the County's 1995 Phasing Line. For a discussion of growth
inducement, see Section V-A-9.
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transportation (Alternative E-5)
Alternative E-5 (see Figure 11-16) extends overland from
11-36
-------
_ Proposed Wastewoler Pumping
Station
Proposed Gravity Sewer
... Proposed Force Main
Existing Wastewater Treatment
Plant lo be Abandoned
Proposed Wastewater Treatment
Plant
***>« t"
C^^VJ
H
^ *
^*\
r
v
^
^
/f^c
4^
^
FIGURE 11-16. DARBYTOWN SITE-RELATED WASTEWATIER
TRANSPORTATION.
-------
the Fort Lee area south to the headwaters of Fourmile Creek.
The alternative then follows the western slopes of Fourmile
Creek to the proposed Darbytown wastewater treatment plant
site. A gravity sewer carrying effluent from the proposed
plant is then to extend south, along Fourmile Creek to Doran
Road. From here the gravity sewer will follow the western
slopes above Fourmile Creek south, crossing Route 5 at a
point one-half mile west of the creek. The gravity sewer
continues southwest another two miles, leaving Fourmile
Creek and crossing Buffin and Kingsland Roads to an area
near Bethel Church. The line turns southeast along the
northern slopes of Roundabout Creek for approximately one-
half mile. Here it turns southwest, crosses the creek and
extends overland to Varina Road, extending three thousand
feet southwest along Varina Road to a point where Varina
Road turns abruptly east. At this point the discharge ex-
tends south one and one-half miles down a slope, crossing a
small tributary, and moving across a cultivated field to a
discharge point on the James River just downstream of Dutch
Gap.
Environmental impacts associated with this route include:
disturbance of approximately 4 to 4.5 miles of stream
valley vegetation by sewer corridor construction;
construction associated erosion and sedimentation in
Fourmile and Roundabout Creeks;
disturbance of stream valley vegetation from crossing
six intermittent and four permanent streams;
possible modifications to unprotected historic breast-
works at two points;
the interceptor corridor will fall in a "Special Flood
Hazard Area" (identified by HUD under the National
Flood Insurance Program) just north of its discharge
point on the James River; this is not anticipated to
cause adverse effects.
temporary noise., dust, and disruption of traffic due
to construction along approximately 3.5 miles of rural
roads; and
opening of approximately 4,500 acres to development on
gravity sewers, all within Henrico County's 1995 Phasing
Line. See Section V-A-9, for a discussion of induced
growth.
Mitigating measures should include appropriate erosion
and sedimentation controls during construction (see Section
Y-A-3).
II-38
-------
E. Deep Bottom
-------
E. DEEP BOTTOM
Total Present Worth: $107,760,020
Current Land Use: Undeveloped, rural residential
Adjacent Land Use: Agricultural, undeveloped, rural
residential
Planned Land Use: Prime agriculture
Residential Displacement: Five families
Planning Commission Finding: Yes (3 to 3), constitutes approval
after sixty days
Public Participation: Strong opposition from nearby resi-
dents, strong to moderate opposition
from eastern Henrico.
1. Site Impacts and Mitigating Measures
Environmental impacts associated with use of the Deep Bottom
Site include:
removal of 210 to 230 acres of vegetation types ranging from
young successional woodlots to more mature upland and bottom-
land forests;
somewhat accelerated erosion and sedimentation of Fourmile
Creek from landfilling operations east of Deep Bottom Road
with potential increases in siltation of a large area of
wetland below the plant site;
displacement of five owner families and potential stress
and social disorientation of more vulnerable low-income
residents during relocation;
potential noise and odor effects upon adjacent property
owners;
"Special Flood Hazard Areas" (identified by HUD under the
National Flood Insurance Program) are located in the eastern
portion of the proposed landfill site (See Figure II-3).
In the event a flood should occur while active landfilling
is underway in this portion of the landfill site, disrup-
tion of operations and surface water contamination could
occur?
occupation of 376 acres of land designated 'prime agricul-
ture' by the county (refer to the discussion of prime agri-
cultural soils in Section V-3-A Natural Resources);
11-39
-------
opening of approximately 12,800 acres to development
on gravity sewer. See Section V-A-9 for a discussion
of induced growth.
Mitigating measures should include appropriate erosion
and sedimentation controls during construction (see Section
V-3) .
11-40
-------
. f Deepbottom Road
:-$m<:
James River
N
FIGURE 11-17. AERIAL PHOTO OF PROPOSED DEEPBOTTOM SITE
H-41
-------
FIGURE 11-18. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
OF THE PROPOSED DEEPBOTTOM
ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT.
n-42
-------
'^xwHVL*'
in
or
in
o
HI
C/)
QL
111
3
LU
If)
LU
LU >- Z
I- I- W
Q- C£ Z
h- CD w
Q < Z
LU n Q.
