Regional Raw Water Study Group Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Supply Plan


                                                       Draft
                                          Imfeact  Statement
                                                     Report
                              TIT  r t <'*"
                              Water
                                    *
                        5   /•>«***.   •—-,

                        b   [ ^-V ^?
                        s   x     \.X ^./ ,'^*... •* .
X HichiTl'oi'id
                                             U Lead' ^Agency:
                                                    District
                            ®L v>  c?--^
                            ?^SV Vn  «  ^
            Street
             23510
          Contact:
Pamela K. Painter
   (804) 441-7654
                                   Norfolk,
                                               ^February 1994

-------
       MALCOLM  PIRNIE,  INC.

   ^^ To promote the wise use and reuse of
  natural resources, the text of this report was
        PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
which is produced with less impact on forest, air,
 water and energy resources than virgin paper.

-------
                            LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                       REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY PLAN
                                       1990 - 2040
                  DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                                Regional Raw Water Study Group:

                                   Newport News Waterworks
                                     CityorWilliamsburg
                                        York County
                                Local Jurisdictions in Study Area:

                      Cities of Newport News, Hampton, Poquoson and Williamsburg
                                 Counties of York and James City
                                Federal Installations in Study Area:

                   Fort Monroe, Langley AFB, NASA Langley Research Center, Fort Eustis
                     Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Camp Peary, Cheatham Annex
                          and Yorktown Coast Guard Reserve Training Center
                                    FEBRUARY 1994
0114-951-140

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                           Page



       ABBREVIATIONS	A-l

1.0    SUMMARY	,	  1-1
       1.1    Purpose	  1-1
       1.2    Description of the Proposed Project	  1-3
       1.3    Alternatives	  1-3
             1.3.1   Alternatives Considered	  1-3
           • 1.3.2   Regional Raw Water Study Group's (RRWSG)
                     Preferred Alternative	  1-7
       1.4    Issues/Areas of Controversy  	  1-7
             1.4.1   Wetlands			  1-7
             1.4.2   Endangered/Threatened Species  	  1-8
             1.4.3   Water Quality/Hydrology .	.		  1-8
             1.4.4   Cultural Resources	  1-8
       1.5    Required Major Federal, State, and Local Permits	  1-9
             1.5.1   Federal	  1-9
             1.5.2   State	  1-9
             1.5.3   Local	1-10
       1.6    Document Organization	1-10

2.0    PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 	  2-1
       2.1    Introduction	  2-1
       2.2    Regional Raw  Water Study Group	  2-1
             2.2.1   Regional Approach ta Water Supply Management .........  2-2
       2.3    Current SuppEes	  2-3
             2.3.1   Newport News Waterworks	  2-3
             2.3.2   City of WMamsburg	  2-5
             2.3.3   York County	  2-6
             2.3.4   James City Service Authority  	  2-6
             2.3.5   U.S. Army at Fort Monroe	:	  2-7
             2.3.6   Current Supply Summary	  2-7
             2.3.7   Current Safe Yield			  2-7
             2.3.8   Rate Structures		  2-7
       2.4    Water  Supply Concerns	  2-8
       2.5    Historical Demands		  2-9
             2.5.1   Raw Water Withdrawals	 2-10
             2.5.2   Treated Water Demands	 2-10
             2.5.3   Large Water Users	2-12
             2.5.4   Daily and Seasonal Demand Variations  	2-12
       2.6    Projected Demands  	2-13
             2.6.1   Conservation  	2-13
             2.6.2   Conservation and Growth Management  	2-16
             2.6.3   Population Projections	2-17
             2.6.4   Water Demand Projections With Conservation	 2-19
             2.6.5   Water Demand Projections By Purveyor	2-22


0114-951-140                             -i-                            February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                 (Continued)
                                                                           Page
             2.6.6   Summary of Adopted Regional Projections	2-24
       2.7    Projected Deficits	2-25
             2.7.1   Interpretation of Regional Totals	2-25
             2.7.2   Interpretation of Purveyor Totals	2-25
             2.7.3   Adequacy of Supply Versus Deficit	2-26
       2.8    Political/Institutional Considerations	2-27
             2.8.1   Current State Role	2-27
             2.8.2   State and Local Constraints  	2-31

3.0    EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES (Including the Proposed Action) 	  3-1
       3.1    Introduction	  3-1
       3.2    Clean Water Act - Section 404 Siting Criteria  	  3-1
             3.2.1   Section 404 Wetlands Programs 	  3-1
             3.2.2   Alternative Selection - Statutory Guidelines	  3-2
       3.3    Evaluation Methodology	  3-4
             3.3.1   Overview of Alternatives Analysis	  3-4
             3.3.2   Practicability Criteria 	  3-5
       3.4    Alternatives Considered	  3-8
             3.4.1   Lake Genito	  3-8
             3.4.2   Lake Chesdin .	  3-9
             3.4.3   Lake Anna	3-10
             3.4.4   Lake Gaston	3-10
             3.4.5   Rappahannock River Above Fredericksburg	3-11
             3.4.6   James River Above Richmond Without New
                    Off-Stream Storage	3-11
             3.4.7   City of Richmond Surplus  Raw Water	3-12
             3.4.8   City of Richmond Surplus Treated Water	3-12
             3.4.9   James River Between Richmond and Hopewell	3-13
             3.4.10  Ware Creek Reservoir	3-13
             3.4.11  Ware Creek Reservoir With Pumpovers From Pamunkey,
                    Mattaponi, and/or Chickahominy Rivers 	3-14
             3.4.12  Ware Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From James River
                    Above Richmond  	3-19
             3.4.13  Black Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From
                    Pamunkey River	3-19
             3.4.14  Black Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From James River
                    Above Richmond  	3-20
             3.4.15  King William Reservoir With Pumpover From
                    Mattaponi River	3-20
             3.4.16  King William Reservoir With Pumpover From
                    Pamunkey River	3-21
             3.4,17  Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase	3-23
             3.4.18  Chickahominy River Pumping Increase and Raising Diascund
                    and Little Creek Dams	3-24
0114-951-140                             -ii-                           February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                 (Continued)
                                                                            Page
              3.4.19  Aquifer Storage and Recovery Constrained by
                    Number of Wells	 3-24
              3.4.20  Aquifer Storage and Recovery Unconstrained by
                    Number of Wells  	3-26
              3.4.21  Fresh Groundwater Development	3-26
              3.4.22  Groundwater Desalination As The Single Long-Term
                    Alternative	3-28
              3.4.23  Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area  	3-28
              3.4.24  James River Desalination	3-29
              3.4.25  Pamunkey River Desalination	3-32
              3.4.26  York River Desalination	3-33
              3.4.27  Cogeneration	3-35
              3.4.28  Wastewater Reuse As A Source of Potable Water	3-36
              3.4.29  Wastewater Reuse For Non-Potable Uses  	3-36
              3.4.30  Use  Restrictions	3-37
              3.4.31  No Action	3-39
              3.4.32  Additional Alternatives  Considered  	3-40
       3.5     Summary of Practicability Analyses  	3-42
       3.6     Summary of Environmental Consequences	3-45
       3.7     RRWSG's Preferred Project Alternative  	3-45
              3.7.1   Impact Scoring for Practicable Alternative Components	3-45
              3.7.2   Comparison of Alternative Component Practicability	 . 3-49
              3.7.3   RRWSG's Proposed Project Alternative	; ,. 3-54
              3.7.4   RRWSG's Proposed Wetlands Mitigation Plan	 3-55

4.0     AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT	  4-1
       4.1     Introduction	  4-1
       4.2     Physical Resources	  4-1
              4.2.1   Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	  4-3
              4.2.2   Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	4-11
              4.2.3   King William Reservoir  with Pumpover
                    from Mattaponi River	4-15
              4.2.4   Fresh Groundwater Development	4-21
              4.2.5   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area	4-24
              4.2.6   Use  Restrictions	4-27
              4.2.7   No Action	4-27
       4.3     Biological Resources   	4-28
              4.3.1   Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	4-29
              4.3.2   Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	4-42

0114-951-140                            -iii-                           February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                 (Continued)
                                                                          Page
             4.3.3   King William Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Mattaponi River	4-49
             4.3.4   Fresh Groundwater Development	4-57
             4.3.5   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area	4-59
             4.3.6   Use Restrictions	4-61
             4.3.7   No Action	 4-62
       4.4    Cultural Resources	4-62
             4.4.1   Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	4-63
             4.4.2   Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	4-64
             4.4.3   King William Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Mattaponi River	4-67
             4.4.4   Fresh Groundwater Development	4-70
             4.4.5   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area	4-70
             4.4.6   Use Restrictions	4-71
             4.4.7   No Action	,	4-71
       4.5    Socioeeonomic Resources	4-71
             4.5.1   Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	4-73
             4.5.2   Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	4-83
             4.5.3   King William Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Mattaponi River	4-89
             4.5.4   Fresh Groundwater Development	4-97
             4.5.5   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area	4-99
             4.5.6   Use Restrictions	4-102
             4.5.7   No Action .		4-103
       4.6    Summary of Affected Environment	4-103

5.0    ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES	 5-1
       5.1    Introduction	 5-1
       5.2    Physical Resources	 5-1
             5.2.1   Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	 5-3
             5.2.2   Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	,	 5-7
             5.2.3   King William Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Mattaponi River	5-10
             5.2.4   Fresh Groundwater Development	 5-14
             5.2.5   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area	5-15

0114-951-140                            -iv-                           February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                 (Continued)
                                                                           Page
              5.2.6   Use Restrictions	5-16
              5.2.7   No Action	5-17
       5.3     Biological Resources	5-18
              5.3.1   Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	5-18
              5.3.2   Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	5-23
              5.3.3   King William Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Mattaponi River	5-26
              53.4   Fresh Groundwater Development	5-32
              5.3.5   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area	5-33
              5.3.6   Use Restrictions	5-33
              5.3.7   No Action	5-34
       5.4     Cultural Resources	5-35
              5.4.1   Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	5-35
              5.4.2   Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	5-36
              5.4.3   King William Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Mattaponi River	 5-37
              5.4.4   Fresh Groundwater Development	5-38
              5.4.5   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area	5-38
              5.4.6   Use Restrictions	5-38
              5.4.7   No Action	5-39
       5.5     Socioeconomic Resources	5-39
              5.5.1   Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	5-40
              5.5.2   Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Pamunkey River	 5-45
              5.5.3   King William Reservoir with Pumpover
                    from Mattaponi River	5-49
              5.5.4   Fresh Groundwater Development	5-53
              5.5.5   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
                    Distribution Area	5-54
              5.5.6   Use Restrictions	5-57
              5.5.7   No Action	5-58
       5.6     Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 	5-60
       5.7     Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources  	5-64
       5.8     Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man's
              Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
              of Long-Term Productivity	5-66

6.0     LIST OF PREPARERS	  6-1

0114-951-140                            -v-                            February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                (Continued)
                                                                         Page
7.0    PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT	  7-1

       REFERENCES  	R-l

       INDEX	I-I
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                                Following
 No.         Description                                                  Page


 2-1          List of Potential Participants and Responses
             to Participation in the Regional Raw Water
             Study Group	  2-2

 2-2          Existing Raw Water Source Characteristics 	  2-8

 2-3          Reported Yields of Existing Systems  	  2-8

 2-4          Adopted Yields of Existing Systems	  2-8

 2-5          Average Annual Raw Water Withdrawals (1982 - 1990)	2-10

 2-6          Average Daily Water Volumes Pumped to
             Distribution (1984 - 1990)	2-10

 2-7          Large User Water Consumption (1990)	2-12

 2-8          Newport News Waterworks Average Monthly Demand
             Variation (1987 - 1990)	2-14
 2-9          Conservation Practices Currently Implemented on
             the Lower Peninsula	2-14

 2-10         Summary of Adopted Regional Population Projections
             by Jurisdiction	2-18

 2-11         Comparison of Local and State Population
             Projections	2-18

 2-12         Projected Civilian Population Served by
             Public Water System	2-20
0114-951-140                           -vi-                          February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  (Continued)
Table
 No.
                               LIST OF TABLES
Description
   Following
       Page
 2-13

 2-14

 2-15


 2-16


 2-17


 2-18


 2-19


 3-1

 3-2


 3-3


 3-4

 3-5

 3-6


 3-7


 3-8


 3-9
Projected Lower Peninsula Demands by Jurisdiction	2-22

Projected Lower Peninsula Demands by Purveyor	2-24

Adopted Regional Total Population and Civilian
Population Served Projections by Jurisdiction  	2-24

Adopted Lower Peninsula Demand Projections
by Jurisdiction and Purveyor  	2-26

Calculation of Projected Lower Peninsula Total
Water Demand (2000 - 2040)	2-26

Lower Peninsula Supply, Demand and Deficit
Projections by Purveyor	2-26

Lower Peninsula Water Supply, Demand and Deficit
Projections	2-28

Alternative Components Considered 	  3-8

Summary of Alternative Components Life Cycle
Cost Estimates	,	3-42

Ranked Alternative Components Life Cycle
Cost Estimates	3-42

Practicability Analysis Screening Results	3-42

Summary of Environmental Consequences	3-46

Environmental Impact Scoring Summary for  Alternative
Components (Unweighted)	3-50

Environmental Impact Scoring Summary for  Alternative
Components (Weighted)   	3-50

Species Selected for Planting in Created Wetland
Zones:  Reservoir Fringe Wetlands	 . 3-56

Species Selected for Planting in Created Wetland
Zones:  Reclaimed Borrow Area	3-58
0114-951-140
                         -Vll-
February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                   (Continued)


                                LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                  Following
 No.          Description                                                   Page


 3-10          Species Selected for Planting in Created Wetland
              Zones:  Prior Converted Cropland	3-60

 3-11          Species Selected for Planting in Created Wetland
              Zones:  Constructed Wetland	3-62

 3-12          Species Selected for Planting in Wetland
              Zones:  Constructed Wetland B	3-62

 3-13          Wetland Mitigation Summary	3-66

 4-1           Pamunkey River Water Quality at White House	  4-4

 4-2           Diascund Creek Reservoir Water Quality/
              Diascund Creek Reservoir Tributary Water Quality	  4-4

 4-3           Ware Creek Water Quality at Richardson Millpond	  4-6

 4-4           Characteristics of Pamunkey River Discharge at
              Northbury 	  4-8

 4-5           Ware Creek Reservoir Stream Order Analysis	  4-8

 4-6           Summary of Water Quality Analyses from Columbia Aquifer
              in the York-James Peninsula 	4-10

 4-7           Summary of Water Quality Analyses from Yorktown-Eastover
              Aquifer in the York-James Peninsula	4-10

 4-8           Ware Creek Reservoir Alternative -
              Soils within the Pipeline Route	4-12

 4-9           Crump Creek Water Quality	4-12

 4-10          Matadequin Creek Water Quality  	4-12

 4-11          Black Creek Reservoir Stream Order Analysis	 4-14

 4-12          Black Creek Reservoir Alternative •
              Soils within the Pipeline Route   	3. .... 4-16

 4-13          Mattaponi River Water Quality at Scotland Landing	 4-16


0114-951-140                            -viii-                           February 1994

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                   (Continued)


                                LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                   Following
 No.          Description                                                    Page

 4-14          Mattaponi River Water Quality at Mantua Ferry	4-16

 4-15          Mattaponi River Water Quality at Walkerton  	4-16

 4-16          Characteristics of Mattaponi River Discharge at Scotland
              Landing	4-18

 4-17          King William Reservoir Stream Order Analysis	4-18

 4-18          King William Reservoir Alternative -
              Soils within the Pipeline Route  	4-22

 4-19          Diascund Creek and Little Creek Groundwater Quality	4-22

 4-20          Little Creek Reservoir Water Quality 	4-22

 4-21          Hydrogeologic Descriptions, Characteristics, and Well
              Yields of Aquifers in the York-James Peninsula	4-24

 4-22          Potomac Aquifer Water Quality for Brackish
              Groundwater Withdrawals	4-24

 4-23          James River Water Quality at Proposed Concentrate
              Discharge Locations	4-26

 4-24          York River Water Quality at Proposed Concentrate
              Discharge Locations	4-26

 4-25          Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species of
              the Tidal Pamunkey River	4-30

 4-26          Fish Species of the Pamunkey River (1949 -  1978)	4-34

 4-27          Typical Invertebrates of the Chesapeake Bay and Its
              Tributaries, Tidal Freshwater Zone 	4-34

 4-28          Fish Species of Ware Creek (1980 - 1993)  	4-34

 4-29          Fish Species of France Swamp (1980 - 1992) 	4-34

 4-30          Invertebrate Species of Ware Creek and France Swamp (1980 - 1981) 4-34

 4-31          Typical Freshwater Invertebrates of the  Lower Virginia
              Peninsula	4-36
0114-951-140                             -ix-                            February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  (Continued)
                                LIST OF TABLES
Table
 No.
Description
   Following
       Page
 4-32

 4-33


 4-34


 4-35


 4-36

 4-37

 4-38

 4-39


 4-40

 4-41


 4-42


 4-43


 4-44

 4-45

 4-46

 4-47

 4-48


 4-49
Wetland Categories at Ware Creek Impoundment Site  	4-42

Summary of WET Analysis Results -
Ware Creek Reservoir Estuarine Wetlands  	4-42

Summary of WET Analysis Results -
Ware Creek Reservoir Palustrine Wetlands	4-42

Baseline Calculations of Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs)
and Habitat Units (HUs) - Ware Creek Reservoir	4-42

Fish Species of Black Creek (1983) 	4-44

Fish Species of Black Creek (1990)	4-44

Fish Species of Black Creek (1992) 	4-44

Fish Species of the Freshwater Tributaries of the
Chesapeake Bay ,	4-44

Wetland Categories at the Black Creek Impoundment Site 	4-48

Summary of WET Analysis Results -
Black Creek Reservoir Wetlands	4-48

Baseline Calculations of Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs)
and Habitat Units (HUs) - Black Creek Reservoir  	4-48

Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species of
the Tidal Mattaponi River	4-50

Fish Species of the Mattaponi River (1939-1961)	4-52

Fish Species of Cohoke Mill Creek (1990)	4-52

Invertebrate Species of Cohoke Mill Creek (1990)	4-52

Fish Species of Cohoke Millpond (1992)  	4-52

Wetland Categories at the Cohoke Mill Creek
 Impoundment Site	4-58

Summary of WET Analysis Results -
King William Reservoir Wetlands  .	4-58
0114-951-140
                         -x-
February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  (Continued)
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table
 No.
Description
   Following
       Page
 4-50

 4-51


 4-52


 4-53

 4-54

 4-55

 4-56

 4-57

 4-58

 4-59

 4-60


 4-61

 4-62

 4-63

 4-64


 4-65
Fish Species of Skiffe's Creek (1990)	4-60

Major Reservoirs, Stream Intakes, and Groundwater
Withdrawals in the Pamunkey River Basin	4-74

Summary of Houses Near the Proposed Alternative
Project Areas	4-76

Ware Creek Reservoir Watershed Land Use (1990)	 4-78

New Kent County Land Use (1989)	4-78

James City County Land Use (1991)	 4-78

Ware Creek Reservoir Normal Pool Area Land Use (1982)  	4-78

Summary of Affected Land Use in Alternative Project Areas 	4-80

Black Creek Reservoir Watershed Land Use (1989)  	4-86

Black Creek Reservoir Normal Pool Area Land Use (1989)	4-86

Major Reservoirs, Stream Intakes, and Groundwater
Withdrawals in the Mattaponi River Basin	4-90

King William Reservoir Watershed Land Use (1993)	4-94

King William Reservoir Normal Pool Area Land Use (1993)	4-94

King William County Land Use (1988)	4-94

Estimated Groundwater Withdrawals from York-James
Peninsula By Aquifer (1983)	4-98

Summary of Affected Environment	4-103
Figure
 No.
                              LIST OF FIGURES
Description
  Following
       Page
 2-1
Lower Peninsula Studv Area	  2-2
0114-951-140
                         -XI-
February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                   (Continued)


                               LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                 Following
 No.          Description                                                    Page

 2-2          Lower Peninsula Service Areas  	 2-4

 2-3          Regional Raw Water Supply Plan Schematic
              of Lower Peninsula Raw Water Supply System	 2-4

 2-4          Regional System Delivery Capacity	 2-8

 2-5          Newport News Waterworks Annual Average
              Metered Consumption (1968 - 1990) 	2-10

 2-6          Average Daily Water Volumes Pumped
              to Distribution (1984 - 1990)		2-12

 2-7          Adopted Regional Population Projections  ,	2-18

 2-8          Historical and Projected Lower Peninsula
              System Demand	2-22

 2-9          Projected Regional Water Demand vs. Reliable
              System Delivery Capacity	2-26

 2-10          Lower Peninsula Total Treated Water Deficit 	2-26

 3-1          Methodology for Identifying, Screening, and
              Evaluating Project Alternatives	 3-4

 3-2          Water Supply Alternatives	  (Map Pocket - Rear of Report)

 3-3          Reservoir and Fresh Groundwater Alternatives -
              Project Locations	  (Map Pocket - Rear of Report)

 3-4          Groundwater Desalting Alternative Project Location	3-42

 3-5          Groundwater Desalting Alternative Site 1 Location	3-42

 3-6          Groundwater Desalting Alternative Site 2 Location	3-42

 3-7          Groundwater Desalting Alternative Site 3 Location	3-42

 3-8          Groundwater Desalting Alternative Site 4 Location	3-42

 3-9          Expanded Ware Creek Project Concept	3-42

 3-10          Black Creek Reservoir Project Concept	 3-42
0114-951-140                            -xii-                           February 1994

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  (Continued)
                              LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
 No.
Description
   Following
       Page
 3-11

 3-12

 3-13

 3-14


 3-15

 346


 3-17

 3-18

 3-19

 3-20

 3-21

 3-22

 4-1

 4-2


 4-3


 4-4

 4-5


 4-6


 4-7
King William Reservoir Project Concept	3-42

Mitigation Plan	3-56

Reservoir Fring Wetlands	3-56

Relationship Between Capillary Fringe
and Zone B Species Transplants (Worst Case Scenario)  	3-58

Reclaimed Borrow Area	,	 3-58

Headwater Impoundment Within
Normal Pool Area 	3-58

Headwater Impoundment Plan View	3-60

Headwater Impoundment Plan View 	3-60

Prior Converted Cropland 	3-60

Prior Converted Cropland Cross-Section 	3-60

Constructed Wetland A	3-62

Constructed Wetland B  	3-62

Locations of Reservoir/Pumpover Alternatives  	  4-8

Ware Creek Estuarine Wetlands Located within the
Impoundment Area	4-42

Ware Creek Palustrine Wetlands Located within the
Impoundment Area	 4-42

Black Creek Wetlands Located within the Impoundment Area 	4-48

Cohoke Mill Creek Wetlands Located within the
Impoundment Area	4-56

Major Reservoirs, Stream Intakes and Groundwater Withdrawals
in the Pamunkey River Basin	4-74

Major Reservoirs, Stream Intakes, and Groundwater Withdrawals
in the Mattaponi River Basin	4-90
0114-951-140
                        -X11I-
February 1994

-------
Figure
 No.
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                 (Continued)


                              LIST OF FIGURES
Description
Following
    Page
 4-8

 5-1

 5-2

 5-3

 5-4
Permitted Withdrawals from Potomac Aquifers	4-98

Pamunkey River Flow Duration Curves	  5-4

Pamunkey River Monthly Flows	  5-6

Mattaponi River Flow Duration Curves	5-12

Mattaponi River Monthly Flows	5-12


           LIST OF APPENDIX REPORTS
Appendix
Volume
I
I
I
II
III
IV
V
V
Report
A
B
C
D
D
D
E
F
Description
Water Demand Reduction Opportunities
Water Supply, Demand and Deficit Projections ;
Methodology for Identifying, Screening, and Evaluating
Alternatives
Alternatives Assessment: Volume I (Practicability
Analysis)
Alternatives Assessment: Volume II (Environmental
Analysis)
Alternatives Analysis (Appendices for Volume II)
Biological Assessment for Practicable Reservoir A
Wetland Delineation of King William, Ware Creek and
                          Black Creek Reservoir Sites

                          Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed King
                          William Reservoir, King William County, Virginia and the
                          Proposed Black Creek Reservoir, New Kent County,
                          Virginia.
0114-951-140
                                     -xiv-
                                                    February 1994

-------
                               ABBREVIATIONS
ADD  -      Average day demand




AF       -  Acre-feet




AFD     -  Agricultural/Forestal District




ARWA   -  Appomattox River Water Authority




ASR     -  Aquifer storage and recovery




AWT     -  Advanced wastewater treatment




BDL     -  Below Detection Limit




BG       -  Billion gallons




BOCA    -  Building Officials and Code Administrators




BOD     -  Biological Oxygen Demand




BOVA    -  Biota of Virginia




CBNERRS - Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System




CBPA    -  Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act




CBPA    -  Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area




COM     -  Camp, Dresser & McKee




CDWR   -  California Department of Water Resources




CEQ     -  Council on Environmental Quality




CFR     -  Code of Federal Regulations




COD     -  Chemical oxygen demand




CSO      -  Combined sewer overflow




CWA     -  Clean Water Act




EDR     -  Electrodialysis reversal




EIS       -  Environmental Impact Statement




0114-951-140                           A-l                           February 1994

-------
ERC      -   Equivalent residential connection




EVGMA   -   Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area




FHA      -   Federal Highway Administration




fps        -   Feet per second




GAC      -   Granular activated carbon




gal/min    •   Gallons per minute




gpcpd      -   Gallons per capita per day




gpf        -   Gallons per flush




gpm       -   gallons per minute




HEP      -   Habitat Evaluation Procedures




HRSD     -   Hampton Roads Sanitation District




HSI       -   Habitat Suitability Index




HU       -   Habitat Unit




HUD      -   United States Department of Housing and Urban Development




JCC       -   James City County




JCSA      -   James City Service Authority




JTU       -   Jackson turbidity unit




KWC      -   King William County




KWCPD   -   King William County Planning Department




LG&E     -   Louisville Gas & Electric




MDD      -   Maximum day demand




MED      -   Multiple effect distillation




MG       -   Million gallons




mgd       -   Million gallons per day




mg/1      -   Milligrams per liter




0114-951-140                           A-2                            February 1994

-------
MHD     -  Maximum hourly demand




MHI      -  Median household income




MIF      -  Minimum in-stream flow




MRCE    -  Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers



MW      -  Megawatt




MWH     -  Megawatt hour




MWDSC  -  Metropolitan Water District of Southern California




MWRA   -  Massachusetts Water Resources Authority




NAPP     -  National Aerial Photography Program




NEPA    -  National Environmental Policy Act




NFA      •  No Federal Action




NHAP    -  National High Altitude Photography




NKC      -  New Kent County




NMFS    -  National Marine Fisheries Service




NPS      -  National Park Service




NTU      -  Nephelometric turbidity unit




NWF      -  National Wildlife Federation




NWI      -  National Wetlands  Inventory




ODBC    -  Old Dominion Electric Cooperative



PACC     -  Powhatan, Amelia,  Cumberland, and Chesterfield Counties




ppt       -  parts per  thousand




RCO      -  Reasonable conservation objective




RMA     -  Resource Management Area




RO       •  Reverse osmosis




ROW     -  Right-of-way




0114-951-140                           A-3                          February 1994

-------
RPA      -   Resource Protection Area




RRPDC   -   Richmond Regional Planning District Commission




RRWSG   -   Regional Raw Water Study Group




SAV      -   Submerged aquatic vegetation




SCC      -   State Corporation Commission




SCR      -   Summer conservation rate




SDC      -   System development charge




SDN      -   Smith Demer Normann




SDWA    -   Safe Drinking Water Act




SELC     -   Southern Environmental Law Center




STP      -   Sewage Treatment Plant




SWCB    -   Virginia State Water Control Board




SWMA    -   Surface Water Management Area




TDS      -   Total dissolved solids




THM     -   Trihalomethane




TKN      -   Total Kjeldahl nitrogen




TOC      -   Total organic carbon




UAW     -   Unaccounted-for water




ULF      -   Ultra-low-flow




ULV      -   Ultra-low-volume




UOSA    -   Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority




USBC    -   Uniform Statewide Building Code




USC      -   United States Code




USCOE   -   United States Army Corps of Engineers




USDC    -   United States Department of Commerce




0114-951-140                           A-4
February 1994

-------
USEPA    -   United States Environmental Protection Agency




USFWS    -   United States Fish and Wildlife Service




USGS     -   United States Geological Survey




VCOE     -   Virginia Council on the Environment




VDACS    -   Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services




VDC      -   Virginia Department of Corrections




VDCR     -   Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation




VDEQ     -   Virginia Department of Environmental Quality




VDGIF    -   Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries




VDH      -   Virginia Department of Health




VDHR     -   Virginia Department of Historic Resources




VDOT     -   Virginia Department of Transportation




VDMR    -   Virginia Department of Mineral Resources




VDWM    -   Virginia Department of Waste Management




VEC      -   Virginia Employment Commission




VGA      -   Virginia Groundwater Act




VIMS      -   Virginia Institute of Marine Science




VIP       -   Virginia Initiative Plant




VMRC     -   Virginia Marine Resources Commission




VPDES    -   Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System




VRA      -   Virginia Resources Authority




VSRS      -   Virginia Scenic Rivers System




VWA      -   Virginia Wetlands Act




VWPP     -   Virginia Water Protection Permit




WET      -   Wetland Evaluation Technique




0114-951-140                           A-5
February 1994

-------
WTP      -   Water treatment plant




WWTP    -   Wastewater treatment plant
0114-951-140                             A-6                             February 1994

-------
                               1.0  SUMMARY
1.1   PURPOSE
      The Regional Raw Water Study Group (RRWSG) was created in the Fall of 1987 to
examine the water supply needs of the Lower Peninsula area of southeast Virginia and to
develop a plan for obtaining a new source of supply for meeting the region's future water
needs. Current members of the RRWSG include the City of Newport News (representing
Newport News Waterworks and its service area), the City of Williamsburg and York County.

      The RRWSG is acknowledged  by the participating jurisdictions as an appropriate
regional entity to pursue the necessary engineering and environmental studies to search for
the least  environmentally damaging, practicable  alternative(s) to meet the future water
supply needs of the study area1.  Only after a full public interest review will the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USCOE) determine what is/are the least environmentally damaging,
practicable  alternatives.   This  determination will be  published in the Norfolk District's
Record of Decision on this  Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS).  To this end,  the
purpose and goal of the RRWSG is:

      To provide a dependable, long-term public water supply for the Lower Virginia
      Peninsula, in a manner which is  not contrary to the overall public interest

      Estimated delivery  capacities of the five public  water supply systems on the Lower
Peninsula are presented below for the Year 1990.
Water System
Newport News Waterworks
Williamsburg
York County
James City Service Authority
U. S. Army (Big Bethel)
Lower Peninsula Total
Raw Water Source
Safe Yield (mgd)
57.0
4.15
0.12
3.1
2.0
66.4
Treated Water
Delivery Capacity (mgd)
51.9
3.8
0.12
3.1
1.9
60.8
      Total regional treated water pumped to distribution in the base Year 1990 was 55.2
million gallons per day (mgd). Lower Peninsula water supply system demands are projected
to grow through the Year 2040.  Projections of growth and the impact on future demands
within the service area of each Lower Peninsula water purveyors have been estimated based
on data from previous studies and system operating records.
   1  Local jurisdictions in the study area:  Cities of Newport News, Hampton, Poquoson
      and Williamsburg, and Counties of York and James City.  Federal installations in
      study area:  Fort Monroe, Langley AFB, NASA Langley Research Center, Fort
      Eustis,  Yorktown Naval Weapons Station,  Camp Peary, Cheatham Annex and
      Yorktown Cost Guard Reserve Training Center.
0114-951-140
1-1
February 1994

-------
      Based on estimated population projections for the region and other applicable factors,
water demand projections through the Year 2040 have been made for five categories of
demand.   Base Year 1990 demands and a summary of projections through the 50-year
planning horizon are presented below as total regional average daily demands.
Demand Category
Residential
Commercial, Institutional,
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Federal Installations
Unaccounted-for Water
Lower Peninsula
Total (mgd)
1990
26.78
10.89
10.28
4.12
3.13
55.21
2000
29.80
11.69
12.81
4.82
431
63.43
2010
32.55
12.59
17.31
5.45
5.58
73.49
2020
34.82
13.36
19.00
5.48
6.66
79,32
2030
37.46
14.28
20.92
5.51
7.92
86.09
2040
40.19
15.24
22.38
5.52
9.26
92.59
      Comparing treated water delivery capacities with demand projections results in the
following treated water delivery capacity deficit projections over the planning period:

Regional Demands
Regional Treated
Water
Delivery
Capacity
Treated Water
Delivery
Capacity Deficits
(mgd)
1990
55.2
60.8
-5.6
2000
63.4
62.5
0.9
2010
73.5
64.3
9.2
2020
79.3
62.4
16.9
2030
86.1
62.4
23.7
2040
92.6
62.4
30.2
      Based on these deficit projections, a regional deficit could occur by the Year 1998.
Some individual water purveyors, such as Newport News Waterworks, are expected to be
in deficit situations before the Year 1998.  Based on  an  estimate of the average time
required to implement a large water resource project, an  interim supply of up to 5 mgd may
be necessary to augment supplies until a large, long-term project can be implemented.

      A new raw water supply system which can increase  the regional treated water delivery
capacity by 30.2 mgd is required to satisfy projected demands through the Year 2040. This
estimate assumes that reasonable conservation objectives will be achieved for each category
of demand throughout the planning period.
0114-951-140
1-2
February 1994

-------
12 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Based on detailed practicability and environmental analyses of 31 alternatives, three
water supply alternatives are deemed by the RRWSG to represent the least damaging
combination of practicable alternatives. These three alternatives are proposed as long-term
components of an overall 30.2-mgd water supply plan to meet the water supply needs of the
Lower Peninsula through the Year 2040. The RRWSG's preferred project components are:

•-• Use Restrictions (1.5 mgd treated water safe yield benefit)

• Fresh Groundwater Development (4.4 mgd treated water safe yield benefit)

• King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River (26.4 mgd
treated water safe yield benefit)

Assuming a 10-year time to completion for King William Reservoir, interim
groundwater supplies yielding between^ and(4/ngd would be required to satisfy projected
interim water supply deficits within the region before the new reservoir becomes
operational. This estimate also assumes implementation of use restrictions capable of
reducing short-term demands by at least 1.5 mgd.

Brief descriptions of alternatives considered are presented in Section 1.3 of this
Summary.

Approximately 479 acres of wetlands would be directly affected by construction of the
proposed King William Reservoir. No impacts to wetlands are anticipated as a result of the
Fresh Groundwater Development or Use Restrictions project components.

No known endangered or threatened species populations would be directly impacted
by intake construction and operation on the Mattaponi River or consjtrUGtion of the,
proposed King William Reservoir. An existing Bald Eagle nest may btftemporan^Seefed
by noise and disruption occurring during reservoir construction. No impacts to threatened
or endangered species are anticipated as a result of the Fresh Groundwater Development
or Use Restrictions project components.

Based on the results of a Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey of the proposed
reservoir area, it is anticipated that there would be a relatively large number of prehistoric
sites within the impoundment area that would be inundated. Cultural resources may also
be located in other project areas associated with the preferred alternative.

1.3 ALTERNATIVES

1.3.1 Alternatives Considered

A practicability analysis was conducted for 31 water supply alternatives. This analysis
included evaluation of the alternatives with respect to practicability criteria including
availability, cost, technological reliability, and logistics. Summary descriptions of the 31
alternatives evaluated, including the preferred project components, are presented below.

0114-951-140 1-3 February 1994

-------
      1-    Lake Genito: New dam across the Appomattox River near Genito, Virginia on
           the Amelia County/Powhatan County border. Controlled releases would be
           made from Lake Genito to Lake Chesdin. A new intake on Lake Chesdin
           would be required to pump water to Diascund Creek Reservoir where new-
           pump station would be needed to pump to Little Creek Reservoir. 48.5 miles
           of new pipelines required.

      2.    Lake Chesdin:  New intake structure  on Lake Chesdin  to pump water to
           Diascund Creek Reservoir where a  new pump station would be needed to
           pump to Little Creek Reservoir. 48.5 miles of new pipelines required.

      3.    Lake Anna:  New intake structure on Lake Anna in Louisa County to pump
           water to  Diascund Creek Reservoir where a new  pump station would  be
           needed to pump to Little Creek Reservoir.  71.5 miles of new pipelines
           required.

      4.    Lake Gaston: New intake structure on Lake Gaston in Brunswick County to
           pump water to Diascund Creek Reservoir where a new pump station would be
           needed to pump to Little Creek Reservoir.  91.5 miles of new pipelines
           required.

      5.    Rappahannock River (above Fredericksburg):   New intake  structure  on
           Rappahannock River in Spotsylvania County to pump water to Diascund Creek
           Reservoir where a new pump station would be needed to pump to Little Creek
           Reservoir. 94.5 miles of new pipelines required.

      6.    James River fabove Richmond) without New Off-Stream Storage: New intake
           structure on James River in Chesterfield County to pump water to Diascund
           Creek Reservoir where a new pump station would be needed to pump to Little
           Creek Reservoir. 55.5 miles of new pipeline required.

      7.    City of Richmond Surplus Raw Water: New intake structure  at Richmond
           Water Treatment Plant to pump to Diascund Creek Reservoir where a new
           pump station would be needed to pump to Little Creek Reservoir. 39.5 miles
           of new pipeline required.

      8.    City  of  Richmond Surplus Treated Water:  Treated  water pumped from
           Richmond Water Treatment Plant to Newport News Waterworks' northern
           distribution zone in James City County.  64 miles of new pipeline required.

      9.    James River fbetween Richmond and Hopewell): New pump station on James
           River in Henrico County to pump water to Diascund Creek Reservoir where
           a new pump station would be needed to pump to Little Creek Reservoir. 30.5
           miles of new pipeline required.

      10.   Ware Creek Reservoir:  New 50-foot dam across Ware Creek on New Kent
           County/James City County border; 6.87-billion gallon lake draining 17.4 square
           miles and covering 1,238 acres at pool elevation of 35 feet.  Water pumped
           from new 20 mgd intake structure to Newport News Waterworks raw water

0114-951-140                            1-4                            February 1994

-------
mains through new 3,6-mile, 30-inch pipeline. New 1.5-mile, 30-inch pipelii
from Waterworks raw water mains to Ware Creek Reservoir also required.

11. Ware Creek Reservoir & Pamunkey. Mattaponi. and/or Chickahominy River
Pumpovers: Similar to (10) with 40 mgd pump station and 36-mile, 42-inch
pipeline from Ware Creek Reservoir to Waterworks' raw water mains. New
120 mgd intake structure on Pamunkey River (11.4 miles of 66-inch pipeline
and 6.2 miles of 54-inch pipeline), 45 mgd pump station on Mattaponi River
(16.8-mile, 48-inch pipeline), and/or expansion of pump station on
Chickahominy River to 61 or 81 mgd (new 1.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline).
Pamunkey and Mattaponi options also would require 40 mgd pump station on
Diascund Creek Reservoir to pump 4.9 miles (42-inch pipeline) to Ware Creek
Reservoir.

12. Ware Creek Reservoir & James River Pumppver (above Richmond"!: Similar
to (10) with pump station on Ware Creek Reservoir to pump to Waterworks
raw water mains. Pump station on James River in Chesterfield County to
pump to Diascund Creek Reservoir where a new pump station would be
needed to pump to Ware Creek Reservoir. 58.5 miles of new pipeline
required.

13. Black Creek Reservoir & Pamunkey River Pumpover: Two dams afigoss the
southern and eastern branches of Black Creek in New Kent County£,8.4^>illion
gallon interconnected lake draining 5.5 square miles and covering 1,146 acres
at pool elevation of 100 feet; supplemented with water pumped from new
120 mgd pump station on Pamunkey River in New Kent County through new
5-mile, 66-inch pipeline. Water pumped from new 40 mgd reservoir intake
structure to Diascund Creek Reservoir through new 7.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline,
New 40 mgd pump station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek
Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir also required. 18 miles of new pipeline
required.

14. Black Creek Reservoir & James River Pumpover (above Richmond): Similar
to (13), but supplemented with new 75 mgd pump station on James River in
Chesterfield County. 43-mile pipeline to Black Creek Reservoir required.

15. King William Reservoir & Mattaponi River Pumpovjeg^New 90-foot dam
across Cohoke Mill Creek in King William Countyjt^ljjoillion gallon lake
draining 13.2 square miles and covering 2,234 acres at 90 foot pool elevation;
supplemented with water from new 75 mgd pump station on Mattaponi River
in King William County through new 1.5-mile, 54-inch pipeline. Water
delivered to Diascund Creek Reservoir through new 9.9-mile, 42- and 60-inch
gravity-flow pipelines (40 mgd capacity). Also includes new 40 mgd pump
station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little
Creek Reservoir.

16. King William Reservoir & Pamunkey River Pumpover: Same as (15) but
supplemented with water pumped from Pamunkey River in King William
0114-951-140 1-5 February 1994

-------
     County (100 mgd pump station).  5.7-mile pipeline to King William Reservoir
     required.

17.   Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase:  Increase pumping capacity
     of existing Waterworks Chickahominy River pump station in New Kent County
     to 61 mgd.

18-   Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase and Raise Diascund and Little
     Creek Dams:  Same as (17) but also modifying Waterworks' Diaseund Creek
     and Little Creek dams to increase normal pool elevations by 2 feet.

19.   Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Constrained by Number of Wells:  Withdraw
     water from Chickahominy River at full capacity when streamflow is high and
     demand is low; treat  and store underground for later use.  Treated water
     injected through new well system (12 wells on Waterworks property) when raw
     water source exceeds demand.  Water recovered from same wells.

20.   Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Unconstrained by Number of Wells:  Same as
     (19) limited only by the Chickahominy River withdrawal capacity and amount
     of surplus streamflow available.

21.   Fresh Groundwater Development:  New well fields in western James City
     County and/or eastern New Kent County;  used to augment Diascund Creek
     and Little Creek Reservoirs when system  reservoir storage is below 75 percent
     of total capacity.

22.   Groundwater Desalination as the Single Long-Term Alternative: Large-scale
     withdrawals from wells located throughout the Lower Peninsula drilled into
     deep, brackish aquifers, treated in four or five new desalination plants.

23.   Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area:
     Small-scale  withdrawals  from  new  wells  located adjacent to Waterworks
     distribution facilities and drilled into deep, brackish aquifers,  treated in new
     desalination plant(s).

24.   James River Desalination: New off-shore intake, with subaqueous pipeline and
     pump station  on James River in James City County;  Pumped to a reverse
     osmosis desalination plant near Waller Mill Reservoir. Requires a 26-mgd
     capacity outfall for concentrate disposal and 29 miles of new pipeline.

25.   Pamunkey River Desalination: New intake on Pamunkey River in New Kent
     County to pump water to new desalination plant near Waller Mill Reservoir.
     Requires a 21-mgd  capacity outfall for concentrate disposal and 33.2 miles of
     new pipeline.

26.   York River Desalination:  New intake on York River in New Kent County to
     pump to a new reverse osmosis desalination plant near Waller Mill Reservoir.
     Requires a 41-mgd  capacity outfall for concentrate disposal and 33.6 miles of
     new pipeline.

1-140                             1-6                            February 1994

-------
27. Cogeneration: Purchase drinking water produced through distillation process
powered by excess steam from privately-owned cogeneration facility. Private
initiative required.

28. Wastewater Reuse as a Source of Potable Water: Blending highly treated
wastewater with potable raw water supplies, using advanced wastewater
reclamation plant adjacent to existing HRSD York River WWTP.

29. Wastewater Reuse for Non-Potable Uses: One to four systems, each located
adjacent to an existing HRSD WWTP, and each providing advanced treatment
of WWTP effluent to produce non-potable water suitable for industrial cooling
and industrial process use.

* 30. Use Restrictions: Contingency measures beyond normal conservation
measures, employed to produce short-term reductions in water demand during
water supply emergencies.

31. No Action: Do nothing to provide additional raw water supply or curtail water
use on the Lower Peninsula.

Six of the above-listed alternatives were deemed practicable in terms of availability,
cost, technological reliability, and logistics. These alternatives are noted above with
asterisks.

132 RRWSG's Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative of the RRWSG includes three practicable alternatives as
long-term components of an overall 30.2 mgd plan to meet the water supply needs of the
Lower Peninsula through the Year 2040. These project components are:

• Use Restrictions (Alternative 30)

• Fresh Groundwater Development (Alternative 21)

• King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River (Alternative 15)

1.4 ISSUES/AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

1.4.1 Wetlands

Approximately 479 acres of non-tidal, palustrine forested wetlands would be inundated
by the proposed King William Reservoir. An additional 55 acres of vegetated wetlands may
bejndjrectlyaffected downstream of the proposed dam site. The existing Cohoke Millpond
already provides a suEstantlal degree of flow moderation in the lower reaches of Cohoke /
Mill Creek. Consequently, flow reductions due to the proposed reservoir should not cause
dramatic changes in average Millpond water levels or floodplain hydrology in vegetated
wetland areas below the dam site. Minimal salinity changes in the Mattaponi River are also
anticipated from freshwater withdrawal for the proposed reservoir. However, studies

0114-951-140 1-7 February 1994

-------
conducted by VIMS indicate that the salinity effects should not cause any changes in tidal
freshwater wetland communities along the Mattaponi River. A conceptual mitigation plan
has been developed to mitigate for wetlands impacted as a result of the proposed project
and is presented in Section 3.7.4.

1.4.2 Endangered/Threatened Species

No known populations of endangered or threatened species would be directly
impacted by construction of the preferred alternative. However, an existing Bald Eagle nest
is located approximately 375 feet downstream of the toe of the proposed dam. This nest
may be temporarily affected by noise and disruption occurring during construction. Field
surveys conducted for the Small Whorled Pogonia resulted in the identification of one
individual of the species near the reservoir project area. If reservoir construction proceeds,
the individual would be located within a watershed protection area which would not be
harvested. Management techniques would be implemented to minimize potential impacts
to the Bald Eagle nest and the known individual of Small Whorled Pogonia near the project
area.

1.43 Water Quality/Hydrology

The water quality characteristic of the Mattaponi River which is of greatest concern
relative to the proposed withdrawal is salinity. An analysis was conducted to estimate the
impact of the proposed withdrawal on existing salinity concentrations in the Mattaponi
River. Minute incremental salinity changes resulting from the proposed withdrawal, and
other existing and projected consumptive Mattaponi River basin water use, are not expected
to measurably impact existing tidal freshwater communities.

A cumulative streamflow analysis was also conducted to estimate the impact of future
streamflow reductions on streamflow in the Mattaponi River. It is estimated that by the
Year 2040, with all currently identified potential uses taken into account, and an estimated
average withdrawal of 35 mgd for the RRWSG's preferred alternative, average Mattaponi
River streamflow would be reduced by 6.9 percent from historical levels.

1.4.4 Cultural Resources

Based on the results of a Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey of the proposed King
William Reservoir site, it is anticipated that there would be a relatively large number of
prehistoric sites within the impoundment area that would be inundated. Sites identified in
the reservoir area during the survey included an earthen dam, an ice house, and a total of
six prehistoric sites. Additional sites are likely to be identified in other project areas for the
preferred alternative. A site survey of these areas would be required prior to construction
to identify additional cultural resources.
0114-951-140 1-8 February 1994

-------
1.5 REQUIRED MAJOR FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS

15.1 Federal

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USCOE) permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States. Construction of the proposed river intake structure, dam, and pipelines
would involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional wetlands.

Pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the USCOE reviews
applications for Department of the Army permits for certain structures or work in or
affecting navigable waters of the United States. Construction of the proposed Mattaponi
River intake structure would take place in navigable waters of the United States.

IS2 State

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Water Division
Pursuant to the State Water Control Law, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality - Water Division (Water Division) will assess the impacts of the proposed project
on beneficial uses of State waters and issue a Virginia Water Protection Permit.

Until recently, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the State would issue
a Water Quality Certificate to assure that a project would not violate Virginia Water Quality
Standards. This program is now administered through the Virginia Water Protection Permit
Program. A Virginia Water Protection Permit is now issued by the Water Division which,
in most cases, incorporates the 401 Water Quality Certificate.

Pursuant to the Virginia Ground Water Management Act, any person or group
wishing to install a well to withdraw 300,000 gallons or more of groundwater a month within
a designated Groundwater Management Area (GMA) must obtain a Groundwater
Withdrawal Permit. The Eastern Virginia GMA includes the area east of 1-95 and south
of the Mattaponi and York Rivers. Permits are issued by the Water Division.

In addition, the Water Division will also require a Virginia Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (VPDES) permit to be issued for the discharge of untreated water from
the groundwater withdrawal system to Diascund Creek and Little Creek Reservoirs.
VPDES permit decisions are based on the nature of both the discharge and the receiving
water.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Pursuant to the Virginia Wetlands Act, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(VMRC) assesses potential impacts of any project which requires building in or disturbing
any waterway or wetland area in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any person or entity
wishing to conduct these activities must submit a permit to the VMRC.

Virginia Department of Health
Virginia has been granted primacy under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, with
the effect that the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) is responsible for administering
0114-951-140 1-9 February 1994

-------
both state and federal laws applicable to waterworks operations (subject to certain oversight
by the USEPA with respect to federal requirements). The VDH is responsible for issuing
permits required for waterworks operations. The permit would indicate the approved
capacity of the system. In addition, the VDH requires that waterworks expansion be
planned when demands for three consecutive months are 80 percent or more of the rated
capacity of the waterworks.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Pursuant to the Virginia Dam Safety Act, the Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation (VDCR) must issue construction permits to provide for the proper and safe
design, construction, operation and maintenance of impounding structures to protect public
safety. Construction of the proposed King William Dam would require approval from the
VDCR in the form of a construction permit.

1.53 Local

Erosion and Sediment Control
The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law specifies minimum standards for
control of soil erosion, sediment deposition, and non-agricultural runoff. This law is
administered by the VDCR. Localities must adopt the State plan or create their own using
the minimum standards. The RRWSG will be required to submit a sediment and erosion
control plan for approval by the counties in which work is conducted.

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act requires localities within Virginia to implement
land use controls to improve the condition of Chesapeake Bay waters. This law is
administered by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. Localities designate
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (CBPAs) within their respective jurisdictions. All
project activities occurring within the CBPAs would be required to comply with the
appropriate land use controls.

Zoning Requirements
The proposed reservoir site is currently zoned as Agricultural-Rural Residence. As
described in the King William Reservoir Project Development Agreement (King William County
and City of Newport News, 1990), King William County would acquire and lease to the City
of Newport News sufficient land to create the reservoir and its associated buffer area.

Storm Water Management
The Virginia Storm Water Management Act enables local governments to establish
management plans and adopt ordinances whkh require control and treatment of storm
water runoff to prevent flooding and contamination of local waterways. This law is
administered by the VDCR. Local programs must meet or exceed the minimum standards
contained in the VDCR regulations.

1.6 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .

The remainder of this document is organized as described below.
0114-951-140 1-10 February 1994

-------
            Purpose and Need for Action (Section 2) describes the formation and members
            of the RRWSG, their objectives,  current  supplies, water supply concerns,
            historical and projected demands, projected deficits, and political/institutional
            considerations.

            Evaluation of Alternatives  (Section 3) explains  the evaluation methodology
            used,  the  alternatives considered,  and a summary of  the practicability and
            environmental analyses.  Also, the  RRWSG's preferred project alternative is
            identified.

            Affected Environment (Section 4) reviews the physical, biological, cultural, and
            socioeconomic resources affected by candidate alternatives.

            Environmental Consequences (Section 5)  details the potential impacts  of
            candidate  alternatives on physical, biological,  cultural, and socioeconomic
            resources, as well as other environmental concerns.

            List of Preparers (Section 6) provides a brief description of the experience and
            background of individuals who helped collect and prepare  the information in
            this document and its appendices.

            Public Involvement  (Section  7)  provides  information  on  the  public's
            involvement and interaction in the alternatives selection process.
0114-951-140                              1-11                             February 1994

-------

-------
                2.0  PURPOSE AND NEED  FOR ACTION

2.1   INTRODUCTION	

      This section outlines the basis for the study area boundaries, and summarizes the
water supplies, demands, and deficit projections applicable to this region. A more detailed
review of these topics is contained  in Water Supply, Demand and Deficit Projections
(Report B) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993). Report B is incorporated herein by reference and is
an appendix to this document.

22   REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP	

      The Regional Raw Water Study Group (RRWSG) was created in the Fall of 1987 to
examine the long-term water supply needs of the Lower Peninsula area of southeast Virginia
and to develop a plan for meeting those needs. Jurisdictions included in the regional study
area are the Cities of Newport News, Williamsburg, Hampton, and Poquoson, and the
counties of York and James City.

      The  RRWSG is acknowledged by the currently participating jurisdictions  (i.e.,
Newport News (representing Newport News Waterworks and its service area), Williamsburg,
and York County) to be an appropriate regional entity to pursue the necessary engineering
and environmental studies to search for the least environmentally damaging, practicable
alternative(s) to  meet the future water supply needs  of the study area.  To this end, the
purpose and goal of the RRWSG has been:

                To provide a dependable, long-term public water supply for
                the Lower Virginia Peninsula, in a manner which is not
                contrary to the overall public interest.

      The study area encompasses approximately 521 square miles in which more  than
400,000 persons currently reside. It is bounded by the James River on the south, the York
River on the north, the Chesapeake Bay on the east, and New Kent  and Charles City
counties on the west. Each of the RRWSG members has responsibility to provide water to
its citizens. In addition, Newport News is responsible for serving the cities of Hampton and
Poquoson,  as well as portions of York and James City counties where most of these
jurisdictions' water demands currently exist.  Existing water supplies and future demands
within the region have been combined and are addressed as a regional unit in this study.

      The original concept for a regional raw water supply study was to issue a final Phase I
Report which would identify the RRWSG's preferred alternative for meeting the region's
water supply deficits over the planning horizon.  The preparation of an environmental
assessment and the submittal of a permit application for the RRWSG's preferred project
to the USCOE would then follow during Phase II.  As the Phase I planning process evolved,
it became apparent that this original concept, planning  period, and procedural strategy
would need to change.

      The  USCOE required that the federal  advisory  agencies be  involved in  the
identification of  practicable alternatives and, further, with the evaluation of practicable

0114-951-140                               2-1                              February 1994

-------
alternatives relative to environmental impact. Only through detailed environmental analysis
of all practicable alternatives, as part of an EIS, could the USCOE and federal advisory
agencies determine which of the candidate projects would be least environmentally damaging
and, therefore, most acceptable. Originally, the USCOE intended to have the EIS prepared
in two tiers. However, the USCOE and federal advisory agencies were unable to agree on
procedural arrangements for conducting a tiered EIS. As a result, the USCOE decided to
complete the remainder of this NEPA process using the format of a conventional EIS.

Throughout the process, there has been an active exchange of information and ideas
between involved federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, environmental organizations,
and the RRWSG. This exchange included single and multi-agency briefing meetings,
distribution of project briefing materials and many written and oral communications.

22.1 Regional Approach to Water Supply Management

It was recognized in the late 1980s that the continuing growth projected for the Lower
Peninsula of Southeast Virginia would result in water demands which would soon exceed the
capacity of existing water supply sources. Realizing that additional raw water supply for the
Lower Peninsula would likely originate from outside the Newport News Waterworks service
area, the City of Newport News initiated an effort to enlist the participation of surrounding
communities to join in a regional approach to water supply planning.

Regional cooperation promotes the concept of more effective sharing and the
preservation of existing resources, reduces the competition for remaining supplies and
provides the economic benefits of single large scale water supply development projects.
Most importantly, combining the resources of several jurisdictions with a common need
provides the opportunity of considering many more water supply development alternatives,
which, in combination, can result in the selection of a plan which has the greatest cumulative
benefits and least overall impacts within the region.

The City invited participation from communities within a geographic range which
would facilitate cooperation in regional water supply management. Jurisdictions were
invited to participate from the Lower Peninsula, Middle Peninsula, and Richmond Planning
Districts, and included the Counties of Hanover, New Kent, York, James City, Charles City,
King William and Gloucester, and the Cities of Newport News and Williamsburg.

Several organizational meetings were held with potential participants to discuss
formation of the group. The first organizational meeting was held on March 18, 1987. It
was chaired by then City of Newport News Mayor Jessie Rattley. The following jurisdictions
were represented at the meeting: the Counties of Hanover, Henrico, James City, King
William, New Kent and York, and the Cities of Newport News, Richmond and
Williamsburg. Representatives of the State Water Control Board (SWCB), U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USCOE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Peninsula
Planning District Commission were also in attendance. Subsequent meetings were held in
May, June, and August of 1987. An official response regarding participation in the regional
study was requested by the City of Newport News by September 15, 1987. A list of the
localities requested to participate in the planning effort and their responses are summarized
in Table 2-1. These locations on the Lower Peninsula are shown in Figure 2-1.
0114-951-140 2-2 February 1994

-------
                                TABLE 2-1

    LIST OF POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS AND RESPONSES TO PARTICIPATION IN
                  THE REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP
Jurisdiction
Charles City County
Chesterfield County
City of Richmond
City of Williamsburg
Gloucester County
Hanover County
Henrico County
James City County
King William County
New Kent County
York County
Response
No • Board of Supervisors voted not to participate
financially in the study but expressed interest
in the efforts of the study group.
No - The County indicated that, at the time, they
were part of a four county study group with
Amelia, Cumberland, and Powhatan Counties.
They were unable to participate, but suggested
that both groups maintain contact.
No - Richmond showed an overall decrease in
water demand, therefore they chose not to
participate.
Yes - The City accepted participation and agreed to
contribute financially.
No - Gloucester County declined participation.
No - Hanover County responded through the
Pamunkey River Water Study Committee
which is composed of Hanover, James City,
King William, and New Kent Counties. The
committee stated that they would not proceed
as an entity in the study.
No - Henrico County determined it was not in their
best interest to participate in the study.
Yes - James City decided to participate, and agreed
to contribute financial support.
No - King William declined participation.
No - New Kent declined participation
Yes - The County accepted inclusion in the study
and agreed to contribute financially to the
project.
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
                                                  NORTH CAROLINA
                                                                                    LEGEND:


                                                                                        PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
                                                                                        OTHER INVITED JURISDICTIONS
                                                                        O
                                                                        C
                                                                        a
                                                                        m

                                                                        to
                                                                         i
MALJOOIM
 PIRNIE  I
LOWER PENINSULA STUDY AREA
NOVEMBER

  1991

-------

-------
2.3 CURRENT SUPPLIES
The Lower Peninsula is supplied by five principal public water supply systems:
Newport News Waterworks, Williamsburg, York County, James City Service Authority, and
the federally-owned Big Bethel Reservoir System. Figure 2-2 illustrates the geographic
locations of these systems. A schematic of the Lower Peninsula water supply systems is
presented in Figure 2-3.

2.3.1 Newport News Waterworks

The City of Newport News operates a regional water supply system serving
approximately 340,000 people in the cities of Newport News, Hampton, Poquoson, and
portions of York County and James City County. The system consists of a raw water intake
on the Chickahominy River, three western storage reservoirs, two terminal reservoirs, two
water treatment plants (WTP), and a distribution system with 12 finished water storage
tanks. The average daily water production was 48.25 mgd in 1990.

Chickahominy River Withdrawal
The Chickahominy River is the principal raw water source for the Newport News
Waterworks system. Raw water from the Chickahominy River can be pumped by a 41 mgd
pump station to either terminal reservoir (Lee Hall and/or Harwood's Mill), Little Creek
Reservoir, Skiffes Creek Reservoir, Waller Mill Reservoir (owned and operated by the City
of Williamsburg), or Big Bethel Reservoir (owned and operated by the U.S. Army). The
Chickahominy River raw water intake is located above Walker's Dam, a tidal exclusion dam
in New Kent County. The drainage area to the Chickahominy River above Walker's Dam
is 301 square miles. The estimated average daily river flow at the intake is 206.3 mgd based
on 48 years of record.

A minimum of 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) flow downstream from Walker's Dam
must be maintained at all times according to current withdrawal permit requirements. In
addition, when the water surface elevation upstream of the dam is less than or equal to 3
feet msl, pumping to Little Creek Reservoir is not allowed according to the Little Creek
Reservoir USCOE Permit to Construct. However, water may still be pumped to the other
reservoirs as long as the minimum flow-by requirement is met. Newport News also
voluntarily stops pumping when chloride levels exceed 100 mg/1 at the Walker's Dam intake
in accordance with recommended procedures in their current Chloride Action Plan. The
City may also stop pumping as a precautionary measure if chloride levels are between 70
and 100 mg/1 for a week.

Western Reservoir Operations
Little Creek Reservoir is the largest of the five reservoirs in the Newport News
system. A December 1989 report prepared for the City indicates the total storage in Little
Creek Reservoir is 7.48 billion gallons (BG) (CDM, 1989). Due to the small reservoir
drainage area (4.6 square miles), pumpover from the Chickahominy River and the Diascund
Creek Reservoir is required to maintain levels in the Little Creek Reservoir. The Little
Creek pump station capacity is 40.4 mgd.

Little Creek Reservoir becomes drawn down when low flows in the Chickahominy
River cause a curtailment of pumpover operations. Water from the Little Creek Reservoir

0114-951-140 2-3 February 1994

-------
can be pumped to five other impoundments: Skiffes Creek Reservoir, Lee Hall Reservoir,
Harwood's Mill Reservoir, Waller MM Reservoir, or Big Bethel Reservoir,

The Diascund Creek Reservoir has the largest drainage area, 44.6 square miles. The
reservoir provides 3.49 BG total storage. The pump station can pump 30.3 mgd.

Skiffes Creek Reservoir is the smallest reservoir in the Newport News system with
a drainage area of 6.25 square miles and 0.23 BG of storage. This source is supplemented
by a 20-inch interconnection to the main raw water transmission system from the
Chickahominy River pump station. Skiffes Creek has a 3 mgd pump station that can only
pump to the Lee HaM Reservoir.

Terminal Reservoir Operations
The Lee Hall Reservoir is a terminal reservoir used for on-site storage for the Lee
Hall WTP; The impoundment has 0.88 BG of total storage, has a drainage area of 14,6
square miles, and receives water from the Chickahominy River, Diascund Creek Reservoir,
Little Creek Reservoir, and Skiffes Creek Reservoir.

The Harwood's Mill Reservoir is also a terminal reservoir used for on-site storage for
the Harwood's Mill Water Treatment Plant. The impoundment has 0.85 BG of total
storage, a drainage area of 8.6 square miles, and receives raw water from the Chickahominy
River, Little Creek Reservoir, and Diascund Creek Reservoir.

Raw Water Transmission System
Newport News Waterworks is completing a final pipeline segment in the transmission
system that will increase the maximum rate of flow from the western reservoirs that can be
delivered to the terminal reservoirs to 92 mgd, up from the 67 mgd available with the
current transmission system. However, since the current transmission capacity already
exceeds the safe yield of the reservoirs from which water is withdrawn, these improvements
will not safely increase current supply.

The Chickahominy River Pump Station at Walker's Dam discharges to the Old
Chickahominy and New Chickahominy Mains. The Old Chickahominy Main consists of 10.3
miles of 34-inch main followed by 15.5 miles of 39-inch main, 5.2 miles of 34-inch main, and
1.4 mile of 30-inch main with outfalls to the Lee Hall and Harwood's Mill reservoirs.

Following the expansion of the Lee Hall WTP in conjunction with the construction
of the Diascund Creek Reservoir, the 42-inch Diascund Main was installed from Diascund
Creek Reservoir approximately 40 miles to Lee Hall Reservoir, with interconnections to the
Old Chickahominy Main.

After expansions at Lee Hall WTP, installation of a third raw water main (the New
Chickahominy Main) was begun to aid in the transmission of water from the Chickahominy
River Pump Station to the Lee Hall and Harwood's Mill Reservoirs. The final segment of
this main is projected to be completed in 1996.

The three mains are interconnected at many points along their lengths, to provide
flexibility for operations, maintenance, and flow routing. Emergency connections/outfalls
to Waller Mill Reservoir, the Williamsburg Water Treatment Plant, and Big Bethel

0114-951-140 24 February 1994

-------
                                                                                                                                                                  FIQUHI t-t
    PROPOSED
    WARE CREEK
MASCUND CREEK
RESERVOIR
                                                                                           xxxxxx
                                                                                      xxxwxxxxxx
                                                                                      xxxxxxxxxxxx
                                                                                        	xxxxxxxx
                                                                                  XXXXXXJX\XXXXXXX
                                                                                 *XXXXXX"XVXXXXXXXXX
                                                                              _ ,»«x\\\ \x\\\\s\\\\s\
                                                                                   S\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\v
                                                                                •«\\\\\\\\\\\\vs\\
                                                                             \\\l\\\X\\\\\\\\\\\\\Yv\
                                                                      xxxxxxxxxxxxx^xxa^xxxxxxxxx' ii> 11  x
                                                                       xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxfxx
                                                                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKXXX
                                                                             XVTV>vXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKXXX
                                                                                      \X>.XiJ..\XX.\^\
                                                                               LEGEND
                                                     MNW  LOW PRESSURE  ZONE
^  MNW NORTHERN ZONE
                                                                                                EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT


                                                                                                POLITICAL BOUNDARY
     1RNI
                                                     WILLIAMSBURG



                                                     YORK COUNTY



                                                     JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
             JUNE  1992
     LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA

 REGIONAL RAW WATER  SUPPLY PLAH

LOWER PENINSULA SERVICE AREAS

-------

-------
                            VOHK COUNTY SYSTEM

                            3 OnOLMOWMTB) WEUS
JCSA DBTMBUriON SYSTEM
                                                       WILUAMSBURg SYSTEM

                                                       OS THBUTON TO I WLUAMSBURG AND .
                                                       PORTIONS OF YORK AND JAMES art COUNTIES
                                                                        WILLIAMS BURG USTMBUTION
                                                                        SYSTEM
                                                                                         N6 WORT NEWS WATERWORKS SY3TEM
                                                                                         D6THBUTION TO:
                                                                                         HAMPTON. POOUOSON. NEVWORT NEWS AMJ
                                                                                         PORTIONS OF TOflK /WO JAMES OT» COUNTIES
                                                                                                   ICWOHTMEMS
                                                                                                   WATBMKJflKS
                                                                                                   DISTF1BUTION
                                                                                                   SYSTEM
                                   INOB'ENDENT
                                   YORK COUNTY
                                   WSTHWUTION
                                   SYSTEM
                                        EMEHGENCY
                                      GROUNOWATB4 WBi.
DIASCUND
  CREEK
RESERVCMR
 WALLER
  MILL
RESERVOIR
                                                             M WU11AM8BUBQ WTP
    OIICKAJOMfNY
    nven
                                                                                                  HARWOC»S
                                                                                                     MILL
                                                                                                  RESERVOIR
                                                                               EEHALL
                                                                              RESERVOIR
                         UTTLE
                         CREEK
                       RESERVOIR
          JAU68 CITY 8EfMCE AUTHOMTY SYSTEM
                                                                                                 BIERQENCY
                                                                                                 COftMGCTION
                                                                                                         BIG BETH&AflMY SYSTEM
                                                                                                         oaTnaunoN TO:
                                                                                                         R. MONROE. NMA,
                                                                                                         LAMQLEYAFB.
          40 GNOUNOMMTEH WELLS TrtWUQHOUT JAMEB CITY COUMTV
          DtSTFWLmON TO JAMES CITY COUNTY AND PORTION OF
          YORK COUNTY
         GHOONDWATTS W&LB


         PUMP STATION


         WATER TREATMENT PLANT


         RAW WATER MAIN
                               REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY PLAN
                                SCHEMATIC OF LOWER PENINSULA
                                    RAW WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
•	aEBGENCY CONNECTION

	  PROPOSED prey NE(P«X«CTED COMPLETION FALL 188^

-------

-------
Reservoir are available. Figure 2-3 provides an illustration of the Newport News raw water
transmission system and its interconnections and outfalls.

The four raw water pump stations in the Newport News system have a combined total
capacity of 115 mgd. The table below lists the pump stations and their respective number
of pumps and rated capacities.
Pump Station
Chickahominy River

Diascund Creek
Little Creek
Skiffes Creek
Number of Pumps
4
6'
2
2
3
Rated Capacity (mgd)
41
18.0*
30.3
40.4
3.0
'For emergency use only
Water Treatment
The Newport News Waterworks currently operates three treatment plants. Two of
these plants, Lee Hall Plants No. 1 and 2, are interconnected and have a Virginia
Department of Health (VDH) combined rated capacity of 54 mgd. Their combined physical
capacity, or the maximum amount they could treat, is 57 mgd. The Harwood's Mill Plant
has a VDH rated capacity of 31 mgd with a physical capacity of 40 mgd. Total rated
capacity of the three plants is 85 mgd with a total physical capacity of 97 mgd.

Distribution
The system finished water storage capacity currently totals 32.2 million gallons (MG)
in 15 existing storage facilities. There are 7 elevated tanks, 4 remote ground storage
tanks, 3 plant site ground tanks, and 1 plant site clearwell.
232
City of Williamsburg
The City of Williamsburg Department of Public Utilities operates a water system
serving approximately 17,500 people within the City, the College of William and Mary,
Camp Peary in York County, and several subdivisions in James City and York Counties.
The water system obtains raw water from the Waller Mill Reservoir, an augmentation well
near the reservoir, and interconnections with the Newport News Waterworks raw water
system.

Waller Mill Reservoir, located in York County, has 1.42 BG of total storage capacity.
The watershed is approximately 7 square miles. A 505-foot deep augmentation well adjacent
to the reservoir with discharge directly to the reservoir is rated at 500 gpm (0.72 mgd) and
has a pumping capacity of 0.68 mgd. A 34-inch interconnecting line runs from the Newport
News Old Chickahominy Raw Water Main to the Waller Mill Reservoir. An additional
12-inch line connects the 42-inch Diascund Raw Water Main directly to Williamsburg's
Waller Mill WTP.
0114-951-140
2-5
February 1994

-------
A contract for raw water supplied to Williamsburg from Newport News Waterworks
currently specifies the allowable water purchase as 2.0 mgd during the months of June
through September and 2.5 mgd for the remainder of the year. After July 1,1994, the limits
increase by 03 mgd if requested by Williamsburg by March 31, 1994, otherwise, the limits
remain the same.

The Waller Mill WTP has a rated treatment capacity of 7 mgd and feeds a
distribution system of five finished water storage tanks with a total capacity of 3.5 MG.

233 York County

The majority of York County's water supply needs are met by the Newport News
Waterworks and Williamsburg water systems. Lower York County is served primarily by
Newport News Waterworks while Upper York County receives its water from Williamsburg,
Newport News Waterworks, several private water companies, and York County.

The York County Department of Environmental Services owns and operates three
weUs serving approximately 750 people in the Skimino Hills and Banbury Cross subdivisions.
Well No. 1 is 305 feet deep and has a 60 gpm submersible pump that fills two 15,000-gallon
storage tanks. Two 150 gpm booster pumps charge a 1,000-gallon hydro-pneumatic tank for
distribution. Well No. 2 is 324 feet deep and has a 60 gpm submersible pump that
discharges to a single 15,000-gallon storage tank. Two 160 gpm booster pumps charge a
1,000-galon hydro-pneumatic tank for distribution. Well No. 3 is 283 feet deep, has a 70
gpm submersible pump, and discharges to a 30,000-gallon storage tank. Two 100 gpm
booster pump charge a 2,000-gallon hydro-pneumatic tank for distribution. The system's
permitted design capacity is 120,000 gallons per day with all three wells operating.

The York County Department of Environmental Services also owns two wells in the
Lightfoot area of the County. The wells were completed in 1989 and have a total permitted
withdrawal of 740 gpm. Ughtfoot No. 1 and No. 2 were not in use as of March 1993.

The County seis water supplied by the Newport News Waterworks to Sydnor and two
other private water companies. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Training Center
and the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station are also supplied by the Newport News
Waterworks. Camp Peary receives its water from the City of Williamsburg and Cheatham
Annex Naval Supply Center obtains water from Jones Pond.

23.4 James City Service Authority

The James City Service Authority (JCSA) serves four local service areas within James
City County. The Authority owns and operates 40 wells with an SWCB permitted
withdrawal of 7.92 mgd. Several of the wells have either poor water quality or elevated
fluoride levels.

The Authority purchases approximately 0.2 mgd from the City of Williamsburg and
is also served by the Newport News Waterworks which currently provides approximately 7.3
mgd to County customers on a retail basis. The remaining County residents are serviced
by privately owned systems.
0114-951-140 2-6 February 1994

-------
2.3.5 U.S. Army at Fort Monroe

The Big Bethel Reservoir serves Langley Air Force Base, Fort Monroe, and NASA.
The reservoir volume is 0.61 BG. The treatment plant has a rated capacity of 4 mgd and
a finished water storage capacity of 4.85 MG. Fort Monroe, Langley Air Force Base, and
NASA also purchase finished water from Newport News Waterworks when the Big Bethel
system is off-line for maintenance or during drought periods.

2.3.6 Current Supply Summary

The characteristics of the current raw water sources for each of the five Lower
Peninsula region water supply systems are summarized in Table 2-2.

2.3.7 Current Safe Yield

Table 2-3 contains a listing of reported system safe yields for the Lower Peninsula
with references. Adjustments to these yields are necessary to account for reservoir seepage
losses, transmission losses, and WTP losses.

The safe yields and reliable system delivery capacities for each public water supply
system on the Lower Peninsula were calculated using the accepted SWCB methodology and
are listed in Table 2-4. A complete explanation of safe yield determination methodology
and a detailed review of safe yield analysis is available in the Water Supply, Demand and
Deficit Projections report (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993). Figure 2-4 is a schematic representation
of the overall regional system delivery capacity concept. The regional reliable system
delivery capacity estimate of 60.8 mgd represents the estimated average daily volume of
finished water available for distribution throughout a period of time in the future during
which the drought of record rainfall pattern is repeated. It must be noted that the supplies
are intended to satisfy average day treated water demands, not peak usage demands.

It should also be noted that the above safe yield value is an estimate of the current
capability of the Lower Peninsula's public water supply systems to meet area demands.
There is no guarantee that this safe yield will be as high in the future. For example, a more
severe drought than those on record could occur, thereby causing a reassessment and
reduction in system safe yield. In addition, any new surface water withdrawals developed
on the Chickahominy River upstream of the Walker's Dam Pump Station, would reduce
available flow for the Newport News system. Further depletion of groundwater resources,
and development in groundwater recharge areas that reduces infiltration, would similarly
cause declining yields for area groundwater systems.

2.3.8 Rate Structures

Jewport News Waterworks
'ater commodity rates are set to cover all capital and operating expenses incurred
:xisting production and delivery of treated water. They are not artificially lowered
or subsidized, and no minimum consumption charge is used. Thus, customers pay the true
cost for the actual amount of water used and have a tangible incentive to conserve^ A
bi-monthly billing cycle allows customers to detect leaks more quickly and recognize the cost
0114-951-140 2-7 February 1994

-------
of high seasonal water use. The bi-monthly billing cycle also allows more frequent feedback
on conservation efforts.

The Waterworks employs a two-block schedule of declining block rates. The unit
price of water decreases as the quality used increases. The break point between the blocks
is set at 30,000 cubic feet per month. The break point chosen effectively places most single
and multi-family residential connections in the lower usage, higher rate block while placing
large users in the high usage, low rate block.

Special charges to encourage water conservation have also been implemented. The
Summer Conservation Rate (SCR) was implemented in May 1989 to establish more
equitable rates by applying a surcharge to those who contribute toward seasonal peaking of
demand on the water system.

The charge theoretically applies to non-essential, outside uses of water occurring
during the summer months. Average winter months usage is used to set a threshold level.
Any water used in excess of the threshold level during the summer months is deemed non-
essential and is billed at the SCR.

A System Development Charge (SDC) was also implemented as a means of charging
new system customers for the partial impact their additional use will have on the water
supply system, such as the need for new water sources, increased treatment capacity,
increased storage capacity, and additional distribution capability.

City of Williamshurg
Water rates are charged at a single uniform rate. The uniform rate is set to cover
all capital and operating expenses incurred in the existing production and delivery of treated
water.

As an action designed to apportion the cost of providing water fairly, an Availability
Fee for new customers was also established. This fee is based on meter size and reflects
the impact new customers will have on the water supply system and requires them to pay
accordingly.

York County
Water rates are set at a uniform rate to cover all operational costs and, as a result,
customers pay the true cost for the actual amount of water used.

James City Service Authority
The Authority uses a uniform water rate. A Summer Surcharge Rate is also used to
charge a higher rate for water used in excess of each customer's winter average. In addition,
a System Facilities Charge was implemented to charge new customers for the impact they
have on the system.

2.4 WATER SUPPLY CONCERNS ^^

Water supply concerns relative to the RRWSG's objective include the dependency of
certain areas on groundwater supplies, the designation of the Lower Peninsula area as a
0114-951-140 2-8 February 1994

-------
    REGIONAL SYSTEM DELIVERY CAPACITY
 CHICKAHOMINY
 PUMPAGE
NATURAL INFLOWS
TO RESERVOIRS
                                  RESERVOIR
                                   SEEPAGE
                                   AND NET
                                  EVAPORATION
  JAMES CITY
SERVICE AUTHORITY
    WELLS
NET
                                           BIG BETHELN
                                           RESERVOIR }
          WALLER MILL
         RESERVOIR AND
          DEEP WELL
       NEWPORT NEWS
         RAW WATER
          STORAGE
          SYSTEM
              WTPs
                                                 YORK COUNTY
                                                    WELLS
           RESERVOIR
                   RESERVOIR SEEPAGE
                       AND
                  TRANSMISSION LOSSES
               WTP LOSSES
EVAPORATION   SPILLAGE
                          ALL VALUES IN MGD.
                 O
                 c
                 3J
                 m
                 M

-------

-------
                                     TABLE 2-2

                 EXISTING RAW WATER SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS


NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS

Chickahominy River

  •   41 mgd capacity pump station at Walkers Dam

  •   301 square mile drainage area at the intake

  •   206.3 mgd estimated average daily flow at the intake (48 years of record)

  •   Pumping Rules:

          A minimum of 10 cfs flow downstream from Chickahominy Reservoir (i.e., Walkers
          Dam) must be maintained at all times.

          When water surface elevation upstream of Walkers Dam is <3.0 feet MSL, cannot pump
          to Little Creek Reservoir.

          Chloride Action Plan recommends that pumping stop when chloride levels exceed 100
          mg/1 at the intake, or if chloride levels are between 70 and 100 mg/1 for a week (self-
          imposed).
Reservoirs
Diascund Creek
Little Creek
Skiffes Creek
Lee Hall
(Terminal)
Harwood's Mill
(Terminal)
TOTALS
Drainage
Area (sq.mi.)
44.6
4.6
6.25
14.6

8.6

78.65
Total
Storage (EG)
3.49
7.48
0.23
0.88

0.85

12.93
Water Surface
Area (Acres)
1,110
947
94
493

265

2,909
Sources:   CDM, 1989
0114-951-140
February 1994

-------

-------
                                     TABLE 2-2

                 EXISTING RAW WATER SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
                                     (Continued)
WILLIAMSBURG
                         Drainage          Total      Water Surface
Reservoir               Area (sq.mi.)     Storage (BG)  Area (Acres)

Waller Mill                  7.0             1.42           308

Groundwater Well No. 1

  •  Augments reservoir

  •  505 ft. deep well

  •  0.68 mgd pumping capacity
Sources:   CDM, 1989
          SWCB, 1983
YORK COUNTY

Groundwater Wells, Skimino Hills/Banbury Cross No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3:

 •  Serves Skimino Hills and Banbury Cross Subdivisions

          305 ft., 324 ft. and 283 ft. deep, respectively

          Wells have submersible pumps which operate at between 60 and 70 gpm

Groundwater Wells, Lightfoot No. 1 and No. 2:

 •  Wells not in use as of March 1993

 •  318 ft. and 310 ft. deep, respectively

 •  Stabilized yield of 410 gpm for No. 1 and 317 gpm for No. 2
Sources:   Current VDH Engineering Description Sheet
          Well completion reports
0114-951-140                                                               February 1994

-------

-------
                                    TABLE 2-2

                 EXISTING RAW WATER SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
                                    (Continued)
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY

Groundwater Wells

 •  40 wells located throughout the County

 •  Wells range in depth from 204 ft. to 725 ft. deep

 •  35 wells on main system, 5 wells on 4 independent systems

 «  Total actual well pump capacity is 7.54 mgd
Source:  JCSA, April, August, and October 1991.


BIG BETHEL
                     Drainage          Total        Water Surface
Reservoir            Area (sq.mi.)    Storage (BG)     Area (Acresl

Big Bethel               7.9            0.61             238
Source:  CDM, 1989
0114-951-140                                                              February 1994

-------

-------
                                     TABLE 2-3

                     REPORTED YIELDS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS
                   System
Newport News Waterworks
           Chickahominy River withdrawal
           and five storage reservoirs
WOliamsburg
           Waller Mill Reservoir
           (does not include 0.68 mgd
           Augmentation Well No. 1)
York County

           Skimino Hills/Banbyry Cross
           Wells No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3

           Lightfoot Wells No. 1 and No. 2

James City Service Authority

           40 groundwater wells
Big Bethel
           Big Bethel Reservoir
Reported
  Yield
  (medl
                                                 57.0
                                                 60.0
                                                 57.8
   3,0
   3.08
   3.5
   4.5
   0.120
                                                  3.08
   2.0
 Reported
Well Yield
 (med)
               1.067
               7.9
Reference
                          SWCB-land
                          USCOE
                          VDH-1
                          CDM
             USCOE
             VDH-2
             SWCB-1
             W&W
             VDH-3

             SWCB-2
             SWCB-3
             VDH-4
             USCOE
0114-951-140
                         February 1994

-------

-------
                                      TABLE 2-3

                      REPORTED YIELDS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS
                                      (Continued)
SOURCES:

     SWCB-1


     USCOE



     VDH-1

     VDH-2


     CDM


     W&W


     VDH-3

     SWCB-2


     SWCB-3

     VDH-4
Virginia State Water Control Board, "Safe Yield of Municipal Surface Water
Supply Systems in Virginia."  Planning Bulletin No. 335. March 1985.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, "Feasibility Report and Final
Environmental Impact Statement  - Water Supply Study, Hampton  Roads,
Virginia." December 1984.

Virginia Department of Health, Current Waterworks Operation Permits, 1988.

Virginia Department of  Health, Water  Description Sheet, as referenced in
SWCB, "James Water Supply Plan." March 1988.

Camp Dresser & McKee, "Task 7 Letter Report on Methods to Increase  Safe
Yield". Prepared for the  City of Newport News.  December 1988.

Wiley and  Wilson,  "Comprehensive Water  System  Study for  the  City  of
Williamsburg, Virginia." April 1985.

Virginia Department of Health, Current Waterworks Operation Permit, 1988.

Virginia State Water Control Board, Certificates of Groundwater Right, March
1991.

Virginia State Water Control Board, Certificates of Groundwater Right.

Virginia Department of Health, Current Waterworks Operation Permits.
0114-951-140
                                                          February 1994

-------

-------
                                  TABLE 2-4
                 ADOPTED YIELDS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS (MGD)
Supply System
Newport News Waterworks
WiUiamsburg
York County
James City Service Authority
Big Bethel
TOTAL FOR LOWER PENINSULA
Raw Water Safe Yield
(mgd)
57.0
4.15
0.12
0.70 (1995)
3.10
4.23 (1995)
6.0 (2005)
2.0
0.0(2011)
66J7
68.08 (1995)
69.85 (2005)
67.85 (2011)
Reliable System Delivery
Capacity
(mgd)
51.9
3.8
0.12
0.70(1995)
3.10
4.23 (1995)
6.0 (2005)
1.9
0.0(2011)
60.82
6253 (1995)
64 JO (2005)
62.40 (2011)
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
^roundwater management area, and the dependency of the RRWSG's major supplier
(Newport News Waterworks) on the Chickahominy River.

Future groundwater development is restricted in the area by its identification as a
groundwater management area. The SWCB has determined that overdevelopment of
groundwater in this area would cause groundwater quality deterioration and salt water
intrusion into depleted aquifers.

The dependency of Newport News Waterworks and its extended service area on
Chickahominy River withdrawals leaves the area vulnerable in the event of a severe drought
or Chickahominy River contamination.

'Some of the region's water supply systems may experience considerable problems as
a result of drought conditions. For example, Waterworks has experienced considerable
water quality problems in its reservoirs when they have been markedly drawn down. Water
quality was severely degraded and Diascund Creek Reservoir was classified as
hypereutrophic on the basis of a mean total phosphorus concentration of 0.09 mg/1, when
it was drawn down to between 20 and 25 percent of total capacity during an 8-month period
in 1983 and 1984. Concentrations of phosphorus are higher during reservoir drawdown
because of:

• Decreased settling time for tributary inflows of phosphorus.

• Increased exposure of fine-grained, phosphorus-rich bottom sediments to
resuspending forces.

• Increased algal uptake of phosphorus directly from bottom sediments (Lynch,
1992).
25 HISTORICAL DEMANDS

Historical treated water usage data were analyzed from various reports and studies
published by the state and by the Lower Peninsula jurisdictions to determine current
demand. These included the foEowing:

• Water Supply Study, Hampton Roads, Virginia, Feasibility Report and Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. December 1984.

• Safe Yield of Municipal Surface Water Supply Systems in Virginia, Commonwealth
of Virginia, Virginia State Water Control Board, Planning Bulletin No. 335.
March 1985.

• Comprehensive Water System Study for the City of WiUiamsburg, Virginia, Wiley
& Wilson. April 1985.

• Comprehensive Water Study, Buchart-Horn, Inc., Prepared for the County of
York. November 1985.

0114-951-140 2-9 February 1994

-------
• Newport News Raw Water Management Plan, Camp, Dresser & McKee.
December 1989.

• James Water Supply Plan, Parts 1 and 2, Virginia State Water Control Board,
Planning Bulletin No. 337. March 1988.

• Water Distribution System Study, Prepared for the City of Newport News, Camp,
Dresser & McKee. November 1986.

In addition, treated water pumpage records and customer billing records for the past
four or more years were obtained from the Lower Peninsula water purveyors to assist in this
demand determination.

25.1 Raw Water Withdrawals

Average annual raw water withdrawals for each system in the Lower Peninsula are
presented in Table 2-5. Average withdrawals for the later years presented in this table are
approximately 52 to 55 mgd. (The safe yield of these systems is approximately 62 rngd).

252 Treated Water Demands

The average daily water demands for each public water supply system on the Lower
Peninsula are listed in Table 2-6. The total regional finished water pumpage to distribution
in the base Year 1990 was approximately 55.2 mgd. (Regional system delivery capacity is
estimated to be 60.8 mgd),

A record of annual average daily metered consumption for the Newport News
Waterworks system from 1968 to 1990 is presented graphically in Figure 2-5. Over this
22-year period, the average increase in demand was 2.65 percent per year.

Treated water consumption increased each year between 1983 and 1990 in the
Newport News Waterworks system. However, increases in demand tapered off beginning
in 1986. This moderation in demand occurred despite sizable increases in the number of
connections to the system (e.g., 3,588 new connections in 1986 and 3,103 new connections
in 1987). Three events may have contributed to this decline in per capita water usage.

First, in the summer of 1986, three new booster pumps were installed in the northern
zone booster pump station. System pressure in the northern zone was lowered from 85 psi
to 75 psi after pump replacement was complete. Main distribution system pressures were
also lowered as a result of the pump installation. Pressure reduction in a service area will
generally reduce water usage independent of other factors, because leaks and certain in-
home water uses will decrease.

Secondly, Newport News Waterworks implemented three separate rate increases,
which took effect on July 1, 1986, September 1,1987, and September 1,1988. Higher water
prices can be expected to affect the water consumption habits of many users. In particular,
large water users have decreased their consumption. Camp Dresser & McKee reported that
15 large water users, whose treated water needs are provided entirely by the Newport News
Waterworks system, consumed an average daily total of 14.25 mgd in 1985 (CDM, 1986).

0114-951-140 240 February 1994

-------
                                                TABLE 2-5


                          AVERAGE ANNUAL RAW WATER WITHDRAWALS (1982-1990)
                                                  (mgd)
Water Supply System
Newport News Waterworks'
Williamsburg
York County
James City Service Authority
Big Bethel
1982
39,792
3.04
NA
0.75
NA
1983
42.032
2.98
0.041
0.85
2.75
1984
42. IS2
3.15
0.034
0.87
3.04
1985
44.792
3.42
0.039
0.93
2.93
1986
47.182
3.66
0.044
1.13
NA
1987
46.43
3.36
0.044
1.37
NA
1988
46.76
3.54
0.049
1.40
2.57
1989
45.70
3.63
0.049
1.64
«
1990
48.83
3.49
0.051
1.70
—
NA = Not available
Notes: 'Values for Newport News Waterworks represent terminal reservoir withdrawals.
'Approximate values, reliable data for 1982 to 1986 were not available for Lee Hall Reservoir.
Sources: Raw water pumpage reports provided by each water supply system.
SWCB, James Water Supply Plan, March 1988.[12]
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
                                                      TABLE 2-6

                      AVERAGE DAILY WATER VOLUMES PUMPED TO DISTRIBUTION (1984-1990)
                                                         (mgd)
Water Supply System
Newport News Waterworks'
Williamsburg
York County
James City Service Authority
Big Bethel
Total for Lower Peninsula
1984
43.02
3.04
0.034
0.87
2.58
49.54
1985
44.53
3.33
0.039
0.93
2.29
50.73
1986
45.15
3.58
0.044
1.13
2.38
52.28
1987
45.52
3.26
0.044
1.37
2.66
52.85
1988
46.06
3.44
0.05
1.40
2.53s
53.58
1989
45.98"
3.52
0.05
1.64
2.5
53.69
1990
48.4 lw
3.39
0.05
1.72
1.64
55.21
        Notes:

        1  Values represent metered consumption for fiscal years 1984 -  1988 adjusted using a 6 percent unaccounted for
          treated water loss estimate, unless otherwise noted.

        2  Values represent calendar year finished water pumpage metered at the WTPs.

        3  May be low due to meter inaccuracies.

        4  Corrected using results of Pitometer Meter Tests.

        5  Fiscal year October 1 to September 30.

        6  Big Bethel WTP was down for part of 1990 and did not operate to full capacity.

        Source:  System pumpage records provided by each water supply system, unless noted otherwise.
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS ANNUAL AVERAGE
      METERED CONSUMPTION  (1968-1990)
     1970
1975
   1980
YEAR
1985
1990
                                             0
                                             c
                                             33
                                             m
                                             10
                                             Ol

-------

-------
During 1987 and 1988, these same 15 users consumed an average of 12.94 mgd. This change
represents a 9.2 percent decrease in demand for these customers.

      Finally, in July 1986, Newport News Waterworks implemented voluntary water use
restrictions.  Voluntary "odd/even" watering and recommended periods for lawn watering
were promoted in order to enhance water conservation during the 1986 drought.

      The 1983 Comprehensive Water System Study for the City of Williamsburg by Wiley
& Wilson presented data from a review of billing records which revealed the water demand
for the City alone was 2.8 mgd.  The 1990 average daily demand for the entire Williamsburg
service area was approximately 3.4 mgd.

      York County residents, including those living on federal installations, receive water
supplies from several public water systems.  The following table lists these systems and the
demand that each supplied in York County in 1990.
Water System
York County
Newport News Waterworks
Williamsburg
TOTAL
Water Supplied to York County Users (1990)
0.05 mgd
6.00 mgd
0.53 mgd
6.58 mgd
Source: Purveyor Billing Records, 1990
      James City County residents are also served by several public water supply systems.
The following table lists the public systems supplying water to customers within James City
County and the demand that each supplied in the County in 1990.
Water System
JCSA
Newport News Waterworks
Williamsburg
TOTAL
Water Supplied to James City County Users
(1990)
lJ2^B§c|
/Site mgd)
0.20 mgd
9.05 mgd
Source: Purveyor Billing Records, 1990
      The majority of the Lower Peninsula population is served by municipal water systems.
The following table  lists each jurisdiction  and the percentage of the 1983  and 1990
OH4-951-140
2-U
February 1994

-------
population that was served by a public water system.  Both York County and James City
County are expected to have approximately 90 percent of the users in their jurisdictions
served by public systems by the Year 2010.
Jurisdiction
City of Newport News
City of Hampton
City of Poquoson
City of Williamsburg
York County
James City County
Percentage of Population Served
1983
100
100
100
100
75
56
1990
100
100
100
100
80
70
Source: SWCB, 1988
      The existing water demands for  each  public water supply  system in the Lower
Peninsula, identified as average daily water volumes pumped to distribution, are presented
graphically in Figure 2-6. Total regional finished water pumpage to distribution in the base
Year 1990 was approximately 55.2 mgd. From  1984 -1990, the average rate of increase per
year was approximately 1.8 percent.

      2.5 3     Large Water Users

      A list of large treated water users on the Lower Peninsula and their current average
daily consumption is presented in Table 2-7. The largest users are Anheuser-Busch, Langley
AFB and NASA, Fort Eustis, Newport  News Shipbuilding, and American Oil Company
(Amoco).

      2.5.4     Daily and Seasonal Demand Variations

      The  average daily  demand (ADD) is the total  amount  of water  pumped to
distribution in a year, divided by the number of days in that year. For the Newport News
system, the maximum day demand (MDD) averages about 1.4 times the average  daily
demand. The maximum hourly demand (MHD) is the highest single hour of water usage
during the year. The MHD for the Newport News system is 1.8 to  1.9 times the ADD.

      Seasonal variations of water demands are  substantial in the Lower Peninsula.
Williamsburg and James City County experience large tourist demands during the summer
months. The Williamsburg water treatment plant currently treats between 3.5 to 4.6 mgd
in the summer months compared with 2.6 to 3.3 mgd in the winter months. The James City
County Commercial tourist demand is estimated to range form 0.1 mgd in the winter to 0.8
0114-951-140
                                       2-12
February 1994

-------
                                                      TABLE 2-7
                                       LARGE USER WATER CONSUMPTION (1990)



User
Newport News
Union Carbide Industrial Gases
Dominion Terminal Associates
Pier IX Terminal Company
Siemens Automotive
CEBAF
Peninsula Hospital Services
Mary Immaculate Hospital
Riverside Regional Medical Center
Marva Maid Dairy
Neptune Fisheries, Inc.
Newport News Shipbuilding
Hampton
Fort Monroe
Langley AFB
NASA
Sentara-Hampton General Hospital
DVA Medical Center
Howmet Turbine Corporation

Current
Number of
Employees

11
110
81
800
628
44
595
2,000
150
135
26,500

4,000
•-
4,454
1,000
1,214
1,152
Daily Operations


Days/Wk

7
7
7
7
--
5
7
7
7
5
5

7
7
7
7
7
6


Hrs/Day

24
24
24
24
..
8
24
24
24
12
8

24
24
24
24
24
24
Average Daily Consumption (mgd)


Potable Use

0.001
0.006
0.049
0.026
0.024
0.045
0.042
0.131
0.105
0.183
2.403


..
0.062
0.075
0.095
0.163

Non-Potable
Use

0.041
0.221
0.165
0.030
0.035
0.0
0.0
0.010
0.0
0.0
6.497


..
0.203
0.025
0.028
0.0


Total

0.042
0.227
0.214
0.056
0.059
0.045
0.042
0.141
0.105
0.183
8.900

0.587
1.234
0.265
0.100
0.123
0.163
Metered
Public
Supply

0.042
0.084
0.049
0.056
0.059
0.045
0.042
0.141
0.105
0.183
2.403

0.587
1.234
0.265
0.100
0.123
0.163
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
                                                       TABLE 2-7
                                                      (Continued)
                                        LARGE USER WATER CONSUMPTION (1990)

User
WilJiamshurg
Colonial Williamsburg
William and Mary
Camp Peary
York County
Virginia Power
Amoco Oil Company
U.S. Coast Guard Training Center
U.S. Naval Weapon Station
James City County
Anheuser Busch, Inc.
Eastern State Hospital

Current
Number or
Employees
3,500
1,300
254
250
1,292
3,394
1,100
1,500
Daily Operations
Days/Wk
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
7
7
Hrs/Day
24
24
24
24
24
24
10
24
24
Average Dally Consumption (mgd)
Potable Use
..
0.002
1.066
0.075
0.197
4.083
0.147
Non-Potable
Use
..
0.564
0.0
0.004
0.460
1.017
0.0
Total
.
0.566
1.066
0.079
0.657
5.100
0.147
Metered
Public
Supply
0.734
0.535
0.071
0.566
1.066
0.075
0.657
5.100
0.147
Sources: City of Newport News, Department of Public Utilities, January 1989.
Large Water User's Survey Forms, April 1991.
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
   AVERAGE DAILY WATER VOLUMES PUMPED

          TO  DISTRIBUTION (1984-1990)
Q

0
   1984
1985
1986
 1987

YEAR
1988
1989
1990
                                                 D
                                                 c
                                                 3D
                                                 m
                                                 tn

-------

-------
mgd in the summer. This range is 1.5 percent to 10.1 percent of the total water usage in
James City County.

The variation in water usage in the Newport News system is presented in Table 2-8.
The monthly water usage was calculated as a percentage of the annual average and averaged
for the 4-year period, 1987 to 1990. The highest water demands for this period occurred in
July and September. Seasonal variations in areas that do not have large tourist influxes are
typically due to increased consumer usage in response to temperature variations.

2.6 PROJECTED DEMANDS

Population growth in the single most important predictor of future water demands.
Population projections provided by the Lower Peninsula jurisdictions were reviewed, and
projections for each jurisdiction were adopted by the RRWSG.

While population growth is a key indicator of future water demands, other factors can
greatly impact demands. Demand management, through the implementation of effective
conservation programs, can sizably reduce future demands.

The demand projections provided are based on the most recent data available and
are presented in 10-year increments for the planning period 1990 to 2040 for each of the
Lower Peninsula jurisdictions. The 50-year planning period for water supply planning was
chosen due to long project implementation schedules and the life expectancy of the facilities
once constructed. The 50-year planning period has been accepted by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as appropriate for such recent proposals as the
Two Forks Reservoir project and the Ware Creek Reservoir project. Projections have been
made for residential, commercial, industrial, and federal usage taking into account
implementation of conservation measures.

2.6.1 Conservation

Water conservation is the conscious effort by a utility, business or individual to save
water. Every gallon of water not used is one less to be stored, purified, and distributed. It
also represents one less gallon that must be heated for washing or bathing, thus saving
energy costs, or one less gallon of water that must pass through some form of wastewater
treatment before it is returned to the environment.

There are different levels of conservation measures that can be implemented: 1)
normal conservation measures, and 2) use restrictions. Normal conservation practices can
provide long-term benefits by permanently reducing water demands during normal operating
conditions. In comparison, use restrictions can be applied as part of a water management
plan during severe droughts, or other extreme water shortages or emergencies. These
restrictions are implemented to produce short-term, or temporary, reductions in water
demand and result in economic and other undesirable impacts. By lowering the water
demand during water emergencies, a smaller supply of water is required to meet the needs
of the system. For purposes of this study, use restrictions are evaluated as an alternative
to new source development projects.
0114-951-140 2-13 February 1994

-------
The implementation of conservation measures will reduce the quantity of additional
raw water needed, or postpone the need for new sources of supply. Raw water source
development has the potential to adversely impact the natural environment. Therefore,
implementation of an effective conservation program can help to minimize these impacts,

In summary, conservation measures can be used as a means to reduce the financial
and environmental costs of developing new raw water supply sources. The RRWSG has
already adopted many long-term conservation measures to reduce existing water demands.
The opportunity to develop additional conservation programs is discussed in the remainder
of the section.

Conservation Methods
A variety of water conservation programs have been undertaken in the Lower
Peninsula to reduce existing water demands. Additional demand reductions are projected
to occur as a result of a more aggressive conservation approach. The details of the
approach are presented in Water Demand Reduction Opportunities (Report A) (Malcolm
Pirnie, 1993), and are summarized herein. Report A is incorporated herein by reference
and is an appendix to this document.

The first step in determining an appropriate conservation strategy for the Lower
Peninsula was to collect information and summarize conservation practices currently in use
in the Lower Peninsula. Water purveyors, commercial, institutional and light industrial
users, heavy industrial users, and federal installations in the region implement varying forms
of conservation programs. A summary of the measures currently implemented by water
consumers in the Lower Peninsula is presented in Table 2-9.

As an indication of the success of these measures to date, an analysis was made of
the Newport News Waterworks system using all 5/8-inch meter connections (the majority
of which are residential) between 1982 and 1990. An active conservation program was
implemented in 1986, which included system-wide pressure reductions, rate increases and
implementation of voluntary use restrictions. A substantial decrease in per connection usage
was observed in the years following implementation of these conservation measures.

Per capita and per employee water usage (applied for residential and commercial
demand projections, respectively) are estimated to decline over the planning period to
account for demand reductions resulting from the implementation of these conservation
measures. Future per-capita demand reductions will also rely on even more aggressive
conservation measures.

As part of the RRWSG's conservation strategy, Reasonable Conservation Objections
(RCOs) were established for each of the RRWSG jurisdictions. RCOs were developed as
reasonable, achievable goals based on documentation of the need for water and achievable
per capita demand reductions through conservation.

Residential Water Usage RCO
For residential water use, the RCO is developed based on the amount of daily water
needed per capita for essential water uses. This objective is developed on a per capita basis
and not as a percent reduction. Using a percent reduction would require those residential
users who have already achieved a reduction from the implementation of existing

0114-951-140 2-14 February 1994

-------
                              TABLE 2-8
       NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS AVERAGE MONTHLY DEMAND
                        VARIATION (1987 - 1990)

Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Sepjembet
October
November
December
Percent of
Annual Average
105
96
95
88
87
103
111
108
124
100
98
89
Source: Newport News Waterworks WTP Pumpage Reports.
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
                                     TABLE 2-9

              CONSERVATION PRACTICES CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED
                            ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
   Purveyor or Water User
          Category
                  Conservation Measure
  Newport News Waterworks
Comprehensive Water Conservation Plan
Pressure Reductions
Pipeline Replacement Program
Recycling of Treatment Plant Process Waste Stream
Meter Calibration and Change-out Program
BOCA National Plumbing Code Enforcement
Water Rates Set to  Reflect the Jrue Cost of Water '
Summer Conservation Rate
System Development Charge
Reduction from Five-Block to  Two-Block Rate Schedule
On-going Public Information Program
     City of Williamsburg
Meter Calibration and Change-out Program
Metering of AM Customer Connections
BOCA National Plumbing Code Enforcement
Water Rates Set to Reflect the True Cost of Water
Availability Fee
        York County
Metering of all Connection
Water Rates Set to Reflect the True Cost of Water
BOCA National Plumbing Code Enforcement
     James City Service
         Authority
Intensive Metering of Water Use
Meter Replacement and Testing Program
Leak Detection Surveys <_/
BOCA National Plumbing Code Enforcement
Water Rates Set to Reflect the True Cost of Water
Summer Surcharge Rate
System Facilities Charge
Public Education Program
   Commercial, Institutional
  and Light Industrial Users
Retrofitting in Hospitals and Hotels/Motels
Closed Loop Mechanical Systems in Hospitals
Use of Non-Public Water Supplies for Irrigation
BOCA Code Compliance
Non-Potable Well Water Supplies used in Mechanical Systems
      Heavy Industrial
Minimized Use of Public Water for Non-Potable Uses
Closed Loop, Recycling Cooling Towers and Mechanical
 Systems Used Widely
In-House Water Treatment Systems
Use of Non-Potable Supplies for Irrigation and Dust
 Suppression
0114-951-140
                                                June 1993

-------

-------
conservation measures to reduce their demands by the same percentage as those areas
which have achieved less water demand reductions.

To determine the residential RCO, a literature review was conducted to characterize
residential water usage. A national study (Brown and Caldwell, 1984) sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was included in this review. This
study characterized indoor water use and estimated the amount of water required in a
conserving versus a non-conserving home. This HUD study was the only broadly accepted,
scientifically based study of water usage characteristics identified in the research effort. It
was, therefore, used as a basis for developing the RRWSG's residential RCO.

The HUD study methodology considered such factors as household size, age
distribution, housing types, and income levels. The HUD study group characteristics were
similar to and representative of the RRWSG region. Therefore, it was decided that the
HUD data could be applied to the RRWSG study area.

The HUD study indicated that average indoor water usage in a non-conserving home
is 77 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd). Through the use of water conserving fixtures and
effective indoor water conservation techniques, the study indicated that average indoor
water usage can reasonably be reduced to 60 gpcpd (Maddaus, 1987). Updated information
on toilet leakage and shower time adjusted this total to 60.2 gpcpd. This indoor usage with
conservation was adopted by the RRWSG.

To develop a residential RCO, a value must be added to the indoor usage value of
60.2 gpcpd to represent outdoor usage. Aftet-a-carefuLigyiew of billrngjsyeles-and usage
patterns, an estimated outdoor use value ofn.Tjgcgd was adoptecT^lKe RRWSG. Adding
this estimated outd0or Ti»^-valHe-ttrih^KRWSG adopted indoor usage value of 60.2
gpcpd results in ant RCO of 66.9, or 67 gpcpd. This conservation goal was used as a basis
for estimating futur^Tesidential water demands within the study area. Current water usage
of 72.9 gpcpd will need to be decreased by an average of 8.1 percent to meet the residential
RCO.

Commercial Water Usage RCQ "
As a result of the variability of water use within the commercial category, it was not
possible to define an RCO as calculated for residential water usage. However, because
water is used in a similar manner as in the residential category, similar conservation
measures used to achieve reductions in the residential category can also be applied to the
commercial category. Therefore, the RCO for commercial demands was also set at an 8.1
percent reduction over base year demands.

Industrial Water Usage RCQ
Due to the wide variety of industrial water uses and quantity requirements, and the
inability to accurately predict the impact of influencing factors on future industrial demands,
a specific RCO for existing industry on the Lower Peninsula was not defined. However, it
is assumed that heavy industry on the Lower Peninsula will continue to be influenced to
conserve water in the future as a result of financial incentives and regulatory requirements.
0114-951-140 2-15 Februaiy 1994

-------
      2.62     Conservation and Growth Management

      This subsection summarizes the philosophies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), National Wildlife Federation
(NWF), Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), and the Virginia State Water Control
Board (SWCB)  (now Virginia  Department  of  Environmental  Quality)  concerning
conservation and growth management as they may affect future demand.

      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
      Concerning conservation and growth management the USFWS has recommended that
the RRWSG incorporate conservation measures and mandatory use restrictions into any
water demand projections.  In a letter dated August 20,1990, addressed to Colonel Richard
C. Johns of the Norfolk District,  Corps  of Engineers, the  USFWS provided a succinct
summary of their philosophy as follows:

               The Service recommends that, in developing their water
               demand   projections,  the   RRWSG   incorporate
               conservation  measures and mandatory use restrictions.
               Conservation measures  should serve as a  long-term
               approach  to  reducing municipal water  demands  and
               should include such measures as public education on
               water conservation practices and xeriscaping, rates based
               on consumption rather than base rates, and promoting
               the use of conservation  plumbing fixtures.   Mandatory
               use restrictions which reduce or eliminate withdrawal for
               unnecessary  water  uses such as  car  washing, lawn
               watering,  swimming  pools,  and fountains should be
               implemented during droughts. All localities participating
               in the RRWSG should agree on the specific criteria that
               would  constitute a drought and agree to concurrently
               implement the conservation measures  as  well  as the
               mandatory use restrictions. Furthermore, as a means of
               conserving water, the Service recommends that localities
               focus on attracting non-water intensive development. In
               return, the Service will work toward promoting  and
               implementing the conservation of  water on federally-
               owned properties. As project demand projections rely on
               predictions about development in the Lower Peninsula
               area  through  the  Year  2030,  the  Service  also
               recommends that the RRWSG consider Chesapeake Bay
               Preservation  Act  and  Clean Water Act regulations in
               their development predictions."

      U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
      It is the USEPA's recommendation,  as stated in a letter dated March 6, 1990, to
Colonel J. J. Thomas of the Norfolk  District, Corps of Engineers, that "Conservation
measures  should be a very critical aspect in reducing water demand for the  region as a
whole."   The USEPA further recommends  that  any  water supply decisions  should
0114-951-140                               2-16                             Februaiy 1994

-------
incorporate conservation measures to the greatest extent possible, and address planned
growth and development scenarios within the region's control.

National Wildlife Federation
The NWF recommended a "... strong water conservation program as a complete or
partial alternative to the proposals for diversions and dams and reservoirs." They further
recommended an efficient allocation of the water resource at every stage of distribution and
use. Such a planned allocation should incorporate the following:

• An audit of each system's current use for each season, class of user, and
unaccounted-for water.

• A description and evaluation of the current pricing policies and schedule for
each of the communities in the RRWSG.

• The institution and evaluation of a demand management pricing schedule.

» A stronger plumbing code with an estimation of the resulting water savings.

• The development and implementation of water use efficiency programs for
industrial and commercial users.

• The institution of an effective public education program on water conservation.
These recommendations were included in a letter, dated September 27, 1990, to Colonel J.
J. Thomas, District Engineer, USCOE.

Southern Environmental Law Center
The SELC recommended an aggressive water conservation program that would use
pricing, education, incentives, industrial reuse, drought period restrictions, system pressure
reduction, and plumbing efficiency requirements to reduce the proposed deficit. They
further recommended that the RRWSG consider having equal water management
requirements in each jurisdiction so that localities are not competing with each other to
provide cheap or inefficiently provided water to attract industry or commerce. These
recommendations were presented in a letter, dated August 17,1990, to Colonel Richard C.
Johns, District Engineer, Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers.

Virginia State Water Control Board
The SWCB recommended a close review of various pumpover options as a viable
means of satisfying future demands. There were no comments specifically citing the impact
conservation could have on water supply management in any letters received from the
SWCB.

2.63 Population Projections

The primary step in developing demand projections was to estimate projected
population growth. Population projections for each of the Lower Peninsula jurisdictions
0114-951-140 2-17 February 1994

-------
were developed through a review of various studies and data sources that estimate future
population, and from consultation with local planners.

Local planning agencies were interviewed to obtain data and to discuss their
respective growth patterns and projections. Projections made by local planning agencies
include the number of persons residing within federal installations in their respective
localities.

For purposes of this report, it has been assumed that local planning departments are
the most reliable sources of information on past trends and future projections of population
and development potential. For this reason, the RRWSG has relied heavily on information
obtained from these departments.

The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) projections (March 1990) were also
reviewed. The VEC is vested with the authority to prepare official short- and long-term
population projections for use by State agencies and the General Assembly. Population
projections were obtained from the VEC in 10-year increments to the Year 2030.
Projections to the Year 2000 were taken from the VEC report Virginia Population
Projections, 2000 (April 1990). This report estimated future population using a cohort
component method of projecting demographic changes. This method recognizes that
changes in population are the result of three factors: birth, death and migration. Each of
these factors were projected separately and then combined to produce population
projections (VEC, 1990). Projections from the Year 2000 to the Year 2030 are a linear
extension of the 1980 through 2000 data reported in Virginia Population Projections, 2000 and
were computed by the VEC in March 1990. These unpublished data are primarily used as
a reference point with which to compare projections developed by local planners.

The population predictions for each jurisdiction in the Lower Peninsula are
summarized in Table 2-10 and presented graphically in Figure 2-7. Comparison of these
data with state projections provides support to the adopted population projections.
Table 2-11 presents the population projections for the study region adopted by the RRWSG,
and also estimates of future study area population and total state population, as projected
by the VEC.

The rate of population change projected for the Lower Peninsula by the RRWSG is
0.1 percent lower than the rate of population change projected by the VEC for both the
study area and the state. It is likely that the differences can be attributed to the variations
in methodologies used to estimate population between the VEC and the local planning
departments. The VEC data are a linear extrapolation of population data for the period
from 1980 to 2000. Therefore, these data do not take into account the effects of build-out
on population growth. The projections adopted by the RRWSG do incorporate the impacts
of build-out. If the VEC data were to incorporate build-out, they would more closely
compare to the adopted projections.

The majority, but not all, of the total population in the Lower Peninsula is served by
public water. Therefore, it was necessary to provide estimates of that portion of the
population that would require public supply throughout the planning period. For York and
James City Counties, the SWCB's (1988) assumed percentages of population served by the
public water systems to the Year 2030 were applied to the projections. It was then assumed

0114-951-140 2-18 February 1994

-------
                            TABLE 2-10

             SUMMARY OF ADOPTED REGIONAL POPULATION
                   PROJECTIONS BY JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
Newport News
Hampton
Poquoson
Williamsburg
York County
James City
County
TOTALS
Existing
1990
170,045
133,793
11,005
11,530
42,422
34,859
403,654
Projected
2000
184,000
146,200
14,328
12,800
50,950
51,700
459,978
2010
213,000
155,940
17,061
14,000
57,580
61,700
519,281
2020
223,000
166,410
20,187
15,200
64,580
64,700
554,077
2030
238,000
177,570
23,215
16,400
71,580
67,800
594,565
2040
254,500
188,085
26,243
17,700
78,580
71,200
636^08
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
                                TABLE 2-11

                    COMPARISON OF LOCAL AND STATE
                        POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Year
1990
2000
2010

2020

2030

2040

Average Annual Growth (%)
Lower Peninsula
RRWSG
403,654
459,978
(1.4)
519,218
(1-3)
554,077
(0-7)
594,565
(0.7)
636,308
(0-7)
0.91
VEC
405,200
462,100
(1.4)
519,000
(1.2)
575,900
(1.1)
632,800
(1-0)


1.12
Virginia
VEC
6,230,000
7,023,300
(1.3)
7,827,900
(1-1)
8,632,500
(1.0)
9,437,100
(0.9)


1.04
( ) Values in parentheses represent the average annual rate of change in the preceding
decade.
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
     ADOPTED  REGIONAL  POPULATION PROJECTIONS
   250.000 -
   200,000 -

   150,000 -
Q.
O
Q.
   100.000 -
   50,000 -
                           NEWPORT NEWS
                  »

                  \
                           HAMPTON
                                V	
                	0	
                         	•&	
                JAMES CITY COUNTY
                       YORK COUNTY

250,000
                                             200,000
                                             150,000
                                             100,000
                                           - 50,000
       1990
2000        2010        2020        2030

               YEAR
                                                           2040
                                                                   3
                                                                   0
                                                                   C
                                                                   33
                                                                   HI

-------

-------
that the values presented in the report for population served in 2030 were applicable to the
estimates of population served in the Year 2040. Table 2-12 presents the projections of
regional civilian population served which are used in calculating future demands. These
estimates also include adjustments deducting the portion of the total regional population
that lives on local federal installations, since their water demand is counted as part of the
federal installation demand.

