United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
&EPA
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
August 1981
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for the
Town of Ashland and
Hanover County, Virginia
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
6TH AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106
AUG 2 0 1981
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction
with wastewater treatment Facilities Plans for the Town of Ashland and the
"Phase I Extended" area of Hanover County, Virginia. This Final EIS has
been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the corresponding regulations
promulgated by EPA (40 CFR Part 6, November 6, 1979; 40 CFR Part 35,
September 27, 1978).
Please note that since a Draft EIS was issued in 1979 covering the Phase II
area of Hanover County (which included Ashland), separate wastewater Plans
have been prepared by Ashland and the County. This Final EIS addresses both
Plans in accordance with NEPA requirements. It may be necessary for Hanover
County or the City of Ashland to furnish additional information or for EPA
to perform supplemental NEPA analyses prior to future Federal funding.
I wish to thank the local jurisdictions and participating government
agencies for their assistance during this EIS process. In addition, I
especially wish to recognize and commend the strong environmental knowledge,
interest, and efforts of the area's citizenry. Their participation
throughout the EIS process has had a profound influence on development of
wastewater treatment solutions which are responsive to the needs of the area.
EPA will not take any administrative action pending a 30-day review period
following public issuance of this FEIS. A public meeting on the Final EIS
will be held on September 22, 1981 at 8:00 p.m. in the Wickham Building,
Hanover, VA. The general public and representatives of organizations are
invited to attend and express their opinions about the Final EIS. Any
comments or inquiries concerning this EIS should be raised to the attention
of Mr. Thomas Slenkamp of this Regional EPA office by September 28, 1981.
Sincerely yours,
Alvin R.ptorris
Deputy Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR THE TOWN OF ASHLAND
AND
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
August 1981
Prepared for
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
By
Engineering-Science
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
-------
PREFACE
Purpose of the This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been
Final Els'prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
conjunction with wastewater treatment "Facilities Plans" for the
Town of Ashland and Hanover County, Virginia.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires every
Federal government agency to prepare an EIS before taking any
major Federal action which could significantly affect the quality
of the human environment. In this case, EPA initiated an EIS
because of concerns over the proposed Federal funding for a
wastewater treatment project, termed "8-1", serving an area
designated as "Phase II" in Hanover County (including Ashland).
A Draft EIS covering the Phase II area was issued by EPA in early
1979 and a public hearing held on April 4, 1979. Since that
time, several events have occurred which have altered the basic
circumstances and, therefore, assumptions involved in preparation
of the Draft EIS. These include 1) efforts made by the Town of
Ashland to complete a separate Facilities Plan from that of
Hanover County, and 2) the County's revision of previous waste-
water planning goals and objectives which has resulted in a
reduced service area-"Phase I Extended" - for future sewerage
facilities (See Figure 1).
The net effect of these changes has been to render as infeasible
the previously recommended Phase II solution ("8-1") which had
prompted EPA to initiate an EIS. While the separate Facilities
Plans for Ashland and the County (Phase I Extended) would not
necessarily require EIS's in and of themselves, EPA believes it
is appropriate to provide guidance in this Final EIS concerning
environmental considerations which should be used by both local
jurisdictions when implementing wastewater treatment solutions.
However, the Final EIS in this instance does not cover both
Facilities Plans to a level of detail which would be expected in
a single-Plan EIS, partly because many of the previous environ-
mental concerns have been alleviated through development of the
new Plans.
In issuing this Final EIS, EPA will discuss only in a general
manner the rationale for selection of a Phase II alternative
concept, and, within that context, the alternative plans now
being considered for implementation by the separate jurisdic-
tions. Somewhat more discussion is provided about the Ashland
alternatives, since the Ashland Facilities Plan had progressed
further at the time this Final EIS was started.
Although EPA is satisfied that the separate Facilities Plans
represent substantial improvement and have incorporated many
environmental concerns raised by the Draft EIS, this does not
preclude EPA from requesting additional information concerning
NEPA compliance from local jurisdictions in support of future
requests for grant assistance. EPA reserves the right to modify
conclusions and recommendations expressed herein, and could issue
supplemental NEPA analyses on either Plan depending upon final
solutions and methods of implementation selected by Ashland and
Hanover County.
Following the close of the comment period on the Final EIS
(thirty days after issuance), EPA will prepare a Record of
Decision which will describe the conclusions of the EIS process,
the decisions reached by EPA as to Federal funding of alterna-
tives, and the actions to be undertaken by the grant applicants.
-------
References This Final EIS addresses all substantive comments received on the
"Draft EIS - wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning for Hanover
County, Virginia: Phase II Area" including the testimony
received at the public hearings on 4 April 1979 and 20 January
1981.
Rather than repeat the entire Draft EIS here in the Final EIS,
the Draft EIS has been included by reference as Appendix A and
appropriate changes and additions made in the Final EIS. All
environmental setting information used to evaluate Phase II
alternatives and sub-alternatives in this Final EIS was presented
in the Draft EIS except where specially noted otherwise.
Furthermore, detailed Facilities Planning information is drawn
from existing Phase II, Phase I extended, and Ashland Facilities
Plans. The reader is referred to the following sources to obtain
this information:
For information on the Environmental Setting and on Phase II
Facilities Planning:
"Draft EIS Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning for
Hanover County, Virginia: Phase II Area"
(Draft EIS)
Engineering-Science and EPA, January 1979
For information on the Phase II Facilities Planning:
"Hanover County Facilities Plan, Phase II, Volumes I and
II (The Plan, Appendix)"
(1975 Facilities Plan)
Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc., November 1975
"Preliminary Draft - Expanded Scope and Investigation of
Additional Alternatives for Facilities Planning in
Hanover County, Virginia"
(1978 Facilities Plan)
Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc., August 1978
For information on the Ashland Facilities Planning:
"Preliminary Draft: Town of Ashland Facilities Plan"
(Ashland Draft Facilities Plan)
Town of Ashland, February 1980)
For information on "Phase I Extended" Facilities Planning:
"Draft Addendum - Water Pollution Control Facilities Plan
- Phase I Extended, Hanover County, Virginia", April
1981, Patton, Harris, Rust, and Guy
ii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AND ABBREVIATIONS
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BYK Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc.
CBOD5 5-day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
cfs cubic feet per second
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERA Economics Research Associates
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
1-95 Interstate-95
I/I Infiltration and Inflow
mgd million gallons per day
mg/1 milligrams per liter
MPN Most Probable Number
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PL Public Law (of the United States)
RBC's Rotating Biological Contactors
RPCCA Rural Point Concerned Citizens Association
SAPU Service Area Planning Unit
SWCB Virginia State Water Control Board
TSS Total Suspended Solids
30/30 30 mg/1 for BOD and 30 mg/1 for TSS
iii
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas Slenkamp, Project Monitor
Rosemarie Baldino, Production Advisor
Karen Risoli, Support Services
Engineering-Science
Palma Strand, Project Manager
Philip Morris, Technical Director
Gregory Gibbons, Project Engineer
Donald Gordon, Graphics
Nancy Sanderoff, Support Services
Mary Starrs, Support Services
Economic Research Associates
Louise Root, Project Manager
Jeffrey Jobe, Economist
-------
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface i
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations iii
List of Preparers iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
Executive Summary vii
I. Background 1
Introduction 1
History of the Project 1
Recent Developments 2
Reassessment of the Planning Area 2
Organization of this EIS 2
II. Public Participation 5
Introduction 5
Chronology 5
Public Hearings 6
Written Comments 8
EPA Responses to Issue-Oriented Public Comments 9
Additional and Corrected Data 13
III. Phase II Alternatives 17
Alternatives Recommended in 1978 Facilities Plan 18
Alternatives Recommended in the Draft EIS 18
Alternatives Evaluated in 1980 Ashland 19
Facilities Plan
Phase II Alternatives
Environmental Impacts of Phase II Alternatives 22
Summary of Environmental Impacts 26
Most Feasible Phase II Alternative 26
IV. Ashland Alternatives 27
Separation of Ashland 27
Definition of Service Area 27
Population Projections 27
Wastewater Flow Projections 29
Existing Water Quality Problems 30
Ashland Alternatives 31
Most Feasible Phase II Alternative 40
V. Recommended Ashland Alternative 43
Description 43
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 46
VI. Phase I Extended Alternatives 51
Revised Planning Area 51
Evaluation of Phase I Extended Alternatives 54
Oak Hill Estates Alternatives 77
Final EIS Mailing List 81
Appendix A - Draft EIS (by Reference)
Appendix B - Public Comment Letters
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Original and Revised Service Areas
Flood Hazard Areas
Ashland Service Area
Flow Chart of Recommended Ashland Alternative
Site Plan: Ashland Alternative
Phase I Extended Study Area
Existing Discharge Points
Base Sewer Network: Upper Section
Hanover AWT Plant: Alternative 2
Henrico Interconnecti Alternative 4
Oak Hill Estates - Recommended Alternative
Phase II Alternatives - Cost Comparison
Phase II Alternatives - Environmental Impact Comparison
Ashland Service Area Population Projections
Ashland Alternatives - Cost Comparison
Ashland Alternatives - Environmental Impact Comparison
Existing Facilities Phase I Extended Area
Population Projections - Phase I Extended
Estimated Costs:
Effluent Limits
Estimated Costs:
Estimated Costs:
Estimated Costs:
Phase I Extended
Phase I Extended
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
- Environmental Impacts
- Cost Comparison
Oak Hill Estates - Cost Comparison
21
25
29
40
41
53
54
59
63
65
67
71
76
77
81
VI
-------
-------
Draft EIS
Public Input
Alternatives
Considered
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It generally
addresses wastewater treatment Facilities Plans prepared for the
Town of Ashland and the Phase I Extended area of Hanover County,
VA.
A Draft EIS was previously prepared covering the Phase II area of
Hanover County, including the Town of Ashland. The Draft EIS
analyzed wastewater treatment alternatives developed through Phase
II Facilities Plans, and presented several others in addition for
public consideration. The Draft EIS also outlined several
preliminary recommendations, chief among them that the originally
recommended Phase II areawide solution was associated with
numerous adverse impacts which cast significant doubt on its
feasibility. Other alternatives were suggested for more favorable
consideration, including some involving a separate Ashland
treatment facility.
Partly based on the Draft EIS recommendations, the Town of Ashland
and Hanover County subsequently took steps to prepare separate
Facilities Plans, the County's being for a reduced study area
designated as "Phase I Extended". Although Ashland's independent
Plan was completed considerably sooner then the County's, several
questions remained preventing its immediate implementation,
including those concerning the interrelationship of the two
Plans. The County recently completed a Draft Facilities Plan for
Phase I Extended, enabling EPA to complete this Final EIS
generally covering both jurisdictions' Plans.
EPA received many written comments on the Draft EIS during and
after a formal public comment period from February 15, 1979 to
April 15, 1979. In addition, oral testimony was received at a
public hearing conducted by EPA on April 4, 1979. These and other
public comments were instrumental in the local government
decisions to prepare separate Ashland and County Facilities Plans
and in forcing consideration of issues of concern to local
residents, such as the environmental value of County streams,
including Totopotomoy Creek and Chickahominy River, the need for
balancing water supply and wastewater treatment needs, the effect
growth will have on the County's predominantly rural way of life,
and the ability of local residents to pay for improved wastewater
treatment facilities.
During and after the separate Facilities Plans were prepared,
additional public workshops, meetings, and hearings were held to
solicit further public opinion. A public hearing was conducted by
EPA on January 20, 1981 in conjunction with Ashland's Facilities
Plan. The County held a public hearing on the Phase I Extended
Plan on June 3, 1981. EPA will hold a public meeting on this
Final EIS approximately 30 days after public issuance.
The Final EIS addresses the alternatives developed through the
separate Town and County Plans. Ashland's Plan compared six basic
alternatives for improving the existing lagoon system, including
two land treatment alternatives. The County Plan for Phase I
Extended evaluated four primary alternatives, including land
treatment and an alternative of improving existing systems without
public sewering. The level of detail presented in the Final EIS
is generally less than in the Draft EIS since the separate
Facilities Plans have alleviated many of the concerns raised by
the Draft EIS.
-------
Final EIS
Recommended
Alternative
Recommendations and
Conclusions
EPA concurs with the recommended alternatives in the two Draft
Facilities Plans, which call for Ashland to upgrade (by aeration)
and expand its existing facility to 1.2 mgd, and for the County to
pursue a sewerage interconnection to adjacent Henrico County's
treatment system. EPA also strongly recommends that the County
consider phased implementation of the proposed sewer network and
that they apply stringent land use controls in conjunction with
the wastewater treatment project. Oak Hill Estates is recommnded
to be connected into the Ashland system for treatment.
The following recommendations and conclusions are presented based
upon information developed and analyzed during Facilities Planning
for Phase II, Ashland, and Phase I Extended, and throughout the
EIS process. Local jurisdictions and the public are urged to take
these into account in determining a final course of action. EPA
will prepare a concise Record of Decision following the close of
the comment period on this Final EIS, which will summarize the
findings of the EIS process and set forth any measures necessary
to make the recommended actions environmentally acceptable.
1. The most cost-effective alternative for the entire Phase II
area is Alternative A-I: Separation of Ashland and
Interconnection of the Industrial Corridor and the remaining
County service area to Henrico County. This alternative minimizes
adverse environmental impacts on the Totopotomoy Basin and allows
the Town of Ashland to move immediately to upgrade their facility
in order to end the moratorium on hookups imposed by the Virginia
State Water Control Board.
2. The County, the Town, the SWCB, and EPA have taken
preliminary, although not irreversible, steps to implement the A-I
Alternative in concept. These steps include:
Approval by all parties of a separate Ashland facility;
Preparation of a Draft Facilities Plan by the Town of Ashland;
Reservation by the County of 3.7 mgd of treatment capacity in
the Henrico County facility;
Completion of a Draft Facilities Plan for the Phase I Extended
area by the County; and
Separation of the Phase II EPA grant funds for Step II (design)
and Step III (construction) into Ashland funds and County funds on
the State construction grant priority list.
3. The Town of Ashland's most feasible treatment alternative for
upgrading and expanding its system consists of aerating the
existing lagoon. This option, Alternative 1 in the Ashland Draft
Facilities Plan, is the most cost-effective and least
environmentally impacting alternative for the Town. It has a
construction cost estimated at $1,212,200.
4. Growth patterns in the County since issuance of the original
Phase II Facilities Plans have not served to justify
implementation of a maximum-growth treatment alternative. In
response to these patterns, and to outspoken recommendations by
the public, the County has minimized the area to receive improved
wastewater treatment service. The resulting area, "Phase I
Extended", is significantly smaller than the original Phase II
Service Area. The County's Phase I Extended Draft Facilities
Plan calls for interconnection to Henrico County as the most feasible
alternative, based on most recent available cost estimates and an
assumption that the planned Henrico system will be fully implemented.
EPA endorses this recommended action as an acceptable long-term
wastewater management solution for the needs of the Phase I Extended
area. If has an estimated construction cost of $2,729,400.
Vlll
-------
5. Because of initially high projected growth rates for the Phase
I Extended area and financial uncertainties related to future
Federal funding and costs for treatment in adjacent Henrico
County, Hanover County should strongly consider implementation of
its recommended action in phases, as .future development occurs in
a manner sufficient to justify construction of additional system
components. This is especially relevant to construction of
interceptor sewers.
6. To ensure that the recommended action will assist in directinq
future growth into the "urban" service areas outlined in the.
Facilities Plan, the County must complement the project, with
stringent application of land use controls and policies which are
in concert with the same goal. This will help to avoid the
in-fill problems experienced with the Phase I system.
7. As an additional wastewater project-related growth control,
the County should consider construction of a forcemain vs. a
gravity sewer where cost competitive.
8. Continued use of on-site systems, including upgrades where
necessary to rectify existing problems, and provision of
decentralized off-site systems (cluster systems) are acceptable
solutions for areas which may not warrant initial sewer service.
EPA's Contruction Grants Program provides for 85% Federal funding
of these systems where certain conditions are met.
9. Sewer service should be restricted from the Totopotomoy River
Basin (with the possible exception of three existing subdivisions)
in the near term because of unquantifiable but potentially adverse
environmental impacts. Before service can be considered, a more
comprehensive field survey should be performed to more precisely
define the sensitivity of the Basin and its value as an
environmental resource. EPA will arrange with the appropriate
government agencies for this to be performed.
10. EPA recommends that the Oak Hill Estates pollution problem be
addressed via interconnection with the Town of Ashland's
wastewater treatment system. The Town should modify its
Facilities Plan to incorporate this change.
To implement solutions to the area's wastewater management needs,
it is recommended that the Town of Ashland and Hanover County
finalize Facilities Planning efforts consistent with the above
recommendations and submit formally adopted Plans to the State
Water Control Board along with Step II grant applications as soon
as possible.
-------
-------
SECTION I: BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF THE
PROJECT
Under the Clean Water Act of 1977, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to administer several
programs for controlling water pollution. Under the Section
201 program "Grants for Construction of Treatment Works", EPA
may provide up to 75 percent of the costs for the planning
(Step 1), design (Step 2), and construction (Step 3) of con-
ventional publicly-owned treatment works and up to 85 percent
of the costs of "innovative or alternative" facilities.
In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requires each Federal agency to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on any of its actions which may significantly
affect the quality of the human environment. EPA funding of
large construction projects is, in some cases, considered such
an action. The EIS process is designed to facilitate informed
and responsible decision-making by all levels of government and
by the public. The EIS process is specifically designed to
ensure that environmental as well as economic factors are con-
sidered in decision-making and that the environmental conse-
quences of the options examined are disclosed. The EIS process
also encourages public input into the decisions made.
First a Draft EIS is prepared and circulated to all con-
cerned parties. Then comments are accepted in writing and at
a mandatory public hearing. Lastly a Final EIS is prepared
which responds to comments on the Draft EIS and which presents
and evaluates any changes in the proposed project which have
occurred since the issuance of the Draft EIS.
During the early and mid-1970's, Hanover County, Virginia,
received Federal assistance from EPA for its plan to improve
the wastewater treatment in the Mechanicsville area (Phase I).
This plan was carried to fruition and facilities are now being
constructed. Additional parts of the county north and north-
west of Mechanicsville (designated as the Phase II area) were
determined to be in need of improved wastewater treatment as
well, but the problems in this area were not as severe and
were thus postponed until after Phase I planning was complete.
In 1975, Hanover County applied to EPA for a Step I grant
for Facilities Planning in the Phase II area. The grant was
awarded, and a Facilities Plan was completed late in 1975. The
Plan presented a regional treatment scheme that would cover all
of the area identified as Phase II, but could not gain state or
local approval. The Plan was not accepted because insufficient
information about the proposed project was presented, and inad-
equate investigation had been done of additional alternatives.
To correct these deficiencies, the County requested addi-
tional Step I funds to study other treatment options. EPA
granted these funds and initiated an EIS on the Phase II area
planning because of the significant controversy over the proj-
ect. The EIS was to be prepared concurrently ("piggyback") with
the expanded Facilities Plan to expedite the Step I process.
A preliminary draft Facilities Plan was completed in 1978
and a Draft EIS was issued in 1979. Alternatives beyond the
original options in the 1975 Plan were developed in the 1978
Plan and additional alternatives were presented in the Draft
EIS. These alternatives included sub-regional treatment schemes
schemes and limited growth options; several options provided
-------
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
REASSESSMENT OF THE
PLANNING AREA
ORGANIZATION OF
THIS EIS
for a separate facility for the Town of Ashland. A public
hearing was held on the Draft EIS in April 1979.
In April 1979, the Virginia State Water Control Board
(SWCB) issued a consent order to the Town of Ashland which
stated that, because it was consistently operating its waste-
water treatment system above design capacity, a moratorium on
new sewer connections would be in effect until a plan to
relieve this condition was approved. That same month the
Ashland Town Council adopted a resolution requesting that EPA,
the SWCB, and the Hanover County Board of Supervisors allow
the town to proceed with development of its own Facilities
Plan, separate from the County's Phase II efforts. The Town
indicated that it felt that this approach would enable it to
solve its wastewater problem most expeditiously. Later in
1979, the County, the SWCB, and EPA approved Ashland's request
to initiate planning to assess overall Phase II alternatives
with respect to the feasibility of Ashland separating from the
County and to evaluate options for the Town's upgrading and
expanding its existing treatment facility.
In February 1980, the Town of Ashland completed a Sewer
System Evaluation Survey and issued a Draft Facilities Plan
which assessed the major Phase II alternatives and additional
wastewater treatment alternatives for the Town only. At that
time, the County expressed its intention to continue planning
efforts for the remainder of the Phase II service area. How-
ever, as the County's planning has progressed, the portion of
the Phase II area to be serviced has diminished to the extent
that it now includes only an area northwest of the Phase I area
that extends along the 1-95 Industrial Corridor only about
halfway to Ashland. This area has been termed "Phase I Ex-
tended". In January 1981, EPA and the Town jointly sponsored
a public hearing to receive comments on the Ashland Draft
Facilities Plan and to present updates on the County's planning
and on the status of the EIS.
Due to the changes in the Facilities Planning process
described above, the planning area covered by the Facilities
Plans has been altered and now consists of an Ashland Service
area and a Phase I Extended area (which includes Oak Hill
Estates). The original Phase II study area and the revised
Facilities Planning areas are shown in Figure 1. Although
plans for treating wastewater from the entire Phase II area
as originally designated have been abandoned, this present
report continues to assess the effects of the revised alter-
natives on the entire area. These revised study areas simply
comprise a "limited-build" alternative as defined in the Draft
EIS.
However, the division of the Phase II planning area be-
tween two planning authorities, and the diminution of the area
to be serviced, render inapplicable the Service Area Planning
Unit (SAPU) concept that was used in the 1978 Facilities Plan
and in the Draft EIS. The seven SAPU's which were identified
and discussed in those documents are therefore not used in
this Final EIS. Instead, the Ashland Service Area and the
Phase I Extended Service Areas are the sub-areas discussed.
This Final EIS addresses comments received on the Draft
EIS and presents information on the selected alternatives and
on sub-alternatives which have been developed in detail since
-------
the Draft EIS was prepared. The Final EIS concentrates on the
Ashland Alternatives presented in the Town's 1980 Draft Facil-
ities Plan.
Section II of this report summarizes comments received by
EPA on the Draft EIS and responds to those comments in light
of recent developments. Section III briefly presents and dis-
cusses the main alternatives recommended in the 1978 Facilities
Plan and in the Draft EIS and the alternative now selected.
Section IV develops the Ashland portion of the selected alter-
native in terms of the sub-alternatives presented in the 1980
Ashland Draft Facilities Plan. Section V describes in detail
the selected Ashland sub-alternative and the environmental
impacts of and mitigative measures for that alternative. Sec-
tion VI discusses recent County progress in its Facilities
Planning for the Phase I Extended Area including Oak Hill
Estates. Section VII summarizes the previous Sections and
makes recommendations to the local planning authorities.
-------
SPOTSYLVANIA
COUNTY
FIGURE 1
ORIGINAL AND REVISED SERVICE AREAS
Phase I
Phase II
Phase I Extended
Ashland
GOOCHLAND COUNTY
-------
-------
SECTION II: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
INTRODUCTION
CHRONOLOGY
Public involvement of the citizens of Hanover County and
the Town of Ashland in the Phase II planning process has been
extensive. The public has had a profound influence on many of
the major decisions: the decision to develop alternatives in
addition to the originally-recommended 8-1 option; the decision
to prepare an EIS on the Phase II Facilities Planning; the deci-
sion for Ashland to pursue Facilities Planning individually;
and the selection of issues addressed in the Draft EIS and in
this Final EIS. Public participation has taken the form of
testimony at public hearings; attendance at public meetings;
letters to the various local, state, and Federal governmental
entities involved in the planning; and preparation of citizens'
reports (e.g. "A Closer Look at Hanover County's Proposed
Facilities Plan, Phase 2" by the Rural Point Concerned Citizens
Association, and "A Comparative Analysis of Sewerage Program
Alternatives for Hanover County, Virginia" prepared for the
Public Facilities and Solid Waste Subcommittee of the Hanover
County Citizens Advisory Committee by Patton, Harris, Rust and
Guy). In this Section, public participation relating specif-
ically to the Draft EIS and this Final EIS is identified and
discussed.
As part of the extended Phase II Facilities Planning
process, a series of public informational meetings and public
hearings have been held in Hanover County over the past five
years. Several of these meetings were held before the decision
was made to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the
Phase II project. Indeed, public comments received at some of
the earlier meetings contributed to that decision. Since the
initiation of the EIS process, two public hearings have been
held to officially receive public comments on the EIS and on
the status of Phase II Facilities Planning in the County. The
first public hearing was held after distribution of the Draft
EIS and the second was held after publication of the Ashland
Draft Facilities Plan, just prior to issuance of this Final
EIS. Written comment periods accompanied each public hearing.
All public informational and comment meetings and hearings held
prior to issuance of the Draft EIS are included with other
major events in the Phase II Facilities Plan/EIS process chro-
nology in the Draft EIS (pp. 1-4 through 1-7). Public meetings
and other events since the issuance of the Draft EIS are listed
below:
DATE
EVENT
February 1979 Distribution of Draft EIS.
March 1979 Public hearing held on Draft EIS.
April 1979 SWCB issued consent order to Town of Ashland
stating that it was operating its wastewater
treatment system above capacity and that a mor-
atorium on new sewer connections would be in
effect until a plan to relieve this condition
was approved.
April 1979 Ashland Town Council adopted resolution request-
ing EPA, SWCB and County Board of Supervisors to
allow the town to proceed with its own facilities
plan separately from the County.
-------
DATE
EVENT
May 1979
October 1979
January 1980
February 1980
March 1980
August 1980
January 1981
Hanover County Board of Supervisors adopted
resolution approving Town of Ashland pursuing
construction of its own wastewater treatment
facility.
Formal approval by SWCB and EPA of Ashland's
planning to upgrade and expand its own waste-
water treatment facility.
Town of Ashland prepared a revised SSES for the
Town only.
Town of Ashland prepared a Draft Facilities Plan
which included alternatives for the town only.
SWCB revised FY '80 priority list. The list
included separate sums for Hanover County and
the Town of Ashland.
EIS contract modification approved by EPA to
accommodate facilities planning.
Public hearing held on Ashland Draft Facilities
Plan and on updates to Hanover County facilities
planning process.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Draft Eis Public
Hearing
To comply with EPA's regulations for public participation
in EIS preparation, a public hearing was held on 4 April 1979
at the Hanover County Courthouse at Hanover, Virginia. Seventy-
seven people signed the attendance list, and 28 people gave
testimony. A transcript of the hearing is available from EPA,
Region III. The following persons spoke at the public hearing:
o Steven A. Torok - Chief, EIS Preparation Section, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Agency, Region III
o Pettis Miller - Vice-Mayor of the Town of Ashland
o Tom Slenkamp - Project Monitor for Hanover County Phase II
EIS, U.S. EPA, Region III
o James Bruce - Hanover County Public Utility Director
o Robert Bremner - Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc.
o Tim Rohrmoser - Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc.
o T. A. Clark
o Anne Smith - Rural Point Concerned Citizens Association
o Donald Wiber - Rural Point Concerned Citizens Association
o Tom Evans - Virginia B.A.S.S. State Federation, Inc.
o Robert Phillips - Hanover County Citizens Federation
-------
Public Hearing on
Ashland Facilities
Plan
o Gail Enroughty - President, Rural Point Concerned Citizens
Association
o Nina K. Peace - Member of the Hanover County Board of Super-
visors from the Ashland District
o Lou L. Hanks - South Anna Citizens' Council
o E.C.C Woods, Jr. - Member of the Hanover County Board of
Supervisors from the Henry District
o Margaret R. Miller - Citizens for Sensible Growth
o Virginia Shaw English
o Bruce V. English
o Donald McDonald
o John S. Graham - Hanover Properties, Inc.
o Lois Wickham - Curator, Hanover Historical Society
o Ron Jones
o George Nester - Town Manager, Town of Ashland
o John B. Steadman - Wiley & Wilson
o Preston Wade - Wiley & Wilson
o Bob Wilby - President Hickory Hill Farms
o Bob Ostergren
The majority of comments at the hearing dealt with the
question of whether or not a regional treatment system for
the Phase II area was justified. A good number of people
stated their support for dividing the service area and allowing
Ashland to solve its treatment problems individually. Several
persons also cited lack of public support in the County and
inability or unwillingness to finance a regional project as
reasons for abandoning the regional treatment concept. The
growth-inducing effects of a regional facility were criticized;
several people stated their desire to preserve the rural qual-
ity of life in the County. The justification of the project
by failing septic systems was also questioned. Several people
mentioned the need to preserve the quality of the Totopotomoy
basin and the Pamunkey River. Some people suggested land
application of treated effluent as one way to attain this ob-
jective. One industry representative spoke in support of the
facilities planned to serve the Industrial Corridor. Finally,
a few people criticized the lack of public participation in the
planning process and the unavailability of the Facilities Plan.
EPA responses to the issues raised appear later in this
Section.
In response to the division of the Phase II study area for
Facilities Planning purposes, and to elicit public reaction to
the split and to updated Facilities Planning efforts by the Town
-------
of Ashland and the County, EPA and the Town of Ashland jointly
sponsored another public hearing prior to issuance of this
Final EIS. The hearing was held on 20 January 1981 at the
Town of Ashland Municipal Building. The attendance list was
signed by 35 persons and nine of those presented testimony. A
transcript of the hearing is available from EPA Region III.
The following persons spoke at the public hearing:
o Tom Slenkamp - Project Monitor for Hanover County Phase II
EIS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
o Douglas C. Cullinane - Town Engineer, Town of Ashland
o John Hodges - Planner, Planning Office, Hanover County
o T.A. Clark
o Bruce V. English
o Gail Enroughty - President, Rural Point Concerned Citizens
Association
o Margaret Miller
o Virginia Shaw English
o Nina K. Peace - Member of the Hanover County Board of Super-
visors from the Ashland District
The issues addressed most extensively at this meeting dealt
with the connection of Oak Hill Estates to the Town's treatment
system and the effects of the current drought on the planning
effort. Several Ashland residents expressed the opinion that
wastewater management in Oak Hill Estates was not a problem that
the town should be expected to assume (as proposed by Mr. Hodges
at the meeting). Several citizens also expressed their concern
that the present drought situation may be relieving some of the
previously acute problems with Ashland's lagoon and that plan-
ning for water supply and wastewater management in the County
should be undertaken to avoid shortages during dry periods. A
couple of people supported the proposed Ashland project as a
necessary cost-effective solution to a critical problem, but
one person reiterated his previous support for a land applica-
tion solution. One citizen expressed specific concern for the
protection of the Upper Totopotomoy basin and criticized lack
of public participation, also suggesting that an Addendum to
the Draft EIS be prepared in order to address the newly-devel-
oped alternatives presented in the Ashland Draft Facilities
Plan and the County's plans regarding the Phase I Extended
Service Area.
EPA responses to the issues raised at this hearing also
appear later in this Section.
WRITTEN COMMENTS In addition to testimony given at the two public hearings,
one individual and several government agencies submitted writ-
ten comments to EPA regarding the Draft EIS. All comments
received are reprinted in Appendix B of this document. Written
comments were received from the following persons:
o Donald Macdonald - Hanover Citizens Federation
-------
Walter P. Pierson - Regional Director, Federal Insurance
Administration, U. S. Department of Housing
Development
and Urban
EPA RESPONSES TO
ISSUE-ORIENTED
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Separation of Ashland
o William Patterson - Regional Environmental Officer, North-
east Region, U.S. Department of the Interior
o D. N. Grimwood - State Conservationist (1979), Soil Conser-
vation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
o H. McDonald Rimple, M.D. - Regional Health Administrator,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
o Paul F. Chamberlain - Division Administrator, Federal High-
way Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
o J.D. Ruehrmund - Director, Division of Operations and Pro-
cedures, Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board
o R. L. Hundley - Environmental Quality Engineer, Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation
o Leon E. App - Virginia Department of Conservation and
Economic Development
o Berkwood M. Farmer - Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
o Raymond E. Bowles, P.E. - Director, Bureau of Surveillance
and Field Studies, Virginia State Water Control Board
o Ron R. Blackmore - Director, Virginia Commission of Outdoor
Recreation
o J.B. Jackson, Jr. - Virginia Council on the Environment
o Manly S. Wilder - State Conservationist (1981), Soil Conser-
vation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
One commenter expressed support for a limited-growth option
(upgrading the Ashland lagoon with land application of effluent
if feasible) and questioned the need for a growth-inducing
regional system for the Phase II area.
The other comments comprised factual correction of state-
ments in the Draft EIS. These corrections appear later in
this Section II are incorporated into later Sections of this
Final EIS.
Issue: Since the initiation of Phase II Facilities Planning,
some citizens have opposed implementation of a regional solu-
tion and supported separation of the Phase II area with accel-
eration of Ashland planning and deceleration of the planning
for the "lower priority" parts of the study area. With the
issuance of the consent order to Ashland by the SWCB, the need
for Ashland to separate and begin individual planning has been
more widely and vehemently expressed.
Response: In response to the critical nature of the Town of
Ashland's current wastewater treatment problem and to the sig-
nificant support given the division of the service area by the
public, the Town, the County, and the SWCB, EPA has approved
-------
the separation of Ashland from the remainder of the Phase II
study area. Subsequent to this approval, the Town of Ashland
has pursued individual alternatives to correct its situation
via its Draft Facilities Plan.
