HomeMy WebLinkAbout018-93 Army Corps of Engineers - Backfile (2)3/93
- 81993 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST FORM
ICOUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: Marcli S , 1993
PROJECT NUMBER (WX/Federal) : 93-009F
PROJECT TITLE: Lease of Facility for Transatlantic Division, Army Corps of
Engineers, hIinchester, Frederick Co.
PROJECT SPONSOR: General Service Administration
TYPE OF DOCUMENT: Environmental Impact Report (State)
X Environmental Assessment (Federal)
Environmental Impact Statement (Federal)
Draft Final Supplemental
Power Project Application/Notice (Federal)
Other
ROUTING OF DOCUMENT: X Enclosed
* Sent directly to you by sponsoring
agency. Please call the agency's
project contact (see attachment) if
you have not received the document.
NOTES:
DOCUMENT REFERRED FOR COMMENT TO:
X Department of Game &
Inland Fisheries
X Department of Agriculture
& Consumer Services
X Department of Conservation
& Recreation
X Department of Health
X Department of Transportation
X Department of Waste
Management
Marine Resources Commission
X Department of Air Pollution
Control
Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department
DEADLINE FOR C014MENTS: IVRIL S, 1993
Department of Historic
Resources
Department of Forestry
X State Water Control Board
Virginia Institute of
Marine Science
X Department of Mines,
Minerals, & Energy
X Planning District
Commission: Lord Fairfax
X Locality: Frederick County
Others:
If you cannot meet the deadline, please notify Ellie Irons or
Jane Powell at (804) 786-4500 prior to the date given.
Arrangements will be made to extend the date for your review if
possible. An agency will not be considered to have reviewed a
document if no comments are received (or contact is made) within
the period specified.
REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS:
A. Please review the document carefully. If the proposal has
been reviewed earlier (i.e. if the document is a federal
Final EIS or a state supplement), please consider whether
your earlier comments have been adequately addressed.
B. Prepare your agency's comments in a form which would be
acceptable for responding directly to a project proponent
agency.
C. Use your agency stationery or the space below for your
comments.
Please return your comments to the Council on the Environment,
Room 900, Ninth Street Office Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
Thank you.
COMMENTS
(signed)
(title)
(agency)
(date)
lanner
3/93
General Services Administration, Region 3
The Wanamaker Building
`— 100 Penn Square East
=, : • Philadelphia, PA 19107-3396
IDEC 2 L 1902
MEMORANDUM FOR GEORGE P. CORDES
REGIONAL ADMINISTRA (3A)
FROM: THURMAN M. DAVIS
ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE (3P)
SUBJECT: Finding of No Significant Impact, Lease of
Facility for the Transatlantic Division, Army
Corps of Engineers, Winchester, Frederick County,
Virginia
Description of Action
The General Services Administration (GSA) proposes to lease a
facility in the vicinity of the city of Winchester, Frederick
County, Virginia, for occupancy by the Transatlantic Division
(TAD) of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE). The
proposed facility will require a minimum of 91,500 net usable
square feet (nusf) to a maximum of 92,500 nusf of first class
office space and related space. The facility is required to
provide a minimum of 450 parking spaces for approximately 450
personnel assigned to the facility. The facility is required to
be located in prime commercial office space district with
attractive, prestigious, professional surroundings.
Finding
Pursuant to the provision of GSA Order ADM.1095.1D, the Handbook,
PBS P1095.4 and the regulations issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality, November 29, 1978, this is to advise you
of our finding, based on the attached Environmental Assessment,
that the action described above is not considered a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. This finding is issued subject to the contractual
condition that the offeror of the site will comply with federal,
state, county and local laws and regulations, and will obtain the
necessary permits required by all concerned agencies.
Basis for Finding
The findings are presented in the Executive Summary and elsewhere
in the attached Environmental Assessment, entitled Proposed Army
Corps of Engineers' Facility- Winchester, Frederick Countv.
Virginia, dated December 1992. The preliminary plans for the
Preferred Alternative Site indicate that an access road to the
property will cross Sulphur Spring Run and/or its tributaries. In
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper
so doing, the access road may (i) infringe upon wetlands (ii)
infringe upon floodplain and/or (iii) cause impacts on streambed
owned and regulated by the State of -Virginia. It is believed that
the wetlands infringement can be permitted under a Nationwide
Permit for road crossings. Under this type of Nationwide Permit
several terms and conditions apply:
(i) the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
crossing;
(ii) the fill placed in waters of the United States is
limited to a filled area of no more than 1/3 acre;
(iii) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed
to prevent restriction of flow and to withstand high
flow;
(iv) the crossing is part of a single and complete project;
and
(v) for filling in special aquatic sites, including
wetlands, the notification conditions, including
delineation of special aquatic sites, must be met.
These and other terms and conditions under this Nationwide Permit
may be found at 33 CFR 330. All such terms and conditions must be
met in order to qualify.
The proposed action will be performed in compliance with the
requirements of Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management.
The proposed action is not anticipated to have long-term adverse
impacts to the floodplain or flood storage capacity. It is
further believed that the Frederick -County Zoning regulations
will permit minor infringements on the floodplain.
Construction activities that will affect stream beds will require
a State of Virginia Sub -Aqueous Bed Permit. The focus of this
permit is to protect sensitive aquatic biota.
This Finding of No Significant Impact is conditional upon
compliance with these and all other federal, state and local laws
and regulations, and obtaining all required permits.
Attachment
2
Approved Date ( G'C�
George P. ordes
Regional inistrator
ARMS
1 �
CORVS, OF w ERSs : A II I' '
FF:EE1�IC)1T,T'M
VIRGMA
Lolais Berger-.:& Associates;
100 Hoisted Street
East OTangP, IvTew Jersey Q7Qly -t
S Y i
December 1992
1
I
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC. no
Engineers • Economists . Planners
100 Halsted Street Telephone: (201) 678-1960
P.O. Box 270 Telex: 138-1)
East Orange, New Jersey 07019-0270 Cable: BERGERENG
Telecopier: (201) 672-4284
December 22, 1992
Mr. Harold Quinn
General Services Administration, Region 3
Planning Staff, Room 621
The Wanamaker Building
100 Penn Square East
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3396
RE: Final Environmental Assessment, Winchester, VA EA
Dear Mr. Quinn:
Enclosed please find ten (10) copies of the Final Environmental Assessment for the proposed
ACOE facility near Winchester, Frederick County, VA. A draft copy of the associated FONSI
has been delivered to you. A brief description of the results of the Phase 1B Cultural Resources
tests of the preferred alternative site has been added to the Executive Summary and the Cultural
Resources Appendix C. The final report on the Phase 1B study will be forwarded to you under
separate cover early next month.
If you have any questions or if we may be of additional assistance, please feel free to contact
me at the above number, ext. 603.
Sincerely yours,
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Antony B. n, Ph.D.
Project Administrator
cc: J. Bach
C. Wilkes
I I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
LIST OF TABLES ........................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................... ix
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................... 1-1
1.1 Description of the Action .............................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ............................ 1-2
2.0 ALTERNATIVES.......................................2-1
2.1 Alternatives Considered ...............................
2-1
2.1.1
No Action Alternative ............................
2-1
2.1.2
Federal Construction .............................
2-1
2.1.3
Expansion/Renovation of Present Location ...............
2-1
2.1.4
Use of Existing Federal Space in the Winchester Area ........
2-1
2.1.5
Lease of Non -Federal Building .......................
2-1
2.1.5.1 Site Alternatives ..........................
2-1
(1) Preferred Alternative Site H ...............
2-1
(2) Alternative Site A ......................
2-3
(3) Alternative Site J ......................
2-3
(4) Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ................
2-3
(5) Alternative Site S ......................
2-3
(6) Alternative Site Y ......................
2-3
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED
ACTION - CONSTRAINTS AND EFFECTS ...................... 3-1
3.1 Physical Characteristics ................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Geology....................................3-1
3.1.1.1 Affected Environment ...................... 3-1
3.1.1.2 Consequences ........................... 3-1
(1) No Action Alternative . 3-1
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ............... 3-3
(3) Alternative Sites J, P1, P2 and S ; ........... 3-3
(4) Alternative Sites A and Y . 3-3
i
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paee
Soils.......................................3-3
3.1.2.1
Affected Environment .......................
3-3
(1)
No Action Alternative ...................
3-3
(2)
Preferred Alternative Site H ...............
3-5
(3)
Alternative Site A ......................
3-7
(4)
Alternative Site J ......................
3-9
(5)
Alternative Site P1 ....................
3-10
(6)
Alternative Site P2 ....................
3-11
(7)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-11
(8)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-12
3.1.2.2
Consequences
..........................3-13
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-13
(2)
Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y .....
3-13
Landforms..................................3-13
3.1.3.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-13
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-13
(2)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-13
(3)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-13
(4)
Alternative Site P2 ....................
3-14
(5)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-14
(6)
Alternative Sites A, P1 and Y .............
3-14
3.1.3.2
Consequences
..........................3-14
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-14
(2)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-14
(3)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-14
(4)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-15
(5)
Alternative Site P1 ....................
3-15
(6)
Alternative Site P2 ....................
3-15
(7)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-15
(8)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-15
Vegetation and Wildlife ..........................
3-15
3.1.4.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-15
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-16
(2)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-16
(3)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-16
(4)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-21
(5)
Alternative Site P1 ....................
3-21
(6)
Alternative Site P2 ....................
3-21
(7)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-21
(8)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-21
ii
I
1
4
1
LF]
III
it
1
11
I
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.1.4.2
Consequences ..........................3-22
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-22
3.1.5 Natural Hazards ...............................
3-22
3.1.5.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-22
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-22
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-22
(3) Alternative Sites A, J, P1, P2, S and Y .......
3-22
3.1.5.2 .
Consequences ..........................
3-24
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-24
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-24
(3) Alternative Site J, P1, P2, and S ...........
3-24
(4) Alternative Site A and Y ................
3-24
3.1.6 Air Quality ..................................
3-24
3.1.6.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-26
3.1.6.2
Consequences ..........................3-29
3.1.6.2.1 Construction ...................
3-29
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-29
(2) Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y .....
3-29
3.1.6.2.2 Operation .....................
3-30
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-30
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-30
(3) Alternative Site A .....................
3-30
(4) Alternative Sites J, P1 and P2 .............
3-31
(5) Alternative Site S .....................
3-31
(6) Alternative Site Y .....................
3-31
3.1.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................
3-31
3.1.7.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-31
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-33
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-33
(3) Alternative Site A .....................
3-33
(4) Alternative Site J .....................
3-33
(5) Alternative Site P1 ....................
3-33
(6) Alternative Site P2 ....................
3-34
(7) Alternative Site S .....................
3-34
(8) Alternative Site Y .....................
3-34
3.1.7.2
Consequences ..........................3-34
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-36
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-36
(3) Alternative Site A .....................
3-36
(4) Alternative Site J .....................
3-36
iii
1
I
� i
i I
I I
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(5)
Alternative Site P1 ....................
3-37
(6)
Alternative Site P2 ....................
3-37
(7)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-37
(8)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-37
3.1.8 Noise
.....................................3-37
3.1.8.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-38
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-38
(2)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-38
(3)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-39
(4)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-39
(5)
Alternative Site P1 ....................
3-39
(6)
Alternative Site P2 ....................
3-39
(7)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-40
(8)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-40
3.1.8.2
Consequences
..........................3-40
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-40
(2)
Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S, and Y .....
3-40
(3)
Vehicular Noise ......................
3-40
(4)
Site Noise .........................
3-41
(5)
Aircraft Noise .......................
3-41
(6)
Construction Noise ....................
3-41
3.2 Socioeconomics
and
Land Use ..........................
3-41
3.2.1 Land Use
...................................
3-41
3.2.1.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-42
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-42
(2)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-42
(3)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-45
(4)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-46
(5)
Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-46
(6)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-47
(7)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-47
3.2.1.2
Consequences
..........................3-47
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-47
(2)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-47
(3)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-48
(4)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-48
(5)
Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-49
(6)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-49
(7)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-49
iv
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3.2.2 Community Services ............................
3-50
3.2.2.1 Affected Environment .....................
3-50
3.2.2.2 Consequences ..........................3-50
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-50
(2) Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y .....
3-50
3.2.3 Population, Housing and Employment .................
3-50
3.2.3.1 Affected Environment .....................
3-50
3.2.3.2 Consequences ..........................3-51
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-51
(2) Alternative Sites ......................
3-51
3.2.4 Aesthetics..................................3-52
3.2.4.1 Affected Environment .....................
3-52
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-52
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-52
(3) Alternative Site A .....................
3-52
(4) Alternative Site J .....................
3-52
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-52
(6) Alternative Site S .....................
3-52
(7) Alternative Site Y .....................
3-52
3.2.4.2 Consequences ..........................3-53
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-53
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-53
(3) Alternative Site A .....................
3-53
(4) Alternative Site J .....................
3-53
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-53
(6) Alternative Site S .....................
3-53
(7) Alternative Site Y .....................
3-53
3.3 Utilities ....................................3-54
3.3.1 Electric, Water, and Sewer ........................
3-54
3.3.1.1 Affected Environment .....................
3-54
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-54
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-54
(3) Alternative Site A .....................
3-55
(4) Alternative Site J .....................
3-55
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-55
(6) Alternative Site S .....................
3-55
(7) Alternative Site Y .....................
3-56
3.3.1.2 Consequences ..........................3-56
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-56
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-56
v
3.4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(3)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-56
(4)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-56
(5)
Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-57
(6)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-57
(7)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-57
3.3.2 Solid Waste
.................................
3-57
3.3.2.1 Affected Environment .....................
3-57
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-57
(2)
Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y .....
3-57
3.3.2.2 Consequences ..........................3-58
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-58
(2)
Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y .....
3-58
Transportation
....................................3-58
3.4.1 Traffic
....................................3-58
3.4.1.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-58
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-58
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-59
(3) Alternative Site A .....................
3-59
(4) Alternative Site J .....................
3-60
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-60
(6) Alternative Site S .....................
3-60
(7) Alternative Site Y .....................
3-61
3.4.1.2
Consequences ..........................
3-61
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-61
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-61
(3) Alternative Site A .....................
3-62
(4) Alternative Site J .....................
3-62
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-62
(6) Alternative Site S .....................
3-62
(7) Alternative Site Y .....................
3-63
3.4.2 Parldng
....................................
3-63
3.4.2.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-63
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-63
(2) Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y .....
3-63
3.4.2.2
Consequences ..........................3-63
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-63
(2) Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y .....
3-63
3.4.3 Safety
.....................................
3-64
3.4.3.1
Affected Environment .....................
3-64
(1) No Action Alternative ..................
3-64
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
(2)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-64
(3)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-64
(4)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-65
(5)
Alternative Site P1 and P2 ...............
3-65
(6)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-65
(8)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-65
3.4.3.2 Consequences ..........................3-65
(1)
No Action Alternative ..................
3-65
(2)
Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y .....
3-65
3.5 Hazardous Waste
..................................
3-66
3.5.1 Existing Conditions .............................
3-66
3.5.1.1 Affected Environment .....................
3-66
(1)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-66
(2)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-68
(3)
Alternative Sites P1 and P2 ...............
3-70
(4)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-71
(5)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-72
(6)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-74
3.5.1.2 Consequences ..........................3-76
(1)
Preferred Alternative Site H ..............
3-76
(2)
Alternative Site J .....................
3-76
(3)
Alternative Site P1 and P2 ...............
3-76
(4)
Alternative Site S .....................
3-76
(5)
Alternative Site Y .....................
3-76
(6)
Alternative Site A .....................
3-77
3.6 Cultural Resources
.................................
3-77
4.0 REFERENCES.........................................4-1
4.1 Contacts ......................................... 4-1
4.2 Documents.......................................4-2
APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE .............................. A-1
APPENDIX B LAND USE AND ZONING .......................... B-1
APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................... C-1
APPENDIX D SITE PLANS ................................... D-1
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1
Federal Facilities in Winchester, VA Area ......................
2-2
3.1
Vegetation Species Observed ...............................
3-17
3.2
Description of NAAQS Criteria Pollutants Including Health and
Welfare Effects .......................................
3-25
3.3
Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................
3-27
3.4
Temperature and Precipitation ..............................
3-32
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi ure page
2.1
Regional Map.........................................2-4
2.2
Site Locations.........................................2-5
3.1
Geology............................................3-2
3.2
Soils...............................................3-4
3.3
National Wetlands Inventory Maps ...........................
3-18
3.4
Flood Hazards ........................................
3-23
3.5
Wind Rose ..........................................
3-28
3.6
Existing Industrial and Commercial Uses .......................
3-43
3.7
Planned Industrial and Commercial Uses .......................
3-44
ix
, 1. "I — , " '�
� , � -,.!e -. , , , � � . . ., I
. ,I �, : . :-
r '
- , , . -,"I
�' . , . � f. I , - I — , I
! .
., ..
��. " " I . - � , �, , �. ., " . -; I I .. .5
- . - I -
. - " - ��
� .
, . , , I , z
�- I, I I I . I � I . � —'.
. I � I I I . , .� ". I 1, - �� :,
r
, — . � , , : ,.� I I I.. I
I � � � , .
,�, . �.''., p : . , , I - , I - - "
,.
i .1 - " .1 . I I . - ��-"
. �.: � : , .1-1
�-� �, . - '. ;, , � '", � . �-,.', .- — ,�, :� I . , .� , :
" ,111:1"F""" -.,' :.,.: ,
"., �� ; . � . . � .. , 1. I , i
• � I
� -. - ,
�. ,, � �.1 I,, ,;.
�;,
I 1.,I
q�,
,..
,
,I ,�,-,
. .I, ,,�. N - , - � � ,: -,. ,.. ,.
�. -. I
-
� ,..
,��
�.j.
- ,I��
, I .;,
� .I
�-,. , � ,
, ,.
. � �� "�.,..I
. I. �, %, , � , . , , : ,.. � �
I�
."'.' ,
, ,.
4
�II�
,���'
. . I .I -. .",
. "
I : . , : , , , , , . I 1, - . , . ; , - - . I ll� �
- I,
I, , 1 , d , ., ,,, '': -:,,, , -: . "
�
- , � - - I .. .. : , 1� � .: , I � . - , ,
". ,...-. , , q � I
—, I -. I . � I - � , , ., �- , . . , , , i. .1. . � : . .. .� . ��, - � ,,, � I I
I I ; ;.: . ", � I I . . � , � , I I � . , 1. - - � .. I I I � . , , I . " , I ,; :
.
..
..
�� `
..
f
- '
`` ' ..
�.
-
.�
.
-
.. i
' ., . .
.
- -
.
.
.. ... -
.' ,. "
t,.
'
r.
Q
r . .. , i. r
"-
r.
i
,.
-)
EXECUTI E
S Y
_. r
�.: ,,
,.
;.
, ...
,. .
I
� I
I. INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The General Services Administration (GSA) has proposed to lease a facility in the vicinity of
The city of Winchester, VA for the occupance of the Transatlantic Division (TAD) of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Specifications for the proposed facility indicate that there
shall be a minimum and maximum of 91,500 to 92,500 net usable square feet (nusf) of first class
office space in a prime commercial office space district with attractive, prestigious professional
surroundings. The facility must provide 450 parking spaces for the 450 personnel who will be
assigned there.
The facility presently occupied by TAD/ACOE is a converted warehouse of about 63,000 nusf.
The building provides space for some 375 personnel in an industrial park in the city of
Winchester. This is a privately owned facility under lease to the Government. TAD/ACOE's
mission has been expanded to included the entire European Area. In order to support its
expanded mission, TAD/ACOE will require an additional 75 persons. In addition, due to the
nature of its mission, TAD/ACOE requires a facility that bespeaks the technical and professional
nature of the organization.
GSA has considered several alternatives to satisfy the new requirements of TAD/ACOE. These
include a No Action Alternative, new federal construction, use of existing federal space,
expansion or renovation of the existing facility and lease of a non-federal building . Within the
last alternative, GSA issued a Solicitation for Offers dated May 12, 1992. A total of 13 potential
sites were identified from the responses to the SFO. A Scoping Technical Memorandum was
prepared on the basis of the 13 sites, and a short list of seven sites was selected from among the
13. These seven alternative sites, including a preferred alternative site are the subject of this
Environmental Assessment.
The no action alternative would involve remaining in the existing facility, which does not
adequately provide for the existing 375 personnel. If additional space were sought for the new
requirement, alone, the operation would become inefficient, as there is a necessity for
collocation of the existing and new personnel and material.
Federal construction was rejected as an option because of the time constraints imposed by
TAD/ACOE's new mission requirements. A more rapid turnaround can be achieved by leasing
a privately developed facility.
Expansion/renovation of the existing facility was rejected as an option because the existing
facility is leased, not owned by the U.S. government, and the physical nature of the facility is
not consistent with TAD/ACOE's expanded mission.
Use of existing federal space in the Winchester area was rejected because no suitable space is
available.
t
1
I
Under the lease -of privately -owned -facility alternative, seven sites were considered. The sites
were designated A, J, H, P1, P2, S and Y. All of the sites are located outside the city of
Winchester but are within Frederick County. All the sites are in areas that are zoned for
industrial, commercial or office uses, and most are included in planned or existing office parks.
The preferred site, H, is undeveloped, located in a planned office development south of Route
50, and east of the I-81/Route 560 interchange. It is .located near the Winchester Regional
Airport and overlooks the Carper's Valley Golf Course.
H. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
These issues, unless otherwise noted, apply to to all the sites.
Sites A and Y are in an area underlain by limestone bedrock. Subsidence and sinkholes could
be issues in these locations. In any event, Frederick County would require testing for the
likelihood of sinkholes. Soils in the area of these sites has a high shrink -swell ratio, which could
represent an additional constraint.
Vegetation and Wildlife
There would be a disturbance and loss of a portion of existing vegetative communities. Wildlife
resources would be expected to experience minor or temporary effects mostly as a result of
construction. Suitable replacement habitat exists near all of the sites, and the proportion of
unsuccessful individuals is expected to be low. There are no state or federally listed species
known to exist on or near any of the sites. A proposed access road to Site H appears likely to
encroach upon a stream and/or associated wetlands. Either action would result in permitting or
design consequences. Any encroachment on wetlands would occur subject to the requirements
of Executive Order 11990. Wetlands encroachment might be permitted under Nationwide Permit
Number 14 (road crossings). Effects on the stream would be subject to a Sub -Aqueous Bed
Permit from the state of Virginia.
Natural Hazards
There are no significant flooding, severe weather or seismic hazards associated with the project.
At site H, a small portion of the 100-year flood zone of Sulphur Spring Run is located within
the site perimeter, but does not involve the TAD/ACOE facility. The potential for sinkholes at
sites A and Y is a natural hazard, but the frequency of such occurrences is small.
Air Quality
There are expected to be no significant effects on regional air quality resulting from the
proposed action. During the construction phase on all of the alternative sites, there may be short-
term, temporary effects on fugitive dust emissions. Techniques are available to limit the
particulate emissions related to construction activities. Construction -related traffic could cause
localized impacts at intersections where queuing would occur. This effect may be reduced by
1
� I
11
� I
I]
minimizing construction -related traffic during peak hours. A discussion of areas that may
experience construction traffic -related impacts is included under the discussion of operational
impacts, below.
Air quality effects related to the operation of the facility will be related to traffic consequences.
The proposed project will generate approximately 326 trips at peak hours. Roadways that
experience at Level of Service (LOS) of C or less can experience air quality impacts related to
traffic delays. Although none of the proposed sites have signalized entrance intersections,
facility -generated traffic could cause queuing at nearby signalized intersections which experience
an LOS of D or less. The most likely sites to create local air quality effects are sites A, Y and
S. Whether or not these consequences will occur will depend on the effectiveness of intersection
signalization.
Since Frederick County is in attainment for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards, it is
unlikely that regional air quality will be affected by the proposed action.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The rugged topographic condition of Preferred Alternative Site H and the presence of Sulphur
Spring Run suggest that water quality and hydrology issues will represent significant design and
permitting issues. Under existing regulations, no increase in stormwater runoff will be permitted
and water quality impacts will be closely regulated. Erosion and sediment control practices
would be required. The offeror's plan for the proposed site show an access roads that cross
existing streams. These crossings may represent design and permitting issues.
The plan for Alternate Site P2 shows an intermittent stream channel located within a part of the
parking lot and building area. If these areas require filing or channel diversion, contact or
permitting may be required from the Virginia Department of Water Courses and the ACOE.
The Alternate Site S may include intermittent streams and swales, which may be avoided,
depending on the actual location of the TAD/ACOE facility. Stream channels and ponds located
on or near this site would require significant erosion and stormwater control
measures.
Noise
There are expected to be no noise -related consequences of significance related to the proposed
Pce � g P Po
' action.
Land Use
No significant land use or zoning issues are anticipated for any of the sites.
I
I
11
Community Services
No significant consequences are anticipated in the area of Community Services for any of the
sites.
Population, Housing and Employment
No significant consequences are expected on population, housing or employment.
Aesthetics
No significant consequences are anticipated in the area of aesthetics for any of the sites.
Utilities
Utilities are generally available at all the sites except sites S and Y. Both of these locations
would require extensive and costly construction to extend the utilities from their present locations
to the proposed sites, but in neither case is there an anticipated environmental issue of
consequence.
Solid Waste
No issues of significance are anticipated with respect to solid waste disposal.
Transportation
No traffic related impacts are expected to occur, with the possible exception of Alternative Site
Y. Most of the site traffic is expected to arrive at Site Y via Route 11. It is expected that the
intersection of Route 11, Apple Valley Road and Route 652 may require signalization to alleviate
traffic impacts.
Cultural Resources
Only Alternative Site S contains an existing structure, a frame farmhouse. If Site S is chosen,
the farmhouse should be evaluated to determine if it meets the criteria for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places.
No evidence was found of known archaeological sites on any of the alternative sites. There is
the potential on all sites for unrecorded archaeological sites that could be affected. Systematic
testing is recommended at whichever site is chosen to determine if archaeological remains are
present. The Preferred Alternative Site H and Alternative Sites J and S are considered to have
a moderate to high potential for containing prehistoric remains.
� I
� I
� I
'I
L
1
eF _. 1 •
No evidence of past or present hazardous waste was found on any of the sites. A review of state
and federal databases revealed that site Y is located close to a site listed on the CERCLIS
database (the General Elected Lamp Plant), but the database suggests that this is not a significant
issue. Further, the data bases indicated a spill of hydraulic fluid at the Rubbermaid plant (3124
Valley Avenue). Information provided by the U.S. Coast Guard's National Response Center
indicates that At site Y, the spill occurred on April 12, 1990. A leak in a pipeline spilled an
undetermined amount of hydraulic oil into a nearby drainage ditch. The oil was collected using
brooms and vacuum trucks. A program of bulk soil excavation was planned for the affected area
according to the National Response Center files. A copy of the National Response Center letter
is included in Appendix A. There is also evidence of some rubble dumping on Site Y, which
includes tires and rusting barrels. It would be prudent to conduct sampling on this site to
characterize the dumped materials materials.
A fuel spill at the Winchester Regional Airport occurred within a mile of Preferred Alternative
Site H, as well as Sites Pl, P2, and J. The National Response Center states that the spill at
Winchester Airport involved 50 gallons of jet fuel. The spill occurred on March 18, 1987 and
was caused by a pipe leading to a hose reel, and a contractor was contacted to clean up the
material. This is not expected to be a significant issue. A copy of the National Response Center
letter is included in Appendix A. This spill is not believed to represent an issue.
M. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SITE H
Site H is characterized by steep slopes and the presence of Sulphur Spring Run and its
tributaries. The topography and hydrology of Site H will necessitate strict erosion controls and
water quality controls, particularly during construction. In addition, stormwater runoff will have
to be limited to existing levels. The planned access road to the property appears to cross Sulpher
Spring Run, and will likely involve permitting and design issues. Appropriate engineering
solutions should preclude any significant impacts.
Site H is one of the sites having moderate to high potential for containing archaeological
remains. A Phase IB archaeological testing project was conducted for the preferred alternative,
Site H, to determine if archaeological sites were present. The Phase IB study consisted of
systematic shovel testing in the 10-acre development area as well as along the proposed access
road.
A total of 87 shovel tests were excavated; 81 of these were in the development site and 6 were
along the access route. A section of the access route had already been graded and a portion was
paved. None of the shovel tests excavated along the access route produced artifacts. Seven
prehistoric. lithic artifacts were recovered from the development site, one from the ground
surface and the others from four shovel tests.
The four positive shovel tests sample what is interpreted as a low density lithic scatter,
approximately 5000 feet in dimension. Several shovel tests within the, estimated site limits did
not produce artifacts. The site is not considered to be significant. No' further investigations are
recommended.
1�
I
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Description of the Action
The General Services Administration has proposed to lease a facility in the vicinity of the city
of Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia, for occupance by the Transatlantic Division (TAD)
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The proposed facility will require a
minimum of 91,500 net usable square feet (nusf) to a maximum of 92,500 nusf of first class
office space and related space. The facility is required to provide a minimum of 450 parking
spaces for approximately 450 personnel assigned to the facility. The facility is required to be
located in prime commercial office space district with attractive, prestigious, professional
surroundings. The TAD/ACOE would be a tenant for a lease term of 20 years. The government
could cancel the lease at any time after 10 years with 180 days notice.
The proposed facility would include, in addition to offices and conference rooms, the following:
■ graphics facility - to provide art presentation services, computer graphics,
photographic and film processing services for the division;
■ mail room;
■ contracting file room - to provide storage space for storing sensitive contract
documents and records;
■ documentation room - to provide document duplication and processing;
■ reprographics area - to provide printing, duplicating, photography and
publications support;
■ training area - provides area for general training, with audio visual aids for
computer instruction;
■ communications equipment room - for receiving and transmitting classified and
unclassified messages and documents;
■ geotechnical laboratory - to provide for basic soil and water testing procedures
and sample storage;
■ computer operations - to house mainframe computer equipment and associated
facilities;
■ first aid room
1-1
■ emergency operations center - to provide a self-sufficient, secured area permitting
continued operations during world emergency conditions;
■ arms storage, top secret storage and work room - to provide space for secure
weapons storage, and storage/workspace for top secret documents;
■ supply area, warehouse - to provide for receiving and storing office supplies and
equipment, large volume construction documents, spare parts, etc.
■ physical fitness center - provides exercise area and equipment
The TAD/ACOE is presently located in a converted warehouse facility within the city limits of
Winchester. The present facility comprises 63,000 nusf and houses 375 people. The present
facility does not adequately house the present operation. TAD/ACOE has been assigned an
expanded mission which includes the entire European Area. As a result, there is a corresponding
need for additional personnel. Absent additional space, the new requirement could not be
accommodated. If additional space were acquired for the personnel and equipment demanded by
the new requirement alone, the operation would become inefficient because of a need to be
located with the existing operation. In addition to the physical requirement for additional space,
TAD/ACOE's mission requires a facility that presents a technical/ professional image. The
present facility is very obviously a converted warehouse and does not project such an image.
1-2
Table 2.1
FEDERAL FACILITIES IN WINCHESTER, VA AREA
ADDRESS
OCCUPIABLE
TOTAL
AGENCIES
LEASE EXP
SITE LOCATION
SPACE TOTAL
PERSONNEL
20 S. Cameron
20 S. Cameron St.
7,175
32
JD/FBI
1/31/95
LS
TD/IRS
HHS/SSA
US POST OFC
Main Ofc Berryville Ave.
