„,.:;-
"
Xm|>act Statement
Main Report - Volume I
.
•jr.
\
\
\x
>-.
<&tf
, ft '*tt f,rLead Agency:
5' ^ l^rfplk; "District
Army Corps jof Engineers
8Q3 /S"ront Street
Norfolk, VirgilSia 23510
Contact:
Pamela K. Painter
(757) 441-7654
,v
NprioJtK
_.V*"'cV •;»,._..,'
January 1097
-------
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY PLAN
1990-2040
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(VOLUME I)
Regional Raw Water Study Group:
Newport News Waterworks
City of Williamsburg
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
JANUARY 1997
-------
ORGANIZATION OF
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MAIN REPORT
VOLUME I
TEXT SECTIONS
(A DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS FOLLOWS FOR VOLUME I)
VOLUMEn
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) AND
SUPPLEMENT TO THE DEIS
ALONG WITH RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3114-017-319
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABBREVIATIONS A-l
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Description of the Proposed Project 1-4
1.3 Alternatives 1-4
1.3.1 Alternatives Considered 1-4
1.3.2 RRWSG's Preferred Alternative 1-9
1.3.3 RRWSG's Currently Proposed Alternative 1-10
1.4 Issues/Areas of Controversy 1-11
1.4.1 Wetlands 1-11
1.4.2 Endangered/Threatened Species 1-12
1.4.3 Water Quality/Hydrology
1.4.4 Cultural Resources
1.5 Required Major Federal, State, and Local Permits
1.5.1 Federal
1.5.2 State
1.5.3 Local
1.6 Document Organization
-12
-13
-13
-13
-13
-15
-15
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 to Water Supply Management 2-2
2.3 Current Supplies 2-3
2.3.1 Newport News Waterworks 2-3
2.3.2 City of Williamsburg 2-6
2.3.3 York County 2-6
2.3.4 James City Service Authority 2-7
2.3.5 U.S. Army at Fort Monroe 2-8
2.3.6 Current Supply Summary - 2-9
2.3.7 Current Safe Yield 2-9
2.3.8 Rate Structures 2-10
2.4 Water Supply Concerns 2-12
2.5 Historical Demands 2-12
2.5.1 Raw Water Withdrawals 2-13
2.5.2 Treated Water Demands 2-13
2.5.3 Large Water Users 2-15
2.5.4 Daily and Seasonal Demand Variations 2-15
2.6 Projected Demands 2-16
2.6.1 Conservation 2-16
2.6.2 Conservation and Growth Management 2-18
2.6.3 Population Projections 2-20
2.6.4 Water Demand Projections 2-21
2.6.5 Water Demand Projections By Purveyor 2-25
2.6.6 Summary of Adopted Regional Projections 2-27
3114-017-319 -i-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
2.7 Projected Deficits . 2-28
2.7.1 Interpretation of Regional Totals 2-29
2.7.2 Interpretation of Purveyor Totals 2-29
2.7.3 Adequacy of Supply Versus Deficit 2-29
2.8 Political/Institutional Considerations 2-30
2.8.1 Current State Role 2-31
2.8.2 State and Local Constraints 2-34
2.9 Additional Information Pertaining to Current Supplies
and Demand Projections 2-38
2.9.1 Description of New Demand and Deficit Information 2-38
2.9.2 Summary 2-44
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 3-3
3.3.1 Overview of Alternatives Analysis 3-3
3.3.2 Practicability Criteria 3-4
3.3.3 Safe Yield Criterion 3-7
3.4 Alternatives Considered . . . 3-19
3.4.1 Lake Genito 3-19
3.4.2 Lake Chesdin 3-20
3.4.3 Lake Anna .... 3-20
3.4.4 Lake Gaston 3-21
3.4.5 Rappahannock River Above Fredericksburg 3-22
3.4.6 James River Above Richmond Without New
Off-Stream Storage 3-22
3.4.7 City of Richmond Surplus Raw Water . . : 3-23
3.4.8 City of Richmond Surplus Treated Water 3-23
3.4.9 James River Between Richmond and Hopewell . 3-24
3.4.10 Ware Creek Reservoir 3-24
3.4.11 Ware Creek Reservoir With Pumpovers From Pamunkey,
Mattaponi, and/or Chickahominy Rivers 3-2S
3.4.12 Ware Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From James River
Above Richmond 3-30
3.4.13 Black Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From
Pamunkey River 3-31
3.4.14 Black Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From James River
Above Richmond 3-37
3.4.15 King William Reservoir With Pumpover From
Mattaponi River . 3-39
3.4.16 King William Reservoir With Pumpover From
Pamunkey River . 3^46
3114-017-319 -ii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
3.4.17 Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase . 3-49
3.4.18 Chickahominy River Pumping Increase and Raising Diascund
and Little Creek Dams 3-50
3.4.19 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Constrained by
Number of Wells 3-51
3.4.20 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Unconstrained by
Number of Wells 3-52
3.4.21 Fresh Groundwater Development 3-53
3.4.22 Groundwater Desalination As The Single Long-Term
Alternative 3-55
3.4.23 Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 3-57
3.4.24 James River Desalination 3-57
3.4.25 Pamunkey River Desalination 3-60
3.4.26 York River Desalination 3-61
3.4.27 Cogeneration 3-66
3.4.28 Wastewater Reuse As A Source of Potable Water 3-67
3.4.29 Wastewater Reuse For Non-Potable Uses 3-68
3.4.30 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 3-69
3.4.31 No Action 3-74
3.4.32 Additional Alternatives Considered 3-74
3.4.32.1 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from
Mattaponi River . 3-75
3.4.32.2 Ware Creek Reservoir (Three Dam Alternative)
with Pamunkey River Pumpover 3-76
3.4.32.3 Side-Hill Reservoir 3-77
3.4.32.4 Smaller King William Reservoir with Two
River Pumpovers 3-81
3.5 Summary of Practicability Analyses 3-84
3.6 RRWSG's Preferred Project Alternative -. 3-86
3.6.1 Impact Comparison for Evaluated Alternatives 3-86
3.6.2 Comparison of Alternative Component Practicability . 3-91
3.6.3 RRWSG's Proposed Project Alternative 3-96
3.7 Conceptual Mitigation Plans for RRWSG's Preferred King William
Reservoir Project (KWR-II Configuration) and Other Reservoir
Alternatives 3-98
3.7.1 RRWSG's Preferred Reservoir Project - King William
Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
(KWR-n Configuration) 3-99
3.7.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River . 3-106
3.7.3 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River . 3-109
3.7.4 Mitigation Plan Implementation . 3-112
3.7.5 Summary 3-114
3.8 Summary of Environmental Consequences 3-115
3114-017-319 -iii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4,0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Physical Resources 4-2
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 4-22
4.2.S Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 4-24
4.2.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 4-27
4.2.7 No Action 4-28
4.3 Biological Resources 4-28
4.3.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 4-30
4.3.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 4-44
4.3.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover
from Mattaponi River 4-53
4.3.4 Fresh Groundwater Development 4-67
4.3.5 Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 4-68
4.3.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 4-70
4.3.7 No Action 4-71
4.4 Cultural Resources 4-72
4,4.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 4-72
4.4.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover *
from Pamunkey River 4-74
4.4.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover
from Mattaponi River 4-76
4.4.4 Fresh Groundwater Development . 4-78
4.4.5 Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 4-78
4.4.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 4-79
4.4.7 No Action 4-79
4.5 Socioeconomic Resources 4-79
4.5.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 4-80
4.5.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 4-90
4.5.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover
from Mattaponi River 4-96
3114-017-319 -iv-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4.5.4 Fresh Groundwater Development 4-105
4.5.5 Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 4-107
4.5.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 4-110
4.5.7 No Action 4-111
4.6 Summary of Affected Environment 4-111
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Physical Resources 5-2
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 5-15
5.2.4 Fresh Groundwater Development 5-29
5.2.5 Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 5-31
5.2.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions ...... 5-32
5.2.7 No Action 5-33
5.3 Biological Resources 5-34
5.3.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 5-34
5.3.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 5-41
5.3.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover
from Mattaponi River 5-46
5.3.4 Fresh Groundwater Development - 5-59
5.3.5 Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 5-60
5.3.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 5-62
5.3.7 No Action . 5-62
5.4 Cultural Resources 5-63
5.4.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 5-64
5.4.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 5-65
5.4.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover
from Mattaponi River 5-65
5.4.4 Fresh Groundwater Development 5-67
5.4,5 Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 5-67
5.4.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 5-68
31144)17-319 -v-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
5.4.7 No Action 5-68
5.5 Socioeconomic Resources 5-68
5.5.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 5-69
5.5.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover
from Pamunkey River 5-75
5.5.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover
from Mattaponi River 5-80
5.5.4 Fresh Groundwater Development 5-87
5.5.5 Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks
Distribution Area 5-89
5.5.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 5-91
5.5.7 No Action .......... 5-93
5.6 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 5-95
5.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 5-99
5.8 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-Tenn Productivity 5-100
5.9 Additional Regional Needs 5-101
5.9.1 Introduction 5-101
5.9.2 New Kent County 5-102
5.9.3 King William County 5-104
5.9.4 Gloucester County 5-105
5.9.5 Town of West Point 5-106
5.9.6 Summary of Additional Regional Needs 5-108
5.9.7 Additional Impacts 5-108
5.10 Environmental Justice 5-109
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT '. 7-1
REFERENCES . R-l
INDEX 1-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table Following
No. Description Page
2-1 List of Potential Participants and Responses
to Participation in the Regional Raw Water 2-2
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -vi-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
2-2 Existing Raw Water Source Characteristics 2-9
2-3 Reported Yields of Existing Systems , 2-9
2-4 Adopted Yields of Existing Systems 2-9
2-5 Average Annual Raw Water Withdrawals (1982 - 1990) 2-13
2-6 Average Daily Water Volumes Pumped to
Distribution (1984 - 1990) 2-13
2-7 Large User Water Consumption (1990) 2-15
2-8 Newport News Waterworks Average Monthly Demand
Variation (1987 -1990) 2-15
2-9 Conservation Practices Currently Implemented on
the Lower Peninsula 2-17
2-10 Summary of Adopted Regional Population Projections
by Jurisdiction 2-20
2-11 Comparison of Local and New State Population
Projections 2-20
2-12 Projected Civilian Population Served by
Public Water Systems '. 2-21
2-13 Projected Lower Peninsula Demands by Jurisdiction 2-25
2-14 Projected Lower Peninsula Demands by Purveyor 2-27
2-15 Adopted Regional Total Population and Civilian
Population Served Projections by Jurisdiction 2-28
2-16 Adopted Lower Peninsula Demand Projections
by Jurisdiction and Purveyor 2-28
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -vii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
2-17 Calculation of Projected Lower Peninsula Total
Water Demand with Existing Conservation
Measures (2000 - 2040) 2-28
2-18 Lower Peninsula Supply, Demand and Deficit
Projections by Purveyor 2-29
2-19 Lower Peninsula Water Supply, Demand and Deficit Projections 2-30
2-20 New and Expanding Industries on the Lower Peninsula 2-44
3-A Streamflow Characteristics of Pamunkey River at Northbury 3-10
3-B Streamflow Characteristics of Mattaponi River at Scotland Landing .... 3-10
3-C Pamunkey River at Northbury; Modified 80 Percent Monthly
Exceedance MIF 3-10
3-D Mattaponi River at Scotland Landing; Modified 80 Percent
Monthly Exceedance MIF 3-11
3-E King William Reservoir Elevation - Area - Capacity Data
3-E1 King William Reservoir Elevation - Area - Capacity Data
(KWR-I Configuration) .' 3-13
3-E2 King William Reservoir Elevation - Area - Capacity Data
(KWR-D Configuration) 3-13
3-E3 King William Reservoir Elevation - Area - Capacity Data
(KWR-in Configuration) . , 3-13
3-E4 King William Reservoir Elevation - Area - Capacity Data
(KWR-IV Configuration) 3-13
3-F Black Creek Reservoir Elevation - Area - Capacity Data . 3-13
3-G Ware Creek Reservoir Elevation - Area - Capacity Data . , , 3-13
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -viii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
3-1 Alternative Components Considered 3-19
3-1A Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from the Pamunkey River
Project Cost Estimate 3-36
3-1B Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from the
James River Project Cost Estimate 3-38
3-1C King William Reservoir with Pumpover from the Mattaponi
River (KWR-H Configuration) Project Cost Estimate 3-45
3-1D King William Reservoir with Pumpover from the Pamunkey
River Project Cost Estimate . 3-49
3-1E York River Desalination Project Cost Estimate 3-64
3-1F York River Desalination 10 MOD Safe Yield Project Cost Estimate . . . 3-66
3-1G Calculation of Projected Lower Peninsula Total Water Demand
With Additional Conservation Measures (2000-2040) 3-71
3-1H Comparison of Year 2040 Demands With and Without
Conservation 3-71
3-11 Smaller King William Reservoir With Pumpovers from the
Mattaponi and Pamunkey River - Project Cost Estimate 3-83
3-1J Alternative Components 3-84
3-2 Summary of Alternative Components Life Cycle Cost Estimates 3-85
3-3 Ranked Alternative Components Life Cycle Cost Estimates 3-85
3-4 Practicability Analysis Screening Results 3-85
3-4A Project Alternatives 3-86
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -ix-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
3-5 Summary of Environmental Consequences .... (renumbered as Table 3-14)
3-6 Environmental Impact Scoring Summary for Alternative
Components (Unweighted) *
3-7 Environmental Impact Scoring Summary for Alternative
Components (Weighted) *
3-8 Species Selected for Planting in Created Wetland
Zones: Reservoir Fringe Wetlands *
3-9 Species Selected for Planting in Created Wetland
Zones: Reclaimed Borrow Area *
3-10 Expected Plant Species in Prior Converted Cropland
Restoration .- *
3-10A Expected Plant Species in Borrow Area Constructed Wetlands
and Headwater Constructed Wetlands *
3-10B Expected Plant Species in Wetland Restoration Areas *
3-11 Species Selected for Planting in Created Wetland
Zones: Constructed Wetland
3-12 Expected Plant Species in Constructed Wetlands *
3-13 Wetland Mitigation Summary *
3-14 Summary of Environmental Consequences 3-115
4-1 Pamunkey River Water Quality at White House . 4-3
4-2 Diascund Creek Reservoir and Tributary Water Quality 4-5
4-3 Ware Creek Water Quality at Richardson Mill pond 4-5
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -x-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
4-4 Characteristics of Pamunkey River Discharge at
Northbury *
4-5 Ware Creek Reservoir Stream Order Analysis 4-7
4-6 Summary of Water Quality Analyses from Columbia Aquifer
in the York-James Peninsula 4-9
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 4-10
4-9 Crump Creek Water Quality 4-12
4-10 Matadequin Creek Water Quality 4-12
4-11 Black Creek Reservoir Stream Order Analysis . . 4-13
4-12 Black Creek Reservoir Alternative -
Soils within the Pipeline Route 4-14
4-13 Mattaponi River Water Quality at Scotland Landing 4-16
^
4-14 Mattaponi River Water Quality at Mantua Ferry 4-16
4-15 Mattaponi River Water Quality at Walkerton . . . 4-16
4-15A Cohoke Creek Water Quality at Route 626 Crossing 4-17
4-16 Characteristics of Mattaponi River Discharge at Scotland
Landing *
4-17 King William Reservoir Stream Order Analysis 4-18
4-18 King William Reservoir Alternative -
Soils within the Pipeline Route 4-21
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xi-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
4-19 Diascund Creek and Little Creek Groundwater Quality 4-23
4-20 Little Creek Reservoir Water Quality 4-23
4-21 Hydrogeologic Descriptions, Characteristics, and Well
Yields of Aquifers in the York-James Peninsula . 4-23
4-22 Potomac Aquifer Water Quality for Brackish
Groundwater Withdrawals 4-25
4-23 lames 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) . . 4-35
4-31 Typical Freshwater Invertebrates of the Lower Virginia
Peninsula 4-36
4-31A Baseline Calculations of Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs)
and Habitat Units (HUs) - Ware Creek Reservoir 4-38
4-32 Wetland Types Found in the Ware Creek Reservoir
Impoundment Area 4-41
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
4-32A NWI Wetland Diversity Analysis, Ware Creek Reservoir
Impoundment Area 4-42
4-33 Summary of WET Analysis Results -
Ware Creek Reservoir Estuarine Wetlands 4-42
4-34 Summary of WET Analysis Results -
Ware Creek Reservoir Palustrine Wetlands 4-42
4-35 Baseline Calculations of Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs)
and Habitat Unite (HUs) - Ware Creek Reservoir *
4-36 Fish Species of Black Creek (1983) *
4-37 Fish Species of Black Creek (1990) *
4-38 Fish Species of Black Creek (1992) *
4-38A Combined Fish Survey Results - Black Creek Watershed 4-46
4-39 Fish Species of the Freshwater Tributaries of the
Chesapeake Bay . 4-46
4-39A Typical Wildlife Species of the Mixed Forest Community 4-47
4-39B Typical Wildlife Species of the Deciduous Forest «nd
Cove Hardwood Community 4-47
4-39C Typical Wildlife Species of the Pine Plantation and
Coniferous Forest Community 4-47
4-39D Typical Wildlife Species of the Open Field / Agricultural Community . . 4-47
4-39E Typical Wildlife Species of the Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved
Deciduous Community 4-47
4-39F Typical Wildlife Species of the Scrub-Shrub Community 4-47
4-39G Typical Wildlife Species of the Emergent/Open
Water Community 4-47
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xiii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
4-39H Baseline Calculations of Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs)
And Habitat Units (HUs) - Black Creek Reservoir 4-48
4-40 Wetland Types Found in the Black Creek Reservoir
Southern Branch Impoundment Area 4-50
4-40A NWI Wetland Diversity Analysis, Black Creek Reservoir
Impoundment Area *
4-40B Wetland Diversity Analysis, Black Creek Reservoir
Southern Branch Impoundment Area 4-51
4-41 Summary of WET Analysis Results -
Black Creek Reservoir Wetlands 4-52
4-42 Baseline Calculations of Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs)
and Habitat Units (HUs) - Black Creek Reservoir *
4-42A Potential Wetland Impacts from Pipeline Construction -
Black Creek Reservoir Project 4-53
443 Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species of
the Tidal Mattaponi River 4-53
4-44 Fish Species of the Mattaponi River (1939-1%1) 4-56
4-45 Fish Species of Cohoke Mill Creek (1990) «
4-45A Benthic Macro-Invertebrate Survey Within the Mattaponi River ...... 4-57
4-45B Combined Fish Survey Results - Cohoke Creek Watershed 4-57
4-46 Invertebrate Species of Cohoke Creek (1990) 4-58
4-46A Cover Types Within the King William Reservoir Pool Area ........ 4-59
4-47 Fish Species of Cohoke Millpond (1992) *
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xiv-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Table
No.
Description
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Following
Page
4-47A
4-48
4-48A
4-48B
4-49
4-49A
4-WB
4-50
4-51
4-52
4-53
4-54
4-55
4-56
4-57
4-58
Taxonomic Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Cohpke Creek Watershed, King William
County, Virginia 4-59
Wetland Types Found in the King William Reservoir
Impoundment Area 4-63
NWI Wetland Diversity Analysis - King William Reservoir
Impoundment Area *
Wetland Diversity Analysis - King William Reservoir II 4-64
Summary of WET Analysis Results -
King William Reservoir II Wetlands . 4-65
Evaluation for Planned Wetlands - King William Reservoir II 4-65
Potential Stream/Wetland Impacts from Pipeline
Construction - King William Reservoir Project 4-66
Fish Species of Skiffe's Creek (1990) 4-69
Major Reservoirs, Stream Intakes, and Groundwater
Withdrawals in the Pamunkey River Basin 4-81
Summary of Houses Near the Proposed Alternative
Project Areas 4-83
Ware Creek Reservoir Watershed Land Use (1990) 4-86
New Kent County Land Use (1989) 4-86
James City County Land Use (1991) 4-86
Ware Creek Reservoir Normal Pool Area Land Use (1982) 4-86
Summary of Affected Land Use in Alternative Project Areas 4-87
Black Creek Reservoir Watershed Land Use (1989) . 4-92
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xv-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
4-59 Black Creek Reservoir Normal Pool Area Land Use (1989) 4-92
4-60 Major Reservoirs, Stream Intakes, and Groundwater
Withdrawals in the Mattaponi River Basin . 4-97
4-61 King William Reservoir Watershed Land Use (1993) 4-101
4-62 King William Reservoir Normal Pool Area Land Use (1993) 4-101
4-63 King William County Land Use (1988) 4-101
4-64 Estimated Groundwater Withdrawals from York-James
Peninsula By Aquifer (1983) 4-105
4-65 Summary of Affected Environment 4-111
5-1 Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawal Analysis -
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative 5-12
5-2 Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawal Analysis for
Wet Years - Black Creek Reservoir Alternative 5-12
5-3 Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawal Analysis for
Average Years - Black Creek Reservoir Alternative 5-12
5-4 Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawal Analysis for
Dry Years - Black Creek Reservoir Alternative 5-12
5-5 Contraventions of Selected Pamunkey River Flow Levels .......... 5-12
5-6 Pamunkey River Cumulative Streamflow Reductions for
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative 5-12
5-7 Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawal Analysis
KWR-H Configuration - 5-22
5-8 Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawal Analysis for
Wet Years - KWR-II Configuration 5-22
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xvi-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
5-9 Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawal Analysis for
Average Years - KWR-II Configuration 5-22
5-10 Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawal Analysis for
Dry Years - KWR-Configuration '. 5-22
5-11 Contraventions of Selected Mattaponi River Flow Levels 5-23
5-12 Mattaponi River Cumulative Streamflow Reductions
for King William Reservoir Alternative - KWR-II Configuration 5-23
5-12A Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawal
Analysis - KWR-IV Configuration 5-23
5-12B Occurrence of Fish Species in Reservoir Environments
Black Creek Non-tidal Waters 5-42
5-12C Occurrence of Fish Species in Reservoir Environments
Cohoke Creek Non-tidal Waters Above Cohoke Millpond 5-53
5-12D Archaeological Sites Within Impoundment Areas Affected by
King William Reservoir (KWR) Dam Configurations 5-67
5-12E Predicted Changes in Maximum Pamunkey River Salinity Levels
Near Davis Farm 5-75
5-12F Predicted Changes in Maximum Mattaponi River Salinity Levels
Near Enfield Farm 5-87
5-13 Population and Population Served Estimates - New Kent County *
5-14 Summary of New Kent County Potable Water Demand Projections . . . 5-103
5-15 Population and Population Served Estimates - King William County *
5-16 Summary of King William County Potable Water Demand Projections . 5-104
5-17 Population and Population Served Estimates - Gloucester County *
5-18 Summary of Gloucester County Potable Water Demand Projections . . . 5-106
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xvii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Following
No. Description Page
5-19 Population and Population Served Estimates - Town of West Point *
5-20 Summary of West Point Potable Water Demand Projections 5-107
5-21 Supply, Demand, and Deficit Projections for Additional Regional Areas 5-108
5-22 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Affected Jurisdictions 5-110
5-23 Minority Populations in Affected Jurisdictions 5-110
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Following
No. Description Page
2-1 Lower Peninsula Study Area 2-2
2-2 Lower Peninsula Service Areas 2-3
2-3 Regional Raw Water Supply Study Schematic
of Lower Peninsula Raw Water Supply System 2-3
2-4 Regional System Delivery Capacity . 2-9
2-5 Newport News Waterworks Annual Average Metered
Consumption (1968 -1990) 2-13
2-6 Average Daily Water Volumes Pumped to Distribution (1984 - 1990) . . 2-15
2-7 Adopted Regional Population Projections 2-20
2-8 Historical and Projected Lower Peninsula System Demand 2-25
2-9 Projected Regional Water Demand vs. Reliable
System Delivery Capacity . 2-29
2-10 Lower Peninsula Total Treated Water Deficit 2-29
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xviii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Following
No. Description Page
3-1 Methodology for Identifying, Screening, and Evaluating Alternatives ... 3-4
3-1A King William Reservoir Alternative Release Schedule for
KWR-H Configuration 3-16
3-IB Meteorological Conditions for Reservoirs in Lower Peninsula Region . . 3-16
3-1C Net Evaporation Conditions for Reservoirs in Lower Peninsula Region . 3-1?
3-1D Projected Lower Peninsula Demand With and Without
Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions 3-74
3-2 Water Supply Alternatives (Retitled as Plate 1)*
3-3 Reservoir and Fresh Groundwater Alternatives -
Project Locations (Retitled as Plate 2)*
3-4 Groundwater Desalting Alternative Project Location 3-85
3-5 Groundwater Desalting Alternative Site 1 Location , 3-85
3-6 Groundwater Desalting Alternative Site 2 Location 3-85
3-7 Groundwater Desalting Alternative Site 3 Location 3-85
3-8 Groundwater Desalting Alternative Site 4 Location 3-85
3-9 Expanded Ware Creek Project Concept 3-85
3-10 Black Creek Reservoir Project Concept 3-85
3-11 King William Reservoir Project Concept
RRWSG's Preferred Configuration (KWR-II) 3-85
3-11A King William Reservoir Project Concept
Currently Proposed Configuration (KWR-IV) 3-85
3-12 Mitigation Plan
3-12A Potential On-Site Mitigation Areas King William Reservoir
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xix-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Following
No. Description Page
3-12B Location of Potential Wetland Restoration/Creation Sites *
3-12C Off-Site Wetland Restoration/Creation Sites in King William County . . 3-102
3-12D Site 1 3-103
3-12E Site 2 Southern Section . 3-103
3-12F Site 2 Northern Section 3-103
3-12G Site 3 Western Section 3-103
3-12H Site 3 Eastern Section 3-103
3-121 Site 4 3-104
3-12J Site 5 3-104
3-12K Site 6 3-104
3-12L Potential On-Site Mitigation Areas - Black Creek Reservoir 3-107
3-13 Reservoir Fringe Wetlands *
3-14 Relationship Between Capillary Fringe
and Zone B Species Transplants (Worst Case Scenario) *
3-15 Borrow Area Constructed Wetland Conceptual Plan . *
3-15A Borrow Area Constructed Wetland *
3-16 Headwater Impoundment Within Normal Pool Area *
3-17 Headwater Impoundment Plan View . *
3-18 Headwater Impoundment Plan View *
3-19 Prior Converted Cropland *
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
31144)17-319 -xx-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Following
No. Description Page
3-20 Prior Converted Cropland Cross-Section *
3-21 Constructed Wetland A *
3-22 Constructed Wetland B *
3-22A "The Island" Mitigation Site *
3-22B Potential On-Site Mitigation Areas - Black Creek Reservoir *
3-22C Cranston's Mill Pond - Delineated Drainage Basin 3-110
3-22D Island Mitigation Site - Location Map 3-110
3-22E Ware Creek Mitigation Preliminary Plans - Downstream Tidal Areas . 3-110
3-22F Perimeter Mitigation - Headwater Pond Location Map 1 3-111
3-22G Perimeter Mitigation - Headwater Pond Location Map 2 3-111
3-22H Perimeter Mitigation - Reservoir Pond Location Map 3 3-111
3-221 Conservation Zone Location Map . 3-112
4-1 Locations of Reservoir/Pumpover Alternatives 4-7
4-1A Beaverdam Creek Channel Bottom Profile 4-20
4-1B Benthic Sample Locations - Mattaponi River 4-57
4-2 Ware Creek Estuarine Wetlands Located within the Impoundment Area ... *
4-3 Ware Creek Palustrine Wetlands Located within the Impoundment Area ... *
4-4 Black Creek Wetlands Located within the Impoundment Area *
4-5 Cohoke Mill Creek Wetlands Located within the Impoundment Area *
4-6 Major Reservoirs, Stream Intakes and Groundwater Withdrawals
in the Pamunkey River Basin . . . , 4-81
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xxi-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Following
No. Description, Page
4-7 Major Reservoirs, Stream Intakes, aid Groundwater Withdrawals
in the Mattaponi River Basin 4-97
4-8 Permitted Withdrawals from Potomac Aquifers 4-105
5-1 Pamunkey River Flow Duration Curves - Ware Creek Reservoir
Alternative 5-5
5-2 Pamunkey River Monthly Flows Past Northbury 5-5
5-2A Pamunkey River Flow Duration Curves - Black Creek Reservoir
Alternative 5-11
5-2B Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals - Black Creek Reservoir
Alternative (October 1929 - September 1939) , 5-11
5-2C Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals - Black Creek Reservoir
Alternative (October 1939 - September 1949) 5-11
5-2D Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals - Black Creek Reservoir
Alternative (October 1949 - September 1959) , 5-11
5-2E Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals - Black Creek Reservoir
Alternative (October 1959 - September 1969) 5-11
5-2F Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals - Black Creek Reservoir
Alternative (October 1969 - September 1978) . * 5-11
5-2G Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals - Black Creek Reservoir
Alternative (October 1978 - September 1987) 5-11
5-2H Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals - Black Creek Reservoir
Alternative 5-12
5-21 Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals for Wet Years -
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative 5-12
5-2J Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals for Average Yean -
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative 5-12
5-2K Pamunkey River Average Monthly Withdrawals for Dry Years -
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative 5-12
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xxii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Following
No. Description Page
5-3 Mattaponi River Flow Duration Curves - KWR-II Configuration 5-22
5-3A Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals - KWR-II Configuration
(October 1929 - September 1939) 5-22
5-3B Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals - KWR-II Configuration
(October 1939 - September 1949) 5-22
5-3C Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals - KWR-II Configuration
(October 1949 - September 1959) 5-22
5-3D Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals - KWR-II Configuration
(October 1959 - September 1969) 5-22
5-3E Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals - KWR-II Configuration
(October 1969 - September 1978) 5-22
5-3F Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals - KWR-II Configuration
(October 1978 - September 1987) 5-22
5-3G Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals - KWR-II
Configuration . . 5-22
5-3H Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals for Wet Years -
KWR-II Configuration 5-22
5-31 Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals for Average Years -
KWR-H Configuration 5-22
5-3J Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals for Dry Years -
KWR-II Configuration 5-22
5-3K Mattaponi River Row Duration Curves - KWR-IV Configuration .... 5-23
5-3L Mattaponi River Average Monthly Withdrawals - KWR-IV
Configuration 5-23
5-3M Mattaponi Streamflow at Scotland Landing (Maximum Monthly
Values) 5-24
5-3N Mattaponi Streamflow at Scotland Landing (Minimum Monthly Values) . 5-24
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xxiii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Following
No. Description Page
S-3O Mattaponi Streamflow at Scotland Landing (Mean Monthly Values) . . . 5-24
5-3P Mattaponi Streamflow at Scotland Landing (Mean +1 Standard
Deviation Monthly Values) 5-24
5-3Q Mattaponi Streamflow at Scotland Landing (Mean -1 Standard
Deviation Monthly Values) 5-24
5-4 Mattaponi River Monthly Flows *
5-4A Diascund Creek Test Well Site 5-29
5-4B Little Creek Test Well Site 5-29
5-4C Selected Pamunkey and Mattaponi River Basin Irrigation Withdrawal
Locations . 5-75
5-5 Lower Peninsula and Additional Regional Areas 5-102
LIST OF PLATES
Plate
Number Title
1 Water Supply Alternatives
2 Reservoir and Fresh Groundwater Alternatives - Project Locations
3A King William Reservoir Cover Type Map (Sheet 1 of 3)
3B King William Reservoir Cover Type Map (Sheet 2 of 3)
3C King William Reservoir Cover Type Map (Sheet 3 of 3)
* Tables or Figures from the DEIS or Supplement which have been deleted
3114-017-319 -xxiv-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF APPENDIX REPORTS
Appendix
Volume Report Description
I
I
I
n
m
IV
V
V
vm
A
B
c
D
D
D
E
F
o./
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 Reservoir Alternatives
Wetland Assessment for Reservoir Alternatives
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed King William
Reservoir, King William County, Virginia and a Background
Review, Architectural Survey, and Archaeological
Reconnaissance for the Proposed Black Creek Reservoir, New
Kent County, Virginia.