Growth in the Issue: Throughout the planning process, many citizens have
Phase II Area questioned the need for a regional solution for the Phase II
area. The proposed regional solutions have been viewed as
growth-inducing, and the desirability of a ''maximum-growth"
alternative for the study area has been questioned. Citizens
have proposed that improved wastewater treatment be provided
in certain priority areas (e.g. Ashland) and that other, cur-
rently sparsely developed or undeveloped areas in Phase II be
left alone.
The concern regarding excess and unwanted growth in the
County is manifested in corollary concerns as well. Interest
in controlling growth in the County also appears as interest in
preserving the rural quality of life in the County, preserving
prime agricultural land, land use planning, and preserving his-
torical and archaeological resources.
In the Draft EIS, several limited-growth alternatives for
the Phase II area were developed and evaluated in conjunction
with the regional proposals. A preliminary conclusion in the
Draft EIS stated that the sub-regional alternatives appeared
less environmentally damaging than several of the regional
options.
Response: By approving the separation of Ashland from the rest
of the Phase II area, EPA has encouraged the speedy solution of
the major existing wastewater treatment problem in the study
area. In addition, the planning for the remainder of the Phase
II area has been scaled down to the Phase I Extended area now
delineated by the County (Figure 1). The Phase I Extended area
encompasses the 1-95 Industrial Corridor from Mechanicsville to
Ashland and several existing subdivisions along the way.
This focussed planning on the part of the County reflects
a new, proposed growth-management policy which has been devel-
oped by the County Planning Department. This policy, "General
Policies Plan - An Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update,
March 1981", emphasizes differentiation of existing rural and
urban areas. The policy, when adopted, will establish a general
planning approach for the County: the County should channel
future growth and development into existing urban areas such as
Phase I and Phase I Extended, as defined by water and sewer
service, and away from rural areas. The plan is designed to
accommodate the inevitable growth for the County while mini-
mizing adverse effects on the natural resources of the County.
Implementation of the proposed growth management policy,
as represented by the revised Facilities Planning, will maxim-
ize preservation of the rural character of the County and
minimize the losses of prime agricultural and forest land
which would have occurred if the original Phase II area had
been developed. Overall adverse environmental impacts related
to growth will be minimized by improvement of the Ashland and
Phase I Extended areas as currently planned.
10
-------
Preservation of the
Totopotomoy Basin
Effluent
Limitations
Issue; Several citizens have opposed any treatment plant
construction, wastewater discharge, additional residential develop-
ment, or sewering in the Totopotomoy Creek Basin. They have
maintained that the Creek is an area of diverse and sensitive
ecology and that disturbances of the natural balance by actions such
as those listed above would irreversibly damage the Creek's natural
character.
Response: The County's presently recommended Plan for Phase 1
Extended does not call for a treatment plant in the Totopotomoy
Basin nor a discharge to the Creek (either upper or lower reach) ,
although an alternative was evaluated which would discharge to the
upper Creek above Route 301. Additionally, although three existing
subdivisions located within the Totopotomoy Basin are proposed for
initial service, the curtailment of the Phase II area significantly
reduced the amount of land in the Basin which is planned for
service. The County has formally recognized the concern for the
Totopotomoy Basin by eliminating it from initial service considera-
tion (except for the above three subdivisions) and by adopting goals
and objectives for land use and wastewater facilities planning which
restrain provision of near term service to the Totopotomoy Watershed
population prior to fill-in of other priority "urban" service
areas. Thus, the potential impacts associated with the "maximum
build" alternatives developed in the Phase II Facilities Plan and
evaluated in the Draft EIS have been substantially reduced.
Regarding the sensitivity of the Upper Totopotomoy, neither Virginia
nor the Federal Government has officially designated any part of the
Totoiiotomoy as a natural area or area of sensitive ecology. The
designation in the Draft EIS of the Lower Totopotomoy (below Route
643) as such an area was a result of a field survey made by Bremner,
Youngblood & King, Inc, as part of the Phase II planning process.
To determine whether or not this classification should be extended
above Route 643, another field survey would have to be undertaken.
EPA estimates from aerial inventory analysis recently obtained from
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that a minimum of 150 acres of
wetlands are in existence along the Upper Totopotomoy streanibeds.
It is recommended that a comprehensive ground survey be made before
any significant actions are taken in the Upper Totopotomoy Basin.
EPA will arrange with appropriate agencies for this to be
accomplished.
Whether or not the Upper Basin is classified as an area of sensitive
ecology, it is (see Figure 2) considered a Flood Hazard Area. The
floodplain along the Creek, as delineated in the Draft EIS, stopped
at U.S. Route 201. In the updated Flood Hazard map, the floodplain
extends above U.S. Route 301. Furthermore, it is almost certain
that point or non-point discharges to the Upper Totopotomoy would
have some impact on the Lower as well. The extremely low flows
characteristic of the Totopotomoy Creek (5.8 cfs average discharge,
with a ten year minimum average seven consecutive day flow of. 0.0
cfs) render it sensitive to relatively small changes in flow
quantity or characteristics.
Issue: The effluent limitations set by the SWCB for an ashland
discharge to the South Anna River and for a County discharge to the
Pamunkey River at Nelson's Bridge have been uncertain throughout the
majority of the duration of the Phase II planning.
Response: The SWCB has recently set new effluent limitations for
sp;
01
a discharge at Nelson's Bridge. The new limitations are 21 mg/1
BOD 5 and 1 reg/1 ammonia. These have been relaxed from the
previous limitations of 11 mg/1 8005 for a 3.0 mgd discharge. The
new limitations are based on stream surveys conducted by the SWCB
for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the previous
allocations were valid. It should be noted that this relaxation of
effluent limitations does not affect the cost-effectiveness
discussion in Section III of this Final EIS. In
11
-------
Public
Participation
Water Supply
Section III, it is determined that either sub-regional alter-
native (R-I or A-I) is more cost-effective than the 8-1 region-
al alternative with the previous effluent limitations or with
30/30 requirements.
The SWCB has not yet finalized revised limitations for
Ashland1s South Anna River discharge. However, the SWCB has
stated that the new limitations will be no more and possibly
less stringent than the current ones (22 mg/1 BOD for a 1.2
mgd discharge). Thus the Ashland alternatives' cost-effective-
ness will not be undermined by the new limitations and may well
be enhanced.
Issue: At various times during the Phase II planning and EIS
process, several citizens have complained about the lack of
public participation.
Response: As noted earlier in this Section, public partici-
pation in the Hanover County Phase II project has been intensive
and has had a definite effect on several planning developments.
Most of the major changes of direction in the planning have
resulted, directly or indirectly, from public comment. These
changes have included the assessment of sub-regional alterna-
tives, the separation of Ashland, and the scale-down of the
remaining Phase II study area.
EPA, through its requirements for public meetings, hear-
ings, and distribution of documents, encourages such partici-
pation. EPA feels that the public involvement in this project
has resulted and will result in the chosen treatment alterna-
tive being most responsive to public need. EPA recognizes that
public support is mandatory for sewage and water projects to
be implemented, since bond issues must be approved by the elec-
torate. The construction grants public participation program
helps the planning entities to develop projects which will be
approved by the public and will be reflective of public need
and preference.
Issue; Several citizens have expressed concern over the need to
coordinate wastewater and water supply planning in the County.
Response: Although there does not appear to be any threat to
the quality or quantity of water supply in the County at this
time, it is well to consider the relationships between water
supply and wastewater management. There are two basic water
supply considerations to be included when making wastewater
management decisions:
1. If wastewater treatment is inadequate, water supplies for
the study area or for another area may be polluted and ,
therefore threatened; and
2. If water supplies are limited and water conservation mea-
sures are implemented, the reduction in wastewater flow may
render a previously-sized treatment facility over-designed.
Conversely, concurrent planning of conservation and treat-
ment design can effect economies in facility sizing.
Consideration of these two factors does not significantly alter
the Facilities Planning accomplished either by the County or
by Ashland.
12
-------
ADDITIONAL AND In response to specific comments received on the Draft EIS, the
CORRECTED DATA following errors have been noted and corrected:
Page Reference
in Draft EIS Correction
II-5 On Figure 11-2, Existing Land Use,the last
entry should read "Agricultural and Forest".
11-34 The last sentence on the page should read
"The impoundment is required to discharge a
minimum of 68 m^/minute (40 cfs) year-round.
11-50 Figure II-8, Flood Hazard Areas, should be
replaced with Figure 2 of this Section.
11-58 & 11-60 On Figure 11-12, Archaeological and Historical
Sites in the Phase II area, 7 (Rural Point) is
located south rather than north of Route 606.
In addition, The Totomoi historic site should
be added as No. 11 to Table 11-11, Historic
Sites and Structures in the Phase II Service
Area.The dateis early 1800's andthe list-
ing is by the State. No. 11 (Totomoi) should
be added to Figure 11-12 (p. 11-58) north of
the Totopotomoy Creek, south of Route 643 and
west of Route 640.
11-59 Paragraph 4 should read as follows: "...These
are the 700-acre Hanover Wildlife and Recrea-
tion Area on the Pamunkey River just east of
Hanover, an 80-acre park (Patrick Henry Park)
west of Ashland, the 115-acre Little River
Falls Park, and the 270-acre Park (Poor Farm
Park) west of Ashland off Route 54"-
An additional sentence should be added to page
11-59: "In addition, a transcontinental bike
trail traverses Hanover County, although it is
completely outside of the Phase II service
area."
V-5 The last paragraph should be replaced with the
following: "In Hanover County all streams have
been classified by the SWCB as effluent lim-
ited; however, for streams that are water qual-
ity limited, implementation of the Virginia
anti-degradation policy requires advanced
waste treatment for all discharges that cannot
meet anti-degradation standards with conven-
tional treatment."
V-2 and V-3 Replace pages V-2 and V-3 with the following:
"Pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), the SWCB has estab-
lished 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
below.
13
-------
SPOTSYLVANIA
COUNTY
FIGURE 2
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
( SOURCES: REFERENCES 1, 2, 6. 7 )
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY CLASSIFICATIONS
IN HANOVER COUNTY
StandardEstuarineFree Flowing Streams
Parameter Class II Class III
Dissolved Oxygen
Minimum 4.0 4.0
Daily Average 5.0 5.0
pH 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5
Temperature (°F)
Rise above natural 4.0 (Sept. - May)
1.5 (June - August) 5
Maximum — 90
Maximum hourly change 2 2
An additional standard for fecal coliform for all surface
waters, except those where leased private or public shellfish
beds are present, requires that: "the fecal coliform bacteria
shall not exceed a log mean (geometric mean) of 200 fecal coli-
form bacteria per 100 ml. Evaluation should be determined by
either the multiple-tube fermentation for marine water or the
membrane filter method for fresh water and should be based on
not less than ten samples taken over not more than a 30-day
period."
All surface waters in the County are assigned a major class
(II or III) as described above. In addition, two stream seg-
ments are identified as sources of public water supply. These
segments are:
o The South Anna River from Ashland's raw water intake to a
point 5 miles upstream; and
o The North Anna River and its tributaries from Hanover Coun-
ty's raw water intake near Doswell (approximately 1/2 mile
upstream from State Route 30) to a point 5 miles upstream.
The following standards apply to these segments:
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.0
Cadmium* 0.01
Chloride 250
Chromium (Total) 0.05
Copper* 1.0
Foaming agents (measured as methylene 0.5
blue active substances)
Iron (soluble) 0.3
Lead 0.05
Manganese (soluble) 0.05
Mercury* 0.002
Nitrate (as N) 10
Phenols 0.001
Selenium* 0.01
15
-------
CONSTITUENT
Silver"
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
Zinc*
CONCENTRATION (mg/lj
0.05
250
500
5.0
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides:
Endrin* 0.0002
Lindane* 0.004
Methoxychlor* 0.1
Toxaphene* 0.005
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides:
2,4-D 0.1
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.01
Radioactivity: Picocurie/liter
Combined radium-226 and radiura-228 5
Gross Alpha particle activity 15
(including radium-226 but excluding
radon and uranium)
* The numeric standards for the chemicals listed above are
designed to protect public water supplies for human consump-
tion. The limits established for those chemicals marked
with an asterisk (*) may not protect aquatic life. Therefore
when a request to classify a stream as a public water supply
is received, it will be determined if more stringent limits
are needed for those chemicals in order to insure protection
of aquatic life.
Furthermore, 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 Chickahom-
iny River or its tributaries must meet the requirements given
in Table V-2 [of, the Draft EIS] 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 precedence over the general coliform
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 deci-
mal dilution is used) in those portions of the area most
probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most
unfavorable conditions.
16
-------
-------
SECTION III: PHASE II ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES
RECOMMENDED IN 1978
FACILITIES PLAN
Alternative 8-1
Alternative R-I
The purpose of this Section is to evaluate overall Phase
II alternatives. The political feasibility of an Ashland
split-off has already been demonstrated, and this feasibility
is extremely important to consider in the planning process.
Also of paramount importance, however, is the cost-effective-
ness of this politically desirable option. In this Section,
the cost-effectiveness of a separate Ashland facility within
the context of the entire Phase II area planning is assessed.
Numerous alternatives and combinations of sub-alternatives
for the Phase II area were assessed in the Draft EIS. To focus
attention on the most feasible of these alternatives, only the
two recommended alternatives from the 1978 Facilities Plan and
the two from the Draft EIS are discussed in this Final EIS. All
costs presented in this Section are distributed over the entire
Phase II Service Area as originally delineated.
Two basic alternatives were recommended in the 1978 Facil-
ities Plan. The first consisted of a single treatment plant to
serve the entire Phase II area. This option was the recom-
mended alternative in the original 1975 Facilities Plan for
Phase II and was known as Alternative 8-1. The treatment plant
was to be located in the Rural Point area and would discharge
treated effluent to the Pamunkey River near Nelson's Bridge.
The plant would be designed to accommodate an average flow of
3.0 mgd using a conventional activated sludge process followed
by physical-chemical flocculation. A detailed description of
this alternative may be found in Section 5 of the 1978 Facil-
ities Plan or in Section III of the Draft EIS.
The second alternative recommended in the 1978 Facilities
Plan called for a separate Ashland treatment facility, a
treatment plant in the Totopotomoy Basin to serve that Basin,
and interconnection of the Industrial Corridor to Henrico
County.
This alternative was later identified as "R-I" in the Draft
EIS. Under this option, an Ashland treatment facility would
serve the Town of Ashland and those nearby areas which could
readily be served by extending existing lines. These areas
included Oak Hill Estates and Hanover Academy. Two treatment
processes were proposed as feasible for the Ashland facility:
oxidation ditches with discharge to the South Anna River and
spray irrigation of pretreated effluent. Both alternatives
would be designed for a flow of 0.8 mgd.
The Totopotomoy treatment plant would serve areas in both
the Upper and Lower Totopotomoy drainage basins. The facility
would be located near the confluence of the Totopotomoy and
Strawhorn Creeks and would be a larger version of the proposed
oxidation ditch at the Ashland facility (design flow - 1.5 mgd).
The effluent would be chlorinated and discharged to the Toto-
potomoy Creek.
The Industrial Corridor, under this scenario, would be
interconnected to the Henrico County system. Treatment of
sewage from this area at either the Ashland or Totopotomoy
facility was not considered feasible due to the relative
impracticality of pumping to the Totopotomoy Basin, and the
lack of capacity at the Ashland plant. Instead, an interceptor
sewer would transmit the 1.29 mgd from this area along 1-95
to Henrico County. Again, a more detailed description of this
17
-------
ALTERNATIVES
PRESENTED IN THE
DRAFT EIS
Alternative R-I
Alternative A-I
ALTERNTIVES
EVALUATED IN 1980
ASHLAND FACILITIES
PLAN
alternative may be found in Section 5 of the 1978 Facilities
Plan or in Section III of the Draft EIS.
The Draft EIS identified two environmentally and institu-
tionally desirable treatment option alternatives. These alter-
natives were very similar; both incorporated the concept of a
separate Ashland facility and the interconnection of the Indus-
trial Corridor to Henrico County. However, one called for
construction of a Totopotomoy treatment facility to serve the
Totopotomoy basin service area and the other called for inter-
connection of the Totopotomoy service area to Henrico County
along with the Industrial Corridor.
The Draft EIS concluded that Alternative 8-1 would be
associated with numerous adverse environmental impacts relative
to the sensitive ecology of Totopotomoy Creek, the use of prime
agricultural land in the County, and the opportunity for undi-
rected growth that was presented by the proposed regional
system. Alternative 8-1 was not recommended for further con-
sideration in the EIS because of the above impacts and because
of Ashland's expressed and increasing desire to continue oper-
ation of their existing facility.
The first of these alternatives, providing for a separate
Totopotomoy treatment facility, was also recommended in the
1978 Facilities Plan and was described previously.
The second alternative recommended by the Draft EIS again
included a separate Ashland facility. However, under A-I, the
Totopotomoy basin and the Industrial Corridor would intercon-
nect with Henrico County. The Industrial Corridor interceptor
would run along 1-95 as in Alternative R-I. In addition, a
trunk line serving the Upper Totopotomoy would run along Toto-
potomoy Creek and then down alongside U.S. Route 301 into
Henrico County. A third sewer would follow the lower Totopo-
tomoy Creek and Strawhorn Creek and then be diverted south to
Henrico County just west of State Route 643. Each of these
sewers would pass into Henrico County at a different point. A
more detailed description of this alternative may be found in
Section III of the Draft EIS.
The 1980 Ashland Draft Facilities Plan evaluated three
basic Phase II alternatives: 8-1, R-I, and A-I. These are
labelled Alternatives A, C, and D in the Ashland Plan and were
chosen because they had been recommended in either the 1978
Facilities Plan or in the Draft EIS as discussed above. Under
the 8-1 alternative, two sub-alternatives were evaluated - one
under which current SWCB effluent limitations at Nelson's
Bridge would continue to apply (Alternative A), and one assum-
ing that these limitations would be relaxed to 30/30 for BOD
and TSS (Alternative B). In this EIS it is assumed that the
SWCB limitations would be met.
The evaluation of these three Phase II alternatives was
aimed at assessing the cost-effectiveness and environmental
impacts of a separate Ashland facility as compared to the
proposed regional facility. For this evaluation, the most
costeffective option for an individual Ashland facility was
assumed (see Section IV).
18
-------
PHASE II
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 8-1
Description
Costs
Alternative R-I
Description
For this Final EIS the comparison of the three Phase II
alternatives in the 1980 Ashland Facilities Plan has been
reviewed. A summary of the findings from that review appear
in this Section.
Alternative A in the Ashland Draft Facilities Plan is
essentially the same as the previously identified Alternative
8-1: construction of a regional treatment plant to service the
entire Phase II area. This alternative was recommended in the
original 1975 Phase II Facilities Plan and in the 1978 Facil-
ities Plan as well. It was not recommended in the Draft EIS.
The treatment system to be used at the Rural Point Plant
is described fully in the 1975 Facilities Plan. In the Ash-
land plan, two changes have been made. First, the design flow
has been increased to 4.0 mgd to accommodate increased pro-
jected flow from Ashland. Second, carbon adsorption columns
have been added to the effluent treatment. The Ashland Facil-
ities Planner determined that tertiary treatment would be
required to meet stringent SWCB limitations on discharge to the
Pamunkey River. Carbon adsorption columns were not included in
the original 8-1 cost estimates or treatment system, and it can
be argued that the original 8-1 could not have met SWCB limi-
tations. The recent relaxation in SWCB limitations means that,
although the additional processes described in the Ashland
Facilities Plan may not be required, some treatment beyond
secondary would be necessary.
The costs of this alternative were calculated as the sum
of an amortized construction cost and a yearly operation and
maintenance (O&M) expense. For ease in comparison, these two
costs are combined and reported as single treatment expense.
This is then given as the unit cost per 1000 gallons of waste-
water treated and also as a total equivalent uniform annual
cost. Figures are presented in October 1979 dollars.
The unit cost for Alternative 8-1 (with treatment facil-
ities capable of meeting stringent SWCB limitations) is $2.14
per 1000 gallons of wastewater treated, which is an equivalent
uniform annual cost of $3,122,964.
Alternative R-I was included as a recommended alternative
in both the 1978 Facilities Plan and in the Draft EIS. This
alternative provides for continued operation of a separate
Ashland treatment plant, construction of a plant to service
the Totopotomoy basin, and interconnection of the Industrial
Corridor with Hanover County facilities.
The proposed Ashland plant incorporated into this alterna-
tive in the Ashland Facilities Plan is the selected most feas-
ible Ashland sub-alternative in that Plan. This sub-alternative
consists of upgrading the existing lagoon with aeration, a
detailed description of which is included in Section V. The
design flow for the Ashland Service Area has been increased
from the 0.77 MGD used in the 1978 Facilities Plan and the
Draft EIS to 1.2 MGD for reasons discussed in Section IV.
Two different treatment plants are proposed for the Toto-
potomoy Basin under Alternative C - both with discharges to
Totopotomoy Creek. The first is similar to the plants previ-
ously proposed in the Phase II planning: a 1.5 mgd conventional
19
-------
Costs
Alternative A-I
Description
Costs
Summary
conventional activated sludge process with effluent disinfec-
tion. The sludge process train would include mechanical sludge
dewatering, anaerobic digestion, sludge drying beds, and land-
filling of the stabilized residue. The other proposed Totopo-
tomoy plant is a physical/chemical facility. The proposed flow
diagram would include screening, an aerated flow equalization,
flocculation, clarification, multimedia filtration, and carbon
adsorption. Carbon regeneration facilities are included in
the alternative. The effluent would be disinfected by chlor-
ination and discharged. Sludge handling facilities for the
physical/chemical plant would consist of aerobic digestion fol-
lowed by centrifuges. The dewatered stabilized sludge would be
landfilled.
The interconnection of the Industrial Corridor with Henrico
County facilities has been discussed previously in this Section.
The costs of this alternative were merely updated in the Ash-
land Plan.
The unit cost for Alternative R-I is $1.77 per 1000 gal-
lons, and the equivalent uniform annual cost is $2,580,209.
The final alternative included in the Ashland Facilities
Plan was developed in the Draft EIS. Under this alternative
the Town of Ashland would continue to treat its wastewater, and
the rest of the Phase II Area would be interconnected to the
Henrico County system. The proposed Ashland plant was again
the most feasible sub-alternative of the Ashland Facilities
Plan.
Interconnection of the Upper and Lower Totopotomoy basins
and of the Industrial Corridor to Henrico County were assumed
to be as developed in the Phase II planning efforts. Only the
costs were updated.
The costs of construction and operation of an Ashland
facility along with construction and maintenance of transmis-
sion lines to Henrico and treatment fees for the Totopotomoy
basin and Industrial Corridor would result in a unit cost for
the Phase II area of $1.63 per 1000 gallons of wastewater.
This equals an equivalent uniform annual cost of $2,386,198.
Each of the three Phase II alternatives evaluated in the
1980 Ashland Facilities Plan would serve all of the Phase II
area. However, a regional treatment system is specified in only
one alternative; an independent Ashland treatment facility is
specified in the other two options. The details of these lat-
ter alternatives follow closely the details presented in the
County's earlier Phase II 'planning. However, the author of
the Ashland Facilities Plan has evaluated these details and
altered them where deemed appropriate. The alterations dis-
cussed in Section IV appear reasonable, especially in connec-
tion with the Ashland plant, where more accurate information
was used than in the previous Phase II plans.
The costs of each alternative are summarized in Table 1.
This table demonstrates that either R-I or A-I (the options pro-
viding for a separate Ashland facility) is more cost-effective
than 8-1 (in which Ashland is combined with the County). Specif-
ically, Alternative A-I appears to be the most cost-effective.
20
-------
TABLE 1
PHASE II ALTERNATIVES
COST COMPARISON
ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL TOTAL EQUIVALENT
PRESENT COST PER UNIFORM COST
WORTH 1000 GAL ANNUAL COST RATING
8-1 - Phase II
Regional Plant
with Discharge at
Nelson's Bridge
$33,408,604
$2.14
$3,122,964
R-I - Ashland
Facility,*
Totopotomoy Facility,
Industrial Corridor
Interconnect to
Henrico County
$27 ,602,362
$1.77
$2,580,209
A-I - Ashland
Facility*, Rest
of Phase II
Interconnect to
Henrico County
$25,526,886
$1.63
$2,386,198
* Assuming Ashland Alternative #1 - Aerating existing iagoon
21
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF PHASE II
ALTERNATIVES
The environmental impacts of each of the three Phase II
alternatives are summarized in this sub-section. These sum-
maries are drawn from the Draft EIS and updated substantially
only where significant comments were received on the Draft EIS
and subsequent changes made (see Section II of this Final EIS.
Alternative 8-1;
Socioeconomic
Water Quality
Biology
The construction of a single treatment plant and sewer
for the entire Phase II area is identified as a project that
will allow high growth for Hanover County. Residential and
commercial development in areas currently inaccessible to
wastewater treatment would result.
Construction of a regional treatment plant would be asso-
ciated with both beneficial and potentially adverse impacts.
The most valuable beneficial impact would be seen in the im-
provement to Falling Creek and its small unnamed tributary to
which the Ashland facility currently discharges. The Ashland
lagoon has been cited as the cause of degradation of these
streams. Elimination of the discharge would allow them to
return to their natural condition. Another beneficiary of the
elimination of the currently inconsistent Ashland discharge
would be the South Anna River. A general improvement in water
quality could be expected. A further benefit to surface waters
would come from the elimination of failing septic tank systems.
Currently failing systems allow unstabilized leachate to enter
and degrade small streams in the service area. In addition,
these failing systems have caused seepage into basements and
pose a threat to local groundwater quality. Connection to the
proposed sewer system would eliminate these private systems.
The adverse impacts of the project on surface water qual-
ity could include both potential serious permanent impacts and
temporary construction effects. Possibly the worst potential
impact involves the effect of the proposed discharge on the
Pamunkey River. This, as included under Environmentally Sen-
sitive Areas is both a scenic river and a sensitive ecology.
Therefore degradation of water quality would be critical. Other
potential adverse impacts on the Pamunkey include raising BOD
and nitrate levels during low river flow periods and chlorine
toxicity problems from the disinfected effluent.
Temporary adverse construction impacts would be associatd
with the sewer routing along the stream beds. Sedimentation
from the construction could be expected in Stony Run, Licking-
hole, Kersey, and Totopotomoy Creeks in addition to the Chick-
ahominy River.
Beneficial impacts on aquatic biota are expected espe-
cially in Falling Creek and its small tributary to which the
effluent from the Ashland facility is discharged. Beneficial
impacts could also occur in the small streams in the area
degraded by the failing septic tank systems. Communities in
the watershed of the South Anna River would also benefit from
the general improvement in water quality.
The potential for serious damage to the sensitive ecology
of the Pamunkey bottomland is again a serious adverse impact.
In addition, temporary adverse impacts on aquatic organisms
could be expected from the construction of sewers in stream
22
-------
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Summary
beds. As before, this would involve Stony Run, Lickinghole,
Kersey, and Totopotomoy Creeks and the Chickahominy River.
Terrestrial wildlife living along Falling Creek and its
small tributary to which effluent from the Ashland lagoon is
currently discharged would benefit from the cleaner stream.
Adverse impacts to terrestrial biota would include animal
migration from the Rural Point site and temporary disruption
of animals by gravity sewer and force main construction.
Animals driven off by the transmission line construction could
be expected to return.
Construction of a regional treatment plant poses a serious
potential threat to a sensitive ecology, the Pamunkey bottom-
lands. A shock pollutant loading, normal discharge during low
flow, or over-chlorination of effluent could result in per-
manent damage to this area.
The proposed Rural Point plant would be located in another
area of sensitive ecology, the Totopotomoy bottomlands. Con-
struction would require clearing of some of this area and sub-
stantial sedimentation from site grading could be expected.
Temporary sedimentation from sewer construction could also be
expected in the Chickahominy wetlands.
The Pamunkey is also a scenic river and the potential de-
gradation posed by Alternative 8-1 should be avoided. However,
this alternative would have beneficial impacts on the South
Anna, also classified as a scenic river.
Stony Run, Lickinghole, Kersey and Totopotomoy Creeks and
the Chickahominy River are all listed as flood hazard areas by
the National Flood Insurance Program (see Figure 2). Foundation
material under the sewer could be eroded by turbulent flood
flows without proper design precautions. This could lead to
unsupported pipes which are susceptible to failure.
No impacts are expected on groundwater recharge areas
from any of the alternatives. Primary impacts on prime agri-
cultural land from construction of sewer and force main tra-
versing prime land would be adverse. In addition, an adverse
secondary impact would be development of the Phase II area,
much of which is prime agricultural land.
Implementation of Alternative 8-1 would not be expected
to have any significant impact on historically or archaeolo-
gically valuable lands. The proposed sewer routing does pass
near seven identified historical sites (identified in the Draft
EIS).
The potential damage to the sensitive ecology of the Pamun-
key bottomlands and the construction of the plant in the Toto-
potomoy bottomlands are serious adverse environmental impacts.
Additional adverse secondary impacts associated with the high
growth potential of the alternative would include loss of prime
agricultural land, some degradation in air quality, and poten-
tial socioeconomic stress on human services.
Significant beneficial impacts would include removing a
potential public health problem by eliminating failing septic
tank systems and a dramatic improvement in the quality of
Falling Creek and its small tributary.
23
-------
Summary
Alternative A-I
Socioeconomic
Water Quality
Biology
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
disrupt use ot prime agricultural land. In addition, the
actual Totopotomoy plant would be built on prime agricultural
land causing its loss of use. The secondary impact of loss of
prime agricultral land due to growth would be lessened but not
substantially.
Impacts on groundwater recharge areas and historically
or archaeologically valuable lands would be expected to be
minimal. As under Alternative 8-1, sewers would pass close to
seven identified historical sites.
Alternative R-I, like the previous alternative, includes
a discharge into a sensitive ecology. Potential damage to the
Totopotomoy bottomlands is a serious danger that must be taken
into account in alternative evaluation. Secondary adverse
impacts would be much as those identified for 8-1, although
slightly smaller in magnitude.
The beneficial effects are the same as under Alternative
8-1, the major impacts being water quality improvement in
Falling Creek and the removal of a potential public health
problem by elimination of failing septic tank systems.
The construction of a separate Ashland facility has
already been noted as one of the alternatives leading to a
moderate growth scenario.
Surface waters and groundwater in the county would bene-
fit from this alternative as from 8-1 and R-I.
The South Anna River would be the only stream in the
County receiving effluent under this alternative. The Ashland
discharge would be directly to the South Anna as under Alter-
native R-I. General water quality in the County would improve
as discussed previously.
Impacts to biota, both aquatic and terrestrial, can be
expected to be the same as listed under Alternative R-I. The
biota of the South Anna is subject to the possible adverse
impacts of discharging to that stream.
The greatest difference in environmental impacts of the
three alternatives concerns sensitive ecologies. Alternative
A-I does not have a potential adverse impact on a sensitive
ecology. Under both Alternatives 8-1 and R-I, a discharge to
a critical bottomland was planned - the Pamunkey and Totopot-
omoy respectively. The discharge from the Ashland facility
would be to the South Anna, well upstream of any sensitive
ecology. In addition, this alternative is the only one of the
three that would not include plant construction in the Totopot-
omoy bottomlands. Alternative A-I would include sewer routing
in the Totopotomoy and Chickahominy bottomlands as under the
previous two alternatives.
Impacts to the South Anna, a scenic river, would be the
same as listed under Alternative R-I.
Sewer lines would again traverse prime agricultural land
and adverse secondary impacts to prime agricultural land and
to air quality would be the same as those from Alternative R-I,
-------
TABLE 2
PHASE II ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMPARISON
IMPACTS 8-1 R-I
Surface Water Quality + +
Groundwater Quality ++ ++
Aquatic Biology + +
Terrestrial Biology - -
Scenic Rivers - 0
Flood Hazard Areas 0
Groundwater Recharge Areas 0 +
Prime Agricultural Land - —
Areas of Sensitive Ecology — —
Historical/Archaeological 0 -
Sites
Construction Impacts — —
Land Requirements — —
Land Use 0 0
Population Growth ++ ++
Implementability — —
NO
A-I ACTION
++
++
++
0 0
0 0
0 0
+
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0
+
++
KEY: ++ = Very beneficial impact
+ = Beneficial impact
0 = Not impacted by the alternative/equal adverse and
beneficial impacts
- = Adverse impact
— = Very adverse impact
NOTE: These impacts have not been weighted in importance.
Thus no quantitative evaluation is presented.
25
-------
Summary
SUMMARY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
MOST FEASIBLE
PHASE II
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A-I would not have any major impacts on groundwater
recharge areas and/or historically or archaeologically valuable
land. The proposed sewer routing does come near eight identified
historical sites.
The greatest difference in the environmental impacts of the A-l
Alternative concerns areas of sensitive ecology. Of the three, only
Alternative A-I does not have a potential major adverse impact on a
sensitive ecology associated with it. This should be given serious
consideration in alternative evaluation. The other adverse and
beneficial impacts for this alternative are very similar to those of
Alternatives 8-1 and R-I.
The individual descriptions above of each Phase II alternative's
environmental impacts are summarized in Table 2. Each environmental
factor is listed separately and the effects of each alternative on
that environmental quality summarized are as very beneficial (++) ,
beneficial ( + ) , no impact/equally adverse and beneficial (0),
adverse (-) , and very adverse (--) . No weighting of these factors
has been established due to the difficulty of prioritizing them.