28,000
Unknown
USPS
N/A
GO
Nat'l Cemetery
Winchester Nat'l Cemetery
2,729
Unknown
N/A
N/A
N
GO
N
Unknown
Unknown Site
350
Unknown
DOT/FAA
N/A
LS
GO
2220 Wilson
2220 Wilson Blvd.
2,400
Unknown
Dept. of
10/20/94
LS
LS
Army
Land Site
Land Site
Unknown
Unknown
DOT/FAA
09/19/99
LS
LS
US Post Ofc
US Post Ofc
320
Unknown
USPS
10/20/94
LS
G = Federal Government Owned
LS = Leased to Government
Source: U.S. General Services Administration,
1992.
i I
I I
I I
I I
Ll
1.1
I
11
(2) Alternative Site A
Site A is located north of Winchester in the Stonewall Industrial Park, on Route 661 just north
of McGhee Road and the I-81/Route 37 interchange. The site is unimproved and is currently in
agricultural use. There are adjacent residential, industrial and agricultural uses.
(3) Alternative Site J
Site J is east of Winchester, in the Westview Business Park. The site is located on Route 728
and is a semi -improved lot. It is located near the Winchester Regional Airport and is located in
the Transition Zone of the Airport Safety Zone.
(4) Alternative Sites P1 and P2
These sites are located in the Airport Industrial Park on Airport Drive, adjacent to the
Winchester Regional Airport. The lots are semi -improved, and adjacent uses include the airport,
a farm house converted to office buildings and vacant office parking lots.
(5) Alternative Site S
This site is located south of Winchester in the proposed Eastgate Commerce Center. The site is
located along Route 522 at the proposed realignment of County Road 642. The setting is rural -
residential.
(6) Alternative Site Y
This site is located southwest of Winchester on Route 651, west of Route 37. The site is
currently unimproved. The parcel may formerly have been in agricultural use. Adjacent land
consists of several vacant parcels and the General Electric Lamp Plant.
A regional map is provided in Figure 2.1. The Alternative sites are shown in Figure 2.2.
2-3
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Regional Location
Map
Source: Virginia's Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Community Profile ' I FIGURE 21
�� _ N -
F
_A� _
'.; SITE A . a't • ,; �� : , �k�� J .
SM
70
Il/ �I a I IVERCHANGE 82
PIP. 11
idw
480
' 867.�
•:mes - ✓`'• �..0 ` fi �`'� v�` �� �.�` ?' ^'/ Sub
ChawiJ 1 _ - �J CS _ Sta
• late _ 561
f :F't •�.;• os Fort G , J ' • ' /
e �: te(.•'- :_ ems' •• `00
47
725*
Rath' N ��� �• . (tea ' _ - _ y ��
0 2000 4000
Approximate Scale in Feet
Source: USGS Winchester, VA Quadrangle.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Alternatives Considered
In exploring strategies for satisfying ACOE's needs for the execution of its mission, the General
Services Administration considered the alternatives of taking no action, of building a
government -owned facility, of using available federal property in the area, and lease acquisition
either through leasing space in an existing building or by lease construction in a new building
on the owner's property. In the last instance, seven short listed or final alternative site locations
were considered from the original 13 initial offers.
2.1.1 No Action Alternative
The no action alternative is to continue the ACOE operation in its present facility. The present
facility, a converted warehouse, does not adequately contain the current operations and could
not house the 75 additional persons and associated materials mandated under the expanded
mission of the TAD/ACOE. Providing space for the new requirement, alone, in a separate
facility would create inefficiencies due to the need for the operations to located together.
2.1.2 Federal Construction
Due to time constraints imposed by the commencement of TAD/ACOE's expanded mission and
the requirement for additional personnel, new federal construction is not a feasible option.
2.1.3 Expansion/Renovation of Present Location
TAD/ACOE's present facility is leased, and expansion and renovation would not produce a
facility that will satisfy the requirements of the TAD/ACOE Mission.
2.1.4 Use of Existing Federal Space in the Winchester Area
No existing federal space would be suitable for the new requirement. Table 2.1 is a listing of
the available federal space in the Winchester area.
2.1.5 Lease of Non -Federal Building
2.1.5.1 Site Alternatives
(1) Preferred Alternative Site H
Site H is located east of Winchester in the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park, south of
Route 50 and east of the I-81, Route 560 intersection. The proposed site is located near the
Winchester Regional Airport, the Carper's Valley Golf Club and various commercial facilities.
The site is, as yet undeveloped.
2-1
V �- � — -_ - - G E+ j�I � •.''fit. • �,r• _'�.: "'� e � • c� • ��\�.,� /•� - f �4�5 C� _-^`. _ �� I
.. - O •••0 - opping .� •_ \ .w- _ Cry' _ ,• - '... .�i
•/, ��a'eCef r .• // rr.//ter." J�/i
CREEK \ /j�ri�• 'r�/ - „, 1 i�
.�► b .ram _ - _ _ ...� •:/.\ �/! t` •� i 1`.� • �� ^ _ — 'jl
n - = e�0 QI •'�'S �Sm- rEiment_atSta•
• 756
Robinson :emDtlal Sch 72S -
d' •r (v _` _ _ ' � % � r - _- - , : .fir.:.: i• - _ _ . \/
` !\'/ ti s - _ '• 'gym .. '�l _' f�. ti �, �' • `r�� /k� _ e-_ <"
,isaa • - - e �.: _ _ �� SITE H vaL
ney� +y Sl ;�.,f t- Sn�IQ
- - '` _ ••� r 4 a' .. f T �,./q / •. 8 -C;ti. )Golf Cleo ,y :630wn
'
so' IiN
'tom _ .:i;. : .� ' -�.. �• / —/ /\_ „C) — F _:;•G: : '\• ''_ T.
-.-/ x9/ /iioca - J ��.\. _ r\. - .. = .� „ ^'•\_ - •\� ..�-'' - - V. /!_ `i • '15.1. \ j •O c:=f' i' �,
Kernstown-. s� \ SITE P1 N .o _ ` ♦ `'�
' .� 'ems � • ` '.� � �'_ - .. • ter. .•` ` �' _ 1•, a c s- �! �. 7� •�• J
_ SITE P2
(• % \ �: ^ �• _ I!� �•� `� d�-. j'/� Wmcnester Mumuoal
`'6r[Zl •. �• fib• Old OVeauon.�._ :.\�P '7 / - SITE Jc \
726
Al
All
SITE Y
B*Y156 ♦C vie i 723490
. (�- . ii / �j ,• SJ $ %
63
• i � r •_ _ _ l � .. - ' . Esc'-- - -`� •j �• "�i• r',3.
Run N' -
*30
Lifk
railer rWk
iigy__ �o �- �•_ _ y _ C - C r ` Cry
9 75
' �' `�J y _- ° - / � ,s ` -' �� `�� Imo-. t �.- —` _ � �/ ,� ` — _'� - v •
rN,/ 1NTtRCMANGK_79.
.�-•^//` ` �� �' �� `� \ _ �._ `v~/ - 1^ •^l`..�� � '�17ifI��Als
�' � �� ! �100)
�'. /\� -•x .� � _
Bi'Yr9` __ - y_ r ' -� '.b \\\ s \ ..\,, i `.r. / �, •'�\ �. _ _ i - ��
73t
�Y '� .` r O 1 ( • Ir ' �""'/ J � p ' c J _ _ - _ = _ _"/ - - \_/�l (.. ` �/ r /^ _�Y l `/' ,,1 -C ,a \\\ r ii•� _ \ -v�"'
'�' LOUIS BERGER &ASSOCIATES, INC
'6i�
Su EDM'�\\J
;/ D n ° I •``� rl L£� \U"-��!.CeT � \\ .;��: ) / "• \ \ :r _ J - � _ �- �_,- .�`'`J .�'O 0� J \'/ �'. � ',�O/ � f��
.,
7<5�✓ ;/ /Itvili�` _ a. ~ `- r l_ .S __ _ _ ..,s. ', ; r� _ rt'" 0 Site Locations
0 2000 4000
Source: USGS Winchester and Stephens City, VA Quadrangle.
Approximate Scale In Feet FIGURE 2.2b
• . � 1. •"^',' • .... .. • " `� O i�'^ J _ - ... ��
•7 / 3--
636
�• _ f / ^ Vic..• ShaI Pit\
SITES
\� TSch\ v.
Anne
.rye �o -
J • . �. / �-- .. • �� Pith' ` � � <0:
_ ' � /� •C \...ice -"� ."�� �,'�.• _ �- fir•`\.:_'`
- - .:�: 'is - / .'�" Jf y � "�. = J.' ter..•„
-
01
�'
/,��•, I C �/ \ \' \_ y''V'�� ' _ Ui, ✓ - -'`'' al`` - _:7
\�,\ � 1 � -e•, / � -•;i �� � 'i �1 �_ yam= _ k. e v �'~-
0 2000 4000 LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Approximate Scale in Feet
Site Location
Source: USGS Stephens City, VA Quadrangle.
FIGURE 22c
1
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION -
CONSTRAINTS AND EFFECTS
3.1 Physical Characteristics
3.1.1 Geology
3.1.1.1 Affected Environment
Frederick County is part of the broad Appalachian Valley Province and is underlain mainly by
sedimentary rocks. The county generally consists of two geologic regions, the ridge belt and
the valley belt. All of the proposed sites for this project are located within the valley belt.
The valley belt, which lies east of Little North Mountain, is further divided into two distinct sub-
regions; one is underlain by limestone and the other by fine grained sandstone/shale, known as
Martinsburg Shale. Figure 3.1 illustrates the proposed site locations relative to these two
geologic areas. Sites A and Y are located over limestone bedrock, while the remaining sites are
located over the Martinsburg Shale deposit.
While there are a few small fault zones located in the valley belt, none is located beneath or
adjacent to any of the proposed sites and destructive seismic activity is extremely rare in this
area. The bedrock underlying the proposed sites is likely of little mineral resource value
although some of the limestone could be used as construction aggregate and areas of altered
Martinsburg Shale have produced some relatively high quality clays in the past.
1i The Preferred Alternative Site H is underlain by a thin mantle of silty loam and shale fragments
overlying the relatively soft Martinsburg Shale. According to the Frederick County Soil Survey,
bedrock in this area is often expected to exist at a depth of approximately two (2) to four (4)
feet. The soil survey indicates that similar bedrock conditions are prevalent at Alternative Sites
J, Pl, P2, and S.
tSites A and Y are located over deposits of Bellefonte Limestone and dolomite deposited during
the Ordovician geologic era. The Frederick County Soil Survey states that the bedrock in these
locations exists at depths greater than five (5) feet. Actual depth to bedrock is likely to vary
greatly in this formation since limestone and dolomite are both water soluble in many cases,
which may lead to the formation of sinkholes and caverns.
' 3.1.1.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
With respect to the existing facility, no impacts would occur to geological conditions as a result
of the No Action Alternative.
3-1
�^ ( % ti.', • •�' 'I...........
Mv
r4,�� ••� vJ •<i Off' 0 _ ='� ^�j
(.` COUN rARA/ ", — - �\ lC : 'r HtmCJ' k I -,
c0 e ••-• 11 �' ! " ..1 •Fl�
r ,4y { A .. s� tr• 0" e�A, �� 0r
.j.,
Omb
SS my—
r f' "• ems. 640
�It
35 J OF �j0 �' On
cRrinRcs'ft h� I ; , .
j winccN 1� ?
`. z� Obe J so co \\
5 ° 1 '-� 0 so o� 30-
'! [a5 j Aso alp"-•. o--oh,
•
'vr,
"Mi;`/l
-
r3
< r
b ,
t-Go• i ` /• regesrea_ reenwoodch
150
Omb
cb 2 cJ Oni 0n
y1F O..i a t ds . 6600 lso - •j 645.1ti
0rdo.. 'm ton -�65a�; 55:- '
!' �... ,/ j �e�a vanes
fL 0 ak ,0 O a M
Doi y '� u °c a s R
• W O m b 75 win If£ST£R
40
c 0� OcR /s0 662
Omb
45
r 'l O / �•. '.r.. 70 v.
M ski tere rev
/ f 5o Sha . _ e /rock �- _ •�
��
^e �� f� o
70
par. di�q 670 Po
N.736
. ,_ w_�_. Source: Geologic Map, Frederick County, VA.
Virginia Div. of Mineral Resources, 1963.
f %`:' 729 •'• tea°.;.:k LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES. INC.
C737
h n.
O70 Geology
Pdens icy- - <
` ArmiA S
SCALE: 1-c62,500 Ft. F FOURE 3.1
� I
1
1
1
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Geologic consequences of the development of the Preferred Alternative Site H consists mainly
of potential construction problems (and related costs) caused by shallow bedrock conditions in
the area. According to the Frederick County Soil Survey, however, the soft Martinsburg Shale
bedrock is rippable and can likely be excavated using conventional construction equipment where
it is encountered. The shallow shale bedrock would likely provide excellent structural support
for the proposed ACOE facility and appurtenances. No adverse impacts to the local geology are
expected due to development of the Preferred Alternative Site H.
(3) Alternative Sites J. P1. P2 and S
Consequences and impacts similar to those at Site H could be expected at Sites J, P1, P2, and
S.
(4) Alternative Sites A and Y
Sites A and Y could adversely impact the local geology due to the underlying soluble (limestone
and dolomite) rock formations. According to a Virginia Division of Mineral Resources
publication entitled Sinkhole , the location and rate at which sinkholes form are affected by
man's activities. Potentially significant problems associated with the existence of sinkholes may
include subsidence, flooding, disappearance of surface water sources, soil piping, and the
pollution of groundwater aquifers.
While the existence of sinkholes in a particular area is somewhat rare, it can never be
conclusively forecasted or precluded and thus should be an important consideration in siting any
major development.
3.1.2 Soils
3.1.2.1 Affected Environment
The Soil Survey of Frederick County (SCS, 1987) was used to identify the soil map units present
at each of the sites (Figure 3.2). The information provided below is a summary of the
characteristics of each of the soil map units as provided in the Soil Survey.
(1) No Action Alternative
This Alternative would result in no disturbance to the existing site's soil components.
3-3
.......... M:
M!i
2o
Alk
0.1
Aq
I?F -
ry . it
. . . . . . iFN
Alf
j
401,
�T
�a ��
� I
u
J
r
I
I Ll
1
t
1
0
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Six soil map units are shown within Preferred Alternative Site H. They are:
■ Berks channery silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (Map Symbol 1B);
■ Blairton silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (Map Symbol 3B);
■ Blairton silt loam, 7-15 percent slopes (Map Symbol 3C);
■ Weikert - Berks channery silt loams, 7-15 percent slopes (Map Symbol 41C);
■ Weikert - Berks channery silt loams, 15-25 percent slopes (Map Symbol 41D);
and
■ Weikert - Berks channery silt loam, 25-65 percent slopes (Map Symbol 41E).
The Berks channery silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes map unit is described as gently sloping and
well drained. Included with this Berks map unit are small areas of Blairton and Weikert soils,
making up about 10 percent of the unit, and areas of soils with silty clay loam surface layers and
small areas of rock outcrops, together making up an additional 5 percent of this unit.
Permeability in this Berks soil is moderate, and the available water capacity is very low. Runoff
is medium. The erosion hazard is moderate. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is low.
The surface layer and the subsoil are very strongly acid or strongly acid, except where the soil
has been limed. Depth to bedrock is the main limitation to use of this soil for development.
The Blairton silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (Map Symbol 3B) map unit is described as moderately
deep, gently sloping and moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained. The Blairton silt
loam, 7-15 percent slopes (Map Symbol 3C) is described as moderately deep, strongly sloping
and somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained. Within both the 3B and 3C units,
small areas of Berks, Clearbrook and Weikert soils are included and make up about 25 percent
of each unit.
Typically, the surface layer is dark brown silt loam about 9 inches thick. The subsoil extends
to a depth of 30 inches. In the upper part it is yellowish brown, mottled silty clay loam. In the
lower part it is light yellowish brown, strong brown, and mottled channery silty clay loam. The
substratum, to a depth of 36 inches, is yellowish brown, mottled very channery silt loam.
Fractured shale is at a depth of 36 inches.
Permeability in both the 3B and 3C units is moderately slow and available water capacity is low.
Runoff for the 3B unit (less steep slopes) is medium; runoff for the 3C unit (steeper slopes) is
medium to rapid. The erosion hazard is moderate for both map units. The shrink -swell
potential in the subsoil is low for both map units. Additionally, for both map units, the surface
layer and the subsoil commonly are strongly acid or very strongly acid, except where the soil
has been limed. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of lh foot to 2 feet from November
through March for the 3B map unit and from 'h foot to 3 feet for the 3C map unit. The
seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and potential frost action are the main limitations
to use of both of these map units for development.
3-5
� I
II
I
E.
I
i
1�
The three Weikert-Berks channery silt loams mapping units 41C, 41D, and 41E consist of
shallow and moderately deep, well drained soils. These mapping units are characterized as
strongly sloping (41C), moderately steep (41D), and steep and very steep (41E).
Typically, the surface layer of the Weikert soil for all of the three mapping units is dark grayish
brown channery silt loam about 3 inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish brown very channery
silt loam about 9 inches thick. The substratum is yellowish brown extremely channery silt loam
to a depth of about 15 inches. Acid shale bedrock is at a depth of about 15 inches.
Typically, the surface layer of the Berks soil for each of these three units is dark brown
channery silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish brown very channery and
extremely channery silt loam about 14 inches thick. The substratum is strong brown very
channery silt loam to a depth of about 30 inches. Acid shale bedrock is at a depth of about 30
inches.
The Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 7-15 percent slopes (41C) map unit consists of shallow
and moderately deep, strongly sloping, well drained soils. A typical area of this may unit is
approximately 50 percent Weikert soils, 40 percent Berks soil and 10 percent other soils
including Sequoia soils and rock outcrops.
For this map unit (41C), permeability in the Weikert soil is moderately rapid and in the Berks
soil is moderate. The available water capacity is very low. Runoff is rapid. The erosion
hazard is severe.
A typical area of the Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 15-25 percent slopes (41D) map unit
consists of about 55 percent Weikert soil, 35 percent Berks soil and 10 percent other soils
including Gainesboro and Lehew soils and areas of stones and rock outcrops. Permeability in
these Weikert and Berks soils is moderately rapid, and the available water capacity is very low.
Surface runoff is rapid.
A typical area of the Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 25-65 percent slopes (41E) map unit
consists of about 60 percent Weikert soils, 30 percent Berks soils and 10 percent other soils.
The 10 percent other soils includes areas of Gainesboro and Lehew soils and other areas of very
stony soils and rock outcrops. Permeability in the Weikert and Berks soils of this map unit are
moderately rapid, and the available water capacity is very low. Surface runoff is very rapid.
For all of these three Weikert-Berks map units, the shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is low.
The soils commonly are strongly acid or very strongly acid throughout. Bedrock is at a depth
of 12 to 20 inches in the Weikert soil and 20 to 40 inches in the Berks soil.
The depth to bedrock is a limitation for use of these three map units for development. The steep
slopes are an additional limitation for the 41D and 41E units.
3-6
r
� I
� I
I I
1
In I U. - - 11-1
The soil map units and their symbols shown within Alternative Site A are:
■ Carbo silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (5B);
■ Chilhowie silty clay loam, 2-7 percent slopes (8B);
■ Frederick - Poplimento loams, 2-7 percent (14B);
■ Oaklet silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (32B); and
■ Timberville silt loam, 2-7 percent (40B).
The Carbo silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes map unit is considered moderately deep, gently sloping
and well drained. Typically, the surface layer is dark yellowish brown silt loam about 9 inches
thick. The subsoil is about 17 inches thick and is mostly strong brown, firm clay. Bedrock is
at a depth of 26 inches. Included in this mapping unit are small areas of Chilhowie and Oaklet
soils.
Permeability in the 5B soil mapping unit is slow, the available water capacity is low and runoff
is medium. The erosion hazard is considered moderate. The shrink -swell potential in the
subsoil is high. The surface layer and subsoil are strongly acid to neutral.
Depth to bedrock, the clayey subsoil, shrinking and swelling, and permeability are the main
limitations to use of this soil for development.
The Chilhowie silty clay loam, 2-7 percent slopes mapping unit is described as moderately deep,
gently sloping and well drained. Typically, the surface layer is dark yellowish brown silty clay
loam, approximately 7 inches thick. The subsoil is brown and dark yellowish brown clay about
10 inches thick. The substratum is yellowish brown very channery silty clay to a depth of 27
inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of 27 inches. Included in this soil mapping unit are
small areas of Carbo and Oaklet soils.
Permeability in this Chilhowie soil is slow and the available water capacity is very low. Runoff
is medium. The erosion hazard is moderate. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is high.
Depth to bedrock and the clayey subsoil are the main limitations to use of this soil for
development.
The Frederick-Poplimento loams, 2-7 percent slopes mapping unit consists of very deep, gently
sloping, well drained soils. This mapping unit is composed of approximately 45 percent
. Frederick soil, 40 percent Poplimento soil and 15 percent of other soils. However, the
Frederick and Poplimento soils are so closely intermingled that it is not practical to map the soils
separately. The 15 percent other soils includes areas of Oaklet, Swimley and Timberville soils.
3-7
r
For the Frederick soil, the surface layer is a dark brown loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoil
extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. The subsoil is a yellowish red silty clay loam to a
depth of about 12 inches. Below 12 inches, the subsoil is a yellowish red and yellowish brown,
mottled clay and yellowish red and yellowish brown silty clay.
The surface layer of the Poplimento soil is dark yellowish brown loam about 5 inches thick.
The subsoil extends to a depth of 50 inches. In the upper part, the subsoil is a strong brown
clay loam to a depth of about 9 inches. In the next part to a depth of 39 inches the subsoil is
a yellowish red and strong brown, mottled clay. The lower part of the subsoil is a yellowish
red and strong brown silty clay loam. The substratum is mostly a strong brown silty clay loam
to a depth of 60 inches or more.
Permeability is moderate in the Frederick soil and moderately slow in the Poplimento soil. The
available water capacity is moderate in both soils. Surface runoff is medium. The erosion
hazard is moderate. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is high. The soils commonly are
moderately acid or strongly acid throughout.
The clayey subsoil, shrinking and swelling, low strength, permeability, and slope are the main
limitations to use of these soils for development.
The Oaklet silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes mapping unit is considered very deep, gently sloping
and well drained. Included with this soil mapping unit are areas of Frederick, Pagebrook and
Poplimento soils. Scattered areas of rock outcrops may also be included. These additional soils
and rock outcrops compose approximately 15 percent of the Oaklet silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes
map unit.
The surface layer of this Oaklet map unit is a dark brown silt loam about 5 inches thick. The
subsoil extends to a depth of 60 inches or more and consists of a yellowish brown silt loam to
a depth of 11 inches. Below that, the subsoil is a yellowish brown clay, dark yellowish brown
and light olive brown clay, dark yellowish brown and yellowish brown, mottled clay, and
yellowish brown clay.
Permeability in this Oaklet soil is slow, and the available water capacity is moderate. Surface
runoff is medium. The erosion hazard is moderate. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil
is high. The surface layer commonly is medium acid, except where the soil has been limed.
The subsoil commonly is medium acid through mildly alkaline.
Permeability, low strength, shrinking and swelling, and the clayey subsoil are the main
limitations to use of this soil for development.
The Timberville silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes may unit is very deep, gently sloping and well
drained. Areas of Carbo and Frederick soils make up about 20 percent of this map unit.
Typically, the surface layer is dark brown silt loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil extends
to a depth of 60 inches or more. In the upper part, the subsoil is dark yellowish brown silt
L�
loam and strong brown silty clay loam, to a depth of about 28 inches. Below that, it is
yellowish red and strong brown clay loam.
Permeability in this Timberville soil is moderate and the available water capacity is high.
Surface runoff is medium. The erosion hazard is moderate. The shrink -swell potential in the
upper part of the subsoil is low, and in the lower part is moderate. Depth to bedrock is more
than 60 inches. The soil ranges from very strongly acid to moderately acid, except where the
soil has been limed. From April through October the soil is subject to frequent flooding of very
brief duration by runoff from higher, adjacent areas.
Flooding and low strength in the surface layer and in the upper part of the subsoil are the main
limitations to use of this soil for development, especially septic tank absorption fields, sewage
lagoons, sanitary landfills, shallow excavations, dwellings, small commercial buildings, roads
and streets, and most types of recreation.
(4) Alternative Site J
The soil map units within this site are:
■ Blairton silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (Map Symbol 3B); and
■ Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 7-15 percent slopes (Map Symbol 41C).
The Blairton silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes map unit is described as moderately deep, gently
sloping and moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained. Small areas of Berks,
Clearbrook and Weikert soils also make up about 25 percent of this map unit.
Typically, the surface layer is dark brown silt loam about 9 inches thick. The subsoil extends
to a depth of 30 inches. In the upper part it is yellowish brown, mottled silty clay loam. In the
lower part it is light yellowish brown, strong brown, and mottled channery silty clay loam. The
substratum, to a depth of 36 inches, is yellowish brown, mottled very channery silt loam.
Fractured shale is at a depth of 36 inches.
Permeability in this Blairton soil is moderately slow. The available water capacity is low.
Runoff is medium. The erosion hazard is moderate. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil
is low. The surface layer and the subsoil commonly are strongly acid or very strongly acid,
except where the soil has been limed. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 1/2 foot to
2 feet from November through March. The seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and
Ipotential frost action are the main limitations to use of this soil for development.
The Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 7-15 percent slopes map unit consists of shallow and
moderately deep, strongly sloping, well drained soils. A typical area of this map unit is
approximately 50 percent Weikert soils, 40 percent Berks soil and 10 percent other soils
including Sequoia soils and rock outcrops. However, the Weikert and Berks soils are so closely
intermingled that it is not practical to map them separately.
1 3-9
I
� I
� a
I I
11
11
Typically, the surface layer of the Weikert soil is brown channery silt loam about 3 inches thick.
The subsoil is yellowish brown very channery silt loam about 9 inches thick. The substratum
is yellowish brown extremely channery silt loam to a depth of about 15 inches. Acid shale
bedrock is at a depth of about 15 inches.
Typically, the surface layer of the Berks soil is dark brown channery silt loam about 8 inches
thick. The subsoil is yellowish brown and strong brown channery and extremely channery silt
loam about 14 inches thick. The substratum is strong brown extremely channery silt loam to
a depth of about 30 inches. Acid shale bedrock is at a depth of about 30 inches.
Permeability in the Weikert soil is moderately rapid and in the Berks soil is moderate. The
available water capacity is very low. Runoff is rapid. The erosion hazard is severe. The
shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is low. The surface layer and the subsoil of these soils
commonly are strongly acid to very strongly acid, except where the soils have been limed.
Bedrock is at a depth of 12 to 20 inches in the Weikert soil and 20 to 40 inches in the Berks
soil. Depth to bedrock is the main limitation to use of these soils for development.
(5) Alternative Site P1
This site contains two soil map units:
■ Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2-7. percent slopes (Map Symbol 9B); and
■ Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 7-15 percent slopes (Map Symbol 41C).
The Clearbrook map unit 9B is described as moderately deep, gently sloping and somewhat
poorly drained. Included in this map unit are small areas of Berks, Blairton and Weikert soils
making up about 20 percent of the 9B map unit.
Typically, the surface layer is dark brown channery silt loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoil
in the upper part is pale brown, mottled very channery silty clay loam to a depth of 14 inches.
In the lower part it is light gray and light brownish gray, mottled very channery silty clay loam
to a depth of 23 inches. The substratum, to a depth of 27 inches, is gray extremely channery
silty clay loam. Soft shale bedrock is at a depth of 27 inches.
Permeability in this Clearbrook soil is moderately slow. The available water capacity is very
low. Runoff is medium. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is moderate. The surface
layer and the subsoil are very strongly acid or strongly acid, except where the soil has been
limed. The seasonal high water table is between the surface and a depth of 1h foot from October
through April.
The seasonal high water table and depth to bedrock are the main limitations to use of this soil
for development.
3-10
The characteristics of the 41C map unit have previously been described under Alternative Site
J. In summary, the depth to bedrock is the main limitation to use of the Weikert-Berks channery
silt loams, 7-15 percent slopes (41C) map unit for development.
(6) Alternative Site P2
Site P2 is composed of three soil map units based on the Soil Survey of Frederick County (SCS,
1987). They are:
■ Berks channery silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (1B);
■ Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 2-7 percent slopes (41B); and
■ Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 15-25 percent slopes (41D).
The 1B and 41D soil map units have previously been described under the Preferred Alternative
Site H section.
The Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 2-7 percent slopes (41B) map unit is described as
moderately deep, gently sloping, well drained soils. A typical area of the 41B map unit consists
of about 50 percent Weikert soils, 40 percent Berks soil and 10 percent other soils. The 10
percent other soils includes areas of Sequoia soils and areas of rock outcrops. The typical
profiles of the 41B map unit are the same as previously described for the 41D map unit under
Preferred Alternative Site H.
Permeability in the Weikert soil of the 41B map unit is moderately rapid and in the Berks soil
is moderate. The available water capacity is very low. Runoff is medium. The erosion hazard
is moderate. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is low. The surface layer and the subsoil
of these soils commonly are strongly acid to very strongly acid except where the soils have been
limed. Bedrock is at the depth of 12 to 20 inches in the Weikert soil and 20 to 40 inches in the
Berks soil.
The limitations of these map units for development are the depth to bedrock for map units 13,
41B and 41D; and the steep slopes of map unit 41D.
(7) Alternative Site S
The soil map units of Site S are:
■ Berks channery silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (1B);
■ Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (9B); and
■ Weikert-Berks channery silt loams, 7-15 percent slopes (41C).
The characteristics of map unit 1B have previously been provided under Preferred Alternative
Site H; 41C characteristics under Alternative Site J; and the 9B mapping unit characteristics
under Alternative P 1.
3-11
� I
� I
� I
A summary of the limitations of each of these three map units is as follows:
■ 1B is limited by depth to bedrock;
■ 9B is limited by the seasonal high water table and depth to bedrock; and
■ 41C is limited by the depth to bedrock.
(8) Alternative Site Y
The soil map units within Site Y as shown in the Soil Survey of Frederick County (SCS, 1987)
are:
■ Carbo silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes (Map Symbol 5B); and
■ Carbo-Oaklet silt loams, very rocky, 2-15 percent slopes (Map Symbol 6C).
The characteristics of soil map unit 5B have previously been described under Alternative Site
A. The limitations of this map unit for development are the depth to bedrock, the clayey
subsoil, a high shrink -swell potential and slow permeability.
The Carbo-Oaklet silt loams 6C map unit consists of moderatelydeep and deep,
eep, gently sloping
and strongly sloping, well drained soils. A typical area of this map unit is about 50 percent
Carbo soil, 45 percent Oaklet soil and 5 percent other soils. The 5 percent other soils includes
areas of Chilhowie soils and areas of severely eroded soils with a silty clay or clay surface layer.
The Carbo and Oaklet soils generally occur in such close association that it is not practical to
map them separately.
Typically, the surface layer of the Carbo soil is yellowish brown or dark yellowish brown silt
loam 9 inches thick. The subsoil, to a depth of about 26 inches, is yellowish brown, firm clay.
Limestone bedrock is at a depth of 26 inches.
Typically, the surface layer of the Oaklet soil is dark brown silt loam about 5 inches thick. The
subsoil is yellowish brown silt loam to a depth of 11 inches. Below that it is yellowish brown
and dark yellowish brown clay to a depth of 60 inches or more.
Permeability in the Carbo and Oaklet soils is slow, and the available water capacity is moderate.
Runoff is medium. The erosion hazard is severe. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is
high. The Carbo soil is commonly neutral, and the Oaklet soil is commonly strongly acid to
neutral.
• Rock outcrops, permeability, and shrinking and swelling are the main limitations to use of these
soils for community development. With the Carbo soil, the shallow depth to bedrock is also a
limitation.
3-12
3.1.2.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
Because the No Action Alternative does not involve any action at the existing site, impacts to
the existing soil conditions would not occur.
