DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
UPGRADING and EXPANSION of the
FALLING CREEK WASTE WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Prepared By
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
PHILADELPHIA , PA.
AUGUST 1975
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 111
6TH AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
September 2, 1975
SUBJECT: Upgrading and Expansion of the Falling Creek Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, Chesterfield County, Virginia
(C-51-484-01)
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(P.L. 91-190), submitted herewith for your information and consideration
is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed upgrading and
expansion of the Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility.
The proposed project consists of increasing the capacity of the
existing 6 MGD plant to 12 MGD and upgrading the degree of treatment
from 90 percent BOD removal to 95 percent BOD removal. The expanded
service area will encompass the drainage basin of Falling Creek and
its tributaries as well as the upper Swift Creek Watershed.
We would appreciate receiving your comments within forty-five (45)
calendar days from the date of this transmittal. In addition, a public
hearing will be held Thursday, October 9, 1975, 7:30 p.m. at the
Chesterfield County Court House. Those submitting comments or who
wish to testify afthe public hearing should contact Mr. George Pence,
Chief, Environmental Impact Branch, at the above address.
Enclosure
dDaniel J.^nyder, III
/^—Regional Administrator
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
UPGRADING AND EXPANSION OF THE
FALLING CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
CHESTERFffiLD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Prepared By
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106
Approved By:
- _ July 28, 1975
Date
EPA-3-VA-CHESTERFIELD-XX-WWTP-75
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ;v
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF MAPS iv
LIST OF APPENDICES v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v
MAILING LIST vii
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
I. BACKGROUND 5
A. Location 5
B. Description and Context of Applicant's Proposed Action 5
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 7
A. Natural 7
1. Climate 7
2. Air Quality 7
3. Topography and Geology 7
a. Topography 7
b. Geology 7
4. Soils 8
5. Hydrology 8
a. Surface Water-Streams 8
b. Surface Water-Falling Creek Reservoir 8
c. Surface Water-Swift Creek Reservoir 8
d. Groundwater 8
6. Biology 8
7. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 9
B. Man-Made 9
1. Land Use 9
2. Historic and Archeological Sites 11
3. Existing Wastewater Disposal Facilities 11
4. Population and Wastewater Flows 11
5. Water Supply 13
6. Planning and Selected Land Use Ordinances 13
III. EVALUATION OF APPLICANTS PROPOSED ACTION , 17
A. Detailed Description 17
B. Plant Capacity Issues: Growth Rates and Wastewater Flows 17
C. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Mitigative Measures 21
1. Hydrology 21
a. General 21
b. Swift Creek Reservoir and Brandermill 21
c. Falling Creek Reservoir 23
d. Treatment Alternatives for Water Supply Reservoirs 24
2. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 24
a. Wetlands 24
b. Floodplains - 24
c. Agricultural Lands 24
d. Artesian Aquifer Recharge Areas 24
e. Woodlands 24
f. Soils 25
3. Biology 25
4. Air Quality 25
5. Public Health 27
6. Compatibility with the 1995 Land Use Plan 27
7. Historic and Archeological Sites 28
8. Community Environment 28
9. Economics 28
10. Natural Resources and Energy Use 29
IV. ALTERNATIVES 31
A. Centralized 31
1. Location of Treatment Plant 31
2. Treatment Processes 31
3. Sludge Processing 31
4. Effluent Disposal 33
a. Surface Discharge 33
b. Land Treatment and Disposal 33
c. Deep or Shallow Well Injection ...~ 34
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Page
B. Decentralized -• 34
1. On-lot Treatment Systems * 34
a. Septic Tanks 34
b. Other On-lot Treatment Systems 36
2. Package Plants 36
C. No Action 36
D. Cost Comparison of Selected Plant Expansion Increments 37
V. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE MAJOR ISSUES 41
A. Plant Capacity 41
B. Swift Creek Reservoir 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY 43
APPENDICES 47
MAPS 107
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
II-1 Distribution of land use in Chesterfield County for years 1971-1973 9
II-2 Major recreational facilities in Chesterfield County, Virginia 10
II-3 Distribution of future land use in Chesterfield County 10
II—4 Historic sites 11
II-5 Flows to Falling Creek STP, October 1974 13
II-6 Water use in Chesterfield County, 1974-1975. By Public Source 13
II-7 Water supplies for the Richmond UMA 13
III-8 Design criteria for Falling Creek Treatment Plant 17
III—9 Assumptions concerning wastewater flows, high and low estimates 17
HI—10 Annual and cumulative changes in service area population being served, and wastewater flows,
using high growth estimate 19
III-ll Annual and cumulative change in service area population being served, and wastewater flows, using
low growth estimate 19
III-12 Estimated dated when various flows are reached '. 21
111-13 Planning period for selected expansion increments, low and high growth estimates 21
III-14 Projected ambient particulate and SOX levels, Chesterfield County 26
III—15 AQCR standards and projections for particulates and SOX 26
HI—16 Projected particulate and S02 emissions, by source, Chesterfield County 26
IV—17 Maximum sustainable sewage treatment efficiencies 32
IV-18 Available sludge unit processes 32
IV-19 Comparison of sludge processing alternatives for expansion to 12 MGD 33
IV-20 Capital costs for major components of a 12 MGD land treatment system 34
IV—21 Equilibrium year for comparing septic tanks and sewer service, by residential density and distance
to Treatment Plant 35
IV—22 Equilibrium year of septic tank life span by sewer cost and distance to Treatment Plant 36
IV—23 Capital and O & M costs for selected expansion increments, high and low growth rates 37
IV-24 Total costs for selected expansion increments, high and low growth rates 38
IV—25 Total costs for selected expansion increments, high and low growth rates, with 3 percent relative
inflation rate 38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
1-1 Location of Chesterfield County in EPA Region III 6
II-2 :. Estimated total population of Falling Creek Service Area 12
II—3 Projected water demand, Chesterfield County, Virginia 14
III-4 Falling Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, existing and proposed processes 18
III-5 Estimated wastewater flows to Falling Creek STP, by year, and associated design and construction
schedules 20
LIST OF MAPS
Map Title
1 Location of Falling Creek STP and Service Area in Chesterfield County 109/110
2 Drainage Basins 111/112
3 Interceptor sewers 113/114
4 Geologic, groundwater and physiographic provinces 115/116
iv
-------
Map
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LIST OF MAPS (Cont'd.)
Title Page
Historic sites and structures 117/118
Chesterfield General Plan: Existing Land Use 119/120
Chesterfield General Plan 1995 121/122
Current development 123/124
Existing Zoning Plan: April 15,1975 125/126
Five Year Public Sewer Plan for current development 127/128
Chesterfield General Plan 1995 with interceptor routes and areas (A & B) of possible induced
development 129/130
Appendix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Title
Page
A Air Quality 47
Table A-l Levels of sulfur oxides and suspended particulates, Chesterfield County, 1972 and 1973 49
Table A-2 Existing and allowed emissions of particulates and SOX, Chesterfield County 49
Table A-3 AADT and corresponding peak hour CO concentrations in service area, 1975 49
Table A-4 Levels of Ozone and NOz, Chesterfield County, 1974 50
Table A-5 Total Hydrocarbon emissions in Chesterfield County, 1975 50
Table A-6 Present and projected peak one hour CO concentrations in service area 51
Figure A-l Relationship of Hydrocarbon reduction to Oxidant concentration 52
B Water Quality 53
Table B -1 Water quality of Swift Creek, Falling Creek and James River at selected locations 55
Figure B-l SWCB Stream quality monitoring locations 57
Table B-2 Virginia Public Water Supply Standards 56
C A descriptive account of annual events in water supply lakes and reservoirs 59
D Reservoir water quality modeling 63
Table D—1 Sources and sinks of nutrients in reservoirs 65
Table D—2 Nitrogen and Phosphorus concentrations from tarious nutrient sources 65
Table D-3 Brezonik's and Vollenweider's critical nutrient loadingrates 66
Table D-4 Estimated nutrient loadings to the Falling Creek Reservoir 66
Table D-5 Estimated nutrient loadings to the Swift Creek Reservoir 66
Figure D -1 Vollenweider's total phosphorus loading vs. mean depth 4- water residence time (z/tw) relationship . 67
E Letter from Va. SWCB to R. Stuart Royer & Associates concerning Virginia groundwater conditions 69
F Population and wastewater flows 73
Table F-1 Population projections, Chesterfield County portion of service area 75
Table F-2 Subdivisions to be served by Public Sewers, 1975-1980, and the number of housing units in each 75
G Provisions of the Swift Creek Reservoir monitoring and management programs 77
Table G-l Constituents being monitored at Swift Creek Reservoir 79
Figure G—1 Swift Creek Reservoir monitoring locations 81
H Environmental relationships of the Brandermill planned unit development to Swift
Creek Reservoir and associated watershed 83
I Brandermill erosion and sedimentation control 89
J Lake restoration methods 93
K Lake protection and State management statutes 91
L Sludge processing and disposal alternatives 101
AADT
APCB
AQCR
AQMA
ARWA
AWT
CFR
COE
DOT
DSPCA
EIS
ELP
EPA
FWPCA
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Annual Average Daily Traffic
Air Pollution Control Board
Air Quality Control Region
Air Quality Maintenance Area
Appomattox River Water Authority
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Code of Federal Regulations
Corps of Engineers
Department of Transportation
Division of State Planning and Community Affairs
Environmental Impact Statement
Emissions Limitation Plan
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Cont'd.)
GPCD Gallons Per Capita Daily
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEDS National Emission Data System
PCD Planned Community Development
RRPDC Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
SWCB State Water Control Board
UMA Urban Metropolitan Area
VALC Virginia Advisory Legislative Council
VMT Vehicle-Miles of Travel
VPI-SU Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
-------
MAILING LIST
Federal Agencies
Mr. Robert R. Garvey, Jr.
Executive Secretary
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Washington, D. C. 20240
U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk
803 Front St.
Norfolk, VA 23510
Regional Director
Northeast Region
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Federal Building
1421 Cherry Street
Phila., PA. 19102
Sidney R. Caller
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Affairs
Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C. 20230
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, D. C. 20006
EDA
Atlantic Regional Director
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
320 Walnut Street
Phila., PA. 19106
Director
Office of Congressional Affairs
US EPA
Washington, D. C. 20460
Office of Federal Activities
U. S. EPA
Attn: Peter Cook
Washington, D. C. 20460
Office of Land Use
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Director, Office of Public Affairs
US EPA
Washington, D. C. 20460
Director
Water Programs Impact Statement Office
US EPA
Washington, D. C. 20460
Federal Regional Council
4450 W. S. Green Jr. Federal Building
600 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA. 19106
Regional Forester and Area Director
Forest Service
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
6816 Market Street
Upper Darby, PA. 19082
Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
200 W. Grace
Richmond, VA 23220
Regional Director
Public Health Service
DHEW, Region III
POBox 12990
Philadelphia, PA 19108
The Surgeon General
USPHS/DHEW
330 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, D. C. 20201
Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Dept. of Transportation
400 Seventh St. SW
Washington, D. C. 20591
Regional Administrator
USDHUD
Curtis Bldg.
6th and Walnut Streets
Phila., PA. 19106
Attn: Environmental Clearance Off
Regional Coordinator
Northeast Region
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
Rm. 2003
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
Assistant Secretary-Program Policy
Attn: Office of Environmental Project Review
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
Regional Director
National Park Service
U.S. Dept. of Interior
143 S. Third Street
Phila., PA. 19106
Director
Intergovernmental Relations
Office of Economic Opportunity
1200 19th St. NW B-22
Washington, D. C. 20506
The Administrator
Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D. C. 20250
Department of Transportation
Assistant Secretary for Environmental
& Urban Systems
Washington, D. C. 20590
Honorable Harry F. Byrd, Jr.
U.S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
vu
-------
Federal Agencies (Cont'd.)
Honorable William L. Scott
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Honorable W. C. Daniels
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Honorable David E. Satterfield III
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
State Agencies
Appomatox River Water Authority
21300 Chesdin Rd.
Petersburg, VA 23803
Attn: Llewellyn Rose
Bureau of Population and Economic Research
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Mel Burnett
County Administrator, Chesterfield County
Chesterfield Courthouse, VA. 23832
Irvin Horner
Chairman, Chesterfield County Board of
Supervisors
Chesterfield Courthouse, VA 23832
Chesterfield County Planning Commission
E. M. Howard, Chairman
Chesterfield Courthouse, VA 23832
Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
Mr. James F. Mclnteer, Jr.
Assistant Director
4010 W. Broad Street
P.O. Box 11104
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Commission of Outdoor Recreation
Mr. Rob R. Blackmore
Director
803 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Council on the Environment
Susan T. Wilburn
Environmental Impact Statement
Coordinator
903 9th Street Office Building
P.O. Box 790
Richmond, Virginia 23206
Department of Agriculture and Commerce
Dr. B. M. Farmer
Planning & Development
203 Governor Street, Rm 404
P.O. Box 1163
Richmond, Virginia 23209
Department of Conservation and Economic
Development
Mr. A. S. Rachal, Jr.
Executive Assistant
1100 State Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Division of State Planning and Community
Affairs
Ms. Patricia Webb, Planner
Office of Management Assistance
1010 Madison Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Hiram Zigler
Virginia Farm Bureau Federation
200 W. Grace
Richmond, VA 23220
Virginia Dept. of Highways
c/o J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
1401 E. Broad
Richmond, VA 23219
Historic Landmarks Commission
Mr. Robert E. Swisher
Specialist
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Housing Development Authority
Fifth and Franklin St.
Richmond, VA 23219
Marine Resources Commission
Mr. S. M. Rogers
Chief Environmental Engineer
P.O. Box 756
Newport News, Virginia 23607
Piedmont Regional Office
Mrs. La Vern H. Cochran, Chief of Planning
P.O. Box 6616
4010 W. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23230
Richmond-Crater Consortium
Suite 810, 710 Franklin St.
Richmond, VA 23219
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
701 East Franklin St., Suite 810
Richmond, VA 23219
State Corporation Commission
Mr. Ernest M. Jordan, Jr.
Director, Public Utility Division
Blanton Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
State Department of Health
Mr. Oscar H. Adams
Director, Division of Engineering
Madison Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
vni
-------
State Agencies (Cont'd.)
State Air Pollution Control Board
Mr. George M. Hagerman
Director, Operations and Procedures
1106 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Mr. Eugene T. Jensen
Executive Secretary
Virginia State Water Control Board
PO Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
State Water Control Board
Mr. J. L. Hamrick
Director, Environmental Affairs
Bureau of Enforcement
2111 North Hamilton Street
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Mr. Donald L. Wells
Hydraulic Engineer
5th Floor, Life of Virginia Building
P.O. Box 1163
Richmond, Virginia 23209
Honorable David F. Thornton
Virginia Advisory Legislative Council
Land Use Committee
Richmond, VA 23225
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Colonel George Dawes
Assistant Marine Scientist
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062
Virginia Port Authority
Mr. William Craft
Deputy Executive Director
Port Development and Plans
1600 Maritime Tower
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Water Resources Research Institute
225 Norris Hall
UPI&SU
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(24)out of sequence
Mr. Eugene T. Jensen
Executive Secretary
Virginia State Water Control Board
PO Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
Organizations and Individuals
Mr. Ray Ballard
11755 Heathmere Crescent
Midlothian, VA 23113
Mr. R. Thomas Cole
Chairman
Old Dominion Chapter, Sierra Club
7821 Lakeshore Dr.
Richmond, VA 23235
EcolSciences, Inc.
Edward F. Bradley, President
133 Park St., NE
Vienna, VA 22180
Harry Frampton
Brandermill General Manager
P.O. Box 287
Midlothian, VA 23113
Dr. James E. Hackett
Div. of Environmental & Urban Systems
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Institute of Government
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Attn: John G. Mizell, Jr.
Dr. Mahlon Kelly
Brooks Museum
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22905
League of Women Voters
Mrs. Charles H. Elmore
8431 Chelmford Rd.
Bon Air, VA 23235
George Long
Mackey Engineering
415 8th Street
Charlottesville, VA 22905
The Nature Conservancy
Virginia Chapter
P.O. Box 1535
Richmond, VA 23212
Piedmont Regional Council
W. P. Dinsmoor White, Exec. Director
Warrenton, VA 22186
Richmond Audubon Society
William K. Slate, II, President
208 W. Hillcrest Ave.
Richmond, VA 23226
Robious-Huguenot Road League of Civic Associations
2610 Salisburg Rd.
Midlothian, VA 23113
R. Stuart Royer & Associates
P. 0. Box 8687
Richmond, VA 23226
J. K. Timmons & Associates, Inc.
1314 West Main St.
Richmond, VA 23220
-------
Organizations and Individuals (Cont'd.)
Virginia Forests, Inc.
One North Fifth St.
Richmond, VA 23219
Newton V. Colston, Jr.
110 West Walker Avenue
Asheboro, N.C. 27203
Virginia Historical Society
428 N. Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23220
Virginia Society of Ornithology, Inc.
Department of Biology
College of William & Mary
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Virginia Wildlife Federation, Inc.
5608 Waycross Dr.
Alexandria, VA 22310
Mrs. Geri Werdig
c/o Mr. Hunter
26 5th Street N.E.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dr. Bernard R. Woodson, Jr.
Dean, Virginia State College
School of Science and Technology
Petersburg, VA 23803
Zero Population Growth
P. 0. Box 185
Richmond, VA 23202
Attn: Steve Calos
Virginia State Library
llth and Capitol
Richmond, VA 23219
Chesterfield Post Office
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Midlothian Post Office
Midlothian, VA 23113
Bon Air Post Office
Bon Air, VA 23235
Forrest Hill Post Office
Forrest Hill, VA 23225
-------
SUMMARY
Upgrading and Expansion of the Falling Creek STP
Chesterfield County, Virginia
(X) Draft
( ) Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(X) Administrative Action
( ) Legislative Action
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerns the
proposed expansion of the 6 million gallon per day Falling Creek
Wastewater Treatment Facility to 12 MGD and upgrading to
provide advanced wastewater treatment. Federal financial
assistance under P.L. 92-500 has been requested by Chesterfield
County. The plant expansion, in conjunction with a locally-
funded interceptor and collector system, is designed to gradual-
ly eliminate existing septic tanks and place future growth on
public sewers as much as possible. The goal of the County
Sewerage Program is to alleviate potentially detrimental health
effects due to malfunctioning on-lot systems and to protect local
groundwater and surface water supplies in the Service Area.
The Environmental Impact Statement focuses on two issues.
1. The appropriate sewage treatment plant expansion capaci-
ty, and
2. The direct and indirect effects of the applicant's proposed
action on water quality and water supply, particularly
concerning the Swift Creek Reservoir.
The Service Area of the proposed action lies southwest of
Richmond in Central Virginia. Air quality is generally good, es-
pecially in the western section. However, heavy growth in the
eastern section around Richmond has caused several problems
concerning the hydrocarbon-nitrogen dioxide-photochemical ox-
idant interreactions. Chesterfield County has been included in
the Richmond Metropolitan Area Air Quality Maintenance
Area, which is designated for particulates.
Improperly functioning septic tank systems have led to local
degradation of private water supplies and general groundwater
quality. This contamination combined with the increased
development-related pollutants, has resulted in eutrophic con-
ditions within the two County Reservoirs - Falling Creek and
Swift Creek Reservors.
The differences in population growth projections and other
determinants of wastewater flow estimates prompts an
analysis which postulates a high and a low estimate of
wastewater flows over time. A cost comparison among five
selected plant expansion options (6 MGD; 4 MGD followed by 2
MGD; 3 MGD followed by 3 MGD; 2 MGD followed by 4 MGD;
and three increments of 2 MGD) for both the high and low
growth estimates reveals that on a cost basis alone almost all
options can be considered equivalent. The other factors which
therefore determine the proper plant expansion size are: en-
vironmental effects, the wastewater treatment planning
process, engineering aspects, and the consequences and
probabilities of "overdesigning" and "underdesigning" the
plant.
The water quality of Swift Creek Reservoir is discussed. Ap-
propriate models and assumptions are presented which quan-
tify expected conditions in the Service Area. At present the
Reservoir is eutrophic and undergoing in-lake treatment. In ad-
dition to appropriate State and County construction standards,
it is hoped that a Swift Creek Watershed Management Program
is adopted to protect this sensitive area from future develop-
ment.
Minor short-term adverse impacts of the applicant's proposed
action are anticipated during the construction of the facilities
and associated County-financed trunk and collector lines. Ex-
amples are increased siltation of streams, disruption of wildlife
habitat, decreased ambient air quality, and inconvenience to
local residents. These impacts should be minimized through the
enforcement of State and local management practices.
Potential long-term adverse impacts of the applicant's
proposed action affecting surface water and groundwater quali-
ty, sensitive areas (wetlands, floodplains and aquifer recharge
areas), agricultural lands, air quality, biology, and the com-
munity's social and economic environment are discussed.
Adherence to sedimentation and erosion control standards and
other County policies will be essential to mitigate these im-
pacts.
Various alternatives for sludge and effluent disposal, treat-
ment processes and site location are evaluated. Decentralized
alternatives to centralized sewage treatment are discussed. An
environmental and economic analysis of septic tank systems as
a viable long-term decentralized alternative is made, based on
recent research and operational developments. It has been con-
cluded that septic tanks are not a suitable substitute for cen-
tralized service in most of the Service Area.
EPA has decided that the Falling Creek STP should be ex-
panded to 9 MGD at this time.
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (PL 91-190), the Guidelines of the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality (40 CFR, Part 1500) and the EPA Environmental
Review Regulations (40 CFR, Part 6).
The proposed expansion and upgrading of the Falling Creek
Wastewater Treatment Facility from 6 MGD to 12 MGD is a
major component of Chesterfield County's Sewerage Improve-
ment Program, Phase I. Other Phase I facilities for which EPA
has already made Federal Grants are the Proctors Creek treat-
ment plant and associated trunk sewers, the Kingsland Creek
trunk sewer, and the Oldtown Creek trunk sewer. The remain-
ing part of the Program is being funded without Federal
assistance and consists primarily of interceptor sewers in the
Falling Creek Service Area.
This EIS analyses the proposed expansion and upgrading of
the Falling Creek STP and several alternatives and their effects
on the natural and social environment in the Service Area.
After describing the existing natural and man-made en-
vironments in Chapter II, Chapter HI evaluates the potential
direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Because of
the direct relationship between the STP expansion and the Ser-
vice Area, the scope of Chapter III includes both the treatment
plant and the locally-funded interceptors. Chapter IV reviews
the various alternatives which have been considered. For exam-
ple, although the original proposal included an incinerator for
sludge handling and volume reduction, it now appears, as a
result of the analysis in Chapter IV, that the expanded plant
will utilize anaerobic digestion and disposal by landfill.
This EIS focuses on two major issues: the appropriate treat-
ment capacity that EPA should sponsor under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, and the effects on
water quality and public water supplies which may result from
providing sewer service in the Falling Creek Service Area. Ac-
cordingly, a large part of the material is devoted to these issues:
the reader's attention is invited to Sections H.A.5., III.B.,
III.C.l. and IV.D for discussion and analysis of each. Chapter V
attempts to bring together information presented in other sec-
tions of the EIS so that cogent findings on the key issues can be
made.
EPA Region III has received excellent assistance from a
number of people throughout this study. Among these are the
staffs of Chesterfield County's Engineering, Health, and Plan-
ning Departments; the County's environmental and engineering
consultants: EcolSciences, Inc., R. Stuart Royer & Associates,
and J. K. Timmons & Associates; the Richmond Regional Plan-
ning District Commission; State Water Control Board; Sea
Pines, Inc; Carolyn Baker; and Ray Ballard, and Tom Cole of
the Old Dominion Chapter of the Sierra Club. Each contributed
valuable information and insight concerning the proposed pro-
ject and Service Area. Principal EPA staff members involved in
the preparation of this report are Lawrence Teller, project coor-
dinator, Leland Maxwell, land use planner, Robert Pickett, en-
vironmental scientist, Raymond Cyphers, air quality specialist,
and Margie Hanish, secretary.
This Draft EIS is being distributed to solicit comments from
all interested parties. A Final EIS will be prepared and dis-
tributed after EPA has held a public hearing and has had an op-
portunity to consider all comments received.
-------
I. BACKGROUND
A. LOCATION
Chesterfield County is located in east-central Virginia, im-
mediately southwest of Richmond. Figure 1-1 shows the
relationship of the County to the State and to EPA, Region in.
With a land area of 441.6 square miles (1143.7km2), the County
had an estimated population of 116,548 in January, 1975. The
population growth rate is the second highest in Virginia.
B. DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT OF APPLICANT'S
PROPOSED ACTION
Chesterfield County began a sewerage improvement program
in 1962 with the installation of the first sanitary sewers. A
County bond referendum in 1973 raised $18 million to pay for
most of this Phase I sewerage improvement program. This
program has three major goals:
1. to provide public sewarage service to all present and future
County residents, in accordance with approved growth plans;
2. to effectively and efficiently treat wastes generated within
the County; and
3. to comply with the effluent discharge regulations of the
State Water Control Board to maintain and/or enhance receiv-
ing water quality.
The three phases identified to accomplish these goals were
originally scheduled as follows: Phase I, 1972-1977; Phase II,
1977-1987; and Phase III, 1987-2000. At the end of Phase III,
three centralized wastewater treatment plants are to be
operating, serving most or all of the County's residents.
This Environmental Impact Statement focuses on the Falling
Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility, shown in Map 1. It is, at
present, a 6 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) activated sludge
plant serving the northern section of the County. Chesterfield
County has applied for an EPA Construction Grant for the up-
grading and expansion of the plant to 12 MGD. The network of
Phase Itrunk and collector sewers that serves the plant has
been completely financed by the County Bond referendum, and
is shown in Map 3.
Other existing wastewater treatment facilities in the Service
Area of the Falling Creek STP are many on-lot septic tanks and
one small STP. The presence of soils unsuitable for septic tanks
has caused a number of malfunction or need repair, con-
tributing to the present need for the County sewerage improve-
ment program. Upgrading and expansion of the Falling Creek
STP is expected to relieve existing problems and to prevent
similar problems from occurring in the future.
-------
CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY
n so 73 100 its no ITS too
LOCATION OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
IN EPA Region III
FIGURE I-
-------
H. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. NATURAL
1. Climate
Chesterfield County is in a region of generally temperate
climate. Yearly temperatures average 60°F, with monthly
averages ranging from the mid-thirties in January to the mid-
seventies in July.
Precipitation is evenly distributed in the County, averaging
40 inches annually: January is the driest month, with an
average of 3 inches of rain, and July is the wettest month,
averaging 5 to 6 inches. Seasonal figures show monthly
minimums of 1 to 2 inches and maximums of 4 to 12 inches.
Prevailing winds in Chesterfield County are generally from
the south, with a mean annual velocity of 8 to 10 miles per hour.
However, winds exceeding 80 miles per hour accompanying
hurricanes or intense thunderstorms have occurred.
2. Air Quality
The nature of the subject of air quality necessitates that no
smaller geographical area than the entire County be discussed
in most of this section. In general the ambient air quality in
Chesterfield County with respect to sulfur oxides, suspended
particulates and carbon monoxide is satisfactory. Nitrogen
dioxide, although data is very sparse, appears to pose no
problem. Photochemical oxidant (e.g., ozone) and hydrocarbon
levels are high and will be subject to control measures.
a. Sulfur Oxides and Suspended Particulates
Table A-l (Tables identified with a letter are in the indicated
Appendix section.) displays monitoring results for sulfur oxides
and suspended particulates at the Bensley Fire Department.
Comparing the data with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), it is seen that the primary and secondary
standards for sulfur oxides and suspended particulates are not
exceeded.
Another way to look at particulates and SOX is to examine
total emissions from point and area sources, as opposed to a
sampling of ambient air quality. National Emission Data Sys-
tem (NEDS) information, in conjunction with that from the
Virginia Air Pollution Control Board (APCB), indicate that
total emissions in the County for both particulates and SOX
are far less than allowed by the State Implementation Plan,
as shown in Table A-2.
b. Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide levels have not been directly measured, but
estimated by an analysis of the impact of traffic conditions on
localized concentrations. Annual average daily traffic (AADT)
data for nineteen segments of seven major highways in the
County were analyzed. The most heavily traveled segment for
each of the seven highways is tabulated in Table A-3. Deriving
peak hour traffic from AADT and using vehicular emission fac-
tors, Milligan's equations estimate the peak CO concentration.
With a high CO estimate of 8.25 ppm, the NAAQS of 35.0 ppm is
not exceeded.
c. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide
Table A-4 shows that ozone concentrations for the sampling
period consistently exceeded the primary ambient standard.
Since this is the only data currently available, definitive con-
clusions as to the severity of the problem must await further
sampling. It should be noted however, that the AQCR which
contains Chesterfield County (State Capital Intrastate AQCR)
has declared oxidants and particulates as the principal air
pollution problems. Although there are too few daily N02 values
to calculate an annual mean, the sampling period revealed only
one daily value (0.060 ppm) in excess of the annual mean value
(0.05 ppm).
d. Hydrocarbons
Although measurements of ambient hydrocarbon levels are
not available, an analysis of hydrocarbon emissions based on
vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) for the County has been made, as
shown in Table A-5.
Hydrocarbon emissions data are important because of the
relationship between hydrocarbons and oxidants. This
relationship, as estimated in Figure A-l, indicates that as
hydrocarbon levels change, oxidant levels change in the same
direction. Figure A-l shows the percentage reduction in
hydrocarbon emissions necessary to attain National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for photochemical oxidants, for any
given level of such oxidants. For Chesterfield, with the
applicable oxidant reading of 0.149 ppm, the required reduction
would be 46 percent or 7,091 tons per year. This would give an
allowable emission level of 8,325 tons per year (15,416 minus 7,-
091) for hydrocarbons in Chesterfield County. It is obvious that
this level would be very difficult to attain. Even with the 79 per-
cent reduction in mobile source emissions anticipated from im-
plementation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control
Program by 1977, the total emissions would considerably exceed
the standard, due largely to the stationary source output of 12,-
629 tons per year. Thus, VMT reduction alone would be insuf-
ficient to attain oxidant standards. A reduction in present
hydrocarbon emissions from stationary sources and strict con-
trol of future hydrocarbon emissions from stationary sources
will be necessary to achieve oxidant standards.
Other general points concerning air quality include the fact
that the first air pollution alert for the County occurred from
July 9 to July 11, 1973. Ozone concentrations reached a max-
imum of 0.145 ppm at one of the three monitoring stations in
the Richmond area. The principal source of pollutants was
vehicular traffic. No abnormal increase in public health
problems was noted during this period. In general, air quality
in the western part of the County can be assumed to be signifi-
cantly better than that in the eastern, more urbanized part.
3. Topography and Geology
a. Topography
The Falling Creek Service Area is centrally divided by the
Fall Zone into two distinct physiographic provinces. These are
shown in Map 4. The western section, including the Triassic un-
its, is the highly eroded Piedmont plateau. The general terrain
has a southeastern slope with low hills dominating the
landscape. This area has recently undergone a slight uplifting,
thus the rivers are young and narrow with high erosion poten-
tial. Stream density is high with channel slopes averaging three
feet per mile, flowing southeast.
The eastern third of the Service Area lies in the Coastal Plain
Province. The topography of this region is characterized by its
very slight relief. Streams are typically more mature in age
than those of the Piedmont Province. Coastal Plain streams are
slow and meandering, with average bed slopes of only one foot
per mile. Stream density is lower than in the adjacent Piedmont
and is influenced daily by tidal flow up the James River.
The Fall Zone is a transition area dividing the typically hilly
Piedmont plateau from the flatter Coastal Plain. This north-
south striking zone indicates the farthest inland extent of the
ocean's encroachment in recent history. This line determines
the limit of tidal influence on present major river flow.1 The
Fall Zone covers a small geographic area characterized by steep,
narrow streams of high erosion potential with average channel
slopes of ten feet per mile or greater.
b. Geology
The two basic geologic systems of the Falling Creek Service
Area shown in Map 4 correspond to the surficial Piedmont and
Coastal Plain Provinces. Most of the Piedmont Province is un-
derlain by Triassic sedimentary rock of the "Richmond Basin".
In the Fall Zone, the Piedmont strata of crystalline igneous,
metamorphic and sedimentary rocks dip steeply beneath uncon-
solidated superjacent Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments of the
Coastal Plain. Basement rock of the Coastal Plain dips less
steeply seaward and is overlain by marine and erosion-sediment
deposits. These sediment layers reach depths of 400 feet near
-------
the James River. The most prominent sediment strata, with in-
creasing depth, include the Columbia group (Pleistocene), the
Chesapeake group (Miocene), the Pamunkey group (Eocene),
and the Potomac group (lower Cretaceous). Strata beds slope
southeastward at a rate of 25 to 30 feet per mile. Groundwater
capacities, related to geologic strata, are discussed below.
4. Soils
Soils of the Falling Creek Service Area are commonly:
moderately acidic to very acidic, well leached, sandy loam in
texture, and low in organic matter. Approximately 95 soil types
have been identified in the Service Area.2
Generally, soil types correspond to geologic substrata. Soils
of the Coastal Plain Province generally have better building
qualities and bear more groundwater than the neighboring soils
of the Piedmont Province.
5. Hydrology
a. Surface Water - Streams
The Service Area, as shown in Map 2, includes the Falling
Creek drainage basin and a portion of the Swift Creek watersh-
ed north of Pocahontas State Park. Minor tributaries include
the Pocoshock and Pocosham Creek and portions of Kingsland
and Grindall Creeks.
There are no natural lakes in the Service Area. However, two
major manmade reservoirs, discussed in detail below, serve as
public water supplies for Chesterfield County: the Falling Creek
Reservoir and the Swift Creek Reservoir, with a combined sur-
face area of approximately 1,820 acres (7.36km2).
A stream quality monitoring program presently being con-
ducted by the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) in-
cludes Falling Creek, Swift Creek and the James River.
Although sampling was begun in February, 1970, each station
does not monitor all stream characteristics. Thus, the figures in
Table B-l are averages of samples taken over a four year period,
yielding good estimates for current stream water quality.
Following the stream data in Table B-2 are public water
supply standards, enforceable at the raw water intake point,
which are also applicable to designated (i.e., public water sup-
ply) stream segments. Figure B-l shows the location of these
sampling stations.3
High concentrations of iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) are
noted and can be attributed to natural soil and geologic con-
tributions. Mercury (Hg), with one high average for each
stream, cannot be so directly accounted for, although industrial
use and agricultural application are known to be primary
sources of this metal.
Effects of impoundment by the Swift Creek Lake in Pocahon-
tas State Park are evident in increased levels of arsenic (As),
cadmium (Cd), and temperature, and a decrease in D.O.*
The most comprehensive study of the water regime of
Chesterfield County is contained in the James River Basin
Study.5 There are a number of Federal and State laws govern-
ing the use of public water ways, in addition to the Table B-2
standards.6
b. Surface Water - Falling Creek Reservoir
Falling Creek Reservoir, older and smaller than Swift Creek
Reservoir, was built in 1953 with a surface area of 120 acres
(0.486 km2) and a volume of 300 million gallons (1.13 million
m3). The maximum depth of the Reservoir near the dam is ap-
proximately 25 feet (7.6 m), with an average of 7.2 feet (2.3 m).
The 54 square mile (139.9 km2) drainage basin, as shown on
Map 2, includes residential, agricultural, and commercial land
use, as well as open spaces. The sub-basins of Pocoshock and
Pocosham Creeks also drain into Falling Creek. Based on a con-
servative average streamflow of 1.1 cfs (O.OSmVsec) per square
kilometer, the mean inflow to the Reservoir is 59.4 cfs
(1.68mVsec). The flushing rate for this Reservoir is 7.8 days.7
Based on these parameters and nutrient loading, the Falling
Creek Reservoir is presently highly eutrophic.
c. Surface Water - Smft Creek Reservoir
Swift Creek Reservoir, created in 1964, is the largest reser-
voir in Chesterfiled County with a surface area of 1700 acres
(6.88 km2) and a total volume of 5.2 billion gallons (19.68 million
m3). The average depth is 9.4 feet (2.86 m), with a maximum
depth of 28.5 feet (8.69 m). The 65 square mile (168 km1)
drainage basin is primarily wooded, with scattered low-density
housing and sparse agriculture. Based on a mean inflow of 71.5
cfs (2.02mVsec), the flushing rate of the Reservoir is 113 days.
This value, although much larger than the rate for Falling
Creek, is still a very fast flushing rate and is exemplified in
meso-eutrophic conditions now present in the Reservoir.
The water qualify problems facing the two County reservoirs
are inherent to all artificial impoundments, and stem from the
basic differences between free-flowing streams and relatively
stagnant reservoirs. Appendix D discusses reservoir water
quality modeling in general and attempts to estimate the ex-
isting water quality of the reservoirs based on presently
accepted techniques.
d. Groundwater
Groundwater occurs in the Service Area under both water
table and artesian conditions.8 As is the case for soils, the
groundwater hydrology can be divided into two distinct areas
corresponding to the physiographic provinces of the area, the
Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. Map 4 shows existing wells in
the Service Area. Although specific withdrawal rates are un-
determinable, inherent capacities, based on geology, are includ-
ed. The Piedmont Province (including the Triassic geologic
region) and the Fall Zone maintain limited quantities of
groundwater available in granite and metamorphic cracks.
Overlying soil layers may increase local yields to sustain rates
of 10-50 gallons per minute with higher yields possible at
depth.9 These shallow surface wells penetrate the water table at
a depth of approximately 10 to 20 feet below ground level.