VI H Fish Survey for Areas Affected by Proposed King William
Reservoir and Black Creek Reservoir Impoundments
VI I Pamunkey River Salinity Intrusion Impact Assessment for Black
' ~^^y Creek Reservoir Alternative
VI J Tidal Wetlands on the Mattaponi River: Potential Responses of
the Vegetative Community to Increased Salinity as a Result of
Freshwater Withdrawal
VII K Supporting Documentation for Additional Regional Needs
VII L Water Conservation Management Plan
VII M Practicability Analysis of Side-Hill Reservoir Alternatives in the
Lower Pamunkey River and Mattaponi River Valleys
Vin N . / Study of Potential Erosional Impact of Scotland Landing, Water
Intake Structure on Gametts Creek Marsh, Mattaponi River,
Virginia
3114-017-319 -xxv-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF APPENDIX REPORTS
(Continued)
Appendix
Volume Report Description
Vm O Amphibians and Reptiles of the Cohoke Mill Creek Watershed,
King William County, Virginia
VM P Literature Review on Genetic Variability and Migration Patterns
of Alewife and Blueback Herring Stocks in Chesapeake Bay
Tributaries
3114-017-319 -xxvi-
-------
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
3114-017-319 A-l
-------
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
3114-017-319 A-2
-------
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
NFS - 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
3114-017-319 A-3
-------
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
IDS - 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
3114-017-319 . A-4
-------
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
3114-017-319 A-5
-------
WTP - Water treatment plant
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
3114-017-319 A-6
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is a complete compilation and update of
material presented previously in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USCOE) February 1994 Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and December 1995 Supplement to the DEIS (Supplement).
It also presents information to address concerns raised during the public comment periods on the
DEIS and Supplement, and includes the results of additional studies conducted by the Regional Raw
Water Study Group (RRWSG). The organization of this FEIS follows the numbering system used
in the Main Reports of the DEIS and Supplement.
The FEIS Main Report is presented in two volumes as follows:
Volume!
• Text Sections.
Volume n
• King William Reservoir Project Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality.
• Comments on DEIS and Supplement along with Responses to Comments.
EIS Appendix Volumes I through VII were not revised as part of FEIS preparation. New or
revised appendix reports are included in Appendix Volume VIII and include:
• Report G (Phase I Cultural Resource Survey).
• Report N (Study of Potential Erosional Impact of Scotland Landing Water Intake
Structure).
• Report O (Amphibians and Reptiles of the Cohoke Mill Creek Watershed).
» Report P (Literature Review on Genetic Variability and'Migration Patterns of Alewife
and Blueback Herring Stocks in Chesapeake Bay Tributaries).
1.1 PURPOSE
The 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 altemative(s) to meet the future water supply needs of the
3114-017-319 1-1
-------
study area.1 After full National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and public interest reviews, the
USCOE will determine whether the proposed project is in the overall public interest. That
determination will be published in the USCOE's Record of Decision, following the completion of the
FEIS. 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.
Problem Definition - Water Supplies. Demands & Deficits
Estimated delivery capacities of the five public water supply systems on the Lower Peninsula
are presented in the following table 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
4.17
2.0
67.4
Treated Water
Delivery Capacity (mgd)
51.9
3.8
0.12
4.17
1.9
61.9
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 purveyor have been estimated based on data from previous studies and
system operating records.
In the DEIS and Supplement, demand reductions resulting from existing and future water
conservation measures (exclusive of use restrictions) were incorporated into the regional demand
projections. This approach has been revised for the FEIS. Demand projections presented in this FEIS
only incorporate the effects of existing conservation measures. Additional conservation measures
which may be implemented are considered as an alternative, because they are not currently in effect.
Demand reductions resulting from additional conservation measures, beyond those already
implemented, are presented as an alternative in Section 3.4.301
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 Coast Guard Reserve
Training Center.
3114-017-319
1-2
-------
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. A
summary of projections through the 50-year planning horizon are presented below as total regional
average daily demands. - o^0
Demand Category
Residential
Commercial, Institutional, Light
Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Federal Installations
Unaccounted-for Water
Lower Peninsula
Total (mgd)
2000 /
31.03
12.29
12.81
4.82
6.77
67.72
\2010
35.42
13.85
\ <^» >
17.31
5.45
8.00
80.03
2020
37.88
14.70
19.00
5.48
8.56
85.62
2030
40.76
15.71
20.92
5.51
9.21
92.11
L 2040
43.73
16.77
22.38
5.52
9.82
98.22
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/)
2000
67.7
60.3
7.4
2010
80.0
60.3
19.7
2020
85.6
58.4
27.2
2030
92.1
58.4
33.7
2040
98.2 /
58.4
39.8
Based on these deficit projections, a regional "safe yield" deficit could occur before the
Year 2000. One individual public water system, Newport News Waterworks, is expected to
experience actual water supply deficits even earlier under severe drought conditions. Based on an
estimate of the time required to implement a large water supply project, interim supplies and demand
reductions would be necessary to augment supplies until a large, long-term project can be brought on
line.
A new raw water supply project which can increase the regional treated water delivery capacity
by 39.8 mgd is required to satisfy projected demands through the Year 2040.
3114-017-319
1-3
-------
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Based on detailed practicability and environmental analyses of evaluated water supply
alternatives, the following components are deemed by the RRWSG to represent the least damaging
combination of practicable alternatives and the combination that will best serve the Study Group's
project purpose. These alternatives are proposed as long-term components of an overall 39.8 mgd
water supply plan to meet the RRWSG's water supply needs through the Year 2040. RRWSG treated
water safe yield benefits associated with each alternative are shown in parentheses. The safe yield
shown for groundwater alternatives represents only the amount of long-term yield that would be
required from new groundwater sources. The potential yield from these groundwater alternatives
would be greater in the short-term, as interim supplies pending completion of the King William
Reservoir project.
• Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions (10.5 mgd)
" Combination of Fresh Groundwater Development and/or Groundwater Desalination (6.1
mgd)
» King William Reservoir (KWR-IV Configuration) with Pumpover from Mattaponi
River (23.2 mgd)
Assuming a 10-year time to completion for the King William Reservoir, interim groundwater
supplies yielding at least 7.7 mgd 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 additional conservation measures and use restrictions capable of reducing short-
term demands by at least 7.1 mgd, for a total interim supply of 14.8 mgd. (Groundwater development
and additional conservation measures and use restrictions would also be long-term components of the
proposed project).
1.3 ALTERNATIVES
13.1 Alternatives Considered
•r
The DEIS reported the results of a practicability analysis of each of the 31 water supply
alternatives included in the USCOE's original scoping outline for its EIS. New alternatives, and
variants of previously identified alternatives, have been identified subsequently and are evaluated in
this FEIS. These analyses include evaluation of the alternatives with respect to practicability criteria
including availability, cost, and technological reliability.
Brief summary descriptions of the numerous alternatives that have been evaluated in the
preparation of this Regional Raw Water Supply Plan, including the RRWSG's preferred project
components, are presented below.
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 pipeline required,
3114-017-319 1-4
-------
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 pipeline 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 pipeline required.
4. LakeGaston: 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 pipeline required.
5. Rappahannock River fabove 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 pipeline required.
6. James River (above 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 (between 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 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.
* 11. Ware Creek Reservoir & Pamunkey. Mattaponi. and/or Chickahominy River
Pumpovers (All three potential river pumpover sources were evaluated, but the
proposed concept includes only a Pamunkey River pumpover (120 mgd pump
station}}. 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-
3114-017-319 1-5
-------
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 Pumpover (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 across the
Southern Branch and Eastern Branch of Black Creek in New Kent County; 6.41
billion gallon interconnected lake draining 5.47 square miles and covering 910
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 6.8-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. 17.3 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 Pumpover:
KWR-I Configuration (RRWSG's Originally Proposed Project): New 92-foot
dam across Cohoke Creek in King William County; 21.21 billion gallon lake
draining 13.17 square miles and covering 2,284 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 10.0-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.
KWR-n Configuration (RRWSG's Preferred Project): New 92-foot dam
across Cohoke Creek in King William County; 21.21 billion gallon lake draining
11.45 square miles and covering 2,222 acres at 96 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. Includes a 50 mgd
King William Reservoir pump station and new 10.4-mile, 42- and 48-inch pipeline
to deliver water to Diascund Creek Reservoir. Also includes new 40 mgd pump
station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little
Creek Reservoir.
The USCOE directed consideration of the following additional upstream dam
configurations for this alternative:
3114-017-319 1-6
-------
KWR-m Configuration: New 83-foot dam across Cohoke Creek in King
William County; 16.57 billion gallon lake draining 10.33 square miles and
covering 1,909 acres at 96 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. Includes a 50 mgd King William Reservoir pump
station and new 11.2-mile, 42- and 48-inch pipeline to deliver water to Diascund
Creek Reservoir. Also includes new 40 mgd pump station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch
pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir.
- | SiCWR-IV Configuration (RRWSG's Currently Proposed Project): New 78-
foot dam across Cohoke Creek in King William County; 12.22 billion gallon lake
draining 8.92 square miles and covering 1,526 acres at 96 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. Includes a 50 mgd
King William Reservoir pump station and new 1 L7-rnile,fe- and 48-inch pipeline
to deliver water to Diascund Creek Reservoir. 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: Similar to (15) but
supplemented with water pumped from new 100 mgd pump station on Pamunkey
River in King William County. 5.7-mile pipeline to King William Reservoir
required.
17. Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase: Increase pumping capacity of
Waterworks' existing Chickahominy River pump station in New Kent County to
61 mgd.
18. Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase and Raise Diascund and Little
Creek Dams: Similar to (17) but also modifying Waterworks' Diascund Creek and
Little Creek dams to increase normal pool elevations by 2 feet.
19. Aquifer Storage andRecoveryr Constrained by Number of Wells: Withdraw water
from Chickahominy River at full capacity when stream flow 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: Similar to
(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.
3114-017-319 1-7
-------
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.
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 Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD)
York River wastewater treatment plant (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. Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions: Additional aggressive
water conservation activities applied to residential, commercial, and industrial
demand categories. Contingency measures (i.e., use restrictions) beyond additional
conservation measures also 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.
3114-017-319 1-8
-------
Additional alternatives have been evaluated as directed by the USCOE. Those alternatives are:
• Black Creek Reservoii^with Mattaponi River Pumpover: Similar to (13) but
supplemented with water pumped from new 75 mgd pump station on Mattaponi River
in King William County. (This alternative is discussed in Section 3.4.32.)
• Ware Creek Reservoir (Three Dam Alternative! with Pamunkey River Pumpover:
Similar to (11) but Ware Creek Reservoir would consist of three smaller interconnected
impoundments with a combined surface area and total storage volume of 955 acres and
4.95 billion gallons, respectively. (This alternative is discussed in Section 3.4.32.)
• Side-Hill Reservoir: Long earthen embankments would be constructed at four sites
located adjacent to bluffs in the Mattaponi and/or Pamunkey River valleys of King
William County. The four impoundments would be interconnected and have a total
storage capacity of at least 20 billion gallons, supplemented with water from new pump
station on Mattaponi River or Pamunkey River in King William County. Water from
the side-hill reservoirs would be pumped to Diascund Creek Reservoir through new
pipeline. Also includes new 40 mgd pump station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from
Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir. (This alternative is discussed in
Section 3.4.32.)
• Smaller King William Reservoir with Two River Pumpovers: Similar to (15) but
supplemented with a second 45 mgd pump station on Pamunkey River in King William
County. (This alternative is discussed in Section 3.4.32).
• Smaller Scale Surface Water Desalination: Similar to (26) but designed to provide a 10
mgd treated water safe yield benefit rather than a 30 mgd benefit. (This alternative is
discussed in Section 3.4.26.)
Alternatives that are deemed practicable by the RRWSG, in terms of availability, cost, and
technological reliability, are denoted above with asterisks. These alternatives have been carried
forward for detailed environmental analysis in the EIS along with the Black Creek Reservoir with
Pumpover from Pamunkey River alternative (13) and the No Action alternative (31).
1J3. RRWSG's Preferred Alternative
The RRWSG's preferred alternative is a project consisting of a combination of several
practicable alternatives, as long-term components of an overall 39.8 mgd plan to meet the RRWSG's
water supply needs through the Year 2040. The project components are:
• Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions (Alternative 30)
• Combination of Fresh Groundwater Development and/or Groundwater
Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area (Alternatives 21 and
23)
• King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River (Alternative 15)
3114-017-319 1-9
-------
As directed by the USCOE, the following features of the King William Reservoir alternative
have been modified since publication of the DEIS to avoid and minimize potential adverse
environmental impacts.
The RRWSG's preferred King William Reservoir dam site (KWR-II) across Cohoke Creek has
been moved approximately 2,900 feet upstream from the originally proposed location (KWR-I).
Among the benefits of this change in the project configuration would be a reduction in the area of
inundated wetlands and avoidance of potential impacts to an active Bald Eagle nest downstream of
the proposed dam. In addition, the reduced volume of material required for dam embankment
construction and the closer proximity of the proposed soil borrow area to the new dam site would
result in a $7.7 million reduction in estimated Year 1992 dam embankment construction costs. To
preserve the original reservoir storage capacity, the normal pool elevation would be increased from
90 to 96 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the new upstream dam site.
Proposed dead storage in the King William Reservoir has been reduced from 47 to 25 percent.
This dead storage reduction would lead to larger fluctuations in reservoir operating levels and,
therefore, increase the duration of periods when recreational use of the reservoir would be limited.
However, using more of the total reservoir storage would offer greater flexibility in the timing of
Mattaponi River withdrawals. A project safe yield benefit sufficient to meet projected RRWSG needs
(in combination with other practicable project components) could be maintained under a more
restrictive river minimum instream flowby (MIF) than the originally proposed 40/20 Tennant MIF.
However, project safe yield could be enhan; :d if the 40/20 Tennant MIF were retained.
For the RRWSG's preferred KWR-II configuration, the assumed Mattaponi River MIF was
made comparable to that proposed for the Pamunkey River (i.e., Modified 80 Percent Monthly
Exceedance Flows MIF). Use of this MIF for the Mattaponi River (instead of the originally proposed
40/20 Tennant MIF) would better preserve the shape of the River's natural seasonal hydrograph and
establish monthly MIF levels which are higher for each month of the year.
The proposed King William Reservoir pipeline discharge point on Beaverdam Creek has been
extended 0.5 miles downstream in order to minimize potential erosional impacts to Beaverdam Creek
above the Diascund Creek Reservoir pool.
1.33 RRWSG's Currently Proposed Alternative
The RRWSG's currently proposed alternative is a project consisting of a combination of several
practicable alternatives, as long-term components of an overall 39.8 mgd plan to meet the RRWSG's
water supply needs through the Year 2040. The project components are:
• Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions (Alternative 30)
• Combination of Fresh Groundwater Development and/or Groundwater Desalination in
Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area (Alternatives 21 and 23)
• King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River (Alternative 15)
As directed by the USCOE, the RRWSG has identified alternative King William Reservoir
configurations which are based on locating the dam farther upstream than at the RRWSG's preferred
KWR-II site. One of these dam sites, KWR-IV, is located 9,700 feet upstream of the RRWSG's
3114-017-319 1-10
-------
originally proposed KWR-I site/ Initial geotechnical investigations have indicated that site KWR-IV,
is a feasible location for the King William Reservoir Dam. For the KWR-FV configuration, wetland
impacts would be 437 acres, or 216 and 137 acres less"tha1ribf*l!K"KWR3^^
configurations, respectively. In addition, 39 fewer archaeological sites would be inundated with the
KWR-TV configuration than with the originally proposed KWR-I configuration " *
The RRWSG remains convinced that from the perspective of a long-term regional public
water supply, the ERWSG's preferred KWR-II configuration would be technically superior to the
alternative King William Reservoir configurations. However, given the substantial reductions in
impacts possible by moving the dam upstream, the RRWSG has designated dam site KWR-IV as part
of its currently proposed alternative.
The KWR-IV reservoir configuration, in combination with other practicable project
components, would provide sufficient yield to meet the RRWSG's projected needs if the originally'
proposed 40/20 Tennant MIF were retained for the Mattaponi River pumpover. If a more restrictive
MIF were imposed, then the reservoir yield would not be sufficient to meet the projected needs of
the Lower Peninsula localities and host communities through the RRWSG's planning horizon.
1.4 ISSUES/AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
1.4.1 Wetlands
Approximate areas of non-tidal wetlands and open water that would be inundated by the
various King William Reservoir configurations are as follows:2
Reservoir Configuration
KWR-I
KWR-H
KWR-ffl
KWR-IV
Wetlands and Open Water (acres)
653
574
511
••- • - *. •• . '. -' . V* '-;- .-. „., ..,, „
' 437 £ v
Wetlands downstream of the proposed dam may be indirectly affected. The existing Cohoke
Millpond already provides a substantial degree of flow moderation in the lower reaches of Cohoke
Creek, hi addition, the majority of Cohoke Creek below the Millpond is subject to tidal influence.
Consequently, net flow reductions due to the proposed reservoir are not expected to cause dramatic
changes in average Millpond water levels or floodplain hydrology in vegetated wetland areas below
the dam site. A conceptual mitigation plan to mitigate for wetland impacts resulting from the project
is presented in Section 3.7.
Minor wetland disturbances along concentrate pipeline corridors and at concentrate pipeline
outfall sites could result from the groundwater desalination project component. No wetland losses
2 See Section 4.3.3 for discussion of wetland delineation.
3114-017-319 1-11
-------
anticipated as a result of the fresh groundwater or additional conservation measures and use
restrictions project components.
1.4.2 Endangered/Threatened Species
No known endangered or threatened species populations would be directly impacted by
construction or operation of the Mattaponi River (Scotland Landing) intake. Colonies or specimens
of Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), which is a federally-listed threatened plant species
and has been proposed for state listing as endangered, have been recorded in five areas along a 1 S-mile
stretch of the Mattaponi River (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1993). In a 1993
Sensitive Joint-vetch study, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) concluded that: "... it
appears that no existing plant will be impacted within the primary or secondary study areas by the
proposed project" (Perry, 1993). The primary study area was defined by VIMS as both sides of the
Mattaponi River from just below Scotland Landing upstream to Mantua Ferry,/ The secondary study
area was defined by VIMS as the remainder of the tidal freshwater zone of the Mattaponi River.
Former studies have indicated that no impacts are expected to Sensitive Joint-vetch habitat at Garnetts
Creek marsh (across the river from Scotland Landing) as a result of Mattaponi River intake operation
(fiasco, 1996).
,-JIPW"
Specimens of the Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a federally-listed threatened
and state-listed endangered plant species, have been found in two areas within the pool area of the
proposed King William Reservoir site. Alternatives for mitigating impacts to this species are
discussed in this FEIS.
An active Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest islocated along Cohoke Creek below
the proposed King William Reservoir dam site. The distance now separating the nest and the
RRWSG's preferred dam site (KWR-II), including road and spillway, has been increased to
approximately 3,000 linear feet. The largest recommended buffer zone around Bald Eagle nest sites
in the Chesapeake Bay region has a radius of 1,320 feet ('/i mile). The distance separating the
RRWSG's preferred King William Reservoir dam site and the eagle nest is more than twice that
recommended distance. An active Bald Eagle nest is also located near the proposed Mattaponi River
pump station at Scotland Landing. However, this nest is farther from ail pump station facilities than
the 1/4-mile outer limit of the largest recommended buffer zone.
No impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated as a result of the groundwater
and additional conservation measures and use restrictions project components.
1.43 Water Quality/Hydrology
Studies have been made of potential salinity intrusion impacts on the Mattaponi River as a
result of the proposed withdrawals. Excessive alterations of existing salinity concentration regimes,
if they were to occur, could have adverse impacts on tidal freshwater wetland communities. An
analysis conducted by VIMS concluded that little or no impact to wetland plant distributions-is
anticipated as a result of salinity changes caused by proposed freshwater withdrawal levels (Hersnner
et al., 1991). Further, the incremental salinity changes that would result from the proposed
withdrawals, either individually or in combination with other existing and projected consumptive
Mattaponi River Basin water uses, appear minimal compared to naturally occurring variability.
3114-017-319 1-12
-------
C /Accumulative streamflow analysis was also conducted to estimate the impact of future
streamflow reductions on overal^rfet volumes of water flowing in the Mattaponi River. It is estimated
that by the Year 2040, wJth~«lKcurrently identified potential uses taken into account, and an estimated
average withdrawal o£ 31.6 mga for the King William Reservoir project (KWR-II configuration), the
average Mattaponi iuverstireamflow would be reduced by 6.4 percent from historical levels.
1.4.4 Cultural Resources
Based on Phase I cultural resource studies of the King William Reservoir project area, there
appear to be a relatively large number of sites, especially within the proposed impoundment area.
Most are prehistoric sites that were used as temporary hunting/gathering camps or base camps. Formal
evaluations of significance (i.e., Phase II testing and assessment) would be conducted on
recommended properties so that potential effects can be addressed on any sites which may be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
Cultural resources also may be located in areas associated with other components of the
proposed project requiring construction (i.e,, fresh and/or brackish groundwater development). A site
survey of areas associated with the various groundwater components would be required prior to
construction, to identify (and recover or preserve) any affected cultural resources.
1.S REQUIRED MAJOR FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS
1.5.1 Federal
The USCOE has determined that numerous components of the proposed project require permits
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code § 1344(a)) and/or Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S. Code § 403). Those activities include construction of the
Mattaponi River intake structure, the King William (Cohoke Creek) Dam, and pipeline crossings of
various stream/wetland areas. These activities were found to constitute "discharges" or "work in or
affecting" "navigable waters of the United States," within the meaning of these laws, as defined in
USCOE regulations (33 C.F.R. §§ 322.2, 323.2, and Parts 328,329).
1.5.2 State
«f
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Water Division
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Water Division (VDEQ Water Division)
has determined that various components of the proposed project will require state permits under
several provisions of federal and Virginia law. Those authorities are described below.
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code § 1341(1)), issuance or waiver
of a state certification that the proposed discharge will not cause the violation of specified water
quality standards is required for the issuance of the USCOE permits. In Virginia, this function is
administered by the State Water Control Board (SWCB) and the VDEQ Water Division under the
1989 Water Protection Permit law (Va, Code § 62.1-44.15:5). The Virginia permit program
implements Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and it imposes additional regulatory requirements
as a matter of state law.
3114-017-319 1-13
-------
Pursuant to the Virginia Ground Water Management Act of 1992 (Va. Code §§ 62.1-254 et
seq.), a Groundwater Withdrawal Permit is required to withdraw 300,000 gallons or more of
groundwater a month within a designated Groundwater Management Area (GMA). The Eastern
Virginia GMA includes the area east of Interstate 95 and south of the Mattaponi and York Rivers.
Permits are issued by the SWCB and/or the VDEQ Water Division.
In addition, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S. Code § 1342, and the implementing
Virginia law (Va. Code § 62.1 -44.16), the VDEQ Water Division would require a Virginia Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit for the discharge of untreated water from the
groundwater withdrawal system to the D iascund Creek and Little Creek Reservoirs; and a second such
permit for discharges of concentrate produced as a by-product of a groundwater desalination treatment
process. 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 (Va. Code §§ 28.2-1300 et seq.), either the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), or the local Wetlands Board, must grant a permit for any
project which requires building in or disturbing any waterway in the Commonwealth of Virginia or
any wetland area in "Tidewater Virginia" (generally, east of Interstate 95).
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia has been granted primacy under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and 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). The VDH is responsible for issuing permits for waterworks operations, which would
indicate the approved capacity of the system (Va. Code § 32.1-172).
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Pursuant to the Virginia Dam Safety Act (Va. Code § § 10.1 -604 et seq.), the Virginia Soil and
Water Conservation Board (which is staffed by 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 a VDCR construction permit.
Federal Consistency Certification
Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the project must be
constructed and operated in a manner which is consistent with the Virginia Coastal Resources
Management Program (VCRMP). Alt applicable permits and approvals listed under the enforceable
programs of the VCRMP must be obtained.
3114-017-319 1-14
-------
1JJ 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 (Va. Code §§ 10.1-560 et seq.). The
VDCR has responsibility for administration of this law at the state level, and it has promulgated
regulations which provide a state erosion and sediment control plan that implements the statutory
minimum standards. Localities must adopt a plan that is consistent with the state program and
regulations for sediment and erosion control. 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 in eastern Virginia to implement land
use controls to improve the condition of Chesapeake Bay waters (Va. Code §§ 10.1-2100 et seq.).
That Act 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. These controls are adopted by the localities and enforced through the local zoning process.
Stormwater Management
The Virginia Stormwater Management Act enables local governments to establish
management plans and adopt ordinances which require control and treatment of Stormwater runoff
to prevent flooding and contamination of local waterways (Va. Code §§ 10.1-603.2 et seq.). The law
gives the VDCR the authority to promulgate regulations that specify minimum technical criteria and
administrative procedures for local Stormwater management programs. Local programs must meet
or exceed these minimum standards. Localities enact local Stormwater management ordinances, and
construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with the
appropriate ordinances.
Zoning Requirements
The proposed reservoir site is currently zoned as Agricultural-Conservation. 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. Components of the proposed
project also require approvals from King William and New Kent Counties under state "local consent"
statutes and local Zoning Ordinances.
1.6 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
Remaining sections of Volume I of this FEIS Main Report are organized as described below.
• Purpose and Need for Action (Section 2) describes the formation and members of the
RRWSG, their objectives, current supplies, water supply concerns, historical and
3114-017-319 1-15
-------
projected demands, projected deficits, political/institutional considerations, and new
information pertaining to current supplies and demand projections.
Evaluation of Alternatives (Section 3) explains the evaluation methodology used, the
alternatives considered, and a summary of the practicability and environmental analyses.
