09-17-209 Work Session Packet
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WORK SESSION
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 – 4:30 PM
Main Conference Room
County Administration Building, 1 Center Street
Chatham, Virginia 24531
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER (4:30 PM)
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
For the citizens’ convenience, all Work Session and Committee Meetings are now being
recorded and can be viewed on the same YouTube location as the Board of Supervisor’s
Business Meetings. Please remember that the Board’s Work Session is designed for
internal Board and County Staff communication, discussion, and work. It is not a
question and answer session with the audience. Accordingly, during the Work Session,
no questions or comments from the audience will be entertained. Respectfully, any
outbursts or disorderly conduct from the audience will not be tolerated and may result in
the offending person’s removal from the Work Session. As a reminder, all County
citizens, and other appropriate parties as designated by the Board’s Bylaws, are permitted
to make comments under the Hearing of the Citizens’ Section of tonight’s Business
Meeting.
5. PRESENTATIONS
a. Old Calland's Post Office Restoration Presentation (Contact: Supervisor Farmer);
(Presenter: Mr. Aaron); (10 minutes)
6. STAFF, COMMITTEE, AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER REPORTS
a. Welcome Signs Update (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore); (10 minutes)
b. Discussion of Board's Recognition Policy (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster); (10
minutes)
c. Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams Rehabilitation Update (Staff Contact: Richard
N. Hicks); (10 minutes)
Work Session - September 17, 2019
d. Potential Amendment to PCC § 6-3.1 Update (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.);
(10 minutes)
e. Economic Development Committee Recommendations (Staff Contact: David M.
Smitherman); (10 minutes)
f. Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock);
(10 minutes)
7. BUSINESS MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS
8. CLOSED SESSION
a. 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: David M. Smitherman)
(1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(5)
Subject Matter: Projects AF, Uniform, and 500
Purpose: Discussion of Prospective Businesses/
Economic Development Updates
9. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION & CLOSED SESSION CERTIFICATION
a. Closed Session Certification (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.)
10. ADJOURNMENT
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Old Calland's Post Office Restoration Presentation (Contact: Supervisor
Farmer); (Presenter: Mr. Aaron); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Supervisor Farmer
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 5.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
Mr. Aaron will give the Board a presentation on his Old Calland's Post Office Restoration.
5.a
Packet Pg. 3
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Welcome Signs Update (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Mark W. Moore
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 6.a
Attachment(s): Welcome Sign PowerPoint
PC Sponsor Agreement Welcome Signs
Reviewed By:
Mark W. Moore, Director of Parks and Recreation, will brief the Board on the County’s
Welcome Sign Program.
6.a
Packet Pg. 4
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Welcome Sign Sponsorship Program
6.a.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Welcome Sign PowerPoint (1738 : Welcome Sign Program Update (Staff
12 Welcome Signs located on major and minor arteries
entering Pittsylvania County including Routes 29, 58, 40,
57 & 360
4 locations under contract, 8 sign sponsorships available
Sponsorship renews annually for 5 years
Sign specs per VDOT include:
SIZE: 6 feet wide by 20 inches tall
SIGN MATERIAL: High-density sign foam
INSTALLATION: Mounted on two-6X6 posts with two-2X4
cross-members to hold sign (See top picture)
Landscaping designed & installed by Heath Landscaping
SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
6.a.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Welcome Sign PowerPoint (1738 : Welcome Sign Program Update (Staff
SPONSORS UNDER CONTRACT INCLUDE:
-BLAIR CONSTRUCTION
-CENTRA HEALTH
-FARM BUREAU
-MOUNTAIN VIEW FARMS
6.a.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Welcome Sign PowerPoint (1738 : Welcome Sign Program Update (Staff
WELCOME SIGN
LOCATIONS, COSTS & AVAILABILITY
Tier 1 Locations
US 29 Corridor -$5,000 per site annually
o US 29 South (PC/Campbell Co. line) –BLAIR CONSTRUCTION
o US 29 South/58 West (Near Danville Interchange) –AVAILABLE
o US 29 North/265 Bypass North (360 exit) –CENTRA
Tier 2 Locations
Other Major Highways -$4,000 per site annually
o US 58 West (PC/Halifax Co. line) –AVAILABLE
o US 58 West (Near Westover Drive) –AVAILABLE o US 58 East (PC/Henry Co. line) –AVAILABLE
Tier 3 Locations
Secondary Roads -$2,000 per site annually
o US 40 East (PC/Franklin Co. line) –FARM BUREAU
o US 40 West (PC/Halifax Co. line) –AVAILABLE
o US 57 East (PC/Henry Co. line) –MOUNTAIN VIEW FARMS
o US 57 West (PC/Halifax Co. line) –AVAILABLE
o US 62 North (VA/NC state line) –AVAILABLE
o 360 West (PC/Halifax Co. line) –AVAILABLE
6.a.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Welcome Sign PowerPoint (1738 : Welcome Sign Program Update (Staff
Agreement to Sponsor
Maintenance/Landscaping of
Pittsylvania County Welcome Signs
Welcome Sign Locations:
Tier 1 Locations
US 29 Corridor - $5,000 per site annually
o US 29 South (PC/Campbell Co. line)
o US 29 South/58 West (Near Danville Interchange)
o US 29 North/265 Bypass North (360 exit)
Tier 2 Locations
Other Major Highways - $4,000 per site annually
o US 58 West (PC/Halifax Co. line)
o US 58 West (Near Westover Drive)
o US 58 East (PC/Henry Co. line)
Tier 3 Locations
Secondary Roads - $2,000 per site annually
o US 40 East (PC/Franklin Co. line)
o US 40 West (PC/Halifax Co. line)
o US 57 East (PC/Henry Co. line)
o US 57 West (PC/Halifax Co. line)
o US 62 North (VA/NC state line)
o 360 West (PC/Halifax Co. line)
Company/Organization Information:
Representative’s Name
Company/Organization
Address
City State ZIP Phone
We wish to contribute to the maintenance and landscaping of the Pittsylvania County Welcome Sign located at
____________________________________________. We agree to donate $___________ per year to Pittsylvania
County for five (5) years. The first annual donation is due at the signing of this document. Subsequent donations are due
by January 15 for the next four (4) years. A sign will be erected on-site bearing the sponsor’s name.
Agreement to Sponsor Maintenance and Landscaping of Pittsylvania County Welcome Sign(s)
This agreement is renewable at the discretion of both parties. This agreement may be cancelled by either party
with 30 days written notice.
If, for any reason, the sponsor sign must be removed the sponsor will receive a refund, prorated for the time
remaining under the current annual payment.
Accepted By:
______________________________________________________ ________________
SPONSOR DATE
Approved By:
______________________________________________________ ________________
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE
6.a.b
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: PC Sponsor Agreement Welcome Signs (1738 : Welcome Sign Program Update (Staff Contact: Mark W. Moore); (10 minutes))
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Discussion of Board's Recognition Policy (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M.
McCluster); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Kaylyn M. McCluster
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 6.b
Attachment(s):
Recognitions Policy - Redlined
Resolution #2019-08-07 Chatham High School Baseball
Certificate Sample
Proclamation - National Dairy Month
Reviewed By:
County Staff proposes revising the County’s current Recognition Policy (enclosed). Mrs.