Several external influences were identified as having an impact on estimating future
population in the Tidewater area. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) limits
development within areas designated as Resource Management Areas (RMAs) and/or
Resource Protection Areas (RPAs). A study conducted for localities in the Virginia
Peninsula estimated that approximately 10 percent of the region (excluding Williamsburg)
would be designated as an RPA, Approximately 65 percent would be designated as an
RMA (SDN Market Research, 1990).

This issue was discussed with representatives from local planning agencies. The
general consensus was that the Act will probably not affect the total number of persons
locating in the area. However, it is anticipated that the layout of development will change.
Because development will be restricted in shoreline areas, it is likely that it will become
intensified in other regions. One technique which may become more widely used is cluster
zoning. This zoning methodology allows for more intense development in certain areas so
that adjacent areas may be preserved. This technique could be used to protect the RPAs
and RMAs while allowing for some level of development. There are also proposed changes
to federal wetland delineation procedures that could, if implemented, dramatically reduce
the acreage of federally regulated non-tidal wetlands in the area. These changes would also
reduce the area regulated under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

2.6.4 Water Demand Projections with Conservation

Demand projections can be derived by several methods, all of which begin with a
study of historical information to develop basic data applicable to the method used, and to
determine trends in the data thus developed. Forecasts are then based on anticipated
population and employment growth, or on growth in the number of water accounts served,
with due regard to differences among water user categories and incorporating anticipated
demand reductions resulting from conservation efforts.

Most methods used to project demand are multi-variable approaches that desegregate
the total water demand into different user groups. Emphasis is often placed on segregating
heavy industrial and commercial needs from residential usage, as their comparative rates
of growth are not directly rekted, and the quantity of water used varies between groups.

For the purposes of this study, conservation goals and demand estimates have been
developed for the following five water demand categories:

• Residential: This is the water demand of the general population living in the
areas served. It does not include the military personnel living on federal
installations or military dependents living off base in military housing served by
a master meter.
0114-951-140 2-19 February 1994

-------
• Commercial. Institutional and Light Industrial: This is the water demand
created by employment at the workplace in the jurisdictions served, excluding
those workplaces that are located on federal installations served by master
meters. This category also includes light industrial establishments whose water
use is similar to commercial demands, with little to no process water usage.

• Heavy Industrial: This is the demand imposed by large industrial water users
in the systems. The demands for employee sanitary uses and process water are
included.

» Federal Installations: This is the demand imposed by the federal installations
located in the Lower Peninsula. It covers demand for installations serviced by
a master meter and includes all uses at these locations, regardless of usage
category.

» Unaccounted-for Water (UAW): This is the difference between a water
utility's finished water production and all metered water usage (e.g., unmetered
use from fire hydrants, distribution system leakage, etc.).

Data Sources
The following data sources were used in calculating projections of water demand in
the Lower Peninsula:

• Survey of Water Fixture Use - Brown and Caldwell Consultants, Prepared for
the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), March
1984.

• Utility Records from each Purveyor within the Lower Peninsula.

« Large Water User's Survey.

• Survey of New Heavy Industry.

• IWR-MAIN Water Use Forecasting System - Planning and Management
Consultants, Ltd., 1988.

• Report on Pitometer Master Meter Tests. Newport News. Virginia - Pitometer
Associates, 1991.

• Comprehensive Water Study - Buchart-Horn, Inc., prepared for the County of
York, November 1985.

• "Water Use Projections for James City County to 2040," James City County
Staff, March 1986.

Demand Projection Methodologies
Lower Peninsula water demand projections through the Year 2040 have been adopted
by the RRWSG which rely on current population and water demand information.
Population projections were developed using 1990 census data, consultations in 1991 with

0114-951-140 2-20 February 1994

-------
                                TABLE 2-12

   PROJECTED CIVILIAN POPULATION SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Jurisdiction
Newport News
Hampton
Poquoson
Williamsburg
York County
James City
County
TOTAL
Year
1990
160,078
(100)
128,798
(100)
11,005
(100)
11,530
(100)
27,418
(80)
24,401
(70)
363,230
2000
174,033
(100)
141,205
(100)
14,328
(100)
12,800
(100)
39,335
(90)
43,945
(85)
425,646
2010
203,033
(100)
150,945
(100)
17,061
(100)
14,000
(100)
45,302
(90)
55,530
(90)
485,871
2020
213,033
(100)
161,415
(100)
20,187
(100)
15,200
(100)
51,602
(90)
58,230
(90)
519,667
2030
228,033
(100)
172,575
(100)
23,215
(100)
16,400
(100)
57,902
(90)
61,020
(90)
559,145
2040
244,533
(100)
183,090
(100)
26,243
(100)
17,700
(100)
64,202
(90)
64,080
(90)
599,848
( )    Values in parentheses represent the assumed percentage of total population served
      in a given year as reported in the SWCB's James Water Supply Plan. 1988.
0114-951-140
June 1993

-------

-------
the planning departments of each of the six Lower Peninsula jurisdictions, consultations in
1991 with the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, and Virginia Employment
Commission (VEC) population projections through the Year 2030 which were developed
in March 1990. The base year for the population and water demand projections is the Year
1990.

The residential demand projections were developed using current population
projections in conjunction with per-capita use figures calculated from actual metered
residential billing records and the total population served on the Lower Peninsula in the
Year 1990. These per-capita use rates are 72.9 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) for Year
1990 declining to 67 gpcpd for Years 2010 through 2040 as a result of anticipated expansion
in conservation efforts. The RRWSG's adopted demand projections only reflect demand
reductions possible through implementation of "normal" water conservation measures.
Additional short-term demand reductions possible through implementation of use
restrictions during water supply emergencies are evaluated as a separate alternative in
Section 3.430 of this document.

Commercial, institutional, and light industrial demand projections were developed
using 1990 VEC employment figures in conjunction with per-employee use figures calculated
from actual Year 1990 metered commercial, institutional^ and light industrial billing records.
The total regional employment was projected to increase in direct proportion to total
population throughout the 50-year planning horizon. The per-employee use rates are 73.6
gallons per employee per day (gpepd) for Year 1990 declining to 67 gpepd for Years 2010
through 2040 as a result of anticipated expansion in conservation efforts.

Heavy industrial and federal installation demands were projected based on
information obtained from a Large Water Users' Survey conducted by the RRWSG during
the summer of 1991 and metered billing records for 1990. In addition, an extensive analysis
was conducted of projected water demands as a result of new heavy industry on the Lower
Peninsula.

Actual Year 1990 UAW demand on the Lower Peninsula represented 5.7 percent of
total demand and UAW demand is projected to increase to a maximum of 10 percent by
the Year 2040.

These water demand projections are conservatively low in light of past water demand
growth trends on the Lower Peninsula. Over the 50-year planning horizon (Years 1990
through 2040), the RRWSG has projected an average annual water demand increase of 1.04
percent. In comparison, total metered consumption in Lower Peninsula water systems
increased by an average of 2.53 percent per year between the Years 1970 and 1990.

Lower Peninsula Totals
The adopted Lower Peninsula demand projections are summarized in Table 2-13,
disaggregated by jurisdiction. Unaccounted-for water is disaggregated to each jurisdiction
based on the jurisdictions subtotal of metered demands. Figure 2-8 illustrates historical and
projected Lower Peninsula system demands.

The relative distribution of demand between user categories is projected to change
slightly over the planning period. The demand projections in Table 2-13 show heavy

0114-951-140 2-21 February 1994

-------
industrial demand showing the greatest increase, from 19 percent to 24 percent of metered
demands. In comparison, residential, commercial, and federal installation demands are, over
time, projected to represent smaller percentages of total Lower Peninsula demand.

An additional use of water in the Lower Peninsula is for irrigation. The U.S. Bureau
of the Census' 1987 Census of Agriculture is the most reliable published source of current
data on irrigated land in the study area (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987). According
to this report, York and James City Counties are the only jurisdictions within the study area
that contain irrigated agricultural acreage. York County was listed as having 41 irrigated
acres as of 1987. This acreage had decreased from 63 acres in 1982. Assuming a typical
value of eight inches of water per year applied to these 41 acres, this represents a water
usage of 8.91 million gallons per year or 0.025 mgd. James City County was listed as having
40 irrigated acres in 1987, which is equivalent to an annual demand of 8.69 million gallons
per year, or 0.024 mgd. These demands are exclusive of water demands used for irrigation
at nurseries within the Lower Peninsula. Irrigation demands at nurseries are included in
the commercial category of demand.

Water used for agricultural irrigation in the Lower Peninsula represents
approximately 0.048 mgd on an annually averaged basis, the majority of which is supplied
from private sources. Thus, agricultural irrigation represents a very small portion of total
water demand in the study area and would have little impact on the projections of demand
on public water systems. In addition, it is unlikely that the number of irrigated acres will
increase in the future due to anticipated future development pressures.

2.6.5 Water Demand Projections By Purveyor

The demand projections made in Section 2.6.4 were presented by jurisdiction since
they are based on population and employment projections made by the jurisdictions. To be
more useful to the purveyors on the Lower Peninsula, these demand projections by
jurisdiction have been aggregated and/or disaggregated to conform to the current and
projected future service area boundaries for each purveyor.

Disaggregation/Aggregation Methods
A major portion of the Lower Peninsula is currently served by Newport News
Waterworks. The Waterworks' service area includes Lower York and James City Counties
west to approximately Route 199, and the Cities of Newport News, Poquoson and Hampton,
except for NASA/Langley AFB and Fort Monroe, which are currently served by the Big
Bethel system.

The Williamsburg system serves the City of Williamsburg and portions of York and
James City Counties. The James City Service Authority and York County systems serve the
western or "upper" areas within the Counties, with the remaining "lower" county areas served
by Newport News Waterworks or Williamsburg.

To project demands for the Waterworks service area, the demands projected for York
and James City Counties must be disaggregated by the purveyors that service each of the
counties. These disaggregated jurisdictional demands are then aggregated for each purveyor
to produce total demand projections by purveyor. The remainder of this section describes
the methods used to desegregate demands in James City and York Counties.

0114-951-140 2-22 February 1994

-------
                    TABLE 2-13
PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMANDS BY JURISDICTION
                       (MGD)
YEAR
JURIS.
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL/
INSTTT./
LT. IND.
HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL
FEDERAL
INSTALL
SUBTOTAL
OFMETERED
DEMANDS
UAW
TOTAL

1990(METERED)
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILUAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
11.90
9.15
0.77
0.58
2.34
2.04
26.78
3.37
2.92
0.06
1.78
1.41
1.35
10.89
2.74
0.21
0.00
0.00
2.18
5.16
10.29
1.30
2.08
0.00
0.10
0.64
0.00
4.12
19.31
14.36
0.83
2.46
6.57
8.55
52.07
1.14
0.92
0.05
0.15
0.38
0.51
3.13
20.44
15.27
0.88
2.61
CaM
55.21

2000
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILUAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
12.18
9.88
1.00
0.90
2.75
3.08
29.80
3.52
2.97
0.07
1.86
1.47
1.81
,11.69
2.94
0.78
0.02
0.00
2.96
6.12
12.81
1.80
2.12
0.00
0.12
0.78
0.00
4.82
20.44
15.74
1.10
2.88
7.96
11.00
59.12
1.49
1.15
0.08
0.21
0.58
0.80
4.31
21.93
16.89
1.18
3.09
ft£4_
GTso
63.43

2010
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILUAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
13.60
10.11
1.14
0.94
3.04
3.72
32.55
4.14
2.99
0.08
1.95
1.46
1.96
-.:•:•:.-: •••'•-• ; 12.59
3.53
1.44
0.05
0.00
4.06
8.23
17.31
2.40
2.13
0.00
0.14
0.78
0.00
5.45
23.68
16.67
1.28
3.03
9.33
13.91
67.90
1.95
1.37
0.10
0.25
0.77
1.14
5.58
25.63
18.04
1.38
3.28
10.10
C15.06'
73.49

2020
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILUAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
14.27
10.81
1.35
1.02
3.46
3.90
34.82
4.39
3.17
0.09
2.11
1.59
1.99
13.36
3.67
1.82
0.07
0.00
4.59
8.86
19.00
2.40
2.14
0.00
0.16
0.78
0.00
: :-.?:•:: 5.48
24.73
17.94
1.52
3.29
10.41
14.76
72.66
2.27
1.65
0.14
0.30
0.96
1.35
6.66
27.00
19.59
1.65
3.60
11.37
CTeTiT
.•:::::, X-; 7~§32

2030
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILUAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
15.28
11.56
1.56
1.10
3.88
4.09
37.46
4.79
3.37
0.11
2.29
1.71
2.02
14.28
3.82
2.25
0.09
0.00
5.18
9.58
20.92
2.40
2.15
0.00
0.18
0.78
0.00
-::-.:,:.•. :,;:;: 5-5!,
26.28
19.33
1.75
3.56
11.56
15.69
78.17
2.66
1.96
0.18
0.36
1.17
1.59
7.92
28.95
21.29
1.93
3.93
12.73

^
"N
                                                            February 1994

-------

-------
        HISTORICAL AND  PROJECTED
    LOWER PENINSULA  SYSTEM  DEMAND
  100

T?

|?  90
Q
LLJ
Q
Q

LLJ
0
LJJ
   80
70
                     1.04 %/yr Average Projected Growth
   60
50
    2.53 %/yr Average
    Historical Growth
1970    1980
               1990
2000    2010
  YEAR
                              2020    2030
2040
                                                c
                                                3J
                                                m
                                                *
                                                09

-------

-------
The total James City County demand must be disaggregated to the James City Service
Authority, Newport News Waterworks and Williamsburg water systems^because all three
of these purveyors currently serve parts of James City County, and are expected to continue
to do so in the futureT^The demand supplied by the Williamsburg system is projected to
remain constant into the future, because the areas of the County served by Williamsburg are
already developed. The demand supplied by the Newport News Waterworks system is
generally all the demand in Census Tract 801. A 1986 study (JCC, 1986) presented
projected James City County demands by census tract. The table that follows shows a
percentage breakdown of demand between Census Tract 801 and the remainder of the
County based on the breakdown in the 1986 study.
DEMAND AS PERCENT OF TOTAL JAMES CITY COUNTY DEMAND

User Category
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
1990
Census Tract
801
29%
65%
95%
Remainder of
County
71%
35%
5%
2030
Census Tract
SOI
20%
50%
80%
Remainder of
County
80%
50%
20%
Source: James City County, 1986.

The values for the residential and commercial demand split were used as a starting
point in disaggregating demand between the James City Service Authority and Waterworks.
However, these values were adjusted so that the demand on the Newport News Waterworks
system due to those users did not substantially decrease. The industrial split in the
preceding table was not used. Instead, a 90 percent Newport News Waterworks, 10 percent
James City Service Authority split in the Year 2040 was used, since it better represents the
current land use planning for the County presented in the 1991 draft Land Use Plan Map
for James City County.

The York County demand was disaggregated similarly to the James City County
demand. The demand supplied by the Williamsburg system was projected to remain
constant, and the York County well system was projected to serve the increase in demand
that is expected to occur in Census Tract 508, in excess of the demand currently supplied
by the Williamsburg system. (A 1985 study by Buchart-Horn presented demand projections
for the County by census tract). The following table shows the percentage breakdown of
demand between Census Tract 508 and the remainder of the County, based on the 1985
study.
0114-951-140
2-23
February 1994

-------
DEMAND AS PERCENT OF TOTAL YORK COUNTY DEMAND

User Category
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
2000
Census Tract
508
8
26
0
Remainder of
County
92
74
100
2010
Census Tract
508
8.2
26
0
Remainder of
County
91.8
74
100
      Disaggregated Demands
      Using the percentage splits for demand in York and James City Counties presented
in the preceding tables, and assuming the Williamsburg system supplies increased demands
only within the City of Williamsburg and constant demands in those areas of York and
James City Counties currently served, the demand projections by purveyor presented in
Table 2-14 result,

      2.6.6      Summary of Adopted Regional Projections

      This section presents population  and demand projections in a summary format,
whereas Sections 2.6.1 through 2.6.5 provide more detailed breakdowns of population and
demand projections and a description of the methods and assumptions used to produce
these projections.

      Population Projections
      Total population within the Lower Peninsula is projected to increase over the 50-year
planning period from a Year 1990 value  of 403,654 to a Year 2040 value  of 636,308.  The
greatest projected rate  of increase is for James City County, which is projected to increase
in population by 104 percent by the Year 2040, as compared to  the projected regional
increase of 58 percent.

      Water demand projections for the region's public water systems do not depend
directly on the region's total population.  Rather, they depend on the population served by
these systems. Table 2-15 presents projected total population and civilian population served
by jurisdiction.  The population served  values do not include those people who live on
federal installations or in base housing areas. This is necessary to prevent double counting
of residential demands in both the Federal Installation and Residential demand categories.

      Water Demand Projections
      Total demand on public water supply systems within the Lower Peninsula Region is
projected to increase 68 percent over the 50-year planning period from a  Year 1990 value
of 55.2 mgd to a Year 2040 value of 92.6 mgd.  This is equivalent to an average annual
demand growth rate of 1.04 percent. For comparison,  total metered consumption in the
0114-951-140
2-24
February 1994

-------
                 TABLE 2-14
PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMANDS BY PURVEYOR
                   (MGD)
YEAR
PURVEYOR

1990 (METE RED)
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WIUJAMSBUHG
JAMES Cm SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL

2000
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILUAMSBURG
JAMES CfTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL

2010
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILUAMSBURG
JAMES CfTY SERVICE AUTHORTTY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL

2020
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILUAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORfTY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL

2030
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILUAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL

2040
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILUAMSBURG
JAMES CfTY SERVICE AUTHORTTY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL

24.57
0.90
1.26
0.00
0.05
26.78

26.28
1.12
2.28
0.00
0.13
29.80

28.38
1.16
2.79
0.00
0.23
32.55

30.12
1.34
3.04
0.00
0.31
34.82

32.42
1.42
3.27
0.00
0.36
37.46

34.85
1.51
3.43
0.00
0.40
40.19
COMMERCIAL/
INSTTT./
LT. IND.

8.39
2.20
0.30
0.00
0.00
10.89

8.74
2.18
0.72
0.00
0.05
11.69

9.36
2.27
0.86
0.00
0.09
12.59

9.87
2.33
0.92
0.00
0.23
13.36

10.42
2.51
0.97
0.00
0.39
14.28

10.97
2.68
1.04
0.00
0.54
15.24
HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL

10.22
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
10.29

12.57
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.06
12.81

16.74
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.16
17.31

18.11
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.28
19.00

19.55
0.00
0.96
0.00
0.41
20.92

20.81
0.00
1.01
0.00
0.56
22.38 i
FEDERAL
INSTALL

2.48
0.10
0.00
1.54
0.00
4.12

2.58
0.12
0.00
2.12
0.00
4.82

3.18
0.14
0.00
2.13
0.00
5.45

5.32
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.48

5.33
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.51

5.34
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.52
SUBTOTAL
OFMETERED
DEMANDS

45.66
3.20
1.62
1.54
0.05
52.08

50.17
3.42
3.18
2.12
0.23
59.12

57.66
3.57
4.07
2.13
0.48
67.90

63.42
3.83
4.58
0.00
0.82
72.66

67.71
4.10
5.20
0.00
1.16
78.17

71.97
4.37
5.48
0.00
1.50
83.33
UAW

2.75
0.19
0.10
0.10
0.00
3.13

3.66
0.25
0.23
0.15
0.02
4.31

4.74
0.29
0.33
0.18
0.04
5.58

5.82
0.35
0.42
0.00
0.08
6,66

6.86
0.42
0.53
0.00
0.12
7.92

8.00
0.49
0.61
0.00
0.17
9.26
TOTAL

48.41
3.39
fTTr
T.B4
0,05
55.21

53.83
.-^Pr
(3.42
^27
0.25
63.43

62,40
3.86
(4M/
z3i
0,52
73.49

69.24
A1&
(J..Q0.
0.00
0,90
79.32

74.57
Ji
0.00
1.28
86.09

79.97
4.86
xflw
"6.00
1.67
92.59
                                                                 June 1993

-------

-------
             TABLE 2-15
ADOPTED REGIONAL TOTAL POPULATION AND
CIVILIAN POPULATION SERVED PROJECTIONS
           BY JURISDICTION
JUKI SI DICTION
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILUAMSBURQ
YOBK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
REGIONAL TOTAL
EXISTING
1990
TOTAL
POPULATION
170,045
133,783
11,005
11,530
42,422
34,859
403.654
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
smvED
160,078
128,706
11,005
1 1 ,530
27,418
24,401
363230
PROJECTED
2000
TOTAL
POPULATION
184,000
146200
14,328
12,600
50,950
51,700
459,978
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SB1VEO
174,033
141205
14,326
12,800
39,335
43,945
425.646
2010
TOTAL
POPULATION
213,000
155.940
17,061
14,000
57,560
01,700
519581
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SERVED
203,033
150,945
17,081
14,000
45,302
55,530
485.871
2020
TOTAL
POPULATION
223,000
160,410
20,187
15200
64,580
64,700
554.077
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SERVED
213,033
101,415
20,187
15200
51,602
58230
518.667
2030
TOTAL
POPULATION
238,000
177,570
23,215
16,400
71,580
87,800
594,565
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SERVED
228,033
172,575
23,218
16,400
57,002
61,020
559.145
2O40
TOTAL
POPULATION
254.5OO
1S8.085
26,243
17,700
78.580
71200
638.308
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SERVED
244,533
183,090
26,243
17,700
64202
64,080
599.848
                                                      Jura 1993

-------

-------
Lower Peninsula water system decreased an average of 2.53 percent per year between Years
1970 and 1990. As this comparison demonstrates, water demand in the region is projected
to increase at a much slower rate than has occurred historically. Table 2-16 presents
projected demands by jurisdiction and by purveyor. Table 2-17 presents the projected
demands for the region and includes a summary description of the calculations used to
project demands for each user category.

2.7 PROJECTED DEFICITS

Based on demand projections summarized in Section 2.6, a Lower Peninsula water
demand of 92.6 mgd is expected in the Year 2040. This demand projection assumes
continuation of existing conservation programs as well as implementation of new, more
aggressive demand reduction measures in the future as discussed in Section 2.6.1. Section
2.3 concluded that the total reliable system delivery capacity (i.e., treated water yield) is
currently 60.8 mgd, and is expected to increase to 62.5 mgd by 1995 and to 64.3 mgd by
2005, and decrease to 62.4 mgd after the Year 2010. Demand is projected to equal the
reliable system delivery capacity by the Year 1998.

Reliable system delivery capacity, demand, and deficit projections for the Lower
Peninsula are summarized in Table 2-18 by purveyor. Regional reliable system delivery
capacity and demands for each user category are presented graphically in Figure 2-9. Year
2040 deficit projections are shown in Figure 2-10 by purveyor service area.

Lower Peninsula water supply deficit projections are discussed further in the following
sections.

2.7.1 Interpretation of Regional Totals

The reliable system delivery capacity presented in Figure 2-9 assumes that source
sharing would be implemented as needed. Inspection of the difference between supply and
demand for each purveyor reveals that all will have a deficit in the Year 2040.

Summing the individual purveyors' demands and supplies assumes that worst case
conditions occur simultaneously for all of the individual purveyors. This is a reasonable
assumption given the relatively close proximity of the surface source watersheds and the
prolonged duration of yield-controlling drought conditions.

The uncertainties associated with the safe yield analyses of the reservoir systems must
also be considered. In particular, future droughts could be more severe than the drought
of record used in estimating system safe yields. Conjunctive losses in the supply and
treatment of raw water could also reduce current and near future system yields below the
estimates adopted for this planning effort.

2.7.2 Interpretation of Purveyor Totals

An examination of the deficit values in Table 2-18 shows that none of the Lower
Peninsula public water supply systems are currently in a deficit situation, and the Lower
Peninsula area as a whole has a 5.6-mgd surplus. By the Year 2000, the Newport News
Waterworks and Big Bethel systems are projected to have deficits of 1.9 and 0.4 mgd,

0114-951-140 2-25 February 1994

-------
respectively. Williamsburg, JCSA, and York County are projected to have slight surpluses
of 0.1, 0.8, and 0.5 mgd, respectively, by the Year 2000. The surplus for York County is
based on a projected increase in safe yield. If this increase is not realized, York County
would also be in a deficit situation by the Year 2000.

Newport News Waterworks, Williamsburg, and York Cpunty^are projected to have
deficits in the Year 2040 of 28, 1.1, and 1.0 mgd, respectivelC~JCSA is projected to have
demands approximately equal to supply in the Year 2040 with apfojected deficit of 0.1 mgd.
The projected 80 mgd Waterworks demand in the Year 2040 includes demands from the
current Big Bethel service area. If the Big Bethel system is not abandoned, as assumed, the
projected Waterworks deficit would be 26.2 mgd while the regional total deficit would be
28.3 mgd.

2.73 Adequacy of Supply Versus Deficit

Year 1990 demands on public water supplies in the Lower Peninsula averaged 55.2
mgd and are projected to increase throughout the planning period. The Year 1990 demand
represents 91 percent of the region's 60.8 mgd reliable system delivery capacity. Under
current VDH regulations, water purveyors represented by the RRWSG now have a clear
duty to develop plans for expansion of their raw water supplies.

The Lower Peninsula public water supply systems are currently under stress and will
be inadequate to meet the total projected regional demand during a severe drought after
the Year 1998, as presented in Figure 2-10. It is estimated that the total available regional
reservoir storage would be depleted in 514 months during a hypothetical worst-case drought
in which no Chickahominy River withdrawals or reservoir inflows from runoff occur. This
assumes that the Lower Peninsula's reservoirs are full at the onset of the drought.

Planning, permitting, designing, and constructing new large-scale raw water supply
facilities may take many years. Consequently, the projected deficit in the near future
demonstrates the importance of investigating and implementing both'interim and long-term
water supply augmentation measures. The comparison of supply and demand shown in
Figure 2-10 indicates that a treated water deficit of 30.2 mgd is expected in the Year 2040.
This is assuming conservation efforts are successful to the degree projected in Section 2.6.

New supply sources which can increase the Lower Peninsula's reliable system delivery
capacity by approximately 30 mgd are needed to satisfy the 92.6 mgd projected Year 2040
average day demand during a reoccurrence of the worst drought of record. This deficit does
not account for losses between a new raw water source and the Lower Peninsula distribution
systems. These could include transmission losses in future raw water pipelines, seepage
losses from new reservoirs, internal water use at new WTPs, or concentrate discharges from
membrane treatment processes. These losses would have to be subtracted from the raw
water source yield of any new or expanded supply systems in order to determine the reliable
system delivery capacity of such systems.

For example, the raw water source yield of a new reservoir must be adjusted to
account for related raw water transmission pipeline losses, any reservoir losses not included
in the basic safe yield analysis, and WTP usage. Based on current estimates for the
Newport News Waterworks system, these losses are estimated as at least 10 percent of the

0114-951440 2-26 February 1994

-------
                TABLE 2-16
ADOPTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMAND PROJECTIONS
        BY JURISDICTION AND PURVEYOR
(MGD)

JURISDICTION
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILLIAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY

JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
PURVEYOR
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL

YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
EXISTING
1990
20.44
15.27
0.88
2.61
6.94

., 9.06
55^1
PROJECTED
2000
21.93
16.89
1.18
3.09
8.54
2010
25.63
18.04
1.38
3.28
10.10
i
11.80
63.43
15.06
73.49
2020
27.00
19.59
1.65
3.60
11.37

16.11
79.32
2030
28.95
21.29
1,93
3.93
12.73

17.28
86.09
2040
31.03
22.83
2,20
4.26
13.96

18.30
92.59

48.41
3.39
1.72
1.64

53.83
3.66
3.42
2.27

O.OS 0.25
62.40
3.86
4.40
2.31

0.52
69.24
4,18
5.00
0.00

0.90
74.57
4.52
5.72
0,00

1,28
79.97
4.86
6.09
0.00

1.67
55.21 63.43 73.49 79.32 86.09 92.59
                                                      June 1993

-------

-------
                                                                                    _- 2-17
                                                 CALCULATION OF PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA TOTAL WATER DEMAND
                                                                                2000-2040
                                                                                    (mgd)




YEAR



TOTAL
REGION.
POPUL.
A

1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
403654
459978
5192S1
554077
594565
636308
RESIDENTIAL

CIVILIAN
POPUL.
SERVED
B
REG.
AVG
GPCPD
C


DEMAND
D

363230
425646
485871
519667
559145
599848
73
70
67
67
67
67
26.78
29.80
32.55
34.82
37.46
40.19
COMM./INST ./LIGHT. IND.

TOTAL
COMM.
EMPL.
E
REG.
AVG.
GPEPD
F


DEMAND
G

154645
174511
196654
208717
223125
238170
70
67
64
64
64
64
10.89
11.69
12.59
13.36
14.28
15.24
HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRY

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL

H
NEW
TOTAL
I
EXIST.
J
NEW
K
EXIST.
IND.
DEMAND
L

32711
37275
42081
44901
48182
51565

4564
9370
12190
15471
18854

746
1106
1411
1816
3121

3818
8264
10779
13655
15733
10.29
10.37
12.02
12.10
12.18
12.31
NEW INDUSTRY

GPEPD
M
DEMAND
N
TOTAL
IND.
DEMAND
O

639
640
640
640
640
640

2.44
5.29
6.90
8.74
10.07
10.29
12.61
17.31
19.00
20.92
22.38
FEDERAL
INSTALL.


DEMAND
P

4.12
4.62
5.45
5.48
5.51
5.52
UAW

SUB-
TOTAL
DEMAND
Q
As% of fin.
INCR.TO 10%
%
R
DEMAND
S

52.08
59.12
67.90
72.65
78.17
83.33
5.67
6.80
7.60
8.40
9.20
10.00
3.13
4.31
5.56
6.66
7.92
9.26
TOTAL
DEMAND



T

55.21
63.43
73.48
79.32
86.09
92.59
        PROJECTED VALUES USED IN ARRIVING AT TOTAL DEMAND
LEGEND:
A -TOTAL PROJECTED POPULATION ON LOWER PENINSULA, FROM TABLE 4-1.
B -TOTAL PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL POPULATION SERVED ON LOWER PENINSULA, FROM TABLE 4-3.
C -PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY USAGE RATE.
D -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN B*C.
E -TOTAL PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT ON LOWER PENINSULA MINUS EMPLOYMENT IN HEAVY
  WATER USE INDUSTRY AND MILITARY EMPLOYMENT.
F -PROJECTED COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL GALLONS PER EMPLOYEE PER DAY
  USAGE RATE, SAME PERCENTAGE REDUCTION DUE TO CONSERVATION AS IN RESIDENTIAL USAGE.
G -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN E*F.
H -TOTAL PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT IN HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIES ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
  INCREASE IN THIS EMPLOYMENT IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO INCREASE IN TOTAL POPULATION.
I  -TOTAL NEW EMPLOYEES WORKING IN HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIES, COLUMN H-32,711.
J -NEW EMPLOYEES HIRED BY EXISTING HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIES ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
  DUE TO GROWTH OF THESE INDUSTRIES. SELF -PROJECTED BY EXISTING INDUSTRIES, FROM TABLE 4-11.
K -NEW EMPLOYEES HIRED BY FUTURE NEW HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIES ON THE
  LOWER PENINSULA COLUMN I-J.
L -PROJECTED DEMAND, SELF-PROJECTED BY EXISTING HEAVY WATER USE
  INDUSTRIES ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
M -PROJECTED HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIAL GALLONS PER EMPLOYEE PER DAY
  USAGE RATE, FROM SECTION 4.
N -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN M'K.
O -PROJECTED TOTAL HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIAL DEMAND, COLUMN L + N.
P -FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS DEMAND, FROM TABLE 4-23.
Q -SUBTOTAL OF PROJECTED METERED DEMANDS, COLUMN D + G + O + P.
R -PROJECTED UNACCOUNTED-FOR WATER PERCENTAGE EXPRESSED AS PERCENT
  OF TOTAL FINISHED WATER PUMPED INTO THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
S -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN Q*(R/(100-R))
T -TOTAL PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMANDS, COLUMN Q + S.
                                                                                                                                                               February 1994

-------

-------
                              TABLE 2-18
              LOWER PENINSULA SUPPLY, DEMAND AND DEFICIT
                       PROJECTIONS BY PURVEYOR
                                 (MGP)
YEAR
PURVEYOR
SUPPLY (1)
DEMAND (2)
DEFICIT (3)

1990(METERED)
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLJAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3,80
,"£fo
V--1.90
0.12
60.82
48.41
3.39
1.72
1.64
0.05
55.21
-3.49
-0.41
-1.38
-0.26
-0.07
-5.61

2000
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLJAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL:
51.90
3.80
4.23
' 1 .90
0.70
62.53
53.83
3.66
3.42
2.27
0.25
63,43
1.93
-0.14
-0.81
0,37
-0.45
0.90

2010
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.SO
6-°°
1.90
0.70
64.30
62.40
3.86
4.40
2.31
0.52
73.49
10.50
0.06
-1.60
0.41
-0.18
9.19

2020
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILUAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.80
6.00
0.00
0.70
62.40
69.24
4.18
5.00
0.00
0.90
79.32
17.34
0.38
-1.00
0.00
0.20
16.92

2030
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILUAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.&0
6.00
0.00
0.70
62.40
74.57
4.52
5.72
0.00
1.28
86.09
22.67
0.72
-0.28
0.00
0.58
23.69

2040
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.80
6.00
0.00
0.70
62.40
79.97
4.86
6.09
0.00
1.67
92.59
28.07
1.06
0.09
0.00
0.97
30.19
(1) REUABLE SYSTEM DEUVERY CAPACITY OF EACH PURVEYOR'S SYSTEM
   FROM TABLE 2-4.
(2) PROJECTED DEMANDS ON EACH PURVEYOR'S SYSTEM FROM TABLE 2-16.
(3) REQUIRED NEW RELIABLE SYSTEM DELIVERY CAPACITY TO MEET PROJECTED
   DEMANDS.  NEGATIVE VALUES INDICATE SURPLUS.
                                                                              June 1993

-------

-------
  PROJECTED REGIONAL  WATER  DEMAND vs.
    RELIABLE  SYSTEM  DELIVERY  CAPACITY
T3
D)
Q
LU
Q
Q
LU
o
or
LU
        TOTAL PROJECTED
      DEMAND W/CONSERVATION
 RELIABLE SYSTEM
DELIVERY CAPACITY
    1990
    2000
2010    2020
   YEAR
2030
                            RELIABLE
                            SYSTEM
                            DELIVERY
                            DEFICIT =
                            30.2 MGD
                                   FEDERAL
                                   INSTALLATIONS

                                   HEAVY
                                   INDUSTRIAL
                                   COMMERCIAL,
                                   INSTITUTIONAL,
                                   LIGHT INDUSTRIAL

                                   RESIDENTIAL
2040
                                                          Q
                                                          c
                                                          3J
                                                          m
                                                          u>

-------

-------
                   YEAR 2040 SERVICE AREA DEFICIT PROJECTIONS
OIASCUND CREEK
RESERVOIR
                                                                   28 mgd
       0.1 mgd
                                                                         FEBRUARY 1994
MAICOUVI
 PIRN!
              LgGEND


NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS   	

WILUAMSBURG

YORK COUNTY

JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
                                                 POLITICAL BOUNDARY

                                                 EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
LOWER PENINSULA
  TOTAL TREATED
  WATER DEFICIT
      30.2 mgd
                                                                            7500 15000
                                                                         SCALE IN FEET

-------

-------
raw water source yield. A new reservoir would therefore have to have a raw water yield of
approximately 33 mgd to assure a reliable system delivery capacity of 30 mgd.

Different types of raw water supply systems will have different types and magnitudes
of losses. The 33 mgd source safe yield value described above does not apply to
groundwater projects or desalting alternatives. This value also does not account for any
demands outside the Lower Peninsula such as supply commitments that may be necessary
with new project host jurisdictions.

As discussed above, the value that must be used to compare alternative supply
systems is the reliable system delivery capacity (or treated water yield). The new reliable
system delivery capacity required to satisfy projected Lower Peninsula demands through the
Year 2040 is 30.2 mgd. The new capacity required by year is presented in Table 2-19.

2.8 POUnCAL/INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

As part of the review and approval process, the Commonwealth of Virginia must
approve any raw water supply project selected by the RRWSG. Historically, the state has
provided only limited support for water supply development beyond its role of review and
approval. In performing this role, state government has relied primarily on control created
by a federal statute, the Section 401 Certification Program mandated by the Clean Water
Act (CWA).

Newport News Waterworks' newest water supply source, Little Creek Reservoir
constructed in 1979, was permitted under federal and state regulations dating from the early
1970s. Regulations have since changed considerably and are discussed below,

2.8.1 Current State Role

In order to identify the current role of the state, a review of the current situation is
needed. Although water supply development advocacy on the state level is limited, several
state water management activities do relate to water supply provision. These activities can
be grouped into the four categories of: delegation of local government water supply
development authority, water supply planning, financial and technical assistance, and
regulation as discussed below.

Delegation of Local Government Water Supply Development Authority
Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state. Simply put, the Dillon Rule means that local
government can only do those things that they have been specifically empowered to do.
Local powers depend on specific delegation of authority within local government charters
and/or through enabling legislation. Virginia enabling legislation provides broad authority
for local governments to develop water supplies. Localities generally have power to develop
water supplies individually, or through formal arrangements for multi-jurisdictional
participation such as water authorities.

Authority to develop water supplies generally exists for projects both inside and
outside the boundaries of the project's owner. However, projects outside the boundaries of
the owner usually require the consent of the host jurisdiction (or the approval of a special
three-judge court to which appeals can be taken in the event consent is denied). Thus,

0114-951-140 2-27 February 1994

-------
extra-territorial projects generally cannot be undertaken on a unilateral basis but must
involve agreements among the affected parties.

Water Supply Planning at the State Level
State legislation establishes authority for the Virginia State Water Control Board
(SWCB) (now Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) to conduct general water
supply planning for each of the state's major river basins and sub-basins. This authority also
provides for planning assistance to local governments upon request.

For much of the time since 1972, when this responsibility was transferred to the
SWCB from the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, state water
supply planning efforts have appeared to receive less emphasis than water quality
management activities. More recently, publicity over water supply shortage and conflict at
some locations has created an increased emphasis on water supply issues.

Recent water supply planning in Virginia has included the completion of 11 river
basin plans. These basin plans include inventories of water resources and a compilation of
the water demand centers within the basins. Possible supply alternatives to meet future
demands were also reviewed, but the state's preferences or assistance in the development
of alternatives was not provided.

The SWCB has been granted legislative authority to conduct more specialized water
supply planning and management as part of statutorily created regulatory programs. One
such program is created by the Virginia Groundwater Act of 1973 (VGA). The VGA
authorized special studies in relation to geographic areas proposed for designation of
groundwater management areas. The entire Lower Peninsula now falls within the Eastern
Virginia Groundwater Management Area. The Virginia Groundwater Management Act
(VGMA) of 1992 repealed the VGA and added in its place measures for the management
and control of groundwater resources by the SWCB. Groundwater withdrawal regulations
pursuant to this act were first proposed in January 1993 (VR 680-13-07).

The Virginia Surface Water Management Areas Act (SWMAA) is a more recent
statute directing water supply management. Here, the focus is on identification of
geographical areas that have suffered, or are likely to suffer, injury to instream water use
activities as a result of water withdrawals. Designation of a SWMA is dependent upon a
general assessment of existing and projected water use in relation to the available supply
within the various surface waters of the state. Adopted SWMA regulations became effective
on June 3, 1992 (VR 680-15-03).

A related measure is the Virginia Water Protection Permit Act (VWPPA). A VWPP
is to be issued as the state's certification (under CWA Section 401) of federal permit
issuance for activities involving discharges to surface waters. Adopted VWPP regulations
became effective on May 20, 1992 (VR 680-15-02).

State Financial and Technical Assistance
The Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) administers the Virginia Water Supply
Revolving Fund. The Fund is used primarily for loans to local governments for the costs
of wastewater projects. Interest rates and repayment terms are set by the Virginia Board
of Health. VRA is authorized to issue bonds to raise money for the Fund, with the total

0114-951-140 2-28 Februaiy 1994

-------
                                     TABLE 2-19

          LOWER PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY, DEMAND AND DEFICIT PROJECTIONS
                                        (mgd)
YEAR
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
SUPPLY
REGIONAL
RELIABLE SYSTEM
DEUVERY
CAPACITY
60.8
62.5
64.3
62.4
62.4
62.4
DEMAND
REGIONAL
DEMAND
55.2
63.4
73.5
79.3
86.1
92.6
DEFICIT
REQUIRED NEW
RELIABLE SYSTEM
DEUVERY
CAPACITY
-5.6
0.9
9.2
16.9
23.7
30.2
Negative values of deficit represent a regional surplus.
                                                                               June 1993

-------

-------
principal bond amount at any time not to exceed $400 million without prior approval by the
General Assembly.

Water Supply Regulatory Powers of the State
Water supply development is an intensely regulated activity. Regulations applicable
to municipal water supply development can be classified as health protection, resource
allocation, and environmental protection.

Regulation of water quality to protect the health of waterworks customers is a long-
established practice but has been intensified by enactment of the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) and subsequent amendments. Virginia has been granted primacy under
the SDWA, with the effect that the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) is responsible
for administering both state and federal laws applicable to waterworks operations (subject
to certain oversight by the USEPA with respect to federal requirements). In addition to
regulation of the quality of drinking water provided, Waterworks' regulations also control
the source of supply by imposing minimum yield requirements. The VDH is responsible for
issuing permits required for waterworks operation. The permit indicates the approved
capacity of the system. The capacity is rated based on the least capacity of the individual
components required for providing a reliable water supply. These include: raw water yield,
water treatment capability, treated water storage, and water distribution capability. In
addition, the VDH requires that improvements be planned when demands for three
consecutive months are 80 percent or more of the capacity of that particular part of the
operation.

Regulation of water supply development to achieve a desirable resource allocation is
authorized by two previously described state statutes (i.e., VGMA and SWMAA). Both
statutes can restrict withdrawals for public water supply purposes, but operate only within
designated management areas.

The primary regulatory authority related to environmental protection is exercised by
federal rather than state government. The principal regulatory measure is the permit
required under Section 404 of the CWA for discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States. The scope of coverage of this provision brings most water
development activities (such as construction of dams and water intakes) within its coverage.
General administrative responsibility for the Section 404 permit program rests with the
USCOE, but the USEPA has the authority to veto issuance of a USCOE permit where it
finds unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. The state must certify through the
issuance of a VWPP that it has reviewed the permit application and found the project
consistent with its water quality management programs.

The primary state regulatory measure concerning conservation is through the Building
Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) codes. The BOCA organization is a nonprofit
organization which develops a series of performance-oriented model codes (BOCA, 1990).
These codes were adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia as part of the Uniform
Statewide Building Code (USBC) (DHCD, 1987). These codes directly specify the use of
water conservation fixtures, such as conservation type flushometer valves in water closets.
0114-951-140 2-29 Februaiy 1994

-------
These codes apply to all new construction and some remodelling of existing structures.
The USBC requires that:

"When reconstruction, renovation, or repair of existing buildings is undertaken,
existing materials and equipment may be replaced with materials and
equipment of similar kind or replaced with greater capacity equipment in the
same location when not considered a hazard; however, when new systems,
materials, and equipment that were not part of the original existing building
are added, the new systems, materials, and equipment shall be subject to the
edition of the USBC in effect at the time of their installation. Existing parts
of such buildings not being reconstructed, renovated, or repaired need not be
brought into compliance with the current edition of the USBC."

BOCA sets maximum flow standards for a variety of fixtures and appliances. These
standards set a maximum limit of 3.0 gallons per minute (gpm) at 80 pounds per square inch
(psi) for showers, lavatories, and sinks. While conservation type showerheads are not
directly called for in the BOCA codes, the maximum limit of 3.0 gpm precludes the use of
most conventional showerheads, which have a flow rate of 7.0 gpm. Water closets are
limited to 4.0 gallons per flushing cycle and urinals are limited to 1.5 gallons per cycle. In
addition, lavatories in public facilities are limited to 0.5 gpm for those with standard valve
or spring faucets and 0.25 gallons per cycle for self-closing metering valves (BOCA, 1990).

The plumbing codes currently in use in Virginia employ measures which are
considered conservation-oriented. Advanced plumbing codes, as referred to in this
document, are more restrictive plumbing codes than those already in place. This would
probably include a requirement for the use of ultra-low-volume (ULV) toilets. In the
Commonwealth of Virginia, plumbing codes can only be implemented at the State level of
government and not by individual jurisdictions or water purveyors.

The USBC in Virginia was adopted from the BOCA National Plumbing Code. States
are permitted to develop plumbing codes that implement stricter measures than those
imposed by the National Plumbing Codes. However, localities in Virginia must obtain State
authorization to develop a stricter code.

There are other legal incentives for developing a sound conservation program. For
example, regulatory provisions exist for incorporating instream flow conditions in VWPPs.
These instream flow conditions may require water conservation and reductions in water use
by the permittee.

Likewise, the SWMA regulations stipulate that SWCB-approved conservation or
management plans be included in Surface Water Withdrawal Permits. An approved
conservation program must include:

• Use of water saving plumbing fixtures in new and renovated plumbing as
provided under the Uniform Statewide Building Code.

• A water loss reduction program.

• A water use education program.

0114-951-140 2-30 Febmaiy 1994

-------
• Ordinances prohibiting waste of water generally and providing for mandatory
water use restrictions, with penalties, during water shortage emergencies.

Proposed Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations also would require that applications
for new Groundwater Withdrawal Permits include a water conservation plan approved by
the SWCB. Conservation plan elements required would be similar to those required by the
SWMA regulations.

2.82 State and Local Constraints

Constraints on water supply development activities imposed by Virginia law consist
primarily of several direct control measures; indirect constraints have some effect on the
operation of direct controls, but they are generally of a more limited nature than indirect
federal constraints. Direct controls include specific regulatory measures applicable to pubEc
water supply operations, groundwater use permitting, and several measures controlling the
construction and maintenance of dams. Indirect controls include the state environmental
review process, the state antiquities protection program, the state project notification and
review process, and state constraints on floodplain use.

The Commonwealth's political subdivisions (local governments) and circuit courts
exercise considerable authority of relevance to the construction and operation of water
supply facilities. Local controls attain their principal importance in situations where a
poEtical subdivision desires to construct and operate facilities outside its political
boundaries, thereby potentially subjecting itself to regulation by the political subdivision
where the facilities are to be located. In addition, since the different levels of government
may simultaneously apply controls to an individual water resource project, conflicting
decisions are possible. Major conflicts regarding water management can develop between
state and local laws.

The relationship between state and local governments is a result of the fact that local
governments are creatures of the state. In the approach employed in Virginia (Dillon Rule),
local governments have only those powers enumerated in state enabling legislation. There
is not inherent authority independent of state legislation. If a conflict occurs between state
and local action, the concept of preemption again applies, and local authority must yield.
There are, therefore, considerable legislative constraints relative to water resource
development and conservation that would be difficult to change.

Circuit Courts
Procedures exist through which the circuit courts of the state can authorize certain
water resource development projects. Primary mechanisms of this type include one
pertaining to construction of mUldams and related facilities and another concerning facilities
for the storage of flood water.

Legislation applicable to milldams provides that any person desiring to construct a
dam or canal to utilize a stream for operation of a water mill may request authorization
from the circuit court of the county where the construction is proposed. Where such
authorization is requested, the court is required to appoint five freeholders in the county
who are charged with the duty of making a complete investigation of the site and reporting
the likely impact of the proposed construction. If it appears that the proposed structure will

0114-951-140 2-31 February 1994

-------
result in obstructed fish passage, navigation disruptions, property loss, or health impacts, the
court may not grant permission. Otherwise, permission is in the discretion of the court.

Riparian owners desiring to store water above average streamflow for later use may
also request authorization from the circuit court of the county or city where the
impoundment is proposed, providing the construction involved does not come within the
jurisdiction of the milldam act, the water power development act administered by the State
Corporation Commission (SCC), or the federal government.

Unlike the milldam act, the enabling legislation for storage of flood water provides
for input from a state agency to the judicial proceedings for approval. In addition to general
notice regarding each application, the applicant is required to send a copy of the application
to SWCB. The mechanism for state-level input is a report by SWCB to the circuit court that
addresses the following matters:

• The average flow of the stream at the point from which water for storage will
be taken.

• Whether the proposed project conflicts with any other proposed or likely
developments on the watershed.

« The effect of the proposed impoundment on pollution abatement to be
evidenced by a certified statement together with such other relevant comments
as the Board desires to make.

• Any other relevant matters which the Board desires to place before the court.

The final decision regarding a particular application is made by the court on the basis
of the report and other evidence, including that obtained at a required public hearing.
Legislative criteria to guide the court in its determination provide that the application be
denied if it appears that other riparian owners will be injured or other justifiable reasons
exist. It is specified that approval not be granted where SWCB indicates that reduction of
pollution will be impaired or made more difficult.

Land Use Controls
Authority for land use planning and control has traditionally been delegated to the
state's political subdivisions. Before 1975, state law authorized the governing body of each
county and municipality to create a planning commission, but creation of such commissions
was not specifically required. The 1975 session of the General Assembly amended the
existing legislation to require the creation of such commissions by July 1, 1976. A local
planning commission is to consist of at least five, but not more than 15 members, appointed
by the governing body of the county or municipality.

The principal duty of each local planning commission is the preparation of a
comprehensive plan for the physical development of land within its jurisdiction. Statutory
guidelines for such plans provide for a survey of natural resources during plan preparation
and specify that the plan may include the designation of areas for various types of public
and private development and use. This provision appears to authorize incorporation of
0114-951-140 2-32 February 1994

-------
water and other natural resource considerations into the planning process, but leaves such
matters largely to the discretion of the local commissions.

      Authority to adopt and implement controls over land use is also delegated to local
governmental units.  The governing body of any county or municipality may enact a zoning
ordinance through which special controls  can be enforced.  Provisions of the enabling
legislation for zoning specifying the purposes of such ordinances and the extent of regulatory
authority delegated are essentially silent with regard to water, but  it is provided that
consideration is to be given to the conservation of natural resources.

      Land  use controls  serve  as  a  potential  mechanism  through  which a political
subdivision could oppose water supply facilities proposed within its jurisdiction by a second
political subdivision. If such controls are applicable to a proposed facility, they may provide
a basis for prohibition or imposition of other constraints upon such a facility.

      Wetlands Zoning Ordinances
      The Virginia Wetlands Act (VWA) provides authority for political subdivisions in the
coastal areas of the state to adopt a special wetlands zoning ordinance contained in the act.
After adoption of the ordinance and creation  of the required  administrative  board,
non-exempted alteration of wetlands as defined in VWA is unlawful without a permit from
the board. Local permit decisions can be reviewed and modified by the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission (VMRC), and VMRC is authorized to administer a wetlands permit
program in those political subdivisions in Tidewater that do  not develop a local program.

      Although the controls imposed by VWA constitute an important restriction on many
development activities affecting coastal wetlands, public water supply projects are not likely
to be restricted because VWA focuses  on marine wetlands.
0114-951-140                                2-33                                February 1994

-------

-------
3.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
(INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION)
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section outlines the legal background for the analysis of the alternatives
identified, explains the alternatives analysis methodology used, and describes the results of
the alternatives analysis.

3 J CLEAN WATER ACT - SECTION 404 SITING CRITERIA ^

Federal regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are designed
to protect wetlands against developmental pressures, to the extent consistent with the overall
national interest. One portion of the Section 404 regulations deals with practicable
alternatives to development within wetlands.

This section examines the Section 404 siting criteria and contains a discussion of how
wetlands are regulated at the Federal level, followed by an explanation of how these
regulations were applied in the Regional Raw Water Study Group (RRWSG) study.

3.2.1 Section 404 Wetlands Program

The United States Congress enacted the CWA in 1972 to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Section 404 of the CWA
regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States and
establishes a permit program to ensure that such discharges comply with pertinent
environmental requirements (USEPA, 1989).

The Section 404 program is administered at the Federal level by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USCOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
have important advisory roles. The USCOE has the primary responsibility for the permit
program and is authorized, after notice and opportunity for a public hearing, to issue
permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material. The USEPA has important roles in
several aspects of the Section 404 program including development of the environmental
guidelines by which permit applications must be evaluated, review of proposed permits,
prohibition of discharges with unacceptable adverse impacts, establishment of jurisdictional
scope of waters of the United States, interpretation of Section 404 exemptions, and power
to veto any 404 permit issued by the USCOE (USEPA, 1989).

Waters of the United States protected by the Clean Water Act include rivers, streams,
estuaries, the territorial seas, and most lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Wetlands are a
particularly important and sensitive segment of the Nation's waters and, therefore, merit
special attention.

It is important to note that the Section 404 program does not prohibit activities in
wetlands, but establishes a permit process which recognizes both developmental pressures
and environmental concerns (USEPA, 1986). This balancing of developmental and

0114-951-140 3-1 February 1994

-------
environmental factors is encompassed in the Section 404 Guidelines.  The practicable
alternative test is further defined in statutory guidelines, administrative decisions, and
litigation relating to Section 404.

      3.2.2      Alternative Selection - Statutory Guidelines

      According to the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, 40 CFR § 1502.14, the discussion of alternatives "is the heart
of the environmental impact  statement."  The regulation requires a presentation of "the
environmental consequences  of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form,"
including a rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of "all reasonable alternatives,"
discussion of "reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency," "the
alternative of no action," and "appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the
proposed action or alternatives." The CEQ has also published a memorandum discussing
"Questions and Answers on NEPA Regulations," 46 Federal Register 18026 (March 23,
1981), which  states:

                In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered,
                the emphasis is on what is  "reasonable" rather than on
                whether the  proponent or applicant likes or  is itself
                capable  of   carrying  out  a   particular  alternative.
                Reasonable alternatives include those that are  practical
                or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint
                and using common  sense, rather than simply desirable
                from the standpoint of the applicant.

      The USCOE's NEPA regulations generally follow the CEQ's NEPA regulations.  With
respect to evaluation of alternatives, the USCOE's NEPA Implementation Procedures for
the Regulatory Program provide that "[only reasonable alternatives need be considered in
detail, as specified in 40 CFR §1502.14 (a)."  These regulations state further:

                Reasonable alternatives must be those that are feasible
                and such feasibility must focus on the  accomplishment of
                the underlying purpose and need (of the applicant or the
                public) that would be satisfied by the proposed Federal
                action  (permit issuance)....  Those  alternatives that are
                unavailable to the applicant, whether or not they require
                Federal action (permits), should normally be included in
                the analysis of the no-Federal-action (denial) alternative.

      Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines were developed by the USEPA in conjunction with the
USCOE to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,  and biological integrity of the waters
of the United States (40 CFR, §230).  The Guidelines specify that:

                "Except as provided under Section 404(b)(2) [pertaining
                to navigation], no discharge of dredged or fill material
                shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to
                the proposed discharge which would have less adverse
                impact  on  the aquatic  ecosystem,  so long as the

0114-951-140                                3-2                               February 1994

-------
                alternative  does  not  have  other  significant  adverse
                environmental consequences" (40 CFR, §230.10).

Under these guidelines, an  alternatives analysis must evaluate practicability as well as
aquatic ecosystem impacts and other environmental consequences.  The Guidelines also
discuss the meaning of both "practicable" and "alternative" as follows:

                "An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable .
                of  being  done  after  taking  into  consideration cost,
                existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
                purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an
                area not presently owned by the applicant which could
                reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed
                in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed
                activity may be considered" (40 CFR, §230.10).

To be practicable, an  alternative  must be both available and  feasible (USEPA,  1986;
USEPA, 1990). Availability does not require actual ownership, but, rather a reasonable
expectation that acquisition could be realized for a  site or technology which satisfies the
basic purpose of the proposed activity;  feasibility includes cost, technology, and logistical
factors.

      For the RRWSG's water supply alternatives, availability was defined as the likelihood
of overcoming legal, regulatory, or institutional constraints that could severely delay (i.e., to
point where demand exceeds supply) or prevent a water project  from being implemented
or performing  satisfactorily.  Major legislative, common law, and regulatory obstacles to
implementation, as well as institutional issues which affect the ability of the RRWSG to
obtain  approvals  from host  jurisdictions, were  the  pertinent  subjects  considered.
Technologies or  sites may be deemed unavailable if institutional  obstacles to  project
development are deemed insurmountable. Availability determinations were also based on
assessments of the likelihood of state, federal, or local permit denials.

      In this water supply study, feasibility was defined as  the extent to which a  given
alternative is technologically reliable and implementable at reasonable cost. An alternative
becomes less feasible as reliability and cost issues become increasingly likely to prevent a
water project from being implemented or from satisfactorily operating to avoid unacceptable
water supply shortages.

      The basic statutory requirements of the regulations also  state that the practicable
alternatives be evaluated in terms of their impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as well as "other
significant adverse environmental consequences."

      In this water supply study, environmental suitability was defined as the extent to which
environmental harm can be avoided. Since environmental values are protected by a variety
of regulatory and institutional constraints, suitability can be defined as the extent to which
a given alternative avoids constraints that could prevent implementation or satisfactory
operation.  Potential environmental impacts to wetlands, groundwater, cultural resources,
land use, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species, as well as potential impacts to
the aquatic ecosystem, were evaluated.

0114-951-140                                3-3                               February 1994

-------
33 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
33.1 Overview of Alternatives Analysis

As determined in Section 2.7, a projected 30.2-mgd treated water deficit will occur
by the Year 2040 affecting the jurisdictions of the Lower Peninsula. To satisfy this deficit,
various water supply alternatives throughout the region were identified and evaluated
according to the procedures outlined in the Section 404 permit guidelines. Practicable
alternative components were then assembled to form project alternatives that could meet
the regional needs. For the purposes of the practicable alternatives analysis, a methodology
based on the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines was employed which requires that an alternative
technology or site must be capable of satisfying the basic purpose of the proposed project,
taking into consideration availability and technological, logistical, and economic feasibility.

The Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines support a procedure as defined in the regulations
that "no discharge of dredged or fill material may be permitted if there is a practicable
alternative to the project that would have less impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 CFR,
§230.10). Under this procedure the following steps are necessary to select the preferred
alternative(s):

• Eliminate alternatives that are not available.

• Eliminate alternatives that are not feasible.

* Eliminate alternatives that have more adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem.

* Eliminate alternatives with other significant adverse environmental
consequences.

In the RRWSG project, there are a large number of potential alternatives. As a result, the
evaluation procedure has been optimized by applying evaluation factors in a slightly different
manner (see Figure 3-1). The complete alternatives analysis methodology is presented in
Methodology for Identifying, Screening, and Evaluating Alternatives (Report C) (Malcolm
Pirnie, 1993). Report C is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this
document.

In this procedure, alternatives with unacceptable adverse effects on the aquatic
ecosystem, or other obvious significant adverse environmental consequences, were first
screened, in an environmental fatal flaw analysis. Practicability criteria were then applied
to develop a list of remaining alternatives that are available, and feasible, in terms of cost
and technological reliability. Practicable alternatives were then evaluated according to
environmental impact criteria to identify the least damaging, practicable alternative(s).
Environmental impact categories were developed based on NEPA public interest factors and
impact categories for aquatic ecosystems identified in the CWA Section 404(b)(l)
Guidelines.
0114-951-140 3-4 February 1994

-------
                                                                                                              FIGURE 3-1
         PROJECT
        PURPOSE
               LIST OF
            ALTERNATIVES
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
 FATAL FLAW
   ANALYSIS 2
         FURTHER ANALYSIS
           OF PREFERRED
          ALTERNATIVE(S)
                           NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
                           ANALYSIS INCLUDING 404 (b)(1)
                               GUIDELINES ANALYSIS 4
             DRAFT EIS
             PREPARED
                  REGULATORY
                    AGENCY
                   COMMENTS
                      RESPOND TO
                       COMMENTS
     APPLY
 PRACTICABILITY
    CRITERIA: 3
T) AVAILABLE
g) FEASIBLE,
  IN TERMS OF
    - ECONOMICS
    - TECHNOLOGY
    - LOGISTICS
                                                    LIST OF
                                                 PRACTICABLE
                                                ALTERNATIVES
                            FINAL EIS
                            PREPARED
              NOTES:
MA10XM
  PIRNIE
1. FIRST DEFINED IN USCOE's DECEMBER 17, 1990 SCOPING SUMMARY PREPARED
     FOLLOWING CLOSE OF COMMENT PERIOD ON USCOE's AUGUST 1,1990 PUBLIC NOTICE,
2. STEP ELIMINATES, IN PART, ALTERNATIVES WITH UNACCEPTABLE
     ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
3. STEP ELIMINATES ALTERNATIVES WHICH ARE NOT PRACTICABLE
     AS DEFINED IN THE SECTION 404 GUIDELINES.
4. STEP IDENTIFIES PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES WHICH HAVE LEAST OVERALL
     ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
                                                      FEBRUARY 1993
                                                  LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                                              REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                                METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING,
                                                 SCREENING, AND EVALUATING
                                                      ALTERNATIVES

-------

-------
3 J2 Practicability Criteria

Four practicability criteria were used in the evaluation. These criteria are availability,
cost, technological reliability, and logistics. Availability considered the legal, regulatory, and
institutional obstacles that a particular alternative faced. Cost considered the overall,
life-cycle cost of an alternative relative to other practicable alternatives and the affordability
of projected customer water rate increases. Technological reliability considered the
unavoidable failure potential, public health concerns, effectiveness of available treatment
technologies, and stage of technological development associated with each alternative. The
impact of logistics on project implementation was considered under the availability, cost, and
technological reliability criteria. Each of these criteria are discussed in more detail in the
following sections.

Availability
Legal, regulatory, and institutional issues can severely delay (i.e., to a point where
demand exceeds supply) or even prevent a water development project from being
implemented. Necessary land and water rights must be acquired, and in some cases
defended in litigation; permits from federal, state, and local agencies obtained; and
approvals from other localities obtained in cases of a project located outside the boundaries
of the project's owner. An alternative may be considered unavailable if legal, regulatory, or
institutional obstacles are insurmountable (e.g., the USCOE, USEPA, Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), Virginia Department of Health (VDH), or another
state, federal, or local agency determines that an alternative is not permittable). Any
determination of unavailability is based on documentation of severe delays, uncertainties
associated with potential permit denials, or other insurmountable legal or institutional
constraints.

Cost
Alternatives may be deemed economically infeasible if they are too costly to
implement. For example, an alternative that involves costly raw water treatment may
impose an unacceptable financial burden on the system's customers (USEPA, 1990). In
addition, water purveyors have a responsibility to provide a reasonable cost water supply to
their customers, if such a supply is available.

For this study, total life-cycle costs (i.e., capital and operating costs of storage,
transmission, and treatment) have been estimated for many of the alternatives. Major costs
identified are those associated with construction, land acquisition, power, and/or mitigation.

The affordability of estimated water rates resulting from alternatives has also been
examined in light of current state and federal affordability criteria for utility fees. As part
of Virginia's Revolving Loan Fund, the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB)
developed guidelines for determining reasonable wastewater treatment costs for households.
These affordability criteria were developed as a percentage of median household income
(MHI) and are published in the Virginia. Revolving Loan Fund - Program Design Manual
(SWCB, 1991). "More affluent areas" are defined by the SWCB as having a MHI greater
than $29,000 per year, which would include the estimated Year 1990 Lower Peninsula MHI
of $31,050 per year. The SWCB's corresponding upper limit for affordability is set at 1.5
percent of MHI for wastewater treatment bills in more affluent areas.
0114-951-140 3-5 February 1994

-------
The USEPA is now developing guidelines for determining reasonable wastewater
treatment costs for households. These affordability criteria are also defined as percentages
of MHI and are published in the draft Combined Sewer Overflow Financial Capability
Assessment Guidebook (USEPA, 1993). The affordability ranges developed by the USEPA
reflect the Agency's previous experience with water pollution control programs and are
defined as follows;

• Readily Affordable: < 1 Percent of MHI

• Affordable: 1 to 2 Percent of MHI

• More Difficult to Afford: > 2 Percent of MHI

These affordability criteria ranges are not expected to change when the USEPA's
aforementioned report is finalized later in 1993. As of April 1993, the USEPA estimates
that residents in only 4 to 6 percent of communities in the United States incur wastewater
treatment costs which exceed a level representing 2 percent of MHI. Costs above the 2
percent MHI level are usually considered very difficult to afford (H. Farmer, USEPA,
personal communication, 1993).

The USEPA has not progressed as far in establishing affordability criteria for drinking
water costs as for wastewater treatment costs. As of May 1993, the agency did not have any
official affordability scale for drinking water. However, for some time the USEPA has been
reviewing the variance and exemption process and requirements under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), and considering how affordability should be determined. Prior to
September 1991 the USEPA was considering the following affordability ranges with respect
to the community served by the water system:

• Affordable: < 1.4 Percent of MHI

• More Detailed Analysis Required: 1.4 to 2 Percent of MHI

• Unaffordable: > 2 Percent of Mffl

The 2 percent of MHI affordability cutoff was developed on at least two bases. First, only
a small percentage of communities incur water costs greater than this level. Second, costs
for other utilities (e.g., wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telephone) may be in the 2
percent of MHI range. The percentage of MHI approach has been considered since
households are often more sensitive to rate increases than other water demand sectors
(A. W. Marks, USEPA, personal communication, 1993).

As of May 1993, the USEPA was considering a new "market-based" approach for
determining affordability under the SDWA. Under this potential approach, system
improvements would not be considered affordable if a community cannot obtain the
necessary financing. As of May 1993, the USEPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking
Water had not released a timetable for issuing SDWA affordability criteria as part of a rule
or as guidance (A. W. Marks, USEPA, personal communication, 1993).
0114-951-140 3-6 Febniaiy 1994

-------
For this study, average Year 1992 Lower Peninsula household water costs were
estimated at $170 per year, or 0.55 percent of the estimated Year 1990 Lower Peninsula
MHI of $31,050 per year. Based, in part, on state and federal affordability criteria for utility
fees that have been developed, or are being developed, an affordability cutoff of 1.5 percent
of Lower Peninsula MHI was adopted for this study. In the RRWSG's judgement, this cost
feasibility cutoff is conservatively high since it equates to nearly a tripling of consumer
drinking water costs.

The rate impacts of several alternatives were projected and compared to the
RRWSG's adopted affordability criterion. For example, for an alternative with a present
worth life cycle cost estimate of $10.1 million per mgd of treated water safe yield, the
projected rate impact calculation considered the annual costs of capital debt service,
treatment, distribution, and utility administration. These costs were apportioned to the
projected sales of water from the new source. These sales were proportional to the
projected deficit. The projected average rate over the 40-year period from the Year 2000
to 2040 for this alternative is $10 JO per thousand gallons in Year 1992 dollars. For an
average Lower Peninsula household using 73,000 gallons of water per year, this represents
approximately 2.4 percent of the estimated Year 1990 Lower Peninsula MHI. Thus,
according to the RRWSG's adopted affordability criterion, this alternative would be
infeasible due to excessive cost.

Based on the results of this analysis and rate analyses for alternatives with present
worth life cycle cost estimates of between $5 million and $10 million per mgd, alternatives
with present worth life cycle cost estimates which are greater than approximately $8 million
per mgd of treated water safe yield will be considered infeasible due to excessive cost. Such
components would result in household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's adopted
affordability criterion of 1.5 percent of Lower Peninsula MHI.

Technological Reliability
Alternatives may be deemed technically infeasible if they are judged vulnerable to
mechanical or electrical failures, pipe failures, downtime, or other system disruptions that
cannot be eliminated or adequately reduced through redundancy in the design. Storage, or
the capacity to deliver partial flows during disruptions, could improve reliability. Serious
public health concerns (i.e., documented water quality problems) associated with use of
certain water supply sources, as expressed by VDH staff or other qualified experts, may also
render an alternative infeasible with respect to technological reliability. In addition, the
effectiveness of USEPA-determined Best Available Technology in the treatment of water
may be evaluated in determining if an alternative is technologically reliable.

The practicability analysis also examines the reliability of certain technologies. For
example, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a relatively new water management
technology which is still in the experimental stage in the Virginia Coastal Plain Province.
There are major areas of technical uncertainty concerning implementation of ASR in the
Lower Peninsula that could reduce its reliability. For example, ASR may be technically
infeasible if hydraulic or water/soil chemistry problems preclude development of a suitable
aquifer storage zone.

Logistics
Alternatives may be undesirable because of logistical factors. For example, from a
logistical standpoint, it may be infeasible to implement several small alternatives rather than

0114-951-140 3-7 February 1994

-------
a single alternative which can supply all, or most, of the Lower Peninsula's additional water
needs. However, logistical factors are taken into consideration under the availability, cost,
and technological reliability criteria described above, and no separate logistical evaluation
of alternatives was conducted.

3.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
This section contains brief descriptions, safe yield estimates, and results of
practicability analyses for 31 alternatives. Taken individually, each alternative has the
potential to achieve all or part of the goal of providing dependable, long-term public water
supply for the Lower Peninsula. The alternatives analysis demonstrated that many
alternatives were either:

« Environmentally fatally flawed.

• Unavailable based on permitting, host approval, or legal constraints.

» Infeasible based on cost or technological reliability.

It was not necessary to evaluate all alternatives with respect to all practicability
criteria because an alternative can be screened out based on any one of the criteria. The
complete practicability analysis is presented in Alternatives Assessment, (Volume I -
Practicability Analysis) (Report D) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993). Report D (Volume I) is
incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document.

The general locations of the alternatives are depicted in Figure 3-2 (see map pocket
at rear of report). Alternative descriptions are presented in Table 3-1.

3.4.1 Lake Genito

Description
This alternative would require construction of a dam and reservoir on the
Appomattox River, and an intake and pump station at Lake Chesdin in the vicinity of the
existing Brasfield Dam. The constructed Lake Genito would store 113.7 billion gallons and
cover an area of 10,500 acres at a normal pool elevation of 250 feet msi The reservoir
would extend 33 miles upstream on the Appomattox River.

Controlled releases from Lake Genito to Lake Chesdin would allow the Lower
Peninsula to withdraw water from Lake Chesdin for transmission to Diascund Creek
Reservoir, This would require the construction of a 43-mile, 48-inch, 40-mgd capacity
pipeline terminating at the headwaters of Diascund Creek. A 40-mgd pump station near
the Diascund Creek dam, a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund Creek
Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir, and a new intake structure and pump station at Lake
Chesdin would also be required.

Safe Yield
Safe yield calculations were performed as part of the Lake Genito Project Hydrologic
Evaluation (Black & Veatch, 1988). A computer-based hydrologic model was used to assess
0114-951-140 3-8 February 1994

-------
                                       TABLE 3-1
                      ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
  1.   Lake Genito
New 78-foot high dam across the Appomattox River near
Genito, Virginia on Amelia/Powhatan County boundary;
113.7-billion gallon lake draining 715 square miles, covering
10,500 acres at pool elevation of 270 feet, and extending 33
miles upstream. Controlled releases from Lake Genito
allow pumping from new 40 mgd* intake structure on Lake
Chesdin to headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir
through new 43-mile, 48-inch pipeline. New 40 mgd pump
station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek
Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir also required.
      Lake Chesdin
Water pumped from new 40 mgd intake structure on Lake
Chesdin to headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir
through new 43-mile, 48-inch pipeline. New 40 mgd pump
station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline  from Diascund Creek
Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir also required.
      Lake Anna
Water pumped from new 40 mgd intake structure on Lake
Anna (in Louisa County) to headwaters of Diascund Creek
Reservoir through new 66-mile, 48-inch pipeline.  New 40
mgd pump station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from
Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir also
required.
      Lake Gaston
Water pumped from new 40 mgd intake structure on Lake
Gaston (in Brunswick County) to headwaters of Diascund
Creek Reservoir through new 86-mile, 54-inch pipeline.
New 40 mgd pump station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline
from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir
also required.
      Rappahannock River
      (above Fredericksburg)
Water pumped from new 75 mgd intake structure on
Rappahannock River (in Spotsylvania County, above Embry
Dam) to headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir through
new 89-mile, 66-inch pipeline.  New 40 mgd pump station
and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek
Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir also required.
0114-951-140
                                               June 1993

-------

-------
                                      TABLE 3-1
                                      (Continued)
                      ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
      James River
      (above Richmond)
      without New Off-Stream
      Storage
Water pumped from new 40 mgd intake structure on James
River (in Chesterfield County, above Bosher's Dam) to
headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir through new
50-mile, 48-inch pipeline. New 40 mgd pump station and
5.5-miie, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to
Little Creek Reservoir also required.
      City of Richmond Surplus
      Raw Water
Water pumped from new 40 mgd intake structure at the
Richmond Water Treatment Plant to the headwaters of
Diascund Creek Reservoir through new 34-mile, 48-inch
pipeline.  New 40 mgd pump station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch
pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek
Reservoir also required.
 8.   City of Richmond Surplus
      Treated Water
Treated water (25 mgd average, 37 mgd maximum) pumped
from Richmond Water Treatment Plant to Waterworks'
northern distribution zone in James City County, through
new 64-mile transmission main (42-inch pipeline in urban
Richmond area; dual 30-inch pipelines with booster pump
station for remainder of route).
 9.   James River
      (between Richmond and
      Hopewell)
Water pumped from new 40 mgd pump station on James
River in Henrico County (near Hatcher Island) to
headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir through new
25-mile, 48-inch pipeline. New 40 mgd pump station and
5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to
Little Creek Reservoir also required.
 10.  Ware Creek Reservoir
New 50-foot high dam across Ware Creek on New
Kent/James City County boundary; 6.87-billion gallon lake
draining 17.4 square miles and covering 1,238 acres at pool
elevation of 35 feet.  Water pumped from new 20 mgd
intake structure to Waterworks raw water mains through
new 3.6-mile, 30-inch pipeline.  New 1.5-mile, 30-inch
pipeline from  Waterworks raw water mains to Ware Creek
Reservoir also required.
0114-951-140
                                               June 1993

-------

-------
                                      TABLE 3-1
                                      (Continued)
                      ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
  11.  Ware Creek Reservoir &
      Pamunkey, Mattaponi,
      and/or Chickahominy
      River Pumpovers
Similar to No. 10, with 40 mgd pump station and 3.6-mile,
42-inch pipeline from Ware Creek Reservoir to Waterworks
raw water mains; plus water pumped from Pamunkey River
to Diascund Creek  Reservoir (120 mgd pump station, 11.4
miles of 66-inch pipeline and 6,2 miles of 54-inch pipeline),
Mattaponi River to Diascund Creek Reservoir (45 mgd
pump station, 16.8-mile, 48-inch pipeline), and/or
Chickahominy River to Little Creek and Ware Creek
Reservoirs (expansion of pump station to 61 or 81  mgd;
improvement  of all  or part of pipeline from Chickahominy
River to Little Creek Reservoir;  and new 1.5-mile,  42-inch
pipeline to Ware Creek Reservoir from existing raw water
pipeline).  Pamunkey and Mattaponi options also require
new 40 mgd pump station and 4.9-mile, 42-inch pipeline
from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Ware Creek Reservoir.
 12.  Ware Creek Reservoir &
      James River Pumpover
      (above Richmond)
Similar to No. 10, with 40 mgd pump station and 3.6-mile,
42-inch pipeline from Ware Creek Reservoir to Waterworks
raw water mains; plus water pumped from new 75 mgd
pump station on James River in Chesterfield County (above
Bosher's Dam) to Diascund Creek Reservoir through new
50-mile, 60-inch pipeline. New 40 mgd pump station and
4.9-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to
Ware Creek Reservoir also required.
 13.  Black Creek Reservoir &
      Pamunkey River
      Pumpover
Two new dams across southern and eastern branches of
Black Creek in New Kent County; 8.4-billion gallon
interconnected lake draining 5.5 square miles and covering
1,146 acres at pool elevation of 100 feet; supplemented with
water pumped from new 120 mgd pump station on
Pamunkey River in New Kent County (at Northbury)
through new 5-mile, 66-inch pipeline.  Water pumped from
new 40 mgd reservoir intake structure to headwaters of
Diascund Creek Reservoir through new 7.5-mile, 42-inch
pipeline. New 40 mgd pump station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch
pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek
Reservoir also required.
 14.  Black Creek Reservoir &
      James River Pumpover
      (above Richmond)
Similar to No. 13, but supplemented with water pumped
from new 75 mgd pump station on James River in
Chesterfield County (above Bosher's Dam) through new
43-mile, 60-inch pipeline.
0114-951-140
                                               June 1993

-------

-------
                                      TABLE 3-1
                                      (Continued)
                     ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
  15,  King William Reservoir &
      Mattaponi River
      Pumpover
New 90-foot high dam across Cohoke Mill Creek in King
William County; 21.7-billion gallon lake draining 13.2 square
miles and covering 2,234 acres at pool elevation of 90 feet;
supplemented with water from new 75 mgd pump station on
Mattaponi River in King William County (at Scotland
Landing) through  new 1.5-mile, 54-inch pipeline. Water
delivered to headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir
through new 9.9-mile, 42- and 60-inch gravity-flow pipeline
(40 mgd capacity). Also includes new 40 mgd pump station
and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek
Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir.
 16.  King William Reservoir &
      Pamunkey River
      Pumpover
Same as No. 15, but supplemented with water pumped from
Pamunkey River near Montague Landing in King William
County (100 mgd pump station, 5.7-mile, 60-inch pipeline)
instead of Mattaponi River.
 17.  Chickahominy River
      Pumping Capacity Increase
Increase pumping capacity of existing Waterworks
Chickahominy River pump station in New Kent County
from 41 mgd to 61 mgd.
 18.  Chickahominy River
      Pumping Capacity Increase
      and Raise Diascund and
      Little Creek Dams
Same as No. 17, plus modifying Waterworks' Diascund
Creek and Little Creek dams to increase normal pool
elevations by 2 feet.
 19.  Aquifer Storage and
      Recovery, Constrained by
      Number of Wells
Withdraw water from Chickahominy River at full capacity
when streamflow is high and demand is low; treat and store
underground for later use. Treated water injected through
new system of 12 wells into underground aquifers when raw
water source capacity exceeds system demand; subsequently
recovered from same wells when customer demand exceeds
treated water supply.  Well locations limited to Waterworks
property with good access to distribution system.
 20. Aquifer Storage and
     Recovery, Unconstrained
     by Number of Wells
Same as No. 19, limited only by Chickahominy River
withdrawal capacity and amount of surplus streamflow
available (about 19 new wells required).
 21.  Fresh Groundwater
      Development
New well fields in western James City County and/or
eastern New Kent County; used to augment Diascund Creek
and Little Creek Reservoirs when system reservoir storage is
below 75 percent of total capacity.
0114-951-140
                                               June 1993

-------

-------
                                       TABLE 3-1
                                       (Continued)
                      ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
 22.  Groundwater Desalination
      as the Single Long-Term
      Alternative
Large-scale withdrawals from about 27 new wells located
throughout the Lower Peninsula and drilled into deep,
brackish aquifers, treated in about four or five new
desalination plants.
 23.  Groundwater Desalination
      in Newport News
      Waterworks Distribution
      Area
60 Small-scale withdrawals from about five new wells located
adjacent to Waterworks distribution facilities and drilled
into deep, brackish aquifers, treated in four new reverse
osmosis desalination plants.
 24.  James River Desalination
Water pumped from new 70 mgd off-shore intake,
subaqueous pipeline and pump station on James River (in
James City County, about 3,000 feet upstream of Jamestown
Ferry Landing) to new 44 mgd reverse osmosis desalination
plant near Waller Mill Reservoir through new 9-mile, dual
36-inch pipeline. A 20-mile, 36-inch pipeline and outfall (26
mgd capacity) also required for concentrate disposal. An
alternative James River intake site is located 14 miles
farther upstream at Sturgeon Point in Charles City County.
 25.  Pamunkey River
      Desalination
Water pumped from new 65 mgd intake on Pamunkey River
(east of Cohoke Marsh, near Chestnut Grove Landing in
New Kent County) to new 44 mgd desalination plant near
Waller Mill Reservoir through new 25-mile, 54-inch pipeline.
An 8.2-mile, 30-inch pipeline and outfall (21 mgd capacity)
also required for concentrate disposal.
 26.  York River Desalination
Water pumped from new 85 mgd intake on York River
(between Sycamore Landing and York River State Park in
New Kent County) to new 44 mgd reverse osmosis
desalination plant near Waller Mill Reservoir through new
13.6-mile, dual 42-inch pipeline.  A 20-mile, 36-inch pipeline
and outfall (41 mgd capacity) also  required for concentrate
disposal.
 27.  Cogeneration
Purchase drinking water produced through distillation
process powered by excess steam from privately-owned
cogeneration facility.  New intake on York or James River
required for raw water source and power plant cooling
water; discharge structure and pipeline also required  for
return of cooling water and concentrate disposal.  Private
initiative  required; capacity, specifications and viability
dependent on location and design of privately-owned
cogeneration plant and sale of power to a utility company.
0114-951-140
                                                June 1993

-------

-------
                                       TABLE 3-1
                                       (Continued)
                      ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
 28.  Wastewater Reuse as a
      Source of Potable Water
Blending highly treated wastewater with potable raw water
supplies, using new advanced wastewater reclamation plant
adjacent to existing HRSD York River WWTP, new multi-
compartment reclaimed water lagoon, and new reclaimed
water pump station and pipelines to Harwood's Mill and
Lee Hall reservoirs.
 29.  Wastewater Reuse for
      Non-Potable Uses
One to four systems, each located adjacent to an existing
HRSD WWTP on the Lower Peninsula, each providing
advanced treatment of WWTP effluent to produce
non-potable water suitable for industrial cooling and
industrial process use.  Each system would include an
advanced wastewater reclamation plant, reuse water pump
station, distribution system, and storage facilities.
 30.  Use Restrictions
Contingency measures beyond normal conservation
measures, employed to produce short-term reductions in
water demand during water supply emergencies;
implemented in tiered fashion as emergency intensifies:
Tier 1 - voluntary use restrictions; Tier 2 - mandatory use
restrictions; and Tier 3 - water rationing.
 31.  No Action
Do nothing to provide additional raw water supply or curtail
water use on the Lower Peninsula. To limit growth, water
purveyors could place moratoriums on new hook-ups.
(Consideration of this alternative is required in
Environmental Impact Statements.)
* mgd = million gallons per day
0114-951-140
                                                June 1993

-------

-------
the affect of alternative operating scenarios, minimum in-stream flow (MIF) conditions, and
drawdown constraints on safe yield of the Lake Genito-Lake Chesdin system.

      The calculated safe yield of the total reservoir system,  Lake Genito plus  Lake
Chesdin, ranged from 122 to 271 mgd depending on the operating scenario and MIF
requirement (Black & Veatch, 1988).  Given this range of yield, the proposed reservoir
system has the potential to satisfy the water needs of the Lower Peninsula as well as those
of the Lake  Genito host  or  "PACC" jurisdictions (Powhatan, Amelia, Cumberland, and
Chesterfield Counties) and ARWA members (Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, and Prince George
Counties, and the Cities of Colonial Heights and Petersburg).  In addition, Chesterfield
County's 4.3 billion gallon Swift Creek Reservoir can currently supply 12 mgd based  upon
the rated capacity of the reservoir water treatment plant. Therefore, depending on how the
Genito/Chesdin system is operated, enough surplus raw water could be available to provide
a 30.2-mgd treated water safe yield benefit for the Lower Peninsula.

      Practicability Analysis
      The magnitude of Lake Genito's potential environmental impact is markedly greater
than for other alternatives under consideration.  Because of these "environmental fatal
flaws," this alternative is regarded as unavailable. In addition, Lake Genito is not currently
considered permittable by federal regulatory  and advisory agencies.  Therefore,  this
alternative is considered unavailable and impracticable at this time.

      3.42      Lake Chesdin

      Description
      This alternative would require construction of a 40-mgd intake structure and pumping
station at Brasfield Dam (Lake Chesdin) and a 43-mile, 48-inch, 40-mgd capacity raw water
pipeline  to convey excess Lake Chesdin spills from Lake Chesdin  to Diascund Creek
Reservoir.  A 40-mgd pump station near the Diascund Creek dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd
capacity pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir would also be
required.

      The intakes, pump stations, pipeline routes, and outfalls for  this alternative are
identical to those previously described for the Lake Genito alternative (see Section 3.4.1),

      Safe Yield
      This alternative's treated water safe yield benefit was calculated at 11.9 mgd using the
Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period.

      Practicability Analysis
      The estimated present  value cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit would result in projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
                                addition, the Lake Chesdin alternative is not considered
=^_r-__^_N          ,
xac|kabJfi_bji:..-federal 4ggulato?% and advisory agencies.  Therefore, this  alternative is
considered infeasible and impracticable at this time.
0114-951-140                                3-9              ,                 Febmaiy 1994

-------
3.43 Lake Anna

Description
Lake Anna is an existing 99.4 billion gallon impoundment on the North Anna River
which covers 13,000 acres and drams a 243 square mile area (SWCB, 1988). Virginia Power
owns and operates this impoundment as a source of cooUng water required by two nuclear
power plant reactors.

This alternative would require the construction of an intake and a 40-mgd raw water
pump station on Lake Anna, approximately 66 miles of 48-inch, 40-mgd capacity raw water
pipeline, an outfall on the headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir, a 40-mgd pump station
near the Diascund Creek Reservoir dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd capacity pipeline from
Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir. The intake and pump station would
be located adjacent to the existing pump station, and the pipeline would parallel the existing
Diascund raw water transmission main.

Safe Yield
A continuous withdrawal of 40 mgd was assumed, with no MIF restrictions or
restrictive operating rules. Assuming that raw water transmission, reservoir seepage, and
water treatment losses total approximately 10 percent of Lake Anna withdrawals, this
alternative would provide a treated water safe yield benefit greater than the projected Year
2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 30.2 mgd.

Practicability Analysis
Virginia Power is strongly opposed to the use of Lake Anna as a public water supply.
In addition, there are severe legal and technical constraints which exist with respect to this
alternative. As a result, this alternative is not considered available by federal regulatory and
advisory agencies. Therefore, this alternative is considered unavailable and impracticable
at this time.

3.4.4 Lake Gaston

Description
This alternative would consist of an intake and a 40-mgd raw water pump station on
Lake Gaston, approximately 86 miles of 54-inch, 40-mgd capacity raw water pipeline, and
an outfall at Diascund Creek Reservoir. The design capacity of the Lake Gaston pipeline
system to Virginia Beach is not sufficient to accommodate this additional flow.

A new 40-mgd capacity intake structure and pump station would be required at the
Diascund Creek Reservoir dam to convey water through a 5.5-mile, 42-inch, 40-mgd capacity
pipeline to the Little Creek Reservoir.

Safe Yield
A continuous withdrawal of 40 mgd was assumed, with no MIF restrictions or
restrictive operating rules. Assuming that raw water transmission, reservoir seepage, and
water treatment losses total approximately 10 percent of Lake Gaston withdrawals, this
alternative would provide a treated water safe yield benefit greater than the projected Year
2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 30.2 mgd.
0114-951-140 3-10 . February 1994

-------
      Practicability Analysis
      Legal conflicts have stalled the City of Virginia Beach's progress on the Lake Gaston
Pipeline Project for  more than 9 years. Given the likelihood of strong project opposition
arguing the potential for cumulative impacts, it is expected that equally or more challenging
legal conflicts than  Virginia Beach has experienced would block or severely  delay any
proposal by the RRWSG for additional withdrawals from Lake Gaston, This alternative is
also not considered available by federal regulatory and advisory agencies.  Therefore, this
alternative is considered unavailable and impracticable at this time.

      3.4.5     Rappahannock River Above Fredericksburg

      Description
      This alternative would consist of an intake and 75-mgd raw water pump station on the
Rappahannock River above Fredericksburg,  approximately 89 miles of 66-inch, 75-mgd
capacity river water pipeline, an outfall on the headwaters of the Diascund Creek Reservoir,
a 40-mgd pump station near the Diascund Creek dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd capacity
pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir.

      Safe Yield
      The treated water safe yield benefit of this alternative was calculated at 7.9 mgd using
the Newport News Raw Water System  Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period.

      Practicability Analysis
      The estimated present value cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit would result in projected  household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion. In addition, the current pursuit of additional Rappahannock
River withdrawals by Fredericksburg-area jurisdictions would greatly magnify the degree of
difficulty associated  with the RRWSG gaining approvals for this alternative.  For  these
reasons, this alternative is not considered practicable by federal regulatory and advisory
agencies. Therefore, this alternative is considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable
at this time.

      3.4,6     James River Above Richmond Without New Off-Stream Storage

      Description
      This alternative would involve a 40-mgd raw water intake and pumping station located
on the James River, approximately 50 mHes of 48-inch, 40-mgd capacity river water pipeline,
a 40-mgd pump station near the Diascund Creek dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd capacity
pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir.

      Safe Yield
      This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the  Newport News Raw
Water System Safe Yield Model for 51-year simulation periods. Treated water  safe yield
benefits  of 7.1  and 7.9 mgd were calculated  for 40- and 75-mgd James River  diversion
capacities,  respectively.

      Practicability Analysis
      The estimated present value cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit would result in projected  household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion.  In addition, the Richmond Regional  Planning District


0114-951-140                               3-11              .                February 1994

-------
Commission (RRFDC) has taken a strong position against Lower Peninsula withdrawals
from the James River above Richmond. This position indicates that this alternative is
institutionally not permittable. Furthermore, the intense competition for James River water
between the City of Richmond and Henrico County could severely delay any RRWSG
efforts to pursue this alternative. For these reasons, this alternative is not considered
practicable by federal regulatory and advisory agencies. Therefore, this alternative is
considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable at this time.

3.4.7 City of Richmond Surplus Raw Water

Description
This alternative would involve a 40-mgd raw water intake and pumping station located
in the City of Richmond, approximately 34 miles of 48-inch, 40-mgd capacity raw water
pipeline, a 40-mgd pump station near the Diascund Creek dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd
capacity pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to little Creek Reservoir.

Safe Yield
For purposes of calculating maximum theoretical yield, it was initially assumed that
a continuous withdrawal of 40 mgd was possible, with no MIF restrictions or restrictive
operating rules. With these assumptions, and assuming that raw water transmission,
reservoir seepage, and water treatment losses total approximately 10 percent of withdrawals,
this alternative would provide a safe yield benefit greater than the projected Year 2040
Lower Peninsula deficit of 30.2 mgd. However, in light of recent consultation with the
USCOE and SWCB, a treated water safe yield benefit of 7.1 mgd is instead assumed for this
alternative.

Practicability Analysis
The estimated present value cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit would result in projected household water bilk which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion. In addition, the RRPDC has taken a strong position against
Lower Peninsula withdrawals from the James River at Richmond. This position indicates
that this alternative is institutionally not permittable. For these reasons, this alternative is
not considered practicable by federal regulatory and advisory agencies. Therefore, this
alternative is considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable at this time.

3.4.8 City of Richmond Surplus Treated Water

Description
This alternative would involve the transmission of treated water approximately 64
miles from the Richmond Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to the Northern Zone of the
Newport News Waterworks distribution system in James City County. The transmission
main from Richmond would be designed to handle average and maximum day flows of 25
and 37 mgd, respectively, in the Year 2040. A single 42-inch, or dual 30-inch diameter main
would be required, and would connect to the Newport News Waterworks system at the
Upper York Ground Storage Tank.

Safe Yield
The "preferred water system alternative" in the Regional Water Resources Plan for
Planning District IS calls for expansion of the Richmond WTP capacity to 132 mgd.
However, it is possible that for relatively low incremental costs the WTP capacity could be

0114-951-140 3-12 February 1994

-------
expanded to 150 mgd through the use of higher filtration rates. This increase in rated
capacity would have to be permitted by the VDH, which has indicated some concerns about
such a proposal (RRPDC, 1992). If Richmond is successful in expanding its WTP capacity
to 150 mgd, then this alternative's potential treated water safe yield benefit would increase
from 12.1 to 23.9 mgd on an average day demand basis. For purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed that this is the case and that this alternative offers a maximum treated water safe
yield of 23.9 mgd.

Practicability Analysis
The estimated present value cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit would result in projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion. In addition, there are major uncertainties concerning the
availability of surplus treated water from the City of Richmond. These uncertainties are
outside the control of RRWSG member jurisdictions. For these reasons, this alternative is
not considered practicable by federal regulatory and advisory agencies. Therefore, this
alternative is considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable at this time.

3.4.9 James River Between Richmond and Hopewell

Description
This alternative would consist of an intake and 40-mgd raw water pump station on the
James River between Richmond and Hopewell, approximately 25 miles of 48-inch, 40-mgd
capacity river water pipeline, an outfall at Diascund Creek Reservoir, a 40-mgd pump
station near the Diascund Creek dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd capacity pipeline from
Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir.

Safe Yield
A continuous withdrawal of 40 mgd was assumed, with no MIF restrictions or
restrictive operating rules. Assuming that raw water transmission, reservoir seepage, and
water treatment losses total approximately 10 percent of James River withdrawals, this
alternative would provide a treated water safe yield benefit greater than the projected Year
2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 30.2 mgd.

Practicability Analysis
The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) has taken a strong position against
withdrawals from the James River between Richmond and Hopewell for public water supply.
These comments are discussed below and indicate that this alternative is" not considered
permittable by the State. In addition, this alternative is not considered practicable by
federal regulatory and advisory agencies. Therefore, this alternative is considered
unavailable and impracticable at this time.

3.4.10 Ware Creek Reservoir

Description
This alternative would require the construction of a dam on Ware Creek at "Dam
Site V" as documented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement - James City County's
Water Suppfy Reservoir on Ware Creek (USCOE, 1987). The dam would be a 50-foot high,
1,450-foot long structure located approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the confluence
of Ware Creek and France Swamp on the boundary between James City and New Kent
Counties. The 1,238-acre reservoir would drain 17.4 square miles and store 6.87 billion
gallons at a normal pool elevation of 35 feet msl. Ware Creek Reservoir could be supplied

0114-951440 3-13 February 1994

-------
solely by natural inflows from drainage basin runoff. A 20-mgd raw water intake and pump
station would also be required at Ware Creek Reservoir to convey raw water through a
3.6-mile, 30-inch, 20-mgd capacity pipeline to the existing Newport News Waterworks raw
water mains. Approximately 1.5 miles of 30-inch pipeline would be required from the
existing Newport News Waterworks' raw water mains to Ware Creek Reservoir.

Safe Yield
This alternative's treated water safe yield benefit for the Lower Peninsula was
calculated at 7.1 mgd using the Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model for a
58-year simulation period. This safe yield is based upon operation of Ware Creek Reservoir
as an interconnected component of the existing Newport News Waterworks raw water
system. Without this interconnection, Malcolm Pirnie has estimated this project's treated
water safe yield benefit for the Lower Peninsula at 4.7 mgd.

Practicability Analysis
The history of regulatory and judicial proceedings associated with this alternative
demonstrate the highly uncertain fate of Ware Creek Reservoir as a local supply (i.e.,
without modification or expansion to serve a larger regional need). In December 1993 the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision upholding the USEPA's
second "Veto" of James City County's proposed Ware Creek Reservoir Project.
Consequently, this alternative (without expansion) is currently considered impracticable.
This practicability determination is made with the understanding that there are also serious
concerns regarding long-term reservoir water quality deterioration given the extensive nature
of planned development in the watershed.

In the interests of serving more of the RRWSG's future needs and avoiding legal
challenges wherever possible, only an expanded Ware Creek Reservoir alternative will be
carried forward for further environmental analysis.

3.4.11 Ware Creek Reservoir With Pumpovers From Paraunkey, Mattaponi,
and/or Chickahominy Rivers

Description
This alternative would involve a raw water intake and pumping station located on the
Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and/or Chickahominy Rivers, a river water pipeline from the river
source(s) to Diascund Creek Reservoir, Diascund Creek Reservoir withdrawal and
transmission improvements which depend on the river source, a 1,450-foot long dam on
Ware Creek, and Ware Creek Reservoir withdrawal and transmission improvements. Each
of the three possible river pumpover sources are discussed individually.

Pamunkey River
A 120-mgd raw water intake and pumping station would be located in the vicinity of
Northbury on the southern bank of the Pamunkey River in northwestern New Kent County.
Northbury is located approximately 40 river miles upstream from the mouth of the
Pamunkey River. From Northbury, river withdrawals would be pumped to Diascund Creek
Reservoir through 11.4 mEes of 66-inch, 120-mgd capacity pipeline and 6.2 miles of 54-inch,
80-mgd capacity pipeline. A 40-mgd capacity outfall on Diascund Creek in New Kent
County would also be required.
0114-951-140 3-14 • February 1994

-------
      Mattaponi River
      A 45-mgd raw water intake and pumping station would be located in the vicinity of
Scotland Landing on the southern bank of the Mattaponi River in King William County,
Scotland Landing is located 24,2 river miles upstream from the mouth of the Mattaponi
River.  From Scotland Landing, river withdrawals would be pumped to Diascund Creek
Reservoir through 16.8 miles of 48-tach, 45-mgd capacity pipeline. The raw water pipeline
outfall would be located on Beaverdam Creek in New Kent County.

      Chickahominy River (81-mgd Total Withdrawal Capacity)
      The City of Newport News Waterworks' existing Walkers pumping station capacity,
when pumping  to Little Creek and/or Ware Creek reservoirs, would be expanded to 81
mgd, approximately equal to the capacity of the existing intake works.  This intake and
pumping station site  is located on  the  northern  bank of the Chickahominy  River in
southeastern New Kent County.

      For this pumpover, up to 81 mgd would be pumped approximately 7.5 miles to Little
Creek Reservoir in James City County, where 41 mgd would be discharged, while 40 mgd
would flow  an  additional 1.8 miles  to Ware Creek Reservoir.  Under this method of
operation, no flow from  the Walkers pump  station would be conveyed  directly to  the
terminal reservoirs, although the capability to do so would still exist. If Ware Creek and
Little Creek reservoirs were full, all flow from the Walkers pump station would be directed
to the terminal reservoirs, although at a rate less than the 81-mgd maximum  rate previously
mentioned.

      To facilitate diversion of water to Ware Creek Reservoir, approximately 1.5 miles of
pipeline would be required from the  existing Newport News Waterworks raw water mains
to Ware Creek Reservoir, and the replacement or paralleling of all or a  portion of  the
existing Old Chickahominy main from Walkers pump station to the existing  Little Creek
outfall.

      Chickahominy River (61-mgd Total Withdrawal Capacity)
      An  alternative  to  expanding  the City of Newport  News Waterworks'  existing
Chickahominy River withdrawal capacity to 81 mgd would be to increase  the Walkers
pumping capacity to 61 mgd, when pumping water to Little Creek and/or Ware Creek
reservoirs.

      For this pumpover, up to 61 mgd of raw water would be pumped from the Walkers
pumping station to either Little  Creek or Ware Creek reservoirs.  Similar  to the 81-mgd
option previously described, no flow from the Walkers pumping station would  be conveyed
directly to the terminal reservoirs when the maximum flow of 61 mgd is being discharged
to Little Creek  and/or Ware Creek reservoirs.

      The pumpover to Ware Creek  would require  1.5  miles of pipeline from the existing
Newport News Waterworks raw water mains to Ware Creek Reservoir, as described for the
81-mgd option,

      Diascund Creek Reservoir Withdrawal and Transmission Improvements
      For the Pamunkey and Mattaponi river pumpover scenarios, a new 40-mgd capacity
intake structure and pump station would be required at the Diascund Creek  Reservoir dam
to convey water through a 4.9-mile, 42-inch 40-mgd capacity pipeline to Ware Creek
Reservoir.

0114-951-140                               3-15                              February 1994

-------
For the Pamunkey and Mattaponi river pumpover scenarios, the majority of water
diverted to Ware Creek Reservoir would come from these rivers via Diascund Creek
Reservoir. Other lesser amounts of water would be diverted to Ware Creek Reservoir from
the Chickahominy River. In order to receive these potential water diversions, two raw water
outfalls are proposed in the Ware Creek Reservoir watershed. This outfall would be used
to receive water diverted from Diascund Creek Reservoir.

For the Pamunkey and Mattaponi river pumpover scenarios, a second outfall would
be located on France Swamp near the southernmost point of the proposed reservoir normal
pool area. This outfall would be used to receive water diverted from the Chickahominy
River.

Ware Creek Reservoir
A dam on Ware Creek would be constructed at "Dam Site V" as documented in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement - James City County's Water Supply Reservoir on Ware
Creek (USCOE, 1987), This 50-foot high, 1,450-foot long dam would be located
approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the confluence of Ware Creek and France
Swamp on the boundary between James City and New Kent counties. The 1,238-acre
reservoir would drain 17.4 square miles and store 6.87 billion gallons at a normal pool
elevation of 35 feet msl.

A 40-mgd raw water intake and pump station would be required at Ware Creek
Reservoir to convey raw water through a 3.6-mile, 42-inch 40-mgd capacity pipeline to the
existing Newport News Waterworks raw water mains. The intake and pump station would
be located on the France Swamp branch of the reservoir, on the northern tip of a small
peninsula, approximately 1.1 miles east-southeast of the Route 600 crossing of Interstate 64
in James City County.

Safe Yield
This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw
Water System Safe Yield Model for 58-year simulation periods. Individual pumpovers and
some combinations of pumpovers were evaluated in conjunction with Ware Creek Reservoir.
Treated water safe yield benefits, as listed below, were calculated for the various pumpover
scenarios considered.
Pumpover Source
(River(s))
Pamunkey
Pamunkey
Pamunkey
Pamunkey/Chickahominy
Pamunkey
Pamunkey/Chickahominy
Mattaponi
Diversion Capacity
(mgd)
40
70
100
100 / 61
120
120 / 61
45
Treated Water Safe
Yield Benefit (mgd)
14.9
18.6
21.9
24.3
24.1
24.9
18.8
0114-951-140
3-16
February 1994

-------
Pumpover Source
(Eiver(s))
Mattaponi
Mattaponi
Mattaponi
Chickahominy
Chickahominy
Diversion Capacity
(mgd)
60
75
100
61
81*
Treated Water Safe
Yield Benefit (mgd)
18.8
19.0
19.0
13.3
13.0
  *    Assumed MIF policy is more restrictive than that used in the simulation of the 61
      mgd maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal capacity,

      The above safe yield determinations are based on operation of Ware Creek Reservoir
as an interconnected component of the existing Newport News Waterworks system.

      Practicability Analysis
      Separate practicability assessments for the Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Chickahominy
River pumpover scenarios are summarized below.

      Pamunkey Pumpover

      Based on information compiled to date, there is no basis for deeming this alternative
(with Pamunkey River pumpover) impracticable. Therefore, the Ware Creek Reservoir with
Pumpover from Pamunkey River alternative has been retained for further environmental
analysis.

      Mattaponi Pumpover

      A substantial reduction in project safe yield would occur as a result  of using the
Mattaponi River rather than the Pamunkey River as a pumpover source for Ware Creek
Reservoir. Based on safe yield modeling results presented previously, this reduction would
be more than 5 mgd. Consequently, 30.2-mgd project alternative which includes Ware Creek
Reservoir with Mattaponi River pumpover would require development of a greater number
of water sources than the Pamunkey River pumpover  option. Environmental impacts
associated with developing more water sources would likewise be greater.

      The pipeline route required for the Mattaponi River pumpover scenario would be
longer than for the Pamunkey River pumpover and would require crossing an additional
river basin divide and the Pamunkey River.  As a result, additional stream crossings and
greater land disturbance would  occur.   Energy requirements to pump river withdrawals
would  also be greater, thereby creating additional  energy consumption and  associated
impacts from increased energy production. With these increased construction and operating
costs, total project costs for the Mattaponi  River pumpover scenario would be higher with
no reduction in impacts.

      King William County has authority under the local consent provisions of Title 15.1
of the Code of Virginia, and  other statutory authorities,  to review  and approve  or
0114-951-140
                                       3-17
                                                                       February 1994

-------
disapprove any public water supply project components that would be built by any other
jurisdiction and located in King William County. One of the key requirements for obtaining
the County's local consent is the ability of an alternative to provide the County with a future
water supply. Without a reservoir in King William County, Mattaponi River withdrawals
would not supply the County with a reliable water supply during low flow periods when the
MIF policy would prohibit river withdrawals. Therefore, the County has stated its
opposition to a Mattaponi River withdrawal without a local reservoir (D. S. Whitlow, King
William County, personal communication, 1992). King William County has thus given a
strong indication that it would deny local consent for the construction of the Mattaponi
River intake structure, pumping station, and raw water transmission line required for this
Ware Creek Reservoir pumpover alternative.

The RRWSG has concluded that based on the environmental, technical, and political
constraints summarized above, a Mattaponi River pumpover to Ware Creek Reservoir is
impracticable. Based on this evaluation, and the following practicability analysis for the
Chickahominy River pumpover, the RRWSG has also concluded that only the Pamunkey
River pumpover to Ware Creek Reservoir should be retained for further environmental
analysis of this alternative.

Chickahominy Pumpover

The 0.8 mgd incremental safe yield benefit from raising the maximum Chickahominy
River withdrawal to 61 mgd is not considered sufficient to justify its inclusion as part of this
alternative.

Given the current regulatory emphasis on streamflow protection, increasing the
maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal would likely trigger more restrictive MIF
requirements. Therefore, increasing the maximum Chickahominy withdrawal, to supply and
substantially augment the safe yield of Ware Creek Reservoir, is not considered to be
available from a regulatory standpoint.

The Governor's conditional consent and approval of Little Creek Dam suggests that
the maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal cannot be increased, at least without approval
of the Governor.

The Chickahominy River is already critical to the welfare of the Lower Peninsula and
excessive reliance on this single river source would not be prudent. Additional reliance on
the Chickahominy would not provide a backup source in the event of water quality
excursions or extreme low flows that severely limit Chickahominy River withdrawals. Also,
with the uncertainties of future more restrictive MIF policies, it is not prudent to increase
reliance on the Chickahominy River.

Several water quality concerns represent a considerable cumulative threat to long-
term water quality in the Chickahominy River. Greater reliance on Chickahominy
withdrawals would magnify this threat and would not provide an alternative source in the
event of contamination.

Increasing the maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal to 61 mgd would raise the
maximum withdrawal to 30 percent of average streamflow at the intake. There is no
precedent in Virginia for this degree of reliance on a river source by a major municipal
water purveyor.

0114-951-140 3-18 February 1994

-------
      Based on concerns with respect to reliability of water quality and quantity, increasing
the maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal is not considered feasible as part of a long-
term alternative.

      For  the  reasons outlined  above, increasing the  maximum Chickahominy River
withdrawal to 61 mgd or more, in conjunction with building Ware Creek Reservoir, is not
considered practicable.  Likewise, this alternative is not considered practicable by federal
regulatory  and  advisory agencies.  Therefore, this alternative is considered unavailable,
infeasible, and impracticable at this time.

      3.4.12      Ware Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From James River Above
                 Richmond

      Description
      This alternative would involve a 75-mgd raw water intake and pumping station located
on the James River,  approximately 50 miles of 75 mgd-capacity river water pipeline, a
40-mgd intake and pump station near the Diascund Creek dam, a 4.9-mile, 40«mgd capacity
pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Ware Creek Reservoir, a 1,450-foot long dam
on Ware Creek, and Ware Creek Reservoir withdrawal and transmission improvements.

      Safe Yield
      This alternative's safe yield benefit  was calculated using the Newport News Raw
Water System Safe Yield Model for 51-year simulation periods.  Treated water safe yield
benefits of 21.1 and 28.3 mgd were calculated for 40- and 75-mgd James River diversion
capacities, respectively.  These safe yield determinations are based on operation of Ware
Creek Reservoir as an interconnected component of the existing Newport News Waterworks
system. The assumed James River MIF policy and pumpover scenarios were identical to
those used for the  James  River above  Richmond  without New Off-Stream  Storage
alternative  (see Section 3.6.2).

      Practicability Analysis
      The RRPDC has taken a strong position against Lower Peninsula withdrawals from
the  James River  above Richmond.   This  position indicates  that  this alternative is
institutionally not permittable. Furthermore, the intense competition for James River water
between the City of Richmond and Henrico County could severely delay any RRWSG
efforts to pursue  this alternative.  For these reasons, this alternative is not considered
practicable by federal regulatory and advisory agencies.  Therefore, this alternative is
considered  unavailable and impracticable at this time.

      3.4.13      Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover From Pamunkey River

      Description
      This  alternative would involve a 120-mgd  raw  water intake and  pumping station
located on  the Pamunkey River, approximately 5 miles of 120-mgd capacity and 1.2 miles
of 50-mgd capacity river water pipeline, a 1,200-foot long dam on the Southern Branch Black
Creek, a 1,100-foot long dam on the eastern branch of Black Creek, an intake structure
within the Southern Branch impoundment area and a 20-mgd reservoir interconnection
pipeline, a  40-mgd intake and pump station on the eastern branch of Black Creek, a 7.5-
mile, 40-mgd raw water pipeline, a 40-mgd intake and pump  station  near the Diascund
Creek dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to
Little Creek Reservoir.

0114-951-140                                3-19                              February 1994

-------
      Safe Yield
      This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw
Water System Safe Yield Model for 58-year simulation periods. Treated water safe yield
benefits of 11.6 mgd, 15.8 mgd, 19.3 mgd, and 21.3 mgd were calculated for Pamunkey River
diversion capacities of 40 mgd, 70 mgd, 100 mgd, and 120 mgd, respectively.

      Practicability Analysis
      Based on information compiled to date, there is no basis for deeming this alternative
impracticable.  Therefore,  this  alternative has been retained for further environmental
analysis.

      3.4.14      Black  Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From  James  River Above
                 Richmond

      Description
      This alternative would involve a 75-mgd raw water intake and pumping station located
on the James River, approximately 43 miles of 75-mgd capacity river water pipeline, a 1,200-
foot long dam on the Southern Branch Black Creek, a 1,100-foot long dam on the eastern
branch of Black Creek, an intake structure within the Southern Branch impoundment area
and a 20-mgd reservoir interconnection pipeline, a 40-mgd intake and pump station on the
eastern branch of Black Creek, a 7.5-mile, 40-mgd raw water pipeline, a 40-mgd intake and
pump station near .the Diascund Creek dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd capacity pipeline from
Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir.

      Safe Yie/d
      This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw
Water System Safe Yield Model for 51-year simulation periods. Treated water safe yield
benefits of 17.6 and 25.4 mgd were calculated for 40- and 75-mgd James River diversion
capacities/ respectively.  These determinations  are based on operation of Black Creek
Reservoir as an interconnected component  of  the existing  Newport News  Waterworks
system.

      Practicability Analysis
      The estimated present value cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit  would result in projected household water bills -which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion.  In addition,  RRPDC has taken a strong position against
Lower Peninsula withdrawals  from the James  River above Richmond.   This position
indicated that this alternative is institutionally not permittable.  Furthermore, the intense
competition for  James River water between the City of Richmond  and Henrico County
could severely delay any RRWSG efforts to pursue this alternative. For these reasons, this
alternative is not  considered practicable by federal  regulatory arid advisory agencies.
Therefore, this alternative is considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable at this
time.

      3.4.15      King William Reservoir With Pumpover From Mattaponi River

      Project Description
      This alternative would involve a 75-mgd raw water intake and pumping station located
on  the Mattaponi  River, approximately 1.5 miles of 54-inch, 75-mgd capacity river water
pipeline, a 2,400-foot long  dam on Cohoke  Mill Creek, a 9.9-mile, 42-inch and  60-inch,
40-mgd capacity gravity raw water pipeline, a 40-mgd pump station near the Diascund Creek

Oil4-951-140                                3-20                               February 1994

-------
dam, and a 5.5-mHe, 40-mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little
Creek Reservoir.

      Safe Yield
      This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw
Water System Safe Yield Model for 58-year simulation periods. Treated water safe yield
benefits, as listed below, were calculated for the various pumpover scenarios considered.

               Mattaponi River            Treated Water
             Diversion Capacity          Safe Yield Benefit
                       (mgd)                 (mgd)

                          45                   21.9

                          60                   24.2

                          75                   26.4

                         100                   29.5

      Practicability Analysis
      Based on information compiled to date, there is no basis for deeming this alternative
impracticable.  Therefore,  this alternative  has been retained for further environmental
analysis.

      3.4.16     King William Reservoir With Pumpover From Pamunkey River

      Description
      This alternative would involve a 100-mgd raw water intake and pumping station
located on the Pamunkey River, approximately 5.7 miles of 60-inch, 100-mgd capacity river
water pipeline, a 2,400-foot long dam on Cohoke Mill Creek, a 9.9-mile, 42-inch and 60-inch,
40-mgd capacity gravity raw water pipeline, a 40-mgd pump station near the Diascund Creek
dam, and a 5.5-mile, 40-mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to  Little
Creek Reservoir.

      Safe Yield
      This alternative's safe  yield benefit was calculated using the  Newport News Raw
Water System Safe Yield Model for 58-year simulation periods.  Treated water safe yield
benefits of 15.4 mgd, 21.6 mgd, and 25.1 mgd were calculated for Pamunkey River diversion
capacities of 40 mgd, 70 mgd, and 100 mgd, respectively. These determinations are based
on operation of King William Reservoir as an interconnected component of the existing
Newport News  Waterworks system.

      Practicability Analysis
      The pipeline route to King William Reservoir from the Pamunkey River would be
nearly four times as long as from the Mattaponi River and would require a larger diameter
pipeline. As a result, additional stream crossinp and greater land disturbance would occur.
Energy requirements to pump river withdrawals would also be greater, thereby creating
additional energy consumption and associated impacts  from increased energy production.
With these increased construction and operating costs, total project costs for the Pamunkey
River pumpover scenario would be higher with no reduction in impacts.