The water table system of the Coastal Plain Province is
located in the Pleistocene terrace deposits of sand, silt and clay,
reaching a maximum sustainable yield of 50 gpm. These
Pleistocene deposits average 30 feet in depth and rest on the
Miocene aquiclude10, which separates the surface water table
from the subsurface artesian aquifer" systems.
Although existing data on surface water well quality is scarce
for the Service Area, a County-wide search indicates private
wells may commonly exhibit a high nitrate concentration.
However, none of the available samples approach the State and
Federal Water Quality Standard of 10 mg/1.12 Often the nitrate
contamination is related to improper installation or
maintenance of a nearby septic system.
The subsurface artesian systems are a series of uncon-
solidated sediments starting at the Fall Zone and dipping east,
below the Coastal Plain Pleistocene deposits. These sandy
marine deposits are excellent water bearing aquifers and
provide a major reserve of water for all of Southeastern
Virginia. An Act of the Virginia State Water Control Board
declared Southeastern Virginia (Chesterfield County not in-
cluded) a Critical Groundwater Area on January 27,1975." The
basic purpose of this action was ".. .the adoption of a plan for
management of water resources in Southeastern Virginia."14
6. Biology
Chesterfield County provides natural habitat for a great
diversity of wildlife.15 The Service Area exhibits no special
breeding habitats, nor does it support any rare or endangered
species.16
The Falling Creek Service Area lies within the eastern
temperate deciduous forest biome which covers most of North
America east of the grasslands of the plains states and south of
the Canadian coniferous forest. This biome is subdivided into
several climax and subclimax forest types. The oak-hickory
forest type is present in much of Chesterfield County. The oak-
pine and pine forest represents immature successional stages of
the oak-hickory forest. In the past, the pine forest stage has
been maintained for its commercial value.
The aquatic biota that are known, from fish kills in Falling
Creek, consist of the following fish: large-mouth bass, bluegill,
carp, eel, white sucker, channel catfish, brown bullhead, black
-------
crappie, bowfin, herring, shad and needle nose gar.
7. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
In 1972, the Virginia General Assembly enacted Senate Bill
436, directing the Division of State Planning and Community
Affairs to conduct a study of Virginia's critical environmental
areas. Three areas were defined in Chesterfield County: the
James River, the Appomattox River and the Swift Creek Reser-
voir. The Swift Creek Reservoir, and nearby Otterdale Branch,
is the only designated area totally within the Service Area. This
area, defined as a natural area in the midst of an urbanizing
region, was noted to have significant recreational potential. A
further proposal that the area surrounding the Reservoir be set
aside as a park was made by the Richmond Regional Planning
District Commission (RRPDC). However, neither recommenda-
tion was adopted by the Planning District's local governments.
In light of this present lack of regional protection programs, it
becomes more critical for the County to assume a role as the
primary regulatory body for the Reservoir's protection.
Although not designated by the State as a critical area, the Fall-
ing Creek Reservoir also requires immediate attention, as its
function as a water supply is threatened by dense development
in its watershed.
The Corps of Engineers has prepared floodplain information
on the Pocoshock and Pocosham Creeks (1971), Falling Creek
(1972) and Swift Creek (1974). Sparse development presently ex-
ists on the floodplains, consisting mainly of residential struc-
tures. Geographic delineation of areas which would be inun-
dated by a 100-year flood" is shown in Map 2."
Using criteria developed by the Marine Resource Commis-
sion, it has been determined that tidal wetlands, or marshes, do
not exist in the Service Area."
A location of critically steep slopes (greater than 25 percent)
is included in Map 2. These areas have extremely high erosion
potential and should be protected.
Discussions of all of these topics are included in the discus-
sion of environmental effects (Section III C.) below.
B. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The Falling Creek STP Service Area is part of the expanding
"urban crescent" from Washington, D. C. through Richmond to
the Tidewater area. This crescent follows 1-95 and 1-64 and con-
tains a majority of Virginia's population and economic activity.
Indeed, this urban crescent is considered to be the southern seg-
ment of the "urban megalopolis" which, it is predicted, will ex-
tend from Boston to Norfolk.
Land use in the Service Area is depicted in Map 6. The
northern and eastern sections, which adjoin Richmond, have
already been largely developed; the western section remains
largely forested. Countywide distribution of land use is shown
in Table II-l. Though primarily in the eastern section of the
County, industrial land use has grown more rapidly than any
other category between 1971 and 1973.
Development in the Service Area has been largely single
family residential, although commercial development is oc-
curring along Routes 60 and 360. Agricultural land, centered in
the southern and western parts of the County, occupies a rather
small part of the Service Area. Countywide, both the number of
farms and total farm acreage have decreased during the last
two decades. Hay, corn, and soybeans are the prime products,
while poultry is the principal livestock.
Although the economy of the County is diversified, the main
employment and service centers are Richmond and Petersburg-
Hopewell. The manufacturing sector is growing most rapidly,
and provides approximately 80 percent of the County's in-
dustrial wages. Only 1.4 percent of the civilian work force is
employed in agriculture.
Major recreational facilities are summarized in Table II-2. In
addition to these, a 164-acre park along U.S. Route 60 and
Courthouse Road is being developed by the County to provide
lighted sports areas, picnic facilities and general play areas.
Thirty-five private recreational sites are scattered throughout
the County, amounting to an additional 1,000 acres.
One of the primary transportation corridors in the County is
the north-south corridor between Richmond and Colonial
Heights. Within this corridor are Interstate 95 and Route 1-301.
The Chippenham Parkway forms a boundary around the
southwest part of Richmond. The main east-west routes are
Routes 60 and 360. In January, 1975, the County employed,
through the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission,
a consultant to study the potential for mass transit in the Coun-
TABLE II-l
Distribution of Land Use in Chesterfield County for Years 1971—1973
Total
1971
Acres Percent
1972
Acres Percent
1973
Acres Percent
Residential - Single Family
Residential - Multiple Family
Commercial
Industrial
Public*
Semi-Public
Streets
Utilities
Vacant, Argricultural, Other
14,031
661
750
1,210
11,070
—
6,310
1,826
249,582"
4.9
0.2
0.3
0.4
3.8
—
2.2
0.6
87.6
18,125
760
930
1,360
11,080
2,448
6,370
1,826
242,551
6.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
3.8
0.8
2.2
0.6
85.2
18,740
810
940
2,780
11,140
2,435
6,580
1,826
241,189
6.5
0.3
0.3
0.9
3.8
9.7
2.3
0.6
76.5
285,440
100
285,440
100
285,440
100
"Includes Pocahontas State Park
""Includes Semi-Public land (no figure available for 1971)
-------
TABLE II-2
Major Recreational Facilities in Chesterfield County, Virginia*
Name
Presquile National Wildlife Refuge
Dutch Gap Landing
Pocahontas State Park
Bosher's Dam
Chesterfield County Reservoir
Falling Creek Reservoir
Lake Chesdin
Swift Creek Reservoir
Lakeview Lake
Area in Acres
Control Total Lake Recreational Activities
U.S. Fish & Wildlife 1,329
Service
Va. Game & Inland
Fisheries Commission
Va.Div. of Parks; 7,238
Va. Div. of Forestry
C&O Railroad
Chesterfield County
Chesterfield County
Appomattox River
Water Authority
Chesterfield County
Colonial Heights
Picnicking
Fishing
Boating
181 Fishing, Camping, Picnicking, Boating, Swim-
ming, Hiking, Riding, Forest, Nature Study
425 Fishing, Picnicking, Boating
154 Fishing, Boating
120 Fishing, Boating
3,060 Fishing, Boating
1,700 Fishing, Boating
100 Fishing, Camping, Picnicking, Boating
*From: James River Basin: Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, Volume I. Planning Bulletin 213.
ty. It has been found that the moderate-density development in
the County is not conducive to regularly-scheduled bus routes;
only work trips on an express or semi-express basis along radial
routes to Richmond would be feasible at this time. It appears
that as development intensifies, bus service along important
routes will become feasible, reducing travel and energy costs,
and improving air quality in several areas of the County.
b. Future Land Use
Projections for future land use in the Service Area are shown
on Map 7. A change in residential land use is projected from
predominantly single family to a mixture of single and multi-
family dwellings. This is predicted to occur primarily in the
northern and eastern sections of the County, and will be served
in the northern section by both the proposed Route 288 and the
Powhite Parkway. Distributions of future land uses in the en-
tire County is shown in Table II-3.
Commercial development, primarily clustered shopping
centers, will occur along major highway corridors. Industrial
expansion will occur mainly outside the Service Area. Vacant
and agricultural land will decrease as development takes place.
TABLE II-3
Distribution of Future Land Use in Chesterfield County1
Residential
Single Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Industrial
Public & Semi-Public2
Streets
Utilities
Total Developed Land
Other
Total Land Available
1975
20,500
930
1,050
2,920
6,420
7,350
5.1224
44,292
241,148
285,440
1980
23,600
1,191
1,440
3,600
8,190
9,850
6,066s
53,937
231,503
285,440
Area in
1985
25,000
1,580
1,880
4,270
9,800
13,140
7,0214
62,691
222,749
285,440
Acres
1990
29,300
2,040
2,400
4,860
11,400
17,160
7,976s
75,136
210,304
285,440
1995
33,700
2,600
3,000
5,500
13,100
21,900
8,986s
88,786
196,654
285,440
2000
38,500
3,300
3,500
6,600
15,400
26,400
9,491*
103,191
182,249
285,440
'From: Chesterfield County Planning Department, February 1974
2Does not include Pocahontas State Park
'From: James River Comprehensive Water Quality Management Study, Volume VII-2, Section B.
'Estimated from available data
10
-------
Although only 1.4 percent of the civilian work force is now
employed in agriculture, an annual decline of 2.6 percent in
agricultural jobs is predicted for the present decade.
2. Historic and Archaeological Sites
Although there are presently no historic sites in the Service
Area on the National Register of Historic Places, the Virginia
Historic Landmarks Commission is in the process of preparing
the necessary paperwork for adding one, Traebue's Tavern. The
Tavern is located on Old Midlothian Turnpike (Route 60), and is
shown on Map 5 as site number 24. In addition, a number of
historic sites deemed "worthy of special concern" by the Rich-
mond Regional Planning District Commission are located
within the area. Table II-4 lists these sites, as shown in Map 5.
TABLE II-4
Historic Sites in Chesterfield County
1. Aetna Hill
2. Bellwood Mansion
3. Belmont Manor
4. British Camp Farm
5. Brookbury Farm
6. Chesterfield Railway Bed
7. Clay House
8. Cole's Free School
9. Cole's Tavern
10. Ellet's House
11. Falling Creek Iron
Foundry
12. First Tomahawk Baptist
Church
13. Ft. Darling
14. The Hermitage
15. Melrose
16. Midlothian Mines
17. Montevideo
18. Mt. Hermon Baptist
Church
19. Old Hundred Farm
20. Old Stone Bridge
21. RaileyHill
22. Salisbury
23. Skinquarter
24. Traebue's Tavern
25. Twin Oaks
26. Windy Bend
NOTE: Numbers refer to Map 5.
There is no County policy that actively takes steps to preserve
historic sites. Procedures exist, however, at the County level,
which can place restrictions on land development to buffer the
impact of proposed development on existing development. Such
restrictions would probably be imposed in cases where public
interest in buffering the impact of proposed development on
historic sites is evident. Other than this, either the private sec-
tor or State and Federal action is relied on to identify and
preserve historic places. Virginia accepts easements on land
containing historic sites which are on the National Register,
thus allowing preservation of the sites. Federal funds are
available for renovation of historic sites which are on the
National Register. In summary, the preservation of historic
places in Chesterfield County can best be assured through ef-
forts initiated by private individuals or groups.
3. Existing Wastewater Disposal Facilities
a. Septic Tanks
Residential developments currently served by septic tanks
are shown in Map 8. Poor performance to date is indicated by
the categories "malfunctions" and "repairs". Malfunctions are
defined as those septic tank problems which have been reported
by the owners, while repairs as those malfunctions which have
been corrected by the County Health Department. Chesterfield
County considers this information an understatement of the
need for sewers, for several reasons:
1) Owners tend to report only the worst problems;
2) Health Department surveys in several problem sub-
divisions have revealed a higher number of failing septic
tanks than had been reported by owners;
3) Many subdivision are too new to have experienced many
failures, although in several years the problems may in-
crease greatly; and
4) Conditions of soil, topography and lot size often make
repairs costly, and sometimes almost impossible.
Despite these facts, no known public health problems, aquifer
contamination, or well contamination from properly con-
structed wells, have occurred in the County.
6. Sewer Service
In 1962 the County began to install a centralized sewerage
system. Within the Service Area are 170 miles of public sewers
and the 6 MGD Falling Creek STP. Map 3 shows the routings
and capacities of both existing and proposed lines. There are
four natural drainage basins which constitute the Service Area:
Pocoshock Creek, Pocosham Creek, Falling Creek and Upper
Swift Creek.
The Pocoshock Creek basin comprises 5,100 acres and con-
tains approximately 5,044 people, all within the County. One
third of the 1,261 housing units are served by public sewers,
although 80 percent of the basin is served by trunk sewers. All
trunk sewers have adequate capacity to accommodate projected
population in the basin.
The Pocosham Creek basin includes 2,003 acres in Chester-
field County and 1,977 acres in Richmond. There are ap-
proximately 4,500 people, and one fourth of the 1,400 housing
units in the basin are served by public sewers. Phase III of the
Sewerage Program will include parallel trunk lines in order to
accommodate the ultimate design density of 12.5 persons per
acre.
The remainder of the Falling Creek basin, (excluding its
tributary Pocoshock and Pocosham basins) occupies ap-
proximately 30,250 acres, of which 930 are located in Richmond.
The County portion of the basin has a population of 29,976; one
half of the 7,494 housing units are served by public sewers.
The Upper Swift Creek basin contains 460 housing units,
none of which is served by public sewers. However, future
development around the Swift Creek Reservoir has 6,284 taps
reserved by contract out of the rated 18,070 for the 6 MGD Fall-
ing Creek Plant. This represents one third of present capacity
and one sixth of the proposed 12 MGD capacity. Ultimate
development in the basin is projected to need 100 miles of trunk
sewers and a wastewater flow of up to 50 MGD. A force main
extending from the Bailey Bridge Pump Station to the gravity
line at Genito Road will convey the wastewater flows into the
Falling Creek basin, and eventually to the Falling Creek Plant.
c. Private Sewage Treatment Plants
The Midlothian High School has a sewage treatment plant
providing secondary treatment and chlorination. It is the only
such plant in the Service Area.
4. Population and Wastewater Flows
a. Present and Projected Population
Figures through 1974 indicate that the County portion of the
Service Area contains 50,726 persons, assuming 100 percent oc-
cupancy of recorded lots. Figures prior to 1974 are difficult to
estimate for the Service Area. If the Richmond portion of the
Service Area is included (8,881), the total present population is
59,607. As of March, 1975, 23,281 persons in the County portion
are being served by public sewers, and 27,445 by septic tanks.
Because all persons in the Richmond portion are served by
public sewers, the total Service Area population served is 32,-
162. The annual growth rate of 5.8 percent expected by the
County, and the lower rates expected by the State DSPCA,
result in the two population projections tabulated for the Coun-
ty portion of the Service Area in Table F—1 and shown in
Figure II-2. The 5.8 percent rate represents the average annual
County growth from 1950 to 1970. Growth since 1970 has
averaged a higher rate, due to general suburban growth trends
and some population exodus from Richmond. However, due to
the risks of projecting the short-term higher rate into the
future, the 20-year average has been chosen. Section III—B
below relates these two population projections to annual in-
creases in wastewater flowing to the Falling Creek STP.
b. Wastewater Flows
The present flow to the Falling Creek STP averages 3.37
MGD. Table 11-11 lists components of this flow.
Future projections of flows are shown in Tables III—9 and
III-10 and in Figure III-5. The County's projections are based
on a constant 5.8 percent growth rate and a two-stage schedule
for connecting existing development: from 1975 to 1980, ap-
11
-------
o
c
3)
m
i
ro
2 I 0,000-
200,000-
I 90,000-
I 80,000-
I 70,000-
160,000'
SOURCES: I. County 5.8% annual rote applied by
E.P.A. to bass population of 50,726
2. County 5.8% annual rate applied by
E.P.A. to base population of 50,726,
through 1979. From 1980-1999,
State estimated rates for County
applied.
'92 I '93 I '94 I '95 I '96 I '97 I '98 I '99 I 2000
R
ESTIMATED TOTAL POPULATION OF
FALLING CREEK SERVICE AREA
-------
TABLE II-5
Flows to Falling Creek STP, October, 1974
Water Consumption by Users of Public Sewers
in the Service Area 2.5 MGD
Infiltration (500 gallons per inch-mile X 1715.9
inch-miles) 0.87 MGD
TOTAL 3.37 MGD
Source: County Engineering and Utilities Department
Note: 2.5 MGD is that part of total water consumption that en-
ters the sewer system. Additionally, a schedule of inspection of
sewer lines to determine actual infiltration and inflows has
been prepared and will be implemented in the near future.
proximately 12 percent of lots now served by septic tanks (945
of 7,700 lots,or approximately 3,252 of 27,445 persons) will be
connected to public sewers each year; this schedule would ex-
tend service to 60 percent by 1980. The specific subdivisions to
be connected are listed in Table F-2. In the second stage, the
remaining 40 percent will be connected at a rate of roughly 153
lots, or 540 persons, per year. Assumptions used are a 100
GPCD flow and servicing of all new growth. The results are: 6
MGD reached around February, 1979; and 12 MGD reached ap-
proximately July, 1989. A discussion of these assumptions, and
how they differ from an alternate low-growth set of assump-
tions, is in Section III-B.
5. Water
a. Water Supply
Chesterfield County owns and operates its own water supply
system, presently serving approximately 74,000 residents (64
percent of the County.20 Water for the system is obtained
primarily from the County reservoirs on Falling and Swift
Creeks. These two reservoirs supply over 80 percent of the total
County water demand. Lake Chesdin, operated by the Ap-
pomattox River Water Authority (ARWA) on the Appomattox
River, also supplies water to Chesterfield County, one of
ARWA's members. Groundwater wells provide water to some
of the more remote developments, but the total contribution is
slight, as Table II—6 indicates. Accurate water supply and de-
mand figures for the Service Area alone are not available.
TABLE II-6
Water Use in Chesterfield County
197!t-1975 by Public Source
Withdrawal1 Present
(Million Gal- Treatment
Ions per day) Capacity
Surface Water
Swift Creek Reservoir
Falling Creek Reservoir
Lake Chesdin
3.1-5.3
2.6-2.7
1.7
10
3.0
102
Groundwater3
Wagstaff Circle Well
Physic Hill #1 & #2 Wells
0.043
0.003
TOTAL
7.4-9.7
'Low value is January, 1975 average withdrawal; high value is
July, 1974 average withdrawal.
"Allocated to Chesterfield County.
3James River Basin - Comprehensive Water Resources Plan.)
As public water service in the County is expanded, reliance on
local wells will continue to decline.
The ARWA allocates Lake Chesdin water to Colonial
Heights, Petersburg, Dinwiddie County and Chesterfield Coun-
ty. Although present use by Chesterfield County is only 1.7
MGD,21 the County has rights to purchase up to 10 MGD.
6. Projected Water Demand
County water use averages between 7.4 and 9.7 MGD. With a
daily per capita use of 63 gallons22 and both high and low pop-
ulation growth rates (as explained in Section III-B.), projected
average and peak water demand" for the County through the
year 2000 can be determined.24 Figure II—3 indicates that by
2000, water demand at the 5.8 percent growth rate will be dou-
ble the demand predicted by the lower growth rate.
With present treatment capable of supplying 23.0 MGD to
Chesterfield County, it is apparent that the year 2000 average
daily demand can be met, while peak demand will be met
through 1998 without any further expansion of water treatment
facilities.
Several studies have projected water supply and demand in
the Richmond area.25 The COE study concluded that with
proper planning by the ARWA, the Richmond metropolitan
area, including Chesterfield County, will not experience deficits
within the foreseeable future. Table II-7 contains the major
public water sources for the urban metropolitan area (UMA).
Thus, the Appomattox River will probably be the major water
source for Chesterfield County. With the existing impoundment
capable of supplying 100 MGD, and with the potential to in-
crease this capacity,26 the ARWA has sufficient capacity to
serve its member communities.27
TABLE II-7
Water Supplies for the Richmond UMA
Major
Sources*
James River
Appomattox River
Lake Chesdin
Swift Creek Reservoir
Falling Creek Reservoir
South Anna
Present
Treatment
Capacity
(MGD)
66.0
23.0
24.0
10.0
3.0
1.0
Safe
Yield
(MGD)
168.0
—
100.0
12.0
3.6
1.3
TOTAL
127.0
284.9
*Excluding local public wells (1.0 MGD)
Source: Corps of Engineers, "Northeastern United States Water
Supply Study", 1973.
6. Planning and Selected Land Use Ordinances
a. Federal
One of the important Federal influences on land use in the
Service Area is the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, which
expanded the National Flood Insurance Program. Its land use
significance derives from its requirement that communities in
the Program enact regulations governing land use within the
100-year floodplain, as identified by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Chesterfield County is now
in the second of five phases required for implementation of the
Program. Areas of special flood hazard have been identified by
the Corps of Engineers and HUD (see Map 2), and development
within such areas at the time of identification (but not added
later) has been offered flood insurance. The floodway has not
yet been identified. The County floodplain land use control
measures that have been adopted have met the Program's re-
quirements.
Periodic reviews by the Federal Insurance Administration
will ensure future compliance. In general, County policy dis-
courages any development in the floodplain, and the pressure
for such development in recent years has accordingly declined.
13
-------
SOURCES: EPA ANALYSIS OF
COUNTY AND STATE
DATA.
FOR THE PERIOD 1975-1979,
COUNTY AND STATE
PROJECTIONS ARE THE 3AM£
STATE PROJECTION
--— • COUNTY PROJECTION
YEAR
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
FIGURE 11-3
14
-------
Where floodplain construction is proposed and found to be
necessary, the County's control measures provide that the
potential hazard from the construction is minimized.
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments (FWPCA) defines wetlands in a way which will
expand Federal jurisdiction in wetlands protection." Under the
proposed definition, inland wetlands will be subject to the same
Corps of Engineers permit and EPA review process that tidal
wetlands now are. Adoption of the expanded definition is ex-
pected during the summer of 1975. Until then, Federal authori-
ty does not extend to inland wetlands.
The roles of the Clean Air Act and other sections of the
FWPCA are discussed in the following sections.
b. State
The State Water Control Board's (SWCB) influence on land
use has expanded in recent years. Their regulation of effluent
discharges into surface or underground waters, accomplished
with the advice of the State Department of Health, affects the
locations, amounts and types of development. Also in coopera-
tion with the Department of Health, the SWCB is responsible
for the conservation, protection and utilization of groundwater
resources. Under the Groundwater Act of 1973 (Refer to Section
II.A.S.d.), designation of critical groundwater areas and regula-
tion of groundwater withdrawals both affect land use decisions.
Future work includes developing approaches for the protection
of water supplies and the attenuation of non-point source pollu-
tion (under provisions of the Safe Drinking Act of 1974 and Sec-
tion 208 of the FWPCA respectively).
The Erosion and Sediment Control Law of 1973 resulted in
the promulgation of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Com-
mission. This Handbook provides standards, guidelines and
criteria to control erosion and sedimentation. Chesterfield
County has an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
which is not yet in full compliance with the State standards.29
Erosion control practices in Chesterfield County would be
more successful if the County's regulations complied fully with
the State standards, and if they were regularly enforced.
Ineffective attempts at erosion control exist throughout the
County,30 and may be expected to continue until the State stan-
dards are met and proper enforcement of them by the County
occurs. In this regard, adoption of State standards will provide
citizens with a legal mechanism to hold the County responsible.
The Wetlands Protection Act of 1972 charges the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission with preserving tidal wetlands.
Freshwater wetlands do not receive comparable protection.
However, as mentioned above, revised EPA definition of
wetlands under Section 404 of FWPCA will expand State as
well as federal activity in protecting freshwater wetlands.
Critical environmental areas have been delineated by the
Division of State Planning and Community Affairs (DSPCA).
The Swift Creek Reservoir and nearby Otterdale Branch Park
Site is the only area so designated in the Service Area. The
recently enacted Land Use Tax Act offers reduced taxation for
certain land uses such as agriculture and forest. Although it is
too soon to assess the effects of this Act, it represents the only
State mechanism for preserving agriculture or forest lands
(Chesterfield County has similar taxation legislation, which is
discussed below).
The 1966 Virginia Open-Space Land Act granted authority to
some State agencies and all counties and municipalities to ac-
quire or designate property for use as open space land. The
Scenic Highways and Virginia Byways Act allows for designa-
tion, preservation and appropriate development of scenic roads.
Development of design standards for ensuring adequate capaci-
ty of roads has been done by the Department of Highways. Ad-
ditionally, the Virginia Advisory Legislative Council (VALC),
created by the General Assembly, has formed a Land Use
Policies Study Committee. Its 1974 report, "Land Use Policies",
reviews land use problems and existing programs and
mechanisms affecting land use, and makes recommendations
for their improvement.
The Virginia Air Pollution Control Board (APCB) is responsi-
ble for carrying out several provisions of the Federal Clean Air
Act, as amended. Chesterfield County is in the State Capital In-
trastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) and the Richmond
Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA).31
EPA Guidelines for the development of AQMA programs
suggest that a number of land use and planning measures be
considered in maintaining air quality, such as zoning approvals,
transportation controls, regional development planning, and
emission density zoning. At the present time, the State Air
Pollution Control Board is considering these guidelines for the
Richmond AQMA, and is expected to implement a number
which will affect land use in the Service Area.
c. Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
(RRPDC)
Created by the Virginia Area Development Act of 1968, Plan-
ning District Commissions (PDC) perform planning functions
as well as encourage and assist governmental subdivisions to
plan for the future. Each PDC is required to prepare a com-
prehensive plan; all subsequent RRPDC policies or actions must
be consistent with the plan. Although advisory only, the
RRPDC has issued several plans and reports dealing with
water, sewer, transporation, open space and regional develop-
ment, and agriculture.
The RRPDC in cooperation with the neighboring Crater PDC
has been designated as the Areawide Planning Agency, under
Section 208 of the FWPCA. Under Federal sponsorship, an
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan is being
developed. Guidelines and regulations will be issued relating to
structural and non-structural methods of controlling point and
non-point sources of water pollution.32 Since Chesterfield Coun-
ty will participate in the formulation of the plan and
regulations, additional land use controls in the areas of
agriculture, construction activity and silvaculture may be ex-
pected within the next several years.
d. Chesterfield County
In accordance with Chapter 15 of the Code of Virginia
Chesterfield County has formulated a comprehensive plan, a
zoning ordinance, and a subdivision ordinance. The plan con-
sists of the 1995 General Plan (Map 7). The subdivision
regulations (Chapter 16 of the Chesterfield County Code) are
supplemented by the "Policies and Guidelines for the Prepara-
tion of Subdivision Plans and Site Development Plans", which
deals in detail with drainage, erosion and sedimentation, road
design, curbs and gutters and floodplains. Chapter 20 of the
Code is the Zoning Ordinance; Map 9 depicts present zoning in
Chesterfield County. Other sections of the Code deal with
sanitary regulations regarding sewage disposal.
The treatment of floodplains in the "Policies and
Guidelines... " is particularly significant. The County allows
stream modification (e.g., widening, deepening, realignment,
bed clearing) as a means to reduce increased stream flows and
flooding caused by development. However, such modifications
may lead to other problems, such as destruction of stream
habitat for fish and increased natural erosion and siltation.
Stream modification is merely a treatment of a symptom -
flooding - rather than a cause - improperly controlled develop-
ment. The Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
has indicated opposition "to any stream modification activities
leading to significant environmental damages, except under ex-
ceptional circumstances where an overriding necessity could be
established".33 County policy encouraging retention and con-
trolled release of storm waters will help treat the cause, but the
relative importance of storm water retention, as opposed to
stream modification, will depend on the degree to which the
County chooses between these alternatives.
The fate of inland wetlands, until the proposed Federal
revisions (referred to above) are implemented, rests with the
County. As there is no specific reference to wetlands preserva-
tion in existing County regulations, the discretion of the Plan-
15
-------
ning Commission and the Board of Supervisors is of central im-
portance. When Federal jurisdiction is realized, the County will
continue to play a role in such preservation.
The County has recently enacted a land use tax ordinance
which permits land used for agriculture, forest, or open space to
be appraised for these uses rather than at actual market value.
This ordinance is one of the few mechanisms available to the
County government for preserving land in a non-developed
state.
CHAPTER II - FOOTNOTES
1. Since navigation was impossible beyond this point, it was
common for towns such as Richmond and Petersburg to form
along the major rivers below the rapids of the Fall Line.
2. A complete listing of Chesterfield County soils is found in
Soils of Chesterfield County, a 1970 publication by the
Agronomy Department of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University and Chesterfield County, in cooperation
with the Soil Conservation Service.
3. For reference, the confluence of Falling Creek with the
James River is at mile 102.5 and the outfall of the Richmond
STP is at mile 108.2. This STP, currently at a 55 MGD capacity,
is the subject of an EPA Step 1 Facilities Planning Grant
application.
4. A more detailed discussion of the effects of impoundments
on water quality is given in Appendix C.
5. The James River Comprehensive Water Quality Manage-
ment Study was initiated by the Virginia State Water Control
Board. Section 3 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, authorized EPA to be a co-participant. Thus, the
study has become known as the "3(c) Study". The purpose of the
"3(c) Study" is to develop and implement a program to manage
the water resources of the lower James River Basin.
6. Federal legislation: Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, Water Quality Act
of 1956, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1970, Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
State legislation: Virginia Environmental Quality Act,
Scenic Rivers Act, Critical Environmental Areas, State Water
Control Law, State WCB/Division of Mineral Resources,
Virginia Wetlands Act.
7. By dividing the reservoir's volume by the inflow (assumed
equivalent to outflow), a parameter called the hydraulic
flushing rate is determined which indicates the time incoming
nutrients will remain in the reservoir before being flushed from
the reservoir outlet.
8. Deep subsurface water under high pressure from the higher
elevation of its surface outcrop.
9. James River Basin Study, Volume VII-4, Part B, October,
1972.
10. An aquiclude is an underground layer of impermeable rock,
restricting water transport.
11. An aquifer is an underground layer of permeable rock con-
taining water.
12. 10 mg/1 has been set to insure public health on the basis of
adverse physiological effects on infants and poor removal ef-
ficiency from standard water treatment processes. (Water
Quality Criteria 1972 EPA-R3-73-033, March, 1973).
13. Section 62.1-44.95(a) of the Groundwater Act of 1973,
Chapter 3.4 of the Code of Virginia (1950). This declaration was
based on the allegations that: 1) The Southeastern Virginia
Groundwater Advisory Committee found that groundwater
withdrawals exceeded the recharge rate. 2) Many existing wells
in Southampton County have been lost or have required
reconstruction due to lowering of the water table. 3) The loss
and reconstruction of wells was having a serious economic
effect on the citizens of Southampton County. 4) The former
Division of Water Resources had recommended the adoption of
a plan for management of water resources in Southeastern
Virginia.
The included area consists of the counties of Prince George,
Sussex, Southampton, Surry and Isle of Wight together with all
towns included within their boundaries and the cities of Suf-
folk, Portsmouth, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach,
Hopewell and Franklin.
14. The initial program will include: 1) Monitoring of water
levels and quality. 2) Monitoring the salt-water interface. 3)
Establishment of a permit system for industrial users of
greater than 50,000 gpd.
15. Detailed descriptions of local topography and wildlife
habitats can be found in the Environmental Assessment of
Chesterfield County.
16. A detailed listing of wildlife in this region is available from
A Checklist of Virginia's Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and
Amphibians, 1959, Virginia Commission of Game and Inland
Fisheries.
17. A 100-year flood is a flood having an average frequency of
occurrence in the order of once in 100 years.
18. More detailed descriptions of the above mentioned
floodplain studies can be obtained from the Norfolk District,
Corps of Engineers.
19. Refer to Section II.B.6.a. for discussion of floodplains and
wetlands.
20. As of February, 1975, based on 24,583 units served.
21. Average daily consumption for 1974.
22. Summary Report, by Chesterfield County, October 30,1974.
23. Peak demand is defined as 160% of the average flow.
24. Assuming County water service will be provided to 100% of
the County residents.
25. Corps of Engineers, "Northeastern United States Water
Supply Study," 1973; Richmond Regional PDC, "Richmond
Regional Water Plan," 1970; Virginia SWCB, "3(c) Study," VII-
5,1972; and Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, "James River
Basin Report," 1974.
26. Development above the dam is being restricted to preserve
the option of building a second impoundment in the future
(Genito Reservoir).
27. A feasibility study is being done by Henningson, Durham &
Richardson, "Environmental Impact Assessment: Preliminary
Report, Potential Water Supply Study for Southeastern Water
Authority of Virginia."
28. 40 CFR Part 230, May 6, 1975.
29. The schedule set by the 1973 Law gives the County until
July 1,1975 to comply; progress has been made toward this end.
If this deadline is not met, the James River Soil and Water
Conservation District will be charged with assuring compliance.
If compliance is not achieved by January 1,1976, the State Soil
and Water Conservation Commission will assume responsibili-
ty.
30. Several members of the local Sierra Club have stated that
additional enforcement staff are needed, especially during the
period of extensive sewer and residential development. Ad-
ditionally, observations by EPA personnel and discussions with
State officials have confirmed the need for better erosion con-
trol.
31. An AQCR is an intra- or interstate area designated under
Section 107 of the Clean Air Act for the purpose of carrying out
State Implementation Plans for achieving the National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards throughout each state.
An AQMA is an area which has been designated as not capable
of meeting one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards by 1977.
32. A non-point source of water pollution is one which does not
flow from a pipe. They are therefore more difficult to control.
Examples are urban and agricultural runoff.
33. Raymond Corning, "Channelization: Shortcut to Nowhere"
in Virginia Wildlife, February, 1975.
16
-------
III. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. DETAILED DESCRIPTION
In 1963, Chesterfield County constructed a 3MGD primary
sewage treatment facility at the confluence of Falling and Grin-
dall Creeks. Expansion and upgrading to 6 MGD with secondary
treatment by activated sludge was completed in 1971.
As proposed in Chesterfield County's Phase I program and
shown in Figure III-4, the proposed project consists of an expan-
sion of plant capacity from 6 to 12 MGD and an upgrading
beyond secondary treatment efficiency. The degree of treat-
ment for the proposed project has been determined by the
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB), allocating a max-
imum BOD loading from the plant of 1,200 pounds per day to
the James River. To meet this requirement, a BOD removal ef-
ficiency of 95 percent is necessary. A removal of 95 percent
pHosphorus and 99 percent suspended solids will also be ob-
tained in the advanced wastewater treatment.
Table III-8 describes the proposed design criteria for the
Falling Creek STP. The plant will retain the existing conven-
tional activated sludge biological system to achieve secondary
treatment.
TABLE III-8
Design Criteria for Falling Creek Treatment Plant
Design Flow: 12.0 MGD
Type of Plant: Biological (Conventional Activated
Sludge) and Physical/Chemical
Influent Characteristics: BOD=240 mg/1
SS =240 mg/1
PO = 10 mg/1
Primary Settling:
Size of Clarifier - 50 feet dia. X 10 feet s.w.d.
Number of Clarifiers - 8
Surface Settling Rate - 763 gal/ft* /day
Detention Time - 2.5 hours
Weir Overflow Rate - 9500 gal/1 in.ft./day
BOD Removal - 30%
Aeration Basins:
Number of Basins - 4 (Rectangular)
Size of Basin - 164 ft. X 34 ft. X 15 ft. s.w.d.
Type of aeration - diffusers
Detention Time (without return sludge) - 5 hours
CFM Air/# BOD removed - 1150
Final Settling:
Size of Clarifier - 96 ft. X 25 ft. X 9 ft. s.w.d.
Number of Clarifiers - 8
Surface Settling Rate - 700 gal/ft2 /day
Detention Time - 2.5 hours
The AWT design will use the following unit processes to
achieve 95 percent BOD and solids reduction.
Chemical Feed of Alum
Reactor Clarifier
Mixed Media Filtration
Chlorine Contact Tank
Sludge Thickeners
Sludge Digestion
Vacuum Filtration
Landfill
In the activated sludge process, waste is biologically stabiliz-
ed in a reactor under aerobic conditions. Air is supplied by
either diffused or mechanical aerators. In the reactor, the
wastewater is brought in contact with an active biological mass
which is capable of assimilating and stabilizing the waste. After
the waste is treated in the reactor, the combination of liquid
and biological mass which results is separated. The liquid por-
tion proceeds to downstream treatment processes. A portion of
the biological mass is returned to the reactor and the remaining
portion is treated via sludge handling processes.
The first step of the advanced wastewater treatment (AWT)
will use alum as a chemical coagulant to provide additional
phosphorus, BOD and suspended solids removal. This will be
followed by mixing and settling using reactor clarifiers.
Further BOD and suspended solids removal will be obtained by
mixed media filtration before final chlorination and discharge.
The point of effluent discharge for both the existing and
proposed facilities is on Grindall Creek, approximately 1,500
feet (457 m) upstream from its confluence with Falling Creek.