McCluster will brief the Board on said proposed changes.
6.b
Packet Pg. 10
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY ON RECOGNITIONS
Adopted: 01-19-2016
CERTIFICATES
(to be mailed with
cover letter-
noand/or formal
presentation)
RESOLUTIONS
(Formal
presentation at
BOS Meeting)
Plaques and/or
Jefferson Cups
(Formal
presentation at
BOS Meeting)
County Staff
Recognitions
Proclamations
(may be
presented at
BOS Meeting
if requested)
Eagle Scouts & Girl
Scout Gold Awards
and other local,
regional, or
statewide
distinctions or
designations,
including
community service
achievements/awards
Upon the death or
retirement of
prominent
members of the
community, with
25 or more years’
service to the
community
Upon retirement
or end of term for
members of the
Board of
Supervisors
At discretion of
County
Administrator’s
Office (flowers
for deaths,
annual awards,
recognitions,
anniversaries,
retirements,
birthdays of
staff
Proclamations
will be created
upon request, or
when deemed
appropriate by
the County
Administrator’s
Office.
Individual or teams
receiving first place
in a local, or
regional, or
statewide event,
competition, or
championship
Individuals or
teams receiving
first place in a
statewide or
national event,
competition, or
championship
Other individual
or groups to be
determined by
the BOS on a
case-by-case
basis
*Upon request
for a
Proclamation,
information
must be
provided to
County Staff. If
information is
not received in a
timely manner,
the
Proclamation
may be pushed
back to the next
month’s
Agenda.
Anniversaries (50th,
75th)
Significant
anniversaries of
organizations,
businesses,
churches (25-year
increments)
Upon, retirement
or end of term for
constitutional
officers (Sheriff,
Clerk of Court,
Commissioner of
the Revenue,
Treasurer,
Commonwealth’s
Attorney
Anniversaries of
Pastors with
Churches (25th or
more, in five-year
increments)
Upon death,
retirement or end
of term for
constitutional
officers (Sheriff,
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Recognitions Policy - Redlined (1757 : Discussion of Board's Recognition Policy (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster); (10
Clerk of Court,
Commissioner of
the Revenue,
Treasurer,
Commonwealth’s
Attorney
Birthdays (100 years
or older)
*Upon request for
a Resolution,
information must
be provided to
County Staff. If
information is not
received in a
timely manner, the
Resolution may be
pushed back to the
next month’s
Agenda.
Significant
anniversaries of
organizations,
businesses, churches
(25-year increments)
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Recognitions Policy - Redlined (1757 : Discussion of Board's Recognition Policy (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster); (10
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION
2019-08-07
CHATHAM HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL
VIRGINIA: At the Business Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors held on August 20, 2019, in the
General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition,the following Resolution was presented and adopted:
WHEREAS, the Chatham High School Cavalier Baseball Team won the 2019 VHSL 2A State Championship in
dominant fashion by breaking the state record for runs scored in a championship contest; and
WHEREAS,the Cavaliers pounded the Lebanon Pioneers 23 to 5 to capture their third state baseball title; and
WHEREAS,the Cavaliers achieved this record-breaking feat of 23 runs off of 22 hits,as the Cavalier sluggers managed
to reach base a total of 39 times; and
WHEREAS, leadoff hitter, Graham Dalton,was 2 for 4 and scored three runs. Second-place hitter,Grayson Reed went
4 for 6 with 3 RBI(s) and scored three times. Third place hitter, Matt Arnold, was 4 for 6 with 4 RBI(s). Cleanup hitter and
VHSL record—setting RBI leader Brae Adkins, went 3 for 6 with 3 RBI(s). Fifth place hitter, Andrew Potojecki, reached base
in all six plate appearances with one hit, five walks, and he scored twice. Sixth place hitter, Hunter Adkins, was 2 for 4 with 4
RBI(s) and two runs scored. Contributing in the seventh spot was designated hitters, Luke Martin and Christian Lancaster.
Eighth place hitter Jacob Miller, went 2 for 5 with 2 RBI(s) and scored twice. Ninth place batter, Grant Reynolds, was 4 for 5
with 3 RBI(s)and scored five times; and
WHEREAS, Andrew Potojecki was the championship game's winning pitcher striking out eight in six innings. He
gave up four unearned runs on three hits. Leading up to the championship game, Andrew pitched a shutout in the State
Quarterfinals,and he also closed the State Semi-final game to secure the Cavalier's spot in the championship; and
WHEREAS, several players were awarded with accomplishments: 2nd Team All-Dogwood District and 2"d Team All-
Region was awarded to Grant Reynolds; 1st team All-Dogwood District was awarded to Graham Dalton, Brae Adkins, Matt
Arnold, Luke Martin, and Andrew Potojecki; Andrew Potojecki was also the district Pitcher of the Year; 1St Team All-Region
was awarded to Brae Adkins,Graham Dalton,Matt Arnold, Luke Martin,and Andrew Potojecki; Andrew Potojecki was also the
Region Player ofthe Year; and
WHEREAS, four Cavaliers were selected to the VHSL 1"team All-State team, and one was named to the second team.
First team selections were Brae Adkins at first base, Graham Dalton at second base, Matthew Arnold at third base, and Andrew
Potojecki was selected as both an outfielder and as a pitcher. Luke Martin was selected to the second team All-State as the
designated hitter. Andrew Potojecki was named the VHSL 2A State Player of the Year, the Dogwood District Pitcher of the
Year,and the Region 2C Player of the year(for the second straight year). Head Coach Chad Anderson collected his second state
championship as the Cavalier head coach and his second award as the VHSL 2A State Coach of the Year;
and
WHEREAS, Samuel"Brae"Adkins set a new Single-Season RBI Record with 61 on the year. The previous record was
52. Brae was also named 1" Team all Dogwood District, 1" team All Region, and 1St Team All-State in this record-breaking
season;then
BE IT RESOLVED,that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors does hereby express its deepest congratulations
and admiration to the Chatham High School Baseball Team for its 2019 State Championship win.
Given under my hand this 20th day of August,2019.
jOe145
Davis,Chairman
i Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
6.b.b
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Resolution #2019-08-07 Chatham High School Baseball (1757 : Discussion of Board's Recognition Policy (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M.
Aiontqwillva7Th•rr . 40;-**„. el r4ion r 1,,yfyrrt,,:.94ry Kl.! Af!fy ! X 'ryYvMYV A 'i rRn Af4%Wrb C Y5Y ___,.._, :,tg. s. iiiir r r
i..ifil:a . t. Z ID1:il: Z 2 40.‘
i1/4
x
I 4/sr\
VCAt1'1
M
4
V
e
4:./.
NI
emi
1v
tii-...i.;L1Z. J
11-i...""iti. — -..-;
I
rt
tilt tnt
4,141b
Palt
Iii 0-0
i -4C: 75. -(:'
C ill
4,- - ..(,::
v O
tfl
PM*
PIMP'
cy
41
rr
L.40 01414
11141441
r'.
i lt, .Z
fir4,;-_, ,,,,r,-...,
A..