(2) Alternative Sites A. H. J. P1, P2. S and Y
Most of the impact to existing soil conditions would occur during the construction phase of
development. The soils would be affected by construction activities associated with site
preparation such as clearing, grubbing, excavation, and grading. Appropriate engineering
techniques and control measures will be applied in conformance with mandated soil erosion and
sediment control requirements to minimize adverse impacts to soil resources. Measures to be
taken include minimizing areas of disturbance, revegetation, silt barriers, soil matting, and
detention basins. Of additional significant consequence (at Sites A and Y only), is the presence
of high shrink/swell soils which may necessitate additional design efforts and require substantial
engineering controls to protect pavements, structures, etc. from potentially destructive soil
volume changes as moisture levels fluctuate throughout the year.
3.1.3 Landforms
3.1.3.1 Affected Environment
(1) No Action Alternative
Under this Alternative, no action would be taken at the existing TAD/ACOE facility, and there
would be no consequences that would affect landforms.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
This Alternative site is in an area marked by steep topography. The specific site chosen for the
TAD/ACOE facility has steep slopes to the north, east and west. To the south, the topography
is comparatively flat, extending to the adjacent Carper's Valley Golf Course. There are steep
banks on either side of the stream bed north and west of the site where the access road from
Route 50 is proposed.
(3) Alternative Site J
This Alternative site is a field containing some areas of rolling topography. Some regrading and
topographic alteration of the site might be required particularly on the southern and western sides
of the site.
3-13
(4) Alternative Site P2
This site contains some slopes in excess of 15 % on the eastern and southern sides, and some
drainage swales. The proposed building site is basically flat.
(5) Alternative Site S
The site terrain is essentially flat, but there is a small ridge running east -west near the middle
of the site. Depending on the specific location of the TAD/ACOE facility, alteration of the
topography could be minimized.
Topography is essentially flat on these sites, and no significant alteration of landforms would be
required.
3.1.3.2 Consequences
role.., �. : U
Because the No Action Alternative does not involve any action at the existing site, impacts to
the existing landforms would not occur.
Since the alternative sites are zoned or approved for development, it is likely that the sites would
be developed in the foreseeable future. The impacts resulting from such development cannot
be estimated or compared to the proposed action, although it is assumed that the geological
constraints would be the same.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Construction activities within. Site H would require varying degrees of clearing, excavation and
grading for building and roadway construction that will reconfigure portions of the present
topography. However, the preliminary site layout Alternatives for the development of the site
maintain the existing stream channels and general character of the site terrain. All areas with
existing slopes greater than 15 percent should be avoided to the maximum extent possible.
Erosion control measures and landscaping/revegetation of disturbed areas will serve to minimize
disturbance to the topography and coordinate the aesthetic/architectural character of the proposed
facility. Development of Site H is not expected to produce any adverse long term impacts.
(3) Alternative Site A
Due to the relatively flat character of Site A, grading activities and changes to the existing
topography would be minimal. The use of erosion control measures and proper landscaping in
areas of disturbance would protect the site from adverse consequences.
3-14
1
F1
Development of Site J
as disturbance of the
minimized, however,
previously described.
(4) Alterative Site J
as presently proposed would require some amount of regrading as well
existing topographic character at the site. Adverse impacts could be
by instituting erosion control measures and proper landscaping as
(5) Alternative Site P1
Site P1 is relatively flat and, therefore, would require only minor regrading. While a narrow
ditch does exist on the site, the preliminary site layout appears to be adaptable to reduce adverse
impacts such that any long term affects could be substantially avoided in light of available
erosion controls that could be implemented.
(6) Alternative Site P2
Site P2 contains some terrain with slopes greater than 15 percent as well as, some existing
drainage Swale areas. The proposed site layout should be adapted to minimize grading and
construction in these areas, and erosion controls should be employed such that long term adverse
impacts are minimized.
(7) Alternative Site S
Construction and grading activities required to develop Site S would impact the existing uneven
terrain to varying degrees. However, the proposed site layout could be adapted, and erosion
control/landscaping measures could be employed such that adverse impacts to the existing
topography would be minimized and would be temporary in nature.
(8) Alternative Site Y
The slightly rolling character of Site Y makes it readily adaptable to development with some
regrading effort. The institution of erosion controls and adaption of the proposed site layout
would minimize any minor impacts that might occur.
3.1.4 Vegetation and Wildlife
3.1.4.1 Affected Environment
A field reconnaissance was performed at each of the Alternative sites. Observations of the
general condition of each site, the types and extent of vegetative communities and any direct
observations or signs of wildlife were noted. A list of the vegetative species observed on the
sites is provided in Table 3.1. Additionally, the National Wetlands Inventory Maps were
reviewed for each of the sites (Figure 3.3). It should be noted that National Wetlands Inventory
Maps are prepared primarily through stereoscopic interpretation of aerial photographs and
3-15
� I
� I
I I
I I
L�'
1
1
require field verification for accuracy. In this instance the National Wetlands Inventory Maps
did not identify any wetlands on the sites, but in several cases, wetland vegetative associations
were observed during field reconnaissance.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage
(VDNH) and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGF) were contacted
regarding the presence of any species of special status known to occur on or near the sites. A
copy of the response letters from these agencies is provided in Appendix A. In summary of
these responses, there are no known federally or state listed species known to occur on or in
proximity to any of the sites. The USFWS and the VDNH have provided the same list of
species of special status known to occur within Frederick County. This list contains 32
resources, none of which are specifically designated as legally protected, but 5 of the 32 are
federal candidate category 2. Candidate category 2 species are those being considered for
federal listing, but are not yet officially designated as such. However, their status is subject to
change at any time. The VDNH identified the Loggerhead Shrike, in addition to the 32 on the
list as potentially occurring around the city of Winchester. Preferred habitat for this species is
not present on any of the sites.
(1) No Action Alternative
Under No Action Alternative, no action would occur at the existing facility.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Site H, located off of U.S. Route 50, is characterized by areas of steep slopes, gullies, and
rolling terrain in other areas. The vegetative community observed on the steep slopes was
dominated by red cedar and various oaks. Other areas were vegetated primarily by grasses and
weedy species, such as Japanese honeysuckle and blackberry, which appeared to have been
recently mowed. These open areas also supported young red cedar trees. Sulphur Spring Run
and a few tributaries to this stream are present on this site. There appeared to be a narrow
border of wetlands adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run. Wildlife likely to utilize Preferred
Alternative Site H are those species common to the area such as songbirds, sparrows, rabbits,
opossums, and raccoons.
(3) Alternative Site A
At the time of the field reconnaissance, the only natural vegetation observed at this site was one
tree near Route 661. Alternative Site A is a part of a larger agricultural field in an area of
several homes and various commercial uses. This site was being used for corn production.
Wildlife likely to occur on or near Alternative Site A would probably include species which have
become accustomed to human development. Birds, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, squirrels and
other rodents, and snakes would be the species most likely to be found near Alternative Site A.
3-16
I
I
Table 3.1
VEGETATION SPECIES OBSERVED
Scientific Name
Common Name
Verbascum thapsus
Common mullein
Lonicera japonica
Japanese honeysuckle
Rubus spp.
Blackberry
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Common ragweed
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Virginia creeper
Rosa multiflora
Multiflora rose
Rhus sp.
Sumac
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Juniperus virginiana
Red cedar
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
Pamcum clandestinum
Deer -tongue grass
Eupatorium maculatum
Spotted joe-pye-weed
Toxicodendron radicans
Poison ivy
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
Quercus spp.
Oaks
Source: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., November 1992.
3-17
NI
If
17::�K %IBRh a�- Ei
,�.•:Sff i � PU
PUw
1'
Pt16H6
Ti;1PEWL m c! /<' ' - SITE A
� r,. `•''9 � � � / r( w � � _ •J661i^��� \ ��/� _ ;tea •
V.
ia
1 , ��`-/.d00.�` .- - _ _ - r _ - ( `rya/�?C-. •, � ,• _ •, � _� � • �,Y�• /
J \ • I vTERC f4GF'82.
;tine. .. •', _ 1 _ /Jub• a
�`� rim �1' ��\\ •� • �%.� 4� ^~1- �"'``,`�.'` / •r ti
,� 1 - :r' q' j t/ r� fly 'J '-�/ � - ., �.•. `i �i'ti. = �r - • i'✓/ �, •..—
. �•I , , �• .'S"'T7� � I L� 3 ♦ '` _ ".��, Pp \\ . � • ! � `,� /:r ifs
.
WA
0 2000 4000
Approximate Scale in Feet
Source: National Wetland Inventory Map,
Winchester, VA Quadrangle.
FLO�UIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES. INC
National Wetland Inventory Map
Site A
Fx3uR£ 3.3a
p� Ci •.-, -ate. C `-- "n-� t:r � di �;, --.�� I � ��6?� _
r{1weM.MurwC
kh
PamH
R 1
PEWA
ti
. `a- • '1. :/ •.J Q/.,i.0 --_ _ � `o _'�� _ -C. S - t•O-"'r'"...•+`Z s 9. r. _�,
••1' . .ti, / - .st• .� - este/liw YJa; _ ':�_.<; Wllg
,i� .✓ .y. l`-�- l�'E�_.. � �~ _ i '� \ .. ,�• - - 1 i�� ��-'mot COIM ";ab /,�, ' - � %�''. .r. •���1 � �•'
_ �� \ _ Q -��� ` _ _QJS •i\ `Y' - � ;mot •�' ` r _ _s�•s, - - '� '� . i f•, v� •�`^
` ~ / \,, � - �i - �� /{ f . • � � ` c
Ai
-74
7 1 I - ; //i —M1 _ • may' 1 r ..4LJ�
�/ •'�- iJ; / /.. 621) a - ti wi ;'�� '' _ cam^�.
' Q + AV
.,; r '. , \/ f . J 9 - • ' r !� yam.',_' - •/j , • • - - I _��=+ • ` -
PUPAL -
am
-- . � - _ e.►•-,,.,••f- � .. > M � .:,, . • .. I : �: « ', - • ? •
_ W3 h ; �'•' rt is / ' _'>�' `l
O - � -t- �-s= c4EEK � , -• .�- ',.;-. '�y�, _ �,•• . "s � `%,, _' _/_,mot � -- :` \ =�,..�:: t -' - p ,. _
71
MIX
^����-�/- �% ,..�-^ 1-50&""-_-^ ` _ � ' r' S 1 �.,, '�'�' _: j . • � ;' � a � 1 / / ` � �.. • � _ _ f�!'c`.r` � : ..` - ' f. ' ��ith
s:- � ! ! Robtlgoaataa�lal >: n / ' pEIyYA :' ' x`z:<' < _ _ . V
J - r L .:
K.
obb
�_ SITE H ;.� .` alwe-
%
IL
=01T 7300
�
�. � �m �"•'%• -t�. • SITE Pl
• ^ "�_J. t_� 5°• �% �; , ■ }jam `PAW �!
'.e.`• . •'4 •�^ _ yaS.: r _ •% \ - _ .r� _ ..dFl !- •�! a` - - -a _ 1 r• �'�-r i }` .�`\- `• Z'J
;
• _ S _ �.
;'�: ' �} _ :'!^ / . - . '.:,1w ... ( e ' -�•/+' _ - .`� �:� � ! �ooncnester Mjn+r oa •• -.
.r•,. •� '+- J _ `'' �wG c..-.Y •� _ i6i/ ��'✓3 l .. � .'p, •:{�..�r%,>� 1l. a�\�A,r6Dr!
old Op"uon
r. - aF•' • - _=- - ``�- Ge^ •� / \ �. / �• „�0 =� • .�'=1 SITE I'G
•yam _ _ t; ,:`--'.�' ` /�� a. n. /j�E ,� 712.'"� ♦ C, 1 a
/: - - • . _ ~� i �'�. + \ __ •�. 0 � ?. @Sig % 1 � -� 1 ^ `Z'^ .'ice _ / �.. / '_ `•. - , Jy ./` - t`'
r / _ ;�1 / i i � _ `�=� - -_ '� j - - i �},h � _ i651,, '��, " L- Pt1�-.� � o _- . , i .i ° � _ - • >;• -=7 - ��� i ,/'• � -- `'- ,� �. S�- �• F
SITE J<
by
Pell
Kok
@CPTom.; ` 723 • -�i • ti� , -.�cr
•'�> .ice,/--- .__ � �eC. �
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
�1 Pubw `b / _ Shenand°an `�
SITE Y - .. V t aemonei.Park ` �si�� J .
__ /.. /. II y- PtJ6NYs PU6i�.�
g - P . ` 7 '� a =� 1 `" eves+►, ' 'J - Tr ; , l •f \ National Wetland Inventory Map
•/ '� P 111 /.....'
+: _ Jl_ -o- _...2000afk a000 Sites H, J, P1, P2 and Y
Source: National Wetland Inventory Map, Winchester and Stephens City, VA Quadrangles. Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 3.3b
�MW
jd
PUW
i'r II ``. (� - ` • x �i, Ste, • .�>/� �\'T �,
PUSH
PUSH
PU6ph 1 i �� pUBN� ` PtlBtiF+z
anti .J f
v'—ply
DOBHt,
PUBKH
•fit �� .� _ � 1 /� r • -�V�
PUBHh i J ,_; �2
FU
PEMC r y• mil"
''O ' / "� 7 SITES
_ � . •.-ram"`. �1 _ p �; �. ':\: • �
all—
_� qqi, / //n)` �n — \ _ •�� • �• �/ � _ c\..J�'- -- �' .ilk\{\'�
P11— ! .;i _ _ �, li^, 1 .�Fv.i�.:c( \\ `il" �_1 , • C y �_-'.i)O r �` \` ( 1 Gui
Kai
i • �-�� �J.�'�i .xil��t �_ 'i 1 `� !"�:• .'�. (� �)U i� y �' � f �." l 1 i/.. � - \ , ',ham
0 2000 4000
Approximate Scale in Feet
Source: National Wetland Inventory Map,
Stephens City, VA Quadrangle.
it
(4) Alternative Site J
This site consists of a wooded area adjacent to open, grassy fields which appeared to be mowed
on a regular basis. Various oaks, red cedar, and sweet gum were the dominant canopy species.
Japanese honeysuckle and blackberry were also common in the wooded area.
The only wildlife observed during the field reconnaissance was a Killdeer. However, other
species such as raccoons, opossum, squirrels and other rodents, sparrows and other common
species would be expected to utilize the site.
(5) Alternative Site P1
This site is a grassy field located across from the Winchester Airport. In the eastern part of the
site, there is a narrow tree line which runs diagonally toward Airport Road (State Route 645).
Pin oak, red cedar, locust, Japanese honeysuckle and multiflora rose were the dominant species
in this area. As the tree line approaches Airport Road, this strip becomes an emergent type
wetland of various sedges and grasses with a very small stream channel. Wildlife likely to
utilize this site would consist of species common to developed areas, such as various birds,
squirrels and other rodents, raccoons and rabbits.
(6) Alternative Site P2
The site is located adjacent to Site P1 along Airport Road. Part of the site is a grassy, regularly
mowed field. Other areas of the site are wooded primarily with pines. These wooded areas
were observed along the eastern edge of the site and contained intermittent tributaries to Buffalo
Lick Run. These intermittent tributaries drain to a larger, unnamed tributary which runs north -
south along the site's eastern edge. There is a narrow border of emergent type wetlands along
this larger tributary. Wildlife likely to utilize this site would consist of species common to
developed areas, such as various birds, squirrels and other rodents, raccoons and rabbits.
() Alternative Site S
Site S is an open field of grasses and young red cedar trees. Wildlife are likely to be consistent
with wildlife on other Alternatives sites.
(8) Alternative Site Y
This site includes a fallow field and small wooded areas. The vegetative species observed in the
field were Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, ragweed, mullein and Virginia creeper. The
wooded areas showed evidence of human disturbance such as debris piles and old structure
foundations. The dominant species observed in the wooded areas were sumac, red maple, black
cherry and red cedar trees. Poison ivy and multiflora rose were also common in these wooded
areas.
3-21
1
3.1.4.2 Consequences
Each of the proposed build Alternatives will require disturbance to and loss of a portion of the
existing vegetative communities. Wildlife utilizing the proposed site will be displaced during
construction. Most individuals would be expected to relocate to adjacent areas, but others may
not be successful and may perish. However, suitable replacement habitat exists in the vicinity
of all of the sites to accommodate some of the displaced individuals, therefore the number of
unsuccessful individuals is expected to be very low. Additionally, the sites are currently
supporting species which are common and accustomed to being in close proximity to developed
areas. In summary, although some habitat will be lost, impacts from proposed development of
any of the sites are expected to be minimal since there is no discernable difference among the
sites.
(1) No Action Alternative
Because the No Action Alternative does not involve any changes to the existing site or any of
the alternative sites, no impacts would be expected to occur under this alternative.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
The proposed access road to this site may infringe upon a narrow border of wetlands adjacent
to Sulpher Spring Run. Wetlands encroachment might be permitted under Nationwide Permit
Number 14 (road crossings), and the project would be developed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 11990.
3.1.5 Natural Hazards
3.1.5.1 Affected Environment
(1) No Action Alternative
The present TAD/ACOE facility is not located in a 100 year flood zone, nor is it in an area of
active seismicity.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Most of the site is within Zone C, except for a small part of Sulphur Spring Run which is within
Zone A: Areas of the 100-year flood (Figure 3.4).
(3) Alternative Sites A. L P1. P2. S and Y
All of the sites are located within Zone C: Areas of minimal flooding as shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Sites A and
Y are located in areas of potential subsidence due to limestone subsurface geology.
3-22
3.1.5.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
The present facility is not located in an area of natural hazards. Under this Alternative, because
no action is contemplated, it is assumed that this condition would continue.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
The facility could be built so as to avoid the 100 year flood zone. State regulations would
govern infringement on the flood plain, and the facility would be built in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 11988.
(3) Alternative Site J. P1. P2, and S
No consequences from natural hazards are expected to result from proposed action.
(4) Alternative Site A and Y
Site A and Y are located in areas where subsidence and sinkholes could occur. Sinkholes are
an infrequent occurrence, and Frederick County would require testing before construction.
3.1.6 Air Quality
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines ambient air in CFR 40, Part 50, as "that
portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access." In
compliance with the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 1977 and 1990 Amendments (CAAA),
EPA has promulgated ambient air quality standards and regulations. The National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) were enacted for the protection of the public health and welfare,
allowing for an adequate margin of safety. To date, EPA has issued NAAQS for six criteria
pollutants; carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SOZ , particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10), ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and
lead (Pb). The health and welfare effects of the criteria pollutants are listed in Table 3.2.
There are two types of standards: Primary and Secondary. Primary standards are designed to
protect sensitive segments of the population from adverse health effects, with an adequate margin
of safety, which may result from exposure to criteria pollutants. Secondary standards are
designed to protect human health and welfare, and therefore, in some cases, are more stringent
than the primary standards. Human welfare is considered to include the natural environment
(vegetation) and the man made environment (physical structures).
Under the CAA and CAAA, state and local air pollution control agencies have the authority to
adopt and enforce ambient air quality standards (AAQS) more stringent than the NAAQS. The
commonwealth of Virginia has also adopted ambient air quality standards that specify maximum
permissible short-term and long-term consideration of various contaminants. These standards
3-24
� I
� I
I I
I I
[I
1
Table 3.2
Description of NAAQS Criteria Pollutants Including Health and Welfare Effects
Sulfur Dioxide (SOS - a toxic, colorless gas with a distinctly detectable odor and taste. Oxides of sulfur in the presence of
water vapor, such as fog, may result in the formation of sulfuric acid mist. Human exposure to SO, can result in irritation to
the respiratory system which can cause both temporary and permanent damage. Sulfur dioxide exposure can cause leaf injury
to plants and suppress plant growth and yield. Sulfur dioxide can also cause corrosive damage to many types of man made
materials.
Particulates (PM) - The PM standard refers to inhalable particulate matter, which is defined as particulate matter less than
10 microns (0.01 millimeters) in diameter. The prior standard for Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) referred to airborne
particulates less than 100 microns in diameter. Particulates originate from a vast variety of natural and anthropogenic sources.
Some predominate anthropogenic sources of particulates include, combustion products (wood, coal, and fossil fuels), automotive
exhaust (particularly diesels), and wind-borne dust (fugitive dust) from construction activities, roadways, and soil erosion.
Human exposure to inhalable particulate matter effects the respiratory system and can increase risk of cancer and heart attack.
Small particulates effect visibility by scattering visible light and when combined with water vapor can create haze and smog.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) - a colorless, odorless, tasteless and toxic gas which is formed through incomplete combustion of
crude oil, fuel oil, natural gas, wood waste, gasoline and diesel fuel. Most combustion processes produce at least a small quality
of this gas, while motor vehicles constitute the largest single source. Human exposure to carbon monoxide can cause serious
health effects before exposure is ever detected by the human senses. The most serious health effect of CO results when inhaled
CO enters the blood stream and prevents oxygen from combining with hemoglobin, impeding the distribution of oxygen
throughout the blood stream. This process significantly reduces the ability for people to do manual tasks, such as walking.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) - a reddish brown gas with a highly detectable odor, which is highly corrosive and a strong oxidizing
agent. Nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO,) constitute what is commonly referred to as nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen
oxides (NO,) are formed by all combustion and certain chemical manufacturing operations. During combustion, nitrogen (N)
combines with oxygen (0) to form nitric oxide (NO). This combines with more oxygen to form nitrogen dioxide (N0,). Under
intense sunlight NO, reacts with organic compounds to form photochemical oxidants. Oxidants have a significant effect on
atmospheric chemistry and are gaseous air pollutants that are not emitted into the air directly. They are formed through complex
chemical reactions which involve a mixture of nitrogen oxides (NO,) and reactive hydrocarbons (HC) in the presence of strong
sunlight. Human exposure to NO, can cause respiratory inflammation at high concentrations and respiratory irritation at lower
concentrations. Nitric oxide is not usually considered a health hazard. Nitrogen oxides reduce visibility and contribute to haze.
Exposure to NO, can cause serious damage to plant tissues and deteriorate man-made materials, particularly metals.
Ozone (0,) - an oxidant which is a major component of urban smog. Ozone is a gas which is formed naturally at higher
altitudes and protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays. At ground level, ozone is a pollutant created by a combination
of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and sunlight, through photochemistry. Ground level ozone is odorless, colorless, and is the
predominate constituent of photochemical smog. Human exposure to 0, can cause eye irritation at low concentration and
respiratory irritation and inflammation at higher concentrations. Respiratory effects are most pronounced during strenuous
activities. Ozone exposure will deteriorate man-made materials and reduce plant growth and yield.
Lead (Pb) - Lead in the atmosphere is in the form of inhalable particulates. The major sources of atmospheric lead are motor
vehicles and lead smelting operations. EPA estimates that ambient concentrations have decreased dramatically in recent years
(a drop of 70 percent since 1975) largely due to the decreasing use of leaded gasoline. Health effects from atmospheric lead
occur through inhalation and consequent absorption into the blood stream. Excessive lead accumulation causes lead poisoning
with symptoms such as, fatigue, cramps, loss of appetite, anemia, kidney disease, mental retardation, blindness and death.
3-25
� I
� I
� I
I I
I I
1
are generally the same as the national standards. However, while the national standard for total
suspended particulates (TSP) has been replaced by standards for particulate matter under 10
microns in diameter (PM10), the commonwealth of Virginia retains its standards for TSP.
National and commonwealth of Virginia standards for air quality are presented in Table 3.3.
Although EPA has the ultimate responsibility for protecting ambient air quality, each state and
local government has the primary responsibility for air pollution prevention and control. Areas
that do not meet NAAQS are called nonattainment areas. The CAA requires that each state
submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) which describes how the state will attain and maintain
air quality standards in nonattainment areas. The SIP must be approved by EPA for each
criteria pollutant. The agency responsible for implementing the SIPs in Virginia is the
commonwealth of Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control (DAPC). In order for projects
to comply with the CAA and CAAA they must conform with attainment plans documented in
the SIPs.
3.1.6.1 Affected Environment
Air quality is a regional phenomenon, and for that reason the description of existing conditions
is not divided by Alternative or site options.
Ambient air quality has been monitored throughout the commonwealth of Virginia by a network
of stations maintained by the DAPC. The commonwealth of Virginia summarizes its monitoring
data in annual reports. The most recent report available at the time this report was written was
for calendar year 1991. The proposed ACOE sites are all located within Frederick County, VA
which is in DAPC air quality Region 11. Frederick County is classified by EPA as an attainment
area for all six NAAQS. According to the 1991 Virginia Ambient Air Monitoring Data Report,
The commonwealth of Virginia is in attainment with the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Portions of the Commonwealth, not
including Frederick County, were classified by the EPA as nonattainment for ozone. Also due
to several large forest fires in southern West Virginia during 1991, several exceedances of the
particulate matter (PMio) NAAQS and commonwealth total suspended particulate (TSP) AAQS
were recorded.
A review of weather data from the National Weather Service for the years 1984 through 1988
indicates that prevailing winds in the Frederick County area are predominantly from the
northwest and south with wind speeds averaging between 4 to 16 knots. Calm winds in the
study area occur approximately 11 percent of the time on a yearly basis from January to
December. A wind rose (Figure 3.5), summarizing wind speed and direction data recorded at
the Dulles International Airport, for the years 1984 to 1988 is presented to illustrate wind
patterns in the project area.
3-26
Pj
11
Table 3.3
Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAAQS
Virginia AAQS
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Pollutant
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Carbon Monoxide
1-hour Maximum'
35 ppm
35 ppm
35 ppm
35 ppm
8-hour Maximum'
9 ppm
9 ppm
9 ppm
9 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic Mean
0.03 ppm
---
0.03 ppm
---
24-hour Maximum'
0.14 ppm
---
0.14 ppm
---
3-hour Maximum'
---
0.50 ppm
---
0.50 ppm
Particulate Matter PM,o
50 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
50 14g/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean
150 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
24-hour Maximum°
Total Sus nded
Particulate
---
---
75 µg/m3
60 µg/m3
Annual Geometric Mean
---
---
260 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
24-hour
Ozone
1-hour Maximum'
0.12 ppm
0.12 ppm
0.12 ppm
0.12 ppm
Nitrozen Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic Mean
0.053 ppm
0.053 ppm
0.050 ppm
0.050 ppm
Lead
Maximum Arithmetic
Mean over a Calendar
1.5 µg/m3
1.5 µg/m3
1.5 µg/m3
1.5 µg/m3
Quarter
a Maximum concentration not to be exceedeo more tnan once per year.
b Expected number of exceedance days shall not be more than one per year (3 year
average) as determined by Appendix H of 40 CFR, Part 50.
c Expected number of exceedance days shall not be more than one per year (3 year
average) as determined by Appendix H of 40 CFR, Part 50.
Source: Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 50, July ,1991. Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control, 1991 Virginia Ambient Air
Monitoring Data Report.
3-27
11
Dk-Illes; Airport 1984-88
January 1-December
W
WIND SPEED (KNOTS)
1-3 4-6
CALMS
a
E
31; MidnigHt-11 PM
7-10 11-16 17-21 +21
Note: Frequencies indicate direction
from which the wind is blowing.
CALM WINDS 11.35Y
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Wind Rose
Dulles Airport 1984-1988
Source: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
FK3URE 3.5
j
� I
� I
� I
I I
I I
I�
Temperatures in the region vary by season with January and February the coldest months, with
mean temperatures near 33 degrees fahrenheit. July and August are the hottest, with mean
temperatures close to 75 degrees.
Precipitation is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. The annual average is a little more
than 40 inches but can vary significantly. The month with the highest precipitation is usually
August with a mean of 4.2 inches. The average snowfall during a winter season is 21 inches
and snowfall is usually mixed with rain and sleet. The snow season normally begins toward the
end of November and lasts till the middle of March. It is unusual for the ground to remain
covered with snow for more than a few days.
3.1.6.2 Consequences
Air quality emissions, attributable to the build Alternatives, will be generated during construction
activities and operation of the facility. All of the TAD/ACOE sites, (A, H, J, S, Y, P1, & P2),
are located in the same region, and although they differ in building design and layout, will
generate the same number of vehicular trips. Due to the similarities between the site locations
and their operation, air quality impacts should be similar for all the proposed locations. The
following sections discuss the construction and operational air quality impacts that are anticipated
for the proposed TAD/ACOE facility. The impacts discussed are similar for all the proposed
locations except as noted.
3.1.6.2.1 Construction
(1) No Action Alternative
With respect to the existing facility, no impacts would occur to conditions as a result of the No
Action Alternative.
(2) Alternative Sites A. H, J, P1, P2, S and Y
Construction related air quality impacts should be similar for all the proposed alternative TAD/
ACOE locations and can result in short term impacts to ambient air quality. Construction
impacts are typically related to fugitive dust emissions in and around the construction site as a
result of construction operations. Other potential air quality impacts from construction activities
are usually insignificant when equipment is well maintained and operated in well ventilated
areas. The potential for impacts will be short-term, occurring only while construction is in
progress and ambient conditions are appropriate.
Fugitive dust emissions typically occur during ground clearing, site preparation, grading,
stockpiling of materials, on -site movement of equipment, and material transportation. Fugitive
dust emissions are greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction activity and during
high wind conditions. Techniques to limit particulate emissions include the use of properly
maintained construction equipment, the use of tarp covers on trucks transporting materials to and
3-29
I
� I
U
11
11
from the site, wetting of unpaved roadways, and prohibition of any burning of construction
waste products on the site. The potential for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities
would cease once barren earth is restored by landscaping.
Construction impacts resulting from traffic disruptions (i.e. decreased roadway capacity) could
degrade air quality in the surrounding environs. Traffic disruptions would be greatest at
intersections, leading to increased queuing and air quality emissions. Minimizing traffic
disruptions during construction, especially during peak -hours, would minimize pollutant
emissions and hence potential impacts.
3.1.6.2.2 Operation
The predominant air quality impact associated with the proposed project locations will be from
motor vehicle related emissions, such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HQ and
nitrogen oxides (NOx). Stationary emissions from the facility, (e.g., boiler and generator
exhaust), should be minimal and well below NAAQS and Virginia air quality standards.
The anticipated traffic generation for the proposed TAD/ACOE facilities will be 326 trips for
the AM peak hour traffic periods. The PM will involve about 400 automobiles leaving the site,
but over a 3 hour time span. Roadways that experience a Level of Service (LOS) classification
of less than C can experience traffic delays which could cause adverse air quality impacts.
Although none of the proposed TAD/ACOE locations will have signalized entrance intersections,
facility generated traffic could cause queuing at signalized intersections close to the proposed site
' and at those intersections which experience a LOS of D or less. Each site and its particular
traffic concerns, which relate to air quality, are discussed below.
' (1) No Action Alternative
No project impacts to ambient air quality would occur under this Alternative.
2 Preferred Alternative Site H
' No significant traffic delays currently exist for roadways directly leading to this site.
' (3) Alternative Site A
Some of the traffic traveling to this location will use Route 11 which experiences a LOS E
' southbound and LOS D westbound for left turn movements west of I-81 interchange 82, during
both the AM and PM. Although these turning movement deficiencies have been recommended
for improvement, none have yet been implemented. Local air quality could be affected if traffic
' delays and lengthy queuing occur.
3-30
L
� I
� I
I I
I I
hI
L
(4) Alternative Sites J. P 1 and P2
No significant traffic delays currently exist for roadways directly leading to this site.
(5) Alternative Site S
Some of the traffic traveling to this site will use Route 37/Route 642 and Route 647 which
experience a LOS E eastbound for left turning movements in the AM. Local air quality could
be affected if traffic delays and lengthy queuing occur.