From here, effluent will travel an additional 1,300 feet (396 m)
to the James River.
The sludge handling process consists of a gravity thickener
which is the receiving tank for sludge removed from the
primary clarifiers and waste-activated sludge from the
biological system and filter backwash solids. A gravity
thickener resembles a stirred sedimentation basin, but is deeper
and capable of producing a solids concentration of 8 percent or
greater.
At this point, the solids are still unstable with respect to
biological action. The thickened sludge is then anaerobically
digested, which stabilizes the sludge, making it suitable for
landfilling or spreading without the problem of septicity. In
anaerobic digestion, anaerobic organisms break down complex
molecular structures of the solids and release much of the bond-
ed water, while obtaining nutrients and energy from the con-
version of the raw solids into more stable organic and inorganic
solids. In addition, anaerobic sludge digestion reduces the
number of coliform organisms by 99.8 percent in 30 days.
Next, the conditioned sludge will be mechanically dewatered
by vacuum filtration. This combination of sludge handling
processes will produce a final produ c of 30 to 40 percent solids,
a relatively dry cake.
Final sludge disposal will be accomplished by trucking from
the plant to the two presently used County sanitary landfills in
Bon Air and Chester.
B. PLANT CAPACITY ISSUES: GROWTH RATES AND
WASTEWATER FLOWS
The bases for estimating future sewage treatment plant
capacity are the growth rate of the population to be served and
the per capita sewage flow of that population. It is not possible
to predict with certainty either of these figures. Instead, sets of
assumptions which yield a range of projections have been made.
Table III-9 lists these two sets of assumptions. It follows from
TABLE 7/7-5
Assumptions Concerning Wastewater Flows, High and Low
Estimates
High Estimate
1. Constant annual growth rate of 5.8 percent, all serviced.
2. Service Area population in 1975 is 50,726.
3. Per Capita Sewage Flow is 100 gallons per day, in accor-
dance with suggested State guidelines.
Low Estimate
1. Varying annual growth rate, all serviced:
1975-1979 5.8 percent 1990-1994 2.1 percent
1980-1984 2.7 percent 1995-1999 2.0 percent
1985-1989 2.6 percent
The rates from 1980-1999 were provided by the Virginia
Division of State Planning & Community Affairs.
2. Service Area population in 1975 is 43,117 (assumes 85 per-
cent of the recorded lots are occupied).
3. Per Capita Sewage Flow is 80 gallons per day.*
Water consumption (from County) 63 gal/day
Commercial and school (from County, approximately
13 percent of residential) 8.1
Infiltration (based on new standard as 20
percent of old standard) 5.4
*EPA analysis based on actual rather than general values.
17
-------
INFLUENT
1
ul
>•
s
o
OC
U_
K
Ul
1-
— .
EFFLUENT
TREATMENT
L
•\ SLUDGE
A TREATMENT
FINAL DISPOSAL
EXISTING
FACILITIES
PROPOSED AWT
FACILITIES
ALUM
ADDITION
DISCHARGE
TO
GRINDALL CREEK
FALLING CREEK SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING and PROPOSED PROCESSES
FIGURE III-4
18
-------
these that the proposed design capacity of 12 MGD would be
reached in different years, depending on the choice of high or
low assumptions.
Tables 111-10 and III-ll below show the high and low es-
timates of annual increments of the Service Area population
and wastewater flows. Both estimates include the same annual
increment of existing (i.e., 1975) population that will be con-
nected to the system, derived from the County plan for ser-
vicing existing needs. Both also assume that there will be no in-
crease in the flows from Richmond, The additional assumptions
for the high estimate of wastewater flow are shown in Table III-
9.
The differences between the high and low estimates for "new
population growth added" are thus the result of different
growth rates and different population bases. The differences in
"total flow added" are due to the different per capita sewage
flow figures applied to different "total population added"
figures. "Cumulative total flow" shows the total flows expected
by the end of each year. Figure III-5 is a graphic representation
of these last columns.
TABLE 111-10
Annual and Cumulative Changes in Service Area Population Being Served And Wastewater Flows, Using High Growth Estimates
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
"1975" Population
Connected
toSTP1
3252
3252
3252
3252
3252
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
New Population
Growth
Connected
toSTP
2942
3112
3293
3484
3686
3900
4126
4365
4618
4886
5170
5469
5787
6122
6477
Total Additional
Population
Connected
toSTP
6194
6364
6545
6736
6938
4440
4666
4905
5158
5426
5710
6009
6327
6662
7017
Total Additional
Flow
(MGD)2
0.62
0.64
0.65
0.67
0.69
0.44
0.47
0.49
0.52
0.54
0.57
0.60
0.63
0.67
0.70
Cumulative
Flow
(MGD)
3.99
4.63
5.28
5.95
6.64
7.08
7.55
8.04
8.56
9.10
9.67
10.27
10.90
11.57
12.27
1. Population that exists in 1975 but which has not yet been
contributing flow to public treatment facilities.
2. Total Flow Added - (Total Population Added) (100)
TABLE III-ll
Annual and Cumulative Changes in Service Area Population Being Served and Wastewater Flows, Using Low Growth Estimate
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
"1975" Population
Connected
toSTP
3252
3252
3252
3252
3252
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
New Population
Growth
Connected
toSTP
2501
2646
2799
2962
3133
1543
1585
1628
1672
1717
1698
1742
1787
1834
1881
1559
1592
1625
1659
1694
1647
1680
1714
1748
1783
Total Additional
Population
Connected
toSTP
5753
5898
6051
6214
6385
2083
2125
2168
2212
2257
2238
2282
2327
2374
2421
2099
2132
2165
2199
2234
2187
2220
2254
2288
2323
Total Additional
Flow
(MGD)2
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.50
0.51
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
Cumulative
Flow
(MGD)
3.83
4.30
4.78
5.28
5.79
5.96
6.13
6.30
6.48
6.66
6.84
7.02
7.21
7.40
7.59
7.76
7.93
8.10
8.28
8.46
8.63
8.81
8.99
9.17
9.36
19
-------
PLANT EXPANSION
INCREMENTS (MGOt
2-2-2
2-4
5- 3
4-2
6
S HIGH _
^ ESTIMATE
§5
o uj
2 LOW
« ESTIMATE""1
YEAR
LEGEND
i DESIGN ond CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
i 12 MOD FLOW REACHED
o
c
33
f\
ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOWS TO FALLING CREEK STP, BY YEAR,
AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
i
Ol
-------
It can be seen that the following flows will be reached at the
approximate dates shown:
TABLE 111-12
Estimated Dates When Various Flows Are Reached
Flow Reached (MOD)
9
10
12
High Estimate
Feb., 1979
Dec., 1982
Nov., 1984
Aug., 1986
July, 1989
Low Estimate
Mar., 1981
June, 1992
Jan., 1998
July, 2003
Dec., 2013
The implications of these waterwater flow increases for the
STP design and construction process are shown below the graph
in Figure III-5. The time alloted for design and construction
(assumed to be three years) is represented by the heavy lines,
for high and low estimates, and for all selected expansion in-
crements, i.e., 2, 3, 4 and 6 MGD. The space between each line
shows the time between construction completion of any in-
crease and the beginning of design of the next incremental in-
crease. Another way to look at this concept is to examine the
planning period (defined here as that period, in years, beginning
when the expanded plant begins treating flows and ending
when the expanded capacity is completely utilized) for each of
the selected expansion increments with the same high and low
estimates identified above. This is done in Table 111-13.
TABLE 111-13
Planning Period for Selected Expansion Increments,
Low and High Growth Estimates
Plant Expansion (MGD)
Increment Expansion
Planning Period (Yrs.)
High Estimate Low Estimate
2
(each time)
2, then 4
3, then 3*
4, then 2
6**
6to8
8 to 10
10 to 12
6 to 8
8 to 12
6 to 9
9 to 12
6 to 10
10 to 12
6 to 12
3.8
3.7
3.0
3.8
6.7
5.7
4.8
7.5
3.0
10.5
13.5
10.5
10.0
13.5
20.5
19.0
15.0
24.0
10.0
34.0
'Example: Expand initially from 6 to 9 MGD. Under low-
growth assumptions, the 9 MGD capacity would be reached in
19 years; this capacity would be reached in only 5.7 years
under the high-growth assumptions. At this point, the second
expansion from 9 to 12 MGD would be made.
**Note that for all increment sequences, 12 MGD is reached in
10.5 years under the high estimate, and 34 years under the
low estimate.
Factors pertinent to choosing an appropriate planning period
are: a normal planning period for cost-effectiveness analysis is
20 years; and the consequence of an unexpected growth rate
reduction, (i.e., an over-designed plant with excess capacity) is
of greater magnitude under high growth conditions than low.
Shorter planning periods under high growth conditions can thus
reduce the size of this consequence.
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION
1. Hydrology
a. General
The removal of subsurface discharges of private home septic
systems will result in a significant long-term beneficial impact
on groundwater quality. Initial results will be improved water
quality in local domestic wells. In time, a general improvement
of groundwater will be prevalent, ultimately benefiting the
quality of surface waters. Elimination of septic tank discharges
will also prevent the potential contamination of water-
supplying aquifers by transport through faults and cracks in
the subsurface geology.
A negative impact on surface water quality will be the ad-
ditional pollutants resulting from development within the Swift
Creek and Falling Creek watersheds. Augmented by highly
erodable soils in the western Piedmont Province, sedimentation
and erosion could play a substantial role in accelerating the
eutrophication process within the reservoirs. The containment
of non-point source pollution (construction, agricultural and
other unchanneled storm water runoff) must adhere to es-
tablished State and County erosion and sedimentation controls
to minimize the detrimental effect on stream and reservoir
quality.
Swift Creek Reservoir is presently in a state of moderate
eutrophication. As development intensifies in the Reservoir's
drainage area, including the Brandermill planned development,
further deterioration of water quality will occur. Several
monitoring programs have been established to identify present
and future water quality, and to formulate management alter-
natives for the maintenance and protection of the Reservoir.
Falling Creek Reservoir, Gregory's Pond and Swift Creek
Lake will receive increased sediment and nutrient loadings in
varying amounts. Due to its function as a water supply, concern
is directed toward the Falling Creek Reservoir. With increasing
development density in the watershed of a presently highly
eutrophic reservoir, management must consist of both in-lake
treatment and land development controls for future protection.
Gregory's Pond and Swift Creek Lake are primarily
recreational; they also act for minimal flood and sediment con-
trol. Gregory's Pond will receive increased sediment loadings
from upstream development and sewer line construction north
along Falling Creek to the Salisbury subdivision. Swift Creek
Lake, located within Pocahontas State Park, will be affected by
the construction of the Bailey Bridge pump station and sewer
line below the Swift Creek Reservoir. The possibility of
sewerage overflows at the pumping station in wet weather is
remote. However, proper construction practices should
minimize this problem. As the water quality in Swift Creek
Reservoir deteriorates, so will the discharge of water below the
dam, ultimately affecting water quality downstream.
An additional adverse effect of the project will be the in-
creased discharge to Grindall Creek. Although the STP effluent
will cause some local degradation of Falling Creek, the 12 MGD
discharge will not violate water quality standards and should
not exceed the allowable 1,200 pounds BOD loading allocated by
the Virginia SWCB.
All surface waters are protected by County and State
regulations.34 Policies have recently been adopted by the County
establishing regulations for storm water retention, off-site
drainage, floodplain development and site development plans.56
The County should also consider adopting a policy on buffer
zones surrounding streams. Buffer zones are areas of vegeta-
tion, ranging from 50 to 300 feet wide, on either side of the
stream. The vegetation is beneficial for many reasons. First, the
dense root-mat helps hold the soil in place. Second, the foliage
and plant litter filters out sediment from stormwater overland
flow. Vegetation also dissipates the erosive energy from rain-
drops, an important contribution to erosion and sediment con-
trol. Certain reeds and bulrushes have the capability of absor-
bing specific metal and detergent pollutants detrimental to
water quality. Vegetation has advantages over mechanical
stabilization such as adaptability to changing natural situations
and lack of a maintenance requirement. Finally, naturally
vegetated buffer zones provide habitat for wildlife, and allow
increased infiltration of stormwater, thus reducing flooding.
b. Smft Creek Reservoir and Brandermill
1) Sn-ift Creek Reservoir
Swift Creek Reservoir is in an unstable state of eutrophy. The
rate of eutrophication is highly dependent on the morphology of
21
-------
the lake. A large part of the Swift Creek Reservoir is penetrated
by sunlight, the basic requirement for algae productivity. Thus,
even with the beneficially short flushing rate,the Reservoir has
a high potential for accelerated eutrophication. In attempts to
obtain a more specific evaluation of existing conditions, three
programs have been established to monitor water quality in the
Reservoir and its tributaries.36 This is the initial step in ac-
curately projecting future conditions. While these studies are
not completed, a eutrophication model has been constructed us-
ing existing water quality data referenced in Appendix D. While
the primary use of Swift Creek Reservoir is as a water supply,
recreational and open space amenities play an important role in
the Reservoir's usefulness.
Protection of the water supply function of the Reservoir dic-
tates the recreational uses available to the public. At present,
body contact sports and use of internal combustion engines are
prohibited. However, public fishing is permitted on the Genito
and Woolridge Road turn-outs. Although fishing and non-
engine boating are allowed on the Reservoir, permission from
private landowners must be obtained to legally launch any
water craft from the shore or to fish from locations other than
the above mentioned turn-outs.
This is the extent of permitted recreational uses upon, in, or
around the Reservoir, and there are no contemplated changes
affecting recreational uses now or in the near future." Secon-
dary purposes of the Reservoir include flood water storage,
sediment control and downstream water quality control.
Now under construction in the the Nuttree and Swift Creek
drainage basins is Brandermill, a 2,580 acre development, of
which 1,600 acres are located along the southern and eastern
shores of the Swift Creek Reservoir. Because this development
has the potential to significantly impair the present quality of
the Reservoir and its viability as a County water supply, it is im-
portant to determine impacts which might result in the Reser-
voir. A study has been performed by the Eutrophication and
Lake Restoration Branch of the EPA Pacific Northwest En-
vironmental Research Laboratory to review conditions of the
Reservoir and project the influence of the development on water
quality. Although little can be stated regarding future con-
ditions within the Reservoir, it was found that the presently
eutrophic lake would continue to degrade, and that ar.y develop-
ment in the watershed would accelerate the natural rate of
eutrophication.37
A tool used to predict reservoir water quality is the
eutrophication model, used in Appendix D to assess present
Reservoir quality. Discussed in Appendix D-3, it is apparent
that, based on existing information, the effect of the develop-
ment will be to markedly advance the state of eutrophy in the
Reservoir. The increase in Reservoir nutrient and organic
matter accumulation will result in more frequent algal blooms,
causing potential taste and odor problems associated with
anaerobic conditions. The aesthetic value of the Reservoir will
also decline with increasing turbidity and color.
The nutrient loading attributable to the Brandermill develop-
ment can be substantially reduced by comprehensive planning
and construction restrictions. Thus, to understand the existing
role of the development on the quality of the Reservoir, a
description of the development and its significance is presented.
2) Brandermill
Brandermill, a Sea Pines of Virginia, Inc. planned communi-
ty development (PCD), is a long-term, three-phase program to
be constructed over the next twenty-five years. It will encom-
pass 7,000 acres of the Swift Creek and Falling Creek drainage
basin. The first phase, to be completed in the late 1980's, will oc-
cupy 2,580 acres in the Swift Creek watershed and accom-
modate 15,000 to 20,000 persons.
In April of 1974, a four week study was conducted by faculty
members of V.P.I.-S.U., at the request of the Chesterfield Coun-
ty Board of Supervisors, to assess the relationship of the
development to the environmental integrity of the Reservoir
and its watershed.38 A summary of relevant points from this
study are addressed below.
1. Three general land use alternatives are associated with the
watershed. They are:
(1). protected open space;
(2). highly managed developments; or
(3). piecemeal development.
It is concluded that alternative (1), or a combination of (1)
with (2) will not necessarily lead to adverse effects on the con-
cerned area.
2. The necessity of a comprehensive management system,
based on a County land use policy involving the total watershed,
is emphasized as a mandatory tool to maintain the environmen-
tal quality of the area.
3. The impact of Brandermill on both the Reservoir and Nut-
tree Branch (a tributary joining Swift Creek below the Reser-
voir) is directly related to the management program im-
plemented by the developer. This includes monitoring and con-
trolling of sediments, nutrients, pesticides, oils, debris, trash
and other common urban pollutants. Also to be included in-a
comprehensive management program are buffer zones,
drainage system controls, site specific restrictions, storm water
retention and phasing of site development.
In recognition of the sensitivity of the Reservoir area, the
County Planning Commission recommended 37 development
restrictions as conditions to the Brandermill zoning approval.
Unanimously accepted by the Board of Supervisors, the con-
ditions include comprehensive drainage and erosion and sedi-
ment control regulations. Relevant conditions, listed as they
appear in the planning report, include:
"1. The applicant and/or developer will provide an accurate
account of the drainage situation showing existing drainage and
the impact individual tracts, as they are developed, will have on
that tract as well as the surrounding area and water reservoir.
The developer shall submit plans to the County Engineering
Department which will provide for on and off site drainage con-
trol. The plans shall explain the method and show the facilities
to be utilized in the hydraulic engineering of this project. These
plans shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to
the issuance of any building permit or clearing of land. It is to
be understood that the Engineering Department (subject to ap-
proval by the Board of Supervisors) may exert conditions, re-
quirements or measures which it deems necessary to insure
that proper drainage control is provided for and maintained.
The approved drainage plans shall be implemented in whatever
stages or phases are acceptable to the Engineering Department.
"2. For individual tracts as they are developed, the applicant
and/or developer shall submit plans for erosion and sediment
control to the County Engineering Department. Such plans are
to be comprised of vegetative and engineering practices to be
utilized as erosion and sediment control measures for the pro-
ject. Generally such practices shall be used as those outlined in
the "Erosion and Sediment Control Technical Handbook"
published by the James River Soil and Water Conservation
District. However, it is to be understood that additional re-
quirements and measurements may be instituted by the
Engineering Department upon review of the plans. The plans
shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to the
issuance of any building permit. The plan's measures shall be
implemented prior to the clearing of any land, cutting of any
trees, or otherwise disturbance of the parcel's natural state.
"17. Any use whatsoever of the water in Swift Creek Reser-
voir or adjacent to it or within 200 feet of it shall be approved by
all appropriate regulatory agencies including at the County
level, the Engineering and Utilities Department. Such uses
shall include but may not be limited to recreational uses,
grading, clearing, docks, rip-rap along shore, water im-
poundments (other than that now existing), drainage struc-
tures, bulk heads, jetties, etc. The following horizontal setbacks
from the horizontal location of water elevation (U.S.G.S) of the
reservoir shall be established:
a. In all residential tracts, 100 feet to closest structure, 150
22
-------
feet to closest parking area for more than two cars; and
b. In all Open Space/Recreational/Activity Centers and
Village Centers ten feet to closest structure, seventy feet
to closest parking area for more than two cars.
"18. The Planning Commission shall approve any plans for
cut or fill (except for necessary public facilities) or structures
within the 100 year flood plain along any creek. Such approval
shall be based upon characteristics of the creek and the impact
of the cut, fill, or structures upstream and downstream. The
Commission may later delegate the review and approval of such
plans to the Planning Director. The purpose of this restriction is
to protect property improvements and maintain the County's
continued eligibility for Federal Flood Insurance."
Incorporating these conditions, Brandermill has formulated
its management program, which includes sediment retention
basins, diversion channels, restrictive use of environmentally
sensitive areas and various soil protection practices. A general
summary of environmental controls to be incorporated in the
construction is included in this EIS as Appendix I.
The proximity of Brandermill makes it impossible to prevent
degradation of the Reservoir. However, the conclusion reached
from the VPI report, the County's development conditions and
Brandermill's program is that a joint comprehensive manage-
ment program has been established which can minimize the
adverse impacts on the Reservoir.
A large scale project, like Brandermill, will be a major source
of pollutants to the Reservoir. However, in an area faced with
inevitable growth, it is necessary to recognize the major
differences in environmental effects between PCD's and less
controlled development. One notable advantage of PCD's is that
they are constructed by a single organization, and applicable
restrictions will cover a larger area of development; this
minimizes the amount of County supervision of developers.
Referring to the economics of artificial lake development, a
recent report (Kusler, 1971) states:
"Planned unit developments[anaiogous to PCD's] are groups
of dwellings with common rather than separate facilities for
each lot. Traditionally, rows of lots have been laid out along
lakes, each with its own access road, parking area, garage,
yard, beach and dock. In contrast, "cluster developments", a
type of planned unit development, place multi-family units
around common open spaces. Clustering can preserve scenic
beauty by maintenance of open spaces as parks or natural
areas, reducing roads, beaches and docks through shared
facilities, and careful site planning and landscaping. Group
dwellings also facilitate installation of sewer and water
systems.
"Most rural development imposes costs for new public
facilities such as roads, parks, schools, police, firefighting
equipment, libraries, waste disposal sites, and so forth.
Usually local units of government must supply such facilities
to piecemeal, lot-by-lot development.
"In contrast, units of government commonly are empowered
to require subdividers of large tracts to install at their own
expense the roads, sewers, water supply facilities, and
sometimes parks and open spaces needed to service individual
lots. A local unit of government must still supply more police
to cope with weekend vacationers and more firefighters and
equipment to protect new buildings. Although subdividers
often provide internal roads, towns must extend or improve
the external road system. If lots are used year-round, towns
must provide snow removal.
"Should the artificial or natural water body fail to function as
a watersport area due to faulty lake design or maintenance,
towns may face a shrinking tax base, expensive lake
rehabilitation and dam maintenance costs and the task of
providing recreational facilities for thousands of lot owners.
"In addition to monetary costs, all rural lot-by-lot or subdivi-
sion development imposes environmental costs in destruction
of scenic beauty, trees, wildlife, and ecological values. While
artificial lake projects reshape essential valley character, the
impact of large-scale subdivisions for natural shoreland areas
is also serious and the cumulative effect of lot-by-lot develop-
ment over time may be nearly as dramatic. In any context,
pollution problems and destruction in environmental values
may result."
The report concludes with the following comparison between
PCD's and lot-by-lot development:
"While long-term problems of lake development deserve
serious consideration, problems of piecemeal development of
these or other lands, which is the likely alternative, must also
be considered. Continued recreational development of the
rural environment in one form or another seems inevitable, in
light of constitutional restraints upon the regulation of
private property and increasing recreation demands. To con-
trol development, government may need to purchase poten-
tial reservoir sites for park or conservation use in some in-
stances and in others government rather than private
developers may need to construct lakes if shoreland is to re-
main undeveloped."
In summary, results from existing modeling programs and
studies conclude that Swift Creek Reservoir is presently
eutrophic, a condition that will increase at an accelerated rate
due to the construction of Brandermill and other developments.
However, comprehensive monitoring and management,
through a coordinated effort involving various State, County
and local representatives, can assure the optimum protection
from the development. With Brandermill occupying only four
percent of the total watershed, such a management program
will be of minor benefit to the Reservoir unless applied to all
developments in the Swift Creek drainage basin.40 As a
minimum, these programs must include site-specific develop-
ment restrictions, storm water retention, buffer zones, delinea-
tion of environmentally critical areas (including slopes, soils,
floodplains and drainage swales), phased seasonal development
to protect surface vegetation, and minimal removal of natural
vegetation.
c. Falling Creek Reservoir
Falling Creek Reservoir and its drainage basin lie in an area
presently undergoing the second fastest growth rate in the
state. The Reservoir, built in 1953, is highly eutrophic with
seasonal algal blooms and related taste and odor problems.
Since its formation, chemical treatment of copper sulfate
(CuSO<) has been applied to settle out suspended solids. An
aeration system has also been installed and was used
throughout the summer of 1974. It is expected that this system
will continue to be used on a permanent seasonal cycle.
Development of a projected eutrophication model for Falling
Creek has not been done for several reasons. Most basic is that
the Falling Creek Reservoir is presently very eutrophic. These
conditons are acknowledged by the County. The formulation of
a model would only substantiate the present accepted practice
of in-lake treatment, and thus would not contribute any new in-
formation.
With an increase of 16,000 persons (approximately 5,000
houses) in the watershed over the next five years, an increase in
pollution associated with urban growth can be expected.41 This
additional loading to the Reservoir will increase anaerobic con-
ditions in deeper waters with production of odoriferous
manganese, iron and sulfates. Surface waters will support in-
creasingly larger and more frequent algal blooms, with
associated increases in turbidity, taste and odor problems.
The treatment of water from the Falling Creek Filtration
Plant has increased in past years due to the necessary pretreat-
ment processes. Although the cost has been absorbed by the
County in the past, the ultimate costs are paid by the residents
through local taxation. To minimize future treatment costs, it
will be necessary to require stricter compliance with the County
site development plans as well as the existing Virginia Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Handbook42 in dealing with future
development in the watershed.
23
-------
d. Treatment Alternatives for Water Supply Reservoirs
There are several water quality problems associated with
reservoirs. For example, a reduction in stream flow velocity
causes an increase in sediment deposition, thereby decreasing
turbidity. This reduced turbidity, with the extended detention
time, allows for increased biological growth resulting in algal-
associated water quality problems. In a recent survey
(Mackenthun and Kemp, 1970), 21 percent of 785 water supply
managers reported water quality problems in lakes and reser-
voirs due to some form of algae. In an earlier survey (Task
Group Report, 1966), 62 percent of all surface water supplies
had algal-associated problems.
Another common problem associated with impounded waters
is thermal stratification. This process involves warmer surface
water (epilimnion) over-lying a cooler deeper hypolimnion. This
stable condition, caused by the lighter warm waters, prohibits
the circulation of the deeper hypolimnion. In time, the
biological productivity of the restricted heavy waters uses the
available dissolved oxygen, causing anaerobic productions of
iron, manganese and sulfides (Symons, J. M., 1969). The reduc-
tion of the bottom sediments is the initial source of odor and
taste problems in the water. These substances can cause a
serious deterioration of finished water quality in times of heavy
water use and low water levels (when hypolimnionic water
must be used). During the spring and autumn, natural over-
turns of nutrients occur, causing complete reservoir mixing.
If the quality of finished water is to remain high, specialized,
often expensive treatment processes must be used. Although a
detailed discussion of lake restoration processes is beyond the
scope of this EIS, a summary of treatment methods is included
in Appendix J. Appendix K is a listing of Virginia State statutes
authorizing specific lake management controls, and the govern-
ing body responsible for such assistance.
To improve water quality in lakes and reservoirs, many
methods can be implemented which will substantially improve
the quality of the water supply. However, without proper con-
trols at the pollution sources, the result of this action will be
continued reliance on in-lake treatment facilities at increasing
water costs.
The primary goal of water quality management programs is
source control of contaminants by site specific and County ero-
sion and sedimentation control planning. In the immediate
future, development within the reservoir (and lake) watersheds
must be in strict compliance with County regulations in order to
minimize the adverse effects of increased erosion. It is the
obligation of the County to insure that control regulations are
enforced for all developers.
2. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
a. Wetlands
Although no wetlands as defined by the Virginia Wetlands
Act exist in the Service Area, several isolated inland wetland
areas do exist. If these areas are located in a floodplain, County
floodplain policy deters development from them. If these areas
are not located in a floodplain, County site development,
drainage and stormwater regulations apply: storm sewers or
ditching is suggested to dry the areas. The County considers
these wetlands to be a health hazard rather than an amenity.
Expansion of the STP will have no direct effects on these in-
land wetlands, but will treat flows from some development
which destroys them. This secondary effect is not necessarily
adverse. The elimination of a potential health hazard must be
weighed against the preservation of an area capable of
groundwater recharge, floodwater storage, runoff purification
and wildlife habitat in order to determine whether such des-
truction is, on the whole, beneficial or adverse. In any case,
since the number of such wetlands is small, the secondary effect
of the STP expansion on them must be considered very limited.
b. Floodplains
As the STP does not lie within the Falling Creek floodplain,
but rather next to Grindall Creek for which no floodplain has
been delineated, the primary effects of the STP expansion on
the flood conveyance function of the Grindall Creek floodplain
will be negligible. The secondary effect of the STP expansion -
induced development on floodplains throughout the Service
Area - may both increase the flood potential to the development
and impair the conveyance capacity of the floodplains, in-
creasing flooding and flood damage downstream. However, due
to present County policy, as discussed in Section II. B.6.a.,
development in floodplains seems likely to be minimal.
Therefore most future damage will probably be due to develop-
ment already on the floodplains, rather than to new develop-
ment served by the STP. The minimal damages that will occur
from new development will, however, be long term. The re-
quired flood-proofing will mitigate damages to the development
itself. Increased downstream flooding, though probably
minimal if there is limited development, is unavoidable.
c. Agricultural Land13
At the present time, the State and County land use tax acts
are the only explicit mechanisms acting to preserve
agricultural land. Failure to preserve such land may be con-
sidered a long term, relatively irreversible action. Determina-
tion of whether such a failure is adverse or beneficial, and
whether enhancement of long term productivity has been
sacrificed to local short term uses, would depend on the values
placed on agricultural, residential and commercial land uses in
light of local, state and national priorities. However, since the
suitable agricultural land in the Service Area is slight compared
to County areas to the south, and other counties in the Region,
the development induced by the STP expansion will not
significantly affect the overall Region's agricultural produc-
tivity.44
d. Artesian Aquifer Recharge Areas
On January 24, 1975, the Virginia SWCB declared
Southeastern Virginia as a Critical Groundwater Area.45
Groundwater in this area is supplied principally through arte-
sian wells in deep geologic strata beneath superjacent Coastal
Plain deposits. The source of these aquifers surface in eastern
Chesterfield County in outcrops from Route 1 east and in-
cluding the James and Appomattox floodplains.
Concern was expressed as a result of the 1972 James River
3(c) Basin Study that these artesian aquifers were being over-
developed, resulting in groundwater depletion approaching
critical proportions. However, an investigation of past recharge
assumptions has revealed that principal aquifer water recharge
is through vertical leakage, not aquifer outcrops.46
An investigation by EPA was initiated to review the relative
importance of the aquifer outcrop areas. The results indicate
that in order to accurately assess present conditions or to
predict the effects of future actions on aquifer quality, a two-
year study would be required.
The study also concluded that ".. .with proper well field con-
struction and aquifer management, there can be full or total
development without the problems of over-development."
Although protective devices and development procedures
necessary to protect the aquifer water supplies do not presently
exist, the restriction of development on the floodplains (See Sec-
tion II.B.6), representing significant recharge areas, offers
some protection to groundwater recharge.
e. Woodlands
Forested lands are expected to decrease in the future. The
amount of change is indicated roughly by the category "Other"
in Table II-8. State and County tax laws allow for reduced taxa-
tion of forest areas, but it is uncertain what effect they will
have on the rate at which these areas are converted to other
uses. The STP expansion may encourage such land use conver-
sion.
This long term, secondary effect is probably irreversible.
However, considering the vast amount of forest area still pro-
jected to exist in the County by the year 2000, it would appear
that such conversion has minimal effects. Therefore, long term
productivity is also minimally affected.
24
-------
f. Sails
The impacts of the proposed project on the soils of Chester-
field County are two fold: increased soil erosion from intercep-
tor and residential construction, and a reduced number of septic
tanks discharging effluent into the soil. Chesterfield County's
future adherence to the State erosion and sedimentation control
standards will minimize damage from residential construction.
However, as stated in the Erosion Control section of the Coun-
ty's Policies and Guidelines for the Preparation of Subdivision
Plans, "It is the developer's responsibility to make sure he is in
compliance with the [County's] Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance and Policy." The County does not routinely
allocate staff personnel to enforce erosion control: personnel in-
spect suspected violations of standards usually only after a
complaint has been made. If a violation is found, existing Coun-
ty guidelines do not authorize fines but allow denial of the
building permit until the situation is corrected. In the past the
main problems have been the long time elapsing between dis-
covery of a violation and its correction (averaging two to four
weeks), and the fact that the County has no control over erosion
resulting from clearing of land, when no building permit is re-
quired. Under the proposed County guidelines, which will meet
State standards, fines may be imposed from the day of dis-
covery of the violation; the County has control over clearing of
land in the above case; and the developer must raise a bond to
cover the cost of all corrective measures deemed necessary by
the County. However, discovery of violations will still rest
primarily on citizens, with some help from routine inspections
by County personnel. In summary, minimization of soil erosion
from residential development will depend on conscientious ef-
forts by the County and developers and voluntary inspection
and monitoring efforts by citizens, within the context of
somewhat flexible County and State guidelines which allow for
legal action (see II.B.6.).
Interceptor construction is not bound by County or State
standards, and so only those construction specifications im-
posed by the consulting engineer for the County upon his own
activity will prevent erosion. Although some effort seems to
have been made in this regard, citizen observations of erosion at
sites of interceptor construction indicate that the adverse im-
pacts of such construction may still be substantial.
The reduction in the number of septic tanks discharging
effluent into the soil will eliminate localized instances of
saturated and polluted soil. This impact will be beneficial and
long term.
3. Biology
A primary, short-term, adverse impact of the project on the
aquatic biota of the Service Area will result from increased ero-
sion, sediment transport, and deposition during pipeline con-
struction. This impact may be most severe on aquatic
organisms inhabiting lakes and reservoirs receiving substantial
sediment loads, such as in Falling Creek and Swift Creek Reser-
voirs, and Gregory's Pond. The impact can be minimized,
however, by strict enforcement of erosion and sediment control
regulations.
A primary, long-term, beneficial impact upon biota of
tributary streams will be the improvement of water quality
resulting from relief of septic tanks. Reduced effluent loading
of these streams should allow them to return to more natural
states.
A primary, long-term adverse impact upon the biota of the
tidal section of Falling Creek will occur since the quality of the
effluent from the Falling Creek Plant is not improved by mixing
with Grindall Creek prior to reaching Falling Creek.
The effluent BOD of 30 mg/1 may overtax the reaeration
capacity of this reach and produce anoxic conditions.
Addition of chlorine to effluent will have adverse effects upon
both fish and benthie organisms in the reach of Falling Creek
between Grindall Creek and the James River. Both the Virginia
Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries and studies docu-
menting adverse affects of chlorine on biota at effluent concen-
trations as low as 0.002 mg/1" agree on this point. However,
the State Water Control Board and Health Department require
an effluent chlorine residual of no less than 1.0 and no more
than 1.5 mg/1 for purposes of pathogen control. Although study
is underway by the State to find alternatives that will reduce or
eliminate the residual requirement while still assuring protec-
tion of public health, none has yet been found sufficiently
satisfactory to permit revision of the present requirement.
Several factors lend perspective in evaluating the adverse im-
pacts of chlorine. One, since the Falling Creek represents only a
minor migratory passageway for fish (e.g., herring and shad
compared to the James River, overall migratory patterns
should not be significantly affected. Second, the James River,
itself of no better quality than Falling Creek and sometimes
worse, is not adversely affected by flows from Falling Creek in
a significant way. Third, if fish kills occur, the Falling Creek
Plant as well as all others in the area will be examined by the
State for possible chlorine residual reduction. Fourth, commer-
cial shellfishing of the Rangia Clam occurs sufficiently far
downstream from the City of Hopewell to be unaffected by the
Falling Creek Plant. Finally, the residual will be monitored on a
daily basis to ensure that it falls within the prescribed range of
1.0 - 1.5 mg/1.
A secondary, long-term, adverse impact on the aquatic biota
of receiving waters may result from the pollution of ponds and
reservoirs by urban runoff from development. Sediment deriv-
ed from construction activities during development may pre-
sent only a short-term impact, but long-term impacts may
result from increased BOD loadings and organic pollution.
These loadings may significantly reduce oxygen concentrations
in ponds and reservoirs. Also, nutrients entering these im-
poundments from urban areas may increase phytoplankton
production, and the respiration of these organisms and their
degradation will further reduce dissolved oxygen concen-
trations. Oxygen concentrations can conceivably be reduced
below the thresholds required to support many desirable
aquatic organisms. Increased loadings of heavy metals,
pesticides, petroleum products and refuse in urban runoff will
also have an adverse effect upon aquatic life.
Since no endangered or threatened fauna inhabit the Service
Area, the STP will not have significant primary or secondary
effects on them. Non-endangered faunal habitat, however, will
decrease as pipeline construction and residential and commer-
cial development take place. It is possible that some fauna
restricted to stream valley bottomland will disappear in localiz-
ed areas. However, the County is presently protecting wildlife
habitates at Pocahontas State Park, which provides 7,328 acres
of prime wildlife habitat within the County.
Primary impacts on vegetation will be limited to the flora lost
along the pipeline corridors, the pump station site and treat-
ment plant site; this will not be significant. A long term effect
on vegetation along pipeline corridors is the increased likelihood
of growths of Japanese honeysuckle, resulting in the shading
out of grass and the strangling of tree seedlings. Secondary
effects from residential, commercial and transportation
development consist of the loss of some vegetation.
It. Air Quality
Although sewage sludge will not be incinerated, preventing
significant direct impacts on air quality, new development serv-
ed by the expanded STP will affect air quality in the Service
Area. A notable long-term adverse impact of the induced
development will be the additional traffic-related pollution
(primarily CO, NOz, hydrocarbons and particulates) associated
with the improvement of the local highway system. Proposed
roads which will serve the new development include Route 288
(the Richmond circumferential) and the Powhite extension,
along with widening of critical sections of Route 150
(Chippenham Parkway), Route 10, Genito Road, Huguenot
Road and Turner Road.