3 , I
itL/
C 1. uSRXd1Y{ i ...iiiiw 41.YA'iaY.iiYf ,hWifi k/n\,ISR 2deYr7iT;ib29P7Phifp}"j M7,fR R,fM1nl sir... -. 4ir .Ri;fuhY Sf 4i.,
F ( Y k/
C1610
Y YE4.i,
f
i.:,,H,,, ! \
1
n A n.
v /
lif:,
Y 1 !Y S- ..of /
l.._:
Yrs V V I'k.!0-4--- ! Si11r sr. ,iil.. r 7r1 ' 00';FAA0::!-...C^^^^'t '"=V'®,
1 6.b.cPacket Pg. 14Attachment: Certificate Sample (1757 : Discussion of Board's Recognition Policy (Staff Contact: Kaylyn
I?lf,: s
ZVilA Ii \\
7
i' z n
F
i i j
1--3H eo
th
o
CZ
VA
ovio
omit
f rtC
tl
C
4
nto
c7..CA b
I 7''W
v
ri
ntv di....
4 ,x oft,. ,r
o it M
H rifts
O r 411111)
r,
f.,E CA
0,,t*". 1E.
li ro a
t
ki
9
41111.16." • i 6.b.cPacket Pg. 15Attachment: Certificate Sample (1757 : Discussion of Board's Recognition Policy (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M.
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PROCLAMATION
NATIONAL DAIRY MONTH
JUNE 2019
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services informs that
the Virginia dairy industry has contributed to the development of the State's economy and the
well-being of its citizens since dairy cows arrived in Jamestown in 1611, and more than 400
years later, Virginia's dairy industry consistently ranks near the top, when compared to the
State's other principle crops, livestock and livestock products; and
WHEREAS, Virginia is twenty-fourth (24th) in milk production and twenty-third (23rd)
in number of dairy cows in the Unites States; and
WHEREAS, Pittsylvania County, Virginia (the "County"), was listed as one of the top
milk producing Counties in 2017, with 158 million pounds of milk produced; and
WHEREAS, Virginia is home to approximately 87,000 milk cows, and each Virginia dairy
cow provides an average of2,320 gallons of milk per year; and
WHEREAS, the dairy industry is a major County industry and makes a significant
contribution to the County's economy; and
WHEREAS, real milk and dairy foods are superior to their imitations in quality, value, and
taste; and
WHEREAS, besides the great taste, dairy products are nutrient-dense, providing 72% of
the calcium available in the American diet, along with nine (9) essential vitamins and minerals,
including potassium, riboflavin, phosphorus, vitamins A, D, and B-12, as well as protein, and
studies indicate that eating three (3) to four (4) servings of dairy per day could help lower the
risk of high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and some forms of cancer, as well as assist with weight
management, supporting the catch phrase, "Milk-it does a body good!"; and
WHEREAS,the 83rd celebration of June Dairy Month, highlighting the dairy industry, will
occur during June 2019; then
NOW, THEREFORE, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors does hereby
proclaim June 2019 as National Dairy Month throughout the County.
Given under my hand this 14th day of M, , 2019.
7 . M erV*j-/,
ywr Joe B. Davis, Chairman
fit.-,.+4. r_ Pi oat oardi f Supervisors
4 4,41111r
4.
f. •f• d M. mith an
Pittsylvania County Administrator
liP
6.b.d
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Proclamation - National Dairy Month (1757 : Discussion of Board's Recognition Policy (Staff Contact: Kaylyn M. McCluster); (10
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams Rehabilitation Update (Staff
Contact: Richard N. Hicks); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 6.c
Attachment(s):
Final_EA_-
_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-
_dated_8-20-19 (1)
Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-
_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6)
Dam Project Updates September 2019
Reviewed By:
For the past several months County Staff, the Town of Chatham, and the Pittsylvania Soil and
Water Conservation District have been meeting with Federal and State Officials on the
Supplemental Watershed Plans for the Cherrystone and the Roaring Fork Lake Dams.
Amendments were sought in the Agreements to clarify that approval of the Plans did not
mandate future funding by the Plan Sponsors. County Staff is satisfied with the Final Plans and
will provide the Board with an update and recommended action steps.
6.c
Packet Pg. 17
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 August 2019
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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 _______ 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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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,
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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;
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
xi
24. Term. The term of this agreement is for 50 years after construction is completed and does not commit the Sponsors to assistance of any kind to NRCS beyond the end of the agreement.
25. Sponsors’ Assistance. This agreement is not a fund-obligating document. Financial and
other assistance to be furnished by the Sponsors in carrying out the rehabilitation plan is contingent upon the fulfillment of applicable laws and regulations and the availability of appropriations for this purpose.
26. 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: ______________________________
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
xvi
APPENDICES Appendix A: Comments and Responses Appendix B: Project Map Appendix C: Support Maps
Appendix D: Investigation and Analyses Report
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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 ___
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
xxiv
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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,
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
26
Table E - Indicators and Groups from EPA’s Environmental Justice Tool
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
27
Figure 1. Area evaluated for environmental justice effects.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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,
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
72
This page intentionally left blank.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
APPENDIX A LETTERS OF COMMENT AND NRCS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN – EA
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-1
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-2
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-3
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-4
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-5
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-6
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-7
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-8
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-9
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-10
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-11
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-12
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-13
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-14
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-15
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-16
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-17
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-18
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-19
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-20
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-21
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-22
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-23
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-24
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-25
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-26
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-27
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-28
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-29
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
A-30
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
APPENDIX B PROJECT MAP
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
B-1
Figure B-1. General Watershed Location Map.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
This page intentionally left blank
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
APPENDIX C SUPPORT MAPS
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-1
Figure C-1. Roaring Fork Lake Watershed Land Use Map.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-2
Figure C-2. Roaring Fork Lake Watershed Soils Map.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-3
Figure C-3. Roaring Fork Lake Watershed Prime Farmland Map.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-4
Figure C-4. Roaring Fork Lake - Prime Farmland in the Construction Area.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-5
Figure C-5. Roaring Fork Lake Invasive Species Map.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-6
Figure C-6. Area of Potential Effect for Preferred Alternative (Aerial View).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-7
Figure C-7. Preferred Alternative - RCC Chute Spillway over top of dam.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-8
Figure C-8. Preferred Alternative - Auxiliary Spillway Profile.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-9
Figure C-9. Alternative 2 – Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir Over the Dam.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-10
Figure C-10. Sunny Day Breach Inundation Map.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-11
Figure C-11. Cherrystone Creek Special Flood Hazard Areas Map (Panel Index).
Cherrystone Creek 2A
Cherrystone Creek 1
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-12
Figure C-12. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 1 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-13
Figure C-13. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 2 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-14
igure C-14. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 3 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-15
Figure C-15. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 4 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-16
Figure C-16. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 5 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-17
Figure C-17. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 6 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-18
Figure C-18. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 7 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-19
Figure C-19. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 8 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-20
Figure C-20. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 9 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
C-21
Figure C-21. Cherrystone 2A Special Flood Hazard Areas (Panel 10 of 10).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-
APPENDIX D INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES REPORT
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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).