CO I
Q Z
Q, tU LO
Q I- cri
a o en
a. a. H
FIGURE 11-19
POTENTIAL SEWER SERVICE
AREA OF THE PROPOSED
DEEPBOTTOM WTP
-------
2. Site Description
The Deep Bottom Road site is located south of the inter-
section of Deep Bottom Road and Kingsland Road; an aerial
photo is shown in Figure 11-17. The total area of 376 acres
is made up of 14 parcels of land, each under separate owner-
ship. Existing topography is shown in Figure 11-18; poten-
tial gravity sewer service areas are shown in Figure 11-19.
Except for the open space associated with the houses along
Deep Bottom Road, the site is almost totally wooded with
vegetation types ranging from young successional woodlots
to upland and bottomland forests. Most of the area has been
cleared at one or more times and is'in various stages of
recovery. The occurrence of certain mesophytic indicators
such as willow oak and ironwood throughout a good portion of
the site, indicates that the land is poorly drained and
seasonally wet. Large tracts of land such as these that
are in different developmental stages, offer a variety of
suitable habitats that support a dynamic animal population.
The eastern portion of the study site consists of bottom-
land forests bordered by a fresh water marsh. This portion
of the site is within the Special Flood Hazard Area identified
by HUD under the National Flood Insurance Program (refer to
Figure II-2 for the location of the Special Flood Hazard
Area.) The bottomland hardwood forest is one of the most
diverse terrestrial plant communities in the Atlantic Coastal
Plain. In addition to this diversity and the wildlife popula-
tion it supports, these areas act to control drainage to the
wetlands. The wetlands act as settling or filtering basins
which collect sediments and other suspended material. Wet-
lands constitute a habitat' that is essential to waterfowl and
numerous other aquatic and terrestrial animals.
The Deep Bottom Site provides potential service by gravity
to the largest area as compared to the other sites. All of
the Fourmile Creek drainage basin can be served by gravity
to the proposed plant interceptor. The Deep Bottom site
would allow development of gravity sewer service to this area
in violation of the County's 1995 phasing plan. For a dis-
cussion of growth inducement see Section V-A-9.
Surrounding land uses include primarily forested and agri-
cultural lands with some scattered rural residences. As at
other sites, the projected WTP will not be incompatible with
forested or agricultural areas; compatibility with rural res-
idences would depend on effective odor control and visual
screening with vegetated buffers.
This site is designated as 'prime agriculture' by the
Henrico County Future Land Use Plan, as is most of the James
River flood plain in the eastern county (refer to the discussion
11-44
-------
of prime agricultural soils in Section V-A-3, Natural Resources)
This conflict does not represent a major violation of the plan,
but the precedent it would set may represent such a violation.
3. Site-Related Wastewater Transportation (Alternative E-7)
In this alternative (See Figure 11-20) gravity sewer ex-
tends overland from the Fort Lee area south to the upper end
of Fourmile Creek. The alternative then follows Fourmile Creek
approximately three miles south to Doran Road. From here the
gravity sewer will follow the western slopes above Fourmile
Creek south, crossing Route 5 at a point one quarter mile west
of the creek. Crossing the road, the line continues to follow
west of Fourmile Creek approximately one-half mile, then turns
east to meet a proposed pump station just west of Grigg's Pond.
A force main extends south from here, up the slopes of Four-
mile Creek, across Kingsland Road and into the proposed Deep-
bottom wastewater treatment plant. The discharge is to leave
the plant to the southwest, cross Roundabout Creek, and begin
to follow its southern slopes for three quarters of a mile.
The effluent line then cuts south, beneath a ridge separating
Roundabout Creek from an unnamed tributary north of Fair Hill.
This tributary is followed south to Varina Road, where the
line crosses a cultivated field southwest to a discharge point
on the James River just downstream of Dutch Gap. Environmental
impacts associated with this route include:
disturbance of approximately 6.5 to 7 miles of stream
valley vegetation by sewer corridor construction, in-
cluding removal of approximately one-half acre of
mature bottomland forest forp a pump station;
construction-associated erosion and sedimentation in
Fourmile and lower Roundabout Creeks; especially where
the force main is to extend up the southern slopes
of Fourmile Creek;
disturbance of stream valley vegetation from crossing
one intermittent and seven permanent streams;
the interceptor corridor will fall in a "Special
Flood Hazard Area" (identified by HUD under the National
Flood Insurance Program) just north of its discharge
point on the James River; this is not anticipated to
cause adverse effects.
possible modifications to unprotected historic breast-
works at four points;
temporary noise, dust, and disruption of traffic due
to construction along approximately 4.2 miles of rural
roads;
11-45
-------
M Proposed Wastewoter Pumping
Station
- Proposed Gravity Sewer
Proposed force Main
Existing Woitewater Treatment
Plant to be Abandoned
Proposed Wastewoter Treatment
' Plant
I
J^
cr\
r
-\
7"" FIGURE 11-20. DEEP BOTTOM SITE-RELATED WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION.