Also, conceptual mitigation plans, the RRWSG's preferred project alternative, and the
RRWSG's currently proposed project alternative are 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. Additional regional needs and impacts are also
addressed.
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 report
and its appendices.
Public Involvement (Section 7) provides information on the public's involvement and
interaction in the alternatives selection process.
3114-017-319 1-16
-------
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 Report B, Water Supply, Demand and Deficit Projections (Malcolm Pirnie,
1993) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document.
2.2 REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP
The Regional Raw Water Study Group (RRWSG) was created in the Fall of 1987 to^xamine
the long-term water supply needs of die 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^) 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 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
3114-017-319 2-1
-------
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.
23..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 men 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.
3114-017-319 2-2
-------
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 whicM
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 originally declined, but has since
become an active participant.
No - King William declined participation in the
RRWSG, but has entered into a project host
agreement.
No - New Kent declined participation in the RRWSG,
but has entered into a project host agreement.
Yes - The County accepted inclusion in the study and
agreed to contribute financially to the project.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
FIGURE 2-1
tn
z
g
P
o
5
w
1 1
o
z
o
o
O
IU
> •
o
Y
i \ f^/fei.;;^*^^ ^^^
i
/
,^
UJ
o:
>
o
H-
(0
_
CO
z
z
UJ
Q.
QC
UJ
O
-------
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^
350,000 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
48.73 mgd in 1995. (
Chickahominv 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 dairy river flow at the intake
is 202.3 mgd based on 52 years of record.'
A minimum of 10 cubic feet per second (cfsj 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.
3114-017-319 2-3
-------
\\\\\VXXXXXXSXX\
.XXXXXXXXXXXVXXXX
\\xxxxxxvvxxxx
MMCOLM
PIRNIE
LEGEND
NNW LOW PRESSURE ZONE * EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
NNW NORTHERN IONE POLITICAL BOUNDARY
WILLIAMSBURO
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
JUNE 1992 f|
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA =
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY PLAN C
LOWER PENINSULA SERVICE AREAS 2
-------
YORK COUNTY SYSTEM
3 GROUNOWATCR WELLS
INDEPENDENT
YORK COUNTY
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
WILLIAMSBURO SYSTEM
DISTRIBUTION TO : WILLIAMSBURG AND
PORTIONS OF YORK COUNTY AND JAMES CITY COUNTY
WILLIAMSBURG DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS SYSTEM
DISTRIBUTION TO:
HAMPTON, POOUOSON. NEWPORT NEWS AND
PORTIONS OF YORK CO AND JAMES CITY COUNTY
NEWPORT NEWS
WATERWORKS.
DISTRIBUTION \
SYSTEM »
DIASCUND
CREEK
RESERVOIR
SKIFFES
CREEK
RESERVOIR
HARWOOD'S
MILL
RESERVOIR
• CONNI CNON
JCSA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
JAMESCITY SERVICE AUTHORITY SYSTEM
•10 OROUNDWATER WELLS THROUGHOUT JAMES CITY COUNTY
DISTRIBUTION TO JAMES CITY COUNTY AND PORTION OF
YORK COUNTY
BIO BETHEL AHMY SYSTEM
DISTRIBUTION TO
FT MONROE. NASA.
LANGLEY AFB
PS
GdOUMDWATER WELLS
PUMP STATION
WATER TREATMENT PLWT
RAW WATER MAIN
EMERGEI>CY CONNECTION
PROPOSED PIPELINE
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
SCHEMATIC OF LOWER PENINSULA
RAW WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
BIG BETHEL WTP
8
-------
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 can be pumped
to five other impoundments: Skiffes Creek Reservoir, Lee Hall Reservoir, Harwood's Mill Reservoir,
Waller Mill 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 water out of the reservoir at a rate of
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 3.0 mgd pump station that can only pump to the Lee Hall 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 in the process of completing the final pipeline segments 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 78 mgd, up from the 67 mgd available in 1996. 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 mites 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 the Year 2000.
3114-017-319 2-4
-------
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 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 135 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
Skiflws f n-rff
Number of Pumps
10
2
2
•^
Capacity (mgd)
61
30.3
40.4
TO
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 total VDH rated capacity of 31
mgd with a physical capacity of 40 mgd Total VDH rated capacity of the three plants is 85 mgd with?*
a total physical capacity of 97 mgd. f:
Distribution
The system finished water storage capacity currently totals 32.2 million gallons (MG) in 15
existing storage faculties. There are 7 elevated tanks, 4 remote ground storage tanks, 3 plant site
ground tanks, and 1 plant site clearwell.
Pending Groundwater Applications
The City of Newport News has applied for a permit to develop a groundwater project*
producing 5.7 mgd of treated water safe yield, and the VDEQ has issued a draft permit for that
project. This application represents a first step in the development of new groundwater supplies that
were included as both interim and long-term components of the proposed project. A final state
permit has not been issued, and the project has not been constructed, tested, or placed in operation.
Therefore, it remains as a new groundwater supply component of the proposed project, rattier than
as an existing supply.
The proposed project which was described in the DEIS included a fresh groundwater
component. However, due to difficulties in reaching the necessary agreements with New Kent and
James City Counties to allow development of new fresh groundwater well fields in those counties,
Newport News is pursuing a groundwater project which would include brackish groundwater
desalination, to be located within the city limits of Newport News. It is being sized to provide
3114-017-319 2-5
-------
adequate additional water supply over the period of time required for developing the reservoir with
river pumpover component of the proposed project, wlhe present project configuration includes a
withdrawal of 7 ingd of brackish groundwaterT Following treatment, this project will produce an
increase in the VDH rated capacity of the system of 5.7 mgd. *
2JJL 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.
A contract for raw water supplied to Williamsburg from Newport News Waterworks allows
for the purchase of 2.5 mgd during the months of June through September and 3.0 mgd for the
remainder of the year. However, at times Newport News Waterworks has provided water in excess
of the contracted amount when requested to do so by the City of Williamsburg.
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. The City of Williamsburg has
completed the design phase for rehabilitation of the Waller Mill Plant The project will upgrade the
mechanical components of the 51-year old facility, but will not increase its capacity (Regional Raw
Water Study Group, 1996).
233 York County
The majority of York County's water supply needs are currently met by the Newport News
Waterworks and Williamsburg water systems. Lower York County 4s 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 wells
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-gallon 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.
3114-017-319 2-6
-------
The York County Department of Environmental Services also operates two wells in the
Lightfoot area of the County. The wells were completed in 1996 and have a VDEQ permitted
withdrawal capacity of 0.58 mgd. It is anticipated that the Lightfoot well system will be fully
operational by the Year 2000.
The County sells 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, while Cheatham Annex Naval Supply Center
currently obtains water from Jones Pond. Cheatham Annex has recently expressed an interest in
receiving water from the Newport New Waterworks system. As of August 1996, preliminary
discussions between the City of Newport News and Cheatham Annex were underway, but no
agreements had been reached (E. M. Leininger, City of Newport News Waterworks, personal
communication, 1996).
In January 1996, an agreement was executed between York County and the City;of Newpojts»
News stating that the City will make water available to areas of the County which arc not currently
served by Newport News Waterworks, i Availability of the water is contingent upon the City
obtaim^g all required permits for the King William Reservoir Project. This agreement is designed
to help meet the County's long-term water needs and provide a uniform, defined water supply
strategy for the County (Regional Raw Water Study Group, 1996).
The safe yield planning values adopted for use in deficit projections are 0.12 mgd for Year
1990 increasing to 0.70 mgd for Year 2000 and beyond to account for the increase in yield resulting
from operation of the Lightfoot well distribution system.
2J.4 James City Service Authority
The James City Service Authority (JCSA) owns and operates a total of 31 wells within Jts
central system; In addition, the JCSA operates six independent well systems serving small residential
developments. The JCSA central system has a VDH rated system capacity of 3.92 mgd, while the
capacity of the JCSA's isolated systems is 0.25 mgd.
Groundwater wells on the JCSA's central system have historically experienced water quality
and operational problems. The potential exists that additional wells on the central system will also
experience similar problems in the future. To decrease their reliance on the existing central system
wells and replace the pumping capacity lost by removal of the standby wells, the County is currently
in the process of constructing three new production wells in the Potomac Aquifer (Regional Raw
Water Study Group, 1996). The JCSA is in the process of applying to the VDEQ to withdraw an
additional 2.0 mgd of groundwater to meet near-term demands. To meet the additional demand
through the Year 2040, James City County has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
the City of Newport News to purchase 4.0 mgd from the City, contingent upon implementation of
a proposed King William Reservoir project.
For planning purposes, it is assumed that the JCSA will rely on groundwater only to the extent
that surface water supplies are not available to meet demands. Through the planning horizon, it is
assumed that 2 mgd of safe yield would be provided by the JCSA's groundwater supplies.
31144)17-319 2-7
-------
23.5 ILS. Army at Fort Monroe
The Bj|g Bethel Reservoir serves Langlcy Air* Force Base, Fort Monroe, and the NASA
Langlcy Research Center. The reservoir volume is 0.61 BG and the safe yield of the system is 2.0
mgd. 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.
The Big Bethel Water Treatment Plant was constructed in 1919 and has been repaired and
renovated several times since its original construction. It's most recent renovations were completed
in July 1996, The plant renovation has resulted in treated water of high quality which is supplied to
the Army's customers. The recent renovations will allow the plant operators to meet the current
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (Sprock, 1996).
The Big Bethel Reservoir is located at the confluence of the boundaries of Newport News,
Hampton and York County. Originally located in the rural, interior portion of the Lower Peninsula,
the reservoir is now surrounded by suburban development, and its upstream drainage area has been
developed as the Kiln Creek Development, including residential and commercial areas and an 18-
hole golf course. The Oyster Point Business Center area is also located within the upstream drainage
area of the reservoir. The amount of undeveloped area within the watershed has decreased drastically
in recent years, from 63 percent in 1985 to approximately 33 percent in 1990 (Wiley & Wilson,
1991). This change in land use of the area surrounding the reservoir, coupled with the fact mat the
reservoir has only a minimal fringe of protected watershed, has the potential to adversely affect
runoff and reservoir water quality.
Although the Big Bethel Water Treatment Plant is currently operating in an efficient manner
and providing high quality water, concerns for the future reservoir water quality brings into question
the future viability of the entire Big Bethel system. These include:
• Reservoir Water Quality - Increased loading of pollutants to reservoir from
urbanized watershed area may cause degradation of overall raw water quality.
• Siltation- Increased siltation due to run-off from developed areas may accelerate
losses in reservoir storage volume
• Safe Drinking Water Act - Future requirements could require the addition of new
treatment processes. Although the existing treatment plant was recently
renovated, the renovations do not address possible future SDWA requirements
such as Stage II Disinfection By-Products or an Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule. It may become economically or technically infeasible to comply
with future SDWA requirements.
• Big Bethel Water Treatment Plant Age - The plant was originally constructed in
1919. The age of this plant well exceeds the typical life expectancy
(approximately 50 years) for water treatment plant design. As a comparison,
Newport News Waterworks is already preparing to abandon Lee Hall Water
Treatment Plant 1, which was built in the early 1900's.
3114-017-319 2-8
-------
A combination of these factors could lead to the abandonment of the Big Bethel Water
Treatment Plant as a source of potable water, and the use of the Newport News Waterworks system
to supply water to Langley AFB, NASA and Fort Monroe. In consideration of the factors previously
noted, and the 50-year planning period of this study, thesafe yield of the Big Bethel system will be
projected to remain available until the Year 2010. After 2010, it is assumed that the yield will nqv
longerjje available, and the water demands of Langley AFB, NASA and Fort Monroe will be met
by the Newport News Waterworks system. .This is a conservative assumption for use in water supply
planning and has not been officially endorsed by the U. S. Army.
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.
23.1 Current Safe Yield
Table 2-3 contains a listing of reported raw water system safe yields for the Lower Peninsula's
public water supply systems, with references. Adjustments to those yields are necessary to account
for reservoir seepage losses, transmission losses, and water treatment plant losses.
The adopted safe yields and reliable system delivery capacities of each public water supply
system on the Lower Peninsula were calculated using the accepted SWCB methodology, and they
are listed in Table 2-4. A complete explanation of the safe yield determination methodology and a
detailed review of the safe yield analyses is provided in Report B.
Figure 2-4 is a schematic representation of the overall regional system delivery capacity
concept The regional reliable system delivery capacity estimate of 61.9 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.
The safe yield value presented above is at best an estimate of the current capability of the
Lower Peninsula's public water supply systems to meet area demands. The "safe yield" is the'
theoretical maximum volume of water that a water supply system could provide continuously through
the drought of record without totally depleting all usable storage. Safe yield calculations invariably
overstate the amount of water that actually is available for distribution during a critical drought.
Water system managers do not operate their systems in reliance on theoretical maximum safe
yields, because there is no guarantee that the rated source pump capacities and transmission
capacities will be available throughout a critical drought and recovery period. During these periods,
water systems are stressed and cannot operate at the high levels of efficiency that are assumed in the
safe yield calculations. In addition, a given drought could be longer or more severe than the drought
of record used in safe yield calculations. Water system managers therefore impose mandatory use
restrictions before reservoir storage drops to levels approaching total depletion, to preserve water in
case estimated safe yields are wrong or the drought becomes more severe than the drought of record
for the system. It would be impossible to know, until after the fact, whether or not a current drought
was less or more severe than the drought used to estimate the maximum historical yield. A 58-year
hydrologic record was used to estimate the safe yield of the Newport News Waterworks' existing
water supply systems. However, this water supply planning study considers a 50-year planning
horizon, in which there is a high risk that a more severe drought would occur.
3114-017-319 2-9
-------
TABLE 2-2
EXISTING RAW WATER SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
Chickahominy River
• 61 mgd capacity pump station at Walkers Dam
• 301 square mile drainage area at the intake
• 202.3 mgd estimated average daily flow at the intake (52 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).
Drainage
Reservoirs
Diascund Creek
Little Creek
Skiffes Creek
Lee Hall
(Terminal)
Harwood's Mill
(Terminal)
TOTALS
Total Water Surface
Area fsQ.mi.') Storage (BG~> Area (Acres')
44.6
4.6
6.25
14.6
8.6
78.65
3.49
7.48
0.23
0.88
0.85
12.93
1,110
947
94
493
265
2,909
Sources:
COM. 1989
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-2
EXISTING RAW WATER SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
(Continued)
WILLIAMSBURG
Groundwater Well No. 1
• Augments reservoir
• 505 ft. deep well
• 0.68 mgd pumping capacity
Drainage Total Water Surface
Reservoir Area fsq.mi.') Storage (BG) Area (Acres^
Waller Mill 7.0 1.42 308
Sources: COM, 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:
• New wells completed in 1996
• 318 ft. and 310 ft. deep, respectively
• VDEQ permitted withdrawal capacity of 0.58 mgd
Sources: Current VDH Engineering Description Sheet
Well completion reports
3114-017-319 January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-2
EXISTING RAW WATER SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
(Continued)
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
Groundwater Wells
• 31 wells on Central System; six independent well systems serving small residential developments
• Wells range in depth from 204 ft. to 725 ft. deep
• VDH Central System capacity of 3.92 mgd. VDH capacity of isolated systems is 0.25 mgd.
Source: JCSA, April, August, and October 1991; L. Foster, JCSA, personal communication, 1996.
BIG BETHEL
Drainage Total Water Surface
Reservoir Area fsq.mi.) Storage (BG) Area (Acres)
Big Bethel 7.9 0.61 238
Source: CDM, 1989
3114-017-319 • January 9,1997
-------
TABLE 2-3
REPORTED YIELDS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS *
System
Reported Raw
Water Yield
(mgd)
Reported
Well Yield
(mgd)
Reference
Newport News Waterworks
Chickahominy River withdrawal and
five storage reservoirs
57.0
60.0
57.8
SWCB-1 and
USCOE
VDH-1
CDM
Williamsburg
Waller Mill Reservoir
(does not include 0.68 mgd
Augmentation Well No. 1)
3.0
3.08
3.5
4.5
USCOE
VDH-2
SWCB-1
W&W
York County
Skimino Hills/Banbury Cross
Wells No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3
Lightfoot Wells No. 1 and No. 2
0.120
1.067
VDH-3
SWCB-2
James City Service Authority
3 1 Groundwater Wells
4.17
-
JCC
Big Bethel
Big Bethel Reservoir
2.0
USCOE
* The safe yield values adopted for use in this report are presented in Table 2-4. A complete explanation
of the safe yield determination methodology is provided in Appendix Report B.
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-3
REPORTED YIELDS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS
(Continued)
SOURCES:
SWCB-1
USCOE
VDH-1
VDH-2
COM
W&W
VDH-3
SWCB-2
JCC
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.
L. M. Foster (General Manager, James City Service Authority), personal communication,
1996.
3114-017-319
January 10,1997
-------
TABLE 2-4
ADOPTED YIELDS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS (MGD)
Supply Systran
Newport News Waterworks
Williamsburg
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 (2000)
4.17
2.00 (2000)
2.0
0.0(2011)
67.44
65.27 (2000)
63.85 (2011)
Reliable System Delivery
Capacity *
(mgd)
51.9
3.8
0.12
0.70 (2000)
4.17
2.00 (2000)
1.9
0.0(2011)
61.89
60.30 (2000)
58.40 (2011)
* Treated Water Yield
3114-017-319
Januarys, 1997
-------
REGIONAL SYSTEM DELIVERY CAPACITY
CHICKAHOMINY
PUMPAGE
NATURAL INFLOWS
TO RESERVOIRS
RESERVOIR
SEEPAGE
AND NET
EVAPORATION
JAMES CITY
SERVICE AUTHORITY
WELLS
NET
WALLER MILL
RESERVOIR AND
DEEP WELL
RESERVOIR
NEWPORT NEWS
RAW WATER
STORAGE
SYSTEM
WTPs
YORK COUNTY
WELLS
RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR SEEPAGE
AND
TRANSMISSION LOSSES
WTP LOSSES
EVAPORATION SPILLAGE
ALL VALUES IN MGD.
3
O
a
m
-------
In addition, any new surface water withdrawals developed on the Chickahominy River
upstream of Walker's Dam would reduce available flow in the Lower Peninsula's principal water
supply source. Further depletion of groundwater resources, and/or development in groundwater
recharge areas that reduced surface water infiltration to the groundwater aquifer system, likewise
would reduce the yields of area groundwater systems. Consequently, there is a risk mat the region's
water supply systems would be unable to provide their estimated safe yields in the future.
For purposes of this long-term water supply planning effort, a safe yield estimate for the
Newport News Waterworks system was adopted, which takes into account the many uncertainties
which exist, such as those outlined above. This estimate relies, in part, on the definition of minimum
acceptable reservoir storage as one-third of total storage1. This minimum storage level was adopted
to simulate the Waterworks' operating practices and, as discussed below, to afford water quality and
aquatic habitat protection.
Newport News Waterworks has experienced severe water quality problems in its reservoirs
when they have been drawn down below the minimum acceptable storage level. For example, the
bottom sediments of Diascund Creek Reservoir act as a sink for phosphorus under normal conditions.
Water quality was severely degraded, and the Reservoir was classified as highly eutrophic, as it was
drawn down to levels between 20 and 25 percent of its total capacity during an 8-month period in
1983 and 1984. This drawdown triggered die release of phosphorus stored in the sediments.
If all physically available storage in the Newport News Waterworks system were depleted,
large areas of the reservoir bottoms would be exposed. The remaining reservoir surface areas at the
Little Creek and Diascund Creek Reservoirs, for example, would be only 23 percent of the normal
areas. Such conditions could cause negative impacts to valuable resources, such as established
fisheries and wetlands, which are present at the existing reservoirs.
Designation of a minimum acceptable storage level for any water system is a utility operating
decision. For the Newport News Waterworks system, it was defined to closely simulate actual
Waterworks operating practices and to afford water quality and aquatic habitat protection. For the
reasons cited in the preceding paragraphs, minimum acceptable reservoir storage for the existing
Newport News Waterworks system is defined as one-third of total storage.
23.8 Rate Structures
Newport News Waterworks
Water commodity rates are set to cover all capital and operating expenses incurred for the
production and delivery of treated water. They are designed so that customers pay the true costs of
the actual amount of water they use; and as a result, customers have a tangible incentive to conserve.
A bi-monthly billing cycle allows customers to detect leaks more quickly and to recognize the cost
of high seasonal water use. A bi-monthly billing cycle also allows more frequent feedback on
conservation efforts.
One-third of total storage corresponds to approximately one-fourth of available storage
since approximately 12 percent of total system storage is physically unavailable for
withdrawal.
3114-017-319 2-10
-------
Hie Newport News Waterworks billing structure has completely transitioned from a declining
fate structure to a uniform rate structure in July 1995,; Under a declining block system, the unit price
of water decreases as the quantity used increases. During the 1980s, Waterworks converted from a
five-block to a three-block declining schedule. In 1988, Waterworks transitioned to a two-block
declining rate schedule. From 1988 to July 1995, Waterworks increased the relative percentage of
Block 2 to 100 percent of Block 1 rates. With this change, water rates throughout the entire core
planning area are now uniform within each service area, regardless of the rate of consumption.
Newport News Waterworks also has implemented special charges to encourage water
conservation. In 1989, Waterworks established a Summer Conservation Rate,'which was renamed
the Summer Consumption Rate (SCR) in 1993. The SCR helps 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 nonessential, outside uses of water occurring during the
summer months. Average usage in winter months is used to set a threshold level. Any water used
in excess of the threshold level during the summer months is deemed nonessential and is billed at the
summer rate.
In addition, Newport News Waterworks has implemented a System Development Charge^ as
a means of charging new customers for the impacts of their additional use on the water supply
system, such as the need for new water sources, increased treatment capacity, increased storage
capacity, and additional distribution capability.
Citv of Williamsburg
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 covqr all operational costs and, as a result, customers
pay the true cost for the actual amount of water used.
James Citv Service Authority
The Authority adopted the region's only inclining rate structure effective July 1,1996.% Under
this rate structure, die unit cost for water volume increases as the quantity of water used increases.
A Summer Surcharge Raters 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.
3114-017-319 2-11
-------
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 groundwater
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 VDEQ 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).
2.5 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 following:
• 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 Williamsburg, Virginia, Wiley &
Wilson. April 1985.
3114-017-319 2-12
-------
• Comprehensive Water Study, Buchart-Hom, Inc., Prepared for the County of York.
November 1985.
• Newport News Row Water Management Kan, 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 mis demand
determination.
2.5.1 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
toSSmgd. (The safe yield of these systems is approximately 62 mgd).
2.5.2 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 61.9 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, f
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 IS large water users, whose
treated water needs are provided entirely by the Newport News Waterworks system, consumed an
average dairy total of 14.25 mgd in 1985 (CDM, 1986). During 1987 and 1988, these same 15 users
3114-017-319 2-13
-------
TABLE 2-5
AVERAGE ANNUAL RAW WATER WITHDRAWALS (1982-1990)
(mgd)
Water Supply System
Newport News Waterworks'
WHliamsburg
York County
James City Service Authority
Big Bethel
1982
39J92
3.04
NA
0.75
NA
1983
42.032
2.98
0.041
0.85
2.75
1984
42, 152
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]
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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
19S5
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
45.9S2"3
3.52
0.05
1.64
2.5
53.69
1990
48.412-4
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.
3IH-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS ANNUAL AVERAGE
METERED CONSUMPTION (1968-1990)
LLJ
1970
1975
1980
YEAR
1985
1990
3
o
3J
m
en
-------
consumed an average of 12.94 mga" This change represents a 9.2 percent decrease in demand for
these customers.
Finally, in Jury 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 Citv of Williamsburp by Wiley & Wilson presented data from a review
of billing records which revealed the water demand for the City alone was 2.S mgd. The 1990
average dairy 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
WilliamsbuTR
TOTAL
Water Supplied to James City County Users (1990)
1.72 mgd
7. 13 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 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.
3114-017-319
2-14
-------
Jurisdiction
City of Newport News
City of Hampton
City of Poquoson
City of Williamsburg
York County
James City County
Percentage of Po
1983
100
100
100
100
75
56
pulation Served
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 approximatelyj
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 dairy
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 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.
3114-017-319
2-15
-------
AVERAGE DAILY WATER VOLUMES PUMPED
TO DISTRIBUTION (1984-1990)
Q
0
1984
1985
1986
1987
YEAR
1988
1989
1990
3
0
3i
in
-------
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
?
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
6.49,7
—
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
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-7
LARGE USER WATER CONSUMPTION (1990)
(Continued)
User
WilliamsburE
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 of
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 Daily Consumption (mgd)
Potable Use
—
0.002
1.066
0.075
0.197
4.08»
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.
3114-017-31°
January 8, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-8
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS AVERAGE MONTHLY
DEMAND VARIATION (1987 - 1990)
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
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.
3114-017-319
January g, 1997
-------
2.6 PROJECTED DEMANDS
Population growth is 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 sizabry 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 existing 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
Different levels of conservation measures can be implemented including: (1) existing
conservation measures, (2) additional conservation measures, and (3) use restrictions. Existing and
additional conservation practices will provide long-term benefits by permanently reducing water
demands during normal operating conditions. Use restrictions usually are applied as part of a water
management plan during severe droughts or other extreme water shortages or emergencies. Such
restrictions are imposed to produce temporary, short-term reductions in water demands, and they
inevitably result in adverse economic and other undesirable impacts. Additional conservation
measures and use restrictions are evaluated as an alternative to new source, development projects (see
Section 3.4.30). Existing water conservation measures in effect on the Lower Peninsula are discussed
in this section.
The City of Newport News adopted a water conservation management plan and ordinance in
April 1995 to document current water conservation practices and provide a structure for proposed
future actions. It incorporates the RRWSG's water conservation objectives, and reflects the
requirements of state and federal agencies for water conservation programs. Report L, Water
Conservation Management Plan (City of Newport News, 1995) is incorporated herein by reference
and is an appendix to this document. The Plan is in effect throughout the Waterworks' service area,
including those portions of the service area located in other jurisdictions.*
Following adoption of the Newport News Water Conservation Ordinance in July 1995
(included in Report L), a draft ordinance was sent to each of the jurisdictions within the planning area
requesting that they also adopt the ordinance. The City of Hampton adopted a resolution in
t
3114-017-319 2-16
-------
September 1995 (see Report L) endorsing the Water Conservation Management Han and ordinancfcl' /
The current water agreement between the City of Williamsburg and the City of Newport News (see
Report L) includes a provision for the implementation of water conservation and use restrictions by
the City of Williamsburg upon written notification from the City of Newport News that restrictions
have been imposed (City of Newport News and City of Williamsburg, 1992). James City County is
currently developing an ordinance. The Poquoson City Council approved a resolution endorsing the
Water Conservation Management Plan in September 1996. York County has not yet specifically
endorsed the Conservation Plan. However, in a Water Agreement dated January 3,1996 between the
County and the City of Newport News, the County committed to full support for the King Williifn*
Reservoir Project, which includes support for any associated conservation and mitigation measures^
', - . J - . «. *tHp.*u«i»--''
thatmayberequireU
A variety of water conservation programs have been undertaken in the Lower Peninsula to
reduce existing water demands. Water purveyors, commercial, institutional and light industrial users,
heavy industrial users, and federal installations in the region implement varying forms of
conservation programs. Existing programs implemented in the Lower Peninsula are discussed in
Report A, Water Demand Reduction Opportunities (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993} which is incorporated
herein by reference and is an appendix to this document. A summary of the measures currently
implemented by water consumers in the Lower Peninsula is presented in Table 2-9,
One type of conservation measure used in the Lower Peninsula is non-potable reuse. Non-
potable reuse is considered a conservation measure, because it is designed to reduce the demands on
conventional treated water supplies by providing treated wastewater or partially treated raw water
as an alternative supply source for non-potable uses. Such measures can be applied to residential,
commercial, and institutional water users, but they have been employed more commonly to reduce
industrial water demands on potable water systems.
The viability of non-potable reuse is dependent on the water use characteristics of a particular
user and cannot be applied to all users effectively. When applicable, non-potable reuse projects are
likely to result in positive economic benefits to industries which require large volumes of water. The
amount of money invested will depend on the complexity of the treatment process required, which
varies with the specific characteristics of the recycled water and of each industry.
Some industrial facilities on the Lower Peninsula are making efforts to reuse water for non-
potable uses. The costs of treatment and the expenses of changes, to existing pipe systems are
primary concerns for existing industries considering non-potable reuse. The costs of changes to
existing pipe systems can be avoided in new industrial facilities, so new or expanding industries are
more likely to implement non-potable reuse.