Sulfur Oxides and Suspended Particulates:
As in the analysis of existing air quality, two types of air
25
-------
quality data, ambient quality and emissions, have been examin-
ed. Table 111-14 projects ambient air quality for Chesterfield in
accordance with the EPA "Rollback Model." It can be seen that
the allowed annual increases are not even approached. In fact,
projected concentrations for 1985 do not reach the levels per-
mitted by the first year deterioration increment, 58.0 PPM for
particulates and 41.6 PPM for SO*.
TABLE III-U
Projected Ambient Paniculate and SOi Levels, Chesterfield County
Pollutant
19741
1977*
Year
19802
19852
20002
Suspended Particulates, annual
geometric mean, ug/m3 48.0 49.9 52.9 57.6 66.9
802 annual arithmetic mean,
ug/m3 26.6 27.7 29.3 31.9 37.0
Notes: 1. "Virginia Air", Virginia Air Pollution Control Board, Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 1975.
2. EPA 450/4/74-013, "Rollback Model".
The second method is in accordance with an earlier EPA
guideline, the Emissions Limitation Plan (ELP), as contained in
EPA's proposed rules for the "Prevention of Significant Air
Quality Deterioration".*8 The ELP allows in Chesterfield Coun-
ty a 20 percent increase in the base year emission rate for par-
ticulates and SOi Comparison of this standard with projections
for both pollutants in Table 111-15 shows that even by the year
2000 the AQCR will still meet these standards.
TABLE 111-15
AQCR Standards and Projections for Particulates and SOi
Pollutant
Total
Particulates
(Point & Area
Sources)
Base Year1
Emission Rate
(Tons/year)
779,666
Allowable
Increase
(ELP)
1.2
Resulting
Standard
(Tons/year)
935,599
1985*
Projection
(Tons/year)
814,625
20002
Projection
(Tons/year)
857,266
S02
1,205,387
1.2
1,446,464
1,235,918
1,273,165
Notes: 1. National Emission Data System, 1975
2. Assumption is that point source emissions will remain constant and that area source
emissions will increase in direct proportion to population.
Furthermore, even though Chesterfield County contains 15
percent of the land area and 16 percent of the population in the
AQCR, it now contributes and will continue to contribute sub-
stantially less than this portion of both pollutants, as shown in
Table 111-16. This analysis of particulates and SOz corroborates
the above: neither pollutant poses a problem for Chesterfield
County through the year 2000.
TABLE III-16
Projected Particulate and SOi Emissions, By Source, Chesterfield County
Pollutant
Particulates
S02
Year
1975
1985
2000
1975
1985
2000
Point Source
Emissions
(Tons/year)
1,644
1,644
1,644
115,156
115,156
115,156
Area Source
Emissions
(Tons/year)
834
1,004
1,399
653
786
1,096
Total
Emissions
(Tons/year)
2,478
2,648
3,043
115,809
115,942
116,252
Percent of
Total AQCR
Projection
0.32
0.33
0.35
9.61
9.38
9.13
Notes: 1. Virginia Air Pollution Control Board, 1975
2. Assumption is that area source emissions will increase in direct proportion to population.
Carbon Monoxide:
Projections to the year 2000 of the localized traffic-induced
concentrations of carbon monoxide on the same highway
segments analyzed for existing concentrations show that the
NAAQS of 35.0 ppm is not approached on any segment (Table
A-6). It should be noted, however, that increased VMT
generated by indirect sources (such as shopping centers) are not
included. Possible localized violations of the standard from
these sources must be examined during the planning for each.
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Projection of future NOz levels is not possible because of in-
sufficient data. Even if this were possible, however, significant
26
-------
deterioration standards have not been set for this pollutant. The
AQCR has been declared Priority I only for particulates and ox-
idants; NO* is not considered to be a principal problem.
Photochemical Oxidants and Hydrocarbons:
As shown in the hydrocarbon section of the existing air quali-
ty discussion (II.A.2.), present levels of hydrocarbons in con-
junction with levels of oxidants pose significant difficulties in
attaining photochemical oxidant standards by 1977. Any in-
creases in mobile or stationary emissions will heighten this
situation. In the absence of a concerted effort to reduce the pre-
sent County hydrocarbon emission rate of 15,416 tons/year to
the allowed 8,325 tons/year, or a change in the standard itself,
the County may be expected to continue to exceed the standard.
The reoccurrence of air pollution alerts is considered probable
in the eastern, urbanized section of the County.
5. Public Health
Installation of a public sewerage system will reduce the
potential health hazard represented by malfunctioning septic
tanks. The possibility of enteric disease and the potential con-
tamination of drinking and groundwater will be reduced. This
beneficial impact is both short and long-term. For a fuller dis-
cussion of the advantages and disadvantages of septic tanks as
opposed to a centralized sewage system, see the relevant parts
of section IV.B.l.a. One short term adverse impact of the actual
construction at the STP will be generation of dust, which will
add to the background level of particulates in the air.
Another effect on public health arises from the County
procedure for determining whether to extend service to an area.
This procedure consists of a survey of the affected residents. If
seventy percent or more desire service, the County will usually
construct the lines. The exception to this general procedure is
the plan devised by the County to extend sewer service to
designated subdivisions within the next five years (1975-1980).
As part of this plan, application has been made under the Hous-
ing and Community Development Act of 1974 to HUD for fun-
ding to install sewage facilities in several existing subdivisions.
All subdivisions in the County's plan are listed in Table F-2.
Comparison of Map 8 and Map 10 shows how the servicing of
these subdivisions increases the amount of existing (1975)
development served by the overall County Sewer Program, Of
all the subdivisions which have reported malfunctioning septic
tanks, only six subdivisions, representing nine malfunctions,
are not included in the County's plan. Since EPA policy
emphasizes meeting existing wastewater disposal needs before
providing for future needs, such a program of service within
five years is an essential condition for the granting of Federal
funds. The remaining existing development unserviced by 1980
will be gradually connected to the system at the County
designated rate discussed and tabulated in Section III.B. (i.e.,
540 persons/year), subject to approval by 70 percent of affected
residents in each area. These two factors are the primary deter-
minants of how the County handles its long term public health
responsibilities in regards to wastewater treatment.
6. Compatibility with the 1995 Land Use Plan
The physical expansion of the STP does not significantly
affect the 1995 Land Use Plan. However, the interceptors carry-
ing flows to the STP have significant effects on the Plan. Even
though these interceptors are being locally funded, their in-
tegral connection with the STP requires that an analysis be
made of their potential effects on the Plant.
Map 11 shows the 1995 Land Use Plan and the interceptor
routes for Phases I, II and III of the County Sewer Program.
The two large striped areas labelled A and B are lands within
the Falling Creek drainage area projected to be vacant or in
agricultural use even in 1995, even though the interceptors
presently traverse these lands. This situation arises because the
1995 Plan was promulgated in October, 1972, when development
seems to have been anticipated to locate more in response to the
existing road patterns and the presence of Swift Creek Reser-
voir than to the planned interceptor routings. Development
along Route 360, especially in the vicinity of Courthouse Road,
together with the Swift Creek Reservoir developments, has
necessitated extension of interceptors through the eastern ex-
panse of vacant/agricultural land, labelled A. Development in
Upper Falling Creek has required extension through the
vacant/agricultural land labelled B. It is possible that the in-
terceptors may result in substantial development of areas A
and B. In such a case, the STP and interceptors will have in-
duced development that otherwise might not have occurred and
which is not anticipated by the Land Use Plan. Such an effect
would be significant, especially if sewer service is extended to
such development instead of to previously developed areas with
existing problems. The effects of this will be heightened if such
development necessitates increased expenditures for other com-
munity services - roads, police and fire protection, schools and
so forth - that have not been planned for.
Several examples exist of development or rezoning that may
have been induced by the presence or planned presence of the
interceptors. These examples can be seen by comparing the 1995
Plan with Interceptors (Map 11) to the Existing Zoning, April
15,1975 (Map 9). Within striped area A (vacant/agricultural ac-
cording to the 1995 Plan), approximately 700 acres have already
been rezoned single family residential. Within striped area B,
approximately 600 acres have been rezoned to single family
residential, 60 to industrial and 45 to commercial.
The most recent example of zoning contrary to the 1995 Plan
is the Hancock rezoning case which occurred in the fall of 1974.
In this case, sixty-four acres located just west of the intersec-
tion of Routes 360 and 621, previously zoned agricultural and
proposed as agricultural on the 1995 General Plan, were rezoned
light industrial (compare Map 7 to Map 9). With part of the
property located on the shoreline of Swift Creek Reservoir, and
all of it within the drainage basin, the property constitutes an
environmentally critical area. Although the Planning staff
recommended denial of the requested rezoning and a change in-
stead to an application for conditional use for planned develop-
ment (a simplified version of the 37 conditions placed on the
Brandermill development), the Board of Supervisors approved
the rezoning to light industrial, with only four minor conditions.
The question therefore arises whether this action will
degrade the water quality of the Reservoir, and whether it is a
precedent for future rezoning applications within the Reservoir
drainage area. The departure of a proposed rezoning from the
1995 General Plan does not appear to affect significantly its
chances for approval. In this situation, therefore, two con-
clusions result. First, the normal regulations governing land
development anywhere in the County (e.g., soil erosion) must be
rigorously enforced, Second, a management program for land
use within the Reservoir drainage area (one is being developed
by Ecol Sciences, Inc.) must be adopted and strictly enforced in
order to prevent undesired degradation of the Reservoir.
This situation underscores a sentiment voiced in the recent
conference on land use issues in Virginia:
".. .most people confuse adoption of a comprehensive plan
with the reality of effective land-use control... Without im-
plementation by selective rezoning and carefully drawn zon-
ing and subdivision ordinances, the adoption of a comprehen-
sive plan has little impact upon undesirable land-use trends.
The hard decisions come after a plan is adopted... No
amount of planning can stop more intensive development
when good roads and sewage disposal facilities are readily
available."49
In the case of Chesterfield, recent rezonings and the fact that
the interceptor trunk lines have been sized to accommodate an
average gross density of 10 persons per acre over every acre of
the STP Service Area are the "hard decisions" which indicate
that land use controls may be ineffective in locating develop-
ment in the areas so designated in the 1995 Plan.
In summary, there exists a limited relationship between the
Land Use Plan and County capital programming and budgeting
for investments such as sewers. The Land Use Plan is a flexible
guide for locating future development; the County does not con-
27
-------
sider itself bound by it. The location of sewers and roads (such
as the proposed Powhite Expressway and Route 288), and
amenities such as the Swift Creek Reservoir, may be expected
to be the primary determinants of development locations in the
future. The ultimate land use pattern thus can be expected to be
more the result of other forces than of explicit land use plan-
ning as done so far by the County Planning staff.
7. Historic and Archaeological Sites
The primary impacts of both the STP and interceptors on
historic sites in the Service Area will be minimal. Traebue's
Tavern (site 24, Map 5) is not near an interceptor. Sites 6, 11,
and 21 are near areas where construction has already occurred,
and sites 11 and 21 have not suffered damage. Site 6, the
Chesterfield Railway Bed, parallels Route 60 and has been
crossed by the sewer system.
The impact of induced development on historic sites is dif-
ficult to predict. It will depend primarily upon the degree to
which the public uses existing mechanisms cited in Section
II.B.2. for preserving such sites. It is a fact that nationwide over
the last several decades, governmental efforts to encourage
historic preservation have not been effective: over one-third of
the 16,000 structures listed on the Historic American Building
Survey (started in 1933) are gone. As John Costonis, Professor
of Law at The University of Illinois, has indicated,"... when all
is said and done, private commitment typically stands as the
sole barrier between preservation and demolition."50
8. Community Environment
Primary, short term effects on the general community en-
vironment of constructing the STP expansion include increased
noise and atmospheric dust. During operation of the expanded
STP, some additional noise will be produced. At all times, the
distance to surrounding residential areas will render the impact
minor. During the daytime, the relatively high ambient noise
level due to nearby highway traffic will further reduce the im-
pact of noise. Secondary effects include the increased noise and
dust of residential and commercial construction, as well as the
noise produced by increased vehicular traffic.
Odors emanating from the STP should be minimal with
proper plant operation. Odors from the pumping station should
have minimal effects because of its remoteness from residential
areas. The beneficial impact of the STP will consist of the
elimination of odors from malfunctioning septic tanks.
Recreation in the community environment will be affected in
several ways. Insofar as the water quality of the tributaries up-
stream of the plant is improved because of the absence of septic
tank effluent discharges, the STP expansion is considered to
have a beneficial effect on fishing and general recreational ac-
tivities. Construction and operation of the STP should have no
direct effect on recreational facilities. On the other hand, two
long-term secondary effects are adverse. Increased develop-
ment may impair the quality of ponds and reservoirs through
sedimentation, siltation, nutrient enrichment and urban
pollutants such as oil and grease; this would decrease their
recreational value as well. Second, development will reduce the
amount of open space which provides wildlife habitat, hunting
area and outdoor recreation area, in addition to its role as a
buffer to intensified human activity.
Scenic impacts of the STP expansion include the slightly in-
creased land area used for the facilities. However, trees border-
ing part of the property will provide some screening effect. The
long term, scenic effect of residential and commercial develop-
ment may be beneficial or adverse depending on each in-
dividual's personal viewpoint.
The areas served by sewers may be expected to be somewhat
more dense than average County densities obtained in the past
when septic tanks were the only means of waste disposal.
Smaller lots and increased numbers of multi-family housing
units may be expected to gradually change the visual character
of the Service Area. If smaller and therefore less expensive lots
lower housing prices or rents, those people of moderate income
may find it easier to find a home in the Service Area. In fact,
low and moderate income housing in the County requires public
sewer service, as it cannot occur with large lot, septic tank
development. If septic tanks only were used, a larger average lot
size would prevail, allowing only those with high incomes to set-
tle in the County. In addition, sewers can accommodate the
same amount of growth with less reduction of farmland, open
space and forest than can septic tanks.
Development at the increased densities allowed by sewers
will increase the feasibility of mass transit. At the present time,
only work trip buses on an express or semi-express basis along
routes radial to Richmond are economically feasible. Increased
use of mass transit will conserve energy and reduce air pollu-
tion.
Increased development will result in more traffic on all Coun-
ty roads, but especially Routes 60, 360 and 150. Since these
routes are heavily traveled at rush hour, an analysis will have
to be made at some point in the future of the need for increasing
capacity. The proposed Powhite Expressway, when constructed,
will absorb some of the traffic. Until completed, however, traf-
fic and its attendent noise, odor and air pollution effects will
continue to increase.
The County disposes of its solid waste at two landfills: Bon
Air and Chester. Based on estimates for the growth in popula-
tion, the increase of solid waste per capita, and increased aid to
the City of Richmond for land disposal areas, the County
predicts that the landfill at Chester will last six to seven more
years and the landfill at Bon Air two to three more years. Plans
have been completed with the City of Richmond and Henrico
County to hire a consultant to study the best way to meet the
needs of the area in the future. A 107 acre tract is available for
purchase now and the County has other landfill areas that can
be used.
9. Economics
A primary impact of the expansion of the STP is the local
share of the cost of the expansion. With a Federal share of 75
percent and no anticipated State share, the remaining 25 per-
cent (roughly $3.4 million) must be raised locally. The cost of
the interceptor and collector sewers represents an additional
burden of $18 million which will be paid by all County residents
and businesses through repayment of bonds. Each resident who
receives sewer service will pay a connection fee of at least $300;
a yearly service charge of approximately $70, depending on the
amount of water used; and an amount for installation of hook-
in sewers that averages $400 but may vary from $250 to $1000.
The total cost of sewers to each house may be compared to the
median family income in the County-$ll,174.
The cost of the interceptors and collectors makes it necessary
for the County to maintain a 5.8 percent rate of growth on
public sewers in order to meet bond obligations using sewer con-
nection fees and service charges. If such sewer revenues are not
sufficient to meet the bond obligations, the Board of Super-
visors has pledged other tax monies. It is also true for the Coun-
ty that the average sewer connection fee and service charges
(user charges) will not pay for the installation of public sewers
after a subdivision is developed. This is due to the fact that such
sewers must be installed in streets already built and must avoid
infrastructure facilities such as water, electricity and telephone
lines already in the ground. As a result, the County must active-
ly pursue the sewering of subdivisions as they are built, in addi-
tion to meeting the needs of existing development, in order to
meet fiscal demands. In fact, the County states that "A great
concern is that development be on public utilities from the
beginning so that when individual wells and/or septic tanks
fail, as they inevitably will, the County will not be saddled with
a large number of such situations to cause the County to be
stretched fiscally to provide and maintain a healthy and safe
environment."50 The question of whether the user charge
system of financing waste treatment induces unnecessary new
growth, while at the same time making more difficult the at-
28
-------
tainment of the stated EPA objective of meeting the
wastewater needs of existing development, is currently under
study by EPA.
Secondary impacts may be discussed from two points of view.
First, centralized sewage treatment is part of a growth pattern
that can in some cases be a vicious circle leading to an excessive
rather than an appropriate growth rate. The cost of sewers may
induce additional new growth so that the user charges are able
to pay for the sewers without becoming exorbitant. New growth
will lead to increased County expenditures for supportive ser-
vices and facilities. Increased expenditures may - and in
Chesterfield, do - lead to demands for an increase in the tax
base (i.e., commercial and industrial development) to pay for
such expenditures. Commercial and industrial development
most often requires sewers and centralized treatment. At this
point the circle is complete. Any step in the pattern may be
cited as logical justification for the next. Therefore, to aovid an
uncontrolled growth spiral, it must be recognized that the solu-
tion to any step in the pattern may become itself a stimulus for
continued growth.
Decisions as to sewering and the amount and location of com-
mercial and high density residential development must be
carefully weighed in light of these conflicting effects. Until such
time as Chesterfield develops a cost-revenue methodology for
assessing the net fiscal impact of growth on the County budget,
as has been done elsewhere," the ultimate effects of continued
growth will remain very difficult to predict with confidence. Sea
Pines of Virginia, Inc., has, as an example, performed such an
analysis for the Brandermill development.
The second perspective for examining the economic impact of
the project is that of the individual citizen. Property taxes have
been rising in the last several years. On the other hand, there
are three factors which might counterbalance this adverse
effect. For one, the benefits from increased County expen-
ditures might be perceived by the individual as being worth the
increased taxes. Increased job opportunities might also be a by-
product of the growth that is causing increasing property taxes.
Finally, expected increases in per capita income53 might com-
pensate for increased County taxes. In summary, the net secon-
dary effect of sewer-supported growth on the economic condi-
tion of the individual citizen, as well as the County budget,
must be considered a matter that would require more study
before any final conclusions could be reached.
10. Natural Resources and Energy Use
A primary effect upon natural resources caused by the STP
expansion is the use of building materials in the construction of
the plant. Materials used during the operation of the STP such
as chlorine, sand, chemicals and fuel constitute an additional
irretrievable commitment. Of greater significance is the use of
natural resources in satisfying demands occassioned by induced
residential and commercial growth. This, however, is difficult
to quantify and is a natural concomitant of growth wherever it
occurs.
Water is a natural resource which can and should be conserv-
ed. Savings in home use are possible through a number of
methods. A study done for the EPA, Demonstration of Waste
Flow Reduction from Households, evaluates several methods.54
The primary effect of the STP expansion on energy will con-
sist of the demand for electricity to run the plant. The electrici-
ty will be supplied by the Virginia Electric Power Company
from its 1,383,000 Kw Chesterfield facility. The secondary
effects - the demand by residential, commercial and transporta-
tion sources for energy - are more difficult to predict.55
Implementation of energy conservation measures will depend
on the individual developer and the building codes under which
he operates. At present, Virginia's Uniform Statewide Building
Code is the final authority. If Federal Housing Administration
financing is involved, its minimum property standards apply, in
addition to State regulations. The Virginia General Assembly is
currently considering the feasibility of setting insulation stan-
dards for the Code. However, until such standards are set, the
potential savings in residential energy use will depend solely on
the present State Code and FHA standards.
The spatial design of development on a large scale affects
energy usage. The Costs of Sprawl51 shows that increased den-
sities of development as well as community planning to increase
compactness of developments both save energy. The saving
derives from decreased residential heating and air conditioning
requirements and decreased automobile use. The increased use
of sewers in Chesterfield provides the potential for achieving
this compactness and increased density of development. At the
present time, the spotty land use pattern (see Map 6) does not
show a concerted effort to attain compactness of development.
However, the 1995 General Plan shows some improvement in
compactness. In addition, increased densities are expected to
prevail in the future with smaller lots and increased multi-
family housing.
CHAPTER III - FOOTNOTES
34. The relevant regulations are: 1) Virginia Erosion &
Sedimentation Control Handbook. 2) Chesterfield County,
Chapter 16 A & B, Erosion and Sedimentation Control. 3)
Proposed Richmond Regional 208 Areawide Planning Agency.
See Section II.B.6 for detailed discussions of these regulations.
35. "Policies and Guidelines for the Preparation of Subdivision
Plans and Site Development Plans for Roads, Drainage, and
Erosion Control", adopted April 23,1975 by Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors.
36. For description of the three programs, see Appendix G. In-
formation and data are being collected and are therefore not
available for inclusion in the Draft EIS. However, nitrogen and
phosphorus loading rates, used in the Appendix D modeling
process, have used EcolSciences" interim values as a data
source.
37. However, the agreement between the County and the
developer of Brandermill reserves to the County the right to
control uses which will be detrimental to the use of the reser-
voir as a water supply.
38. The following is an excerpt from the final report: "With
regard to the present water quality condition of the reservoir,
there is little doubt that it is already eutrophic. It is experien-
cing heavy growths of green and blue-green algae, and will no
doubt become more eutrophic with time. Any development in
the area would accelerate the degradation of the reservoir."
39. The intent of the study was to identify all possible effects of
the development, to provide alternatives to potential negative
impacts, and to further suggest criteria for the implementation
of building restrictions and controls. See Appendix H for the
complete document.
40. In light of the Hancock rezoning case (Section IH.C.6), it is
apparent that presently a comprehensive watershed manage-
ment program has not been formulated.
41. This would include: nutrients and sediments, pesticides,
surfactants and oils.
42. Chesterfield County is now in the process of preparing its
own Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances. See Sec-
tion II.B.6.
43. A July, 1974 report by the RRPDC ("Agricultural Land in
the Richmond Region") states: "The nation's supply of land
suitable for farming is decreasing.
"The local governments of the region are following a land use
policy which promotes low density development. If this trend
continues, particularly in the suburban counties of Chester-
field, Hanover and Henrico, large amounts of agricultural and
forest lands will be devoured through the process of urban
development.
"Based on certain assumptions, the State Department of
Agriculture estimates that if present land development trends
continue in Virginia there will be an inadequate supply of
agricultural land available in the year 2000 to meet public
29
-------
demands for foodstuffs; there will be a deficit of 938,095 acres
of suitable agricultural land."
44. Chesterfield County has approximately 6 percent of the
Region's Class I agricultural land (the best farmland by the Soil
Conservation Service national agricultural capability classifica-
tion, with no limitations), 22 percent of the Region's Class II
land (that with some limitations), and 26 percent of the Class TTT
land (that with limitations that reduce the choice of plants, or
require special conservation practices, or both). The Service
Area, however, has only a minor portion of the County's Class I
land. Most of the prime agricultural land is located in the
southwestern section of the County, outside the Service Area.
The STP and almost all of the interceptor lines are located in
agricultural classifications IV through VII (not well suited for
agriculture). Collectors and hence development occupy or are
planned to occupy much of the remaining land, which is
predominantly Class III with some Class II land.
45. Authorization by "The Groundwater Act of 1973," Chapter
3.4, Title 62.1, 1950 Code of Virginia.
46. See Appendix E. On an area basis, one unit of aquifer out-
crop area will allow water to infiltrate at a rate 30 percent
greater than an equivalent unit of coastal plain sediments.
Thus, consideration has been given to protect these outcrops
from future development. The Richmond Regional Planning
District Commission is currently projecting water supplies and
demands as well as estimating the effets of varied land use
alternatives to determine the effects on groundwater quality
and quantity.
47. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Incorporated, Effects of
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent on Fish: A Review of
Literature (Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies,
University of Maryland, March, 1975), pages 46-62.
48. Originally proposed in 38 F. R. 18986 (July 16, 1973) and
reproposed in 39 F. R. 31000 (August 27, 1974).
49. Horkan, George A., Jr., "Legal and Related Problems in Ex-
isting Land Use Controls," in Land-Use Issues, Proceedings of a
Conference, Marshall and Ashton, eds. (Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia November, 1974), pages 64-65.
50. John J. Costonis, Space Adrift, University of Illinois Press,
1974.
51. Supplemental data from Chesterfield County, May 27,1975.
52. Muller, Thomas and Grace Dawson, The Fiscal Impact of
Residential and Commercial Development: A Case Study, (The
Urban Institute, Washington, D. C., 1972).
Sternlieb, George, Housing Development and Municipal Costs,
(Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey, 1973).
See also Fiscal Impace of Land Development, (Urban Institute,
1975).
53. Environmental Assessment, page 273.
54. Examples of these methods are: 1) Water requirements
for toilet flushing can be substantially reduced by commercially
available devices. Shallow trap toilets reduce flushing water by
25 percent and total home water use by approximately 7 per-
cent, and are "definitely warranted for new homes or necessary
replacements." Toilet insert devices which convert conventional
toilets to a dual cycle operation (one high and one low volume
flush) reduce flushing water by 18 to 26 percent and total home
water use by roughly 3 to 8 percent. Due to their low initial
costs and their ability to affect existing as well as new homes,
these insert devices have special potential. 2) Flow limiting
shower heads have the potential to reduce not only water con-
sumption, but also hot water heating costs. 3) A system which
reuses wash water for toilet flushing and lawn sprinkling
reduces total home water use by 26 percent, or 3 to 4 times as
much as toilet devices. 4) The bathroom flow reduction devices
(#1 and #2) save the homeowner money: when compared with
typical water use rates, the devices cost less than the price of
the water saved. The wash water reuse system costs more than
the price of the water saved, but if the price for treatment of
wastewater by septic tanks in poor soil is added to the price of
water, the reuse system costs less than this combined price of
the water saved.
55. In the case of new residential development, various building
practices largely determine the amount of energy required to
heat and cool a house. Recent studies show that leakage through
cracks and conduction through walls, floors and ceilings ac-
count for approximately 85 percent of all energy losses. Hence
losses can be reduced "through the use of high quality materials
and proper building techniques to reduce leakage;.. .installa-
tion of adequate insulation to restrict conduction losses;
and .. .designing and siting the house in ways which minimize
the negative impact of particular climatic conditions." (See
David Myhra, "Let's Put an End to Energy Waste in Housing,"
in Planning, the ASPO Magazine, Vol. 40, No. 7, August, 1974).
56. The Costs of Sprawl, CEQ, HUD, EPA, April, 1974.
30
-------
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Planning and designing a wastewater treatment system con-
sists of a series of analyses and decisions which successively
determine the area to be served, the capacity required, and the
best way to collect, convey, treat and dispose of the area's
wastes. When comparing alternatives for each of these system
features, the most important criteria are engineering feasibili-
ty, cost-effectiveness, and environmental impact."
The various system elements are interrelated such that the
choice of one limits the possible choice of each of the others.
Thus, for example, once the Service Area and its wastewater
flows are defined, the candidate receiving streams must have
the assimilative capacity and low-flow quantity to accept the
treated effluent. Further, water supply intakes should be suf-
ficiently distant from effluent discharges. The degree of treat-
ment at the plant, and therefore the treatment processes and
land requirements, are then chosen to prepare the effluent for
the stream. There are many other examples of system in-
terdependence involved in wastewater planning and design.
This chapter discusses alternatives from several points of
view. Within the section on centralized alternatives are dis-
cussions of plant location, treatment processes, sludge process-
ing and effluent disposal. Decentralized alternatives considered
include various on-lot systems and package plants. Finally,
because this environmental impact statement focuses on the
amount of treatment expansion and the timing of the expansion
of the Falling Creek STP, this chapter concludes with a cost
analysis of the several feasible expansion increments identified
in Section III.B. This information and the environmental im-
pact data of Chapter III has been developed to help EPA decide
whether the plant should be expanded immediately to 12 MGD -
as proposed by Chesterfield County - or whether a modular ex-
pansion over many years would be more cost-effective and/or
environmentally acceptable.
A. CENTRALIZED
A centralized approach to wastewater collection and treat-
ment in the design Service Area consists of an extensive network
of collector and trunk sewers conveying wastewater to a single
treatment facility within o'ne or adjoining drainage areas. Fre-
quently, pump stations and force mains are components of a
system where topography prevents the use of gravity flow.58
1. Location of Treatment Plant
In evaluating alternative locations for a plant to serve the
Falling Creek Service Area, it is important to consider that loca-
tion of new facilities at the existing 6 MGD facility will be more
cost-effective than at a new site which cannot utilize what
already exists.
Because the proposed project is a component of the County's
Phase I Sewerage Improvement Program, a single regional
treatment facility to serve most of Chesterfield County was
considered. Such a plant would be required to treat ap-
proximately 15 MGD by the end of Phase I (1980), with a single
discharge to the James River. While there are advantages in-
herent in consolidating all treatment at one location (e.g., less
land and operating personnel required), the capital and
operating costs associated with the greatly expanded con-
veyance and pumping facilities and the assimilative re-
quirements of a single point discharge are fundamental disad-
vantages which are not easily overcome. In the absence of any
significant advantages to this approach, a site more consistent
with natural drainage patterns should be selected.
An examination of the fifteen drainage basins in Chesterdield
County59 shows that the four basins in the proposed Falling
Creek Service Area (i.e., Falling, Pocoshock, Pocosham and up-
per Swift) contain about half of the County's housing units. Ap-
proximately 60 percent of these units are not served by public
sewerage. These drainage basins can be served by treatment
plants in various locations, although a location at the existing
Falling Creek STP site maximizes both the use of gravity flow
and use of existing facilities. Thus, again, in the absence of con-
travening information - economic, engineering, or environmen-
tal - there are no benefits to be derived by serving this proposed
service area at a new site.60
2. Treatment Processes
To satisfy design requirements for an EPA construction
grant, a proposed treatment facility must provide at least
secondary treatmelt" and produce an effluent which conforms
with the water quality standards of the receiving stream." In
most cases, there are many different treatment systems which
are capable of meeting these requirements; the design engineer
must choose the sequence of unit processes which most
economically produces an accpetable effluent and sludge, con-
sistent with land availability and demands of the components of
the entire treatment process.
Table IV—17 lists the generally available treatment processes
and the corresponding achievable removal efficiencies of BODs,
suspended solids, and phosphates.63 The proposed process - ac-
tivated sludge with chemical precipitation and mixed media
filtration - is capable of achieving the effluent limitations re-
quired by the State Water Control Board.
3. Sludge Processing
Sewage sludge is the relatively concentrated, residual organic
and inorganic solids and water that is systematically separated
from the wastewater during the treatment processes. As is the
case for wastewater treatment, there are several alternative
systems in use for the processing of sludge. The processes
presently employed at the Falling Creek STP are anaerobic
digestion, chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration and landfill
disposal.
Five steps are involved in most sludge processing systems:
• Stabilization: reduction of volatile solids, destruction of
pathogens, and conversion of some material to other forms.
• Conditioning and Recycling: preparation of the total sludge
and water complex in order to reduce costs of dewatering.
• Dewatering: reduces thermal requirements if incineration is
used or volume if incineration is not used.
• Reduction: reduces area required for ultimate disposal,
reduces transporation requirements, prepares sludge residual
for peuse on land, and sometimes recovers thermal energy for
in-plant use.
• Disposal: ultimate depositing or application of the residual
material on land or water.
Table FV-18 identifies the various unit processes available
for each of the sludge processing steps.64 From the many com-
binations possible, five alternative systems have been con-
sidered:
Alternate I Anaerobic digestion, chemical condi-
(base case) tioning, vacuum filtration, land fill.
Alternate II Anaerobic digestion, chemical condi-
tioning, vacuum filtration, dry land disposal.
Alternate III Anaerobic digestion, liquid land disposal.
Alternate IV Heat treatment, vaccum filtration, inci-
neration Land Fill
Alternate V Chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration,
composting, dry land disposal.
Details of each of these alternatives as well as their costs,
energy consumption, and environmental impact are discussed
in Appendix L.65 This information is summarized in Table
IV—19, which also lists the major advantages and disadvan-
tages of each.
It is recommended that sludge treatment facilities at the
Falling Creek STP be designed in accordance with Alternate I -
anaerobic digestion, chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration
and landfill. This recommendation is based on lower costs,
potential energy production and flexibility of disposal, offset by
only a minor increase in consumptive land use. It is further
31
-------
TABLE IV-17
Maximum Sustainable Sewage Treatment Efficiencies
(Percent Removal)
Process
BOD5
Suspended
Solids
P04
Primary Sedimentation
Conventional
Activated Sludge
35(1)
85-92
(depending upon design (3)
50(2)
85-92
P
(2) Removal of up to 60% is possible.
(3) For units designed in accordance with the "Ten State Standards," a value of
TABLE IV-18
Available Sludge Unit Processes
removal can be used.
2-5
(use 3)
10-30
Contact Stabilization
Extended Aeration
Aerated Lagoon
(with final settling)
Trickling Filter
Secondary Coagulation
and Filtration
Stabilization Pond
Polishing Pond
Septic Tank-Sand
Filter System
(1) Based on Area Overflow
85-90
(use 87)
85-90
(use 87)
87
(50-80 without settling)
82-90
(use 87)
94
70-90
(use 80)
3 Additional
90-95
rate of 600 GPD,
85-90
(use 87)
85-90
(use 87)
85
80-88
(use 85)
99
70-90
(use 80)
3 Additional
90-95
20
8-15
(use 10)
<5
20-30
(use 25)
95
<5
0
—
Stabilization
Conditioning
Dewatering
Reduction
Disposal
32
-------
TABLE IV-19
Comparison of Sludge Processing Alternatives for Expansion to 12 MOD
Alternative
Annual
Cost
Difference
Energy
Difference
(bbl oil/yr)
Advantages
Disadvantages
I (base) (base) - lower cost
(base) - highest energy production
- no health hazard
- flexibility of disposal route
II $29,000 200 -costs comparable to base
- high energy production
- recovery of nutrients
III $215,000 2,500 - small energy production
- recovery of nutrients
IV $150,000 4,600 -costs comparable to base
- reliable operation
- no health hazard
$106,000* 5,300 -recovery of nutrients
• difficult to operate
- no recovery of nutrients
- consumptive land use
- difficult to operate
- may not be sufficient land
- pollution hazard from improper applica-
tion
- difficult to operate
- may not be sufficient land
- pollution and public health hazard from
improper application
- highest cost
- no recovery of nutrients
- consumptive land use
- minor art pollution
- requires energy input
- may not be sufficient land
- pollution hazard from improper appli-
cation
- requires energy input
Notes: 1. Land costs not included.
2. Does not include any costs for carbon carrier.
recommended that consideration be given to using a portion of
the digested sludge for agriculture in the County.
4- Effluent Disposal
With the exception of the water removed from the treatment
system with sludge, the partially-purified (e.g., 95 percent
removal of BOD, etc.) water which is produced by the treat-
ment process must be disposed. Three alternatives were con-
sidered for effluent disposal: surface discharge, land treatment
and disposal, and deep or shallow well injection.
a. Surface Discharge
The existing Falling Creek STP effluent - and that of the
proposed expansion - is discharged to Grindall Creek, ap-
proximately 1,500 feet from its confluence with Falling Creek.
Falling Creek meets the James River 1,300 feet downstream
from this confluence. Such discharges to a stream adjacent to
the treatment plant is the simplest and least expensive means
of effluent disposal.
A direct discharge to the James River near Falling Creek
would have a more adverse effect on the river in a reach which
experiences an oxygen sag. Further, the upstream water quality
of Grindall Creek is lower than the quality of the effluent. Thus,
it appears that in the short term (assuming a surface water dis-
charge), the expanded Falling Creek STP should continue to
discharge its effluent to Grindall Creek. However, it is likely
that water quality of the James River (and/or Grindall Creek)
will improve as upstream point and non-point pollution sources
are better controlled. EPA recognizes that an outfall to the
James River may become environmentally preferable within a
few years, and will monitor this situation closely. The Areawide
Waste Treatment Management Plan, authorized by Section 208
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments,
provides a mechanism for continued local and federal interest
during the next years.
b. Land Treatment and Disposal
Land treatment of effluent from a secondary treatment
facility such as the Falling Creek STP, provides another means
of completing the wastewater renovation process without re-
quiring a point discharge to surface waters. Land requirements
of this process would probably dictate the use of a site in the
less-developed western part of Chesterfield County.
Assuming the land treatment and disposal process would use
spray irrigation, chlorinated activated sludge treated effluent
(mixed media Filtration would not be necessary) would be
pumped through a 36 inch diameter pipeline to an undeter-
mined site about 20 miles away. Here, a 360 MG reservoir would
store sewage up to 30 days if weather conditions do not permit
spraying. Pumps would draw from this reservoir and distribute
water to sprinklers in fields via a network of pipes.
The rate at which treated sewage can be applied to land
depends upon the soil characteristics, topography, climate,
effluent peaking tendencies, the ability of particular crops to
utilize nutrients, and the concentration of nutrients and heavy
metals in the sewage. Local conditions, rather than general
guidelines, determine the proper application rate for a par-
ticular location. A pilot study would be necessary to determine
the safe application rate, guidelines for runoff control and
potential crop benefits.