Thus no quantitative evaluation or summing of all the ratings for
each alternative is possible. However, it is possible to compare
the alternatives on a more qualitative basis.
Table 2 and the more detailed descriptions above indicate that
Alternative A-I has fewer adverse impacts than Alternatives 8-1 and
R-I. It appears that Alternative A-I would allow Ashland and other
portions of the Phase II area to correct existing wastewater treat-
ment problems while preserving to a large extent the rural character
of the county and its pristine areas. Alternative A-I would have
fewer and less extensive direct impacts on environmentally sensitive
areas and would also direct and control growth in the county.
Finally, A-I is the most implementable and least controversial
solution: it allows Ashland to resolve its needs separately; it
does not include a treatment plant in the County; and it takes
advantage of arrangements that have already been made with Henrico
County.
Of the assessed Phase II Alternatives, Alternative A-I, involving
the separation of Ashland and interconnection of the rest of the
Phase II area to Henrico County, has been shown to be the most
feasible Phase II alternative from economic and environmental
viewpoints. This feasibility assumes availability of adequate
capacity at the Henrico County facility and continuing relative
proportions of the costs of the various option components. Although
A-I appears most feasible, the evaluations do show that R-I is also
more feasible than the regional 8-1 alternative. Thus it is clear
that separation of Ashland, with various options for the remainder
of the Phase II area, is feasible and cost-effective.
The A-I Alternative concept has been tentatively pursued by both the
Town of Ashland and by Hanover County, although no irrevocable
commitments have been made. Asland has developed specific alterna-
tives to sole its problems independent of the County's post-Phase II
planning efforts. The Town has prepared its own Draft Facilities
Plan to assess Ashland alternatives. Concurrently the County has
reserved capacity in the planned Henrico County facility. In
addition, however, the County has initiated assessment of further
options for a scaled down service area extending from Phase I in a
northwesterly direction towards Ashland (Phase I Extended)
Both the Town's and County's recent actions are consistent with the
A-I concept recommended by this EIS for the original Phase il
planning area.
26
-------
-------
SEPARATION OF
ASHLAND
DEFINITION OF
SERVICE AREA
POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
SECTION IV: ASHLAND ALTERNATIVES
As discussed in Section III of this Final EIS, the Town of
Ashland has been separated from the rest of the Phase II study
area as part of the selection of the A-I Alternative. Pursuant
to this, the Town has prepared its own updated Sewer System
Evaluation Survey and Draft Facilities Plan in order to deter-
mine which of several options is best environmentally and eco-
nomically to solve the Town's current acute problem with its
wastewater treatment plant. This Section discusses and pre-
sents information on each of the alternatives developed by the
Town. All costs in this section apply to the Ashland Service
Area only.
The Town of Ashland is approximately eleven miles north of
Richmond adjacent to Interstate 95. The Town limits encompass
an estimated 4.5 square miles.
The Ashland treatment facility is planned to service all
areas within the Town limits and nearby areas already served by
Ashland's water system and/or most readily accessible to con-
nections during the planning period. These areas are shown on
Figure 3 and include:
1) The area adjoining U.S. Route 1 from the North Town
limits to the junction of U.S. Route 1 and the
R.F.&P. Railroad;
2) The area surrounding Hanover Academy and the State
Route 54-Interstate 95 interchange;
3) The area adjacent to Ashcake Road (State Route 657)
from the eastern Town limits to the western Town
limits; and
4) The residential development west of Stony Run (west-
ern Town limits) near Woodland Cemetery.
Population projections prepared for the Ashland Service
area by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development and by Bremner, Youngblood and King,
Inc./Economics Research Associates were used in the Ashland
Draft Facilities Plan. As shown in Table 3, a comparison of
these two projections revealed almost identical projection
figures. These thus appeared to be reasonable projections, and
indicated an average 2% annual growth rate for the Ashland
Service Area over the planning period. Ashland's Draft Facil-
ities Plan used the Department of Housing and Community Devel-
opment projections to estimate wastewater flows and required
treatment capacity.
Since the preparation of the Ashland Draft Facilities Plan,
however, new population figures have been issued - the prelim-
inary 1980 Census counts. As shown in Table 3, the preliminary
Census figures for the Town of Ashland Service Area indicate a
significantly lower population than previously estimated, about
1000 less people in 1980 and about 2003 less in 2003 (assuming
the same growth rate as that assumed for the earlier figures).
This population figure, although preliminary, has not been con-
tested by the Town, so is probably close to the actual number.
Thus the population projections used in the Ashland Draft Fac-
ilities Plan appear to be about 20% higher than they should be.
27
-------
ff/V
TOWN OF ASHLAND
AREA
-------
TABLE 3 ASHLAND SERVICE AREA
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
TOTAL
POPULATION1
6,331
7,112
7,893
8,549
9,222
9,647
TOTAL
POPULATION2
6,038
6,780
7,617
8,383
9,097
9,512
TOTAL
POPULATION3
4,982
5,566
6,151
6,643
7 ,142
7,461
1 Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Housing and Community
Development.
2 Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc., Economics Research Asso-
ciates .
3 Developed by Economics Research Associates from preliminary
1980 U. S. Census population figure for the Town of Ashland
WASTEWATER FLOW The per capita water consumption rate used in the Ashland
PROJECTIONSDraft Facilities Plan deviates significantly from previous
estimates. In the Ashland Draft Facilities Plan, the Town of
Ashland reports a 1979 water consumption of 137.3 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd). However, the Draft EIS reported an
average 1976 per capita water consumption of 105 gpcd and
Bremner, Youngblood and King, Inc. reported a per capita water
consumption of 110 gpcd for 1976 (Draft EIS, Section III). As
discussed below, there are primarily two reasons for these
deviations.
The two low figures, 105 gpcd and 110 gpcd, were obtained
from the water use records of the Town of Ashland. However,
according to the Director of Public Works for the Town of
Ashland, there exists a significant amount of unmetered water
consumption within the Service Area of the Town of Ashland.
The amount of unmetered water consumed daily is estimated to
be 15.2 percent of the total water produced or an average of
112,660 gpd. The two low consumption figures do not take
this factor into account.
Another factor contributing to the variance in per capita
water consumption rates is time. Again, the two low consump-
tion figures were calculated from 1976 records, whereas the
Town of Ashland's figure of 137.3 gpcd was calculated in 1979.
As noted by Bremner, Youngblood and King, Inc., the average
per capita water consumption rate increased by approximately 5
gpcd from 1974 to 1976, showing that variances occur from year
to year.
To obtain total wastewater flow estimates, the per capita
water consumption rate was multiplied by 80 percent to estimate
the actual wastewater generated from water consumption. Finally,
29
-------
an allowance for infiltration and inflow was added in accord-
ance with EPA I/I regulations. This procedure provided an
estimated design flow amount of 1.22 mgd.
The sewers within the corporate limits of the Town of
Ashland exhibit excessive inflow and infiltration. All pro-
posed Ashland alternatives would include an extensive sewer
rehabilitation program, which is detailed in the report enti-
tled Addendum: Sewer System Evaluation Survey, Town of Ashland,
January 1980.~ Although current wastewater flows contain an
excess of I/I, it is assumed that the rehabilitation program
would reduce I/I to allowable levels. Such levels amount to
552.8 gpd per inch-mile of pipe and have been used to estimate
future .wastewater flows.
Although the methodology used to estimate future wastewater
flows appears basically sound, one further step should be added.
Because the future industrial flows were estimated apart from
domestic and commercial flows, it seems logical that current
commercial and industrial flows should not have been included
in the total flow used to calculate per capita flows. Six
hotels (over 200 rooms each) and one truck stop currently are
served by the Ashland water system, using approximately 89,500
gallons of water per day. The flow to these facilities will be
constant over the planning period and should be separated in
order not to bias current per capita water consumption esti-
mates. With the exclusion of this flow from the domestic water
consumption, per capita flows will change. True domestic flows
may then be calculated for the remainder of the planning period,
based on the population projections.
Preliminary calculations indicate that incorporation of
the revised population projections based on the 1980 Census
figures into a revised methodolgy allowing for calculation of
exclusively domestic flows gives a revised design flow estimate
of 1.27 mgd for the year 2003. Thus, although the Town will
need to reassess its design flow in light of the changes dis-
cussed above, it appears that the 1.22 mgd design flow used in
the Ashland Draft Facilities Plan will be acceptable with no
significant changes.
EXISTING WATER The current Ashland situation exhibits an acute need for
QUALITY PROBLEMS immediate action to upgrade wastewater treatment. The Town
of Ashland, as previously discussed, was issued a notice by
the State Water Control Board (SWCB) on 3 April 1979 to termi-
nate the issuance of building permits until such time as the
critical condition of overloading at the treatment plant was
corrected. The consent order was issued because the influent
flow exceeded 95 percent of the plant's design capacity for
three months in violation of the SWCB's Policy for Sewage
Treatment Plant Loadings. The consent order has slowed both
commercial and residential growth in Ashland.
Aside from this regulatory constriction, the Ashland
plant has caused real water quality problems. Effluent from
the Ashland lagoon has been cited by the SWCB as the cause of
degradation in the small unnamed tributary of Falling Creek.
The lagoon, although overloaded, usually meets the secondary
effluent limitations, but the flows in the small tributary
and in Falling Creek are at times so low that the BOD load in
the effluent cannot be assimilated. This fact is reflected in
in the stringent limitations now placed on effluent discharged
30
-------
to Falling Creek (approximately 5 mg/1 BOD and TSS) . In addi-
tion, the Ashland facility has had a number of bypasses of
untreated wastewater.
Although groundwater contamination has not been reported,
failing septic tank systems pose a potential serious public
health problem. The Ashland area has been identified as a
poor soil area (Corville-Duplin-Marlboro) for septic tank
systems and a number of failures leading to leachate seeping
into drainage ditches and basements have been reported. In-
creasing use of septic tank systems with corresponding failures
can be expected under an extended sewer connection moratorium.
The potential of groundwater contamination and seepage of pol-
luted water into basements is a serious public health problem.
Such failures could eventually affect private water wells in
the Ashland area and potentially some surface waters as well.
Elimination of the failing systems by connection to the Ashland
facility is desirable.
ASHLAND Six alternatives for upgrading and expanding the Ashland
ALTERNATIVES Treatment Plant were studied in the Draft Facilities Plan.
The six alternatives include four conventional treatment pro-
cesses and two land application systems. The six alternatives
are:
Alternative 1: Aeration of Existing Lagoon
Alternative 2: Activated Sludge
Alternative 3: Rotating Biological Contactors
Alternative 4: Oxidation Ditch
Alternative 5: Land Application-Overland Flow
Alternative 6: Land Application-Spray Irrigation
Each preliminary design used for cost estimating and assessment
of environmental impacts makes the maximum possible use of
existing facilities, but some alternatives were able to employ
more of the existing plant than others.
The Town of Ashland requested the Virginia State Water
Quality Control Board to set effluent limitations for a range
of flows (volumes) that a separate Ashland facility might pro-
duce. Those temporary limitations comprise the design criteria
for the six alternatives. The SWCB limit for a design flow of
1.22 mgd is a CBOD5 of 22.0 mg/1 (220 Ibs/day). These SWCB
limitations which will be finalized soon will not be more
stringent and may be relaxed somewhat.
Along with selection of one of these six alternatives, the
Ashland Facilities Plan cites the immediate need to initiate a
sewer system rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation is
detailed in the Addendum: Sewer System Evaluation Survey, Town
of Ashland, January, 1980.
Following is a brief description of each of the six treat-
ment alternatives with probable environmental impacts included.
Since almost identical environmental impacts are associated
with Alternatives 1-4 (the four conventional treatment proces-
ses), they are discussed together.
A combined cost comparison and a chart comparing environ-
mental impacts of all the alternatives is included in the Sum-
mary of this Section.
31
-------
Alternative 1;
Aerating Existing
Lagoon
Description
Costs
Alternative 2:
Activated Sludge
Description
Ashland"s Alternative 1 consists of upgrading the existing
lagoon. The upgrading would involve enlarging the lagoon to
allow a detention time of 31 days, dividing the lagoon into two
cells, and installing an aeration system. These modifications
would increase the capacity of the facility to the required
design flow of 1.22 mgd and would improve the quality of the
effluent from the plant, as required to meet the effluent
limitations.
The changes to the lagoon would require construction of
a earthen dike to divide it into a two cell reactor. The exist-
ing embankment would be raised two feet to increase the volume
and therefore the detention time. The aeration system would
require the installation of blowers and air piping. The rest
of the plant would be upgraded as well; major improvements
would include upgrading the pump station, changing the influent
pipe, constructing an Administration and Laboratory Building
and increasing the capacity of the existing chlorination facil-
ity. For this alternative, as for each of the six alternatives,
it is assumed that the existing screening facility would be
adequate with only minor modifications. Alternative 1 would
require the purchase of no additional land. Sludge from the
treatment would remain in the lagoon without substantial build-
up; thus no sludge handling facilities would be required.
Alternative 1 (and all others except Alternative 6-Spray
Irrigation) would require construction of an effluent pipe with
discharge to the South Anna River. A gravity flow pipe would
run from the facility to the discharge point at the confluence
of the South Anna River and Falling Creek, just downstream from
the U.S. Route 1 bridge crossing.
The costs of each Ashland alternative are calculated as
a capital cost and as a yearly operation and maintenance (O&M)
expense. For ease in comparison, these are combined and pre-
sented in terms of total present worth, unit cost per 1000
gallons of wastewater treated, and as a single equivalent uni-
form annual cost. All costs are in October 1979 dollars.
For Alternative 1 (Aerating Existing Lagoon) , the unit
cost is $0.45 per 1000 gallon of wastewater treated or an
equivalent annual cost of $201,580.
A conventional activated sludge system is commonly used
for facilities the size of or larger than that proposed for
Ashland. An activated sludge system provides a biomass of
organisms and the oxygen required by the organisms to consume
the organics in the wastewater. The biomass, unlike the
organic material, will settle out of the water, and can be
recycled and reused in the process.
Alternative 2 consists of this type of process. As pro-
posed, the existing lagoon would be abandoned and new treatment
facilities constructed. The activated sludge plant would incor-
porate the existing bar racks and comminutors. After screening,
the waste stream would pass through primary clarifiers and into
an aeration basin. From here the water would flow to secondary
clarifiers from which the settled biomass would be recycled
back to the aeration basin. The water would then go to the
chlorine contact basins and be discharged to the South Anna
River. In addition to the wastewater treatment process, a
sludge handling system would be required. The sludge from
32
-------
Costs
Alternative 3;
Rotating Biological
Contactors
Description
the clarifiers would undergo aerobic digestion followed by
sludge drying beds. The stabilized dewatered sludge would be
hauled to landfills.
The physical facilities required for this alternative
would include primary and secondary clarifier tanks with
sludge removal equipment, an aeration basin with the necessary
compressors, piping, injectors and related equipment. The
sludge handling system would include the aerobic digester tank
with mechanical surface aerators and the sludge drying beds.
Alternative 2 also would incorporate the existing headworks
and, an upgraded pump station, and would require enlargement
of the existing chlorination facilities. An Administration
and Laboratory Building which would also house the compressors
is included in the cost estimate.
Construction of the activated sludge plant would necessi-
tate the purchase of an additional 36 acres of land, an aban-
doned quarry north of the present site. The discharge pipe
for this alternative to the South Anna would be identical to
the one previously discussed under Alternative 1.
The unit costs estimated for construction and operation
of this activated sludge plant are $1.12 per 1000 gallons of
wastewater treated, or an equivalent annual cost of $497,567.
Using Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC's) as the
treatment process is the third alternative proposed in the
Ashland Facilities Plan. RBC's, also called biodiscs, are
composed of a series of closely spaced plastic discs to which
biological growth can attach. The cylinders formed by the
stacked discs are placed horizontally in a channel, partially
submerged in the wastewater. As the wastewater slowly flows
through the wafered cylinder, the discs rotate continuously,
exposing the attached biomass to the waste stream and then to
the atmosphere. The organisms aerobically consume the organ-
ics in the wastewater; adsorbing oxygen as they contact the
atmosphere.
The existing lagoon would be abandoned in this alternative.
The influent would pass through the existing headworks and then
into a primary clarifier. From here it would flow slowly
through the RBC units and into a secondary clarifier. The final
step would again be chlorination followed by discharge to the
South Anna. The sludge handling system prepared for the RBC
alternative is the same as that for Alternative 2; namely aer-
obic digestion followed by sludge drying beds with the residue
being hauled to landfills.
The proposed construction under this alternative would
include primary and secondary settling tanks with sludge col-
lection equipment. Also similar to the activated sludge alter-
native would be expanded chlorine contact tanks and sludge
handling system. The rotating biological contactors would con-
sist of concrete channels with the RBC units mounted in them.
The RBC units would also require the equipment necessary to
drive them. The estimate prepared for this alternative includes
an Administration and Laboratory Building and upgrading of the
influent pump station.
Construction of this alternative would require the purchase
of 15 additional acres of land north of the present site. The
33
-------
type of construction required for the
be the same as for Alternatives 1 and 2.
effluent pipe
would
Costs
Alternative 4;
Oxidation Ditch
Description
Costs
Alternatives 1-4
Environmental
Impacts
Land Use
Water Quality
For Alternative 2 (Rotating Biological Contactors), the
unit cost is $0.74 per 1000 gallons of wastewater. The equiv-
alent uniform annual cost is $328,297.
The fourth alternative proposed in the Ashland Facilities
Plan is an oxidation ditch to provide the secondary treatment
at the Ashland facility. The oxidation ditch is an extended
aeration type of activated sludge process, which consists of a
ring-shaped ditch with aeration rotors placed to circulate and
aerate the wastewater.
Use of the oxidation ditch would eliminate the need for
primary clarification tanks. The wastewater would flow di-
rectly from the existing screening facilities to the oxida-
tion ditch. From the oxidation ditch the water would flow into
the secondary clarifiers, then chlorinated and discharged to
the South Anna River. The oxidation ditch alternative would
have a sludge handling system similar to those for the activ-
ated sludge and RBC alternatives.
The facilities required for this alternative would include
the oxidation ditch channel with two rotors, including the
driver and motors. The secondary clarifiers would be concrete
tanks with sludge collection mechanisms. Once again, the chlor-
ine contact facility would be enlarged to accommodate the 1.2
mgd design flow. Sludge handling facilities would be the same:
an aerobic digestor with mechanical surface aerators followed
by sludge drying beds.
The additional land required by this alternative would
be 15 acres, located to the north of the site. The effluent
conduit to the South Anna River would be identical to that
proposed in the three previous alternatives.
The unit cost for Alternative 4 (Oxidation Ditch) is $0.72
per 1000 gallon of wastewater. The corresponding equivalent
uniform annual cost is $318,743.
Implementation of any of the six alternatives is not
expected to change the general trend in land use for the Town
of Ashland. Growth would be stimulated temporarily by rescind-
ing the sewer connection moratorium. Since all construction
for Alternative 1 would be on the present treatment site, the
relocation of residents or dedication of additional land for
sewage treatment purposes would not be required. Alternatives
2, 3, and 4 would require land in addition to that already
used for sewage treatment (36 acres for Alternative 2 and 15
acres for Alternatives 3 and 4). However, this land is an
abandoned quarry with no current use and no relocation of
residents would be necessary.
As discussed previously in this Section, elimination of
septic tank systems by connection to the Ashland facility
under any of the six alternatives would remove the potential
serious threat of surface or groundwater contamination from
failing septic systems.
In addition, all of the alternatives would cause signif-
icant improvement in the water quality of Falling Creek and
34
-------
Biology.
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
especially the small tributary to the creek to which the
effluent from the Ashland facility is presently discharged.
The small stream is presently overloaded, especially during
periods of low flow or when untreated wastewater is bypassed.
Because of the proposed discharge location all the alternatives
would eliminate any discharge to Falling Creek; Alternatives
1-4 call for a discharge directly to the South Anna River.
The South Anna River would also benefit from implementa-
tion of an upgrading of the Ashland facility by any of Alter-
natives 1 to 4. A potential adverse impact to the South Anna
River would be minor degradation of water quality at the dis-
charge point by BOD and nitrates in the effluent during low
river flow periods. The South Anna River experiences a wide
variation in flow with a recorded ten year minimum average
seven consecutive day flow of only 14.1 cfs. (Its average flow
is 362 cfs.) At low flow, the river may not be able to assim-
ilate even the secondary effluent and minor temporary water
quality degradation at the discharge point would be possible.
During construction of the discharge pipe, temporary sedimen-
tation could be expected in the South Anna. These adverse
impacts are associated with all alternatives requiring the
construction of a discharge pipe (Alternatives 1-4).
No permanent adverse impact on terrestrial wildlife would
be expected from implementation of Alternatives 1-4. Alterna-
tive 1 would require no additional land and the extra land for
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 has already been cleared. The con-
struction of the discharge pipe would temporarily drive animals
from the immediate area. However, these would be expected to
return once the work is finished and vegetative cover is re-
established. Wildlife communities along Falling Creek would
benefit from the improved water in the stream.
The improvement to Falling Creek would benefit the biota
of the creek. The communities in the South Anna watershed,
especially near the confluence with Falling Creek, would also
benefit from implementation of any of the alternatives. Chlor-
ination of the final effluent must be carefully monitored to
avoid any problems with chlorine toxicity.
The South Anna is classified as a scenic river. As dis-
cussed above, implementation of any the six alternatives is
expected to improve the general conditions of the South Anna
River.
A strip of land along the South Anna is designated as a
100-year flood plain by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development's National Flood Insurance Program (see
Figure 2). Additional flow from an Ashlanddischarge would
minimally augment flood waters.
The land involved in the conventional treatment alterna-
tives is not classified as a groundwater (artesian aquifer)
recharge area. Therefore no impact would be expected.
Since all construction for Alternative 1 would be on the
existing site, no prime agricultural land would be affected,
nor would the discharge pipe be routed across prime agricul-
tural land. The additional land required for Alternatives 2,
3, and 4 is not prime agricultural land (nor sensitive in any
other way). Furthermore, no secondary adverse impacts on prime
35
-------
Summary
Alternative 5;
Land Application
Overland Flow
Description
agricultural land would be initiated by any of the six alter-
natives, because growth would be accommodated only inside the
Ashland service area, which includes no prime agricultural land.
None of the alternatives would have an adverse impact on
an area of sensitive ecology. The bottomlands along the
Pamunkey River located downstream of the discharge point, are
classified as sensitive. A shock load passing through the
plant could conceivably reach this area, but with
considerable dilution. Because the wastewater is domestic in
nature, the chance of such entering the plant is minimal and
such a loading would be unlikely to cause permanent damage.
None of the six alternatives involve land that is consid-
ered historically or archaeologically valuable. Therefore no
impact of this nature is expected.
Beneficial impacts are expected from implementation of the
conventional treatment options: Alternatives 1 through 4.
Improvement to Falling Creek and its small tributary would be
of major importance. The elimination of the potential public
health problems associated with failing septic tank systems
contaminating both groundwater and small surface streams would
also be expected from upgrading the Ashland facility. Expected
adverse impacts would be minor and of temporary duration only
(e.g. construction impacts). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would
require additional land aside from that already dedicated to
sewage treatment, but that land is not environmentally sensi-
tive nor would it interfere with existing land use.
The major difference between the first four Ashland alter-
natives appears to be cost. Alternative 1 is significantly
the least expensive; Alternative 2 is significantly the most
expensive; Alternatives 3 and 4 are in the middle.
The final two alternatives examined in the Ashland Draft
Facilities Plan are both land application processes. The first,
overland flow, is considered as Alternative 5.
In an overland flow treatment system, the pretreated
wastewater is distributed along the top of a sloped area of
relatively impermeable soil covered with vegetation. The
wastewater flows in a very thin layer down the slope through
the vegetation. The pollutants in the water are removed by
physical, chemical and biological means. The purified water
is collected at the bottom, disinfected and then discharged.
The Ashland overland flow site was selected from a list
of eight potential areas. Two possible sites were then
selected on the basis of amount of land available and soil
conditions. The proposed site is adjacent to the existing
treatment site to the north and east.
In this alternative the existing lagoon would be used for
pretreatment. Influent wastewater would flow through the exist-
ing screening facilities and into the lagoon. Lagoon effluent
would then be chlorinated and stored in a reservoir. From the
reservoir it would be pumped to the application site and dis-
tributed over the top of the slope. After flowing down the
slope the water would be collected, chlorinated a second time,
and discharged to the South Anna River.
36
-------
Costs
Land Use
Water Quality
Biology
The overland flow alternative would require construction of an
asphalt-lined earth basin for storage of pretreated effluent
and a pump station for the distribution system. The laboratory
facilities for this alternative would be located in the pump
house. Additional new construction would be required for
expanded chlorination tankage, which would have to be larger
than for the four previous alternatives because the flow must
be chlorinated twice in separate basins of the tankage. The
influent pump station would also be upgraded, but the existing
screening facilities are assumed to be adequate.
At the application site the land would be levelled, grad-
ed, and seeded with reed canary grass. This grass would be
harvested and the profit used to offset operating costs. The
distribution piping installed at the site would be another
major cost item. The runoff from the slope would be captured
in a series of ditches excavated at the bottom of the slope,
chlorinated, and discharged to the South Anna River via a pipe
similar to that in the previous alternatives.
The land required for the overland flow alternative would be
an additional 277 acres. A final requirement for this alter-
native would be construction of a series of groundwater moni-
toring wells around the land application site.
A second overland flow system, Alternative 5A, is includ-
ed in the Ashland Facilities Plan. This is the same as Alter-
native 5 except for the application rate used in the design.
Alternative 5A uses a lower application rate resulting in addi-
tional land being required for application and storage. With
additional land, the total area required for 5A is 350 acres.
The unit treatment cost for Alternative 5 is $0.90 per
1000 gallons of wastewater The equivalent uniform annual cost
is $400,860. (The unit treatment cost for Alternative 5A is
$0.96 per 1000 gallons of wastewater and the equivalent uni-
form annual cost is $427,584.) As a land treatment alternative,
this option would be eligible for 85% Federal funding of the
capital costs under EPA's innovative and alternative technol-
ogy program.
Alternatives 5 and 5A would require a commitment to limit
some land use along Route 1, adjacent to the land application
site, because of the proximity of this land to the site. Also,
some existing farmland would be lost and relocation of several
residents would be necessary. However, the overall growth
trends and land use in Ashland would not be affected.
Impacts from implementation of the overland flow alterna-
tive would be similar to those listed under Alternatives 1-4
for both surface and groundwater. Additional impacts asso-
ciated with this alternative would include temporary sedimen-
tation in Falling Creek from the levelling and grading of
the application site. Some percolation of pollutants to the
groundwater could result from improper operation of the land
application site. However, monitoring wells would be required
to ensure that such percolation would not occur.
The impacts on aquatic organisms could be expected to be
as listed under Alternatives 1-4. Impacts to terrestrial wild-
life would also be similar to those of the prevous alternatives
but considerably more extensive because some of the additional
37
-------
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Summary
Alternative 6:
Land Application
Spray Irrigation
Description
277 acres required for Alternative 5 have not been previously
cleared. Some wildlife migration would likely result from
implementation of this alternative.
Potential impacts on prime agricultural land, scenic
rivers, sensitive ecologies and historically or archaeologi-
cally valuable lands would be as listed under Alternatives 1-4.
The overland flow site lies at the edge of the flood plain
along Falling Creek (see Figure 2). In the event of a flood,
the vegetation and equipment at the site could be damaged by
the high water and a shock load of pollutants could be swept
into the creek.
A groundwater recharge area could be affected by this
alternative. The application site borders the recharge area
of the Pamunkey Group of the Aquia Formation. There would be
minimal risk of a badly overloaded system allowing excessive
percolation to contaminate this groundwater.
The environmental impacts expected from the overload
flow system are similar to those for the previously discussed
alternatives. There are however some additional adverse or
potentially adverse impacts, involving the proximity of the
site to a flood plain and a groundwater recharge area.
Alternative 5A mentioned in the review would have similar
impacts, although the additional land required would exacerbate
the adverse impacts mentioned above. Alternative 5 is more
expensive than any of the previous alternatives except Alter
native 2. Alternative 5A is slightly more expensive than
Alternative 5.
The second land application alternative identified in the
Ashland Draft Facilities Plan is spray irrigation. The major
advantage of a spray irrigation system is that no effluent dis-
charge is required. Pretreated wastewater is distributed over
a vegetated area at a rate low enough to allow all the water to
be accounted for by plant uptake, evaporation and percolation
to the soil. Since the treatment includes planned percolation
into the soil, an extensive groundwater monitoring program is
an integral part of any spray irrigation system.
The land application site selection was made on the basis
of land availability and suitable soil conditions. The selected
area is located south of the South Anna River, just east of its
confluence with the North Anna. This is a flood hazard area,
so construction would have to include flood protection.
As with overland flow, the spray irrigation alternative
would use the existing lagoon for pretreatment. The influent
would pass though the existing screens and comminutors and into
the lagoon. Effluent from the lagoon would be chlorinated and
stored in a lined basin. Effluent would be drawn from this
basin, chlorinated again and then pumped to the irrigation site.
The water would be distributed over the site with spray irriga-
tors. Any runoff would be caught in a series of collection
ditches, recycled to the distribution system, and spray irri-
gated again. The area would be planted with reed canary grass,
the harvest of which would be used to offset operating expenses.
38
-------
Costs
Land Use
Water Quality
Biology
The new facilities required by this alternative would
include the lined storage reservoir, an Administration and
Laboratory Building and enlarged chlorine contact tanks. A
pump station and approximately 19,000 feet of 14 inch force
main would be necessary to pump the wastewater to the
irrigation site.
The irrigation site would be leveled and graded and a
flood protective dike constructed. Runoff collection ditches
and a small pump station to recycle the runoff to the main
stream are also included in the estimate. The total additional
land required for this alternative would be approximately 543
acres.
The unit cost for Alternative 6 is an estimated $1.63
per 1000 gallons of wastewater. This converts to an equiv-
alent uniform annual cost of $726,042. As with alternative 5,
this option would be eligible for 85% Federal funding of the
capital costs under EPA's innovative and alternative technology
program.
The land use trends for the Town of Ashland are not expect-
ed to change with this alternative. However, the use of the
selected land application site would require relocation of
several residents.
Improvements in Falling Creek and the elimination of poten-
tial groundwater contamination would result. The South Anna
River would benefit more from this alternative than the pre-
vious five since there would be no discharge from the system.
There are, however, adverse or potentially adverse impacts
to water quality associated with the spray irrigation alter-
native. Aerosols generated by the spray system would require
a buffer zone for containment. There may be a rise in the
nitrate level in the South Anna and Pamunkey river during per-
iods of slow nitrogen uptake by plants. A third potential
adverse impact on surface waters would be the danger of high
concentrations of pollutants from the spray irrigation site
being washed into the South Anna by heavy rains before per-
colation could occur. Finally, the extensive site grading
necessary for preparation of the irrigation field would cause
temporary heavy sedimentation in the South Anna.
Excessive percolation of the wastewater into the soil
could possibly contaminate the groundwater, the application
rate would have to be carefully controlled to prevent this.
As previously mentioned, a system of water quality monitoring
wells would be included to check for any groundwater contami-
nation.
The biological communities in the South Anna and Falling
Creek watersheds would benefit from the elimination of dis-
charges. Potential adverse impacts to the aquatic biota would
center on the potential for runoff entering surface waters.
Construction of the spray irrigation system would benefit
wildlife living along Falling Creek as would the previous
alternatives. Negative impacts to terrestrial wildlife would
include loss of animal habitat at the irrigation site and tem-
porary migration along the force main route from the treatment
plant to the application site.
39
-------
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Summary
SELECTION OF THE
MOST FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 6 would affect environmentally sensitive areas
more significantly than Would the previous five. However no
historically or archaeologically valuable lands or sensitive
ecologies would be impacted by this alternative.
The irrigation site has been classified as a flood plain
by the National Flood Insurance Program (see Figure 2). A
major flood could seriously damage or destroy equipment and the
vegetation necessary for the system to work. A flood would
also interrupt operation of the treatment plant. High water or
heavy rains could also sweep untreated wastes into the South
Anna and Pamunkey Rivers. Both of these are considered scenic
rivers. Construction (levelling and grading) at the site would
cause temporary sedimentation in the South Anna.
The proposed irrigation site lies in a groundwater re-
charge area known as the Pamunkey Group of the Aquia Formation.
As noted above, overloading the site could lead to excessive
percolation and contamination of the groundwater. Since this is
a recharge area, serious public health problems could result.
Finally, the proposed route of the transmission line from
the present Ashland facility to the application site would
cross prime agricultural land. Use of this land would be tem-
porarily disrupted during construction.
The elimination of any discharge by means of spray irri-
gation would seem to make Alternative 6 superior to the other
alternatives. However, there would be several offsetting
adverse and potentially adverse impacts associated with this
alternative. Prime among these are the irrigation site being
located in a flood hazard area and on a groundwater recharge
area. Furthermore, this alternative is substantially more
costly than any of the previous five.
The selection of the most feasible Ashland alternative
takes into account economic, environmental and social impacts.
The selected plan represents the best alternative for meeting
these criteria. Tables 4 and 5 summarize and compare the costs
and environmental impacts of the six alternatives identified in
the Ashland Facilities Plan.