(6) Alternative Site Y
Some of the traffic traveling to this site will use Route 37 which experiences a LOS F
northbound for left turning movements east of I-81 at interchange 79 in the AM and PM. This
route also experiences a LOS D and LOS F southbound for left turning movements in the AM
and PM respectively. Signalization at those intersections effected by these delays has been
implemented to improve the operation of these turning movements. Local air quality could be
affected if traffic delays and lengthy queuing occur.
' Since Frederick County is in attainment of all six NAAQS it is not likely that regional air quality
will be adversely impacted by facility generated emissions for any of the proposed ACOE
locations. Localized air quality could be adversely- affected at those locations which experience
traffic delays and lengthy queuing leading to the site locations, in particular sites A, S, and
possibly Y, depending on the effectiveness of intersection signalization.
' 3.1.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.1.7.1 Affected Environment
Climatic conditions in Frederick County are summarized in Table 3.4, which indicates
temperature and precipitation data recorded from 1949 - 1981 at Winchester, Virginia. The total
' annual precipitation averages 38 inches, with 58 percent of the total occurring in April through
September. The average seasonal snowfall is approximately 28 inches.
' Generally, the proposed sites are located in the central and eastern part of the valley belt which
is drained by shallow drainage channels that cross the area and become more numerous and
somewhat deeper eastward, resulting in a dendritic drainage pattern. The eastern section of the
' county is drained by Opequon Creek and its many tributaries. All of the sites are within the
Opequon Creek drainage area. Opequon Creek is located at the eastern boundary of Frederick
County. Opequon Creek eventually flows northward through West Virginia and into the
' Potomac River basin. The Opequon Creek drainage basin is largely undeveloped and
agricultural at present. Existing water quality is therefore predominantly controlled by natural
and farmland erosion, the use of fertilizers, and the existence of privately owned septic systems
such as package plants.
1 3-31
M W 4W3.4M M M M � M M M
TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
[Recorded in the period 1949-81 at Winchester, Virginia]
Temperature
Precipitation
Month
Average
daily
maximum
Average
daily
minimum
Average
daily
2 years in 10 will have --
Average
number of
growing degree
days*
Average
2 years in 10 will have --
Average
number of days
with 0.10 inch
or more
Average
snowfall
Maximum
temperature
higher than --
Minimum
temperature
lower than --
Less than -
More than --
°F
OF
OF
OF
OF
Units
In
In
In
In
January
41.5
23.9
32.7
74.0
3.0
94
2.45
3.57
1.26
5
7.4
February
44.7
25.8
35.3
76.0
7.0
101
2.39
3.73
1.10
6
7.1
March
53.9
32.6
43.3
84.0
18.0
257
3.11
4.27
2.01
7
6.0
April
66.4
42.5
54.5
92.0
27.0
531
3.20
4.30
1.98
7
0.4
May
75.3
51.3
63.3
94.0
36.0
806
3.69
5.44
1.98
7
0
June
83.0
59.4
71.2
98.0
46.0
1,007
4.08
4.96
2.06
7
0
July
86.6
63.6
75.0
100.0
54.0
1,173
4.18
5.64
2.35
7
0
August
85.3
62.6
73.8
98.0
54.0
1,138
3.77
5.44
1.84
6
0
September
78.9
56.1
67.5
95.0
40.0
900
3.24
4.31
1.90
5
0
October
67.2
44.8
56.0
88.0
27.0
583
3.03
4.41
1.77
5
0
November
54.9
35.8
45.4
82.0
17.0
287
2.69
4.40
1.20
5
1.4
December
44.1
27.1
35.6
74.0
10.0
112
2.60
3.69
1.53
5
5.5
Average
65.1
43.8
54.5
---
---
---
---
---
---
Extreme
---
---
---
103
-10
---
---
---
---
---
---
Total
---
---
---
---
---
6,989.4
38.43
54.16
20.98
72
27.8
* A growing degree day is a unit of heat available for plant growth. It can be calculated by adding the maximum and minimum daily temperatures, dividing the sum by 2, and
subtracting the temperature below which growth is minimal for the principal crops in the area (40 degrees F).
Source: Soil Survey of Frederick County, 1987.
3-32
(1) No Action Alternative
Because the No Action Alternative would result in no disturbances to the site, no changes to the
existing hydrology would occur.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Sulphur Spring Run and a few tributaries to it are located within the boundaries of Site H.
According to the Frederick County Soil Survey (FCSS), the soil types at this site are classified
into hydrologic soil groups C and D, which implies relatively slow infiltration and groundwater
transmission rates and indicates the presence of a layer (or layers) that tend to impede the
downward movement of water. The soils are normally moderately well drained, are not
susceptible to frequent flooding and provide medium to rapid runoff rates with only moderate
erosion potential. The rapid runoff rates are largely controlled by the existing slopes ranging
from 2 to 15 percent on the flatter areas, to 25 to 65 percent adjacent to existing steep -sided
gullies.
(3) Alternative Site A
No streams were observed within Site A.
The FCSS states that the soil types at Site A can be classified into hydrologic groups B and C,
indicating moderate to slow infiltration and transmission rates. Medium to rapid runoff and
moderate erosion potentials currently exist. Brief flooding may occur in low areas only. Slopes
of 2 to 7 percent are indicated to prevail on the site which is currently a cornfield adjacent to
an industrial park.
(4) Alternative Site J
Approximately 200 feet of a small stream runs through the wooded area in the southern portion
of Site J. This stream originates and continues off site.
The hydrologic soil group classifications of this site are C and D according to the FCSS, similar
to Site H. Soil erosion potential is classified as moderate to severe, with medium to rapid runoff
rates. Natural slopes at the site range from 2 to 15 percent. Currently, potential runoff and
erosion problems are controlled by the existence of grass and woodland vegetation.
(5) Alternative Site P1
A very narrow stream channel is present near the eastern limit of Site PI and flows toward
Airport Road. The channel ranges from 1-6 feet wide and is primarily vegetated with various
3-33
grasses and sedges. No water was observed in the channel at the time of the field
reconnaissance. Additionally, a roadside ditch runs parallel to Airport Road for almost the
entire length of the site.
The FCSS classifies the existing site soil types into hydrologic groups C and D. Slopes of 2 to
7 percent dominate. Grassy vegetation and sparse tree growth control erosion, which is
potentially significant in unvegetated areas.
(6) Alternative Site P2
A few intermittent tributaries and a larger, unnamed tributary to Buffalo Lick Run were
observed along the eastern edge of the site. Additionally, a roadside ditch runs parallel to
Airport Road for almost the entire length of the site.
Soil types found at this site can also be classified into hydrologic soil groups C and D, according
to the FCSS. Both relatively flat areas (2 to 7 percent slopes) and steeper areas (7 to 25 percent
slopes) exist at the site, which is presently vegetated with grass and trees/shrubs.
(7) Alternative Site S
I Several intermittent streams or swales are shown within the site's boundaries in the Soil Survey
of Frederick County (SCS, 1987). A man-made pond is located adjacent to the site.
Hydrologic soil groups C and D are indicated by the FCSS as also prevailing at this site. Slopes
range from 2 to 15 percent and erosion/runoff rates are controlled by the existence of field
grasses and young tree growth.
' (8) Alternative Site Y
1, No streams were observed within Site Y. A roadside ditch runs parallel to Route 651 for almost
the entire length of the site.
Soil types at this site are classified into hydrologic Soil Group C according to the FCSS.
Medium runoff rates and moderate to severe erosion potential is indicated, as characterized by
the clayey, low permeability soils which exist at the site. Slopes range from 2 to 15 percent at
' the site which is currently a fallow field with a few small wooded areas.
3.1.7.2 Consequences
Consequences of the proposed action to the existing hydrology of the sites are n �q p Po g y gy based o the
proposed conceptual design plans.
Impacts (by proposed development) on existing hydrology and water quality in Virginia are
regulated by various state and local entities. In general, consequences adverse to existing
3-34
' wetlands, flooding/runoff patterns, sedimentation/erosion rates, and freshwater habitats in the
project area must be avoided or at least highly regulated and/or minimized. The following
permits must potentially be obtained for development of a site for the proposed project to be
approved according to representatives of the respective administrating agencies listed.
■ Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (Frederick County Department of Planning and
Development): required for any land disturbing activity defined as "any land change
which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into
waters or onto lands...." Erosion and sediment control regulations are covered by
Chapter 8 of the Frederick County Code, which adopts the "Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Regulations" (VR 625-02-00). In general, measures such as the
installation of sedimentation/detention basins, surface vegetation, erosion control matting
and stones, silt barriers, and/or other soil surface treatments must be investigated and
implemented to satisfy erosion control requirements.
■ ■ Water Quality Protection Permit/Certificate (Virginia Department of Water Resources
Management): required if development will have any impact on existing wetlands or will
require stream modifications. Impacts must be minimized and/or mitigated. Water quality
certifications are issued by the state as required by Army Corps of Engineers nationwide
permit regulations.
In general, 10-year storm post -construction flows must be less than or equal to pre -
construction, and stormwater control systems must have enough capacity to handle a 25-
year design storm.
■ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit (Virginia
Water Control Board): the state of Virginia has been given general permitting authority
to administer the NPDES stormwater program. While the proposed facility will not
require a NPDES permit (since it is not considered "industrial"), all construction
activities at sites with greater than 5 acres of land disturbance require a permit. These
requirements are mandated by the 1987 amendments to the federal Clean Water Act.
■ Sub -Aqueous Bed Permit (Habitat Management Division of the Virginia Marine
Resources Division): the state of Virginia maintains ownership of all streambeds in the
commonwealth and requires a permit for activities which might disturb any stream
bottom. The primary focus of this regulation is on the time of year that construction
might take place and any impacts on sensitive stream species or habitats. In discussions
with state regulatory officials regarding the potential installation of a photographic
processing lab floor drain, it was indicated that this type of effluent could not be
discharged to storm drainage systems.
3-35
� I
� I
� I
I
it'
1,
I I
I
1
1
(1) No Action Alternative
Because the No Action Alternative would result in no disturbance to the existing site, no impacts
would result to the present hydrologic conditions.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
The existing undeveloped and relatively rugged condition of the site indicates that hydrology and
water quality issues will be significant design and permitting issues. Under the various permit
programs listed above, no significant change in stormwater runoff will be allowed and water
quality impacts will be highly regulated. Soil erosion and sediment control practices would be
required during construction to protect the steep stream banks and existing water courses. The
significant controls indicate that there will be no significant adverse impacts to these existing
water resources.
As currently designed, use of Site H would involve construction of an access road through at
least one, possibly two, tributaries to Sulphur Spring Run. Additionally, Sulphur Spring Run
would also be crossed by the proposed access road. Based on the offeror's Preliminary Master
Plan (July 1992) map, the proposed locations of the buildings do not appear to cross any
streams.
(3) Alternative Site A
Since this site is presently farmland with few low spots and no perennial water courses,
implementation of stormwater and water quality controls would be easily facilitated, indicating
that no significant adverse impacts are likely.
No streams were observed within Site A, as such, no direct impacts would occur from the
proposed development of the site.
(4) Alternative Site J
As this site consists of a regularly maintained field with a few wooded areas and moderate
slopes, the mandated control and mitigation measures would adequately provide protection of
existing drainage/stream channels and nearby pond.
Approximately 200 feet of a small stream is shown within Site J. However, the stream is not
located within the limits of the proposed building or parking areas as shown on the current
design plans of the Westview Business Park. Therefore, no direct impacts are expected to occur
to this stream.
3-36
I
ll
(5) Alternative Site P1
The narrow stream channel in the eastern part of the site appears to be located beyond the limits
of the proposed building and parking lot as currently planned (Clifford and Associates, Inc.
October 1992 Site Plan). As such, no direct impacts are expected to occur to this stream. Any
additional adverse impacts to this and other downstream water resources could be avoided by
implementing required erosion and stormwater control measures.
(6) Alternative Site P2
As currently proposed (Clifford and Associates, Inc. October 1992 Site Plan), an intermittent
stream channel is located within part of the building and parking area. These areas may require
filling or relocation, of which both activities would require contact and/or permits from the
Virginia Department of Water Courses and the Army Corps of Engineers.
If the conceptual site plan is reconfigured to avoid the above described direct impacts, the small
channels that exist on and adjacent to this site could be adequately protected by using mandated
control measures.
(7) Alternative Site S
Several intermittent streams and swales were shown in the Soil Survey for Frederick County.
Depending on location of the TAD/ACOE facility, impacts on these streams or swales may be
avoided.
The stream channels and ponds located on or near this site would require significant erosion and
stormwater control measures. The implementation of these measures would provide the mandated
protection of these existing resources such that adverse impacts are avoided.
(8) Alternative Site Y
No streams were observed within Site A.
Since this site is presently a fallow field drained by a roadside ditch, implementation of
protection measures would be easily facilitated indicating that no significant adverse impacts
would occur.
1 3.1.8 Noise
Sound results from a physical disturbance traveling in an elastic medium that is detectable by
the human ear. Sound waves in air are caused by variations in pressure above and below the
static atmospheric pressure. The traditional definition of noise is that it is any unwanted sound
present in our environment and, as such, it is a subjective part of hearing. Noise is typically
associated with annoyance, hence criteria noise levels are based on human tolerance to sound.
3-37
� I
1
a
1
11
I
Since the range of sound pressure levels varies greatly, sound levels are expressed on a
logarithmic scale, which compresses the range. The standard measurement unit of noise is the
decibel (0), which represents a ratio of pressure levels referenced at 0.0002 microbar, which
is considered the threshold of human hearing. The threshold of pain, which is the other end of
the audible range, occurs at approximately 140 decibels.
Sound levels can be measured and presented in various forms. The most common noise metrics
used in community noise surveys are the equivalent sound level (L.ec) and the day -night average
sound level (Ldn). The L,eq is an energy -averaged sound level that includes both steady
background sounds and transient short-term sounds. The Leq represents the level of a steady
sound which, when averaged over the sampled time period, is equivalent in energy to the time -
varying sound level over the same period. The Ldn is a 24-hour average sound level. Ldn
levels include a 10 decibel penalty added to night-time sound levels (10 pm to 7 am) due to their
greater annoyance.
The Federal Aviation Administration has established noise impact criteria which pertain to
aircraft and airport associated noise impact. The FAA noise exposure assessment procedure
stipulate use of the yearly -averaged day -night sound level (Ldn) in noise exposure analyses
which determine cumulative exposure to noise from airports. The FAA has also set forth
guidelines for determining noise compatible land use between airports and their environs. These
guidelines consider all land uses to be normally compatible with noise levels less than 65 Ldn.
Sensitive receptors are those for which exposure to excessive noise levels would create a land
use detriment. Typically, the type of land use defines what range of noise levels is considered
acceptable. Specific concern is given to land uses which occur outdoors, as is the case with
single family homes with yards, parks without significant recreational activities, and outdoor
auditoriums.
The ACOE office building would be considered commercial land use. An appropriate noise
exposure would be less than 70 Ldn. The ACOE land use will be predominantly contained
within the building and, as a result, a higher noise exposure would be acceptable if additional
noise attenuation is provided in the building structure.
3.1.8.1 Affected Environment
(1) No Action Alternative
Under this alternative no change in existing noise levels is anticipated.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Site H is located on Millwood Pike (Route 50) northeast of the Winchester Municipal Airport.
The predominant existing noise sources in this location are roadway and aircraft noise. The
proposed ACOE building would be set back approximately 200 feet from Millwood Pike, which
3-38
I
carries a 1990 average daily traffic volume (ADT), according to Virginia DOT, of approximately
14,000 vehicles. Using the methodology for estimated traffic noise levels presented in The
Noise Guidebook, developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the maximum existing traffic noise level at Site H would be well under 55 Ldn. The
70 Ldn airport noise contour is located entirely within airport property, so aircraft noise impacts
are also not be experienced in this location. Scattered residential properties are located along
Millwood Pike north of the site.
1 (3) Alternative Site A
Site A is located in an active agricultural field on McGhee Road approximately 300 feet from
I-81. The predominant existing noise source in this location is traffic traveling on I-81.
Virginia DOT projects I-81 to carry an ADT of approximately 25,000 vehicles. Using the HUD
methodology, this traffic volume results in an estimated noise level at the proposed building of
I 61 Ldn. This level is well below 70 Ldn. The northwest edge of the site is bordered by
residences located along McGhee Road.
(4) Alternative Site I
Site 7 is located approximately 1,400 feet from the edge of Runway 32, west of the Winchester
Municipal Airport. The predominant existing noise source in this location is aircraft noise. At
this distance the site is well outside of the 70 Ldn airport noise contour line, which is entirely
contained on airport property. This location is not impacted by aircraft noise under existing
conditions. No residential properties are located directly adjacent to this property.
(5) Alternative Site P 1
Site P 1 is located south of the Winchester Municipal Airport, approximately 900 feet from the
edge of the runway. The predominant existing noise sources are roadway and aircraft noise.
The site is located approximately 130 feet from Airport Drive, which carries an estimated ADT
of 1,800 vehicles. The resulting traffic noise level is well below 55 Ldn. The 70 Ldn airport
noise contour does not extend to this site, as it is contained entirely on airport property, resulting
in no aircraft related noise impacts. The site is located within the Airport Industrial Park and
has no sensitive noise receptors located adjacent to it.
(6) Alternative Site P2
Site P2 is located south of the Winchester Municipal Airport, approximately 900 feet from the
' edge of the runway and in close proximity to Alternative Site Pl. This site is located within the
Airport Industrial Park, has a similar traffic noise level as site Pl, and is outside of the 70 Ldn
airport noise contour.
ME
i
11
1
(7) Alternative Site S
Site S is located on US Route 522. The predominant existing noise source in this location is
roadway traffic noise. Route 522 carries an estimated ADT of approximately 12,000 vehicles,
which, according to HUD methodology, results in a traffic related noise level of approximately
55 Ldn, resulting in no noise impacts. Scattered residences are located on U.S. Route 522 in
the vicinity of the site.
(8) Alternative Site Y
Site Y is located on Route 651 and is bordered on the southwest by Route 37. The CSX Rail
Line is located approximately 2,000 feet west of this site and a General Electric facility, the
Winchester Lamp Plant, is located approximately 1,400 feet northeast of the site. The
predominant existing noise sources in this location are roadway traffic and railroad noise. Route
37 carries an estimated ADT of 7,000 vehicles, and Route 651 carries an estimated ADT of 220
vehicles. The resulting traffic noise level is well below 55 Ldn according to the HUD
methodology. Due to the separation distance between the railroad and the proposed site railroad
noise also does not affect the site. No sensitive receptors are located adjacent to the site.
3.1.8.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
Under this alternative no change in noise levels is expected to occur at the existing facility.
(2) Alternative Sites A, H, J. P1, P2, S. and Y
No noise impacts are projected to occur if the ACOE building is constructed at any of the
alternative site locations. As the projected noise conditions for all the locations are similar, they
will be discussed together in this section according to noise generation sources.
(3) Vehicular Noise
The proposed ACOE office facility is projected to generate a peak hour traffic volume of
approximately 326 vehicles in the morning each day. The worst case scenario from the
standpoint of noise will occur during the morning, with the peak hour occurring between 7 am
and 8 am. The evening peak will be spread out over a longer time period, 3 pm and 6 pm,
resulting in lower traffic volumes per hour and thus lower noise levels. The introduction of this
volume of vehicles will not increase noise levels substantially at any of the proposed site
location, and will result in no noise impacts.
3-40
iI
(4) Site Noise
Any mechanical equipment to be used on any of the potential sites should be selected and located
so as not to create a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels at residential receptors.
Mechanical noise is not expected to be a concern since the equipment can be located where it
is shielded or in noise attenuating enclosures. Distance attenuation can also be taken advantage
of to reduce potential impacts by positioning noise sources as far from receptors as possible.
(5) Aircraft Noise
Aircraft noise will have no adverse impact on the proposed facility for any of the site locations.
The 70 Ldn airport noise contour will be located entirely on airport property and, thus, will not
impact any of the potential sites.
(6) Construction Noise
Temporary noise impacts can be expected in areas directly adjacent to project sites during
project construction. The exact magnitude of the construction impacts cannot be predicted until
building design and construction techniques are specified. Construction activities will include:
1) excavation for foundations and grading of the site; 2) construction of structures and facilities;
and 3) construction of parking areas.
Construction activities are anticipated to have no adverse effect on surrounding land uses due
to the temporary nature of construction activity and because of distance attenuation. Also,
construction activities usually only occur during weekday, daytime hours; the period when the
majority of people are the least noise sensitive and background levels are the highest.
To minimize construction impacts, all equipment should utilize effective exhaust mufflers and
should be in operation only during normal workday hours. Construction traffic should only
utilize main roadways. Temporary noise barriers could also be erected to attenuate long-term
construction noise impacts.
Overall, the proposed project is not expected to have any adverse noise impacts on the local
environs. Any increase in traffic volumes will not produce a measurable increase in noise
levels. Some short-term construction noise impacts could occur; however, these noise levels
should be temporary and would typically occur during normal workday hours.
3.2 Socioeconomics and Land Use
3.2.1 Land Use
The Land Use section contains a general description of the development patterns within the city
of Winchester and Frederick County. In addition, this section describes present and planned
land uses, commercial activities, sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, churches), and open
3-41
I
� I
11
I
1
space/recreation areas at, and adjacent to, each site. The No Action Alternative is located within
the city of Winchester; while all Alternative sites are located in Frederick County, adjacent tc
Winchester. Appendix B contains a description of zoning categories.
3.2.1.1 Affected Environment
Present —The majority of development within the Winchester area is situated in the downtown
portion of Winchester and along the major transportation networks and interchanges in the area
(Figure 3.6). The primary commercial nodes are located in downtown Winchester and at
Interstate 81 (I-81)/Route 50 and I-81/Route 37 (north) interchanges. These areas contain
several motels, restaurants, services, and retail establishments. The primary industrial areas are
located in close proximity to the I-81/Route 37 (north) and I-81/Route 37 (south) interchanges.
Residential areas are dispersed throughout the Winchester area. Several open spaces/recreational
areas are located throughout the area, with stream valleys being dedicated as open space.
Planned —The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies interchange areas as
centers of commercial and industrial activities (Figure 3.7). Industry and businesses also will
continue to locate in the vicinity of existing industrial areas and office parks. The Plan identifies
new industrial areas along the Route 50 (east of I-81) corridor and at the Winchester Regional
Airport. In addition, the Plan identifies stream valleys as preserved environmental open space,
which provide a continuous system of greenspace throughout the Winchester area.
(1) No Action Alternative
Present —The current ACOE facility is located in the southern portion of Winchester, within the
Winchester Industrial Park on Battaile Drive, west of Interstate 81. Adjacent land uses to the
facility include several industrial buildings (e.g., Baker Industries, RC Cola, and O'Sullivan).
The ACOE facility and Winchester Industrial Park are zoned for industrial land uses. No
sensitive receptors are located in close proximity to this location.
Planned —The city of Winchester Comprehensive Plan identifies the current ACOE facility and
Winchester Industrial Park as industrial areas. In addition, the Plan identifies land along an
unnamed stream valley (south of Winchester Industrial Park) as dedicated open space.
r(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Present —Site H is located in the eastern portion of the Winchester area in the proposed Prince
Frederick Office Park, and is south of Route 50 and east of the I-81/Route 50 interchange.
There are no visible indications of previous development at Site H. The proposed office park
contains approximately 80± acres; while Site H contains 10± acres. The Prince Frederick
Office Park is an unimproved development, containing no platted lots (designated building lots)
or roads. Surrounding land uses to the proposed office park include commercial, recreation, and
3-42
M
a_�'_ ,- .��• ;Bi;� �•� 1 / -j. pares_ \
) ✓ —�Voo J .
re
CID
INTER81
,Ci8 -r� vf• o p •- l
ty
I Stoll 7
/ �• - -deg_ •�
/ OU
v
Q rY . �.\x_ •� Cemetei"� -„ : / \, � � _- 5591 _'�..
io Omer
J ff md%.� 0 P n 1I •. `, / Daeuei M � /:� 1l`. F -
:.:'. HigASeh' 3P/' ..%• ��+ddFSetr �` °/�`_' � a8�� \ - -• 650
40
__ --
i/
657 P!a't_• -� \ •` eel i= - ,,� ��
h•�,s, 'A�\ f.• �lvQ- _ 'I1'• Fq, .u.. - ��j/^� 'ram Kam.' �•^ o
Fester ` • �;•• Ic� .�-.
Coup Cfub - $ei a: -
�- Y c. j 650 �;� �7 - % .- eni it
-:,`. '!• a -` I 1�� Jib• <- .,�
Cem._ ILA BM T r r _/7jl��o 4- \ a
- bq.: rr � y •• ,� -� � J, r. O �-� —� t -� '}"^ � °\ it '=�
ILI
SITE H
750
-14
' Source: USGS Winchester and Stephens City. VA ouadrawglile-
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Existing Industrial and
Industrial Areas o 2" 40M Commercial Uses
CDCommercial Areas
Approximate Scale in Feet FIGURE 3.6a
cx 7,7T
:c71�'• - BM- imental Ito,_..
�Z BJN •'��'�__� /S
Rob, aw►:n3lai SC
h� 7725�-�P�
% ( as�,-��
,.
_ •\ ' •:\ •/ �"e. fi t• - v ^ ~3M 33 .�.
tat] _ Y �-- r / .ti
Old OveQ�
SfTE Y
Memonal Parr
Source: USGS M h e eter and Stephens City, VA Quadrangle.
LEGEND:
® Industrial Areas
OCommercial Areas
0 2000 4000
Approximate Scale in Feet
efL • ibWal
N
kby Par G
q' • i� _
r-/-'l/ `
700
Tv
r_�� j • 1 !L �v i RaCio�
�' �!p / ,,� \/ // •�"i : �, Q INTERLQI N 8 ,.
rk to
r714
f \/ � I
C On C ./ - Ali «•.. ,,.
all r
AaadleK / 1'S ' _ �witet 8•ie
Hwn a, j :�. ^ • , I r \fig -
` ish Se
'#,ester H a° ��° ss� '�� �-- -gee .)(- • i ./ _�
QprTng
CIuD
Mn'
�1 tS •.
T wig ,� _ `„t 50 :�. .r, .-' : r •�� "�'• •••',
(" S '' t rY
- _ - SITE H
Source: USGS Winchester and Stephens City, VA Quadrangle.
LEGEND: LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES. INC.
® Industrial Areas
CD
Commercial Areas 2000 Planned Industrial and
_ Commercial Uses
Interchange Business
and Industrial Area Approximate Scale in Feet
FIGURE 3.7a
� e `-' (`� 1fi� `� ��' .� . _ :Cep- � BM' // � ••,5z2(. h � ° ••• \C�'•bvAfpy�.. q�.- '
If— a=`" ..., ■ _ _ /ppp����_'...''����w' ��\_Q �� %7 �c.� -I`- I N `_ �^•
., moo.
/ \ N • _ t _ .�. Cam; '; .� • w ✓ �� C • • i `��.:- _ ��' I IDE=.$i J /c 1� r-zl l ° •ram • / . , �Flelg
r✓ _ .-. - �^ e ..L �I'/ O -�` \ ^'� •F-. • � '• pp'nn : ••. iI• \ ,_ r �, `� •: . � �: /� % :. •'� �'��1 '�l:
J,,v,, _ , '�i�� _ ��t /i _ V� �1//, Cen f r:v2 .�• -� �- liJ • I��•!•`• �•�.�'. � ,-�1 �'^ ��'J � '�C:.. `�° — �
CREEK! u I � w `,\• _ V � ^<"(„• j i :J+l.. /+ -� ..� _ - _ � '•�.. 9: r � n�� �_ `_ ze �'=�____ --.
�r ° _ r 1-� r -�= ---Iti�W .. �yST.iVPI !: !• /• - _---- •• - �lt_i i^- - J✓- 1
.Oi -A •�' _ ..«r Mcme•$ta••�.. �, lj _ ;is:r.'::a::..: ,• C,�� '�\ . • JI _ ••
756
Z'. A74/ o R.W •,•Iuµi ScA .725 40'
i � � _ _.� �:�-i� :i - - �°�'-1 - :.•���. �• + yo ` —���� Ir4-7
/�'� - ir... - - n�• r.r P tI � �' �: \ P j-}y�y J — _ - - .a ...J,. �S _ '.
�\ / �5-� _ Q - ••• •�,; f — - 8 -'� Golf Club
00 _ '•'• IA-�QeM 733
1110
Il' • /' - '- �:_ '"�at,''. _�• ;;,C ; ; •�•1�, •\•��`}�: j O �Q�� - • j;,,.-;' :�.:x ' !.� _ J 'rV
� � �� - '� •. SITE P1
-: i n /� ` �:`9,f'• _ -' \ SITE P2 nthe5ter MJmC.aal
DO
Old Opequon.
8`i Irv. i Cern i
:»6— %� t SITE J
723
SITE Y
-
- , v ♦ ✓ 3:' Jo i Shenandoah.
Q Q Memonal Park-� iL `r `• �'_^^^ �\ \\ t� _ _ V
• _
7p � � �r•. 'r� ;.i .'- \ r`.� _< 0
Y 54a Trader ( 1 .�,
\ a � l �^- �• a -` � �i^_ - -ao � j.
Park i�� r -
frailer Mk
mil./ `'n � i "8 • �h : 7 �! \� :` `'� ti' �� 7 1 ern •� /��, --y",i �_ ., ` = �,, a71*7:30'
r ^
` \ ''ter 'r
o (_'' � ,`' �� �•�C, \v„/ ` � �' :.., / ° / ' °'.r � J�� -'o-• .�/-, __ - - _.sue
• =:�= , ,\ J' (�. `/ \� (_. \� 700 _ LOUIS BERGER•& ASSOCIATES, INC.
.a O �� J - ,� L.� ,(�• >_, � se c ^; ::��� -- t�, �w, - .. , .� i \ �--•
`> o. �,t �.,x�>»= � . � � \ f-.� �` •-- C may, / •I ^'
� LJ o `�' ' r � `' � .. ✓�--, �\_ �J �d �' �J
Planned Industrial and
• �" �� •• II �' _ '�' ( Commercial Uses
`I n� Ir��
i �\ n
p 4000
Source USGS Winchester and Stephens City. VA Gluadrangle. Industrial Areas O Commercial Areas Interchange Business and
industrial APPe Sole in Feet RARE 3.7b
� I
� I
� I
J
I I
C
vacant parcels (e.g., a car dealership, Carper's Valley Golf Club), along with the Winchester
Regional Airport Authority (located south of the site). No sensitive receptors are located in
close proximity to this site.
Zoning classification for the office park and Site H is Business General District (B-2), which
allows for general businesses (Appendix B). Adjacent zoning classifications to the Prince
Frederick Office Park include: Rural Areas District (RA) which includes Carper's Valley Golf
Club, several vacant parcels, and the Winchester Regional Airport Authority; B-2 which includes
a car dealership, residential units, and several vacant parcels; Industrial Transition District (B-3)
which includes several vacant parcels; and Industrial General District (M-2) which also includes
several vacant parcels. The zoning classifications immediately adjacent to Site H include RA
(Carper's Valley Golf Club) and B-2 (Prince Frederick Office Park). The city of Winchester
does not require buffering or screening of adjacent RA, B-2, M-1, or M-2 land uses.
For B-2 zoning, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires 50 foot front yard setbacks
on primary or arterial highways; 35 feet front yard setbacks on collector or minor streets; 1.0
floor area to lot area ratios (FAR); 15 percent minimum landscaped areas (percentage of lot
area); and 35 foot maximum building heights. Parking requirements for this type of facility are
1 space per 250 square feet of floor area.
Sensitive open spaces are located throughout the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park,
especially along steam valleys (i.e., Sulphur Spring).