0114-951-140                                3-21                               February 1994

-------
Existing and projected future water demands are much greater in the Pamunkey River
basin than in the Mattaponi River basin. Estimated Year 1990 consumptive water use in
the Pamunkey River basin is 15 times as great as that estimated for the Mattaponi River
basin. This disparity would grow even larger as a result of Hanover County's active pursuit
of major Pamunkey River withdrawals to supply the proposed Crump Creek Reservoir or
an alternative sidehill impoundment.

The number of existing and planned discharges to the Pamunkey River gives rise to
I water quality reliability concerns that do not exist for the Mattaponi River. There are
currently several point source discharges to the Pamunkey River basin including four S WCB-
designated "major" municipal and industrial discharges upstream of Northbury. In addition,
Hanover County, King William County, and New Kent County have each recently planned
or proposed new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges to the mainstem
Pamunkey River or its tributaries. In contrast, there are currently no major municipal or
industrial discharges in the Mattaponi River basin. Furthermore, the SWCB has no record
of any permitted point sources in the S WCB-designated "waterbody" which Scotland Landing
falls within. This waterbody extends more than 30 river miles upstream of and 11 river
downstream of Scotland Landing.

Pamunkey River withdrawals could impact existing dischargers to the basin. With
proposed Pamunkey River withdrawals in place, permitted wastewater dischargers within a
state-designated public water supply zone would have to comply with more stringent water
quality standards. In addition, disinfection requirements would apply to permitted sewage
discharges which are within 15 miles upstream or one tidal excursion downstream from the
water supply intake. Compliance with these more stringent state standards could require
dischargers to provide additional wastewater treatment. Such impacts are not anticipated
in the Mattaponi River due to the absence of existing or planned discharges.

King William County has authority under the local consent provisions of Title 15.1
of the Code of Virginia, and other statutory authorities, to review and approve or
disapprove any public water supply project components that would be built by any other
jurisdiction and located in King William County. The County has stated its opposition to
Lower Peninsula withdrawals from the Pamunkey River for use in augmenting storage in
"the proposed King William Reservoir (D. S. Whitlow, King William County, personal
communication, 1992). King William County has thus given a strong indication that it would
deny local consent for the construction of the Pamunkey River intake structure, pumping
station, and raw water transmission line required for this King William Reservoir pumpover
alternative. This position indicates that this alternative is institutionally not permittable.

The RRWSG has evaluated various pumpover scenarios for King William Reservoir
and concluded that only one version of the King William Reservoir alternative should be
retained for further environmental analysis. Based on the environmental, technical, and
political constraints of this alternative summarized above, a Pamunkey River pumpover to
King William Reservoir is considered less practicable than a Mattaponi River pumpover.
Therefore, a Pamunkey River pumpover scenario for King William Reservoir was not
retained for further environmental analysis.
0114-951440 3-22 February 1994

-------
3.4.17 Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase

Description
This alternative would involve increasing the pumping capacity of the existing
Newport News Waterworks Chickahominy River pumping station to 61 mgd, when pumping
water to Little Creek Reservoir only. Existing station rehabilitation plans and the addition
of a new Little Creek Reservoir outfall will result in a maximum pumping capacity to Little
Creek of 57J mgd. Once this rehabilitation is complete, the installation of two additional
pumps would provide a maximum pumping capacity to Little Creek of 61 mgd.

Safe Yield
This alternative's treated water safe yield benefit was calculated at 0.2 mgd using the
Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. The
lack of a substantial safe yield benefit for this alternative illustrates that available raw water
storage is currently the limiting factor in the safe yield of the Newport News Waterworks
system. In combination with other alternatives involving new storage, the safe yield benefit
would be greater (see Sections 3,4.11 and 3.4.18).

Practicability Analysis
The 0.2 mgd incremental safe yield benefit from raising the maximum Chickahominy
River withdrawal to 61 mgd is not considered sufficient to justify it as practicable.

Given the current regulatory emphasis on streamflow protection, increasing the
maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal could trigger more restrictive MIF requirements.
Therefore, increasing the maximum Chickahominy withdrawal is not considered to be
available from a regulatory standpoint.

The Governor's conditional consent and approval of Little Creek Dam suggests that
the maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal cannot be increased, at least without approval
of the Governor.

Increasing the maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal to 61 mgd would raise the
maximum withdrawal to 30 percent of average streamflow .at the intake. There is no
precedent in Virginia for this degree of reliance on a river source by a major municipal
water purveyor.

Based on the preceding concerns with respect to availability and reliability of water
quality and quantity, increasing the maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal to 61 mgd,
0114-951-140 3-23 February 1994

-------
or more, is currently considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable. In addition, this
alternative is not considered practicable by federal regulatory and advisory agencies.

3.4.18 Chickahominy River Pumping Increase and Raising Diascund
and Little Creek Dams

Description
This alternative would involve increasing the pumping capacity of the existing
Newport News Waterworks Chickahominy River pumping station (as discussed in Section
3.4.17), and increasing reservoir storage. Normal pool elevations of Newport News
Waterworks' Little Creek and Diascund Creek reservoirs would be raised by 2 feet, and the
Chickahominy River pump station maximum pumping capacity, when pumping to Little
Creek Reservoir only, would be increased to 61 mgd.

Raising the normal pool elevation at Little Creek would require, at a minimum, the
addition of a flood/splash wall across the top of the dam, modifications to the spillway
intake tower, and the addition of a supplementary emergency spillway. Raising the normal
pool elevation at Diascund Creek would require, at a minimum, the modification of the
existing spillway structure and pump station, the addition of a splash waE across the top of
the dam and the addition of a supplementary emergency spillway.

Safe Yield
This alternative's potential treated water safe yield benefit was calculated at 5.0 mgd
using the Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation
period.

Practicability Analysis
Increasing the maximum Chickahominy River withdrawal to 61 mgd, or more, is
currently considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable. Given this practicability
determination, a new analysis was performed to evaluate the benefit of raising the Diascund
and Little Creek dams without increasing the maximum Chickahominy River pumping
capacity. As a result, the treated water safe yield benefit for this alternative would decline
from 5.0 mgd to 1.3 mgd. With a safe yield of only 1.3 mgd, the estimated present value
cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe yield benefit would result in projected
household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's adopted affordability criterion. For these
reasons, this alternative is not considered practicable by federal regulatory and advisory
agencies. Therefore, this alternative is considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable
at this time.

3.4.19 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Constrained By Number of Wells

Description
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) typically involves:

• The seasonal underground storage of treated drinking water in a suitable
aquifer during times when the raw water source capacity exceeds system
demand.

• The subsequent recovery from the same wells to meet peak or emergency
demands beyond the raw water source capacity. Generally, the only treatment
required for the recovered water is chlorination.

0114-951-140 3-24 Febnaaiy 1994

-------
ASR does not supply water in and of itself, but is instead a water management
technique. As with other water supply alternatives, an acceptable source of raw water must
first be identified.

The Chickahominy River is the largest fresh surface water source within the Lower
Peninsula study area. As such, it offers greater potential to supply a Lower Peninsula ASR
system than other local fresh surface water sources. Newport News Waterworks' existing
Chickahominy River withdrawal above Walkers Dam was thus chosen as a potential raw
water source for this evaluation.

It was assumed that raw water transmission, water treatment, and finished water
distribution capacity would be available as required to obtain the maximum ASR safe yield
benefit. The additional capacities and specific improvements required in transmission,
treatment, and distribution facilities have not been quantified or detailed to date.

Chickahominy River withdrawals would eventually be treated and pumped into the
distribution system. Any treated water in excess of system demand would be injected into
the aquifer storage zone to be used when raw water supplies cannot meet all of the treated
water demands.

It was assumed that ASR wells would be developed in areas adjacent to existing
Newport News Waterworks pumping stations, finished water storage tanks, and water
treatment plants. Twelve potential ASR well locations were identified which have good
access to Newport News Waterworks* finished water distribution system and are located on
property owned by Waterworks.

A realistic upper limit for single ASR well injection rates would be approximately VA
mgd. Therefore, the 12 well system could have a total maximum injection rate of 18 mgd.
Given the 6.7 mgd estimated safe yield benefit for this alternative (see below) and an
assumed maximum day demand (MDD) factor of 1.45, the ASR withdrawal facilities would
be sized to supply a MDD on the order of 9.7 mgd. Assuming 1 to 2 mgd average ASR well
withdrawal capacities, 5 to 10 dual-purpose ASR wells (i.e, injection and recovery) would
be required. The remaining 2 to 7 wells could be dedicated ASR injection wells.

Safe Yield
This alternative's treated water safe yield benefit was estimated at 6.7 mgd by
performing aquifer storage depletion analysis.

Practicability Analysis
ASR technology in the Virginia Coastal Plain Province is still in the experimental
stage and there is no present basis for assuming that this technology may be applied on the
Lower Peninsula. In addition, there are large uncertainties about how the quality of injected
potable water and the aquifer storage zone itself will be impacted by operation of an ASR
system. Given these uncertainties, this alternative is not considered to be technologically
reliable. The proposed ASR system would also have the potential to cause regional aquifer
drawdown impacts during the long sustained withdrawal periods required for this alternative.
These potential drawdown impacts create considerable uncertainty as to whether this
alternative would be permittable by the State. For these same reasons, this alternative is
not considered practicable by federal regulatory and advisory agencies. Therefore, this
alternative is considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable at this time.
0114-951440 3-25 Febniaty 1994

-------
      3.4,20     Aquifer Storage and Recovery Unconstrained By Number of Wells

      Description
      General characteristics and principal criteria governing the site-specific feasibility of
aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems are described in Section 3.4.19.  This ASR
alternative is distinguished from that previously considered in Section 3.4.19 in that it is not
constrained by the number of ASR wells.

      Safe Yield
      This alternative's  treated water safe yield  benefit was estimated at 9.4 mgd by
performing aquifer storage depletion analysis. The assumptions used in developing this safe
yield estimate were identical to those used for the ASR Constrained  by Number of Wells
alternative (see Section 3.4.19) with the exception of the number of ASR wells.

      Practicability Analysis
      ASR technology in the Virginia  Coastal Plain Province is still in the experimental
stage and there is no present basis for assuming that this technology may be applied on the
Lower Peninsula. In addition, there are large uncertainties about how the quality of injected
potable water  and the aquifer storage zone itself will be impacted by operation  of an ASR
system. Given these uncertainties, this alternative is not considered to be technologically
reliable. The proposed ASR system would also have the potential to cause regional aquifer
drawdown impacts during the long sustained withdrawal periods required for this alternative.
These  potential drawdown impacts create  considerable  uncertainty as to whether this
alternative would be permittable by the State. For these  same reasons, this alternative is
not considered practicable by federal regulatory and advisory agencies.  Therefore, this
alternative is considered  unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable at this time.

      3.4.21     Fresh Groundwater Development

      Description
      This alternative would involve construction of new well fields in western James City
County and/or eastern New Kent County near Diascund Creek and Little Creek reservoirs.
These wells would have a total production capacity of 10 mgd and would be used to augment
storage in Diascund Creek and Little Creek reservoirs during periods when Newport News
Waterworks system reservoir storage is below 75 percent of total capacity.

      Little Creek Reservoir Site
      Because of its large total storage volume (7.48 billion gallons), small drainage area
(4.6 square miles), and large withdrawal capacity (55 mgd), it was determined that this 10
mgd alternative should rely on the maximum amount of groundwater that is available from
the Little Creek Reservoir site.  Maximizing withdrawal from the Little Creek site would
also provide a more efficient means of maintaining the water levels in this reservoir when
the minimum  flow restrictions on  the Chickahominy River would alternatively require
pumpover from the Diascund Creek Reservoir.

      To provide groundwater to the reservoir, the wells would discharge raw water either
into existing surface drainageways of the reservoir, or directly to the reservoir,  depending
on the individual well location. At the Little Creek site, a maximum of four wells could be
used to provide emergency raw water supply without causing unacceptable well interference
effects. If water levels in  the Middle Potomac Aquifer decline due to withdrawals by others,
the number and location of wells required at both the Little Creek and Diascund Creek sites

0114-951-140                               3-26                               February 1994

-------
could change. The well sites are spaced approximately 8,000 feet apart around the
perimeter of the reservoir. Approximate well locations are listed below:
Well Number
LC-1
LC-2
LC-3
LC-4
Production Rate (gpm)
800
800
800
800
Latitude
37°22'14"
37°22'57H
sraror
37°21'53"
Longitude
76°50'34"
76°48'35"
76°50'10n
76°48'45"
Diascund Creek Reservoir Site
Approximately 5.4 mgd of the total 10-mgd groundwater production capacity would
be provided by the Diascund Creek well field. The Diascund Creek Reservoir's relatively
large drainage area (44.6 square miles) and the higher aquifer transmissivity in the area
allow for greater flexibility in determining the location of wells. Four wells located adjacent
to the reservoir, each producing 1,000 gpm, would provide approximately 5.76 mgd of
emergency raw water supply from this site, making the total well water production
approximately 10.36 mgd. A slight downward modification of the production rate of any or
all of the wells from the proposed 1,000 gpm would achieve a total withdrawal rate of
10 mgd. This could be achieved by decreasing the proposed production rate in all four
Diascund Creek Reservoir wells to 950 gpm. The approximate locations of these wells are
indicated below.
Well Number
DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
Production Rate (gpm)
950
950
950
950
Latitude
37°26'50"
37°27'Q2"
37°25'44"
37°25'46"
Longitude
76°54'041(
76°52'20"
76°55'03"
76°53'31B
Safe Yield
This alternative's treated water safe yield benefit was calculated at 4.4 mgd using the
Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. This
determination was based on the assumption that the wells would not be used until Newport
News Waterworks reservoir storage falls to a 75 percent drought alert level (i.e., 75 percent
of total system capacity including dead storage).

Practicability Analysis
Based on information compiled to date, there is no basis for deeming this alternative
impracticable. Therefore, this alternative has been retained for further environmental
analysis.
0114-951-140
3-27
February 1994

-------
      3.4.22     Groundwater Desalination As The Single Long-Term Alternative

      Description
      This alternative would involve new large-scale groundwater withdrawals from the
deep, brackish  aquifers in the Lower Peninsula.  Potential locations of the withdrawals
would include areas located in the City of Newport News, James City County, and York
County, The areas of Copeland Industrial Park, Lee Hall, Harwood's Mill, and Little Creek
Reservoir were selected as well field locations based on ease of integration with existing
finished water storage and distribution system facilities, availability of existing property and
easements, and to minimize drawdown by distributing the required large withdrawals in
areas of higher aquifer yield.  Groundwater withdrawals would require use of desalination
technology, particularly in the long-term, as water levels decline and higher TDS waters are
withdrawn.

      The amount of firm brackish groundwater withdrawal capacity necessary to produce
approximately 30.2 mgd of average day demand treated water safe yield was estimated at
54 mgd.

      Approximately 27 wells would be required to produce at least 54 mgd of firm well
yield. The individual well fields would typically include 4 to 6 wells each, depending on
actual local yields and available locations.

      Safe Yield
      Assuming that it is always possible to use the full 54 mgd of firm withdrawal capacity,
this alternative would provide a treated water safe yield benefit approximately equal to the
projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 30.2 mgd.

      Practicability Analysis
      The Lower Peninsula is located entirely within the boundaries of the Eastern Virginia
Groundwater Management Area (EVGMA).  The SWCB has taken a strong position against
new large-scale groundwater withdrawals in the EVGMA. Given the widespread regional
aquifer drawdown impacts expected for this alternative, it is extremely doubtful that the
State would permit this alternative.   For  these same reasons,  this  alternative is  not
considered practicable by  federal  regulatory and  advisory agencies.   Therefore, this
alternative is considered unavailable and impracticable at this time.

      3.4.23     Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

      Description
      This alternative would involve the  development of up to  10  mgd of deep brackish
groundwater supply from wells  screened in the Middle Potomac and  Lower Potomac
aquifers. A reverse osmosis (RO) process would be utilized to reduce levels of dissolved
solids, sodium, chloride, fluoride,  and iron  to drinking water quality.   These dissolved
constituents are typicaEy elevated in the Middle Potomac and  Lower Potomac aquifers
beneath the eastern region of the York-James Peninsula. The wells would be installed at
finished water storage and distribution locations within the City of Newport News or on
existing Newport News Waterworks property.

      This groundwater alternative would include four individual RO treatment facilities,
with pre-engineered buildings to house treatment processes, chemical pre-treatment and
post-treatment  systems, additional transfer pumps,  and concentrate lines for discharge of

0114-951-140                                3-28                              February 1994

-------
process reject.   The deep wells and individual RO  treatment plants would be located
adjacent to, and would discharge finished water to, the following existing finished water
storage facilities in the Newport News Waterworks system:

        *    Site 1 - Copeland Industrial Park Ground Storage Tank

        «    Site 2 - Upper York County Ground Storage Tank

        •    Site 3 - Harwood's Mill WTP Clearwell

        •    Site 4 - Lee Hall WTP Clearwell

      Blended groundwater from the Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac aquifers would
be used to supply the RO treatment facilities to take advantage of the favorable water
quality of the Middle Potomac and  the increased yield available from the Lower Potomac.

      Potential concentrate outfall  locations are as follows:

        «    Site 1 (Copeland Park)       Hampton Roads south of the mouth of Sailers
                                        Creek

        •    Site 2 (Upper York County)   South bank of Queens Creek

        •    Site 3 (Harwood's Mill)       West bank of the Poquoson River

        •    Site 4 (Lee Hall)             South bank of Skiffes Creek
      Safe Yield
      The safe yield of this alternative depends on the individual well yields, the recovery
percentages realized for the various water qualities, and the maximum day demand factor
expected in the system.  For a blended raw water quality of 2,000 to 4,000  mg/1 TDS,
recoveries of up to 80 percent can be expected with currently available RO membranes.
The projected maximum week demand factor for the Lower Peninsula through the Year
2040 is 1.25. Using these values, and assuming a 10-mgd firm well production capacity, the
estimated treated water safe yield benefit of this alternative is 6.4 mgd.

      Practicability Analysis
      Large-scale groundwater withdrawals are not considered to be available.  However,
based on  information compiled to date, there is no  basis for  deeming this smaller-scale
groundwater desalting  alternative impracticable.   Therefore,  this alternative has been
retained for further environmental analysis.

      3.4.24    James River Desalination

      Description

      Jamestown Intake

      This alternative would involve a 70-mgd raw water intake and pumping station on the
James River; 9 miles of dual 36-inch, 70-mgd capacity raw water pipelines; an RO desalting

0114-951-140                               3-29                              February 1994

-------
facility capable of producing 44 mgd of finished water; a 20-mile, 36-inch 26-mgd capacity
concentrate disposal pipeline; and a concentrate disposal outfall. Finished water would be
supplied directly to the Lower Peninsula water distribution systems. Thus, to provide an
average day demand (ADD) treated water safe yield of 30.2 mgd, this alternative must
actually be able to supply a maximum day demand (MDD) of 1.45 times the ADD, or
approximately 44 mgd.

Sturgeon Point Intake

This alternative would involve a 60-mgd raw water intake and pumping station on the
James River; 21.5 miles of dual 36-inch, 60-mgd capacity raw water pipelines; an
electrodialysis reversal (EDR) desalting facility capable of producing 44 mgd of finished
water; a 20-mile, 24-inch concentrate disposal pipeline; and a concentrate disposal outfall.
Finished water would be supplied directly to the Lower Peninsula water distribution systems,
with MDD supply provided as described for the Jamestown intake option.

Compared to the Jamestown intake alternative, this project would have a less
expensive and smaller intake and raw water pump station, a much longer raw water feed
pipeline, smaller conventional treatment facilities, less expensive desalination process units,
and a smaller diameter concentrate outfall pipeline.

Safe Yield

Jamestown Intake

With an approximate recovery rate of 60 percent and 10 percent RO module bypass,
withdrawals of 70 mgd would produce 44 mgd of desalinated surface water. Assuming no
MIF requirement, and assuming a Lower Peninsula MDD factor of 1.45, this alternative
would provide a treated water safe yield benefit of approximately 30.2 mgd. Larger James
River withdrawal and treatment capacities could produce treated water safe yield benefits
in excess of 30.2 mgd. However, the projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit is 30.2
mgd, and is used for planning purposes in this study.

Sturgeon Point Intake

It was assumed that an MIF policy would not apply to the raw water withdrawal.
With an approximate overall recovery rate of 75 percent, withdrawals of 60 mgd would
produce at least 44 mgd of desalinated surface water. With MDD supplied as described
above, this alternative would provide a treated water safe yield benefit of approximately 30.2
mgd. Again, treated water safe yield benefits in excess of 30.2 mgd would be possible, but
are not deemed necessary to meet the projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit.

Practicability Analysis
Utilization of the lower James River as a source of public water supply raises specific
concerns pertaining to water quality and the reliability of available treatment technologies
to consistently produce a safe drinking water product. Treatment of water from either a
highly variable estuary source, or a brackish/tidal fresh source, to drinking water standards
has not been accomplished on a permanent basis at any scale. Any process for treating
water from such a source must, therefore, be considered experimental.
0114-951-140 3-30 February 1994

-------
The proposed Jamestown intake site would be located at the lower end of the
turbidity maximum zone of the lower James River estuary. This zone is caused by the
interaction and mixing of salt water and freshwater in the river, and is affected by tides,
streamflow, and climatic events. The turbidity maximum zone acts as a trap for nutrients,
sediment, and toxics; and has widely fluctuating salinity levels which vary in response to the
daily and monthly tidal cycle, seasonal changes in streamflow, and short- and long-term
climatic events.

The pesticide kepone was trapped in the turbidity maximum zone of the James River
following its discharge into the river in the early 1970s. Kepone is currently trapped in the
bottom sediments of this portion of the river. The severity of short-term impacts to the
river due to the construction of a submerged 3,300-foot intake pipeline is unknown, as are
the effects on future water quality due to shipping channel maintenance dredging. However,
the possible risks associated with the existing kepone contamination are serious concerns.

The widely fluctuating salinity levels in this zone of the river are also a concern due
to the difficulties they would cause in controlling the treatment process, and the increased
possibility of varying product water quality and disruptions to treatment processes. Salinity
swings of 2 to 4 ppt could occur approximately every 6 hours at the intake due to the normal
tidal cycle.

The proposed Sturgeon Point intake site would be located at the lower end of the
tidal freshwater zone of the lower James River estuary. Saltwater intrudes up to and beyond
Sturgeon Point in the fall of most years, when freshwater river flows are typically lowest.
During these salinity intrusion events, the turbidity maximum zone of the river would extend
upstream past Sturgeon Point. Salinity levels at Sturgeon Point during these events could
change dramatically in response to tides, changing streamflow, and climatic events.
Turbidity in the river also would be expected to increase during a salinity intrusion event.
Similar to the Jamestown intake site, kepone is trapped to some degree in the bottom
sediments of the river at this point. Similar concerns related to intake construction also
exist for Sturgeon Point.

The treatment technologies required to safely treat water withdrawn at Sturgeon Point
may at times conflict. Proper coordination of treatment operations would be critical to
ensuring the production of acceptable finished water. The combination of initial
conventional treatment followed by an EDR desalting process, has not yet been operated at
a substantial scale in the United States. This combination must, therefore, be considered
experimental.

Moving the intake site upstream to Sturgeon Point and closer to Hopewell would
reduce the magnitude of seasonal and daily salinity variation; however, the intake site would
also be exposed to higher risks of contamination. These risks must be taken into account
while planning a water project with a 50-year life (or longer) and a very large user
population.

Located at and above Hopewell is a large, diverse industrial complex. These
industries have released krge quantities of chemical contaminants in the past. The best
known case involved the discharge into the river during the early 1970s of an estimated
100,000 pounds of the pesticide kepone. The vast majority of this kepone is believed to
remain in bottom sediments in the reach of the river between Hopewell and Jamestown.
This kepone could be disturbed by man's activities, including dredging, or by a severe

0114-951-140 3-31 February 1994

-------
hurricane or other natural event. The City of Richmond's Combined Sewer Overflow
program will accumulate and divert contaminated runoff toward the lower James River.
Finally, there is the potential for catastrophic spill events. In the late-1970s, an ocean-going
sulfur freighter struck and became lodged under the Benjamin Harrison Bridge downstream
of Hopewell. No spill occurred, but the accident highlights the future potential for
catastrophic spill events on a heavily-travelled and used river.

In recent years, the concern over potential adverse health effects as a result of many
forms of microbial contamination, and from long-term exposure to very small quantities of
inorganic and organic chemicals, has been increasing. These concerns are being addressed
by the USEPA as new regulations are released to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986. The 1986 Amendments required maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) to be established for an initial 83 contaminants with additional MCLs to be
established for defining acceptable drinking water quality in the future.

The health risk assessments for the initial 83 contaminants and final regulations for
them are not expected to be completed before the end of this decade. Even then, the MCLs
will be established based on the assumption that the best quality, most pristine, naturally
occurring available water source will be used. The use of less than pristine raw water
sources and the possibility of synergistic effects due to combinations of organic and
inorganic contaminants will not be addressed at aD by these MCLs. The use of raw water
sources with substantial upstream point source discharges and intensive watershed
development, even when in compliance with all current MCLs and other regulations, has the
potential to increase human health risks.

As presented in this document, there are other sources of potable water which have
not been shown to be unavailable to the RRWSG. These water sources are of better quality
than the lower James River and do not present a potential pubic health risk on a year-round
basis as does this alternative. Furthermore, due to raw water quality variability and
treatment control concerns, and the lack of experience in treating water sources similar to
the James River at Jamestown or Sturgeon Point, both variations of this desalting alternative
are considered experimental. Therefore, this alternative is not considered to be
technologically reliable.

In recent years the VDH has taken a strong stance against use of the James River
below Hopewell as a public water supply source. This opposition was most recently stated
in a July 6, 1993 letter in which the VDH outlined its specific concerns (A. R. Hammer,
VDH, personal communication, 1993). Since there are other sources of potable water which
have not been shown to be unavailable to the RRWSG, it does not appear that the State
would approve the James River Desalination alternative.

The estimated present value cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit would result in projected household water bilk which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion. This conclusion is true for both the Jamestown and Sturgeon
Point intake sites.

For the reasons summarized above, the James River Desalination alternative is
considered unavailable, infeasible, and impracticable at this time.
0114-951-140 3-32 February 1994

-------
      3.425    Pamunkey River Desalination

      Description
      This alternative would involve a 65-mgd raw water intake and pumping station on the
Pamunkey River; a 25-mile, 54-inch 65-mgd capacity raw water pipeline; an RO or EDR
desalting facility capable of producing 44 mgd of finished water; an 8.2-mile, 30-inch 21-mgd
capacity concentrate disposal pipeline; and a concentrate disposal outfall. Finished water
would be supplied directly to the Lower Peninsula water distribution systems.   Thus, to
provide an ADD treated water safe yield of 30.2 mgd, this alternative must actually be able
to supply a MDD of 1.45 times the ADD, or approximately 44 mgd.

      Safe Yield
      With an approximate recovery rate of 70 percent and 10 percent RO module or EDR
unit bypass, withdrawals  of  up to 65  mgd would be required to produce 44 mgd of
desalinated surface water.  Assuming no MIF requirement, and assuming a Lower Peninsula
MDD factor of 1.45, this alternative could theoretically provide a treated water safe yield
benefit of approximately 30.2 mgd.

      However, a major limitation  upon safe yield exists since this alternative involves a
river withdrawal for which compliance with an MIF policy would likely be required.  In
December 1991 the SWCB agreed that it is appropriate to assume that an MIF policy would
be in place for any new Pamunkey River withdrawal considered as part of this study (J. P.
Hassell, SWCB, personal communication, 1991). Therefore, during droughts with extended
periods of low river flow at or below the MIF level(s), withdrawals could not occur.

      This desalting alternative would produce finished water without any intermediate raw
water storage step, and would thus rely on the Pamunkey River as a constant source of feed
water. In order for this alternative to provide its theoretical 30.2-mgd safe yield benefit,
continuous Pamunkey River  withdrawals  of up to 65 mgd must,  therefore, be allowed
throughout the drought of record.  Since this alternative does not include new raw water
storage,  and since an  MIF  policy would severely limit  or preclude Pamunkey River
withdrawals for extended  periods (i.e., 10 consecutive months), the potential safe yield
benefit of this alternative is negated.

      Practicability Analysis
      The Pamunkey River Desalination alternative is not expected to offer a treated water
safe yield benefit^JFor this reason, this alternative is not considered practicable by the
USCOE and USEPA." Therefore, this alternative is considered infeasible and impracticable
at this tim<

      3.426     York River Desalination

      Description
      This alternative would involve an 85-mgd raw water intake and pumping station on
the York River; 13.6-miles of dual 42-inch, 85-mgd capacity raw water pipelines; an  RO
desalting facility capable of producing 44 mgd of finished water; a 20-mile, 36-inch 41-mgd
capacity  concentrate disposal  pipeline; and a concentrate disposal outfall. Finished water
would be supplied directly to  the Lower Peninsula water distribution systems.  Thus, to
provide an ADD treated water safe yield of 30.2 mgd, this alternative must actually be able
to supply a MDD of 1.45 times the ADD, or approximately 44 mgd.
0114-951-140                                3-33                              February 1994

-------
Safe Yield
With an approximate product water recovery rate of 50 to 55 percent, withdrawals of
up to 85 mgd would be required to produce 44 mgd of desalinated surface water. Assuming
no MIF requirement, and assuming a Lower Peninsula MDD factor of 1.45, this alternative
would provide a treated water safe yield benefit of approximately 30.2 mgd. Larger York
River withdrawal and treatment capacities could produce treated water safe yield benefits
in excess of 30.2 mgd. However, the projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit is 30.2
mgd, and is used for planning purposes in this study.

Practicability Analysis
Utilization of the York River as a source of public water supply raises specific
concerns pertaining to water quality and the reliability of available treatment technologies
to consistently produce a safe drinking water product. Treatment of water from a highly
variable estuary source to drinking water standards has not been accomplished on a
permanent basis at any scale. Any process for treating water from such a source must,
therefore, be considered experimental.

The intake site proposed for York River withdrawals is located just below the
turbidity maximum zone of the lower York River estuary. This zone is caused by the
interaction and mixing of salt water and freshwater in the river, and is affected by tides,
streamflow, and climatic events. The turbidity maximum zone acts as a trap for nutrients,
sediment, and toxics; and has widely fluctuating salinity levels which vary in response to the
daily and monthly tidal cycle, seasonal changes in streamflow, and short- and long-term
climatic events. On a seasonal basis, the salinity may vary between 10 and 25 ppt in this
zone.

The widely fluctuating salinity levels in this zone of the river are a concern due to the
difficulties they would cause in controlling the treatment process, and the increased
possibility of varying product water quality and disruptions to treatment processes. Salinity
swings could occur approximately every 6 hours at the intake due to the normal tidal cycle.

The possibility of relocating the proposed York River intake to a site with less
variable water quality was considered. However, downstream of the currently proposed
location is the York River State Park and the Taskinas Creek'marsh area. Below the park
is the Camp Peary Naval Reservation, the U.S. Naval Supply Center - Cheatham Annex, and
the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. These facilities extend along the south bank of the York
River to Yorktown, except for areas where the Colonial National Historical Parkway
separates the U.S. Naval Weapons Station from the river. Below the developed waterfront
area of Yorktown, the Colonial National Historical Park and U.S. Coast Guard Reserve
Training Center extend to Marlbank Creek. It is unlikely that access to the south bank of
the York River could be obtained across any of these military installations, or state and
national park areas. The York River WWTP outfall is located just downstream of Marlbank
Creek. Potential downstream intake locations are thus not considered viable.

Upstream of the current location are several miles of saltwater marsh, including the
marshes at the mouth of Ware Creek. Upstream of these marshes and Philbates Creek is
an open river bank area. However, the York River offshore of this area of river bank is
shallow. Above Philbates Creek, the York River begins to transition to brackish estuary and
the turbidity maximum zone occurs. Water quality in this zone would be even more variable
than that at the currently proposed withdrawal site. Upstream withdrawal sites would also
be in closer proximity to an existing Kraft pulp and paper mill in the Town of West Point

0114-951-140 3-34 February 1994

-------
(Chesapeake Corporation) which discharges to the Pamunkey River approximately 10 river
miles upstream of the proposed withdrawal site. Potential upstream intake locations are
thus not considered viable.

Due to raw water quality variability and treatment control concerns, and the lack of
experience in treating water from a source of this type, this York River desalting alternative
is considered experimental. Therefore, this alternative is not considered to be
technologically reliable.

The estimated present value cost of this alternative per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit would result in projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion.

For the reasons outlined above, this alternative is not considered practicable by the
USCOE and USEPA. Therefore, the York River Desalination alternative is considered
infeasible and impracticable at this time.

3.427 Cogeneration

Description
This alternative would produce drinking water through desalination processes powered
by excess steam from a privately-owned cogeneration facility. The alternative would involve
locating a cogeneration facility on the Lower Peninsula, selling electricity to a utility
company, and producing desalted water from excess steam production for sale to Lower
Peninsula water purveyors.

To date, the only cogeneration facility which has been proposed for the Lower
Peninsula is one originally proposed by Hadson Development Corporation (Hadson). This
proposal would involve construction of a 165 megawatt (MW) pulverized coal-fired
cogeneration power plant and multiple effect distillation (MED) desalination facility located
off U.S. Route 60 between Skiffes Creek and BASF Corporation property in southeastern
James City County. James River feed water was also proposed for facility use.
Subsequently, Hadson's parent company sold its 100 percent interest in this proposed
cogeneration project to LG&E Energy Systems (LG&E). It is not yet known whether
LG&E will pursue this project as originally planned by Hadson.

With this alternative, it is assumed that a proposed intake could be located on the
James or York rivers. River water would be used to cool the power pknt as well as provide
for a raw water source for the distillation process. A discharge structure would also be
required for return of the cooling water and concentrate disposal.

The implementation of this alternative relies largely on the viability of a private
cogeneration vendor willing to construct such a facility on the Lower Peninsula and sell
water produced from the excess steam. The feasibility of this type of arrangement is
primarily driven by a combination of electrical energy production markets as well as water
production costs.

Safe Yield
The potential water production capacity of the distillation facility is dependent on the
power plant capacity. Information from the Hadson cogeneration proposal indicates that
the maximum distilled water production capacity from the proposed 165 MW facility would

0114-951-140 3-35 February 1994

-------
be 20 ragd. However, in early discussions between Hadson and Newport News Waterworks,
a water production rate of 5 to 10 mgd was discussed.  The safe yield from cogeneration
facilities is highly variable and dependent upon individual private vendor proposals.  As a
result, a safe yield number cannot be assigned to this alternative at this time.

      Practicability Analysis
      The VDH has taken a strong position against use of the lower James River as a
public water supply source; and there appear to be other sources of potable water which
have not been shown to be unavailable to the RRWSG.  In this case, therefore, it does not
appear that the State would approve this cogeneration alternative (Hadson proposal) since
it would rely on lower James River withdrawals.  Additionally, the RRWSG member
jurisdictions have not received any formal proposals from private cogeneration vendors to
sell water produced from excess steam.  For these same reasons, this alternative is not
considered  practicable  by  federal regulatory and advisory agencies.  Therefore,  this
alternative is considered unavailable and impracticable at this time.

      3.428    Wastewater Reuse as a Source of Potable Water

      Description
      This alternative would involve blending highly treated wastewater with potable raw
water supplies as a means of increasing total raw water supplies. Increasing potable water
supplies with highly treated wastewater in this way is considered "indirect reuse" of
wastewater, as opposed to "direct" or "pipe to pipe" recycle. This indirect wastewater reuse
alternative would consist of an advanced wastewater reclamation plant close to the existing
Hampton Roads Sanitation District  (HRSD) York River WWTP; a multi-compartment,
reclaimed water lagoon; a reclaimed water pump station; and pipelines to Harwood's Mill
and Lee Hall reservoirs.

      Safe Yield
      This alternative's Year 2040 treated water safe yield benefit was calculated at 6.5 mgd
using the Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield  Model for a 58-year simulation
period. This determination was based on the assumption that steady streams of advanced
WWTP effluent would be discharged to Harwood's Mill and  Lee HaU reservoirs at rates of
4 mgd and 3 mgd, respectively. The Year 1992 treated water safe yield benefit would be
approximately 3.7 mgd based on advanced WWTP effluent being discharged to Harwood's
Mill and Lee Hall reservoirs at rates of 1 mgd and 3 mgd, respectively.

      The reported treated water safe yield benefits assume that combined losses associated
with WWTP effluent transmission, seepage from the terminal reservoirs,  and treatment
would be on the order of 5 percent of total simulated raw water safe yield benefits.

      Practicability Analysis
      The VDH has taken a strong position against wastewater reuse as a source of potable
water.  The VDH position indicates that this alternative is not considered  permittable by
the State. There are also major public health concerns associated with potable reuse which
bring into question the technological reliability of the alternative.  For these reasons, this
alternative  is not considered practicable by  federal regulatory  and advisory agencies.
Therefore, this alternative is considered unavailable and impracticable at this time.
0114-951-140                               3-36                               February 1994

-------
      3.4.29     Wastewater Reuse For Non-Potable Uses

      Description
      This alternative would involve advanced treatment of WWTP effluent to produce non-
potable water, suitable for industrial cooling and industrial process use. The utilization of
WWTP effluent as a non-potable water source would allow existing potable water sources
to satisfy additional potable water demands. This wastewater reuse alternative would consist
of one or more reuse water systems.  Each system would include an advanced wastewater
reclamation plant, reuse water pump station, distribution system, and storage facilities. Each
system would be located adjacent to an existing Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD)
WWTP on the Lower Peninsula.

      Safe Yield
      The current and short-term projected average daily flows at the Williamsburg, York
River, and Boat Harbor WWTPs were evaluated.  Allowing for low flow periods below the
average, these flows represent a current reliable source of at least 20 mgd that may be made
available for industrial reuse. However, the safe yield for this alternative is represented by
the amount of potable public water supply water usage that is converted to this non-potable
supply, thus freeing the potable water supply for use by others.  By reducing the demand for
traditional potable water, this alternative would make available an additional supply of
potable water that could be utilized by new customers. Additionally, the safe yield reflects
only that use of non-potable  water  that traditionally would  have been supplied  by the
potable public supply system.  The use of non-potable reuse water instead of low  quality
groundwater by an existing industry, or by a new industry that  in the past would have used
groundwater but that currently cannot obtain a groundwater permit, would not represent any
overall safe yield benefit to the potable public supply system.

      In December  1991 Malcolm Pirnie conducted a telephone survey of existing large
industrial water customers on  the Lower Peninsula.  Industrial customers surveyed use in
excess of 100,000 gallons per day of potable  public water  for non-potable uses. Based on
this survey, approximately 2.5 mgd of current potable water usage could be served by a non-
potable water supply.  This represents approximately 25  percent of the total  1990 heavy
industrial demand for public water. Assuming this ratio will be similar for new industry,
approximately 2.5 mgd of new heavy industrial demand could be served by a non-potable
water supply in the Year 2040. Therefore, a long-term treated water safe yield benefit of
between 0 and 5 mgd may be possible through implementation of this alternative.

      Practicability Analysis
      The RRWSG member jurisdictions cannot dictate whether industrial water users or
other large water users develop  separate distribution systems which make use of treated
wastewater effluent for non-potable uses. Lower Peninsula water purveyors could build their
own separate distribution  systems to  supply non-potable water  demands with treated
wastewater effluent.  However, it is anticipated that the costs of doing so would be excessive
in comparison to other alternatives under consideration.

      While this alternative has not been shown to be impracticable, it will not be carried
forward for further environmental analysis. Instead, as recommended by federal regulatory
and advisory agencies,  this alternative is included as part of the regional conservation plan
presented in the Water Demand Reduction Opportunities report (Malcolm Pirnie 1993).
0114-951-140                                3-37                              February 1994

-------
      3.4.30    Use Restrictions

      Description
      A use restrictions operating schedule has been developed for the Lower Peninsula
which employs similar techniques to those applied in other areas.  This schedule, which
includes storage threshold levels applicable to each use restriction tier, is presented in the
following table.
Reservoir Storage Capacity (% of total)
100-70
70-55
55-45
45-33
33-11
Demand Reduction Measures
Normal Conservation Measures
Voluntary Restrictions (Tier 1)
Mandatory Restrictions (Tier 2)
Water Rationing (Tier 3)
Emergency/Disaster Conditions
      Demand reduction objectives have been developed for the residential, commercial,
heavy industrial, and federal installations water demand categories.  These use restriction
objectives  are  presented as demand  reduction  factors.   For both the residential and
commercial sectors, these demand reduction objectives are in addition to an 8.1 percent
reduction goal (to be achieved through normal conservation measures) which is factored into
the tables presented below.

      The annual average per capita residential usage objectives for the Lower Peninsula
are as follows:
Demand Reduction Measures
Voluntary Restrictions (Tier 1)
Mandatory Restrictions (Tier 2)
Water Rationing (Tier 3)
Average Annual
Usage Goals (gpcpd)
64
62
57
Demand Reduction
Factors
0.955
0.925
0.85
Commercial use restriction objectives, presented as demand reduction factors, are as foEows:
Demand Reduction Measures
Voluntary Restrictions (Tier 1}
Mandatory Restrictions (Tier 2)
Water Rationing (Tier 3)
Average Annual
Goals (%)
4.5
7.5
15
Demand Reduction
Factors
0.955
0.925
0.85
0114-951-140
                                         3-38
Februaiy 1994

-------
Heavy industrial use restriction objectives, presented as demand reduction factors, are as
follows;
Demand Reduction Measures
Voluntary Restrictions (Tier 1)
Mandatory Restrictions (Tier 2)
Water Rationing (Tier 3)
Average Annual
Goals (%)
4.5
7.5
15
Demand Reduction
Factors
0.955
0.925
0.85
Federal Installations use restriction objectives, presented as demand reduction factors, are
as follows:
Demand Reduction Measures
Voluntary Restrictions (Tier 1)
Mandatory Restrictions (Tier 2)
Water Rationing (Tier 31
Average Annual
Goals (%)
4.5
7.5
15
Demand Reduction
Factors
0.955
0.925
0.85
      Safe Yield
      This alternative's treated water safe yield benefit was calculated at 1.5 mgd using the
Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. This
determination was  based on the demand reduction factors and corresponding raw water
storage threshold levels defined in the preceding description of this alternative.

      Practicability Analysis
      Based on information compiled to date,  there is no basis for deeming the  Use
Restrictions alternative impracticable.  Therefore, this alternative has been retained for
further environmental analysis.

      3.431     No Action

      Description
      The Council  on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) regulations, specify that the alternative of "no action" be included in the analysis
of project alternatives (40 CFR § 1502.14).

      The No Action alternative could be expanded  to include those alternatives which
would not require a federal or state permit. At least two alternatives would require no
federal or state permits: Use Restrictions and No Action.  However, for purposes of this
EIS, the Use Restrictions alternative is evaluated separately (see Section 3.4.30).

      Under the No Action alternative, the RRWSG would do-nothing to provide additional
raw water supply or curtail water use on the Lower  Peninsula.  To limit growth, water
0114-951-140
3-39
February 1994

-------
purveyors could pkce moratoriums on new hook-ups. New industry and other water users
would, therefore, be unable to locate in the region due to a lack of treated water supply.

Safe Yield
No safe yield benefit is associated with the No Action alternative and, as a result,
deficit projections presented in Section 2.7 would be anticipated throughout the planning
period.

Practicability Analysis
The No Action alternative is not considered feasible or practicable since it does not
contribute to a solution of the basic project purpose. Nevertheless, the No Action
alternative has been retained for further environmental analysis pursuant to the CEQ NEPA
regulations (40 CFR § 1502.14).

3.432 Additional Alternatives Considered

The RRWSG considered two additional reservoir alternatives that were identified
during the course of interagency scoping. These alternatives were not included in the
original list of 31 alternatives in the USCOE's Conceptual Scoping Outline for the Lower
Peninsula's Bow Water Supply Draft EIS (W. H. Poore, Jr., USCOE - Norfolk District,
personal communication, 1990). Nevertheless, efforts were made by the RRWSG to
evaluate the practicability of these alternatives and the results of these investigations are
summarized below.

Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
It is anticipated that a substantial reduction in project safe yield would occur as a
result of using the Mattaponi River rather than the Pamunkey River as a pumpover source
for Black Creek Reservoir. This conclusion is supported by safe yield evaluations conducted
for Ware Creek Reservoir with pumpover from either the Pamunkey or Mattaponi rivers.
Consequently, 30.2-mgd project alternative which includes Black Creek Reservoir with
Mattaponi River pumpover would likely require development of a greater number of water
sources than the Pamunkey River pumpover option. Environmental impacts associated with
developing more water sources would likewise be greater.

The pipeline route required for the Mattaponi River pumpover scenario would be
longer than for the Pamunkey River pumpover and would require crossing an additional
river basin divide and the Pamunkey River. As a result, additional stream crossings and
greater land disturbance would occur. Energy requirements to pump river withdrawals
would also be greater, thereby creating additional energy consumption and associated
impacts from increased energy production. With these increased construction and operating
costs, total project costs for the Mattaponi River pumpover scenario would be higher with
no reduction in impacts.

King William County has authority under the local consent provisions of Title 15.1
of the Code of Virginia, and other statutory authorities, to review and approve or
disapprove any public water supply project components that would be built by any other
jurisdiction and located in King William County. One of the key requirements for obtaining
the County's local consent is the ability of an alternative to provide the County with a future
water supply. Without a reservoir in King William County, Mattaponi River withdrawals
would not supply the County with a reliable water supply during low flow periods when the
MIF policy would prohibit river withdrawals. Therefore, the County has stated its

0114-951-140 3-40 February 1994

-------
opposition to a Mattaponi River withdrawal without a local reservoir (D. S. Whitlow, King
William County, personal communication, 1992).  King William County has thus given a
strong indication that it would deny local consent for the construction of the Mattaponi
River intake structure, pumping station, and raw water transmission line required for this
Black Creek Reservoir pumpover alternative.

      The RRWSG has concluded that based on the environmental, technical, and political
constraints summarized above, a Mattaponi River pumpover to Black Creek Reservoir is
impracticable.  Given  these findings, this alternative has not been retained for further
environmental analysis.

      Ware Creek Reservoir (Three Dam Alternative) with Pamunkey River Pumpover
      As  a first step, it  was determined that the Ware Creek Reservoir three dam
alternative could provide a maximum Lower Peninsula treated water safe yield benefit of
18,8 mgd if augmented by a 120 mgd capacity Pamunkey River pumpover.

      Currently, the RRWSG only considers the alternatives listed below (excluding Ware
Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from  Pamunkey River) to be practicable.  The Lower
Peninsula treated water safe yield benefits associated with each alternative are shown in
parentheses.

      »     Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River (21.3 mgd)

      »     King William  Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River (26.4 mgd)

      *     Fresh Groundwater Development (4.4 mgd)

      •     Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area (6.4
            mgd)

      •     Use Restrictions (1.5 mgd)

      Given this list  of practicable alternatives, a  1.5 mgd  deficit  reduction could be
provided through implementation  of the Use  Restrictions alternative  to  augment  the
maximum 18.8 mgd safe yield benefit for the Ware Creek Reservoir three dam alternative.
The remaining 9.9 mgd of the projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 30.2 mgd
would have to come from  another reservoir (i.e., Black Creek Reservoir or King William
Reservoir) or from both of the practicable groundwater alternatives.

      It is unlikely that required federal and state regulatory approvals would be granted
for a project involving development of Black Creek or King William reservoir in addition
to the Ware Creek Reservoir three dam alternative.  For this reason, this scenario is
considered unavailable and impracticable at this time.

      Together, the two practicable  groundwater alternatives  would have a combined
withdrawal capacity of 20 mgd and would provide an estimated  10.8 mgd treated water safe
yield benefit, or slightly more than the remaining 9.9 mgd deficit. A groundwater modeling
analysis was conducted by  Malcolm Pirnie using the USGS Coastal Plain Model to assess
whether simultaneous operation of the two practicable groundwater alternatives would be
permittable under recently proposed SWCB Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (VR 680-
13-07). The results from this analysis demonstrate that drawdown impacts to other current

Q114JS1-140 •"""                           341                              February 1994

-------
groundwater users, and the potential for saline groundwater intrusion, would make it very
unlikely that such joint withdrawals could be permitted under the proposed regulations. For
these reasons, this joint groundwater development scenario is considered unavailable and
impracticable at this time.

      Given the findings discussed above, the Ware Creek Reservoir three dam alternative
has not been retained for further environmental analysis,

3 S   SUMMARY OF PRACTICABILITY ANALYSES
      This section summarizes the results of practicability analyses conducted for the 31
alternative components as described in Section 3.0. Table 3-2 contains the results of the life
cycle cost estimates prepared for 19 of the 31 components. It was not necessary to evaluate
all components with respect to cost, because several were eliminated based on other criteria.
Table 3-3 contains the 19 life cycle cost estimates, ranked from low to high, in terms of total
cost per mgd of safe yield for each alternative component. Table 3-4 summarizes the fatal
flaws which caused many alternatives to be considered impracticable.

      The following alternative components (excluding the No Action  alternative) are
currently considered practicable, and each has been retained for further consideration as
part of an overall 30.2-mgd treated water supply project alternative:
Alternative Component
Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
Fresh Groundwater Development
Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area
Use Restrictions
No Action*
Safe Yield
(mgd)
24.1
21.3
26.4
4.4
6.4
1.5
0.0
  *   Although not considered feasible, the No Action alternative has been retained for
      further environmental analysis pursuant to CEQ NEPA regulations.

      The locations of key physical features of the practicable alternative components are
shown in Figure 3-3 (see map packet at rear of the report) and Figures 3-4 through 3-8.
The three reservoir alternatives are also shown schematically in Figures 3-9 through 3-11.

      The grouping of practicable alternative components into project alternatives must
satisfy the following three criteria:

        1.   The project alternative must provide additional treated water safe yield at least
            equal to the projected deficit for each year through the Year 2040; that  is, it
            must satisfy  both short- and long-term demands.
0114-951-140                               3-42                               February 1994

-------
                             TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATES
                     (Year 1992 Present Worth in $ million)
                       DISCOUNT RATE =   7.00%
'
, "•

I
v-.^; ' " *
Safe
Yield
(MGD)
	 !. 	 J. X 	 	
•.

..




*



••






,


- .
v

2. UkeChesdin
5. Rappahannock River above Fredericksburg

6. James River above Richmond w/o New Off- Stream Storage
7. City of Richmond Surplus Raw Water
8. City of Richmond Surplus Treated Water
10. Ware Creek Reservoir
1 1 . Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

12. Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from James River

1 3. Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
1 4. Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from James River
1 5. King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River

1 6. King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
1 7. Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase
18. Chick. River Pumping Cap. Incr. & Raise D.C. and LC. Dams
21 . Fresh Groundwater Development
22. Groundwater Desalination as the Single Long-Term Alt.
23. Groundwater Desalination in NN Waterworks Dist. Area
24. James River Desalination
26. York River Desalination






<









'








11.9
7.9

7.1
7.1
23.9
7.1
24.1

28.3

21.3
25.4
26.4

25.1
0.2
5.0
4.4
30.2
6.4
30.2
30.2
-mmum
Raw Water Project j
Total
Cost

107.61
251 .34

122.44
92.13

45.54
| 127.51
•>,
1 197

:;i 123.65
| 202.64
1 127.57

| 140.24
i 0.64
I 16.04
5.74
; ^ '-
Cost 1
per MGD |
I
..^_....^.™..,........^.._^T^..^.^.._..;...... .^.......lr....... 	
Treatment & Transmission
Total
Cost

9.04
31.82

17.25
12.98
' f
6.41
5.29

6.96

5.81
7.98
4.83

5.59
3.20
3.21
1.30
li .^Y-T
s
1
•%
|

11.19
7.43

6.67
6.67
Sj£., *"' *l
..
1
•;•;
|

|
|
|

;K
|
|

6.67
22.66

26.61

20.02
23.88
24.82

23.60
0.19
4.70
4.14
l^v^W
Cost
per MGD
	
0.94
0.94

0.94
0.94
^,""^'}i'"">.
0.94
0.94

0.94

0.94
0.94
0.94

0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
l^lfi:*!^^
' - " - * f/" '\ J**-?^i'*^.s'*l^{^|>^x^'|
•. f"" •. "• v , i.x*^^jjvis> v v ^ x *. "
ff •>'•', "«5 1 \s^ v1*^. ^ *w ^5

,/ % : ^ :' 'i\/ Ov '*\"l\ <-
Complete Alternative
i Total
I Cost
A. .-4... .i 	 ^
118.80
I 258.77
i
3 129.11
i
] 98.80
J 198.91
'i 52.21
1 150.17
i
ii 223.61

{ 143.67
\ 226.52
\ 152.39
i
\ 163.84
i: 0.83
* 20.74
9.88
' 78.68
; 34.21
: 261.63
344.72

Cost
per MGD
-••; 	 \. ,
9.98
32.76

18.19
13.92
8.32
7.35
6.23

7.90

6.75
8.92
5.77

6.53
4.14
4.15
2.24
2.61
5.35
8.66
11.41

1
^^Jp:
:fi;ff
3f^''i"

?^*'
If 5.5^


f^'M,
^ f*f * Ky^''
;£ "j^
f f
• & .iVS*

* *1 !

z ^ii
\ ^ £ :
*J ill
^ilij

fMsp
^-!!||
";,^i^

"• . ...... 	 .. . 	 .": 	 ' % ^ 'S ^v ^ "• v ^ •. ' ^ i- ^ XvX.X*X.X£.X-X*X*X-X-X-X-X-XvX-XvX-Xv:- ^ ^'->
                                                                                June 1993

-------

-------
                          TABLE 3-3
RANKED ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATES
                 (Year 1992 Present Value Cost in $ million)
                      DISCOUNT RATE =    7.00%
Alternatives In Order of Cost Per MGD

(Low to High)


21 , Fresh Groundwater Development
22. Groundwater Desalination as the Single Long-Term Alternative
1 7. Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase

18. Chick. River Pumping Cap. Incr. and Raise D.C. and LC. Dams
23. Groundwater Desalination in NN Waterworks Dist. Area
1 5, King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
1 1 . Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

16, King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
1 3. Black Greek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

1 0. Ware Creek Reservoir
1 2. Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from James River
8. CHy of Richmond Surplus Treated Water

24. James River Desalination
1 4. Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from James River
2. LakeChesdin
26. York River Desalination
7, City of Richmond Surplus Raw Water
6. James River above Richmond w/o New Off— Stream Storage
5. Rappahannock River above Fredericksburg


M
I
1
1
'i
;|l

I
i
;|
1
"4
y-
i
|
jji
1
1
§
1
1

I
S:
1
|
1
1
1
|
1
i
Treated Water I
1
Safe Yield 1
(MGD} §

4.4
30.2
0.2

5.0
6.4
26,4
24,t

25.1
21.3

7,1
28.3
23.9

30.2
25.4
11.9
30.2
7,1
7.1
7.9


i: Total
i
Cost per MGD 1
i of Safe Yield
^^^^^^__^^J
Simmmmmmm*
2.24
i 2.61
i 4.14
1
1 4.15
) 5.35
| 5.77
i 6.23
\
i 6.53
\ 6.75
i
\ 7.35
! 7.90
\ 8.32

i 8.66
| 8.92
j 9.98
i 11.41
13,92
i 18.19
5 32.76
'•



PS
i
I
i
i

:^
1
1
1
1
»
1
1
is
I
•S
1
^
i
l
1
i
1
i
»
i

i

Impracticable 1

due to Cost 1
















X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X


                                                                            June 1993

-------

-------
                                                                    TABLE 3-4
                                  PRACTICABILITY ANALYSIS  SCREENING  RESULTS
        ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
                      NAME
                                                    SAFE YIELD
             PRACTICABILITY CRITERIA FATAL FLAWS
                                                                       AVAILABILITY
                                                                                                       COW
                                                                                                                             TECHNOLOGICAI.
                                                                                                                               RELLABnjTY
                                                      IMPRACTICABLE
                                                       ALTERNATIVE
                                                       COMPONENTS
                   LAKEGENITO
                                                        30.2
                                                                   USCOE, USEPA. and USFWS
                                                                    Qppoation due to Impacts
                   LAKE CHESDIN
                                                        11.9
                                                                                                Exceeds RRWSG Crierioa
                    IAKEANNA
                                                        30.2
                                                                        im Power Opposition
                   IAKE GASTON
                                                                   Local Comeii Ic Legri Delays
    RAPPAHA KNOCK RIVER ABOVE FREDERICKSBURG
                                                                   Local Competition for Source
                                                                                                      RRWSG Crieiioi
            JAMES RIVER ABOVE RICHMOND
         WITHOUT NEW OFF-STREAM STORAGE
                                                         7.1
     Local Cons eat
  (RRPDC Opposition) S
Local Compeillioti for Soatoe
                                                                                                Biceedt RRWSG CrteriCB
        CrrY OF RICHMOND SURPLUS RAW WATER
     Local Conielt
   (RRPDCOpposiilon)
                                                                                                Excexdi RRWSG Crterioi
      CITY OF RICHMOND SURPLUS TREATED WATER
                                                                   Availability Highly Uncertain
                                                                   and Outside RRWSG Control
                                                                                                Exceeds RRWSG Cricricn
    JAMES RIVER BETWEEN RICHMOND AND HOPEWELL
                                                                       VDII Opposilion
                                                                   due to Fublic Health Concerns
              WARE CREEK RESERVOIR
                                                         7.1
                                                                       Two USEPA vetoes
                                                       Water quality reliability concerns
                                                        due to watershed development
            WARE CREEK RESERVOIR WITH
         PUMPOVER FROM PAMUNKEY RIVER *
       WARE CREEK RESERVOIR WITH PUMPOVER
         FROM JAMES RIVER ABOVE RICHMOND
                                                        28.3
     Loot] Consent.
  (RRPDC Opposition) &
Local Competition for Source
            BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH
          PUMPOVER FROM PAMUNKEY RIVER
                                                        21.3
       BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH PUMPOVER
         FROM JAMES RIVER ABOVE RICHMOND
     Loot! Conseif
  (RRPDC Opposition) &
Local Competition for Source
                                                                                                Eccc«is RRWSG Criterion
            MNCi WIIJ JAM RESERVOIR WITH
          PUMPOVER FROM MATTAPONI RIVER
            HNG WILLIAM RESERVOIR WITH
          PUMPOVER FROM PAMUNKEV RIVER
   Local Consent (King
William County Opposition} &
Local Competition for Source
Higher Costs and Impacts than
for Mattaponi River Fumpover
 More Water Quality Reliability
  CoBteras than for Mattapotii
	Rivtrfmnnover	
Mattaponi River and expanded Ctrickahominy River purapcvers to Ware Creek Reservoir are not considered praaicahle.
                                                                                                                                                                                    February 1994

-------

-------
                                                            TABLE 3-4
                               PRACTICABILITY ANALYSIS  SCREENING  RESULTS
                                                            (Continued)
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
NUMBER
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
NAMB
CinCKAHOMINY RIVER PUMPING CAPACITY INCREASE
CmCKAHOMINY RIVER PUMPING CAPACITY INCREASE
AND RA1SEDIASCUND AND LITTLE CREEK DAMS
ASK CONSTRA1NKDBY NUMBER OF WFJJS
ASR UNCONSTRAINED BY NUMBER OF WELLS
FRESH GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT
GROUNDWATER DESALINATION AS THE
SINGLE LONG-TERM ALTERNATIVE
GRODN0WATER DESAUNATION IN NEWPORT NEWS
WATERWORKS DISTRIBUTION AREA
JAMES RIVER DESAUNATION
PAMUNKEY RIVER DESAUNATION
YORK RIVER DESALINATION
COGENERATION
WASTliWATl-K REUSE AS A
SOURCE OF POTA1H Jj WATl-R
WAS'IHWATIiK REUSE FOK NON-POTABLE USES *
USE RESTRICTIONS
NO ACTION"
SAFE YIELD
(of*1)
0.2
5.0
6,7
9.4
4.4
30.2
6.4
30.2
OO
30.2
Unknown
3.7-6.5
0.0- 5.0
1.5
0.0
PRACTICABILITY CRITERIA FATAL FLAWS
AVAILABILITY
Need Governor's Approval Amended
& Could Trigger Higher MIF
Need Governor's Approval Amended
& Could Trigger Higher MIF
VDEO Permiuabiliry Uncertain
Duo to Potential
Regional Aquifer Drawdown
VDEQ Permilt»hilily Uncertain
Due to Potential
Regional Aquifer Drawdown

VDEQ Permluabiliry Uncertain
Due to Potential
Regional Aquifer Drawdown

VDH Opposition
dye to Public Health Concerns
VDEQ MIF Policy Requirement
Negate! Safe Yield Benefit

VDH Opposition due to
Public Health Concerns &
No Proposals Exist for Water Sales
VDHOppcailion
due to Public Health Concerns
KKWSO can not Dictate whether
Large Water Users Implement

COST

Exceeds RRWSG Criterion
without Chidtahominy Pumping
Capacfey Increase





Exceeds RRWSG Criterion

Exceeds RRWSG Criterion




TECHNOLOGICAL
Rl'-IIAHIIJTY
Excessive Reliance on River
Souroe Unprecedented in Virginia
Excessive Reliance on Rivef
Source Unprecedented in Virginia
Experimental Technology in Virginia
& Uncertain Quality after Injected
Experimental Technology in Vkguiia
£ Uncertain Quality after Injected



Experimental Application of
Technology & Uncertain Water
Quality Reliability

Experimental Application of
Technology & Uncertain Water
Quality Reliability

Uncertainties with Adequacy
of Treatment Technology


Does not Contribute to Solution of Basic Project Purpose
IMPRACTICABLE
ALTERNATIVE
COMPONENTS
K[
|
|












*  Nan—Potable Reuse is already included as part of the regional conservation plan and will not be carried forward for further envircnmenial analysis.
** Although not considered feasible, the No Action alternative will be retained for further environmental analysis pursuant lo the CEQ's NEFA regulations.
                                                                                                                                                     February 1994

-------

-------
             WALLER MILL
               RESERVOIR
   LEGEND

  •  GROUNDWATER WTHORAWAL

      CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE OUTFALL

  — CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE PIPELINE
H^ucoyvi
   'IRN?
                MARCH 1993
           LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
       REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
           ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

GROUNDWATER  DESALTING ALTERNATIVE
           PROJECT LOCATION
      5              0             5
                                                  SCALE IN MILES

-------

-------
                                                                     ,  FIGURE 3-5
          .  v^x-C  \

                     ir»#3^«rJl^n«t<>»r-.~-'-- ~J
                     «&*» ./V^ay.enl.wn --"-r-'V
                                              CONCENTRATE
                                              OUTFALL
 r\    >
- f,« i-' -«.*-T
                                   V
   MAUOOL/vi
     PIRfsJIE
               FEBRUARY 1993
           LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
       REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
           ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

GROUNDWATER DESALTING ALTERNATIVE
            SITE 1  LOCATION
       2,000         0         2,000
                                                      SCALE IN FEET

-------

-------
                                               FIGURE 3-6
                                        CONCENTRATE
                                        OUTFALL
 n,v ^-^4 ::ffr/^ k^^w \j .
  \j4S^f^^

V \
  '
f^fe^^S^T^7^
   PIRfsJlE   >

                                    FEBRUARY 1993
                                 LOVICR VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                               REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                  ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

                         " GROUNDWATER DESALTING ALTERNATIVE
                                  SITE 2 LOCATION
                               2,000      0      2,000
                                    SCALE IN FEET

-------

-------
                                                                                           CONCENTRATE
                                                                                           OUTFALL      ) '
                                                                            * At* --£~^ !• X  SK  V2r r~.r:'—~lji:
                                                                            f^W?"'£.^m&g;.!SwI-

                 FEBRUARY 1993
             LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
          REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
BB             ENVIRONMENTAL  ANALYSIS              " <

   GROUNDWATER DESALTING ALTERNATIVE
              SITE 3 LOCATION
\         2.000         0         2.000
MA1JDOIJV1
  PIRNIE    >WELL

-------

-------
                                            C'W-C •
                                            s" <'"^n- ,\: ;
CONCENTRATE
OUTFALL
     /f^1  W?*
     /*,\'-'-^'----'F^tov-'
                                                                           MARCH 1993
                                                                       LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                                                                   REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                                                       ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS              5

                                                            GROUNDWATER  DESALTING ALTERNATIVE
                                                                       SITE 4 LOCATION
                                                                   2,000        0         2,000

-------

-------
                                                                      Figure 3-9

•XPANDED  WARE   CREEK  PROJECT  CONCEPT
    120 MGD
      PS
PAMUNKEY RIVER
        40 MGD
        Outfall
            DIASCUNO CREEK
     80 MGD      ^	
      Outfall
         DIASCUND CREEK
           RESERVOIR
            (Existing)
                 JL_ • ps 4.9 ml
WARE CREEK
 RESERVOIR
           CHICKAHOMINY
               RIVER
                                                                       40 MGD
                                                                         PS
                                                                         3.6 ml.
                            WALKERS\
                           41 MGD PS  X
                             (Existing)
                                 NEWPORT NEWS
                                RAW WATER MAINS
                                   (Existing)
                         PROJECT FEATURES
     120 mgd Pamunkey River intake and pump station near Northbury in New Kent County
     11.4-mile, 120 mgd and 6.2-mile, 80 mgd capacity pipeline from Northbury
          to Diascund Creek headwaters (40 and 80 mgd outfalls)
     40 mgd intake and pump station at Diascund Creek Reservoir
     4.9-mile, 40 mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund to Ware Creek Reservoir
     40 mgd intake and pump station at Ware Creek
     3,6-mile, 40 mgd capacity pipeline from Ware Creek to NN raw water mains
     (can also serve as outfall line to Ware Creek)
     Ware Creek dam 1,450 ft long at a crest elevation of 48 ft.  msl
     Ware Creek Reservoir characteristics:
          Total Volume                              6.87 BG
          Surface Area                              1,238 ac
          Normal Pool Elevation                     ^_3§ft, m§J
          Minimum Pool Elevation                   \Jj3,5jt.ms]/
          Dead Storage Volume                         25%
          Reservoir Drainage Area                     17.4 sq mi
          Minimum Reservoir Release                  0.4 -1.6 mgd

-------

-------
                                                              Figure 3-10
BLACK CREEK  RESERVOIR  PROJECT  CONCEPT
          	PAMUNKEY RIVER
 120 MGD
     PS
        BLACK CREEK
         RESERVOIR
    (Southern and eastern branch**
     of Black Cr**k connected by
      0.7»mll* transfer pipeline)
                   DIASCUND CREEK X
                               /  5.7 ml.
                   DIASCUND CREEK
                      RESERVOIR
                      (Existing)
                                                    ..„ YORK
                                                     "~\ RIVER
                                                          ''X
                                                 PS
                                                      5.5 ml.
          LITTLE CREEK
           RESERVOIR
                       PROJECT FEATURES
  120 mgd Pamunkey River intake and pump station in vicinity of Northbury
  5-mile, 120 mgd capacity pipeline from Pamunkey River to Black Creek Res.
  40 mgd intake and pump station on the eastern branch of Black Creek Res.
  7.5-mile, 40 mgd capacity pipeline for BC Reservoir withdrawals
  Pipeline terminus on Diascund Creek in New Kent County
  Pipeline discharge flows 5.7 miles to Diascund Creek Reservoir
  40 mgd intake and pump station at Diascund Creek  Reservoir
  5.5-mile, 40 mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund to Little Creek Reservoir
  Dams 85 and 95 feet high at crest elevations of 110 feet msl
  Black Creek Reservoir characteristics:
            Total Volume
            Surface Area
            Normal Pool Elevation
            Minimum Pool Elevation
            Dead Storage Volume
            Reservoir Drainage Area
            Minimum Reservoir Release
 8.4 BG
 1,146 ac
100ft.  msl
70 ft. msl
  25%
5.5 sq mi
 1.2 mgd

-------

-------
                                                               Figure 3-11
KING  WILLIAM  RESERVOIR  PROJECT  CONCEPT
          75MGD
       	PS
                   MATTAPONl RIVER
                           '*'••>.,
         KING WILLIAM
          RESERVOIR
        (Cohoke Mil! Creek)
GRAVITY
 PIPELINE
                                        \
  PAMUNKEY RIVER
                                   DIRECTIONAL
                                      DRILL
                  BEAVERDAM CREEK /^ „  .
                               /  1,3 mi.
                    DIASCUND CREEK
                      RESERVOIR
                       (Existing)
                                                     5.5 mi.
                          LITTLE CREEK
                           RESERVOIR
                     PROJECT FEATURES
* 75 mgd Mattaponi River intake and pump station at Scotland Landing
* 1.5-mile, 75 mgd capacity pipeline from Mattaponi River to K. W. Reservoir
• 9.9-mile, 40 mgd capacity gravity pipeline for K. W. Reservoir withdrawals
• Gravity pipeline terminus at 35 ft. msl on Beaverdam Creek in New Kent County
• Gravity pipeline discharge flows 1.3 mi downstream to Diascund Creek Reservoir
• 40 mgd Intake and pump station at Diascund Creek Reservoir
• 5.5-mile, 40 mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund to Little Creek Reservoir
• K. W. Reservoir dam 2,400 ft long and 90 ft high at a crest elev. of 100 ft. msl
• King William Reservoir characteristics:
            Total Volume
            Surface Area
            Normal Pool Elevation
            Minimum Pool Elevation
            Dead Storage Volume
            Reservoir Drainage Area
            Minimum Reservoir Release
                21.7BG
                2,234 ac
                90 ft. msl
                70 ft. msl
                  47%
               13.2sqmi
                 3 mgd

-------

-------
2. The project alternative must have the least cumulative environmental impact
possible, while satisfying Criterion No. 1.

3. The combination of project alternative components should be institutionally
acceptable and cumulatively feasible while satisfying Criteria No. 1 and No. 2.

From the preceding list of practicable alternative components, it has been
demonstrated that to satisfy the projected Year 2040 regional water demand, any project
alternative must include a reservoir component. Thus, there will be three basic project
alternatives, each of which may have several variations, based on the yield produced by the
respective reservoir component.

The alternative components carried forward into the environmental analysis include
the Ware Creek, Black Creek, and King William reservoir and pumpover components, with
groundwater (fresh or desalted) and use restrictions to make up the remaining project
deficit. Based on the results of the environmental analysis presented in Volume n of the
Alternatives Assessment report, the environmental impacts of non-reservoir practicable
project components rank as follows:
Alternative Component
Use Restrictions
Fresh Groundwater Development
Groundwater Desalination in Newport
News Waterworks Distribution Area
Safe Yield
(mgd)
1.5
4.4
6.4
Environmental
Impact
Least

Most
Generally, these three components will be added from least impact to most impact
while taking into consideration Criteria Nos. 1 and 3 above.

The next step in defining project alternatives is to determine the short-term needs,
that is, the demand that will be required until a reservoir can realistically be expected to
come on line. In order to implement a reservoir component, it could take approximately
7 to 10 years from the present to permit, design, construct, and fill a reservoir for use. For
this analysis, the Ware Creek Reservoir component is considered to take only 7 years, or
until the Year 2000, since it is ahead of Black Creek and King William reservoir in
permitting and preliminary engineering studies.

It is projected that regional demand will exceed supplies by the Year 1998 with
additional projected demands of approximately 0.7 mgd per year thereafter. Although the
interim regional needs are less than 4 mgd, the projected interim needs of Newport News
Waterworks approach 6 mgd with a deficit appearing as early as the Year 1996. The
demands of the other regional water supply systems would continue to be met with existing
supplies through this period. Also, this interim need includes the deficit that would be
observed in the Big Bethel system that would be supplied by Newport News Waterworks.
Therefore, the interim demands of the projects are as shown below:
0114-951-140
3-13
February 1994

-------
Reservoir
Ware Creek
Black Creek
King William
Time to
Completion
(Years)*
7
10
10
Interim Regional
Deficit
(mgd)
1.5
3.8
3,8
Newport News
Waterworks
Deficit**
(mgd)
2.7
5.6
5.6
* Time to completion could vary from these estimates. Therefore,
interim supply deficits may vary from the values presented.
** Newport News Waterworks is projected to be in a deficit situation
earlier than other Lower Peninsula water purveyors.
There is one other factor that needs to be considered when assembling the project
alternatives. Fresh groundwater and groundwater desalination are not independent of one
another. Some combination of fresh groundwater and brackish groundwater may be
available beyond the limits of each individual component described (i.e., 10 mgd of fresh
groundwater during periods of substantial reservoir drawdown to produce a 4.4-mgd safe
yield, or 10 mgd of brackish groundwater for desalination to produce a safe yield of 6.4
mgd). However, it is not considered feasible to rely on pumping a total of 20 mgd of
groundwater for permanent use on the Lower Peninsula. Therefore, an alternative that
relies on both components developed to their full capacities will not be considered
practicable. Another factor that will be considered is that the fresh groundwater safe yield
of 4.4 mgd may actually be slightly higher when combined with an additional storage
component.

Based on the above information, the project alternatives were assembled around each
reservoir component as follows:
Practicable Project Alternatives

Alternative Component
Use Restrictions
Fresh Groundwater
Reservoir with Pamunkey River
Reservoir with Mattaponi River
Groundwater Desalting
Total Supply
Project Yield (mgd)
Alt. A
Ware Creek
1.5 (1.5)
4.4 (1.2)
24.1
...
0.2
30.2 (2.7)
Alt. B
Black Creek
1.5 (1.5)
4.4 (4.1)
21.3
...
3.0-
302 (5.6)
Alt. C
King William
1.5 (1.5)
2.3 (4.1)
...
26.4
...
302 (5.6)
Note: Bracketed numbers indicate the interim supply yield or demand
reduction required until a reservoir component is operational.
0114-951-140
Febniaty 1994

-------
These project alternatives have now been established in a manner so that they can be
further evaluated on a common basis. They all meet the projected regional deficit of 30,2
mgd through the Year 2040 and have been assembled from practicable components with the
least potential environmental impacts. Also, these components have been added in such a
manner as to fulfill projected interim demands before the reservoir component can be
implemented,

3.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Environmental consequences of the seven evaluated alternatives are summarized and
presented in Table 3-5. A detailed discussion of environmental consequences is presented
in Section 5.0.

3.7 RRWSG'S PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
3,7.1 Impact Scoring for Practicable Alternative Components

Table 3-6 is a matrix containing impact scores for each of the seven alternative
components evaluated. The basis for each of the assigned impact scores is presented in the
Alternatives Assessment (Volume H - Environmental Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993). The
impact scores have been totalled separately for the 16 aquatic ecosystem impact categories,
and for all 23 environmental impact categories.

Differentiation for magnitude of impact within individual impact categories was made
by assigning relative numerical scores ranging from +3 to -3. Weighting factors were not
used for the 23 impact categories. These impact category scoring and weighting procedures
are in accordance with guidance contained in the USCOE's June 1992 summary (W. H.
Poore, USCOE - Norfolk District, personal communication, 1992) of federal and state
agency comments on the Methodology for Identifying, Screening, and Evaluating Alternatives
(Malcolm Pirnie, 1993).

Previous efforts to develop impact category weighting factors included a March 12,
1992 Interagency Coordination Meeting attended by USCOE, USEPA, USFWS, and NMFS
staff, RRWSG representatives, and Malcolm Pirnie scientists. Federal agency staff provided
comments, but a consensus was not reached on an appropriate weighting mechanism.
Subsequent to this meeting, the USEPA, USFWS, NMFS, SWCB, and the Virginia Council
on the Environment provided written comments to the USCOE on the Methodology for
Identifying, Screening, and Evaluating Alternatives, The USCOE summarized these federal
and state agency comments in the above-referenced document. In this summary, the
USCOE recommended that the RRWSG present a comparative impact table using the
proposed impact scores (+3 to -3) without any impact category weighting factors. In further
support of the impact scoring procedure, the USCOE wrote that "the use of a negative to
positive scale is standard for comparative impact tables and makes favorable versus unfavorable
impacts readify discernible."

Based on the total impact scores, the seven alternative components were ranked as
follows with respect to their potential environmental impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and
other public interest factors:

0114-951-140 3-45 February 1994

-------
1. Use Restrictions (least damaging)

2. King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River

3. Fresh Groundwater Development

4. Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

5. Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

6. Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

7. No Action (most damaging)

A noteworthy conclusion from this environmental analysis is that the Groundwater
Desalination alternative is considered more damaging overall than some of the reservoir
alternatives. The principal reason for this determination is that the groundwater
desalination alternative was only assigned a positive impact score for its benefits to
municipal and private water supplies. Corresponding groundwater desalination scores for
other impact categories were either 0 (no impact) or negative. The reservoir alternatives
would also offer benefits to municipal and private water supplies. However, in contrast to
the Groundwater Desalination alternative, the reservoirs would also offer substantial
benefits through enhancement of freshwater fisheries, expansion of water-related
recreational opportunities, creation of new parks, direct and indirect benefits to groundwater
resources and, in some cases, socioeconomic benefits. These reservoir benefits are reflected
in positive impact scores for several impact categories.

The Fresh Groundwater Development alternative is ranked as less damaging than the
Groundwater Desalination alternative. One of the reasons for this difference is that the
fresh groundwater withdrawals would be discharged to existing reservoirs when they are
drawn down to critical levels. This type of reservoir storage augmentation would provide
some benefits to aquatic biota that depend on these freshwater aquatic ecosystems. Also,
this fresh groundwater alternative does not have the impacts associated with much longer
concentrate discharge pipelines and associated concentrate outfalls, as would occur with
groundwater desalination.

Of the three reservoir alternatives, Ware Creek Reservoir is considered by the
RRWSG to be the most damaging overall. Some of the principal reasons for this conclusion
are listed below:

• Ware Creek Reservoir would have the largest impact on water quality
conditions below a proposed dam site. The reservoir would eliminate a tidal
freshwater zone, and greatly reduce or eliminate oligohaline areas below the
dam site.

• Intense development in the planned "Stonehouse Community" would be within
the Ware Creek Reservoir watershed. This extensive development represents
the most serious threat to continued long-term water quality in any of the three
proposed reservoirs.
0114-951-140 M6 February 1994

-------
• The Ware Creek Reservoir alternative would cause the largest reduction in
streamflow levels below a proposed dam site (86 to 96 percent reduction in
average flow),

• The proposed Ware Creek Reservoir dam site is in tidal and navigable waters
of the United States. In contrast, the Black Creek and King William reservoir
dam sites are located in non-tidal waters which are upstream of existing
manmade obstructions such as dams and road crossings.

• The Ware Creek Reservoir alternative would rely on Pamunkey River
withdrawals, while the King William Reservoir alternative would rely on
Mattaponi River withdrawals. Estimated Year 1990 consumptive water use in
the Pamunkey River basin is over 13 times as great as that estimated for
Mattaponi River basin.

• The Ware Creek Reservoir site contains the largest known population of a
sensitive species (98-nest Great Blue Heron rookery).

• The Ware Creek Reservoir site is currently used by anadromous fish including
Striped Bass. There is no evidence, and a low probability, that either the Black
Creek or King William reservoir sites are used by anadromous fish.

• Ware Creek Reservoir would impact the largest and most diverse area of
wetlands (590 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands).

• Ware Creek Reservoir would provide a 2.3-mgd lower treated water safe yield
benefit for the Lower Peninsula than King William Reservoir. Therefore, Ware
Creek Reservoir would have less beneficial impact on municipal and private
water supply systems.

• Ware Creek Reservoir would inundate the greatest number of identified
cultural resources (45 sites).

• Ware Creek Reservoir would impact the largest number of existing roadways
including potential impacts to Interstate 64 which are as yet unresolved.

Overall, the Black Creek Reservoir alternative is considered by the RRWSG to be
more environmentally damaging than the King William Reservoir alternative. Some of the
primary reasons for this conclusion are listed below:

• The Black Creek Reservoir alternative would rely on Pamunkey River
withdrawals, while the King William Reservoir alternative would rely on
Mattaponi River withdrawals. Estimated Year 1990 consumptive water use in
the Pamunkey River basin is over 13 times as great as that estimated for the
Mattaponi River basin.

• The King William Reservoir impoundment site, and areas immediately below
the proposed dam site, are already isolated from anadromous fish passage by
the existing Cohoke Millpond Dam. The millpond dam is located 1.8 river
miles downstream of the proposed King William Reservoir Dam. By
comparison, only lesser manmade obstructions to fish passage, such as road

0114-951-140 347 February 1994

-------
crossings, exist below the proposed Black Creek Reservoir dam sites. With
minor improvements at existing culverts and a submerged roadbed, fish passage
at these crossings could be facilitated.

» King William Reservoir would result in the loss of 1,719 acres of forested
habitat compared to 752 acres for Black Creek Reservoir. This type of habitat
is very common to the area. These losses represent less than 2 percent and 1
percent of the forested land within King William and New Kent counties,
respectively. However, T0tt§ William Reservoir, would result in creation of
nearly twice as much valuable \fish habitat as Black Creek Reservoir (2,234
acres versus 1,146 acres). These freshwater systems are scarce in both New
Kent and King William counties.

• Because Cohoke Mill Creek is already impounded below the proposed King
William Reservoir dam site, it is already subject to a substantial degree of flow
moderation during high runoff events. In contrast, the floodplain areas and
associated floodplain wetland communities below the proposed Black Creek
Reservoir dam sites would be subjected to greatly reduced flood flows from
those currently experienced. As a result, floodplain wetlands hydrology would
be severely limited. The vegetated wetlands between the proposed Black Creek
Reservoir impoundment sites and the Pamunkey River cover nearly four times
as much area, and are much more diverse, than those located between the
proposed King William Reservoir dam site and the Pamunkey River.

» Black Creek Reservoir would provide a 5.1-mgd lower treated water safe yield
benefit for the Lower Peninsula than King William Reservoir. Therefore, Black
Creek Reservoir would have less beneficial impact on municipal and private
water supply systems.

• Given the list of practicable alternative components, a 30.2-mgd project
alternative involving Black Creek Reservoir would have to include another
reservoir alternative, or development of both fresh and brackish groundwater
sources. In comparison, a 30.2-mgd project alternative involving King William
Reservoir would only require development of one groundwater alternative.
Therefore, a project alternative involving Black Creek Reservoir would have
impacts associated with development of a greater number of water sources.

• Black Creek Reservoir would result in the displacement of at least 14 existing
houses, and the potential for inundation or other direct impacts to at least 8
additional houses under construction or built within the proposed reservoir
buffer zones. In contrast, no existing houses have been identified which would
be displaced by the proposed King William Reservoir.

The No Action alternative is considered by the RRWSG to be the most damaging
overaE of the seven alternatives evaluated. This alternative would result in major negative
impacts to the quality and quantity of existing water supplies, future land use development
potential, and socioeconomic conditions on the Lower Peninsula.
0114-951-140 3-48 February 1994

-------
It must be emphasized that the impact ranking order for alternative components is
based on the use of impact scores ranging from +3 to -3 for 23 unweighted impact
categories. This study does not imply that critical water resource impact categories such as
wetlands, fish and invertebrates, hydrology, and water quality are of equal importance as
categories such as air quality and aesthetics. Instead, the scoring totals are presented as
being indicative, in general, of the relative overall impacts of the seven alternative
components. It is understood that different government agencies and other interested
parties may view certain impact categories as more important than others in their
consideration of this overall impact analysis.

Clearly there are differences in the relative importance of the 23 impact categories
with respect to water supply projects. Given this premise, a hypothetical weighting scheme
was developed to test the sensitivity of the results presented in Table 3-6 to the assignment
of various impact category weighting factors. These hypothetical weighting factors were
developed based on the technical judgement of Malcolm Pirnie scientists and input received
from federal and state regulatory agencies at, and following, the previously mentioned
March 12,1992 Interagency Coordination Meeting. A weighting factor range of 1 to 4 was
used, with 4 being most important. These weighting factors, and the resulting weighted
impact scores for the seven alternatives, are presented in Table 3-7.

On a relative basis, the weighted scoring results presented in Table 3-7 do not differ
substantially from the unweighted results in Table 3-6. There was only one change in the
ranking order for alternatives based on total scores for all 23 impact categories. The Ware
Creek Reservoir alternative went from being ranked next to most damaging, to being ranked
most damaging. For alternative ranking based on total aquatic ecosystem impact category
scores, the two alternatives ranked as most damaging (No Action and Ware Creek
Reservoir) again switched places.

This presentation of weighted scoring results is not intended to replace the
unweighted results contained in Table 3-6. Instead, this analysis was used to demonstrate
that the ranking order for alternatives appears to be quite insensitive to the potential
assignment of impact category weighting factors.

3.7.2 Comparison of Alternative Component Practicability

As shown in Table 3-6, the Use Restrictions and King William Reservoir alternatives
are considered least damaging, and next to least damaging, respectively, of the alternatives
considered in this environmental analysis. The recommendation of specific alternative
components as part of an overall project alternative should also be supported by the results
of the practicability analysis presented in the Alternatives Assessment (Volume I -
Practicability Analysis (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993). Therefore, a brief discussion is presented
below on the relative technical merits of the five practicable alternatives which involve water
supply source development.

The Use Restrictions alternative, although considered practicable, does not lend itself
to evaluation using these same technical criteria and is omitted from the following
discussion. The No Action alternative is not considered practicable since it does not
contribute to a solution of the basic project purpose. Nevertheless, the No Action
alternative was retained for this environmental impact analysis pursuant to the Council on

0114-951-140 3-49 February 1994

-------
Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations. Given these factors, the practicability of the
No Action alternative is also omitted from the following discussion.

Safe Yield Benefits
King William Reservoir would have 2!6 to 3 times more storage capacity (21.7 billion
gallons) than the Black Creek (8.4 billion gallons) and Ware Creek (6.9 billion gallons)
reservoirs, respectively. In addition, King William Reservoir would have a dead storage
volume equal to 47 percent of total capacity, as compared to only 25 percent for the other
two reservoir alternatives. A 25 percent dead storage volume is the minimum level
recommended by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) for water quality protection.
Given these factors, the King William Reservoir alternative offers the greatest potential for
future expansion to supply water to a larger region than the Lower Peninsula and/or to
meet water demands beyond the Year 2040.

The fresh and brackish groundwater alternatives would produce estimated treated
water safe yield benefits of 4.4 mgd and 6.4 mgd, respectively. Given their relatively low
supply benefits, these alternative components are considered supplementary to the reservoir
alternatives which are each capable of providing more than 20 mgd of the Lower Peninsula's
projected Year 2040 treated water deficit of 30.2 mgd.

Availability

Host Jurisdiction Approval

The City of Newport News has executed a host jurisdiction agreement with King
William County for the King William Reservoir alternative. Over the past two years, no
progress has been made between Newport News and James City County on a project
development agreement for the Ware Creek Reservoir alternative. While an agreement
with James City County may be possible, acceptable resolution of safe yield, operational, and
financing issues remains uncertain at this time. For Black Creek Reservoir, approval by
New Kent County may be difficult to obtain since displacement of at least 14 existing houses
and impacts to additional subdivided land with a total assessed value of approximately $6.55
million would occur. Clearly, without a host jurisdiction agreement, the availability of the
Black Creek Reservoir alternative as a regional water supply solution remains uncertain.

With respect to the Fresh Groundwater alternative, James City County has recently
taken a position of public opposition to this alternative. This opposition surfaced following
a March 30, 1992 application which was submitted to the SWCB by the City of Newport
News Waterworks for a smaller version of this alternative in western James City County.
In formal comments to the SWCB concerning this application, the County stated: "... we
oppose the issuance of these withdrawal permits at least until such time as a reliable supply of
surface water is available to the County" (J. T. P. Home, James City County, personal
communication, 1992). This local opposition would likely delay implementation of this
alternative within, and possibly outside of James City County, until some agreement between
the City of Newport News and James City County could be negotiated.

As of May 1993, negotiations between the City of Newport News and New Kent
County for fresh groundwater development in New Kent County were underway. The two
0114-951-140 3-50 February 1994

-------

-------
                                                   TABLE 3-6

  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCORING  SUMMARY  FOR ALTERNATIVE  COMPONENTS  (UNWEIGHTED)
IMPACT CATEGORY
Substrate **
Water Quality **
Hydrology **
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species **
Fish and Invertebrates **
Other Wildlife **
Sanctuaries and Refuges **
Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows **
Mud Flats **
Riffle and Pool Complexes **
Municipal and Private Water Supplies ** „
Recreational and Commercial Fisheries **
Other Water-Related Recreation **
Aesthetics **
Parks and Preserves **
Cultural Resources **
Groundwater Resources
Land Use
Soil and Mineral Resources
Air Quality
Noise
Infrastructure
Socioeconomic Impacts
TOTAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM IMPACT SCORE
§ii^i^lf^ii^f^i^^lli^ii^l^iSllili^p^^^l^B^
OVERALL TOTAL IMPACT SCORE

ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT
1i«&
-2
-3
-3
_2
-1
-3
0
-3
0
n.a.
2
0
3
-2
3
-3
2
-2
-2
-1.5
-1.5
__O
3
.•h:,::. :-:%'14

':-.:.:•.-•- -19

*&2
-2
-o>
-2
k*.
1
-2
0
—2
0
n.a.
: 1 .5.1
't1>
3
-1.5
3
-2.5
2
,l_
t"1'
-1.5
-1.5
-1.5
• -1
' -1
-1
-1
-1
-0.5
-1
•.:.:~12,5

s:-.€--19

Vp~6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n.a.
0.5
~ 0
- _ -1
-0.5
w-1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
-2
'&^:,->-2

:WV,:,,;:~5

UK7
0
-2.5
„,„ 
-------
                                                            TABLE 3-7

            ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCORING  SUMMARY  FOR  ALTERNATIVE  COMPONENTS  (WEIGHTED)
IMPACT CATEGORY
Substrate **
Water Quality **
Hydrology **
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species **
Fish and Invertebrates **
Other Wildlife **
Sanctuaries and Refuges **
Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows **
Mud Flats **
Riffle and Pool Complexes **
Municipal and Private Water Supplies **
Recreational and Commercial Fisheries **
Other Water -Related Recreation **
Aesthetics **
Parks and Preserves **
Cultural Resources **
Groundwater Resources
Land Use
Soil and Mineral Resources
Air Quality
Noise
Infrastructure
Socioeconomic Impacts
TOTAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM IMPACT SCORE

OVERALL TOTAL IMPACT SCORE
I^^S^^^^^ttttiliW^^ffi^^iJ^to^S^^S
WEIGHT
(1 to 4)
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
n.a.
2
3
2
1
2
3
3
2
1
t
1
2
2

ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT
1
_4
-12
-12
-8
-4
-9
0
-12
0
n,a.
4
0
6
-2
6
-9
6
-4
-2
-1.5
-1.5
-6
6
.'-56

	 EQ
%J«f

2
-4
-6
-8
-4
4
-6
0
-8
0
n,a.
3
3
6
-1.5
6
-7.5
6
-6
-2
-1
-1
-4
-6
-23

-37

3
-4
— a
-8
—•ft
8
™*fi
0
-8
0
n.a.
5
6
6
-1.5
6
-7.5
6
-4
— ,Q
-0.5
-1
-3
2
-20

-23.5

4
-2
-6
-4
0
4
-1.5
0
-2
0
n.a.
1
1.5
0
-0.5
0
-1.5
-6
-1
-1
0
-0.5
-2
— -P
-11

-23,5

5
-2
-6
-2
0
-4
-1.5
0
-2
-6
n.a.
2
-3
-2
-1.5
-3
-4.5
-3
—2
-1
— I
_ -i
_i
-2
-35.5

-46.5

6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n.a.
1
0
-2
-0.5
-2
0
0
-2
0
0
0
0
_4
-3.5
;fi^^^^K^^^^
-9.5

.•'. 7
0
-10
-4
-2
-4
-1.5
0
-4
-3
n.a.
-6
-3
-4
-1
_2
0
-1.5
-6
0
0
0
0
-6
-44.5

-58

                Alternative Components
1.  Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
2.  Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
3.  King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
4.  Fresh Groundwater Development
5.  Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
   Distribution Area
6.  Use Restrictions
7.  No Action
Impact Score
+3
+2
+ 1
0
—.1
-2
— *%
Definition
Major positive
Moderate positive
Minor positive
No impact
Minor negative
Moderate negative
Major negative
 Note: Impact categories followed by1"*" are aquatic ecosystem impact criteria adapted from the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines.
                                                                                                                           February 1994
-------
-------
jurisdictions are considering development of deep groundwater withdrawals within New Kent
County to supply future County needs and augment storage in Diascund Creek Reservoir.

      The Groundwater Desalination alternative is the most "available" of the five water
supply source development alternatives from a host jurisdiction approval standpoint. This
is because the groundwater well and reverse osmosis treatment facilities associated with this
alternative would be built within the City of Newport News, or in York County on property
owned by the City of Newport News Waterworks. Two of the four concentrate discharge
pipelines would be located within the City of Newport News.  The other two concentrate
discharge pipelines would pass through areas of York County not owned by the City of
Newport News Waterworks.

      Competition for Source Water

      The Mattaponi River, as the proposed river pumpover source for the King William
Reservoir alternative, offers a distinct  advantage over the Pamunkey River which is the
proposed pumpover source for the Ware Creek and Black Creek reservoirs. That is, King
William Reservoir would rely on a 45-mgd lower river withdrawal capacity (75 mgd versus
120 mgd), yet would provide a greater safe yield benefit than either Ware Creek or Black
Creek reservoirs.

      The Pamunkey  River—bade contains  much more  existing and projected future
withdrawal capacity and- consumptive water use than the Mattaponi River basin.  This
includes Hanover County's active pursuit of major Pamunkey River withdrawals to supply
the proposed Crump  Creek Reservoir or an alternative sidehill impoundment.   Less
anticipated competition for Mattaponi River water is a distinct advantage associated with
the King William Reservoir alternative.

      Both groundwater alternatives are located within the Eastern Virginia Groundwater
Management Area where competition for  development of future groundwater supplies is
high among local jurisdictions and private water supply developers.

      Cost
      Life cycle costs  have  been estimated for all five practicable water  supply source
development alternatives. These costs have been related to the estimated treated water safe
yield benefit of each alternative component to provide a more  equal comparison. All five
alternatives are considered affordable according to the screening criteria used and described
in Section 3.3. As shown in the following table, the Fresh Groundwater alternative is by far
the most cost-effective  alternative. The other four alternatives do not vary widely in cost-
effectiveness.   However,  potential future expansion  of the King  William Reservoir
alternative, as discussed previously, would result in this  alternative being even more cost-
effective than the other two reservoir proposals.  More detailed alternative cost estimate
breakdowns are presented in the Alternatives Assessment (Volume I-Practicability Analysis).
0114-951-140                                3-51                               February 1994
-------
Alternative
Component
Ware Creek Reservoir
Black Creek Reservoir
King William Reservoir
Fresh Groundwater
Groundwater Desalination
Lower Peninsula Treated
Water Safe Yield (mgd)
24.1
21.3
26.4
4.4
6.4
Year 1992 Present Value
Cost per mgd of Safe Yield
S6.23M
$6.75M
S5.77M
$2.24M
$535M
      Technological Reliability

      For  the  five water supply source development alternatives, principal  reliability
concerns focus on the anticipated long-term water quality  of the proposed river or
groundwater sources, and within the proposed reservoir watersheds.

      River Pumpover Water Quality

      Currently, there are no "major"  (as classified by the SWCB) existing or planned
municipal or industrial discharges in the Mattaponi River basin. This represents a distinct
long-term advantage for the King William Reservoir alternative.

      For  the  Ware Creek and Black Creek reservoir alternatives, the proposed river
pumpover source is the Pamunkey River.  There are currently four major municipal and
industrial discharges upstream of the proposed intake site at  Northbury.  In addition to
these existing Pamunkey basin discharges, Hanover County currently plans to put in place
two major wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges to the Pamunkey River upstream
of Northbury.  King William County's plans include a small WWTP discharge into a
Pamunkey  River tributary upstream of Northbury.

      Ware Creek Reservoir could also be affected by an increase in phosphorus loading
which may result in eutrophic conditions within the reservoir. The Ware Creek  Reservoir
alternative would include a direct pumpover from the Pamunkey River to Diascund Creek
Reservoir,  from where water would be conveyed to Ware Creek Reservoir.  For the other
two reservoir alternatives, water from the Pamunkey or Mattaponi rivers would be pumped
to a large intermediate storage reservoir (either Black Creek  Reservoir or King William
Reservoir) prior to transmission to Diaseund Creek Reservoir.  The pipeline configuration
for the Black Creek Reservoir alternative would also allow a portion of the Pamunkey River
withdrawals to  be pumped directly to Diascund Creek, bypassing Black Creek Reservoir.
Longer hydraulic retention times in King William and Black Creek reservoirs would allow
for much greater removal of phosphorus and other water quality constituents before any raw
water actually enters Diascund Creek Reservoir and the rest of the existing Lower Peninsula
raw  water  storage system. Owing to its much larger storage capacity and dead storage
volume, these benefits should be greatest for the King William Reservoir alternative, and
could greatly improve the treatability of the raw water.
0114-951-140
                                        3-52
Februaiy 1994
-------
      Reservoir Watershed Water Quality

      There is minimal existing or planned development within the 13.2-square mile King
William Reservoir watershed. There are some concerns regarding groundwater quality and
surface water runoff quality since portions of the King William County Landfill are located
within the proposed reservoir drainage area.  However, in December 1993, King William
County discontinued acceptance of waste at this landfill. Present County plans are to begin,
in April 1994, a formal landfill closure process to be certified by the Commonwealth.  In
addition, the King William Reservoir Project Development Agreement specifies conditions for
possible removal and relocation of deposited solid waste, if necessaryrit is anticipated that
these Agreement provisions would preclude any reservoir water quality problems that might
otherwise occur as a result of the landfill.

      Intense development plans associated with the planned "Stonehouse Community*
represent a noteworthy water quality concern associated with the Ware  Creek Reservoir
alternative.  This 7,230-acre  planned community would  occupy nearly  half of the  land
draining into the proposed reservoir within James City and Hew Kent counties.  Within
James City County,  Stonehouse would ultimately include 3.8 million square  feet of
commercial space and 4,411 dwelling units.  Given the magnitude of this development, and
historical  water quality conditions in other highly developed reservoir watersheds, there
would  be a  great risk of  long-term  reservoir  water quality deterioration,  despite
implementation of best management practices and other measures designed to protect water
quality.

      Marked residential growth has occurred and continues to occur in portions of the
proposed  5.5-square mile Black Creek Reservoir watershed.  For  example, the Clopton
Forest residential subdivision borders the western edge of the Southern Branch Black Creek
reservoir site.  This large subdivision has the potential to impact reservoir water quality by
contributing non-point source runoff from  roads, sediment loads  from  home and  road
construction activities, nutrient loads from lawn fertilizer runoff, and migration of pollutants
from septic tanks.

      Groundwater Quality

      A   principal  water  quality  concern associated with  the Fresh   Groundwater
Development alternative concerns the level of phosphorus in the Middle Potomac Aquifer.
Phosphorus concentrations in  the Middle Potomac Aquifer near Little Creek Reservoir are
not expected to be a problem.  However, there appears to be an increasing trend in
phosphorus concentrations  to the west, toward Diascund Creek Reservoir.  If phosphorus
concentrations in the wells near Diascund Creek Reservoir are high, then phosphorus
loading to the  reservoir could  be substantial  and could result in reservoir management and
water treatment problems associated with increasingly eutrophic reservoir conditions.

      Elevated sodium levels in the groundwater  also represent a potential concern,
particularly since physicians now recommend various restricted sodium intakes to a portion
of the population. If drinking water were to  exceed VDH-recommended maximum sodium
levels, water use would be restricted for some customers.
0114-951-140                                3-53                               February 1994
-------
      Due to the potentkl for reservoir water quality impacts from  fresh groundwater
discharge, use of groundwater without pretreatment should be approached with caution.
Screening multiple aquifer zones and blending the groundwater prior to discharge to the
reservoirs would be one technique for partially mitigating these potential impacts.

      For the  region  encompassed  by  the brackish groundwater desalting alternative,
available water quality data for the Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac aquifers are very
limited.  Therefore, it  is currently difficult to assess whether successful treatment of the
proposed feed water can be accomplished using a conventional low-pressure membrane
system designed for brackish waters.  Additional groundwater quality monitoring would be
required to better characterize the site-specific water quality at the proposed withdrawal
points.

      Summary
      Based  on investigations to date, the King William Reservoir alternative is ranked
superior to  the other  two reservoir alternatives  with respect to each  of the technical
evaluation  criteria discussed above.  For the two  groundwater alternatives, brackish
groundwater  withdrawals may be more available than  fresh groundwater withdrawals.
However, fresh groundwater withdrawals,  if available, are  much  more cost-effective.
Important water  quality concerns or data gaps are associated with  each groundwater
alternative.

      3.73     RRWSG's Proposed Project Alternative

      Based  on the environmental impact scoring results, the three practicable alternative
components which appear to be the least damaging are listed below  and are proposed as
long-term components  of an overall 30.2-mgd project alternative. Lower Peninsula treated
water  safe yield  benefits  associated with each  alternative  component are  shown in
parentheses.

        •  Use Restrictions (1.5 mgd)

        *  Fresh Groundwater Development (4.4 mgd)

        •  King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River (26.4 mgd)

      The inclusion of King William Reservoir as part of this overall project alternative is
also supported by the results of the practicability analysis presented  in the Alternatives
Assessment (Volume I-Practicability Analysis) and summarized above. The environmental
impact analysis and technical merits of the King William Reservoir alternative support its
inclusion as part  of the proposed overall 30.2-mgd project alternative.  Based on these
conclusions, the RRWSG has applied to the USCOE  for a permit pursuant to Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to construct the
King William Reservoir Project.

      A tiered use restriction program should be developed immediately so that it may be
implemented when the need arises. These use restrictions would be contingency measures,
beyond routine conservation measures, employed to produce short-term demand reductions
during water supply emergencies. In the near future, fresh groundwater development should

0114-951-140                               3-54                              February 1994
-------
also be implemented  to  augment  existing reservoir storage when  reservoir levels are
depressed. Through the Year 2040, the Lower Peninsula's projected 30.2«mgd treated water
supply deficit can  be met  with  a combination  of  use restrictions, fresh groundwater
withdrawals developed to provide a long-term treated water safe yield benefit of at least
2.3 mgd, and the King William Reservoir developed as summarized in Figure 3-11. t

      Assuming a  10-year  time to  completion for King William  Reservoir, interim
groundwater supplies yielding between 3 and 4 mgd would be required to satisfy projected
interim water supply deficits before the new reservoir becomes operational. This estimate
also assumes implementation of use restrictions capable of reducing short-term demands by
at least 1.5 mgd.

      3.7.4  RRVVSG's Proposed Wetlands Mitigation Plan

      A conceptual plan has been developed to mitigate for  the loss of 452 acres of on-site
palustrine vegetated wetlands filled and/or inundated  by  reservoir construction.  This
number represents the total amount of wetlands in the impact area (479) minus the amount
of palustrine open water wetlands  (27).  This plan calls for  the  creation/restoration of
approximately 266  acres of forested, scrub-shrub,  and emergent  wetlands  along the
perimeter of the proposed reservoir, in the reclaimed borrow area to be utilized to construct
the dam,  in  various small impoundments in the headwaters of the small tributaries to
Cohoke Mill Creek, and in prior converted croplands found  in the watershed. In addition,
this plan calls for the creation of approximately 186 acres of forested and scrub-shrub
wetlands on  two sites west  of the proposed dam site.  These constructed wetlands are
located within 4,000 feet of the Cohoke Mill Creek watershed.  The reservoir mitigation
plan has been designed so that the project goal  of "no net loss"  of wetland function or
acreage will be attained.

      Figure 3-12 presents the conceptual mitigation plan and depicts the location of the
various plan components. Additional  description of the various proposed wetland designs
is provided below.

      The proposed wetland mitigation plan  was  developed based  on the following
objectives:

       •    Provide a ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 compensation for vegetated wetland acreage lost
            as a result of project  construction.

       •    Create a wetland system with functional values equal to or greater than existing
            wetland values.

       »    Enhance wetland values by improving the following functions:  aquatic habitat
            diversity, wetland-dependent wildlife habitat diversity,  floodflow  alteration,
            sediment/toxicant retention,  and nutrient removal/transformation.

      Reservoir Fringe Wetlands
      This portion of the plan  allows for the establishment of approximately 50 acres of
forested and scrub-shrub wetlands along the perimeter of the proposed reservoir. Wetland
0114-951-140                                3-55                              Febniaiy 1994
-------
vegetation will be established in areas between 88 and 92 feet msl with slopes less than or
equal to 10 percent. A conceptual cross-section is shown in Figure 3-13.

      The mitigation  plan creates two wetland zones in appropriate areas along the
perimeter of the reservoir (Figure 3-13).  Zone A represents the area between 88 and 90
feet msl.  Creation of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands is planned for this area.  Zone B
(Figure 3-13) represents the area between 90 and 92 feet msl. Creation of palustrine
forested wetlands is planned for this zone. The mitigation plan requires selective plantings
within these zones to augment existing vegetation and facilitate wetland creation. A listing
of species selected for planting is given in Table 3-8. The potential also exists for natural
succession to create additional emergent wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation in open
water areas.   In addition,  standing timber will be left around the reservoir fringe above
elevation 84  feet msl.  However, only those areas specifically designated for planting are
included in calculations of the acreage of wetlands.

      Sands,  fine sands, and  sandy  loams of the  Nevarc-Remlik-Johnston  association
dominate the soils found on the slopes and terraces of the reservoir/impact area. Due to
the sandy texture and nutrient-poor nature of the B-horizon and C-horizon of these soils,
topsoil will need to be placed in the mitigation area to promote vigorous plant growth.  In
the two mitigation zones, existing upland forested vegetation will be removed and the native
soils win be excavated to 1 foot below the specified final grade.  Trees and native soils will
be left in place below the 88 foot contour and above the 92 foot contour in the vicinity of
the various fringe mitigation areas. One foot  of topsoil will be used to bring the planting
areas up to final grade.  Topsoii from on-site  sources is recommended due to the lack of
noxious plants in the vicinity of the site.  The topsoil should have a sandy loam or fine sandy
loam texture, if possible.

      The proposed forested wetland areas will be planted with container grown or balled
and burlapped trees transplanted from wetland nursery areas.  Each  transplant will  be
fertilized at  the  time  of planting  with  an application  of Agriform 22-8-2  at  the
manufacturer's recommended rate.

      Following planting, open areas between plants will be seeded with an appropriate
grass  mixture.  The mixture  will be applied  at  a  recommended rate of application of
220 Ibs/acre and mulched with weed-free straw to help prevent soil erosion.

      It is assumed that reservoir soils will be sufficiently saturated to an elevation of
92 feet  msl to support a forested wetland community in Zone A, which will be vegetated
with the species identified in Table 3-8.  This assumption is justified based on the soil types
located within the project area and the biological characteristics of the species (Le., ability
to tolerate saturated soils or periods of drying) which will be  planted within the zone.

      In general, the upward movement of water due to capillarity in sandy soils such as the
Evesboro series is fairly rapid; however, the capillary fringe of the soils has been estimated
to extend only 15 inches above the water table.  In  loamy soils,  the rate of movement is
somewhat slower, but the capillary fringe is greater  and is estimated to extend  35 inches
from  the water table (Brady,  1974).  It is assumed for this study that the water table in
Zone B (which extends a linear distance of no more than 20 feet from the normal pool
0114-951-140                                3-56                               February 1994
-------
                            TABLE 3-8




     SPECIES SELECTED FOR PLANTING IN CREATED WETLAND ZONES




                   RESERVOIR FRINGE WETLANDS
Wetland Zone
Scrub-Shrub
Zone A
Forested
ZoneB
Scientific Name
Cephalanthus oecidentalis
Alnus serrulate
Vaceinium corvmbosum
Viburnum dentatum
Cornus amomum

Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Fraxinus pennsvlvanica
Common Name
Buttonbush
Smooth Alder
Highbush Blueberry
Southern Arrowwood
Silky Dogwood
Red Maple
Sweetgum
Green Ash
Elevation
(MSL)
88-90
90-92
0114-951-161
-------
-------
CONSTRUCTED
WETLAND D
                                                                                     \,~v..A"XCOWO'!f
                                   nsfvJ'Z
                                                                                                ,,  CONSTRUCTED.^
                                                                                            /    f ,  WETLAND A  &
                                                                                            • **.'                 y
                       is    Vvl RECLAIICO SORROW ARIA

                           PRIOR CONVERTED CROPLAND

                        |H CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

                        	 HEADWATER IMPOUNDMENTS
                                                                    JANUARY 1994
                                                                LOWER VIRONIA PCNWSM.A
                                                             REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                                                WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
                                                                 MITIGATION  PLAN
                                                             J.OOO        0        3,000
                                                                                               APPROX. SCALE IN FEET
-------
-------
                        RESERVOIR  FRINGE  WETLANDS
                                                                                    EAST
                                      FRINGE WETLANDS
MALCOLM
  PIRNIE
                                                     100
                                           DISTANCE
                                             (FEET)
 125
150
        JANUARY 1994
     LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
  REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
     WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
RESERVOIR FRINGE WETLANDS
        SCALE AS NOTED
                                                                                           3
                                                                                           8
-------
-------
elevation in the entire mitigation area) is located at approximately the same elevation as the
normal pool elevation of the reservoir (90 feet msl).

      Based on the general information on the capillarity of sands and loamy sands, it is
anticipated that the capillary fringe of the soils in the mitigation area will extend from the
water table 15 inches upward, at a minimum.  Therefore, at the 92-foot contour elevation,
the fringe would be located, at most, 9 inches below the surface. The relationship between
the expected location of the capillary fringe and the bottom of the species' root systems at
the time of planting is illustrated in Figure 3-14.

      The forested wetland tree stock which will be used to vegetate the area will have
approximately a 0.5-inch caliper, with a minimum root ball diameter of 12 inches (American
Association of Nurserymen, 1990).  Tree stock will be planted at a minimum depth of
8 inches.  Therefore, the bottom of the root ball at the 92-foot contour elevation would be
located within the capillary fringe. The bottom of the root ball would be within the capillary
fringe beginning at a point just down gradient of the 92-foot contour elevation. This figure
represents a worst-case scenario relationship. It is likely that the capillary fringe may extend
further toward the surface, or the transplants may be more deeply planted.

      The species chosen for vegetating the forested wetland zone are designated on the
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USFWS, 1988) as either facultative
(FAC) or facultative wetland (FACW) species.  Red Maple and Sweet Gum are both
regionally designated as FAC  plants which are able to  adapt to  wet or dry conditions.
Green Ash is more often located in wet areas  than  dry areas,  but can withstand  dry
conditions. Because each of these species has the ability to tolerate dry conditions, and it
is  expected that once the root systems of the plants begin to grow, they will be located
within the capillary fringe of the water table, it is assumed that the area between 90 and
92 feet will be saturated sufficiently to support a forested wetland community.

      Reclaimed Borrow Area
      A wetland system would also be created northeast of Virginia State Route  632,
approximately 3,000 feet  northwest of the proposed dam site (Figure 3-12).  The basic
contours of this wetland would be created concurrently with the excavation of sandy and clay
soils for construction of the dam. Upon final contouring of the mitigation area, it would be
planted as shown on the conceptual cross-section (Figure 3-15).

      The plan  for this wetland calls for the creation of approximately 66 acres of diverse
wetland habitat, including ponds, emergent zones, and a forested area. Because the King
William  Reservoir site  is located  within the East Coast Migratory Flyway, the wetland
mitigation plan  includes habitat for breeding and migratory waterfowl. Islands would be
created in the wetland to provide nesting and roosting sites for waterfowl.

      The various components of the planned reclaimed borrow area wetland are discussed
below.

        «   Hydrology - The proposed mitigation site would be hydrologically supported by
            the created reservoir.  The normal pool elevation of the reservoir would be
            90 feet msl.  A berm  at the eastern edge of the excavation/mitigation area
            would help to retain floodwaters in the wetland.  The berm would be graded

0114-951-140                                3-57                               February 1994
-------
           to 90 feet msl.  At full pool, water would rise above the berm and spread out
           into the wetland.

           Although water levels in the ponds would fluctuate seasonally in response to
           rainfall and reservoir drawdown, it is expected that water levels in the open
           water areas would range from 0 to 3.0 feet during much of the year.

       . •   Soils - Soils in the mitigation area are composed primarily of low permeability
           clays and high permeability sands.  Consequently, they are not a  suitable
           planting substrate.  Therefore, where suitable, the upper  12  to 18 inches of
           topsoil  from the excavation/mitigation area would be stockpiled on  site.  In
           addition, the hydric soils excavated from the dam site would be transported and
           stockpiled on site. Prior to planting, the soils would be spread  to a depth of
           approximately 12 inches on the final contours to be planted. Because plantings
           are not proposed for the open water zone, stockpiled soils would not be spread
           in this zone.

       •   Proposed Vegetation for Wetland Zones - The proposed mitigation plan would
           create 60 acres of palustrine wetlands.   The plan incorporates two  wetland
           zones around open water areas. The wetland zones would include an emergent
           marsh and a forested wetland. The plant species associated with each zone are
           listed in Table 3-9.  The plant species were  selected for their adaptability to
           wetland conditions,  for species diversity, for enhancement of existing plant
           communities, and for  their attractiveness to wildlife  as habitat and a  food
           source.

      The plants selected for each of the zones would be planted in random groupings of
individual species to create a greater interspersion of species and provide for plant diversity
throughout each zone.  Plants would be placed in an area best suited  to their hydrologic
tolerance. Specific species would also be utilized to improve wetland functions. To control
soil erosion on the embankments, to slow water velocity and to trap sediments, Black Willow
(Salix nigra) and Smooth Alder (Alnus sgrrulata) would be planted in erosion-prone areas
in the inflow/outflow locations and adjacent to stabilized rip-rap channels.  Emergent plant
species would be planted at the edge of the open water  areas to limit sedimentation and
erosion at the wetland/open water interface.

      Headwater Impoundments
      Headwater impoundments will be created between the 90 and 95 foot contours in
ravines which presently  contain narrow wetlands. These  areas would be inundated during
the late winter and early spring, and under  normal conditions would remain saturated
throughout the growing season.  It is expected that 90  acres of new wetlands would be
created by these impoundments.