Newport News Waterworks, the Newport News Department of Parks & Recreation and the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) have been working together on a wastewater reuse
project. The proposed project would provide highly treated wastewater, rather than potable water
from Waterworks' system, for irrigation of ballfields at the Riverview Farm Park. The park is located
at the mouth of the Warwick River, adjacent to an HRSD wastewater treatment facility. Initially,
Waterworks approached HRSD about using treated effluent as irrigation water for part, and
eventually all of, the Riverview Farm Park. The HRSD's latest proposal for the project includes a
unit cost for water which is less than the current cost of Waterworks' drinking water. The proposal
indicates that the cost of reuse water will remain constant over time until the park expands and more
water would be used, or until HRSD recovers its capital investment. At that time, the unit cost would
3114-017-319 2-17
-------
TABLE 2-9
CONSERVATION PRACTICES CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED
ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
Purveyor or Water User
Category
Conservation Measure
Newport News
Waterworks
Adoption of Water Conservation Management Plan
Adoption of Water Conservation Ordinance
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 True Cost of Water
Summer Conservation Rate
System Development Charge
Conversion to Uniform Water Rate
Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation of City Park
On-going Public Information Program
Outreach Program for Business and Industry
Leadership , Funding, and Active Participation in HRWET
City of Williamsburg
Meter Calibration and Change-out Program
Metering of All Customer Connections
BOCA National Plumbing Code Enforcement
Water Rates Set to Reflect the True Cost of Water
Funding and Active Participation in HRWET
Availability Fee
Water Plant Renovation
Outreach Programs for Water Customers
York County
Metering of all Connection
Water Rates Set to Reflect the True Cost of Water
BOCA National Plumbing Code Enforcement
Funding and Active Participation in HRWET
Outreach Programs for Water Customers
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
Adoption of Region's First Inclining Rate Structure
Public Education Program
Outreach Program for Water Customers
Funding and Active Participation in HRWET
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-9
CONSERVATION PRACTICES CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED
ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
(Continued)
Purveyor or Water User
Category
Conservation Measure
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
Education and Training Programs to Increase Employee
Awareness of Water Use
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
decrease. A ware detailed discussion of non-potable reuse and its applicability to the Lower
Peninsula is i
The jurisdictions within the study area are also members of the Hampton Roads Water
Efficiency Team (HRWET). This Team includes representatives of local government, water
suppliers and public information offices with the common interest of building and promoting a water
efficiency ethic in Hampton Roads. Each locality involved with HRWET, which includes all
localities within the study area, contributes financially to the Team. The Team's mission statement
is "to develop and implement a regional approach to communicating water efficient practices by all
residents, businesses and industries in Hampton Roads."
The HRWET is involved in numerous conservation activities. Current programs include the
development of a regional water use data bank, regional water use survey, initiation of pilot
conservation programs within residences, business and industry outreach program, and an intense
public outreach and education program.
As an indication of the success of conservation measures employed in the Lower Peninsula
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.
2.6.2 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
3114-017-319 2-18
-------
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 ^na^^
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 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
3114-017-319 2-19
-------
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.
Summary
In response to the comments received from the regulatory agencies described above, the
RRWSG has evaluated the potential for demand reductions resulting from the implementation of
aggressive conservation measures. Existing conservation measures are included in the demand
projections white additional water conservation measures and use restrictions are evaluated as an
alternative, and are discussed in Section 3.4.30.
2.6.3 Population Projections
The primary step in developing demand projections was to estimate projected population
growth. Population projections for each of the Lower Peninsula jurisdictions were developed through •
a review of various studies and data sources that estimate future population, and from consultation
with local planners. -
' 4
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 snort- 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 date
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
3114-017-319 2-20
-------
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
636,308
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
ADOPTED REGIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS
250,000
200,000
O
h- 150,000
Q_
O
100,000 -
50,000 -
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
_.,—•——e"'
. 0
J AWES OTY COUNTY
YORKCX5UNTY
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
- 50.000
1990
2000 2010 2020 2030
YEAR
2040
O
c
V
m
-------
TABLE 2-11
COMPARISON OF LOCAL AND NEW STATI
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Year
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Average Annual Growth (%)
Lower Peninsula /
RRWSG
405,189
459,978
(1.3V
519,218
(1.2)
554,077
(0.7)
594,565
(0.7)
636,308
(0.7)
0.91
yEc*
/ 405,189
/ 446,108
(1.0)
482,538
(0.8)
518,968
(0-7)
555,398
(0-7)
0.79
Virginia
VEC*
6,189,314
6,896,557
(1.1)
7,451,158
(0-8)
8,034,150
(0-8)
8,617,142
(0.7)
0.83
() Values in parentheses represent the average annual rate of change in the preceding decade.
* Source: VEC, 1993.
3114-017-319
Januarys, 1997
-------
projections for th^r study region adopted by the RRWSG, and also estimates of future study area
population and total state population, as projected by the VEC.
-"!- " *T
•than the rate of population change projected by the VEC for both the study area and
"the state^Jtis 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
Jfre effects of build-out onjwpulation growth. The projections adopted by I
^ ^^p^ate3^" impacts of build-ouf. 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 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. The Year 1990 population served estimate is 363,230; the adopted Year
2040 population served estimate is 599,848. 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).
•I*-;
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
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 die number of water accounts served, with due regard to differences among
water user categories.
3114-017-319 • 2-21
-------
TABLE 2-12
PEOJECTED 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.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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
related, and the quantity of water used varies between groups.
For the purposes of mis study, demand estimate have been developed for the following five
water demand categories:
' Rpidential: 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.
• 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 fUAW>: 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.). In this report, it is presented as a
percentage of the total of all demand categories.
Data Sources
The following data sources were used in calculating projections of water demand in the Lower
Peninsula:
« 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-Hom, Inc., prepared for the County of York,
November 1985.
3114-017-319 2-22
-------
based on current population and water demand information and projections of future populations, •'
" "Water Use Projections for James City County to 2040," James City County Staff,
March 1986.
Demand Projection Methodologies
The RRWSG has adopted Lower Peninsula water demand projections through the Year 2040,
on current population and water demand information and proje
Population projections were developed using the following information:
• 1990 Census data.
• Consultations in 1991 with the planning departments of each of the six Lower
Peninsula jurisdictions.
• Consultations in 1991 with the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.
• 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 populatioa projections in,
conjunction with per-capita use figures calculated from actual metered residential billing records-ancl\
the total population served on the Lower Peninsula in the Year 1990.* The per-capita use rate is/72.9 ,
gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) and includes the effect of existing conservation measure^. The
RRWSG1 s adopted demand projections do not reflect demand reductions possible through
implementation of additional water conservation measures. Demand reductions possible through
implementation of additional conservation measures and water use restrictions during droughts are
evaluated as an alternative in Section 3.4.30.
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 tight industrial billing records The total regional
employment was projected to increase in direct proportion to total population throughout the 50-year
planning period. The per-employee use rate is 70.4 gallons per employee per day (gpepd). ,
Heavy industrial and federal installation demands were projected based on metered billing
records for 1990 and information obtained from a survey of large water users in Hie Lower Peninsula*
(those with average daily water use in excess of 40,000 gallons) conducted by the RRWSG during
the summer of 1991. The RRWSG also conducted an extensive analysis of projected water demands
as a result of new heavy industry on the Lower Peninsula. This analysis was based on the results of
a survey of local planning and development agencies.
Actual Year 1990 Unaccounted-for Water (UAW) ^demand on the Lower Peninsula
represented 5.7 percent of total demand. The 1990 UAW demand for Newport News Waterworks,
which provided 88 percent of the total finished water pumped to distribution in that year, was 5.5
percent. Review of operating records for Newport News Waterworks for the period January 1993
through June 1996 indicates that the annual average UAW percentage has fluctuated from 2.1 percent
to 11.0 percent. It is assumed that the regional average UAW has fluctuated in a similar manner since4
3114-017-319 2-23
-------
Newport News Waterworks provides the majority of the total finished water pumped to distribution
(88 percent in 1990).
For comparison, the average UAW percentage for water utilities within USEPA Region IE,
which includes the Lower Peninsula study area, has been estimated at 13.7 percent, while the national
average of UAW for systems serving 100,000 to 500,000 persons is estimated at 12.2 percent (van
der Leeden, 1990). The estimates of UAW for the Lower Peninsula are low in comparison to these
regional and national average estimates.
Any projection of future UAW percentages must take into account the low current value, as
well as the likelihood that this value can be maintained over a long period of time. The RRWSG has
an aggressive proactive program to minimize water loss which is described in Appendix Report A.
To provide an indication of the efforts which are expended to identify water losses, operating budget
data for Newport News Waterworks were reviewed.
Newport News Waterworks estimates that $790,000 will be spent by their meter shop crews
to inspect, replace, and calibrate more than 7,200 meters in the system in Fiscal Year (FY) 1997.
Similarly, in Fiscal Year 1995, $250,350 was spent to initiate the large meter replacement/calibration
program. Meters at the water treatment plants are also inspected and calibrated quarterly by in-house
staff in conjunction with the manufacturer. Distribution system improvements target aging or
inadequate pipelines, which lowers the probability of leaks. The cost of this program in FY 1996 was
$1.35 million, while the FY 1997 budget for the same program is $1.25 million. An additional
$50,000 is budgeted in FY 1997 for specialized leak detection equipment. These data indicate that^
the financial and program support provided by Newport News Waterworks to minimize UAW-is:
substantial Although the RRWSG intends to continue its aggressive efforts to maintain the current
low levels of UAW, several factors may cause an increase in UAW in the future. These factors
include:
• Increasing age of some portions of the water system, increasing the likelihood and the
frequency of breaks and leaks.
• Increasing demands may necessitate increased system pressures, thereby causing higher
leakage rates at any leaks that do occur.
• Increased flushing of distribution system to meet increasingly more stringent Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements.
• Drought conditions may coincide with periods of above average UAW.
A combination of these factors could cause the UAW percentage to rise to or above the
national averages presented above. However, considering the cost of producing the water that is lost,
and the continued emphasis planned for leak detection and repair activities, the likelihood of the
Lower Peninsula's UAW rising above 10 percent is low. Therefore, the percentage of UAW in the
Lower Peninsula is assumed to be 10 percent throughout the planning horizon.
The UAW percentage value used in projecting demands for the Lower Peninsula has been
compared to UAW planning values used by other areas in Virginia to project demands. Spotsylvania
County's Long-Term Water Conservation Program (CDM, 1993) defines the County's UAW as 15
percent of average day demand, which is 50 percent greater than the RRWSG's UAW allowance of
10 percent. Demand projections documented in the Metropolitan Richmond Regional Water
3114-017-319 2-24
-------
Resources Plan for Planning District IS (RRPDC, 1992), which includes the Richmond, Virginia
area jurisdictions, include UAW percentage assumptions varying from 10 to 20 percent throughout
the planning period (1990 to 2030). Unaccounted-for water demands equivalent to 9 percent of
average day demands have been projected for Northern Virginia communities (SWCB, 1988).
Analysis of the UAW projections for other regions in Virginia indicates that the Lower Peninsula
UAW planning value of 10 percent is at least comparable to, if not lower than, planning values used
in other metropolitan regions of Virginia.
Lower Peninsula Totals
The adopted Lower Peninsula demand projections are summarized in Table 2-13,
desegregated 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. v\ c " ' * " ^'
*
<-
The relative distribution of demand between user categories is projected to change slightly
over the planning period. The demandjjrdjection^ in Table 2-13 show heavy industrial demaffiT
showing the greatest increase, from 19percent to 23 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 desegregated to conform to the current and projected future service area
boundaries for each purveyor.
3114-017-319 . 2-25
-------
TABLE 2-13
PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMANDS BY JURISDICTION
(UGD)
YEAR
JURIS.
18BO(MtlkHtU)
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WLUAM88URQ
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
WMlmmfmmmtmm
2000
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WHJJAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CTTY COUNTY
TOTJtt.
2010
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POOUOSON
WUUAMSBURQ
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
3CWmm®m$*m&&
2020
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WUJAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
2030
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WUJAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
2040
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILUAMS8URG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL
11.90
9.15
0.77
0.56
2.34
2.04
wmmmmKn
12.69
1029
1.04
0.93
2.67
320
81 .03
14.60
11.00
124
1.02
3.30
4.05
?s;;*: 3& S8&42
15.53
11.77
1.47
1.11
3.76
424
37.68
16.62
12.56
1.69
120
422
4.45
40.76
17.63
13.35
1.91
129
4.66
4.67
4373
COMMERCIAL/
WSTTT./
LT. WD.
3.37
2.82
0.06
1.78
1.41
1.35
mmmmmoM
3.60
3.30
0.07
2.01
1.59
1.52
1229
429
3.71
0.06
2.26
1.79
1.72
13.85
4.55
3.94
0.06
2.40
1.90
1.62
14.70
4.66
421
0.09
2.57
2.03
1.95
15.71
5.19
4.50
0.09
2.74
2.17
2.08
:>•:•::.: 1677
HEAVT
INDUSTRIAL
2.74
021
0.00
0.00
2^
5.16
.:w;: ':•,•• i-v^lCCM
2.94
0.78
0.02
0.00
2.96
6.12
12.81
3.53
1.44
0.05
0.00
4.06
8.23
17J31
3.67
1.82
0.07
0.00
4.59
8.66
19.00
3.62
225
0.09
0.00
5.18
9.58
2052
3.99
2.57
0.10
0.00
5.62
10.10
22.38
FEDERAL
INSTALL
1.30
2.08
0.00
0.10
0.64
0.00
•- V •••'. 4.12
1.80
2.12
0.00
0.12
0.78
0.00
4.82
2.40
2.13
0.00
0.14
0.78
0.00
5.45
2.40
2.14
0.00
0.16
0.76
0.00
5.48
2.40
2.15
0.00
0.18
0.78
0.00
:::' 5.51
2.40
2.16
0.00
0.18
0.78
0.00
5.52
SUBTOTAL
OFMETERED
DEMANDS
19.31
14.36
0.63
2.46
6.57
6.55
52XJ7
21.23
16.48
1.14
3.06
620
10.84
60.95
25.02
1629
1.37
3.42
9.93
13.99
72.03
26.15
19.67
1.62
3.67
11.03
14.93
77.06
27.71
21.19
1.67
3.94
12.22
15.96
:•.,",.•:,: : 82.90
29.41
22.57
2.11
4.21
1325
16.85
68.40
UAW
1.14
0.92
0.05
0.15
0.36
0.51
x: : 3.13
2.36
1.63
0.13
0.34
0.9?j>
1*3
: '••'••"• '-'~97r
2.76
2.03
0.15
0.36
1.10
1.55
8.00
2.91
2.19
0.18
0.41
123
1.66
•:•;-• :5»,56
3.06
2.35
021
0.44
1.36
1.78
..: ::,,:;S21
327
2.51
023
0.47
1.47
1.87
9.82
TOTAL
20.44
1527
0.88
2.61
6.94
9.06
55.20
23.59
W-32
1.26
3.40
9.11
12.05
«7.72
27.80
20.32
1.53
3.60
11.04
15.55
60.03
29.05
21.65
1.60
4.08
1226
16.59
85.63
30.76
23.55
2.07
4.38
13.57
17.75
92.11
32.67
25.08
2.34
4.66
14.73
16.72
98.22
Revised 17-Oct-96
-------
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED
LOWER PENINSULA SYSTEM DEMAND
100
Q
0
Q
Z
LU
Q
b
Q
LLI
0
LU
80
40
20
0.69 %/Yr Average Annual
Projected Growth
2.53 %/yr Average •
Annual Historical—f^J
Growth"
1.16 %/yr Average Annual Projected Growth
I
1970
1980
1990
2000 2010
YEAR
2020
2030
2040
0
C
73
m
10
CD
-------
Disapgrepation/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 desegregated by the purveyors that service each of the counties. These
desegregated 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.
The total James City County demand must be desegregated 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
future. 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
::;>;wj;:4:;:;-;- ' •:::»: 4-%iS:S 5 :.;*::''-':
User Category
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
1990
Census Tract
801
29%
65%
95%
Remainder of
County
71%
35%
5%
2030
Census Tract
801
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
desegregating 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
3114-017-319
2-26
-------
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 desegregated 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.
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
As discussed in Section 2.3.3, an agreement has been executed between the City of Newport
News and York County which includes a provision for Newport News Waterworks to provide
services to the entire County. If all conditions of the contract are met, all of York County's demands /
after me Year 2015 would be met by Newport News Waterworks. /
Desegregated 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 ancTJames City Counties currently
served, the demand projections by purveyor presented in Table 2-14 result Approval of the proposed
contract between York County and the City of Newport News would have the effect of increasing
Waterworks' demand for the Years 2020 through 2040 presented in Table 2-14. Consequently,
demands presented for those years for Williamsburg and York County would decrease.
The JCSA has recently indicated that the Year 2040 demand projection for the JCSA may
underestimate future demands, given the rapid growth occurring in the County (L. M. Foster, JCSA,
personal communication, 1997).
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.
3114-017-319
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-14
PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMANDS BY PURVEYOR
IMGC*
YEAR
PURVEYOR
RESDENT1AL
COMMERCIAL/
n$mj
LT.MO.
HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL
FEDERAL
MSTALL.
SUBTOTAL
OFMETERED
DEMANDS
UAW
TOTAL
IMOfUlETBRED)
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WLUAMSBURG
JAMES CI1Y SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
"KSW^m^mmKKif«iiiSi &8W.-; sW :-s
2000
NEWPORT NEWS WATBWORKS
WLLMM88URG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTMOflnY
BIQ BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL ' ""' :
2457
0.90
126
0.00
0.05
^fK^xmtmiXin
2737
1.15
2SJ
0.00
0.13
31.03
0.39
220
0.30
0.00
0.00
4i«.:.---:::::;-:-'.10.«9
8.30
2J3
0.61
0.00
0.05
1229
1022
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
-••'•?• • - -:,102B
1257
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.06
12.81
2.48
0.10
0.00
1.54
0.00
' -;4.12
2.58
0.12
0.00
2.12
0.00
'' '• .;4iB2
45.66
320
1.62
1.54
0.05
•" '•:•-; - - ,s2«e
2.75
0.19
0.10
0.10
0.00
•:' - '.3M8
48:41
'-. ;';-.' .. .'-3.39'
•-' '.:• '"' - :-1.72'
1.64
0.05
:- -::5521
5142
3.60
3.16
2.12
024
60.95
5.76
0.40
0.35
024
0.03
. - . :*77
575$
too
3.S2
••••••-.,. :-236
027
67.72
2010
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WULJAMS8URQ
JAMES CTIY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
|Of^S:;SS^S5'i;::::-;::v::: !'::••:?;>; oYL.-*' -• ':':•' •'•;
30.90
124
3.04
0.00
025
'.•^ismmasna
10.39
2.58
o.n
0.00
0.12
13.65
16.74
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.16
17.31
3.18
0.14
0.00
2.13
0.00
:-.' " • "X-?54S
6120
3.96
420
2.13
O.S3
: - '-72.03
6.80
0.44
0.47
024
0.06
- ' ""-3KBQ
68.00
4.40
4.67
Z37
O.S9
60.03
2020
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WIUAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIQ BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
wmMrniMMKm&::9KKmf-'?m
2030
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WULMMSBURQ
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIQ BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
IDTAL
32 JO
1.43
3.31
0.00
0.34
m?mmmisffm
35.30
1.52
3.56
0.00
0.39
40.76
10.95
2.62
0.64
0.00
029
14,70
11.52
2.79
0.83
0.00
0.47
15.71
1811
0.00
0.62
0.00
026
19.00
5.32
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.48
67.16
421
4.77
0.00
0.91
77.06
7.46
0.47
0.53
0.00
0.10
926
19.55
0.00
0.96
0.00
0.41
20.92
5.33
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
• ------5.51
71.69
4.48
5.45
0.00
128
82.90
7J7
0.50
0.61
0.00
0.14
:• SftZt
7464
458
5.30
0.00
1.01
85.63
79.66
4.98
6X36
0:00
1.42
92.11
2040
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WLUAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIQ BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
EOTAL--3-; ..? -'\ .. ,....Y. :.-V .;:,"..;.-:
37.95
1.81
3.74
0.00
0,44
•:..;:.•.;;::.. ,;i*iej8
12.13
2.96
1.04
0.00
0.64
•,:•.::•' 16.77
(20.61
V&00
1B1
0.00
0.56
= .. • ' . ---.22.38
5.34
618
0.00
0.00
0.00
-::SS2
7622
4.75
5.79
0.00
1.64
88.40
8.47
053
0.64
0.00
0.18
- - 8.82
84.69
528
6.43
0.00
1.82
9622
>aed 17-CW-96
-------
Population Projections
4 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 project^
rate of increase is for James City County, which is projected to increase in population by 104 percent
. by the Year 2040, ai compared to tiie projected '
Water demand projections for the region's public water systems do not depend directly on the
region's total population. Rafter, 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
With existing water conservation, total demand on public water supply systems within the |
Lower Peninsula Region is projected to increase 78 percent over the 50-year planning period from
a Year 1990 value of 55.2 mgd to a Year 2040 value of 98.2 mgd: This is equivalent to an average
annual demand growth rate of 1.16 percent. For comparison, total metered consumption in the Lower
Peninsula water system increased 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.
The projected average annual demand growth rate for the Lower Peninsula of 1.16 percent
also compares favorably to those projected for other Virginia regions. For example, water demands
in the Richmond, Virginia region are projected to increase at an annual average rate of 1.26 percent
through the Year 2030 (RRPDC, 1992). Average demands (with conservation) in Spotsylvania ,
County are projected to increase at a rate of 2.44 percent per year through the Year 2040. This is
more than two times the average annual rate of growth projected by the RRWSG (1.16 percent) over
a 50-year planning horizon. In addition, the RRWSG growth rate does not incorporate the effects
of additional water conservation activities planned in the region, while Spotsylvania County's rate
does. Water conservation will reduce demand in die Lower Peninsula region even further, which will
reduce the annual average rate of growth as well. The potential for demand reductions resulting from
the implementation of additional conservation measures and use restrictions is discussed in Section
3.4.30.
Projected demands presented by jurisdiction and purveyor are included in Table 2-16. 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 98.2 mgd is expected in the Year 2040. ~This demand projection assumes continuation of existing
conservation programs such that per capita usage rates would remain at their existing level through
the planning period. Section 2.3 concludsd-that the total reliable system delivery capacity (i.e.,
treated water yield) is currently 61.9 mgd, and is expected to decrease to 60.3 mgd by 2000 and to >
58.4 mgd by 2020. Based on the demand projection methodology presented herein, and assuming
3114-017-319 2-28
LV
v \
-------
TABLE 2-15
ADOPTED REGIONAL TOTAL POPULATION AND
CIVILIAN POPULATION SERVED PROJECTIONS
BY JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILUAMSBUna
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
REQONAL TOTAL
EXISTING
1000
TOTAL
POPULATION
170.045
133,783
11,005
11,530
42,422
34,858
403.854
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SERVED
100,078
128,708
11,005
11,530
27,418
24,401
303.230
mOJECitu
2000
TOTAL
POPULATION
184,000
140200
14,328
12,800
50,050
51,700
450.078
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SERVED
174,033
141,205
14,328
12,800
30435
43,845
425.048
201O
TOTAL
POPULATION
213,000
1SS.D40
17,081
14,000
57,580
01,700
519581
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SERVED
203,033
150,045
17,001
14,000
45.308
55,530
485.871
2020
TOTAL
POPULATION
223,000
100,410
20,117
15200
04,580
04,700
554.077
CmUAN
POPULATION
SERVED
213,033
101,415
20,187
15200
51,808
58230
510.887
2996
TOTAL
POPULATION
238,000
177,670
23,215
10,400
71,580
07,800
504.505
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
,_ BGRVED
228,033
172,575
23,215
10,400
57,002
01,020
550.145
2040
TOTAL
POPULATION
254,500
188,085
20,243
17,700
78,580
71200
030.308
CIVILIAN
POPULATION
SERVED
244,533
183,090
20,243
17,700
04202
04,080
590.848
Jurwiees
-------
TABLE 2-16
ADOPTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMAND PROJECTIONS
BY JURISDICTION AND PURVEYOR
(MOD)
JURISDICTION
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON
POQUOSON
WILLIAMSBURG
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
^^^^^roT^^^--.--'-^'" ;::;.:;::
PURVEYOR
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
'^^•.'^.^^•^fm'Ai^-.^' ,.
EXISTING
1990*
20.44
1527
0.88
2.61
6.94
9.06
55.20
PROJECTED
2000
23.59
18J2
126
3.40
9.11
12.05
67.72
2010
27.80
20.32
1.53
3.80
11.04
15.55
80.03
2020
29.05
21.85
1.80
4.08
1226
16.59
85.63
2030
30.78
23.55
2.07
4.38
13.57
17.75
92.11
2040
32.67
25.08
2.34
4.68
14.73
18.72
9822
48.41
3.39
1.72
1.64
0.05
55.21
57 J8
4.00
3.52
236
027
67.72
68.00
4.40
4.67
237
0.59
80.03
74.64
4.68
5.30
0.00
1.01
85.63
79.66
4.98
6.06
0.00
1.42
92.11
84.69
528
6.43
0.00
1.82
9822
Difference* between the Year 1990 Jurisdiction and Purveyor totals are a result of rounding.
ReviMd 17-Oct-96
-------
TABLE 2-17
CALCULATION OF PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA TOTAL WATER DEMAND
WITH EXISTING CONSERVATION MEASURES (2000-2040) /\
. - ,£/',., (mgd) /
YEAR
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
TOTAL
REGION.
POP.
A
459978
519281
554077
594565
636306
RESDENTML
I
CIVILIAN
POP,
SERVED
B
425646
485671
519667
559145
599848
REG.
AVQ
GPCPD
C
73
73
73
73
73
i
DEMAND
D
91.03
35.42
37.66
40.76
43,79
COMM JWSTAJQHT. IND.
TOTAL
COMM.
EMPL
E
174511
196654
208717
223125
238170
REG.
AVQ.
GPEPD
F
70
70
70
70
70
DEMAND
G
•
12,29
1$.8S
14.70
15.71
HEAVY WATER USE MJU8TRY
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
H
37275
42061
44901
48182
S1S6S
NEW
TOTAL
1
4564
9370
12190
15471
16654
EXIST.
J
746
1106
1411
1816
3121
NEW
K
3618
8264
10779
13655
15733
EXIST.
IND.
DEMAND
L
10.37
12.02
12.10
12.18
12.31
NEW INDUSTRY
GPEPD
M
640
640
640
640
640
DEMAND
N
2.44
529
6.90
8.74
10.07
TOTAL
IND.
DEMAND
O
> 12J1
17.31
1900
2092
22.38
'
I
FEDERAL
NSTAtJL
DEMAND
P
,4m
545
S.40
$.51
S.S2
N
SUBTOTAL
DEMAND
O
60.95
72.03
77.06
82.90
88.40
X
UAW
%
R
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
DEMANp
S
8-77
8,00
8.56
9.21
982
TOTAL
DEMAND
T
; 67,72
80.03
85.62
92.11
98.22
PROJECTED VALUES USED IN ARRIVING AT TOTAL DEMAND
LEGEND:
A -TOTAL PROJECTED POPULATION ON LOWER PENINSULA, FROM TABUE 2-10.
B -TOTAL PROJECTED RESOENT1AL POPULATION SERVED ON LOWER PENNSULA, FROM TABLE 2-12.
C -EXISTING RE SDENTIAL USAGE RATE (GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY),
D -PROJECTED DEMAND. COLUMN B*C.
E -TOTAL PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT ON LOWER PENINSULA MINUS EMPLOYMENT IN HEAVY
WATER USE INDUSTRY AND MILITARY EMPLOYMENT.
F -EXISTING COMMERCIAUINSTITUTIONAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USAGE RATE (GALLONS PER EMPLOYEE PER DAY).
G -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN E*F.
H -TOTAL PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT IN HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTHCS ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
INCREASE IN THIS EMPLOYMENT IS DFiECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO INCREASE W TOTAL POPULATION.
1 -TOTAL NEW EMPLOYEES WORKING IN HEAVY WATER USE WDUSTRES, COLUMN H-32,711 fflUMBm
OF EMPLOYEES IN YEAR 1990).
J -NEW EMPLOYEES HFED BY EXISTING HEAVY WATER USE N3USTRES ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
DUE TO GROWTH OF THESE INDUSTRES. SElF-PHOJECtED BY EXISTING INDUSTHES, FROM APPENDIX
REPORTS, TABLE 4-11.
K -NEW EMPLOYEES HIED BY FUTURE NEW HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRES ON THE
LOWER PENINSULA COLUMN I-J.
L -PROJECTED DEMAND, SELF-PROJECTED iY EXISTING HEAVY WATER USE
INDUSTRES ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
M -PROJECTED HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIAL USAGE RATE (GALLONS PER EMPLOYEE
PER DAY), FROM APPENDIX REPORT B, SECTION 4.
N -PROJECTED DEMAND. COLUMN M*tt
O -PROJECTED TOTAL HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIAL DEMAM3, COLUMN L+N.
P -FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS DEMAND, FROM APPENDIX REPORT B, TABLE 4-23.