Pldnned—The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the Prince Frederick
Office Park and Site H as an Airport Support Area, Business Corridor, and Industrial Area. The
Airport Support Area limits further residential rezoning; while the Business Corridor and
Industrial Area encourage further industrial and business land uses. The Plan identifies stream
valleys in this area, including Sulphur Spring, as preserved environmental open spaces.
(3) Alternative Site A
Present —Site A is located in the northern portion of the Winchester area within the Stonewall
Industrial Park. Site A is located on Route 661 (Welltown Road), north of McGhee Road and
I-81/Route 37 interchange. This site is an unimproved lot (i.e., no platted lots, curb cuts,
roads). Site A currently consists of agriculture land uses (cornfields) with adjacent residential,
agricultural, and industrial land uses.
The zoning classification for Site A is Light Industrial District (M-1), which allows for a variety
of light manufacturing, commercial office, and heavy commercial uses in well -planned industrial
settings. For M-1 zoning, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires 75 foot front yard
I setbacks on primary or arterial highways; 75 feet front yard setbacks on collector or minor
streets; 25 foot side yard setbacks; 25 foot rear yard setbacks; 1.0 floor area to lot area ratios
3-45
�l
U
u
(FAR); 25 percent minimum landscaped areas (percentage of lot area); and 60 foot maximum
building heights. Adjacent parcels are zoned M-1, RA, and B-3. No sensitive open
spaces/recreational areas are identified in close proximity to Site A.
Planned —The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Site A and immediate
vicinity as an Interchange Business and Industrial Area, which provides for sufficient land and
appropriate sites for more intensive forms of business and industrial uses.
(4) Alternative Site J
Present —Site J is located in the eastern portion of the Winchester area, in the Westview
Business Park, which is east of the Winchester Regional Airport. The site, is located on State
Road 728 and is a semi -improved lot (e.g., platted lots, curb cuts, utilities). Site J and the
Westview Business Park are zoned for M-1 and B-2 land uses (Note Site H and J for additional
zoning restrictions). There are no visible indications of previous development on this site. A
portion of Site J is located within the Transition Zone of the Airport Safety Zone at the
Winchester Regional Airport. The Transition Zone is an area that fans perpendicular from the
runway centerline and approach surfaces, with the floor set by the transition surface. The
Winchester Airport Authority limits height of structures in this area. At Site J, structure height
must not exceed 750 feet to 851 feet mean sea level (MSL). The elevation at the airport is 710
feet MSL; while the elevation at Site J is 675 feet to 700 feet MSL. No recreational areas are
located adjacent to Site J; however, sensitive open -spaces exist in stream valleys adjacent to the
site.
Planned —The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Site J as an Airport
Support Area, Business Corridor, and Industrial Area. The Airport Support Area limits further
residential rezoning; while the Business Corridor and Industrial Area encourages industrial and
business land uses. The plan also identifies stream valleys as preserved open space.
(5) Alternative Sites Pl and P2
Present —Sites P1 and P2 are located in the Airport Industrial Park on Airport Drive, adjacent
(south) to the Winchester Regional Airport. The sites are semi -improved lots (e.g., curb cuts,
utilities) for business park uses. There are no visible indications of previous development on
these sites. Surrounding land uses include the Winchester Regional Airport, an old farm
(converted to offices), and vacant business park parcels. The zoning classification for Sites Pl
and P2 and the Airport Industrial Park is M-1. No sensitive open space areas exist on these
sites.
Planned —The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies these sites as Airport
Support Areas and Industrial Areas. The Airport Support Area limits further residential
rezoning; while the Business Corridor and Industrial Area encourages industrial and business
land uses.
3-46
it
(6) Alternative Site S
Present —Site S is located approximately 4+ miles south of Winchester in the proposed Eastgate
Commerce Center. The site is located on U.S. Route 522, at the proposed realignment of State
Route 642. This site is unimproved (no curb cuts, utilities). There are no visible indications
of previous development at Site S. This site is located adjacent to rural residential areas. The
zoning classification for Site S is B-2 and M-1, with adjacent zoning classified as RA.
Planned —The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Site S as an Industrial
Area (future industrial uses may be located in this area).
1 (7) Alternative Site Y
Present —Site Y is located southwest of Winchester on Route 651, west of Route 37. The site
currently is unimproved/vacant. There are no visible indications of previous development at Site
Y; however, the site probably was used for agricultural purposes. Adjacent parcels consist of
several vacant parcels and the General Electric facility. The zoning classification for Site Y is
M-1, with adjacent parcels zoned RA and M-1. No recreational areas/dedicated open spaces are
located within, or adjacent to, Site Y.
Planned —The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Site Y as an Interchange
Business and Industrial Area, which provides for sufficient land and appropriate sites for more
intensive forms of future business and industrial uses.
3.2.1.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
The ACOE facility currently is located within an existing industrial area. Further, the Frederick
County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance identifies this area for future development
as an industrial area. In addition, the existing facility is compatible with adjacent land uses and
does not interfere with an unnamed stream valley (south of Winchester Industrial Park);
rtherefore, no significant land use impacts are anticipated from the No Action Alternative.
1 (2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Site H is located within a planned industrial park and is zoned for B-2 land uses; therefore, the
proposed use is compatible with existing zoning and adjacent land uses/zoning. Frederick
County does not require buffering or screening between adjacent land uses and the B-2 zoning.
The B-2 zoning requires 35 feet front yard setbacks on collector or minor streets; 1.0 floor area
to lot area ratios (FAR); 15 percent minimum landscaped areas (percentage of lot area); and 35
foot maximum building heights. Parking requirements for this type of facility are 1 space per
250 square feet of floor area. The preliminary site plan for the proposed ACOE facility satisfies
3-47
the zoning requirements; however, further site planning must continue to adhere to these zoning
requirements. Site plan approval is required from Frederick County and the Winchester
Regional Airport Authority.
No sensitive receptors exist within close proximity to this site. The crossing of Sulphur Spring
is required with the development of Site H; however, the disturbance to this area is anticipated
to be minor. The preliminary site plan identifies Sulphur Spring as preserved open space for
the office park.
In addition, the future development of Site H is compatible with the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan. Frederick County identifies the Prince Frederick Office Park and Site H
as an Airport Support Area, Business Corridor, and Industrial Area. These areas support further
industrial and office development similar to the ACOE facility; therefore, no significant land use
impacts are anticipated at Site H.
(3) Alternative Site A
Site A is located within an existing industrial area and is zoned for M-1 land uses. This area
allows for a variety of industrial and business land uses. Adjacent parcels do not require
buffering or screening from the proposed M-1 zoning. The M-1 zoning requires 75 foot front
yard setbacks on primary or arterial highways; 75 feet front yard setbacks on collector or minor
streets; 25 foot side yard setbacks; 25 foot rear yard setbacks; 1.0 floor area to lot area ratios
(FAR); 25 percent minimum landscaped areas (percentage of lot area); and 60 foot maximum
building heights. Parking requirements are identical to Site H. The preliminary site plan for
the proposed ACOE facility at Site A satisfies the zoning requirements; however, further site
planning must continue to adhere to these zoning requirements. In addition, the future
development of Site A is compatible with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan; therefore,
no significant land use impacts are anticipated at Site A.
(4) Alternative Site J
Site J is located within a planned business park and is zoned for M-1 and B-2 land uses. Both
zoning categories allow for a variety of industrial and business land uses. The preliminary site
plan for the proposed facility satisfies M-1 and B-2 zoning requirements.
A portion of Site J is located within the Transition Zone of the Airport Safety Zone at the
Winchester Regional Airport. The height of structures at Site J must not exceed 750 feet to 851
feet mean sea level (MSL). The elevation at Site J is 675 feet to 700 feet MSL, which allows
for the proposed facility (2 - 3 floors). Further site planning must continue to adhere to these
zoning and airport requirements. Site plan approval is required from Frederick County and the
Winchester Regional Airport Authority. In addition, the facility will avoid sensitive open space
areas located adjacent to the site. The future development of Site J is compatible with the
Airport Support Area, Business Corridor, and Industrial Area; therefore, no significant land use
impacts are anticipated at Site J.
1 3-48
I
� I
� I
I I
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2
Sites P 1 and P2 are located within a planned business park and are zoned M-1, which allows for
the ACOE facility. The preliminary site plans for the proposed facility satisfies M-1 zoning
requirements. Further site planning must continue to adhere to these zoning requirements. Site
plan approval is required from Frederick County and the Winchester Regional Airport Authority
since this area is adjacent to the airport. In addition, the future development of these sites is
compatible with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan (Frederick County identifies this area
as an Airport Support Area and Industrial Area for future development); therefore, no significant
land use impacts are anticipated at Sites P1 and P2.
1 (6) Alternative Site S
Site S is located in a rural area and is zoned M-1 and B-2. The preliminary site plan for the
proposed facility satisfies zoning requirements. Further site planning must continue- to adhere
to these zoning requirements (for M-1 zoning, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires
75 foot front yard setbacks on primary or arterial highways and 75 feet front yard setbacks on
collector or minor streets). Frederick County identifies this area as an industrial area for future
development; therefore, no significant land use impacts are anticipated at Site S.
1 (7) Alternative Site Y
Site Y is located in an industrial area and is zoned for M-1 land uses. Future development of
this site is compatible with adjacent land uses and zoning. The preliminary site plans for the
proposed facility satisfies M-1 zoning requirements. Further site planning must continue to
adhere to these zoning and airport requirements. Frederick County identifies Site Y as an
Interchange Business and Industrial Area and is compatible with future land uses; therefore, no
significant land use impacts are anticipated at Site Y.
3.2.2 Community Services
3.2.2.1 Affected Environment
Community services are provided by both the city of Winchester and Frederick County. The
city's public school system is comprised of four elementary schools, a middle school, and a high
school. In 1991, the four elementary schools had a capacity of 104 spaces, the middle school
had 102, and the high school had a reserve capacity of 375 spaces. Three Frederick County
schools are situated within the geographic limits of Winchester.
The cityand county both provide emergency,health and social services to the Winchester area.
tY P >
Winchester Medical Center serves the area providing total health care, 403 beds, and an active
medical staff of 170 personnel.
3-49
� I
i I
3.2.2.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the number of employees at the ACOE facility will not change
substantially (approximately 375 personnel currently work at the existing ACOE facility);
therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to community services within the Winchester
area.
1I
(2) Alternative Sites A. H. J. P1. P2, S and Y
Under the proposed action, the number of employees at the ACOE facility will increase by
approximately 75 personnel, bringing the total 450 personnel. This increase in personnel is
minimal relative to the total population (45,723 people). Assuming the worst case scenario that
each new employee accounts for one household, the additional 75 employees potentially could
bring 133 additional people into the area (208 total people) (average household size in Frederick
County was 2.78 persons per household). With the excess capacity for additional students in
the Winchester schools and adequate emergency, health, and social services in the area, no
significant impacts are anticipated on community services.
3.2.3 Population, Housing and Employment
Since the Frederick County economy is closely related to the city of Winchester, the affected
environment considers both entities as a single economy.
3.2.3.1 Affected Environment
Population —The population of Frederick County increased from 34,150 people in 1980 to
45,723 people in 1990, an increase of 11,573 people (33 percent). Of the total 1990 population,
an estimated 27,992 people (61 percent) were within the age cohort of 20-64, the largest group
potentially employed by ACOE. In 1990, the average household size in Frederick County was
2.78 persons per household. The total population in Frederick County is projected to increase
to approximately 49,687 people to 52,906 people by 1995.
Housing —The total residential (year-round) housing units increased from 12,282 units in 1980
to 17,864 units in 1990, an increase of 5,582 units (45.4 percent). In 1990, total owner
occupied housing consisted of 13,023 units; while renter occupied housing consisted of 3,447
units. The vacancy rate for owner -occupied housing was 3 percent; while the rental vacancy
rate was 5.8 percent in the County. The housing base in Frederick County is projected to
increase to approximately 18,885 units to 19,372 total units by 1995.
Employment —Employment is measured by labor force. Labor force refers to the number of
persons who are 16 years of age or older and who are employed or seeking work. Not all
individuals seek or hold income paying jobs; therefore, total labor force is larger than actual
3-50
ll
� I
� I
I I
1
I
labor force. Annual average employment by industry sector is used to identify growth within
the labor force.
According to the city of Winchester, the total civilian labor force in the Winchester area is
38,037 people (August 1992). During this same period, the area experienced a 7.1 percent
unemployment rate (total employed = 35,336 people). Between 1982 and 1991, the total
civilian labor force increased by 7,284 people (24.3 percent). In 1991, total manufacturing was
the largest percentage of the labor force (27.5 percent), in terms of annual average employment
by industry sector, followed by services (26.2 percent); retail trade (24.6 percent); and local,
state, Federal government (6.6 percent).
3.2.3.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the number of employees at the ACOE facility does not
change substantially (approximately 375 personnel currently work at the existing ACOE facility);
therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to population, housing, and employment within
the Winchester area.
(2) Alternative Sites
Population —Regardless of Alternative site, an additional 75 personnel need to be hired at the
ACOE facility, bringing the total to 450 persons. The additional employees are anticipated to
account for only 0.16 percent increase in total population for the Winchester area if they were
relocated from outside the region.
Assuming the worst case scenario that each new employee accounts for one new household, the
additional 75 employees potentially could bring 133 additional people into the area (208 total
people), or only a 0.45 percent increase in total population for the area. Therefore, the ACOE
facility is anticipated to have no significant impact on population in the Winchester area.
Housing —Assuming the worst case scenario of 75 employees each requiring additional housing
accommodations, the Winchester area is anticipated to be able to absorb this new growth. The
County projects that approximately 1,021 to 1,508 additional units are going to be built by 1995;
therefore, the ACOE facility is anticipated to have no significant impact on housing conditions
in the Winchester area.
Employment —The additional 75 employees at the ACOE facility are anticipated to be from the
Winchester area or from other regions. If the employees are from outside the Winchester area,
a 0.21 percent increase in the employed labor force (35,336 people) and a 5.3 percent increase
in government employment is expected. If the employees are hired from within the Winchester
3-51
I
area, the largest age cohort of 24-60 is projected to increase sufficiently to support ACOE
employment requirements; therefore, the ACOE facility is anticipated to have no significant
impact on employment conditions in the Winchester area.
3.2.4 Aesthetics
3.2.4.1 Affected Environment
(1) No Action Alternative
The current ACOE facility is located in an existing industrial park and is surrounded by
manufacturing and office buildings.
Site H is located within a pristine, wooded area along Route 50 west. Several scenic view/vistas
are located within the site, which focus on stream valleys and wooded areas. From Site H,
views corridors exist to the adjacent Carper's Valley Golf Club and distant hillside.
(3) Alternative Site A
Site A is being utilized as agricultural land use and is adjacent to several older residential areas.
Views from the residential areas to the site include cornfields; while views from Site A include
I-81 and surrounding industrial land uses.
(4) Alternative Site J
Site J is located in a semi -improved industrial park. There are no apparent scenic vistas or view
corridors at this site.
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2
' Sites P1 and P2 are located in an approved industrial park. These sites are within a view
corridor of surrounding terrain, Winchester Regional Airport, and agricultural land uses (farm).
I I
P
1�
r
i
(6) Alternative Site S
Site S is located in a rural section of Frederick Country, adjacent to older/rural residential areas.
Scenic vistas include adjacent farmlands.
(7) Alternative Site Y
Site Y is located adjacent to Route 37 and the General Electric facility. There are no scenic
vistas or view corridors at this site.
3-52
3.2.4.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
The current ACOE facility is located in an existing industrial park; therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated on aesthetics.
M- T _1
The stream valleys, which offer scenic views, are being preserved as open space in the
preliminary site plan; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated on the aesthetics of the
area.
(3) Alternative Site A
The construction of the ACOE facility on Site A requires the removal of agricultural land;
however, the surrounding land will remain agricultural. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated on the aesthetics of the area.
(4) Alternative Site J
There are no apparent scenic vistas or view corridors at Site J; therefore, no significant impacts
are anticipated on the aesthetics of the area.
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2
These sites will become part of the view corridor of surrounding terrain, Winchester Regional
Airport, and agricultural land uses (farm); therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated on
the aesthetics of the area.
(6) Alternative Site S
Scenic vistas from Site S include adjacent farmlands; however, the ACOE facility is not
anticipated to have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the area.
(7) Alternative Site Y
There are no scenic vistas or view corridors at Site Y; therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated on aesthetics of the area.
3-53
� I
� I
3.3 Utilities
3.3.1 Electric, Water, and Sewer
3.3.1.1 Affected Environment
Electric —Electricity for the Winchester area is provided by Potomac Edison, a subsidiary of
Allegheny Power System, Incorporated. A full range of domestic and industrial power is
available through a network relying on coal-fired generation plants. A recent installation of a
138 kV transmission line provides additional capacity for growth in the Winchester area and
allows for relief of overloaded facilities in the city.
Water —The city of Winchester owns, operates, and maintains a municipal water system that
serves the city and portions of Frederick County. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority
is the responsible for the treatment, transmission, and distribution of potable water in the
remainder of the county. The Sanitation Authority purchases water from the city of Winchester.
The source of water for both the city and county is the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.
' The treatment capacity of the water system is 10.3 million gallons per day. Average
consumption currently is 6.2 million gallons per day with a peak demand exceeding 7.6 million
gallons per day. According to the county, contracted capacity could be exceeded by 1995.
' Groundwater is a major source of water for residents of the county outside Winchester.
Sewer —The city of Winchester owns, operates, and maintains the collection system within the
City limits and in a small portion of Frederick County. The Frederick County Sanitation
Authority is responsible for the collection and transmission of wastewater in the county. The
final destination of the wastewater for treatment and reclamation from the city and county is the
' Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The permitted capacity of this facility is 5.0 million
gallons per day; however, the EPA approved increasing the capacity to 6.25 million gallons per
day based on plant performance. The average daily flow at the facility is 4.1 million gallons
' per day. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority projects sufficient capacity in the Opequon
Plant through 2000 under expected conditions and through 1995 under worst case conditions.
Worst case conditions assume full development.
(1) No Action Alternative
The city of Winchester currently supplies the existing ACOE facility with electric, water, and
sewer services.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
' Electric —Site H has available electrical service from adjacent properties and utility lines along
Route 50.
3-54
1
� I
� I
I I
I I
Water —An existing 12 inch county water line is located at Route 50 and Route 781; therefore,
the water line requires extension to Site H from Route 50.
Sewer —An existing 12 inch county sewer line runs along Sulphur Spring, adjacent to Site H.
(3) Alternative Site A
Electric —Site A has available electrical service from adjacent properties and utility lines.
Water —An existing 8 inch county water line is located at McGhee Road and Route 661
(Welltown Road); therefore, the water line requires extension to Site A.
Sewer —An existing 12 inch county sewer line runs along Lenoir Drive and McGhee Road;
therefore, the sewer line requires extension to Site A.
(4) Alternative Site J
Electric —Site J has available electrical service from adjacent properties and utility lines along
Route 50.
Water —An existing 10 inch county water line is located within the Westview Business Park, at
Independence Drive adjacent to Site J.
Sewer —An existing 4 inch county sewer line and sewage pumping station exists within Westview
Business Center, near Site J.
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2
Electric —Sites P1 and P2 have available electrical service from adjacent utility lines at
Winchester Regional Airport.
Water —An existing 12 inch county water line is located along Airport Drive at Sites P1 and P2.
Sewer —An existing 6 inch county sewer line is located along Airport Drive near Sites P 1 and
P2, and a sewage pumping station exists within the Airport Business Center.
(6) Alternative Site S
Electric —Site S has available electrical service from adjacent utility lines.
Water —The nearest water line to Site S is available at Route 522 and Route 642, approximately
4,500 feet (0.85 miles) north of Site S.
3-55
Sewer —The nearest service to Site S is a 6 inch sewer line at Route 522, north of Route 642,
approximately 6,000 feet (1.14 miles) north of Site S.
(7) Alternative Site Y
Electric —Site Y has available electrical service from adjacent utility lines.
Water —The city of Winchester provides water service to Site Y. The nearest water line is
available near Route 37, along the Baltimore & Ohio Railway, approximately 2,500 - 3,000 feet
east of Site Y (east of the General Electric facility).
Sewer —The nearest service to Site Y is a city sewer line at Route 37, along the Baltimore &
Ohio Railway, approximately 2,500 - 3,000 feet (0.5 - 5.7 miles) east of Site Y (east of the
General Electric facility).
3.3.1.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
The existing TAD/ACOE facility does not require additional utility services; therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated on utilities.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
Site H contains the appropriate utilities for the TAD/ACOE facility. The Frederick Count
tY Y
Sanitation Authority states that sewer and water service in this area is sufficient to support the
increased requirements of the TAD/ACOE facility. In addition, the overall capacity of the sewer
and water system is sufficient to handle the TAD/ACOE facility. Minor construction of utilities
is required from Route 50 and Route 781 through the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park;
' therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated on utilities.
(3) Alternative Site A
Site A requires construction of utilities from available county supply to the site. Water service
requires extension from McGhee Road and Route 661 (Welltown Road) to the site; while sewer
service requires construction from Lenoir Drive and McGhee Road to the site. Construction
would occur along the roads within existing rights -of -way; therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated on utilities.
(4) Alternative Site J
Site J contains the appropriate utilities. Minor construction is required to extend the service
from Independence Drive to the facility; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated on
tutilities.
3-56
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2
Sites P1 and P2 contain the appropriate utilities. Minor construction is required to extend the
service from Airport Drive to the facility; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated on
utilities.
(6) Alternative Site S
Site S does not contain the appropriate required utility services. Construction for water service
is required from Route 522 and Route 642, approximately 4,500 feet (0.85 miles) to Site S. The
nearest sewer service is Route 522, north of Route 642. Construction for sewer is required for
approximately 6,000 feet (1.14 miles). Construction of utilities is anticipated to have no
significant environmental impacts (construction along road rights -of -way) but is anticipated to
increase monetary expenditures for the TAD/ACOE facility.
(7) Alternative Site Y
Site Y does not contain the appropriate utility services. Construction for water and sewer
service is required from Route 37, near the Baltimore & Ohio Railway, approximately 2,500 -
3,000 feet (0.5 - 5.7 miles) east of Site Y (east of the General Electric facility). According to
Frederick County, construction of services will be costly and will require construction through
the railroad tracks; however, no significant impacts are anticipated related to the construction
of utilities.
3.3.2 Solid Waste
3.3.2.1 Affected Environment
The Frederick County Landfill is a regional facility that serves Winchester and Frederick
County. The current landfill site is rapidly being depleted; however, a new 160 acre tract of
adjacent land was purchased to meet this need. Landfill capacity is planned for the next 17
years.
(1) No Action Alternative
At present, the federal government contracts for solid waste collection with a private hauler.
All solid waste is disposed of in the Frederick County Landfill. Following current GSA policy,
white and mixed colored office paper is recycled at the existing facility.
(2) Alternative Sites A. H. 7, P1, P2, S and Y
Regardless of location, the Federal Government will continue to contract for solid waste
collection with a private hauler. All solid waste will continue to be disposed of in the Frederick
County Landfill. Recycling will continue at the new facility.
3-57
� I
� I
I I
I I
L
l
3.3.2.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
The Federal Government plans to continue the use of available landfills in the area. Relative
to the Winchester Area, the TAD/ACOE facility is anticipated to have no significant impact on
landfill capacity.
(2) Alternative Sites A. H. J. P1, P2, S and Y
The proposed facility will replace the existing landfill requirements for the existing ACOE
facility. The demand for landfill from the new employees will be minimal compared to the
demand from the Winchester Area; therefore, the TAD/ACOE facility is anticipated to have no
significant impact on landfill capacity.
3.4 Transportation
The transportation environment in Winchester and Frederick County is in a state of flux,
currently being reviewed within the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS). The
WATS document will evaluate short and long term system deficiencies, needs, and
improvements.
3.4.1 Traffic
3.4.1.1 Affected Environment
The roads within Frederick County are maintained by private individuals or groups, the city of
Winchester, and the state of Virginia. Frederick County is not responsible for the maintenance
of any roads. The city of Winchester is responsible for some of the public roads within its
boundaries, and the State of Virginia is responsible for the remaining public roads within
Winchester and Frederick County. Since VDOT is responsible for maintaining most of the
roads onto which the sites would have access, permitting of these sites would be required, and
should be addressed at a later date.
(1) No Action Alternative
The present facility is located along the south side of Battaile Drive. Battaile Drive provides
access to Shawnee Drive (Route 652) to the east and to the west through Industry Drive. To
the west, Shawnee Drive provides connections to Route 11, Route 37, and Route 81. To the
east, Shawnee Drive provides connections to Route 644/Pleasant Valley Road, Route 522, Route
50/17, and Route 81. The intersection of Route 11 with Shawnee Drive is signalized, and Route
11 has an ADT of 14,920 vehicles.
3-58
1
I
1
The existing facility presently has 375 employees, of which 20 are non -drivers and 15 ride with
a spouse. Of those non -drivers, approximately two (2) persons, or 0.5 percent, use public
transportation. The remaining employees, 340, arrive in automobiles between 6:00 AM and
8:00 AM. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) estimates that approximately 80 percent of
the employees arrive between 7:00 and 8:00 AM, which represents 272 vehicles. The morning
peak hour appears to be the critical period, since employees depart between 3:00 and 6:00 PM,
with a wider dispersion than the morning arrival pattern. At present, 51 percent of the
employees reside within the city of Winchester, 26 percent reside to the south of the site, 14
percent reside to the east, 5 percent reside to the north, outside the city of Winchester, and 4
percent reside to the west, outside the city of Winchester.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
This proposed site would have direct access from Route 50/17, opposite Route 781. Route
50/17 is a four lane median divided roadway with an east/west orientation, a relatively straight
alignment, an ADT of 13,950, and a 55 MPH speed limit. The intersection of Route 50/17 with
the Route 781 consists of an unsignalized three leg "T" intersection, with median separation and
an opening between the eastbound and westbound travel lanes.
To the west of the site, Route 50/17 intersects with Route 81, where 75 percent of the
movements are accommodated within interchange ramps. The movements not accommodated
by the ramps are the northbound to eastbound, and the westbound to northbound ramp. These
movements are accommodated within the signalized intersection of Route 50/17 with Route 522
and the Route 81 ramps. Approximately 0.5 miles to the west from the proposed access
intersection is the signalized intersection with Route 522. The intersection of Route 50 with
Route 522 has been identified as providing sufficient capacity for existing volumes with a
minimum of LOS "C", and should be able to accommodate the additional projected volumes.
(3) Alternative Site A
This site is located along Route 661, north of the city of Winchester. Route 661 is a two lane
roadway, with a north/south orientation, and a generally straight alignment. The posted speed
limit is 45 MPH and the ADT is 6,964. To the south of the site, Route 661 forms a signalized
intersection with Route 11, between the interchanges with Route 81 to the east, and Route 37
to the west. This area is indicated as having several LOS deficiencies in the corridor of the
Route 11/81/37 interchanges. The recommended improvements to address these deficiencies are
to be incorporated into a separate corridor study, part of the Winchester Area Transportation
Study (WATS), and is not yet available. While any specific recommendations for improvements
to this corridor are not yet available, a possible improvement to the corridor would be realized
by the continued development of the Route 37 bypass loop, which is incorporated into Virginia
Department of Transportation's Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan. Present concepts
being evaluated involve the creation of a new interchange with Route 81, north of the Route 11
interchange, and the continuation of the loop roadway to the west of Route 81, which would
create a new interchange at the intersection of existing Route 37. The Frederick County Master
Plan depicts an alignment for this new section of roadway, which apparently runs through the
prospective site. An exact alignment for this roadway has not been determined, however the
potential does exist that a building on this site, or the present roadway and access configuration
could be affected by that roadway alignment.
(4) Alternative Site J
This site is located within a business center development that has access to Route 50/17 and
Route 728. Route 50/17 is a four lane median divided roadway with a median opening opposite
the entrance to the business center and a commercial driveway, comprising the northerly leg.
Route 50/17 has an east/west orientation, a relatively straight alignment, an ADT of 13,950, and
a 55 MPH speed limit.
Access to Route 728 would create a four way unsignalized intersection with Route 728 and
Route 1000, which forms the westerly leg. Route 728 is a two lane roadway with a north south
orientation and a relatively straight alignment. Road work is presently underway which would
realign the southerly portion of the roadway further to the east to provide sufficient clear zone
for the airport. Route 728 intersects with Route 645 to the south at an unsignalized "T"
configuration. To the north, the roadway intersects with Route 50/17 at a four way unsignalized
configuration, with a median opening on Route 50/17.
(5) Alternative Sites P1 and P2
The two sites under consideration would have access onto Route 645. Route 645 is a two lane
roadway, flanked by full width shoulders, which provides auxiliary turning lanes at the
intersection with Bufflick Road, Route 776, and at the intersection with the Airport fuel farm
and hanger driveway. The ADT on Route 645 is currently 1729. The first site, P1, would have
an access point that would create the fourth leg of an unsignalized intersection with Bufflick
Road. A left turn slot is provided eastbound, with a corresponding painted median on the
westbound approach. The westbound approach also provides a right turn lane for movements
onto Bufflick Road. A similar configuration exists at the intersection of Route 645 and the
Airport fuel farm and hanger driveway. The access for Site P2 would create the fourth leg of
this unsignalized intersection. Sufficient pavement exists to provide the similar auxiliary turning
lane configuration for the two site, as exists.for the Airport and Bufflick Road, by restriping the
roadway. Route 645 intersects with Route 522 to the west and Route 50/17 to the east. Also
to the east, Route 645 intersects with Route 728, and which intersection is presently being
reconstructed to provide additional airport clear zone.
(6) Alternative Site S
Route 522 and relocated Route 642 would provide access to this site. Route 522 is presently
a two lane roadway with limited shoulders. Construction is scheduled to start in spring of 1993
to widen Route 522 to four lanes from Route 277, to the south, to Route 50/17, to the north.
� I
I
I
I
Construction is scheduled to commence at the southern end and proceed to the north in 3 phases.
The current ADT is 11,990.
Route 642 is currently a two lane roadway, with geometric deficiencies. This roadway is also
scheduled for reconstruction and relocation further to the south from its present alignment.
Construction would commence at the westerly extremity and proceed to Route 522. The current
ADT of the existing roadway is 1028.
(7) Alternative Site Y
Route 651, onto which this site would have access, is a two lane roadway, with no shoulders,
and an unposted speed limit assumed to be 50 MPH by statute, although observation indicate that
the range of speeds extended beyond 10 MPH of the statutory limit. The current ADT on Route
651 is 220. Route 651 intersects with Route 652 to the north, which in turn, intersects with
Route 11 to the east. Both locations are unsignalized "T" intersections.
3.4.1.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
Within this Alternative, the facility would create no new traffic impacts, since there is
insufficient space in the present building to allow for any expansion of employment.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
The employee population of the new facility is anticipated to increase from the present number
of 375 to 450 employees. Assuming a similar breakdown of vehicle usage and arrival patterns
to the present facility, approximately 10 percent of the employees would not drive separately and
80 percent of the drivers arrive during the peak hour, 326 arrivals are anticipated during the
morning peak hour. Based on an analysis of the zip codes of employee residences, a trip
distribution pattern was determined for this site, with projected trips having a similar distribution
to the existing trips. The trip distribution pattern assignment estimates that approximately 5
percent would reach the site from the north on Route 81, 21 percent from the south on Route
81, 55 percent from the west on Routes 50/ 17, 14 percent from the east on Routes 50/ 17, and
5 percent from the south on Route 522.
For phase 1 of the development of this site, a single access road would be provided. At the
intersection of the proposed access and Route 50/ 17, sufficient capacity should exist for vehicles
leaving the site, based on an ADT of 13,950. Therefore, there should be sufficient capacity to
accommodate the additional traffic volumes generated by the development of this Alternative.
