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

-------