Q -SUBTOTAL OFPROJECTEDMETEREDOEMANDS,COLUMND+G+O«-P.
R -PROJECTED UNACCOUNTED-FOR WATER PERCENTAGE EXPRESSED AS PERCENT
OF TOTAL FINISHED WATER PUMPED WTO THE OBTWBUT1ON SYSTEM,
S -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN Q*fV(100-RB
T -TOTAL PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMANDS, COLUMN Q+S.
REVISED 17-Od-so
-------
linear growth in demands from 1990 to the Year 2000, demand is projected to equal the reliable
system delivery capacity before the Year 2000,
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
1.12 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 6.7 mgd surplus. By the Year 2000, Newport News Waterworks, Big Bethel,
Williamsburg, JCSA, and York County are all projected to have deficits. York County is projected
to have a slight surplus of 0.43 mgd in the Year 2000.
Newport News Waterworks, Williamsburg, JCSA, and York County are projected to have
deficits in the Year 2040 of 32.8, 1.5, 4.4, and 1.1 mgd, respectively. The projected 85 mgd
Waterworks demand in the Year 2040 includes demands from the current Big Bethel service area.
This is based on the assumption that the Big Bethel plant will be abandoned in the Year 2010, as
discussed in Section 2.3.5.
2.7 J 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 89
percent of the region's 61.9 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.
3114-017-319 2-29
-------
TABLE 2-18
LOWER PENINSULA SUPPLY. DEMAND AND DEFICIT
PROJECTIONS BY PURVEYOR
(MOD)
YEAF
PURVEYOR
SUPPLY (1)
DEMAND (2)
DEFICIT (3)
1990(METERED)
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAM SBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.80
4.17
1.90
0.12
61.69
46.41
3.39
1.72
1.64
0.05
55.21
-3.49
-0.41
-2.45
-0,26
-0.07
-6.68
2000
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAM SBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.80
2.00
1.90
0.70
60.30
57.56
4.00
3.52
2.36
0.27
67.72
5.68
020
1.52
0.46
-0:43
7.42
2010
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAM SBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.60
2.00
1.90
0.70
60.30
68.00
4.40
4.67
2.37
0.59
60.03
16.10
0.60
2.67
0.47
-0.11
•1-9.73
2020
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.80
2.00
0.00
0.70
56.40
74.64
4.68
5.30
0.00
1.01
85.63
22.74
0,88
3.30
0.00
0.31
27.23
2030
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.80
2.00
0.00
0.70
56.40
79.66
4.98
6.06
0.00
1.42
92.11
27.76
1.18
406
0:00
0.72
33.71
2040
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAMSBURG
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BIG BETHEL
YORK COUNTY
TOTAL
51.90
3.80
2.00
0.00
0.70
58.40
' 84.69
5.28
6.43
0.00
1.82
98.22
32.79
1.48
4.43
0.00
1.12
39.82
(1) RELIABLE SYSTEM DELIVERY CAPACITY OF EACH PURVEYOR'S SYSTEM.
(2) PROJECTED DEMANDS ON EACH PURVEYOR'S SYSTEM.
(3) REQUIRED NEW RELIABLE SYSTEM DELIVERY CAPACITY TO MEET PROJECTED
DEMANDS. NEGATIVE VALUES INDICATE SURPLUS.
Revised OB-Jan-97
-------
PROJECTED REGIONAL WATER DEMAND VS.
RELIABLE SYSTEM DELIVERY CAPACITY
a
<
HI
100
80
< 60
0)
I^ tpm
O c
LU
0
QC
LJJ
TOTAL PROJECTED
DEMAND
•RELIABLE SYSTEM
DELIVERY CAPACITY
£>•
^
CO
UAW
E g>
« *
o>
«
J) £s II
n o
11 g Federal
Installations
Heavy
Industrial
Commercial,
Institutional,
Lght/lndustrial
Residential
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
YEAR
(Q
c
CO
-------
YEAH 2040 SERVICE AREA DEFICIT PROJECTIONS
RStS^S;SSS3SRNt«S3S
4.4 mgd
0 » 0
32.8 mgd
MAUJJUA
PIRNIE
LEOEND LEGEND
NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS
WILLIAMSBURO *
YORK COUNTY
JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY
POLITICAL BOUNDARY
LXIJTINO TREATMENT PLANT
OCIOBEH I9»6
LOWER VIH<;iNM I'iNINSUM
REUtONAL RAW WA I F.H SUI'I'I Y S 1111 »Y
LOWER PENINSULA TOTAL
TREATED WATER DEFICIT
(WITH EXISTING CONSERVATION MEASURES?
39,8 mgd
7800 19000
O
I
»CALI IN
-------
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 before the Year 2000
as presented in Figure 2-9. It is estimated that the total available regional reservoir storage would
be depleted in 5'/i months during a hypothetical worst-case drought in which no Chickahominy River , \j •(
withdrawals or reservoir inflows from runoff occur. This assumes that the Lower Peninsula's \c
reservoirs are fM at the onset of the drought. Sv c\ V \
^-"x*'*^ o
Planning, permitting, designing, and constructing new large-scale raw water supply facilities
may take many years. Consequently, the projected deficit in the near fiiture^demonstrates the
importance of investigating and implementing both interim and long-term watofiupply augmentation,
measures. The comparison of supply-and demand shown in Figure 2-9-i$ucates that a treated water
ddMtof39Jmgdiscxr>ecaedrnrneYear2040. \^
New water supply alternatives which can increase the Lower Peninsula's reliable system
delivery capacity by approximately 40 mgd are needed to satisfy the 98.2 mgd projected Year 2040
average day demand during a drought equivalent to 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 raw water source yield. A new
reservoir, for example, would therefore have to have a raw water yield of approximately 44 mgd to
assure a reliable system delivery capacity of approximately 40 mgd.
Different types of raw water supply systems will have different types and magnitudes of
losses. The 44 mgd source safe yield value described above does not apply to groundwater,
desalting, or conservation 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, assuming the existing
level of conservation occurs throughout the planning period, is 39.8 mgd. The new capacity required
by year is presented in Table 2-19.
2J POLITICAL/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).
3114-017-319 2-30
-------
TABLE 2-19
LOWER PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY, DEMAND AND DEFICIT PROJECTIONS •
(mgd)
YEAR
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
SUPPLY
REGIONAL
RELIABLE SYSTEM
DELIVERY
CAPACITY
61.9
60.3
60.3
58.4
58.4
58.4
DEMAND
REGIONAL
DEMAND
552
67.7
80.0
85.6
92.1
982
DEFICIT
REQUIRED NEW
RELIABLE SYSTEM
DELIVERY
CAPACITY
-6.7
7.4
19.7
27.2
33.7
39.8
* Negative values of deficit represent a regional surplus.
Revised 06-Jan-S7
-------
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.
2J.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, 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 authorizes the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) (now
incorporated into the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) to conduct general water supply
planning for each of the State's major river basins and sub-basins. Planning assistance is also
available 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,
however, publicity over water supply shortages and conflicts at some locations have encouraged a
greater emphasis on water supply issues.
Recent water supply planning in Virginia has included the completion in 1988 of eleven River
Basin Plans by the SWCB. The Basin Plans provide inventories of water resources and water
demand centers. Possible supply alternatives to meet future demands also were reviewed, but the
SWCB did not indicate its preferences or provide any assistance in the development of alternatives.
The SWCB also has authority to conduct more specialized water supply planning and
management through various regulatory programs. One such program was created by the Virginia
Groundwater Act (VGA) of 1973. The VGA authorized special studies of geographic areas proposed
for designation as groundwater management areas. The entire Lower Peninsula now falls within the
Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area. The Virginia Ground Water Management Act
3114-017-319 2-31
-------
(VGMA) of 1992 replaced the VGA and added additional measures for the management and control
of groundwater resources by the SWCB. Groundwater withdrawal regulations pursuant to that Act
became effective June 1993 (VR 680-13-07).
( The Virginia Surface Water Management Areas Act (SWMAA) is a more recent statute
directing water supply management. The focus of the SWMAA 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 SWMAA 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 (VAVPPA). A Virginia Water
Protection Permit (VWPP) constitutes the State's certification under Section 401 of the federal Clean
Water Act that a federal permit for a proposed activity involving discharges to surface waters will
not cause the violation of state water quality standards. It also authorizes the imposition and
enforcement of additional permit conditions as a matter of state law, an authority that is not granted
under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Adopted VWPP regulations became effective on May
20,1992 (VR 680-15-02). In the absence of a SWMA, the VWPP is the State's primary permit for
allocating water supplies for major new projects. The State works with the USCOE to coordinate
instream flow and water withdrawal conditions. The VWPP approval is contingent upon protection
of instream beneficial uses.
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 wastewatcr 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 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.
3114-017-319 . 2-32
-------
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.
These codes apply to all new construction and some remodeling of existing structures. The
USBC requires that:
ir
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.
3114-017-319 2-33
-------
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 instrcam
flow conditions may require water conservation and reductions in water use by the permittee.
Likewise, the SWMA regulations stipulate that SWCB-approvcd 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.
• 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 J J State and Local Constraints
Constraints on water supply development activities imposed by Virginia law consist of direct
and indirect control measures. Direct controls include specific regulatory measures applicable to
public water supply operations, groundwater withdrawals, and 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 political subdivision desires to
construct and operate facilities outside its boundaries, thereby potentially subjecting itself to
regulation by the political subdivision where the facilities are to be located. In addition, different
levels of government may simultaneously apply controls to an individual water resource project, and
the project may be subjected to conflicting requirements. Major conflicts regarding water
management can develop between state and local laws.
The relationship between state and local governments is derived from the fact that local
governments are creatures of the State. In the approach employed in Virginia (Dillon's Rule), local
governments have only those powers enumerated in state enabling legislation. They have no inherent
authority independent of such legislation. If a conflict occurs between state and local action, the
concept of preemption applies, and local authority must yield. There are, therefore, considerable
3114-017-319 2-34
-------
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 milldams and related facilities and another concerning facilities for die 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 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.
3114-017-319 2-35
-------
Land Use Controls (Zoning and Comprehensive Planning)
By longstanding tradition and practice, authority for land use planning and control in Virginia
has been delegated to the State's political subdivisions. Since 1976, Virginia law has required the
governing body of each county and municipality to create a planning commission, an action that was
optional under prior legislation (Virginia Code § 15.1-427.1); A local planning commission is to
consist of at least five but not more than IS members, who are appointed by the governing body of
the county or municipality.
The principal duty of each local planning commission is the preparation and enforcement 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 legislation appears to authorize incorporation of water and other natural
resource considerations into the local planning process, but it leaves such matters largely to the
discretion of the local commissions.
Public utilities projects must conform generally to the local comprehensive plan in each
applicable locality. The local planning commission has approval authority for such projects, and the
governing body of the jurisdiction (board of supervisors or city council) has authority to override the
planning commission's decision (Virginia Code § 15.1-456). Denial of a local government's approval
under that law must be challenged in an action in the local Circuit Court.
Local governments also are authorized to implement land use controls in the form of local
Zoning Ordinances (Virginia Code §§ 15.1-486, et seq.). This legislation both authorizes enactment
of local Zoning Ordinances and specifies the purposes of such ordinances and the extent of the
regulatory authority delegated. The legislation does not focus on matters relating to water resources
or their development and use; however, it does require that local Zoning Ordinances give reasonable
consideration to the public's need for water and to conservation of natural resources, and it allows
localities to include reasonable provisions to protect surface water and groundwater. Under most
local Zoning Ordinances, special (or conditional) use permits would be required to construct major
components of a new public water supply project.
^ 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 conditions on the location, construction or operation of that facility.
Local Consent Laws
Numerous provisions of Virginia law provide local consent authorities applicable to public
water supply projects. Those statutes include the following:
• Virginia Code § 15.1-37 (construction of dams for providing public water supply)
requires local consent prior to acquisition of land which would be used for the purposes
of providing a public water supply source.
• Virginia Code § 15.1-37.1 (construction of dams across navigable streams) requires
local consent prior to acquisition of any lands which would be used for the construction
of any dam across a navigable waterway
3114-017-319 2-36
-------
• Virginia Code § 15.1-332.1 (impoundment of waters) requires local consent prior to
impounding waters within another locality through any means (including dam
construction)
• Virginia Code § 15.1-875 (water supply systems) requires local consent for the
operation of any water supply systems within another locality's boundaries
• Virginia Code $ 15,1-1250.1 (water supply impoundment systems) requires local
consent prior to construction or operation of any water supply impoundment system
within another locality's boundaries
These statutes merely require local consent or approval; they provide no explicit standards to
regulate or govern local government decisions. Reviews of denials of local consents under each of
those statutes are conducted by a three-judge special court, which must "balance the equities" and
"determine the necessity for and expediency of the... proposed action and the best interests of the
parties," and which has the authority to "determine the terms and conditions of the action" (Virginia
Code §§ 15.1-37.1:2,15.1-37.1:3).
An additional statute which provides a local consent authority which may be applicable to
water supply projects is the Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD) Act (Virginia Code §§ 15.1-
1506 through 15,1-1513). This Act is designed to implement "the policy of the Commonwealth to
conseiye^and protect and to encourage the development and improvement of the Commonwealth's
/ agricultural^and forestal lands..." and to "conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as
^"valued natural and ecological resources...." The Act requires that any political subdivision with intent
to acquire land within these districts must file a "notice of intent" with the local governing body to
include justification for the project and a description of alternatives evaluated. In consultation with
the local planning commission and the local agricultural and forestal districts advisory committee,
the local governing body reviews the proposed action to determine its effect on the agricultural and
forestal resources within the district and the policy of the AFD Act, and to "determine the necessity
of the proposed action to provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable
manner." If the political subdivision is denied by the local governing body, an appeal may be made
to the circuit court in that jurisdiction.
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.
3114-017-319 2-37
-------
Riparian Doctrine
Virginia, like other southeastern states, applies the riparian doctrine to water withdrawals by
landowners adjoining surface water bodies. Owners of property bordering or crossed by a
watercourse have the right to the reasonable use of the water in the watercourse, provided that the
flow is not unreasonably diminished for use by downstream riparian owners. The Virginia Supreme
Court stated the following in a 1925 case concerning riparian rights:
A proprietor may mate any use of the water of the stream in connection with his riparian
estate and for lawful purposes within the watershed, provided he leaves the current diminished
by no more than is reasonable, having regard for the like right to enjoy the common property
by other riparian owners.
There are two basic variations of the riparian right, one known as the natural flow or English
doctrine, and one known as the reasonable use or American doctrine. The natural flow doctrine
assumes that, regardless of any showing of actual injury, a downstream owner has the legal right to
prevent an upstream owner from diminishing the natural flow in die stream. The reasonable use
doctrine, on the other hand, requires that before a downstream riparian owner may institute legal
action for diminution of the riparian right, he must first show actual injury from the upstream
withdrawal. Although the Virginia Supreme Court has not clearly stated which doctrine applies, the
court has applied a reasonable use standard in the few riparian cases decided in Virginia.
With respect to withdrawals for municipal water supply, two important considerations apply.
First, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled mat municipal withdrawals for water supply purposes
are not a riparian right The reason for this is that the water is transferred to other properties that are
not riparian to the stream, whereas the riparian right recognizes use of water only on riparian
property. The other consideration applicable to municipal water supply projects in riparian states is
that withdrawal of surface water by a municipality for water supply, particularly if the water is
transferred to another watershed, is not a recognized right of use under the riparian doctrine.
However, under the reasonable use doctrine, it would be necessary for a downstream user to show
actual injury from such a diversion before relief could be granted.
2.9 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CURRENT SUPPLIES AND
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
This section identifies new information which has become available since the completion of
the analyses presented in the DEIS. It also discusses the potential impacts of this new information
on the supply, demand, and deficit data and projections presented in Sections 2.3,2.6, and 2.7 of the
DEIS. Further discussion of the conservation objectives used in developing the RRWSG's demand
and deficit projections in response to comments on the DEIS is also provided.
2.9.1 Description of New Demand and Deficit Information
The demand and deficit projections presented in Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the DEIS were
developed for the 50-year planning period from 1990 through 2040 using the best information
available at that time. This Section reviews the following new information, which could potentially
affect these projections:
3114-017-319 2-38
-------
• Revisions to 1990 Census data by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
• Revised population projections by local planners.
• Long-range population projections developed by the Virginia Employment
Commission (VEC) (June 1993).
« The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992.
• Current information regarding the potential effects of pending or proposed military
downsizing and resulting employment fluctuations.
Revisions to 1990 Census Data
The population data presented for the Year 1990 in Section 2.6.3 of the DEIS were based on
preliminary 1990 Census data, which estimated total population in the Lower Peninsula study area
to be 403,654. Changes to these data have since been made by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. The total population in the study area in 1990 is now estimated to have been
405,189, which is 1,535 persons higher than presented in the DEIS. Because of this slight change
to the population served estimates, the residential per capita usage rate calculated for 1990 should
be decreased by 0.4 percent (0.3 gpcpd).
The population projections for the Lower Peninsula which were used to estimate future
demands have not been revised as a result of the new 1990 Census data. While the populations of
individual jurisdictions within the study area changed slightly, the change was not enough to warrant
revision of the future projections of population. Therefore, the revised 1990 Census values affect the
1990 data but not the long-term projections presented in Sections 2.6 and 2.7.
Population Projections bv Local Planners
As discussed in Section 2.6.3, the RRWSG relied heavily on the population projections
provided by local planners. Prior to preparation of the FEIS, local planners were again contacted to
verify that the population projections previously provided for the DEIS were the most up-to-date
projections developed by those jurisdictions for use in water supply planning. Local planners in the
Cities of Newport News, Hampton and Poquoson indicated that the projections previously provided
are still the most up-to-date projections for use in water supply planning (E. Chen, City of Newport
News, personal communication, 1996; D. Vest, City of Poquoson, personal communication, 1996;
Ms. Mason, City of Hampton, personal communication, 1996). The City of Williamsburg has
included new projections as part of its Comprehensive Plan Update (Draft 3/6/96) which has not
been adopted by the Planning Commission or City Council (City of Williamsburg, 1996). The
projections contained in that document do not vary appreciably from the previous projections
provided by the City.
Both York County and James City County have developed new population projections as part
of their revisions to their Comprehensive Plans. Neither of the plans has been adopted, however, the
projections are being used by the planning departments. Projections have been made for both
Counties through the Year 2010. The new projections are compared to those used in demand
projections below:
3114-017-319 2-39
-------
Year Previous Projections New Projections
York County
2000 50,950 58,400
2010 57,580 74,500
James City County
2000 51,700 49,036
2010 61,700 67,947
The recent projections by both of these Counties indicate a much higher population in the
Year 2010 than was used in projecting demands. If these data were used in demand projections, it
would have the effect of increasing the demand and deficit projections for the Lower Peninsula.
However, because the new projections had not been adopted by the Counties, as of January 1,1997
(C. Guiliano, James City County, personal communication, 1997; P. Morris, York County, personal
communication, 1997), demand projections have not been revised based on the new numbers.
The population projections made by each of the jurisdictions within the Lower Peninsula are
done so in consideration of the unique development characteristics of each jurisdiction. Factors
which are considered include development restrictions, such as zoning regulations and the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, as well as the effects of buildout.
Near-term population projections adopted by the RRWSG were compared to provisional Year
1995 Lower Peninsula population estimates developed by the University of Virginia's Weldon
Cooper Center for Public Service (WCC) (Martin and Tolson, 1996). The WCC estimate are based
on state estimates developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The RRWSG population projections
assumed an average annual growth rate of 1.32 percent for the period 1990 through 2000. The
Weldon Cooper Center estimates indicate that actual population growth in the Lower Peninsula has
occurred at an average annual rate of 1.54 percent for the period 1990 through 1995. Actual growth
is occurring at a higher rate than was predicted by the RRWSG. Therefore, RRWSG demand
projections may underestimate actual demand.
VEC Long Range Population Projections
The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) continually updates its state and local
population projections based on new information. The most recent projections obtained from the
VEC (VEC, 1990) for the DEIS were higher than those adopted by the RRWSG. For example, the
VEC's (1990) projected Year 2030 Lower Peninsula population was 632,800, or 6.4 percent higher
than the RRWSG's corresponding projection of 594,565. Likewise, the VEC's projected average
annual growth rate for the period 1990 through 2040 (1.12 percent) was much higher than mat
projected by the RRWSG (0.91 percent).
The VEC has presented updated projections for the period from 1990 through 2010 in
Virginia Population Projections, 2010 (VEC, 1993). The VEC also made long-range projections
through the Year 2030, based on a linear extension of the 1980 and updated 1990 through 2010 data.
The VEC uses these unpublished long range projections primarily for comparison with projections
developed by local planners. Table 2-11 presents the RRWSG's population projections for the study
area and the VEC's new projections for both the study area and the state as a whole. The average
annual rate of population growth projected by the RRWSG for the Lower Peninsula (0.91 percent)
is approximately 0.1 percent higher than the new rates projected by the VEC for both the study area
and the state as a whole.
3114-017-319 2-40
-------
The differences can be attributed to variations in the methodologies used by the VEC and the
local planning departments to estimate population. The VEC projections for the Year 2030 are
simply a linear extrapolation of population data and projections for the period 1980 through 2010,
which do not take into account the anticipated future growth patterns of the individual localities. As
previously discussed, each local planning department considers anticipated future development
activities when calculating its future population estimates.
Local planners in each of the localities in the Lower Peninsula were contacted to determine
their preference for population projections. All of the localities indicated that they prefer to use the
population projections developed by their own planning departments, as opposed to the VEC
projections, for the reasons cited above (E. Chen, City of Newport News, personal communication,
1996; Ms. Mason, City of Hampton, personal communication, 1996; D. Vest, City of Poquoson,
personal communication, 1996; M. King, York County, personal communication, 1996; M. Maxwell,
James City County, personal communication, 1996; City of Williamsburg, 1996). Since the local
projections are considered more accurate than the more general VEC projections, the RRWSG's
population projections have not been revised as a result of the new VEC projections.
Federal Energy Policy Act
The Federal Energy Policy Act (FEPA), which was enacted in 1992, established national
water efficiency requirements for plumbing products manufactured after January 1994. The
requirements will be administered by the U.S. Department of Energy, Under the Act, states may
adopt more stringent requirements, but state requirements must be at least as stringent as the federal
standards. A summary of the water use standards for plumbing fixtures required by the FEPA are
listed below:
Product
Showers
Faucets
Toilets
Urinals
Maximum Water Use
2.5 gallons/minute (80 psi)
2.5 gallons/minute (80 psi)
1.6 gallons/flush
1.0 gallons/flush
Exemptions to the new standards were allowed for products such as safety showers and toilets
and urinals used in prisons, which require unique designs and higher flow rates. Blowout
flushometer commercial toilets are allowed a higher water use rate until they can be redesigned to
operate reliably at a lower volume. Gravity tank-type toilets used in commercial settings will not be
required to meet the 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) maximum use standard until 1997 (Vickers, 1993),
A toilet standard of 3.5 gpf was used in developing the residential and commercial Reasonable
Conservation Objectives (RCOs) presented in the DEIS, This standard was also used to estimate
water use in conserving households as part of a survey of water fixture use conducted for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (Brown and Caldwell, 1984). The FEPA requires
that low-flow toilets that use no more than 16 gpf be installed in new construction and in renovations
of existing structures. The extent to which future water demands will be affected by the FEPA and
3114-017-319 2-41
-------
the changes in toilet and other fixture standards is uncertain. For the reasons discussed below, the
adopted RCOs remain unchanged.
First, the FEPA applies only to plumbing fixtures manufactured after January 1994. Those
fixtures will be placed in new construction, but the Act does not require replacement of older fixtures
in existing construction. Likewise, the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VR 394-01-21
Section 117.0) does not require replacement of plumbing fixtures in existing construction. Only
additions, alterations, or repairs of plumbing fixtures themselves would trigger the need for new low
flow fixtures to be installed in existing construction (Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development, 1994). Therefore, no reduction in demands in existing construction will
be realized until buildings are changed out or retrofitted. It is not possible to determine how long that
process will take.
Second, estimates of the potential for water use reductions resulting from the use of low flow
fixtures mandated by the FEPA must be viewed with caution. Development of the RCO for the
residential demand category presented in Section 2.6 of the DEIS was based on the assumption that
people flush their toilets 5 times per day and use the shower for 5 minutes per day. These figures
were multiplied by the fixture usage rates to estimate existing residential usage, hi those calculations,
plumbing fixture usage rates were assumed to be the maximum usage rates. Actual average usage
rates, however, are less than the maximum. Therefore, estimates of existing residential usage are
higher than actual average usage. Using these figures to calculate the potential for water savings
from retrofitting with ultra low flow fixtures will result in higher estimates of reductions in water
usage than would actually be realized (Anderson et al., 1993).
Anderson et al. (1993) reported on the results of a study of 25 single family residences in
Tampa, Florida, which were monitored before and after retrofitting with ultra low flow toilets (1.6
gpf) and low flow showerheads (2.5 gal/min). The actual measured per-capita water use reduction
was 30 to 45 percent less than the savings projected using engineering estimates for retrofit programs
with shower and toilet replacements. Because of the over-estimation of existing residential usage
rates, projected reductions were greater than were actually achieved by the use of low flow fixtures.
Third, as described in Section 2.6 of the DEIS, the RRWSG set the expected percentage
reduction for the Commercial, Institutional, and Light Industrial category RCO equal to the
percentage reduction to be achieved in the Residential demand category. Upon further examination,
this seems to be an overestimation of possible water savings. Commercial locations are not often
used for 24 hours per day. Further, most commercial establishments do not have bathing facilities,
which would have showerheads subject to regulation.
Fourth, typical engineering calculations also are based on estimates of per capita water usage
which may overstate actual usage. Studies have suggested that water usage in household fixtures is
less today than it has been in the past. With pressures to reduce water demands due to water
shortages and restrictions, and increasing water and sewer fees, homeowners are reducing water use
on their own (Anderson et al., 1993). This overestimation of existing residential usage rates leads
to estimated reductions that are greater than can actually be achieved by the use of low flow fixtures.
Fifth, little data is available concerning actual changes in water usage characteristics with the
use of low-flow fixtures. Some recent studies have indicated, however, that low-flow toilets may not
be as efficient as conventional fixtures. The Tampa, Florida study (Anderson et al., 1993) indicated
that flushing frequency increased in some homes after the installation of low-flow toilets. A similar
study in California indicated the same result (Stevens Institute of Technology, 1991). The use of
3114-017-319 2-42
-------
low-flow toilets therefore may not result in notable water savings since repeat flushing may
sometimes be necessary.
While it is anticipated that the FEPA will have some effect on future water demands in
Virginia, for the reasons stated above, the degree to which demands will be reduced is unknown.
Due to the uncertainties concerning actual reductions in demands resulting from the use of low-flow
fixtures, the demand and deficit projections presented in Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the DEIS have not
been revised as a result of the FEPA.
Military Downsizing
In September 1993, the U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) proposed a new force structure
for the U.S. Armed Forces. As a result of this proposal, there was concern that military bases within
the RRWSG study area may be closed or restructured. A report published by the Virginia Senate
Finance Committee (VSFC), Report of the Special Subcommittee on Defense Base Closure
(December 1993), analyzes the impacts of recent defense restructuring on military populations and
employment within the study area. The VSFC reports a relatively small decrease in defense-related
employment on the Lower Peninsula as a result of 1993 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
actions — a loss of only 212 jobs would be expected on the Lower Peninsula, out of a total loss of
10,187 jobs statewide.
In March 1995, the USDOD released a new set of recommendations for future military force
reductions and consolidations. No Lower Peninsula defense installations are on the USDOD's recent
list of proposed closures or realignment activities. A net increase in defense-related employment of
2,400, due to base closings elsewhere and military force consolidations locally, would be expected
in the entire Hampton Roads area (Northside and Southside) (HRPDC, 1996). Increased employment
on the Southside inevitably increases the demand for housing on the Northside (the Lower Peninsula)
as well.
In Northside Hampton Roads, increases in military-related employment are anticipated. Fort
Eustis, located within the City of Newport News, was also affected by the 199S recommendations.
A helicopter unit was relocated to the base from Maryland. The unit includes 200 soldiers and 25
civilian jobs (HRPDC, 1996). La addition, the consolidation of the Strategic Air Command and
Tactical Air Command at Langley Air Force Base has added military jobs to the Lower Peninsula.
These data demonstrate that military downsizing would not necessarily result in a reduction in
military employment in the Hampton Roads - Lower Peninsula region.
Based on the USDOD's recommendations, the State of Virginia would have a total gain in
defense-related employment of 3,843 (Plunkett, 1995). The 1995 USDOD's recommendations were
accepted by the President in July 1995. As indicated above, implementation of the current USDOD
directives probably would not reduce, and might even increase, defense-related employment and
housing demands on the Lower Peninsula, as noted above. <;
, \^<* *>
As discussed in Section 2.3.3, Cheatham Annex, located in York County, has recently v. •
approached Newport News Waterworks as a possible supplier of treated water. The demands of ' " ^ ''"'"
Cheatham Annex have not been included in the demand projections presented in Section 2.6.