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Final_EA_-_Cherrystone_Creek_Dam_2A_with_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19 (1) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
August 2019
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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;
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
23. Term. The term of this agreement is for 50 years after construction is completed and does not commit the Sponsors to assistance of any kind to NRCS beyond the end of the agreement.
24. Sponsors’ Assistance. This agreement is not a fund-obligating document. Financial and
other assistance to be furnished by the Sponsors in carrying out the rehabilitation plan is
contingent upon the fulfillment of applicable laws and regulations and the availability of appropriations for this purpose.
25. 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
Administrative Secretary or Notary P.O. Box 370 Chatham, Virginia 24531 Date: ______________________________
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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: ______________________________
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
xii
Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture
Approved by:
___________________________________ Date: ______________________________
JOHN A. BRICKER
State Conservationist
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
xv
LIST OF FIGURES No. Description Page 1
2
Area Evaluated for Environmental Justice Effects……………………………...
Example of a Roller-Compacted Concrete Auxiliary Spillway………………...
36
52 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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
xvii
APPENDICES Appendix A: Comments and Responses Appendix B: Project Maps Appendix C: Support Maps
Appendix D: Investigation and Analyses Report
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
xviii
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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-
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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 ___
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
xxvi
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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*
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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*)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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*
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
36
Figure 1. Area evaluated for environmental justice effects.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
37
Table Q - Indicators and Groups from EPA’s Environmental Justice Tool
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
49
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, 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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
50
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.
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
51
(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 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.
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.
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
52
Figure 2. Example of a roller-compacted concrete auxiliary spillway.
Figure 3. Example of a 5-cycle labyrinth weir in an embankment.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
53
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
54
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
55
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
56
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
57
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).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
58
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
59
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
60
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).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
61
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).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
62
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
63
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
64
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
65
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
66
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
67
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
68
• 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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
69
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).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
70
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
71
• 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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
(This page intentionally left blank.)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
73
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
74
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
75
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).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
76
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
77
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).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
78
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
79
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
80
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)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
81
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
82
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
83
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
84
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
APPENDIX A LETTERS OF COMMENT AND NRCS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN – EA
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
(This page intentionally left blank)
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
APPENDIX B PROJECT MAPS
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
B-1
Figure B-1. General Watershed Location Map.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
B-2
Figure B-2. Cherrystone Lake Watershed Land Use Map.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
B-3
Figure B-3. Cherrystone Lake Dam No. 1 Watershed Soils Map.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
B-4
Figure B-4. Cherrystone Lake Dam - Soils of Statewide Importance.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
B-5
Figure B-5. Cherrystone Lake Invasive Species Map.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
B-6
Figure B-6. Area of Potential Effect for Preferred Alternative (Aerial View).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
APPENDIX C
SUPPORT MAPS
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-1
Figure C-1. Preferred Alternative - RCC Chute Auxiliary Spillway over Top of Dam.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
C-2
Figure C-2. Preferred Alterative - Details of Embankment, Toe Drain, and Culvert.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
C-3
Figure C-3. Alternative 2 – Reinforced Concrete Labyrinth Weir Over the Dam.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
C-4
Figure C-4. Sunny Day Breach Inundation Map.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
C-5
Figure C-5. Cherrystone 1 FEMA Flood Panel Index
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-6
Figure C-6. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 1 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-7
Figure C-7. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 2 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-8
Figure C-8. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 3 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-9
Figure C-9. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 4 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-10
Figure C-10. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 5 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-11
Figure C-11. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 6 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-12
Figure C-12. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 7 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-13
Figure C-13. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 8 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-14
Figure C-14. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 9 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-15
Figure C-15. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 10 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-16
Figure C-16. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 11 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-17
Figure C-17. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 12 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-18
Figure C-18. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 13 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
C-19
Figure C-19. Cherrystone 1 “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (Panel 14 of 14).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-
APPENDIX D
INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES REPORT
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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-
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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.
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
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).
6.c.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Cherrystone_Creek_1_Final_Plan-EA_-_Revised_Watershed_Agreement_-_dated_8-20-19_w_maps (6) (1767 : Cherrystone and
Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Work Session
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
4:30 p.m.
Update on Dam Rehabilitation Projects
Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 2 for Cherrystone Lake
Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 3 for Roaring Fork Lake
6.c.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Dam Project Updates September 2019 (1767 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork
6.c.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Dam Project Updates September 2019 (1767 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork
6.c.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Dam Project Updates September 2019 (1767 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork
Cherrystone Creek Watershed
Chronology of Activities
For August 27, 2019 Meeting in Chatham, VA
• Original Watershed Work Plan became effective July 22, 1965.
• Original Operation and Maintenance Agreement signed for both dams on October 30, 1967.
• Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 was built in 1968 with a construction cost of $176,208.
• Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A was built in 1969 with a construction cost of $96,952.
• Supplement No. 1 (Close-out) to the Work Plan became effective on May 24, 1976.
• Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 O&M Agreement revised on February 1, 2008 and remains in
effect until July 2, 2068.
• Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A O&M Agreement revised on February 1, 2008 and remains in
effect until September 16, 2069.
• Sponsors made application for federal assistance in September 2013.
• Federal funding grants awarded to Town of Chatham for $345,000 for each dam on August 13,
2014.
• Town of Chatham requested NRCS to assist with planning via Reimbursable Agreements that
were executed on October 16, 2014.
• NRCS engineering staff in West Virginia were secured to assist with the planning.
• A Scoping Meeting with agencies and organizations was held on June 9, 2016 in Chatham.
• The first Public Meeting was held on June 9, 2016 in Chatham.
• A Workshop Meeting with the Sponsors was held on March 10, 2017 in Chatham.
• A Workshop Meeting with the Sponsors was held on January 29, 2018 in Chatham.
• The second Public Meeting was held on February 15, 2018 in Chatham.
• The Draft Plan for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 was distributed for Interagency and Public
Review on May 29, 2018.
• A Workshop Meeting with the Sponsors was held on July 11, 2018 in Chatham.
• A Workgroup Meeting was held by teleconference on October 18, 2019.
• The Revised Draft Plan for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 was distributed for public review on
January 7, 2019.
• The third Public Meeting was held on January 10, 2019 in Chatham.
• The Draft Plan for Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 2A was distributed for Interagency and Public
Review on March 15, 2019.
• On February 13, 2019, NRCS sent the Cherrystone Creek Dam No. 1 Final Plan-EA to the
Sponsors for approval and signatures.
• On March 8, 2019, NRCS had a teleconference with the Sponsors and their attorneys about
some concerns related to the Watershed Agreement.
• On May 1, 2019, the Sponsors’ attorneys sent a letter to NRCS requesting some changes to the
Watershed Agreement.
• On May 9, 2019, NRCS requested OGC assistance through the NRCS National Office in
Washington, D.C.