-------
potential contamination of groundwater by landfilling
operation.
Mitigating measures should include appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls during construction (See Section V-A-3).
Other mitigating measures should include:
landfill areas should be maintained above the 30 foot
contour as preliminary plans indicate; if the boundaries
of the "Special Flood Hazard Area" prove to be accurate
where they extend above this contour, landfill areas
should also remain outside of this area (See Section
II-A-2). This will mitigate any effects on wetlands and
Fourmile Creek.
11-47
-------
III. EIS Recommendations
and Conclusions
-------
III. EIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
After consideration of all of the information generated
by the 201 Facilities Plan, the Draft EIS and Addendum
Number One and public participation, the conclusions and recommendations
or the Final EIS are as follows:
A. TREATMENT PLANT SITE
The 201 Facilities Planning/EIS process has identified five
alternative sites for wastewater treatment facilities, all in
eastern Henrico County. After careful examination of all avail-
able information and consideration of public input, the EIS
concludes that two of the alternative sites, Darbytown Road and
Deep Bottom, are environmentally unacceptable. This determination
is based on the social impacts which would result from the relocation
of local residents. It is EPA's position that because there are
acceptable alternatives available, the relocation of residents is
unnecessary. The other three sites, Deep Bottom West, Varina Farms, and
Cornelius Creek, are environmentally acceptable. Through the EIS
process, the following conclusions have been reached concerning
these three sites:
1. Future Land Use Plan
The Deep Bottom West and Varina Farms sites are both
designated for use as 'prime agriculture' ; the Cornelius
Creek site is designated for use as 'light industrial'.
2. Potential Gravity Sewer Service Area
The planning goal of the 201 Facilities Planning/EIS process
is to provide potential sewer service to the area as defined
by Henrico County's 1995 Land Use Plan phasing line. In this
context, providing potential sewer service beyond this phasing
line could support excessive development, not planned for by
the County, as discussed in Section V.A.9.
The acreage beyond the 1995 phasing line are as follows:
Cornelius Creek - no acres outside; Deep Bottom West - 500 acres
outside; Varina Farms - 700 acres outside. Although the
Cornelius Creek site does not service any area outside of the
1995 phasing line, conversely, it does not provide service to
some 3500 acres within the phasing line which is serviced by
the other two sites. However, as shown on Figure II-2
(page 11-18), with pumping of sewage from the Four Mile Creek
basin, the three sites would be essentially identical in their
service areas.
III-l
-------
3. Public Participation
The Cornelius Creek site generated the only substantial
support and relatively little opposition, as contrasted
with the strong opposition expressed to the Varina Farms
and Deep Bottom West sites.
4. Primary Impacts
Primary impacts were found to be considerably less at
the already disturbed Cornelius Creek Site than at either of
the relatively mature, forested Varina Farms and Deep Bottom
West sites.
5. Total Present Worth Costs
Based upon total present worth (including future
operational and maintenance costs over 25 years), the
Varina Farms Site is the least costly at $95,261,412.
The Cornelius Creek and Deep Bottom West Sites are com-
parable in costs at $98,192,021 and $98,001,718 respectively.
As mentioned in conclusion 2 above, an additional pumping
station could be added to the Cornelius Creek alternative to
equate service areas. The costs of this pumping and transportation
would increase the Cornelius Creek site to $102,000,000.
Based primarily on these factors, the EIS has identified the Cornelius
Creek Site as the most environmentally desirable site of the three
sites. However this does not in any way preclude funding of the
applicant's selected site at Deep Bottom West, since it has also been
found to be environmentally acceptable. The value of the EIS process
is that it insures that environmental impacts and values may be given
appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and
technical factors.
The decision of whether to fund the County's selected site is subject
to a thirty day comment period. Subsequent to this comment period,
the Virginia State Water Control Board will certify an approved
project to EPA for review at which time the Regional Administrator of
Region III, EPA, will announce EPA's final decision.