To obtain a preliminary estimate of land requirements, it was
assumed that corn would be grown and could utilize 140 pounds
of nitrogen per year per acre. If treated effluent contains 20
mg/1 of nitrogen, 5,200 acres will be required to treat 12 MGD."
Table IV-20 estimates the capital costs of the important
physical components of the system; land costs are not included
because of the sensitivity of price to the actual site chosen.
Operating costs have not been estimated, but would be high
because of energy requirements.
33
-------
Item
TABLE IV-20
Capital Costs For Major Components Of a
12 MOD Land Treatment System
Present Cost1 Annual Cost1
36" diam. pipe, 20 mi3
Pumping stations, 23
Distribution system*
Reservoir
$ 8,400,000
$ 2,200,000
$11,440,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 792,000
$ 205,000
$1,080,000
$ 283,000
TOTAL
$25,000,000
$3,460,000
'Not including purchase of land. Engineering News-Record
Construction Cost Index = 2,200.
27% loan for 20 years.
3Reference: "Cost Estimating Guidelines for Municipal Waste-
water Facilities," EPA, 1972
'Based on a system in Charles County, Maryland.
Reference: "Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of
Wastewater," July 1973.
Energy would be required to lift the water to the disposal
site, overcome the pipe friction in transmission and to spray the
water over the fields. The two pumping stations together would
have to overcome a system head of almost 500 feet. Average
energy costs would amount to the equivalent of 16,000 barrels of
oil per year.
Environmental Impacts
Land Use. Under the assumptions made, over 5,000 acres of
land would be committed indefinitely to sewage disposal.
However, the syqtem would produce cash crops from nutrients
which would otherwise be wasted.
The pipeline right-of-way is not expected to create serious dif-
ficulties because elevation requirements of a pressure pipeline
are not critical.
Public Health.L&nd disposal would result in recycling treated
effluent back into the County's water supply. In itself, this does
not present a direct threat because a properly designed and
operated land disposal system can produce a high quality
effluent. However, an element of risk would be present from
improper operation or unforeseen circumstances.
Water Quality. Land disposal would prevent BOD and
nutrients from the Falling Creek STP from reaching the James
River. However, the effluent BOD is predicted to be acceptable
for discharge to the James River. Furthermore, the James River
has not been shown to be sensitive to nutrients from sewage.
Aesthetics. The spraying site would have an appearance the
same as any other irrigated field. No odors or other unpleasant
effects are anticipated.
The major benefits of land treatment and disposal of effluent
are the replenishment of groundwater supplies in the western
part of the County and the use of waste nutrients for growing
crops. An effluent discharge to (Grindall Creek and) the James
River would be eliminated; however, the loading to the river is
within the limitations of the James River Basin Study. The
main disadvantage of a land treatment system is the high
capital cost, higher than the Falling Creek STP itself. Further,
because there have not been any land treatment systems of
significant size operated in Virginia, smaller systems should, if
practical, be designed and operated before several-MGD
systems are used." The experience gained will benefit systems
of larger capacity.
c. Deep or Shallow Well Injection
Deep well injection requires the construction of a well which
discharges into a formation far below the surface and isolated
from any fresh water strata. The method is best used for con-
centrated, toxic waste which cannot be disposed of into surface
waters because of low stream flows. In effect, it is a permanent
storage method for totally unusable wastes.
Shallow well injection provides for a more useful benefit in
the disposal of wastewaters. Effluent that receives sufficient
treatment can be used to recharge groundwater sources.
However, the method is usually employed where surface water
discharges are not desirable.
EPA's policy on this method of disposal is stated in Ad-
ministrator's Decision Statement No. 5, dated February 6,1973.
This policy is designed to protect subsurface formations from
pollution or other environmental hazards, insure that engineer-
ing and geological safeguards are adequate, and to encourage
development of alternative means of disposal which afford
greater environmental protection.
The effluent from the Falling Creek STP will be suitable for
discharge to the James River. Therefore, there does not appear
to be sufficient cause to assume the uncertainties and risks of
well disposal.
B. DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
1. On-lat Treatment Systems
a. Septic Tanks
Traditionally, when comparing the septic tank alternative64 to
centralized sewer service, it is assumed that septic tanks have a
shorter design life than centralized service, and therefore are
not a long-term solution of a community's waste disposal needs.
In fact, the Virginia Department of Health prefers centralized
service, wherever feasible, as the ultimate treatment method.
Research and operational developments in septic tank design
and use have progressed sufficiently to require a close examina-
tion of septic tanks as a potentially viable long-term alternative
to centralized sewer service. This discussion consists of a brief
summary of these research and operational developments and
the applicability of these developments to the Falling Creek
Service Area.
Research and Operational Developments:
Research sponsored in the early 1960*s by the Federal Hous-
ing Administration,69 made a number of recommendations for
preventing failure of septic tank percolation fields. Among
these was the suggestion that the field needed rest periods to
maintain a good infiltration rate. Following this suggestion,
Fairfax County, Virginia, amended its sanitary ordinance in
1973 to ". .. require installation of all future absorption
systems... in two separate sections with separate distribution
boxes and a flow diversion valve or some satisfactory method
for utilizing half of the total system for a period of time, then
switching to the other for a similar period."70 Other research
has led a number of people to conclude that regular
maintenance of septic tanks, regardless of design or operation
mode, is the sine qua non of improved septic tank perfor-
mance.71 Several septic tank management systems (e.g., in
California,72 Switzerland and Sweden") already exist.
Suggestions for public and/or private management of septic
systems have been made to the State of Virginia.74 In addition,
general ecological and sociological advantages of individual
units have been stressed by some: beneficial nutrient return to
soil and vegetation rather than possibly detrimental return to
streams and lakes; replenishment of groundwater and
maintenance of the hydrologic regime; and suitability of the
decentralized approach for that segment of the population
which prefers low density living.75
One factor which is important in comparing centralized to
decentralized waste treatment systems is cost. Such a com-
parison is rarely done as a matter of course in present engineer-
ing practice. However, as it becomes recognized that individual
waste treatment in some circumstances can be technologically
and environmentally equal to centralized sewer service, a cost
comparison will become an important criterion in choosing
between the two alternatives for any particular area. Several
studies have indicated that individual treatment may be less ex-
pensive. A 1971 study done for Norwich, Vermont showed an
annual cost savings of $120 to $314 per household,77 while an
analysis of a California development showed a savings of ap-
34
-------
proximately $1,000 per unit in initial costs and $1,000 per unit
in maintenance costs.78 Another estimate for low-density
residential development shows the cost of the average on-site
system to be $1,600 and the individual share of the centralized
system $2,100." A Mitre Corporation study predicts a potential
savings of $3 billion in the United States if certain policy
decisions are made in support of improving and advancing on-
site treatment practices.80 An analysis done by Downing in 1969
of urban and rural sewer service for an area in Wisconsin found
that septic tanks are cost competitive with centralized treat-
ment at not uncommon residential densities when located suf-
ficiently distant from the treatment plant.81 Generally, the
potential for money savings seems to exist when the cir-
cumstances of a particular service area are appropriate.
Application to Service Area
The alternative of individual waste treatment was examined
in detail for the Falling Creek Service Area. A general
methodology for any area consists of two steps. First, since sep-
tic tanks would be realistic alternatives to centralized service
only in areas where septic tanks are suitable, delineation of
these areas must be done using both natural and man-caused
criteria. Second, a cost comparison should then be made
between centralized service to all areas, and a mix of centralized
service to the unsuitable areas and septic tank use in all suitable
areas. The assumption made is that proper design, installation
and maintenance of septic tanks would result in equivalent
technical and environmental performance compared to cen-
tralized service.
In the case of Chesterfield, a recent survey supports this
assumption. Conditions responsible for septic tank permit
application rejections and/or malfunctioning units were es-
timated as: 32 percent soils, 15 percent design, 5 percent faulty in-
stallation, 10 percent overload, 16 percent maintenance, and 22
percent age.86 Assuming that proper management would pre-
vent future use of unsuitable soils, and would employ correct
design, installation, loading and maintenance procedures, the
only uncorrected condition - age - would be reduced con-
siderably. The results would thus likely be equivalent perfor-
mance.
The primary criterion in developed regions for delineating
areas suitable for long-term septic tank use is the adequacy of
the drainfield area for expansion. This area must be adequate in
quantitative terms (e.g., lot boundaries, proximity to wells and
drainage swales) and qualitative terms (e.g., proper soil,
geologic and topographic conditions). However, existing County
records are not detailed enough to judge such adequacy; a lot-
by-lot survey would be necessary.8*
In defining the suitability of undeveloped land for long-term
septic tank use, a map classifying soils into suitability
categories by series or type is only the first step. The process of
land development - primarily subdivision and road alignment -
will in most cases reduce the amount of usable suitable land.8'
Without knowing future lot boundaries and road alignments for
the Service Area, any attempt to delineate future suitable areas
is unrealistic. Therefore, a map compositing suitable areas for
both developed and undeveloped land is impossible to construct
without much speculation and additional work.
The cost comparison requires a septic tank life span survey,
as was conducted by Fairfax County,84 in order to ascertain the
average septic tank life. However, County records are not com-
plete enough, especially for older septic tanks, to produce valid
results. Even if the records were complete, the fact that they
are based on owner complaints rather than periodic inspections
of all units in the Service Area would seriously underestimate
the problem. An accurate life span curve is thus impossible to
contruct. However, an estimate provided by the County of a 15-
year average life span can be used with Downing's sewer cost
study to obtain a rough cost comparison between septic tanks
and centralized sewer service. Table IV—21 is adopted from
Downing's study.85 Equilibrium year is defined as the minimum
number of years that septic Uaks must perform properly for
their annualized costs, including maintenance and replacement,
to be competitive with sewer service. It is seen from this table
that septic tanks are more competitive for low residential den-
sities and relatively larger distances from the treatment plant.
Application of the figures in Table IV-22 to the Falling Creek
Service Area must be done cautiously because of differences in
location, relative price level, interest rates, and soil conditions.
TABLE IV-21
Equilibrium Year for Comparing Septic Tanks and Sewer Service, By Residential Density and
Distance to Treatment Plant
Residential
Density
(Persons/acre)
0.4
1
4
16
Estimate of
Sewer
Cost
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Distance from Subdivision to Treatment Plant (Miles)
5
31
11
35
15
X
31
X
X
10
26
8
35
9
X
21
X
35
15
21
6
32
8
35
14
X
32
20
19
5
27
7
35
13
35
25
25
18
5
23
6
34
11
35
19
30
16
2
21
4
29
9
34
17
Source: Paul B. Downing, "Extention of Sewer Service at the Urban-Rural Fringe", in Land
Economics (Vol. 45, Feb. 1969).
Notes: 1. "x" indicates that septic tanks can never be expected to be cost-competitive with cen-
tralized sewer service for that combination of residential density and distance from treat-
ment plant.
2. In the "Estimate of Sewer Cost" column, "Low" represents the situation where interceptor
sewers have been constructed to the subdivision in question as well as to adjacent areas;
here the subdivision pays only its proportional share of the construction cost. "High" repre-
sents the situation where the interceptor sewers serve only the subdivision, hence it must pay
the full construction cost.
35
-------
With these limitations in mind, it is instructive to look at the
Service Area using the "equilibrium year" concept. It appears
that for the prevailing life span of 15 years, all portions of the
Service Area except the western reaches farther than 20 miles
from the plant are probably more economically served by
sewers than septic tanks.
TABLE IV-22
Equilibrium Year of Septic Tank Life Span, by Sewer Cost
and Distance to Treatment Plant
Distance from Plant
(Miles)
Equilibrium Year (years)
Lower Sewer Cost High Sewer Cost
10
15
20
35+
35
23
17
15
Notes: 1. Six persons per gross acre is assumed.
2. "X", "Low", and "High" Sewer Cost are defined as
in Table IV-21.
A 1973 study of sewer service costs in several single family
residential suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin - perhaps a closer
approximation to Service Area conditions than Downing's -
showed a cost of roughly $1,500 per acre for densities similar to
those in the Service Area (e.g., 11 persons per net acre, or ap-
proximately 6 persons per gross acre at the prevailing land use
mix in the Service Area).87 Converting 6 persons per gross acre
to roughly 2 single family houses per gross acre, the cost of cen-
tralized service becomes $750 per house. Comparing this to the
prevailing septic tank cost $1,050, it appears that centralized
service would be cheaper. In sum, in the absence of a cost com-
parison specific to the Service Area, and a more definite es-
timate of on-lot treatment systems' average life span, sewer
service for the great majority of the Service Area is economical-
ly justified.
Two points are related to this subject. One, the 667 rejected
lots of a total 6,428 recorded as of October, 1974 estimates the
number of lots denied a permit to build a home, due to soils not
suitable for septic tanks or the absence of sewer service. This 10
percent ratio of rejected to recorded lots reaches as high as 50
percent for individual subdivisions. This represents substantial
interference with the land development process and individual
property rights. Occasional disputes do result between the
County and landowners, but have never gone to court.88 One
means of reducing the number of rejected lots is to revise the
traditional soil limitations criteria for on-site disposal. This has
been done on an experimental basis by Bouma at the University
of Wisconsin, who found that "New technology, based on a
detailed analysis of liquid movement and associated purifica-
tion, can be used to overcome severe and very severe limitations
and to reduce slight and moderate limitations."89 The increased
area suitable for development on a non-sewered basis for three
Wisconsin counties, as well as the land use and policy im-
plications, are discussed in another report.90 Application of this
concept to Chesterfield would depend on evaluation by relevant
authorities, such as the State Department of Health, Chester-
field Health Department, and the Soil Conservation Service.
A second point deals with the possibility of variable lot size
zoning in order to allow adequate space for good septic tank per-
formance under all circumstances. The legal implications of
such zoning, as well as possible interference with subdividing
and road alignment, present some problems. However, such
zoning has been recommended to all counties by the State
Department of Health since 1974. Chesterfield County is begin-
ning to implement this procedure by requiring adequate area
within all lots for expansion of the drainfield if the original
drainfield fails. This policy should ease the pressure for sewer
service by gradually reducing the number of lots with malfunc-
tioning drainfields and no room for expansion.
b. Other On-Lot Treatment Systems
Two other on-lot system alternatives have been considered:
self-contained systems and aerobic units.91 There are two
classes of self-contained systems, distinguished by mode of
operation: composting and incineration. The advantage of both
is that water is not used, eliminating the discharge of pollu-
tants to any surface or ground water; household water use is
reduced by approximately 25 percent. Also, since soil suitabi-
lity is not a limiting factor, development served by self-
contained systems has more freedom of location and opportu-
nity for higher density service than if served by septic tanks.
Thus, for example, residential development need not encroach
as much on farmland because of the mutual need for suitable
soils, as now happens where septic tanks are used. The possi-
bility, present with septic tanks, of a forced conversion to
sewers when the system fails with inadequate room for drain-
field expansion, does not occur with self contained systems. The
composting system, in addition, produces a humus with good
fertilizer value, consumes little or no energy and requires
little maintenance. One available system even accepts kitchen
garbage. The cost of the compositing systems ranges from $500
to $1,500, depending on the manufacturer.
One major drawback of both kinds of self-contained systems
is their inability to handle the remaining liquid household
wastes such as bath, kitchen and laundry water. Separate
facilities, at additional cost, must be installed to handle this
grey water. There are no combinations of self-contained
systems and grey water handling facilities in Chesterfield
County today. In fact, both County and State regulations dis-
courage use of such systems. Additional drawbacks of the in-
cinerator toilet are its consumption of gas and electricity and its
potential for air pollution. In summary, regulations, the
relative newness of the systems, and the lack of long-term per-
formance data and evaluation of envirmonmental effects have
limited use of these systems, reducing their feasibility as an on-
lot treatment and disposal alternative at the present time.
Aerobic units provide better waste treatment than septic
tanks, resulting in better quality effluent percolating into the
drainfield. Consequently, there is less chance of ground or sur-
face water contamination, with the likelihood of longer drain-
field life. However, especially under the variable loading con-
ditions that frequently occur in the individual household, the
aerobic unit may provide uneven performance. Without proper
and regular maintenance, the quality of the effluent can thus be
worse than that from septic tanks. County practice requires the
same drainfield sizing for aerobic units as for septic tanks in
case of such uneven performance. Hence the potential benefit of
reduced land costs per dwelling (due to a smaller minimum lot
size requirement) are not obtained; the disadvantage of higher
capital and maintenance costs still exists. At the present time,
no aerobic units exist in the Service Area, and due to present
County practice, they do not appear to be a feasible alternative
to septic tanks.
2. Package Plants
Chesterfield County as discouraged the construction of
package plants in the Service Area because of the possibility
that the surfaae discharges would result in pollution and
eutrophication of the Falling Creek Reservoir. In addition,
many subdivisions are not near a stream suitable for such a dis-
charge. Poor maintenance is another common problem
associated with small plants. Only one package plant, at
Midlothian High School, exists in the Service Area. In sum-
mary, the feasibility of a number of small package plants to
serve disposal needs is rather limited in Chesterfield County.
C. NO ACTION
This alternative is a continuation of present policies with
regard to septic tanks, and no expansion and upgrading of the
36
-------
Falling Creek STP. Present policies would result in non-
alternating drainfield operation for septic tanks, less than ade-
quate inspection and maintenance, and an increasing number of
lots prohibited from development as the amount of land
suitable (by natural and man-caused criteria) for development
continues to decrease. Increasing numbers of reported and un-
reported malfunctions could be expected with possible con-
tamination of ground and surface waters. Multi-family or
higher-density residential development would probably not be
allowed unless their flows could be accommodated by the pre-
sent STP, or a package plant could be installed and properly
maintained and operated. Thus, from the standpoints of accom-
modating medium and high density residential and commercial
development, and protecting the waters of Chesterfield County,
it is rather obvious that an expansion of the Falling Creek STP
should be undertaken.
D. COST COMPARISON OF SELECTED PLANT EX-
PANSION INCREMENTS
It appears that the needs of the Service Area can best be met
with continued and expanded treatment at the Falling Creek
STP. There will, however, probably be parts of the Service Area
where on-lot treatment can provide proper treatment at less
cost than centralized collection and treatment.
This section is a cost analysis of the several expansion in-
crements identified in Section III.B. The Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972 requires that EPA con-
struction grants be made only for projects that are cost-
effective in meeting their treatment objectives. EPA's concern
in the present case is that it may not be cost-effective to provide
treatment capacity initially which will not be used for several
years.92 Since the need for treatment capacity depends on the
growth assumptions being made, costs for each of the expansion
increments are analyzed for both the high and low growth rates
discussed above.
The alternative expansions are:
1) three increments of 2 MGD (2+2+2);
2) one of 2 MGD, then one of 4 MGD (2+4);
3) two increments of 3 MGD (3+3);
4) one of 4 MGD, then one of 2 MGD (4+2); and
5) one expansion of 6 MGD (proposed alternative).
Table IV-23 lists the capital and O&M costs of each alter-
native, for both high and low growth rates. Costs for each are
shown in order of total costs in Table IV-24.
It should be understood that this cost comparison differs
from a standard cost-effectiveness analysis as defined by EPA
regulations (40 CFR, Part 35, Appendix A). The latter analysis
compares the costs of different treatment processes in meeting
an established effluent goal within a standard planning period
of 20 years with a given growth rate. The present case compares
the costs of selected expansion increments of the same treat-
ment process within a planning period of 10.5 years or 34 years,
depending on the growth estimate.
Since only those estimated costs incurred during the same
planning period may be validly compared, comparing costs for
the same alternative for the two different growth estimates
(and hence different planning periods) is not valid. The relevant
comparison is among the five alternatives for the same growth
estimate (or planning period).
The figures in Tables IV-23 and IV-24 show trends which
one would expect: with the high growth estimate, capital costs
decrease as the size of the initial construction increases from 2
to 6 MGD; O&M costs do not vary substantially in this range.
In comparing alternatives 6, 4+2, and 3+3, total costs differ by
less than five percent. With the low growth estimate, the great-
ly extended period during which the 12 MGD is reached has two
results: differences in capital costs are virtually eliminated due
to the present worth discounting procedure; and O&M costs
are a more significant part of total costs. Thus, two factors -
relative equality of capital costs and lower O&M costs for
smaller expansion increments - combine to make the total costs
lower for the smaller expansion increments.
The net effect of assuming the lower growth rate reverses the
total cost rankings: on a cost basis, any alternative is preferable
to the proposed MGD expansion. The 3+3 alternative is least
costly, approximately 8 percent less than the County's 6 MGD
proposal.
If present trends continue, costs for sewage facility construc-
tion would rise faster than the general price level. In such a
case, the results of using constant dollars for future capital and
operation and maintenance costs, as was done above, is
questionable. Assuming that STP construction and O&M costs
rise three percent faster than the general price level (based on
the 1967-1974 EPA construction cost index, which rose two to
three percent faster than other costs during that period), the
cost comparison in Table IV—25 results.
TABLE IV-23.
Capital and O&M Costs for Selected Expansion Increments, High and Low Growth Rates
Expansion Present Worth Using High
Sequence Growth Estimate
Capital
2+2+2 $17,295
2+4 16,290
3+3 15,258
4+2 14,888
6 13,590
O&M
$5,972
6,218
6,202
6,319
6,881
Present Worth Using Low
Growth Estimate
($10«)
Capital
$13,686
13,699
13,030
13,066
13,590
O&M
$10,931
11,269
11,466
11,877
13,078
Notes: (1) Costs provided by design consultant.
(2) Cost analysis conforms with precedures in Guidance for Facilities Plan (EPA, January
1974); salvage value not included.
(3) The Water Resources Council's current discount rate of 5 7/8 percent is used to convert
future costs to present value.
(4)High and low growth rates are developed in Section III.B.
37
-------
TABLE IV-24.
Total Costs for Selected Expansion Increments, High and Low Growth Rates
Using High Growth Estimate Using Low Growth Estimate
Cost Present Worth Present Worth
Alternative (MGD) ($10«) Alternative (MGD) ($10«)
Least
Most
6
4+2
3+3
2+4
2+2+2
$20,471
21,207
21,459
22,509
23,267
3+3
2+2+2
4+2
2+4
6
$24,496
24,617
24,943
24,968
26,668
TABLE IV-25.
Total Costs for Selected Expansion Increments, High and Low Growth Rates,
With 3 Percent Relative Inflation Rate
Cost
Using High Growth Estimate
Present Worth
Alternative (MGD) ($10«)
Using Low Growth Estimate
Present Worth
Alternative (MGD) ($106)
Least
Most
6
4+2
3+3
2+4
2+2+2
$21,647
23,055
23,342
23,707
25,442
3+3
4+2
2+4
2+2+2
6
$31,922
32,128
32,729
32,802
33,066
For the high growth estimate, the relative ranking of the
alternatives remains the same as in Table IV—24. The cost
difference between 6 MGD and either of the next two alter-
natives is approximately seven percent of total costs, compared
to five percent in the previous analysis. For the low growth es-
timate, the least and most costly alternatives are the same,
although the intermediate three have changed positions. The
cost savings of the 3+3 alternative over the 6 MGD alternative
is approximately three percent of construction costs, compared
to eight percent in the previous analysis.
CHAPTER IV - FOOTNOTES
57. Energy and chemical requirements are an increasing im-
portant consideration in determining the long-term desirability
of alternatives, and enter the analysis in the cost-effectiveness
and environmental areas.
58. Pumping is often required for transfer of flows between
minor drainage areas, between major drainage divides (e.g., the
Bailey Bridge pump station will convey flows between the up-
per Swift Creek and Falling Creek basins), and to allow for
sewer construction closer to the ground surface.
59. See Table 42 of the Environmental Assessment. These
figures were taken from the 1971 Comprehensive Countywide
Sanitary Sewer Study.
60. See Section IV.B. for a discussion of the potential for
sewerage service by less centralized (e.g., lagoons, package
plants) or on-lot systems.
61. Secondary treatment is defined in 40 CFR 133.102.
62. An NPDES discharge permit is issued which explicitly iden-
tifies each effluent limitation.
63. Rather than describing here the physical, chemical, and
biological processes involved in each of these treatment
processes, the reader's attention is invited to pages 160-174 of
the Environmental Assessment. An excellent reference work
for all aspects of wastewater collection and treatment is
Wastewater Engineering, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill,
1972. Section III.A. above provides some detail on the proposed
processes.
64. As with wastewater treatment processes, descriptions of
these processes can be found in any text on wastewater treat-
ment processes.
65. Characteristics of the waste sludge from the proposed 12
MGD facility are that: waste activated sludge will be combined
with primary sludge and sent to a sludge thickener. Thickened
sludge is expected to have a solids content of 6 percent and a
specific gravity of 1.1. The total dry weight of solids removed
will be approximately 26,000 Ib/day, and 70 percent of these
solids will be volatile. A facility of less than 12 MGD would
produce proportionately less sludge (assuming treatment
processes are the same). The results of the analysis would not
change significantly. Nitrogen in the thickened sludge was
assumed to be approximately 4 percent of the total solids. It was
further assumed that heavy metals such as zinc, copper, nickel,
cadmium and lead were present in concentration ranges typical-
ly found in domestic sewage sludge and that unusually high
concentrations were not present.
66. Other crops utilize different amounts of nitrogen. For ex-
ample, if coastal Bermuda grass is grown nitrogen uptake as
high as 600 Ibs/ac/yr reduces the land requirement by a factor
of four. The cost of the distribution system would be lower,
although the other capital costs in Table IV-26 would remain
the same.
67. Such a system is being considered for Standardsville,
Virginia. This area of Green County (Standardsville, Quinque
and Corner Store) will contribute flows of less than 0.5 MGD in
the design year.
38
-------
68. A septic tank is water-tight, covered receptacle that
receives sewage from a building sewer, separates solids from
the liquid, digested organic matter and stores digested solids,
and allows the clarified liquid to discharge for final disposal.
69. Winneberger, J. T., and McGauhey, P. H., A Study of
Methods of Preventing Failure of Septic-Tank Percolation
Fields, Fourth Annual Report (College of Engineering and
School of Public Health, University of California Berkeley, Oc-
tober 31, 1965).
70. Clayton, John W., "An Analysis of Septic Tank Survival
Data From 1952 to 1972 in Fairfax County, Virginia," in Journal
of Environmental Health, Vol. 36, No. 6, p. 566.
71. Goldstein, Steven N., and Moberg, Walter J. Jr.,
Wastewater Treatment Systems For Rural Com munities (Com-
mission on Rural Water, Washington, D. C. 1973), page 82.
Goldstein, S. N., Wenk, V. D., Fowler, M. C., and Poh, S. S., A
Study of Selected Economic and Environmental Aspects of In-
dividual Home Wastewater Treatment Systems (The Mitre Cor-
poration, McLean, Virginia, March, 1972), page 78 ff.
Johnson, Augustus C., Individual Wastewater Treatment
Systems in Virginia (The Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia,
June 1974), page 28.
Otis, R. J., "The Performance of Septic Tanks and Aerobic
Treatment Units Under Filed Conditions," On-Site Waste
Management, Vol. IV, Hancor, Inc., Findlay, Ohio.
Stewart, David E., "Legal, Planning and Economic Con-
siderations of On-Site Sewerage Systems," in Papers Presented
at the National Symposium on Home Sewage Disposal by
Researchers of the Small Scale Waste Management Project
(University of Wisconsin-Madison, January, 1975).
Winneberger, J. T., and Anderman, W. H., "Public Management
of Septic-Tank Systems Is a Practical Method of Maintenance,"
in Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 35, No. 2, September-
October, 1972.
Winneberger, J. T., and Klock, J. W., Current and Recommend-
ed Practices for Subsurface Waste Water Disposal Systems in
Arizona (College of Engineering Sciences, Arizona State
University, July, 1973).
72. Winneberger, op. cit. (in Journal of Environmental Health).
73. Goldstein, Wenk, Fmvler and Poh, op. cit, p. 79.
74. Johnson, op. cit, pp. 28-SJt.
75. Bernhart, Alfred P., Treatment and Disposal of Waste
Water from Homes by Soil Infiltration and Evapo-
transpiration (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1973), pp.
9-10.
76. Referenced in: Goldstein, Steven N., "Community Sewerage
Systems vs. On-Site Sewage Treatment Systems," in On-Site
Waste Management, Vol. I, Hancor, Inc., Findlay, Ohio, p. 2.
77. Murphy, Raymond F., "Comparison of Economics of Nor-
mal Sewage Collection and Disposal vs. Ground Disposal," in
On-Site Waste Management, Vol. IV, Hancor, Inc. Findlay,
Ohio.
78. Bernhart, op. cit., p. 10.
79. Goldstein, Wenk, Fowler and Poh, op. cit. Goldstein, op. cit.
80. Downing, Paul B., "Extension of Sewer Service at the
Urban-Rural Fringe," in Land Economics (Vol. 45, Feb. 1969).
81. Virginia Department of Health, State Technical Services,
1974 Survey of the Magnitude of The Septic Tank Problem in
The State of Virginia, December 19, 1974.
82. See Stewart, op. cit., p. 95. The closest available data to such
a survey in Chesterfield consists of the "Remarks" section of the
County document, "Data on Falling Creek S.T.P. Service Area,
Public Health Aspects," Oct. 30, 1974.
83. Virginia State Technical Services, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Tech Tran Report, "Household
Waste Water Treatment Techniques," May 29, 1974, p. 6.
84. Clayton, op. cit.
85. Downing, op. cit., p. 110.
86. According to the article, the actual situation - clustering of
denser areas with intervening sparser areas - will raise slightly
the minimum cost-competitive septic tank life, due to decreased
sewer collection costs.
87. Anderson, Marshall L., "Community Improvements and
Services Costs," in Journal of the Urban Planning and Develop-
ment Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. UPI, March 1973.
88. Conversation with Mac Spencer, Chesterfield Health
Department.
89. Bouma, J., "New Concepts in Soil Survey Interpretations
for On-Site Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent," in Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 38, No. 6, November-
December, 1974, p. 941.
See also: Beatty, M. T. and Bouma, J., "Application of Soil
Surveys to Selection of Sites for On-Site Disposal of Liquid
Household Wastes," in Geoderma, 10, 1973, pp. 113-122.
90. Amato, Peter W., and Goehring, Harrison D., Land Use and
Policy Implications in a Three County Wisconsin Area (Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Extension Small Scale Waste Management
Project, April 1, 1974).
91. For further technical information, see Goldstein and
Moberg, pages 133-137 and pages 166-201.
92. The amount of reserve capacity for a proposed treatment
plant must be determined by EPA on a case-by-case basis. Sec-
tion 204 (aX5) of the FWPCA requires "that the size and
capacity.. .relate directly to the need to be served by such
works, including sufficient reserve capacity. The amount of
reserve capacity provided shall be.. .on the basis of a com-
parison of the cost of constructing such reserves.. .and the an-
ticipated cost of providing expanded capacity at a date when
such capacity will be required." This legislative requirement is
the basis for the analysis in this section of the EIS.
39
-------
V. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE MAJOR ISSUES
This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared to im-
prove EPA's understanding of the two major issues surroun-
ding the proposed upgrading and expansion of the Falling Creek
STP: the appropriate amount of expansion, if any, of the facility
at this time, and the effect of this expansion on water quality in
the Service Area. No additional salient issues were uncovered
during the course of this study.
A. PLANT CAPACITY
One's choice of growth estimate, orientation to the
wastewater planning process, and evaluation of the potential
effectiveness of environmental protection policies and
regulations in Chesterfield County could lead to one of several
conclusions concerning the proper expansion increment of the
Falling Creek STP. This section discusses the various reasons
involved in making this decision.
Reasons Favoring the Proposed 6 MGD Addition:
1. The high estimate of wastewater flows has a 10.5-year
planning period for the 6 MGD addition (Table 11-19, III.B. of
text). For a relatively high growth rate, this is a reasonable
period. A 6 MGD addition would be the logical choice.
2. There is a possibility that an average annual growth rate
greater than 5.8 percent may exist for some periods in the
future. This possibility is based on the fact that in recent
years the County has experienced a 9 percent annual rate.
However, such a rate is in part due to a recent exodus of pop-
ulation from Richmond which cannot be expected to continue
indefinitely.
Reasons Favoring an Addition of Less than 6 MGD:
1. The low estimate of wastewater flows shows a 34 year
planning period for the 6 MGD addition (Table 111-19, III.B. of
text). This is generally considered a rather long planning
period. The 19 year period for the low estimate for the 3 + 3
alternative is much closer to the standard 20 year planning
period.
2. The low estimate of flows generally favors less than a 6
MGD addition. This estimate relies on the Virginia Depart-
ment of State Planning and Community Affairs' population
projections for the years 1980-1990. It also heeds the advice of
the CEQ publication, Interceptor Sewers and Suburban
Sprawl, that a realistic estimate of per capita wastewater
flow based on water use should be used in designing plant
capacities, rather than a standard estimate such as 100 gpcd.
3. Using the low growth estimate might lead to a low-
capacity plant with possible overflow problems. Using the
high growth estimate might lead to a high-capacity plant
with excess capacity. Although the first of these two
possibilities would appear worse than the second, the chance
that the first will occur is very slight with timely planning of
plant expansion increments (see Figure IH-5). A high-
capacity plant will have initial excess capacity, however,
which may induce growth. Especially in the case of Chester-
field County, where the interceptor lines have already been
laid and the County states that it "is not in a position to deny
a reasonable request for residential zoning," excess capacity
could accelerate the rate of land development in the Service
Area. Therefore, the probability as well as the consequences
of a too-high or too-low capacity plant expansion must be
evaluated.
4. If the high estimate of flows prevails, a less-than-6 MGD
addition would have a number of significant advantages over
a 6 MGD addition. The shorter planning periods anticipated,
especially the initial 5.7 year period for the 3+3 alternative
(see Table 111-19, III.B. of text), will provide the opportunity
for a "mid-course" evaluation of several County projects and
policies before additional sewage capacity is installed. One
project is the County's plan for connecting specified existing
developments into the sewer system during the years 1975-
1980. Implementation of the plan will largely determine the
degree of compliance with EPA's mandate to concentrate on
serving existing development. County policies which are
crucial determinants of the secondary impacts of STP expan-
sion and whose implementation could benefit from a mid-
course evaluation are: the updating of the 1995 General Plan;
the revision of County soil erosion control standards to con-
form with State standards; and the development of a
management plan for the Swift Creek Reservoir. Finally, the
initial 5.7 year planning period for the 3+3 alternative would
not require design for the next expansion increment until late
1981. At that time preliminary 1980 United States census
data may narrow the difference between County and State
population projections, thus reducing disagreement on the
design size of the next increment.
5. As all previous construction has been in 3 MGD in-
crements, the County's engineering consultants have in-
dicated that the easiest increment to design and con-
struct—smaller than 6 MGD—is the 3+3 alternative.
Reasons Favoring Neither/Both Levels of Additional Capacity:
1. The cost comparison (IV.D. of text) shows that all expan-
sion increments, except the 2+2+2 alternative using the high
growth estimate, differ in cost by less than 10 percent.
Although, based solely on cost, the high growth estimate
favors a 6 MGD increment and the low growth estimate a 3+3
increment, the differences are so small that cost cannot be
considered a significant determinant of the appropriate plant
capacity addition.
2. Likewise, certain environmental considerations cannot be
prime determinants of the amount of expansion, for several
reasons:
a. The differences in direct environmental impact of the
various expansion increments of the STP per se (not the in-
terceptor and collector sewers, which EPA is not funding)
is small.
b. Although increased total secondary environmental
effects occur with larger expansion increments, there is no
reason to believe that per capita impacts are greater. The
determinants of per capita impact are the rules and
procedures at all levels of authority governing the land
development process, and they are applied regardless of the
expansion increment funded by EPA. Given equal per
capita impact, and assuming constant governing rules and
regulations, the increased impact of, for example, 6 as op-
posed to 3 MGD, would be due primarily to the increased
number of people serviced, and the increased time period
over which the impacts can occur. As in the cost com-
parison, the relevant environmental comparison is between
alternatives of equal capacity: 6 vs. 3+3 vs. 2+2+2, and so
forth; not 6 vs. 3 or 6 vs. 2. In this analysis differences in
secondary environmental effects are small if they exist at
all.
Capacity Decision: EPA has decided that the Falling Creek STP
should be expanded to 9 MGD at this time.
B. SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR
In response to existing eutrophic conditions in the Reservoir,
the County has recently introduced the chemical addition of
CuSO» to retard the growth of foul taste and odor-producing
algae.
Future development of the watershed will occur in response
to the high growth rate exhibited in Chesterfield County. To
protect the Reservoir as a water supply, it will be necessary to
provide stringent erosion and sedimentation controls for all
development in the watershed. State Erosion and Sedimenta-
tion Controls exist and will be supplemented in the near future
by the promulgation of County Control Laws and Areawide 208
development plans. However, as expressed in the VPI Report,
the sensitivity of this area dictates that a comprehensive
watershed management program must be adopted to minimize
41
-------
the adverse effects of watershed development on the Reser- this fall, the program should provide a cost-effective combina-
voir. tion of in-lake and intransit controls to best provide for the
Chesterfield County has contracted EcolSciences, Inc. to Reservoir's preservation. Although not legally bound to accept
prepare a management program for the Reservoir based on a the conclusions of this management program, it is hoped that
one-year monitoring study. Due to be released in draft form the County will adopt this, or a similar, program.