6.c.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Dam Project Updates September 2019 (1767 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork
6.c.c
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Dam Project Updates September 2019 (1767 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork
6.c.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Dam Project Updates September 2019 (1767 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork
6.c.c
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Dam Project Updates September 2019 (1767 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork
Recommended Action Steps
●All proposed rehabilitation projects must meet current dam safety standards and must be approved by USDA Natural Resource Conservation Services in accordance with the 1967 Operation and Maintenance Agreement. (No simple rehabilitation to meet State requirements).
●County and Town staff to evaluate best possible use of $100,000 state grant.
●Board of Supervisors to approve the Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 2 for Cherrystone Lake and the Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 3 for the Roaring Fork Lake and authorize the
County Administrator to execute the documents.
●Project sponsors (Pittsylvania County, Town of Chatham and Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District) request federal funds for project design. Once funded, project sponsors will select engineering firm. Alternative options to be considered. 100% Federal funding (Federal
budget cycle October 1 –September 30). Funding approval could take 1-3 years.
●Project sponsors to request construction funds (65% Federal and 35% local) upon completion of design. Funding approval could take 1-3 years.
●Board of Supervisors, County Staff and Town of Chatham to seek multiple years of State
funding to assist with project costs.
6.c.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Dam Project Updates September 2019 (1767 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Potential Amendment to PCC § 6-3.1 Update (Staff Contact: J. Vaden
Hunt, Esq.); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 6.d
Attachment(s): Farm Exemption PCC Revision2019
Reviewed By:
J. Vaden Hunt, Esq., County Attorney, will update the Board on the attached potential
amendment to Pittsylvania County Code § 6-3.1, Local County Tax Exemption.
6.d
Packet Pg. 382
Page 1 of 2
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY CODE
SEC. 6-3.1. LOCAL COUNTY TAX EXEMPTION.
A. Effective December 1, 1981 and thereafter, artificial or propane gas, firewood, coal, or heating
oil used for domestic consumption is hereby exempt from the one percent (1 %) local sales and
use tax pursuant to Sections 58-441.6 (g, l) and 58-441-49.3, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
For the purpose of this ordinance domestic consumption shall mean the use of artificial or propane
gas, firewood, coal, or heating oil by an individual purchaser for other than business, commercial,
or industrial use as defined by the State Office of Taxation. This amendment is to take effect
December 1, 1981, and thereafter until changed by a duly authorized Ordinance.
B. The below list of items be exempt from local personal property taxation:
(1) Hhorses, mules, and other kindred animals.
(2) Ccattle.
(3) Ssheep and goats.
(4) Hhogs.
(5) Ppoultry.
(6) all farm machinery and farm implements. Grains and other feeds used for the nurture
of farm animals.
(7) Grain; tobacco wine produced by farm wineries as defined in § 4.1-100, Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, and other agricultural products, as defined in § 3.2-6400 of the Code
of Virginia, 1950 as amended, in the hands of a producer.
(8) Farm machinery other than the farm machinery described in subdivision 10, and farm
implements, which shall include (i) equipment and machinery used by farm wineries as defined in
§ 4.1-100 in the production of wine; (ii) equipment and machinery used by a nursery as defined in
§ 3.2-3800 for the production of horticultural products; and (iii) any farm tractor as defined in
§ 46.2-100, regardless of whether such farm tractor is used exclusively for agricultural purposes.
(9) Equipment used by farmers or farm cooperatives qualifying under § 521 of the Internal
Revenue Code to manufacture industrial ethanol, provided that the materials from which the
ethanol is derived consist primarily of farm products.
(10) Farm machinery designed solely for the planting, production, or harvesting of a single
product or commodity.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to the tax years beginning on and after January 1,
1977.
C. Household Goods Exempt from Taxation
6.d.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Farm Exemption PCC Revision2019 (1758 : Potential Amendment to PCC § 6-3.1 Update (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.); (10
Page 2 of 2
All household goods and personal effects as defined in § 58.1-3504, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, are hereby exempt from taxation, beginning on and after January 1, 2014.
1. Notwithstanding any provision of § 58.1-3503, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,
household goods and personal effects are hereby defined as separate items of taxation and
classified as follows:
A. Bicycles.
B. Household and kitchen furniture, including gold and silver plates, plated ware,
watches and clocks, sewing machines, refrigerators, automatic refrigerating machinery of any type,
vacuum cleaners and all other household machinery, books, firearms, and weapons of all kinds.
C. Pianos, organs, and all other musical instruments; phonographs, record players,
and records to be used therewith; and radio and television instruments and equipment.
D. Oil paintings, pictures, statuary, curios, articles of virtue, and works of art.
E. Diamonds, cameos or other precious stones and all precious metals used as
ornaments or jewelry.
F. Sporting and photographic equipment.
G. Clothing and objects of apparel.
H. Antique motor vehicles as defined in § 46.2-100, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, which may not be used for general transportation purposes.
I. All-terrain vehicles, mopeds, and off-road motorcycles as defined in § 46.2-100,
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
J. Electronic communications and processing devices and equipment, including but
not limited to cell phones and tablet and personal computers, including peripheral equipment such
as printers.
K. All other tangible personal property used by an individual or a family or
household incident to maintaining an abode. The classification above set forth shall apply only to
such property owned and used by an individual or by a family or household primarily incident to
maintaining an abode.
2. Notwithstanding any provision set forth above, household appliances in residential rental
property used by an individual or by a family or household incident to maintaining an abode shall
be deemed to be fixtures and shall be assessed as part of the real property in which they are located.
For purposes of this subsection, "household appliances" shall mean all major appliances
customarily used in a residential home and which are the property of the owner of the real estate,
including, without limitation, refrigerators, stoves, ranges, microwave ovens, dishwashers, trash
compactors, clothes dryers, garbage disposals, and air conditioning units.
6.d.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Farm Exemption PCC Revision2019 (1758 : Potential Amendment to PCC § 6-3.1 Update (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.); (10
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Economic Development Committee Recommendations (Staff Contact:
David M. Smitherman); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): David M. Smitherman
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 6.e
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
David M. Smitherman, County Administrator, will update the Board on Economic Development
Committee recommendations.
6.e
Packet Pg. 385
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor
Blackstock); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Supervisor Blackstock
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 6.f
Attachment(s): Concealed Weapon Fee Research
Reviewed By:
Supervisor Blackstock will lead discussion regarding the Concealed Weapon Permit Application
Fee. Related reference materials are attached for your review.
6.f
Packet Pg. 386
J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.
Subject: FW: Concealed Weapon Permit Fee Research
Importance: High
From:J.Vaden Hunt, Esq.<vaden.hunt@pittgov.org>
Sent:Thursday,August 29, 2019 9:48 AM
To: Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors<bos@pittgov.org>
Cc: Pittsylvania County Executive Team<PCET@pittgov.org>; Kaylyn McCluster<Kaylyn.McCluster@pittgov.org>; Brenda
0. Robertson<Brenda.Robertson@pittgov.org>
Subject:Concealed Weapon Permit Fee Research
Importance: High
Hon. PCBOS Members:
Recently, I was asked by Supervisor Blackstock to research how Pittsylvania County's concealed weapon
permit fee compares with our neighboring localities. This email provides my findings.