In the future, with further development of the office park, signalization of this intersection may
be warranted.
3-61
1
� I
I I
1.1
I
(3) Alternative Site A
Anticipated trip generation for this site is the same as described in the preferred alternative.
Based on an analysis of the zip codes of employee residences, a trip distribution pattern was
determined for this site, with projected trips having a similar distribution to the existing trips.
The trip distribution pattern assignment estimates that approximately 5 percent would reach the
site from the north on Route 81, 40 percent from the south on Route 81, 51 percent from the
south on Routes 11, and 4 percent from the west on Routes 37.
At the intersection of the proposed access and Route 661, sufficient capacity should exist for
vehicles leaving the site, based on an ADT of 13,950. In the future, with further development
of the office park, signalization of this intersection may be warranted. There should be
sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic volumes generated by the development
of this Alternative. Specific counts and analysis of the driveway intersection with Route 50/ 17
are needed to determine the presence or absence of warrants for signalization.
(4) Alternative Site J
Anticipated trip generation for this site is the same as described in the preferred alternative. The
intersection of the business center internal roadway and either state maintained roadway consists
of unsignalized four-way intersections. Impacts and traffic characteristics of this site are similar
to Site H, with the exception that volumes from Route 522 could access the site from Route 645,
and not have to enter Route 50/ 17. Furthermore, vehicles entering the site from the Route 50/ 17
corridor have the option of turning directly into the business center roadway, or onto Route 728
and then into the business center. This increase in the number of access Alternatives over those
available to Site H, further decrease the possibility of this site having an impact on the
surrounding road system.
(5) Alternative Sites Pl and P2
The directional distribution of traffic for these sites, is similar to Site H. Again, as is the case
with Site J, a number of access locations could be utilized to enter the Route 645 corridor to
access the site. The vehicles from the east travelling on Route 50/ 17 can access the site from
Route 645, Route 728, and Route 522. Vehicles from the west, north, and south can enter the
Route 645 corridor from Route 522 or Route 728. The number of access opportunities allows
persons accessing the site to chose the path with the least amount of delay, and therefore reduce
the possibility of impacts from this site. Sufficient capacity exists for vehicles entering and
exiting the site at the intersection of site access points and Route 645.
(6) Alternative Site S
Since the roadways providing access to the site are to be built or reconstructed, it is anticipated
that sufficient capacity should be available to accommodate the anticipated site volumes. It may
3-62
� I
� I
be necessary to signalize the intersection of Route 642 and Route 522, however this condition
may occur regardless of the addition of site volumes.
(7) Alternative Site Y
Presently volumes on Route 651 are so low, ADT of 220, that the site should have no impact
on the operating conditions on this roadway, however with most of the site traffic expected to
reach the site from the Route 11 corridor, it is anticipated that the intersection of Route 652,
' Apple Valley Road, and Route 11 may need to be signalized to alleviate any impacts that may
result.
3.4.2 Parking
The Army Corps of Engineers requires approximately one parking stall per employee, which is
generally near the top of the range of office parking requirements. However, this requirement
is in keeping with the characteristics of the region and the limited public transit possibilities.
3.4.2.1 Affected Environment
(1) No Action Alternative
The present facility offers parking spaces, both striped and non -delineated. Because of the
presence of non -delineated parking spaces it is not possible to quantify the amount of available
parking, however it appears that sufficient area exists to provide sufficient parking for the
present population, with overflow areas.
(2) Alternative Sites A, H, J, P1, P2, S and Y
The depicted parking areas indicate adequate parking supply.
3.4.2.2 Consequences
' (1) No Action Alternative
It appears that sufficient area exists within the defined parking lot to accommodate the projected
increase in parking demand of 75 spaces. In order to ensure that these spaces are available, it
may be necessary to pave and stripe the unimproved areas of the parking lot.
(2) Alternative Sites A. H. J. P1, P2, S and Y
The proposed supply should be sufficient to provide for the parking demands of the projected
450-employee population. An estimated 400 parking spaces are required by employees on an
ongoing basis.
3-63
3.4.3 Safety
Sight distance, geometric deficiencies, and accident history will be the defining parameters in
this section of the analysis. A high accident incidence location or segment is defined as one
having an history of five (5) or more accidents during one (1) or more of the study years.
3.4.3.1 Affected Environment
(1) No Action Alternative
The intersection of Route 11 with Route 652, Shawnee Drive, has been identified as a high
accident incidence location. The section of Route 11, that includes the intersection of Route
652, has been identified as having a geometric deficiency, namely inadequate shoulders.
Shawnee Drive has been identified as having geometric deficiencies of inadequate shoulders at
the railroad crossing, horizontal alignment, and inadequate shoulders elsewhere. Papermill
Road/Route 644 has geometric deficiencies in its horizontal alignment and inadequate shoulders.
(2) Preferred Alternative Site H
The section of Route 50/17, to the east and west of the proposed access location, has a high
accident frequency history, inadequate shoulders east of the access intersection, and a
structurally deficient bridge on the eastbound lanes, east of the access intersection. There has
also been a high accident history on Interstate 81 on both sides of the Route 50 interchange.
The access to the building depicted on the site plan will function as a long cul-de-sac, near the
recommended limit the length of a single access.
(3) Alternative Site A
The only identified deficiency on Route 661, from which this site would have access, is
inadequate shoulders at the railroad crossing south of the site.
Several deficiencies have been identified in the corridor between Interstate 81, Route 11, and
Route 37. Operational deficiencies occur at the intersections of Interstate 81 southbound ramps
and Route 11, Route and Route F733, the segment of Route 11 from I-81 to Route 37. At the
intersection of Interstate 81 southbound ramps and Route 11, the southbound left turn operates
at level -of -service (LOS) "E" and the westbound left turn at LOS "D" during both peak hours.
Route 11 intersects with Route F733 on both sides of a median separation at unsignalized
locations. At the intersection of the southbound lanes on Route 11 and Route F733, the
eastbound and westbound through movements are indicated to operate at LOS "D", and the
westbound left turn at LOS "F" during both peak hours. At the intersection of the northbound
lanes on Route 11 and Route F733, the eastbound and westbound through movements are
indicated to operate at LOS "D" during the morning peak hour and "E" during both peak hours.
This intersection is also identified as having a high accident history. The southbound movement
on the segment of Route 11 operates at LOS "D" during the evening peak hour.
3-64
(4) Alternative Site J
The section of Route 50/ 17, to the east and west of the proposed access location, has a high
accident frequency history, inadequate shoulders east of the access intersection, and a
structurally deficient bridge on the eastbound lanes, east of the access intersection. There has
also been a high accident history on Interstate 81 on both sides of Route 50 interchange.
(5) Alternative Site Pl and P2
No safety related issues have been identified on the roadways adjacent to the sites in question.
(6) Alternative Site S
Route 522 has been identified as having substandard sight distances, inadequate shoulders, and
operational deficiencies. The segment of Route 522, from 0.12 miles south of the intersection
with Route 50/ 17, to 0.3 miles north of the intersection with Route 277, is indicated as operating
at LOS "E" during both peak hours. The existing location of Route 642 is indicated as having
substandard sight distance and horizontal alignment.
(8) Alternative Site Y
The two safety related issues concerning this site are potentially substandard sight distance at the
intersection of the proposed site access and Route 651, and the operational difficulties associated
with access at the interchange of Route 37 and Interstate 81. The southbound left turn
movement at the intersection of the southbound ramps from Interstate 81 and Route 37 operates
at LOS "D" during the morning peak hour, and "F" during the evening peak hour. The
northbound left turn movement at the intersection of the northbound ramps from Interstate 81
and Route 37 operates at LOS "F" during both peak hours.
3.4.3.2 Consequences
(1) No Action Alternative
The high accident incidence at the intersection of Route 11 with Route 652, Shawnee Drive, has
already been addressed by the installation of a traffic signal. The lack of adequate shoulders is
to be corrected during the course of normal roadway maintenance, and the horizontal alignment
deficiency will be addressed after analysis of future volumes within the WATS, which as yet is
not available. The continued use of this building will have no impact on any of these safety
issues.
(2) Alternative Sites A. H, J. Pl, P2, S and Y
All issues of operational or geometric deficiencies, and accident history will be addressed by
VDOT once the WATS study is completed.
3-65
The single access for Site H issue should be addressed at the time of site plan submission, where
provisions for secondary emergency access should be provided. At Site S, where substandard
sight distances have been identified, plans for widening of Route 522 and the relocation of Route
642 have been developed. Since these plans have been recently developed and receive VDOT
review, sight distance issues should already have been addressed. The potentially substandard
sight distance identified at Site Y could be addressed at the time of site plan submission. Once
the existing operational or geometric deficiencies, and accident history issues are addressed the
development of any of these alternatives should no have an impact on any of these identified
safety issues.
All sites except Site J will require VDOT access permits. Site J would require a submission and
inspection by VDOT.
3.5 Hazardous Waste
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
The hazardous waste investigation for this project included a review of USEPA's National
Priorities List (the Superfund List), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database, the Emergency Response Notification System
(ERNS), and information contained in the state's Solid Waste Facility Report. Site inspections
were conducted to look for apparent, surficial evidence of hazardous waste or uses that might
involve generation of hazardous waste.
3.5.1.1 Affected Environment
(1) Preferred Alternative Site H
Review of Public Records
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Priorities List
The USEPA's National Priorities List (NPL or Superfund List) is an EPA listing of uncontrolled
or abandoned hazardous waste sites. The list is primarily based upon a score that the site
receives from the EPA's Hazardous Ranking System. These sites are then prioritized for possible
long-term remedial action under the Superfund Act.
The only Superfund site in the area of the proposed project is the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump,
located on Mt. Pleasant, approximately six miles west of Winchester.
iI
� I
I
d
I
I I
�I
1
CERCLIS List
The USEPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) list was reviewed. The CERCLIS list is a compilation of sites that the
USEPA has investigated or will investigate for release of hazardous substances under CERCLA
(the Superfund Program). Once a site is placed on .the CERCLIS List, it may be subjected to
several additional levels of evaluation, and ultimately placed on the NPL if necessary. Inclusion
on this list does not confirm the presence of an environmental problem or a public health threat.
The list was utilized to identify properties within one mile of the subject site. The current
CERCLIS list includes five sites in Winchester, although none are within one mile of the project
site.
Toxic Release Inventory
The Toxic Release Inventory Report (TRI) contains information on the estimated release of toxic
chemicals. The TRI includes data relating to the amount of chemicals stored at each facility and
the estimated quantity released into the environment. Four facilities listed in the TRI are located
in Winchester, however none are within one mile of the proposed site.
RCRA List
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities are regulated facilities that handle,
treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes. Inclusion on the list is not necessarily indicative of
contamination, rather, it indicates the presence of potential sources of contamination. The current
RCRA Notifiers list contained 67 RCRA facilities in Winchester, 1 in Gainesboro and 1 in
Kernstown, however none within one mile of the site are in noncompliance with RCRA
requirements.
Emergency Response Notification System
The Emergency Response Notification System .(ERNS) is a national database that contains
information on the release of hazardous substances into the environment. The ERNS contains
four incidents located on Valley Avenue (U.S. Route 11), all of which are sufficiently distant
from the project site so as not to pose a problem.
A fifth incident, a spill of 50 gallons of jet fuel, occurred at Winchester Municipal Airport on
March 18, 1987. LBA has received a reply to a Freedom Of Information Act request to the US
Coast Guard's National Response Center for information about this incident and its extent.
According to the National Response Center, a fuel spill at the Winchester Regional Airport
occurred at Winchester Airport involving 50 gallons of jet fuel. The spill occurred on March 18,
1987 and was caused by a pipe leading to a hose reel, and a contractor was contacted to clean
up the material. Although the spill occurred within a mile of Preferred ALternative Site H, as
well as Sites P1, P2, and J, this is not expected to be a significant issue. A copy of the National
Response Center letter is included in Appendix A.
3-67
State of Virginia
The Virginia Solid Waste Report lists two landfills in Winchester, neither of which are in close
proximity to the project site.
Frederick County
Officials at the Frederick County Planning Department have indicated that there are no known
hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of the proposed project site.
City of Winchester
City of Winchester officials have indicated that there are no known hazardous waste sites in the
vicinity of the proposed project site.
Site Inspection
An inspection of the proposed site revealed no visible signs of contamination. There was no
evidence of prior use of dumped construction rubble, 50 gallon drums or underground storage
tanks.
(2) Alternative Site J
Review of Public Records
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Priorities. List
The only Superfund site in the area of the proposed project is the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump,
located on Mt. Pleasant, approximately six miles west of Winchester.
CERCLIS List
The current CERCLIS list includes five sites in Winchester, although none are within one mile
of the project site.
Toxic Release Inventory
The Toxic Release Inventory Report (TRI) contains information on four facilities located in
Winchester, however none are within one mile of the proposed site.
RCRA List
The current RCRA Notifiers list contained 67 RCRA facilities in Winchester, 1 in Gainesboro
and 1 in Kernstown, however none within one mile of the site are in noncompliance with RCRA
requirements.
Emergency ResWnse Notification System
The ERNS contains four incidents located on Valley Avenue (U.S. Route 11), all of which are
sufficiently distant from the project site so as not to pose a problem.
A fifth incident, a spill of 50 gallons of jet fuel, occurred at Winchester Municipal Airport on
March 18, 1987. LBA has received a reply to a Freedom Of Information Act request to the US
Coast Guard's National Response Center for information about this incident and its extent.
According to the National Response Center, a fuel spill at the Winchester Regional Airport
occurred at Winchester Airport involving 50 gallons of jet fuel. The spill occurred on March 18,
1987 and was caused by a pipe leading to a hose reel, and a contractor was contacted to clean
up the material. Although the spill occurred within a mile of Preferred ALternative Site H, as
well as Sites P1, P2, and 7, this is not expected to be a significant issue. A copy of the National
Response Center letter is included in Appendix A.
State of Virginia
Solid Waste Report
The Virginia Solid Waste Report lists two landfills in Winchester, neither of which is in close
proximity to the project site.
Frederick County
Officials at the Frederick County Planning Department have indicated that there are no known
hazardous waste sites in. the vicinity of the proposed project site.
City of Winchester
City of Winchester officials have indicated that there are no known hazardous waste sites in the
vicinity of the proposed project site.
An inspection of the proposed site revealed no visible signs of contamination. There was no
evidence of prior use of dumped construction rubble, 50 gallon drums or underground storage
tanks.
3-69
�1
1,
d
1
(3) Alternative Sites P1 and P2
Review of Public Records
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Priorities List
The only Superfund site in the area of the proposed project is the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump,
located on Mt. Pleasant, approximately six miles west of Winchester.
CERCLIS List
The current CERCLIS list includes five sites in Winchester, although none are within one mile
of the project site.
Toxic Release Inventory
The Toxic Release Inventory Report (TRI) contains information on four facilities located in
Winchester, however none are within one mile of the proposed site.
RCRA List
The current RCRA Notifiers list contained 67 RCRA facilities in Winchester, 1 in Gainesboro
and 1 in Kernstown, however none within one mile of the site are in noncompliance.
Emergency Response Notification System
The ERNS contains four incidents located on Valley Avenue (U.S. Route 11), all of which are
sufficiently distant from the project site so as not to pose a problem.
A fifth incident, a spill of 50 gallons of jet fuel, occurred at Winchester Municipal Airport on
March 18, 1987. LBA has received a reply to a Freedom Of Information Act request to the US
Coast Guard's National Response Center for information about this incident and its extent.
According to the National Response Center, a fuel spill at the Winchester Regional Airport
occurred at Winchester Airport involving 50 gallons of jet fuel. The spill occurred on March 18,
1987 and was caused by a pipe leading to a hose reel, and a contractor was contacted to clean
up the material. Although the spill occurred within a mile of Preferred Alternative Site H, as
well as Sites P1, P2, and J, this is not expected to be a significant issue. A copy of the National
Response Center letter is included in Appendix A.
3-70
� I
� I
I I
I I
III
11
f]
E
State of Virginia
The Virginia Solid Waste Report lists two landfills in Winchester, neither of which is in close
proximity to the project site.
Frederick County
Officials at the Frederick County Planning Department have indicated that there are no known
hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of the proposed project site.
City of Winchester
City of Winchester officials have indicated that there are no known hazardous waste sites in the
vicinity of the proposed project site.
Site Inspection
An inspection of the proposed site revealed no visible signs of contamination. There was no
evidence of prior use of dumped construction rubble, 50 gallon drums or underground storage
tanks.
(4) Alternative Site S
Review of Public Records
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Priorities List
The only Superfund site in the area of the proposed project is the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump,
located on Mt. Pleasant, approximately six miles west of Winchester.
CERCLIS List
The current CERCLIS list includes five sites in Winchester and one site in Stephens City,
although none are within one mile of the project site.
Toxic Release Inventory
The Toxic Release Inventory Report (TRI) contains information on four facilities located in
Winchester, however none are within one mile of the proposed site.
3-71
The current RCRA Notifiers list contained 67 RCRA facilities in Winchester, 1 in Gainesboro,
1 in Kernstown and 5 in Stephens City, however none within one mile of the site are in
noncompliance.
Emergency Response Notification System
The ERNS contains four incidents located on Valley Avenue (U.S. Route 11), all of which are
sufficiently distant from the project site so as not to pose a problem. A fifth incident at
Winchester Municipal Airport is also outside the one -mile radius.
State of Virginia
Solid Waste Report
The Virginia Solid Waste Report lists two landfills in Winchester, neither of which is in close
proximity to the project site.
Frederick County
Officials at the Frederick County Planning Department have indicated that there are no known
hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of the proposed project site.
City of Winchester
City of Winchester officials have indicated that there are no known hazardous waste sites in the
vicinity of the proposed project site.
rSite Inspection
An inspection of the proposed site revealed no visible signs of contamination. There was no
evidence of prior use of dumped construction rubble, 50 gallon drums or underground storage
tanks.
(5) Alternative Site Y
IReview of Public Records
United States Environmental Protection Agency
INational Priorities List
The only Superfund site in the area of the proposed project is the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump,
located on Mt. Pleasant, approximately six miles west of Winchester.
3-72
e
CERCLIS List
The current CERCLIS list includes five sites in Winchester and one site in Stephens City. One
site, General Electric's Winchester Lamp Plant, is located approximately 1500 feet north of the
site on Route 651. This facility, which manufactures incandescent light bulbs, was the subject
of a preliminary assessment completed on October 18, 1991. The assessment recommended that
no further action was needed on the site.
Toxic Release Inventor
The Toxic Release Inventory Report (TRI) contains information on four facilities located in
Winchester, one of which is the above -mentioned General Electric Lamp Plant. According to
the TRI, the plant stores copper, copper compounds and lead compounds on -site. Approximately
250 pounds each of the lead and copper compounds are released into the environment annually,
while approximately 28,000 pounds of lead compounds are transferred off -site annually. In
addition, approximately 17,000 pounds of copper compounds and 26,000 pounds of copper are
transferred off -site annually.
RCRA List
The current RCRA Notifiers list contained 67 RCRA facilities in Winchester, 1 in Gainesboro,
1 in Kernstown and 5 in Stephens City, however none within one mile of the site are in
noncompliance with RCRA requirements.
Emergency Response Notification System
The ERNS contains four incidents located on Valley Avenue (U.S. Route 11), one of which, a
spill of hydraulic oil at the Rubbermaid facility (3124 Valley Avenue), is within one mile of the
project site. A fifth incident occurred at Winchester Municipal Airport in 1987, however the
airport is over three miles from the site so no impact is anticipated.
LBA has received a reply to a Freedom Of Information Act request to the US Coast Guard's
National Response Center for information about the incident at the Rubbermaid facility and its
extent. The National Response Center indicates that the spill occurred on April 12, 1990. A leak
in a pipeline spilled an undetermined amount of hydraulic oil into a nearby drainage ditch. The
oil was collected using brooms and vacuum trucks. A program of bulk soil excavation was
planned for the affected area accoding to the National Response Center files. A Copy of the
National Response Center letter is included in Appendix A.
There is also evidence of some rubble dumping on Site Y, which includes tires and rusting
barrels. It would be prudent to conduct sampling on this site to ascertain the presence of
hazardous materials.
3-73
State of Virginia
The Virginia Solid Waste Report lists two landfills in Winchester, neither of which is in close
proximity to the project site.
Frederick County
Officials at the Frederick County Planning Department have indicated that there are no known
hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of the proposed project site.
City of Winchester
City of Winchester officials have indicated that there are no known hazardous waste sites in the
vicinity of the proposed project site.
Site Inspection
An inspection of the proposed site revealed no visible signs of contamination, however there is
evidence of dumping on the site. The dumped material included old tires, large household
appliances and rusting barrels. There was no evidence of prior use of dumped construction
rubble, 50 gallon drums or underground storage tanks.
(6) Alternative Site A
Review of Public Records
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Priorities List
The only Superfund site in the area of the proposed project is the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump,
located on Mt. Pleasant, approximately six miles west of Winchester.
CERCLIS List
The current CERCLIS list includes five sites in Winchester, although none are within one mile
of the project site.
Toxic Release Inventory
The Toxic Release Inventory Report (TRI) contains information on four facilities located in
Winchester. One facility, Crown Cork & Seal Co., is approximately one-half mile south of the
3-74
I
r
proposed site. According to the TRI, the plant stores quantities of dimethyl phtalate, n-butyl
alcohol, glycol ethers, methyl isobutyl ketone and xylene on -site. Each year, small amounts are
released into the air through a stack, as well as being transferred off -site to other areas.
RCRA List
The current RCRA Notifiers list contained 67 RCRA facilities in Winchester, 1 in Gainesboro,
1 in Kernstown, and 2 in Clear Brook, however none within one mile of the site are in
noncompliance.
Emergency Response Notification System
The ERNS contains four incidents located on Valley Avenue (U.S. Route 11), all of which are
sufficiently distant from the project site so as not to pose a problem. A fifth incident occurred
at Winchester Municipal Airport, which is also well removed from the project site.
State of Virginia
Solid Waste Report
The Virginia Solid Waste Report lists two landfills in Winchester, neither of which are in close
proximity to the project site.
Frederick County
Officials at the Frederick County Planning Department have indicated that there are no known
hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of the proposed project site.
City of Winchester
City of Winchester officials have indicated that there are no known hazardous waste sites in the
vicinity of the proposed project site.
Site InaMdon
An inspection of the proposed site revealed no visible signs of contamination. There was no
evidence of prior use of dumped construction rubble, 50 gallon drums or underground storage
tanks.
3-75
r—1
L
3.5.1.2 Consequences
(1) Preferred Alternative Site H
There are no toxic/hazardous materials stored on the property at the present time, nor is there
any visual evidence of contamination on the site. With regard to the reported fuel spill at the
airport, LBA is awaiting a reply to a Freedom Of Information Act request to the U.S. Coast
Guard's National Response Center for information about this incident and its extent, however,
in light of the above, no impacts are anticipated to result.
(2) Alternative Site J
There are no toxic/hazardous materials stored on the property at the present time, nor is there
any visual evidence of contamination on the site. Various federal and state regulatory files and
databases do not indicate any hazardous waste sites or facilities in close proximity to the project
site. In light of the above, no impacts are anticipated to result.
(3) Alternative Site P 1 and P2
There are no toxic/hazardous materials stored on the property at the present time, nor is there
any visual evidence of contamination on the site. Various federal and state regulatory files and
databases do not indicate any hazardous waste sites or facilities in close proximity to the project
site. In light of the above, no impacts are anticipated to result.
' (4) Alternative Site S
There are no toxic/hazardous materials stored on the property at the present time, nor is there
any visual evidence of contamination on the site. Various federal and state regulatory files and
databases do not indicate any hazardous waste sites or facilities in close proximity to the project
site. In light of the above, no impacts are anticipated to result.
(5) Alternative Site Y
' There are no toxic/hazardous materials stored on the Pem' ro at the present time, nor is there
P
any visual evidence of contamination on the site. A review of federal regulatory files and
' databases indicate that certain materials are stored at the General Electric plant, which is in close
proximity to the project site. In addition, in April, 1990, the Rubbermaid plant reported a spill
of hydraulic oil at their facility (3124 Valley Avenue), which is within one mile of the project
site. At present, LBA is awaiting a reply to a Freedom Of Information Act request to the US
Coast Guard's National Response Center for information about this incident. Because of the
previous dumping incidents on the property, it would be prudent for any potential developer to
undertake a program of sampling within and near the debris piles to characterize the accumulated
waste before its disposal.
3-76
(6) Alternative Site A
There are no toxic/hazardous materials stored on the property at the present time, nor is there
any visual evidence of contamination on the site. Various federal and state regulatory files and
databases indicate that certain materials are stored at the Crown Cork & Seal plant, which is in
close proximity to the project site. In light of the above, no impacts are anticipated to result.
3.6 Cultural Resources
Refer to Appendix C for cultural resources.
3-77
.. ,
.
... _. .. ,
-. _
, „.
' � .;
. -
1
I.
1
- I,
s
11
i
-
I.
,:�,:: : -
, 1, ,
, � 1: , . � .7 ��, � . . . � . %'. �, � : ,- . , . , - � . -
I . 11-
I � I I
-
� I . I - . - , , , , I " � . . ., . , s . - , , ; - I . , I �
- , - : . , :,,, % , , " " , ", : ,-'.. , I I . . . . � � ': , .", ;- � ,
t�- �
, " , --i -- � , - , : ,,�
. . �
. . - � - -� I I , . � - .,. - 11 . - . -, , - I � . - . .. -
f
-
i
,
I.
, I � - - , I . ,
. - � - , .
I , . . . , � . , , . ,- � , I . . . , � � " , : t : � � , 7 � , I . , , , .
1
II .1, , , � I -
: . : � � � , I : ., I . � I I .1 i� � - , , � - -'-
, 11 I I - , .
. � A , ': ., . � , , , , . , � ., i . . - . , - . I % � , I -; I . , � � , I , � , � . - , � : �� " I ", I ,
r
40FER�1`�CES
,.. ,.. .1.:, - .
�,:,:
!!!.
I v ll�".""'��` "-l�'�-1-�.*�".,.,.,,",.",-",",'�..,-",-,,.,.-.---.'-
` -
:-':,:j.-";;,' -,, -,:?., � 'l:":.*'--:,..'�,,:�.-- , , , � ." - - - - � .... ...
Y
r
.: '. - 1
4.0 REFERENCES
4.1 Contacts
Bice, Lanny
Bigelow, Chet
Houston, Clyde
Strawsayder, Harvey Jr.
Strawsnyder, ED
Tuxford, Burton
Watkinson, Tony
Wiegand, Kenneth
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
Virginia Water Resources Management, Water Protection Permit
Program
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Frederick County
Frederick County Engineering Department
Virginia Water Control Board
Habitat Management Division of the Virginia Marine Resources
Division
Winchester Regional Airport
4-1
� I
U
11
11
11
L
4.2 Documents
Bair, Frank E. (1992) The Weather Almanac 6th Edition, Gale Research Inc.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (1992) Air Pollution Control Washington, D.C.
City of Winchester, Zoning Ordinance, April 13,1976.
City of Winchester, Comprehensive Plan, 1991.
Code of Federal Regulations 40, Part 50, (Revised July 1, 1991).
Commonwealth of Virginia (1991) Department of Air Pollution Control, Virginia Ambient Air
Monitoring Data Report 1991.
Commonwealth of Virginia (1992) Department of Transportation, Winchester Area
Transportation Study March 1992.
County of Frederick (Harvey Strawsnyder, Jr.) and Louis Berger and Associates (Mark Hall),
Meeting Minutes. October 26, 1992.
Frederick County Code, Chapter 8, as revised 8-31-92.
Frederick County Code, Chapter 25, adopted 2-14-92, as amended.
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, Zoning Map. Frederick County,
Virginia.
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, Comprehensive Policy Plan,
Frederick County, Virginia, 1991.
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development (Lanny Bice) and Louis Berger and
Associates (Mark Hall), Meeting Minutes, October 26, 1992.
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development (Lanny Bice) and Louis Berger and
Associates (Mark Hall), Meeting Minutes, September 17, 1992.
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, Population and Housing Trends,
Frederick County, Virginia, 1991.
Frederick County, Housing and Employment Statistics, November 1992.
Frederick County, Virginia Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Code, 1990.
4-2
7
L
L�
0
n
Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Water and Sewer Utility Maps, 1992.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority (Henry Stawsnyder, Jr.) and Louis Berger and Associates
(Mark Hall), Meeting Minutes. October 26, 1992.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority (Clyde Houston) and Louis Berger and Associates (Mark
Hall), Meeting Minutes. November 9, 1992.
Geology and Mineral Resources of Frederick County, Virginia Department of Conservation and
Economic Development, Division of Mineral Resources, Bulletin 80, 1966.
National Weather Service, "Meteorological summary data for the Dulles International Airport,
years 1984 through 1988."
Sinkholes, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Division of Mineral Resources,
1990.
Site H Plan. PHR & A.
Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1987.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. January 1987. Soil Survey of Frederick County,
Virginia.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance
Administration. Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Frederick County, Virginia (Unincorporated
Areas):
Community -Panel Number 510063 0115B, Effective July 17, 1978
Community -Panel Number 510063 0200B, Effective July 17, 1978
Community -Panel Number 510063 0105B, Effective July 17, 1978
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. National Wetlands
Inventory Map - Winchester, Virginia Quadrangle, based on aerial photography of April 1982.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. National Wetlands
Inventory Map - Stephens City, Virginia Quadrangle, based on aerial photography of April 1982.
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 1992.
Virginia's Northern Shanandoah Valley Regional Community Profile. September 1991.
4-3
Winchester Regional Airport, Airport Layout Map.
Winchester Regional Airport (Kenneth Wiegand) and Louis Berger and Associates (Mark Hall),
Meeting Minutes. October 26, 1992.
4-4
. , I , .1 I : p "I I .
�
1. I � I I 1. - , , �
. I . jl � ,
, I . � I - . . . . ,, � . : - -� - � �
- � 1. , * " , .. " ,
, -,- ... � ,� , � . ,'� —," , . . - -. I . . I I . —�. I .1 ,. , . ,. ,'�, " ;� � , � - . �1. I '.. , 1, , , .o .
. , � �, .. � , !� , � - , . .1 � � , , .1 , �, � � , ,
I � , - z . . : . . I , . . . . , , I , " . , �, -- �. . � . , . , , , . : . r , .1 " I I , I , , � b ., . , I . : . , . I , ,
, : -. � I I � I , , :' : � � � - '. . " , , , , . � � . , .
". . I . , : , , I I I � I � � 1, ll� . . . . � , : : '. � �, , . I , � . . I . I , , I- . : .
. . , : , - , I . . , . , ,. .
--..,.
,
:.
. :.
;-
., , � : - , : 1-- . � , . . ., 1, .� I I I . I : . , " : % I . , . , ": - I .� .. .
-.
, '. I , "
I , I � 11 �
I - — I ql I., .
�.
, .
I I � � ," , � - , � , - -, . , � " . , r . . I . ". " � � , :,�, ��: . � -, , , . , , . . 3 � : %, I . 1. I . :, , , " . I . , 1% � - �, , , . - I I . � ,
., I . I ;
, , - - 11 - I I �� , � I I I � 1 , , - z . , , - I I , :, ,
. � . I - :� � . - . . I . .1 � ,
, , . ., - . .,,�, ,:, , � , , : -� � � . , " ., : : i . : I " , . , - , ,� I . . :. , � . , . � . " � � I � � . I �
% , I � - , I " 1 . � . . , , , � , , . : , ; � q �. �. - I , � : . , � , � �, . - : , 5 z : '..
.. .
� � . -� '""', % � , . I —,
. , . , , ., . , ".
-1 I — � , . '. , � � � , z �
ll� E'l'!."';,",�,,�.",:�'..., � . I , - �
� 1, , � . � , , �- -
I �� _ . �� : , . . I I I . ,
. . I , . . I ,
, , I . . I - ,
�� � I - I . . � . �
1, I , ,�
I I , � - :� , -
-� �:. , , - - .. � �' ,l " . , . , , , , . . I I , , . . - . � . . - � I �
-.- , � I , I .. I I — � I , � 11 �
. ,., , � �-Il ,..,;".,�"'� 1, -1 -,.,p """I',- "",..,., �.: "'�.",E, —�� �. '. , , —.- � :1 � " . , � — �, , �' "
- , . .
, - ; '' - -�"" , - —.. , �: �,—' �- -.1. .. , .� - . � , - , -. ;. , , � . , - � , , � -, I : 11 'i ,.-, �� ` ,.`-��:" '�,:, , , " " "
C, " � - � � - , - . - , ,. . , , - . . . . I , , , . �, I .. t � � , . -.; , v . -� , , ,
, � , .. -, , , - - . , . . .- , � . , I , ", - e, " � , : � , �, :� , , .. - : � -�,' �, .� . , :: � ,.'. . ��, - , . - � 11 I , . I - L% , , : , , , - �� � . . ., , - , - , I., . � � : 'I �
, " .. , �,� " .-,, " , ,---,,� : "' " � I 1� , ,1. � -11 . ., , � � , � � - � � , d % � - . I
, � , ,�-, , - , , - " . , � ,�. 1. - . ,- - � , ,� - . I . - �,, , , " , - - , , - I , , . �, � � � : I , , I , , , : . , , , : ,. , 11 : � � .
- � .� , - � - , � , , , . , � . - . , , , . . , �. - - , , , , � . , : I - I .1 I I I " , . . , I �. I , . , .
�, , ., , , . I � . I � ; I . � . I � � � I I . ., I - : :1 . � I - I . . , - . . . � I - I � ,
- - � , . - , �,.', ." I , , - I I , I . - � I - I ; : . " . I . I , I ��
.':.
I :
1 . ,-
-
. - r �' .
c�.It:ll 1� �l � I -1
." " �. . . . , . 1, .. -.% � . , , - � �-.,-., I . , — I_.,: I 11.1 . �, , I
. .-I � �. " .. . �.
- � � � - , � �
. ,'� I . . - ,
I . - , , , , -.. I � :: . . I � .. -I . 'll—," :'...�"!' . . , , " � � �. : ; , .
, - I - .. , - : t, . . I I I , I I. - - , . ,, � r� '. , . � , -: - . I - 1. � , I � I . � ; ,.
, . , , , I � -- - * � , - - c . , I . I, , . '. ,: , � — , — ,
i
,
. , . . , � � , .. �,� , - , -�
, ,
� , , � ,:, ,
" --
,� . z " :, � �r . � _:—�''—%� -.�,-��,-.."",--.,.�,�,�,�,��.:,.,.: : , , , - "' - ",.,..- " ,,-,.. , I � I I - , " ,. - . - , � �
. , - i . ` , , .. . . - � �
." :� -- , , - � , - , - �
- —, � , , " -" " , , � . z . , . . , , .. ,
, - , : " � - , — ��
,, - ,- , , , -- , -�,
- , I , . ; .." , � I �
I - I I I
, I . I . , --,�� -,
, ": - .! , , � , , -
, ,--,—�--,-�,--,,-,:,--
- -- � ""� , --, �
, � . - � .
: :�� : - � . -
, '�, , . - - ; , : :
, , , ,� ,, ,,,,: , .
- ,� , - " ,- --r",.7 ,--�,,- ,,- :: � � , ,:,I - ,
, ". � �:, , , . : , . �, - � � �� � 1, - , - , , ,
. ., . - , � - - - .. � , - - - - - , -
, ,,, -
I - - � , " , - - - - �
- - , . ,-
, , , � - . . . , � -- � - ,-- , .- -- -� - , ! -
�:-- , .,:,.-:, , '.. � . �': �.- , - - - . - , ..: " . ". �� . ''
. , - . - '. - .- — .. - � --�--�:,:��i-.,-,,,
, �, �, . * , , � � � - -, -, � , ,- - " , -� -, ,., ; � ,,,.- ., , " ''. - , - � , -
. - , � ,� - - �� d , , 1, , � - � , 1 , , , -. ., --:: �, , �
, , , - I � - . 1, - - '. - , .- , .,. , . t 1 �- '. , �: l � - : � , . . - � I . � . �
, . , , ; � , ,� .1 , .,: : -- - - -� , , : , " - , ,,,, ,- ,..,,, ,. . , . , - . . , - , , -, , . - . , - - � . , -
, � . I
...
�_, � -1 �; . .--
I I - _. , .
-
- - � I . .
� . I I I I - � - , 7 ., -. - - � � , I * , , . � . . , . . � , , � .I , - I . - . I f � I . � . . . , � ,- � , ,
. . r, r
I . .
, , I .
. , z �
, . . e , , 11 � . .
tPPN� DICES
� �
.,.
i-
\_
- .
_
I
� I
� I
I I
•(� NT ,F Ty
o�rP..•� M��ym
9
7
,RCH 3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WII.Dl= SERVICE
FISH AND WIIDL FE ENHANCEMENT
MID-COUIVIY CENTER U.S. ROUTE 17
P.O. BOX 480
WE-= MARSH, VIRGINIA 23183
September 24, 1992
Ms. Nancy A. Makofka
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 270
East Orange, New Jersey 07019-0270
Re:
' Dear Ms. Makofka:
1
t
I
TAKES
PAIN N
AMEAI A
General Services Administration,
Frederick County, Virginia
This responds to your September 9, 1992 request for information on the
presence of species that are Federally listed or proposed for listing as
endangered or threatened within the area of the 13 sites being studied for
General Services Administration in Frederick County, Virginia. We have
reviewed the information you enclosed and are providing comments in accordance
with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Attached is a list of species with either Federal or State status known to
occur in Frederick County. This list was prepared by the Virginia Division of
Natural Heritage and is based on information obtained from previous surveys
for rare and endangered species. Candidate species are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and biological assessment and consultation
requirements pursuant to that legislation do not apply to them. They are
included here for the purpose of notifying you of possible future proposals
and listings in advance, for consideration in your environmental review
process, and to encourage efforts to avoid ad-rerse i_*ipacte tn them.
The species on the attached list do not necessarily occur on your proposed
project site. No Federally listed species have been documented in this
County. Additional information on the specific locations of these species may
be obtained by contacting the following Virginia State agencies, who maintain
databases on the known locations of Federally and State listed species:
Division of Natural Heritage
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
1500 East Main Street, Suite 312
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-2121
I
I
Ms. Nancy A. Makofka Page 2
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
P.O. Box 11104
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 367-1000
As indicated on the maps you provided it appears that wetlands may be impacted
on sites H, I, J, P, and S. The Service recommends that all impacts to
wetlands be avoided. The Service also recommends the implementation of
sedimentation and erosion control measures and that instream work be conducted
during the low flow period of late summer and early autumn. In addition, the
placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States may
require a permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Before any
work in waterways or wetlands, the Corps should be contacted at the following
address:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Norfolk District
803 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-1096
(804) 441-7652
From the maps you sent, it appears that sites A, G, M, R, and X are preferable
because they are adjacent to existing roadways, are not likely to require
clearing of woodlands, and are not likely to impact wetlands.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. If you
have any questions or need further assistance, please contact Cindy Schulz of
this office at (804) 693-6694.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Karen L. Mayne
Supervisor
Virginia Field Office
PAGE T
25 JUN 1992
SCIENTIFIC NAME
'• FISH
COTTUS GIRAROI
•' GEOLOGIC FEATURES
SIGNIFICANT CAVE
•� INVERTEBRATES
AESHNA CONSTRICTA
CAEC:DOTEA PRICEI
.ASMIGONA SUSVIRIDIS
PHYC:OOES BATESII
SPEYERIA IDALIA
STYGO8ROMUS 31GGERSI
STYGO89OWS GRACILIPES
•• PLANTS
ARALIA HISPIDA
ASTER PRAEALTUS
CAREX ATHEROOES
CAREX INTERIOR
CAREX PRAIREA
CARER ROSTRATA
CAREX SUBERECTA
CAREX TETANICA
C:NNA LATIFOLIA
CORNUS AMOFKAI SSP 08LIOUA
ECUISETUM FLUVIATILE
EUPATCRIUM MACULATUM
JUNCOS BALTICUS
JUNCOS NODOSUS
JUW CUS TORRETI
LEMMA TRISULCA
PAXISTIMA CANBYI
SAGITTARIA RIGIDA
SCLERIA VERTICILLATA
SCMLLARIA GALERICULATA
SPARGANIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM
TRIFOLIUM VIRGINICUM
•• REPTILES
CLEMMYS INSCULPTA
32 Records Processed
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION i RECREATION
DIVISION OF NATURAL HERITAGE
NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES OF FREDERICX COUNTY
COMWN NAME
POTOMAC SCJLPIN
GLOBAL STATE FEDERAL STATE
RANK RANK STATUS STATUS
G: S3
LANCE -TAILED GARNER
GS S1
PRICE'S CAVE :SOPOO
G3 52
ATLANTIC HEELSPLITTER
GG S2
TAWNY CRESCENTSPOT
=4 SH
REGAL FRITILLARY
G3 SH
BIGGER'S CAVE AMPMIPOO
G1G2 S1
SHENANDOAH VALLEY CAVE AMPHIPOO
G2 S1
BRISTLY SARSAPARILLA
WILLOW ASTER
ALINED SEDGE
INLAND SEDGE
PRAIRIE SEDGE
BEAKED SEDGE
PRAIRIE STRAW SEDGE
RIGID SEDGE
SLENDER WO00 REEDGRASS
SILO OOGW000
WATER HORSETAIL
SPOTTED JOE-PYE WEED
BALTIC RUSH
KNOTTED RUSH
TORREY'S RUSH
STAR DUCKWEED
CANBT'S MOUNTAIN -LOVER
SESSILE -FRUITED ARROWHEAD
WHORLED NUTRUSH
HOODED SKULLCAP
NARROW -LEAF BURREED
KATE'S-MOUNTAIN CLOVER
WOOD TURTLE
G5 S2
G5 S1
G5 S1
GS S1
G57 S1
GS S1
GG S2
G6GS S2
G5 S2
GST? S1
G5 51
G5 S2
G5 S1
G5 S1
G5 S2
G5 S1
G2 S2
G5 S1
G67 S1
GS S1
G5 S1
G3 S3
GL S2
C2
3C
Definition of Abbreviations Used on Natural Heritage Resource Lists
of the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Natural Heritage Ranks
The following ranks are used by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to set protection priorities for
natural heritage resources. Natural Heritage Resources, or "NHR's," are rare plant and animal species, rare and exemplary
natural communities, and significant geologic features. The primary criterion for ranking NHR's is the number of
populations or occurrences, i.e. the number of known distinct localities. Also of great importance is the number of
individuals in existence at each locality or, if a highly mobile organism (e.g., sea turtles, many birds, and butterflies),
the total number of individuals. Other considerations may include the quality of the occurrences, the number of protected
occurrences, and threats. However, the emphasis remains on the number of populations or occurrences such that ranks will
be an inaex of known biological rarity.
S1
Extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer populations or occurrences in the state; or may be a few remaining individuals;
often especially vulnerable to extirpation.
S2
Very rare; usually between 5 and 20 populations or occurrences; or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; often
susceptible to becoming extirpated.
S3
Rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 populations or occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large
S:
number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances.
Common; usually >100
populations or occurrences, but may be fewer with many large populations; may be restricted to
only a portion of the state; usually not susceptible to immediate threats.
'
S5
Very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions.
SA
Accidental in the state.
SB#
Breeding status of an organism within the state.
SH
Historically known from the state, but not verified for an extended period, usually > 15 years; this rank is used
primarily when inventory has been attempted recently.
SN#
SU
Non -breeding status within the state. Usually applied to winter resident species.
Status
uncertain, often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of the element.
SX
Apparently extirpated from the state.
SZ
Long distance migrant whose occurrences during migration are too irregular, transitory and/or dispersed to be
reliably identified,
mapped and protected.
Global ranks are similar, but refer to a species, rarity throughout its total range. Global ranks are denoted with a "G,'
followed by a character. Note that GA and GN are not used and GX means apparently A "0"
extinct. in a rank indicates that
a taxonomic ouestion concerning that species exists. Ranks for subspecies are denoted with a "T". The global and state
ranks cow inec (e.g. G2/S1) give an instant grasp of a species, known rarity.
These ranks should not be interpreted as legal designations.
Federal
Legal Status
I
The Division of Natural Heritage uses the standard abbreviations for Federal endangerment developed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation.
LE Listed Endangered
LT Listed Threatened
PE Proposed Endangered
PT Proposed Threatened
C1 Candidate, category 1
C2 Candidate, category 2
3A Former candidate presumed extinct
38 Former candidate not a valid species under
current taxonomic understanding
3C Former candidate - common or well protected
NF - no federal legal status
' State Legal Status
The Division of Natural Heritage uses similar abbreviations for State endangerment.
LE Listed Endangered PE Proposed Endangered
LT Listed Threatened PT - Proposed Threatened
C Candidate NS - no state legal status
For information on the laws pertaining to threatened or endangered species, contact:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for all FEDERALLY listed species
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Plant Protection Bureau for STATE listed plants and insects
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for all other STATE listed animals
3/92
� I
� I
I
_t
ADMINISTRATION
NATURAL HERITAGE
PLANNING AND RECREATION RESOURCES
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
w STATE PARKS
COMMONWEALTH of VERGI IA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION
DIVISION OF NATURAL HERITAGE
Main Street Station. 1500 East Main Street — Suite 312
TDD (804) 786-2121 Richmond. Vireinia 23219 1804) 786-7951 FAX- t8041 371-2674
1 September 1992
Bill Richardson
Louis Berger & Associates
100 Halstead Street
East Orange, N.J. 07019
Re: Natural heritage resources near Winchester, Virginia
Dear Mr. Richardson:
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has
processed your recent request for natural heritage information.
Enclosed please find lists of rare, threatened, and endangered
plant and animal species currently monitored by DCR's Division of
Natural Heritage from Frederick County, Virgina. Species marked
with a "check" specifically occur within the City of Winchester.
These species are concentrated at a site that is west of urban
Winchester.
Suitable habitat for a rare bird species, the Loggerhead Shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus, G4/S2/C2/LT), occurs in rural areas
surrounding the city. This habitat consists of open, short grass
pastures with hedgerows and scattered cedars (Juniperus
virainiana). The Loggerhead Shrike may also frequent orchards in
the Winchester area. Shrike populations are sharply declining in
the eastern United States. This -species is currently a candidate
for federally protected status under the Endangered Species Act
and a listed threatened species in Virginia.
If appropriate shrike habitat occurs in an area proposed for
development, you may wish to contact DCR's Division of Natural
Heritage for a site -specific review of our Biological and
Conservation Datasystem. This level of review will allow staff
biologists to determine if a field survey of the project site is
warranted. Please find enclosed a description of Environmental
Review services available through the Biological and Conservation
Datasystem, and an order form to include with your request should
you require any of these services.
1
U
An explanation of species rarity ranks and legal status
abbreviations is enclosed for your reference.
Thank you for your interest in Virginia's natural heritage.
Sincerely, /l
Timoth J �/O'Connel
Environmental Review Coordinator
enclosures
I
1
u
Definition of Abbreviatiorm Used an Natural Heritage Resource lists
of the
Virginia Oewrtment of Conservation and Recreation
Natural 4eritaae Ranks
'he lottowing ranks are used try the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to set protection priorities for
netwrat 1eritage resources. Natural Meritage Resources, or "MHR'S," are rare olant and animal species, rare and exemtary
natural conmrmrties, and significant geologic features. The orfinery criterion for ranking MHRIs is :he nu oar of
populations or occurrences, i.e. the ntsmper of known distinct Localities. Also of great importance is the numoor of
-roiviauals in existence at eaen Locality or, if a highly mocile organism (e.g., sea curttes, many oirds, and butterflies),
•-e total nueoer of individuals. Other considerations my include ;he Quality of the occurrences, ;he nt,per of protected
,ccurrenees, and threats. However, the eempnaais remains on the r%mmr of populations or occurrences such that rants rill
oe an !roex of crmown omotogmcal rarity.
51 Extremely rare; jaustly 5 or fewer populations or occurrences in ;he state; or may be a few remaining individuals;
3rten especially wlnmeraote to extirpation.
52 lery rare., usually between 5 and 20 populations or occurrences; or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; often
suscedcrbte to 30eaamM9 extirpated.
Rare to wexonmon; usually betwen 20 and '00 pooutacians or occurrences; .may have fewer occurrences, but with a Large
lulDer of inaivtduals in scam potation: 'ley be susceptible ;0 large-scale disturaw ces.
34 Caanon: usually 3,100 Doculations or occurrences, but my be fewer with ,many large populations; may oe restricted ;o
only a portion of :he state; usually not susceptible to immediate threats.
35 /erY :Amon; lemonstraoly secure -a70er dresent conditions.
SA accidental in :Me state.
SH iistoricalLy <norn free ;Me state, but not verified for an extended period, usually > '5 years; :his rant is sea
orimariLy when inventory -ias been actemotea reCenCly.
SH legutarty occurring migrants,-.ransments, seasonal non-oreecing residents. Usually:-4 specific site can of identified
with its range ;n -me state. (Hate :hat :Ongregation and staging areas are monitored separately.)
SU Status uncertain, often oecause of low searen effort or cryptic .nature of the eteaent.
SX Awarentty extirpated from ;Me state.
:Lobel rants are similar, but refer :o a species, rarity throughout its :ocal range. Ctaoat rants are denoted with a "I"
followed W a character. Vote :Mat CA and CM are not use0 and CX means addarMtty extinct. A "0" in a rank indicates :mac
a :axonan c al+estion :onmcermmmg chat species exists. Rants nor supsoecies are demoted with a °T". 'he gtocat aro state
-ants conmorned (e.g. CVS1) give an instant 3raso of a species' known rarity.
'hese rants Snould not pe interpreted as Legal designations.
=ederal -eaal Status
'he Division of Natural Heritage uses the standard abbreviations for Federal endangerment developed by the U.S. Fisn and
IJiLdLife Service, Division of Endangered Species and Macitat Conservation.
- E i stea En ammo erect
-isced Thresto
'E P100102e0 Endangered
2T Pr-mm-m 'hreetensd
Candidate, category 1
C2 Candidate, category 2
3A Forwer candidate - presumed extinct
33 - Former candidate - not a valid species under
current taxonomic under -standing
3C - Former candidate - canton or well protected
MF - no federat legal status
State Legal Stares
'he Division of Matural Heritage uses similar abbreviations for State endangerment.
'LE - Listed Endangered PE - Proposed Endangered
LI Listed Threatel PT - Proposed ,hrestoo
C Candiaate MS - no state legal status
=or infonamtion on the Laws pertaining to threatened or endangered species, contact:
U.S. Fish and WiLdlife Service for all FEDERALLY Listed species
Oepartment of Agriculture and Consm.aer Services Ptant Protection Bureau for STATE Listed plants and insects
Oepartmemt of Came and Inland Fisneries for all other STATE Listed animals
9/91
'
PA" 1
25 .UN 1992
i
SC:ENTIFTC UJ"
••
=iSH
:OTTUS CiRAROI
'•
:ZCLCG:C-EATURES
SIGNIFICANT LAVE
'•
: HVERRMI ATES
AESHNA =STRICTA
:AMOOTEA �14ICSI
-ASMIGONA SURVIRIOIS
✓P4YC:ODES SATES::
'
SPEYERIA :DAL:A
STTGMCMUS 3IGGERSI
3TTGC8RCMUS :RAC:L:?ES
' •• S'rANTS
ARAL:A ATSPIDA
✓ASTER PlAEAL:US
✓"-AAV ,ATHERCOES
✓-AREX :NTERIOR
✓-UEX ;tAIREA
✓WEX RCSTMATA
✓ :AMEX SUERECTA
✓ :AAEX-ETANICA
::NNA :ATIFOL:A
1
✓"_..RNUS AMC" 3SP :BL:OUA
✓:CUISETIM=LUVIATTLE
✓1JPAT0RIUW .MaILA"
✓.UNCJS 3AL7:CJS
✓.Ux= HCOOSUS
✓.UNCUT 7ORKETI
✓L-MMA TRISULU
PAXISTIMA CANGTI
SAGITTARIA 2IGICA
�/S6EXIA `lERTIC/LLATA
✓SCITE.LARIA GALERICULATA
SPARGAMIUM AMQWTFOL.UM
TRIFOLIUM VIRGINICL*
UREPTTLeS
CL YS IN=LPTA
`iZ .2Reorvs Pr OCtlilQ
DEPARTMENT 01 C*MMVATION L AECIEATIOM
3IVISI0N OF MMIUL :iERITAGE
vAIURAL IERITAGE ;ESCtMCES OF --RECERICX --=NTT
COO= vAJE :LCZAL -STATE 20ERAL 'STATE
TANK UNK 3TA7;.S STATUS
3QTOMAC SC.ILPIN ,!. 33
-AUCE--'AILED DARNER
:5
S1
atlC_-'S :AVE :SOPCO
Z
52
ATLANT:C 4EEL3PL:77ER
:.
32
.Z
7AWNT :RESC_NTSPOr
:SG-
34
-
IEGAL --RITTLLART
7z
SH
-:
UGGER'S :AVE A14P4IP00
+1G2
S1
SHENAWCA14 YALL_l :AVE AMP4IP70
:2
S.
is
3RISTV SARSAPARILLA
15
32
'BILLOW ASTER
:5
31
.AWNED SEDGE
i5
31
:MILANO SEDGE
GS
S1
21tAIRIE SEDGE
S1
3EAXM SEDGE
:5
31
PUME STRAW SEDGE
:t
S2
IIGIO SEDGE
S2
SLV OER 'LOCO IEMGRASS
15
S2
S I UN DOGLOCO
:5 T?
31
1ATER HORSETAIL
GS
31
S crm xf-P'►E 'AM
SS
SZ
3ALTIC Z4N
S1
:OIOTTED iusN
:S
S1
TORRET'S iUSN
+3
32
STAR DUCXLEED
:5
SS1
CAUTIS ACURTAIN-LOVER
G2
S2
:2
SESSILR-FRUITED ARROWHEAD
:S
S1
' MMLED vUTRUSN
r?
31
HOODO =ALLW
GS
St
URRGW LEAi 3URREED
GS
;I
CAT'E'S-AGINTAIII COVER
GS
S3
iC
I= TURTLE
;.i s2
✓ - JI�GiEs 77)or A/ Ti►E City oG x11A14gFvFp
COMA' ON` EA LTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Antony B. Mason
Louis Berger & Associates,
100 Halstead Street
P. 0. Box 270
East Orange, New Jersey Q
This letter is in response to your request for information on
threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of Winchester,
Virginia with regard to an environmental assessment of 13 sites.
At this time no state or federally listed threatened or endangered
fauna are known to occur at or in proximity to any of the sites,
nor are any candidate or proposed fauna known to occur in the area.
This letter summarizes the likelihood of occurrence of threatened
or endangered fauna in the project vicinity. Please note that this
response does not address all environmental impacts associated with
review of state or federal permit applications. Please contact Ray
Fernald at (804) 367-8999 if you have any questions in this regard.
Information on endangered plants and insects can be obtained f
the Department of Agriculture, Office of Plant Protection, by
contacting John Tate at P.O.Box 1163, Richmond, Virginia 23209
by phone at (804) 786-3515.
a processing charge of $30.00 for this response. Please
check made out to the Treasurer of Virginia within 30 days
to Rebecca Wajda, P.O.Box 11104, Richmond, VA 23230-1104.
a copy of this letter to ensure you are properly credited.
We appeciate your interest in the wildlife resources of Virginia.
If you have any questions or need additional information please
give me a call at (804) 367-8747.
Sincerely,
Helen Eli a Kitchel
Research Associate
Ray Fernald
Becky Wajda
4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104
(804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) Equal Opportunity Employment Programs d Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Federal and State Listed Endangered i Threatened Species in Virginia*
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
FRESHWATER FISHES:
Blackbanded sunfish
Enneacanthus chaetodon
SE
Carolina darter
Etheostoma Collis
ST
Duskytail darter
Etheostoma sp.
SE
Emerald shiner
Notropis atherinoides
ST
Greenfin darter
Etheostoma chlorobranchium
ST
Longhead darter
Percina macrocephala
ST
Orangefin madtom
Noturus gilberti
ST
Paddlefish
Polyodon spathula
ST
Roanoke logperch
Percina rex
FE
Sharphead darter
Etheostoma acuticeps
SE
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum
FE
Slender chub
Erimystax cahni
FT
Spotfin chub
Cyprinella monacha
FT
Steelcolor shiner
Cyprinella whipplei
ST
Tennessee dace
Phoxinus tennesseensis
SE
Tippecanoe darter
Etheostoma tippecanoe
ST
Variegate darter
Etheostoma variatum
SE
Western sand darter
Ammocrypta clara
ST
Whitemouth shiner
Notrcpis alborus
ST
Yellowfin madtom
Noturus flavipinnis
FT
AMPHIBIANS•
Frogs
Barking treefrog Hyla gratiosa ST
Salamanders
Eastern tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum SE
Mabee's salamander Ambystoma mabeei ST
Shenandoah salamander Plethodon shenandoah FE
REPTILES:
Lizards
Eastern glass lizard ophisaurus ventralis ST
Snakes
Canebrake rattlesnake Crotalus horridus atricaudatus SE
FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE -State Endangered; ST=State Threatened
* Effective January 1, 1992
1 2/12191 :rkw 1
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Federal and State Listed Endangered & Threatened Species in Virginia*
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
Turtles
Atlantic green sea turtle Chelonia mydas FT
Bog turtle
Clemmys muhlenbergii
SE
Eastern chicken turtle
Derrochelys reticularia
SE
Hawksbill sea turtle
Eretmochelys imbricata
FE
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle
Lepidochelys kempi
FE
Leatherback sea turtle
Dermochelys coriacea
FE
'
Loggerhead sea turtle
Caretta caretta
FT
Wood turtle
Clemmys insculpta
ST
BIRDS:
Bachman's sparrow
Aimophila aestivalis
ST
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
FE
Bewick's wren
Thryomanes bewickii
SE
Gull -billed tern
Sterna nilotica
ST
Henslow's sparrow
Ammodramus henslowii
ST
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
ST
'
Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus
FE
Piping plover
Charadrius melodus
FT
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis
FE
Roseate tern
Upland sandpiper
Sterna dougallii
Bartramia longicauda
FE
ST
Wilson's plover
Charadrius wilsonia
SE
MAMMALS:
Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew
Eastern big -eared bat
Eastern cougar
Gray bat
Indiana bat
Northern flying squirrel
Rock vole
Snowshoe hare
Virginia big -eared bat
Water shrew
Sciurus niger cinereus
Sorex longirostris fisheri
Plecotus rafinesquii macrctis
Fells concolor couguar
nyotis grisescens
Myotis sodalis
Glaucomys sabrinus
Microtus chrotorrhinus
Lepus americanus
Plecotus townsendii virginianus
Sorex palustris
MOLLUSKS:
' Freshwater Mussels
Appalachian monkeyface mussel Quadrula spars&
Atlantic pigtoe mussel Fusconaia masoni
FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened
* Effective January 1, 1992
12/12/91:rkw
FE
FT
SE
FE
FE
FE
FE
SE
SE
FE
SE
FE
ST
2
Virginia Department of Game and inland Fisheries
Federal and State Listed Endangered 4 Threatened Species in Virginia*
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status'
Birdwing pearlymussel
Lemiox rimosus
FE
Black sandshell mussel
Ligumia recta
ST
Brook floater mussel
Alasmidonta varicosa
SE
Cracking pearlymussel
Hemistena lata
FE
Cumberland bean mussel
villosa trabalis
FE
Cumberland combshell mussel
Epioblasma brevidens
SE
Cumberland monkeyface mussel
Quadrula intermedia
FE
Deertoe mussel
Truncilla truncata
SE
Dromedary pearlymussel
Dromus dromas
FE
Dwarf wedgemussel
Alasmidonta heterodon
FE
Elephant -ear mussel
Elliptio crassidens
SE
Fanshell mussel
Cyprogenia stegaria (=lrorata)
FE
Fine -rayed pigtoe mussel
Fusconaia cuneclus
FE
Fragile papershell mussel
Leptodea fragilis
ST
Green blossom mussel
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum
FE
James spinymussel
Pleurobema collina
FE
Little -wing pearlymussel
Peglas fabula
FE
Ohio pigtoe mussel
Pleurobema cordatum
SE
Oyster mussel
Epioblasma capsaeformis
SE
Pimpleback mussel
Quadrula pustulosa pustulosa
ST
Pink mucket mussel
Lampsilis abrupta (=orbiculata)
FE
Pink pigtoe mussel
Pleurobema rubrum
SE
Purple bean mussel
villosa perpurpurea
SE
Purple lilliput mussel
Toxolasma lividus
SE
Rough pigtoe mussel
Pleurobema plenum
FE
Rough rabbitsfoot mussel
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata
ST
Sheepnose mussel
Plethobasus cyphyus
ST
Shiny pigtoe mussel
Fusconaia cor
FE
Slabside pearlymussel
Lexington!& dolabelloides
ST
Slippershell mussel
Alasmidonta viridis
SE
Snuffbox mussel
Epioblasma triquetra
SE
Spectaclecase mussel
Cumberlandia monodonta
SE
Tan riffleshell mussel
Epioblasma florentlna walker!
FE
Tennessee heelsplitter mussel
Lasmigona holstonia
SE
Freshwater and Land Snails
Brown supercoil Paravitrea septadens ST
Rubble coil Helicodiscus 1irellus SE
Shaggy coil Helicodiscus diadema- SE
Spiny riversnail Io fluvialls ST
Spirit supercoil Paravitrea hero SE
Unthanks Cave snail Holszngeria unthanksensis SE
Virginia coil Polygyriscus virginicus FE
' FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE - State Endangered; ST=State Threatened
* Effective January 1, 1992
12/12/91:rkw
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Federal and State Listed Endangered i Threatened Species in Virginia*
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
FRESHWATER CRUSTACEANS:
Madison Cave amphipod Stygobromus stegerorum ST
Madison Cave isopod Antrolina lira FT
MILLIPEDES:
Ellett Valley pseudotremia Pseudotremia cavernarum ST
Laurel Creek xystodesmid Sigmoria Whiteheadi ST
MARINE MAMMALS:
Blue whale
Balaenoptera musculus
FE
Fin whale
Baleenoptera physalus
FE
Florida manatee
Trichechus manatus
FE
Humpback whale
Megaptera novaeangliae
FE
Northern right whale
Eubalaena glacialis
FE
Sei whale
Balaenoptera borealis
FE
Sperm whale
Physeter catodon
FE
FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened
* Effective January 1, 1992
12/12/91 :rkw
4
r.
M•
I
ti \D%iINISTRATION
' NATURAL HERITAGE
1,c J PLANNING AND RECREATION RESOURCES
+»aura SOIL \ND \\ \TER CONSERVATION
- STATE PARKS
COMMONWEALTH of VIR INIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION
DIVISION OF NATURAL HERITAGE
Siam Street Station. 1 -�00 Ea,t Alain Street Suite 312
TDD (804) 786-2121 Richmond. Viremla 211_19 18041 7Q6.-q;l FAX: (804) 371-2674
15 July 1992
Bill Richardson
100 Hallstead St.
East Orange, NJ 07019
Re: Natural heritage resources in Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Richardson:
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has
processed your recent request for natural heritage information.
Enclosed please find a list of.rare, threatened, and endangered
plant and animal species currently monitored by DCR's Division of
Natural Heritage that have been documented in Frederick County,
Virginia. An explanation of species rarity ranks and legal
status abbreviations is included for your reference.
Please note that these lists are continually revised based on
incoming information. Please feel free to contact us at any time
for an updated list or a summary of changes.
Thank you for your interest in Virginia's natural heritage.
Sincerely,
TimothyP O'Connell
Environmental Review Coordinator
enclosures
j
r
u .um 1992
'1
i
rSC:EMTIFiC VAME
:CT.US :.:BARD!
' '• :EOIIG:C =EA "IIS
SIGVIFICAMT 7AVE
•• :mveRrEMATES
' AESHMA CCxSTRICTA
ZAEC:DCTEA AV CEt
-SMIGCNA ;UBVIRIDIS
' �MYC:CDES 3ATESIi
SP"YERIA :DAL:A
STTGCRRCMUS 3IGGERSI
STYGCBRCMItS :BAC:L:PSS
' '-ANTS
ARAL:A 41SPIDA
ASTER PRAEAVUS
:iREX ATHERCDES
:AREX :NTERICR
:AREX PRAIREA
' :AREJI 20STRATA
:AAEX SUBERECTA
:AREX TETAMICA
::NMA I.ATIFCL:A
=MUS AMCMAI iSP 74L I QUA
EQUISE M FLUWATILE
:UPATCR IL4I .MCULATLIN
-'INC' 3ALrr=
.UNCtlS VCDOSUS
.IIxC,ii 70RM I
' Le?IMA TRISULCA
PAXISTIMA QMWI
SAGITTARIA AIGIDA
SCLERIA vERTICtLLATA
SCUrILLARIA GALVICULATA
SPARGAMILU AMQISTIFCLIW/
TRtFOLItA1 vIRGIxICZA►
2EPTILES
CL TS : MSGA?TA
t4@car s Pr=ass"
1
JEPUTMEXT OF COIISERVATION i 11CREATIOX
JIVIStOM OF VATURAL HERITAGE
UMIAL 4EBITAGE 7ESQIRCES OIL=REDEJ[ICZ :.'7JMTY
:CMMON VANE
POTCMAC SCJL.PIM
LAMS -,AILED JARMER
;'RICE'S EVE :SCPCD
ATLAMT'.0 IEELSPI:TIER
"AWIY :BESCEMTSPCr
;EGAL FRtTrLLARY
3IGGEER'S :AVE AMP4IP00
SHEMAMOCAII '/ALLEY :AVE %MPMIPOD
3RISTLT SARSAPARILLA
'JILLOH ASTER
AWNED SEDGE
:MLAJID SEDGE
PlAIRIE SEDGE
3EAKED SEDGE
3RAIRIE STBAY SEDGE
RIGID SEDGE
SLrlDEB 'JOW iEEDGZASS
StLCr 30GUMD
WTER HCRSETAIL
sA04TED :OE-PYE vp
3ALrtC AM
KNOTTED RUSH
TORRE7'S .iUSx
STAR =03JEED
CAMBY' S MCMA I x-LOVER
SESSMI-FRUITED ARRCWIEAD
WNCRLED WOMAN
HCm® SUILLUP
UARMN-LEAF 3URAEED
rATE12-00WAIII CLOVER
,IJ= TURTLI
:LCBAL STATE =EDE.ZIL STATE
TANK iAMK ;TAMIS ;TAMS
:;+ ;S
:S S2
is i
i5 31
is
�2
:40 32
is ;Z
,:ST? 31,
GS 31
:S S2
:5 S1
4 S1
IS sz
:S sl
a s2
i3 31
S47 S1
Gs sl
31
GS ;3
G: s2
CZ
3C
U.S. Department
of Transportation
United States
Coast Guard
Mr. P. Ehrenbeck
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
100 Halsted Street,
P.O. Box 270
East Orange, NJ 07019-0270
Commandant 2100 Second Street S.W.
U.S. Coast Guard Washington, DC 20593-0001
Staff Symbol:
Phone: (G-TGC-2 )
(202)267-2185
5720
NOV 2 3 1992
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST (USCG CONTROL NUMBER 92-1611)
Dear Mr. Ehrenbeck:
I have received your Freedom of Information Act letter request
' dated November 10, 1992 for information concerning National
Response Center report number 03066, reguarding a release (spill)
which occurred in the vicinity of the Winchester Municipal
Airport in Winchester, Virginia.
I have enclosed the information you requested. This information
is based upon reports received by the National Response Center
(NRC). Since the database only contains information "as reported"
to the NRC, the enclosed information may not reflect the actual
number of releases (spills) that occurred, or the amount of
material released (spilled).
Under the authority of Exemption (b) (6) of the Freedom of
Information Act, names and home telephone numbers have been
withheld from the reports. Release of that .information would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
You may appeal this determination within 30 days from the date of
this letter. Address your appeal to:
Commandant (G-TPS-2)
2100 Second Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
If the NRC can be of any further assistance, please call (202)
267-2185.
I Encl:
1
(1)Incident Report
Sincerely,
R. F. GADSDEN
Lieutenant, U.S. Coast Guard
Operations Officer, NRC
by the direction of the Commandant
NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER
*** FOIA INCIDENT REPORT 03066 ***
FOR 1987
INCIDENT DESCRIPTION
'Report taken by JKO on 18 at 1524
Incident Type: F
Affected Area: UNDERGROUND
The incident occurred on 18-MAR-87 at 1400 local time.
'Color: Wind:
Sheen Size:
Vessel/Vehicle:
Consignee:
SOURCE CAUSE OF INCIDENT
LEAK IN PIPE LEADING TO H R EL, LEAKED ONLY WHE
' PRODUCT WAS BEING TRANSFERRED THROUGH LINE, (BELOW
INCIDENT LOCATION
AIRPORT FUEL FARM, JET A
STORAGE FACILITY
BUFFLICK RD
County: FREDERICK
City:
State: VA
RELEASED MATERIAL(S)
CHRIS Code: Material
Name: Tota ty: Units:
In Water: Units:
'
JPO JET 1
50.00 GAL
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAMA E
Injuries: Fatalities: Evacuations: Damage: Amount:
0 0 0 0 0.00
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
CONTRACTOR CALLED.
REPORTING PARTY
Organization: WINCHEST R MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Address: RTE 1 BOX 208A
State: VA
Zip: -22601
Calling for Responsible Party: 1
SUSPECTED RESPONSIBLE PARTY
' Organization:
Address:
State:
0 Zip:
EPA Region: 3
MSO/COTP:
Caller Notified
Others Notified
Time: 1
Time: 0
FD/WATER CONT BRD.
IADDITIONAL INFORMATION
I*** END FOIA INCIDENT REPORT # 03066 ***
E
I U.S. Department Commandant 2100 Second Street S.W.
U.S. Coast Guard Washington, DC 20593-0001
of Transportation Staff Symbol:
Phone: G-TGC-2
United Guard
CoStates ( 2 0 2) 2 6 7- 218 5
5
Mr. P. Ehrenbeck 720 NOV 23 1992
' Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
100 Halsted Street,
P.O. Box 270
East Orange, NJ 07019
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST (USCG CONTROL NUMBER 92-1610)
Dear Mr.. Ehrenbeck:
I have received your Freedom of Information Act letter request
dated November 11, 1992 for information concerning a release
' (spill) on April 12, 1990, which occurred in the vicinity of the
Rubbermaid Corporation, located at 3124 Valley Avenue in
Winchester, Virginia.
I have enclosed the information you requested. This information
is based upon reports received by the National Response Center
(NRC). Since the database only contains information "as reported"
to the NRC, the enclosed information may not reflect the actual
number of releases (spills) that occurred, or the amount of
material released (spilled).
1 Under the authority of Exemption (b) (6) of the Freedom of
Information Act, names and home telephone numbers have been
withheld from the reports. Release of that information would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
You may appeal this determination within 30 days from the date of
this letter. Address your appeal to:
Commandant (G-TPS-2)
2100 Second Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
' If the NRC can be of any further assistance, please call (202)
267-2185.
I Encl:
(1)Incident Report
Sincerely,
?�G;ADtEN
Lieutenant, U.S. Coast Guard
Operations Officer, NRC
by the direction of the Commandant
INCIDENT DESCRIPTION
Report taken by K WALLACE on February 12, 1991 at 14:45.
Incident Type: FIXED
Incident Cause: EQUIPMENT FAILURE Affected Medium: WATER
Affected Area: DRAINAGE DITCH
The incident was discovered on 12-APR-90 at 12:00 local time.
SOURCE CAUSE OF INCIDENT
JECTION MOLDING OPERATION OIL RECLAIMING PIT/ PIPES BEGAN LEAKING
INCIDENT LOCATION
3124 VALLEY AVE.County: FREDERICK
WINCESTER, VA 22601
RELEASED MATERIAL(S)
CHRIS Code: OHY HYDRAULIC Of
Qty Released: .00 UNK Qty in Water: .00 UNK
DAMAGE
.furies: 0 Fatalities: 0 Evacuations: 0 Damaaes: 0
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
MATERIAL WAS COLLECTED USING BOOMS AND VA TRUCKS, SOIL EXCAVATION
IS PLANNED.
REPORTING PARTY
Organization: RUBBERMAID CORP.
Address: 3124 VALLEY AVE.
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
Type of Organization: PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
RUBBERMAID CORP. called for the responsible party.
SUSPECTED RESPONSIBLE PARTY
Organization: RUBBERMAID CORY.
Address: 3124 VALLEY AVE.
r, IECFESTER, V21. 22601
Type of Organization: PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
NOTIFICATIONS BY CALLER
A: STATE:Y CG: HE E A ER CONT. BOARD,DEPT OF WASTE M
NOTIFICATIONS BY NR
encv: U.S. EPA III Date: 12-FEB-91 Time: 14:59
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
SPILLED WAS DISCOVERED IN APRIL OF WHILE PLANNING SOIL
EXCAVATION THE ARMY CORP OF ENG. SUGJESTED THAT THEY CALL THE NRC.
' \ .. _
... r \
r .� -
.f.
\ r
r..
.. -
_ -.-
- -,I.
..
- - -
.. '
�'
,
-. /
,,. ,'. -
APPENDIX & [ A►lti U MD ANI3 ZONING
`�
r .. -
r ., . .
,. .
�, :,� L ,-
_ .. A
NOV 11 '92 02:29PM LOUIS BERGER&ASSOC 202 331 8029 P.18
.1
Appendix ,O�
Land Use and Zoning
Zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans for Winchester and Frederick County were examined for the
proposed sites to determine site jurisdiction. Site reconnaissances were conducted to determine existing
and adjacent land uses. All proposed sites are under the jurisdiction of Frederick County, with the
following zoning classifications (Frederick County Zoning Ordinance).
Rural Areas District, RA. The purpose of the rural area district is to preserve large, open
parcels of land, tree cover, scenic views, sensitive environmental areas, and prime agricultural
and locally significant soils. Offices and industrial uses are not permitted in this district; the rural
character of these areas should be maintained.
Residential Performance District, RP. The purpose of the residential performance district is
to implement the residential land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with urban
lands; consequently, offices and industrial uses (similar to the ACOE facility) are not permitted
in this district.
Mobile Home Community District, MH 1. The purpose of the mobile home community district
is to provide for planned communities for mobile homes; consequently, offices and industrial uses
are not permitted in this district.
. Business General District, B-2. The purpose of the business general district is to provide
rP g p large
area for a variety of business, office, and service uses. These areas allow for general business
which involve frequent and direct access by the general public but not heavy truck traffic on a
constant basis. Office structures, similar to the ACOE facility, are permitted in this district.
Industrial Transition District,1W. The purpose of the industrial transition district is to provide
for heavy commercial activities involving larger scale marketing or wholesaling. Office
structures, similar to the ACOE facility, are permitted in this district.
Ught Industrial District, M-1. The purpose of the light industrial district is to provide for a
variety of light manufacturing, commercial office, and heavy commercial uses in well planned
industrial settings. Office structures, similar to the ACOE facility, are permitted in this district.
1
NOV 11 '92 02:29PM LOUIS BERGER&ASSOC 202 331 8029
P.19
Il
� I
11
1
1
I.
1
a
1
Industrial General District, M-2. The purpose of the industrial general district is to provide
for a wide variety of manufacturing, commercial office, and heavy commercial uses. Office
structures, similar to the ACOE facility, are permitted in this district.
The Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County was examined to determine if the proposed facility would
be compatible with future growth patterns, as defined by the plan. In the plan, several land use concepts
Identified areas of future concentrated growth for industrial and office land uses. Of particular
importance to the ACOE facility are the Interchange Business and Industrial Area and Industrial Area.
According to the plan, interchange areas will continue to be centers of business and industrial activities.
Most additional industrial uses should be located in interchange areas or in the vicinity of existing large
industrial areas and parks (identified as Industrial Area). In addition, Frederick County has designated
an Airport Support Area surrounding Winchester Regional Airport. Business and industrial uses should
be the primary uses in this area. Other areas of concern are Agricultural/Forestal Area and
E► Wronntental Open Space, which have been designated by Frederick County to be preserved. This
approach provides a continuous system of greenspace,
I
APPENDIX B LAND USE AND ZONING
i . . .
� � , . , . , , , � , � : .
.
I1,. � . � , , -, .
` . � 1. . I ,:". . I
, , ..
, � , .
� :. . I -
, � . , �
, , , - . ,
. .
� . . 1� I � , : , : , I .1 . , . :. , I �
, � I � . � I - . . ,
. , : - � � . , ; . � � : . . . ,
I . , , �. , , , � � � . . , , . : .
I , .. 11 : , - I , . . I . " I I.,
... '. � . . I . . I . ; .
. . I I I
- .. � .
.
.,
. I . I I �
- . . I
, . . . I � , � I . : , � - I . .
� , * . .
. �, . : , 1. � .1 :,..-"
, ". - . .
. . . " . , , , " : I , t , . � , , . . I
I .. . , - � , . , 1 , , � I , . I
, " , . � " , . . . � . . , � I - , , � � t . . �
- . I I t, I - .: . I , � I * I , I I . I ; � , , , �
-. I I., . , — .1, , I � I . I � � . � I ,:, — , . , . � , � . . , � I
. . , . . 1. . . � � ,�. , � % � �, o �, I . � ...l. .%
I .
1". .... I I : : � .
..
,.
"„
. � - - : � ; ,
,
'.. , I , I . . 1:�'...:�. 11 � I I,,.! , , � . : —
. I I . , ; .
. :�
. I
, � , ,
b . , - ; , I : :
z , % , , � I
, I " ,*�
, : . � , , �' , . ; I " , . . "; - --,-::: � . .., "'q , -: t ., " � ') � �:.:-
I I . — , I I . I . . . , , ! , � : , I , . . .
:, � , � ; , � . :
.. . . .1, w
� , ,
:�'
- I- .. , ,
. 1; - . , , , . . , I - . ,
�
i �� . , �, . , � I
, , . � � ". �', -� � , ,.,
. , ,
- , , .
m. - �
, - , , , t " ,�, : .I- �,-
, ,,� � , . , , , �,; , , I , , � ..
t ; ,
I , , � .- -
.
:, "'': �'
, ,
. . � ,
� . �,
I . .
.,
. . �- � I — : ,. ,I
.-, �
. '. �, � , -' , � e I �, " .
'':,"'� , ,
- , � . :
I
- " � I . . - - - : , . ,
.", , , "-.f� � � - ,. � ; tr �l - I � � . � � I � . I .1 I
", ":
� ! . � - . I � I , . 1� I',, % : I . � ,.'�, �., ,,'!��' ;_ �.
, , -
,:-� , � - . , : , � . . �. . . I I � , � , , �
,
, . , . , , , - , , , . � . I , : ; � , � . � I , . '�
I - I . I . . I . I I . , . , I I � :
I . , : � , ; I I I
, .
. . . .-. . -'.
, m . : : , . , � . -
t
., ': - I � : , ,
I � ,
i�"' - ,
. - � -
� . :. . I � I , � - . I ,
- . � . . I . . , , I : . - . �
I . . I � � . , . .-, . . � � �
, , " � . I
.
I. - : � , I
I .
: -
. . .
. . � , , . I I - I .! . . .
. -:
t: , - . , . p
� . �� I - . , , , . ,
: , .. � . .: - , : '. , . . .: . I - I . , , , , z q
. � . . � � � , � . � � , : : : , , I .
I I �-- "', �.�, � '', '' , � ..". �; . . .%. ''..,. .., . .. � . - . I �� �
-� . � . � � .�, : . I , ,." . ,* -
�� , I . , -
. , .
I
� - � .
�
. ". , � . I — , ..
� - . �
I
. � , � .
� � . I � .:. I .1 . , , - , -
.,
`l
.- , , � " � � , '.�
q'. - , . � " , " , � ,z ,- � .-,
:; , . I -.' ", ,
. . 1 . I . I '. - I �
, � - ,
., -.� �,: � �
� . . I
� 1: . , . I . I
I - . I I ; . , *
%, " I : - - , � � --. .� " - � , ,� ; , . ". . - � �
I I I . , , . , , I ,
, * - . I I , � , , . , : , , . ,
; � , �- t
-, "
� I .
. " � . , . � I , - � � ,
. , . , � 1 - . " . I I - - , ,
� 1 � I
. , - - , I
- � : � , - — , . . . , , � � - , , I ; - � , " -, , ,
, , � I . , .. " , , . .� . � - .. , , . * " . , . , � . , ,
.� , : , * � : , , -, , � - � , , : , ,
I I , � , I � � � � � , . . �. '. . � I : . . � - I . I . - �, . . , -1 -
.
; . '..
.
.,
.
%'
.,
,... . .
... `. ;-
- _ ,: . ,
�;
.
i, - . : � I
. .1 �
- I , ,
" " , , . -
:-(:'
-
:.
'..�
- -
APP - --
C
ZOhTII'�iG
.�,.;.�-1, .
I'� �
:1
.ORDINANCE
",�-..
."l�l.l..
�_ ...
..
� I,
APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural
1.1 Existing Conditions
The cultural resource study was a preliminary evaluation of project alternatives to document
whether known historic or archaeological sites were present and to determine the potential for
unrecorded archaeological sites. The study was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and standards of the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources.
The project included a literature and records search, examination of historic atlases, and a field
1 reconnaissance. Information on cultural resources was derived from files and reports at the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources in Richmond. Data that was collected included
cultural overviews, a county architectural survey, locations of recorded archaeological and
historic sites, and an inventory of sites and districts listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. Information on cultural resources was derived from files and reports at the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources in Richmond. Data that was collected includes cultural
overviews, a county architectural survey, locations of recorded archaeological and historic sites,
and an inventory of sites and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Cartographic sources were reviewed at the Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. Sources covering the period 1769 through 1947 were examined. Based on
these maps, it appears that there are no historic period resources on any of the site alternatives.
Three sites, Alternatives A, H, and S, are located near water courses that contained mill seats,
as shown on the 1820 map by John Wood.
The region was inhabited by Native American Indians for 12,000 years prior to colonial
settlement that began in the 1730s. The major aboriginal settlements were along the Shenandoah
River valley, in what is now Clarke County. Over 400 archaeological sites have been recorded
in Frederick County, mostly along drainage systems that include Opequon Creek, Abram's
Creek, Cedar Creek, Hoge's Creek, Back Creek, Red Bud Run, and Green Springs Run.
Frederick County's development has been largely tied to agriculture. In the mid -eighteenth
century, corn, oats, and flax were cultivated commercially. Wheat, however, soon became the
primary cash crop in the Shenandoah valley and several grist mills were established in Frederick
County by the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The county also raised livestock. During
the Civil war, the Shenandoah Valley became known as the breadbasket of the South. Many
farms and mills were burned during the war and the agricultural economy was slow to recover.
Farming became more diversified and mechanized. By the twentieth century, apple production
grew to become a major industry.
C-1
I
Over 750 historic properties were documented during a rural landmarks survey conducted
between 1988 and 1991 for the Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society and the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (Kalbian 1991).
There are 15 sites and 2 historic districts in Frederick County that are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. Seven sites and one of the historic districts are located in
Winchester (Table C.1). None of these sites are within or in proximity to the proposed
alternatives. In addition, there are no recorded archaeological sites in or adjacent to the site
alternatives. One site, Alternative S, which is located on a tributary of Opequon Creek, is
approximately 200 feet from two recorded prehistoric sites. Two other site alternatives (H and
J) are near streams or creeks and are therefore, like Alternative S, considered to have a
moderate to high potential for containing prehistoric archaeological remains.
The archaeological field reconnaissance did not recover any artifacts or locate features that
would indicate the presence of archaeological sites, such as remains of historic mills and mill
dams.
1.2 Affected Environment
1 (1) Preferred Alternative Site H
This site is located on a high flat ridge that is lightly wooded. The underbrush appears to have
been mechanically cleared. The site is bounded on the east by a golf course and on all other
sides by wooded slopes. A small stream flows through the northern and western edges of the
site. No artifacts or cultural features were observed on the ground surface during the
reconnaissance survey. The site is considered to have a moderate potential for containing
prehistoric sites. This evaluation is based on the presence of surface water. Site testing is
recommended to determine if archaeological sites are present at this location.
(2) Alternative Site A
' This site is an active agricultural field. The site appears to be well drained and has a gentle
slope from northwest to the south and east. The site is bounded on the east by State Route 661
and a farmstead. Stonewall Industrial Park is located to the south and west and open fields are
located to the north. No artifacts or cultural features were observed on the ground surface
during the reconnaissance survey. The site is considered to have a low potential for
archaeological remains based on the distance of the site from water. Site testing is
recommended to confirm this evaluation.
(3) Alternative Site J
This site is a grassy meadow in the Westview Business Center. The terrain is gently rolling.
A pond formed from a dammed stream is nearby. No artifacts or cultural features were
observed on the ground surface during the reconnaissance survey. The proximity of surface
I C-2
11
TABLE C.1
National Register of Historic Places Sites and Districts
FREDERICK COUNTY
Date Entered
in NRHP
File No.
Belle Grove and Cedar Creek Battlefield NHL
08-11-69
34-02
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
04-11-73
260-01
Willa Cather Birthplace
11-16-78
31-161
Hopewell Friends Meetinghouse
03-28-80
34-06
Springdale (John Hite House)
07-08-82
34-127
Springdale Mill Complex
07-08-82
34-128
Monte Vista
11-16-87
34-14
Willow Shade
12-18-90
34-162
Newtown/Stephensburg Historic District
pending
304-01
WINCHESTER
Stonewall Jackson's Headquarters NHL
05-28-67
138-33
Handley Library
11-17-69
138-28
Abram's Delight (D. H. Mill)
04-11-73
138-29
Adam Kurtz House (Wasington's Headquarters)
05-17-76
138-25
Old Stone Church
08-18-77
138-19
Glen Burnie
09-10-79
138-08
Winchester Historic District
03-04-80
138-42
Hexagon House
09-10-87
138-34
C-3
� I
water to the site suggests that there is a moderate potential for prehistoric sites. Site testing is
recommended to determine if archaeological sites are present.
(4) Alternative Site P1
This site is located on a high, relatively level field across from the Winchester Airport terminal
south of State Route 645. A dirt road and underground gas pipeline are located on the west side
of the site. No artifacts or cultural features were observed on the ground surface during the
reconnaissance survey. The site is considered to have a low potential for prehistoric sites. Site
testing is recommended to determine if archaeological sites are present.
(5) Alternative Site P2
This site is located about 1,500 feet east of Site P1 along State Route 645 and is a continuation
of the same grassy field located at that site. The eastern portion of P2 slopes steeply toward a
small valley that may have previously supported a stream; however, the area has been graded
and appears to contain a subsurface pipe. No artifacts or cultural features were observed on the
ground surface during the reconnaissance survey. The site is considered to have a low potential
for prehistoric sites. Site testing is recommended to determine if archaeological sites are
present.
(6) Alternative Site S
This site contains a frame farmhouse of undetermined age and a small stream. The standing
structure should be evaluated to determine if it meets the criteria for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. The site considered to have a moderate potential for both historic
and prehistoric archaeological remains. Site testing is recommended to determine if
archaeological deposits are present.
(7) Alternative Site Y
This site, which contains an overgrown field, is high, well drained, and slopes gently to the
north. A General Electric manufacturing facility is located to the southeast. No artifacts or
cultural features were observed on the ground surface during the reconnaissance survey. The
site is considered to have a low potential for prehistoric sites. Site testing is recommended to
determine if archaeological sites are present.
1.3 Consequences
Alternative S is the onlysite that contains a standing This - m g structure. s two-story frame farmhouse
may be more than 50 years old and therefore potentially eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. Additional study is required to determine whether this structure is
historically significant. If this structure is determined to be significant, mitigation of direct
impacts would include site recordation to standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey.
C-4
4J
Based on the site background study and reconnaissance survey, there are no known
archaeological sites associated with any of the site alternatives. However, there is potential for
unrecorded prehistoric archaeological sites that could be impacted. Systematic testing is
recommended at the preferred alternative to determine if archaeological remains are present.
Three sites in particular, Alternatives H, J, and S, are considered to have a moderate to high
potential for containing prehistoric archaeological remains.
Impacts can not be determined prior to additional cultural resource investigations. If potentially
significant archaeological sites are identified, mitigation measures would consist of data
recovery, i.e., site excavation. Site testing is suggested for the selected site.
1.4 Phase 1B Site Testing
A Phase IB archaeological testing project was conducted for the preferred alternative, Site H,
to determine if archaeological sites were present. The Phase IB study consisted of systematic
shovel testing in the 10-acre development area as well as along the proposed access road.
Shovel tests measured approximately one foot in diameter and were excavated to sterile subsoil.
All excavated soil was screened through 1/4-inch mesh to aid in the recovery of artifacts.
Shovel tests were excavated at 50-foot intervals in areas of the site that were considered to have
a moderate to high potential for containing archaeological resources, as determined by site
locational models. No testing was conducted in areas of steep slope or where soils were
obviously disturbed. Where artifacts were located, additional shovel tests were excavated 15 feet
from the positive test in a cruciform pattern to determine the extent of potential cultural deposits.
Soil profiles were described using USDA classifications and Munsell Soil Color charts.
A total of 87 shovel tests were excavated; 81 of these were in the development site and 6 were
along the access route. A section of the access route had already been graded and a portion was
paved. None of the shovel tests excavated along the access route produced artifacts. Seven
prehistoric lithic artifacts were recovered from. the development site, one from the ground
surface and the others from four shovel tests. All artifacts were of chert; the surface find
appears to be a bifacial tool and the others are all flakes or shatter. None of these artifacts is
temporally diagnostic.
The four positive shovel tests sample what is interpreted as a low density lithic scatter,
approximately 5000 feet in dimension. Several shovel tests within the estimated site limits did
not produce artifacts. The site does not appear to be significant. No further investigations are
recommended.
C-5
1
I
REFERENCES CITED
Blythe, N.
1857 Map of Winchester and Vicinity. Prepared from original plans and survey.
Available at the Library of Congress.
Gallucci, Mark, Scott M Hudlow, and Anna L. Gray
1992 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Route 622 Project,
Frederick County, Virginia. Report submitted to the Virginia Department of
Transportation by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Department of Anthropology, The College of William and Mary.
Geier, Clarence R. , and Warren R. Hofstra
1991 An Archaeological Survey of and Management Plan for Cultural Resources in the
Vicinity of the Upper Opequon Creek. Report prepared for the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors. On file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Gray, O.W., and Son
1874 Map of Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. From the National Atlas with
Maps of the United States and the Dominion of Canada. Philadelphia. (Scale:
1"=400'). Available at the Library of Congress.
Hotchkiss
1860s Frederick County, Virginia. From Wood's Map. (Scale: 1:160,000). Available
at the Library of Congress.
■ Kalbian, Maral S.
1991 Rural Landmarks Survey Report of Frederick County, Virginia. Prepared for the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Lake, A.J.
1885 An Atlas of Frederick County, Virginia from Actual Surveys by J. M. Lathrop
and A.W. Dayton. Philadelphia. Available at the Library of Congress.
Moffett, J.
1769 A Plan of the County of Frederick County... Manuscript. Annotated by George
Washington. Available at the Library of Congress.
Pitner, Carol
1928 Pitner's Map of Fred[e]rick and Clark County, Virginia. (Scale: 1:125,000).
Available at the Library of Congress.
C-6
I
I
Sanborn Map Company
1885 Winchester, Virginia. Fire Insurance Maps. Microfilm edition. Available
at the Library of Congress. (Also for years 1891, 1897, 1905, 1908, 1912, 1921,
1927, and 1947).
Varde, Charles (engineer and cartographer)
1809 Frederick, Berkeley, and Jefferson Counties in Virginia. Philadelphia. (Scale:
0.5" =1 mile). Available at the Library of Congress.
Wood, John (surveyor)
1820 Frederick County. (Scale: 1" =1 mile). Available at the Library of Congress.
C-7
Rol 0 A c e
4-=\ 2S�
s cARt ADA,41 \
`cam
i
0
CI
N
POND /
0 50 100
Approximate Scale in Feet
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SITE A
11
R
I'
Imc i�f cw
-�
o
--------------------------
p.-
7
'SITE
--------- . .....
VICINITY MAP
SCALE I2000
cwn"" v—v
cw cm
u I ram, caLlm N
A
I
—:.csn- —s. zA
,+ k
TOTAL SITE AREA. 80 679 ACRES
LAWKR'S V�LLET
r COURSE
LEGEND OF ENVIRONMENTAL SYMBOLS
PP.O..uA7E 100-YEAR FLOOD L-78 Q 67 AC
PARKiRG PAR.... AREA -
STOR—ATER YANAGEUENT
WOODED AREA 119 98 AC
0 100 200
Approximate Scaje in Feet
I LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC. I
SITE H
Y-
7
0 50 100 150 200
Approximate Scale in Feet
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES. INC.
SITE J
Y '4
I
-S.
y T.r prole•'. ^e•»-,
0 40 80
Approximate Scale in Feet
ir
`� _ � 13�C•/e�Y.IBIn
"C'M Y MAP
:DALE: 1'-2000'
, r
J
`F-U T U R F R:O A D CB(Y R/W)l• r
� • ✓.' ..ate ' I .. S ��-1 \ -. . Q d
y _ •�` :.a, lilYli�,r`.! 'i{���f/����i;;!{j �,��tlii{i --.��I�t{i i �-�Ih!"'� �
_ '•t .JAI i� � { t,i { 1 I� I i { �!t l i i rY {' � (\ � . / � I I�� I � ��• I,t� t •/I � ( I t 1 1 } �o °1 /
I i, �/
'1� 1 !? i ..�f Imo_- 1 I/y t f.1� •'' 1 •�Y `•-, !
! !
1 J �
' L/
0 50 100
Approximate Scale in Feet
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SITE P2
R
k.u. Development
I;
i�
FUTURE EIP FLOOF
AND SE IID SECOND FI
ONLY, WDPo ROUG UNDER
�
it I
�W'D
-.--mac
LL
0 GSF)OtfiCO i I- I 1
LLS. Rohs 522
Fib" wvdop rAM
( propowd )
Y
Ftanre Develop lM,
0 100 200
------------
Approximate Scale in Feet
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SITE S ALTERNATIVE 1
FUTURE EXPANSION
AT GROUND FLOOR
T
R*tal1 Center
'� (propowd)
� Pub" Dsvviop ywK
FWt" o.n.bpment
i
•f� !� o storey: office
SF).'j
uS. Rout• 522
ra
0 100 200
Approximate Scale in Feet
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES. INC. I
SITE S ALTERNATIVE 2