Therefore, the sale of water to Cheatham Annex would result in an increased demand projection for
the Lower Peninsula.
3114-017-319 2-43
-------
Employment Changes Resulting from Military Downsizing
Military downsizing on a national level might affect employment levels at military suppliers,
such as Newport News Shipbuilding. Newport News Shipbuilding has historically experienced wide
fluctuations in employment These are primarily due to changes in the quantity of prime contract
awards received by the industry. Recent data show that the value of prime contract awards declined
steeply from 1988 to 1994, but has rebounded in 199S (HRPDC, 1996). These data are indicative
of the fluctuating nature of the industry.
The current outlook for defense-related employment in the Lower Peninsula is improving as
employers diversify operations and become less dependent on the USDOD (HRPDC, 1996). In the
long-term, the outlook is positive for Newport News Shipbuilding. The USDOD will likely require
new aircraft carriers, and Newport News Shipbuilding is the only shipyard capable of producing
them. There is also a possibility that they will continue to build submarines for the Navy. Several
contracts for overhauls of existing ships have been received by area shipyards, including Newport
News Shipbuilding. In addition, the company has been marketing its abilities to foreign countries.
In fact, they expect that 20 percent of their annual sales will come from international military sales
by 1999. They have also converted capacity for building, maintenance, and rehabilitation to
commercial shipping interests. All of these activities should lend to economic stability for the
industry.
As discussed above, the on-going military restructuring is not expected to reduce military or
industrial employment in the Lower Peninsula. Even if reductions were to occur, at the same time,
rapid industrial expansion (not military-related) has also occurred on the Lower Peninsula since the
RRWSG first developed its deficit projections for the DEIS. Many major businesses which have
recently located or expanded on the Lower Peninsula are identified in Table 2-20.
The location or expansion of these industries in the area will increase employment in the
Lower Peninsula, Several of these companies have projected high levels of employment once they
are fully operational. For example, MCI Telecommunications, Inc. and Gateway 2000 are each
expected to employ 1,300. West Telemarketing is planning to employ 1,500 persons (J. K. Watson,
Virginia Peninsula Economic Development Council (VPEDC), personal communication, 1996).
Based on the information presented above, there is no justification at this time for reducing
the long-term projections developed by the RRWSG in response to speculative impacts of pending
military force reductions and consolidations on potential short-term employment trends.
2.9.2 Summary
The demand projections presented in Section 2.6 of the DEIS were based on the best
information available at the time they were developed. Since that time, additional information has
become available that could affect die demand projections (e.g., residential demands). Proposed
revisions to the population projections developed by local planners in York County and James City
County could increase demand projections. However, since these projections have yet to be adopted
by the individual localities, demand projections have not been revised.
The Federal Energy Policy Act will require installation of water-saving plumbing fixtures in
new construction and in renovations of existing structures. However, for the reasons stated herein,
it is not likely that the RRWSG's overall deficit projection would be affected to the extent that
revisions in the RRWSG's projections would be warranted.
3114-017-319 2-44
-------
TABLE 2-20
NEW AND EXPANDING INDUSTRIES
ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
Year
1989
1990
Industry
Name
New Industry
Lockheed
Edison Plastics
Nippon Express
Expanding Industry
Pressure Systems
Master Machine & Tool
Mid Atlantic Coca-Cola
New Industry
Takaha America
W.W. Grainger
O&K Escalators
Road Fabric
Polymax A/S
Expanding Industry
Edison Plastics
Opton, Inc.
Kinyo Virginia, Inc.
Siemens Automation
Grapha Manufacturing
Munck Automation
IDAS, Inc.
Number of
Employees
450
55
15
25
5
50
220
15
100
5
7
100
50
20
25
30
35
150
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-20
NEW AND EXPANDING INDUSTRIES
ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
(Continued)
Year
1991
1992
Industry
Name
New Industry
Tyrolit Abrasives
Wacker Chemical
Business Funding
Aqua-Cool
Jewel Rina, Inc.
Lucas Industries
Expanding Industry
Riverside Hospital
C.I. Travel
Wagner Lighting
Chamber Waste Systems
Symbiont
Recovery Management
New Industrv
Greystone Metal Plate
Ridgway's Inc.
B.F. Saul Mortgage
Anstaett Medical
Jay Plastics
Expanding Industry
Riverside Hospital
SAIC - Science Applications
Waterway Cruises, Inc.
Number of
Employees
280
10
25
20
20
400
15
10
75
25
5
110
200
5
5
5
150
52
115
10
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-20
NEW AND EXPANDING INDUSTRIES
ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
(Continued)
Year
Industry
Name
Number of
Employees
1993
New Industry
Tex Tech
United Solar Systems
CALJAN
Vision Technology
Johnston Pump Co.
Intermech
California Feather & Down
Military Benefits
Expanding Industry
Paul Business/Denka
Blessings Corp
PMI
Chase Packaging
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
50
500
17
25
24
10
100
15
15
35
29
122
180
1994
New Industry
Lockheed IMS
VA Hardwood Int'l
Commonwealth Yarn
A Better Airfare
Ensafe
Remarque
Expanding Industry
Tex Tech
37
75
200
260
12
35
50
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 2-20
NEW AND EXPANDING INDUSTRIES
ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
(Continued)
Year
Industry
Name
Number of
Employees
1995
New Industry
U.S. Postal Service
J.L. Associates
United Parcel Service
King of Switzerland
Mergetech
Solarex
Gateway 2000
MCI
Expanding Industry
Howmet
Phillip Morris
Custom Integrated Tech.
475
35
1,000
10
30
80
1,300
1,300
100
130
70
1996
New Industry
Harris Select
PSC Fabricating
West Telemarketing
Faber-Castell Consulting
Iceland
Twinpak
Expanding Industry
Dynamic Engineering
Opton
700
25
1,500
50
250
60
100
200
Source:
J, K. Watson, VPEDC, personal communicantion, 1996.
3114-017-319
January 9,1997
-------
Finally, data indicate that recent military downsizing on a national level would not reduce, and
may even increase the number of military personnel stationed in the Lower Peninsula, as well as
defense-related employment The best information currently available indicates that nationwide
military force reductions are not likely to lead to reduced water demands in the region. To the
contrary, base consolidations may lead to increased regional water demands. At present, however,
those impacts also are too speculative to be used in the development of population projections for
Lower Peninsula water supply planning efforts.
3114-017-319 2-45
-------
-------
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.
3.2 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 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.
3114-017-319 3-1
-------
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 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:
3114-017-319 3-2
-------
"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, 1990a).
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 the poinj
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 deemeH
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.
3.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
3.3.1 Overview of Alternatives Analysis
As determined in Section 2.7, a projected 39.8-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
3114-017-319 3-3
-------
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(bXl) 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^):
• 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 alternatives). Environmental impact categories were developed
based on NEPA public interest factors and impact categories for aquatic ecosystems identified in the
CWA Section 404(bXl) Guidelines.
3.3.2 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.
3114-017-319 3-4
-------
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
f) AVAILABLE
2) FEASIBLE,
IN TERMS OF
-ECONOMICS
- TECHNOLOGY
- LOGISTICS
LIST OF
PRACTICABLE
ALTERNATIVES
FINAL EIS
PREPARED
NOTES:
1. FIRST DEFINED IN USCOE't DECEMBER 17. 1990 SCORING SUMMARY PREPARED
FOLLOWING CLOSE OF COMMENT PERIOD ON USCOE't 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 1
-------
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, 1990b). 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.
*•
The USEPA is now developing guidelines for determining reasonable combined sewer
overflow (CSO) control costs for households. Residential Indicators are calculated as percentages
of MHI and are compared to financial impact ranges that reflect the USEPA's previous experience
with water pollution control programs. These ranges are defined as follows (H. Farmer, USEPA,
personal communication, 1996):
Financial Impact
Low
Mid-Range
High
Residential Indicator
(Cost per Household as % MHI)
Less than 1.0 Percent of MHI
1.0 -2.0 Percent of Mffl
Greater than 2.0 Percent of MHI
3114-017-319 3-5
-------
Hie 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. Fanner, USEPA, personal
communication, 1996).
The USEPA has not progressed as far in establishing affordability criteria for drinking water
costs as for wastewater treatment costs. As of November 1996, the agency did not have any official
affordability scale for drinking water. Hie USEPA has instead elected not to pursue the
establishment of an affordability criterion for drinking water. However, the agency will provide data
support to individual state agencies, and allow States to develop their own criteria (P. Shanaghan,
USEPA, personal communication, 1996).
For some time the USEPA had been reviewing the variance and exemption process and
requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and considering how affordability should
be determined. One approach the USEPA considered involved selecting affordability criteria which
correspond to percentages of MHI in the community served by the water system. Prior to September
1991, die USEPA was considering the following specific affordability ranges:
• Affordable: < 1.4 Percent of MHI
• More Detailed Analysis Required: 1.4 to 2 Percent of MHI
• Unaffordable: > 2 Percent of MHI
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 man other water demand sectors (A. W. Marks, USEPA, personal communication, 1993).
The USEPA also considered 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 (A. W. Marks, USEPA, personal
communication, 1993).
•fe
For this study, average Year 1992 Lower Peninsula household water costs were estimated at
$170 peryear, or 0.55 percent of the estimated Year 1990 Lower Peninsula MHI of $31,050 per year.
This estimate is based on a typical Lower Peninsula household using 73,000 gallons of water 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 $10.30 per thousand gallons in Year 1992 dollars. For an
3114-017-319 3-6
-------
average Lower Peninsula household, this represents approximately 2.4 percent of the estimated Year
1990 Lower Peninsula MHL 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 MHL
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 mat 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 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.
333 Safe Yield Criterion
Definition
Safe yield estimates were developed for each of the alternative water supply projects under
consideration. Although safe yield is not one of the practicability criteria, it is a very important
measure of project viability. A low safe yield benefit may render the unit costs unacceptably high
for an otherwise acceptable alternative.
Safe yield is the theoretical maximum rate (usually expressed in gallons per day) at which a
water supply system could provide water continuously through the drought of record without causing
the total depletion of the source of supply (e.g., usable reservoir storage). This theory assumes that
during a drought identical to the worst drought of record, continuous operation of the water system
3114-017-319 3-7
-------
at the "safe yield" rate would cause the supply source to approach but never to cross the margin of
total depletion, at any time during the entire period of the drought. In Virginia, safe yield
calculations for rivers and reservoirs typically are based on strcamflow records dating back to the
1930-31 drought. Safe yield determinations also take into consideration the available raw water
storage capacity and the system operating rules.
Safe yield is an accepted planning device; but it is not designed and should not be mis-used
to represent the amount of water that actually would be available to consumers during a severe
drought At best, a safe yield calculation is only an estimate and is not subject to empirical
verification. In practice, waterworks managers impose emergency demand reduction (conservation)
measures such as mandatory water use restrictions and rationing, where necessary to force the
demands on their systems, below the safe yield level, well in advance of the point of total depletion.
This is necessary to reduce the risk of failure of the public water supply system, which otherwise
could result from such factors as miscalculation of various components of the safe yield estimate, less
than optimal performance of the system under the stresses caused by a severe drought, and
occurrence of a drought that is longer or more severe than the drought of record used to estimate the
safe yield of the system.
Section 3.20.A.2 of the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Waterworks Regulations
(effective June 23,1993) defines safe yield for surface water sources as follows:
"The safe yield of the source shall be determined as follows:
a. Simple intake (free flowing stream) - The safe yield is defined as the minimum
withdrawal rate available during a day and recurring every thirty years (30 year -1 day
low flow). To generate the report for this, data is to be used to illustrate the worst
drought of record in Virginia since 1930. If actual gauge records are not available for
this, gauges are to be correlated from similar watersheds and numbers are to be
synthesized.
b. Complex intake (impoundments in conjunction with streams) - The safe yield is defined
as the minimum withdrawal rate available to withstand the worst drought of record in
Virginia since 1930. If actual gauge records are not available, correlation is to be made
with a similar watershed and numbers synthesized in order to develop the report."
if
The VDH regulations (§ 3.20.A. 1) also state that:
"The quantity of water at the source shall:.... Be adequate to compensate for
all losses, including evaporation, seepage, flow-by requirements, etc."
Estimating the safe yield of groundwater sources is more difficult than for surface sources,
because there is no standard method for analyzing groundwater sources. Groundwater yields are a
function of pump capacity, head, and the hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer.
The safe yield of a water system is not an absolute value calculated on the basis of exact data.
Rather, the determination of a system's safe yield is based on the level of risk associated with the
probability of occurrence of a selected critical drought period during an extended future period.
Thus, the safe yield is based on the level of acceptable risk and management's conclusions as to the
reliability and resiliency of the system to respond during critical dry periods.
3114-017-319 3-8
-------
Methods of Analysis
Numerous variables must be considered in a safe yield analysis. The principal input data and
operating rules used for estimating the safe yield of new reservoir alternatives are outlined below.
To the extent possible, the assumptions were applied identically to the various alternatives to provide
the maximum level of comparability in the analysis.
Safe Yield Model
Raw water safe yield benefits were estimated using the Newport News Waterworks Raw
Water System Safe Yield Model (SYMODEL). (As discussed below under "Other Raw Water
Losses", treated water safe yield benefits were estimated by assuming that transmission, seepage, and
treatment losses not accounted for in the safe yield model represent 10 percent of simulated raw water
safe yield.) This is a FORTRAN computer model which was developed by Camp, Dresser & McKee
(CDM) to simulate the existing Waterworks system (CDM, 1989). Using this model, it was possible
to incorporate the potential benefits of interconnecting new water sources with the existing Lower
Peninsula water supply systems.
For purposes of this analysis, the Waterworks model was run on a monthly time step basis for
a 58-year simulation period (Water Years 1930 and 1987). The RRWSG has complied with VDH
regulations by including the early 1930's drought in the safe yield analysis. It was assumed that the
entire raw water storage system was full at the beginning of the simulation period. Other model input
assumptions applicable to the existing Newport News system were consistent with those outlined by
CDM in the Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model - Documentation and Users
Manual (CDM, 1989), with the following exceptions:
• The net evaporation rate from reservoirs was set at 8.9 inches per year, which is
the 10 percent exceedance net evaporation rate. This rate is conservative because
it is less than one-half of the highest reported rate.
• The Newport News Waterworks reservoir drainage area was reduced from 78.7
to 75.2 square miles, to avoid double-counting precipitation onto the reservoir
surfaces as surface runoff.
• Minimum acceptable reservoir storage was defined as 33.3 percent of total
storage. This minimum storage level was adopted to simulate the Waterworks'
operating practices and to afford water quality and aquatic habitat protection. The
CDM model had used 11.8 percent of total storage, which is that percentage of
total storage from which water cannot be pumped using existing pumping stations.
Under the CDM assumption, no available (pumpable) water would remain in the
reservoirs at the end of the simulation period. Using the 33.3 percent minimum
storage figure, 76 percent of available water can be used [(100% - 33.3%)/(100% -
11.8%) = 76%] and 24 percent of available water is held in reserve [(33.3% -
11.8%)/(100% - 11.8%) = 24%].
Reservoir Inflows from River Withdrawals
The amount of water pumped from a new Pamunkey or Mattaponi River pumping station into
a new reservoir was. calculated for each month of the simulation period by: (1) subtracting the
appropriate monthly minimum instream flowby (MIF) requirement from each daily streamflow; (2)
3114-017-319 3-9
-------
simulating daily withdrawals based on remaining available river flow, pump station capacity, and
pumping increments; (3) summing the daily withdrawals; and (4) dividing the total monthly
withdrawal by the number of days in the month. To accommodate these new simulated river
withdrawals within the existing safe yield model, they were combined with estimated reservoir
drainage area runoff to form a single record of combined inflows to the reservoir.
Pamunkey and Mattaponi River flows were simulated using gaged York River Bask
strcamflow records adjusted to the estimated drainage areas at proposed intake points. Detailed
characteristics of Pamunkey and Mattaponi River streamflow at proposed intake points are presented
in Tables 3-A and 3-B, respectively.
For several alternatives, multiple river withdrawal capacities were evaluated to identify
withdrawal capacities which would optimize safe yield benefits. For example, the Black Creek
Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River alternative would rely on a river withdrawal
capacity of 120 mgd. The King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River alternative
would rely on a river withdrawal capacity of 75 mgd. Those maximum withdrawal rates represent
15.5 and 15.2 percent, respectively, of the estimated mean historical flow rates (774 and 494 mgd,
respectively) of the two Rivers at the proposed intake points. Those maximum river withdrawal
rates, as percentages of mean historical flows, are both smaller than Newport News Waterworks'
Chickahominy River withdrawal capacity (41 mgd, or approximately 20 percent of the estimated
mean historical flow at the intake point).
It was assumed that new river pump stations would be capable of pumping at rates which
could be varied in 10 mgd increments.
River withdrawals were simulated in accordance with assumed MIF policies which the SWCB
has reviewed and deemed suitable for these preliminary analyses (J. P. Hassell, SWCB, personal
communication, 1991 and VDEQ 1994). The assumed Pamunkey and Mattaponi River MIF policies
are further described below.
River Minimum Instream Flowby (MIF)
The derivation of the assumed Pamunkey River MIF is presented in Table 3-C using a system
of modified 80 percent monthly exceedance flows. The 80 percent monthly exceedance flow is that
monthly flow rate which has the probability of being exceeded 80 percent of the time during the
period of record. The Pamunkey River MIF has been modified to: (1) set a minimum flow rate of
140 mgd, which must be maintained when available, (2) provide an additional 25 mgd for irrigation
during the months of April through September, and (3) provide an additional 40 mgd for possible
future Hanover County withdrawals.
The assumed Pamunkey River MIF is consistent with that recently proposed by Hanover
County for the Crump Creek Reservoir project. That MIF would preserve the general shape of the
Pamunkey River's natural seasonal hydrograph and would minimize withdrawals during very dry
periods when additional streamflow reductions could cause salinity intrusions farther upstream than
would occur without the withdrawals.
Based on gaged Pamunkey River Basin streamflow records for Water Years 1930 through
1987, it is estimated that the assumed Pamunkey River MIF would allow some withdrawals to be
made 62.4 percent of the time.
3114-017-319 3-10
-------
TABLE 3-A
STREAMFLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF PAMUNKEY RIVER AT NORTHBURY
EXCEEDANCE
PROBABILITY
(percent)
100
•95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
DAILY STREAMFLOW (mgd)
JAN
90.0
169.0
240.1
332.7
390.6
437.5
474.2
523.9
562.9
614.9
671.5
738.8
787.7
881.1
971.3
1.116.6
1,353.7
1.674.9
2.268.4
3.472.2
17,997.2
FEB .
90.0
275.3
355.6
423.7
494.9
562.1
608.8
669.2
725.8
780.1
818.3
873.6
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
761.0
810.7
879.5
958.0
1,040.1
1,147.2
1.271.1
1,453.1
t.728.4
2,126.1
2.814.5
3,824.0
11,089.6
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
948.3
1,063.1
1,231.3
1,453.1
1 ,850.8
2,455.0
3,816.3
32,432.4
MAY
135.4
205.0
234.0
264.6
296.7
328.1
355.6
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
9,167.3
JUN
62.7
116.2
131.5
148.2
166.0
182.0
202.5
219.5
241.8
262.3
284.5
314.3
341.9
374.9
416.8
464.2
558.3
666.1
871.9
1,379.8
19,119.9
JUL
13.1
66.5
82.5
92.5
103.1
112.5
124.7
135.4
153.7
172,1
189.7
206.5
231.7
258.5
288.8
L 335.0
402.3
. 523.0
725.5
1,223.7
9,865.9
AUG
3.7
40.5
60.4
75.0
82.6
91.0
103.2
114.0
126.2
140.7
161.2
-'::, 181.8
206.5
.:::/.' 245.5
283.1
,.;- 336.6
419.1
544.5
833.6
1 .667.3
30,056.5
SEP
3.7
24.4
43.6
55.8
61.9
71.1
83.4
96.4
108.7
121.6
140.0
156.8
176.2
200.6
228.7
259.3
311.2
367,1
539.2
1,162.5
17.622.2
. OCT
1.9
29.8
53.5
65.8
80.3
95.6
110.1
124.7
138.4
153.0
170.6
193.5
218.0
249.3
283.1
339.6
418.1
' . - 539.2
873.6
2,080.9
1 1 ,930.8
NOV
18.7
84.4
114.0
128.5
148.4
176.7
205.7
231.7
259.3
283.1
306.7
326.9
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
166.3
212.6
259.3
291.4
326.1
355.6
389.3
431.2
476.2
523.9
570.5
638.6
717.4
810.7
963.6
1,246.6
1,717.2
2,755.8
12,083.8
Notes: Exceedance flows were calculated based on gaged Pamunkey River Basin streamflow records for Water Years
1930 through 1987 adjusted to the 1,279 square mile contributing drainage area at Northbury.
Mean historical streamflow at Northbury was estimated at 774 mgd based on a 53-year gaged streamflow record for the Pamunkey River
near Hanover (Water Years 1942 through 1994) which was adjusted to the 1,279 square mite contributing drainage area at Northbury.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 3-B
STREAMFLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF MATTAPONI RIVER 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
DAILY STREAMFLOW (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
6,211.8
FEB I MAR
97.8
241.2
304.0
366.0
417.8
447.8
483.9
518.9
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
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 I MAY
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
613.4
903.8
1.027.1
1.195.5
1,355.7
1.565.3
1,939.1
8.235.0
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 I JUL
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
13.1
29.6
38.6
46.0
54.2
62.8
72.3
81.4
93.3
ioe.o
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
86.3
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
196.8
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 were calculated based on gaged Mattaponi River streamflow records for Water Years
1942 through 1987 adjusted to the 781 square mile contributing drainage area at Scotland Landing.
Mean historical streamflow at Scotland Landing was estimated at 494 mgd based on a 51 -year gaged streamflow record for the Mattaponi River
near Beulahvilte (Water Years 1942-1987 and 1990-1994) which was adjusted to the 781 square mile drainage area at Scotland Landing.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 3-C
PAMUNKEY RIVER AT NORTHBURY
MODIFIED 80 PERCENT MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE MIF
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
Averages
80% Monthly
Exceeds nee
Flow
(mad)
390.8
494.9
544,5
456,6
296.7
166.0
103.1
82.6
61.9
80.3
148.4
259.3
257.1
Minimum
Threshold (1)
(mod)
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140.0
Hanover
County....;:-
Allowance (2)
:,, , .. frriadl .,:..;,.
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40.0
Irrigation
Demand
Allowance (3)
(modi
0
0
0
25
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
12.5
Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance MIF
MIF
(mad) (4)
430.8
534.9
584.5
521.6
961.7
231.0
205.0
205.0
205.0
180.0
188.4
299.3
328.9
% of Mean
Annual Flow (5)
55.7
69.1
75.5
67.4
46.7
29.8
26,5
26.5
26.5
23.3
24.3
38.7
42.5
% Exceedance (6)
75.7
77.0
76.6
73.5
68.9
62.4
45.4
40.3
34.2
47.9
73.1
74.0
62.4
(1) Minimum threshold equals lowest median monthly streamflow value (September).
(2) Albwance based on optimum diversion rate for yield of the proposed Crump Creek Reservoir Project (Black & Veatch, 1989).
(3) Albwance based on USGS estimate of the installed capacity of irrigation equipment abng the Pamunkey River (Black & Veatch, 1989).
(4) The actual MIF value is the sum of the 80% monthly exceedance fbw and the Hanover County and irrigatbn demand albwances.
The 140 mgd minimum threshold is used in this sum, in place of the 80% monthly exceedance flow, if it is greater than that exceedance fbw.
(5) Mean historical streamflow at Northbury was estimated at 774 mgd based on a 53-year gaged streamflow record for the Pamunkey
River near Hanover (Water Years 1942 through 1994) which was adjusted to the 1,279 square mile drainage area at Northbury.
(6) The percent exceedance values were interpolated from the exceedance probability values presented in Table 3-A.
3114-017-319
09- '*n-97
-------
The minimum flowby threshold of 140 mgd is equal to the estimated median monthly
streamflow at Northbury during September,1 That threshold is based on an MIF determination
method, developed in the warm water region of the East Coast, called the New England method.
That method sets a base flow equal to the lowest median monthly streamflow value. The purpose
of establishing the minimum threshold is to avoid overstressing aquatic biota during the adverse
environmental conditions (e.g., higher temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen levels) that often
occur in die lowest flow month.
The irrigation allowance is based on USGS hydrologists' estimates that installed capacity of
irrigation equipment along the Pamunkey River is approximately 25 mgd (Black & Veatch, 1989).
It is possible that future expansion of irrigation withdrawal capacity could occur; however,
the RRWSG considers the combined 65 mgd allowance for irrigation and public water supply to be
adequate to account for possible future consumptive use in the Pamunkey River Basin. The
RRWSG's total Year 2030 consumptive use projection for the Pamunkey River Basin (exclusive of
potential use by RRWSG jurisdictions) is 51.1 mgd, or approximately 20 percent less than the 65
mgd of allowances added to the MIF. The information used to arrive at the Year 2030 consumptive
use projection is presented in Section 5.2.2.
The derivation of the assumed Mattaponi River MIF for the RRWSG's preferred KWR-n
project configuration is presented in Table 3-D. That policy is comparable to the one assumed for
the Pamunkey River. The Mattaponi River MIF uses a system of 80 percent monthly exceedance
flows, modified by: (1) setting a minimum flow rate threshold of 108.5 mgd (lowest median monthly
streamflow value (September) at Scotland Landing), and (2) reserving an average of an additional
5.5 mgd for the SWCB's projected Year 2030 consumptive uses in the Mattaponi River Basin
(exclusive of potential use by RRWSG jurisdictions). The information used to arrive at the Year
2030 consumptive use projection is presented in Section 5.2.3.
Based on gaged Mattaponi River Basin streamflow records for Water Years 1942 through
1987, it is estimated that the assumed Mattaponi River MIF would allow some withdrawals to occur
69.6 percent of the time.
As previously discussed, the assumed Mattaponi River MIF was made comparable to that
assumed for the Pamunkey River instead of the original 40/20 Tennant Mattaponi River MIF for the
originally proposed KWR-I project configuration. This change in the assumed Mattaponi River MIF
was made to provide a more balanced comparison of potential safe yield benefits associated with use
of either the Pamunkey or Mattaponi River as pumpover sources for new reservoirs. The Modified
80 Percent Monthly Exceedance Flows MIF would better preserve the shape of the Mattaponi River's
natural seasonal hydrograph and establish monthly MIF levels which are higher for each month of
the. year. However, in simulating the effects of Mattaponi River withdrawals (made in accordance
with the 40/20 Tennant MIF), VIMS found that the small incremental salinity changes that would
result from the proposed withdrawals, either individually or in combination with other existing and
projected consumptive Mattaponi River Basin uses, appear to be overshadowed by naturally
1 140 mgd is the median monthly rate, not the 80 percent exceedance daily rate shown
in Table 3-A.
3114-017-319 3-11
-------
TABLE 3-D
MATTAPONI RIVER AT SCOTLAND LANDING
MODIFIED 80 PERCENT MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE MIF
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
Averages
80% Monthly
Exceedance
Flow
(mad)
323.8
417,8
429,3
341,8
200.5
101.5
54.2
37.8
33.7
48.1
120.0
226.4
194.6
Minimum
Threshold (1)
(mad)
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
108.5
106.5
Consumptive
Use
Allowance (2)
(mad)
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.3
6.6
7.0
5.7
5.3
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.5
Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flow MIF
MIF
(mad) (3)
328 9
422.9
434.4
346.9
205.8
tISJ
115.5
114.2
113.8
113.6
125.1
231,5
222,3
% of Mean
Annual Flow (4)
66.6
85.6
87.9
70.2
41.7
23.3
23.4
23.1
23.0
23.0
25.3
46.9
45.0
% Exceedance (5)
78.9
79.1
79.3
79.3
79.0
76.5
52.0
49,3
48.4
54.9
79,0
78.i
69.6
(1) Minimum threshold equals lowest median monthly streamflow value (September),
(2) Allowance based on projected Year 2030 consumptive use of 5.5 mgd in the Mattaponi River Basin (SWCB, 1988).
Seasonal variation in allowance based on estimated seasonal variation in irrigation demand component of consumptive use.
(3) The actual MIF value is the sum of the 80% monthly exoeedanee flow and the consumptive use allowance. The 108,5 mgd
minimum threshold is used in this sum, in place of the 80% monthly exceedance flow, if it is greater than that exceedance flow.
(4) Mean historical streamflow at Scotland Landing was estimated at 494 mgd based on a 51 -year gaged streamflow record for the Mattaponi
River near Beulahvilte (Water Years 1942-1987 and 1990-1994) which was adjusted to the 781 square mile drainage area at Scotland Landing.