TABLE 4
ASHLAND ALTERNATIVES - COST COMPARISON
ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL UNIT
PRESENT COST PER
WORTH 1000 GAL
EQUIVALENT
UNIFORM COST
ANNUAL COST RATING
#l-Aerated Lagoon
#2-Activated Sludge
#3-Biological
Contactors
#4-Oxidation Ditch
#5-Overland Flow
#6-Spray Irrigation
$2,156,447
$5,332,834
$3,512,030
$3,409,824
$4,525,554
$7,766,996
$0.45
$1.12
$0.74
$0.72
$0.90
$1.63
$201,580
$497,567
$328,297
$318,743
$400,860
$726,042
1
5
3
2
4
6
40
-------
TABLE 5
ASHLAND ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARISON
#1 #2 #3
IMPACTS AERATED ACTIVATED BIOLOGICAL
LAGOON SLUDGE CONTACTORS
Surface Water Quality
Groundwater Quality
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Scenic Rivers
Flood Hazard Areas
Groundwater Recharge
Areas
Prime Agricultural
Land
Areas of Sensitive
Ecology
Historical/Archaeo-
logical Sites
Construction Impacts
Land Requirements
Land Use
Population Growth
Implement ability
++
++
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
+
+
KEY: ++ = Very beneficial impact
+ = Beneficial impact
+H
+H
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
+
0
0
h ++
h ++
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
+
0
= Not impacted
equal adverse
#4 #5
OXIDATION OVERLAND
DITCH FLOW
++ +
++ ++
0
+ +
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
_
-
0
+ +
0
by the alternative/
and beneficial impacts
#6
'SPRAY NO
IRRIGATION ACTION
"
+
0
++
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
+
0
- = Adverse impact
— = Very adverse impact
NOTE: These impacts have not been weighted in importance. Thus no quantitative evaluation is presented,
-------
The selected plan is Alternative 1: Aerating Existing
Lagoon. Alternative 1 has significantly lower costs than any
of the other alternatives due to the limited construction
required. It should be noted that although Alternatives 5 and
6 would be eligible for increased Federal funding of the cap-
ital cost of the treatment facilities, overall they are not
cost-effective compared to the other alternatives. Further-
more, from a local viewpoint, even with increased Federal
funding for Alternatives 5 and 6, Alternative 1 is still most
economical.
The only new facilities required under Alternative 1 would
be the effluent pipe and the Administration and Laboratory
Building. The rest of the construction would consist of upgrad-
ing existing facilities. No additional land would be required.
Another factor reflected in the cost is the simplicity of oper-
ation, with the result that Alternative 1 has the lowest unit
cost.
The comparison of environmental impacts for the six Ash-
land alternatives shows that the first four treatment alter-
natives have almost identical impacts. This is expected, since
all are conventional treatment processes with the final product
being an effluent of equal quality to be discharged at the same
point. The only difference is in the land required and imple-
mentability. Implementability encompasses factors such as time
until completion and ease of approval of the plan. Since Alter-
native 1 requires the least construction, no additional land
acquisition, or relocation of residents and is a widely used,
easily operated system, it is more implementable than the
others.
The considerably lower unit cost and the slight advantage
in environmental impacts make Alternative 1 the most feasible
alternative. A detailed description of this alternative, its'
probable environmental impacts, and potential mitigation mea-
sures appear in the next Section.
42
-------
-------
SECTION V: RECOMMENDED ASHLAND ALTERNATIVE
DESCRIPTION The most feasible alternative identified in the Ashland
Facilities Plan is Alternative 1, which combines the lowest
unit cost with slightly better cumulative environmental impacts
to outrank the other alternatives.
Under Alternative 1, the existing lagoon would be divided
into a two-cell reactor, the volume increased by raising the
existing embankments, and aeration equipment installed. In-
creasing the volume would increase the detention time to approx-
imately 31 days; dividing the lagoon into a two-cell reactor
would provide the operational control needed to produce a
cleaner effluent on a reliable basis.
The major improvement in the treatment process would be
afforded by addition of aeration to the lagoon system. A
lagoon is essentially a large reactor vessel in which the
organic material (BOD) is consumed by organisms (biomass) in
the water. These organisms need substantial amounts of oxygen
to convert the organic material into food. In an unaerated
lagoon, the process is similar to natural purification in
rivers and lakes, and sufficient volume must be provided to
avoid overloading of the lagoon. When the loading rate to the
lagoon increases beyond the natural reoxygenation capacity of
the water, the result is depletion of the dissolved oxygen in
the water. The growth and activity of the biomass are limited
and the BOD oxidation stagnates. By aerating the lagoon, oxygen
is re-supplied by mechanical means, and the load-limiting fac-
tor is shifted. Besides supplying the necessary oxygen for the
process, aeration mixes the wastewater in the lagoon, ensuring
that the biomass will contact the organic matter present in the
water and also that the flow will be distributed throughout the
lagoon so that short-circuiting of the intended flow pattern
will not occur.
The proposed aeration method for the lagoon is known as
"tapered aeration." Tapered aeration involves the injection
of greater quantities of air at the inlet of the lagoon and
diminshing quantities as one moves toward the outlet. The
rationale behind tapered aeration is that the greatest demand
for oxygen is at the inlet area where the BOD is highest. As
the BOD is removed, the oxygen demand lessens. The objective
of tapered aeration is to match the quantity of air injected
to the oxygen demand profile, with a resulting savings in
aeration cost. Another benefit of tapered aeration is that
the biomass in the system will settle as the mixing effect of
the aeration decreases with the tapering off of air injection.
A flow chart of this alternative appears in Figure 4.
The influent wastewater is screened with the existing facil-
ities and then pumped to the south end of the modified lagoon
through a new influent pipeline. Effluent from the lagoon
flows into the upgraded chlorine contact tanks. After chlor-
ination, the effluent is discharged to the South Anna River
through a new gravity flow discharge line. The discharge point
is at the confluence of the South Anna and Falling Creek, just
downstream from the U.S. Route 1 bridge crossing. A plan view
of the proposed facility and the route of the discharge pipe
is shown in Figure 5.
Of the six alternatives, Alternative 1 would require the
least construction. Existing facilities would be used with
upgrading or addition. Following is a list of the major items
required for construction of this alternative:
43
-------
Figure 4
FLOW CHART OF ALTERNATIVE 1
TAPERED AERATION LAGOON
BAR SCREEN COMMINUTOR
PUMP STATION
Q = 1.2 MGD,
SCREENINGS TO LANDFILL
CELL 1
CELL 2
ADMINISTRATION & LABORATORY
BLDG + BLOWERS
GRAVITY DISCHARGE
TO SOUTH ANNA
Q = 1.2 MGD
BOD ^ 22 mg/1
CHLORINE CONTACT
-------
DISCHARGE
SOUTH
31 AERATED
V%)| LAGOON
\
} / •oj"ft---4^.;;""•"""- \ /'! .<-. j*»**4.-•
f A V^rv^^*"-'- i'^.-'"-' ,L '" F'eld7SV" '
^ XS^\^H^ .., isw^:«vfevt
1 L^.^^^^--^~^^C..\s4^
""*" \ /" ^s ; •""'S!^i"S":: "-^ ;''i \2-"- ''.' '^T^V^l
j' ..'-,• ji ^ fehflofrfllr^ r'T^T ^tii^'TT;^"-^-"^
!./ "• * . .Wum*f,L-- /
^BMSa*—--' ,- . " ' ,^\ I /. •;'/
Figure 5
TOWN OF ASHLAND
SITE PLAN:
Aerating Existing Lagoon
45
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Socioeconomic
Influent pump station upgrading
Influent pipe and structure modification
Earthen dike for lagoon
Intercell piping
Raising of existing embankment
Blower, air piping and associated equipment
Effluent structure
Administrative and laboratory building (will
also house blower)
Additional chlorine contact tank and chlorination
equipment
Discharge pipe to South Anna
Of the above items, the discharge pipe is by far the most
expensive. The pipe and discharge represent approximately 40'i
of the total estimated construction cost. All of the alter-
natives, except spray irrigation, require construction of this
component. As mentioned in Section IV, effluent from the Ash-
land facility can no longer be discharged to Falling Creek,
making the long effluent line to the South Anna a necessity.
The preliminary design assumes that the existing facili-
ties can be used with modification or upgrading and can be
operated during construction. The headworks (for screens and
comminutors) are assumed to be adequate with only minor modi-
fication. The existing pump station would be used with new
pumps and auxiliary power equipment installed. The capacity
of the chlorination facilities would be increased to the design
flow of 1.2 mgd.
Besides upgrading the treatment plant, the Ashland Facil-
ities Plan identifies as a second part of the wastewater treat-
ment plan a sewer rehabilitation program. The Ashland collec-
tion system suffers from excessive inflow and infiltration
which must be reduced in order to be within required EPA levels.
The rehabilitation program is detailed in the Addendum: Sower
System Evaluation, Town of Ashland, January 1980.
The combination of eliminating the excessive I/I and up-
grading the treatment plant will enable the Town of Ashland to
meet the BOD effluent limitation of 22 mg/1 set by the SWCB.
In meeting this limitation cost-effectively and environmentally
for the design flow, Alternative 1 appears to be the most feas-
ible course of action for the Town of Ashland.
The environmental impacts associated with Alternative 1
are almost identical to those for the other three conventional
treatment alternatives, as discussed in Section IV. The major-
ity of the impacts are beneficial, expecially with respect to
water quality and aquatic biota. There are, however, some tem-
porary or potentially adverse impacts inherent in this project.
Probable or potential environmental impacts from and suggested
mitigation measures for Alternative 1 are described below.
The unit cost of Alternative 1 is $0.45 per 1000 gallons
of wastewater or an equivalent annual cost of $201,580. Fed-
eral funding is available for 75% of the construction cost of
wastewater treatment plants. The operation expenses must be
borne solely by the user of the facility. The total construc-
tion cost for this alternative is $1,212,200. The Federal
share (assuming maximum possible funding) would be $909,150,
46
-------
Land Use
Water Quality
and the local share $303,050. The yearly O&M cost, borne
solely by the local residents, is estimated at $88,266. On a
unit cost basis, these costs amount to $0.19 Federal share and
$0.26 local share per 1000 gallons of wastewater treated. These
figures yield equivalent annual costs of $84,986 for the Fed-
eral Government and $116,595 for the local residents.
To acquire the funds necessary to support the local share
of the facility, two basic types of financing are possible: the
floating of revenue bonds and/or the creation of special assess-
ment districts. Essentially, revenue bonds are secured by the
revenues received from the operation of the facility. Rates
for water usage would be established and users would be billed
according to their consumption. A special assessment district
would vary from the aforementioned financing alternative in
that a geographic boundary would be drawn which includes only
the beneficiaries of the project, and these residents and busi-
nesses would be taxed at a rate which produces enough revenue
to pay the debt and operating costs of the facility.
In the Ashland Draft Facilities Plan, the user charges
necessary to cover operation and maintenance costs and to ser-
vice the revenue bonds have been estimated. The Facilities
Plan recommended a $600.00 connection charge and an initial
bimonthly service charge of $7.00, with increases to $8.50 by
the year 2000. These user charges would apply only to those
serviced by the Ashland facility.
The availability of wastewater treatment is not expected
to change land use trends for the Town of Ashland. Removing
the sewer moratorium will allow temporarily restricted residen-
tial and commercial growth to resume. Construction of the
upgraded facility will not require acquisition of any more land,
and no residents will be forced to relocate.
The most significant improvement in surface water quality
will be to the small, unnamed tributary of Falling Creek to
which the effluent from the lagoon is discharged. The SWCB
has cited the Ashland facility as the cause of degradation of
water quality in this small stream. Once the discharge to the
creek is stopped, the natural process of purification can begin.
Significant improvement will also occur in Falling Creek. The
present facility has also overloaded this creek, especially
during periods of bypasses and of low stream flows. With imple-
mentation of the alternative, the presence of effluent in Fal-
ling Creek will be eliminated.
The South Anna River will also benefit from the construc-
tion of the aerated lagoon. Although the discharge will be
directly to the river, the effluent will be consistently cleaner
than the water that has been coming from Falling Creek, espe-
cially when facility bypasses have occurred. Temporary water
quality degradation near the discharge point may occur during
times of low river flow. The South Anna is subject to wide
flow variations with a reported ten-year minimum average seven
consecutive day" flow of 14.1 cfs. (The average flow is 362
cfs.) At extremely low flows the river may not be capable of
immediately assimilating the secondary effluent from the facil-
ity. Minor water quality degradation from BOD and nitrates
may occur during these periods. Another potential adverse
impact to the South Anna involves effluent chlorination before
discharge. The chlorine dosage rates must be closely monitored
47
-------
Biology
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
to prevent any chlorine toxicity problems. Temporary sedimen-
tation at the discharge point can be expected from construction
of the effluent pipeline.
Elimination of failing septic tank systems will benefit
the small streams in the area. The leachate from these septic
tanks often enters and degrades these streams via drainage
ditches. Connection of these sources to the upgraded collec-
tion system will eliminate this problem.
An even greater benefit derived from the elimination of
failing septic tank systems will occur with respect to the
quality of local groundwater. Although contamination of the
groundwater has not been reported, the possibility poses a dif-
ficult to correct problem once incurred.
The potential adverse impacts above should be minimized
by implementation of the following mitigation measures:
o Close monitoring of chlorine dosage rates;
o Careful operation of the facility, especially
during periods of low flow;
o Use of sediment and erosion controls during stream
corridor construction;
o Buffer zones between sewer lines and stream beds
incorporating riparian vegetation when available; and
o Berms or filtering devices such as hay bales between
routes and streams.
The terrestrial wildlife indigenous to Falling Creek would
benefit from the improved water quality. No permanent adverse
impact is expected on terrestrial wildlife. Construction of
the pipeline will temporarily drive off animals. After con-
struction they can be expected to return once vegetative cover
is reestablished. The construction at the plant is on the
present site. Therefore no permanent animal migration from
construction of the facility is anticipated.
Aquatic biota would benefit from construction of the aer-
ated lagoon. The major beneficiaries would be the flora and
fauna in Falling Creek and the small unnamed tributary to which
the lagoon currently discharges. The communities in the South
Anna would also benefit from the general improvement in water
quality. Again, the final chlorination of the effluent would
have to be closely monitored to prevent any chlorine toxicity
problem.
Mitigating measures recommended to alleviate impacts on
biota are as follows:
o Stream erosion controls previously mentioned under
water quality - siltation dams, buffer zones,
filtering devices
o Revegetation of all cleared areas;
o Construction of stream crossings during periods of
minimal biological activity (winter months).
The South Anna is classified as a scenic river. The
implementation of Alternative 1 will improve the water quality
of the river. A detailed description of probable impacts is
contained in the previous section.
48
-------
Land along the South Anna River is designated as a 100-
year flood hazard area by the National Flood Insurance Program
(see Figure 2). The additional flow from the Ashland facility
will minimally augment the average flow of 362 cfs, not to
mention the flows expected at flood stage.
The land involved in this alternative is not considered
a groundwater recharge area. Therefore no impacts are expected.
Since all construction for this alternative is on the
existing site, no prime agricultural land is involved. The
proposed route of the effluent pipe does not cross any prime
agricultural land, nor is any growth on prime agricultural land
expected to occur as a result of this project.
Alternative 1 should not. affect any areas classified as
ecologically sensitive. Well downstream of the discharge point,
the bottomlands of the Pamunkey River are considered ecologic-
ally sensitive.
The land involved with this alternative is not considered
historically or archaeologicaily valuable.
Since no environmentally sensitive areas will be affected
by Alternative 1, no mitigation measures are required.
Summary The net results of the Alternative 1 environmental impacts
are beneficial. Surface water quality would improve dramatic-
ally in Falling Creek and the small tributary into which the
lagoon now discharges, improving conditions for both aquatic
and terrestrial biota. Equally important is removing the
potential public health danger of failing septic tank systems.
No permanent adverse impacts are anticipated from imple-
mentation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures for
temporary construction impacts on water quality and aquatic
and terrestrial biota could be managed as outlined above.
Additional mitigation measures to minimize adverse noise and
air quality impacts during construction and operation could
include:
o Muffling devices on pumps and other treatment plant
equipment;
o Appropriate design as well as O&M procedures to
control odors; and
o Fugitive dust controls at construction sites.
The results of the total project, including treatment
plant improvements as well as the sewer rehabilitation program,
will benefit the area and solve the Town of Ashland's sewage
treatment problem in the most cost-effective and environment-
ally sound manner possible.
49
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
PLANNING AREA
EXISTING NEEDS
SECTION VI: PHASE I EXTENDED ALTERNATIVES
With the separation of the Town of Ashland from the Phase II
planning area, Hanover County was faced with a question of how to
best address existing and expected needs within the remainder of
Phase II in a manner which would take into account the economic
and environmental concerns raised during the Phase II Facilities
Planning effort. After months of local study and debate, the
County arranged for an environmental consulting firm (Patton,
Harris, Rust, and Guy, Inc.) to complete Facilities Planning for a
reduced study area designated as "Phase I Extended". (See Figure
1) •
Concurrent with this Facilities Planning, the County embarked on a
new growth management program to ensure that future development
will proceed in an orderly, planned manner. New goals and
objectives were adopted by the County for land use management and
provision of services, which specified that development in the
next twenty years should be concentrated in four "urban" service
areas : Mechanicsville, Ashland, Hanover Courthouse, and
Doswell. Once development has materialized in those areas, other
County areas would then be serviced, including the upper
Totopotomoy River Basin above Route 643 and an expanded Doswell
service area. Public utilities goals and objectives were also
outlined, consistent with the above land use planning goals and
objectives, from which Phase I Extended Facilities Planning
assumptions were derived.
As directed by the Board of Supervisors, the Phase I Extended
planning area represents a significant reduction in size from the
previous Phase II area (even without Ashland). The revised
planning area reflects a desire of the County government to solve
existing needs, to encourage future growth in a more compact area
that is readily manageable, and to allow for more financially
feasible alternatives to be developed. A major change from Phase
II has been the elimination of the Totopotomoy River Basin {with
the exception of two existing developments) from the planning area
due to environmental concerns.
The heart of Phase I Extended lies along the Route 1 - Interstate
95 corridor south of the Town of Ashland, encompassing land as far
west as the RF&P railroad, and includes the wedge of land east of
1-95 bordered by Routes 656 and 657. Additionally, Phase I
Extended includes a "connection" area northwest of Phase I along
the Chickahominy River between Routes 656 and 301, and south of
Route 637. The connection area includes the subdivisions of
Totopotomoy and Kingswood Court. Oak Hill Estates, located
directly southwest of Ashland, was included for study but
addressed separately because of its isolation from the above areas.
As described in the Draft Addendum Facilities Plan for Phase I
Extended, there are presently eleven wastewater treatment systems
in the planning area, operating under a State Water Control Board,
Consent Order requiring these systems to upgrade their level of
treatment. Table 6 lists these facilities. Additionally, there
are numerous instances of septic tank failures scattered
throughout the planning area, as described in the Draft EIS.
Although alternative wastewater treatment solutions are geared
towards improving or eliminating the major discharges, some or all
of the on-lot system failures may be rectified via the alternative
solutions described later. If not, they must be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis by local and State health authorities.
51
-------
CAROLINE COUNTY
IGURE 6
_ Jtob^ AREA a :
^INITIAL SERVICE AREA
,;: HANOVER COUNTY . VIRGINJA
DENOTES STUDY
AREA
DENOTES INITIAL
SERVICE AREA
UY
.^vgwm-t
3
-------
co
Name
1. Chickahominy River Basin
A. Kosmos Village
B. Oak Hill Estates
C. Hanover House
Restaurant § Motel
D. Colonial Estates
E. Stony Run Subd.
F. Lakeridge Ind'l. Pk.
G. Mobil
H. Hanover Air Ind'l.
Park
I. Beechwood Farms
II. Totopotomoy Creek Basin
A. Kingswood Court
B. Totopotomoy Subd.
C. Blue Star Estates
III. Campbell River Basin
A. Speed and Briscoe
Truck Plaza
TABLE 6
Existing Sewage Treatment Facilities
Type of Treatment
Single cell stabilization lagoon, chlorina-
tion, discharge to Stony Run.
Two single-cell stabilization lagoons,
chlorination, discharge to Stony Run.
Two single-cell stabilization lagoons,
chlorination,. discharge to Stony Run.
Single-cell stabilization lagoon, chlorina-
tion, discharge to Chickahominy River.
Individual septic tanks and drainfields for
each lot.
Individual septic tanks with a central
drainfield.
Individual septic tanks and drainfields.
Three single-cell stabilization lagoons
followed by land application sprinkler
system.
Two single-cell stabilization lagoons,
chlorination, discharge to Chickahominy
River.
Single-cell stabilization lagoon, chlorina-
tion, discharge to Totopotomoy Creek.
Single-cell aerated lagoon followed by clar-
ification and sludge holding tanks, chlori-
nation, discharge to Totopotomoy Creek.
Single-cell stabilization lagoon, chlorina-
tion, Totopotomoy discharge.
Two single-cell stabilization lagoons, chlor-
ination, discharge to Campbells Creek.
Est'd. Flows
0.033 mgd
0.04 mgd
0.025 mgd
0.033 mgd
0.003 mgd
0.02 mgd
0.003 mgd
0.03 mgd
0.055 mgd
0.02 mgd
0.05 mgd
0.015 mgd
0.011 mgd
Comments
111 trailer lots plus
18 campsites.
120 hook-ups
Receives pumped effluent
from Fleming's Truck Plaza
122 trailer lots.
27 lots.
Light industrial area.
212 lots.
67 hook-ups.
205 hook-ups.
60 homes.
-------
POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
As part of updating the County Comprehensive Plan, the County
Planning Department has projected future population and land use
for the Phase I Extended planning area. The projection
methodology uses preliminary 1980 census figures and data
developed by the State Department of Planning and Budget. Table 7
summarizes the population projections used by the County.
TABLE 7
Population Projections 1980-2002
Hanover County, VA
January 1981
YEAR
1980
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
HANOVER COUNTY
POPULATION GROWTH RATE
YEAR
1980
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
YEAR
1980
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
50,219 (1)
53,000 (2)
60,500 (2)
67,300 (2)
73,400 (2)
79,900 (2)
2.8%
2.4%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
PHASE I SERVICE AREA
POPULATION GROWTH RATE
11,890 (3)
13,772 (4)
16,972 (4)
20,251 (4)
23,164 (4)
26,277 (4)
7.2%
4.3%
3.6%
2.7%
2.6%
PHASE I (EX) AREA
POPULATION GROWTH RATE
3,578 (3)
3,804 (4)
6,084 (4)
7,703 (4)
9,109 (4)
10,617 (4)
3.1%
9.8%
4.8%
3.4%
3.1%
WASTEWATER FLOW
PROJECTION
As can be seen, roughly a tripling of growth within Phase I
Extended (from 3578 to 10,617) is expected within the next 20
years. Although this may appear to be a high rate it is
consistent with the County's desire to channel growth into the
"urban service areas, and represents a far lower number of total
people to be accommodated than under the Phase II plan without
Ashland (10,617 vs. approximately 20,000). However, because of
the relatively high growth rate, it appears that phasing of any
new wastewater treatment facilities will have greater than usual
potential and should be seriously considered.
The wastewater flow generated by existing and future growth
was calculated by the County based on the above population
projection and water consumption records from Phase I and Phase I
Extended customers. The following methodology is taken from the
County's April 1981 Draft Facilities Plan and would be used as a
design flow for alternatives involving sewering.
54
-------
EVALUATION OF PHASE I
EXTENDED ALTERNATIVES
The residential/commercial use of water as reviewed was equal to
226 gallons per connection per day, or approximately 78 gallons
per capita per day (gpcd) at current household densities.
Assuming that only 80% of the water consumed is returned as
wastewater, the estimated per capita wastewater flow is: 0.08 x
78 gpcd - 62.4 gpcd.
It is estimated that infiltration from new sewer line construction
will be held to the required (by Virginia State Water Control
Board) 200 gpd/inch-mile, and that future "non-excessive I/I" will
be held at approximately this value through a strict maintenance
program and the benefits derived from improved sewer construction
materials. At the present time, the Phase I sewage collection
system consists of 930.42 inch-miles of sewer pipe which is
presently serving approximately 5,000 people, but is available to
service the existing area population of 11,980. It is reasonable
to assume that the density of development and related sewer lines
in Phase I is representative of future densities to be expected in
the total area within Phase I and Phase I Extended. The ratio of
interceptor collector sewers to available population is
930.42/11,980 - 0.078 inch-miles per capita. Use of this value
with the "non-excessive I/I" value of 200 gpd/inch-mile will
result in a per capita non-excessive I/I allowance of 0.078 inch
miles/capita x 200 gpd/inch mile - 15.6 gpcd.
Current industrial development in the Study Area is relatively
light, but the County expects this to increase significantly with
sewer availability in Phase I Extended. To provide capacity for
this expansion, EPA allows a per-capita allowance for future
nonspecified industrial wastewater flows of 10% of the total
design flow or 25% of the total industrial flow, whichever is
greater.
The above projected per-capita wastewater flow rates and volumes
result in the following values:
Residential/Commercial
Industrial Allowance
Non-excessive I/I
Total:
Future wastewater flows (2003)
62.4 gpcd
6.0 gpcd
15.6 gpcd
84.0 gpcd
Phase I 26,277 persons x 84 gpcd = 2,207,268 gpd
Phase I Extended 10,617 persons x 84 gpcd - 891,828 gpd
Total:
36,894 persons x 84 gpcd = 3,099,096 gpd
Say 3.1 MGD
Both the per capita flow figures used and the overall projection
methodology appear to be sound and have taken into account
suggestions made in the Draft EIS. The estimated Phase I Extended
flow of approximately 900,000 gpd is less than half of the
previously estimated Phase II flow (minus Ashland). Assuming that
the base population projections used are supportable, EPA will
accept as reasonable the above flow projections.
Combining the foregoing information regarding updated
conditions with previous Facilities Planning reports and
suggestions made in the Draft EIS and by interested citizens, the
County was able to focus on four possible strategies for
wastewater management for the Phase I Extended area:
55
-------
(1) Upgrade/optimum operation of existing facilities with no
centralized sewering
(2) Collection and treatment (at a) within-County AWT plant, with
discharge to either the Totopotomoy or Pamunkey River
(3) Collection and treatment at a within County land treatment
facility
(4) Collection and transport to Henrico County for treatment
(Treatment options for Oak Hill Estates are discussed separately
in a later section of this report.)
Service Area The initial service area is seen as the "panhandle" area from
~ Phase I to 1-95 along the Chickahominy and below Route 637, and
the Stony Run and Lickinghole Creek basins as far northwest and
north as Kosmos Village and the Industrial Air Park,
respectively. Also included is limited service to the
subdivisions of Totopotomoy and Kingswood Court for ultimate
development of each subdivision only, not beyond.
The initial service area would provide wastewater collection and
treatment for ultimate flows to the following existing wastewater
treatment systems, judged to be currenty inadequate to meet the
levels of treatment required for discharge to the Chickahominy
River Basin.
Kosmos Village 0.033 mgd
Colonial Estates 0.033 mgd
Flemings Truck Plaza 0.010 mgd
Hanover House 0.015 mgd
Lakeridge Industrial Park 0.020 mgd
Industrial Air Park 0.030 mgd
Totpotomoy Subdivision 0.076 mgd
Kingswood Court Subdivision 0.020 mgd
Beechwood Farms Subdivision 0.055 mgd
With the exception of the Totopotomoy and Kingswood Court
subdivisions, no service is initially anticipated within the
Totopotomoy River Basin; however, pressures do exist for including
additional Totopotomoy development, as evidenced by a recent
request from Blue Star Estates to be considered within the Phase I
Extended solution.
The nature of the Phase I Extended area is such that service could
be phased in as needs materialize, provided that the current
"problem" systems are improved immediately.
It should be emphasized that these most recent alternatives were
studied in the context of the Board of Supervisor's desire for a
reduced scope service area, recognizing the separation of Ashland
as a fait accompli. The solution for Phase I Extended may still,
however, be considered "regional" in the sense that it will
address several existing problems occurring within a broad area,
and be flexible enough to accommodate anticipated needs over the
next twenty years.
The following descriptions are taken from the April 1981 Draft
Facilities Plan for Phase I Extended. Further reference should be
made to that report for more details. Environmental
considerations are discussed separately for Alternative 1, then
collectively for Alternatives 2-4, as the latter three essentially
share a common sewer network and differ only in their method of
treatment.
56
-------
FIGURE 7
Existing Sewerage
Discharge Points
HANOVER COUNT Y.VIRGINIA
SCALE IN FEET
0 400O 8000 12000 16000
PATTON, HARRIS. RUST AND GUV P.O.
CONSULTING ENGINEERING — LAND SURVEYING — PLANNING
FAIRFAX , VIRGINIA
3377
-------
Alternative 1 - Alternative 1 consists of upgrading existing treatment systems
"Limited Build" within the service area so that they will comply with applicable
effluent limitations. It is the only of the four alternatives
which does not involved a centralized sewer network. However, it
is not in EPA's view, a "no-action" alternative, as it would
provide improved service to a number of currently inadequate
wastewater treatment systems. It is also not a "no-growth"
alternative? future growth would occur without the provison of
public sewerage through the continued use of package treatment
systems for individual developments or by individual on-lot
treatment systems, primarily septic tanks.
Costs for this alternative were estimated by assuming an advanced
level of treatment would be applied to each of the systems
requiring an upgrade. The construction cost estimate of
$3,108,500 is competitive with the other alternatives; however,
operation and maintenance costs are the highest of any alternative
since no economy of scale can be realized, making the total cost
over the entire planning period relatively unattractive. (See
Table 8).
58
-------
TABLE 8
ESTIMATED COSTS - LIMITED BUILD ALTERNATIVE ONE
Treatment System
Kosmos Village
Colonial Estates
Hanover House
Laker idge Ind'l.
Park
Hanover Ind'l.
Air Park
Totopotomoy
Kingswood Court
Beechwood Farms
Total:
Average Cost
$/l,000 gals
Total
Construction
Cost*
$390,500
390,500
345,000
330,000
365,000
501,500
330,000
456,000
$3,108,500
"
Amortized
Cost
$/l,000 gals.
3.03
3.03
3.53
4.23
3.12
1.69
4.23
2.12
-
2.73
O & M Cost
$/l,000 ga-ls.
4.21
4.21
4.75
5.57
4.21
2.18
5.57
2.78
-
3.64
Total
Cost
$/l,000 gals.
7.24
7.24
8.28
9.80
7.33
3.87
9.80
4.90
-
6.37
* No allowance made for non-construction costs -- land acquisition, site work,
electricial, engineering, legal and contingencies.
Source: Draft Addendum - Facilities Plan - Phase I Extended, Patton, Harris Rust & Guy
- April 1981.
59
-------
This alternative was determined not to be an acceptable solution
by the Facilities Planning consultants because of high costs and
the lack of growth control it provides.
Environmental A number of impact categories may be affected by implementation of
Considerations this alternative. The discussion will focus on those key areas
which involve the most profound effects and which should be given
primary consideration in deciding which solution to pursue.
Primary, or direct, impacts occurring from actual construction of
the facilities' improvements will be minimal and acceptable,
assuming that most of the upgrades will be accomplished on or
adjacent to existing treatment sites. No construction of
collector or interceptor sewers is anticipated, thus avoiding any-
direct disturbance of resources beyond the treatment plant sites.
The water quality of the Stony Run, Lickinghole Creek,
Totopotomoy, and Chickahominy Rivers will be enhanced by improving
the quality of effluent now discharged into those water courses.
However, there will continue to be numerous effluent discharges
into the above streams, as existing and future growth will be
accommodated by a number of separate systems. Additionally,
malfunctioning or marginally operating individual septic systems
will not be collectively addressed under this alternative, but
handled on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. This will
mean a slower rectification of those problems with a corresponding
strain on local government resources, and possibly on surface or
groundwater quality in the short-term. However, this does not
imply that properly installed and operated on-site systems cannot
be relied upon as a longer-term solution in areas with proper soil
conditions.
Indirect growth-related impacts under this alternative appear on
the surface to be negligible, as the facilities improvements do
not provide capacity for future growth. However, by forcing
future development to be accommodated via on-site or package
treatment systems, the limited build alternative will cause the
pattern of development to be more widely dispersed and less
manageable from a local governmental viewpoint. Location of
future development will be more dependent on suitable soils,
possible effluent discharge points, and local growth controls
(e.g. zoning, subdivision ordinances) than on location of
interceptor sewers.
Assuming similar growth attractiveness and pressure in the Phase I
Extended area with or without the provision of central sewerage,
this alternative will cause more land area to be developed than
the others because population density will be less than under a
sewered alternative. While quantifying indirect impacts under
this alternative is difficult, it is reasonable to assume that the
total amount of land disturbed, or altered from its present use,
will be at least as much as under the sewered alternatives.
Although termed "limited build", this alternative could
conceivably cause the loss of significant amounts of prime
agricultural land, woodlands, and wildlife habitat. Again, this
conclusion is based on an assumption of equal growth pressure with
or without provision of public sewers. The County could diffuse
these negative effects with an agressive program of land use
management and control.
60
-------
Alternative 2
Hanover County
AWT Plant
Impacts from the limited build alternative on the sensitive
ecologies of streams in the planning area, particularly the
Chickahominy and Totopotomoy, will depend on the control exercised
by local governments concerning location of new development. Some
direct impact on the streams will occur, although water quality
will be improved, as effluent discharges continue into these
streams. The increased wastewater load generated by a projected
7,000 additional people in Phase I Extended area by the year 2002
can be absorbed without detriment to these streams provided that
the systems sewage treatment are properly operated and maintained.
