The URL can be used to link to this page

07-16-2019 Business Meeting Packet BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUSINESS MEETING Tuesday, July 16, 2019 – 7:00 PM Pittsylvania County General District Courtroom Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition, 11 Bank Street Chatham, Virginia 24531 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER (7:00 PM) 2. ROLL CALL 3. MOMENT OF SILENCE 4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 5. AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 7. CONSENT AGENDA a. Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Business Meeting (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster) b. Resolution #2019-07-02: VDOT Rural Rustic Roads (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) c. Resolution #2019-07-03 VDOT Six-Year Plan (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) d. Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) e. School's Armory Playground Construction Approval Ratification (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) f. Updated Resolution and Agreement for 911 Management and Control (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp) g. American Red Cross Chatham Community Center Facility Use Agreement (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp) h. Pet Smart Charities Adoption Partner Agreement Ratification (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) Business Meeting - July 16, 2019 i. Award of Bids For Roll Off Truck (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) 8. PRESENTATIONS a. Executive Fire Officer Program; Chris C. Slemp (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman) 9. HEARING OF THE CITIZENS Each person addressing the Board under Hearing of the Citizens shall be a resident or land owner of the County, or the registered agent of such resident or land owner. Each person shall step up, give his/her name and district in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the Chairman, shall limit his/her address to three (3) minutes. No person shall be permitted to address the Board more than once during Hearing of the Citizens. All remarks shall be addressed to the Board as a body and not to any individual member thereof. Hearing of the Citizens shall last for a maximum of forty-five (45) minutes. Any individual that is signed up to speak during said section who does not get the opportunity to do so because of the aforementioned time limit, shall be given speaking priority at the next Board meeting. Absent Chairman’s approval, no person shall be able to speak who has not signed up. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezoning Public Hearings Pursuant to Article V, Division 6, of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors have been empowered to hear and decide specific zoning issues and zoning map changes in support of said Ordinance. In accomplishing this important task, the Board is responsible for promoting the health, safety, and general public welfare of the citizens of Pittsylvania County. The Board must ensure that all of its decisions and regulations be directed to these goals and that each be consistent with the environment, the comprehensive plan, and in the best interest of Pittsylvania County, its citizens, and its posterity. Case 1: Public Hearing: Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor; Dan River Election District, R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (Supervisor Davis) Case 2: Public Hearing: Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown; Dan River Election District, R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (Supervisor Davis) B. Other Public Hearings Each person addressing the Board under a Public Hearing shall step up, give his/her name and district, and/or his/her place of residency for non-County citizens, in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the Chairman, shall limit his/her address to three (3) minutes; speakers for a group shall be Business Meeting - July 16, 2019 limited to ten (10) minutes. Speakers shall conclude their remarks at that time, unless the consent of the Board is affirmatively given to extend the speakers allotted time. Absent Chairman’s approval, no person shall be able to speak who has not signed up. 1. Public Hearing: Enterprise Zone Amendments (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe) 2. Public Hearing: EMS Billing Fee Increase (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp) 3. Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp) 4. Public Hearing: Building Height Revision (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) 5. Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill Energy Connection Project (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) 6. Public Hearing: Sheriff's PCC, Chapter 11, Revisions (Staff Contact: Sheriff Taylor) 7. Public Hearing: Lack of Control of Companion Animal (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.) 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Brosville/622 Convenience Center Site Construction Bid Award (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) b. Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore) c. WIA Year-End Grant Appropriations (Staff Contact: Kimberly G. Van Der Hyde) 13. APPOINTMENTS 14. MATTERS FROM WORK SESSION a. Strategic Plan Approval (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman) 15. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS 16. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS 17. ADJOURNMENT Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Business Meeting (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster) Staff Contact(s): Kaylyn M. McCluster Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.a Attachment(s): 06-18-2019 Solid Waste Committee Meeting Minutes - DRAFT 06-18-2019 Work Session Minutes - DRAFT 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Reviewed By: 7.a Packet Pg. 4 Solid Waste Committee June 18, 2019 Solid Waste Committee Tuesday, June 18, 2019, Meeting VIRGINIA: The Solid Waste Committee of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors was held on Tuesday, June 18, 2019, in the Main Conference Room of the County Administration Building in Chatham, Virginia 24531. Robert W. Warren, Chairman, called the Meeting to Order at 3:30 p.m. The following Committee members were present: Ronald S. Scearce Robert W. Warren The following Board of Supervisors Members were also present: Elton W. Blackstock Joe B. Davis Mr. David M. Smitherman, County Administrator/Clerk of the Board; Mr. J. Vaden Hunt Esq., County Attorney; Mr. Gregory L. Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning & Administration; Mr. Richard N. Hicks, Assistant County Administrator for Operations; and Mrs. Kaylyn M. McCluster, Deputy Clerk, were also present. Additions to Agenda Motion by Mr. Scearce, seconded by Mr. Warren, to add discussion regarding waiving the garbage fee for a second household that is being remodeled to the Agenda. Vote was unanimous by all Committee Members present. Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Mr. Scearce, seconded by Mr. Warren, to approve Agenda. Vote was unanimous by all Committee Members present. New Business A. Landfill Operations One-Year Update Mr. Butch Joyce gave an update to the Committee regarding Landfill operations. He provided the Committee with pictures of what the Landfill looked like one (1) year ago compared to what it looks like now. (Attached) Accomplishments over the last year include no more standing water and leachate, because everything is now draining properly. There was a training class conducted for the Operations Staff to show how to run a Landfill the smartest and most effective way. Mr. Joyce stated that the guys at the Landfill are implementing these tools and are running the Landfill as it should be. The compaction density has increased from one (1) year ago, and the Landfill is being used more efficiently. Mr. Barber joined the Meeting at 3:46 p.m. 7.a.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Solid Waste Committee Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Solid Waste Committee June 18, 2019 B. Authorization to Solicit Out-of-County Solid Waste Mr. Hicks stated that Bedford County has recently discussed looking to dispose of its trash at other locations due to it not having the space. Mr. Joyce stated that the County’s Landfill is currently working in Phase Two, and there are approximately seven (7) years of life left in Cell B. Mr. Joyce stated that this Landfill is a real asset to Pittsylvania County. Cell C has approximately twenty (20) years of life. The total lifespan, at the County’s current tonnage (42,000 tons per year), is approximately 140 years. The estimated cost to open a new Cell at the Landfill in the C Area is approximately 7.5 acres. The capital cost to build that is around $350,000 per acre. The beginning process for Cell C should be about three (3) to (4) years from now, and it would cost between $150,000 and $250,000 to get started. If the County were to take in approximately 40,000 tons from Bedford County it would cut the Landfill’s lifespan in half, but would also increase efficiency and reduce the cost per ton. There was discussion regarding the Landfill’s lifespan, and no matter if the County decides to take in Out-of-County waste or not, there will be cost surrounding the Landfill’s continuing functions. If there were Out-of-County waste being brought in, that would help to offset these County costs. This would be a means to fund the future capital Landfill costs. Motion by Mr. Scearce, seconded by Mr. Warren, to submit the suggestions of accepting Out-of-County solid waste from Bedford County to the full Board at the Work Session. C. Update on Brosville/622 Site Mr. Hicks stated that the specifications for updates at the Brosville site have been finished. The County will be accepting bids in July and will come back to the full Board at the July Meeting. D. Update on new Convenience Centers Mr. Hicks stated that there have been two (2) pieces of property offered for sale on Highway 29 and at Blairs Store on Climax Road. There are also two (2) additional sites that will be presented in Closed Session at the evening’s Work Session. E. Discussion regarding Waiving the Trash Fee for a Second Household Mr. Scearce stated he had an issue brought to his attention where, if a citizen has a second home that they may be remodeling, they should not have to take those items to the Landfill. There was consensus of the Committee Members present to direct Staff to put language together and bring this item back to the Work Session in July for review. Matters from Committee Members Mr. Warren thanked County Staff for getting ahead of things and waiving the tipping fees at the Landfill for those in Hurt who were affected by the recent storms. Adjournment Mr. Warren adjourned the Meeting at 4:29 PM. 7.a.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Solid Waste Committee Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Solid Waste Committee June 18, 2019 7.a.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Solid Waste Committee Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Solid Waste Committee June 18, 2019 7.a.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Solid Waste Committee Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, June 18, 2019 Work Session Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Work Session June 18, 2019 VIRGINIA: The Work Session of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors was held on June 18, 2019, in the Main Conference Room, County Administration Building, Chatham, Virginia 24531. Chairman, Dan River District, Joe B. Davis, called the Meeting to Order at 4:35 PM. The following Members were present: CALL TO ORDER (4:30 PM) Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Joe B. Davis Chairman - Dan River District Present 4:31 PM Charles H. Miller Vice Chairman - Banister District Present 4:29 PM Tim R. Barber Supervisor - Tunstall District Present 4:25 PM Elton W. Blackstock Supervisor - Staunton River District Present 4:32 PM Ben L. Farmer Supervisor - Callands-Gretna District Present 4:31 PM Ronald S. Scearce Supervisor - Westover District Present 4:30 AM Robert W. "Bob" Warren Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District Present 4:30 PM AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED Motion to add Matters from Solid Waste Committee Meeting. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve Agenda. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Ben L. Farmer, Supervisor - Callands-Gretna District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren PRESENTATIONS a. Matters from Solid Waste Committee Meeting - Authorization to Solicit Out of County Solid Waste Butch Joyce briefed the Board on discussion from the Solid Waste Committee Meeting regarding the current lifespan of the County’s Landfill and the potential of the County's Landfill to accept Out-of-County Solid Waste. County Staff requested the Business Meeting’s Agenda be amended at the Business Meeting to authorize County Staff to solicit Bedford County’s Solid Waste. 7.a.b Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Work Session Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Work Session b. Go Virginia Robotic Grant Match Funding Request Discussion (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (20 minutes) Troy Simpson updated the Board on the Go Virginia Robotic Match Funding Request. He presented a PowerPoint (available on the County’s website at https://www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. Their current shortfall is $288,377.50. They submitted a total request of $3,230,177 for Robotics and Automation Pathways, IT Pathways Development, Career Connections Labs, and Additional Pathway Development. The Danville Regional Foundation approved funding $2,198,271, and the GO Virginia Approved Funding was $743,528.50. His request was for the County to assist with the shortfall in this funding and would like to secure $288,377.50 for the IT Pathways Development. This can be divided over several Budgets. Mr. Rowe has contacted the Industrial Development Authority (“IDA”) about helping to contribute to this, and the IDA unofficially agreed to do so. Mr. Blackstock suggested asking the County Schools for assistance with this cost as well. Mrs. Van Der Hyde stated that the County has money in the Grants Fund that is monitored on a monthly basis. There is stale Grant money available in the Economic Development Department for this request. c. Jail and Courthouse Presentation (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks); (Presenter: Tony Bell; Moseley Architects); (20 minutes) Tony Bell, Moseley Architects, gave an update to the Board on the Courts and Jail Facilities Conceptual Design. His presentation is available on the County’s website. There was discussion about building a smaller jail offsite and joining the Blue Ridge Regional Jail on a permanent basis as a member, so that the County is guaranteed beds when needed. The next step in this process is for Moseley to submit their Draft Report to the Board. STAFF, COMMITTEE, AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER REPORTS a. Building Height PCC Revision Discussion (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (10 minutes) Mr. Sides stated that Mr. Rowe had requested, for Economic Development needs, prospects would desire for the Building height in the Pittsylvania County Code be revised to reflect the sizes to fit their needs. Mr. Rowe desires for this to be raised to 150 feet to accommodate these prospects, but only in the M-2 Zoning District, and only on tracts of land 150 acres or greater in size. This item was presented to the Planning Commission and they were supportive of this and with no opposition. There will be a Public Hearing held at the July Business Meeting regarding this matter. b. Solar Update (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (10 minutes) Mr. Sides stated that he had recently attended a Symposium regarding Solar Projects. Currently in the County, these are allowed through a Special Use process with very stringent requirements. Mr. Sides stated that he learned that, after these applicants get through the local process, they are still required to go through a DEQ process with stringent requirements as well. The County does have requirements for these types of Projects and is keeping a close eye on them. Mr. Warren requested that he would like to see as part of the requirement for anyone who is doing a surety bond, they have to be rated at the top level by at least three (3) known rating firms, such as AM 7.a.b Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Work Session Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Work Session Best, Standard & Poor’s, and Moody’s. This would give the County better assurance of their financial stability. Mr. Farmer asked if there was a Strategic Plan in place that maps where the electrical transmission lines are, due to this being what will limit this based on the line capacity. Mr. Sides stated that this is probably above localities regulation, but it is in the DEQ approval process. c. Health Benefits/Insurance Update (Staff Contact: Holly E. Stanfield); (15 minutes) Due to time constraints, this item was not presented. d. Legislative Committee Update (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.); (10 minutes) Due to time constraints, this item was discussed at the Business Meeting. e. Other Reports BUSINESS MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS CLOSED SESSION Motion to enter Closed Session. The Board entered Closed Session at 6:15 PM. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District SECONDER: Charles H. Miller, Vice Chairman - Banister District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren b. Discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe) (1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(5) Subject Matter: Projects G4, Map, and Emotion Purpose: Economic Development Update RETURN TO OPEN SESSION & CLOSED SESSION CERTIFICATION a. Closed Session Certification (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.) The Board returned to Open Session at 6:50 PM, and the following Certification was recorded: CLOSED MEETING CERTIFICATION BE IT RESOLVED that at the Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors on June 18, 2019, the Board hereby certifies by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board Member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the Open Meeting 7.a.b Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Work Session Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Work Session requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (the “Act”) and identified in the Motion authorizing the Closed Meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the Closed Meeting. If any Member believes that there was a departure from the requirements of the Act, he shall so state prior to the vote indicating the substance of the departure. The Statement shall be recorded in the Board’s Minutes. Vote Tim R. Barber Yes Elton W. Blackstock Yes Joe B. Davis Yes Ben L. Farmer Yes Charles H. Miller, Jr. Yes Ronald S. Scearce Yes Robert W. Warren Yes ADJOURNMENT Mr. Davis adjourned the Meeting at 6:52 PM. 7.a.b Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Work Session Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and June 18, 2019 Business Meeting Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Business Meeting June 18, 2019 VIRGINIA: The Business Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors was held on June 18, 2019, in the Pittsylvania County General District Courtroom, Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition, Chatham, Virginia 24531. Chairman, Dan River District, Joe B. Davis, called the Meeting to Order at 7:00 PM. The following Members were present: CALL TO ORDER (7:00 PM) Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Joe B. Davis Chairman - Dan River District Present 6:52 PM Charles H. Miller Vice Chairman - Banister District Present 6:52 PM Tim R. Barber Supervisor - Tunstall District Present 6:53 PM Elton W. Blackstock Supervisor - Staunton River District Present 6:52 PM Ben L. Farmer Supervisor - Callands-Gretna District Present 6:50 PM Ronald S. Scearce Supervisor - Westover District Present 6:57 PM Robert W. "Bob" Warren Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District Present 6:52 PM AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED Motion to add, under Matters from Work Session, as item 14c., Out-Of-County Solid Waste, and to add a Closed Session, Potential Solid Waste Convenience Center Site(s), to the Agenda. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ronald S. Scearce, Supervisor - Westover District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve Agenda. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren CONSENT AGENDA Motion to approve Consent Agenda. 7.a.c Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren a. Minutes: May 14, 2019, Work Session and Business Meeting, and June 4, 2019, Legislative Committee Meeting (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster) b. DRT Housing Agreements for Mount Hermon Fire & Rescue and Chatham Rescue Squad (Staff Contact: Christopher C. Slemp) c. EMAC Billing Fee Increase Public Hearing Authorization (Staff Contact: Christopher C. Slemp) d. EMS Billing Services Contract Approval (Staff Contact: Christopher C. Slemp) e. Town of Hurt Storm Landfill Tipping Fee Waiver Authorization (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) f. Childs Deed Acceptance (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.) g. County/SPCA Thrift Store MOU Execution Approval Ratification (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) h. Ratification of Resolution in Support for Mega Site Connector Road (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe) PRESENTATIONS HEARING OF THE CITIZENS PUBLIC HEARINGS Rezoning Public Hearings Case 1: Public Hearing: Rezoning Case R-19-014; Jasmine E. Barbee; Tunstall Election District, R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (Supervisor Barber) Mr. Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 PM. Ms. Barbee was present to represent the Petition. No one signed up to speak, and Mr. Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 PM. Motion to rezone 3.77 acres from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (to allow for subdivision of the property for family). 7.a.c Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District SECONDER: Charles H. Miller, Vice Chairman - Banister District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren Case 2: Public Hearing: Rezoning Case R-19-019; Matthew and Jennifer Miller; Callands- Gretna Election District, R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (Supervisor Farmer) Mr. Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 PM. Mr. and Mrs. Miller were present to represent the Petition. No one signed up to speak, and Mr. Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 PM. Motion to rezone 15.24 acres from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (for agricultural uses). RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ben L. Farmer, Supervisor - Callands-Gretna District SECONDER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren Other Public Hearings 1. Public Hearing: VDOT Secondary Six (6)-Year Plan Approval (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) Mr. Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 PM. Mr. Hunt stated that each year, the Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) are required to hold a Public Hearing to receive citizen input on the proposed Secondary Six (6)-Year Plan. Jay Craddock, VDOT Assistant Resident Engineer, presented the proposed plan to the Board, and noted that Farmer's Road was a typo and should be 2020. No one signed up to speak, and Mr. Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 PM. Mr. Barber requested Ed Hardy Road to be checked out due to damage from storms in the Fall. Motion to approve the VDOT Secondary Six (6)-Year Plan, FY2020 - FY2025, and that the County Administrator be authorized to sign any necessary documentation. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren 2. Public Hearing: AEP Comprehensive Plan Compliance Public Hearing WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) This item was withdrawn by the applicant and there was no Public Hearing held. 7.a.c Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting RESULT: WITHDRAWN [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Potential Enterprise Zone Amendment Approval and Public Hearing Advertisement Authorization (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe) Susan McCulloch was present and stated after prior citizen input and feedback, County Staff requests that the Board consider including Hargrave Military Academy into Enterprise Zone 57. This modification was presented to the Legislative Committee on June 4, 2019. Motion to direct Staff to re-advertise for a Public Hearing in July and amend the Enterprise Zone to include Hargrave Military Academy. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren NEW BUSINESS a. RIFA Cane Creek Bond Refinancing Authorization (Staff Contact: Kimberly G. Van Der Hyde) Mrs. Van Der Hyde stated, in 2005, the Danville-Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facilities Authority (“RIFA”) issued variable rate revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $7,300,000 to fund expenses related to developing Cane Creek Centre. This Project was jointly supported by the City of Danville (“Danville”) and the County. Danville and the County recently received a credit commitment from Wells Fargo Bank to refinance the 2016 taxable revenue refunding bonds (the “Bonds”). The principal amount being refinanced at this time is an amount not to exceed $2,545,000. The rate that has been negotiated with Wells Fargo is an indicative fixed rate of 3.95% for a term of 5 ½ years. The actual fixed rate for this refunding shall be determined on the rate set date. The Bonds will be paid off in 2025. A Moral Obligation Pledge will be required from both Danville and the County in the form of Support Agreements. This will not add to the County’s existing moral obligations; it will simply replace the existing Support Agreement that will expire with the current Letter of Credit. The RIFA Board approved its Resolution to refinance at its June 10, 2019, Meeting. Danville will also pass a similar Resolution as the one being presented to the Board at its June 18, 2019, Meeting. Motion to approve the attached Support Agreement and Resolution # 2019-06-01 to refinance RIFA’s outstanding Revenue Refunding Bond Series 2016. 7.a.c Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Charles H. Miller, Vice Chairman - Banister District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren b. Colonial Pipeline Grant Appropriation (Staff Contact: Kimberly G. Van Der Hyde) Mrs. Van Der Hyde stated the County recently received a check in the amount of $10,000 from the Colonial Pipeline for a Hazmat Grant. These funds will be used by the County’s Public Safety Department to purchase hazmat supplies. The Colonial Pipeline Grant, totaling $10,000, requires no local match, but needs to be appropriated in the following manner: line item # 250-4- 032417-601400 Hazmat Supplies $10,000. Motion to accept the Colonial Pipeline Grant, and appropriate a total of $10,000 to the Grants Fund. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren c. Radio Tower Project Change Order (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) Mr. Hicks stated that in November of 2017, the Board of Supervisors awarded the bid for the equipment to be installed on the new Tunstall Fire Department and Old Mayfield Convenience Center radio towers to Harris in the amount of $1,184,000. This bid was awarded prior to the construction bids in order to allow Harris to order the equipment that would have a long lead time. The bid for the construction of the towers was delayed due to the bid costs being above the projected budget. Staff spent the next several months negotiating with Black & Veatch to get the project within budget. Those negotiations were successful and the Board of Supervisors awarded the bid on June 19, 2018. There was a tremendous amount of preliminary work that needed to be done prior to the start of construction. One of the major components of this process was to gain federal approval from the FCC for the tower construction. This approval was delayed due to the government shutdown and resulted in another 2-3 month delay. On November of 2018, staff was provided a revised project schedule that indicated the project would be completed by the end of April 2019. In 2019, staff discovered that additional work would be necessary on the Kentuck (Dan River Middle School) tower in order to accommodate equipment from the County and 2 cellular companies. Design work had to be completed on these modifications. Construction of the 2 towers is currently underway and the latest completion date for the towers and the modifications to Kentuck is August of 2019. Harris cannot begin the installation of the equipment until the towers are completed and accepted. Attached for your review and consideration is a request from Harris to approve Change Order 3, which includes an acceptance date of September 23, 2019. They are also requesting a price increase of $16,275 to cover costs of equipment storage and continued project support during the delay. They have continued to monitor the progress on the project and have had staff involved in all of the project meetings to 7.a.c Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting date. Their portion of the project was originally scheduled to be completed by October 2, 2018. This puts them almost a year beyond the original schedule. Harris had agreed to prior time extensions at no cost on September 25, 2018 and January 24, 2019. Mr. Farmer asked if there were any provisions in the current contract that would warn us for additional costs and Mr. Hunt replied there were not. Mr. Blackstock asked if there is money in a contingency line item, and Mrs. Van Der Hyde stated there is capital money in building and grounds line items. Mr. Blackstock asked if Mr. Hunt feels this is necessary, and he agreed that it was. Mr. Hicks stated that the Company does have Staff time as well as storage costs that were incurred over the past year and he does not feel this is an unreasonable request. Motion to approve Change Order 3 To Amendment No. 6 with Harris in the amount of $16,275.00 and the extension of the acceptance date to September 23, 2019. RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 2] MOVER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District SECONDER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Scearce, Warren NAYS: Blackstock, Farmer APPOINTMENTS a. Appointment: DCC Board of Trustees; John Mead (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster) Motion to re-appoint John Mead to the Danville Community College Board of Trustees for another four (4)-year term, beginning on July 1, 2019. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District SECONDER: Ben L. Farmer, Supervisor - Callands-Gretna District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren b. Appointment: DCC Board of Trustees; At-Large Seat (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster) Motion to appoint Lillian Cassada to the Danville Community College Board of Trustees for a four (4)-year term, beginning on July 1, 2019. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Charles H. Miller, Vice Chairman - Banister District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren c. Appointment: Danville Pittsylvania Community Services Board (Contact: Supervisor Farmer) 7.a.c Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting Motion to re-appoint Kim Van Der Hyde to the Danville Pittsylvania Community Services Board for another three (3)-year term, beginning on July 1, 2019. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ben L. Farmer, Supervisor - Callands-Gretna District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren d. Appointment: Danville Pittsylvania Community Services Board (Supervisor Miller) Motion to appoint Dexter Miller to the Danville Pittsylvania Community Services Board for a three (3)-year term, beginning on July 1, 2019. RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1] MOVER: Charles H. Miller, Vice Chairman - Banister District SECONDER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Warren NAYS: Scearce e. Appointment: Library Board; Alice Shelton (Contact: Supervisor Warren) Motion to re-appoint Alice Shelton to the County’s Library Board as the Chatham-Blairs Representative for another four (4)-year term, beginning on July 1, 2019. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren f. Appointment: Library Board; Shelby Buffington (Contact: Supervisor Farmer) Motion to re-appoint Shelby Buffington to the County's Library Board as the Callands-Gretna Representative for another four (4)-year term, beginning on July 1, 2019. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ben L. Farmer, Supervisor - Callands-Gretna District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren MATTERS FROM WORK SESSION (IF ANY) a. Legislative Committee Action Items (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.) The Board’s Legislative Committee met on June 4, 2019. Mr. Hunt stated County Staff recommends the full Board follow the LC’s unanimous recommendations and authorize the advertisement of the following Public Hearings for the July Business Meeting: (1) Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance; and (2) the Ordinances relating to the following five 7.a.c Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting (5) Virginia Code Sections that the Honorable Michael Taylor, Sheriff, desires to add to the County Code: (a) Virginia Code § 15.2-1716.1, Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred in Responding to Terrorism Hoax Incident, Bomb threat, or Malicious Activation of Fire Alarm; (b) Virginia Code § 15.2-1716.2, Methamphetamine Lab Cleanup Costs; Localities may Charge for Reimbursement; (c) Virginia Code § 15.2-1717, Preventing Interference with Pupils at Schools; (d) Virginia Code § 15.2-1717.1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations; and (e) Virginia Code § 15.2-1719, Disposal of Unclaimed Property in Possession of Sheriff or Police. Mr. Farmer asked about status of the Ad-hoc Committee looking at the proposed Fire and Rescue Ordinance, and Mr. Slemp stated he is in the process of setting a meeting. Motion to authorize County Staff to advertise the aforementioned Public Hearings to be held at the July Business Meeting. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ben L. Farmer, Supervisor - Callands-Gretna District SECONDER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren b. Go Virginia Robotic Grant Match Funding Commitment Confirmation (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) A request was recently received by the County from Dr. Betty Jo Foster, Interim Danville Community College (“DCC”) President, on behalf of the consortium of Pittsylvania County Schools, Danville Public Schools, Danville Community College, and the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research, to financially participate in a $9,431,883 Grant to train Pittsylvania County School (“PCS”) students in Robotics, Automation, and Information Technology (the “Program”). This Program will create similar workforce pipelines to those of the existing Precision Machining ones. The Danville Regional Foundation (“DRF”) has approved $5,698,993 for the Program, contingent on matching funds being secured. $3,732,890.50 was provided from other sources, with Go Virginia Grant(s) accounting for the majority. Go Virginia declined to fund the Information Technology portion of the request, leaving a $288,378 shortfall for PCS training laboratories. The other partners in the consortium have agreed to fund their IT Grant shortfall. For the County, the requested $288,377.50 will be matched with $311,447.70 in DRF funding to create high-tech IT training labs at each of the high schools and the Career and Technical Center. It is understood that the funding must be provided by June 30, 2021. This item was discussed at the Board’s earlier Work Session. Motion to appropriate $96,126 from unused Grant proceeds for FY 2020, and seek $96,126 from the County’s Industrial Development Authority for FY 2021, and $96,126 from the Pittsylvania County Schools for FY 2022. 7.a.c Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District SECONDER: Tim R. Barber, Supervisor - Tunstall District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren c. Out-of-County Solid Waste At the Board’s earlier Solid Waste Committee Meeting and Work Session, there was discussion regarding potentially allowing Out-of-County Solid Waste be disposed of at the County’s Landfill to offset future County Landfill costs. Motion to authorize County Staff to submit a proposal to potentially dispose of Bedford County’s Solid Waste at the County Landfill. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District SECONDER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Barber welcomed the new citizens to Pittsylvania County that were in attendance. Mr. Blackstock invited everyone to come out to the rodeo being put on by Daniel Lanier in Grit this weekend. Mr. Farmer recognized Chatham High School’s baseball team in winning the State Championship, and also commended Mayor Poindexter for the way he handled the storms in the Town of Hurt. Dr. Miller stated he was pleased with the United States Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Virginia's ban on uranium mining. Mr. Warren also commended Chatham High School’s baseball team on its State Championship and Mr. Anderson on his efforts. He also commended the volunteers in Hurt for their hard work and efforts during the storms and cleanup. Mr. Davis complimented Staff for their encouragement and hard work. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS Mr. Smitherman stated that next month there would be a thorough update on the Pet Center's activities over the past six (6) months. He also commended the Landfill crew for their hard work and efforts in transforming the way the Landfill operates to make the Landfill's lifespan be maximized. CLOSED SESSION Motion to enter Closed Session. The Board entered Closed Session at 8:05 PM. 7.a.c Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors June 18, 2019 Business Meeting RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert W. "Bob" Warren, Supervisor - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Elton W. Blackstock, Supervisor - Staunton River District AYES: Davis, Miller, Barber, Blackstock, Farmer, Scearce, Warren a. Closed Session Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) (1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(3) Subject Matter: Potential Solid Waste Convenience Center Site(s) Purpose: Discussion of Acquisition of Real Property for a Public Purpose RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION CERTIFICATION a. Closed Session Certification The Board returned to Open Session at 8:23 PM, and the following Certification was recorded: CLOSED MEETING CERTIFICATION BE IT RESOLVED that at the Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors on June 18, 2019, the Board hereby certifies by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board Member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the Open Meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (the “Act”) and identified in the Motion authorizing the Closed Meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the Closed Meeting. If any Member believes that there was a departure from the requirements of the Act, he shall so state prior to the vote indicating the substance of the departure. The Statement shall be recorded in the Board’s Minutes. Vote Tim R. Barber Yes Elton W. Blackstock Yes Joe B. Davis Yes Ben L. Farmer Yes Charles H. Miller, Jr. Yes Ronald S. Scearce Yes Robert W. Warren Yes ADJOURNMENT Mr. Davis adjourned the Meeting at 8:25 PM. 7.a.c Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 06-18-2019 Business Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (1672 : Minutes: June 18, 2019, Solid Waste Committee Meeting, Work Session, and Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Resolution #2019-07-02: VDOT Rural Rustic Roads (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) Staff Contact(s): Gregory L. Sides Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.b Attachment(s): 2019-07-02 Rural Rustic - Pittsylvania County Reviewed By: SUMMARY: Virginia Code § 33.1-70.1 permits the hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for designation as a Rural Rustic Road. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve Resolution #2019-07-02 declaring the mentioned Routes as a Rural Rustic Road. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve Resolution #2019-07-02 as presented.” 7.b Packet Pg. 23 Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors RESOLUTION 2019-07-02 VIRGINIA: At the business meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors held in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition in Chatham, Virginia on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, the following resolution was presented and adopted: WHEREAS, Section 33.2-332 of the Code of Virginia, permits the hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for designation as a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, any such road must be located in a low-density development area and have no more than 1,500 vehicles per day; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia (“Board”) desires to consider whether the following Routes should be designated a Rural Rustic Road: Route 912 (Buck Horne Road), from: Route 360 to Route 660; Route 660 (Alderson Road), from Route 710 to the Halifax County Line; Route 713 (Lester Road), from Route 662 to 1.6 miles north of Route 662; Route 927 (Hickey Road), from Route 40 to Route 685; and Route 1070 (Rodgers Road), from Route 659 to the end of state maintenance; and WHEREAS, the Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the existing traffic on these roads; and WHEREAS, the Board believes that these roads should be so designated due to their qualifying characteristics; and WHEREAS, these roads are in the Board’s six-year plan for improvements to the secondary system of state highways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board requests that these roads be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right-of-way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the roads in their current state. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Residency Administrator. Recorded Vote A Copy Teste: Moved By: ______________ Seconded By: ______________ Signed _______________________ Yeas: ____ Printed Name David M. Smitherman Nays: ____ Title Clerk 7.b.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 2019-07-02 Rural Rustic - Pittsylvania County (1675 : Resolution #2019-07-02: VDOT Rural Rustic Roads (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Resolution #2019-07-03 VDOT Six-Year Plan (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) Staff Contact(s): Gregory L. Sides Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.c Attachment(s): 2019-07-03 VDOT Six Year Plan Reviewed By: SUMMARY: Sections 33.2-358 and 33.2-364 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provide the opportunity for each County to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) in developing the Secondary Six (6) Year Road Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve Resolution #2019-07-03, VDOT Secondary Six (6) Year Plan, for FY2020 – FY2025. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve Resolution #2019-07-03, VDOT Secondary Six (6) Year Plan for FY2020 – FY2025, and authorize the County Administrator to sign any necessary documentation.” 7.c Packet Pg. 25 Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors RESOLUTION 2019-07-03 At the Business Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Pittsylvania, held in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition in Chatham, Virginia on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m., the following Board members were present: Tim R. Barber Tunstall District Elton W. Blackstock Staunton River District Joe B. Davis Dan River District Ben L. Farmer Callands-Gretna District Dr. Charles H. Miller, Jr. Banister District Ronald S. Scearce Westover District Robert W. Warren Chatham-Blairs District Motion made by Elton W. Blackstock, seconded by Tim R. Barber, and carried by a 7 to 0 vote of the Board of Supervisors: WHEREAS, Sections 33.2-358 and 33.2-364 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides the opportunity for each county to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing the Secondary Six-Year Road Plan; and WHEREAS, this Board has previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this Plan, in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures, and participated in a Public Hearing on the proposed Plan (2020 through 2025) on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan; and WHEREAS, Joseph Craddock, Assistant Residency Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation, appeared before the Board and recommended approval of the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Roads (2020 through 2025); then NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that since said Plan appears to be in the best interests of the Secondary Road System in Pittsylvania County and of the citizens residing on the Secondary System, said Secondary Six-Year Plan (2020 through 2025) is hereby approved as presented at the public hearing. Given under my hand this 16th day of July 2019. __________________________________________ Joe B. Davis, Chairman Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors __________________________________________ David M. Smitherman, Clerk Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors 7.c.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 2019-07-03 VDOT Six Year Plan (1677 : Resolution #2019-07-03 VDOT Six-Year Plan (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.d Attachment(s): CC Watershed Agreement Revisions Biddix Letter re Revisons.05-01-19 Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_- _Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_- _Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) Reviewed By: SUMMARY: NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) has completed the Final Supplemental Watershed Plans for the Cherrystone Lake (1) and the Cherrystone Lake (2A) and are requesting approval of the proposed Watershed Agreements for both lakes. Tim Fisk, the Town of Chatham Attorney, and Vaden Hunt, the County Attorney, had some concerns about the proposed agreements and have submitted a request to NCRS for modifications to the agreements. For your review and information is a copy of the proposed Watershed agreement for both lakes, a copy of a letter submitted by Fisk and Hunt for proposed changes to the agreement, and copies of the final watershed plans for both lakes. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: Based on conversations with NCRS, the proposed agreements do not further obligate the plan sponsors. The approval of the plan does allow the sponsors to seek further federal funding for the design of the proposed plan if they choose to do so. This would be subject to the availability of federal funds. The County and the Town staff are also beginning the development of a scope of work and will be publishing a Request for Qualifications from qualified engineering firms to study possible alternatives. This will be funded from the $100,000 grant funded in the State budget. The changes in the proposed agreements are to clarify that approval of the Watershed Agreements are non-binding. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval and acceptance of the Watershed Agreements on behalf of Pittsylvania County subject to final review and approval of the County Attorney of any agreement amendments accepted by NRCS. 7.d Packet Pg. 27 MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the Final Watershed Plans and Watershed Agreements for the Cherrystone Lake (1) and the Cherrystone Lake (2A) subject to the final review and approval of the County Attorney of any agreement amendments accepted by NRCS.” 7.d Packet Pg. 28 7.d.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: CC Watershed Agreement Revisions (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.b Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Biddix Letter re Revisons.05-01-19 (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.b Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Biddix Letter re Revisons.05-01-19 (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) 7.d.b Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Biddix Letter re Revisons.05-01-19 (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Funding Agreement Approval (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks)) FINAL Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 2 and Environmental Assessment for the Rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 1 (Cherrystone Lake) of the Cherrystone Creek Watershed Pittsylvania County, Virginia PREPARED BY USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service IN COOPERATION WITH Town of Chatham Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors March 2019 7.d.c Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Non-Discrimination Statement In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation FINAL Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 2 & Environmental Assessment for the Rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 1 of the Cherrystone Creek Watershed Pittsylvania County, Virginia Prepared By: USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service In Cooperation With: Town of Chatham Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Authority The original watershed work plan was prepared, and the works of improvement were installed, under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954. The rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 is authorized by Section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566) as enacted by Section 313 of Public Law 106-472, otherwise known as “The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000”. Abstract Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, Cherrystone Lake, does not presently meet Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards for integrity or capacity of a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. In addition, the footer of the principal spillway riser does not meet NRCS seismic stability criteria. The selected plan is to rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 to meet current NRCS criteria and maintain the water supply and existing level of downstream flood protection. The plan is to install a 165-foot-wide roller-compacted concrete (RCC) chute spillway over the dam and block the existing auxiliary spillway with an earthen berm. Additional fill material will be placed on the embankment to address stability issues and widen the top of dam. Replacement of the riser and outlet structure is required. New toe drains will be installed in the embankment and the Hodnetts Mill Road culvert downstream of the dam will be replaced. There will be no change in the current levels of flood protection downstream as a result of project activity. Project installation cost is estimated to be $12,968,300 of which $8,859,000 will be paid from the Small Watershed Rehabilitation funds and $4,109,300 from local funds. Comments and Inquiries For further information, please contact: John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229, Phone: (804) 287-1691. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation i CHERRYSTONE CREEK WATERSHED AGREEMENT Supplemental Watershed Plan Agreement (Supplement No. 2) between the Town of Chatham Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors (herein referred to collectively as “Sponsors”) Commonwealth of Virginia and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) United States Department of Agriculture (herein referred to as “NRCS”) Whereas, the Watershed Work Plan Agreement for the Cherrystone Creek Watershed, Commonwealth of Virginia, authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566, as amended) and executed by the Sponsors named therein and the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS), pursuant to section 246 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, 7 U.S.C. 6862), became effective the 22nd day of July 1965; and Whereas, Supplement No. 1, which modified the Watershed Plan Agreement, was developed through cooperative efforts of the Sponsors and the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) and became effective on the 24th day of May 1976; and Whereas, application has heretofore been made to the Secretary of Agriculture by the Sponsors for assistance in preparing a plan for rehabilitation of the works of improvement for the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 located in Pittsylvania County, Commonwealth of Virginia, under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 1001 to 1008, 1010, and 1012); and Whereas, the responsibility for administration of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, has been assigned by the Secretary of Agriculture to NRCS; and Whereas, through the cooperative efforts of the Sponsors and NRCS, a Supplemental Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment has been developed to rehabilitate the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the Plan, which Plan is annexed to and made a part of this agreement; and Whereas, in order to provide for rehabilitation of the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, it has become necessary to modify the Supplemental Watershed Plan Agreement; 7.d.c Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation ii Now, therefore, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Secretary of Agriculture, through NRCS, and the Sponsors, hereby agree on this Supplemental Watershed Plan and that the works of improvement for this project will be installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the terms, conditions, and stipulations provided for in this Supplemental Watershed Agreement and including the following: 1. Term. The term of this agreement is for 50 years after construction is completed and does not commit the NRCS to assistance of any kind beyond the end of the agreement. 2. Costs. The costs shown in this plan are preliminary estimates. Final costs to be borne by the parties hereto will be the actual costs incurred in the installation of works of improvement. 3. Real property. The Sponsors will acquire such real property as will be needed in connection with the works of improvement. The amounts and percentages of the real property acquisition costs to be borne by the Sponsors and NRCS are as shown in the Cost-Share table in Section 5 hereof. NRCS policy regarding minimum landrights for areas upstream of the dam requires the local sponsors to acquire an easement for all areas below the top of dam, unless the plan explicitly allows for a lower elevation. The existing easements are for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam, and water storage. An economic and risk analysis was conducted to inform the Sponsors of their associated potential for risk of flood damages. The Sponsors acknowledge and accept the potential risk of flood damages for the real property between the auxiliary spillway crest elevation and the top of dam elevation. The three residences located below the crest of the auxiliary spillway will be removed or floodproofed by the Sponsors. Future development, structures, and/or buildings below the crest of the auxiliary spillway (elevation 682.0) will be restricted. 4. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. The Sponsors hereby agrees to comply with all of the policies and procedures of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (42 U.S.C. 4601 et. seq. as further implemented through regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 24 and 7 C.F.R. Part 21) when acquiring real property interests for this federally assisted project. If the Sponsors are legally unable to comply with the real property acquisition requirements, they agree that, before any Federal financial assistance is furnished; they will provide a statement to that effect, supported by an opinion of the chief legal officer of the state containing a full discussion of the facts and law involved. This statement may be accepted as constituting compliance. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation iii 5. Cost-share for Rehabilitation Project. The following table will be used to show cost-share percentages and amounts for Watershed Project Plan implementation. Works of Improvement NRCS Sponsors Total Cost-Shareable Items Percent Cost Percent Cost Cost Rehabilitation of the dam (construction costs): 67% $7,626,000 33% $3,516,200 $11,142,200 Relocation, Replacement in-kind: 0% $0 0% $0 $0 Relocation, Required Decent, Safe, Sanitary: 0% $0 0% $0 $0 Sponsors’ Planning Costs: n/a n/a 100% $25,000 $25,000 Sponsors’ Engineering Costs: n/a n/a 100% $18,500 $18,500 Sponsors’ Project Administration Costs: n/a n/a 100% $35,000 $35,000 Landrights Acquisition Costs: n/a n/a 100% $511,600 $511,600 Subtotals: Cost-Shareable Costs: Cost-Share Percentages:a/ (65%) $7,626,000 (35%) $4,106,300 $11,732,300 (100%) Non Cost-Shareable Items (per PL-83-566 and NRCS policy)b/ --- --- --- --- --- NRCS Engineering and Project Administration Costs: 100% $1,233,000 n/a n/a $1,233,000 Natural Resource Rights: n/a n/a 0% $0 $0 Federal, State and Local Permits: n/a n/a 100% $3,000 $3,000 Relocation, Beyond Required Decent, Safe, Sanitary n/a n/a 0% $0 $0 Subtotals: Non-Cost-Shareable Costs: 100% $1,233,000 100% $3,000 $1,236,000 Total Cost-Shareable Cost: n/a $7,626,000 n/a $4,106,300 $11,732,300 Total Installation Cost: n/a $8,859,000 n/a $4,109,300 $12,968,300 a/ The maximum NRCS cost-share is 65% of the cost-shareable items not to exceed 100% of the construction cost. Total eligible project costs include construction, landrights, relocation, project administration, and planning services provided by the Sponsors. b/ If actual non-cost-shareable item expenditures vary from these estimates, the responsible party will bear the change in costs. 6. Land treatment agreements. The sponsors will obtain agreements from owners of not less than 50 percent of the land above each multiple-purpose and floodwater-retarding structure. These agreements must provide that the owners will carry out farm or ranch conservation plans on their land. The sponsors will ensure that 50 percent of the land upstream of any retention reservoir site is adequately protected before construction of the dam. The sponsors will provide assistance to landowners and operators to ensure the installation of the land treatment measures shown in the watershed project plan. The sponsors will encourage landowners and operators 7.d.c Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation iv to continue to operate and maintain the land treatment measures after the long-term contracts expire, for the protection and improvement of the watershed. Approximately 51% of the drainage area above Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 is wooded with another 32% in pasture and hayland. Thus, there is no requirement for the Sponsors to obtain agreements for protection of the upstream watershed. 7. Floodplain Management. Before construction of any project for flood prevention, Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham must agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs. 8. Water and mineral rights. The Sponsors will acquire or provide assurance that landowners or resource users have acquired such water, mineral, or other natural resources rights pursuant to State law as may be needed in the installation and operation of the works of improvement. Any costs incurred must be borne by the Sponsors and these costs are not eligible as part of the Sponsors’ cost-share. 9. Permits. The Sponsors will obtain and bear the cost for all necessary Federal, State, and local permits required by law, ordinance, or regulation for installation of the works of improvement. These costs are not eligible as part of the Sponsors’ cost-share. 10. NRCS assistance. This agreement is not a fund-obligating document. Financial and other assistance to be furnished by NRCS in carrying out the rehabilitation plan is contingent upon the fulfillment of applicable laws and regulations and the availability of appropriations for this purpose. 11. Additional agreements. A separate agreement will be entered into between NRCS and the Sponsors before either party initiates work involving funds of the other party. Such agreements will set forth in detail the financial and working arrangements and other conditions that are applicable to the specific works of improvement. 12. Amendments. This plan may be amended or revised only by mutual agreement of the parties hereto, except that NRCS may de-authorize or terminate funding at any time it determines that the Sponsors have failed to comply with the conditions of this agreement or when the program funding or authority expires. In this case, NRCS must promptly notify the Sponsors in writing of the determination and the reasons for de-authorization of project funding, together with the effective date. Payments made to the Sponsors or recoveries by NRCS must be in accordance with the legal rights and liabilities of the parties when project funding has been de-authorized. An amendment to incorporate changes affecting a specific measure may be made by mutual agreement between NRCS and the Sponsors having specific responsibilities for the measure involved. 13. Prohibitions. No member of or delegate to Congress, or resident commissioner, may be admitted to any share or part of this plan, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; but this provision may not be construed to extend to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit. 14. Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The Town of Chatham will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and any needed replacement of the works of improvement by actually performing the work or arranging for such work, in accordance with an O&M agreement. An O&M agreement will be entered into before Federal funds are obligated and continue for the project life (50 years after construction). Although the Town of Chatham’s responsibility to 7.d.c Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation v the Federal Government for O&M ends when the O&M agreement expires upon completion of the evaluated life of measures covered by the agreement, the Town of Chatham acknowledges that continued liabilities and responsibilities associated with works of improvement may exist beyond the evaluated life. 15. Emergency Action Plan. Prior to construction, the Town of Chatham must prepare an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for this dam where failure may cause loss of life, as required by state and local regulations. The EAP must meet the minimum content specified in NRCS Title 180, National Operation and Maintenance Manual (NOMM), Part 500, Subpart F, Section 500.52, and meet applicable State agency dam safety requirements. An EAP is required prior to the execution of fund obligating documents for rehabilitation of the structure. The EAP must be reviewed and updated by the Town of Chatham annually. 16. Nondiscrimination provisions. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. By signing this agreement, the recipient assures the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the program or activities provided for under this agreement will be conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal civil rights laws, rules, regulations, and policies. 17. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (7 CFR Part 3021). By signing this watershed agreement, the Sponsors are providing the certification set out below. If it is later determined that the Sponsors knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violated the requirements of the Drug Free Workplace Act, the NRCS, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation vi Controlled Substance means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. Section 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR Sections 1308.11 through 1308.15); Conviction means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes; Criminal drug statute means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance; Employee means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (i) all direct charge employees; (ii) all indirect charge employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and, (iii) temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantees' payroll, or employees of sub-recipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces). Certification: A. The Sponsors certify that they will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: (1) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition. (2) Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about— (a) The danger of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violation occurring in the workplace. (3) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (1); (4) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (1) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee must -- (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation vii (5) Notifying the NRCS in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under paragraph (4) (b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice must include the identification number(s) of each affected grant. (6) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under paragraph (4) (b), with respect to any employees who is so convicted-- (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency. (7) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6). B. The Sponsors may provide a list of the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with a specific project or other agreement. C. Agencies will keep the original of all disclosure reports in the official files of the agency. 18. Certification Regarding Lobbying (7 CFR Part 3018) A. The Sponsors certify to the best of their knowledge and belief, that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Sponsors, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned must complete and submit Standard Form – LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The Sponsors must require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients must certify and disclose accordingly. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation viii B. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, of the U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 19. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions (7 CFR Part 3017). A. The Sponsors certify to the best of their knowledge and belief, that they and their principals: (1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (A)(2) of this certification; and (4) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default. B. Where the primary Sponsor is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant must attach an explanation to this agreement. 20. Clean Air and Water Certification A. The project Sponsoring organizations signatory to this agreement certify as follows: (1) Any facility to be utilized in the performance of this proposed agreement is (__), is not (_X_) listed on the Environmental Protection Agency List of Violating Facilities. (2) To promptly notify the NRCS Assistant State Conservationist for Management and Strategy prior to the signing of this agreement by NRCS, of the receipt of any communication from the Director, Office of Federal Activities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, indicating that any facility which is proposed for use under this agreement is under consideration to be listed on the Environmental Protection Agency List of Violating Facilities. (3) To include substantially this certification, including this subparagraph, in every nonexempt subagreement. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation ix B. The project Sponsoring organizations signatory to this agreement agree as follows: (1) To comply with all the requirements of section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 7414) and section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1318), respectively, relating to inspection, monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as other requirements specified in section 114 and section 308 of the Air Act and the Water Act, issued there under before the signing of this agreement by NRCS. (2) That no portion of the work required by this agreement will be performed in facilities listed on the EPA List of Violating Facilities on the date when this agreement was signed by NRCS unless and until the EPA eliminates the name of such facility or facilities from such listing. (3) To use their best efforts to comply with clean air standards and clean water standards at the facilities in which the agreement is being performed. (4) To insert the substance of the provisions of this clause in any nonexempt subagreement. C. The terms used in this clause have the following meanings: (1) The term “Air Act” means the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.). (2) The term “Water Act” means Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.). (3) The term “clean air standards” means any enforceable rules, regulations, guidelines, standards, limitations, orders, controls, prohibitions, or other requirements which are contained in, issued under, or otherwise adopted pursuant to the Air Act or Executive Order 11738, an applicable implementation plan as described in section 110 of the Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7414) or an approved implementation procedure under section 112 of the Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7412). (4) The term “clean water standards” means any enforceable limitation, control, condition, prohibition, standards, or other requirement which is promulgated pursuant to the Water Act or contained in a permit issued to a discharger by the Environmental Protection Agency or by a State under an approved program, as authorized by section 402 of the Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1342), or by a local government to assure compliance with pretreatment regulations as required by section 307 of the Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1317). (5) The term “facility” means any building, plant, installation, structure, mine, vessel, or other floating craft, location or site of operations, owned, leased, or supervised by a Sponsor, to be utilized in the performance of an agreement or subagreement. Where a location or site of operations contains or includes more than one building, plant, installation, or structure, the entire location will be deemed to be a facility except where the Director, Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection Agency, determines that independent facilities are collocated in one geographical area. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation x 21. Assurances and Compliance. As a condition of the grant or cooperative agreement, the Sponsors assure and certify that they are in compliance with and will comply in the course of the agreement with all applicable laws, regulations, Executive orders and other generally applicable requirements, including those set out below which are hereby incorporated in this agreement by reference, and such other statutory provisions as specifically set forth herein. State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments: OMB Circular A-87, A-102, A-129, and A-133; 7 CFR Parts 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3021, and 3052. Nonprofit Organizations, Hospitals, Institutions of Higher Learning: OMB Circular A-110, A-122, A-129, and A-133; and 7 CFR Parts 3015, 3017, 3018, 3019, 3021, and 3052. 22. Examination of Records. The Sponsors must give the NRCS or the Comptroller General, through any authorized representative, access to, and the right to, examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to this agreement, and retain all records related to this agreement for a period of three years after completion of the terms of this agreement in accordance with the applicable OMB Circular. Town of Chatham By: _______________________________ P.O. Box 370 WILLIAM PACE Chatham, Virginia 24531 Title: Town Mayor____________________ Date: _______________________________ The signing of this supplemental watershed agreement was authorized by the governing body of the Town of Chatham at a meeting held on __________________________________________. ____________________________________ Town of Chatham Administrative Secretary or Notary P.O. Box 370 Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________ 7.d.c Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xi Pittsylvania Soil and Water By: ______________________________ Conservation District J. TOM KELLEY 19783 U.S. Highway, Suite F Chatham, Virginia 24531 Title: Chairman______________________ Date: ______________________________ The signing of this supplemental watershed agreement was authorized by the governing body of the Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District at a meeting held on _________________. ______________________________________ Pittsylvania SWCD Administrative Secretary or Notary 19783 U.S. Highway, Suite F Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pittsylvania County By: ______________________________ Board of Supervisors DAVID M. SMITHERMAN P. O. Box 426 Chatham, Virginia 24531 Title: County Administrator____________ Date: ______________________________ The signing of this supplemental watershed agreement was authorized by the governing body of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors at a meeting held on ________________________. ______________________________________ Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Administrative Secretary or Notary P. O. Box 426 Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________ 7.d.c Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xii Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture Approved by: ___________________________________ Date: ______________________________ JOHN A. BRICKER State Conservationist 7.d.c Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xiii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page WATERSHED AGREEMENT.......................................................................................... i SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATERSHED PLAN............................................. xix CHANGES REQUIRING PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENT................................. 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION............................................................................. 1 Original Project.............................................................................................................. 2 Watershed Problems...................................................................................................... 2 Watershed Opportunities............................................................................................... 3 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT................................................... 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................... 6 Planning Activities......................................................................................................... 6 Physical Features………………………………………………….……….….…….... 7 Land Use........................................................................................................................ 8 Potable Water Supply………………………………………………………...……… 8 Social and Economic Conditions……………………………………………………... 8 Special Environmental Concerns……………………………………………………... 22 Soils……………………………………………………………………………...… 22 Water……………………………………………………………………………… 22 Clean Water Act……………………………………………………………...... 22 Waters of the U.S................................................................................................. 22 Wetlands.............................................................................................................. 23 Coastal Zone Management Areas........................................................................ 24 Floodplain Management...................................................................................... 24 Wild and Scenic Rivers........................................................................................ 25 Air………................................................................................................................. 26 Animals and Plants................................................................................................... 26 Endangered and Threatened Species and Natural Areas..................................... 26 Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................................... 29 Migratory Birds................................................................................................... 30 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act................................................................ 30 Invasive Species.................................................................................................. 31 Riparian Areas..................................................................................................... 32 Humans..................................................................................................................... 32 Scenic Beauty...................................................................................................... 32 Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 32 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................... 34 7.d.c Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page Description of Existing Dam…………………………………………………………. 38 General Description of How a Dam Functions………………………………………. 41 Status of Operation and Maintenance………………………………………………… 42 Structural Data………………………………………………………………………... 42 Breach Analysis and Hazard Classification…………………………………………... 42 Evaluation of Potential Failure Modes………………………………………………. 44 Consequences of Dam Failure………………………………………………………... 45 FORMULATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES………………………. 46 Formulation Process…………………………………………………………………. 47 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study………………………. 47 Description of Alternative Plans Considered…………………………………………. 49 National Economic Development (NED) Alternative………………………………... 53 Comparison of Alternative Plans……………………………………………………... 53 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES………………………………………………. 56 Summary of Special Environmental Concerns not within the Affected Environment and excluded from Consequences Analysis……………………… 56 Special Environmental Concerns……………………………………………………... 57 Water………………………………………………………………………………. 57 Air…………………………………………………………………………………. 58 Animals and Plants………………………………………………………………... 59 Humans……………………………………………………………………………. 61 Cumulative Effects………………………………………………………………… 63 RISK AND UNCERTAINTY…………………………………………………………… 64 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION…………………………………. 65 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE…………………………………………………………. 67 Rationale for Plan Selection…………………………………………………………... 67 Summary and Purpose………………………………………………………………... 67 Easements and Landrights……………………………………………………………. 68 Mitigation……………………………………………………………………………... 69 Permits and Compliance……………………………………………………………… 69 Costs…………………………………………………………………………………... 69 Installation and Financing……………………………………………………………. 70 Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement…………………………………………... 71 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………... 77 REPORT PREPARERS…………………………………………………………………. 79 DISTRIBUTION LIST…………………………………………………………………... 82 7.d.c Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xv LIST OF FIGURES No. Description Page 1 2 Area Evaluated for Environmental Justice Effects……………………………... Example of a Roller-Compacted Concrete Auxiliary Spillway………………... 36 51 3 Example of a 5-Cycle Labyrinth Weir in an Embankment……………………. 52 B-1 General Watershed Location Map……………………………………………… B-1 B-2 Cherrystone Lake Watershed Land Use Map…………………………………... B-2 B-3 Cherrystone Lake Dam No. 1 Watershed Soils Map…………………………… B-3 B-4 Cherrystone Lake Dam - Soils of Statewide Importance.….…….……………. B-4 B-5 Cherrystone Lake Invasive Species Map………………………………………. B-5 B-6 Area of Potential Effect for Preferred Alternative (Aerial View) …...………… B-6 C-1 Preferred Alternative - RCC Chute Spillway over the Top of Dam……………. C-1 C-2 Preferred Alternative - Details of Embankment, Toe Drain and Culvert………. C-2 C-3 Alternative 2 – Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir Over the Dam……………. C-3 C-4 Sunny Day Breach Inundation Map……………………………………………. C-4 C-5 Cherrystone 1 FEMA Flood Panel Index………………………………………. C-5 C-6 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 1 of 14) …………………... C-6 C-7 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 2 of 14) …………………... C-7 C-8 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 3 of 14) …………………... C-8 C-9 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 4 of 14) …………………... C-9 C-10 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 5 of 14) …………………... C-10 C-11 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 6 of 14) …………………... C-11 C-12 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 7 of 14) …………………... C-12 C-13 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 8 of 14) …………………... C-13 C-14 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 9 of 14) …………………... C-14 C-15 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 10 of 14) ……………….... C-15 C-16 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 11 of 14) …………………. C-16 C-17 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 12 of 14) …………………. C-17 C-18 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 13 of 14) …………………. C-18 C-19 Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 14 of 14) …………………. C-19 7.d.c Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xvi LIST OF GRAPHS No. Description Page A Percent Change in Population, 2000-2014………………………………………... 9 B Median Age……………………………………………………………….………. 10 C Educational Attainment, 2014…………………………………………….………. 12 D Employment/Unemployment……………………………………………………… 12 E Commuter Status…………………………………………………………………... 14 F Income……………………………………………………………………………... 14 G Per Capita Income, 2014…………………………………………………………... 14 H Household Income Distribution, Chatham Town, VA, 2014………………………. 17 I Individuals and Families Below Poverty Level, 2014……………………….……. 18 J Housing Occupancy, 2014………………………………………………………… 20 K Housing Costs as a Percent of Household Income, 2014…….……………………. 21 L Median Monthly Mortgage Costs and Monthly Rent, 2014………………………. 21 LIST OF TABLES No. Description Page A Summary of Scoping for Rehabilitation of Cherrystone Lake Dam……………… 5 B Land Use…………………………………………………………………….……. 8 C Population………………………………………………………………………… 9 D Population by Race………………………………………………………….……. 10 E Change in Median Age, 2000-2014………………………………………………. 11 F How People Self-Identify (Ethnicity)……………………………………………... 11 G Education…………………………………………………………………………. 12 H Class of Worker…………………………………………………………………… 13 I Income………………………………………………………………………….…. 15 J Income Distribution………………………………………………………….……. 16 K Poverty……………………………………………………………………………. 17 L Poverty Levels by Race and Ethnicity……………………………………………. 18 M Housing…………………………………………………………………………… 19 N Housing Costs as a Percent of Household Income, 2014…………………………. 20 O State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species……….………………………… 28 P USFWS Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern………………………………. 30 Q Indicators and Groups from EPA’s Environmental Justice Tool…………………. 37 R As-Built and Existing Structural Data for Cherrystone Lake……………………… 43 S Major Components of Decommissioning the Dam………………………………... 48 T Summary and Comparison of Alternative Plans…………………………………... 54 1 Estimated Installation Cost………………………………………………………... 73 2 Estimated Cost Distribution – Structural Measures………………………………. 73 3 Structural Data for Rehabilitated Dam……………………………………………. 74 4 Average Annual National Economic Development (NED) Costs…………………. 75 5 Estimated Average Annual Flood Damage Reduction Benefits…………………... 76 6 Comparison of NED Benefits and Costs…………………………………………... 76 7.d.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xvii APPENDICES Appendix A: Comments and Responses Appendix B: Project Maps Appendix C: Support Maps Appendix D: Investigation and Analyses Report 7.d.c Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xviii (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xix SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATERSHED PLAN NO. 2 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the Rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Watershed Dam No. 1 Pittsylvania County, Virginia 5th Congressional District Prepared by: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Authorization: The original work plan was prepared, and the works of improvement were installed, under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 1001 et. seq.), 1954. The rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 is authorized under Public Law 83-566 (as amended), and as further amended by Section 313 of Public Law 106-472. Sponsors: Town of Chatham Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Proposed Action: Rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Watershed Dam No. 1, Cherrystone Lake, to meet current Virginia Division of Dam Safety and NRCS safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam. Purpose and Need for Action: Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 does not presently meet NRCS standards for the capacity or integrity of a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. It also does not meet Virginia Division of Dam Safety criteria for capacity. The selected plan is to rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 dam to meet current NRCS criteria. The purposes for federal action are to comply with current NRCS and Virginia dam design and safety standards to reduce risks to life and property that could result from a potential catastrophic dam failure; maintain the level of flood protection, that is currently provided by the dam’s ability to attenuate floods, to life and property upstream and downstream of the dam; and maintain the current level of water supply. The original design planned for floodwater detention storage at elevation 680.2 for the storm with a 100-year recurrence interval. The as-built auxiliary spillway has a crest elevation of 682.0, which equates to a storm with a frequency of between 150 and 200 years. Description of Preferred Alternative: The selected plan is to rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 to meet current safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam, provide sediment storage for at least 50 years after construction, and maintain the existing 850 acre-feet of water supply storage and current level of flood protection downstream. The plan provides for installation of a 165-foot-wide, roller-compacted concrete (RCC) chute spillway over the dam and blockage of the existing auxiliary spillway with an earthen berm. The chute will discharge into an RCC stilling basin. The upstream embankment slope will be flattened to 3:1 and stability berms will be placed on both the upstream and downstream toes. Replacement of the riser and outlet structure and extension of the principal spillway pipe in both the upstream and downstream directions are subsequently required. New toe drains will be installed in the embankment. The Hodnetts Mill Road culvert downstream of the dam will be replaced. There 7.d.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xx will be no change in the current levels of flood protection downstream. Although the lake will be drained during construction, there will be no significant change in the water resource operations or recreational uses of the lake once construction is complete. Resource Information: Location: Latitude: 36.85128054 Longitude: -79.43104504 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Number: 03010105 Climate: In Pittsylvania County, in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, the annual average temperature is 54.7°F with an annual summer average of 73.0°F and an annual winter average of 36.4°F. The mean date for the last frost of spring is May 2 with the latest date being May 23. In the fall, the mean date for the first frost is October 10 with the latest frost occurring on November 6. This provides a mean growing season of approximately 161 days. The average annual precipitation is 45.24 inches. This precipitation is well distributed through the year with slightly larger amounts (over 4 inches) occurring in the months of March, May, July, and September. The average annual total snowfall is 4.2 inches. Watershed Size: Drainage Area of Cherrystone Lake = 9,402 acres Land Use: Woodland: 4,809 acres, 51.1% Cropland: 528 acres, 5.6% Developed: 580 acres, 6.2%% Hay/Pasture: 3,040 acres, 32.3% Water: 130 acres, 1.4% Shrub land: 315 acres: 3.4% Land Ownership: Upstream of dam: 100% private and 0% public Downstream of dam: 87% private, 13% public Population and Demographics: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the Town of Chatham was 987 (2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimate). Of the total population in the ACS, 76.7% (757) were White and 18.8% (186) were Black or African American. All other racial groups individually were less than 1% of the total population. Together, Whites and Blacks made up 95.5% of the Town’s entire population. Hispanics of any race are the second largest minority group with 2.7%, or 27. The median age of the population of the Town of Chatham is 50.5 while the same number for the entire state of Virginia was 37.6. Residents in the Town of Chatham that were 65 years old or older totaled 24.7% (244). Of the Town population, 85.7% were over the age of 19. Approximately 85.6% of the residents in the Town had a high school education or higher. Of the residents in the Town that are 25 years of age or older, 14.4% do not have a high school diploma. About 34.9% of the Town residents have some education beyond high school, including 15.1% with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 19.7% with graduate or professional degrees. There are 419 Town of Chatham residents who are 16 years of age or older according to the 2010- 2014 ACS. Approximately 68% (446) of the residents 16 years of age or older are considered in the labor force pool. About 32% of the civilian labor force in the Town was unemployed according to the same source. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxi The Town of Chatham has a diverse economy. According to the 2010-2014 ACS, five sub-sectors of the local economy employ the civilian workforce: management, professional and related (45.6%); service (13.6%); sales and office (23.9%); construction, extraction, maintenance and repair (1.9%); and production, transportation and material moving (13.1%). Private wage and salary employment constitutes 58.5% of all employment in the Town of Chatham while public sector jobs (primarily in education) make up 41.5% in Chatham. Median household income estimated for the Town for the 2010-2014 period was $45,000. This compares to $64,792 per year for the median household income calculated for Virginia. The national figure for median household income per year estimated for the same period was $53,482. With respect to per capita incomes, Town of Chatham residents are estimated to have had per capita income of $27,849 for the 2010-2014 period. Virginians reported per capita income of $33,958 for the 2010-2014 period, while the same figure for the entire United States was $28,555 for same period. That makes the Town per capita income figure for 2010-2014 82% of the state’s level and 97.5% of the national figure. According to the 2010-2014 Census estimates, the Town of Chatham had 23 families living below the poverty level (9.3%) and a total of 73 people living below the poverty level. That compares to 8.2% for State and 11.5% for the Nation. The 2010-2014 Census estimates indicate that 76.7% of the 529 housing units within the Town of Chatham were occupied. The median year that Chatham homes were built is 1951. About 72% of all homes were built before 1959. A majority of the 150 people at risk from a breach event live within the Town of Chatham. There are 16 structures within the breach inundation zone: eight homes, seven business structures and one barn. Most of the residential property downstream of the dam ranges between $50,000 and $500,000 in total value with an average of about $91,000. The total value of residential property (structures and contents only, excluding land values) at risk below the dam is an estimated $948,000. Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 provides incidental recreation mainly for the residents who live around the reservoir. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxii Resource Concerns Identified Through Scoping: Item/Concern Rationale SOILS Land Use Upstream land use is restricted due to operation of the dam. WATER Floodplain Management The Town of Chatham and Pittsylvania County both participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Maintain current flood protection. Flooding concerns for downtown areas. Concern for impacts to downstream roads and crossings. Regional Water Management Plans West Piedmont Planning District included Cherrystone Lake in their Regional Water Supply Plan. Streams, Lakes, and Wetlands Minimize impacts during construction. Water quality Minimize sediment transport and maintain oxygen levels. AIR Air Quality Air quality may be temporarily impacted during construction. ANIMALS Endangered and Threatened Species Possible impact to Northern long-eared bat. Check downstream for presence of: Roanoke Bass, Roanoke Logperch and Orangefin Madtom. None identified. Fish and Wildlife Maintain normal flow regime during construction period. PLANTS Invasive Species Invasive species present around dam. Riparian Areas Temporary impact anticipated during construction. HUMANS Local and Regional Economy Temporary benefit during construction. Potable Water Supply Only water supply in large part of town/county; have enough water supply for current demand but new industries may require more water supply. Public Health and Safety Rehabilitation is needed because the dam does not meet current safety standards. Recreation Draining lake would have temporary impact on property owners and guests during construction and fish recovery period. Alternative Plans Considered: Three plans were considered and evaluated in detail. 1) No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation) - The Sponsors have indicated that they will use the plan developed by NRCS to complete the rehabilitation of the dam if Federal funding is not available. The No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation) alternative would be the same or involve the same components as the preferred alternative: Structural Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) Chute Spillway over the Dam. 2) Structural Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) Chute Spillway over the Dam. Install a 165-foot-wide RCC armored auxiliary spillway over the dam. The new auxiliary spillway would outlet into an RCC stilling basin at the valley floor. Close the existing auxiliary spillway with an earthen berm. Replace the existing impact basin with the RCC stilling basin. 