(5) The percent exceedance values were interpolated from the exceedance probability values presented in Table 3-B.
3114-^17-319
0§- «^n-
-------
occurring variability and are not expected to measurably impact existing tidal freshwater wetland
communities. These findings are documented in Report J, Tidal Wetlands on the Mattaponi River:
Potential Responses of the Vegetative Community to Increased Salinity as a Result of Freshwater
Withdrawal (Hershner et al., 1991) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to
this document Consequently, the 40/20 Tennant MIF may be adequate to prevent adverse changes
in the Mattaponi River salinity regime.3
Although the modified 80 percent monthly exceedence flows MIF was additionally used to
assess the KWR-ffl project configuration safe yield, the 40/20 Tennant MIF was applied to the
storage-limited KWR-FV project configuration. The KWR-FV dam location is approximately 1.1
miles upstream of the RRWSG's preferred KWR-n project configuration dam site. This change in
dam sites results in a reduction in total and available storage of 9.0 and 6.6 billion gallons,
respectively. To provide a sufficient safe yield benefit for the currently proposed KWR-IV project
configuration and minimize reservoir drawdown, the originally proposed 40/20Tennant MIF, which
allows for more frequent withdrawals, was retained. The 40/20 Tennant MIF requires that minimum
monthly flowby, when available, equal 40 percent of the mean annual flow at the intake during'
December through May, and 20 percent of the mean annual flow during June through November.
The 40/20 Tennant MIF would also preclude withdrawals during periods when additional streamflow"
reductions could cause salinity to intrude farther upstream than would occur under natural flow,
conditions. This MIF was also modified by an additional 6 mgd allowance for projected consumptive
use resulting from other municipal, irrigation, and industrial withdrawals in the Mattaponi River
basin. This allowance is conservative in that it should not underestimate future consumptive use in
the Mattaponi River basin. Total Year 2030 consumptive use^Tthe Mattaponi River basin
(exclusive of potential use by RRWSG jurisdictions) is projected a(S 5 mgd.
Reservoir Inflows from Reservoir Drainage Area Runoff
Monthly reservoir inflows from natural runoff in the proposed reservoir watersheds were
simulated using available local gaged streamflow records. Where possible, those flow records were
adjusted to "average contributing reservoir drainage area during the critical drought period," defined
as the watershed land surface area when a reservoir is drawn down to approximately 50 percent of
available capacity. Total drainage area and contributing drainage area estimates are presented below
for three reservoir alternatives.
2 In comments on the DEIS, the VDEQ stated with respect to potential MIF policies
for the Pamunkey River and Mattaponi River that: "The TWO rivers at the intake
locations are tidal rivers. Consequently habitat, depth, submerged area and current
velocity are largely maintained by the tide, regardless of withdrawals. The most
significant impact that could occur is altering the salinity regime.. * (J. P. Hassell,
VDEQ, personal communication, 1994).
3114-017-319 3-12
-------
Reservoir Site
Ware Creek Reservoir
Black Creek Reservoir
King William Reservoir I
King William Reservoir n
King William Reservoir ffl
King William Reservoir IV
Total Drainage Area
fsauare miles)
17.4
5.47
13.17
11.45
10.33
8.92
\
Contributing Drainage
Area fsauare miles)
16.0
4.45
10.63
9.03
8.27
7.26
Reservoir Dimensions
For the King William and Black Creek Reservoir alternatives, dimensional data were
developed in 1994 and 1996 by Air Survey Corporation (ASC). Those dimensional computations
were based on digital files containing detailed topographic maps (with 2-foot contour intervals)
generated from ASC's aerial photography. Elevation, surface area, and volume data for the four King
William Reservoir configurations are presented in Tables 3-E1, 3-E2,3-E3, and 3-E4. Data for the
Black Creek Reservoir are presented in Table 3-F.
For the Ware Creek Reservoir, surface area and storage capacities were calculated at various
elevations based on planimetry of 1" = 200* scale topographic maps prepared for James City County.
Elevation, surface area, and volume data used for evaluation of the Ware Creek Reservoir are
presented in Table 3-G.
Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, the James City Service Authority (JCSA) notified the
RRWSG that the volume of the Ware Creek Reservoir had been recomputed by Gannett Fleming,
Inc. based on more recent and more accurate mapping than had been previously available (J. C.
Dawson, JCSA, personal communication, 1994). The new reservoir'surface area and total volume
estimates for Ware Creek Reservoir are 1,250 acres and 6.49 billion gallons, respectively, for a
normal pool elevation of 35 feet msl (corresponding estimates used by RRWSG were 1,238 acres and
6.87 billion gallons). The 0.38 billion gallon reduction in storage capacity represents a 5.5 percent
decrease in volume. Assuming that the safe yield benefit of the Ware Creek Reservoir with
Pumpover from Pamunkey River alternative (Alternative 11) is directly proportional to available
volume of the Ware Creek Reservoir, then the total treated water safe yield benefit would decrease
by approximately 1.4 mgd (5.5 percent), from 26.2 to 24.8 mgd.
Reservoir Dead Storage
Raw water supply reservoirs are typically designed and constructed with some amount of dead
storage. This is the amount of storage which is not available for water supply use due to various
physical constraints of the water supply intake or pumping system. For example, it often is not
feasible to locate a water supply intake at the lowest point within the reservoir. Moreover, minimum
3114-017-319
3-13
-------
TABLE 3-E1
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA
(KWR-I CONFIGURATION)
Elev. (ft, msl)
90*
85
80
75
70
65
60
58**
50
8
Surface Area (ac)
2,284
2,017
1,749
1,539
1,330
1,150
970
908
660
0
Volume (BG)
21.21
18.06
14.90
12.29
9.68
7.81
5.94
5.42
3.30
0
Volume (ac-ft)
65,101
55,409
45,716
37,714
29,712
23,975
18,238
16,618
10,137
0
Source: Air Survey Corporation, July 22, 1994.
* Normal pool elevation.
** Minimum pool elevation (25 percent dead storage volume).
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-E2
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA
(KWR-n CONFIGURATION)
Elev. (ft, msl)
96*
90
85
80
75
70
64**
60
50
14
Surface Area (ac)
2,222
1,864
1,637
1,409
1,232
1,054
872
750
488
0
Volume (BG)
21.21
16.99
14.30
11.62
9.42
7.22
5.40
4.18
2.13
0
Volume (ac-ft)
65,084
52,133
43,893
35,652
28,901
22,150
16,556
12,827
6,521
0
Source: Air Survey Corporation, July 22, 1994
* Normal pool elevation.
** Minimum pool elevation (25 percent dead storage volume).
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-E3
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA
(KWR-HI CONFIGURATION)
Elev. (ft, msl)
96*
90
85
80
75
70
67**
60
50
23
Surface Area (ac)
1,894
1,562
1,356
1,149
991
832
751
563
339
0
Volume (BG)
16.57
12.96
10.74
8.51
6.71
4.90
4.19
2.53
1.02
0
Volume (ac-ft)
50,848
39,770
32,943
26,115
20,576
15,037
12,855
7,764
3,130
0
Source: Air Survey Corporation (ASC), July 22, 1994 calculations for KWR n, modified by planimetering contour
areas between KWR n and KWR m dam sites on 1" =200' scale ASC topographic maps.
* Normal pool elevation.
** Minimum pool elevation (25 percent dead storage volume).
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-E4
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA
(KWR-IV CONFIGURATION)
Elev. (ft, msl)
96*
90
85
80
75
70
67**
60
50
28
Surface Area (ac)
1,526
1,252
1,080
909
777
645
579
426
240
0
Volume (BG)
12.22
9.53
7.78
6.04
4.77
3.51
2.99
1.77
0.70
0
Volume (ac-ft)
37,506
29,229
23,874
18,520
14,649
10,778
9,177
5,441
2,153
0
Source: Air Survey Corporation, December 23, 1996.
* Normal pool elevation.
Minimum pool elevation (25 percent dead storage volume).
**
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-G
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA
Elev. (ft, msl)
35*
30
25
20
16.5***
10
0
-3.6
Surface Area (ac)
1,238**
971
798
625
516
312
96
0
Volume (BG)
6.87**
4.85
3.55
2.25
1.71
0.72
0.06
0
Volume (ac-ft)
21,069**
14,881
10,891
6,900
5,260
2,215
173
0
Source: Planimetry of 1" =200' scale topographic maps prepared for Junes City County
* Normal pool elevation.
**
***
Subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS, the JCSA notified the RRWSG that the volume of
the Ware Creek Reservoir had been recomputed by Gannett Fleming based on more recent
and more accurate mapping than had been previously available. The new reservoir surface
area and total volume estimates are 1,250 acres and 6.49 billion gallons, respectively, for a
normal pool elevation of 35 feet msl. The 0.38 billion gallon (6.87 - 6.49 billion gallons)
reduction in storage capacity represents a 5.5 percent decrease in volume. The RRWSG has
not recomputed Ware Creek Reservoir safe yield estimates using the new reservoir dimensions
provided by the JCSA.
Minimum pool elevation (25 percent dead storage volume).
3114-017-319
November 14,1996
-------
TABLE 3-F
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA
Etev, (ft, rosty
100*
95
90
85
80
76**
75
70
60
23***
Surface Area (ac)
910
779
648
535
422
351
333
245
149
0
Volume (BG)
6.41
5.17
3.93
2.87
1.82
1.57
1.51
1.20
0.58
0
Volume (ac-ft)
19,674
15,870
12,066
8,818
5,571
4,817
4,628
3,686
1,788
0
Source: Air Survey Corporation, December 8, 1994.
* Normal pool elevation.
** Minimum pool elevation (25 percent dead storage volume).
*** Lowest elevation within Eastern Branch Black Creek impoundment area. Within the Southern
Branch Black Creek impoundment area, the lowest elevation is 37 feet msl.
3114-017-319
November 14,19%
-------
pump submergence requirements often limit pumping when reservoir levels are low. Dead storage
also serves as a conservation measure. The aquatic resources of a reservoir are severely stressed
when water levels drop substantially. If the reservoir is not completely drained, however, viable
populations of fish and other aquatic life usually can be maintained.
In addition, water quality deteriorates as water levels drop in most water supply reservoirs,
with levels of nutrients and metals increasing and dissolved oxygen decreasing. These changes in
water quality can cause problems at the water treatment plant, in addition to their impacts on fish and
other aquatic life. The high nutrient and low dissolved oxygen levels in such an environment can
cause severe taste and odor problems in conventionally treated water, often resulting in water that
is unpalatable. .
The VDH has permitting authority over new water supply faculties, including reservoirs. For
new reservoir alternatives, available water supply storage was set at 75 percent of the total reservoir
volume (i.e., 25 percent dead storage). The VDH has recommended the 25 percent reservoir dead
storage value to provide some degree of water quality protection and a safety factor in safe yield
determinations.
A 25 percent minimum storage buffer provides protection of water quality because
trihaloroethane (THM) precursors can occur at higher concentrations in depleted reservoirs. For
example, as the City of Newport News Waterworks' Diascund Creek Reservoir was drawn down to
levels between 20 and 25 percent of total capacity during an 8-month period in 1983 and 1984,
hyper-eutrophic conditions (i.e., mean total phosphorus concentration of at least 0.09 mg/1)
developed. Hyper-eutrophic conditions often stimulate massive growth of algae and rooted aquatic
plants. Large amounts of dissolved organic matter are then released into the water column by these
plants during their growth cycles and at senescence and death. Dissolved organic materials become
sources of precursor molecules for THMs and other by-products of chlorination.
The 25 percent dead storage allowance also provides a safety factor to protect the system
against the occurrence of more severe droughts than those of record. During the 50-year planning
horizon for the RRWSG's reservoir proposals, there is a risk that a more severe drought will occur
than the drought of record.
There are precedents for use of a 25 percent minimum dead storage allowance. For example,
the SWCB assumed a 25 percent dead storage value in its 1988 safe yield analysis of James City
County's proposed Ware Creek Reservoir (C. H. Martin, SWCB, personal communication, 1988).
The 25 percent minimum storage buffer affords increased aquatic habitat and water quality
protection, and better simulates operating practices by water purveyors in the region. Other benefits
of reservoir dead storage include preserving recreational interests, providing emergency storage for
severe future droughts, and allowing for storage losses due to sedimentation.
Monthly Demand Factors
Reservoir withdrawals for water supply were modeled in conjunction with monthly demand
distribution factors that represent the ratio of monthly demand to annual average demand. These
factors ranged from 0.92 (March) to 1.11 (July), based on Newport News Waterworks water
treatment plant pumpage reports for 1970 through 1987.
3114-017-319 3-14
-------
Reservoir Seepage Losses
Allowances for reservoir seepage losses also were factored into the safe yield analysis. Those
losses may occur through lateral seepage and/or seepage through or under a dam. For the King
William, Black Creek, and Ware Creek Reservoir alternatives, preliminary seepage loss estimates
were 2 mgd, 2 mgd, and 0.34 mgd, respectively. The large difference in seepage loss estimates is
largely due to the fact mat Ware Creek Reservoir would be much shallower than the other reservoirs.
Maximum water depths in the reservoirs would be 82 feet (King William), 77 feet (Black Creek), and
38.6 feet (Ware Creek). Ware Creek Reservoir would therefore have a much smaller elevation
differential between its water surface and the banks of adjacent stream valleys where groundwater
discharge of the lateral seepage was assumed to occur.
Reservoir Releases
Minimum reservoir releases, which are made to preserve downstream aquatic habitat and
water quality, also were factored into the safe yield analysis. A 3 mgd miniumi release was
originally proposed for the King William Reservoir (KWR-I configuration) that did not vary
seasonally. That represents approximately one-third of the estimated average flow of 9.3 mgd in
Cohoke Creek at the ongmauy proposed KWR-I dam location. Water levels in Cohoke Creek
downstream of the dam and in the Cohoke Millpond should be maintained by this controlled
downstream release. The minimum release was considered independent of reservoir spillage and
seepage losses, to simplify the safe yield modeling procedure. These additional reservoir losses
would effectively increase the flow below the darr *o an average rate higher than the minimum
release.
The Black Creek Reservoir minimum release allowance of 1.2 mgd represents 32 percent of
the estimated average flow of 3.8 mgd at the proposed dam locations. The Ware Creek Reservoir
allowance of 0.4 mgd represents 4 percent of the estimated average flow of 11.1 mgd at the proposed
dam location. The low minimum release allowance for the Ware Creek Reservoir is based on the
smallest release allowed by the SWCB in its 401 Certification for James City County's Ware Creek
Reservoir project (SWCB, 1988).
In April 1995, Malcolm Pimie discovered during analysis of detailed output files from the
Newport News Waterworks Raw Water System Safe Yield Model that the model does not always
treat specified reservoir releases as minimum values, as previously-thought. According to CDM:
"The assumption made in the Newport News Safe Yield Model is that the reservoirs are used for
water supply and are not used to augment stream flows during low flow periods by releasing water
from storage. For the purposes of computing the safe yield, the release from the reservoir equals the
inflow to the reservoir when inflows are less than the minimum flowby specified for the reservoir.
Hence, the inflow minus flowby reported by the program cannot be less than zero." (C. Moore, CDM,
personal communication, 1995). The effect of this model assumption is to overestimate safe yield
for reservoirs which would be required to always release at least a specified minimum amount. For
the King William Reservoir alternative it has been determined that the reduction in raw water safe
yield would be approximately 2 mgd if the assumed reservoir release were always made.3 Although
not determined for the Black Creek and Ware Creek Reservoir alternatives, the corresponding
3 The King William Reservoir release specified in the safe yield model as 8 mgd was
composed of the following components: (1)3 mgd minimum release, (2) 2 mgd seepage
loss, and (3) 3 mgd raw water withdrawal from the reservoir by King William County.
3114-017-319 3-15
-------
reductions in raw water safe yield for those reservoirs would likely be less than 2 mgd due to the
smaller releases (i.e., minimum release + seepage loss) specified for those reservoirs in the model
simulations.
The KRWSG has identified an alternative to offset the possible reduction in safe yield
described above for the RRWSG's preferred King William Reservoir project (KWR-II). A permit
condition could establish a "normal minimum release" that would be temporarily reduced during
drought conditions since areas below a proposed dam site would, in the absence of the dam,
experience greatly reduced streamflow conditions during drought. This type of release policy was
incorporated into James City County's Section 401 Certification for Ware Creek Reservoir (SWCB,
1988).4 As depicted in Figure 3-1 A, an alternative release schedule, which varies by month, was
derived for the RRWSG's preferred KWR-n project configuration that more closely mimics the
natural Cohoke Creek streamflow hydrograph. The 3 mgd average annual release schedule would
be maintained during normal higher reservoir pool conditions, and a 1 mgd average annual release
schedule would be used during critical drawdowns. The 1 mgd average release schedule would be
triggered when available King William Reservoir storage declines to less than 80 percent This
storage trigger equates to a reservoir pool elevation of 91.5 feet msl for KWR-n. Based on the safe
yield modeling results for the KWR-n project configuration, the normal release schedule would_be
in place 70 percent of the time under projected Year 2040 demand conditions. TMs~"percentage
would be even higher during earlier years of reservoir operation when demand levels are not as high.
//"'" The drainage area for the currently proposed KWR-IV project configuration is substantially
smaller than the drainage area associated with the originally proposed KWR-I dam site location. As
a result, the proposed reservoir release for the KWR-IV configuration includes a 2 mgd average
annual release schedule during normal higher reservoir pool conditions, and a 1 mgd average annual
release schedule during specified drawdown conditions. The normal 2 mgd average annual release
equates to approximately one-third of the estimated average streamflow rate of 6.2 mgd at dam site
KWR-IV. The 1 mgd average release schedule would be triggered when available King William
Reservoir storage declines to less than 80 percent. This storage trigger equates to a reservoir pool
elevation of approximately 92 feet msl for the KWR-IV configuration.
— Nef Evaporation Rates
The annual net evaporation rate from reservoirs was set at 8.9 inches to simulate 10 percent
exceedance net evaporation conditions, based on historic meteorological records for southeastern
Virginia. This net evaporation rate is equaled or exceeded in only 10 percent of the years of record.
In addition, the 8.9 inches/year net evaporation rate approximately coincides with the average net
evaporation rate during the Years 1931 through 1933, which is the worst drought of record (see
Figure 3-IB).
To help develop an appropriate net evaporation rate, daily pan evaporation data were obtained
for a monitoring station near Holland, Virginia, approximately 40 miles south of Williamsburg. The
data were compiled by the Tidewater Research Center of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University for the period October 1895 through October 1985. Average daily pan evaporation rates
4 A three-tiered policy was outlined in the special conditions of James City County's
Section 401 Certification for Ware Creek Reservoir. The minimum releases specified
by the SWCB range from 0.4 to 1.6 mgd, dependent on runoff conditions, reservoir
storage levels, and water demand reduction measures in effect.
3114-017-319 . 3-16
-------
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR
ALTERNATIVE RELEASE SCHEDULE FOR KWR II CONFIGURATION
5.0
4.5
4.0
TJ
O>
o
(0
3
&
Oct
• • + - -3 mgd Average Annual Release
-B—1 mgd Average Annual Release
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr - "May Jun Jul Aijig SeP
^1
Month
(Q
V
•'9/97
-------
Figure 3-1B
.g
to
I-1
o
2
o
Q.
CO
LU
(O
(O
o
O
dV3A d3d S3HONI
-------
for each month were used to estimate gross evaporation for each month of the record. Where no data
were available for a given month, average historical evaporation rates for the corresponding month
were used.
The pan evaporation data were then multiplied by a pan coefficient value of 0.77, to estimate
gross evaporation from reservoir surfaces. That value is the mean annual Class A pan coefficient for
the Lower Peninsula area, based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
Climatic Atlas of the United States (NOAA, 1983):
Dairy precipitation data were compiled for monitoring stations at Langley Air Force Base
(AFB) (January 1930 through February 1986) and Williamsburg (August 1948 through December
1986). Total precipitation for each month was determined for each station. Those two precipitation
records were then averaged to provide a more realistic spatial representation of precipitation in the
Lower Peninsula region.
To estimate net evaporation, the average Langley AFB/Williamsburg precipitation record was
subtracted from the adjusted gross evaporation record, to develop a 57-year record (1930 through
1986) of net evaporation from reservoir surfaces. A summary of annual precipitation and estimated
gross and net evaporation rates from reservoir surfaces is presented in Figure 3-1B. Those data show
that annual net evaporation rates approaching or exceeding the 10 percent exceedance level occurred
during at least one year in each of several major drought periods. The annual evaporation and
precipitation data are ranked and presented in the form of a percent exceedance curve in Figure 3- 1C.
The monthly variation in net evaporation was incorporated into the analysis by using average
monthly net evaporation rates for seven years in which calculated annual net evaporation from
reservoirs ranged between 7.3 and 11.3 inches. The Newport News Waterworks Raw Water System
Safe Yield Model only accepts 12 monthly net evaporation rates. The model does not accept
monthly net evaporation rates which vary for each year of the simulation period.
Other Raw Water Losses
Other raw water losses incorporated into the safe yield analysis, but not within the model
itself, included those associated with raw water transmission main losses, seepage from existing
Lower Peninsula reservoirs, and losses occurring in the treatment process. These combined losses
were estimated at 10 percent of raw water safe yield benefits computed by the model. The remaining
net safe yield was considered to be the total treated water safe yield benefit of an alternative.
Host Jurisdiction Water Supply Allowances
Each of the new reservoir alternatives considered in this report would be located in an area
outside the core Lower Peninsula study area boundaries. The King William Reservoir project would
involve a new reservoir in King William County and new pipeline and pumping facilities in King
William and New Kent Counties. The Black Creek and Ware Creek Reservoir projects would both
involve new reservoirs located entirely or partially within New Kent County and new pipeline and
pumping facilities in New Kent County.
To develop a project outside the core study area, local consent and zoning (special use permit)
approvals would be required from the outside "host" jurisdictions. (A more detailed discussion of
local consent and zoning requirements under Virginia law is provided in Section 3.4.13). Provision
for the water supply needs of the host jurisdiction is likely to be required as a condition of local
3114-017-319 3-17
-------
Figure 3-1C
I
i
s
tf
2
8
1
si
I
i *
I'
8 i
*; 1
H
o to
CM f-
O
in
o
o
CSI
CSI
13N
-------
consent approval for any water supply alternative. The future water supply needs of the potential
host jurisdictions therefore must be incorporated into the safe yield analysis, as a factor reducing the
amount of the project safe yield that would be available for use by the members of the RRWSG.
The King William Reservoir drainage area lies entirely within King William County. Under
the King William Reservoir Project Development Agreement (King William County and City of
Newport News, 1990), King William County has the option to reserve and withdraw up to 3 mgd
from the King William Reservoir. In addition, the City of Newport News and New Kent County
have executed a Project Development Agreement which guarantees New Kent County up to 1 mgd
of raw water safe yield from the King William Reservoir project Altogether, a 4 mgd host
jurisdiction raw water safe yield allowance was subtracted from the total safe yield for alternatives
which include the King William Reservoir, to calculate net RRWSG safe yield benefits.
The Black Creek Reservoir drainage area lies entirely within New Kent County, so the County
would likely require an option to purchase a portion of the Black Creek Reservoir capacity as a
condition of its local consent approval for the project In discussions between New Kent County and
RRWSG representatives between 1992 and 1994, the County indicated a clear preference for treated
water (rather than raw water) should it be host to a new reservoir project. A 3 mgd host jurisdiction
treated water allowance was assumed as was done for the DEIS. However, the full extent of New
Kent County's projected Year 2040 deficit of 9 mgd would not be served by the project (see Section
3.14.3). The County's unwillingness to discuss the project at the present time, or to develop an
agreement resolving host jurisdiction needs, has prevented the RRWSG from defining an updated
host jurisdiction allowance. Therefore, a 3 mgd treated water allowance was subtracted from the total
safe yield of alternatives which include the proposed Black Creek Reservoir, to calculate net RRWSG
safe yield benefits. If New Kent County requires a larger allowance, the safe yield benefit to the
RRWSG would be less.
The proposed Ware Creek Reservoir impoundment and drainage areas lie in both James City
and New Kent Counties. Under a December 1983 Agreement between those two Counties, New
Kent County has the option to purchase an ownership interest of up to 30 percent of the capacity of
James City County's Ware Creek Reservoir project (James City County and New Kent County,
1983). The RRWSG has interpreted that agreement as allowing New Kent County to acquire up to
30 percent of the safe yield of the Ware Creek Reservoir as it was proposed by James City County,
as a stand-alone system (i.e., without interconnection to any other water system and without any
pumpovers to augment the reservoir yield). Based on the RRWSG's.safe yield analysis, that equals
approximately 2.2 mgd of the raw water safe yield of the Ware Creek Reservoir, or about 2 mgd of
its treated water safe yield. New Kent County could require an additional allowance because a new
water pipeline would pass through the County. As previously discussed, the City of Newport News
and New Kent County have executed a Project Development Agreement for the King William
Reservoir project which guarantees the County up to 1 mgd of raw water safe yield from that project,
in consideration of its agreement to allow the RRWSG to build necessary pipeline facilities within
the County. For the Ware Creek Reservoir safe yield analysis, it was assumed that New Kent County
would agree to a similar allocation with respect to the pipeline facilities required for the proposed
Ware Creek Reservoir project. Altogether, a 3 mgd host jurisdiction treated water safe yield
allowance for New Kent County was subtracted from the total safe yield for alternatives which
include the Ware Creek Reservoir with a river pumpover, to calculate net RRWSG safe yield
benefits.
3114-017-319 3-18
-------
3.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
This section contains brief descriptions, safe yield estimates, and results of practicability
analyses for 31 original alternatives plus 4 additional 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 Report D, Volume I, Alternatives Assessment (Malcolm Pirnie,
1993) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document
The general locations of the alternatives are depicted in Plate 1 (see map pocket at rear of
report). Alternative descriptions are presented in Table 3-1.
3.4.1 LakeGenito
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 msl. 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 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
3114-017-319 3-19
-------
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 4jO mgd pump station and
5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to
Little Creek Reservoir also required.
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-mile, 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.
3114-017-319
January 13, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-1
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
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.
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.
3114-017-319
January 13, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-1
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
13. Black Creek Reservoir &
Pamunkey River Pumpover
Two new dams across southern and eastern brandies of Black
Creek in New Kent County; 6.4-billion gallon interconnected
lake draining 5.5 square miles and covering 910 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 6.8-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 hi Chesterfield
County (above Bosher's Dam) through new 43-mile, 60-inch
pipeline.
15. King William Reservoir &
Mattaponi River Pumpover
KWR-I Configuration (RRWSG's Originally Proposed
Project): New 92-foot dam across Cohoke Creek in King
William County; 21.21 billion gallon lake draining 13.1?
square miles and covering 2,284 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 10.0-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.
KWR-II Configuration (RRWSG's Preferred Project): New
92-foot dam across Cohoke Creek in King William County;
21.21 billion gallon lake draining 11.45 square miles and
covering 2,222 acres at 96 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. Includes a 50 mgd King William Reservoir pump
station and new 10.4-mile, 42- and 48-inch pipeline to deliver
water to Diascund Creek Reservoir. Also includes new 40 mgd
pump station and 5.5-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund
Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir.
3114-017-319
January 13, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-1
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
15. King William Reservoir &
Mattaponi River Pumpover
(Continued)
The USCOE directed consideration of the following additional
upstream dam configurations for this alternative:
KWR-III Configuration: New 83-foot dam across Cohoke
Creek in King William County; 16.57 billion gallon lake
draining 10.33 square miles and covering 1,909 acres at 96
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. Includes a 50 mgd
King William Reservoir pump station and new 11.2-mile, 42-
and 48-inch pipeline to deliver water to Diascund Creek
Reservoir. Also includes new 40 mgd pump station and 5.5-
mile, 42-inch pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little
Creek Reservoir.
KWR-IV Configuration (RRWSG's Currently Proposed
Project): New 78-foot dam across Cohoke Creek in King
William County; 12.22 billion gallon lake draining 8.92 square
miles and covering 1,526 acres at 96 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. Includes a 50 mgd King William Reservoir
pump station and new 11.7-mile, 42- and 48-inch pipeline to
deliver water to Diascund Creek Reservoir. 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.
3114-017-319
January 13, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-1
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
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 Rivet
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.
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
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.
3114-017-319
January 13, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-1
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
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 Milt 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. degeneration
Purchase drinking water produced through distillation process
powered by excess steam from privately-owned cogeneration
facility. New intake on York or lames 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.
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. Additional Conservation
Measures and Use
Restrictions
Lower Peninsula demand projections assume that historic
conservation rates will be maintained throughout the planning
horizon. Additional aggressive water conservation activities
applied to residential, commercial, and industrial demand
categories will provide supplemental safe yield benefits to the
Lower Peninsula, Contingency measures (i.e., use restrictions)
beyond additional conservation measures, employed to produce
short-term reductions in water demand during water supply
emergencies provide further safe yield benefits; implemented in
tiered fashion as emergency intensifies: Tier 1 - voluntary use
restrictions; Tier 2 - mandatory use restrictions.