A more subtle but significant effect is likely to occur from
non-point source runoff generated by the roads, driveways, roofs,
parking and other impervious areas associated with new
development. As noted in the Draft EIS, regardless of the
alternative selected, non-point runoff will have a great effect on
water quality of County streams. The SWCB estimates that 97% of
the phosphorus load on the Chickahominy River comes from non-point
sources. The assimilative capacity of the streams and filtering
action of wetland areas can buffer some of this runoff pollution;
however, it is recommended that the County strictly enforce strict
sediment and erosion control ordinances, or like measures to
ensure that the carrying capacity of these streams is not unduly
overburdened. A non-point source control program should also be
established through local-State cooperation to protect especially
sensitive watersheds, such as the Chickahominy and Totopotomoy.
The rationale for such a program was outlined in a SWCB memorandum
in December, 1980.
Alternative 2 consists of collection of all wastewater flows
and treatment by Hanover County in an advanced wastewater
treatment plant with effluent discharge to either the Totopotomoy
or the Pamunkey Rivers.
The base system serving the Stony Run and Lickinghole Creek
drainage basins in Phase I Extended is shown in Figure . This
system is presented here because it is an element of the total
wastewater collection system common to other alternatives to be
considered. It consists of the following sewer lines:
approximately 1,400 feet of 8" diameter, 7,000 feet of 10"
diameter, 3,700 feet of 12" diameter, and 12,900 feet of 15"
diameter; one minor pumping station serving Colonial Estates and a
larger pumping station serving the entire drainage basin located
at the base of Sliding Hill. Sewer line sizing is approximate
only, and is a function of either the projected 20-year flows
within the drainage area, or the degree to which limited slopes
exist in areas where sewer will be provided. Pumping stations are
sized for costing purposes to handle year 2002 flows, although
initial design may provide for lower initial flows to facilitate
proper operation.
This base system provides service to six (6) of the existing
wastewater treatment systems and additional land for initial
growth in residential, commercial and industrial development.
Either the Lakeridge or Air Park interceptors would be designed to
allow interceptor extensions up Lickinghole Creek with final
determination of the most effective approach being dependent on
actual on-site surveys.
61
-------
ewtetov
Campgroun
Airport'
iKEff
r\
SEWEF
AVITY
,'JJX
STATION
'/I
STA.
\
\
FIGURE 8
MAJOR SEWER ROUTES
UPPER SECTION
PHASE I EXTENDED AREA
(BASE SYSTEM)
KXX) O KXX) 2OOO 3000
SCALE IN FEET
/ fii 62
/ ^iHoll PATTON,HARRIS, RUST AND GUY p C.
£>-4^. I CONSULTING ENGlNEEFdNG —LANOiSURVEYING —PLANNING
-------
Regardless of discharge point, the level of treatment required
under Alternative 2 will be advanced and relatively expensive.
The State Water Control Board has determined allowable discharge
limiations, (wasteload allocations) for potential discharge points
on the Totopotomoy and Pamunkey Rivers. These are presented in
Table 9. The relatively expensive consideration of pumping the
effluent to Nelsons Bridge on the Pamunkey (61,600 ft.) would have
to be evaluated against the unquantifiable impact of discharge to
the Totopotomoy and its critical, environmentally-sensitive
areas. For purposes of initial cost comparison, discharge has
been assumed to be to the Totopotomoy.
Table 9
Effluent Limits
Pamunkey River near Nelson's Bridge
Effluent Discharge =3.0 mgd
DO (mg/1) CBOD5 (mo/1) TKN (mq/l>
6.73 21.0 1.0
6.73 18.0 2.0
6.73 15.0 3.0
6.73 8.0 5.0
Totopotomoy Creek above Route 643
Effluent
Discharge (mgd) DO (mg/1) CB055 (mg/1) TKN (mg/lj
0.5 6.0 16.0 20
1.5 6.0 11.0 20
2.1 6.0 9.0 20
2.7 6.0 7.0 20
3.5 6.0 6.0 20
Source: Virginia State Water Control Board
The treatment plant itself is shown to be located within the
Chickahominy River basin and the County Board-delineateed service
area, although many valid arguments do exist for placement within
the Upper Totopotomoy drainage basin (above Route 643). It is
recognized that many problem spots and areas of marginal
suitability for septic systems are not covered by this
more-limited service area. Nonetheless, it is the Board of
Supervisor's and County Staff's determination that solution of
these smaller problem areas with a wastewater collection system at
this time will have its initial benefits significantly
overshadowed by the adverse environmental impact of
presently-unwanted residential and commercial development.
Initial limitations to the service area were also deemed necessary
to allow development of a solution solving the areas worst
problems, while remaining affordable to the ultimate users.
Estimates of cost for this alternative, including the costs of the
"base system" are presented in Table 10, and will be compared with
other alternative costs in a subsequent section.
Environmental considerations are discussed collectively for
Alternatives 2-4.
63
-------
PUMP STATION
SEE FIGURE,
FOR COMPLETE
VIEW OF SYSTEM
LAYOUr/
Hermttige-Ethelwood
/7> /-AS Country Club
EX. SAN. SEW.
FIGURE 9
TREATMENT AT 0.9mgd AWTP
IN HANOVER COUNTY
ALTERNATIVE TWO
1000 0 1000 2000 3000
ssssssssssssssss
SCALE Ik FEET
RATION, HARRIS. RUST AND GUY-
CONSULTING ENGINEERING —LAND SURVEYING
FAIRFAX , VIRGINIA
— P. C. I
—PLANNING!
-------
TABLE 10
ALTERNATIVE TWO
ESTIMATED COSTS - HANOVER COUNTY 0.9 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
Item
Construction
Cost
O & M
Cost
Base Sytems:
1,800 LF 4" forcemain
1,700 LF - 8" san. sewer
7,300 LF - 10" san. sewer
3,800 LF - 12" san. sewer
12,850 LF - 15" san. sewer
300 LF Tunnel under Rte. 95
Colonial Estates Pumping Station
Sliding Hill Pumping Station
Subtotal:
3,500 LF
2,500 LF - 12'
8,400 LF 8
5,700 LF - 15'
9.700 LF - 18
forcemain
forcemain
san. sewer
san. sewer
san. sewer
Totopotomoy Pumping Station
Subtotal
Pamunkey discharge:
0.9 MGD
Effluent Pumping Station
61,600 LF 12" forcemain
Total Cost:
Total:
$ 21,600
43,400
227,200
136,500
539,700
120,000
64,800
351,400
$1,504,600
$ 52,500
62,500
235,200
239,400
455,900
103,600
$1,224,800
$1,166,420
334,500
1,540,000
$5,694,620
= 532,320/year
=$1.62/1,000 gals
2.21/1,000 gals.
$ 70
160
810
410
1,920
7,080
12,530
$22,980/year
$ 150
160
920
930
1,850
8,180
$12,430/year
$130,860
23,920
3,970
$193,920/year
$0.59/l,000gals.
Totopotomoy Discharge:
0.9 MGD AWTP
Effluent Pumping Station
9,500 LF 8" Forcemain
$1,827,200
200,000
171.000
$4,851,900
435,545/yr.
= $1.38/1,000 gals.
Total: $2.17/1,000 gals.
$208,520
15,040
630
259,360/year
$0.79/1,000 gals.
65
-------
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 involves use of the "base11 collection system
Land Treatment defined earlier. All wastewater flows from this area would be
collected and pumped to the land application site via the Sliding
Hill Pump Station. The panhandle of Phase I Extended and
Totopotomoy and Kingswood Court subdivisions would be served by an
interceptor extended along the Chickahominy from Phase I (Craney
Island) .
The treatment system would include primary treatment by aerated
lagoons, chlorination, minimum 60-day storage capabiity, pumping
to distribution, spray irrigation and collection and recycle for
zero discharge. Overland flow and infiltration/percolation
methods of land application were rejected in favor of irrigation
based on effluent quality, land requirements, soils limitations
with respect to depth and percolation rate, and potential impact
on groundwater quality.
The land application alternative was reviewed extensively in the
Preliminary Draft Facilities Plan, the Expanded Scope Facilities
Plan, the Draft EIS and the Ashland Facilities Plan. Design
criteria used herein is similar, including applicable requirements
of the State Water Control Board. Application sites, as developed
and screened in these documents, were evaluated as potential
sites. The use of separate sites was ruled out due to the expense
of duplicate facilities. Site #2 has been used in this report as
a potential site and serves as the basis for cost calculations.
Site #2 is the one closer to Sliding Hill Pump Station and is
characterized by cleared farmland, thus avoiding some of the
environmental and cost impacts from additional clearing and
grading. The possibility that most sites investigated are in a
critical groundwater recharge area may require added protection by
the installation of an underdrain collection system. Total area
requirements are approximately 280 acres, including the required
400-ft. buffer zone on all sides. Crossing of the site by public
roads would possibly require additional land for buffer zone
requirements.
If land application becomes the selected alternative, a first step
in the overall design procedure would be the verification of site
suitability for land treatment, including analysis of floodplain
limits, soil composition and depth, and groundwater level, flow
rate and direction of movement.
The costs for this alternative are shown on Table 11. Costs for
transmission from Sliding Hill Pumping Station to the treatment
site have been kept separate to allow analysis of costs for land
application at other potential sites.
66
-------
TABLE 11
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR LAND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE THREE
Item
I.
II.
III.
Base System
Land Treatment Components
A. Pre-Application
B. Pumping
C. Storage
D. Field Preparation
E. Distribution
(Center Pivot Spray)
F. Recovery
G. Administration & Lab
H. Monitoring Wells
I. Roads and Fencing
J. Chlorination
K. Plant/Cultivate/Harvest
L. Land
M. Transmission to Site 2
Sewering Lower Phase I
Extended Area
Totals:
Capital Costs
$1,504,600
83,700
188,400
429,700
49,500
163,700
255,500
96,300
7,300
131,000
62,800
843,000
1,518,000
935,200
$6,168,700
0 & M Costs
$22,980
22,000
7,340
2,600
-
29,370
9,900
14,130
4,000
3,420
5,570
12,350
52,070*
576,636/year
1.76/1,000 year
260,930/year
0.80/1,000 gals.
Total Cost: $
* Includes costs for treatment in Henrico County.
2.56/1,000 gals.
67
-------
Alternative 4
Hanover Collection,
Henrico Treatment
Alternative 4 consists of the collection and transport of all
wastewater flows in Phase I Extended to Henrico County for
treatment. Use would be made of the existing Phase I system
Beaverdam Pumping Station and Chickahominy interceptor. The
general alternative considered involves the "base" collection
system reviewed earlier, the Sliding Hill Pumping Station, a
pumping station serving the Totopotomoy and Kingswood Court
subdivisions, and approximately 18,500 lineal feet of interceptor
sewer along the Chickahominy River to a connection with Phase I
at Craney Island Estates. See Figure . Minor variations to
this flow routing have also been considered in an attempt to
arrive at the minimal cost approach.
This alternative would not require any upgrading or expansion to
the existing Phase I system during the entire 20-year study
period. A review of capacity available in the existing Phase I
sewerage system, compared to existing and projected wastewater
flows in both Phase I and Phase I Extended, indicates that
adequate capacity exists in the Chickahominy (Phase I)
interceptor for year 2002 flows from Phase I Extended and for
Phase I at an ultimate capacity of 10 persons to the acre
(original designs planned for an ultimate density of only 8
persons per acre). As reviewed earlier, the projected wastewater
flows from both Phase I and Phase I Extended have been estimated
at 3.1 mgd. Hanover County currently has a contract with Henrico
County for treatment capacity of 3.0 mgd in their existing sewage
treatment plant. Henrico County, through the EPA grants process,
has initiated construction on a system of new interceptors, pump
stations and a 30 MGD sewage treatment plant (year 2005).
Because of funding uncertainties, no fixed date has been given
for project completion, although 1988 has been cited as a
possible completion time. The design for these facilities has
included 3.7 MGD capacity for Hanover County for year 2005
wastewater flows. The plant will be expandable and has indicated
potential Hanover Couny wastewater flows to it of 5.4 MGD.
Thus, under the current planning assumptions and resultant year
2002 flows of 3.1 MGD, it is not expected that any modifications
will be necessary to the existing and proposed Hanover facilities
or to the Henrico County Facilities, until after the 20-year
planning period.
It is unrealistic to predict future populations and their exact
locations beyond this initial planning period, although it
appears that a significant amount of capacity will still be
available in both County systems at this time. Availability of
capacity and ease of expansion are two positive elements of this
alternative. It is also apparent that this alternative provides
additional flexibility to Hanover County. If at some point in
time Hanover requires capacity beyond what Henrico County can
provide, or if Henrico treatment costs become too expensive to
justify contracting for additional capacity, Hanover will still
have their backbone system of interceptors and pumping stations,
and would be able to consider construction of their own sewage
treatment plant to handle part or all of their wastewater flows.
The existence of a larger service population at this point in
time would also serve to reinforce the feasibility of this
consideration. The County of Henrico Wastewater Facilities
Planning Study, January 1977, with update costs in October 1977,
estimated charges to Hanover County of approximately $0.50 per
thousand gallons for transportation and treatment of its
wastwater. Delays in construction funding, however, have pushed
back the project completion time from 1982 to, at the earliest,
1988. The many uncertainties' involved in financing this project
unknown grant money availability, different project
68
-------
construction times, separate bond programs and related interest
requirments all combine to make it extremely difficult to
estimate what this final cost will be. The Henrico Facilities
Plan (Appendix 15) in its detailed financial analysis, indicated
project 0 & M costs (with inflation allowance) to be at least 50%
of the total cost per thousand gallons. Even if the final
construction cost is twice the October 1977 estimate, they would
only increase the total cost per thousand gallons by 50% (2 x 50%
+ 50%), or to approximately 150% x $.50 - $0.75/1,000 gallons.
Current estimates of total construction costs for Henrico County
are now estimated at $151 million, a 98.7% increase from the
original estimate. To be on the conservative side, it has been
assumed that the costs to Hanover County will be approximately
$0.75/thousand gallons. This value has been combined with the
costs for the Phase I Exended facilities to provide a total cost
per thousand gallons for service to Phase I Extended - See Table
12.
69
-------
J
ixten
&•; o.
EX. LAGOON
V.
5RAVI1
5EWEI
HILL
STATION /
•PUMP STATION
6" FORCE MAIN.
fm
o
\
EX.1
FARR
SI1
-8"GRAV
• !-V*
Are»V
V.
Country Club
Stu
umenl I
A
V
Atlee
O
A
-I
7'
\
FIGURE 10
SEWER TO EX.SAN.SEW.SYSTJ
TREATMENT |N HENRICO CY.
ALTERNATIVE FOUR
iqgp o looo 2OOO yxro^
SCALE IN FEET >
RATION .HARRIS. RUST AND GUY P.C. ' •
CONSULTING ENGINEERING —LAND SURVEYING—PLANNING!
FAIRFAX , VIRGINIA
-------
TABLE 12.
ESTIMATED COSTS - TREATMENT BY HENRICO COUNTY
ALTERNATIVE FOUR
Item
Construction Costs
0 & M Costs
Basic System:
1,800 LF - 7" forcemain
1,450 LF - 8" san. sewer
7,300 LF - 12" san. sewer
3,800 LF - 12" san. sewer
12,850 LF - 15" san. sewer
300 LF tunnel under Rte. 95
Colonial Estates Pumping Station
Sliding Hill Pumping Station
Subtotal:
3,500 LF
2,500 LF
5,900 LF
5,700 LF
12,800 LF
Subtotal:
Total:
6" forcemain
- 12" forcemain
8" san. sewer
- 15" san. sewer
- 18" san. sewer
$21,600
43,400
227,200
136,500
539,700
120,000
64,770
351,400
$1,504,600
52,500
62,500
162,200
239,400
103,600
$1,224,800
$2,729,400
0.78/1,000 gal.
$70
160
810
410
1920
7,080
12,530
$22,980/year
150
160
600
930
8,180
$12,430/year
$35,410/year
0.11/1,000 gal.
Treatment Costs at Henrico County = $0.75/1,000 gallons
Total Cost:
$1.64/1,000 gallons
71
-------
Environmental
Considerations -
Alternatives 2, 3,
and 4
Primary Impacts
However, uncertainty exists as to the applicability of this rate
to Hanover County exists with respect to the use of sewer
wholesale rates and the method used for offsetting Henrico's
capital costs. Thus, for purposes of this initial comparison,
use of the value of $0.75 per thousand gallons appears to be
reasonable.
As a variation to this alternative, consideration was given to
two alternatives 4A and 4B which allow for transport of most of
Phase I Extended wastewater flows to Henrico County at the
Interstate 95 crossing of the Chickahominy River in lieu of using
the Phase I Facilities. (Figures and ). While comparable in
total cost to Alternative 4, it should be noted that: 1) these
alternatives do not allow service to the entire panhandle of
Phase I Extended; 2) they limit somehwhat the County's
flexibility to provide their own treatment plant in the future;
and, 3) Hanover rejected the option of utilizing Henrico's Turner
Run interceptor before it started construction and would now have
to negotiate with them for an allocation of a portion of
Henrico's future capacity needs.
Based on this, the Facilities Plan rated Alternative 4 as
preferable to 4A or 4B, and utilized this in the cost comparison
with other alteratives.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all share the common feature of a
sewer network, which with minor variations, serves the same
areas of Phase I Extended, follows similar routing patterns,
and will cause similar environmental effects.
Primary effects from construction of collector or interceptor
sewers along or across stream beds include increased erosion and
sedimentation deposits. The proposed sewer network avoids, where
possible, placement of sewer lines directly within streambeds;
however, the significant cost savings realized from use of
gravity sewers vs. forced flow sewers dictates that many lines
follow the general contour of stream valleys. The temporary
adverse impacts expected from these sewer placements can be
minimized through the use of standard engineering practices for
sedimentation and erosion control. The adverse impacts
associated with stream crossings are potentially significant and
should be addressed carefully prior to construction. In some
cases, the effects can be minimized by jacking the sewer pipe
beneath the stream bottom itself. In others, installation via
cofferdams may be appropriate. Consultation should occur with
local or State soil and water conservation agencies to ensure
that proper techniques are employed.
Many of the sewer lines will lie within or near floodplain areas,
as delineated in Figure 2. While this will not necessarily cause
any direct adverse effects, care must be taken during design and
construction to 1) avoid location in floodplain areas where
possible and 2) to ensure sound construction techniques are
utilized to minimize any potential damage should flooding occur.
Alternative 3 is the most susceptible to direct flood damage as
the land application sites themselves lie within a floodplain.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now has
responsibility for the National Flood Insurance Program and
Executive Order No. 11988 on Floodplain Management. They should
be consulted regarding specific mitigative measures for
construction of wastewater facilities within a floodplain.
72
-------
Other primary impacts which can be expected from Alternatives 2,
3, and 4 are similar to those discussed in the Draft EIS, but to
a lesser extent since the service area has been considerably
reduced in scale. Indeed, the direct impacts related to
construction in the Totopotomoy River Basin will be all but
eliminated since this area was removed from consideration (with
minor exceptions) for service during the 20 year planning period.
Secondary Impacts The most significant potential impacts from the three sewered
alternatives are those secondary effects which could result from
the development accommodated by the central wastewater treatment
facilities. Depending on its location, this development could
adversely effect such environmental resources as prime
agricultural lands, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and terrestrial
and aquatic biota. Hanover County has instituted a new General
Policies Plan (GPP) through a Growth Management Program which
provides the basic framework necessary to control growth and the
detrimental environmental effects which can accompany
uncontrolled growth. The effectiveness of this program will
depend on the degree to which the County is willing to strictly
adhere to the planning goals embodied in the Plan.
Alternatives 2-4 represent potentially both promising and
pessimistic future scenarios for the County. A sewered
alternative will greatly assist the County in accomplishing the
goal of locating future growth in the "urban" service areas,
provided that other aspects (of the GPP) are also implemented.
However, provision of a sewer network for Phase I Extended
without a strong County commitment to sound land use management
could result in significant negative consequences.
Among the issues of greatest public concern are those potential
growth impacts on the Totopotomoy Creek Basin wetlands, future
water supplies (due to interbasin transfer) and water/wastewater
relationships, impacts on prime agricultural land, and on the
general rural character of the area. There will be some effect
on these characteristics with or without a sewered alternative.
Under the sewered alternatives (2, 3, and 4), the environmental
effects will be generally less severe than if the same amount of
growth were handled with on-site or package systems, primarily
because less total land area would be disturbed. One potential
negative effect of the sewered alternatives is the increased
pressure to connect existing and future systems, and
subdivisions, lying outside the Phase I Extended area but within
the Totopotomoy River Basin. This pressure will be strong along
Route 301 North, and eastward along Routes 643 and 606.
Connection of existing subdivisions would eliminate some
scattered pollution problems, but the presence of an interceptor
sewer would tend to direct growth into this area prematurely.
This action could strain the carrying capacity of the Totopotomoy
Creek, potentially creating an even larger environmental
problem. Measures to minimize this effect include strict County
application of available growth controls, and careful routing,
sizing, or phasing of sewer lines.
Introduction of public sewers into the Phase I Extended area will
tend to accelerate growth there initially, but long term demand
depends on many other growth attractiveness features, such as
roads, schools, taxes, and aesthetic appeal. That is, sewer, per
se, do not create a demand for growth; rather they can serve as a
catalyst, or a tool for growth control.
73
-------
Treatment Method
Costs
In the longer term, it is probable that equal growth pressures
will occur with or without public sewers, on a County-wide
basis. Therefore, a key question becomes whether it is best, all
factors considered, to address pollution problems and expected
growth in the Phase I Extended area via continued use of on-site
and private package treatment systems, a central sewer system, on
a combination of the two, where sewers are phased-in as growth
materializes sufficiently to enable citizens to afford them?
Under the sewered Alternatives, three treatment options are
available: advanced wastewater treatment at a within-County
facility with stream discharge (Alternative 2) , land treatment
within County without a point discharge (Alternative 3), or
transport to Henrico County for treatment (Alternative 4).
Environmentally, Alternative 4 is preferable as it would address
needs while preserving and enhancing water quality in Hanover
County more effectively than the other two alternatives. One
negative environmental effect of Alternative 4 is that up to 1.0
mgd of water will be diverted from the Chickahominy (and
minimally the Totopotomoy) to the James River Basin. This is not
expected to jeopardize future water supplies of the County or the
Town of Ashland, based on projected safe yields of the South Anna
and Pamunkey Rivers. However, the County must take care to
ensure that adequate water supplies are available in conjunction
with any improvements made for wastewater treatment facilities.
A Hanover County AWT plant (Alternative 2) is technically
feasible, but less environmentally desireable and a more costly
option. The VA SWCB has issued effluent limitations for
discharge into either the Totopotomoy or Pamunkey Rivers. The
impacts from either discharge option could be significant in
several categories, given present environmental conditions. This
is not a recommended alternative now, but could become more
attractive later during the planning period depending on how
growth occurs, and how treatment costs compare relative to
Henrico County's treatment costs.
The land treatment option (Alternative 3) is desireable from the
standpoint of requiring no stream discharge, and because of its
feature of recycling and reuse of nutrients and other resources,
is encouraged by the Federal Clean Water Act. Its two main
drawbacks here are high initial construction costs and the large
amount of land required for transportation, treatment, and buffer
zones. Additionally, the two potential treatment sites lie
within groundwater recharge areas, requiring special
precautionary measures and monitoring. The land treatment option
should not be ruled out totally, however. It could be employed
for a portion of the Phase I Extended area or for individual
subdivision or commercial treatment. Land treatment remains a
technology which is supported by EPA and would be an
environmentally acceptable alternative for Hanover County.
Perhaps the most determinative factor as to which wastewater
treatment solution is chosen will be the ability of the County
government and residents to afford the local share associated
with each system. The existing Phase I system has been beset
with financial problems requiring supplemental assistance from
the County's general revenue fund. Many County residents have
voiced concern over embarking on a new financial program for a
Phase I Extended wastewater system when the existing Phase I
financial situation has not resolved. In addition, the future of
EPA's Construction Grants Program is uncertain due to funding
cutbacks and policy changes. Although the Phase I Extended area
is on the State priority list as an EPA fundable project, there
is some doubt as to whether Federal money will be available, even
at a reduced percentage rate, when the County is ready to proceed.
74
-------
Summary of Phase I
Extended
Alternatives
To assess this situation, the County recently contracted for the
preparation of a report entitled "Financing Alternatives for the
Hanover County phase I Extended Wastewater System Project". This
report analyzes various financial options for the Phase I
Extended alternative, assuming that no Federal (EPA) funds will
be available. The report concluded that the least cost, least
risk method of financing is to:
o Fund the residential area east of 1-95 (Segment 1) with
Farmers Home Administration low-interest,long-term loans.
o Fund the commercial area east of 1-95 (Segment 2) with
conventional financing of lease/purchase financing or developer
pro rata share financing.
o Fund costs attributable to trailer parks in the area west of
1-95 (Segment 1) with Housing and Urban Development Community
Block Grants.
o Fund the balance with conventional or lease/purchase financing.
The report also recommends that either the areas east of 1-95
(Segments 1 and 2) be funded together or the entire Phase I
Extended area be funded.
A wide range of user charges could be applied depending on the
method of financing chosen, and whether Phase I and Phase I
Extended customers are combined into one payment system. The
Draft Facilities Plan projects that with a new connection fee of
$1500 and no EPA funding, a typical Phase I Extended system user
could expect to pay roughly between $52-65 every two months, or
an annual charge of t312-#390. EPA guidelines suggest that user
charges should not exceed 2.5% of median household income. In
the case of Hanover County, this amounts to roughly $400/year.
If EPA funding is available and is sought by the County, a
detailed user charge system must be developed and approved by EPA
prior to award of Federal funds for construction (Step 3).
Selection of an alternative to serve the needs of the Phase I
Extended area must take into account a variety of cost,
environmental, and social factors. Tables 13 and 14 summarize
and compare the costs and environmental impacts of the four
alternatives discussed in the Phase I Extended Draft Facilities
Plan.
Using a set of evaluative criteria, including costs and
environmental effects, the Draft Facilities Plan presented a
preliminary ranking of the four alternatives, recognizing that
public hearing testimony and other public and local government
opinions would also contribute to the selection process. The
ranking listed Alternative 4 as the "best" alternative , followed
by Alternatives 2, 3, and 1 in that order. While the evaluative
criteria were not individually weighted per se, they were
averaged to derive a final numerical ranking, which in effect
assigned an equal weight to each criteria. And while EPA does
not disagree with the preliminary identification of Alternative 4
as the most cost-effective alternative, the public and local
decisionmakers should be aware that if different weightings were
assigned and public opinion factored in, the final averages as
well as ranking order beyond the first choice could possibly
change. Alternative 1 would tend to be elevated in rank to a
point where it could compete with Alternatives 2 and 3 as a
viable alternative.
75
-------
TABLE 13
PHASE I EXTENDED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARISON
Impact
Area
Alternative
(1)
Limited
Build
(2)
Hanover
AWT Plant
(3)
Hanover
Land Treatment
(4)
Henrico
Interconnect
Surface Water Quality
Groundwater Quality
Water Supply
Aquatic Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Population Growth
Land Use
Land Requirements
Construction Impacts
FLood Hazard Areas
Scenic Rivers
Prime Agricultural land
Historical/Archeological
Sites
Groundwater Recharge
Areas
Wetlands
Implementation
Key:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
+
++ = Very benefitical impact
+ = Beneficial impact
0 = Not impacted by the alternative/equal adverse and beneficial impacts
- = Adverse impact
-- = Very adverse impact
NOTE: These impact categories have not been weighted in importance.
quantitative totals
Thus, no
appear.
76
-------
TABLE 14
PHASE I EXTENDED
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT COSTS
Const. Amortized
Cost Const. Cost
Alternative $ $/Year
1.
2.
3.
4.
Limited Upgrade $3,108,500 $290,575
AWT Plant
a. Totopotomoy
Discharge 4,851,900 453,545
b. Pamunkey
Discharge 5,694,620 532,320
Land Treatment 6,168,700 576,636
Treatment in
Henrico 2,729,400 255,14
Cost. Cost
$/l,000 gals.
$2.73
1.38
1.62
1.76
0.78
Annual Total Cost $/l,000 gals.
O&M Cost O&M Costs 0% 50% 75%
$/Year $/l,000 gals. Grant Grant Grant
$388,600 $3.64 $6.37 $5.01 $4.32
259,360 0.79 2.17 1.48 1.14
193,920 0.59 2.21 1.40 1.00
257,850 0.80 2.56 1.68 1.18
281,790 0.86* 1.64 1.25 1.06
*Includes estimated treatment costs in Henrico County system.
-------
Because of the projected initially high growth rate, the Federal
funding uncertainties, and possible fluctuation in Henrico
County's cost, phasing or combinations of the four alternatives
are also possible choices. For example, the County may elect to
initially construct a sewer system from Phase I as far west as
1-95 with treatment in Henrico County (a portion of Alternative
4), while applying the limited build solution to areas west of
1-95.
However, of the four main alternatives, EPA concurs with
identification of Alternative 4 as most cost-effective and, with
appropriate preventive measures applied to control construction
impacts and growth related secondary effects, believes it can be
an environmentally acceptable solution.
OAK HILL ESTATES Alternatives for Oak Hill Estates (located directly southwest of
the Town of Ashland) were examined separately in the Phase I
Extended Draft Facilities Plan because the subdivision is located
away from the Phase I Extended initial service area and because
of public controversy.
The following four options were evaluated for Oak Hill Estates:
1. Interceptor sewer construction for connection into the Phase
I Extended system (assumed to include a sewer network)
2. An advanced waste treatment plant on-site, with discharge to
Stony Run or Falling Creek
3. Connection to the Ashland system via pump station and force
main
4. An individual land treatment system.
Table 15 taken from the Draft Facilities Plan presents a cost
comparison of these four options. The table indicates that
connection into the Ashland system (Alternative 3) is clearly the
least costly option.
From an environmental perspective, Alternative 1 is associated
with the most numerous adverse impacts due to lengthy interceptor
construction and corresponding growth impacts which are
inconsistent with County planning goals. For this reason, it is
not an acceptable solution. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 present
insignificant and roughly equal overall environmental impacts.
Alternatives 2 and 4 do not involve construction of major sewer
lines outside the general boundaries of Oak Hill Estates and thus
avoid impacts associated with interceptor construction. However,
Alternative 2 would require construction of an effluent discharge
line to either Stony Run or Falling Creek, while Alternative 4
would require pumping of treated wastewater to a site outside of
the subdivision. Alternative 3 involves construction of a force
main to the existing Ashland sewerage system. Some temporary
adverse impacts can be expected from this alternative, including
at least one stream crossing. But the potential for induced
growth is not expected to be strong because the force main would
technically and economically restrict additional connections and
Ashland could limit through agreement the amount of flow it would
receive.
78
-------
It is recognized that many residents, and the Ashland Town
Council object to resolution of a "County problem" by Ashland.
However, given the overwhelming cost advantage of the Ashland
interconnect option, along with minimal environmental impact, it
is difficult to argue on a cost-effective basis that any but this
alternative should be implemented. Therefore, unless a cost
competitive technical alternative can be found for an on-site
upgrade, EPA must support the Ashland interconnect alternative
and recommends that the Town modify its plans accordingly.
79
-------
^ '' S • <•
: -!'J* •>•-
FIGURE 11 •
OAK HILL ESTATES
STUDY
ALTERNATIVE THREE
ASHLAND TREATMENT
1000 2000 3000
PATTON.HARRIS, RUST AND GUY
CONSULTING ENGINEERING—LAND SURVEYING—PLANNING
FAIRFAX . VIRGINIA
-------
TABLE 15
OAK HILL ESTATES
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT COSTS
Const. Amortized
Cost Const. Cost Cost. Cost
Alternative $ $/Year $/l,000 gals.
1. Interceptor
2a.
2b.
3.
4.
Extens ion
Henrico
Treatment $672,000 $62,817 $4.30
AWT Plant -
To Stony Run 423,200 39560 2.71
AWT Plant -
rpj-i "F1?^ 1 "1 "i nrr
_L U JT a. ,L_L J, I ly
Creek 360,720 33,720 2.31
Puinp S ta t i on
to Ashland
System 177,910 16,630 1.14
Land Treatment 407,660 38,107 2.61
Annual
O&M Cost O&M Costs
$/Year $/l,000 gals
$ 1,287 $0.84*
51,560 3.53
42,970 2.94
7,942 1.02*
21,520 1.47
U% 50% 75%
Grant Grant Grant
$5.14 $2.99 $1.91
6-99 4.89 4.21
6.00 4.10 3.52
2-16 2.73 1.30
4'09 2.78 1.86
"Include treatment costs of Henrico @ $0.75/1 000 Qaiirt „ u
»u./Vl,000 gallons and Ashland @ $0.48/1,000 gallons.