42
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amato, Peter W., and Goehring, Harrison D. Land use and
Policy Implications in a Three County Wisconsin Area Madison:
University of Wisconsin-Extension Small Scale Waste Manage-
ment Project, April 1, 1974.
Anderson, Marshall L. "Community Improvements and Ser-
vices Costs" Journal of the Urban Planning and Development
Division, Vol. 99 No. UPI (March 1973).
Beatty, M. T. and Bouma, J. "Application of Soil Surveys to
Selection of Sites for On-Site Disposal of Liquid Household
Wastes." Geoderma, 10, (1973), 113-122.
Bernhart, Alfred P. Treatment and Disposal of Waste Water
from Homes by Soil Infiltration and Evapo-Transportim.
Toronto: Unitersity of Toronto Press, 1973.
Bouma, J. "New Concepts in Soil Survey Interpretations for On-
Site Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent." Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings, Vol. 38, No. 6 (November-December,
1974), 941-946.
Brezonik, Patrick L. Nitrogen: Sources and Transformations in
Natural Waters, Gainesville, Florida, University of Florida. (No
date)
Chesapeake Research Consortium, Incorporated. Effects of
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents on Fish: A Review oj
Literature. University of Maryland, Center for Environmental
and Estuarine Studies, March 1975, 46-62.
Chesterfield County. Studies, Maps, Regulations, Written
Documents. 1971-1975.
Clayton, John W. "An Analysis of Septic Tank Survival Data
From 1952 to 1972 in Fairfax County, Viriginia". Journal oj En-
vironmental Health, Vol. 36 No. 6 (May/June 1974), 562-5.
Council on Environmental Quality. The Costs of Sprawl.
Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, April 1974.
Dillon, P. J. A Critical Review of Vollenweider's Nutrient
Budget Model and Other Related Models Burlington, Canada:
Canada Centre for Inland Waters.
Dillon, P. J. The Application of the Phosphorus Loading
Concept to Eutropkication Research. Burlington, Canada:
Canada Centre for Inland Waters. (No date)
Dillon, P. J. and Kirchner, W. B. The Effects of Geology and
Land Use on the Export of Phosphorus From Watersheds.
Toronto, Canada: Canadian Shield Research Project (No date)
Downing, Paul B. "Extension of Sewer Service at the Urban-
Rural Fringe." Land Economics Vol. 45 (Feb. 1969).
E
EcolSciences, Inc. Environmental Assessment of the proposed
Chesterfield County, Virginia Phase I Sewerage Improvement
Program. March 6, 1974.
Environmental Protection Agency Publications:
An on-Site Evaluation of Nutrient Effects in Lakes, EPA-R3-
73-018. April, 1973.
A Predictive Model for Thermal Stratification and Water
Quality in Reservoirs, 16130DJH01/71. January, 1971.
Assessing Effects on Water Quality by Boating Activity,
EPA-670/2-72-072. October, 1974.
Biological Investigations of Lake Wingra, EPA-R3-73-044.
August, 1073.
Biological Models of Freshwater Communities, EPA-660/3-
73-008. August, 1973.
Changes in Water Quality Resulting from Impoundment,
16080GGH08/71.
Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff,
EPA-670/2-74-096. December, 1974.
Demonstration of Waste Flow Reduction from Households,
EPA-670/2-74-071. September, 1974. Guidelines for Erosion
and Sediment Control Planning and Implementation, EPA-
R2-72-015. August, 1972.
Effect of Phosphorus Removal Procession Algal Growth,
EPA-660/3-73-015. September, 1973.
Estimated Nutrient Loadings of Lakes from Non-Point
Sources, EPA-660/3-74-020. August, 1974.
Evaluation of Land Application Systems, EPA-430/9-75-001.
March, 1975.
Groundwater Contamination in the Northeast States, EPA-
660/2-74-076. June, 1974.
Groundwater Pollution in the South Central States, EPA-R2-
73-268. June 1973.
Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Implementation, EPA-R2-72-015. August, 1972.
Measures for the Restoration and Enhancement of Quality of
Freshwater Lakes, EPA 430/9-73-005. September, 1973.
Nitrogen Sources and Cycling in Natural Waters, EPA-660/3-
73-002. July, 1973.
Phosphorus Release from Lake Sediments, EPA-R3-73-024.
April, 1973.
G
Goldstein, Steven N., "Community Sewerage Systems vs. On-
Site Sewage Treatment Systems." On-Site Waste Management,
Vol. I. Findlay, Ohio: Hancor, Inc.
Goldstein, Steven N., and Moberg, Walter, J. Jr., Wastewater
Treatment Systems for Rural Communities. Washington, D. C.:
Commission Rural Water, 1973.
Goldstein, S. N.; Wenk, V. D., Fowler, M. C.; and Poh, S. S. A
Study of Selected Economic and Environmental Aspects of In-
dividual Home Wastewater Treatment Systems. McLean,
Virginia: The Mitre Corporation, March, 1972.
H
Hackett, J. E.; Intermaggio, J. L.; Dickson, K. L.; and Smith, D.
W. Environmental Relationships of the Brandermill Planned
Unit Development to Swift Creek Reservoir and Associated
Watershed. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute' and
State University, 1974.
Healy, K. A., and Laak, R., Factors Affecting The Percolation
Test. Storrs, Connecticut: School of Engineering, University mf
Connecticut: April 1972.
Healy, Kent A., and Laak, Rein. "Site Evaluation and Design of
Seepage Fields." Journal of The Environmental Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. EE5, Proc. Paper 10882 (October,
1974), 1133-1146.
Irwin, W. H.; Symons, J. M.; Robeck, G. G., Water Quality In
Impoundments and Modifications from Destratification. Cin-
cinnati, Ohio: Cincinnati Water Research Laboratory. (No date)
Johnson, Augustus C. Individual Wastewater Treatment
Systems in Virginia. McLean, Virginia: The Mitre Corporation,
June 1974
Journal of American Water Works Association:
"A Study: Effects of Geology and Nutrients on Water Quality
Development", Vol. 66; August, 1974.
"Aeration of Walmbach Reservoir without Changing the
Temperature Profile", Vol. 59; August, 1967.
"Annual Temperature Variations in an Impoundment in Cen-
tral Illinois", Vol. 62; October, 1970.
43
-------
"Artificial Destratification in Reservoirs", Vol. 63;
September, 1971.
"Artificial Destratification in Reservoirs of the California
State Water Project", Vol. 61; September, 1969.
"Bacteria in an Impounding Reservoir", Vol. 58, October 1966.
"Biological Aspects of Water", Vol. 63: March, 1971.
"Biological Problems Encountered in Water Supplies", Vol.
62; August, 1970.
"Community Water Pollution R&D Needs", Vol. 64; April,
1972.
"Consumer Assessment of Water Quality and the Cost of Im-
provements", Vol. 63; January, 1971.
"Control of Reservoir Eutrophication", Vol. 65; April 1973.
"Destratification at Rotterdam", Vol. 62; July, 1970.
"Destratification using Air", Vol. 63; July, 1971.
"Eutrophication-Causes and Effects", Vol. 61; June, 1969.
"Expansive-Soil Effect on Buried Pipe", Vol. 63; July, 1971.
"Growth and Odor-Production Studies", Vol. 64; January
1972.
"Hypoliminion Aeration", Vol. 63; January, 1971.
"Impoundment Destratification for Raw Water Quality Con-
trol Using Either Mechanical or Diffused-Air-Pumping", Vol.
59; October, 1967.
"Injecting Highly Treated Sewage into a Deep-Sand Aquifer",
Vol. 64; June, 1974.
"Injection of Reclaimed Wastewater into Confined Aquifers",
Vol 62; March, 1970.
"Mixing of Water Supply Reservoirs for Quality Control",
Vol. 62; May, 1970.
"Natural Processes and Their Influence on Reservoir Water
Quality", Vol. 59; January, 1967.
"Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Water", Vol. 59; March, 1967.
"Nutrient-Associated Problems in Water Quality and
Treatment", Vol. 58; October, 1966.
"Phosphates in Surface Water", Vol. 59; March, 1967.
"Public Health Aspects of Organics in Water", Vol. 63; July,
1973.
"Quality Improvements by Reservoir Aeration", Vol. 62;
November, 1970.
"Some Consideratons in Underground Wastewater Disposal",
Vol. 62; August, 1970.
"Supplemental Reaeration of Lakes and Reservoirs", Vol. 58;
October, 1966.
"Survey of Community Water Supply Systems", Vol. 62;
November, 1970.
K
Kirchner, W. B., and Dillon, P. J. An Empirical Method of
Estimating the Retention of Phosphorus in Lakes. Toronto,
Canada: Canadian Shield Research Project. (No date).
M
Murphy, Raymond F. "Comparison of Economics of Normal
Sewage Collection and Disposal vs. Ground Disposal." On-Site
Waste Management, Vol. IV, Findlay, Ohio: Hancor, Inc.
Myhra, David. "Let's put an end to energy waste in housing."
Planning, The ASPO Magazine, Vol. 40, No. 7 (August, 1974),
16-18.
o
Odum, Eugene P. Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1971.
Omernik, James M. "Preliminary Raw Data on Drainage Area
characteristics vs. Non-Point Source Nutrients in Streams".
Unpublished research, Cowallis, Oregon, 1975.
Otis, R. J., "The Performance of Septic Tanks and Aerobic
Treatment Units Under Field Conditions." On-Site Waste
Management, Vol. IV. Findlay, Ohio: Hancor, Inc.
"Problems With Effluent Seepage," Water and Sewage Works,
Vol. 121, No. 10 (October, 1974), 64-67.
Q, R
Reneau, R. B. and Petty, P. E. "Movement of Coliform Bacteria
from Septic Tank Effluent through Selected Coastal Plain Soils
of Virginia." Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 4, No. 1.
1975.
Richmond Regional Planning Commission. Richmond Regional
Water Plan. Richmond, Va. 1970.
Ridley, John E. Water Supply Lakes and Raw Water Storage
Reservoirs, Government Printing Office: 71 W4/USA/3100,
1971.
Royer, R. Stuart and Timmons, J. K. Comprehensive Coun-
tyicide Sanitary Sewer Study. Richmond, Virginia, December,
1971.
Sea Pines of Virginia, Inc. Brandermill. 3 Vols. January 22,
1974.
Stewart, David E. "Legal Planning and Economic Con-
siderations of On-Site Sewerage Systems" Papers Presented at
the National Symposium on Home Sewage Disposal by
Researchers of The Small Scale Waste Management Project.
Madison: University of Wisconsin - Madison, January, 1975.
Tech Tran Report, "Household Waste Water Treatment
Techniques," Virginia State Technical Services, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, May 29, 1974.
u
University of Delaware Water Resources Center. Water
Resources Protection Measures Inland Development - A Hand-
book. Newark, Delaware. Contract No. 14-31-0001-9036. April,
1974.
Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission:
Artificial Lakes and Land Subdivisions, 1971.
Carrying Capacity Controls for Recreational Water Uses,
1972.
Lake Deeping by Sediment Consolidation - Jyme Lake, 1972.
"Nutrient Enrichment of Ground Water from Septic Tank
Disposal Systems, November, 1973.
Restoring the Recreational Potential of Small Im-
poundments, 1973.
Survey of Lake Protection and Rehabilitation Legislation in
the United States, March, 1972.
Survey of Lake Rehabilitation Techniques and Experiences,
1974.
Wisconsin Lakeshore Property Owner's Associations: Iden-
tification, Description, and Perception of Lake Problems,
February, 1972.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Environmental A nalysis of the Kickapoo River Impoundment
November, 1974.
Flood Plain Information and Falling Creek. Norfolk District.
July, 1974.
Flood Plain Information: Swift Creek. Norfolk District. July,
1974.
James River Basin Report. February, 1974.
Northeastern United States Water Supply Study: Preliminary
Study of Long-Range Water Supply Problems of Selected Ur-
ban Metropolital Areas. Vol. I and II. Contract No. DACW 52-
71-C-0001, November, 1971.
U.S. Geological Survey. Chemical Composition of Rainfall:
Eastern North Carolina and Southeastern Virginia. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1535-K. 1966.
44
-------
Real Estate Lakes, Circular 601-G. 1971.
Water Resources Data for Virginia, Richmond, Va. 1971.Utah
Water Research Laboratory; Division of Environmental
Engineering; and Environmental Protection Agency: Modeling
the EntropKcation Process. Logan, Utah, November, 1973.
Ground Water of the York-James Peninsula, Virginia. Basic
Data Bulletin 39. June, 1973.
James River Comprehensive Water Quality Management Study
Vol. I through Vol. XI. October 1972.
Water Quality Standards Summary. 1971.
Virginia Department of Health, State Technical Services
Survey of The Magnitude of The Septic Tank Problem in The
State of Virginia. December 19, 1974.
Virginia Division of State Planning and Community Affairs.
Data Summary - Chesterfield County. Richmond: Research Ser-
vice, May, 1973.
Population Projections: Virginia Counties and Cities, 1980-2000.
Richmond: Virginia Economcic Research Section, March, 1975.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Extension
Division, Land Use Issues: Proceedings of a Conference.
Blacksburg, Virginia: VPI, 1974.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Chesterfield County. Soils of
Chesterfield County Virginia. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, January, 1970.
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. April, 1974.
Virginia Water Control Board: Ground Water of Southeastern
Virginia. Planning Bulletin 261-A. 1974.
w
Winneberger, J. T. "Practical Uses of New Septic Tank
Technology." Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 30, No. 3
(November-December, 1967) 250-262.
Winneberger, J. T., and Anderman, W. H. "Public Management
of Septic-Tank Systems Is a Practical Method of Maintenance."
Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 30, No. 3 (September-
October, 1972) 145-146.
Winneberger, John Timothy, and Klock, John W. Current and
Recommended Practices for Subsurface Waste Water Disposal
Systems in Arizona. Tempe, Arizona: College of Engineering
Sciences, Arizona State University, July 1973.
Winneberger, J. T., and McGauhey, P. H. A Study of Methods of
Preventing Failure of Septic-Tank Percolation Fields, Fourth
Annual Report. Berkeley: University of California, October 31,
1965.
Woodson, Bernard R. Jr. Report and data on Lake Chesdin, un-
published, Petersburg, Virginia State College, 1975.
45
-------
APPENDIX A
47
-------
TABLE A-l
Levels of Sulfur Oxides and Suspended Particulates,
Chesterfield County, 1972 and 1973
Sulfur Oxides Suspended Particulates
Primary Average 24 hr. Annual
Standard1 Concentration =
geometric mean
75 ug/m*
=
0.14 ppm
Secondary Same as Primary Annual geometric mean=
Standard1 Standard
Sample
Date
1972
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1973
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
Value2 Sample
(ppm) Date
1972
0.020 March
0.013 April
0.002 May
0.001 June
0.001 July
0.001 Aug.
0.004 Sept.
0.003 Oct.
0.006 Nov.
Dec.
1973
0.010 Jan.
0.006 Feb.
0.007 March
0.001 April
0.001 May
0.000 June
60ug/mJ
Value1 (monthly
geometric mean)
69 ug/m1
51
54
35
35
69
40
14
49
58
47
50
53
73
73
82
Sample
Date
July
Aug.
Sept.
Value2
(ppm)
0.000
0.002
0.003
Sample Value2 (monthly)
Date geometric mean)
July
Aug.
Sept.
64
48
79
Annual Geometric Mean is
48 ug/mj
'National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50; 36 FR
22384, November 25, 1971): EPA Regulations adopted by Vir-
ginia Air Pollution Control Board
2Data collected at Bensley Fire Department
TABLE A-2
Existing and Allowed Emissions of Particulates and SO^
Chesterfield County
Particulates (tons/yr.) SOX (tons/yr.)
Recorded Point Sources'
Area Emissions2
TOTAL
1,644
834
2,478
115,156
653
115,809
Allowed Emissions3
9,242
185,440
'Source: NEDS
'Source: Virginia APCB estimates of residential fuel, solid
waste and transportation emissions for 1975
'Source: The State Implementation Plan, under the Clean Air
Act Prescribes total allowable emissions of SOX and
particulates for each Air Quality Control Region. Data
in this table applies only to the Chesterfield County
portion of the State Capital AQCR.
TABLE A-3
AADT and Corresponding Peak Hour CO Concentrations in Service Area, 1975
Highway and
Segment
Rt. 1-301
Fr. Rt. 150 to Bellwood
Rt.10
Fr. Rt. 145 to Rt. 150
Rt.60
Fr.WCL
Richmond to Rt. 147
Rt. 147
Fr. Rt. 678 to Rt. 711
Rt. 150
Fr. Rt. 60 to Rt. 686
Rt.360
Fr. WSCL Richmond
to Rt. 604
Rt. 1-95
Fr. Falling Creek
Interchange to Maury St.
AADT1
31,615
7,860
17,085
7,975
23,640
16,115
45,645
Peak Hour
Vehicles per
Hour1
3161.5
786.0
1708.5
797.5
2364.0
1611.5
4564.5
Emission
Factor3
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Peak Hour
CO Concentration
(ppm)4
7.03
5.36
5.%
5.37
6.42
5.89
8.25
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for One Hour CO Concentration, Primary and Secondary:
35.00 ppm.
'Virginia DOT, 1973.
2Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board, 1965.
'Kirchner and Armstrong, EPA 450/2-73-003.
'Derived from using Milligan's empirical (e) equations, as contained in a study submitted to EPA by
Andrew J. Milligan, September 5, 1972.
49
-------
TABLE A-J,
Levels of Ozone and NOz, Chesterfield County, 197^
Ozone
NO*
Primary
Standard1
Secondary
Standard1
Sampling
Date, 1974
Sept. 25
Sept. 26
Sept. 27
Sept. 28
Sept. 29
Sept. 30
Oct. 1
Oct. 2
Oct. 3
Oct. 4
Oct. 5
Oct. 6
Oct. 7
Oct. 8
Oct. 9
Oct. 10
Oct. 11
Oct. 12
Oct. 13
Oct. 14
Oct. 15
Maximum 1 hour
Average Concen-
tration =0.08 ppm
Same as Primary
Value (ppm)2
0.094
0.095
0.120
0.068
0.110
0.100
0.110
0.106
0.086
0.109
0.123
0.131
0.149
0.101
0.131
0.148
0.148
0.140
0.133
0.129
0.094
Annual Arithmetic
mean = 0.05 ppm
Same as Primary
* Value (ppm)
0.016
0.014
0.009
0.028
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.023
0.021
0.019
0.007
0.025
0.021
0.035
0.027
0.010
0.060
0.011
0.018
0.024
0.000
•National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50; 36 FR
22384 November 25, 1971): EPA Regulations, adopted by Vir-
ginia Air Pollution Control Board
2Data collected at Pocahontas State Park Special Facility
*NOTE: There are not enough data to derive a valid annual
arithmetic mean concentration. Hence the daily values
are not averaged.
TABLE A-5
Total Hydrocarbon Emissions in Chesterfield County, 1975
Emission
Source
Light Duty Vehicles
Heavy Duty Vehicles
Mobile Source
Sub Total
Stationary Sources4
VMT1
1,054,240
89,559
1,143,799
COM2
4.4
16.2
hm2
1.8
5.4
Speed
Factor2
.75
.75
Emission
Factor2
5.1
17.45
Emissions
Tons/year3
2,159
628
2,787
12,629
TOTAL
15,416
'Virginia DOT, 1973 (vehicle-miles of travel)
2Kirchner and Armstrong, EPA-450/2-73-003 (Exhaust emissions)
'Derived by multiplying VMT X Emission Factor (Evaporative emissions)
'National Emission Data System, 1974
50
-------
TABLE A-6
Present and Projected Peak One Hour CO Concentrations in Service Area
Highway and
Segment
Rt. 1 & 301
Fr. Rt. 150
To Bellwood
Rt. 10
Fr. Rt. 145
To Rt. 150
Rt.60
Fr. WCL Richmond,
To Rt. 147
Rt. 147
Fr. Rt. 678
To Rt. 711
Rt. 150
Fr. Rt. 60
To Rt. 686
Rt.360
Fr. SWCL
Richmond, To Rt. 604
Rt. 1-95
Fr. F.C.
Interchange to
Maury St.
Year
1975
1985
2000
1975
1985
2000
1975
1985
2000
1975
1985
2000
1975
1985
2000
1975
1985
2000
1975
1985
2000
AADT'
31,615
38,886
53,746
7,860
9,667
13,362
17,085
21,014
29,044
7,975
9,809
13,558
23,640
29,077
41,088
16,115
19,821
27,395
45,645
56,143
77,596
Peak Hour
Vehicles
Per Hour2
3161.5
3888.6
5374.6
786.0
966.7
1336.2
1708.5
2101.4
2904.4
797.5
980.9
1355.8
2364.0
2907.7
4108.8
1611.5
1982.1
2739.5
4564.5
5614.3
7759.6
Emission Factor
Grams/VMT3
.8
.3
.118
.8
.3
.118
.8
.3
.118
.8
.3
.118
.8
.3
.118
.8
.3
.118
.8
.3
.118
Peak Hour
CO Concentra-
tion (PPM)4
7.03
7.68
9.12
5.36
5.50
5.76
5.96
6.27
6.88
5.37
5.52
5.77
6.42
6.87
7.82
5.89
6.18
6.76
8.25
9.36
11.97
National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Primary and Secondary: One-Hour Concentration 35.00 ppm
'Virginia DOT, 1973 and EPA Projections based on population increase.
'Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board, 1965.
'Kirchner and Armstrong, EPA-450/2-73-003.
'Derived through use of Milligan's empirical (e) equations, as contained in a study submitted to EPA
by Andrew J. Milligan, September 5, 1972.
51
-------
Figure A-l Relationship of hydrocarbon reduction to oxidant concentration.
100
o n>
3- -5
-i. O
ro n>
< 3
n> rt
g.
o
i O
3
so
CO
-5 0-
O. -$
(/> O
n
o -5
-5 cr
o
T3 3
3-
o m
r+ 3
o -••
n <"
3- >
U -"•
3 O
-i. 3
__
60
40
20
X C
•j* —-I.
3. -S
o> n>
.3 a.
H-
t/> e-*-
o
1
I
I
I
I
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
MAXIMUM MEASURED PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT CONCENTRATION, ( ppm)
0.30
-------
APPENDIX B
53
-------
TABLE B-l
Water Quality of Swift Creek, Falling Creek, and
James River at Selected Locations
FALLING CREEK
Appliable Water
Qaulity Standards
Location
III A
III A
PWS
Rt. 1 Reservoir
Mileage*
Temp.(°F)
D.O. mg/1
BOD mg/1
pH
N02, NOs, NH3,
(as N) mg/1
Total P04 (as P)
mg/1
As ug/1
Cd ug/1
Fe ug/1
Pb ug/1
Mn ug/1
Hgug/1
Total Coliforms
/100ml
Fecal Coliforms
/100ml
Applicable Water
Quality Standards
Location
Mileage*
Temp.(°F)
D.O. mg/1
BOD mg/1
pH
N02,N03,NH3
(asN)mg/l
Total P04 (as P)
As ug/1
Cd ug/1
Fe ug/1
Pb ug/1
Mn ug/1
Hgug/1
Total Coliforms
/100ml
Fecal Coliforms
/100ml
Mileage
Temp.(°F)
D.O. mg/1
BOD mg/1
PH
(as N)mg/l
Total P04 (as P)
IIIB
PWS
Rt.l
4.92
62.8
9.0
2.9
6.9
.267
.096
5.0
10.0
823
10.0
133
0.50
3596
722
94.8
78
6.8
2.2
7.3
.714
.113
III A
Rt.
655
19.2
60.9
8.8
6.8
.149
.099
5.0
10.0
12.5
0.50
136
96.8
77
6.5
2.5
7.3
.715
.117
0.85
60.7
9.2
2.3
7.0
.323
.094
4.4
8.9
470
11.4
107
3.9
2706
676
SWIFT
IIIB
Lake
Dam
21.2
79.2
8.0
7.0
.128
.099
3.0
7.8
10.0
0.50
100
115
JAMES
98.3
76
6.0
2.9
7.1
.852
.157
3.67
63.3
9.2
7.1
.316
.106
1.1
1.0
10.0
0.50
300
CREEK
IIIB
Lake
23.2
78.4
7.6
1.0
7.0
.159
.099
4.0
7.8
10.0
0.50
181
RIVER1
100.9
74
4.8
4.8
7.0
III A
PWS
Rt. 10
5.78
64.8
9.7
7.2
.262
.106
1.1
1.0
15.0
0.50
212
IIIB
Lake
Head-
waters
23.5
76.6
7.7
6.7
.119
.099
4.0
7.8
10.0
1.75
1600
646
103.2
76
6.4
9.7
7.4
.791
.133
III A
Rt.360
13.0
61.4
8.4
2.6
6.7
.223
.099
4.4
8.9
1979
10.7
127
0.63
5575
274
IIIB
Rt.
653
25.3
59.6
9.1
6.9
.186
.120
5.0
10.0
10.0
0.50
268
104.7
69
5.8
3.0
7.3
IIIB
Rt.
360
30.7
62.9
8.8
2.4
7.0
.173
.092
5.8
10.0
503
10.0
360
0.56
3566
129
106.2
75
7.0
4.0
7.4
.738
.177
III A
PWS
Rt.
604
34.1
63.8
9.0
6.9
.174
.099
5.0
10.0
10.0
0.50
158
108.0
74
8.4
2.9
7.7
.603
.111
III A
PWS
Rt.
606
38.0
57.9
9.3
7.0
.188
.099
5.0
10.0
10.0
0.50
145
109.6
62
9.7
2.3
7.7
.545
.095
*Mileage are in distance from the mouth of the stream.
55
-------
TABLE B-l (Continued)
Water Quality of Swift Creek, Falling Creek, and
James River at Selected Locations
JAMES RIVER1
Applicable Water
Quality Standards
Location
As ug/1
Cd ug/1
Fe ug/1
Pb ug/1
Mn ug/1
Hgug/1
Total Coliforms
' /100ml
Fecal Coliforms
/100ml
IIIB
PWS
Rt.l
5.0
10.0
10.0
70.0
0.0966
7891
2946
III A
Rt.
655
5.0
10.0
12.0
80.0
0.50
20524
4215
IIIB
Lake
Dam
5.0
10.0
10.0
80.0
0.50
65686
5895
III B III B III B
Lake Rt. Rt.
Head- 653
waters
5.0
10.0
10.0
50.0
0.69
421200 236462 578600
5012
IIIB
Rt.
360
5.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
1.39
915108
4961
III A
PWS
Rt.
604
5.0
10.0
12.0
10.0
0.51
209519
725
III A
PWS
Rt.
606
5.0
10.0
783
11.8
33.3
0.70
29803
3563
The applicable Water Quality Standard for all samples is II B
Source: Virginia State Water Control Board
Figures in this table are based on samples taken between the spring of 1970 and the autumn of 1974.
Table B-2
Virginia Public Water Supply Standards1
Constituent
Physical
Color (color units)
Inorganic Chemicals
Alkalinity
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chloride
Chromium, hexavalent
Copper
Fluoride
Iron (filterable)
Lead
Manganese (filterable)
Nitrates plus nitrites
Selenium
Silver
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
(filterable residue)
Uranyl ion
Organic Chemicals
Carbon Chloroform extract
(CCE)
Concentration
75
mg/1
30-500
0.05
1.0
1.0
0.01
250
0.05
1.0
1.7
0.3
0.05
0.3
10 (as N)
0.01
0.05
250
500
5
mg/1
0.15
Constituent
Cyanide
Methylene blue active
subtances
Pesticides:
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Organic phosphates plus Carbamates
Toxaphene
Herbicides:
2,4-D plus 2,4,5-T, plus 2,4,5-TP
Phenols
Radioactivity:
Gross beta
Radium-226
Strontium-90
Concentration
0.20
0.017
0.003
0.042
0.017
0.001
0.018
0.018
0.056
0.035
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.001
pc/1
1,000
3
10
General standards, based on climate, geology and water
usage, are also applicable to waters within the State.
'from "Water Quality Standards Summary for Interstate
Waters of the Commonwealth of Virginia", 1971.
56
-------
m
ro
i
• = MONITOR LOCATION
A - SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT.
101 2346
SWCB STREAM QUALITY MONITORING LOCATIONS
-------
A. Primary Classification of Waters Within the State
MAJOR
CLASS
GEOGRAPHICAL
AREA
DESCRIPTION
WATER
D.O. mg/1
Daily
Min. Av. pH
Temp. °F
Rise Above
Natural
Max.
I Open Ocean (Seaside 5.0
of the Land Mass
II Estuarine (Tidal 4.0
Water - Coastal
Zone to Fall Line
III Free Flowing Streams 4.0
(Coastal Zone &
Piedmont Zone to the
Crest of the Mountains
IV Mountainous Zone 4.0
V Put & Take Trout 5.0
Waters
VI Natural Trout Waters 6.0
— 6.0-8.5 4.0(Sept-May)
l.S(June-Aug)
5.0 6.0-8.5 4.0(Sept-May)
l.S(June-Aug)
5.0 6.0-8.5 5 90
5.0 6.0-8.5 5 87
6.0 6.0-8.5 — 70
7.0 6.0-8.5 — 70
B. Subclasses to Complement Major Water Class Designitions
1. Subclass A
Uses - Waters generally satisfactory for use as public or
municipal water supply, secondary contact recreation,
propagation of fish and aquatic life, and other beneficial
uses.
Criteria - Coliform Organisms - Fecal coliforms (multiple-
tube fermentation of MF count) not to exceed a log mean of
1000/100 ml. Not to equal or exceed 2000/100 ml. in more
than 10% of samples.
Monthly average value not more than 5000/100 ml. (MPN
or MF count). Not more than 5000 MPN/100 ml. in more
than 20% of samples in any month. Not more than 20,-
000/100 ml. in more than 5% of such samples.*
2. Subclass B
Uses - Waters generally satisfactory for use as public or
municipal water supply, primary contact recreation,
(prolonged intimate contact; considerable risk of in-
gestion), propagation of fish and other aquatic life, and
other beneficial uses.
Criteria - Coliform Organisms - Fecal coliforms (multiple-
tube fermentation of MF count) within a 30 day period not
to exceed a log mean of 200/100 ml. Not more than 10% of
samples within a 30-day period will exceed 400/100 ml.
Monthly average not more than 2400/100 ml. (MPN or MF
count). Not more than 24/100 ml. in more than 20% of
samples in any month. Not applicable during, nor im-
mediately following periods of rainfall.*
* With the exception of the coliform standard for shellfish
waters, the enforceable standards will be those pertaining
to fecal coliform organisms. The MPN concentrations are
retained as administrative guides for use by water treat-
ment plant operators.
58
-------
APPENDIX C
59
-------
A descriptive account of annual events in water supply lakes
and reservoirs (An except from "Water Supply Lakes and Raw
Water Storage Reservoirs", Ridley, J. E., 71 W4/USA/3100,
September-October, 1971.)
The natural sequence of physical-chemical and biological
events in water-supply lakes and reservoirs affects quality con-
trol at treatment plants where the first objective is to ensure
economic production of a safe, potable product. The term "safe"
is here defined as free from toxic chemicals and from
pathogenic bacteria and viruses; "potable" implies the absence
of objectionable smell or taste, and minimal coloration and tur-
bidity.
These standards are at greater risk when eutrophic waters
are the supply sources, even when water treatment technology
is at a high level, because there is always a possibility of failure
to cope with extreme situations.
At the same time there is an urgent need to augment existing
high-quality surface and ground water sources with low-quality
surface waters. Thus, the major supply source to high-
population areas is, in the future, more likely to be an enriched
impoundment requiring elaborate systems of filtration and dis-
infection to ensure adequate quantities of a safe, potable water.
The economics of raw water storage favour the valley-dam
type of construction, where the seasonal inflow and outflow
may be extremely variable. In any particular terrain there will
be an optimum economic depth of water at the dam, determined
solely by geological and engineering decisions. In lowland
valleys the minimum depth is likely to be about 30 feet, while in
steep and narrow valleys the depth at the dam may exceed 100
feet. Surface areas will range from a few hundred acres to
several square miles, and as the impoundment will probably
fulfill water supply and recreational needs in the area, the
seasonal patterns require consideration before investing in the
vapious types of in-reservoir control systems.
ft) SPRING
After the winter ice cover melts, any solar heating of the sur-
face layers is disrupted by vernal winds and there will be
downwards transfer of heat. The water column will be isother-
mal and will be colonised by algae as water temperature in-
creases. At this time of year, the most successful algae are like-
ly to be diatoms which are tolerant to relatively low levels of
light and water temperature. Continued development of the
algal population to bloom proportions depends upon many fac-
tors; it may continue until specific nutrients are depleted, or it
may die as a result of reduced turbulence in the water column
because the larger algal cells are then unable to maintain their
position in the photic zone unless morphologically or
physiologically adapted to flotation. The developing blooms
may be attacked by viruses or by fungal parasites, or the algae
themselves may exert a "self-shading" effect as cell numbers in-
crease and eventually restrict penetration of light into the
water column.
(ii) EARLY SUMMER
With increased rates of solar heating, and decreasing winds,
thermal-density gradients develop and the lake gradually
becomes stratified, firstly to a two-layered system (epilimnion
and thermocline) and ultimately to the three-layered situation
(epilimnion, thermocline and hypolimnion). The density
differences in the various layers are then sufficient to restrict
free vertical circulation through the full depth of the water
column, thus preventing "ventilation" of the mud surface by
downward movement of highly oxygenated water from the sur-
face layers. Wind forces may then be incapable of creating
enough turbulent movement in the lake to fully circulate the
dissolved oxygen available in the topmost layers, where surface
aeration and algal activities are producing surplus oxygen.
This physical change in the structure of the water column
begins to favour those species of algae which are tolerant to
relatively quiescent conditions, but requiring somewhat higher
levels of light and water temperature than the spring crop of
diatoms. This group includes numerous species of green algae.
At the same time, there will be an increase in the numbers
and types of grazing invertebrates, again with column zonation
depending upon specific feeding habits. At this time, therefore,
the grazing zooplankton may have a markedly selective effect
on the success, or failure, of specific types of algae to assume
bloom proportions.
(in) MIDSUMMER
Thermal layering will be at maximum, and in subtropical
areas the topmost layers may be 25 to 30 °C while the bottom
layers remain at about 15 °C. Column stagnation then
accelerates the rate of deposition of dead algal cells, providing
that they have a density in excess of the surrounding water, and
they may decompose during settlement or when reaching the
bottom of the lake. As the rate of decomposition of deposited
organic matter increases, the dissolved oxygen concentrations
immediately above the mud surface begin to fall, and when at a
concentration of about 2 mg/1, i.e. about 20% of the saturation
value, there is a release of absorbed and complexed nutrients
from the deposits.
At this time, nitrate-N is reduced to NJL-N, complexed phos-
phates released as ortho and meta-P, Fe+++ and MN"1"*" re-
duced to Fe + and Mn+ , sulphates reduced to HaS, proteins
to polypeptides and aminoacids, complexed silicates released
etc., etc. The rate of nutrient release and accumulation in the
bottom layers increases rapidly as the dissolved oxygen con-
tinues to fall to 10% saturation, then to zero, and ultimately
to extreme anaerobic conditions where HaS concentrations may
build up in excess of 10 mg/1.
The bottom layers of the lake could then be described as a
nutrient concentrate, requiring only oxygenation to eliminate
substances such as HiS and Mn+ which would be toxic to
algae. If, therefore, a partial mixing of the water column occurs,
possibly during a midsummer storm, some proportion of these
nutrient-rich layers will be transported to the well-oxygenated
upper layers of the lake and be immediately available to the
algae.
If, on the other hand, the density stagnation of the water
column remains undisturbed, algae in the photic zone will
flourish until they have stripped specific nutrients or until
the bloom becomes self-limiting by reducing the penetration
of light. In either event, the deposited cells add a further quan-
tity of decomposing material for bacterial degradation at the
mud-water interface, with consequent increase in nutrient
concentration in the bottom water.
Phytoplankton associations of midsummer are likely to be do-
minated by the blue-greens, although mixtures of Chlorophyta,
Cryptophyta, and Chrysophyta commonly occur. The blue-
greens tend to concentrate near the surface and may flourish
even after stripping all sources of dissolved nitrogen because
some species have a physiological capability for utilizing at-
mospheric nitrogen.
At this time of the year, the topmost layers of the lake may
contain vast concentration of algae, of the order of 200,000
cells/ml, while the bottom layers may be foul-smelling and
contain massive concentrations of nutrients. Thus, the volume
of readily usable water for a water supply treatment works may
be less than 50% of the total volume hold in storage and at the
same time the lake may be aesthetically unacceptable if blue-
green algal scums are present.
(iv.) LATE SUMMER THROUGH FALL
The rate of solar heating of the surface layers decreases
rapidly, and autumn winds increase in strength and frequency.
This combination of heat-loss and wind-induced turbulence
gradually breaks down the density gradients established during
summer. If the vertical mixing process transports nutrient-rich
strata from the lake bottom at a time when light penetration
and water temperature in the upper layers are still favourable,
there will be a fall bloom of algae. The relatively low light and
temperature tend to favour particular diatoms, as in the spring,
although some of the summer algae will remain as minor con-
stituents.