Virginia Code 18.2-308.03, included below, caps the total amount a locality can charge to process a concealed
weapon permit application at $50.00. Currently, Pittsylvania County charges $50.00 for said fee. Below please
the amount our neighboring localities charge for a concealed weapon permit fee:
City ofMartinsville: $50.00
Roanoke County: $50.00
City ofRoanoke:50.00
City ofLynchburg: $50.00
City ofDanville:50.00
Halifax County:50.00
Franklin County:50.00
Henry County: 35.00
Campbell County: $15.00
Bedford County:15.00
Mark Scearce, Clerk of Court, acknowledged that the Board of Supervisors has the authority to set the
concealed weapon permit fee, but does not recommend changing it from the current $50.00 amount for the
reasons stated in the below included email from Brenda O. Robertson, my Assistant.
Please contact me if you have any related questions. Thanks and have a great Labor Day Weekend. Take care.
Virginia Code 4 18.2-308.03. Fees for concealed handgun permits.
A. The clerk shall charge a fee of $10 for the processing of an application or issuing of a permit, including his costs
associated with the consultation with law-enforcement agencies. The local law-enforcement agency conducting the
background investigation may charge a fee not to exceed$35 to cover the cost of conducting an investigation pursuant to
this article. The $35 fee shall include any amount assessed by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation for providing
1
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
criminals
history record information,and the local law-enforcement agency shall forward the amount assessed by the U.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigation to the State Police with the fingerprints taken from any nonresident applicant.The State
Police may charge a fee not to exceed $5 to cover its costs associated with processing the application.The total amount
assessed for processing an application for a permit shall not exceed$50,with such fees to be paid in one sum to the person
who receives the application. Payment may be made by any method accepted by that court for payment of other fees or
penalties. No payment shall be required until the application is received by the court as a complete application.
B. No fee shall be charged for the issuance of such permit to a person who has retired from service (i) as a magistrate in
the Commonwealth; (ii)as a special agent with the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority or as a law-enforcement
officer with the Department of State Police, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, or a sheriff or police
department, bureau, or force of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, after completing 15 years of service or
after reaching age 55; (iii)as a law-enforcement officer with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, Secret Service Agency, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services,U.S.Customs and Border Protection,Department of State Diplomatic Security Service,U.S. Marshals
Service,or Naval Criminal Investigative Service,after completing 15 years of service or after reaching age 55; (iv)as a law-
enforcement officer with any police or sheriff's department within the United States, the District of Columbia, or any of
the territories of the United States, after completing 15 years of service; (v) as a law-enforcement officer with any
combination of the agencies listed in clauses (ii) through (iv), after completing 15 years of service; (vi) as a designated
boarding team member or boarding officer of the United States Coast Guard,after completing 15 years of service or after
reaching age 55; (vii) as a correctional officer as defined in §53.1-1, after completing 15 years of service; or (viii) as a
probation and parole officer authorized pursuant to § 53.1-143, after completing 15 years of service.
2013,cc. 135,559, 746; 2015,cc. 38, 730; 2017,c. 241.
Brenda Robertson Email to County Attorney (Wednesday,8/28/19; 8:58 AM):
Please be advised that I have spoken to Mark Scarce, regarding the above subject. He stated that he believes the
fee is broken down as follows: County get $35.00, $5.00 to Clerk, and $10.00 to the State. The BOS has the
right to reduce the fee, but he would oppose due to all that have to be done, and due to the fact that we issue so
many. We have to do a background checks by the Sheriff's office, I also goes through the Commonwealth
Attorney, then the Judge, then the Clerk have to issue. He Stated that it is good for five years, so look at it as
you are paying $10.00 per year.
Brenda O. Robertson
Legal Assistant
Pittsylvania County Attorney
00
Business Savvy. People Friendly.
PITTSYLYANIA
COUNTY,V1RGINIA
2
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.
From: Mark Scarce <mscarce@vacourts.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:41 AM
To: J.Vaden Hunt, Esq.
Subject: Re: Concealed permits
CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
Total Conceal Weapons permits by year,
2015 - 1380
2016- 1942
2017 - 1664
2018- 1809
2019- 1092 as of 9-2-19
From:J.Vaden Hunt, Esq.<vaden.hunt@pittgov.org>
Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 9:24 AM
To: Mark Scarce<mscarce@vacourts.gov>
Subject: Concealed permits
Approximately how many concealed permits does the County issue annually?Thanks.
J.Vaden Hunt, Esq., Pittsylvania County Attorney; Sent from my iPhone, please excuse typos; Warning:
The material transmitted herein may be confidential and subject to attorney/client privilege and/or
the attorney work product doctrine and is not intended for distribution beyond intended recipients.
1
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.
From: Brenda O. Robertson
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 10:29 AM
To: J.Vaden Hunt, Esq.
Subject: Concealed Premit
I spoke to Mark Scarce this morning to find that the concealed weapon process issuance are set by VA Code. Please
review his statement below:
1. The fee goes back to 26 years, he can't find it in writing. In 2014 the fee renewal was set at$50.00. According to
HF, the concealed permit was only good for two (2) years at$15.00 with no background check needed. Now the
fee is$50.00, for five(5) years and a background check is required.
2. All fund are going into the general funds. The Sheriffs Office does not receive any funds.
Mr. Scarce will be send us more information regarding this issue.
Thank you,
Brenda
Brenda O. Robertson
Legal Assistant
Pittsylvania County Attorney
P
Business Savvy. People Friendly
PITTSYLVANIA
COUNTY,VIRGINIA
Tel. (434) 432-7720 I Fax. (434) 432-1778
1 Center Street P.O. Box 426
Chatham, VA 24531
Brenda.Robertson@gittgov.ora
www.pittsylvaniacountyva.gov
THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS HERETO ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION. THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT BE
RELEASED UNDER THE VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL.This email and any attachments may contain confidential
personnel matters and/or protected legal information,communications protected by attorney/client privilege,items or information protected by the
attorney work product doctrine,information related to pending litigation or prepared in anticipation of litigation,and/or confidential settlement
negotiations. The receipt of such information or items by any unauthorized person does not constitute a waiver of those privileges. If you have
received this email or any attachments in error,please notify the sender immediately at(434)432-7720,and by reply email,and delete this email
and any attachments to it from your in-box,sent items,and deleted items. Thank you.
1
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Good Morning,
Not sure there is a clear answer to any of the questions,as the Clerk's Office is guided by the Code of
Virginia.
Staff that has been here for over 25 years indicates Concealed Handgun Permits have always been a$50
fee for first time application.The person had to appear before the judge to explain why they needed a
Concealed Handgun Permit.
The renewals were issued at$15 and good for TWO years.
Over the course of the years,entered background checks and the code sections that govern these
checks changed.
As far as we can find they changed to a five year period,and when the background checks were added
the cost went to$50 to renew.