-------
HANOVER EIS MAILING LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
VIRGINIA STATE
AGENCIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
Office of Economic Opportunity
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of the Treasury
U.S. Department of Transportation
Marine Environmental Protection Division
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Fish and Wildlife Services
National Water Resource Analysis Group/Eastern
Energy Land Use Team
National Park Service
Geological Survey
U.S. Department of Commerce
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Water Resources Council
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of the Secretary for the Environment
U.S. General Services Administration
National Agricultural Lands Study
U.S. Bureau of Prisons
Federal Emergency Management Agency
State Water Control Board
Piedmont Regional Office
Bureau of Enforcement
Bureau of Water Control Management
State Health Department
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation
Bureau of Occupational Health
Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector Control
Bureau of Environmental Health
Department of Highways and Transportation
Department of Housing
Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
Council on the Environment
Air Pollution Control Board
Commission of Outdoor Recreation
Historic Landmarks Commission
Department of Agriculture and Commerce
State Energy Office
Department of Commerce and Resources
Coastal Zone Management Program
Department of Intergovernmental Affairs
Marine Resources Commission
Virginia Park Authority
Office of the Governor
Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
Richmond National Battlefield Park
Hanover County
Department of Public Utilities
Planning Office
Utilities Engineer
83
-------
LOCAL AGENCIES
(cont)
ELECTED OFFICIALS
CITIZEN GROUPS
Henrico County
Department of Public Utilities
Town of Ashland
Water and Sewer Council
Town Council
Honorable John N. Dalton
Governor of Virginia
Honorable Harry F. Byrd, Jr.
United States Senator
Honorable John Warner
United States Senator
Honorable J. Kenneth Robinson
United States House of Representatives
Honorable Tom Bliley
United States House of Representatives
Honorable Elmo G. Cross, Jr.
Honorable James T. Edmunds
Honorable William E. Fears
Honorable E. T. Gray
Honorable J. Harry Michael, Jr.
Honorable William F. Parkerson, Jr.
Honorable Lawrence D. Wilder
Honorable Edward E. Willey
Honorable George E. Allen, Jr.
Honorable Ralph Axselle, Jr.
Honorable Richard M. Bagley
Honorable Robert B. Ball, Sr.
Honorable Gerald L. Baliles
Honorable James S. Christian, Jr.
Honorable John Warren Cooke
Honorable Alan A. Diamonstein
Honorable V. Earl Dickinson
Honorable Walter H. Emrock
Honorable Lewis P. Fickett, Jr.
Honorable John D. Gray
Honorable George W. Grayson
Honorable Franklin P. Hall
Honorable Robison B. James
Honorable George W. Jones
Honorable Benjamin J. Lambert, III
Honorable C. Hardaway Marks
Honorable Alexander B. McMurtrie, Jr.
Honorable Theodore V. Morrison, Jr.
Honorable D. Wayne 0'Bryan
Honorable Robert C. Scott
Honorable S. Wallace Stuffen
Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, Richmond, VA
Virginia Association of Counties, Charlottesville, VA
Izaak Walton League, Arlington, VA
Mechanicsville Civic Association, Mechanicsville, VA
Virginia Society of Ornithology, Richmond, VA
Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,
Williamsburg, VA
Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic
States, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Virginia Wildlife Federation, Inc., Alexandria, VA
Virginia Historical Society,•Richmond, VA
84
-------
CITIZEN GROUPS
(cont)
LIBRARIES
CITIZENS
The Natural Conservancy - Virginia Division,
Richmond, VA
Conservation Council of Virginia, Inc., Richmond, VA
Chesapeake Bay Foundation for Environmental Studies,
Washington, D.C.
Sierra Club - Old Dominion Chapter, Midlothian, VA
League of Women Voters
Bon Air, VA
Waynesboro, VA
Richmond, VA
Rural Point Concerned Citizens Association, Mechanicsville, VA
Citizens for Sensible Growth, Ashland, VA
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Richmond Audubon Society, Glen Allen, VA
Virginia Bass State Federation, Roanoke, VA
Zero Population Growth, Richmond, VA
American Land Trust, Arlington, VA
Virginia Forests, Inc., Richmond, VA
Virginia Anglers Club, Richmond, VA
Reclaim-the-James, Richmond, VA
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
American the Beautiful Fund, Washington, D.C.
Keep Virginia Beautiful, Richmond, VA
Environmental Policy Center, Washington, D.C.
National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, D.C.
Rachel Carson Trust for the Living, Washington, D.C.
Water Pollution Control Association, Washington, D.C.
Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.
Piedmont Environmental Council. Warrenton, VA
The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.
Virginia Agribusiness Council, Richmond, VA
Hanover County Citizens Federation, Mechanicsville, VA
Virginia Environmental Endowment, Richmond, VA
Ashland Branch Library
Mechanicsville Branch Library
Virginia State Library
Richmond Branch Library
Bon Air Branch Library
Henrico County Library
John B. Steadman
David S. Favre, Esq.
Sterling Anderson, Mrs.
James A. Ayers
John H. Banks
R. Howell, Professor
D. Tilghman Broaddus
William Chamberlain
R. W. Darnell
Bruce V. English, Ph.D.
Lewis C. Gilbert, M.D.
Lynwood E. Hancock, Mrs.
Dale Hanks, Mrs.
Roscoe Hughes, Ph.D.
John A. Hugo, Mrs.
Sam Ketner
Donald MacDonald
W. Wallace Martin, Ph.D.
James W. Midyette, Jr.
Stuart B. Monroe, Mrs.
85
-------
CITIZENS John Newell
(cont)A. Preston Sale
Jane Ruffin
Dallas Smith
Charles Verdery, Mrs.
Paul Von Mille
Melvin Wallinger, Mrs.
John Walton, Mrs.
Lois Wickham, Mrs.
Robert Weems
R. V. White
Dava R. Ambrosen
James W. Barber
Herbert C. Fearnow
James K. Cox, Jr., Mrs.
John C. Ekman
Peter H. Ring
J. Westwood Smithers, Jr.
Glenn Porter
Ken Williams
A. Goodloe Sauners
Grafton Stephens
Dennis Tinsley
Robert Blevins
David Ryan
Henry J. Miller, Jr.
Thomas P. Krauth
Edward 0. Dillon, III
Thomas W. Evans
Fred S. Campbell
Ron Irons
J. W. Orange
George Bolton
Miles C. Johnston
I. N. Koontz
Mary B. Rice
Dan Smith, Mrs.
Donald Weber
T. A. Clarke
M. Bordley, Jr.
Betsy J. Hale
John Maples, Mrs.
Ray E. Martin
Harvey F. Ludwig
J. Whiltoaker
K. T. Spear
William A. Beck
W. A. Phillips, Jr.
Patricia Borky
Rosemary O'Kelley
Helen Lahman
Colin Williamson
K. Pea
John Fawborn
Peter P. Zubio
Robert Phillip
Robert N. Pentar
L. G. Cox
E. Casterline
Clyde L. Coff
Joseph C. Douhe
Paul Mealow
86
-------
CITIZENS
(cont)
OTHER
MEDIA
Newspapers
Television
Radio
Eugene Taylor
T. A. Cole, Jr.
Ronald G. Jones
Barrett S. Hopkins
E. A. Beck
E. Contarlimt
William C. Wirkliar, Jr.
F. J. Brown
J. S. McClurkue, Jr.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Allen Transport
University of Pittsburgh
R. Stuart Royer & Associates
Patton, Harris, Rust & Guy
Little River Leisure Enterprises
Engineering-Science
Leadbottom Construction Co.
Bremner, Youngblood & King, Inc.
Clinton Bogert Association
Wiley & Wilson, Inc.
Mobil Chemical Co.
Hanover Properties, Inc.
Leadbetter Inc.
Times-Dispatch
News Leader
Gazette of Goochland-Powhatan
Herald-Progress
WCVE,
WCVW,
WTVR,
WWBT,
WXEX,
WVIR,
WHSV,
WAVY,
WHRO,
WTAR,
WVEC,
WHAP-
WBBL-
WANT-
WENZ-
WGOE-
WIKI-
WKDH-
WLEE-
WRFK-
WKIE-
WRNL-
WRVA-
WRVQ-
WTVR-
WXGI-
WTUR-
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Charlottesville, VA
Harrisonburg, VA
Portsmouth, VA
Norfolk, VA
Norfolk, VA
Norfolk, VA
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•AM,
•FM,
•AM,
•AM,
•FM,
Hopewell
Richmond
Richmond
Richmond,
Richmond,
Richmond,
Ashland,
Richmond
Richmond
Richmond
Richmond
Richmond,
Richmond
Richmond,
Richmond,
Richmond,
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
87
-------
-------
-------
DRAFT EIS COMMENT LETTERS
-------
Rt. 1 Tel: (804) 227-3323
Doswell, Va. 23047
Mar. 30, 1979
EPA Region III Preparation Section
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadephia, Penn. 19106
EPA EIS Summary- Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning
For Hanover County, Virginia Phase II Area
We have three areas of specific comment:
1. We favor continued but limited growth, but want it contralled and phased.
2. -Waste Treatment facilities are growing too expensive, even with federal
aid, to make them generally acceptable for many citizens. Therefore we look
for the lesser package where possible, such as, upgrading existing facilities.
Ashland Lagoon would be an example. The EIS outline of a proposed
improvement, deepening, aeriation etc., with possible land application
looks to us as a good solution and a reasonable cost/benefit ratio.
3. We generally approve Land Application for two reasons:
a. It is less expensive
b. It should not pollute the rivers if managed properly.
In a general comment, we approve your recognition of the importance of
preservation of our natural and cultural resources, historic sites, pre-
historic sites, prime farm land (very important), purity of the aquifer
recharge and ground water, and the guarding of citizen health.
In III - 15 EIS states: "Due to the increasing number of failing septic systems
and package facilities, and overall growth in Hanover County, adequate sewerage
service must be provided to the Phase II Service Area. " We have doubt about
the urgency of the need of Phase II at this time. There is question about the
seriousness of the "failing systems" and their numbers and the reasons for
failure. The "growth" referred to will only be small unless Phase II is put
into effect.
Donald Macdonajd, For
Hanover CitizenV Federation
V
-------
COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA
J. B. JACKSON. JR. Council On the Environment 903 NINTH STREET OFFICE BUILDING
ADMINISTRATOR
April 16, 1979
Mr. Jack J. Schramm, Regional Administrator £PA, Wi J" ' c,r'pTTlM
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ^RJatai" °
.Region III
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning for Hanover County,
Virginia: Phase II Area
Dear Mr. Schramm:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. It is a responsibility of the Council on the Environment
to coordinate the State's review of Federal environmental impact statements
and to respond to the responsible federal official on behalf of the State.
The State agencies which participated in the review of the subject document
are listed below:
Commission of Outdoor Recreation
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Department of Highways and Transportation
State Air Pollution Control Board
State Water Control Board
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Virginia Research Center for Archaeology
At this point the Commonwealth is not opposed to any of the alternatives
addressed in the document. Without the information normally contained in a
facility plan a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts cannot be
made.
&-T.
-------
Mr. Jack J. Schramm
Page Two
April 16, 1979
j
The enclosed comments of State agencies should be addressed in the Final
document. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/ J. 4>/J
Jr.
JBJr/gcj
cc: The Honorable Maurice B. Rowe, Secretary of Commerce and Resources
Mr. Rob Blackmore, Commission of Outdoor Recreation
Dr. Berkwood Farmer, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Mr. Leon App, Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Mr. R. L. Hundley, Department of Highways and Transportation
Mr. James Ruehrmund, State Air Pollution Control Board
Mr. Raymond Bowles, State Water Control Board
a-s
-------
R. V. Davis
Executive Secretary
Post Office Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
(804) 257-0056
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
2111 Hamilton Street
April 3, 1979
Mr. Reginald F. Wallace
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Governor's Council on the Environment
Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
v;\
^J . .*" V^S
/OL-T ' '" r:;A
Council on !"^'
ICXT-, the
Ehvironment
BOARD MEMBERS
Millard B. Rice, Jr.
Chairman
George M. Cornell
Vice-Chairman
Col. J. Leo Bourassa
Warren L. Braun
Kenneth B. Rollins
William L. Tate
R.Alton Wright
Dear Reggie:
RE: DEIS - Hanover County Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning
The preface to the DEIS states that the DEIS should be reviewed concurrently
with the 201 Facilities Plan. However, information normally contained in a
201 Facilities Plan was not included in the DEIS, therefore, a comprehensive
analysis of the environmental impacts of the project cannot be made.
We will assume that the Final EIS will contain the information contained in a
facility plan or will be accompanied by the facility's plan. Upon receipt of
the FEIS with other necessary information, we will provide comprehensive comments.
Our staff has reviewed the DEIS in the context of the above, and we have the
following comments:
1. The DEIS makes several references to data included in the facility plan
which cannot be substantiated without a copy of the facility plan. It
should be noted that at the present time there is still some question as
to the waste load allocation for the Nelson's Bridge Regional Plant site,
which will have a major effect on the results of the cost-effective analyses
in the facility plan. At the present time it is anticipated that an intensive
stream survey will be undertaken to determine the actual effluent limtations
to be imposed on both the Ashland Sewage Treatment Plant and the proposed
treatment plant at the Nelson's Bridge site. Such a survey could add an
additional year to the planning process, and would also require some changes
in the EIS.
2. The information concerning current flow levels at the Ashland Treatment
Plant, on pages 2-20 and 21, are inaccurate in light of information gathered
as a result of recent enforcement actions. Flow monitoring, currently at the
Ashland Plant, indicates that average flows may be as htgh as 1.2 MGD or
double the flow levels included in the EIS.
Continued. . .
-------
April 3; 1979
-2-
Mr. Reginald F. Wallace
o.
6.
On page 2-23, the statement is made that there is approximately 600,000
gallons/day of additional capacity existing at the Doswell facility.
It should be noted that while flows resulting from industrial activities
at the Bear Island Paper Company plant will not be going through the
Doswell Treatment Plant itself, sanitary sewage will, which will further
utilize the existing capacity. The currently rated discharge flow levels
from the Doswell Treatment Plant (including Bear Island) will range up to
2.5 MGD depending on stream flow in the North Anna.
On page 2-34, the statement is made that VEPCO is required to discharge a
minimum of 40 cfs during the winter months and 120 cfs during the summer
months from the Lake Anna Reservoir. Our investigations, during the pro-
cessing of the Doswell permit, indicates that there is a minimum discharge
requirement of 40 cfs year around.
Page V-3 needs to be updated to match current water quality standards.
The statement about anti-degradation in the last paragraph of page V-5 is
incorrect. The anti-degradation policy holds true for plants of all sizes
and not just those above 1 MG.D. If a plant can meet this criteria without
advanced treatment, then such treatment would not be mandatory.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. If you have any questions
concerning our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Since
Raymond^. Bowles, P.E.
Di rector
Bureau of Surveillance
and Field Studies
/sec
cc: John J. Cibulka-PRO
Joyce Hoyle-PRO
Sam Waldo-BAT
Dale Wright-BSFS
-------
S. MASON CARBAUGH
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL TURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
Planning and Development
P. O. Box 1 163, Richmond, Virginia 23209
March 28, 1979
BERK WOOD M. FARMER, Ph.D
Mr. Reginald F. Wallace
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re: DEIS - Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning for
Hanover County, Virginia - Phase II Area
Dear Reggie:
Sewerage collection and treatment facilities, per se, are
not solely responsible for stimulating growth; however, their size
and location influence the pattern and rate of growth within the
county. Based on history, there is usually a direct relationship
between the location of sewer lines and the pattern of development.
It appears that the planned location of the sewer lines and
wastewater treatment facilities coincides with the location of prime
agricultural land in the southeastern half of the county. Local
decision makers and citizens should be knowledgeable of the possible
effects on removing prime agricultural lands.
This agency also has responsibility in the application of sludge
and effluent to land. Before a decision to go with land application
of either effluent or sludge is made, a detailed plan of application
and monitoring program will have to be prepared and submitted to the
appropriate state agencies.
Sincerely,
/Ljju^
Berkwood M. Farmer
-------
8. REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS:
A) Please review the document carefully. If the proposal has been
reviewed earlier (e.g., if the current document is a FINAL EIS),
please consider previous comments.
B) Prepare your agency's comments in a form which would be acceptable
for responding directly to a project sponsoring agency.
C) Use the space below for your comments. If additional space is
needed, please attach extra sheets.
Return your comments to:
Reginald F. Wallace,
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
COMMENTS
In several places (pp 11-54, 11-59, Figure 11-10, pp. IV-31), the draft EIS
refers to the North Anna, South Anna, Pamunkey and Chickahominy Rivers as scenic
rivers or scenic river areas. Although these rivers have been identified in the
Virginia Outdoors Plan as potential components of the Virginia Scenic Rivers
System and are in fact significant natural and scenic resources, they have not
been legislatively designated as components of the System.
Because of their proximity to the Richmond area, all four of the rivers are
frequently utilized by canoeists and fishermen. As residential development increases
in Hanover and Henrico Counties, and as canoeing continues to gain in popularity
recreational boating use of area streams should continue to increase. Alternatives
for wastewater collection and treatment which would result in numerous pipeline
crossings, substantial streamside structures, decreased water quality or other
activities which would significantly impact on these rivers would be unacceptable.
If facilities should be constructed in the vicinity of such valuable river
resources, mitigation methods will be necessary to maintain the scenic character
of these streams.
Site planning should include wide, vegetated buffer zones. Effluent discharges
should be minimized in order to maintain high water quality, and stream crossings
should be avoided. Where such crossings are necessary, the stream banks should
be revegetated, and all structures left above the ground should be set back from
the stream and painted in a manner to blend with their surroundings.
(SIGNED)
(TITLE)
(AGENCY)
Director
Commission of Outdoor Recreation
-------
FRED W WALKER
Director
JERALD F. MOORE
Deputy Director
DIVISIONS
FORESTRY
LITTER CONTROL
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
MINERAL RESOURCES
PARKS
VIRGINIA STATE TRAVEL SERVICE
PROGRAM
SALT WATER SPORT FISHING
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1100 STATE OFFICE BUILDING
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
(804) 786-2121
BOARD
J. H. JOHNSON, West Point
Chairman
D. HENRY ALMOND, Richmond
Vice Chairman
A, R DUNNING, Millwood
MYRON P ERKILETIAN, Alnxandn.
ARTHUR P. FLIPPO, Doswi.>!l
HE1NRY T N. GRAVES. Luray
MILDRED LAYNE, Willidmsburg
FREDERIC S. REED. Manakm Saboi
GEORGE P SHAFRAN, Arlington
NICHOLAS D. STREET, Grundy
SHERMAN WALLACE, Cleveland
E FLOYD YATES, Powhatan
April 4, 1979
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Reginald F. Wallacj
FROM: Leon E. App
This is in reference to the EPA Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Hanover County, Virginia, Phase II Area, Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Plan.
This report has been reviewed by our Division of Forestry and
their comments are attached.
In general, Hanover County is one of the State's leading
forest product counties and forest management has been practiced by
hundreds of Hanover landowners. This fact has been ignored throughout
the presentation, and is especially obvious in the Biology section on
"Terrestrial/Ecosystems—Flora" on pages 11-43 and 44. There are certainly
more than five vegetational types in Hanover County. Those "types"
described in the text are actually physiographic classes, not vegetational
types. Under "Disturbed Areas" on page 11-44 there is no indication
that much of the forested disturbed area is a result of management
practices which include planting over one million tree seedlings each
year by Hanoverians.
Further information on Hanover's forest resources is available
in the report, Hanover County Agricultural Development Subcommittee,
A Report to the Hanover County Citizens Advisory Board, 1978, published
by Hanover County. We feel these comments are important since historically
the right-of-way for wastewater lines are impacted upon the forest
resource.
If we can be of further assistance, please let us know
ec
Attachments
cc: Mr. Wallace F. Custard
-------
COMMONWEALTH of ViEGlN.
(jnt oj C(
f fruif\i:>:
March 29, 1979
PLANS AND PROGRAMS
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
To: Mr. L. E. App
From: M. J. Simons, Forester-Planner
Subject: Hanover County Wastewater Treatment Facilities-Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Gene Augsburger, District Forester, and I have reviewed the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanover County Waste-
water Treatment Facilities and have inspected particular sites
of environmental importance in the county. We 'wish to make the
following comments and recommendations concerning this report:
Figure II-2: This map of existing land use generalizes that
all land that is not shaded in is considered agricultural.
This is misleading to the public in that over 60% of L'anover
County's total acreage is in commercial forest land. This is
stated in the text of the Impact Statement (11-55) and is
supported by data from the current U.S. Forest Service Survey
of Hanover County.
Section II-C-6: The major flaw in this discussion of the various
physiographic classes is t''.at you assume, judging by your
narratives of each, that these classes are in their climax
sucessional stage. In other words, you have assumed that
each class of land described here is totally forested with
climax tree species. You have not taken into account that
forest management has been practiced in Hanover County for
many years, and that much climax forest type acreage has been
cut and reforested with sub-climax species, such as loblolly
pine. These cutover areas, as well as old fields which have
-------
PLANS AND PROGRAMS
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
-2-
been planted to pine, amount to a great deal of land,
certainly enough to have them included in the discussion of
physiographic classes. By including pine acreages in your
discussion of disturbed areas, you have implied that these
acreages are random occurences, a part of natural succession/
not, as is the case, an intentional, thoughtful process of
managing forest lands for wood products and economic benefit.
Section II-D-3: After inspection of several areas along the
Crump and Pollard Creeks, it was decided that few areas in
each creek's bottomlands are undisturbed, rather than most
areas, as was stated in the text (11-53, last paragraph).
These areas have been logged at one time or another, but
have regenerated back to mature, bottomland hardwood species.
Section II-D-7,8: As in Figure II-2, forest lands have once
again been glossed over, either unintentionally or becao.se txe
importance of forest management has been taken for granted.
In the Prime Agricultural Lands category, directly beneath
Forest and Woodlands, the text goes into great detail as to
where prime agricultural lands are located in the county and
what the major crops are. There is also a map delineating these
prime agricultural areas (Figure 11-11). Why then are the
forest lands, which produce over five (5) million board feet
of wood per year, not given the same consideration? A map
delineating prime forest lands (meaning those which have ^he
greatest potential for producing wood fiber and those which
are currently being managed; eg.-tree ^arms, forest industry
land) should be essential to the decision-making process.
Location of wastewater treatment facilities in or around prime
forest lands will bring residential, commercial, or industrial
development to these areas, and result in the irretrievable
loss of this forest resource.
Section II-D-II: There is one county park which is not mentioned
in this text, and that is Poor Farm Park. Containing two
hundred seventy (270) acres, this park is located west of
Ashland off Route 54, and will be used for passive recreation.
In conclusion, there is little consideration given to the
importance of Hanover County's forest lands in this text. The
Environmental and Economic benefits of the forest resource have
been glossed over. The absence of accurate data, locations, and
description of the forest resource in Hanover County can only lead
to improper decision-making and poor location of wastewater treat-
ment facilities; an error all environmental impact statements are
designed to avoid.
cc: Mr. Wallace F. Custard
-------
HAROLD C.. KING, COMMISSIONER
IEONAHD R. HALL. BRISTOL. BRISTOL DISTRICT
HORACE G. FRALIN, ROANOKE. SALEM DISTRICT
THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG. L YNCHBURG DISTRICT
MQRR1LL M, CROWE. RICHMOND, RICHMOND DISTRICT
WILLIAM T. ROOS, YQRKTOWN. SUFFOLK DISTRICT
WILLIAM T. ROBINSON, WEST POINT, FREDERICKSBURG DISTRICT
WILLIAM B WRENCH, SPRINGFIELD, CULPEPER DISTRICT
ROBERT S. LANDES, STAUNTON, STAUNTON DISTRICT
T RAY HASSELL. Ill, CHESAPEAKE, AT LARGE-URBAN
CHARLES S, HOOPER, JR., CREWE., AT LARGE-RURAL
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
March 29, 1979
LEO E. BUSSER, III
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
T. ASHBY NEWBY
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
J. M. WRAY, JR.
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
H. R. PERKINSON, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
W. L. BRITTLE, JR.
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
OSCAR K. MABRY
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Planning for Hanover County:
Phase II Area
(1) Draft EIS
(2) Summary Draft EIS
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Reginald F. Wallace
EIS Coordinator
Council on the Environment
Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Thank you for providing the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation with an opportunity to review the above noted proposal
After decisions on facility locations are made, any proposed
crossing of roadways by sewer lines should be coordinated with the
appropriate highway resident engineer with emphasis in minimizing
disruption to traffic flow and roadway continuity.
If we can be of any further assistance, please advise.
Since
R.'L. Hundley ff
Environmental Quality Engineer
TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES
-------
AXEL T. MATTSON, CHAIRMAN
YORKTOWN
E. FOLGER TAYLOR, VICE CHAIRMAN
STAUNTON
EDGAR B. BOYNTON
RICHMOND
ELIZABETH H. HASKELL
MARTINSVILLE
CARLC. HEDINGER
ALEXANDRIA
COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA
State Air Pollution Control Board
ROOM 1106, NINTH STREET OFFICE BUILDING
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
TELEPHONE: (804) 786-2378
April 3, 1979
W. R MEYER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mr. Reginald F. Wallace
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Since the proposed Hanover Wastewater Treatment Facility, does
not plan to incinerate its waste there should be no direct effect on
air quality.
However, there is most certainly an adverse impact on air quality
as a result of the growth that the facility will encourage. Thus the
county should be forewarned of this indirect effect. The county must be
on guard to protect its air quality from unwanted growth and preserve it
for the community's future use.
Sincerely,
J. C. Ruehrmund
Director
Division of Operations and Procedures
JCR/WPP/pjg
"An Equal Opportunity Employer"
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
REGION III
3535 MARKET STREET
PHILADELPHIA..PENNSYLVANIA
PUBLIC HEALTH SFRVICE
April 3, 1979 MAILING ADDRESS
P 0 BOX 13716
PHILADE LPHIA.
PENNSYLVANIA 19101
Mr. Jack J. Schrairan
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Attn: Environmental Impact Branch
EIS Preparation Section
Re: Draft EIS, Hanover County, VA
Phase II Area,
Wastewater Treatment Plan
Dear Mr. Schrairan:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft EIS for the referenced
project. I have already forwarded a copy to the Regional Office for
Facilities Engineering Construction (ROFEC) for a technical review
based on their expertise in the field of engineering. If they decide
to comment, they will write directly to you.
Your review of the several alternatives (14) is thorough. Unfortunately,
the lack of information in several instances, as acknowledged, leaves
the reader in a vacuum.
With the phasing out of the use of ground water to supply future water
demands in Hanover County, it is necessary to expedite the resolution
of the sewage treatment problems. We hope that once you receive the
pending data, you will complete your assessment and recommendations.
At this point in time, we have no further comments to make.
Sincerely you
H. McDonald Rimple, M.D.
Assistant Surgeon General
Regional Health Administrator
-1
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P.O. Box 10026 - Richmond, Virginia23240~
April 13, 1979
Mr. Jack J. Schramn
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia > Pennsylvania 19106
Dear Mr. Schramn:
Re: EV - Comments - Draft EIS - Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Planning for Hanover County, Virginia:
Phase II Area (EPA) and Summary
In comparing Figure 1-2, "Service Area Planning Units," and Figure 11-11,
"Prime Agricultural\Land, Hanover County, Virginia", we find considerable
overlap. The EIS does not quantify the amount of prime farmland that will
be lost due to project proposals.
Neither does the draft address the unique farmland found near Studley,
Virginia, along Routes 606 and 627.
No provisions are provided in the draft for conserving, stockpiling, or
proper disposition of topsoil. This should be addressed since a considerable
amount of land-disturbing activities will occur when facilities are installed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
D. N. Grimwoo/1
State Conservationist
cc: Office of Federal Activities, EPA, Washington, D.C. (5 copies)
Administrator, SCS, Washington, D.C.
Director, NETSC, SCS, Broomall, Pa.
Area Conservationist, SCS, Culpeper, Va.
District Conservationist, SCS, Ashland, Va.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
CURTIS BUILDING, SIXTH AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106
April 4, 1979
REGION III IN REPLY REFER TO:
31
FLO-1
Mr. Thomas Slenkamp
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III
EIS Preparation Section
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Dear Mr. Slenkamp:
We have recently reviewed the Draft EIS on Wastewater Treatment Facilities
planning on Hanover County, Virginia: Phase II area. In our review, we
have focused on compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), and Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management dated May 24, 1977.
Over the past year, the FIA has been especially active in the implementation
of Executive Order 11988. The FIA has a key role in its implementation.
FIA's maps are its foundation and its rgulations provide the Order's mini-
mum standards for Federal construction. FIA's shared consultation role
(pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Order) is the basis for a major inter-
agency effort. FIA has participated in the preparation of over thirty
agencies' procedures for implementing the Order. A major thrust of this
activity has been clarifying the manner in which the Order applies to
specific agency actions.
Executive Order 11988 distinguishes between primary and secondary impacts
on floodplains. A primary impact would be one resulting directly from the
siting of an action in a floodplain. In the present case, examples of
actions with primary impacts would be the placing of treatment plants,
collector systems or land application sites in floodplains. A secondary
impact would be one flowing from an action that was made possible by another
action located either in or out of a floodplain. An example, in this case,
of an action with secondary impact would be the providing of infrastructure,
i.e. central sewerage facilities, that can help stimulate growth in flood-
plains. The DEIS summary recognizes the potential influence of this type
of infrastructure on environmentally sensitive areas (pp 8,9).
The DEIS addresses, at least preliminarily, the potential for adverse
primary impacts of various alternatives. Avoidance procedures (relocation
of sites and mitigating measures (floodproofing in plant design) are dis-
cussed (11-49 and IV-28).
-------
The potential for adverse secondary impacts of various alternatives does
not seem to have been addressed in sufficient detail. Many of the pro-
posed sewer lines follow watercourses, e.g. Stony Run, Lickinghole Creek,
the Chickahominy River, Totopotomy Creek. Without contrary evidence, it
would seem that floodplain areas, being adjacent to sewer lines, would
thereby be made more developable.
A more detailed picture of existing and potential land use within the limits
of one hundred (100) year floodplains would facilitate an assessment of
probable impacts of the planning alternatives. Figue II-3, the "General
Land Use Plan of Hanover County," is not of a large enough scale to support
such an assessment.
The floodplain information that is the basis for figure II-8, "Flood Hazard
Areas of Hanover County," has been superseded by a more recent Corps of
Engineers study. Flood Hazard area maps accompanying the Flood Insurance
Study being prepared by the Corps of Engineers are now in draft form. We
will be able to provide your office with access to these maps, which are
more detailed than those previously available.
In the event that further analysis indicates that floodplain development
would be supported by the various planning alternatives, strategies for
avoidance of these impacts should be discussed. These strategies might in-
clude implementation of the zoning classifications such as those suggested
in the growth management plan for Eastern Hanover County (reference p. 11-10).
In summary, it is evident that the level of analysis of impacts relating to
NFIP regulations and E.G. 11988 has been in keeping with the preliminary
status of the DEIS. However, subsequent documents should include sufficiently
detailed data to address the key requirements of the Executive Order: the
identification of practicable alternatives that avoid floodplain impacts or
support floodplain development. If it is found that there are no practicable
alternatives to primary impacts, the documents should fully address the
Order's provisions for minimization of harm to, or within, the floodplain
and restoration and preservation of floodplain values. If secondary impacts
are inevitable, or probable, without intervention, strategies for avoidance
or minimization should be developed.
We are enclosing a copy of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Floodplain
Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988. as well as a
summary, in the form of an eight-step process, of the Order's requirements
(attachment //I). In considering indirect impacts on floodplains, steps 3,
4, and 5 are especially germane.
-------
Please contact Joseph Gavin of our office for any necessary clarifications
of our position. We would be pleased to provide any possible assistance
in addressing the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program or
the Executive Order.
Sincerely,
)^ <:-U. i^4^ ^f ' -~-Se=-*£ -T^cfx-.-A, ZZZ
Walter P. Pierson
Regional Director
Federal Insurance Administration
Enclosure
cc: Regional Director, CPD
Asst. Sec., CPD
6-17
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Northeast Region
15 State Street
ER79/207 Boston, Massachusetts 02109
April 27, 1979
Mr, Jack Schramm
Regional Administrator, Region III
Environmental Protection Agency
Sixth & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Sehramm:
The Department of the Interior has completed its review of the draft
environmental impact statement for Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Planning for Hanover County, Virginia: Phase II area. Our comments are
listed below by our areas of jurisdiction and special expertise.
General Comments
The proposed Phase II water treatment facilities for the Hanover County
is part of the larger, more inclusive Greater Richmond Metropolitan Area
Water Quality Management Plan. The Phase III plan in conjunction with
Phase I (which provides waste management facilities for the Mechanicsville-
Beaverdam Creek drainage area of the county), is intended to copy with
waste management needs throughout the entire county. The draft document,
however, falls short in adequately reviewing the full range and scope
of potential environmental impacts anticipated from this plan.
Hanover County is drained by two major stream basins, the Chickshominy
and the Pamunkey. Both streams, particularly in the eastern portions of
the county, are associated with high quality fish and wildlife resources.
Extensive wetlands in the form of fresh water marshes and wooded swamps
are present and critical spawning grounds for striped bass and other
commercially and recreationally important fish species are located there.
The proposed project plans, particularly those associated with aquatic
habitat, could result in extensive and permanent losses to fish and wild-
life resources in the area. The draft environmental impact statement
should provide a more thorough assessment of these impacts.