61
-------
During late fall, continuing loss of heat to atmosphere and in-
creasing winds sufficiently disrupt the density gradients to
rapidly produce an isothermal column, and full circulation, in
shallow lakes. In deeper lakes, this "fall overturn" will be
delayed until early winter. However, the overall effect is to fer-
tilize the water column with high concentrations of nutrients
which have accumulated in the bottom layers during summer
stratification. At this time, water temperature and light are
less favourable to development of algae, and the lake remains
throughout the winter as a nutrient-loaded ecosystem requiring
only the light and heat of the following spring to reactivate the
biological cycle. The concentration of nutrients in the water
column at the onset of winter is, therefore, an important factor
in determining the potential crops of algae in the following
spring.
(v) WINTER
Dissolved oxygen in the water column will be equalized dur-
ing the fall overturn, to a concentration determined by the ox-
idation requirements of reducing substances transported from
the bottom strata. Aerobic decay of bottom deposits continues
through the winter, although at a much reduced rate as water
temperature decreases.
Immediately after ice cover, there will be a continuing loss of
dissolved oxygen from the water column, due to absence of
wind-induced aeration at the surface and also to the minimal
activities of over-wintering algae which are merely at survival
level. The invertebrate and vertebrate components of the
ecosystem continue to consume oxygen, although at a much
reduced rate, and the dissolved oxygen concentration may fall
to a level below the tolerance of some species of fish.
62
-------
APPENDIX D
63
-------
RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY MODELING
;. The Modeling Process
The water quality problems facing the two County reservoirs
are inherent to all artificial impoundments. The free-flowing
stream can transport sediment loads and assimilate nutrients
over the entire course of the stream due to the swift velocity
and high dilution of nutrient concentrations. When man dams
these naturally cleansing streams, the velocity loss causes a
deposition of sediment and inorganic matter. This accumulation
of nutrients promotes growths of diatoms, green and blue-green
algaes. The great quantities of both plant and animal organic
matter leads to a gradual filling in of the reservoir. The waters
consequently become generally warmer. Rooted aquatic plants
take over increasingly more space, their dead remains
accelerating the filling of the reservoir. Eventually this process
transforms the eutrophic lake into a marsh and finally into ex-
tinction. This process is called eutrophication.
A significant issue of the proposed action is the effect of in-
duced development on the quality and future usefulness of the
two County water supply reservoirs. In order to assess these
effects, base information and present water quality must be es-
timated.
The classical approach in determining the quality of a reser-
voir is to quantify all nutrient sources and sinks on a yearly
basis. This is followed by a determination of which nutrients, in
what quantities, are optimal (and maximum) for support of a
healthy hydrologic system. This quantification is specific to
each reservoir, based on many factors, including: regional
geology, size and depth of the lake basin, flushing rate, slopes
and area of the contributing watershed, latitude of the lake, and
man's activities in the watershed.
Eutrophication is the result of a gradual accumulation of
nutrients. Nutrients are organic plant and animal material, and
trace elements and vitamins. The greatest influence on the
degree of eutrophy is the availability of two inorganic elements:
phosphorus and nitrogen. The sources and sinks (gains and
losses) of these nutrients are listed in Table D-l. A review of the
sources indicates the difficulties involved not only in quan-
tifying the contributions by source, but also in delineating the
boundaries of contributing sources.
Contributions to the reservoir from groundwater, precipita-
tion and dry fallout (airborne sources), and the in situ sources
(within the lake) cannot be accurately estimated. The only
legitimately quantifiable contribution, as well as the most.
abundant, is from surface water contributions from the
drainage area. Because of these quantification difficulties, it is
probable that no studies have measured all the sources and
sinks for any single lake. However, an alternative to actual
measurement is the development of a simulation model of
TABLE D-l
Sources and Sinks of Nutrients in Reservoirs
1. Sources
Surface
Agricultural runoff and drainage
Animal waste runoff
Marsh Drainage
Forest Runoff
Urban storm water runoff
Domestic and Industrial waste effluents
Airborne
Precipitation
Aerosols and dust
Leaves and miscellaneous debris
Underground
Natural soil contributions
Subsurface agricultural and urban drainage
Septic tank discharges
In Situ
Nitrogen fixation
Sediment leaching
2. Sinks
Effluent Loss
Fish & Weed harvest
Volatilization (of NHs)
Denitrification
Sorption of NHs onto sediments
Groundwater recharge
Insect emergence
Evaporation
Sediment deposition of detritus
Source: Brezonik, 1973
nutrient transport based on estimated nutrient loads from
various land uses in the drainage area (Lee, et al, 1966).
Nutrient studies focus on nitrogen and phosphorus as the best
indicators of eutrophy. Table D-2 shows the results of many
studies regarding the relationship between nutrient amncen-
trations in receiving waters and the land uses draining into
them. Only forest and urban land uses are shown because of
their predominance in the Swift Creek drainage area.
TABLE D-2
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentration from Various Nutrient Sources
Land Use
Forest
Igneous basin
sedimentary basin
Urban
sedimentary basin
Nitrogen
kg/ha-yr
1.3-5.0
1.5-3.4
1.6-2.2
1.3-5.1
8.8
2.1-8.8
6.84
Phosphorus
kg/ha-yr
0.084-0.18
0.83-0.86
0.18-0.32
0.01-0.86
0.047
0.117
1.1
0.5-2.9
5.27
1.1-16.6
Reference
Cooper, 1969
Sylvester, 1961
Viro, 1953
Uttormark, 1974
(8 references)
Vollenweider, 1974
Vollenweider, 1974
Brezonik, 1973
(4 references)
Uttormark, 1974
(8 references)
Tafuri, 1974
Vollenweider, 1974 • -
65
-------
The next step in modeling is to choose the concentration of
nitrogen and phosphorus and calculate the loading rates to the
reservoir. This is done by dividing the annual nutrient con-
tributions by the surface area of the impoundment. Based on
this loading rate, a direct comparison with published levels and
dangerous nutrient levels indicates the probability of
eutrophication of the reservoir. Using Brezonik's values (listed
in Table D-3), a nitrogen loading rate below 1.9 g/m will not
cause water quality problems associated with overfertilization.
A value over 3.4 g/m indicates excessive nitrogen contributions,
which, together with a correspondingly high phosphorus con-
tribution, often leads to eutrophic conditions. A reservoir with
nitrogen and phosphorus levels below these levels is nutrient-
poor, or oligotrophic. Values between these limits may lead to
eutrophic conditions, indicating that a reservoir's condition is
not completely dependent on these loading rates. These in-
termediate, or mesotrophic, nutrient levels, are found in most
impoundments.
TABLE D-3
Brezonik's and Vollenweider's Critical
Nutrient Loading Rates (g/im)
Brezonik's Nutrient Loading Rates
N P
TABLE D-4
Estimated Nutrient Loadings to
the Falling Creek Reservoir (g/m'/yr)
Permissible
Dangerous
1.9
3.4
0.28
0.49
Vollenweider's Nutrient Loading Rates
Mean depth (m) N
Permissible
Dangerous
up to 5
10
50
up to 5
10
50
1.0
1.5
4.0
2.0
3.0
8.0
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.13
0.20
0.50
Vollenweider (1974) has refined Brezonik's model by in-
cluding mean depth of the reservoir as an additional indepen-
dent variable. This is based on the fact that the critical nutrient
loading rates are greater for lakes of greater mean depth.
Vollenweider's loading rates are more conservative than
Brezonik's. This difference of standards, reflecting the state of
the art of the lake modeling process, is greatest for phosphorus
loading rates in shallow lakes.
Vollenweider further refined his model by including the
hydraulic flushing rate. This parameter, explained in Section
H.A.5., accounts for the availability of the nutrient loading to
biological processes while it is present in the lake. Figure D-l
relates the loading rate of phosphorus to the mean depth divid-
ed by the flushing rate. This model is probably the best
available method for estimating a lake's degree of eutrophy. It
has been used to predict nutrient budgets for several lakes in
southern Ontario (Michalski, et al, 1973). Included is a number of
phosphorus budget parameters reported in the literature by
Dillon and Vollenweider (1974).
•2. Falling Creek Reservoir Model
As Table D-2 indicates there is such great variance in
reported nitrogen and phosphorus levels that only a general
loading rate can be determined for the modeling process. Actual
samples taken from tributaries and the Reservoir itself are of
much greater significance in approximating the actual physical
conditions of the impoundment.
There are presently two data sources for the Falling Creek Res-
ervoir from which a predictive model can be derived (Table D-4).
Data Source
N
Point on
Figure D-l
Va.SWCB 30.74 10.99 FC1
Raw Water Intake 46.97 11.04 FC2
The first, a State Water Control Board monitoring program (us-
ed in Table B-l), has samples from February, 1970 to August,
1974. The second was taken at the raw water intake of the Fall-
ing Creek Water Filtration Plant, in February, 1975. The
nutrient loadings to the reservoir derived from these data are
listed in Table D-4. When compared to the 5 meter depth figures
in Table D-3, it is apparent that present nutrient loadings
produce highly eutrophic conditions. Further, when plotted on
Vollenweider's graph (Figure D-l), the degree of eutrophy
appears critical. The beneficially fast flushing rate (7.8 days)
emphasizes the critical nutrient loading levels. As the flushing
rate decreases (i.e., more settling of nutrients in the reservoir),
the locations on the graph shift to more eutrophic conditions.
Reports from the County agree with the conclusions of this
model. Treatment with Copper Sulfate (CuSo<) has been a
seasonal activity in Falling Creek Reservoir since its construc-
tion. In the spring of 1974, an aeration system was installed to
eliminate odor and taste problems related to the stagnant
anaerobic conditions prevalent throughout the summer. These
and other treatment alternatives are disucssed Appendix J.
3. Sirift Creek Reservoir Model
Using the same modeling approach, three data sources for
Swift Creek Reservoir were obtained. The State Water Control
Board has collected data for both the Falling and Swift Creek
systems. Data from the Swift Creek Water Filtration Plant ob-
tained in February, 1974 has also been compiled. Due to the
specific concerns about development near the Reservoir,
Chesterfield County has engaged EcolSciences, Inc. to collect
and analyze water quality data for the tributaries of the Reser-
voir. The actual monitoring program is discussed in Appendix G.
TABLE D-5
Estimated Nutrient Loadings to the
Swift Creek Reservoir (g/rm/yr)
Data Source
Va. SWCB
Raw Water Intake
Ecol Sciences
N
1.57
2.04
1.96
P
0.94
0.94
0.59
Point on
Figure D-l
SCI
SCI
SC2
The figures in Table D-5, when compared to the critical
nutrient levels in Table D-3, indicate excessive phosphorus
loadings to the Reservoir. Nitrogen levels, consistently lower in
all samples than the predicted quantities of Table D-2, reflect
only slight mesotrophy. Figure D-l substantiates the marginal
quality of the impoundment. Again, the flast flushing rate (113
days) prevents a more severe loading rate problem. Although
there is some variance in the data, there is general agreement
between the data from both reservoirs.
4. Projected Reservoir Trophic State for Swift Creek Reservoir
The same modeling process can be used to predict changes in
water quality resulting from reduced pollution contributions,
improved sewage treatment or increased development in the
watershed.'
Presently under construction on 1,600 acres adjacent to Swift
Creek Reservoir is a planned development called Brandermill-
66
-------
Surface runoff from this area (considered to be urban) contains
considerably higher nutrient concentrations than that from
forested areas prevalent in the Swift Creek basin. Therefore, to
predict conditions in the Reservoir after Brandermill is com-
plete,an estimate (by measurement or assumed values) must be
made of the increased nutrient loadings. Without the advantage
of actual measurements from the developing area, values
chosen for nitrogen and phosphorus are 6.8 Kg/ha and 5.3
Kg/ha, respectively.2 Incorporating these values for the 1,600-
acre development with the previous data established for reser-
voir loading rates, a new position in Figure D-l indicates the
deterioration of water quality which can be expected from the
development.3 The result is a significant shift to more eutrophic
conditions.
These model results provide the best estimate of nutrient
loadings available at this time. There are several variables
which, when better defined, will provide a better estimate:
a. the effectiveness of on-site erosion and sediment controls;
b. the significance of the proximity of the development to the
Reservoir (although Brandermill occupies only four percent of
the Reservoir's drainage area); and
c. the general validity of Vollenweider's critical nutrient levels
and the estimated nutrient contributions from the Brandermill
development.
APPENDIX D FOOTNOTES
1. Investigations have been conducted by Michalski, Johnson
and Veal (1973) predicting the trophic change insurred by in-
creased population and reduced sewage contributions.
2. Tafuri, A. R., Characterization and Treatment of Urban
Land Runoff, December, 1974. The values were selected since
they were representative of a typically urbanized area occurring
in the Piedmont region of the Southeastern United States (Dur-
ham, N. C.).
3. As indicated in Figure D-l;
A = SCI plus the contribution from 1600 acres of development;
B = SC2 plus the contribution from 1600 acres of development.
10-
1-0-
o
z
Q
<
O
•01
EUTROPHIC
,FC2
•FCI
Dangerous
/ Permissible
Llol = .30
Llo) = .20
Llo) = .15
OLIGOTROPHIC
~r~ri
1000
100
VOLLENWEIOER'S TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING vs.
MEAN DEPTH -r WATER RESIDENCE TIME (z/'w) RELATIONSHIP
FIGURE D-l
67
-------
APPENDIX E
69
-------
Cuf«M T. JcaMH
btcuthr* Secretary
COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA
SL4TE JP/17TR COXTROL BOARD
2111 North Hamilton Street
Pfetse Reply To: Piedmont Regional Office
4010 Weft Broad Street
P.O. Box 6616
Richmond, Virginia 23230
(804) 770-5401
Poet Offlca Boi 1H43
Mehmend. Virginia 232;
(104)770-1411
•OARO MEMBERS
R*y w. Edwards
CJulrman
Andrew W. McThenU. -
VkoeChalrman
X L*o Bourasu
Warrm t_ Bnun
DtnbJ. Brlon
Bad T. Carmody
M*. Wayne Jaciuon
February 10, 1975
Mr. J. A. lioerick, Jr.
R. Stuart Royer & Associates
1514 Willow Lawn Drive
Richmond, Virginia 23226
Subject: Response to W. L. Carter's
December 13, 1974 letter to
E. T. Jensen - Old Town Creek
and Colonial Heights interceptors
Dear Mr. Limerick:
In response to W. L. Carter's December 13, 1974 letter (Attachment I) to
E. T. Jensen, I fiel the following consents are necessary to fully evaluate
the problem.
The data base wnich Engineering-Science, Inc. used in the preparation of
Volume VI1-4 (Part B), "Existing Hydrologic and Climatological Data Base
(Ground-water Hydrology)," in the James River Comprehensive Water Quality
Management Study (3-C Report) was based primarily on reports by Cederstrom
(1945) and the Virginia Division cf Water Resources (1970), When these
bulletins were published, recharge of the principal aquifers was considered
to occur by direct infiltration along the Fall Zone where the deeper coastal
plain sec iments crop out.
More recently, results of a State Water Control Board - U.S. Geological Survey
aquifer system model of the coastal plain of southeastern Virginia has shown
that vertical leakage through confining layers is the major mechanism for
recharge to the Potomac aquifer (see Attachment II, pages 7, 8, and 9).
Vertical ;r_: „:-rj; ccci.«r^ at b minimum rate of 30,000 gallor.3 per day per square
71
-------
mile (see Attachment III, pages 2 and 3). The results of a pump test conducted
In January, 1975 on a well in eastern Henrico County indicated that vertical
recharge in that part of the coastal plain may be as much as six to ten million
gallons per day per square mile.
In the Hopewell area many large ground-water users have converted to the use
of surface water since 1970. The cone of depression at Hopewell, therefore,
Is not expected to expand; the future availability of ground water at Hopewell
should not be a major problem.
The westward movement of the salt-water-fresh-water interface In southeastern
Virginia has been a concern for a number of years. Several deep wells show
high chloride concentrations (see Attachment II, page 20). The U.S. Geological
Survey has defined the interface (see Attachment II, page 21); however, the
Staff of ths State Water Control Board does not feel that there exists enough
data points to predict the movement of the salt front. In the near future the
Board's Bureau of Surveillance and Field Studies plans to construct several new
deep wells to monitor the movement of salt waters.
At the January 2k, 1975 meeting of the State Water. Control Board, southeastern
Virginia (as described in Attachment II) was declared a Critical Groundwater
Area. Under this program the area now will be managed to prevent the depletion
of ground-water supplies and the deterioration of ground-water quality.
I hope that these remarks will assist you In your answer to EPA.
Sincerely,
David H. Ualz
Regional Geologist
Enclosures: I - letter dated December 13, 197A, W. L. Carter to E. T. Jensen
II - Planning Bulletin 261-A, "Groundwater of Southeastern Virginia
III - letter dated September 27, 1973, J. J. Cibulka to E. G. Council!,
cc: J. J. Clbulka
L. H. Corkran
dtb
72
-------
APPENDIX F
73
-------
TABLE F-l
Population Projections,
Chesterfield County Portion of Service Area
Base Population, January, 1975: 50,726
County Growth Rate: 5.8 percent annually
DSPCA Growth Rate: 1980-1984 - 2.7 percent
1985-1989 - 2.6 percent
1990-1994 - 2.1 percent
1995-2000 - 2.0 percent
End of Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
County
53,668
56,780
60,074
63,558
67,244
71,145
75,271
79,637
84,256
89,142
94,313
99,783
105,570
111,693
118,172
125,026
132,277
139,949
148,066
156,654
165,740
175,353
185,524
196,284
207,669
"DSPCA"1
53,668
56,780
60,074
63,558
67,244
69,059
70,924
72,839
74,805
76,825
78,823
80,872
82,975
85,132
87,345
89,180
91,052
92,965
94,917
96,910
98,848
100,825
102,841
104,898
106,996
Notes: 1. Since the 1975-1979 rate of 5.8 percent used here is not
DSPCA's, figures in this column reflect EPA's com-
bined use or rates.
TABLE F-2
Subdivisions to be Served by Public Sewers,
1975 - 1980, and the Number of Housing Units in Each
Key Ref.
No.
193
203
152
221
185
143
202
219
209
126
159
121
163
217
140
141
173
124
164
137
Grid
No.
27
16
27
27
27
27
39
28
38
39
39
50
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
29
Subdivision
Stonehenge
Sunny Dell Acres
Hylton Park
Kinrey
Pocoshock Heights
Forest Acres
Spring Hill
Gatewood
Wagstaff Circle
Bexley
Lake George Hamlet
Bedford
Lyndale
Longwood Acres
Falling Creek Acres
Falling Creek Farms
North Lake Hills
Belmont Hills
Marlboro
Elkhardt Park
Number of
Houses
167
18
63
11
34
84
48
30
32
50
16
28
20
137
18
103
47
18
30
28
Key Ref .
No.
192
220
213
195
216
150
187
199
212
154
123
227
132
116
157
120
158
138
149
146
119
117
218
200
129
139
228
145
229
230
226
189
224
161
175
153
111
151
112
225
188
165
172
197
Grid
No.
29
29
29
39
67
52
52
52
52
51
51
51
51
41
38
38
27
38
49
64
64
41
52
17
16
16
28
42
40
66
67
53
16
8
29
51
51
51
28
17
8
28
39
38
49
76
62
>
Subdivision
Southaven
Schloss Manor
Manchester Heights
Surreywood
Rayon Park
Henning Heights
Rock Spring Farms
Trampling Farms
Gravel Brook Farms
Jessup Place
Dale Meadows
Fernwood
Belmont Acres
Wilkerson Terrace
Chestnut Hills
Arrowhead
Lake Crystal Farms
Beechwood Farms
Lake Genito
Estridge
Hallie
Garland Heights
Beechwood
Avon Park
Black Heath
Windsor Forest
Brookfield
Falling Creek Court
McKesson Place
Fuqua Farms
Bellwood Addition
Bensley Village
Midlothian Area
Salisbury
Amber Heights
Land-0-Pines
Old Coach Hills
Jessup Farms
Ruthers Road
Dunns Trailer Park
Hillanne
Cedar Grove
Pocoshock Hills
Runnymeade
Mayfair Estates
Mockingbird Hills
Swift Creek Farms
Unrecorded lots in Grids 8, 16,
17, 26, 28, 29, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48,
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 63, 64, 67
Sub-Total
Jumber of
Houses
82
14
14
74
80
38
117
63
41
11
8
6
96
75
106
47
109
11
60
53
10
144
42
10
24
42
135
20
8
114
55
30
75
328
22
44
33
21
20
42
8
23
43
8
78
8
20
150
3644
Houses which have applied
for sewer but have not con-
nected 511
Houses with sewer service
laterals to the property line
but have not applied 252
Houses to be connected in the
City of Richmond from exten-
sions now planned or under
construction 318
TOTAL 4725
75
-------
APPENDIX G
77
-------
PROVISIONS OF THE SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR MONITORING
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Although the State Water Control Board and Chesterfield
County are conducting independent studies, the most reliable
and relevant data will be obtained from the program being ad-
ministered by EcolSciences, Inc. for the County.1
Table G-l lists the constituents being monitored by each
program. Also included is the depth and locations of the sample
location.
Discussion of EcolSciences, Inc. Monitoring and Management
Program at Swift Creek Reservoir
As part of its monitoring and management program for the
Swift Creek Reservoir, EcolSciences is developing a loading
model of the lake. EcolSciences is not developing a dynamic
model of the reservoir at this time because:
1) the required data base for a dynamic model is not current-
ly available but is being generated by Chesterfield County
and the State Water Control Board;
2) the proposed loading model will be more useful to the
'Water quality data from the County is limited because it lacks
information on nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. The
SWCB data has lacked sensitivity and also has little utility.
EcolSciences has requested that the SWCB increase the sen-
sitivity of its analyses to permit some interpretation of its
results. Mr. Pete Trexler of the SWCB has indicated that the
SWCB cannot comply completely to this request because of in-
creased costs. EcolSciences currently views the SWCB data as
having marginal value. The increased sensitivity of the
phosphorus analyses will not significantly improve the value of
the data.
County than a dynamic lake model in assessing proposed
development within the drainage basin of the reservoir,
3) the proposed loading model will be an integral part of any
dynamic lake model; and
4) the cost of developing a dynamic model for Swift Creek
Reservoir is currently excessive with respect to an-
ticipated benefits to the County.
At a meeting of parties interested in the fate of Swift Creek
Reservoir (Chesterfield County, EcolSciences, Sea Pines Com-
pany, and the State Water Control Board), EcolSciences an-
nounced its intention, as the County's consultant, to monitor
water quality in the tributaries to the reservoir, and to develop
a loading model basin upon land use in the lake's drainage
basin. This strategy was approved by all parties, and is in-
tegrated into a monitoring program involving the other three
parties.
The tributary monitoring program has been designed to
provide base line loading data for phosphorus, nitrogen,
suspended sediment, coliform bacteria, and heavy metals.
These data will be used to:
1) develop a loading model based upon current land use in the
Swift Creek Basin; and
2) form the basis of projections of future loadings based upon
changes in land use within the basin.
Loading data developed during this phase of the study will be
analyzed in reference to recent discussions of loading rate and
trophic conditions in lakes (Vollenweider, 1971, Brezonik, 1972;
Putnam, Brezonik and Shannon, 1972; Uttormark, Chapin and
Green, 1974; Dillon, 1975).
TABLE G-l
Constituents Being Monitored at Swift Creek Reservoir
Constituent
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Fecal Coliforms
Total Coliforms
Alkalinity
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Fixed Suspended Solids
Total Kjedhal Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrate (as N)
Total Phosphorous
Ortho Phosphorous
Standard Plate Count
Color
Secci Disk
Lead
Mercury
State Water
Control Board1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chesterfield
County2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EcolSciences, Inc.
(Tributaries)3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOTES: 1. All SWCB parameters are measured at mid-depth on a monthly basis. One sample,
nearest the dam, is also measured at the surface and bottom. Sample locations are indi-
cated on Figure G-l.
2. All County parameters are measured at mid-depth on a monthly basis. Sample locations
are indicated on Figure G-l.
3. All EcolSciences, Inc. parameters are measured below the surface of eight tributary
streams on a monthly basis. Sample locations are indicated on Figure G-l.
79
-------
The loading rates and trophic condition of the lake will be
projected to 1995 based upon Chesterfield County's land-use
plan for that year. In addition, loading rates based upon the
completion of various phases of Brandermill will be incor-
porated into the model. Loadings from developed apeas will be
based upon coefficients provided by the Real Estate Research
Corporation (1974) and other appropriate sources.
The model will predict the variation of nutrient concen-
trations in the reservoir resulting from alterations of land use
within its drainage basin. The predictive capability of the
proposed model is dependent upon two factors:
1) The validity of published data on nonpoint source pollu-
tion for developed areas; and
2) the validity of published discussions of loading rates and
the resulting trophic conditions in Lakes.
Theoretically, the model will be sensitive to any land use change
in the drainage basin, regardless of the area involved. However,
the two factors limiting the predictive capability of the model
will also dampen its sensitivity. This aspect of the model is
currently being assessed by EcolSciences.
Lake management programs are directed toward either the
prevention of pollutant inflow or are therapeutic treatments to
improve water quality and relieve the symptoms of eutrophica-
tion. The first approach is the more desirable and is available to
Chesterfield County. Because the drainage basin of the Swift
Creek Reservoir is rural, the County can control development in
that area to protect the water supply.
A critical step in assessing the fate of the reservoir is the
development of the loading model. This model permits
EcolSciences to assess the effects of current and projected land
use in the basin upon water quality in the reservoir. The model
can incorporate all of the land use patterns available to the
County. In this case, EcolSciences can present to the County a
series of projections based upon field observations, recent
theoretical advances, and management options. The County
must make the final determination of feasibility based upon the
future use of the lake as a water supply and the costs of
maintenance and management.
EcolSciences currently maintains the position that the diver-
sion of silt and stormwater runoff from developed areas im-
mediately surrounding the reservoir is a critical portion of any
management program. Based upon four months of water quali-
ty data from the tributaries to Swift Creek Reservoir, surface
runoff into the lake contains low concentrations of total
phosphorus and orthophosphate. Surface runoff from urban
areas contains considerably higher phosphorus loads than that
from forested areas similar to the Swift Creek basin (Uttor-
mark, Chapin and Green, 1974). This is apparently due to the
high phosphorus retention capacity exhibited by forest soils.
Runoff from urban areas also contains large quantities of
pesticides and petroleum residues which would be detrimental
to a water supply reservoir. In addition, the direct channeliza-
tion of runoff leads to heavy sediment transport during periods
of heavy rainfall. This contributes directly to the siltation of the
reservoir, and indirectly to nutrient buildup through the addi-
tion of compounds associated with the sediment particles. All of
these problems would be exaggerated during construction.
Diversion of urban runoff would also facilitate in-lake manage-
ment techniques by reducing the total load of polluting sub-
stances.
The second phase of the program involves the development of
an in-lake management strategy. The total strategy is com-
posed of a series of management techniques combined to ef-
ficiently control macrophyte infestations and phytoplankton
blooms. EcolSciences will approach the problem by evaluating
the potential for algal and/or macrophyte production in the
reservoir, and offer a series of alternative treatment techniques
based on each specific problem. Each evaluation will include an
estimation of the costs, effectiveness and impacts of each alter-
native management technique. The resulting management
matrix will allow a flexibility in decision-making that is
necessary for good management. The matrix will provide
guidance for day-to-day management decisions, while detailed
background data on the various techniques will be available in
the body of the report. This approach has been used in manage-
ment plans developed by EcolSciences personnel for other reser-
voirs.
The determination of feasibility is, again, the responsibility
of two parties, EcolSciences and Chesterfield County.
EcolSciences will, in its review of lake management techniques,
arrive at several conclusions and present recommendations to
the County. Chesterfield County will make the final decision
concerning the feasibility of any management technique or
program. In its determination, the County will consider the
future of the lake as a water supply, the costs of the manage-
ment program, and the future of all water supplies under its
jurisdiction.
80
-------
CD
c:
1C,
"SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR
MONITORING LOCATIONS"
Swift Cr««<
LEGEND
• = EcolSciences.Inc
• = Chesterfield County
A = Virginia SWCB
-------
APPENDIX H
83
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS OF THE BRANDERMILL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR AND ASSOCIATED WATERSHED
A TECHNICAL REVIEW
James E. Hackett, Division of Environmental
and Urban Systems
Joseph L. Intermaggio, Division of Environmental
and Urban Systems
Kenneth L. Dickson, Center for Environmental Studies
David W. Smith, Division of Forestry and
Wildlife Resources
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia
April 16, 1974
Introduction
Investigative studies were conducted at the request of the
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to assess the
relationships of the proposed plan of development of Brander-
mill, a planned unit development adjacent to Swift Creek Reser-
voir, to the environmental integrity of the reservoir and the
associated watershed. The findings of the investigations con-
tained in this report are intended as an objective technical
review of available data and information to assist the County
Board of Supervisors in forthcoming zoning decisions concer-
ning the proposed development property. The conclusions of the
study are conditioned by the nature and quality of the existing
information base.
The period allotted to these review and assessment efforts
was four weeks between March 19 and April 16,1974. The study
team consisted of four faculty members of VPI & SU from the
environmental sciences and urban and regional planning areas
as follows: Dr. James E. Hackett, Professor, Division of En-
vironmental and Urban Systems; Joseph L. Intermaggio,
Professor, Division of Environmental and Urban Systems; Dr.
Kenneth L. Dickson, Associate Professor, Center for En-
vironmental Studies; Dr. David W. Smith, Assistant Professor,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife Resources.
The report summarizes the results and conclusions of this ef-
fort as drawn from technical and planning reports regarding
the proposed development and the watershed, and from dis-
cussions and conferences with county officials, representatives
of county and regional planning agencies, consulting firms,
Brandermill Development, Sea Pines Company and a
spokesman for concerned citizens. The report consists of five
major sections each of which reflects a different perspective of
the issue. These perspectives are as follows: Watershed Con-
siderations, Reservoir Potentials, Reservoir Conditions,
Brandermill Planned Unit Development, and Community
Responsibilities.
Watershed Considerations
Substantial population growth is anticipated in the western
part of Chesterfield County for the future. As a consequence of
this growth, Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed will face in-
creasing pressure for urban development. Improved transporta-
tion along proposed Route 288 and Powhite Parkway,
accessibility of sewer facilities through the auspices of the
Sewerage Improvement Program and the development of
Brandermill as a suburban growth center will tend to further
stimulate urbanization in the watershed. Even without the
development of Brandermill, suburban growth can be expected
in the watershed due to the general increase in population and
the provision of transportation and sewerage facilities.
Therefore the following conclusions are relevant:
I. According to recent soils mapping and land use suitability
analyses, the Swift Creek Watershed is largely within the area
of greatest soils limitation to urban land use within the County.
If uncontrolled urban or suburban growth is permitted within
the watershed, or if either rural or urban land use management
is inadequate, degradation of Swift Creek Reservoir as a source
of water supply or as an environmental and recreational ameni-
ty will be significantly accelerated.
II. Three general alternatives appear to be available with
respect to the future of Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed in
County development: (1) As a protected open space serving as a
buffer to expanding suburban development; (2) as as area of
highly managed developmental growth where land use is ad-
justed to the protection requirements of the reservoir and the
watershed, (3) as an area of developmental sprawl with
patterns and characteristics of land use similar to those
currently experienced elsewhere in the county.
The alternative of maintaining Swift Creek Reservoir
Watershed as an open space buffer to urban and suburban
development would have the least environmental impact on
Swift Creek Reservoir. It would, however, involve substantial
commitments, financial as well as social, on the part of the
citizens of the county to secure that use through public
ownership and control and to insure the environmental integri-
ty of the area through technically sound land use control and
management.
If intensively managed developmental growth is selected as
the alternative, stringent minimum standards with regard to
water quality and discharge, sediment yield, and land use type
and density should be defined and applied as the basis for
development planning, regulatory controls, physical manage-
ment programs, and the development and subsequent
maintenance of sites. These standards should be established
with regard to the discrete physical characteristics of the
watershed.
Typical urban and suburban growth, not specifically sensitive
to the environmental factors of the watershed and not com-
patibly adjusted to these characteristics, would have the
greatest adverse impact on the reservoir and on the watershed
in general. Although an intermix of alternatives one and two
can be accomodated within the watershed without necessarily
adverse consequences, alternative three, if allowed in relation
with either of the other alternatives, would result in
degradational impacts.
III. There is a need for Chesterfield County to make a basic
policy decision with regard to the eventual use or extent of
developmental growth in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed.
Regardless of the policy decisions that are made, a comprehen-
sive management system based on the critical environmental
constraints of the area is mandatory to maintain the en-
vironmental integrity of the area.
Reservoir Potentials
I. Water quality of Swift Creek Reservoir at present is well
within the minimum standards for use as a source of domestic
water supply and is a valuable environmental amenity to the
county. However, the future role of the reservoir as a source of
public water supply for the county is unclear. This is largely due
to the lack of an official water resource and water supply
management plan based on a detailed assessment of projected
needs and programming of storage, supply and distribution
facilities that are formulated in terms of regional programs of
water resource utilization. The need is pressing for a com-
prehensive water resources management plan for the county as
a basis for decisions regarding the ultimate use of Swift Creek
Reservoir and developmental growth within the watershed.
II. Community values with regard to the reservoir as an
amenity are subject to change with developmental growth and
85
-------
shifts in resource management programs. Future uses of the
reservoir could reflect changing requirements with regard to
recreational and environmental amenity needs and the desires
of the community. In any event it is advantageous to preserve
existing levels of quality of the reservoir and its environs to
maximize flexibility in choices for future use.
III. Although water supply and visual and recreational
amenities of Swift Creek Reservoir are primary concerns, the
reservoir also serves other valuable functions which could be
seriously impaired by poorly managed land use in the water-
shed. These include the protective roles of the reservoir with
regard to downstream areas in terms of flood water storage,
sediment control and water quality control.
Reservoir Conditions
I. Swift Creek Reservoir currently has acceptable water
quality to serve as a water supply for Chesterfield County.
From a water supply viewpoint, major problems are those
associated with the high levels of manganese and iron which
require special water treatment technology to overcome.
However, current practices by the Swift Creek Water Plant
cope adequately with this problem. Limited chemical data from
the Virginia State Department of Health on the raw water at
the intake to the water treatment plant indicate that:
(1) The level of lead has been increasing in the last three
years and is approaching the recommended maximum of 0.05
mg/1. Additional data are needed to define this condition.
(2) The data available on pesticides from the Virginia State
Department of Health for the raw water intake are not suf-
ficiently sensitive to determine if the water meets the criteria
proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency for drinking
water and aquatic life (Proposed Criteria for Water Quality
Volume I, U.S. Environmental and Protection Agency, October
1973).
II. Available water quality data on Swift Creek Reservoir in-
dicate that sufficient nutrients (nitrogen, carbon and
phosphorous) are available to support algal blooms which could
result in nuisance conditions (taste and odors, algal mats, etc.).
However, the occurrences in these conditions in the reservoir
has been infrequent, probably because of the relatively low
levels of dissolved inorganics.
III. Water quality in the reservoir currently does not limit
recreational use. However, the use of the reservoir as a source
of public water supply serves as a constraint to the type of
recreational use that should be allowed.
IV. Changes in the storage capacity of the reservoir since its
construction are not known. There is a need for the establish-
ment of a data base to determine the rate of siltation of the
reservoir basin. Such data are valuable in predicting the long
term viability of the reservoir as a water supply and would be
needed in the design of a reservoir management program. This
could be accomplished through the establishment of a chemical,
physical and biological monitoring program on the reservoir
and feeder streams. Such a program should be designed to
determine a sediment and chemical budget for the reservoir.
The causeways in the upper part of the reservoir should be
evaluated in relationship to their functional role as siltation
buffers (i.e., traps) for the main body of the reservoir. Input-
output data would be required for this evaluation.
V. Swift Creek Reservoir will undergo the natural
phenonema of eutrophication and will change in its physical,
chemical and biological characteristics. However, the rate at
which this aging process proceeds is highly dependent upon the
type and level of activity in the watershed. The current data
base is inadequate to predict the life of Swift Creek Reservoir as
an acceptable source of water supply and as an environmental
amenity under present social standards. However, available
soil, topography and vegetation data indicate that there is a
high potential for an accelerated rate of eutrophication depen-
dent upon land use activity and management of the watershed.
VI. In order to maintain the present use of the reservoir, it is
recommended that all inputs to the reservoir be required to
comply with the criteria identified by the Environmental
Protection Agency in Proposed Criteria for Water Quality,
Volume I, October 1973. These proposed criteria are based on
the latest scientific knowledge on the identifiable effects of
pollutants on human health, fish and aquatic life, plant life,
wildlife, shorelines and recreation. Suspended solids, pesticides,
lead, oil and surfactants are the pollutants identified as of
specific importance in urban development.
Brandermill Development
Brandermill, a planned unit development complex of the Sea
Pines Company, represents the more advanced concepts of com-
munity development design—allowing for greater flexibility in
land use arrangement and density distributions than standard
or conventional subdivision developments. This flexibility in
design permits accommodation of the structural arrangement
of the development to the physical characteristics and en-
vironmental management requirements of the site. To do this
requires that an adequate base of environmental information
exists and that it is appropriately related to the development
design elements. A review of the environmental information
base acquired with respect to the Brandermill site indicates
that the basic data studies generated generally exceed those
which are normally obtained for subdivision development.