      Permanently inundated impoundments will be  established adjacent  to the reservoir
by creating 4-foot high  berms in the perimeter arms of the reservoir (Figure 3-16).  The
crest of these earthen  berms would be 90 feet, which  corresponds to the normal pool
elevation of the proposed reservoir. When the reservoir water level is at or above normal
pool, these impoundments would be directly connected with the reservoir. An estimated
200 - 250  acres of land  exists between the 87- and 90-foot contours  at the reservoir site.

0114-951440                                3-58                              February 1994
-------
                            TABLE 3-9




     SPECIES SELECTED FOR PLANTING IN CREATED WETLAND ZONES




                     RECLAIMED BORROW AREA
Wetland Zone
Open Water
Emergent Marsh
Forested Wetland
Scientific Name
Lemna minor
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Sagittaria latifolia
Scirpus americanus
Sparganium americanum
Acer rubram
Liquidambar stvraeiflua
Fraxinus pennsvlvanica
Alnus serrulata
Cornus amomum
Common Name
Duckweed
Buttonbush
Duck Potato
Threesquare Rush
Eastern Burreed
Red Maple
Sweet Gum
Green Ash
Smooth Alder
Silky Dogwood
0114-951-161
-------
-------
         92.0
         12"
         91.0-
  _J U.
  bJ ^
         12"
         90.0-
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF
CAPILLARY FRINGE
(15" ABOVE WATER TABLE)
                                                    91' MSL
                          \
                             MINIMUM DEPTH OF FORESTED
                             WETLAND SPECIES ROOT BALL
                             (8" BELOW SURFACE)
                          WATER TABLE &
                          NORMAL POOL
                          ELEVATION
                                                                                          90' MSL
MAHXX/VI
  PIRNIE
                                  JANUARY 1994
                              LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                          REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                              WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
                  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPILLARY FRINGE
                     AND ZONE B  SPECIES  TRANSPLANTS
                          (WORST-CASE SCENARIO)
                                  NOT TO SCALE
8
JO
CrJ

I
-------
-------
                           RECLAIMED  BORROW  AREA
                                         EXISTING LAND SURFACE
                                                                                          EAST
                                                                                     NORMAL-
                                                                                       POOL
    0
200
600
                                          DISTANCE
                                            (FEET)
800
1000
1200
PIRNIE
                                                        JANUARY 1994
                                                     LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                                                 REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                                     WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
                                                 RECLAIMED BORROW AREA
                                                        SCALE AS NOTED
                                                                                             TO
                                                I
                                                en
-------
-------
                          HEADWATER  IMPOUNDMENT
                            (WITHIN NORMAL POOL AREA)
                              DRAWDOWN WATER LEVEL
  9d
  I- 36

  !-
  Lu uj
                                                                            EAST
                                                    EMERGENT
                                                      AND
                                                    FORESTED
                                                    WETLANDS
                     UPLAND
200
                                   400
600
800
1000
                                       DISTANCE
                                        (FEET)
PIRNlE
                     JANUARY 1994
                 LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
              REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                 WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
              HEADWATER IMPOUNDMENT
             WITHIN NORMAL POOL AREA
                    SCALE AS NOTED
                                                                                       o
                          C-i
                          I
-------
-------
There should be ample opportunities for establishing wetlands through the construction of
perimeter arm headwater impoundments.

      Planting is not proposed for these newly created wetlands. An adequate seed source
exists in the narrow wetlands that would be impounded. Typical trees found in the wetlands
include Red Maple, River Birch (Betula nigra). Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Green
Ash, Sweetgum, Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana). and Redbay
(Persea borbonia). Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum).  Smooth Alder, and
Southern Arrowood are commonly found in the shrub layer.

      In addition to the impoundments adjacent to the normal pool area, this mitigation
plan calls for the establishment of headwater impoundments above the normal pool area.
A plan view of the this type of headwater impoundment is shown in Figure 3-17. A typical
cross-section  is shown in Figure 3-18.  Permanently inundated impoundments would be
established by creating 4-foot high berms in the intermittent tributaries above the normal
pool. These berms would be constructed at 96 feet  and would crest at 100 feet.

      The  hydrology of the proposed mitigation areas would be supplied by a variety of
sources.  For example,  the impoundment depicted in Figure 3-17 would be supplied by
intermittent streams from the  north, west, and southwest.  Upon  completion  of the
impoundment, stream flow would be collected in the mitigation area from the three streams
feeding into the area. The mitigation area would also receive groundwater discharge and
sheet flow from upgradient land to the north and west. This particular mitigation site drains
an area measuring about 0.7 square  miles in size. The hydrology of these impoundments
would be maintained through the existing water table along the ridges and depressions of
the Cohoke Mill Creek watershed moving towards the creek.

      Prior Converted Cropland
      The  mitigation plan calls for the restoration of 60 acres of wetlands  on "prior
converted cropland" and "farmed wetlands" in and immediately adjacent to the Cohoke Mill
Creek watershed.   "Prior converted cropland" is defined by the U.S.  Department of
Argriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as wetlands which were both manipulated
(drained or otherwise physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped
before December 23,  1985, to the extent that they no longer exhibit important wetland
values.  Farmed wetlands are wetlands which were both manipulated and cropped before
December 23, 1985, but which continue to exhibit important wetland values.  Specifically,
farmed  wetlands include  cropped potholes, depressions, and areas with 15 or more
consecutive days (or 10 percent of the growing season,  whichever is less) of inundation
during the growing season.

      This plan would involve the establishment of wetlands on prior converted cropland
and farmed wetlands adjacent to Virginia State Route 30 in and immediately adjacent to the
Cohoke Mill Creek watershed. Much of the cropland currently being farmed is underlain
by Daleville soils which are hydric soils.  Figure 3-19 depicts an aerial photo of the vicinity
taken in March  1993.   The aerial photograph shows large areas of  standing water on
cultivated Daleville soils.  Daleville  soils are deep and poorly drained.  They formed in
loamy fluvial and  marine  sediments.  Daleville soils are on upland  flats and in slight
depressions, and are classified as fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Typic Paleaquults.
0114-951-140                               3-59                              Februaiy 1994
-------
      The proposed mitigation sites would be hydrologically supported mainly by surface
water. Intermittent streams would be diverted into mitigation areas, drainfields or drain
tiles would be  removed,  and drainage  ditches would be  blocked or  filled,  thereby
reestablishing wetland hydrology.

      The proposed mitigation plan will create approximately 60 acres of palustrine forested
and emergent wetlands on prior converted cropland.   Soils in the mitigation area are
currently utilized for cropland; therefore, topsoil will not need to be established in these
areas prior to planting.

      The proposed mitigation plan incorporates two zones that would be planted around
open water areas in each mitigation site (Figure 3-20). The wetland zones would include
emergent marshes and forested wetland areas. The plant species associated with each zone
are listed in Table  3-10. These species were selected for species diversity and for their
attractiveness to wildlife as a food source.

      Conservation easements would  be  established  on  these  mitigation  areas.
Conservation easements are voluntary agreements to preserve land in perpetuity. Although
filed with the deed,  they do not transfer land ownership, but rather spell out a landowner's
commitments to protect the existing or enhanced character of his property. This is a flexible
concept, and the documents may be written to protect land in accordance with a landowner's
wishes.

      Only the specific use rights that landowners choose to give up would be placed as
restrictions on their properties. Landowners will be allowed to own, sell, lease, mortgage,
or otherwise  use the properties consistent with the  terms of the conservation easements.
The mitigation areas would be removed from farming activities, and dedicated to wetlands
protection; however, ownership would be retained by the present landowners. Conservation
easements would not give the general public any rights to the land unless the  present
landowners decide to include such rights in the easements.

      The conservation easements established for the mitigation sites could be given either
to a qualified non-profit organization or a public body such  as King William County. The
recipient of the easements will accept them in writing and agree to enforce the terms of the
easements to assure that future owners of the properties abide by them.

      A conservation easement is enforced by the organization or public body to which it
is donated, by court action if necessary. Some easements name another entity as a back-up
enforcer in case the original donor organization is unable or unwilling to ensure compliance
with the easement.   The recipient of the easement is responsible for monitoring it on a
regular basis to assure that the current landowner is complying with the terms of the
easement.

      It is important to note that there are several tax advantages in donating conservation
easements. A taxpayer may deduct as a charitable donation the difference in value between
the  land before  an easement is donated (unrestricted value)  and after it  is  donated
(restricted value).  If the easement is highly restrictive, this could amount to a large tax
deduction. In order to qualify for the deduction, the land involved must meet certain Interal
0114-951-140                               3-60                               February 1994
-------
                           TABLE 3-10




     SPECIES SELECTED FOR PLANTING IN CREATED WETLAND ZONES




                   PRIOR CONVERTED CROPLAND
Wetland Zone
Emergent
Forested
Scientific Name
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus atrovirens
Carex crinita
Sagittaria latifolia
Cvperus so.

Acer rubrujn
Ouercus palustris
Ouercus ohellos
Common Name
Threesqyare Rush
Green Bulrush
Fringed Sedge
Duck Potato
Flatsedge
Red Maple
Pin Oak
Willow Oak
0114-951-161
-------
-------
                                                                    FIGURE 3-17
        LEGEND

           HEADWATER IMPOUNDMENT

           NORMAL POOL (90 FT. MSL)
MAUDOLM
  PIRNIE
        JANUARY 1994
    LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
    WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
HEADWATER  IMPOUNDMENT
        PLAN VIEW
       SCALE: 1"=1000'
-------
-------
                        HEADWATER IMPOUNDMENT
                          (ABOVE NORMAL  POOL AREA)
   WEST
                                                EAST
                                                                    FLOOD STAGE


                                                                    NORMAL POOL
                 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
                                    DISTANCE
                                     (FEET)
IRNI
                                    JANUARY 1994
                                 LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                              REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                 WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
                              HEADWATER IMPOUNDMENT
                             ABOVE NORMAL  POOL AREA
                                    SCALE AS NOTED
                                                                                    Z)
                                                                                    m
-------
-------
        LEGEND

            PRIOR CONVERTED CROPLAND
MAlGOLjVt
  PIRNIE
          JANUARY 1994
      LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
  REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
      'WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
PRIOR CONVERTED  CROPLAND
         SCALE: 1"=1000'
-------
-------
                           PRIOR CONVERTED CROPLAND
                     EXISTING CROPLAND
                     ON HYDRIC SOILS
                                                                                  EAST
EXISTING CROPLAND
ON NON-HYDRIC SOILS
           0
                                                                  Q
                                                                  Z
                                                                  Q.
           +
           200
._!„

250
                                         DISTANCE
                                           (FEET)
MAUOOUVI
  PIRNIE
                  JANUARY 1994
               LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
            REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
               WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
          PRIOR CONVERTED  CROPLAND
                CROSS-SECTION
                  SCALE AS NOTED
             1
             m
             I
             o
-------
-------
Revenue Service criteria to establish public benefit, such as scenic enjoyment by the general
public, preservation of natural ecosystems, or public education or recreation.

      It is plausible that conservation easements on the mitigation sites would qualify for
federal or state tax deductions or lower  assessed  value.   Landowners may also  be
compensated under federal programs for the value of the land taken out of production.
However, it  should be  emphasized that this land represents  marginal cropland when
compared to adjacent well-drained land,

      Constructed  Wetlands
      One wetland system would be created immediately north of the Southern Railway
right-of-way, 1 mile west-southwest of the proposed King William Reservoir dam site (Figure
3-12, Constructed Wetland A).  A second wetland system would be constructed  adjacent to
Virginia State Route 633,1 mile southwest of Lanesville (Figure 3-12, Constructed Wetland
B).

      The plan calls for the creation of  186 acres of diverse wetland habitat, including
ponds, scrub-shrub, and forested areas.  Site A covers 145 acres and Site B covers 160 acres.
It is expected that new wetlands can be  created  on 60 to 62 percent of the sites;
approximately 87 acres of wetlands will be established on Site A and 99 acres will be created
on Site B, totalling 186 acres of new wetlands.  The various components of the wetland
mitigation plan are discussed below:

      Site A

      The proposed mitigation site would be hydrologically supported by a combination of
surface water stream flow, groundwater, and sheet flow.  Two streams cross the site. An
intermittent tributary to the Pamuhkey River drains the western portion of the mitigation
site and an intermittent tributary to Cohoke Mill Creek drains the eastern portion of the
site. Control structures would be constructed adjacent to the Southern Railway right-of-way
to control water levels in the mitigation area.  In addition, the site would be graded,  in
several locations, to intercept the seasonal high water table.

      Weir structures would be set at appropriate levels in the two intermittent streams to
allow flooding the mitigation area during prolonged storm events. It is possible that the
mitigation site would also receive some groundwater seepage and sheet flow from the hill
located northeast of the site.

      Soils on Site A are composed primarily  of Myatt loam, Daleville silt  loam, and
Roanoke  silt loam, all of which are hydric soils.  The western portion of the site also
contains some areas underlain by non-hydric Craven fine sandy loam. Where suitable, the
upper  12  to 18  inches of topsoil  from graded areas will be .stockpiled on-site.  Prior  to
planting, the soils will be spread to a depth of approximately 12 inches on the final contours
to be planted.

      The proposed mitigation area would contain 87 acres of palustrine wetlands.  The
proposed mitigation plan incorporates scrub-shrub and forested wetland areas (Figure 3-21),
The plant species associated with  each zone  are listed  in Table 3-11.
0114-951-140                                3-61                               February 1994
-------
      SiteB

      The proposed mitigation site would be hydrologically supported by a combination of
surface water stream flow, groundwater, and sheet flow.  One stream is located  at the
eastern perimeter of the site.  The unnamed intermittent stream is a tributary  of the
Pamunkey and drains a 350-acre forested watershed. A control structure will be constructed
at the southeastern corner of the site, to control water levels in the mitigation area.  In
addition, the site will be graded to intercept the seasonal high water table.

      A weir structure will be set at an appropriate level in the intermittent stream to allow
flooding of the  mitigation area during prolonged storm  events.  It is possible that the
mitigation site would also receive some groundwater seepage and sheet flow from the hill
located to the north of  the site. In addition, agricultural ditches located west of Virginia
State Route 633 will be filled with hydric soil plugs, thereby re-hydrating the western portion
of the site.

      Soils on Site B are composed primarily of hydric Myatt loam and Roanoke silt loam.
The upper 12 to 18 inches of topsoil from graded areas will be stockpiled on-site. Prior to
planting, the soils wM be spread to a depth of approximately 12 inches on the final contours
to be planted.

      The proposed mitigation area would contain 99 acres of palustrine forested wetlands,
as shown in Figure 3-22. The plant species associated with Site B are listed in Table 3-12.

      Alternate Sites

      Two additional sites were designated as alternate locations for constructed wetlands.
One wetland system could be created west of Virginia State Route 633,3,000 feet north of
Lanesville (Figure 3-12, Constructed Wetland C). A second wetland could be created east
of State Route 30,4,000 feet north of Rose Garden (Figure 3-12, Constructed Wetland D).
These sites would be utilized only if Sites A and B prove unpractical to develop.

      Sites C and D cover 190 and 180 acres, respectively, and consist of recently harvested
pine plantations on  hydric soils.   It is possible that 186 acres of palustrine forested and
scrub-shrub wetlands could be established on the two sites.  A vegetative assemblage similar
to that specified in Tables 3-11 and 3-12 could be established on the sites.

      Functional Assessment of Created Wetlands
      The project's overall net impact on various wetland functions is  expected  to  be
positive.  The project is expected  to provide increased wildlife migration  and wintering
habitat, aquatic habitat, groundwater recharge,  floodflow alteration, sediment/toxicant
retention, sediment  stabilization, and nutrient removal/transformation.  In addition, the
project is expected  to  provide increased  recreational opportunities.   Wildlife breeding
habitat is expected  to  be unchanged or  slightly improved  as a result  of this project.
Reservoir construction is expected to reduce production export and groundwater discharge.
The project's impacts on these various functional values is assessed below.

      The overall effect of the project on the fish and wildlife resources of the  site is
expected to be positive.

0114-951-140                                3-62                                February 1994
-------
                                 TABLE 3-11

      SPECIES SELECTED FOR PLANTING IN CREATED WETLAND ZONES

                         CONSTRUCTED WETLAND A
       Wetland Zone
      Scientific Name
  Common Name
 Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Alnus serrulata
Cephalanthus oecidentalis
Cornus amomum
Juncus spp.
Polygonum punctatum
Sagittaria latifolia
Sparganium americanum
Viburnum lentago
   Smooth Alder
    Buttonbush
  Silky Dogwood
      Rushes
 Dotted Smartweed
   Duck Potato
 Eastern Burreed
    Nannyberry
 Forested Wetland
Cyperus spp.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Juncus spp.
Magnolia virginica
Nyssasylvatica
Quercus phellos
Saururus cernuus
Vaccinium corymbosum
Viburnum lentago
    Flatsedges
    Green Ash
     Rushes
Sweetbay Magnolia
    Black Gum
    Willow Oak
   Lizard's Tail
Highbush Blueberry
    Nannyberry
0114-951-161
-------
-------
                                TABLE 3-12

      SPECIES SELECTED FOR PLANTING IN CREATED WETLAND ZONES

                        CONSTRUCTED WETLAND B
       Wetland Zone
      Scientific Name
  Common Name
 Forested Wetland
Acer rubrum
Care* sop.
Cornus amomum
Juncus spp.
Lindera benzoin
Magnoliavirgimca
Nyssa sylvatica
Quercus phellos
Saururus cernuus
Vaccinium corvmbosum
    Red Maple
     Sedges
  Silky Dogwood
     Rushes
Northern Spicebush
Sweetbay Magnolia
    Black Gum
    Willow Oak
   Lizard's Tail
Highbush Blueberry
0114-951-161
-------
-------
                            CONSTRUCTED  WETLAND A
           NORTHWEST
                                     SOUTHEAST
        Oof
        h- 5
        S.s
        LU
                           1000
2000
3000
4000
                                               DISTANCE
                                                 (FEET)
MAUQOyVt
  PIRN!
                              JANUARY 1994
                           LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                        REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                           WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
                        CONSTRUCTED WETLAND A
                             SCALE AS NOTED
                                   jo
                                   m
                                                                                         to
-------
-------
                            CONSTRUCTED WETLAND  B
  NORTHWEST
                                                SOUTHEAST
               STATE RT 633
 UJ
 U.
                    500
1000
1500
2000
2500
                                        DISTANCE
                                          (FEET)
PIRNIE
                                       JANUARY 1994
                                   LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                                REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                   WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
                                CONSTRUCTED WETLAND B
                                      SCALE AS NOTED
                                                                                            3
                                                                                            8
                                                                                            31
-------
-------
      The vegetated edge, provided through  the establishment of emergent and shrub
vegetation in the reservoir fringe wetlands, headwater impoundments, reclaimed  borrow
areas, and constructed wetlands will increase fish and water dependent wildlife populations.

      The proposed mitigation plan should result in an increased avifaunal diversity on the
site.  Primarily terrestrial species  will benefit from the planting of shrubbery and fruit-
producing vegetation in the wetland mitigation areas. Bird species currently inhabiting the
site should continue to find this area desirable.  Waterfowl species which utilize the area for
wintering and during migration should continue to do so.  Certain waterfowl species such
as Mallard (Anas platyrhyncos). Black Duck (Anas rubripes). and Canada Goose (Branta
canadensis) should find increased habitat and more suitable nesting sites.

      Species reported to nest on the site include Wood Duck and Canada Goose. Mallard
and Black Duck are known to nest in the region and are suspected to nest on the site.
Canada Geese typically nest on the shore of lakes or ponds where there is shallow water and
an  abundance of herbaceous  plant foods.  They winter in ice-free lakes  or ponds that
provide resting and feeding sites.  Wood Ducks also utilize the shallow waters of ponds,
lakes, or marshes  having  abundant floating  and emergent vegetation.  They require
deciduous or coniferous trees with large cavities for nesting, usually within several hundred
yards of water. Mallards rarely nest in cavities, but typically settle near the water's edge
where the ground is slightly dry and vegetation is plentiful. Shallow water enables the ducks
to bottom feed.  Black Ducks usually nest on the ground, with the nest well-hidden in
vegetation and close to the water.  Occasionally they will use old crow and hawk nests or
natural or excavated cavities in trees.  These ducks breed in the marshy borders of water
bodies and in streams and wooded swamps.  They winter in extensive open marshes and
commonly return to the same wintering area each year (Bellrose, 1976).

      It is anticipated that the open water reservoir with surrounding wetlands will be used
extensively by a variety of resident and migratory waterfowl.  The habitat requirements
described in the literature for the above waterfowl species will be fulfilled by the proposed
reservoir project and mitigation plan. The shallow water marsh established in the reclaimed
borrow area, headwater impoundments, and reservoir fringe wetlands will provide nesting
areas for many of these species.   Additionally, many waterfowl species, including those
above, should find this habitat attractive as a migratory stop-over and wintering area.

      Cohoke Mill Creek currently supports various species of bass, sunfish, and pickerel.
The establishment of a reservoir at the site of the present-day stream will allow existing fish
populations to migrate from the creek to the reservoir. It is expected that Largemouth Bass
(Micropterus salmoides). Redfin Pickerel, Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). and
various sunfish and minnows will find cover in the reservoir.

      The increased moisture levels created in the  reservoir fringe wetlands, headwater
impoundments, reclaimed  prior  converted  cropland,  and constructed wetlands  may
eventually attract many species of salamanders such as the Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum). Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum). Two-lined Salamander (Eurycea
bisliniata). Slimy  Salamander  (Plethodon  glutinosus). and Spotted Newt (Nptopthalmus
viridescens).  These  species utilize open water habitats for egg laying and larval growth.
Numerous frog and toad species such as the Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitansX Spring
Peeper (Hyla crucifer). Green Frog  (Rana clamitans). Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Pickerel

0114-951-140                                3-63                               February 199*
-------
Frog (Rana palustris). and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei) also utilize open water habitat
for reproduction.

      Various reptile species such as turtles will benefit from the deep water reservoir and
surrounding wetland. Lizard species such as the Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) thrive
in damp woodland leaf litter.   Snake  species such as the Worm Snake (Carphophis
amoenus).  and the Ringnecked Snake  (Diadophis  punctatus)  thrive in  moist habitats.
Species such as the Black Rat Snake, the Eastern Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis sauritus). and
the Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtaljs), utilize wetland environments, and the
Northern Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon) utilizes freshwater habitats.

      Wildlife species that traditionally rely on the availability of terrestrial land such as the
Eastern Cottontail and the White-tailed Deer will also experience an increased habitat value
through the implementation of the proposed project. Although the open water reservoir will
not greatly increase habitat  value for these two species, the edge ecotone will provide food
and water that would not be available in an open wooded forest. The scrub-shrub wetland
will also provide cover and  increased year-round food sources for these species.

      As a result of the comprehensive mitigation plan, negative impacts to the species
present on the King William Reservoir site should be minimized. The construction of the
reservoir itself should result in an overall positive increase in species diversity.

      Placement of the dam across Cohoke Mill Creek should maintain or slightly increase
the wetland's ability to alter floodflows, trap sediments and  toxicants, and remove or
transform nutrients. Dams typically trap sediment and pollutants behind them over time.
In addition, the shrub swamps and emergent wetlands that would become established in the
reclaimed borrow area, headwater impoundments, and reservoir fringe areas  will remove
some nutrients and toxicants from sheet flow coming into the reservoir. The reservoir will
add minor  nutrient removal and transformation capabilities.

      It is  expected that production export will be reduced through dam construction.  The
dam effectively closes the wetland's outlet, which is an important factor in the ability of a
wetland to transport primary productivity downstream.

      Groundwater recharge functions will be greatly enhanced by the 2,234-acre reservoir.
At a normal pool elevation of 90 feet msl, approximately 21.7 biMon gallons of water would
be in storage between the adjacent upland areas.  Alteration of the existing groundwater
flow patterns is expected  in  the Cohoke Mill  Creek and  adjacent watersheds.  A
corresponding increased lateral seepage due to the  rise  in  water table  elevation  and
relationship to the  Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers has been estimated at 1.5 mgd.  In
addition  to lateral seepage, underseepage below the dam structure has been estimated at
0.5 mgd, although  the elevation of the water table below the dam should be  altered.
Additional springs  and/or  seeps are  possible in the Cohoke Mill Creek watershed.
Slumping,  mass  transport,  and increased  erosion impacts  from lateral seepage  are not
expected.

      Increased recharge to surficial sands and/or the Yorktown Aquifer system could be
a  potential benefit  to local and regional groundwater resources, depending on recharge
water quality.  Based on water quality data for the Mattaponi River compiled by Malcolm

0114-951-140                               3-64                              February 1994
-------
Pirnie, an initial screening of the proposed King William Reservoir watershed, and a salinity
intrusion impact study (Hershner et al., 1991), there will be little effect to overall water
quality of the shallow aquifer system.  Construction of the King William Reservoir would
directly  benefit the groundwater resources  of the region and lessen the potential for
saltwater encroachment in deeper aquifers.

      Table 3-13 presents wetland cover types and approximate acreages of wetlands to be
created/restored through implementation of this mitigation plan. The mitigation plan will
result in creation and restoration of 452 acres of wetlands to offset filling and inundation
of 452 acres of vegetated wetlands, thereby providing a 1 to 1 replacement of vegetated
wetlands lost due to reservoir construction.

      Monitoring Plan
      A 3-year monitoring plan ensuring 85 percent area! vegetative coverage of the
mitigation areas is  proposed. The mitigation areas will be monitored  for three  growing
seasons  following the planting of the  site.  Following each annual monitoring period, a
report will be submitted to the USCOE (Norfolk  District).

      During the monitoring period, two site visits will be made during the first  growing
season: early spring (April - May) and mid-summer (July - August).  The purpose of the
spring visit will be to note evidence of soil erosion, plant success, and wildlife utilization of
the site.  During the summer visit, the health and vigor of the plantings will be determined,
insect damage noted, and colonization of undesirable plant species (ie., Phragmites. and
Purple Loosestrife) will be identified. During subsequent monitoring periods, an annual visit
will be made during the height of the growing season (July and August).

      To collect monitoring data, an overview of the entire site will be conducted from the
perimeter of the mitigation areas, and transects will be established across the sites. Within
each of  the vegetation zones along the designated transects, a  randomly selected meter
square sampling quadrat  will be established  on each  side of the transect line to collect
information on  plant diversity and density.  In addition, percent areal coverage will be
determined using the Line Intercept Method.  In the event coverage is less than 85 percent,
plants that have not survived will be replaced with in-kind transplants. With the exception
of loss due to herbivory, if a specific plant species has a survivorship of less than 50 percent,
a substitute plant species will be considered. Based on the results of each site visit,
measures will be taken as required to correct any problems that may exist (i.e., insect
infestation,  wildlife damage,  plant disease).  If needed,  application of herbicides and
pesticides approved for use in water supply watersheds will be undertaken in accordance
with USEPA requirements.  The use  of herbicides or pesticides will be limited  to treat
severe, on-going problems that threaten the functional values of the wetland.

      The transects and each  of the sampling quadrats will be photographed and keyed to
a site base  map. Upon completion of the seasonal tasks, a compilation of data will be
prepared, complete with field data forms, mapping and a photolog. The resulting annual
report will be submitted to the USCOE at the end of each  growing season.

      Invasion by noxious plants can negatively affect the success of the mitigation project.
The vegetative diversity of the mitigation area may be reduced, thereby compromising the
0114-951440                                345                               February 1994
-------
created wetland functional values. Potential invader species and proposed corrective actions
are discussed below.

      Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). a Eurasian weed, has little wildlife value and
is extremely prolific.  It can easily take over recently planted areas, creating a monotypic
stand with little wildlife value. The most effective way to control the plant is to remove by
hand the first plants that emerge.  It is essential to carefully bag and remove the plants from
the site.  If the plants are allowed to go to seed, control becomes more  difficult because a
seed bank will establish (Eggars, 1992).

      If  Purple Loosestrife becomes established to the point where hand removal is not
feasible,  application of a herbicide approved for use in wetlands/waters  is the next option.
Herbicide treatment on  an annual basis may be required to  control  the species.  The
herbicide of choice is  Rodeo; however, this chemical is not selective and kills desirable
plants as well as noxious invaders. Garbon 3A is a herbicide presently being tested for the
use in wetlands/waters and may be approved in the near future.  Garbon 3A is selective for
dicots; thus, it would kill species such as Purple Loosestrife without harming monocots such
as cattails, bur-reeds, and sedges (Eggars, 1992).

      Phragmites is another invasive species which can interfere with mitigation projects.
The plant has the potential to form persistent monotypic stands.  One  of the few proven
methods of removing Phragmites from mitigation areas is to create water depths where it
cannot survive. Persistent water depths of 18 to 24 inches will usually suppress the plant.

      Under certain circumstances, an herbicide such as Rodeo will eliminate Phragmites.
Application during the late summer when the plant is in bloom and treatment early during
the following growing season will effectively eliminate Phragmites.

      If  either Purple Loosestrife or  Phragmites infestation  becomes an  issue at the
proposed mitigation sites, the following steps will be taken:

       •  Evaluate extent of infestation.

       •  Individual plants may be manually removed from the mitigation area.

       •  If removal by hand is not effective, other control techniques such as herbicide
           application or temporary flooding of the mitigation area will be evaluated.

       •  Once the  invasive species are controlled, regrading and replanting will take
           place, if necessary, to achieve 85 percent areal coverage.

      The project, as designed, will most likely achieve proper wetland hydrology. If proper
wetlands  hydrology is not being maintained  in the mitigation  area, due to drought or
excessive water drawdowns, the feasibility of modifying reservoir operations or re-contouring
mitigation areas will be examined.

      Another potential problem is the inability to achieve sufficient vegetative cover in the
mitigation areas.  If 85 percent areal coverage is not achieved,  supplemental planting will
be initiated during the 3-year monitoring period.  Mitigation areas will be regraded and

0114-951-140                                3-66                               February 1994
-------
                             TABLE 3-B




                   WETLAND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Area
Reservoir Fringe Wetlands
Reclaimed Borrow Area
Headwater Impoundments
Prior Converted Cropland
and Farmed Wetlands
Constructed Wetlands
Wetland Cover Types
Palustrine Forested and
Scrub-Shrub
Palustrine Forested and
Emergent
Palustrine Forested and
Emergent
Palustrine Forested and
Emergent
Palustrine Forested and
Scrub-Shrub
Total Wetlands Created
Acres Created
50
66
90
60
186
452
0114-951-161
-------
-------
replanted only as a last resort when all other attempts to achieve an appropriate coverage
have failed. Additionally, the planted species may be reviewed to determine if other species
may be better suited to the mitigation sites.

      Summary
      Implementation of the RRWSG's proposed wetlands mitigation plan will create a total
of approximately 206 acres of palustrine forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands along
the perimeter of, in the headwaters of, and in the borrow area adjacent to  the proposed
reservoir. Implementation of this plan will also create approximately 60 acres of palustrine
forested and emergent wetlands in prior converted cropland, in and immediately adjacent
to the Cohoke MM Creek watershed. In addition, this plan calls for the construction of 186
acres of palustrine forested and scrub-shrub wetlands in the vicinity  of the Cohoke Mill
Creek watershed.

      The mitigation plan will result in a 1 to 1 replacement of vegetated wetlands lost due
to reservoir construction.  In addition to the  mitigation of lost wetknds acreage, the
2,234-acre reservoir will create lacustrine conditions which did not exist in the project area
prior to the inception of the project. Construction of the impoundment within the Cohoke
Mill Creek floodplain will enhance habitat  for aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife
species, as weE as improve groundwater recharge, floodflow alteration, sediment/toxicant
retention, sediment stabilization, and nutrient removal/transformation functional values.
The reservoir is also expected to provide increased recreational opportunities.
0114-951440                                347                               February 1994
-------
-------
                      4.0  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.1   INTRODUCTION	

      This section of the Environmental Report describes the affected environment in terms
of the physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic resources that would be impacted by
each  of the six practicable alternatives and the No Action alternative.  A more detailed
review of these topics is contained in Alternatives Assessment (Volume H - Environmental
Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993). This report is incorporated herein by reference and is an
appendix to this document.

      Each of the practicable alternatives identified in Section 3.5 are evaluated regarding
the affected environment in each of the following general categories:

        •    Physical Resources: Descriptions of the physical resources associated with the
            alternatives are provided.  Substrate, water quality, hydrology, groundwater
            resources, soil  and mineral resources, and air  quality are included in this
            general category. Riffle and pool complexes were also considered.  However,
            these complexes are  not generally found in the Coastal Plain  of Virginia.
            Because all of the practicable alternatives under evaluation would be located
            in the Coastal Plain, these features are not analyzed in  this  document.

        •    Biological Resources:  Descriptions of endangered, threatened, and sensitive
            species; fish and invertebrates; other wildlife; sanctuaries and refuges; wetlands
            and vegetated shallows; and mud flats are provided for each of the alternatives.

        •    Cultural Resources:   Descriptions  of archaeological  and  historical sites
            associated with the alternatives are provided.

        •    Socioeconomic  Resources:  Descriptions  of  the socioeconomic  resources
            associated with the alternatives are provided.   Municipal and private water
            supplies, recreational and commercial fisheries, other water-related recreation,
            aesthetics,  parks and preserves, land use, noise,  infrastructure, and other
            socioeconomic resources are included in this general category.

      A comparative summary of the affected environment associated with each alternative
is also included at the conclusion of this section.

42   PHYSICAL RESOURCES

      This  section provides a general description of the  physical environment at the
proposed project sites  for each of the seven alternatives evaluated.   Physical resource
categories evaluated are described below.

      Substrate
      This  section identifies the  existing  aquatic ecosystem substrate at project areas
associated  with each alternative.  Aquatic ecosystem substrate is  considered  to be the
0114-951-140                              4-1                             February 1994
-------
benthic material underlying all open water areas and constitutes the soil-water interface of
wetlands. It is distinguished from soils by permanent or frequent inundation.

      In some cases the difference between aquatic ecosystem substrate and soil is difficult
to distinguish.  For example, in such cases where the predicted effect would occur at a
shore-water interface the effect was assumed to be greater on the submerged substrate, and
therefore, considered affecting primarily the substrate.

      The substrate impact category was developed directly from a portion of the Clean
Water Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines for potential impacts on physical and chemical
characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR § 230.20),

      Water Quality
      This section describes the existing water quality of surface waters in project areas,
including all existing lakes, reservoirs, streams,  and rivers.  The water quality impact
category was developed from portions of the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines
which  address potential  impacts on physical  and chemical characteristics of the aquatic
ecosystem.  These characteristics include suspended  particulates/turbidity  (40  CFR §
230.21), water (40 CFR § 230.22), and salinity gradients (40 CFR § 230.25).

      Hydrology
      This section describes the existing surface water or groundwater hydrology in project
areas associated with each alternative. The hydrology impact category was developed from
portions of the Clean  Water Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which address potential
impacts on physical characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem.  These characteristics include
current patterns and water circulation (40 CFR § 230.23) and normal water fluctuations (40
CFR § 230.24).

      Groundwater Resources
      This section describes the groundwater resources which could be impacted by each
of the proposed alternatives.  This impact category was included as a public interest factor
to consider pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      This section describes  soils  and mineral  resources located within project areas
associated with  the alternatives.  The soil and mineral resources impact category was
developed as a public interest factor to consider pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act.

      Air Quality
      This section identifies the existing air quality in the vicinity of project areas associated
with each alternative component. The air quality impact category was developed as a public
interest factor to consider pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
0114-951-140                              4-2                             February 1994
-------
      4.2.1     Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

      Substrate

      Intake

      Lanexa Mucky Silty Clay appears to be the parent soil of the river substrate that
would be affected in the vicinity of the proposed intake station.

      Reservoir

      Soils located within the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir pool area are the parent
material for the substrate that would be affected by construction of the  proposed Ware
Creek Reservoir.  Generally, the soils found in the proposed reservoir area are considered
coastal plain upland soils, given the group designation of Emporia-Craven-Uchee.

      Pipeline

      The area of substrate disturbance at each minor stream crossing was assumed to be
2,500 square feet (pipeline right-of-way (ROW) width (50 feet) multiplied  by the length of
the crossing). Substrate types at the proposed crossings include: Johnston Mucky Loam,
Roanoke Silt Loam, Tomotely Loam, and substrates of the Nevarc-Remlik and Slagle-
Emporia complexes.

      There are four pipeline outfall locations associated with this component. The first
outfall would be located at the headwaters of Diascund Creek, approximately 5.7 river miles
upstream from the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir. Typical substrate found
at this outfall site originates from Johnston Mucky Loam soil. The second outfall would.be
located on Diascund Creek, approximately 0.6 river miles upstream of the normal pool area
of Diascund Creek Reservoir.  The affected substrate  at this location is similar to  the
substrate found at the first outfall location. The third outfall would be located on the Bird
Swamp  arm of the  proposed Ware Creek Reservoir.  Typical substrate  at this location
originates from the Emporia Complex soils.  The fourth outfall structure would be located
on the France Swamp arm of the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir. Typical substrate at this
location originates from the Emporia Complex soils.

      Water Quality

      Intake

      At the proposed Pamunkey River intake location, the Pamunkey River is designated
as "effluent limited" by the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB, 1992). Downstream
of Northbury, between  Sweet Hall Landing and  West Point, the Pamunkey River is
designated as "nutrient enriched," A SWCB monitoring station for the Chesapeake Bay
Tributary Monitoring Program is  located at White House, approximately 5.8 river miles
downstream from Northbury. General water quality data for this station for the Water
Years 1984 through 1987 are summarized in Table 4-1.
0114-951-140                              4-3                            February 1994
-------
      The SWCB has identified two permitted point source discharges to the Pamunkey
River between River Mile 29.5 (at the mouth of Big Creek) and River Mile 57.3 (at the
mouth of Totopotomoy Creek (SWCB, 1992).  Both of these permitted discharges are
downstream from the proposed intake site. Currently, there are no notable point source
discharges in the immediate vicinity of Northbury. However, there are currently four
SWCB-designated "major" municipal and industrial discharges upstream of Northbury. In
addition, non-point sources, such as agricultural runoff, drain into the Pamunkey River and
impact water quality.

      A review of planned wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges to the mainstem
Pamunkey River and its tributaries was conducted by Malcolm Pirnie in January 1992. By
the Year 2000, it is anticipated that a 5 to 8 mgd WWTP discharge by Hanover County
would be in place approximately 1 river mile upstream of Nelson's Bridge (State Route 615)
(R. Barrows, Hanover County, personal communication, January 1992).  This potential
discharge location is approximately 28 river miles upstream of Northbury.  Hanover County
has also identified a potential 1 mgd WWTP discharge point on the Pamunkey River near
the U.S. Route 301 Bridge, approximately 45 river miles upstream of Northbury.

      In June 1993 King William County  submitted a VPDES permit application to the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), Water Division (formerly SWCB)
for a 25,000 gallon per day WWTP discharge to an unnamed branch of Moncuin Creek (a
tributary of the Pamunkey River),  upstream of a  bridge crossing by U.S. Route 360.
Ultimately this discharge may be increased to 0.5 mgd (D. S. Whitlow, King William County,
personal communication, June 1993). This proposed discharge location  is approximately
10.5 river miles upstream of Northbury.

      In July 1992 the SWCB issued a VPDES permit to New Kent County for a planned
0.25-mgd WWTP discharge at an existing outfall for the Cumberland Hospital WWTP at the
northern end of Route 637 just north of the community of New Kent. This discharge to
Cumberland Thorofare (a side-channel of the mainstem Pamunkey River) Is approximately
17 river miles downstream of Northbury.

      Given the great amount of current and planned development in the Pamunkey River
basin, the number of municipal and industrial WWTP discharges in the basin is expected to
grow. This growth will continue to represent a water quality reliability concern with respect
to potential use of the Pamunkey River as a drinking water supply.

      Reservoir

      Water quality in both Ware Creek and Diascund Creek reservoirs would be affected
under this alternative, since water from the Pamunkey River would be discharged directly
to Diascund Creek prior to pumping to Ware Creek.

      Most of the flow to Diascund Creek Reservoir  is contributed through five main
tributaries in the reservoir watershed area. The largest of these tributaries are Diascund
Creek to the northwest of the reservoir, Beaverdam Creek to the north of the reservoir, and
Wahrani Swamp to the northeast of the reservoir.  Water quality characteristics for
Diascund Creek and Beaverdam Creek are summarized in Table 4-2.
 0114-951-140                            4-4                           February 1994
-------
                                   TABLE 4-1




              PAMUNKEY RIVER WATER QUALITY AT WHITE HOUSE
Parameter Units
pH SI
Salinity g/L
Transparency M
Dissolved Oxygen mg/l
Chlorophyll a mg/l
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
Total Phosphorus mg/1
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/l
Orthophosphate mg/1
Nitrate mg/l
Nitrite mg/l
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/1
Ammonia mg/l
Silicon mg/1
Number
Samples
108
177
53
198
41
115
121
121
115
121
121
121
120
121
Mean
6.93
0.004
0.7
7.1
5.34
7
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.23
0.01
0.06
0.6
10
Minimum
5.60
0
0.3
2.9
0.38
4
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.1
1.1
Maximum
8.29
0.1
1.4
12.9
29.01
14
0.21
0.05
0.05
0.65
0.30
0.25
1.9
38
Source:
Tributary Water Quality 1984-1987 Data Addendum - York River (SWCB, 1989).
0114-951-140
                                                           June 1993
-------
-------
                                   TABLE 4-2

                 DIASCUND CREEK RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY
Parameter Units Depth
pH SI 3 ft
pH SI 18
Chlorophyll a mg/1 3ft
Total Phosphorus mg/l 3 ft
Total Nitrogen mg/1 3ft
Total Nitrogen mg/1 18 ft
Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 3 ft
Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 18 ft
Total Organic Carbon mg/1 3 ft
Total Organic Carbon mg/1 18 ft
Number
Samples
36
34
96
88
35
33
91
91
45
37
Mean
7.3
6.9
31
0.04
0.53
1.5
8.3
4.3
8.2
9.3
Min.
6.6
6.4
0.5
0.005
0.2
0.2
4.4
0.0
5.5
6.3
Max.
8.3
8.0
147
0.26
1.3
5.6
13.2
13.1
11
15
Source:
Newport News Raw Water Management Plan, CDM, 1989.
            DIASCUND CREEK RESERVOIR TRIBUTARY WATER QUALITY
Parameter Units
pH SI
Fluoride mg/t
Chloride mg/1
Sulfate mg/1
Total Phosphorus mg/1
Orphosphate mg/1
Iron mg/1
Manganese mg/1
Diascund Creek
Number
Samples
30
ND
29
ND
35
35
35
35
Mean
6.9
ND
9.7
ND
0.082
0.014
25
0,11
Min.
6
ND
4.1
ND
0.011
< 0.001
0.63
0.04
Max.
8.8
ND
75
ND
0.23
OJ9
4.8
0.26
Beaverdarn Creek
Number
Samples
32
3
32
3
32
31
31
35
Mean
6,9
< 0.1
12
2
0.077
0.014
3.1
0.21
Min.
6.2
< 0.1
5
13
0.01
< 0.001
0.65
0,02
Max.
8.3
< 0.1
75
23
0.186
0,59
9.6
0.9
Sources:     Prugh et al., 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.
            USGS Station 02042726 - Diascund Creek at State Route 628.
            USGS Station 02042736 - Beaverdam Creek at State Route 632.

Note:        ND = No Data
0114-951-140
                                                           June 1993
-------
-------
      Presently, there are no permitted facilities discharging to Diascund Creek Reservoir.
However, there is an inactive WWTP which was constructed for use at the recently vacated
Virginia Department of Corrections (VDC) Camp 16, off of State Route 634, northeast of
Wahrani Swamp.  The point of discharge for the WWTP is in New Kent County on an
unnamed tributary of Wahrani Swamp. This WWTP has never discharged wastewater (D.
Osborne, SWCB, personal communication, 1992); however, in June 1992 the SWCB issued
a VPDES to the VDC for this facility. In February 1993 Henrico County and New Kent
County officials announced that Henrico, Gooehland, and New Kent counties will build a
regional jail at the old VDC Camp 16 site and on adjacent property by July 1994 (Wagner,
1993).  Consequently, it is possible that the VDC's old Camp 16 WWTP may be used as part
of the planned regional jail.

      Diascund Creek Reservoir stratifies in the summer months, typically between June
and August (COM, 1989). Principally because of the depth of Diascund Creek Reservoir,
an anoxic hypolimnion can develop. The water in Diascund Creek Reservoir is designated
as eutrophic by the SWCB (SWCB, 1992).  Some water quality parameters measured for
Diascund Creek Reservoir are summarized in Table 4-2.

      Below  the reservoir,  Diascund  Creek is  a tidal freshwater  tributary of the
Chickahominy River. There is no minimum flow-by requirement, and the preferred mode
of operation is not to allow any water to spill over the dam or emergency spillway. Flow to
Diascund Creek from the reservoir is from seepage through the dam and overflow during
periods of wet weather.

      Ware Creek is a relatively small and shallow system, with  saline water at the mouth
of the creek (10 to 19 ppt), brackish water between River Miles 2.5 and 5.6 from the mouth
of the creek, and fresh water (less than 1 ppt) upstream from River Mile 5.6. Water quality
data are available for Ware Creek from a USGS monitoring station at Richardson Millpond.
Water quality samples taken at this station between 1985 and 1991,  on a quarterly basis, are
included  in Table 4-3.

      The water quality in Ware Creek has been described as "relatively good despite the fact
that phosphorus, iron, manganese and zinc have exceeded Virginia or USEPA criteria" (USCOE,
1987).  Previous studies have attributed these excess values, phosphorus in particular, to the
prior location of a WWTP at  the headwaters of France  Swamp which operated until
November 1979. However, based on the data obtained for Ware Creek and France Swamp,
there is no longer an extreme difference in phosphorus concentrations between these two
streams.  It is therefore unlikely that  the former WWTP  is still the primary source  of
phosphorus. It is more likely that non-point sources are now the  greatest contributors  of
nutrients.

      In March 1977, due to high coliform bacteria levels, the waters of Ware Creek were
condemned by the VDH, thereby prohibiting shellfishing. The shellfish condemnation area
extends from the mouth of Ware Creek to its headwaters including the tributaries (SWCB,
1992).

      In January 1992 the SWCB issued a VPDES permit to Branscome Concrete, Inc. for
the Branscome Concrete Toano Plant in James City County. This permit allows discharge
0114-951-140                             4-5                            February 1994
-------
of truck washdown and storm water runoff to a tributary of France Swamp in the proposed
Ware Creek Reservoir drainage area.

      The Massie Debris Landfill is also located within the proposed Ware Creek Reservok
watershed.  This active landfill is located immediately south of State Route 168/30 (H. J.
Winer, VDWM, personal communication, 1992), at the confluence of France Swamp and
one of its tributaries.  Based on USGS topographic information and aerial photography, a
portion of the landfill may be within the normal pool area for the proposed reservoir.

      Stonehouse Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake Corporation, formally
announced plans for its proposed "Stonehouse New Community" in March 1989. This would
be a 7,230-acre planned community within the 11,141-acre Ware Creek watershed of James
City and New Kent counties.   The James City  County portion of the Stonehouse
development would  occupy 4,000 acres (J.  C.  Dawson, James City  County, personal
communication, September 1992) or approximately 40 percent of the 9,903 acres (excluding
the normal reservoir pool area) that would drain to Ware Creek Reservoir.  Additional
areas within the New Kent County portion of Stonehouse would also be within the reservoir
watershed.   As a consequence, activities both directly and indirectly associated with the
development could have a substantial impact on the water quality of Ware Creek. Rezoning
for the 5,750 acres  of this development  within James City County was approved by the
James City County Board of Supervisors in November 1991.

      According to James City County, plans for Stonehouse include a reservoir buffer zone
extending 50 feet beyond the 50-foot elevation contour or 100 feet from the reservoir pool
level (R. P. Friel, James City County, personal communication, 1991).  A storm water
management plan has been  developed for  this community to reduce the  impact  of
development on  the proposed reservoir (Langley and  McDonald,  1990).   Oil/water
separators  would be required  at  all  stream  crossings, and the sewer system would be
designed to minimize potential threats  to reservoir water quality.  Best management
practices (BMPs) would be maintained by James City County at Stonehouse's expense. The
quantity  and quality of the storm water runoff would be monitored. If runoff quantity or
quality exceeds limits set based on previous storm water analysis, the BMPs for subsequent
phases would be modified and existing development might be retrofitted to meet the limits
(J. C.  Dawson, James City County, personal communication, September 1992).  These
control measures previously described for Stonehouse should afford some degree of water
quality protection for Ware Creek.   However, given the magnitude of the Stonehouse
project,  there would still be a noteworthy risk of long-term reservoir water  quality
deterioration  due  to the  extensive  nature of planned  residential  and commercial
development in the  watershed.

      Pipeline

       Construction  of 26.3 miles of pipeline for this alternative  would involve minor
crossings of 5 perennial and 16 intermittent streams. Pamunkey River withdrawals would
be pumped to the Diascund Creek Reservoir drainage basin, discharging to two outfall
locations on Diascund Creek.  Raw water would then be pumped from Diascund Creek
Reservoir to either Ware Creek Reservoir or the existing Newport News Waterworks mains.
Diascund Creek Outfall Site 1 would be near the headwaters of Diascund Creek, where the
estimated average flow  is 1.0 mgd.   Projected maximum raw water discharge from the

0114-951-140                            4-6                           February 1994
-------
                                    TABLE 4-3




            WARE CREEK WATER QUALITY AT RICHARDSON MILLPOND
Parameter Units
pH SI
Specific Conductance yxS/cm
Alkalinity mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen (Sat.) mg/1
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
Total Phosphorus mg/1
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/1
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/1
Nitrite mg/1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/1
Ammonia mg/1
Iron ptg/1
Manganese /ig/1
Number Samples
Total
33
33
23
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
33
32
33
• 33
Above OL
33
33
23
30
30
32
28
12
11
4
32
29
33
28
Mean
7.3
123
36
9.1
92
7
0.04
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.8
0.03
498
30
Mill.
6.1
90
24
3.4
44
3.5
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.01
70
4
Max.
8.7
180
53
13.2
134
12
0.08
0.03
0.52
0.03
1.9
0.13
2,000
140
Sources:      Prugh et al., 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.




             USGS Station 01677000 - Ware Creek at State Route 600.




Note:        DL = Detection Limit
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
Pamunkey River to this outfall location is 40 mgd.  Diascund Creek Outfall Site 2 would be
just upstream of the reservoir, where the estimated average flow is 8.7 mgd. Projected
maximum raw water discharge from the Pamunkey to this outfall location is 80 mgd.

      Existing water quality data for the Pamunkey River near the proposed intake site are
presented in Table 4-1. The closest USGS water quality monitoring station for Diascund
Creek is approximately 2.8 river miles downstream from Outfall Site 1 and  approximately
1.1 river miles upstream  from Outfall Site 2.  Water quality data from this station are
summarized in Table 4-2, and are used to represent existing water quality  conditions for
Diascund Creek.

      Hydrology

      Intake

      The proposed intake site on the Pamunkey River at Northbury would be located in
New Kent County, approximately 40 river miles upstream of the mouth  of the Pamunkey
River (see Figures 3-2 and 4-1). Tidal freshwater conditions exist at the proposed intake
location and the mean tidal range is 3.3 feet at Northbury (USDC, 1989).

      Contributing drainage area at Northbury is approximated 1,279 square miles. The
proposed 120-mgd maximum withdrawal capacity represents [15.6jpercent of the estimated
average freshwater discharge  at  Northbury (770 mgd).   afore detailed  streamflow
characteristics of the Pamunkey  River at the proposed intake site are presented in
Table 4-4.

      Reservoir

      Ware Creek  and its  principal tributaries, France Swamp, Cow Swamp, and Bird
Swamp, drain a generally undisturbed watershed of approximately 17.4 square miles above
the proposed  dam  site.  The  proposed dam site is  situated approximately 1,000 feet
downstream of the confluence of Ware Creek and France Swamp and is located 4.7 river
miles upstream of the mouth of Ware Creek where it empties into the York  River (Wilber
et aL, 1987).

      Ware Creek flows in a northeasterly direction into the York River. The hydrologic
system of the drainage area primarily consists of tidaUy and non-tidally influenced, perennial
and intermittent streams.  While drainage from Bird Swamp is interrupted  by a minor
impoundment, Richardson's Millpond, flow from the remainder  of the Ware Creek basin
is unobstructed by manmade impoundments.

      The proposed dam site would be  located  in  tidal waters where the channel is
approximately 75 feet wide (Wilber et aL, 1987).  The variable discharge of freshwater from
Ware Creek and the creek's depth relative to the estuarine tidal influx of the  York River
results in large-scale fluctuations in the salinity of waters in the creek system over relatively
short periods of time (USEPA, 1992).

      For this analysis it is assumed that all streams up to the  proposed normal pool
elevation of 35 feet msl would be affected. A total of 37.1 river miles  of perennial and

0114-951-140                             4-7                           February 1994
-------
intermittent streams are located within the proposed reservoir pool area up to elevation 35
feet msl.  Data concerning the stream system within the drainage area are presented in
Table 4-5.

      To estimate existing streamflow at the proposed dam site, the streamflow record from
Ware Creek near Toano (10/79 to 10/81 and 3/82 to 9/90) was adjusted to the contributing
reservoir drainage area of 17.4 square miles. Average streamflow at the proposed dam site
is estimated to be 11.1 mgd.

      Pipeline

      The construction of 263 miles of pipeline would be required for this alternative. The
pipeline would cross 5 perennial and 16 intermittent streams. This alternative component
would also involve raw water discharges into the headwaters of Diascund Creek and Ware
Creek reservoirs. Two raw water outfalls (40 mgd and 80 mgd capacities) would be located
on perennial segments of Diascund Creek. The Ware Creek Reservoir headwaters (Bird
Swamp and France Swamp) discharges would be located at intermittent portions of these
streams.   Existing average streamflows  at the  Diascund Creek outfall locations  were
estimated based on the same streamflow record listed previously in the description of Ware
Creek Reservoir streamflows, and were adjusted to the drainage areas at the points of
discharge.

      Field studies were  conducted in July  1992  and January 1993 to obtain stream
cross-sectional measurements at the  proposed raw water discharge locations on Diascund
Creek. To identify the potential hydrologic impacts of the proposed raw water discharges,
Manning's Equation for Open Channel-Uniform Flow was used to approximate the depth
of flow which could result from each proposed raw water discharge.

      At Outfall Site 1 on Diascund Creek, estimated average discharge is 1.0 mgd based
on a 1.6-square mile drainage area. It is assumed that the maximum discharge would be the
maximum pipeline capacity at the outfall (40 mgd), plus the estimated average discharge at
the site.  Therefore, maximum discharge at Outfall Site 1 during pumpover operations is
assumed to be 41 mgd. Diascund Creek Outfall Site 1, based on Manning's Equation, has
an estimated channel capacity of at least 53 mgd.  Therefore, the existing channel should be
capable of accommodating maximum flows during pumpover operations.

      At Outfall Site 2 on Diascund Creek, estimated average discharge is 8.7 mgd based
on a 13.55-square mile drainage area. It is assumed that the maximum discharge would be
the combined maximum raw water discharge of the  two outfalls (120 mgd), plus the
estimated average discharge at the site. Therefore, the maximum discharge at Outfall Site 2
during pumpover operations is assumed to be 128.7 mgd.  The channel of Diascund Creek
at Outfall Site 2 is easily capable of accommodating maximum flows during pumpover
operations. At this proposed outfall  site, two main Diascund Creek channels exist, each of
which is at least 20 feet wide. The total bottom area of Diascund Creek at this point is 150
to 200 feet wide.

      The Bird Swamp and France  Swamp discharges would be directly to Ware Creek
Reservoir.
0114-951-140                             4-8                            February 1994
-------
                                                                   FIGURE 4-t
                                          SCOTLAND
                                          LANDING
                                           KING  WILLIAM
                                           RESERVOIR
BLACK-
CREEK
RESERVOIR
                                                     BEAVERDAM CREEK
                                                     OUTFALL
  "     -
     C DIASCUND CREEK
 •    -OUTFALL SITE  1
                                                      WARE  CREEK
                                                      RESERVOIR
                        PROVIDENCE
                            R3RSE  DUSCljND
                     DIASCUNO CREEK
                     OUTFALL SITE  2
            BIRD  SWAMP
            OUTFALL
                                                    LITTLE CSEEK
                                                     RESERVOIR  ^FRANCE SWAMP
                                                               OUTFALL
                                                            W!LL1AMS8URG\
  MAODOIM
     'IRNII
                    APRIL 1993
               LOWER VIRGINIA  PENINSULA
           REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
               ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

LOCATIONS OF RESERVOW/PUMPOVER ALTERNATIVES
          5 •  •          0            5
                                              SCALE IN MILES
-------
-------
                                          TABLE 4-4

          CHARACTERISTICS OF PAMUNKEY RIVER DISCHARGE AT NORTHBURY
EXCEEDANCE
PROBABILITY
(percent)
100
as
90
85
80
75
70
es
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
DISCHARGE, mgd
JAN
BO.O
189.0
240.1
332.7
3S0.8
437.5
474.2
523.0
562.9
614.9
871.5
738.8
787.7
881.1
971.3
1116.8
1353.7
1674.9
2288.4
3472.2
17097.2
FEB
90.0
275.3
355.6
423.7
494. B
562.1
608.8
66S.2
725.8
780.1
818.3
873.8
948.3
1,040.1
1,177.8
1 ,338.4
1,590.8
1,988.5
2,500.9
3,449.5
14,072.3
MAR
137.7
358.1
435.9
489.5
544.5
604.2
660.0
704.4
791.0
810.7
879,5
958.0
1,040.1
1,147.2
1,271.1
1,453.1
1,728.4
2,128.1
2,814.5
3,824.0
11,089.8
APR
219.5
319.7
363.7
406.9
456.6
507.1
555.2
601.9
650.1
699.0
742.6
803.0
871.9
848.3
1 ,083.1
1,231.3
1,453.1
1 .850.8
2,455.0
3,818.3
32,432.4
MAY
135.4
205.0
234.0
264.6
296.7
328.1
355.8
383.9
408.7
446.2
483.4
523.1
573.6
648.5
722.0
818.3
940.7
1,094.8
1 ,468.4
2,279.1
9,187.3
JUN
82.7
118.2
131.5
146.2
168.0
182.0
202.5
219.5
241-8
262.3
284.5
314.3
341.0
374.9
416.8
464.2
558,3
666.1
871.9
1,378.8
19,119.9
JUL
13.1
88.5
82.5
92.5
103.1
112.5
124,7
135.4
153.7
172.1
189.7
208.5
231.7
258.5
286,8
335.0
402.3
523.0
725.5
1,223.7
9,865.9
AUG
3.7
40.S
60.4
75.0
82.8
91.0
103.2
114.0
126.2
140.7
161.2
181.8
206J
2455
283.1
338.5
419.1
544.5
833.0
1.S67.3
30,056,5
SEP
3.7
24.4
43.6
55,8
61.9
71.1
83.4
96.4
108.7
121.0
140.0
156.8
178.2
200.6
228.7
259,3
311.2
367.1
539.2
1.162.5
17,622.2
OCT
1,9
29.8
53.S
65.8
80.3
95.6
110.1
124.7
138.4
153.0
170.6
193.5
21 8 0
2493
283.1
339.0
418.1
539.2
873.6
2,080.9
11,930.8
NOV
18.7
84.4
114.0
128.5
148.4
176.7
205.7
231.7
2594
283.1
300.7
328.9
373.2
432.1
508.6
588.7
676.8
818.3
1,170.1
2,099.7
10,401.2
DEC
37.5
131.5
168.3
212.8
258.3
291.4
328.1
355.6
389,3
431.2
476.2
523.9
570,8
638.6
717.4
810.7
963.6
1 ,246.6
1.717.2
2,755.8
12.0838
Notes: Exceedance flows calculated based upon 1929-1987 USGS gaged streamflows adjusted to the
      estimated 1,279 square mile contributing drainage area at Northbury,

    Historical mean annual streamflowat Northbury is estimated to be 770 mgd.
                                                                                             28-Jun-93
-------
-------
                                   TABLE 4-5

             WARE CREEK RESERVOIR STREAM ORDER ANALYSIS
Stream Order *
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
River Miles
Perennial 2
1.82
330
3.96
1.06
0.15
Intermittent *
19.37
7.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Total
21.19
10.74
3.96
1.06
0.15
37.10
      Smallest tributaries are classified as "order 1". The point at which two first order
      streams join the channel is the beginning of a second order segment, and so on.

      A perennial stream maintains water in its channel throughout the year.

      An intermittent stream flows only in direct response to precipitation. It may be dry
      for a large part of the year, ordinarily more than  three months.
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
      Groundwater Resources

      Setting

      The surface of the Virginia Coastal Plain consists of a series of broad, gently sloping,
highly dissected north-south trending terraces,  bounded  by seaward-facing,  ocean
escarpments  (Meng and Harsh,  1988).  The geology  is characterized  by a series of
southeastward dipping beds of marine and nonmarine sand,  silt, clay, and  gravel.  This
wedge of unconsolidated deposits ranges in thickness from only several feet near Richmond
to over 2,000 feet near Hampton, Virginia.  In western James City County this sediment
veneer is estimated at 1,100 feet in thickness (Brown et al., 1972).

      The unconsolidated sediments overlie a crystalline bedrock basement that also slopes
gently to the east.  In general, the stratigraphic section consists of a thick sequence of
nonmarine sediments overlain by a thinner sequence of marine  deposits.  The age of the
sediments range from Quaternary to Late Cretaceous.

      The primary aquifers in order of increasing depth consist of the Quaternary or
Columbia, the Yorktown, the Chickahominy-Piney Point, the Aquia, and the Cretaceous or
Potomac system. Water occurs under leaky artesian conditions  in the multi-layer aquifer
system. The Columbia and Yorktown Aquifers are both exposed at the surface and in river
and  stream valleys throughout most of the  Virginia Coastal  Plain.  Therefore, these
individual units will be characterized with respect to the proposed  reservoir location and the
Pamunkey River intake.

      Columbia Aquifer

      The upper surface of the water table lies within this unit and ranges from several feet
to as much as 40 feet below land surface. The aquifer thickness ranges from 10 to 60 feet
and is estimated at 20 feet in the vicinity of the reservoir (Harsh, 1980). The aquifer is used
for small water supplies with yield ranging from 3 to 30 gal/min (Lichtler and Wait, 1974).
This unit contains approximately 25 to 60 billion  gallons of water in storage  in the James
City County area, and water levels have not declined appreciably due to local or regional
pumping.  Estimated withdrawals from the Columbia Aquifer in 1983 totaled approximately
0.1 mgd in southeastern Virginia.  The  water table  elevation currently  ranges from
approximately elevation 5 to 20 feet msl at the proposed location of the dam site (Gannett
Fleming, 1992).

      Because this aquifer lies at the surface, it is recharged  directly by precipitation.
Discharge is by evaporation and transpiration, seepage into rivers and streams, downward
leakage to confined aquifers, and pumping. Water in the aquifer  moves from  areas of high
elevation (generally corresponding to land-surface  topographic highs) toward streams, lakes,
and swamps.  Because the sand intervals of this unit are recharged by local rainfall, this unit
is subject to  extreme fluctuation in water level during drought  periods.   The Columbia
Aquifer is an important part of the hydrologic system because it is a source of recharge to
the underlying multi-layer, confined aquifer system.

      Table 4-6 summarizes water quality data for the Columbia  Aquifer across the entire
York-James Peninsula.

0114-951-140                              4-9                             February 1994
-------
      Yorktown Aquifer

      Also referred to as the Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer, this unit is present throughout
the coastal plain, except along stream valleys in the western third where it has been removed
by erosion.  The thickness of the aquifer is highly variable and generally depends on the
elevation of the land surface. Thickness ranges from a featheredge at the up-dip limit to
160 feet at a well in the City of Hampton. The lithology of the aquifer varies from gravelly-
to-silty sand, interbedded with silt, day, and shell. West of James City County this aquifer
is the water-table aquifer and is overlain by the Yorktown confining unit in James City
County and to the east.

      Water enters the aquifer by downward vertical leakage from the  Columbia Aquifer
and by groundwater flow from the west along the outcrop of the Pliocene and Miocene
sediments. Discharge is likely by flow to the east to surface water bodies, slow downward
leakage to underlying aquifers, and by pumping. Approximately 45 to 100 billion gallons of
water is contained in storage in the aquifer (Harsh, 1980) with well yields ranging from 5
to 80 gallons per minute.

      A summary of water quality data for the Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer across the entire
York-James Peninsula is presented in Table 4-7.  The Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer has not
been used as a primary source of water supply in the project area because higher well yields
have been developed in underlying aquifers. However, several domestic supply wells have
been identified in the  City of Williamsburg and the community of Norge in James City
County.

      Soil and Mineral Resources

      Intake

      In the vicinity of the proposed Pamunkey River intake site at Northbury, the major
soil grouping present is the  Altavista-Dougue-Pamunkey (Hodges et al., 1985).  The two
major soils expected to be affected are the Nevarc-Remlik complex and the Pamunkey Fine
Sandy Loam, the latter soil is considered a prime agricultural soil (Hodges  et al., 1985).
There are no mineral resources presently mined at or near the proposed intake facility site
(Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (VDMR), 1976; Sweet and Wilkes, 1990).

      Reservoir

      Soils located within the proposed pool area of Ware Creek Reservoir constitute the
affected environment.  The major soil grouping in this area is the Emporia-Craven-Uchee
soils (Hodges et al., 1985). These soils are found on mostly upland ridges and side slopes.
Approximately 20 acres of these soils are considered prime agricultural soils. There are no
mineral recovery facilities located within the vicinity of the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir
area (VDMR, 1976; Sweet and Wilkes, 1990).

      Construction of the Ware Creek Reservoir dam and associated emergency spillway
would disturb approximately 14 acres of soil, as a  result of excavation and subsequent
deposition of fill material and associated structures.
0114-951-140                             4-10                           February 1994
-------
                                                             TABLE 4-6

                                       SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FROM
                                    COLUMBIA AQUIFER IN THE YORK-JAMES PENINSULA
              Water Quality Constituent
N
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
  Calcium, dissolved, mg/1	      17
  Magnesium, dissolved, mg/1  	      17
  Potassium, dissolved, mg/1	      12
  Sodium, dissolved, mg/1	      13
  Alkalinity as CaCOJt mg/1	, .      5
  Chloride, dissolved, mg/1	      19
  Sulfate, dissolved, mg/1	      17
  Specific  conductance, /is/cm	      7
  pH, standard units	      15
  Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate dissolved, mg/I  ......      1
  Phosphate, ortho., dissolved, mg/l	      0
  Organic carbon, total, mg/1	      0
  Hardness, total as CaCO3, mg/1  	      18
  Fluoride, dissolved, mg/1	      18
  Silica, dissolved, mg/1	      13
  Iron, total, /*g/l 	;	      7
  Iron, dissolved, ^tg/1 	      4
  Manganese, total, /xg/1 	      5
  Manganese, dissolved, jtg/1	      2
  Dissolved solids, residue at 180°C, mg/1 .	      15
              86.00
              14
               43
              55
             406
              93
              29
             628
               8.05
             220
               0.5
              40
             710
            5200
            5900
             610
             762
                     2.90
                      .09
                      .6
                     5.2
                    15
                     9.7
                     1.32
                   114
                     6.5
                    16

                     6.6
                    80
                    90
                    30
                   200
                    63
                    42.21
                     5.02
                     2.22
                    25.2
                   169.6
                    34.28
                     9.81
                   345.43
                     7.56
                   102.17

                    21.31
                   408.57
                  1477.5
                  1250
                   405
                   262
                  43.00
                   43
                   1.85
                  20
                 126
                  27
                   6
                 339
                   7.8
                 107.5
                    .21
                  20
                 350
                 310
                  70
                 405
                 227
                   25.51
                    3.77
                    1.14
                   16.55
                  154.94
                   22.48
                    9.13
                  177.38
                     .5
                   62.54

                   11.14
                  248.29
                 2484.17
                 2600

                  168
  (N is number of samples, CaCO3 is calcium carbonate, mg/1 is milligrams per liter, /ng/1 is micrograms per liter, us/cm is microsiemens per
  centimeter, °C is degrees Celsius, -- indicates insufficient number of constituent analyses, < indicates less than value shown.]

  Source:  Laczniak and Meng, 1988.
0114-951-140
                                                                       June 1993
-------
-------
                                                             TABLE 4-7

                                       SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FROM
                             YORKTOWN-EASTOVER AQUIFER IN THE YORK-JAMES PENINSULA
              Water Quality Constituent
N
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
  Calcium, dissolved, mg/I	      34
  Magnesium, dissolved, mg/1  	      34
  Potassium, dissolved, mg/1	      25
  Sodium, dissolved, mg/I 	      26
  Alkalinity as CaCO3, mg/1	      11
  Chloride, dissolved, mg/1  	      35
  Sulfate, dissolved, mg/1	      35
  Specific conductance, /is/cm	      18
  pH, standard units	      21
  Nitrogen as NO2 +  NO3, dissolved, mg/1	      4
  Phosphate, ortho., dissolved, mg/1	      5
  Organic carbon, total, mg/1	      1
  Hardness, total as CaCO3) mg/1 	      30
  Fluoride, dissolved,  mg/1	      29
  Silica, dissolved, mg/1	      26
  Iron, total, ^ig/1	      11
  Iron, dissolved, /ig/1	      13
  Manganese, total, /ig/1 	      3
  Manganese, dissolved, /u.g/1	      2
  Dissolved solids, residue at 180°C, mg/1	      29
             261.00
              39
              16
             804
             294
            1190
             119
            4380
               8.9
                .25
                .52
                .9
     812
        i
      40
    8700
     120
     210
     170
    2280
                     1.80
                      .1
                      .8
                     3.5
                    12
                     3.1
                     1.13
                   285
                     7.1
       5.
      <.01
       9.7
      30
      <.01
      40
     110
     108
                    59.93
                     5.82
                     4.4
                    86.84
                   154.18
                    96.47
                    16.24
                   720.89
                     7.63
   170.71

    18.04
  1909.09

   12333
   140
   328
    65.50
     3.45
     2.6
    20.5
    167
    21.5
     9.9
    427
     7.55
      .1
      .09
     4.6
    165
      .1
    15.5
    710
    20
    120
    140
    248
                                45.18
                                 8.02
                                 4.11
                                182.84
                                82.79
                                248.53
                                2132
                                938.04
                                  .42
    139.14

      8.48
   3677.08

     85.05

    390
  [N is number of samples, CaCO3 is calcium carbonate, mg/1 is milligrams per liter, fj.g/1 is micrograms per liter, /as/cm is microsiemens per
  centimeter, °C is degrees Celsius, - indicates insufficient number of constituent analyses, < indicates less than value shown.]

  Source:  Laczniak and Meng, 1988.
0114-951-140
                                                                      June 1993
-------
-------
      Pipeline

      This alternative would include the construction of approximately 26,3 miles of raw
water pipeline. Assuming a construction right-of-way (ROW) of 50 feet, the expected total
soil disturbance for this alternative would be 159 acres.  Table 4-8 lists the types of soils
along the pipeline route that would be affected.

      There are four pipeline outfall locations associated with this alternative. The first
outfall would be located at the headwaters of Diascund Creek, approximately 5.7 river miles
upstream from the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir. Soil at this location
consists of Johnston Mucky Loam (Hodges et aL, 1985) which is included in the hydric soils
list of Virginia (USDA, 1985).  Because the Johnston series of soils are deep and poorly
drained, flooding and ponding are typical for this area and it is common to find these soils
mainly along streams where channel overflow is frequent.  The second outfall would be
located on Diascund Creek, approximately 0.6 river miles upstream of the normal pool area
of Diascund Creek Reservoir.  The soils found at this location are similar to those found
at the first  outfall location.  The third outfall would be located on the Bird Swamp arm of
Ware Creek Reservoir. The soil series at this location is Emporia Complex (Hodges et aL,
1985). These soils are deep, very steep, well drained, and formed over layers of fossil shells.
Emporia complex soils  are typically found on side slopes along rivers, creeks, and drainage
ways. The fourth outfall structure would be located on the France Swamp arm of Ware
Creek Reservoir.  Soils at this location are similar to those found at the third outfall
location.

      Air Quality
      The intake and most of the pipeline would be located in New Kent County  and the
balance of the pipeline would be built in James City County.  The reservoir would be located
mostly in James City County with a portion extending into New Kent County. The VDAPC
has classified New Kent County as attainment (or unclassifiable) for  all criteria air
pollutants.   James  City  County has been  classified as non-attainment  for ozone and
attainment for all other criteria air pollutants. No indication of a nuisance dust problem in
this area has been recorded.

      42,3,      Black  Creek Reservoir with Puunpover from Pamunkey River

      Substrate

      Intake

      The  existing substrate that would be  affected due to construction of the proposed
intake facilities on the Pamunkey River is discussed in Section 4.2.1.

      Reservoir

      Substrates found in the proposed Black Creek Reservoir area originate from soils
which are considered of the Coastal Plain Uplands, Side Slopes, and  Upland Flood Plains
category (Hodges et aL, 1989).  There are two soil groupings from this category affected by
this alternative component, Caroline-Emporia and Nevarc-Remlik-Johnston.
0114-951-140                             4-11                            February 1994
-------
      Pipeline

      The area of substrate disturbance at each minor stream crossing was assumed to be
2,500 square feet (pipeline ROW width (50 feet) multiplied by the length of pipeline
crossing). Substrate types at the proposed pipeline crossings include:  Johnston Mucky
Loam, Roanoke Silt Loam, Slagle Fine Sandy Loam, Tomotely Loam, and substrates of the
Nevarc-Remlik  and Slagle-Emporia complexes.

      There are two outfall locations associated with this component that  would affect
existing substrate. The first outfall would be located at the headwaters of Diascund Creek,
approximately 5.7 river  miles upstream  from the normal pool area of Diascund Creek
Reservoir. Typical substrate found at this outfall site originates from Johnston Mucky Loam
soil. The second outfall would be located on Little Creek Reservoir, approximately 2,000
feet south of St. Johns Church on State Route 610. The affected substrate is similar to the
substrate found at the first outfall location.

      Water Quality

      Intake

      Existing water quality conditions at the proposed Pamunkey River intake site are
discussed in Section 4.2.1.

      Reservoir

      Potential reservoir water quality concerns exist due to the growing presence of homes
in close proximity to the proposed reservoir boundaries. Examination of aerial photography
flown in  March 1989, review of New Kent  County plats of subdivision and 1992 House
Numbering Maps, and a windshield survey conducted in June 1992 confirm that the Clopton
Forest residential subdivision borders the Western edge of the proposed Southern Branch
Black Creek reservoir site.  This large subdivision has the potential to impact reservoir
water quality by contributing non-point source runoff. No point source discharges have been
identified within the proposed reservoir watershed.

      Estimates of  the water quality for Black Creek in this report are based on water
quality information from Crump Creek and Matadequin Creek.  Crump Creek is a tributary
of the Pamunkey River located in central Hanover County east of U.S. Route 301 and
northeast of the City of Richmond. Matadequin Creek is also a tributary of the Pamunkey
River and, near its mouth, is located on the New Kent County - Hanover County line.
Matadequin Creek flows into the Pamunkey River approximately 0.2 river miles upstream
of Northbury. Water quality data for Crump Creek and Matadequin Creek were used as
surrogates for Black Creek water quality conditions because all three creeks have similar
watershed areas, topography (morphology), and land use within the watershed areas.  This
information is used only as a best estimate of existing water quality for Black Creek and is
not intended to represent the actual water quality.  Water quality data for Crump Creek and
Matadequin Creek are summarized in Tables 4-9 and 4-10, respectively.
0114-951-140                            4-12                           February 1994
-------
                                                TABLE  4-8
                      WARE   CREEK  RESERVOIR  ALTERNATIVE
                            SOILS  WITHIN  THE  PIPELINE  ROUTE

1A
2A
3A
5A
6B
7B
7C
9A
108
10C
11B
12B
ISA
15B
16A
18B
19B
19C
208
21A
23A
260
26E
26F
28B
SOB
31 A
33A
34B
35A
37A
40B
41 B

Altavista
Altavista- Dogue complex
Augusta
Bojac
Caroline
Caroline- Emporia complex
Caroline -Emporia complex
Conetoe
Craven
Craven
Craven-Caroline complex
Craven -Uchee complex
Dogue
Emporia
Johnston {Hydric)
Kempsville
Kempsville— Emporia complex
Kempsville- Emporia complex
Kempsville- Suffolk complex
Lanexa (Hydric)
Munden
Nevarc— Remlic complex
Nevarc- Remlic complex
Nevarc- Remlic complex
Norfolk
Pamunkey
Roanoke (Hydric)
Slagle
Stagle- Emporia complex
State
Tarboro
Uchee
Udorthents

Fine sandy loam, 0-2 % slopes. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
Fine sandy-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, poorly drained
Loamy-sand, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, well drained
Loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On broad upland ridges
6-10% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On broad upland ridges
Loamy sand., 0-4% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, well drained. On low river terraces
Loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, moderately well drained
Loam, 6-10% slopes. Very deep, strongly sloping, moderately well drained
2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping soils. On narrow ridgetops and side slopes
2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping. On narrow ridgetops.
Fine sandy-loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
Mucky-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, very poorly drained
Gravelly fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
2—6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On upland ridges
6-10% slopes. Very deep, strongly sloping, well drained. On upland ridges
2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On medium upland ridges
Mucky-sitty clay, 0-1% slope, frequently flooded. Deep, nearly level, poorly drained
Sandy-loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained. On ridges
6-15 % slope. Very deep, moderately steep. On side slopes along rivers
15-25% slopes. Very deep, steep. On sides of slopes along rivers and creeks
25—60% slopes. Very deep, very steep. On sides of slopes along rivers & creeks
Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, and well drained
Silt- loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, and poorly drained
Fine sandy-loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, and moderately well drained
0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping. On upland ridges and depressions
Very fine sandy-loam., 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, well drained
Loamy sand, 0—4% slope. Very deep, nearly level to gentle slope and excessively drained
Loamy-fine sand, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, and well drained
Loamy, gentle slope. Consists of pits providing foundation materials and areas of landfills
   10B
        Craven
                                Loam. 2—6% slope.Very deep, gently sloping, moderately well drained
   10C
        Craven
                                Loam. 6-10% slopes. Very deep, strongly sloping, moderately well drained
   11C
        Craven-Uchee complex
                                6— 10% slope. Moderately well drained Craven soil & well drained Uchee soil
   14B
        Emporia
                                Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
   15D
        Emporia complex
                                10—15% slope. Deep, moderately well drained Emporia soils & similar soils over fossil shells
   15E
        Emporia complex
                                15-25% slope. Deep, steep, well drained Emporia soils & similar soils over fossil shells
   15F
        Emporia complex
                                25-50% slope. Deep, very steep, well drained Emporia soils & similar soils over fossil shells
    17
        Johnston complex
                         (Hydric)
Mucky-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, very poorly drained
   18B
        Kempsville
                                Gravelly fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
   19B
        Kempsville—Emporia complex
                                2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On upland ridges
   20B
        Kenansville
                                Loamy-fine sand, 2-6% slope. Deep, gently sloping, and well drained. On upland ridges
   258
        Norfolk
                                Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
                                           Fine sandy-loam. 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
29A
Slagle
   29B
        Slagle
                                Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
   31B
        Suffolk
                                Rne - sandy loam, 2-6% slope. Deep, gently sloping and well drained
   34B
        Uchee
                                Loamy-flne sand, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & well drained
Source used for the identification of soil types vws the Soil Survay of New Kant County, Virginia (Hodges et al, 1989)
' Source used for the identification of soil types was the Soil Survey of James City and York Counties and the City of Wilfiamsburg, Virgins (Hodges et al, 1985)
                                                                                                       February 1894
-------
-------
                                    TABLE 4-9




                          CRUMP CREEK WATER QUALITY
Parameter Units
pH SI
Alkalinity mg/1
Hardness mg/I
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODj) mg/1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) mg/1
Total Phosphorus (TP) mg/1
Orthophosphate (OPO4) mg/1
Total Nitrogen (TN) mg/1
Nitrate (NOj) mg/1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/1
Ammonia (NHj) mg/1
Chloride (Cl) mg/1
Fluoride (F) mg/1
Arsenic (As) mg/1
Barium (Ba) mg/1
Calcium (Ca) mg/1
Cadmium (Cd) mg/1
Chromium (Cr) mg/1
Copper (Cu) mg/I
Iron (Fe) mg/1
Lead (Pb) mg/I
Magnesium (Mg) mg/1
Manganese (Mn) mg/1
Mercury (Hg) mg/1
Selenium (Se) mg/1
Silver (Ag) mg/1
Sodium (Na) mg/1
Zinc (Zn) mg/I
Number
Samples
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
2
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Mean
63
S3
16
47
1.6
6.8
0.066
0.03
1J2
0.298
0.9
< OJ
8.7
< 0.15
< 0.0021
< 0.13
2.14
< 0.005
< 0.016
< 0.009
2.07
< 0.04
1.18
0.066
< 0.0005
< 0.0021
< 0.006
5.0
0.010
Minimum
6.1
2.5
12
33
0.9
4.2
0.028
0.01
0.94
0.111
02
0.1
5.7
< 0.10
< 0.0005
< 0.05
1.55
< 0.002
< 0.005
< 0.005
L10
< 0.02
0.76
0.035
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.002
3.9
0.005
Maximum
6.6
7.0
22
60
3.9
10.5
0.100
0.09
1.49
0.480
3.6
0.6
17
0.27
0.0039
0.20
2.65
0.005
0.050
0;010
3.18
0.05
1.40
0.094
< 0.0005
0.0030
0.010
9.2
0.018
Source:
Crump Creek Reservoir Project Development Report, Black and Veatch, Inc., 1989.
0114-951-140
                                                             June 1993
-------
-------
                                  TABLE 4-10
                     MATADEQUIN CREEK WATER QUALITY
Parameter Units
pH SI
Alkalinity mg/1
Hardness mg/l
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/l
Turbidity JTU
Specific Conductance pS/cm
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) mg/l
Fecal Colifonn /100 mL
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) mg/l
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) mg/1
Total Phosphorus (TP) mg/l
Orthophosphate (OPO4) mg/l
Nitrate (NOj) mg/l
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mB/l
Ammonia (NHj) mg/l
Chloride (d) mg/l
Fluoride (F) mg/l
Arsenic (As) mg/l
Cadmium (Cd) mg/l
Chromium (Cr) mg/l
Copper (Cu) mg/l
Iron (Fe) mg/l
Lead (Pb) mg/l
Manganese (Mn) mg/l
Nickel (Ni) mg/l
Zinc (Zn) mg/l
Number
Samples
11
9
7
9
5
9
10
6
9
8
8
4
9
9
9
7
7
9
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Mean
44
10
28
48
6.9
54
8.9
107
1.9
4.8
< 0,1
< 0.04
0.15
OJ
< 0.04
5
< 0.1
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
2.2
< 0.01
0.062
< 0.01
< 0.01
Minimum
5.4
8
20
35
4.1
46
6.5
< 100
1
2.2
< 0.1
< 0.04
0.02
0.3
< 0.04
4
< 0.05
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
1.1
< 0.01
0.041
< 0.01
< 0.01
Maximum
7.2
13
44
59
12
58
12.7
500
4
6.9
0.14
0.05
0.41
0.6
0.07
6
0.25
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
3.1
< 0.01
0.090
< 0.01
0.011
Source:      USEPA STORET data retrieval in January 1993 for period August 1990 - November
            1992.
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
      Pipeline

      The construction of 20.3 miles of pipeline for this alternative would involve minor
crossings of 10 perennial and 14 intermittent streams. One major crossing of an arm of
Little Creek Reservoir would also be required.  Under this alternative, Pamunkey River
withdrawals would either be pumped to Black Creek Reservoir for intermediate storage or
directly to Diascund Creek Reservoir headwaters.  Average flow at the point of discharge
on Diascund Creek is estimated at 1.0 mgd. The maximum proposed discharge at this point
is 40 mgd for this alternative.

      Water quality data for the  Pamunkey River near  the proposed  intake  site are
presented in Table 4-1. Water quality data from Diascund Creek are included in Table 4-2.

      Hydrology

      Intake

      The hydrologic characteristics of the Pamunkey River in the vicinity of the proposed
Northbury intake site are described in Section 4.2.1.

      Reservoir

      Two tributaries of Black Creek, the Southern Branch Black Creek  and the eastern
branch of Black Creek, drain a combined watershed of 5.47  square miles above the two
proposed dam sites.

      Black Creek flows in a northerly direction into^neYamunkey River. The hydrologic
system of the drainage area primarily  consists «ff non-fidalJ perennial, and intermittent
streams.  While drainage from the Southern Branch Black Creek is interrupted by a minor
impoundment, Crumps Millpond, flow from the renTain3er of the proposed Black Creek
Reservoir drainage area is unobstructed by manmade impoundments.

      For this analysis it is assumed that all streams up  to the proposed normal  pool
elevation of 100 feet msl would be  affected.  A total of 13.7 river miles of perennial and
intermittent streams are located within the proposed reservoir pool area up to elevation 100
feet msi  Data concerning the stream system within the drainage area are presented in
Table 4-11.

      To estimate existing combined streamflow at the proposed dam sites, the streamflow
record from Totopotomoy Creek  near Studley (10/77 to  9/90) was adjusted to the
contributing reservoir drainage area of 5.47 square miles.  Average combined streamflow
at the proposed dam sites is estimated to be 3.8 mgd.

      Pipeline

      The construction of 20.3  miles of pipeline would be required for this alternative
component. The pipeline would cross 10 perennial and ttiHieiamittent streams. One major
crossing of an arm of Little Creek Reservoir" would also be required. This alternative would
also involve a raw water discharge into a perennial segment of the headwaters of Diascund

0114-951-140                             4-13                           February 1994
-------
Creek.  Existing average streamflow was estimated based on the same streamflow record
listed previously in the description of Ware Creek Reservoir streamflows (Section 4.2.1), and
was  adjusted to the drainage area at  the point of discharge.  Based on an estimated
contributing drainage area of 1.6 square miles at Diascund Creek Outfall Site 1, average
streamflow at this point is estimated at  1.0 mgd.

      Field studies were conducted in July 1992 and  January  1993 to obtain stream
cross-sectional measurements at the proposed raw water discharge location on Diascund
Creek.  To identify the potential hydrologic impacts of the proposed raw water discharge
to Diascund Creek, Manning's Equation for Open Channel-Uniform Flow was used to
approximate the depth of flow which could result from a raw water discharge in the vicinity
of Inspection Sites 1 and 2.

      At Outfall Site 1 on Diascund Creek, estimated average discharge would be 1.0 mgd
based on a 1.6-square mile drainage area.  It is assumed that the maximum discharge would
be the maximum pipeline capacity (40 mgd) plus the estimated average discharge at the site.
Therefore, maximum discharge at Outfall Site 1 during pumpover operations is assumed to
be 41 mgd. Diascund Creek Outfall Site 1, based on Manning's Equation, has an estimated
channel capacity of at least 53 mgd. Therefore, the existing channel should be capable of
accommodating maximum flows during  pumpover operations.

      Groundwater Resources
      The geologic and hydrogeologic setting for this reservoir alternative is the Virginia
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province.  This location, is therefore, very similar  to that
already described for the Ware Creek Reservoir alternative component. At the proposed
location of the  two-dam reservoir alternative, the Columbia Aquifer is reportedly thin to
absent.  The Yorktown Aquifer and overlying Yorktown  confining unit, are therefore, the
primary  surficial  hydrogeologic  units  at  the proposed  project site.   The  general
characteristics of this unit are described in Section 4.2.1.

      Soil and  Mineral Resources

      Intake

      The affected environment for the Pamunkey River intake, located at the Northbury
site, is discussed in Section  4.2.1.

      Reservoir

      Generally, the soils found in the proposed Black Creek Reservoir area are considered
of the Coastal  Plains Uplands, Side Slopes, and Upland Flood Plains category (Hodges
et al., 1989).  There are two soil groupings  that would be affected by construction of the
proposed  Black  Creek  Reservoir,  Caroline-Emporia and  Nevarc-Remlik-Johnston.
Approximately  17 acres of these soils are considered prime agricultural soils.

      There  are no  known  mineral recovery facilities that would  be  affected by the
construction of the proposed reservoir (VDMR 1976; Sweet and Wilkes, 1990).
0114-951-140                             4-14                            February 1994
-------
                                  TABLE 4-11

             BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR STREAM ORDER ANALYSIS
Stream Order 1
First
Second
Third
River Miles
Perennial 2
0.34
4.39
1.43
Intermittent 3
7.04
0.54
0.00
Total
Total
7.38
4,93
1.43
13.74
      Smallest tributaries are classified as "order 1". The point at which two first order
      streams join the channel is the beginning of a second order segment, and so on.

      A perennial stream maintains water in its channel throughout the year.

      An intermittent stream flows only in direct response to precipitation. It may be dry
      for a large part of the year, ordinarily more than three months.
0114-95-1169
June 1993
-------
-------
      Pipeline

      Construction of the 20.3 miles or raw water pipelines associated with this alternative
would  cause the disturbance of approximately 123 acres of soils.   Associated with  the
pipeline  are two raw water outfall locations.  The first outfall would be located at  the
headwaters  of Diascund Creek, approximately 5.7 river rales upstream from the normal
pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir. Johnston  Mucky Loam soil is present at this site
(Hodges et  al., 1989) which is included in the hydric soils list of Virginia  (USDA, 1985).
These soils are nearly level, very poorly drained, and have generally formed over layers of
shell. They are usually found on flood plains and along major drainageways.  The second
outfall location would be located on little Creek Reservoir, approximately 2,000 feet south
of St. Johns Church on State Route 610.  The affected soil is similar in type to the soils
found at the first outfall location.  Table 4-12 Msts the type of soils affected by the pipeline
and outfall structures.

      Air Quality
      The intake, reservoir and most of the pipeline would be located in New Kent County
and the balance of the pipeline would be built in James City County. The air quality in New
Kent County is considered satisfactory while James City County is  not in  attainment of the
ozone ambient air quality standard. There is residential development near the proposed
reservoir area  which might be sensitive to construction activities.  No indication of a
nuisance dust problem in this area has been recorded.

      4.23      King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River

      Substrate

      Intake

      Lanexa Mucky Silty Clay appears to be the parent soil of the affected river substrate
in the vicinity of the proposed pump station.

      Reservoir

      Soils located within the proposed pool area of King William Reservoir are the parent
material for the substrate that would be affected by construction of King William Reservoir.
Generally, the substrates in this area originate from soils which are categorized as Coastal
Plain Uplands, Side Slopes, and  Upland  Flood soils (Hodges  et al., 1985)  The major
grouping is Nevare-Remlik-Johnston.

      Pipeline

      The area of substrate disturbance at each minor stream crossing was assumed to be
2,500 square feet (pipeline ROW width (50 feet) multiplied by the length of the crossing).

      There are  two raw water outfall locations associated with this alternative that are
expected to  affect aquatic ecosystem substrate. The first outfall would be located 1.3 river
miles upstream of the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir, on Beaverdam Creek.
Substrate at this outfall location originates from Johnston Mucky  Loam  soil. The second

0114-951-140                              4-15                             February 1994
-------
raw water outfall location would be located on Little Creek Reservoir, approximately 2,000
feet south of St. Johns Church on State Route 610. The affected substrate is the same as
that found at the first outfall location.  Substrate types at the proposed crossings and outfall
locations include: Altavista and Slagle Fine Sandy Loams, Johnston Mucky Loam, Matten
Muck, Munden Sandy Loam, Roanoke Silt Loam, Tetotum soils, Tomotely Loam, Daleville
soils, and soils of the Nevarc-Remlik and Bibb-Kinston complexes. Johnston Mucky Loam,
Matten Muck, Roanoke Silt Loam, Tomotely Loam and Daleville soils are included in the
hydric soils list of Virginia (USDA, 1985),

      Water Quality

      Intake

      All surface waters within the Mattaponi River basin have been designated as "effluent
limited" by  the SWCB (SWCB,  1992).  Well downstream of Scotland Landing, in the
estuarine portion of the river from Clifton to West Point, the Mattaponi River is designated
as "nutrient  enriched."

      There are currently no SWCB-designated "major" municipal or industrial discharges
in the Mattaponi River basin.  In addition there are no point sources in the  SWCB-
designated "Mattaponi River-Walkerton Waterbody" which Scotland Landing falls within.

      Southern International  Company operated a wood preserving facility in King and
Queen County which had a permitted stormwater discharge to  Dickeys  Swamp at U.S.
Route 360. This waterbody is a tributary of Garnetts Creek which flows into the Mattaponi
River across from Scotland Landing. The owner of this facility declared bankruptcy and the
facility is now inactive.  The USEPA has since been in charge of a site cleanup since some
containers leaked onto a concrete bermed area. This site cleanup has been completed and
the facility is  now idle. Although SWCB staff  requested that the  discharge permit be
revoked, the permit was upheld and is valid until 1995 (D.  Barnes,  SWCB, personal
communication, 1994).

      The SWCB maintains a water quality monitoring station on the Mattaponi River at
the Walkerton Bridge (State Route 629), approximately 5 river miles upstream of Scotland
Landing.  According to the Virginia Water Quality Assessment 1990 - 305(b) Report to EPA
and Congress (SWCB, 1990),  there were no violations of water quality standards at this
station. In addition, no point sources were known to affect this station. There were also
no violations of the water quality standards reported for the Mattaponi River-Walkerton
Waterbody in  the Virginia Water Quality Assessment for 1992 - 305(b) Report to EPA and
Congress (SWCB, 1992).

      Available water quality data were compiled for the Mattaponi River at Scotland
Landing (River Mile 24.2), Mantua Ferry (River Mile 24.5), and Walkerton (River Mile
29.1). Water quality for these three stations are  summarized in Tables 4-13 through 4-15.
These data were collected between Years 1972 and 1991.
0114-951-140                            4-16                            February 1994
-------
                           TABLE 4-12
           BLACK CREEK  RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
             SOILS  WITHIN THE PIPELINE  ROUTE
;ft*9i>*>
Symbol
1A
2A
3A
5A
6B
7B
7C
9A
10C
11B
13A
15B
16A
18B
19B
19C
21 A
23A
260
26E
26F
28B
30B
31 A
33A
348
37A
41 B
'', "" ' "•' '
% %• •*» ' *&.*$/'''„ ' "» '''
V.*; ^tTNSfc*^- -k'
AltaVista
AltaVista- Dogue complex
Augusta
Bojac
Caroline
Caroline- Emporia complex
Caroline- Emporia complex
Conetoe
Craven
Craven— Caroline complex
Dogue
Emporia
Johnston (Hydric)
Kempsville
Kempsville- Emporia complex
Kempsville- Emporia complex
Lanexa (Hydric)
Munden
Nevarc-Remlic complex
Nevarc-Remlic complex
Nevarc-Remlic complex
Norfolk
Pamunkey
Roanoke (Hydric)
Slagle
Slagle- Emporia complex
Tarboro
Udorthents
/>^"W" " ""+ *fe£wi£ittfcV Cltk;, ^ "°' ', , %
';„;''>'}''& , ,.'" * ^wftfcWfflPw^v^Wk-i *..•:.•: 	 L..1 	 >..
Rne sandy loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
Rne sandy-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, poorly drained
Loamy-sand, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, well drained
Loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On broad upland ridges
6-10% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On broad upland ridges
Loamy sand., 0-4% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, well drained. On low river terraces
Loam, 6-10% slopes. Very deep, strongly sloping, moderately well drained
2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping. On narrow ridgetops and side slopes
Fine sandy- loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
Rne sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently slpoing, well drained
Mucky-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, very poorly drained
Gravelly fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On upland ridges
6-10% slopes. Very deep, strongly sloping, well drained. On upland ridges
Mucky-siKy clay, 0-1% slope, frequently flooded. Deep, nearly level, poorly drained
Sandy-loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained. On ridges
6-15% slope. Very deep, moderately steep. On side slopes along rivers
15-25% slopes. Very deep, steep. On sides of slopes along rivers and creeks
25-60% slopes. Very deep, very steep. On sides of slopes along rivers & creeks
Rne sandy-loam, 2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
Rne sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, and well drained
Silt-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, and poorly drained
Rne sandy-loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping. On upland ridges and depressions
Loamy sand, 0-4% slope. Very deep, nearly level to gentle slope & excessively drained
Loamy, gentle slope. Consists of pits providing foundation materials & areas of landfills
' Source used for the identification of soil types was the Soil Survey of New Kent County, Virginia (Hodges et a), 1989)
                                                               February 1994
-------
-------
                                  TABLE 4-13




           MATTAPONI RIVER WATER QUALITY AT SCOTLAND LANDING
Parameter Units
Temperature C
pH SI
Dissolved Oxygen mg/1
BODj mg/1
Fecal Coliforms /100 ml
Alkalinity mg/1
Ammonia mg/1
Nitrate mg/1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/1
Total Phosphorus mg/1
Chloride mg/1
Arsenic /ig/1
Cadmium ;ug/l
Chromium ;ug/l
Copper /tg/1
Lead jug/1
Mercury /ig/1
Nickel /ig/1
Zinc /ig/1
Mean
25.1
6.53
5.96
1.27
283
9.0
BDL
0.143
0.365
0.114
21.9
BDL
BDL
BDL
11.8
BDL
0.52
BDL
23.6
Std. Dev.
3.8
0.35
0.91
0.67
996
0.0
-
0.077
0.109
0.065
57.2
-
-
-
6.0
-
0.06
-
38.8
Min.
13.9
5.6
4.9
0.3
<100
9.0
BDL
0.030
0.200
<0.10
2
BDL
BDL
BDL
<10
BDL
<0.5
BDL
<10
Max.
30.0
7.5
8.8
2.0
6000
9.0
BDL
0.320
0.500
0.40
300
BDL
BDL
BDL
30
BDL
0.7
BDL
190
Number
Samples
35
34
35
7
35
1
21
21
20
21
29
3
7
11
11
LO
11
3
25
Source:      USEPA STORET data retrieval in May 1989 for period June 1972-October 1975.




Notes:       BDL = Below Detection Limit
0114-951-140
June 1992
-------
-------
                                   TABLE 4-14

              MATTAPONI RIVER WATER QUALITY AT MANTUA FERRY
Parameter
Temperature
PH
Turbidity
Total Organic Carbon
Specific Conductance
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity
Hardness
Chloride
Sodium
Units
C
SI
NTU
mg/1
fjanhos/cm
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Aluminum Mg/1
Chromium ^u.g/1
Copper
Mg/l
Iron /ig/1
Lead pig/1
Manganese
Zinc
Mg/1
Mg/l
Level
15
5.9
11.0
7.5
68
51
6.0
15.3
7.5
9.4
70
BDL
BDL
770
BDL
30
46
Source:       B. F. Goodrich laboratory  analysis of sample collected by Malcolm Pirnie on
             January 24, 1989.

Note:         BDL =  Below Detection Limit.
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
                                   TABLE 4-15

               MATTAPONI RIVER WATER QUALITY AT WALKERTON
Parameter
Temperature
pH
Salinity
Units
(C)
(SI)
(g/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Chlorophyll a (Mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Number Samples
139
114
293
139
42
113
118
119
Mean
19
6.7
0.0017
7.5
5
8.3
0.58
0.07
Source:      Tributary Water Quality 1984-1987 Data Addendum - York River (SWCB, 1989) and
            more recent database updates.
0114-951-140
August 1M93
-------
-------
      Reservoir

      Estimates of the water quality for Cohoke Mill Creek in this report are based on
water quality information from Crump Creek and Matadequin Creek. Crump Creek is a
tributary of the Pamunkey River located in central Hanover County east of U.S. Route 301
and northeast of the City of Richmond.  Matadequin  Creek is  also a tributary of the
Pamunkey River and, near its mouth, is located on the New Kent County - Hanover County
line.  Matadequin Creek flows into  the Pamunkey River approximately 0.2 river miles
upstream of Northbury.  Water quality data for Crump Creek and Matadequin Creek were
used as surrogates for Cohoke Mill Creek water quality conditions because aU three creeks
have similar watershed areas, topography (morphology), and land use within the watershed
areas. This information is used only as a best estimate of existing water quality for Cohoke
Mill Creek and is not intended to represent the actual water quality. Water quality data for
Crump Creek and Matadequin Creek are summarized in Tables 4-9 and 4-10, respectively.

      Within the Cohoke Mill Creek watershed there  is minimal  existing or  planned
development.  There are some concerns  regarding groundwater quality and  surface water
runoff quality since portions of the King William County Landfill are located within the
reservoir drainage area. This 85-aere landfill parcel is located above the proposed normal
pool elevation (90 feet msl), along the south side of State Route 30, near the intersection
of State Routes 30 and 640.  Landfill  operations began in February 1988 (A. Martin, King
William County, personal communication, 1988).

      The King William Reservoir Project Development Agreement (King William County and
City of Newport News, 1990) specifies conditions and financial arrangements under which
early closure of the King William County Landfill could occur if this project is pursued as
a preferred alternative.  It is anticipated  that these Agreement provisions would preclude
any reservoir water quality problems that might occur as a result of landfill activities.

      Pipeline

      Under this alternative, Mattaponi River withdrawals would be pumped  to King
William Reservoir for intermediate storage.  From King William Reservoir,  raw water
withdrawals  would be conveyed to the  Diascund Creek Reservoir  basin, for eventual
transmission to Newport News Waterworks' terminal reservoirs. The construction of 17.0
miles of pipeline for this alternative would involve minor crossings of nine perennial and 17
intermittent streams. In addition, the pipeline would cross the Pamunkey River and an arm
of Little Creek Reservoir.

      The proposed discharge location in the  Diascund Creek Reservoir basin would be
near the headwaters  of Beaverdam Creek.  Existing average streamflow at this outfall site
is estimated at 3.5 mgd. The maximum flow rate from the pipeline to Beaverdam Creek
would be 40 mgd. Water quality for Beaverdam Creek is routinely measured by the USGS
at Station 02042736, approximately 0.6 miles upstream from the proposed discharge location.
Water quality data for this monitoring station are summarized in Table 4-2.
0114-951-140 •                            4-17                            February 1994
-------
      Hydrology

      Intake

      The proposed intake site on the Mattaponi River at Scotland Landing would be
located in King William County, approximately 24.2 river miles upstream of the mouth of
the Mattaponi River. Tidal freshwater conditions exist at the proposed intake location. The
mean tidal range is 3.9 feet at Walkerton, approximately 5 river miles upstream of Scotland
Landing (USDC, 1989).

      Contributing drainage area at Scotland Landing is approximately 781 square miles.
The  proposed  75  mgd maximum  withdrawal capacity  represents 15.1 percent of the
estimated average  freshwater discharge at Scotland Landing (498 mgd).  More detailed
streamflow characteristics of the Mattaponi River at the proposed intake site are presented
in Table 4-16.

      Reservoir

      Cohoke Mill Creek drains a watershed of 13.17 square miles above the proposed King
William Reservoir dam site. Cohoke Mill Creek flows in a southerly direction into Cohoke
Millpond, which is an existing impoundment downstream of the proposed  dam site, and
tributary to  the Pamunkey River.  The upper end of Cohoke Millpond and the Cohoke
Millpond Dam itself are located  approximately 0.4 river miles and  1.8 river  miles,
respectively, downstream of the proposed King William Reservoir dam site.

      The hydrologic system of the proposed King William Reservoir drainage area
primarily consists of non-tidal, perennial and intermittent streams. Flow from the King
William  Reservoir  drainage  area  is, for the  most part,  unobstructed  by manmade
impoundments. However, in the central portion of the proposed reservoir  site, the main
channel of Cohoke Mill Creek passes through a triple 10-foot by 10-foot  box culvert
underneath State Route 626.  In addition, just upstream of the Route 626 crossing are the
remains of the Valley Millpond Dam. Virginia Department of Transportation as-built plan
and profile sheets for Route 626 (1959) show that the top of this old earthen dam had an
average elevation of 40 feet msl when the area was surveyed in 1957. Immediately upstream
of the remains of the old dam and the Route 626 embankment is a wide emergent wetland
area which was presumably once an open water habitat known as Valley Millpond in 1919.
The normal pool elevation of Valley Millpond was 37 feet msl as shown on the 1919  USGS
topographic map.

      For this  analysis it  is assumed that all streams up to the  proposed normal pool
elevation of 90 feet msl would be affected. A total of 28,3 river  miles of  perennial and
intermittent streams are located within the proposed reservoir pool area up to elevation 90
feet  msl. Data concerning the stream system within the drainage area are presented in
Table 4-17.

      To estimate existing streamflow at the proposed dam site, streamflow records from
Piscataway Creek near Tappahannock (7/51 to 9/90) and Totopotomoy Creek near Studley
(10/77 to 9/90) were adjusted to the contributing reservoir  drainage area of 13.17 square
mMes. Average streamflow at the proposed dam site  is estimated to be 9.3  mgd.

0114-951-140                              4-18                          February 1994
-------
                                   TABLE 4-16

   CHARACTERISTICS OF MATTAPONI RIVER DISCHARGE AT SCOTLAND LANDING
EXCEEDANCE
PROBABILITY
(percent)
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
DISCHARGE, mgd
JAN
69,9
115,1
204,6
288,8
323,8
347.5
379.6
414.1
451.9
491.0
533.7
587.5
638.0
702.1
764.1
821.7
895.6
1 ,068.2
1 ,327.0
1,713.2
6,21 1 .8
FEB
97.8
241.2
304.0
366.0
417.8
447.8
483.9
L_ 5189
552.2
583.0
617.9
656.1
714.9
792.1
866.8
949.1
1,043,5
1,166=7
1,339.3
1,676.2
7.164.9
MAR
122.4
280,6
353,3
390,3
429.3
466.7
503.7
542.7
617.9
665.6
731.3
799.9
866.8
928.5
,002.4
,101.0
,195.5
,359.9
,532.4
,967.9
8,627.5
APR
139.7
230.0
272.0
301.1
341.8
378.0
415.0
462.6
519.3
575.2
624.4
671.7
731.3
813.4
903.8
1 ,027.1
1,195.5
1 ,355.7
1 ,565.3
1 ,939.1
8,235.0
MAY
69.9
118.7
149.1
177.9
, 	 200.5
226.4
251.4
281.8
316.8
360.3
397,3
443.7
493.8
562.0
633.5
723.1
814.7
969.5
1,150.3
1,516.0
4,206.9
JUN
23.9
53.4
69.0
83.8
101.5
120.8
139.7
156.9
179.1
198,0
216.9
237.5
262.1
291.7
327.0
377.2
449.5
536.5
658.6
953.1
13,310.9
JUL
13.1
29.6
38.6
46.0
54.2
62.8
72.3
81.4
93.3
106.0
121.6
135.6
150.3
167.6
196.4
233.3
261.3
309.7
401.0
793.3
3,894.7
AUG
9.9
19.7
24.6
31.2
37.8
46.0
57.5
70.6
82.6
95.3
111.8
128.6
147,0
179.1
206.6
238.3
285.9
365.3
522.2
850,4
10,024.3
SEP
5,2
13.1
20.9
26.3
33.7
42.3
50.9
64.9
76.4
93.7
108.5
125.3
143.0
165.5
189.0
219.0
262.9
396.0
916.2
50,784.0
148,454,5
OCT
6.9
16.9
27.9
37.8
48.1
60.0
72.3
66.3
100.3
113,4
127.3
141.7
172.1
207.0
236.2
269.5
327.8
454.8
632.7
1,047.6
5,077.9
NOV
37.8
60.8
78.5
95.3
120.0
144.6
165.5
190.6
214.1
235.0
258.0
279.7
314.7
352.1
387.8
445.3
524.2
671.3
871.0
1,121.6
4,445.2
DEC
57.5
100.6
159.8
196.6
226.4
249.8
272.8
305,7
332.4
361.1
392.7
434.7
486.5
529.6
586.6
652.4
755.1
895.6
1,064,0
1,479.0
5,891.3
Notes: Exceedance flows calculated based upon 1941 —1987 USGS gaged streamflows adjusted to the
     estimated 781 square mile contributing drainage area at Scotland Landing.

    Historical mean annual streamflow at Scotland Landing is estimated to be 498 mgd.
                                                                                            June 1993
-------
-------
                                  TABLE 4-17

            KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR STREAM ORDER ANALYSIS
Stream Order '
First
Second
Third
River Miles
Perennial 2
3.07
3.94
5.16
Intermittent J
15.32
0.76
0.00
Total
Total
18.39
4,70
5.16
28.25
      Smallest tributaries are classified as "order 1".  The point at which two first order
      streams join the channel is the beginning of a second order segment, and so on.

      A perennial stream maintains water in its channel throughout the year.

      An intermittent stream flows only in direct response to precipitation. It may be dry
      for a large part of the year, ordinarily more than three months.
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
      Pipeline

      The construction of 17.0 miles of pipeline would be required  for this alternative
component.  The pipeline would cross 9 perennial and 17 intermittent streams. Two major
crossings would also be required, and would include the Pamunkey River and an arm of
Little Creek Reservoir.

      This alternative component would also involve a raw water discharge into a perennial
segment of the headwaters of Beaverdam Creek, which is a major tributary of Diascund
Creek Reservoir.  Existing average streamflow at this location was estimated based on the
same streamflow record listed  previously  in the description  of Ware Creek Reservoir
streamflows (Section 4,2.1), and was adjusted to the drainage area at the point of discharge.
Based on an estimated  contributing drainage area of 5,42  square miles at the discharge
location on Beaverdam Creek, average streamflow at this point is estimated to be 3.5 mgd.

      Field  studies were conducted in  July 1992  and January  1993 to obtain  stream
cross-sectional measurements at the proposed raw water discharge location on Beaverdam
Creek. The proposed discharge location is located approximately 0.75 river miles upstream
of Interstate 64 and 1.3 river miles upstream of the normal pool area  of Diascund Creek
Reservoir.  Field measurements were taken in this immediate vicinity.

      To identify the potential  hydrologic  impacts of the proposed raw water discharge,
Manning's Equation for Open Channel-Uniform Flow was used to approximate the depth
of flow which could result from the discharge.

      At the proposed  outfall site,  estimated average discharge is 3.5 mgd based on a
5.42-squkre mfle drainage area.  It is assumed that the maximum discharge would be the
maximum pipeline capacity (40 mgd), plus the estimated average discharge at the site.
Therefore, maximum discharge at the outfall site during reservoir withdrawal operations is
assumed to be 43.5 mgd. Based on Manning's Equation, the Beaverdam Creek outfall site
has an estimated channel capacity of 43 mgd.  Therefore, the existing channel should  be
capable of accommodating maximum flows  during King William Reservoir withdrawal
operations.

      Groundwater Resources
      The general hydrogeologic setting applicable to this alternative is presented in Section
4.2.1.

      Soil borings conducted by Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers (MRCE) in 1989
and  Malcolm Pirnie in  1991, indicate that approximately 20 to 50 feet of the Columbia
Aquifer is present  overlying the Yorktown  Formation in  the vicinity of the proposed
reservoir.  The existing water table elevation  ranges from approximately 50 to 95 feet msl
across the watershed and  adjacent  uplands (MRCE,  1989).   The permeability  of the
Columbia Aquifer in this area is reported as 1 x 10~2 cm/sec, and represents a substantial
source of leakage (in the form of underseepage) from the reservoir.  Beneath the sands of
the Columbia Aquifer, Yorktown sediments have a reported 2 x 10"2 cm/sec permeability
consisting of fine sand and occasional shells.  The overlying Yorktown confining unit,
consisting of a stiff green-gray silty clay, was  encountered in only two of five borings, and
therefore, is considered to be intermittent in this area.  SWCB data  files show that the

0114-951-140                             4-19                           February 1994
-------
unconsolidated water-table aquifers are an important source of domestic groundwater in the
Middle Peninsula (Siydula et al, 1977). In addition, these aquifers when combined with the
shallow Yorktown Aquifer system supply potable water for agriculture and other users in
the area.

      Soil and Mineral Resources

      Intake

      In the vicinity of the proposed Mattaponi River intake site at Scotland Landing, the
major soil series present are Tetotum, Bojac, and Tarboro,  Tetotum soil is very deep, nearly
level, and moderately well drained.  This soil is found on low terraces along the river. Bojac
soil is  very deep, nearly  level, and well drained.  It  is on low stream terraces along the
Mattaponi River. Tarboro soil is very deep, nearly level to gently sloping, and somewhat
excessively  drained.  It is found mostly on low stream terraces along rivers and  creeks.
There are no important mineral resource recovery facilities located on or near the proposed
intake  facility site (VDMR, 1976; Sweet and Wilkes,  1990).

      Reservoir

      Soils located within the proposed pool area of King William Reservoir constitute the
affected environment.  Nevare-Remlik-Johnston appears to be the major soil association.
Approximately 342 acres of these soils are considered prime agricultural soils.

      There are no mineral recovery facilities located in the vicinity of the proposed pool
area of King William Reservoir. However, during 1975, sand and gravel were produced near
Aylett, Virginia by the Fox Gravel Company for concrete and masonry purposes, highway
construction  and maintenance, and  other  use.    This mining  operation  is located
approximately 16 river miles upstream from  the proposed  Scotland Landing intake site.
Presently, Aylett  Sand and Gravel Corporation mines sand and gravel in Aylett (VDMR,
1976; Sweet and Wilkes,  1990).

      The  earthen dam and emergency  spillway  included  in this alternative would
temporarily disturb approximately  100 acres of soil.  The dam footprint would cover
approximately 23 acres  after construction, while  the emergency  spillway would cover
approximately 11 acres.  Impervious  cover including access roads, walks,  and structures
associated with the King William Reservoir dam would cover approximately 4 acres.

      Pipeline

      SCS soil survey maps were  used in  conjunction with USGS  topographic maps to
determine the types of soils that would be affected by construction of approximately 17.0
miles of raw water pipeline associated with this alternative. There are two raw water outfall
locations associated with this alternative. The first  outfall would be located 1.3 river miles
upstream of the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir, on Beaverdam Creek. The
soil type at this location is Johnston Mucky Loam.  This soil is very deep, nearly level, and
very poorly drained.  It  is on floodplains and along major drainageways throughout the
survey area. The second outfall would be located on Little Creek Reservoir, approximately
2,000 feet south of St. Johns Church  on State Route 610.  Soil types at this location are

0114-951-140                             4-20                           February 1994
-------
similar to those found at the first outfall location.  Table 4-18 lists the types of soils that
would be affected by the construction of the pipeline and the pipeline outfall structures.