Fish and Wildlife Resources
The statement is made in paragraph 3, page 11-36, that due to low flows
during certain periods of the summer, the only flow in some streams will
be treated effluent. On page IV-21, it is further stated in paragraph 1
that under certain conditions the entire Totopotomoy Creek flow may consist
-------
-2-
of secondarily treated effluent. Several alternative plans call for this
condition and it is indicated that significant adverse water quality
impacts can be expected. The nature and degree of these impacts, however,
are not discussed. Considering the potential significance of this con-
dition, a more thorough investigation is needed. A determination should
be made of what pollutants would be present, in what quantify and their
ultimate impact on the ecosystem.
One of the more important impacts associated with high percentage effluent
flow in a stream is the toxic effect of chlorine residues left over from
waste treatment. Chlorine can have detrimental effects on fish and
benthic populations. A thorough investigation of potential impacts result-
ing from this condition should also be conducted. A very brief but inade-
quate, discussion on this topic appears on page IV-25.
On page IV-21, a discussion of "construction impacts" is provided. The
draft document states that "...construction of gravity sewers, inter-
ceptors, and force mains along stream beds will result in short term in-
creased erosion and sedimentation." Depending on the specific alternative,
several miles of stream bed could be significantly impacted as a result
of streambed construction. These impacts will not only be short-term
but long-term and permanent as well. Loss of vegetation, alteration of
streambed substrate and contour, and loss of channel stabilization are
potential permanent impacts. Erosion and sedimentation, although temporary,
can have long-term impacts in terms of losses of aquatic invertebrate
populations.
On page IV-26, paragraph 1, it is stated that construction activities
within the lower Totopotomoy Creek Basin would result in severe impacts
on the varied marsh ecosystem. If this is the case, and based on plan
summaries it appears certain it would be, a more detailed analysis of
impacts to the ecosystem should be done. This type of analysis should
include a habitat survey with aquatic and terrestrial resources inven-
tories and a delineation of project associated losses.
In the same paragraph referenced above the statement is made that physical
stream conditions altered by construction activities "...would be restored
by the natural scouring and restoration effects of spring flows or seasonal
upstream flow increases." This natural restoration process occurs only on
a limited scale. It is highly doubtful that the type of streambed altera-
tion that is anticipated from installation of sewer lines would be repaired
by natural processes. Alteration of stream substrate composition, pool and
riffle areas, and streambed contours cannot be repaired by natural scouring
and upstream flow increases.
Based on figures provided in the draft statement, extensive streambed areas
will be impacted by project construction. Because of the quality and
quantity of habitat that could be impacted, alternative pipeline routes
should be proposed and investigated. A route can parallel a stream, but
-------
-3-
should maintain a minimum of 150 feet offset from the center-line of
the stream. The buffer between the pipeline and the stream allows the
stream and its riparian vegetation to remain intact. Pipeline routes
which traverse wetland habitat should also be avoided. Pipeline installa-
tion through marshes can result in loss of vegetation and alteration of
water circulation and drainage patterns.
The statement on page IV-5, paragraph 2, that full implementation of the
proposed sewer project would serve to reduce the current indiscriminate
scattering of various kinds of development is probably not an accurate
statement without the support of proper zoning laws, an adequate facilities
law, or the equivalent.
Outdoor Recreation
Units of the National Park System within the county are identified and
briefly described on page 11-59 under the heading of Public Outdoor
Recreational Areas. These units are of historic significance and, thus,
we suggest in the final statement that they be described under the Historic
Sites heading (page 11-56). These sites can be further identified by
location on Figure 11-12.
It is apparent that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes
its responsibility under the National Historic Preservation Act and 36
CFR 800 to have intensive archeological survey work done to identify
National Register' and eligible properties in the area of potential impact.
However, we do not agree that this should be done "once the final locations
of sewer lines, pumping stations, and land application sites have been
established" (page IV-32). A staged plan of survey work and other
investigations should be implemented, so that results of archeological
and historic site identification studies can be used to narrow project
alternatives and make better decisions on facilities. For example,
archeological survey investigations could begin first at proposed treat-
ment plan alternate sites. As information becomes available on the
relative acceptability of these sites, survey work could be expanded to
help analyse best locations of gravity sewers, force mains, pumping stations,
and other facilities. In consultation with the Virginia SHPO, (Tucker H.
Hill, Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, 221 Governor St., Richmond,
VA 23219) data should be assembled to help predict the most likely
archeological site locations from existing information. Treatment
facilities and further survey work should be planned accordingly.
The final statement should include a full discussion of the methods and
results of survey work, as well as an assessment of expected impacts from
the various alternatives. The views and recommendations of the Virginia
SHPO should be included, as well as evaluations of historic and archeo-
logical resources for possible inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places.
-------
-4-
The Chickahominy River from the James River to U.S. Route 360 and the
Pamunkey River from Herrick Creek to Liberty Hall are included in the
final list of rivers or stream segments that have been identified in the
Wild and Scenic Rivers System Study conducted by the Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service, Northeast Regional Office. This study is an
inventory and evaluation of rivers in the northeast region and will be
used as one factor in determining suitability for, further study and/or
potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
This list, which is part of the results of a 3-year effort, is a refine-
ment of the Preliminary Draft List which was issued in February 1978 and
the Second Preliminary Draft List which was issued in September 1978.
The Final List is the result of a detailed resource evaluation which
included site reconnaissance. Rivers on the list have passed the final
system study evaluation phase. They are generally 25 miles or more in
length (there are numerous exceptions) and are in a relatively undeveloped
or natural condition. To be eligible under Public Law 90-542 the rivers
must meet the following criteria:
1. Be a free-flowing river or stream
2. Be free of certain types of alterations (i.e., impoundments, rip-
rapping, channelization, etc.)
3. Be largely undeveloped (rivers or sections of rivers with shorelines
or watersheds essentially primitive or largely undeveloped)
4. Be adjacent to or within a related land area that possesses an
outstanding remarkable geologic, ecologic, cultural, historic,
scenic, botanical, recreational or other similar value. (Interpreted
to mean an area of multi-state or national significance.)
This phase of the System Study is essentially the natural or wild component,
Rivers of urban, recreation and cultural value will be examined at a later
time.
It is important to note that the System Study is a survey of rivers and
should not be confused with the more detailed Congressionally mandated
studies under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act which are conducted
by the National Park Service. The purpose of the System Study is to:
1. Identify a balanced repreeentation, in terms of physiographic
provinces and sections, of the most significant river segments in
the nation.
2. Identify for the President and Congress the parameters of a basic
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
2-1
-------
-5-
3. Identify those rivers which may be considered under the provisions
of Section 5(d) of P.L. 90-542, as amended.
This most recent list, although final, does not preclude the addition or
deletion of rivers or river segments at a later time.
The Virginia State Comprehensive Outdoors Recreation Plan (SCORP) prepared
by the Commission of Outdoor Recreation (Revised Draft, August 1978) also
lists the Chickahominy River in Charles City, New Kent, Henrico, and Hanover
Counties (in addition to those scenic river areas included in the draft
environmental statement) as having potential for study and possible
inclusion in the Virginia Scenic Rivers System.
The Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation, in coordination with the
Department of Highways and Transportation, established the Virginia segment
of the Trans-Continental Bike Route which traverses Hanover County. No
mention is made of the Hanover portion of this bicycle trail in the draft
environmental statement.
The final environmental statement should evaluate the impact of the proposed
project on these identified river and trail segments.
Water Resources
Land application sites 1 and 2 proposed under alternatives A2, B2, and Al
are located within groutid water recharge areas. On page IV-29, it is
stated that potential long-term impacts on artesian aquifers located in
the area may result from contamination by nitrates, heavy metals, phos-
phorous, and total dissolved solids. Under measures designed to protect
ground-water recharge areas and aquifers, a ground water monitoring
system should be proposed.
Mineral Resources
Bureau of Mines data lists mineral production of stone, aplite, and sand
and gravel in Hanover County, Virginia. However, according to the Bureau
of Mines Mineral Industry Location System (MILS), current mineral pro-
duction does not occur in the immediate area of the proposed project.
In order for this draft environmental impact statement to be considered
an adequate assessment, mention should be made of the mineral resources
in the project area and the amount of those resources which will be fore-
gone (preempted) if the plan is implemented, along with the commitment of
mineral resources for construction purposes.
Summary
The effort by Hanover County to upgrade and improve existing wastewater
treatment facilities in the area is heartily supported by the Department
of the Interior. It is apparent, however, that several aspects of this
facility plan require further study to assess more fully the impacts
that may result from implementation. Also, other, loss impacting alterna-
tives must be developed that will protect fish and wildlife, recreational
and cultural resources in the area.
-------
-6-
The Department, under the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U. S. C. 661 et seq.) will review and
comment on all work requiring Department of the Army authorization.
Several components of the facilities plan, such as activities impacting
streams and wetlands, will require permitting. Based on the information
available to us at this time, our most probable position on the issuance
of permits needed for the construction of several of these alternative
plans would be one of opposition. It is recommended that further
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, be
initiated on this aspect of the project.
Sincerely yours,
William Patterson
Regional Environmental Officer
f'~^ —) •'->
AS -' Z^ 5
-------
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION THREE
Post Office Box 10045
Richmond, Virginia 23240
April 5, 1979
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Subject: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning
Hanover County, VA
Phase II Area
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Attention: EIS Preparation Section
Dear Mr. Schramm:
We have reviewed the Draft EIS for the subject project, and would like to thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed action. Following are our
comments which have been arranged by subject area depending on priorities which
our agency uses in its overall functions.
Summary Comments
We fully agree with the statement that the EIS should be used as a "decision
making tool" (pg. 1-3). However, we doubt that this document gives the decision
maker all the information needed to objectively make the correct decision on
this important Hanover County issue. We base our contention of this on state-
ments contained in the Draft EIS such as: (Underlining added for emphasis)-
Page x
"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:
-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
state/local financing consideration;
-------
-2-
-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.";
on Page 1-16
"The issue of potential impacts of wastewater treatment alternatives (both
primary and growth-induced) orTenvironmentany 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.";
on Page III-ll
"Sites 1, 2, 15 and 16 were chosen for further study." without maps or an
adequate discussion of sites 15 & 16 being presented equal to that presented
on Sites 1 and 2.
on Page IV-18
"Complete cost data for all alternatives has not yet been provided by the
facility planning engineer."
and
"Data concerning phasing of treatment facilities has also not been provided
by BYK, and consequently, specific phasing possibilities and bond require-
ments cannot be discussed in this EIS."
on Page IV-23 Relative to Stream Crossings
"No data available on Alternative 8-1" which was the recommended alternative
in the '75 Facilities Plan
Therefore it is our recommendation, that when all the information has been
developed to adequately address all impacts and alternatives, a supplemental
draft environmental impact statement be prepared. We understand that many
delays have previously occurred in the preparation of the DEIS, but we
believe that the DEIS should not be sacrificed as a result of these delays
especially since one of the two "most significant delays" which you identified
is the result of your other consultant (BYK) on this project not supplying the
necessary alternative data in a timely manner.
In addition to the deficiencies which you yourself have noted in the DEIS, we
feel the following areas need more information or clarification.
/
-------
-3-
LAND USE
On page 1-4 the DEIS states that:
"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, high density development currently
exists and/or is planned to continue or occur."
However, when we compared the proposed Facilities Plan with the Hanover County
General Land Use Plan (Figure II-3), we noticed that large amounts of land
to the north of Mechanicsville, east of State Rte. 615, and west of Ashland
zoned low and low-medium density residential and some industrial land has
not been included in either the Phase I or Phase II Plan. Since we are in
total agreement with your inference that construction of the proposed sewerage
facilities could serve as an important vehicle for implementing the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan, we feel that this document should address all of the county
that is planned to have a non-rural type of development.
On page IV-7 the DEIS states that because prime agricultural land is ideally
suited for septic systems, the risk of losing valuable agricultural land to
residential development is greatly enhanced. Although we agree entirely with
this statement, we cannot believe that the potential for residential development
is as great on the agricultural land as it would be if Phase II was constructed
especially in the area known as the Lower Totopotomoy Basin (Planning Unit 5),
where approximately 60% of the area planned for sewers is zoned Agricultural,
Forest, Widely Scattered Residences, or Vacant Land in the County's Land Use Plan.
TRANSPORTATION
We realize that your document recognizes that their is an interrelationship
between transportation, land use, and sewerage facilities. However, we feel that
the DEIS should place more emphasis on the impacts on the transportation system,
which will result from this project.
We believe that your document should address the additional vehicle trips which
will occur as a result of the more intense development, and assign these trips
to various highway facilities in the study area. Once this data has been deve-
loped, it will be easy to compare this data to the carrying capacity of individual
facilities thereby identifying serious bottlenecks and areas where unacceptable
levels of service will result.
WATER QUALITY
As you stated both land application sites (1 & 2) are located in special flood
hazard areas. One possible mitigation measure to impacting the floodplain
at either of these two sites would be to use either of the other two land
application sites (site 15 or 16) which are both mentioned as sites that are
still open for further study.
-------
-4-
In addition to the major wetlands mentioned in your DEIS, there are several
other areas where wetlands are impacted by various alternatives, such as,
the Southern Corridor Interconnection (Figure III-6). In the area east of 1-95
and north of State Rte. 656, -the proposed gravity sewer is located in a
wetland as identified on the USC&GS map.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Although the DEIS mentions a need for some additional public services (schools,
parks and retail services), it fails to discuss the need for additional emergency
services (fire, police, ambulance) as well as the possibility of the county
needing to construct some medical facilities (hospital) rather than rely on the
City of Richmond and Henrico County for these services.
Probably the need for these services can be rationalized as being a necessity
anyway relative to the projected population growth but as the DEIS states "In
absence of the proposed sewer facilities, current projections for the area's
2003 population would have to be revised downward.", and thereby population
projections could be classified as overly optimistic.
We hope that this review will assist you in processing the Environmental
Impact Statement.
Sincerely yours,
Paul F. Chamberlain
Division Administrator
-------
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
APRIL 4, 1979
(Incorporated by Reference)
-------
CRANE - SNEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
M08 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND VIRGINIA
PHONE 548 - 2801
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
HANOVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING
April 4, 1979
8:00 p.m.
Hanover County Courthouse,
Hanover, Virginia
IN RE:
HEARING FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECEIVING
INPUT FOR THE FACILITIES PLAN AND
EPA'S FINAL REGULATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
CRANE - SNEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1108 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
PHONE 648 - 280 I
APPEARANCES:
1
STEVEN A. TOROK, Chief :of the Environmental Impact Statement
Preparation Section, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, Philadelphia,
Pa0, Hearing Officer
TOM SLENKAMP, Project Monitor representing the EIS Preparation
Section of the Environmental Protection Agency
Region III, Philadlephia, Pa
ROSEMARIE BALDING, EPA, Region III, Philadelphia, Pa.
PAGE NUCKOLS, Chairman of Hanover County Board of Supervisor
8 PETTIS MILLER, Vice Mayor, Town of Ashland, Virginia
9 JOHN B. STEADMAN, Mayor of Ashland, Virginia
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
99
£-30
-------
CRANE - SNEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1108 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND VIRGINIA
PHONE 649 - 2801
PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY
Steven A. Torok, Chairman
Mrs. Pettis Miller
Mr. Tom Slenkamp
Mr. James Bruce
Mr. Robert Bremner
Mr. Tim Rohrmoser
Mr. T0 A. Clark
Mrs. Anne Smith
Mr. Donald Wiber
Mr. Tom Evans
Mr. Robert Phillips
Gail Enroughty
Nina Peace
Mrso Lou L. Hanks
Mr. E. C. C. Woods
Mrs. Margaret R. Miller
Mrs. Bruce V. English
Mr. Bruce V. English
Donald McDonald
John S. Graham
Lois Wickham
Ron Jones
Pettis Miller
George Nester
John B. Steadman
Preston Wade
Bob Wilby
Bob Ostergren
-------
CRANE - SNEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1)08 EAST'MAIN STREET
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
PHONE 648 -2801
APPEARANCES:
L. Clark, Route 5, Box 150, RPCCA
Barrett S. Hopkins, Route 5, Box 300, Glen Allen, Virginia,
Green Top Sporting Goods
John Cibulka, P. O. Box 6616, Richmond, Water Control Board
E. A. Beck, 1103 Ridgeriver Road
E. F. Cartulin, Route 2, Box 263, Mechanicsville, Virginia,
RPCCA
Mike Bagby, State Health Department, Richmond, Virginia,
Kevin McCarthy, 333 G. Grace Street, Richmond, Virginia,
Richmond News Leader
T. 0. Leadbetter, 405-A Air Park Road, Ashland, Virginia,
Leadbetter Construction,
Peggy N. Allen, 2940 Atlee Road, Mechanicsville, Virginia,
Allen Transport
A. ,G. Allan, Jr. 2940 Atlee Road, Mechanicsville, Virginia,
Allen Transport
L. P. Wade, 2310 Langhorn Road, Lynchburg, Virginia, Wiley &
Wilson
Anne N. Smith, Route 5, Mechanicsville, Virginia, Rural
Point Concerned Citizens Association
Lois Wickham, Route 4, Ashland, Virginia, -land owner,
Jerry Moore, P. 0. Box 231, Ashland, Virginia, Herald-
Progress
William C. Wickham, Jr., Route 4, Box 182, Hickory Hill
Farmsi
Thomas W. Evans, 1402 Pump House Drive, Richmond, Virginia,
Virginia Bass State Federation, Inc.
S. N. Enroughty, Route 7, Box 21, Mechanicsville, Virginia,
RPCCA
Gail Enroughty, Route 7, Box 21, Mechanicsville, Virginia,
RPCCA
Greg Swanson, 5710 Midlothian Turnpike, Channel 12, WWBT-TV
W. K. Henberg, Jr., Ashland, Va., town council
E. Taylor, Mechanicsville, Virginia, citizen
Howard Dickenson, WWBT-TV
George Nester, P. 0. 271, Ashland, Town of Ashland,
J. S. Graham, III, 1200 Ross Building, Richmond, Virginia,
Hanover Properties, Inc.
Mitam Gandhi, 1301 Roseneath Road, Richmond, Virginia, State
Health Department
Randy Morrissette, 1301 Roseneath Road, Richmond, Virginia,
State Health Department
-------
CRANE - SNEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1108 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
PHONE 648 -2801
5.
APPEARANCES: (Continued)
Robert M. Ostergree, P. O. Box 211, Mechanicsville, Virginia
T. A. Cole, Jr., Route 6, Box 31, Mechanicsville, Virginia,
landowner
T. A. Cole, Sr. Henrico, Virginia, landowner
Nancy Cole, Route 6, Box 37, landowner
Ronald S. Jones, 2110 Avondale Dr, citizen
T. A. Clark, Route 5, Box 150, Mechanicsville, Va., RPCCA
Pete P. Tubee, 6434 Penrith Drive, Mechanicsville, Virginia
County of Hanover
Robert Phillips, Jr., 6410 Studley Road, Mechanicsville,
Virginia, homeowner
Robert N. Pethlan, III, Route 1, Box 219, Doswell, Virginia
homeowner
K. C. Das, 4010 W. Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia,
State Water Control Board
B. P. Gayle, 4010 W. Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia,
State Water Control Board
L. G. Cox, 6824 Wheeling Road, Mechanicsville, Virginia,
business and home owner
Mrs. E. Casterlion, Box 263, Route 2, Mechanicsville, Va.
home owner
Mr. E. Caterlion, Box 263, Route 2, Mechanicsville, Va.j
homw owner
Clyde L. Goff, 6001 Lakeside Avenue, Richmond, Va.
Beechwood Development Corporation
Joseph C. Dowhe, 6400 Croftwood Dr., Mech., Va. Mech. Civic
Association
Pauline Meadow, 1110 Atlee Road, Mech., Va. Mech. Civic
Association
C. Fred Swats, Pembroke Six, Suite 208, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, Wiley & Wilson, Inc.
Bruce V. English, P. O. Box 267, Ashland, Va. land owner
Virginia English, P. O. Box 267, Ashland, Va. citizen
Lou L. Hanks, P. 0. Box 1031, Glen Allen, Virginia, South
Anna Citizens Council
Joyce L. Hoyle, 6316 Morningside Dr., Richmond, Virginia,
SWCB
R. D. Weber, Sr., Route 5, Box 152, Mech, Va., RPCCA
Nina K. Peace, Route 1, Box 281, Ashland, Virginia, Board -of
Supervisors
-------
CRANE - SNEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1108 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
PHONE 648 -2801
APPEARANCES: (Continued)
Colin Williamson, Route 6, Box 671, Mech., Virginia
John W. Fauborn, 307 Arlingston St., Apt. 56, Ashland,
Virginia, Hanover County
Tom O'Kelly, Sr. 6201 Delkin Circle, Mech., Va., Hanover
County
York Phillips, Planning Office, Hanover, Virginia, Hanover
County
Mrs. W. W. Bradley, Route 4, Box 184, Ashland, landowner
Bill Gulledge, McLean, Virginia, Engineering Science
Frederick Kennedy, McLean, Virginia, Electronic Research
Associates
Ron C. Lyons, Mobil Chemical Co, Richmond, Virginia
Louis L. Guy, 10523 Main St., Fairfax, Virginia, Patton,
Harris, Rust & Guy
Elaine G. Fenne, Route 2, Box 359, Mech., Virginia
9 Utilities and Solid Waste
Hank Lowry, 605 Maple St., Ashland, Virginia, Town Council
10 Rosemary O'Kelly, 6201 Delkin Circle, Mech., Virginia,
resident
11 Helen M. Lachman, 1203 Boxlake, Mech., Virginia
Ray E. Martin, 115 Henry Clay Road, Ashland, Virginia
D. G. MacDonald, Route 1, Doswell, Virginia
John Steadman, 2215 Falcon Hill Place,Lynchburg, Virginia
Wiley & Wilson
Diane Slusarski, P. 0. Box 231, Ashland, Virginia,
Herald-Progress
Shirley S. Mayer, Route 2, Box 143-E, Ruther Glen, Virginia
0 Leadbetter Const. Co.
Warfield Smith, Route 5, Box 165, Mech., Va.
lb M. J. Whittaker, 2905 Waynedale Dr., Mech., Va.
Margaret R. Miller, P. O. Box 202, Ashland, Va. Citizens for
Sensible Growth
M. M. Bordley, Jr., Box 182, Route 4, Ashland, Va.
18 K. T. Specer, 635 Mt. Herman Road, Ashland, Va.
Mrs. John Maples, Route 1, Box 382, Mech., Va.
E. C. C. Woods, Jr., Route 2, Box 8, Hanover, Virginia,
Board of Supervisors,
20 Mr. and Mrs. William A. Bruce, 1207 Arnoka Road, Mech.,
Virginia, land owner
W. R. Phillips, Jr., 1203Barette Avenue, Mech., Va.,
24
-------
CRANE - SNEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1 109 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND VIRGINIA
PHONE s«9 - 230 i
7.
EXHIBITS
. I
i
Flood Plain Information Totopotomoy Creek Book, Hanover )
County j
A closer Look at Hanover County's Proposed Facilities Plan,
Phase II
Exhibit No. 1 - A letter from Mr. Robert G. Bremner, Jr.
to Mr. Tom Slenkamp dated April 3, 1979
Exhibit No. 2 - The Confidential Survey of Hanover County
Residents
Exhibit No. 3 - A group of correspondence submitted into the
record by Mr. E. C. C. Woods
Exhibit No. 4 - A statement from Mr. Tom Slenkamp, Project
Manager represeting the EIS PREPARATION SECTION of the EPA
Exhibit No. 5 - A statement from Thomas W. Evans of the
Virginia B.A.S.S. State Federation, Inc.
Exhibit No. 6 - A statement from Gail Enr.^ughty, President
of Rural Point Concerned Citizens Association, Inc.
Exhibit No. 7 - A statement presented by Lou L. Hanks
regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Hanover County Phase II Area and the Corresponding Facilities
Plan.
Exhibit No. 8 - A statement presented by Margaret R. Miller,
Co-Chairman, Citizens for Sensible Growth
Exhibit No. 9 - A statement from Mrs. Bruce V. English
dated April 4, 1979
Exhibit No. 10 - A statement from Mr. Bruce V. English on
Hanover County Phase II Facilities Planning.
-------
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
JANUARY 20, 1981
(Incorporated by Reference)
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and
TOWN OF ASHLAND
HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
In the Matter of:
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE TOWN OF ASHLAND AMD HANOVER
COUNTY(Phase II area)
and
TOWN OF ASHLAND "201" FACILITY PLAN,
PRELIMINARY DRAFT.
JOINT HEARING
Ashland Municipal Building
Council Chambers
Hanover Avenue and Thomnson Stree
Ashland, Virginia 23005
January 20, 1981
8:03 o'clock, p,m.
Before
THOMAS SLENKAMP, Project Monitor
Environmental Impact Branch
EIS Preparation Section
and
RICHARD S. GILLIS, JR., Mayor
PETTIS FRAZI~R MILLER, Vice Mayor
BRUCE W. HAYNES, Councilman
LINWOOD HENDERSON, JR., Councilman
DONALD P. ROBERTSON, Councilman
Daniel J. Siegel
Court Reoorter
C.R.I. ASSOCIATES
Court & Cnnferpnct Reporters
905 World Building
•Silver Spr..-.«. Maryland 20910
•J01 :--.--M-
6-37
-------
ALSO PRESENT:
DAVID REYNAL, Town Manager
DOUGLAS CULLINANE, Director of Public Works
ELIZABETH C. KENNON, Township Clerk
JOHN HODGES,, Hanover County Panning Department
JERRY P. OWEN, Chairman, Hanover Countv Board of Supervis
NINA K. PEACE, Supervisor, Ashland District
ROSEMARIE 3ALDINO, Environmental Protection Agency,
and others.
I_ N_ D E_ X
Speakers Page
Richard S. Gillis, Jr., Mayor 3
Thomas Slenkamp 4
Douglas Cullinane 9, 66
John Hodges ,.23, 51,
Bruce English 36, 66
Gail Enroughty ^5
Margaret Miller 53
Mr. T. A. Clark 63
Mrs. Bruce English 64
Nina K. Peace 69
ATTACHMENTS
ars
Letter read into record by Mr. Hodges, from J. W. Fairburn,
Interim County Administrator, dated January 20, 198l.
201 Facilities Planning Projections, Hanover County, Va.,
January, 1981, and attached memoranda.
SIS NEWS, December 1930 Hanover County/Ashland, VA Wastewater
Treatment Planning.
£-3?
-------
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
JUNE 3, 1981
(Incorporated by Reference)
-------
Board Meeting June 3, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING - PAHSE I EXTENDED - WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
FACILITIES PLAN 4/81
.Jim Popek - Chickahominy District
1. Has the area beyond Interstate 95 enough density to support
the cost of extending the pipe in that area.
2. Concern as to the cost the extension of Phase I area will
create in other services required.
T. A. Clark - Henry District
NO QUESTIONS
Nicholas A. Spinella - Henry District - Attorney for Avondale Corp.
1. Would welcome opportunity to have a meeting with County
representatives in order to work out a pro rata cost of
the extension so that the developers of property would
be paying their fair share of any extension.
Supports the situation which must be corrected for the
residents of Blue Star Estates.
Shirley Creasy - Chickahominy District - Blue Star Civic Association
NO QUESTIONS
Stated residents of Blue Star Estates would like the County
to take over the utilities in Blue Star Estates at no cost
whatsoever to the residents.
Charles M. Johnson, Manager of Public Affairs, RFSP Railroad
1. Would like to see Phase I Extended extend line to land
already zoned industrial up to the RFSP
2. Need to obtain additional facts from the County as to what
the cost factors would be
Ann Spain - Chickahominy District
1. Ask that Board seriously consider including Blue Star Estates
in Phase I Extended
Margaret Miller - Beaverdam District - Citizens for Sensitive Growth
1. Cost for sewage treatment for Ashland
2. Why land treatment for Phase I Extended is so much less expensive
than land treatment for Oak Hill Estates.
3. Would like to know whether innovated procedures beyond land
treatment were considered
4. Would increasing the number of lagoons have any application
in any of these cases and have they been considered.
-------
OIHT V^ ONCERJTED
S3^a^£3M=?sa???,^J^aw»jli^-.^r.irffsrTF'r'T Vf.uama&pssssza- f^
ROTFflT? BOX 21 KECHA5ICS7ILLE, 71. 23111
PUBLIC 'HEARING STATEMENT OF JUNE 3, 1981
For the record my name is Gail Enroughty, and I am represeint Rural
Point Concerned Citizens Association, Inc. As many of you are aware
Rutal Point has been following the Phase II, now Phase I Extension
for a numer of years with great interest and has had representation at
the public hearings.. Our initial concern was and is. the Totopotomoy
^c_ AM > *.^ no^vA tWwx^ c_ o-v\i. oA^u_\j_>^ \M_vi ^M-l_£ uOc^AA^Ui c^
Creek and possible discharge to this creekAand the Pamunkey River
discharge. We still have not seen answers to questions raised during
the May, 1976 hearing and answers to the list submitted by the Town
of Ashland and others many years ago. If my memory serves me correctly,
there were almost 100 questions submitted.
Please refer to the hearings held May, 1976; April, 1979 and January,
1981 in reference to the concerns and questions expressed by Rural
Point. Also, I followed up on the statement given during the
January. 1981 hearing with a letter to Mr. Thomas Slenkamp dated
March 6, 1981, and as of this date still have not received a reply.
,1 submit a copy of that letter for the recordT] So again we ask:
What evaluation has been done on the upper portion 6f the creek
and what is the outcome? What portions were found to be environmentally
oo-^ V1*- ^' £*-J ^ Von ck "Vvc Q_^- '-~±i—.
sensitive if not the whole-\creek, and has the floodplain information
been corrected}?^ In my opinion there is absolutely no excuse for our
questions pertaining to the sensitivity of the creek not being officially
answered before now. Is this an example of the bureacury fulfilling
the requirements by having a public hearing and not responding to the
meetings
concerns of citizens? Also how many XxxxiNgs have been held without
notification of those of us who requested to be notified? The
-------
page Z
Totopotomoy Creek is a vital portion of the overall plans for some and
we would appreciate an answer tonight.
f The following are some of our other concerns which we at least want
included in this record and hopefully will be addressed very soon. First
we have previously questioned the issue of interbasin transfer. With
the inclusion of Blue Star Estates and the TSX2sS£Xo Totopotomoy Creek
we are dealing with two watersheds. Will this be allowed?
Next the County recently contracted with an engineering firm at a cost
of approximately $10,000. to study funding of alternatives. How can
a^r1'. ^jU^-Js^r^^c-^Y''^' C'°"V' " •Jl-^-->'; ~-<-~ \ V-c :v,-^,
a final ElS^be prepared without the publicl having this information
available for comment tonight? So again we are having a public hearing
for public comment without all the information being available. And
speaking of funding, the information sent out by the County dated April,
1981 on page 3 states "it is estimated that this system will actually
allow a reduction in the Phase I user costs." The propaganda dated
July, 1977 made available by the VPI Extension Service in cooperation
with the Hanover Board of Supervisors for the purpose of trying to get
the August, 1977 bond referendum passed was in the form of questions
and answers. # 14 states: "Is there any possibility of reductions in
the proposed SHwer user rate schedule? Yes. .There is the potential
for a large industry to connect to the County's utility system that
would have a substantial impact on USHT rates. The industry proposed,
a newsprint mill (BATO), is equivalent to 1715 homes. If this
industry comes to the County it will help support the utilities program."
// A states: "Does this mean that every taxpayer will help pay for the
sewer facilities? No. It is anticipated, but not guaranteed, that the
residential and commercial USHTS of the sewer facilities will pay the
full cost Of ,-1-^ system." And # 15 states: "What effect will the passing
-------
page 3
of the bond referendum have on an individual's taxes in Hanover County?
The intent is to make the County's utility program self-supporting
through the connection fees and bimonthly sewer rate. It is projected
that those who use the system will pay and therefore an indifidual s
taxes should not be affected." The Herald-Progress recently reported
that the deficit for the 81-82 budget year will be $830,000; so these
statements are history and today we are facing the reality and will do
so in future years. We predict that the deficit will continue to be
larger, user rates will have to be increased and all County taxpayers
will have to pay through increased taxes unless money is received from
the potential users up front. Throwing good money after bad is not the
solution. It is interesting to note that on page 4, section 9 of the
,, addendum dated March, 1981 prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust and Guy
\
under user charges and connections the following statement is made:
"Federal regulations require that sewerage systems being built with
Federal grant money be self supporting." Along this same line, section
6, page 18, Table 6-1 of the addendum, the limited build alternative
gives costs for upgrading. First question, are these figures based on
a sliding scale without considering portions of the existing systems
being used? Has each system been individually evaluated? Has the
SWCB developed allocations for each of these discharges? Were costs
based on degree of treatment required? Kingswood Court and Totopotomoy
^states are the only two County owned systems on this table. The Cost
given to upgrade these two is $831,500. Again, is this figure accurate?
The others are privately owned commercial, residential and industrial
systems. Are these owners willing to pay up front the costs associated
with this proposal for their systems? According to this table, if these
systems were individually upgraded the dollar amount to do so would
be $2,277,000. Section 1, page 3 states: "The combined cost for Oak
Estates and Phase I Extended is as follows: Construction Cost
-------
page 4
$2,907, 310.." If the previous dollar amount of $2,277,000 was collected
from the private system owners and substracted from the estimated
construction costs, this would leave a maximum total, of $630,310 „ ,-_
(L.-. W"> 'V^ <*~i i &- clH^ vf ,(7,o'n dk^cr
without grant money for the County to"finance.\ Of course, grant money ^'i
either at 507o or 7570 would substantially reduce the cost to the owners
of the private system and to the County.