Applications are submitted and staff receipts those in.The clock starts running and we have 45 days to
either get them issued and out to the applicant or denied if there is a legal issue(i.e. pending criminal
charges or convictions that would disallow the issuance). Application goes to the Sheriffs office for
background check; application moves to Commonwealth Attorney's office and a letter is attached to
approve or deny;application comes back to the Clerk's Office and is then sent to the Judges Staff for
review. Once the judge signs them they come back to the Clerk's Office where they are typed and
signed by the Clerk and issued to the applicant. Once issued my staff then has to scan in the signed
Orders of issuance and letters from the Commonwealth Attorney into the Supreme Court system.
This process takes a significant amount of time due to other duties of all the offices involved.
Not sure about the question of requirements and roll back?More requirements have been added in the
four years of my term.Adding that we make copies of the photo identification (i.e.drivers license)and
any course certifications. The application is scanned in by my staff and assigned a case number on the
day it is received.
Fees are set by the code of Virginia not to exceed the 50$.
Does the county make money?
If we had to pay the staff that handles the application process, I would say absolutely not for the time
involved that it takes for this process to work.That's my 2 cents worth at no extra cost!!
I would definitely not want to speak for other offices.
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Localities that I have discussed this with indicate that the$35 goes to the Sheriff's office or Police Dept.
for the background checks,so I would defer that question to someone who has access to all the
budgets.
I hope you all find this information helpful and if you have any questions of me please do not hesitate to
give me a call or stop on by.
I would like to take this opportunity to Thank You for your time and consideration given in this matter!
Mark W.Scarce,Clerk
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Page 1ofI
Code of Virginia
Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 7.Crimes Involving Health and.Safety
18.2-308.03. Fees for concealed handgun permits.
A.The clerk shall charge a fee of$10 for the processing of an application or issuing of a permit,
including his costs associated with the consultation with law-enforcement agencies.The local law-
enforcement agency conducting the background investigation may charge a fee not to exceed $35
to cover the cost of conducting an investigation pursuant to this article.The $35 fee shall include
any amount assessed by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation for providing criminal history
record information,and the local law-enforcement agency shall forward the amount assessed by
the U.S.Federal Bureau of Investigation to the State Police with the fingerprints taken from any
nonresident applicant.The State Police may charge a fee not to exceed $5 to cover its costs
associated with processing the application.The total amount assessed for processing an
application for a permit shall not exceed$50,with such fees to be paid in one sum to the person
who receives the application. Payment may be made by any method accepted by that court for
payment of other fees or penalties. No payment shall be required until the application is received
by the court as a complete application.
B. No fee shall be charged for the issuance ofsuch permit to a person who has retired from service
i) as a magistrate in the Commonwealth; (ii)as a special agent with the Virginia Alcoholic
Beverage Control Authority or as a law-enforcement officer with the Department of State Police,
the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries,or a sheriff or police department,bureau,or force
of any political subdivision ofthe Commonwealth, after completing 15 years of service or after
reaching age 55; (iii) as a law-enforcement officer with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,Secret Service Agency, Drug Enforcement
Administration, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of State Diplomatic Security Service,U.S.Marshals Service,or Naval
Criminal Investigative Service, after completing 15 years of service or after reaching age 55; (iv) as
a law-enforcement officer with any police or sheriffs department within the United States,the
District of Columbia, or any of the territories of the United States, after completing 15 years of
service; (v)as a law-enforcement officer with any combination of the agencies listed in clauses (ii)
through(iv),after completing 15 years of service; (vi)as a designated boarding team member or
boarding officer of the United States Coast Guard, after completing 15 years of service or after•
reaching age 55;(vii) as a correctional officer as defined in § 53.1-1,after completing 15 years of
service; or(viii) as a probation and parole officer authorized pursuant to§ 53.1-143, after
completing 15 years of service.
2013,cc. 135, 559,746; 2015, cc. 38,730; 2017, c. 241.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter?/section18.2-308.03/ 9/12/2019
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Page 1ofI
Code of Virginia
Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety
18.2-308.04. Processing of the application and issuance of a
concealed handgun permit.
A.The clerk of court shall enter on the application the date on which the application and all other
information required to be submitted by the applicant is received.
B. Upon receipt of the completed application,the court shall consult with either the sheriff or
police department of the county or city and receive a report from the Central Criminal Records
Exchange.
C.The court shall issue the permit via United States mail and notify the State Police of the
issuance of the permit within 45 days of receipt of the completed application unless it is
determined that the applicant is disqualified.Any order denying issuance of the permit shall be in
accordance with § 18.2-308.08. If the applicant is later found by the court to be disqualified after
a five-year permit has been issued,the permit shall be revoked.
D.A court may authorize the clerk to issue concealed handgun permits,without judicial review,to
applicants who have submitted complete applications,for whom the criminal history records
check does not indicate a disqualification and,after consulting with either the sheriff or police
department of the county or city, about which application there are no outstanding questions or
issues.The court clerk shall be immune from suit arising from any acts or omissions relating to
the issuance of concealed handgun permits without judicial review pursuant to this section unless
the clerk was grossly negligent or engaged in willful misconduct.This section shall not be
construed to limit,withdraw, or overturn any defense or immunity already existing in statutory or
common law, or to affect any cause of action accruing prior to July 1, 2010.
E.The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall specify only the following information: name,
address, date of birth,gender,height,weight, color of hair,color of eyes, and signature ofthe
permittee; the signature of the judge issuing the permit,of the clerk of court who has been
authorized to sign such permits by the issuing judge, or of the cleric of court who has been
authorized to issue such permits pursuant to subsection D; the date of issuance; and the
expiration date.The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall be of a size comparable to a
Virginia driver's license, may be laminated or use a similar process to protect the permit,and
shall otherwise be of a uniform style prescribed by the Department of State Police.
2013,c. 746; 2017, c. 47.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title 18.2/chapter?/section18.2-308.04/ 9/12/2019
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Page 1 of 1
Code of Virginia
Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 7.Crimes Involving Health and Safety
18.2-308.05. Issuance of a de facto permit.
If the court has not issued the permit or determined that the applicant is disqualified within 45
days of the date of receipt noted on the application,the clerk shall certify on the application that
the 45-day period has expired, and mail or send via electronic mail a copy of the certified
application to the applicant within five business days of the expiration of the 45-day period.The
certified application shall serve as a de facto permit,which shall expire go days after issuance,
and shall be recognized as a valid concealed handgun permit when presented with a valid
government-issued photo identification pursuant to subsection A of§ 18.2-308.01, until the court
issues a five-year permit or finds the applicant to be disqualified. If the applicant is found to be
disqualified after the de facto permit is issued,the applicant shall surrender the de facto permit to
the court and the disqualification shall be deemed a denial of the permit and a revocation of the
de facto permit.
2013, c. 746.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter?/section18.2-308.05/ 9/12/2019
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Page l of 1
Code of Virginia
Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety
18.2-308.07. Entry of information into the Virginia Criminal
Information Network.
A.An order issuing a concealed handgun permit pursuant to § 18.2-308.04, or the copy of the
permit application certified by the clerk as a de facto permit pursuant to § 18.2-308.05,shall be
provided to the State Police and the law-enforcement agencies of the county or city by the clerk of
the court.The State Police shall enter the permittee's name and description in the Virginia
Criminal Information Network so that the permit's existence and current status will be made
known to law-enforcement personnel accessing the Network for investigative purposes.