      Air Quality
      The intake, reservoir and portions of the pipeline would be located in King William
County with the balance of the pipeline being built in New Kent and James City Counties.
King William and New Kent Counties have been classified as attainment (or unclassifiable)
with acceptable levels of all criteria air pollutants. James City County has been classified
as non-attainment for ozone and attainment  for all other criteria air pollutants. There is
little residential development near the proposed reservoir area which might be sensitive to
construction activities.  However, there are recreational uses close down stream, in Cohoke
Millpond, which could be sensitive to air quality impacts if fugitive dust emissions were not
adequately controlled.  No indication of a nuisance dust problem the project development
area has been recorded.

      42.4     Fresh Groundwater Development

      Substrate

      Well Sites

      Because all of the well sites associated with this alternative are located in upland
areas, there would be no affect on aquatic ecosystem substrates.

      Pipelines

      Each well associated with this alternative has a corresponding pipeline which would
transport water to  an existing reservoir.   These pipelines would not directly affect any
aquatic ecosystem substrate.

      The construction of the outfall structure associated with Well  DC-1 would impact
substrate originating from  the Nevarc-Remlik complex.  This soil type is very deep, with
steep slopes of 15 to 25 percent.

      The construction of the DC-2 well outfall structure would impact substrate originating
from the Nevarc-Remlik complex.  This soil type is similar  to that located at the DC-1
location, distinguished only by the greater slopes of 25 to 60 percent.

      The affected substrate located at the proposed DC-3 outfall location is the same as
that found at the proposed DC-2 outfall location.

      At the proposed DC-4 outfall location the affected substrate  originates from the
Emporia Complex soil. This soil type consists of Emporia soils and similar soils that are
well drained and deposited over fossil shells.  Slopes range from 15 to 25 percent.

      The construction of  the proposed outfall structures associated with Wells LC-1 and
LC-3 would impact substrate originating from the Udorthents series of soils.  These soils
consist of deep, well drained and moderately well drained loamy soils.  Slopes range from
2 to 30 percent.

0114-951-140                              4-21                            February 1994
-------
      The construction of the proposed outfall structures associated with Wells LC-2 and
LC-4  would impact substrate originating from the Emporia complex.  These  soils  are
moderately well drained and are found deposited over fossil shells. Slopes range from 15
to 50 percent.

      Water Quality
      Based on results from a Test Well Program conducted for the City of Newport News
Waterworks in 1988, approximately four deep production weUs would be required in each
of two well fields (Geraghty & Miller, 1988). The wells would be screened in the Middle
Potomac aquifer at approximate depths of between 515 and 740 feet below msi

      Some groundwater quality data for  the Potomac aquifers are available for both the
Diascund Creek and Little Creek areas. Water quality data from the Diascund test well and
two USGS monitoring wells adjacent to Little Creek Reservoir were used  to represent
groundwater quality characteristics for this alternative. Groundwater quality data for these
wells are summarized  in Table 4-19.

      Phosphate concentration was not measured in the Diascund well and  ranged from
0.03 to 0.06 mg/1 in the Little Creek wells. Phosphorus concentration for the Little Creek
discharge is not expected to be a  problem.  There appears, however, to be an increasing
trend  in groundwater phosphorus  concentrations to the west, toward Diascund Creek.  In
the Delmarva Well, west of the Diascund well, phosphorus concentration averaged 0.29
mg/1.   If the phosphorus concentration in the Diascund well is similar, the phosphorus
loading could be considerable. The sodium concentration, like the chloride concentration,
is also high in the groundwater.  In the Diascund well, sodium concentration averages 273
mg/1 and at Little Creek, sodium ranges from 450 mg/1 in the deeper well to 100 mg/1 in
the shallower well.

      Existing surface water conditions for Diascund Creek  Reservoir are  described in
Section 4.2.1.  Surface water quality data for Little Creek Reservoir are summarized in
Table 4-20.

      Hydrology
      This alternative component would involve fresh groundwater withdrawals made from
new well fields in western James City County and/or New Kent County. Up to 10 mgd of
new permitted groundwater withdrawal capacity would be used to augment Diascund Creek
and Little Creek reservoirs when  Newport News Waterworks system reservoir volume is
below 75 percent of total capacity. A discussion of the  affected hydrologic regime for the
Fresh  Groundwater Withdrawals alternative  is presented below  in the  description  of
Groundwater Resources.

      Groundwater Resources

      Setting

      Fresh groundwater withdrawals  have been  targeted specifically for the Middle
Potomac Aquifer.   Due to the potential for  impacts (via leakage)  to the multi-aquifer
system, the affected environment is not limited only to the Middle Potomac. A description
of the general hydrogeologic setting of the Virginia Coastal Plain Province is included in
0114-951-140                            4-22                           February 1994
-------
                                            TABLE  4-18

                    KING  WILLIAM  RESERVOIR   ALTERNATIVE
                        SOILS  WITHIN  THE   PIPELINE  ROUTE
     1A
AltaVista
        Fine sandy loam, 0-2 % slopes. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
     3A
Augusta
        Fine sandy-loam, 0- 2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, poorly drained
     7B
Caroline-Emporia complex
        2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained on broad upland ridges
     9A
Conetoe
        Loamy sand, 0-4% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, well drained. On low river terraces
    13A
Dogue
        Fine sandy-loam. 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
    16A
Johnston
{Hydric)
Mucky-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, very poorly drained
    22A
Matter)
(Hydric)
Muck, 0—1% slope. Deep, nearly level, and poorly drained. In freshwater swamps
    23A
Munden
        Sandy-loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained. On ridges
    26D
Nevarc- Remlic complex
        6—15% slope. Very deep, moderately steep. On side slopes along rivers
    26E
Nevarc—Remlic complex
        15-25% slopes. Very deep, steep. On sides of slopes along rivers and creeks
    26F
Nevarc—Remlic complex
        25-60% slopes. Very deep, very steep. On sides of slopes along rivers & creeks
    SOB
Pamunkey
        Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, and well drained
    35A
State
        Very fine sandy—loam., 0—2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, well drained
    38A
Tetotum
        0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, and moderately well drained
    39A
Tomotely
(Hydric)
Loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, poorly drained. On broad flats
    41B
Udorthents
        Loamy, gentle slope. Consists of pits providing foundation materials & areas of landfills
     4D
Remlic—Suffolk complex
        6-15% slope
     4F
Remlic—Suffolk complex
                                            15-50% slope
     8A
Slagle
        Fine sandy-loam. 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
     SB
Slagle
        Fine sandy-loam. 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
    10A
Suffolk
        Fine-sandy loam, 0-2% slope. Deep, gently sloping and well drained
    10B
Suffolk
        Fine-sandy loam, 2-6% slope. Deep, gently sloping and well drained
    11A
Conetoe
        Loamy sand, 0-4% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, and well drained
    13B
Wickham
        0-2% slope
    14B
Bojac
        Loamy sand, 2—6% slope. Very deep, nearly level, and well drained
    15B
Kempsville
        0-2% slope
    21B
Kenansviile
        Loamy-fine sand, 0-4% slope. Deep, gently sloping, and well drained. On upland ridges
    34A
Emporia
        Fine-sandy loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
    38A
Craven
        Loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, moderately well drained
    38B
Craven
        Loam. 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, moderately well drained
    61A
Roanoke
(Hydfie)
Silt-loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, and poorly drained
     65
Daleville
(Hydric)
0-2% slope
    132A
Eunola
        0-2% slope
    145
Tomotely
        Loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, poorly drained. On broad flats
    149
Seabrook
        Loamy sand, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, and moderately well drained
* Source used for the identification of soil types was the Soil Survey of New Kent County, Virginia (Hodges et al, 1989)
** Source used for the identification of soil types was the Soil Survey of King William County, Virginia (Hodges et al, 1985)
                                                                                                           February 1994
-------
-------
                                   TABLE 4-19

          DIASCUND CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Parameter Units
pH
Conductivity /iMHOs/cm
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
Alkalinity mg/1
Hardness mg/1
Chloride mg/1
Tuibidity NTU
Sulfate mg/1
Nitrate mg/1
Ammonia mg/1
Phosphorus mg/1
Fluoride mg/1
Calcium mg/1
Iron mg/1
Magnesium mg/1
Manganese mg/1
Sodium mg/I
Zinc mg/1
Diascund Creek Test Well
Number
Samples
5
ND
5
ND
ND
5
5
5
5
ND
ND
5
ND
5
ND
5
5
5
Mean
8.1
ND
690
ND
ND
81
0.13
22
0.25
ND
ND
2.7
ND
0.26
ND
0.03
273
0.075
Minimum
8.0
ND
676
ND
ND
74
0.08
23
0.18
ND
ND
25
ND
0.23
ND
0.01
215
0.061
Maximum
8.1
ND
702
ND
ND
84
0.24
28
050
ND
ND
2.7
ND
0.29
ND
0.07
289
0.087
James City County Wells
56h25
7.8
2200
1190
484
18
340
ND
61
< 0.1
0.09
0.03
0.3
5.1
1
1.2
0.03
450
0.02
56H26
7,9
540
310
262
54
6
ND
11
< 0.1
0.04
0.06
1.1
18
0.78
2.3
0.06
100
< 3.0
Sources:     Geraghty & Miller (1988) for Diascund Creek Test Well.
            Laczniak and Meng (1988) for James City County Wells.

Notes:       ND = No Data
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
                                    TABLE 4-20




                    LITTLE CREEK RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY
Parameter Units
Conductivity /iMHOs/cm
pH SI
Temperature C
Dissolved Oxygen mg/l
Dissolved Oxygen (Sat.) %
Alkalinity mg/l
Sulfate mg/l
Chlorides mg/l
Nitrate mg/l
Ammonia mg/l
Total Kjeldahf Nitrogen mg/l
Total Phosphorus mg/l
Iron (Total) /ig/l
Manganese (Total) jtg/1
Total Organic Carbon mg/l
Chlorophyll a /*g/l
Pheophytin a /ig/1
3 to 10 fool Depth
Number
Samples
58
58
58
58
58
37
6
37
60
59
60
60
37
37
30
18
18
Mean
107
7.1
18
92
95
21
6.6
12
0.022
0.042
0.6
0.015
388
70
6.9
10
5
Mitt.
78
6.4
2
6.3
68
15
SS
8.4
< 0.005
< 0.002
<0.2
< 0.004
80
<10
4.8
3.3
0
Max.
140
8.1
31
13.4
120
28
7.0
15
0.089
0.188
1.4
0.107
1700
390
11
21.4
21
30 to 40 foot Depth
Number
Samples
58
57
58
58
58
23
6
37
60
60
60
60
37
37
23
18
18
Mean
122
6.8
10
4.8
40
23
5.7
13
0.045
0.332
0.9
0.015
4240
539
6.7
15
5.6
Mitt.
81
63
2.5
0
0
14
<1
7.8
< 0.005
< 0.002
0.3
0.004
200
20
5.2
1.2
0.1
Max.
211
7.4
17
13.2
100
45
7J
31
0.329
1.9
3.1
0.105
28000
1600
9.4
18
25
Sources:      Prugh et al., 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.




             USGS Station 0204275430 - Little Creek Reservoir.
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
Section 4.2.1. Table 4-21 summarizes the basic characteristics of the aquifers in the York-
James Peninsula that would be affected.

      Soil and Mineral Resources

      WeU Sites

      Each individual well near Little Creek Reservoir would be located in an upland area.
The first well, designated as LC-1, would be installed in Craven Uchee complex soils. These
soils consist of moderately well drained Craven soils and well drained Uchee soils. Areas
of this complex are on side slopes and narrow ridge tips.  Well  LC-2 would be installed in
Emporia complex soils. This complex consists of areas of deep, very steep, well drained
Emporia soils, and areas of similar soils that formed over layers of fossil shells. Well LC-3
would be installed in the Udorthents Loamy soil unit.  This unit  consists of deep, well
drained, and moderately well drained loamy soil material in areas where the soils have been
disturbed during past excavation and grading activities. Well LC-4 would be installed in soils
similar to Well LC-1.

      The wells surrounding Diascund Creek Reservoir would be installed in upland areas.
The first well, designated as DC-1, would be installed in Craven Loam.  This soil is very
deep, strongly sloping, and moderately well drained. It is found on narrow to medium-sized
upland ridges and side slopes.  Well DC-2 would be installed in Craven-Caroline complex.
This complex consists of very deep, gently sloping soils on narrow ridgetops and side slopes.
Well DC-3 would be installed in Nevarc-Remlik complex. This complex consists of very
deep, very steep soils on side slopes along rivers, creeks, and drainageways.  This complex
consists of about 40 percent moderately well drained Nevarc soil, 35 percent well drained
Remlik soil, and  25 percent included soils.  Well DC-4  would be installed in  Emporia
complex soils. This complex consists of areas of deep, steep, well drained Emporia soils,
and areas of similar soils that formed over layers of fossil shells.

      Pipeline

      Each  fresh  groundwater well would  require  a pipeline  to convey the pumped
groundwater from the well to its respective reservoir.  Construction of each pipeline would
require a 40-foot maximum ROW width extending  from the well  site and traveling the
shortest distance to the discharge site on  the respective reservoir.

      AirQuality
      The  fresh groundwater alternative would  involve land  clearing,  excavation,  and
construction to install eight wells and construct short pipelines. The proposed pipelines and
most of the fresh groundwater wells would lie in James City County with some wells in New
Kent County.  There is residential development near the proposed pipeline route which
might be sensitive to construction activities.  No indication of a nuisance dust problem in
this area has been recorded.
0114-951-140                             4-23                            February 1994
-------
      4.2.5      Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

      Substrate

      Intake

      The four wells included in this alternative are each located in upland areas, therefore,
no effects on aquatic ecosystem substrates are anticipated.

      Pipeline

      The concentrate discharge pipeline from the Copeland Industrial Park groundwater
well (Site 1) would not cross any streams.  However, the outfall structure and associated
riprap would  disturb approximately 1,000  square feet of aquatic ecosystem  substrate
approximately 200 feet south of the entrance to Salters Creek, a  tributary to Hampton
Roads harbor.

      The concentrate discharge pipeline from the Upper York County groundwater well
(Site 2) would cross one perennial and one intermittent stream. The outfall structure and
associated riprap would  disturb approximately  1,000  square  feet of aquatic ecosystem
substrate on Queens Creek, a tributary to the York River.

      The concentrate discharge pipeline from the Harwood's Mill groundwater well (Site 3)
would cross  the upper  portion  of the Poquoson  River, immediately downstream  of
Harwood's Mill Reservoir.  The remainder of the pipeline would cross one perennial and
one intermittent stream. The outfall  of the pipeline would disturb approximately 1,000
square feet of aquatic substrate on the Poquoson River, at Howards Landing,

      The concentrate discharge pipeline from the Lee Hall groundwater well (Site 4) would
not cross any streams along its route to Skiffe's Creek. The outfall structure and associated
rip  rap would disturb approximately 1,000 square feet of substrate on Skiffe's Creek.

      Water Quality
      Blended groundwater from the Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac aquifers would
be  used to supply the RO  treatment facilities to take advantage of the favorable water
quality of the Middle Potomac and the increased yield available from the Lower Potomac.
Water quality data for both of the aquifers are presented in Groundwater Resources of the
York-James Peninsula of Virginia (Laezniak and Meng,  1988).  Existing deep wells on the
Lower Peninsula include a 910-foot deep well in the Copeland Park area which penetrates
approximately 130 feet of the Middle Potomac aquifer (59D-20), a USGS observation well
cluster near Newport News Park which penetrates all the Potomac aquifers to a depth of
1,425 feet below sea level (58F 50-55), a NASA Research Center well drilled to 2,053 feet
below sea level which encountered all the Potomac aquifers (59E 5), and a test well for the
U.S. Army at the Big Bethel WTP drilled  to  approximately 1,000 feet below the  ground
surface.  Water quality data available from four of these wells are presented in Table 4-22.

      Based on the limited water quality data available from the  USGS and SWCB for
these well locations, a blended raw water quality ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 mg/1 TDS
could be expected using the Middle Potomac  and Lower Potomac  aquifers.  It should  be
noted that a single water sample taken from the Middle Potomac aquifer at the Big Bethel
WTP site reported 4,787 mg/1 of chloride.   Feed water with this quality could  not  be


0114-951-140  .                           4-24                           February 1994
-------
Environmental Impact Checklist
Issue and Test Reference
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The Environmental Impact Assessment discusses
primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts during all
stages, including initial site preparation and
construction; facility operation, and post-facility or site
closure for the following (p. 4-36):
1 . Pollutant Generation, Transport, and Receptors
(p. 4-40)
a. Air Resources (p. 4-40)
1) identification of emission sources and
project emission rates and comparison to
national, state, and local standards and
limitations
2) comparison of predicted atmospheric
levels with national, state, or local
ambient levels
3) description of stack emissions during
operation and maintenance activities and
comparison with existing national, state,
and local standards
4) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
b. Water Resources (p. 4-42)
1) address potential for water quality to be
degraded by various factors
2) prediction of pollutant concentrations in
water bodies and comparison with
existing national, state, and local water
quality standards and criteria
3) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
c. Geological Resources (p. 4-45)
1) determination of potential soil loss and
mitigation activities-
2) identification of potential contamination
sources and mitigation measures
d. Biological Resources (p. 4-46)
1) consideration of potential losses of
biological resources within site
boundaries
2) description of effluent and emission
concentrations and their potential effects
to vegetation and wildlife
N/A


















Adequately
Covered


















Not
Adequately
Covered


















Comments


















                                          Handout Session 6-2
-------
Issue' and Text Reference
3) discussion of bioaccumulative effects
from facility emissions and discharges
4) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
2. Habitat Alteration (p. 4-46)
a. Biological Resources (p. 4-47)
1) address potential for construction and site
preparation activities to alter critical
habitats for wildlife
2) consideration of potential for secondary
changes in habitats following
construction and site preparation
activities
3) assessment of possible permanent loss or
displacement of vegetation habitat due to
operation
4) identification of changes in local species
composition, diversity, and abundances
resulting from loss of specific habitats
5) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
3. Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
(p. 4-52)
• a. description of facility waste management plan
with procedures for treatment, handling, and
disposal
b. discussion of projected facility waste
characteristics
c. identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
4. Socioeconomic Impacts (p. 4-53)
a. Land Use (p- 4-54)
1) identification of the existing or planned
land use areas lost due to site preparation
and construction activities
2) determination of conflicting zoning
requirements and land uses with site
preparation and construction activities
3) description of anticipated changes in near
by land use as a result of the facility and
evaluation of conflicts that could arise
during operations
4) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
b. Economic Activity (p. 4-57)
• 1) - address changes in employment patterns
N/A





















Adequately
Covered





















Not
Adequately
Covered





















'"' Comments





















Handout Session 6-2
-------
Issue and Text Reference
2) address ability of available labor pool to
meet project-related employment needs
3) identification of economic multipliers
used in analysis and their source
4) discussion of potential change in overall
economic activity in region
5) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
c. Population and Housing (p. 4-58)
1) address the relationship between
employment increases and population
in-migration
2) identification of deficiencies in available
housing for the potential increased
workforce and their families
3) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
d. Community Services and Public Finance
(p. 4-59)
1) identification of deficiencies in
community services and infrastructure
during project construction and operation
2) identification of shortfalls in
transportation capacity due to either
primary or secondary impacts of the
project
3) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
e. Transportation (p. 4-61)
1) assessment of proposed project's
consistency with local and/or regional
transportation plans
2) evaluation of changes in LOS
resulting from the proposed project
and alternatives
3) evaluation of the effect of heavy vehicle
traffic on affected pavement and bridges
4) description of mitigation measures to
offset adverse impacts to structural
integrity and public safety
f. Health and Safety (p. 4-62)
1) evaluation of whether construction,
operation, and maintenance activities
present health and safety hazards to
humans working or living at or near the
project site
N/A



















Adequately
Covered



















Not
Adequately
Covered



















Comments



















Handout Session 6-2
-------
Issu* and Text Reference
2) di scussion of potential effects of facility
noise levels on workers, local
communities, and local flora and fauna
3) analysis of potential long-term
contaminant bioaccumulation within the
food chain
4) identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
g. Environmental Equity (p. 4-63)
1) determination of the equity of changes in
employment patterns attributable to site
preparation and construction activities
2) determination of the equity of community
structure changes caused by project
construction and operation
3) . identification of best mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
5. Cultural Resources (p. 4-63)
a. identification of any historical or cultural
resources in close proximity to the site
following correspondence with appropriate
authorities
b. discussion of mitigation measures necessary to
preserve items of archaeological, historical, or
cultural interest
c. determination of the extent to which
construction, operation, and maintenance
activities disrupt the aesthetic or sensory
attributes of the site
d. determination of whether the facility
components are designed with consideration
given to human factors
MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Mitigation Measures (p. 4-68)
a, description of mitigation activities for all
significant impacts to both the natural and
human (socioeconomic) environments
b. description of mitigation measures with
adequate information to evaluate
environmental consequences and residual
impacts
c. identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize potential impacts during all
stages of the project, including siting and
design, facility operation, and post facility
closure.
N/A

















Adequately
Covered

















Not
Adequately
Covered

















; Comments

















Handout Session 6-2
-------
Issue and Text Reference
d. support of the following types of mitigation
measures, in the following decreasing order of
preference:
Avoidance or prevention
Minimization
Reduction or elimination over time
Correction
Compensation,
e. implementation plan (schedule) and criteria for
performance for all mitigation measures.
f. responsible entity assigned to carrying out each
mitigation measure.
g. measures are socially and culturally acceptable.
h. adequate financial and non-financial resources
to implement the measures.
N/A





Adequate^
Covered





Not
Adequately
Covered





Comments





Handout Session 6-2
-------
-------
                                                                  TABLE 4-21

                                      HYDROGEOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS, CHARACTERISTICS, AND
                                     WELL YIELDS OF AQUIFERS IN THE YORK-JAMES PENINSULA
                Aquifer Name and Description
                                                                     Well Yield
                                                                      (gal/min)
                                                               Common
                                                                Range
               May
              Exceed
                                        Hydrologic Characteristics
  Columbia Aquifer:  Sand and gravel, commonly clayey;
  inlerbedded with silt and clay.  Fluvial to marine in origin,
  disposition resulted in terrace-type deposits from varying
  Pleistocene sea levels.
 3-30
40
Generally unconfined, semi-confined locally. Most
productive in eastern area, very thin to missing in central
and western areas. Water is very hard calcium-bicarbonate
type.  Highly susceptible to contamination from surface
pollutants.  Elevated concentrations of iron and nitrate in
some areas. Possibility of salty water in coastal regions.
  Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer:  Sand, commonly shelly;
  interbedded with silt, clay, shell beds, and gravel.  Shallow,
  embayed marine in origin, deposition resulted in interfingering
  near-shore deposits from marine transgressions.
 5-80
200
Multiaquifer unit. Mostly confined, unconfined updip in
outcrop areas. Thickness dependent on altitude of land
surface.  Highest yields in eastern area, thin to missing in
western area. Water is hard to very hard sodium calcium
sodium bicarbonate type and generally suitable  for most
uses.  Aquifer not present in western area.
  Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer:  Sand, moderately
  glauconitic, shelly; interbedded with silt, clay, and thin,
  indurated shell beds. Shallow, inner marine shelf in origin,
  deposition result of marine transgression.
10-110
200
Important aquifer in central area; yields moderate to
abundant supplies to domestic, small industrial, and
municipal wells.  Water is soft to hard, calcium sodium
bicarbonate type and generally suitable for most uses.
Aquifer not present in western area.
  Aquia Aquifer:  Sand, glauconitic, shelly; interbedded with
  thin, indurated shell beds and silly clay intervals. Shallow,
  inner to middle marine shelf in origin, deposition result of
  marine transgression.
15-210
350
Important aquifer in central area; yields moderate supplies
to domestic, small industrial, and municipal wells. Water
is soft sodium bicarbonate type, with elevated iron, sulfide,
and hardness locally. Aquifer not present in eastern area.
0114-951-140
                                                                      August 1993
-------
-------
                                                                  TABLE 4-21
                                                                  (Continued)

                                      HYDROGEOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS, CHARACTERISTICS, AND
                                    WELL YIELDS OF AQUIFERS IN THE YORK-JAMES PENINSULA
                Aquifer Name and Description
                                                                     Well Yield
                                                                     (gal/min)
                                                               Common
                                                                Range
               May
              Exceed
                                        Hydrologic Characteristics
  Upper Potomac Aquifer:  Sand, very fine to medium,
  micaceous, lignitic, and clayey; interbedded with silty clays;
  confined, restricted to central and eastern areas.  Shallow,
  estuarine and marginal marine in origin, sediments result of
  first major marine inundation of Cretaceous deltas.
20-400
1,000
Multiaquifer unit. Restricted to subsurface, yields largest
supply of water in study area.  Water is soft sodium
chloride bicarbonate type with elevated chlorides in eastern
area.
  Middle Potomac Aquifer: Sand, fine to coarse, occasional
  gravels; interbedded with stlty clays; generally confined,
  unconfined in outcrop areas of northwestern Coastal Plain
  and major stream valleys near Fall Line.  Fluvial in origin,
  sediments result of deltaic deposition.
20460
 700
Multiaquifer unit. Yields second largest supply of water in
study area. Water is moderately hard, sodium chloride
bicarbonate type, with elevated chlorides in eastern area.
  Lower Potomac Aquifer:  Sand, medium to very coarse, and
  gravels, clayey; generally confined, unconfined only in
  northwestern area of Coastal Plain. Fluvial in origin,
  sediments result of deltaic deposition.
100-800
1,500
Multiaquifer unit. Yields third largest supply of water.
Water is soft to very hard, and of a sodium bicarbonate to
sodium chloride type, with elevated chlorides and dissolved
solids in eastern area.  Thickest of all aquifers.
  [gal/min is gallons per minute]

  Source: Laczniak and Meng, 1988.
0114-951-140
                                                                      August 1993
-------
-------
                                     TABLE 4-22

                        POTOMAC AQUIFER WATER QUALITY
                   FOR BRACKISH GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS
Parameter Units
pH SI
Total Dissolved Solids g/1
Alkalinity mg/1
Nitrate mg/1
Ammonia mg/1
Phosphorus mg/1
Silica mg/1
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
Chloride mg/1
Sulfate mg/1
Fluoride mg/1
Boron mg/1
Calcium mg/1
Magnesium mg/1
Sodium mg/1
Potassium mg/1
Iron mg/1
Manganese mg/1
Zinc mg/1
Mean
7J
3.94
346
< 0.1
1.04
< 0.04
22
0.7
2,085
158
1.0
1.7
38
22
1,465
28
4.1
0.12
03
Minimum
7.0
139
225
< 0.1
0.42
< 0.01
15
03
540
64
0.2
1.5
6.1
2.4
520
13
0.69
0.03
0.01
Maximum
8.0
7.%
422
< 0.1
2.7
0.1
32
13
4,400
350
2
1.8
82
59
3,000
62 .
8.7
0.22
1.0
Count
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sources:       USGS groundwater Observation Well 58F-50 (unpublished data received from SWCB for
             sample collected on July 16, 1986.

             USGS groundwater Observation Wells 58F-51,58F-52, and 59E-6 (Laczniak and Meng, 1988).
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
successfully  treated with a  conventional low-pressure  membrane system  designed  for
brackish water.  This highlights the fact that blended water quality at each site would depend
on the site-specific water quality and yield of each aquifer.

      Under this alternative, it was assumed that five, 2-mgd wells would be used to supply
up to 10 mgd of brackish groundwater. The proposed locations for these wells are as
follows:

        •    Site 1 (Copeland Park)        One well   2 mgd

        •    Site 2 (Upper York County)   One well   2 mgd

        •    Site 3 (Harwood's Mill)       One well   2 mgd

        •    Site 4 (Lee Hall)             Two wells   4 mgd

            Total                        Five wells   10 mgd

      Assuming recoveries of 80 percent, the RO process would produce 400,000 gallons
per day of reject concentrate at each of the 2-mgd raw water sites and 800,000 gallons  per
day at the 4-mgd raw water site.  Outfalls would be directed to brackish or saline surface
waters and permitted as regulated discharges.  The concentrate outfall locations would be
as follows:

        »    Site 1 (Copeland Park)        Hampton Roads south of the mouth of Salters
                                        Creek

        •    Site 2 (Upper York County)   South bank of Queens Creek

        •    Site 3 (Harwood's MM)       West bank of the Poquoson River

        •    Site 4 (Lee Hall)             South bank of Skiffe's Creek

      Surface water quality data near each of these proposed outfall locations are available
from Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Stations. Water quality data are summarized
in Tables 4-23  and 4-24.  Three  of the discharge locations; the mouth of the Poquoson
River, Hampton Roads, and the mouth of Queens Creek; have relatively high salinities and
would be classified as polyhaline, with salinities typically ranging between 18 ppt to 28 ppt.
The other  discharge location, at the mouth of Skiffe's Creek would  be classified as
mesohaline to oligohaline, with salinities typically ranging between 3 ppt and 10 ppt.

      Hydrology

      Wells

      This alternative component would involve deep brackish groundwater withdrawals
made from wells developed in the City of Newport News and on Newport News Waterworks
property located in York County. Up to 10 mgd of new permitted groundwater withdrawal
capacity would be used to supply raw water to four reverse osmosis (RO) treatment
facilities.
0114-951-140                             4-25                            February 1994
-------
      A discussion of the affected hydrologie regime and potential hydrologic impacts
associated with these deep brackish groundwater withdrawals is presented below in the
description of Groundwater Resources.

      Pipeline

      Approximately 13.4 miles of new concentrate discharge pipeline would be required
for this alternative component Two perennial and two intermittent stream crossings would
be required along the pipeline routes. These minor stream crossings would be accomplished
via conventional cut and fill  techniques.  For Site 3, the concentrate discharge pipeline
would  also cross the Poquoson  River.  This could be accomplished  by suspending the
pipeline  across the  existing  U.S. Route 17 overpass pipeline crossing structure.  The
concentrate discharge pipelines would terminate at outfall sites located on four tidal water
bodies previously listed.

       The estimated maximum rate of concentrate  discharge into the  receiving water
bodies is 0.8 mgd for the Site 1 (Lee Hall) discharge into Skiffe's Creek, and 0.4 mgd for
each of the remaining three sites.

      Groundwater Resources

      Setting

      Withdrawals are proposed from the high yielding brackish region of the Middle and
Lower Potomac Aquifers that are present beneath the City of Newport News and property
in York County owned by Newport News Waterworks. Anticipated depths for the proposed
five-well system range from 800 to 1,200 feet with well depths increasing to the east.  Due
to the lack of data from the deeper aquifers in the eastern third of the city, a test well would
be needed to document the vertical distribution of water quality and to confirm the yield
of the  aquifer(s). The horizontal distribution of brackish water in the Middle and Lower
Potomac Aquifers on the James-York Peninsula has not been studied in detail. The SWCB
concluded in  1981 that "...the Lower Cretaceous aquifer is capable of producing large
quantities of brackish groundwater for desalting purposes or for other uses where saltiness
is not objectionable." (Siydula et aL, 1981).  Use of these brackish aquifers has not been
substantially expanded in the region since 1981, indicating the current availability of this
resource.

      Based on the limited water quality data available from the USGS and SWCB for well
locations on the Peninsula, a blended raw water quality ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 mg/1
TDS could be expected using the Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac aquifers.  It should
be noted that a single water sample taken from the Middle Potomac aquifer at the Big
Bethel WTP site  reported 4,787 mg/1 of chloride.

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      This alternative would involve the  construction  of approximately 13.4 miles of
concentrate pipeline.  Soils  within the  estimated 65 acres of pipeline  ROW would  be
disturbed during pipeline construction.

      Air Quality
      The Groundwater Desalination  alternative  would  involve installation of five
groundwater wells and excavation and construction activities to construct four concentrate


0114-951-140                             4-26                            February 1994
-------
                                  TABLE 4-23

                         JAMES RIVER WATER QUALITY
              AT PROPOSED CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE LOCATIONS

                            James River Station LE 5.1
                               Near Skifle's Creek
Parameter Units
pH SI
Salinity g/1
Nitrate mgA
Ammonia mg/1
Phosphate mg/l
Silica mg/1
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
Mean
7.2
5.8
0.29
0.09
0.08
4.5
6.1
Minimum
3.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
1.2
2.0
Maximum
8.8
16
0.80
0.50
0.4
13
12
Count
69
179
83
82
83
81
83
                            James River Station LE 5.4
                            In Hampton Roads Harbor
Parameter Units
pH SI
Salinity g/1
Nitrate mg/1
Ammonia mg/1
Phosphate mg/l
Silica mg/l
Total Organic Carbon mg/l
Mean
7.93
22.3
0.08
0.06
0.06
1.3
6
Minimum
4.82
12.5
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.0
2
Maximum
9.49
302
0.36
0.2
0.16
5.2
15
Count
77
332
82
77
82
80
82
Source:
Tributary Water Quality 1984-1986 Data Addendum - James River (SWCB, 1987).
0114-951-140
                                                          June 1993
-------
-------
                                  TABLE 4-24

                         YORK RIVER WATER QUALITY
              AT PROPOSED CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE LOCATIONS

                            York River Station LE 42
                               Near Queens Creek
Parameter Units
pH SI
Salinity g/1
Nitrate nig/1
Ammonia nig/i
Phosphate m§/l
Silica mg/1
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
Mean
7.7
20
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.7
6
Minimum
6.3
7.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
Maximum
8.9
26
0.1
0.1
0.5
24
16
Count
106
391
119
86
120
118
115
Source:
Tributary water quality 1984-1987 Data Addendum - York River (SWCB, 1989).
0114-951-140
                                                          June 1993
-------
-------
discharge pipelines. Two sets of facilities would be located in the City of Newport News and
the other two sets of facilities would be in York County.  Therefore, this entire alternative
falls in an ozone non-attainment area.  Additionally, the proposed concentrate discharge
pipelines would be constructed in medium to high density residential areas which should be
sensitive to construction activities.  No indication of a nuisance dust problem in this area
has been recorded, however.

      4.2.6      Use Restrictions

      Substrate
      No aquatic ecosystem substrate would be affected  by use restrictions.

      Water Quality
      Implementation of use restrictions is not expected to impact existing water quality
conditions.

      Hydrology
      The hydrology of water resources in the project areas is described in Sections 4.2.1
through 4.2.5.

      Groundwater Resources
      The  setting for evaluating  effects of the  Use  Restrictions alternative on the
groundwater resources of the region is described in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.5.

      Soils and Mineral Resources
      Use restrictions would not have any effect on soils or mineral resources.

      Air Quality
      The implementation of use restrictions would not adversely effect ambient air quality.

      4.2.7      No Action

      Substrate
      If no action was taken,  there would be no aquatic ecosystem substrate would be
affected.

      Water Quality
      The existing water quality conditions in  the project region are described in Sections
4.2.1 through 4.2.5.

      Hydrology
      If the No  Action alternative were taken,  existing Lower Peninsula water supply
sources would  be relied  on more  and more  heavily  to meet increasing demand.  The
potential impacts of this reliance are addressed in Section 5.2.7.

      Groundwater Resources
      The  groundwater resources  setting for evaluating this alternative is  described in
Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.5.

      Soil and  Mineral Resources
      This alternative would not affect soils or mineral resources.
OH4-951-140                             4-27                            February 1994
-------
      Air Quality
      If no action was taken, these would be no adverse affect on ambient air quality.

4 J   BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
      This section provides a general description of the biological environment at proposed
project sites for each of the seven alternatives evaluated.  Biological resource categories
evaluated are described below.

      Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
      This section provides a listing of all state- or federally-listed endangered or threatened
species, or sensitive  species (any candidates  for state or federal listing) which could be
affected by implementation of the alternatives. The endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species impact category was developed from a portion of the Clean Water Act Section 404
(b)(l) Guidelines which addresses the potential impacts on biological characteristics of the
aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR § 230.30).

      Fishand Invertebrates
      This section lists the fish and invertebrates and other aquatic organisms in the food
web that may be affected by the implementation of the alternatives. Aquatic organisms in
the food web include fin fish, crustaceans, mollusks, insects, annelids, planktonic organisms,
and plants and  animals on which they feed and depend on for their needs. All forms and
life stages are included in this category. The fish and invertebrates impact category was
developed from a portion of the Clean Water Act  Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which
addresses potential impacts on biological characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR
§ 230.31).

      Other Wildlife
      This section identifies wildlife which may be affected by implementation of the
alternatives which are not addressed in the Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species
category or the Fish and Invertebrates category. Game and non-game species are identified.
The other wildlife category was developed from a portion of the Clean Water Act Section
404 (b)(l) Guidelines which addresses potential impacts on biological characteristics of the
aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR § 230.32),

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      This section identifies any sanctuaries  and refuges which could be affected by the
implementation of the evaluated alternatives.  For purposes of this analysis, sanctuaries and
refuges  are defined as areas designated under federal, state, or local authority to be
managed  principally for the preservation and use  of fish and wildlife resources.   The
sanctuaries and refuges impact category was developed from a portion of the Clean Water
Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which addresses potential impacts on special aquatic sites
(40 CFR § 230.40),

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      Wetlands are defined as areas  that  are  inundated  or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration  sufficient to support, and  that under  normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions.  Where wetlands are adjacent to  open water, they generally constitute the
transition  to upland (40 CFR  §  230.41, 1980).  Vegetated  shallows  are permanently


0114-951-140                             4-28                             February 1994
-------
inundated areas that under normal circumstances support communities of rooted aquatic
vegetation.

      In this section, wetlands and vegetated shallows are identified and categorized in the
vicinity of the various alternative components, based on analysis of existing literature, aerial
photography, wetland inventories, field visits, and the results of a wetland evaluation study.
Data are presented describing the type, composition and ecological value of the resource.
The wetlands and vegetated shallows category was developed directly from a portion of the
Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which addresses potential impacts on special
aquatic sites. These sites include wetlands (40 CFR § 230.41) and vegetated shallows (40
CFR § 230.43),

       Mud Flats
      In this section, mud flats are identified in the vicinity of the various alternative
components. Mud flats are broad, flat areas along the coast, in coastal rivers to the head
of tidal influence, and  in inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems.  Tidal mud  flats are
typically exposed at low tides and inundated at high tides with water at or near the surface
of the substrate (40 CFR § 230.42, 1980).  The mud flats impact category  was developed
from a portion of the  Clean  Water Act Section 404  (b)(l) Guidelines which addresses
potential impacts on special aquatic sites (40 CFR § 230.42).

      4.3.1      Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

      Endangered. Threatened, or Sensitive Species

      Intake

      In the 1984 Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Water Supply
Study - Hampton Roads, Virginia, the USCOE evaluated an alternative which would involve
a pumpover from the Pamunkey River at the Northbury intake site. With the exception of
transient individuals, the study documented that there were no known federal endangered
or threatened species in the vicinity of the proposed intake site (USCOE, 1984).

      Project areas for this  alternative were reviewed by the  Virginia Department of
Conservation and  Recreation  (VDCR) Division of Natural  Heritage, the  Virginia
Department of Game  and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), and the  Virginia Department of
Agriculture  and Consumer Services (VDACS), to identify any  known natural  heritage
resources or endangered, threatened or sensitive species in these areas.   Project review
conducted by these agencies  resulted in the identification of no known natural  heritage
resources or endangered or threatened animal, plant or  insect species in  the immediate
vicinity of  the  proposed intake  site at Northbury (T. J. O'Connell, VDCR, personal
communication, 1992; H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992; J.  R. Tate,
VDACS, personal communication, 1992).

      The VDCR also  provided a list of natural heritage resources of the tidal Pamunkey
River.  Five of the nine species listed by the VDCR are either endangered, threatened, or
candidate species at the federal and/or state levels (see Table 4-25).

      The Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) is an annual legume which  has
been identified  by the VDCR as a natural heritage resource of the tidal Pamunkey River
in King William and New Kent counties (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication,


0114-951-140                             4-29                            February 1994
-------
1993).   The closest known population of this  species occurs approximately 5  miles
downstream of the proposed intake site (C. Clampitt, VDCR, personal communication,
1992). Until recently, the species was proposed for listing as a federal threatened species
and was a candidate for listing by the State.  However, in June  1992, the species became a
federally listed threatened species and thus, will now receive protection by the Federal and
State Governments. On January 11, 1993, a Notice of Intended Regulatory Action by the
VDACS was published in The Virginia Register.  This proposed regulatory action would list
Sensitive Joint-vetch as a state endangered species.

      The VIMS conducted a study of the Sensitive Joint-vetch (also referred to as the
Northern Joint-vetch) in the vicinity of the proposed intake site on the Pamunkey River.
The study is documented in Identification of Historic Locations ofAeschvnomene virginica in
the Tidal Freshwater Zone of the Pamunkey River, Virginia (Perry, 1993) which is included  as
an appendix to the Biological Assessment for Practicable Reservoir Alternatives (Malcolm
Piraie, 1994) which is appended to this document as Report E. The  study consisted of a
review of historical data on the species for the area of the Pamunkey River from Sweet Hall
Marsh upstream to the US 360  bridge crossing of the river. The proposed intake site is
included in this area.

      The VIMS study identified the Sensitive Joint-vetch as having been recorded at three
sites along the Pamunkey River from Sweet Hall Marsh to Whitehouse. The locations  of
these populations are described in the VIMS report included  in Report E.  Each of the
three sites supported viable populations as of the summer of 1991 (Perry, 1993). None  of
the known Sensitive Joint-vetch populations are located in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed intake site at Northbury.

      The VDACS indicated that there are numerous populations of the state endangered
plant Mat-forming Water-hyssop located in the tidal region of the Pamunkey River which
are of concern (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal  communication, 1992). The Mat-forming
Water-hyssop  is a  state-listed  endangered species  which has no federal  status.  On
January 11,1993, a Notice of Intended Regulatory Action by the VDACS was published in
The  PirgBiia Register.   This proposed  regulatory  action would  remove Mat-forming
Water-hyssop from the Virginia endangered or threatened species list.

      Mat-forming Water-hyssop is a perennial herb which was identified by the VDACS
as occurring in the  vicinity of the project area and  is listed by the VDCR  as a natural
heritage resource of the tidal Pamunkey River. It has been found in King and Queen, King
William, and New Kent counties.  The closest known population  of this  species occurs
approximately 5 miles downstream of the proposed intake site  (C. Clampitt, VDCR,
personal communication, 1992).

      The Bald Eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus), which  is a state-and  federally-listed
endangered species, was identified by the VDCR and the VDGIF as  occurring within the
project area, and is included on the VDCR list of natural heritage resources of the tidal
Pamunkey River. Several known Bald Eagle nesting areas are  found along the Pamunkey
River, two of which are located within 3 miles  of Northbury.  The  closest site, Montague
Creek, is  approximately 2 river  miles downstream, while the Macon Creek nesting site is
approximately 3 river miles downstream (H. E,  Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication,
1992). Malcolm Pirnie biologists observed the Bald Eagle  in flight approximately 2 river
miles downstream of Northbury in May 1990 (Malcolm Pirnie, 1990).
0114-951440                            4-30                           February 1994
-------
                               TABLE 4-25

             ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
                      OF THE TIDAL PAMUNKEY RIVER
Scientific Name
Aeschynomene virginica
Bacopa stragula
Cassia fascicuJata var.
macrosperma
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lasmigona subvirdis
Federal Legal Status
LE
LT
C2
NL
State Legal Status
LE
PE
NL -
Common Name
Sensitive Joint-vetch
Mat-forming Water-hyssop
Prairie Senna
Bald Eagle
Atlantic Heelsplitter
Federal
Status
LT
NL
C2
LE
C2
State
Status
PE
LE
NL
LE
NL
Listed endangered
Listed threatened
Candidate, Category 2
No listing available
Listed endangered
Proposed endangered
No listing available
Sources: VDCR, 1992; VDACS, 1993.
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
      The Prairie Senna (Cassia fasdcufata var-macrosperma) and the Atlantic Heelsplitter
(Lasmigona subvirais) are two candidate species for federal listing and are included on the
VDCR list  of resources of the tidal Pamunkey River,  The Prairie Senna is a plant which
has been found in King William  and New Kent counties.  The Atlantic Heelsplitter is a
freshwater mussel which prefers small streams, quiet pools or eddies with gravel and sand
bottoms.

      Reservoir

      In the USCOE's 1984 evaluation of the Ware Creek Reservoir as a component of a
regional water supply alternative, the Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) was
identified as occurring in James City County.  Small Whorled Pogonia is a member of the
orchid family and is a state- and federally-listed endangered species.

      A botanical survey of the  Ware  Creek watershed in October 1983 for the Small
Whorled Pogonia did not reveal any individuals of the species (Scanlan, 1983). However,
the month of June is considered to be the most appropriate time of the year to conduct a
field survey for this plant in this  region (D.M.E. Ware, The College of William of Mary,
personal communication, March 1993).

      Additional limited field studies  were conducted in  the Ware  Creek Reservoir
watershed as part of the Natural Areas Inventory of the Lower Peninsula of Virginia; City of
WMamsburg, James City County,  York County (Clampitt, 1991). Participants in this study
spent a total of 8 hours in the Ware Creek watershed searching for Small Whorled Pogonia
and three other plant species - 4  hours  on August 17, 1989 and 4  hours on July  24, 1990
(with two participants on each visit). Limited areas along Ware Creek and Bird Swamp
were inspected but no Small Whorled Pogonia were found.  The field surveyors prepared
a site survey summary indicating  that more exploration should be performed in the Ware
Creek drainage farther upstream and the Bird Swamp drainage farther downstream (D.M.E.
Ware, The  College of William and Mary, personal communication, July 1993).

      The  USFWS recently recommended conducting additional surveys for the Small
Whorled Pogonia at Ware Creek  Reservoir due to the existence of potential habitat at the
reservoir site  (K.  L. Mayne, USFWS,  personal communication,  1993).  The  USFWS-
recommended methodology for conducting the survey, and the methodology selected for the
survey are described in detail in Report E.

      Potential habitat for the Small Whorled Pogonia within the proposed Ware Creek
Reservoir area was identified in May 1993 by Dr. Donna Ware of the College of William
and Mary, based on topographic mapping and color-infrared aerial photography of the area.
A total of 56 potential locations were identified, and the total area of prime habitat was
estimated to be 90 acres.

      Malcolm Pirnie biologists  reviewed The Survey of the Ware Creek Watershed for
Whorled Pogonia  (Scanlan,  1983) to determine which areas of the watershed had been
examined during the 1983 survey. Only 7 of the 56 sites identified by Dr. Ware as prime
habitat had been previously examined.  Only one of these sites was identified in the 1983
survey as not having the potential for prime habitat. This site was therefore removed from
the search area.  Because the 1983 survey was conducted in October, and the best time to
identify the species in the field is June, it is unlikely that the plant would have been noted
if present. Therefore, the 6 remaining areas surveyed in 1983 were included in the proposed
search area in  addition to the remaining 49 potential habitat areas identified by Dr. Ware.
0114-951-140                             4-31                           February 1994
-------
      The  RRWSG attempted  to schedule field surveys of these areas for June  1993.
However, they were  unable  to obtain  access  to  the  properties through Chesapeake
Corporation and its subsidiaries (which own a majority of the land within the proposed
reservoir watershed) or through James City County. As a result, access was not obtained
in time to conduct a survey during June, which is the optimal time for surveying for the
species.  In September 1993 the USCOE helped to obtain  RRWSG access to the Ware
Creek Reservoir site.  The RRWSG is currently planning  to conduct a Small Whorled
Pogonia survey of the proposed reservoir area in  June 1994.  The results of this survey will
be included in the Final EIS for public review.

      The  1984 USCOE feasibility report identified the Bald Eagle  as potentially being
present in the Ware Creek system. The USCOE's 1987 Final EIS on James City County's
proposed Ware Creek Reservoir (USCOE, 1987) also stated that Bald Eagles have been
sighted in the project area, but no active nests within the project area had been found as of
1983.

      The  VDACS has not identified any state-listed threatened or endangered plant  or
insect species as occurring in the vicinity of the proposed dam site and downstream areas.
(J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1992).  Limited field studies conducted in
October  1992 by Malcolm Pirnie field biologists also  did  not reveal  the presence  of
threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the proposed dam site.

      The  USFWS has indicated that there is a potential that Sensitive Joint-vetch may
occur  in  suitable habitat within  Ware  Creek  (K.  L.   Mayne,  USFWS, personal
communication, 1993). The VIMS conducted a study of the Sensitive Joint-vetch in the tidal
wetlands of Ware Creek.  This study is documented in Investigation of Potential Distribution
ofAesdmtomene vifgihlcg in the  Tidal Wetlands of Ware Creek,  Virginia (Perry, 1993) which
is included as an appendix to the Biological Assessment for Practicable Rsservou-Alternatives
(Malcolm Pirnie, 1994) which is appended to this document as Report E.

      Methods used in the VIMS study included a review of historical data on the species
and  a field survey of  the project area by boat.  The study  area included tidal emergent
wetlands on both sides of Ware Creek from its confluence with  the York River upstream
to the portion of Ware Creek where emergent wetlands end  and forested wetlands
dominate.  Habitats which appeared similar to those which contain populations of the
species were further investigated by walking the habitat area and inspecting for the Sensitive
Joint-vetch. No extant populations olAeschynomene virginica were located within the study
area. However, numerous examples of the species' habitat were located in Ware Creek
(Perry, 1993).

      Pipeline

      The  USCOE feasibility  report evaluated an alternative which would  involve a
pumpover  from the Pamunkey River at  the Northbury intake site  and a transmission
pipeline  to the headwaters of Diascund Creek.   This route encompasses a portion of the
pipeline  route for the  Ware Creek alternative evaluated herein.  At the time of the study,
it was documented that there were  no known federal endangered or threatened species
located in  the vicinity of the project area  with the exception of transient  individuals
(USCOE, 1984).

      The VDCR indicated that the pipeline  route from the proposed intake site  at
Northbury to Ware Creek Reservoir would come in close contact to an active Bald Eagle

0114-951-140                             4-32                            February 1994
-------
nest.  No additional species were identified by the VDGIF as being known to occur in
proximity to the proposed pipeline (H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992).

      The  VDACS identified  no state-listed threatened or endangered plant or insect
species  known  to occur in sites associated with pipeline routes for this  alternative
component (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1992).

      Fish and Invertebrates

      Intake

      Fish collection records for the vicinity of the intake are summarized and included in
Table 4-26.

      A literature search was conducted to determine which species of anadromous fish
have historically  used the Pamunkey River as a spawning or nursery area and to identify
those species which are likely to still use  the river.   The  following five  species of
anadromous fish have been documented as using the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries for
spawning and nursery grounds:

        *   Striped Bass (Momne saxatilis)

        •   American Shad (Alosa sapidissitna)

        m   Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris)

        •   Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)

        m   Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalu)

      Invertebrate species which may occur in the tidal freshwater region of the Pamunkey
River are typical of those occurring in the tidal freshwater portions of the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries.  A listing of these species is included in Table 4-27.  The proposed intake
site is 3.7 miles downstream of the nearest leased oyster  bed (VMRC, 1992).

      Reservoir

      Existing water bodies within the  reservoir impact area  include  Ware Creek;
intermittent and  perennial streams associated with Bird Swamp, France Swamp, and Cow
Swamp; and Richardson's Millpond.

      Fish collections in Ware Creek and  France Swamp have been conducted between
1980 and 1993 and are summarized in Tables 4-28 and 4-29.  These records were provided
by the VDGIF.

      An environmental assessment of aquatic resources in Ware  Creek was conducted in
1981  (Buchart-Hora, 1981).   This assessment  indicated that  a  diverse freshwater  fish
population exists within Ware Creek's upper tidal portion and its major tributary France
Swamp.  Freshwater sections of Ware Creek are dominated  by game species such as
Largemouth Bass and Sunfish. Oligohaline and mesohaline sections of Ware Creek contain
0114-951-140                             4-33                           February 1994
-------
estuarine fish fauna. The most abundant game fish species in these areas is the White
Perch.

      Available information concerning the presence of anadromous fish in Ware Creek was
reviewed for this regional study. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has
indicated that Ware Creek may be too far downstream on the York River to attract large
spawning runs of herring (J. G. Loesch, VIMS, personal communication, 1992).

      A 5V6-month study was conducted by  James R. Reed & Associates  (1982) to
determine whether Ware  Creek  and its tributaries are used as spawning or nursery areas
by anadromous  fish, specifically Striped Bass, American  Shad, Alewife,  and Blueback
Herring. These species are known to  occur in the York River.

      The James R. Reed & Associates (1982) study suggested that the nursery value of
Ware Creek appears to be more important than its spawning value for anadromous fish and
that  no major spawning  occurs there.   The slow  current velocities and  soft substrate
characteristics of Ware Creek were not deemed conducive to egg and larval survival.  Of the
species studied, Alewife and Blueback Herring were considered most likely to spawn in
Ware Creek. Striped Bass and  American Shad were not considered likely to use Ware
Creek for spawning since the slow moving current and soft substrate of Ware Creek is not
the preferred habitat for these species. However, Striped Bass sport fishing occurs at the
mouth of Ware Creek (James R. Reed & Associates, 1982).

      The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers Ware Creek to be "...a
suitable but unutilized site for andromous spawning (Alosa spp.)..." (E. W. Christoffers,
NMFS, personal communication, 1986). However, the NMFS and USCOE have also stated
that when high freshwater discharges  during spawning season coincide with years of high
anadromous fish populations, Ware Creek may be used as a spawning area for alosid species
such as Alewife and Blueback Herring (E. W. Christoffers, NMFS, personal communication,
1986; USCOE, 1987). For several years, populations of these species have been at historic
lows and recent sampling efforts  have failed to reveal the species' presence in Ware Creek
(VDGIF,  1992).  Ware Creek  is actively used for spawning  and as  nursery by semi-
anadromous White Perch (E. W. Christoffers, NMFS, personal communication, 1986).

      The VDGIF conducted fish sampling at the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir site in
the summer and fall of 1992. As part of  this sampling effort, VDGIF biologists observed
Striped  Bass in Ware Creek and France  Swamp, and at upstream of the proposed Ware
Creek dam site (Dowling,  1993). Fish sampling was conducted again in May 1993 by the
VDGIF. The results of this study indicated that Ware Creek, at and above the dam site,
was being used by juvenile Atlantic Croaker, White Perch, and Striped Bass. Based on these
surveys, the VDGIF concluded that "...Ware Creek, above the proposed dam site, serves as
a diverse and important transition zone between brackish and freshwater fish communities
that warrants protection"  (D. C. Dowling, personal communication, 1993).

      Benthic invertebrates were  collected  at several sites in Ware Creek and France
Swamp in November 1980 and April 1981 by James R. Reed & Associates (Buchart-Horn,
1981). A complete listing of the observed species is included in Table 4-30.
0114-951-140                            4-34                           February 1994
-------
TABLE 4-26
FISH SPECIES OF THE PAMUNKEY RIVER (1949 - 1978)
Page 1 of 2
Scientific Name
Adpenser oxyrhynchus
Alosa aestivalis
Alosa mediocris
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alosa sapidissima
Amia calva
Anguilla rostrata
Aphredoderus sayanus
Brevoortia tyrannus
Centrarchus macropterus
Clinostomus funduloides
Cyprinus carpio
Dorosoma cepedianum
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Erimyzon oblongus
Esox niger
Etheostoma olmstedi
Fundulus diaphanus
Fundulus heteroclitus
Gambusia afflnis
Hyhognatlius regius
Ictalurus catus
Ictalurus natilis
Common Name
Atlantic Sturgen
Blueback Herring
Hickory Shad
Alewife
American Shad
Bowfin
American Eel
Pirateperch
Atlantic Menhaden
Flier
Rosyside Dace
Common Carp
Gizzard Shad
Bluespotted Sunfish
Creek Chubsucker
Chain Pickerel
Tessellated Darter
Banded Killifish
Mummichog
Mosquitofish
Eastern Silvery Minnow
White Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
1949
•
•



•
•


•


•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

1950























1954






•









•
•


•
•

1955
















•
•


•
•

1958























1967
















•
•


•
•

1969



•








•

•








1971

•

•
•
•
•
•


•
•
•
•



•

•

•
•
1973



•


•









•

•
•
•


1978

•
•
•
•



•







•



•
•

0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-26
FISH SPECIES OF THE PAMUNKEY RIVER (1949 - 1978)
Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Menidia beryllina
Micropterus salmoides
Morone americana
Morone saxatilis
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropus amoenus
Notropus analostanus
Notropus hudsonius
Noturus gyrinus
Perca flavescens
Petromyzon marinus
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Semotilus corporate
Strongylura manna
Trinectes maculatus
Common Name
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Longnose Gar
Redbreast Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Inland SUverside
Largemouth Bass
White Perch
Striped Bass
Shorthead Redhorse
Golden Shiner
Comely Shiner
Satinfin Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Tadpole Madtom
Yellow Perch
Sea Lamprey
Black Crappie
Fallfish
Atlantic Needlefish
Hogchoker
1949

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
1950

















•




1954

•
•
•
•



•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•





1955

•

•
•



•
•
•


•
•

•





1958














•







1967

•

•
•


•



•


•

•





1969










•





•





1971
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•







1973

•

•
•
•
•
•
•




•
•

•

•



1978

•
•





•
•
•
•

•
•
•






Sources: H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communications, August 9, 1989 and August 11, 1992.
• Indicates observation of fish species in particular year.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-27
TYPICAL INVERTEBRATES OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND ITS TRIBUTARIES,
TIDAL FRESHWATER ZONE
Scientific Name
Anodonta sp.
Caliwectes sapidus
Cambarus diogens
Cordylophom caspia
Ferrissia spp.
Gammarus sp.
Goniobasls virginica
Hydrobia spp.
Lamps His spp.
Leptodora kindtii
Lironeca avails
Musculium spp.
Mytilopsis leucophaeata
Olencira praegustator
Orconectes limosus
Pectinatella sp.
Physa gyrina
Pisidium spp.
Rangia cuneata
Sphaerium spp.
Common Name
Freshwater Mussels
Blue Crab
Burrowing Crayfish
Freshwater Hydroid
Coolie Hat Snail
Scuds
Hornshell Snail
Seaweed Snails
Freshwater Mussels
Giant Water Flea
Fish Gilled Isopod
Long-siphoned Fingernail Clams
Platform Mussel
Fish-mouth Isopod
Coastal Plains River Crayfish
Freshwater Bryozoan
Pouch Snail
Pill Clam
Brackish Water Clam
Short-siphoned Fingernail Clam
From: Lippson, A. J., and R. L. Lippson, 1984. Life in the Chesapeake Bay. The John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
0114-951-140
June 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-28
FISH SPECIES OF WARE CREEK (1980-1993)
Page 1 of 2
Scientific Name
Acantharcus pomotis
Amia calva
Anchoa mitchttli
Anguilla rostrata
Aphredoderus sayanus
Cypmodon variegatus
Cyprinus carpio
Dorosoma cepedianum
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Erimyzon oblongus
Etheostoma olmstedi
Fundulus diaphanus
Fundulus heteroclitus
Gambusm affinis
Gobiosoma bosci
Ictalurus catus
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalurus nebulosus
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis humilis
Lepomis macrochirus
Leostomus xanthurus
Menidia beryllina
Micropogonias undulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Morone americana
Monroe saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Perca flavescens
Pomatomous saltatrix
Common Name
Mud Sunfish
Bowfin
Bay Anchory
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Sheepshead Minnow
Common Carp
Gizzard Shad
Bluespotted Sunfish
Creek Chubsucker
Tessellated Darter
Banded Killifish
Mummichog
Mosquitofish
Naked Goby
White Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
Longnose Gar
Redbreast Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Warmouth
Orange Spotted Sunfish
Bluegill
Spot
Inland Silverside
Atlantic Croaker
Largemouth Bass
White Perch
Striped Bass
Striped Mullet
Golden Shiner
Yellow Perch
Bluefish
1980
•


•
•



•
•



•


•
•

•
•

•
•



•
•



•

1981



•
•



•
•
.


•

•
•



•


•










1982



•
•
•
•
•
•



•
•
•
•


•

•
•

•
•
•

•
•


•

•
1992

•
•
•
•

•
•

•

•
•
•

.

•
•

•
*

•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

1993






•
•
•


•
•




•
•




•

•
•

•
•

•


Location*

E
E
B,E,S
B,S
G,S
E
E,G,S
E,S
E

E
E,G,S
B,E,S
S
E,G,S

B,E,S
E

B,E,S
B

B,E,S
E
E,S
E
B,E,S
E,G,S
E
E
E,S
E
S
0114-951440
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-28
FISH SPECIES OF WARE CREEK (1980-1993)
Scientific Name
Pomoads nigromaculatus
Strongylura marina
Umbra pygmaea
Common Name
Black Crappie
Atlantic Needlefish
Eastern Mudminnow
1980



1981 1982 19

.

Page 2 of 2
192 1993 Location*
E
S
B
Sources: Buchart-Horn, 1981; James R. Reed & Associates, 1982; H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal
communication, August 11, 1992; Dowling, 1993; and D. C. Dowling, VDGIF, personal
communication, June 23, 1993.
• Indicates observation of fish species in particular year.
* Sampling locations are indicated on Figure 6.5-1.
0114-951-140
                                                                                               August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-29
FISH SPECIES OF FRANCE SWAMP (1980 - 1992)
Page 1 of 2
Scientific Name
Acantharcus pomotis
Anchoa mitchilli
Anguttta rostrata
Aphredoderus sayanus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Erumyzon oblongus
Esax americanus
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma olmstedi
Fundulus dlaphanus
Fundidus heteroclitus
Gambusia affinis
Ictalurus catus
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalurus nebulosus
Leostomus xanthurus
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepomls gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Menidia beryllina
Micropogonias undulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Morone americana
Morons saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Perca flavescens
Common Name
Mud Sunfish
Bay Anchory
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Gizzard Shad
Bluespotted Sunfish
Creek Chubsucker
Redfin Pickerel
Johnny Darter
Tessellated Darter
Banded Killifish
Mummichog
Mosquitofish
White Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
Spot
Longnose Gar
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Inland Silverside
Atlantic Croaker
Largemouth Bass
White Perch
Striped Bass
Striped Mullet
Golden Shiner
Yellow Perch
1980
•

•
•

"
•
•
•
•


•
•
•
•


•
•



•


•

1981


•
•

•
•


•








•









1992

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
"
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Location*
U
E
B,E,U
B,U
E
B,E,U
E,U
B,U
U
B,U
E
E
B,E,U
E
B,E,U
E,U '
E
E
E,U
B,E,U
E
E
E
E,U
E
E
E,U
• E
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
                                   TABLE 4-29
                 FISH SPECIES OF FRANCE SWAMP (1980 - 1992)
                                                                      Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Ponwds nigromaculatus
Trinectes maculatus
Umbra pygmaea
Common Name
Black Crappie
Hogehoker
Eastern Mudminnow
1980



1981



1992
•
•
•
Location"1
E
E
B
 Sources: Buchart-Horn, 1981; H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, August
          11, 1992; and Dowling, 1993.
          •    Indicates observation of fish species in particular year.
          *    Sampling locations are indicated in Figure 6.5-1.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-30
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES OF WARE CREEK AND FRANCE SWAMP (1980 - 1981)
Page 1 of 3
Class or Order
Hirudinea
Isopoda
Amphipoda
Decapoda
Megaloptera
Trichoptera
Tricladia
Nemertean
Common Name
Leeches
Aquatic Sow Bugs
Scuds, Sideswimmers &
Shrimps
Freshwater Crayfish
Hellgrammites,
Dobsonfies & Fishflies
Caddisflies
Triclad Flatworms
Nemertine Worms
Species
Glossophnid spp.
Helobdella elongata
Myzobdella lugubris
Cyathura polita
Edotea triloba
Corophium lacustre
Grammarus spp.
Hyalella azteca
Leptochirus plumulosus
Orchestia grillus
Callinectes spp.
Crayfish
Palaemonetes spp.
Stalls spp.
Brachycentrus spp.
Dolophilodes spp.
Hydropsyche spp.
Dugesia spp.

Location*
3
1
4
3,4
4
3,4
1,2,3
3
3,4
4
4
1,2
1
2,3
1,2
2
1
1
4
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-30
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES OF WARE CREEK AND FRANCE SWAMP (1980 - 1981)
Page 2 of 3
Class or Order
Gastropoda








Bivalvia



Polychaeta


Oligochaeta




Hemiptera


Coleoptera


Ephemeroptera

Common Name
Snails & Slugs








Clams & Mussels



Sea Worms


Aquatic Earthworms




Water Bugs


Water Beetles


Mayflies

Species

Amnicola spp.
Campeloma spp.
Ferrissia spp.
Gillia spp.
Gyraulus spp.
Lymnea spp.
Melampis spp.
Physa spp.

Elliptic campanulata
Musculium spp.
Pisidium spp.

Hypaniola grayi
Laeonereis culvert

Limnodrilus spp.
Lumbricilus spp.
Nais spp.
Peloscolex multiseptosus

Belostoma spp.
Pelocoris spp.

Berosus spp.
Bidessus spp.

Baetisea spp.
Location*

1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2

2
1,3
1,2,3

3,
3,4

3
1,2,3
1,4
1,2,3

2,4
1

3
2

1
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-30
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES OF WARE CREEK AND FRANCE SWAMP (1980 - 1981)
Page 3 of 3
Class or Order
Odonata












Diptera
(family) Ceratopogonidae
(family) Chironomidae






(family) Dolichopodidae
(family) Simuliidae
(family) Tipulidae
Common Name
Damselflies &
Dragonflies











True Flies
Biting Midges
True Midges






Dolichopotid Flies
Blackfiles
Craneflies
Species


Agrion spp.
Archilestes spp.
Dorocordulia spp.
Erythemis spp.
Gomphus spp.
Marcromia spp.
Octogomphus spp.
Perithemus spp.
Plathemis spp.
Tetragoneuria spp.
Triacanthagyna spp.

Palpomyia spp.
Chironomus spp.
Coelotanypus spp.
Cricotopus spp.
Cryptochironomus spp.
Dicrotendipes spp.
Pofypedilum spp.
Proclauidus spp.
Unknown
Simulium spp.
Tipula spp.
Location*


2
1,2
2,3
1
1,3
1
2
1
1
1,3
2

3
1,3
1,2,3
3
3
1,3
1,3
3
2
1
1
Source: Buchart-Horn, 1981.
'Sampling locations are indicated in Figure 6.5-1.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
      Pipeline

      Construction of new pipeline associated with this alternative would require minor
crossings of 5 perennial and 16 intermittent streams. Fish species expected to occur in these
streams are similar to those found in France Swamp (see Table 4-29).

      Invertebrate species found within intermittent and perennial streams crossed by the
pipeline are  expected  to  be typical of those found in freshwater regions  of the Lower
Peninsula (see Table 4-31).

      Other Wildlife

      Intake

      Field studies conducted by Malcolm Pirnie during the spring of 1990 determined that
the proposed Northbury intake site is relatively isolated and that the predominant vegetation
cover types  are  agricultural fields and forests.  An analysis of color-infrared aerial
photography  of the proposed intake site was conducted and vegetation  community types
were classified according to Anderson  et al. (1976). Community types were identified as
follows:

       »   Mixed Forest

       •   Deciduous Forest

       •   Pine Plantation and Coniferous Forest

       •   Old Field/Agricultural

       •   Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous

       •   Scrub-Shrub

       •   Emergent/Open Water

      The predominate forest  type at the proposed intake location is deciduous.  To
determine the potential wildlife species occurring at the intake site location, the VDGIF was
contacted. A search of the Biota of Virginia (BOVA) database was conducted, and a listing
of species anticipated to occur in  riparian habitats of the Pamunkey River was generated.
Based on this information and a literature review, typical wildlife species of each community
type were identified. Listings of typical wildlife species according to vegetation community
types are included in Alternatives Assessment (Volume II-Environmental' Analysis) (Malcolm
Pirnie, 1993)  Section 6.6.1, which is appended to this report.  The predominant vegetation
cover types at the proposed intake site are deciduous forest and agricultural fields.

      Species noted by Malcolm Pirnie scientists in the vicinity of the intake include Bald
Eagle, Eastern Kingbird, Great Blue Heron, Green Heron, Indigo Bunting, Mallard, Osprey,
Pileated Woodpecker, Red-tailed Hawk, Sanderling, Turkey Vulture, and Beaver (Malcolm
Pirnie, 1990).
0114-951-140                             4-35                            February 1994
-------
      Reservoir

      Based on review of color-infrared aerial photography of the proposed Ware Creek
Reservoir watershed, vegetation community types were classified according to Anderson et
al.  (1976).  According to Anderson's methodology  and field  inspections, vegetation
community types in the watershed  area  were estimated to consist of 1,384 acres of
coniferous forest, 222 acres of deciduous forest, 5,959 acres of mixed forest, 590 acres of
wetlands and open water, and 2,346 acres of agricultural, residential, open field, and shrub
communities. The remaining 640 acres of the watershed consist of roads, light commercial
areas, and industrial areas which would not be heavily utilized by wildlife.  Based on
information provided from the VDGIF's BOVA database and a literature review, wildlife
species  anticipated  to  occur in the project vicinity were identified.  These species are
included in Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie,
1993) Section 6.6.1,  which is appended to this document.

      Based on review of color-infrared aerial photography and field inspections, it was
estimated that the reservoir pool area consists of 582 acres of mixed forested land, 19 acres
of coniferous forested land, 24 acres of deciduous forest, 590 acres of wetlands and open
water, and 4 acres of agricultural, residential, and open field communities. The remaining
area consists of roads which have very limited habitat value. The primary cover type of the
reservoir pool  area is forested land which comprises approximately 625 acres of the
proposed 1,238 acre pool area.

      Field investigations were conducted by the USFWS on March 17, 1981 and April 8,
1981 to determine wildlife composition in the reservoir area. Foxes are the major predatory
mammal associated with the forested regions of the watershed.  Omnivorous mammals
typical of this community type include the Opossum and the Raccoon. White-tailed Deer
are also common  throughout forested habitats. Smaller mammals noted within the project
area include the Gray Squirrel, White-footed Mouse, Meadow Vole, Cotton Mouse, Marsh
Rice Rat, and Muskrat. Forest edge habitat is utilized by White-tailed Deer, Striped Skunk,
and many old  field small mammals including the Wood Mouse, Cottontail Rabbit,  and
Meadow Vole  (Buchart-Horn, 1981).   Mammals associated with aquatic habitats in the
project vicinity include Mink, Beaver, Muskrat, and River Otter (USCOE, 1984).

      Based on previous studies, the Red-eyed Vireo is the most common bird in the
deciduous forested area (Buchart-Horn, 1981). Common warblers include the Prothonotary
Warbler, Black and White Warbler, Pine Warbler, and Yellow-throated Warbler. Other
characteristic bird species include the Ovenbird,  Woodthrush, Carolina Chickadee, Tufted
Titmouse, and various woodpeckers.

      Large areas of mature forest provide necessary habitat  for predators such as hawks
and owls.  Species noted include the Great Horned Owl, Screech Owl, and Barred Owl
(Buchart-Horn, 1981).  The Red-tailed Hawk has also been frequently noted in  this area.
The Black Vulture and Turkey Vulture are abundant in the project area. The presence of
large oaks and  occasional hickories in the Ware Creek watershed provides suitable habitat
for Turkey.

      Forest edge habitat is important for a variety of bird species. Field Sparrows and
Song Sparrows are common permanent  residents in forest edge communities.  The
Mockingbird, Robin, Indigo Bunting, Chipping Sparrow, and Cardinal also utilize these areas
for nesting. The Common Yellowthroat, Eastern Bluebird, Yellow Breasted Chat, and the


0114-951-140                             4-36                            February 1994
-------
TABLE 4-31
TYPICAL FRESHWATER INVERTEBRATES OF THE LOWER VIRGINIA
PENINSULA
Scientific Name
Alasmidonta undulata
Anodonta cataracta
Anodonta grandis
Cambarus bartonii
Cambarus diogenes
Cambarus robustus
Elliptic angustata
Elliptio complanata
Elliptic congaraea
Elliptio lanceolata
Fallicambarus uhleri
Ligumia nasuta
Orconectes limosus
Strophitus undulatus
Common Name
Triangle Floater Mussel
Eastern Floater
Giant Floater Mussel
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Carolina Lance Mussel
Eastern Elliptio
Carolina Slabshell Mussel
Yellow Lance Mussel
Crayfish
Eastern Pond Mussel
Crayfish
Squawroot Mussel
Source: H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, August 11, 1992.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
Yellow Rumped Warbler have also been noted in the area.  Predatory birds such as the
Red-tailed and Red-shouldered Hawks utilize the forest edge and agricultural/old-field areas
to prey on small mammals (Buchart-Horn, 1981).

      Ware Creek is an extremely productive ecosystem utilized by species such as Wood
Duck, Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, and Great Egret.  Wood Ducks find nesting trees in
the forested areas and a stable source of food in wetland (especially herbaceous) vegetation
and benthic invertebrates. These Wood Ducks  also congregate in large communal roosts
in Ware Creek wetlands in the fall.

      Black Duck, a species which has undergone a dramatic decline in population in recent
years, are attracted to the Ware Creek aquatic system by the ample foods of the freshwater
marshes (including Wild Rice) and areas of shallow water which provide important wintering
habitat for migratory species (USCOE,  1984).  Bald Eagle have also been noted in the area,
and the  potential also exists for  nesting of this species in  the proposed impact area
(USCOE, 1984).

      An additional identified resource is a Great Blue Heron  (Ardea herodlas) rookery
located on both  sides of France Swamp, north  of the intersection of U.S.  Route 60 and
Interstate 64. This rookery contained 98 nests during a 1990 survey (D. Bradshaw,  VDGIF,
personal communication, 1993). The Great Blue Heron is ranked by the State as being rare
to uncommon, but  not threatened or  endangered.   It is currently protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (T. O'Connell, VDCR, personal communication, 1992). This
species, considered  to be a species of  special concern by the USFWS, thrives in natural
habitats,  preferentially nesting in riparian swamps such as the rookery in France Swamp
(USEPA, 1992).

      Common amphibians and reptiles found in the forested community include the Green
Frog, Spotted  Salamander,  Marbled  Salamander,  Slimy  Salamander,   Red-backed
Salamander, Grey TreefrOg, Northern Black  Racer, Black Rat  Snake, Eastern Hogndse
Snake, Eastern Kingsnake, Southern Copperhead, Broad-headed Skink, Ground  Skink,
Five-lined Skink, and Southern Five-lined Skink.

      The American and Fowler's Toads are common around cultivated fields. Freshwater
creeks and ponds in the project area  also support  amphibians  and reptiles such  as the
Bullfrog, Leopard Frog, Pickerel Frog, and Red Spotted Newt. Snakes noted in wetland and
open water habitats of the project area include  the Northern Water Snake, Brown Water
Snake, Red-bellied Water Snake, and the Eastern Cottonmouth. Snapping Turtles have also
been noted in this community type (Buchart-Horn, 1981).

      Pipeline

      Assuming  a pipeline right-of-way width of 50 feet, the new pipeline would disturb
approximately 159 acres of land.  Existing vegetation community types along the pipeline
route were identified through  review of USGS topographic mapping and  color-infrared
aerial photography. Based on a review of these resources, the 26.3  miles of new pipeline
would impact primarily mixed forested and agricultural land.  Typical wildlife species of
these community types are included  m Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental
Anafysis)  (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) Section 6.6.1, which is appended to this document.
0114-951-140                             4-37                            February 1994
-------
      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      No existing designated sanctuaries or refuges are located within the vicinity of the
proposed intake, Ware Creek Reservoir watershed, or pipeline routes associated with this
alternative (VDCR, 1989; Delorme Mapping Company, 1989; RRPDC, 1991; JCC, 1991).

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows

      Intake

      Tidal freshwater marshes and swamps are found along the Pamunkey River from Hill
Marsh (near  Romancoke) upstream to Hanover  County (Doumlele, 1979).    In  a
classification system based on salinity, these areas lie between the  oligohaline (average
annual salinity between 0.5 and 5.0 ppt) and non-tidal freshwater wetland zones. The lack
of dominance  by estuarine marsh grasses (Spartina spp.) distinguishes tidal  freshwater
marshes from  oligohaline and higher salinity marshes.  Tidal freshwater marshes are
characterized by a large, diverse assemblage of broad-leaved plants, grasses, rushes, shrubs,
and herbaceous vegetation (Odum et aL, 1984).

      Tidal marsh inventories of King William County and New Kent County were reviewed
and the Northbury intake site was inspected in order to characterize tidal marshes along the
Pamunkey in the vicinity of the site. These tidal freshwater marshes are typically dominated
by Arrow Arum (Peltandra virglnica), Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), Spatterdock
(Nuphar luteum), Wild Rice (Zizania aquatica), and Rice Cutgrass (Leerzia oryzoides).  In
areas where salinities periodically extend into oligohaline ranges  (0.5 to 5.0 ppt), species
such as Big Cordgrass, Common Three-square (Scirpus americanus], Narrow-leaved Cattail
(Typha angustifolia), smartweeds (Potygonutn $pp,), Arrow Arum, Wild  Rice and Water
Hemp (Amaranthus cannabinus)  become the  most prevalent community components
(Silberhorn and Zacherle, 1987; Odum et aL,  1984).

      Tidal freshwater swamps are also common along the Pamunkey and are often closely
associated with the tidal freshwater marshes.  Occurring primarily landward of the marsh,
these forested  areas are dominated by trees such as Red Maple (Acer rubrurn), Black Gum
(Nyssa sylvatica), and ash (Fruxinussp.). In addition, tidal swamps typically support a diverse
understory of  emergent herbs  and shrubs (Silberhorn and Zacherle, 1987; Odum et al,
1984).

      The Northbury intake site was inspected by Malcolm Pirnie biologists in May 1990.
The majority of the site consists of upland agricultural and forested land. A small pond
(LOWZ) is found approximately 500 feet east of the pump station site and about 100 feet
south of the  Pamunkey River. A narrow fringe of wetland vegetation is located on the south
shore of the Pamunkey.

      A palustrine forested wetland (PF01R) is found directly across from the intake site,
on the King William County side of the Pamunkey River.  This tidal freshwater swamp is
dominated by trees such as River Birch (Betula nigra), Sycamore (Pfatanus ocddentalis), Red
Maple, Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styratiflua),  and Black Gum.  The swamp gradually
becomes marshland at points 500 feet upstream and 1,000 feet downstream from the intake
site.  The upstream  marsh consists  mainly  of Wild Rice, Rice Cutgrass, Spatterdock,
Pickerelweed,  and Arrow Arum; the downstream marsh is dominated by Arrow Arum,
Pickerelweed,  Marsh Hibiscus, Spatterdock, Wild Rice, Water Willow (Decodon verticillatus),
and Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)  (Silberhorn and Zacherle, 1987).


0114-951-140                             4-38                            February 1994
-------
      Reservoir

      Wetlands at the proposed Ware Creek  Reservoir site have been identified and
delineated using the Coips of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USCOE, 1987). The
methodology used to delineate wetlands at the site included a combination of in-house and
routine on-site methods for estimating wetland impacts.  A detailed description of the
methodology used to conduct the delineation is presented in the report Wetland Delineation
offSng Wfflam, Worn Creek and Black Creek Reservoir Sites (Malcolm Pirnie,  1994) which
is appended to this document as Report F.

      Available information from existing map sources was first  compiled  in-house to
identify wetland acreage at the site. The following wetland acreages were obtained through
interpretation  of the listed map sources for the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir site:
Map Source
USFWS NWI Maps
SCS Soils Maps
Aerial Photo Estimate '
Ware Creek EIS (USCOE) 2
USFWS (1985) 3
James City County 4
Acres of Wetlands
507
501
600
425
583
653
Notes:
1 Malcolm Pirnie aerial photo estimate, based only on interpretation of
photography
2 USCOE, 1987
3 U.S. Department of the Interior (1985); 539 acres vegetated; add 44 open water
to result in 583 acres
4 James City County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps adopted 1991. Maps
depict only James City County area of 591 acres. New Kent County portion
adds 62 acres.
      Because review of these individual sources did not result in similar wetland acreage
estimates, color-infrared aerial photography of the site was obtained. Detailed mapping of
the area was compiled in the delineation using the following sources:

       •   USGS Topographic Maps - Toano Quadrangle (Scale 1 inch=  2,000 feet)

       •   USFWS NWI Maps - Toano Quadrangle (Scale 1 inch = 2,000 feet)

       •   SCS Soils Maps - James City County and New Kent County.

       .   Ware Creek EIS - Wetland Delineation (USCOE, 1987)


0114-951-140                             4-39                           February 1994
-------
       •    Aerial Photography - 1982 NHAP (Scale  1 inch =  1,250 feet; Date Flown;
            3/7/82)

       •    James City County Mapping - Zoning maps adopted 1992 (Wetlands and 2-foot
            contours)

       -    VIMS Tidal Wetland Inventory, 1980

      A preliminary wetland map was prepared using  the 1982 NHAP photography as a
base and overlaying the USGS topographic maps adjusted to the same scale. Because access
to the Ware Creek site was initially denied, alternative means  were used to verify the
estimates made from the photography.  These included:

       •    Limited field verification of wetland maps.

       •    Study of similar watersheds nearby which had been photographed and mapped.

      Brief site visits were made before it became clear that access to the site had been
denied.  Six sites were visited which appeared to contain wetlands, based on aerial
photography interpretation, but were not identified as wetlands on the Ware Creek EIS map
prepared during regulatory review of James City County's permit application.  Additional
wetlands not depicted on the EIS wetland map  or in the total wetland acreage defined in
the EIS were identified at each site.  This field exercise indicated that there was a close
correlation between the wetland areas identified from  the aerial photography and actual
wetland areas in the field.

      As a second means of verification, another watershed near Ware Creek was identified
which could be used as a surrogate for Ware Creek because of its characteristic steep banks
and  flat-bottomed areas.   Wetlands  in this surrogate watershed  were identified and
delineated  using both aerial photography and field verification. Six sites were selected for
field verification. In each case, the wetlands were field-verified and were nearly identical
to the areas delineated as wetlands through aerial photography interpretation.

      James City County 2-foot contour maps were also used to provide a  more exact
determination of the boundaries of "flat areas" at the base of slopes.  Using these maps, in
conjunction with aerial photographs, the wetlands delineated increased, primarily in the
upstream reaches of the watershed. Planimetering the final adjusted wetland map resulted
in 612 acres of  wetlands which would be  impacted by construction  of the Ware Creek
Reservoir (see Report F, Plate 3).  Because the methodology which was used  to arrive at
this number compared closely to the actual wetland delineations at Black Creek and King
William Reservoir sites, it was believed that this method  would provide an accurate estimate
of wetlands at the Ware Creek Reservoir site.

      Once access to the Ware Creek site was granted, representatives from the RRWSG
and James City County conducted field mapping of the Ware Creek wetlands. All parties
involved in the mapping followed the methodology described in the 1987 USCOE Manual
which uses the three parameter approach.  Mapping teams conducted the delineation.
Wetland dimensions were measured by pacing and "chaining,"  and  the wetland/upland
border  was marked directly on  1  inch =  100 feet scale  topographic  maps.    In
wetland/upland  mosaic areas,  a wetland percentage of the area  was determined through
either transects or visual estimates which were also agreed upon by all team members.


0114-951-140                             4-40                            February 1994
-------
      Upon completion of the field mapping, each final map (at a scale of 1 inch = 100
feet) was planimetered three times by three different people to arrive at the final delineated
wetland area.  A total of 590 acres of wetlands were delineated at the site below elevation
35 feet MSL (normal pool elevation).

      The final figure, 590 acres, agrees closely with the estimate using photointerpretation
(612 acres).  The difference represents less than a 4 percent deviation from the field-verified
area. This close agreement between the two methodologies demonstrates the reliability of
the methodology used  on the King William and Black Creek  sites  and ensures the
comparability of the three estimates.

      General descriptions of wetland types are presented in  the Final Environmental
Impact Statement - James City County's Water Supply Reservoir on  Ware Creek (USCOE,
1987).  General wetland areas  at the Ware Creek Reservoir site, based on James City
County's report are presented in Figures 4-2 and 4-3 and are characterized in Table 4-32.
Detailed descriptions and a map of delineated wetlands at the site using the RRWSG
methodology described above are presented in Report F.

      Wetlands in the tidal portion of Ware Creek near its confluence with the York River
are dominated by Salt-marsh Cordgrass. Herbaceous wetlands grade from a mixture of Big
Cordgrass, Saltmarsh Cordgrass, and bulrushes (Scirpusspp.) in the oligohaline mid-sections,
to a mixture of Wild Rice, cattails (Typha spp.), Pickerelweed, Arrow Arum, and bulrushes
in the tidal freshwater areas. In the non-tidal freshwater emergent areas, cattails, bur-reeds
(Sparganium spp.\ Rice Cutgrass, and smartweeds are common (USCOE, 1987).

      Typical tree species found in forested wetlands in the Ware Creek area include Red
Maple, Black Gum,  Green Ash (Fraxinuspennsylvanica), Sycamore,  and Sweetgum. Shrubs
and understory species include Black Willow (Salix nigra), Alder (Alnus-sp.), Northern
Spicebush (Lindera  benzoin), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),  Lizard's Tail (Saururus
cemuus), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.\ sedges (Carer spp.) and various ferns (USCOE,
1987).

      Scrub-shrub wetlands at the site are commonly vegetated with Alder, Black Willow,
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and Red Maple  and Sweetgum saplings. Typical
understory vegetation includes bur-reeds, cattails, and Rice Cutgrass (USCOE, 1987).

      A wetland evaluation was completed for tidal and  non-tidal wetlands that would be
affected by  construction of Ware  Creek Reservoir.  The USCOE Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET) was utilized to assess the functional values of the wetlands at Ware Creek
(Adamus et al., 1987; Adamus et al.,  1991). WET is a broad-brush approach to wetlands
evaluation and is based on information about predictors  of wetland functions that can be
gathered quickly.  WET estimates the probability that a function will occur in a wetland and
provides insight into the importance  of those functions.   Results of the WET analysis are
summarized in Tables 4-33 and 4-34.

      The results presented in these tables appear counter-intuitive based on existing field
data. The overall value of the Ware Creek estuarine wetlands appears to be underestimated
by the WET model.  These wetlands are located in an oligohaline/tidal freshwater transition
zone and provide many more benefits to fish and wildlife than oligohaline, mesohaline,  or
haline marshes. Yet, the WET program evaluates near-freshwater, oligohaline, mesohaline


0114-951-140                              4-41                           February 1994
-------
and haline wetlands equally.  Therefore, wetlands found within the Ware Creek Reservoir
impact area contain the combined value of tidal and non-tidal systems and should perhaps
receive a higher rating.

      The USCOE, USFWS, USEPA, VDGIF, and James City County completed a HEP
analysis for the local Ware Creek Reservoir project as proposed by James City County.
Fish and wildlife habitat values for each important cover type in the drainage area were
studied. Forested wetland, scrub-shrub wetland, herbaceous wetland, lacustrine open water,
and estuarine open water were among the cover types analyzed for the study.

      HEP  analyses  use species-specific Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models  to
quantitatively assess habitat quality for particular species based upon selected habitat
characteristics.  These models yield HSIs that vary from 0.0 for unsuitable habitat to 1.0 for
optimal habitat for  the modeled species. HSIs are multiplied by acreage to  determine
Habitat Units (HUs).

      Nine species  were  evaluated for the HEP study.  The lists of  cover  types and
representative species were combined to yield evaluation elements. Subsequently, baseline
calculations of HSIs and  HUs were completed  Results of the study  are summarized in
Table 4-35.

      The baseline  calculations show that forested and herbaceous wetlands at the Ware
Creek site provide moderate habitat values for the indicator wildlife species evaluated.

      Pipeline

      Wetland crossings along the 26.3 miles of new pipeline would occur at 5 perennial and
16 intermittent  stream crossings. The majority of affected wetlands would be palustrine
forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands. Typical tree species of these Virginia Coastal
Plain palustrine systems include Sweetgum,  River Birch, Black Gum,  Red Maple, Green
Ash, and Sycamore.

      Mud Flats
      No mud flats are located in the immediate vicinity of the Northbury intake site based
on review of USGS topographic maps and USFWS NWI maps. The closest mud flat to the
intake site is located 8,000 feet downstream.  No mud flats exist upstream of the site.

      No mud flats were identified within the proposed reservoir  area or  below the
proposed dam site on Ware  Creek.  Also, no mud flats were identified along the pipeline
route.

      43.2     Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from the Pamunkey River

      Endangered. Threatened, or Sensitive Species

      Intake

      Endangered, threatened and other sensitive species likely to be found in the vicinity
of the proposed Northbury intake site on the Pamunkey River are described in Section 4.3.1.

0114-951-140                             4-42                            February 1994
-------
4O' CONTOUR
ELEVATION
(NORMAL POOL
ELEVATION WOULD
BE  35 FT. MSL)  —
                                                                                                                                           OCCCUBCR 1992
                                                                                                                                       LOWER VIRQMA PENINSULA
                                                                                                                                    REOONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                                                                                                                       CNWKMUCNTAl ANA4.TSS

                                                                                                                                           WARE  CREEK
                                                                                                                                 ESTUARINE WETLANDS LOCATED
                                                                                                                                 WITHIN THE IMPOUNDMENT AREA
                                                                                                                                    .5.000         0        J.OOO
                                                                                                                                           SCALE IN FEET
-------
-------
                                                                                                       PSSIC
                                                                                                I  --LIOW2II
   40' CONTOUR
   ELEVATION
   {NORMAL POOL
   ELEVATION WOULD
   BE 38 FT. MSL) —
                                                                                                                                       CECEWBCft 1992
                                                                                                                                    L(WCf* WGWM PENINSULA
                                                                                                                                RCOONAL RAW WAIER SWflY STUDY
                                                                                                                                    ENMRQNUCNTM. ANALYSIS
                                                                                                                                      WARE CREEK
                                                                                                                             PALUSTRINE WETLANDS LOCATED
                                                                                                                             WITHIN THE IMPOUNDMENT  AREA
                                                                                                                                1000        0         3.000
PIRNII
-------
-------
                                  TABLE 4-32

        WETLAND CATEGORIES AT THE WARE CREEK IMPOUNDMENT SITE
                         Palustrine Forested
                         Emergent (Palustrine and Estuarine)
                          Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
                          Palustrine Open Water
                          Estuarine Open Water
                          Lacustrine Open Water
 Source:      Final Environmental Impact Statement James Citv County's Water Supply
             Reservoir on Ware Creek (USCOE, 1987),
0114-951-140                                                          December 1993
-------
-------
                               TABLE 4-33

                   SUMMARY OF WET ANALYSIS RESULTS
               WARE CREEK RESERVOIR ESTUARINE WETLANDS
Function/Value

Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater Discharge
Floodflow Alteration
Sediment Stabilization
Sediment/Toxicant Retention
Nutrient Removal/Transformation
Production Export
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Breeding)
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Migration)
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Wintering)
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
Uniqueness/Heritage
Recreation
Evaluation Criteria
Social
Significance
M
M
M
L
M
M
*
H
*
*
*
L
H
L

Effectiveness
L
L
L
H
L
M
M
*
M
L
H
M
*
*

Opportunity
*
*
L
*
H
H
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Note: "H" = High
"M" = Moderate
"L" = Low
"*" = Functions and values are not evaluated by the WET program.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
                               TABLE 4-34

                   SUMMARY OF WET ANALYSIS RESULTS
              WARE CREEK RESERVOIR PALUSTRINE WETLANDS
Function/Value
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater Discharge
Floodflow Alteration
Sediment Stabilization
Sediment/Toxicant Retention
Nutrient Removal/Transformation
Production Export
Wildlife Diversity /Abundance
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Breeding)
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Migration)
Wildlife Diversity /Abundance (Wintering)
Aquatic Diversity /Abundance
Uniqueness/Heritage
Recreation
Evaluation Criteria
Social
Significance
M
M
L
L
H
H
*
H
*
*
*
L
H
L
Effectiveness
L
L
H
H
H
L
M
*
H
H
H
L
*
*
Opportunity
#
*
M
*
H
H
*
*
«
# *
*
*
*
*
Note: "H" = High
*M" = Moderate
"L" = Low
"*" = Functions and values are not evaluated by the WET program.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-35
BASELINE CALCULATIONS OF HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES (HSIs) AND
HABITAT UNITS (HUs)
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR
Evaluation Element
HSI
HU
Forested Wetland
Pileated Woodpecker
Gray Squirrel
American Woodcock (wintering
habitat)
Wood Duck (brood habitat)
Beaver
0.79
0.49
0.32
0.28
0.55
217.80
135.09
88.22
77.20
151.64
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Wood Duck (brood habitat)
Beaver
American Woodcock
Yellow Warbler
0.71
0.95
0.38
0.87
52.11
69.73
27.89
63.86
Herbaceous Wetland
Wood Duck (brood habitat)
Beaver
Red- Winged Blackbird
0.68
0.85
0.26
134.71
168.39
165.49
Lacustrine Open Water Wetland
Beaver
Largemouth Bass
0.87
0.77
57.86
51.20
Estuarine Open Water
Spot (juvenile)
0.97
Total
64.99
1526.18
Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement, James Citv County's Water
Suoolv Reservoir on Ware Creek fUSCOE. 1987)
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
      Reservoir

      In the evaluation of Black Creek  Reservoir conducted  as part of the USCOE's
Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Water Supply Study - Hampton
Roads Virginia, with the exception of transient individuals, there were no known federal
endangered or threatened species identified in the project area (USCOE, 1984).

      The  VDGIF review of this proposed reservoir site resulted in the identification of
three known species of concern in the project vicinity:  Mabee's Salamander (Ambystama
mabeei\ Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and the Northern Diamondback Terrapin
(Malaclemys terrapin).

      Mabee's Salamander is a state-listed threatened species. While individuals have not
been documented in the project area, suitable habitat for the species may be present. The
Bald Eagle is  documented as occurring in New Kent  County,  This species has federal
endangered species status. While no known active nests or concentration areas are located
within several miles of the impoundment, the species may occasionally be present in the
vicinity of the reservoir site. The Northern Diamondback Terrapin, which is a candidate for
federal protection, is commonly found in brackish and saltwater estuaries and tidal marshes;
therefore, it is not likely to be impacted by the impoundment (S. Carter-Lovejoy, VDGIF,
personal communication, 1992).

      The  VDACS indicated that no state-listed threatened or endangered plant or insect
species are known to occur in the immediate area of the proposed Black Creek Reservoir
(J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1992).

      The  USFWS has indicated that a historic  record for the Small Whorled Pogonia
(Isotria medeoloides} is known for New Kent County and appropriate habitat for this species
may  exist  at  the  Black  Creek  Reservoir site  (K. L.  Mayne,  USFWS, personal
communication, 1993).  SmaM Whorled Pogonia is a state- and federally-listed endangered
species. Due to the potential for occurrences of the species within the project area, the
USFWS recommended conducting a survey of appropriate habitat within  the proposed
reservoir area. The USFWS-recommended methodology for conducting this survey, and the
methodology selected for the survey are described in detail in Report E.

      Potential habitat for the Small Whorled Pogonia within the proposed Black Creek
Reservoir was identified in May 1993 by Dr. Donna Ware of The College of William and
Mary, based on topographic mapping and color-infrared aerial photography of the area. A
total of 35 potential locations were identified, and the total area of prime habitat was
estimated to be 147 acres.

      Malcolm Pirnie conducted field surveys of the proposed reservoir  site in early July
1993.  Thirty-five potential Small Whorled Pogonia habitat sites were investigated.  No
individuals of Small Whorled Pogonia were identified within suitable habitat in the project
area.   These field studies are documented in the Biological Assessment for Practicable
Reservoir Alternatives (Malcolm Pirnie, 1994) which is appended to this  document  as
Report E.
0114-951-140                             4-43                            February 1994
-------
      Pipeline

      The USCOE (1984) evaluated a project involving a pumpover from the Pamunkey
River at Northbury to Black Creek Reservoir and a pipeline to the headwaters of Diascund
Creek.   It was documented  that at the time of the study there were no known federal
endangered or threatened species in the vicinity of the pipeline route, with the exception
of transient individuals.

      The VDCR review of the pipeline routes from the proposed intake site at Northbury
to Black Creek, Reservoir indicates  that the pipeline would be located approximately 0.5
miles to the south of the existing neSt (T. J. O'Connell, VDCR, personal communication,
1992). The VDGIF also identified this active nest as being located in proximity to the
proposed pipeline route to Black Creek Reservoir.  No additional species were identified
by the VDGIF as being known to occur in proximity to the proposed pipeline route (H. E.
Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992).

      The VDACS identified no state-listed threatened or endangered plant or insect
species associated within pipeline routes for this alternative component (J. R. Tate, VDACS,
personal communication, 1992).

      Fish and Invertebrates

      Intake

      Existing conditions  at the  proposed Northbury intake  site  are  described in
Section 4.3.1.

      Reservoir

      Fish collection results of a 1983 survey of Black Creek conducted by the VDGIF are
included in Table 4-36. In addition,  Malcolm Pirnie conducted Black Creek fish surveys in
May 1990 (Malcolm Pirnie, 1990) and May 1992. Results of these surveys are included in
Tables 4-37 and 4-38. Based on these limited studies, it does not appear that Black Creek
is currently utilized as a spawning or nursery area by anadromous fish.

      Invertebrate species within the Black Creek Reservoir pool area are expected to be
typical of those found in freshwater regions of the Lower Peninsula.  A listing of these
species is included in Table 4-31.

      Pipeline

      Construction of new pipeline associated with this alternative would require minor
crossings of 10 perennial and 14 intermittent streams.  Fish species expected to occur in
these streams would be similar to those found in freshwater tributaries of the Chesapeake
Bay (see Table 4-39). Invertebrate species found within intermittent and perennial streams
crossed by the pipeline are expected to be typical of freshwater invertebrates of the Lower
Peninsula (see Table 4-31).
0114-951-140                             4-44                            February 1994
-------
TABLE 4-36
FISH SPECIES OF BLACK CREEK (1983)*
Scientific Name
Anguilla rostrata
Aphredoderus sayanus
Clinostomus funduloides
Ermeacanthus gloriosus
Erimyzon oblongus
Esox americanus
Etheostoma olmstedi
Hybognathus regius
Lamptera aepyptera
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieui
Moxostoma etythrurum
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Noturus gyrinus
Semotilus corporate
Semotilus stromaculatus
Umbrae pygamaea
Common Name
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Rosyside Dace
Blue-spotted Sunfish
Creek Chubsucker
Redfin Pickerel
Tessellated Darter
Eastern Silvery Minnow
Least Brook Lamprey
Bluegill
Smallmouth Bass
Golden Redhorse
Bluehead Chub
Golden Shiner
Tadpole Madtom
Fallfish
Creek Chub
Eastern Mudminnow
Source: H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, August 11, 1992.
* Sampling locations within Black Creek unspecified in VDGIF records.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-37
FISH SPECIES OF BLACK CREEK (1990)
Scientific Name
Anguilla rostrata
Aphredoderus sayanus
Clinostomus funduloides
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Esox americanus
Etheostoma olmstedi
Micropterus dolomieui
Moxostoma etythrurum
Noturus gyrinus
Semotilus stmmaculatus
Umbrae pygmaea
Common Name
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Rosyside Dace
Blue-spotted Sunfish
Redfin Pickerel
Tessellated Darter
Smallmouth Bass
Golden Redhorse
Tadpole Madtom
Creek Chub
Eastern Mudminnow
Location*
E
G
G
E
G
G
E
E
E
G
E,G
Source: Preliminary Report on Field Studies for the Environmental Impact
Statement. Malcolm Pirnie, 1990.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-38
FISH SPECIES OF BLACK CREEK (1992)
Scientific Name
Anguilla rostrata
Esox americanus
Etheostoma nigrum
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibosus
Lepomis gulosus
Micropiterus salmoides
Moxostoma erythrurum
Notropis amoenis
Noturus gyrinus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Umbra pygmaea
Common Name
American Eel
Grass Pickerel
Johnny Darter
Redbreast Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Warmouth
Largemouth Bass
Golden Redhorse
Comely Shiner
Tadpole Madtom
Black-nosed Dace
Creek Chub
Eastern Mudminnow
Size
6" - 12"
2" - 6"
2"
2" - 5"
2" -3"
2" - 3"
3" - 4"
2" - 6"
2"
2" - 5"
2"
3" - 6"
2"
Location*
B,C,D
C
C
B,C,D
B, C
B,C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B, C
Source: Malcolm Pirnie field survey conducted on May 26, 1992.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-39
FISH SPECIES OF THE FRESHWATER TRIBUTARIES
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Page 1 of 4
Scientific Name
Family Acipenseridae
Adpenser brevirostrum
Acipenser oxyrhynchus
Family Anguillidae
Anguilla rostrata
Family Atherinidae
Membras martinica
Menidia beryllina
Menidia menidia
Family Belonidae
Strongylura marina
Family Catostomidae
Catostomus commersoni
Erimyzon oblongus
Family Centrachidae
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Common Name
Sturgeons
Shortnose Sturgeon
Atlantic Sturgeon
Freshwater Eels
American Eel
Silversides
Rough Silverside
Inland Silverside
Atlantic Silverside
Needlefishes
Atlantic Needlefish
Suckers
White Sucker
Creek Chubsucker
Sunfishes
Pumkinseed
Bluegill
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
White Crappie
Black Crappie
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-39
FISH SPECIES OF THE FRESHWATER TRIBUTARIES
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Page 2 of 4
Scientific Name
Family Clupeidae • "./..
Alosa aestivalis
Alosa mediocris
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alosa sapidissima
Brevoortia tyrannus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Dorosoma petenense
Family Cyprinidae
Carassius auratus
Hybognathus nuchalis
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis analostanus
Notropis hudsonius
Family Cyprinodontidae
Cyprinodon variegatus
Fundudlus diaphanus
Fundulus heteroclitus
Fundulus majalis
Lucania parva
Family Engraulidae
Anchoa tnitchitti
Common Name
•'Herrings-/ '''•:'•:'••
Blueback Herring
Hickory Shad
Alewife
American Shad
Atlantic Menhaden
Gizzard Shad
Threadfin Shad
Minnows and Carps
Goldfish
Silvery minnow
Golden Shiner
Satinfin Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Killifishes
Sheepshead Minnow
Banded Killifish
Munnichog
Stripped Killifish
Rainwater Killifish
Anchovies
Bay Anchovy
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-39
FISH SPECIES OF THE FRESHWATER TRIBUTARIES
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Page 3 of 4
Scientific Name
Family Esocidae
Esox americanus
Esox niger
Family Gasterosteidae
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Family Ictaluridae
Ictalurus catus
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Family Lepisosteidae
Lepisosteus osseus
Family Percichthyidae
Morone americana
Morone saxatilis
Family Percidae
Etheostoma olmstedi
Perca flavescens
.• •-;-.. . .'-.'. ' -. •:-.'•.'- • .
Family Poeciliidae
Gambusia affinis
Family Sciaenidae
Leiostomus xanthurus
Micropogonias undulatus
Common Name
Pikes
Redfin Pickerel
Chain Pickerel
Sticklebacks
Threespine Stickleback
Bullhead Catfishes
White Catfish
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Gars
Longnose Gar
Temperate Basses
White Perch
Striped Bass
Perches
Tessellated Darter
Yellow Perch
Livebearers
Mosquitofish
Drums
Spot
Atlantic Croaker
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-39
FISH SPECIES OF THE FRESHWATER TRIBUTARIES
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Page 4 of 4
Scientific Name
Family Soleidae
Trinectes maculatus
Family Umbridae
Umbra pygmaea
Common Name
Soles .:,, : :- :: •;;--;-, : : . ."
Hogchoker
Mudminnows
Eastern Mudminnow
Source: Lippson, AJ. and R.L. Lippson. 1984, Life in the Chesapeake Bay.
The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
       One major crossing of an arm of Little Creek Reservoir would also be required for
this alternative.  Fish species present in Little Creek Reservoir are discussed in Section
4.3.4.  Invertebrate species within the Little Creek Reservoir pool area are expected to be
typical of those found in freshwater regions of the Lower Peninsula (see Table 4-31).

       Other Wildlife

       Intake

       Existing conditions at the proposed Pamunkey River intake site are  described in
Section 4.3.1.

       Reservoir

       Based on review of color-infrared aerial photography of the proposed project site,
community types were classified according to Anderson et al. (1976). The VDGIF was also
contacted and the BOVA database was examined. A listing of wildlife species having the
potential to  occur at the proposed site was  compiled based on community types.   In
addition, Malcolm Pirnie biologists conducted field studies at the Black Creek Reservoir site
during May and June of 1990. Wildlife species noted during these investigations are listed
below:

        •   Copperhead (Agldstrodon contortrix)

        •   Cottonmouth (Agldstrodon pisdvorus)

        m   Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)

        •   Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

        •   Beaver (Castor canadensis)

        •   Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica)

       According to Anderson's  methodology and field inspections, vegetation community
types in the reservoir drainage area, including the pool area, were estimated  to consist of
320 acres of coniferous forest, 77  acres of deciduous forest, 2,375 acres of mBGeti forest,
458 acres of agricultural, residential and  open field community types,  andf289 acres  of
wetlands and open water. The remaining area consists of roads which have limited habitat
value.  Wildlife  species typical of these community types are included  in Alternatives
Assessment (Volume II - EnvironmentalAnafysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) Section 6.6.2, which
is appended  to this document.

       Vegetation communities within  the  pool area of the reservoir were estimated  to
include 20 acres of coniferous forest, 47 acres of deciduous forest, 685 acres of mixed forest,
and 108 acres of agricultural, residential and open field comnluriiHes.  Wetlands and open
water within the pool area were estimated to consist of 285 acres^  The  remaining area
within the proposed pool area consists of roads which have, limited habitat value.


0114-951-140                             4-45                             February 1994
-------
      Typical mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles in the project vicinity are expected
to be the same as those  identified in Section 43.1  as occurring in  the vicinity of the
proposed Ware Creek Reservoir alternative.

      Mature forested areas and forest edge habitat in the project area are described in
Section 4.3.1 in reference to the habitat value of these areas to wildlife species.

      The Pamunkey River is considered to be one of the top three waterfowl areas in the
state.  Wood Duck, Black Duck, and Mallard usage of the Pamunkey is heavy (USCOE,
1984). Black Creek, a tributary of the Pamunkey is a productive system utilized by species
such as Great Egret, Wood Duck, Bkck Duck, and Blue-winged Teal.

      A search of VDGIF records was conducted for the area downstream of the proposed
impoundment.  This research identified several heron rookeries approximately 0.5 miles
downstream of Black Creek's confluence with the Pamunkey River (H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF,
personal communication, 1992).

      A HEP analysis was conducted by the USCOE and the USFWS to determine the
value of the habitat proposed for impoundment (USFWS, 1983). The value of the habitat
was determined by measuring vegetative components for selected species and determining
the appropriate suitability index from species models to obtain a species index. This index
is multiplied by the amount of available habitat to  obtain habitat units (HU) for the
evaluated species.  Based on this analysis, it was determined that the total available HUs
would decrease by 6,601 HUs  over the life of the project.  This represents a loss of 40.2
percent in the watershed.

      Pipeline

      Assuming a pipeline right-of-way width of 50 feet, the new pipeline would disturb
approximately 123  acres of land (excluding Little  Creek Reservoir crossing).   Existing
vegetation  community types along the proposed pipeline route were identified  through
review of USGS topographic mapping, and color-infrared aerial photography.

      A 4.3-mile portion of the proposed pipeline route follows  existing rights-of-way
through New Kent and James City counties. Because these areas are periodically mowed,
vegetation would be typical of  early stages of succession, or the old field community type.
The remaining 16 miles of the pipeline route consists of primarily mixed forested land and
agricultural lands.  Wildlife species typical of these  community types  are included in
Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) Section
6.6.2, which is appended to this document.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      No existing designated sanctuaries or refuges are located within the vicinity  of the
proposed intake, Black Creek Reservoir watershed, or pipeline routes associated with this
alternative (VDCR, 1989; VDCR, 1991; Delorme Mapping Company, 1989; RRPDC, 1991).
 0114-951-140                             4-46                            February 1994
-------
      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows

      Intake

      A description of the wetlands located adjacent to and downstream of the Northbury
intake site is included in Section 4.3.1.

      Reservoir

      Wetlands at the proposed Black Creek Reservoir site have been  identified and
delineated using the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USCOE, 1987).  The
methodology used to delineate wetlands at the site included a combination of in-house and
routine on-site methods for estimating wetland impacts.  A detailed description of the
methodology used to conduct the delineation is presented in the report Wetland Delineation
of King William, Ware Creek and Blade Creek Reservoir Sites (Malcolm Pirnie, 1994) which
is appended to this document as Report F.

      Available information from existing map sources was first compiled in-house to
identify wetland acreage at the site. The following wetland acreages were obtained through
interpretation  of the listed map sources for the proposed Black Creek Reservoir site:
Map Source
USFWS NWI Maps
SCS Soils Maps
Aerial Photo Estimate *
Notes:
1 Malcolm Pirnie aerial photo estimate, based
only on interpretation of photography
Acres of Wetlands
158
246
250

      Because review of these individual sources did not result in similar wetland acreage
estimates, color-infrared aerial photography of the site was obtained.  Detailed wetland
mapping of the proposed reservoir area was conducted by compiling the following map
sources:

       •   USGS Topographic Maps - New Kent Quadrangle (Scale: 1 inch  = 2,000 feet)

       •   USFWS NWI maps - New Kent Quadrangle (Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet)

       •   SCS Soils Maps - New Kent County

       •   Aerial Photography - 1982 NHAP (Scale  1 inch  = 1,300 feet; Date  flown;
           4/24/84)
0114-951-140                             4-47                            February 1994
-------
       •   Aerial Photography -  1989 NAPP (Scale  1  inch=  830 feet; Date flown;
           3/11/89)

      A preliminary wetlands map was developed using the 1989 1 inch = 830 feet NAPP
photography as a base and overlaying the USGS topographic map adjusted to the same
scale. The 1989 photography was used for Black Creek because of the poor quality of the
1982 photography which made vegetation types difficult to  discern.

      Once the preliminary map was completed, field studies were conducted to correct the
map based on the actual field conditions. The entire wetland boundary was inspected, and
the wetland line adjusted in several places.  A summary of the field work is presented in the
report Wetland Delineation of King William, Ware Creek and Black Creek Reservoir Sites
(Malcolm Pirnie, 1994) which is appended to this document as  Report F.  Based on this
analysis,  there are 285 acres of wetlands that would be  impacted at the Black Creek
Reservoir site below an elevation of 100 feet MSL (spillway elevation). Further verification
of this estimate will be conducted in 1994 and will be included in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for  public review.  Based on previous wetland delineation analyses,  the
estimate of wetland acreage within the proposed Black Creek Reservoir pool is not expected
to change more than 10 -15 percent from the current  estimate.

      General wetland areas at the Black Creek Reservoir  site, based on USFWS NWI
maps are  presented in Figure 4-4, The fifteen wetland categories identified on the NWI
mapping are presented  in Table 4-40.  Detailed descriptions and a  map of delineated
wetlands at the site using the RRWSG methodology described above are presented in
Report F.

      Typical species  found in non-tidal forested wetlands at the site include Red Maple,
Alder, Tulip Poplar  (Liriodendron  tulipiferd),  River Birch, Black Willow, Arrowpod
(Viburnum dentatum),  and various sedges, cattails, rushes, and ferns. Typical species found
in palustrine emergent wetlands include sedges, Soft Rush (Juncus effusw), Woolgrass
Bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus). Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis), Cinnamon Fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea),  and cattails.  Non-tidal scrub-shrub wetlands represent an intermediate
successional stage between emergent and forested systems and are very important to a wide
variety of fish and wildlife species.  Typical species in these  scrub-shrub wetlands include
Northern Spicebush, Alder, Buttonbush, Arrowood, and various young willows, maples, gums
and ashes. Understory species include various sedges, ferns, grasses, rushes and cattails,

      A wetland evaluation was completed for the non-tidal wetlands that would be affected
by the construction of Black Creek Reservoir. The USCOE Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET) model was utilized to assess the functional values of on-site wetlands. Results of the
WET analysis are summarized in Table 4-41.

      The USFWS completed a Draft Coordination Act Report, Southside/Northside Water
Supply Study which included a HEP  analysis  of  the proposed Black Creek Reservoir
(USFWS, 1983). The HEP study assessed various wildlife habitat values for each important
cover type in the Black Creek drainage. Deciduous forested  wetland, herbaceous wetland,
herbaceous/shrub wetland and lacustrine open water were among the cover types analyzed,
Results of this HEP study are summarized in Table 4-42.
0114-951440                            4-48                            February 1994
-------
                                                                                                                                              FIQURC 4-4
                                                                                                                      -NORMAL POOL   *"'
                                                                                                                   \     iLEVATIOM
                                                                            ^  FFOIc¥^y t
                                                                                              -
                                                                                                                       r
MAUQOIM
  PIRNIE
    LOKR VWQNIA PENINSULA
 RCQQNAL RAH KA1W SUPPU STUDY
    CNVMONUCNIAL ANALYSIS
     BLACK CREEK
WETLANDS LOCATED  WITHIN
 THE IMPOUNDMENT  AREA
 2,000        0       2.000
-------
-------
TABLE 4-40
WETLAND CATEGORIES AT THE BLACK CREEK IMPOUNDMENT SITE
USFVVS Ecological
Classification
PFOlCb
PFOSFb
PSSlHh
PFOlCh
PEM1C
PSS1C
PSSlFb
PEMlCb
PFO1C
PUBHh
PFO1A
PEMlFh
PEMlFb
PSSlCh
R3UBH
Wetland Description
Paiustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonal, beaver.
Palustrine forested, dead, semi-permanent, beaver.
Paiustrine scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, permanent,
diked/impounded.
Paiustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonal,
diked/impounded.
Paiustrine emergent, persistent, seasonal
Paiustrine scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonal
Paiustrine scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, semi-permanent,
beaver.
Paiustrine emergent, persistent, seasonal, beaver.
Paiustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonal
Paiustrine unconsolidated bottom permanent, diked/impounded.
Paiustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporary.
Paiustrine emergent, persistent, semi-permanent,
diked/impounded.
Paiustrine emergent, persistent semi-permanent, beaver.
Paiustrine scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonal,
diked/impounded.
Riverine upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanent.
Source: USFWS NWI map for the Tunstall, Virginia Quadrangle (1" = 2,000' scale).
0114-951-140
December 1993
-------
-------
                               TABLE 4-41

                    SUMMARY OF WET ANALYSIS RESULTS
                    BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WETLANDS
Function/Value

Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater Discharge
Floodflow Alteration
Sediment Stabilization
Sediment/Toxicant Retention
Nutrient Removal/Transformation
Production Export
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Breeding)
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Migration)
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Wintering)
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
Uniqueness/Heritage
Recreation
Evaluation Criteria
Social
Significance
M
M
M
M
M
H
*
H
*
*
*
M
H
L

Effectiveness
L
M
M
H
H
L
M
*
H
H
H
L
*
*

Opportunity
*
*
M
*
H
H
*
*
*
* ,
*
*
+
*
Note: "H" = High
"M" = Moderate
"L" = Low
"*" = Functions and values are not evaluated by the WET program.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-42
BASELINE CALCULATIONS OF HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES (HSIs) AND
HABITAT UNITS (HUs)
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR
Evaluation Element
Gray Squirrel
White-tailed Deer
Beaver
White-footed Mouse
Mourning Dove
Wood Duck
Barred Owl
Red-tailed Hawk
Eastern Meadowlark
Pine Warbler
Veery
BuEfrog
Total
HSI
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.20
1.00
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.50
0.90

HU
1312.80
2419.20
950.00
2850.00
156.00
449.80
2328.00
901.60
28.80
431.00
1394.50
216.90
13,438.60
Source: Draft Coordination Act Report, Southside/Northside Water Supply Study
(USFWS, 1983)
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
      The baseline calculations show that herbaceous/scrub-shrub, and lacustrine wetlands
provide moderate to high habitat values for the indicator wildlife species evaluated.

      Pipeline

      Wetland crossings along the 20.3 miles of new pipeline would occur at 10 perennial
and 14 intermittent stream crossings. The majority of affected wetlands would be palustrine
forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands.  Typical tree species of these Virginia Coastal
Plain palustrine systems include Sweetgum, River Birch, Black Gum, Red Maple, Green
Ash, and Sycamore.

      The pipeline would also cross the open water of an arm of Little Creek Reservoir.

      Mud Hats
      No mud flats are located in the immediate vicinity of the Northbury intake site based
on review of USGS topographic maps and USFWS NWI maps. The closest mud flat to the
intake site is located 8,000 feet downstream and no mud flats exist upstream of the site.

      No mud flats were identified within the proposed reservoir area.  A mud flat exists
on the Pamunkey River approximately 11,000 feet downstream of the dam on the eastern
branch of Black Creek.

      No mud flats were identified along the pipeline route.

      433     King William Reservoir with Pumpover from the Mattaponi River

      Endangered. Threatened, or Sensitive Species

      Intake

      The VDCR provided a list of natural heritage resources of the tidal Mattaponi River.
Five of the nine species listed by the VDCR are either endangered, threatened, or candidate
species at the federal and/or state levels (see Table 4-43).

      A large population of the Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica consisting of
five sub-populations is known along the Mattaponi River in King and Queen and King
William counties (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1993).  The closest known
population of this species has historically been observed on the north side of the Mattaponi
River, across from the proposed intake site (C. Clampitt, VDCR, personal communication,
1992).

      The VIMS conducted a study  of the Sensitive Joint-vetch in the vicinity of the
proposed  intake site on the Mattaponi River.  The study is documented in Distribution of
Aeschvnomene Virginia in the Scotland Landing Region of the Mattaponi River, Virginia (Ferry,
1993) which is included as an appendix to the Biological Assessment for Practicable Reservoir
Alternatives (Malcolm Pirnie, 1994) which is appended to this document as Report E.

      Methods used in the VIMS study included a review of historical data on the species
and a field survey of the project area  by boat.  Habitats which  appeared similar to those

0114-951-140                            4-49                            February 1994
-------
 which contain populations of the species were further investigated by walking the habitat
 area and inspecting for the Sensitive Joint-vetch. Although approximately 2.5 acres of the
 species' habitat were identified in this area, no specimens of Aeschynomene virginica were
 located along either side of the Mattaponi'River in the vicinity of Scotland Landing (Perry,
 1993).

       The VDACS indicated that there are numerous populations of the state endangered
 plant Mat-forming Water-hyssop located in the tidal portion of the Mattaponi River which
 are of concern.  Some of these known populations are located in dose  proximity to the
 proposed intake site (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1992).

       Mat-forming Water-hyssop is a perennial herb which was identified by the VDACS
 as occurring in the vicinity of the project area and is listed  by the VDCR as a natural
 heritage resource of the tidal Mattaponi River. It has been found in King and Queen, King
 William, and New Kent counties.  The closest known population of this species occurs
 approximately 1 mile downstream of the proposed intake site (C. Clampitt, VDCR, personal
 communication,  1992).

       The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which is a state- and federally-listed
 endangered species, was identified by the VDCR as a Natural Heritage Resource of the
 tidal Mattaponi River. It has been found  in several counties adjacent to the river.

       The Prairie Senna (Cassia fasdculata varmacrosperma) and the Yellow Lampmussel
 (Lampsilis cariosd) are two candidate species for federal listing and are included on the
 VDCR list of resources of the tidal Mattaponi River.

       Reservoir

       The VDGIF review of the proposed reservoir site identified three species of concern
 in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir:  Mabee's Salamander (Ambystoma mabeei), Bald
 Eagle,  and the Northern Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin).

       Mabee's Salamander is a state-listed threatened species. While individuals have not
 been documented in the project area, suitable habitat for the species  may be present.  The
 Northern Diamondback Terrapin, which is a candidate for federal protection, is commonly
 found in brackish and saltwater estuaries and tidal marshes; therefore, it is not likely to be
 impacted by the impoundment (S. Carter-Lovejoy, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992).

       Review of the proposed King William Reservoir site by the VDACS identified no
 known state-listed threatened or endangered plant or insect species as  occurring in the
 immediate area of the proposed  reservoir (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication,
 1992).   The Bald Eagle is documented as occurring in King  William County. While no
? known  active nests  or concentration  areas are  located  within  several miles of  the
 impoundment, the species may occasionally be present in the vicinity of the impoundment.

       The USFWS indicated that a  Bald Eagle nest is located near the proposed King
"William  Reservoir site (K. L. Mayne, USFWS, personal communication,  1993). This nest
 was constructed during the 1992  nesting season and two eaglets were produced from that
 nest. The Bald Eagle nest is located along Cohoke Mill Creek, approximately 375 feet

 0114-951-140                             4-50                           February 1994
-------
                               TABLE 4-43

             ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
                      OF THE TIDAL MATTAPONI RIVER
Scientific Name
Aeschynomene virginica
Bacopa stragula
Cassia fasdcuiata var.
macrosperma
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lampsttis cariosa
Federal Legal Status
LE
LT
C2
NL
State Legal Status
LE
PE
NL
Common Name
Sensitive Joint-vetch
Mat-forming Water-hyssop
Prairie Senna
Bald Eagle
Yellow Lampmussel
Federal
Status
LT
NL
C2
LE
C2
State
Status
PE
LE
NL
LE
NL
Listed endangered
Listed threatened
Candidate, Category 2
No listing available
Listed endangered
Proposed endangered
No listing available
Sources: VDCR, 1992; VDACS, 1993.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
downstream of the toe of the proposed dam.  Dam excavation and cofferdam construction
area limits could extend approximately 100 feet downstream of this toe. A proposed new
county route from Route 632  to Route 630 to provide access to the dam and serve as
replacement to Route 626, would pass within approximately 675 feet downstream of the
eagle nest. Other project features in the vicinity of the eagle nest would include a gravity
pipeline routed on the east side of Cohoke Mill Creek and an emergency spillway on the
west abutment of the proposed King William Dam.

      On April 8, 1993,  Malcolm Pirnie and RRWSG representatives participated in a
helicopter flight over areas which included the King William Reservoir Project area.  The
Bald Eagle nest was visible at this time and an adult eagle was observed in the nest.
Another eagle was observed in a tree along Cohoke Mill Creek just upstream of the
proposed King William Dam footprint.

      On April 14, 1993 Malcolm Pirnie staff visited the proposed King William Dam site
and observed an adult Bald Eagle in flight The Bald Eagle nest was also observed from the
ground.

      The USFWS has also indicated  that appropriate habitat for the Small  Whorled
Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) may exist  at the King William Reservoir site (K. L. Mayne,
USFWS, personal communication, 1993). The USFWS recommended conducting a survey
of appropriate habitat in the reservoir area.  The USFWS-recommended methodology for
conducting the survey, and the methodology selected for the survey are described in detail
in Report E.

      Potential habitat for the  Small Whorled Pogonia within the proposed King William
Reservoir was identified in May 1993 by Dr. Donna Ware of The College of William and
Mary, based on topographic mapping and color-infrared aerial photography of the area. A
total of 37 potential locations were identified, and the total area of potential prime habitat
was estimated to be 164 acres.

      Malcolm Pirnie conducted field surveys of the proposed reservoir site in June 1993
to investigate the potential Small Whorled Pogonia habitat sites.  One individual of Small
Whorled Pogonia was identified in approximately 60 to 70 year old upland deciduous forest
adjacent to a cleared forested  area. The individual was noted at the  lower section of a
southwest slope between two small streams.

      Pipeline

      Project review conducted by the VDCR, VDGIF and VDACS identified no known
natural heritage resources or endangered or threatened animal, plant or insect species along
pipeline route associated with  the King William Reservoir alternative component (T. J.
O'Connell, VDCR, personal communication, 1992;  H.  E.  Kitchel,  VDGIF,  personal
communication, 1992; J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1992).
0114-951-140                             4-51                            February 1994
-------
      Fish and Invertebrates

      Intake

      Fish collection records for the Mattaponi River between 1939  and 1961  are
summarized and included in Table 4-44.

      Five species of anadromous fish have been documented utilizing the tidal freshwater
reaches of the Mattaponi River for spawning and nursery grounds (Massmann, 1953; Olney
et at, 1985):

       «   Striped Bass (Morons saxatiUs)

       •   American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)

       »   Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris)

       •   Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)

       •   Blueback Herring {Alosa aestivalis)

      Invertebrate species which may occur in the tidal freshwater region of the Mattaponi
River are  typical of those occurring in the tidal freshwater portions of the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries. A listing of these species is included in Table 4-27.

      Reservoir

      There are no VDGIF records of fish or invertebrate surveys for Cohoke Mill Creek
within the proposed impoundment area (VDGIF, 1992). Because Cohoke Mill Creek is a
tributary to the Pamunkey River, fish species found in Cohoke Mill Creek would be similar
to those listed in Table 4-26.

      To  determine which fish and invertebrate species currently inhabit the impoundment
site, sampling was conducted by Malcolm Pirnie biologists along Cohoke Mill Creek in May
and June  1990 (Malcolm Pirnie, 1990). Fish species recorded at these sites are included in
Table 4-45. There are presently no commercial fisheries in Cohoke  Mill Creek. The creek
is cut off from anadromous fish  migration by the existing  Cohoke Millpond Dam, and
organics produced in the creek are trapped in the pond and  are generally not  available to
commercial fish nursery areas (Malcolm Pirnie, 1989).  Invertebrate species observed by
Malcolm Pirnie biologists in Cohoke Mill Creek are recorded in Table 4-46. Because this
water body is typical of Lower Peninsula freshwater streams, invertebrate species listed in
Table 4-31 may occur in addition to species noted by Malcolm Pirnie.

      In November 1992, the VDGIF conducted an electrofishing survey by boat in Cohoke
Millpond, downstream of the proposed reservoir site (D. C. Dowling, VDGIF, personal
communication, 1992).  Fish species captured during this VDGIF survey are presented in
Table 4-47.

      Pipeline

0114-951-140                            4-52                           February 1994
-------
TABLE 4-44
FISH SPECIES OF THE MATTAPONI RIVER (1939-1961)
Scientific Name
Alosa sapidissima
Anguilla rostrata
Ermeacanthus gloriosus
Etheostoma olmstedi
Fundulus diaphanus
Hybognathus regius
Ictalurus catus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Morone americana
Morone sawtilis
Notropis hudsonius
Trinectes maculatus
Common Name
American Shad
American Eel
Bluespotted Sunfish
Tessellated Darter
Banded Killifish
Eastern Silvery Minnow
White Catfish
Redbreast Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
White Perch
Striped Bass
Spottail Shiner
Hogchoker
1939




•








1954


i
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

1958




•
•
•




•

1961
•
•


•
•
•

•



•
Sources: H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communications, August 9, 1989 and
August 11, 1992.
• Indicates observation of fish species in particular year.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-45
FISH SPECIES OF COHOKE MILL CREEK (1990)
Scientific Name
Anguilla rostmta
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Esox americanus
Etheostoma olmstedi
Maxostoma erythrurum
Noturus gyrinus
Umbrae pygmaea
Common Name
American Eel
Blue-spotted Sunfish
Redfin Pickerel
Tessellated Darter
Golden Redhorse
Tadpole Madtom
Eastern Mudminnow
Location*
A,B
B
B
B
A
A,B
A.B
Source: Preliminary Report on Field Studies for the Environmental Impact
Statement. Malcolm Pirnie, 1990.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-46
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES OF COHOKE MILL CREEK (1990)
Scientific Name
Argia spp.
Cicindela spp.
Cotydalus cornutus
Gems spp.
Palaetnonetes paludosus
Procambarus spp.
Common Name
Damseifly
Tiger Beetle
Eastern Dobsonfiy
Water Strider
Grass Shrimp
Crayfish
Location*
A
A
A
B
A
A
Source: Preliminary Report on Field Studies for the Environmental Impact
Statement. Malcolm Pirnie, 1990,
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
TABLE 4-47
FISH SPECIES OF COHOKE MILLPOND (1992)
Scientific Name
Erimyzon oblongus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis microlophus
Micropterus salmoides
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Perca flavescens
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Common Name
Creek Chubsucker
Pumpkinseed
Warmouth
Bluegill
Redear Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
Golden Shiner
Yellow Perch
Black Crappie
Location*
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Source: Boat electrofishing results from a November 1992 survey conducted by
the VDGIF (D. C. Bowling, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992).
0114-951-140
                                                                                August 1993
-------
-------
      Construction of new pipeline associated with this alternative would require minor
crossings of 9 perennial and 17 intermittent streams. Fish species expected to occur in these
streams would be similar to those found in freshwater tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay
(see Table 4-39), Invertebrate species found within  intermittent and perennial streams
crossed by the pipeline are expected to be typical of freshwater invertebrates of the Lower
Peninsula (see Table 4-31).

      Major crossings of the Pamunkey River and an arm of Little Creek Reservoir would
also be required for this alternative. Fish and invertebrate species present in the Pamunkey
River are discussed in Section 4.3.1 and listed in Tables 4-26 and 4-27, respectively. Fish
species present in Little Creek Reservoir are discussed in Section 4.3.4. Invertebrate species
within the Little Creek Reservoir pool area are expected to be typical  of those found in
freshwater regions of the Lower Peninsula (see Table 4-31).

      Other Wildlife

      Intake

      Field studies of the proposed intake site were conducted by Malcolm Pirnie during
the Spring of 1990 to determine the feasibility  of  the site as  a  potential raw water
intake/pumping station location (Malcolm Pirnie, 1990). Based on review of color-infrared
aerial photography, vegetation community types at the site were classified according to
Anderson et al.  (1976).  Community types adjacent to the intake area include coniferous
forest, deciduous forest, mixed forest, old field, and wetlands.  Wildlife species typical of
these community types are included in Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental
Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie,  1993) Section 6.6.3, which is appended to this document.

      Reservoir

      To determine the potential wildlife species within the reservoir drainage area, color-
infrared aerial photography of the proposed  reservoir site was examined.  Based on this
review, community types were classified according to Anderson et al. (1976). The VDGIF
was also contacted and the  BOVA database was also examined. Based on this information,
a listing of wildlife species having the potential to occur at the proposed  site was compiled
based on community types. In addition, Malcolm Pirnie biologists conducted  field studies
at the King William Reservoir site during May and June 1990. Wildlife species noted during
these investigations are listed below:

        »   Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)

        »   Sharp-shinned Hawk (Acdpiter striatus)

        •   Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)

        •   Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)

        •   Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)

        •   Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

0114-951-140                              4-53                             February 1994
-------
        •   Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyori)

        m   Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

        m   Beaver (Castor canadensis)

      According to Anderson's methodology and field inspections, vegetation community
types in the reservoir drainage area including the pool area were estimated to consist of
1,773 acres of coniferous forest, 1,671 acres of deciduous forest, 2,381 acres of ntrfeed forest,
1,966 acres of agricultural, residential, and open field communities, and 
-------
      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows

      Intake

      Tidal freshwater marshes and swamps are found along the Mattaponi River from
Gleason Marsh (southwest of Truhart) upstream to the Village of Aylett (Silberhorn and
Zacherle,  1987; Doumlele,  1979).  These freshwater wetlands are similar to those tidal
wetlands found on the Pamunkey River (see Section 4.3.1).

      The Scotland Landing intake site was inspected by Malcolm Pirnie  biologists in
January 1989 and by SDN Water Resources engineers in October 1989.  The site consists
of a large tract of upland situated on a  small bluff well above  the floodplain of  the
Mattaponi River.  No wetlands are found within the footprint of the proposed pump station
site; scouring on the outside bend of the river has prevented the accumulation of fringe
wetlands on the southern bank of the Mattaponi.

      An  extensive tidal freshwater marsh is located directly across from the intake site, on
the King and Queen County side of the Mattaponi River. This marsh is dominated by
herbaceous species such as Pickerelweed, Arrow Arum, Spatterdock, Wild Rice, and Beggar
Ticks with lesser amounts of smartweeds, Arrow-leaved Tearthumb (Pofygonum sagittatutn),
Rice Cutgrass, and Walter's Millet (Echinochloa  walteri) (Priest et aL, 1987).

      A small tidal freshwater marsh is located about 500 feet  downstream from the intake
site on the south side of the Mattaponi. This small "pocket" marsh is dominated by Sweet
Flag (Acorns calamus), Pickerelweed, Arrow Arum, and Spatterdock (Silberhorn and
Zacherle,  1987).

      Reservoir

      Wetlands at the proposed King William  Reservoir site have been identified and
delineated using the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USCOE, 1987).  The
methodology used to delineate wetlands at the site included a combination of in-house and
routine on-site methods  for estimating wetland  impacts.  A detailed description of  the
methodology used to conduct the delineation is presented in the report Wetland Delineation
of King William, Ware Creek and Black Creek Reservoir Sites (Malcolm Pirnie, 1994) which
is appended to this document as Report F.

      Available information from existing map  sources was  first  compiled in-house to
identify wetland acreage at the site. The following wetland acreages were obtained through
interpretation of the listed map sources for the proposed King William Reservoir site:
0114-951-140                             4-55                            February 1994
-------
Map Source
USFWS NWI Maps
SCS Soils Maps
Aerial Photo Estimate l
Notes:
1 Malcolm Pirnie aerial photo estimate, based
only on interpretation of photography
Acres of Wetlands
293
554
500

      Because review of these individual sources did not result in similar wetland acreage
estimates, color-infrared aerial photography of the site was obtained.  Detailed wetland
mapping of the proposed reservoir area was conducted by compiling the following map
sources:

       •   USGS Topographic Maps - New Kent, King and Queen Courthouse, and King
           William Quadrangles (Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet)

       •   USFWS  NWI maps • New Kent, King and  Queen  Courthouse, and King
           William Quadrangles (Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet)

       •   SCS Soils Maps, 1990 (Scale 1 inch=1,320 feet)

       •   Aerial Photography - 1982 NHAP (Scale  1 inch  = 1,270 feet; Date flown;
           3/29/82)

       •   Aerial Photography -  1989 Air Survey Corporation maps (Scale 1 inch= 200
           feet, and 1 inch = 1,000 feet; Date flown; 3/7/93)

      A preliminary wetlands map was developed using the 1982 NHAP 1 inch = 1,270 feet
as a base and overlaying the USGS topographic maps adjusted to the same scale. The 1993
photography (scale 1 inch = 1,000 feet) was used to verify areas on the NHAP mapping that
were difficult to interpret.

      Once the preliminary map was completed, field studies were conducted to verify the
accuracy of the mapping.  Virtually the entire proposed reservoir perimeter was inspected,
and the wetland line adjusted in several places. A summary of the field work is presented
in the report Wedand Delineation of King William, Ware Creek and Black Creek Reservoir
Sites (Malcolm Pirnie, 1994) (see Report F). Based on this analysis, there are 479 acres of
wetlands that would be impacted at the King William Reservoir site below an elevation of
90 feet MSL (spillway elevation). Further verification of this estimate will be conducted in
1994 and included in the Final EIS for public review.

      General wetland areas at the King William Reservoir site, based on USFWS NWI
maps are presented in Figure 4-5. The ten wetland categories identified from NWI mapping
0114-951-140                            4-56                           February 1994
-------
                                                                                                                                                 FIGURE 4-1
  /

                                                       *l    tm  S5%v  "^-^^V '*•'

                                                      ^PFOIAr^PF^A^:
VIANTUA FERRY
  PIRsJIE
                                                                                                                                         DCCCUBCR 1992
                                                                                                                                     LOWER MROMA PENINSULA
                                                                                                                                  RCQCNAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                                                                                                                     ENVMONUENTAL ANALYSIS

                                                                                                                                    COHOKE  MILL CREEK
                                                                                                                                 WETLANDS LOCATED  WITHIN
                                                                                                                                  THE  IMPOUNDMENT  AREA
                                                                                                                                  .3.000        0        J.OOO
                                                                                                                                      APPROX. SCALE IN fEET
-------
-------
are presented in Table 4-48.  Detailed descriptions and a map of wetlands at the site
delineated using the RRWSG methodology described above are presented in Report F.

      Typical species found in non-tidal forested wetlands include  Red Maple, Smooth
Alder (Alnus serrulata), Bayberry (Myrica cm/era), Sycamore, River Birch, Silky Dogwood
(Comus amomum), and various sedges, rushes, cattails, ferns, and grasses.  Dominant
species in palustrine forested/scrub-shrub wetlands include Smooth Alder, Bayberry, Silky
Dogwood, Buttonbush, and various young maples, ashes, gums, and willows.  Dominant
species in palustrine emergent wetlands at the site include sedges (Cores spp,), Soft Rush,
Arrow Arum, Sensitive Fern, Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum), Smartweeds, Pickerelweed,
Woolgrass Bulrush, Marsh Fern (Thetypteris thefyptemides), and Broad-leaved Cattail ^Typha
latifolia), with American Beech (Fagus gmndiflom) and American Holly (Hex opaca) in drier
portions.  Palustrine  open water wetlands,  palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent
wetlands and palustrine forested/palustrine open water wetlands are also located within the
proposed reservoir area.

      A wetland evaluation was completed for the non-tidal wetlands that would be affected
by the construction of King William Reservoir. The USCOE Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET) model was utilized to assess the functional values of on-site wetlands at Cohoke Mill
Creek.  Results of the WET analysis are summarized in Table 4-49.

      Pipeline

      Wetland crossings along the 17 miles of new pipeline would occur at 9 perennial and
17 intermittent stream crossings. The majority of affected wetlands would be palustrine
forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands.  Typical tree species of these Virginia Coastal
Plain palustrine systems include Sweetgum, River Birch, Black Gum, Red Maple, Green
Ash, and Sycamore.

      The pipeline would also cross the Pamunkey River and the open water of an arm of
Little Creek Reservoir.

      Mud Flats
      No mud flats are located in  the immediate vicinity of  the intake site at Scotland
Landing on the Mattaponi River based on review of USGS topographic maps and USFWS
NWI maps; however, mud flats are located 3,500 feet upstream of the intake site and 2,200
feet downstream of the intake site.

      No mud flats  were identified within the proposed reservoir area or below the
proposed dam site on Cohoke Mill Creek.  Also, no mud flats were identified along the
pipeline route.

      4.3.4     Fresh Groundwater Development

      Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Species
      Project review conducted by the VDCR, VDGIF, and VDACS identified no known
natural heritage resources or endangered or threatened animal, plant or insect species at
the eight proposed groundwater well locations at Diascund Creek  and  Little Creek
0114-951-140                             4-57                           February 1994
-------
reservoirs (T. J. O'Connell, VDCR, personal communication, 1992;  H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF,
personal communication, 1992;  J, R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1992).

      Fish and Invertebrates
      Diascund and  Little  Creek  reservoirs  are currently  monitored  by  a fishery
management program in cooperation with the VDGIF. Fish stocking of the Little Creek
Reservoir was  initiated in 1982 and continued through 1992.  Species stocked include
Largemouth Bass, Bluegill, Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Walleye (D. L. Fowler,
VDGIF, personal communication, 1992).  Fish surveys conducted by VDGIF k 1990
revealed that Bluegill, Red-ear Sunfish, Blueback Herring, and Largemouth Bass were the
most abundant fish species in Little Creek Reservoir.

      Fish species stocked at Diascund Creek Reservoir between  1969 and 1980 include
Red-ear Sunfish, Northern Pike, Muskellunge, and Channel Catfish (D. L. Fowler, VDGIF,
personal communication, 1992). Fish surveys conducted by VDGIF in  1990 revealed that
Bluegill, Largemouth Bass, Yellow Perch, and Red-ear Sunfish were the most abundant fish
species  in Diascund Creek Reservoir.

      Invertebrate species present  in these two reservoirs would be typical of those found
In freshwater regions of the Lower Peninsula (see Table 4-31).

      Other Wildlife
      Existing vegetation community types in the vicinity of proposed groundwater well
locations along the perimeter of Diascund Creek and Little Creek reservoirs were identified
based on review  of  USGS  topographic maps and color-infrared  aerial photography.
Vegetation community types were classified according to Anderson et aL (1976).  Based on
this analysis, the predominant vegetation community type within the proposed impact area
would be mixed forested. Wildlife species typical of this community type are included in
Alternatives Assessment (Volume II-Environmental Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) Section
6.6.1, which is appended to this document.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      There are no existing designated sanctuaries or refuges in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed groundwater well locations at Diascund Creek and Little Creek Reservoirs.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      The eight proposed well sites located at Little Creek and Diascund Creek reservoirs
are all located in upland areas. The discharge pipelines to the reservoirs would not cross
wetland areas,  assuming that the pipelines would  travel the shortest distances  to stream
beds.

      Mud Flats
      No mud flats are located in the vicinity of proposed groundwater wells or associated
pipelines and outfall structures at Diascund Creek or Little Creek Reservoirs.
 0114-951-140                             4-58                            February 1994
-------
TABLE 4-48
WETLAND CATEGORIES AT THE COHOKE MILL CREEK
IMPOUNDMENT SITE
USFWS Ecological
Classification
PFO5/OWFb
POWZb
PSS1/EMY
PSS1/EME
PEME
PFO/SS1C
FL01Y
PFO1C
PF01A
POWZh
Wetland Description
Palustrine forested dead; open water, semi-permanent,
beavers
Palustrine open water, intermittently exposed/permanent,
beavers
Palustrine scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, emergent,
saturated/semi-permanent/seasonals
Palustrine scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, emergent,
seasonal saturated
Palustrine emergent, seasonal saturated
Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous;scrub-shrub,
seasonal
Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous, saturated/semi-
permanent/seasonals
Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous, seasonal
Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous, temporary
Palustrine open water, intermittently exposed/permanent, ,
diked/impounded
Source: USFWS NWI maps for the King William, King and Queen Court
House, New Kent, and Tunstall, Virginia Quadrangles (1" * 2,000'
scale).
0114-951-140
December 1993
-------
-------
                                TABLE 4-49

                    SUMMARY OF WET ANALYSIS RESULTS
                    KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR WETLANDS
Function/Value

Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater Discharge
Floodflow Alteration
Sediment Stabilization
Sediment/Toxicant Retention
Nutrient Removal/Transformation
Production Export
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Breeding)
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Migration)
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance (Wintering)
Aquatic Diversity /Abundance
Uniqueness/Heritage
Recreation
Evaluation Criteria
Social
Significance
M
H
M
M
M
H
*
H
*
*
*
M
H
L

Effectiveness
L
M
H
H
H
L
M
*
H
H
H
L
*
*

Opportunity
*
*
M
*
H
H
#
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
Note: "H" = High
"M* = Moderate
*L" = Low
"*" = Functions and values are not evaluated by the WET program.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
      IT: _z
-tfcu.
-------
      4.3.5      Ground-water Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

      Endangered. Threatened, or Sensitive Species

      The VDCR has records of Loesel's Twayblade (Liparis loeselii) along State Route 641
near Jones Pond in York County. This very rare fen orchid does not have federal or state
legal status, nor is it a candidate for listing. The concentrate pipeline for the Site 2 (Upper
York County) facilities would parallel a portion of State Route 641 on the southwest side
of Interstate 64 before crossing the interstate along Route 641.  However, after crossing to
the northeast side of Interstate 64, the pipeline would leave Route 641 and avoid portions
of the  road which are located near Jones Pond.  Therefore,  negative impacts to Loesel's
Twayblade are not anticipated as a result of the proposed concentrate pipeline construction.

      VCDR  did not identify any natural heritage resources in  the  other groundwater
desalination project areas (T. J. O'Connell, VDCR, personal  communication, 1993),

      Fish and Invertebrates
      Wells would be installed at finished water storage and distribution locations within
the City of Newport News and on existing Newport News Waterworks property in York
County. Because withdrawal locations are spread evenly across the service area, the amount
of pipeline required is reduced, and  the local groundwater levels would not be as deeply
depressed. Therefore, potential impacts to the Coastal Plain aquifer system, and the surface
water bodies which recharge the aquifers, would be minimized. Any potential effects on fish
and invertebrates due to groundwater withdrawals should be  negligible.

      The Site 1  (Copeland Industrial Park Ground Storage  Tank) concentrate discharge
pipeline route would  not cross any -streams. The outfall would discharge into Hampton
Roads.  Fish and invertebrate sjaeeies typical of this water body would be typical of those
found in the polyhaline watery (18 to 30 ppt salinity) of the lower Chesapeake Bay.

      The Site 2 (Upper YoVkjQjujity~
-------
Science & Technology, 1990).  Fish species identified during these surveys are listed in
Table 4-50.

      Other Wildlife
      Each of the wells and associated RO (reverse osmosis) treatment plants are within
the City of Newport News or on existing Newport  News Waterworks  property, within
urbanized  areas.  A maximum  area of disturbance of approximately 1 acre would  be
required for each well and treatment plant. Assuming a maximum pipeline right-of-way
width of 40 feet, an additional 65 acres would be disturbed to construct 13.4 miles of new
pipeline.  The majority of the alternative sites are located in developed areas.  Wildlife
species typical of these areas would be similar to those found in agricultural fields (see
Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993)), but
because of the proximity of human activity, species diversity would  be expected  to  be
limited.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      There are no existing designated sanctuaries or refuges within the project areas
associated with this alternative.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      The facilities at Site 1  (Copeland Industrial Park Ground Storage Tank) would not
affect wetland areas. The proposed concentrate discharge pipeline would run southeast
along Chestnut Avenue, to Oak Avenue, to Hampton Avenue, and terminate at Anderson
Park emptying directly into Hampton Roads. This pipeline would not cross any wetlands
between the Copeland Industrial Park and Anderson  Park.   The outfall structure and
associated rip-rap would  affect an  estuarine intertidal flat, regularly  inundated wetland
(E2FLN).

      The Site 2 (Upper York County Groundwater Storage Tank) facilities would include
concentrate pipeline crossings  of  one  perennial and  one intermittent stream.   The
concentrate discharge pipeline would leave the Upper York County site  and foEow State
Route 641/642, cross under Interstate 64, cross the Cheatham Annex railroad spur, follow
Winchester Road, run due north parallel to the  Cheatham Annex - Jones Pond area
property line, and cross the Colonial National Historic Parkway, eventually emptying into
Queens Creek, approximately 5,500 feet upstream from its confluence with the York River.
The outfall structure and associated rip-rap would affect estuarine intertidal emergent,
irregularly inundated wetlands (E2EMP).

      The Site  3 (Harwood's Mill  WTP Clearwell)  facilities would include concentrate
pipeline crossings of one perennial and one intermittent stream. The concentrate discharge
pipeline would leave the Harwood's Mill site and run north on U.S. Route 17, northeast on
Lakeside Drive, and  east on Dare Road, eventually emptying into the Poquoson River south
of Hodges Cove.  The outfall structure and associated rip-rap would  affect an  estuarine
intertidal,  open water wetland (E2OWN).

      The facilities at Site 4 (Lee Hall WTP ClearweE) would not affect wetland areas. The
concentrate discharge pipeline would leave the Lee Hall site and run north, cross U.S.
Route 60, and head  west  on Picketts Line and Enterprise Drive, eventually emptying into
 0114-951-140                             4-60                            February 1994
-------
TABLE 4-50
FISH SPECIES OF SKIFFE'S CREEK (1990)
Scientific Name
Alosa sapidissima
Anchoa mitchilli
Brevoortia tyrannus
Cynoscion regalis
Dorosoma cepedianum
Fundulus majalis
Ictalurm catus
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus punctatus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Menidia beryllina
Micropogonias undulatus
Morone americana
Morons saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Pomatomus saltatrix
Trinectes maculatus
Common Name
American Shad
Bay Anchovy
Atlantic Menhaden
Weakfish
Gizzard Shad
Striped Killifish
White Catfish
Black Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Spot
Inland Silverside
Atlantic Croaker
White Perch
Striped Bass
Striped Mullet
Bluefish
Hogchoker
Source: International Science & Technology, 1990.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
Skiffe's Creek adjacent to the Oakland Industrial Park. The outfall structure and associated
rip-rap would affect estuarine intertidal emergent, irregularly inundated wetlands (E2EMP),

      There is no submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) found in the vicinity of the Queens
Creek, Skiffe's  Creek, or Hampton Roads concentrate discharge points.  SAV beds are
found 2,900 feet east of, and 1,100 feet northeast of, the Poquoson River discharge point
Ground-truth surveys completed in 1989 and 1990 by VIMS in conjunction with the SAV
publication listed above reported that Eelgrass (Zostera marina) and Widgeongrass (Ruppia
maritima) were the dominant species in these SAV beds.

      Mud Flats
      The facilities at Site 1 (Copeland Industrial Park Ground Storage Tank) would not
affect mud flat  areas. The concentrate discharge pipeline would not cross mud flat areas
between Copeland Industrial Park and Anderson Park. However, mud flats do exist at the
location of the proposed concentrate pipeline outfall structure and assockted rip-rap.

      The facilities at Site 2 (Upper York County Ground Storage Tank) would not affect
mud flat areas.  The concentrate discharge pipeline would not cross mud flats between the
Upper York  County  site and  the Queens Creek outfall structure.  No mud flats were
identified in the immediate vicinity of the outfall structure on Queens Creek based on
review of USGS topographic maps and USFWS NWI maps; however, mud flats are located
400 feet upstream and 500 feet downstream of the discharge area.

      No mud flats were identified in the project areas for the proposed facilities at Site
3 (Harwood's Mill WTP Clearwell) and Site 4 (Lee Hall WTP Clearwell).

      43.6      Use Restrictions

      Endangered. Threatened, or Sensitive Species
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative should not affect endangered,
threatened, or sensitive species.

      Fish and Invertebrates
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative should have no effect on fish
and invertebrate species on the Lower Peninsula.

      Other Wildlife
      The implementation  of the Use Restrictions alternative should have no effect on
existing wildlife on the Lower Peninsula.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      The implementation  of the Use Restrictions alternative should have no effect on
sanctuaries or refuges in the region.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      The implementation  of the Use  Restrictions  alternative would have no effect on
wetlands in the region.

      Mud Flats

0114-951-140                            4-61                           February 1994
-------
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative would have no effect on mud
flats in the region.

      4.3.7      No Action

      Endangered. Threatened, or Sensitive Species
      Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species within project areas are described in
Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.6.

      Fish and Invertebrates
      Fish and invertebrates within project areas are described in Sections 5.3.1 through
5.3.6.

      Other Wildlife
      Wildlife species dependent on communities within project areas are identified in
Sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.5.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      If no action is taken to augment the existing water supplies on the Lower Peninsula,
existing designated sanctuaries and refuges would not be affected.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      The No Action alternative would require that the RRWSG jurisdictions increasingly
rely on existing reservoirs to satisfy growing water demands.  The Harwood's Mill, Lee Hall,
Skiffe's Creek, Diascund Creek, Little Creek, Waller Mill, and Big Bethel impoundments
would be utilized to supply larger amounts of raw water. As a result, these reservoirs would
be  increasingly  drawn  down  to levels which could  negatively  effect adjacent wetland
communities.

      Wetlands within project areas are described in Sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.5.

      Mud Flats
      The No Action alternative would result in more frequent and severe drawdowns in
existing water supply reservoirs serving the Lower Peninsula. Mud flats along the peripheral
areas of reservoirs would, therefore, be more exposed to the atmosphere.

4.4   CULTURAL RESOURCES
      The cultural resources impact category was developed, in part, from a portion of the
Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which addresses potential effects on human
use characteristics (40 CFR § 230.54).  In addition, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966  (16  U.S.C.  § 470(f)) requires that  the  head of any Federal
department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior
to the issuance of the license, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places (see generally 36 CFR § 800).
0114-951-140                             4-62                            February 1994
-------
      In Virginia, the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR)
functions as the State Historic Preservation Officer, and is responsible for conducting review
of projects involving federal action to assure their compliance with Section 106.

      The VDHR designates cultural  resources as  archaeological and architectural
resources. Archaeological resources are further categorized as prehistoric and historic sites.
Prehistoric sites date from  B.C. to 1700 and frequently include Native American sites;
historic sites date from 1700 to the present.   Architectural sites include structures or
structural remains, which either date  back in time  and/or  are unique enough  to  be
considered culturally significant.

      4.4.1      Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
      Intake

      The proposed intake site on the Pamunkey River was investigated in conjunction with
the Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed King William Reservoir, King William
County, Virginia and the Proposed Black Creek Reservoir, New Kent County,  Virginia (MAAR
Associates, 1994), which is appended to this document as Report G. While a complete
Phase IA Survey was not conducted for the pump station site, the area was examined as part
of the study. The study identified the presence of one prehistoric site at the proposed pump
station site on the Pamunkey River, and indicated that it is likely that other sites may be
present in floodplain areas.

      VDHR records indicate that there is an architectural resource in the vicinity of the
proposed Pamunkey River withdrawal site  at Northbury. "Chericoke" is located in King
William County approximately 0.7 miles north of the Northbury withdrawal site.  This site
is designated as 50KW13 by the VDHR.

      The proposed intake site at Northbury was also evaluated by the USCOE feasibility
study (1984).  While the general project area was defined as having  a high potential for
cultural resources, no known sites were identified in the vicinity of the proposed intake site.

      Reservoir

      In the USCOE's (1984) evaluation  of Ware Creek Reservoir, the "Stonehouse"
archaeological site  was identified  as being located adjacent to the  proposed dam and
roadway. This site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

      A coordination meeting to discuss cultural resource studies associated with RRWSG
water supply alternatives was  held at the Virginia Department  of  Historic Resources
(VDHR) offices on April 22, 1993. Representatives from the VDHR, USCOE, RRWSG,
MAAR Associates and Malcolm Pirnie were in attendance.  It was agreed at this meeting
that  the RRWSG would rely on the report^ Phase I Archaeoloffcal Survey of the Proposed
Ware Creek Reservoir Area -James City and New Kent Counties, Virginia (Hunter and Kandle,
1986) to obtain cultural resources information for the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir area.

      In the report by Hunter and Kandle (1986), the identification of resources was limited
to the area at and below the proposed 35-foot normal pool elevation. Approximately 45
percent of the total pool area was surveyed, and it was estimated that 85 percent of high

0114-951-140                             4-63                            February 1994
-------
probability areas of the entire pool area were examined in this survey.  A total of 45
prehistoric and historic-period sites were identified at or below the 35-foot contour level,
and an estimated 10 additional sites may be found in the unsurveyed portion of the project
site.  The report cited that an additional 16 historic-period sites are listed in the general
project area.

      Pipeline

      Six known cultural resource sites identified through review of VDHR records are
located along the proposed pipeline route for this alternative component, and  are listed
below along with their VDHR identification codes:

      Historic Sites:

       m    Unnamed site  (44NK81).  This site is classified as an historic, domestic site.
            It was last investigated in December 1979.

       •    Mrs. Hockaday's House (44JC269). This site is classified as a domestic site and
            was most recently investigated in November 1983.

       •    Boswell House (44JC297).  This site is classified as a domestic site and was
            most recently investigated in November 1983.

      Architectural Site:

       m    Saint Peter's Church (63NK27). This church is listed on the National Register
            of Historic Places and is currently used for regular  church services.   The
            proposed pipeline route would transect the registered acreage of the property.

       •    Burnt Ordinary (47JC63). This site houses an 18th century tavern which was
            burnt during the revolution.  It was most recently investigated in July 1971.

       .    Slater House (47JC19).

      In addition to the above listed sites, several archaeological sites are located within the
vicinity of the proposed pipeline route through the community of Toano.

      4.4.2      Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
      Intake

      Cultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed Pamunkey River intake site  at
Northbury are discussed in Section 4.4.1.

      Reservoir

      A Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey was conducted for the proposed Black Creek
Reservoir area in New Kent County during the summer of 1993 by MAAR Associates, Inc.
This survey is described in Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed King William
0114-951-140                             4-64                            February 1994
-------
Reservoir King WWam County, Virginia and the Proposed Black Creek Reservoir, New Kent
County, Virginia (MAAR Associates, 1994) which is appended to this document as Report G.

      Research for the Phase IA survey included  literature and archival review. Materials
reviewed included:

        •   Archaeological and architectural site  files at the VDHR.

        •   Maps at the Virginia State Library, the Virginia Historical Society, the Library
           of Congress, and the National Archives.

        «   Secondary historic sources  identified  at Swem  Library at  The  College of
           William and Mary.

        •   Museums at the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indian reservations in King William
           County.

Architectural resources greater than 50 years old in  the immediate vicinity of the reservoir
site were also inventoried.

      Additional steps in the study included the development of a predictive model for the
reservoir  site using data  from two  previous reservoir studies conducted  in similar
environments. A field reconnaissance was also conducted on accessible tracts of the site and
on some associated pipeline routes.

      No previously identified prehistoric archaeological sites were identified in the Black
Creek Reservoir area. Only one previously recorded architectural site, Crump's Mill, is
located within the reservoir area. Available information from the VDHR on the identified
site and its VDHR identification code are presented below;

        •   Crump's Mill (63NK70).   The  mill dates from  the  18th century  and  has
           undergone renovations. It is believed that the mill was earlier "Clopton's Mill"
           which was owned by the Clopton family whose home stood in the vicinity of the
           site.  The mill is located within the boundaries of the proposed reservoir site
           and would be inundated with a normal  pool elevation of 100 feet msl.

      The predictive model for the Black Creek  Reservoir area, based on soil types and
topography, suggest  that there should be  few,  if  any, prehistoric  sites located in  the
impoundment area.

      The Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey report  by MAAR Associates (1994) was
reviewed,  in draft form, by the VDHR in the Fall of  1993 (H. B. Mitchell, VDHR, personal
communication,  1993). Comments received from  the VDHR are appended to the MAAR
report, which is appended  to this  document as  Report G.   The proposed  Black Creek
Reservoir project was cited as having the potential for adverse effects on the following four
properties (VDHR and MAAR identification codes are listed):

        .   Crump's Mill (VDHR 63-70)


0114-951-140                             4-65                            February 1994
-------
       •    Iden (VDHR 63-41; MAAR  2)

       «    VDHR 63-203 (MAAR 13)

       •    VDHR 63-178 (MAAR 70)

      The New Kent County Historical Society has indicated that there are 14 additional
known historic sites in the vicinity of the proposed Black Creek Reservoir site (J. M. H.
Harris, New Kent County Historical Society, personal communication, 1992):

       •    McKay House and Route 606 - located outside the reservoir watershed,

       »    Brickhouse site - located within the reservoir normal pool area.

       •    Water Mill - located within the reservoir normal pool area.

       •    Mt.  Prospect - located within the reservoir watershed.

       «    Longquarter - located within  the reservoir watershed.

       *    Cherry Lane - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Glebe House - located within the reservoir watershed.

       »    Wade House and Graveyard  - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Grafts - located within the  reservoir watershed.

       •    Nances - located  within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Harrison House - located within the reservoir watershed.

       »    Ford House - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Crumps House -  located within the reservoir normal pool area.

       •    Callowell-Clopton House -  located within the reservoir watershed.

      Pipeline

      As part of the Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the proposed Black
Creek Reservoir (see Report G), information was collected to identify cultural resources
which could be affected along some of the associated pipeline routes.  However, a complete
Phase IA Survey  of the pipeline routes was not conducted.  The pipeline route was
identified as passing near two  or three previously recorded sites west of Tunstall Station and
two National Register sites (MAAR Associates, 1994). The closest previously recorded sites
along the  portion of the pipeline route from the pump station site to the reservoir site are
designated as 44NK77  and 44NK81 by the VDHR. The two National Register sites are St.


0114-951-140                             4-66                            February 1994
-------
Peter's Church and Marl HDL Available information on the architectural sites is presented
below.

      Architectural Sites:

       •    Saint Peter's Church (63NK27). This church is listed on the National Register
            of Historic Places and is currently used for regular church services.  It was
            originally  built in  1701.  The  proposed pipeline route would transect  the
            registered acreage of the property.

       •    Marl Hill (63NK19). This architectural site is listed on the National Register
            of Historic Places,

      Pipeline routes which would connect the proposed reservoir with Diascund Creek
Reservoir and the existing Waterworks system have some potential for cultural resources,
but the route is likely to have fewer archaeological resources than the pipeline  route from
the Pamunkey River to the proposed reservoir (MAAR Associates, 1994).

      Review of  VDHR records for this  alternative indicated that two  additional
archaeological sites are located along the pipeline route.  Additional known archaeological
resources are located  within the vicinity of the pipeline.  Available information on  the
identified sites and their VDHR identification codes are presented below.

      Prehistoric Sites:

       m    44JC642  - This site is classified as a possible campsite. It was last investigated
            in October 1990.  Due to badly eroding site conditions, no further work was
            recommended.

       »    44JC644  - This site is classified as a possible campsite. It was last investigated
            in October 1990.  Due to badly eroding site conditions, no further work was
            recommended.

      The USCOE's evaluation for this alternative component indicated that portions of the
pipeline would be located  in a region with a high potential for cultural resources (USCOE,
1984).

      4.43      King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
      Intake

      Based on review of VDHR records, no known cultural resources occur within or
directly adjacent to the proposed Mattaponi River intake and pump station site at  Scotland
Landing.

      As part of  the Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed King William
Reservoir, King William County, Virginia and the Proposed Black Creek Reservoir, New Kent
County, Virginia  (MAAR Associates, 1994), which is  appended  to  this  document as
Report G, the area was identified as having a high potential for cultural resources. This
0114-951-140                             4-67                             February 1994
-------
intake site was reviewed as part of the study, but a full Phase LA. Survey was not conducted
at the site.

      Reservoir

      The VDHR conducted a review of the project site in May 1992 and verified that there
are no known cultural resources below the 110-foot contour elevation.  However, three
known historic structures  exist  above the 110-foot  contour  which could potentially be
affected.  These resources  and their respective VDHR identification codes are identified
below:

      Architectural Sites:

       m    Canton (50KW11)

       •    Colosse Baptist Church (50KW15)

       .    Malbourne (50KW40)

      A Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey was conducted for the proposed King William
Reservoir area in King William County during the summer of 1993 by MAAR Associates,
Inc.  This survey is summarized in the Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey report (MAAR
Associates, 1994).

      Research for the Phase IA survey included literature and archival review. Materials
reviewed included:

       •    Archaeological and architectural site files at the VDHR.

       •    Maps at the Virginia State Library, the Virginia Historical Society, the Library
            of Congress, and the National Archives.

       •    Secondary historic  sources identified at Swem  Library  at  The College of
            William and Mary.

       •    Museums at the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indian reservations in King William
            County.

Architectural resources greater than 50 years old in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir
site were also inventoried.

      Additional steps in the study included the development of a predictive model for the
reservoir  site using  data from two  previous  reservoir studies  conducted  in  similar
environments. A field reconnaissance was also conducted on accessible tracts of the site and
on some associated pipeline routes.

      No previously recorded cultural resources were  identified  in  the  King  William
Reservoir area.   However, there are recorded historic structures  in the vicinity of the
reservoir site. The predictive  model for the proposed King William Reservoir site, based

0114-951-140                             4-68                            February 1994
-------
on soil types  and topography, suggests that there will be a relatively large number of
prehistoric sites within the impoundment area.  Field reconnaissance of the area resulted
in the identification of an earthen dam, an ice house, and a total of six prehistoric sites.

      The Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey report by MAAR Associates (1994) was
reviewed, in draft form, by the VDHR in the Fall of 1993 (H. B. Mitchell, VDHR, personal
communication, 1993). Comments received from the VDHR are appended to the MAAR
report, which  is appended to this document as Report G.  No surveyed properties were
identified as potentially being affected by the proposed project  (H. B, Mitchell, VDHR,
personal communication, 1993).

      The King William County Historical Society has indicated that there are 15 additional
known historic sites in the vicinity of the proposed King William Reservoir Site  (S. A.
Colvin, King William County Historical Society, personal communication, 1993):

       •    Mt. Hope - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Mt. Rose - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Free Hall - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Locust Hill - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Sheltons - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    French Town - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Lilly  Point - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Poplar Springs - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Brooks Springs • located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Cedar Lane - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Rose Garden House - located within the reservoir watershed.

       *    Woodside - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Marl Hill - located within the reservoir watershed.

       •    Churchville - located outside the reservoir watershed.

       •    Bethany Church - located outside the reservoir watershed.

      Pipeline

      As part of the Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the proposed King
William Reservoir (see Report G), information was collected to identify cultural resources

0114-951-140                             4-69                            February 1994
-------
which could be affected along the associated pipeline routes.  However, a complete Phase
IA Survey of the pipeline routes was not conducted. Based on this study, it is likely that
previously unidentified resources would be affected in these areas. The pipeline route was
also identified as passing near to the site of Cook's Mill (44NK79) and traversing stream
valleys which have a high potential for cultural resources.

      Based on review of VDHR records, a total of three additional known archaeological
sites, and no architectural sites, are identified by the VDHR as being located within or
directly adjacent to the proposed pipeline route for  this alternative component. Available
information describing the identified sites and their  respective VDHR identification codes
are presented below:

        •    Hechler Quarry (44NK101). This site is classified as a "Village" and was last
            investigated in October 1983. No chronological placement has been identified.

      Prehistoric Sites:

        *    44JC642 - This site is classified as a possible campsite. It was last investigated
            in October 1990.  Due to  badly eroding site conditions, no further work was
            recommended.

        •    44JC644 - This site is classified as a possible campsite. It was last investigated
            in October 1990.  Due to  badly eroding site conditions, no further work was
            recommended.

      4.4.4      Fresh Groundwater Development

      The VDHR conducted a search of its cultural resource site inventory for the project
areas encompassed by the Fresh Groundwater alternative and  identified two previously
recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the  Diascund Creek Reservoir well sites.
However, VDHR  indicated that impacts to  these  sites should  not occur given  the
considerable distances which separate these sites from the project areas.

      The VDHR identified seven archaeological sites in the vicinity of the Little Creek
Reservoir well sites. All of these sites are 19th century domestic sites predicted to exist on
the basis of historic maps.  None of the sites have been verified through site visit. These
sites' VDHR identified codes are:  44JC204,44JC205,44JC206,44JC207,44JC208,44JC209,
and 44JC263.

      4.4.5      Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

      The VDHR conducted a search of its cultural resource site inventory for the project
areas encompassed by this Groundwater Desalination alternative. The results of this search
are summarized below for each of the  four groundwater desalting project areas.

      Site 1 - The VDHR did not identify any previously recorded  archaeological sites
within  the Site 1 area.
0114-951-140                             4-70                            February 1994
-------
      Site 2 - The VDHR identified 47 previously recorded archaeological sites in close
proximity to the Site 2 project area. The majority of these sites were identified in a survey
of the York County New Quarter Park conducted in 1978. None of these sites have been
evaluated for National Register eligibility. Of the four groundwater desalting project areas,
VDHR believes that Site  4 has the greatest potential to affect  previously unidentified
archaeological sites.

      Site 3 - The VDHR identified five previously recorded archaeological sites in close
proximity to the Site 3 project area.

      Site 4 - The VDHR identified 18 previously recorded archaeological sites in close
proximity to the Site 4 project area.  Of these 18 sites, 4 appear to be directly in the path
of the proposed concentrate discharge pipeline. None of these sites have been  evaluated
for National Register eligibility.  Of the four groundwater desalting project areas, VDHR
believes that Site 4 has the greatest potential to affect previously unidentified archaeological
sites.

      4.4.6     Use Restrictions

      Implementation of the Use Restrictions  alternative would not affect any cultural
resources.

      4.4.7     No Action

      If no action  is taken by local purveyors to augment existing  water  supplies, there
would be no affect on cultural resources within the region.

4.5   SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
      This section provides a general description of the socioeconomic environment in the
vicinity of project areas for the alternatives.  Socioeconomic resource categories by which
the alternatives were evaluated are described below.

      Municipal  and Private Water Supplies
      Municipal  and private water supplies consist of surface water or groundwater which
is  directed to  the intake of a municipal or private  water supply system.   This  section
identifies these resources in the vicinity of alternatives.  The municipal and private water
supplies impact category was  developed directly from a portion of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which addresses potential effects on human us characteristics
(40 CFR § 230.50).

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      Recreational  and  commercial fisheries consist of harvestable fish,  crustaceans,
shellfish, and other  aquatic organisms  used by man.  This section describes the use of
project areas for recreational and commercial fishing.  The recreational and commercial
fisheries impact category was developed directly from a portion of the Clean Water Act
0114-951-140                             4-71                             February 1994
-------
Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which address potential effects on human use characteristics
(40 CFR § 230.51).

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      Water-related recreation encompasses activities undertaken  for  amusement and
relaxation.  These activities include consumptive uses such as harvesting resources  by
hunting or fishing, and non-consumptive uses such as canoeing and sight-seeing.   This
section  describes existing water-related recreational opportunities in project areas.  The
other water-related recreation impact category was developed directly from a portion of the
Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which address potential effects on human
use characteristics (40 CFR § 230.52).

      Aesthetics
      Aesthetics applies to the perception of beauty by one or a combination of the senses
of sight, hearing, touch, and smell.  This section describes the aesthetic setting of  each
potential project site. The aesthetics impact category was developed from a portion of the
Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which address potential effects on human
use characteristics (40 CFR § 230.53).

      Parks and Preserves
      This section describes the existing parks and preserves within proposed project  ares.
For purposes of this analysis, parks and preserves are defined as areas designated under
federal, state, or local authority to be managed for their aesthetic, educational, recreational,
or scientific value.  Parks are more commonly designed to provide recreational and aesthetic
benefits to  the public, while preserves are commonly used for educational  or  scientific
pursuits.  The parks and preserves impact  category was developed from  a portion of the
Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines which address potential effects on human
use characteristics (40 CFR § 230.54).

      Land Use
      This section describes existing land uses within the proposed project areas.  Current
land use was determined primarily through review of aerial photography  and contact with
the jurisdictions involved. The land use impact category was developed as a public interest
factor to consider pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

      Noise
      This  section discusses existing noise in the vicinity  of each  alternative component.
The noise impact category was developed as  a public interest factor  to consider pursuant
to the National Environmental  Policy Act.

      Infrastructure
      This  section describes the  existing infrastructure in the vicinity of each alternative
component.  Transportation, utilities,  and navigation  are discussed. The infrastructure
impact  category was developed as a public  interest  factor to consider  pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy  Act.

      Direct. Indirect, and Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts
      The following indicators of the socioeconomic well-being of an  area may be affected
as a result of water supply development; regional population; existing land use; income and
income  distribution; property values; local tax  base;  existing lifestyles;  residential,
commercial, and industrial growth; and recreational services.  The socioeconomic impacts

0114-951-140                              4-72                            February 1994
-------
category was developed as a public interest factor to consider pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act.

      4.5.1     Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies

      Intake

      An  analysis of existing water  use and cumulative  streamflow  reduction in the
Pamunkey River basin was conducted.  Total reported surface and groundwater withdrawals
within the entire Pamunkey River basin, exclusive of power use and non-consumptive
industrial cooling water withdrawals, averaged 20.2 mgd in the Year 1990 (P. E. Herman,
SWCB, personal communication,  1993).  However, surface water withdrawals made by
Chesapeake Corporation which have recently been reported as 16.65 mgd (SWCB, 1988)
must be added to this figure.

      Additional water use for thermoelectric power generation was reported as 2,064.1
mgd for 1990, and is the largest single use of water within the basin. There are also many
imgators in the Pamunkey River  basin whose total withdrawals between 1984 and 1991
averaged 496 million gallons per year  (or 2.72 mgd assuming all irrigation occurs between
AprI  and September) (G. S. Anderson, USGS, personal communication, 1991; S. Torbeck,
SWCB, personal  communication,  1992).   USGS hydrologists have estimated that the
installed capacity of irrigation equipment along the Pamunkey River is approximately 25
mgd (Black & Veatch, 1989).

      Summing all of the above withdrawal figures result in an estimated current average
water withdrawal of 2,103.7 mgd within  the Pamunkey River basin.  Of this current
estimated water demand in  the  basin (exclusive of Virginia  Power  and Chesapeake
Corporation), 12  percent is for domestic, commercial, and institutional use; 12 percent is
for irrigation; and 76 percent is for industrial and manufacturing purposes.

      Actual net  streamflow  reductions would  be  less  than  total  Pamunkey basin
withdrawals since the 2,103.7-mgd figure includes all reported groundwater withdrawals and
ignores surface water return flows such as wastewater treatment plant effluent and crop
irrigation return flows (i.e., non-consumptive surface water withdrawals).  Consumptive use
is the portion of water withdrawn that is not returned to  the resource because it has been
evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by man or livestock,
or otherwise removed from the water  environment. The portion of the withdrawal that is
not consumed is returned to the resource.

      The Yotk Water Supply Plan (SWCB, 1988) contains an estimated consumptive use
factor of 0.44 for the Pamunkey  River basin (excluding Chesapeake  Corporation  and
Virginia Power withdrawals) which is based on published USGS data (Solley et. al, 1983).
Applying this factor to reported average Year  1990 withdrawals (excluding Chesapeake
Corporation  and  Virginia Power) and estimated irrigation withdrawals  results in  an
estimated consumptive use of 10.1 mgd. Chesapeake Corporation's (West Point Facility)
Pamunkey River withdrawals are non-consumptive industrial cooling water withdrawals.  For
Virginia Power, the SWCB (1988) has estimated that approximately 1.5 percent of the water

0114-951-140                             4-73                            February  1994
-------
withdrawn at Lake Anna is consumed.  This equates to a Year 1990 consumptive use of 31.0
mgd at Lake Anna. Adding together all of the estimated consumptive uses results in an
estimated Year 1990 consumptive use of 41.1 mgd within the entire Pamunkey River basin.

      Total freshwater discharge at the mouth of the Pamunkey River is estimated at
879 mgd. Estimated Year 1990 consumptive water use in the basin represents 4.7 percent
of the average discharge.  A list and location map of major reservoirs, stream intakes, and
groundwater withdrawals within the Pamunkey River basin is presented in Table 4-51 and
Figure 4-6.

      Reservoir

      Effective March 25,1991, the SWCB granted Stonehouse, Inc. the right to withdraw
a total of 184,096,600 gallons per month (6.05 mgd) from its 10 wells within the Ware Creek
watershed.  In addition to these wells, many individual homeowners in the vicinity of the
proposed Ware Creek Reservoir site have their own wells. No municipal or private surface
water supplies were identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed reservoir site.

      Pipeline

      Two raw water outfalls (40 mgd and 80 mgd capacities) would be located on Diascund
Creek upstream of Newport News Waterworks' Diascund Creek Reservoir.  There are no
known municipal or private water supplies along Diascund Creek upstream of the existing
reservoir.  However, Diascund Creek Reservoir itself is part of a municipal water supply
system (Le., Newport News Waterworks).

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries

      Intake

      The Pamunkey River  and  its banks in the proposed project area are utilized for
recreational fishing. The nearest public boat ramp on the Pamunkey River is near Putneys
Mill in New Kent County, off of Route 607, and approximately 2.8 river miles downstream
of Northbury (Delorme Mapping Company, 1989).

      Commercially important fish species harvested during 1989, 1990, and 1991 in  the
Pamunkey River included catfish, American Shad, Striped Bass, and American Eel.  Blue
Crab (Cattinectes sapidus) are also harvested from the Pamunkey River (VMRC, 1992).

      Reservoir

      According to the USEPA, minimal recreational fishing in the Ware Creek Basin
occurs, except for occasional fishing in Richardson's Millpond (USEPA, 1992).  Richardson's
Millpond has not been surveyed by the VDGIF and is not currently stocked (D. L. Fowler,
VDGIF, personal communication, 1992).  Recreational fishing is limited due to  lack of
public access.  However, recreational navigation does include the use of small powerboats
and canoes on Ware Creek (TJSCOE,  1987).   Fish species present in the Ware Creek
Reservoir impoundment are  discussed in Section 4.3.1.
0114-951-140                            4-74                            February 1994
-------
                                TABLE  4-51

              MAJOR RESERVOIRS,  STREAM  INTAKES,
                 AND  GROUNDWATER  WITHDRAWALS
                   IN  THE PAMUNKEY  RIVER  BASIN

1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Stream Intake
South Anna Riv«r
Town of Ashland (Ashland WTP)
Groundwater Withdrawal
3 Well*
Hanover County
Stream Intake
North Anna River
Hanover County (Doswell WTP)
Stream Intake
North Anna Rivar
Baar Island Paper Company (Doswell Plant)
Rasarvoir (Meadow* Pond)
Baar Island Paper Company (Doswell Plant)
Straam Intaka
Little Rivar
General Crushed Stone Company (Verdon Plant)
Groundwater Withdrawal
13 Wells
Hanover County and Private
Groundwater Withdrawal
3 Wefls
Hanover County and Private
Groundwater Withdrawal
6 Wells
Hanover County and Private
Groundwatar Withdrawal
2 Springs, 4 Wells
Town of Mineral
Reservoir (Northeast Creek)
Louisa County Water Authority
Groundwater Withdrawal
4 Wells, 1 Spring
Louisa County Water Authority
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Wells
Blue Ridge Shores
Reservoir (Lake Anna)
Virginia Power
Groundwater Withdrawal
S Walls
Virginia Department of Corrections (Barrett Learning Center)
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Wells
Virginia Department of Corrections (Hanover Learning Center)
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Wells
Town of West Point
Stream Intake
Pamunkey River
Chesapeake Corporation (West Point Facility)
Stream Intake
North Anna River
Diamond Energy (Doswell Combined Cycle Facility)
Retention Ponds (rynoff-fed)
Closed System off South Anna River
Feldspar Corporation (Montpelicr Plant)

0.903
0.019 (c)
1,833
0.462
0.995
0.256
0.144 (c)
0.02? (e)
0.086 (c)
0.079
0.155
0.005
0.047
2.064.1
0.022
0.022
0.415
16.65 (d)
Operational since April 1992
14.400
a) See Figure 4—8.
b) Reported 1990 withdrawals retrieved from the Virginia Water Use Data System
   (P.E. Herman, SWC8, personal communication, 1993).
c) 1984 withdrawal as reported in York Water Supply Plan (SWCB, 1983).
d) 1SS3 nan -consumptive industrial cooling water withdrawal as reported in
   York Water Supply Plan (SWCB, 1988).
August 93
-------
-------
          ORANGE
                                        SPOTSYLVAN1A
ALBEMARLE
                                    LEGEND

                                A  RESERVOIR


                                •  STREAM INTAKE


                                •  QROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL


                                   PROPOSED INTAKE SITE
                                   (NORTHBURY)
               FLUVANNA
                                                                        KING WILLIAM
                         GOOGHLAND
   PIRN1E
                           NEW KENT

                        APRIL 1993
                   LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY                  -ij
                   ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS                      5

MAJOR RESERVOIRS, STREAM  INTAKES AND GROUNDWATER  S
      WITHDRAWALS IN  THE PAMUNKEY RIVER  BASIN
                                                                                                       m
                                                                    SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                                       *•
                                                                                                       i
-------
-------
      Because Ware Creek's shallow depth would limit access by larger commercial vessels,
this area has a limited potential for commercial fisheries.

      The nearest leased shellfish area to the proposed impoundment site extends from the
mouth of Ware Creek to a point approximately 1.6 river miles upstream of the mouth
(VMRC, 1992).  Any shellfish beds  in Ware Creek have been closed  by the Virginia
Department of Health due to high coliform bacteria levels in the creek (J. C, Dawson,
James City County, personal communication, November 1992). Invertebrates of commercial
importance would not be abundant farther upstream in the actual impoundment site due to
the low salinity at and upstream of the proposed dam site.

      Pipeline

      Based on review of USGS topographic maps and color infrared aerial photography
of the pipeline route, most of the route traverses forested lands.

      Other Water-Related Recreation

      Intake

      The Pamunkey River and its bottomlands in the proposed project area are utilized
for various recreational pursuits including fishing, hunting, and boating.  The nearest public
boat ramp  on  the Pamunkey  River is near Putneys Mill  in New Kent County, off State
Route 607,  and approximately 2.8 river miles downstream of Northbury (Delorme Mapping
Company, 1989). The Pamunkey River is tidal at the proposed intake location and is well-
suited for year-round recreational boat activity.  Several privately owned  duck blinds and
hunt  clubs are  located  in  the  vicinity  of Northbury  (J. Taylor,  VDGIF,  personal
communication, 1992).

      Reservoir

      As noted in the USEPA's second veto of James City County's proposed Ware Creek
Reservoir, the Ware Creek watershed supports numerous species of birds and mammals
sought by hunters (USEPA, 1992).  Existing use of the Ware Creek Reservoir watershed for
water-related recreation includes hunting, fishing, boating,  and canoeing; however, there is
no public access in  the basin and most of the land adjacent to the waterway is posted.
Recreational navigation is limited to small powerboats and canoes because of the shallow
depth of Ware Creek (USCOE, 1987). According to the  USEPA, administrative records
indicate that there is  minimal recreational fishing in the Ware Creek basin except for
occasional fishing in Richardson's Millpond (USEPA,  1992). Several privately owned duck
blinds and hunt clubs are located in the basin (USCOE, 1987).

      Pipelines

      Based on review of USGS topographic maps and color-infrared aerial photography
of the pipeline route, most of the 26.3-mile route traverses forested lands.  It is likely that
portions of this area are leased to  private hunt clubs.
0114-951-140                             4-75                           February 1994
-------
      Aesthetics

      Intake

      The aesthetic value of the proposed river intake area is its predominantly natural,
scenic beauty. The shoreline surrounding the Pamunkey River in the vicinity of the proposed
intake is a sloping, forested terrain which is relatively undeveloped in the immediate vicinity.
Four houses were identified within 500 feet of the proposed pump station, with the nearest
house located 300 feet from the pump station site (see Table 4-52).

      Reservoir

      The Ware Creek  watershed  is mostly  rural with residential  and  commercial
development scattered along roads and highways.  The aesthetic value of the proposed
reservoir area is its  scenic beauty, a product of its vegetation and wildlife.  However, Ware
Creek has limited and seasonally variable visibility from public roads, so its aesthetic appeal
is present but is not apparent to the casual observer.  No houses were identified within the
pool area or within 500 feet of the proposed dam site. A total of 33 houses were identified
within 500 feet of the proposed reservoir pool area, with  the nearest house located
approximately 50 feet from the pool area (see Table 4-52).

      Ware Creek is included in the U.S. National Park Service's (NFS) Nationwide  Rivers
Inventory as part of the York River System. The principal features of Ware Creek which
elevate  it to inventory status are its free-flowing and generally undeveloped nature; a
channel length greater than 5 river miles; and being adjacent to or within a related land area
that possesses  an outstanding  remarkable geologic, ecologic, cultural,  historic, scenic,
botanical, recreational,  or other similar value (NFS, 1981; J.  G. Eugster, NFS,  personal
communication, 1983).  The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16  U.S.C. 1271) establishes a
procedure  for designating certain rivers or river segments for protection as part  of, the
National Wild and Scenic River System. The first step in this procedure is for a waterway
to be listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory.  Waterways on the Inventory are not
protected by law, but Federal agencies must give special consideration to actions which could
preclude a waterway on the Inventory from eventually being listed  as a Wild and  Scenic
River (USCOE, 1987).

      Pipeline

      The pipeline route would traverse mostly rural areas;  however,  107 houses were
identified within 300 feet of the proposed pipeline route (see Table  4-52).

      Parks and Preserves

      Intake

      The Pamunkey River is not currently designated as part of the Virginia Scenic Rivers
System  (VSRS).  However, the Pamunkey River is identified in the 1989 Virginia  Outdoors
Plan as being worthy of future evaluation.
0114-951-140                             4-76                            February 1994
-------
                                               TABLE 4-52

         SUMMARY OF HOUSES NEAR  THE  PROPOSED  ALTERNATIVE PROJECT  AREAS
Alternative
Ware Creek
Reservoir
Black Creek
Reservoir **
King William
Reservoir
Fresh Groundwater
Development
Groundwater Desalination
In Newport News
Waterworks Distribution Area
intake *
within 500 feet
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
425
425
0
350
400
Number
of
Houses
4
4
0
9
19
Dam
within 500 feet
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Number
of
Houses
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Reservoir
within 500 feet
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feeU
354
300
263
N/A
N/A
Number
of
Houses
33
38
28
N/A
N/A
Pipeline
within 300 feet
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
133
171
188
0
140
Number
of
Houses
107
62
45
0
205
Total
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
192
228
217
350
162
Number
of
Houses
144
104
73
9
224
* Major river withdrawal or gtoundwater withdrawal points,
** Does not include 14 existing houses that would be directly impacted by the proposed Black Creek Reservoir.
*** Includes other buildings besides houses (e.g., schools, churches, etc.).
N/A = Not Applicable
                                                                                                        August 1993
-------
-------
      There is currently one site in the Pamunkey River basin which is listed as part of the
Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System (CBNERRS). Sweet Hall
Marsh, which is located approximately 24.5  river miles downstream of the proposed
Northbury intake site, consists of an extensive tidal freshwater marsh with adjacent non-tidal
bottomland forest on the mainland side and shallow flats on the river side (USDC and
VIMS, 1990).

      No other existing parks or preserves are located  in the vicinity of  the proposed
Pamunkey River intake at Northbury.

      Reservoir

      There are no existing parks or preserves located within the Ware Creek Reservoir
drainage area (USCOE, 1987; VDCR, 1989; JCC, 1991; RRPDC, 1991). However, the York
River is identified in the 1989 Virginia Outdoors Plan as being worthy of future evaluation
under the VSRS.

      Pipeline

      No existing parks or preserves are located along the proposed pipeline route for this
alternative component (VDCR, 1989; RRPDC, 1991; JCC, 1991).

      Land Use

      Intake

      Field  studies were conducted by Malcolm Pirnie during  the spring of 1990  to
determine the feasibility of the Northbury site as a potential raw water intake location.
These studies indicated that the proposed Northbury intake site is a relatively isolated area
with the predominant land uses  being  farmland and  forest.  Based on review of color-
infrared  aerial photography of the area, it is estimated  that approximately 1.5 acres of
farmland and 1.5 acres of forest would  be affected by construction at the intake site.  In
addition, a small amount of land disturbance may be required for construction of an access
road to the pump station and for placement of electrical transmission lines to power the
pump station.

      Expected future land  use at the intake site is conservation lands. Conservation lands
are designated by New Kent County "to ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive
lands from inappropriate development" (RRPDC,  1991).  Designation of  an  area  as a
conservation area does not preclude development. However,  any development in these
areas must  be conducted  in  accordance with  local,  state, and  federal environmental
regulations.

      Additional land use designations are applicable to the proposed intake site, and serve
to regulate development at  this site.  The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is intended to
protect and improve the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.  The goals of the Act are
achieved through  the  regulation of development within designated  Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas (CBPAs). The CBPA has two components:  Resource Protection Areas
(RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs).

0114-951-140                             4-77                           February 1994
-------
      Within New Kent County, CBPAs have not been comprehensively mapped.  Rather,
site surveys are required to identify CBPAs in regions along rivers or streams depicted on
USGS topographic maps which are proposed for development (N. Hahn, New Kent County,
personal communication,  1992),   It is likely that  the proposed intake site  would be
designated as an RPA.

      Development is limited within RPAs and RMAs.  In an RPA, only water dependent
uses are allowed. Specific performance criteria must be met, such as preservation of natural
vegetation, minimal disturbance of land, and control of sedimentation and erosion.  In an
RMA, uses allowed under the local zoning ordinance are still allowed, but development must
meet  specific performance criteria.

      An additional zoning designation which regulates development within project areas
is the Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD).  This zoning designation was set forth in
the Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act of 1977 (Section 15.1-1512.D Virginia
Code).

      The proposed  intake  site  is located entirely within the Hampstead-Northbury-
Shimokins AFD.   AFDs  are  defined by  New Kent  County  as  "land which requires
conservation and protection for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal
products and as such is a valuable natural and ecological resource providing open spaces for
clean air and adequate and safe water supplies and other aesthetic purposes and is therefore
valuable to the public interest" (New Kent County, 1991).

      Reservoir

      Land use data were  compiled for the Ware Creek Reservoir watershed by Langley
and McDonald in 1990. This information is presented in Table 4-53. The majority of the
watershed consists of forested, agricultural,  and residential land (69,  13, and 7 percent,
respectively).  Less than 2 percent of the total watershed area supports commercial  or
industrial uses, which are concentrated in the Toano area. Existing land uses within New
Kent  and James City counties are presented in Tables 4-54 and 4-55, respectively. These
data are presented to provide an indication of the relative abundance of specific land use
types within the region.

      Because the land use data presented in Table 4-53 were collected in 1990, these data
provide an indication of existing land use in the watershed. It is expected that the acreage
of residential and commercial land uses within the watershed have increased to a small
degree, and vacant land and  forested  acreage have decreased accordingly.  It is expected
that land uses within the pool area have not changed appreciably.

      Color-infrared aerial photography of the reservoir site was inspected to  determine
land use areas within the proposed normal pool area (see Table 4-56). Land uses within the
proposed reservoir pool area, with the exception of wetlands and forests, were measured
directly from the color-infrared aerial photographs using planimetry. The primary land use
within the reservoir pool area is forested land, which comprises approximately 625 acres of
the 1,238-acre pool area. Residential acreage includes all subdivisions, groups of homes, and
individual homes which are not associated with agricultural operations. The agricultural
rural/residential acreage includes all agricultural lands and houses or structures associated

0114-951-140                             4-78                            February 1994
-------
                                     TABLE 4-53

              WARE CREEK RESERVOIR WATERSHED LAND USE (1990)
Land Use Category
Light Commercial/Industrial
Residential
Roads
Agricultural
Forest
Wetlands and Open Water
Recreational
TOTAL
Acreage
212
804
428
1,474
7,565
590
68
11,141
% of Total
1.9
7.2
3.8
13.2
67.9
5.4
0.6
100
Source:       Based on October 25,1990 mapping of existing land use in the watershed (Langley
             and McDonald, 1990) and field investigations of wetland areas.
0114-951-140
                                                                           February 1994
-------
-------
                                   TABLE 4-54




                       NEW KENT COUNTY LAND USE (1989)
Land Use Category
Forest, Open Space, and
Agricultural
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation/Utilities
Public Services
TOTAL
Acreage
126,556
5,846
501
112
2,521
144
135,680
Percent of Total
93.3
4.3
0.4
0.1
1.9
0.1
100
Source: RRPDC, 1991.
0114-951-140
Februaiy 1994
-------
-------
                                       TABLE 4-55

                        JAMES CITY COUNTY LAND USE (1991)
Land Use Category
Agriculture
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public Use (includes military
land and public parks)
Forestry, Wetlands, Inland
Water, Roads, Unimproved,
Other
TOTAL
Land Use
(Acres)
13,000
15,000
2,800
1,300
9,300
50,824
92,224
Percent of Total
14,1
16.3
3.0
1.4
10.1
55.1
100.0
Source: T. Funkhouser, James City County, personal communication, 1991.

Note:  Developed acreage for commercial and industrial uses includes an estimate of acreage of
       land uses that are grandfathered for an existing use or are operating under a special use
       permit.

       There are currently 18,149 acres of land (20 percent of the total area) within Agricultural
       and Forestal Districts.  James City County staff estimate that approximately 60,000 acres
       (65 percent of the total area) are in forests of one form or another.
0114-951-140
                                                                                February 1994
-------
-------
                                      TABLE 4-56

          WARE CREEK RESERVOIR NORMAL POOL AREA LAND USE (1982)
Land Use Category
Agricultural/ Rural Residential 2
Wetlands and Open Water
Forest
Roads
TOTAL
Acreage
4
590
625
19
1,238
% of Total1
0.3
47.7
50.5
1.5
100
1       Percent of total column may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding associated with the
       individual percentages presented for each land use category.

2       Agricultural/Rural Residential acreage includes all  agricultural lands and  houses  or
       structures associated with these lands.

Source:       Planimetry  of identified land  use boundaries on  NHAP color-infrared  aerial
              photography taken on March 29,  1982 (approximate scale 1"= 1,270') and field
              investigations of wetland areas.
0114-951440
February 1994
-------
-------
with these lands.  Wetland and open water areas were identified through detailed field
mapping of wetland areas.

      No existing houses were identified that would be displaced by the proposed reservoir
or dam.

      Within the New Kent County portion of the watershed, anticipated future uses of the
land are agriculture and conservation lands. The lands designated as conservation areas are
concentrated along the York River and its tributaries  in the watershed, while agricultural
land is expected to comprise the remainder of the region (RRPDC, 1991).

      A  portion of the reservoir drainage area is designated for future industrial and
commercial development in the vicinity of Toano. The majority of the watershed, however,
is  designated  for low-density  residential and  mixed use  development.  Much of this
anticipated growth in the watershed is expected as part of the Stonehouse Community (JCC,
1991).

      The Stonehouse Community is currently being planned by Stonehouse Inc., which is
a subsidiary of Chesapeake Corporation.  The total community would comprise 7,230 acres
located within the Ware Creek watershed of James City and New Kent counties.  Rezoning
for the 5,750 acres  of this development  within James City County was approved by the
James City County Board of Supervisors in November  1991. Of James City County's 5,750
acres within Stonehouse, 4,000 acres would be in the reservoir drainage area (J. C. Dawson,
James City County,  personal communication, September 1992).

      In accordance with  the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the entire land area of
James City County is designated as a  CBPA. Ware Creek, its tributaries and adjacent areas
in James City County are designated as RPAs while the  remainder of the watershed is
located within an  RMA.

      CBPAs have not been comprehensively mapped within New Kent County.  However,
Ware Creek, its tributaries, and adjacent areas located within New Kent County are likely
to be located within an RMA or an RPA.

      Approximately  323  acres of the York River AFD are located within the northern
section of the reservoir watershed in New Kent County. Of this  area, approximately 126
acres would be located within the proposed reservoir normal pool area (N. Hahn, New Kent
County, personal  communication, 1992).  Within James City  County,  approximately 120
acres of the  Barnes Swamp AFD would be located within the reservoir normal pool area.

      It is anticipated that a buffer area around the normal pool area of the reservoir would
be acquired by the RRWSG to regulate adjacent land uses to protect reservoir water quality.
Existing land uses within the buffer area would include those land use types listed in Table
4-56 as occurring within the watershed.

      Pipeline

      The proposed pipeline, with  a length  of 26.3 miles and an assumed right-of-way
(ROW) width of 50 feet, would disturb approximately 159 acres of knd. Based on review
of USGS topographic mapping and color-infrared  aerial  photography  of the route, the
pipeline would  traverse forested land, agricultural land, and some commercial land.

0114-951-140                              4-79                            February 1994
-------
      A summary of affected land use in project areas for this alternative is included in
Table 4-57.

      Noise
      Estimated construction time of the Ware Creek Reservoir alternative is approximately
2 to 3 years.  This alternative component would include an intake and pumping station at
the Pamunkey River, a pumping station  at Diascund Creek Reservoir, and a pumping
station at Ware Creek Reservoir. Six 20  mgd pumps would be needed at the Pamunkey
River pumping station and four 10 mgd pumps Would be required at both the Diascund
Creek Reservoir and Ware Creek  Reservoir pumping  stations.  There are very few
residences within 500 feet of the proposed Pamunkey River intake and pumping station site,
some near the Diascund Creek Reservoir pumping station, and a fair density of residences
in the vicinity of the Ware Creek Reservoir pumping station which might be sensitive to
elevated noise levels associated with the alternative. Background noise levels in the vicinity
of the pumping stations would be those typical of a rural atmosphere.

      Infrastructure

      Transportation

      The principal transportation routes through the immediate vicinity of the proposed
impoundment area are Interstate 64 and State Route 168/30. There are numerous other
lower order state routes throughout the reservoir area.  Portions of State Routes  168/30,
600, and 606 would be inundated by  construction of the reservoir. Interstate 64 crosses
three arms of France Swamp and one arm of Bird Swamp.

      The Chesapeake &  Ohio Railway passes through the southern portion of the Ware
Creek Reservoir drainage  area.  No rail lines fall within the proposed impoundment area.

      The proposed pipeline route would parallel and/or cross several existing roadways
and rail lines located in New Kent County (NKC) and James City County (JCC).  These
roadways and rail lines include Interstate 64, (NKC and JCC), U.S. Route 60 (JCC), State
Routes 607 (NKC),  606 (NKC),  612 (NKC), 609 (NKC), 642 (NKC), 249 (NKC), 608
(NKC), 628 (NKC), 621 (JCC), 622 (JCC), 601 (JCC), 30 (JCC), and 168/30 (JCC), and the
Southern Railway (NKC) and Chesapeake & Ohio Railway (JCC).

      Utilities

      Short-term energy requirements for this alternative would be related to fuel and
electricity needed  for construction  activities.  Diesel  fuel would be  necessary  for the
operation of land clearing, excavation, and construction equipment.  Electricity would be
needed from the local utility to support construction activities unless diesel generators were
utilized to  generate electricity at the project site.  Long-term operation of the pumping
stations would  require  a  source  of  electricity for  the pump motors and  related
appurtenances. The emergency generator set would require diesel fuel.

      Virginia Power is the major producer and distributor of electrical power in the project
area associated with this alternative component.  Virginia Power owns and operates two
steam-electric power plants in the York River basin.  The North Anna Plant has an installed
capacity of 1,720 megawatts  (MW), and the Yorktown Plant has a capacity of 1,154 MW
(SWCB, 1988).


0114-951-140                            4-80                           February 1994
-------
                                                          TABLE 4-57

                            SUMMARY OF AFFECTED LAND USE IN ALTERNATIVE PROJECT AREAS
Alternative


Ware Creek Reservoir
Black Creek Reservoir
King William Reservoir***
Fresh Groundwater
Development
Groundwater Desalination in
Newport Waterworks
Distribution Area
Intake*

Acres
Disturbed
3
3
3

8

5
AFD
Land
(acres)
3
3
0

0

0
Number
of
Houses
0
0
0

0

0
Reservoir**

Acres
Disturbed
1,238
1,146
2,234

N/A

N/A
AFD
Land
(acres)
246
376
0

N/A

N/A
Number
of
Houses
0
14
0

N/A

N/A
Pipeline

Acres
Disturbed
159
123
94

Minimal

65
Number
of
Houses
0
0
0

0

0
Total

Acres
Disturbed
1,400
1,272
2,331

8

70
AFD
Land
(acres)
249
379
0

0

0
Number
of
Houses
0
14
0

0

0
*      Major river withdrawal of groundwater withdrawal points.
**     Excludes reservoir buffer area.
***    King William County does not currently designate AFD lands.
N/A   Not Applicable.
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
      Navigation

      By regulation, all tidal water bodies in the United  States are considered  to be
"navigable waters  of the United States" (33 CFR § 329.4).   Based on past studies, it is
assumed for administrative purposes that the Pamunkey River is navigable for its  entire
length (K. M. Kimidy, USCOE - Norfolk District, personal communication, 1993).

      The proposed river intake structure would be located at  Northbury in tidal and
navigable waters.  The mean tidal range is 3.3 feet at Northbury (USDC, 1989).  USGS
topographic maps show a mid-channel depth at mean low water of 18 feet at Northbury.
Water depths of 17 feet, taken at 80,100, and 120 feet from the south shore (ie., New Kent
County), were recorded during a recent field inspection (Malcolm Pirnie, 1990).  The
Pamunkey River is approximately 260 feet wide at Northbury.

      The proposed Ware Creek Reservoir dam site is located in tidal and navigable waters
4.7 river miles upstream of the confluence of Ware Creek and the York River.  The Ware
Creek  channel  is  approximately 75 feet  wide at the dam site  (Wilber et aL,  1987).
Approximate  channel depths of 4 to 5 feet have been observed in the vicinity  of the dam
site in an October 1992 field inspection by Malcolm Pirnie scientists. The Ware Creek
channel is free from manmade obstructions from the proposed dam site to its confluence
with the York River.

      The tide is primarily semi-diurnal on Ware Creek. The mean tidal range has been
measured at 2.8 feet (0.86 meters) at the mouth of Ware Creek and approximately 1.4 feet
(0.42 meters) at or just upstream of the proposed dam site (Wilber et al., 1987). Based on
field observations in 1992 by Malcolm Pirnie, tidal influence on Ware Creek extends to a
point approximately 1,700 feet east of the State  Route 600 crossing of Ware Creek at
Richardson Millpond. A large beaver dam blocks tidal influence upstream of this  point;
however, tidal influence may extend farther upstream during extremely high spring tides or
storm surges.

      In the  Final Environmental Impact Statement - James City County's Water Supply
Reservoir on Ware Creek, the USCOE pointed out that "recreational navigation is limited to
small powerboats and canoes because of the shaEow depth of the creek" (USCOE,  1987).
Commercial navigation may also occur in Ware Creek since a leased shellfish area extends
from the mouth of Ware Creek to a point approximately 1.6 river miles upstream  of the
mouth (VMRC, 1992). Any shellfish beds in Ware Creek have been closed by the Virginia
Department of Health due to high coliform bacteria levels in the creek (J. C. Dawson,
James City County, personal communication, November 1992).

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      The proposed Ware Creek Reservoir would be located within James City and New
Kent counties, near the metropolitan areas of Newport News, Hampton, Williamsburg, and
Richmond. Both counties have experienced substantial growth over the past  decade. In
1980, the estimated population of James City County was 22,763, based on 1980 Census
data. This population has increased by 53 percent during the last decade to 34,859 persons
in 1990 (USDC, 1992).  Within New Kent County, the 1980 Census estimated  the County
population to be 8,781.  The population increased by 19 percent by 1990, to 10,445 persons
(USDC, 1992).
0114-951-140                             4-81                           February 1994
-------
      Since the 1970s, great changes in land use in James City County have occurred. The
County, which has historicaEy been rural in nature, has transformed to a more urban and
suburban environment.  This expansion is expected to continue through the 1990s (JCC,
1991).  While much growth has occurred within New Kent County in the past two decades,
the County remains primarily rural in nature.

      Median household income to James City County to 1989, as estimated by the 1990
Census, was $39,785 per year, as compared  to  $27,337 in 1982 (T.  Funkhouser,  JCC,
personal communication, 1992).   This  represents a 45.5 percent increase to median
household income to the County to those years. In New Kent County, the estimated median
household income to 1989, according to the 1990 Census, was $38,403 per year.  This is a
106 percent increase over the  1979  estimated median  household income to  New Kent
County of $18,629 per year (RRPDC, 1991).

      Within James City County, all categories of housing types have increased within the
past decade, and stogie family homes have increased as a percentage of the total.  Recently,
the County has been experiencing extensive  new upscale housing development.  As of
January 1993, real estate within the County was taxed at a rate of $0.73 per $100 assessed
value.

      Census data indicate that the majority of housing units within New Kent County are
stogie-family dwellings.  In the past two decades, the trend has been that the number of new
stogie-family dwellings has decreased, while the number of duplex and multi-family dwellings
has increased (RRPDC, 1991).  As of November 1992, the County real estate tax rate was
$0.82 per $100 assessed  value (N. Hahn, New Kent County, personal communication, 1992).

      The  economy of James City County is supported by an estimated 17,537 persons, 16
years of age or older, who are employed within the  County (USDC, 1992). The type of
industries which employ these people vary greatly.  Based on employment data for the
County (based on the 1990 Census), the greatest number of persons to the work force within
the County are  employed by the retail  trade industry (20 percent).  The next largest
percentage (13 percent) work to the field of educational services.

      Within James  City County there are several large businesses which employ many
people. Owens-Brockway Glass Container reported employing  240 persons when surveyed
to 1990 as part of this study. Anheuser-Busch employed an additional 1,100 persons to 1990.
 Ball Metal and The Williamsburg Pottery are also large employers to the County (JCC,
1991).

      Within New Kent County, the total number of persons 16 years of age or older who
are employed is 5,326  (USDC,  1992).  As to James City County, the largest employer
category to the County is retail trade (14 percent). The next largest employer  categories
within the County are public administration (11 percent) and construction (11 percent). The
largest employers are  Cumberland Hospital, which employs  over 200 persons, and the
County.
 0114-951-140                            4-82                           February 1994
-------
      4.5.2     Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies

      Intake

      Municipal and private water supply withdrawals in the Pamunkey River basin are
discussed in Section 4,5.1.

      Reservoir

      Many individual homeowners in the vicinity of the proposed Black Creek Reservoir
site have their own wells.  No municipal or private surface water supplies were identified
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed reservoir site.

      Pipeline

      A 40-mgd capacity raw water outfall would be located on Diascund Creek upstream
of Newport News Waterworks' Diascund Creek Reservoir.  There are no known municipal
or private  water  supplies along  Diascund Creek upstream  of the  existing reservoir.
However, Diascund Creek Reservoir itself is part of a municipal water supply system (i.e.,
Newport News Waterworks).

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries

      Intake

      Existing recreational and commercial fisheries at the proposed Pamunkey  River
intake site are described in Section 4.5.1.

      Reservoir

      Fish species present in the Black Creek  Reservoir impoundment area are discussed
in Section 4.3.2.

      Because of their small size and limited access, the streams within the impoundment
area have limited potential for commercial and recreational fishing. Crumps Millpond has
not been surveyed by the VDGIF  and is not currently stocked;  however, it most likely is
used for recreational fishing (D. C. Dowling, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992).

      Invertebrate  species of commercial importance would not be  abundant in the
proposed impoundment site due to the low salinity at and upstream of the  proposed dam
site.

      Pipeline

      Based on review of USGS topographic maps and color-infrared aerial photography
of the pipeline route, most of the route traverses forested lands.

      The new pipeline would cross 10 perennial and 14 intermittent streams, as well as an
arm of Little Creek Reservoir.
0114-951-140                             4-83                            February 1994
-------
      Other Water-Related Recreation

      Intake

      Existing recreational  uses of the proposed  Pamunkey River intake site area are
described in Section 4.5.1.

      Reservoir

      The primary water-related recreational activity in the proposed Black Creek Reservoir
watershed is hunting. The basin supports many bird and mammal species sought by hunters.
Several private hunt dubs and duck blinds are located in the basin (J. Taylor, VDGIF,
personal communication, 1992).

      Pipelines

      Based on review of USGS topographic maps and color-infrared aerial photography
of the pipeline route, most of the 20.3-mile route traverses forested lands.  It is likely that
portions of this area are leased to private hunt clubs.

      Aesthetics

      Intake

      Existing aesthetic characteristics of the proposed Pamunkey River intake site area are
described in Section 4.5.1.

      Reservoir

      The Black Creek watershed is remotely located within a rural area of New Kent
County composed mainly of forested areas and scattered residential and agricultural areas.
The aesthetic value of the proposed reservoir area  is its natural  beauty, composed  of
hardwood swamps,  emergent vegetation, and wildlife. However, Black Creek has limited
and seasonally variable visibility from public roads, so its aesthetic appeal is present but not
apparent to the casual observer. Eleven houses were identified within the proposed pool
area and three houses  are located within  500 feet of the proposed dam.  A total  of  38
additional houses were identified within 500 feet of the proposed reservoir pool area (see
Table 4-52).

      Pipeline

      The pipeline route would traverse  mostly  rural areas; however, 62 houses were
identified within  300 feet of the proposed pipeline route (see Table 4-52).

      Parks and  Preserves

      Intake

      Parks  and preserves  in the  vicinity of the proposed Northbury intake on the
Pamunkey River are discussed in Section 4.5.1.
 0114-951-140                              4-84                            February 1994
-------
      Reservoir

      There are no existing designated parks or preserves located within the proposed Black
Creek Reservoir drainage area (RRPDC, 1991; VDCR, 1989).

      Pipeline

      No existing parks or preserves are located along the proposed pipeline route for this
alternative component (VDCR, 1989, RRPDC, 1991; JCC, 1991).

      Land Use

      Intake

      Existing land uses  at the proposed Pamunkey River intake site are described in
Section 4.5.1.

      Reservoir

      High altitude aerial photographs and New Kent County planning maps were used to
identify existing land uses within the proposed normal pool elevation of the reservoir and
the reservoir watershed.  Table 4-58 identifies existing land  uses within the  reservoir
drainage area, which includes the normal pool area, while Table 4-59 identifies land uses
within the normal pool area only.

      Each of the land use categories, with the exception of forests, were measured directly
from color-infrared aerial photographs using planimetry.  Residential acreage includes all
subdivisions,  groups  of  homes, and individual homes which are not associated with
agricultural  operations.   New Kent County  planning maps were also used  to identify
residential acreage. The agricultural/rural residential acreage includes all agricultural lands
and houses or structures associated with these lands. Wetland and open water acreage was
determined through interpretation of aerial photographs and field inspections. Existing land
uses within New Kent County are presented in Table 4-54 to provide  an indication  of the
relative abundance of specific land use types within the  region.

      The majority of the watershed is currently forested (79 percent). Approximately 12
percent of the watershed supports the agricultural/rural residential land use and an
additional 1  percent  supports  residential land use.  The remaining 8  percent of the
watershed is comprised of roads, open water, and wetlands.

      Forested lands also comprise the majority of the reservoir pool area (66  percent),
with wetlands  and open water comprising the  next  largest land  area (25  percent).
Residential  land  uses  are  also located  within  the reservoir pool area,  constituting
approximately 8 percent of total existing land use within the pool area.

      Considerable residential growth has occurred and continues to occur in portions of
the proposed 5.5-square  mile  reservoir watershed.  For example, the Clopton Forest
residential  subdivision borders the western edge of the Southern Branch Black Creek
impoundment site. Based on review of New Kent  County House Numbering Maps in
conjunction with color-infrared aerial photography and USGS topographic mapping, there
appear to be 14 existing houses which are at or below the proposed reservoir normal pool


0114-951-140                              4-85 .                           February 1994
-------
elevation of 100 feet msl or that would be displaced by the dams. At least three additional
houses would be within the proposed reservoir buffer zones.  The buffer zones are defined
as the 100-foot buffer from the pool areas, or the 110-foot contour elevation, whichever is
a greater distance from the proposed  reservoir pool areas.  As of January  1993, an
additional five building permits for houses had been issued within the reservoir pool and
buffer areas.

      Anticipated future land uses within the vicinity  of the reservoir drainage  area are
identified primarily as agriculture and conservation areas (RRPDC, 1991; New Kent County,
1991).  Conservation lands are designated by New Kent County to protect environmentally
sensitive lands. Within the watershed, these areas are expected to be concentrated along
the Southern Branch Black Creek. Some medium density residential areas are expected to
be  located in the southwestern  portion of the  drainage area.  The remainder  of the
watershed, and the majority, is designated for agricultural use.

      CBPAs and AFDs are located  within the reservoir drainage area.  As described
previously, CBPAs have not been comprehensively mapped in New Kent County. Rather,
site surveys are required to identify CBPAs in regions  along river or streams depicted on
USGS maps which are proposed for development (N. Hahn, New Kent County,  personal
communication, 1992).  Black Creek, its tributaries, and adjacent areas are likely candidates
for inclusion in a  CBPA.

      Approximately 1,905 acres of the Pamunkey River Valley AFD are located within the
northeast section  of the watershed in New Kent County. Of this  area, approximately 376
acres would be located within the proposed normal pool area of the reservoir (N. Hahn,
New Kent County, personal communication, 1992).

      It is anticipated that a buffer area around the normal pool area of the reservoir would
be  acquired by the RRWSWG to regulate adjacent land uses to protect reservoir water
quality. Existing land uses within this buffer area would include those land use types listed
in Table 4-57 as occurring within the watershed.

      Pipeline

      The proposed pipeline, with a length of 20.3 miles and an assumed ROW width of 50
feet, would disturb approximately 123 acres of land  (excluding Little Creek Reservoir
crossing). Existing land uses along the proposed pipeline  were identified through review of
USGS topographic mapping and color-infrared aerial  photography.  Based on  review of
these sources, a  portion of the  pipeline route (4.3 miles)  follows existing rights-of-way
through New Kent and James City counties.   For the remainder of the route, which
encompasses approximately  16 miles,  the pipeline would primarily traverse forested and
agricultural land.

      A summary a affected land use in project areas for this alternative is included in
Table 4-57.

      Noise
      Estimated construction time of the Black Creek Reservoir alternative is approximately
3 years. This alternative component would include an intake and pumping station at the


0114-951-140                             4-86                            February 1994
-------
                                      TABLE 4-58

               BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WATERSHED LAND USE (1989)
Land Use Category
Residential 2
Agricultural/Rural Residential 3
Roads
Wetlands and Open Water
Forest
TOTAL
Acreage
49
409
1
289
2,772
3,520
% of Total l
1.4
11.6
0.036
8.2
78.8
100
1       Percent of total column may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding associated with the
       individual percentages presented for each land use category.

2       Residential acreage includes aE subdivisions, groups of homes, and individual homes not
       associated with agricultural operations.

3       Agricultural/Rural Residential acreage includes all agricultural  lands  and houses  or
       structures associated with these lands.

Source:       Planimetry  of identified  land  use boundaries on  NAPP color-infrared  aerial
              photography taken on  March  11, 1989  (approximate scale 1"=836') and field
              investigations  of wetland areas.
0114-951-140
                                                                               February 1994
-------
-------
                                      TABLE 4-59

          BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR NORMAL POOL AREA LAND USE (1989)
Land Use Category
Residential 2
Agricultural/ Rural Residential 3
Wetlands and Open Water
Forest
Roads
TOTAL
Acreage
95
13
285
752
1
1,146
% of Total *
8.3
1.1
24.9
65.6
0.1
100
1       Percent of total column may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding associated with the
       individual percentages presented for each land use category.

2       Residential acreage includes all subdivisions, groups of homes, and individual homes not
       associated with agricultural operations.

3       Agricultural/Rural Residential acreage includes  all agricultural  lands  and houses or
       structures associated with these lands.

Source:       Planimetry  of identified  land  use boundaries on NAPP color-infrared aerial
              photography taken on March  11,  1989 (approximate scale  1"=836') and  field
              inspections of wetland areas.
0114-951-140
February 1994
-------
-------
Pamunkey River, a pumping station at Black Creek Reservoir, and a pumping station at
Diascund Creek Reservoir. Six 20 mgd pumps would be needed at the proposed Pamunkey
River pumping station and four 10 mgd pumps would be required at both the Black Creek
and Diascund Creek reservoir pumping stations. There are very few residences within 500
feet of the Pamunkey River intake and pumping station  site, and some near the Black Creek
and Diascund Creek reservoir pumping stations, which  might be sensitive to elevated noise
levels associated with the alternative. Background noise levels in the vicinity of the pumping
stations would be those typical of a rural environment.

      Infrastructure

      Transportation

      The principal transportation route through the immediate vicinity of the proposed
impoundment  area is State Route 249. There are numerous other lower order state routes
throughout the reservoir area.  Route 249 is the only existing  highway which would be
inundated by construction of the reservoir.

      The Southern Railway crosses Black Creek just north of the proposed dam sites.  No
rail lines fall within the proposed impoundment areas.

      The proposed  pipeline route would parallel and/or cross several existing roadways
and rail lines located in New Kent County (NKC) and James City County (JCC).  These
roadways and rail lines include U.S. Route 60 (JCC), State Routes 607 (NKC), 606 (NKC),
612 (NKC), 609 (NKC), 642 (NKC), 249 (NKC),  608  (NKC), 603 (JCC), 621 (JCC), 601
(JCC), 657 (JCC), and 610 (JCC), and the Southern Railway (NKC) and Chesapeake &
Ohio Railway  (JCC).

      Utilities

      Short-term energy requirements for this alternative  would be related  to fuel and
electricity needed for construction activities.  Diesel fuel would be  necessary for  the
operation of land clearing, excavation, and construction equipment.  Electricity would be
needed from the local utility to support construction activities unless diesel generators were
utilized to generate electricity at the project site. Long-term operation of the pumping
stations would  require  a source of  electricity for the pump motors  and  related
appurtenances. The  emergency generator set would require diesel fuel.

      Virginia Power is the major producer and distributor of electrical power in the project
area associated with  this alternative component.  Virginia Power owns and operates two
steam-electric  power plants in the York River basin. The North Anna Plant has an installed
capacity of 1,720 megawatts (MW), and the Yorktown Plant has a capacity of 1,154 MW
(SWCB, 1988).

      Navigation

      Navigational characteristics of  the Pamunkey River at Northbury  are described in
Section 4.5.1,
0114-951-140                            4-87                            February 1994
-------
      The proposed Black Creek Reservoir dam sites are located in non-tidal waters
upstream of the confluence of Black Creek and the Pamunkey River. No known commercial
navigation currently occurs on Black Creek. Recreational navigation is unknown within the
proposed impoundment sites.  Limited recreational navigation may occur in the lowest
reaches of Black Creek, well downstream of the proposed dam sites and downstream of the
manmade obstructions which are described below. •

      Based on May 1992 field inspections by Malcolm Pirnie scientists, the Black Creek
channel has at least three important manmade obstructions downstream of the proposed
dam sites.  The obstruction identified farthest downstream is the State Route 608 Bridge
which spans a section of Black* Creek approximately 40 feet wide. Four 9-foot wide, round
culverts are situated  under the bridge.   There  has  also  been some  indication  that
downstream of the Route 608 Bridge is an old, submerged roadbed which may represent an
additional obstacle to potential navigation.

      The elevated Southern Railway Bridge is located south and upstream of the State
Route 608 Bridge and spans a 20-foot wide section of Black Creek.  The railroad bridge
abutments are constructed of tar-covered wood timbers.  The channel upstream of the
Southern Railway Bridge narrows  to an  average  width of approximately 12 feet.   An
additional obstruction to potential navigation is the State Route 606 Bridge which spans a
25-foot wide section of Black Creek. Three 6-foot by 6-foot box culverts are situated under
the Route 606 Bridge.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      The proposed Black Creek Reservoir would be located entirely within  New Kent
County, near the  metropolitan areas of Newport News, Hampton, Williamsburg, and
Richmond. The County has experienced substantial growth over the past decade.  Within
New Kent County, the 1980 Census estimated the County population to be 8,781 persons.
The population increased by 19 percent by 1990, to 10,445 persons (USDC, 1992).

      While much growth has occurred within New Kent County in the past two decades,
the County remains primarily rural in nature.  In New Kent County, the estimated median
household income in 1989, according  to the 1990 Census, was $38,403 per year. This is a
106 percent increase over the 1979  estimated median household income in  New Kent
County of $18,629 per year (RRPDC, 1991).

      Census data indicate that the majority of housing units within New Kent County are
single-family dwellings.  In the past two decades, the trend has been that the number of new
single-family dwellings has decreased, while the number of duplex and multi-family dwellings
has increased (RRPDC, 1991). As of November 1992, the  County real estate tax rate was
$0.82 per $100 assessed value (N. Hahn, New Kent County, personal communication, 1992).

      Within New Kent County, the total  number of persons 16 years of age or older who
are employed is 5,326 (USDC, 1992).  The largest employer category in the County is retail
trade (14 percent).  The  next largest employer categories within the County are public
administration (11  percent) and construction (11 percent).  The largest employers are
Cumberland Hospital, which employs over 200 persons, and the County.
 0114-951-140                            4-88                            February 1994
-------
      4.5 J     King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies

      Intake

      An  analysis of existing  water use and cumulative streamflow reduction in the
Mattaponi River basin was conducted. Total reported surface and groundwater withdrawals
within the entire Mattaponi River basin, exclusive of Chesapeake Corporation, averaged
3.66 mgd in the Year 1990 (P. E. Herman, SWCB, personal communication, 1993).  This
total withdrawal excludes 18.3 mgd of groundwater withdrawals made in 1990 by Chesapeake
Corporation at West Point since these withdrawals are from very deep aquifers which are
not included in this cumulative streamflow reduction analysis. An estimated 22 percent of
the groundwater withdrawals made by Chesapeake Corporation are consumed (SWCB,
1988).

      In December 1991 the SWCB approved a groundwater withdrawal permit that allows
Chesapeake Corporation to withdraw up to 700.6 million gallons per month (23.0 mgd).
Recharge zones, with direct interconnection between surface water and the lower aquifers,
are located within the area immediately east  of the Fall Line where major tributaries have
incised through the quaternary sediments.  Therefore, large groundwater withdrawals from
the lower aquifers, such as those made by Chesapeake Corporation, do have the potential
to deplete surface water sources in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey river basins to some
unquantified degree.  However, an estimated 78 percent of Chesapeake  Corporation's
groundwater withdrawal is ultimately discharged to surface waters and augments river flows
to that extent.

      There are also irrigators in the Mattaponi River basin whose total estimated annual
withdrawals in the Year 1985 were 179 million gallons (or 0.98 mgd assuming all irrigation
occurs between April and September) (G. S. Anderson, USGS, personal communication,
1991). Adding this irrigation withdrawal to reported Year 1990 withdrawals results in an
estimated  current average water withdrawal of 4.64 mgd within the Mattaponi River basin
(exclusive  of Chesapeake Corporation).  Of this current estimated water demand in the
basin  (exclusive of Chesapeake Corporation),  approximately 71 percent  is for domestic,
commercial, and institutional use; 21 percent is for irrigation; and 8 percent is for industrial,
manufacturing, and mining purposes.

      Actual net streamflow  reductions would  be  less than  total Mattaponi basin
withdrawals since the 4.64-mgd figure includes some reported groundwater withdrawals and
ignores  surface water return flows such as wastewater treatment plant effluent and crop
irrigation return flows (i.e., non-consumptive surface water withdrawals). Consumptive use
is the portion of water withdrawn that is not returned to the resource because it has been
evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by man or livestock,
or otherwise removed from the water environment. The portion of the withdrawal that is
not consumed is returned to  the resource.

      The York Water Suppfy Plan (SWCB, 1988) contains an estimated consumptive use
factor of 0.66 for the Mattaponi River basin which is based on published USGS data (Solley
et al., 1983).  Applying this factor to average Year 1990 withdrawals results in an estimated

0114-951-140                            4-89                            February 1994
-------
consumptive  use of 3.1 mgd  within the  entire Mattaponi River basin (exclusive of
Chesapeake Corporation).

      Total freshwater discharge at the mouth of the Mattaponi River is estimated at 585.5
mgd. Estimated Year 1990 consumptive water use in the basin represents 0.5 percent of the
average discharge.   A list and location map  of major reservoirs, stream intakes  and
groundwater withdrawals within the Mattaponi River basin are presented in Table 4-60 and
Figure 4-7.

      One private water supply system was identified in the vicinity of the proposed
Mattaponi River intake site.  Walkerton Water System, Inc. owns two deep wells located in
the community of Walkerton in King and  Queen County.  One of these wells is not in
service at this time. The second well was drilled in 1984 and is screened at depths of 282
to 292 feet and  363 to 383 feet.  This water  system is permitted by  the VDH for 50
connections (S. Shaw, VDH, personal communication, 1993). Walkerton is located adjacent
to the State Route 629 Bridge across the Mattaponi River which is approximately 4.8 river
miles upstream of Scotland Landing.

      Reservoir

      Individual homeowners in the vicinity of  the proposed King William Reservoir site
have their own wells. No municipal or private surface water supplies were identified in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed reservoir site.

      Pipeline

      A 40 mgd capacity raw water outfall would be located on Beaverdam Creek upstream
of Diascund Creek Reservoir,  There are  no known municipal or private water supplies
along Beaverdam Creek upstream of the  existing reservoir.  However, Diascund Creek
Reservoir itself is part of a municipal water supply system (i.e., Newport News Waterworks).

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries

      Intake

      The Mattaponi River and its banks are utilized for recreational fishing, although no
public boat landings are located in the immediate vicinity of Scotland Landing (Delorme
Mapping Company, 1989).  There is a privately-owned boat ramp to the Mattaponi River
in King and Queen County, adjacent to the State Route 629 Bridge at Walkerton. However,
public use of this boat ramp currently takes  place and  the  VDCR and VDGIF have
expressed an interest  in acquiring this boating access (VDOT and FHA,  1992).  The
Walkerton Bridge is approximately 4.8 river miles upstream of Scotland Landing.

       Commercially important fish species harvested in the Mattaponi River during 1990
and 1991 include Striped Bass and American Shad. Blue Crab are also harvested from the
Mattaponi River (VMRC, 1992).
 0114-951-140                             4-90                           February 1994
-------
                               TABLE  4-60
             MAJOR  RESERVOIRS,  STREAM  INTAKES,
                AND  GROUNDWATER  WITHDRAWALS
                 IN  THE MATTAPONI  RIVER BASIN

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1-5
16
17
18

Ground water Withdrawal
1 Well
Alpha Water Corporation (Elsinore)
Groundwater Withdrawal
4 Wells
Town of Bowling Green
Ground water Withdrawal
1 Well
Caroline County (Caroline High School)
Groundwater Withdrawal
1 Well
Foreign & Domestic Woods, Inc. (Bowling Green Plant)
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Wells
Caroline County (Milford Sanitary District)
Groundwater Withdrawal
3Wells
Caroline County Utility System
Stream Intake
Mattaponi River
Smith Sand & Gravel, Inc. (Ruthw Glen Plant)
Groundwater Withdrawal
1 Well
Days Inn
Groundwater Withdrawal
3Wells
VA Oept of Transportation (I-9S Bowling Green Rest Area)
Reservoir (Lake Caroline)
Lake Caroline Water Company
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Wells
Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. (Campbell's Creek)
Groundwater Withdrawal
26 Wells
U.S. Army (Fort AP Hill)
Reservoir (Ni)
Spotsylvania County (Ni River WTP)
Groundwater Withdrawal
1 Well
Lake Land 'or Utility Company
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Wells
Spotsylvania County (Winewood Estates)
Groundwater Withdrawal
3 Wells
Po River Water & Sewer Company (Indian Acres Club
of Thomburg)
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Wells
Walkerton Water System, Inc.
Groundwater Withdrawal
14 Wells
Chesapeake Corporation (West Point Facility)

0.015
0,135
0.005
0.017
0.033
0.156
0.349
0.026 (d)
0.048
0.395
0.037
0.015 (c)
2.319
0.053
0.01 1
0.063
0,015
18.295
a) See Figure 4-7.
b) Reported 1860 withdrawals retrieved from the Virginia Water Use Data System
   (P £. Herman, SWC8, personal communication, 19S3).
c) 1884 withdrawal as reported in York Water Supply Plan (SWCB, 1988).
d) 1886 withdrawal a* reported in Virginia Water Withdrawals 1986 (SWCB, 1987).
August 1993
-------
-------
   ORANGE
                        SPOTSYLVANIA
                                                                             LEGEND


                                                                           RESERVOIR


                                                                           STREAM INTAKE


                                                                           GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL


                                                                           PROPOSED INTAKE SITE
                                                                           (SCOTLAND LANDING)
                       CAROLINE
                                                              KING AND QUEEN
                                          KING WILLIAM
                                                                                GLOUCESTER
MAlJOOyVt
  PIRNIE
                         APRIL 1993
                   LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
                REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                    ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

MAJOR RESERVOIRS, STREAM INTAKES AND  GROUNDWATER

      WITHDRAWALS IN  THE  MATTAPONI RIVER BASIN
                                                                    SCALE IN MILES
0
c

m

*.
i
-------
-------
      Reservoir

      Within the proposed impoundment area, Cohoke Mill Creek is shallow and has
limited access. The creek is also isolated from navigable waters downstream by the existing
Cohoke Millpond Dam.  Therefore, the proposed impoundment area currently has limited
potential for commercial fisheries since it would not accommodate larger commercial
vessels.

      The majority of the recreational fishing in the vicinity of the proposed impoundment
area occurs downstream in Cohoke Millpond.  Cohoke Mfflpond is a private 15-acre fishing
pond owned by the Cohoke Club, Inc. The Cohoke Club has a small boathouse on the pond
and a private fishing dock immediately downstream of the Cohoke Millpond Dam.

      Invertebrates  of commercial importance would not be abundant in the proposed
impoundment site given the low salinity at and upstream of the proposed dam site. This
would likely be the case with or without the existing Cohoke Millpond Dam which is located
downstream of the proposed impoundment site.

      Pipeline

      Based on review of USGS topographic maps and color-infrared aerial photography
of the pipeline route, 9 perennial and 17 intermittent streams would be crossed by the new
pipeline. The pipeline would also cross the Pamunkey River and an arm of Little Creek
Reservoir.  No commercial fishing  occurs at Little Creek Reservoir. Commercial fishing in
the Pamunkey River is discussed in Section 4.5.1.

      Other Water-Related Recreation

      Intake

      The  Mattaponi River  and its banks in  the proposed project area are utilized for
various recreational activities including fishing, hunting, and boating.  There is a privately-
owned boat ramp on the Mattaponi River in King and Queen County, adjacent to the State
Route 629  Bridge at Walkerton,   However,  public use of this boat ramp currently takes
place, and  the VDCR and VDGIF have expressed an interest in acquiring this boating
access (VDOT and  FHA, 1992).   The Walkerton Bridge is approximately 4.9 river miles
upstream of Scotland Landing.

      The  Mattaponi River is tidal at the proposed intake location and is well-suited for
year-round recreational boat activity.  Several privately owned duck blinds and hunt clubs
are  located  in  the  vicinity of  Scotland  Landing  (H.  Garner,  VDGIF,  personal
communication, 1992).

      Reservoir

      The  primary water-related recreation within the proposed King William  Reservoir
watershed  is hunting.  The  basin  supports several bird and mammal species sought by
hunters.  Hunt clubs within the watershed include the  West Point Stillhunters Club which
leases land adjacent to State Routes 626, 630, and 631  and  the HoEy Grove Hunt Club

0114-951-140                            4-91                          February 1994
-------
which leases land adjacent to State Routes 626, 632, and 651. Several other private hunt
clubs and  duck blinds are also located in the basin (H. Garner,  VDGIF,  personal
communication, 1992).

      The  Cohoke Club, Inc. owns the Cohoke Millpond and some of the land near the
existing millpond dam. The Cohoke Club has a small boathouse and a private fishing dock
immediately downstream of the Cohoke Millpond dam.

      Pipeline

      Based on review of USGS topographic maps and color-infrared aerial photography
of the pipeline route, most of the 17.0-mile route traverses forested lands. It is likely that
portions of this area  are leased to private hunt clubs.  The pipeline  also crosses  the
Pamunkey  River which may support hunting, fishing, and boating, although the nearest
public boat landing, Brickhouse Landing, is located approximately 3,000 feet downstream
of the proposed pipeline crossing.

      Aesthetics

      Intake

      The  aesthetic value of the proposed river intake area is its predominantly natural,
scenic  beauty.  The  shoreline  surrounding  the Mattaponi River in the vicinity of  the
proposed intake  is  a sloping,  forested  terrain  which is relatively undeveloped in  the
immediate vicinity.  No houses were identified within 500 feet of the proposed Mattaponi
River pump station.  However, there is a new, large-lot residential subdivision on the south
shore of the  Mattaponi River, with  the  nearest house located  approximately 1,000 feet
downstream of the proposed pump station building site. Some site work at the pump station
site could be within 600 feet of the nearest house within this new subdivision (see Table 4-
52).

      Reservoir

      The  King William watershed is mostly rural with residential areas scattered along
roads and highways.  The aesthetic value of the proposed reservoir area is its  scenic beauty,
a  product  of its  hardwood swamps, emergent vegetation, and wildlife.  However,  the
proposed impoundment area on  Cohoke Mill Creek has limited and  seasonally variable
visibility from public roads, so its aesthetic appeal is present  but not highly apparent to the
causal observer. No existing houses were identified within the proposed reservoir pool area
or in the vicinity of the proposed dam. A total of 28 houses were identified within 500 feet
of the proposed reservoir pool area, with the nearest house located at least 50 feet from the
pool area.

      Pipeline

      The pipeline  route would traverse mostly rural areas; however, 45 houses were
identified within 300 feet of the proposed pipeline route (see Table 4-52).
 0114-951-140                             4-92                           February 1994
-------
      The Comprehensive Plan far Kaig WMam County, Virginia (KWCPD, 1991) identifies
the intake site as being located within a designated CBPA. Due to the proximity of the site
adjacent to the Pamunkey River, the area would be designated as an RPA.

      As of July 1992, the provisions of the Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act
of 1977 had been repealed in King William County.  Therefore, no AFDs were in effect
within the County (D, W. Carney, King William County, personal communication, 1992).

      Reservoir

      Color-infrared aerial photographs were used to identify existing land uses within the
proposed normal pool elevation of the reservoir and the reservoir watershed. Existing land
uses within the reservoir drainage area, including the pool area, are identified in Table 4-61.
Land uses within the normal pool area are identified in Table 4-62.  The data presented in
these tables are based on 1993 aerial photography of the region. Development within this
region has not been great within the past decade (KWCPD, 1991).

      All categories, with the exception  of wetlands  and forests, were identified  and
measured on  the aerial  photographs using planimetry.  Residential acreage  includes all
subdivisions,  groups of  homes, and  individual homes  not associated with  agricultural
operations.  The agricultural/rural residential category includes all agricultural lands  and
houses or structures associated with these lands. Wetland and open water acreage in the
drainage area was determined through  interpretation  of aerial photography and field
inspections. Existing land uses within King William County are presented  in Table 4-63 to
provide an indication of the relative abundance of specific land use types within the region.

      The majority of  the reservoir  watershed is currently  forested  (76 percent).
Approximately 17  percent of the watershed is  in agricultural/rural residential land  use.
Aside from homes associated with agricultural operations, only limited residential land use
was identified within the watershed. No existing homes were identified at or below 100  feet
msi  The remainder of the watershed is comprised of open water, wetlands, and roads.

      Forested lands also comprise the majority of the proposed reservoir pool area (77
percent), with wetlands comprising the next largest land area (21 percent). Approximately
29 acres of agricultural/rural residential land is  also located  at or below the proposed
normal pool elevation of 90 feet nisi.

      No existing houses were identified that would be displaced by the proposed reservoir
or dam. This determination was made based on review of USGS topographic maps, recent
color-infrared aerial photography, and discussions with King William County planning and
building officials.

      The King William Reservoir drainage area  is designated as a CBPA in accordance
with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (KWCPD,  1991).  Cohoke  Mill Creek  and
immediately adjacent areas are designated as RPAs.  The remainder of the watershed is
designated as an RMA. Residential, light commercial, and planned  unit developments are
anticipated to be located along the perimeter of the watershed in the future.
0114-951440                             4-94                            February 1994
-------
      Parks and Preserves

      Intake

      The Mattaponi River is not currently designated as part of the Virginia Scenic Rivers
System (VSRS).  While it is currently not afforded protection under this system, it is
designated in the 1989 Virginia Outdoors Plan as a potential component which is worthy of
future evaluation (VDCR,  1989). No existing parks or preserves are located in the vicinity
of the proposed Mattaponi  River intake at Scotland Landing (VDCR, 1991; KWCPD, 1991).

      The Nature Conservancy currently holds a conservation easement on the Mattaponi
River in King & Queen County.  The easement protects 50 acres of marshland on the
Mattaponi River, which includes an island marsh, at and immediately upstream of the State
Route 629 Bridge at Walkerton (VCOE, 1987; Paust, 1988; VDOT and FHA, 1992). This
easement is located approximately 5 river miles upstream of the proposed Scotland Landing
intake site.

      Reservoir

      There are no parks  or preserves located within  the drainage area of the proposed
King William Reservoir (VDCR, 1989; KWCPD, 1991).

      Pipeline

      The Sweet Hall Marsh  component of the Chesapeake Bay National Estuary Research
Reserve System (CBNERRS) is located approximately 2.7 river miles downstream of the
proposed pipeline crossing of the Pamunkey River.

      No other existing parks or preserves are located along the proposed pipeline route
for this alternative component (VDCR, 1989; KWCPD, 1991; JCC, 1991).

      Land Use

      Intake

      It is assumed that  construction of  a pump station  at  Scotland  Landing on the
Mattaponi River would required disturbance of approximately 3 acres of land. In addition,
a small amount of land would be required for construction of an access road to the pump
station and for placement of  electrical transmission lines to power the pump station. Field
studies of the proposed intake site at Scotland Landing were conducted by Malcolm Pirnie
during the spring of 1990  to  determine the feasibility of the site as a potential raw water
intake location.  These studies identified the site as being located  on a large tract of land
(i.e., 188 acres) which can  be subdivided, if necessary, for the pumping station.

      To further characterize existing land uses at the site, USGS topographic mapping and
color-infrared aerial photography were also  reviewed.  Based  on inspection  of these
resources, the pump station  building would be  located on forested land.
0114-951-140                            4-93                           February 1994
-------
                                      TABLE 4-61

              KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR WATERSHED LAND USE (1993)
Land Use Category
Agricultural/Rural Residential 2
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Subtotal
Wetlands and Open Water
Forest
TOTAL
Acreage
1,441
62
67
129
479
6,380
8,429
% of Total l
17.1
0.7
0.8
1.5
5.7
75.7
100
1       Percent of total column may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding associated with the
       individual percentages presented for each land use category.

2       Agricultural/Rural Residential acreage includes all agricultural lands and house or structures
       associated with these lands.

Source:       Planimetry of identified land use boundaries on color-infrared aerial photography
              taken by Air Survey Corporation on March 7, 1993 (approximate scale 1" = 1,000')
              and field inspections of wetland areas.
0114-951-140
                                                                               February 1994
-------
-------
                                      TABLE 4-62

          KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR NORMAL POOL AREA LAND USE (1993)
Land Use Category
Agricultural/Rural Residential 2
Wetlands and Open Water
Forest
Roads
TOTAL
Acreage
29
479
1,719
7
2,234
% of Total 1
1.3
21,4
76.9
0.3
100
1       Percent of total column may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding associated with the
       individual percentages presented for each land use category.

z       Agricultural/Rural Residential acreage includes all agricultural lands and house or structures
       associated with these lands.

Source:       Planimetry of identified land  use boundaries on color-infrared aerial photography
              taken by Air Survey  Corporation on March 7,  1993 (approximate scale 1"= 1,000')
              and field inspections of wetland areas.
0114-951-140
                                                                              February 1994
-------
-------
                                     TABLE 4-63




                      KING WILLIAM COUNTY LAND USE (1988)
Land Use Category
Urban
Agricultural
Forest and Other l
Water 2
TOTAL
Acreage
1,587
38,201
137,978
5,056
182,822
Percent of Total
0.8
20.9
75.5
2.8
100
 1      Includes recreational and wildlife areas.




 2      Does not include ponds less than 40 acres in size or streams.
Source: York Water Supply Plan (SWCB, 1988).
0114-951-140
August 1993
-------
-------
      As of July 1992, no AFDs were in effect within King William County (D. W. Carney,
King William County, personal communication, 1992).

      As described in the King William Reservoir Project Development Agreement (King
William County and City of Newport News, 1990), for water quality protection purposes.
King William County would acquire and lease to the City of Newport News sufficient land
to create a buffer zone around the reservoir. This buffer zone would extend a minimum of
100 feet horizontally from the water's edge at spillway elevation and a minimum of 7 feet
vertically above spillway elevation. Existing land uses within this buffer area would include
those land use types listed in Table 4-61 as occurring within the watershed.

      Pipeline

      The proposed pipeline, with a length of 17.0 miles and an assumed ROW width of
50 feet, would disturb approximately 94 acres of land (excluding Pamunkey River and Little
Creek Reservoir crossing and directional drill segment below high ground).  Existing land
uses along  the proposed pipeline were identified through review  of USGS topographic
mapping and color-infrared aerial photography.  A portion of the pipeline route (4.3 miles)
follows existing rights-of-way through King William, New Kent, and James City counties.
For the remainder of the route, which encompasses approximately 12.7 miles, the  pipeline
would primarily traverse forested and agricultural land.

      A summary of affected land use in project areas for this alternative is included in
Table 4-57.

      Noise
      Estimated  construction  time  of  the  King  William   Reservoir  alternative  is
approximately 3 years. This alternative component would include an intake and pumping
station at the Mattaponi River and a pumping station at Diascund Creek Reservoir.  Five
15 mgd pumps would be needed at the Mattaponi River pumping station and four 10 mgd
pumps would be required at the Diascund Creek Reservoir pumping station.  There are no
residences within 500 feet of the proposed Mattaponi River intake and pumping station site,
and some near the Diascund Creek Reservoir pumping station,  which might be sensitive to
elevated noise levels associated with the project. Background noise levels in the vicinity of
the pumping stations would be those typical of a rural atmosphere.

      Infrastructure

      Transportation

      The principal transportation route through the immediate vicinity of the proposed
impoundment area is State Route 30. There  are numerous other lower order state routes
throughout the reservoir area. State Route 626 is the only existing highway which would be
inundated by construction of the reservoir.

      The Southern Railway crosses Cohoke Millpond just south of the proposed dam site.
No rail lines fall within the proposed impoundment area.
0114-951-140                             4-95                           February 1994
-------
      The proposed pipeline route would parallel and/or cross several existing roadways
and rail lines located in King William County (KWC), New Kent County (NKC), and James
City County (JCC).  These roadways and rail lines include U.S. Route 60 (JCC),  State
Routes 620 (KWC), 30 (KWC), 632 (KWC), 630 (KWC), 624 (NKC), 623 (NKC), 249
(NKC), 33 (NKC), 603 (JCC), 621 (JCC), 601 (JCC), 657 (JCC), and 610 (JCC), and the
Southern Railway (KWC) and Chesapeake & Ohio Railway (JCC).

      Utilities

      Short-term energy requirements for this alternative would be related to fuel and
electricity needed for construction activities.   Diesel  fuel would  be necessary for the
operation of land clearing, excavation, and construction equipment. Electricity would be
needed from the local utility to support construction activities unless diesel generators were
utilized to generate electricity at the project site.  Long-term operation of the pumping
stations would require a  source of  electricity for  the pump  motors and  related
appurtenances.  The emergency generator set would require diesel fuel.

      Virginia Power is the major producer and distributor of electrical power in the project
area associated with this alternative component. Virginia Power owns and operates two
steam-electric power plants in the York River basin. The North Anna Plant has an installed
capacity of 1,720  megawatts (MW), and the Yorktown  Plant has  a capacity of 1,154 MW
(SWCB, 1988).

      Navigation

      Based on past studies, it is assumed for administrative purposes that the Mattaponi
River is navigable from its confluence with the  York River to as far upstream as Guinea
Bridge in  Caroline   County (K.  M.  Kimidy, USCOE  -   Norfolk District, personal
communication, 1993).

      The proposed river intake structure would be located at Scotland Landing in tidal and
navigable waters.  The mean tidal range is 3.9 feet at Walkerton, approximately 5 river miles
upstream of Scotland Landing (USDC, 1989). USGS topographic maps show mid-channel
depths at mean low water ranging from 19 to 25 feet in the immediate vicinity of Scotland
Landing. Water  depths of 21 to 25 feet were measured at the proposed intake structure
footprint during  field inspections  conducted  by Malcolm Pirnie  in April 1993.   The
Mattaponi River  is approximately 450 feet wide at Scotland Landing.

      The proposed King William Reservoir dam site is located in non-tidal  waters on
Cohoke  MIE Creek.   Cohoke  Mill Creek flows in a southerly direction into Cohoke
Millpond, which is an existing impoundment downstream of  the proposed dam site, and
tributary to the Pamunkey River. The upstream end of Cohoke Millpond and the Cohoke
Millpond Dam  itself are located approximately  0.4  river  miles  and 1.8 river  miles,
respectively, downstream of the proposed King William Reservoir dam site.

      No known commercial navigation currently occurs on Cohoke Mill Creek. Within the
proposed impoundment site, recreational navigation is unknown  and the main channel of
Cohoke Mill Creek is obstructed by a triple 10-foot by 10-foot box culvert underneath State
Route 626.  Recreational navigation does occur below the proposed dam  site in Cohoke

0114-951-140                            4-96.                           February 1994
-------
Millpond.  Limited recreational navigation may also occur in the short tidal reach of Cohoke
Mill Creek downstream of the Cohoke Millpond Dam (Le., State Route  632 Bridge
crossing).

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      The proposed King William Reservoir would be located entirely within King William
County, near the metropolitan  areas of Newport News, Hampton, Williamsburg,  and
Richmond. The County has experienced substantial growth over the past decade.  Within
King William County, the 1980 Census estimated the County population  to be 9,334,
Population increased by 17 percent by 1990, to 10,913 persons (USDC, 1992).

      While some growth has occurred within King William County in the past two decades,
the County remains primarily rural in nature. Most of the population growth is attributable
to an influx of new  residents,  particularly in the southwest portion of the County (U. S.
Route 360 corridor) closest to Richmond.

      In King William County, the estimated median household income in 1989, according
to the 1990 Census, was $33,676 per year.  This is a 73 percent increase over the 1979
estimated median household income in King William County of $19,446 per year (RRPDC,
1991).

      The number of households within King William County has increased greatly in the
past two decades. The majority of these units are single-family and multi-family homes.
There are currently no mobile/manufactured home parks or subdivisions in the  County
(KWCPD, 1991). As of November 1992, the County real estate tax rate was $1.17 per $100
assessed value (G. Baka, KWCPD, personal communication, 1992).

      Within King William County, the total number of persons 16 years of age or older
who are employed is 5,504 (USDC, 1992). The largest employer category in the County is
retail trade  (15 percent).  The next largest employer category  is manufacturing of
nondurable goods (14 percent).

      4.5.4     Fresh Groundwater Development

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies

      This alternative component would involve fresh groundwater withdrawals made from
new well fields in western James City County and/or New Kent County. These groundwater
withdrawals would be used to  augment Diascund Creek and Little Creek reservoirs when
Newport News Waterworks system reservoir volume is  below 75 percent of total capacity.
These withdrawals would be  made from the Middle  Potomac Aquifer.  However, the
potential exists for impacts (via leakage) to the multi-aquifer system.

      In 1983 the total estimated withdrawal from the Potomac aquifers on the York-James
Peninsula  was  33.6 mgd.   These estimated  Potomac aquifer withdrawals  represent
approximately 86 percent of the total estimated groundwater withdrawals on the York-James
Peninsula  (38.9  mgd).  The  largest  groundwater withdrawal is made by Chesapeake
Corporation (West Point Facility) and was reported as 18.295 mgd for 1990 (P. E. Herman,
SWCB, personal communication, 1993).   In December 1991 the SWCB  approved a

0114-951-140                            4-97                            February 1994
-------
grourtdwater withdrawal permit that allows Chesapeake Corporation to withdraw up to 700.6
million gallons per month (23.0 mgd).  Table 4-64 lists the 1983 estimated groundwater
withdrawals from the York-James Peninsula by aquifer. Approximate locations of permitted
or certified wells in the region surrounding the proposed well fields are shown in Figure 4-8.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      Diascund  Creek and Little Creek reservoirs are currently monitored by a fishery
management program in  cooperation with the VDGIF.   Recreational and commercial
fisheries exist in both  reservoirs.

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      No recreational facilities are located in the vicinity of proposed groundwater wells or
associated pipelines at Diascund Creek or Little Creek reservoirs (VDRC, 1989; James City
County, 1991).

      Aesthetics
      Potential aesthetic impacts from this alternative were evaluated by identifying houses
within 300 feet  of the proposed pipelines and 500 feet  of the  proposed groundwater
withdrawal facilities.  No houses were identified within 300 feet of the pipeline routes.  A
total of nine houses were identified within 500 feet of the proposed groundwater withdrawal
points (see Table 4-52).

      Parks and Preserves
      There are no existing parks or preserves in the vicinity of proposed groundwater well
locations at Diascund Creek or Little Creek reservoirs (VDCR, 1989; JCC, 1991; RRPDC,
1991).

      Land Use
      Existing land uses in the vicinity of proposed groundwater well locations along the
perimeter of Diascund Creek and Little Creek reservoirs were identified based on review
of USGS topographic maps and color-infrared aerial photography taken in March 1982. The
predominant land use which would be impacted by the wells and pipelines is forested land.

      A summary of affected land use in project areas for this alternative is included in
Table 4-57.

       Noise
       Estimated construction time  of the proposed fresh groundwater wells and pipelines
is approximately 6 months. Eight 1.3 mgd pumps would be installed in James City and New
Kent counties. There are some residences near the proposed well sites and pipeline routes
which might be  sensitive  to elevated  noise levels anticipated with the alternative.
Background noise levels in the vicinity of the pumping stations would be those typical of a
rural environment.
 0114-951-140                             4-98                            February 1994
-------
                               TABLE  4-64
         ESTIMATED  GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS  FROM
         YORK-JAMES PENINSULA  BY AQUIFER  (1983)  *
          Columbia
 0.100
 0.3
      Yorktown—Eastover
 1.373
 3.5
   Chickahominy-Piney Point
 2.939
 7.6
           Aquia
 0.903
 2.3
        Upper Potomac
14.168
 36.4
       Middle Potomac
15.873
 40.8
        Lower Potomac
 3.560
 9.1
           Total
38.916
100.0
Adapted from: Groundwater Resources of the York -James Peninsula of Virginia (Loczniok and Meng, 1988).
                                                                       August 1993
-------
-------
                             FIQUHB 4-1
WELL IDENTIFICATION
   1.  OAKSPMNO
   2.  COLONIAL FOREST
   i  AVONOALE
   4,  ROBIN NOSE
   1  BURNSBE FARMS
   e.  HOLLY RIOOE
   7,  SPRING MEADOWS
   a  WALNLBOfW*
   9.  HIGH POINT FARMS
  10.  HANOVER FARMS
  II,  MANN TRACT
  «t  1
  11  (WATER SUPPLY WBJLS
  14.  (CHESAPEAKE CORP.
  IS.  J
  18.  COLWYCK
  17.  OAK STREET
  14  THORN HURST
  18.  JENMNHROAD
  2a  OU.TS CHEEK
  21.  BOND STREET
  aa.  HUQER
  23.  SANDSTON WOODS
  24. .BRADLEYACRE*
  aa.  OLOwujAMSBuna
  ag.  axonOAD
  27.  FIVE LAKES
  21  WHUIOAKHUS
  aa.  TAUEYSVLLE
  tO.  POLICE PISTOL RAHOE
  3!.  DOREY PAW
  12.  OaMARVA
  33.  FORD'S COLOKV fC3
  34.  FORD'S COLONY fCt
  3S.  FORM COLONY PC-*
  3S.  QOVEHNOB-S LAHO
   17.  CHOCAHOUlNr ROAD FACIUTY/
      JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY LICSA)
   38.  WOOOHAVBI WATER COMPANY, MC.
   3U.  MT.ZION/RUSTIC WELIS
                    APRIL 199J
             LOW* VMGMA PENINSULA
         REGIONAL RAW WATER  SUPPLY STUDY
              ENVIRONMENTAL  ANALYSIS
         PERMITTED WITHDRAWALS
         FROM POTOMAC AQUIFERS
                  SCALE IN MILES
-------
-------
      Infrastructure

      Transportation

      Any transportation impacts as a result of this alternative should be temporary and
negligible.

      Utilities

      Short-term energy requirements  for this  alternative would be related to fuel and
electricity needed for construction activities. Diesel fuel would be necessary for the minor
operation of land clearing, excavation, construction, and well drilling equipment. Long-term
operation of the pumping stations would require a source of electricity for the pump motors
and related appurtenances. However, energy demands would be relatively low since the well
pumps would only be operated when Newport News Waterworks system reservoir volume
is below 75 percent of total capacity.

      At full project utilization, the wells would require an average of approximately 2,400
MWH per year of electrical power.  To supply power to all eight well sites, approximately
17 miles of new or upgraded electrical transmission lines would be required for connections
to suitable existing Virginia Power lines along U.S. Route 60.

      Navigation

      Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals would have no effect on navigation.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      Potential socioeconomic  effects would  occur with this alternative  in the form  of
increased water rates to consumers.

      4.5.5      Groundwater Desalination in  Newport News Waterworks Distribution
                Area

      Municipal and Private Supplies
      This alternative component would involve the development of up to  10 mgd of deep
brackish groundwater supply from wells screened in the Middle and Lower Potomac aquifers
in eastern portions of the York-James Peninsula.

      Due to  the  potential for  impacts  (via leakage)  to the multi-aquifer system,
descriptions of the confined aquifers in the project area are discussed in Section 4.2.5.  A
discussion of current groundwater withdrawals on the York-James Peninsula is presented
in Section 4.5.4.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      The concentrate pipeline for Site 1 (Copeland Industrial Park Ground Storage Tank)
would not cross any streams before  discharging into Hampton Roads.

      The concentrate pipeline for Site 2 (Upper York County Ground Storage  Tank)
would cross one intermittent and one perennial tributary of Jones Millpond. The perennial
tributary may be utilized for recreational fishing; however, due to its small size, this water

0114-951-140                             4-99                            February 1994
-------
body would not be commercially important.  The proposed concentrate pipeline would
discharge into Queens Creek, a tributary of the York River which is utilized for recreational
fishing (York County, 1991).

      The concentrate pipeline for Site 3 (Harwood's Mill WTP Clearwell) would cross one
perennial and one intermittent stream before discharging into the Poquoson River.  The
perennial stream crossing is a tributary of the Poquoson River.

      The concentrate pipeline for Site 4 (Lee Hall WTP Clearwell) would not cross any
streams before discharging into Skiffe's Creek.

      Fish species typical of the water bodies that would receive concentrate discharges are
discussed in Section 4.3.5,

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      One groundwater well and associated RO treatment facility would be located within
a recreational area. The Site 4 facilities (Lee Hall WTP Clearwell) would be located within
the boundaries of Newport News Park which encompasses the drainage area of Lee Hall
Reservoir.  Current recreational uses of the park include boating, fishing, canoeing, sailing,
and picnicking.

      A portion of the concentrate discharge pipeline for Site  2 (Upper  York County
Ground Storage Tank) would traverse the York County New Quarter Park located adjacent
to Queens Lake and the Colonial Parkway in York County.  Existing recreational facilities
in the park include a floating fishing pier, horse shoe courts, picnic areas, hiking trails,
softball fields, and volleyball courts (York County,  1991).

      Aesthetics
      At Site 1 (Copeland Industrial Park Ground Storage Tank), there would be impacts
to the visual surroundings that exist for the five buildings identified within 500 feet of the
proposed RO treatment facility. The proposed concentrate discharge pipeline route would
pass within 300 feet of five buildings, two churches, and one school (see Table 4-52).

      At Site 2 (Upper York County Ground Storage Tank), 12 houses and one school were
identified within 500 feet of the proposed RO treatment facility.  A total of 38 houses and
one building were identified within 300 feet of the proposed concentrate discharge pipeline
route (see Table 4-52). The pipeline route would also cross York County New Quarter Park
and the Colonial Parkway of the Colonial National Historic Park.

      At Site 3 (Harwood's Mill WTP Clearwell), no houses were  identified within 500 feet
of the proposed RO treatment facility, but 142 houses, 11 buildings, one school, and the
Harwood's Mill Filtration Plant are within 300 feet of the proposed concentrate discharge
pipeline route (see Table 4-52).

      At Site 4 (Lee Hall WTP Clearwell), the Lee Hall Filtration Plant is located within
500 feet of the proposed RO treatment facility.  Three buildings were identified within 300
feet of the proposed concentrate discharge pipeline route (see Table 4-52).   Also, the
proposed RO treatment facilities would be located within the boundaries of Newport News
Park.
 0114-951-140                             4-100                            February 1994
-------
      Parks and Preserves
      Only one of the groundwater wells and associated RO treatment facilities would be
located within a designated park or preserve.   The  Site 4 facilities (Lee Hall WTP
Clearwell) would be located within the boundaries of Newport News Park.  This City of
Newport News park encompasses the drainage area of the Lee Hall Reservoir. A section
of the concentrate discharge pipeline for this alternative would also be located within the
park boundaries.

      A portion of the concentrate discharge pipeline for the Site 2 facilities (Upper York
County Ground Storage Tank) would traverse the York County New Quarter Park.  This
park is located adjacent to Queens Lake and the Colonial Parkway in York County.  The
park contains 545 acres and is designated primarily for passive recreation (York County
Department of Planning and Community Development, 1991). This pipeline would also
cross the Colonial National Historical Parkway k York County.

      Land Use
      Existing land uses in the vicinity of proposed groundwater well locations, associated
RO treatment plants, and concentrate discharge lines for this alternative were identified
based on review of USGS topographic maps of the region. Approximately 13.4 miles of
concentrate discharge pipeline would be required for this alternative.  Land uses in the
vicinity of the concentrate discharge  pipeline  routes  include commercial, residential,
forested, and some industrial areas.

      A summary of affected land use in project areas  for this alternative is included in
Table 4-57.

      Noise
      Estimated  construction time of the proposed groundwater wells, RO plants, and
concentrate discharge pipelines is approximately 1 year. Three 3.8 mgd pumps would be
installed in the  City of Newport News and  two  in York County.  There  are several
residences near the well sites and pipeline routes which might be sensitive to elevated noise
levels anticipated with the project. Background noise levels in the vicinity of the pumping
stations would be those typical of a moderately urban environment.

      Infrastructure

      Transportation

      Any transportation impacts as a result of the Groundwater Desalination alternative
should be temporary and negligible.

      Utilities

      Short-term energy requirements for this alternative would be related  to fuel and
electricity needed for construction activities.  Diesel fuel would be necessary for the minor
operation of land clearing, excavation, construction, and well drilling equipment. Long-term
operation of the pumping stations would require a source of electricity for the pump motors
and related appurtenances.

      At full project utilization, the wells and RO treatment facilities  would require  an
average of approximately 17,500 MWH per year of electrical power. To supply power to
0114-951-140                             4-101                           February 1994
-------
all the well and treatment sites, only minor upgrades of electrical transmission lines would
be required.

      Wastewater (i.e., concentrate) generated at the four RO treatment plants would be
pumped through four dedicated concentrate pipelines to discharge points in nearby tidal
waters.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      The potential socioeconomic effect of increased water rates to the consumer could
also occur if this alternative component is implemented.

      45.6     Use Restrictions

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies

      Based on safe yield modeling results, this alternative would allow Lower Peninsula
water systems to provide an additional 1.5 mgd of treated water safe yield. This safe yield
benefit represents 5 percent of the Lower Peninsula's projected Year 2040  treated water
supply deficit of 30.2 mgd.

      Recreation and Commercial Fisheries
      Use Restrictions would have no adverse impacts on fish species  of recreational or
commercial importance.

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      Recreational activities within project areas are described in Sections 4.5.1 through
4.5.5.

      Aesthetics
      The aesthetic values of project areas are described in Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.5.

      Parks and Preserves
      Use Restrictions would be likely to restrict irrigation of parks within the area.  Park
resources within project areas are described in Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.5.

      LandUse
      Existing land  uses within project areas are described in Sections 4.5.1  through 4.5.5.

      Noise
      Use Restrictions would have no effect on ambient noise levels.

      Infrastructure
      Use Restrictions should have no effect on existing infrastructure.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      The socioeconomic setting of the project areas is presented in Sections 4.5.1 through
4.5.5.
 0114-951-140                              4-102                            February 1994
-------
      4.5,7      No Action

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies
      Municipal and private water supplies in the region are described in Sections 4,5.1
through 4.5.5.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      Recreational and commercial fisheries within project areas are described in Sections
4.5.1 through 4.5.5.

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      Recreational activities within project areas are described in Sections 4.5.1 through
4.5.5.

      Aesthetics
      The aesthetic values of project areas are described in Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.5.       >

      Parks and Preserves
      Existing parks and preserves within the region are described in Sections 4.5.1 through
4.5.5.

      Land Use
      Existing land uses in project areas are described in Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.5.

      Noise
      If no action was taken, there would be  no adverse impact on ambient noise levels.

      Infrastructure
      Existing infrastructure in project areas  is described in Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.5.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      The socioeconomic setting of project areas is described in Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5,5.

4.6   SUMMARY OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
      The affected  environment for each  of the  seven alternatives  is summarized  in
Table 4-65.
0114-951-140                             4-103                            February 1994
-------
-------
               5.0  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5.1    INTRODUCTION
      This section is devoted to the probable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
practicable project alternatives and the No Action alternative; and is the scientific and
analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives in this document. A general description of
the effects of each practicable alternative is presented, but only in as much detail as needed
to make meaningful comparisons among them.  A more detailed  evaluation of potential
impacts is contained  in Alternatives  Assessment (Volume H - Environmental Analysis)
(Malcolm Pirnie, 1993), This report is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix
to this document.

      The  environmental  effects  of  each  alternative are summarized for each of the
following general categories:

       »    Physical Resources: Describes impacts on substrate, water quality, hydrology,
            groundwater resources, soil and mineral resources, and air quality.  Riffle and
            pool complexes were also  evaluated, but none of these features were identified
            within the project areas.  Therefore,  no impacts to these complexes are
            anticipated.

       •    Biological  Resources:   Describes  impacts on  endangered, threatened or
            sensitive species; fish and invertebrates; other wildlife; sanctuaries and refuges;
            wetlands and vegetated shallows; and mud flats.

       •    Cultural Resources: Describes impacts on archeological and historical sites.

       •    Socioeconomic Resources: Describes impacts on municipal and private water
            supplies, recreational and commercial fisheries, other water-related  recreation,
            aesthetics, parks and preserves, land use,  noise, infrastructure,  and other
            socioeconomic impacts.

       •    Unavoidable and Adverse Environmental Impacts.

       *    Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.

       *    Relationship  Between Short-Term  Uses of  Man's  Environment and the
            Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.

      A comparative  summary of the environmental consequences associated with each
alternative is presented in  Section 3.6.

52   PHYSICAL RESOURCES
      This section provides a general description of how the physical environment would
be impacted by each of the seven alternatives evaluated.  Physical resource categories
evaluated are described below.
0114-951-140                              5-1                            February 1994
-------
      Substrate
      This section addresses the potential impacts of each alternative on aquatic ecosystem
substrate. Impacts are assessed according to the acreage of aquatic ecosystem substrate
disturbed.

      Water Quality
      This section evaluates the potential impacts to surface water quality from the seven
alternative  components.   Water  quality  impacts to groundwater are  addressed in
Groundwater Resources. In evaluating the water quality impacts to these surface waters,
existing water quality conditions were characterized and potential long-term and short-term
water quality changes resulting from implementation of each alternative was assessed. Some
factors which were used in evaluating the impacts were quality of the existing surface waters,
severity of any impacts, magnitude of any water quality changes, and relative probability that
there would  be an impact (based on available information). Because the amount of surface
water quality information for each alternative varies widely, and the types of impacts differ,
a quantitative analysis of each alternative was not appropriate. Rather, a more qualitative
analysis which considered relative trends and changes was used to evaluate each alternative.
In this manner, the assessment between alternative components would not be biased by the
amount of information available for each alternative.

      Hydrology
      Hydrologic impact analyses were conducted to evaluate the potential environmental
consequences of each alternative component on surface water or groundwater hydrology.
For surface water withdrawals, key hydrologic impact assessment criteria include streamflow
duration curves, average annual, average monthly  and cumulative withdrawal rates  as a
fraction of available flow, and flow contravention frequencies. Impacts to affected streams
at proposed impoundment sites and pipeline discharge points are also  quantified.  For
groundwater withdrawals, the magnitude of potential aquifer drawdown is evaluated.

      Groundwater Resources
      This section evaluates the proposed alternatives based on the relative severity of their
potential impacts to the respective environmental criteria. Potentkl impacts to groundwater
resources are divided into two broad categories:

       »   Impacts to Groundwater Quantity

       •   Impacts to Groundwater Quality


      Most of the above impact criteria were developed by the Virginia State Water Control
Board (SWCB) in response to the Groundwater Management Act of 1973 (which was
repealed and replaced by the Groundwater Management Act of 1992 (Virginia Code § 62.1 -
254 through § 62.1 -  270)).

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      This section describes the potential impacts on soils and mineral resources  from  each
alternative  component.  Impacts to  these resources resulting from implementation of
practicable  alternatives are addressed in  terms  of the acreage of  disturbance to these
resources.
 0114-951-140                              5-2                            February 1994
-------
      Air Quality
      This section discusses the potential impacts of each alternative component on air
quality. Impacts are addressed in terms of construction and operation impacts.

      52.1     Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

      Substrate
      The Ware Creek Reservoir alternative would impact approximately  1.54 acres of
substrate. In greater detail, 0.16 acres of substrate would be removed during construction
of the intake pipeline at the proposed Northbury intake site, 1.2 acres of substrate would
be temporarily disturbed by pipeline construction, and 0.18 acres of substrate would be
disturbed, removed or permanently covered by construction of the outfall structures.

      In addition,  filling the proposed reservoir area  to 35 feet msl would result in the
inundation of approximately 1,238 acres, of which 54 acres are currently open water and
perennial stream areas containing substrate. Because substrates in these areas are presently
inundated, adverse effects from further  inundation of these perennially wet areas are
considered minimal.

      Water Quality
      Surface waters involved in this alternative are the Pamunkey River, Diascund Creek
Reservoir, Ware Creek, and 5 perennial and  16  intermittent streams.

      The water quality characteristic for the Pamunkey River which is of greatest concern
relative to the proposed withdrawal is salinity. Changes in the distribution of salinity in the
river are controlling factors in tidal wetland community structure and some anadromous fish
spawning grounds.   For use as  drinking water,  the concentration of chlorides, and
secondarily sodium, is of concern. An analysis was conducted to estimate the impact of the
proposed withdrawal on existing salinity concentrations in the Pamunkey River. Based on
this analysis, salinity changes in the Pamunkey River resulting from the proposed withdrawal
are not expected to impact existing tidal freshwater vegetative communities.

      From  a drinking  water  treatment  perspective,  another  concern associated  with
Pamunkey River water quality is possible intrusion of salinity, and assockted chlorides and
sodium, as far upstream as the proposed intake site at Northbury.   However, based on
review of available salinity data, and based on the proposed MEF policy which precludes
withdrawals during drought conditions, Pamunkey River withdrawals would be avoided or
prevented during any periods of detectable salinity near the  intake.

      The primary long-term impact to the water quality of Diascund Creek Reservoir is
the addition of flow from the Pamunkey  River. Phosphorus concentrations tend to be
higher in the Pamunkey River. Therefore, increased phosphorus loading to the reservoir
may result in water quality problems associated with eutrophic conditions.  However, the
increased flow through the reservoir, as well as its natural assimilative capacity, should help
mitigate the higher phosphorus concentrations.

      The most noteworthy long-term impacts to Ware Creek water quality would occur in
the tidal portions of the creek, primarily downstream of the proposed dam.  One impact
would be a considerable change in downstream water quality conditions, eliminating the tidal
freshwater section and reducing or eliminating oligohaline portions of Ware Creek.
0114-951-140                             5-3                            February 1994
-------
      The runoff control measures planned for Stonehouse should afford some degree of
water quality protection for Ware Creek. However, given the magnitude of the Stonehouse
project, there would still be a severe risk of long-term reservoir water quality deterioration
due to the extensive nature of planned residential and commercial development in the
watershed.  For example, this development has the potential to impact reservoir water
quality by contributing non-point source runoff from roads, sediment loads from home and
road construction activities, and nutrient loads from lawn fertilizer runoff. One of James
City County's environmental consultants has also predicted that the proposed Ware Creek
Reservoir would be upper mesotrophic/lower eutrophic immediately after construction and
ultimately would become eutrophic (James R. Reed & Associates, 1986).

      Another impact would be an increase in the phosphorus loading by the pumpover
from Diascund Creek which may result in eutrophic conditions in the proposed reservoir.

      Short-term water quality impacts are also expected from dam and outfall construction,
and clearing associated with preparation of the reservoir.  These impacts would primarily
consist of increased turbidity resulting from increased erosion.  Sediment control measures
would be maintained during construction of the dam to minimize impacts to downstream
water quality.

      In addition to the impacts resulting  from reservoir  development, accidental  spills
directly into the reservoir could have  a great short-term impact on reservoir water quality.
This potential impact is important for the Ware Creek project, since Interstate 64 directly
crosses over three arms of France Swamp and one arm of Bird Swamp within the normal
pool area of the reservoir.

      At Outfall  Site 1 on Diascund Creek, the existing water quality conditions would be
changed to that of the  Pamunkey River. Short-term impacts would also occur as a result
of increasing the flow in the channel However, these impacts should  dissipate since the
channel would reestablish itself.

      At Outfall Site 2, the water quality impact would be a change in the existing water
quality to a blend of Diascund Creek water and Pamunkey River water in the vicinity of the
outfall. Because the Pamunkey River  has a higher phosphorus concentration than Diascund
Creek Reservoir, this could result in  an increased phosphorus loading to the reservoir.

      Water quality impacts to streams crossed during pipeline  construction would be
limited to the period of construction. Therefore, these impacts are considered minimal.

      Hydrology
      To identify the potential hydrologic impacts of a 120 mgd Pamunkey River withdrawal
capacity at Northbury, the results of the safe yield modeling (see Section 3.4.11) for this
withdrawal scenario were used to simulate post-withdrawal flow conditions. For each month
of the 696-month safe yield analysis, the simulated pre-withdrawal flow, withdrawal volume,
and flow past the intake site were tabulated and analyzed.

       Figure 5-1 depicts the percentages of time in which simulated flows past the proposed
intake occurred under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions.  Decreases in flow past the
intake under  post-withdrawal flow conditions  is relatively small at given frequencies of
occurrence.
 0114-951-140                              5-4                            February 1994
-------
      An analysis of annual average withdrawals and flows past the proposed intake site
under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions  was conducted. The average withdrawal is
simulated to be 63.4 mgd. This represents an 8.2 percent decrease in the estimated average
flow past the intake. However, it is estimated that an average Pamunkey River withdrawal
of only 25 mgd would be required to provide desired safe yield benefits.  This represents a
3.3 percent decrease in estimated average flow past the intake.

      Monthly average flows past  the proposed intake were simulated for pre-withdrawal
conditions (see Figure 5-2).  Under the assumed Pamunkey River MIF policy, the proposed
maximum withdrawal of 120 mgd  could represent a maximum of 40 percent of the total
freshwater flow at Northbury. This could occur during the month  of October (Assumed
MIF for October equals 180 mgd) if flow past the intake was 300 mgd and the maximum
proposed withdrawal of 120 mgd was made.

      An analysis of contraventions, or periods when flows are less than given threshold
levels, was also performed. There is only a small increase in flow contraventions under post-
withdrawal conditions.

      A cumulative streamflow analysis was conducted to estimate the impact of any future
streamflow reductions in addition to the proposed project on streamflow in the Pamunkey
River.  It is estimated  that by the Year 2040, with all currently identified potential uses
taken into account, and an estimated average withdrawal of 25 mgd for this alternative,
average Pamunkey River streamflow would be reduced by 8.8 percent.'

      Construction of a dam on Ware Creek would inundate 37.1 miles of tidal and non-
tidal perennial and intermittent streams. Streamflows would be restricted to 3.6 percent to
14.4 percent of existing average flow.  The  net reduction in freshwater discharge at the
proposed dam site would be 9.5 to 10.7 mgd.

      Water depth in  the Pamunkey River would not be  measurably impacted by this
alternative since the proposed intake site is located in tidal waters.

      The new pipeline for this alternative  would cross 5 perennial and  16  intermittent
streams. Impacts to the hydrology of these streams would be temporary in nature, and are
deemed minimal.

      Based on field measurements and flow calculations,  the channels at the proposed
outfall sites appear capable of accommodating maximum flows during pumpover operations.

      The two proposed  outfalls on Diascund Creek have the potential to cause physical,
chemical and biological changes  in the Creek.  With a  combined maximum raw water
discharge capacity of 120 mgd, these outfalls  could cause greater meandering of the stream
channel and substantially increased erosion rates.  The higher flow regime would result in
increased flow velocities,  higher dissolved oxygen levels and  higher nutrient flushing rates.
These latter changes are expected  to be beneficial to aquatic life.

      Groundwater Resources
      A discussion of the potential impacts to  groundwater resources  related to the
operation  of a similar freshwater river intake is presented in Section 5.2.3.
0114-951-140                            ,  5-5                            February 1994
-------
-------
      An analysis of annual average withdrawals and flows past the proposed intake site
under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions was conducted. The average withdrawal is
simulated to be 63.4 mgd. This represents an 8.2 percent decrease in the estimated average
flow past the intake. However, it is estimated that an average Pamunkey River withdrawal
of only 25 mgd would be required to provide desired safe yield benefits.  This represents a
3.3 percent decrease in estimated average flow past the intake.

      Monthly average flows past  the proposed intake were simulated for pre-withdrawal
conditions (see Figure 5-2).  Under the assumed Pamunkey River MIF policy, the proposed
maximum withdrawal of 120 mgd  could represent a maximum of 40 percent of the total
freshwater flow at Northbury. This could occur during the month  of October (Assumed
MIF for October equals 180 mgd) if flow past the intake was 300 mgd and the maximum
proposed withdrawal of 120 mgd was made.

      An analysis of contraventions, or periods when flows are less than given threshold
levels, was also performed. There is only a small increase in flow contraventions under post-
withdrawal conditions.

      A cumulative streamflow analysis was conducted to estimate the impact of any future
streamflow reductions in addition to the proposed project on streamflow in the Pamunkey
River.  It is estimated  that by the Year 2040, with  all currently identified potential uses
taken into account, and an estimated average withdrawal of 25 mgd  for this alternative,
average Pamunkey River streamflow would be reduced by 8.8 percent.

      Construction of a dam on Ware Creek would inundate 37.1 miles of tidal and non-
tidal perennial and intermittent streams. Streamflows would be restricted to 3.6 percent to
14.4 percent of existing average flow.  The net reduction in freshwater discharge at the
proposed dam site would be 9.5  to 10.7 mgd.

      Water depth in  the Pamunkey River would  not be  measurably  impacted by this
alternative since the proposed intake site is located in tidal waters.

      The new pipeline for this alternative would cross 5 perennial and  16  intermittent
streams. Impacts to the hydrology of these streams would be temporary in nature, and are
deemed minimal.

      Based on field measurements and flow calculations,  the channels at the proposed
outfall sites appear capable of accommodating maximum flows during pumpover operations.

      The two proposed outfalls on Diascund Creek have the potential  to cause physical,
chemical and biological changes in the Creek.  With a  combined maximum raw water
discharge capacity of 120 mgd, these outfalls could cause greater meandering of the stream
channel and substantially increased erosion rates. The higher flow regime would result in
increased flow velocities, higher  dissolved oxygen levels and higher nutrient flushing rates.
These latter changes are expected to be benefickl to aquatic life.

      Groundwater Resources
      A discussion of the potential impacts to groundwater  resources  related to the
operation of a similar freshwater river intake is presented in Section 5.2.3.
0114-951-140                              5-5                            February 1994
-------
      When the reservoir becomes operational, changes in the groundwater flow and quality
of the Columbia Aquifer may result.  An approximate increase of 15 to 30 feet in some
areas of the groundwater level, and the resulting increased horizontal flow rate, and an
increase in the number of springs located on the valley walls in the watersheds bordering
Ware Creek watershed is expected. During construction and operation of the reservoir, the
Columbia and Yorktown Aquifers would be afforded recharge by direct and indirect seepage
from the reservoir. This would generally be considered a beneficial impact. However, if the
water quality in Ware Creek Reservoir deteriorates over the long-term, as expected, then
reservoir seepage could  have some detrimental impact on groundwater quality.

      Impacts to the shallow groundwater system by the Stonehouse planned community is
expected to be minimal due  to the use of sewer systems.  Indirect pumpover from the
Pamunkey River to Ware Creek Reservoir via Diascund Creek Reservoir would also not be
expected to affect the overall groundwater quality in either watershed.

      Implementation of a drinking water reservoir alternative would directly (via recharge)
and indirectly (via alternative supply) benefit the groundwater resources of the region.

      In general, construction activities related to the reservoir and dam should have little
effect on groundwater quality and quantity within the watershed.

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      Construction of an intake facility at the proposed Northbury intake site would cause
the disturbance of approximately 3 acres of Nevarc-Remlik complex and the Pamunkey Fine
Sandy Loam; the latter is considered a prime agricultural soil (Hodges et al., 1985).

      Construction of Ware Creek Reservoir dam and subsequently filling of the proposed
Ware Creek Reservoir would result in the inundation of approximately 1,238 acres of land.
Howevetv-open waterafid-perennial-streams already in un date-an~estimated 54 acresiof this
area. Therefore^ 1,184 acres of wetlands would be inundated by the reservoir.

      Prime agricultural soils account for  20 of the 1,238 acres to be inundated by the
reservoir.  However, adverse effects due to  the  inundation of these  soils and  dam
construction would be minimal since steep side slopes and low land flooding presently make
the majority of these soils unsuitable for farming.

      Effects to soil due to the construction of the raw water pipelines associated with this
alternative would be minimal.  After construction, the disturbed soils would be  returned to
a natural state. A total of 159 acres of soils within the pipeline ROW would be temporarily
disturbed.

      Air Quality
      Although a sizeable portion of this alternative falls within the boundaries of an ozone
non-attainment area, the type and amount of  pollutants emitted from this operation is
minimal and would not prevent reasonable further progress toward attaining the ambient
ozone air quality standard.

       During the construction phase of the project, it is likely that burning of some unusable
cleared vegetation would be conducted on site. Due to the short-term nature of this activity,
only a minimal effect on air quality would be  expected. In addition, it is expected that
 0114-951-140                              5-6                             February 1994
-------
   Pamunkey River Monthly Flows
                         Existing Average
                         Monthly Flows
                                    Northbury (770 mgd)
Average Flow Past at
£  800
 o  600
       Jari Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
                         Month
* 120 mgd withdrawal capacity simulated.            L—_
           Minimum Instream Flow
                                                   ,«-n
                                                   :co*
                                                   • c
                                                   i 1
                                                   ; cn
-------
-------
clearing, excavation and construction activities would produce fugitive dust emissions in and
around the site.

      Fuel burning emissions from the use of construction equipment would be released
during construction activities. A minimal effect on air quality would be expected due to the
small amount of emissions relative to other sources of air pollution in the region and since
these activities would be temporary.

      522      Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

      Substrate
      The Black Creek Reservoir alternative would impact, at a minimum,  an estimated
1.61 acres of existing substrate. This would consist of approximately 0.16 acres of substrate
surface area removed at the Northbury intake site, 1.4 acres of substrate being temporarily
affected by pipeline construction, and 0.05 acres of substrate at the outfall locations being
disturbed, removed, or permanently covered by construction of the outfall structures.  An
additional 0.6 acres of substrate  could be disturbed if conventional cut and fill techniques
are used for the Little Creek Reservoir crossing.  As with the Ware Creek Reservoir
alternative, the majority of affected substrate would only be temporarily impacted.

      In addition, filling the proposed reservoir area to 100 feet msl would result in the
inundation of approximately 1,146 acres, of which 21 acres are currently open water and
perennial stream areas containing substrate. Because substrates in these areas are presently
inundated, adverse effects from further inundation  of these  perennially wet areas  are
considered minimal.

      Water Quality
      Surface waters involved in this alternative are the Pamunkey River, Black Creek,
Diascund Creek Reservoir, Little Creek Reservoir, and 10 perennial and 14 intermittent
streams. Impacts to Pamunkey River water quality are discussed in Section 5.2.1, and are
expected to be negligible.

      For the purpose of this review, the assumption has been made that Black Creek water
quality is similar to Crump Creek and Matadequin Creek water quality.  There are only
minor differences in the water quality between Crump Creek, Matadequin Creek and the
Pamunkey River, including concentrations of nutrients such as phosphorus.

      The most  notable change at the proposed reservoir site would result from increasing
the depth of the surface water to  maximums of 87 feet in the eastern branch of Black Creek
impoundment and 77 feet in the  Southern Branch Black Creek impoundment.  With these
depths, stratification would be expected  to occur, principally in the summer months, with
possible anoxic conditions and low temperatures in the hypolimnion. If water released from
the dam is only from the bottom of the reservoir, downstream water quality problems would
be expected. Mitigative measures, such as multi-level releases could be used to regulate the
water quality released from the reservoir.  Long-term water quality characteristics for Black
Creek downstream from the two  dams are not expected to be adversely impacted from the
change in flow resulting from the impoundment.

      Short-term water quality impacts to Black Creek would occur from dam and outfall
construction, and clearing associated with preparation for reservoir filling. These impacts
would consist largely of increased turbidity as a result of increased erosion in cleared areas.


0114-951-140                             5-7                            February 1994
-------
      Water from the Pamunkey River would sometimes be pumped directly to Diascund
Creek Reservoir headwaters. The impact on water quality for the outfall on the headwaters
of Diascund Creek would be a change in the existing water quality conditions to that of the
Pamunkey River. In general, the water quality of the Pamunkey River is better than the
existing water  quality in Diascund Creek  Reservoir,  with  the notable exception of
phosphorus concentrations. Therefore, there could be periods when eutrophication impacts
could occur in Diascund Creek Reservoir due to increased nutrient loading.

      Water quality impacts to  streams  crossed during pipeline construction would be
limited to the period of construction.

      Hydrology
      Potential hydrologic impacts associated with withdrawals at the proposed intake site
are presented in Section 5.2.1. However, one difference for this alternative would be the
slightly greater degree of potential cumulative streamflow reductions in the Pamunkey River
basin. This difference occurs because Black Creek Reservoir would impound a tributary of
the Pamunkey River, whereas Ware Creek Reservoir would impound a tributary of the York
River. In addition,  the Black Creek Reservoir alternative would require an  estimated
average Pamunkey River withdrawal of 29 mgd to provide desired safe yield benefits.  This
would represent a 3.8 percent reduction in estimated average flow past the intake site. In
comparison, the Ware Creek Reservoir alternative would require an estimated average
Pamunkey River withdrawal of 25 mgd to provide desired safe yield benefits.

      It is estimated for this alternative that by the Year 2040, with all currently identified
potential users taken into account, and a simulated average withdrawal of 29 mgd, average
Pamunkey River streamflow would be reduced by 9.5 percent.

      Construction of dams on the Southern Branch Black Creek and the eastern branch
of Black Creek would inundate 13.7 miles of free-flowing perennial and intermittent streams.
Streamflows would be restricted to 32 percent of existing average flows.  The net reduction
in average combined freshwater discharge at the two proposed Black Creek dam sites would
be 2.6 mgd.

      The new pipeline for this  alternative would cross 10 perennial and 14 intermittent
streams. Any impacts to the hydrology of these stream would be temporary in nature, and
are deemed minimal.

      The proposed  outfall  on  Diascund Creek has  the  potential to create physical,
chemical, and biological changes in the creek.  With  a maximum  raw water discharge
capacity of 40 mgd, this outfall could cause greater meandering of the stream channel and
increased erosion rates. The higher flow regime would result in increased flow velocities,
higher dissolved oxygen levels, and higher nutrient flushing rates. These latter changes are
expected to be beneficial to aquatic life.

      Groundwater Resources
      A discussion of the potential impacts to groundwater resources related to operation
of a similar freshwater river intake is presented in Section 5.2.3.

      A maximum increase in the water table elevation of 40 feet is predicted in those areas
directly adjacent to the reservoir. This would  result in increased horizontal flow velocity and
an increase in the number of seeps  and springs in adjacent watersheds.


0114-951-140                             5-8                            February 1994
-------
      During construction and operation of the reservoir, the Yorktown Aquifer would be
afforded recharge by direct seepage from the reservoir.  Black Creek Reservoir seepage
losses were estimated at 2 mgd.

      Implementation of a drinking water reservoir alternative would directly (via recharge)
and indirectly (via alternative supply) benefit the groundwater resources of the region.

      In general, construction activities related to the reservoir and dam should have little
effect on groundwater quality and quantity within the watershed.

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      Potential effects  to soils due  to construction of a raw water intake facility at the
Northbury site on the Pamunkey River are discussed in Section 5.2.1.

      Filling the  proposed Black Creek  Reservoir would result  in  the  inundation of
approximately 1,146 acres of land.  However, open water and perennial streams already
inundate an  estimated  21 acres of  this area.  Therefore, 1,125 acres of soil would be
inundated by the reservoir.  Prime  agricultural soils account for 17 of the 1,146 acres.
However, adverse effects due to the inundation of these soils and dam construction would
be minimal since steep side slopes and lowland flooding presently make the  majority of
these soils unsuitable for farming.

      Construction of four  reservoir outfall structures would  disturb a  combined total of
10,500 square feet of soil.  In addition, the construction of a pump station  on  the eastern
branch  of the proposed  reservoir would disturb approximately 4 acres of soil.   After
construction, the two dams would cover a combined total area of 26 acres, of which 12 acres
would be located below the normal  pool elevation of the reservoir.  The two emergency
spillways would require a  total of 4 acres of soils  to be cleared, graded, and mowed.  It is
estimated that approximately 2.8 acres would be covered by an impervious layer of concrete
or asphalt as a result of this project. This estimate includes the emergency spillways, access
roads, and intake/discharge structures associated with the two dams.

      Effects to soil due to the construction of the raw water pipelines associated with this
alternative would be minimal After construction, the disturbed soils would be restored to
a more natural state.   A total of 123 acres  of soils within the pipeline ROW would be
temporarily disturbed.

      Air Quality
      Only a small portion of this alternative falls within the boundaries of an ozone non-
attainment area.  Based on the preliminary layout, none of the air emissions resulting from
this operation occur in the non-attainment area and therefore would  not  affect ambient
ozone air quality levels.

      During the construction phase of the project, it is likely that burning of some cleared
unusable vegetation would  be conducted on site. Due to the short-term nature  of this
activity, only a minimal effect on air quality would be expected. In addition, it is expected
that clearing, excavation and construction activities would produce fugitive  dust emissions
in and around the site.

      Fuel burning emissions from the use of construction equipment would  be released
during construction activities. A minimal effect on air quality would be expected due to the


0114-951-140                              5-9                             February 1994
-------
small amount of emissions relative to other sources of air pollution in the region and since
these activities would be temporary.

      5.23     King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River

      Substrate
      The King William Reservoir alternative would impact, at a minimum, an estimated
1.71 acres of aquatic ecosystem substrate. Approximately 0.16 acres of substrate would be
disturbed at the Scotland Landing intake site, 1.5 acres of substrate would be disturbed as
a result of pipeline construction, and 0.05 acres of substrate would be disturbed, removed,
or permanently covered by construction of outfall structures. An additional 0.6 acres of
substrate could be disturbed if conventional cut and fill techniques are used for the Little
Creek Reservoir crossing. The majority of the impacts would be temporary.

      In addition, filling the proposed reservoir area to 90  feet msl would result in the
inundation of approximately 2,234 acres, of which 106 acres are currently open water and
perennial stream areas containing substrate.  Because substrates in these areas are presently
inundated, adverse  effects from further inundation  of these perennially  wet areas are
considered minimal.

      Water Quality
      Surface waters involved in this alternative  are the Mattaponi River, Cohoke Mill
Creek, the Pamunkey River, Diascund Creek Reservoir,  Little Creek Reservoir, and  9
perennial  and 17 intermittent streams.

      As with the Pamunkey River, the water quality characteristic for the Mattaponi River
which is of greatest concern relative to the proposed withdrawal is salinity. An analysis was
conducted to estimate  the  impact of the proposed  withdrawal on  existing salinity
concentrations in the Mattaponi River.  Based on this analysis,  salinity changes in the
Mattaponi River resulting from the proposed withdrawal and other existing and projected
consumptive Mattaponi basin water  use are not expected  to greatly impact existing tidal
freshwater vegetative communities.  Natural Mattaponi River salinity fluctuations greatly
exceed any salinity changes that are predicted due to withdrawals.

      From a drinking water treatment perspective, a concern associated with Mattaponi
River water quality is the possible intrusion of salinity, and associated chloride and sodium,
as far upstream as the proposed intake site on Scotland Landing. However, based on review
of available Mattaponi River salinity data,  and based on the proposed MIF policy which
precludes withdrawals during drought conditions, Mattaponi River withdrawals would be
avoided or prevented during any periods of detectable salinity near the intake.

      Long-term water quality changes to Cohoke Mill Creek would occur from filling the
impoundment area of the proposed reservoir with water from the Mattaponi River. For the
purpose of this review, the assumption has been made that Cohoke Mill Creek water quality
is similar to Crump Creek  and Matadequin Creek water quality.   The most notable
differences in water quality between  Crump Creek, Matedequin Creek, and the Mattaponi
River are the concentrations of phosphorus and chlorides, which are higher in the Mattaponi
River.  It is likely that the discharge of water from the Mattaponi River into the proposed
King William  Reservoir would result in  increases in  the  phosphorus and  chloride
concentrations that would not occur  if there were no pumpover.
 0114-951-140                             5-10                            February 1994
-------
      Once the reservoir is filled, the normal pool elevation would be at 90 feet msl and
maximum depth in the reservoir would be approximately  82 feet.  With these  depths,
stratification would be expected to occur, principally in the summer months, with possible
anoxic conditions and low temperatures in the hypollmnion. If water released from the dam
is only from the bottom of the reservoir, downstream water quality problems resulting from
the temperature variations, the low dissolved oxygen, and nutrient enriched water would be
expected.  Mitigative measures, such as multi-level releases  could be used to regulate the
water quality released from the reservoir.  Long-term water quality characteristics for
Cohoke Mill Creek downstream  from the two dams are not  expected to be adversely
impacted from the change in flow resulting from the impoundment.

      Short-term water quality impacts to Cohoke Mill Creek and Cohoke Millpond would
occur from dam and  outfall  construction, and clearing associated with preparation for
reservoir filling. These impacts would consist largely of increased  turbidity as a result of
increased erosion in cleared areas.

      Impacts from the proposed King William Reservoir pumpover to Diascund Creek
Reservoir are expected to be similar to impacts at the proposed Black  Creek Reservoir.
The only additional factor is that the higher phosphorus concentration increases the chance
for developing  eutrophic conditions in Diascund  Creek Reservoir.  It  is likely that the
average water quality pumped from King William Reservoir would not be appreciably
different than that which would reach Diascund Creek Reservoir for the proposed Black
Creek Reservoir alternative.

      Water quality impacts  to streams crossed  during pipeline  construction would be
limited to the period of construction. The  pipeline crossing of the Pamunkey River would
be completed using directional drilling techniques.  Therefore, impacts to Pamunkey River
water quality should not occur.

      The  Little Creek Reservoir crossing would be accomplished using conventional cut
and fill techniques, directional drilling techniques, or an elevated crossing.  Regardless of
the crossing technique, environmental controls would be used so that any impacts would be
minimal and temporary.

      Hydrology
      To identify the potential hydrologic impacts of a 75 mgd Mattaponi River withdrawal
capacity at Scotland Landing, the results of the safe yield modeling  (see Section 3.4.15) for
this withdrawal scenario were used to simulate post-withdrawal flow conditions. For each
month of the 696-month safe yield analysis, the simulated pre-withdrawal flow, withdrawal
volume, and flow past the intake site were  tabulated and analyzed.

      Figure 5-3 depicts the percentages of time in which simulated flows past the proposed
intake occurred under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions. Decreases in flow past the
intake under post-withdrawal flow conditions  is  relatively small at given frequencies of
occurrence.

      An analysis  of annual average withdrawals and flows  past the  proposed intake site
under pre-  and post-withdrawal conditions was conducted.  The  average withdrawal  is
simulated to be 49.4 mgd. This represents  a 9.9 percent decrease in the estimated  average
flow past the intake. However, it is estimated that an  average Mattaponi River withdrawal
0114-951-140                             5-11                            February 1994
-------
of only 35 mgd would be required to provide desired safe yield benefits. This represents a
7.0 percent decrease in estimated average flow past the intake.

      Monthly average flows past the proposed intake were simulated for pre-withdrawal
conditions (see Figure 5-4).  Under the assumed Mattaponi River MIF policy, the proposed
maximum withdrawal  of 75  mgd could represent a maximum  of 41  percent of the total
freshwater flow at Scotland Landing. This could occur during the months of June through
November if flow past the intake was 181 mgd and the maximum proposed withdrawal of
75 mgd was made.

      An analysis of contraventions, or periods when flows are less than given threshold
levels, was also performed. There is only a small increase in flow contraventions under post-
withdrawal conditions.

      A cumulative streamflow analysis was conducted to estimate the impact of any future
streamflow reductions in addition to the proposed project on streamflow in the Mattaponi
River. It is estimated that by the  Year 2040, with all currently identified potential uses
taken into account, and an estimated average withdrawal of 35 mgd for this alternative,
average Mattaponi River streamflow would be reduced by 6.9 percent.

      Construction of a dam on Cohoke Mill Creek would inundate 28.3 miles of free-
flowing perennial and intermittent streams. Streamflows would be restricted to 32 percent
of existing average flow. The net reduction in freshwater discharge at the proposed dam site
would be 6.3 mgd.

      Water depth in the Mattaponi River would not be measurably impacted  by this
alternative since the proposed intake site is located in tidal waters.

      The new pipeline for this alternative would cross 9 perennkl and 17 intermittent
streams.  Impacts to the hydrology of these streams would be temporary in nature, and are
deemed minimal.

      The pipeline would also require crossing the Pamunkey  River and an arm of Little
Creek Reservoir. The Pamunkey River crossing would be accomplished using directional
drilling techniques,  which should not affect the hydrology of the river. The Little Creek
Reservoir  crossing would be accomplished  using conventional cut  and fill techniques,
directional drilling techniques, or an elevated crossing.

      The proposed outfall on Beaverdam Creek would have the potential to create
physical, chemical,  and biological  changes  in the creek.  With a maximum  raw water
discharge capacity of  40  mgd, this  outfall could cause greater meandering  of the stream
channel and substantially increased erosion rates. The higher flow regime would result in
increased flow velocities, higher dissolved oxygen levels and higher nutrient flushing rates,
which are expected to be beneficial to aquatic life.

      Groundwater Resources
      A possible concern exists over direct  freshwater withdrawals  from  the  Mattaponi
River of  up to 75  mgd,  and the possible encroachment of salinity into tidal  freshwater
reaches of the Mattaponi Watershed.  If this were to occur,  the potential for saltwater
encroachment into the shallow aquifers would be high.  However, based on the proposed
MIF policy which precludes withdrawals during drought conditions, and based  on salinity


0114-951-140                             5-12                            February 1994
-------
      MATTAPONI RIVER FLOW DURATION  CURVES
      (SIMULATED FLOWS PAST SCOTLAND LANDING FOR 10/29 - 9/87)
  3,000
  2,500
  2,000
D)
g
  1,500
  1>000
   500
     0
        Post Withdn
                7
 wal
      0
20
                           Pre-Withdrawal
40
60
80
100 3
        PERCENT OF TIME FLOW EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
                                                        (O
                                                        CO
-------
-------
   Mattaponl River Monthly Flows
  1,000
   800

   600
:?  400
   200
    0
                        Existing Average
                         Monthly Flows
                         ; Average Flow at Scotland Landing (498 mgd) ;
       Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun  Jul  Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
                         Month
                                     Minimum Instream Flow
TJ
c5'
c
3
en
Jk
-------
-------
intrusion modeling, little change in the water quality of the shallow aquifers beneath and
bordering the river is expected.

      Alteration of the existing groundwater flow velocity patterns is  expected in  the
Cohoke Mill Creek and adjacent watersheds. A corresponding increase in lateral seepage
due to the rise in water table elevation  and relationship to the Pamunkey and Mattaponi
Rivers has been estimated at 1.5 mgd. Underseepage below the dam has been estimated
at 0.5 mgd.

      Based on water quality data for the Mattaponi River compiled by Malcolm Pirnie, an
initial screening of the proposed King William Reservoir watershed, and a salinity intrusion
impact study (Hershner et al., 1991), there should be little effect to overall water quality of
the shallow aquifer system.

      Implementation of a drinking water reservoir alternative would directly (via recharge)
and indirectly (via alternative supply) benefit the groundwater resources of the region.

      In general, construction activities related to the reservoir and dam should have little
effect on groundwater quality and quantity within the watershed.

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      Construction of an intake facility at the proposed Scotland Landing intake site would
cause the disturbance of approximately 3 acres of Tetotum, Bojac, and Tarboro soils which
are considered prime agricultural soils (Hodges et al., 1985).   Construction of the access
road would cause the disturbance of approximately 10 acres of these soils.

      Filling the proposed King William Reservoir  would result  in the inundation  of
approximately 2,234 acres of land.  However, open water and perennial streams already
inundate  an  estimated  106 acres of this area.   Therefore, 2,128 acres of soil would be
inundated by the reservoir.  Prime agricultural soils account for 342 acres and would be
inundated. Presently, approximately 9 acres of the prime agricultural land is being used for
farming purposes while the remaining land is either wetland or forested land.

      Temporary disturbances  to approximately 100 acres of soE would occur during the
construction  of the earthen dam and emergency spillway associated with this alternative.
A total of approximately 38 acres of soil would be either removed or covered by the dam,
emergency spillway,  access roads and associated structures.

      Effects to soil due to the construction of the raw water pipeline are expected to be
temporary.  A total of 94 acres of soils within the pipeline ROW  would be temporarily
disturbed. After construction,  the disturbed soils would be restored to  pre-construction
conditions.

      Air Quality
      Only a small portion of this alternative falls within the boundaries of an ozone non-
attainment area.  Based on the  preliminary layout, none of the air emissions resulting from
this operation occur in the non-attainment  area and therefore would not affect ambient
ozone air quality levels.

      During the construction phase of the project, it is likely that burning of some unusable
cleared vegetation would be conducted on site. Due to the short-term nature of this activity,


0114-951-140                             5-13                             February 1994
-------
only a minimal effect on air quality would be expected. In addition, it is expected that
clearing, excavation and construction activities would produce fugitive dust emissions in and
around the site. Special attention would be given to ensure effective implementation of dust
suppression measures, particularly given the close proximity of recreational uses in Cohoke
Millpond.

      Fuel burning emissions from the use of construction equipment would be released
during construction activities. A minimal effect on air quality would be expected due to the
small amount of emissions relative to other sources of air pollution in the region and since
these activities would be temporary.

      5.2.4     Fresh Groundwater Development

      Substrate
      This alternative would involve the excavation and removal of an estimated 0.18 acres
of substrate during construction of the eight pipeline outfalls.

      Water Quality
      Surface waters involved in this alternative are Diascund Creek Reservoir and Little
Creek Reservoir.  The principal impact would be to increase chloride, bicarbonate, sodium,
sulfate, fluoride, and possibly phosphorus  concentration in the two reservoirs.  With the
exception of phosphorus,  water quality conditions for  Little Creek  Reservoir would be
impacted the most.  Phosphorus concentrations in the groundwater near Diascund Creek
Reservoir are expected to be higher than at Little Creek Reservoir.  Concentrations over
short periods of time may be sufficient to impact aquatic life in the two  reservoirs, and
increase treatment requirements at the terminal reservoirs.

      Hydrology
      A discussion  of the potential hydrologic impacts from  the  Fresh Groundwater
Withdrawals alternative is presented below in the description  of Groundwater Resources.

      Groundwater Resources
      In 1988, two test wells were installed by the City of Newport News  to evaluate the
water quality and yield of the Middle Potomac Aquifer in the vicinity of Diascund Creek
and Little Creek  Reservoirs.  The report,  prepared by Geraghty & Miller concluded that
development of a 10 mgd supply of fresh groundwater from the Middle Potomac Aquifer
was feasible with well  yields between  1  and  1.5 mgd (Geraghty  &  Miller,  1988).
Transmissivities reported for  the aquifer  appeared  to  be low  compared to USGS
publications and the USGS Coastal Plata Regional Model, and the predicted  drawdown may,
therefore, be exaggerated.

       In 1992, Malcolm Pirnie conducted several modeling studies using a three-dimensional
groundwater flow model developed by  the USGS.  In these studies, fresh groundwater
withdrawals were simulated in James City and New Kent counties at rates ranging from 2.1
to  10.3 mgd  (Malcolm Pirnie,  1992 and 1992).  There was  no simulation done for this
specific 10 mgd alternative; however, the results of the previous modeling provides insight
into the approximate drawdowns anticipated from the two proposed well fields.

       Based on the results of the 1988 test well program and recent regional modeling,  the
anticipated  drawdown from the two proposed well fields should not create drawdown
exceeding 5 feet in the Yorktown, Chickahorniny-Piney Point, and Aquia Aquifers. These


0114-951-140                             5-14                            February 1994
-------
aquifers are used for domestic, agriculture, and light industrial use throughout the Lower
and Middle Peninsulas.

      Based  on the previous studies conducted by Malcolm Pirme and projected future
withdrawals based on  groundwater use data, a new 10 mgd withdrawal is not likely to
dewater any portion of the Middle Potomac Aquifer.

      Anticipated changes in the potentiometric surface of the Middle Potomac Aquifer
could induce  east to west flow in limited areas. This condition indicates that a potential for
increased east to west encroachment of saline groundwater would exist.

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      Each well site would require the clearing of approximately 0.5 acres to accommodate
the well,  well pumphouse, and security fence.  Construction  activities  required would
temporarily disturb the soils. In addition, approximately 2 acres of soils would be disturbed
for the pipeline ROW for all eight wells. After  construction, disturbed soils would be
restored  to a more natural state.

      Air Quality
      This alternative would not cause a detrimental impact on air quality. Construction
of new pipelines would involve only a minimal amount of land clearing and excavation. As
a result,  operation of construction equipment and vehicles and the release of combustion
emissions would be reduced.

      52 JS      Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

      Substrate
      This alternative would involve the removal of 0.09 acres of substrate  at  the
concentrate discharge  pipeline outfalls.  An additional  0.18 acres of substrate would be
temporarily disturbed at the four minor stream  crossings.

      Water Quality
      Surface waters  involved in this alternative  are  the  outfalls for the  concentrate
discharges. There are four proposed outfall locations under this alternative, three of which
are in waters which would be classified as polyhaline and one is in waters which would be
classified as mesohaline to oligohaline. The principal impact of the concentrate discharges
would be from salinity, metal concentrations, and possibly nutrients. For the one outfall
discharging to mesohaline waters,  the increase  in salinity in the vicinity of the discharge
could be substantial.  Because the concentration of metals and nutrients in the brackish
groundwater  are uncertain, the magnitude of this impact cannot be assessed at this time.

      Hydrology
      A  discussion  of the potential  hydrologic impacts associated with deep brackish
groundwater withdrawals is presented in the following discussion of Groundwater Resources.

      Two perennial and two intermittent stream crossings would be required along the
pipeline  routes for this alternative. Any impacts to the hydrology of these streams from
pipeline crossings would be temporary in nature, and are deemed minimal.

      Due to the relatively small volume of concentrate which would be discharged per day,
and the locations of the outfalls in tidal systems, it is expected that the discharges will have
only very minimal, localized impacts on the hydrology of the receiving waters.


0114-951-140                             5-15                            February 1994
-------
      Groundwater Resources

      Drawdown

      Due to the location and depths of the proposed well system, no drawdown would be
expected in the overlying shallow aquifers used by homeowners in surrounding areas for
outdoor watering.  Due to the depths of the anticipated withdrawals, the amount being
withdrawn, and based on recent experience with similar  withdrawals using the USGS
groundwater flow model, no  dewatering of the aquifer is anticipated during the project
period.

      Regional drawdown in the Middle Potomac Aquifer may be 9 to 10 feet at a distance
of 10 miles from the center of the well system. The majority of current wells in the Middle
and/or Lower Potomac Aquifer is southeastern Virginia should not experience drawdowns
from the proposed desalination well system in excess of 5 to 10 feet.  Water level declines
of 5 to 10 feet are not normally considered severe unless pumping appurtenances are
subsequently dewatered.

      Water Quality

      The area west  of  the  pumping center may experience less brackish groundwater
conditions as brackish water encroachment to the west is reversed. Concurrent with this
process, existing brackish areas of the aquifer east of the well system may  experience an
increased brackish condition as groundwater from the  eastern portions of the aquifer are
encouraged to move toward the pumping center.

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      The five wells associated with this alternative would be installed  in urban and
suburban areas in which many major improvements have already been made. Therefore,
disturbances to soils  during  construction would be minimal when compared to  existing
improvements in the vicinity  of the proposed project site

      Soils would be disturbed within the estimated 65 acres of pipeline ROW required for
this alternative.  After construction, the soils would be restored to a natural state.

      Air Quality
      This alternative has the potential to affect short-term air quality due to the  additional
automobiles and machinery in the area and traffic delays during construction. However, the
impacts  are  not expected to be noticeable in  relation to the far more adverse traffic
congestion typical of the region.

      5.2.6      Use  Restrictions

       Substrate
       Implementation of the this alternative would have no impact on aquatic  ecosystem
 substrate.

       Water  Quality
       Implementation of use restrictions is not expected to impact existing water quality
 conditions.

       Hydrology

 0114-951-140                             5-16                            February 1994
-------
      This alternative component could stimulate the installation of new shallow wells to
provide water for nonessential uses.   However, the  imposition of use restrictions on
customers currently serviced by Lower Peninsula water purveyors would be expected to have
a negligible effect on surface and subsurface hydrology,

      Groundwater Resources
      Implementation of use restrictions on individuals currently serviced by a municipal
water purveyor would be expected to have a negligible impact on groundwater resources.

      Soil and Mineral Resources
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative would have no impact on soil
and mineral resources.

      Air Quality
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative would have no adverse impact
on ambient air quality.

      5.2.7      No Action

      Substrate
      This alternative would have no impact on aquatic ecosystem substrate.

      Water Quality
      Existing reservoirs would be drawn down more severely and for more prolonged
periods.   This would likely result in  the degradation of existing water quality in the
reservoirs. Diascund Creek Reservoir storage was reduced to 20 to 25 percent of its total
capacity for an  8-month period in 1983 and  1984.  During  this period, hypereutrophic
conditions developed in the reservoir, on the basis of a mean total phosphorus concentration
of 0.09 mg/1. Concentrations of phosphorus are higher during reservoir drawdown because
of:  1) Decreased settling time for tributary inflows of phosphorus, 2) Increased exposure
of fine-grained, phosphorus-rich bottom sediments to resuspending forces, and 3) Increased
algae uptake of phosphorus directly from bottom sediments (Lynch, 1992).  Under the No
Action alternative, the reservoirs would be increasingly drawn down to extremely low levels
for extended periods of time. Eutrophic conditions could occur during similar periods and
would impact all the existing reservoirs in the Lower Peninsula.

      Hydrology
      The No Action alternative  would have  an adverse impact  due to further stress of
already Mmited surface water and  groundwater sources.

      Groundwater Resources
      If   no action is  taken, existing sources will be  relied upon  more heavily, and
cumulative impacts on the regional aquifer system may result.  As reservoirs are drawn
down further, and groundwater use increases to maximum permit limits, some  undesirable
impacts on groundwater resources  would be expected.  The USGS has simulated the
withdrawal of groundwater at permitted maximums and found that dewatering of limited
western portions  of some  aquifers,  and an  increase in the potential for  salt  water
encroachment, could occur (Laczniak and Meng, 1988).
0114-951-140                             5-17                           February 1994
-------
      Soil and Mineral Resources
      The No Action alternative would have no impact on soil and mineral resources.

      AirQuality
      The No Action alternative would have no adverse impact on ambient air quality.

53   BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
      This section provides a general description of how the biological environment would
be impacted by each of the seven alternatives evaluated.  Biological resource categories
evaluated are described below.

      Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Species
      This category addresses the  potential for  impacts to state or federally listed
endangered or threatened species, or sensitive species (any candidates for state or federal
listing) which may occur as a result of project implementation.

      Fish and Invertebrates
      This category addresses the potential for impacts to fish and invertebrates and other
aquatic organisms in the food web.

      Other Wildlife
      This category addresses potential impacts to wildlife species which are not addressed
in the Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species and Fish and Invertebrates sections.

      Sanctuaries and  Refuges
      This category evaluates the potential impacts to sanctuaries and refuges which could
result from implementation of the evaluated alternatives.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      In this category, wetlands and vegetated shallows are evaluated for any potential
impacts due to the implementation of each of the seven alternatives.  Overall impacts to
wetlands and vegetated shallows are evaluated based on a combination of impact acreage,
permanence of impacts, and wetland values impacted.

      Mud Flats
      In this section, mud flats identified in the vicinity of each of alternatives are evaluated
for potential impacts.

      53.1     Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

      Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
      Due to the distance between the proposed intake and the Bald Eagle nests in the
vicinity, no consequential adverse impacts to the nest sites are anticipated as a result of
intake placement and operation. In addition, no measurable impacts to transient individuals
are expected due to the small area of disturbance required in relation to the large area of
remaining habitat available to the species in the region.

       No appreciable impacts to Pamunkey River tidal freshwater vegetative communities
are expected as a result of salinity changes due to the proposed withdrawal. No known


0114-951-140                             5-18                           February 1994
-------
populations of the Sensitive Joint-vetch are located in the vicinity of the proposed intake site
on the Pamunkey River (Perry, 1993).

      No known  populations of designated endangered or threatened species would be
directly impacted  by construction of a reservoir on Ware Creek. However, the following
sensitive species are, or may be, located in the vicinity of the reservoir site: Small Whorled
Pogonia, Bald Eagle, Sensitive Joint-vetch, and Mat-forming Water-hyssop.

      A site survey for the Sensitive Joint-vetch resulted in the identification of no extant
populations of the species within  Ware Creek tidal wetlands (Perry,  1993).  Impacts to
approximately 12  acres of potential habitat of Aeschynomene virginica could occur during
construction activities at the proposed reservoir site. Impacts to approximately 2.5  acres of
downstream habitat could also occur through construction activities.  Downstream impacts
could be minimized by  locating  work staging  areas away  from  these areas,  and by
implementing sediment control measures at all times.  The potential for loss of propagule
source due to construction activities is unknown  (Perry, 1993).  Additional impacts to
Sensitive Joint-vetch habitat could occur due to the anticipated loss of tidal freshwater
conditions in Ware Creek below the proposed dam site.

      Because the RRWSG was denied access to the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir site
to perform the Small Whorled Pogonk survey within the peak flowering period (May-July),
a Small Whorled  Pogonia survey could not be performed in time for this document.
Consequently, a site survey for the Small Whorled Pogonia in the proposed Ware Creek
Reservoir area is currently planned for June 1994  by the RRWSG. The results of this
survey will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for public review.
Ninety acres of prime habitat for the Small Whorled Pogonk have been identified within
the proposed reservoir area.

      Due to the modification of the freshwater flow of the Ware Creek system following
construction of the dam, it is likely that the freshwater tidal marsh in Ware Creek would
become brackish.  This  rapid salinity change could  threaten  ecologically important
community types and their component species.

      The principal impacts of reservoir construction  on  downstream salinities were
anticipated to include loss of the tidal freshwater vegetation and reduction or elimination
of the oligohaline assemblage.

      No direct impacts to Bald Eagles are anticipated as a result of reservoir construction.
The presence of an open water system and food source may enhance the potential for eagles
to inhabit the area.

      The proposed pipeline which would carry raw water from the Northbury intake site
to Ware Creek Reservoir may be  far enough away from the Bald Eagle nest to preclude
direct impacts.  However, the VDCR recommended consultation with the USFWS and the
VDGIF to ensure that potential impacts are minimized (T. J. O'Connell, VDCR, personal
communication, 1992).

      Fish and Invertebrates
      Potential impacts from intake structures include entrainment and impingement of fish
eggs and krvae. Alewife and Blueback Herring could be susceptible to greater impacts than
other anadromous fish species because their eggs  are distributed throughout the water


0114-951-140                             5-19                            February 1994
-------
column.  The NMFS generally recommends that through-screen velocities at raw water
intakes not exceed 0.5 feet per second (fps), for the protection of anadromous fish larvae.
To meet this requirement, approximately 10 wedge-wire profile submerged intake screens
would be used.  These screens would be approximately 5 feet in diameter and 5.3 feet in
length. Screens would require a water depth of at least 15 feet and would be placed midway
between  the river bottom and average water surface.

      With wedge-wire screens having very low entrance velocities (i.e., 50.5 fps) and  very
small openings (i.e.,  1  millimeter  slots),  it is unlikely that severe impingement  and
entrainment impacts would occur. Some small fraction of eggs could potentially be damaged
while attached to the screens. However, it is expected that eggs which float on the surface
over the intake, or roll on the bottom  would safely pass the intake structures.  Because
American Shad, Hickory Shad, and Striped Bass eggs are slightly heavier than water, it is
likely that the majority of these eggs would be located below the intake entrance and would
not be affected.

      An additional consideration is that while eggs are unable to move away from the
intakes, larvae are capable of propelling themselves away from the pull of the intakes.  This
natural mechanism would help minimize larvae impingement on the intake screens.

      Anadromous fish species should not be greatly affected by any potential changes in
Pamunkey River salinity conditions.

      Major impacts to fish and invertebrate species in Ware Creek would result from darn
construction and inundation. These impacts would include conversion of current Striped
Bass nursery habitat to a reservoir habitat.  Once completed, the Ware Creek Reservoir
would  provide 1,238 acres  of valuable   open water habitat  for freshwater  fish  and
invertebrates. Some stream species could be eliminated by the change from a stream to a
lake habitat.  The loss of benthic food organisms and vegetation for spawning, nursery, and
shelter could also eliminate some species. However, a fisheries management program would
also be implemented and would include supplementary stocking of forage and game species
to augment the natural population.

      The dam and operation of the reservoir would also affect the nature of the estuarine
community in Ware Creek due to reduced freshwater flow rates below the proposed dam.
The proposed minimum reservoir release, which ranges from 0.4 to 1.6 mgd, would reduce
flow below the dam to between 3.6 and 14.4  percent of average estimated flow at the
proposed dam site.

      A study conducted  by VIMS concluded  that predicted changes in the salinity
distribution in Ware Creek would result in the elimination of the tidal freshwater vegetation
and reduction or elimination of the oligohaline assemblage (Hershner and Perry, 1987),
Reduction of freshwater flows would  result in  the expansion of the type of fish and
invertebrate habitat associated with greater salinity.  This would be most pronounced in the
existing tidal freshwater sections of Ware Creek near the proposed impoundment site.

      A HEP analysis has also been conducted for the proposed  Ware Creek Reservoir
(USFWS, 1987).   The study concluded that lacustrine  open water habitat value for the
reservoir area  is projected to increase by 1,416 average annual habitat units or 1,298
percent.  The HEP analysis also indicated that the impact on estuarine finfish would be
minimal and temporary.


0114-951-140                             5-20                            February 1994
-------
      Impacts associated with reservoir construction could include an increase in levels of
suspended  sediment.  These impacts would be temporary and could be minimized by
sediment control measures.  Unplanned impacts such as oil spills from machinery could also
have adverse impacts on benthic species.  The degree of impact and recovery would be
dependent on the magnitude of the spill (USCOE, 1987).

      Impacts to fish and  invertebrates associated with pipeline construction would be
minimal and temporary.

      The two proposed pipeline discharges to Diascund Creek would create a higher flow
regime in the Creek.  Increased flow velocities, higher dissolved oxygen levels, and higher
nutrient flushing rates would also occur. These changes are expected to be beneficial to fish
and invertebrates.

      Other Wildlife
      Impacts associated with the construction of the intake site would be limited to the
disturbance of approximately 3  acres  of forested  and agricultural  lands.   Reptiles,
amphibians, and small mammals would be the most affected by construction. Other wildlife
would be displaced to adjacent habitats.

      Approximately 625 acres of forested land would be lost through clearing and grubbing
operations and subsequent inundation. Reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals which are
less mobile would be  the most affected by construction.  Birds in the area are the  most
mobile of the vertebrate fauna and, as a result, fewer impacts would occur.  Because areas
adjacent to the reservoir are most  likely fully occupied, most migrating individuals will not
find room,  or will displace others (USCOE, 1984).

      The USFWS  conducted a HEP study for the Ware Creek drainage area (USFWS,
1987).  Based on cover typing of the study area, it was concluded that reservoir development
would markedly affect habitat values in the following existing cover types: upland mixed
forest, upland deciduous forest, forested wetland, scrub-shrub wetland, herbaceous wetland,
open water and estuarine wetland (USCOE, 1987).

      It  is expected that the Great Blue Heron rookery would be threatened by inundation
of the reservoir area (T. J. O'Connell, VDCR, personal communication, 1992; USEPA, 1992;
USCOE, 1984; USCOE, 1987).

      Although a large acreage of upland  mixed forest would be converted to residential
development, the absence of continued timber harvesting in the remaining mixed forested
stands is projected to  result in an increase  in habitat value for this cover type.

      Lacustrine habitat values would increase dramatically.  All other cover types would
suffer a loss of habitat value. The greatest habitat value losses would occur in forested and
herbaceous wetland cover-types which would be inundated (USCOE,  1987).

      Impacts to species currently utilizing palustrine and estuarine wetlands would occur
due to changes in the source of primary productivity.

      Dabbling ducks such as the Black Duck would be negatively affected by the reservoir.
Their food sources would be mostly destroyed by the removal and flooding of vegetation.
0114-951-140                             5-21                           February 1994
-------
      Negative impacts are anticipated  on amphibians  requiring specific habitats for
breeding and egg laying, such as specific water flow velocities or certain vegetation sizes.

      Species utilizing community types  along the pipeline route would be temporarEy
displaced. Due to the relatively small area of land requiring disturbance along the route,
and the restoration, where possible, of affected land, the development of the underground
pipeline should not substantially impact vertebrate species. Once revegetation (excluding
reforestation) is complete, the pipeline ROW would provide valuable  open field/shrub
habitat adjacent to existing forested areas.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      No impacts to existing designated sanctuaries or refuges are anticipated as a result
of intake placement in the vicinity of Northbury on the Pamunkey River, as a  result of
construction of the proposed Ware Creek  Reservoir, or as a result of pipeline construction.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      A minor amount of fringe wetlands located on the southern bank of the Pamunkey
River would be affected  by construction of the proposed installation trench  required
between the intake structure and the pump station.

      Potential secondary impacts would  include:

        •   Increased sedimentation and wetland loss downstream due to intake  structure
            construction; and

        •   Changes in tidal freshwater plant communities resulting from salinity increases
            in the Pamunkey River.

      Assuming that the water quality of  the Pamunkey River does not deteriorate due to
other factors, such as increased wastewater discharges or dramatically increased irrigation
withdrawals, the vegetative species composition of the tidal freshwater wetland should not
change appreciably as a result of freshwater withdrawals.

      The major impact on wetlands by construction of the Ware Creek Reservoir would
be direct loss through filling, removal or inundation. A total of approximately 590 acres of
tidal and non-tidal wetlands would be affected by construction of the reservoir.

      The 590 acres of wetlands affected by the Ware  Creek Reservoir project represents
approximately 2.7 percent of the 21,889.6 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands found in New
Kent County and about 1.8 percent of the 32,957.2 acres found in James City County.

      Secondary impacts would be related to short-term construction effects and long-term
changes in flow regime in downstream wetlands. To indicate the degree of impact to Ware
Creek,  the percent restriction of flow which would be caused by the dam was estimated.
Assuming an estimated average streamflow at the dam site of 11.1 mgd and a minimum
reservoir release ranging from 0.4 mgd to 1.6 mgd, streamflow at the dam  site  would be
reduced to 3.6 percent to 14.4 percent of existing average flow.

      A VIMS study (Hershner and Perry,  1987) indicated  that under  average flow
conditions,  with the dam  in  place, those tidal freshwater  wetlands which  remained
downstream of the dam initially after its construction would be eliminated and replaced by


0114-951-140                             5-22                            February 1994
-------
an oligohaMne vegetational community.  The study also indicated that existing oligohaline
zones below the proposed dam site would be greatly reduced or eliminated.

      Some limited areas of wetlands would be temporarily disturbed by pipeline stream
crossings.  As discussed  in Section 5.2.1, an estimated 1.2 acres  of substrate would be
affected by the 21 minor  stream crossings required for pipeline construction. The area of
wetland disturbance along the route would likely be similar.

      Mud Flats
      No mud flats would be directly impacted in project areas for this alternative. Use of
a turbidity curtain during construction of the intake structure would decrease sediment flow,
thereby minimizing any potential impacts to downstream mud flats.

      532.      Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from the Pamunkey River

      Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive Species
      Potential impacts to endangered, threatened and other sensitive species resulting from
the proposed Pamunkey River withdrawal are discussed in Section 5.3.1.

      No known populations of designated endangered or threatened species would be
directly impacted by construction of a reservoir on Black Creek Reservoir. However, the
following sensitive species are, or may be, located in the vicinity of the reservoir site:
Mabee's Salamander, Bald Eagle, Northern Diamondback Terrapin, and  Small Whorled
Pogonia.

      A survey of potential suitable habitat for the Small Whorled Pogonia was conducted
in the proposed reservoir area in July 1993. No individuals of Small Whorled Pogonia were
identified within suitable  habitat in the reservoir area. Therefore, it is not anticipated that
the project would negatively impact individuals of the species. A detailed description of the
survey methodology and results are presented in Report E.

      Once the reservoir is constructed, it would provide valuable1 open water habitat. This
would provide important  foraging habitat for the BaldBagle.

      The proposed minimum combined release of l,24Hgd represents 32 percent of the
estimated combined average flow at the two dam sites. This release is expected to preserve
the quality of downstream habitat in Black Creek that sensitive species may us£

      The proposed pipeline which would carry raw water from the Northbury Black Creek
Reservoir may be far enough away from the Bald Eagle nest  to preclude direct  impacts.
However, the VDCR  recommended consultation with the USFWS and  the VDGIF to
ensure  that potential impacts  are  minimized  (T. J.   O'Connell,  VDCR,  personal
communication, 1992).

      Fish and Invertebrates
      Potential impacts to fish and invertebrates at the Pamunkey River intake site are
described in Section 5.3.1.

      The major impact  to fish and invertebrate species in Black Creek would result from
dam construction  and inundation.  Once completed, the Black Creek Reservoir would
provide  1,146 acres of valuable open water habitat for freshwater fish and invertebrates.


0114-951-140                            5-23                           February 1994
-------
Some stream species could be eliminated by the change from a stream to a lake habitat.
The loss of benthie food organisms and vegetation for spawning, nursery, and shelter could
&tee eliminate some species.  However, a fisheries management program would also be
implemented and would include supplementary stocking of forage and game species to
augment the natural population.

      The  dams^irid "operation of the reservoir would also affect the nature  of the tidal
freshwater community in the lower reaches of Black Creek due to reduced freshwater flow
rates below the proposed dams. However, the proposed minimum reservoir release of 1.2
mgd represents 32 percent of the estimated combined average streamflow of 3.8 mgd at the
two dam sites, and is expected to be sufficient to maintain good habitat quality below the
dams for fish and invertebrates.

      Impacts associated with reservoir construction could include an increase in suspended
sediment. These impacts would be temporary and could be minimized by sediment control
measures.  Unplanned impacts such as oil spills from machinery could also have adverse
impacts on benthie species. The degree of impact and recovery would be dependent on the
magnitude  of the spill.

      Impacts to fish and invertebrates  associated with pipeline construction would be
minimal and temporary.

      The  proposed pipeline  discharge to  Diascund Creek would create  a  higher flow
regime in the Creek.  Increased flow velocities, higher dissolved oxygen levels^ affii higher
nutrient flushing rates would also occur. These changes are expected to te beneficial to fish
and invertebrates.

      Other Wildlife
      Potential impacts to other wildlife at  the proposed Pamunkey River intake site are
discussed in Section 5.3.1.

      Within the proposed reservoir pool area, approximately 752 acres of forested land (66
percent of the normal pool area) would be converted to open water. Approximately 25
percent (285 acres) of the pool area supports palustrine and emergent wetlands which would
be inundated. Approximately 13 acres of agricultural/rural residential land would be lost.
Acreage of open water would be increased substantially.

      Reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals which are less mobile would  be the most
affected by construction. Birds in the area are the most mobile of the vertebrate fauna and,
as a result, are least likely  to be affected.  Because areas adjacent to the reservoir are most
likely fully  occupied, most migrating individuals will not find room, or will displace others
(USCOE, 1984).

      Indirect impacts to heron rookeries could occur as a result of reservoir construction
and modification of the flow regime of the Black Creek system. However, adverse indirect
impacts to these resources are not anticipated.

      Species utilizing community types along the pipeline route would be  temporarily
displaced.  Due to the relatively small area of land disturbance along the route, and  the
restoration, where possible, of affected land, the development of the underground pipeline
should not severely impact vertebrate species. Once revegetation (excluding reforestation)


0114-951-140                             5-24                           February 1994
-------
is complete, the pipeline ROW would provide«valuable open field/shrub habitat adjacent to
existing forested areas.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      No impacts to existing designated sanctuaries or refuges are anticipated as a result
of intake placement in the vicinity of Northbury on the Pamunkey River, as a result of
construction of the proposed Black Creek Reservoir, or are anticipated as a result of
pipeline construction for this alternative component.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      Project impacts in the vicinity of the Northbury site are described in Section 5.3,1.

      A  total of approximately 285 acres of non-tidal wetlands would be inundated, filled,
or removed by construction of the Black Creek impoundment. Further verification of this
estimate  will be conducted in 1994 and will be included  in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for public review. Based on previous wetland delineation analyses, the estimate
of wetlands within the proposed Black Creek Reservoir pool is not expected to change more
than 10 - 15 percent from the current estimate.

      Impact acreages for the Black Creek Reservoir were compared with wetland acreages
for New Kent County contained in "The Virg^ Nan-Tidal WeOands Inventoiy (VDCR,  1990).
The 285 acres of wetlands affected  by  the  Black Creek  Reservoir  project represent
approximately 1.3 percent of the 21,889.6 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands found in New
Kent County.

      Secondary impacts would be related to short-term construction effects and long-term
changes in flow regime in downstream wetlands.  To indicate the degree of impact  to the
existing hydrology of the Black Creek system, the percent restriction of flow from the
watershed which would be caused by the  dams was estimated.  Assuming an estimajted
average streamflow from the watershed of 3.8 mgd and  a minimum reservoir release
mgd, combined streamftoscaiJhe  dam sites would be reduced to 32 percentjaf exmuig
average flows.

      It  is reasonable to conclude that wetlands downgradient from the two dam sites may
be affected by reductions in average water levels. There  are approximately  212  acres of
vegetated wetlands from eight cover types located between the two dam sites  and the
Pamunkey River. These vegetated wetlands below the Black Creek dam sites have very high
functional values.
      Flood peaks would also be greatly reduced downstream of the dam sties due to
moderation of flows via  storage in  the impoundment.  As a result, floodplain wetlands
hydrology would be severely limited  and impacts to this type of wetland may occur.

      Some limited areas of wetlands would be temporarily disturbed by pipeline stream
crossings.  As discussed  in Section 5.2.2, an estimated 1.4 acres of substrate would be
affected by the 24 minor  stream crossings required for pipeline construction. The area of
wetland disturbance along the route would likely be similar.  Pipeline construction across
an arm of Little Creek Reservoir would affect a deep open water area approximately 500
feet wide.
0114-951-140                             5-25.                           February 1994
-------
      Mud Flats
      No mud flats would be directly impacted in project areas for this alternative. Use of
a turbidity curtain during construction of the intake structure would decrease sediment flow,
thereby minimizing any potential impacts to downstream mud flats.

      533     King William Reservoir with Pumpover from the  Mattaponi River

      Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
      No known populations of species with special federal and/or state status in the tidal
region of the Mattaponi River are anticipated to be directly impacted by intake construction
and operation.

      Impacts to approximately 2.5 acres of potential habitat of Aeschynomene virginica
could occur  during construction activities at the site (Perry, 1993).  No information on the
seed bank availability of the species is available.  Therefore, the potential for the loss of
propagule source due to construction activities is unknown. Potential propagule loss and
damage to species habitat could be minimized by:

        •    Locating work staging areas away from wetland areas.

        •    Implementing sediment control measures at all times.

        •    Avoiding compaction and disturbance of wetland soils.

It is not anticipated that the predicted minute incremental salinity changes due to the river
withdrawals would affect the plant.

      No great adverse impacts to transient Bald Eagles are anticipated as a result of intake
placement and operation due to the small area of disturbance in relation to the large area
of remaining habitat available to the species in the region.

      No known populations of designated endangered, threatened or sensitive species
would be directly impacted by construction  of King William Reservoir.  However,  the
following federal and state protected species are located in the vicinity of the project area:
Mabee's Salamander, Bald Eagle, Northern Diamondback Terrapin and Small Whorled
Pogonia.

      A biological assessment of the Bald Eagle and the Small Whorled Pogonk was
undertaken  to identify potential impacts to these species in the reservoir area. The detailed
results of this assessment are presented in the report Biological Assessment For Practicable
Reservoir Alternatives (Malcolm  Pirnie, 1994) which is appended  to  this  document as
Report E.

      The tree containing the Cohoke Mill Creek eagle nest would not be directly affected
by the King William Reservoir Project.  However, as outlined below, construction of some
project features would occur  within a  relatively short distance of the eagle nest.

        •   King  William Dam:  The toe  of  the  dam would  approach  as close as
            approximately 375 feet from the nest. Excavation area work limits for the dam
            could approach as close as 275 feet from the nest.
 0114-951-140                             5-26                           February 1994
-------
       »    Emergency Spillway: The emergency spillway would be constructed on the west
            abutment of the dam. This spillway would approach as close as approximately
            2,200 feet of  the nest. Channel improvements downstream of the spillway
            would be minimized as much as possible in consideration of the low probability
            of spillway use.

       "    Gravity Pipeline: A 60-inch diameter gravity pipeline would follow the hillside
            to the east of  Cohoke Mill Creek, generally near 50 feet above mean sea level
            (msl) in the vicinity of the eagle nest. The pipeline would be buried and would
            approach as close as approximately 375 feet of the nest.

       •    Roadway over King William Dam: The travelway associated with the  proposed
            roadway across the top of the dam would approach as close as approximately
            675 feet of the nest.

      The primary threat to Bald Eagles using the nest on Cohoke Mill Creek is considered
to be the short-term noise  and disruption which would result from dam construction (M. A.
Byrd, The College of William and Mary,  personal communication,  1993).  One possible
effect from  the project would be to cause the  eagles to abandon their nest as a result of
short-term disturbances during reservoir construction.  However,  if  this were to occur, it
could be viewed as a temporary impact since eagles often use alternate nest sites in different
years (USFWS, 1987).

      Recreational boat traffic on the proposed reservoir was also considered as a potential
disturbance  to the  Bald Eagle.   A comprehensive study entitled Ecology,  Habitat and
Management of Bald Eagles at B. Everett Jordan Lake and Falls Lake, North Carolina was
recently  conducted (Luukkonen  et al., 1989).  Sixty-three intentional disturbances  by
motorized boats flushed eagles with a  mean flush distance of 450 feet.  Most  (92 percent)
of the eagles were flushed when the approaching boat was within 820 feet from shore. As
part of this  study, eagles were observed to flush at greater distances when approached by
walking observers than when approached by motor boats.

      For the King William Reservoir Project, boat traffic on the reservoir would be limited
to areas  upstream of the intake  structure.   This  intake  structure  would be located
approximately 900 feet from the bald eagle nest and, therefore, is outside of the normal
range of observed eagle flushing distances at other reservoirs.  In addition, the King William
Reservoir Project Development Agreement would only permit the use  of electric motors on
motorized boats using the reservoir (King William County and City of Newport News, 1990).
Electric motors are much  quieter than gasoline powered engines and would, therefore, be
less disturbing to eagles at the nest or eagles foraging on the reservoir.

      Once the reservoir is constructed, it would provide valuable open water habitat.  This
would provide important habitat for the Bald Eagle. A discussion of the potential for the
creation  of  Bald Eagle habitat at the reservoir  site is presented  in  Report E.    With
appropriate management efforts, Bald  Eagle foraging and  nesting  habitat  could  be
successfully  created  at  the proposed  King William Reservoir  site, especially given the
following factors:

       •    Once  the reservoir  is filled, extensive undeveloped  shoreline with  large
            diameter trees would exist around  the reservoir.  The mature forests adjacent
0114-951-140                             5-27                            February 1994
-------
            to the open water would greatly expand local bald eagle habitat by providing
            nesting, roosting, and perching sites.

       «    Extensive shallow water areas and freshwater fisheries would exist within the
            reservoir, thus greatly expanding the bald eagle's local foraging habitat and
            potential food supply.

       •    Large numbers of active bald eagle nesting sites already exist in the region and
            the population could expand at the King William Reservoir site.

       •    The proposed King William Reservoir would provide an environment much
            more suited to bald eagle establishment than under existing land use conditions
            in which  the site is used for timbering and hunting.

      To  minimize impacts to  the Bald Eagle  nest, the following potential management
measures  may be useful:

       •    To the maximum extent possible, avoid construction activities in areas closest
            to the Bald Eagle nest during the entire eagle breeding season.

       •    Protect any new bald eagle nesting sites by establishing buffer zones around the
            nests.  Cooperative agreements should be pursued with landowners to protect
            such nesting habitat.

       •    Promote eagle roosting site creation  by establishing buffer zones around
            selected  large open areas containing large  trees (i.e., greater than 1.6-foot
            diameter) at low densities. Selective timbering of areas may be necessary to
            create suitable roost stands.

       •    Promote eagle perching site creation by establishing buffer zones around
            selected  large trees (i.e., greater than 1.6-foot diameter) along the reservoir
            shore which have more open crowns than other trees along the shore.

       •    Install buoys to keep boats from approaching too close to eagle nest sites which
            are established around the King William Reservoir.

       •    Develop  educational materials such as posters and leaflets to place in public
            locations close to established eagle roosting, nesting, and foraging areas.  Such
            materials should educate the general public on the effects of land development,
            shooting, and other human activity on bald  eagles.

      One individual of SmaE Whorled Pogonia was identified near the proposed King
William Reservoir project area during field surveys for the species conducted in June 1993.
If reservoir construction proceeds,  the individual would be located  within a watershed
protection area which would  not be harvested. The proposed normal pool elevation of the
reservoir  is 90 feet msl. The plant is located between the 90-foot and the 100-foot contour
elevations,  which  should protect it from  inundation  effects associated with reservoir
construction.

      Because only one individual was found in this area, in habitat which is less than ideal
for the species,  it is unlikely that  this population will maintain itself  into the future.


0114-951-140                              5-28                            February 1994
-------
However, during reservoir construction and operation, management techniques would be
applied to protect this individual.  These would include the establishment of a  100-foot
buffer  zone around the individual and the prohibition of any construction or recreation
activities within this zone. By limiting all activities within this area, the impacts of reservoir
construction and operation on this individual plant would be minimized.

      The proposed minimum reservoir release of 3 mgd is expected to preserve the quality
of downstream habitat in Cohoke Millpond and Cohoke Mill Creek that sensitive species
may use.

      No known populations of endangered, threatened or sensitive species would be
directly impacted by construction of pipeline associated with this alternative.

      Fish and Invertebrates
      Potential  impacts as a  result  of intake  operation  include  entrainment  and
impingement of fish eggs and larvae.  Alewife and  Blueback Herring could be susceptible
to greater impacts than other anadromous fish species because their eggs are disturbed
throughout the water  column.  The NMFS generally recommends that through-screen
velocities at raw water intakes not  exceed 0.5 fps,  for the protection of anadromous fish
larvae.  To meet  this requirement,  approximately 6 wedge-wire profile submerged intake
screens would be used.  These screens would be approximately 5 feet in diameter and 5.5
feet in length. Screens would require  a water depth of at least 15 feet and would be placed
midway between the river bottom and average water surface.

      With wedge-wire screens, having very low entrance velocities (i.e., ^0.5 fps)  and very
small openings (i.e., 1  millimeter slots), it is unlikely that appreciable impingement and
entrainment impacts would occur. Some small fraction of eggs could potentially be damaged
while attached to the screens. However, it is expected that eggs which float on the surface
over the intake, or roll on the bottom,  would safely pass the intake structures. Also because
American Shad, Hickory Shad, and Striped Bass eggs are  slightly heavier than water, it is
likely that the majority of the eggs would be located below the intake entrance and would
not be affected.

      An additional consideration  is that while eggs are  unable to move away from the
intakes, larvae can propel themselves away  from  the pull of the intakes.   This natural
mechanism would help minimize larvae impingement of the intake screens.

      Anadromous fish species should not be substantially affected by any potential changes
in Mattaponi River salinity conditions.

      The major impact to fish and invertebrate species in  Cohoke Mill Creek would result
from dam construction and inundation. Once completed, the King William Reservoir would
provide 2,234 acres of valuable  open water habitat for freshwater fish and invertebrates.
Some stream species could be eliminated by the change from a stream to a lake habitat.
The loss of benthic food organisms and vegetation for spawning, nursery, and shelter could
also eliminate some species. However, a fisheries management program would also be
implemented and would include supplementary stocking  of forage and game species to
augment the natural population.

      The dam and operation of the reservoir could affect the nature of  Cohoke Mill
Creek due to reduced freshwater flow rates below the  proposed dam.   However, the


0114-951-140                             5-29                            February 1994
-------
proposed  minimum reservoir release of 3  mgd represents 32 percent of the estimated
average streamflow of 9.3 mgd at the dam site, and is expected to be sufficient to maintain
good habitat quality below the dam for fish  and invertebrates.

      Impacts associated with reservoir construction could include an increase in levels of
suspended sediment.   These impacts would be temporary and  could  be minimized  by
sediment control measures. Unplanned impacts such as oil spills from machinery could also
have adverse impacts on benthic species.  The degree of impact and recovery would  be
dependent on the magnitude of the spill.

      Impacts to fish  and invertebrates  associated with pipeline construction would  be
minimal and temporary.  Impacts to fish and invertebrates in the  Pamunkey River should
not occur due to pipeline construction.

      The proposed pipeline discharge to Beaverdam Creek would create a higher flow
regime in the creek. Increased flow velocities, higher dissolved oxygen levels, and higher
nutrient flushing rates would also occur. These changes are expected to be beneficial to fish
and invertebrates.

      Other Wildlife
      Impacts resulting from the placement of a pump station at  Scotland Landing would
result in the disturbance of approximately 3 acres of forested land.  Reptiles, amphibians,
and small mammals would be the most impacted by construction.  Other wildlife would  be
displaced  to adjacent habitats.

      The proposed reservoir  pool area  is  comprised primarily  of forested land (76
percent).  Approximately 1,719 acres of upland forest would be converted to open water.
479  acres of  wetlands would  be converted  to open water.   A  loss of 29  acres  of
agricultural/rural residential land would occur. The acreage of open water would increase
considerably.

      Reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals which are less mobile would be the most
affected by construction.  Birds in the area are the most mobile of the vertebrate fauna and,
as a result, are  least likely to be affected. Additional wetlands would be created from
reservoir  development, providing habitat for wetland species; however, because adjacent
forested areas are most  likely fully  occupied,  most migrating  individuals would not find
room, or would displace others.

      Species utilizing community types along the pipeline route  would be temporarily
displaced. Due to the relatively small area of land disturbance  along the route and the
restoration, where possible, of the  affected land,  the development of the underground
pipeline should not greatly impact vertebrate species.   Once  revegetation  (excluding
reforestation) is complete,  the pipeline  ROW would provide valuable open field/shrub
habitat adjacent to existing forested areas.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      No impacts to existing sanctuaries or refuges are anticipated as a  result of intake
placement in  the vicinity of Scotland Landing on the Mattaponi  River, as a result of
construction of  the proposed King William Reservoir, or are anticipated as a result of
pipeline construction for this alternative component.
 0114-951-140                             5-30                           February 1994
-------
      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      No direct impacts to wetlands at the intake site are anticipated.

      Potential secondary impacts would include:

       •   Increased sedimentation due to intake structure construction; and

       •   Changes in tidal freshwater plant communities resulting from salinity increases
           in the Mattaponi River.

      Assuming that the water quality of the Mattaponi River does not deteriorate due to
other factors, the vegetative species composition of the tidal freshwater and oligohaline
wetlands should not change appreciably as a result of freshwater withdrawals.

      The major impact on wetlands by construction of the King William Reservoir would
be direct loss through filling, removal or inundation.  A total of approximately 479 acres of
wetlands would be affected by construction of the reservoir.  Further verification of this
estimate will be  conducted in 1994 and  included  in the Final Environmental  Impact
Statement for public review.

      The 479 acres of wetlands affected by the King William Reservoir project represents
approximately 1.8 percent of the 26,767.7 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands found in King
William County.

      Secondary impacts would be related to short-term construction effects and long-term
changes in flow regime in downstream wetlands.   Based on USFWS  National Wetland
Inventory maps, there are approximately 55.3 acres of vegetated wetlands from three cover
types located between the proposed King William Reservoir  dam site and the Pamunkey
River. The percent reduction of flow which would be caused by the dam was estimated to
indicate the degree of impact to the existing hydrology of the Cohoke Mill Creek  system.
Based on an  estimated average streamflow at the  dam  site  of 9.3 mgd and a minimum
reservoir release of 3 mgd, streamflow at the dam site would be reduced to 32 percent of
existing average flows.

      The  existing  Cohoke Millpond has  already  provided a sizeable degree of flow
moderation in the lower reaches of Cohoke Mill Creek.  Consequently flow reductions due
to the proposed reservoir should not cause dramatic changes in  average water levels or
floodplain hydrology in vegetated wetland areas below the dam site.

      Some limited areas of wetlands would be temporarily disturbed by pipeline stream
crossings. As discussed  in Section 5.2.3,  an estimated  1,5 acres of substrate would be
affected by the 26 minor stream crossings required for pipeline construction. The area of
wetland disturbance along the route would likely be similar.

      Pipeline construction across an arm of Little Creek Reservoir would affect a deep
open water area  approximately 500 feet wide.  The Pamunkey River  crossing would be
accomplished using directional drilling techniques which would not  disturb  river  bottom
substrate or adjacent wetlands in Cousaic Marsh.
      Mud Flats


0114-951-140                              5-31.                            February 1994
-------
      No mud flats would be directly impacted in project areas for this alternative. Use of
a turbidity curtain during construction of the intake structure would minimize any potential
impacts to downstream mud flats. Potential sediment flow created by intake construction
would be carried downstream; therefore, mud flats located upstream would not be impacted.

    .  53.4      Fresh Groundwater Development

      Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
      No endangered, threatened or sensitive species would  be adversely impacted from
development of this alternative.

      Fish and Invertebrates
      Disturbance of a combined 6,000 square feet at Diascund Creek and Little Creek
reservoirs for placement of pipelines may impact invertebrate species inhabiting wetlands
adjacent to the reservoirs.

      Because groundwater withdrawals would occur when the reservoir drop to 75 percent
of capacity, this alternative would prevent more severe reservoir drawdowns than would
otherwise occur. This would be beneficial to fish and invertebrates.

      Other Wildlife
      The development of eight wells along the perimeter of Diascund Creek  and Little
Creek Reservoirs  would impact a relatively  small area of forested land.  Construction
activities would require a maximum disturbance of approximately 8 acres.  Pipeline impact
is expected to  be minimal due to  well proximity to the reservoirs.  Species would be
temporarily displaced to adjacent areas.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      No impacts to sanctuaries or refuges are anticipated as a result of implementation of
this alternative component.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      It is anticipated that  deep aquifer freshwater withdrawals would not have  any
measurable impacts on wetlands in the area, which are maintained by surface  water and
shallow groundwater hydrology.

      Impacts  to  wetlands would  result from the construction of outfall structures and
associated placement of stone rip-rap in  the Diascund Creek  Reservoir proper, and in
tributaries leading to Little Creek  Reservoir. Assuming  that each outfall structure  and
associated rip-rap would cover an area 20 feet wide by 50 feet long, this project component
would impact 1,000  square feet of lacustrine limnetic, open water wetlands (L1OWU) at
each of the four  Diascund Creek  Reservoir discharge points  and 1,000 square feet of
palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporary wetlands (PFO1A) at two of the four
Little Creek Reservoir discharge points.

       Mud Flats
       No mud flats  are located in the vicinity of proposed groundwater wells or associated
pipelines and outfall structures; therefore, no impacts to mud flats would  occur.
 0114-951-140                              5-32                            February 1994
-------
      •53 J      Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

      Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
      No  adverse impacts to  known threatened, endangered or sensitive species  are
anticipated as a result of this alternative.

      Fish and Invertebrates
      Stream impacts due to concentrate discharge pipelines would be minor and transient.
The four stream crossings required would be accomplished by cut and fill techniques, with
stream contours restored following construction.

      Concentrate discharge pipeline outfalls would be placed in areas where polyhaline or
mesohaline conditions  already  occur to avoid any potential  impacts to existing fish and
invertebrate species.

      Other Wildlife
      Groundwater development at five well locations and RO treatment plant construction
would disturb approximately 5 acres. The proposed locations of the wells and RO plants
are within urbanized areas. Impacts to vegetation communities and their associated wildlife
species would be minimal.

      Construction of concentrate discharge pipelines would disturb approximately 65 acres
along the proposed pipeline routes.  Wildlife species inhabiting these areas would  be
temporarily displaced.  Due to the relatively small area of land disturbance at any one area
along the routes, and the restoration, where possible, of the affected land development of
the underground pipeline should not greatly impact vertebrate species.

      Sanctuaries and  Refuges
      No impacts to sanctuaries or refuges are anticipated as  a result of implementation of
this alternative.

      Wetlands  and Vegetated Shallows
      Impacts to  wetlands  would include  the construction  of  outfall  structures and
placement  of approximately 4,000 square feet of rip-rap  in wetlands associated with
discharge points. The total wetlands acreage disturbed would be 0.9 acres.

      Mud Flats
      For Site 1, the concentrate outfall structure would temporarily or permanently impact
4,000 square feet of mud fiats in Hampton Roads Harbor. No sizeable impacts to mud fiats
would be anticipated for  the other well sites.

      53.6      Use Restrictions

      Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative would have no impact  on
endangered, threatened or sensitive species on the Lower Peninsula.

      Fish and Invertebrates
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative would have no impact on fish
and invertebrate species in the  Lower Peninsula.
0114-951-140                             5-33                            February 1994
-------
      Other Wildlife
      Implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative should have no impact on existing
wildlife resources in the Lower Peninsula.

      Sanctuaries and Refuges
      The implementation of the Use Restrktions alternative on the Lower Peninsula would
have no impact on sanctuaries and refuges in the region.

      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      There  would be  no .impacts to wetlands  as  a result of implementing the Use
Restrictions alternative

      Mud Flats
      No impacts to mud flats would occur with implementation of the Use Restrictions
alternative.

      53.7     No Action
                                                                 *.
      Endangered. Threatened  or Sensitive Species
      If no action were taken by local water purveyors to develop additional water supplies,
there could be negative impacts to wetland species due to the increased frequency and
severity of drawdowns in existing reservoirs.  Increasingly, existing reservoirs would be drawn
down to levels which could negatively impact adjacent wetland communities. The largest
impacts  would be expected at Diascund  Creek and Little Creek  as  these  reservoirs
experience the most frequent and severe drawdowns.

      No endangered,  threatened or sensitive species  are known to  occur in areas
surrounding  Diascund  and Little Creek  reservoirs.   Bald Eagles are  documented  as
occurring in the  project vicinity.  Foraging habitat of this species  may be affected if
increased water demands result in more severe reservoir drawdowns.

      Fish and Invertebrates
      If no action were taken by local water purveyors to develop additional water supplies,
there could be negative impacts to fish and  invertebrate  species due to the increased
frequency and severity of drawdowns in existing reservoirs. Increasingly, existing reservoirs
would be drawn down to levels which could negatively impact adjacent wetland communities.
Species  inhabiting shallow streams  within these  wetland  communities  would be most
impacted.

       Other Wildlife
       If no action were  taken by local water purveyors to develop additional water supplies,
there could be negative impacts to wildlife species due to the increased frequency and
severity of drawdowns in existing reservoirs. Increasingly, existing reservoirs would be drawn
down  to levels which could negatively impact adjacent wetland communities.  Wildlife
species depending on these communities could be affected.

       Sanctuaries and Refuges
       If no action is taken to augment the existing water supplies on the Lower Peninsula,
there will be no impact to existing sanctuaries  and refuges in the region.
 0114-951-140                              5-34                            February 1994
-------
      Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
      The No Action alternative would require increasing reliance on existing reservoirs to
satisfy growing  water demands. As a result, these reservoirs would be increasingly drawn
down to levels that could negatively impact adjacent wetland communities.

      In addition,  there would be an increasing dependence  on shallow groundwater
sources.  This, in  turn, could result in a potential negative impact to wetlands supplied by
shallow groundwater.

      Mud Flats
      The No Action alternative would result in more frequent and severe drawdowns in
existing water supply reservoirs serving the Lower Peninsula.  Mud flats along the peripheral
areas of reservoirs would, therefore, be more exposed to the  atmosphere. Adverse impacts
from  such exposure could include some dewatering during  extended periods of reservoir
drawdown.

5,4   CULTURAL RESOURCES
      Potential impacts to known cultural resources within project areas are discussed in
this section. Direct impacts resulting from disturbance of cultural resources are discussed.

      5.4.1      Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
      Intake

      One known prehistoric site identified during field studies of the proposed intake site
in conjunction with the Phase IA Cultural Resource Slavey for the Proposed King WMam
Reservoir, fSng William. County, Virginia and the Proposed Blade Creek Reservoir, New Kent
County, Virginia  (MAAR Associates,  1994) would be  affected by construction  of the
proposed intake and pump station. Impacts to "Chericoke", which is located in the vicinity
of the Northbury withdrawal site, would not  be anticipated since  the resource  is well
separated from the  intake site.

      Due to the high potential for cultural resources in the area, the USCOE (1984) has
indicated that a site survey would be necessary to identify the extent of any resources in the
vicinity of the intake site.  The site was examined during field studies for  the Phase IA
Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed King William Reservoir, King WMam County, Virginia
and the Proposed Black Creek Reservoir, New Kent County, Virginia conducted by MAAR
Associates (1994). However, the Phase IA survey concentrated on the reservoir area with
limited research conducted at the intake site.

      Reservoir

      The USCOE (1984) stated that the Stonehouse archaeological site could be damaged
if reservoir construction is not carefully executed. At the time of the study, the existence
of other cultural resources in the reservoir area was unknown, but  it was expected that
several other sites existed. The USCOE suggested that further archaeological survey work
be conducted to determine the degree of resources within the reservoir area.

      The 45 prehistoric and historic period sites which were identified as being at or below
the 35-foot  contour elevation would be directly  impacted by reservoir construction.  In


0114-951-140                             5-35                            February 1994
-------
addition, 16 historic-period sites could be impacted. In April 1993, the VDHR reported that
James City County had hired a consultant to perform Phase II archaeological studies for the
proposed Ware Creek Reservoir (E. R. Eaton, VDHR, personal communication, 1993).
Due to the identification of numerous archaeological resources within the reservoir pool
area, this additional survey work is required to identify the archaeological potential of these
sites and locate additional resources.

      Pipeline

      One known historic site (44NK81) could be impacted from pipeline construction for
this alternative component. Two additional archaeological sites (44JC269 and 44JC297) are
located adjacent to the pipeline route.  Impacts to these sites would be avoided to the
maximum extent possible during construction.

      The pipeline route would also transect the registered acreage of Saint Peter's Church
(63NK27),  a National Historic site.  Any impacts to the grounds would be minimal and
temporary in nature. The actual church structure would be located approximately 550 feet
north of  the pipeline. Consequently, no impacts to this structure are anticipated.

      The  Slater House (47JC19)  is located adjacent to  the pipeline route.  Assuming a
50-foot wide right-of-way for pipeline construction, impacts to this  resource  could  be
avoided.  However, Burnt Ordinary (47JC63) is located in close proximity to the  proposed
pipeline  route.  A site survey would be conducted prior to construction to assure that
impacts to  the resources would be  minimized.

      Due to several known locations of archaeological resources along the pipeline route,
additional survey work  would likely be required to identify any other cultural  resources
which could be impacted.

      5.42      Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Paraunkey River
      Intake

      Potential impacts to cultural resources resulting from construction and operation of
an intake and pumping station at Northbury are discussed in Section 5.4.1.

      Reservoir

      Based on the results of a Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey (MAAR Associates,
1994) conducted at the reservoir site, construction of the reservoir would directly impact
Crump's Mill (63NK70). This resource would be inundated with a reservoir normal pool
elevation of 100 feet msl.  One or two additional historic sites identified by the New Kent
County Historical  Society may also be located within the  proposed reservoir pool area.

      The predictive model used to estimate the potential for cultural resources at the Black
Creek site  indicated that there  are few, if any, prehistoric sites  located within the
impoundment area. As a result, it is suggested that impacts to prehistoric cultural resources
within the impoundment area would be relatively small (MAAR Associates, 1994).

      As indicated by the VDHR  in its review of the Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey
for the reservoir area, four properties would require further evaluation to determine the
potential effects of the project on the resources. These include Crump's Mill (VDHR 63-


0114-951-140                             5-36                            February 1994
-------
70), Iden (VDHR  63-41; MAAR 2), VDHR 63-203 (MAAR 13),  and VDHR 63-178
(MAAR 70). The inundation of Crump's Mill would almost certainly constitute an adverse
effect. The VDHR has indicated that the effects on the other three properties may possibly
be limited to  visual effects and that the potential effects might not be adverse (H. B.
Mitchell, VDHR, personal communication, 1993),

      Pipeline

      It is anticipated that some impacts to  cultural resources would result along the
pipeline route, primarily to yet unidentified archaeological sites. Two previously recorded
sites may be impacted by pipeline construction.  It is unlikely that the two National Register
sites (St. Peter's Church and Marl Hill) in  the  vicinity of the pipeline route would be
impacted by the project (MAAR Associates, 1994).  Any impacts to the grounds of St.
Peter's Church would be minimal and temporary in nature. The actual church structure is
located approximately 550 feet north of the proposed pipeline route.  Consequently, no
impacts to this structure are anticipated.

      Based on review of VDHR records, two additional known  sites (44JC642  and
44JC644) would be directly impacted by pipeline construction for this alternative component.
These sites are identified in VDHR's records as  having been  recently surveyed and have
been described as being badly eroded. As a result, no further work was recommended. It
is unlikely that additional survey work would be  required at these sites, and precautions
would be taken during pipeline construction to minimize impacts  to existing  resources.

      5.4.3      King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
      Intake

      No known cultural resources would be impacted as a result of construction  and
operation of an intake and pumping station at Scotland Landing. However, the area  was
identified as having  a high potential for cultural resources (MAAR Associates, 1994) based
on limited research  conducted on the intake site during the Phase IA survey.

      Reservoir

      No previously recorded cultural resources would be directly impacted by construction
of the reservoir. However, the VDHR has identified three historic sites (50KW11,50KW15,
and 50KW40) located above the 110-foot contour elevation  which could potentially be
impacted from reservoir construction. Two of these properties were reviewed by the VDHR
in the Fall of 1993 (H. B. Mitchell, VDHR, personal communication,  1993),  At this time,
it was determined that Colosse Baptist Church (VDHR 50-15) and Malbourne (VDHR 50-
40) would  not be affected by  the proposed project (H. B.  Mitchell, VDHR,  personal
communication, 1993). Historic site 50KW11 (Canton) has never been formally evaluated
for its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (B, J. Larson, VDHR, personal
communication, 1992). As a result, additional survey work at this site may be required to
identify its cultural significance.

      Based on the results of  a Phase  IA Cultural Resources Survey conducted at  the
reservoir site (MAAR Associates, 1994),  it is anticipated that there will be a relatively large
number of prehistoric sites within the  impoundment area that would be  impacted by
inundation.  Sites identified in the survey which would be impacted include an  earthen dam,
an ice house and a total of six prehistoric sites.


0114-951-140                             5-37                            February 1994
-------
      Pipeline

      It  is anticipated  that some impacts to cultural resources would result along the
pipeline route, primarily to unidentified archaeological sites. One previously recorded site
may be impacted by pipeline construction (MAAR Associates, 1994). It is expected that the
pipeline route which traverses stream valleys would impact cultural resources in these areas.

      Three archaeological sites identified from VDHR records (44NK101, 44JC642, and
44JC644) would be directly  impacted by  construction  of the proposed pipeline.   It is
anticipated that further survey work of the Hechler Quarry site  (44NK101) would be
required to determine  its cultural significance.  The 44JC642 and 44JC644 sites  have
recently been  surveyed and have been described as being badly eroded.  It is unlikely that
additional survey work would be required at these sites, and precautions would be taken
during pipeline construction to minimize the impacts to the existing resources.

      These observations are based on limited research conducted on the pipeline routes
during the Phase IA survey.

      5.4.4      Fresh Groundwater Development

      The VDHR conducted a search of its cultural resource site inventory for the project
areas encompassed by the Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals alternative and identified two
previously recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the Diascund Creek Reservoir well
sites.  However, VDHR indicated that impacts to these sites should not occur given the
great distances which separate these sites from the project areas.

      Additional survey work may be required at the Little Creek Reservoir project area
to verify the location of potential resources and to identify any additional resources which
could be affected.

      5.4JS      Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

      No known archaeological sites  are  located in the vicinity of Site  1. The VDHR
believes that since concentrate discharge pipeline construction would take place in already
disturbed rights-of-way,  this project  area has a  low  potential  for containing intact
archaeological resources.  Therefore, minimal impacts are expected.

      Forty-seven archaeological sites are known to be located in close proximity to the Site
2 project area. It is likely that additional survey work would be  required.

      Five archaeological sites are known to be located in close proximity to the Site 3  area.
However, most of  the facilities for Site 3 would be constructed in existing rights-of-way
which have already been disturbed.  Therefore, minimal impacts are expected.

      Eighteen archaeological sites are known to be located in close proximity to the Site
4 project area. Of the 4 groundwater desalting project areas, VDHR believes that Site  4 has
the greatest potential to affect previously unidentified archaeological sites.

      5.4.6     Use Restrictions
 0114-951-140                              5-38                            February 1994
-------
      Implementation of the Use Restrictions  alternative  would not  impact cultural
resources.

      5.4.7      No Action

      If no action is taken by local purveyors to augment existing water supplies, there
would be no impacts to cultural resources within the region.

5J   SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
      This section provides a general description of how the socioeconomic environment
would be impacted by each of the seven alternatives evaluated.  Socioeconomic resource
categories evaluated are described below.

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies
      Alternative components may have the potential to impact the quality of water supplies
in such a way as  to render them unpalatable or require communities to  incur higher
treatment costs. Alternatives also may alter the  quantity of water which is available for
municipal and private water supplies.

      Important evaluation factors in this category include treated water safe yield benefits
for RRWSG jurisdictions,  potential water supply benefits for non-RRWSG jurisdictions,
magnitude of existing withdrawals from water  sources, changes  in surface water or
groundwater availability for other existing or potential future water users, and potential
changes in the quality of surface water or groundwater used for municipal or private water
supply.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      This category addresses the potential impacts to recreational and commercial fisheries
which may occur as a result of project implementation.

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      This category describes the potential positive and negative impacts to water-related
recreation which may occur as a result of project implementation.

      Aesthetics
      The magnitude of aesthetics alterations is determined by such factors as the relative
uniqueness  of aesthetic characteristics that are altered or created, distance that the
structures are visible, their  height, the  materials used  in construction, the extent and
magnitude  of changes in  vegetation  along  shorelines,  and the  extent of  other
physical/chemical  alterations that may, for example, cause algal  blooms  and/or odor
problems. Aesthetic impacts may also result from changes in air quality and noise levels;
however, these impacts have been evaluated separately. Therefore, the primary focus of this
aesthetic impact category  is on the degree of potential  visual impact from each of the
alternative components. This analysis is based on impacts within the project viewsheds,
which are the estimated areas from  which observers are likely to see the construction
activities and structures associated with each  alternative.
0114-951-140                             5-39                             February 1994
-------
      Parks and Preserves
      This category identifies the potential impacts to parks and preserves which could
result from implementation of the evaluated alternatives.

      Land Use
      This category addresses potential impacts to existing  knd  use and impacts  to
proposed future land use.

      Noise
      This category discusses the noise impacts of each alternative component. A specific
discussion of noise impacts attributable to each alternative component is included.

      Infrastructure
      This category identifies the impacts each alternative component would have on
elements of infrastructure including transportation, utilities, and navigation. Evaluation of
impacts involved describing  the  direct impacts on existing roads  and traffic  patterns,
comparing anticipated power needs and wastewater generation to available utility capacities,
and describing potential navigational impacts on affected navigable waterways.

      Direct. Indirect, and Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts
      Potential  socioeconomic  impacts which  could  result  from implementation  of
alternative components are addressed in this section.  This section focuses on  potential
socioeconomic impacts resulting from the proposed reservoirs.  Potential impacts resulting
from other physical features of alternatives, such as pipelines, pump stations, and wells, are
not specifically addressed in this section. It is likely that  the preferred alternative will
include construction of a water supply reservoir, and it is assumed that the construction of
any reservoir would result in the greatest socioeconomic impacts, as compared to other
physical features of an alternative (i.e., pipelines, pump station, wells, etc.).  Therefore, for
this  analysis, the  degree of  socioeconomic  impact which could result  from  reservoir
development  is deemed  indicative  of  the degree  of  impact of the  entire alternative
component.

      5.5.1     Ware Creek Reservoir with Pwmpover from the Pamunkey River

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies
      River withdrawals associated with this alternative should not cause any appreciable
water quality changes in the Pamunkey River.

      It is possible that the large (120 mgd capacity) municipal water  supply withdrawal
associated with this alternative could limit the availability of the Pamunkey River as part
of Hanover County's proposed Crump Creek Reservoir Project. Hanover County's project
would include a 25-  to 40-mgd  pumpover from the Pamunkey  River.   This  potential
withdrawal site is located approximately 30 river miles upstream  of Northbury.  In May
1991, the County submitted a permit application  for the project to the USCOE.  This
application was still pending  as of March 1993 (Perritt, 1993).

      Hanover County has recently studied an alternative to the Crump Creek Reservoir
Project that  would also involve off-stream storage  of Pamunkey River  withdrawals. It is
expected that Pamunkey River withdrawals for Lower Peninsula  use would increase the
magnitude of permitting obstacles for Hanover County on either of its potential Pamunkey
River water  supply projects.


0114-951-140                             5-40                            February 1994
-------
      Owing to conditions set forth in a December 1983 Agreement between James City
and New Kent counties, New Kent County has the option to purchase an ownership interest
of up to 30 percent of the Ware Creek Reservoir capacity. Based on safe yield analysis for
this alternative, this  equates to as much  as  2.2 mgd of the raw water safe yield being
available to  New Kent County.  This water allocation represents an important potential
benefit for New Kent County which is not a current member of the RRWSG.

      The Columbia and Yorktown Aquifers would be afforded recharge by direct  and
indirect seepage from the reservoir.  This would be a beneficial impact, assuming that the
water stored in the reservoir remains of good quality. However, if the water quality of the
Ware Creek Reservoir deteriorates as a result of intense development in the watershed then
reservoir seepage could have some detrimental impact on groundwater quality.

      Substantial municipal water supply benefits would be derived from interconnecting
the new Pamunkey River withdrawal and  Ware Creek Reservoir with the existing Lower
Peninsula water systems.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      Potential impacts from intake structures include the entrainment and impingement
of fish eggs and larvae.  Use of wedge-wire screens with very low entrance velocities  and
very small openings would greatly reduce these potential impacts.

      Potential impacts due to reduced Pamunkey River flows should be inconsequential.

      The loss of coastal marshes, such as those within the reservoir area, would result in
the decrease in nursery and feeding grounds for young fish and juveniles of commercial
importance (USEPA, 1992).

      The semi-anadromous White Perch would lose valuable spawning habitat since the
dam would block this estuarine perch from freshwater spawning areas above the dam site
(USEPA,  1992). The decline of this species may impact higher trophic levels.

      The anadromous Striped Bass would also suffer impacts due to conversion of current
Striped Bass nursery habitat to a reservoir impoundment.

      Once completed, Ware Creek Reservoir would provide 1,238 acres of valuable open
water habitat for freshwater fish. Species currently present in the drainage area  would
populate the reservoir.  Some stream  species could be eliminated by the change from a
stream to  a lake habitat.  The loss of benthic food organisms and vegetation for spawning,
nursery, and shelter could also eliminate some species. However, a fisheries management
program in cooperation with the VDGIF would include supplementary stocking of forage
and game species to augment natural populations.

      Direct impacts to invertebrate species of commercial importance are not anticipated.
However,  adverse indirect effects to invertebrate species through greatly reduced freshwater
flow and increased salinities in Ware Creek would be possible.

      Any impacts  to  recreational  or  commercial fisheries  resulting  from  pipeline
construction should be minimal and temporary.
0114-951-140                             5-41                            February 1994
-------
      Other Water-Related Recreation

      Intake

      Potential impacts to water-related recreation are anticipated to be minimal due to the
small acreage of impact to forested lands at the intake site (approximately 3 acres) and the
vast area remaining in the Pamunkey River basin which can be used for recreation. Water
depth in the Pamunkey River, which is important for  recreational uses, would  not be
measurably impacted by withdrawals since the proposed intake is located in tidal waters.
Hunting in the area may be disturbed during construction of the pump station and noise
generated from operation of the pump station may cause localized disturbance of waterfowl.

      Reservoir

      Upon construction of the reservoir, 350 acres of recreational facilities are planned for
development in the watershed, in association with the Stonehouse Community, Planned
recreational facilities include: two golf courses; nine park systems including: playgrounds,
five swimming  pool complexes,  and  six tennis court complexes;  a tennis  center;  a
recreational vehicle storage area; and a community center (Stonehouse, Inc., 1991).

      New open water area created by the reservoir could be used for several recreational
activities  including boating,  fishing, sailing,  swimming,  and hunting; however,  certain
restrictions may be applied to hunting in the vicinity of the reservoir by James City and New
Kent counties.  Reservoir  development would result in reduced land area for hunting;
however, the open water created by the reservoir may increase the number of game and
waterfowl species which use the area.

      Land adjacent to the reservoir could be used as picnic areas,  camping sites, and
nature trails.  Anticipated  recreational needs for  this area, as identified  in the Virginia
Outdoors Plan (VDRC, 1989), include canoeing areas, outdoor swimming areas, camp sites,
and hiking trails, which the watershed could be designed to  provide.  The reservoir would
be  stocked with fish and a fisheries management plan would be  implemented to provide
long-term sport fishing benefits. Fishing may decline after the early years of the reservoir
due to nutrient decline in the system (USCOE, 1987).

      Pipeline

      No recreational facilities would be impacted by the pipeline route. The pipeline could
result in  temporary disturbances to hunting in  forested areas along  the pipeline route.
However, lands affected by pipeline  construction would  be restored, where possible,
following construction.

      Aesthetics

      Intake

      Construction and operation of the proposed Pamunkey River pumping station would
create minor aesthetic impacts since houses are located as close as 300 feet from the project
area.  However, architectural and landscaping treatment would be designed to minimize
visual impacts, as well as to minimize the propagation of sound.
 0114-951-140                             5-42                            February 1994
-------
      The pumping station would also be visible to boats passing up and  down  the
Pamunkey River in the vicinity of the intake.  Vegetation cleared for construction of the
intake line may also disrupt the visual continuity of the shoreline. However, much of the
land in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pumping station site has already been cleared
for agricultural use and structures exist nearby.  For the most part, the pumping station
would modify an already disturbed visual environment and, with appropriate landscaping and
architectural treatment, should not overly detract from the scenic beauty of the river near
the intake.

      Reservoir

      A dramatic shift in the scenic character of the area would occur from replacement
of the hardwood swamp and emergent wetlands with an open lake, Short-term impacts to
cesidents in the area would result from  landscaping, air quality, and noise. However, once
construction is completed, long-term noise or air  quality impacts would be of a greatly
reduced magnitude.  Odor is  not  expected to be a problem since the proposed river
pumpover would be used to keep the reservoir full and thus minimize periods when the
reservoir would be severely drawn down and more likely to develop odor problems.

      The proposed dam location could cause  the delisting of Ware Creek from  the
Nationwide Rivers Inventory (USCOE, 1987).  Therefore, this alteration could preclude a
waterway on the Inventory from eventually being listed as a Wild and Scenic River.

      New  open water created by the reservoir would create an aesthetic resource for
residents and visitors to the proposed Stonehouse Community.

      Special design and landscaping of the dam area would be used to minimize the impact
to the surrounding visual beauty.  Where possible, the buffer strip required by James City
County's watershed protection ordinance would be  left uncleared to reduce visual impacts
and ensure slope stability.

      Pipeline

      A total of 107 houses were identified within 300 feet of the proposed pipeline route.
Pipeline installation would require a right-of-way to be cleared, and  then restored, where
possible, to a natural condition. Disruption of the aesthetic amenities along the transmission
route would be greatest during construction.

      Parks and Preserves
      No impacts to existing  parks or preserves  are anticipated as a  result  of intake,
reservoir, or pipeline construction associated with this alternative.

      If the reservoir is constructed,  nine parks are currently planned to be  created
throughout  the  reservoir drainage  area in association with the  planned Stonehouse
Community.

      Land Use
      Due  to  the  remoteness of  the  proposed Pamunkey  River intake  site  from
development, the placement of a pumping station would cause only limited impacts on
existing land uses.  Impacts would be limited to the disturbance of approximately 1.5 acres
of forested land and 1.5 acres of agricultural land.


0114-951-140                             5-43                            February 1994
-------
      Additional land uses may be disturbed by construction of an access  road to  the
proposed intake site. It is anticipated that impacts associated with these activities would be
minor.

      New electrical transmission lines may be required to power the pump station, which
could require the dedication of new rights-of-way. Land uses within these areas would also
be impacted.

      While the construction of an intake at Northbury is not consistent with existing plans
for future use of the area, development at the site is not precluded.  Due to the designation
of the site as a CBPA, development would be required to be conducted in compliance with
the provisions of the Act.

      The 3-aere pump site is also located within an AFD.  WhEe intake construction would
preclude use of this small area for agriculture or forestry, this area represents only 0.01
percent of the 25,066 acres of AFD land in New Kent County.

      Although approximately 625  acres of  forest would be lost through clearing and
grubbing operations and subsequent inundation, this represents less than 1 percent of the
forested land within James City and New Kent counties.

      All development at the reservoir site would be required to comply with the provisions
of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

      Approximately 126  acres of the York River AFD in New Kent County would be
impacted by clearing and grubbing operations and subsequent inundation.  This  represents
0.5 percent  of the total 25,066 acres of AFD land in New Kent County.  While reservoir
construction would  preclude use of this  acreage for agriculture or forestry, the area of
impact is small  in relation to the remaining AFD land in the county. In addition, the open
water reservoir area would still provide a valuable natural and ecological  resource, which
would fulfill part of the purpose of an AFD. Approximately 120 acres of the Barnes Swamp
AFD would be impacted  in the reservoir area.  This  represents 0.68  percent of  the
approximately 17,597 acres of AFD land in James City County.

      Existing and future land uses within a reservoir buffer area may also be impacted by
implementation of this project.  These areas would be maintained in their natural state to
protect the  water quality of the reservoir. Therefore, it is likely that future development
within these areas would be precluded.

      The total land area encompassed by the pipeline ROW would be approximately 159
acres. Use  of this strip would temporarily remove agricultural land within that area from
its current  land  use.  Forested areas along the pipeline route would be cleared,  and
reforestation would be precluded in order to maintain  the pipeline  ROW.  Due to the
relatively small area  of land disturbance in any  one area along  the  route, and  the
restoration, where  possible,  of affected land, pipeline construction should  not cause
unacceptable impacts to existing or future land use.

      Noise
      Construction activities such as  clearing, excavation, and building operations would
increase noise levels  at  the  project site.   Noise would  also be  generated from  the
transportation of workers and materials to the sites. Total noise levels during construction

0114-951-140                             5-44                            February  1994
-------
of the Ware Creek Reservok could be excessive since highway traffic from Interstate 64
crossing this site would increases typical background noise levels.  Long-term impacts on
ambient noise levels would result from the operation of pumping stations.

      Infrastructure
      The Ware Creek Reservoir alternative would inundate three existing state routes and
require potential abandonment of a fourth state route. The estimated 100-year flood pool
elevation of Ware Creek Reservoir would also come within 1/6 to 1 foot of flooding a low
point on Interstate 64. In addition, based on the extent of planned development associated
with the Stonehouse community, there would be an increase k long-term traffic volumes
around the Ware Creek Reservoir.

      The  Ware Creek Reservoir would require 13 miles of new or upgraded electrical
transmission lines for connection of new pump stations to suitable existing power sources
and use considerable electric power. Secondary energy impacts in the Ware Creek Basin,
as a result of the planned development associated with the Stonehouse community, would
also be noticeable.

      The Ware Creek Reservoir intake and dam construction would have potential impacts
on recreational navigation within the Ware Creek basin.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      No  families would  be displaced  by  construction of the proposed  Ware Creek
Reservoir.  Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed reservoir are already evident in the
northern portion of James City County, where the Stonehouse Community is being planned.
Increased business and employment activity associated with reservoir construction would
have a beneficial impact on the local economy.

      5J52     Black Creek Reservoir with Purapover from the Pamunkey River

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies
      Potential impacts to  municipal  and private  water  supplies from the  proposed
Pamunkey  River withdrawal are discussed in Section 5.5.1.

      The  Black Creek Reservok drainage area lies entirely within New Kent County.  As
such, New  Kent County may acquire an  option to purchase a portion of the Black Creek
Reservoir capacity.  For purposes of the safe yield analysis for this alternative, a host
jurisdiction allowance  of  3 mgd  was  assumed.   This water allocation  represents a
considerable potential benefit for New Kent County which is not a current member of the
RRWSG.

      There would also be a beneficial impact to local groundwater users as a result of the
proposed reservoir.  The Yorktown Aquifer would be  afforded recharge by direct and
indirect seepage from the reservoir.

      Tremendous municipal water supply benefits would be derived from interconnecting
the new Pamunkey River withdrawal and Black Creek Reservok with the existing Lower
Peninsula water systems.
0114-951-140                             5-45                            February 1994
-------
      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      Potential impacts to recreational and commercial fisheries at the Pamunkey River
intake site are described in Section 5.5.1.

      Once completed, Black Creek Reservoir would provide 1,146 acres of valuable open
water habitat for freshwater fish.  Species currently present in the drainage area would
populate the reservoir. Some stream species could be eliminated by the change from a
stream to a lake habitat.  The loss of benthic food organisms and vegetation for spawning,
nursery, and shelter could also eliminate some species.  However, a fisheries management
program in cooperation with the VDGEF would include supplementary stocking of forage
and game species to augment natural populations.

      The proposed minimum reservoir release of 1.2 mgd represents 32 percent of the
estimated combined average streamflow at the two dam sits, and is expected to be sufficient
to maintain good quality fishery habitat in the lower reaches of Black Creek.

      Any impacts  to recreational  or  commercial  fisheries  resulting from  pipeline
construction should be minimal and temporary.

      Other Water-Related Recreation

      Intake

      Potential impacts to water-related recreation in the vicinity of the proposed intake
site at Northbury on the Pamunkey River are identified in Section 5.6.1.

      Reservoir

      Upon construction of the reservoir, new open water areas could provide water-related
recreation in the basin including boating, fishing, canoeing, swimming, sailing, and hunting.
However, hunting in the vicinity of the reservoir may be regulated by New Kent County.
Reservoir development would result in reduced land area for hunting; however, the open
water created by the reservoir may increase the number of game and waterfowl species
which use the area. The reservoir would be stocked with fish and a fisheries management
plan would be implemented to provide long-term sport fishing benefits. Anticipated future
recreational needs for this area, as identified in the Virginia Outdoors Plan (VDRC, 1989),
include hunting areas, camping sites, outdoor swimming areas, and picnic areas, which the
watershed could be designed to provide.

      If the reservoir is constructed, New Kent County may designate portions of the
watershed as public parks, which would likely include recreational facilities.

      Pipeline

      Impacts to forested  areas along the pipeline route could result in temporary
disturbances to hunting in the area. However, lands affected by pipeline construction would
be restored, where possible, following construction.
 0114-951-140                             5-46                           February 1994
-------
      Aesthetics

      Intake

      Aesthetic impacts due to construction and operation of the proposed Pamunkey River
intake and pumping station are discussed in Section 5.6.1.

      Reservoir

      A dramatic shift in the scenic character of the area would occur from the replacement
of hardwood swamp and emergent wetlands with an open lake.  However, this new open
water habitat would create an aesthetic resource for  residents.  Short-term impacts to
residents in  the area would result from landscaping, air quality, and noise. However, once
construction is  completed, long-term noise or air  quality impacts would be of a greatly
reduced magnitude.  Odor is not  expected  to  be a problem since the proposed river
pumpover would be used to keep the reservoir full and thus minimize periods when the
reservoir would be severely drawn down and more likely to develop  odor problems.

      The dams would be specially designed and landscaped to minimize impacts to the
surrounding visual features. Wherever possible, a buffer strip  would be left uncleared to
reduce visual impacts and ensure slope stability.

      Pipeline

      A total of 62 houses were identified within 300 feet of the proposed pipeline route.
Pipeline installation would require a right-of-way to be cleared, and then restored, where
possible, to a natural condition. Disruption of the aesthetic amenities along the transmission
route would be greatest during construction.

      Parks and Preserves
      No negative  impacts  to parks or preserves are anticipated as a result of intake,
reservoir, or pipeline construction associated with this alternative.

      If the Black Creek Reservoir is constructed, it is possible  that New Kent County may
designate portions of the watershed as public parks.

      Land  Use
      Potential land use impacts anticipated at the proposed Pamunkey River intake site
are described in Section 5.5.1.

      Although there would be a loss of approximately 752 acres of forest through clearing
and grubbing operations and subsequent inundation, this represents  less than 1 percent of
the forested land in New Kent County. The most important land use impacts anticipated
as a result  of reservoir  construction are associated with the  inundation  of 95  acres of
residential land.  Within these areas, at least 14  existing houses would be displaced by
reservoir construction. At least three additional houses within the proposed reservoir buffer
areas could  also be displaced.  As of January 1993, an additional five building permits had
been issued  for houses within the proposed pool areas and buffer zones.

      In general, construction of the reservoir is consistent with local land use plans for the
area, which  designate the region as remaining rural in nature in the  future.


0114-951-140                              5-47                            February 1994
-------
      All development at the reservoir site would be required to comply with the provisions
of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

      Approximately 376 acres of the Pamunkey River AFD would be impacted by clearing
and grubbing operations and subsequent inundation. This represents only 1.5 percent of the
total 25,066 acres of AFD land within New Kent  County.  While  reservoir construction
would preclude use of this acreage for agriculture or forestry, the area of impact is small in
relation to the remaining AFD land in the county. In addition, the open water reservoir
area would still provide a valuable natural and ecological resource, which would fulfill part
of the purpose of an AFD.

      Existing and future land uses within a reservoir buffer area may also be impacted by
implementation of this project.  These areas would be maintained in their natural state to
protect the water quality of the reservoir. Therefore, it is likely that future development
within these areas would be precluded.

      The total land area encompassed by the pipeline ROW would be approximately 123
acres. Use of this strip would temporarily remove agricultural land within that area from
its current land use.  Forested areas along the pipeline route would be cleared, and
reforestation would  be precluded in order to maintain the pipeline ROW.   Due to the
relatively small area of land disturbance in any one area along the route, and restoration,
where possible, of affected land, pipeline construction should not cause unacceptable impacts
to existing or future land use.
      Construction activities such as clearing, excavation, and building operations would
increase noise levels  at  the  project site.   Noise would also  be generated from the
transportation of workers and materials to the sites. Long-term impacts on ambient noise
levels would result from the operation of pumping stations.

      Infrastructure
      The Black Creek Reservoir alternative would inundate portions of one state route.
It would require 15 miles of new or upgraded electrical transmission lines for connection of
new pump stations to suitable existing power  sources.

      The intake  structure on the Pamunkey River  would have  a potential impact on
commercial and/or recreational navigation due to the shallow and narrow river conditions
at Northbury. The dam site, however, would not have a substantial impact on navigation.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      The Black Creek Reservoir alternative would displace several families and result in
potential lifestyle changes. This alternative could also result in many positive socioeconomic
impacts during construction by increasing business in the area,  and by inducing growth.
However, this alternative would also result in decreased property tax revenue for the county
from the removal  of the project area from private ownership.  It is estimated, as a worst-
case scenario, that the yearly tax base foregone by reservoir construction is $83,267.
 0114-951-140                              5-48                            February 1994
-------
      5.5.3      King William Reservoir with Pumpover from the Mattaponi River

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies
      River withdrawals associated with this  alternative should not cause any great water
quality changes in the Mattaponi River.

      Mattaponi River basin waters are not used to a substantial degree at this time.  To
Malcolm Pirnie's knowledge, the only recent proposal for sizeable additional withdrawals
from the Mattaponi River basin has been by Spotsylvania County. The County submitted
a permit application to the USCOE for a proposed reservoir on the Po River which is a
tributary to the Mattaponi River.  If constructed, operation of the reservoir could eventually
reduce mean flow downstream of the  dam  by  up to  8.4 mgd (Hayes, Seay, Matter &
Mattern, 1989).  Federal agencies indicated a strong opposition to this project based on its
environmental impacts (R. Poeske, USEPA-Region HI, personal communication, 1992). Now
other water supply alternatives, in the Rappahannock River basin, are being considered,

      Mattaponi River withdrawals for Lower Peninsula use could increase the magnitude
of water supply permitting obstacles for Spotsylvania County. However, it is expected that
this  would occur only if the County resumes pursuit of its original Po River Reservoir
proposal.

      Owing to conditions set forth in the  King William Reservoir Project Development
Agreement (King William  County and City of Newport News, 1990), the County  has  an
option to reserve up  to 3 mgd of the King William Reservoir capacity.  This allowance
represents a considerable potential benefit for King William County which is not a current
member  of the RRWSG.

      There would also be some beneficial impact to local groundwater users as a result of
the proposed reservoir.  The Yorktown Aquifer would be afforded recharge by direct and
indirect seepage from the reservoir.

      Substantial municipal water supply benefits would be derived from interconnecting
the new Mattaponi River withdrawal and King William Reservoir with the existing Lower
Peninsula water systems.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      Potential  impacts  from  the intake  structures  include  the  entrainment  and
impingement of fish eggs and larvae.  Use of wedge-wire screens with very low entrance
velocities and very small openings would greatly  reduce these potential impacts.

      Potential impacts due to reduced Mattaponi River flows should be inconsequential.

      Once completed, King William Reservoir would provide 2,234 acres of valuable open
water habitat for freshwater fish. Species currently present in the drainage area would
populate the reservoir.  Some stream species could be eliminated by the change from a
stream to a lake habitat.  The loss of benthic  food organisms and vegetation for spawning,
nursery,  and shelter could also eliminate some species.  However, a fisheries management
program in cooperation with the VDGIF would  include supplementary stocking of forage
and  game species to augment natural populations.
0114-951-140                            5-49                           February 1994
-------
      Temporary construction-related impacts to fisheries in Cohoke Millpond could be
minimized by the use of turbidity curtains surrounding areas of construction. This would
appreciably reduce potential impacts due to sedimentation during dam construction and
reservoir clearing and grubbing operations.

      The proposed minimum reservoir release of 3 mgd represents 32 percent of average •
estimated flow at the dam site and is expected to  be sufficient to maintain good quality
fishery habitat in Cohoke Millpond and the lower reaches of Cohoke Mill Creek.

      Any impacts  to recreational or  commercial  fisheries  resulting from  pipeline
construction should be minimal  and temporary.  Impacts to recreational or commercial
fisheries in the Pamunkey River should not occur due to pipeline construction (directional
drilling techniques will be  used).

      Other Water-Related Recreation

      Intake

      Water depth in the Mattaponi River, which is important for recreational uses, would
not be measurably impacted by withdrawals since the proposed intake is located in tidal
waters.  Due to  the  remoteness of the proposed Mattaponi  River  intake site from
development,  the  only disturbances to recreation from the pump station  would be a
disruption to hunting during construction.  Also, noise generated from operation of the
pump station may cause localized disturbance of waterfowl.

      If the reservoir is constructed, King William County may develop a recreational area
located in the vicinity of the intake structure (King William County and City of Newport
News,  1990).

      Reservoir

      Upon implementation of this alternative, King William County may develop up to five
sites as recreational areas adjacent to, and with access to, the reservoir. These sites would
allow swimming, fishing, and boating (excluding the use of internal combustion engines) in
the reservoir (King William County and City of Newport News, 1990).  Other water-related
activities, such as  canoeing, sailing, and hunting, could also be included in the reservoir
recreation plan; however, certain restrictions may be placed on hunting in the vicinity of the
reservoir by King  William County.  Reservoir development would result in reduced land
area for hunting; however, the open water created by the reservoir may increase the number
of game and waterfowl species which use the area. The reservoir would be stocked with fish
and a fisheries management plan would be implemented to provide long-term sport fishing
benefits.

      Land adjacent to the reservoir could be used for picnic areas, camping sites, and
nature trails.  Projected water-related recreational needs for this area, as identified in the
Virginia. Outdoors Plan (VDRC,  1989),  include hunting areas, swimming areas, and picnic
and camping sites, which the watershed could be designed to provide.

      Impacts to  Cohoke Millpond could include  siltation during reservoir construction.
This could cause  temporary impacts on fishing in the pond.  However,  environmental
 0114-951-140                             5-50                            February 1994
-------
controls would be used during construction to minimize any impacts to Cohoke Milipond
from increased turbidity in Cohoke Mill Creek.

      Pipeline

      Impacts to forested areas along the pipeline route may temporarily disturb hunting
in the area.  However, lands affected by pipeline construction would be restored, where
possible, following construction.

      The Pamunkey River crossing would  be accomplished using directional drilling
techniques.  These drilling techniques can be accomplished from the shore and should not
affect fishing in the Pamunkey  River.   Noise generated  during construction  could
temporarily disturb waterfowl in the vicinity of the river crossing.

      Aesthetics

      Intake

      No  houses were identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Mattaponi River
intake and pumping station site at Scotland Landing. Nevertheless, these proposed facilities
would include architectural and landscaping treatment designed to minimize visual impacts,
as well as  to minimize the propagation of sound.

      The pumping station would be visible to boats passing up and down the Mattaponi
River in the vicinity of the intake. Any vegetation cleared for construction of the intake line
could also disrupt the visual continuity of the shoreline. Most of the land in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed pumping station site is forested and no structures were identified
within 500 feet of the site.  Therefore, the area  appears quite pristine as viewed from the
river. In view of these potential visual impacts,  appropriate landscaping and architectural
treatment would be used to help minimize any detraction from the scenic beauty of the river
near the intake.

      Reservoir

      A dramatic shift in the scenic character of the area would occur from the replacement
of hardwood swamp  and emergent wetlands with an open lake.  However, this new  open
water habitat would create  an aesthetic resource for residents.  Short-term impacts to
residents in the area would result from landscaping, air quality, and noise.  However, once
construction is completed, long-term noise or air quality impacts would be of greatly reduced
magnitude.  Odor is not expected to be a problem since the proposed river pumpover would
be used to keep the reservoir full and thus  minimize periods when the reservoir would be
severely drawn down and more likely to develop odor problems.

      The dam area would be specially designed  and landscaped to minimize impacts to the
surrounding visual features.  According to watershed protection  provisions of the  King
William Reservoir Project Development Agreement (King William County and City of Newport
News, 1990), building, land disturbing activity, and clearing or vegetation removal would be
severely restricted within the reservoir buffer areas.  These provisions would help enhance
and preserve the positive aesthetic values associated with  the new reservoir.

      Pipeline


0114-951-140                             5-51                            February 1994
-------
      A total of 45 houses were identified within 300 feet of the proposed pipeline route.
Pipeline installation would require a right-of-way to be cleared, and then restored, where
possible, to a natural condition.  Disruption of the aesthetics along the transmission route
would be greatest during construction.

      Parks and Preserves
      No  negative  impacts to existing parks or preserves are anticipated as a result of
intake, reservoir, or pipeline construction associated with this alternative.

      If the reservoir is constructed, it is possible that King William County may designate
portions of the watershed as public parks. The County may develop up to five recreational
sites adjacent to, and with access to, the reservoir.

      Land Use
      Due  to  the remoteness of the  proposed  Mattaponi River  intake  site  from
development, the placement  of a pumping station would cause only limited impacts on
existing land uses.  Impacts would be limited to the disturbance of approximately 3 acres of
forested land.

      Additional land uses may be disturbed by construction of an access road to the
proposed intake site. It is anticipated that impacts associated with these activities would be
minor.

      New electrical transmission Ikes may be required to power the pump station, which
could require the dedication of new rights-of-way. Land uses within these areas would also
be impacted.

      While the construction of an intake and pump station at Scotland Landing is not
consistent with existing plans for future use of the area, development at the site is not
precluded. Due to  the designation of the site as a CBPA, development would be required
to be conducted in  compliance with the provisions of the Act.

      Although approximately 1,719 acres of forest would be lost through  clearing and
grubbing operations and subsequent inundation, this represents only 1.7 percent of the
111,832 acres of forested land within King William County.

      Reservoir construction at the King William County site would be consistent with local
land use plans for the region.  These plans designate the area as remaining primarily rural
in nature and protected as a  conservation area through the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Act. All development at the reservoir site would be requked to comply with the provisions
of the Act.

      Existing and  future land uses within a  reservoir buffer area may also be impacted by
implementation of  this project.  These areas would be maintained in thek natural state to
protect the water quality of the reservok. Therefore, it is likely that future  development
within these areas would be precluded.

      The total knd area encompassed by the pipeline ROW would be approximately 94
acres. Use of this  strip would temporarily remove agricultural land within that area from
its current land use.   Forested areas along the pipeline  route would be  cleared, and
reforestation would be precluded in order  to maintain the pipeline ROW.  Due to the


0114-951-140                             5-52                            February 1994
-------
relatively small area of land disturbance in any one area along the route and the restoration,
where possible, of affected land, pipeline construction should not cause unacceptable impacts
to existing or future land use.

      Noise
      Construction activities such as clearing, excavation, and building operations would
increase noise levels at the  project  site.   Noise would also  be generated  from the
transportation of workers and materials to the sites. Long-term impacts on ambient noise
levels would result from the operation of pumping stations.

      Infrastructure
      The King William Reservoir alternative would inundate portions of one state route.
Energy requirements  would  only require  2.5  miles  of new or  upgraded  electrical
transmission lines.

      The reservoir intake structures would not interfere with navigation due to the depth
of the Mattaponi River at Scotland Landing.  The associated dam would also not interfere
with navigation on the river.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      No families would be displaced by the proposed King William Reservoir.  However,
substantial positive benefits associated with new growth are not anticipated because the site
is not readily accessible to the interstate road system and lacks the necessary factors which
are important in attracting residential,  commercial, or industrial development to the area.
King William County is likely to benefit  during reservoir construction from  increased
employment and business activity. However, this alternative would also result in decreased
property tax  revenue for the  county from  the removal of the project  area from private
ownership. It is estimated,  as a worst-case scenario, that the tax base foregone by reservoir
construction is S 147,280.

      5.5.4      Fresh Groundwater Development

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies
      This alternative would provide a moderate treated water safe yield benefit.  This
alternative could provide 15 percent of  the Lower Peninsula's projected Year 2040 treated
water supply  deficit of 30.2 mgd.  However, this alternative would also cause groundwater
drawdown and groundwater quality impacts.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      The small land disturbances associated with  this alternative should not negatively
impact recreational fisheries at Diascund and Little Creek reservoirs if proper sedimentation
and erosion control measures are followed.  Because groundwater withdrawals would occur
when reservoir drop to 75 percent of  capacity, this alternative would have some limited
beneficial impacts on recreational fisheries by preventing more severe reservoir drawdowns
than would otherwise occur.

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      No impacts to recreation are anticipated as a  result of implementation of this
alternative.
      Aesthetics
0114-951-140                             5-53                             February 1994
-------
      Any negative aesthetic impacts associated with this alternative component would likely
be associated with construction and would thus be minor and temporary.  In addition, the
proposed groundwater withdrawal and transmission facilities would include architectural and
landscaping treatment to minimize the impact to visual surroundings, as well as to minimize
the propagation of sound.

      ParksandPreserves
      No impacts to parks or preserves are anticipated as a result of implementation of this
alternative.

      Land Use
      The area of impact for well placement and placement of transmission pipeline to the
reservoir would be minimal.

      Noise
      Construction activities  such  as clearing, excavation, and building operations would
increase noise levels at  the  project site.  Noise  would  also  be  generated from the
transportation of workers and materials to the sites.  Long-term impacts on ambient noise
levels would result from the operation of groundwater wells.

      Infrastructure
      Transportation and navigation impacts  as a result of the Fresh  Groundwater
alternative are expected to be negligible, and only limited impacts on energy resources would
occur. However, approximately 17 miles of new or upgraded electrical transmission lines
would be required for connections to suitable existing power sources.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      Potential  socioeconomic impacts could occur with this alterative  in  the  form of
increased water rates to consumers. These impacts could result form the costs incurred by
the water purveyor in developing the additional supply. For the 4.4-mgd treated water safe
yield benefit calculated for this alternative component, the Year 1992 present value of life
cycle costs is $9.9 million. This is equivalent to $2.2 million per mgd of treated water safe
yield benefit for this alternative.

      While this alternative has been identified as being practicable with respect to cost, it
is likely that the cost of water supply development to the purveyors will be passed on to the
consumer in the form of increased rates.

      5.5.5      Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

      Municipal and Private  Water Supplies
      This alternative would  provide a moderate treated water safe yield benefit.  This
alternative could provide 21 percent of the Lower Peninsula's projected Year 2040 treated
water supply deficit of 30.2 mgd. However,  this alternative would also cause groundwater
drawdown and groundwater quality impacts.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      The proposed groundwater withdrawal locations are spread evenly across the Lower
Peninsula. Therefore, any local groundwater impacts to the Coastal Plain aquifer system
and the surface water bodies which recharge the aquifer would be minimized.  As a result,
impacts to recreational and commercial fisheries should be negligible.


0114-951-140                             5-54                            February 1994
-------
      All concentrate discharges would occur in areas where elevated salinity levels (i.e.,
polyhaline  and mesohaline conditions) already exist; therefore, impacts  to  species of
recreational or commercial value are not anticipated due to potential changes in salinity
levels.

      Disturbances due to stream crossings would be  temporary and minimal.

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      Development of the Site 4 facilities would be in an area of Newport News Park which
is not subject to recreational policies; therefore, construction in the area would not affect
existing recreation in the park.

      Assuming a maximum right-of-way disturbance width of 40 feet, approximately 6.9
acres of the York  County New Quarter Park would  be affected by construction of the
concentrate discharge pipeline for  Site 2.   Recreational facilities in  this area could be
temporarily affected during pipeline construction, but would be restored to  their previous
state.  As a result, impacts to recreation at this park are anticipated  to be minimal and
temporary in nature.

      Although the concentrate discharge pipeline for Site 2 would also cross the Colonial
National Historic Parkway, no impacts to recreation are anticipated.  The pipeline would
be bored under the roadway to avoid traffic and no access to the site would  exist from the
parkway.

      Aesthetics
      The  RO treatment facilities  would be designed to minimize objectionable visual
impact  to houses  and buildings located in close proximity to the project area.  After
construction is completed, long-term visual impacts would likely be offset to some degree
by architectural design and landscaping features incorporated into the facilities.

      Construction of the concentrate discharge pipelines would temporarily affect many
houses in close proximity to the pipeline routes.  However, after construction is completed,
the cleared pipeline right-of-way would be restored, where possible, to a natural condition.

      Any aesthetic impacts to the Colonial Parkway, York County New Quarter Park, or
Newport News Park are anticipated to be minimal and temporary in nature.

      Parks and Preserves
      Development of the Site 4 facilities would affect areas within Newport News Park.
Affected areas within this park would include a maximum of 1 acre for well development
and RO facility construction, and approximately 2.3 acres of temporary disturbance for
construction of the concentrate discharge pipeline (2,500 feet of pipeline within the park;
assumed maximum right-of-way width of 40 feet). While these areas are located within the
park, they are not subject to recreational policies set forth by the City of Newport News
Department of Parks and Recreation (NNDPR, 1992).  As a result, development of the well
and associated facilities would  not  have any impact on  the operation of the park for its
intended purposes.

      Assuming a 40-foot maximum  right-of-way width, approximately 6.9 acres (7,500 linear
feet) of the York  County New Quarter Park would be affected by concentrate discharge
pipeline constructed for the Site 2 facilities.  This area would be temporarily disturbed for


0114-951-140                             5-55                            February 1994
-------
pipeline construction and then restored, where possible, to a more natural condition.  As
a result, the impacts to the park are anticipated to be minimal and temporary in nature.

      Although the concentrate discharge pipeline for the Site 2 facilities would cross the
Colonial National Historical Parkway, impacts to the resource  are not anticipated. The
pipeline would be bored under the Parkway, to minimize the potential for impacts to the
resource.

      Land Use
      Groundwater development would require  a total disturbance of 5 acres for well
development and construction of the associated RO treatment plans.  Because  of the
proposed  location of the wells and  RO plants  at existing finished water storage and
distribution locations within urbanized areas, and  the minimal  area of disturbance, the
impacts to existing land uses at those  sites are deemed minimal.

      The total land area encompassed by the pipeline ROW would be approximately 65
acres.  Reforestation of cleared areas would be precluded in order to maintain the pipeline
ROW. Due to the relatively small area of land requiring disturbance in any one area along
the route; no impacts to existing structures; and the restoration, where possible, of affected
land construction should not cause unacceptable impacts to existing or future land uses.

      Noise
      Construction activities such as  clearing, excavation, and building operations would
increase noise levels  at the project  site.   Noise  would also  be generated  from  the
transportation of workers and materials to the sites. Total noise levels during construction
of the concentrate discharge pipelines could  be excessive since traffic tie-ups in highly
populated  residential areas  could increase typical background  noise levels.  Long-term
impacts on ambient noise levels would result from the operation of groundwater wells.

      Infrastructure
      Transportation and navigation  impacts as a result of the groundwater Desalination
Alternative are expected to be negligible. Potential impacts on energy resources would also
be minor.

      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      The potential socioeconomic impacts of increased water rates to consumer could also
occur if this alternative is implemented. These increased water rates are likely to result due
to the additional costs incurred by the water purveyor in developing additional supply. For
the 6.4-mgd treated water safe yield benefit calculated for this alternative  component, the
Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs is $34.2  million. This is equivalent to $5.4 million
per mgd of treated water safe yield benefit for this alternative.

       While this alternative has been identified as being practicable with respect to cost, it
is likely that the cost of water supply development to the purveyors will be passed on to the
consumer  in the  form of increased  rates.
 0114-951-140                              5-56                            February 1994
-------
      5.5.6      Use Restrictions

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies
      No existing municipal or private water supplies would be affected as a result of this
alternative component.

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      The implementation of use restrictions should have no adverse impacts on fish species
of recreational or commercial importance.

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      The implementation of use restrictions on the Lower Virginia Peninsula could result
in negative impacts to recreation at existing reservoirs.  Irrigation in the reservoirs'
watersheds may be halted which would impair the physical appearance of the watersheds
and lower their aesthetic value. Private and public recreational facilities reliant on non-
essential water use; such  as swimming pools, golf courses, parks, and fields for sporting
events; could also be adversely affected.

      Aesthetics
      Implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative on the Lower Virginia Peninsula
could result in negative  aesthetic impacts at existing reservoirs.  For example, irrigation in
the reservoirs' watersheds would likely  be discontinued and could impair the physical
appearance of the  watersheds, thus lowering visual aesthetic values.  Aesthetic benefits
derived from private and  public recreational facilities reliant on non-essential water use;
such as swimming pools, golf courses, parks, and fields for sporting events; could also be
negatively impacted.

      Parks and Preserves
      Implementation of  the Use Restrictions alternative on the Lower Peninsula could
result in negative impacts  to parks preserves. It is likely that irrigation of parks within the
area would be limited. This would result in negative impacts to the physical appearance of
parks.

      Land Use
      The implementation of use restrictions  would limit outdoor usage for parks  and
residential areas. Commercial and industrial facilities could also be adversely affected by
use restrictions.  In particular, businesses which rely on large quantities of treated water
(e.g., car washes and beverage manufacturers) might have to reduce production or otherwise
limit their operations. However, these potential impacts would only occur during extended
drought periods when use restrictions are in effect.

      Noise
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative would have no adverse impact
on ambient noise levels.

      Infrastructure
      The implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative would not cause impacts to
infrastructure.
0114-951-140                             5-57                            February 1994
-------
      Other Socioeconomic Impacts
      Implementation of the Use Restrictions alternative could result in varying degrees of
socioeconomic impacts, depending on the degree of use restrictions which are implemented.
Under Tier 1, which would involve voluntary restrictions on water use, there would be very
few socioeconomic impacts. Because the restrictions are voluntary, those water users which
would suffer appreciable socioeconomic impacts by restricting water use would not be likely
to minimize their usage. The water purveyor, however, would be impacted, as the decrease
in regional water usage would represent decreased revenues to the water purveyor.

      With Tier 2 use restrictions in effect, there would be greater socioeconomic impacts.
This tier focuses on the elimination of nonessential uses of water, such as outdoor watering,
and can result in socioeconomic impacts to some users.  Landowners who irrigate their real
estate might be affected if the restrictions are in place long enough  to detract from the
appearance of their land. This could in turn, result in fewer sales of their property. Owners
of golf courses and other recreational areas might suffer from decreased revenues as a result
of mandatory  use restrictions because they would not be able to keep their facilities
maintained as necessary to promote their use.  The water purveyor would also be impacted
to a greater degree by reduced revenues under this tier.

      Tier 3 use restrictions would result in the  greatest socioeconomic impacts.  Water
rationing would result in socioeconomic impacts to all water users.   Not only would
businesses associated with outdoor water uses be impacted, as in Tier 2, but other businesses
which depend on water would be affected.  Car washes, for example, might not be able to
operate. Under this scenario, the business owner would be measurably impacted as his
economic well-being would be affected.   The water purveyor would  also be markedly
affected by decreased revenues resulting from water rationing.

      55.7      No Action

      Municipal and Private Water Supplies
      If the No Action alternative were taken, there would be severe adverse impacts on
municipal and private water supplies. Cumulative impacts would result from existing water
supply sources being relied on more and more heavily to meet increasing demand. Surface
water reservoirs would be drawn down more severely and for more prolonged periods. It
is likely that more frequent  and  more  severe  water quality problems  would also  be
experienced in the reservoirs. In the event of a drought as severe as the controlling drought
modeled for safe yield analyses, existing surface water supplies could be completely depleted
under demand  conditions projected for the mid-1990s.

      Some existing groundwater users are not currently withdrawing the maximum amount
allowed by their permits.  Wells owned or operated by the James City Service Authority,
York County, New Kent County, Stonehouse, Inc., Ford's Colony, Governor's Land, BASF,
and others could be relied on more heavily if no action is taken to increase available water
supplies.  The USGS has simulated the withdrawal of groundwater at permitted maximums
and found that cumulative impacts could include dewatering of limited western portions of
some aquifers and an increase in the potential for salt water encroachment (Laczniak and
Meng, 1988).

      Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
      If no action were taken by local water purveyors to develop additional water supplies,
there could be negative impacts to fish  species of recreational importance due to the


0114-951-140                             5-58                            February 1994
-------
increased frequency and severity of drawdowns in existing reservoirs.  Also, lower water
levels may limit access to existing boat docks,  boat ramps, and fishing  docks, thereby
reducing recreational fishing opportunities.

      This alternative should not impact commercial fisheries since the major impact would
be to species inhabiting existing water supply reservoirs, and  these reservoirs are not used
for commercial fishing.

      Other Water-Related Recreation
      If no action is  taken to  increase  the Lower Virginia Peninsula's water supply,
water-related recreation within  the region would be negatively impacted.   Continued
drawdown of the  reservoirs would reduce  open water space available for recreational
activities and detract from the aesthetic value of the reservoirs. Reducing the water levels
substantially could also adversely affect recreational fish species that inhabit the reservoirs.
It is possible that some existing boat docks, boat ramps, and fishing docks could become less
usable for recreational purposes.

      Aesthetics
      If no action is taken to increase the Lower Virginia Peninsula's water supply, aesthetic
attributes of the existing reservoirs could be adversely impacted.  For example, continued
and more severe drawdown of the reservoirs would reduce open  water space, expose lake
bottoms, and detract from the visual appearance of the reservoirs. In addition, there would
be longer periods when the reservoirs would be severely drawn down and more  susceptible
to developing odor problems.

      Parks and Preserves
      If no action were taken to augment the existing water supply on the Lower Peninsula,
existing parks within the region could be negatively impacted. Increasingly severe reservoir
drawdowns would negatively impact local parks such as Newport News Park (adjacent to Lee
Hall Reservoir) and Waller Mill Park (adjacent to the City of Williamsburg's Waller Mill
Reservoir).   Reservoir bottoms that  are inundated under  normal conditions would be
exposed at greater frequencies, which would negatively affect the  use of the parks for their
intended purposes.

      No impacts to existing preserves in  the region  are anticipated as a result of the No
Action alternative.

      Land Use
      If no action is taken by local purveyors to develop additional water supplies, there
would be no negative impacts to existing land uses as a result  of water supply development.
However, new land use development and associated economic benefits could be precluded
as a result of insufficient water supplies.

      Noise
      If no action was taken, there would be no adverse effect on ambient noise levels.

      Infrastructure
      If the No Action alternative was taken, resulting impacts on infrastructure would be
negligible.
0114-951-140                             5-59                             February 1994
-------
      Other Socioeconomic .Impacts
      If no action were taken to provide additional sources of raw water supply to the
Lower Peninsula, considerable socioeconomic impacts would occur.  It is possible that
growth-limiting measures would be implemented to conserve the existing water supply. For
example, water purveyors could place moratoriums on new hook-ups. This would result in
the cessation of new industries and other water users locating in the region due to a lack
of treated water supply to meet their needs. The curtailment of new development would
also take  away potential new sources of revenue for the region which is generated by
development  (e.g., state and local income taxes, state sales taxes, municipal and county
property taxes, and water user charges).  While new sources of this revenue would be
eliminated, government expenditures for public services would continue to rise, leading to
fiscal problems in the local government.  These fiscal impacts could be mitigated by the
government either by increasing tax rates, or through cutbacks in services (e.g., police and
fire protection, schools, etc.).

      Each of the solutions which government may implement to minimize their financial
burdens is likely to result in its own adverse impacts. An increase in taxes could result in
increased reliance on public assistance, out-migration, delinquent payment of property taxes,
and real estate foreclosures. Secondary impacts from public service reductions could include
an increase in crime, lower quality education, and unemployment. Future water shortages
would jeopardize the health and safety of customers when supplies become inadequate to
meet the demands of sanitary facilities and fire protection.

5.6   UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
      The majority of potential adverse impacts resulting from the seven alternatives could
be mitigated or minimized.  However, some impacts could not be avoided.  Unavoidable
adverse impacts to environmental resources are listed below in general terms, for each of
the seven evaluated alternatives.

      Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

        *   Removal of substrate at the intake and outfall locations.

        •   Increased phosphorus loading to Diascund Creek Reservoir and the proposed
            Ware Creek Reservoir.

        •   Elimination of tidal freshwater zone on of Ware Creek.

        •   An estimated 25 mgd average Year 2040 Pamunkey River withdrawal for this
            alternative, which is equivalent to 3.3 percent of average Pamunkey River flow
            at the intake  site. Cumulative streamflow reduction in the Year 2040 of 8.8
            percent.

        •   Impoundment of 37.1 miles of stream channels.

        •   Changes in the groundwater flow and quality.

        •   Permanent loss  of soils within the reservoir area.
 0114-951-140                             5-^0                           February 1994
-------
       »   Elimination of some fish and invertebrates currently inhabiting the Ware Creek
           system.

       »   Inundation of 590 acres of wetlands and open water habitat.

       •   Loss of existing habitat and land use at the pump  station sites and in the
           reservoir area.

       •   Loss of Great Blue Heron rookery at Ware Creek.

       •   Cultural resources within project areas would be directly impacted.

       •   Closure of Ware Creek to anadromous fisheries including Striped Bass.

       •   Aesthetics in the vicinity of the pump station would be affected.

       •   Increase in noise levels at the pump station sites.

       •   Inundation of three existing state routes and potential abandonment of a fourth
           state route.

       •   Impacts to  recreational navigation at the Pamunkey  River intake site  and
           within the Ware Creek basin.

      Black .Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

       •   Removal of substrate at the intake and outfall locations.

       •   Increased phosphorus loading to Diascund Creek Reservoir during the Black
           Creek Reservoir bypass operation.

       •   An estimated  29 mgd  average Year 2040  Pamunkey  River  withdrawal
           alternative, which is equivalent to 3.8 percent of average Pamunkey River flow
           at the intake site. Cumulative streamflow reduction in the Year 2040 of 9.5
           percent.

       •   Impoundment of 13.7 miles of stream channels.

       •   Changes in the groundwater flow and quality.

       •   Permanent loss of soils within the reservoir area.

       •   Elimination of some fish and invertebrates currently existing in the Black Creek
           system.

       •   Inundation of 285 acres of wetlands and open water habitat.

       •   Loss  of existing habitat and land use at the pump  station sites and in the
           reservoir  area.

       •   Cultural resources within project areas would be directly impacted.


0114-951-140                             5-61                           February 1994
-------
       •   Aesthetics in the vicinity of the pump station would be affected.

       •   Increase in noise levels at the pump station sites.

       •   Displacement of 14 homes, at least eight others may be affected.

       •   Inundation of one state route.

       •   Impacts to recreational navigation at the Pamunkey River intake site.

     King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River

       •   Removal of substrate at the intake and outfall locations.

       »   Increased phosphorus loading to Diascund Creek Reservoir and Cohoke Mill
           Creek.

       •   An estimated 35 mgd average Year 2040 Mattaponi River withdrawal, which
           is equivalent to 7.0 percent of average Mattaponi River flow at the intake site.
           Cumulative streamflow reduction in the Year 2040 of 6.9 percent.

       •   Impoundment of 28.3  miles of stream channels.

       •   Changes  in the groundwater flow and quality.

       •   Permanent loss of soils within the reservoir area.

       »   Elimination of some fish and invertebrates currently  existing in the Cohoke
           Mill  Creek system.

       •   Inundation of 479 acres of wetlands and open water habitat.

       •   Loss of existing habitat and land  use at the pump station sites and in the
           reservoir area.

       •   Cultural  resources within project areas would be directly impacted.

       •   Aesthetics in the vicinity of the pump station would be affected.

       •   Increase  in noise levels at the pump station sites.

       •   Inundation of portions of one state route.

     Fresh Groundwater Development

       •   Removal of substrate at the pipeline outfall locations.

       •   Increased levels of chloride, bicarbonate, sodium, sulfate, fluoride, and possibly
           phosphorus in Diascund Creek and Little Creek reservoirs.
0114-951-140                              5-62                            February 1994
-------
       •    Reduced groundwater availability and potential for reduced yield of wells in the
            vicinity,

       •    Permanent loss of  soils at the well sites.

       •    Impacts to wetlands located at outfall structures.

       •    Cultural resources within project areas would be directly impacted.

       •    Loss of existing habitat and land use at the well locations.

      Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

       *  -  Removal of substrate at the concentrate discharge pipeline outfalls.

       •    Addition of concentrate to polyhaline and meso/oligohaline water bodies.

       »    Middle and Potomac Aquifers may experience slight drawdown.

       •    Changes in groundwater quality.

       *    Minor impacts to wetlands at outfall locations.

       •    Impacts to mud flats in vicinity of concentrate discharge outfalls.

       •    Cultural resources within project areas would be directly impacted.

       •    Aesthetics in the vicinity of the well locations would be affected.

       •    Minor impacts to Newport News Park and York County New Quarter  Park.

       •    Loss of existing habitat and land uses at the RO facility locations.

      Use Restrictions

       •    Increased  reliance on groundwater may result in aquifer drawdown.

      No Action

       »    Eutrophication of existing reservoirs.

       •    Dewatering of limited western portions of some surface aquifers.

       •    Wetland habitat along existing reservoirs adversely  affected  by reservoir
            drawdown. Could impact species using these areas.

       •    Severe adverse impacts on existing municipal water supplies.

       •    Parks and preserves in the vicinity of existing reservoirs negatively affected.

       •    Aesthetics in the vicinity of existing reservoirs would be negatively impacted.


0114-951-140                              5-63                            February 1994
-------
       •   Severe limitations on future land use development.

       •   Constraints on future growth.

5.7   IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
      This section  describes impacts which would result from each of the  evaluated
alternatives which cannot be mitigated or replaced in the future.  These irreversible and
irretrievable impacts are listed below in general terms.

      Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

       •    Substrate areas at the proposed intake site  and outfall locations would be
            committed to the project.

       •    Land areas and wildlife  habitat (excluding wetlands)  at the proposed pump
            station  sites and within the reservoir pool area would be committed to the
            project. Areas along the pipeline route would be restored a  natural state
            following pipeline  construction, and would not be irretrievably committed.

       •    Average Year  2040 river withdrawals  of 25 mgd (3.3 percent of Pamunkey
            River flow) would be irretrievably committed to the project.

       »    Capital resources and labor required for the construction of the project would
            be irretrievably lost through project implementation.  However the overall
            benefit of the project to the Lower Peninsula is expected to outweigh these
            losses.

      Black CreekReservoir .with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

       •    Substrate areas at the proposed intake site  and outfall locations would be
            committed to the project.

       •    Land areas and wildlife  habitat (excluding wetlands)  at the proposed pump
            station sites and within the reservoir pool area would be committed to the
            project. Areas along the pipeline route would be restored a  natural state
            following pipeline construction, and would not be irretrievably committed.

       •    Average Year 2040 river withdrawals  of 29  mgd (3.8 percent of Pamunkey
            River flow) would be irretrievably committed to the project.

       •    Capital resources  and labor required for the construction of the project would
            be irretrievably lost through project implementation.  However  the  overall
            benefit of the  project to  the Lower Peninsula is expected to outweigh these
            losses.

      King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River

        •   Substrate areas at the  proposed intake site and outfall locations would be
            committed to the project.


 0114-951-140                             5-64                            February 1994
-------
       •   Land areas and wildlife habitat (excluding wetlands) at the proposed pump
           station  sites and within  the reservoir pool area would  be committed to the
           project.  Areas along the pipeline route would be restored a natural state
           following pipeline construction, and would not be irretrievably committed.

       »   Average Year  2040 river withdrawals of 35  mgd (7.0 percent  of Mattaponi
           River flow) would be irretrievably committed to the project.

       •   Capital resources and labor required for the construction of the project would
           be irretrievably lost through project implementation.  However the overall
           benefit  of  the project to the Lower Peninsula is expected to outweigh these
           losses.

      Fresh Groundwater Development

       •   Substrate areas at  the pipeline  outfall locations would  be committed to the
           project.

       •   Land areas and wildlife  habitat (excluding wetlands) at the proposed well
           locations would be  committed to the project.

       •   Groundwater withdrawals would be irretrievably committed to the project.

       •   Capital resources and labor required for the construction of the project would
           be irretrievably lost through project implementation.  However the overall
           benefit  of  the project to the Lower Peninsula is expected to outweigh these
           losses.

      Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

       •   Substrate areas at the concentrate discharge pipeline outfall locations would be
           committed to the project.

       •   Land areas and wildlife habitat (excluding wetlands) at the proposed well
           locations would be  committed to the project.

       •   Groundwater withdrawals would be irretrievably committed to the project.

       •   Capital resources and labor required for the construction of the project would
           be irretrievably lost through project implementation.  However the overall
           benefit  of  the project to the Lower Peninsula is expected to outweigh these
           losses.

      Use Restrictions

       •   No resources would be irreversibly or irretrievably committed for  this project.

      No Action

       •   No resources would be irreversibly or irretrievable committed for  this project.
0114-951-140                             5-65                             February 1994
-------
5.8   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
      ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
      LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
      Short-term impacts are associated with the evaluated alternatives. These impacts
primarily occur  during the construction phase of the projects and  then are  dissipated
following construction. The short-term impacts associated with the alternatives are listed
below. In comparison to these short-term impacts, the most evident long-term benefit of
these projects would be the availability of additional water supply for the Lower Virginia
Peninsula.

      Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

       »    Disturbance  of  substrate  would  occur  during pipeline and  reservoir
            construction.

       •    Dam construction would result in increased erosion and turbidity within the
            Ware Creek system.  Streams crossed by the pipeline would also be affected by
            increased turbidity during construction.

       •    Increased flow  at  the  two outfall  locations  on Diascund Creek would
            temporarily affect the stream channel. The channel would reestablish itself.

       •    Streams crossed by the pipeline would experience changes in hydrology during
            construction.

       •    Soils  along  the  pipeline route would be  temporarily  disturbed  during
            construction.

       «    Elevated fugitive dust emissions, fuel combustion from construction equipment,
            and burning activities are anticipated during construction.

       •    Existing land uses and habitat for wildlife along  the pipeline route would be
            temporarily disturbed.

       •    Limited areas of wetlands would be temporarily disturbed by pipeline stream
            crossings.

       •    Increased noise levels due to construction machinery are anticipated.

       •    Aesthetics in the project area would be affected during construction.

      Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River

       •    Disturbance  of  substrate  would   occur  during pipeline  and  reservoir
            construction.

        •    Dam construction would result in increased erosion and turbidity within the
            Black Creek system. Streams crossed by the pipeline would also be affected by
            increased turbidity during construction.


 0114-951-140                             5-66                            February 1994
-------
       »   Increased flow at the outfall location on Diascund Creek would temporarily
           affect the stream channel.  The channel would reestablish itself.

       •   Streams crossed by the pipeline would experience changes in hydrology during
           construction.

       •   Soils along  the  pipeline  route  would  be  temporarily disturbed  during
           construction.

       •   Elevated fugitive dust emissions, fuel combustion from construction equipment,
           and burning activities are anticipated during construction.

       •   Existing land uses and habitat for wildlife along  the pipeline route would be
           temporarily disturbed.

       •   Limited areas of wetlands would be temporarily disturbed by pipeline stream
           crossings.

       •   Increased noise levels due to construction machinery are anticipated.

       •   Aesthetics in the project area would be affected during construction.

      King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River

       •   Disturbance  of  substrate  would  occur  during  pipeline  and  reservoir
           construction.

       •   Dam construction would result in increased erosion and  turbidity within the
           Cohoke Mill Creek system. Streams  crossed by the pipeline would also be
           affected by increased turbidity during construction.

       •   Increased flow at the outfall location on Beaverdam Creek would temporarily
           affect the stream channel.  The channel would reestablish itself.

       «   Streams crossed by the pipeline would experience changes in hydrology during
           construction.

       •   Soils along  the  pipeline  route  would  be  temporarily disturbed  during
           construction.

       »   Elevated fugitive dust emissions, fuel combustion from construction equipment,
           and burning activities are anticipated during construction.

       •   The  existing Bald Eagle nest downstream of the proposed dam  would be
           temporarily disturbed by noise and disruption associated with construction.

       »   Existing land uses and habitat for wildlife along  the pipeline route would be
           temporarily disturbed.

       •   Limited areas of wetlands would be temporarily disturbed by pipeline stream
           crossings.


0114-951-140                              5-67                             February 1994
-------
       »   Increased noise levels due to construction machinery are anticipated.

       •   Aesthetics in the project area would be affected during construction.

     Fresh Groundwater Development

       •   Soils along  the pipeline  route  would  be  temporarily  disturbed  during
           construction.

       •   Fugitive dust emissions and fuel combustion from construction equipment are
           anticipated during construction.

       »   Existing land uses and habitat for wildlife along the pipeline route would be
           temporarily disturbed.

       •   Aesthetics in the project area would be affected during construction.

       •   Increased noise levels due to construction machinery are anticipated.

     Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area

       •   Disturbance of substrate would occur during pipeline construction.

       •   Streams crossed by the pipeline would experience changes in hydrology during
           construction.

       •   Soils along the pipeline route  would  be  temporarily  disturbed  during
           construction.

       «   Elevated air pollution expected from increased traffic flow during construction.

       •   Existing land uses and habitat for wildlife along the pipeline route would be
           temporarily disturbed.

       •   Aesthetics in the project area would be affected during construction.

       •   New Quarter park in York County would be temporarily impacted by pipeline
           construction.

       «   Increased noise levels due to construction machinery are anticipated.

      Use Restrictions
      Impacts anticipated as a result of use restrictions  are not expected to be short-term
in nature.

      No Action
      Impacts anticipated as a result of no action are  not expected to be  short-term in
nature.
0114-951-140                              5-68                            February 1994
-------
                        6.0  LIST OF PREPARERS
      Study investigations were conducted by Malcolm Pirnie scientists and engineers and
subcontractors with a wide variety of academic and professional training and experience.
The following USCOE personnel, Malcolm Pirnie personnel, and subcontractor staff were
primarily responsible for the preparation of this document and its appendices:
Name
Training/
Expertise
Experience
(Years)
Primary
Responsibility
USCOE Personnel
Pamela K. Painter
B.S. Geology
M.S. Geological Oceanography
Environmental Assessments
Environmental Impact Statements
Wetlands Evaluation
14
Environmental
Scientist and
USCOE Project
Manager
Malcolm Pirnie Personnel
Millard P. Robinson, Jr.
Bruce W. Schwenneker
Paul E. Peterson
James G. Pimblett
Andrea B. Terry
R. Thomas Sankey
B.S. Civil Engineering
M.S. Civil Engineering
Water Resources
BA. Biology
MA. Biology
Ph.D. Biology
Aquatic Ecology
Wetlands Evaluation
Habitat Evaluation
B.S. Biology
M.E.M. (Environmental Management)
Water Resources
B.S. Civil Engineering
M.S. Civil Engineering
Hydraulics
Design
B.S. Biology
M.E.M. (Environmental Management)
Water Resources
B.S. Geography
MA, Geography
Wetlands Evaluation
Habitat Evaluation
21
16
7
6
4
7
Project Officer
Project
Manager
Project Leader
Alternatives
Assessment,
Hydrology,
Water Supplies,
Infrastructure
Demand
Forecasting,
Conceptual
Engineering
Conservation,
Fisheries,
Parks, Refuges,
Cultural
Resources,
Land Use,
Socioeconomics
Wetlands,
Mudflats
0114-951-140
6-1
February 1994
-------
Name
T. Britt McMillan
Mariellen J. Soltys
Ronald E. Harris
Anthony D. Gruber
Edward N. Antoun
Kathryn A. Baskette
William H, Street
Susan T. Murdock
Edward F, Rogers, III
James P. Noonan
Mark A. Thompson
Glenn M. Tillman
Robert H. Reinert
John C. Henningson
Training/
Expertise
B.S. Geology
M.S. Geology
Water Quality Assessments
Computer Modeling
B.S. Biology
Wetlands Evaluation
Endangered Species
EJS. Geology
Groundwater Hydrology
Water Resources
Geophysics
B.S. Marine Science
M.S. Civil Engineering
B.S. Civil Engineering
M.S. Civil Engineering
Computer Modeling
Hydraulics
B.S. Biology
B.S. Commerce
MJE.M, (Environmental Management)
M.P. Environmental Planning
Associate in Arts and Forest Technology
BA. Biology
B.S. Chemical Engineering
Air Quality
B.S. Civil Engineering
M.S. Environmental Engineering
Hydraulic Analysis
Design
B.S. Chemistry
Water Treatment
Membrane Processes
A.S. Biology
BA. Geology
Water Treatment
Water Distribution
MJE. Mechanical Engineering
Water Design
Project Management
BA. Biology
M.S. Environmental Engineering
Environmental Management
Experience
(Years)
10
4
13
7
3
2
3
5
7
20
14
13
36
27
Primary
Responsibility
Water Quality,
Groundwater
Modeling
Endangered
Species,
Wildlife
Groundwater
Resources
Substrate, Soils
Safe Yield
Analysis
Recreation,
Aesthetics
Wetland
Delination,
Wetland
Mitigation
Wetland
Delineation
Air Quality,
Noise
Conceptual
Engineering
Desalination
Processes
Editorial
Review
Technical
Review
Technical
Review
0114-951-140
6-2
February 1994
-------
Name
Anthony M. Russo
Training/
Expertise
B.S. Biology
M.S. Environmental Biology
Environmental Assessments
Experience
(Years)
12
Subcontractor Staff
Name
Jerome D. Traver
Lauren C. Archibald
James E. Perry, Ph.D.
Donna Ware, Ph.D.
William Saunders,
Ph.D.
Virginia Crouch
Allen Plocher, PhJD.
Firm/Institution/Organization
MAAR Associates
MAAR Associates
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
The College of William & Mary
The College of William & Mary
The Nature Conservancy
Old Dominion University
Primary
Responsibility
Technical
Review

Primary Responsibility
Phase IA Cultural Resource
Survey
Principal Investigator
Phase IA Cultural Resource
Survey
Architectural Historian
Joint Vetch Surveys
Principal Investigator
Small Whorled Pogonia
Surveys
Small Whorled Pogonia
Surveys
Small Whorled Pogonia
Surveys
Wetland Delineations
0114-951-140
6-3
February 1994
-------
-------
                       7.0  PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
      Throughout the project planning process, the USCOE was consulted.  The USCOE
required that the federal advisory agencies be involved in the identification of practicable
alternatives  and,  further, with the evaluation  of practicable alternatives  relative  to
environmental impact.  Throughout the study process, there has also  been an active
exchange of information and ideas between involved regulatory agencies, environmental
organizations, and the RRWSG.  This exchange has included single- and multi-agency
briefing meetings, distribution of project briefing materials, and numerous written and oral
communications.

      Prior to August 1, 1990,  this information exchange was considered a "pre-scoping"
activity, since the USCOE had not yet issued a formal Public Notice to  solicit public
comment on  the scope of the  Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which would be
required. It was agreed by the  USCOE, USEPA, and USFWS that a detailed assessment
of the project, in the form of an  EIS, would be required because of the scale and complexity
of the projects proposed.

      The USCOE issued a Public Notice on August 1, 1990 requesting public comments
on the scope of study for a draft EIS.  This Public Notice initiated the official "scoping"
process.  A Notice of Intent to prepare a draft EIS was also issued by the USCOE and
appeared in the Federal Register on July 30, 1990.

      Pre-scoping and scoping comments were provided by the agencies, organizations, and
individuals listed below.  These comments are included as an appendix to the Phase I
Summary Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 1991).

       •   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

       •   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

       •   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

       •   Virginia Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources

       •   Virginia Council on the Environment

       •   Virginia Department of Conservation and  Recreation - Division of Natural
           Heritage

       •   Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Planning
           and Recreation Resources

       »   Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

       •   Virginia Department of Health
0114-951-140                               74                              February 1994
-------
       •   Virginia Department of Transportation

       •   Virginia Institute of Marine Science

       •   Virginia State Water Control Board

       •   Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Research Reserve System

       •   Environmental Defense Fund

       •   National Wildlife Federation

       •   Southern Environmental Law Center

       •   Pamunkey Indian Reservation

       •   Mr. George A. Beadles, Jr.

      In December 1990 the USCOE issued a summary of the scoping process  and a
Conceptual Scoping Outline for the Lower Peninsula's Raw Water Supply Draft EIS (W. H.
Poore, Jr., USCOE - Norfolk District, personal communication, 1990).  The 31 alternatives
evaluated in this  report were identified during the EIS scoping process as having the
potential of providing a source of raw or treated  water, or reducing the need for  future
water supplies.

      The following is a list of Agencies and Organizations to which the Draft EIS has been
sent:

      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
      U. S. Department of Commerce
      U. S. Department of Interior
      U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
      U. S. Department of Energy
      U. S. Department of Agriculture
      U. S. Department of Transportation
      National Marine Fisheries Service
      Advisory Council of Historic Preservation
      Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
      Virginia Marine Resources Commission
      Virginia Department of Health
      Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Waste Division
      Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Water Division
      Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Air Division
      Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Division of
           Intergovernmental Coordination
      Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
      Virginia Department of Forestry
      Virginia Department of Transportation
      Virginia Institute of Marine Science

0114-951-140                               7-2                              February 1994
-------
      Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
      Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of
           Natural Heritage
      Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of
           Planning and Recreation Resources
      Virginia Department of Historic Resources
      Chesapeake Bay Foundation
      Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
      Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
      Mattaponi Tribe
      Upper Mattaponi Tribe
      Pamunkey Tribe
      Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Research Reserve System
      Southern Environmental Law Center
      National Wildlife Federation
      National Audubon Society
      Nature Conservancy
      Environmental Defense Fund
      Sierra Club
      Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
      City of Hampton
      City of Newport News
      City of Poquoson
      City of Williamsburg
      James City County
      King and Queen County
      King William County
      New Kent County
      York County
      Hampton Public Library
      Heritage Library
      James City County Public Library
      Newport News Public Library
      Pamunkey Regional Library
      Poquoson Public Library
      Williamsburg Regional Library
      York County Public Library
0114-951-140                              7-3                              February 1994
-------
-------
                               REFERENCES
Adamus, P. R., E. J. Clairain, Jr., R. D. Smith, and R. E. Young.  1987. Wetland Evaluation
       Technique (WET): Volume II:   Methodology.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
       Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.  206 pp. plus appendices.

Adamus, P. R., L. T. Stockwell, E. J. Clairain, Jr., M. E. Morrow, L. P. Rozas, and R. D.
       Smith.  1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET): Volume I: Literature Review
       and Evaluation Rationale.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
       Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 287 pp. plus appendix.

American  Association of Nursery Men.   1990.   American Standards for Nursery Stock.
       Approved by the National Standards, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Anderson, J. R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land
       Cover. Classification System  for Use with Remote Sensor Data.  U.S. Geological
       Survey  Professional Paper 964. 28 pp.

Bellrose, F.  C. 1976. Ducks. Geese, and Swans  of North America.  Stackpole Books,
       Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Black & Veatch, Inc.  1989. Crump Creek Reservoir Environmental Report. Prepared for
       Hanover County, Virginia.

Black & Veatch,  Inc.   1989.  Crump  Creek  Reservoir Project Development  Report.
       Prepared for Hanover County, Virginia.

Brady, N. C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soil. 8th Edition, MacMiUan Publishing
       Company, Inc., New York, New York.

Brown and Caldwell Consultants, Survey of Water Fixture Use. Prepared for the  U.S.
       Department of Housing and Urban Development, March 1984.

Brown, P. M., J, A. Miller, and F. M. Swain. 1972. Structural and Stratigraphic Framework.
       and Spatial Distribution of Permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. North
       Carolina, and New Jersey.  U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 796, 79 pp.

Buchart-Horn,  Inc.  1981.  Preliminary Dam Design and Environmental Assessment for
       Ware Creek Reservoir. Prepared for James City County.

Buchart-Horn,  Inc. 1985. Comprehensive Water Study. Prepared for the County of York,
       November 1985.

Building Officials and Code Administrators, International, Inc. (BOCA). 1990. The BOCA
       National Plumbing Code/1990. Eighth Edition, 1990, BOCA International, Inc.
0114-951-140                            R-l                           February 1994
-------
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM).  1986.  Water Distribution System Study. Prepared for
       the City of Newport News, November 1986.

Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM).  1988. Task 7 Letter Report on Methods to Increase
       Safe Yield.  Prepared for the City of Newport News, December 1988.

Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM).  1989. Newport News Raw Water Management Plan.
       Prepared for the City of Newport News, December 1989.

City of Newport News Department of Parks and Recreation (NNDPR).  1992.  Personal
       communication between Mike Poplawski and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  September 8,
       1992.

Clampitt, C. A.  1991. Natural Areas Inventory of the Lower Peninsula of Virginia:  City
       of Wilh'amsburg. James  City County. York County.  Natural Heritage Technical
       Report #92-1. Virginia  Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of
       Natural Heritage. Richmond, VA. 85 pp.

Cline,  K, W.   1990.   Bald  Eagles in the Chesapeake:   A Management Guide for
       Landowners. Institute for Wildlife Research. National Wildlife Federation. 16 pp.

College of William and Mary.  1993. Personal communication between Dr. Mitchell A.
       Byrd and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. March 2, 1993.

College of William and Mary.  1993.  Personal communication between Dr. Donna M. E.
       Ware and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. March  26, 1993.

College of William and Mary.  1993.  Personal communication between Dr. Donna M. E.
       Ware and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. July 6,  1993.

Delorme Mapping Company.  1989.  Virginia Atlas and Gazetteer.

Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). 1987.  Virginia Statewide
       Building Code. Commonwealth of Virginia.

Doumlele, D. G.  1979. New Kent County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report No. 208
       in Applied Marine Science and Ocean  Engineering.  Virginia Institute of Marine
       Science, Gloucester Point,  Virginia.  59 pp.

Dowling, D.C. 1993.  Aquatic Resources Investigation VA-DJ-F-111-Rl-Study III: Warm
       Water Stream Investigation.  Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

Eggars, S. D.  1992. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation: Some Problems and Suggestions
       for Corrective Measures. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul,
       Minnesota.

Gannett  Fleming, Inc.  1992.  Ware Creek Reservoir Project: Conceptual Level Study -
       Screening Analysis Report. Prepared for James City County.
0114-951-140                            R-2                           February 1994
-------
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1988. Development of a Ten Million Gallon Per Day Well Water
       Supply at Diascund Reservoir and Little Creek Reservoir - Phase II:  Test Well
       Program. Prepared for the City of Newport News Waterworks.

Hanover County.  1992.  Personal communication between  Reed  Barrows (Assistant
       Director of Public Utilities) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. January 8, 1992.

Harsh, J.  F.   1980.   Groundwater Hydrology of James City County.  Virginia.  U.S.
       Geological Survey Open File Report 80-961, 73 pp.

Hershner, C. H. and J. E. Perry. 1987. Ware Creek Tidal Wetlands: Potential Responses
       of the Vegetation Community to Altered Salinity Distributions. Prepared for James
       City County by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Hershner, C. H., P. M. Booth, Jr., and L. R. Mitchell.  1991.  Tidal Wetlands on the
       Mattaponi River:  Potential Responses of the Vegetative Community to Increased
       Salinity as a Result of Freshwater Withdrawal. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
       Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Hodges, R. L., P. B. Sabo, D. McCloy, and C. K. Staples.  1985. Soil Survey of James City
       and York Counties and the City of  Williamsburg. Virginia. Soil Conservation
       Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Hodges, R. L., P.  B. Sabo, and R. J. Straw.   1989.  Soil Survey of New Kent County.
       Virginia.  Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Hunter, R. R., Jr. and P. L. Kandle.  1986.   A  Phase I Archaeological Survey  of the
       Proposed Ware Creek Reservoir  Area -  James City  and New  Kent  Counties.
       Virginia.  Prepared for James City County by the Department of Anthropology,
       College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

International Science & Technology, Inc.  1990.  Fish Survey of Fort Eustis Waters. Draft
       report prepared for Directorate of Engineering and Housing, Fort Eustis,  Virginia.
       October 1990.

James City County.   1986.  "Water Use Projections for James City County to  2040,"
       Prepared by James City County Staff, March 1986.

James City County (JCC). 1991.  James City County Comprehensive Plan.

James City County (JCC). 1991. Personal communication between R. Patrick Friel (Senior
       Planner) and the City of Newport News Waterworks. July 11, 1991.

James City County (JCC). 1992. Letter from James C. Dawson (Environmental Engineer,
       Department of Development Management) to Donald P. Rice (Water Resources
       Project Coordinator, City of Newport News Waterworks).  September 4, 1992.
0114-951-140                             R-3                           February 1994
-------
James City County (JCC). 1992, Letter from James C. Dawson (Environmental Engineer,
       Department of Development Management) to Donald P. Rice (Water Resources
       Project Coordinator, City of Newport News Waterworks). November 9, 1992.

James City County (JCC). 1992.  Personal communication between Trenton Funkhouser
       (Senior Planner, Department Development of Management) and Malcolm Pirnie,
       Inc. November 30, 1992.

James R. Reed & Associates, Inc.  1982. A Study to Determine the Use of Ware Creek
       and Its Tributaries by Anadromous Fish, with Emphasis on Potential Spawning and
       Nursery Areas At and Above Dam Site V of the Proposed Ware Creek Reservoir.
       Final Report Submitted to Buchart-Horn, Inc.

King William County and the City of Newport News. 1990. King William Reservoir Project
       Development Agreement.  November 13,  1990.

King William  County Historical Society.  1993. Letter from Steven A. Colvin (President)
       to Donald P. Rice (Water Resources Project Coordinator, City of Newport News
       Waterworks). January 9, 1993.

King William County Planning Department (KWCPD).  1991.  Comprehensive  Plan for
       King William County. Virginia.

King William  County.  1988.  Personal communication between Ann Martin and Malcolm
       Pirnie, Inc. May 9, 1988.

King William County. 1992, Personal communication between Dennis W. Carney (Director
       of Planning)  and Malcolm  Pirnie, Inc. July 1992.

King William  County. 1993.  Personal communication between David S. Whitlow (County
       Administrator) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. April 12, 1993.

Laczniak, R. J. and  A. A. Meng, HI.  1988. Groundwater Resources of the York-James
       Peninsula of Virginia. U.S.  Geological  Survey Water Resources Investigations
       Report 88-4059, 178 pp.

Langley and McDonald, P.C.  1990.  Stonehouse Stormwater Management Report and
       Supplemental Update. Prepared for Stonehouse, Inc.

Lichtler, W. F. and  R. L. Wait.   1974. Summary of the Groundwater Resources of the
       James River  Basin. Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 74-139, 54
       PP-

Lynch, D.D.  1992.  Water  Quality and Evaluation of Raw Water -  Routing Scenarios.
       Chickahominy. Diascund Creek, and Little Creek Reservoirs. Southeastern Virginia.
       1983-86.  U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 92-4034,
       104 pp.
 0114-951-140                            R-4                           February 1994
-------
MAAR Associates, Inc.  1994. Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed King
       William Reservoir. King William County. Virginia and the Proposed Black Creek
       Reservoir. New Kent County. Virginia.  Final report submitted to Malcolm Pirnie,
       Inc.

Maddaus, W. O.  1987. The Effectiveness of Residential Water Conservation Measures,"
       Journal American Water Works Association. March 1987, pp. 52-58.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1989.  King William Reservoir Alternative • Preliminary Report on
       Aquatic Resource Issues.  Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw
       Water Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.   1990. Preliminary Report on Field Studies for the Environmental
       Impact Statement. Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water
       Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1991.  Phase I Summary Report.  Prepared for the Lower Virginia
       Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1992.  Regional Groundwater Impacts of a 2.03 MGD Withdrawal in
       Western James City County. Virginia.   Prepared for the City of Newport News
       Waterworks.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1992.  Well Field Feasibility Study • New Kent County. Prepared for
       the City of Newport News Waterworks.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1993.  Alternatives Assessment (Volume I - Practicability Analysis).
       Prepared for the  Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water  Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1993. Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental Analysis).
       Prepared for the  Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water  Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1993.  King William Reservoir Project - Conceptual Wetlands
       Mitigation Plan.  Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water
       Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.   1993. Water Demand Reduction Opportunities.  Prepared for the
       Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1993. Wetland Evaluation of Proposed Ware Creek Reservoir. Black
       Creek Reservoir,  and King William County Reservoir Sites. Prepared for the Lower
       Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1994.  Biological Assessment for Practicable Reservoir Alternatives.
       Prepared for the  Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water  Study Group.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1994.  Wetland Delineation of King William. Ware  Creek, and Black
       Creek Reservoir  Sites. Prepared for the Lower  Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw
       Water Study Group.

0114-951-140                             R-5                           February  1994
-------
Massmann, W. H.  1953.   Relative Abundance of Young Fishes in Virginia Estuaries.
       Trans. North Amer. WEdl. Conf. 18: 439-449.

Meng, A. A., HI and J. F. Harsh.  1988. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Virginia Coastal
       Plain. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401-C, 82 pp., 4 plates.

Mueser Rutledge  Consulting Engineers  (MRCE).  1989.  Reservoir and Dam  Site
       Evaluation - King William County. Virginia. Final report submitted to  Malcolm
       Pirnie, Inc.

New Kent County Historical Society. 1992. Letter  from James M. H. Harris (President)
       to Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie). October 7, 1992.

New Kent County. 1991. New Kent County Zoning Ordinance.

New Kent County. 1992. Personal communication between Nicholas Hahn (Planner) and
       Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  My 20, 1992.

New Kent County. 1992. Personal communication between Nicholas Hahn (Planner) and
       Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  November 30, 1992.

Odum, W. E., T. J. Smith, III, J. K. Hoover, and C. C. Mclvor.  1984.  The Ecology of Tidal
       Freshwater Marshes of the United  States East Coast: A Community Profile.
       FWS/OBS - 83/17.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 177 pp.

Olney, J. E., G. C. Grant, and G. Hill.  1985.  Relative Contribution of Three Virginia
       Rivers to Spawning Activities of Striped Bass. Morone saxatilis. Completion Report
       for Project AFC-14-1.  Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point,
       Virginia, 53 pp.

Perritt,  W. R.  1993.  Hanover. Newport News Tugging at Mattaponiand Pamunkey.
       Published in the  Country Courier.  March 31, 1993.

Perry, J. E.  1993. Distribution QJAeschmomene virginica in the Scotland .LandingRegion
       of the Mattaponi River. Virginia. Final report submitted to Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. by
       the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Perry, J. E. 1993. Identification of Historic Locations ofAeschvnomene virginica within the
       Tidal Freshwater Zone of the Pamunkey River. Virginia. Final report submitted to
       Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point,
       Virginia.

Perry, J. E.  1993.  Investigation of Potential Distribution ofAeschvnomene virginica in the
       Tidal Wetlands of Ware Creek. Virginia. Final report submitted to Malcolm Pirnie,
       Inc. by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Pitometer Associates. 1991.  Report on Pitometer  Master Meter Tests - Newport News.
       Virginia. 1991.
 0114-951-140                             R-6                           February 1994
-------
Planning and  Management  Consultants,  LTD.   1990.   The  Regional Urban Wate r
       Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
       November, 1990.

Priest,  W. I, ffl, G. M. Silberhorn, and A. W. Zacherle.  1987.  King and Queen County
       Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report No. 291 in Applied  Marine Science and
       Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
       43 pp.

Prugh,  B. J., Jr. and E. D. Powell.  1992.  Water Resources Data - Virginia - Water Year
       1991:  Volume  2.  Ground Water  and Ground Water  Quality  Records.   U.S.
       Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-91-2. 399 pp.

Prugh,  B. J., Jr. and F. J. Easton.  1991. Water Resources Data - Virginia - Water Year
       1990:  Volume  2.  Ground Water  and Ground Water  Quality  Records.   U.S.
       Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-90-2. 389 pp.

Prugh,  B. J., Jr., F. J. Easton, and D. D. Lynch. 1988.  Water Resources Data -Virginia -
       Water Year 1987.  U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-87-1.  441 pp.

Prugh,  B. J., Jr., F. J. Easton, and D. D. Lynch. 1989.  Water Resources Data - Virginia -
       Water Year 1988.  U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-88-1.  447 pp.

Prugh,  B. J., Jr., F. J. Easton, and D. L. Belval. 1990.  Water Resources Data - Virginia -
       Water Year 1989.  U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-89-1.  545 pp.

Prugh,  B. J., Jr., F. J. Easton, and D. L. Belval. 1991.  Water Resources Data - Virginia -
       Water Year 1990:  Volume 1.  Surface Water and Surface Water Quality Records.
       U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-90-1. 407 pp.

Prugh,  B. J., Jr., P. E. Herman, and D, L. Belval.  1992.  Water Resources Data - Virginia -
       Water Year 1991:  Volume 1.  Surface Water and Surface Water Quality Records.
       U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-91-1. 592 pp.

Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC). 1991. Draft Comprehensive
       Land Use Plan • New Kent County. Virginia.

Scanlan, M. J.  1983. A Field Survey of the Ware Creek Watershed for the Small-Whorled
       Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides).  Report submitted to James R. Reed & Associates,
       Inc.

SDN Market Research.  1990.   Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Chesapeake Bay
       Preservation Act on the Virginia Peninsula. Presented by  the Virginia Peninsula
       Chamber of Commerce, August 30, 1990.

Silberhorn, G. M. and A. W. Zacherle.  1987. King William County and Town  of West
       Point Tidal Marsh Inventory.   Special Report No. 289 in Applied Marine Science
       and Ocean Engineering.   Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point,
       Virginia. 56 pp.

0114-951-140                            R-7                          February 1994
-------
Siydula, E. A., T. D, Bergund, and V. P. Newton.  1977.  Groundwater of the Middle
       Peninsula. Virginia. Virginia State Water Control Board Planning Bulletin No. 305,
       45 pp.

Siydula, E. A., A. E. May, and D. W. Hawthorne.  1981.  Groundwater Resources of the
       Four Cities Area. Virginia.  Virginia State Water Control Board Planning Bulletin
       No. 331, 168 pp.

Solley, W. B., E. B. Chase, and W, B. Mann, IV.  1983. Estimated Use  of Water in the
       United States in 1980.  U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1001. 56 pp.

Stonehouse, Inc. 1991.  Stonehouse Proffers. Made on October 22, 1991.

Sweet, P. C. and G. P. Wilkes.  1990. Directory of the Mineral Industry in Virginia - 1990.
       Department of Mines, Minerals,  and Energy.  Division of Mineral Resources.
       Charlottesville, Virginia.

Terwilliger, K., Ed. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species. The McDonald and Woodward
       Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.  672 pp.

The College of William and Mary. 1993. Personal communication between Dr. Donna M.
       E. Ware and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  March 26, 1993.

U.S.  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  (USCOE).    1984.   Feasibility  Report  and  Final
       Environmental Impact Statement. Water Supply Study - Hampton  Roads. Virginia.
       Norfolk, Virginia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE).  1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
       Manual.  Technical Report Y-87-1.  U.  S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
       Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE).  1987. Final Environmental Impact Statement -
        James City County's Water Supply Reservoir on Ware Creek.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE).  1990. Letter from William H. Poore, Jr., (Chief,
       Regulatory  Branch) to Charlie C. Crowder  (Director, City of Newport  News
       Waterworks). December 17, 1990. Norfolk, Virginia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE).  1993.  Personal communication between Kenneth
       M. Kimidy (Regulatory Branch, Norfolk District) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. January
       5,  1993.  Norfolk, Virginia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE).  1993.  Personal communication between Kenneth
       M. Kimidy (Regulatory Branch, Norfolk District) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. June 8,
       1993.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  1985. Soil Conservation Service. Hydric Soils of
       the State of Virginia 1985.
0114-951-140                             R-8                            February 1994
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC).  1987. Bureau of the Census, 1987 Census of
       Agriculture.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC).  1989. Tide Tables 1990 - High and Low Water
       Predictions: East Coast of North and South America Including Greenland. National
       Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service.  289 pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC).  1990. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of
       Population.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC). 1992. U.S. Census of Population. 1990.  Bureau
       of Census.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC) and Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS).
       1990.  Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research, Reserve System in Virginia -
       Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1992.  Final Determination of Remand
       of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Administrator for Water
       Pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act Concerning the Proposed Ware
       Creek Water Supply Impoundment James City County. Virginia.

U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service  (USFWS).   1983..   Draft Coordination Act  Report.
       Southside/Northside Water Supply Study. Annapolis, Maryland.

U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service (USFWS).  1987.  Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP')
       Analysis: Reservoir Construction on Ware Creek.  James City County. Virginia, and
       its Effects on Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values. Gloucester Point, Virginia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur
       in Wetlands: 1988 Virginia.  St. Petersburg, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Letter from John P. Wolfin (Supervisor,
       Annapolis Field  Office) to Colonel Richard C. Johns (District Engineer, USCOE -
       Norfolk District), August 20,  1990.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service (USFWS).  1993.  Letter from Karen L. Mayne  (Acting
       Supervisor, Chesapeake Bay  Field Office) to Colonel Andrew M. Perkins, Jr.,
       (District Engineer, USCOE - Norfolk District). February 17, 1993.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Letter from Karen L. Mayne (Supervisor,
       Virginia Field Office) to Bruce W. Schwenneker (Malcolm Pirnie). May 20, 1993.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).  1991. Letter from Gary S. Anderson (Richmond, Virginia
       Office) to Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie).  November 15, 1991.
0114-951-140                            R-9                           February 1994
-------
U.S. National Marine  Fisheries Sendee  (NMFS).   1986.   Letter from  Edward  W.
       Christoffers (Assistant Branch Chief, Habitat Conservation Branch, Management
       Division,  Oxford, Maryland Office) to J.  Robert Hume,  HI (USCOE - Norfolk
       District).  June 16, 1986.

U.S. National Marine  Fisheries Service  (NMFS).   1986.   Letter from  Edward  W,
       Christoffers (Assistant Branch Chief, Habitat Conservation Branch, Management
       Division,  NMFS-Oxford, Maryland) to J. Robert Hume, ni (USCOE-Norfolk
       District).  November 13, 1986.

U.S. National Park Service (NFS).  1981.  Nationwide  Rivers Inventory - Final List of
       Rivers - Virginia. U.S. Department of Interior, Northeast Regional Office, Heritage
       Conservation and Recreation Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS).  1992. Letter from
       John R. Tate (Endangered Species Coordinator, Office  of Plant  Protection) to
       Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie).  February 21, 1992.

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS).  1992. Letter from
       John R. Tate (Endangered Species Coordinator, Office  of Plant  Protection) to
       Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie).  March 2, 1992.

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS).  1993. Letter from
       John R. Tate, (Endangered Species Coordinator, Office  of Plant  Protection) to
       Mariellen J. Soltys (Malcolm Pirnie). January 8,  1993.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR).  1989.  The1989 Virginia
       Outdoors Plan.  Division of Planning and Recreation Resources.

Virginia Department of Conservation  and Recreation  (VDCR).  1990.   The Virginia
       Non-Tidal Wetlands Inventory.  Division of Soil and Water Conservation.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 1992. Letter from Timothy
       J. O'Connell (Environmental Review Coordinator, Division of Natural Heritage) to
       Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie).  February 3,1992.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 1992. Letter from Timothy
       J. O'Connell (Environmental Review Coordinator, Division of Natural Heritage) to
       Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie). March 5, 1992.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 1992. Letter from Timothy
       J. O'Connell (Environmental Review Coordinator, Division of Natural Heritage) to
       Mariellen J. Soltys (Malcolm Pirnie).  September 1, 1992.

Virginia  Department  of  Conservation and  Recreation (VDCR).    1992.   Personal
       communication  between Christopher  Clampitt  (Ecologist, Division of Natural
       Heritage) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. November 17, 1992.
 0114-951-140                           R-10                           February 1994
-------
Virginia  Department  of Conservation  and  Recreation  (VDCR).   1992.   Personal
       communication between Timothy J, O'ConneU (Environmental Review Coordinator,
       Division of Natural Heritage) and Malcolm Pknie, Inc. November, 1992.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 1993. Letter from Timothy
       J. O'Connell (Environmental Review Coordinator, Division of Natural Heritage) to
       Mariellen J. Soltys (Malcolm Pirnie). January 5, 1993.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1992.  Letter from Helen
       E. Kitchel (Research Associate) to Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie).  March 6,
       1992.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1992.  Letter from Helen
       E. Kitchel  (Research Associate)  to  Kathryn A.  Baskette  (Malcolm Pirnie).
       August 31, 1992.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1992. Letter from Steven
       Carter-Lovejoy (Wildlife Analyst) to Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie). January 17,
       1992.

Virginia  Department  of Game  and Inland  Fisheries  (VDGIF).   1989.   Personal
       communication between H. E. Kitchel  (Research Associate) and Malcolm Pirnie,
       Inc. August 9,  1989.

Virginia  Department  of Game  and Inland  Fisheries  (VDGIF).   1992.   Personal
       communication between H. E. Kitchel  (Research Associate) and Malcolm Pirnie,
       Inc. August 11, 1992.

Virginia  Department  of Game  and Inland  Fisheries  (VDGIF).   1992.   Personal
       communication between Hank Garner  (Game Warden for King William County)
       and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  August 25, 1992.

Virginia  Department  of Game  and Inland  Fisheries  (VDGIF).   1992.   Personal
       communication between Jim Taylor (Game  Warden for New Kent County) and
       Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  September 9, 1992.

Virginia  Department  of Game  and Inland  Fisheries  (VDGIF).   1992.   Personal
       communication between Dean L. Fowler (Fisheries Biologist) and Malcolm Pirnie,
       Inc. November 4, 1992.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF).  1992.  Letter from David
       C. Dowling (District  Fisheries Biologist) to Mariellen J, Soltys (Malcolm Pirnie).
       December 22, 1992.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF).  1993.  Letter from David
       C. Dowling (District  Fisheries Biologist) and Paul E. Peterson (Malcolm Pirnie).
       June 23, 1993.
0114-951-140                            R-ll                           February 1994
-------
Virginia  Department of  Game and  Inland Fisheries  (VDGIF).   1993.    Personal
       communication between Dana Bradshaw (Wildlife Division) and Malcolm Pirnie,
       Inc. March 4, 1993.

Virginia  Department of  Game and  Inland Fisheries  (VDGIF).   1993.    Personal
       communication  between David C. Dowling (District  Fisheries Biologist)  and
       Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. May 24, 1993.

Virginia Department of Health (VDH).  1993. Personal communication between Steve
       Shaw (Office of Water Programs, East Central Environmental Engineering Field
       Office) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. April 6, 1993.

Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 1993. Letter from Allan R. Hammer (Director,
       Division of Water Supply Engineering) to F. W. Mueller, Jr. (Acting Director,  City
       of Newport News Waterworks). July 6, 1993.

Virginia Department of Health (VDH).  Water  Description Sheet for Newport News
       Waterworks.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR). 1992. Letter from Bruce J. Larson
       (Project Review Supervisor) to Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie). May 27, 1992.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR). 1993. Letter from H. Bryan Mitchell
       (Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer) to Paul E. Peterson (Malcolm Pirnie).
       December 21, 1993.

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Federal Highway Administration
       (FHA) Region 3. 1992.  Draft Environmental Assessment (for proposed Route 629
       Bridge and approaches over Mattaponi River in King William and King and Queen
       Counties).  November 27, 1992.

Virginia Department of Waste Management (VDWM).  1992.  Personal communication
       between Harold J. Winer (Virginia Beach Regional Office) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
       August 11, 1992.

Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (VDMR).  1976.  The Mineral Industries and
       Materials in King William County.

Virginia Employment Commission (VEC), Virginia Population Projections 2000. April 1990.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS).  1992. Personal communication between Dr.
       Joseph G. Loesch and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC).  1992.  Transmittal from Sonya Knur
       (Fisheries  Data Supervisor)  to Kathryn A. Baskette  (Malcolm  Pirnie,  Inc.
       September 10, 1992.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC).  1992.  Marine Resources Map 405-2500
       for the York River. October 1, 1992.

0114-951-140                            R-12                          February 1994
-------
Virginia  State Water Control Board  (SWCB).   1988.   Clean Water Act  Section 401
       Certification issued to James City County for Ware Creek Reservoir. December 22,
       1988.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1988. James Water Supply Plan.  Planning
       Bulletin No. 337.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1988. Potomac Water Supply Plan. Planning
       Bulletin No. 336.

Virginia  State Water Control Board (SWCB).   1988.  Letter from Richard N. Burton
       (Executive Director) to Colonel J. J. Thomas (District Engineer, USCOE - Norfolk
       District).  April 13, 1988.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB).  1988.  Rappahannock Water Supply Plan.
       Planning Bulletin No. 338.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB).  1988.  York Water Supply Plan.  Planning
       Bulletin No. 343.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB).  1989.  Tributary Water Quality 1984-1987
       Data Addendum - York River.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB).  1990.  Virginia Water Quality Assessment
       1990 - 3Q5(V) Report to USEPA and Congress. Information Bulletin 579.

Virginia  State Water  Control Board (SWCB).   1992.   Letter from Stuart Torbeck
       (Environmental Program Analyst) to Walter  M. Altman, HI (J. K. Timmons  &
       Associates,  P.C.).  July 29, 1992.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB).  1992.  Personal communication between
       Diane Osborne (Environmental Engineer, Piedmont Regional Office) and Malcolm
       Pirnie, Inc.  June 29, 1992.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB).  1992.  Virginia Water Quality Assessment
       for 1992 - 3Q5fb) Report to EPA and Congress.  Information Bulletin No. 588.

Virginia  State Water Control Board  (SWCB).   1993.   Letter  from Paul  E. Herman
       (Environmental Engineer Senior)  to Paul E. Peterson (Malcolm Pirnie).  March 4,
       1993.

Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB).  1993.  Personal communication between
       Debra Barnes (Environmental Engineer, Tidewater Regional Office) and Malcolm
       Pirnie, Inc.  January 18, 1994.

Wagner, W.  1993. New Kent is Site of  New Regional Jail.  Published in the Richmond
       Times-Dispatch. February  11, 1993.
0114-951-140                            R-13                           February 1994
-------
Wilber, A. C, D. Hepworth, and B. J. Neilson. 1987. Model and Field Studies of Ware
       Creek: Predictions of Salinity Distributions for Differing Reservoir Release Rates.
       Prepared for James City County by the Virginia  Institute of Marine Science,
       Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Wiley & Wilson, Comprehensive Water System Study for the City of Williamsburg. Virginia.
       April 1985.

York County Department of Planning and Community Development.  1991. The County
       of York Comprehensive Plan.
 0114-951-140                            R-14                           February 1994
-------