The next concern is in reference to the planning area, what is the amount
of area being studied and being considered for sewer service in square
miles. At one time it appeared that the 8-1 plan was being scaled down
considerably, but it now appears that the area is being increased back
to the 8-1 plan size.^
During the April 4, 1979 hearing Mr. E. C. C. Woods, Jr. entered a
number of letters into the record. On page 74 at line 17 of the
transcript Mr. Woods stated: "And to this date an audit has not been
performed or started that I am aware of." Has EPA completed or started
an audit? Also, since Phase I rates will be included in the rates for
the Phase I extension, has an audi^beeji_c^m^l£X§.d__on__Phase^I by __
EPA as was my understanding would be done. If so, where can a copy of
the addit be obtained?
(In closing I would like to point out that numerous hearings have been
held for the Phase II/Phase I extension. The citizens have raised many,
many questions and points of concern. Also citizens have written letters
to EPA. Will the issues be addressed in the Final EIS or will the
citizen participation for the most part end up being ignored. _When,
we expect answer^? J
'
-------
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEARING QUESTIONS JUNE 3, 1981
Draft Addendum Water Pollution Control Facilities Plan
Phase I Extended, Hanover County, Virginia
The following is a list of questions raised by citizens at
the required public hearing held on the Draft Addendum, Water
Pollution Control Facilities Plan, Phase I Extended, April, 1981
(prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Guy) held by the Hanover
County Board of Supervisors during their June 3, 1981 meeting in
the Henry Taylor Wickham Building, Hanover Virginia. The ques-
tions are followed by the best response the County can make at
this time to these questions as prepared by the Hanover County
Department of Planning.
1. Gail Enroughty, Rural Point Concerned Citizens Associ-
ation, Inc . ("presented prepared statement, questions
summarized below).
a. Question: "We still have not seen answers to
questions raised during the May, 1976 hearing
and answers to the list submitted by the Town
of Ashland and others many years ago".
Response: Attached (Appendix B) is a September,
1976 list of 105 questions primarily concerned with
land application of wastewater developed by cit-
izens and staff following the May, 1976 public
hearing, .on Phase II. The responses to most of
the questions raised are included in the fol-
lowing documents used in ^he preparation of the
Draft Addendum for Phase I Extended:
REFERENCES:
1. Expanded Scope and Invest Lgatlori of Additional
Alternatives for Facilities Planning - Hanover
County Virginia, preliminary draft, August 1978.,
Bremner, Youngblood and King, Inc. (Sections
4.6 - 4.8);
2. Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Waste-
water Treatment Facilities Planning for Hanover
County, Virginia"Phase II Area, January 1979,
Engineering Science (Section III.c and IV);
3. Preliminary Draft: Town of Ashland Facilities
Plan, February 1980, Douglas Cullinane, Town
Engineer (Section VI); and
4- Draft Addendum, Water Pollution Control Facili-
ties Plan. Phase 1 Extended, April. 1981, Patto-i
Harris, Rust and Guv (Sections 6,7,8 and 10). '
5. In addition, a review of information regarding "Land
Treatment of Wastewater in Hanover County" is included
in a Memorandum to the Board of Supervisors from the
urowth Management Program Manager (March 19, 1981).
-------
After reviewing the questions, it is the feeling
of the County Staff that the oasic questions asked
in the September, 1976 list have either been an-
swered (through the documentation indicated above)
or have been rendered obsolete by the subsequent
significant revision and scaling down of the May
1976 Phase II proposals prepared by Bremner, Young-
blood and Sharp, Inc. (As represented by the June
3, 1981 Phase I Extended proposal-).
b. Question: "What evaluation has been done on
the upper portion of the (Totopotomoy) Creek
and what is the outcome? What portions were
found to be environmentally sensitive if not
the whole upper portion of the Creek, and has
the flood plain information been corrected?"
Response: These questions were directed to
Mr. Thomas Slenkamp, EIS Preparation Section,
Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Slenkamp
has received a copy of your comments from the
June 3, 1981 public hearing and he has indi-
cated that your concerns will be addressed in
the Final EIS. Completion and publication of the
Final EIS has been delayed by Federal staff and
budgetary cut-backs. It is anticipated that
the Final EIS will be available by the end of
July.
'c. Quest ion: "How many meetings have been held
without notification of those of use who re-
quested to be notified?"
Response: It is assumed that this question is
also directed to Mr. Slenkamp as the County has
provided adequate notice, as required for meet-
ings in which the public is invited.
d. Question: "First we have previously questioned
the issue of interbasin transfer. With the in-
clusion of Blue Star Estates and the Totopotomoy
Creek we are dealing with two watersheds. Will
this be allowed?"
Response: It is our understanding of the State
law which prevents interbasin transfers of water ..
from one watershed to the other (such as from
the York to the James River Basin) does not pre-
vent transfer of water taken from deep wells
(which represents water in unconsolidated sedi-
ments not related to surface water basins') •
Therefore, including Blue Star Estates, which is •
in the York River Basin, in the Phase I Extended System
which discharges wastewater into the James River
Basin would not be prohibited because Blue Star
Utility users get their water from deep wells.
-------
Question: "How can a final EIS and a final
201 Plan be prepared without the public having
this information?" (Report on financing alter-
natives for Phase I Extended to be presented
by Peat, Warwick, Mitchell and Company June 24,
1981).
Response: The engineering consultants report
(Patton, Harris, Rust and Guy) presented at the
June 3, 1981 public hearing fulfils the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency's requirements for
comparison of Alternate Wastewater disposal
systems within environmental, social and cost
constraints. However, because the County has
been advised by the State Water Control Board
that Federal funding of any Alternative is
highly uncertain at this time and in the near
future, the County has hired a financial con-
sultant (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co.) to
assess the likelyhood of building the system
with local financial resources. The financing
report will not change the alternatives reviewed
in the engineering report, only help the Board
determine the most feasible way to finance the
recommended alternative. This may alter the
timing but not the environmental, social or
cost constraints which were discussed in the
engineering report. Copies of the financial
consultant's report have been available since
the Board's June 24, 1981 meeting for review
by the public. Since the financing report is
advisory only and does not affect the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (EPA) requirements,
the County Staff does not think a public hearing
is necessary. Should the Board wish to pursue
a particular financing alternative other than
EPA grants, then the Board may elect to solicit
public comments on the financing techniques.
Question: "... the limited build alternative
gives costs for upgrading. First question,
are these figures based on a sliding scale
without considering portions of the existing
systems being used?"
Response: The County's engineering consultant
for Phase I Extended advises that their cost
estimates did not allow for using individual
elements of the existing treatment plants other
than for flow equalization of influent or as
polishing ponds for the effluent.
-------
g. Question: "Has each (existing) system been
individually evaluated?"
Response: The engineer Lnfr, consultant for
Phase I Extended says that "yes" the systems
have been individually evaluated but not be-
yond the general level considered appropriate
to a 201 Facilities Plan.
h. Question: "Were costs based on degree of
treatment required? Kingswood Court and Toto-
potomoy Estates are only two County owned sys-
tems in this table. The cost given to upgrade
these two is $831,500. Again is this figure
accurate ?"
Response: The engineering consultant for Phase
I Extended advises that, "yes", costs were based
on expected advanced waste treatment require-
ments. Regarding Kingswood Court and Totopotomoy
Estates, the consultant advises that costs were
based on "typical" costs from EPA publications
and are considered adequate for planning purposes.
Further, the cost of Totopotomoy subdivision is
greater than the others because its size is also
greater than all the other treatment systems.
i. Question: "...privately owned, commercial, resi-
dential, and industrial systems. Are these-owners
willing to pay up front cost associated with this
proposal for their systems?"
Response: The firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and
Company recently reported on the financing alter-
natives for Phase I Extended (June, 1981). This
report included a survey of major property owners
and developers in the Phase I Extended study Area.
The survey indicated an interest in participating
in prepaid connections or the sale of revenue
bonds. A similar but independent survey conducted
by the Hanover Association of Business found, how-
ever, that only 30% of the property owners in the
proposed Phase I Extended Service Area would be
interested in contributing to the construction of
the Phase I Extended System. The Board of Super-
visors will consider this information in making its
final decision on financing for Phase I Extended.
j. Question: "What is the amount of area being studied
and being considered for sewer service in square
miles?"
Response: The Phase I Extended "initial service
area" is approximately 8 square miles which is
55% of the total Phase I Extended "study area"
(1^-5 square miles).
-------
k. Question: "Hnu KI'A comp 1 ^jtr.-d or- utnrted an
audit?" Also ...hat; an audit been completed
on Phase I by EPA...If so where can a copy
of the audit be obtained?
Response: Mr. Slenkamp of EPA advises that
an audit of EPA funds will not be conducted
until all Federal funds have been expended.
As of this date, all EPA funds due the Phase
I system have not been received. The Corps
of Engineers will conduct a preliminary re-
view of the County's files prior to release
of final payment (the date has not yet been
set for this review). This review will be
followed within three years by an audit by
EPA. (We have been advised that an EPA. audit
is not a requirement and may not be conducted)
1. Question: "numerous hearings have been held
...When can we expect answers?"
Response: Attached (Appendices C and D), is
an extract of Ms. Enroughty's comments from
the two public hearings held subsequent to the
May 1976 meeting mentioned at the beginning
of her prepared statement. Responses are as
follows:
1) Public Hearing, April 4, 1979, Hanover
Courthouse. Comments are addressed to~~
the preparation of the Final EIS which
has not been completed as of this date
and is the responsibility of 'the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Other
comments raised concerned the Bremner,
Youngblood and King presentation of a
County facilities plan for Phase II which
has not been adopted by the County and
has been made obsolete by the Patton,
Harris, Rust and Guy report on Phase I
Extended. (April, 1981).
2) Public Hearing, January 20, 1981 Ashland
Municipal Building. Comments are again
addressed to the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Draft EIS.
In regards to Ms. Enroughty's concern about
pipe sizing, it should be pointed out that the
Patton, Harris, Rust and Guy report projected
design flows based on a twenty year planning
period 1982-2002. Hanover County does not an-
ticipate requesting a larger pipe size corre-
sponding to a longer staging period such
as 4.0 years. While not contradicting the
statement quoted from Mr. Cibulka's letter of
March 5, 1980, the State Water Control Board,
by letter, reaffirmed the regulations quoted
by Ms. Enroughty in her statement.
-------
Thom.-m Tuoh.y, Vice President, Mechanicsvil] e Civic
Association (presented prepared statement, ques-
tions summarized below).
a. Question: "Supposedly this plan will provide
the sewer rate relief for the present Phase I
Users that has been promised by members of the
Board of Supervisors for many months. But does
it? If we are reading the table (Table 9-3,
page 9-9, Patton Harris, Rust and Guy, April,
1981) correctly this represents an 81.5$ increase
in present user costs."
Response: Table 9-3 was prepared in April and
presents existing Phase I rates if they were
totally supported by user charges. This is not
currently the case. The table shows hypothet-
ically how the addition of Phase I Extended would
benefit a total Mechanicsville Water system by
lowering average user costs.
Realizing the limitations pf this type of financ-
ial analysis, although sufficient for Federal
Grant purposes, the County hired the firm of
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company to conduct a
detailed financial analysis of the impact of con-
structing Pahse I Extended. This report has been
presented to the Board in draft form. It shows
that under certain financing conditions, the cost
of construction to the users of the Phase I Ex-
tenued system would be less than the current user
costs of the Phase I system. Therefore, this pre-
liminary report supports the concept that if the
Phase I and Phase I Extended systems were combined
and all users paid the same user fee, then the
users of the Phase I Extended system could help
offset the costs of the Phase I user.
b. Question: "Page 4-10 of the Draft Addendum lists
different numbers than Mr. Bruce's memo (December
22, 1980), as follows: ...paid connection .fee, Bruce
2241 (74.4$), Addendum 2709 (90%); Actually con-
nected, Bruce 1313 (43.6£, Addendum 1815 (60.2*)"
Response: The figures used by the consultant in
the Draft Addendum were provided by Mr. Bruce, Di-
rector of Public Utilities, in an updated memo-
randum of April 13, 1981. Specifically, as of
April 1981 there were 1815 physical connections
to Phase I with 894 users having paid the connec-
tion fee but remaining unconnected.
-------
c. Question: "Page 9-5 of tne addendum states that
existing users would not ue assessed for con-
nection... Can someone explain either now or in
the near future the dissimilarity between the
Phase I and Phase I 'Extended users?"
Response: The Draft Addendum as prepared by the
consultant looks at the Phase I Extended Area
separately from Phase I. Therefore the discus-
sion of "existing collections systems" is meant
to cover only the Phase I Extended area. The
information presented in financial analysis of
the Draft Addendum is used solely for illustrative
purposes.Connection fees and charges for the
Phase I Extended area as opposed to the Phase I area
are a policy decisions which have not been made by the
Board of Supervisors.
d. Question: "The subdivision (Blue Star Estates)is
T5years old. Will an engineering survey be made
of existing underground lines to determine condi-
tion and adequacy to protect against future costs
to the County?"
Response: This point is well taken. Hidden costs
could exist from collection systems pump stations
and lagoons in a poor state of repair. This level
of analysis is beyond the scope of the 201 Facili-
ties Plan. These hidden costs would app-l-y to all
alternatives considered so they would not influ-
ence the final recommended alternative..
3. 'Jim Popek, Chickahominy District (no written statement
submitted).
a. Question: Has the area beyond Interstate 1-95
enough density to support the cost of extending
the pipe in that area.
Response: The Draft Addendum report prepared by
Patton, Harris, Rust and Guy did not address the
financial self-sufficiency of the Phase I Extended
system. This has been addressed by the prelimi-
nary report of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company.
This report indicates that the segments of Phase I
Extended west of 1-95 are not likely to be self-
sufficient in the next five years.
b. Question: Concern as to the other costs the exten-
sion of Phase I area will create in other service
areas.
Response: The Draft Addendum presents an analysis
of the costs associated with different wastewater
treatment solutions as compared to each other. The
impact of Countywide finances has been reviewed by
the firm of Peat, Marwick. MitcheJ1 and Companv (pre-
liminary report, June, 1981J. The planning impacts
will be discussed in the Comprehensive Plan Update
for Phase I Extended which is being developed by
the Planning Department at this time. /O c~r*
-------
4. T. A. Clark - comment, no questions.
5. Nicholas A. Spinella, Henry District, Attorney for
Avondale Corp.(no written statement).
a. Question: Would welcome an opportunity to have
a meeting with County representatives in order
to work out a pro rata cost of the extension (to
Blue Star Estates) so that the developers of pro-
perty would be paying their fair share of any ex-
tension .
Response: The firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and
Company has reviewed the impact of pro rata share
contributions to the Phase I Extended system which
included comments from developers regarding pro
rata share. The County would contact you if ad-
ditional information is needed by the Board before
making a final decision on the utility program in
your area.
6. Shirley Creasy - comment, no questions.
7. Charles M. Johnson, Manager of Public Affairs, R.F. & P
,Railroad(no written comments).
Question: Would like to see Phase I Extended ex-
tend line to land area already zoned industrial
up to the R.F. and P. Need to obtain additional
facts from the County as to what the cost factors
would be.
Response: The County has hired the firm of Peat,
Marwick, Mitchell and Company to review the finan-
cial alternatives for Phase I Extended. The pre-
liminary report questions the extension of a, line
to the R.F. & P. property in the next five years.
The final report with supporting documentation is
expected to be available in July, 1981. When com-
pleted we would be glad to send you this informa-
tion .
8. Ann Spain - (comment, no questions).
r
9. Margaret Miller, Beaverdam District, Citizens for Sen-
sible Growth.
a. Question: Cost for sewage treatment for Ashland.
Response: Hanover's Draft Addendum 201 Plan uses
costs used by the Town of Ashland in its own 201
Facilities Plan for areas not in the Town.
-------
b. Question: Why is land treatment for Phase I Ex-
tended so much less expensive than land treat-
ment for Oak Hill Estates'/
Response: The lower costs are associated
with the different economies of scale. The
Phase I Extended area would serve approximately
1060 existing connections and an estimated 125
new connections each year. 'The Oak Hill system
would serve only about 100 .existing homes and
would be designed to serve a limited number of
new connections. Because of the larger scale,
the Phase I Extended system can be designed to be
more efficient than Oak Hill.
c. Question: Would like to know whether innovative
procedures beyond land treatment were considered?
Response: Innovative alternatives for wastewater
treatment were considered but were not considered
reasonable or practical for formal presentation
in the report.
d. Question: Would increasing the number of lagoons
have any application in any of these cases and
have they been considered?
Response: Increasing the number of lagoons was
considered but were not seen as feasible'".'' As in
the case of Oak Hill, increasing the number of
lagoons would not be sufficient to meet the Chick-
ahominy River discharge standards.
10. Raphael Peters, President, Blue Star Utility.
a. Question: Please accept Blue Star Utility into
Phase I.
Response: The County staff has recommended the in-
clusion of Blue Star Utility into Phase I Extended
if the costs were borne by the utility users. The
County's financing consultant has advised that if
the County pays the construction costs, these addit-
ional costs would not be completely offset by the
increase in the number of users in the Phase I Ex-
tended system (See Draft Report, Peat, Marwick Mit-
chell and Company, June 1981 page C-l). The treat-
ment of a private utility in the Totopotomoy Water-
shed represents a planning precedent which the Board
of Supervisors and Planning Commission will consider
in the Comprehensive Plan Update for the Mechanicsville/
Chickahominy Urban Area.
-------
11. Blue Star Civics Association, comment on household
survey(Appendix H;,no question.
12. Doran Woodson, letter submitted prior to the public
hearing.
Question: If the price is right, I will be willing
to pay my share.
Response: The County is preparing a financial anal-
ysis which would indicate what the pro rata costs for
developing properties would be in the Phase I Extended
Area. If you would like a copy of the report please
contact the Growth Management Planning Office.
13- Christopher J. Cullen, Executive Director, Hanover
Association of Businesses letter submitted June 8,
1981.
Question: Wish to include results of a survey of the
Phase I Extended'.
Response: The results of the survey have been pro-
vided the County's Consultant Peat, Marwick, Mitchell
and Company, with the survey results for inclusion
in their report on financing alternatives for Phase
I Extended.
14. W. Page Morris, Project Engineer, Johnson and Anderson
of Virginia,Inc. representing Mr. Davide Mayers, Sr.
letter submitted June 17, 1981.
Question: Request an expansion of the Phase I Initial
Service Area to include approximately 351 Acres of Mr.
Mayer's property which lies generally between and is
contiguous to the subdivisions of Totopotomoy and
Kingswood Court.
Response: Your request and the planning issues you
raise will be considered and addressed by the staff
in the Comprehensive Plan Update for the Mechanicsville/
Chickahominy Urban Area. The Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors are anticipated to take action
on the planning proposals in September, 1981.
15. Gordon H. Lawhorn, correspondence received June 1, 1981.
Question: Is there a consideration of a water and
sewer connection by the County of Hanover to Laurel
Grove and north on U. S. 301? I would be interested
to know more about the cost etc. and date of comple- .
tion.
-------
Response: Hanover County is considering extending
;i sewer lino north .-ilonr II. f.. Houto 3n'l from -At lee
Squax-e to the Blue Star Instates Subdivision. The
cost to the County or Blue Star Estates would be
approximately $120,000. The County is considering
several separate financing alternatives as well as
the planning implications of extending a sewer inter-
ceptor into a primarily undeveloped watershed
(Totopotomoy Creek). The County staff is working
on a planning and financing recommendation which
will be presented to the Board, and Planning Com-
mission in September, 1981.
ID. David Mayers, correspondence received June 1, 1981.
Question: The County has proposed sewer on property
which he intends to develop.
Response: The planning implications of allowing
Mr. Mayers property to be connected to Phase I Ex-
tended is being studied by the staff and will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board in
September, 1981,
17- R. P. Peters, Jr. , President, Sons, Inc., correspon-
dence received June 1, 1981, No question asked, in-
dicates interest in paying their.share of cost to
serve Blue Star Utility.
18. Nicholas A. Spinella, Attorney-at-Law, representing
Avondale Corporation, correspondence received May 21,
1981.
Question: Requests a meeting to discuss how Avondale
Corporation and property owners adjoining Blue Star
Utility would share in the pro rato cost of extending
sewer service to Blue Star Utility.
Response: Correspondence previously responded to
by County Staff. Mr. Spinella presented comments
to Board at June 3, 198l Public Hearing. Providing
sewer service to Blue Star and adjoining properties
has planning implications which are being addressed
by the Planning Department in a report that will be
reviewed by the Board and Planning Commission in
September, 1981.
19. W. S. Heindl, Jr. , President, Heindl-Evans, Inc.
correspondence received May 26, 1981.
Question: Requests to be informed when sewer servic.e
will be provided to certain properties owned by Heindl-
Evans, Inc. and Hanover Investments.
-------
Response: The County staff is preparing a report
on the financing and planning implications of ex-
tending the Phase I system. This report is expected
to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board
in September, 1981. The timing and service area of
any sewer extension will be addressed at that time.
20. Cecil R. Hopkins, correspondence received May 1, 1981.
Question: Requests his property adjacent to Hanover
Airpark be included in the proposed Phase I Extended
service area.
Response: At this time the subject property is in-
cluded in the proposed initial service area. The
Board and Planning Commission are expected to take
action on the Phase I Extended proposals in September,
1981.
-------
Doran Wood son
701 Brookhill
Richmond. VA 2322
May 22. 1981 '
John I-Iodger, AICP
Growth Management Steering Committee
Hanover, Virginia 23069
Dear Sir:
For the past 16 years, I have owned approximately
five acres facing Shannon Road. Please include this in
Phase I Extended.
If the price is right, I will be willing to pay my
share.
Sincerely,
D'v'/gr
cc: Jerry P. Owen
/,'illlam C. Frazier
Terry Cook
Joseph I;. Norman, Jr-
A- Pacre Nuckols
Nina K. Peace
E.C.C . Wood s, Jr .
Pet^r L. Trible
Doran Wood son
-------
Jun« 3. 1981
Mr. Allan T. Williama
County Attain La trator
Hanover Courthouee
Hanover, Virginia 23069
Dear Mr. Willisiaaj
Th« Ranov*r Association of Buaineaaet Juat completed a aurvey of the
attitudes of selected user* la the proposed Phaee X fateoded
entitled;
FUTURS USg^/BBMSyiCIASy STUDY 0?
i synsarap
HAT 1981
Tha Board of Directors pf th* Hanovar Asaociatioa of Suaincaaaa
thia plan at their regular eoathly Meeting held June 2t 19S1 and unani-
mously vocad to forward it to the County for loolajlan in the record of
tha public haciriag held on June 3, 1981 oo the 201 Fe«ilitiaa Plaa. Ple«e
find a copy of tfa* iurvty eocloMNi*
1 will ba happy to diacuaa thia curvey and it's find ins* with the Board
and/or staff. I aa adviaiog John Hodge*, aa well aa the Board of Suporviaori
of thia matter by forwarding to the* a copy at thia letteir and *tudy»
Should you hava any question* of coooeata, plaaaa feel free to call ae at
any tits.
Eiacaruly,
RECEIVED
Christopher J. Cullea . .
Sxacutiva Director f JUN 0 8 1981
CJC :mc v GMP-- Pt: -- . ' ? ^-osr
Enclosure ' "" hj.w,-cr County
ccj John Kodgee
aanover Couaty Board of Supervisor*
-------
Johnson & Anderson of Virginia, Inc.
4UN 1 7 1961
GMP - Planning C^-rl.
Consulting Engineers
Ashland-Hanover Office Bldg.
201 N. Washington Hwy
PO. Box 568
Ashland, Virginia 23005
Telephone: 804-798-1618
June 12, 1981
County of Hanover
Hanover Courthouse
Hanover, Virginia 23069
ATTN: Mr. Allan T. Williams, County Administrator
RE: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning
for Hanover County, Phase I - Extended
Dear Mr. Will iams:
I hereby request that this letter, in its entirety, be entered Into
the minutes of the Public Hearing held June 3, 1981 by the Hanover County
Board of Supervisors. I have been advised by Mr. John Hodges of the
Hanover County Planning Staff that the above mentioned minutes have been
held open to accept additional comments until June 19, 1981. I am writing
to you on behalf of Mr. David Mayers, Sr. to request an expansion of the
Phase I Initial Service Area to include approximately 351 acres of Mr.
Mayers' property which lies generally between and is contiguous to the
subdivisions of Totopotomoy and Kingswood Court. *
While the existing zoning of this property is agricultural, there are
many factors suggesting that there is a more appropriate use for the land
(i.e. residential development). To begin with, as noted above, it is
bordered to the north and south by existing residential subdivisions which,
it should be noted, are included in the Phase I Initial Service Area.
Located in the immediate proximity of the property are .Hanover Industrial
Air Park and Beechwood Farms Subdivision, both of which are also included
in the Phase I Initial Service Area.
These factors coupled with the fact that the property is readily
accessible by State-maintained roads to Interstate 95 would appear to
make this acreage a prime candidate for development in the near future.
The inclusion of this property in the Phase I Initial Service Area,-
and its subsequent development, would complement the existing, as well
as the proposed, utility systems in the area. Proper location of central
wells and appropriate design of distribution systems could offer some
relief to the beleaguered water systems of the surrounding subdivisions.
The proposed sewerage facilities to accommodate Totopotomoy and Kingswood
Court are already shown on preliminary maps as located on and traversing
-------
Mr. Allan T. Williams, County Administrator
Page 2 of 2
June 12, 1981
across the Mayers' tract. Mr. Mayers has Indicated a wll1tngness to
participate financially in the project to the extent that the facili-
ties' design must be upgraded to accomn)odate future development of his
property. In addition, such development would greatly enhance the
County's tax base and would add needed connections toward the support
of County operated utility systems.
The above noted factors combine to provide a formidable case In
support of our request. Development patterns of the surrounding geo-
graphical area would seem to Indicate that the development of this
land is not only imminent but also consistent with the principles of
sound land planning. The opportunity to achieve Integration of utility
systems in the area through advance planning Is uniquely consistent
with the long-range goals of Hanover County and sound economic policy.
Thank you
any assistance
to contact me.
for your consideration of this request. If I may be of
in the furtherance of this matter please dont't hesitate
Sincerely yours,
JOHNSON & ANDERSON
of VIrginia, Inc.
W. PAGE(£0RRIS
Project Engineer
WPM/pws
cc: Mr. A. Page Nuckols
Ms. Nina K. Peace
Mr. Jerry P. Owen, Chairman
Mr. E. C. C. Wood, Jr.
Mr. Terry L. Cook
Mr. Wi11iam C. Frazier
Mr. Joseph H. Norman, Jr.
Mr, Richard F. E. Shirey
Mr. Arthur P- Flippo
Mr. Robert S. Cosby
Mr. Fred E. Doggett
Mr. James Winters
Mrs. Barbara D. Jones
Mr. James Brannan
Mr. York L. Phillips
Mr. Peter L. Trible
Mr. Randy D. Guill
Mr. James T. Bruce
Mr. John W. Falrburn
Mr. John Hodges
-------
May 28, 1981
Mr. Hodges
Water & Sewer Dept.
Hanover County
Hanover, VA 23069
Dear Sir:
Is there a consideration of a water and sewer connection
by the County of Hanover to Laurel Grove and north on
US 301? I would be interested to know more about the
cost, etc, and date of completion.
-------
P.O. BOX 9155 PHONE 730-9714 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23227
May 28, 1981
John Hodges
Program Manager
Hanover Court House
Hanover, Virginia 23069
Re: Sewer to Ex. San. Sew. System, Treatment
in Henrico County., Alternative Four.
Dear Mr. Hodges :
On receipt of your program paper "Future
Issues & Policies" I notice the sewer will
go thru the center of my property located
between Totopotomoy Subdivision and Kingswood
Court Subdivision.
It is my intention to develop this property
and hook up to the sewer as soon as practicable
I submit this letter for input to your study.
Thank you.
Si nee rely,
RECEIVED
JUN 0 1
-------
Sons, Ire.
3010 :;. Cary Street
r;ichr^.ond . VA 23221
;:ay 22.
John K. Kod.fres, AICP
Growth Management Steering Committee
Hanover, Virginia 23069
Dear Sir:
Sons Inc. owns land adjoining Blue Star Utility Corp,
d like to be included in Phase I i
Sons Inc. Kill be willing- to participate in paying
their share of the cost if the price is not too high.
Sincerely .
cc: Jerry P. Owen
i'/illLa;n C. Frazier
Terry Cook
Joseph H. Norman, Jr
A. Pa?e Nuckols
Xina K. Peace
3.C.C. ",/oods, Jr-
Peter L. Trible
B.P. Oeters, Jr,
President
RECr:V~D
JUN 0 1 198t
GMP -
Hanover County
.nent
-------
i.' t ( '•
LAW OFFICES
SIMNKI.LV. OWI.NGS, JACKSON & STKVKRSON
\ I'KiiJ K---ION u i iiHI'nK \ i (UN
lUCIIMdM). \Hii.IMA
Jo- >•-
Yc,. ,-
\ ",-i
Ml IIIH \~
M HIVI) |.
I.HtHI !• ;
I. M-ll Ml-
IIIIIN i. Ml
IIIIHI (- I
Kl I JH.
I II \ > K
May 20, 1981
w I- > I 111(11 \ll I'MIK
-•TL'II hMHII'lll^f I'tllKVO
M I IK IM I
lll( IIMIIMI. \ IKI.IM V J.tlf-"'
I'KI t riinM- i HII i' r tT-ifijn
Mr. John H. Hodges
Program Manager
Growth Management Program
Hanover Courthouse
Hanover, VA 23069
RECEIVED
MAY 2 1 1981
Re:
• Planning Department
Hanover County
Proposed Plan for Extending Mechanicsville
Waste Water System
Dear Mr. Hodges:
I write on behalf of my client, Avondale Corporation, to
request that consideration be given in the proposed plan for
extending the Mechanicsville Waste Water System to include
neighboring property such as the 42.94 acres owned by Avondale
Corporation at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
U.S. Route 301 and State Route 640.
We would welcome the opportunity to have a meeting with
you as well as members of the Board of Supervisors regarding the
details of how Avondale Corporation -- and perhaps other neigh-
boring landowners as well — might share in the pro rata cost
of extending the Mechanicsville Waste Water System to Blue Star
estates and the area in the vacinity of the intersection of U.S.
Route 301 and State Route 640.
We would appreciate a response to this initiative, and we
will contact you again in the very near future to try to arrange
a meeting.
Please advise if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Nicholas A. Spinella
NAS/vjs
cc: Honorable Jerry P. Owen
Honorable William C. Frazier
Honorable Nina K. Peace
Honorable E.C.C. Woods, Jr.
Honorable Page Nuckols
Honorable Terry L. Cook
Honorable Joseph H. Norman, Jr
Mr. Peter L. Trible
cc: Mr. G.R. Balducci
-------
*_7n
NERAL CONTRACTORS
50 CHAMBERLAYNE ROAD
iCHANICSVILLE, VIRGINIA 23111
LEPHONE 746-7851
May 21, 1981
Mr . Jo hn Hodges
Hanover Courthouse
Hanover, Virginia 23069
Re: Heindl-Evans , Inc. & Hanover Investments Properties
in Hanover County needing sewage.
Dear Mr. Hodges:
I would like to express our company's extreme need for
sewers at the below listed locations that either Heindl-
Evans, Inc. or Hanover Investments , both a Virginia
corporation located in Hanover County owns. Would you
please informe me at your earliest convenience as to when
sewerage will be extended to these locations:
Owned by Heindl-Evans, Inc.:
See attached copies of plats.
Owned By Hanover Investments:
See attached copies of plats.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
ECEIVED
MAY 2 6
- Pir-nnir.s Cepartment
Hanover
W. S. Heindl, Jr.
Pre s iden t
wshj r/ah
-------
April 29, 1981
Mr. John H. Hodges, Program Manager
Growth Management Office
Hanover Court House
Hanover, Virginia 23069
RE: Parcel of Land ?/72 B (1),
48.907 seres, Lots 5,6,7 & 8
Dear Mr. Hodges:
To confirm our phone conversation of April 27, 1981
concerning the above plot of land situated on the south end
of the Hanover Industrial Air Park and the north side of
Route 656.
I wish to subu.ic the following facts:
1. This land has a state road No. 813 which is known
as Air Park road running through approximately the
center of it.
2. I donated this 60 ft. right of way to the County
when this road was built with the anticipation
that the land would be used commercially whenever
sewer becomes available.
The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution stating the
county would provide water and sewer lines under this road at
two locations plus some other conditions as you will see in the
attached copy of the resolution dated September 9, 1970.
RECL
MAY 0 1 1981
GMP P-nningDc'u
I'ii.icverCoor.ty
-------
I furthermore have an agreement with Mr. Troy Leadbetter,
developer of the Hanover Industrial Air Park, that whenever his
capacity of water and sewer become available that I may attach
on to his system. You may verify this by contacting Mr. Leadbetter,
In consideration of the land location and the above pertinent
data, I feel that this land should definitely be placed in the
urb:::n growth area rather than the study area as I suspect it is
now.
The reason I have made no effort to rezone or use this
property has been due to the lack of sewerage in this area.
Respectfully yours,
C, „: A -,
Cecil R. Hopkins
Rt. 5, Box 300
Glen Allen, Va. 23060
CC : Jerry Owens
Troy Leadbetter
------- |