B. TREATMENT PROCESSES AND WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
The 201 Facilities Plan prepared by Wiley £ Wilson and Royer
selects a proposed project on the basis of cost from a range of
feasible alternatives. After reviewing this plan (which is the
applicant's proposed project) and the data from the EIS process, these
alternatives (see Section IV) have been found by EPA to also be
the most environmentally acceptable.
III-2
-------
Although landfill of sludge is the plan's proposed method
o± final disposal by the applicant, recent advances in technology
require a reconsideration of raw sludge composting, in this case
during step two of the facilities planning process. (Note-
Possible additional federal funding from present 75% to 85% may
be possible if composting is utilized as a result of the 1927 Clean
Water Act Amendments.)
C. AEROSOL CONTAMINATION
As is discussed in Section VI-E, aerosol contamination of
NABISCO baking operations should the Cornelius Creek site be
utilized is not anticipated. However, as a safety factor if
the Cornelius Creek site is chosen EPA recommends these
measures: when the treatment process is selected in step two
after pilot studies, an aerosol sampling program should be
conducted at a plant of similar design. This will determine
if further protection is needed. If protection is deemed
necessary, these measures should be implemented:
locate the aeration tanks at the opposite end
of the site from NABISCO;
enclose the aeration tanks with a cover, or choose
the pure oxygen or Bio-surf alternatives, which
are routinely covered;
install scrubbers in the vents from covered tanks.
In addition, the Henrico facility should be sampled after
startup to confirm the effectiveness of protective measures.
D. MULTIPLE USE
Under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(Public Law 88-578), administered by the U. S. Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, Henrico County is eligible for a 50 per-
cent federal grant to be made for the acquisition and develop-
ment of recreational lands which involve multiple uses of a
federal facility. Construction of hiking trails, acquisition
of park lands, and increased access to the James River are
III-3
-------
all priority public recreation needs in the Henrico County
recreation plan. It will be necessary for the appropriate
Henrico County Office to coordinate plans for recreational
use of the treatment facility and wastewater transportation
routes with the Virginia Commissioner of Outdoor Recreation,
in order to obtain federal funding. The following uses of
the proposed project facilities are potentially eligible for
these funds:
a linear park proposed by the county from Darbytown
Road, along Fourmile Creek, to the James River;
acquisition of multiple-use easements for
hiking trails along wastewater transmission
rights-of-way; and
if the applicant's proposed site, Deep Bottom
West, is selected, (1) the southern portion
of the landfill area may be usable for some part
of the facilities associated with the proposed
expansion of the Deep Bottom Boat Landing and
(2) a small portion of the landfill area may
be useful for widening and improving Deep Bottom
Road to accommodate increased use of the expanded
boat landing.
EPA recommends that the county coordinate plans for mul-
tiple use of the treatment facility with the State Office of
Outdoor Recreation. Acquisition of federal funds and parti-
cipation in right-of-way negotiations should occur early
in step two of the facilities planning process. Since mul-
tiple use of the wastewater treatment facility has not been
pursued in detail at this time, the county should rank its
priorities for the acquisition and improvement of recreational
facilities, and formulate detailed plans of those projects of
top priority-
E. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGIC SITES
A Stage 1 archeological survey of the Deep Bottom West
site is now underway, and should be completed by late Febru-
ary, 1978. Subsurface testing and surface reconnaissance
will identify potentially significant archeological sites.
When this study is completed, the State Historic Preservation
Office will utilize its findings and existing information to
recommend any necessary actions; these could include mapping
and/or excavation of artifacts of historic or archeologic
significance prior to project construction and landfill ex-
cavation. Certain areas of on-site breastworks may also be
recommended for restoration following initial construction.
Such excavations and restoration are eligible for 75% EPA
funding up to 1% of the total project cost. EPA recommends
that any suggestions from the State Historic Preservation
Officer on the proposed project be considered in step two of
facilities planning.
III-4
-------
F. 1-95 WESTERN ALTERNATES
For reasons discussed in Section V-A-9,including the
support of Henrico County's Future Land Use Plan, the choice
of one of the western alternates (Appendix E) for routing
1-95 through the eastern county is recommended.
G. ROUTE FIVE SCENIC BYWAY ZONING
In order to maintain the character of Route 5 which led
to its designation as a Scenic Byway, Henrico County is
currently in the process of amending the county zoning ordi-
nance to incorporate additional height, setback, and land-
scaping controls on the route. EPA supports this change as
a reinforcement of the Future Land Use Plan and the route's
scenic character.
H. MITIGATING MEASURES
EPA recommends the full consideration during step two
of all mitigating measures described in this FEIS as well as
their inclusion in all future plans.
III-5
------- |