Sea Pines Company appears committed to produce a quality
community with high environmental standards. The company
has a realistic understanding of the value of the reservoir as an
environmental amenity and an economic asset to the develop-
ment, and recognizes that these values would be significantly
impaired by a degradation in the water quality or visual
qualities of the reservoir. In the area of soil data and interpreta-
tion, however, information acquired by technical consultants
responsible for environmental studies was inadequately
prepared and, as a result, misrepresentative and misleading in-
formation on soil conditions was provided to the development
firm. Consequently, existing development plans and site
management programs do not conform in all respects to the
known physical constraints of the area. Appropriate considera-
tion of these factors in development planning, design and
management is essential if consequences adverse to the
development site and surrounding area are to be forestalled.
The following conclusions and recommendations are made
with regard to the needs for environmental protection, the
quality of the environmental information base, use of en-
vironmental information in development planning and design,
adequacy of existing environmental control standards and
needs for construction phasing for the development.
I. The quality of the information base prepared for the
Brandermill Development Plan was adequate with the excep-
tions of soils information and reservoir siltation data.
The soils information in the Swift Creek Community En-
vironmental Assessment Report does not adequately reflect soil
conditions typical of the development site. Hydrologic, slope,
topographic, vegetation and bank erosion characteristics have
been inventoried and are representative of the development
area. They are generally adequate for development planning,
design and management. Water quality data is inadequate to
evaluate the rate of eutrophication of the reservoir. It is only
applicable to current development planning, design and
management, and does not address the life span of the reservoir
as an environmental amenity related to the development.
II. Existing plans and environmental management programs
for the Brandermill Development have been prepared without
adequate cognizance of the prevailing soil conditions and of the
significance of soil characteristics in general for site specific
planning and design. This constitutes a major deficiency with
regard to the design and development of effective management
programs to minimize impacts on Swift Creek Reservoir,
associated drainage ways, and the development site itself.
The major portion of soils in the Swift Creek Reservoir
Watershed are derived from mudstone, shale, sandstone and
conglomerate of the Triassic geologic era. Typically, these soils
86
-------
have medium to coarse textured surface horizons that normally
do not exceed 14 inches in depth. However, this varies con-
siderably throughout the area depending on previous erosion
losses. The subsoil horizons are generally fine textured, of low
permeability and have a high swell potential.
Data in the James River Comprehensive Water Quality
Management Study compiled for the Commonwealth of
Virginia Water Control Board - October 1972 indicates that the
potential sediment yield from the areas in the Brandermill
development are more than double the generalized values
reported in Table IV-I in the report on Environmental Assess-
ment prepared for Brandermill. The James River Comprehen-
sive Water Quality Management Study (hereafter referred to as
the James River Study) indicates that under fallow conditions
an estimated 151 tons/acre/year can be expected. Exposed-soil
areas such as construction sites have been shown by studies of
the U.S. Department of Interior to exceed the sediment yield
produced on cultivated agricultural land or open spaces.
Therefore, the generalized sediment yields reported in the
Brandermill report underestimate the potential sediment yield
based on site-specific data.
Within the James River Basin, the Swift Creek Basin has ap-
proximately twice the potential of other tributary basins within
Chesterfield County for suspended solid or bed load yields at its
mouth. This indicates the high potential for excessive siltation
and poor water quality. This estimate is based on soil erosion
potential data for each of the watersheds, using U.S. Soil
Conservation Service methodology.
The James River Study determined that only 0-25% of the
land in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed is suitable for the
following development-related land uses.
1. Septic tanks
2. Sanitary landfills
3. Roads, streets and parking lots
4. Buildings - three stories or less with basements
5. Parks and picnic areas
6. Campsites.
An analysis of soil survey information (Soils of Chesterfield
County, Virginia, 1970) for the portions of the Brandermill
lands on the eastern side of Swift Creek Reservoir indicate
there are substantial limitations to development stemming
from adverse soil conditions. At least 60% of the St. Ledger and
Old Hundred Landing areas of the Brandermill development
are classified as poor or fair-to-poor for homesites. In excess of
75% is classified as poor or fair-to-poor for basements, foun-
dations and roadways. The reasons for the low suitability
classification are related to the high clay content and associated
seasonal perched watertable in more than two-thirds of the
soils. The high clay content of the subsurface horizon produces a
high potential for moderate to severe erosion when ground
cover or surface soil is removed.
To compound and further complicate the problem, more than
75% of the soils are naturally low in fertility, have low organic
matter content and do not respond well to fertilization.
It is therefore imperative that design and construction
criteria for development specifically deal with these site
limitations. Site specific data and analyses are necessary to
determine the exact location and percentage of suitable areas
for development and associated uses.
III. For Swift Creek Reservoir to remain as a source of
potable water and an environmental amenity for the citizens of
Chesterfield County, positive controls must be instituted to
protect the reservoir from the adverse environmental changes
that accompany urbanization.
The impact of Brandermill development on Swift Creek
Reservoir, both short and long term, is directly related to the
management program implemented by the developer. Of
primary concern are the monitoring and control of sediments,
nutrients, pesticides, oil, debris, trash and other urban con-
taminants. To maintain the integrity of the reservoir a natural
buffer zone of sufficient depth is essential along the shoreline
and drainage-ways for purposes of maintaining a visual screen,
to control link erosion, and to functionally ameliorate the im-
pact or urban contaminants. Existing design standards should
be reviewed and expressed in terms of minimum distances for
excavation and construction activity and for visual screening.
IV. Nuttree Branch is particularly sensitive to the impact of
suburban development and it will require specially designed
management programs to protect the quality characteristics of
the stream both within the Brandermill development area and
in downstream reaches. These management programs should
incorporate individual building site safeguards as well as
drainage system controls. Because of the widespread presence
of a highly permeable surface soil layer, road construction, roof
areas, paved parking areas and other impervious surfaces will
effectively modify the natural storm-water runoff
characteristics of the site. The effects could be increased
periodicity of overbank flows, lower low flow or extended
periods of no flow, higher peak discharges and greater velocity
of flow. Experience in urbanized areas has shown that this can
result in increased bank erosion downstream from developed
areas. The more significant factors to be considered in the
development program and site use are: the preservation of the
integrity of the permeable surface soil, minimization of im-
permeable surface areas, minimal use of storm or sewer ditch
drains and maximum retention of storm water at an individual
site.
Nuttree Branch is part of a fragile ecosystem, and adverse
modification of stream flow and water quality conditions would
serious affect its present amenity. In addition to storm water
runoff control, sediment control and control of urban con-
taminants, a natural buffer zone would be required to protect
the stream from human activity. Sewer lines and other poten-
tial sources of pollution and contamination should not be
located immediately adjacent to the stream bed but should be
positioned with respect to the protective requirements of the
stream.
V. The Brandermill development plan does not reflect a
critical review, updating and integration of the available en-
vironmental data. Brandermill's conceptual framework of
design recognizes the needs for storm water runoff control and
sediment discharge control. However, the application of
management controls and response to environmental con-
straints at the site development scale are less clear. Stockpiling,
subsequent replacement and immediate revegetation of surface
soil are of utmost importance to a compatible land use program.
Unless this procedure is diligently followed, growth of vegeta-
tion, storm water runoff control and sediment control will pre-
sent difficult problems.
Brandermill's general development plan apparently includes
such management activities as runoff storage, sediment deten-
tion, use of natural swales for runoff, reduction of impervious
surfaces, lake buffer zone, phasing of construction activities,
and general construction controls. The allocation and im-
plementation of these environmental management activities
should be determined by an analysis of site conditions, and
associated structural limitations and potentials for runoff con-
trol should be determinants not only for the management plan
but for site development as well. Standards and guidelines of
the type and in the detail needed are contained in the
"Guidelines For Site Planning" developed for the Woodlands
(Texas) New Community.
VI. Specific quantifiable control standards must be
developed in order to implement an enforceable environmental
management program.
Suggested criteria for design of control standards regarding
storm water discharge, fertilizers and pesticides follow:
1. Storm water runoff should contribute no increase in off-
site discharge during design strom (design storm is based on
local hydrological data).
2. Total suspended solids to the aquatic systems should not
exceed 80 mg/1.
87
-------
3. Urban contaminants to aquatic systems (oils, pesticides,
lead, etc.) should meet the standards established by the State
Water Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy at all points of discharge.
4. The use of fertilizers and pesticides should be kept to a
minimum and used only on a site specific basis where a sub-
stantiated need exists. Quantifiable standards for discharge are
not currently available but need to be established in concert
with state regulatory agencies.
VII. Phasing of site development would assist in establishing
a quantitative base for management design and provide for
protection of the receiving systems during the course of con-
struction. Beginning with the initial development, a program
for phasing of construction should be developed that will
provide adequate opportunities for redress and control of con-
struction impact on the receiving system (lake or stream). Of
particular concern would be the earliest construction activity
which should be located at a point sufficiently removed from
the receiving systems so that supplemental management con-
trols can be incorporated in the event of inadequate protection.
In addition, a quantitative monitoring program to provide the
data base and feedback system to control design in subsequent
development phases must be incorporated as a continuing
operational development.
If the Brandermill project is approved with appropriate
safeguards, cooperation between the county and the developer
is essential to capitalize on the experience gained in managing
Brandermill's development in connection with future develop-
ment in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed and the county.
Community Responsibilities
The proper development of Swift Creek Watershed and the
use and viability of Swift Creek Reservoir should be defined by
public policy, taking into account all citizens of the county.
These interests should be safeguarded and insured through
cooperative interaction among the citizens, landowners, govern-
ment officials and development interests using such advisory
groups as needed.
Brandermill must be assured that future developments in the
watershed will not contribute to the accelerated degradation of
the lake as a consequence of poor land use and management.
The county must assume the responsibility to control
developmental practices in such a manner that the investments
in environmental protection made by Brandermill or other
development interests are safeguarded.
88
-------
APPENDIX I
89
-------
BRANDERMILL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
This guide is part of an evolving program of erosion and
sedimentation control for Brandermill. It is broken down into
three basic parts:
(1) Land Planning
(2) Design and Construction Measures
(3) Continuing Controls
This program will be continually updated and refined in coor-
dination with further development of the overall planning,
design and construction process. More specific and definitive
procedures for individual sites will be prepared in conjunction
with the detailed plans for each site.
LAND PLANNING
1. Open Space System
An extensive open space system will be maintained
throughout the property.
The naturally vegetated areas and carefully maintained
fairways in this system will help control erosion in a number of
ways:
(a) reduce runoff velocity
(b) promote infiltration
(c) disperse overland flow over a wide area
In addition, vegetated areas, especially grass, filter out most
of the nutrients and dissolved elements in the runoff.
2. Natural Buffer around the Lake
A buffer of natural vegetation will serve as the final line of
defense before runoff enters the lake.
100% of all tracts are set back at least 50 feet.
78% of the shoreline has a tract setback of over 100 feet.
49% of the shoreline has a tract setback of over 200 feet.
31% of the shoreline has a tract setback of over 300 feet.
This natural buffer reduces the rate of stormwater runoff
and removes suspended and dissolved solids just prior to the
water entering the lake.
3. Natural Drainage Swales
Natural swales form an integral part of the open space
system.
Because they serve as areas of concentration and collection
for stormwater runoff within a specific topographic section,
these swales will be maintained in a natural state for purposes
of erosion control.
Diversion channels will open into these swales rather than
directly into the lake or streams in order to take advantage of
the natural filtering process of the vegetation.
It. Steep Slopes and Areas with the greatest Erosion Potential
These areas will remain undisturbed wherever possible. They
have been identified and mapped based on an analysis of the
soils, slopes and vegetation of the property.
An excellent example of this policy is the narrow peninsula
near the southern end of the reservoir. The entire 15 acres of the
peninsula, designated Sunday Park, will remain unspoiled ex-
cept for nature trails and passive recreation largely because it
has some of the steepest slopes and most erodible soils on the
property.
5. Location of Roads
Most major roads will be on ridges or fitted to the topography
in order to minimize cuts and fills and minimize runoff
velocities.
6. Bike Trails
The bike trails running along portions of the lake will be
designed to reduce the rate of overland flow and therefore
reduce sheet erosion immediately along the lake's edge.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MEASURES
1- Land Grading
The plans for each lot will show the location, slope, cut, fill
and finish elevation of the surfaces to be graded as well as the
practices for safe disposal of runoff water, slope stabiliation
and erosion control.
Provision will be made to safely conduct surface water to
waterways and diversions to prevent surface runoff from
damaging cut faces and fill slopes. Water disposal systems and
debris basins will be installed wherever possible before
vegetative cover is removed for building construction.
2. Sediment Basins
Prior to construction, permanent sediment basins will be es-
tablished across waterways and at the base of natural swales in
order to temporarily detain runoff so that the sediment drops
out and is retained in the basin. The water will be gradually
released to the reservoir.
storage capacity: the minimum capacity of each basin will be
not less than 0.50 acre-inches for each disturbed acre in the
drainage area.
maintenance: the Company will maintain permanent
easements in order to permit periodic maintenance of the
basins. The basins will be cleaned out when the storage is reduc-
ed to one-half of the original volume.
outlet: the water from the basins will be released over a wide
vegetated area in order to reduce flow velocity and filter the
water before it enters the lake. In order to protect against scour
and gully erosion at the base of the dam, proper measures such
as using crushed rock at the outlet will be taken.
3. Drainage Channels
A. Vegetated waterways
Natural or constructed channels will be established on gentle
and moderate slopes for safe disposal of runoff.
purpose: Naturally vegetated or grassed waterways will be used
on sites where added capacity and/or vegetative protection is
required to control erosion resulting from concentrated runoff.
Vegetation, especially grasses, filter the runoff and remove a
significant amount of dissolved nutrients and trace elements.
The vegetation in these waterways reduces runoff velocities
and encourages infiltration.
limitations: Vegetated waterways are limited to gentle and
moderate slopes where non-erosion velocities can be main-
tained.
B. Structurally Stabilized Waterways
On steep slopes, where channel velocities exceed safe
velocities for vegetated waterways, structural stabilization will
be employed.
In some channels it will be sufficient to construct the channel
bed out of crushed rock. This will reduce channel velocities and
promote infiltration. Other channels may require linings of
either asphalt or concrete to avoid bank erosion.
Structurally stabilized channels will empty into vegetated
waterways. Outlets will be designed to prevent gully erosion.
4. Diversions
A diversion consists of a graded channel with a supporting
ridge on the lower side constructed across a sloping land sur-
face.
purpose: Diversions intercept and divert surface runoff before
it gains sufficient volume and velocity to cause erosion. The
water is collected and conveyed laterally along the diversion at
slow velocity and discharged into a protected area.
location: Diversions will be located across slopes above the
critical area where the concentration of water presents an ero-
sion hazard.
outlets: Outlets will be stabilized prior to the construction of
diversions and will be designed to convey runoff without caus-
ing damaging erosion.
maintenance: The cross-sectional shape of permanent diver-
sions will be such that it can be maintained with modern equip-
ment.
At sites where adequate protection for sediment-producing
areas above the diversion is not possible, provision will be made
to periodically remove the sediment from the channel.
5. Vegetative Practices
A. Temporary Cover for Construction Sites
91
-------
Temporary cover crops will be used to protect sites from ero-
sion when the time of year is unfavorable for seeding and es-
tablishing permanent cover. Grasses that are adapted to the
locality and season during which protection is needed will be us-
ed.
B. Permanent Cover
Natural vegetation will be maintained to the maximum ex-
tent possible. On disturbed sites, permanent cover will be es-
tablished as soon as possible following the completion of con-
struction activity.
The selection of the proper seed for permanent cover will be
based on adaption of the grass to the soils and climate, its
suitability for a specific use, its longevity or ability to self-
reseed, ease of establishment, maintenance requirements and
esthetic value.
On steep slopes and other inaccessible areas, plants and
grasses will be used that require little or no maintenance.
C. Mulching
Mulch will be used to help establish grasses on steep slopes
and other areas where it is difficult to establish plants.
By reducing runoff, mulch allows more water to infiltrate the
soil. It also holds seed, lime and fertilizer in place, conserves
moisture and reduces surface compaction of soil during heavy
rain.
D. Jute Netting
Jute netting is a coarse, open-mesh, web-like material that
will be used as a mechanical aid to protect the soil from erosion
during the critical period of vegetative establishment.
Jute netting will be used in place of mulch on steep slopes
where ordinary seeding methods fail or it will be used to anchor
straw mulch.
Jute thatching will also be used to repair and protect
waterways and diversions until a permanent grass cover is es-
tablished.
E. Sodding
Sodding will be used in areas requiring immediate, perma-
nent protection and where the concentration of runoff is such
that other methods of stabilization will not be effective.
Sodding will be particularly useful in waterways and diver-
sions when the season is not suitable for seeding and a complete
vegetative cover is needed immediately.
6. Phasing of Construction Activity
Tracts will be developed in small, workable units so that each
site will be in a disturbed condition for a minimum amount of
time. No large tracts will be disturbed and left unprotected for
extended periods while awaiting further construction activity.
92
-------
APPENDIX J
93
-------
LAKE RESTORATION METHODS
(Adapted from x,^.,aures for the Restoration and Enhance-
ment of Quality of Freshwater Lakes", EPA 400/9-73, 005)
At present, lake restoration measures are not well developed
and have been carried out primarily in experimental studies .in
small lake projects. Even after specific successes, general
applicability to other lake problems are uncertain. Only after
detailed analysis and testing can a management program for a
particular reservoir be developed.
There are two approaches to the rehabilitation of lakes:
restricting the input of undesirable materials and/or providing
in-lake treatment for the removal or inactivation of undesirable
materials.
Only one input-restriction method applicable to the Chester-
field County reservoirs exists. This is sedimentation and erosion
controls from the contributing watershed. The implementa-
tion of protective control measures for land use management
can be most effective for preventing erosion from construction,
farming, road building and forestry activities.
Sedimentation basins and filter dams are prominent defenses
against the gradual filling of the reservoir. Sediment control
measures not only reduce the rate at which the basin fills in,
but also restricts the input of nutrients absorbed to sediment
particles (See Section II.B. concerning County sedimentation
and erosion ordinances).
Appropriate in-lake restorative methods include dredging,
nutrient inactivation, covering of sediments, artificial
destratification and hypolimnion aeration and drawdown.
Lake Dredging
Dredging is the physical removal of lake bottom sediments
and potential nutrient supplies while biological and chemical
results from such experimental studies have been en-
couraging, the relatively high costs prohibit this as an alter-
native for very large lakes. In the past, many small lakes have
been improved using this method, although dredging is a
restorative rather than preventative method.
Nutrient Inactivation
This method involves the addition of a material to help
coagulate suspended matter and settle out these nutrients into
some unavailable form. Alum, copper sulfate, sodium
aluminate, fly ash and others have been used as flocculating
agents. Some pilot studies have proven successful, but large
scale applicability remains uncertain.
Covering of Sediments
Deposition of inorganic particulates or heavy plastic material
has been used to prevent sediment-lake exchange of nutrients in
small lakes. Although sediment covering removes a potential
growth stimulus and retards rooted growth, problems of con-
struction and maintenance inhibit this as a reliable alternative.
Destratification and Hypolimnetic Aeration
Anaerobic conditions, produced by thermal stratification, can
be relieved by pumping dissolved oxygen or surface (oxygen-
rich) water into the hypolimnion. To date, this option has
proved highly beneficial in reducing odors and tastes from
reduced bottom sediments, reducing the degree of algal blooms,
and maintaining a high dissolved oxygen level throughout the
reservoir.
Drawdown
Lake drawdown can be used to control rooted vegetative
growth and permit oxygen into formerly anoxic sediments.
When drawdown is extreme, an increase in lake volume is possi-
ble through consolidation of sediments. As is the case for the
other mitigative measures, results are inconclusive while
studies continue.
95
-------
APPENDIX K
97
-------
Lake Protection and State Management Statutes*
Authorization for State
or Local Unit to:
State Agency Statutory,
Cite, Session Law
Percentage
of States with
Authorization
Regulate pollution dischange into
lakes.
Regulate placement and fill in lakes
Regulate dredging or mineral ex-
traction.
Regulate the use of chemicals for
weed or algae treatment.
Regulate the construction of dams or
barrages.
Establish water levels for im-
pounded waters.
Construct dams or barrages
Stock fish and maintain fish habitat,
etc.
Stabilize banks in areas of erosion.
Treat lakes for algae and weed
control.
Dredge or otherwise reclaim or re-
habilitate lakes.
Water Control Board
Code of Va. §62.1-44.5
§ 62.1-44.18
§ 62.1-44.33
§ 62.1-194 et.seq.
§ 62.1-3.1
Marine Resources Commission
Code of Virginia 62.1-3
Marine Resources Commission
Code of Va. § 62.1-3 et.seq.
§ 62.1-390 etseq.
§62.1-1
None
State Corporation Commission
Code of Va. § 62.1-80 et.seq.
§62.1-104 etseq.
§ 62.1 Ch. 7
None
Commission of Game and Inland
Fisheries - Va. Code ( § 29-11)
Title 29, Ch. 2
Commission of Game and Inland
Fisheries Va. Code Title 29, Ch. 2
None
None
None
100
96
94
86
98
70
84
96
66
80
56
'Adapted from "Survey: Lake Protection and Rehabilitation Legislation in the United States"
Kusler, 1972
99
-------
APPENDIX L
101
-------
SLUDGE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL
This appendix describes the five alternative systems for sludge
processing and disposal that were identified in Section IV.A.3.
In addition, cost and energy consumption are discussed, as well
as the environmental impact of each alternative.
Alternative I - Anaerobic digestion, chemical conditioning,
vacuum filtration, landfill (base case). The existing sludge
treatment system would be expanded to serve the full 12 MGD
plant. Two primary digesters and one secondary digestor,
similar to the existing units, would be added along with ad-
ditional units for chemical conditioning and vacuum filtration.
Supernatant treatment would also be included to avoid
overloading the main aeration tanks with sludge treatment
wastes.
In the digesters, anaerobic bacteria consume about 50 percent
of the volatile solids present in the sludge. Methane and carbon
dioxide gas are produced in this process. The digested sludge
would be chemically conditioned to prepare it for vacuum filtra-
tion. The vacuum filters remove much of the remaining water
to produce a cake-like sludge with a solids content of 20 to 30
percent. The total dry weight of sludge for disposal would be
17,000 pounds per day.
Assuming that the sludge is removed to a landfill and piled 10
feet deep, 15 acres of land would be sufficient to dispose of
sludge for 30 years. It was further assumed that this land could
be found within 10 road miles of the treatment plant.
A major cost advantage of this alternative is that nearly half
of the required treatment units are already operating on the
site. Costs are, therefore, the lowest of all alternatives, with an-
nualized costs* of $430,000 per year. The successful operation of
this system has been proven by the existing plant.
The major energy inputs include electrical energy for mixing
the digesters and operating the chemical conditioning equip-
ment and vacuum filters; heating energy to maintain the
digesters at a practical operating temperature; and diesel fuel
to haul the sludge to the landfill. However, the methane gas
produced by the anaerobic digestion process has a substantial
recoverable energy value, which can serve other plant, needs
such as heating. Overall, when properly operated, the process
can achieve a net energy production equivalent to 3,800 barrels
of oil per year.
Alternative II - Anaerobic digestion, chemical conditioning,
vacuum filtration, dry land disposal. The in-plant processes of
this alternative are identical to those of Alternative I. However,
the dewatered sludge would be spread over cropland and used
as a fertilizer, rather than placed in a landfull.
The rate at which sludge can be applied to land depends upon
the soil characteristics, the ability of particular crops to utilize
nutrients, and the concentration of nutrients and heavy metals
in the sludge. Local conditions, rather than general guidelines,
determine the proper application rate for a particular location.
Before sludge could be spread on cropland in Chesterfield Coun-
ty, a pilot study would be necessary to determine the safe
application rate, guidelines for runoff control, and potential
crop benefits.
An application rate is required in order to make even a
preliminary estimate of the land needed. For a range of 20 to 65
(dry) tons per acre over the life of the plant (assume 30 years),
approximately 1,400 to 4,500 acres, respectively, would be re-
quired for sludge spreading.
Hauling costs would be higher than the base case (Alternative
I) because most agricultural land is in the western end of the
County. It was assumed that farmers would allow sludge
"Includes capital and operation costs of anaerobic, supernatant
treatment chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration, hauling
and land filling, excluding the cost of land. Capital costs were
amortized at 7 percent for 20 years. The Engineering News
Record construction cost index was 2,200.
spreading on their land and that purchasing land would not be
necessary. Annual costs would be $29,000 above the base case,
and are clearly sensitive to the market value of the sludge.
Consumption of extra fuel in transportation reduces the
overall energy production equivalent to 3,600 barrels of oil per
year.
Alternative III - Anaerobic digestion, liquid land disposal.
This alternative would eliminate the chemical conditioning and
vacuum filtration steps of Alternative I and spread the sludge
in liquid form upon cropland. Approximately 31,000 gallons per
day of sludge with a solids content of 6 percent and a specific
gravity of 1.1 will be withdrawn from the digestors.
This alternative saves the cost of conditioning and dewater-
ing sludge, but the large volume of liquid sludge greatly in-
creases hauling costs. Annual costs are $215,000 above the base
case, making this the most costly of all alternatives. Hauling
energy nearly offsets the energy produced in digestion, for a net
energy gain equal to only 1,300 barrels of oil per year.
Alternative IV- Heat treatment, vacuum filtration, incinera-
tion, landfill. Sludge digestion would be eliminated and sludge
directly from the thickeners would be heat treated and vacuum
filtered. The dewatered sludge would be incinerated in a multi-
ple hearth incinerator, which incorporates air preheating, gas
scrubbing, and recycle of heat to the heat treatment units. Ap-
proximately 8,600 pounds per day (dry weight) of ash would re-
main after incineration and then sent to a landfill. Less than
two acres of land would be required to dispose of ash for 30
years.
Heat treatment was selected for sludge conditioning because
the incineration process needs sludge with approximately 30
percent solids content. It was not certain that chemical con-
ditioning of undigested sludge could achieve such dewatering on
a vacuum filter.
Besides requiring new heat treatment units for the entire
plant capacity, this alternative would also require larger
vacuum filters for the greater volume of undigested sludge.
Costs of treating supernatant would also be higher. The existing
digestion tanks would have little salvage value. Total annual
costs are $150,000 above the base case.
It was assumed that heat treatment and vacuum filtration
can dewater the sludge sufficiently for it to incinerate
autogenously without further fuel input. Electrical energy in-
put would be required to operate the vacuum filter equipment
and the motors of the multi-hearth furnace; diesel fuel would be
required for hauling ash to the landfill. The net energy input to
the process is equivalent to 700 barrels of oil per year.
Alternative V - Chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration,
composting, dry land disposal. The existing chemical con-
ditioning and vacuum filtration equipment would be expanded
to dewater sludge directly from the thickeners. The dewatered
sludge would be mixed with an additional 20 percent carbon
carrier (such as sawdust) and composted in windrows. The
stabilized sludge would be spread on cropland.
The limitations on land disposal of composted sludge are es-
sentially the same as for Alternative II, except that the carbon
carrier increases the volume of composed sludge. Using the
same loading criteria as Alternative II, 4,400 acres of land
would be required over a 30-year period.
The chemical conditioning and vacuum filtration equipment
will have to be large enough for the extra volume of undigested
sludge. The solids content of the dewatered sludge is not as
critical as for incineration, but must be nearly 20 percent for
convenient handling of the sludge.
The source of the carbon carrier has not been determined; un-
less it can be provided by a waste source, such as municipal
refuse, purchase costs would be incurred. As for Alternative II,
it was assumed sludge would be given to the farmers and that
land would not have to be purchased. Annual costs are es-
timated at $106,000 above the base case.
103
-------
Energy is required for operating equipment, maintaining
windrows and hauling compost for disposal. The composting
process does not generate usable energy. The net energy input is
equivalent to 1,400 barrels of oil per year.
Environmental Impacts
Alternative I - Anaerobic digestion, chemical conditioning,
vacuum filtration, landfill.
Land use - Disposal of sludge to a landfill will remove 15 acres
of land from productive use. In addition, the value of neighbor-
ing land may be reduced because of noise, potential odor and
visual impact. The amount of land required, however, is small
in comparison to the size of the County, and careful selection of
a site can minimize impacts. After several years of stabilization
the landfill could be reclaimed for recreational or other pur-
poses where soil settling would be tolerated.
Public Health - A properly managed landfill will not pose a
hazard to public health. Chemical conditioning of the sludge can
destroy most pathogens.
Water Quality - Surface runoff from a landfill can contain ex-
cessive suspended solids unless good erosion control practices
are followed. Water percolating through a landfill can leach
heavy metals and BOD into surface waters and groundwater.
Again, site selection and management are important.
Air Quality - Burning of digester gas to recover its heat value
will emit less than ten pounds per day of sulfur dioxide at
various locations throughout the plant. Concentrations of sul-
fur dioxide at the site boundary will be well below state stan-
dards. Proper operation and maintenance of the sludge
digestors and other mechanical equipment will prevent odors at
the plant. At the landfill, odors can be prevented by promptly
covering the fill material. Dust suppression techniques, such as
wetting, can control dust.
Aesthetics - The landfill site will have an aesthetically un-
pleasant appearance. Proper selection of the site can minimize
this impact.
Traffic - During the normal workday, truck traffic will
average about five trips per day.
Alternative II - Anaerobic digestion, chemical conditioning,
vacuum filtration, dry land disposal.
Land Use - This alternative will require using approximately
4,400 acres of cropland. In 1971, Chesterfield County contained
71,000 acres of farmland, but only 9,300 acres were actually
used for cropland. Furthermore, the development of the County
will continue to reduce the amount of available farmland. Land
disposal of sludge will, therefore, have a significant impact on
the County's agriculture. Application of sludge to existing
farmland would require acceptance by many of the County's
farmers. Unless agricultural benefits are clearly demonstrated,
the size of this "market" for sludge may not be sufficient to
meet all disposal needs on a continuous basis. The economic
success of starting new cropland for sludge utilization would de-
pend upon the marketability of the crops produced.
Public Health - The chemical conditioning process can
destroy pathogens in the sludge. Lime, chlorine or other
chemicals can be used. Assuming that a pilot study determines
a proper application rate for sludge utilization, and that this
rate is followed, concentrating heavy metals in the human food
chain will not be a hazard. However, since a large number of
farmers would be involved with sludge spreading, potential for
misuse (i.e., over-application) by individuals does present some
element of risk.
Water Quality - If proper guidelines for sludge application
are developed and followed, pollution of surface water and
groundwater by runoff and percolation will be minimal. Im-
properly applied to land, however, sludge disposal runoff and
percolation could contain excessive concentrations of BOD,
nitrates, heavy metals and other pollutants. Since most sludge
disposal will take place in the western end of the County, up-
stream of the water supply, this potential pollution problem
would require surveillance.
Air Quality - Burning of digestor gas has the same impacts as
Alternative I. The sludge spread on the land will have only a
minimal odor, since it will be stabilized and chemically con-
ditioned. The odor will be considerably less than that of manure
spreading.
Aesthetics - The sludge spreading sites will have the same
aesthetic impact as other croplands.
Traffic - During the normal working day, truck traffic will
average about five trips per day. The destinations of these
trucks would be scattered throughout the western part of the
County.
Alternative III - Anaerobic digestion, liquid land disposal.
Land Use - The land use impacts of this alternative are essen-
tially the same as for Alternative II.
Public Health - This alternative does not offer the opportuni-
ty to destroy pathogens in the chemical conditioning process,
although anaerobic digestion will accomplish sufficient
pathogen removal to preclude a severe public health hazard.
Direct runoff from a liquid sludge disposal site could cause
pathogens to enter surface waters. This is particularly signifi-
cant since most liquid sludge disposal sites would be upstream
of the public water supply. Wells near disposal sites could
become contaminated. This effect can be avoided by choosing
disposal sites so that any percolation from the sludge entering
the groundwater is purified as it travels through the soil. An
element of risk would, therefore, exist from improper applica-
tion of liquid sludge.
Root crops or crops intended for human consumption in the
raw form should not be sprayed with liquid sludge. The effects
of heavy metals is essentially the same as for Alternate II.
Water Quality - The water quality impacts of this alternative
are the same as for Alternative II, i.e., proper application can
avoid problems.
Air Quality - The air quality impacts of this alternative are
the same as for Alternative II. If the liquid sludge is sprayed on
the land, aerosols can be contained by a buffer zone around the
site.
Aesthetics - Liquid sludge, because of its resemblance to
sewage, may be more unpleasant, aesthetically, than dry
sludge.
Traffic - During the normal working day, truck traffic will
average about 50 trips per day, or about one truck every ten
minutes. The destinations of these trucks would be scattered
throughout the western portion of the County.
Alternative IV- Heat treatment, vacuum filtration, incinera-
tion, landfill.
Land Use - Land use impacts of this alternative are the same
as for Alternative I, except that only two acres of land would be
required.
Public Health - The incineration process will destroy all
pathogens in the sludge. Emissions from the incinerator stack
will comply with primary air quality standards (see Air
Quality).
Water Quality - Surface runoff from a landfill can contain ex-
cessive suspended solids unless good erosion control practices
are followed. Water percolating through a landfill can leach
heavy metals into surface waters and groundwater.
Air Quality - The incinerator will be designed to comply with
the emission limits of 40 CFR, Part 61, which would permit, in
this case, particulate emissions to 88 mg/sec. There is no emis-
sion standard for sulfur dioxide, but available data for other in-
cinerators indicates a maximum emission of about 16ppm, with
2 to 3 ppm a more common average.
To estimate maximum ground level concentrations under
typical weather conditions, the following assumptions were
made:
Stack height
Stack diameter
Exit velocity
Exit temperature
50 ft (15.2m)
0.4m
25mps
120°F
104
-------
Stability class
Wind speed
3.5mps (average at Richmond
Airport)
The maximum concentrations would occur at a distance of
200 meters from the stack. The maximum particulate concen-
tration would be 9 ug/m3 and the maximum sulfur dioxide con-
centration would be 0.005 ppm by volume. These values are
lower than national ambient air quality standards.
Heavy metals, except for mercury, are not known to volatize
in the incinerator, but are believed to remain with the ash.
Removal of particulates from the stack gases, therefore, can be
expected to remove most heavy metals. Even if heavy metal
concentrations in the sludge were as high as 5,000 mg/1, less
than 0.1 Ib/day would be emitted with the stack gases. Mercury
can be decomposed in an incinerator to volatile mercuric oxide
or metallic mercury. However, the amount of mercury con-
tained in the sludge is expected to be small, and total emissions
will probably be less than 0.1 Ib/day, well below the standard
for sludge incinerators.
Aesthetics - The landfill site will be barren, with an
aesthetically unpleasant appearance. Proper selection of the
site can minimize this impact. Visible emissions from the in-
cinerator will have less than 20 percent opacity and will be only
a minor impact.
Traffic - Truck traffic will average less than one trip per
working day.
Alternative V - Chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration,
composting, dry land disposal.
Land Use - The land use impacts of this alternative are the
same as for Alternative II. Several additional acres, located
near the treatment plant, would be needed for the windrowing.
Public Health - The public health impacts of this alternative
are the same as for Alternative II.
Water Quality - The water quality impacts of this alternative
are the same as for Alternative II.
Air Quality - Composting is an aerobic process and, assuming
proper operation, odors will be minimal during both composting
and land spreading.
Aesthetics - The composted sludge spreading sites will have
the same aesthetic impact as other croplands.
Traffic - During the normal working day, truck traffic will
average about six trips per day.
Comparison of Alternatives
The costs and energy differences between the alternatives are
shown in Table IV-19, which also presents a summary of the
major advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.
Alternative III, involving liquid land disposal, can be
eliminated by comparing it to dry land disposal as in Alter-
native II. The higher costs and potential health hazard of liquid
land disposal are not offset by its advantages.
The two dry land disposal Alternatives (II and V) compare
closely. However, anaerobic digestion, Alternative II, costs less,
produces energy and does not require a carbon carrier, as does
composting. Operating difficulties, the only comparable disad-
vantage of anaerobic digestion, have not been a major problem
at the existing plant. Alternative II can therefore be considered
preferable to Alternative V.
The uncertainty of a sufficient and continuous "market" for
dewatered sludge among local farmers was discussed above.
Given this uncertainty, land spreading, as in Alternative II, is
not recommended at this time as the primary means for dispos-
ing of sludge in Chesterfield County.
Of the remaining alternatives, incineration (Alternative IV)
has a higher cost than anaerobic digestion (Alternative I). In-
cineration would produce a small amount of air pollution but
would not significantly degrade air quality or cause ambient air
quality standards to be exceeded. Incineration is a more reliable
operation than anaerobic digestion, but this advantage is small
since the digesters at the existing plant have been operating cor-
rectly.
Besides lower costs due to existing units, anaerobic digestion
also offers the opportunity to recover energy from the sludge.
This energy can supply one-third to one-half of the total energy
needs of the Falling Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.
Selection of Alternative I would not preclude land spreading
of sludge. Although it is doubtful land spreading could accom-
modate all the sludge produced, a portion of the sludge could be
spread if marketing conditions permit. The advantages of Alter-
native I and II could thus be combined.
Recommendations
It is recommended that sludge treatment facilities at the
Falling Creek Sewage Treatment Plant be designed in accor-
dance with Alternative I - anaerobic digestion, chemical con-
ditioning, vacuum filtration and landfill. This recommendation
is based on lower costs, potential energy production and flex-
ibility of disposal, offset by only a minor increase in comsump-
tive land use.
It is further recommended that consideration be given to
utilizing a portion of the digested sludge for agriculture in the
County.
105
-------
MAPS
107
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |