I LAKE ANNA SPECIAL AREA PLAN I March 2000 LAKE ANNA SPECIAL AREA PLAN COMMITTEE LAKE ANNA SPECIAL AREA PLAN COMMITTEE Jack Bertron, Chair Gerald Root, Vice-Chair Joe Bailey Luther Bergstrom Herb Distefano Ralph England Johnny Finch Tom Graves George O'Connell William Rupp Fred Seward Jack Speer Staff Team John P. "Pete" Bradshaw, Director of Planning, County of Louisa Stephen Griffin, Director of Planning, County of Spotsylvania Debbie Kendall, Director of Planning, County of Orange Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Steve Manster,. Executive Director, Rappahannock Area Development Commission Gary Christie, Executive Director, Rappahannock Rapidan Regional Commission Rochelle Garwood, Environmental Planner, Thomas jefferson Planning District Commission Tabl~ of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •................................................•..........................................•.......•............. i PURPOSE .............•..•................................................................................................................................ i MAJOR FINDINGS ....•............................................................................................................................... i STUDY CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ ii PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. iii II. VISION STATEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 1 m. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...............................................................: .............................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. 2 PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................................................................... 3 EXISTING STUDIES ................................................................................................................................. 3 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................................. 4 LEGAL BASIS FDR THE LAKE ANNA SPECIAL AREA PLAN ..................................................................... 4 IV. DESCRIPTION OF LAKE ANNA AND THE WATERSHED. ...................................................... 5 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 5 ORIGINS OF LAKE ANNA ........................................................................................................................ 5 DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED ............................................................................................................... 6 REGIONAL CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................. 7 V. DATA PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 8 DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................................................................... 8 LAND USE PATTERNS: LOCAL ............................................................................................................... 8 LAND USE: INNER RING ......................................................................................................................... 9 LAND USE: WATERSHED ...................................................................................................................... 10 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................................. 14 THREATS ............................................................................................................................ : ................. 25 CURRENT ORDINANCES ....................................................................................................................... 30 VI. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 31 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 31 LAND USE ...................................... _ .................................................................................................... 42 WATERSHED PROTECTION ................................................................................................................... 46 CONSERVATION PLANNING .................................................................................................................. 48 RECOMMENDED STANDARDS ............................................................................................................... 48 VII. APPENDIX ONE - EXISTING STUDIES ................................................................................. AI-I SUMMARY OF VIRGINIA POWER LAKE ANNA PLAN ......................................................................... AI-I SUMMARY OF LOUISA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .................................................................. A 1-6 SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................................................................ A 1-7 SUMMARY OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ...................................................... A 1-8 VIII. APPENDIX TWO - DETAIL OF SUPPORTING DATA ......................................................... Al-1 CALCULATION OF ACCELERATED EROSION RATE ............................................................................ A2-1 SHORELINE EROSiON ......................................................................................................................... A2-3 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ..................................................................................................................... A2-4 CODES AND ORDINANCES ................................................................................................................ A2-5 IX. APPENDIX THREE - PLANNING TOOLS .............................................................................. AJ-I THE EIGHT ToOLS OF WATERSHED PROTECTION ............................................................................. A3-1 THE CONSERVATION PLANNING ApPROACH .................................................................................... A3-7 ACTION AGENDA ........................................................................................................................... A3-1 0 X. . APPENDIX FOUR - METALS .................................................................................................. A4-41 Tables Charts, Figures and Maps, • Plan TABLES Table 1. County Portion in Watershed ........................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Hydrologic Units Comprising the Watershed .................................................................................................. 7 Table 3. Miles of Streams ............................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 4. Estimated ArulUaI Sediment yield ................................................................................................................. 29 Table 5: Pollutant Removal Capability of Open Channels using Different BMPs ...................................................... 52 Table 6: Land Uses with Different Peak Daily Operating Hours ................................................................................ 53 Table 7: Surrunary of Issues Related to Various Types of Alternative Pavements ...................................................... 54 Table 8: Options for Open Space Management.. ......................................................................................................... 57 Table 9: Benefits of Stream Buffers ............................................................................................................................ 58 CHARTS Chart 1: % Change in County Population 1980-1990 .................................................................................................. 8 Chart 2: Watershed Tracts Population: % Change 1980-1990 ...................................................................................... 8 Chart 3: Watershed Land Cover .................................................................................................................................. 10 Chart 4: Acres per Farm: % change 1982-1992 .......................................................................................................... 1I Chart 5: Market Value Ag Products: % Change 1982-1992 ........................................................................................ 11 Chart 6: Fecal Coliform Levels in Lake Anna's Tributaries ........................................................................................ 17 Chart 7: Impervious Cover Created by Various Turnaround Options ......................................................................... 51 Chart 8: Key Pollutant Sources in Residential Areas ................................................................................................... 52 Chart 9: Percent of Stormw ater Polluiant Load ....................................................................................... :. .................. 54 FIGURES Figure 1: Appropriate Scale as Viewed from the Street .......................................................................................... , .. .46 Figure 2: A Comparison of Queuing Streets vs. Traditional Streets ........................................................................... .49 Figure 3: Potential Design Options for Narrower Right-of-Way on Residential Streets ............................................. 50 Figure 4: Four Turnaround Options for Residential Street .......................................................................................... 51 Figure 5: Stonnwater Pollutant Pathways .................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 6: Filter Strips ............................................................... :. .................................................................................. 55 Figure 7: Perimeter Sand Filter .................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 8: Open space (Cluster) Development versus Conventional Development.. .................................................... 56 Figure 9: Nontraditional Lot Designs .......................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 10: The Three-Zone Urban Stream Buffer System ........ :. ................................................................................ 58 MAPS Map # I: The Lake Anna Watershed Map #2: Lake Anna Watershed Hydrologic Units Map #3: Lake Anna Watershed with Inner Ring Map #4: Lake Anna Watershed Land Cover Map #5: Lake Anna Watershed Soil Constraints for Septic Field Operation Map #6: Lake Anna Watershed Steep Slopes Map #7: Lake Anna Watershed For.ested Land Cover Map #8: Lake Anna Watershed Fire and Rescue Districts Map #9: Lake Anna Watershed 1998 Impaired Streams and DEQ Monitoring Stations Map #10: Lake Anna Watershed Future Land Use Plan Tables and Figures - Appendices TABLES Table A2-1. 1995 Estimated Acreage by Erosion Rate Category ........................................................................... A2-2 Table A2-2. 1995 Estimated Tons of Erosion by Erosion Rate Category .............................................................. A2-2 Table A2-3. Potential Erosion Reduction ............................................................................................................... A2-3 Table A2-4. Estimated Shoreline Erosion Rates ..................................................................................................... A2-3 Table A2-5: Approximate Impervious Surface Values for Various Land Covers .................................................. A2-4 Table A2-6: Comparison Table for Codes and Ordinances in Lake Anna Watershed ........................................... A2-5 Table A3-1: Action Agenda. ................................................................................................................................. A3-1 0 Table A4-1. Hardness Measurements ..................................................................................................................... A4-2 Table A4-2. Calculated Water Quality Standards ................................................................................................... A4-3 Table A4-3. Water Quality Standards for Hardness Measurements ....................................................................... A4-5 Table A4-4. DEQ Values ........................................................................................................................................ A4-6 FIGURES Figure A3-1: Step One - Identifying Primary Conservation Areas ........................................................................ A3-7 Figure A3-2: Step Two - Identifying Unique Characteristics ................................................................................ A3-7 Figure A3-3: Step Three - Locating House Sites ................................................................................................... A3-8 Figure A3-4: Step Four - Aligning Streets and Trails ........................................................................................... A3-8 Figure A3-5: Step Five - Drawing in the Lot Lines .............................................................................................. A3-8 I. Executive Summary . Purpose The Lake Anna Special Area Plan is the result of a unique planning effort undertaken by the Boards of Supervisors of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties at the request of the Lake Anna Advisory Committee (LAAC). LAAC, created in 1994 by the three localities under the Joint Exercise of Powers provisions in the Code oj Virginia. has been advising the three counties about Lake-related issues since the committee's inception. This Plan is the culmination of the work of the Special Area Plan Committee appointed by the three Boards of Supervisors. The primary issue addressed in the Plan is the quality of the water in the Lake and its tributaries. A consistent regional approach is recommended for local action to preserve and protect Lake Anna's water quality. This approach recognizes the regional nature of the watershed and the local authority for implementing the recommendations. The Plan is submitted to the Boards of Supervisors to accept as a regional plan for incorporation into each local plan. Major Findings Data developed during the planning process include: population distribution and growth, water quality in the lake and its tributaries, land use, road capacity, soils, steep slopes, percentage of impervious cover, land cover, lots less than five acres, land values, and puhlic services. These data were used in developing this plan and are presented in the plan text or the appendices. Major findings include: Development patterns of sprawl threaten the rural character, the environment, and the existing quality oflife in the Lake Anna Watershed • Land use practices vary throughout the Watershed • Responsibility for on-going review of environmental conditions in the Watershed is unclear The environmental data base necessary for responsible and informed decision making is not available • River tributaries are impaired due to levels of pollutants; one has severe acid mine drainage • The circumferential road system recommended when the Lake was created has not been completed • Gas and petroleum transmission lines cross the Lake and the Watershed, posing a threat to public safety and the environment • Public access to the Lake is limited • Heavy metals data, though sparse, is cause for concern Lake Anna-Special Area Plan (March 2000) Page i Study Conclusions Lake Anna is a valuable economic, recreational, and visual asset to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to the three counties in which it is located. It is essential that the value of this significant asset be protected and enhanced in all respects. Local and state government action and resources, combined with citizen educll,tion and action, are needed to preserve the desirable qualities of the Lake for both current and future generations. Acting now will prevent more costly and more extensive efforts in the future. The original plan for managing the development around the Lake was prepared by . Virginia Power in the late 1960s. The local governments did not adopt that plan. Without a governing plan, the resulting development has occurred at higher densities and with less open space than that recommended in Virginia Power's plan, even though building has occurred on less than half of the currently platted lots. Even without additional rezonings, the popUlation in the Lake area would double if the currently approved development is completed. This represents a critical situation since a significant percentage of the land in the Watershed is unsuitable for septic fields. These and other factors contribute to a real and growing concern for the quality of the water in the Lake. For example, the water quality in several streams that feed into the Lake is impaired. One of these streams is 1.2 miles up the Lake from the State Park swimming beach. Insufficient monitoring data exist to assess several aspects 0 f the quality of the water in the Lake itself. Further, the differing approaches taken by the three counties to land use planning and stream protection do not assure that the most effective techniques are brought to bear consistently across the Watershed. From an economic perspective, it is prudent for local and state funds to be invested the In Watershed. Tourism income and real estate values contribute significantly to the economies of the Watershed . . Public safety needs are sufficient in themselves to warrant govemmental action. The existing network of roads that connect and interconnect around the Lake are woefully inadequate for the nature and frequency of use they receive. As the popUlation increases, these roads will become even more unsatisfactory and hazardous for daily use. There is also a major concern about the adequacy of these roads as evacuation routes should an event at the plant, pipeline leaks, natural disaster, or some other cause require evacuation of the area. The Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee recommends that in implementing all of the recommendations made in the Special Area Plan that the Boards of Supervisors ofthe Counties of Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania give first priority to the seven priority recommendations. Lake Anna Special Area Plan (March 2000) Page Priority Recommendations I. Create a Lake Anna Watershed Overlay District in all three counties consisting of two tiers: Inner Ring and Watershed. The purpose of the Overlay District is to maintain the rural character of the area by implementing a cooperative, coordinated, consistent watershed program for Lake Anna. A. Develop, implement, and enforce uniform zoning, site plan, subdivision, and watershed management programs in all three counties, using consistent standards to ensure water quality. B. Evaluate all land use activities in the Overlay District primarily in terms of the effect on water quantity and quality. C. Maintain densities at a level that can be served by well and septic systems or require wastewater treatment systems to tie into a municipal system. II. The Lake Anna Advisory Committee will track progress toward meeting goals of this plan, and prepare and submit annual reports on the progress. III. Assure the conditions in the Lake and its tributaries are monitored and reported on an on-going basis. A. Institute on-going monitoring of the tributaries to detect nutrients and pollutants, with emphasis on impaired streams. B. Determine sources of fecal contamination and implement appropriate reduction strategies that respect the value of agricultural uses currently in place. C. Institute a water quality monitoring program in the Lake itself to determine presence of heavy metals, nutrients, and pollutants. IV. Identify village centers and concentrate public service activities and commercial development in those centers. Provide public water and sewer services only within growth centers. A. Restrict services to within growth center (towns, villages) boundaries B. Prevent proliferation of private waste water treatment plants C. Require well casings to bedrock V. Upgrade existing roadways to create a circular transportation route around Lake Anna to provide adequate lanes for towed boats and bicycles. Ensure roads provide safe evacuation routes. VI. Develop plans to deal with potentially catastrophic situations related to gas and petroleum transmission lines and/or upstream dam breaks. VII. Support state park improvements that are developed with adequate citizen participation in the decision-making process. Lake Anna Special Area Plan (March 2000) Page iii II. Vision Statement Lake Anna is a valuable natural resource and an asset to the Counties of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania, Virginia Power, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Lake is valuable as an asset in many different ways - including recreational, economic, industrial, and civic to name a few. As a recreational facility, the Lake draws people from surrounding localities and states who enjoy the rural setting, the water quality, and general quality oflife that exists in the Lake environs. As an economic asset, the watershed of the Lake contributes tax dollars to the local and state economies through real estate, property, and sales taxes, while providing both business and employment opportunities to residents of the three counties. As an industrial asset, the Lake itself provides a cooling area for the nuclear power plant, a major employer, located at the eastern end of the lake. As a community asset, inhabitants of the Lake Anna watershed contribute many hours to civic activities such as volunteer fire and rescue, water rescue and education, and service on various committees and task forces. The total of these assets mandate a cooperative and collaborative approach be taken to development in the watershed in order that the Lake remains an asset for future generations. Thus, the Counties of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania will, using a cooperative, coordinated approach, implement a master plan for the Lake Anna watershed that will maintain high water quality, reduce pollution from both point and non-point sources, protect the environment, maintain the rural landscape, manage growth, provide adequate public safety services and provide continued multi-purpose recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. This will be achieved. by using the principles of sustainability, tools of growth management and other sound planning practices to reduce soil erosion and nutrient runoff, reduce litter, maintain open space, provide adequate habitat for wildlife and maintain maximum plant diversity, while providing the requisite public services. Lake AnnaSpecial Area Plan (March 2000) Page 1 III. Project Background Introduction The Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania agreed to support the development of an inter-jurisdictional, comprehensive plan for the Lake Anna watershed in the spring of 1998. Each locality appointed three persons to serve on the Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee and asked the Lake Anna Advisory Committee to appoint one person from each jurisdiction from their membership. The resulting committee requested the addition of a Virginia Power representative, for a thirteen member committee. The group started work December 1998. Staff support was provided by the three local planning staffs and the three planning districts that serve the localities in the Lake Anna Watershed: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Rappahannock Area Development Commission, and Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission. The primary issue addressed in the Plan is the quality of the water in the Lake and its tributaries. A consistent regional approach is recommended for local action to preserve and protect Lake Anna's water quality. This approach recognizes the regional nature of the watershed and the local authority for implementing the recommendations. The recognition of Lake Anna as a regionally shared asset undergirds the plan. Purpose The Lake Anna Special Area Plan is the result of a unique planning effort undertaken by the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania at the request of the Lake Anna Advisory Committee (LAAC). The three counties created the LAAC under the Joint Exercise of Powers provisions in the Code oj Virginia in the spring of 1994. The LAAC has been advising the three counties about Lake-related issues since the committee's inception. A comprehensive plan is general in nature. It is not regulatory and does not contain laws and regulations. The Plan does, however, serve as the basis and rationale for zoning, subdivision, and site plan ordinances as well as other regulatory actions that implement the plan. This Plan contains a regional rationale for local action. The Plan is submitted to the Boards of Supervisors to accept as a regional plan for incorporation into each local plan. Following incorporation, the localities are requested to proceed with the creation of an Overlay District and review and make appropriate revisions to the zoning, subdivision, and site plan ordinances. In developing the Plan, the Committee agreed to the presentation of history and present conditions, a Vision, and Recommendations. The plan is developed along those lines, Lake Anna Special Area Plan (March 2000) Page 2