B.The Department of State Police shall enter the name and description of a person issued a
nonresident permit pursuant to § 18.2-308.06 in the Virginia Criminal Information Network so
that the permit's existence and current status are known to law-enforcement personnel accessing
the Network for investigative purposes.
C.The State Police shall withhold from public disclosure permittee information submitted to the
State Police for purposes of entry into the Virginia Criminal Information Network,except that
such information shall not be withheld from any law-enforcement agency, officer,or authorized
agent thereof acting in the performance of official law-enforcement duties, nor shall such
information be withheld from an entity that has a valid contract with any local,state, or federal
law-enforcement agency for the purpose of performing official duties of the law-enforcement
agency.However,nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the release of(i)
records by the State Police concerning permits issued to nonresidents of the Commonwealth
pursuant to § 18.2-308.06 or(ii)statistical summaries, abstracts, or other records containing
information in an aggregate form that does not identify any individual permittees.
2013,c.746.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter?/section18.2-308.07/ 9/12/2019
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Page 1of1 .
Code of Virginia
Title 18.2.Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety
18.2-308.08. Denial of a concealed handgun permit; appeal.
A. Only a circuit court judge may deny issuance of a concealed handgun permit to a Virginia
resident or domiciliary who has applied for a permit pursuant to § 18.2-308.04.Any order
denying issuance of a concealed handgun permit shall state the basis for the denial of the permit,
including,if applicable,any reason under § 18.2-308.09 that is the basis ofthe denial, and the
clerk shall provide notice,in writing, upon denial of the application, of the applicant's right to an
ore tenus hearing and the requirements for perfecting an appeal of such order.
B. Upon request of the applicant made within 21 days,the court shall place the matter on the
docket for an ore tenus hearing. The applicant may be represented by counsel,but counsel shall
not be appointed,and the rules of evidence shall apply.The final order of the court shall include
the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
C.Any person denied a permit to carry a concealed handgun by the circuit court may present a
petition for review to the Court of Appeals.The petition for review shall be filed within 6o days of
the expiration of the time for requesting an ore tenus hearing, or if an ore tenus hearing is
requested,within 6o days of the entry of the final order of the circuit court following the hearing.
The petition shall be accompanied by a copy of the original papers filed in the circuit court,
including a copy of the order of the circuit court denying the permit. Subject to the provisions of
subsection B of§ 17.1-410,the decision of the Court of Appeals or judge shall be final.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law,if the decision to deny the permit is reversed upon
appeal,taxable costs incurred by the person shall be paid by the Commonwealth.
2013,C. 746.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title 18.2/chapter?/section18.2-308.08/ 9/12/2019
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Page 1 of 1
Code of Virginia
Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety
18.2-308.010. Renewal of concealed handgun permit.
A. 1. Persons who previously have held a concealed handgun permit shall be issued, upon
application as provided in § 18.2-308.02, a new five-year permit unless it is found that the
applicant is subject to any of the disqualifications set forth in§ 18.2-308.09. Persons who
previously have been issued a concealed handgun permit pursuant to this article shall not be
required to appear in person to apply for a new five-year permit pursuant to this section,.and the
application for the new permit, including a photocopy of the applicant's valid photo identification,
maybe submitted via the United States mail.The circuit court that receives the application shall
promptly notify an applicant if the application is incomplete or if the fee submitted for the permit
pursuant to § 18.2-308.03 is incorrect.
2. If a new five-year permit is issued while an existing permit remains valid, the new five-year
permit shall become effective upon,the expiration date of the existing permit, provided that the
application is received by the court at least 90 days but no more than 180 days prior to the
expiration of the existing permit.
3.Any order denying issuance of the new permit shall be in accordance with subsection A of§
18.2-308.08.
B. If a permit holder is a member of the Virginia National Guard,Armed Forces ofthe United
States,or the Armed Forces Reserves of the United States,and his five-year permit expires during
an active-duty military deployment outside of the permittee's county or city of residence, such
permit shall remain valid for 90 days after the end date of the deployment. In order to establish •
proof of continued validity of the permit, such a permittee shall carry with him and display,upon
request of a law-enforcement officer, a copy of the permittee's deployment orders or other
documentation from the permittee's commanding officer that order the permittee to travel
outside of his county or city of residence and that indicate the start and end date of such
deployment.
C. If the clerk has an electronic system for,and issuance of, concealed handgun permits and such
system has the capability of sending electronic notices to permit holders and if a permit holder
requests such notice on the concealed handgun application form,the clerk that issued the permit
shall notify the permit holder by electronic mail at least 90 days prior to the permit expiration
date that the permit will expire.The failure of a clerk to send the notice required by this
subsection or the failure of the permit holder to receive such notice shall not extend the validity of
the existing permit beyond its expiration date.
2013, C. 746; 2017, cc. 99, 237.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter?/section18.2-308.010/ 9/12/2019
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Page 1of1
Code of Virginia
Title 18.2.Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety
18.2-308.011. Replacement permits.
A.The clerk of a circuit court that issued a valid concealed handgun permit shall, upon
presentation by the permit holder of the valid permit and written notice of a change of address on
a form provided by the Department of State Police,issue a replacement permit specifying the
permit holder's new address.The clerk of court shall forward the permit holder's new address of
residence to the State Police.The State Police may charge a fee not to exceed $5, and the clerk of
court issuing the replacement permit may charge a fee not to exceed $5.The total amount
assessed for processing a replacement permit pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed$10,
with such fees to be paid in one sum to the person who receives the information for the
replacement permit.
B.The clerk of a circuit court that issued a valid concealed handgun permit shall,upon
submission of a notarized statement by the permit holder that the permit was lost or destroyed or
that the permit holder has undergone a legal name change,issue a replacement permit.The
replacement permit shall have the same expiration date as the permit that was lost, destroyed, or
issued to the permit holder under a previous name.The clerk shall issue the replacement permit
within 10 business days of receiving the notarized statement and may charge a fee not to exceed
5.
2013,c. 746; 2014, cc. 16, 549; 2017,c. 238.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title 18.2/chapter?/section18.2-308.011/ 9/12/2019
6.f.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Concealed Weapon Fee Research (1759 : Discussion of Concealed Weapon Permit Application Fee (Supervisor Blackstock))
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title:
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: David M. Smitherman)
Staff Contact(s): David M. Smitherman
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 8.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
(1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(5)
Subject Matter: Projects AF, Uniform, and 500
Purpose: Discussion of Prospective Businesses/
Economic Development Updates
8.a
Packet Pg. 400
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Closed Session Certification (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.)
Staff Contact(s):
Agenda Date: September 17, 2019 Item Number: 9.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CLOSED MEETING CERTIFICATION
BE IT RESOLVED that at the Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
(the “Board”) on September 17, 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 Board 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
Joe B. Davis Yes/No
Tim R. Barber Yes/No
Elton W. Blackstock Yes/No
Ben L. Farmer Yes/No
Charles H. Miller, Jr. Yes/No
Ronald S. Scearce Yes/No
Robert W. “Bob” Warren Yes/No
9.a
Packet Pg. 401