3) Structural Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir over the dam. Install a 64-foot-wide, 320-foot long, one-cycle labyrinth weir in the embankment of the dam. Outlet the spillway into a Saint Anthony Falls (SAF) basin followed by a 60-foot- 7.d.c Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxiii long riprap stabilization pad. Close the existing auxiliary spillway with an earthen berm. Replace the existing impact basin with a new impact basin constructed downstream of the stability berm. All the rehabilitation alternatives will require the following modifications: • Flatten the upstream embankment to 3:1 and install a 24-foot-wide stability berm. • Widen the top of the dam to 20 feet. • Stabilize the downstream embankment with a 24-foot-wide stability berm. • Replace the riser structure, catwalk, and water supply components. • Extend the principal spillway upstream and downstream of the new embankment toes. • Install new toe drains. • Replace the culvert on Hodnetts Mill Road with a concrete arch culvert. There will be no change in the current levels of flood protection downstream. There will be no significant change in the water supply operations as a result of project activity. The preferred alternative maximizes net benefits with a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1 and is the rehabilitation alternative preferred by the Sponsors. Project Costs (Dollars) PL-83-566 Funds Other Funds Total Category Dollars % Dollars % Dollars % Construction $7,626,000 68% $3,516,200 32% $11,142,200 100% Engineering $1,208,000 98.5% $18,500 1.5% $1,226,500 100% Relocation n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Sponsor Planning n/a n/a $25,000 100% $25,000 100% Real Property Rights n/a n/a $511,600 100% $511,600 100% Project Administration $25,000 42% $35,000 58% $60,000 100% Other (permits) $0 0% $3,000 100% $3,000 100% TOTAL COSTS $8,859,000 68% $4,109,300 32% $12,968,300 100% Annual O&M (non-Federal) n/a n/a $5,300 100% $5,300 100% Project Benefits: Rehabilitation will allow the sponsors to meet the requirements for a high hazard potential dam, reduce the potential for loss of life, continue protection of existing infrastructure downstream of the dam, maintain property values around the reservoir and associated recreational opportunities, and continue to provide water supply. Net average annual equivalent benefits between the Future with Federal Project and the Future without Federal Project = $0 since the candidate plans to rehabilitate Cherrystone Lake are identical in scope, substantially equivalent costs, and equal effects. Number of Direct Beneficiaries/Population at Risk: 150 (for Sunny Day breach) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxiv Other beneficial effects: • Reduces the threat to loss of life to approximately 150 people that live and/or work in the breach zone. • Protects 16 structures within the breach inundation zone. • Provides protection for a significant number of vehicle occupants who utilize nine county roads in the breach inundation zone with a cumulative total average daily traffic count of 6,940. • Provides recreational benefits (primarily boating and fishing) to property owners. • Reduces the threat of loss of access and loss of emergency services for 16 structures (eight residences, a water treatment plant, six commercial properties and a barn). • Provides downstream flood protection for the residents in the area, as well as those working, recreating, or traversing within the downstream floodplains, for an additional 50 years. • Eliminates the liability associated with continuing to operate an unsafe dam. • Maintains the existing water supply storage that services 952 taps, supplying about 1,300 town residents and outlying areas, plus 1,000 prisoners at Green Rock Prison. • Maintains existing stream habitat downstream of the dam. • Retains the existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat in and around the reservoir. • Leverages federal resources to install the planned works of improvement. • Will meet current Virginia Division of Dam Safety and NRCS safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam. Benefit to Cost Ratio (current rate): 1.0 to 1.0 Net beneficial effects (National Economic Development (NED) effects): $0 Funding Schedule: The most likely scenario is for the project to be implemented over two years including the design and construction. Federal funds: Year 1 - $1,145,500 for engineering and project administration; Year 2 - $87,500 for construction supervision and project administration and $7,626,000 for construction. Non-Federal funds: Year 1 - $7,000 for engineering and administration, $3,000 for permitting costs, and $511,600 for Real Property Rights; Year 2 - $46,500 for engineering and project administration and $3,516,200 for construction. (The sponsor planning costs ($25,000) are incurred prior to Year 1) Period of Analysis: 52 years (includes 1 year for design and 1 year for construction) Project Life: 50 years Environmental Effects/Impacts: Resource Impact Air Quality Temporary increase in particulate matter on site during construction. Land Use Changes None. Floodplains Current regulatory floodplain would be maintained. Fisheries The reservoir will be drained during construction. The fishery is expected to fully recover in 3-4 years. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxv Resource Impact Forest Resources None. Wetlands Temporary effects during construction on 121.98 acres of open water wetlands and emergent wetlands. Approximately 0.2 acres of scrub/shrub wetlands below the embankment will be permanently lost and 0.33 acres will be temporarily impacted due to the construction of the stability berm and the toe drains. Wildlife Habitat None. Prime Farmland No effect. Cultural Resources Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 and Hodnetts Mill Ruins are present in the project area. Both are potentially eligible for National Register consideration due to their age (50+ years old). NRCS has recommended to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources that the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 be classified as “not eligible” and the Hodnetts Mill Ruins be given a “no adverse effect” determination. Threatened and Endangered Species No effect. Mitigation Mitigation will be required for the 0.2 acres of wetlands permanently lost below the embankment. Major Conclusions: In order to bring this dam into compliance with NRCS and State safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam, it is necessary to rehabilitate the dam by installing an RCC armored chute spillway over the dam; increasing the stability of the embankment; replacing the riser and appurtenances; installing toe drains; and replacing a road culvert. There will be no change in the current levels of flood protection downstream. There will be no significant change in the water supply operations of the lake after project activity is complete. Most of the environmental impacts are short-term (only during construction) and existing conditions will be restored upon completion of construction. Areas of Controversy: None Issues to be Resolved: None Evidence of Unusual Congressional or Local Interest: No Is this report in compliance with executive orders, public laws, and other statutes governing the formulation of water resource projects? Yes _X No ___ 7.d.c Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxvi (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 1 CHANGES REQUIRING PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENT This supplement only addresses Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, known locally as Cherrystone Lake. This dam was built in 1968 as a significant hazard potential dam. Due to changes in the downstream watershed, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management (referred to herein as the Virginia Division of Dam Safety) changed the hazard potential of the dam to high in November 2008. The first conditional certificate for Operation and Maintenance of the structure was issued because the vegetated earthen auxiliary spillway could not pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) in effect at that time without overtopping the dam. This dam also does not meet current USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) safety and performance standards for the integrity and capacity of a high hazard potential dam. Therefore, the dam does not meet the objectives of the Town of Chatham, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, and the Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District (Pittsylvania SWCD) (herein referred to as Sponsors), which are to meet the current safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam, continue to provide water supply and the existing level of flood protection for downstream properties, and reduce the risk of loss of human life. This supplemental Plan-EA documents the planning process by which NRCS provided technical assistance to the Sponsors and the public in addressing resource issues and concerns within the Cherrystone Lake watershed and complied with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In accordance with NRCS NEPA Policy, an Environmental Evaluation Worksheet, NRCS-CPA-52 form, was completed for the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 rehabilitation project to determine the requisite level of NEPA documentation to support the proposed action. The NRCS-CPA-52 resulted in a determination that an Environmental Assessment (EA) was required. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 was constructed as a significant hazard potential dam and is currently classified as a high hazard potential dam. The dam provides flood protection and water supply for the Town of Chatham and parts of Pittsylvania County. However, the vegetated earth auxiliary spillway and the dam embankment do not presently meet NRCS or Virginia Division of Dam Safety standards for a high hazard potential dam. The purposes of this supplement are to comply with current NRCS and Virginia dam design and safety standards to reduce risks to life and property that could result from a potential catastrophic dam failure; maintain the level of flood protection, that is currently provided by the dam’s ability to attenuate floods, to life and property upstream and downstream of the dam; and maintain the current level of water supply. There is a need to comply with current state and federal safety and performance standards and to continue to provide the current levels of water supply and flood protection. There are eight homes, seven business structures, nine roadways, and other property downstream of this structure within the breach inundation zone. The Town’s water treatment plant is within the breach zone but outside of the 500-year floodplain with the dam in place. There are no inhabitable structures within the currently effective regulatory 100-year floodplain and one home within the 500-year floodplain (0.2% Chance of Flood Hazard Zone) downstream of the dam. There are three homes upstream of the dam in Zone AE (100-year) and two homes in the Special Flood Hazard Area (500-year). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 2 The reservoir is the primary water source for the community with 850 acre-feet per year of water storage. The purpose of this federal action is to meet current safety and performance standards and continue to provide the current level of water supply and flood protection in a manner that reduces risk of loss of human life and is both cost effective and environmentally acceptable. The crest of the existing auxiliary spillway (682.0) is at an elevation that completely contains the 100-year storm event (680.2) and almost contains the 200-year storm event (682.95). ORIGINAL PROJECT The original watershed work plan for flood prevention and watershed protection was prepared in 1965 under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566). The works of improvement were subsequently installed under the same authority. The Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, and the Pittsylvania SWCD were the local sponsors. The original watershed work plan included the construction of two single-purpose flood control dams, one multi-purpose dam that would include flood control and water supply storage, a small dike, and 5.5 miles of stream channel improvement. One floodwater retarding structure and one multi-purpose structure (flood protection and water supply) were constructed. All construction was completed by 1969. In 1976, the plan was supplemented to delete one single-purpose flood control dam, 570 feet of dike, and 5.5 miles of channel improvement. The supplemental watershed plan which eliminated all uncompleted works of improvement and closed out the project was executed on May 24, 1976. The Town of Chatham owns and operates Cherrystone Lake. The Sponsors applied for NRCS assistance with dam rehabilitation on October 1, 2013. The rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 is authorized by the Public Law 83-566, (as amended), and as further amended by the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (Section 313 of Public Law 106-472). WATERSHED PROBLEMS The Sponsors were aware of potential problems with the dam in 2008 when the Virginia Division of Dam Safety changed the hazard class of the dam to high potential and issued a Conditional Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Certificate to the Town of Chatham. The conditional certificate for Cherrystone Lake was issued because the auxiliary spillway did not have sufficient capacity to pass the probable maximum flood (PMF) in effect at that time without overtopping the dam embankment. Sponsor Concerns: A conditional certificate serves as notification to the Sponsors that the dam no longer meets State requirements and must be modified to meet State law. The presence of an unresolved conditional certificate leaves the Sponsors vulnerable to liability should the dam breach and downstream damages result. In October 2013, the Sponsors requested NRCS assistance to prepare a watershed plan that would identify the improvements necessary to obtain full dam safety certification. Soil Erodibility: In 2009, Hurt & Proffitt Engineers were retained by Reynolds-Clark, under their contract with the Town of Chatham, to perform a hazard classification and Emergency Action Plan for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1. The vegetated earth auxiliary did not meet the NRCS or Virginia Division of Dam Safety criteria for capacity with the Probable Maximum Precipitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 3 (PMP) in effect at that time. In 2013, Hurt and Proffitt evaluated options for increasing the auxiliary spillway capacity. Further analysis indicated that the soil materials in the auxiliary spillway would be vulnerable to erosion in the PMF event. Therefore, the vegetated earth auxiliary spillway also does not meet NRCS criteria for integrity. Landrights and Easements: Over the last several years, there have been fourteen homes built around the reservoir. Current surveys show that three homes have their first floors or points of entry below the crest of the auxiliary spillway elevation. There are seven other homes located between the crest of the auxiliary spillway and the top of dam elevation. The other four homes are above the top of dam elevation. Floodplain Management: The Sponsors have identified flooding in the floodplain downstream as a primary concern. Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham have participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1980 and 1979, respectively. Both realize the value that Cherrystone Lake provides in flood protection benefits, particularly for the roads. Cherrystone Lake controls 14.69 square miles (9,402 acres) of the watershed above the affected properties and benefitted area for frequent flood events. Erosion and Sedimentation: As of 2015, when the sediment survey was completed, Cherrystone Lake had reached 46 years (46%) of its planned 100-year service life. The designed submerged sediment capacity was 242 acre-feet, but the as-built volume was 289 acre-feet due to the removal of extra borrow from the pool area. As of 2015, it is estimated that there were 95 acre-feet of sediment in the pool area which is about 32% of the as-built sediment storage volume. This material is primarily deposited sediments plus leaf and other organic debris. The actual sediment delivery was less than anticipated during the original design. Local Concerns: The two Cherrystone Creek Watershed dams were planned and constructed in response to the concerns of the residents after extensive flooding that occurred in the 1950’s. The Sponsors also wanted a reliable source of water and included water supply storage in one of the dams. The possibility of decommissioning the dam at Cherrystone Lake was mentioned at the first public meeting in June 2016 since decommissioning must be considered under the NRCS rehabilitation policy. During the initial watershed meetings, the Sponsors and residents indicated that they were adamantly opposed to decommissioning because of their concern that flooding would increase in the absence of the dam and they would lose their water supply. The dam has performed as designed and constructed for about 50 years. WATERSHED OPPORTUNITIES The following is a general list of opportunities that will be recognized through the implementation of this dam rehabilitation plan. Some quantification of these opportunities will be provided in other sections of the report, as appropriate. • Comply with high hazard potential dam safety and performance standards established by NRCS and the Virginia Division of Dam Safety. • Reduce the potential for loss of life associated with a failure of this dam. • Reduce the sponsor liability associated with operation of an unsafe dam. • Maintain the existing water supply for area residents. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 4 • Maintain the existing level of flood protection for downstream homes and infrastructure that is currently provided by the dam’s ability to attenuate floods. • Protect real estate values downstream from the dam and around the lake. • Prevent future construction of inhabitable dwellings upstream of the dam below the crest of the auxiliary spillway crest elevation of 682.0. • Maintain aquatic and terrestrial habitats around the lake. • Preserve existing recreation opportunities. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A scoping process was used to identify issues of economic, environmental, cultural, and social importance in the watershed. Watershed concerns of Sponsors, technical agencies, and local citizens were expressed in the scoping meeting and in other planning and public meetings. Factors that would affect soil, water, air, plant, animals, and human resources were identified by an interdisciplinary planning team composed of the following areas of expertise: engineering, biology, economics, resource conservation, water quality, soils, archaeology, and geology. On June 9, 2016, a Scoping Meeting was held at the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia with 18 people attending. Table A lists the specific concerns and their relevance to the proposed action to the decision-making process. The citizens at the first Public Meeting, also held on June 9, 2016, expressed concerns similar to those at the Scoping Meeting. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 5 Table A - Summary of Scoping for Rehabilitation of Cherrystone Lake Dam Item/Concern Relevant to the Proposed Action Rationale Yes No SOILS Prime and Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance X There are 0.1 acres of farmland of statewide importance within the maximum extent of possible ground disturbance. Land Use X Upstream land use is restricted due to operation of the dam. WATER Floodplain Management X The Town of Chatham and Pittsylvania County both participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Maintain current flood protection. Flooding concerns for downtown areas. Concern for impacts to downstream roads and crossings. Regional Water Management Plans (including coastal zone plans) X West Piedmont Planning District included Cherrystone Lake in their Regional Water Supply Plan. Sole Source Aquifers X None present. Streams, Lakes, and Wetlands X Minimize impacts during construction. Water Quality X Minimize sediment transport. Maintain oxygen levels. Water Resources X Addressed under Potable Water. Wild & Scenic Rivers X None present. AIR Air Quality X Air quality may be impacted during construction. Clean Air Act X None. ANIMALS Coral Reefs X None present. Endangered and Threatened Species X Northern long-eared bat. Check downstream for presence of: Roanoke bass, Roanoke logperch and Orangefin Madtom. None found. Essential Fish Habitat X None present. Fish and Wildlife X Maintain normal flow regime during construction period. Invasive Species X No invasive species identified in watershed. Migratory Birds/Bald Eagles/Golden Eagles X Similar bodies of water are available nearby. PLANTS Endangered and Threatened Species X None present. Forest Resources X No impact anticipated. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 6 Item/Concern Relevant to the Proposed Action Rationale Invasive Species X Invasive species present around dam. Incorporate best management practices to both prevent the spread of existing invasive species and the introduction of new ones. Natural Areas X None present. Riparian Areas X Temporary impact anticipated during construction. HUMANS Environmental Justice and Civil Rights X No disparate treatment is anticipated. Historic Properties X No cultural resources present. Local and Regional Economy X Temporary benefit during construction. Park Lands X None present. Potable Water Supply X Only water supply in large part of town/county; have enough water supply for current demand but new industries may require more water supply. Public Health and Safety X Dam rehabilitation is needed. The dam does not meet current safety standards. Recreation X Draining lake would have temporary impact on property owners and guests during construction. Scenic Beauty X None present. Scientific Resources X None identified. Social Issues X No concerns expressed. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES Geologic and engineering investigations and analyses were conducted by NRCS engineering staff in Raleigh, NC and Morgantown, WV with assistance from Schnabel Engineering on the camera and riser surveys and geologic drilling. This work included the sediment survey, the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and the Water Resources Site Analysis Program (SITES) analysis of the dam characteristics. Both the existing conditions and proposed rehabilitation alternatives were evaluated with these tools. Other planning activities included a topographic survey, land use inventory, natural resources inventories, wetland assessments, and the identification of cultural resources, invasive plants and threatened and endangered species. Potential alternatives were evaluated for cost-effectiveness and for local acceptability. Both the benefits and the costs of the alternatives were computed and analyzed. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7 PHYSICAL FEATURES Project Location: The watershed of Cherrystone Lake is located entirely within Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The total Cherrystone Lake watershed is 9,402 acres (14.69 square miles). Appendix B shows the location map for this watershed. Cherrystone Lake is located on Cherrystone Creek which confluences with the Banister River approximately 8.4 miles downstream of the dam. The Banister River flows through Halifax, Virginia, and drains into the Dan River just east of South Boston, Virginia. The Dan River and Roanoke River flow together near the upstream portion of the John H. Kerr Reservoir (known locally as Buggs Island Lake), which is located on the Virginia/North Carolina border. From there, the water flows through Lake Gaston into the Roanoke River to the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound and out to the Atlantic Ocean off the North Carolina coast. Topography: Cherrystone Lake is in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography of the Piedmont is characterized by gently rolling hills and valleys. The elevation in the watershed ranges from about 652 feet at the dam to about 980 feet on an unnamed knob on the watershed divide near the small community of Climax. Soils: The three major soil map units in the watershed above Cherrystone Lake comprise a total of 69.6%, or 6,539 acres, of the watershed. They consist of Cecil sandy clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded; Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, severely eroded; and Madison fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, according to Web Soil Survey. The area is 9,402 acres and includes floodplain, terrace and side slope landscape positions. The watershed includes Cecil sandy clay loam, 5,015 acres (53.4%); Madison fine sandy loam, 1,753 acres (18.6%); Clifford sandy loam, 666 acres (7.1%); Cecil sandy loam, 475 acres (5.1%); Enott fine sandy loam, 354 acres (3.8%); Cullen clay loam, 318 acres (3.4%); Chenneby-Toccoa complex, 236 acres (2.5%); Orange loam, 141 acres (1.5%); Water, 138 acres (1.5%); Appling sandy loam, 111 acres (1.2%); State sandy loam, 59 acres (0.6%); Cullen loam, 50 acres (0.5%); and Ashlar fine sandy loam, 40 acres (0.4%). Other smaller soil map units make up the remainder of the acreage in the watershed. Approximately 61.3% of the soils are on slopes greater than 7%. The NRCS generated a custom soil resource report using the Web Soil Survey Report Tool to identify the soil map unit data specific to the maximum extent of possible ground disturbance for the affected environment. Geology: The digital representation of the 1993 Geologic Map of Virginia and the Geological Map of Pittsville and Chatham Quadrangle by Marr – 1984 indicates that Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 is underlain by rocks of the Early Paleozoic Era and the Triassic Period. The formation with the largest area in the watershed is the Fork Mountain Formation. These mica schists and biotite gneisses are Early Paleozoic-aged and dominate the footprint of the dam. A narrow band of a Triassic-aged Diabase dike is mapped on the right abutment of the structure. This formation trends north and south around the dam and watershed and is described as black, fine to medium-grained diabase. The diabase dikes are intrusive igneous rock and cut through the geologic units in the area. The Leatherwood Granite occurs in small locations near the structure and the watershed. This Ordovician-aged formation is usually described as light-colored granites. The floodplains of the valleys are composed of layers of sandy and silty alluvial deposits. These Quaternary-aged deposits are underlain by weathered rock of the formations described above. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 8 Climate: In Pittsylvania County, the annual average temperature is 54.7°F with an annual summer average of 73.0°F and an annual winter average of 36.4°F. The mean date for the last frost of spring is May 2 with the latest date being May 23. In the fall, the mean date for the first frost is October 10 with the latest frost occurring on November 6. This provides a mean growing season of approximately 161 days. The average annual precipitation is 45.24 inches. This precipitation is well distributed through the year with slightly larger amounts (over 4 inches) occurring in the months of March, May, July, and September. The average annual total snowfall is 4.2 inches. LAND USE The total drainage area upstream of Cherrystone Lake is 9,402 acres. This area was derived using the ArcGIS Hydrologic Analysis Tools. The Land Cover/Land Use was extracted from the 2015 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) land cover data layer. Table B lists the land use upstream of the dam. This table also lists the land use in the Sunny Day breach inundation zone below the dam. Appendix B contains the land cover map of the watershed. Table B - Land Use Land Cover Type Drainage Area of Cherrystone Lake (ac.) Percent of Total Sunny Day Breach Inundation Zone (ac.) Percent of Total Developed 580 6.2 92 8.0 Cropland 528 5.6 5 0.4 Woodland 4,809 51.1 777 67.7 Hay/Pasture 3,040 32.3 273 23.8 Water 130 1.4 ~0 0 Shrub Land 315 3.4 0 0 Other 0 0 1 0.1 Total 9,402 100.0 1,148 100.0 POTABLE WATER SUPPLY In addition to flood protection for downstream areas, Cherrystone Lake provides 850 acre-feet of water supply storage for the Town of Chatham. On January 29, 2016, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality issued a Virginia Water Protection Permit to the Town to withdraw up to 1.4 million gallons per day from Cherrystone Creek. In 2017, the Town withdrew about 400,000 gallons per day for approximately 952 water users. The Town provides water to about 1,300 town people and outlying areas in the county, plus 1,000 prisoners at Green Rock Prison. The permit contains some minimum water release requirements, depending on the inflow and the water levels in the Cherrystone Lake, in addition to the daily water demands of the Town’s service area. The permit was valid for 15 years from date of issuance. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS The entire population at risk from a possible breach event live within Pittsylvania County. There are eight homes in the Town of Chatham that lie within the breach inundation zone. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 9 This table below describes the total population and change in total population for the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County, Virginia and the entire U.S. Except for some 2000 Decennial Census data, all other data used in this table are from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) of the Census Bureau. Table C - Population Population, 2000-2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Population (2014*) 987 62,955 8,185,131 314,107,084 Population (2000) 1,338 61,745 7,078,515 281,421,906 Population Change (2000- 2014*) -351 1,210 1,106,616 32,685,178 Population Percent Change (2000-2014*) -26.2% 2.0% 15.6% 11.6% * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2010-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Graph A - Percent Change in Population, 2000-2014. -26.2% 2.0% 15.6%11.6% -30.0% -25.0% -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Chatham town, VA Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S. Percent Change in Population, 2000-2014* 7.d.c Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 10 Table D - Population by Race. Population by Race, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Total Population 987 62,955 8,185,131 314,107,084 White alone 757 47,318 5,668,363 231,849,713 Black or African American alone 186 13,472 1,577,943 39,564,785 American Indian alone 0 19 23,421 2,565,520 Asian alone 0 226 475,632 15,710,659 Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Is. alone 0 11 5,485 535,761 Some other race alone 2 787 179,166 14,754,895 Two or more races 42 1,122 255,121 9,125,751 Percent of Total White alone 76.7% 75.2% 69.3% 73.8% Black or African American alone 18.8% 21.4% 19.3% 12.6% American Indian alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% Asian alone 0.0% 0.4% 5.8% 5.0% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Is. alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Some other race alone 0.2% 1.3% 2.2% 4.7% Two or more races 4.3% 1.8% 3.1% 2.9% * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2009-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Graph B - Median Age. *The age which divides the population into two numerically equal groups; i.e., half the people are younger than this age and half are older. 39.6 43.2 35.7 35.3 45.0 50.5 37.6 37.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pittsylvania County,VA Chatham town, VA Virginia U.S. Median Age, 2000 & 2014* Median Age (2000)Median Age (2014*) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 11 Table E - Change in Median Age, 2000-2014. Change in Median Age, 2000-2014 Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Median Age (2014) 50.5 45.0 37.6 37.4 Median Age (2000) 43.2 39.6 35.7 35.3 Median Age % Change 16.9% 13.6% 5.3% 5.9% * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2010-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Table F - How People Self-Identify (Ethnicity). Hispanic Population, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Total Population 987 62,955 8,185,131 314,107,084 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 27 1,457 687,265 53,070,096 Not Hispanic or Latino 960 61,498 7,497,866 261,036,988 White alone 753 46,757 5,227,415 197,159,492 Black or African American alone 186 13,468 1,549,909 38,460,598 American Indian alone 0 19 17,252 2,082,768 Asian alone 0 226 472,435 15,536,209 Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Island alone 0 11 4,976 493,155 Some other race 0 9 16,733 611,881 Two or more races 21 1,008 209,146 6,692,885 Percent of Total Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 2.7% 2.3% 8.4% 16.9% Not Hispanic or Latino 97.3% 97.7% 91.6% 83.1% White alone 76.3% 74.3% 63.9% 62.8% Black or African American alone 18.8% 21.4% 18.9% 12.2% American Indian alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% Asian alone 0.0% 0.4% 5.8% 4.9% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Island alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Some other race 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% Two or more races 2.1% 1.6% 2.6% 2.1% * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2009-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 12 Table G - Education. Educational Attainment, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Total Population 25 years or older 786 45,476 5,501,125 209,056,129 No high school degree 113 8,996 666,397 28,587,748 High school graduate 673 36,480 4,834,728 180,468,381 Associates degree 75 3,901 390,547 16,580,076 Bachelor's degree or higher 274 6,369 1,967,572 61,206,147 Bachelor's degree 119 4,305 1,140,878 38,184,668 Graduate or professional 155 2,064 826,694 23,021,479 Percent of Total No high school degree 14.4% 19.8% 12.1% 13.7% High school graduate 85.6% 80.2% 87.9% 86.3% Associates degree 9.5% 8.6% 7.1% 7.9% Bachelor's degree or higher 34.9% 14.0% 35.8% 29.3% Bachelor's degree 15.1% 9.5% 20.7% 18.3% Graduate or professional 19.7% 4.5% 15.0% 11.0% * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2009-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Graph C - Educational Attainment, 2014. Graph D - Employment/Unemployment. 14.4% 19.8% 12.1%13.7% 34.9% 14.0% 35.8% 29.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Chatham town, VA Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S. Educational Attainment, 2014* No high school degree Bachelor's degree or higher 5.3% 4.4% 5.3% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S. Annual Unemployment Rate, 2015 7.d.c Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 13 Table H - Class of Worker. Employment by Industry, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Civilian employed population > 16 years 419 27,623 3,936,638 143,435,233 Ag, forestry, fishing & hunting, mining 0 539 41,440 2,807,292 Construction 30 2,164 253,932 8,843,718 Manufacturing 38 5,778 289,872 14,955,235 Wholesale trade 3 640 75,991 3,937,598 Retail trade 31 3,365 425,312 16,598,718 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 18 1,275 162,080 7,066,666 Information 27 234 83,835 3,064,078 Finance and insurance, and real estate 17 1,047 249,014 9,467,555 Prof, scientific, mgmt., admin, & waste management 28 1,587 579,393 15,618,627 Education, health care, & social assistance 143 6,474 853,305 33,297,237 Arts, entertain., rec., accommodation, & food 16 1,902 346,714 13,610,162 Other services, except public admin. 33 1,391 206,810 7,112,579 Public administration 35 1,227 368,940 7,055,768 Percent of Total Ag, forestry, fishing & hunting, mining 0.0% 2.0% 1.1% 2.0% Construction 7.2% 7.8% 6.5% 6.2% Manufacturing 9.1% 20.9% 7.4% 10.4% Wholesale trade 0.7% 2.3% 1.9% 2.7% Retail trade 7.4% 12.2% 10.8% 11.6% Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 4.3% 4.6% 4.1% 4.9% Information 6.4% 0.8% 2.1% 2.1% Finance and insurance, and real estate 4.1% 3.8% 6.3% 6.6% Prof, scientific, mgmt., admin, & waste mgmt. 6.7% 5.7% 14.7% 10.9% Education, health care, & social assistance 34.1% 23.4% 21.7% 23.2% Arts, entertain., rec., accommodation, & food 3.8% 6.9% 8.8% 9.5% Other services, except public admin. 7.9% 5.0% 5.3% 5.0% Public administration 8.4% 4.4% 9.4% 4.9% * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2009- 2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 14 Graph E - Commuter Status Graph F - Income. Graph G - Per Capita Income, 2014. 0% 10%20% 30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Chatham town, VA Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S. Place of Work, 2014* Worked in county of residence Worked outside county of residence $38,591 $59,514 $57,022 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S.2015 $sAverage Earnings per Job, 2014 $32,749 $50,395 $46,095 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S.2015 $sPer Capita Income, 2014 7.d.c Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 15 Table I - Income. Income, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Median Family Income (pt. where ½ are above and ½ are below) $80,625 $51,134 $77,939 $65,443 Median Family Income as a % of VA’s Median Family Income 103.4% 65.6% 100% 84% Mean Family Income (average) $84,583 $59,725 $102,254 $86,963 Median Household Income $45,000 $42,311 $64,792 $53,482 Median Household Income as a % of Virginia’s Median Household Income 69.5% 65.3% 100% 82.5% Mean Household Income $66,324 $51,725 $88,413 $74,596 Per Capita Income (per person) $27,849 $21,615 $33,958 $28,555 Per Capita Income as a % of Virginia’s Per Capita Income 82% 63.7% 100% 84.1% Mean Retirement Income $30,280 $15,884 $29,144 $24,095 Mean Social Security Income $17,299 $9,209 $17,750 $17,636 Mean Social Security Income as a % of Virginia’s Mean Social Security Income 97.5% 51.9% 100% 99.4% Number with Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the last 12 months 59 3,984 290,122 15,089,358 % of Households with Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the last 12 months 14.5% 15.3% 9.5% 13.0% % Households with Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the last 12 months as a % of Virginia’s Households with Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the last 12 months 152.6% 161.1% 100% 136.8% * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2010-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Note: Median family income is consistently higher than median household income. This is because the household universe includes people who live alone. Their income would typically be lower than family income because by definition, a family must have two or more people. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 16 Table J - Income Distribution. Household Income Distribution, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Per Capita Income (2014 $s) $27,849 $21,615 $33,958 $28,555 Median Household Income (2014 $s) $45,000 $42,311 $64,792 $53,482 Total Households 406 26,029 3,041,710 116,211,092 Less than $10,000 11 2,053 174,239 8,395,338 $10,000 to $14,999 46 1,814 126,073 6,189,386 $15,000 to $24,999 43 3,524 255,915 12,402,928 $25,000 to $34,999 53 3,385 260,129 11,870,709 $35,000 to $49,999 71 4,481 371,336 15,681,133 $50,000 to $74,999 29 5,009 527,514 20,719,319 $75,000 to $99,999 65 2,977 388,971 14,125,429 $100,000 to $149,999 52 2,069 477,069 15,123,755 $150,000 to $199,999 15 516 218,333 5,857,717 $200,000 or more 21 201 242,131 5,845,378 Gini Coefficient^ 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.48 Percent of Total Less than $10,000 2.7% 7.9% 5.7% 7.2% $10,000 to $14,999 11.3% 7.0% 4.1% 5.3% $15,000 to $24,999 10.6% 13.5% 8.4% 10.7% $25,000 to $34,999 13.1% 13.0% 8.6% 10.2% $35,000 to $49,999 17.5% 17.2% 12.2% 13.5% $50,000 to $74,999 7.1% 19.2% 17.3% 17.8% $75,000 to $99,999 16.0% 11.4% 12.8% 12.2% $100,000 to $149,999 12.8% 7.9% 15.7% 13.0% $150,000 to $199,999 3.7% 2.0% 7.2% 5.0% $200,000 or more 5.2% 0.8% 8.0% 5.0% ^ Gini Coefficient: A summary value of the inequality of income distribution. A value of 0 represents perfect equality and a value of 1 represents perfect inequality. The lower the Gini coefficient, the more equal the income distribution. * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2010-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 17 Graph H - Household Income Distribution, Chatham Town, VA, 2014. Table K - Poverty. Poverty, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. People 844 61,936 7,939,332 306,226,394 Families 248 18,209 2,047,106 76,958,064 People Below Poverty 73 9,001 914,237 47,755,606 Families below poverty 23 2,016 168,707 8,824,660 Percent of Total People Below Poverty 8.6% 14.5% 11.5% 15.6% Families below poverty 9.3% 11.1% 8.2% 11.5% * Following the Office of Management and Budget's Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to detect who is poor. If the total income for a family or some unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the family or unrelated individual is classified as being "below the poverty level." The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2010-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. 2.7%11.3%10.6%13.1%17.5%7.1%16.0%12.8%3.7%5.2% 0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%20% Less than $10,000$10,000 to $14,999$15,000 to $24,999$25,000 to $34,999$35,000 to $49,999$50,000 to $74,999$75,000 to $99,999$100,000 to $149,999$150,000 to $199,999$200,000 or more Household Income Distribution, Chatham town, VA, 2014* 7.d.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 18 Graph I - Individuals and Families Below Poverty Level, 2014. Table L - Poverty Levels by Race and Ethnicity. Percent of People by Race and Ethnicity Who are Below the Poverty Level, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. White alone 4.7% 11.9% 9.2% 12.8% Black or African American alone 27.1% 20.6% 20.1% 27.3% American Indian alone n/a 0.0% 13.9% 28.8% Asian alone n/a 0.0% 8.3% 12.7% Native Hawaiian & Oceanic alone n/a 0.0% 11.0% 20.7% Some other race alone n/a 52.7% 17.2% 27.1% Two or more races alone 21.4% 31.6% 13.7% 20.3% Hispanic or Latino alone 0.0% 34.3% 15.8% 24.8% Non-Hispanic/Latino alone 4.7% 12.0% 8.6% 10.8% * Poverty prevalence by race and ethnicity is calculated by dividing the number of people by race in poverty by the total population of that race. Race is a self-identification data item in which Census respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify. There are two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. The federal government considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race. Data Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce. 2015. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, D.C. 8.6% 14.5% 11.5% 15.6% 9.3% 11.1% 8.2% 11.5% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Chatham town, VA Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S. Individuals & Families Below Poverty, 2014* People Below Poverty Families below poverty 7.d.c Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 19 Table M - Housing. Housing Characteristics, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Total Housing Units 529 31,332 3,403,241 132,741,033 Occupied 406 26,029 3,041,710 116,211,092 Vacant 123 5,303 361,531 16,529,941 For rent 0 294 71,372 3,105,361 Rented, not occupied 20 277 25,571 609,396 For sale only 0 303 37,033 1,591,421 Sold, not occupied 4 46 15,302 616,027 Seasonal, recreational, occasional use 11 762 90,757 5,267,667 For migrant workers 0 63 598 34,475 Other vacant 88 3,558 120,898 5,305,594 Year Built Built 2005 or later 0 372 42,057 1,315,426 Built 2000 to 2004 3 3,983 544,008 19,803,260 Built 1990 to 1999 11 7,147 545,609 18,512,067 Built 1980 to 1989 19 4,678 577,792 18,346,272 Built 1970 to 1979 36 5,501 562,588 20,978,482 Built 1960 to 1969 79 2,879 383,142 14,626,326 Built 1959 or earlier 381 6,772 748,045 39,159,200 Median year structure built^ 1951 1981 1980 1976 Percent of Total Occupancy Occupied 76.7% 83.1% 89.4% 87.5% Vacant 23.3% 16.9% 10.6% 12.5% For rent 0.0% 0.9% 2.1% 2.3% Rented, not occupied 3.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.5% For sale only 0.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% Sold, not occupied 0.8% 0.1% 0.4% 0.5% Seasonal, recreational, occasional use 2.1% 2.4% 2.7% 4.0% For migrant workers 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Other vacant 16.6% 11.4% 3.6% 4.0% Year Built Built 2005 or later 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% Built 2000 to 2004 0.6% 12.7% 16.0% 14.9% Built 1990 to 1999 2.1% 22.8% 16.0% 13.9% Built 1980 to 1989 3.6% 14.9% 17.0% 13.8% Built 1970 to 1979 6.8% 17.6% 16.5% 15.8% Built 1960 to 1969 14.9% 9.2% 11.3% 11.0% Built 1959 or earlier 72.0% 21.6% 22.0% 29.5% ^ Median year structure built is not available for metro/non-metro or regional aggregations. * The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2009-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 20 Graph J - Housing Occupancy, 2014. For the 2010-2014 period, the Town of Chatham had the highest estimated percent for vacant housing, 23.3% (76.7% occupancy rate). Pittsylvania County had a vacancy rate of 16.9% (83.1% occupancy rate); Virginia had a vacancy rate of 10.6% (89.4% occupancy rate) and the nation, as a whole, had a vacancy rate of 12.5% (87.5% occupancy rate). Table N - Housing Costs as a Percent of Household Income, 2014. Housing Costs as a Percent of Household Income, 2014* Chatham Town, VA Pittsylvania County, VA Virginia U.S. Owner-occupied housing w/ a mortgage 169 11,282 1,442,795 49,043,774 Monthly cost <15% of household income 68 2,728 288,862 9,630,439 Monthly cost >30% of household income 48 3,328 453,227 16,687,628 Specified renter-occupied units 123 5,609 1,013,466 41,423,632 Gross rent <15% of household income 9 812 106,841 4,472,954 Gross rent >30% of household income 59 2,084 469,812 20,011,827 Median monthly mortgage cost^ $1,091 $1,015 $1,742 $1,522 Median gross rent^ $601 $612 $1,108 $920 Percent of Total Monthly cost <15% of household income 40.2% 24.2% 20.0% 19.6% Monthly cost >30% of household income 28.4% 29.5% 31.4% 34.0% Gross rent <15% of household income 7.3% 14.5% 10.5% 10.8% Gross rent >30% of household income 48.0% 37.2% 46.4% 48.3% The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2009-2014 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Median monthly mortgage cost and median gross rent are not available for metro/non-metro or regional aggregations. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chatham town, VA Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S. Housing Occupancy, 2014* Occupied Vacant 7.d.c Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 21 Graph K - Housing Costs as a Percent of Household Income, 2014. Graph L - Median Monthly Mortgage Costs and Monthly Rent, 2014. Eight homes (six single family homes, two mobile homes) are in the projected breach inundation zone below the dam. Most of the homes are in or near the Town of Chatham. Most of the residential property downstream of the dam ranges between $50,000 and $400,000 in total value with an average of about $150,000. The total value of residential property (structures and contents only, excluding land values) at risk below the dam is an estimated $1,650,000. Recreation Cherrystone Creek Site 1 provides incidental recreation to residents with homes around the lake and guests and is highly valued. Lake-based recreation and other activities associated with the site include fishing, boating, and bird watching. 28.4%29.5%31.4%34.0% 48.0% 37.2% 46.4%48.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Chatham town, VA Pittsylvania County,VA Virginia U.S. Housing Costs as a Percent of Household Income, 2014* Monthly cost >30% of household income Gross rent >30% of household income 7.d.c Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 22 SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS SOILS Prime and unique farmlands, and farmland of statewide importance: There are no designated prime or unique farmlands within the area of the potential disturbance. There is 0.1 acre of farmland of statewide importance within the area of the potential disturbance. WATER Clean Water Act Clean Water Act (CWA) – Sections 303(d) and 305(b) (Water Quality) overview: The two separate sections of the CWA, sections 303(d) and 305(b), are discussed together because they both pertain to water quality. Section 303(d) requires States, territories, and Tribes to identify “impaired waters” and to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). A TMDL is a plan regulatory term in the CWA, describing a plan for restoring impaired waters that identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards. The Final 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report, was released on June 13, 2016, http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityAs sessments/2014305(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx#factsheets. It summarizes the water quality conditions in Virginia from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2012. The Report lists 5.96 river miles of Cherrystone Creek, from the Cherrystone Creek Reservoir Dam to the Chatham Sewage Treatment Plant outfall, as a Category 4A, Escherichia coli (E. coli) impaired stream, not supporting recreational use. This designation does not require the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) because the TMDL for E. coli is complete and U.S. EPA approved. The listed contamination sources included livestock (grazing or feeding operations), unspecified domestic waste, wastes from pets, and wildlife other than waterfowl. The report also lists Cherrystone Reservoir as having a Category 5A impairment due to dissolved oxygen not supporting aquatic life and affecting 104.27 reservoir acres which requires a TMDL listing (303d list). The TMDL plan to address this impairment is scheduled for 2022. Waters of the U.S. Clean Water Act – Sections 401 (State Administered) and 404 (Federally Administered) overview: As above, because of their relationship to one another, both Sections 401 and 404 are discussed together. Section 404 established a permit program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the U.S. Discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. is prohibited unless the action is exempted or is authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or by the State. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 23 If a CWA Section 404 permit is required, first the State (or Tribe) in which the activity will occur must certify that the activity will not violate State water quality standards by issuing a Section 401 State Water Quality Certification. Clean Water Act – Section 402 (State Administered) overview: Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, also administered by the States. Section 402 requires a permit for sewer discharges and storm water discharges from developments, construction sites, or other areas of soil disturbance. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers the program as the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES), http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/PermittingCompliance/PollutionDischargeElimination.aspx. The DEQ issues VPDES permits for all point source discharges to surface waters, to dischargers of stormwater from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), and to dischargers of stormwater from Industrial Activities, and Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) permits to dischargers of stormwater from Construction Activities, http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/StormwaterManagement/VSMPPermits.aspx. Cherrystone Creek is considered to be a water of the U.S. The Permits and Compliance section will identify any state or local permitting that may be required based upon the alternatives carried forward for impacts analysis. Code of Virginia, Title 62.1. Waters of the State Ports and Harbors, Chapter 3.1 State Water Control Law, Article 2.5 – Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act overview: The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Bay Act), enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988, is designed to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and other waters of the State by requiring the use of effective land management and land use planning. The Bay Act balances state and local economic interests and water quality improvement by creating a unique cooperative partnership between state and Tidewater local governments to reduce and prevent nonpoint source pollution. The Bay Act recognizes that local governments have the primary responsibility for land use decisions, expanding local government authority to manage water quality, and establishing a more specific relationship between water quality protection and local land use decision-making. A list of the applicable 84 localities is available at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/ChesapeakeBay/ChesapeakeBayPreservationAct/LocalProgramTechnicalAssistance.aspx. Pittsylvania County is not among the 84 Bay Act localities subject to regulation under the Bay Act. Accordingly, the Bay Act is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Wetlands Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands overview: Executive Order (E.O.) 11990 requires that Federal Agencies act to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the beneficial functions of wetlands when “providing federally undertaken, financed or assisted construction and improvements.” Wetlands are defined differently within various Federal and State programs 7.d.c Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 24 and for identification, delineation, and classification purposes. The NRCS wetland protection policy defines wetlands as areas, natural or artificial, that have hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and indicators of wetland hydrology. There are approximately 121.98 acres of wetlands located within the affected environment of the proposed action. The Cherrystone Lake shoreline, inflows, and outflow were visually surveyed in May 2017 for wetlands. Palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands comprise a total of 18.7 acres which include the shorelines and the two inflows of the lake. The 102.7 surface acres of the lake are considered open water wetlands (OW). Approximately 0.58 acres of scrub/shrub wetlands (SS) were identified adjacent downstream of the embankment. No other wetlands were identified in the affected environment. A review of the USFWS wetland mapper website, www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, confirmed field observations. Appendix D contains additional documentation regarding the field investigation methodology. The Permits and Compliance section will identify any state or local permitting that may be required based upon the alternative carried forward for impacts analysis. Coastal Zone Management Areas Coastal Zone Management Act – Section 307 overview: Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act specifies that actions or activities within the coastal zone implemented by a Federal agency or on the behalf of or through a Federal agency must be consistent with the State’s coastal plan, if they have one, and be in concert with the goals tenets, and objectives of that plan. Federal Agency Coastal Zone Management Areas (CZMAs) are areas located within or near the officially designated “coastal zone” of a State. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Office of Coastal Zone Management approves coastal programs. The list of Virginia’s dedicated CZMAs is available on-line at http://deq.state.va.us/Programs/EnvironmentalImpactReview/FederalConsistencyReviews.as px#cma. Pittsylvania County is not located in or near a designated CZMA. Accordingly, the Coastal Zone Management Act is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Overview: The NRCS policy on floodplains (190-GM, Part 410, Subpart B, Section 410.25) reflects the requirement of the E.O. that decisions by Federal agencies must recognize that floodplains have unique and significant public values. The objectives of E.O. 11988 are to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with occupancy and 7.d.c Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 25 modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development where there is a practical alternative. Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham have participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1980 and 1979, respectively. According to the Special Flood Hazard Area maps (Appendix C), the flood zone immediately upstream of the dam is within Zone AE and the 500-year floodplain. Zone AE designates a special flood hazard zone that has base flood elevation data (100-yr flood elevations). The Special Flood Hazard Area maps for Cherrystone Creek also includes the 0.2% annual chance of flooding area (500-year). The existing Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Floodplain Ordinances are based upon the dam in place. There are three homes in Zone AE and two homes in the Special Flood Hazard Area upstream of the dam. There are no inhabitable dwellings in the currently effective regulatory 100-year floodplain but there is one house in the 500-year floodplain downstream of the dam. Wild and Scenic Rivers The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542) overview: The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was created by Congress to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. According to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System website, https://www.rivers.gov, while Virginia has approximately 49,350 miles of river, there are currently no federally designated wild and scenic rivers in the state. Therefore, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970 (Code of VA, Title 10.1-400) overview: Virginia Scenic Rivers Program’s intent is to identify, designate and help protect rivers and streams that possess outstanding scenic, recreational, historic and natural characteristics of statewide significance for future generations. In addition to existing designated state scenic rivers, other river segments have been deemed worthy of further study. According to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Scenic Rivers Program website, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational-planning/srmain, while Virginia has approximately 49,350 miles of river, there are currently no State designated river segments in the affected environment of the project. In addition, there are no recommended river study segments within the project affected environment per the Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper of Recommended River Study Segments website, http://dswcapps.dcr.virginia.gov/dnh/vop/vopmapper.htm. Therefore, the Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970 is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 26 AIR Clean Air Act – General Conformity Rule (Criteria Pollutants) overview: The U.S. EPA’s “Green Book,” available online, indicates Pittsylvania County to be in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the General Conformity Rule is not applicable to the project’s affected environment will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Clean Air Act – Regional Haze Regulations overview: Nationwide there are 156 designated Class I areas across the country, including many well- known national parks and wilderness areas that are given special protection under the Clean Air Act. Per the EPA’s online list of areas protected by the Regional Haze Program, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/list-areas-protected-regional-haze-program, there are two designated Class I areas located in Virginia, neither of which are in proximity to Pittsylvania County. Accordingly, the Regional Haze Regulations are not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Applicable State and Local Air Quality Regulations Air quality permits are issued to industries and facilities that emit regulated pollutants to ensure that these emissions do not cause harm to the public or the environment. Federal and state regulations to control air pollution are implemented through the air permitting process. Permit applicability determinations and the issuance of permits are performed in the DEQ regional offices, http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Air/PermittingCompliance.aspx. The Permits and Compliance section will identify any state or local permitting that may be required based upon the alternative carried forward for impacts analysis. ANIMALS AND PLANTS Endangered and Threatened Species and Natural Areas Endangered Species Act (Federal) Overview: Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the NRCS, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)], to advance the purposes of the Act by implementing programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and to ensure that NRCS actions and activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species’ critical habitat. NRCS obtained the Official Species List from the USFWS on March 26, 2018 via the online Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. No Federally endangered species were identified and the only threatened species identified as potentially present is the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis). Based upon the results of the IPaC results, the NRCS followed up with a search of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland 7.d.c Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 27 Fisheries’ (VDGIF) on-line NLEB Winter Habitat and Roost Tree ARC GIS System, http://dgif-virginia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=32ea4ee4935942c092e41ddcd19e5 ec5. Using the search tool, NRCS found no NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees for NLEB within Pittsylvania County. Therefore, as stated in the Final 4(d) rule on the NLEB, since no “known” maternity roost trees or hibernacula have been designated within a ¼ mile radius of the proposed project, any incidental take that may result from the project is exempted by the 4(d) rule and no further action is necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act prohibitions to protect the NLEB. Although the NRCS search using the USFWS IPaC system did not indicate the potential presence of the Federally Endangered Roanoke logperch, during the search for State listed threatened or endangered species, the Roanoke logperch was identified in the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) database, http://vafwis.org/fwis/, search discussed below. This is attributed to the fact that the VaFWIS database uses a much larger default search area (3 miles from project location) than that of IPaC, which employs a user-defined area of potential impact based upon the actual maximum potential footprint for the project. Consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGF) specialists was initiated during project scoping. Follow-up efforts did not identify further concerns. Virginia State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Natural Areas The NRCS must also consult with State entities when considering impacts to species of concern protected by State laws or regulations. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species (Animals) In December 2017, the NRCS performed a search of the VDGIF’s Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) database, http://vafwis.org/fwis/, to identify potential species that may be present in the affected environment for the proposed action. The results indicated the potential presence of the VDGIF State listed species in Table O. The VaFWIS database uses a minimum 3-mile habitat search radius from the location of the proposed action. To obtain accurate feedback specific to the affected environment, the NRCS performed follow-up consultation via email with the applicable VDGIF designated resource expert for each of the above species populated by the VaFWIS search. The NRCS provided the coordinates for the proposed project location and requested assistance in determining if the necessary habitat for the applicable species is present within the affected environment, and if the applicable species has been documented as present within the affected environment. Additionally, the NRCS requested information regarding any applicable species specific best management practice recommendations, including any time of year activity restrictions. Consultation with VDGIF specialists was initiated during project scoping. Follow-up efforts did not identify further concerns. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 28 Table O - State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Status Common Name Scientific Name VDGIF Response State Endangered Roanoke logperch Percina rex No response to 01/23/18 NRCS email requesting input. State Threatened Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Also Federally Listed. Consulted USFWS (email-01/26/18) State Endangered Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus lucifugus No Concerns (email-01/26/18) State Endangered Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus No Concerns (email-01/26/18) State Endangered Spirit supercoil Paravitrea hera No response to 01/23/18 NRCS email requesting input. State Threatened Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus No documented presence & no suitable habitat (email-01/29/18) State Threatened Orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti No response to 01/23/18 NRCS email requesting input. State Threatened Migrant loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus migrans No documented presence & no suitable habitat (email-01/29/18) Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) Resources Although the VDACS retains legal authority for the protection of all State Listed plants and insects, http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/plant-industry-services-endangered-species.shtml, they have a memorandum of agreement in place with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation stipulating that coordination regarding these resources should be initiated through the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage Resources, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), Division of Natural Heritage (DNH) - Virginia Natural Heritage Program Resources The Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act, 10.1-209 through 217 of the Code of Virginia, was passed in 1989 and codified VDCR's powers and duties related to statewide biological inventory: maintaining a statewide database for conservation planning and project review, land protection for the conservation of biodiversity, and the protection and ecological management of natural heritage resources (the habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species, significant natural communities, geologic sites, and other natural features). The VDCR-DNH 7.d.c Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 29 represents the first comprehensive attempt to identify the most significant natural areas in the Commonwealth through an intensive statewide inventory of plants, animals, natural communities, and other features that are exemplary, rare, or endangered on a global or statewide basis. Virginia Natural Area Preserves System The Virginia Natural Area Preserves System was established in the late 1980's to protect some of the most significant natural areas in the Commonwealth. A site becomes a component of the preserve system once dedicated as a natural area preserve by the Director of the DCR. Natural area dedication works in much the same way as a conservation easement by placing legally binding restrictions on future activities on a property. The Natural Area Preserve System includes examples of some of the rarest natural communities and rare species habitats in Virginia. In February 2018, the NRCS accessed the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage Program’s Virginia Natural Area Preserves website, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-area-preserves/, and learned there are currently no designated Virginia Natural Area Preserves located in Pittsylvania County. Therefore, the Virginia Natural Area Preserves program is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Virginia Rare Species and Natural Communities In February 2018, the NRCS completed a search of the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage Program’s Rare Species and Natural Community database, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/dbsearchtool. The search parameters included all taxonomic groups for all State Conservation Status Rank categories, for all State Legal Status species located in Pittsylvania County, including the eight-digit Watershed HUC for the Bannister River (03010105), and with the Subwatershed twelve-digit HUC for the Cherrystone Creek (RD55). The search results did not identify any species using the aforementioned search criteria within the affected environment. Therefore, the Virginia Rare Species and Natural Communities program is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Essential Fish Habitat Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act overview: The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in the U.S. In 1996, the Act was amended to incorporate essential fish habitat (EFH) and rules were published in the Federal Register. It calls for heightened consideration of fish habitat in resource management decisions and direct action to stop or reverse the continued loss of fish habitats. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implements and enforces the management measures through fisheries management plans. Since the affected environment is inland, and does not include saltwater tributaries or marine fisheries, there is no potential essential fish habitat protected under the Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act present according to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/essential-fish-habitat-mapper. Therefore, essential 7.d.c Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 30 fish habitat is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Migratory Birds Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is the domestic law that affirms or implements the United States’ commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. It protects all migratory birds and their parts, including eggs, nests, and feathers. Thus, the law makes it unlawful, unless permitted by regulation, for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird, including feathers, parts, nests, or eggs. Migratory birds are essentially all wild birds found in the United States, except the house sparrow, starling, feral pigeon, and resident game birds, such as pheasant, grouse, quail, and wild turkeys. The affected environment for Cherrystone Lake Dam No. 1 is located within the Atlantic Flyway, the migratory path of waterfowl, shorebirds, pelagic birds, and song birds of the North American East Coast. Each fall the Atlantic Flyway is filled with ducks, geese, brant, swans, hawks, eagles, and other migratory birds. Waterfowl and other birds make several stops on the flyway to rest, feed, and drink before continuing their southern migration. In early spring, birds follow this path northward to their traditional nesting grounds. Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (Migratory Birds) overview: Executive Order 13186 requires the NRCS to consider the impacts of planned actions on migratory bird populations and habitats for all planning activities. The USFWS IPaC System identified the birds in Table P as birds of particular concern because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, or because they warrant special attention in the project area. In this case, all the IPaC System identified species are listed on the BCC, not because they warrant special attention in the specific project area. Table P – USFWS Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Season Eastern Whip-poor-will Anstrostomus vociferus May 1 – Aug 20 Kentucky Warbler Oporonis formosus Apr 20 – Aug 20 Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor May 1 – Jul 31 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus May 10 – Sep 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinas Breeds elsewhere Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina May 10 – Aug 31 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act In addition to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186, all Bald and Golden Eagles are further protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the 7.d.c Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 31 Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment. Bald eagles: Although bald eagle habitat is present, the NRCS performed a site visit in May of 2017 and no bald eagle nests were identified within the affected environment. Additionally, according to the Center for Conservation Biology’s bald eagle nest locator at http://www.ccbbirds.org/maps/#eagles, there are no known bald eagle nest or roosts within the affected environment. The closest recorded nest is more than 35 miles away from the dam. Golden eagles: Eastern golden eagle migration is strongly associated with the Appalachian ridgelines. In Virginia, the birds migrate southward between October and early December, and northward during April and May. Wintering eagles spend the months of December through March in the Commonwealth. Within Virginia and the broader Appalachian range, wintering golden eagles are primarily associated with small forest openings along ridgelines, although they may also be seen soaring over the valleys between ridges. The “mountains” of Virginia physically begin at the Blue Ridge of Virginia. As one of the six southernmost counties in the Southern Piedmont region of Virginia along its southern border with North Carolina, Pittsylvania County is well south of the Appalachian ridgelines and valleys. Since the affected environment does not include the habitat requirements of the golden eagle, this resource will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 directs Federal agencies to “prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.” The NRCS policy, 190-GM, Part 414, is consistent with this E.O. and also requires that no actions be authorized, funded or carried out that is believed to or is likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere. As defined in the E.O., invasive species are species not native to a particular ecosystem, whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species may include all terrestrial and aquatic life forms, including plants, animals, fungi, and microbial organisms. Invasive Animal and Plant Species: In February 2018, an NRCS/Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) biologist performed an invasive species survey within affected environment (based on the maximum conceivable extent of potential ground disturbing activities for projects of this type). No invasive animals were identified during the field survey. The most significant infestation of invasive plant 7.d.c Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 32 species is located on the entire north side of the auxiliary spillway which is thick with Chinese privet with Tree of Heaven mixed in and Japanese stiltgrass in the understory in some areas. See Appendix B-5 for invasive species map of the project area. Areas with high concentrations of invasive plants are depicted with yellow hash and outlined. Individual red dots with yellow outer circle represent small clumps of the particular invasive plant identified. Riparian Areas Natural Resources Conservation Service Policy (GM 190, Part 411 (Amendment 23 – September 2010)) The NRCS policy (GM 190, Part 411 (Amendment 23 – September 2010)) requires the NRCS to integrate riparian area management into all plans and alternatives. Although Federal law does not specifically regulate riparian areas, portions of riparian areas such as wetlands and other waters of the U.S. may be subject to Federal regulation under provisions of the Food Security Act, Clean Water Act, and State, Tribal, and local legislation. Riparian areas are ecotones that occur along watercourses and waterbodies. They are distinctly different from the surrounding lands because of unique soil and vegetation characteristics that are strongly influenced by free or unbound water in the soil. Riparian ecotones occupy the transitional area between the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Typical examples include perennial and intermittent streambanks, floodplains, and lake shores. Riparian areas are present within the project area. These riparian areas are located along the banks of the inflows and perimeter of Cherrystone Lake. Additional riparian areas are located along the banks of Cherrystone Creek downstream of the dam. Most of the riparian areas along the inflows and perimeter of Cherrystone Lake are forested. The riparian area along Cherrystone Creek downstream of the dam is a forested corridor and extends to its confluence with the Banister River. HUMANS Scenic Beauty NRCS General Manual, Title 190, Part 410.24 Scenic beauty can be defined as the viewer’s positive perceived value of special, unique and memorable physical elements of a landscape. There are no designated State Natural and Scenic Area Preserves located in Pittsylvania County, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-area-preserves/. Therefore, Scenic Beauty is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Cultural Resources National Historic Preservation Act In 1966, Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) which directed all Federal Agencies to establish a preservation program based on a framework outlined in the 7.d.c Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 33 NHPA, as amended. It also required Federal Agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The term “cultural resources” as used by NRCS is broader than those resources encompassed by the term “historic properties” as defined by the NHPA (16 U.S.C. Section 470 et seq.) and regulations for compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800). Under NHPA, historic properties include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. They also include all records, artifacts, and physical remains associated with the NRHP-eligible historic properties. They may consist of the traces of the past activities and accomplishments of people. The term “historic property” also includes properties of religious and cultural importance to an Indian Tribe (including Native Alaskan Villages) or Native Hawaiian organization that meet NRHP criteria. As more broadly used, the term “cultural resources,” covers a wider range of resources than “historic properties,” such as sacred sites, archaeological sites not eligible for the NRHP, and archaeological collections. Per the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which a project may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if they exist. The NRCS determined that the direct impacts APE for this undertaking is confined to the areas of potential ground disturbance (using the maximum possible extent of ground disturbance) that extend beyond the bounds of areas that were previously disturbed during the construction of the original dam. The in-direct APE for this undertaking is the viewshed from any identified historic resource to the proposed undertaking (using the maximum possible extent of ground disturbance). Figure B-6 depicts both the extent of ground disturbance during original dam construction in 1968 as well as the maximum possible extent of the APE. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that Federal Agencies consult with the applicable State Historic Preservation Officer, federally recognized Native American Tribes, and other interested parties regarding cultural resources. On February 17, 2017 and again on December, 05, 2017, the NRCS searched the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS), https://vcris.dhr.virginia.gov/vcris/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%252fvcris, to identify recorded historic properties. The V-CRIS search results did not identify any recorded archaeological or architectural historic resources within the defined direct or indirect APE. The NRCS conducted a site visit at Cherrystone Lake on December 04, 2017. Two potentially eligible historic resources were located, one within the direct APE (Cherrystone Dam No. 1, built in 1968), and one within the indirect APE (Hodnetts Mill). Neither potential historic resource was listed/identified in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Virginia Cultural Resource Information System database: However, both Hodnetts Mill ruins (construction date unknown) and Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 are eligible for National Register consideration due to their age (50+ years old). The National Register of Historic Places, https://www.nps.gov/nr/, lists nineteen sites in Pittsylvania County, none of which are located within the defined direct or indirect APE of the undertaking. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 34 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal Agencies consult with the applicable State Historic Preservation Officer, federally recognized Native American Tribes, and other interested parties regarding cultural resources. To identify Native American tribes, including those no longer resident to Virginia, that might attach religious or cultural significance to historic properties located in the project area, the NRCS searched both the National Park Service’s Native American Consultation Database (NACD), https://grantsdev.cr.nps.gov/Nagpra/NACD/, and the Housing and Urban Development Agency’s Tribal Directory Assessment Tool (TDAT), https://egis.hud.gov/tdat/. This was done in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(i) of the ACHP Regulations. The NACD search came back negative while the TDAT search identified only the “Delaware Nation, Oklahoma” as having a claimed interest or consultation contact in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Consultation will be completed, as required. In February 2018, the NRCS contacted the Pittsylvania County Historical Society Board of Directors and requested information about any known cultural resources in or near the affected environment. The NRCS asked specifically about Hodnetts Mill, and a Board member stated that Hodnetts Mill was in ruins and not of concern to the Historical Society. The Historical Society reported no historic resources of concern within the defined direct or indirect APE. National Historic Landmarks Program The National Parks Services National Historic Landmarks Program are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior and listed in the National Register of Historic Places because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Per the National Park Service’s National Historic Landmarks Program website, https://www.nps.gov/nhl/find/statelists.htm, there is one National Historic Landmark listed in Pittsylvania County, the Pittsylvania County Courthouse, located in the town of Chatham. The Pittsylvania County Courthouse is not within the direct or indirect APE of the proposed undertaking. Therefore, the National Historic Landmarks Program is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice overview: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires each Federal agency to make environmental justice a part of its mission. Agencies must identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations and Indian Tribes. The primary means to attain compliance with environmental justice considerations is: 1) Assessing the presence of environmental justice communities in a project area that may experience disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, and 2) The inclusion of low-income minority, Tribal, or other specified populations in the planning process. Additionally, E.O. 12898, established an Interagency Working Group (IWG) on 7.d.c Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 35 environmental justice chaired by the EPA Administrator and comprised of the heads of 11 departments or agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture Departmental Regulation 5600-002 – Environmental Justice overview: The USDA Departmental Regulation (DR) 5600-002 provides detailed determination procedures for NEPA and non-NEPA activities and suggests social and economic effects to consider when assessing whether there are disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to environmental justice communities in a project area. An environmental justice and civil rights analysis was conducted for the breach inundation zone and associated nearby areas below the dam. The estimated population of the delineated area is 753 according to Census projections for 2011-2015. EPA’s “EJSCREEN” tool was used to identify environmental justice groups within the benefited area downstream of the dam. Thirty- nine percent of the benefitted downstream population are minorities and 61% are white. Thirty- five percent of the beneficiaries have household incomes at or below $25,000 which is below the $28,440 poverty level for households with four individuals for the 48 contiguous states (per the January 25, 2016 Federal Register notice from the US Department of Health and Human Services). Nineteen percent of the population have less than a high school education. Sixty-six percent own their homes and 34% rent. Of the population age 16 and over, only 44% are in the labor force while 56% are not in the labor force. With respect to environmental indicators assessed using the EJSCREEN tool, the assessed area has values below state and national levels. These statistics indicate the likely presence of individuals with environmental justice concerns, but rehabilitation of a dam provides benefits to all socioeconomic groups below and above the dam without disparate treatment to any individuals or social groups. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 36 Figure 1. Area evaluated for environmental justice effects. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 37 Table Q - Indicators and Groups from EPA’s Environmental Justice Tool 7.d.c Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 38 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING DAM Current Condition of the Dam: The dam and auxiliary spillway have been well maintained with a good stand of grass and no significant woody vegetation on the embankment and auxiliary spillway. No erosion was observed on either the embankment or the auxiliary spillway. In addition, no significant seepage or evidence of stability issues have been observed. The camera survey of the principal spillway pipe was completed on August 23, 2017 and showed no material deterioration. The structural components of the dam were inspected by underwater divers and professional engineers on August 22, 2017. They were found to be in good condition with only minor issues to be addressed during construction. As-Built Dam Specifications: The dam was constructed in 1968 and “As-Built” drawings are available. The earthen embankment is about 55 feet high, 780 feet long, and is built with about 184,000 cubic yards of excavated earth and rock. The upstream and downstream embankment slopes are 2.5:1. The upstream slope has two berms. The upper berm is eight feet wide and built with rock riprap. The lower berm is 10 feet wide. There are no berms on the downstream slope. The embankment was constructed with two core zones and an outer shell. The primary core zone extends through the foundation material to rock. The earthfill used to construct this zone was described as clayey silt and sandy silt and was obtained from the auxiliary spillway. The second core zone, Zone 3, was constructed of low-plasticity silty sands from Borrow Area A and silty sands and clayey sands from Borrow Area B. Zone 2, the outer shell, was constructed from silty sand from the auxiliary spillway and silty sands from Borrow Area A. A 20-foot-wide core trench was constructed at the centerline of the dam an average of about 15 feet below natural ground. The embankment has a top width of 17 feet. The site was surveyed in 2014. All elevations are given in feet using NAVD88 vertical datum. The top of dam was surveyed at elevation 693.9; the normal pool at elevation 661.7 and the auxiliary spillway crest at elevation 682.0. Principal Spillway: The principal spillway is a 42-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe, about 280 feet long. The pipe inlet is controlled by a two-stage reinforced concrete riser with interior dimensions of 3.5 feet and 10.5 feet. The riser is 33 feet high. The first-stage inlet is two rectangular orifices, 64 inches by 27 inches. The second-stage inlet is two 10.5 feet long weirs. The riser is equipped with a pond drain, 36 inches in diameter. The principal spillway pipe outlets into a reinforced concrete impact basin. The toe drains also outlet into the impact basin. The 2017 camera survey showed only minor issues with the concrete of the principal spillway riser. Auxiliary Spillway: The dam’s auxiliary spillway is a grassed open channel, 135 feet wide with 3:1 side slopes. The level control section is 30 feet long. The outlet channel slopes at 2.5%. The auxiliary spillway outlets about 360 feet downstream of the dam embankment. When designed as a “Significant” hazard potential class dam, the planned frequency of use was once in 100 years. The existing annual chance frequency is between the 150 and 200-year event. Internal Drain System: An interior toe drain system was installed 90 feet downstream of the centerline of the embankment. Drain fill was also placed as a diaphragm surrounding the principal spillway conduit approximately 12 feet wide and extending 50 feet downstream from the centerline of the trench drain. The drain fill was graded as aggregate base material with no additional filter. Ten-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal collector pipes were installed. The toe drains exit through the sidewalls of the principal spillway outlet structure. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 39 Appurtenances: The riser is also equipped with water supply equipment and appurtenances. Two water supply gates are installed at different pool elevations, each with a remotely-operated motorized actuator. A structural steel catwalk supported by two reinforced concrete piers and an abutment provides access to the top of the riser. The catwalk and the riser are equipped with safety handrails. A control panel for the water supply equipment and the remote telemetry system is installed on the top of dam opposite the riser. The outlet of the principal spillway pipe is equipped with a flow meter. Sedimentation: Cherrystone Lake was designed to store 100 years of sediment in the pool area. The designed submerged sediment storage capacity was 242 acre-feet and the water supply storage capacity was 850 acre-feet. The volume of sediment estimated is 95 acre-feet. Approximately 47 acre-feet of additional sediment storage was created when borrow material was excavated for construction of the dam. The available sediment storage volume as of 2015 was 194 acre-feet. The designed sediment accumulation rate was estimated at 2.42 acre-feet per year for the sediment pool of the reservoir. The calculated historic sedimentation rate from a 2015 survey was 2.06 acre-feet per year. Using the historic rate of sediment deposition, the sediment may impact the water supply storage in 94 years. The designed aerated sediment storage for the structure is 158 acre-feet. The aerated sediment is material deposited between the normal pool and the crest of the auxiliary spillway during high flows. The designed deposition rate for the aerated sediment was 1.58 acre-feet per year. There was very little evidence of aerated sediment in the fall of 2014 and no visible gravel bars at the inlets to the lake. The aerated sediment deposition rate is estimated at 0.3 acre-feet per year. The aerated sediment for the 46 years prior to 2014 is estimated at 17.75 acre-feet. As of 2014, there is approximately 140 acre-feet of capacity for aerated sediment remaining. At a deposition rate of 0.3 acre-feet of aerated sediment per year, there is room for over 100 more years of aerated sediment deposition. According to National Agricultural Statistics Service data from 2015, over half of the land cover within the watershed is forested. The forested acreage has changed slightly from 59 percent to 51 percent since the dam was constructed. Cropland has reduced from about 17 percent to 5.6 percent of the watershed and the erosion rate has reduced from as high as 45 tons per acre per year to an average rate of 9 tons per acre per year. Pasture or grassland has increased from 16 percent to 32 percent of the land in the watershed. The future sedimentation rate is projected to decrease further due to landowners converting highly erodible cropland to pasture or hayland. Identified Deficiencies: NRCS identified five engineering deficiencies associated with the dam. Slope Stability – The Slope/W component of the GeoStudio design software was used to analyze the stability of the existing upstream and downstream dam slopes. The upstream slope of the dam was evaluated for the potential to fail if the water is drawn down very quickly. The factor of safety for the upstream slope was determined to be 1.159 for the rapid-drawdown condition. This is less than the factor of safety of 1.2 that is required by Technical Release No. 60, Earth Dams and Reservoirs (TR-60). The downstream slope factor of safety for shear strength was determined to be 1.214. TR-60 requires a factor of safety of 1.5 for the downstream slope. The existing dam has a top width of 17 feet which does not meet the required width of 18.4 feet. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 40 Embankment Drainage - The existing drainage system is functional. However, the drain pipe material is metal and subject to corrosion. This is considered a deficiency and replacement is required. Riser – The footer of the riser was evaluated for seismic stability and was found to be insufficient. Modification of the footing is required. Tailwater – Hodnetts Mill Road (VDOT Route 802) crosses Cherrystone Creek about 1,200 feet downstream from the dam. The water flows through a 72-inch diameter culvert that was installed in 1973 and is currently in good condition. Due to the way that this culvert was installed, the water is sometimes ponded all the way back to the outlet structure of the dam. When this occurs, the outlet of each embankment drain is submerged and water from the drain cannot flow freely. The high tailwater also effects the capacity of the principal spillway pipe. Hydraulics - The Virginia Division of Dam Safety issued a conditional use certificate in 2008 for Cherrystone Lake because the vegetated earthen auxiliary spillway did not have the capacity to pass the required spillway design flood for a high hazard potential dam. During the planning process, NRCS used the new Virginia PMP values to assess the capacity of the auxiliary spillway. These PMP values were lower than those used during the 2008 evaluation, but the auxiliary spillway capacity is not sufficient to meet the new criteria. NRCS also determined that the auxiliary spillway does not have the integrity to pass the design storm without breaching. Integrity is a measure of the resistance to erosion in the soil and rock material in the auxiliary spillway. If water flows through the auxiliary spillway, it would develop gullies that erode upstream. A gully that erodes through the upstream side of the auxiliary spillway crest is considered to have caused a dam breach. The auxiliary spillway did meet the criteria for stability. Stability is the surface erosion potential and is used as an indicator of the amount of maintenance that could be needed after an auxiliary spillway flow event. In addition, NRCS found that the dam does not meet the 10-day drawdown requirement during the Principal Spillway Hydrograph event for a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. For a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway, the floodpool must be able to store all the water associated with a 100- year, 1-day/10-day combined storm event and release at least 85% of the water through the principal spillway pipe in less than 10 days. If there is more than 85% of the water remaining after 10 days, the auxiliary spillway crest must be raised. The existing crest of the auxiliary spillway of Cherrystone Lake is too low based on this criterion. Easements: During the planning process, a sixth problem was identified. In May 2016, Armstrong & Associates conducted additional topographic survey of the auxiliary spillway and the area below the dam. They also conducted the survey of the elevations of the 14 houses located upstream of the dam. The surveys found that there were three houses located below the existing crest of the auxiliary spillway elevation; seven houses located above the auxiliary spillway crest and below the top of dam elevation; and four houses located above the top of the dam. The situation was enabled because the dam is physically located in Pittsylvania County even though it is maintained by the Town of Chatham. The County issued the building permits without knowledge of the existing auxiliary spillway crest and top of dam elevations. The Town of Chatham attorney determined that there has been no change in the easements around the dam and that the easements held by the Sponsors currently are those secured for the original construction. The easements that were obtained provided a right to construct, operate, and maintain the dam and to store water without referring to a specific elevation for the crest of the auxiliary spillway or the top of the dam. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 41 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HOW A DAM FUNCTIONS The main components of a flood control dam are the earthen embankment; the normal or sediment pool; the floodpool; the principal spillway; and the auxiliary spillway. The embankment is typically a vegetated earth structure that impounds the water. Sediment pool. The reservoir is designed to store sediment in the area below the elevation of the lowest principal spillway inlet and to detain floodwater in the area between the lowest principal spillway inlet and the crest of the auxiliary spillway. After the dam is completed, water accumulates below the lowest principal spillway inlet to create a lake. As the lake fills with sediment, the amount of water in the lake decreases. When the sediment pool has filled to the elevation of the lowest principal spillway inlet, the pool no longer has permanent water storage, but the designed floodwater detention storage is still intact. If the actual sedimentation rate is greater than the designed sedimentation rate, the sediment storage volume will be filled before the design life of the structure has been reached. The additional sediment would begin to fill the floodwater detention volume above the lowest principal spillway inlet and reduce the available flood storage. Initially, sediment delivered to the reservoir would pass directly through the lowest principal spillway inlet. Eventually, this inlet would be blocked by debris and sediment and the level of the water would rise to the crest of the auxiliary spillway. As the floodpool loses storage due to sediment deposition, the auxiliary spillway operates (flows) more often. For a vegetated earthen auxiliary spillway, repeated flows could erode the soil material and eventually cause the spillway to breach. Repeated flows increase the operation and maintenance costs for the Sponsor. In the case of a water supply reservoir, the sediment pool would fill the water supply storage before it would start filling the floodpool. Floodpool: The floodpool, which is the water storage area between the principal spillway crest and the auxiliary spillway crest, is designed to detain the water that would accumulate behind the dam in events equal to or smaller than an event with a specific annual recurrence interval. For a typical dam, the auxiliary spillway crest is designed to be at the elevation needed to detain the 100- year event. This storm is the event that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. In a bigger flood event, the water level will be higher than the crest of the auxiliary spillway and the excess water will pass around the dam embankment through the auxiliary spillway. Principal spillway: A principal spillway has three main parts: the riser, the pipe, and the outlet. The riser is typically a concrete tower that controls the level of water in the lake. The principal spillway pipe conveys water through the dam safely. The principal spillway riser and pipe control the day-to-day elevation of the water in the lake and the two components together provide a way to control release of the water in the floodpool. For a two-stage riser, the water flows through the first-stage inlet in the riser until the water rises to the elevation of the second-stage inlet. Then, it flows through both inlets. The water falls to the bottom of the riser before exiting through the principal spillway pipe. The water exits into an outlet structure, typically some sort of stilling basin. Its purpose is to slow the velocity of the water leaving the pipe, so it doesn’t cause erosion in the stream channel. Most risers have a drain gate at the bottom of the riser that allows the lake to be completely drained. Auxiliary spillway: There are four parts of an auxiliary spillway. The inlet section is on the side closest to the lake. It has a gentle upward slope toward the middle of the auxiliary spillway. The 7.d.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 42 water that reaches the inlet section has little or no velocity and, therefore, does not cause erosion to occur. The level center section is called the control section. The control section is usually located where the auxiliary spillway crosses the centerline of the top of the dam. The purpose of the control section is to make the water in the auxiliary spillway spread out evenly rather than concentrate into little channels. The third section is called the constructed outlet. Its purpose is to keep the water flowing out of the auxiliary spillway in a controlled manner until the water gets far enough away that it will not cause erosion on the earthen embankment. Once this point is reached, the water is free to go on downstream. The fourth component of an auxiliary spillway is the training dikes. Training dikes are used in conjunction with the outlet section to direct the flow of the water away from the downstream side of the dam embankment. Training dikes can also be used in the inlet section to direct water into the auxiliary spillway. STATUS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Operation and maintenance of the structure is the responsibility of the Town of Chatham and they have done an excellent job of operating and maintaining this structure in accordance with the operation and maintenance agreement. This has been verified through site assessments. The most recent inspection was conducted October 26, 2017. STRUCTURAL DATA The structural data for the as-built condition of the dam and watershed is described in Table R. The sediment data is based upon the 2015 sediment survey. BREACH ANALYSIS AND HAZARD CLASSIFICATION Breach Analysis: To determine the downstream inundation zone due to a dam breach, a breach analysis was performed for a Sunny Day breach with the water level at the existing auxiliary spillway crest. The peak breach discharge criteria in TR-60 was used. A “Sunny Day breach” is a dam failure that occurs unexpectedly. In 2009, the Sponsors contracted for the work to determine the inundation zone that would result from a breach of the dam. NRCS used this hydraulic model to determine the results of the breach analyses shown in Appendix C on the Breach Inundation Map. The breach analysis terminated 6.8 miles downstream of the dam. The Sponsors have current breach inundation zone maps for the dam that comply with the Virginia Impounding Structures Law and Regulations for high hazard potential dams. These maps show the breach inundation zone that would occur if the dam failed when the water level was at the top of the dam. The Virginia Impounding Structures Regulations requires owners of high hazard potential dams to provide a dam breach inundation zone map to determine hazard classification and develop the Emergency Action Plan (EAP). The purpose of an EAP is to outline appropriate actions and to designate parties responsible for those actions in the event of a potential failure of the dam. The Sponsors must update the EAP annually with assistance from local emergency response officials. The NRCS State Conservationist will ensure that a current EAP is prepared prior to execution of fund-obligating documents for rehabilitation of the structure. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 43 Table R – As-Built and Existing Structural Data for Cherrystone Lake As-Built Existing Local Name Cherrystone Lake Site Number 1 Year Completed 1968 Cost $176,208 Purpose Flood control and water supply Drainage Area, mi2 14.7 Dam Height, feet 55.4 Dam Type Earthen Dam Volume, yds3 183,733 Dam Crest Length, feet 788 Storage Capacity, acre-feet 1/ 4,739 4,494 Submerged Sediment, acre-feet 242 194 Aerated Sediment, acre-feet 158 140 Beneficial Use (M&I water) 850 850 Flood Storage, acre-feet 3,372 3,310 Surface Area, acre 105 102.7 Principal Spillway Type Reinforced Concrete Riser Height, feet 33.0 Conduit Size, inches (I.D.) 42 Stages, number 2 Orifice Elevation 661.7 Riser Crest Elevation 670.2 Capacity, cubic feet per second 264 Energy Dissipater Concrete Impact Basin Auxiliary Spillway Type Vegetated Earth Width, feet 135 Capacity, % of PMF 93 Sediment Pool Elevation 650.4 650.2 Water Supply Elevation 661.7 661.7 Floodpool Elevation 680.8 682.0 Top of Dam Elevation 692.1 693.9 Datum NAVD88 NAVD88 1/ As-built flood storage volume based on original design and as-built information. Existing volumes calculated from 2015 sediment survey. Hazard Classification: Cherrystone Lake was originally constructed in 1968 to protect downstream lands from flooding and to provide water supply. It was designed as a significant hazard potential structure with a 100-year design life. Currently, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety has designated Cherrystone Lake as a high hazard potential structure. The breach analysis completed for this Watershed Plan concurs with the current hazard class of the structure. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 44 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES Dams are built for the conditions that existed or could reasonably be anticipated during the time of design. Sometimes these conditions change, resulting in dam failure. Several potential modes of failure were evaluated for Cherrystone Lake. Sedimentation: The major land uses in the watershed above the dam are 51.1% Forest, 32.3% Hayland/Pasture, 6.2% Developed/Open Space, 5.6% Cropland, 3.4% Scrubland and 1.4% Water. These uses are not expected to change significantly in the future. The future sediment accumulation rate in Cherrystone Lake is expected to be the same or less than the historic rate due to the conversion of cropland fields with high erosion rates to hayland/pasture fields with much lower erosion rates. Based upon the historic sediment deposition rate of 2.06 acre-feet per year, the remaining sediment storage life of Cherrystone Lake in 2015 was 94 years. Once the sediment pool has lost storage capacity, then sediment will deposit in the water supply pool. The water supply and sediment pools will be filled in about 500 years. The potential for failure due to inadequate sediment storage capacity is low. Hydrologic Capacity: Hydrologic failure of a dam occurs when the auxiliary spillway is breached or when the dam is overtopped and fails. Under present NRCS criteria for high hazard potential dams, the auxiliary spillway must have sufficient integrity and capacity to completely pass the full PMF event. The auxiliary spillway does not have sufficient capacity to prevent overtopping. It also does not have sufficient integrity to withstand the flows from the PMF event and could breach. For this reason, the overall potential for hydrologic failure of Cherrystone Lake dam is high. Seepage: Embankment and foundation seepage can contribute to failure of an embankment by removing (piping) soil material through the embankment or foundation. As the soil material is removed, the voids created allow even more water flow through the embankment or foundation, until the dam collapses due to the internal erosion. Seepage that increases with a rise in pool elevation is an indication of a potential problem, as is stained or muddy water or “sand boils” (the up-welling of sediment transported by water through voided areas). Foundation and embankment drainage systems can alleviate the seepage problem by removing the water without allowing soil particles to be transported away from the dam. There are no signs of seepage at the Cherrystone Lake dam. Therefore, the potential for a seepage failure is low. Seismic: The structural integrity of an earthen embankment is dependent upon the presence of a stable foundation. Foundation movement through consolidation, compression, or lateral movement can cause the creation of voids within an embankment, separation of the principal spillway conduit joints, or in extreme cases, complete collapse of the embankment. The Cherrystone Creek watershed is not located within an area of significant seismic risk; therefore, there is low potential for seismic activity to cause failure of the dam embankment. Seismic failure of the riser could have two different results. If the riser fails in a way that does not block the principal spillway pipe, then all the water would drain out of the lake. This would eliminate the pool area, but the dam would continue to provide flood storage. If a riser failure blocked the principal spillway pipe, the water would fill up to the crest of the auxiliary spillway and then flow through it. There would be no stormwater detention and no downstream flood protection. The footer of the riser at Cherrystone Lake does not meet current criteria for seismic stability. The potential for a seismic failure of the riser is moderate. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 45 Material Deterioration: The materials used in the principal spillway system, the embankment drains, and the pool drainage system are subject to weathering and chemical reactions due to natural elements within the soil, water, and atmosphere. Concrete risers and conduits can deteriorate and crack, metal components can rust and corrode, and leaks can develop. Embankment failure can occur from internal erosion caused by these leaks. A camera survey of the principal spillway pipe was conducted in August of 2017. Only minor problems were observed with any of the material components. As of 2018, the principal spillway system had reached 50% of its planned 100-year service life. There is a reasonable expectation that it will continue to function as planned for the next 50 years. Therefore, there is low potential for failure due to material deterioration of the principal spillway system. The corrugated metal pipe in the toe drain is corroded and likely to fail. If this occurs, the phreatic surface could rise and there would be an increased risk of a slope stability failure. The potential for failure of the embankment due to a collapse of the toe drain is high. Slope Stability: The upstream face of the dam does not meet the required factor of safety for the rapid drawdown condition. In the event of a rapid drawdown, large scale slope failure could reduce the mass of the embankment, resulting in insufficient mass to hold the water back. Rapid drawdown is not likely to occur but if it does, then slope failure is likely. The potential for failure of the embankment due to a slope failure during the rapid drawdown condition is high. On the downstream slope of the embankment, the 2.5:1 back slope is too steep for the strength of soil. In the event of a slope failure, the phreatic surface could be exposed. This would result in an increase in seepage through the embankment. The potential for a failure due to slope stability on the downstream slope is high. Conclusion: At the present time, the mostly likely means of failure for the Cherrystone Lake dam are overtopping the dam or breaching the auxiliary spillway during the PMP event. This type of failure could occur at any time during the remaining life of the structure. There is adequate sediment capacity for the next 50 years and there is no evidence of seepage. The site has a high risk for a downstream slope stability failure due to material deterioration of the toe drain and inadequate soil strength of the downstream embankment. The potential for an upstream slope stability failure is high if the water is drawn down rapidly. The risk of seismic failure of the embankment is low since the dam is not in a significant seismic zone but the risk of a seismic failure of the riser is moderate due to the configuration of the footer. CONSEQUENCES OF DAM FAILURE A Sunny Day breach analysis was performed in accordance with the peak breach discharge criteria in Technical Release No. 60, Earth Dams and Reservoirs (TR-60). It was assumed that structural collapse would occur with the water level at the existing auxiliary spillway crest and would result in a release of 68,659 acre-feet of water and sediment, beginning with a wall of water that is 18 feet high. A maximum breach discharge of 105,626 cfs was computed using the criteria in TR-60. The population at risk is approximately 150 people. The properties and infrastructure potentially affected by a breach of the Cherrystone Lake Dam includes eight homes, four business structures, one industrial business, one commercial building, one barn, and the water treatment plant. Four main roads (Routes 57, 802, 694, and 703) and five secondary roads (Hodnetts Mill Road, Walkers 7.d.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 46 Well Road, White Street, Moses Mill Road and Beverly Heights Road) are impacted by a potential dam failure. A breach event would cause significant economic damages to the homes, business structures, barn, roads and bridges below the dam. In addition, the loss of the reservoir would result in a loss of water supply. The residences and business properties at risk in the floodplain subject to a breach of Cherrystone Lake have structure and content values estimated at $1,650,000. A catastrophic breach would result in an estimated $948,000 in economic damages to existing buildings and their contents. The potentially impacted major bridge, culvert, and road embankment infrastructure is valued at $1,029,000. Approximately $788,000 in damages to road crossings could occur in this event. A catastrophic breach of the Cherrystone Lake dam would result in a total estimated $1,736,000 in damages to homes, businesses, barn, and infrastructure. Other economic damages from a catastrophic breach would be associated public and private clean- up costs, damages to vehicles, lost water supply with the reservoir gone, and increased flood damages in the future for remaining properties due to the absence of the dam and its flood protection effects. The environmental damages from a dam failure would be significant. In addition to the damage caused by the water, the sediment stored in the pool area would be flushed downstream in the event of a catastrophic breach. Approximately seven miles of stream channel and floodplain downstream of the dam would be damaged by scouring or deposition. Sediment would be deposited in the floodplain. This would constrict the floodplain and cause additional flooding in subsequent storm events. Deposition of sediment in the floodplain would also restrict normal use of the land which may cause water quality problems in the future. It is unlikely that a catastrophic breach would remove all the fill material used to build the dam. The embankment material remaining after a breach would also eventually erode into the stream, contributing to the downstream sediment deposition. Over time, the sediment could migrate downstream from Cherrystone Creek into the Bannister River. There is also a potential for stream degradation upstream from the dam site. The abrupt removal of the water and sediment would cause instability in the stream feeding the reservoir. This channel could develop headcuts that would migrate upstream. If a bedrock ledge or other hardened point is encountered in the stream, the headcut would stop proceeding upstream. Downcutting and widening would continue to occur in the lake bed. The 14 homes around the lake would lose recreational opportunities and property value. FORMULATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The stated objectives of the Sponsors for the Cherrystone Lake Dam Rehabilitation Plan are: 1) to bring the dam into compliance with current Virginia Division of Dam Safety and NRCS dam safety and performance standards; 2) to maintain the existing level of flood protection for downstream properties; 3) maintain the water supply; and 4) to address the residents’ concerns. These objectives can be met by installing measures which will bring the dam into compliance with State and Federal regulations. Under the Watershed Rehabilitation Provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, NRCS is required to consider the technical, social, and economic feasibility of the locally preferred solution and other alternatives identified through the 7.d.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 47 planning process. In addition, NEPA and the National Watershed Program Manual requires the consideration of all reasonable alternatives to the proposed federal action. The purpose of this supplement is to comply with current NRCS and Virginia dam design and safety standards to reduce risks to life and property that could result from a potential catastrophic dam failure; maintain the level of flood protection, that is currently provided by the dam’s ability to attenuate floods, to life and property upstream and downstream of the dam; and maintain the current level of water supply. FORMULATION PROCESS Formulation of the alternative rehabilitation plan for Cherrystone Lake followed procedures outlined in the NRCS National Watershed Program Manual. Other guidance incorporated into the formulation process included the NRCS Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies, and the Economics Handbook, Part II for Water Resources, and other NRCS watershed planning policies. Several alternatives were considered and three useful life (50, 75 and 100 year) options were evaluated as part of a period of analysis determination. Several federal action alternatives were carried through for detailed study. The recommended alternative that maximizes net economic benefits has a 52-year period of analysis, including a one-year for design and one-year for installation with 50 years of expected useful life. This lifespan was selected based upon the expected future life of the concrete components of the structure. The formulation process began with formal discussions between the Sponsors, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety, and NRCS. The Virginia Division of Dam Safety conveyed state law and policy associated with a high hazard potential dam. NRCS explained agency policy associated with the Small Watershed Dam Rehabilitation Program and related alternative plans of action. As a result, alternative plans of action were developed based on NRCS planning requirements and the ability of the alternatives to address the initial objective of bringing Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 into compliance with current dam safety and design criteria. The National Economic Development (NED) Alternative is the federally assisted alternative with the greatest net economic benefits. The alternative plans that must be considered include: • No Federal Action • Decommission the Dam • Non-Structural – Relocate or Floodproof Structures in the Breach Zone • Rehabilitate the Dam • National Economic Development (NED) Alternative ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Some of the alternatives considered in the planning process were eliminated from detailed consideration because these alternatives either did not meet the proposed purpose or need for federal action or they were logistically impractical to implement. Decommission Dam: Decommissioning is a mandatory alternative that must be considered under NRCS policy for dam rehabilitation. This option describes an alternative which requires removing the flood detention capacity of the dam by cutting a 220-feet-wide notch in the existing 7.d.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 48 embankment down to the valley floor. If the dam were removed, the eight homes and seven business structures in the breach zone will no longer be at risk from flooding caused by a breach of the Cherrystone Lake dam. Federal policy requires that the decommissioning alternative address the purpose and need for flood protection. Mitigation of induced damages to the buildings includes relocation or floodproofing the impacted structures. There are no inhabitable structures in the currently effective regulatory 100-year floodplain but one home is in the 500-year floodplain downstream of the dam. The downstream bridges and utilities would have to be protected. The Town would no longer have the public water supply from the reservoir. About 850 acre-feet of water supply would have to be developed or replaced by water wells. Notching the dam embankment would require removal of about 112,000 cubic yards of material. About 60% of the embankment would be removed. The remaining fill material would be stabilized and vegetated. The submerged sediment would be stabilized or removed. The function and stability of the stream channel would be restored. Removal of the principal spillway riser, pipe, outlet structure, and water supply structures would also be necessary. Some of these unneeded materials could be buried on site or hauled to an appropriate disposal site. About 113 acres of grass would be planted over the dam, pool, and spoil site. Table S lists some of the major components of decommissioning the dam. The estimated cost of removing the storage capacity of the dam and all appurtenant structures ($6.35 million) and replacing the water supply ($6.15 million) is $12.50 million. This solution would meet the Sponsor requirements but at a higher cost and would require a much longer time to implement all required measures. Table S – Major Components of Decommissioning the Dam Items of Work Quantities Unit cost Cost Fill removal and disposal 112,000 CY $9.00/CY $1,008,000 Spoil spreading 112,000 CY $8.00/CY $896,000 Topsoil spreading Lump Sum $15,000 $15,000 Pollution control Lump Sum $215,311 $215,311 Seeding and mulching 112.3 Acres $3,584/acre $402,483 Removal of principal spillway pipe, riser, impact basin, and water supply structures Lump Sum $227,715 $227,715 Water diversion Lump Sum $921,600 $921,600 Reservoir reclamation Lump Sum $486,675 $486,675 Surveys, Quality Assurance, and other miscellaneous items, including 30% contingency. Various $2,178,746 Total cost of structure removal $6,351,530 Replacement of water supply $6,151,695 Mitigation for induced damages $1,060,000 Total cost of decommissioning $13,563,225 Note: Mitigation of induced damages and foregone incidental recreation costs were not examined in detail since the decommissioning cost without them exceeded the cost of rehabilitation. Mitigation of induced damages to the roads would be very difficult logistically. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 49 Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) Cutoff Wall in Existing Auxiliary Spillway: NRCS investigated the use of a Roller-compacted Concrete cutoff wall to address the integrity issue in the existing auxiliary spillway. This alternative was not developed due to geologic limitations. Non-Structural - Relocate or Floodproof Structures: Elevating, floodproofing, or relocating the 16 structures in the breach zone of the dam would cost more than $1,060,000 and will not change the need for rehabilitation of the dam identified by the State Division of Dam Safety and NRCS. Therefore, this alternative was not considered in further detail. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS CONSIDERED Alternatives Without Federal Assistance One of the alternatives that must be included in the plan is the “No Action” alternative. For the purposes of the rehabilitation program, the No Action alternative describes the action that the sponsors will take if no federal funds are provided. Since the Cherrystone Lake dam is a high hazard potential dam that does not meet current safety and performance standards, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety has issued a conditional certificate of operation for the dam. It is reasonable and prudent to expect that the Virginia Division of Dam Safety will soon issue an Administrative Order requiring the Sponsors to bring the dam up to State standards by rehabilitation of the dam or remove the hazard by removing the storage function of the reservoir. The Sponsors would be totally responsible for the cost of rehabilitation or removal of the dam. NRCS would still have the technical responsibility of approving the Sponsors’ solution because the floodwater retarding structure is under an Operation & Maintenance Agreement between the local Sponsors and NRCS until 2068. Now, the potential for an uncontrolled breach and resulting damages is present and will continue until the existing dam safety issues are addressed and resolved. Without NRCS assistance, the Sponsors would have the following options: • Hire a consultant, prepare plans to meet NRCS and Virginia standards, and rehabilitate the dam using their own resources. • Do nothing. In this case, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety may choose to breach the dam and send the Sponsors the bill. This option is likely to be more expensive than if the Sponsors performed the breach. The end results would be the same as those for the next option. This option would not meet the Sponsors’ goal of maintaining the water supply and existing level of flood protection for downstream properties. • The Sponsors could remove the flood storage capacity of the dam by breaching the dam using a least cost method. This breach would be a minimum size hole in the dam from the top of the dam to the valley floor, which would eliminate the structure’s ability to store water. Downstream flooding conditions would be like those that existed prior to the construction of the dam. The sediment would not be stabilized and would migrate downstream. This course of action would reduce the Sponsors’ dam safety liability but would not eliminate all liability since it would induce flooding downstream. This option would not meet the Sponsors’ goal of maintaining existing levels of flood control and water supply. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 50 No Federal Action (Sponsor’s Rehabilitation): In the absence of federal assistance, the Sponsors have indicated that they will rehabilitate the dam to meet the required dam safety and design criteria at their own expense using the alternative proposed by NRCS. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Sponsors’ Rehabilitation will be the same as the No Federal Action alternative. The estimated total construction cost would be $11,142,200. The total project cost would be $12,943,300. Alternatives With Federal Assistance There are six identified deficiencies or problems with the Cherrystone Lake Dam. The solution to issues 1-5, detailed below, are identical for each of the possible alternatives identified as potential solutions for the needed modifications to the auxiliary spillway. Issue 1 - Slope Stability. The upstream slope will be flattened from 2.5:1 to 3:1 and a 24 feet wide berm will be added to meet the necessary slope stability criteria. The top of dam will be widened from 17 to 20 feet. A 24-foot-wide stability berm will be added at the base of the downstream slope. See Figure C-1. The earth material for the slopes will be excavated from the embankment during installation of the structural auxiliary spillway. A new riser will be constructed at the toe of the new berm and the principal spillway outlet structure will be moved downstream to the toe of the new berm. The principal spillway pipe would be extended both directions. The catwalk to the riser would be replaced. The lake will have to be drained to allow the modifications to the embankment, riser, and impact basin. Issue 2 - Embankment Drainage. A new toe drain and filter will be installed downstream of the existing drain and beneath the new downstream berm. The new drain will be installed with a non- corrosive plastic pipe. The existing drain will remain in service. The new downstream drain will provide all drainage and filtering functions when the original drain fails due to pipe collapse or other cause. See Figure C-2 for details of the embankment, toe drains, and culvert upgrades. Issue 3 - Seismic Stability of Riser. Although only the footer needs retrofitting, the addition of the new stability berm requires relocation and replacement of the riser. Also, the footer of each existing catwalk pier will require modification for seismic stability. Both existing catwalk piers will remain, and the catwalk extended to the new riser. Issue 4 – Tailwater. Replace the Hodnetts Mill Road pipe culvert with a concrete, open-bottom culvert at the correct elevation. It will be 6 feet high, 20 feet wide, and 50 feet long. The estimated cost of replacement is $257,800. Issue 5 – Landrights/Easements. The Sponsors still hold the same easements that were certified to NRCS in 1967 prior to the original construction. These easements are specific to activities related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam and the storage of water. The local Sponsors have determined that acquisition of additional easement area to meet current NRCS policy to the top of dam would require a significant added cost without an equally significant benefit. Therefore, the Sponsors acknowledge and accept the potential risk of flood damages for the real property between the crest of the auxiliary spillway (elevation 682.0) and the top of dam (elevation 693.9). The auxiliary spillway elevation is 0.9 feet lower than the 200-year flood elevation. The seven houses that are currently located between the crest of the auxiliary spillway and the top of dam elevations will be left as they are now without alteration. The three houses that are currently located below the auxiliary spillway crest elevation will be floodproofed or otherwise 7.d.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 51 protected from damage to the auxiliary spillway crest elevation. The estimated cost to the Sponsors is $253,800. No habitable dwellings will be allowed below the crest of the auxiliary spillway (elevation 682.0) in the future. Issue 6 – Inadequate capacity and integrity in the vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. There is no practical way to bring the dam into compliance with a vegetative earth solution. However, there are several alternatives for a structural solution. Since one of the goals of this rehabilitation is to maintain the existing level of downstream flood protection, the crest of the rehabilitated auxiliary spillway will remain at the same elevation as the existing vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. Widening the auxiliary spillway to 165 feet will change the water surface elevation at the first downstream crossing by 0.09 feet for the 500-year event. Therefore, there will be no change in the 100-year or 500-year floodplain. The use of a structural auxiliary spillway will also address the concerns associated with the failure to meet the 10-day drawdown criteria. Frequent flow in a structural auxiliary spillway will not cause damage to the auxiliary spillway. Alternative 1: Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) Chute Spillway over the Dam. A notch with a 165-foot bottom width will be cut into the embankment. The RCC armor will begin with an apron on the upstream side of the dam that will lead to the auxiliary spillway crest. The crest will be set at the elevation of the existing auxiliary spillway. The walls will have side slopes of 3:1 and the chute will extend to the valley floor at a 3:1 slope. To dissipate the flow energy, the slope will be constructed with steps that are about 2 feet high. An RCC stilling basin at the valley floor will be used to complete the energy dissipation and allow a safe release into the floodplain. See Figure 2. The principal spillway pipe will outlet into the stilling basin. This will eliminate the need to replace the impact basin that is currently in use. The existing auxiliary spillway will be closed with an earthen berm. The total estimated construction cost for this alternative is $11,142,200. Figure 2. Example of a roller-compacted concrete auxiliary spillway. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 52 Alternative 2: Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir over the embankment. A labyrinth weir located on the embankment of the dam will have the capacity to pass the required auxiliary spillway flow within a flow area that is only 64 feet wide. See Figure 3 for an example of this type of structure. The spillway will be 320 feet long. The weir will be 14-feet high and will be a single-cycle labyrinth that is 64 feet wide and 128 feet long. The crest will be set at the elevation of the existing auxiliary spillway. The outlet will be a Saint Anthony Falls (SAF) basin followed by a 60-foot-long rock riprap stabilization pad. The existing auxiliary spillway will be closed with an earthen dike. Issues 1-4 have a combined cost of $5,531,000. When the $7,263,000 cost of Alternative 2 is added, the estimated total construction cost will be $12,794,000. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 53 Figure 3. Example of a 5-cycle labyrinth weir in an embankment. Preferred Rehabilitation Alternative: The preferred alternative for rehabilitating the auxiliary spillway is to install an RCC chute over the embankment. The embankment stability issues will be addressed by the addition of fill material on the embankment. Replacement of the riser and extension of the principal spillway pipe in both the upstream and downstream directions are subsequently required. New toe drains would be installed in the embankment. The tailwater issue will be addressed by the replacement of the Hodnetts Mill Road culvert downstream of the dam. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 54 NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (NED) ALTERNATIVE Alternative 1, as described above, is the NED plan. For purposes of the rehabilitation program, the NED plan is defined as the federally assisted alternative with the greatest net economic benefits. The Sponsors have indicated that, in the absence of federal assistance, they would rehabilitate the dam to meet the required dam safety and design criteria at their own expense using the alternative proposed by NRCS. The Sponsors’ Rehabilitation is used as the No Federal Action alternative. The No Federal Action - Sponsor’s Rehabilitation alternative would be the same in scope, cost, and effects as the Future with Federal Project alternative. The rehabilitation with federal assistance is the most locally acceptable alternative and best serves the Sponsors in achieving the needs and purpose of this rehabilitation. Therefore, installing a roller-compacted chute spillway over the dam is the NED plan and the preferred alternative. Per the Federal Principles and Guidelines document and NRCS National policy, when the Future Without Federal Project is the same as the Future With Federal Project, the local costs avoided are credited as benefits. This renders the federally assisted alternative as having zero net benefits. Net benefits are zero because, by policy, the total project cost is equal to the claimed benefits and the resulting benefit/cost ratio is 1:1. The results displayed in Table T are presented within a zero-based accounting context to highlight the costs and benefits associated with the recommended alternative alone. Within a zero-based accounting framework, the “Total Adverse Annualized” value associated with the Future Without Federal Project is displayed as the “Total Beneficial Annualized” in the Future With Federal Project column. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS Table T summarizes the effects of each alternative considered. Refer to the Environmental Consequences section for additional information. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 55 Table T - Summary and Comparison of Alternative Plans Effects Future Without Federal Project No Federal Action – Sponsor’s Rehabilitation Future With Federal Project Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – Alternative 1 - Roller-compacted concrete chute spillway over the embankment and closure of the existing auxiliary spillway. Selected Plan (NED Plan) Alternative 2 – Reinforced concrete labyrinth weir in the embankment. Closure of the existing auxiliary spillway. Sponsor Goals Continue to provide flood protection and water supply storage and comply with safety and performance criteria for a high hazard potential dam. Continue to provide flood protection and water supply storage and comply with safety and performance criteria for a high hazard potential dam. Continue to provide flood protection and water supply storage and comply with safety and performance criteria for a high hazard potential dam. Structural Upgrade dam to meet dam safety criteria. Upgrade dam to meet dam safety criteria. Upgrade dam to meet dam safety criteria. Total Project Investment Cherrystone Lake $12,943,300 $12,943,300 $14,727,000 Total Beneficial Annualized (AAEs1/) --- $448,100 $549,200 Total Adverse Annualized (AAEs1/) --- $448,100 $549,100 Net Beneficial --- $0 $0 Benefit/Cost Ratio --- 1.0 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 Estimated OM&R2/ --- $5,300 $5,300 Clean Water Act Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Wetlands Temporary impact during construction to 121.4 acres of open water and fringe wetlands; permanent loss of 0.20 acres and temporary impacts to 0.33 acres of shrub/scrub wetlands below the dam. Temporary impact during construction to 121.4 acres of open water and fringe wetlands; permanent loss of 0.20 acres and temporary impacts to 0.33 acres of shrub/scrub wetlands below the dam. Temporary impact during construction to 121.4 acres of open water and fringe wetlands; permanent loss of 0.17 acres and temporary impacts to 0.13 acres of shrub/scrub wetlands below the dam. Floodplain Management No change from existing conditions. No change from existing conditions. No change from existing conditions. Air Quality Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Endangered and Threatened Species None present. None present. None present. Migratory Birds Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Bald Eagles No effect. No effect. No effect. Invasive Plant Species Care will be taken during construction to avoid introduction or relocation of invasive plant species. Care will be taken during construction to avoid introduction or relocation of invasive plant species. Care will be taken during construction to avoid introduction or relocation of invasive plant species. Riparian Areas No change. No change. No change. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 56 Effects Future Without Federal Project No Federal Action – Sponsor’s Rehabilitation Future With Federal Project Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – Alternative 1 - Roller-compacted concrete chute spillway over the embankment and closure of the existing auxiliary spillway. Selected Plan (NED Plan) Alternative 2 – Reinforced concrete labyrinth weir in the embankment. Closure of the existing auxiliary spillway. Local and Regional Economy Temporary positive effect on local and/or regional construction companies. Temporary negative effect due to loss of existing access to the lake during construction. Temporary positive effect on local and/or regional construction companies. Temporary negative effect due to loss of existing access to the lake during construction. Temporary positive effect on local and/or regional construction companies. Temporary negative effect due to loss of existing access to the lake during construction. Potable Water Supply The two Cherrystone Creek reservoirs will be drained at different times to avoid a raw water deficit during construction. The two Cherrystone Creek reservoirs will be drained at different times to avoid a raw water deficit during construction. The two Cherrystone Creek reservoirs will be drained at different times to avoid a raw water deficit during construction. Public Health and Safety Decrease potential for loss of life from a dam breach. Safety and noise concerns will be addressed during construction. Decrease potential for loss of life from a dam breach. Safety and noise concerns will be addressed during construction. Decrease potential for loss of life from a dam breach. Safety and noise concerns will be addressed during construction. Fish and Wildlife Temporary impacts due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts due to draining the lake during construction. Recreation Temporary impacts to boating and fishing due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts during fishery recovery period of 3-4 years. Temporary impacts to boating and fishing due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts during fishery recovery period of 3-4 years. Temporary impacts to boating and fishing due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts during fishery recovery period of 3-4 years. Cultural Resources NRCS has recommended “No Effect.” NRCS has recommended “No Effect.” NRCS has recommended “No Effect.” Environmental Justice and Civil Rights No disparate treatment. No disparate treatment. No disparate treatment. Land Use Changes Mitigation for 0.20 acres of wetland lost. Mitigation for 0.20 acres of wetland lost. Mitigation for 0.13 acres of wetland lost. 1/ Per 1.7.2 (a) (4) (ii) of the “Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies” (P&G), U.S. Water Resources Council, March, 1983, allowing for abbreviated procedures, damage reduction and recreation benefits have not been displayed because they are the same for both alternatives and no net change in benefits occurs when comparing the two candidate plans to each other. The federally assisted alternative is displayed within a zero-based accounting context that credits local costs avoided (Total Adverse Annualized for the Future Without Federal Project scenario) as adverse beneficial effects (Total Beneficial Annualized) consistent with P&G 1.7.2(b)(3). Although the average annual benefits of rehabilitation are $448,000, net benefits are zero because the total project cost is equal to the claimed benefits and the resulting benefit/cost ratio is 1:1. “AAEs” stands for Average Annual Equivalents which are based on a 2.875% discount rate and a 52-year period of analysis (1 year to design, 1 year to install and a 50 year expected useful life). 2/ “Estimated OM&R” stands for Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Costs. Note: Regional Economic Development account (RED) concerns were not identified during the scoping process. Therefore, the RED account information is not included. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 57 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative plans of action can result in a multitude of effects on resources upstream and downstream of Cherrystone Lake. This section describes anticipated effects on resource concerns identified by the Sponsors, the public, and agency personnel in the Scoping meeting and the public meetings. Three alternative plans were considered and evaluated in detail: 1) No Federal Action (Sponsors Rehabilitation), 2) Rehabilitate Dam with the Preferred Alternative (NED Plan), and 3) Rehabilitate Dam with Labyrinth Weir in the Embankment. The Sponsors have indicated that they will use the plan developed by NRCS to complete the rehabilitation of the dam if Federal funding is not available. The No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation) alternative would be the same or involve the same components as the Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative). This alternative maximizes net benefits with a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1 and is the rehabilitation alternative preferred by the Sponsors. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS NOT WITHIN THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND EXCLUDED FROM CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS: • Prime and Unique Farmlands and Farmland of State Importance • Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act • Coastal Zone Management Areas • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Clean Air Act-General Conformity Rule • Clean Air Act-Regional Haze Regulations • Coral Reefs • Virginia Natural Area Preserves System • Virginia Rare Species and Natural Communities • Essential Fish Habitat • Scenic Beauty • National Historic Landmarks Program 7.d.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 58 SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WATER Clean Water Act (CWA) – Sections 303(d) and 305(b) (Water Quality) Existing Conditions: About 5.96 miles of Cherrystone Creek has been identified as a Category 4A, E. coli impaired, stream. The area below Cherrystone Lake Dam to the Chatham Sewage Treatment Plan outfall, does not support recreational use. The 104.27 surface acres of the Cherrystone Reservoir is also listed as impaired due to dissolved oxygen issues. The latter impairment requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan which is scheduled for development in 2022. Additionally, the Town of Chatham has identified issues with sediment that are negatively impacting the raw water intake for the Town’s Water supply. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): There will be a temporary impact on downstream water quality due to a sediment release when the water is drawn down prior to construction. With the required erosion and sediment control measures in place, there should be minimal impacts on water quality during construction. Any water releases from the project area are expected to meet the appropriate water quality standards. No long-term impacts on water quality from rehabilitation activities are anticipated. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Waters of the U.S./Wetlands Clean Water Act – Sections 401 (State Administered) and 404 (Federally Administered) and EO 11990: Existing Conditions: There are 121.98 acres of wetlands located within the affected environment of the proposed action. The Cherrystone Lake shoreline, inflows, and outflow were visually surveyed in May 2017 for wetlands. Palustrine emergent wetlands comprise a total of 18.7 acres which include the shorelines and the two inflows of the lake. The 102.7 surface acres of the lake are open water wetlands. Approximately 0.58 acres of scrub/shrub wetlands were identified adjacent downstream of the embankment. No other wetlands were identified in the affected environment. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The reservoir will be temporarily drained to allow construction of the recommended alternative. The construction period is expected to be approximately one year. The open water wetlands and the fringe wetlands associated with the lake will be temporarily impacted during this time. There will be a permanent loss of 0.20 acres and temporary impacts to 0.33 acres of scrub/shrub wetlands downstream of the embankment due to the construction of the stability berm and toe drains for which compensatory mitigation will be required. Because there would be unavoidable wetland impacts, a Section 401 Virginia State Water Quality Certification would be required prior to application for a Section 404 Permit. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 59 Clean Water Act – Sections 402 (State Administered) (Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities): Existing Conditions: All areas of the land-based dam features and surrounds are maintained in vegetative cover. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Since land disturbance will exceed one acre, a Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit (VSMP) (i.e. construction general permit) would be required. With the required erosion and sediment control measures in place, there should be minimal impacts on water quality during construction. Any water releases from the project area are expected to meet the appropriate water quality standards. No long-term impacts on water quality from rehabilitation activities are anticipated. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Existing Conditions: The Cherrystone Creek floodplain is managed by both Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham. Each locality has a local floodplain ordinance, which imposes zoning restrictions within the flood zones that is consistent with FEMA and state regulations. Both the Town of Chatham and Pittsylvania County participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Chatham joined in February 1979, and Pittsylvania County joined in November 1980. They are both in good standing in the program. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Rehabilitation of the Cherrystone Lake dam will be done in accordance with all necessary requirements and restrictions. The existing level of flood protection will be maintained. Existing downstream floodplain management zoning restrictions will not be changed. The Sponsors will restrict future development, structures, and/or buildings upstream of the dam below elevation 682.0, which is the crest of the auxiliary spillway. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). AIR Applicable State and Local Air Quality Regulations Existing Conditions: According to DEQ, Pittsylvania County is within an attainment area for all criteria pollutants. Air quality in the project area is satisfactory and below the Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): During the rehabilitation of the dam, particulate matter will increase during construction activities. A mobile concrete batch plant will be used that will generate dust. Also, open burning of vegetative debris usually takes place during construction. Required permits will be obtained by the contractor. Air pollution abatement actions will mitigate any potential temporary air quality concerns during construction, and the proposed work is not expected to violate any federal, state, or local air quality standards. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 60 Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). ANIMALS AND PLANTS Endangered and Threatened Species and Natural Areas Existing Conditions: While the Federally Endangered Roanoke logperch was not identified in the USFWS IPaC database, it was identified in the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service database presumably because it uses a larger default search area. The Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), a Federally Threatened species, was identified in the USFWS IPaC database as potentially present. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Regarding potential impacts to the Federally Endangered Roanoke logperch, appropriate resource specialists were contacted regarding potential presence of that species. Follow-up efforts did not identify further concerns. As for the NLEB, the NRCS followed up with a search of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ (VDGIF) on-line NLEB Winter Habitat and Roost Tree ARC GIS System, http://dgif-virginia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=32ea4ee4935942c092e41ddcd19e5ec5. Using the search tool NRCS found no NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees for NLEB within Pittsylvania County. Therefore, as stated in the Final 4(d) rule on the NLEB, since no “known” maternity roost trees or hibernacula have been designated within a ¼ mile radius of the proposed project, any incidental take that may result from the project is exempted by the 4(d) rule and no further action is necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act prohibitions to protect the NLEB. Based on the most current data and consultation with species experts, NRCS has made a “no effect” determination on impacts to both species resulting from the rehabilitation of the dam. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Migratory Birds Existing Conditions: Cherrystone Lake could potentially be utilized by several species of migratory birds for feeding, nesting, or resting. No bald eagle or osprey nests are located within a quarter mile of the project area. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Since the lake will be drained during construction, it will be temporarily unavailable to migratory birds. There are similarly-sized bodies of water throughout the region available for migratory bird use. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Bald Eagles Existing Conditions: There is existing bald eagle habitat present in the project area. However, there are no known bald eagle nests within 35 miles of the site. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 61 No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): No impacts to bald eagles are expected by project action. Prior to beginning construction, a field survey will be conducted to verify no nests exists within the project area. Should bald eagle nests be found, all applicable restrictions will be implemented. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Invasive Species Existing Conditions: See Appendix B-5 for a map of known invasive plant species in the area. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): During construction, measures will be taken to avoid the spread or introduction of invasive species. All disturbed areas will be vegetated with non-invasive species. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Riparian Areas Existing Conditions: There are riparian areas around the reservoir and along Cherrystone Creek. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): There will be no long-term change to the riparian areas around the reservoir. The existing principal spillway pipe will be extended downstream 21 feet to allow construction of the downstream stability berm and the toe drains. The existing stilling basin will be removed. The principal spillway pipe will outlet into the RCC stilling basin. The construction of the new culvert at Hodnetts Mill Road will be done from the existing road surface with no riparian impacts anticipated. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Fish and Wildlife Existing Conditions: Cherrystone Lake has crappie, channel catfish, largemouth bass, and sunfish. This reservoir is not open for public use. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The reservoir will be completely drained during rehabilitation and the fish population will be lost. The fishery is expected to fully recover in a few years due to natural reestablishment or restocking. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 62 HUMANS Local and Regional Economy Existing Conditions: Residents around the reservoir utilize it for recreation. The roads used for commuting to work sites contribute to the local economy. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): There would be a temporary positive effect on the local economy during construction. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Potable Water Supply and Regional Water Management Plans Existing Conditions: The water from the Cherrystone Creek reservoir is included in the West Piedmont Planning District’s Regional Water Supply Plan. The primary purposes of the reservoir are for flood protection and water supply storage. The water supply intake is about 3 miles below the dam and raw water is drawn directly from Cherrystone Creek. If additional water is needed, the gates on the riser are opened to increase the flow in the creek. These water withdrawals are currently much less than the permitted volume. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): There will be a temporary loss of the water supply storage from Cherrystone Lake. The base flow will be conveyed around the dam and will continue to supply Cherrystone Creek. Sponsors recently installed a water supply intake on the Roaring Fork reservoir to supplement the base flow of Cherrystone Creek as needed. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Public Health and Safety Existing Conditions: The existing vegetated earth auxiliary spillway does not have the capacity or integrity necessary to withstand the Probable Maximum Precipitation event. A breach of the auxiliary spillway could cause a release of the water and sediment stored behind the dam. Overtopping the dam could cause the dam to erode and collapse. Approximately 150 people are at risk for loss of life. The water treatment plant and 15 additional structures are in the breach zone of this dam, but none are in the regulatory 500-year floodplain. Nine roads would be affected by a breach. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Under this alternative, the dam would be structurally rehabilitated using current design and safety criteria to provide continued flood protection for 50 years after the rehabilitation project is complete. The downstream flooding level would be the same as it is presently. The threat to loss of life from failure of the dam would be greatly reduced. Access to the site will be restricted during construction. When the culvert at Hodnetts Mill Road is replaced, the road will be temporarily closed or restricted. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 63 Recreation Existing Conditions: Cherrystone Lake is not open for public use. Residents and their guests utilize the reservoir for swimming, boating and fishing. It is described by local landowners as an excellent fishery with crappie, channel catfish, largemouth bass, and sunfish. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The reservoir will be completely drained for about one year to allow rehabilitation of the dam. Boating and fishing opportunities will be lost during the construction period. The lake will be filled following construction and the fishery is expected to fully recover. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Cultural Resources Existing Conditions: Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 is located within the direct Impact Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the undertaking while Hodnetts Mill Ruins is in the indirect APE (viewshed). Both Hodnetts Mill ruins (construction date unknown) and Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 (1968) are eligible for National Register consideration due to their age (50+ years old). No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The NRCS completed a National Register eligibility evaluation recommending the 50-year-old Cherrystone Dam No. 1 “not eligible” for the NRHP due to a lack of historic or architectural significance and integrity, per the NRHP eligibility evaluation criteria. Since the proposed Hodnetts Mill culvert replacement is located within the indirect APE (viewshed) of the Hodnetts Mill Ruins and there are no potential direct impacts to it, the NRCS assumes the resource to be “eligible” and recommended a determination of “No Adverse Effect” from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Environmental Justice Existing Conditions: There is an estimated population of 150 people in the breach zone below the dam. The presence or absence of environmental justice groups within the watershed was assessed using EPA’s EJSCREEN tool. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Rehabilitation of the dam will have positive economic and social effects across all residents within the floodplain and above the dam. There will be no disparate treatment. Since vehicle operators also are significant beneficiaries of the proposed rehabilitation, it is reasonable to conclude that protection of the roads and bridges will benefit all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups within the watershed and below the dam. Avoiding a dam breach will directly benefit all residents and taxpayers in general within Pittsylvania County, the Town of Chatham, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. There are no known disparate impacts from the rehabilitation project. It was explained to residents that rehabilitation of the dam would not enhance their downstream flood protection, but simply 7.d.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 64 maintain the designed level of flood protection while reducing the risk to life and property that might occur from a dam breach. Approximately 150 people are within the breach inundation zone and would benefit directly from the rehabilitation of the dam. There are indirect benefits for the estimated 33 more people who live upstream of the dam and use the area around the reservoir for recreation during the year. There would also be downstream benefits to the occupants of thousands of vehicles/day. This is primarily those people affected by impacts to the roads and bridges and includes others who would lose access to emergency services or would be cut off from their residences or jobs. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Land Use Changes Existing Conditions: The existing auxiliary spillway is 135 feet wide and is in permanent grass vegetation that is currently being grazed by livestock. Homes around the lake were built without regard to the elevation of the auxiliary spillway crest. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The new auxiliary spillway will be installed over the dam. The existing auxiliary spillway will be blocked by an earthen berm. The existing auxiliary spillway area may be utilized for grazing or haying in the future, as needed. Restrictions will be put into place to prevent future development below the crest of the auxiliary spillway. Approximately 0.2 acres of wetland downstream of the dam will be permanently impacted. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). CUMULATIVE EFFECTS NRCS constructed one flood control dam and one multi-purpose (flood control and water supply) dam in this watershed; Roaring Fork Lake is the single purpose dam and Cherrystone Lake is the multi-purpose dam. Roaring Fork Lake Dam and Cherrystone Lake Dam are currently operating under conditional certificates due to a need for rehabilitation. The No Federal Action alternative for Cherrystone Lake calls for the Sponsors to rehabilitate the dam. The proposed rehabilitation alternative would have the same effect on the environment as the No Federal Action alternative. The cumulative effects of these projects on the principal resources of concern, along with the social and economic effects, are to maintain the existing social, economic, and environmental conditions of the community. The cumulative effects of rehabilitating Cherrystone Lake would have the same results. In both the selected plan and the rehabilitation by the local Sponsors, the two existing dams in the watershed stay in place, the same level of water supply storage and flood protection is provided, and the existing emergency action plan remains in force. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 65 RISK AND UNCERTAINTY Assessments, considerations, and calculations in this plan are based on a 52-year period of analysis. Associated monetary flooding impacts on downstream houses and businesses were based on the National Flood Insurance Program’s Actuarial Rate Review. National averages were used to identify the value of potential damages. Actual damages occurring from each storm event could realistically be higher or lower, depending on soil moisture conditions at the time of a given event, associated debris flows, future development, and other factors such as changes in precipitation from various storm events. Although potential climatic changes are not expected to alter calculation of the PMP events, they could increase the occurrence of low frequency, high intensity storm events and associated flood damages. The Sponsors procured easements for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam and the storage of water prior to original construction. None of the easements referred to a specific elevation for the crest of the auxiliary spillway or the top of the dam. The Sponsors recognize that the dam is designed to detain floodwaters and that structures located below the top of dam are at risk for potential flood damage during major storm events. The Sponsors will floodproof the three homes currently below the auxiliary spillway crest and restrict future development below the elevation of the crest of the auxiliary spillway. The Sponsors accept the risk of flood damages that would occur in events between the crest of the auxiliary spillway elevation and the elevation of the top of the dam. The projected sediment life of the lake is 94 years. This information is based on multiple sediment surveys that were conducted throughout the life of the dam. Very large storm events, deforestation by fire, or increased construction of residential sites could cause an increased rate of erosion, sedimentation and deposition. There are no known plans for land use changes in this watershed that would affect the rate of sediment deposition in the reservoir. The limiting factor for the expected useful life of the Future with Federal Assistance Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is based on the remaining expected life of the principal spillway pipe and associated components. Thus a 52-year period of analysis was used for this structure. The objective of this project is to meet applicable NRCS and Virginia safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam. From a financing and administrative standpoint, the Sponsors have committed to NRCS that they are able to fund the required 35% of the total project costs to complete installation of the preferred alternative and can perform the required maintenance on the upgraded structure for 50 years after construction. There will be no damage to the RCC auxiliary spillway during flow events. The estimates do not include any costs for offsite damages which may occur during an auxiliary spillway flow event. Routine maintenance is not included in these amounts. This project plan assumes that a flow event has about 0.5% chance of occurring in a given year. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 66 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The sponsoring organizations are the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania SWCD and Pittsylvania County. The Town of Chatham has taken the lead as the owner and operator of Cherrystone Lake. The Town received their first Conditional Operation and Maintenance Certificate to operate and maintain the dam from the Virginia Division of Dam Safety in 2008 when the hazard class was changed from significant potential to high potential. The certificate was issued because of the capacity of the auxiliary spillway is insufficient to contain the volume of water associated with the PMP event. Local, state and federal support for the rehabilitation of the Cherrystone Lake Dam has been strong. Input and involvement of the public has been solicited throughout the planning of the project. At the initiation of the planning process, many meetings were held with representatives of the Sponsors to ascertain their interest and concerns regarding the dam. A Public Participation Plan was developed and approved for the project and has been followed during the planning process. The Sponsors have worked closely with the local landowners and residents to provide information on the planning activities and to solicit their input on the pertinent issues to be considered during planning. The Sponsors worked to provide all residents, including minorities, with information on the planning effort and intended works of improvement. A scoping meeting was held on June 9, 2016, in the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia, to identify issues of economic, environmental, cultural, and social concerns in the watershed. Input was provided by local, regional, state and federal agencies at the meeting or through letters and emails to NRCS. There were 18 people in attendance. Agencies and organizations attending or providing input include the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania SWCD, Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the NRCS. The first public meeting for Cherrystone Lake was held in the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia, on June 9, 2016. Local, state and federal perspectives on the rehabilitation needs of the Cherrystone Lake Dam were provided. Attendees were informed of the dam rehabilitation program and potential alternative solutions to bring the dam into compliance with current dam safety and design criteria. Meeting participants provided input on their issues and concerns to be considered during the planning process. A fact sheet was distributed which addressed frequently asked questions regarding rehabilitation of the dam. There were 33 people in attendance. Agencies and organizations attending or providing input include the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania SWCD, Dewberry Engineering Firm, and the NRCS. A workshop meeting was held on March 10, 2017 in Chatham with 11 people attending. The discussion centered on options to secure needed federal funding and nonfederal matching funds for the design and construction of the Cherrystone Creek dam rehabilitation projects. Attendees included Town of Chatham officials and employees, Pittsylvania County employees, landowners, a representative from State Delegate Les Adams, and NRCS employees. A workshop meeting was held on January 29, 2018 in Chatham with 20 people attending. Information provided to meeting attendees included a summary of the current situation of the dam, planning efforts to date, the various alternatives considered during planning, and a detailed 7.d.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 67 explanation of the recommended alternative for dam rehabilitation. The audience included Town officials and employees, County employees, SWCD employees, Dewberry Engineering Firm, and NRCS employees. A second public meeting was held on February 15, 2018 in the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia. A summary of the findings, landrights issues, alternatives considered, and the preferred alternative were presented. At that time, the preferred alternative was an RCC-cutoff wall in the existing auxiliary spillway. A project fact sheet and a multi-page frequently asked questions document were distributed at the meeting. There were 42 people in attendance. Agencies and organizations attending or providing input include the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania SWCD, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management, Dewberry Engineering Firm, and the NRCS. A Draft Plan was distributed for interagency and public review on May 29, 2018. The distribution list of agencies and organizations is included on pages 107 and 108 of this Plan-EA. Copies of the document were placed in local libraries and news articles were placed in local newspapers to solicit comments from the public during the comment period. After the interagency and public review period, comments received on the draft were incorporated into the Final Plan. Letters of comments received on the draft plan and NRCS responses to the comments are included in Appendix A. A workshop meeting was held on July 11, 2018 in Chatham with 13 people attending. Information provided to meeting attendees included a summary of the status of the planning for the dam, a review of existing easements and landrights documents, the need for a 4-month no-cost time extension on the performance period of the agreements, and a proposed schedule for completion of the Plan-EA. The audience included Town employees, County employees, SWCD employees, Town attorney, County attorney, and NRCS employees. Another workgroup meeting was held by teleconference on October 18, 2018 with 13 people attending. The audience included Town employees, County employees, SWCD employees and Board members, and NRCS employees. The primary topic under discussion was the change in the recommended alternative from an RCC cutoff wall in the existing auxiliary spillway to an RCC chute spillway over the dam. Since this change will result in a noticeable change in the visual appearance of the dam and a major cost increase, a third public meeting was scheduled for January 2019. A 2-month no-cost time extension was requested to allow for the additional public participation. A revised Draft Plan was distributed for public review on January 7, 2018. Because the change to the recommended alternative had no increase in the impact area and no anticipated difference in the environmental consequences, the revised Draft Plan was not sent for additional interagency review. Copies of the document were placed in local libraries and news articles were placed in local newspapers to solicit comments from the public during the comment period. No additional comments were received on the revised Draft Plan. A third public meeting was held on January 10, 2019, at the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia. There were 39 people in attendance. Participants were informed of the change in the recommended alternative and associated cost increases. Agencies and organizations attending or providing input include the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania SWCD, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management, and the NRCS. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 68 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE FOR PLAN SELECTION The selected plan is to rehabilitate the dam to meet current NRCS and Virginia safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam. The selected plan meets the identified purposes and needs for the project and significantly reduces the potential risk to human life. The project Sponsors, residents, and state and local government agencies all prefer the selected plan because it: • Reduces the threat to loss of life to approximately 150 people that live, work and play in the 16 structures or utilize the four major roads and five secondary roads within the breach inundation zone. • Provides protection for 6,940 vehicles per day that utilize the nine roads below the dam. • Maintains the existing water supply storage that services 952 taps, supplying about 1,300 town people and outlying areas, plus 1,000 prisoners at Green Rock Prison. • Continues onsite benefits to incidental recreational users who mainly live around the reservoir. • Reduces the threat of loss of emergency service for a significant number of residences and several businesses. • Provides downstream flood protection for the people living in the area, as well as those working, recreating, or traversing within the downstream floodplains, for an additional 50 years. • Eliminates the liability associated with continuing to operate a non-compliant dam. • Maintains existing stream habitat downstream of the dam. • Retains the existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat around the lake. • Leverages federal resources to install the planned works of improvement. The preferred alternative meets the Sponsors’ objectives of bringing this dam into compliance with current dam design and safety criteria, maintaining the existing water supply, maintaining the existing level of flood protection for downstream properties, and addressing resource concerns identified by the public. The selected plan is the NED Alternative. The plan reasonably meets the following four criteria: completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. NRCS and the Sponsors agree on the selected plan. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE The selected plan of action for the dam is to: • Install a roller-compacted concrete chute with a bottom width of 165’ over the top of the dam. • Install an earthen berm across the existing auxiliary spillway. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 69 • Increase the stability of the upstream embankment by flattening the slope to 3:1 and installing a 24-foot-wide berm. • Increase the top width of the dam to 20 feet. • Replace the concrete riser with a new riser at the toe of the new upstream stability berm. Increase the footer size to meet seismic criteria. The principal spillway pipe will be extended about 29 feet to the new riser. • Increase the stability of the downstream embankment by installing a 24-foot-wide earthen berm along the toe of the dam. • Extend the principal spillway pipe downstream by approximately 21 feet. Remove the existing concrete impact basin. Outlet the principal spillway pipe into the RCC stilling basin. • Install new toe drains with plastic pipe. • Remove the 72-inch diameter culvert on Cherrystone Creek at Hodnetts Mill Road and replace it with a bottomless box culvert. (Note – the culvert will be replaced by the Sponsors using a separate contract from the dam rehabilitation construction contract. The costs of the culvert replacement are shown as landrights costs and are eligible as part of the total project costs). • Pittsylvania County will prohibit future construction of habitable dwellings upstream from the dam below the crest of the auxiliary spillway elevation of 682.0. After the implementation of these planned works of improvement, Cherrystone Lake will meet all current NRCS and Virginia Division of Dam Safety performance standards. Detailed structural data for the proposed rehabilitated dam can be found in Table 3. EASEMENTS AND LANDRIGHTS Landrights for the structure currently exist for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam and the storage of water based on the original easements procured for the project. The elevation of the crest of the auxiliary spillway and the top of dam will not change for implementation of the recommended alternative. Additional landrights will not be procured because the Sponsors accept the risk associated with any flood flows that may occur between the elevation of the auxiliary spillway crest and the elevation of the top of dam. The seven homes that have a point of water entry between the top of dam elevation and the crest of the auxiliary spillway are at risk for flood damages during auxiliary spillway flow events. Two of these homes will have flooding in the basement at events lower than the 500-year event and one home has a first-floor elevation 0.1 foot above the 500-year event. The other four houses with first floor elevations below the top of the dam have first floor elevations that are four or more feet higher than the 500-year flood level. Before financial assistance is made available to the Sponsors for construction of the dam rehabilitation project, the three houses that are located below the elevation of the crest of the auxiliary spillway will be demolished, relocated, raised, floodproofed, or protected by a floodwall. The Sponsors have estimated that cost at $253,800 for the three properties. The Sponsors will be responsible for the replacement of the Hodnetts Mill Road culvert in a separate contract from the dam rehabilitation contract. The estimated cost for the culvert replacement is $257,800 and is 7.d.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 70 considered a landrights cost. Pittsylvania County will prohibit future construction of habitable dwellings upstream from the dam below the crest of the auxiliary spillway as a condition of securing federal funds for construction. MITIGATION During construction, site mitigation measures will include erosion and sediment control, seeding of denuded areas, dust control, and other practices identified during the design process. Mitigation will be required for the 0.20 acres of scrub/shrub wetlands below the embankment that are lost due to construction of the stability berm, RCC chute, and toe drains. There is a wetland mitigation bank in Pittsylvania County with available credits. PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE Prior to construction, the Sponsors will be responsible for obtaining an alteration permit from the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board, and, as needed, a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, a subaqueous lands permit from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and any other required permits. During construction, the successful contractor is required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and acquire any applicable air quality and erosion and sediment control permits. The construction general permit would require the operator to implement a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPP). The SWPP would outline the steps that an operator must take to comply with the permit, including water quality and quantity requirements to reduce pollutants in the stormwater runoff from the construction site. The SWPP also specifies all potential pollutant sources that could enter stormwater leaving the construction site and covers methods used to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff during and after construction. Prior to construction, the NRCS will verify that no Bald eagle nests or known NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees are located within the project area. If cultural resources are discovered during installation, work will cease, and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. Appropriate investigations procedures will be initiated. The Sponsors will be responsible for obtaining a regular O&M Certificate from the Virginia Division of Dam Safety upon completion of the project. COSTS As indicated in Table 2, the total installation cost of the selected plan is $12,943,300. Of this amount, PL-83-566 funds will bear $8,859,000 and nonfederal funds will bear $4,084,300. Table 2 shows details of the costs and cost-share amounts by category. Total annualized costs are shown in Table 4 along with the estimated costs for operation and maintenance. Table 5 displays the average annual flood damage reduction benefits by flood damage categories, and Table 6 displays a comparison of annual costs and benefits. A 2018 price base was used and amortized at 2.875 percent interest for the 52-year period of analysis (including a design and installation period of two years and an expected useful life of 50 years). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 71 The cost projections for the proposed rehabilitation measures are estimated costs only for planning. The fact that these costs are included in this plan does not infer that they are final costs. Detailed structural designs and construction cost estimates will be prepared prior to contracting for the work to be performed. Final construction costs will be those costs incurred by the contractor performing the work, including the cost of any necessary contract modifications. INSTALLATION AND FINANCING The project is planned for installation in about 12 months. During construction, equipment will not be allowed to operate when conditions are such that soil erosion and water, air, and noise pollution cannot be satisfactorily controlled. NRCS will assist the Sponsors with the Cherrystone Lake rehabilitation project. NRCS will be responsible for the following: • Execute a project agreement with the Sponsors before either party initiates work involving funds of the other party. Such agreements set forth in detail the financial and working arrangements and other conditions that are applicable to the specific works of improvement. • Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Sponsors to provide a framework within which cost-share funds are accredited. • Execute an updated Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the Sponsors that extends the O&M responsibilities for another 50 years following construction. This agreement will be based on the NRCS National Operation and Maintenance Manual. • Provide financial assistance equal to 65% of total eligible project costs, not to exceed 100% of actual construction costs. • Verify that a current Emergency Action Plan is developed before construction is initiated. • Provide consultative engineering support, technical assistance, and approval during the design and construction of the project. • Certify completion of all installed measures. The Sponsors will be responsible for the following: • Secure all needed environmental permits, easements, and rights for the installation, operation and maintenance of the rehabilitated structure. • Prepare an updated Emergency Action Plan for the dam prior to the initiation of construction. • Execute an updated Operation and Maintenance Agreement with NRCS for the dam. This agreement will be based on the NRCS National Operation and Maintenance Manual. • Provide engineering services for the design, construction, and certification of the project. • Provide local administrative and contract services necessary for the installation of the project. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 72 • Replace the existing culvert on Hodnetts Mill road in a separate contract from the dam rehabilitation construction contract. • Provide nonfederal funds for cost-sharing of the project at a rate equal to, or greater than, 35% of the total eligible project costs. • Acquire a regular Operation and Maintenance certificate from the Virginia Division of Dam Safety upon completion of the planned measures. • Participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs. • Enforce all associated easements and rights-of-way for the safe operation of the dam. • Prohibit future construction of habitable dwellings upstream from the dam below the crest of the auxiliary spillway elevation of 682.0. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT Measures installed as part of this plan, and previously installed measures, will be operated and maintained by the Town of Chatham with technical assistance from federal, state, and local agencies in accordance with their delegated authority. A new Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreement will be developed for Cherrystone Lake and will be executed prior to construction of the project. The term of the new O&M agreement will be for 50 years following the completion of rehabilitation. The agreement will specify responsibilities of the Sponsors and include detailed provisions for retention, use, and disposal of property acquired or improved with PL 83-566 cost sharing. Provisions will be made for free access of district, state, and federal representatives to inspect all structural measures and their appurtenances at any time. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation (This page intentionally left blank.) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 74 Table 1 - Estimated Installation Cost Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, Virginia (Dollars) Installation Cost Items Estimated Costs Structural measures to rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1: PL-83-566 Funds1 Other Funds Total $8,859,000 $4,084,300 $12,943,300 Total Project: $8,859,000 $4,084,300 $12,943,300 Price base: November 2018 Prepared: November 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2 - Estimated Cost Distribution – Structural Measures Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, Virginia (Dollars) Installation Cost Items Installation Cost: PL-83-566 Funds2 Installation Cost: Other Funds3 Total Project Cost4 Construction Costs Engineering Technical Assistance Costs Project Admin. Costs Total PL-83-566 Costs Construction Costs Engineering Costs Real Property Landrights Permits Project Admin. Costs Total Other Funds Rehab. Dam No. 1: $7,626,000 $1,208,000 $25,000 $8,859,000 $3,516,200 $18,500 $511,600 $3,000 $35,000 $4,084,300 $12,943,300 Totals: $7,626,000 $1,208,000 $25,000 $8,859,000 $3,516,200 $18,500 $511,600 $3,000 $35,000 $4,084,300 $12,943,300 Price base: November 2018 Prepared: November 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Paid by the USDA/NRCS – the Federal agency responsible for assisting in installation of improvements. 2 65% of total eligible project cost (The actual federal cost/share excludes technical assistance and permit costs and cannot exceed 100% of the construction cost). 3 35% of total eligible project cost. Per NRCS policy, $25,000 in local sponsor planning costs were excluded from Tables 1 and 2. These sponsor costs are included in the calculation of cost/share as shown in the watershed agreement. 4 As per the NRCS National Watershed Manual, Part 508.44, the actual federal cost/share amount will be calculated based on a total eligible project cost that excludes federal technical assistance costs, water, mineral and other resource rights, and all federal, state and local permits. However, for the purposes of planning, all of these costs are included in the benefit/cost analysis and are displayed as part of the public record of this analysis. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- 75 Table 3 – Structural Data for Rehabilitated Dam Cherrystone Lake – Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 Pittsylvania County, Virginia Item Unit Structure Data Class of structure High Seismic zone 2 Total drainage area mi2 14.7 Runoff curve no. (1-day) (AMC II) 63 Time of concentration (Tc); uncontrolled drainage area only hours 5.5 Elevation top dam 1/ feet 693.9 Elevation crest auxiliary spillway feet 682.0 Elevation crest high stage inlet feet 670.8 Elevation crest low stage inlet feet 661.7 Auxiliary spillway type Structural Auxiliary spillway bottom width feet 165 Auxiliary spillway exit slope percent 33 Maximum height of dam feet 55 Volume of fill yd3 213,000 Total capacity 2/ acre-feet 4,494 Sediment submerged acre-feet 194 Sediment aerated acre-feet 140 Beneficial use (M&I water) acre-feet 850 Floodwater retarding acre-feet 3,310 Between high and low stage acre-feet 1,161 Surface area Sediment pool acres 53 Beneficial use pool (M&I water) acres 101.48 Floodwater retarding pool 2/ acres 146.5 Principal spillway design Rainfall volume (1-day) inches 8.38 Rainfall volume (10-day) inches 12.3 Runoff volume (10-day) inches 5.0 Capacity of low stage (max.) ft3/sec 82 Capacity of high stage (max.) ft3/sec 298 Dimensions of conduit inches 42 Type of conduit circular RCP Frequency of operation-auxiliary spillway percent chance 0.5-1.0 7.d.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 76 Item Unit Structure Data Auxiliary spillway hydrograph Rainfall volume inches 9.52 Runoff volume inches 4.90 Storm duration hours 6 Velocity of flow (Ve) feet/sec. 11.7 Max. reservoir water surface elev. feet 685.73 Freeboard hydrograph Rainfall volume inches 21.6 Runoff volume inches 15.86 Storm duration hours 6 Max. reservoir water surface elev. feet 693.5 Capacity equivalents Sediment volume inches 0.25 Floodwater retarding volume inches 4.22 Beneficial volume (M&I water) inches 1.08 1/ All elevations are recorded in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88). 2/ Crest of auxiliary spillway. Based on 2015 sediment survey. Table 4 - Average Annual National Economic Development (NED) Costs Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, Virginia (Dollars5) Average Annual Equivalent Cost Average Annual Equivalent O&M Costs Total Average Annual Equivalent Cost Rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 $442,800 $5,300 $448,100 Totals: $442,800 $5,300 $448,100 Price base: November 2018 Prepared: November 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 The average annual equivalents are based on a 2.875% discount rate and a 52-year period of analysis (2 years for project design/installation and 50 years of expected useful life). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 77 Table 5 - Estimated Average Annual Flood Damage Reduction Benefits Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, Virginia (Dollars) Flood Damage Category Estimated Average Annual Equivalent Damages Damage Reduction Benefits Without Federal Project With Federal Project Average Annual Equivalents Crops and Pasture $219,500 $219,500 $0 Other Agricultural $2,280 $2,280 $0 Roads and Bridges $56,350 $56,350 $0 Developed (structures and content damages) $86,800 $86,800 $0 Erosion – floodplain scour $1,370 $1,370 $0 Sediment – overbank deposition 27,720 $27,720 $0 Other (miscellaneous indirect damages) $54,080 $54,080 $0 Totals: $448,100 $448,100 $0 Price base: November 2018 Prepared: November 2018 Table 6 - Comparison of National Economic Development (NED) Benefits and Costs Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1, Virginia (Dollars) Evaluation Unit Average Annual Equivalent Benefits6 Costs Net Change Benefit/ Cost Ratios Damage Reduction Benefits Total Average Annual Equivalent Benefits7 Average Annual Equivalent Costs Net Average Annual Equivalent Benefits Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 $448,100 $448,100 $448,100 $0 1.0 to 1.0 Totals: $448,100 $448,100 $448,100 $0 1.0 to 1.0 Price base: November 2018 Prepared: November 2018 6 The average annual equivalents are based on a 2.875% discount rate and a 52-year period of analysis (2 years for project design/installation and 50 years of expected useful life). 7 The costs and benefits of the Future With Project Plan are the same as those for the Future Without Project Plan. To maintain consistency with the display in Table 4, the costs associated with the No Action Alternative are tracked as a benefit of the Preferred Alternative. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 78 REFERENCES Census Bureau, 2010 Census, and 2010-2014 American Community Survey Projections, U.S. Department of Commerce. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Historic Resources, State Archaeological Site File, Richmond, VA. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Historic Resources, State Register of Historic Sites, Richmond, VA. Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. Dam Safety Impounding Structures Regulations, 4VAC50-20-10 et seq. Digital Representation of the 1993 Geologic Map of Virginia, Publication 174, 2003, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of Mineral Resources. Falvey Master Template Labyrinth Weir Excel Spreadsheet, based on Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs, Henry T. Falvey Geostudio Software for Geotechnical Analysis, 2012 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2015 Land Cover Data. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard, Number 402, Dams. NRCS National Engineering Handbook. NRCS National Engineering Manual. NRCS National Operation and Maintenance Manual. NRCS National Planning Procedures Handbook. NRCS Risk Evaluation Sheet, April 4, 2014. NRCS Soil Survey of Pittsylvania County, Virginia. NRCS Technical Release 60 – Earth Dam and Reservoirs, 2005. NRCS Technical Release 68 – Seismic Analysis of Risers, 1982. Amendment 1, 1992 and Amendment 2, 1993. NRCS Topographic Survey, 2014. NRCS Water Resources Site Analysis Computer Program (SITES). NRCS National Watershed Program Manual, 2014, as amended January 2015. NRCS National Watershed Program Handbook, 2014. NRCS Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Schnabel Engineering, Geology Report for Cherrystone Creek Dam 1, December 2015. Schnabel Engineering, Cherrystone Creek Dam 1 Inlet/Outlet Inspection Report, 2017. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 79 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Atlas 14. Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 2: The Ohio River Basin and Surrounding States, 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators, Engineering Nomograph No. 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Landmarks, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Registry of Natural Landmarks, Washington, DC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Environmental Conservation Online System, Information for Planning and Consultation: www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Wetland mapper website: www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. U.S. Water Resources Council. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, DC, March 10, 1983. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management. Probable Maximum Precipitation Study for Virginia and Associated PMP Evaluation Tools and Database. November 2015. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2015. Virginia’s Comprehensive Wildlife Action Plan. Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2016 305(b) Virginia Water Quality Assessment Report. Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2016 303(d) Report on Impaired Waters. Richmond, Virginia. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 80 REPORT PREPARERS The Cherrystone Creek Watershed Supplemental Plan and Environmental Assessment was prepared primarily by NRCS staff located in Richmond, Virginia; Verona, Virginia; and Morgantown, West Virginia; and staff from Schnabel Engineering. The document was reviewed and concurred in by state staff specialists having responsibility for engineering, resource conservation, soils, agronomy, biology, economics, geology, and contract administration. The in-house review was followed by a review by the NRCS National Water Management Center and then an interagency and public review. The table identifies and lists the experience and qualifications of those individuals who were directly responsible for providing significant input to the preparation of the Supplemental Plan-EA. Appreciation is extended to many other individuals, agencies and organizations for their input, assistance and consultation, without which this document would not have been possible. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 81 Name Present Title and Years in Current Position Education Previous Experience Other R. Wade Biddix Watershed Program Specialist (ACES) - 4 M.S. Public Administration B.S. Agriculture Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources - 13 yrs. Supervisory District Cons. – 1.5 yrs. Planning Coordinator – 10.5 yrs. Area Resource Conservationist – 2 yrs. District Conservationist – 4 yrs. Soil Conservationist – 4 yrs. Rebecca M. Evans Civil Engineering Technician - 8 B.S. Natural Resources Recreation Civil Engineering Technician – 2.5 yrs. Conservation Specialist – 2 yrs. David L. Faulkner Natural Resource Economist – 29 M.S. Ag. Economics B.S. Ag. Education Ag. Economist (SCS) - 2.5 yrs. Ag. Economist (U.S.A.I.D.) - 4.5 yrs. Ag. Teacher (Peace Corps) – 2 yrs. Fred M. Garst GIS Specialist – 25 B.S. Geology GIS/Soil Scientist - 25 yrs. Soil Conservation Technician - 7 yrs. Geologist (Private) – 4 yrs. Jeffray Jones State Biologist - 5 B.S. Natural Resources Management Ecologist - 24 yrs. Alica J. Ketchem Environmental Engineer - 25 B.S. Civil Engineering M.S. Agricultural Eng. Civil Engineer – 10 yrs. P.E. (VA) Kim Kroeger Geologist – 29 B.S. Soil Science B.S. Resource Management Geologist Trainee (SCS) – 1.6 years Soil Scientist (SCS) – 0.3 years County Soil Scientist – 2 years Mathew J. Lyons State Conservation Engineer- 16 B.S. Civil Engineering Civil Engineer – 12 yrs. P.E. (VA) Jeffrey D. McClure Geologist – 12.5 B.A. Geology B.A. Biology B.S. Geology NRCS Geologist – 14 yrs. Geologist (WV Dept. of Environmental Protection) - 10 yrs. Geologist (Private) – 8.5 yrs. CPG in VA and PA Dana Perkins Environmental Specialist – 3 B.S. Biology Environ. Program Specialist (FAA) – 9 yrs. Ecologist (U.S. Army) – 2 yrs. Environ. Scientist (Consultant) – 10 yrs. Tim Ridley Dam Safety Engineer – 1 B.S. Civil Engineering NRCS Hydraulic Engineer – 29 yrs. Consulting Engineer – 8 yrs. P.E. (PA and WV) PS (WV) Joseph M. Seybert Civil Engineer – 13 B.S. Civil Engineering Civil Engineer – 17 yrs. P.E. (WV) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- 82 Name Present Title and Years in Current Position Education Previous Experience Other Thomas Wachtel Geotechnical Engineer - 1 Ph.D. Civil Engineering M.S. Civil Engineering B.S. Civil Engineering A&E Consultants Jonathan Pittman, Schnabel Engineering Civil Engineer / Associate – 8 B.S. Civil Engineering Civil / Geotechnical Engineer – 16 yrs. P.E. in VA, NC and KY Charles Johnson, Schnabel Engineering Senior Structural Engineer – 2 B.S. Civil Engineering M.S. Civil Engineering Civil / Structural Engineer – 9 yrs. P.E. in CA, FL, NC and SC S.E. in CA, HI and IL John Gagnon, Schnabel Engineering Senior Staff Geologist – 3 B.S. Geology M.S. Geology Engineering Geologist – 5 yrs. P.G. in VA and NC 7.d.c Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- 83 DISTRIBUTION LIST Comments were requested on the Draft Supplemental Plan – EA from the following agencies and organizations. Response Received on Draft Supplemental Plan-EA Federal Agencies Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Philadelphia No U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lynchburg Field Office No U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Gloucester, Virginia Office No Federal Emergency Management Agency Philadelphia No U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Rural Development No No Virginia State Agencies Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Impact Review (State Clearinghouse) Yes Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Yes Virginia Marine Resources Commission Yes Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Yes Virginia Department of Historic Resources Yes Virginia Department of Forestry No Virginia Department of Transportation Yes 7.d.c Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 84 Response Received on Draft Supplemental Plan-EA Other Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts No Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District No Town of Chatham No West Piedmont Planning District Commission No Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors No Pittsylvania County Planning Department No Pittsylvania County Parks and Recreation Department No Pittsylvania County Service Authority No 7.d.c Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 85 (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation APPENDIX A LETTERS OF COMMENT AND NRCS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN – EA 7.d.c Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.c Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation APPENDIX B PROJECT MAPS 7.d.c Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation B-1 Figure B-1. General Watershed Location Map. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- B-2 Figure B-2. Cherrystone Lake Watershed Land Use Map. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation B-3 Figure B-3. Cherrystone Lake Dam No. 1 Watershed Soils Map. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation B-4 Figure B-4. Cherrystone Lake Dam - Soils of Statewide Importance. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation B-5 Figure B-5. Cherrystone Lake Invasive Species Map. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation B-6 Figure B-6. Area of Potential Effect for Preferred Alternative (Aerial View). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- APPENDIX C SUPPORT MAPS 7.d.c Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation C-1 Figure C-1. Preferred Alternative - RCC Chute Auxiliary Spillway over Top of Dam. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-2 Figure C-2. Preferred Alterative - Details of Embankment, Toe Drain, and Culvert. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-3 Figure C-3. Alternative 2 – Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir Over the Dam. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-4 Figure C-4. Sunny Day Breach Inundation Map. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-5 Figure C-7 – C21 – Special Flood Hazard Area Maps 7.d.c Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-1 7.d.c Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- APPENDIX D INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES REPORT 7.d.c Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.c Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-1 Investigations and Analyses Used in the Planning for Rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam Site No. 1 (Cherrystone Lake) Planning Engineering Background Cherrystone Creek stream originates in the western part of Pittsylvania County and flows generally east through the Town of Chatham (Town) and emptying into the Bannister River. The Cherrystone Creek Watershed is located west of the Town. A Watershed Plan was developed by the NRCS in 1965 and supplemented in 1976 to reduce flood flow in and around the Town and to provide water supply storage for the Town. Two watershed structures are in the Cherrystone Creek Watershed – Site 1 and 2A. Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A is also currently in planning for rehabilitation to meet current state dam safety requirements, maintain existing flood control and water supply storage. Purpose This document summarizes the investigations and analysis completed for the dam rehabilitation planning engineering of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1. This includes a summary and reference for the existing conditions, breach, deficiencies, alternatives studied and the selected rehabilitation alternative for this dam. The following documents state the assumptions, investigations, and analysis performed, and the conclusions developed: • Schnabel Engineering, Cherrystone Creek 1 Inlet/Outlet Inspection report, September 2017. • Topo Survey, NRCS 2014 • Risk Evaluation Sheet, April 4, 2014 • Breach Inundation Study, Hurt and Proffitt, Inc., November 2010 • Breach Maps, NRCS 2017 The basis for the planning engineering investigations and analysis are current NRCS criteria and standards, including the following: • National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, Hydrology • National Engineering Handbook, Part 628, Dams • Technical Release 60, Earth Dams and Reservoirs, July 2005 • NRCS Conservation Practice Standard Dam (Code 402) Baseline Survey: A ground run topographical survey performed by NRCS in 2014 was the basis for critical elevations and the design of rehabilitative measures. The NRCS Hydrology and Hydraulics Report includes the differences between the NGVD29 elevations contained in the as- built drawings and NAVD88 elevations. Existing Conditions and Deficiencies NRCS evaluated the existing condition of the dam and appurtenances with a field inspection on June 27, 2017. The dam and its appurtenances appear to be generally well kept, having minor 7.d.c Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-2 items of maintenance that are outstanding. Prior investigations include a topographic survey and a sediment survey by NRCS. A video inspection of the riser interior and exterior, the interior of the principal spillway pipe, and the interior of the toe drains was conducted on August 23, 2017 by Bander and Smith under contract with Schnabel Engineering. Divers videoed the underwater portions of the riser and piers. The riser exterior had no significant issues to report. The riser interior showed a minor construction joint leak at the first joint below pool elevation, about 24 inches deep. No issues were reported for the principal spillway pipe. The impact basin was found to be in overall good condition. A few concrete issues were noted. The seal between the basin and the principal spillway pipe had come out of place and was found on the floor of the basin. The interior impact wall has water scour erosion of the concrete paste, leaving concrete aggregate highly exposed. The left toe drain could not be inspected due to gravel in the pipe. The right toe drain was inspected for 12 feet. No sediment or gravel was noted. A geologic investigation was conducted by GSFW Engineering Joint Venture. The field drilling was completed between October 11 and October 27, 2016 by Red Dog Drilling. The drilling consisted of four holes in the embankment and five holes in the auxiliary spillway. Field tests and laboratory testing that are typical practice for dam analysis were conducted. Testing was supplemented by work done at the National Design, Construction, and Soil Mechanics Center. Headcut erodibility indices were provided for SITES auxiliary spillway stability and integrity analysis. Embankment seepage and slope stability analysis was conducted using the GeoStudio software suite. A typical section for analysis was prepared using as-built data and the results of the soil testing program. Slope stability analysis was performed in accordance with TR-60 for rapid drawdown, steady state seepage, and seismic factor of safety criteria. For rapid drawdown, the required factor of safety (FS) is 1.2; results of the slope analysis determined the existing FS to be 1.159. For downstream steady-state condition with pore pressure at the auxiliary spillway crest, the required FS is 1.5; the existing condition FS is 1.214. For the downstream steady-state with seismic forces, the required FS is 1.1; the existing condition FS is 1.257. In summary, the upstream and downstream slopes do not meet TR-60 safety factor criteria. Examining the top of dam with TR-60 criteria finds the top width of 17 feet to be insufficient. The minimum width is required to be 18.4 feet. For the purposes of constructability, the proposed top width is 20’. Soils analysis for filter and drainage found no issues of concern for the embankment. Each embankment zone is compatible with adjacent zones. Initial investigations include hydrologic analysis, spillway integrity analysis, and embankment and spillway capacity analysis. The SITES model was used to evaluate the capacity and integrity of the existing structure and the auxiliary spillway alternatives. Geotechnical information was taken from the as-built drawings and the original design folder (1966). Reservoir storage was developed using the current sediment survey. Crest elevations were taken from the current NRCS topo survey (NAVD 88) and the as-built drawings (NVD29 converted to NAVD 88). The 6-hour storm was found to be the critical duration for the Freeboard Hydrograph (FBH). The 6-hr storm was developed using the NRCS 6- 7.d.c Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-3 hour distribution and 6-hr Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) from Hydrometeorology Report No. 51, of 21.6 inches. Results show that Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 does not meet the 10-day drawdown requirement during the PSH events but does meet the requirements to resist auxiliary spillway erosion during the FBH events (stability). The dam does not meet NRCS integrity criteria for high hazard potential dams. In 2008, the dam did not meet Virginia Division of Dam Safety criteria for the auxiliary spillway capacity for a high hazard potential dam. However, the State determination was made using the higher PMP value in effect at the time. With the lower PMP values adopted in Virginia, the existing auxiliary spillway still does not meet the needed capacity for a high hazard potential dam. SITES runs for the recommended alternative show that the water surface elevation at the first crossing downstream of the dam will increase by 0.09 foot for the 500-year storm event. No change to the regulatory floodplain downstream is anticipated. There will also be no significant change in the floodpool upstream. There are ten houses located below the top of the dam. The three located below the crest of the auxiliary spillway will be removed or floodproofed. Of the remaining seven homes, none have a first-floor elevation below the elevation of the 500-year auxiliary spillway flow although two have basements below the elevation of the 500-year event. Life Span As of 2018, Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 is 50 years old. The remaining sediment life of the structure is about 94 years. The primary material components are the principal spillway riser, pipe, and toe drains. The CMP toe drains are close to failing and will be replaced as part of the rehabilitation. The riser and pipe are currently in good condition and are expected to last for another 50 years. The logic for determining the period of analysis is included in the Economics I&A section below. Reservoir Storage Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 was originally designed to detain future sediment, provide water supply, and provide flood storage. To determine the current reservoir storage, sediment surveys were completed by NRCS staff for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 in September 2015. The field survey was conducted in March 2015 using an aluminum fishing boat, electric trolling motor, and a Garmin GPSMAP541s Chartplotter. The unit recorded 2,586 GPS locations and water depths at the top of the sediment. This data was compared to the as-built information for the original bottom of the reservoir area to estimate the volume of sediment present. Aerated sediment volume was determined using GPS waypoints and soil profile investigations. The sediment survey was also used to determine the yearly sedimentation rate which is used to determine the required sediment storage for fifty to one-hundred years after the rehabilitation is complete. A detailed trip report is available in the file as part of the supporting documentation. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-4 Modes of Failure and Breach Study The potential impacts to downstream structures and people due to an instantaneous breach of the dam were evaluated to assist the economist with benefit estimates and to verify the hazard class of high. The Sponsors have current breach inundation zone maps for the dam that complies with the Virginia Impounding Structures Law and Regulations for high hazard potential dams. The Virginia Impounding Structures Regulations requires owners of high hazard potential dams to provide a dam breach inundation zone map with multiple zones represented to determine hazard classification and develop the Emergency Action Plan (EAP). The auxiliary spillway design flood for High Hazard Potential dams is the PMF, consistent with NRCS Freeboard Hydrograph criteria. The zones for a High Hazard Potential dam include: • a Sunny Day dam failure using the volume at the auxiliary spillway crest; • a spillway design flood (PMF) without a dam failure; and • a dam failure during the spillway design flood (PMF). The breach inundation report and maps are sealed by a Virginia professional engineer. The breach inundation zone analysis and maps were approved by the Virginia Division of Dam Safety in 2010. The Sponsors provided the hydrologic and hydraulic models to NRCS. The models and hydraulic data are consistent with NRCS policies and procedures for water surface modeling. The current Sponsor breach inundation zones and maps were used to identify the population at risk and the impacted structures. All the structures in the potential breach impact zone of Cherrystone Lake were identified using GIS information provided by the Town and Pittsylvania County. This was determined by overlaying the Sunny Day breach inundation zone and the Sponsor real estate data. This data includes current land ownership and description of associated improvements. This data includes single family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, businesses, commercial developments, recreational areas, and government infrastructure (roads, water supply, and water treatment). A risk evaluation of the existing structure was completed by NRCS in 2014 using the current Sponsor breach inundation study and maps, (Hurt & Proffitt, Incorporated, 2010). Within the Sunny Day breach inundation zone, the population at risk is 150. Falvey Master Template Labyrinth Weir Excel Spreadsheet This Excel spreadsheet sizes labyrinth weirs, estimates weir quantities, and provides a cost estimate for the weir given unit cost inputs. The spreadsheet also provides a rating curve for the proposed weir and a graphic layout of the labyrinth weir system. The spreadsheet is based on the work by Henry T. Falvey, a leading authority on the performance of labyrinth weirs. He has authored Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-5 Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators This manual is published by the DOI Bureau of Reclamation as Engineering Nomograph No. 25, authored by A. J. Peterka. It contains procedures for 10 types of stilling basins, including the SAF basins used in this analysis of alternatives. GeoStudio Software Suite for Geotechnical Analysis The Slope/W and Seep/W routines were used to model a typical section of the dam embankment to determine existing conditions of slope stability. The model was then used to determine remedial measures needed for compliance to TR-60 slope stability criteria. SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES FOR PLANNING ENGINEERING Land Cover – NASS 2015 The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data was used for Land Cover / Land Use in the Cherrystone Creek 1 Watershed. This data was also used for the Land Cover / Land Use in the CST 1 Sunny Day Breach Inundation Zone. The USDA, NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) is a raster, geo-referenced, crop-specific land cover data layer. The 2015 CDL has a ground resolution of 30 meters. The CDL is produced using satellite imagery from the Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS sensor and the Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) DEIMOS-1 and UK2 sensors collected during the current growing season. Some CDL states used additional satellite imagery and ancillary inputs to supplement and improve the classification. These additional sources can include the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) and the imperviousness and canopy data layers from the USGS National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011). Agricultural training and validation data are derived from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Common Land Unit Program. The most current version of the NLCD is used as non-agricultural training and validation data. Land Cover (supplemental) - NASS 2015 The NASS data was used to supplement/update the cropland information in the Cherrystone Creek 1 Watershed. The USDA, NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) is a raster, geo-referenced, crop-specific land cover data layer. The 2015 CDL has a ground resolution of 30 meters. The CDL is produced using satellite imagery from the Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS sensor and the Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) DEIMOS-1 and UK2 sensors collected during the current growing season. Some CDL states used additional satellite imagery and ancillary inputs to supplement and improve the classification. These additional sources can include the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) and the imperviousness and canopy data layers from the USGS National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011). Agricultural training and validation data are derived from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Common Land Unit Program. The most current version of the NLCD is used as non-agricultural training and validation data. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-6 Land Use Information Future Land Cover was developed by overlaying Map 12.3 contained in the Future Land Use Plan from the Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan, adopted September 1, 2015. The existing land cover was used for any land shown on the Future Land Use Plan to be in conservation/parks/open space, agricultural or rural land use. The existing land use was also used for any land already in an urban land use such as residential or commercial. The land use shown as developed on the Future Land Use Map was used for any land currently in open space, pasture, or woods. More detailed information is contained in the Report entitled Preliminary Engineering and Planning Study, Cherrystone Creek Watershed Dam No. 1, December 28, 2015 by Schnabel Engineering. SSURGO Soils This product was used to derive the Prime Farmland and Hydrologic Groups in the Cherrystone Creek Watershed. SSURGO datasets consist of map data, tabular data, and information about how the maps and tables were created. The extent of a SSURGO dataset is a soil survey area, which may consist of a single county, multiple counties, or parts of multiple counties. SSURGO map data can be viewed in the Web Soil Survey or downloaded in ESRI® Shapefile format. The coordinate systems are geographic. Attribute data can be downloaded in text format that can be imported into a Microsoft® Access® database. A more detailed description can be found at this URL- http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627. Prime Farmland The Prime Farmland layers was derived from the USDA NRCS - SSURGO data for Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The NRCS Soil Data Viewer version 6.2 was used, with ArcGIS 10.2. The attributes selected for this layer are under Farmland Classification. Hydrologic Soil Groups This layer was derived from the USDA NRCS - SSURGO data for Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The NRCS Soil Data Viewer version 6.2 was used, with ArcGIS 10.2. The attributes selected for this layer is under “Soil Qualities and Features” – Hydrologic Soil Groups. Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration; when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. National Hydrography Dataset (USGS) This layer was used in the Cherrystone Creek 1 dam rehabilitation study to depict Streams and Water Bodies. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and Watershed Boundary Dataset are used to portray surface water on The National Map. The NHD represents the drainage network with features such as rivers, streams, canals, lakes, ponds, coastline, dams, and stream gages. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-7 FEMA – DFIRM The digital Flood Insurance Rate Map is used to depict the base flood, 100-year floodplain zone in the Cherrystone Creek Watershed. The FIRMETTES for Cherrystone Lake are included in Appendix C. In Virginia, the localities are the zoning authorities. For the streams below Cherrystone Creek 1 dam, both Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham are the regulatory authorities for the base flood. The base flood depicted on all maps are FEMA Zone AE and Zone A. For the preferred rehabilitation alternative, the base flood will not change in the downstream channels. Sub-Watershed Boundaries These boundaries were derived by using the VGIN Digital Terrain Dataset. This data was converted to a Bare Earth Digital Elevation Model. Hydrologic analysis was used in ArcGIS 10.2 Spatial Analyst Tool to delineate the subwatershed. VGIN DTM (Digital Terrain Model) – Digital Elevation This data was used because there was no LiDAR coverage for Pittsylvania County during this study. The Digital Terrain model is a depiction of the topography for covered Virginia localities using photogrammetrically-derived mass points and breaklines collected or updated in 2011. This terrain dataset was built from masspoints and breaklines developed for the 2011 VBMP orthophotography project. The purpose of the digital terrain mode was orthorectification of the imagery. It is not hydro-enforced. The vertical accuracy of masspoints and breaklines is about 2.5 feet. This DTM was used to create a 3-meter Bare Earth Digital Elevation Model for analysis. This data is subject to the limitations of Virginia Code and the following disclaimer must be included with any map or documentation using these data: "Any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification, or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination." SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Economic Analysis The NRCS National Watershed Manual was used as a reference for the economic analysis along with two economic analysis guidance documents: “Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies (P&G), December 1983, and the “Economics Handbook, Part II for Water Resources”, USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service, July 1998. In addition, “Principles, Requirements and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources”, March 2013, will soon be officially approved for use within the NRCS. These guidance documents were used to evaluate potential flood damages and estimate project benefits and associated costs. P&G and PR&G were developed to define a consistent set of project formulation and evaluation instructions for all federal agencies that carry out water and related land resource implementation studies. These guidance documents direct how to evaluate 7.d.c Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-8 alternative project actions and determine whether benefits from the proposed actions exceed project costs. P&G, as well as PR&G, allow for abbreviated procedures commensurate with the planning and policy context to be used (P&G section 1.7.2 (a) (4) (ii) and PR&G section Chapter 2, 2.1B, pages 7-8), when more detailed analysis will not alter identification of the recommended National Economic Development alternative. In this case, the future without federal project and the future with federal project involve the same least-cost alternative with comparable scope, effects, benefits and costs. No net change in benefits occurs when comparing the two candidate plans to each other. Per use of abbreviated procedures allowed by P&G, PR&G and NRCS policy, avoidance of the local cost is claimed as the benefits of the federally-led dam rehabilitation. The federally assisted alternative as displayed credits local costs avoided (Total Adverse Annualized for the Future Without Federal Project scenario) as adverse beneficial effects (Total Beneficial Annualized) consistent with P&G 1.7.2(b)(3). Thus, although the average annual benefits of rehabilitation are $448,100, net benefits are zero because the total project cost is equal to the claimed benefits and the resulting B/C ratio is 1:1. In addition, one other overarching concern associated with dam rehabilitation analyses is the intent of the program to minimize threat to human life. Threat to human life is central to the dam rehabilitation program. Agency policy allows for use of the other social effects goal (account in P&G terms) to make the case for rehabilitating any given floodwater detention structure, even if the associated B/C ratio were less than 1:1. This is due to a priority placed on protecting lives. Also, trying to monetize the value of life, or in the case of dams, avoidance of loss of life, is fraught with subjective value judgements. Threat to human life can therefore be used to supersede purely economic considerations when deemed appropriate. Flood damages. Assessed values for all homes and other properties within the breach inundation zone were obtained from local government sources within the watershed and used to estimate damages from a possible catastrophic breach. Estimated flood damages were based on the results of the hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) simulation modeling indicating that a maximum peak discharge average depth of 5.9 feet would be experienced outside of the stream channel should a breach event occur. This assumed depth of flood water data was then used with water depth to damage functions developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to estimate structural damages. Content values were then estimated as a function of assessed property values. All estimated values and damages were assessed within a customized Excel template prepared for this purpose. Period of Analysis Determination. Fifty, 75 and 100 year expected useful lives were evaluated (52, 77 and 102-year periods of analysis including 1 year for design and 1 year for construction). A net present value analysis was conducted comparing the three alternative periods of analysis. Average annual values were also estimated. The added cost to replace the principal spillway riser and components (the trash rack and gate valves) were used to assess net benefits for the 75 and 100-year project investments. All costs of installation, operation and maintenance were based on 2018 prices. The costs associated with designing and implementing all structural measures were assumed to be implemented over the two-year period. The federal action with a 52-year period of analysis yielded the highest net benefits using the mandated 2.875% discount rate for all federal water resource projects for FY19 to discount and amortize the anticipated streams of costs and benefits. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-9 Cherrystone Creek Site 1 Period of Analysis Determination Note: this is a compressed jpeg image of the actual Excel spreadsheet; intervening years between years 1 and 25, 26 and 50, 51 and 75 and 76 and 90 have been hidden solely for truncating the table for presentation purposes; and all the hidden cells contain contents equal to the un-hidden row above them. Recreational activities around and on the reservoir will be impacted during construction but are expected to return to before-construction levels once the rehabilitation is completed. No new investments in recreational facilities are planned and recreation benefits are not claimed as a part of project benefits. Therefore, incidental recreation occurring as part of the site is expected to continue but was not evaluated and no recreation benefits are included in the economics tables. Since recreation is not a planned purpose for this project, all costs for incidental recreation will be paid with non-federal funds. Floodpool Risk Analysis Planning principles were used to conduct an analysis of the risk associated with induced flooding due to floodpool water levels above the crest of the auxiliary spillway and the potential cost of meeting current top of dam easement policy. The difference between the crest of the auxiliary spillway elevation (682.0 feet) and the elevation of the floodpool associated with a PMP event (693.14 feet), as compared to the top of dam elevation of 693.9 feet, was used to estimate potential structure and content damages to the existing ten properties upstream of the dam potentially in harm’s way (with points of water entry below the top of dam). A set of assumptions were used to estimate: 1) the cost of easements for the added 125 acres of land (easement encumbrance costs and legal fees for each parcel owner); 2) the value of residences and associated contents on the 70 identified parcels; and 3) estimated damages from all storm events (as represented by the following specific modeled storms: 100, 200, 500, 1,000 year and PMP event for the with-rehabilitation conditions) based upon an average flood depth of 8.33 feet. The associated average annual damages for all storm events were estimated to be $1,628. The estimated average annual cost for acquiring additional easements to the top of dam, including 7.d.c Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-10 administrative costs (legal and deed restriction recording fees) were estimated to be $19,250 (excludes any estimates for litigation.). The resulting benefit/cost ratio comparing average annual costs for all storm events induced from floodpool damages (average annual value of floodpool damages avoided) vs. average annual cost for establishment of the added easements (cost to avoid possible damages); mathematically: average annual cost of the potential floodpool damages without easements divided by the average annual cost of establishing the easements) came out to 0.085:1; an extremely low B/C ratio. Alternatively expressed, for every $1 in benefits (damages avoided), over $10 would have to be expended to acquire full extension of easements to the top of the dam. In addition, a worst-case scenario analysis could be done which would take into account potential build-out of many additional parcels resulting from future development but was deemed unnecessary given that the cost side of the analysis would increase, but the benefits (damages avoided) would likely increase more slowly, if at all. This analysis along with alternatives for managing floodpool risk were presented to the local sponsors. The alternatives presented in no particular order were: 1) do nothing, i.e., accept the potential risk and possible associated implications whatever they might be including the risk of litigation; 2) acquire easements to the top of the dam; 3) Procure an insurance policy explicitly for the floodpool risk; 4) attempt to acquire a waiver of the risk from all landowners for the 70 existing parcels with land below the top of dam; and/or 5) pass a setback ordinance preventing future development below the top of dam. The local sponsors unequivocally prefer to live with the existing easement and its associated risk for potential damages. They will enact an ordinance preventing future development below the crest of the auxiliary spillway. The local sponsors accepted and have lived for almost 50 years with the existing easement and its associated potential for risk of flood damages. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Threatened and Endangered Species For Federally listed species, NRCS obtained the Official Species List from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on March 26, 2018 via the online Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Using the search tool http://dgif-virginia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=32ea4ee4935942c092e41ddcd19e5ec5, NRCS found no recorded NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees for NLEB within Pittsylvania County. Therefore, as stated in the Final 4(d) rule on the NLEB, any incidental take that may result from the project is exempted by the 4(d) rule. In December, 2017 the NRCS performed a search of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) database, http://vafwis.org/fwis/, to identify potential species that may be present in the affected environment for the proposed action. Water Quality Water quality data was taken from the Virginia DEQ 2014 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters Report released in 2016. 7.d.c Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-11 Wetlands A wetland investigation for Cherrystone Lake was completed during the growing season of 2017. Prior to conducting fieldwork, an off-site evaluation was completed. NRCS consulted the USGS 7.5-minute Topographical Quadrangle Map, the National Wetlands Inventory Interactive Mapper (NWI) website administered by the USFWS, and soil survey information provided by NRCS. Fieldwork was conducted using methods as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). 7.d.c Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation FINAL Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 3 and Environmental Assessment for the Rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 2A (Roaring Fork Lake) of the Cherrystone Creek Watershed Pittsylvania County, Virginia PREPARED BY USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service IN COOPERATION WITH Town of Chatham Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors June 2019 7.d.d Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Non-Discrimination Statement In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation FINAL Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 3 & Environmental Assessment for the Rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 2A of the Cherrystone Creek Watershed Pittsylvania County, Virginia Prepared By: USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service In Cooperation With: Town of Chatham Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Authority The original watershed work plan was prepared, and the works of improvement were installed, under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954. The rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A is authorized by Section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566) as enacted by Section 313 of Public Law 106-472, otherwise known as “The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000”. Abstract Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, Roaring Fork Lake, does not presently meet Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) criteria for the integrity of a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. In addition, the principal spillway riser does not meet NRCS seismic stability criteria. The preferred plan is to rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A to meet current NRCS criteria and maintain the existing level of downstream flood protection and use for supplemental water supply. The plan is to replace the existing auxiliary spillway with a roller-compacted concrete (RCC) chute over the top of the dam. Replacement of the riser and outlet structure is required. New toe drains will be installed in the embankment. There will be no change in the current levels of flood protection downstream as a result of project activity. Project installation cost is estimated to be $8,183,700 of which $5,536,900 will be paid from the Small Watershed Rehabilitation funds and $2,646,800 from local funds. Comments and Inquiries For further information, please contact: John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229, Phone: (804) 287-1691. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.d Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation i CHERRYSTONE CREEK WATERSHED AGREEMENT Supplemental Watershed Plan Agreement (Supplement No. 3) between the Town of Chatham Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors (herein referred to collectively as “Sponsors”) Commonwealth of Virginia and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) United States Department of Agriculture (herein referred to as “NRCS”) Whereas, the Watershed Work Plan Agreement for the Cherrystone Creek Watershed, Commonwealth of Virginia, authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566, as amended) and executed by the Sponsors named therein and the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS), pursuant to section 246 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, 7 U.S.C. 6862), became effective the 22nd day of July 1965; and Whereas, Supplement No. 1, which modified the Watershed Plan Agreement, was developed through cooperative efforts of the Sponsors and the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) and became effective on the 24th day of May 1976; and Whereas, Supplement No. 2, which modified the Watershed Plan Agreement, was developed through cooperative efforts of the Sponsors and NRCS and became effective on the ___ day of June 2019; and Whereas, application has heretofore been made to the Secretary of Agriculture by the Sponsors for assistance in preparing a plan for rehabilitation of the works of improvement for the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A located in Pittsylvania County, Commonwealth of Virginia, under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 1001 to 1008, 1010, and 1012); and Whereas, the responsibility for administration of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, has been assigned by the Secretary of Agriculture to NRCS; and Whereas, there has been developed through the cooperative efforts of the Sponsors and NRCS a Watershed Work Plan No. 3 - Environmental Assessment for works of improvement for the 7.d.d Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation ii rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the Plan-EA or plan, which plan is annexed to and made a part of this agreement; and Whereas, in order to carry out the watershed plan for said watershed, it has become necessary to modify said watershed agreement; Now, therefore, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Secretary of Agriculture, through NRCS and the Sponsors, hereby agree on this Supplemental Watershed Plan and that the works of improvement for this project will be installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the terms, conditions, and stipulations provided for in this Supplemental Watershed Agreement and including the following: 1. Term. The term of this agreement is for 50 years after construction is completed and does not commit the NRCS to assistance of any kind beyond the end of the agreement. 2. Costs. The costs shown in this plan are preliminary estimates. Final costs to be borne by the parties hereto will be the actual costs incurred in the installation of works of improvement. 3. Water Supply. Supplemental water supply was added as a project purpose for this dam. 4. Real property. The Sponsors will acquire such real property as will be needed in connection with the works of improvement. The amounts and percentages of the real property acquisition costs to be borne by the Sponsors and NRCS are as shown in the Cost-Share table in Section 5 hereof. The Sponsors agree that all land acquired for measures, other than land treatment practices, with financial or credit assistance under this agreement will not be sold or otherwise disposed of for the evaluated life of the project except to a public agency that will continue to maintain and operate the development in accordance with the operation and maintenance agreement. NRCS policy regarding minimum landrights for areas upstream of the dam require the local sponsors to acquire an easement for all areas below the top of dam, unless the plan explicitly allows for a lower elevation. An economic and risk analysis was conducted to inform the Sponsors of their associated potential for risk of flood damages. The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors will restrict future construction below the elevation of the 100-year, 24- hour flood event (elevation 700.6 feet NAVD88) and acknowledge and accept the risks associated with allowing future construction to occur between the 100-year, 24-hour flood elevation and the top of the dam. The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, being subject to National Flood Insurance Program regulations, will review and reasonably utilize base flood elevations determined for this rehabilitation project and data from other sources as it becomes available as criteria for requiring that new construction, substantial improvements, or other development in Zone A on the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map meet the standards as specified in the National Flood Insurance Program regulation 44 CFR 60.3(b)(4). 5. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. The Sponsors hereby agrees to comply with all of the policies and procedures of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (42 U.S.C. 4601 et. seq. as further implemented through regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 24 and 7 C.F.R. Part 21) when acquiring 7.d.d Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation iii real property interests for this federally assisted project. If the Sponsors are legally unable to comply with the real property acquisition requirements, they agree that, before any Federal financial assistance is furnished; they will provide a statement to that effect, supported by an opinion of the chief legal officer of the state containing a full discussion of the facts and law involved. This statement may be accepted as constituting compliance. 6. Cost-share for Rehabilitation Project. The following table will be used to show cost-share percentages and amounts for Watershed Project Plan implementation. Works of Improvement NRCS Sponsors Total Cost-Sharable Items Percent Cost Percent Cost Cost Rehabilitation of the dam (construction costs): 66% $4,956,400 34% $2,590,300 $7,546,700 Relocation, Replacement in-kind: 0% $0 0% $0 $0 Relocation, Required Decent, Safe, Sanitary: 0% $0 0% $0 $0 Sponsors’ Planning Costs: n/a n/a 100% $25,000 $25,000 Sponsors’ Engineering Costs: n/a n/a 100% $18,500 $18,500 Sponsors’ Project Administration Costs: n/a n/a 100% $35,000 $35,000 Landrights Acquisition Costs: n/a n/a 100% $0 $0 Subtotals: Cost-Sharable Costs: Cost-Share Percentages: a/ (65%) $4,956,400 (35%) $2,668,800 $7,625,200 (100%) Non Cost-Sharable Items (per PL-83-566 and NRCS policy) b/ --- --- --- --- --- NRCS Engineering and Project Administration Costs: 100% $580,500 n/a n/a $580,500 Natural Resource Rights: n/a n/a 0% $0 $0 Federal, State and Local Permits: n/a n/a 100% $3,000 $3,000 Relocation, Beyond Required Decent, Safe, Sanitary n/a n/a 0% $0 $0 Subtotals: Non-Cost-Sharable Costs: 100% $580,500 100% $3,000 $583,500 Total Cost-Sharable Cost: n/a $4,956,400 n/a $2,668,800 $7,626,200 Total Installation Cost: n/a $5,536,900 n/a $2,671,800 $8,208,700 a/ The maximum NRCS cost-share is 65% of the cost-sharable items not to exceed 100% of the construction cost. Total eligible project costs include construction, landrights, relocation, project administration, and planning services provided by the Sponsors. b/ If actual non-cost-sharable item expenditures vary from these estimates, the responsible party will bear the change in costs. 7. Land treatment agreements. The sponsors will obtain agreements from owners of not less than 50 percent of the land above each multiple-purpose and floodwater-retarding structure. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation iv These agreements must provide that the owners will carry out farm or ranch conservation plans on their land. The sponsors will ensure that 50 percent of the land upstream of any retention reservoir site is adequately protected before construction of the dam. The sponsors will provide assistance to landowners and operators to ensure the installation of the land treatment measures shown in the watershed project plan. The sponsors will encourage landowners and operators to continue to operate and maintain the land treatment measures after the long-term contracts expire, for the protection and improvement of the watershed. Approximately 47% of the drainage area above Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A is wooded and about 34% is in pasture and hayland. Thus, there is no requirement of the Sponsors to obtain agreements for the protection of the upstream watershed. 8. Floodplain Management. Before construction of any project for flood prevention, Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham must agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs. 9. Water and mineral rights. The Sponsors will acquire or provide assurance that landowners or resource users have acquired such water, mineral, or other natural resources rights pursuant to State law as may be needed in the installation and operation of the works of improvement. Any costs incurred must be borne by the Sponsors and these costs are not eligible as part of the Sponsors’ cost-share. 10. Permits. The Sponsors will obtain and bear the cost for all necessary Federal, State, and local permits required by law, ordinance, or regulation for installation of the works of improvement. These costs are not eligible as part of the Sponsors’ cost-share. 11. NRCS assistance. This agreement is not a fund-obligating document. Financial and other assistance to be furnished by NRCS in carrying out the rehabilitation plan is contingent upon the fulfillment of applicable laws and regulations and the availability of appropriations for this purpose. 12. Additional agreements. A separate agreement will be entered into between NRCS and the Sponsors before either party initiates work involving funds of the other party. Such agreements will set forth in detail the financial and working arrangements and other conditions that are applicable to the specific works of improvement. 13. Amendments. This plan may be amended or revised only by mutual agreement of the parties hereto, except that NRCS may de-authorize or terminate funding at any time it determines that the Sponsors have failed to comply with the conditions of this agreement or when the program funding or authority expires. In this case, NRCS must promptly notify the Sponsors in writing of the determination and the reasons for de-authorization of project funding, together with the effective date. Payments made to the Sponsors or recoveries by NRCS must be in accordance with the legal rights and liabilities of the parties when project funding has been de-authorized. An amendment to incorporate changes affecting a specific measure may be made by mutual agreement between NRCS and the Sponsors having specific responsibilities for the measure involved. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation v 14. Prohibitions. No member of or delegate to Congress, or resident commissioner, may be admitted to any share or part of this plan, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; but this provision may not be construed to extend to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit. 15. Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The Town of Chatham will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and any needed replacement of the works of improvement by actually performing the work or arranging for such work, in accordance with an O&M agreement. An O&M agreement will be entered into before Federal funds are obligated and continue for the project life (50 years after construction). Although the Town of Chatham’s responsibility to the Federal Government for O&M ends when the O&M agreement expires upon completion of the evaluated life of measures covered by the agreement, the Town of Chatham acknowledges that continued liabilities and responsibilities associated with works of improvement may exist beyond the evaluated life. 16. Emergency Action Plan. Prior to construction, the Town of Chatham must prepare an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for this dam where failure may cause loss of life, as required by state and local regulations. The EAP must meet the minimum content specified in NRCS Title 180, National Operation and Maintenance Manual (NOMM), Part 500, Subpart F, Section 500.52, and meet applicable State agency dam safety requirements. An EAP is required prior to the execution of fund obligating documents for rehabilitation of the structure. The EAP must be reviewed and updated by the Town of Chatham annually. 17. Nondiscrimination provisions. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 7.d.d Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation vi SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. By signing this agreement, the recipient assures the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the program or activities provided for under this agreement will be conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal civil rights laws, rules, regulations, and policies. 18. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (7 CFR Part 3021). By signing this watershed agreement, the Sponsors are providing the certification set out below. If it is later determined that the Sponsors knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violated the requirements of the Drug Free Workplace Act, the NRCS, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug- Free Workplace Act. Controlled Substance means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. Section 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR Sections 1308.11 through 1308.15); Conviction means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes; Criminal drug statute means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance; Employee means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (i) all direct charge employees; (ii) all indirect charge employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and, (iii) temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantees' payroll, or employees of sub- recipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces). Certification: A. The Sponsors certify that they will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: (1) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition. (2) Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about— (a) The danger of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; 7.d.d Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation vii (c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violation occurring in the workplace. (3) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (1); (4) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (1) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee must -- (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction. (5) Notifying the NRCS in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under paragraph (4) (b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice must include the identification number(s) of each affected grant. (6) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under paragraph (4) (b), with respect to any employees who is so convicted-- (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency. (7) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6). B. The Sponsors may provide a list of the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with a specific project or other agreement. C. Agencies will keep the original of all disclosure reports in the official files of the agency. 19. Certification Regarding Lobbying (7 CFR Part 3018) A. The Sponsors certify to the best of their knowledge and belief, that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Sponsors, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, Member of Congress, an officer or employee 7.d.d Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation viii of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned must complete and submit Standard Form – LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The Sponsors must require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub- grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients must certify and disclose accordingly. B. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, of the U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 20. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions (7 CFR Part 3017). A. The Sponsors certify to the best of their knowledge and belief, that they and their principals: (1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (A)(2) of this certification; and 7.d.d Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation ix (4) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default. B. Where the primary Sponsor is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant must attach an explanation to this agreement. 21. Clean Air and Water Certification A. The project Sponsoring organizations signatory to this agreement certify as follows: (1) Any facility to be utilized in the performance of this proposed agreement is (__), is not (_X_) listed on the Environmental Protection Agency List of Violating Facilities. (2) To promptly notify the NRCS Assistant State Conservationist for Management and Strategy prior to the signing of this agreement by NRCS, of the receipt of any communication from the Director, Office of Federal Activities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, indicating that any facility which is proposed for use under this agreement is under consideration to be listed on the Environmental Protection Agency List of Violating Facilities. (3) To include substantially this certification, including this subparagraph, in every nonexempt sub-agreement. B. The project Sponsoring organizations signatory to this agreement agree as follows: (1) To comply with all the requirements of section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 7414) and section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1318), respectively, relating to inspection, monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as other requirements specified in section 114 and section 308 of the Air Act and the Water Act, issued there under before the signing of this agreement by NRCS. (2) That no portion of the work required by this agreement will be performed in facilities listed on the EPA List of Violating Facilities on the date when this agreement was signed by NRCS unless and until the EPA eliminates the name of such facility or facilities from such listing. (3) To use their best efforts to comply with clean air standards and clean water standards at the facilities in which the agreement is being performed. (4) To insert the substance of the provisions of this clause in any nonexempt sub- agreement. C. The terms used in this clause have the following meanings: (1) The term “Air Act” means the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation x (2) The term “Water Act” means Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.). (3) The term “clean air standards” means any enforceable rules, regulations, guidelines, standards, limitations, orders, controls, prohibitions, or other requirements which are contained in, issued under, or otherwise adopted pursuant to the Air Act or Executive Order 11738, an applicable implementation plan as described in section 110 of the Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7414) or an approved implementation procedure under section 112 of the Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7412). (4) The term “clean water standards” means any enforceable limitation, control, condition, prohibition, standards, or other requirement which is promulgated pursuant to the Water Act or contained in a permit issued to a discharger by the Environmental Protection Agency or by a State under an approved program, as authorized by section 402 of the Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1342), or by a local government to assure compliance with pretreatment regulations as required by section 307 of the Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1317). (5) The term “facility” means any building, plant, installation, structure, mine, vessel, or other floating craft, location or site of operations, owned, leased, or supervised by a Sponsor, to be utilized in the performance of an agreement or sub-agreement. Where a location or site of operations contains or includes more than one building, plant, installation, or structure, the entire location will be deemed to be a facility except where the Director, Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection Agency, determines that independent facilities are collocated in one geographical area. 22. Assurances and Compliance. As a condition of the grant or cooperative agreement, the Sponsors assure and certify that they are in compliance with and will comply in the course of the agreement with all applicable laws, regulations, Executive orders and other generally applicable requirements, including those set out below which are hereby incorporated in this agreement by reference, and such other statutory provisions as specifically set forth herein. State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments: OMB Circular A-87, A-102, A-129, and A-133; 7 CFR Parts 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3021, and 3052. Nonprofit Organizations, Hospitals, Institutions of Higher Learning: OMB Circular A-110, A-122, A-129, and A-133; and 7 CFR Parts 3015, 3017, 3018, 3019, 3021, and 3052. 23. Examination of Records. The Sponsors must give the NRCS or the Comptroller General, through any authorized representative, access to, and the right to, examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to this agreement, and retain all records related to this agreement for a period of three years after completion of the terms of this agreement in accordance with the applicable OMB Circular. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xi 24. Signatures Town of Chatham By: _______________________________ P.O. Box 370 WILLIAM PACE Chatham, Virginia 24531 Title: Town Mayor _______________ Date: _______________________________ The signing of this supplemental watershed agreement was authorized by the governing body of the Town of Chatham at a meeting held on __________________________________________. ____________________________________ Town of Chatham Clerk or Notary P.O. Box 370 Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pittsylvania Soil and Water By: ______________________________ Conservation District J. TOM KELLEY 19783 U.S. Highway, Suite F Title: Chairman______________________ Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________ The signing of this supplemental watershed agreement was authorized by the governing body of the Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District at a meeting held on _________________. ______________________________________ Pittsylvania SWCD Administrative Secretary or Notary 19783 U.S. Highway, Suite F Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________ 7.d.d Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xii Pittsylvania County By: ______________________________ Board of Supervisors DAVID M. SMITHERMAN P. O. Box 426 Title: County Administrator____________ Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________ The signing of this supplemental watershed agreement was authorized by the governing body of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors at a meeting held on ________________________. ______________________________________ Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Administrative Secretary P. O. Box 426 Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture Approved by: ___________________________________ Date: ______________________________ JOHN A. BRICKER State Conservationist 7.d.d Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xiii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page WATERSHED AGREEMENT.......................................................................................... i SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATERSHED PLAN............................................. xvii CHANGES REQUIRING PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENT................................. 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION............................................................................. 1 Original Project.............................................................................................................. 2 Watershed Problems...................................................................................................... 2 Watershed Opportunities............................................................................................... 3 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT................................................... 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................... 7 Planning Activities......................................................................................................... 7 Physical Features……………………………………………………………………... 7 Land Use........................................................................................................................ 8 Potable Water Supply………………………………………………………………… 9 Social and Economic Conditions……………………………………………………... 9 Special Environmental Concerns………....................................................................... 12 Soils………………………………………………………………………………... 12 Water…………………………………………………………………..................... 12 Clean Water Act................................................................................................... 12 Waters of the U.S................................................................................................. 12 Wetlands.............................................................................................................. 13 Coastal Zone Management Areas........................................................................ 14 Floodplain Management...................................................................................... 14 Wild and Scenic Rivers........................................................................................ 15 Air………................................................................................................................. 16 Animals and Plants................................................................................................... 16 Endangered and Threatened Species and Natural Areas..................................... 16 Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................................... 19 Migratory Birds................................................................................................... 20 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act................................................................ 20 Invasive Species.................................................................................................. 21 Riparian Areas..................................................................................................... 22 Human...................................................................................................................... 22 Scenic Beauty...................................................................................................... 22 Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 22 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................... 24 7.d.d Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page Description of Existing Dam…………………………………………………………. 28 General Description of How a Dam Functions………………...................................... 30 Status of Operation and Maintenance………………………………………………… 31 Structural Data………………………………………………………………………... 32 Breach Analysis and Hazard Classification…………………………………………... 32 Evaluation of Potential Failure Modes……………………………………………...... 33 Consequences of Dam Failure………………………………………………………... 35 FORMULATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES………………………. 36 Formulation Process…………………………………………………………………... 36 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study………………………. 37 Description of Alternative Plans Considered…………………………………………. 39 National Economic Development (NED) Alternative………………………………... 42 Comparison of Alternative Plans……………………………………………………... 43 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES………………………………………………. 46 Special Environmental Concerns excluded from Consequences Analysis……….…. 46 Special Environmental Concerns……………………………………………………... 47 Soils………………………………………………………………………………... Water………………………………………………………………………………. 47 47 Air…………………………………………………………………………………. 48 Animals and Plants………………………………………………………………... 49 Human……………………………………………………………………………... 51 Cumulative Effects………………………………………………………………… 53 RISK AND UNCERTAINTY…………………………………………………………… 54 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION…………………………….......... 55 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE…………………………………………………………. 57 Rationale for Plan Preference………………………………………………………... 57 Summary and Purpose………………………………………………………………... 57 Easements and Landrights……………………………………………………………. 58 Mitigation……………………………………………………………………………... 58 Permits and Compliance……………………………………………………………… 58 Costs…………………………………………………………………………………... 59 Installation and Financing…………………………………………………….............. 59 Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement…………………………………………... 60 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………... 65 REPORT PREPARERS………………………………………………………….............. 67 DISTRIBUTION LIST…………………………………………………………………... 70 7.d.d Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xv LIST OF FIGURES No. Description Page 1 Area evaluated for environmental justice effects………………………….…… 27 2 Example of a Roller-Compacted Concrete Auxiliary Spillway………………... 41 3 Example of a 5-Cycle Labyrinth Weir in an Embankment……………….……. 42 B-1 General Watershed Location Map……………………………………………… B-1 C-1 Roaring Fork Lake Watershed Land Use Map…………………………………. C-1 C-2 Roaring Fork Lake Watershed Soils Map………………………………………. C-2 C-3 Roaring Fork Lake Prime Farmland Map…………………….………………… C-3 C-4 Roaring Fork Lake - Prime Farmland in the Construction Area…………...……. C-4 C-5 Roaring Fork Lake Invasive Species Map……………………………………… C-5 C-6 Area of Potential Effect for Preferred Alternative (Aerial View) ………….....… C-6 C-7 Preferred Alternative - RCC Chute over top of dam………………………….…. C-7 C-8 Preferred Alternative Profile – Auxiliary Spillway Profile…………………….…. C-8 C-9 Alternative 2 – Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir Over the Dam…………… C-9 C-10 Sunny Day Breach Inundation Map…………………………………….………. C-10 C-11 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel Index) ……… C-11 C-12 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 1 of 10) ………. C-12 C-13 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 2 of 10) ……… C-13 C-14 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 3 of 10) ……… C-14 C-15 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 4 of 10) ……… C-15 C-16 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 5 of 10) ……… C-16 C-17 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 6 of 10) ……… C-17 C-18 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 7 of 10) ……… C-18 C-19 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 8 of 10) ……… C-19 C-20 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 9 of 10) ……… C-20 C-21 Cherrystone Creek 2A - Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel 10 of 10) …… C-21 LIST OF TABLES No. Description Page A Summary of Scoping for Rehabilitation of Roaring Fork Lake Dam……………… 5 B Land Use……………………………………………………………………….…. 9 C State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species…………….…………………… 18 D USFWS Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern………………………………. 20 E Indicators and Groups from EPA’s Environmental Justice Tool…………………. 26 F As-Built and Existing Structural Data for Roaring Fork Lake……………………. 33 G Major Components of Decommissioning the Dam…………………………….…. 38 H Summary and Comparison of Alternative Plans…………………………….……. 44 1 Estimated Installation Cost………………………………………………….……. 61 2 Estimated Cost Distribution – Structural Measures…………………………….…. 61 3 Structural Data for Rehabilitated Dam…………………………………………… 62 4 Average Annual National Economic Development (NED) Costs.………….……. 63 5 Estimated Average Annual Flood Damage Reduction Benefits………….………. 64 6 Comparison of NED Benefits and Costs…………………………………….……. 64 7.d.d Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xvi APPENDICES Appendix A: Comments and Responses Appendix B: Project Map Appendix C: Support Maps Appendix D: Investigation and Analyses Report 7.d.d Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xvii SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATERSHED PLAN NO. 3 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the Rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Watershed Dam No. 2A Pittsylvania County, Virginia 5th Congressional District Prepared by: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Authorization: The original work plan was prepared, and the works of improvement were installed, under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 1001 et. seq.), 1954. The rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A is authorized under Public Law 83-566 (as amended), and as further amended by Section 313 of Public Law 106-472. Sponsors: Town of Chatham Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Proposed Action: Rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Watershed Dam No. 2A, Roaring Fork Lake, to meet current Virginia Division of Dam Safety and NRCS safety and performance standards. Purpose and Need for Action: The Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A does not presently meet NRCS standards for the integrity for a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. The purposes for federal action are to comply with current NRCS and Virginia dam design and safety standards to reduce risks to life and property that could result from a potential catastrophic dam failure; maintain the level of flood protection, that is currently provided by the dam’s ability to attenuate floods, to life and property upstream and downstream of the dam; and maintain the use of the reservoir for supplemental water supply. At the request of the sponsors, NRCS approved the addition of supplemental water supply (Municipal and Industrial (M&I)) as a purpose for Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A. Description of Preferred Alternative: The preferred alternative is to structurally rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A to meet current safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam, provide sediment storage for 50 years after construction, maintain current level of flood protection downstream, and maintain the use for supplemental water supply. The plan provides for installing a 200-foot-wide Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) chute spillway over the top of the dam. The chute will discharge to an RCC stilling basin. The existing auxiliary spillway will be blocked with a berm. The riser footer will be modified to meet seismic criteria. New toe drains will be installed in the embankment. There will be no change in the current levels of flood protection downstream. Although the lake will be drained during construction, there will be no permanent change in the water resource operations or recreational uses of the lake once construction is complete. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xviii Resource Information: Location: Latitude: 36.847 Longitude: -79.433 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Number: 03010105 Climate: In Pittsylvania County, in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, the annual average temperature is 54.7°F with an annual summer average of 73.0°F and an annual winter average of 36.4°F. The mean date for the last frost of spring is May 2 with the latest date being May 23. In the fall, the mean date for the first frost is October 10 with the latest frost occurring on November 6. This provides a mean growing season of approximately 161 days. The average annual precipitation is 45.24 inches. This precipitation is well distributed through the year with slightly larger amounts (over 4 inches) occurring in the months of March, May, July, and September. The average annual total snowfall is 4.2 inches. Watershed Size: Drainage Area of Roaring Fork Lake = 3,677 acres Land Use: Woodland: 1,740 acres, 47.3% Cropland: 418 acres, 11.4% Developed: 155 acres, 4.2%% Hay/Pasture: 1,245 acres, 33.9% Water: 25 acres, 0.7% Shrub land: 94 acres: 2.5% Land Ownership: Upstream of dam: 100% private and 0% public Downstream of dam: 87% private, 13% public Population and Demographics: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the Town of Chatham was 987 (2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimate). Of the total population in the ACS, 76.7% (757) were White and 18.8% (186) were Black or African American. All other racial groups individually were less than 1% of the total population. Together, Whites and Blacks made up 95.5% of the Town’s entire population. Hispanics of any race are the second largest minority group with 2.7%, or 27. The median age of the population of the Town of Chatham is 50.5 while the same number for the entire state of Virginia was 37.6. Residents in the Town of Chatham that were 65 years old or older totaled 24.7% (244). Of the Town population, 85.7% were over the age of 19. Approximately 85.6% of the residents in the Town had a high school education or higher. Of the residents in the Town that are 25 years of age or older, 14.4% do not have a high school diploma. About 34.9% of the Town residents have some education beyond high school, including 15.1% with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 19.7% with graduate or professional degrees. There are 656 Town of Chatham residents who are 16 years of age or older according to the 2010-2014 ACS. Approximately 68% (446) of the residents 16 years of age or older are considered in the labor force pool. About 32% of the civilian labor force in the Town (210 of 656) was unemployed according to the same source. The Town of Chatham has a diverse economy. According to the 2010-2014 ACS, five sub-sectors of the local economy employ the civilian workforce: management, professional and related (45.6%); service (13.6%); sales and office (23.9%); production, transportation and material moving (13.1%), construction, extraction, maintenance and repair (1.9%); and other 1.9%. Private 7.d.d Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xix wage and salary employment constitute 58.5% of all employment in the Town of Chatham while public sector jobs (primarily in education) make up 41.5% in Chatham. Median household income estimated for the Town for the 2010-2014 period was $45,000. This compares to $64,792 per year for the median household income calculated for Virginia. The national figure for median household income per year estimated for the same period was $53,482. With respect to per capita incomes, Town of Chatham residents are estimated to have had per capita income of $27,849 for the 2010-2014 period. Virginians reported per capita income of $33,958 for the 2010-2014 period, while the same figure for the entire United States was $28,555 for same period. That makes the Town per capita income figure for 2010-2014 82% of the state’s level and 97.5% of the national figure. According to the 2010-2014 Census estimates, the Town of Chatham had 23 families living below the poverty level (9.3%) and a total of 73 people living below the poverty level. That compares to 8.2% for State and 11.5% for the Nation. The 2010-2014 Census estimates indicate that 76.7% of the 529 housing units within the Town of Chatham were occupied. The median year that Chatham homes were built is 1951. About 72% of all homes were built before 1959. A majority of the 150 people at risk from a breach event live within the Town of Chatham. There are six structures within the breach inundation zone: four homes, one commercial structure and one barn. Most of the residential property downstream of the dam ranges between $50,000 and $500,000 in total value with an average of about $91,000. The total value of all potentially impacted property (structures) at risk below the dam is an estimated $866,000. Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A reservoir is not designated for public recreational use. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xx Resource Concerns Identified Through Scoping: Item/Concern Rationale WATER Floodplain Management The Town of Chatham and Pittsylvania County both participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Maintain current flood protection. Flooding concerns for downtown areas. Concern for impacts to downstream roads and crossings. Streams, Lakes, and Wetlands Minimize impacts during construction. Water quality Minimize sediment transport and maintain oxygen levels. AIR Air Quality Air quality may be temporarily impacted during construction. ANIMALS Endangered and Threatened Species Possible impact to Northern long-eared bat. Check downstream for presence of: Roanoke Bass, Roanoke Logperch and Orangefin Madtom. None identified. Fish and Wildlife Maintain normal flow regime during construction period. PLANTS Invasive Species Invasive species present around dam. Riparian Areas Temporary impact anticipated during construction. HUMAN Land Use Upstream land use is restricted due to operation of the dam. Local and Regional Economy Temporary benefit during construction. Potable Water Supply Sponsors will use lake for supplemental water supply. Public Health and Safety Rehabilitation is needed because the dam does not meet current safety standards. Recreation Draining lake would have temporary impact on property owners and guests during construction and fish recovery period. Social/Cultural Issues Concerns about flooding if the dam were decommissioned. Alternative Plans Considered: Three plans were considered and evaluated in detail. 1) No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation) - The Sponsors have indicated that they will use the plan developed by NRCS to complete the rehabilitation of the dam if Federal funding is not available. The No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation) alternative would be the same or involve the same components as the preferred alternative: Structural Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) Chute Spillway over the Dam. 2) Structural Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) Chute Spillway over the Dam. Install a 200-foot-wide RCC armored auxiliary spillway over the dam. The new auxiliary spillway would outlet into an RCC stilling basin at the valley floor. Close the existing auxiliary spillway with an earthen berm. 3) Structural Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir over the dam. Install a 74-foot-wide, 315-foot long, two-cycle labyrinth weir in the embankment of the dam. Outlet the spillway into a Saint Anthony Falls (SAF) basin followed by a 60-foot-long riprap stabilization pad. Close the existing auxiliary spillway with an earthen berm. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxi All the rehabilitation alternatives will also require the following modifications: • Retrofit the footer of the riser. • Install new toe drains. There will be no change in the current levels of flood protection downstream. There will be no change in the supplemental water supply use as a result of project activity. The preferred alternative maximizes net benefits with a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1 and is the rehabilitation alternative preferred by the Sponsors. Project Costs (Dollars) PL-83-566 Funds Other Funds Total Category Dollars % Dollars % Dollars % Construction $4,956,400 66% $2,590,300 34% $7,546,700 100% Engineering $555,500 97% $18,500 3% $574,000 100% Relocation n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Real Property Rights n/a n/a $0 100% $0 100% Project Administration $25,000 42% $35,000 58% $60,000 100% Other (permits) $0 0% $3,000 100% $3,000 100% TOTAL COSTS $5,536,900 68% $2,646,800 32% $8,183,700 100% Annual O&M (non-Federal) n/a n/a $5,000 100% $5,000 100% Project Benefits: Rehabilitation with an RCC-chute spillway will allow the sponsors to meet the requirements for a high hazard potential dam, reduce the potential for loss of life from a dam breach, continue protection of existing infrastructure downstream of the dam, maintain property values around the reservoir and associated recreational opportunities, and maintain the water supply. Net average annual equivalent benefits between the Future with Federal Project and the Future without Federal Project = $0 since the candidate plans to rehabilitate Roaring Fork Lake are identical in scope, substantially equivalent costs and equal effects. Number of Direct Beneficiaries/Population at Risk: 150 (for Sunny Day breach) Other beneficial effects: • Reduces the threat to life for approximately 150 people that live and/or work downstream in the breach inundation area. • Reduces the risk of a dam breach for six structures within the breach inundation zone. • Reduces the risk for a breach for the vehicle occupants who utilize four county roads in the breach inundation zone with a cumulative total average daily traffic count of 630 (Cherrystone Lake Road – 130, Hodnetts Mill Road – 270, Moses Mill Road – 110 and Davis Road – 120). • Maintains the use of the reservoir for supplemental water supply. • Provides incidental recreational benefits (primarily boating and fishing) to four upstream residences. • Reduces the threat of loss of access and loss of emergency services for six structures (four residences, one commercial property, and a barn) in a breach event. • Provides downstream flood protection for the residents in the area, as well as those working, recreating, or traversing within the downstream floodplains, for an additional 50 years. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxii • Reduces the liability associated with continuing to operate an unsafe dam. • Maintains existing stream habitat downstream of the dam. • Removes the large Common carp population from the reservoir which creates high turbidity in the lake and lake outflow, adversely affecting the water treatment plant operations, while improving the reservoir’s existing aquatic habitat and maintaining the terrestrial habitat around the reservoir. • Meets current Virginia Division of Dam Safety and NRCS safety and performance standards. Benefit to Cost Ratio (current rate): 1.0 to 1.0 Net beneficial effects (National Economic Development or “NED” effects): $0 Funding Schedule: The most likely scenario is for the project to be implemented over two years including the design and construction. Federal funds: Year 1 - $493,000 for engineering and project administration; $495,600 for construction; Year 2 - $80,000 for construction supervision and project administration and $4,460,800 for construction. Non-Federal funds: Year 1 - $21,000 for engineering and administration and $3,000 for permitting costs; $259,000 for construction; Year 2 - $31,000 for engineering and project administration and $2,331,300 for construction. Period of Analysis: 52 years (includes 1 year for design and 1 year for construction) Project Life: 50 years Environmental Effects/Impacts: Resource Impact Air Quality Temporary increase in particulate matter on site during construction. Land Use Changes None. Floodplains Current regulatory floodplain would be maintained. Fisheries The reservoir will be drained during construction. This will provide an incidental benefit to both water quality and the fishery since the very large Common carp population will no longer be present. The fishery is expected to fully recover in 3-4 years. Forest Resources None. Wetlands Temporary effects during construction on 18.1 acres of wetlands. Water Quality Turbidity in the lake will be reduced. Sediment loading to Roaring Fork and Cherrystone Creek will decrease. Water treatment costs will decline. Wildlife Habitat None. Prime Farmland Potential impacts of up to 1.6 acres of farmland of state-wide importance. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxiii Resource Impact Cultural Resources Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A and Hodnetts Mill (site 44PY0461) are present in the project area. Both are eligible for National Register consideration due to their age (50+ years old). NRCS recommended to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources that both Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A and Hodnetts Mill site be classified as “not eligible.” Threatened and Endangered Species No effect. Mitigation None. Major Conclusions: To bring this dam into compliance with NRCS and State safety and performance standards, it is necessary to rehabilitate the dam by installing RCC armor over the dam, closing the existing auxiliary spillway, retrofitting the riser footer, and installing toe drains. There will be no change in the current levels of flood protection downstream. There will be no permanent change in the supplemental water supply operations of the lake after project activity is complete. Most of the environmental impacts are short-term (only during construction) and existing conditions will be restored upon completion of construction. Areas of Controversy: None Issues to be Resolved: None Evidence of Unusual Congressional or Local Interest: No Is this report in compliance with executive orders, public laws, and other statutes governing the formulation of water resource projects? Yes X No ___ 7.d.d Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation xxiv (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.d Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 1 CHANGES REQUIRING PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENT This supplement only addresses Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, known locally as Roaring Fork Lake. This dam was built in 1969 as a significant hazard potential dam. Due to changes in the downstream watershed, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management (referred to herein as the Virginia Division of Dam Safety) changed the hazard potential of the dam to high in November 2008. The first conditional certificate for Operation and Maintenance of the structure was issued because the vegetated earthen auxiliary spillway could not pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) in effect at that time without overtopping the dam. The auxiliary spillway does not meet current USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) safety and performance standards for the integrity of a high hazard potential dam. Therefore, the dam does not meet the objectives of the Town of Chatham, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, and the Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District (Pittsylvania SWCD) (herein referred to as Sponsors), which are to meet the current safety and performance standards, maintain the existing level of flood protection for downstream properties, reduce the risk of loss of human life; and maintain the water supply. This supplemental Plan-EA documents the planning process by which NRCS provided technical assistance to the Sponsors and the public in addressing resource issues and concerns within the Roaring Fork Lake watershed and complied with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In accordance with NRCS NEPA Policy, an Environmental Evaluation Worksheet, NRCS-CPA-52 form, was completed for the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A rehabilitation project to determine the requisite level of NEPA documentation to support the proposed action. The NRCS-CPA-52 resulted in a determination that an Environmental Assessment (EA) was required. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A was constructed as a significant hazard potential dam and is currently classified as a high hazard potential dam by the Virginia Division of Dam Safety. The dam provides flood protection and supplemental water supply for the Town of Chatham and parts of Pittsylvania County. However, the integrity of the vegetated earth auxiliary spillway does not presently meet NRCS standards for a high hazard dam. The purposes of this supplement are to comply with current NRCS and Virginia dam design and safety standards to reduce risks to life and property that could result from a potential catastrophic dam failure; maintain the level of flood protection, that is currently provided by the dam’s ability to attenuate floods, to life and property downstream of the dam; and maintain the use of the reservoir as supplemental water supply. At the request of the sponsors, NRCS approved, by letter dated March 5, 2019, proceeding with the addition of supplemental water supply (Municipal and Industrial (M&I)) as a purpose for Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A. There is a need to comply with current state and federal safety and performance standards and to continue to provide the current levels of flood protection and supplemental water supply. There are four homes, one commercial structure, one barn, four roadways, and other property within the breach inundation zone of this structure. The Town’s water treatment plant is within the breach zone but outside of the 500-year floodplain with the dam in place. There are no inhabitable structures within the currently effective regulatory 100-year floodplain and one home within the 7.d.d Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 2 500-year floodplain (0.2% Chance of Flood Hazard Zone) downstream of the dam. The reservoir is the backup water source for the community with 99 acre-feet per year of water storage currently. Both Site 1 and Site 2A dams discharge into Cherrystone Creek and the Town of Chatham withdraws their raw water directly from the creek about 3 miles downstream of the dams. When additional water is needed, one or more of the water supply gates are opened. The purpose of this federal action is to meet current safety and performance standards and continue to provide the current level of water supply and flood protection in a manner that reduces risk of loss of human life and is both cost effective and environmentally acceptable. ORIGINAL PROJECT The original watershed work plan for flood prevention and watershed protection was prepared in 1965 under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83- 566). The works of improvement were subsequently installed under the same authority. The Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, and the Pittsylvania SWCD were the local sponsors. The original watershed work plan included the construction of two single-purpose flood control dams, one multi-purpose dam that would include flood control and water supply storage, a small dike, and 5.5 miles of stream channel improvement. One floodwater retarding structure, Site 2A, and one multi-purpose structure (flood protection and water supply), Site 1, were constructed. All construction was completed by 1969. In 1976, the plan was supplemented to delete one single-purpose flood control dam, 570 feet of dike, and 5.5 miles of channel improvement. The supplemental watershed plan which eliminated all uncompleted works of improvement and closed out the project was executed on May 24, 1976. The Town of Chatham owns and operates Roaring Fork Lake. The Sponsors applied for NRCS assistance with dam rehabilitation on October 1, 2013. The rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A is authorized by the Public Law 83-566, (as amended), and as further amended by the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (Section 313 of Public Law 106-472). WATERSHED PROBLEMS The Sponsors were aware of potential problems with the dam in 2008 when the Virginia Division of Dam Safety changed the hazard class of the dam to high hazard potential and issued a Conditional Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Certificate to the Town of Chatham. The conditional certificate for Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A was issued because the auxiliary spillway did not have sufficient capacity to pass the probable maximum flood (PMF) in effect at that time without overtopping the dam embankment. Sponsor Concerns: A conditional certificate serves as notification to the Sponsors that the dam no longer meets State requirements and must be modified to meet State law. The dam is at greater risk for a breach in its current condition. In October 2013, the Sponsors requested NRCS assistance to prepare a watershed plan that would identify the improvements necessary to obtain full dam safety certification. Auxiliary Spillway Integrity (Soil Erodibility): In 2009, Hurt & Proffitt Engineers were retained by Reynolds-Clark under their contract with the Town of Chatham to perform a hazard classification and Emergency Action Plan for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A. The vegetated earth auxiliary spillway did not meet the Virginia Division of Dam Safety criteria for capacity for 7.d.d Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 3 the PMP in effect at that time. Further analysis by NRCS indicated that the soil materials in the auxiliary spillway do not meet the NRCS criteria for integrity in the PMF event. Landrights and Easements: The original landrights obtained for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A provided for the easements necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the dam. Only one easement had an elevation specified. There are four houses upstream of the dam, but all have an elevation higher than the existing top of the dam. The legal counsel for the Sponsors has issued the opinion that easements exist to the 100-year, 24-hour flood elevation. Floodplain Management: The Sponsors have identified flooding in the floodplain downstream as a primary concern. Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham have participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1980 and 1979, respectively. Both realize the value that Dam No. 2A provides in flood protection benefits, particularly for the roads. Roaring Fork Lake controls 5.75 square miles (3,677 acres) of the watershed above the affected properties and benefitted area. Erosion and Sedimentation: As of 2015 when a sediment survey was completed, Roaring Fork Lake had reached 46 years (46%) of its planned 100-year service life. The designed submerged sediment capacity was 116 acre-feet, but the as-built volume was 157 acre-feet due to the removal of extra borrow from the pool area. As of 2015, it is estimated that there were 42 acre-feet of sediment in the pool area, which is about 27% of the as-built sediment storage volume. The reservoir has about 124 years of sediment storage. This material is primarily deposited sediments plus leaf and other organic debris. The actual sediment delivery was less than anticipated during the original design. Local Concerns: The two Cherrystone Creek Watershed dams were planned and constructed in response to the concerns of the residents after extensive flooding that occurred in the 1950’s. The Sponsors also wanted a reliable source of water and included water supply storage in one of the dams. The possibility of decommissioning the dam at Roaring Fork Lake was mentioned at the first public meeting in June 2016 since decommissioning must be considered under the NRCS rehabilitation policy. Although the discussion of decommissioning addressed the mitigation of induced damages, the Sponsors and residents were adamantly opposed to decommissioning because of their concern that flooding would increase in the absence of the dam. One landowner reminded the meeting participants how frequently flooding occurred prior to construction of the two dams. In addition, the riser at Roaring Fork Lake was recently modified to allow supplemental water withdrawals in the event of a drought. The Sponsors did not want to lose this additional source of water. WATERSHED OPPORTUNITIES The following is a general list of opportunities that will be recognized through the implementation of this dam rehabilitation plan. Some quantification of these opportunities will be provided in other sections of the report, as appropriate. • Comply with high hazard potential dam safety and performance standards established by NRCS and the Virginia Division of Dam Safety. • Reduce the potential for loss of life associated with a failure of this dam. • Reduce the sponsor liability associated with operation of an unsafe dam. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 4 • Maintain the supplemental water supply for area residents. • Maintain the existing level of flood protection for downstream homes and infrastructure that is currently provided by the dam’s ability to attenuate floods. • Protect real estate values downstream from the dam and around the lake. • Improve safety with the prohibition of future construction of inhabitable dwellings upstream of the dam below the elevation of the 100-year, 24-hour event. • Reduce turbidity in the water by removing the large population of Common carp from the reservoir. This will reduce water treatment costs, while improving the reservoir’s existing aquatic habitat. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A scoping process was used to identify issues of economic, environmental, cultural, and social importance in the watershed. Watershed concerns of Sponsors, technical agencies, and local citizens were expressed in the scoping meeting and in other planning and public meetings. Factors that would affect soil, water, air, plant, animals, and human resources were identified by an interdisciplinary planning team composed of the following areas of expertise: engineering, biology, economics, resource conservation, water quality, soils, archaeology, and geology. On June 9, 2016, a Scoping Meeting was held at the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia with 18 people attending. Table A lists the specific concerns and their relevance to the proposed action to the decision-making process. The citizens at the first Public Meeting, also held on June 9, 2016, expressed concerns like those at the Scoping Meeting. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 5 Table A – Summary of Scoping for Rehabilitation of Roaring Fork Lake Dam. Item/Concern Relevant to the Proposed Action Rationale Yes No SOILS Prime and Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance X There are 1.6 acres of farmland of statewide importance within the maximum extent of possible ground disturbance. WATER Floodplain Management X The Town of Chatham and Pittsylvania County both participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Maintain current flood protection. Flooding concerns for downtown areas. Concern for impacts to downstream roads and crossings. Regional Water Management Plans X West Piedmont Planning District does not include Roaring Fork Lake in their Regional Water Supply Plan, but the riser has been modified to allow for water withdrawals. Sole Source Aquifers X None present. Streams, Lakes, and Wetlands X Minimize impacts during construction. Waters of the U.S./Wetlands (Clean Water Act – 401 and 404) X Minimize impacts during construction. There are 18.1 acres of wetlands present that would be temporarily impacted during construction due to lake draw-down during construction. Water Quality (Clean Water Act – 303(d) and 305(b)) X Minimize sediment transport. Maintain oxygen levels. Common carp population creates a sediment load in the reservoir and corresponding outflow waters into Roaring Fork and Cherrystone Creek. High costs for water treatment due to turbidity. Water Resources X Addressed under Potable Water Wild & Scenic Rivers X None present. AIR Clean Air Act (Criteria pollutants) X Although there would be increased air emissions during construction, Pittsylvania County is in attainment for all Criteria Pollutants. Clean Air Act (Regional Visibility Degradation) X No Class I Areas present. ANIMALS Endangered and Threatened Species X Initial review of T&E species indicated potential habitat presence for the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Additional research found no known recorded occupied maternity roosts and no NLEB Hibernaculum within 5.5 miles of the maximum extent of ground disturbance. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 6 Item/Concern Relevant to the Proposed Action Rationale Essential Fish Habitat X None present. Fish and Wildlife Habitat X The lake will be drained during construction. As a result, there will be temporary impacts to the fish and wildlife species that currently utilize it. Habitat downstream of the dam, will not be affected as normal flow will be maintained. Invasive Species X No invasive animal species were identified in the project area. Migratory Birds/Bald Eagles/Golden Eagles X While habitat was present, no Bald or Golden eagle nests were found during the project site visit. Additionally, no recorded nests are documented within the project area. PLANTS Endangered and Threatened Species X No State or Federally listed species were identified. Invasive Species X Common invasive plants were identified within the specified maximum limits of disturbance. Riparian Areas X Temporary impact anticipated during construction. HUMAN Environmental Justice and Civil Rights X All residents of the watershed benefit equally. Historic Properties X Hodnetts Mill site and Cherrystone dam are over 50 years old and eligible for National Register consideration. Land Use X Future development in the floodpool will be restricted due to operation of the dam. Natural Areas X None present. Park Lands X None present. Potable Water Supply X Roaring Fork will be used for supplemental water supply. Public Health and Safety X Dam rehabilitation is needed because the dam was built as a significant hazard structure and now it has been classified as a high hazard dam. Recreation X No public recreation. Scenic Beauty X No impact. Scientific Resources X No research sites identified. Social/Cultural Issues X Concerns about flooding if the dam were decommissioned. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES Geologic and engineering investigations and analyses were conducted by NRCS engineering staff in Raleigh, NC and Morgantown, WV with assistance from Schnabel Engineering on the principal spillway survey and geologic drilling. This work included a sediment survey, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and a Water Resources Site Analysis Program (SITES) analysis of the dam characteristics. Both the existing conditions and proposed rehabilitation alternatives were evaluated with these tools. Other planning activities included a topographic survey, land use inventory, natural resources inventories, wetland assessments, and the identification of cultural resources, invasive plants, and threatened and endangered species. Potential alternatives were evaluated for cost-effectiveness and for local acceptability. Both the benefits and the costs of the alternatives were computed and analyzed. PHYSICAL FEATURES Project Location: The watershed for Roaring Fork Lake is located entirely within Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The Roaring Fork Lake watershed is 3,677 acres (5.75 square miles). Appendix B shows the location map for this watershed. Roaring Fork Lake is a tributary to Cherrystone Creek, which confluences with the Banister River approximately 8.4 miles downstream of the dam. The Banister River flows through Halifax, Virginia, and drains into the Dan River just east of South Boston, Virginia. The Dan River and Roanoke River flow together near the upstream portion of the John H. Kerr Reservoir (known locally as Buggs Island), which is located on the Virginia/North Carolina border. From there, the water flows through Lake Gaston into the Roanoke River to the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound and out to the Atlantic Ocean off the North Carolina coast. Topography: Roaring Fork Lake is in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography of the Piedmont is characterized by gently rolling hills and valleys. The elevation in the watershed ranges from about 640 feet at the dam to about 963 feet on the watershed divide just south of the small community of Climax. Soils: The five major soil map units in the watershed above Cherrystone 2A dam comprise a total of 87.8% or 3,228 acres of the watershed. They consist of Cecil sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes; Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, severely eroded; Cecil sandy clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded; Madison fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes; Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, according to Web Soil Survey for Pittsylvania County. The evaluated area extends from Cherrystone 2A Dam upstream to include the entire watershed that drains into the lake. The area totals 3,677 acres and includes flood plain, terrace and side slope landscape positions. The Cecil sandy clay loam covers 1,498 acres (40.7%) of the area, the Madison fine sandy loam 734 acres (19.9%), the Clifford sandy loam 612 acres (16.7%), the Cecil sandy loam 493 acres (13.4%), the Cullen clay loam 107 acres (2.9), the Chenneby-Toccoa complex 92 (2.5%), Water 42 acres (1.1%), and Asher fine sandy loam 20 acres (0.5%). Other smaller soil map units make 7.d.d Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 8 up the remainder of the acreage in the watershed. Approximately 64.5% of the soils are on slopes greater than 7%. Downstream of the dam, the four major soil map units comprise a total of 77.7% or 619 acres. They consist of Chenneby loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded; Chenneby-Toccoa complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded; Wehadkee silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded; and Madison fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, according to Web Soil Survey for Pittsylvania County. The evaluated area extends from Cherrystone 2A Dam downstream to the study area limits. The area totals 796 acres and includes flood plain and side slope landscape positions. The Chenneby loam covers 244 acres (30.7%) of the area, the Chenneby-Toccoa complex 182 acres (22.9%), the Madison fine sandy loam 152 acres (19%), the Wehadkee silt loam 108 acres (13.5%), the Cecil sandy loam 38 acres (4.8%), the Ashlar fine sandy loam 28 acres (3.6%), the Cecil sandy clay loam 21 acres (2.7%), Urban land 15 acres (1.8%), and the Dam 1.6 acres (0.2%). Other smaller soil map units make up the remainder of the acreage in the watershed. Approximately 30.4% of the soils are on slopes greater than 7%. Geology: The digital representation of the 1993 Geologic Map of Virginia and the Geological Map of Pittsville and Chatham Quadrangle by Marr – 1984 indicates that Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A is underlain by rocks of the Early Paleozoic Era and the Triassic Period. The formation with the largest area in the watershed is the Fork Mountain Formation. These mica schists and biotite gneisses are Early Paleozoic-aged and dominate the footprint of the dam. A narrow band of a Triassic-aged Diabase dike is mapped along Cherrystone Road downstream of the dam. This formation trends north and south in the area of the dam and watershed and is described as black, fine to medium-grained diabase. The diabase dikes are intrusive igneous rock and cut through the geologic units in the area. The Leatherwood Granite occurs in small locations near the structure and the watershed. This Ordovician aged formation is usually described as light-colored granites. The floodplains of the valleys are composed of layers of sandy and silty alluvial deposits. These Quaternary-aged deposits are underlain by weathered rock of the formations described above. Climate: In Pittsylvania County, the annual average temperature is 54.7°F with an annual summer average of 73.0°F and an annual winter average of 36.4°F. The mean date for the last frost of spring is May 2 with the latest date being May 23. In the fall, the mean date for the first frost is October 10 with the latest frost occurring on November 6. This provides a mean growing season of approximately 161 days. The average annual precipitation is 45.24 inches. This precipitation is well distributed through the year with slightly larger amounts (over 4 inches) occurring in the months of March, May, July, and September. The average annual total snowfall is 4.2 inches. LAND USE The total drainage area upstream of Roaring Fork Lake is 3,677 acres (5.75 square miles). This area was derived using the ArcGIS Hydrologic Analysis Tools. The Land Cover/Land Use was extracted from the 2015 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) land cover data layer. Table B lists the land use upstream of the dam. This table also lists the land use in the Sunny Day Breach inundation zone below the dam. Appendix C contains the land cover map of the watershed. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 9 Table B - Land Use Land Cover Type Drainage Area of Roaring Fork Lake (ac.) Percent of Total Sunny Day Breach Inundation Zone (ac.) Percent of Total Developed 155 4.2 61 7.6 Cropland 418 11.4 2 0.3 Woodland 1,740 47.3 537 67.5 Hay/Pasture 1,245 33.9 196 24.6 Water 25 0.7 0 0 Shrub Land 94 2.5 0 0 Total 3,677 100.0 796 100.0 POTABLE WATER SUPPLY Cherrystone Creek is a source of public water supply for the Town of Chatham. The portion of the creek above the raw water intake is regulated almost entirely by two reservoirs, Cherrystone Lake (Dam No. 1) and Roaring Fork Lake (Dam No. 2A). Cherrystone Lake has 105 acres of open water and provides 850 acre-feet of water supply storage. Roaring Fork Lake has 16.5 acres of open water and provides 99 acre-feet of water supply storage. In response to a 2014 request from the Town of Chatham for a Virginia Water Protection (VWP) Permit for Surface Water Withdrawal, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) completed a modeling analysis of the proposed withdrawal rates, water volumes, safe yield, drought of record, and projected population and business growth. NRCS accepts DEQ’s expert analysis as evidence that any proposed water supply use from either lake will be acceptable in quantity and quality to meet the anticipated needs. A reference is provided for the VWP Individual Permit Number 15-0262 should more detailed information be needed on water supply issues with these two dams. Although the Roaring Fork Dam was not constructed for the purpose of water supply, the Sponsors installed a 12-inch diameter water supply gate in the riser so that water from the lake can be used to supplement the supply of water from Cherrystone Lake. NRCS approved the riser modifications in March 2016. At the request of the Sponsors, NRCS approved proceeding with the addition of supplemental water supply (M&I) as a purpose for Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A. On January 29, 2016, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality issued a VWP Permit to the Town of Chatham to withdraw up to 1.4 million gallons per day from Cherrystone Creek. In 2017, the Town withdrew about 400,000 gallons per day for approximately 952 water users. The Town provides water to about 1,300 town people and outlying areas in Pittsylvania County, plus 1,000 prisoners at Green Rock Prison. The permit contains some minimum water release requirements, depending on the inflow and the water levels in the two lakes, in addition to the daily water demands of the Town’s service area. The permit is valid for 15 years from date of issuance. In addition to several instream and offstream beneficial uses, public water supply use for human consumption is considered the highest priority for Cherrystone Creek. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS The entire population at risk from a possible breach event live within Pittsylvania County. There are four homes in the Town of Chatham that lie within the breach inundation zone. Additionally, 7.d.d Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 10 there are four county roads in the breach inundation zone with a cumulative total average daily traffic count of 630 (Cherrystone Lake Road – 130, Hodnetts Mill Road – 270, Moses Mill Road – 110 and Davis Road – 120). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the Town of Chatham was 987 (2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimate). Of the total population in the ACS, 76.7% (757) were White and 18.8% (186) were Black or African American. All other racial groups individually were less than 1% of the total population. Together, Whites and Blacks made up 95.5% of the Town’s entire population. Hispanics of any race are the second largest minority group with 2.7%, or 27. The median age of the population of the Town of Chatham is 50.5 while the same number for the entire state of Virginia was 37.6. Residents in the Town of Chatham that were 65 years old or older totaled 24.7% (244). Of the Town population, 85.7% was over the age of 19. Approximately 85.6% of the residents in the Town had a high school education or higher. Of the residents in the Town that are 25 years of age or older, 14.4% do not have a high school diploma. About 34.9% of the Town residents have some education beyond high school, including 15.1% with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 19.7% with graduate or professional degrees. There are 419 Town of Chatham residents who are 16 years of age or older according to the 2010- 2014 ACS. Approximately 68% (446) of the residents 16 years of age or older are considered in the labor force pool. About 32% of the civilian labor force in the Town was unemployed according to the same source. The Town of Chatham has a diverse economy. According to the 2010-2014 ACS, five sub-sectors of the local economy employ the civilian workforce: management, professional and related (45.6%); service (13.6%); sales and office (23.9%); construction, extraction, maintenance and repair (1.9%); and production, transportation and material moving (13.1%); Private wage and salary employment constitutes 58.5% of all employment in the Town of Chatham while public sector jobs (primarily in education) make up 41.5% in Chatham. Median household income estimated for the Town for the 2010-2014 period was $45,000. This compares to $64,792 per year for the median household income calculated for Virginia. The national figure for median household income per year estimated for the same period was $53,482. With respect to per capita incomes, Town of Chatham residents are estimated to have had per capita income of $27,849 for the 2010-2014 period. Virginians reported per capita income of $33,958 for the 2010-2014 period, while the same figure for the entire United States was $28,555 for same period. That makes the Town per capita income figure for 2010-2014 82% of the state’s level and 97.5% of the national figure. According to the 2010-2014 Census estimates, the Town of Chatham had 23 families living below the poverty level (9.3%) and a total of 73 people living below the poverty level. That compares to 8.2% for State and 11.5% for the Nation. The 2010-2014 Census estimates indicate that 76.7% of the 529 housing units within the Town of Chatham were occupied. The median year that Chatham homes were built is 1951. About 72% of all homes were built before 1959. A majority of the 150 people at risk from a breach event live within the Town of Chatham. There are 6 structures within the breach inundation zone: four homes (2 single family homes, 2 mobile 7.d.d Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 11 homes), one commercial structure and one barn. The homes are in or near the Town of Chatham. Most of the residential property downstream of the dam ranges between $50,000 and $500,000 in total value with an average of about $150,000. The total value of residential and commercial property (structures and contents only, excluding land values) at risk below the dam is an estimated $1,298,900. The four roads in the breach inundation zone include four bridges with an estimated total value of $1,030,000. Approximately 0.9 miles of these county roads would be subject to scour erosion in a breach event. Recreation Although not a designated public use recreational reservoir, Cherrystone Creek Site 2A provides incidental recreation to adjacent land owners, including fishing, boating, and bird watching. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 12 SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS SOILS Prime and unique farmlands, and farmland of statewide importance: While there is no designated Prime and Unique Farmland protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) located within the maximum extent of possible ground disturbance of the affected environment, there are up to 1.6 acres of designated Farmland of Statewide Importance that could be disturbed by the proposed action. (See Appendix C for map). WATER Clean Water Act Clean Water Act (CWA) – Sections 303(d) and 305(b) (Water Quality) overview: The two separate sections of the CWA, sections 303(d) and 305(b), are discussed together because they both pertain to water quality. Section 303(d) requires States, territories, and Tribes to identify “impaired waters” and to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). A TMDL is a plan regulatory term in the CWA, describing a plan for restoring impaired waters that identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards. The Final 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report, was released in April 2018, https://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQuality Assessments/2016305b303dIntegratedReport.aspx. It summarizes the water quality conditions in Virginia from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2014. The Report lists 5.96 river miles of Cherrystone Creek, from the Cherrystone Creek Reservoir Dam to the Chatham Sewage Treatment Plant outfall, as a Category 4A, Escherichia coli (E. coli) impaired stream, not supporting recreational use. This designation does not require the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) because the TMDL for E. coli is complete and U.S. EPA approved. The listed contamination sources included livestock (grazing or feeding operations), unspecified domestic waste, wastes from pets, and wildlife other than waterfowl. Waters of the U.S. Clean Water Act – Sections 401 (State Administered) and 404 (Federally Administered) overview: As above, because of their relationship to one another, both Sections 401 and 404 are discussed together. Section 404 established a permit program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the U.S. Discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. is prohibited unless the action is exempted or is authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or by the State. If a CWA Section 404 permit is required, first the State (or Tribe) in which the activity will occur must certify that the activity will not violate State water quality standards by issuing a Section 401 State Water Quality Certification. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 13 Clean Water Act – Section 402 (State Administered) overview: Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, also administered by the States. Section 402 requires a permit for sewer discharges and storm water discharges from developments, construction sites, or other areas of soil disturbance. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers the program as the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES), http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/PermittingCompliance/PollutionDischargeElim ination.aspx. The DEQ issues VPDES permits for all point source discharges to surface waters, to dischargers of stormwater from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), and to dischargers of stormwater from Industrial Activities, and Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) permits to dischargers of stormwater from Construction Activities, http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/StormwaterManagement/VSMPPermits.aspx. Roaring Fork is a tributary to Cherrystone Creek, which is considered to be a water of the U.S. The Permits and Compliance section of this Plan-EA will identify any state or local permitting that may be required based upon the alternatives carried forward for impacts analysis. Code of Virginia, Title 62.1. Waters of the State Ports and Harbors, Chapter 3.1 State Water Control Law, Article 2.5 – Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act overview: The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Bay Act), enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988, is designed to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and other waters of the State by requiring the use of effective land management and land use planning. The Bay Act balances state and local economic interests and water quality improvement by creating a unique cooperative partnership between state and Tidewater local governments to reduce and prevent nonpoint source pollution. The Bay Act recognizes that local governments have the primary responsibility for land use decisions, expanding local government authority to manage water quality, and establishing a more specific relationship between water quality protection and local land use decision-making. A list of the applicable 84 localities is available at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/ChesapeakeBay/ChesapeakeBayPreservationA ct/LocalProgramTechnicalAssistance.aspx. Pittsylvania County is not among the 84 Bay Act localities subject to regulation under the Bay Act. Accordingly, the Bay Act is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Wetlands Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands overview: Executive Order (E.O.) 11990 requires that Federal Agencies take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the beneficial functions of wetlands when “providing federally undertaken, financed or assisted construction and improvements.” Wetlands are defined differently within various Federal and State programs and for identification, delineation, and classification purposes. The NRCS wetland protection policy defines wetlands as areas, natural or artificial, that have hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and indicators of wetland hydrology. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 14 There are approximately 18.1 acres of wetlands located within the affected environment of the proposed action. The Roaring Fork Lake shoreline, inflow, and outflow were field surveyed in May 2017 for wetlands. Palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands comprise a total of 2.5 acres which include the shorelines and the inflow of the lake. The 15.6 surface acres of the lake are considered to be open water wetlands (OW). No other wetlands were identified in the affected environment. A review of the USFWS wetland mapper website, www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, confirmed field observations. Appendix D contains additional documentation regarding the field investigation methodology. The Permits and Compliance section will identify any state or local permitting that may be required based upon the alternative carried forward for impacts analysis. Coastal Zone Management Areas Coastal Zone Management Act – Section 307 overview: Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act specifies that actions or activities within the coastal zone implemented by a Federal agency or on the behalf of or through a Federal agency must be consistent with the State’s coastal plan, if they have one, and be in concert with the goals tenets, and objectives of that plan. Federal Agency Coastal Zone Management Areas (CZMAs) are areas located within or near the officially designated “coastal zone” of a State. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Office of Coastal Zone Management approves coastal programs. The list of Virginia’s dedicated CZMAs is available on-line at http://deq.state.va.us/Programs/EnvironmentalImpactReview/FederalConsistencyReviews.as px#cma. Pittsylvania County is not located in or near a designated CZMA. Accordingly, the Coastal Zone Management Act is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Overview: The NRCS policy on floodplains (190-GM, Part 410, Subpart B, Section 410.25) reflects the requirement of the E.O. that decisions by Federal agencies must recognize that floodplains have unique and significant public values. The objectives of E.O. 11988 are to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development where there is a practical alternative. Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham have participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1980 and 1979, respectively. Hydrology and hydraulics analyses were performed for this planning effort for areas upstream and immediately downstream of Roaring Fork dam leading to the confluence with Cherrystone Creek. The with and without project conditions do not 7.d.d Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 15 change the 100-year discharge significantly and does not affect the existing FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the area. According to the Special Flood Hazard Area maps (Appendix C), the flood zone A above the dam is within the County Boundary. Based on the SITES analysis, the base flood elevation upstream of the dam was determined to be equal to the elevation of the 100-year, 24-hour storm. Flood zone A and AE below the dam are within portions of the County and Town’s Jurisdictional Boundaries. Zone A designates a special flood hazard area that has no base flood elevation data or floodway. Zone AE designates a special flood hazard zones that has base flood elevation data (100-year flood elevations). The Zone AE areas on Cherrystone Creek also have floodways determined. The floodways are the portion of the floodplain designed to convey the base (100-year) flood. The Special Flood Hazard Areas Map for Cherrystone Creek is found in Appendix C. It designates both Zone A and Zone AE for Cherrystone Creek and includes the 0.2% annual chance of flooding area (500-year). The existing Flood Insurance Rate Map and Floodplain Ordinances are based upon the dam in place. There are no inhabitable dwellings in the currently effective regulatory 100-year floodplain but there is one house in the 500-year floodplain downstream of the dam. Wild and Scenic Rivers The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542) overview: The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was created by Congress to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. According to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System website, https://www.rivers.gov, while Virginia has approximately 49,350 miles of river, there are currently no federally designated wild and scenic rivers in the state. Therefore, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970 (Code of VA, Title 10.1-400) overview: Virginia Scenic Rivers Program’s intent is to identify, designate and help protect rivers and streams that possess outstanding scenic, recreational, historic and natural characteristics of statewide significance for future generations. In addition to existing designated state scenic rivers, other river segments have been deemed worthy of further study. According to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Scenic Rivers Program website, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational-planning/srmain, while Virginia has approximately 49,350 miles of river, there are currently no State designated river segments in the affected environment of the project. In addition, there are no recommended river study segments within the project affected environment per the Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper of Recommended River Study Segments website, http://dswcapps.dcr.virginia.gov/dnh/vop/vopmapper.htm. Therefore, the Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970 is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 16 AIR Clean Air Act – General Conformity Rule (Criteria Pollutants) overview: The U.S. EPA’s “Green Book,” available online, indicates Pittsylvania County to be in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the General Conformity Rule is not applicable to the project’s affected environment will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Clean Air Act – Regional Haze Regulations overview: Nationwide there are 156 designated Class I areas across the country, including many well- known national parks and wilderness areas that are given special protection under the Clean Air Act. Per the EPA’s online list of areas protected by the Regional Haze Program, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/list-areas-protected-regional-haze-program, there are two designated Class I areas located in Virginia, neither of which are in proximity to Pittsylvania County. Accordingly, the Regional Haze Regulations are not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Applicable State and Local Air Quality Regulations Air quality permits are issued to industries and facilities that emit regulated pollutants to ensure that these emissions do not cause harm to the public or the environment. Federal and state regulations to control air pollution are implemented through the air permitting process. Permit applicability determinations and the issuance of permits are performed in the DEQ regional offices, http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Air/PermittingCompliance.aspx. The Permits and Compliance section of this Plan will identify any state or local air permitting requirements for the Preferred Alternative. ANIMALS AND PLANTS Endangered and Threatened Species and Natural Areas Endangered Species Act (Federal) Overview: Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the NRCS, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)], to advance the purposes of the Act by implementing programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and to ensure that NRCS actions and activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species’ critical habitat. NRCS obtained the Official Species List from the USFWS on March 26, 2018 via the online Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. No Federally endangered species were identified and the only threatened species identified as potentially present is the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis). Based upon the results of the IPaC results, the NRCS followed up with a search of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland 7.d.d Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 17 Fisheries’ (VDGIF) on-line NLEB Winter Habitat and Roost Tree ARC GIS System, http://dgif-virginia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=32ea4ee4935942c092e41ddcd19e5 ec5. Using the search tool, NRCS found no NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees for NLEB within Pittsylvania County. Therefore, as stated in the Final 4(d) rule on the NLEB, since no “known” maternity roost trees or hibernacula have been designated within a ¼ mile radius of the proposed project, any incidental take that may result from the project is exempted by the 4(d) rule and no further action is necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act prohibitions to protect the NLEB. Although the NRCS search using the USFWS IPaC system did not indicate the potential presence of the Federally Endangered Roanoke logperch, during the search for State listed threatened or endangered species, the Roanoke logperch was identified in the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) database, http://vafwis.org/fwis/, search discussed below. This is attributed to the fact that the VaFWIS database uses a much larger default search area (3 miles from project location) than that of IPaC, which employs a user-defined area of potential impact based upon the actual maximum potential footprint for the project. Consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) specialists was initiated during project scoping. Follow-up efforts did not identify further concerns. Virginia State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Natural Areas The NRCS must also consult with State entities when considering impacts to species of concern protected by State laws or regulations. • Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species (Animals) In December 2017 the NRCS performed a search of the VDGIF’s Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) database, http://vafwis.org/fwis/, to identify potential species that may be present in the affected environment for the proposed action. The results indicated the potential presence of the VDGIF State listed species in Table C. The VaFWIS database uses a minimum 3-mile habitat search radius from the location of the proposed action. To obtain accurate feedback specific to the affected environment, the NRCS performed follow-up consultation via email with the applicable VDGIF designated resource expert for each of the above species populated by the VaFWIS search. The NRCS provided the coordinates for the proposed project location and requested assistance in determining if the necessary habitat for the applicable species is present within the affected environment, and if the applicable species has been documented as present within the affected environment. Additionally, the NRCS requested information regarding any applicable species specific best management practice recommendations, including any time of year activity restrictions. Consultation with VDGIF specialists was initiated during project scoping. Follow-up efforts did not identify further concerns. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 18 Table C - State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Status Common Name Scientific Name VDGIF Response State Endangered Roanoke logperch Percina rex No response to 01/23/18 NRCS email requesting input. State Threatened Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Also Federally Listed. Consulted USFWS (email-01/26/18) State Endangered Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus lucifugus No Concerns (email-01/26/18) State Endangered Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus No Concerns (email-01/26/18) State Endangered Spirit supercoil Paravitrea hera No response to 01/23/18 NRCS email requesting input. State Threatened Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus No documented presence & no suitable habitat (email-01/29/18) State Threatened Orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti No response to 01/23/18 NRCS email requesting input. State Threatened Migrant loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus migrans No documented presence & no suitable habitat (email-01/29/18) • Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) Resources Although the VDACS retains legal authority for the protection of all State Listed plants and insects, http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/plant-industry-services-endangered-species.shtml, they have a memorandum of agreement in place with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation stipulating that coordination regarding these resources should be initiated through the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage Resources, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/. • Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), Division of Natural Heritage (DNH) - Virginia Natural Heritage Program Resources The Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act, 10.1-209 through 217 of the Code of Virginia, was passed in 1989 and codified VDCR's powers and duties related to statewide biological inventory: maintaining a statewide database for conservation planning and project review, land protection for the conservation of biodiversity, and the protection and ecological management of natural heritage resources (the habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species, significant natural communities, geologic sites, and other natural features). The VDCR-DNH represents the first comprehensive attempt to identify the most significant natural areas in the 7.d.d Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 19 Commonwealth through an intensive statewide inventory of plants, animals, natural communities, and other features that are exemplary, rare, or endangered on a global or statewide basis. Virginia Natural Area Preserves System The Virginia Natural Area Preserves System was established in the late 1980's to protect some of the most significant natural areas in the Commonwealth. A site becomes a component of the preserve system once dedicated as a natural area preserve by the Director of the DCR. Natural area dedication works in much the same way as a conservation easement by placing legally binding restrictions on future activities on a property. The Natural Area Preserve System includes examples of some of the rarest natural communities and rare species habitats in Virginia. On February 06, 2018, the NRCS accessed the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage Program’s Virginia Natural Area Preserves website, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural- area-preserves/, and learned there are currently no designated Virginia Natural Area Preserves located in Pittsylvania County. Therefore, the Virginia Natural Area Preserves program is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Virginia Rare Species and Natural Communities In February 2018, the NRCS completed a search of the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage Program’s Rare Species and Natural Community database, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/dbsearchtool. The search parameters included all taxonomic groups for all State Conservation Status Rank categories, for all State Legal Status species located in Pittsylvania County, including the eight-digit Watershed HUC for the Bannister River (03010105), and with the Subwatershed twelve-digit HUC for the Cherrystone Creek (RD55). The search results did not identify any species using the aforementioned search criteria within the affected environment. Therefore, the Virginia Rare Species and Natural Communities program is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Essential Fish Habitat Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act overview: The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in the U.S. In 1996, the Act was amended to incorporate essential fish habitat (EFH) and rules were published in the Federal Register. It calls for heightened consideration of fish habitat in resource management decisions and direct action to stop or reverse the continued loss of fish habitats. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implements and enforces the management measures through fisheries management plans. Since the affected environment is inland, and does not include saltwater tributaries or marine fisheries, there is no potential essential fish habitat protected under the Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act present according to https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/essential-fish-habitat-mapper. Therefore, essential 7.d.d Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 20 fish habitat is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Migratory Birds Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is the domestic law that affirms or implements the United States’ commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. It protects all migratory birds and their parts, including eggs, nests, and feathers. Thus, the law makes it unlawful, unless permitted by regulation, for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird, including feathers, parts, nests, or eggs. Migratory birds are essentially all wild birds found in the United States, except the house sparrow, starling, feral pigeon, and resident game birds, such as pheasant, grouse, quail, and wild turkeys. The affected environment for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A is located within the Atlantic Flyway, the migratory path of waterfowl, shorebirds, pelagic birds, and song birds of the North American East Coast. Each fall the Atlantic Flyway is filled with ducks, geese, brant, swans, hawks, eagles, and other migratory birds. Waterfowl and other birds make several stops on the flyway to rest, feed, and drink before continuing their southern migration. In early spring, birds follow this path northward to their traditional nesting grounds. Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (Migratory Birds) overview: Executive Order 13186 requires the NRCS to consider the impacts of planned actions on migratory bird populations and habitats for all planning activities. The USFWS IPaC System identified the birds in Table D as birds of particular concern because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, or because they warrant special attention in the project area. In this case, all the IPaC System identified species are listed on the BCC, not because they warrant special attention in the specific project area. Table D – USFWS Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Season Eastern Whip-poor-will Anstrostomus vociferus May 1 – Aug 20 Kentucky Warbler Oporonis formosus Apr 20 – Aug 20 Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor May 1 – Jul 31 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus May 10 – Sep 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinas Breeds elsewhere Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina May 10 – Aug 31 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act In addition to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186, all Bald and Golden Eagles are further protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides 7.d.d Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 21 criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment. Bald eagles: Although Bald eagle habitat is present, the NRCS performed a site visit in May of 2017 and no Bald eagle nests were identified within the affected environment. Additionally, according to the Center for Conservation Biology’s Bald eagle nest locator at http://www.ccbbirds.org/maps/#eagles, there are no known Bald eagle nest or roosts within the affected environment. The closest recorded nest is more than 35 miles away from the dam. Golden eagles: Eastern Golden eagle migration is strongly associated with the Appalachian ridgelines. In Virginia, the birds migrate southward between October and early December, and northward during April and May. Wintering eagles spend the months of December through March in the Commonwealth. Within Virginia and the broader Appalachian range, wintering Golden eagles are primarily associated with small forest openings along ridgelines, although they may also be seen soaring over the valleys between ridges. The “mountains” of Virginia physically begin at the Blue Ridge of Virginia. As one of the six southernmost counties in the Southern Piedmont region of Virginia along its southern border with North Carolina, Pittsylvania County is well south of the Appalachian ridgelines and valleys. Since the affected environment does not include the habitat requirements of the Golden eagle, this resource will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 directs Federal agencies to “prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.” The NRCS policy, 190-GM, Part 414, is consistent with this E.O. and requires that no actions be authorized, funded or carried out that is believed to or is likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere. As defined in the E.O., invasive species are species not native to a particular ecosystem, whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species may include all terrestrial and aquatic life forms, including plants, animals, fungi, and microbial organisms. • Invasive Animal and Plant Species: In February 2018, an NRCS/Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) biologist performed an invasive species survey within affected environment (based on the maximum conceivable extent of potential ground disturbing activities for projects of this type). No invasive animals were identified during the field survey. The following common invasive plant species were identified: Chinese privet, Japanese stiltgrass, Honeysuckle, Sericea lespedeza, and Tree of 7.d.d Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 22 Heaven. See Appendix C-5 for invasive species map of the project area. Areas with high concentrations of invasive plants are depicted with yellow hash and outlined. Individual red dots with yellow outer circle represent small clumps of the particular invasive plant identified. Riparian Areas Natural Resources Conservation Service Policy (GM 190, Part 411 (Amendment 23 – September 2010)) The NRCS policy (GM 190, Part 411 (Amendment 23 – September 2010)) requires the NRCS to integrate riparian area management into all plans and alternatives. Although Federal law does not specifically regulate riparian areas, portions of riparian areas such as wetlands and other waters of the U.S. may be subject to Federal regulation under provisions of the Food Security Act, Clean Water Act, and State, Tribal, and local legislation. Riparian areas are ecotones that occur along watercourses and waterbodies. They are distinctly different from the surrounding lands because of unique soil and vegetation characteristics that are strongly influenced by free or unbound water in the soil. Riparian ecotones occupy the transitional area between the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Typical examples include perennial and intermittent streambanks, floodplains, and lake shores. Riparian areas are present within the project area. These riparian areas are located along the banks of the inflows and perimeter of Roaring Fork Lake. Additional riparian areas are located along the banks of Roaring Fork downstream of dam. Most of the riparian areas along the inflows and perimeter of Roaring Fork Lake are forested. The riparian area along Cherrystone Creek downstream of the dam is a forested corridor and extends to its confluence with the Banister River. HUMAN Scenic Beauty NRCS General Manual, Title 190, Part 410.24 Scenic beauty can be defined as the viewer’s positive perceived value of special, unique and memorable physical elements of a landscape. There are no designated State Natural and Scenic Area Preserves located in Pittsylvania County, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-area-preserves/. Therefore, Scenic Beauty is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Cultural Resources National Historic Preservation Act In 1966, Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) which directed all Federal Agencies to establish a preservation program based on a framework outlined in the NHPA, as amended. It also required Federal Agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 23 The term “cultural resources” as used by NRCS is broader than those resources encompassed by the term “historic properties” as defined by the NHPA (16 U.S.C. Section 470 et seq.) and regulations for compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800). Under NHPA, historic properties include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. They also include all records, artifacts, and physical remains associated with the NRHP-eligible historic properties. They may consist of the traces of the past activities and accomplishments of people. The term “historic property” also includes properties of religious and cultural importance to an Indian Tribe (including Native Alaskan Villages) or Native Hawaiian organization that meet NRHP criteria. As more broadly used, the term “cultural resources,” covers a wider range of resources than “historic properties,” such as sacred sites, archaeological sites not eligible for the NRHP, and archaeological collections. Per the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which a project may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if they exist. The NRCS determined that the direct impacts APE for this undertaking is confined to the areas of potential ground disturbance (using the maximum possible extent of ground disturbance) that extend beyond the bounds of areas that were previously disturbed during the construction of the original dam. The in-direct APE for this undertaking is the viewshed from any identified historic resource to the proposed undertaking (using the maximum possible extent of ground disturbance). Figure B-7 depicts the maximum extent of ground disturbance during the proposed dam construction. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal Agencies consult with the applicable State Historic Preservation Officer, federally recognized Native American Tribes, and other interested parties regarding cultural resources. In November 2018, the NRCS searched the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS), https://vcris.dhr.virginia.gov/vcris/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%252fvcris, to identify recorded historic properties. The V-CRIS search results did not identify any recorded archaeological or architectural historic resources within the defined direct or indirect APE. The NRCS conducted a cultural resources survey of the APE on November 5, 2018. Two potentially eligible historic resources were located, one within the direct APE (Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, built in 1969), and one within the indirect APE (Hodnetts Mill site, built in mid-19th century). Neither historic resource was listed/identified in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS) database. As part of the NRCS survey, the Hodnetts Mill site was recorded as site 44PY0461 in the V-CRIS database. Both the Hodnetts Mill site and Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A are eligible for National Register consideration due to their age (50+ years old). The National Register of Historic Places, https://www.nps.gov/nr/, lists nineteen sites in Pittsylvania County, none of which are located within the defined direct or indirect APE of the undertaking. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 24 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal Agencies consult with the applicable State Historic Preservation Officer, federally recognized Native American Tribes, and other interested parties regarding cultural resources. To identify Native American tribes, including those no longer resident to Virginia, that might attach religious or cultural significance to historic properties located in the project area, the NRCS searched both the National Park Service’s Native American Consultation Database (NACD), https://grantsdev.cr.nps.gov/Nagpra/NACD/, and the Housing and Urban Development Agency’s Tribal Directory Assessment Tool (TDAT), https://egis.hud.gov/tdat/. This was done in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(i) of the ACHP Regulations. The NACD search came back negative while the TDAT search identified only the “Delaware Nation, Oklahoma” as having a claimed interest or consultation contact in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Consultation will be completed, as required. On February 2, 2018, the NRCS contacted the Pittsylvania County Historical Society Board of Directors and requested information about any known cultural resources in or near the affected environment. The NRCS asked specifically about Hodnetts Mill, and a Board member stated that Hodnetts Mill was in ruins and not of concern to the Historical Society. The Historical Society reported no historic resources of concern within the defined direct or indirect APE. National Historic Landmarks Program The National Parks Services National Historic Landmarks Program are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior and listed in the National Register of Historic Places because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Per the National Park Service’s National Historic Landmarks Program website, https://www.nps.gov/nhl/find/statelists.htm, there is one National Historic Landmark listed in Pittsylvania County, the Pittsylvania County Courthouse, located in the Town of Chatham. The Pittsylvania County Courthouse is not within the direct or indirect APE of the proposed undertaking. Therefore, the National Historic Landmarks Program is not applicable to the project’s affected environment and will not be carried forward for impacts analysis in the Environmental Consequences section. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice overview: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires each Federal agency to make environmental justice a part of its mission. Agencies must identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations and Indian Tribes. The primary means to attain compliance with environmental justice considerations is: 1) Assessing the presence of environmental justice communities in a project area that may experience disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, and 2) The inclusion of low-income minority, Tribal, or other specified populations in the planning process. Additionally, E.O. 12898, established an Interagency Working Group (IWG) on 7.d.d Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 25 environmental justice chaired by the EPA Administrator and comprised of the heads of 11 departments or agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture Departmental Regulation 5600-002 – Environmental Justice overview: The USDA Departmental Regulation (DR) 5600-002 provides detailed determination procedures for NEPA and non-NEPA activities and suggests social and economic effects to consider when assessing whether there are disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to environmental justice communities in a project area. An environmental justice and civil rights analyses was conducted for the breach inundation zone and associated nearby areas below the dam (Table E). The estimated population of the delineated area is 753 according to Census projections for 2011-2015. EPA’s “EJSCREEN” tool was used to identify environmental justice groups within the benefited area downstream of the dam. Thirty- nine percent of the benefitted downstream population are minorities and 61% are white. Thirty- five percent of the beneficiaries have household incomes at or below $25,000 which is below the $28,440 poverty level for households with four individuals for the 48 contiguous states (per the January 25, 2016 Federal Register notice from the US Department of Health and Human Services). Nineteen percent of the population have less than a high school education. Sixty-six percent own their homes and 34% rent. Of the population age 16 and over, only 44% are in the labor force while 56% are not in the labor force. With respect to environmental indicators assessed using the EJSCREEN tool, the assessed area has values below state and national levels. These statistics indicate the likely presence of individuals with environmental justice concerns, but rehabilitation of a dam provides benefits to all socioeconomic groups below and above the dam without disparate treatment to any individuals or social groups. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 26 Table E - Indicators and Groups from EPA’s Environmental Justice Tool 7.d.d Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 27 Figure 1. Area evaluated for environmental justice effects. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 28 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING DAM Current Condition of the Dam: The dam and auxiliary spillway have been well maintained with a good stand of grass and no significant woody vegetation on the embankment and auxiliary spillway. No erosion was observed on either the embankment or the auxiliary spillway. In addition, no significant seepage or evidence of stability issues have been observed. The camera survey of the principal spillway pipe was completed on August 23, 2017 and showed no material deterioration. The structural components of the dam were inspected by underwater divers and professional engineers on August 22, 2017. They were found to be in good condition with only minor issues to be addressed during construction. As-Built Dam Specifications: The dam was constructed in 1969 and “As-Built” drawings are available in the NRCS State Office in Richmond, Virginia. The earthen embankment is about 62 feet high, 400 feet long, and is built with about 84,000 cubic yards of excavated earth and rock. The upstream and downstream embankment slopes are 2.5:1. There is a 10-foot-wide berm on the upstream face of the embankment located slightly above the elevation of the permanent pool. Below the berm, the embankment slope is 3:1. The embankment was constructed with two core zones and an outer shell. The primary core zone extends through the foundation material to rock. The earth-fill used to construct this zone was described as inorganic silts and very fine sands and was obtained from the auxiliary spillway and Borrow Area B at the entrance to the auxiliary spillway. The second core zone, Zone 3, was constructed of weathered mica phyllite from the auxiliary spillway. Zone 2, the outer shell, was constructed from silty sand from the auxiliary spillway. A 30-foot-wide core trench was constructed at the centerline of the dam an average of about 15 feet below natural ground. The embankment has a top width of 20 feet. The site was surveyed in 2014. All elevations are given in feet using NAVD88 vertical datum. The top of dam was surveyed at elevation 707.4; the normal pool at elevation 674.1; and the auxiliary spillway crest at elevation 699.8. Principal Spillway: The principal spillway conduit is a 36-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe, about 358 feet long. The flow into the pipe inlet is controlled by a two-stage reinforced concrete riser with interior dimensions of 3.0 feet and 9.0 feet. The riser is 40 feet high. The first-stage inlet is a rectangular orifice, 27 inches by 13 inches. The second-stage inlet is two 9-foot long weirs. The riser is equipped with a pond drain, 36 inches in diameter. A 12-inch-diameter water supply gate was recently added to the riser. The principal spillway pipe outlets into a stilling basin lined with rock riprap. Roaring Fork enters Cherrystone Creek just a few hundred feet downstream of the dam at a point downstream of Hodnetts Mill Road. The trash rack for the intake orifice is in poor condition and must be replaced. The stem and stem guides for the drain gate are heavily corroded and must also be replaced. Auxiliary Spillway: The dam’s auxiliary spillway is a grassed open channel, with a 200-foot bottom width and 3:1 side slopes. The level control section is 30 feet long. The outlet channel slopes at 3%. The auxiliary spillway outlet crosses Cherrystone Lake Road and enters Cherrystone Creek upstream of Hodnetts Mill Road. When designed as a significant hazard potential dam, the planned annual-chance frequency of use was one percent. The existing annual chance frequency is 60-year event. The one-percent annual-chance (100-year) flood event will flow through the auxiliary spillway at a depth of 0.8 feet. To detain the 100-year flood, the crest of the existing auxiliary spillway would have to be raised 2.4 feet. There are no inhabitable structures currently located in the 100-year floodplain in the area influenced by the dam. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 29 Internal Drain System: An interior toe drain system is installed 100 feet downstream of the centerline of the embankment. Drain fill was also placed as a diaphragm surrounding the principal spillway pipe approximately 12 feet wide and extending 78 feet downstream from the centerline of the trench drain. The drain fill consisted of compacted coarse drain fill with a fine drain fill envelope. Eight-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal collector pipes were installed. The toe drains also outlet into the stilling basin. Sedimentation: Roaring Fork Lake was designed to store 100 years of submerged sediment in the pool area. The designed submerged sediment storage capacity was 116 acre-feet, but the as-built volume was 157 acre-feet due to the removal of extra borrow from the pool area during construction. The volume of sediment estimated is 42 acre-feet. The available submerged sediment storage volume as of 2015 was 115 acre-feet. The designed submerged sediment accumulation rate was estimated at 1.16 acre-feet per year for the sediment pool of the reservoir. The calculated historic sedimentation rate from a 2015 survey was 0.93 acre-feet per year. Using the historic rate of sediment deposition, the submerged sediment may impact the flood storage in 124 years. The designed aerated sediment storage for the structure was 114 acre-feet. The aerated sediment is material deposited above the normal pool. The designed deposition rate for the aerated sediment was 1.14 acre-feet per year. There was very little evidence of aerated sediment at Roaring Fork Lake and no visible gravel bars at the inlets to the lake. The aerated sediment deposition rate is estimated at 0.06 acre-feet per year. The aerated sediment for the 46 years prior to 2015 is estimated at 2.7 acre-feet. Some beaver ponds in the upper watersheds appear to be trapping sediment. There is approximately 111 acre-feet of capacity for aerated sediment remaining. At a deposition rate of 0.06 acre-feet of aerated sediment per year, there is room for over 1,000 more years of aerated sediment deposition. Land use in the watershed has been changing since settlement. Since the reservoir was planned, cultivated land has disappeared and there appears to be a trend toward more idle land and woodland in this watershed. Roaring Fork Lake is very turbid all the time. Investigation into the source of the turbidity indicated that the cause is the large population of bottom-feeding fish rather than erosion from the upstream watershed or the streambanks. Appurtenances: To provide supplemental water, the riser has been modified with a 12” water supply gate at elevation 661.3. There is 99 acre-feet of supplemental water supply above this elevation now. As of 2015, there were 115 acre-feet of available submerged sediment storage in the reservoir. By 2071, there will be an additional 52 acre-feet of submerged sediment in the reservoir at the historic sedimentation rate of 0.93 acre-feet/year. (Four years since sediment survey was complete plus 2 years of design and construction plus 50 years of expected reservoir life equals 56 years of additional sediment from 2015.) There will be 63 acre-feet of water storage remaining at that time. However, at the historic rate of sediment deposition, in about 17 years, the submerged sediment in the lake will begin to cover the existing water supply gate. It will be necessary to provide another gate at a higher elevation to continue use as a supplemental water supply while providing the required submerged sediment storage. The Sponsors could maintain the water supply volume for a longer time if the submerged sediment deposition rate was reduced by the installation of practices such as upstream sediment traps. Identified Deficiencies: During the investigation, NRCS identified three engineering deficiencies associated with the dam. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 30 Embankment Drainage - The existing drainage system is functional. However, the toe drain material is metal and subject to corrosion. This is considered a deficiency. Riser – The footer of the riser was evaluated for seismic stability and was found to be insufficient. Modification of the footing is required. Hydraulics – In 2008, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety determined that the hazard class of the dam had changed from significant hazard potential to high hazard potential. Virginia Division of Dam Safety then issued a conditional use certificate for Roaring Fork Lake because the vegetated earthen auxiliary spillway did not have the capacity to pass the required spillway design flood for a high hazard potential dam with the PMP value in use at the time. The dam would overtop and potentially breach. During the planning process, NRCS determined that the auxiliary spillway has the capacity to safely pass the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) event with the new, lower Virginia PMP values developed in 2015. However, NRCS determined that the vegetated earth auxiliary spillway does not have the integrity to pass the design storm without breaching. Integrity is a measure of the resistance to erosion in the soil and rock material in the auxiliary spillway. If water flows through the auxiliary spillway, gullies will develop. If a gully erodes through the upstream side of the auxiliary spillway crest, a dam breach is considered to have occurred. The auxiliary spillway also does not meet the current criteria for stability. Stability is the surface erosion potential and is used as an indicator of the amount of maintenance that could be needed after an auxiliary spillway flow event. In addition, NRCS found that the dam does not meet the 10-day drawdown requirement during the Principal Spillway Hydrograph event for a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. For a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway, the flood-retarding capacity must be able to store all the water associated with a 100-year, 1-day/10-day combined storm event and release at least 85% of the water through the principal spillway pipe in less than 10 days. If there is more than 85% of the water remaining after 10 days, the auxiliary spillway crest must be raised. The existing crest of the auxiliary spillway of Roaring Fork Lake is too low based on this criterion. This issue can be addressed by analyzing and evaluating a structural nonerodible spillway. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HOW A DAM FUNCTIONS The main components of a flood control dam are the earthen embankment; the normal or sediment pool; the retarding pool (floodpool); the principal spillway; and the auxiliary spillway. The embankment is typically a vegetated earth structure that impounds the water. Sediment pool. The reservoir is designed to store submerged sediment in the area below the elevation of the lowest principal spillway inlet and to detain floodwater in the area between the lowest principal spillway inlet and the crest of the auxiliary spillway. After the dam is completed, water accumulates below the lowest principal spillway inlet to create a lake. As the lake fills with sediment, the amount of water in the lake decreases. When the sediment pool has filled to the elevation of the lowest principal spillway inlet, the pool no longer has permanent water storage, but the designed floodwater detention storage is still intact. If the actual sedimentation rate is greater than the designed sedimentation rate, the sediment storage volume will be filled before the design life of the structure has been reached. The additional sediment would begin to fill the floodwater detention volume above the lowest principal spillway inlet and reduce the available flood storage. Initially, sediment delivered to the reservoir would pass directly through the lowest 7.d.d Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 31 principal spillway inlet. Eventually, this inlet would be blocked by debris and sediment and the level of the water would rise to the crest of the auxiliary spillway. As the floodpool loses storage due to sediment deposition, the auxiliary spillway operates (flows) more often. For a vegetated earthen auxiliary spillway, repeated flows could erode the soil material and eventually cause the spillway to breach. Repeated flows increase the operation and maintenance costs for the Sponsor. In the case of a water supply reservoir, the submerged sediment pool would fill the water supply storage before it would start filling the floodpool. Floodpool: The floodpool, which is the water storage area between the principal spillway crest and the auxiliary spillway crest, is designed to detain the water that would accumulate behind the dam in events equal to or smaller than an event with a specific annual recurrence interval. For a typical dam, the auxiliary spillway crest is designed to be at the elevation needed to detain the 100- year event. This storm is the event that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. In a bigger flood event, the water level will be higher than the crest of the auxiliary spillway and the excess water will pass around the dam embankment through the auxiliary spillway. Principal spillway: A principal spillway has three main parts: the riser, the pipe, and the outlet. The riser is typically a concrete tower that controls the level of water in the lake. The principal spillway pipe conveys water through the dam safely. The principal spillway riser and pipe control the day-to-day elevation of the water in the lake and the two components together provide a way to control release of the water in the floodpool. For a two-stage riser, the water flows through the first-stage inlet in the riser until the water rises to the elevation of the second-stage inlet. Then, it flows through both inlets. The water falls to the bottom of the riser before exiting through the principal spillway pipe. The water exits into an outlet structure, typically some sort of stilling basin. Its purpose is to slow the velocity of the water leaving the pipe so it doesn’t cause erosion in the stream channel. Most risers have a drain gate at the bottom of the riser that allows the lake to be completely drained. Auxiliary spillway: There are four parts of an auxiliary spillway. The inlet section is on the side closest to the lake. It has a gentle upward slope toward the middle of the auxiliary spillway. The water that reaches the inlet section has little or no velocity and, therefore, does not cause erosion to occur. The level center section is called the control section. The control section is usually located where the auxiliary spillway crosses the centerline of the top of the dam. The purpose of the control section is to make the water in the auxiliary spillway spread out evenly rather than concentrate into little channels. The third section is called the constructed outlet. Its purpose is to keep the water flowing out of the auxiliary spillway in a controlled manner until the water gets far enough away that it will not cause erosion on the earthen embankment. Once this point is reached, the water is free to go on downstream. The fourth component of an auxiliary spillway is the training dikes. Training dikes are used in conjunction with the outlet section to direct the flow of the water away from the downstream side of the dam embankment. Training dikes can also be used in the inlet section to direct water into the auxiliary spillway. STATUS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Operation and maintenance of the structure is the responsibility of the Town of Chatham and they have done an excellent job of operating and maintaining this structure in accordance with the 7.d.d Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 32 operation and maintenance agreement. This has been verified through site assessments. The most recent inspection was conducted October 26, 2017. STRUCTURAL DATA The structural data for the as-built condition of the dam and watershed is described in Table F. The sediment data is based upon the 2015 sediment survey. BREACH ANALYSIS AND HAZARD CLASSIFICATION Breach Analysis: To determine the downstream inundation zone due to a dam breach, a breach analysis was performed for a Sunny Day breach with the water level at the existing auxiliary spillway crest. The peak breach discharge criteria in TR-60 was used. A “Sunny Day breach” is a dam failure that occurs unexpectedly. In 2009, the Sponsors contracted for the work to determine the inundation zone that would result from a breach of the dam. NRCS used this hydraulic model to determine the results of the breach analyses shown in Appendix C on the Breach Inundation Map. The Sponsors have current breach inundation zone maps for the dam that comply with the Virginia Impounding Structures Law and Regulations for high hazard potential dams. These maps show the breach inundation zone that would occur if the dam failed when the water level was at the top of the dam. The Virginia Impounding Structures Regulations requires owners of high hazard potential dams to provide a dam breach inundation zone map to determine hazard classification and develop the Emergency Action Plan (EAP). The purpose of an EAP is to outline appropriate actions and to designate parties responsible for those actions in the event of a potential failure of the dam. The Sponsors must update the EAP annually with assistance from local emergency response officials. The NRCS State Conservationist will ensure that a current EAP is prepared prior to execution of fund-obligating documents for rehabilitation of the structure. Hazard Classification: Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A was originally constructed in 1969 for protecting downstream lands from flooding. It was designed as a significant hazard potential structure with a 100-year design life. Currently, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety has designated Roaring Fork Lake dam as a high hazard potential structure. The breach analysis completed for this Watershed Plan concurs with the current hazard class of the structure. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 33 Table F – As-Built and Existing Structural Data for Roaring Fork Lake Attribute As-Built Existing Local Name Roaring Fork Lake Site Number 2A Year Completed 1969 Cost $96,952 Purpose Flood control Drainage Area, mi2 5.7 5.753/ Dam Height, feet 62 64.5 Dam Type Earthen Dam Volume, yds3 83,735 Dam Crest Length, ft. 400 Storage Capacity, ac-ft. 1/ Submerged Sediment, ac-ft. 157 115 Aerated Sediment, ac-ft. 114 111 Flood Storage, ac-ft. 1,000 1,070 Surface Area, ac. 16.5 15.93/ Principal Spillway Type Reinforced Concrete Riser Height, ft. 40 Conduit Size, inches (I.D.) 36 Stages, no. 2 Riser Crest Elevation 686.2 686.2 Capacity, cfs 202 Energy Dissipater Stilling basin Auxiliary Spillway Type Vegetated Earth Width, ft. 200 Capacity, % of PMF 100 2/ Sediment Pool Elevation 673.7 674.1 Water Supply Elevation NA NA4/ Flood Pool Elevation 699.3 699.8 Top of Dam Elevation 705.9 706.8 Datum NAVD88 NAVD88 1/ As-built flood storage volume based on original design and as-built information. Existing volumes calculated from 2015 sediment survey. 2/ Based upon the new Virginia PMP values, the vegetated earth auxiliary spillway has sufficient capacity to pass the PMP. 3/ The drainage area and surface area changed due to more accurate survey information. 4/ Water supply added as a purpose after start of planning process. Information shown in Table 3. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES Dams are built for the conditions that existed or could reasonably be anticipated during the time of design. Sometimes these conditions change, resulting in dam failure. Several potential modes of failure were evaluated for Roaring Fork Lake. Sedimentation: The major land uses in the watershed above the dam are 47.3% Forest, 33.9% Hayland/Pasture, 11.4% Cropland, 4.2% Developed, 2.5% Scrubland, and 0.7% Water. These 7.d.d Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 34 uses are not expected to change significantly in the future. The future submerged sediment accumulation rate in Roaring Fork Lake is expected to be the same or less than the historic rate due to the conversion of cropland fields to hayland/pasture fields. Based upon the historic sediment deposition rate of 0.93 acre-feet per year, the remaining submerged sediment storage life of Roaring Fork Lake in 2015 was 124 years. The potential for failure due to inadequate sediment storage capacity is low. Hydrologic Capacity: Hydrologic failure of a dam occurs when the auxiliary spillway is breached or when the dam is overtopped and fails. Under present NRCS criteria for high hazard potential dams, the auxiliary spillway must have sufficient capacity and integrity to completely pass the full PMF event. The capacity of the auxiliary spillway is sufficient to prevent overtopping of the embankment. The risk of failure from overtopping the dam is low. Auxiliary spillway Integrity: The auxiliary spillway at Roaring Fork Lake does not have sufficient integrity to withstand the flows from the PMF event and could breach. For this reason, the overall potential for failure through erosion of the auxiliary spillway of Roaring Fork Lake dam is high. Seepage: Embankment and foundation seepage can contribute to failure of an embankment by removing (piping) soil material through the embankment or foundation. As the soil material is removed, the voids created allow even more water flow through the embankment or foundation, until the dam collapses due to the internal erosion. Seepage that increases with a rise in pool elevation is an indication of a potential problem, as is stained or muddy water or “sand boils” (the up-welling of sediment transported by water through voided areas). Foundation and embankment drainage systems can alleviate the seepage problem by removing the water without allowing soil particles to be transported away from the dam. There are no signs of seepage at the Roaring Fork Lake dam. Therefore, the potential for a seepage failure is low. Seismic: The structural integrity of an earthen embankment is dependent upon the presence of a stable foundation. Foundation movement through consolidation, compression, or lateral movement can cause the creation of voids within an embankment, separation of the principal spillway conduit joints, or in extreme cases, complete collapse of the embankment. The Cherrystone Creek watershed is not located within an area of significant seismic risk; therefore, there is low potential for seismic activity to cause failure of the dam embankment. Seismic failure of the riser could have two different results. If the riser fails in a way that does not block the principal spillway pipe, then all the water would drain out of the lake. This would eliminate the pool area, but the dam would continue to provide flood storage. If a riser failure blocked the principal spillway pipe, the water would fill up to the crest of the auxiliary spillway and then flow through it. There would be no stormwater detention and no downstream flood protection. The footer of the riser at Roaring Fork Lake does not meet current criteria for seismic stability. The potential for a seismic failure of the riser is moderate. Material Deterioration: The materials used in the principal spillway system, the embankment drains, and the pool drainage system are subject to weathering and chemical reactions due to natural elements within the soil, water, and atmosphere. Concrete risers and conduits can deteriorate and crack, metal components can rust and corrode, and leaks can develop. Embankment failure can occur from internal erosion caused by these leaks. A camera survey of the principal spillway pipe was conducted in August of 2017. Only minor problems were observed with any of the material components. As of 2018, the principal spillway system had reached 49% of its planned 100-year service life. The remaining expected life of the principal spillway conduit 7.d.d Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 35 is 52 years. There is a reasonable expectation that it will continue to function as planned for that time period. Replacement may be necessary after that time. Therefore, there is low potential for failure due to material deterioration of the principal spillway system. The corrugated metal pipe in the toe drain is corroded and likely to fail. If this occurs, the phreatic surface could rise and there would be an increased risk of a slope stability failure. The potential for failure of the embankment due to a collapse of the toe drain is high. Conclusion: At the present time, the mostly likely way that the Roaring Fork Lake dam could fail during the PMP event is that the auxiliary spillway could breach. This type of failure could occur at any time during the remaining life of the structure. The site has a high risk for a slope stability failure due to material deterioration of the toe drain. The risk of seismic failure of the embankment is low since the dam is not in a significant seismic zone but the risk of a seismic failure of the riser is moderate due to the configuration of the footer. Materials have a remaining expected life of 52 years. There is adequate submerged sediment capacity for the next 50 years and there is no evidence of seepage. CONSEQUENCES OF DAM FAILURE A Sunny Day breach analysis was performed in accordance with the peak breach discharge criteria in Technical Release No. 60, Earth Dams and Reservoirs (TR-60). It was assumed that structural collapse would occur with the water level at the existing auxiliary spillway crest and would result in a release of 65,749 acre-feet of water and sediment, beginning with a wall of water that is 25 feet high. A maximum breach discharge of 88,122 cfs was computed using the criteria in TR-60. The population at risk is approximately 150 people. The properties and infrastructure potentially affected by a breach of the Roaring Fork Lake Dam includes four homes, one commercial structure, and one barn. Four secondary roads (Cherrystone Lake Road, Hodnetts Mill Road, Moses Mill Road, and Davis Road) would be impacted by a dam failure during an auxiliary spillway breach. A breach event would cause significant economic damages to the homes, one commercial structure, barn, roads and bridges below the dam. In addition, the loss of the reservoir would result in a loss of supplemental water supply. The residences and business properties at risk in the floodplain subject to a breach of Roaring Fork Lake have structure and content values estimated at $866,000 and $433,000, respectively (total value at risk of $1,298,900). A catastrophic breach would result in an estimated $216,000 in economic damages to existing buildings and their contents. The potentially impacted major bridge, culvert, and road embankment infrastructure is valued at $836,750. Approximately $532,500 in damages to road crossings and $329,000 in scour erosion along 0.9 miles of road could occur in this event. A catastrophic breach of the Roaring Fork Lake dam would result in a total estimated $1,077,000 in damages to the homes, business, barn, and infrastructure. Other economic damages from a catastrophic breach would be associated public and private clean- up costs, damages to vehicles, lost water supply with the reservoir gone, and increased flood damages in the future for remaining properties due to the absence of the dam and its flood protection effects. The environmental damages from a dam failure would be significant. In addition to the damage caused by the water, the sediment stored in the pool area would be flushed downstream in the event 7.d.d Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 36 of a catastrophic breach. Approximately seven miles of stream channel and floodplain downstream of the dam would be damaged by scouring or deposition. Sediment would be deposited in the floodplain. This would constrict the floodplain and cause additional flooding in subsequent storm events. Deposition of sediment in the floodplain would also restrict normal use of the land which may cause water quality problems in the future. It is unlikely that a catastrophic breach would remove all the fill material used to build the dam. The embankment material remaining after a breach would also eventually erode into the stream, contributing to the downstream sediment deposition. Over time, the sediment could migrate downstream from Cherrystone Creek into the Bannister River. There is also a potential for stream degradation upstream from the dam site. The abrupt removal of the water and sediment would cause instability in the stream feeding the reservoir. This channel could develop headcuts that would migrate upstream. If a bedrock ledge or other hardened point is encountered in the stream, the headcut would stop proceeding upstream. Downcutting and widening would continue to occur in the lake bed. The residents of the four homes upstream of the dam would lose recreational opportunities and the homes possibly would lose property value. FORMULATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The stated objectives of the Sponsors for the Roaring Fork Dam Rehabilitation Plan are: 1) to bring the dam into compliance with current Virginia Division of Dam Safety and NRCS dam safety and performance standards; 2) to maintain the existing level of flood protection for downstream properties; 3) maintain the water supply; and 4) to address the residents’ concerns. These objectives can be met by installing measures which will bring the dam into compliance with State and Federal regulations. Under the Watershed Rehabilitation Provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, NRCS is required to consider the technical, social, and economic feasibility of the locally preferred solution and other alternatives identified through the planning process. In addition, NEPA and the National Watershed Program Manual requires the consideration of all reasonable alternatives to the proposed federal action. The purpose of this supplement is to comply with current NRCS and Virginia dam design and safety standards to reduce risks to life and property that could result from a potential catastrophic dam failure; maintain the level of flood protection, that is currently provided by the dam’s ability to attenuate floods, to life and property upstream and downstream of the dam; and maintain the use of the reservoir as supplemental water supply. FORMULATION PROCESS Formulation of the alternative rehabilitation plan for Roaring Fork Lake followed procedures outlined in the NRCS National Watershed Program Manual. Other guidance incorporated into the formulation process included the NRCS Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies, and the Economics Handbook, Part II for Water Resources, and other NRCS watershed planning policies. Several alternatives were considered and three useful life (50, 75 and 100 year) options were evaluated as part of a period of analysis determination. Several federal action alternatives were carried through for detailed study. The recommended alternative that maximizes net economic benefits has a 52-year period of analysis, 7.d.d Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 37 including a one-year for design and one-year for installation with 50 years of expected useful life. This lifespan was selected based upon the expected future life of the concrete components of the structure. The formulation process began with formal discussions between the Sponsors, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety, and NRCS. The Virginia Division of Dam Safety conveyed state law and policy associated with a high hazard potential dam. NRCS explained agency policy associated with the Small Watershed Dam Rehabilitation Program and related alternative plans of action. As a result, alternative plans of action were developed based on NRCS planning requirements and the ability of the alternatives to address the initial objective of bringing Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A into compliance with current dam safety and design criteria and meet the identified purpose and need. The National Economic Development (NED) Alternative is the federally assisted alternative with the greatest net economic benefits. The alternative plans that must be considered include: • No Federal Action • Decommission the Dam • Non-Structural – Relocate or Floodproof Structures in the Breach Zone • Rehabilitate the Dam • National Economic Development (NED) Alternative ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Two of the alternatives considered in the planning process were eliminated from detailed consideration because these alternatives either did not meet the proposed purpose or need for federal action or were logistically impractical to implement. Decommission Dam: Decommissioning is a mandatory alternative that must be considered under NRCS policy for dam rehabilitation. This option describes an alternative which requires removing the flood detention capacity of the dam by removing the existing embankment down to the valley floor. If the dam were removed, the four homes, one commercial structure, and one barn in the breach zone will no longer be at risk from flooding caused by a breach of the Roaring Fork Lake dam. Cherrystone Lake Road is located immediately downstream of the reservoir and has an average annual daily traffic (AADT) of 130. If the road is damaged in the absence of the dam, the access to emergency services could be delayed. About 33% of the 0.98-mile length of Moses Mill Road is in the FEMA Zone AE (100-year) with the dam in place. Moses Mill Road has 110 AADT. With the dam in place, the water treatment plant is still accessible. However, without the dam, there would be no access to the water treatment plant during an event equal to or greater than the 100-year storm. The water treatment plant is not in the FEMA AE (100-year) or 500-year Special Flood Hazard Zone but the water intake is located on Cherrystone Creek. It would be very difficult and expensive to protect Moses Mill Road from induced damages. Davis Road has 120 AADT and is in the existing FEMA AE (100-year) or 500-year Special Flood Hazard Zone. Additional water depth over the road would occur if the dam were removed. There are no inhabitable dwellings in the currently effective regulatory 100-year floodplain but there is one house in the 500-year floodplain downstream of the dam. In 2016, the Town of Chatham hired Dewberry as their consultant to do a water supply study and assist them with the renewal of their water withdrawal permit with the Virginia Department of 7.d.d Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 38 Environmental Quality. At that time, the Town installed a 12” water supply gate on the riser tower. The lake now provides 99 acre-feet of supplemental water supply. The modifications to the riser were approved by NRCS in March 2016. In 2019, water supply was officially added to the structure as a secondary purpose under Public Law 83-566. In the absence of the dam, the Town would no longer have the supplemental public water supply from the reservoir. Removing the dam embankment would require removal of about 83,700 cubic yards of material. After the fill removal, the valley floor would be stabilized and vegetated. The submerged sediment would be stabilized or removed. The function and stability of the stream channel would be restored. Removal of the principal spillway riser, pipe, outlet structure, and water supply structures would also be necessary. Some of these unneeded materials could be buried on site or hauled to an appropriate disposal site. About 25 acres of grass would be planted over the dam, pool, and spoil site. Table G lists some of the major components of decommissioning the dam. The water supply would be replaced by an equivalent surface water impoundment. The estimated cost of removing the storage capacity of the dam and all appurtenant structures ($5.06 million); mitigating for induced damages to Cherrystone Lake Road, Hodnetts Mill Road, Moses Mill Road, and Davis Road ($710,000); mitigating for the induced structure damages ($437,500); and replacing the supplemental water supply with an equivalent surface water supply ($3.93 million) would cost in excess of $9,638,000. Permits and landrights associated with the acquisition of a replacement water supply site and water supply infrastructure associated with the site are not included. Net incidental recreation lost, as a result of decommissioning, also is not included. Decommissioning the dam is severely opposed locally and unacceptable to the Sponsors. Table G – Major Components of Decommissioning the Dam Items of Work Quantities Unit cost Cost Fill removal and disposal 83,735 CY $12.00/CY $1,004,820 Spoil spreading 87,921 CY $7.00/CY $615,447 Topsoil spreading 9,792 CY $30.00/SY $293,760 Pollution control Lump Sum $225,816 $225,816 Seeding and mulching 25 Acres $3,584/acre $89,600 Removal of principal spillway pipe, riser, and stilling basin Lump Sum $182,325 $182,325 Water diversion Lump Sum $150,000 $150,000 Reservoir reclamation Lump Sum $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Surveys, Quality Assurance, and other miscellaneous items Various $1,495,114 $1,495,114 Total cost of structure removal --- --- $5,056,882 Mitigation of induced damages to Cherrystone Lake Road and Moses Mill Road --- --- $710,178 Mitigation of induced damages to six structures downstream of the existing dam --- --- $437,500 Mitigation for loss of wetlands --- --- $250,000 Water supply replacement --- --- $3,934,000 Total cost of decommissioning --- --- $10,138,609 7.d.d Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 39 Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) Cutoff Wall in Existing Auxiliary Spillway: NRCS investigated the used of an RCC cutoff wall to address the integrity issue in the existing auxiliary spillway. This alternative was not developed further due to geologic limitations. Articulated Concrete Block (ACB) Armor in Existing Auxiliary Spillway: NRCS investigated the potential use of ACBs to address the integrity of the vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. This alternative was not developed further because the anticipated velocities in the auxiliary spillway exceeded the limits of ACB usage. Non-Structural - Relocate or Floodproof Structures: Elevating, flood-proofing, or relocating the six structures in the breach zone of the dam would cost approximately $437,500. Mitigating for induced damages to Cherrystone Lake Road and Moses Mill Road would cost an estimated $710,178. This alternative was not considered in further detail. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS CONSIDERED Alternatives Without Federal Assistance One of the alternatives that must be included in the plan is the “No Action” alternative. For the purposes of the rehabilitation program, the No Action alternative describes the action that the sponsors will take if no federal funds are provided. Since the Roaring Fork Lake dam is a high hazard potential dam that does not meet current safety and performance standards, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety has issued a conditional certificate of operation for the dam. It is reasonable and prudent to expect that the Virginia Division of Dam Safety will soon issue an Administrative Order requiring the Sponsors to bring the dam up to State standards by rehabilitation of the dam or remove the hazard by removing the storage function of the reservoir. The Sponsors would be totally responsible for the cost of rehabilitation or removal of the dam. NRCS would still have the technical responsibility of approving the Sponsors’ solution because the floodwater retarding structure is under an Operation & Maintenance Agreement between the local Sponsors and NRCS until 2068. Now, the potential for an uncontrolled breach and resulting damages is present and will continue until the existing dam safety issues are addressed and resolved. Without NRCS assistance, the Sponsors would have the following options: • Hire a consultant, prepare plans to meet NRCS and Virginia standards, and rehabilitate the dam using their own resources. • Do nothing. In this case, the Virginia Division of Dam Safety may choose to breach the dam and send the Sponsors the bill. This option is likely to be more expensive than if the Sponsors performed the breach. The end results would be the same as those for the next option. This option would not meet the Sponsors’ goal of maintaining the supplemental water supply and existing level of flood protection for downstream properties. • The Sponsors could remove the flood storage capacity of the dam by breaching the dam using a least cost method. This breach would be a minimum size hole in the dam from the top of the dam to the valley floor, which would eliminate the structure’s ability to store water. Downstream flooding conditions would be like those that existed prior to the construction of the dam. The sediment would not be stabilized and would migrate downstream. This course 7.d.d Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 40 of action would reduce the Sponsors’ dam safety liability but would not eliminate all liability since it would induce flooding downstream. This option would not meet the Sponsors’ goal of maintaining existing levels of flood control and supplemental water supply. No Federal Action (Sponsor’s Rehabilitation): In the absence of federal assistance, the Sponsors have indicated that they will rehabilitate the dam to meet the required dam safety and design criteria at their own expense using the alternative proposed by NRCS. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Sponsors’ Rehabilitation will be the same as the No Federal Action alternative. The estimated total construction cost would be $7,546,700. The total project cost would be $8,183,700. Alternatives with Federal Assistance There are three identified deficiencies with the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A. The retrofit of the riser footer and the installation of new toe drains are included in the cost of each auxiliary spillway rehabilitation alternative. The lake will be drained to allow the modification to the riser footer. Draining the lake will also remove the carp and white suckers that are contributing to the turbidity in the reservoir. Issue 1 - Embankment drainage. A new toe drain and filter will be installed downstream of the existing drain. The new drain will be installed with a non-corrosive plastic pipe. The existing drain will remain in service. The new downstream drain will provide all drainage and filtering functions when the original drain fails due to pipe collapse or other cause. Issue 2 - Retrofit of riser footer. The riser footer will be modified to meet the criteria for seismic stability. Issue 3 – Inadequate integrity and stability in the vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. NRCS did not identify any practical ways to bring the dam into compliance with a vegetative earth solution. However, there are several alternatives for a structural solution. Since one of the goals of this rehabilitation is to maintain the existing level of downstream flood protection, the crest of the rehabilitated auxiliary spillway will remain at the same elevation as the existing vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. There will be no change in the elevation of the regulatory 100- or 500-year floodplain. During a 100-year flood event, water will flow in the auxiliary spillway at a depth of 0.8 feet. This frequency of flow is allowed for a structural non-erodible spillway. To store the volume of water associated with the 100-year storm event would require the auxiliary spillway crest to be raised by 2.4 feet. There are no structures in the 100-year regulatory floodplain that would be impacted in this event. Therefore, the Sponsors preferred to maintain the existing auxiliary spillway crest. Alternative 1 – Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) Auxiliary Spillway Chute over the dam. An RCC chute would be installed in the embankment. See figure 2 for an example of this type of structure. The initial flow width on the embankment crest would be 200 feet with 3:1 side slopes. The flow width would converge over the 187-foot length of the chute to a width of 120 feet at the valley floor. The chute would have steps to dissipate flow energy and will outlet into an RCC stilling basin with 28-foot-high walls. The side walls vary from 3:1 at the embankment crest to vertical at the entrance of the stilling basin. The principal spillway pipe would outlet into the stilling basin, which would be graded to direct the base flow into the stream through a notch in the end sill. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 41 The existing auxiliary spillway would be abandoned. Earth material excavated from the dam embankment to construct the RCC chute would be used to block off the existing auxiliary spillway. The construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $7,546,700. Figure 2. Example of a roller-compacted concrete auxiliary spillway in an embankment. This example is shown with vertical side walls. Alternative 2: Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir over the dam. A labyrinth weir located on the embankment of the dam would have the capacity to pass the required auxiliary spillway flow within a flow area that is only 74 feet wide. The spillway would be 315 feet long. See Figure 3 for an example of this type of structure. The weir would be 14-feet high and would be a two-cycle labyrinth. Each cycle would be 36 feet wide and 73 feet long. The crest would be set at the elevation of the existing auxiliary spillway. The outlet will be a Saint Anthony Falls (SAF) basin followed by a 60-foot-long rock riprap stabilization pad. The existing auxiliary spillway would be closed with an earthen dike. The toe drain replacement, riser retrofit, and labyrinth weir have an estimated construction cost $10,260,000 and a total project cost of $12,260,400. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 42 Figure 3. Example of a 5-Cycle Labyrinth Weir in an Embankment. NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (NED) ALTERNATIVE Alternative 1, as described above, is the NED plan. For purposes of the rehabilitation program, the NED plan is defined as the federally assisted alternative with the greatest net economic benefits. The Sponsors have indicated that, in the absence of federal assistance, they would rehabilitate the dam to meet the required dam safety and design criteria at their own expense using the alternative proposed by NRCS. The Sponsors’ Rehabilitation is used as the No Federal Action alternative. The No Federal Action - Sponsor’s Rehabilitation alternative would be the same in scope, cost, and effects as the Future with Federal Project alternative. The rehabilitation with federal assistance is the most locally acceptable alternative and best serves the Sponsors in achieving the needs and purpose of this rehabilitation. Therefore, installing a roller-compacted concrete chute spillway over the dam is the NED plan and the preferred alternative. Per the Federal Principles and Guidelines document and NRCS National policy, when the Future Without Federal Project is the same as the Future With Federal Project, the local costs avoided are credited as benefits. This renders the federally assisted alternative as having zero net benefits. Net benefits are zero because, by policy, the total project cost is equal to the claimed benefits and the resulting benefit/cost ratio is 1:1. The results displayed in Table H are presented within a zero-based accounting context to highlight the costs and benefits associated with the recommended alternative alone. Within a zero- based accounting framework, the “Total Adverse Annualized” value associated with the Future 7.d.d Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 43 Without Federal Project is displayed as the “Total Beneficial Annualized” in the Future With Federal Project column. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS Table H summarizes the effects of each alternative considered. Refer to the Environmental Consequences section for additional information. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 44 Table H - Summary and Comparison of Alternative Plans Effects Future Without Federal Project No Federal Action – Sponsor’s Rehabilitation Future with Federal Project Rehab. with Federal Assistance – Alternative 1 - Roller-compacted concrete chute spillway in embankment Selected Plan (NED Plan) Alternative 2 – Reinforced concrete labyrinth weir in the embankment. Closure of existing auxiliary spillway. Sponsor Goals Continue to provide flood protection and water supply storage and comply with safety and performance criteria for a high hazard potential dam. Continue to provide flood protection and water supply storage and comply with safety and performance criteria for a high hazard potential dam. Continue to provide flood protection and water supply storage and comply with safety and performance criteria for a high hazard potential dam. Structural Upgrade dam to meet dam safety criteria. Upgrade dam to meet dam safety criteria. Upgrade dam to meet dam safety criteria. Total Project Investment Roaring Fork Lake $8,183,700 $8,183,700 $12,260,400 Total Beneficial Annualized (AAEs1/) --- $288,700 $288,700 Total Adverse Annualized (AAEs1/) --- $288,700 $446,000 Net Beneficial --- $0 $0 Benefit/Cost Ratio --- 1.0 to 1.0 0.65 to 1.0 Estimated OM&R2/ --- $5,000 $5,000 Clean Water Act Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Floodplain Management No change from existing conditions. No change from existing conditions. No change from existing conditions. Waters of the U.S./Wetlands Temporary impact during construction to 18.1 acres of open water and fringe wetlands. Temporary impact during construction to 18.1 acres of open water and fringe wetlands. Temporary impact during construction to 18.1 acres of open water and fringe wetlands. Air Quality Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Fish and Wildlife Temporary impacts due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts due to draining the lake during construction. Endangered and Threatened Species None present. None present. None present. Migratory Birds Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Temporary effects during construction. Bald Eagles No effect. No effect. No effect. Invasive Plant Species Care will be taken during construction to avoid introduction or relocation of invasive plant species. Care will be taken during construction to avoid introduction or relocation of invasive plant species. Care will be taken during construction to avoid introduction or relocation of invasive plant species. Riparian Areas No change. No change. No change. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 45 Effects Future Without Federal Project No Federal Action – Sponsor’s Rehabilitation Future with Federal Project Rehab. with Federal Assistance – Alternative 1 - Roller-compacted concrete chute spillway in embankment Selected Plan (NED Plan) Alternative 2 – Reinforced concrete labyrinth weir in the embankment. Closure of existing auxiliary spillway. Local and Regional Economy Temporary positive effect on local and/or regional construction companies. Temporary negative effect due to loss of existing access to the lake during construction. Temporary positive effect on local and/or regional construction companies. Temporary negative effect due to loss of existing access to the lake during construction. Temporary positive effect on local and/or regional construction companies. Temporary negative effect due to loss of existing access to the lake during construction. Potable Water Supply The two Cherrystone Creek reservoirs will be drained at different times to avoid a raw water deficit during construction. The two Cherrystone Creek reservoirs will be drained at different times to avoid a raw water deficit during construction. The two Cherrystone Creek reservoirs will be drained at different times to avoid a raw water deficit during construction. Public Health and Safety Decrease potential for loss of life compared to the existing structure. Safety and noise concerns will be addressed during construction. Decrease potential for loss of life compared to the existing structure. Safety and noise concerns will be addressed during construction. Decrease potential for loss of life compared to existing structure. Safety and noise concerns will be addressed during construction. Recreation Temporary impacts to boating and fishing due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts during fishery recovery period of 3-4 years. There is no public recreation. Temporary impacts to boating and fishing due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts during fishery recovery period of 3-4 years. There is no public recreation. Temporary impacts to boating and fishing due to draining the lake during construction. Temporary impacts during fishery recovery period of 3-4 years. There is no public recreation. Cultural Resources NRCS has recommended “No Effect.” NRCS has recommended “No Effect.” NRCS has recommended “No Effect.” Environmental Justice and Civil Rights No disparate treatment. No disparate treatment. No disparate treatment. Land Use Changes A land use ordinance will be enacted to restrict future development below elevation 700.6 upstream of the dam. A land use ordinance will be enacted to restrict future development below elevation 700.6 upstream of the dam. A land use ordinance will be enacted to restrict future development below elevation 700.6 upstream of the dam. 1/ Per 1.7.2 (a) (4) (ii) of the “Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies” (P&G), U.S. Water Resources Council, March 1983, allowing for abbreviated procedures, damage reduction and recreation benefits have not been displayed because they are the same for both alternatives and no net change in benefits occurs when comparing the two candidate plans to each other. The federally assisted alternative is displayed within a zero-based accounting context that credits local costs avoided (Total Adverse Annualized for the Future Without Federal Project scenario) as adverse beneficial effects (Total Beneficial Annualized) consistent with P&G 1.7.2(b)(3). Although the average annual benefits of rehabilitation are $288,700, net benefits are zero because the total project cost is equal to the claimed benefits and the resulting benefit/cost ratio is 1:1. “AAEs” stands for Average Annual Equivalents which are based on a 2.75% discount rate and a 52 year period of analysis (1 year to design, 1 year to install and a 50 year expected useful life). 2/ “Estimated OM&R” stands for Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Costs. Note: Regional Economic Development account (RED) concerns were not identified during the scoping process. Therefore, the RED account information is not included. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 46 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative plans of action can result in a multitude of effects on resources upstream and downstream of Roaring Fork Lake. This section describes anticipated effects on resource concerns identified by the Sponsors, the public, and agency personnel in the Scoping meeting and the public meetings. Three alternative plans were considered and evaluated in detail: 1) No Federal Action (Sponsors Rehabilitation), 2) Rehabilitate Dam with the Preferred Alternative (NED Plan), and 3) Rehabilitate Dam with Labyrinth Weir over the dam The Sponsors have indicated that they will use the plan developed by NRCS to complete the rehabilitation of the dam if Federal funding is not available. The No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation) alternative would be the same or involve the same components as the Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative). This alternative maximizes net benefits with a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1 and is the rehabilitation alternative preferred by the Sponsors. SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS EXCLUDED FROM CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS: • Sole Source Aquifers • Regional Water Management Plans • Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act • Coastal Zone Management Areas • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Clean Air Act-General Conformity Rule • Clean Air Act-Regional Haze Regulations • Endangered and Threatened Species (Plants and Animals) • Invasive Animal Species • Virginia Rare Species and Natural Communities • Essential Fish Habitat • Environmental Justice and Civil Rights • Virginia Natural Area Preserves System • Parklands • Recreation • Scenic Beauty • Scientific Resources • National Historic Landmarks Program 7.d.d Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 47 SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS SOILS Prime and unique farmlands, and farmland of statewide importance: There are up to 1.6 acres of designated Farmland of Statewide Importance that could be disturbed by the proposed action. (See Appendix C for map). However, as per exceptions noted in the 1981 Farmland Protection Policy Act, land committed to water storage does not require the disclosure of impacts on a 1006 form. WATER Clean Water Act (CWA) – Sections 303(d) and 305(b) (Water Quality) Existing Conditions: About 5.96 miles of Cherrystone Creek has been identified as a Category 4A, E. coli impaired, stream. The area below Roaring Fork Lake Dam to the Chatham Sewage Treatment Plant outfall, does not support recreational use. Additionally, the Town of Chatham has identified an issue with turbidity in Roaring Fork Lake that is negatively impacting the raw water for the Town’s water supply. At the request of the sponsors, NRCS approved the addition of supplemental water supply (Municipal and Industrial (M&I)) as a purpose for Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): There will be a temporary impact on downstream water quality due to a sediment release when the water is drawn down prior to construction. With the required erosion and sediment control measures in place, there should be minimal impacts on water quality during construction. Any water releases from the project area are expected to meet the appropriate water quality standards. Water quality in the reservoir should improve when the carp and white sucker population are removed during rehabilitation activities due to a decrease in turbidity. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Floodplain Management - Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Existing Conditions: The Cherrystone Creek floodplain is managed by both Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham. Each locality has a local floodplain ordinance, which imposes zoning restrictions within the flood zones that is consistent with FEMA and state regulations. Both the Town of Chatham and Pittsylvania County participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Chatham joined in February 1979, and Pittsylvania County joined in November 1980. They are both in good standing in the program. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Rehabilitation of the Roaring Fork Lake dam will be constructed in accordance with all necessary requirements and restrictions. The existing level of flood protection will be maintained. Existing floodplain management zoning restrictions will not be changed. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 48 Waters of the U.S. / Wetlands – Clean Water Act – Sections 401 (State Administered) and 404 (Federally Administered): Existing Conditions: There are 18.1 acres of wetlands located within the affected environment of the proposed action. The Roaring Fork Lake shoreline, stream inflow, and outflow were visually surveyed in May 2017 for wetlands. Palustrine emergent wetlands comprise a total of 2.5 acres which include the shorelines and the inflow of the lake. The 15.6 surface acres of the lake are considered to be open water wetlands. No other wetlands were identified in the affected environment. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The reservoir will be temporarily drained to allow construction of the recommended alternative. The construction period is expected to be approximately one year. The open water wetlands and the fringe wetlands associated with the lake will be temporarily impacted during this time but are expected to fully recover naturally after the lake is refilled. Since this is a temporary action, no mitigation will be required. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Clean Water Act – Sections 402 (State Administered) (Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities): Existing Conditions: All areas of the land-based dam features and surrounds are maintained in vegetative cover. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Since land disturbance will exceed one acre, a Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit (VSMP) (i.e. construction general permit) would be required. With the required erosion and sediment control measures in place, there should be minimal impacts on water quality during construction. Any water releases from the project area are expected to meet the appropriate water quality standards. No long-term negative impacts on water quality from rehabilitation activities are anticipated. The water quality in the lake and downstream of the lake is expected to improve when the carp and white sucker population are removed from the lake during rehabilitation activities. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). AIR Applicable State and Local Air Quality Regulations Existing Conditions: According to DEQ, Pittsylvania County is within an attainment area for all criteria pollutants. Air quality in the project area is satisfactory and below the Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): During the rehabilitation of the dam, particulate matter will increase during construction activities. A mobile concrete batch plant will be used that will generate dust. Also, open burning of vegetative debris usually takes place during construction. Required permits will be obtained by the contractor. Air pollution abatement actions will mitigate 7.d.d Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 49 any potential temporary air quality concerns during construction, and the proposed work is not expected to violate any federal, state, or local air quality standards. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). ANIMALS AND PLANTS Endangered and Threatened Species and Natural Areas Existing Conditions: While the Federally Endangered Roanoke logperch was not identified in the USFWS IPaC database, it was identified in the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service database presumably because it uses a larger default search area. The Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), a Federally Threatened species, was identified in the USFWS IPaC database as potentially present. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Regarding potential impacts to the Federally Endangered Roanoke logperch, appropriate resource specialists were contacted regarding potential presence of that species. Follow-up efforts did not identify further concerns. As for the NLEB, the NRCS followed up with a search of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ (VDGIF) on-line NLEB Winter Habitat and Roost Tree ARC GIS System, http://dgif- virginia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=32ea4ee4935942c092e41ddcd19e5 ec5. Using the search tool NRCS found no NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees for NLEB within Pittsylvania County. Therefore, as stated in the Final 4(d) rule on the NLEB, since no “known” maternity roost trees or hibernacula have been designated within a ¼ mile radius of the proposed project, any incidental take that may result from the project is exempted by the 4(d) rule and no further action is necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act prohibitions to protect the NLEB. Based on the most current data and consultation with species experts, NRCS has made a “no effect” determination on impacts to both species resulting from the rehabilitation of the dam. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Migratory Birds Existing Conditions: Roaring Fork Lake could potentially be utilized by several species of migratory birds for feeding, nesting, or resting. No Bald eagle or osprey nests are located within a quarter mile of the project area. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Since the lake will be drained during construction, it will be temporarily unavailable to migratory birds. There are similarly-sized bodies of water throughout the region available for migratory bird use. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 50 Bald Eagles Existing Conditions: There is existing bald eagle habitat present in the project area. However, there are no known bald eagle nests within 35 miles of the site. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): No impacts to Bald eagles are expected by project action. Prior to beginning construction, a field survey will be conducted to verify no nests exist within the project area. Should bald eagle nests be found, all applicable restrictions will be implemented. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Invasive Species - Plants Existing Conditions: The following common invasive plant species were identified: Chinese privet, Japanese stiltgrass, Honeysuckle, Sericea lespedeza, and Tree of Heaven. See Appendix C-5 for invasive species map of the project area. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): During construction, measures will be taken to avoid the spread or introduction of invasive species. All disturbed areas will be vegetated with grass species. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Riparian Areas Existing Conditions: There are riparian areas around the reservoir and along Cherrystone Creek. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): There will be no long-term change to the riparian areas around the reservoir. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Fish and Wildlife Existing Conditions: Roaring Fork Lake has carp, suckers, crappie, channel catfish, largemouth bass, and sunfish. This reservoir is not open for public use. The lake was stocked by residents. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) determined that the carp and sucker population were causing excessive turbidity in the water. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The reservoir will be completely drained during rehabilitation and the fish population will be lost. The VDGIF indicated that the carp and suckers will not survive in a creek habitat and the population of these fish will be eliminated. The lake fishery is expected to fully recover in a few years due to natural reestablishment or restocking. Water quality is expected to improve due to the removal of the carp and suckers. The Sponsors will encourage residents to restock the lake with only game fish. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 51 Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance – (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). HUMAN Local and Regional Economy Existing Conditions: Residents around the reservoir utilize it for recreation. The roads used for commuting to work sites contribute to the local economy. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): There would be a temporary positive effect on the local economy during construction. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Potable Water Supply and Regional Water Management Plans Existing Conditions: The water from the Roaring Fork reservoir is not included in the West Piedmont Planning District’s Regional Water Supply Plan because the water supply purpose was not officially added to this structure until March 2019. The water supply intake is about 2.5 miles below the dam and raw water is drawn directly from Cherrystone Creek. Sponsors recently installed a water supply intake on the Roaring Fork reservoir to supplement the base flow of the creek as needed. In March 2019, at the request of the sponsors, NRCS approved the addition of supplemental water supply (M&I) as a purpose for Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): There will be a temporary loss of the potential water supply storage from Roaring Fork Lake. The base flow will be conveyed around the dam and will continue to supply Cherrystone Creek. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Public Health and Safety Existing Conditions: The existing vegetated earth auxiliary spillway does not have the integrity necessary to withstand the Probable Maximum Precipitation event. A breach of the auxiliary spillway could cause a release of the water and sediment stored behind the dam. Approximately 150 people are at risk for loss of life. There are four homes, one commercial structure, and one barn in the breach zone of this dam. Four roads would be affected by a breach. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Under this alternative, the dam would be structurally rehabilitated using current design and safety criteria to provide continued flood protection for 50 years after the rehabilitation project is complete. The level of flood protection provided by the dam would be the same as it is presently since there will be no change to the width of the auxiliary spillway. The threat to loss of life from failure of the dam would be greatly reduced. Access to the site will be restricted during construction. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 52 Recreation Existing Conditions: Roaring Fork Lake is not open for public use. Residents and their guests utilize the reservoir for swimming, boating and fishing. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The reservoir will be completely drained for about one year to allow rehabilitation of the dam. Boating and fishing opportunities will be lost during the construction period. The lake will be filled following construction and the fishery is expected to fully recover. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Historic Properties Existing Conditions: Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A (1969) is located within the direct Impact Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the undertaking while Hodnetts Mill site is in the indirect APE (viewshed). Both Hodnetts Mill site (mid-19th century) and Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A (1969) are eligible for National Register consideration due to their age (50+ years old). No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The NRCS completed a National Register eligibility evaluation recommending both Cherrystone Dam No. 2A and the Hodnetts Mill (site 44PY0461) as “not eligible” for the NRHP due to a lack of historic or architectural significance and integrity, per the NRHP eligibility evaluation criteria. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Environmental Justice Existing Conditions: There is an estimated population of 150 people in the breach zone below the dam. The presence or absence of environmental justice groups within the watershed was assessed using EPA’s EJSCREEN tool. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Rehabilitation of the dam will have positive economic and social effects across all residents within the floodplain and above the dam. There will be no disparate treatment. Since vehicle operators also are significant beneficiaries of the proposed rehabilitation, it is reasonable to conclude that protection of the roads and bridges will benefit all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups within the watershed and below the dam. Avoiding a dam breach will directly benefit all residents and taxpayers in general within Pittsylvania County, the Town of Chatham, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. There are no known disparate impacts from the rehabilitation project. It was explained to residents that rehabilitation of the dam would not enhance their downstream flood protection, but simply maintain the designed level of flood protection while reducing the risk to life and property that might occur from a dam breach. Approximately 150 people are within the breach inundation zone and would benefit directly from the rehabilitation of the dam. There are indirect benefits for the four homeowners who live upstream of the dam and use the area around the reservoir for recreation during the year. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 53 There would also be downstream benefits to the occupants of hundreds of vehicles/day. This is primarily those people affected by impacts to the roads and bridges and includes others who would lose access to emergency services or would be cut off from their residences or jobs. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Land Use Changes Existing Conditions: The existing auxiliary spillway is 200 feet wide and is in permanent grass vegetation. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): The vegetated earth auxiliary spillway will be replaced with a 200-foot-wide RCC chute auxiliary spillway over the top of the dam. The existing auxiliary spillway will be blocked with a berm. Restrictions will be put into place to prevent future development below the elevation of the 100-year auxiliary spillway flow event. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). Social/Cultural Issues Existing Conditions: Roaring Fork Lake was installed in 1969 for flood control. The Sponsors recently retrofitted the riser to add a water supply gate to allow for supplemental water in Cherrystone Creek. Water supply was added as a purpose of the dam in March 2019. The sponsors and residents want to maintain the existing level of flood control. The dam primarily protects Cherrystone Lake Road and Moses Mill Road. Access to the water treatment plant is currently protected by the dam. No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation): Rehabilitation of the dam will continue the existing level of flood protection, protect the access to the water treatment plant, and maintain the water supply. Water treatment costs are expected to decrease due to the anticipated improvement in water quality resulting from removal of the carp and suckers from the lake. Adding the water supply as a purpose for this dam will enable the Town to fully utilize this lake as a reliable source of raw water. Rehabilitation with Federal Assistance (NED Alternative): Same as the No Federal Action (Sponsors’ Rehabilitation). CUMULATIVE EFFECTS NRCS constructed one flood control dam, Site 2A, and one multi-purpose (flood control and water supply) dam, Site 1, in this watershed. Both dams are now multi-purpose structures. Roaring Fork Lake Dam and Cherrystone Lake Dam are currently operating under conditional certificates due to a need for rehabilitation. The No Federal Action alternative for Roaring Fork Lake calls for the Sponsors to rehabilitate the dam. The proposed rehabilitation alternative would have the same effect on the environment as the No Federal Action alternative. The cumulative effects of these projects on the principal resources of concern, along with the social and economic effects, are to 7.d.d Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 54 maintain the existing social, economic, and environmental conditions of the community. The cumulative effects of rehabilitating Roaring Fork Lake would have the same results. In both the selected plan and the rehabilitation by the local Sponsors, the two existing dams in the watershed stay in place, the same level of water supply storage and flood protection is provided, and the existing emergency action plan remains in force. RISK AND UNCERTAINTY Assessments, considerations, and calculations in this plan are based on a 52-year period of analysis. Associated monetary flooding impacts on downstream houses and businesses were based on the National Flood Insurance Program’s Actuarial Rate Review. National averages were used to identify the value of potential damages. Actual damages occurring from each storm event could realistically be higher or lower, depending on soil moisture conditions at the time of a given event, associated debris flows, future development, and other factors such as changes in precipitation from various storm events. Although potential climatic changes are not expected to alter calculation of the PMP events, they could increase the occurrence of low frequency, high intensity storm events and associated flood damages. Prior to the original construction, the Sponsors procured easements that would allow construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam and the storage of water. The Sponsors recognize that the dam is designed to detain floodwaters and that structures located below the top of dam are at risk for potential flood damage during major storm events. After an analysis was completed to compare the benefits and costs of procuring the easements to the top of dam, the Town decided to accept the risk associated with not owning the easements to the top of dam. The Town of Chatham will restrict development below the elevation of the 100-year flow event (700.6 feet NAVD88) prior to rehabilitation of the dam. The projected submerged sediment life of the lake is 124 years. This information is based on multiple sediment surveys that were conducted throughout the life of the dam. Very large storm events, deforestation by fire, or increased construction of residential sites could cause an increased rate of erosion, sedimentation and deposition. There are no known plans for land use changes in this watershed that would affect the rate of sediment deposition in the reservoir. Based on the approval of water supply as a secondary purpose, the available sediment storage beyond 50 years will be utilized as water supply. The limiting factor for the expected useful life of the Future with Federal Assistance Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is based on the remaining expected life of the principal spillway pipe and associated components. Thus a 52-year period of analysis was used for this structure. The objective of this project is to meet applicable NRCS and Virginia safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam. From a financing and administrative standpoint, the Sponsors have committed to NRCS that they are able to fund the required 35% of the total project costs to complete installation of the preferred alternative and can perform the required maintenance on the upgraded structure for 50 years after construction. There will be no damage to the RCC auxiliary spillway during flow events. The estimates do not include any costs for offsite damages which may occur during an auxiliary spillway flow event. Routine maintenance is not included in these amounts. This project plan assumes that a flow event has 1.67% chance of occurring in a given year. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 55 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The sponsoring organizations are the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania SWCD and Pittsylvania County. The Town of Chatham has taken the lead as the owner and operator of Roaring Fork Lake. The Town received their first Conditional Operation and Maintenance Certificate to operate and maintain the dam from the Virginia Division of Dam Safety in 2008 when the hazard class changed from significant hazard potential to high hazard potential. The certificate was issued because the capacity of the auxiliary spillway was insufficient to contain the volume of water associated with the PMP event in effect at that time. Local, state and federal support for the rehabilitation of the Roaring Fork Lake Dam has been strong. Input and involvement of the public has been solicited throughout the planning of the project. At the initiation of the planning process, many meetings were held with representatives of the Sponsors to ascertain their interest and concerns regarding the dam. A Public Participation Plan was developed and approved for the project and has been followed during the planning process. The Sponsors have worked closely with the local landowners and residents to provide information on the planning activities and to solicit their input on the pertinent issues to be considered during planning. The Sponsors worked to provide all residents, including minorities, with information on the planning effort and intended works of improvement. A scoping meeting was held on June 9, 2016, in the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia, to identify issues of economic, environmental, cultural, and social concerns in the watershed. Input was provided by local, regional, state and federal agencies at the meeting or through letters and emails to NRCS. There were 18 people in attendance. Agencies and organizations attending or providing input include the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania SWCD, Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the USDA NRCS. The first public meeting was held in the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia, on June 9, 2016. Local, state and federal perspectives on the rehabilitation needs of the Roaring Fork Lake Dam were provided. Attendees were informed of the dam rehabilitation program and potential alternative solutions to bring the dam into compliance with current dam safety and design criteria. Meeting participants provided input on their issues and concerns to be considered during the planning process. A fact sheet was distributed which addressed frequently asked questions regarding rehabilitation of the dam. There were 33 people in attendance. Agencies and organizations attending or providing input include the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania SWCD, Dewberry Engineering Firm, and the USDA NRCS. A workshop meeting was held on March 10, 2017 in Chatham with 11 people attending. The discussion centered on options to secure needed federal funding and nonfederal matching funds for the design and construction of the Cherrystone Creek dam rehabilitation projects. Attendees included Town of Chatham officials and employees, Pittsylvania County employees, landowners, a representative from State Delegate Les Adams, and NRCS employees. A workshop meeting was held on January 29, 2018 in Chatham with 20 people attending. Information provided to meeting attendees included a summary of the current situation of the dam, planning efforts to date, the various alternatives considered during planning, and a detailed 7.d.d Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 56 explanation of the recommended alternative for dam rehabilitation. The audience included Town officials and employees, County employees, SWCD employees, Dewberry Engineering Firm, and NRCS employees. A second public meeting was held on February 15, 2018 in the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia. A summary of the findings, landrights issues, alternatives considered, and the preferred alternative were presented. At that time, the preferred alternative was an RCC-cutoff wall in the existing auxiliary spillway. A project fact sheet and a multi-page frequently asked questions document were distributed at the meeting. There were 42 people in attendance. Agencies and organizations attending or providing input include the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania SWCD, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management, Dewberry Engineering Firm, and the NRCS. A workshop meeting was held on July 11, 2018 in Chatham with 13 people attending. Information provided to meeting attendees included a summary of the status of the planning for the dam, a review of existing easements and landrights documents, the need for a 4-month no-cost time extension on the performance period of the agreements, and a proposed schedule for completion of the Plan-EA. The audience included Town employees, County employees, SWCD employees, Town attorney, County attorney, and NRCS employees. Another workgroup meeting was held by teleconference on October 18, 2018 with 13 people attending. The audience included Town employees, County employees, SWCD employees and Board members, and NRCS employees. The primary topic under discussion was the change in the recommended alternative from an RCC cutoff wall in the existing auxiliary spillway to an RCC chute spillway over the dam. Since this change will result in a noticeable change in the visual appearance of the dam and a major cost increase, a third public meeting was scheduled for January 2019. A 2-month no-cost time extension was requested to allow for the additional public participation. A third public meeting was held on January 10, 2019, at the Old Dominion Agriculture Complex in Chatham, Virginia. There were 45 people in attendance. Participants were informed of the change in the recommended alternative and associated cost increases. Agencies and organizations attending or providing input include the Town of Chatham, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania SWCD, Virginia Division of Dam Safety, and the NRCS. A Draft Plan was distributed for interagency and public review on March 15, 2019. The distribution list of agencies and organizations is included on pages 70 and 71 of this Plan-EA. Copies of the document were placed in local libraries and news articles were placed in local newspapers to solicit comments from the public during the comment period. After the interagency and public review period, comments received on the draft were incorporated into the Final Plan. Letters of comments received on the draft plan and NRCS responses to the comments are included in Appendix A. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 57 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE FOR PLAN PREFERENCE The preferred plan is to rehabilitate the dam to meet current NRCS and Virginia safety and performance standards for a high hazard potential dam, maintaining the existing level of flood protection provided by the dam, and retaining the reservoir as a source of supplemental water. The preferred plan meets the identified purposes and needs for the project and significantly reduces the potential risk to human life. The project Sponsors, residents, and state and local government agencies all prefer the selected plan because it: • Reduces the threat to loss of life to approximately 150 people that live, work and play in the six structures and utilize the four secondary roads within the breach inundation zone. • Provides protection for 630 vehicles per day that utilize the four roads below the dam and auxiliary spillway. • Maintains the supplemental water supply storage. • Continues onsite benefits to incidental recreational users who mainly live around the reservoir. • Reduces the threat of loss of emergency service for a significant number of residences and several businesses. • Provides downstream flood protection for the people living in the area, as well as those working, recreating, or traversing within the downstream floodplains, for an additional 50 years. • Reduces the liability associated with continuing to operate a non-compliant dam. • Maintains existing stream habitat downstream of the dam. • Retains the existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat around the lake. The preferred alternative meets the Sponsors’ objectives of bringing this dam into compliance with current dam design and safety criteria, maintaining the supplemental water supply, maintaining the existing level of flood protection for downstream properties, and addressing resource concerns identified by the public. The preferred plan is the NED Alternative. The plan reasonably meets the following four criteria: completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. NRCS and the Sponsors agree on the preferred alternative. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE The preferred plan of action for the dam is to: • Install a 200-foot-wide, roller-compacted concrete chute spillway over the embankment and close the existing auxiliary spillway. • Increase the size of the riser footer to meet seismic criteria. • Install new toe drains with plastic pipe. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 58 • Pittsylvania County will restrict future construction of habitable dwellings upstream from the dam below the elevation of the 100-year flow event (700.6) in the auxiliary spillway elevation. After the implementation of these planned works of improvement, Roaring Fork Lake will meet all current NRCS and Virginia Division of Dam Safety performance standards. Detailed structural data for the proposed rehabilitated dam can be found in Table 3. EASEMENTS AND LANDRIGHTS The current landrights for the structure allow for construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam and storage of flood waters. The entire volume of the 100-year flood event is not detained by the structure. During this event, water will flow in the auxiliary spillway to a depth of about 0.8 feet. There currently are no structures upstream of the dam in the area between the 100-year flowage elevation and the top of the dam. The local Sponsors have determined that acquisition of additional easement area to meet current NRCS policy to the top of dam would require a significant added cost without an equally significant benefit. The Sponsors will restrict future construction below the elevation of the 100-year storm event (elevation 700.6 feet NAVD88) and acknowledge and accept the risks associated with allowing future construction to occur between the 100-year storm elevation and the top of the dam. MITIGATION During construction, site mitigation measures will include erosion and sediment control, seeding of denuded areas, dust control, and other practices identified during the design process. No compensatory mitigation is anticipated to be needed. PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE Prior to construction, the Sponsors will be responsible for obtaining an alteration permit from the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board, and, as needed, a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, a subaqueous lands permit from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and any other required permits. During construction, the successful contractor is required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and acquire any applicable air quality and erosion and sediment control permits. The construction general permit would require the operator to implement a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPP). The SWPP would outline the steps that an operator must take to comply with the permit, including water quality and quantity requirements to reduce pollutants in the stormwater runoff from the construction site. The SWPP also specifies all potential pollutant sources that could enter stormwater leaving the construction site and covers methods used to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff during and after construction. Prior to construction, the NRCS will verify that no Bald eagle nests or known NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees are located within the project area. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 59 If cultural resources are discovered during installation, work will cease, and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. Appropriate investigations procedures will be initiated. The Sponsors will be responsible for obtaining a regular O&M Certificate from the Virginia Division of Dam Safety upon completion of the project. COSTS As indicated in Table 2, the total installation cost of the selected plan is $8,183,700. Of this amount, PL-83-566 funds will bear $5,536,900 and nonfederal funds will bear $2,646,800. Table 2 shows details of the costs and cost-share amounts by category. Total annualized costs are shown in Table 4 along with the estimated costs for operation and maintenance. Table 5 displays the average annual flood damage reduction benefits by flood damage categories, and Table 6 displays a comparison of annual costs and benefits. A 2018 price base was used and amortized at 2.875 percent interest for the 52-year period of analysis (including a design and installation period of two years and an expected useful life of 50 years). The cost projections for the proposed rehabilitation measures are estimated costs only for planning. The fact that these costs are included in this plan does not infer that they are final costs. Detailed structural designs and construction cost estimates will be prepared prior to contracting for the work to be performed. Final construction costs will be those costs incurred by the contractor performing the work, including the cost of any necessary contract modifications. INSTALLATION AND FINANCING The project is planned for installation in about 12 months. During construction, equipment will not be allowed to operate when conditions are such that soil erosion and water, air, and noise pollution cannot be satisfactorily controlled. NRCS will assist the Sponsors with the Roaring Fork Lake rehabilitation project. NRCS will be responsible for the following: • Execute a project agreement with the Sponsors before either party initiates work involving funds of the other party. Such agreements set forth in detail the financial and working arrangements and other conditions that are applicable to the specific works of improvement. • Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Sponsors to provide a framework within which cost-share funds are accredited. • Execute an updated Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the Sponsors that extends the O&M responsibilities for an additional 50 years following construction. This agreement will be based on the NRCS National Operation and Maintenance Manual. • Provide financial assistance equal to 65% of total eligible project costs, not to exceed 100% of actual construction costs. • Verify that a current Emergency Action Plan is developed before construction is initiated. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 60 • Provide consultative engineering support, technical assistance, and approval during the design and construction of the project. • Certify completion of all installed measures. The Sponsors will be responsible for the following: • Secure all needed environmental permits, easements, and rights for the installation, operation and maintenance of the rehabilitated structure. • Prepare an updated Emergency Action Plan for the dam prior to the initiation of construction. • Execute an updated Operation and Maintenance Agreement with NRCS for the dam. This agreement will be based on the NRCS National Operation and Maintenance Manual. • Provide engineering services for the design, construction, and certification of the project. • Provide local administrative and contract services necessary for the installation of the project. • Provide nonfederal funds for cost-sharing of the project at a rate equal to, or greater than, 35% of the total eligible project costs. • Acquire a regular Operation and Maintenance certificate from the Virginia Division of Dam Safety upon completion of the planned measures. • Participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs. • Enforce all associated easements and rights-of-way for the safe operation of the dam. • Prohibit future construction of habitable dwellings upstream from the dam below the elevation of the 100-year storm elevation through the auxiliary spillway (700.6). OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT Measures installed as part of this plan, and previously installed measures, will be operated and maintained by the Town of Chatham with technical assistance from federal, state, and local agencies in accordance with their delegated authority. A new Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreement will be developed for Roaring Fork Lake and will be executed prior to construction of the project. The term of the new O&M agreement will be for 50 years following the completion of rehabilitation. The agreement will specify responsibilities of the Sponsors and include detailed provisions for retention, use, and disposal of property acquired or improved with PL 83-566 cost sharing. Provisions will be made for free access of district, state, and federal representatives to inspect all structural measures and their appurtenances at any time. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 61 Table 1 - Estimated Installation Cost Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, Virginia (Dollars) Installation Cost Items Estimated Costs Structural measures to rehabilitate Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A: PL-83-566 Funds1 Other Funds Total $5,536,900 $2,646,800 $8,183,700 Total Project: $5,536,900 $2,646,800 $8,183,700 Price base: February 2019 Prepared: February 2019 Table 2 - Estimated Cost Distribution – Structural Measures Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, Virginia (Dollars) Installation Cost Items Installation Cost: PL-83-566 Funds2 Installation Cost: Other Funds3 Total Project Cost4 Construction Costs Engineering Technical Assistance Costs Project Admin. Costs Total PL-83-566 Costs Construction Costs Engineering Costs Real Property Landrights Permits Project Admin. Costs Total Other Funds Rehab. Dam No. 2A: $4,956,400 $555,500 $25,000 $5,536,900 $2,590,300 $18,500 $0 $3,000 $35,000 $2,646,800 $8,183,700 Totals: $4,956,400 $555,500 $25,000 $5,536,900 $2,590,300 $18,500 $0 $3,000 $35,000 $2,646,800 $8,183,700 Price base: February 2019 Prepared: February 2019 1 Paid by the USDA/NRCS – the Federal agency responsible for assisting in installation of improvements. 2 65% of total eligible project cost (The actual federal cost/share excludes technical assistance and permit costs and cannot exceed 100% of the construction cost). 3 35% of total eligible project cost. Per NRCS policy, $25,000 in local sponsor planning costs were excluded from Tables 1 and 2. These sponsor costs are included in the calculation of cost/share as shown in the watershed agreement. 4 As per the NRCS National Watershed Manual, Part 508.44, the actual federal cost/share amount will be calculated based on a total eligible project cost that excludes federal technical assistance costs, water, mineral and other resource rights, and all federal, state and local permits. However, for the purposes of planning, all of these costs are included in the benefit/cost analysis and are displayed as part of the public record of this analysis. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- 62 Table 3 – Structural Data—Dams with Planned Storage Capacity Roaring Fork Lake – Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A Pittsylvania County, Virginia Attribute Unit Structure Data Class of structure High Seismic zone 2 Total drainage area mi2 5.75 Runoff curve no. (1-day) (AMC II) 63 Time of concentration (Tc); uncontrolled drainage area only hours 3.5 Elevation top dam 1/ feet 707.4 Elevation crest auxiliary spillway feet 699.8 Elevation crest high stage inlet feet 686.6 Elevation crest low stage inlet feet 674.1 Auxiliary spillway type Structural Auxiliary spillway bottom width feet 200 Auxiliary spillway exit slope percent 33 Maximum height of dam feet 65.1 Volume of fill yd3 83,735 Total capacity 2/ acre-feet 1,181 Sediment submerged acre-feet 523/ Sediment aerated acre-feet 6 Beneficial use (M&I water) acre-feet 633/ Floodwater retarding acre-feet 1045 Between high and low stage acre-feet 308 Surface area Sediment pool acres 13.14/ Beneficial use pool (M&I water) acres 04/ Floodwater retarding pool 2/ acres 71.8 Principal spillway design Rainfall volume (1-day) inches 8.38 Rainfall volume (10-day) inches 12.3 Runoff volume (10-day) inches 4.23 Capacity of low stage (max.) ft3/sec 40 Capacity of high stage (max.) ft3/sec 203 Dimensions of conduit inches 36 Type of conduit circular RCP 7.d.d Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 63 Table 3 – Structural Data—Dams with Planned Storage Capacity (cont.) Attribute Unit Structure Data Frequency of operation-auxiliary spillway percent chance 1.6 Auxiliary spillway hydrograph Rainfall volume inches 9.89 Runoff volume inches 5.21 Storm duration hours 6 Velocity of flow (Ve) feet/sec. 10.1 Max. reservoir water surface elev. feet 702.47 Freeboard hydrograph Rainfall volume inches 23.0 Runoff volume inches 17.20 Storm duration hours 6 Max. reservoir water surface elev. feet 707.44 Capacity equivalents Sediment volume inches 0.17 Floodwater retarding volume inches 3.41 Beneficial volume (M&I water) inches 0.203/ 1/ All elevations are recorded in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88). 2/ Crest of auxiliary spillway. Based on 2015 sediment survey. 3/ Available sediment storage is 115 ac-ft as of 2015. Required sediment storage for 56 years is 52 ac-ft. Available water supply will be 63 ac-ft at that time. 4/ Water supply is taken from total available sediment storage. Table 4 - Average Annual National Economic Development (NED) Costs Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, Virginia (Dollars5) Average Annual Equivalent Cost Average Annual Equivalent O&M Costs Total Average Annual Equivalent Cost Rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A $283,370 $5,330 $288,700 Totals: $283,370 $5,330 $288,700 Price base: February 2019 Prepared: February 2019 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 The average annual equivalents are based on a 2.875% discount rate and a 52-year period of analysis (2 years for project design/installation and 50 years of expected useful life). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 64 Table 5 - Estimated Average Annual Flood Damage Reduction Benefits Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, Virginia (Dollars) Flood Damage Category Estimated Average Annual Equivalent Damages Damage Reduction Benefits Without Federal Project With Federal Project Average Annual Equivalents Crops and Pasture $141,770 $141,770 $0 Other Agricultural $1,460 $1,460 $0 Roads and Bridges $36,220 $36,220 $0 Developed (structures and content damages) $55,790 $55,790 $0 Erosion – floodplain scour $880 $880 $0 Sediment – overbank deposition $17,820 $17,820 $0 Other (miscellaneous indirect damages) $34,760 $34,760 $0 Totals: $288,700 $288,700 $0 Note: Updated original Table 5 project benefits; Price base: February 2019 Prepared: February 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 6 - Comparison of National Economic Development (NED) Benefits and Costs Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A, Virginia (Dollars) Evaluation Unit Average Annual Equivalent Benefits6 Costs Net Change Benefit/ Cost Ratios Damage Reduction Benefits Total Average Annual Equivalent Benefits7 Average Annual Equivalent Costs Net Average Annual Equivalent Benefits Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A $288,700 $288,700 $288,700 $0 1.0 to 1.0 Totals: $288,700 $288,700 $288,700 $0 1.0 to 1.0 Price base: February 2019 Prepared: February 2019 6 The average annual equivalents are based on a 2.875% discount rate and a 52-year period of analysis (2 years for project design/installation and 50 years of expected useful life). 7 The costs and benefits of the Future With Project Plan are the same as those for the Future Without Project Plan. To maintain consistency with the display in Table 4, the costs associated with the No Action Alternative are tracked as a benefit of the Preferred Alternative. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 65 REFERENCES Census Bureau, 2010 Census, and 2010-2014 American Community Survey Projections, U.S. Department of Commerce. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Historic Resources, State Archaeological Site File, Richmond, VA. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Historic Resources, State Register of Historic Sites, Richmond, VA. Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. Dam Safety Impounding Structures Regulations, 4VAC50-20-10 et seq. Digital Representation of the 1993 Geologic Map of Virginia, Publication 174, 2003, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of Mineral Resources. Falvey Master Template Labyrinth Weir Excel Spreadsheet, based on Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs, Henry T. Falvey. Geostudio Software for Geotechnical Analysis, 2012. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2015 Land Cover Data. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard, Number 402, Dams. NRCS National Engineering Handbook. NRCS National Engineering Manual. NRCS National Operation and Maintenance Manual. NRCS National Planning Procedures Handbook. NRCS Risk Evaluation Sheet, April 4, 2014. NRCS Soil Survey of Pittsylvania County, Virginia. NRCS Technical Release 60 – Earth Dam and Reservoirs, 2005. NRCS Technical Release 68 – Seismic Analysis of Risers, 1982. Amendment 1, 1992 and Amendment 2, 1993. NRCS Topographic Survey, 2014. NRCS Water Resources Site Analysis Computer Program (SITES). NRCS National Watershed Program Manual, 2014, as amended January 2015. NRCS National Watershed Program Handbook, 2014. NRCS Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Schnabel Engineering, Geology Report for Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A, December 2015. Schnabel Engineering, Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A Inlet/Outlet Inspection Report, 2017. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 66 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Atlas 14. Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 2: The Ohio River Basin and Surrounding States, 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators, Engineering Nomograph No. 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Landmarks, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Registry of Natural Landmarks, Washington, DC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Environmental Conservation Online System, Information for Planning and Consultation: www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Wetland mapper website: www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. U.S. Water Resources Council. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, DC, March 10, 1983. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management. Probable Maximum Precipitation Study for Virginia and Associated PMP Evaluation Tools and Database. November 2015. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2015. Virginia’s Comprehensive Wildlife Action Plan. Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2018 305(b) Virginia Water Quality Assessment Report. Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2018 303(d) Report on Impaired Waters. Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2015 Virginia Water Protection Individual Permit Number 15-0262, Town of Chatham, Cherrystone Creek Withdrawal, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Final Permit, Issued January 29, 2015. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 67 REPORT PREPARERS The Cherrystone Creek Watershed Supplemental Plan and Environmental Assessment was prepared primarily by NRCS staff located in Richmond, Virginia; Verona, Virginia; and Morgantown, West Virginia; and staff from Schnabel Engineering. The document was reviewed and concurred in by state staff specialists having responsibility for engineering, resource conservation, soils, agronomy, biology, economics, geology, and contract administration. The in-house review was followed by a review by the NRCS National Water Management Center, and then an interagency and public review. The table identifies and lists the experience and qualifications of those individuals who were directly responsible for providing significant input to the preparation of the Supplemental Plan-EA. Appreciation is extended to many other individuals, agencies and organizations for their input, assistance and consultation, without which this document would not have been possible. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 68 Name Present Title and Years in Current Position Education Previous Experience Other R. Wade Biddix Watershed Program Specialist (ACES) - 4 M.S. Public Administration B.S. Agriculture Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources - 13 yrs. Supervisory District Cons. – 1.5 yrs. Planning Coordinator – 10.5 yrs. Area Resource Conservationist – 2 yrs. District Conservationist – 4 yrs. Soil Conservationist – 4 yrs. Rebecca M. Evans Civil Engineering Technician - 8 B.S. Natural Resources Recreation Civil Engineering Technician – 2.5 yrs. Conservation Specialist – 2 yrs. David L. Faulkner Natural Resource Economist – 29 M.S. Ag. Economics B.S. Ag. Education Ag. Economist (SCS) - 2.5 yrs. Ag. Economist (U.S.A.I.D.) - 4.5 yrs. Ag. Teacher (Peace Corps) – 2 yrs. Fred M. Garst GIS Specialist - 25 B.S. Geology GIS/Soil Scientist - 25 yrs. Soil Conservation Technician - 7 yrs. Geologist (Private) – 4 yrs. Jeffray Jones State Biologist - 5 B.S. Natural Resources Management Ecologist - 24 yrs. Alica J. Ketchem Environmental Engineer - 25 B.S. Civil Engineering M.S. Agricultural Eng. Civil Engineer – 10 yrs. P.E. (VA) Kim Kroeger Geologist – 29 B.S. Soil Science B.S. Resource Management Geologist Trainee (SCS) – 1.6 years Soil Scientist (SCS) – 0.3 years County Soil Scientist – 2 years Mathew J. Lyons State Conservation Engineer- 16 B.S. Civil Engineering Civil Engineer – 12 yrs. P.E. (VA) Jeffrey D. McClure Geologist – 12.5 B.A. Geology B.A. Biology B.S. Geology NRCS Geologist – 14 yrs. Geologist (WV Dept. of Environmental Protection) - 10 yrs. Geologist (Private) – 8.5 yrs. CPG in VA and PA Dana Perkins Environmental Specialist – 3 B.S. Biology Environ. Program Specialist (FAA) – 9 yrs. Ecologist (U.S. Army) – 2 yrs. Environ. Scientist (Consultant) – 10 yrs. Tim Ridley Dam Safety Engineer – 2 B.S. Civil Engineering NRCS Hydraulic Engineer – 29 yrs. Consulting Engineer – 8 yrs. P.E. (PA and WV) PS (WV) Joseph M. Seybert Civil Engineer – 13 B.S. Civil Engineering Civil Engineer – 17 yrs. P.E. (WV) Thomas Wachtel Geotehnical Engineer - 1 B.S. Civil Engineering M.S. Civil Engineering Ph.D. Civil Engineering 7.d.d Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- 69 Name Present Title and Years in Current Position Education Previous Experience Other A&E Consultants Jonathan Pittman, Schnabel Engineering Civil Engineer / Associate – 8 B.S. Civil Engineering Civil / Geotechnical Engineer – 16 yrs. P.E. in VA, NC and KY Charles Johnson, Schnabel Engineering Senior Structural Engineer – 2 B.S. Civil Engineering M.S. Civil Engineering Civil / Structural Engineer – 9 yrs. P.E. in CA, FL, NC and SC S.E. in CA, HI and IL John Gagnon, Schnabel Engineering Senior Staff Geologist – 3 B.S. Geology M.S. Geology Engineering Geologist – 5 yrs. P.G. in VA and NC 7.d.d Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- 70 DISTRIBUTION LIST Comments were requested on the Draft Supplemental Plan – EA from the following agencies and organizations. Response Received on Draft Supplemental Plan-EA Federal Agencies Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Philadelphia Yes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lynchburg Field Office No U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Gloucester, Virginia Office No Federal Emergency Management Agency Philadelphia No U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Rural Development No No Virginia State Agencies Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Impact Review (State Clearinghouse) Yes Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Yes Virginia Marine Resources Commission No Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries No Virginia Department of Historic Resources No Virginia Department of Forestry No Virginia Department of Transportation No 7.d.d Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 71 Response Received on Draft Supplemental Plan-EA Other Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts No Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District No Town of Chatham No West Piedmont Planning District Commission No Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors No Pittsylvania County Planning Department No Pittsylvania County Parks and Recreation Department No Pittsylvania County Service Authority No 7.d.d Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 72 This page intentionally left blank. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation APPENDIX A LETTERS OF COMMENT AND NRCS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN – EA 7.d.d Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.d Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-1 7.d.d Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-2 7.d.d Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-3 7.d.d Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-4 7.d.d Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-5 7.d.d Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-6 7.d.d Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-7 7.d.d Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-8 7.d.d Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-9 7.d.d Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-10 7.d.d Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-11 7.d.d Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-12 7.d.d Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-13 7.d.d Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-14 7.d.d Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-15 7.d.d Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-16 7.d.d Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-17 7.d.d Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-18 7.d.d Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-19 7.d.d Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-20 7.d.d Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-21 7.d.d Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-22 7.d.d Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-23 7.d.d Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-24 7.d.d Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-25 7.d.d Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-26 7.d.d Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-27 7.d.d Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-28 7.d.d Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-29 7.d.d Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation A-30 (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.d Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation APPENDIX B PROJECT MAP 7.d.d Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.d Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation B-1 Figure B-1. General Watershed Location Map. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- This page intentionally left blank 7.d.d Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- APPENDIX C SUPPORT MAPS 7.d.d Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.d Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation C-1 Figure C-1. Roaring Fork Lake Watershed Land Use Map. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation C-2 Figure C-2. Roaring Fork Lake Watershed Soils Map. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation C-3 Figure C-3. Roaring Fork Lake Watershed Prime Farmland Map. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation C-4 Figure C-4. Roaring Fork Lake - Prime Farmland in the Construction Area. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation C-5 Figure C-5. Roaring Fork Lake Invasive Species Map. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation C-6 Figure C-6. Area of Potential Effect for Preferred Alternative (Aerial View). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-7 Figure C-7. Preferred Alternative - RCC Chute Spillway over top of dam. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-8 Figure C-8. Preferred Alternative - Auxiliary Spillway Profile. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-9 Figure C-9. Alternative 2 – Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir Over the Dam. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-10 Figure C-10. Sunny Day Breach Inundation Map. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-11 Figure C-11. Cherrystone Creek Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel Index). Cherrystone Creek 2A Cherrystone Creek 1 7.d.d Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-12 Figure C-12. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 1 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-13 Figure C-13. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 2 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-14 igure C-14. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 3 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-15 Figure C-15. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 4 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-16 Figure C-16. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 5 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-17 Figure C-17. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 6 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-18 Figure C-18. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 7 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-19 Figure C-19. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 8 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-20 Figure C-20. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 9 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- C-21 Figure C-21. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 10 of 10). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- (This page intentionally left blank) 7.d.d Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_- APPENDIX D INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES REPORT 7.d.d Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation 7.d.d Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-1 Investigations and Analyses Used in the Planning for Rehabilitation of Cherrystone Creek Dam Site No. 2A (Roaring Fork Lake) Planning Engineering Background Roaring Fork is a tributary to Cherrystone Creek, which originates in the western part of Pittsylvania County and flows generally east through the Town of Chatham (Town) emptying into the Bannister River. The Cherrystone Creek Watershed is located west of the Town. A Watershed Plan was developed by the NRCS in 1965 to reduce flood flow in and around the Town and to provide water supply storage for the Town. A supplement was prepared in 1976. Two watershed structures are in the Cherrystone Creek Watershed – Site 1 and 2A. Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 is also currently in planning for rehabilitation to meet current state dam safety requirements, maintain existing flood control and maintain water supply storage. Purpose This document summarizes the investigations and analysis completed for the dam rehabilitation planning engineering of Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A. This includes a summary and reference for the existing conditions, breach, deficiencies, alternatives studied and the selected rehabilitation alternative for this dam. The following documents state the assumptions, investigations, and analysis performed, and the conclusions developed: • Schnabel Engineering, Cherrystone Creek 2A Inlet/Outlet Inspection report, September 2017. • Topo Survey, NRCS 2014 • Risk Evaluation Sheet, April 4, 2014 • Breach Inundation Study, Hurt and Proffitt, Inc., November 2010 • Breach Maps, NRCS 2017 The basis for the planning engineering investigations and analysis are current NRCS criteria and standards, including the following: • National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, Hydrology • National Engineering Handbook, Part 628, Dams • Technical Release 60, Earth Dams and Reservoirs, July 2005 • NRCS Conservation Practice Standard Dam (Code 402) Baseline Survey: A ground run topographical survey performed by NRCS in 2014 was the basis for critical elevations and the design of rehabilitative measures. The NRCS Hydrology and Hydraulics Report includes the differences between the NGVD29 elevations contained in the as- built drawings and NAVD88 elevations. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-2 Existing Conditions and Deficiencies NRCS evaluated the existing condition of the dam and appurtenances with a field inspection on June 27, 2017. The dam and its appurtenances appear to be generally well kept, having minor items of maintenance that are outstanding. Prior investigations include a topographic survey and a sediment survey by NRCS. A video inspection of the riser interior and exterior, the interior of the principal spillway pipe, and the interior of the toe drains was conducted on August 23, 2017, by Bander and Smith under contract with Schnabel Engineering. Divers videoed the underwater portions of the riser exterior and found no significant issues. The galvanized steel trash rack for the intake orifice is in poor condition. The water supply gate installed in the left face of the riser was not seated properly and water was leaking into the riser. These issues should be addressed as part of the regular maintenance of the dam. No issues were reported for the interior of the principal spillway pipe. At the downstream outlet, the first joint of the pipe is spalling on the exterior. The left toe drain was dry and could be inspected for about 75 feet. There is a partial collapse about 10 feet beyond the elbow in the pipe. The right toe drain was partially blocked with vegetation and sediment. The equipment was able to advance for about 32 feet before sediment in the drain pipe became too thick to proceed. A geologic investigation was conducted by GSFW Engineering Joint Venture. The field drilling was completed between October 11 and October 27, 2016 by Red Dog Drilling. The drilling consisted of four holes in the embankment and five holes in the auxiliary spillway. Field tests and laboratory testing that are typical practice for dam analysis were conducted. Testing was supplemented by work performed at the National Design, Construction, and Soil Mechanics Center. Headcut erodibility indices were provided for SITES auxiliary spillway stability and integrity analysis. Embankment seepage and slope stability analysis was conducted using the GeoStudio software suite. A typical section for analysis was prepared using as-built data and the results of the soil testing program. Slope stability analysis was performed in accordance with TR-60 for rapid drawdown, steady state seepage, and seismic factor of safety criteria. For rapid drawdown, the required factor of safety (FS) is 1.2; results of the slope analysis determined the existing FS to be 1.204. For downstream steady-state condition with pore pressure at the auxiliary spillway crest, the required FS is 1.5; the existing condition FS is 1.80. For the downstream steady-state with seismic forces, the required FS is 1.1; the existing condition FS is 1.51. In summary, the upstream and downstream slopes meet TR-60 safety factor criteria. Examining the top of dam with TR-60 criteria finds the existing top width of 20 feet to be sufficient. Soils analysis for filter and drainage found no issues of concern for the embankment. Each embankment zone is compatible with adjacent zones. Initial investigations include hydrologic analysis, spillway integrity analysis, and embankment and spillway capacity analysis. The SITES model was used to evaluate the capacity and integrity of the existing structure and the auxiliary spillway alternatives. Geotechnical information was taken from the as-built drawings and the original design folder (1967). Reservoir storage was developed using the current sediment survey. Crest elevations were taken from the current NRCS topo survey (NAVD 88) and the as- built drawings (NVD29 converted to NAVD 88). The 6-hour storm was found to be the critical 7.d.d Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-3 duration for the Freeboard Hydrograph (FBH). The 6-hr storm was developed using the NRCS 6-hour distribution and 6-hr Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) from Hydrometeorology Report No. 51, of 21.6 inches. Results show that Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A does not meet the 10-day drawdown requirement during the PSH events and does not have the integrity to resist auxiliary spillway erosion during the FBH events. The dam does meet Virginia Division of Dam Safety criteria for a high hazard potential dam. Based upon the SITES runs, the auxiliary spillway crest elevation is 8.4 feet too low and the top of dam elevation is 7.4 feet too low for a high hazard potential dam. These deficiencies are governed by the 1-day 10-day criteria for a vegetated earth auxiliary spillway. In addition, the auxiliary spillway is predicted to breach during passage of the freeboard hydrograph. Life Span As of 2018, Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A is 50 years old. The remaining submerged sediment life of the structure is about 121 years. The primary material components are the principal spillway riser, pipe, and toe drains. The CMP toe drains are close to failing and will be replaced as part of the rehabilitation. The riser and pipe are currently in good condition and are expected to last for another 50 years. The logic for determining the period of analysis is included in the Economics I&A section below. Fifty, 75 and 100 year expected useful lives were evaluated (52, 77 and 102-year periods of analysis including 1 year for design and 1 year for construction). A net present value analysis was conducted comparing the three alternative periods of analysis. The added cost to replace the principal spillway riser and components (the trash-rack and gate valves) were used to assess net benefits for the 75 and 100-year project investments. All costs of installation, operation and maintenance were based on 2018 prices. The costs associated with designing and implementing all structural measures were assumed to be implemented over the aforementioned two-year period. The federal action with a 52-year period of analysis yielded the highest net benefits using the mandated 2.875% discount rate for all federal water resource projects for FY18 to discount and amortize the anticipated streams of costs and benefits. Reservoir Storage Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A was originally designed to detain future sediment and provide flood storage. To determine the current reservoir storage, sediment surveys were completed by NRCS staff for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A in September 2015. The field survey was conducted in March 2015 using an aluminum fishing boat, electric trolling motor, and a Garmin GPSMAP541s Chartplotter. The unit recorded 2,586 GPS locations and water depths at the top of the sediment. This data was compared to the as-built information for the original bottom of the reservoir area to estimate the volume of submerged sediment present. Aerated sediment volume was determined using GPS waypoints and soil profile investigations. The sediment survey was also used to determine the yearly sedimentation rate which is used to determine the required sediment storage for fifty to one-hundred years after the rehabilitation is complete. A detailed trip report is available in the file as part of the supporting documentation. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-4 Modes of Failure and Breach Study The potential impacts to downstream structures and people due to an instantaneous breach of the dam were evaluated to assist the economist with benefit estimates and to verify the hazard class of high. The Sponsors have current breach inundation zone maps for the dam that complies with the Virginia Impounding Structures Law and Regulations for high hazard potential dams. The Virginia Impounding Structures Regulations requires owners of high hazard potential dams to provide a dam breach inundation zone map with multiple zones represented to determine hazard classification and develop the Emergency Action Plan (EAP). The auxiliary spillway design flood for High Hazard Potential dams is the PMF, consistent with NRCS Freeboard Hydrograph criteria. The zones for a high hazard potential dam include: • a Sunny Day dam failure using the volume at the auxiliary spillway crest; • a spillway design flood (PMF) without a dam failure; and • a dam failure during the spillway design flood (PMF). The breach inundation report and maps are sealed by a Virginia professional engineer. The breach inundation zone analysis and maps were approved by the Virginia Division of Dam Safety in 2010. The Sponsors provided the hydrologic and hydraulic models to NRCS. The models and hydraulic data are consistent with NRCS policies and procedures for water surface modeling. The current Sponsor breach inundation zones and maps were used to identify the population at risk and the impacted structures. All the structures in the potential breach impact zone of Roaring Fork Lake were identified using GIS information provided by the Town and Pittsylvania County. This was determined by overlaying the Sunny Day breach inundation zone and the Sponsor real estate data. This data includes current land ownership and description of associated improvements. This data includes single family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, businesses, commercial developments, recreational areas, and government infrastructure (roads, water supply, and water treatment). A risk evaluation of the existing structure was completed by NRCS in 2014 using the current Sponsor breach inundation study and maps, (Hurt & Proffitt, Incorporated, 2010). Within the Sunny Day breach inundation zone, the population at risk is 150. Falvey Master Template Labyrinth Weir Excel Spreadsheet This Excel spreadsheet sizes labyrinth weirs, estimates weir quantities, and provides a cost estimate for the weir given unit cost inputs. The spreadsheet also provides a rating curve for the proposed weir and a graphic layout of the labyrinth weir system. The spreadsheet is based on the work by Henry T. Falvey, a leading authority on the performance of labyrinth weirs. He has authored Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators This manual is published by the DOI Bureau of Reclamation as Engineering Nomograph No. 25, authored by A. J. Peterka. It contains procedures for 10 types of stilling basins, including the SAF basins used in this analysis of alternatives. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-5 GeoStudio Software Suite for Geotechnical Analysis The Slope/W and Seep/W routines were used to model a typical section of the dam embankment to determine existing conditions of slope stability. The model was then used to determine remedial measures needed for compliance to TR-60 slope stability criteria. SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES FOR PLANNING ENGINEERING Land Cover – NASS 2015 The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data was used for Land Cover / Land Use in the Cherrystone Creek 2A Watershed. This data was also used for the Land Cover / Land Use in the CST 1 Sunny Day Breach Inundation Zone. The USDA, NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) is a raster, geo-referenced, crop-specific land cover data layer. The 2015 CDL has a ground resolution of 30 meters. The CDL is produced using satellite imagery from the Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS sensor and the Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) DEIMOS-1 and UK2 sensors collected during the current growing season. Some CDL states used additional satellite imagery and ancillary inputs to supplement and improve the classification. These additional sources can include the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) and the imperviousness and canopy data layers from the USGS National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011). Agricultural training and validation data are derived from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Common Land Unit Program. The most current version of the NLCD is used as non-agricultural training and validation data. Land Cover (supplemental) - NASS 2015 The NASS data was used to supplement/update the cropland information in the Cherrystone Creek 2A Watershed. The USDA, NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) is a raster, geo-referenced, crop-specific land cover data layer. The 2015 CDL has a ground resolution of 30 meters. The CDL is produced using satellite imagery from the Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS sensor and the Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) DEIMOS-1 and UK2 sensors collected during the current growing season. Some CDL states used additional satellite imagery and ancillary inputs to supplement and improve the classification. These additional sources can include the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) and the imperviousness and canopy data layers from the USGS National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011). Agricultural training and validation data are derived from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Common Land Unit Program. The most current version of the NLCD is used as non-agricultural training and validation data. Land Use Information Future Land Cover was developed by overlaying Map 12.3 contained in the Future Land Use Plan from the Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan, adopted September 1, 2015. The existing land cover was used for any land shown on the Future Land Use Plan to be in conservation/parks/open space, agricultural or rural land use. The existing land use was also used for any land already in an urban land use such as residential or commercial. The land use shown as developed on the Future Land Use Map was used for any land currently in open space, pasture, or woods. More 7.d.d Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-6 detailed information is contained in the Report entitled Preliminary Engineering and Planning Study, Cherrystone Creek Watershed Dam No. 2A, December 28, 2015 by Schnabel Engineering. SSURGO Soils This product was used to derive the Prime Farmland and Hydrologic Groups in the Cherrystone Creek Watershed. SSURGO datasets consist of map data, tabular data, and information about how the maps and tables were created. The extent of a SSURGO dataset is a soil survey area, which may consist of a single county, multiple counties, or parts of multiple counties. SSURGO map data can be viewed in the Web Soil Survey or downloaded in ESRI® Shapefile format. The coordinate systems are geographic. Attribute data can be downloaded in text format that can be imported into a Microsoft® Access® database. A more detailed description can be found at this URL- http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627. Prime Farmland The Prime Farmland layers was derived from the USDA NRCS - SSURGO data for Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The NRCS Soil Data Viewer version 6.2 was used, with ArcGIS 10.2. The attributes selected for this layer are under Farmland Classification. Hydrologic Soil Groups This layer was derived from the USDA NRCS - SSURGO data for Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The NRCS Soil Data Viewer version 6.2 was used, with ArcGIS 10.2. The attributes selected for this layer is under “Soil Qualities and Features” – Hydrologic Soil Groups. Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration; when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. National Hydrography Dataset (USGS) This layer was used in the Cherrystone Creek 2A dam rehabilitation study to depict Streams and Water Bodies. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and Watershed Boundary Dataset are used to portray surface water on The National Map. The NHD represents the drainage network with features such as rivers, streams, canals, lakes, ponds, coastline, dams, and stream gages. FEMA – DFIRM The digital Flood Insurance Rate Map is used to depict the base flood, 100-year floodplain zone in the Cherrystone Creek Watershed. The FIRMETTES for Roaring Fork Lake are included in Appendix C. In Virginia, the localities are the zoning authorities. For the streams below Cherrystone Creek 2A dam, both Pittsylvania County and the Town of Chatham are the regulatory authorities for the base flood. The base flood depicted on all maps are FEMA Zone AE and Zone A. For the preferred rehabilitation alternative, the base flood will not change in the downstream channels. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-7 Sub-Watershed Boundaries These boundaries were derived by using the VGIN Digital Terrain Dataset. This data was converted to a Bare Earth Digital Elevation Model. Hydrologic analysis was used in ArcGIS 10.2 Spatial Analyst Tool to delineate the subwatershed. VGIN DTM (Digital Terrain Model) – Digital Elevation This data was used because there was no LiDAR coverage for Pittsylvania County during this study. The Digital Terrain model is a depiction of the topography for covered Virginia localities using photogrammetrically-derived mass points and breaklines collected or updated in 2011. This terrain dataset was built from masspoints and breaklines developed for the 2011 VBMP orthophotography project. The purpose of the digital terrain mode was orthorectification of the imagery. It is not hydro-enforced. The vertical accuracy of masspoints and breaklines is about 2.5 feet. This DTM was used to create a 3-meter Bare Earth Digital Elevation Model for analysis. This data is subject to the limitations of Virginia Code and the following disclaimer must be included with any map or documentation using these data: "Any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification, or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination." SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Economic Analysis The NRCS National Watershed Manual was used as a reference for the economic analysis along with two economic analysis guidance documents: “Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies (P&G), December 1983, and the “Economics Handbook, Part II for Water Resources”, USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service, July 1998. These guidance documents were used to evaluate potential flood damages and estimate project benefits and associated costs. P&G was developed to define a consistent set of project formulation and evaluation instructions for all federal agencies that carry out water and related land resource implementation studies. This guidance document directs how to evaluate alternative project actions and determine whether benefits from the proposed actions exceed project costs. P&G allows for abbreviated procedures commensurate with the planning and policy context to be used (P&G section 1.7.2 (a) (4) (ii)) when more detailed analysis will not alter identification of the recommended National Economic Development alternative. In this case, the future without federal project and the future with federal project involve the same least-cost alternative with comparable scope, effects, benefits and costs. No net change in benefits occurs when comparing the two candidate plans to each other. Per use of abbreviated procedures allowed by P&G and NRCS policy, avoidance of the local cost is claimed as the benefits of the federally-led dam rehabilitation. The federally assisted alternative as displayed credits local costs avoided (Total Adverse Annualized for the Future Without Federal Project scenario) as adverse beneficial effects (Total Beneficial Annualized) consistent with P&G 1.7.2(b)(3). Thus, although the average annual benefits of rehabilitation are $288,700, net benefits 7.d.d Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-8 are zero because the total project cost is equal to the claimed benefits and the resulting B/C ratio is 1:1. In addition, one other overarching concern associated with dam rehabilitation analyses is the intent of the program to minimize threat to human life. Threat to human life is central to the dam rehabilitation program. Agency policy allows for use of the other social effects goal (account in P&G terms) to make the case for rehabilitating any given floodwater detention structure, even if the associated B/C ratio were less than 1:1. This is due to a priority placed on protecting lives. Also, trying to monetize the value of life, or in the case of dams, avoidance of loss of life, is fraught with subjective value judgements. Threat to human life can therefore be used to supersede purely economic considerations when deemed appropriate. Flood damages. Assessed values for all homes and other properties within the breach inundation zone were obtained from local government sources within the watershed and used to estimate damages from a possible catastrophic breach. Estimated flood damages were based on the results of the hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) simulation modeling indicating that a maximum peak discharge average depth of 5.1 feet would be experienced outside of the stream channel should a breach event occur. This assumed depth of flood water data was then used with water depth to damage functions developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to estimate structural damages. Content values were then estimated as a function of assessed property values. All estimated values and damages were assessed within a customized Excel template prepared for this purpose. Period of Analysis Determination: Fifty, 75 and 100 year expected useful lives were evaluated (52, 77 and 102-year periods of analysis including 1 year for design and 1 year for construction). A net present value analysis was conducted comparing the three alternative periods of analysis. Average annual values were also estimated. The added cost to replace the principal spillway riser tower and components (the trash-rack and gate valves), added maintenance of the plunge pool, and slip-lining of the principal spillway in year 50 were used to assess net benefits for the 75 and 100-year project investments. All costs of installation, operation and maintenance were based on 2018 prices. The costs associated with designing and implementing all structural measures were assumed to be implemented over the two-year period. The federal action with a 52-year period of analysis yielded the highest net benefits using the mandated 2.875% discount rate for all federal water resource projects for FY18 to discount and amortize the anticipated streams of costs and benefits. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-9 Cherrystone Creek Site 2A Period of Analysis Determination Note: this is a compressed jpeg image of the actual Excel spreadsheet; intervening years between years 1 and 25, 26 and 50, 51 and 75 and 76 and 96 have been hidden solely for the purpose of truncating the table for presentation purposes; all of the hidden cells contain contents equal to the unhidden row above them. Landrights. NRCS policy regarding minimum landrights for potentially floodpool impacted areas upstream of the dam require the local sponsors to acquire an easement for all area below the top of dam, unless the plan allows for a lower elevation. When a lower elevation for floodpool easement acquisition is supported, this elevation can never be set below the 100-year storm event flood level nor below the crest of the auxiliary spillway elevation whichever is higher. Prior to construction of Cherrystone Creek Site 2A in 1969, the local sponsors acquired easements for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam. SCS policy in that time required the acquisition of easements for the floodpool upstream of the dam to the crest of the auxiliary spillway as a minimum. Planning principles were used to conduct an analysis of the risk associated with the potential for induced flooding due to floodpool water levels during storm events and the potential cost of meeting current top of dam easement policy. The difference between the existing floodpool easement elevation (699.8 ft.) and the elevation of the floodpool associated with a PMP event (707.72 ft. as compared to the top of dam elevation of 707.40 ft.) was used to estimate potential structure and content damages if built upstream of the dam and potentially in harm’s way (with points of water entry below the top of dam). At the current time (after 50 years of existence) there aren’t any properties located within the floodpool. Ten homes were assumed to exist in the floodpool with an average water depth from a PMP event of 3.84 ft. as an initial assumption to attempt to estimate potential risk if homes were built between the 100-year storm elevation and the top of dam elevation. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-10 Initial Assumed Waterfront Homes at Risk of Floodpool Flooding Flood-pool House # Pt. of water entry elev. Flood-pool House # Pt. of water entry elev. 1 703.6 6 703.6 2 703.6 7 703.6 3 703.6 8 703.6 4 703.6 9 703.6 5 703.6 10 703.6 Average point of water entry elevation 703.6 A set of assumptions were used to estimate: 1) the cost of easements for the added 17 acres of land (easement encumbrance costs assumed at $5,000/acre and legal fees assumed at $5,000/parcel for each parcel owner); 2) the value of potential built-out residences and associated contents on the 22 identified parcels ($158,800 average value); and 3) estimated damages from all storm events (as represented by the following specific modeled storms: 100, 200, 500, 1,000 year and PMP event for the with rehabilitation conditions) based upon an average flood depth of 3.84ft. The associated average annual damages for all storm events were estimated to be $705. The estimated average annual cost for acquiring additional easements to the top of dam, including administrative costs (legal and deed restriction recording fees) were estimated to be $6,050. The resulting benefit/cost ratio comparing average annual costs for all storm events induced from floodpool damages (average annual value of floodpool damages avoided) vs. average annual cost for establishment of the added easements (cost to avoid possible damages); mathematically: average annual cost of the potential floodpool damages without easements divided by the average annual cost of establishing the easements) came out to 0.12:1; an extremely low B/C ratio. Alternatively expressed, for every $1 in benefits (damages avoided), over $8 would have to be expended to acquire full extension of easements to the top of the dam. In addition, a worst-case scenario analysis could be developed which would take into account potential build-out of many additional parcels resulting from future development but was deemed unnecessary given that the cost side of the analysis would increase, but the benefits (damages avoided) would likely increase more slowly, if at all. Cherrystone Lake has 14 homes built on 14 lots out of 70 total parcels on 125 total acres which happened over 50 years. This is not a site with high risk of build-out over the evaluation period and Cherrystone 2A is even less of a threat for build-out over the next 50 years. Currently at Dam No. 2A, there are 22 parcels on 17 total acres potentially impacted by the floodpool risk for a PMP event and there aren’t any homes built in the risk area. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-11 Cherrystone Site 2A - Floodpool water surface elevations and flood depths by storm event Storm Event After rehab. Floodpool elevations Ave. pt. of H20 entry Ave. Flood Depth Structure damages (%) Content damages (%) 100-year 700.58 703.6 -3.02 0.0% 0.0% 200-year 701.34 703.6 -2.26 0.0% 0.0% 500-year 702.35 703.6 -1.25 0.0% 0.0% 1,000-year 703.15 703.6 -0.45 5.6% 3.9% 10,000-year 707.44 703.6 3.84 34.1% 44.2% This analysis along with alternatives for managing floodpool risk and a table intended to communicate/educate regarding probabilities of occurrence (see table below) were presented to the local sponsors. The alternatives presented in no particular order were: 1) do nothing, i.e., accept the potential risk and possible associated implications whatever they might be including the risk of litigation; 2) acquire easements to the top of the dam; 3) Procure an insurance policy explicitly for the floodpool risk; 4) attempt to acquire a waiver of the risk from all landowners for the existing parcels; and/or 5) pass a setback ordinance preventing future development below the top of dam. The local sponsors have existing easements to the elevation of the 100-year storm event flow through the auxiliary spillway. The local sponsors have determined that acquisition of additional easement area to meet current NRCS policy to the top of dam (elevation 707.4 feet NAVD88) would require a significant added cost. The sponsors opted to not acquire the added easements 7.d.d Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-12 given the risk/cost comparison, i.e., relatively high current cost of potential damage avoidance for an area that is undeveloped. Recreational activities around and on the reservoir will be impacted during construction but are expected to return to before construction levels once the rehabilitation is completed. No new investments in recreational facilities are planned and recreation benefits are not claimed as a part of project benefits. Therefore, incidental recreation occurring as part of the site is expected to continue but was not evaluated and no recreation benefits are included in the economics tables. Since recreation is not a planned purpose for this project, all costs for incidental recreation will be paid with non-federal funds. Water Supply Purpose: In March 2019, at the request of the Sponsors, NRCS added Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water supply as a purpose of the Cherrystone Creek Dam 2A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Threatened and Endangered Species For Federally listed species, NRCS obtained the Official Species List from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on March 26, 2018 via the online Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Using the search tool http://dgif- virginia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=32ea4ee4935942c092e41ddcd19e5ec5, NRCS found no recorded NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees for NLEB within Pittsylvania County. Therefore, as stated in the Final 4(d) rule on the NLEB, any incidental take that may result from the project is exempted by the 4(d) rule. In December, 2017 the NRCS performed a search of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) database, http://vafwis.org/fwis/, to identify potential species that may be present in the affected environment for the proposed action. Water Quality Water quality data was taken from the Virginia Final 2016 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters Report released on April 02, 2018. Wetlands A wetland investigation for Roaring Fork Lake was completed during the growing season of 2017. Prior to conducting fieldwork, an off-site evaluation was completed. NRCS consulted the USGS 7.5-minute Topographical Quadrangle Map, the National Wetlands Inventory Interactive Mapper (NWI) website administered by the USFWS, and soil survey information provided by NRCS. Fieldwork was conducted using methods as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). 7.d.d Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation D-13 Fish and Wildlife A fish survey was completed on May 18, 2017 by fisheries biologists from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) the request of the NRCS to investigate high turbidity levels in the reservoir. The goal of the investigation was to determine fish species present in the lake and determine if there was a correlation between the fish and persistent turbidity in the water column. Fish collections were made using a boat electrofishing unit around the perimeter of the lake. All fish species were collected in the first of three electrofishing runs while only carp and white suckers were collected in the remaining two runs. Much of the lake shoreline was shallow (< 3 feet) with abundant sediment, surface water temperature was measured at 22° C, and the water was muddy/murky in color. Eight fish species were collected including largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, black crappie, brown bullhead catfish, golden shiner, white sucker, and common carp. The investigation identified one species that is likely causing most of the persistent high turbidity, common carp. Another species found, white sucker, may also be contributing to some of the high turbidity but is not likely the primary contributor of the problem. Both species are in direct contact with the lake bottom and continually disturb the soft shallow sediments while feeding. Common carp are much larger, disturb much more sediments, and are known to cause persistent suspension of solids in the water column. 7.d.d Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_-_Without_Sponsors_and_NRCS_Signatures_-_June_2019 (1) (1674 : Dam Rehabilitation Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: School's Armory Playground Construction Approval Ratification (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.e Attachment(s): Armory County Lease Agreement Reviewed By: SUMMARY: Last year the Board of Supervisors approved a lease of the former Armory building to the Pittsylvania County Schools. A copy of the lease is attached for your review and information. The school proposed the installation of a playground on the property, but did not have funding at the time. They have secured funding and plan on installing a playground on the North side of the property within the existing fenced area. Under the terms of the lease, any improvements to the property require County approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: All of the funding is being provided by the school system. RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends the approval of the installation of the playground. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the installation of a playground at the former Armory in Chatham by the Pittsylvania County School System in accordance with the terms and conditions of the current lease.” 7.e Packet Pg. 385 Page 1 of 4 LEASE AGREEMENT This LEASE AGREEMENT (the “Lease”), is made on ______ __, 2018 (“Date of Execution”), between the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA (“Lessor”), and the SCHOOL BOARD OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRIGNIA (“Lessee”), (singularly the “Party;” collectively the “Parties”). WITNESSETH THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Parties do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. LEASE OF PROPERTY: Lessor hereby leases and demises, and Lessee hereby rents all that real property with improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging, less the gravel lower parking lot which the Lessor shall have exclusive use/access to, formerly known as the Chatham Readiness Center/Armory, located on the West side of South Main Street (U.S. Highway No. 29) near the intersection of Memorial Drive and South Main Street in the Town of Chatham in Pittsylvania County, Virginia (the “Premises”). 2. COVENANTS OF OWNERSHIP; COORDINATED USE; QUIET ENJOYMENT: Lessor covenants and agrees that it is the owner of the Premises demised. The Premises is leased for the sole purpose of being a school. Any other primary use of the Premises by the Lessee must be approved in writing by Lessor. Following coordination with the Lessee during non-school hours, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, the Pittsylvania County Department of Parks and Recreation, and Pittsylvania County Administration/Staff, shall have use of the Premises. Except for said coordinated use, Lessor also covenants that Lessee shall have quiet enjoyment thereof for the Lease’s duration. 3. TERM OF LEASE; RENEWAL; TERMINATION: The term of this Lease shall be for five (5) years, commencing as of the Date of Execution above. This Lease may be extended for an additional four (4), one (1) year terms. Said extension notice shall be given in writing by Lessee to Lessor at least sixty (60) days prior any Lease termination date. This Lease may be terminated by either Party with one-hundred and twenty (120) days’ written notice to other Party. 4. RENT; LATE FEE: Lessee covenants and agrees to pay to Lessor, as rental for the Premises, the sum on one dollar and no cents ($1.00) per year. All rent payments or late fees shall be made payable to the Treasurer of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, and sent to the following address: 21 Main Street, P.O. Box 407, Chatham, Virginia 24531. There shall be no late rent fee in this Lease. 5. REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES: Lessor shall pay all real estate taxes assesses against the Premises demised (if any) and shall also pay all personal 7.e.a Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Armory County Lease Agreement (1663 : School's Armory Playground Construction Approval Ratification (Staff Contact: Richard Page 2 of 4 property taxes assesses against any of the personal property and fixtures hereby demised (if any). 6. UTILITIES: Lessee shall pay for all its telephone, cable, internet or satellite television, used on or upon the Premises. Lessor and Lessee shall equally split the costs of all other utilities used on, in, and upon the Premises. 7. INSURANCE; INDEMNIFICATION: A. INSURANCE: Lessor shall maintain all appropriate insurance on the Premises and its contents. B. INDEMNIFICATION OF LESSOR: Lessor shall not be liable for any damage to property or injury arising from Lessee's occupation or use of the Premises, except as may be caused by Lessor's failure to perform under the Lease. Lessee shall protect, indemnify, defend, and save harmless the Lessor, his agents, or servants from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, liabilities, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) resulting from the negligent, unlawful, or willful acts or omissions of Lessee, Lessee’s employees, representative, agents, customers, invitees, or visitors, or from Lessee's failure to perform any obligation imposed upon it by law or the provisions of this Lease, notwithstanding any possible negligence (whether sole, concurrent, or otherwise) on the part of Lessor, its agents, contractors, or servants. 8. MAINTENANCE OF THE PREMISES: A. GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES: Lessee shall maintain the Premises always in a neat and orderly condition. All exterior signage shall be approved in writing by Lessor. B. EXTERNAL REPAIRS TO PREMISES; GRASS CUTTING; LANDSCAPING: Lessor shall be responsible for maintaining the roof and exterior of the Premises, cutting the grass, maintaining upper and lower parking lots, and landscaping. C. INTERNAL MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES; MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS TO HVAC, PLUMBING, WIRING, AND OTHER FIXTURES: Lessee shall maintain all aspects of the interior of the Premises and be responsible for the maintenance of and repairs to the HVAC (heating and air conditioning system(s)), plumbing equipment, wiring, and any and all other fixtures in, on, or upon the Premises. 9. DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES: If Premises is totally destroyed by casualty or becomes so extensively damaged, without fault of Lessee, so as to render the demised Premises unusable by Lessee, Lessor or Lessee may elect to terminate this Lease, and the proceeds of any insurance on the Premises or personal property leased hereunder shall be the Lessor’s property. 7.e.a Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Armory County Lease Agreement (1663 : School's Armory Playground Construction Approval Ratification (Staff Contact: Richard Page 3 of 4 10. ALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS: No alterations or improvements shall be made to the demised Premises by the Lessee without prior written consent of Lessor. All alterations or improvements made to the Premises shall be the property of Lessor at the termination of the Lease. 11. ASSIGNMENTS AND SUBLEASE: No assignment or sublease of the rights of the Lessee under this Lease shall be made without prior written consent of Lessor. 12. LESSOR’S RIGHT OF ENTRY: Lessor may, at reasonable times, enter upon the demises Premises for inspecting the same. 13. BREACH OF COVENANTS: In the event Lessee fails to perform any of the other covenants of this Lease to be performed by Lessee under this Lease, then Lessor shall have the right, in addition to all other rights or remedies provided by law or equity, to: (i) without demand or notice to re-enter, by force or otherwise, and take possession of the Premises without being liable by doing said; and (ii) setoff against rents paid in advance for any damages caused by such breach, with the Lessee being liable for any deficiency. In the event Lessor fails to perform any of the covenants of this Lease to be performed by Lessor, Lessee shall have all rights and remedies provided by law and equity. If an action is brought to enforce any of the rights or remedies available to either party in the event a breach of any term of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs expended, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and litigation costs. 14. IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF LEASE: In the event that Lessee should execute any Deed of Assignment for the benefit of creditors, file a petition in bankruptcy, or should the property of the Lessee be levied upon by any creditors, the Lessor, at its discretion, shall have the option, if allowed by law or equity, to declare this Lease terminated. 15. WAIVER OF BREACH: The failure of Lessor to enforce one (1) or more of the terms or conditions of the Lease, from time-to-time, shall not constitute a waiver of such terms or conditions upon subsequent or continuing breach. 16. APPLICABLE LAW: This Lease shall be construed according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 17. VENUE: The legal venue for any litigation arising out of this Lease shall be the appropriate court of Pittsylvania County, Virginia. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties. This Lease may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in writing, signed by both Parties. 7.e.a Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Armory County Lease Agreement (1663 : School's Armory Playground Construction Approval Ratification (Staff Contact: Richard Page 4 of 4 19. BENEFIT: This Lease shall inure to the benefit of, and shall bind the heirs, successors, and assigns of the Parties. 20. NOTICES: Any notice or demand under this Lease shall be by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, sent to the Parties at the addresses listed below, and shall be deemed delivered on the date postmarked: A. LESSOR: County of Pittsylvania, Virginia 1 Center Street P.O. Box 426 Chatham, Virginia 24531 B. LESSEE: Pittsylvania County School Board P.O. Box 232 39 Bank Street Chatham, Virginia 24531 Witness the following signatures and seals: LESSOR: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: _____________________________________________________ Name (Printed):____________________________________________ Its:_______________________________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM __________________________ J. Vaden Hunt, Esq. Pittsylvania County Attorney LESSEE: SCHOOL BOARD OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRIGNIA By: _____________________________________________________ Name (Printed):____________________________________________ Its:_______________________________________________________ 7.e.a Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Armory County Lease Agreement (1663 : School's Armory Playground Construction Approval Ratification (Staff Contact: Richard Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Updated Resolution and Agreement for 911 Management and Control (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp) Staff Contact(s): Chris C. Slemp Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.f Attachment(s): 2019-07-05 Emergency Management Reviewed By: SUMMARY: The E-911 Center is under the direction and control of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors. A Management Control Agreement was established in 1997 to identify the various components of the agreement and responsibilities that lie therein. This agreement expired upon the succession of the new Sheriff taking office in 2008. Last year the Board approved an amended agreement with Chris Slemp being the Interim Director. After consulting with Sheriff Taylor, it was determined that an updated agreement needs to be executed with the appointment of Slemp to the permanent Public Safety Director’s position and E-911 Director. Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors authorized a Management Control Agreement that specifically identifies the E-911 Director as having day to day supervision and he answers to the County Administrator. In that supervision the E-911 Director oversees all personnel with the exception of 5 Compensation Board Sheriff’s employees (Dispatcher funded positions). This agreement maintains that authority of the 5 employees remain with the Sheriff but passes day to day supervision to the E-911 Director. Additionally, the Sheriff in this agreement maintains all criminal, investigative, & civil call processes and computerized equipment related to criminal justice applications under his control. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff recommends Board approve Resolution #2019-07-05 and the Management Control Agreement as presented. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve Resolution #2019-07-05 and the Management Control Agreement as presented.” 7.f Packet Pg. 390 1 RESOLUTION #2019-07-05 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A MANAGEMENT CONTROL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SHERIFF OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia That a Management Control Agreement between the Board of Supervisors, Sheriff of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Pittsylvania County Director of Public Safety and the County Administrator for Pittsylvania County, Virginia. To prevent the interruption of funds from the Virginia State Compensation Board for the allocation of 5 dispatch positions, substantially in the form Which is attached hereto and made a par thereof, be, and the same is hereby, approved. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to execute same on behalf of The County. APPROVED ____________________________ JOE B. DAVIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ________________________ CLERK Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: _________________________ COUNTY ATTORNEY 7.f.a Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: 2019-07-05 Emergency Management (1693 : Updated Resolution and Agreement for 911 management and control) 2 MANAGEMENT CONTROL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered in this____day of _____________by and between the PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, the OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGININA, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF PITTSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, said agreement being for the express purpose of funds to the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS from the VIRGINIA STATE COMPENSATION BOARD for 5 dispatch positions granted to the Sheriff of Pittsylvania County.; WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Pittsylvania County, Virginia maintains and operates an Emergency Telephone System for the citizens of the County, and all Townships located therein; and WHEREAS, the Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for the preservation of life, limb and property to the citizens of Pittsylvania County, Virginia and the enforcement of all Local, State & Federal laws; and WHEREAS, Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services maintains and operates an Enhanced 911 service for the Board of Supervisors, in order to receive and dispatch telephone complaints for emergency requests for police, fire or rescue services; and WHEREAS, the governing body of Pittsylvania County, the Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office, and the Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services acknowledge the need of a single point public safety answering point for the Enhanced 911 service to the citizens they serve; and WHEREAS, Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office and Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services have existing communications compatibility via radio, telephone & computer; and WHEREAS, Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services has agreed to provide continuous emergency communications to the Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement purposes; and WHEREAS, Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services shall designate adequate staffing to handle the calls for service for the Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement purposes; 7.f.a Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: 2019-07-05 Emergency Management (1693 : Updated Resolution and Agreement for 911 management and control) 3 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual understandings, covenants, and conditions set forth herein, Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office and the Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services covenant and agree as follows: (1) Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services will provide Virginia State Certified Telecommunicators, each of whom are trained and under the direct supervision of the Office of Emergency Services and indirectly to the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors; Except for those that are funded to the Sheriff by the State Compensation Board. (2) Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services will provide the public safety answering point for all the citizens for any emergency request for police, fire or rescue services in the area of communications; (3) Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services will ensure all personnel having access to computer, radio, telephone, or terminal equipment used to process, store, or transmit criminal justice information will: a). Be at least eighteen years of age; b). Have at least a high school education c). Not have been convicted of any misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, felonies, or be users of narcotic drugs or controlled substances; d). Be fingerprinted, photographed, and submit to a complete background investigation which will be conducted by the Sheriff or his designee; e). Be under the direct control of the Sheriff or his designee, whenever operating any law enforcement related applications; f). Not divulge any information acquired from the VCIN/NCIC terminal to any one not having a legal right to said information; and g). Require each employee to sign the Criminal Justice Information Systems Confidentiality Statement as provided in the Office of Emergency Services Standard Operating Procedures; h). Any other requirements deemed necessary by both agencies. (4) The Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office shall develop a Standard Operating Procedure for the receipt and dispatch of all calls received to law enforcement. The Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office Standard Operating Procedure shall be adopted and incorporated into the Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services Standard Operating Procedure Manual, which shall be the 7.f.a Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: 2019-07-05 Emergency Management (1693 : Updated Resolution and Agreement for 911 management and control) 4 Standard Operating Procedure for all dispatchers in the Emergency Operations Center and shall be implemented by the Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Services. (5) The Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office will follow all rules for the use of the Law Enforcement Dispatch Frequency which is owned by the Board of Supervisors and granted for use by the Federal Communications Commission; (6) The Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office will apply annually, to the Virginia State Compensation Board for reimbursement to the Board of Supervisors for compensation of law enforcement dispatch personnel, and any subsequent increases of compensation, salaries, and any and all other benefits for services rendered as deemed appropriate by the Compensation Board; (7) The Pittsylvania County Sheriffs Office will receive management control over all computer, terminal equipment and law enforcement radio frequencies used to process, store, or transmit criminal justice information, “Management Control” being defined as the ultimate authority to set and enforce priorities; standards for the selection, supervision, evaluation and termination of Compensation Board personnel; and police governing the operations of computers, radio frequencies relating to law enforcement communications, circuits and telecommunications terminals used to process criminal history information. Management Control includes but is not limited to, the supervision of equipment, systems design, programming, and operating procedures necessary for the day to day activities within the Emergency Operations Center as it relates to daily law enforcement requests, and shall include ultimate authority to hire, fire and evaluate Compensation Board funded Communications Operators. The Pittsylvania County Office of Emergency Service and the Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Office have read and understand this management control agreement and such agreement is binding as of the date below. Only the governing body of Pittsylvania County may terminate this agreement giving a sixty-day written notice to the Manager of Emergency Services and the Sheriff of Pittsylvania County. 7.f.a Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: 2019-07-05 Emergency Management (1693 : Updated Resolution and Agreement for 911 management and control) 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written in two (2) counterparts, each of which is to be deemed an original Agreement. COUNTY OF PITTSYLVANIA BY:_______________________ CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD (SEAL) ATTEST: ______________________________ DAVID SMITHERMAN COUNTY CLERK/COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ______________________________ MIKE TAYLOR SHERIFF _______________________________ CHRISTOPHER SLEMP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY / E-911 DIRECTOR 7.f.a Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: 2019-07-05 Emergency Management (1693 : Updated Resolution and Agreement for 911 management and control) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: American Red Cross Chatham Community Center Facility Use Agreement (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp) Staff Contact(s): Chris C. Slemp Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.g Attachment(s): community center red cross shelter agreement Reviewed By: SUMMARY: Currently the County depends on the schools for any long-term shelters in the case of evacuations. The Red Cross has evaluated the Community Center in Chatham and determined it can qualify as a shelter site. This also means the Red Cross, along with Social Services, would operate the shelter during times of disaster. This would allow us to shelter a small group of people and not be dependent on the need to open (or close) a school in order to shelter our citizens during times of crisis. In order to complete this process, the Red Cross requires the County to sign a shelter agreement. Mark Moore, director of Parks and Recreation, has met with the Red Cross and has agreed to these terms as well. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: The addition of this shelter has no financial impact on the County. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff recommends the Board approve the American Red Cross Chatham Community Center Facility Use Agreement as presented. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the American Red Cross Chatham Community Center Facility Use Agreement as presented.” 7.g Packet Pg. 396 7.g.a Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: community center red cross shelter agreement (1679 : American Red Cross Chatham Community Center Facility Use Agreement) 7.g.a Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: community center red cross shelter agreement (1679 : American Red Cross Chatham Community Center Facility Use Agreement) 7.g.a Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: community center red cross shelter agreement (1679 : American Red Cross Chatham Community Center Facility Use Agreement) 7.g.a Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: community center red cross shelter agreement (1679 : American Red Cross Chatham Community Center Facility Use Agreement) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Pet Smart Charities Adoption Partner Agreement Ratification (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) Staff Contact(s): Gregory L. Sides Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.h Attachment(s): Petsmart Charities Signed Agreement Reviewed By: SUMMARY: The PetSmart Charities agreement allows us to use the cat adoption center at the Danville PetSmart store to house and adopt our cats, as well as bring dogs there for adoption events. In return, we are expected to take care of their adoption center. The store staff helps us to care for these animals and even helps us with adoptions. The agreement also lays out guidelines for animals we have there and expectations of our staff and volunteers. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: Other than minimal promotional costs to promote adoptions through PetSmart, there is no cost unless we damage their adoption center kennels. PetSmart provides all food, litter, bedding and toys for our cats at the adoption center as well as assisting with their care. For every 50 adoptions through PetSmart, the Pet Center receives $1,000.00 on top of our adoption fees. This also opens us up to grant opportunities with PetSmart Charities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff fully supports this great partnership opportunity as it will increase our support and adoptions while tapping into another market for our animals. Based on the County Attorney’s approval, and the fact that no funding appropriation is required, this agreement has been signed, and now needs to be ratified by the Board. MOTION: “I make a Motion to ratify the adoption partnership agreement with PetSmart Charities.” 7.h Packet Pg. 401 7.h.a Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Petsmart Charities Signed Agreement (1684 : Pet Smart Charities Adoption Partner Agreement Ratification (Staff Contact: Gregory 7.h.a Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Petsmart Charities Signed Agreement (1684 : Pet Smart Charities Adoption Partner Agreement Ratification (Staff Contact: Gregory 7.h.a Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Petsmart Charities Signed Agreement (1684 : Pet Smart Charities Adoption Partner Agreement Ratification (Staff Contact: Gregory 7.h.a Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Petsmart Charities Signed Agreement (1684 : Pet Smart Charities Adoption Partner Agreement Ratification (Staff Contact: Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Award of Bids For Roll Off Truck (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 7.i Attachment(s): Copy of Roll Off Bid Results Reviewed By: SUMMARY: The FY 19/20 Solid Waste Budget included $134,500 for the purchase of a new roll off truck. The invitation to bid was advertised in the Star Tribune and the Danville Register and Bee. It was also posted on the Virginia Business Opportunity website and posted on the County’s website and public notice board. Bids were received and publicly opened on July 10, 2019. Six bids were received and the apparent low bidder was Excel Truck Group with a bid price of $149,600 and is proposed to be delivered on March of 2020. The cost of the extended warranty on the engine, transmission and drive train would be $6,018. The total cost would be $155,618. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached for your review and information. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: The budget only included $134,500 for the purchase of the truck. The additional funds of $21,118 will have found in the Solid Waste Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the award of the bid to the Excel Truck Group in the amount of $155,618. MOTION: “I make a Motion to award the bid for a Roll Off truck to the Excel Truck Group in the amount of $155,618.” 7.i Packet Pg. 406 Vendor Make & Model Chassis Hoist Frame Cover System TOTAL Truck Enterprise Volvo 2020 Galbreath Pioneer $151,280.00 Excel Trucks 2020 Freightliner Rudco Donovan $153,460.00 Excel Trucks 2020 Freightliner Galbreathe Pioneer $149,600.00 Worldwide Equipment 2020 Mack Granite $154,588.00 Trans Source 2020 Mack Granite Galbreath $155,741.20 Maryland Trucks 2021 International Rudco Donovan $156,746.00 PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROLL OFF TRUCK BID OPENING 2020 7.i.a Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Copy of Roll Off Bid Results (1686 : Award of Bids For Roll Off Truck) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INFORMATION ITEM Agenda Title: Executive Fire Officer Program; Chris C. Slemp (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman) Staff Contact(s): David M. Smitherman Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 8.a Attachment(s): Reviewed By: Christopher C. Slemp, Director of Public Safety, has successfully completed the Executive Fire Officer Program and the required applied research. The Board of Supervisors congratulates Mr. Slemp on this accomplishment and will present his certificate. 8.a Packet Pg. 408 Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Public Hearing: Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor; Dan River Election District, R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (Supervisor Davis) Staff Contact(s): Gregory L. Sides Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.A.1 Attachment(s): TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 MAP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor and Eltha Jo Taylor have petitioned to rezone 0.361 of an acre from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District (to combine with the adjacent 33 acres zoned A-1). The parcel is located on Cardwell Lane in the Dan River Election District. Once the property is rezoned, all uses listed under Section 35-178 are permitted. The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioners’ request. The staff summary has been submitted in the Board Packet. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff submits this item to the Board of Supervisors for their review and consideration. 10.A.1 Packet Pg. 409 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) 10.A.1.a Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Taylor) Legend Parcels Parcel ID Number Route Numbers Appeals Rezoning Signs Special Uses Variances Zoning Unknown A-1 = Agricultural District B-1 = Business District, Limited B-2 = Business District, General C-1 = Conservation District DZ = Double Zoned Parcels M-1 = Industrial District, Light Industry M-2 = Industrial District, Heavy Industry MHP = Residential Manuf. Housing Park District R-1 = Residential Suburban Subdivision District RC-1 = Residential Combined Subdivision Distric RE = Residential Estates District RMF = Residential Multi-Family Subdivision Distric RPD = Residential Planned Development District TZ = Town Zoning UK = Unknown County Boundary Title: TAYLOR - CASE R-19--020 Date: 5/30/2019 DISCLAIMER:This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as such. The information displayed is a compilation of records, information, and data obtained from various sources, and Pittsylvania County is not responsible for its accuracy or how current it may be. 10.A.1.b Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: TAYLOR - CASE R-19-020 MAP (1687 : Rezoning Case R-19-020, Ray L. Taylor & Eltha Jo Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Public Hearing: Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown; Dan River Election District, R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (Supervisor Davis) Staff Contact(s): Gregory L. Sides Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.A.2 Attachment(s): BROWN - CASE R-19-021 BROWN - CASE R-19-021 MAP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, and Janet Holley Brown have petitioned to rezone 20.73 acres from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District (to make the zoning consistent with their adjacent 91-acre farm). The parcel is located on Randolph Drive and Mount Tabor Road in the Dan River Election District. Once the property is rezoned, all uses listed under Section 35-178 are permitted. The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioners’ request. The staff summary has been submitted in the Board Packet. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff submits this item to the Board of Supervisors for their review and consideration. 10.A.2 Packet Pg. 424 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) 10.A.2.a Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Janet Holley Brown) Legend Parcels Parcel ID Number Route Numbers Appeals Rezoning Signs Special Uses Variances Zoning Unknown A-1 = Agricultural District B-1 = Business District, Limited B-2 = Business District, General C-1 = Conservation District DZ = Double Zoned Parcels M-1 = Industrial District, Light Industry M-2 = Industrial District, Heavy Industry MHP = Residential Manuf. Housing Park District R-1 = Residential Suburban Subdivision District RC-1 = Residential Combined Subdivision Distric RE = Residential Estates District RMF = Residential Multi-Family Subdivision Distric RPD = Residential Planned Development District TZ = Town Zoning UK = Unknown County Boundary Title: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 Date: 5/30/2019 DISCLAIMER:This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as such. The information displayed is a compilation of records, information, and data obtained from various sources, and Pittsylvania County is not responsible for its accuracy or how current it may be. 10.A.2.b Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: BROWN - CASE R-19-021 MAP (1688 : Rezoning Case R-19-021, Thomas Judson Brown, III, & Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Public Hearing: Enterprise Zone Amendments (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe) Staff Contact(s): Matthew D. Rowe Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.B.1 Attachment(s): 07-16-2019 EZ Boundary and Incentive Amendment Ad - July 2019rev PC_Proposed_Enterprise_Zone_Amendment_2019_Application_Map 2019-07-01 EZ Resolution 07-16-2019 EZ Amendments - COP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: The Virginia General Assembly allows counties and cities in the Commonwealth to designate a specified acreage of land, in a certain geographic area, as an Enterprise Zone (“EZ”). The Commonwealth offers EZ Grants, and the localities also incentivize targeted companies, to locate or expand within EZs. Pittsylvania County, Virginia (the “County”) has two (2) EZs: (1) EZ 57: a joint EZ with the City of Danville, Virginia (“Danville”), and includes Cane Creek and Gretna; and (2) EZ 24: a newer EZ, predominantly includes the SVMP at Berry Hill and the SVMP in Hurt. After examining the County’s current incentives and boundary for the purpose of updating the same, the County’s Economic Development (“ED”) Staff is currently engaged in a much-needed EZ revision process, which is very common and even encouraged with EZs. Please note that an EZ is an overlay district. Changes to EZs do not affect the current zoning, allowed uses, and enjoyment of property located therein. Proposed changes to the County’s EZ boundaries include the following: • EZ 24: -Remove 350 acres of SVMP at Berry Hill, including cultural area (i.e., land to hold relocated cultural landmarks) and wetlands. -Add 836 acres, which includes property in the Blairs area across from Virginia Candle Company, and land around the SVMP in Hurt. -Total acreage of EZ 24: Current Size = 3,317 acres; Amended Size = 3,804 acres (maximum allowed is 3,840 acres). • EZ 57: -Remove 546 acres of public land, including school grounds in Gretna, church property, private residences, farm land, and land where Companies indicated that they do not need EZ benefits. -Add 883 acres of land in Blairs and two (2) small lots in Gretna that can be adaptively reused, as well as developable property in Blairs. Due to the public hearing comments, parcels containing 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 439 large educational buildings at Hargrave Military Academy were added. -Total acreage of EZ 57: Current Size = 3,428 acres; Amended Size = 3,765 acres (maximum allowed is 3,840 acres). Please also note that EZ incentives do not have uniform names and can vary in each EZ, which can be confusing to potential ED recruits. The proposed EZ revisions change the EZ names to make them the same and better align with the County’s Economic Development partner, Danville. Also, the County proposes to remove incentives in EZ 57 that can be offered by partners (membership to Chamber), are not unique to the EZ (i.e., Shell Building Program), or are not being used (i.e., sales tax rebate). Additionally, proposed EZ changes to qualifying thresholds will serve the following purposes: (1) make them less complicated; (2) make them easier to qualify for; and (3) reward higher job creators. In conclusion, the County’s ED Staff wants to stress that these changes to the EZ boundaries are being done based on real business activity. The County’s ED Staff is revising the EZ boundaries to allow incentives exactly where industries are telling the County they want to be on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Moreover, these EZ incentives are being revised to give companies the value they are looking for, which helps the County be competitive. Said changes are paid based on performance (retroactively), which protects the Company and the County. Finally, please be advised that sixty-seven (67) EZ removal letters were sent, representing 295 parcels, and the County’s ED Staff received thirteen (13) phone calls representing thirty-three (33) parcels. The main concerns were that the letters were alerting them to activity around them, which County ED Staff explained affected the whole zone. Update: Since the Board directed staff to add Hargrave Military School, staff is now ready to present a final recommendation for the Enterprise Zone boundary amendments and incentive amendments. This Public Hearing was advertised in the Chatham Star Tribune on July 3, 2019 and July 10, 2019. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: As previously mentioned, EZ incentives are paid based on performance (retroactively). The Real Estate Tax Grant, Machinery and Tools Tax Grant, and Development Permit Fee Waiver are foregone revenue (RE and MTTG = 50% for 3 years). Also, the Job Creations Grant maximum allowed is 500 jobs at $750 per job, which is $375,000. This is based on high paying targeted jobs and performance, which is very unique and thus would only go to a top tier company. Fast Track Permitting is $0, and Site Discount is at the Board/IDA’s discretion. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff recommends the Board approve the Enterprise Zone 24 and 57 Boundary Amendments and Incentive Amendments as presented. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the Enterprise Zone map, Resolution #2019-07-01, and incentive amendments as presented.” 10.B.1 Packet Pg. 440 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Pittsylvania County General District Courtroom, Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition, Second Floor, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, to receive citizen input for proposed Boundary and Incentive Amendments to Pittsylvania County’s Virginia Enterprise Zone 24 and Pittsylvania County’s Joint Zone 57. Said proposed amendments would remove public, residential, undevelopable, and nonindustrial land, and add portions of the Southern Virginia Megasite at Berry Hill, the Southern Virginia Multimodal Park in Hurt, Hargrave Military Academy, and strategic locations near and/or in Blairs, Virginia, and Cane Creek Center Industrial Park. Incentive amendments would lower thresholds for targeted industries’ investment in machinery and real estate, base local job creation grants on company wages, and remove those incentives that have been deemed ineffective. Documents pertaining to the proposed amendments are available in the Pittsylvania County Administrator’s Office, County Administration Building, 1 Center Street, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on the County’s website, www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.1.a Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 07-16-2019 EZ Boundary and Incentive Amendment Ad - July 2019rev (1683 : Public Hearing: Enterprise Zone Amendments (Staff Norfol kSout hernRai l waySR57 US58 US311S R 4 1 SR 40 US 2 9 S C A L LAN D S RD DANVILLE EXPWWGRETNARD MARTINSVILLE HWY B E R RYHILLRDHA L IF A XRDFRANKLINTPKE U S HI GHWA Y 5 8 BY P E GRET NA RDU S HIGHWAY NO 29SOUTH BOSTON HWY 57 24 Bedford Campbell Franklin Pittsylvania Halifax Henry Danville City Gretna Enterprise Zone Number 57Additional Area 3(Approx. 5.93 Acres) Hurt Gretna Hurt Enterprise Zone Number 24Additional Area(Approx. 518.85 Acres) Chatham Gretna Enterprise Zone Number 57Removal Area 2(Approx. 44.58 Acres) Gretna Enterprise Zone Number 57Removal Area 1(Approx. 61.67 Acres) Chatham Enterprise Zone Number 57Additional Area(Approx. 534.00 Acres) Blairs Enterprise Zone Number 57Removal Area 5(Approx. 9.15 Acres) Blairs Enterprise Zone Number 57Removal Area 2(Approx. 11.60 Acres) Blairs Enterprise Zone Number 57Removal Area 3(Approx. 274.74 Acres) Danville Enterprise Zone Number 24Removal Area 2(Approx. 95.10 Acres) Danville Enterprise Zone Number 24Removal Area 1(Approx. 253.16 Acres) Danville Enterprise Zone Number 57Removal Area 1(Approx. 6.81 Acres) Danville Enterprise Zone Number 57Removal Area 2(Approx. 41.87 Acres) Danville Enterprise Zone Number 57Removal Area 3(Approx. 95.66 Acres) Blairs Enterprise Zone Number 57Additional Area 2(Approx. 26.09 Acres) Bedford Campbell Proposed Enterprise Zone Amendment2019 Application Map Scale: 1 Inch = 25,000 Feet Blairs Enterprise Zone Number 24Additional Area(Approx. 316.86 Acres) Complied by: Terry WhittCreation Date: 01/07/19Revision Date: 07/09/19Project Name: PC_Proposed_Enterprise_Zone_Amendment_2019_Application_MapProject Orgin: Gis on 'Gisserver01'\GIS_Projects\Arcmap_Projects\Planning 5Legend Railways Primary Streets Enterprise ZoneNumbers 24 & 57 County & TownshipBoundaries Proposed Enterprise ZoneAmendment 2019Additional Areas - Zone Number 24 Total:Appox. 835.71 AcresZone Number 57 Total:Approx. 566.01 AcresCombined Total:Appox. 1,401.72 Acres Proposed Enterprise ZoneAmendment 2019Removal Areas - Zone Number 24 Total:Appox. 349.16 AcresZone Number 57 Total:Approx. 546.06 AcresCombined Total:Appox. 895.22 Acres 10.B.1.b Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: PC_Proposed_Enterprise_Zone_Amendment_2019_Application_Map (1683 : Public Hearing: Enterprise Zone Amendments (Staff PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ______________________________________________________________________________ RESOLUTION 2019-07-01 ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND INCENTIVE AMENDMENTS TO ENTERPRISE ZONES #24 and #57 ______________________________________________________________________________ VIRGINIA, at a regular meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, held on July 16, 2019, the following Resolution was presented and adopted: WHEREAS, Pittsylvania Count, Virginia (the “County”) has two (2) Enterprise Zones designated as Zone #24 and Zone #57, that provides a combination of State and Local incentives to promote economic development; and WHEREAS, there is a current need to amend the boundaries and incentives in existing Enterprise Zone #24 and Zone #57 in the County to: incorporate additional properties in and around the Towns of Gretna, Hurt, and Chatham and in Blairs, Ringgold, and the City of Danville; and to remove properties that do not need Zone incentives at this time to increase economic growth opportunities; and WHEREAS, said proposed Boundary and Incentive Amendments for both Zones will serve to benefit the County’s economic and industrial expansion to meet the goals and objectives of the Virginia Enterprise Zone Program; then NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors authorizes the County Administrator to submit the necessary Enterprise Zone Amendment Package and sign all necessary documentation on behalf of the County for these proposed Enterprise Zone Amendments, and to meet other Program administrative and reporting requirements, as defined by the Enterprise Zone Regulations throughout the life of the Zones. Given under my hand this 16th day of July, 2019. __________________________________________ Joe B. Davis, Chairman Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors __________________________________________ David M. Smitherman, Clerk Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors 10.B.1.c Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 2019-07-01 EZ Resolution (1683 : Public Hearing: Enterprise Zone Amendments (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe)) STAR-TRIBUNE Serving Pittsylvania County Since 1869 Certificate of Publication I hereby certify that the attached order of publication has beenub-lished once a week for p successive weeks in the Star-Tribune, a newspaper published at the Chatham office in Pittsylvania County,Virginia, beginning on —j-u-ly 20)9, endingMyLC)gon20/9.9 Chad H.ublisher ditor, acting agent for the publisherF20N DANAZHANE'MOTLEY REGINOTARY PUSLIC 37STATEOFVIRGINIA, AT LARGE COMMONWEALTH OF VRGINIA MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30,2022 Pittsylvania, To-wit:County of Pitts lv o The foregoing instrument w. a owledged b- ore e 's day of U by iAI My commission expires 1 P / a) Notary Public 28 N. Main Street P.O. Box 111 Tel.: (434) 432-2791 Chatham, VA 24531 Fax: (434) 432-4033 legals@chathamstartribtme.com 10.B.1.d Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: 07-16-2019 EZ Amendments - COP (1683 : Public Hearing: Enterprise Zone Amendments (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe)) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Board ofSupervisors of Pittsylvania County,Virginia,will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday,July 16,2019,at7:00 p.m., in the Pittsylvania County General District Courtroom,Edwin R.Shields Courthouse Addition,SecondFloor,Chatham,Vir- ginia,24531,to receive citizen input for proposed Boundary and incentive Amendments to Pittsylvania County's Virgini Enterprise Zone 24 and Pittsylvania County's Joint Zone 57.Said proposed amendments would remove public, residen- tial,undevelopable,and nonindustrial land,and add portions ofthe Southern Virginia Megasite at Berry Hill,the Southern Virginia Multimodal Park in Hurt,Hargrave Military Academy,and strategic.locations near and/or in Blairs, Virginia, and Cane Creek Center Industrial Park. Incentive amendments would lower thresholds for targeted industries' investment in machinery and real estate,base local job creation grants on company wages,and remove those incentives that have been deemed ineffective. Documents pertaining to the pro- posed amendments are available in the Pittsylvania County Administrator's Office, County Administration:Building, 1CenterStreet, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,and on the County's web-site,www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.1.d Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 07-16-2019 EZ Amendments - COP (1683 : Public Hearing: Enterprise Zone Amendments (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Public Hearing: EMS Billing Fee Increase (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp) Staff Contact(s): Chris C. Slemp Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.B.2 Attachment(s): 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice -EMS Billing Fee Increase 07-16-2019 EMS Billing Increase - COP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: EMAC recently met and reviewed the County’s EMS billing rates as compared to other localities. Currently the County’s billing rates are as follows: BLS $500 ALS 1 $650 ALS 2 $800 Mileage $14 Additionally, County EMS agencies do not currently bill for treatment/no transport and patient refusals. Insurance companies are now beginning to reimburse for these situations, and it was EMAC’s recommendation that the County adjust billing rates to allow for these services. After discussion and review, as evinced by the attached Minutes, EMAC recommended that the County’s EMS billing rates be increased as follows: BLS $550 ALS1 $750 ALS2 $950 Treat/No Transport $400 Patient Refusal $75 Mileage $16 The Public Hearing was advertised in the Chatham Star Tribune on July 3, 2019 and July 10, 2019. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: No County expense. Anticipated annual reimbursement revenue unknown at this time. RECOMMENDATION: 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 446 As required by Pittsylvania County Code § 31-3.1, County Staff recommends the Board conduct the required Public Hearing for citizen input to potentially increase the EMS billing rates as presented. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the EMS billing rates as presented.” 10.B.2 Packet Pg. 447 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Pursuant to Pittsylvania County § Code 31-3.1, the Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courtroom Addition, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, to receive citizen input on the following proposed Emergency Medical Services fee increases and/or establishment of new fee categories: (1) BLS; increase from $500 to $550; (2) ALS 1; increase from $650 to $750; (3) ALS 2; increase from $800 to $950; (4) Mileage; increase from $14 to $16; (5) Patient Refusal (new fee); $75; and (6) Treat/No Transport (new fee); $400. A full text of the proposed PCC revision is available at the County Administration Building, 1 Center Street, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, on Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on the County’s website, www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.2.a Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice -EMS Billing Fee Increase (1680 : Public Hearing: EMS Billing Fee Increase (Staff Contact: Chris I I STAR..TBJBUNEServingPittsylvaniaCountySince1869 Certificate of Publication I hereby certify that the attached order of publication has beenn pub-lished once a week for successive weeks in the Star-Tribune,a newspaper published at the Chatham office in PittsylvaniaVirginia, beginnin on --"E. Y County, r' 20 q, and endinonc) 3 201. g Chad H• .. • o Publisher MITV Editor, acting agent for the publisher 20 4 DANA ZHANE'MOTLEY NOTARY PUBLIC REGISTRATION#77874COMMONWEALTHOFIIRGINIA 1 f MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30,2022STATEOFVIRGINIA, AT LARGE County of Pittsylvania, To-wit: The foregoing ins ent was acknowledged before me this day of I \ I17 by Sited .Lia.* My commission expires iii ' / i / PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Pureuaralb'Pittsylvania County§Codl3 31,3.1,the Band of Su- ipervisorsofPittsylvaniaCounty,Virginia,will hold a Pubic Hearing A 4.44titTuesday,July 16, 2019, at 7.00 p.m., in the General District01111600MoftheEdwinR.Shields CourboomAddition,Chatham,Notary PublicWginia,24531,to receive citizen input on the following proposedEmergencyMedicalServicesfeeincreasesand/or establishment of new fee c ategones:(1)BLS;increase from$500 to$550;(2) • Tel.: (434) 432-27911;increase from$650to$750;(3)ALS 2;increase from$800 10$960;(4increaseMileage; from$14 to$16;(5)Patient Refusal Fax: (434) 432-4033 new*);$75;and(6)Treat/No Transport(new fee);$400,A full legalal chathamatartribune.comtextoftheproposedPCCrevisionisavailableattheCountyAd-ministration Building, 1 Center Street,Chatham,Virginia,24531, on--Monday through Friday,.8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on theCounty's whish _www nn,1M*AM IYMi 10.B.2.b Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: 07-16-2019 EMS Billing Increase - COP (1680 : Public Hearing: EMS Billing Fee Increase (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp) Staff Contact(s): Chris C. Slemp Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.B.3 Attachment(s): 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice - Fire and Rescue Ordinance Public Safety ordinance red line changes 07-16-2019 F&R Ordinance COP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: Christopher C. Slemp, Public Safety Director, in conjunction with an Ad Hoc Committee, has been working on a Fire and Rescue Ordinance for approximately eighteen (18) months. The Public Hearing has been advertised in the Chatham Star Tribune on July 3, 2019 and July 10, 2019. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff recommends the Board conduct the required Public Hearing to receive citizen input on the Fire and Rescue Ordinance as presented. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the Fire and Rescue Ordinance as presented.” 10.B.3 Packet Pg. 450 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courtroom Addition, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, to receive citizen input on the potential adoption of a new Chapter 11 of Pittsylvania County Code (“PCC”), entitled Public Safety, to replace and supersede the current PCC Chapter 11. A full text of the proposed Ordinance is available in the Pittsylvania County Administration Building, 1 Center Street, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, on Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on the County’s website, www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.3.a Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice - Fire and Rescue Ordinance (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: 06/04/19 Page 1 of 22 PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 11 PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE I. GENERAL. SEC. 11-1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. (a) In order to help ensure the protection of the citizens, visitors, and property of Pittsylvania County, Virginia (the “County”), and to afford all emergency services personnel the full benefit of the law, it has been deemed necessary to organize the emergency services operations within the County under a Department of Public Safety. (b) All current references to the existing Department of Emergency Services shall be carried forward as meaning the same as the Department of Public Safety. (c) In order to effectively carry out the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section, the County Department of Public Safety shall be created in place of the existing Department of Emergency Services. (d) The adoption of this Chapter by the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors formally abolishes the Fire/Rescue Medical Services Advisory Committee (“EMAC”) previously created by/in Pittsylvania County Code (“PCC”) § 31-3.1 and all other references to EMAC contained in any other PCC Section(s). SEC. 11-2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRE & EMS COMMISSION. (a) Establishment: The Board of Supervisors hereby creates and establishes the Fire and EMS (the “Commission”). (b) Purpose: The Commission provides recommendations regarding the County’s Fire and EMS systems in the County; oversees strategic planning efforts; and provides a mechanism for collaboration and coordination among the Public Safety Department, volunteer fire companies and rescue squads, and the Board of Supervisors on issues impacting fire, and emergency medical services. The Commission shall work in coordination with the Public Safety Director or his designee on these issues, and the Public Safety Department shall provide staff support to the Commission. The Commission shall submit such recommendations and reports to the Board of Supervisors as needed. The Commission shall assist with the development of the Fire and Rescue Services annual budget and Capital Improvement Projects. The Commission shall serve as a 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 2 of 22 partner with the Department of Public Safety. Together, they should serve as a centralized unit responsible to the Board of Supervisors for all Fire and EMS issues throughout the County. (c) Membership Composition; Term: (1) The Commission shall be composed of nine (9) at-large Members appointed by the Board of Supervisors as follows: One (1) Member from a Fire Department located West of Highway 29 and North of Highway 57 and one (1) citizen at large from the same area; One (1) Fire Department Member from a Fire Department located East of Highway 29 and North of Highway 57 and one (1) citizen at large from the same area; One (1) Member of a Fire Department East of Highway 29, South of R and L Smith Road to its intersection with Franklin Turnpike, East of Franklin Turnpike, and East of the City of Danville, and South of Highway 57 and one (1) citizen at large from the same area; One (1) member from a Fire Department West of Highway 29, North of R and L Smith Road, West of Franklin Turnpike and West of the City of Danville and South of Highway 57 and one (1) citizen at large from the same area; One (1) Member from previous four (4) Departments must represent a Department that does transport EMS; and one (1) Member shall be from the Board of Supervisors. All the aforementioned appointed Commission Members shall have full and complete voting rights. The Director of Public Safety and one (1) Member from the County’s Fire and Rescue Association shall serve as an ex-officio Members with no voting rights. The Director of Public Safety shall be the Commission’s Staff Representative. Fire and Rescue Members appointed to the Commission must be from Fire and Rescue Agencies that are in good standing with the County and meeting all standards as set forth by the same. The Fire and Rescue Agencies within each quadrant of the County; as set forth in this Ordinance, shall recommend three (3) Fire and Rescue Members for potential appointment by Board of Supervisors. The Fire and Rescue Agencies may also recommend the citizens at large for appointment by the Board of Supervisors. However, the Board of Supervisors shall have full authority to appoint any and all citizen appointees to the Commission. (2) Terms: Determined by a drawing of lots at the Commission’s first Organizational Meeting, the nine (9) appointed members shall be appointed for initial terms as follows: 3, 1-year terms, 3, 2-year terms, and 4, 4-year terms, and, thereafter, each member shall serve for four (4) year terms. (3) Meeting Governance; Meeting Schedule: The Commission shall adopt bylaws and rules of procedures, as it deems appropriate, to govern the conduct of its business. Meetings shall be held as scheduled, not less than bi-monthly. (d) The Commission shall be charged, inter alia, with the following duties and specific responsibilities: 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 3 of 22 (1) Develop and maintain a Fire and EMS Strategic Plan. (2) Review and advise on implementation strategies for policy and protocol changes and Standard Operating Guidelines (“SOG’s”) for Fire and EMS operations. (3) Provide a platform for resolving policy and protocol disputes among the companies, the career staff, and/or with the Emergency Communications Center. (4) Review and provide recommendations on budgetary matters, including recommending the use of funding and service/contract agreements and grant awards to Fire and EMS Districts annually. Such funding for service contracts and grant awards will be made by the Board of Supervisors to those agencies identified in Sections 11-11 (b) and (e), and Sections 11- 71 (b) and (e) of this Chapter. This shall not restrict any of the County’s volunteer agencies from applying for individual grants. (5) Evaluate compliance with established performance objectives and develop recommendations to address any related deficiencies. (6) The Commission shall potentially recommend the yearly Fire Tax schedule of rates for emergency ambulance transport services, and other fees for fire service and charges, as well as, recommend any needed EMS billing contractor. Said recommendations shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for subsequent action. (7) Evaluate other related issues as requested by the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall also review and provide recommendations on any proposals brought forward by the Director of Public Safety that will have a substantive impact on the County’s emergency response system or infrastructure impacting service delivery. (8) The Commission shall pursue if necessary efforts to explore the option of consolidating or down-sizing smaller departments to maximize its limited resources and personnel. (9) The Commission should meet as needed to resolve challenges between the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Safety, and members of the Volunteer Fire Departments and Rescue Squads. (10) The Commission shall annually recommend a Capital Improvement Plan for the County’s Budget for upgrading its Fire and EMS stations and equipment. This should include funding for, but not limited to, communications equipment, apparatus replacement, turnout gear, air pack replacement, medical equipment, and training equipment. (11) The Commission should recommend staffing goals and response time goals for all Fire and EMS response. (12) The Commission shall request all County public safety entities to utilize County Centralized Purchasing when feasible to establish equipment and apparatus standards and reduce operational expenses. (13) The Commission shall work with the Department of Public Safety to coordinate and address County comprehensive training needs. Special emphasis on the importance of specialty training and schedules shall be included. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 4 of 22 (14) The Commission shall include in the County’s Public Safety Budget funding for a Fire and EMS Departmental Compilation Report which shall be conducted annually and submitted. (15) The Commission must ensure that County public safety entities are working as one. (16) The Commission shall provide senior volunteer leadership with the tools and responsibilities to properly manage the administrative activities of their Departments. (17) The Commission shall develop and distribute an Organizational Chart to all affected parties. (18) The Commission shall seek to reduce residents’ insurance cost by incorporating methods for improving their Insurance Service Office (“ISO”) rating in the Strategic Plan. (19) The Commission shall ensure full participation for the Virginia Fire Incident Reporting System (“VFIRS”) and the Virginia Pre-Hospital Information Bridge (“VPHIB”). The Department of Public Safety shall obtain such copies of reports from State Agencies on a monthly basis, and report such information to demonstrate volunteer agency data input as mandated by the Commission. (20) The Commission shall serve as a partner with the Department of Public Safety. Together, they should serve as a centralized unit responsible to the Board of Supervisors for all Fire and EMS issues throughout the County. SEC. 11-3. APPOINTMENT OF A DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY. (a) The County Administrator, with input from the commission, shall hire and appoint a Director of Public Safety to carry out the responsibilities of the Department of Public Safety. Said Director shall in turn report to and be responsible to the County Administrator. (b) Effective upon adoption of this Chapter, the current Emergency Services Coordinator shall also become the Director of Public Safety, while also maintaining the position and duties of Emergency Services Coordinator. SEC. 11-4. RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. (a) The Department of Public Safety in conjunction with the commission shall provide overall direction and control of the Public Safety Divisions to carry out the provisions of Section 11-1(a) of this Chapter. (b) The Department of Public Safety shall be responsible for the promulgation of the Pittsylvania County Emergency Operations Plan and all laws, standard operating procedures, and other directives to help ensure that the provisions of said documents are provided for. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 5 of 22 (c) The Department of Public Safety shall have the authority to carry out its responsibilities as authorized by the Board of Supervisors and will be afforded all of the authority and protection of applicable laws and ordinances. SECS. 11-5 - 11-10. Reserved. ARTICLE II. FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION. DIVISION 1. FIRE DIVISION. SEC. 11-11. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTY FIRE DIVISION. (a) In order to effectively carry out the provisions of Section 11-1(a) of this Chapter, and in order to provide all emergency services personnel with the full benefit of privileges, rights, and remedies available to them under law, a County Fire Division is hereby established to mitigate the effects of fire, hazardous materials, and explosions. (b) The following organizations and groups are hereby officially recognized as entities of the Department of Public Safety, Fire Division: • ST 1 - 16: Reserved for Public Safety • ST 17: Dry Fork Fire Department • ST 21: Chatham Fire Department • ST 22: Gretna Fire Department • ST 23: Ringgold Fire Department • ST 24: Kentuck Fire Department • ST 25: Tunstall Fire Department • ST 26: Renan Fire Department • ST 27: Mt. Cross Fire Department • ST 29: Riceville-Java Fire Department • ST 30: Bachelors Hall Fire Department • ST 31: Hurt Fire Department • ST 32: Climax Fire Department • ST 33: Mt. Herman Fire Department • ST 34: Blairs Fire Department • ST 35: Callands Fire Department • ST 36: Laurel Grove Fire Department • ST 37: Brosville Fire Department • ST 38: Cascade Fire Department • ST 39: Cool Branch Fire Department • ST 40: Riverbend Fire Department • ST 42: Keeling Fire Department 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 6 of 22 (c) Each of the aforementioned Fire Departments shall be designated with a Boundary Service Fire District. Each of the aforementioned Fire Departments shall be required to enter into a Department Service Memorandum of Agreement (the “Fire MOA”) with the Board of Supervisors. If any aforementioned Fire Departments fail to maintain its corporate status, or otherwise fails to comply with any applicable regulations, contracts, SOG’s, or policies of the Department of Public Safety, the Board of Supervisors for said cause, or for other good cause as solely determined by the Board of Supervisors, which shall be deemed sufficient, may remove said Fire Department as an officially recognized entity by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. (d) Each Fire Department shall have a Chief, standardized line officers, and a membership roster. Said roster shall be provided semi-annually to the Department of Public Safety. (e) The following organization and group is hereby officially recognized as non- jurisdictional entity which is authorized to provide services for the County’s Department of Public Safety, Fire Division: The Smith Mountain Lake Marine Fire Company. The Department of Public Safety may enter into a contract with said organization to provide services on a routine basis as authorized by the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the County may enter into Mutual Aid Agreements with surrounding jurisdictions and agencies when deemed appropriate to do so by the Board of Supervisors. (f) Each of the above-mentioned organizations shall be assigned response areas that provide the best services to County citizens. These response areas shall be maintained in writing by the Department of Public Safety, a copy of which will be posted in the Emergency Communications Center and be made available to the public. The Department of Public Safety may amend or change these boundaries from time-to-time to provide the best services available. SEC. 11-12. RESPONSIBLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. (a) Each of the organizations and groups mentioned in Sections 11-11(b) and (e) of this Chapter shall be responsible to the Department of Public Safety, and will carry out their assigned tasks to the best of their abilities. (b) Each Fire Department shall appoint a Department Chief who shall be responsible for the overall direction and control of Fire Department activities within their respective primary response areas. Additionally, said Department Chief shall ensure that their organization complies with all of the provisions of applicable laws, ordinances, and standard operating procedures implemented by the Department of Public Safety, and shall be directly responsible to the Director of Public Safety, or his designee. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 7 of 22 SEC. 11-13. RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY. (a) All officially recognized members of the organizations and groups mentioned above shall perform their respective duties, as outlined in standard operating procedures, applicable laws, and ordinances, to the best of their abilities. (b) All officially recognized members of the organizations and groups mentioned above shall be subject to the procedures and practices established by the Department of Public Safety and other applicable laws and ordinances. (c) While performing in their official capacity, each of the members of the organizations and groups mentioned above shall have the authority to carry out their respective assignments as provided for in applicable laws, ordinances, and standard operating procedures. SEC. 11-14. FIRE PERSONNEL AFFORDED CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES. When providing services in their official capacity, and acting within the guidelines of the Department of Public Safety, all officially recognized members of the organizations and groups mentioned above shall be afforded all of the privileges, rights, and remedies available to them under law. SEC. 11-15. AUTHORITY OF CHIEF OR OTHER OFFICER IN CHARGE WHEN ANWERING ALARM; PENALTY FOR REFUSAL TO OBEY ORDERS. While any fire department or fire company is in the process of answering an alarm where there is imminent danger or the actual occurrence of fire or explosion or the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials that threaten life or property and returning to the station, the chief or other officer in charge of such fire department or fire company at that time shall have the authority to (i) maintain order at such emergency incident or its vicinity, including the immediate airspace; (ii) direct the actions of the firefighters at the incident; (iii) notwithstanding the provisions of Code of Virginia §§ 46.2- 888 through 46.2-891, keep bystanders or other persons at a safe distance from the incident and emergency equipment; (iv) facilitate the speedy movement and operation of emergency equipment and firefighters; (v) cause an investigation to be made into the origin and cause of the incident; and (vi) until the arrival of a police officer, direct and control traffic in person or by deputy and facilitate the movement of traffic. The fire chief or other officer in charge shall display his firefighter's badge or other proper means of identification. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this authority shall extend to the activation of traffic control signals designed to facilitate the safe egress and ingress of emergency equipment at a fire station. Any person or persons refusing to obey the orders of the chief or other officer in charge at that time is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. The chief or other officer in charge shall have the power to make arrests 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 8 of 22 for violation of the provisions of this section. The authority granted under the provisions of this section may not be exercised to inhibit or obstruct members of law-enforcement agencies or emergency medical services agencies from performing their normal duties when operating at such emergency incident, nor to conflict with or diminish the lawful authority, duties, and responsibilities of forest wardens, including but not limited to the provisions of Virginia State Code Chapter 11 (§ 10.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 10.1. Personnel from the news media, such as the press, radio, and television, when gathering the news may enter at their own risk into the incident area only when the officer in charge has deemed the area safe and only into those areas of the incident that do not, in the opinion of the officer in charge, interfere with the fire department or fire company, firefighters, or emergency medical services personnel dealing with such emergencies, in which case the chief or other officer in charge may order such person from the scene of the emergency incident. SEC. 11-16. RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT FIRE AND RESCUE AGENCIES WITHIN THE COUNTY. The Pittsylvania County Fire and Rescue Association, Inc. (“PCFRA”), is hereby officially recognized as representing a collective of agencies that provide Fire and EMS Services as referenced in Sections 11-11(b) and 11-71(b) of this Chapter. The PCFRA and the Public Safety Director, or his/her appointee, shall work in conjunction to carry out the day-to-day operations of the Division. The PCFRA President, or other PCFRA appointed representative, shall be recognized at every Advisory Board meeting to report and update on matters concerning Pittsylvania County Fire and Rescue Associationservices. The PCFRA shall annually provide, upon election, a list of Officers to the Commission no later than thirty (30) days from any election. SEC. 11-17. LIMITATION ON BURNING BRUSH, LEAVES, ETC., BETWEEN FEBRUARY 15 AND APRIL 30 AND IN GENERAL. (a) During the period beginning February 15 and ending April 30 of each year, it shall be unlawful for any person to set fire to brush, leaves, grass, debris, or any field containing dry grass or other inflammable material capable of spreading fire located in or within three (300) hundred feet of any woodland or brush land, except between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight. (b) When it is deemed necessary at the Director of Public Safety’s sole discretion, an open burning ban may be imposed on the entire County, or sections of the County, when conditions exist that would make open burning a threat to life or property, at any time during the year. (c) A violation of this Section shall constitute a Class 1 Misdemeanor. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 9 of 22 SEC. 11-18. PARTICIPATION BY CERTAIN MINORS IN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ACTIVITIES. Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 40.1-79.1, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the County hereby authorizes any minor, sixteen (16) years of age or older, with parental or guardian approval, to work with or participate fully in all activities of a Volunteer Fire Company, provided such minor has attained certification under National Fire Protection Association 1001, Level One, Fire-Fighter Standards, as administered by the State Department of Fire Programs. Any trainer or instructor of such minor, or any member of a paid or Volunteer Fire Company who supervises such minor, shall be exempt from the provisions of the aforementioned Section of the Code of Virginia, provided the Volunteer Fire Company or the Board of Supervisors has purchased insurance which provides coverage for injuries to, or the death of, such minor in the performance of activities under this Section. SECS. 11-19 - 11-35. Reserved. DIVISION 2: STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE; LOCAL FIRE PREVENTION. SEC. 11-36. ADOPTION OF THE STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE. In order to provide the best fire prevention activities available to the County, the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code is hereby adopted in the County by the Board of Supervisors. SEC. 11-37. APPOINTMENT OF A LOCAL/FIRE MARSHAL. (a) In order to carry out the provisions of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and other related Virginia Code Sections, a local Fire Official/Fire Marshal shall be appointed. If Police Powers are not granted, pursuant to Section 11-38 herein, the Director of Public Safety may appoint Fire Investigators/Inspectors. (b) The Public Safety Director shall appoint the local Fire Marshal. In the event said position is vacant, the Director of Public Safety may appoint a Deputy Fire Marshal to serve as the interim local Fire Marshal. SEC 11-38. POWERS; OFFICE OF FIRE MARSHAL. (a) The Fire Marshal, and all duly appointed assistants, shall be authorized to order immediate compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, and to exercise all powers authorized hereunder. (b) In addition to such other duties as may be prescribed by law, the local Fire Marshal, and those assistants appointed pursuant to Section 27-36, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, designated by the Fire Marshal, shall have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer, or law-enforcement officer to include the authority to arrest, to procure and serve warrants of arrest and search warrants, and to issue summons in the investigation and prosecution of all related 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 10 of 22 offenses involving the violation of fire prevention and fire safety laws and related ordinances, hazardous materials, fires, fire bombings, bombings, attempts or threats to commit such offenses, possession and manufacture of explosive devices, substances, and fire bombs. (c) The police powers granted in this Section shall not be exercised by the Fire Marshal or any assistant until such person has satisfactorily completed a course for Fire Marshals with police powers, which course shall be approved by the Virginia Fire Services Board. In addition, the Fire Marshal, and those assistants with police powers, shall continue to exercise those powers only upon satisfactory participation in in-service and advanced courses and programs, which courses shall be approved by the Virginia Fire Services Board. The Fire Marshal and his assistants, before entering upon their duties, shall respectively take an oath, pursuant to Title 27, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. SEC. 11-39. RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL FIRE MARSHAL. The local Fire Marshal/Fire Inspector-Investigator shall have responsibility and authority as outlined in the Statewide Fire Prevention Code and the Code of Virginia. SEC. 11-40. AUTHORITY TO APPOINT DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL AND ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL. (a) When it is deemed necessary by the local Fire Administrator, and approved by the County Administrator, a Deputy Fire Marshal(s) and Assistant Fire Marshals may be appointed to carry out the requirements of the Statewide Fire Prevention Code and Title 27 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. (b) Deputy Fire Marshal (s) and Assistant Fire Marshal(s) shall be afforded all of the privileges, rights, and remedies available to them under law when acting in their official capacity as directed by the local Chief Fire Administrator. SEC. 11-41. LOCAL BOARD OF FIRE PREVENTION CODE APPEALS. The County Board of Building Code Appeals shall be designated as the Appeals Board to hear grievances arising from the application of the County Fire Prevention Code. SEC. 11-42. ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES. The Fire Marshal shall establish such procedures or requirements as may be necessary for administration and enforcement of this Ordinance. The procedures shall be approved by the Director of Public Safety. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 11 of 22 SEC. 11-44. FIRE INSPECTION FEES. The Fire Marshal, or his designee, shall have the ability to charge and collect fire inspection fees. A schedule of said fees shall be established annually by the Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors. SECS. 11-45 - 11-70. RESERVED. ARTICLE III. EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND RESCUE SERVICES. SEC. 11-71. ESTABLISHMENT OF A COUNTY EMS DIVISION. (a) To effectively carry out the provisions of Section 11-1(a) of this Chapter, and to provide all emergency services personnel with the full benefit of privileges, rights, and remedies available to them under law, a County EMS Division is hereby established to mitigate the effects of accidents, disasters, and other medically and rescue-oriented emergency situations. (b) The following organizations and groups are hereby officially recognized as entities of the County Department of Public Safety, EMS Division: • SQ 1 - 8: Reserved for Public Safety • SQ 10: Gretna Fire & Rescue • SQ 12: Chatham Rescue • SQ 13: Cool Branch Rescue • SQ 14: 640 Community Rescue • SQ 16: Angel Search & Rescue • SQ 23: Ringgold Fire & Rescue • SQ 25: Tunstall Fire & Rescue • SQ 27: Mt. Cross Fire & Rescue • SQ 30: Bachelors Hall Fire & Rescue • SQ 33: Mt. Herman Fire & Rescue • SQ 34: Blairs Fire & Rescue • SQ 35: Callands Fire & Rescue • SQ 37: Brosville Fire & Rescue • (c) Each of the aforementioned EMS Departments shall be designated with a Boundary Service EMS District. Each of the aforementioned EMS Departments shall be required to enter into a Service Department Memorandum of Agreement (the “EMS MOA”) with the Board of Supervisors. If any aforementioned EMS Departments fail to maintain its corporate status, or otherwise fails to comply with any regulations, contracts, SOG’s, or policies of the Department of Public Safety, the Board of Supervisors for said cause, or for other good cause as solely determined by the Board of Supervisors, which shall be deemed sufficient, may remove said EMS Department as an officially recognized entity by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 12 of 22 (d) Each EMS Department shall have a Chief, standardized line officers, and a membership roster. Said roster shall be provided semi-annually to the Department of Public Safety. (e) The following organizations and groups are hereby officially recognized as non- jurisdictional entities which are authorized to provide services for the County’s Department of Public Safety, EMS Division: SQ 09: North Halifax Fire & Rescue; and SQ 20: Danville Life Saving Crew and any county contracted ambulance provider. The Department of Public Safety may enter into contracts with these organizations to provide services on a routine basis as authorized by the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the County may enter into Mutual Aid Agreements with surrounding jurisdictions and agencies when it is deemed appropriate to do so by the Board of Supervisors. (f) Each of the above-mentioned organizations shall be assigned response areas that provide the best services to County citizens. These response areas shall be maintained in writing by the Department of Public Safety, a copy of which will be posted in the Communications Center and available to the public. The Department of Public Safety may amend or change these boundaries from time-to-time to provide the best services available. SEC. 11-72. RESPONSIBLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. (a) Each of the organizations and groups mentioned in Section 11-71 (b) and (e) shall be responsible to the Department of Public Safety, and will carry out their assigned tasks to the best of their abilities. (b) Each EMS organization shall appoint a District Chief/Captain, who shall be responsible for the overall direction and control of EMS service activities within their respective primary response areas. Additionally, the Chief/Captain shall ensure that their organization complies with all of the provisions of applicable laws, ordinances, and standard operating procedures implemented by the Department of Public Safety, and shall be directly responsible to the Director of Public Safety, or his designee. SEC. 11-73. RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY. (a) All officially recognized members of the organizations and groups mentioned above shall perform their respective duties, as outlined in standard operating procedures and applicable laws and ordinances, to the best of their abilities. (b) All officially recognized members of the organizations and groups mentioned above will be subject to the procedures and practices established by the County Department of Public Safety and other applicable laws and ordinances. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 13 of 22 (c) While performing in their official capacity, each of the members of the organizations and groups mentioned above shall have the authority to carry out their respective assignments as provided for in applicable laws, ordinances, and standard operating procedures. SEC. 11-74. EMS PERSONNEL AFFORDED CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES. When providing services in their official capacity and acting within the guidelines of the Department of Public Safety, all officially recognized members of the organizations and groups mentioned above shall be afforded all of the privileges, rights, and remedies available to them under law. SEC. 11-75. OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS OF THE SENIOR OFFICER IN CHARGE AT SCENE OF ACCIDENTS, DISASTERS, AND OTHER MEDICALLY AND RESCUE- ORIENTED INCIDENTS. Every person present at the scene of an accident, or other medically or rescue-oriented incident, shall be obedient to the orders of the Senior Officer in Charge in any matter relating to removal and protection of persons and property endangered; freedom of rescue squad, medical personnel and apparatus to perform their duties or to function properly; and the maintenance of order at or near the scene of an accident or other medically or rescue-oriented incident, and it shall be unlawful and a Class 1 Misdemeanor for any person to disobey any such order of the Senior Officer in Charge. The Senior Officer in Charge shall have authority to arrest persons who disobey such orders and to hold them in custody until the incident or danger is abated, at which time the violator shall be dealt with according to law. SECS. 11-76 - 11-80. RESERVED. ARTICLE IV. RECOVERY OF EXPENSES FOR RESPONSE TO CERTAIN EMERGENCY CALLS. SEC. 11-81. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS. (a) The Department of Public Safety shall make every attempt to recover expenses incurred while performing official duties at the scene of a hazardous materials incident. (b) When the incident requires the resources of the County Department of Public Safety or any county volunteer fire or rescue agencies, the responsible party shall be responsible for reimbursement of expenses directly to the County Department of Public Safety for all expendable items used, apparatus, equipment, and personnel charges at a fee for service set by the Board of Supervisors. (c) Monies recovered from such incidents shall be appropriated back to the responding Departments and/or the Public Safety Department to help replace items used, and provide for 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 14 of 22 partial funding of capital projects required to maintain and operate the hazardous materials response capabilities within the County. (c) When the resources used involve both County resources and resources of another jurisdiction, agency, or the State, the funds shall be recovered using the same rates as established in paragraph (b) above. Pursuant to State Statute, in this instance, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management has the responsibility to collect for any expenses incurred for state resources. SEC. 11-82. NEGLIGENT AND UNLAWFUL ACTS. (a) The Department of Public Safety shall make every attempt to recover expenses incurred while performing official duties at the scene of a negligent or unlawful act as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. (b) When the resources used involved both County resources and resources of another jurisdiction, agency, or the State, the funds shall be recovered using the same rates as established in Section 11-81(c) of this Chapter. If requested to do so, the Department of Public Safety is authorized to reimburse other jurisdiction and agencies their funds collected by the County as a result of the same incident. (c) Monies recovered from such incidents shall be appropriated back to the Department of Public Safety to help replace items used, and provide for partial funding of capital projects required to maintain and operate the emergency services response capabilities within the County. SEC. 11-83. SERVICE FEE FOR EMERGENCY AMBULANCE TRANSPORT PROGRAM. (a) Pursuant Section 32.1-111.14, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, it is hereby determined and declared that the exercise of the powers and duties set forth herein are necessary to assure the provision of adequate and continuing emergency services, and to preserve, protect, and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. (b) Definitions: (1) Permitted Agencies: Those emergency medical service transport agencies authorized to provide emergency medical services, basic life support, and/or advanced life support who are officially recognized in Section 11-71(b) of this Chapter. (2) Participating Agencies: Those emergency medical service transport agencies who provide basic life support and/or advanced life support recognized as Permitted Agencies in Section 11-71(b), of this Chapter. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 15 of 22 (3) Emergency Medical Transport System: All components of emergency medical transportation available within the County. (4) Basic Life Support (“BLS”): Services shall be medical treatment or procedures provided to a patient as defined by the National Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) Educational and Practices Blueprint for the Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”)-Basic. (5) Advanced Life Support Level 1 (“ALS-1”): Services shall be medical treatment of procedures provided to a patient beyond the scope of an EMT-Basic as defined by the National EMS Education and Practice Blueprint. (6) Advanced Life Support Level 2 (“ALS-2”): Services shall be defined as Advanced Life Support (“ALS”) services provided to a patient including any of the following medical procedures: (i) manual defibrillation/cardioversion, (ii) endotracheal intubation, (iii) intra-venous line, (iv) cardiac pacing, (v) chest decompression, (vi) surgical airway; or (vii) intraosseous line, and the administration of three (3) or more medications. (7) Ground Transport Mileage (“GTM”): Shall be statute mile from the location of the incident, scene, or center point of a rescue demand zone where an incident scene or address is located, to a hospital or other facility where a patient is transported. (8) Treatment without Transport: 9-1-1 patient that accepts emergency medical care but declines transport to a hospital emergency department; treatment that is of the BLS level, as defined by county, will be charged at the “refusal” rate; treatment at that is ALS1 or higher will be charged at the “treatment without transport” rate. (9) Patient Refusal: When a patient or patient’s family member calls 9-1-1 and request emergency medical services and the patient refuses any treatment by emergency medical services and/or transport to a hospital emergency department. (10) Long Term Care Facility: A facility that provides rehabilitative, restoration, and/or ongoing skilled nursing care to patients or residents in need of assistance with activities of daily living. Long-term care facilities include nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities, inpatient behavioral health facilities, and long-term chronic care hospitals. (c) The schedule of rates for emergency ambulance transport services by Permitted Agencies shall be set in accordance with a Schedule recommended by the Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 16 of 22 (d) The Department of Public Safety shall adopt appropriate rules and policies for the administration of the charges imposed by this Section, including, and not limited to, payment standards for those persons who demonstrate economic hardship, as established by this Ordinance. (e) Billing: (Current Billing from repealed Chapter 31 of the Pittsylvania County Code is effective until January 1, 2019. The following revisions in this Section take effect January 1, 2019.) (1) The County, or its agent, shall generate a bill for ambulance transports or patient treatment with no transport and/or refusals whose point of origin is within the boundaries of the County performed by all ambulances operated by an agency licensed and chartered in the County by the Commonwealth of Virginia and mentioned in Section 11-71(b) above. Organizations are required to submit information required for the County, or its agent, to generate a bill for such services. The County will not generate a bill for ambulance transport by organizations mentioned in Section 11-71(b) above that would be considered humanitarian assistance (meaning activities not undertaken as a result of a call for emergency assistance to the County Public Safety Communications Center). Due to the fact that patient care information is highly confidential under several state and federal laws, Call Sheets/Patient Care reports will remain the responsibility of the agency responding to individual calls. Information shared under this Subsection shall be that information reasonably necessary to accomplish the billing process or other arrangement as mutually agreed to by the providing agency and the County. (2) The County may generate a bill for ambulance service in the primary response areas of organizations mentioned in Section 11-71(b) above, and in adjoining localities by separate agreement between the County, the adjoining locality, and the organization. (3) Fees and Responsibility for Payment: Payment of all charges for ambulance services, including evaluation, treatment, patient refusals, or ambulance transport, shall be the responsibility of the patient or the parent, guardian, or other legally responsible party in the case of a minor or an individual deemed incompetent. (4) A charge of two hundred dollars ($200.00), in addition to any other applicable EMS fees, shall be billed to an originating long term care facility requesting 9-1-1 emergency medical services for a patient when it is determined by the responding agency that the patient did not have a life threatening or potentially life threatening medical condition. (c) Reserved. (d) Billing Contractor: The County may contract with a third-party for billing and related services. (e) Reserved. (f) Collections: Billing and collection policies and services will be established by the Commission. No provider mentioned in Section 11-71(b) above will accept or receive payment 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 17 of 22 directly from a patient or on behalf of a patient for services rendered to a patient. Funds collected from EMS billing shall be returned to the agency who transported said patient. The county may hold 1% of collected cost to offset administrative cost. (g) Nothing in this section shall require county EMS agencies to participate in the County EMS billing program. (h) Billing Process: (1) Patients will fall into one (1) of the following categories for billing purposes: (i) Insured through third-party health insurance company, Medicare, or Medicaid: The appropriate health insurance carrier will be billed. Any applicable copayments, co-insurance, deductibles, or other similar payments, will be billed to the patient except as provided for herein. (ii) No third-party source of payment: If there is no third-party source of payment, a bill is to be sent to the patient transported. If the individual has the financial ability to pay, then payment of the outstanding charges are required, except as otherwise provided for herein. If the patient can demonstrate a financial hardship and qualifies for reduced payments pursuant to this Chapter, then the patient shall be eligible for a reduction or waiver of the amount of the charges due. (i) Billing Contractor: The Board of Supervisors may contract with a third-party for billing and related services. (j) Ability to Pay Program: (1) When any patient is billed for a transport or copayment pursuant to this Ordinance, and because of limited financial resources or assets, a procedure shall be established by the Department of Public Safety for such patient to apply for a reduction or waiver in the charge due. (2) The Department of Public Safety shall establish an ability to pay scale and eligibility criteria for individuals who can demonstrate financial hardship. (3) The Ability to Pay Program shall establish an equitable fee policy for those situations where the patient is unable to meet the ambulance transport charge because of demonstrated financial hardship. (4) A patient representing that there exists a financial hardship will submit information sufficient to determine such hardship. If it is determined that payment of the emergency ambulance transport charges creates a financial hardship, charges due may be reduced or waived according to the scale by the Department of Public Safety. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 18 of 22 (k) Collections: Billing and collection policies and services will be established by the Department of Public Safety. No Participating Agency will directly accept or receive payment for services rendered to a patient. SEC. 11-84. FIRE SERVICE FEES AND CHARGES PROGRAM. (a) Fee Schedule: The Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to establish Fire Service Fees and Charges for the use of the County-recognized Fire District equipment and Department of Public Safety equipment, supplies, and personnel in the performance of firefighting and rescue operations. The Board of Supervisors, upon the Commission’s recommendation, shall set Fire Service Fees and Charges annually. Said Fee Structure is based upon the number and nature of the equipment, supplies, and personnel used in the emergency operation. (1) The County, or its agent, shall generate a bill for Fire Service whose point of origin is within the boundaries of the County performed by all Fire Departments operated by an agency licensed and chartered in the County by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and mentioned in Section 11-11(b) above. Organizations are required to submit information required for the County, or its agent, to generate a bill for such services. The County will not generate a bill for fire service by organizations mentioned in Section 11-11(b) above that would be considered humanitarian assistance (meaning activities not undertaken as a result of a call for emergency assistance to the County Public Safety Communications Center). Information shared under this Subsection shall be that information reasonably necessary to accomplish the billing process or other arrangement as mutually agreed to by the recognized agency and the County. (2) The County may generate a bill for Fire Service in the primary response areas of organizations mentioned in Section 11-11(b) above and in adjoining localities by separate agreement between the County, the adjoining locality, and the organization. (3) Fees and Responsibility for Payment: Payment of all charges for Fire Services, shall be the responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other legally responsible party in the case of a minor or an individual deemed incompetent. (b) Reserved. (c) Billing Contractor: The County may contract with a third-party for billing and related services. (e) Reserved. (d) Collections: Billing and collection policies and services will be established by the Commission. No organization mentioned in Section 11-11(b) above will accept or receive payment directly for services rendered. (e) Nothing in this section shall require county agencies to participate in this billing program. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 19 of 22 (f) Billing Process: Responsible Parties will fall into one (1) of the following categories for billing purposes: (1) The appropriate homeowners/automobile insurance carrier will be billed in accordance with Virginia Code section 38.2-2130. Any applicable copayments, co-insurance, deductibles, or other similar payments, will be billed to the responsible party except as provided for herein. (g) Billing Contractor: The Board of Supervisors may contract with a third-party for billing and related services. (h) Ability to Pay Program: (1) When any homeowner/automobile owner is billed for Fire Service or copayment pursuant to this Ordinance, and because of limited financial resources or assets, a procedure shall be established by the Department of Public Safety for such insured person and/or responsible party to apply for a reduction or waiver in the charge due. (2) The Department of Public Safety shall establish an Ability to Pay scale and eligibility criteria for individuals who can demonstrate financial hardship. (3) The Ability to Pay Program shall establish an equitable fee policy for those situations where the insured person and/or responsible party is/are unable to meet the Fire Service charge because of demonstrated financial hardship. (4) An insured party and/or responsible party representing that there exists a financial hardship may submit information sufficient to determine such hardship. If it is determined that payment of the Fire Service Fees and Charges creates a financial hardship, charges due may be reduced or waived according to the scale by the Department of Public Safety. (j) Collections: Billing and collection policies and services will be established by the Department of Public Safety. No Participating Agency will directly accept or receive payment for services rendered to a patient. SEC. 11-85. RESERVED. SEC. 11-86. DESTRUCTION OF EQUIPMENT. The County may charge for all equipment damaged or destroyed at the scene of a Fire/EMS call and/or all supplies utilized in said activity. SEC. 11-87. BILLING; USE OF FUNDS. Billing for the fees imposed herein shall be managed by the Director of Public Safety, and all funds shall be returned to the Agency generating said funds, and utilized by appropriation by the Board of Supervisors for the purchase, operation, repair, and maintenance of equipment, supplies, and training for Fire/EMS personnel. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 20 of 22 SEC. 11-89. NON-DEPARTMENTAL EMS PROVIDER (A) Permits (A) It shall be unlawful for any person or organization to provide emergency medical services, medical transportation, or operate vehicles for those purposes within the confines of the county for the emergency or nonemergency transportation of patients, without first being granted a permit by the Director of Public Safety, except when a mutual aid agreement has been approved by the Director or pursuant to mutual aid arrangements authorized by statute and approved by the Director. The Director may issue such permits including conditions established by the Department. This requirement shall not apply to any EMS agency recognized by the Code of Pittsylvania County, any private ambulance service provider under contract with Pittsylvania County or any hospital based private ambulance service provider operating from a hospital within the borders of Pittsylvania County. (B) Permits shall expire one (1) year from the date of issuance unless renewed by the Director in accordance with regulations of the department. Fees for said permit shall be established by the Fire and Rescue Commission. Fees collected from said permits shall be used for the requirement and retention of volunteer fire and rescue members. (C) The Director may decline to renew, revoke or suspend any permit upon a finding that any conditions of the permit have been violated, that federal, state or local laws or regulations have been violated or that the public health, safety or welfare is endangered by continued operation of the entity. Except in the case of a condition posing a danger to the public health or safety, no nonrenewal, revocation or suspension action shall be taken by the Director prior to notice and reasonable time being given to the permittee for correction of the condition. (D) Non-departmental applicants and providers shall provide to the Director any information and records requested during the course of the application or renewal process or during the effective period of any permit. (B) PROCEDURE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS (A) Any person or organization desiring a permit shall make application to the Director on a form prescribed by the director. (B) Each application shall include an explanation of the need for the services in the area to be served by the applicant, a complete description of the type of service proposed, evidence that the applicant is trained, equipped and otherwise qualified in all respects to render first-aid, emergency and transportation services in the area indicated in the application, and certification or other information related to criminal and driving records of providers if required by the Director. (C) Each permit application shall include any other information required by the Director and the applicant's notarized certification that all requisite state permits and certifications for its vehicles, operations and personnel are current and that its operations and personnel meet all applicable current federal, state and local requirements. (D) Each applicant shall certify that no person who is to provide services is, or shall be, under the age of eighteen (18) years. (C) ISSUANCE AND ADMINSTRATION 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 21 of 22 (1) The Director shall consider each properly filed application. Should the director find: 1.) That there is a need for the specified type of EMS within the county; 2.) That the need will be properly served by the applicant; and 3.) That the applicant and any employees or personnel of the applicant are property trained and, equipped and otherwise qualified, the Director may issue a permit under such conditions as the director deems appropriate. (2) Copies of all applications and all permits shall be retained by the Director, who shall be responsible for reviewing the permit prior to expiration and either renewing the permit or denying the renewal, or other action. (3) The Director may suspend or revoke the permit of any permittee should it be found by the Director, upon investigation, that the permittee is not in compliance with federal, state or local laws, regulations or conditions of the permit or that the continued operation poses a danger to public health, safety or welfare. (4) Except in the case of a condition posing a danger to the public health or safety, no revocation, nonrenewal or suspension action shall be taken prior to written notice and reasonable time being given to the permittee for correction of the condition. (D) PENALTY (1) Failure to comply with this section shall result in a $1000 civil fine for the first offence in a 12-month period, a $1500 fine for the second offence in a 12-month period and $2000 fine for any subsequent violation(s) in a 12-month period. SEC. 11-90. FALSE ALARMS. (a) It is unlawful to call for the services of emergency assistance when the caller knows that an emergency does not exist. Provisions for negligent calls of this type are governed by Virginia Code, section 18.2-212. (b) Every individual, business or organization which has an alarm system which automatically reports such alarm to a public safety answering point (PSAP) or provides for notification of off-site personnel shall be responsible for the proper functioning of that alarm system. Failure to do so could result in revocation of permit to operate. (c) Every individual, business or organization which has an alarm system shall be required to notify the appropriate PSAP that an accidental alarm has been activated within two (2) minutes of the alarm sounding or such individual, business or organization may be liable for payment of a fee for response to the alarm. (Virginia Code, section 15.1-28.2.) (d) For those identified in paragraph (b) above, a fee will be assessed for each accidental alarm responded to where the appropriate PSAP has not been notified within two (2) minutes of the alarm activation. In the case of security alarms, two (2) accidental calls 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) 06/04/19 Page 22 of 22 each month will be permitted with no additional charge. Beginning with the third alarm received in any given month, a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) fee will be assessed for the third and subsequent alarms received during that month. In the case of fire alarms, two (2) accidental calls per year will be permitted with no additional charge. Beginning with the third alarm received in any given calendar year, a seventy-five dollar ($75.00) fee will be assessed for the third and subsequent alarms received during that calendar year. When a call is received by the central communications center within the two-minute notification period, the alarm will not be considered a billable alarm for the purposes of this section. (e) All fees collected as a result of this section shall be distributed as follows: fees generated from false security alarms shall be distributed back to the sheriff’s office; fees generated from false fire alarms shall be used to county wide fire training purposes. Sec. 11-91 Provision of fire department services and emergency medical services at public events or private businesses or places of public entertainment. (a) The County Administrator is empowered to direct the Public Safety Director to assign fire and EMS personnel at public events or private businesses or places of public entertainment where the character of such public event or private business or public entertainment is, in the opinion of the Public Safety Director, such as to make it advisable to have fire and EMS personnel at the event. (b) The number of personnel assigned to such public event or private business or place of public entertainment shall be determined by the Director of Public Safety in coordination with the promoter or person in charge of such event or business or place. The personnel assigned shall at all times be under the supervision of the Director of Public Safety or his designee and subject to the rules and regulations of the Public Safety Department. (c) Fees or charges for the use of Fire and EMS personnel and apparatus pursuant to this section shall be in such amount as is prescribed by the Department. All such fees shall be paid in advance to the Director of Public Safety, and by him, paid over to the Director of Finance. All fees earned shall be directed back to the agency providing personnel and apparatus. 10.B.3.b Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Public Safety ordinance red line changes (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) STAR-TRIBUNE Serving Pittsylvania County Since 1869 Certificate of Publication I hereby certify that the attached order of publication has been pub- lished once a week for successive weeks in the Star-Tribune, a newspaper published at the Chatham office in Pittsylvania County,Virginia, beginnin on Uv 2019, and ending on JJI1 20 /C( . Chad H a. P blisher ditor, acting agent for the publisherANIWO20/9 DANAZHANE'MOTLEY 4 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT TARGE REGISTRATION OF VIRGINIACOMMONWEALTHOFVIRGINIA 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30,2022 i County of Pittsylvania, To-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged b? .re me ! 's10dayof1AiqbyarAlt/ At My commission exp -s 4, 7-1 f "e5 do22 EGBUC HEARING 1ei`' E: tlt s .. Supervisors of Pfttsyl r*will 4144r( A Aft_."on iA oilGlen Courtr of 19,MO,id7:00 p.m., NotheTalwin .Shields Court-tary Public ewe Addition,Chatham,Virginia,24531,b receive CIO"in. g1:4111"4ten"ofsnewrertYrice,317 rO a t the current PGC Clots*11,ANN text ofNa prepoNd Tel (434) 432-2 791 i avelable in the meow*County AdndltietnrNon Fax (434) 432-4033 1 Center Street, Chatham,Violin*, 531,an Mon, legals@chathamstartribune.comthroughFriday,8:00 a.m.to 5:00 Ant,andon the Crxmtyrtebeitatwww.ptttsytvaniaoountyva.gpc 10.B.3.c Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: 07-16-2019 F&R Ordinance COP (1681 : Pubic Hearing: Fire and Rescue Ordinance (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Public Hearing: Building Height Revision (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) Staff Contact(s): Gregory L. Sides Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.B.4 Attachment(s): 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice -PCC 35-406 Maximum Height of Buildings Building Height Ordinance change 07-16-2019 Building Height - COP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: The Pittsylvania County Planning Commission was approached by the Director of Economic Development with a request to consider increasing the maximum allowed building height in the M-2, Industrial District, Heavy Industry. It was explained that we have had prospects for large projects in the Southern Virginia Megasite at Berry Hill that would exceed the current building height limitation of 80 feet. Having to apply for a variance introduces a time and uncertainty element that can discourage prospects. At their meeting on June 4, 2019, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on an ordinance amendment that would allow a maximum height of 150 feet on M-2 parcels measuring 150 acres or greater in size. The amendment was approved unanimously and referred to the Board of Supervisors. The Public Hearing was advertised in the Chatham Star Tribune on July 3, 2019 and July 10, 2019. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendment concerning maximum building height is limited to large tracts in our heavy industry district. Staff supports the amendment as a way to promote successful development of the Southern Virginia Megasite at Berry Hill. Following a proper Public Hearing, it is recommended that the zoning amendment be approved. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the proposed amendment to Section 35-406 of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance, as presented in the Public Hearing.” 10.B.4 Packet Pg. 475 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courtroom Addition, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, to receive citizen input on proposed amendments to the Pittsylvania County Code (“PCC”) § 35-406, to include the following changes: allowing parcels measuring 150 acres or greater in size to have a maximum building height of 150 feet thereon; and requiring buildings of greater than 80 feet in height to incorporate on-site fire control measures. A full text of the proposed PCC amendments is available in the Office of the County Administrator, County Administration Building, 1 Center Street, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, on Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on the County’s website, www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.4.a Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice -PCC 35-406 Maximum Height of Buildings (1689 : Public Hearing: Building Height Revision SEC. 35-406. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS. The maximum height of buildings in this district shall be eighty (80) feet. For parcels measuring 150 acres or greater in size, the maximum height of buildings shall be 150 feet. Buildings greater than 80 feet in height must incorporate on-site fire control provisions. Belfries, cupolas, chimneys, flues, flagpoles, television antennae, radio aerials, silos, and water tanks are exempt. Any building or structure shall be constructed, erected, installed, maintained, and be of an approved type in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code as amended and the Fire Prevention Code. 10.B.4.b Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Building Height Ordinance change (1689 : Public Hearing: Building Height Revision (Staff Contact: Gregory L, Sides)) STAR-TRIBUNE Serving Pittsylvania County Since 1869 Certificate of Publication I hereby certify that the attached order of publication has been pub- lished once a week for 2_ successive weeks in the Star-Tribune, a newspaper published at the Chatham office in Pittsylvania County,Virginia, beginning on 1( 3 20/, and ending on 2019. Chad H. si.- e ublisher IOW- - Editor, acting agent for the publisher I D 201c DANAZHANE'MOTLEY NOTARY PUBLIC 7STATEOFVIRGINIA, AT LARGE 1 COMMONWAEALTTH OF IRGINIA ` MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL30,2022406CountyofPittsylvania, To-wit: The forego_!Lig instrument w. , acknowledged b- ore me 's1) day of 1/by iAfti r%. _ , My commission expires l/. a < Z UsofBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, iwilltoldaPublicHearingonTuesday,July 16,2019, at 7:00 psu.,in the General District Courtroom ofthe Edwin R.Shields 1 / f. Addition.Chatham,Virginia, 24531,to receive cid- Notary PubliclorionproposedamendmentstothePittsylvaniaCountyPCC')§35-406, to include the following changes:al- parcels acres or greater in size to have Tel.: 4 )a a amutr height of 150 feet thereon;and requiring 34 432- 033buildingsofgreaterthan8Qfeetinheighttoincorporateon-site Fax: (434) 432-4control033measures.A M text of the proposed PCC amend- legals@chathamstartribune.commeatsisavailableintheOfficeoftheCountyAdministrator, County Administration Building,1 Center Street,Chatham,Mr- On*24531,on Monday through Friday,8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,and`on the County's website,www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.4.c Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Building Height - COP (1689 : Public Hearing: Building Height Revision (Staff Contact: Gregory L, Sides)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill Energy Connection Project (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides) Staff Contact(s): Gregory L. Sides Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.B.5 Attachment(s): 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice - Appalachian Power APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation 2019-07-04 AEP 07-16-2019 AEP - COP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: On April 16, 2019, the Board of Supervisors voted to amend Section 35-50 of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance to allow an exemption for electrical transmission lines constructed to serve properly zoned industrial park sites. This exemption to the zoning ordinance includes language stating “with approval subject to a public hearing and vote by the Board of Supervisors”. Appalachian Power is proposing an approximate 5 mile 138 KV transmission line, and electrical substation, to supply power to the Southern Virginia Mega Site at Berry Hill. Appalachian has been through a rigorous design and public input process to develop a proposed route that minimizes overall impacts. The Public Hearing was advertised in the Chatham Star Tribune on July 3, 2019 and July 10, 2019. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: Appalachian Power is not seeking up-front funding from Pittsylvania County for the construction of this electrical connection project. RECOMMENDATION: In accordance with Sec. 35-50, Appalachian Power is seeking the Board of Supervisor’s approval of the Berry Hill Energy Connection Project and confirmation of the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission’s finding on July 2 that the project is substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Pittsylvania County. Due to the critical importance of this electrical project to the successful development and growth of the Southern Virginia Megasite at Berry Hill, staff recommends that the Board approve this project. MOTION: “I make a motion that the Board approve the Berry Hill Energy Connection Project, confirm the finding of the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission that the project is substantially in 10.B.5 Packet Pg. 479 accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and approve Resolution #2019-07-04 as presented.” 10.B.5 Packet Pg. 480 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the General District Courtroom, Edwin R. Shields Courtroom Addition, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, to receive citizen input on Appalachian Power Company’s request for the Board’s approval of the proposed electrical substation and a five (5) mile 138 kV transmission line, known as the Berry Hill Energy Connection Project, and to ratify the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission’s finding, pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-2232, that the general or approximate location, character, and extent of the proposed Berry Hill Substation and the associated transmission line tap are substantially in accordance with the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. Related materials are available at the County Administration Building, 1 Center Street, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., and on the County’s website, www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.5.a Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice - Appalachian Power (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill Energy Project Berry Hill Energy Connection Project Southern Virginia Mega Site at Berry Hill 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Project Overview WHAT An approximate 5-mile 138 kV transmission line and new substation. WHY The Project will supply power to the Southern Virginia Mega Site at Berry Hill industrial park near Danville. A robust power source at the industrial park increases electric service reliability in the area while supporting continued business development. WHERE Plans include building the proposed substation inside the industrial park. Preliminary study segments for the proposed transmission line begin inside the industrial park and travel northwest across Pittsylvania County. The study segments travel in various directions toward U.S. Route 58 before connecting with an existing Appalachian Power transmission line. 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Study Segments Objectives Avoid or minimize impacts on human, visual and natural resources Meet the overall project objective to provide a robust power source to the park. Methods Extensive coordination with the County Mapped publicly available data from federal, state, and local sources Field reconnaissance Held a public open house on Jan. 9, 2019 (Brosville Elementary School) 116 landowners invited. 30 attended. Met with numerous landowners 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Alternative Routes Refined study segments into three alternative routes Analyzed and compared the alternative routes Proposed Route (Alternative C) Minimizes overall impacts Fewer nearby residences Fewer land use conflicts (the study area becomes more developed eastward toward Danville). Positive public & stakeholder input Fewer constructability issues (e.g., access, fewer structure angles) Proposed Route * Routes and Substation Site are the general or approximate location. 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board •Shown on the mapping is the Proposed Route centerline. The Company needs a 500-foot Corridor in which a 100- foot Right-of-way (ROW) will be located. The Company needs the flexibility to shift the centerline of the 100-foot ROW for the transmission line up to 200 feet in either direction from the centerline shown as necessary to address issues that become evident only after completion of ground surveys, environmental studies, additional interviews with landowners and final engineering. Nonetheless, the Company believes the centerline shown is the most suitable alignment based upon preliminary analysis. The Company has provided notice to potentially affected landowners within the 500-foot corridor. 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Proposed Structures 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Proposed Substation •Gravel fenced area: Approximately 270’ x 330’ •Height of bays: Approximately 50’ tall 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Resolution of Support Pursuant to the Board of Supervisors recommendation on March 12, 2019 (Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Work Session), following completion of a public hearing, Appalachian Power seeks approval of the Berry Hill Energy Connection Project (which includes a new substation and an approximately 5 mile 138 kV transmission line, collectively referred to as the “Project”). Additionally, the Appalachian Power asks the BOS to confirm the action of the Planning Commission taken at its meeting on July 2, 2019, in accordance with the provisions of Va. Code §15.2-2232 to approve the general or approximate location, character and extent of the Project as being substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Pittsylvania County. 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Accordance with Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill Energy Project (Staff Contact: !!!!!!!!! !!! !!Approximate Location of AEP Distribution Line Approximate Location of City of Danville Transmission Line Approximate Location of AEP Transmission Line Entire Route andCorridor Not Shown. ""Existing AEP StructureExisting AEP Transmission LineProposed RouteHydrologyOriginal RouteCousins PropertyPittsylvania County Parcel Berry Hill EnergyConnection Project July 10, 2019 INAD1983 State Plane VirginiaSouth FIPS 4502 Feet 0 500250Feet Data Sources: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea,Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User CommunitySource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, This map is preliminary.Final design may vary. 10.B.5.b Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: APCo Berry Hill BOS Presentation (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill Energy Project (Staff Contact: Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors RESOLUTION 2019-07-04 VIRGINIA: At the business meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors held in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition in Chatham, Virginia on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, the following resolution was presented and adopted: WHEREAS, there was a Public Hearing held on July 16, 2019 to receive citizen input on Appalachian Power Company’s request for the Board’s approval of the proposed electrical substation and a five (5) mile 138 kV transmission line, known as the Berry Hill Energy Connection Project, and to ratify the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission’s finding, pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-2232, that the general or approximate location, character, and extent of the proposed Berry Hill Substation and the associated transmission line tap are substantially in accordance with the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan; and NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, The Board of Supervisors hereby (a) approves the Berry Hill Energy Connection Project (which includes a new substation and an approximately 5 mile 138 kV transmission line, collectively referred to as the “Project”) to be constructed by Appalachian Power Company, and (b) ratifies and confirms the action of the Planning Commission taken at its meeting on July 2, 2019, in accordance with the provisions of Va. Code §15.2-2232 to approve the general or approximate location, character and extent of the Project as being substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Pittsylvania County. Given under my hand this 16th day of July 2019. ___________________________________ Joe B. Davis, Chairman Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors ___________________________________ David M. Smitherman, Clerk Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors 10.B.5.c Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: 2019-07-04 AEP (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill Energy Project (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides)) STARTBJBUNEServingPittsylvaniaCountySince1869 Certificate of Publication I hereby certify that the attached order of publication has beenufishedonceaweekfor p successive weeks in the Star-Tribune,a newspaper published at the Chatham office in Pittsylvania County,Virginia, beginnin: on 20 19, and endingoniI205 Chad H. -: • Publisher ditor, acting agent for the publisherIMO202f DANA ZHANE'MOTLEY STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT NOTARY REGISTRATION#7787783537LARGECOMMONWEALTHOFVIRGINIAMY County of Pittsylvania, To-wit: COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30,2022 The foregoing instrument . acknowledged b- •re me day of I b irk. My commission expires Ad,eat. I/' Notary Public 28 N. Main Street P.O. Box 111 Tel.: (434) 432-2791 Chatham, VA 24531 Fax: (434) 4324033 legals@chathamstartribune.com 10.B.5.d Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: 07-16-2019 AEP - COP (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill Energy Project (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides)) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday,July 16,2019,at 7:00 p.m., in the Gen- eral"District Courtroom,Edwin R.Shields Courtroom Addition, Chatham,Virginia,24531,to receive citizen input on Appala • chian Power Company's request for the Board's approval of • the proposed electrical substation and a five(5) mile"138 kV transmission kne,known as the Beny Hill Energy Connection Project,and to ratify the Pittsytvania County Planning Commis- sion's finding, pursuant to Virginia Code§15.2-2232,that the general or approximate location, character, and extent of the proposed Berry Hill Substation and the associated transmission line tap are substantially in accordance with the County's ad- opted Comprehensive Plan.Related materials are available at the County Administration Building,1 Center Street,Chatham, Virginia,24531,Monday through Friday,8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.,. and on the County's website,wwwpittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.5.d Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: 07-16-2019 AEP - COP (1685 : Public Hearing: AEP Board Approval of Berry Hill Energy Project (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Public Hearing: Sheriff's PCC, Chapter 11, Revisions (Staff Contact: Sheriff Taylor) Staff Contact(s): Sheriff Taylor Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.B.6 Attachment(s): 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice -Sheriff PCC Revisions Sheriff PCC Revisions 07-16-2019 Sheriff Revisions - COP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: At the Board’s Legislative Committee Meeting that was held on June 4, 2019, The Honorable Michael Taylor, Sheriff, discussed and reviewed the following five (5) Virginia Code Sections that he desires to potentially add to the PCC: (1) Virginia Code § 15. 2- 1716. 1, Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred in Responding to Terrorism Hoax Incident, Bomb threat, or Malicious Activation of Fire Alarm; (2) Virginia Code § 15. 2- 1716.2, Methamphetamine Lab Cleanup Costs; Localities may Charge for Reimbursement; (3) Virginia Code § 15. 2- 1717, Preventing Interference with Pupils at Schools; (4) Virginia Code § 15. 2- 1717. 1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations; and (5) Virginia Code § 15. 2- 1719, Disposal of Unclaimed Property in Possession of Sheriff or Police. Following discussion, the LC unanimously recommended to the full BOS that the above-referenced Virginia Code Sections be advertised for a Public Hearing for potential adoption at the July BOS Business Meeting. The Public Hearing has been advertised in the Chatham Star Tribune on July 3, 2019 and July 10, 2019. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: This will allow the Sheriff’s Department to attach fees to violations as presented. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff recommends the Board to hold the required Public Hearing for the Sheriff’s Chapter 11 Revisions as presented. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the Sheriff’s Chapter 11 Revisions as presented.” 10.B.6 Packet Pg. 497 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courtroom Addition, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, to receive citizen input on the following proposed additions to Chapter 12, Offenses, of the Pittsylvania County Code (“PCC”): (1) PCC § 12-15, Reimbursement of expenses incurred in responding to terrorism hoax incident, bomb threat, or malicious activation of fire alarm; (2) PCC § 12-16, Methamphetamine lab cleanup costs; (3) PCC § 12-17, Preventing interference with pupils at schools or operation of school bus; (4) PCC § 12- 18, Designation of Sheriff to enforce trespass violations; and (5) PCC § 12-19, Disposal of unclaimed property in possession of Sheriff. A full text of the proposed PCC additions is available at the County Administration Building, 1 Center Street, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, on Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on the County’s website, www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.6.a Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice -Sheriff PCC Revisions (1691 : Public Hearing: Sheriff's PCC, Chapter 11, Revisions (Staff Page 1 of 2 PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 12; OFFENSES SEC. 12-15. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPONDING TO TERRORISM HOAX INCIDENT, BOMB THREAT, OR MALICIOUS ACTIVATION OF FIRE ALARM. Any person who is convicted of a violation of subsection B or C of § 18.2-46.6, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, a felony violation of §§ 18.2-83 or 18.2-84, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or a violation of § 18.2-212, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, when his violation of such Section is the proximate cause of any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, shall be liable at the time of sentencing or in a separate civil action to the County or to any volunteer emergency medical services agency, or both, which may provide such emergency response for the reasonable expense thereof, in an amount not to exceed $2,500 in the aggregate for a particular incident occurring in the County. In determining the "reasonable expense," the County may bill a flat fee of $250 or a minute-by-minute accounting of the actual costs incurred. As used in this section, "appropriate emergency response" includes all costs of providing law- enforcement, firefighting, and emergency medical services. The provisions of this Section shall not preempt or limit any remedy available to the Commonwealth, to the County, or to any volunteer emergency medical services agency to recover the reasonable expenses of an emergency response to an incident not involving a terroristic hoax or an act undertaken in violation of §§ 18.2-83, 18.2- 84, or 18.2-212, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, as set forth herein. SEC. 12-16. METHAMPHETAMINE LAB CLEANUP COSTS. Any person who is convicted of an offense for manufacture of methamphetamine pursuant to §§ 18.2-248 or 18.2-248.03, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, shall be liable at the time of sentencing or in a separate civil action to the County or to any other law-enforcement entity for the expense in cleaning up any methamphetamine lab related to the conviction. The amount charged shall not exceed the actual expenses associated with cleanup, removal, or repair of the affected property or the replacement cost of personal protective equipment used. SEC. 12-17. PREVENTING INTERFERENCE WITH PUPILS AT SCHOOLS OR OPERATION OF SCHOOL BUS. Any person who improperly interferes with or annoys pupils attending any school in the County, or interferes with the operation of any school bus situated in the County shall be guilty of a Class 1 Misdemeanor. SEC. 12-18. DESIGNATION OF SHERIFF TO ENFORCE TRESPASS VIOLATIONS. The owner, lessee, custodian, or person lawfully in charge as those terms are used in § 18.2-119, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, of real property may designate the Sheriff, or other local law- enforcement agency, as a "person lawfully in charge of the property" for the purpose of forbidding 10.B.6.b Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Sheriff PCC Revisions (1691 : Public Hearing: Sheriff's PCC, Chapter 11, Revisions (Staff Contact: Sheriff Taylor)) Page 2 of 2 another to go or remain upon the lands, buildings or premises as specified in the designation. Said designation shall be in writing and on file with the Sheriff or other local law-enforcement agency. SEC. 12-19. DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF SHERIFF. This Section details the public sale or the retention for use by the law-enforcement agency, of any unclaimed personal property which has been in the possession of its law-enforcement agencies and unclaimed for a period of more than sixty (60) days, after payment of a reasonable storage fee to the Sheriff or other agency storing such property. No storage fee shall be charged or accounted for if such property has been stored by and is to be retained by the Sheriff's office or other law- enforcement agency. As used herein, "unclaimed personal property" shall be any personal property belonging to another which has been acquired by a law-enforcement officer pursuant to his duties, which is not needed in any criminal prosecution, which has not been claimed by its rightful owner and which the State Treasurer has indicated will be declined if remitted under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (§ 55-210.1 et seq., Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended). Unclaimed bicycles and mopeds may also be disposed of in accordance with § 15.2- 1720, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Unclaimed firearms may also be disposed of in accordance with § 15.2-1721, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Prior to the sale or retention for use by the law-enforcement agency of any unclaimed item, the Sheriff, or his duly authorized agent(s), shall make reasonable attempts to notify the rightful owner of the property, obtain from the Commonwealth’s Attorney, in writing, a statement advising that the item is not needed in any criminal prosecution, and cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the County once a week for two (2) successive weeks, Notice that there will be a public display and sale of unclaimed personal property. Such property, including property selected for retention by the law-enforcement agency, shall be described generally in the Notice, together with the date, time, and place of the sale and shall be made available for public viewing at the sale. The Sheriff, or his duly authorized agent(s), shall pay from the proceeds of sale the costs of advertisement, removal, storage, investigation as to ownership and liens, and Notice of Sale. The balance of the funds shall be held by the Sheriff for the owner and paid to the owner upon satisfactory proof of ownership. Any unclaimed item retained for use by the law- enforcement agency shall become the property of the County served by the agency and shall be retained only if, in the opinion of the Sheriff, there is a legitimate use for the property by the agency and that retention of the item is a more economical alternative than purchase of a similar or equivalent item. If no claim has been made by the owner for the property or proceeds of such sale within sixty (60) days of the sale, the remaining funds shall be deposited in the County’s General Fund and the retained property may be placed into use by the law-enforcement agency. Any such owner shall be entitled to apply to the County within three (3) years from the date of the sale and, if timely application is made therefor and satisfactory proof of ownership of the funds or property is made, the County shall pay the remaining proceeds of the sale or return the property to the owner without interest or other charges or compensation No claim shall be made nor any suit, action, or proceeding be instituted for the recovery of such funds or property after three (3) years from the date of the sale. 10.B.6.b Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Sheriff PCC Revisions (1691 : Public Hearing: Sheriff's PCC, Chapter 11, Revisions (Staff Contact: Sheriff Taylor)) STAR-TRIBUNE Serving Pittsylvania County Since 1869 Certificate of Publication I hereby certify that the attached order of publication has beenpub-lished once a week for Z successive weeks in the Star-Tribune, a newspaper published at the Chatham office in Pittsylvania County,Virginia, beginning on T1c /y 3 20/9, and ending on iy 1() 20/9 . Chad H. •*:en Publisher ditor, acting agent for the publisherJI20/ DANA ZHANE'MOTLEY NOTARY L STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE REGISTRATIONPUB#77IC x7 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGIRGINIA P MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30,2022 I County of Pittsylvania, To-wit: The foregoing ins u ent w. a owledged b-fore me 's10dayof1by _ /4/14... adelt My commission e si•res _ Ai IJ OZ MAO / u 7,4 Notary Public 28 N. Main Street P.O. Box 111 Tel.: (434) 432-2791 Chatham, VA 24531 Fax: (434) 432-4033 legals@chathamstartribune.com 10.B.6.c Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Sheriff Revisions - COP (1691 : Public Hearing: Sheriff's PCC, Chapter 11, Revisions (Staff Contact: Sheriff Taylor)) UUuc Mlnt i Q C7h® d of Supervisors Pitteyl1 1 +h, Virainia.hold a Public Helton TuesAthy, 16,2019,atm p.m.,in the General D' Courtroomof the Edwin R.Shields Caurbvom Addition,Chatham,Virgin*,,24531,to receive d am input on the following proposed add$$cns to Chapter 12.. Offenses, Of the Pittsylvania County Code("PCC")::(1) PCC 112-15, Reimbursement of expenses kW*in responding ' terrorism hoax incident,bomb threat,ormalicious activalion pfAre alarm;(2)PCC§12«16,Methemph,mine 1ep+a snup costs;(3)PCC 112-17,Preventing interfaranoe with pupils at schools or operation of school bus;(4)PCC§12.18001111/41111F• I Son violations; and (6) PCG§8 of of Sheriff. A 1u10x1 of the proppsed PMM d prheNavailable et the County Administration Building,1 Center Chatham,v 24531,on Mondaythrough Frid gt.LQ0 a.m.,b5:00 p.m., and:on the County's website,www.pitteylypniacountyva.gov. 10.B.6.c Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Sheriff Revisions - COP (1691 : Public Hearing: Sheriff's PCC, Chapter 11, Revisions (Staff Contact: Sheriff Taylor)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Public Hearing: Lack of Control of Companion Animal (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.) Staff Contact(s): J. Vaden Hunt, Esq. Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 10.B.7 Attachment(s): 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice -Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance 2019 07-16-2019 LCCA Ordinance - COP Reviewed By: SUMMARY: On June 4, 2019, the Board’s Legislative Committee unanimously recommended the attached Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance, proposed to be added to the Pittsylvania County Code as § 2-26, to the full Board for County Staff authorization to advertise the same for potential adoption. On June 18, 2019, at its Business Meeting, the full Board unanimously voted to authorize County Staff to advertise said Ordinance at its July Business Meeting. For your reference and review, attached please find a copy of the related Public Hearing Notice. The Public Hearing was advertised in the Chatham Star Tribune on July 3, 2019 and July 10, 2019. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff recommends the Board approve the addition of § 2-26, Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance, to the PCC as presented. MOTION: “I make a Motion approving the addition of Section 2-26, Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance, to the Pittsylvania County Code as presented.” 10.B.7 Packet Pg. 503 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courtroom Addition, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, to receive citizen input on the proposed addition of § 2-26, Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance, to the Pittsylvania County Code (“PCC”). A full text of the proposed PCC revision is available at the County Administration Building, 1 Center Street, Chatham, Virginia, 24531, on Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on the County’s website, www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov. 10.B.7.a Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: 07-16-2019 Public Hearing Notice -Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance (1673 : Public Hearing: Lack of Control of § 2-26. Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance A. Lack of control of a companion animal is created when any dog, cat, canine crossbreed, or other companion animal, as defined by § 3.2-6500, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, unreasonably annoys humans, endangers the life or health of other animals or persons, or substantially interferes with the rights of citizens, other than their owners, to the enjoyment of life or property. Acts constituting a lack of control of a dog, cat, canine crossbred, or other companion animal shall include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Trespassing upon another’s property in such a manner as to damage property; (2) Habitually running at large in a restricted area (meaning three (3) or more convictions for running at large within two (2) years); (3) Molesting, annoying, or intimidating pedestrians or passersby not located on the companion animal’s owner’s property; (4) Defecating without permission of the property owner upon any public place or upon premises not owned or controlled by the owner unless promptly removed by the animal's owner; or (5) Being found at large on any school property. B. Any person owning or having possession or control of an animal suspected of violating this Ordinance shall be proceeded against by warrant or summoned before the General District Court of the County to show cause why the animal should not be confined, euthanized, removed, or the public nuisance otherwise abated. C. The Animal Control Officer, owner, or custodian shall confine the animal until the Court has made a final decision in the case. If the Animal Control Officer deems confinement necessary, then the owner or custodian shall be responsible for the impound fees. D. Upon proof that such animal has violated this Ordinance, the animal shall, by General District Court Order, be confined, euthanized, removed, or the public nuisance shall be otherwise abated, as the Court shall Order. No person shall fail to comply with such an Order. E. Violation of Subsections A(3), A(4), or A(5) of this Section is a Class 1 Misdemeanor. Violation of any other provision of this Ordinance is a Class 3 Misdemeanor. F. This Ordinance shall not apply to non-companion animals, livestock, poultry, alpacas, and llamas; any person while engaged in law enforcement or search and rescue activity; in a supervised formal obedience training class or show; during formally sanctioned field trials; while engaged in lawful hunting with a dog or dogs during open season; during bona fide hunting or field trial dog training, and/or dogs actively engaged in farming activity. G. Enforcement. No person shall be charged with a violation of § A herein, unless the Complainant appears before a Magistrate and requests a Summons or Warrant be issued charging the violation; except that, when a violation is committed in the presence of an Animal Control Officer, said Officer may issue a Summons and take other action as set forth in this Ordinance. 10.B.7.b Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance 2019 (1673 : Public Hearing: Lack of Control of Companion Animal (Staff STARTBJBUNEServingPittsylvaniaCountySince1869 Certificate of Publication I hereby certify that the attached order of publication has beenub-lished once a week for p successive weeks in the Star-Tribune, a newspaper published at the Chatham office in Pittsylvania County,Virginia, beginning on 20 and endingon20/7. Chad H. i:a ublisher ditor, acting agent for the publisher 20 _ 41 DANAZHANE MOTLEY NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF VIRGINIA REGISTRATION VIRGINIAATLARGEICOMMONWEALTHOFVIRGINIA 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRESAPRIL30,2022 County of Pittsylvania, To-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged b ore me 'sJadaYofuL) /iy ZO/q by f My commission expires .4,10..ii SII 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 01r1041TheBoardofSupervisorsofPittsylvaniaCounty, Virginia,ON hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at NotaryNotary Public1:00 p.m.,in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R Shields Courtroom Addition,Chatham,Virginia,24531,to re- ceive citizen input on the proposed addition of§2-26,Lack of Control of Companion Animal Ordinance,to the Pittsylva- Tel.• (434) 432-2791niaCountyCode ('PCC").A full text of the proposed PCC Fax: (434) 4324033revisionisavailableattheCountyAdministrationBuilding, 1CenterStreet,Chatham,Virginia,24531,on Monday through legals@chathamstartribune.com Friday,8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,and on the County's website, www.pittsylvaniaco ntyva.gov. 10.B.7.c Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: 07-16-2019 LCCA Ordinance - COP (1673 : Public Hearing: Lack of Control of Companion Animal (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Brosville/622 Convenience Center Site Construction Bid Award (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks) Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 12.a Attachment(s): Draft Construction Set - 05-24-2019 Budgetary Cost Estimate_Brosville_6-24-19_w Addendum No. 1 Copy of Bid Tab List Reviewed By: SUMMARY: The Brosville/622 Convenience Center required some paving maintenance and other maintenance issues. Traffic flow and convenience to the recycling containers are also an issue at this site. Once the County hired SCS Engineers, we asked Ryan Duckett to design the redevelopment of this site to repair the paving, provide a more desirable traffic flow and provide better access to the compactor, open tops and recycling containers. Attached for your review and information is a copy of the proposed project design, as well as the Engineer’s estimate. The County issued an IFB (20190611) for the Brosville Collection Site Re-Development on June 11, 2019. It was advertised in the Danville Register and Bee, the Start Tribune and posted on the County’s website. Three bids were submitted and the low bid was by Crews Construction in the amount of $88,500.00. We also requested a price on replacing most of the asphalt and apron at the entrance to the site due to its poor condition. The price by Crews for that work was $6,500.00. This results in a total project cost of $95,000.00. A copy of the bid tabulation is also enclosed for your review and information. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: To move forward with the award of the bids on this project would require the utilization of capital funds in the solid waste budget. There are currently not enough funds to complete three (3) compactor sites and the re-development of this site. The Board may wish to establish priorities for the projects. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board wishes to move forward with this project, County Staff recommends the award of the bid to Crews Construction in the amount of $95,000. MOTION: “I make a Motion to award the bid for the re-development of the Brosville/622 Convenience 12.a Packet Pg. 507 Center to Crews Construction in the amount of $95,000.” 12.a Packet Pg. 508 COVER SHEET 1PITTSYLVANIA COUNTYTUNSTALL-BROSVILLE (622) COLLECTION CENTERRE-DEVELOPMENTPREPARED FOR:PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY1 CENTER STREETCHATHAM, VA 2431SCS ENGINEERSPREPARED BY:2877 GUARDIAN LANE, SUITE 1-FVIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452 (757) 466-3361MAY 24, 2019INDEX OF DRAWINGSLOCATION MAPTUNSTALL (BROSVILLE/622) COLLECTIONCENTER:95 CASCADE RDCASCADE, VA 24069INDEX OF DRAWINGSSCS ENGINEERS STEARNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 2877 GUARDIAN LANE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452 PH. (757) 466-3361 FAX. (757) 257-6349 5TUNSTALL-BROSVILLE (622) COLLECTION CENTER PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY 1 CENTER STREET CHATHAM, VA 24531 D R A F T 12.a.aPacket Pg. 509Attachment: Draft Construction Set - 05-24-2019 (1676 : Brosville/622 Convenience Center Site Construction Bid Award) SCS ENGINEERS STEARNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 2877 GUARDIAN LANE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452 PH. (757) 466-3361 FAX. (757) 257-6349 5TUNSTALL-BROSVILLE (622) COLLECTION CENTER PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY 1 CENTER STREET CHATHAM, VA 24531 D R A F T EXISTING CONDITIONS 212.a.aPacket Pg. 510Attachment: Draft Construction Set - 05-24-2019 (1676 : Brosville/622 Convenience Center Site Construction Bid Award) SCS ENGINEERS STEARNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 2877 GUARDIAN LANE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452 PH. (757) 466-3361 FAX. (757) 257-6349 5TUNSTALL-BROSVILLE (622) COLLECTION CENTER PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY 1 CENTER STREET CHATHAM, VA 24531 D R A F T SITE PLAN 312.a.aPacket Pg. 511Attachment: Draft Construction Set - 05-24-2019 (1676 : Brosville/622 Convenience Center Site Construction Bid Award) 4GENERAL NOTES, ANDDETAILS-1SCS ENGINEERSSTEARNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDTCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.2877 GUARDIAN LANE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452PH. (757) 466-3361 FAX. (757) 257-63494BROSVILLE HWYTUNSTALL 622 COLLECTION CENTERPITTSYLVANIA COUNTY1 CENTER STREETCHATHAM, VA 24531DRAFT12.a.a Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Draft Construction Set - 05-24-2019 (1676 : Brosville/622 Convenience Center Site Construction Bid Award) 5DETAILS -2, AND TERMS ANDCONDITIONSSCS ENGINEERSSTEARNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDTCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.2877 GUARDIAN LANE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452PH. (757) 466-3361 FAX. (757) 257-63495TUNSTALL-BROSVILLE (622)COLLECTION CENTERPITTSYLVANIA COUNTY1 CENTER STREETCHATHAM, VA 24531DRAFT12.a.a Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Draft Construction Set - 05-24-2019 (1676 : Brosville/622 Convenience Center Site Construction Bid Award) Project No.:2218209.03-1 Date:6/24/19 Engineer's Engineer's No.Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Est.Total Estimate 0 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 L. S. 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 Fine Grading 1 L. S. 5,000$ 5,000$ 2 Asphalt Cutting/Demolition 290 L. F. 2.00$ 580$ 3 Demolition Existing Asphalt for Concrete Pads 228 S. Y.7.00$ 1,590$ 4A Concrete Pad (6" cement concrete) and Grate 2 Ea.2,400$ 4,800$ 4B Gravel Base for Concrete Pavement (6" layer)2 Ea.600$ 1,200$ 5 Steel Plates Embedded in Concrete Pads for Roll-off Containers 4 Ea.1,500$ 6,000$ 6A Geotextile Asphalt Base (10 oz./yard)1,700 S. Y.1.50$ 2,550$ 6B Asphalt Gravel Base (6" layer), areas of gravel already in place 900 S. Y.10$ 9,000$ 6C Asphalt Gravel Base (6" layer), areas of soil/minimal gravel 600 S. Y.17$ 10,200$ 6D 4" New Asphalt Layer 1,100 S. Y.32$ 35,200$ 6E Top Coat Asphalt (Entire Paved Area)2,000 S. Y.4$ 8,000$ 7 Entrance/Directional Sign on Post 1 Ea.500$ 500$ 8 Pavement Markings 1 L. S. 5,000$ 5,000$ 9 Bollard 1 Ea.500$ 500$ SUBTOTAL 105,120$ 10 Contingency (Approx. 15% of Subtotal Estimated Price)15%15,829$ TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 120,949$ Notes: 1. 2.Costs do not include collection containers, landscaping, silt fence, or any permitting fees. prepared by SCS Engineers, dated 6/3/19. It is for budgetary purposes and not intended for use for itemized construction estimation. This estimated construction cost to develop and construct the upgraded Brosville Collection Center is based on thet Design Drawings and Specifications ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST TURNSTALL-BROSVILLE (HWY 622) COLLECTION CENTER RE-DEVELOPMENT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA GRADING AND SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS SECURITY AND SAFETY 12.a.b Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Budgetary Cost Estimate_Brosville_6-24-19_w Addendum No. 1 (1676 : Brosville/622 Brosville Collections Site Re-Development Vendor Insurance License Title Page Addendum addition Bid Cost not included in award Crews Construction X X X $6,500.00 $88,500.00 Adams Construction X X X $11,390.00 $116,490.00 JC Joyce Trucking & Paving X X $16,400.00 $96,966.00 3-Jul-19 12.a.c Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Copy of Bid Tab List (1676 : Brosville/622 Convenience Center Site Construction Bid Award) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore) Staff Contact(s): Mark W. Moore Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 12.b Attachment(s): Wayside Park_Grant Agreement JTMM Grant Agreement Wayside Park Reviewed By: SUMMARY: In your board packet are two (2) Wayside Park grant agreements, both grants will be dispersed over a two-year period in 2019 and 2020. The Danville Regional Foundation (DRF) grant in the amount of $306,540 will be dispersed in equal half-installments in July 2019 and July 2020. The first installment of $153,270 will be made to Pittsylvania County upon full execution of the grant this month pending county board approval and the remaining installment of $153,270 payable to Pittsylvania County on July 1, 2020. The second grant is from J. T. – Minnie Maude Charitable Trust (JTMM) in the amount of $100,000 to be dispersed in equal half-payments in 2019 and 2020. The first installment of $50,000 will be made on or about September 15, 2019 with the second $50,000 installment made to Pittsylvania County on or about March 15, 2020. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: Both of these grants require the County to commit funding of $150,000 to the Wayside Park over the next two fiscal years. $75,000 has been committed in the FY20 budget. $75,000 would also need to be committed in the FY21 budget. These grants are part of the $713,000 Wayside Park renovation project of which $563,000 has been obtained in grant funding to help fund the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve both documents as submitted and grant permission to the County Administrator to sign both on behalf of the County. MOTION: “I make a Motion to accept both the Danville Regional Foundation and J. T. – Minnie Maude Charitable Trust grant agreement and allow the County Administrator to sign these documents on behalf of the County.” 12.b Packet Pg. 516 1 GRANT AGREEMENT This Agreement is by and between Danville Regional Foundation, 512 Bridge Street, Suite 100, Danville, Virginia 24541, a Virginia nonprofit corporation that has been recognized by the IRS Internal Revenue Code under Section 501(c) (3) as being exempt from tax under Section 501 (a) of the Tax Code (hereinafter “the Foundation”) and Pittsylvania County, P.O Box 426, Chatham, VA 24531 (hereinafter “the Grantee”). The Foundation awards the following grant, and the Grantee agrees to accept the grant, in accordance with the following terms and provisions. I. OVERVIEW The grant funds shall be used solely for the purposes described within this Agreement. Grant Title: Wayside Park Effective Date (Date Approved): May 28, 2019 Effective Date for Project: August 1, 2019 End date: July 31, 2021 Grant Amount: $306,540 Federal Identification Number: 54-6001508 Funds shall not be used for undertaking any activity for a non-charitable purpose. This grant is not in any way earmarked to support or carry on any lobbying or voter- registration drive. Funds shall not be used for individual study or travel purposes under the meaning of Section 4945.d. 12.b.a Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Wayside Park_Grant Agreement (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 2 II. PURPOSE The purpose of this grant is to rehabilitate historic Wayside Park. The 53-acre park was constructed in the early 1900s and is located just outside of Hurt, Virginia. The park was popular for many generations, but has fallen into disrepair. The funding for this park will be used to update historical features and provide significant enhancements, including trails, a stone covered amphitheater, shade structures, restrooms, new playground and pickleball court. The impact of this request will be increased physical activity and improved health in Northern Pittsylvania County, as well as improved social capital, as the community once again embraces this revered landmark. In addition, the park’s location near and connection to the new industrial park may spur economic development by making the area more attractive to new businesses and demonstrating the community’s dedication to quality of life for its residents. III. BUDGET Funds will be used for equipment, supplies and installation costs associated with the Wayside Park project outlined in the proposal and budget (see Attachment 1 – Proposal and Budget). IV. PAYMENT SCHEDULE Two annual payments will be made in the amount of $153,270. The first payment will be paid upon full execution of this grant agreement and the second on July 1, 2020. V. REQUIREMENTS The grantee is required to meet all conditions and special provisions laid forth in this agreement, and carry out the construction of Wayside Park as outlined in the proposal. In addition to successful completion of the park, Pittsylvania Parks and Recreation Department will provide an update and report on June 1, 2020 prior to the release of the second and final payment. This grant is contingent upon Pittsylvania County contributing $150,000 as outlined in the proposal. If the County does not meet this requirement, DRF has the authority to cancel this grant and the County will reimburse DRF for any spent funds. Communications & Media Guidelines 12.b.a Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Wayside Park_Grant Agreement (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 3 DRF requires that all materials referencing DRF and/or including our logo (i.e. press releases, website additions or event/location signage) be reviewed by your DRF Program Officer for approval before release, printing or publication. We also require that grant announcements are not made until both parties have signed and executed the full grant agreement. We require at least 48 hours advance to review all materials prior to a scheduled media announcement or deadline. Approval will be provided within two business days. VI. SPECIAL PROVISIONS All grants are made in accordance with current and applicable laws and the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and its regulations. Expenditure of Funds: Funds shall be expended in accordance with the budget contained within this agreement. Expenses charged against this grant shall not be incurred prior to the date on which the grant period begins or after its termination date and shall be incurred only to carry out the approved program described herein. All line items may be changed by up to 20 percent without written Foundation approval as long as the budget total does not change. Line items may not be added or deleted without written approval from the Foundation. Grant funds may not be used for lobbying, which for this purpose includes any attempt to influence specific legislation by affecting public opinion, or communicating with any member or employee of a legislative body, other than by making available the results of nonpartisan study, analysis or research. Record Keeping: The Grantee shall maintain records consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to account for the funds received under this grant and to identify how the funds have been expended. The Grantee shall maintain its records of grant expenditures for at least seven years after completion or termination of the grant. The Grantee shall make its records of grant expenditures available to the Foundation at reasonable times and upon request. 12.b.a Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Wayside Park_Grant Agreement (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 4 Reversion of Grant Funds: The Grantee shall return unexpended and uncommitted funds at the close of the grant period, unless other written arrangements are made with the Foundation. Notification: The Grantee shall notify the Foundation of any lawsuit, or any proceeding before any federal, state, or local administrative agency that may impact this initiative. Indemnification: The Grantee will protect and hold harmless the Foundation from and against all claims, suits, and actions arising from negligent acts or omissions, which may occur in the Grantee’s performance of the terms of this Agreement to the extent allowable by law. Termination of Agreement: Either party in writing may terminate this agreement for cause at any time by providing 30 day written notice to the other party via registered mail using the address contained herein. Upon termination the Grantee shall promptly repay all unexpended and uncommitted grant funds, providing the Foundation with appropriate accounting records to support the process. Waiver: The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of future compliance or a waiver of any provisions herein. Construction of Agreement: The laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall govern this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements and contains the entire Agreement of the Parties. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified in any manner other than by an amendment in writing signed by all parties to this Agreement. The Coalition understands that to become effective this agreement must be signed and received by the Foundation no later than July 30, 2019. Should the Foundation not receive the signed Agreement by this date, the Agreement shall become null and void and neither Party to the Agreement will be responsible for any of the elements contained within it. 12.b.a Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Wayside Park_Grant Agreement (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 5 DANVILLE REGIONAL FOUNDATION By:_____________________________________ Karl N. Stauber President & CEO Date: __________________________________ PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY By: ____________________________________ David Smitherman County Administrator Date:___________________________________ 12.b.a Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Wayside Park_Grant Agreement (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 12.b.b Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: JTMM Grant Agreement Wayside Park (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 12.b.b Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: JTMM Grant Agreement Wayside Park (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 12.b.b Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: JTMM Grant Agreement Wayside Park (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 12.b.b Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: JTMM Grant Agreement Wayside Park (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) 12.b.b Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: JTMM Grant Agreement Wayside Park (1678 : Wayside Park Grant Agreements Approval (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore)) Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: WIA Year-End Grant Appropriations (Staff Contact: Kimberly G. Van Der Hyde) Staff Contact(s): Kimberly G. Van Der Hyde Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 12.c Attachment(s): Reviewed By: SUMMARY: During the budget process, the Workforce Investment Board, “WIB” estimates the amount of grant funding that will be available for the upcoming budget year. At year-end, all accounts are reviewed to ensure that sufficient funds exist to cover expenditures for the year and that all grant funds have been properly appropriated. The WIA fund has been reviewed and it has been determined that three (3) departments within the WIA fund require additional appropriation in 2019 to cover outstanding expenditures that have not been previously appropriated. The following grants need to appropriated to the WIA fund as of June 30, 2019: Youth: Out of School $441,911.56 Youth: In School $ 31,152.61 Pathways 2019 Grant $ 95,018.48 TOTAL $568,082.65 FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: Pittsylvania County only serves as the fiscal agent of the WIB and therefore, no local monies are required to fund these programs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the grant appropriations as listed above in the total amount of $568,082.65, requiring no local match. MOTION: “I make a Motion to appropriate a total of $568,082.65 to the WIA fund as outlined above.” 12.c Packet Pg. 527 Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION ITEM Agenda Title: Strategic Plan Approval (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman) Staff Contact(s): David M. Smitherman Agenda Date: July 16, 2019 Item Number: 14.a Attachment(s): Pitts Co BOS Strategic Plan final Reviewed By: SUMMARY: The Board worked with Dr. Joey Faucette to develop a Strategic Plan. Faucette has submitted the completed Plan so County Staff may begin efforts to implement it with the Board’s participation. FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE: None. RECOMMENDATION: County Staff recommends the Board approving the Strategic Plan as presented in the attachment. MOTION: “I make a Motion to approve the Strategic Plan as presented in the attachment.” 14.a Packet Pg. 528 Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Strategic Plan Objectives-Action Plan 1. Economic Development a. Clearly define ED metrics for excellence and focus efforts there, e.g., type and quality of jobs, multiplier effect, environmental impact. Educate BOS and RIFAs better. 2019 – Community ED Strategy Report (Spring-May) Adopt incentive matrix by RIFA’s/City of Danville b. Examine workforce development re. “next big thing” (prompt DCC/PCS partnership). 2019 – ED meet with schools to determine workforce needs (completing of ED study will shed light on these needs) Expand partners to determine the “next big thing” i. Grant for internships, professional development, and mentorships 2020 ii. Increase the number and percentage of bachelor’s degrees and specialized certificates among County citizens 2021 (TFN) c. Assess, develop strategy, and then address infrastructure needs. Build a better relationship with PCSA re. ED 2019 – Joint meeting with BOS, PCSA, IDA, and Planning Commission to establish more collaborative partnerships Status update of infrastructure in the County for ED with a report being presented to group listed above d. Evaluate and build sports parks and facility: i. 2019 – Complete Regional Study with Danville and evaluate results ii. 2021 – Based on evaluation of results, begin implementation or re-strategize and update Recreation Master Plan -Seek Public/Private Partnerships with churches and colleges/universities (e.g., Liberty and Thomas Road Baptist Church) who may be 14.a.a Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Pitts Co BOS Strategic Plan final (1671 : Strategic Plan Approval (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman)) interested in helping to create a sports complex in the area iii. 2029 – Project completed e. Evaluate current state of tourism efforts, strategize, and address specifically: i. 2019 – Effectiveness of Chamber of Commerce tourism contribution. ii. Marketing of Pittsylvania County as tourist destination (I did not have a year on this one) iii. 2021 – Assess, capture, and include in Recreation Master Plan all-natural environment assets, e.g., river and bike trails. Update recreation Master Plan Develop strategies to identify events that put us on the map-bike trails, Sparta races, kayaking, canoeing, etc. 14.a.a Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Pitts Co BOS Strategic Plan final (1671 : Strategic Plan Approval (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman)) 2. Financial Stability a. Define metrics, accountabilities, and funding priorities for financial stability in 2029, 2024, with projections between, and include audits and guidelines. 2019 – Establish funding priorities before budget process (January/February) -Establish guidelines for a funding strategy to establish a CIP Reserve Fund. (Consider review of debt service payments annually and as debt is paid off, the difference in this reduction could be rolled into a CIP reserve fund) -Update FMA (Financial Management & Accounting Policy)(January/February) and adopt changes to policy in February (maybe include COLA guidelines) -Identify refunding opportunities -Create timeline for debt needs and use of debt thru 2024 -Adopt CIP based on the current debt capacity -Identify Long-term CIP-funded by debt -Identify Annual CIP-funded by annual appropriation -Identify Schools CIP Enhanced request thru 2029- Joint meeting with BOS and School Bd (Staffs meet 1st Quarter 2019 and joint meeting with Board 3rd Quarter 2019 -Review and establish fund balance reserve requirements b. Develop a better strategy for getting and implementing funding from state and national sources. 2019 – Create Legislative priorities and adopt priorities by October 2019 for 2020. 2020 – Affirmation of support for the pay plan and evaluation System -Review employee benefits 2021 – Hire and fund a lobbyist -Establish target goals for fund balance amounts for each year 2024 – Review and re-establish fund balance priorities 2029 – Review and re-establish fund balance priorities 14.a.a Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Pitts Co BOS Strategic Plan final (1671 : Strategic Plan Approval (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman)) 3. Strategically partner with education providers that include and aren’t limited to PCS, DCC, Averett University, IALR, Haas Center, and Liberty University a. Provide infrastructure support for education that includes broadband/internet provision for all households. 2019 – Identify partners and work with them to develop (write) a plan and access funds set aside by the governor 2021 – Establish broadband authority commission and consider establishing an entity to own the plan 2024 – Provide broadband availability to 90% of the County citizens b. Prioritize educational opportunities more by promoting partnerships. Begin and/or strengthen relationship immediately. 2019 – Develop a plan to meet with each of the colleges with PCS and hold a stakeholder kick-off meeting 2021 – Identify areas to collaborate together 2024 – Put in place areas that have been previously established c. Review School assets/staff to teach adults evenings and in the summer, e.g., Career and Technical Center 14.a.a Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Pitts Co BOS Strategic Plan final (1671 : Strategic Plan Approval (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman)) 4. Increase and improve citizen engagement a. Re-examine the appointed Boards process to raise the level of excellence through professional development. 2019 – Quarter 1 (CY) -Develop a calendar of Boards to make presentations to the BOS -Quarter 3 (CY) -Begin presentations -Require a formal application for all appointed boards -Set a preferred threshold for board service based on certain qualifications that factor in the duties and responsibilities for these boards -Review term limits for Board appointees so that BOS can determine who they would like to appoint since many board appointees are inherited as new BOS members are elected 2021 – Require annual professional development for Board members and provide/identify funding for this training b. Develop strategy for reaching those who want to be engaged using best media. 2019 – Evaluate the need for a Public Information Officer and identify funding for the position including college interns TBD – Hire as soon as funding is secured c. Develop strategy for and create Citizens Academy. 2021 – Develop strategy and develop curriculum of Citizens Academy 2024 – Create Citizens Academy d. Engage PCS government and other social science classes to include mentoring, shadowing, and internships. 2019 - Utilize Youth Commission to give ideas to strategize -Build mentor relationships between the School Board’s high school liaisons and the county’s Youth Commission 2021 – Begin the program 2024 – Full implementation 14.a.a Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Pitts Co BOS Strategic Plan final (1671 : Strategic Plan Approval (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman))