Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
003-06 (Duplicate file) - O-N Minerals (Chemstone) - Rezoning - Backfile
REZONING APPLICATION 903-06 O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 (Updated May 22, 2006) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 5, 2006 Tabled 60 days June 7, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: June 28, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. LOCATION: The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758) and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Shenandoah County East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural PROPOSED USES:. Quarry Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation rezoning application dated June 13, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the LT.E Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Will not directly effect fire and rescue. Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections• Demolition permit required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required. Public Works Department: Refer to page 4, Enviromnental Features: The discussion indicated that an envirorunental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection if there is to be no increase in water use which would require sewage disposal. GIS: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provides primary access to four or more occupied business structures shall be names. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Town of Middletown: The Middletown Planning Commission, while not opposed to the project, is opposed to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown and has concerns about the effect of excavation on the water table. Please see revised comment and resolution. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated March 27, 2006fi•o7n Mr. Bob Mitchell. _Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please seethe attached letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E Perkins, Planner 11. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 14] Land Use The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County. This land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot residential development. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 4 and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-55] The subject property contains areas of prime agricultural soils which are generally located in the limestone belt running north -south through the County. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value to the County's economy of the limestone resources within the County and the extraction of these natural resources. Within the Business and Industrial Area policies it is recognized that policies are needed and standards should be developed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-11, 6-72]. The Rural Areas Conclusion states that most of the County will continue to be rural areas used for agriculture, forests, or low density residential uses. Certain types of business uses may be located at scattered rural locations if safe access is available, and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural environment can be avoided. These rural business and industrial uses should be those that provided services to rural areas or that are more appropriate in rural areas than urban areas. The locations for such business would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60] Two of the identified goals of the Rural Area policy are to maintain the rural character of areas outside the UDA and to protect the rural enviromnent [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-76]. Environment After describing the physical characteristics of the County, the Enviromnent Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Water Supply. Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3]. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg. The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3] Groundwater is the major source of water supply in the rural portions of the County and provides a potential alternative source for urban areas. In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3, 5-4]. Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 5 History The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are historic sites in Frederick County that are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Cedar Creek is identified as one of six battlefields of great national importance that are located in Frederick County and Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County further identifies both sites as potentially significant properties. In addition, the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property as being within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Significant portions of Cedar Creek, along with Third Winchester and Kernstown battlefields provided the critical mass and the foundation for the Battlefield Network Plan which was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Battlefield Network Plan have been provided for your information. The Battlefield Network Plan and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley were important catalysts for the designation of the regional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District which was created by Congress in 1996. More recently, the efforts of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Foundation and the National Park Service continue to further historic preservation efforts relating to the civil war battlefields located in Frederick County and the broader region. To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB facilitated the involvement of the historic preservation stakeholders in the review of this rezoning request. The recommendation of the HRAB accompanies this report and will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. Identified implementation methods for promoting the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources include the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of the key battlefield sites, their viewsheds, and their approaches, and the coordination of the battlefield efforts with efforts to protect and preserve natural, visual, and environmental resources [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 2-11-13]. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. The properties are located in the Rural Area of the County. A large portion of the roads within the County are currently inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. There is a need to insure that improvements to existing rural roads continue to be made in a systematic way and that new rural roads are provided as needed [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-1]. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 6 In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Both properties contain environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant has identified wetlands, streams, and floodplains, and areas of mature woodlands on the properties. Exhibits have been provided that depict these environmental features. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are the existing streams that traverse the subject properties. Both streams have associated floodplain designations. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall tinder the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. The site contains soil types that are considered prime agricultural soils. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summary; In evaluating the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. All land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Middletown Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 7 Consideration should be given to the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance (a copy of the EM (Extractive Manufacturing District has been provided for your review). The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the hupact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential, the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to and with access from Chapel Road could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. A. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their December 20, 2005 meeting. Invited to attend the meeting by the HRAB were representatives of the various historical and cultural groups considered stakeholders in relationship to the historical resources in the vicinity of the rezoning. The following stakeholder groups were represented: Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The property also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Plarming Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HRAB letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner II). Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 8 The applicant has modified their rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB. However, many of the valid recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Two of the most significant and constructive continents offered by the HRAB (the first two comments in the letter from the HRAB) should be further satisfied to ensure that the potential impacts associated of the rezoning are appropriately addressed. Presently, they have not been addressed in a mariner that satisfies the concerns expressed by the HRAB. The opportunity has been provided for the applicant to work with the identified stakeholders, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service, to prepare a view shed mitigation plan that addresses the unique view sheds and approaches critical to their particular points of view. Understanding their points of view, a tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping would promote an approach to the view shed management that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner. A customized approach to the buffering, berming, and landscaping would be more appropriate than the present approach proposed in the proffer statement. In certain locations, particularly on the southern property (90-A-23), designating areas of non disturbance would preserve the existing landscape and by taking advantage of the topography effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the mining operations. A strategic approach to the location and size of the waste stockpiles identified on the exhibits should also be a consideration. Current practice at the existing facility with regards to the stockpiling of overburden should be avoided in the future. Approaches to addressing the visual impacts of the proposed operations should be more detailed and should be incorporated into the proffer statement. The applicant has provided for the dedication to Belle Grove of approximately eight acres as an historic reserve. This is in an area where archeological resources associated with the Belle Grove Plantation have previously been identified. A time frame has been provided for the dedication of this acreage. The HRAB suggested that a Phase 1 Archeological Survey should be done on the property focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted subsequent studies should be performed. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the future. However, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. It should be clarified that the Survey would be applicable to parcel 90-A-23 in addition to the stated parcel 83-A-109. The goal of the HRAB comments is to enable the mining operations to expand in a manner which is not detrimental to the historical context of the surrounding landscape. Further, to promote an approach that is mutually beneficial to the applicant, historic preservation stakeholders, and the adjacent community. The HRAB comments provide the opportunity for O-N Chemstone to continue to address the needs of the community, minimizing the impacts of their operations in a Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 9 manner that is compatible with the surrounding community, in a mariner described in their Impact Statement. B. Transportation Much of the analysis in the Impact Statement is based upon the continuation of the existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. A more significant increase in Global Stone truck traffic is anticipated in the TIA from 19 trucks per day to 80 per day and an increase of 56 customer truck trips per day. It should be recognized that a different combination or additional uses may further increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. As evidenced at the existing Strasburg facility, additional traffic impacts could be experienced from a more intensive use of the property than is currently envisioned. Primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5"' Street) to U.S. Route 11, Main Street in the Town of Middletown. The Town has expressed their opposition to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown. A significant amount of discussion regarding the inter -site transfer of materials via a conveyor belt system is offered in the impact statement. No mention of this approach has been provided in the Proffer Statement. Therefore, this approach should not presently be part of the consideration of this rezoning request. As demonstrated in the TIA, a level of service C or better would be achieved at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 625 (5`1' Street). Consideration should be given to the character of the traffic generated from the facility and utilizing the aforementioned intersection. B. Mining Operations and Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of O-N Chemstone at the Middletown Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 10 The County Engineer reviewed the request and provided input expressing concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. With regards to the geology discussion, the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings should be frilly considered as should the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential. dwellings. The Impact Statement did not fully address these potential impacts. As a result of the input of the County Engineer the applicant has included proffers that seek to address the groundwater, dust, and blasting concerns associated with this rezoning request. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed fi•om the historical perspective, serious consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane which bisects parcel 83-A-109 and the proposed mining operation.. Summary of Impacts: - Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties - HRAB Concerns -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Transportation impacts on Route 625 and its intersection with Route 11 - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting controls on adjacent properties - Rural view shed. Proffer Statement — Dated June 13, 2005 and revised January 16, 2006, February 8, 2006, and February 17, 2006 The applicant has provided that the property shall be developed with Extractive Manufacturing With regards to site development, the applicant has attempted to limit access to the existing site entrance, has proffered distance buffers, earthen berms, and landscaping to minimize the impacts to the view shed of the surrounding community. It should be understood that no minimum standards have been of to ensure that the site developmentproffers will minimize the potential impacts of the mining operations and address the expressed concerns of the Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 11 A limited Phase 1 Archeological Survey has been proffered by the applicant. It should be clarified that this proffeJ is applicable to both parcels subject to the rezoning. The applicant has guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The proffer Statement should provide clarification that the future use of the property and the development offacilities to support the utilization ofihe groundwater resources are enabled by this rezoning request and Proffer Statement. The applicant has stated their intent to monitor, minimize the impacts, and remediate any impacts associated with groundwater, dust, and blasting. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Plamling Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: Plamling Staff provided an overview of the application. This was followed by a presentation by the applicant of their project. During the Planning Commission's initial discussions, Commissioners wanted to know which State agency, the Department of Mines and Minerals (DMM) or the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), was responsible for overseeing aquifer protection, particularly, the quality and quantity protection measures. Commissioners suggested that a fund or bond be set up in escrow if a determination of responsibility for well damage had to be contested. In addition, they suggested that an agent of the County be assigned as a designated mediator in remediation situations. Berms were discussed and the case was made for smaller berms with flatter slopes in order to be more viewshed-friendly. Higher berms would be necessary in certain limited cases, while a minimum height was also suggested to conceal the height of a truck. It was suggested that the language should state, "...an average of 30 feet with higher berms as required for proper viewshed conditions." Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 12 Commissioners commented that the applicant's proffer statement seemed to be too general and they would have preferred to see more specificity, particularly dealing with the placement and monitoring of seismographs, the eight -acre reserve area for Belle Grove, a detailed plan showing the berms, a detailed phasing plan, and buffer details. Due to the Commission's Bylaws requiring a mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment, the Planning Commission did not have enough time to hold the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning for 60 days, until June 7, 2006. (All members of the Planning Commission were present.) PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR 06/07/06 MEETING: Staff has not received any materials from the applicant in modification of the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application, RZ03-06. The concerns and issues identified during the Planning Commission's initial discussions regarding this application, and the issues identified in the initial staff report, remain un- addressed. The Public Hearing for this application was not held during the 04/05/06 Planning Conunission meeting due to time constraints. As a result, the Commission should satisfy the Public Hearing requirements at the 06/07/06 meeting. The information offered during the Public Hearing should also be a consideration of the Planning Commission during their evaluation of this rezoning application. Since the initial 04/05/06 meeting at which the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application was considered, staff has been provided with numerous correspondence regarding this rezoning application. This additional public comment, in addition to an updated continent in the form of a resolution from the Town of Middletown, is included with this rezoning application package for your information. In addition, at the request of the applicant, staff met with Mr. David Benner, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy to discuss the role his department plays in permitting and monitoring proposed and existing operations such as the Chemstone Middletown facility. Staff is confident that the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy will effectively carry out there responsibilities and duties. However, their responsibilities and duties are limited to the permitting and monitoring of the mining operations. It was made very clear that coordination with other State Agencies through the permitting process was minimal. Further, it was made clear that the Department's involvement with the adjacent property owners was limited and that in no way does the Department take a position in resolving conflicts that may arise between adjacent property owners and mining companies. The responsibility of addressing impacts that may be realized by properties in the vicinity of mining operations would rest with the affected property owner. The locality would have the responsibility of monitoring impacts and enforcing compliance in cases where the locality accepted proffered conditions aimed at mining operation impact mitigation. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 13 Please find attached to end of this report additional correspondence from various sources including The Town of Middletown, L. Preston Bryant, Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, and Mr. Woodward S. Bousquet. Following- the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoitin application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Plannink Commission TOWN OF MIDDLETQWN, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED O-N MINERALS REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING LAND USES. WHEREAS, O-N Minerals (Chemstone) has filed an application in Frederick County to rezone 639 acrei from rural agricultural (RA) to extractive manufacturing (EM) uses on a site immediately west of the historic Town of Middletown, designated as the official Gateway to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park� and --��x WHEREAS, the Chemstone quarry site is adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, recently named one of the ten most endangered Civil War battlefields in America, and clearly within the viewshed of historic Middletown; and WHEREAS, increased limestone mining at the Chemstone site will have significant negative environmental impacts on the greater Middletown area, notably increased air pollution emissions, pollution of groundwater supplies, and erosion of the historic and rural setting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park; and WHEREAS, increased limestone mining is projected to create significant negative traffic and noise impacts, with up to 1,400 industrial vehicles traveling through the designated historic district of Middletown each day, which amounts to nearly one truck per minute, 24-hours a day, seven days a week, and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would permit other related heavy industries to locate on the site, such as cement or asphalt plant, as has occurred on the Chemstone quarry site at Clearbrook in northern Frederick County, where two cement plants have opened in the past 18 months, adding to air pollution from small particulates; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for retaining the community's character by more fully developing Main Street "with more shopping and eating establishments" and for retaining Route 11 as a "major arterial roadway" that is also "a historic, pedestrian -friendly Main Street"v and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan seeks to build upon the town's major economic resources, Lord Fairfax Community College; Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, the Wayside Theater, the small-town character and the pedestrian - friendly environment; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for the town and county to identify and develop economic opportunities that are unique to historic Middletown, including compatible commerce and light industry, in order to broaden the local tax base; and RESOLUTION — PAGE TWO WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning of 639 acres from agricultural to heavy industrial uses close to town will generate air, water, traffic, noise and dust impacts that are clearly not compatible with the Town of Middletown's economic development and other community goals; NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Common Council for the Town of Middletown, Virginia, that we hereby call on the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to deny in its current form the application for rezoning of the O—N Minerals (Chemstone) site. Adopted this8th day of May, 2006 Patricia J. MQ1111s,'' Clerk Martha H. Ingra?, Council Member Marshall J. Brown Council Member John A. Copeland Council Member Gene T. Dicks Mayor Gerald D. Sinclair, Jr. Council Members Donald E. Breeden Council Member Mary L. Shull Council Member COUNTY of FREDERICK Board of Supervisors 540/665-5666 540/667-0370 fax Richard C. Shickle - Chairman Bill M. Ewing - Vice Chairman Opequon District Gene E. Fisher Shawnee District The Honorable Frank R. Wolf United State Congress House of Representatives 241 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515-4610 Dear Congressman Wolf: May 12, 2006 Thank you for sharing Ms. Clevenger's concerns with me. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Stonewall District Gary W. Dove Gainesboro District Barbara E. Van Osten Back Creek District Philip A. Lemieux Red Bud District First and foremost, O-N Mineral Chemstone has a current mining operation that straddles the boundaries of Frederick and Shenandoah counties. The company owns 600 plus acres in Frederick County and has owned same for 51 years (U.S. Steel acquired the property in 1955 and sold same to O-N Minerals Chemstone in 1986). New development in this area of the county has occurred around this company's land and includes the National Park Service Land. Thirdly, the Company is now filing a rezoning petition with the County to now utilize said land that they own. With the aforementioned facts outlined, it is now the County's responsibility to hear the merits of the application, perform its due diligence based upon the facts presented, and render a decision. As you know this is a very public process that will involve both the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This will not be an easy process, but I can assure you it will be a fair one. Frederick County stands ready to listen to and address all concerns raised by its citizens to the best of its ability. I look forward to the dialogue and if Ms. Clevenger has further questions she may contact our Planning Department at 540-665-5651. RCS/jet Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, Richard C. Shickle Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 M, 0N3 EAL T HI o f VIRQ-NM Office of the Gover=- L. Preston Breant Sectetany o* 1�aturtl Resources April 26, 2006 Ms. Julie Clevenger 451 Westerriview Drive �4r ddleto.vm `•, A 22645 Dear Ms. Clevenger: Thank you for writing Governor Kaine regarding the quarries proposed for development in the vicinity of Middletoti�m. Governor Kaine has asked that I respond to you on his behalf. I understand that quarry excavation, and likely subsequent reservoir development, is proposed for several sites within an approximately 6.)9-acre tract in the vicinity of Cedar Creel: and Meadow Brook, just north of Middletown iai Frederick County. The projects currently are in platming and rezoning stages and have not yet been coordinated with relevant state agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, which may have regulatory authority over the quarry excavation or water supply aspects of this project. To date, the Department of Enviromnental Quality (DEQ) has not received any permit applications, including air and wetlands, for the proposed quarry expansion by O-N Chemstone. DEQ would not have a permit requirement unless the company decides to expand their crusher and conveyance systems, Nvbich would require changes to their existing air permit. I have asked the Virginia Department of Game and Iniand Fisheries (DGrx) to help me identiA, potential project impacts on the local wildlife and habitats. DGIF is the state wildlife agency and has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's terrestrial wildlife, f-esbwater fish and other aquatic resources, and state or federally endangered or threatened species other than insects. DGIF is a consulting agency under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and it provides environmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated through DEQ, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Department of Transportation., the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other state or federal agencies. DGIF's role in these procedures is to determine likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitat; and to recornmend appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts. Based on early DGIF research, it is my understanding that a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats would be affected by the proposed project. A preliminary review of DGIPs wildlife data suggests that wood turtles, a state threatened species, may occur in the project area. Pa ,& Heiiry Auildinz 6 Ill I East $road Street • Richmond, Virginia 23219 • 500 786•0044 • TTY i`30-C) 3 9•rri Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 2 You also expressed concern that bald eagles, currently a federally threatened species, may nest on the tract as well. Any information that you can provide to DGIF about eagle nests in this location would be greatly appreciated. DGIF's databases contain historic records of other imperiled bird species from this area, including the state threatened loggerhead slu7ke,. Bewick's wren, and upland sandpiper. The nearby Meadow Brook is designated a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fishery. I have some concerns over potentially adverse impacts of the proposed project on these and other sensitive wildlife resources and habitats on the site. Additional information is needed so that we may further evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Additionally. the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has been tracking the rezoning application for several months. On December 20, 2005, DHR advised the Frederick County Department of Planning through its History advisory Board that the proposal had the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeological and historic resources located directly in the parcel in question. Accordingly, DHR recommended that the County require the applicant to conduct an assessment of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the parcel before taking action on the rezoning application. Based on follow up discussions with the County's planning staff it is DHR's understanding that the County is likely to require O-N Chemstone to undertake such an assessment. Be advised that if wetlands are affected, such an investigation may be required of O-N Chemstone pursuant to Section 106 of the National Presen ation Act of 1966, as amended, as a condition of receiving a federal wetlands permit from the Corps. If the project comes to be defined as a federal undertaking, the Corps would be required to consult with DHR, and DHR would consider in its review and recommendations not only the effect of the project on historic resources located on the development parcel but also the potential visual impacts of the development on nearby historic property such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation. Further, the Department of Conservation. and Recreation has identified, in its 2002 Virginia Outdoors flan, Cedar Creels in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties as a potential component of the State's scenic rivers system. And both DCR and the Virginia Department of Transportation have recently determined that U.S. Route 11 qualifies for designation as a Scenic Byway. It is my hope that County officials consider these items as they contemplate the quarry and its potential impacts on the region's significant scenic, natural, and cultural resources. Because the authority to regulate local land use is the prerogative. of local government in Virginia and the ultimate decision to approve the rezoning application is Frederick Countv's to make, I strongly encourage you to continue expressing your concerns about this project directly to your local elected officials. I also recommend that you contact 11r. Ron Stouffer of the Corps (703-221-6967) for further information on whether the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may be tri ggered in this case by a federal permit application as O-N Chemstone's development proposal moves forward. Governor Kaine and I are committed to conserving Virginia's rich natural diversity for all of its citizens. We also recognize that economic development and water supplies are vitaf to the N-Is. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 3 region and that a balanced approach is needed to accommodate economic and environmental needs. My agencies and I are committed to working with you and other interested parties; including the County and the permit applicants, to ensure this balance is achieved, and we look fbr- kyard to cooperating with you, your local govenvnent agencies, and other stakeholders in this regard. Again, I encourage you to contact David )�Iitehurst, Director of DGIF".s Wildlife Diversity Division, and talk with him further about the role that the DGIF has in this project and the information that they have about wildlife resources. Mr.'Vt'hitehurst may be reached at SO4-36?-4335 or via e-mail at David, Whitehurst�D.dgif.virginia.gov. Thank you for taking time to let Govenaor Kaine know about your concerns. We appreciate your interest in the natural resources of Virginia. Sincerelv, L. Preston Bryant, Jr. LPBJr;'cbd SHENANDOAH - I UNIVERSITY Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 re. Rezoning Application #03-06 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Dear Mr. Ruddy: APR 2 5 2006 April 22, 2006 I attended the Frederick County Planning Commission's public hearing on April 5 regarding rezoning application #03-06 (O-N Minerals, Chemstone). In response to the request you made at the end of the meeting, I am submitting questions and comments about the application for consideration by the planning staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. These remarks are based upon my familiarity with Cedar Creek and its surrounding watershed that comes, in large part, from an ecological assessment that I conducted with four undergraduates in Shenandoah University's Environmental Studies Program in 2004. Our studies focused on evaluating water quality and on identifying ecological communities and habitats throughout the watershed in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties. We conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Potomac Conservancy, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Natural Heritage Program. Our findings are contained in Cedar Creek Revealed. A Study of the Ecological and Historic Context of Cedar Creek, a report released by the Potomac Conservancy this past December. I have provided copies of this report to you, to Mr. Chuck Maddox (Patton Harris Rust & Associates) and to Mr. Karl Everett (Environmental Health and Safety Manager, O-N Minerals). I understand that the Potomac Conservancy has provided copies to members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Additional copies are available from the Conservancy's Winchester office, 19 West Cork St., 667-3606. My interest in the area has continued since our 2004 project. Under my supervision, another group of Shenandoah undergraduates will begin a second round of studies in Cedar Creek and its watershed next month. The comments that follow are my personal questions and recommendations only; as such, they do not constitute an official position of Shenandoah University. 1460 University Drive, Winchester, VA 22601-5195 1 www.su.edu L Review evaluations. In regard to the review evaluations listed on pp. 2-3 of the planning staff report dated March 20, 2006, I am surprised that the VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), the Virginia Natural Heritage Program, and the Army Corps of Engineers were not invited to review the Chemstone rezoning request. The project has potential impacts on water quality, wetlands, floodplains and terrestrial habitats. Question: Why weren't any of these agencies part of the review and evaluation process for a 600-plus-acre rezoning application? Recommendation: Staff members in these agencies possess the expertise to identify and evaluate those environmental impacts and then advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors accordingly. These agencies need to be consulted in regard to a project of this magnitude. 2. Environmental protection goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The rezoning application and the report by the Frederick County planning staff makes several references to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Among the elements of the Plan directly referenced are those pertaining to agriculture (Comprehensive Plan, p. 6-55), mining operations (p.p. 6-9-11- 72), rural businesses (p. 6-60), water supply (pp. 5-3-4), historic resources (pp. 2-11-13) and transportation (pp. 7-1). Other relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan are not addressed. These are provisions (pp. 5-8-9) that pertain to environmental quality. They include the following three goals: • Protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity. • Provide for development according to the capacity of the natural environment to carry that development. • Identify and protect important natural resources. Among the implementation methods and proposed actions listed in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9, 10-9) to achieve these goals are: • Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas. • Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment. • Continue to require that information on carrying capacity be included with development proposals and use that information to evaluate the impacts of the proposals. Question: Why are these goals and implementation methods not specifically addressed in the staff report and rezoning application? Recommendation: Protecting environmental quality is an essential component of the Plan's primary goal, "to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County" (p. 1 It is also a worthwhile end for its own sake. Rezoning applications and staff reviews need to include greater attention to these commendable goals when, as in this case, the impacts are potentially substantial. 3. Impact analysis. The rezoning application provides an Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation dated February 2006. This document draws from the Potential Impact Analysis prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in August 2002 and included as Appendix A. Such analyses should enable the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to determine how well a proposed rezoning or development enables the County to meet the three goals related to environmental protection that appear in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9). In fact, the Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that the, "scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (ES) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." In my opinion, the Impact Analysis Statement and the appended SAIC study — while informative in many respects — are inadequate in others: a. Lack of limitations on the scope of operations. I agree with the planning staff s reservations (rezoning report, pp. 6-7) about the maximum scope of operations that could take place if the proposed rezoning is approved. Recommendations: First, I recommend that maps accompanying the rezoning application should designate specific areas that will not be disturbed, including not only historic sites but also stream beds, riparian zones, flood plains, steep slopes and distinctive ecological communities. Second, the applicant should be required to guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning (if approved) will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the SAIC Impact Statement and the additional impacts identified through further analyses I recommend in Item 1 above, and in Items 3b and 3c below). b. Inadequate analysis of steep slopes forests and other ecological features on the Northern Reserves. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 3.1-Affected Environment (Forests) states: The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community ... [and this] site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar of the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. [emphasis added] However, Global Stone's Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that no steep slopes greater than 50% are present. Although I have not conducted actual slope measurements, a May 2005 kayak trip I made down Cedar Creek past the Northern Reserves, plus my examination of the topographic map and aerial photography, indicates that steep slopes are indeed present on the property. The limestone bluffs and cliffs that rise steeply from Cedar Creek's edge to the uplands above are one of the scenic, although little-known, gems of the Shenandoah Valley. Their ecological characteristics are also noteworthy. Our 2004 investigations at Cedar Creek Battlefield sites approximately a mile from the Northern Reserves showed that the limestone -based slopes and the adjacent forested uplands represent some of the watershed's most diverse ecological communities. Distinctive bluff vegetation includes arborvitae trees (Thuja occidentalis) and the globally imperiled shrub Canby's mountain lover (Paxistima canbyi). The deciduous forests above contain an impressive variety of plant species (over 100 in a single 400 square -meter plot, for instance) including five not previously recorded in Frederick County. Recommendation: It is probable that the scenic and ecological characteristics of the. Northern Reserves are similar to the areas Shenandoah University investigated in 2004. The Northern Reserves and Middle Marsh properties need to be more thoroughly evaluated, and their environmental features identified. Such areas represent distinctive elements of Frederick County's natural heritage. They are likely to be compromised by the development that would follow the proposed rezoning. These scenic and ecological features need to be afforded the same protection that is proposed for historic resources and for environmental features already identified in the rezoning application. (The latter are discussed on pp. 4-5 of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's Impact Analysis Statement.) c. Inadequate Analysis of Potential Impacts on Surface Water. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 4-Streams (p. 6) states that an estimated 793 of 10,984 linear feet of stream channel in the Middle Marsh property (i.e., Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook) could be impacted by quarrying and associated operations such as stockpiles, berms, spoil piles and buildings. A table in the Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (p. 4) indicates that 0 of 8,921 linear feet of streams in the Northern Reserves (i.e., Cedar Creek) could be affected. The Impact Analysis Statement further states (pp. 4-5): Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features from deleterious impact. ... Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Office and all applicable state and federal regulations. ... Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited [as per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance] ... which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected in the SAIC study. Despite increasing development in the watershed, studies by Shenandoah University and by the Friends of the Shenandoah River show that Cedar Creek's water quality is among the best in the Shenandoah Valley. It is appropriate that the applicant's analyses for the Chemstone rezoning are designed to include the impacts not only of the quarrying itself but also of the associated buildings, roads, stockpiles and so forth. I also appreciate the fact that the applicant intends to limit encroachment in riparian areas. I found it difficult, however, to interpret the small (letter size) aerial photographs I examined that depicted the areas of potential impacts to the two sites. This limited my ability to evaluate discussions provided by the applicant and the planning staff. If the Chemstone rezoning is approved, my concerns are that the eventual impacts on surface water quality and stream habitats could be much greater than those identified in the rezoning application if actual excavation and associated operations extend beyond the areas "projected" 4 and "estimated" by the applicant. If the steep cliffs above Cedar Creek, for instance, are disturbed, the riparian zone and Cedar Creek could be severely compromised. If mitigation and erosion -sedimentation control measures along Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are inadequate, these streams could be compromised as well. Questions: What government agencies (local, federal, state) will monitor the construction, operation and reclamation of the quarrying operations on these two sites? How often will on -site inspection and environmental monitoring occur? Recommendations: First, if the applicant will not limit industrial operations to the type and extent described in the application (see p. 6 of the planning staff s rezoning report, and Item 3a above), then the applicant should evaluate the maximum potential impacts on water quality and other characteristics that could occur after the rezoning, if approved. Second, the applicant should guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the application. Without these evaluations and guarantees, it does not appear possible to assure that streams and other features on and adjacent to the site will be adequately protected. 4. Impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek. Impacts on the viewshed from historic sites and the surrounding community are discussed in several parts of the application materials including the planning staffs rezoning report (pp. 6, 10) and the applicant's proffer statement (p. 2). However, impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek itself are not addressed. Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential, while they may be under -appreciated, have not gone unnoticed. For instance, Ed Grove's whitewater canoeing guidebook Classic Virginia Rivers (Eddy Out Press, 1992) describes Cedar Creek as, "perhaps the best trip for shepherded novices in the state," and states that an adjacent stream section is "a positively delightful trip for all who love nature". Fishing occurs at many places along the creek. Recommendation: Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential should not be compromised. In considering the Chemstone rezoning application, the potential impacts on the viewshed from Cedar Creek should be given the same attention as other viewsheds, as should provisions to avoid damaging the creek's aesthetic and recreational qualities. 5. Mitigating impacts on groundwater — In its proffer statement, O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (Section 5.2, p. 3) agrees to, "remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations...." Question: Although I teach environmental science courses, I am not a professional hydrologist. Nevertheless, I am curious about the burden of proof in the event that adjacent wells appear to be affected. Wells run dry for reasons other than adjacent quarrying operations. How will it be determined that impacts to wells are caused by mining operations? 5 Thank you for considering these observations, questions and recommendations. Please contact me if you would like further information. Sin erely, Woodward S. Bousque Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology Coordinator, Environmental Studies Program cc: Mr. Karl Everett, O-N Minerals Chemstone Operation Mr. Chuck Maddox, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Ms. Heather Richards, Potomac Conservancy Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission "From mountain top to mountain top..." April 5, 2006 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Ruddy and Members of the Planning Commission, The Greater, Middletown Business Association would like to make the following comments concerning the Rezoning Application 403-06 for O-N Minerals (Chemstone). Middletown, population 1200, has no industry, with the exception of Rt. 11 Potato Chips, and looks to its few retail businesses as its sole source of business tax income. These businesses range from live theater, to restaurants, hotels/motels, antique shops and gas station/convenience stores. They derive the majority of their income from. visitors to Middletown rather than the residents themselves. With that in mind, it is critical to their livelihood, and ultimately to Middletown itself, that the community continues to be a desirable destination for people to visit. The.rezoning of RA properties immediately west of Middletown would spell economic disaster for, our member businesses. By increasing the number of vehicle trips to 1308 per day, that would equate to nearly one vehicle, every minute of the day. The addition of these heavy, commercial vehicles will envelop our community in a constant background roar of traffic that, with just the current number of trucks, is already intrusive. With the increased noise pollution comes the added air pollution from this commercial traffic that even now deposits a gray layer of fine limestone particles and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces. Immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of Middletown lies our nation's newest national park, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, established in 2002. Tourists and Virginia residents alike come to the Shenandoah Valley to escape the urbanized development and congestion of their cities and to enjoy our clean air and open vistas. Thanks to the last 100 years of dedicated conservationists, politicians, and landowners, we today enjoy one of the most incredible historical and natural resources within the eastern United States. With that in mind, we ask that you deny this application. June Lingwood-Brown President The Greater Middletown Business Association P.O. Box 252 T�iTirlfllatmxm Virninia 77(.dG April 5, 2006 Frederick County Planning Commission 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Dear Members of the Commission, In the 20 March 2006 Staff Report for the Planning Commission, the VDOT evaluation only addresses transportation impacts on an uninhabited 1/4 mile stretch of rural Route 757. But, there is a far, far greater impact. According to data provided by Chemstone in their June 2005 Impact Analysis Statement, the expanded strip mining at their Middletown facility will generate a total of 1305 vehicle trips per day or nearly one per minute, 24 hours a day, six days a week, directly into the historic district of Middletown. Most of these trips will be made by 75 feet long, 80,000 pound, 450 horsepower diesel trucks. This continuous heavy duty industrial traffic will: • Increase the potential for damage to historic structures and viewscapes • Decrease the quality of life for our rural and town residents by harming the air quality and increasing noise pollution • Permanently harm any attempts by Middletown to generate income through tourism in southern Frederick County and adversely affect current businesses • Increase the potential for death or injury in our nation's newest national park and Middletown's residential areas A conveyor belt system to minimize traffic between the Strasburg & Middletown operations is referenced in the application. But, on 18 October, during a tour by Mr. Spencer C. Stinson, General Manager of O-N Minerals Chemstone Operation. Mr. Stinson admitted that this was in a conceptual stage only with no plans for implementation in the near future. What Chemstone does plan is to subject southern Frederick County to over 1300 times the level of pollution of normal, clean air. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated the type of heavy-duty vehicles transiting Middletown account for one- third of nitrogen oxides emissions and one -quarter of particulate matter emissions from mobile sources, and is likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Studies show a 26% increase in mortality in people living in soot -polluted communities and that 70 percent of the total cancer risk was due to diesel particulate exposure. Other problems include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, aggravation of existing asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function. The average truck produces 40 decibels of noise as it passes on the highway. But, in the confined historic district of Middletown, it has a totally different impact. Shifting through 12 forward gears as they accelerate from a standing stop at 5 h and Main Street, these vehicles are producing upwards of 90 decibels. What's the impact? According to Washington Hospital Center's Hearing and Speech Center, hearing loss for anyone continuously subjected to sounds of 80 decibels or higher. Even with walls packed with R19 insulation and modern doubled -paned windows, my wife and I cannot enjoy uninterrupted sleep — we're often roused throughout the night by this heavy industrial traffic. Other Middletown residents already complain of sleep loss at the current level of trips. The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine reports that this lack of sleep increases the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and heart attacks. In rural southern Frederick County, overloaded limestone trucks are already using narrow, back roads to avoid the scales on Route 11 and I-81. This dangerous activity can only increase with the increased strip mining. Of interest, Chemstone has identified an additional crushing facility to be built on Chapel Road which was not part of the VDOT study. This will generate 100's of more trips directly into historic Middletown. I strongly urge you to recommend disapproval of this application. Sincerely, arshall J Town Co cil Town of Middletown April 22, 2006 A P R 2 4 2006 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development 107 Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy, As you are aware, the residents of Westernview Drive and other residents around the Middletown Chemstone Quarry are very unhappy about the possible rezoning of the quarry (Rezoning Application #03-06 for O-N Minerals). Most of us bought our property here 8 or 9 years ago. Originally a dairy farm, it was acquired, divided into minimum 5- acre parcels and marketed by prominent Winchester realtor John Scully. We are now approximately 2.5 miles North of the Middletown facility; we can see the dust, feel and hear the blasting, and have watched the spoils pile grow rapidly. If the mining were closer to our homes, it truly would have a major impact on all of us. Chemstone recently erected a fence on the northern boundary of its property that clearly shows the extent of land Chemstone could mine if the application is approved. Because this is a different sort of rezoning issue of great magnitude and having such far reaching impacts, we are inviting each member of the Commission to visit us so as to develop a personal feel for the situation that our statements may not communicate. We would welcome your visit at any time. If we are not home, feel free to use our driveway and view the Chemstone property from our porch at 276 Westernview Drive. We would be happy to facilitate your visit by accompanying you if you would be interested in seeing the quarry from the viewpoint of some neighboring properties. Please let us know if you are interested by phone (869-9744) or e-mail: rspan@visuallink.com. If you would prefer to tour alone we will be glad to provide directions to our home. Sincerely, __ pcl�r_& I [/ Robert W. Spangler 276 Westernview Drive Middletown, Virginia 22645 April 26, 2006 P. O. Box 570 Strasburg, VA 22657 Frederick County Planning and Development Commission 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: O-N Minerals, Chemstone, and Middletown (Frederick County) Dear Sir or Madam: M AY 1 2006 We are owners of property at 199 Racey Lane, Fishers Hill, Virginia, and we are very concerned about the possible rezoning of Middletown acreage owned by the O-N Minerals Chemstone. We wish to comment on the environmental impact of the Middletown rezoning request. This request by O-N Minerals, the parent company of Chemstone, has created the following concerns: 1. The environmental impact on Cedar Creek Battlefield, human life, livestock, domestic animals, wildlife, water quality and water supply 2. The increase in traffic related to the mining operations and the impact of heavy truck traffic on area roads 3. The increase in noise pollution for area residents, livestock, domestic animals and wildlife 4. The increase in airborne particles and dust which would be hazardous to humans, livestock, domestic animals, wildlife, trees, plants, crops and gardens 5. The decrease in property values due to the rezoning, mining and blasting Therefore, we request that an environmental impact study be done by the State of Virginia before the rezoning is approved, to determine what effect, if any, rezoning would have. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Judy V. Miller Stewart T. Brown cc: Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Proposal Location: The subject parcels are situated generally west and adjacent to the Town of Middletown. Property Identification Numbers (PINs):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 acres) also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quarry operation. 'I Ile 1IRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was nui pruteuting the vie Niched of file battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: A Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Phase II/11I). • A detailed V iewshed Mitigation Analysis/Plan needs to be completed that will show the effects of the new quarry operation from key points (critical areas and views/pull-offs to be determined by the National Park Service, Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation). This plan needs to be completed before any land disturbance is allowed oil the site and implementation of any 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O-N Minerals Rezoning Proposal January 3, 2006 Page 2 suggestions that may result from the plan should be given a proffered timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not impaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. • The conveyer system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshed or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surrounding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving natural existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site. • The location for the overburden from the new quarry operation needs to be provided so that large piles of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plan for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the HRAB included an eight acre reserve for Belle Grove. The proffer states that, "Said reserve sliall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This proffer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication could never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication of this property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this property. Please contact me with any questions concerning these cofflili nts from the HRAv. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, Harold Lehman, HRAB Members Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1692-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.Com PLEASE REPLY TO: STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. March 27, 2006 HAND DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Plaiming & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Chemstone - Middletown (O-N Minerals Chemstone Company) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. In the first sentence of the first paragraph, it is not clear what is being addressed by the language "shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto." I assume that this is referring to previous versions of this Proposed Proffer Statement. It should be made clear that it is not referring to previous proffers that may have been approved as apart of a rezoning on this or other property owned by the Applicant. Therefore, I would suggest the above quoted language be amended to read: "shall supersede all previous versions of this Proposed Proffer Statement." FALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 2 2. It does not appear that the second sentence of the second paragraph would be applicable to these proffers, and I would recommend that that sentence be deleted. 3. I have trouble with the third sentence of the second paragraph, which states "Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void." The Applicant is ui a better position than the County to determine whether any of the proffered conditions would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and Federal regulations. In my view, this sentence should be deleted. 4. The words "and shall include the following:" should be deleted from the end of the second paragraph. 5. In paragraph 1.1 of Section 1 (Land Use), the proposed proffer would not appear to be a proffer, as it does not propose to do anything otherwise required by the zoning ordinance or state law. If the Applicant is proposing to limit the uses permitted in the EM District, that needs to be clearly stated. 6. Section 2 (Site Development): a. This proffer in paragraph 2.2 appears to merely state that the width of the distance buffers on the property shall be more than that required by the zoning ordinance. However, it does not quantify in any way the extent to which it will exceed the distance buffers required. This proffer requirement could be met by a minimal increase in the distance buffer. I question why the width of the distance buffers cannot be shown on the Generalized Development Plan. Also, this proffer does not address the issue of what screening, if any, will be placed in the distance buffers. b. With respect to paragraph 2.3, does the zoning ordinance or State or Federal regulations require earthen benns around active quarry pits? If not, then paragraph 2.3 should set forth a specific proffer that earthen benns will be HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 3 installed around active quarry pits. With respect to the landscaping of the earthen bernis, the staff needs to detennine whether the description of the landscaping in this proffer is sufficiently specific. 7. Section 3 (Historic Resources). a. The proffer in paragraph 3.1 proposes to create an 8-acre "historic reserve", and then to "dedicate" the reserve to the Belle Grove Foundation. My assumption is that there is an 8-acre portion of the property that the Applicant is going to deed to the Belle Grove Foundation. If that is the case, I question why it should take up to one year after the rezoning to make that conveyance. Also, since I was not provided with a copy of the GDP, I do not know where the 8-acre parcel is located, and if it is located in the interior of the property, there should be included a proffer that a right of way will be conveyed, to go along with the conveyance of the 8 acres, for access by the Foundation to the 8-acre parcel. b. 3.2 provides for a Phase I Archaeological Survey within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance on a portion of the property. However, the proffer does not address what protection will be afforded any historic sites, buildings, structures, or objects identified in the Archaeological Survey. It would seem that the preferrable chronology would be to have the Archaeological Survey done prior to the rezoning, so that any historic elements could be addressed as a part of the rezoning process. 8. Paragraph 4.1 of Section 4 (Rights to Water Supply) would not appear to constitute a proffer, in that it appears that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority already has the rights to the groundwater resources under the "existing agreements". Perhaps something more than this was intended to be proffered. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN be MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 4 9. In paragraph 5.1 of Section 5 (Groundwater) the Applicant provides for the placement of three monitoring wells on the property. However, it would seem to me that the County should have access to the information, and that the proffer should provide that the County will have access to the monitoring wells and to the data from the monitoring wells. 10. The first two sentences of paragraph 7.1 of Section 7 (Blasting Control) would not seem to constitute a proffer, and merely state that blasting will be done in accordance with the Applicant's mining permit. 11. While the second paragraph of the Proposed Proffer Statement identifies the Generalized Development Plan, there needs to be a sufficient proffer that the development of the property will be in substantial conformity with the GDP. Where in my above continents I have opined that a proposed proffer is really not a proffer, I have noted that to make the point that it does not propose to do anything above and beyond what is otherwise required. It does not necessarily mean that the statement needs to be deleted, if the County feels that it is helpful to emphasize that particular requirement. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact WSW y yours, Robert T. Mitchell; RTM/ks i 1 1 ENT or ry WPpy� United States Department of the Interior NAPARK -J a SERVICE Vi o NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Cedar Creek and Belle Grove 'Ch 3 �9E4 2 National Historical Park In reply refer to: 7718 '/z Main St., P.O. Box 700 Middletown, Virginia 22645 27 March 2006 Mr. Eric Lawrence, Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent St., 2nd Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lawrence: We are writing to transmit our comments regarding the O-N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request. The Chemstone property is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park (NHP). O-N Minerals Chemstone provided us with a copy of their rezoning request and we in turn asked the National Park Service's Geologic Resources Division to prepare an analysis of the proposal. The Geologic Resources Division, based in Lakewood, Colorado, provides national leadership and specialized assistance for managing geologic resources and protecting park resources from the adverse effects of mineral development in and adjacent to national parks. The Division is staffed with geologists, minerals specialists, mining and petroleum engineers, policy and regulatory analysts, and natural resource specialists. They, in addition, consulted with an agency hydrologist to provide input on the potential impacts on water quantity. The attached memorandum references a photograph of Cedar Creek Battlefield taken in October 2005 during the annual reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. A copy of the photograph is attached for your information. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns about the attached information. I may be reached at my office at (540) 868-9176. Sincerely, Signed, DLJacox Diann Jacox Superintendent Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Geological Resources Division, National Park Service. 2. Photograph taken during 2005 Reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Cc: Spencer Stinson, O-N Minerals Chemstone Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director TAKF. PRIDE" INAM ERI A---;� 1 United States bepartment of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Geologic Resources Division P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO.80225 TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL - NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW L2360 March 24, 2006 Memorandum To: Diann Jacox Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park From: Carol McCoy Chief, Planning, Evaluation & Permits Branch Geologic Resources Division National Park Service Subject: O-N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request In response to your request, the Geologic Resources Division (GRD) has reviewed several documents associated with O-N Minerals Chemstone's request to rezone 691 acres adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Specifically, my staff reviewed Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement (June 2005), Chemstone's Rezoning Application Materials (Dec. 2005), Commonwealth of Virginia mining and mineral regulations, and Frederick County rezoning regulations and guidance. We believe that the rezoning documents submitted by O-N Minerals Chemstone do not adequately address Frederick County requirements or the impacts on the surrounding area, including the park. With this in mind, we offer the following comments for your consideration. General Comments The proposed rezoning and subsequent expansion of the limestone quarry on the O-N Minerals Chemstone Property (Chemstone) adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park may adversely impact park lands and resources. These resources include the "nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation" and the "[t]he panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways ... an inspiring setting of great natural beauty" (see 16 U.S.C. § 410iii-1). Unfortunately, we believe that Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials do not fully address the likely impacts of the rezoning/expansion of the quarry on these valuable and unique resources. c � As you know, Congress directed the National Park Service (NPS) to "encourage conservation of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of [Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical] Park by land owners, local governments, organizations, and businesses." In accordance with this mandate and NPS policies, we recommend that you work closely with Frederick County and the Commonwealth of Virginia in the rezoning and quarry expansion processes in order to avoid, mitigate, and resolve potential resource conflicts. Specific Comments Based on our review, Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement does not include several topics required by Frederick County. These topics include "the use of surrounding land and potential economic, physical, visual, nuisance, and other impacts on surrounding properties" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(1)), "the anticipated increase in potential population resulting from the rezoning" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(4)), "the projected additional demand for ... public facilities" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(5)), and a full discussion of the impacts on historic structures and sites (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(8)). Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials also inadequately address the following topics: Air quality impacts from fugitive dust and equipment emissions — Chemstone's rezoning application documents do not include any analysis of possible air quality impacts. Dust generated from mining operations, crushers, conveyors, vehicles, or windblown dust from the large disturbed area is not mentioned nor is possible mitigation of dust -related issues addressed. These documents should also quantify emissions from mining equipment and haul trucks, including the proposed increase in haul trucks and any other mobile or point source. Increased Haul Truck Traffic — Chemstone's Traffic Impact Analysis modeling (March 2005) suggests that the mine expansion could result in an increase of 801 truck trips per day, for a total of 1,308 truck trips in Middletown, a town of 1,200 residents. This proposed increase may detract from the quality of life and be a threat to public safety. Increased truck traffic may also negatively impact those traveling to Frederick County to visit Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park and/or other area attractions. Chemstone has suggested that it could construct a conveyor system that would decrease the amount of truck traffic required by the mine expansion. Frederick County should be encouraged to require this conveyor system as a condition of Chemstone's rezoning proposal in order to avoid the impacts of increased truck traffic in Middletown and in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP. Noise and vibration — Sources of noise and vibration are also not quantified in Chemstone's rezoning application documents. Noise generated by mining operations, crushers, conveyors, and haul trucks is likely to be significant and will not be confined to the existing or rezoned property. Blasting which may take place in quarry operations will not only generate noise impacts, but also carries with it potential vibration issues which pose a threat to adjacent structures. It is important to note that Belle Grove Plantation House, built in 1797, is a Historic Landmark and is included on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, TAKE PRIOE®� we suggest that Frederick County require that Chemstone submit a detailed noise and vibration study as part of its rezoning application to address impacts and mitigation measures for sensitive adjacent resources such as those found in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Night lighting — Chemstone's rezoning application documents did not specify if quarry operations are conducted 24 hours per day. However, if operational or security lighting is used at the quarry site, impacts to the night sky and the historical scene may occur. Dust or other particulate matter generated at the site will exacerbate night lighting impacts to surrounding properties. Property values and historical scene — Chemstone's rezoning application documents fail to address the existing and expanded project's impact on adjacent property values and the historic scene for which this area is well known. The "historic impact assessment" contained in the December 2005 Rezoning Application Materials document states that "[w]e cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history `happened."' Such a sweeping statement fails to analyze the impacts of Chemstone's quarry operations on the historic and natural resources of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. A photograph obtained by GRD of the October 2005 historic battle reenactment at the park clearly shows the Chemstone quarry in the background, dramatically illustrating the striking impact of modern, large scale mining operations on historic properties. We believe that the "historic impact assessment" in Chemstone's rezoning application documents should fully analyze these impacts and present acceptable methods for mitigating there. Ground and surface waters -- The section of the Rezoning Application Materials pertaining to groundwater impacts does briefly mention the subject of aquifer drawdown due to possible interception of groundwater from quarry operations, but fails to address possible surface impacts associated with aquifer drawdown other than sinkhole formation. This document also does not discuss possible impacts on water rights or groundwater quality. Further, the text of the Rezoning Application Materials implies that only the 30 wells and septic systems within 1500 feet of the Chemstone property would be affected by aquifer drawdown. However, Plate 4 of this same document indicates that a 10 foot aquifer drawdown could occur at least 9,600 feet from the potential quarry areas. For all of these reasons, we believe that the groundwater analysis as it relates to off site impacts is extremely inadequate. Possible impacts due to the disposal of the anticipated large amount of intercepted groundwater into surface waterways should also be analyzed in detail. Proffer Statement — Based on my staff s interpretation of Virginia's mining and mineral regulations, most of the conditions included in Chemstone's proffer statement would likely be required by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy as part of the mine expansion permit or by existing agreement. With the exception of the 8-acre "historic reserve," we do not interpret the proffer statement as providing additional protection for the area's historic resources. The Geologic Resources Division appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact either Kerry Moss or Julia Brunner of my staff at 303-969-2634 or 303-969-2012, respectively. TAKE PRIDW&E ►, INAM EPICAc� EE' R `§ f• '+ti -) `v',4't'�� �' � f" '�.J,•.4 � �•xA,.a >L�{is�l<ty +�( �% •Ili fi_. r`.� h . � , ` �' � 9 r rl ' 4}r. r�"'� pew {' 4 t 1• _�"" � �• jib 7 v j � � p'u'Cy �}}�, , r 1 = C Wp dX . ""�'�� n r€!'{TIC �i. I �\I�, �., r �: 'I .r y:D If-;7 l•f r; j q Y • t ;J �W{ .�r�,�, ,•fir A �' � .. r ,�.+I► y �,, ;�`• IF" -'*r ry.= 1 *�,�rg�•r fir, �r�c p. `t.�. ; - ,,,, l y I � y _ _ • i, sr� r-: �r � 9��"�i�� � K �yS-0 rj" }f. � 1 M / 1 � v" ��� ` 1 ,e,� F1�/1'�"�ikL'�" c. .�•� t' es �.,,9 v . .p �.. Ot Ft '" yfr J '. e t.� `e on riy v" wr•Ey1p>� a I � •, T ., �.� � :o.. r,1��wY�e, � �. .a{� (....r'J.4. \.1 xl ` . 7iG4,�yl, 4 t ^ %' 1 f ��!//� .l aa•r�y�t;k �:. sue'" a ■p a _ In " r. It ■ 4 1, "asCl -, r�R 4 •>.�.r+}.iy �I. I ti d I' 1t s1 i ��y�, a ✓ r4n'7: w a•le �,� ,r 'r� r A i �'� J �'� �w F�>F Rr'y.�'R �r+1 ''fit j'w' ,,•rh�. { � ^ �,51. � �1 f �'s�l"''` d .: • " s "r • "fi,.i+€4�� il } r'"7?�f !3tXs ri! .a l ! • �` 1 ,rM tl ''�: .. '0'.�r 5hri. :t v .•JI P•@. .'•k:.'C ...; 4i G ,�.},??1r; � � ► F•�; t-+ r�ti} � e?�;x'�`J� ` � �^fy,�`u�l+ ,h%4S��,c� FF }� ,y �" ( �• °Y1 r E.`7r'4}�,y'. r l ,y �, 4•iq= j1 '4.34 ,�' w� "*- .l . ? 1 s't' r. :: tl ti '� a; . it •I� irr : �s " 4 �•k 2� ��y .� w ��� S 5{ ( !r, •fic,•� C ���r~�vt y- } •r v `� .+! 1 � �. iw 4 1r�; Y �i . (/ "�'' 54.7Nx="�';=. j e•�Yi ��c�" , +��` y�'' �lj!. : '?�,i(',� . " �a,F � (;;�'+• }, • .i�ic��lr'. f, : 4S•dRk 1<�, l,v�1,.;�',� t�,.>e3a.,'•.�',!�,�r,.�.� • � � • r ' -ri'}!� •�"1$a�"yv,"-" � �•snr `rr",�:f 'f '1+� 4 ������•,. fl�•- (� �nr�. f � Ilr 4��,t - 4},r�'�r�,��'•'. M.p FeaNref ...a Na.er. . BII8u.1ne.a.Ne19DDO1nOEDnhkD MS R4(R.. rel1.1 p l dC, REZ # 03 - 06 B] (Bueineea. General DnhicB � Ra (0.eeMenDal. P4nneN CommunM DRhicN) N o., BJ �Buaine... InNu.in.l Tran.Nwn D,t-) R5(R--tu1 Recreat-1 CemmunNN Dwhkt) 0 - N Minerals (Chemstone ) N •C •-D.�a EM (Enractrve Marv—Ilnp Diet-) O RA(Ruial N— D..MM) (�r H . NE(HpbrEd..—D.—) O RR(RUN.nnelp.1l.rm.nuDehkt) (83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 ) 0....� . MI (IMuahl.l, lqM IMDN) O MI IlMua, I G—.l Dk—) • tAx", * 0 )50 1 Sr J OOi �� MN1 (MODNe — Com—" D.-I) I Fees M•R E••4r« • Bt(Bu.-..G—,,1D4td NOgh—ld Dbhlct) ♦ MSM•Er[alsuPPon dC. REZ # 03 - 06 B2 (Bu. ., G.ner.l Dbin<R � Ra (R••ManlMl, PMnneC C.mmunNy DMlrcl) _ HD^• • B]IBY•10«.,hd,. IT,-4ocI,,DSMd) • R5(RUM-.11R•<r•.I-1C—,,R9DbhRD 0 - N Minerals (Chemstone ) ®..ra. R•M^c«brR«. • EM (E—d- Manul.<lu g Dbhl<Y) O RA (R.I.'.... Deb" -._ ,� • MI (Mpn.rEmUoWD t,I)I) O RP(R•.W-1P•rlor—Db ) ( 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 ) O n,,,�, N'u • M111Muabul. llpM Dbtrig7 OM.y h�u Q M}(Irqu•h41, G.—ID.kI) •TqQ• C 11C 15X 3O �Rr • MH1 (MOW Noma ComnunM Owbkf) Y� Fee. J. PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # p3. D 6 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EMI) PROPERTY: 639.13 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A 109 & 90-A 23 (the "Properties") RECORD OWNER O-N Minerals Chemstone Company APPLICANT: O-N Minerals Chemstone Company PROJECT NAME: Chemstone - Middletown ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 13, 2005 REVISION DATE(S): January 16, 2006 February 8, 2006 February 17, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property'), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated June 13, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Land Use 1.1 The Property shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Proffer Statement i Chenwone - Middletown 2. Site Development 2.1 Site access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Property shall not be limited. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an eight acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources associated with Belle Grove Plantation have been identified. Said reserve shall be dedicated to the Belle Grove Foundation within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Property within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A 109 by the GDP. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the Property. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of I-pstoric Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA — Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia", 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003) . 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the groundwater resources available on the Properties in accordance with existing agreements negotiated between the Applicant and FCSA. 5. Groundwater 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A 109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Property boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the Northern Property boundary. February 17, 2006 Page 2 of 4 Proffer Statement i Chemstone - Middletown The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Property. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Dust from drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Property. All material being stockpiled shall be kept adequately moist to control dust during storage and handling or covered at all times to minimize emissions. Blasting Control All blasting associated with mining operations on the Property shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DM4 of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Property shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Property shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. Proffer Statenzew Cheinstotie - Middletown Respectfully submitted, • I 'ram''` INK •II •�� • 1' STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of — i-oa r , 2006, by C''V1C_I' i ►� �CX� My commission expires A\, \ 0 ?a-D-7 Notary Public Q� n W 0 A.Z4) -y,-3 February 17, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Mom. _,CL 7f•. Dw 44 IL It 1641110.' lW �.� '•« . I 'S' � ` '.�' 4 Kn Rye � �'• �'- � + •�' ti��. v - ;� : k ` .c ! �`5�9 .fir `r, � � Y1 �, \ ,^,`� \ ``".K hra�r+ o- j A ,s . p �. �F `�� �` � � :� , y't t' A� •••�� 1�,� •� 'f ..,tom 74`, (-7 E"4' 't` �`� � 7 ,e,. f '•d% � \, k, s� xfa sn\ `tC3, Y j \ 4z 1c y� ro Sc � t ��. � y -�y '•e .� ' yit ,t �: di`J. \fir: i ♦I � ` I 'F � i �\ �� ,Ft•�+1: ... 'y �13 ei .. .Jf�a'1•_ti?i.,1k.-,.a.. .r.-. ,. - Yf-<,� .St q V�l 7 j::.All , ,4k 6 � ; � ♦ %•�\ �i' / A � � �`\' \�� // /i/ Ova r /```ems P�\ � : i� . �..�' .� ' '�. k v \ :; '��•i';e.;tr� •'°� ��.�' '� � � ` , Aj OF ONS �� � . � . °.-tea + / ♦.,a � =�/� ♦' i � �/ /� � � 'x. .i,.r � ..-...a'y� �.'� INT al A550GIQ[f; Ykabin m •t is GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT February 2006 A. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the conditional rezoning of a portion of parcels 83-A-109 ("Middle Marsh Property") and 90-A-23 ("Northern Reserve"), which total approximately 639 acres. The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and adjacent to Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The subject acreage is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes the rezoning of the 639 acres from RA to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's ("Chemstone") existing Middletown plant and quarries are located adjacent to and between the subject properties. The property containing these facilities is zoned EM. The Northern Reserve site is further situated adjacent to Chemstone's Strasburg facility, which is located immediately south of Cedar Creek in Shenandoah County. The subject acreage contains mapped deposits of chemical grade limestone, the extraction of which is critical to the continued viability of the established quarry operation. Indeed, the mineral -rich nature of the properties and their value for future extraction activities was identified more than forty years ago, and the acreage has remained in the ownership of mining interests ever since. The requested rezoning will enable the appropriate use of the subject acreage consistent with its unique geological attributes, which will thereby assure the continued vitality of the Chemstone Middletown operation. The contents of this report will outline the role of the subject acreage in future Chemstone operations and further identify anticipated impacts as well as those strategies necessary for effective mitigation. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate identified impacts. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is not located within the boundaries of any small area study or land use plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties are further located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Business and Industrial Areas policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are relatively silent concerning natural resource extraction, except for acknowledgement that such uses exist in the County, in particular along the limestone belt west of Interstate 81, and that study is needed to establish appropriate guidelines for evaluation of proposals for new extractive manufacturing areas. To date, no such study has been undertaken. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-9, 6-72) C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE State Regulation of Mineral Mining Operations The Code of Virginia requires the issuance of mineral mining permits for all mining operations within the Commonwealth. Mineral mining permits are issued by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy pursuant to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining. To obtain a permit or add acreage to a mine operating under an existing permit, a plan of operation/mine permit map must be submitted for DMM approval and updated annually. The DMM possesses the authority to regulate an array of technical and operational issues through the permitting process and regular mine inspections. Issues controlled by the DMM include, but are not limited to, the following: grading and stabilization of quarry pits and berms, drainage, erosion and sediment control, screening of mine operations, blasting operations, and final reclamation and stabilization of the site. The Middletown quarry currently operates under mining permit number 05714AB. Should this rezoning be approved, the expansion of the mining operation to include the subject acreage would necessitate amendment of the existing permit. To secure DMM approval, the amended permit must be accompanied by a revised plan of operation/mine permit map demonstrating effective impact mitigation and conformance with state mining regulations. Scope of Proposed Use Chemstone intends to transfer limestone ore extracted from the subject properties to the Strasburg plant for processing, consistent with the practices of the existing Middletown quarry operation. The scope of the increased manufacturing use in Frederick County will therefore involve overburden removal, controlled blasting and ore extraction, crushing of ore for transport (via central 2 a f Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown crusher facility), and the loading of materials for transfer. The transfer of materials between the Middletown and Strasburg facilities will occur through the continued use of trucks and the adjoining CSX rail line. Long term facility plans include future implementation of an internal conveyor system that will ultimately eliminate the exclusive reliance on these existing modes for material transfer. The future role of the conveyor system in Chemstone operations is significant as it represents a method for minimizing truck traffic on the surrounding secondary road network. Availability of the conveyor system will effectively eliminate the need for truck transport of materials between Middletown and Strasburg by Chemstone. As such, the expanded mining operation would not result in any sustained intensification of truck traffic on the secondary roads serving the site. However, regardless of the ultimate implementation of the conveyor system, truck trips will continue to be generated by the facility due to the retrieval of raw materials directly from the site by quarry customers. An extensive network of earthen berms will be installed to screen active mining activities. Moreover, substantial buffers will be provided around the perimeter of the site sufficient to further separate adjoining properties and land uses from mining operations. The provision of perimeter buffers is assured by proffer.. Site and Land Use History The subject properties contain significant limestone deposits that are recognized for their exceptional purity and consistency. For over a century, limestone ore has been extracted and processed via the existing Middletown and Strasburg quarry facilities, which are located adjacent to the subject acreage. These facilities serve a diverse array of industrial, environmental, and municipal markets with four primary product groups - high calcium quicklime, hydrated lime, chemical grade limestone, and construction aggregates. The applications for these products are numerous, but most notably involve agriculture, pollution reduction technologies, national defense infrastructure, road building, and food processing. The existing Middletown quarry facilities have been in active operation since the late 1950's under various ownership interests, and were acquired by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation from Chemstone Corporation in the mid-1990's. The Strasburg plant has operated continuously since 1896. As noted in the introductory section of this report, the acreage proposed for rezoning is adjacent to these facilities and has been controlled by mining interests for the past forty years, which has assured the availability of extensive limestone ore reserves for eventual extraction. Thus, although the zoning of the subject acreage has remained RA, the acreage has historically been reserved for extractive manufacturing as its intended use. 3 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown The uneventful history of quarry operations in the Middletown and Strasburg areas has demonstrated the ability of such facilities to amicably co -exist with nearby residents and land uses. Open meetings have been held by quarry companies over the years to foster communication with citizens and local officials. Such meetings have allowed compatibility issues to be identified and addressed proactively, thus ensuring the operation of extractive manufacturing uses with minimal impact to the surrounding community. Open meetings will continue to serve a vital role in assuring that dialogue between Chemstone and the community is on -going and constructive. Environmental Features The Northern Reserve and Middle Marsh properties each contain environmentally sensitive areas. The following table identifies the environmental resources located on the properties, and further indicates the potential areas for mining activity and likely scope of impact for each resource. Northern Reserve Middle Marsh Rezoning Property Property Total Acreage 158 acres 533 acres 691 acres Mining Area 24 acres 54 acres 78 acres quar pits Resource Area Impact Area Impact Area Impact (%) Area N Area N Area Wetlands 1.9 acres <0.10 ac. 0.3 ac. None 2.2 acres <0.10 ac. 1.20% 0.06% 0.32% Streams 8,921 None 10,984 793 19,905 793 lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. Flood Plain 36 acres 1.0 ac. 89 acres 3.0 ac. 125 acres 4.0 ac. (22 8%) (16 7%) (18.1%) Steep Slopes (>50%) None None None None None None -Source: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC;), Uctober ZUU1. The above data summarizes a study report generated by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for Chemstone in October 2001, a complete copy of which is included with this impact statement as Appendix "A." The scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of the total acreage proposed for rezoning, it is projected that actual excavation will involve roughly 78 acres, or only 11 % of the area to be rezoned. Areas adjoining the quarries will be devoted to materials processing and storage of said materials as well as discarded earth. Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features 11 Impact Analysis Statement Cheinstone - Middletown from deleterious impact. Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and all applicable state and federal regulations. It is noted that the SAIC study indicates impacts to approximately 793 linear feet of natural waterways traversing the properties. As per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffer areas is prohibited except for roads and/or public utilities and public facilities. Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited accordingly, which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected by the SAIC study. The results of the environmental assessment of the subject acreage indicate that the identified conditions will neither preclude nor substantially hinder use of the properties for extractive manufacturing. Soils/Geology The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Fred erick-Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The following table identifies the multiple soil types present on each property: Northern Reserve (Map Sheet 54 of Soil Survey) Map Symbol Soil Name Slopes (range) 5C Carbo silt loam 7 to 15 % 13C Frankstown channery silt loam 7 to 15 % 14C Frederick -Po limento loams 7 to 15 % 15E Frederick-Poplimento very ravel) loams 25 to 60 % 17C Frederick -Po limento-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 % 17E Frederick -Po limento-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 45 % 39C Swimley silt loam 7 to 15 % Middle Marsh (Map Sheet 51 of Soil Survey) Map S mbol Soil Name Slopes (range) 5B Carbo silt loam* 2 to 7 % 5C Carbo silt loam 7 to 15 % 6C Carbo-Oaklet silt loams, very rocky 2 to 15 % 7C Carbo-Oaklet-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 % 32C Oaklet silt loam 7 to 15 % 39B Swimley silt loam* 2 to 7 % 40B Timberville silt loam* 2 to 7 % *Denotes soils classified as Prime Farmland (see Soil Survey, p. 123, Table 5). Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown The majority of the soil types comprising the subject acreage are not considered prime farmland. However, the Middle Marsh property does contain pockets of three soil types that are distinguished for their agricultural value. These soil types are identified in the table above with an asterisk (*). The unique geological characteristics that give the property its value for extractive manufacturing also produce areas of enhanced soil fertility, which, when existent over large contiguous areas, may be conducive to productive agriculture. In the case of the Middle Marsh property, the prime farmland soils are generally fragmented and dispersed throughout the site thereby limiting its overall agricultural value. The purity and consistency of the limestone deposits that underlie the subject properties constitute the ideal geologic conditions for extractive manufacturing use. The characteristics of the identified soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Access Public road access to the Middletown facility occurs from Route 757 (McCune Road) via Route 625 (Veterans Road — Frederick County, 5th Street — Town of Middletown), which is accessed from US Route 11 in the Town of Middletown. The site possesses direct access to the CSX rail line, which allows the extensive use of railroad facilities to transport materials between facilities. Moreover, a system of internal conveyors is planned for the transfer of materials between the Middletown and Strasburg plants, which will result in the operational integration of the Chemstone operations in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties. The utilization of such alternative modes of transportation and material transfer ensures an operational efficiency that minimizes impacts to the secondary road network. D. TRANSPORTATION The transport of extracted limestone ore from the subject acreage to the Strasburg processing facility will occur via three modes, which are: 1. Conveyor system (internal, directly linking quarries and Strasburg plant); 2. Rail (existing CSX rail line); and 3. Truck Studies conducted by Chemstone identify the conveyor system as the preferred method of material transport as it ensures the least impact to the surrounding road network and community. It is further recognized that this alternative requires the most significant investment in terms of both initial installation and long-term operation. Thus, while the conveyor system represents the long term goal for inter -plant material transfer, it is unlikely to be implemented as a short term improvement. As such, inter -plant transfer will continue to occur via rail and truck transport 6 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown Initial contact with state permitting agencies has indicated that future implementation of the proposed conveyor system would be feasible. At such time that it is installed, the crossing of the conveyor over Cedar Creek will be completely enclosed to preclude accidental loss of material into the waterway, and will further be screened to minimize visual impacts. As noted above, the inter -plant transfer of materials by train and truck will continue to occur to some degree regardless of the availability of the conveyor system. Given the potential for truck traffic on the surrounding road network, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was completed for this application and is included with this statement as Appendix "B" (Traffic Impact Analysis of Chemstone, dated March 16, 2005). The TIA considers two transportation scenarios for this rezoning. The first scenario involves the exclusive reliance on trains and trucks for inter -plant material transfer, and therefore reflects impacts caused by increased traffic of all types. The second scenario assumes implementation of the proposed conveyor system and the corresponding de -emphasis of trucks for inter -plant material transfer. The scope of the analysis for each scenario was determined through consultation with VDOT, and focuses principally on the intersection of Route 625 (5t" Street) and US Route 11 (Main Street) in the Town of Middletown. The existing Middletown facility generates a total of 506 vehicle trips per day (ADT), based on actual traffic counts. This traffic includes employee trips, customer trips, and Chemstone's inter -plant material transfer trips. The TIA projects anticipated traffic using trip generation data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7tn Edition. Under the first transportation scenario, the TIA projects that the rezoning would result in an increase of 799 trips per day, totaling 1,305 ADT for the facility as a whole. Trips of all types are increased with this scenario, to include an approximate doubling of inter -plant truck trips. Under the second transportation scenario, which accounts for the future conveyor system, the rezoning would produce a net increase of only 186 trips per day, resulting in a total of 693 ADT for the expanded facility. The nominal increase in trips under this scenario is attributable to the elimination of truck trips for inter -plant material transfer from the trip generation projections. As such, trips produced by the expanded facility under this scenario would be limited exclusively to those of employees and customers. The TIA concludes that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the proposed rezoning at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. Although the second transportation scenario is clearly of lesser overall impact, the TIA indicates that Level of Service Category C conditions or better are maintained at studied intersections under both of the scenarios analyzed, thus ensuring consistency with the transportation 7 f f f f Impact Analysis Statement Cheinstone - Middletown objectives of the Comprehensive Policy Plan regardless of the ultimate mode(s) used for inter -plant material transfer. E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The Middletown facility is served by a private health system for on -site sewage disposal. No additional sewage facilities will be required by this rezoning. Water supply for the Middletown facility is obtained by quarry pit de -watering, which occurs through the mining process. This source will provide sufficient supply and pressure for the expanded mining use, to include dust control in and around the quarries. All de -watering activities will be performed pursuant to DMM requirements, and in accordance with the approved mining permit for the Middletown operation. F. DRAINAGE The plan of operation/mine permit map is required to include a drainage plan subject to DMM review and approval. The drainage plan must address several items, to include the following: (a) the directional flow of water on and away from the site, (b) location and specifications of constructed drainage ways, (c) the use of natural waterways for drainage, and (d) delineation of the streams or tributaries receiving the discharge. Should the requested rezoning be approved, the mining permit must be amended to include the subject acreage, which will involve preparation of a revised drainage plan that ensures effective incorporation of the expansion area into the facility's overall drainage system. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid waste generated by employee activities will be collected in dumpster facilities and removed from the site by commercial refuse carrier. Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County landfill for ultimate disposal by said carrier. Waste resulting from mining activities will be placed in spoil stockpiles and within berms used for facility screening. The storage and adaptive use of spoils will be addressed through the approval process for the amended mining permit, and will therefore be required to meet all DMM requirements. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The subject properties are located within the boundaries of the Cedar Creek Battlefield, but are not identified as core battlefield resources. The Middle Marsh property is noted to contain ruins referred to on maps as "Nieswander's Fort." A detailed Historic Impact Assessment is included with this report as Appendix "C," which discusses both the role of the site in the referenced Civil War battle and 1 1 f f Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown the potential origin and significance of the ruins. The conclusions of this study indicate that significant historic resources will not be lost due to the proposed use. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, the boundaries of which were established by federal law in 2002. To ensure that the visual impacts to this adjoining resource are mitigated, Chemstone intends to locate all processing equipment inside the quarry pits so that such facilities will not be visible. Moreover, berms surrounding the pits will be constructed with smooth lines and grades to preclude fragmentation of the park's viewshed. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run to assess the likely impact of the proposed project on capital facilities. The output module generated by this analysis indicated that the proposed land uses would result in a net positive fiscal impact. Such positive impacts are derived from increased revenue from real estate and machinery/tools taxes. W January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown APPENDIXA. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT � P ENTIAL IMPACT ANAL�CStS OF MINING- -:_ `PERATIONSAr MIDD �I AND RESERVES PROPERTIES, �. Ob � n. L .s�' � / ♦ r 7 1 jI �! w- - l: JP/repared' for G.V . iff Ask es -iii , �•� -- �, . , � '' 117 E. y Street; .Suite 206� k . _ chester; Nrirainia 22604- 27 ., August 20r2 Prepared by r cience Application__s_. iia ii� orp�oratxc t' 1 ` ��'s�tnc�ss..Parkw�ay Sou�t�i;, Sitii�'e { West ' nster, Maryland �j7 �. !! r -- POTENTIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MINING OPERATIONS AT THE MIDDLEMARSH AND RESERVES PROPERTIES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA r- SAIC Ref. No.: 01-1633-00-2190-000 Prepared for: F G.W. Clifford Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 C Reviewed by: Prepared by: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1129 Business Parkway South,.Suite 10 Westminster, Maryland 21157 August 2002 Submitted by: Eric S. Andreus, P.G. 73c- Michael D. Haufler, P.G.0 73 C-' Project Hydrogeologist Senior Technical Manager SCIENCE APPLICA TIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Study.................................................................................................................1 2.0 WETLANDS..........................................................................................................................2 2.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................2 2.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................2 3.0 FORESTS..............................................................................................................................4 3.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................4 3.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................5 4.0 STREAMS.............................................................................................................................6 4.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................6 4.2 Potential Impacts...............................................................................................................6 5.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES......................................................................................8 5.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................8 5.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1, Wetland.....................................................................................................Following Text Figure2, Forested Areas..........................................................................................Following Text Figure 3, Streams and Floodplains...........................................................................Following Text Figure 4, Hydrogeologic Map...................................................................................Following Text SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1 1 ( Potential Impact Analysis Aobal Chemstone ( 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION -- Rezoning of the two Global Chemstone (GC) parcels north of the existing facility from the exist- ing agricultural use to future mineral extraction requires approval from Frederick County, Vir- ginia. The approval process, as outlined in the Rezoning Application Package from the Depart- ment of Planning and Development, requires assessment of potential impacts resulting from this change in land use. Potential groundwater impacts are of particular concern to local constituents and are a key focus of these assessments. There are two parcels included in this study, named by convention in accordance with a mining reserves report (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990, for Chemstone Corporation). The parcel to the �- north is termed the Middle Marsh property and the one to the south, adjacent to Cedar Creek, is termed Chemstone Northern Reserves property. 1.1 Scone of Study The potential impacts addressed by SAIC include wetlands, forests, streams, and groundwater. Our tasks coincide with County rezoning requirements and are completed at a level similar to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specific details of the work are provided in each section. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION i 1 Potential Impact Analysis .31obal Chemstolne 2� 2.0 WETLANDS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing wetlands includes the following: g ( ➢ Use of applicable National Wetlands Inventory Mapping. ( > Use of applicable USDA soils mapping. l ➢ Use of applicable 100-year floodplain mapping. ➢ Field examination of potential wetlands. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. > Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. r- L 2.1 Affected Environment Potential wetlands areas include those mapped as wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Mapping and as hydric soils in USDA soils mapping. Flood -plain areas (based on 100-year flood -plain mapping) and stream -side areas that could be considered waters of the United States _ were examined but are assessed in the Streams Section of this report. Based on field observations, true wetlands areas may be somewhat different than indicated in the l mapping. Detailed, formal delineations are required as part of a separate permitting process. As indicated on Plate 1, the Middle Marsh and Northern Reserves properties contain approxi- mately 0.3 and 1.9 acres, respectively, of potential wetlands. 2.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. SCIENCEAPPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION d i Potential Impact Analysis • .lobal Chdmstone 3 As shown on Plate 1, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential `- impact areas for each parcel. This results in less than 0.4 acres of total potential wetlands that could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered an estimate, since formal wet- land delineations have not been completed. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION F 1 1 Potential Impact Analysis 31ob9I Chemstone 1 4 3.0 FoRESTS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing forest areas in- cludes the following: ( ➢ Selections of appropriate forest stand criteria were selected based on the existing land cover, including pasture and fallow fields, cedar, cedar (grazed), cedar/osage, and oak/hickory stands. ➢ Use of the oak/hickory forest community as an equivalent to the "mature woodlands" as considered by the County (these are not true biologically mature or virgin forests). ➢ Field examination of forest area zones (without field marking). l ➢ Field mapping of the potential) affected environment o Y n aerial photographs. ➢ Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. F 3.1 Affected Environment t The five different vegetation covers found on the two parcels are shown on Plate 2. There is an area.in the southern portion of the Middle Marsh property that can be described as an Oak -Hickory Forest. Species observed in this small forest island include red oak (Quercus ru- bra), white oak (Quercus alba), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), mockernut hickory (Caiya to- mentosa), and white pine (Pinus strobus) in the overstory, and sassafras (Sassafi-as albidum), dogwood (Cornus florida), and hop hornbeam (0st7ya virginiana) in the understory. This is likely a re -growth of abandoned farmland, as there is an almost complete lack of old dead snags, and/or decomposing trees, which would be indicative of an older, truly mature forest. Neverthe- less, this area provides habitat for Oak -Hickory biota, which likely include blue jays, wild tur- key, scarlet tanager, rose -breasted grosbeak, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, Northern flying squirrel, and Eastern chipmunk. The remainder of the Middle Marsh property is clearly agricultural and includes sharp delinea- tions between fallow agricultural and active agricultural land. Much of the fallow agricultural land is dominated by Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), which is an invasive, early - successional species that is relatively shade intolerant. Other species observed in these sections, t- SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION o r Potential Impact Analysis 31obal Chemstone - 5 particularly along the creeks, include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sycamore (Platanus `- occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), osage orange (Maclura pomifera), Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and honeysuckle (Lonicera spp. ). The area just to the north of the intersec- tion of Route 627 and Middle Marsh Creek is predominantly Eastern red cedar and is heavily grazed. The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes, and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community, as described above. This site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle (- Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar on the upland portions- of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. 3.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. As shown on Plate 2, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of eight acres of potential mature forests that could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered a maximum, since the term mature forest could be applied more stringently and significantly reduce the affected environ- ment areas accordingly. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1 i Potential Impact Analysis ilobal Chemstone 1 6 4.0 STREAMS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing streams includes the following: ➢ Identification of perennial streams in the area. ➢ Estimation of watershed areas and potential flows using USGS data from local gauging stations. f ➢ Mapping of 100-year floodplain areas. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. ➢ Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 4.1 Affected Environment As shown on Plate 3, the major stream in this area is Cedar Creek, which flows southeastward adjacent to the Northern Reserves property. Two tributaries to Cedar Creek cross the Middle Marsh property before joining Cedar Creek. Middle Marsh Brook and Watson Run flow in a southwesterly direction and have contributing drainage areas of approximately 1,105 and 826 acres respectively. They are not true perennial streams (they had no flow during the October 2001 field inspections). Using the Opequon Creek gauging station records, these streams are es- timated to have average flows of 0.69 to 0.52 cfs, respectively. Each creek is impacted by the agricultural nature of the surrounding area. There is cattle grazing in and near the creeks and the channels are vegetated with forbs, bearing evidence to the fact that there has not been enough water to scour out the vegetation in recent weeks or months. 4.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION _ i Potential Impact! Analysis As shown on Plate 3, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential �— impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of 793 linear feet of potential stream channel that could be affected by the rezoning and a total of 13 acres of potentially affected 100-year ( floodplain. These quantities should be considered maximums, since many potential impacts can t be mitigated by avoidance. There should be little to no impacts to stream flow from the pro- posed operations since they will not use surface water for processing or dust control (provided by dewatering pumping). SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1 i Potential Irr pact Analysis • ,lobal Chemstone t 8 r 5.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to groundwater resources in- cludes the following: g ( ➢ Delineation of interconnected geologic formations based on existing mapping and field observations. ( ➢ Delineation of potential zones of surface water and groundwater contribution based on topographic drainage catchments areas. ➢ Identification of photogeologic fracture traces as potential zones of increased �- groundwater flow. Inventory of potential groundwater users and wells within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries through the Frederick County Health Department, by field observation, by t= aerial photo analyses, and use of tax mapping in parcel boundaries. ➢ Estimation of groundwater pumping for the existing pumping records and quarry con- figuration based on interviews with Global Chemstorie personnel and aerial photo ' analysis. ➢ Estimation of zones and magnitudes of groundwater drawdown surrounding the poten- tial mining areas using a digital groundwater model and pumping rates extrapolated from existing operations and mining areas, maximum drawdown from the proposed mine depth, and aquifer parameters from pumping tests in the carbonate aquifer. ➢ Identification of potential karst areas from existing State geologic publications and field inspection. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. Comparison of the mapping with potential groundwater impacts. 5.1 Affected Environment The parcels lie in the Shenandoah Valley portion of the Great Valley Physiographic Province. This area is underlain by carbonate rocks of the Great Valley sequence, which in this area in- cludes the Beekmantown, New Market, and Lincolnshire formations. The New Market Forma - SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1 1 Poteh ial Impact Analysis .'lobal Chemstone 1 tion (Mosheim Formation) is a high calcium limestone and is the mineral resource identified for - extraction. Where saturated, these formations constitute a local section of the carbonate rock aquifer system of the Great Valley. Recharge to the aquifer system is generally from local precipitation. In general, the carbonate rock aquifers g � q of the Great Valley are highly productive and have relatively ( high rates of recharge. Groundwater moves through the rock through cracks, fissures, solution openings, and bedding partings in the rock mass. Based on drilling records in the Great Valley, +" the groundwater system extends to at least 700 feet in depth in this area. Groundwater use in the area is limited. The aggregate quarry between the two study parcels withdraws approximately 84,000 d on an annual average basis. There are 3 � g 0 on -site well and i septic systems within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries of the two parcels. Of these, domes- tic water use is generally between 200 and 400 gpd per unit, approximately 10 to 30 percent of 1" which is consumptive. 5.2 Potential Impacts Potential impacts from mining in the two parcels originate from the dewatering required in the mining operation itself, as the extraction process extends below the water table. In general, as the mining process exposes water -bearing fractures, groundwater enters the mine and is pumped out so that mining can continue. The resulting impacts are similar to those associated with a large -diameter groundwater well. Potential impacts are estimated using a single hydrogeologic computer model (Two Day). The parameters used in the model are as follows: ➢ Pumping rate ➢ Depth to water table ➢ Water table drawdown ➢ Aquifer transmissivity Aquifer thickness SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION I Potential Impact Analysis global Chemstone 10 The depth of the mineral deposit (New Market Formation) determines the maximum potential �. depth of mining and water table intrusion. Based on geologic mapping performed for the min- eral resource study, the New Market Formation terminates at a relatively shallow depth, to an elevation of approximately 550 feet (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990), which greatly reduces the potential water table drawdown impact. ( The potential water table drawdown contour lines are shown on Plate 4. As shown, the estimated drawdown off -site in areas of existing wells is 10 to 20 feet. Since most wells in this region have in excess of 100 feet of available drawdown, the anticipated affect would likely be unnoticeable in such supplies. Therefore, based on this model and the assumptions therein, there should be ( few if any adverse impacts to existing water supplies in the Area. Since this is an area of poten- tial karst (sinkholes), changes in the water table cam accelerate the surface exposure of these ex- isting subsurface features. Although no mitigation measures appear to be warranted at this time, a groundwater and karst monitoring program should detect potential adverse impacts in advance f such that appropriate mitigation can be provided. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1 I MIDDLE MAAW PROPERTY Tote! Arm - 573 Aau. PotenballmoactArea ='38Acres Potenlbl Wetland Area •_ .3 Acres PcteMia! Wetland Impact = Nono 'Ir` <5z PW17 0ns Nortnem Re"rle < Total Area • %: �..�. 'f, = 158 Acres � Pctential Impact Area = 4; Acres Potenba'� Wetland Area = Potent;a Wetland Impact = , t Acres k_ t LED" �{ `mot. �� f'^�`'f � �� `,tl1► ACM �Yt • rs �, jw...;v. � _ ` �'`-` ',t �'1__,._;1J1 1, r, 1� •' a ! MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY Total Area 533Arms r� Potential Impact Area - 138 Acres : M• • '1 ` I:' • : -f Mature WooClanG Maa 38 Aires Potential Impact Area = None ilk 17 .114 Total Area = 158 Acres ( - / r _ yA Potential Impact Area - 4'- Acres ! Uature Woodland Area = 83 Acres Potential Impact Area 8 Acres { ' w✓ ,: y,rye .,� � •sue r'r�_ ,�� �-ae``'. -' —77 NK k r r \ N\ SHM +,Sb •�••!y -G.n vwc - w•v raw.,»o�.w..t+.wu. Wn. e.w.urnnaoaAtraoca/et 7�f7, Ol A MIDDLEAUM PROPOM Tota; Area - 533A-,rw Potential Impact Area = 133 Acres Streams 10,994 Feet Potenba! Stream Impact = 793 Feet • Fl000v;ain Aea 8S Acres PCtO-lb2l FloocD;am�rnoacj Area 11 Acres 14 ��" "', I kJT Chwnso* Marnm Rseww SP .11 T"I Area 162 Aues� W, Potemal lAning Area = 35 Acra� = M:2' Feet None Potent 3J Stream krr.pa,-t A 04, S Floodplam Area - 36 Acres Polentsal FIDOGD4in lm"c- L Area � 1 Acr�f UUM iyPy VA �l x ✓ ej "A G.W. CLvR)w A Anocuns VnVAW Me RDOOPLAM ANEW==-2— 46 2.1 202.6 S 167 6 �.sr ' +105E D460ItAli � 'Pg ,r `-- 'O �'{ f • r�� a ssk 7 r�. 44 Ob izw PC lip to a �, ,c ._ or molm Liam $wnQ"mwooujw omb ..... Few ...<,,.n..»�. -- ,�,...,..-,,,..,....• of Qb��.,..,a,.�. ,• .,.•r,......,.,......s. ....... .. ....ws.<.0 ...wM..,-.- — MYn000WLM W' Och ON Chen t M'd - zs one - a dletown APPENDIX B HISTORIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared by. Lynn Sims Ph.D. Military Historian University of Richmond CEDAR CREEK REPORT The question is; "Will the quarry expansion interfere with the core battlefield of Cedar Creek or_impair an understanding and interpretation of what happened there 19 October 18647 A problgm in Virginia is so much history happened here you could put a fence around the Valley as well as Eastern Virginia and call them both historical areas. We cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history "happened." We can only save what we know to be significant. The property proposed for quarry operation was the land ridden over by Brig. Gen. George Custer's Third Division of the Cavalry Corps on the afternoon of 19 October 1864, part of the Federal counterattack against Confederates under Lieut. Gen. Jubal A. Early. The original morning offensive by the Confederates was a brilliant and complicated plan involving a three -column converging night attack supported by cavalry on both flanks. It was planned well, executed with force, gained the element of surprise, and pushed the Federals back. About 0930 the Confederate attack lost its momentum. The Federals were able to mount a counterattack about 3:30 that afternoon overwhelming the Confederates and reversing, not only Confederate success that day, but eliminating Confederate power in the Valley for the rest of the war. Part of the Federal counterattack was a cavalry charge of about 3,000 troopers under Custer which swept down on the Confederate left, or western, flank and mostly consolidated what Federal infantry already had captured in the way of wagons, cannons, prisoners of war, battle flags, and supplies. When the former head historian for the National Park Service, Dr. Edwin C. Bearss laid out the battlefield, he included everything this side of the quarry to the Valley Pike as the core battlefield. Since that designation individuals have built homes on the core battlefield, Interstates have obliterated part of the battlefield used by Confederate troops moving to the attack. Also business establishments now stand on land where the battle took place, and Lord Fairfax Community College owns over 100 acres. Among the famous Federal personalities at the battle, Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan the Commanding General operated in the middle and eastern part of the field near the Valley Pike. Two future presidents of the United States, Col. Rutherford B. Hayes, and Cpt. William McKinley were both on the eastern side of the field, again near the Valley Pike. Custer's name is known by most Americans. He was there, and performed perhaps his best during the war. His tactics were pretty much the same through out his career. That is without much preparation, planning, or consideration of tactics and terrain, "Charge in fast, throw the enemy off balance, then react to what happens." These were his tactics for 12 years, until he charged into a large group of Sioux and Cheyenne along the Little Big Horn in present day Montana. Still, Custer was in this battle and it was one of his finest actions. Aside from part of the Federal cavalry charging across a piece of this land, nothing of significance happened on the land. By October 1864, everyone on both sides was a professional. The outstanding points of the battle of Cedar Creek are the Confederate plan and execution, the personal leadership of Sheridan and other officers, the stubborn resistance of pockets of troops on both sides, and the rout ofEarly's troops, which ended Confederate power in the Valley and ended Early's career. The accompanying map shows the route of Custer's charge and the proposed extension of the quarry. Quarry owners are mindful of keeping the integrity of the battlefield and are considering ways to minimize, and hide structures necessary for mining, as well fts considering ways to-benelitbattlefield visitors understanding through the use of platforms and interpretive devices. In an aside, the battle was significant for Vermont units because by happenstance every unit from the "Green Mountain" State on active duty was at this battle. Hanging in their state capitcgl-in MontpeTieris a' -huge painting of Cedar Creek. Other fighting at the same time in 1864, east and south of Petersburg, also was significant as it caused Gen. Robert E. Lee to leave his trenches and move west until he was stopped at Appomattox Court House and surrender, 9 April 1865. Without a doubt -if -Cedar Creek was in any other state, much would be made of the battle for out of the 53,000 soldiers engaged, there were 8,500 casualties. But there are only two unit markers on the battlefield, and only one visible to the public. There are several state markers along the Valley Pike which give an idea of the events for all who stop to read. For the historian who wants to see the battle as the participants saw it, ground level, or from horse back, that is still possible. Once the Confederate planners left Signal Knob on Massanutten Mountain, they too were at ground level. In summary, earlyIn the day the ConTederates attacked and forced the Federals to retreat. That retreat took place this side of the proposed quarry operation. Only Custer's sweeping counterattack later in the day crossed part of the land proposed to be quarried. I have flown over the land in a helicopter, driven, and walked the land, read after - action reports of the participants, as well as studied the pertinent maps in the Library of Virginia, the Virginia Historical Society, and in published books. I believe an accurate, complete and useful interpretation of the day's events can be viewed with the construction of the quarry. I further believe with the help of the mining company, the interpretation of the battle will be better understood than it is now. NIESWANDER'S FORT The question is; What do we know about the ruins noted on mans "Nieswander's Fort?" The ruins now 14beled-Nieswander'sFort on maps probably date from 1-754-1-756, during the French and Indian War when the Lower Valley of Virginia experienced many Indian raids. Although there is no record of a Nieswander Fort in the records of the time, there is evidence to infer the ruins came into existence as a result of Indian depredations, and fear among presidents of ihe-Lower-Valley. Given the size of the site, most certainly the "fort," built over a spring, was a blockhouse. It was probably much like Hupp's Fort, his primary residence also built over a spring, and according to the state marker dates from 1755. One problem in researching this period in the Lower Valley is in 1781 practically all of the documents relating to heTrench and Indian War were destroyed in a fire at the Virginia State Library. Brothers Jacob arid -Christian Neuenschwandger came from Canton Bern, Switzerland to Lancaster County, PA in 1711. From there they moved into the Lower Valley between 21 October 1731 and 28 November 1732. Jacob was married to Susannah, and Christian to Maria Magdelena. Christian settled five miles south of Winchester, a h,lf mile on the west side of the current Valley Turnpike, the old Indian war trail which became broadened by wagon traffic. Settlers moving through the area used it as the main thoroughfare. Jacob, who owned 435 acres purchased from Yost Hite 7 February 1738, settled three miles further south near Stephens City, also close to the turnpike. The bothers were-Meni16nite-in he Anabaptist tradition and shunned warfare, militia service, and firearms. Their defense would be to avoid conflict by staying in a blockhouse until danger had passed. The settlement of Mennonites in the Lower Valley was encouraged by Virginia and was in the tradition ofVirgiivaif's settlement of'Scotch-Irisli-in theUpperValley, Huguenots west of Richmond at Manakin Town on the James River, and Germans in Germanna, Orange County. Virginia winked at religious conformity to the Church of England in the case of frontiersmen. These groups were used as a "trip wire," or warning, as they would be the first casualties from Indian attacks. Nieswanders were among the first white settlers in the Valley. Jacob had a son named "Colonel" John Nicewanger, born in 1742, a first generation American who became a military man. Often pacifist conviction died easily and early on the frontier because of close contact with warfing-Indians. To understand these people we must understand the pioneer spirit. A frontiersman was a law unto himself, able to take care of his family, birth his children, set broken bones, protect his family, and raise a crop to survive. The pioneer spirit caused frontiersmen to �eep on the frontier. --Seldom -did a frontiersman "settle" and allow others to pass him by to settle a further frontier. When he could hear his neighbor's dog barking or see the smoke from another's chimney, he moved on further west. Without a doubt, Virginia Governor Dinwiddie was the strongest of the colonial governors in devising ways to protect Englishmen in North America. Even though there are no French and Indian War battle sites in present day Virginia, many killings and atrocities occurred here. The first hostile forces sent out in the war were Virginians, and the first to shed b)ood were Virginians. Records estimate over 3,000 people from the Valley died or were taken into captivity during this war. A problem surfaced after General Edward Braddock's force of 2,500, including George Washington and 250 Virginians, were ambushed traveling to Fort Duquesne, on the Monongahela, River, in July, 1755. The Braddock Road was cut west toward the Ohio River but ran through the Lower Valley at Winchester. Unintentionally the road also was an avenue for Indian raiding parties traveling east who now perceived the English as cowards and poor fighters. The road ended in the Lower Valley at Winchester, foupded in March 1744. By 20 February 1755 George Washington had written to ask Governor Dinwiddie to increase the support to the frontier and to build a fort at Winchester. Washington said, "The inhabitants who now are in forts are greatly distressed for the want of ammunition and provisions and keep asking me for these. I have none to give and see people in forts without food." Such colonial military failures as Braddock's defeat always were followed by serious Indian raiding upon the frontier. After March 1756 there were twenty skirmishes and over 100 casualties. Washington's troops were spread as thin as two soldiers per mile on this frontier from 1754 to 1757. The years 1755 —1756 will be remembered as the most murderous of frontier life. Cabins and barns in the Valley burned like funeral pyres. Governor Dinwiddie made George Washington command -in -chief of the Virginia forces in August, 1757 and in charge of defenses in the Valley. Adding to Washington's problems was American general distrust of a standing army as well as the pacifist beliefs of the settlers. The solution hit upon was to stay on the defense by constructing a series of forts, blockhouses, ano stockades. This would allow small garrisons in conjunction with local people to protect the settlers. Few forts had been built prior to 1756 but that year saw completion of the majority of forts in the area. Forts were for depots, storage of food and fodder, and rallying points in times of danger. The presence of forts also encouraged people to move into the area. By September of 1757 Fort Loudoun was completed in Winchester on an half acre of land, 96 feet on a side and including four bastions. There were three classes of defensive structures on the frontier. The blockhouse was the most simple, usually a square two-story log building, with the second floor overhanging the first. There were numerous rifle holes in the logs. Nieswander's Fort was probably in this class. The stockade was much stronger than a blockhouse, often a double log structure two stories high, surrounded at a distance by a high fence of stakes or palisade. Forts were the ultimate structure, usually square having a blockhouse at each corner with eac4 blockhouse connected by a palisade fence. Stockades and forts were for garrisons with sleeping arrangements and served as places of refuge for many people. Blockhouses, when not designated to be built in an area, often were made by families. These blockhouse were fabricated by community labor and private funds, and therefore reserved for selected families in time of danger. A situation could arise where a dozen or fewer Indians might cause those owning the blockhouse to flee into it with the clothes on their backs and what they could grab. In March 1756 the Assembly of Virginia authorized the building of a cordon of forts on the frontier, the construction to be overseen by Captain Peter Hog. These structures usually were on the heads of creeks extending toward the Allegheny Mountains. There are several extant lists of these forts describing the number of militia to be stationed there, distance from one to another, and the name the officer in charge. They all had names and geographical location descriptions. Some were built some were not. Fort Nieswander is not one of them. The name Nieswander, in all of its variations of spelling, is not mentioned in connection with this cordon of forts project. The closest was Stephen's Fort on Cedar Creek, ten or fifteen miles from Major Robert White's Fort near the Capon �jver in the North Mountain neighborhood. Even though Washington thought the best defense was a good offense, he was unable to muster enough troops from the locals to take the offense. Washington wrote "Those who now remain are collected in small forts, out of which there is no prevailing on them to stir, end every plantation is deserted." Also there was no cooperation among settlements in the Lower 'Valley. When the people of Hampshire County appealed to Frederick County for help against an impending Indian attack, the people of Frederick County said, "Let Hampshire take care of itself as we will do if we are attacked." In summary the ruins called Nieswander's Fort, if the ruins are of a blockhouse, was a private one reserved for the Nieswander family and friends. Its present location, on a part of the Cedar Creek Battlefield far from a main road, as well as its undocumented history, argue that saving the site would- serve no. historical purpose. January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown APPENDIX C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Located in Middletown, Virginia Prepared for: ON Minerals Chemstone Operation 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, VA 22657 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Endneers. Surveyors, Planners. LcndsccpeArchitects. 300 Foxcroff Avenue, Suite 200 + Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.367671 March 15, 2005 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the rezoning of land parcels located adjacent to the existing Global Stone facility in Middletown, Virginia. Currently, the site accommodates 26 employees per day, 19 Global Stone trucks per day and 50 customer trucks per day. The proposed expansion could increase the number of employees by 14 per day, the number of Global Stone trucks by 80 per day and the number of customer trucks by 56 per day. This report also examines a scenario that would eliminate all Global Stone truck traffic by implementing a conveyer belt system across Cedar Creek. Primary access to the facility will be provided via a single site -driveway located west of the Route 625 (5`h Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street) intersection. The proposed development will be built - out over a single transportation phase by the year 2008. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Global Stone with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Global Stone development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the Global Stone, • Distribution and assignment of the Global Stone generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) conducted manual AM and PM peak hour vehicle classification counts at the intersection of Route 625 (5`h Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street) in Middletown, Virginia. ADT (Average Daily Trips) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 625 (5th Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street). Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P 1� - A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone E Project Number: 11279-2-0 �M March 15, 2005 Page 1 No Scale SITE Figure 2 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) DailyAverage Existing Traffic Conditions A Tmffcc Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 3 No Scale SITE Unsignalized 625 Intersection Sth S�t-eOt 1 11 * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry. and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Aiaah,sis of the Global Stone PH"-- a Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 4 4 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS - Existing traffic volumes were increased along Route 11 using a conservative annual growth rate of two percent (2%) as determined based upon historic traffic growth for the area. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 625 (51h Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street). Figure 5 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. TRIP GENERATION Currently, the Global Stone facility accommodates 26 employees per day, 19 Global Stone trucks per day and 50 customer trucks per day. As a result of the rezoning of adjacent land parcels, the development could increase (at a worst -case) by 14 employees per day; 80 Global Stone trucks per day and 56 customer trucks per day. PHR+A has analyzed two (2) alternative scenarios for the site: 1) Scenario #1 assumes the implementation of a conveyer belt system that would transport material across Cedar Creek whereby eliminating the internal Global Stone truck traffic, 2) Scenario #2 assumes the existing metholdology for transporting material across Cedar Creek (via Global Stone trucks). The trip generation for the Global Stone facility was interpolated from existing traffic counts and assumptions based upon the current and proposed land uses. Table 1 shows the trip generation results for the Global Stone development. Table 1 Global Stone Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Existing 26 Employees 4 5 9 5 4 10 139 19 Global Trucks 3 3 7 4 3 7 101 50 Customer Trucks 8 9 17 11 8 18 267 Total Existing Trips 16 17 33 20 15 35 507 Scenario I (via Conveyer Belt System) 2 3 5 3 2 5 75 40 Employees (+14) 0 Global Trucks (-19) -3 -3 -7 -4 -3 -7 -101 106 Customer Trucks (+56) 9 10 19 12 9 21 299 Worst -case Scenario I Trip Differential +9 +9 +I8 +II +8 +I9 +272 Total (Existing + Scenario 1) 25 26 51 31 23 54 779 Scenario 2 (via Global Stone trucks) 2 3 5 3 2 5 75 40 Employees (+14) 99 Global Trucks (+80) 13 14 28 17 13 29 427 106 Customer Trucks (+56) 9 10 19 12 9 21 299 Worst -case Scenario 2 Trip Differential +25 +27 +52 +32 +24 +55 +80I Total (Existing + Scenario 2) 41 44 85 52 39 90 1,308 _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 ^ March 15, 2005 a Page 5 Average Daily Trips A I raltic Impact AnatySIS of tnc vconat otone Project Number: 11279-2-0 No Scale SITE -I- Unsignalized Intersection * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service P - Rrt-,�a-A.J- A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon existing travel patterns at the Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (5`h Street) intersection. Figure 6 represents the trip distribution percentages into and out of the proposed Global Stone development. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at the intersection of Route 625 / US Route 11 for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Global Stone assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 11 (Main Street)/. Route 625 (5`h Street) for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Global Stone development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS-2000 results_, the intersection of Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (5`h Street) will operate with levels of service `B" or better during 2008 build - out conditions for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. e A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone �L Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 IL Page 8 No Scale 60 % SITE 625 � Stb Str��t 11 40 % LRjR+A Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages s A Traffic Impact Analysis of tlae Global Stone Project Number: 11279 2-0 Y ' March 15, 2005 Page 9 No Scale SITE 625 S p1 J~~~L , P: rjp � i ?1 J, J 11 Note: Negative values are due to the elimination of Global Stone r trucks as result of the conveyor belt system -I- Figure 7a AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) DailyAverage Scenario #1: Trip Assignments R - A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 HMarch 15, 2005 z Page 10 No Scale SITE Figure 7b AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour Average Daily Trips Scenario #2: Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 1 I No Scale SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Dailyi —Average Figure 8a Scenario #1: 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions A_ T -afc ImpactAnalysis of the Global Stone g Project Number: 11279-2-0 HMarch 15, 2005 Page 12 No Scale SITE v AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 � Figure 8b Scenario #2: 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions i A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 13 No Scale SITE Unsignalized Intersection * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9a Scenario #1: 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service P V- - ` � a A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 14 No Scale SITE Unsignalized Intersection LJ�~/ Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9b Scenario #2: 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service �p A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone PH' �/ — Project Number: 11279-2-0 `�` March 15, 2005 Page 15 HCS-2000 Worksheets INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. _ The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps.is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/veh A 510 B >10 and <_15 C > 15 and <_25 D >25 and <35 E >35 and <_50 F >50 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - AWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver is required to stop, the judgment as to whether to proceed into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) approaches. Therefore, a driver proceeds only after determining that there are no vehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. The analysis takes into account the problem of determining, under capacity conditions for a given approach, the factors that influence the rate at which vehicles can depart successfully from the STOP line. Traffic at other approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). In the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of .service for AWSC 'intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for AWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/veh A <10 B >10 and <_15 C >15 and _<25 D >25 and <35 E >35 and <_50 F >50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional' signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Stopped Delay Level of Service per Vehicle (sec) A <] 0.0 B > 10.0 and _<20.0 C >20.0 and <35.0 D >35.0 and <55.0 E >55.0 and <80.0 F >80.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high We ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes. operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be.the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high We ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. it may also occur at high We ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to. such delay levels. 3 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division,107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: O-N Minerals (Chemstone)Telephone: 540-465-6819 Address: 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, Virginia 22657 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: Name: Charles E. Maddox Jr. P E (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 S. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Undeveloped Quarry ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The (Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). 2 ADJOINERS CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained fiom the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2" d floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Property Identification Number (PIN) Address Name: Keith A. & Linda A. McNeely 443 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-10 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Mark A. & Karen Griffith 411 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-9 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Fred & Shirley Potter 379 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-8 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Steven M. & Deborah M. Miller 357 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-7 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Donald J. & Donna W. Hopkins 325 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-6 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Lawrence E. & Wendy J. Hamilton 277 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-5 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jeanne Rapa & Shellie L. Sellards 241 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-4 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Kevin D. & Elizabeth M. Barrington 205 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-3 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Gary S. & Dale A. Nichols 1405 Handley Ave Property#: 84-A-7 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Richard A. & Janet S. Dye 11310 Vale Rd Property#: 84-A-12 Oakton, VA 22124 Name: H & E, LC 1832 Chapel Rd Property #: 84-A-17 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jennifer L. Nichols 1875 Hites Rd Property #: 84-A-17A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Edith M. Renner 152 Veterans Rd Pro ert #: 91-A-7 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC eterans Rd Property#: 84-A-16 etown, VA 22645 PtI, Name: Timothy D. & Lisa M. Rickman Box 695 Pro ert #: 91-A-7A rds Creek, VA 24649 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property#: 83-A-107 Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property#: 83-A-108B Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Dennis F. Boyer 165 Drover Ln Property#: 83-A-108B Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Deborah R. Dorman 9345 River View Rd Property#: 83-A-106 Broomes Island, MD 20615 Name: Rock Builders, Inc P.O. Box 1146 Pro ert #: 83-A-103B Berryville, VA 22611 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property #: 90-A-20 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Richard A. McDonald 470 Meadow Mills Rd Pro ert #: 90-A-30 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Meadow Mills Union Chapel RR 1 Box 446 Property #: 90-A-29 Edinburg, VA 22824 Name: Joseph L. & Frances Kenny 516 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-29A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Thomas G. II & Cornelia E. Lekas 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-28 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Albert H. Hodson 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-27 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Property#: 90-A-33 Washington, DC 20036 Name: Malcom & Mildred G. Brumback 420 Belle Grove Rd Property#: 90-A-26 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Barry L. Bowser P.O. Box 221 Pro ert #: 90-A-25 Middletown, VA 22645 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) kAowledge. Applicant/ / DateA—, :2 Owner4e'r�afts—(Chemsto�ne) GY` o Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Corporation (Phone) 540-465-6819 (Address) 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg,VA 22657 the owners) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 620 on Page 186 and is described as Deed Book 476 on Page 105 and is described as Parcel: Lot:109 Block: A Section: 83 Subdivision: Parcel: Lot: 23 Block: A Section: 90 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates c (Phone) 540-667-2139 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my tale and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-ui-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I have hereto set m our nd and seal this �/ // ) ,20T�t day of �AJ , 2001� , Sienature(s) ;4�" State of Virginia, City/County of a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction ore aid, certi that the person(s) o signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and- as acknowledged the sam before me in th jurisdiction aforesaid thisA _day o , 200�,41P . My Commission Expires: tary Public 'i-14*a7J0� /Z3j''UG=S o 6-77:: c 349. vz 't w'p/ SET r �6.70 iG OOW JCDUn%O v D .. lfJj.�v/7 � � �-S�O ' 75 S'35 za 39':, ✓ SP/ItZ SET Off% 8k/OGE //,x < ." :, ` � ��i /5 ` • Pail✓;- 'y794; ;� vy' o V /, 8. 54 3ro504"' y c.� Z. C> CG G 149.25 Acres No N i1 AU U�..} `J .�) 330.zo Sgrs� agly' 7s Pdosaory 2Q�� f `, 2Z9.LT i 0—lV Minero/s Chemstone Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates, pc ti Southern Reserve Boundary Exhibit 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 O �' FREDERICK COUNTY v/RC/NIA VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 f Gq N/F l I R DB 2?1 L't N. J.J. PI KERALE . PC O/S DB 205, PG 151 548 ��Q co Q 3T� "' 2a c8 m =vo- �V n hL 7 O J 'WLIS wv 4c16 RD a 1a c,3 G\/ � Rl rr N/F � �o c21 D HgRO B ' C25 487 PC 6pYf o N CO ^ 2 W 1 ��6 I Z=N Co �a!� -1 PORTION OF PIN 83-A-109� i - Z� w p ar 1,339,227 SF 489.8812 AC -. REMAINDER OF PIN 83-A-109 n tY Y v°i, a o I 2,159,280 SF 0 a� 49.57025 AC �/ 3 mJ N p Z Uj L29 J �c cid— ti f` LINE TABLE w SEARING LENGTH PZ/& N/F 4 Og ATE c3 a 39'S3'03`E 38'51'18"E 506.08' 423.76' S66 C C PC 2 N S� 39'32'58`E 640.55' 'co 1296.56' „� o 24.61' J j 752.00' 1030.98' 198.00' 1774.42- 3699.27' FS y �`�2 1675.02' G A s0 q�/� 54. 321.85' reTr of 179.03an n ' QlS NOTES: — S50-31.00"W 53.1( L18 S40'01'OO"W 100.31 L19 S43'01'00"W 100.31 L20 S41'46'00"W 100.3( L21 SOB'31'01"W 16.0! L22 S44'46'00"W 54.1 E L23 N60-'26'0-0"W 20.5( L24 S70'49'00"W 23.0' L25 S4422'31 "E 966.2E L26 S44'22'31 "E 1655.16 L27 S48'30'14"W 834.12 L28 S48'54'38"W 569.6E _29 N47'21I22"W 1346.0; L30 S36'29'59"W 1490.61 L31 S36'29'59"W 2939.6C L32 N29'54'46"W 196.4, L33 N3634'41"E 1301.31 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 83-A-109 2. PROPERTY OUTLINE, ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GRAPHIC SCALE 0 500 1000 2000 IN FEET) 1 inch - 1000 ft. a w c THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED OF EXHIBIT BARGAIN AND SALE RECORDED IN A PORTION OF THE DB 620. PG 186 AMONG THE LAND PROPERTY CONVEYED TO 3 RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN CHEMSTONE CORPORATION ' HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A DEED BOOK 620, PAGE 186 CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT v FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA a 3. NO TITLE REPORT. SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 N rn Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. w East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200Uj PH Wi }- Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 + 1 T 540.667.2139 0 o' F 540.665.0493 a_ L § 165-83 ZONING § 165-85 Additional landscaped areas may be required to ensure that all unused areas are landscaped and to improve the general appearance and use of the site. In no case shall more than 25% of the site be required to be landscaped in the B2 Business General Zoning District. ARTICLE XI EM Extractive Manufacturing District § 165-84. Intent. The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing. District is to provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of. natural resources, Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the encroachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District. § 165-85. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be allowed: A. Surface or subsurface mining of rock, metal and nonmetallic ores. B. Oil and natural gas extraction and/or pumping, including storage of production produced on the site. No refining is allowed. C. Sand and gravel mining and processing. D. Crushed stone operations. E. Manufacture and processing of cement, lime and gypsum, (Cont'd on page 16625) 16624.9 12-15-2004 § 165-85 ZONING § 165-88 F. Asphalt and concrete mixing plants. G. Brick, block and precast concrete products. H. Farming, agriculture, orchards, nurseries, horticulture, dairying and forestry. I. Accessory uses. J. Business and directional signs. K. Public utilities, including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters and sewer facilities. § 165-86. Performance standards. All uses shall conform to applicable state or federal regulations governing noise and vibration. The Zoning Administrator may require the submission of a copy of data submitted to state or federal agencies pertaining to these performance standards with the required site plan. § 165-87. Landscaping. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust or other adverse impacts. § 165-88. Setback and yard requirements. A. Front setback. (1) All principle and accessory structures shall be set back seventy- five (75) feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. The Planning Commis- sion may reduce the required front setback for excavation to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. 16625 § 165-88 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-90 B. Side and rear setbacks. All principle and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from any side or rear property boundary. (1) No structure shall be closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property line zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH 1. The Planning Commission may reduce this required setback to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH 1. No excavation shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling or platted residential subdivision. The Planning Commission may reduce these required setbacks to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (3) All crushing or screening machinery shall be set back at least three hundred (300) feet from any property boundary. If such equipment is fully enclosed within a building which maintains the effective protection afforded adjacent properties, the Planning Commission may reduce this yard requirement to a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. § 165-89. Height limitations. No structure shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height. § 165-90. Additional requirements. All uses in the EM District must conform with all state, federal and local regulations. All mining operators shall submit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the operations plan required by state agencies with the required site plan. 16626 3ATTLEFIELr fl$] ?I j'jff �§]WA IEDERICK CC ®1aililliffl- J'Ii• `��J�'i,:•'Ii �1 ,`err- _.iA'i` r• �!f�r 4W _ Recommendations for Local Planning Significant intensification of uses should be avoided in the undevel- oped core battlefield areas of Cedar Creek, Third Winchester, and Kernstown, except where current Comprehensive Plans call for such an intensification. Undeveloped core battlefield areas currently outside of the Urban Development Area or other development designations should not be designated for urban development in Comprehensive Plans. Rezonings should be avoided in undeveloped core battlefield areas where those rezonings would result i rural areas. n uses not normally found in Changes to more intensive uses in and around pristine battlefield core areas should involve the inclusion of the land in a historic overlay zoning district to control the appearance of such uses and to protect viewsheds. Special care should be taken to protect the key battlefield sites iden- tified by this plan and to avoid unnecessary distractions from the historic character of those sites. 22 �1� 1 I I I I I I I I Frederick County, there are approximately 12,000 acres of battlefield core areas that retain historic integrity. These core areas include some Table 4 Battlefieid Study anti core Areas in Frederick Count% and Winchestei- Study Area Core Area Retaining Integrity I °�o Retaining Integrity Integrity Lost % In et g7 tti Battlefield (acres) (acres) (core acres) (core area (core acres) Lost (core area) Cedar Creek 15,607 6,252 5,601 89.6% 651 Opequon 11,670 4,914 2,321 47.2% 2,593 10.40/( 52 8% 2nd Winchester 22,274 3, 113 1,624 52.2% 1 489 ° 6 47.8 2nd Kernstown 5,861 2,203 1,098 49.8% � 1105 io 50.20110 Ist Winchester 4,041 1,393 301 21.6°ro 1,092 78.40,0 1st Kernstown 4,029 1,554 1,097 70.6% 457 29.4°% Total 63,4821 19,429 12,042 62.0% 7,387 38.0% >ource: National Park Service, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley Virg, >eptember, 1992 of in pristine areas where very significant battlefield events occurred. Cedar Creek After the Confederate defeat at the Third Battle of Winchester on Sep- tember 19 and at Fisher's Hill on September 22, 1864, Jubal Early knew that he must successfully engage General Philip Sheridan. Early knew that he needed to prevent Sheridan from returning detachments of his force to General Grant, who at the time was opposing General Robert E. Lee at Petersburg,. He knew that to accomplish this task, he would have to mount an offensive against Sheridan at Cedar Creek. In October of 1864, General Philip H. Sheridan was called to Wash- ington, leaving General Horatio G. Wright in command of a Union force of 45,000 men. General Jubal A. Early's Confederate force, now 18,000 strong, was monitoring the movements of the Union troops. Early on the morning of the 19th, hidden by fog, the Confederate forces attacked the Union VIII Corps with a terrifying rebel yell. The Union troops were quickly routed, with their southern flank battered by General J. B. Kershaw's Confederate troops coming north from Bowman's Mill. From the west, General G.C. Wharton's Confederate 24 0_,Z, -Y4 Ir Z troops swept the Union X IX Corps to the northeast. At the far western end of the battle, General T. L. Rosser's cavalry encountered Custer's unit and drove them to the east. Colonel T. H. Carter's artillery, positioned on Hupp's Hill, bombarded Union positions. Most of the Union army panicked and fled. The only organized resistance the Confederates encountered was the Second Di- vision of the Union VI Corps led by General George W. Getty. The Second Division made three valiant stands: first at the southern end of the ridge at Cemetery Hill, then along Old Furnace Road running west, from where Lord Fairfax Community College is today, and eventually holding a line half a mile north of Old Furnace Road. Confederate victory seemed certain at this point. Fresh from his trip from Wash- ington the night before, Sheridan rode from Winchester to the bat- tlefield and arrived about 10:30 a.m. He established his com- mand post near the Valley Pike and began to reorganize his forces. The VI Corps was on the left, adjacent to the Valley Pike with the XIX Corps on the right. Sheridan rode along the reestab- lished battle line as the troops re- sponded with a mighty cheer. During the early afternoon, Early attacked along the Union line. lle B His failure to defeat the Union forces ear- eGrove, on the Cedar Creek Battlefield lier in the day proved fatal as his troops were thrown back. At about 4:30 p.m., Sheridan ordered General Getty to lead an attack with the VI Corps. After much desperate fighting, Getty's troops broke the Confederate line. The entire Confederate army fled south back across Cedar Creek to Strasburg and beyond. The Union pursuit continued after dark, ending at Fisher's Hill. The Confederates suffered 2,910 casualties: 320 killed, 1,540 wounded, and 1,050 missing. The Union forces snatched victory from the jaws of defeat that day, but the price was high. The Union suffered 5,665 casualties: 644 killed, 3,430 wounded, and 1,591 missing. Early's defeat at Cedar Creek ended Confederate efforts to invade the north, and Sheridan's string of victories in the Shenandoah Valley 26 rr we WN ks continued. The victory at Cedar Creek, along with the fall of Atlanta, helped reelect President Lincoln. The Cedar Creek battlefield area incorporates a long stretch of land along Route 11 South, from Cedar Creek to the north of Middletown. Focal points of fighting were at Belle Grove, the Heater House, Ceme- tery Hill, Dinges Farm, and the D. J. Miller House. The Cedar Creek Foundation has purchased 158 acres of the battlefield sites including land surrounding and to the immediate north of Belle Grove. This site includes the Heater House. Additional land to the south of Belle Grove has been targeted for possible preservation to protect view - sheds, remaining earthworks, and other significant areas. Other sig- nificant areas include the historic Town of Middletown and areas to the west and north of Middletown. The Mount Carmel Cemetery on Cemetery Hill is a particularly significant. Much of the Cedar Creek core area remains undeveloped, rural and pristine. Scattered single family residential development has occurred. The Chemstone Corporation quarry is located and operated in the Strategies For Cedar Creek Provide funding and other support to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in their efforts to acquire, preserve and use battlefield land. Do not rezone land in the Cedar Creek battlefield core area for uses that are not nor- mally found in rural areas. Work closely with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to prepare a resource man- agement plan for the Cedar Creek battlefield which describes appropriate preservation treatment for structures, earthworks and other features. Such planning should include a professional evaluation of appropriate stabilization and preservation treatments. Work closely with the Town of Middletown to promote the Town as a center of visitor services and as a vital part of the historic interpretation. Work closely with the Chemstone Corporation to enlist their support and to address ap- pearance issues. Use Cedar Creek as an important demonstration area to show the type of progress that can be made. 27 G southwestern portions of the core area. The Town of Middletown is central to the core area and retains significant historic character. Third Winchester / 0mou On September 19, 1864, Union soldiers under the command of Gen- eral Philip H. Sheridan crossed the Opequon Creek along Berryville Pike with the hopes of destroying General Jubal Early's Confederate troops. General Early had sent General John Gordon and General Robert Rodes and their divisions to Martinsburg to launch attacks in Maryland, leaving the Confederate forces in Winchester at less than half strength. General Sheridan planned to have two cavalry divisions strike from the north and the VIII Corps from the south. The main attack was to come from the east, with the VI and XIX Corps, who had to navigate the narrow Berryville Canyon. The Un- ion infantry, with their wagons bogged down in the narrow confines of Berry- ville Canyon, dashed Sheridan's hopes of quickly taking Winchester. This kept the XIX Corps in the canyon until after- noon. By this time, General Early had discovered the Union plans and had re- called both Gordon and Rodes. ® The currently pristine areas to the east of the Hackwood House were the scene of intense fighting in the Third Battle of Winchester. At about noon on the 19th, a Union division of four brigades led by Birge, Molineux, Sharpe, and Shunk launched its attack from the n ■ First Woods at Third Winchester First Woods, on the Nash, Caleb Heights, Huntsberry, and Regency properties, across the Middle Field, on the Huntsberry and Caleb Heights property, toward the Second Woods, where General Gordon's Confederate troops waited. Confederate artillery north of Redbud Run played havoc with the flanks of the Union attacking line. Birge's brigade reached the Second Woods, on the Hackwood, Caleb Heights, and Regency properties, and came upon General Gordon's main line and were staggered. 29 %.Pr.Dr. Lana Status Legend Park stifts Park svvirm Partner Pte5,er%vd pirdma Strasburg 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 klbmabam ` Ivlslotl of Mineral Resources - Plaimers Inforinatioil llttp://www.iiiiiie.state.Va.Lls/drill'/DOCS/Plan/plaii3.litilll t�if�5� Z�-F :•ySid�» Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy Fontaine Research Parlc, 900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 500 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PIIIT.®S®PHY ®IF PEAl®TNIl�" 'I'® ACCO'"M M®-11 )"ATE AGGIZEGATE EX'TRACTI®N Ensuring adequate aggregate supplies for the future requires creating a balance between the economic development needs of the region and local community needs and sensibilities. A pragmatic planning philosophy begins by noting that preserving local sources for aggregate is in the community's best interest because: m Aggregate is essential to our society, for building roads, schools, houses, shopping centers, etc. o Aggregate is bulky and, therefore, expensive to transport. Delivery of aggregate 10 to.25 miles can double its price, 50 miles delivery distance can triple its price. For a large metropolitan area such as northern Virginia, extra transport costs could cost taxpayers on the order of $50 to $100 million per year, if aggregate had to be transported in from surrounding states. ® Aggregate extraction is a capital intensive industry, requiring lengthy time scales for planning and amortization of equipment. Thus, sufficient long term (25 to 50 years) reserve needs to be secured. * Over half and as much as 75 percent or more of aggregate use in a community is ultimately paid for by the taxpayer for roads, schools, public buildings, dams, and other necessities for both urban development and rural life. r�, ri,► „ Any aggregate resource plan has to balance protection of environmental resources and the impact of mineral extraction. This balance is best achieved by: Involving all interested groups in the decision -malting process. This can be done through advisory committees, working groups to establish criteria for decision -making, and direct involvement through public meetings. Placing emphasis on the fact that aggregate extraction is a transitory land use. Planning should emphasize a sequence of land use in which quarrying, after reclamation, is replaced by recreational or residential uses. Planning reclamation strategies decades ahead of time (even before mining has been initiated) using community input to decide on final land use. Uses of quarry sites as water reservoirs, recreational lakes, park lands, or industrial sites should be considered. Establishing buffer zones around extraction sites to minimize concerns over truck traffic, noise, and dust associated with future extraction activities. In addition, cooperative planning with industry can successfully minimize the negative affects using landscaping and other proven strategies. Before any meaningful plan for ensuring future aggregate resources can be made, an aggregate resource identification program must be carried out. This is a purely regional geological problem and is best done by the state geological surveys (in Virginia, the Division of Mineral Resources). Such an identification program requires detailed, modern 1 of 2 3/31/2006 2:07 PM tAvision of Mineral Resources - Planners hiformation littp://www.iiiiiie.state.va.Lis/cliiii-/DOCS/Pl iii/pIaii3.litiiiI geological mapping using a skilled multidisciplinary team of geologists experienced with the regional geology. Modern geological resource mapping utilizes all the tools available to a geologist including: digital mapping techniques, satellite remote sensing data (including multi -spectral and radar imagery), GPS locational control, and relevant engineering test data. It is important that mineral resource identification be carried out by an organization that is independent and impartial. Next - Developing a Plan DMME Home I DMR Home I Return to Information for Planners Division of Mineral Resources Fontaine Research Park,, 900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 500 Charlottesville Va 22903 Sales Office: (lad) 951-6341 FAX: (434) 951-6365 Sales Flours: 8: 00 AM- 4:30 PM Mon. - Fri. Geologic Information: (434) 951-6342 2 of 2 3/31/2006 2:07 PM Virginia Stormwater Management Program littp://www.dci-.vii-ginil.gov/sw//storiiiwat.htii f DCR home > S&W index > Stormwater Management Quick links search site Intro, Overviewx-ni4 ter Cuil �s-�a, �g�ry(r,._g.�,�,NPSPollution OilwJ per' 7k�i.6 Adopt -a -Stream CREP Virginia irginia Stormwater E&S Control �q ��y� ®per Nutrient Management Program Management Swcos Program Overview 1 Regulated Activities I SWM Programs 1 SWM Program Support I Handbook shoreline Erosion Publications/Downloads I SWM Permitting Advice Stormwater Management, The 2004 Virginia General Assembly unanimous) 9 Y y passed House Bill 1177 transferring VSMP Permitting regulatory authority of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs Water Quality related to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) and construction activities from the Improvement Act State Water Control Board to the Soil and Water Conservation Board and transferred oversight of these programs from the Department of Environmental Quality to the Department of - Conservation and Recreation. This transfer became effective January 29, 2005. As a result, DCR is responsible for the issuance, denial, revocation, termination and enforcement of NPDES permits for the control of stormwater discharges from MS4s and land disturbing activities under Expanded Program the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. The Department of Environmental g 9 9 P Quality Listing continues to manage the remaining NPDES program. Click here to visit the Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permitting web page. Stormwater Management The Virginia Stormwater Management Program seeks to protect properties and aquatic resources from damages caused by increased volume, frequency and peak rate of stormwater runoff. Further, the program seeks to protect those resources from increased nonpoint source pollution carried by stormwater runoff. Quantity of Stormwater Runoff - Pervious surfaces, such as meadows and woodlands, absorb and infiltrate rainfall hence generate little runoff. Urban landscape typically covers such areas with impervious surfaces, such as pavement and rooftops. These impervious surfaces generate runoff every time it rains. (A typical city block generates nine times more runoff than a woodland area of the same size!) The quantity of runoff from these areas quickly overwhelms natural channels and streams, often causing channel erosion, localized flooding and property damage. Quality of Stormwater Runoff - The pervious and impervious surfaces in the urbanizing landscape collect pollutants such as automobile oil, grease, brake pad dust, sediment from construction sites, bacteria from animal waste, excess lawn care fertilizers and pesticides, as well as atmospheric deposition of phosphorus, nitrogen and other airborne pollutants. Rainfall washes these surfaces so that the initial flush of runoff can carry high concentrations of these pollutants to nearby drinking water supplies, waterways, beaches and properties. Pollution washed from the land surface by rainfall is called nonpoint source pollution. Click here to learn about an informational brochure and associated video entitled After the Storm, co -produced by the Weather Channel and EPA. These items can be used by localities to fulfill public outreach requirements under the permitting program. To address concerns associated with the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from developed landscape, the Virginia General Assembly in 1990 established Virginia's Stormwater Management (SWM) Program. Program Overview SWM programs are implemented according to the Virginia Stormwater Management Law and Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (VSWML&R). The law is codified at Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Regulations are found at Section 4VAC3-20 of the Virginia Administrative Code. rClick I of 4 5/3/2006 11:07 AM Virginia Stormwater Management Program Q litip://www.dcr.viii-giiiia.gov/sw//stoi*iiiwat.htii here for associated download(s).1 These statutes specifically set forth regulations regarding land development activities to prevent water pollution, stream channel erosion, depletion of groundwater resources, and more frequent localized flooding to protect property value and natural resources. SWM programs operated according to the law are intended to address these adverse impacts and comprehensively manage the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff on a watershed -wide basis. Regulated Activities Residential, commercial, industrial or institutional land development and conversion activities that involve land -clearing or soil movement are regulated. However, the following activities are exempt: 1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations; 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops; 3. Single-family residences or modifications to existing residences not part of a subdivision; 4. Land development projects that disturb less than one acre, unless lowered by the locality; and 5. Linear development projects, provided that (i) less than one acre of land will be disturbed per outfall or watershed, (ii) there will be insignificant increases in peak flow rates, and (iii) there are no existing or anticipated flooding or erosion problems downstream from the discharge point. SWM Programs DCR oversees regulated activities undertaken on state and federal property, while localities (counties, cities, towns) have the option to establish a local SWM program to regulate these same activities on private property in their jurisdiction. State stormwater regulations promote consistency among local SWM programs by developing technical criteria and administrative procedures with which property owners and agents must comply. Specifically, land development and land use conversion activities must prepare and seek approval of a SWM plan, also referred to as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by EPA, that describes all SWM controls and policies to be used to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from the activity. The regulations also provide a framework for regional (watershed -wide) stormwater plans. Regional plans allow for the strategic placement of stormwater controls to achieve stormwater quality and quantity benefits for large areas. The regulations were written so that all parties will work together to implement a consistent program to restore and protect watersheds across political boundaries, A Virginia Stormwater Management Model Ordinance has been written to help communities develop and implement their own stormwater management ordinance to be consistent with the law and regulations. rClick here for associated download(s).1 DCR SWM Program Support ' DCR's SWM Program develops technical criteria and policies to support statewide implementation of the program. DCR engineers serve as the approval authority for SWM plans for projects on state and federal lands and inspect these projects to ensure compliance. Staff engineers also help localities, whether or not they have adopted an SWM program in accordance with VSWML&R, by reviewing ordinances and programmatic guidance and providing technical assistance to ensure compliance and to promote innovative, cost-effective solutions for protecting natural resources. [Click here for associated download(s).] Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook DCR in 1999 published the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook to serve as the primary guidance for SWM programs regarding basic hydrology and hydraulics, stormwater best management practice design and efficiency, and administrative guidelines to support compliance with state stormwater regulations. Also available are several associated technical bulletins not addressed in the handbook. rClick here for associated download(s).1 Pubi!cations/ Downloads Download Guidance Publications in support of the Stormwater Management Program are available for download (or order 2 of 4 5/3/2006 l 1:07 AM Virginia Stormwater Management Programf littp://wwvv.dei•.vii-giiiia.gov/sA,//stoi'nlwat.litii forms for the document) in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) below. Version 4.0 or later of the free Adobe Acrobat Reader Software is required to download these documents. Adobe Acrobat Reader 5 is available from the Adobe website. To save a PDF document, right -click on the link below and save the "target" file to your computer. Users with a standard phone line connection and/or an older PC, should download documents by section whenever that option is provided to reduce download time and ensure intact files. DCR Urban Program Contacts Reference provides contact information and service areas for DCR's Central and Watershed Offices SWM staff across the state. Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginia's Streams, Lakes and Watersheds - click here (270K) Local Stormwater Management Program Review Checklist - click here (10K) Report on 2003 Low Impact Development Workshops - click here (PDF, off -site) Stormwater Management Enforcement Manual (PDF) Virginia Stormwater Management Law, effective, July 1, 2001 (31K). Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, effective July 1, 2001 (57K). Virginia Stormwater Utility Law, effective July 1, 2001 (18K). Note that an official, unedited text of these SWM statutes can be accessed at the Division of Legislative Services website. VSMP Construction Permit Inspection Report and Stormwater Pro rams Site Inspection Report (DCR199-169.pdf, PDF) VSMP Construction Permit Inspection Report and Stormwater Programs Site Inspection Report, detailed version (DCR199-170.pdf, PDF) Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, Volumes 1 and 2, First Edition, 1999 - Download options: Order Form for hardcopy of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, Volumes 1 and 2, First Edition, 1999 (45K). By Volume Volume I - Intro and Chapters 1-3, complete (16.0 MB) Volume II - Chapters 4-6 and Glossary, complete (20 MB) By Chapter Chapter 1 - Program overview (572K) Chapter 2 - Stormwater and Urban BMPs (518K) Chapter 3 - Minimum Standards - design specs, maintenance requirements, etc. (14.7 MB) NOTE. the following downloads are the 14 subsections and Appendix that constitute Chapter 3. 3.01 Earthen Embankments (419K) 3.02 Principal Spillways (641K) 3.03 Vegetated Emergency Spillway (238K) 3.04 Sediment Forebay (258K) 3.05 Landscaping (432K) 3.06 Retention Basins (483K) 3.07 Extended Detention Basin (722K) 3.08 Detention Basin (to be provided later) 3.09 Constructed Wetlands (389K) 3.10 Infiltration Practices (760K) 3.11 Bio-Retention (1,921K) 3.12 Sand Filters (3,889K) 3.13 Grassed Swale (459K) 3.14 Vegetated Filter Strip (718K) 3.15 Manufactured BMP SVstems (3.4 MB) Chapter 3 Appendix (17214) Chapter 4 - Hydrologic Methods (8.9 MB) 3 of 4 5/3/2006 11:07 AM Virginia Stormwater Management Ppgram http://www.dcr.virgiiiia.gov/sw//storiiiwat.litil f Chapter 5 - Engineering Calculations (10 MB) Chapter 6 - Example Problems (5 MB) Glossary (176K) Virginia Stormwater Management Program - Technical Bulletins Technical Bulletin #1: Stream Channel Erosion Policy Guidance (59K) Technical Bulletin #2: Hydrologic Modeling and Design in Karst (49K) Technical Bulletin #3: Minimum Standard 3.10E - Plastic Chamber Systems (500K) Technical Bulletin #4: Performance- and Technology -Based Water Quality Criterion (260K) Technical Bulletin #6: Minimum Standard 3.11C - Filterra Bioretention Filter System (243K) Technical Bulletin #7: Minimum Standard 3,02 - Principal Spillway Trash Racks (155K) Technical Bulletin #8: Vector Control, Mosquitoes and Stormwater Management (36K) Virginia Stormwater Management Model Ordinance - click here (310K) Questions about the Virginia Stormwater Management Program or Erosion and Sediment Control Program? Just write SWMESquestions@dcr.virginia.gov. DCR home page DCR Home a State Parks 19 Soil & Water Conservation k Natural Heritage 12 Dam Safety, Floodplain Management 6 Recreation Planning fl Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance R Boards, Foundations 5 Land Conservation Last modified 4/20/06 . Address general inquiries to pco@dcr.virginia.gov. DCR's central phone number is (804) 786-1712. The agency's address is: Department of Conservation and Recreation 203 Governor Street, Suite 213 Richmond, VA 23219-2094 Please send website comments to webmaster. 4 of 5/3/2006 11:07 AM COUNTY of FR19DL, RICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 TO: Board of Supervisors Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Correspondence Regarding O-N Minerals Rezoning Application DATE: May 12, 2006 Please find enclosed correspondence from Mr. Woodward S. Bousquet regarding the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application (RZ# 03-06). Mr. Bousquet asked that the letter which pertains to the environmental evaluation of the rezoning application be forwarded to the Planning Conunission and Board of Supervisors for your information. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the letter or the rezoning application. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 APR 2 5 2006 UNIVEDITY April 22, 2006 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 re. Rezoning Application #03-06, O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Dear Mr. Ruddy: I attended the Frederick County Planning Commission's public hearing on April 5 regarding rezoning application #03-06 (O-N Minerals, Chemstone). In response to the request you made at the end of the meeting, I am submitting questions and comments about the application for consideration by the planning staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. These remarks are based upon my familiarity with Cedar Creek and its surrounding watershed that comes, in large part, from an ecological assessment that I conducted with four undergraduates in Shenandoah University's Environmental Studies Program in 2004. Our studies focused on evaluating water quality and on identifying ecological communities and habitats throughout the watershed in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties. We conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Potomac Conservancy, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Natural Heritage Program. Our findings are contained in Cedar Creek Revealed. A Study of the Ecological and Historic Context of Cedar Creek, a report released by the Potomac Conservancy this past December. I have provided copies of this report to you, to Mr. Chuck Maddox (Patton Harris Rust & Associates) and to Mr. Karl Everett (Environmental Health and Safety Manager, O-N Minerals). I understand that the Potomac Conservancy has provided copies to members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Additional copies are available from the Conservancy's Winchester office, 19 West Cork St., 667-3606. My interest in the area has continued since our 2004 project. Under my supervision, another group of Shenandoah undergraduates will begin a second round of studies in Cedar Creek and its watershed next month. The comments that follow are my personal questions and recommendations only; as such, they do not constitute an official position of Shenandoah University. 1460 University Drive, Winchester, VA 22601-5195 1 www.su.edu 1. Review evaluations. In regard to the review evaluations listed on pp. 2-3 of the planning staff report dated March 20, 2006, I am surprised that the VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), the Virginia Natural Heritage Program, and the Army Corps of Engineers were not invited to review the Chemstone rezoning request. The project has potential impacts on water quality, wetlands, floodplains and terrestrial habitats. Question: Why weren't any of these agencies part of the review and evaluation process for a 600-plus-acre rezoning application? Recommendation: Staff members in these agencies possess the expertise to identify and evaluate those environmental impacts and then advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors accordingly. These agencies need to be consulted in regard to a project of this magnitude. 2. Environmental protection goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The rezoning application and the report by the Frederick County planning staff makes several references to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Among the elements of the Plan directly referenced are those pertaining to agriculture (Comprehensive Plan, p. 6-55), mining operations (p.p. 6-9-11- 72), rural businesses (p. 6-60), water supply (pp. 5-3-4), historic resources (pp. 2-11-13) and transportation (pp. 7-1). Other relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan are not addressed. These are provisions (pp. 5-8-9) that pertain to environmental quality. They include the following three goals: • Protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity. • Provide for development according to the capacity of the natural environment to carry that development. • Identify and protect important natural resources. Among the implementation methods and proposed actions listed in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9, 10-9) to achieve these goals are: • Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas. • Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment. • Continue to require that information on carrying capacity be included with development proposals and use that information to evaluate the impacts of the proposals. Question: Why are these goals and implementation methods not specifically addressed in the staff report and rezoning application? Recommendation: Protecting environmental quality is an essential component of the Plan's primary goal, "to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County" (p. 1-1). It is also a worthwhile end for its own sake. Rezoning applications and staff reviews need to include greater attention to these commendable goals when, as in this case, the impacts are potentially substantial. 2 3. Impact analysis. The rezoning application provides an Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation dated February 2006. This document draws from the Potential Impact Analysis prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in August 2002 and included as Appendix A. Such analyses should enable the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to determine how well a proposed rezoning or development enables the County to meet the three goals related to environmental protection that appear in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9). In fact, the Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that the, "scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (ES) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." In my opinion, the Impact Analysis Statement and the appended SAIC study — while informative in many respects — are inadequate in others: a. Lack of limitations on the scope of operations. I agree with the planning staff s reservations (rezoning report, pp. 6-7) about the maximum scope of operations that could take place if the proposed rezoning is approved. Recommendations: First, I recommend that maps accompanying the rezoning application should designate specific areas that will not be disturbed, including not only historic sites but also stream beds, riparian zones, flood plains, steep slopes and distinctive ecological communities. Second, the applicant should be required to guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning (if approved) will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the SAIC Impact Statement and the additional impacts identified through further analyses I recommend in Item 1 above, and in Items 3b and 3c below). b. Inadequate analysis of steep slopes, forests and other ecological features on the Northern Reserves. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 3.1-Affected Environment (Forests) states: The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community ... [and this] site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar of the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. [emphasis added] However, Global Stone's Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that no steep slopes greater than 50% are present. Although I have not conducted actual slope measurements, a May 2005 kayak trip I made down Cedar Creek past the Northern Reserves, plus my examination of the topographic map and aerial photography, indicates that steep slopes are indeed present on the property. The limestone bluffs and cliffs that rise steeply from Cedar Creek's edge to the uplands above are one of the scenic, although little-known, gems of the Shenandoah Valley. Their ecological characteristics are also noteworthy. Our 2004 investigations at Cedar Creek Battlefield sites approximately a mile from the Northern Reserves showed that the limestone -based slopes and the adjacent forested uplands represent some of the watershed's most diverse ecological communities. Distinctive bluff vegetation includes arborvitae trees (Thuja occidentalis) and the globally imperiled shrub Canby's mountain lover (Paxistima canbyi). The deciduous forests above contain an impressive variety of plant species (over 100 in a single 400 square -meter plot, for instance) including five not previously recorded in Frederick County. Recommendation: It is probable that the scenic and ecological characteristics of the Northern Reserves are similar to the areas Shenandoah University investigated in 2004. The Northern Reserves and Middle Marsh properties need to be more thoroughly evaluated, and their environmental features identified. Such areas represent distinctive elements of Frederick County's natural heritage. They are likely to be compromised by the development that would follow the proposed rezoning. These scenic and ecological features need to be afforded the same protection that is proposed for historic resources and for environmental features already identified in the rezoning application. (The latter are discussed on pp. 4-5 of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's Impact Analysis Statement.) c. Inadequate Analysis of Potential Impacts on Surface Water. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 4-Streams (p. 6) states that an estimated 793 of 10,984 linear feet of stream channel in the Middle Marsh property (i.e., Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook) could be impacted by quarrying and associated operations such as stockpiles, berms, spoil piles and buildings. A table in the Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (p. 4) indicates that 0 of 8,921 linear feet of streams in the Northern Reserves (i.e., Cedar Creek) could be affected. The Impact Analysis Statement further states (pp. 4-5): Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features from deleterious impact. ... Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Office and all applicable state and federal regulations. ... Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited [as per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance] ... which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected in the SAIC study. Despite increasing development in the watershed, studies by Shenandoah University and by the Friends of the Shenandoah River show that Cedar Creek's water quality is among the best in the Shenandoah Valley. It is appropriate that the applicant's analyses for the Chemstone rezoning are designed to include the impacts not only of the quarrying itself but also of the associated buildings, roads, stockpiles and so forth. I also appreciate the fact that the applicant intends to limit encroachment in riparian areas. I found it difficult, however, to interpret the small (letter size) aerial photographs I examined that depicted the areas of potential impacts to the two sites. This limited my ability to evaluate discussions provided by the applicant and the planning staff. If the Chemstone rezoning is approved, my concerns are that the eventual impacts on surface water quality and stream habitats could be much greater than those identified in the rezoning application if actual excavation and associated operations extend beyond the areas "projected" 4 and "estimated" by the applicant. If the steep cliffs above Cedar Creek, for instance, are disturbed, the riparian zone and Cedar Creek could be severely compromised. If mitigation and erosion -sedimentation control measures along Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are inadequate, these streams could be compromised as well. Questions: What government agencies (local, federal, state) will monitor the construction, operation and reclamation of the quarrying operations on these two sites? How often will on -site inspection and environmental monitoring occur? Recommendations: First, if the applicant will not limit industrial operations to the type and extent described in the application (see p. 6 of the planning staff s rezoning report, and Item 3a above), then the applicant should evaluate the maximum potential impacts on water quality and other characteristics that could occur after the rezoning, if approved. Second, the applicant should guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the application. Without these evaluations and guarantees, it does not appear possible to assure that streams and other features on and adjacent to the site will be adequately protected. 4. Impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek. Impacts on the viewshed from historic sites and the surrounding community are discussed in several parts of the application materials including the planning staff's rezoning report (pp. 6, 10) and the applicant's proffer statement (p. 2). However, impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek itself are not addressed. Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential, while they may be under -appreciated, have not gone unnoticed. For instance, Ed Grove's whitewater canoeing guidebook Classic Virginia Rivers (Eddy Out Press, 1992) describes Cedar Creek as, "perhaps the best trip for shepherded novices in the state," and states that an adjacent stream section is "a positively delightful trip for all who love nature". Fishing occurs at many places along the creek. Recommendation: Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential should not be compromised. In considering the Chemstone rezoning application, the potential impacts on the viewshed from Cedar Creek should be given the same attention as other viewsheds, as should provisions to avoid damaging the creek's aesthetic and recreational qualities. 5. Mitigating impacts on groundwater — In its proffer statement, O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (Section 5.2, p. 3) agrees to, "remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations...." Question: Although I teach environmental science courses, I am not a professional hydrologist. Nevertheless, I am curious about the burden of proof in the event that adjacent wells appear to be affected. Wells run dry for reasons other than adjacent quarrying operations. How will it be determined that impacts to wells are caused by mining operations? 5 Thank you for considering these observations, questions and recommendations. Please contact me if you would like further information. Sin erely, ��LaS- & Woodward S. Bousque �j Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology Coordinator, Environmental Studies Program cc: Mr. Karl Everett, O-N Minerals Chemstone Operation Mr. Chuck Maddox, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Ms. Heather Richards, Potomac Conservancy Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission n PO�TF✓NTIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MINING - MIDD -MAR S AND r- RESERVES PROPERTIES N' a ay t1 L A. 1 i f 1 ob 217 OIiY OaA01UY — • �� ! �: 1 i \•`�' � sue.-. ? _ .._.- it _ « 3. t ,P'repaed for I ,� G.V. -cliff Assoradites, Inc. • 117 E. P' y Street; .Suite 200 'hester.; Virginia 2260IV August 20� Prepared b. cience Applicationsnter Corporation - 1 A ....sS Parizway South, $ti�te 10-- ` Westaninster, Maryland�57 MIDDLE MARSH PROPERLY Tow; Aram - 533 Aces Po:ekbal Impact Area ='38 Acres PeteMial We'.tand Area = .3 Acres l !' Pctential Wecadd Impact - None '`�T' � • "err � � < t, f_. i �''.,,, � o. � ,> a y ��.t S FF • "` - " i k [ iiiP r it Chemstone NoRlfem Rowtvry_ :•" "1 t Teta Area - 158 Acres . 1 Pctenaal Impact Area = 45Acros _ S, i —11A �\ Potential Wetland Area = 1.6Aces +� r i (j •F \ ,�f -�+ .r `�4 `�' . • Potent4 Wetland Impact = < 1 Acres "k .. I ., �'�ir'f � Yam. .\, ..,:� f xi3, a1�s• ,�` -.. s k' " '. ...tom It »• _ _ - -is ice' , `' \ , �V . � � y,,; "° `✓•. ► NWM i� ..,.. ;a.......��......»» �' ........ « .�......>• ��..a...,.,.. -..._� . ...aw. aevao a huts AL f MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY - Total Area = 533 Acres t' ,� •� Potential Impact Area 138 Acres Llatxe Woodard Area = 38 Acres _ 9 ' �- - ♦ , =y� Potential Impact Area - Nona a/o\ �ti.. Y•' fit. ,�r r � ,f I � �� �� '• �}.' F \ , 3 Chemstone Northern Resww Total Ame = 158 Acres Potential ImWl Met - 45 Acres '! \ Alatuna Woodano Area = 63 Aces + Potential I nlpect Area = B Aces K . = ` fiPL*iw`; .`.�•` ! f \� \sir a �.-Cv+ s1..� + •i; - dk v~ '''♦°/t`��; ♦rat .d-rr •wwr n�.r n .Kwuwnvw <�1-w�•o:ure. .w. •r•••-•••o••�vu• r•+r�� -_� .=..ua .. w. rn. .�. •.r,r». . ....rr.re•.'e...x..-.,... •rr..,... •.. irt,n u•, ..r �.a. r•w x.,... ..., .w..• ... �_ . ..� .. PORWW AWAS 2 "Z ANDDLEAMRSH PROPERTY Total Area 533 Acres L. Potential Impact Area = 138 Acres Streams = 10, 984 Feet Potential Stream Impact = 723Fe F,,o00p;ainAw = 89 Acres Petenba FIDCCD'ar, is-, a:; kez II Aces N&- ChemsIC06 Northem Reserve Toia, A -ea = 162 Aci- Potential Mining Area = 35 Acres, Streams 8.921 Feet Potential Stream Impact = t4,M Ro3dplam Area - 36 Acres o Potential Fioacola,n lm"Area 1 A..res LOOM Ai < ;0 VrIW-4M AM RIDOM-LA" JW 4,00 go UO to soon re�ntsvarwrrettreua aeon so 00/ SENT Of T I NATIONAL A United States Department of the Interior PARK SERVICE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Cedar Creek and Belle Grove rch 3 ,e�Q n National Historical Park L In reply refer to: 771 8 '/z Main St., P.O. Box 700 Middletown, Virginia 22645 27 March 2006 Mr. Eric Lawrence, Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent St., 2nd Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lawrence: We are writing to transmit our comments regarding the O-N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request. The Chemstone property is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park (NHP). O-N Minerals Chemstone provided us with a copy of their rezoning request and we in turn asked the National Park Service's Geologic Resources Division to prepare an analysis of the proposal. The Geologic Resources Division, based in Lakewood, Colorado, provides national leadership and specialized assistance for managing geologic resources and protecting park resources from the adverse effects of mineral development in and adjacent to national parks. The Division is staffed with geologists, minerals specialists, mining and petroleum engineers, policy and regulatory analysts, and natural resource specialists. They, in addition, consulted with an agency hydrologist to provide input on the potential impacts on water quantity. The attached memorandum references a photograph of Cedar Creek Battlefield taken in October 2005 during the annual reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. A copy of the photograph is attached for your information. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns about the attached information. I may be reached at my office at (540) 868-9176. Sincerely, Signed, DLJacox Diann Jacox Superintendent Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Geological Resources Division, National Park Service. 2. Photograph taken during 2005 Reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Cc: Spencer Stinson, O-N Minerals Chemstone Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director TAKE P'RIDF.` 'NAM ERICA _� 01 6 United States Department ®f the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Geologic Resources Division P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL - NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW L2360 March 24, 2006 Memorandum To: Diann Jacox Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park From: Carol McCoy Chief, Planning, Evaluation & Permits Branch Geologic Resources Division National Park Service Subject: O-N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request In response to your request, the Geologic Resources Division (GRD) has reviewed several documents associated with O-N Minerals Chemstone's request to rezone 691 acres adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Specifically, my staff reviewed Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement (June 2005), Chemstone's Rezoning Application Materials (Dec. 2005), Commonwealth of Virginia mining and mineral regulations, and Frederick County rezoning regulations and guidance. We believe that the rezoning documents submitted by O-N Minerals Chemstone do not adequately address Frederick County requirements or the impacts on the surrounding area, including the park. With this in mind, use offer the following comments for your consideration. General Comments The proposed rezoning and subsequent expansion of the limestone quarry on the O-N Minerals Chemstone Property (Chemstone) adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park may adversely impact park lands and resources. These resources include the "nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation" and the "[t]he panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways ... an inspiring setting of great natural beauty" (see 16 U.S.C. § 410iii-1). Unfortunately, we believe that Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials do not fully address the likely impacts of the rezoning/expansion of the quarry on these valuable and unique resources. TAKE M MRICA�� d d As }you know, Congress directed the National Park Service d \TPS) to "encourage conservation of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of [Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical] Park by land owners, local governments, organizations, and businesses." In accordance with this mandate and NPS policies, we recommend that you work closely with Frederick County and the Commonwealth of Virginia in the rezoning and quarry expansion processes in order to avoid, mitigate, and resolve potential resource conflicts. Specific Comments Based on our review, Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement does not include several topics required by Frederick County. These topics include "the use of surrounding land and potential economic, physical, visual, nuisance, and other impacts on surrounding properties" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(1)), "the anticipated increase in potential population resulting from the rezoning" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(4)), "the projected additional demand for ... public facilities" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(5)), and a full discussion of the impacts on historic structures and sites (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(8)). Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials also inadequately address the following topics: Air quality impacts from fugitive dust and equipment emissions — Chemstone's rezoning application documents do not include any analysis of possible air quality impacts. Dust generated from mining operations, crushers, conveyors, vehicles, or windblown dust from the large disturbed area is not mentioned nor is possible mitigation of dust -related issues addressed. These documents should also quantify emissions from mining equipment and haul trucks, including the proposed increase in haul trucks and any other mobile or point source. Increased Haul Truck Traffic — Chemstone's Traffic Impact Analysis modeling (March 2005) suggests that the mine expansion could result in an increase of 801 truck trips per day, for a total of 1,308 truck trips in Middletown, a town of 1,200 residents. This proposed increase may detract from the quality of life and be a threat to public safety. Increased truck traffic may also negatively impact those traveling to Frederick County to visit Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park and/or other area attractions. Chemstone has suggested that it could construct a conveyor system that would decrease the amount of truck traffic required by the mine expansion. Frederick County should be encouraged to require this conveyor system as a condition of Chemstone's rezoning proposal in order to avoid the impacts of increased truck traffic in Middletown and in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP. Noise and vibration — Sources of noise and vibration are also not quantified in Chemstone's rezoning application documents. Noise generated by mining operations, crushers, conveyors, and haul trucks is likely to be significant and will not be confined to the existing or rezoned property. Blasting which may take place in quarry operations will not only generate noise impacts, but also carries with it potential vibration issues which pose a threat to adjacent structures. It is important to note that Belle Grove Plantation House, built in 1797, is a Historic Landmark and is included on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, TAKE PRiDEVE=J d 4 fwe suggest that Frederick County require that Chemstone submit a detailed noise and vibration study as part of its rezoning application to address impacts and mitigation measures for sensitive adjacent resources such as those found in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Night lighting — Chemstone's rezoning application documents did not specify if quarry operations are conducted 24 hours per day. However, if operational or security lighting is used at the quarry site, impacts to the night sky and the historical scene may occur. Dust or other particulate matter generated at the site will exacerbate night lighting impacts to surrounding properties. Propeqy values and historical scene — Chemstone's rezoning application documents fail to address the existing and expanded project's impact on adjacent property values and the historic scene for which this area is well known. The "historic impact assessment" contained in the December 2005 Rezoning Application Materials document states that "[w]e cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history `happened."' Such a sweeping statement fails to analyze the impacts of Chemstone's quarry operations on the historic and natural resources of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. A photograph obtained by GRD of the October 2005 historic battle reenactment at the park clearly shows the Chemstone quarry in the background, dramatically illustrating the striking impact of modern, large scale mining operations on historic properties. We believe that the "historic impact assessment" in Chemstone's rezoning application documents should fully analyze these impacts and present acceptable methods for mitigating them. Ground and surface waters -- The section of the Rezoning Application Materials pertaining to groundwater impacts does briefly mention the subject of aquifer drawdown due to possible interception of groundwater from quarry operations, but fails to address possible surface impacts associated with aquifer drawdown other than sinkhole formation. This document also does not discuss possible impacts on water rights or groundwater quality. Further, the text of the Rezoning Application Materials implies that only the 30 wells and septic systems within 1500 feet of the Chemstone property would be affected by aquifer drawdown. However, Plate 4 of this same document indicates that a 10 foot aquifer drawdown could occur at least 9,600 feet from the potential quarry areas. For all of these reasons, we believe that the groundwater analysis as it relates to off site impacts is extremely inadequate. Possible impacts due to the disposal of the anticipated large amount of intercepted groundwater into surface waterways should also be analyzed in detail. Proffer Statement — Based on my staff's interpretation of Virginia's mining and mineral regulations, most of the conditions included in Chemstone's proffer statement would likely be required by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy as part of the mine expansion permit or by existing agreement. With the exception of the 8-acre "historic reserve," we do not interpret the proffer statement as providing additional protection for the area's historic resources. The Geologic Resources Division appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact either Kerry Moss or Julia Brunner of my staff at 303-969-2634 or 303-969-2012, respectively. TAKE f*R10E® IN� E��rA _ � -r�,.� i.,F �. .^,ar+' a �i�� E+ .Wr <:;,� ,v�•sr`}' ;4's t" , S:� W � sl: 1 �. ` f �i f I�} 4 Jeffrey M. Carter 342 Westernview Drive Middletown, VA 22645 April 28, 2006 Congressman Frank R. Wolf 110 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Congressman Wolf, I am a resident of Middletown, VA and have truly grown to respect the historical treasures that surround me. Because of your leadership, I believe we have made great strides to protect the Civil War battlefields of the Shenandoah Valley. Your sponsorship of H.R. 4944 exemplifies your dedication to protecting these sites. I'm requesting your action because the future of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park is in jeopardy and requires quick and decisive action to protect all that has been accomplished. Recently, an application was submitted to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for the rezoning of 639.13 acres of land adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park. This land is currently undeveloped and zoned rural agricultural. If the application is approved, the land will be zoned for extractive manufacturing and used to expand the current quarrying operation that is visually intrusive from the park itself. If this expansion takes place, the National Historic Park will suffer greatly. While waste piles, silos, dust clouds, bright lights, and noise currently pollute the historic setting and panoramic mountain views from the battlefield grounds, an expansion this significant would devastate the National Historic Park. The sites for the proposed new quarries are expansive and historically significant. I believe much, if not all, of the property in question was originally slated to become part of the National Historic Park because of its significance. While I am uncertain why this property was unable to be included in the final boundary of the park, I do know that uses such as extractive manufacturing should not be allowed on ground that plays such an important role in our nation's history. Uses allowed with extractive manufacturing zoning include the extraction and processing of minerals, concrete and asphalt manufacturing plants, water treatment facilities, and other uses that are inappropriate for battlefield land. The applicant has documented plans for a water treatment facility as well as numerous large-scale mineral extraction pits as deep as 250 feet beneath the ground our ancestors fought and died on. The historical significance of the proposed quarry site is well documented. Custer's decisive flanking attack on John Gordan was staged there. The site of Merritt's bivouac, the ruins of the 18th-century Nieswander's Fort, and many other historical sites and staging areas will be eradicated if quarrying is allowed to move forward. Historians an( ancestors of those who fought in the battle retrace the steps of the soldiers each day. Quarrying on this large a scale would be among the most detrimental land uses for the battlefield area. The ground that plays such a significant role in the history of the Civil War would literally be removed, leaving the land unrecognizable even after reclamation. We have reached a turning point with the Cedar Creek Battlefield. The current quarrying facility has been in operation for many decades and has only a few years of extracting left until the desired minerals from the site are exhausted. We can either take a stand, put a stop to the expansion, and eventually reclaim the scenic views of the battlefield for future generations to enjoy, or allow it to happen and watch our National Historic Park decline in support and public interest. Please help all of us who respect the importance of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park to urge the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to deny the application for rezoning. JMI M, 0NVVEAL T H, o f VIR, QI \ M, Office of the Governor L. Preston Brcant 5ecreran or" l'atu ;tt Resources April 26, 2006 Ms. Julie Clevenger 45 1 Westeruview Drive 22645 Dear Ms. Clevenger: Thank you for writing Governor Maine regarding the quarries proposed for development in the vicinity of Middletown. Governor Kaine has asked that I respond to you on his behalf. I understand that quarry excavation. and likely subsequent reservoir development, is proposed for several sites within an approximately 6-39-acre tract in the vicinity of Cedar Creek and Meadow Brook, just north of Middleto` ii ba Frederick County. The projects currently are in planning and rezoruna stages an stages have not yet been coordinated with relevant state agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Mines. Minerals and Energy, which may have regulatory authority of this project, over the quarry excavation or water supply aspects To date, the Department of Enviromnental Quality (DEQ) has not received any permit applications, including air and wetlands, for the proposed quarry expansion by O-T\ Chermstone. DEQ would not have a permit requirement unless the company decides to expand their crusher and conveyance systems, which would require changes to their existing air pemlit. i have asked the Virginia Department of Game and inland Fisheries (DGlr) to heip me identify potential project impacts on the local wildlife and habitats. DGIF is the state wildlife agency and has jurisdiction over the CommonNvealth's terrestrial wildlife. freshwater fish and other aquatic resources, and state or federally endangered or threatened species other than insects. DGIF is a consulting agency under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and it provides environmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated through DEQ, the Virginia l2arine Resources Commission, the Virginia Department of Transportation; the U.S. A.rmv Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other state or federal agencies. DGIF's role. in these procedures is to determine likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitat; and to recommend appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts. Based on early DGIF research, it is my understanding- that a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats would be affected by the proposed project. A preliminary review of DGIF's wildlife data suggests that wood turtles, a state threatened species, may occur in the project area. Patrick Hc- rp Building 6 1111 East Broad S-reet • Richmond, Virginia 2,32:4 - ' 1 � - � i��'4. r 86-;:u44 TTY i.6CC.� 32?-112.2 f Ms. Julie Clevenger A.pril26, 2006 Page 2 You also expressed concern that bald eagles, currently a federally threatened species; may nest on the tract as well. Any information that you can provide to DGIF about eagle nests in this location would be greatly appreciated. DGIF's databases contain historic records of other imperiled bird species from this area, including the state threatened loggerhead shrike. Bewick's wren; and upland sandpiper. The nearby Meadow Brook is designated a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fishery, I have some concerns over potentially adverse impacts of the proposed project on these and other sensitive wildlife resources and habitats on the site. Additional information is needed so that we may further evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Additionally, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has been tracking the rezoning application for several months. On December 20, 2005, DHR advised the Frederick; County Department of Planning through its History Advisory Board that the proposal had the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeological and historic- resources located directly in the parcel in question. Accordingly, DHR recommended that the County require the an applict to conduct an assessment of all archaeological and historic arcliitectural resources ,within the parcel before taking action on the rezoning application. Based on follow up discussions with the County's planning staff it is DHR's understanding that the County is likely to require O-N. Chemstone to undertake .such an assessment. Be, advised that if wetlands are affected; such an investigation may be required of O-N Chemstone pursuant to Section 106 of the National Preser\ration Act of 1966, as amended, as a condition of receiving a federal wetlands permit ftom the Corps. If the project comes to be defined as a federal undertaking, the Corps would be required to consult with DHR, and DHR would consider in its review and recommendations not only the effect of the project on historic resources located on the development parcel but also the potential visual impacts of the development on nearby historic property such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation. Further; the Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified, in its 2002 Virginia Outdoors Plan, Cedar Creels in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties as a potential component of the State's scenic rivers system. And both DCR and the Virginia Department of Transportation have recently determined that U.S. Route 11 qualifies for designation as a Scenic Byway. It is my hope that County officials considet these items as they contemplate the quarry and its potential impacts on the region's significant scenic, natural, and cultural resources. Because the authority to regulate local land use is the prerogative of local government in Virginia and the ultimate decision to approve the rezoning application is Frederick Countv's to make; I strongly encourage you to continue expressing your concerns about this project directly to your local elected officials. I also recommend that you contact Mr. Ron Stouffer of the Corps (703-221-6967) for further information on whether the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may be triggered in this case by a federal permit application as O-N Chemstone's development proposal moves forward. Governor Kaine and I are committed to conserving Virginia's rich natural diversity for all of its citizens. We also recognize that economic development and water supplies are vital to the Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page. region and that a balanced approach is needed to accommodate economic and environmental needs. My agencies and I are committed to working with you and other interested parties; including the County and the permit applicants, to ensure this balance is achieved, and we look for«Yard to cooperating with you, your local govenument agencies, and other stakeholders in this regard. Again, I encourage you to contact David Whitehurst, Director of DGIF's )A'ildlife Diversity Division, and talk with him further about the role that the DGIF has in this project and the information that they have about wildlife resources. Mr. '%t'hitehurst may be reached at 804-367-4335 or via e-mail at David.Whitehursy� .dgi£virginia.ryoy. Thank you for taking time to let Governor Kaine know about your concerns. We appreciate your interest in the natural resources of Virginia. Sincerer°, L. Preston Bryant, Jr. LPBJr;'cbd HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 5,307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, RJR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. March 27, 2006 HAND DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0648 Re: Chemstone - Middletown (O-N Minerals Chemstone Company) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. In the first sentence of the first paragraph, it is not clear what is being addressed by the language "shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto." I assume that this is referring to previous versions of this Proposed Proffer Statement. It should be made clear that it is not referring to previous proffers that may have been approved as a part of a rezoning on this or other property owned by the Applicant. Therefore, I would suggest the above quoted language be amended to read: "shall supersede all previous versions of this Proposed Proffer Statement." HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 2 2. It does not appear that the second sentence of the second paragraph would be applicable to these proffers, and I would reconunend that that sentence be deleted. 3. I have trouble with the third sentence of the second paragraph, which states "Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void." The Applicant is in a better position than the County to deterlune whether any of the proffered conditions would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and Federal regulations. In my view, this sentence should be deleted. 4. The words "and shall include the following:" should be deleted from the end of the second paragraph. 5. In paragraph 1.1 of Section 1 (Land Use), the proposed proffer would not appear to be a proffer, as it does not propose to do anything otherwise required by the zoning ordinance or state law. If the Applicant is proposing to linut the uses permitted in the EM District, that needs to be clearly stated. 6. Section 2 (Site Development): a. This proffer in paragraph 2.2 appears to merely state that the width of the distance buffers on the property shall be more than that required by the zoning ordinance. However, it does not quantify in any way the extent to which it will exceed the distance buffers required. This proffer requirement could be met by a minimal increase in the distance buffer. I question why the width of the distance buffers cannot be shown on the Generalized Development Plan. Also, this proffer does not address the issue of what screening, if any, will be placed in the distance buffers. b. With respect to paragraph 2.3, does the zoning ordinance or State or Federal regulations require earthen berms around active quarry pits? If not, then paragraph 2.3 should set forth a specific proffer that earthen berms will be HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 3 installed around active quart' pits. With respect to the landscaping of the earthen berms, the staff needs to determine whether the description of the landscaping in this proffer is sufficiently specific. 7. Section 3 (Historic Resources). a. The proffer in paragraph 3.1 proposes to create an 8-acre "historic reserve", and then to "dedicate" the reserve to the Belle Grove Foundation. My assumption is that there is an 8-acre portion of the property that the Applicant is going to deed to the Belle Grove Foundation. If that is the case, I question why it should take up to one year after the rezoning to make that conveyance. Also, since I was not provided with a copy of the GDP, I do not know where the 8-acre parcel is located, and if it is located in the interior of the property, there should be included a proffer that a right of way will be conveyed, to go along with the conveyance of the 8 acres, for access by the Foundation to the 8-acre parcel. b. 3.2 provides for a Phase I Archaeological Survey within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance on a portion of the property. However, the proffer does not address what protection will be afforded any historic sites, buildings, structures, or objects identified in the Archaeological Survey. It would seem that the preferable chronology would be to have the Archaeological Survey done prior to the rezoning, so that any historic elements could be addressed as a part of the rezoning process. 8. Paragraph 4.1 of Section 4 (Rights to Water Supply) would not appear to constitute a proffer, in that it appears that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority already has the rights to the groundwater resources under the "existing agreements". Perhaps something more than this was intended to be proffered. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 4 9. In paragraph 5.1 of Section 5 (Groundwater) the Applicant provides for the placement of three monitoring wells on the property. However, it would seem to me that the County should have access to the information, and that the proffer should provide that the County will have access to the monitoring wells and to the data from the monitoring wells. 10. The first two sentences of paragraph 7.1 of Section 7 (Blasting Control) would not seem to constitute a proffer, and merely state that blasting will be done in accordance with the Applicant's mining permit. 11. While the second paragraph of the Proposed Proffer Statement identifies the Generalized Development Plan, there needs to be a sufficient proffer that the development of the property will be in substantial conformity with the GDP. Where in my above comments I have opined that a proposed proffer is really not a proffer, I have noted that to make the point that it does not propose to do anything above and beyond what is otherwise required. It does not necessarily mean that the statement needs to be deleted, if the County feels that it is helpful to emphasize that particular requirement. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. yours, Robert T. Mitchell; RTM/ks 1� 1 f f RESOLUTION Opposing Proposed O-N Minerals Rezoning From Agricultural to Extractive Manufacturing Land Uses WHEREAS, O-N Minerals (Chemstone) has filed an application in Frederick County to rezone 693 acres from agricultural to extractive manufacturing uses on a site west of the Town of Middletown, which was designated as the official Gateway to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park; and. WHEREAS, the Chemstone quarry site is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, recently designated as one of the ten most endangered Civil War battlefields in America, and clearly within the viewshed of the town of Middletown; and WHEREAS, increased limestone mining at the Chemstone site will have significant negative environmental impacts on the Middletown area, notably increased air pollution emissions, pollution of groundwater supplies, and erosion of the historic and rural setting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park; and WHEREAS, increased limestone mining is projected to create significant negative traffic and noise impacts, with up to 1,400 industrial vehicles traveling through the Town of Middletown each day, which amounts to nearly one truck per minute, 24-hours a day, seven days a week; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would permit other related heavy industries to locate on the site, such as cement or asphalt plant, as has occurred on the Chemstone quarry site at Clearbrook in northern Frederick County, where two cement plants have opened in the past 18 months, adding to air pollution from small particulates; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan, calls for retaining the community's character by more fully developing Main Street "with more shopping and eating establishments" and for retaining Route 11 as a "major arterial roadway" that is also "a historic, pedestrian - friendly Main Street," and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan,, seeks to build upon the town's major economic resources, Lord Fairfax Community College, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, the Wayside Theater, the small-town character and the pedestrian -friendly environment; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for the town and county to identify and develop economic opportunities that are unique to Middletown, including compatible commerce and light industry, in order to broaden the local tax base; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning of 639 acres from agricultural to heavy industrial uses close to town will generate air, water, traffic, noise and dust impacts that are clearly not compatible with the Town of Middletown's economic development and other community goals; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Middletown Town Council hereby calls on the Frederick County Planning Cominission and Board of Supervisors to deny the application for rezoning of the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) site in its current form. Adopted this 8th day of May, 2006. Gene Dicks, Mayor INDUSTRIAL BELT PROPOSED AROUND MIDDLETOWN Should Frederick County Accept More Dirty Industry? O-N Minerals/Chemstone wants to rezone 639 acres from rural agriculture to Extractive Manufacturing uses on two parcels beside Cedar Creek, Belle Grove National Battlefield Historic Park, Middletown and many homes and farms in southern Frederick County. The rezoning would create a 1,200-acre industrial mining corridor two-thirds of a mile wide and more than 2.6 miles long. Industrial Impacts Will Overwhelm Our Rural Community • Quarry truck traffic will triple, with up to 1,300 dump trucks streaming through the heart of Middletown. That's one dump truck per minute, 24 hours per day, through the historic town. • Air and water pollution, noise, dust and visual pollution from greatly expanded mine waste piles will ring the creek, battlefield and town. • Mining and other industrial uses in our porous karst geology for water pollutants and change the water table enough to deplete local private wells. highway • There is nothing in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan that designates Middletown for an industrial mining corridor. Limestone deposits throughout the county mean any Frederick County neighborhood could be rezoned for mining. • The massive industrial site conflicts directly with the Middletown Comprehensive Plan, which seeks to retain small town character and build on tourism and rural quality of life. • Impacts from industrial mining will irreparably degrade Cedar Creek, eligible to be named a state Scenic River, and Route 11, eligible to be named a Virginia Scenic Byway. Industrial Rezoning Permits Much More Than a Quarry Expansion • Rezoning to Extractive Manufacturing allows multiple other industrial uses: concrete and asphalt manufacturing, crushed stone operations, brick, block and pre -cast concrete production, oil and gas extraction, mining and processing sand and gravel, sewage treatment and public utilities. • There is nothing in Chemstone's rezoning application to limit these uses on the 639 acres and sections will likely be sold off for heavy industrial uses. • Chemstone sold two parcels at its Clear Brook operation in northern Frederick County to two cement companies, which generate an additional 110 new truck trips on local roads per day. • The trend in the quarry industry is to combine one-stopshopping for construction materials: limestone and quarry b q ry byproducts, asphalt production and concrete plants. We can expect the rezoned land to be intensely developed as a full industrial mining site, like the one in Strasburg. • Frederick County economic development officials are constantly promoting our communities as a great place to locate high paying technology and production facilities. So why is the county considering another massive, dirty industrial site that is certain to degrade three jewels: Cedar Creek, the National Battlefield Park and Middletown? Industrial Rezoning Tied to Sanitation Authority • The Frederick County Sanitation Authority ( FCSA ) supports the Chemstone rezoning application because it has an agreement to lease quarry pits for water storage after mining operations cease. • Local residents are expected to accept a dir ty rtY industrial site in order to provide for a water plan that was created by a private agency, not in an open, public process. • Other communities are rejecting limestone quarries as water storage sites due to the porous nature of the rock, which permits pollutants to easily enter and exit the water supply. • Frederick County officials should not vote on a mining rezoning in order to further the FCSA water plan. The mining rezoning must stand or fall on its' own merits. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING JUNE 7 For more information, go to www.shenandoahvalle3gietwork-org/PreserveFrederick.htmI a '7- -Jf' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I March 27, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Chemstone Rezoning Frederick Col.ulty, Virginia Dear Patrick: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 The revised proffer statement furnished to this office on March 21, 2006, has adequately addressed our rezoning corm-nents dated .Tune 29, 2005. Therefore, we. grant our approval for the subject rezoning assuming that any impacts are mitigated as indicated in the revised proffer statement. Sincerely, f Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Mike Mike Ruddy, Planuung and Development file CAProgram Piles\WordPe.rfect of£ce 11\Rhon(Ia\TEAIPCO\4A'I1;NTS\CITE; 45TON REZPROSTAT\,1T.i),pd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 I Patton Harris f & Atssociates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. MAY 2gM � May 26, 2006 Mr. Eric Lawrence Director of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals Chemstone Rezoning Application Dear Mr. Lawrence: P�\1 1 + /A At their April 5, 2006 meeting, the Frederick County Planning Commission voted to Htable the rezoning application for O-N Minerals Chemstone for a period of 60 days. While the application, in its current form, is consistent with the requirements of Frederick County in order to proceed with the rezoning process, we would Crespectfully ask to postpone the public hearing date for an additional 30 days in Chantilly tilly order to provide additional information that will aid both the Frederick County VIRGINIA OFFICES: Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the decision making process. Bridgewater Chantilly Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Charlottesville Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Sincerely, Virginia Beach Winchester Patton Harris Rust & Associates Woodbridge LABORATORIES: _ Chantilly /--�2 Fredericksburg Patrick R. Sowers MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore PRS Columbia Frederick cc: Spencer Stinson Germantown Hollywood PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 East Piccadilly Street P.\Planning\Re.ZoiiingApblicalions\Fredel7ck County\GIoGAI-Middktotun\PosffioneLetter052606.doc Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 CEBE Land Status Private 2423.07 k.res nMc •A1 1 +1 l Strasburg IV �KU�riawr. +1 1 a2 Z065 mr1"~= • BI(Bu•i—. NoynpmheoE Dnlrct) MB (MeCK•I Sappan pM�icry REZ # 03 - 06 c,,.„, ® e1(Bu•ne••. Geneui Dnlncy a� IReeaentbi. plennea communMy DnUM) H^ BJ feu•ne••. InEu•M•I Tun•Ibn Dmnd) ♦ RS IR••kenliel Recraetbn•I CommunMy d•VM) ) EM(E--MarMed-'-9D—) O RA(R-1Ne••DIMnd) ON Minerals ( Chemstone NEMV.,E—M,D.,i ) O Rp(Ruq•nlnlpa�e.menceDMr (83 A 109, 90 A 23 ) 01— �. + MI RMu•hat l9M OnhW) • E O.- Aft uw O MI (IMu•irul, G<mrel DRhict) 750 1,5oo MNt (MOGIa Mortu community Dvalrico - Feel 4P COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program 2004 Annual Report March 31, 2005 Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, VA 23219-2094 (804) 786-2064 D C R Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation State Parks • Soil & Water Conservation • Natural Heritage Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance • Land Conservation Outdoor Recreation Planning • Dam Safety & Floodplalns Table o Executive Summary Contents Virginia's Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program, led by the Department Virginia's NPS of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), is a diverse network of state and local Mission and Goals.......... I government programs that collectively help prevent degradation of water quality and restore the health of our rivers, lakes, and bays. The Program utilizes partnerships to advance long and short-term goals for the reduction of nonpoint source pollution; NPS Annual Report through: financial, technical, and outreach assistance, and local capacity building to Overview....................2 achieve specific nonpoint source pollution control targets. Highlights and This annual report is written in response to Section 319 (h)(8) and (11) of the Clean Accomplishments ......... 4 Water Act (33 USC 1329). The 2004 Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Annual Report summarizes pollution prevention and control efforts throughout the state Watershed Prioritization 4 as funded by Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and describes the activities and • Watershed Reports • TMDL Pr•ogr•arn accomplishments of the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding administration of ' Vir inias nonpoint source 9� p pollution management programs in 2004. The activities Agricultural Programs 12 identified in this report build on previous accomplishments and set the stage for • Agricultural Cost -share continuing Virginia's ambitious environmental agenda. • Nutrient Management • Cooperative Extension The efforts to address nonpoint source pollution highlighted in this report reflect the • NRCSPrograrns commonwealth's commitment to protecting and restoring our natural resources. This Forestry 18 annual report describes anticipated pollution reductions that will be achieved through • Silvicultur•al WQAct agricultural cost -share assistance and water quality improvement projects. In addition, • Riparian Forest Buffer the report describes pollution prevention accomplishments related to implementation of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. Urban Programs 21 • Erosion & Sediment Control Meeting water quality standards for streams listed on Virginia's 303 (d) List of • Stor•rnwaterManagement Impaired Waters due to nonpoint sources of pollution is a primary focus of Virginia's Monitoring and Tracking 23 program. Total Maximum Daily Load implementation plans have been developed for • WQAssessment impaired waters in order to maximize water quality benefits, and approximately $1.5 • VA Citizen WQ Monitoring million of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 319(h) funds have been targeted, annually, towards implementation of these plans. Resource Extraction 24 • Orphaned Land Program Reduction of various pathogens, nutrients and sediments represents a major water • Orphaned Well Program quality accomplishment that has been achieved through on -the -ground implementation • Abandoned Mine Land of agricultural, urban and residential Best Management Practices (BMPs). Other Hydromodification 26 accomplishments highlighted in this report help Virginia meet its responsibilities to • Hydromodification Handbook protect and restore water quality. • INSTAR Grants & Technical Assist. 27 However, without sufficient funding and the flexibility to address priority water quality issues, it will be difficult to meet the challenge of protecting water quality in Coastal & Chesapeake Bay 27 Virginia. Reductions in EPA 319(h) funds and other resource limitations constitute a • Coastal NPSPrograrn significant impediment to implementation. The loss of flexibility in the use of Section • Chesapeake Bay Grant 319(h) funds constitutes another potential obstacle to successful implementation. • Virginia Coastal Prograrn Increasingly, the use of these funds is being pre -determined by federal guidance. State • Chesapeake Local Assist. discretion to target all available funding, based on identified priorities and the Statewide Initiatives 31 management program, is essential if we are to meet the long-term water quality • NPS Education challenges facing the Commonwealth of Virginia. • Conservation Land Assess, • KarstPr•ograrn The NPS program will continue to lead efforts to create comprehensive watershed • Floodplain Management plans across the state to help address the impacts of nonpoint source runoff, and to facilitate and/or track implementation of nonpoint source watershed planning and Future Actions ....... 35 project efforts. These efforts will be accomplished by continuing to leverage and work with other governmental and nongovernmental partnerships, and supporting new nonpoint source control initiatives and partnerships as they arise. Nonpoint Source Pollution Program Mission and Goals Virginia's Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Management Program is a diverse network of state and local government programs. Collectively, these programs help prevent degradation of water quality and restore the health of our lakes, rivers and bays by promoting and funding state and local watershed planning efforts, water quality monitoring, education and outreach, stream and wetland restoration, and other measures to reduce, prevent and track nonpoint source pollution loads. The NPS program is key in promoting partnerships and inter/intra -governmental coordination to reduce nonpoint sources, and helping bring both the necessary technical and financial resources to local watershed management planning, continued implementation of best management practices and restoration. The attainment of beneficial uses as measured by water quality standards compliance is the overriding purpose of control programs identified in the NPS management program. In 1999, a number of long-term and short-term priorities were identified in a management effort to meet statewide nonpoint source pollution control goals. This plan Virginia's Mission Statement: To control nonpoint source pollution, to restore and protect living resources and maintain other beneficial uses of Virginia's waters, and to help assure the protection of Virginia Us outstanding quality of life identifies milestones for a five-year time frame through which progress towards the achievement of stated goals can be reported and monitored. The resulting NPS Management Plan described 19 long-term goals with 80 associated objectives aimed to reduce pollution from the nine NPS source pollution categories: 1. Watershed Prioritization, 2.Agriculture, 3. Forestry, 4.Urban-Construction and Development, 5. Monitoring and Tracking, 6. Resource Extraction, 7. Hydromodification, 8.Grants and Technical Assistance Coordination, and 9.Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. Yearly work plans and agendas for the NPS program are geared V' yinia Nonpoint Source Poffufion ProJc ram 2004 AnnuafPeporf around the implementation of the 1999 NPS Management Plan to achieve 5-year program goals by 2004 and Long-term program goals by 2014. In 2004, the Commonwealth continued implement its Nonpoini Source Management Plan by concentrating NPS efforts on the following priority areas: • Collaborative development and implementation of TMDLs • Coordination and expansion of the CREP and Agriculture -Cost -Share Programs • Inventory and abatement of NPS pollution from abandoned mineral mine sites • Expansion and delivery of Nutrient Management training and certification and nutrient management planning • Development and expansion of the Stormwater Management and the Erosion and Sediment Control Programs • Continued assistance for local watershed planning • Attainment of new Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative, under Chesapeake Bay Program • Protection of groundwater sources • Continued implementation of the Agricultural Stewardship Act • Continued development and implementation of Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program • Continued development and implementation of Chesapeake Bay Program. DCR plans to update this NPS Management Program in the future to reflect the accomplishments and achievements and program changes that have occurred over the past five years. Vi yinia NonpoinI Source Vo(&6on ProJcram 2004 Annuafl' port Nonpoint Source Pollution Program Overview INTRODUCTION Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution creates significant water quality problems in Virginia. NPS pollution results mainly from stormwater runoff from land surfaces that have been affected by man's activities on areas such as farmland, city streets, construction sites, suburban lawns, abandoned mine land and areas affected by forestry harvesting practices. The pollution is termed NPS because it doesn't discharge via a single point, such as a pipe, like point source pollution. In Virginia, nonpoint sources of pollution are the dominant source of water quality problems compared to point sources. The Clean Water Act of 1987, Section 319, required states to assess their state waters and identify those adversely affected by nonpoint sources of pollution. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) completed Virginia's first NPS assessment in 1988, with subsequent updates and refinements in 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2004. The assessment ranks the state's 494 watersheds, for potential nonpoint Vaj e 2 source pollution, based on land use, livestock population, forest harvesting, erosion rates, disturbed acreage, and best management practice (BMPs) implementation. The rankings are used to help direct implementation of Virginia's nonpoint source pollution control programs, as well as cost - share and Section 319 funding, to watersheds with the greatest pollution potential. Every two years the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) publishes a listing of all waters in the state were applicable standards are not being met. In 2004 DEQ published a combined NPS assessment and stream list. The resulting 2004 305(b)l 303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report (TMDL list) from the DEQ indicated that 6,894 miles (of 50,537 miles) of freshwater rivers and streams, 89,896 of the 120,751 acres of lakes had impaired waters and 1,810 of 1,557 square miles of estuarine area had impaired water quality. Overall, 442 of the 494 watersheds in Virginia had impaired waters in them. The majority of these listings were due to nonpoint source pollution. Water quality issues continue to plague the Commonwealth of Virginia, related mainly to increases in nonpoint source pollution. This situation highlights the importance of a well - coordinated, fully implemented Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program to the continued health and protection of Virginia's natural resources. BACKGROUND Section 319 of the 1987 Federal Clean Water Act requires that states develop and implement nonpoint source pollution management programs. The Virginia Nonpoint Source Management Program is coordinated by DCR as set forth in Section 10.1-10.4.1 of the Code of Virginia. This role includes the oversight of program development and implementation and interfacing with the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that Virginia's program is in conformance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1987. DCR is also responsible for the management and distribution of federal and state funds for program implementation. In implementing the nonpoint source pollution program, DCR receives input from the Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee (NPSAC), an interagency committee comprised of representatives of federal and state agencies. NPSAC's mission is to serve as an interagency forum to facilitate effective implementation of nonpoint source programs in Virginia, and to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water throughout the commonwealth. NPSAC includes representatives of the following agencies: Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Forestry, Department of Health, Department of Mines Minerals and Energy, Department of Transportation, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Marine Resources Council, US Farm Services Agency, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geologic Service. Working through the NPSAC, Virginia developed its initial Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program in 1988 with the purpose of building upon existing NPS control efforts and establishing a comprehensive approach. The attainment of beneficial uses as measured by water quality standards compliance is the overriding purpose of control programs identified in the management program. Virginia's Nonpoint Source Program has been evolving ever since its original inception in 1988. The most recent update of the program was updated and approved by U.S. EPA in 1999. The management plan, Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program - December 1999, is still in effect today. DCR has overall statewide responsibility for implementing the management program and coordinating Section 319 NPS programs with the cooperation of the individual agencies and organizations for implementing specific nonpoint source control activities outlined in the management plan. These other state, federal and local agencies play a significant role in implementing individual portions of this management program. The NPS Program serves as both and implementer as well as a facilitator for activities in the state, when ultimately a majority of projects are funded by other state, local or federal agencies. Thus, the assessment, monitoring, and planning provided by Section 319 funds allows Virginia to integrate and coordinate multiple nonpoint source control efforts with multiple partners. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT In addition to federally mandated and funded NPS programs through Section 319, in 1997, the Commonwealth of Virginia made an unprecedented commitment to water quality and nonpoint source pollution prevention through passage of the Water Quality Improvement Act (WQIA). This act created the Water Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF) which dedicated state monies to both point and nonpoint source water quality needs. In enacting the WQIA, the General Assembly (GA) pronounced that the restoration, protection, and improvement of the quality of state waters is a shared responsibility among state and local governments and individuals, and to that end, established the authority for cooperative programs related to nutrient reduction and other types of nonpoint source pollution. The purpose of the programs is to maintain and/or restore water quality standards in stream segments where NPS pollution is a significant loading factor. The outcome of cooperative NPS pollution programs has been a combination of existing efforts and new opportunities that address specific water quality impairments and improvements, supported by the public and numerous stakeholders. A primary objective of WQIF is to fund grants that will reduce the flow of excess nitrogen and phosphorus into the Chesapeake Bay through the implementation of the tributary strategies. The Virginia DEQ is responsible for administering point source grants, and the Virginia DCR administers nonpoint source grants. WQIF funds are provided, in accordance with the guidelines, to help stimulate nonpoint source pollution reduction through the Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost -share Program and water quality improvement projects within the regions listed above. As well as financial assistance, DCR staff provides technical assistance. No funding was provided for the WAIF for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. Fiscal year 2005 (July 1, 2004- June 30, 2005) saw a much -needed infusion of a total allocation of $9,417,500 dedicated to NPS activities. In addition, the Virginia Marine Resource Commission dredging fund and the income tax check -off for Chesapeake Bay restoration were earmarked for NPS pollution control, brining the total NPS Vi yinia Nonpoinl Source Pol(ufion Pr,Dram 2004 AnnuallZoporl funding to $10,510,687 for FY2005. Implementation of FY2005 funds will be directed through agricultural BMPs, CREP, competitive grants, and a partnership with the Department of Forestry. Additionally the 2005 General Assembly allocated additional WQIF money for FY2006 NPS activities, estimated at approximately $26 million. ---Nol - ON" SUMMARY Like many other years, 2004 was extremely rewarding and productive. The water quality accomplishments identified in this report help to ensure that Virginia meets its responsibilities to protect and restore water quality throughout the commonwealth. As described in this report, Virginia is clearly making significant progress toward implementing the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program (1999). This report is not intended to be a complete summary of activities during the year, but rather, to highlight significant accomplishments and to provide information relative to nonpoint source program efforts. Further information on the overall program can be obtained by contacting Rick Hill, NPS Planning and Grants Program Manager at DCR, (804) 786-7119. Your comments, questions, and feedback are welcomed and encouraged. Talc e 3 M yinia Nonpoint Source Pol&fion Vn ram 2004 Annua(9, port Highlights and Accomplishments The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has experienced many successes in managing nonpoint source pollution over the past year. Some of the accomplishments are highlighted in the following sections: • Watershed Prioritization • Agriculture • Forestry • Urban Programs • Monitoring and Tracking • Resource Extraction • Hydromodification • Grants and Technical Assistance • Coastal and Chesapeake Bay Programs • Statewide Initiatives WATERSHED PRIORITIZATION There is a growing recognition among state agencies, local governments and community organizations, of the importance of watershed management in helping the commonwealth of Virginia protect and Pair e 4 restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and in our rivers, streams, and lakes. Watershed offices were established to improve local delivery of nonpoint source pollution control programs and to foster and coordinate watershed management. Watershed management offices provide the framework needed to meet the Commonwealth of Virginia's long-term watershed prioritization and management goal. This section of the annual report highlights watershed management activities within major river basins of the Commonwealth as well as the associated TMDL activities. These activities work towards implementing the Watershed Prioritization goals established in the 1999 the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. These goals specified having a well integrated and coordinated basin planning and management program and developing TMDL plans and implementation strategies. Specifically this section of the report will include activity reports on: • Watershed Basin Planning • Statewide TMDL development and implementation Watershed Basin Planning Chesapeake Bay Watershed Shenandoah River Watershed 2004 was a very successful year for the Shenandoah watershed in terms of dealing with nonpoint source water issues. The established organizations, committees and working groups dealing with water quality and quantity issues continued to function and grow. The Shenandoah Pure Water 2000 was very active throughout 2004. Major actions included: participating in the removal of the McGaheysville dam on the Shenandoah River, working on development of GIS of sinkholes on I- 81 transport corridor to prevent toxic spills and hazardous materials from polluting source water for Shenandoah County water supplies, leadership of the Shenandoah Sojourn II, and work on Wastewater Treatment Plant Network. Not only did the Pure Water Forum work with the traditional nonpoint source groups, but they also put on a workshop with wastewater treatment plants. Other Shenandoah Watershed activities in 2004 included having The Regional Watershed Resources Policy Committee continue to function and add new counties to their list of active participants. In addition the Page County Water Advisory Committee grew and moved further along toward the likelihood of developing county ordinances and zoning that will protect water. Nutrient Management continued to increase. Some of the notable accomplishments beyond the traditional work in nutrient management included Litter Transfer — 4,200 tons of litter was transferred from source to other users under the state program. A similar federal program transferred another 2,000 tons of litter. Finally, Tributaries Strategies meetings were held with much public interaction from a broad and diverse group of stakeholders attending and providing input. The hopes and expectations for the year 2005 are great. During 2005 it is expected that nutrient management plans will be written for a large number of acres involving urban areas. State owned or controlled lands will also be included in nutrient management. This will be in addition to the traditional agricultural work with nutrient management plans. In agriculture, the movement to phosphorous -based plans will continue. Attention will be paid to increase working relationships with more active and a growing number of groups that deal with water quality, water protection, and water supply and watershed management planning issues are anticipated. It is anticipated that the office will strengthen relations with James Madison University in ways that support water quality, and watershed planning; and increase enforcement and compliance of local programs involved in erosion and sediment control by increasing our staffing levels in this office. All of this will support the Tributaries Strategies. Potomac River Watershed This past year the Potomac River Roundtable has been very involved in the development of the Potomac River Tributary Strategy. They hosted a Tributary Strategy "kick-off' event attended by over 100 diverse stakeholders, promoted public participation in the draft comment period, and have included the Strategies as an agenda item at each quarterly meeting. The Roundtable has been especially involved in outreach activities in support of the Strategies, hosting a LID Tour last fall and planning for a basin -wide forum this summer. _Rappahannock River Watershed Members of the Rappahannock River Basin Commission have been discussing the Rappahannock Tributary Strategy and the implications and opportunities for local governments, including proposed funding sources. The Commission, which is composed of both local and state officials, has been an active participant by providing significant feedback during Strategy development, and is now actively searching for ways to help in implementation. The Rappahannock Conservation Council has also provided direct input and it is eager to assist in Tributary Strategy promotion and implementation. The Council has already developed promotional brochures and is developing strong regional ties among SWCDs and localities by using small grant funds to encouraging the development and implementation of various projects, such as rain gardens, educational field days, and CREP promotional activities. York River Watershed The newly re-established York River and Small Coastal Basin Roundtable is a forum for regional information exchanges to address water quality issues with the York River, Mobjack Bay and the Piankatank River Watersheds. The mission of the group includes establishing position statements for practices and policies that affect water quality in these watersheds, to influence state agencies and decision makers. The priority practices and policies they identified include: agricultural best management practices, nutrient tracking programs, funding opportunities, and nutrient point source and nonpoint source regulations. Upper James River Watershed 2004 was a successful year for the Upper James watershed in terms of dealing with nonpoint source water issues. The Upper James River Roundtable reorganized and was looking for ways to strengthen its program. The Upper James River Roundtable is providing the lead support for forming an Upper James River basin Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Council that would cover Highland, Bath, Alleghany, Craig, Botetourt and Rockbridge Counties. RC&Ds provide a formal mechanism for citizens and government agencies to cooperatively Vi yinira Mnpoinf Source Poflulian Pry= .2004 Annual�Peporf address a wide range of issues including: environmental education; land conservation; water quality; and outdoor recreation. Representatives from federal (US Forest Service, NRCS), state (DCR, DGIF), and local (Covington, Buena Vista, Rockbridge, Central Shenandoah PDC) agencies, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Natural Bridge, Mountain Castles), and Dabney S. Lancaster Community College participate in this work. Key elements supporting the drive to implement an RC&D include the greater degree of sustainability with annual federal funding, the fiscal advantages of 501(c)(3) (i.e., non- profit) status, particularly with respect to obtaining and disbursing grants, and the ability of a RC&D Council to continue and expand upon the work of the Upper James Roundtable. Monthly meetings are planned through the end of 2005. A formal application package will be submitted to USDA before October. Other Upper James River Watershed activities in 2004 included the administration of numerous grants to deal with nonpoint source water quality issues. One excellent example was the grant to the Virginia Land Trust — for the purchase of riparian easements. Tributaries Strategies meetings were held with much public interaction from a broad and diverse group of stakeholders attending and providing input Hopes and expectations for 2005 are high. During 2005, it is expected that nutrient management plans will be written for a large number of acres involving urban areas. In addition, state lands will also be included in nutrient management. This will be in addition to the traditional agricultural work with nutrient management plans. In agriculture, the movement to phosphorous -based plans will continue. Work with more active and a growing number of groups that deal Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source Poffufion Program 2004 AnnuafvZaporf with water quality, water protection, and water supply and watershed management planning issues are anticipated. The Upper James River Roundtable will be strengthened and will find better ways to find funding and play a meaningful leadership role for the area. Increase enforcement and compliance of local programs involved in erosion and sediment control by increasing staffing levels in this office. Middle James River Watershed The Piedmont James River Roundtable continued to focus on promoting the James River Tributary Strategy. Over the past four years, the Roundtable has sponsored local government informational sessions to ensure understanding of water quality issues and policies that may affect local governments. Local government sessions completed to date include: Albemarle, Amelia, Amherst, Bedford, Buckingham, Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Powhatan, and Prince Edward counties; City of Charlottesville; Region 2000 and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commissions. The Thomas Jefferson SWCD, in partnership with the Roundtable and local government support, hosted a successful stormwater management and low impact development workshop. A second workshop with the same theme is being planned for the Richmond metropolitan area in 2005. The expansion of a local fertilizer label initiative continued with the securing of funds to contact and work with local and regional fertilizer suppliers. Other activities conducted by the Roundtable include website redevelopment, a regional public relations campaign and urban best management practices and stream restoration workshop development. PaJc a 6 Lower James River Watershed The Lower James River Roundtable, hosted by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, has undertaken the planning process for the Lower James portion of the James River Tributary Strategy revision process and is working to facilitate the implementation of the Lower James portion of the James River Tributary Strategy. Currently the Roundtable is providing input on the effectiveness of street sweeping as a BMP for sediment removal in Hampton Roads and a bacteria -sampling protocol for use in TMDL implementation plans. The Roundtable is actively linked to the Elizabeth River, Lynnhaven River and other grassroots efforts. Southern Rivers Watersheds Eastern Shore (Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coastal) Building successful capacity building, monitoring and planning, the Eastern Shore Watersheds Network is dedicated to furthering environmental education and awareness and research in sustainable watershed restoration. The Network, a diverse group of Eastern Shore stakeholders, has made great strides in coordinating and implementing the multitude of natural resource planning efforts on the shore since their formation in 2000. Currently, the Network, in partnership with VIMS, is working on a water quality -monitoring program to assess sediment discharge in two bayside creeks and a household hazardous waste disposal program. The Network continues to work closely with VIMS, DEQ CZM, DCR, TNC and local stakeholders in building a seaside strategic conservation plan. Albemarle Sound Watersheds The Southern Watershed Area Management Program, hosted by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), continues to work with the Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuary Program in an effort to exchange planning, environmental management, watershed information with the neighboring North Carolina counties. Through recent grant funding from APNEP and the Virginia Coastal program, an effort is under way to update GIS mapping of the Southern Watershed Area in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach and extend the mapping to include Camden and Currituck Counties. This effort will involve collecting the most current GIS information available for the Southern Watershed Area and consolidating the information so that each of the participating localities has access to the four -locality data set for use in future planning efforts. Chowan River Watersheds The Chowan River Roundtable is continuing its work on capacity building within both the Virginia and North Carolina portions of the Chowan River Watershed. The Roundtable's work is focused on being bi-state project oriented and consistent with the goals and objectives of Virginia's agreement with North Carolina as a partner in the Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuary Program. Recently the Chowan River Roundtable, in coordination with J.R. Horsley SWCD and the Blackwater/ Nottoway River Keepers Association has been working with DEQ and DCR on the development of TMDLs in the Chowan watershed. Roanoke River Watershed During 2004, the Upper Roanoke River Roundtable (URRR) has been working actively to establish name recognition and create partnerships. The URRR now has representatives on the Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Commission, the Smith Mountain Lake Association, the Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce, the South West Virginia Environmental Roundtable and the Radford University Business Assistance Program. The URRR is also involved in joint efforts with the City of Roanoke, Virginia's Explore Park and Roanoke County, the Science Museum of Western Virginia, Virginia Tech, the Western Virginia Water Authority and the Roanoke River Basin Association. The URRR outreach efforts include meetings with area governmental agencies, non-profit groups, regional citizen's groups, students and teachers and the general public. The URRR has developed a stand-alone exhibit for conferences, a membership brochure and an interactive website. They also created an email system and list serve for Board members and are working toward an online newsletter. The URRR was present and visible for various general environmental conferences including The National River Rally, Environment Virginia, the Citizens for Water Quality Summit and Roanoke's Earth Day (at Hollins University). The Upper Roanoke River Roundtable held its annual meeting on October 16 at Explore Park. The project priorities, which are based on a recently completed strategic plan, were decided for the coming year. The projects deemed to have the highest priority included the development of a general mailing to local households on important watershed issues. Promotion of public awareness and participation in the Roanoke TMDL plan development. In addition, priority was placed on the promotion and organization of a citizen water quality -monitoring event. This event is similar to the citizen - monitoring day that was held on October 15, 2004 near Roanoke. New River Watershed With the assistance of DCR, the New River Watershed Roundtable is approaching finalization of its structure. The Roundtable invited over 85 local government elected officials, industry representatives, local interest group leaders, SWCDs, sportsmen groups, etc. to a formal seating of the Executive Board for the New River Watershed Roundtable on January 26, 2005 in Wytheville. Upper Tennessee Watershed The Upper Tennessee River Roundtable, Inc. (UTRR), is nearing the halfway point of the three-year EPA grant received in 2003. The partnership, initiated by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, netted $800,000 for Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia (with nearly $500,000 going to Virginia). The UTRR now has a full-time coordinator, a part-time education specialist, and has contracted a grazing specialist to help implement projects related to rotational grazing. The UTRR recently implemented a new fund-raising program with eight fundraising teams that focus on the eight subsections of the Five Year Plan (i.e., Mining, Litter, Endangered Species, Agriculture, Forestry, Citizen Action, Education, and Urban). Big Sandy River Watershed The Big Sandy River Basin Coalition, Inc. (BSRBC), includes the states of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia. Their recent partnership initiative with the Ohio River Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) is proving to be a fruitful venture. ORSANCO, because of their regulatory authority, has been able to bring partners to the table that ViTinia NonpOinf Sauree To%%ulion Pr^oJc ram 2004 Annua[9 porf previously had not been eager to do so. The BSRBC is considering the possibility of expanding their Board of Directors from a current level of five, to as many as 21 directors. The primary reasons for this expansion are to diversify the Board and increase their "reach" into the community by drawing on a larger group of people that have access to more resources and contacts. Watershed Field Coordinators DCR's six watershed field coordinators work in the six major watersheds located in Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The watershed field coordinator's purpose is to implement Virginia's approach for engaging citizens to adopt various Chesapeake 2000 agreement measures. This position acts as a liaison between DCR watershed office staff and DCR workgroups, basin and small watershed groups, local governments, planning district commissions and Virginia's roundtables. The watershed field coordinators work to promote awareness of, and involvement in, watershed stewardship and tributary strategies, by fostering partnerships among community organizations, federal, state, and local agencies, to facilitate watershed management planning and sound land use in the Chesapeake Bay region. Watershed field coordinators are specialized positions, requiring specific focus on C2K implementation throughout the bay watershed of Virginia. Within each bay watershed, the watershed field coordinator must be familiar with the various community and watershed organizations and their activities and goals. Vi yinia Nonpinf.S'ource Poffulion ProJcrUm 2004 alnnuaf P_eporf Total Maxim am Daily Load Prggram (TMDL) The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) monitors the state's rivers, lakes and tidal waters for pollutants every year to determine if the public can use them for swimming, fishing and drinking. If pollution amounts are too high, the waters cannot support their designated uses and fail to meet Virginia water quality standards. These waters are considered "impaired." Through a 1999 Federal Court Consent Decree order, a federal court established a schedule for TMDL development in Virginia through 2010 for waters identified as impaired since 1998. For other waters, Virginia schedules the development of TMDLs within eight to twelve years of finding the waters impaired. Since 1999, DEQ, DCR, VDH, and DMME have developed plans, with public input, to restore and maintain the water quality of the impaired waters. These plans establish a "total maximum daily load," or TMDL, for the impaired waters. The agencies have also developed TMDL implementation plans and work with partners to reduce pollution to the level required by the TMDL. In January 2005, DEQ, in cooperation with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME), released a report that describes the 5- year progress of TMDL development, implementation plans and the Va e 8 application of best management practices in Virginia's TMDL program. The information provided in the annual report will help to identify strategies that will ensure continued success. The report is available on the DEQ web site at wwwAeg.virainia.govitmdl. (1) TMDL Development The Virginia TMDL program has successfully met the demands of a rigorous development schedule. The program completed 220 TMDLs from 1999 to 2004, and more than 200 have been contracted for completion by 2006. Of the 672 waters requiring a TMDL under the consent order schedule, the program has developed TMDLs for 202 waters and has secured contracts to complete TMDLs for 162 waters by 2006. Just over 300 waters remain and are scheduled for TMDL development by 2010. For non -consent decree impaired waters, the program has completed TMDLs for 18 waters, and 40 waters are under contract for TMDL development by 2006. The program has scheduled TMDL development for the remaining 902 waters within eight to 12 years of when the water was designated impaired. To develop a TMDL, the state considers: • Naturally occurring concentrations of pollutants in the impaired waters. • Pollution from fixed locations, such as a pipe or ditch (point sources). • Pollution sources without a single point of origin, such as agricultural activities and urban areas (nonpoint sources). (2) TMDL Guidance Manual for Implementation Plans DCR and DEQ produced the "Guidance Manual for Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plans". This manual provides guidance to local governments, soil and water conservation districts, planning districts or regional commissions, community watershed groups, and state and federal agencies on developing an implementation plan (IPs) for waters where TMDLs have been completed. The purpose of this manual is to ensure that implementation plans that are prepared by interested parties meet the state requirements through Virginia's 1997 Water Quality, Monitoring, Information and Restoration Act (WQMIRA), as well as other federal requirements. In addition to the requirements of WQMIRA, this guidance manual addresses the requirements of IPs based on EPA's "Guidance for Water - Quality Based Decisions: The TMDL Process", "Supplemental Guidance for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to Sates and Territories," and "Guidance for Developing Watershed -Based Plans for Impaired Waters." (3) TMDL Implementation Plans Implementation Plans describe ways to reduce pollution levels in the stream, and includes a schedule of actions, costs and monitoring. The TMDL program has completed six implementation plans covering 18 segments and scheduled 16 implementation plans covering 42 segments for completion by 2006. Completion of the 544-consent order waters and 902-non-consent order waters will be dependent upon available funding and staff. #of Plans #of Segments feted FCom��__4ff 6 18 duled 16 42 of consent waters # of non - consent water Remaining 544 gp2 Work continued on the development of Implementation Plans for TMDLs. Additional Implementation Plans started in 2004 by DCR. These are summarized in the table below. LocationImpairment FFWatershed Buckingham and Cumberland Fecal coliform Counties City of Cooks Creek and Harrisonburg & Fecal coliform, Blacks Run (4) Rockingham benthic County Bedford and Big Otter (5) Campbell Fecal coliform Counties Lower Blackwater, Maggoddee and Gills Franklin County Fecal coliform Creek (3) Thumb, Run, Deep Run, Carter Run, Fauquier Fecal coliform al if Great Run (4) County c li Additional Implementation Plans to be developed in 2005 by DCR are summarized in the table below. Watershed (# of TMDLs) Location Impairment Dodd Creek and Mill Floyd and Creek (2) Montgomery Fecal coliform Counties Little Creek and City of Bristol, Washington Fecal colifom, Beaver Creek 3 () County E.coli, benthic (4) TMDL Implementation Projects The TMDL implementation program has been working in six watersheds, and five have shown improvement in water quality. It is too early in the implementation process to determine if water quality is improving in the sixth watershed. The table below gives an overview of the six watersheds and the progress made in each. The program and its partners work to achieve water quality standards by reducing pollution through the BMPs that were established in the implementation plan. BMPs are effective and practical ways to prevent or reduce pollution from nonpoint sources to ensure water quality. They can range from repairing septic systems, stream fencing, and planting riparian buffers. The portion of the watersheds covered by the implementation plans is about 158,663 acres or 248 square miles. In most watersheds, local soil and water conservations districts or DCR have taken the lead in overseeing the implementation of the best management practices. To determine the success of the practices on water quality, DEQ monitors the impaired streams. Dozens of voluntary and government funded BMPs are used throughout the watersheds. Voluntary efforts have been a key to success in the North River watershed. The Middle Creek is a successful example of Virginia's proactive approach to water quality improvement. This approach aims to clean impaired water bodies through voluntary methods in order to avoid the costly and time-consuming process of developing TMDLs and implementation plans. Vi yinir4 MnPOM[ Soarce Pol%u(ion ProJc r,,rm 2004 Annuti%I'eporf In this watershed, stakeholder interest or other resource management programs that preceded TMDL completion drove water quality restoration. Further information on TMDL implementation projects led by DCR are summarized below. Included are the three pilot projects begun in 2001 and two new projects started in 2004. The sixth implementation project, Four Mile Run watershed, is a DEQ TMDL project and a summary is not included. a) New Projects Holman's Creek - The Holmans Creek (Shenandoah County) TMDL Implementation Plan (IP) for bacteria and benthic impairments was completed. The Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) was contracted by DCR to provide technical assistance to work with landowners and conduct educational activities in order to implement the agricultural and residential BMPs identified in the IP. Catoctin Creek - An IP for the bacteria impairments for the North Fork, South Fork and mainstem of Catoctin Creek in Loudoun County was completed. The Loudoun SWCD was contracted to provide technical assistance and educational activities to implement the agricultural BMPs and the Loudoun County Health Department was contracted to administer the residential implementation efforts. able - Status of Implementation Projects Watershed or Location of Implementation activities Pollutant source Water quality Improvement North River/Rockingham County Agricultural, nonpoint Some improvement Middle Fork Holston River/Washington County Agricultural, nonpoint Moderate improvement . Blackwater River/Franklin County Agricultural, nonpoint Some improvement Four Mile Run/Arlington and Fairfax counties Urban, nonpoint Too early to determine Middle Creek/Tazewell County Coal mining activities Definite improvement Quail Run/Rockingham County Point source Definite improvement Pay 9 Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source Po((u6on ProJc ram 2004 Annua(1Z1Porf b) Pilot Projects 2004 was the third year of BMP implementation for the three "pilot" TMDL implementation projects that were initiated in late 2001. These projects are based on TMDL implementation plans that were developed for bacteria impairments on 13 stream segments. The three Pilot Projects include: • The North River in Rockingham County, • The Blackwater River in Franklin County, and • The Middle Fork Holston River in Washington County. The number of Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented in the North River, Blackwater River, and Middle Fork Holston watersheds from 2001 through 2004 are summarized in Tables 1-3 on the next two pages. Also the progress of BMP implementation in terms of percent of goal accomplished is provided. The specific BMPs by impaired stream segment and the load reductions also achieved were provided to EPA Region III in December 2004. (5) Areas of Concern and Recommendations for Future Actions Case studies have shown some water quality improvement in the three years of implementation post-TMDL development. The estimated total cost to develop TMDLs through 2010 is about $10.7 million. DEQ projects that, assuming level funding sources and accurate estimates, the agencies will be able to meet the consent order schedule and complete the development of the TMDLs required by 2010.There do exist, however, several unknown factors that could pose difficulties in meeting the TMDL schedule. These factors include: the quantity of non -consent order waters or impairments included in the TMDL schedule, implementation plan development costs, unforeseen complexities and modeling costs for more complex TMDLs. Challenges also exist in the development of TMDLs for complex pollutants Table 1 - BMP Summary for the North River Watershed such as mercury, and in the maintenance of a growing TMDL pool with the potential for future TMDL modifications to accommodate permit needs. A growing challenge for the program is the transition from developing TMDLs to actual water quality improvements. Because there are no new authorities for enforcing TMDLs, it has been Virginia's expectation to implement TMDLs using existing programs and funding sources. Existing resources include permits from DEQ and the DMME that limit discharges to state waters. These programs are utilized when stream impairments are attributed to a permitted facility. For non -permitted activities, Virginia's approach has been to use incentive -based programs such as the Virginia Agricultural Cost Share Program and the State Revolving Loan Fund. Control Measure Units Estimated Units Units Percent Needed' Completed z Completed Agriculture Program Stream Exclusion Fencing Feet 612,480 30,093 5% Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas Acres 5,154 876 17% Forested Riparian Buffer Acres 0 10.3 n/a Nutrient Management Practices Acres 0 358 n/a Grassed Waterways Feet 0 4,785 n/a _Residential Program Septic System Pump Out System 0 7 Septic System Repair System 10 6 -- Sewer Connections System 0 0 Septic System Installation System 17 3 -- Alternative Waste Treatment System System 27 3 Total On -Site System installation System 54 12 22% r•I, —It to anauul I gnu auernauve waste treatment systems are projected measures to correct 6 straight pipes. 2 The units completed column indicates cost -share and voluntary practices Vase 10 ViTina Nonpoinf Source Pof�ulion PraJr, ram 2004 Annua(R-1porl T_Lt_ n ante 4 - atvir- Summary Tor the t3lackwater River Watershed Control Measure Units Estimated Units Units Percent Needed' Completed Completed Agriculture Program Stream Exclusion Fencing Feet 369,600 34,561 9% Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas Acres 0 4.7 n/a Forested Riparian Buffer Acres 0 5.2 n/a Residential Program Septic System Pump Out System 0 0 Septic System Repair System 0 3 -- Sewer Connections System 0 0 Septic System Installation System 7 14 -- Alternative Waste Treatment System System 8 0 Total On -Site System Installation System 15 14 93% r -------- Wl Loa 11c„L sysieuns are prolectea measures to correct 15 straight pipes. Table 3 - BMP Summary for the Middle Fork Holston Watershed Control Measure Units Estimated Units Units Percent Agriculture Program Needed' Completed Completed Stream Exclusion Fencing Feet 205,920 74,791 36% Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas Acres 0 0 n/a Forested Riparian Buffer Acres 0 n/a n/a _Residential Program Septic System Pump Out System 0 120 - Septic System Repair System 67 9 Sewer Connections System 8 2 Septic System Installation System 67 4 Alternative Waste Treatment System System 67 1 _ Total On -Site System Installation and Repairs System 209 16 ° g /o 1 Numbers for septic system installation, repair, connection to public sewer and alternative waste treatment systems are projected measures to correct 209 straight pipes and failing septic systems. Virginia also offers dedicated funding Stewardship Act to correct pollution It will be the goal of Virginia's for the implementation of best sources on impaired streams. These natural resource agencies to work with management practices in watersheds efforts are being coordinated with the the general public to take this success with approved implementation plans. state's Watershed Permitting and to the next level by successfully Planning Task Force. remediating some impaired streams As a result of the Governor's within the next few years. Natural Resources Partnership Despite the challenges, Virginia's Agenda, DEQ, DCR, VDACS and TMDL program has shown that VDH began discussions and properly applied and maintained best development of strategies to identify management practices result in and replace straight pipes on impaired measurable improvements in water streams and to utilize the Agricultural quality. Ve4j 6 11 Vi yinia NonpoinfSource Po(& on VroJcram 2004 Annua(Peporf AGRICULTURE Agriculture is a large and diverse industry in Virginia and accounts for approximately 24 percent of Virginia's land area. Agricultural activities continue to be the most significant source of nonpont source pollution (NPS) in the state. The 2004 Water Quality Assessment suggests that about 70% of the total NPS nitrogen load and over 60% of the total NPS phosphorous and sediment loads come from agricultural land. These pollutants can escape crop field and livestock production areas and enter surface and ground water systems. DCR coordinates the various statewide agricultural nonpoint source pollution management programs. The programs focus on several areas: the Virginia Agricultural Cost -Share Best Management Program, the Virginia BMP Agricultural Tax Credit Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and other related programs. Best management practices (BMPs) installed through the above programs are designed to reduce NPS pollution, which adversely impacts state waters. Soil loss (i.e. sediment) and excess nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) are reduced by a variety of BMPs installed on both cropland and pastureland. Animal waste BMPs directly assist in managing and minimizing nutrient losses to surface and ground waters. All 33 practices eligible for cost -share, and 49 practices eligible for tax credits PaJc e 12 provide some amount of reduction of Agricultural NPS contaminates, and assist the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts mission of improving water quality. This section focuses mainly on the reduction of soil loss, nitrogen, and phosphorus. However, animal waste BMPs also reduces the introduction of fecal coliform to state waters. Other BMPs are designed to reduce excess fertilizer and pesticide runoff, or create streamside buffers to intercept contaminated runoff and groundwater. This report highlights some of the accomplishments of the local, state and federal programs, including: • Agricultural BMP Cost -Share program, • Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) • Nutrient Management • Nutrient Management Field Specialists • Nutrient Management Certification Program • Nutrient Management Regulatory Revisions • Legislative Study of Nutrient Management Planning in Virginia • Poultry Waste Management Act • Poultry Litter Application Cost -Share project • Virginia Cooperative Extension Activities • National Resources Conservation Service • VDACS Pesticide Disposal Program • VDACS Agricultural Stewardship Program Agricultural BMP Cost - Share Proeram and Tax _Credit Prokram This program provides financial incentives statewide to agricultural landowners and operators for the implementation of approved Best Management Practices (BMPs), which improve water quality, on crop and pasture lands and animal feeding operations. Nutrient and sediment reductions listed below have been achieved since 1992. These reductions correlate directly with all elements of the Cost -Share Program, including the amount of funding, participating farmers, acres under program management, and number of BMPs installed. • 13,348,080 pounds of nitrogen, • 2,545,571 pounds of phosphorus, and • 2,396,808 tons of soil. Available funding for the Virginia Agricultural BMP cost -share program has been variable in recent years. During fiscal year 2004 (July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) financial support of the Agricultural BMP Cost - Share Program for the fiscal year was near an all-time low, however many aspects of the program implementation continued to be impressive. Program implementation included the following results for the Program categories: • 728 participating farmers, • 69,696 acres under program management, • 1,807 installed BMPs, and • Over $2.3 million in matching funds. Due to the success of the program, an additional 658,945 pounds of nitrogen, 134,245 pounds of phosphorus, and 121,130 tons of soil were prevented from reaching Virginia's waters. Conservation Reserve Enhancement ProL-ram CREP The program aims to improve Virginia's water quality and wildlife habitat by offering rental payments to farmers who voluntarily restore riparian buffers, filter strips and wetlands through the installation of approved conservation practices. CREP is an enhancement to the federal Conservation Reserve Program, which was established in 1985 and has enrolled more than 36 million acres nationwide. The Virginia CREP is actually comprised of two programs. The Chesapeake Bay CREP targets Virginia's entire bay watershed and calls for the planting of 22,000 acres of riparian buffer and filter strips as well as 3,000 acres of wetland restoration. The Southern Rivers CREP targets watersheds outside the bay drainage basin and will establish 8,500 acres of riparian buffer and filter strip plantings and 1,500 acres of wetland restoration. In addition, statewide there is a goal of having 9,000 acres in permanent CREP easements. Statewide, these programs are expected to reduce annual nitrogen loads to waterways by more than 648,135 pounds, phosphorus by more than 98,601 pounds and sediment by more than 52,669 tons. The anticipated reductions will help Virginia meet water quality improvement goals, particularly in the Potomac -Shenandoah region, wherein the state has agreed to reduce nutrient loads by 40 percent. Accomplishments by the CREP program are impressive. Since the June 2000 the following accomplishments have occurred: • 1,375 participating farmers • 6,388 acres of buffers and wetland restored (141.95% of goal) • 1,172 miles of stream bank protected • 47,289 Tons of sediment reduced (89.73% of goal) • 257,253 pounds of Nitrogen reduced (39.85% of goal) • 48,375 pounds of Phosphorous reduced (49.06 % of goal). Program signup, contract approval and project implementation are continuing throughout the CREP eligibility areas. Virginia's CREP enrollment period has been extended until December 30, 2007. Concern and Recommendations for BMP Cost -Share and CREP: Improving state budgets have led to an increase in funding for the State Ag BMP cost- share program and CREP revisions that are designed to accelerate the enrollment in CREP. Two different incentives that will provide $1.5 million in landowner incentives from state funds are being rolled out in early 2005. The first CREP easements have been recorded. However, even with increased state funding, meeting the 9,000-acre goal for permanent CREP easements will be difficult due to high legal and technical assistance costs. In the future, additional funds are needed for: technical assistance, legal expenses, program delivery expenses/costs, as well as funds to provide for landowner financial incentives. Nutrient Mana-,�-enzent Proper management of nutrients used in agriculture is critical to Virginia's efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution of both surface and groundwater. DCR's Nutrient Management Program was established in 1989. The program's purpose is to encourage proper land application and efficient use of fertilizers, manures, sewage sludge and other nutrient sources utilized for agricultural and urban landscape purposes, in ways that protect and improve the quality of Virginia's ground and surface waters. DCR works closely with large and small agricultural operations to manage agricultural nutrients. DCR also educates urban landowners about the impacts of nutrient runoff from lawns, gardens, golf courses, parking lots, and other landscaped areas. DCR uses various strategies to encourage proper land application of fertilizer, manure, and sewage Vi'yyini(s Nonpoinf Source Vo%fufion pro cram 2004 AnnualIzn' Mori sludge for agricultural and horticultural purposes. Nutrient Manazement Field Specialists DCR's nutrient management specialists provide technical assistance to landowners. These specialists develop site -specific nutrient management plans (NMPs) with cooperating farmers, assist farmers with manure testing for nutrient levels, calibrate nutrient application equipment, and coordinate soil nitrate testing in agricultural crop fields. DCR's nutrient management specialists also assist localities in developing nutrient management programs and ordinances. The specialists developed 491 nutrient management plans covering 76,934 acres during 2004. This exceeds the projection of 60,000 acres annually as contained in the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program plan document. Nutrient Manazement lk,-ulatory Revisions DCR is in the process of amending the Nutrient Management Training and Certification regulations (4 VAC 5-15 in the Virginia Administrative Code). The regulations were last promulgated in 1995. Several significant modifications are proposed to be incorporated into the regulations. The proposed regulations would require all nutrient management plans to better address phosphorus loss potential from land and better address the timing of nitrogen containing materials such as manure and biosolids. Va e 13 Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source Po "60n Program 2004 Annual'Reporf A number of other technical changes are proposed in the promulgated NMP criteria to update soil specific crop yield expectations and crop nutrient needs based on the findings of the Virginia Agronomic Land Use Evaluation System (VALUES) update project funded through §319. Proposed regulations are expected to be released for comment by late spring of 2005, with final regulations expected to be in place by the end of calendar year 2005. DCR staff worked with a broad based technical advisory committee in crafting the regulations. Committee members represented various sectors of agriculture, the environmental community, academia, and related agencies. The revision of the Nutrient Management Training and Certification regulations to reflect technology available to date is another strategy identified in the Virginia's 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program plan document. Legislative Study of Nutrient M anag-ement Planning The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) conducted an in-depth study of the effectiveness of nutrient management plans in Virginia throughout 2004. JLARC staff interviewed farmers and agency personnel and conducted surveys of farmers and certified nutrient management planners, participated in CAFO inspections for farms requiring NMPs, and conducted a thorough review of data related to the program. Va e 14 A final report entitled "Review of Nutrient Management Plans in Virginia" found that the technical content of nutrient management plans developed in Virginia is generally good. The report contains recommendations to enhance future nutrient management efforts in the Commonwealth. The document suggests alternative policy options be considered to increase the acreage under NMPs. These options range from greatly increased incentives to increased regulatory requirements pertaining to the number of farms required to implement NMPs. Poultry Waste M_ anazement Act The Poultry Waste Management Act (HB 1207) was passed by the General Assembly and was signed by the governor in 1999. The regulations required poultry operations with at least 11,000 turkeys or 20,000 chickens to file a registration statement for the Poultry Waste VPA General Permit by October 1, 2001. These operations must comply with a DCR-approved Nutrient Management Plan, which includes requirements for proper storage of poultry litter. A total of 1,086 nutrient management plans have been approved by DCR for poultry operations covered in the General Permit. This represents essentially all known operations in the state projected to need a permit. The regulated operations produce 580,117 tons of manure annually. Of this total, 187,295 tons are land applied on the regulated operations on 125,831 acres, and 392,822 tons are sold to other farmers or used for alternative uses. Poultry companies operating in Virginia were very progressive in prompting growers to have nutrient management plans developed and approved prior to the deadline. The law and regulations also require NMPs developed after October 1, 2001 to limit the application of phosphorus to crop nutrient needs or crop removal, whichever is greater. Pilot Poultry Litter Application Cost -Share Pilot Proiect The Department of Conservation and Recreation in cooperation with the poultry industry has operated a pilot litter transport project. DCR used Water Quality Improvement Act state funds to provide $25,000, with industry matching an additional $25,000. The project is intended to develop markets for poultry litter in areas outside of Virginia's main poultry producing counties. Litter must come from Augusta, Page, Rockingham or Shenandoah County and be applied in any other county in Virginia outside of those listed as source counties. The receiving operation must submit an application along with a nutrient management plan to be considered for the program. The application rates in the nutrient management plan must be based on the soil test recommendation for phosphorus and also cannot exceed the nitrogen recommendation. The maximum allowable acreage is 150 acres per participant. In 2003, the cost share rate was $6 / acre and the program transported 1,328 tons to 11 producers covering 859 acres. In 2004, the cost share rate was increased to $10 per acre and the program transported 5,209 At this time, it is unsure if funding for the program will continue in 2005. As a result of the pilot, USDA-NRCS in Virginia has created a similar program under EQIP that cost shares $10 per acre on litter transported from a larger group of source counties to any location in Virginia. The operation must have a nutrient management plan and soil test levels for phosphorus cannot exceed moderate levels. This program does not have a maximum acreage per producer and is funded at approximately $250,000 in 2004 and 2005. Vir�znia Cooperative Extension The Virginia Cooperative Extension conducted a variety of nonpoint source educational and outreach programs for diverse audiences within the commonwealth. Mid Atlantic Agricultural Ammonia Forum: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service's (CSREES) Mid -Atlantic Regional Water Quality Workgroup coordinated and conducted two agricultural ammonia forums (Woodstock, Virginia, March 16, 2004 and Chesapeake College, Wye, Maryland, March 19, 2004) for local Extension staff, NRCS, and Soil Conservation District staff, local and state government staff, agricultural professionals, producers, industry representatives, and others involved in nutrient management and water quality. The role of ammonia in the nitrogen cycle, impacts on air and water quality, and emerging science on agricultural and control and were discussed. Accomplishments of the forum included: 1) raising awareness of the contribution of agricultural nitrogen, especially ammonia, to nutrient enrichment; and 2) introducing participants to common ammonia sources and steps to reduce ammonia emissions. Water Quality P-Index Workshop: The CSREES Mid -Atlantic Regional Water Quality Workgroup coordinated and conducted a workshop in Winchester, Virginia on June 7, 2004. Experts from VA, WV, MD, DE, and PA convened a workshop to develop P source coefficients for waste products applied to land according to P Index. Results of the workshop were provided to regional State regulatory agencies for incorporation into the P Index. Nutrient Management Symposium: VA Cooperative Extension Specialists from Virginia Tech conducted nutrient management training for certified planners at the American Forage and Grassland Council Conference in Roanoke, Virginia on June 14, 2004. Nutrient Mana,-ement Certification Prowam DCR certifies private and public sector nutrient management planners, and conducts training sessions and examinations, as authorized in §10.1- 104.2 of the Code of Virginia. As of August 2004, 278 people are certified to develop nutrient management plans in Virginia. Mi yinia MnpoinE Souree Pol U60n ProJc ram 2004 Annua%porf There are planners from fertilizer, seed, and pesticide suppliers, private consultants, employees of soil and water conservation districts, DCR, the Department of Environmental Quality, NRCS, and other categories as represented in the following table. Table 2. Nutrient Management Certificates issued throuah 2004. Categories Number of Individuals Fertilizer/Pesticide Industry 61 Private Consultants 42 DCR Em to ees 19 SWCD ..Employees 29 DEQ Employees 22 NRCS Employees 62 Extension Agents 9 Biosolids Industry 12 Academia 3 Misc. Individuals 19 Total Certified Persons 278 Non-DCR certified planners developed management plans for a total of 82,436 acres during the last annual reporting period. National Resources Conservation Service Most of the NRCS NPS pollution reduction efforts were concentrated in three major program areas: Farm Bill Programs, Conservation Operations and the Land Treatment Program under the PL-534 and PL-566 legislation. (1) Farm Bill Programs: In 2004, approximately 14.3 million dollars was appropriated for a variety of programs in Virginia. (a) Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) - The largest program, the Environmental Quality Incentive Vi yinia Nonpoinl Souree Pollulion ProJc ram 2004 AnnuaN Zeporf Program (EQIP), directed approximately $9.8 million to cost share contracts with producers to address resource problems under any of five statewide waster quality degradation priorities: erosion from cropland and grazing land management, nutrient pollution from cropland and pastureland, improper animal waste management systems, and NPS from forestry operations. Major efforts under these resource concerns included: • Installation of 19 waste storage facilities; • 15,000 acres of nutrient management, • 1500 acres of proper waste utilization on agriculture land; • 1,800 acres of tree planting • 1440 acres of forest stand improvement, • 1400 acres of cover crop; • 4,500 acres of residue management; • 515,000 feet of fencing, • 260,000 feet of water facility pipeline, • 1300 acres of pasture seeding and • 7,000 prescribed grazing plans. 2004 will be the last year NRCS operates the EQIP on a statewide ranking process. Starting next year with FY 2005 funds, each of the four NRCS administrative areas will receive an allocation. This is determined by the key resource indicators such as number of animal in confinement, acres of cropland, acres of grassland, etc. in an attempt to direct more funds to resource problems. (b) Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) and Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) - NRCS also administered several easement programs that will retain agricultural land in its current less intensive use. The Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) was used to purchase perpetual easements on six different tracts of land around the state. Funding for this program was $1.38 million dollars. All was used for current and prior year agreements. In PaJce 16 addition, all of the provisions of the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) were utilized in Virginia for the first time in 2004. NRCS was able to utilize $ 542,000 in new money and prior year funds to enter into nine long- term rental agreements and five perpetual easements to preserve grasslands that were threatened with conversion to other uses. (c) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) NRCS provides additional technical assistance to support the CRP and CREP programs. Accomplishments are reported by the Farm Service Agency and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. In addition, NRCS did install an additional 563 acres of riparian forest buffers, 64,000 feet of field borders, 42 acres of grassed waterways and 86,000 feet (over 16 miles) of stream bank protection work under various programs. (2) Conservation Operations: NRCS provides most of the traditional technical assistance in the form of conservation planning to producers, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and other agencies and groups through this effort. Accomplishments under this program include: • Conservation planning of 72,000 acres of cropland • Conservation planning of 99,000 acres of grazing lands • Practices were applied by NRCS on 42,000 acres of cropland and over 75,000 acres of grazing lands. In addition, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP), which include complete planning involving erosion control, nutrient management planning and animal waste management, were prepared for 110 animal operations. A total of 80 were certified as completely installed. (3) Land Treatment Program: Working under authorization contained in both Public Law 534 (Potomac Basin) and 566 (statewide), NRCS operated a cost share assistance program in 8 watersheds across the state. These efforts are for long term contracting to improved water quality in these basin. Funding of approximately $ 117,330 was allocated to 182 active contracts in order to install planned conservation practices. Pesticide Disposal Prourasn The disposal of canceled, banned or unwanted pesticides poses a significant challenge to agricultural producers and other pesticide users due to its high cost. The proper disposal of waste pesticides eliminates a potential threat to health and the environment. The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), in cooperation with the Virginia Pesticide Control Board (PCB) and Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) completed the 2004 Pesticide Disposal Program in early December. Two hundred and three farmers, pesticide dealers and pest control firms disposed of 210,423 pounds of unwanted, outdated and banned pesticides during this year's collection encompassing 33 localities. Throughout the 14 years of Virginia's disposal project, 2,308 agricultural producers, pesticide dealers and pest control firms have participated in the program with 1,158,851 pounds collected and destroyed. For more information about the 2005 programs, contact Liza Fleeson at 804-371-6561. Information about this and other VDACS pesticide programs may be found at: http://www.vdacs state va usleesticides/ind ex.htmL Agricultural Stewardship Program The Agricultural Stewardship Act (ASA) is the result of a joint effort by the agricultural and environmental communities, districts and agencies, to develop a common-sense solution to water pollution problems caused by agricultural operations. The Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VADACS) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the ASA. The goal of the Act is to consider the needs of the farmer while meeting the requirements of the environment. The ASA addresses water pollution problems caused by nutrients, sediments and toxins entering state waters from agricultural activities. ASA also allows for a complaint and investigation procedure that forces compliance by agricultural operators when activities are determined to be causing water pollution. Complaints that an agricultural activity is producing water pollution go to the Commissioner of the VADACS to determine if an investigation is warranted. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether the agricultural activity is causing or will cause water pollution. If no causal link is found, the Commissioner will dismiss the complaint. If the investigation determines that the activity is the cause, the farmer is given sixty days to develop a corrective plan. ASA provides a farmer six months to start implementing his plan and up to eighteen months for full implementation. If a farmer fails to implement a plan within the 18-month time limit, the Act requires the Commissioner to take enforcement action. During April 1, 2004 through February 28, 2005, the Commissioner received 31 official complaints regarding possible agricultural pollution. These official complaints fell into 7 different categories according to commodity: 1. Beef — 6 (19.4%); 2. Beef/Hog — 1 (3.2%); 3. Cropland — 12 (38.6%); 4. Dairy — 2 (6.5%); 5. Hog — 3 (9.7%); 6. Horse — 6 (19.4%); and 7. Horse/Cattle — 1 (3.2%). Eleven complaints indicated that both sediments and nutrients were involved. Five complaints were attributed to pollution problems involving nutrients only, while 15 faulted only sediments as contributing to pollution problems. The Commissioner's Office, together with local SWCD's in many cases, completed investigations for 27 of the 31 official complaints received. As of February 28, 2005, four complaints were awaiting a decision by the Commissioner. Of the 27 complaints on which the Commissioner acted before the end of the eleven -month period, Department investigations determined that 18 of the complaints revealed insufficient or no evidence of water pollution; therefore, these complaints were unfounded. In one case, the complaint was dismissed because the complaint related to matters outside of the purview of the ASA. In eight of the investigations, there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations that the agricultural activities were M yinia Mnpainf Source Pofft&on PraJc Nam .2004 Annual 9Za iorf causing or would cause water pollution. The Department is responsible for conducting six-month and 18-month field reviews to make sure that plans are on schedule as far as implementation and that implemented plans are maintained to prevent the re -occurrence of pollution problems identified by the Department in its response to complaints received under the ASA. At the recommendation of staff, the Commissioner conducted informal fact-finding conferences to determine whether two agricultural operations were maintaining their ASA stewardship plans and whether the plan for one operation was completed in compliance with the Act. The Commissioner issued corrective orders finding that two agricultural operations were out of compliance and establishing deadlines in which compliance must be achieved. A third corrective order was being prepared for issuance as of February 28, 2005. During the program year, VDACS participated in meetings held by state soil and water conservation districts (SWCD's) at the regional and state levels and participating in meetings held by various commodity and agricultural groups. Concerns and Recommendations Staff reductions and resource constraints represent a serious challenge for this program during the ensuing reporting period and beyond. Information about the Ag Stewardship Program may be found at: http://www.vdacs.state.va.us/stewardship/index. html. PaJc e 17 Vi yinia NonpoinI Source Po�%ufion ProJc rarn 2004 Annua[?P`eporf FORESTRY Virginia has approximately 16 million acres of forested land (68 per cent of the state). The primary pollutant associated with forestry operation is sediment resulting from soil loss during forest disturbing activities. Based on the NPS Assessment, about 17% of the total NPS Nitrogen loads and over 30% of the total NPS Phosphorous and Sediment loads may come from forested sources. In 1992 the Water Quality Task Force recommended that the Virginia General Assembly pass the Silvicultural Water Quality Act of 1993 (Article 12, §10.1-1181.1-7). This authorized the DOF to act to prevent pollution of state waters from silvicultural activities. The act was amended several times, the last being in 2002 to allow for the issuance of a civil penalty against the operator for failure to notify the Department of Forestry (DOF) of a commercial timber harvesting operation. Through the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program (NPSPMP) and the Virginia Silvicultural Water Quality Law (SWQL), the commonwealth aims at reducing nutrient and sediment pollution entering Virginia's waters. DOF is actively involved in both water quality protection and the prevention of nonpoint source pollution from forestry practices through the SWQL and through statewide riparian forest buffer restoration work. VaJce 18 This report section includes information on the NPS forestry activities in 2004 as they apply to: The Silvicultural Water Quality Law and BMPS Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Silvicultural Water Quality Law Since 1993, the efforts of the DOF and public/private organizations have trained over 4,500 loggers in Water Quality Techniques known as Best Management Practices or BMPs, inspected over 3,000 harvesting operations per year, and utilized the Silvicultural Water Quality Act (SWQA) to protect water quality. Education under the American Forest and Paper Association's (AF&PA) Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) program has allowed the DOF to train over 4,500 individual loggers and foresters on harvest planning and BMP's since 1996. Field personnel within each of the six administrative regions accomplish harvest inspections, averaging over 3,000 inspections per year. The purpose of these inspections is to make recommendations on the implementation of BMPs and to enforce the SWQA. Compliance Actions The SWQL, now in its 121h year, is recognized nationally as a model for water quality compliance. As of the end of January 2005, there have been the following law actions since program inception: • 1606 Notices of Violations • 708 Informal Conferences • 466 Special Orders resulting from Informal Conferences • 195 Final Orders • $964,326 penalties assessed • $250,342 penalties collected Harvesting notification has improved statewide though there are still some issues with both notification and compliance. Penalties collected are placed in the Water Quality Penalty Fund. By law, penalties collected are to be used for education, demonstration of water quality protection techniques and research only. In addition to law compliance, a statewide audit has been in place since 1994 to track trends in BMP implementation and effectiveness. Eighteen of these audits have occurred —the goal being two per year. These audits have all used the same methodology to ensure consistency in trend data control methodology for consistency in compliance actions and training of DOF personnel. Recent Program Accomplishments Most recently, several important program elements were improved. The DOF completed the Fourth Edition of Virginia's Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality and the associated Field Guide. A Section 319 grant provided critical funding for this revision. In terms of education and information, the DOF, with the forest industry and Virginia Tech, conducted multiple Logger Training Sessions in 2004 to educate forest operators to the changes that have occurred in the new BMP Manual and changes to the SWQL. The DOF developed and manned several exhibits at the East Coast Sawmill and Logging Equipment Exposition dealing with Water Quality Education on Forestry Operations that reached an estimated 15,000 forestry professionals in a two- day period. This occurs in alternate years and will occur again in 2006. Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration In October 1994, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council adopted Directive 94-1, which called upon the Chesapeake Bay Program to develop a policy that would enhance riparian stewardship and efforts to conserve and restore riparian forest buffers. In 1996, The Virginia Forest Riparian Buffer Initiative was established with the goal to protect all streams and shorelines by forested or riparian buffers. Bay Program partners agreed to develop an implementation plan for their respective Governor by June 30, 1998, including benchmarks on how these goals and recommendations would be met. The resulting plan committed Virginia to restoring 610 miles of riparian forest buffers by 2010. It reaffirmed Virginia's pledge to protect the state's water quality and to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay. During 2004 alone, Virginia restored 423.3 miles of buffers statewide (241.4 stream miles in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and 181.9 stream miles in the Southern Watersheds). Virginia met its riparian buffer commitment early; as of June 30, 2004, Virginia had restored buffers along 2,407 miles of rivers and streams statewide, 1,433 within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and 974 within the collective "Southern Rivers" watersheds. Virginia has restored three times as many miles of riparian buffers as its original goal and has done so well ahead of the 2010 target date. In December 2003, Governor Warner committed to restoring 3,200 miles of riparian forest buffers in the Bay by 2010. Virginia has now committed to a much greater effort on the order of 30,000 miles as part of the state's Tributary Strategies. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a federal cost -share program that provides incentives to landowners to protect their streams, remains the most successful program in the state for promoting riparian forest buffer restoration as well as a successful example of state and federal cooperation. Soil and Water District staff, NRCS staff, and Department of Forestry (DOF) field staff continue to promote CREP and to provide private landowners with the necessary technical assistance to implement CREP projects. DOF continues to provide the bulk of planting stock for CREP projects. District, NRCS, and DCR staff handle most of the program administration. Continuation, if not expansion, of CREP in the 2007 Farm Bill will be critical if Virginia is to meet its 2010 buffer restoration goals. Several ongoing efforts seek tc identify and target those stream segments most in need of buffer restoration. In addition to efforts on the part of Virginia's natural resources agencies, studies by various universities using remote sensing and geographic information systems have enabled agencies to target small watersheds where restoration is most critical to achieving Virginia's water quality goals. Tributary Strategies Virginia's Tributary Strategies program has driven this process in that portion of the state that falls within the Chesapeake Bay watershed in an ViTina Nonpoin(source Pol%ufion Pr yam .2004 Annua(IRoporf effort to develop local watershed - based plans for specific actions aimed ultimately at restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The conservation of existing riparian buffers will be crucial to the success of Virginia's new Riparian Buffer Initiative. Efforts to coordinate the goals and priorities of the riparian buffer initiative with state and local integrated watershed management programs have been accomplished in part through the sharing of information with all Tributary Strategy areas, Save Our Streams programs, and several local river associations, and through collaborative restoration efforts such as those in the Roanoke River Basin, Madison County, and the Potomac Watershed Partnership, and presentations at the Virginia Watershed Management Conference. The new Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative will be a major nonpoint source pollution reduction strategy for the ongoing tributary strategy process. Tracking Efforts Efforts are underway to improve tracking of buffer restoration projects, including an on-line tracking tool developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program and upgrades to the Department of Forestry's information management system. A buffer survival study is ongoing through a revegetation and seedling survival study at 10 sites in Virginia's portion of the Potomac watershed, and through a comparative study of riparian seedling survival between different planting methods. _Incentive Programs A variety of incentives have been created to encourage landowners to conserve or restore riparian buffers. • Acquire Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture available through 2007. As of April 2003, more than 14,000 acres have been approved for enrollment in CREP. Vi yinia Nonpoin(Source Poffution ProJc ram 2004 Annuaf'Puport • Implementation of legislation (H.B 1419 signed July 1998) authorizing tax incentives for riparian forest buffer lands in easements. • Enactment of a riparian buffer tax credit (2000) for individuals or S- corporations who own land on which timber is harvested and who forbear timber harvesting on portions of land abutting waterways for 15 years. • Local government revenue losses due to buffer land tax breaks made eligible for reimbursement from Water Quality Improvement Fund grants. • Ongoing efforts for enabling legislation to exempt riparian forest buffers from estate taxes. • Ongoing efforts to encourage localities to use stormwater utility fees for establishing riparian buffers. • Ongoing effort to consolidate and improve cost -share programs. There has been significant improvement in the coordination of cost -share programs among agencies to date. Within the Farm Bill, the Forest Land Enhancement Program and Environmental Quality Incentive Program target riparian plantings. Ongoing effort to encourage flexibility in local subdivision and zoning requirements. Annual efforts to increase funding for conservation through General Assembly Appropriations to the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation. Recognition programs established through the Department of Conservation and Recreation watershed awards program and the Soil and Water Conservation District awards program. As mentioned above, efforts have been made to target buffer restoration efforts where the greatest benefits can be achieved. The availability of GIS and higher resolution imagery has aided in these efforts. One application developed by DOF, ForestRim, is a web -based internet mapping program that shows riparian forest buffer PaSc e 20 plantings and assists in targeting restoration opportunities. Tracking responsibilities have been shared between DCR and DOF, with DCR reporting state cost -share and CREP numbers to DOF and DOF tallying volunteer efforts to achieve the final buffer totals. Online reporting capabilities currently in development will facilitate this process. Future Considerations The Virginia Riparian Working Group will continue to work closely to fulfill the goals and objectives of the Riparian Buffer Implementation Plan. The Department of Forestry will continue in its efforts to strongly encourage and support riparian planting and protection on all appropriate state-owned lands. These lands have been identified, and several sites have had buffers installed or had plans developed for implementation pending funding availability. Technical assistance from the Department of Forestry, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service will continue to be provided to these state agencies to restore their sites. Other objectives include: • Updating Executive Order 48 (99) and the signing of a new Executive Order on stream restoration. • Continued documentation of the location and extent of riparian easements across Virginia. • Monitoring of Virginia's nursery stock and supply to alleviate any potential shortfalls for seedlings. This will be accomplished by working with State and private nurseries to provide information about the program and its potential long-range seedling sales. • Research and quantification of vegetation survival and water quality effects within restored buffers. • Continued implementation of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, now extended through 2007. • Development of implementation approaches for achieving the new Riparian Forest Buffer Directive calling for at least 10,000 new miles by 2010 and urban canopy goals in 5 pilot localities. • Partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a major restoration effort in the middle Potomac watershed. • Continued collaboration on and promotion of Virginia's Tributary Strategies. • Continued establishment of riparian buffer demonstration sites. Future Goals and Concerns DOF's future concerns regarding nonpoint source pollution center on the need for additional resources to complete goals. Meeting Virginia's share of the 10,000-mile buffer goal will require significant resources. Yet, Virginia's Tributary Strategies collectively call for 30,000 miles of buffers to be restored in the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of the state in order to meet mandated nutrient and sediment reductions, a far more ambitious goal. Another goal of the agency is implementation of TMDL projects. Active participation on the part of the DOF will, again, require additional resources. Finally, the Department would like to contribute to completing research on regional curves for streams in Virginia and to further stream restoration work. URBAN PROGRAMS Although only seven percent of the land in Virginia is considered urban, urbanization of forest and agricultural land is occurring at a rapid rate in many parts of the Commonwealth. This urbanized growth results in NPS pollution as the result of precipitation washing nutrients, sediment, and other toxic substances from the impervious surfaces that make up these areas. DCR is charged in the Code of Virginia to "provide technical assistance, training, research, and coordination in stormwater management technology to local governments for the protection of properties and reduction in NPS pollution." The Virginia Stormwater Management Law enables localities to adopt comprehensive stormwater management programs and requires state agencies to control stormwater on active construction projects and the post -construction finished landscape. DCR staff provide technical assistance, comprehensive watershed planning advice, and training to urbanizing localities that have adopted erosion and sediment control, subdivision, drainage, stormwater, and other land development ordinances that address stormwater management. Further, DCR staff directly review, approve, and oversee implementation of construction and maintenance plans for Best Management Practices (BMPs) on state agency projects to ensure compliance with the Regulations. This report section includes a summary of urban programs' NPS activities in 2004 in the following areas: • Erosion and Sediment Control • Stormwater Management Erosion and Sediment Control: DCR implements the state Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Program according to the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Regulations, and Certification Regulations (VESCL&R). The ESC Program's goal is to control soil erosion, sedimentation, and nonagricultural runoff from regulated "land -disturbing activities" to prevent degradation of property and natural resources. The regulations specify "Minimum Standards," which include criteria, techniques and policies that must be followed on all regulated activities. These statutes delineate the rights and responsibilities of governments that administer an ESC program and those of property owners who must comply DCR's ESC Program regulates land -disturbing activities on state and federal lands, as well as on a specific group of activities undertaken by utility, interstate and intrastate pipeline and railroad companies and private construction companies. DCR establishes statewide standards and guidance, periodically reviews local programs, and provides training and educational opportunities. Vi yiniU Nonpoinf.Source Poi%ufion ProJcrUm 2004 7[nnuall' porf Accomplishments and Initiatives: In 2004, DCR staff reviewed 10 local government programs for consistency with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations. Local programs consistent with the Law and Regulations enhance water quality by minimizing sediment and nutrients associated with land disturbing activities from entering the Commonwealth's waters. DCR staff conducted a total of 31 erosion and sediment control training classes. The classes include Basic Erosion and Sediment Control in Virginia, Erosion and Sediment Control for Inspectors, and Erosion and Sediment Control for Plan Reviewers. Approximately 1,500 individuals participated in these training classes during the reporting period. Two statewide certification exams were conducted and approximately 500 people were tested. The pass rate for these tests was over 75%. In addition to the certification exams, DCR provides online recertification programs. Approximately 250 individuals were re -certified through the online programs. Training and certification of individuals in erosion and sediment control improves water quality by reducing the impact of erosion and sediment on water quality. DCR also administers a Responsible Land Disturber training and certification program through online delivery of information, materials, and training. During the reporting period, approximately 2,100 individuals were trained and certified. Additionally, approximately 738 were re -certified through the online program. By making individuals responsible for land disturbance and offering training and information, this program improves awareness and helps ensure proper erosion and sediment control on construction sites. Pa e 21 Vi yiniti Nonpoint Source R&ufion ProJc ram 2004 Annua(II port Oversight of state agency land disturbing activities is another important element of the state's urban nonpoint source programs. During this reporting period, DCR staff completed approximately 180 plan reviews for state agency projects. Staff also completed approximately 350 project inspections covering over 1,200 acres. For transportation projects, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) performed approximately 1,100 inspections based on annual standards and specifications approved by DCR. DCR staff inspected approximately 40 projects in response to complaints and to ensure compliance with the approved standards and specifications. DCR requires standards and specifications be submitted annually for linear projects such as rail, gas pipelines, and power transmission lines. DCR reviews and approves these standards and specifications. In addition, DCR may exercise direct oversight of major projects. For 2004, approximately 35 companies submitted annual standards and specifications for review and approval. Staff also responded to over 900 requests for technical assistance from local governments, state agencies, developers, and citizens. With regard to enforcement and compliance, staff responded to approximately 200 complaints by completing site visits and working with local programs to resolve the complaints. Although reductions have not been calculated, there are direct water quality benefits resulting from actions taken to resolve complaints and ensure compliance with the Law and Regulations. Areas Of Concern: Staff vacancies have impacted field delivery of the program. The Commonwealth continues to evaluate options that might be available to Page 22 assist in addressing the staff vacancies. StOY)nwater Management: The Virginia Stormwater Management (SWM) Program seeks to protect properties and aquatic resources from damages caused by increased volume, frequency and peak rate of stormwater runoff. Further, the program seeks to protect those resources from increased nonpoint source pollution carried by stormwater runoff. SWM programs are implemented according to the Virginia Stormwater Management Law and Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (VSWML&R). The law is codified at Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Regulations are found at Section 4VAC3-20 of the Virginia Administrative Code. These statutes specifically set forth regulations regarding land development activities to prevent water pollution, stream channel erosion, depletion of groundwater resources, and more frequent localized flooding to protect property value and natural resources. SWM programs operated according to the law are intended to address these adverse impacts and comprehensively manage the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff on a watershed - wide basis. DCR's SWM Program develops technical criteria and policies to support statewide implementation of the program. DCR engineers serve as the approval authority for SWM plans for projects on state and federal lands and inspect these projects to ensure compliance. Staff engineers also help localities, whether or not they have adopted an SWM program in accordance with VSWML&R, by reviewing ordinances and programmatic guidance and providing technical assistance to ensure compliance and to promote innovative, cost-effective solutions for protecting natural resources. The consolidation of the Commonwealth's stormwater management programs into DCR was initiated in the 2004 reporting period. The 2004 Virginia General Assembly unanimously passed House Bill 1177 transferring regulatory authority of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs related to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) and construction activities from the State Water Control Board to the Soil and Water Conservation Board and transferred oversight of these programs from the Department of Environmental Quality to the Department of Conservation and Recreation. This transfer became effective January 29, 2005. As a result, DCR is responsible for the issuance, denial, revocation, termination and enforcement of NPDES permits for the control of stormwater discharges from MS4s and land disturbing activities under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. The Department of Environmental Quality continues to manage the remaining NPDES program. The consolidation of the Virginia's stormwater management programs into DCR should streamline program implementation, increase program efficiencies and compliance, build on successful online initiatives, and improve water quality. MONITORING and TRA CKING The overall goal of Virginia's nonpoint source pollution monitoring and tracing programs is to support the development, implementation and evaluation of the nonpoint source pollution management program. Monitoring and tracking measure the effectiveness of the management program to ensure that the beneficial uses of Virginia's waters are attained and maintained. This report section includes a summary of monitoring and tracking activities in 2004 for the following programs and projects: • Virginia Adopt -a -Stream Program • Virginia Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program • GIS and Database Programs Virzinia Adopt -A -Stream Prggram The Virginia Adopt -a -Stream Program (VAASP), is a statewide program aimed at reducing litter while advancing citizen stewardship and understanding of the commonwealth's precious waterways. Adopt -A -Stream promotes education, public outreach, citizen involvement, partnership and community capacity -building through Virginia's diverse constituencies. The waterway cleanups supported by this anti -litter campaign provide a chance for local businesses, civic groups, watershed associations, churches, schools, environmental groups and scouts to work together or separately to do their part. Founded in 1998, VAASP has had 8,135 volunteers from 397 groups participate in the Adopt -A -Stream program. These groups have adopted 687 miles of stream and have removed 7,007 bags of litter since 1998. Objects most commonly recovered include: plastic bottles, aluminum cans, packaged food wrappers, cigarette butts, and other common finds such as tires, furniture and appliances. During 2004, approximately 2,334 VAASP volunteers accomplished the following activities: • 2,334 volunteers collected 2,316 bags of litter. • There were 105 cleanup events, enhancing over 687 shoreline miles. • There were 4 stormdrain stenciling events, stenciling an estimated 148 stormdrains. Virginia Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) coordinated with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Virginia Save Our Streams (VA SOS) and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay to sign a revised Letter of Agreement to cooperatively implement the Virginia Citizen Water Quality Monitoring ViTina Nonpoint Source PAution ProJcr^am 2004 Annual?,' port Program. This foundational document brings two state agencies and two citizen -monitoring organizations together to actively promote and support citizen efforts to address local water quality issues. In 2004, DEQ reported that 801 volunteers monitored approximately 425 sites, covering at least 1,060 stream miles. Due to the professional nature of these groups, at least 25 training events took place. Citizen - based groups, such as the Virginia Save our Streams and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay programs, conducted many of these training events. The training sessions resulted in the training and/or re -certifying of 506 citizen volunteers. Of these certified volunteers, 376 were trained in chemical monitoring and the remaining 120 volunteers were trained in detailed benthic macroi nverteb rate procedures. With the growth in the number of citizen monitoring groups, data from these groups is becoming even more important in helping to determine the health of Virginia's waters. The data collected in 2004 by citizen monitors identified several areas of concern. The DEQ is currently evaluating these areas to help determine potential follow up monitoring sites. The final follow up monitoring list will be completed in the spring of 2005 and will be used by DEQ to set up monitoring site locations this summer, Virginia Save Our Streams Volunteer _Monitoring Program - 2004 Summary Virginia Save Our Streams (VA SOS) continues to conduct statewide trainings for water quality monitoring. VA SOS has been training regional trainers as never before, as these regional volunteers are likely to find local support for their program and are able to provide good support for local VASOS monitors. The number of trainers increased from three regional trainers in 2003 to six in 2004 and VA SOS has at least two more local leaders who will undergo training to Paye 23 Vi yinia Nonpoint Source Pollulion ProJc ram 2004 Annud'Reporf become a regional trainer in 2005.In 2004, VASOS maintained 215 monitoring sites and had 400 certified monitors. In addition, they held 15 general training sessions attended by 120 people. Approximately 18 groups participate with the VASOS monitoring program Areas Of Concern: Concerns are focused on not having the resources to meet the demands for training services. Because of diminished funding, VASOS had to charge for training services. In previous years, when money was not tight, VASOS held at least 40 and sometimes up to 60 training sessions a year. Last year, VASOS held 15 sessions. Another concern has been support from state agencies (DEQ and DCR) in helping VASOS and other volunteer monitoring organizations keep up with the priorities of the state agencies. In the past, both agencies have had at least one employee dedicated to volunteer monitoring activities and the agencies would have meetings every other month with leaders of Volunteer Monitoring Programs to share opportunities and make plans for the future. Staffing and resource limitations have reduced the availability of state assistance. GIS and Database PNograins In 2004, GIS and technical resources of the Department of Conservation and Recreation continued to be developed and maintained to support the goals and objectives of the 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. Staff worked to develop and enhance the various program databases, allowing for an increase in program efficiency and better tracking of participation in department programs. 2004 activities included: Pair e 24 Completed the development of the Virginia portion of the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (NWBD) along with county and city boundaries. Incorporated detailed imagery into NPS program activities though the delivery of 2002 Virginia Base Map Product imagery programs and equipment to all regional offices. Continued to provide updated and verified program information to regional and local entities. ' s o RESOURCE EXTRACTION The Virginia General Assembly determined that uncontrolled resource extraction activities in VA from mining of coal and non-guel minerals and the extraction of gas and oil, could contribute pollutants to water resources. The Resource Extraction section of the 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program specified a long-term goal of "Improving surface and ground water quality in watersheds... by reducing NPS pollution associated with abandoned and orphaned resource extraction sites." Virginia's General Assembly enacted reclamation laws in 1968 to minimize the adverse effects of mining on the environment. Legislation was enacted in 1978, which established a non -coal orphaned land reclamation program. This section of the report contains a summary of NPS activities in 2004 from the following program areas: • The Orphaned Lands Program • The Orphaned Well Program • The Abandoned Mine Land Program Orphaned Land Prop -rain The Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME): Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) conducts the states Orphaned Land Program. Techniques for conducting a systematic, comprehensive field inventory of nonpoint sources of pollution on abandoned mineral mines in state watersheds were developed by the DMME. Using the Inventory and Implementation Program, DMME's Orphaned Land NPS Coordinator initiated efforts to reclaim high priority abandoned mineral mine sites in selected watersheds. This initiative is carried out with the agency's Orphaned Land Program. Orphaned lands are areas disturbed by the mining of minerals, not including coal, that were not required by law to be reclaimed or have not been reclaimed. More than 3,000 abandoned mineral mines exist throughout Virginia. Some of these sites may pose significant hazards to the environment and the health and safety of the public. The DMM Orphaned Lands Program has three primary functions: 1) Inspection and survey of abandoned mineral mine sites, 2) Design of reclamation plans for abandoned mine sites, and 3) Administration of contracts, under Virginia procurement law, to construct the reclamation designs. Since 1981, DMM has completed the reclamation of 610 acres of disturbed land at 83 abandoned mine sites in Virginia. The total value of contracts awarded for orphaned mineral mine reclamation is $3,153,707, through fiscal year 2004. There are approximately 3,000- abandoned mineral mine sites in Virginia and DMM has completed inventories on 1,449. The sites occur in all physiographic provinces and some sites were mined prior to the Revolutionary War. In fiscal year 2004, 394 sites were inventoried with the support of Section 319 Funds administered by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and EPA's Superfund Program. The Superfund Program supported an educational program whereby students from the University of Virginia, as part of their course work, inventoried orphaned land sites while gaining valuable field experience in assessing environmental and safety hazards. In fiscal year 2004, five orphaned land sites and four bond forfeiture sites were reclaimed; either directly by DMM or by private and public partnerships with DMM. The total acreage reclaimed was 74 acres for orphaned and bond forfeiture sites. Orphaned Well Program The state's DMME also manages Virginia's Orphaned Well Program, through its Division of Gas and Oil (DGO). The Virginia Gas and Oil Act defines "Orphaned Well" as "...any well abandoned prior to July 1, 1950, or for which no records exist concerning its drilling, plugging or abandonment." The Act establishes The Orphaned Well Fund for the purpose of plugging and restoration of orphaned wells. Money for the fund comes from permit surcharges, which must accompany each application for a new permit. Orphan well sites are prioritized according to their condition and potential threat to public safety and the environment. Those that represent the greatest risk are given the highest priority for plugging and site restoration. DGO has inventoried 120- orphaned well sites. Seven orphaned well sites and five bond forfeiture sites have been reclaimed encompassing 10 acres. In 2004, all known orphaned well sites in the Possum Hollow Creek drainage area in Lee County were plugged. Abandoned Mine Land Prokram The Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) conducts an abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation program to reclaim coal mine sties that were abandoned or left inadequately reclaimed before December 15, 1981. Funding for the reclamation comes primarily from the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) via reclamation fees paid by the coal industry, although DMLR is realizing success in obtaining non- federal funding for projects. Inventory data show over 58,000 acres of abandoned mine lands in Virginia with an estimated cost to reclaim at $441 million. For 2004, DMLR reclaimed approximately 917 acres of abandoned coalmine lands. Not included in this estimate is the amount of abandoned mine land reclaimed through re -mining. Through this process, active coal operations re - mine abandoned sites and reclaim them to current standards. Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source PoMlion ProJc ram 2004 Annua%9' pDrf DMLR does not have quantified data on abandoned land reclaimed through re -mining, but is very confident in stating that re -mining reclaims far more land, especially priority 3 problems, than the federally funded AML reclamation program. During 2004, DMLR accomplished reclamation on 38 abandoned mine land projects. These projects eliminated extreme dangers and adverse human health and safety impacts. Through this reclamation, there is also an environmental benefit. One of the environmental highlights for 2004 was completion of the Ely Creek Acid Mine Drainage Project. Through a partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers, Lee County, LENOWISCO Planning District Commission, DMLR improved 3.5 miles of stream that had been impacted by acid mine drainage. DMLR successfully partnered with a number of stakeholders in 2004 to increase the amount of reclamation accomplished. In addition to the partners noted above, additional partners included The Nature Conservancy, Tennessee Valley Authority, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, local soil and water conservation districts, and local watershed groups. The major concern for abandoned coal mine land reclamation is reauthorization of fee collection to fund reclamation efforts. Fee collection was set to expire September 30, 2004, but a continuing resolution agreed to in Congress extended the fee collection to June 30, 2005. Although the Senate and House of Representatives have taken some actions to reauthorize fee collection, passage of such of bill is not a certainty. PaSe 25 Vi yinicr Nonpoint Source Poi%u6an ProJcram 2004 Annuaf Pu iori HYDROMODIFIC4 TION Issues relating to instream and riparian habitat, channel stability, aquatic resources, and watershed planning have received increased interest and are developing as focal points for environmental action. Hydrologic modification is considered the alteration of stream flow by human activities. All hydrologic modifications, whether properly or improperly implemented, may result in nonpoint source pollution. The use of coastal nonpoint program funds has provided an opportunity to accomplish several of the activities outlined in the Hydromodification Chapter of the 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program document. The primary purpose of the Hydromodification Chapter objectives is to improve the design standards, specifications, and implementation of best management practices for stream restoration activities. This includes establishing a work group, developing an in -field stream classification system, and establishing in -stream flows, reference reaches, and technical standards. It has become a priority to minimize the adverse effects of hydrologic modifications on water quality throughout Virginia through the use of proper design methodologies and best management practices. H dromodzfzcataon Handbook Developed during 2003, The Virginia Stream Restoration and Stabilization BMP Guide was completed and printed in early 2004. PaJc e 26 This manual contains information unavailable in another single document, and covers channel restoration, bank protection, bank stabilization, grade control, and flow deflection/concentration guidelines. 350 copies of the manual were printed and distributed to stream professionals throughout Virginia and to several interested parties outside of the state. For 2005, DCR plans to print more copies of the manual. The manual is also available on DCR's website: www.dcr.virgina.gov. INSTAR INSTAR (INteractive STream Assessment Resource) is an Arc-GIS based tool developed by the Center for Environmental Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. It incorporates survey data on macroinvertebrates, fish, habitat and geomorphological assessments of randomly selected stream reaches throughout the coastal zone of Virginia. INSTAR allows users to obtain data collected at particular sites, make comparisons between sites or between hydrologic units, calculate reference reach equations, and assess stream health. In 2004, VCU researchers, with cooperation and support from VA- DCR, VA-DEQ, and the Virginia Coastal Program, completed Phase I of the ongoing stream health assessment project. In this phase, a virtual reference stream model for the lower and upper Coastal Zone within the Chesapeake Bay drainage of Virginia was developed. Using a suite of biotic, ecological, and geomorphological assessment tools to facilitate stream classification, the project team established regional stream reference reaches and provided a prioritization scheme for nonpoint source pollution activities in non -tidal coastal zone watersheds. The integration of new and existing data resulted in a database containing more than 12,000 data records from samples including fish, macroinvertebrates, habitat, water quality, and geomorphology collected from approximately 500 sites within sixty-three 14-digit hydrologic units (HUs) across the Chesapeake Bay watershed in Virginia. Built on ESRI's ArcIMS software and supported by three dedicated servers at VCU's Center for Environmental Studies, the current version of INSTAR allows internet- capable users to interact with an extensive database of stream reaches throughout the coastal zone of Virginia. Data included are fish assemblages, macroinvertebrate assemblages, mollusk presence, water quality information, habitat assessments, and geomorphology information. These data are maintained using ESRI's ArcSDE software in a Microsoft SQL database. During phase II of this project, which will run through December 2005, an additional 75 HUs will be sampled within the Coastal Zone, Fall Zone and Piedmont physiographic regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including small to medium sized non -tidal and tidal tributaries (3rd to 5th order). Archival data that meets INSTAR's quality control/quality assurance requirements and filters will be combined with the newly collected data and incorporated into the INSTAR application allowing completion of data acquisition and analysis for the Potomac, York and Rappahannock River drainages within Virginia. In addition, two pilot designer "versions" of INSTAR are being developed; one for use by a volunteer stream monitoring group Save Our Streams (SOS) and another for a local jurisdiction in Virginia. A local government outreach and education program is also being undertaken with VA-DCR in order to educate and train local government personnel on the existence and use of the INSTAR application. Phase II has received funding and logistical support from several federal, state, and local agencies and will incorporate and validate a large amount of existing stream data from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and other agencies. GRANTS" and _1 L HNICAL ASSISTANCE Virginia has established a mix of regulatory and voluntary approaches that aim to control a changing blend of NPS pollution. Virginia tends to favor, and place greatest reliance on, the voluntary actions of its citizens, to minimize land -disturbing actions that contribute NPS pollution to state waters. Voluntary approaches mean that citizens become informed about NPS pollution through education, and are persuaded and/or motivated to carry out best management practices. Some individuals are motivated by monetary incentives (tax credits, cost sharing assistance, low interest loans, etc.), others may be motivated to preserve natural resources they manage and minimize NPS pollution for the sake of the environment. The "ambassadors" of the conservation message are largely the staff of government agencies and organizations. These professional conservationists most directly interact with farmers, contractors, homeowners and others. Professional staff is more effective at "selling" conservation, and reducing NPS pollution, when they are provided appropriate training and development opportunities. DCR established a partnership of teams that coordinate training and development initiatives. The partnership recognizes the importance of maintaining skilled staff, which are critical to achieving NPS reduction commitments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with TMDL implementation and obligations relating to impaired waters. COASTAL AND CHESAPEAKE BA YPR0GRAMS The Commonwealth of Virginia has 120 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline and approximately 2,500 square miles of estuary. In the late 1970's, declining water quality prompted the creation of the multi- state Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement outlines 93 commitments detailing protection and restoration goals critical to the health of the Bay watershed. Reducing nutrient and sediment loads to receiving waters through implementation of tributary strategies remains a high priority for Virginia. Tributary strategies are water quality plans that are cooperatively Vi yinia Nonpoinf source PoNtion ProJc ram .200.E Annua(7Peparf developed with stakeholders in each river basin. Virginia's Coastal and Chesapeake Bay Programs includes various interagency departments, divisions and projects. These programs are highlighted in this section: • Virginia Coastal Program • Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program • Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA) • Chesapeake Bay Grant Program. Virginia Coastal Program The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established a federal -state partnership program to protect the nation's coastal resources. The Virginia Coastal Program (VCP) was fully approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1986, making the Commonwealth of Virginia eligible for federal funding for coastal resource protection. On June 26, 2002 Governor Mark Warner signed Executive Order Twenty-three, continuing the Virginia Coastal Program through June 2006 and outlined the role of the Virginia DEQ as the lead agency for the program. The DEQ VCP Office coordinates projects and programs with partner resource agencies, focusing on nine core areas: wetlands management, subaqueous lands management, dunes management, coastal lands management, nonpoint source water pollution control, point source water Pollution control, point source air pollution control, fisheries management and shoreline sanitation. The VCP receives funding through Section 6217 of the CZMA for nonpoint source pollution control. These funds provide full support for the Virginia Coastal Nonpoint Program, which is administered by the Virginia DCR. Funding also supports several nonpoint source pollution PaJc e 27 ViTina Nonpoint Source Pollution ProJc ram 2004 Annual PPeport related projects at the Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA). The Coastal Nonpoint Program and CBLA projects are discussed in further detail elsewhere in this report. The Virginia Coastal Program is also involved in a variety of planning and enforcement projects that improve the commonwealth's ability to manage nonpoint source pollution and support several of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program's goals. Virginia's coastal zone contains all 310,813 acres of the commonwealth's tidal wetlands, and 909,097 acres (approximately 80%) of the state's nontidal wetlands. Protection of this resource is an important element of the Coastal Program. Since 1991, the Coastal Program has helped to acquire and preserve 1,802.88 acres of sensitive and significant coastal lands, including wetlands, sand dune systems, lowland and upland riparian buffers, and other wildlife habitat areas. The Virginia Coastal Program is currently preparing an update to its 2006-2011 Coastal Needs Assessment and Strategy Coastal Needs Assessment. Once the assessment is completed, Virginia will submit a report to NOAA outlining the new assessment as well as the strategies that the Coastal Program proposes to address improvements to the coastal areas of high priority need. Coastal Nonpoint S011ree (CNP) Pollution Control Program Virginia's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program continues to support the implementation of action items contained within the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program document. P,q e 28 Development and implementation of the coastal nonpoint source pollution control program (coastal nonpoint program) is required by Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. States are required to implement 56 "management measures" within six resource categories. Virginia submitted its program document in 1995 and received conditional approval in 1998. Subsequently, Virginia focused its efforts on meeting the program conditions and received full federal approval of the program in May 2001. Due to these efforts, many of the action items in the Coastal chapter of the 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program document have been completed. Several projects were completed during this reporting period using fiscal year 2003 and a portion of 2004 Coastal Nonpoint program (CNP) funds. These projects received $580,000 in funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Project highlights include: Shellfish Sanitation Program — Funds were provided to the Virginia Department of Health to modernize Virginia's Shellfish Sanitation program. This project translated paper files and maps into a digital format for use in a geographic information system. VDH can now conduct more extensive and efficient program analyses, more accurately update and maintain records, and make better use of mapping formats to convey information to the public. Impacts from Onsite Disposal Systems — This project evaluated the utility of using a fluorometer in an estuarine environment to identify human waste signatures. In field and controlled laboratory, settings, the equipment functioned properly and correctly identified human waste signatures. Based on the success of this project, the VDH decided to incorporate the tool into their Shellfish Sanitation program. Integrated Pest Management — Using information developed from a previous project, this project took five little used or misunderstood practices for corn, soybean, and small grains. Cooperative Extension Service Agents demonstrated these practices at six area farmer field days. Hundreds of farmers attended the large meetings at Virginia Ag Expo and the Tidewater and Eastern Virginia Agricultural Research and Extension Centers' field days. Attendance averaged 55 farmers at the smaller county field days. E Marinas and Recreational Boating There are approximately 1,000 marinas and 230,000 boaters in the tidal waters of Virginia that share in the scenic beauty, economic benefits and general use of Virginia's waterways. This extensive interaction between users and natural resources increases the potential for negative impacts to water quality from nonpoint sources of pollution. Marina operators can prevent and reduce these potential impacts through a series of best management practices (BMPs). One such program is the Virginia Clean Marina Program. During this period there were many marina sites were visited. To date, there are 20 marinas that have met the minimum criteria and are designated as a "Virginia Clean Marina" and 29 additional marinas have pledged to take the necessary pollution prevention steps to achieve designation. Electronic copies of the Virginia Clean Marina Program's newsletter, Smart Harbors, is available at http://www.vims.edu/adv/vamarina/clean.html and http://www.deg.state.va.us/vacl anmann-a/. Efforts relating to clean marina programs continue at all levels. Virginia has promoted the development of clean marina programs regionally and nationally with some success. At the regional level, Virginia has continued to work with Maryland, the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., and Delaware to coordinate our respective programs. CNP Initiatives and Water Qualitv Benefits Since CNP funds are not eligible for construction activities, none of the projects result in direct reductions in sources of nonpoint pollution. However, each project contributes to specific actions that will result in reductions through programmatic changes, staff support, monitoring, and outreach activities. Areas of Concern for CNP Program The CNP remains woefully under funded, in fact the CNP has sustained significant funding cuts in FY04 and may have all federal funding cut for FY05. There also seems to be a lack of commitment by the federal agencies to promote CNP implementation. EPA and NOAA need to prepare a strategy for conveying the importance of this program to upper management and the U.S. Congress. Staff in Virginia believe that an appropriate step to implement many of the management measures is to engage local government and provide funds for projects. Concurrently, there is a need to identify state agency program areas where funds can be applied to fill a program gap or enhance program effectiveness. However, to accomplish these objectives, federal funding must Future Actions for CNP Program With limited and declining funding levels, the focus of the program over the ensuing year will necessarily be on continuing existing initiatives and managing recently initiated projects. In particular, work will continue related to enhancing hydromodification and stream health outreach and development. As well as on -going Clean Marina support will continue. Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA) The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act was passed in 1988 because nonpoint source pollution related to the use and development of land was a growing concern in Virginia. The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board and the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) were created by the act and given authority and direction to develop water quality protection regulations for tidewater Virginia communities. The regulations provide criteria for designating sensitive lands and additional criteria for use by the localities in granting, denying or modifying requests to use and develop land within those designated "Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas." In 2004, the CBLAD was merged with other departments/divisions and became a division of the Department Vi yinia Na POW Saurce Pollution ProJc rum 2004 Annua(! porf of Conservation. Now called the Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA), it is Integral to their mission to increase the participation in the Multi -jurisdictional Chesapeake Bay Program and implementation of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the associated Regulations. In addition to the ongoing functions of providing technical assistance and oversight, the board and division took several important steps to advance the goals of the Bay Act during the period from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2004. Local program revisions to address the amended Bay Act regulations were developed and reviewed, and the first local program reviews for local compliance review were undertaken. During this same period, the program also encountered a number of significant challenges including budget cuts and a merging of the agency in to the Department of Conservation and Recreation, with reductions in staffing at the new Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance. By June 30, 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board had reviewed 61 of the 84 local Bay Act programs for compliance with the revised Regulations. Compliance Review Procedures The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board adopted a set of policies and procedures for conducting compliance evaluations of local programs in September 2002. Staff of the division has used the adopted policies and procedures to evaluate implementation of the Bay Act and regulations in 14 of the 84 local programs. This initiative includes a set of checklists to be completed by both the local government program contacts and the department staff, and a series of field investigation reports that will be used to evaluate actual construction sites Pay 29 Vi yinia Nonpoint ource Poilulion ProJcrum 2004 Annua('Roporf for consistency with the act and regulations. The results of the field investigations have been combined with an analysis of the local program's constituent components (plan review processes, local ordinances and policies, and local program administration) to form an opinion of the program's consistency with the act and regulations. Based on these findings, the division prepares a staff report to the board outlining strengths and weaknesses of the local program, with recommendations for improvement and a timetable for implementation of the recommended programmatic changes. Technical Assistance and Outreach DCBLA continues to maintain an active role in education and outreach to help promote understanding and implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. During this reporting period, DCBLA staff provided information to localities through presentations at regional and local meetings, field investigations, and regular guidance. During April 19-23, 2004, the DCBLA held its 3rd Annual Workshop for local government staff: Perennial Stream Identification Workshop The first day was classroom instruction and the following days were field training within the different localities. A video of the workshop was produced and is available for distribution to local governments for their use in training staff. The Division set up its display booth at both the VDOT's Public Service Day and the Science Museum's "Surf and Turf' event, distributing brochures and pamphlets. Pair e 30 The Division continues to make informational material available to the public through our agency website, such as the "Got Buffer?" brochure, guidance letters and the "Riparian Buffers Modification and Mitigation Manual". Additional materials that are planned for the website are the Shorelands Planning project and a Septic Pump -out informational page. DCBLA staff continued participation with other state agency staff on the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Interagency Workgroup, Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee, the Watershed Planning and Permitting Coordination Task Force, the VDOT interagency project review committee, and the Coastal Policy Team, the LID task force and workgroup coordinated by DEQ and the Corps of Engineers, respectively. Activities during this period included assistance with developing LID technical assistance in Virginia, helping to fit LID into the regulatory framework, developing an LID model ordinance and participating in workshops throughout the Commonwealth. Polecat Creek Monitoring Proiect - Researchers completed the loth and last year of water quality monitoring for the Polecat Creek project. Funding for the project has been eliminated from DCBLA's budget. Faculty and graduate students of Virginia Tech calibrated monitoring equipment and gathered water chemistry samples from the monitored streams and rain gages, while faculty and staff of Virginia Commonwealth University continued to gather biological samples from the streams. Hydrologic data were prepared and sent to DEQ for refinements of rating curves. Quarterly reports were prepared and submitted to DCR/EPA. DCR senior management is investigating other sources of funding to determine if the project can be continued. During the next fiscal year, the analytical results will be integrated with those of the previous years and a final project report will be developed. As well, the physical monitoring stations will be dismantled and the monitoring sites restored to their natural conditions. These activities will conclude the project. State Response to the Chesapeake Bay Program Staff has continued to be involved in the various activities of the interstate Chesapeake Bay Program. This involvement includes participation in the monthly meetings of the Land Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee (LGSS), the Development, Redevelopment and Revitalization Workgroup and the Watershed Assistance Workgroup (WAWG) and the Forestry Workgroup, the Nutrients Subcommittee, and the Urban Stormwater Workgroup. As members of the WAWG, DCBLA is playing a key role in the planning and development of a workshop that addresses the integration of land use planning and watershed management planning in Virginia. DCBLA staff have also represented Virginia on several Bay Program grant review committees. DCBLA staff has also played a vital role in the Tributary Strategy process. Each staff liaison attends the tributary strategy meetings within their region and serves as Co -leaders with other DCR staff. Other DCBLA staff members serve on the Tributary Steering Committee and provide input on nonpoint source issues and local government practices, in particular. Better Land Use Planning "Better Land Use Planning in Coastal Virginia", an exploratory paper and separate brochure, was developed in 2004. This document provides a brief introduction to the development pressures facing coastal Virginia and background on some of the coast's most critical natural resources. The bulk of the document is dedicated to exploring how regional, neighborhood, and site planning can help reduce the impacts of coastal development. Case studies are provided to demonstrate how many of these innovative land use -planning ideas are already being implemented by coastal Virginia communities. The document concludes with general recommendations for implementing better coastal development through amendments to local land use planning documents including comprehensive plans and zoning and subdivision ordinances. Both the brochure and exploratory paper are available to the general public as an Adobe Acrobat document at http://www.cblad.virginia.gov/program.cfm Chesapeake Bay Grant Program This year, DCR awarded approximately $500,000 to local governments, non-profit organizations and conservation districts, for low impact development and innovative urban BMP projects that result in long term or permanent reductions in nonpoint source pollution. All funded projects were required to support at least one specific objective within the Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement commitments under Development, Redevelopment and Revitalization (Section 4.2). DCR's interest was to fund projects that exceeded the minimum expectations required by law such as changes to plans for a new development to incorporate LID practices or the establishment of structures, features, or programs on existing developed lands that result in increased NPS pollution reductions. Through a competitive request for proposals process, a total of eighteen projects were selected and offered funding awards. Five Government By Example retrofit projects to incorporate LID into the existing sites were funded including the Northern Neck Planning District Commission office complex, City of Falls Church locations at City Hall and the City Property Yard, Fairfax County Providence Board of Supervisor's Office, Rappahannock County Elementary School, and Gloucester County's Public Library and Main Post Office in the Old Fox Mill Shopping Center. Four demonstration green roof projects ranging from 2,500 to 10,000 square feet were funded including the James Madison University Edith J. Carier Arboretum Environmental Education Center, the City of Alexandria's Health Department building, Albemarle County office building in Charlottesville, and a commercial site in the Richmond metropolitan area being coordinated by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. Six projects were funded that influence the incorporation LID practices into new or redevelopment sites. These sites include the 15.6- acre St. Louis Catholic Church and School, a 240-acre new subdivision in Greene County, the 2-acre City of Richmond Intermediate Terminal redevelopment, a 13-acre Charlottesville Waldorf Foundation school site, up to four proposed or approved development sites in the Town of Orange, and a 80-acres waterfront property on Scott's Creek in cooperation with the Elizabeth River Project. Vi yinia Nonpoinf.Source Pof&(ion Phyam 2004 Annua(IReporf Other projects included establishing an LID monitoring project at Longwood University to evaluate infiltration and runoff characteristics within Gross Creek, and two bioretention demonstration sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Additional information on the projects funded through the DCR Chesapeake Bay Grants Program is available on the DCR grants web page, www.dcr.virginia.gov/sw/grants. d S TA 77EWIDE PR®G. AMS1 INTIA 7'irVES NPS Pollution Education In cooperation with Virginia Cooperative Extension and local soil and water conservation districts, DCR conducts an active educational program on nonpoint source (NPS) pollution management. Annual mini - grant program funds area field days, field demonstrations, tours, workshops and other events that promote the implementation of best management practices that protect water quality. The purpose of these events is to demonstrate the latest technology and methods that reduce polluted runoff from farm and urban settings. Each year more than 4,000 farmers and land managers who impact more than 300,000 acres of crop, forest and urban land participate in this educational outreach effort. Pay 31 Vi" yinia Nonpoinf Source Poffufion ProJc ram 2004 r"lnn"afpoporf Virginia Outdoor Foundation Conservation Easements The Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) recorded a record number of conservation easements in 2004. Last year the foundation protected 41,603 acres of cultural and natural resource lands through the use of conservation easements including the first VOF easements in Amelia, Charlotte, Lunenburg, Mathews, and Roanoke. VOF conservation easements now protect 288,893 acres in 87 counties across the Commonwealth. Easements are a voluntary way to permanently protect land and are tailored to individual properties. State tax incentives have increased the benefits of gifts of easement, especially for landowners of modest means. Conservation easements guarantee that a property will be protected from development while keeping the land in private ownership. For more information on conservation easements and other land protection options, contact the Virginia Outdoors Foundation at 804- 225-2147 and at: www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation org Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment The Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment (VCLNA) will be a flexible, widely applicable tool for integrating and coordinating the needs and strategies of different conservation interests, using GIS to model and map land conservation priorities and actions in Virginia. The VCLNA allows the manipulation of issue -specific data sets that can be weighted and overlaid to reflect the PaJc e 32 needs and concerns of a variety of conservation partners — issues like: • Water quality improvement • Unfragmented natural habitats • Natural heritage resources • Outdoor recreation • Prime agricultural lands • Cultural and historic resources • Sustainable forestry • Drinking water protection DCR, with funding assistance from the DEQ's Virginia Coastal Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the VA DOF, and the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation, has completed the first phase of this effort — preparation of a Natural Landscape Assessment for Virginia's Coastal Zone. The VCLNA Natural Landscape Assessment (NLA) uses GIS technology to identify and prioritize natural lands and the habitat corridors necessary to support and enhance them. Primary focus of the NLA is ecological prioritization - Which are the most important natural, unfragmented lands, based on considerations of biological and ecological value and integrity? Products prepared for the Coastal Zone include atlases with maps interfacing the NLA with geospatial datasets showing areas of high development pressure, protected lands, and natural heritage resource sites. These atlases, as well as CDs containing VCLNA GIS data and models, have been widely distributed to coastal zone localities and Planning District Commissions as well as to land trusts and other conservation organizations and agencies statewide. In the next year, DCR will work to further expand the VCLNA-NLA. General categories of NLA Data use are: • Targeting — to identify targets for protection activities such as conservation land purchase or easements. • Prioritizing — to provide primary or additional justification for key conservation land purchases and other protection activities. • Local planning — guidance for comprehensive planning and local ordinance and zoning development. • Assessment — to review proposed projects for potential impacts to cores and other NLA features. • Land management — to guide property owners and public and private land managers in making land management decisions that enhance ecological values. • Public education — to inform the citizenry about the patterns and extent of habitat fragmentation. The Natural Landscape Assessment (NLA), though a fundamental complement to other conservation interests and needs, considers only a subset of the many issues that can determine the importance of a specific property. DCR has begun assembling the additional GIS datasets that are needed to make the VCLNA a comprehensive tool for the varied needs of all of Virginia's conservation partners. A priority will be acquisition and integration of datasets that serve to identify areas of the landscape that, through current land use and physiographic characteristics, have the greatest potential for affecting water quality. DCR will be working to apply and extend the Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Protection Model as well as additional GIS models and data developed for the Resource Lands Assessment. DCR will also continue to work with Virginia Commonwealth University's Center for Environmental Studies to integrate VCLNA with their INSTAR application addressing aquatic resources. More information on VCLNA is available at the following website: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dnh/vclna.htm Ground Water Protection The DEQ's Office of Ground Water Protection carried out the varied and successful activities supported by the Federal Clean Water Act Section 106 Ground Water Protection grant. DEQ provided funding to the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission to support a Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Project. 4,260 pounds of waste were collected and properly disposed of by Care Environmental, Inc. DEQ also supported DCR's Karst Program through a small grant for Project Underground activities. Additionally, funds were earmarked for five Ground Water Festivals. These festivals are a continuing tradition with DEQ and their cooperators, are very popular with teachers and students alike, and are an excellent venue to teach Virginians about ground water resource protection and nonpoint source pollution impacts. For more information on DEQ's Ground Water Protection program contact Mary Ann Massie at mamassie(aaDdegyirginia goy lUirwinia's Karst Program The Virginia Karst Groundwater Protection Program is funded by a Section 319 grant and managed by DCR's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH). The Karst Program works with groundwater and nonpoint source pollution problems in the 27- karst counties of Virginia. In 2004, the Karst Program continued to address the special nonpoint source pollution issues associated with the karst topography of Virginia's western counties. Dissolution over geologic time of limestone and dolostone has produced a karst landscape characterized by sinkholes, sinking streams, caves, and large springs. The interaction of surface and groundwater make such areas susceptible to water quality impairments, flooding, land surface collapse, and degradation of natural heritage resources. Land development, agricultural practices, on -site waste disposal, and highway operations all contribute to the NIPS contamination of karst aquifers. A major goal for 2004 was the further development of conservation sites for Virginia's significant caves and rare cave fauna. Karst Program staff continued to work with the Virginia Cave Board and Virginia Speleological Survey to develop GIS- based conservation sites for Virginia's Designated Significant Caves. Most of these caves are hydrologically significant, in which case conservation sites correspond to watersheds. To date, approximately 1/3 of Virginia's nearly 400 significant caves are incorporated into conservation sites. Defined as the land areas where disturbance could impact a group of related natural heritage resources, conservation sites have no legal status. Instead, they are screening tools used to prioritize conservation efforts and to alert state environmental review staff to potential impacts. Heritage staff works cooperatively with private citizens, developers, and other agencies to avoid or mitigate these impacts, protecting both water quality and habitat. For cave conservation sites, dye trace studies are commonly required to determine the watershed of the cave. Due to of funding reductions within both the karst program and the ViTina Nonpoinl.Source po%(ulion pro cram 2004 Xnnua%I\n' Parl Cave Conservancy of the Virginias, the focus of conservation site work in 2004 was shifted from the delineation of new conservation sites to the prioritization and description of existing sites. The main results of this work were 1) the development of 381 polygons representing the locations of significant caves and other caves with significant biological resources, 2) the compilation of 200 surrogate conservation sites for project screening, 3) the prioritization of both the conservation sites and surrogate conservation sites through assignment of biodiversity rankings, and 4) the creation of six new conservation sites encompassing an additional 15 significant caves. The total number of conservation sites is now 72, encompassing 151 caves. The other 230 caves are covered by the surrogate sites, which will be replaced with conservation sites as they are developed. Of the 361 designated significant caves and additional approximately 20 caves containing documented natural heritage resources, 151 have been incorporated into conservation sites, representing about 40% of these caves. It should be noted that the 381 caves represent less than 10% of the total number of documented caves in Virginia. As new caves are found and known caves are more thoroughly studied, the number of significant caves and caves with natural heritage resources will grow. Estimating the percentage of karst watersheds delineated via dye tracing is more difficult. Certainly, the number is less than ten percent. Completion of the Karst Hydrology Atlas during 2005 will allow an accurate estimate to be made and will facilitate prioritization of future efforts to match areas with largest data gaps and greatest conservation need. Another data development goal of 2004 was to research the behavior of nutrients applied on croplands near Pa, ye 33 Milyinia Nonpoinf.Source Pollulian ?oraJcrtim 2004 Annua('Puporf sinkholes so that meaningful nutrient management BMPs could be developed. Karst program staff helped to form an interdisciplinary team consisting of geologists and soil scientists at Virginia Tech and from the USDA to investigate this problem, and helped develop a proposal to USDA to fund the research. Unfortunately, the proposal was not funded in 2004. Staff will continue to pursue funding sources for this project in 2005. Another goal of 2004 was the better integration of karst-specific BMPs into the stormwater management program. Karst program staff worked with localities, including Pearisburg, Wytheville, Pulaski, and Warren County, on stormwater management issues in karst. In October, a public meeting was held in cooperation with Warren County and the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District to present the results of a four-year study of the Cedarville Enterprise Zone, which focused on the fate of stormwater discharged into the karst aquifer. In the karst program's longest continuing environmental response project, staff leads an interagency effort to restore water quality to Batie Springs, in Lee County. The restoration of the Batie Creek Watershed continued during 2004, as accumulations of sawdust that had generated toxic leachate were removed and applied with lime and fertilizer as a beneficial soil amendment on nearby coal mine reclamation projects. This multi -year project has been the result of the combined efforts of DCR, DMME, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Curtis Russell Lumber Company, and the Cave Conservancy of the Virginias. Dissolved oxygen levels, for which Batie Creek has been listed on the 303d list of impaired streams, have returned to normal from near zero values in the mid-1990s, and the Lee VaJce 34 County Isopod (Lirceus usdagalun), listed as Endangered due to its extirpation from the cave in the late 1980's, has returned, though not yet to pre -impairment population levels. In other projects related to streams on the 303d list, karst program staff continues to work with DEQ staff and private contractors on a case -by -case basis to ensure that karst issues are considered during TMDL development. Karst program staff visited Beaver Creek Spring in Rockingham County during 2004, and will be assisting DEQ in determining the watershed for the spring. The Karst Program continues to screen up to several hundred projects proposed for karst terrain each year for potential environmental impacts. During 2004, projects included utility corridors, residential subdivisions, industrial developments, and numerous Virginia Department of Transportation projects. A particularly important project that began in 2004 is the compilation of the Virginia Karst Hydrology Atlas, a web -based GIS resource through which the majority of data on karst hydrology in Virginia will be available to citizens, local governments, agency staff, and consultants. Although such documents are typically published in hard copy, the digital only Virginia Karst Hydrology Atlas will be updated continuously as new findings are made and new areas are studied, dramatically increasing its value. Education and outreach efforts during 2004 helped thousands of Virginians learn how to better protect their karst water resources. Eleven Project Underground workshops, attended by a total of 158 teachers, where held in 2004. These teachers will reach over 4,700 students with karst education information. The Karst Education Coordinator participated in five additional events that reached a more varied audience, and continued to serve in a leadership role on the Virginia Resource Use Education Committee. Staff led a session on "Karst Education" at the eastern regional meeting of the National Association of Science Teachers, held in Richmond in December. Staff is working on the development of a new lesson on karst features and topographic maps that would teach students about karst hydrology while addressing the Virginia Standards of Learning. Other activities of the Karst Program during 2004 included participation in the Great Valley Water Forum, which addresses both water quality and supply problems associated with the rapidly developing northern Shenandoah Valley; partnership with the USGS in the identification of springs in western Virginia for age dating; and the karst biota inventory of the Rye Cove area of Scott County, where expansion of the Kingsport, TN metropolitan area threatens to impact a karst system that hosts a wide range of globally rare fauna, including the endemic Rye Cove Cave Isopod (Lirceus culveri). Karst Program Recommendations Two things would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the karst program. Increased funding levels to support the delineation of new conservation sites and research on the behavior of nutrients applied on croplands near sinkholes so that meaningful nutrient management BMPs could be developed. During 2005, the Karst Program will continue to pursue the several long-term projects outlined in this report, while responding to citizen requests and to potential impacts to karst aquifers that are identified through the environmental project review office in DCR's Natural Heritage Program. Major goals for 2005 include the better integration of karst protection into stormwater management BMP's, the launching of the Virginia Karst Hydrology Atlas website, continued delivery of Project Underground Workshops, development of new Project Underground lessons, and an increase in the number of karst watershed and conservation site delineations through dye tracing. This last, very important item is largely dependent upon the level of funding available through our program and through conservation partners. Floodplain Management Program The Floodplain Management Program of DCR supports all efforts that promote sound floodplain management practices. This includes federal state and local initiatives, and specifically, the efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). For flood insurance to be available through the NFIP, the Commonwealth of Virginia and individual localities must agree to participate in sound floodplain management activities that meet the minimum standards of the NFIP and its regulations. Local governments must adopt a NFIP compliant regulation and commit to its enforcement. There are 270 communities that currently participate in the NFIP; 16 local governments do not participate. The number of new NFIP communities has not changed since 2002. DCR's Floodplain Management Program staff provides leadership, training and technical assistance to local governments to ensure that local floodplain programs meet or exceed the minimum standards of the NFIP. The program also supports all floodplain management initiatives within the Commonwealth, including initiatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program; and the following FEMA program's: Community Assistance Program (CAP), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Community Rating System (CRS), Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP), and Cooperative Technical Partnerships (mapping initiative). During 2004, the Program was able to: • Conduct Forty-two (42) Community Assistance Visits (detailed evaluations of local floodplain programs and ordinance enforcement); • Conduct eighteen (18) Community Assistance Contacts (evaluations of local floodplain programs and ordinance enforcement performed on the phone); • Conduct twenty-seven (27) Planning and Technical Assistance Visits (site visits to assist community officials and/or citizens with interpretation of floodplain ordinance or NFIP regulations); • Prepared two major program guidance plans for the next five years that were required by FEMA for program elements — one plan was for implementation of a statewide floodplain mapping initiative and the other was a strategy to enhance current operations in providing assistance to communities for compliance; • Respond to 291 technical and planning assistance requests from community officials and citizens, consultants, and state officials; • Conduct and participate in twenty (20) training workshops and conferences on floodplain management; and • Review over 70 applications under the 401/404 Joint Permit Application process and VDOT's interagency coordination process. During this period of time, there was one staff vacancy in DCR's Vi yinM Nonpoinf Source Poffufion ProJc ram 2004 Annua%P Porf Floodplain Management Program for about a four -month period, which had an impact on the number of technical and planning assistance contacts and visits, and the number of permit applications that program staff was able to conduct. The impact of this vacancy was compounded by the necessity for staff to respond to the flooding that resulted from Tropical Storm Gaston in the Richmond Metro Area. The considerable number of impaired waters and the challenge of restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries represent major challenges for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition, issues related to funding availability and flexibility will continue to present a challenge during the ensuing year and beyond. In the long- term, meeting the water quality challenges facing the commonwealth will require new levels of funding and new thinking about how to reduce the water quality impacts of land development. For the future, Virginia has established the goal of partially or fully restoring 11 waterbodies by 2012. For the ensuing year, the focus will remain on implementation of the priority elements of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program, Chesapeake Bay restorations, and the implementation of corrective actions plans in impaired streams. With unprecedented levels of state funding in 2005, the commonwealth is poised to make significant progress in meeting water quality challenges. 'Page 35 Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation State Parks • Soll & Water Conservation • Natural Heritage Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance • Land Conservation Outdoor Recreation Planning • Dam Safety & rloodplains RESOURCE L 0/UG - TERM GO% L (75 YEARS) To improve surface and ground water quality in watersheds throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia by reducing nonpoint source pollution associated with abandoned and orphaned resource extraction sites in 20 - 25 sub -watersheds for the purpose of obtaining designated uses. This can be accomplished through proper site planning, implementation of best management practices, acid mine drainage remediation and land reclamation activities in associated high priority watersheds or areas with identified impaired stream segments. INTRODUCTION The Virginia General Assembly determined that uncontrolled resource extraction activities in Virginia, from the mining of coal and non -fuel minerals and the extraction of gas and oil, can contribute several pollutants to water resources. Legislation was passed to regulate these activities. Discussion of these laws will follow. Resource extraction activities are broken into three subcategories; coal mining, gas and oil, and mineral mining. The pollutants associated with each are as follows: Gas and Oil: ground water impacts, TSS, erosion from land disturbance, and impacts from access roads; and Mineral Mining: ground water impacts, total suspended solids (TSS), acid mine drainage, erosion and sediment, impacts on biota, heavy metal contamination, and pH levels (ambient as well as site discharge). Additionally, material exposed by mining may also react Coal Mining: groundwater impacts, heavy metal with air contributing to acid mine drainage. contamination, manganese, iron, sulfate, total suspended solids (TSS), acid mine drainage, On all active mining sites, all water discharges (including erosion and sediment, and impacts on biota; surfaceand ground water discharges) mustflowthrough a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RESOURCE EXTRACTION Virgikd honpoint ,Source Pollution Management program (NPDES) permitted discharge point, and is by definition a point source, and therefore, not a factor in the Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Management Program. No point source discharges are allowed from gas or oil well sites in Virginia. Operators of active mines and well sites are required by state law to implement management practices that control the release of sediment from the site and meet current state and federal effluent standards for point source discharges. These active sites also must be reclaimed to a stable condition once the resource extraction activity is complete. However, many resource extraction sites ceased operation before laws requiring reclamation existed, and fall into the realm of NPS pollution. Water quality issues are addressed through a permit process requiring that a performance bond be furnished by the permittee to insure that final reclamation of the mine or well site is completed. The permit process for all resource extraction sites requires the operators to submit an Operation and Reclamation Plan as an integral part of the permit application. The Operation and Reclamation Plan consists of four major elements: • a description of the method of operation; • a description of the drainage system with appropriate design data; • a reclamation schedule including a description of intended use; and • maps illustrating the total area to be permitted. The Operation and Reclamation Plan must be designed to minimize the adverse effects on the environment and to facilitate integration of reclamation with the mining operation. All sites with active ground disturbances are inspected for reclamation at least twice annually to ensure compliance with state laws and regulations. The focus of this chapter is the NPS pollution associated with resource extraction activities that arises from abandoned coal operations, orphaned mineral mines, and gas or oil well sites. These sites were not subject to current regulatory requirements and operated without having to meet the NPDES effluent standards. Abandoned and orphaned sites can remain unvegetated for 100 years after extraction activities have ceased and represent the primary source of NPS pollution from mineral, gas and coal extraction. The definition of abandoned mines refers to coal mines abandoned prior to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Orphaned mineral mines are defined as those areas disturbed by the mining of minerals, not including coal, which were not required by law to be reclaimed or have not been reclaimed. Orphaned wells are those gas or oil wells that were abandoned prior to the enactment of current laws requiring reclamation. The potential for NPS pollution impacts of abandoned and orphaned mines on state waters is significant. Erosion and sedimentation can destroy aquatic habitat and ruin stream channels. Acid mine drainage (low ph), and the corresponding heavy metal contamination, can significantly impair the ability of a stream to support biota, killing plants and animals that cannot withstand low PH levels. Ground water contamination from abandoned and orphaned mines and wells is also a concern due to fracturing and open pathways for pollutants to enter an underground aquifer. These impacts are rernediated through reclamation activities on nonpermitted sites. ISSUE ICEIVTIFICA TION & PROGRAM ASSESSM/IEV T This section describes the regulatory process, reclamation, research education and technical assistance, and funding needs regarding NPS issues and the programs in place to address the issues. The Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (is the primary state agency that regulates the resource extraction industry in Virginia. The DMME's Divisions of Mined Land Reclamation, Gas and Oil, and Mineral Mining deal directly with NPS pollution by conducting reclamation activities. There are five categories of prioritization that define the degree of hazard to human health and safety, and impacts to the environment from abandoned coal mine lands (AML). The most serious AML problems are those posing a threat to health, safety and general welfare of the people and are considered to be "high priority." These are categorized as Priority 1 and 2. States are required by federal law to reclaim these two types before moving to lower priorities. Problems associated RESOURCE EXTRACTION VirgXt2Alonpoint Source Pollution Management Program with Priority 1 and 2 sites include clogged streams, dangerous impoundments, hazardous recreational water body, and polluted water for agricultural, industrial or human consumption. The Priority 3 designation focuses on problems known to be associated with the environment and includes waste dumps, equipment and facilities, haul roads, slurry, and runoff. Priority 4 problems include the adverse effects of coal SOURCE CA TEGORI_ INACTIVE SITES :SOURCE CATEGORY i Gas and Oil Mineral Mining Coal Mining Regulatory Process DMME Division of Mined Land Reclamation mining practices on the protection, repair, replacement, construction, or enhancement of public facilities such as utilities, roads, recreation, and conservation facilities. Priority 5 involves the development of publicly owned land adversely affected by coal mining practices, including land acquired as provided in SMCRA for recreation and historic purposes, conservation, reclamation and open space benefits. TOTAL SUSPENDEI SOLIDS DMME's Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) administers the state law and regulations pertaining to coal surface mining reclamation and related water quality issues in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The primary law regulating these activities is Virginia's Coal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Chapter 19 of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia, and attendant regulations. At present, there are approximately 60,000 acres under permit on 657 coal mines in southwest Virginia. The main issues with coal mining are total suspended solids (TSS), heavy metal contamination (manganese, iron, sulfate) and impacts on biota from low pH levels due to acid mine drainage. Each permit includes standards for ground water protection, water quality, public notification, and soil and erosion control. DMLR conducts regular inspections to OLLUTANT CATEGORY D HEAVY METALS LOW pH LEVELS determine compliance during site construction, Production, reclamation and final abandonment. Production records are submitted and maintained at the DMLR office. DMME Division of Gas and Oil The authority to manage the gas and oil industry is found in Virginia's Gas and Oil Act, Chapter 22.1 of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia, and attendant regulations. This legislation requires that each gas and oil operation meet standards for environmental protection, public safety, and resource conservation. The DGO regulates permitting, development, operation and reclamation of gas wells, oil wells, gathering pipelines, compressor stations, and associated facilities. The main NPS pollution issues for gas and oil well are groundwater impacts and TSS from land disturbance erosion, and impacts from access roads. Each operating permit includes standards for RESOURCE EXTRACTION Vrgcriiid NOOpoint ,Source Pollution Management program groundwater protection', water quality, public notification, and soil and erosion control. DGO conducts regular inspections to determine compliance during site construction, drilling, production, reclamation and final abandonment. Production records are also submitted and maintained at the DGO office. At the end of 1998 Virginia had 1,036 conventional wells, 1,342 coal bed methane wells and 10 wells permitted for both conventional and coal bed methane production in southwest Virginia. DMME Division of Mineral Mining DMME's Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) provides for the safe and environmentally sound production of Virginia's non -fuel minerals. The primary law regulating these activities is the Mineral Mining Law, Chapter 16 of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia, and attendant regulations. Statewide, there are 493 non -fuel mines covering approximately 68,000 acres that are permitted and inspected by the DMM. These include quarries, sand and gravel pits, and other surface and underground mining operations. The main NPS pollution issues for mineral mining are TSS, heavy metal contamination and low pH levels from acid mine drainage. Mineral mining operations are not clustered in any one area but located throughout Virginia. A large portion of the minerals mined in Virginia are extracted for the construction of roads and commercial and residential buildings. Additionally, other minerals are used for agriculture, high temperature ceramics and glass making. Department of Environmental Quality Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations require all owners and operators of nonmetallic mining operations to apply for coverage under a Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) General Permit Regulation for Nonmetallic Mining (VR 680-14-21). The general permit covers processed water and mine pit dewatering associated with activities classified as nonmetallic mining industry. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements set forth in the general permit include monthly measurements of the average and maximum point source flow and testing the effluent for total suspended solids (TSS) and pH from a grab sample once every three months. The DEQ director may require every permittee to conduct additional water quality monitoring to determine the effect of the pollutant(s) on the water quality, to prevent pollution of state waters and to satisfy the requirements of the Virginia State Water Control Law, the Clean Water Act and other DEQ regulations. Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) provides assistance to 84 Tidewater local governments in developing, adopting and implementing local programs to protect water quality through the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (the Act - §10.1 - 2100 et seq., Code of Virginia) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (9 VAC 10-20-10 et seq., Virginia Administrative Code). The local Bay Act regulations supplement existing land use ordinance requirements and include the requirement for designation of Resource Protection Areas along tidal shorelines, tributary streams, and tidal and nontidal wetlands. Land use in the RPAs is limited to water dependent facilities and redevelopment activities. Any other activities, such as mining operations, are not permitted by right in the RPA and such land uses should be considered by the local government on a case -by - case basis. Virginia Marine Resources Commission Submerged Lands Management Program (Sec. 28-2-1200 through 28.2-1213 of the Code of Virginia) The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) administers the Submerged Lands Permitting Program throughout the state. In non -tidal areas this program includes waterways with flows greater than five cubic feet per second (CFS) or drainage areas greater than five square miles. Permits are issued through a joint permit review process involving local, state and federal agencies. Permits are reviewed based on compliance with statutory requirements and Subaqueous Guidelines as well as technical assistance provided by cooperating state and RESOURCE EXTRACTION VrgXV64Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program federal agencies. Technical assistance comments are received from DEQ, DCR, Department of Health (VDI-i), and DGIF. Impacts on water quality, water quantity, habitat and aquatic resources, as well as affects on adjacent properties, are considered during permit review. BMPs are included in permits when applicable, as are requirements for minimum flows and provisions for continued fish passage. When applicable, permits can also require compliance with erosion and sediment control practices described in the 1992 Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Local Governments Local governments are responsible for developing and implementing comprehensive plans and local growth strategies. As such, the local jurisdictions are responsible for ensuring that mining operations are compatible with current and future land use. Local governments have a variety of options through local ordinances and codes to address compatible land use, water quality issues and erosion and sediment control. The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) presented an analysis of local government management considerations for borrow pit operations for the Richmond area in the report Sand and Gravel Resources: Local Options for Protection and Regulation (November, 1989). The report presents five options available to localities to regulate sand and gravel operations through zoning: • prohibit sand and gravel mining in all or parts of the jurisdiction; • include sand and gravel mining as a permitted use in one or more existing zoning districts; • establish a surface mining district; • create a mining overlay district; and • allow mining in one or more existing zoning districts by the use of special zoning such as a special exception or conditional use permit. Special conditions are typically placed on the mining operation based on issues and concerns raised about each particular site. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) has presented a similar analysis in the report Borrow Pit Management Strategy Study (January, 1996). Ad -Hoc Remining Task Force Reclamation of abandoned coal mines could be greatly accelerated through remining. Currently, DMLR is working with EPA through the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) Remining Task Force to develop best management practices (BMPs) on remining coal mine sites that have existing acid mine drainage (AMD). The goal of the Remining Task Force is to have the effluent limitations on these sites reduced or eliminated if BMPs are implemented. At this time, Virginia is supplying data to EPA that shows BMPs are successful in the reduction of AMD discharge if they are properly installed. The goal of the project is to encourage operators to remine areas that they would not otherwise mine because of an AMD problem. The implementation of a BMP, or suite of BMPs would replace the effluent numeric limits. EPA has agreed that the NPDES regulating authority in each state may implement an experimental program to use BMPs for gathering data for a regulation change that EPA is considering. Declamation DMME Division of Mined Land Reclamation The Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) administers the state law and regulations pertaining to coal surface mining and reclamation and related water quality issues in the Commonwealth of Virginia. DMLR's Abandoned Mine Land Section (AML) reclaims mines abandoned prior to the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Funds for reclamation projects come from a per -ton tax paid by coal mine operators. The AML program has reclaimed hundreds of abandoned sites at a cost of approximately $57 million since the program started in 1981. These sites have featured problems such as dangerous highwalls, landslide -prone areas, abandoned mine openings, burning refuse, hazardous structures, and mine subsidence. The Abandoned Mined Land (AML) Program in Virginia prioritizes abandoned coal mine sites for reclamation. There are five priority classifications with Priority 1 RESOURCE EXTRACTION V"rgXia lllonpoint .Source Pollution Management program being the highest. First consideration is given to Priority 1 or 2 sites where public health and safety and the general welfare are endangered from the abandoned sites. States are required by law to reclaim all sites classified as Priority 1 or 2 before reclaiming Priority 3, 4, and 5 sites. Virginia's AML Inventory has identified 400 high priority problem areas. A problem area may have several features. Using inventory data on the total estimate to reclaim Priority 1, 2, and 3 problem areas and the amount already expended, it would take DMLR 128 years to reclaim all of the problems areas. This figure is skewed, however, by the amount of money required to reclaim Priority 3 (environmental hazard) areas, some of which could be reclaimed through remining. Omitting Priority 3 sites, it will take 50 years to complete the reclamation of Priority 1 and 2 problems at the current level of funding. DMME Division of Mineral Mining The enactment of non -fuel mine safety and reclamation laws recognized that, while providing needed resources for development, uncontrolled mining could result in safety and environmental hazards. Virginia's Orphaned Land Program was enacted in 1978 to alleviate the environmental and public health and safety hazards associated with abandoned mineral mine sites. The Orphaned Land Advisory Committee is composed of individuals from DMM, mineral mining industry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI&SU), the Virginia Department of Transportation, DEQ, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, private citizens, and the Virginia Aggregates Association. This Committee assists DMM in evaluating sites and prioritizing reclamation activity. There are approximately 3,000 orphaned mineral mines throughout Virginia. To date, 73 reclamation projects have been completed encompassing 560 acres of eroded and unstable lands at a cost of $2.25 million. In 1996 a new protocol was developed to inventory orphaned mineral mines identified as DCR NPS pollution high priority watershed designations. The intent is to integrate orphaned mineral mines data into the NPS pollution prioritization system along with agriculture, urban development and forestry data. Approximately three to six sites are reclaimed annually. DMME Division of Gas and Oil The Virginia Gas and Oil Act established Virginia's orphaned well program. The program requires a $50 payment for every permit application submitted. These fees are placed into a fund, which is used to plug and reclaim the orphaned well sites. Currently, Virginia has identified approximately 70 orphaned wells. 1999 is the first year the DGO has been able to plug orphaned wells. To date, three have been completed at a cost of $51,000. Wells are plugged to prevent oil or gas from migrating into water zones, mines, caverns, and to prevent interaction with drinking water supplies. Research, Education and Technical Assistance Virginia Cooperative Extension Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) is involved in resource extraction pollution remediation through its Powell River Project. This is an applied research project and education effort of VCE to benefit the people, industries and governments of the Virginia coal region. The Powell River Project team sponsors and conducts research that develops cost-effective environmental protection practices for use by the coal industry. This is accomplished through cooperation with DMLR, the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and the Virginia coal industry. Funding is provided by the state, through VPI&SU and VCE, and the coal industry. Topics addressed include revegetation of mine areas, and treatment and renovation of mine water discharges. VCE conducts educational programming to inform the coal industry, local governments and citizens in Virginia's coal -mining area about improved land reclamation and water quality protection technologies that have been developed through research. The programming also provides guidance in the application of research -based technologies. This information is made available to non -coal mining industries in other parts of the state. Natural Resources Conservation Service The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), RESOURCE EXTRACTION VlrgMS honpoint .Source Pollution Management program formerly the Soil Conservation Service, has not received federal funding for the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) program for the last three years. NRCS is presently completing the remaining sites in its inventory and should have the last site finished in 1999. A partnership agreement for the reclamation of the Guest River Watershed in Wise County, Virginia, is currently pending between NRCS and DMME's AML program. Although NRCS may not have the RAMP funds restored in future budgets, it supports all reclamation efforts in Virginia. NRCS will continue to provide soil survey and BMP information for all pending sites as well as those under construction. NRCS will continue to provide personnel and expertise to help the soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), OSM and DMME to prioritize potential sites. NRCS will continue to review and make technical and BMP recommendations to all other agencies addressing AML sites. Virginia Institute of Marine Science The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), primarily through the Coastal Watershed Center (CWC) and under the authority of sections 28.2-1100,1205 and 1301 of the Code of Virginia, provides technical assistance to the commonwealth regarding activities that may impact the natural resources within the coastal waters of the state. This may include sand and gravel pits as well as other surface mining operations. The CWC conducts educational programming to inform local governments, state agencies and citizens about water quality issues and provides a technical report series on various topics regarding the waters of the commonwealth. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers DMME, through the DMLR's AML Section and the state sponsor, the Lenowisco Planning District Commission, is providing AML matching money for the Powell River Watershed Ecosystem Restoration Project in conjunction with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The study will look primarily at AMD impacts to the Powell River ecosystem related to coal mining. Reconnaissance and feasibility studies in the Ely, Pucket and Straight creek tributaries of the Powell River watershed will be completed this summer. AML matching funds committed to date total $400,000 on a 50/50 match. Design and construction phases of the project will start this fall with a construction start projected for 2000-2001. The Powell River Watershed Ecosystem Restoration Project is a multiphase, multiyear project with a total projected cost of $7 million over the next five to seven years. A streamline feasibility study for other watersheds of the North Fork of the Powell River Basin (Reeds, Jones, Bundy and Cox creeks) has just started. The USACOE is also preparing reconnaissance studies for the Upper (headwater) Powell River watershed and the Clinch River watershed. The DMME will work closely with the USACOE on this project as well. Local sponsors and funding sources have not been secured at this time. Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Under an agreement with the DMLR, DGIF provides technical assistance to the Abandoned Mine Land Section for reclamation activities. The purpose is to determine potential adverse impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and to recommend appropriate measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for those impacts. Emphasis is often placed on habitat restoration and improvement techniques, which enhance the quality of wildlife habitat. Two Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) were established in 1984 to implement this coordination with DMLR for general surface mining and abandoned mine land reclamation projects. Funding Needs DMME operates inventory and construction programs designed to identify and eliminate public safety hazards and pollution from abandoned coal and mineral mines and gas and oil wells. While effective, the scope of these programs is severely limited by the funds that are available for NPS pollution abatement. DMME Division of Mined Land Reclamation The DMLR's Abandoned Mined Land Section receives the majority of its funds from grants awarded to Virginia RESOURCEEARAmo VirgXia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). These funds are derived from a reclamation tax levied upon the coal mining industry. The fees are collected for the purpose of reclaiming land mined for coal prior to August 3, 1977 and which was inadequately reclaimed by today's standards. Currently, all of the fees collected by the DOI are not being returned to the states in order to reclaim abandoned lands. This greatly diminishes the amount of reclamation that can occur on abandoned lands. Virginia's ability to address AML problems is influenced by the number and variety of problems identified in the AML inventory, the required prioritization of projects, funding allocations, and the 2004 current end -date of the AML Program. Work is far from complete at Priority 1 and 2 sites, correcting hazards such as clogged streams, highwalls, water filled pits, dangerous impoundments, refuse areas and mine subsidence. Acid mine drainages still pollute miles of streams. Additionally, funds are expended for public water supply projects in areas where the water has been degraded by past coal mining and for emergency reclamation projects. States are allowed to spend up to 30 percent of their funds on public water supply projects, set aside 10 percent of their funds for the treatment of acid mine drainage, and use funding as necessary to abate emergency situations. Additional AML funds are set aside for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative, the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP), federal reclamation programs where states do not have an approved AML program, and federal, state and tribal administration of the program. Through September 30, 1998, about $155 million in reclamation fees has been collected in Virginia. Only about $57 million has been distributed back to the state. Virginia has more than $110 million remaining in high Priority 1 and 2 reclamation needs as estimated by DMME. The commonwealth also has $120 million in water projects eligible for AML funding, and $300 million in medium Priority 3 reclamation project needs. This totals $530 million for the higher priority projects in Virginia. Costs for lower Priority 4 and 5 needs have not been estimated. Virginia receives approximately $4.5 to $5 million each year for the program. At the current rate of available funding, it will take Virginia 50 years to reclaim its most critical sites abandoned prior to 1977. When eligible water projects and sites mined between 1977 and 1981 are added, it will take over 100 years. Currently, additional funding is being received for specific projects from EPA through section 104(b)(3) and 319 grants. DMME Division of Gas and Oil and Division of Mineral Mining The DMM uses interest earned from a state managed industry self -bonding program for reclamation of orphaned mine sites which were not required by law to be reclaimed or have not been reclaimed. The DGO uses monies appropriated by the General Assembly, interest earned from those monies, and a well permit surcharge to fund the reclamation of orphaned well sites. While the presence of these orphaned mineral mine and gas well funds is beneficial, they only allow for a limited number of sites to be reclaimed each year. With more than 3,000 abandoned mineral mine and gas and oil well sites in Virginia, DMME seeks to continue to expand the usefulness of its funds by leveraging them with grants for future projects. Approximately $153 million would be required to reclaim the estimated 3,000 abandoned mineral mines. Currently, additional funding is being received for specific projects from EPA through section 104(b)(3) and 319 grants. Virginia Cooperative Extension The VCE Powell River Project funding comes from s variety of sources, including state funds allocated to VPI&SU, and contributions by the coal industry and other southwest Virginia natural resource firms. Continuation of the Powell River Project's current programming is dependant upon funding provided by both the state and the coal industry. If Virginia's coal production continues to decline, industry support for these programs at current levels may be jeopardized. The Powell River Project is seeking to continue and expand research and education programming by seeking funds from a wider range of sources. RESOURCEEXTRACTION V rgXjA9 honpoInt Source Pollution Management Program OBJEC TI VE-S SHORT - TERM GO% LS) Four objectives (short-term goals) were identified by the work group regarding resource extraction activities. These goals target the abandoned and orphaned sites. This approach will address the issues identified by the work group: TSS, acid mine drainage, heavy metal contamination, impacts to biota, and surface and ground water quality. The abandoned coal mine sites that qualify for remining activity will be permitted and the associated potential water quality impacts will be addressed through the NPDES point source permit process. The objectives are: Objective 9. Determine the magnitude and quantity of nonpoint source pollution impacts to the environment from abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mine sites, and orphaned gas and oil wells so that reclamation activities can be prioritized Objective 2. Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of residents and living resources of Virginia Objective 3. Support and develop research and education activities to improve the knowledge and understanding of Virginia residents regarding resource extraction activities and the environment Objective 4. Identify opportunities for developing partnerships with state and federal agencies and other interested organizations to address nonpoint source pollution from abandoned mines TA BL ES OF OBJECTIVES & STRA TEGIES The milestones presented in this section reflect the fact that limited resources are available to quickly and completely address the extent of NPS pollution associated with abandoned and orphaned mine lands. Several activities conducted annually will continue based on the presumption that current levels of funding will be maintained. Additional activities, such as complete incorporation of the DMME mine land information into the DCR NPS Pollution Watershed Assessment process and the DEQ 305(b) and 303 (d) list reports, are new and will require innovative approaches to funding and for addressing the issues. Of increasing importance is the availability of Abandoned Mine Land funds and the use of remining activities for reclamation. More effective use of these two elements could increase the number of sites annually reclaimed resulting in greater annual water quality improvements. RESOURCE EXTRACTION VrgXV,9Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 1 Determine the magnitude and quantity of nonpoint source pollution impacts to the environment from abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mine sites, and orphaned gas and oil wells so that reclamation activities can be prioritized STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 1.1 Incorporate mining data into NPS •DMME 2003 - -General pollution water quality databases •DCR update Fund •DEQ annually thereafter Develop data format and •DMME 2000 -General protocol for agency •DCR Fund information exchange •DEQ -US Dept. of the Interior Initiate data incorporation into •DCR 2001 -General NPS pollution watershed DMME Fund prioritization process •DEQ Initiate incorporation of DMME 2001 •319 grant abandoned site data •DCR -General information into 303(d) list of •DEQ Fund impaired streams -US Dept. of the Interior Develop targeted monitoring •DEQ 2003 -Unknown plan to support and strengthen •DMME reclamation efforts -Citizens groups 1.2 Continue programs to inventory and •DMME Ongoing •319 prioritize abandoned mine sites Grant General Fund -US Dept. of the Interior 1.3 Review and evaluate progress •NPSAC Annually -N/A agencies RESOURCE EXTRACTION VircAiMNonpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 2 Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites so that available resources are targeted to those sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of residents and living resources of Virginia STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES TARGET FUNDING & OTHERS YEAR SOURCES 2.1 Utilize the NPS watershed -DMME Ongoing -General prioritization process developed in 1996 -DCR Fund -DEQ Systematically inventory and -DMME 2015 and -319 grant conduct site investigations on beyond -RAMP all orphaned mineral mine and AML sites in the state and continue funds ( if to refine the protocol as available) appropriate -General Fund 2.2 Ensure that habitat protection is an -DMME Ongoing -319 grant integral part of plans developed for the -DCR -RAMP reclamation of abandoned and orphaned -PDCs and AML mine sites -CBLAD funds ( if -Localities available) -General Fund Continue to include habitat -DMME Ongoing -319 grant restoration in reclamation -DGIF -RAMP (if activities available) AML funds ( if available) -General Fund Initiate work with localities to -CBLAD 2001 -Unknown ensure inclusion or re- -DCR creation of resource -DMME protection area buffer in -PDCs reclamation plans OBJECTIVE 2 (Cont.) RESOURCEEXTRACTION 1V1-rg4'61h7A1onpoint Source Pollution Management Program Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites so that available resources are targeted to those sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of the residents and living resources of Virginia STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES TARGET FUNDING & OTHERS YEAR SOURCES 2.2 (Cont.) habitat protection Continue to work with natural •DMME Ongoing •319 grant resource agencies -RAMP and AML funds ( if available) 2.3 DMLR will remediate acid mine Complete implementation of •DMME 2001 -General drainage sites in the Ely Creek reclamation plan Fund watershed -US Dept. of the Interior •319 Grant 2.4 Continue to solicit funding for, and •DMME 25 sites •319 grant reclaim, 20 - 25 abandoned and annually -US Dept. orphaned mine sites per year (if current of the levels of Interior funding -RAMP are main- and AML tained) funds ( if available) Reclaim 15 - 18 coal sites •DMME Annually -US Dept. (at of the current Interior funding -RAMP levels) and AML funds ( if available) Plug 15 orphaned and •DMME 2005 -Permit forfeited wells fees Plug 15 orphaned and •DMME 2010 -Permit forfeited wells fees Plug 15 orphaned and •DMME 2015 -Permit forfeited wells fees OBJECTIVE 2 (Cont.) KLSUURCEtXTRACTION V1rcA' iMNonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites so that available resources are targeted to those sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of the residents and living resources of Virginia STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES TARGET FUNDING & OTHERS YEAR SOURCES 2.4 (Cont.) solicit funding for, and Reclaim 3 - 6 mineral mine ^DMME Annually -Orphan- reclaim, 20 - 25 abandoned and sites •DCR (at ed Mine orphaned mine sites per year current Funds funding •319 grant levels) 2.5 Seek release of tax generated AML -Industry Ongoing -N/A funds •DMME •DCR •DEQ 2.6 Pursue the development of remining Incorporate recommendations •DMME Ongoing -N/A regulations and incentives to encourage of Ad Hoc Remining Task •DCR the reclamation of abandoned coal mine Force •DEQ sites •NRCS -EPA -Industry Organi- zations Identify sites appropriate for •DMME Ongoing -N/A remining •DCR •DEQ •NRCS -industry Organi- zations 2.7 The DMLR will remediate acid mine •DMME 2007 -USA- drainage sites in the Powell River COE watershed •Leno- wisco PDC •OSM 2.8 Remediate AMD sites in the Powell Continue with reclamation •DMME 2007 -USA- River watershed activities COE •Leno- wisco PDC •OSM OBJECTIVE 2 (Cont.) RESOURCE EXTRA CTION V1rA1A3N01_7p01nt Source Pollution Management Program Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites so that available resources are targeted to those sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of the residents and living resources of Virginia 2.9 Prioritize reclamation activities, Identify sites appropriate for •DMME 2010 •319 grant when possible, to coincide with current reclamation in support of the •DCR -US Dept. TMDL activities TMDL process •DEQ of the •NRCS Interior -Industry -RAMP organi- and AML zations Funds ( if available) 2.10 Review and evaluate progress •NPSAC Annual -N/A agencies RESOURCE EXTRACTION '/lrcyA' 1b4Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 3 Support and develop research and education activities to improve the knowledge and understanding of Virginia residents regarding resource extraction activities and the environment STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES TARGET FUNDING & OTHERS YEAR SOURCES 3.1 Conduct research, and develop and •VCE Ongoing •VCE apply cost-effective land reclamation and Powell Powell environmental control strategies for River River reforestation of mined lands, Project Project remediation of acid mine drainage, •VPI&SU -Coal mined land revegetation, watershed •DMME industry restoration and other subject areas as •OSM •VPI&SU identified -USA- •DMME COE Expand the Powell River •VCE 2001 •VCE Project Reclamation Powell Powell Guidelines publication series River River for remediation of acid mine Project Project drainage and update the •VPI&SU -Coal remaining series as needed Industry •VPI&SU •DMME 3.2 Conduct educational programs to •VCE Ongoing •VCE inform appropriate clientele about land Powell Powell reclamation and environmental protection River River technologies developed through research Project Project -Coal industry •VPI&SU Continue conducting •VCE Annually •VCE environmental education Powell Powell programs at the Powell River River River Project Education Center for Project Project 1,000 students who attend -Coal schools in Virginia's coal- industry producing region •VPI&SU Conduct 1 -2 curriculum •VCE Annually •VCE development workshops for 20 Powell Powell - 25 teachers who bring their River River students to the Powell River Project Project Project Education Center -Coal industry >VPI&SU RESOURCE EXTRACTION Virg 6honpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 3 (Cont.) Support and develop research and education activities to improve the knowledge and understanding of Virginia residents regarding resource extraction activities and the environment STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES TARGET FUNDING & OTHERS YEAR SOURCES 3.2 (Cont.) educational programs Develop education materials •DMME 2000 Private regarding mineral extraction Dept. of industry activities in Virginia to help Education meet secondary school -Private Standards of Learning (SOLs) industry 3.3 Review and evaluate progress -NPSAC Annually -N/A agencies RESOURCE LVRAMON V"rg"" iMNonpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 4 Identify opportunities for developing partnerships with state and federal agencies and other interested organizations to address nonpoint source pollution from abandoned mines STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES TARGET FUNDING & OTHERS YEAR SOURCES 4.1 Present technology transfer -DMME Annually -N/A seminars annually within mining •DCR communities to promote the use of BMPs •DEQ •NRCS •VCE Powell River Project Local gov't -Stake- holders 4.2 Continue the work Of the Remining •DMME Ongoing -General Ad Hoc Advisory Work Group, whose •DCR Fund members represent the coal industry, -DEQ planning district commissions, state •NRCS colleges and universities, state and •VCE federal agencies and a national Powell environmental organization River Project -Local gov't -Stake- holders 4.3 Identify ways to increase interaction •DMME Ongoing -Unknown between research, education, mining ^DCR and environmental communities •DEQ •NRCS •VCE Powell River Project -Local gov't -Stake- holders KtSUUK k tX1RACTION V'rg)"'A7Nonpo1nt Socirce Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 4 (Cont.) Identify opportunities for developing partnerships with state and federal agencies and other interested organizations to address nonpoint source pollution from abandoned mines STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES TARGET FUNDING & OTHERS YEAR SOURCES 4.4 Identify ways to obtain increased or •DMME Ongoing •Unknown new funding for reclamation of •DCR abandoned mine sites •DEQ •NRCS •VCE Powell River Project •Local gov't •Stake- holders 4.5 Review and evaluate progress •NPSAC Annually -N/A RESOLIRCEEXTRACTION I/irAih%onpoint Source Pollution Management Program WORK GROUP MEMBERS & A aw MOzANIzA /-/oN REPRESENTED Resource Extraction Department of Conservation & Recreation Facilitator Mr. Mark Slauter Nonpoint Source Planning and Grants Program Manager Mr. Rick Hill Dr. John Anderson Virginia Commonwealth University Mr. Harry Augustine Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Mr. Rod Bankson Holman's Creek Project Mr. Allen Bishop Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy Mr. Meryl Christianson Friends of the Shenandoah Mr. Jerry Elkins Lonesome Pine Soil and Water Conservation District Mr. Scott Emery Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Mr. Brian Ganoe Natural Resources Conservation Service RESOURCE EXTRACTION Dr. David Gruber Biological Monitoring, Inc. Mr. Wayne T. Halbleib Virginia Aggregates Association Mr. Kirk Havens Virginia Institute of Marine Science Mr. Neal Kilgore Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Mr. Billy Mills Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers Association Mr. Shep Moon Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department Mr. Dan Poteet Pittston Coal Group Mr. Jon Rockett Powell River Project vir IvnifNonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Mr. Tony Watkinson Virginia Marine Resources Commission Mr. Carl E. Zipper Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University RESOURCE EXTRACTION VrA ONonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Hydraulic Impacts of Quarries and Gravel Pits II. Outcomes Sections 1. Conclusions 2. Recommendations to Local Government Units for Quarries and Pits SECTION 1. CONCLUSIONS Based on our project monitoring and investigations, we have reached the following conclusions about the hydrologic impacts of quarries and pits: Impacts of Quarries Ground -Water Levels When limestone quarries are dewatered to allow mining below the water table, they alter ground- water levels and flow direction. In essence, the quarries become huge wells. Ground -water levels were found to have dropped up to 70 ft; this lowering of the ground -water levels can affect wells on neighboring properties and surface -water bodies. New quarries that will extract material below the water table will have to be sited carefully to avoid this impact, or a plan must be developed to provide an alternative water supply for property owners whose wells are affected. Ground -Water Flow Paths Limestone quarries can alter ground -water flow paths by the removal of the aquifer material and the subsequent breaching of the limestone conduits without active dewatering of the quarry. At one site investigated, 90% of the ground -water basin's flow is now surfacing in the quarry. Ground water that previously discharged at a spring now discharges in the quarry where it is exposed to quanying activities. This premature surfacing of the ground water also alters its temperature, changing the temperature characteristics of the receiving stream and potentially affecting its aquatic life. Our investigations found this scenario most likely to occur when quarries are located upgradient from and close to springs. Modeling has shown that quarry dewatering at one site is drawing water from a nearby river. Additional impacts could not be assessed because of the lack of hydrologic data from areas surrounding the quarry. It is likely that the dewatering has decreased the yield of nearby wells at this site. Quarry Blasting Monitoring and visual inspections of the observation wells at two of the limestone quarry sites found no impact from quarry blasting on ground water turbidity or well integrity. Turbidity monitoring at a spring downgradient of one limestone quart' did find an increase in turbidity that could be attributed to quart' blasting; however, precipitation events had a greater impact on turbidity levels. Based on these findings, the domestic wells most likely to be affected by quany blasting are older wells (completed before enactment of the state well code) finished in the surface limestone formation. Impacts of Pits Ground -Water Levels Our monitoring found no negative impacts on ground -water levels from sand and gravel pits in alluvial deposits that operate below the water- table but do not dewater. These pits will not affect the quantity of water available to shallow domestic wells on neighboring properties. In the complex geology of glacial beach ridge settings, the removal of sand and gravel can alter ground -water flow paths and affect the supply of water available to wetlands that are fed by discharge from the sand and gravel. Ground -Water Temperature Open -water ponds created by sand and gravel mining change ground -water temperatures. The magnitude and extent of those changes is not yet known. This is an ongoing concern that needs further study. 4 SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS FOR QUARRIES AND PITS The following list of questions and materials is designed to help local government staff and officials focus on water resource issues when evaluating aggregate mining proposals. Other issues that need to be considered such as noise, dust, and road impacts are not included in this document. Much of the information required to answer the questions is obtained by mining companies prior to applying for a permit as they conduct their own site evaluations. Topography These questions will allow you to assess the mining company's ability to identify any potential impacts of flooding or runoff in the affected area. m What is the slope of the area? o If the land is sloping, where will runoff go? a Is the site in a floodplain? To answer these questions, a topographic map of the site should be provided. The map should include the following features: s Elevations o Roads a Surface -water bodies e Property lines Buildings ® Equipment and fuel storage areas If part of the property is in a floodplain, an accurate floodplain delineation based on site survey and hydrologic data should be included in order to assess the risk of inundation of the mule, equipment, and fuel storage areas. Geology These questions will allow you to assess the operation's size, future expansion possibilities, depth of mining, and the potential for overburden stockpiling. o What is the size of the deposit? o How deep is it? ® How much overburden is there? ® Are there geologic boundaries (change from one type of material to another)? © Are there clay or shale units present that might act as aquitards? To answer these questions, a geologic map, at the appropriate scale should be supplied. It should display the following: Areal extent and depth of the deposit Geologic units and contacts Confining units (clay, shale, siltstone) 5 m Depth to bedrock (if applicable) ® Cross -sections diagrams of the deposit and site Fracture patterns and traces (rock quarries) ® Test hole locations Hydrology These questions will allow you to assess the impact the proposed operation might have on wells and surface -water bodies. e What is the water table elevation in the deposit? ® Which way is the water flowing through the deposit? o What aquifers are present? a Will the mine be wet or dry? That is, will it be dewatered? o Are there wells on the neighboring properties? a How deep are they? A Do they get their water from this deposit? ® What is the likelihood for impact on these wells? It will be greater if they are in the same aquifer that the deposit is. a Are there surface -water bodies nearby that might be at risk? To answer these questions, a map should be supplied that displays the following: a Water -table elevations with ground -water flow direction o Wells with depth, static water level, age, and construction m Surface -water bodies and their elevation 0 Springs ® Karst features (if applicable) If the pit or quany is to be dewatered, the plan for that should include the following: ■ dewatering points and their elevations ® proposed volume and rate of dewatering • discharge point • duration of dewatering Karst Investigations Due to the nature of karst conduit ground -water flow, limestone quarries have the potential to affect water resources that are not immediately adjacent to the site. In order to evaluate this potential, some additional information is necessary; a licensed professional geologist with experience in karst mapping and hydrology should obtain this information: A survey in the area of known caves, joints, or fractures Mapping of sinkholes, stream sinks, and springs Trout stream locations Dye tracing to determine the ground -water flow paths and the potential connection of the site to springs in the area may be necessary. This information will help to ensure that the quarry is sited in an area with the least likelihood of affecting local springs through dewatering, contaminant introduction, or thermal degradation. Monitoring Monitoring Wells If impacts on nearby water resources or neighboring wells are possible, monitoring wells will be necessary. Such wells should be located around the perimeter of the mining area, and sited after consideration of the possible impacts and the current configuration of the water table, piezometric surface, or both. Where multiple aquifers are involved, such as removal or dewatering of a surficial aquifer during excavation of a lower unit, both the upper and lower units should be monitored by installing a deep well and a shallow well in a "well nest". To establish ground -water flow directions, a minimum of three wells are needed. Additional Precautions These additional precautions are necessary if a formation is used both for sand and gravel operations and for water supply. Ground -water modeling may be needed to determine how much material can be mined without severely impairing aquifer function by changing the ability of the formation to transmit water. ® Mining should not be allowed to the edge of the formation (where it meets upland deposits). ® Since these operations typically result in an open -water area, those areas need to be protected. No fine-grained materials should be deposited in them and the areas should not be used for any type of waste disposal. Mining Plan Compiling the information on topography, geology, hydrology, karst (if applicable), and monitoring will allow for the development of a mining plan. The following questions will allow you to assess the overall scope of the Honing operation, its impact on neighboring properties, and its plan of operation. ® How large of an area will be mined? m How deep will the mine be? e How will mining operations be staged? ® How will the overburden spoils be stored? What mitigation measure will protect against flooding? o What mitigation measure will prevent or manage runoff onto surrounding properties and surface -water bodies? To answer these questions, a detailed mining plan needs to be supplied that displays the following: ® Mining progression ® Final depth of the mine o Spoil pile locations and treatments o Material processing plans including washing sites, water sources, and treatment methods ® Equipment maintenance areas o Road locations Reclamation Flan These questions will allow you to evaluate the adequacy of ongoing reclamation activities during mining and the condition of the property after mining ceases. ® What reclamation activities will occur during active mining? a What will the slopes of the area be? o Will there be an open -water body? If so, what will be its shape, depth, and slope? a What type of vegetation will be planted? e What will be the land use after mining ceases? To answer these questions, a detailed reclamation plan should be supplied that displays the following: 0 Stages of reclamation m Reclamation methods Source of reclamation material o Grading and slope of the reclaimed areas 0 Vegetation planning including map of plantings and description of seed mixtures and seed sources ® Shape and slope of any open -water areas a Future use of the site COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 90 - A ME406e,MVILL *CINIDIII�EF PEA /BOX 4� DINBURG 010 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING May 26, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) This notification is to clarify that the Frederick County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #03-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000