3114-017-319
January 13, 1997
-------
TABLE 3-1
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS CONSIDERED
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.)
32.1 Black Creek Reservoir &
Mattaponi River Pumpover
Similar to No. 13, but supplemented with water pumped from
Mattaponi River pump station near Scotland Landing in King
William County.
32.2 Ware Creek Reservoir
(Three Dam Alternative) &
Pamunkey River Pumpover
Three new dams across Ware Creek, Cow Swamp, and France
Swamp in New Kent and James City Counties; with normal
pool elevations of 40, SO, and 50 feet msl, respectively; with a
combined surface area of 955 acres, and combined storage
volume of 4.95-billion gallons. Water pumped from new 120
mgd pump station on Pamunkey River in New Kent County (at
Northbury). PipelinessimilartoNo.il.
32.3 Side-Hill Reservoir
Impoundments in King William County located against bluffs
existing along the Mattaponi and/or the Pamunkey River valleys
with maximum operating water depths of 50 feet; total
combined storage capacity of 20-billion gallons: supplemented
with water from pump station on the Matt Pamunkey
Rivers.
32.4 Smaller King William
Reservoir with Two River
Pumpovers
New 90-foot high dam across Cohoke Creek ii. king William
County; 12.1-billion gallon storage capacity covering 1,515
acres at pool elevation of 96 feet msl. Supplemented with
water from Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers by 45 and 75-mgd
pumping stations, respectively. Water pumped to Diascund
Creek Reservoir through new 11.7-mile, 42-inch and 48-inch
diameter raw water pipeline by 50 mgd pv- - • station. Also
includes new 40 mgd pump station and 5 .,•.,, 42-inch
pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek
Reservoir.
* mgd = million gallons per day
Notes: Principal alternative changes and additions subsequent to publication of DEIS are as follows:
13. Reservoir dimensions were updated based on more accurate topographic mapping.
IS. Reservoir dimensions were updated based on more accurate topographic mapping. To avoid potential
erosional impacts to Beaverdam Creek, the pipeline discharge point on Beaverdam Creek was
extended downstream, and a pump station was added.
3114-017-319
January 13, 997
-------
TABLE 3-1
(Continued)
30. Additional conservation measures were included as a component of this alternative.
32.1 Added as an alternative.
32.2 Added as an alternative.
32.3 Added as an alternative.
32.4 Added as an alternative.
3114-017-319 January 13, 1997
-------
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). Li
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
39.8-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, la 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.
3.4 3. LakeChesdin
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 adopted affordability
criterion. In addition, the Lake Chesdin alternative is not considered practicable by federal regulatory
and advisory agencies. Therefore, this alternative is considered infeasible and impracticable at this
time.
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 drains a 243 square mile area (SWCB, 1988). Virginia Power owns and
operates this impoundment as a source of cooling water required by two nuclear power plant reactors.
3114-017-319 3-20
-------
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 on the order of the projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 39.8 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 LakeGaston
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 on the order of the projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 39.8 mgd.
Practicability Analysis
Legal conflicts have stalled the City of Virginia Beach's progress on the Lake Gaston Pipeline
Project for more than 13 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.
3114-017-319 3-21
-------
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
Frcdcricksburg-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 miles 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, hi addition, the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (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
3114-017-319 3-22
-------
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 on the order of the projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 39.8 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 bills 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
pennittable. 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 J 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 15 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 expanded to ISO mgd through
the use of higher filtration rates. This increase in rated capacity would have to be permitted by the
3114-017-319 3-23
-------
VDH, which has indicated some concerns about such a proposal (RRPDC, 1992). If Richmond is
successful in expanding its WTP capacity to ISO 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 4Q-mgd raw water pump station on the James
River between Richmond and Hopewell, approximately 23 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 treated
water safe yield benefit on the order of the projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 39.8 mgd.
Practicability Analysis
The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) has taken a strong position ^.,_. •; 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 Supply
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
3114-017-319 3-24
-------
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 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 Pimie 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
that Ware Creek Reservoir is not practicable 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 James City County filed a petition for review of that decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court in June 1994 in an effort to overturn the veto. In October 1994, the Supreme Court
denied its petition and let stand the appellate court ruling that upheld USEPA's veto.
Given this background, this alternative (without expansion) is considered to be 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 Pamunkey, 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 (see Figure 3-9 in Section 3.5),
3114-017-319 3-25
-------
Pamunkcv 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
miles 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.
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-inch, 45-
mgd capacity pipeline. The raw water pipeline outfall would be located on Beaverdam Creek in New
Kent County.
Chickahominv River (81 -med Total Withdrawal Capacity)
-•am
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.
Chickahominv 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.
3114-017-319 3-26
-------
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,
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 Ugh, 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 for the RRWSG, as listed below, were calculated for the various pumpover
scenarios considered.
To calculate the safe yield benefits of this alternative to the RRWSG member jurisdictions,
the total treated water safe yield value must be reduced by the amount of a host jurisdiction allowance
for New Kent County, where river withdrawal facilities, new pipeline, and a portion of the reservoir
would be located. As stated in Section 3.3.3, this host jurisdictional allowance has been assumed to
be a 3 mgd treated water safe yield benefit
3114-017-319 . 3-27
-------
Pumpover Source
(Rrver(s))
Pamnnkey
Pamunkey
Pamunkey
Pamunkey/Chickahominy
Pamunkey
Pamunkey/Chickahominy
Mattapom
Mattaporu
Mattaponi
Mattaponi
Chickahominy
Chickahominy
Diversion
Capacity (mgd)
40
70
100
100/61
120
120/61
45
60
75
100
61
81*
Treated Water Safe
Yield Benefit to
RRWSG(mgd)
14.1
17.8
21.1
23.5
23.2
24.1
18.0
18.0
18.2
18.2
12.5
12.2
* Assumed MIF 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. The
characteristically larger Pamunkey River flows support a greater withdrawal capacity, thereby
enhancing the safe yield benefits. Based on safe yield modeling results presented previously, this
reduction would be more than 5 mgd. Consequently, a 39.8-mgd project alternative which includes
3114-017-319
3-28
-------
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 disapprove any public
water supply project components that would be built by any other jurisdiction and located in King
William County. A more detailed discussion of the consent and zoning requirements under Virginia
law is provided in Section 3.4.13. 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 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, and reconfirmed
in May 1995). 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
3114-017-319 3-29
-------
low flows that severely limit Chickahominy River withdrawals. Also, with the uncertainties of future
mote 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.
Based on concerns with respect to reliability of water quality and quantity, increasing the
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 SO 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 20.3
and 27.5 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 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.
3114-017-319 3-30
-------
3.4.13 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover From Pamunkey River *
Description
This alternative would consist of the following components: a 120 mgd capacity raw water
intake structure and pumping station on the Pamunkey River at Northbury in New Kent County;
approximately 5 miles of 120 mgd capacity and 1.2 miles of SO mgd capacity river water pipeline
between the river pumping station and the two Black Creek Reservoir impoundments; a 1,200-foot
long dam on the Southern Branch of Black Creek, creating a 462-acre impoundment with 2.91 billion
gallons (BG) estimated gross storage at the normal pool elevation (100 feet msl); a 1,100-foot long
dam on an unnamed eastern tributary of the Southern Branch of Black Creek (referred to in this
report as the Eastern Branch), creating a 448-acre impoundment with 3.50 BG estimated gross
storage at the normal pool elevation (100 feet msl); an intake structure in the Southern Branch
impoundment, and a 20 mgd capacity, gravity flow pipeline connecting the two Black Creek
reservoirs; a 40 mgd intake structure and pump station on the Eastern Branch of Black Creek; a 6.8
mile long 40 mgd raw water pipeline between Black Creek Reservoir and the headwaters of Diascund
Creek Reservoir; a 40 mgd intake structure and pump station near the Diascund Creek dam; and a
5.5 mile long 40 mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir (see
Figure 3-10 in Section 3.5).
The Eastern and Southern Branches join other tributaries to form the main stem of Black
Creek, which flows into the Pamunkey River approximately 3.2 and 4.1 river miles downstream of
the proposed Eastern and Southern Branch dams, respectively. The Black Creek Reservoir watershed
is located entirely within New Kent County. The 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, approximately 40 river miles upstream of the mouth of the
Pamunkey River at West Point and approximately 3.7 river miles upstream of the mouth of Black
Creek. Average streamflow in the Pamunkey River at the intake location is estimated at 774 mgd,
based on an approximate contributing drainage area of 1,279 square miles (see Section 3.3.3).
From Northbury, water would be pumped to the two Black Creek Reservoirs through 5 miles
of 66-inch, 120 mgd capacity pipeline. This raw water pipeline would run cross-country from the
pump station site and along Route 606 in a southeasterly direction to the Eastern Branch outfall. That
outfall would be located near the southern end of the Eastern Branch dam at elevation 100 feet msl,
approximately 200 feet north of Route 606. From this Eastern Branch,outfall, a 48-inch, 50 mgd raw
water main would continue along Route 606 for approximately 1.2 miles to the Southern Branch
impoundment. (This main would also be connected to a 42-inch main running from Black Creek
Reservoir to Diascund Creek, to allow direct pumping from the Pamunkey River to Diascund Creek
Reservoir.) A second Southern Branch outfall from the main running to Diascund Creek would be
located approximately 0.2 miles west of the intersection of State Routes 606 and 609, south of Route
606. A second Eastern Branch outfall from the main running to Diascund Creek would be located
approximately 0.3 miles north of the intersection of State Routes 606 and 609. These additional
outfalls would allow Pamunkey River water to be discharged into the upper arms of both reservoir
branches to improve reservoir flushing and water quality.
The Southern Branch of Black Creek would be impounded by construction of a 73-foot high,
1,200-foot long dam located approximately 1.3 miles south of Tunstall Station in western New Kent
County. The 462-acre reservoir would drain 3.24 square miles and store 2.91 BG at a normal pool
elevation of 100 feet msl. The Eastern Branch of Black Creek would be impounded by the
construction of an 87-foot high, 1,100-foot long dam located approximately 0.5 miles east of Tunstall
3114-017-319 3-31
-------
Station. The 448-acre reservoir would drain 2.23 square miles and store 3.50 BG at a normal pool
elevation of 100 feet msl. (The heights of both dams have been reduced to reflect the higher creek
bottom elevations determined through the new topographic mapping efforts discussed below.) The
combined reservoir surface area would be 910 acres, and the total reservoir storage volume would
be 6.41 BG. Because dam construction and spillway design concepts are preliminary, it is possible
that more detailed dam evaluations could lead to different recommended normal pool elevations. The
proposed impoundment site on the Southern Branch of Black Creek is similar to that evaluated in the
Comprehensive Water System Study (Malcolm Pirnie, 1978) prepared for the City of Newport News
Department of Public Utilities.
The reservoir dimensions presented above have been updated from those presented in the
DEIS. These new dimensional data were computed in December 1994 by Air Survey Corporation
(ASC), based on digital files containing 1" = 100' scale topographic maps with 2-foot contour
intervals compiled by photogrammetric methods from aerial photography previously taken by ASC
on March 12, 1994. These dimensional estimates are considered to be more accurate than the
previous estimates, which were based on planimetry of contours shown on much less detailed
1" = 2,000' scale USGS topographic maps with 10-foot contour intervals. The new 6.41 BG estimate
of total reservoir volume is 23.5 percent less than the previous estimate (8.38 BG). The principal
reason for the difference in volume calculations appears to be due to the large discrepancy in
elevations between the USGS and ASC topographic maps. The differences are most marked at low
points in the watershed, where ASC's elevations are much higher than those estimated from the
USGS maps.
The increased accuracy of the ASC mapping is due, in large part, to the improved vertical and
horizontal control established by ASC in March 1994. Within and immediately adjacent to the Black
Creek Reservoir watershed, ASC placed 17 new surveyed monuments to aid in preparation of the
contour mapping. ASC's new monuments were placed along State Routes 249,610,106,609, 606,
608, and 612, and include a monument placed directly adjacent to Black Creek at the Route 608
crossing. By comparison, the USGS maps only show six bench marks within the same region
represented by ASC's new monuments. The USGS bench marks are limited to four placed along
State Route 249 between Quinton and Talleysville, one along the Southern Railway at Tunstall
Station, and one at the intersection of State Routes 609 and 608. None of the USGS bench marks (in
the region encompassed by ASC's new monuments) are directly adjacent to Black Creek or its
tributaries.
f
The two reservoir branches would be hydraulically connected by a 3,600-foot long
directionally drilled, 20 mgd capacity, 36-inch diameter pipeline. The pipeline would be located at
a depth of approximately 60 feet msl, 40 feet below the normal pool elevation, and would allow
water to flow between the reservoirs by gravity.
Water would be pumped from the reservoir on the Eastern Branch of Black Creek to the
headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir. The 40 mgd water intake and pumping station would
located approximately 0.3 miles off Route 606. The pump station wetwell would be tied into the
reservoir interconnection pipeline, allowing the pump station to pump from the two reservoirs
independently or simultaneously. A 6.8-mile, 42-inch, 40 mgd capacity pipeline would convey water
from the reservoir pumping station southeast along Route 606, cross-country to State Route 33, and
then southeast cross-country to an outfall on Diascund Creek.
3114-017-319 3-32
-------
The 6.8-mile pipeline route described above has been modified from the 7.5-mile route
proposed in the DEIS, to avoid historic sites in New Kent County, including the St. Peters Church
vicinity.
The raw water pipeline outfall would be located 0,8 miles southeast of the Route 608-
Route 617 intersection and approximately 1.5 miles south of Carps Comer, where it would discharge
at elevation 60 feet msl into Diascund Creek in New Kent County. This pipeline outfall is located
approximately 5.7 river mites upstream of the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir.
As directed by the USCOE, the possibility of extending the pipeline from Black Creek
Reservoir to a discharge point on the open water portion of Diascund Creek Reservoir also was
considered. This pipeline extension would require approximately 30,000 additional feet of 42-inch
diameter pipe. The line would be a pumped flow pipeline; therefore, a route following the high
ground above the Diascund Creek valley would be possible. The present worth of the additional
costs of extending the pipeline, including additional pumping power costs over the life of the project,
is estimated to be $9.0 million.
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. 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
This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw Water
System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. The Black Creek Reservoir project was
evaluated as an interconnected component of the existing Newport News Waterworks system. The
total treated water safe yield of this alternative is 21.1 mgd. The detailed methods of analysis used
for estimating the safe yield of the Black Creek Reservoir alternative are presented in Section 3.3.3.
To calculate the safe yield benefits of this alternative to the RRWSG member jurisdictions,
the total treated water safe yield value must be reduced by the amount of a host jurisdiction allowance
for New Kent County, where the reservoirs and most other components of the reservoir/river
pumpover project would be located. As stated in Section 3.3.3, this host jurisdiction allowance has
been assumed to be a 3 mgd treated water safe yield benefit After subtracting the host jurisdiction
allowance, the balance remaining for the RRWSG is 18.1 mgd (21.1 mgd - 3 mgd).
An analysis was also conducted to determine the estimated safe yield benefit of the Black
Creek Reservoir using a 40/20 Tennant Pamunkey River MIF. The total treated water safe yield
benefit of 18.1 mgd was derived after deducting the 3 mgd host jurisdiction treated water allowance
that New Kent County would want at a minimum. This result does not differ from the
aforementioned 18.1 mgd estimate that was based on a Modified 80 Percent Monthly Exceedence
Flows MIF for the Pamunkey River. The 40/20 Tennant MIF does allow more water to be withdrawn
from the Pamunkey River on an average annual basis. However, the 6.4 billion gallon reservoir site
is storage limited under either MIF. That is, reservoir storage, rather than Pamunkey River
withdrawals, seems to be the key factor which limits project safe yield.
New Kent County's comments on the DEIS advised the USCOE that it would not support a
regional reservoir at Black Creek unless "a sufficient amount of that new supply were reserved for
the use of New Kent County" and "unless New Kent County's water needs were fulfilled," which it
3114-017-319 3-33
-------
noted "would require substantially more" than the 3 mgd host jurisdiction allowance that was used
in the RRWSG's previous safe yield calculations (H. G. Hart, New Kent County, personal
communication, 1994). However, the County's unwillingness to discuss the project since September
1994, or to develop an agreement resolving host jurisdiction needs, has prevented the RRWSG from
defining an updated host jurisdiction allowance.
Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, New Kent County's Year 2040 treated water deficit
was projected to be approximately 9 mgd (see Section 5.9.3). Although New Kent County
cooperated in the preparation of the RRWSG's deficit projections for the County, they have been
unwilling to discuss the amount of a potential host jurisdiction allowance from the proposed Black
Creek Reservoir project However, in their April 15, 1994 comments on the DEIS, the County
presented projected water demands mat couM exceed 9 mgd by the Year2010(H.G. Hart, New Kent
County, personal communication, 1994).
Practicability Analysis
When the DEIS was published in February 1994, the Black Creek Reservoir alternative was
deemed practicable. However, in September 1994, New Kent County stated its opposition to the
project and officially adopted a resolution not to cooperate in further analyses toward the RRWSG's
possible development of a reservoir in Black Creek (R. I. Emerson, New Kent County, personal
communication, 1994) and reiterated this position in April 1996 (E. D. Ringley, New Kent County,
personal communication, 1996).
The CEQ's NEPA regulations require an examination of all reasonable alternatives to the
applicant's proposal (40 CFR §1502.14). According to "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning
CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations" (published in the March 23,1981 Federal
Register), alternatives are considered reasonable if they are practical or feasible from the technical
and economic standpoint, even if they cannot be carried out by the applicant.
Although the Black Creek alternative remains a reasonable alternative for a water supply
Teseraamthc District Engineer has determined that it is unavailable to the applicant as a practicable
alternative at this time because t>f-official opposition to the RRWSG's construction of the project in
the host community. Therefore, in accordance with~33 CFR, Appendix B, this alternative is carried
forward as a "No Action" alternative, and is described and compared in similar detail to the
RRWSG's preferred alternative throughout the remainderoflhe document
This section has been updated to present information on practicability considerations for
which circumstances have changed since publication of the DEIS. It should be noted that the
RRWSG's studies of the Black Creek Reservoir alternative were terminated by New Kent County's
actions. As a result, available information regarding this alternative is not as complete as for other
reservoir alternatives.
Host Jurisdiction Approval
The proposed Black Creek Reservoir and its drainage area lie entirely within New Kent
County. Water would be pumped from the Pamunkey River, which is New Kent County's northern
border, into the Black Creek Reservoir. New Kent County4s-n6£lnrtember of the RRWSG. Under
Virginia law, the proposed Black Creek Reservoir cannot be built without New Kent County's
express consent and approval. The governing body (GityjCeoncil or County Board of Supervisors)
of a host locality must grant land use approvals and consents for another locality's development of
3114-017-319 3-34
-------
public water supply facilities within its borders, muter numerous provisions of Virginia law. These
include zoning and local consent laws.
Zoning is governed by local ordinance (New Kent County Zoning Ordinance, 1991).-Under
the New Kent County Ordinance, a conditional use permit (sometimes called a special use permit or
special exception) would be required to construct the necessary components of the Black Creek*;
Reservoir project in New Kent County. A decision to grant or deny a conditional use permit is a
"legislative" decision and will not be overturned by a court unless the decision is not "fairly
debatable" (see, e.g., Virginia Supreme Court, 1982, Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County^v,^
Southland Corp., 224 Virginia 514).
The local consent statutes, whose enactment was prompted by several water project disputes
in the mid-1970s, are found in Virginia Code $15.1-37 (construction of dams for providing public
water supply), §15.1-37.1 (construction of dams across navigable streams), §15.1-332.1
(impoundment of waters), §15.1-456 (conformity of public utility facilities with local comprehensive
plans), §15.1-875 (water supply systems), and §15.1-1250.1 (water supply impoundment systems).
Under each statute, the local governing body may grant or deny its consent to the proposed activity.
Most of those statutes (all except §15.1-456, which is discussed below) provide no standard
whatever for the host jurisdiction's decision; they simply require its consent. Denial of local consent
under those statutes is subject to review by a three-judge special court which must "balance the
equities" and "determine the necessity for and expediency of the ... proposed action and the best
interests of the parties," and which has the authority to "determine the terms and conditions of the
action" (Virginia Code §§15.1-37.1:2,15.1-37.1:3).
An adverse decision under the comprehensive planning law, §15.1-456, may be challenged
in an action in the Circuit Court for the locality making the decision. In the only known case decided
under that law, the Brunswick County Circuit Court issued an opinion that reversed the County's
denial of a §15.1-456 approval for the City of Virginia Beach's Lake Gaston pipeline project, on the
ground that it stated no reasons for denial and therefore was "arbitrary."
RRWSG representatives met with New Kent County officials beginning in June 1992, in an
attempt to negotiate a Black Creek Reservoir project development agreement. On some occasions
prior to late 1994, New Kent County indicated a degree of willingness to work with the RRWSG on
the development of a Black Creek Reservoir project. In fact, the County stated in its April 15,1994,
comments to the USCOE on the DEIS (H. G. Hart, New Kent County, personal communication,
1994) that it was:
"not adverse to the construction of a regional reservoir at Black Creek, but
our support for such a project would only be granted if a sufficient amount of
that new supply were reserved for the use of New Kent County."
Negotiations with New Kent County came to an abrupt halt when the Acting County
Administrator sent a September 20, 1994 letter to the City of Newport News (R. J. Emerson, New
Kent County, personal communication, 1994) which stated that the New Kent County Board of
Supervisors adopted a motion on September 19,1994, "requesting Newport News to discontinue all
work concerning the Black Creek Reservoir" and directing the Acting County Administrator to
transmit a letter "informing you [that] the Board of Supervisors of New Kent County has no intent
to cooperate with Newport News on the Black Creek Reservoir at this time." The County further
requested that the RRWSG "discontinue all work on the [Black Creek] reservoir project."
3114-017-319 3-35
-------
The USACOE sent a March 29,1996 letter to New Kent County concerning potential changes
in the County's position on the Black Creek Reservoir alternative (R. H. Reardon, USACOE,
personal communication, 1996). In response, the County Board of Supervisors stated in an April
23,1996 letter to the USACOE that: "The Board of Supervisors remains committed not to cooperate
with Newport News toward the possible development of a water supply reservoir on Black Creek for
Newport News or the RRWSG" and "There are no proffers from the Regional Raw Water Study
Group that would facilitate further negotiations" (E. D. Ringley, New Kent County, personal
communication, 1996), A concern for "any proposed withdrawal from the Pamunkey River or any
wastewater discharge into the Pamunkey River from any source " was also expressed
"The County has the authority under Virginia law to deny the local consent and special use
permit approvals that would be required for. the RRWSG or Newport News to develop the Black
Creek Reservoir project; and an effort to overturn its denials in the courts could be a long, complex,
expensive, and ultimately uncertain endeavor. If the County's own long-term water needs are large,
in comparison to the yield of Black Creek Reservoir, it may be unlikely that the County would allow
another entity to build and own the project. » ...*-*
Life Cycle Project Costs
A preliminary project cost estimate has been made for the Black Creek Reservoir with
pumpover from the Pamunkey River alternative (see Table 3-1 A). This cost estimate has been
revised to account for the reduced dam embankment sizes (due to higher creek bottom elevations
determined through recent topographic mapping efforts) and the new route proposed for the pipeline
from Black Creek Reservoir to Diascund Creek. The Year 1992 present value of the life cycle costs
of the project, including land acquisition, construction, and operation and maintenance, is $118.3
million.
To allow comparison of this alternative's costs to those of other alternatives, the life cycle cost
of water treatment and transmission to the Lower Peninsula service areas must be considered. For
the 21.1 mgd combined RRWSG and New Kent County treated water safe yield benefit calculated
for this alternative, the Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs for treatment and transmission is
estimated at $19.8 million. The cost of providing treated water to New Kent County could increase
this estimate since a smaller-scale treatment facility to serve the County's needs would not have the
economy of scale associated with much larger treatment facilities serving the Lower Peninsula.
Summing these estimates yields a total project life cycle cost estimate of $138.1 million, or
$6.5 million per mgd of total treated water safe yield benefit. For this cost analysis, it has been
assumed that New Kent County would pay for its share of the project safe yield. The assumed 3 mgd
treated water host jurisdiction allowance represents approximately 14 percent of the project's total
treated water safe yield (21.1 mgd). If New Kent County pays for its pro-rata share of project safe
yield, the RRWSG share of the total project life cycle cost estimate would be approximately $118.3
million, or 86 percent of the total cost ($138.1 million).
3114-017-319 3-36
-------
TABLE 3-1A
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH PUMPOVER FROM THE PAMUNKEY RIVER
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
COST CATEGORY
(tern UnKCost Quantity
LAND ACQUISITION
River Pump Station Site - Acres (1) $5,600 5
Pipeline Easements, River to BC Res. -Acres (1) $2,000 43
Reservoir and Buffer- Acres (1) $1,500 1300
Pipeline Easements, BC Res. to Dias. - Acres(2) $1 ,000 34
Soil Borrow Arm - Acm(2) $1.500 150
Mitigation ATM - Acres(2) $1 ,500 350
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
120 mgd Pamunkey Pump Station and Intake -LS
DO— incn i ransmission Mam to eastern orancn HO HM. — LT *SM» ZB4uo
48- lr«h Transmission Main to Southern BfanchBC Res. - LF $225 6300
Reservoir Clearing up to 94' ms! - Acres $£250 950
EB Dam, Clearing -LS
EB Dam, Excavation -LS
EBDam, Slurry Wall- LS
EB Dam, Embankment — LS
EB Dam, Emergency Spillway - LS
EB Dam, Release Structure -LS
EB Dam, Raising Route 609 -LS
SBDem, Clearing -LS
SB Dam. Excavation -LS
SB Dam, Slurry Wall - LS
SB Dam, Embankment -LS
SB Dam, Emergency Spillway - LS
SB Dam, Release Structure -LS
SB Dam, Raising Route 249 -LS
36- Inch Dir. Drilled Reservoir Transfer Pipeline - LF $700 3600
Southern Branch Res, Transfer Pipeline Intake Structure -LS
40 mgd Black Creek P.S., Intake and Transfer Pipeline Structure -LS
42-Inch Trans. Main to Diascund Creek - LS $200 35900
42- Inch Outfall Branches to B.C. - $200 2100
40- mgd Diascund Pump Station and Intake -LS
42- inch Transmission Main to Little Creek - LF $200 29000
Mitigation, On-srte Berms and Dams - LS
Mitigation, Off- site Fish Hatchery Imp. - LS
Mitigation, Off-site Dam Breaching and Imp. - LS
SUBTOTAL
Permitting, Preliminary Engineering & Legal (5%)
Design, Construction Management & Administration (12%)
Contingencies (20%)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Totals
$30,000
$86,000
$1,950,000
$34,000
$230,000
$530,000
S2.860.000
$13,000.000
CB Cttft IWY
$O,!>OU,UUU
$1,420,000
$2,140,000
$200,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$7,000,000
$1,000.000
$400.000
$250,000
$200,000
$700,000
$800,000
$5.000,000
$1,000,000
$400,000
$1,000,000
$2.520.000
$1,000,000
$6,500.000
$7,180,000
$420.000
$5,600.000
$5,800,000
$1,500,000
$550,000
$550,000
(76,910,000
$3,850,000
$9,230,000
$18.000,000
$107,990.000
October 1996
-------
TABLE 3-1A
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH PUMPOVER FROM THE PAMUNKEY RIVER
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
(Continued)
COST CATEGORY
Item • Unit Cost Quantity Totals
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
B*eMe Power tor Pumping -LS
« .. »*»** . *
Op w aborts and Maintenance — LS
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Pamunkey P.S.
Black Cr^k P.S.
Dlascund P.S.
Pwnunksy P.S,/Pip»fin»
Blade CfMk P.S./Piprtin*
Dioseund P.S./Pip»lin«
$1.754,401
$816,554
. $668,366
$1,668,237
$1,668.237
$834,119
$7.410,000
TOTAL YEAR 1982 PRESENT VALUE COST $110,280,000
AUcott* A) KMT 1S02 doOtn.
1) N^K»nt County wotMteqtan and
9 flfllVSG>ijrflWfc*oo» BOuWaojure.
October1996
-------
3.4.14 Black Creek Reservoir With Pumpover From James River Above
Richmond
Description
This alternative would consist of the following components: a 75 mgd raw water intake
structure and pumping station, located on the James River above Richmond's Bosher Dam, in
Chesterfield County; approximately 43 miles of 75 mgd capacity river water pipeline between the
river pumping station ami Black Creek Reservoir; a 1,200-foot long dam on the Southern Branch of
Black Creek, creating a 462-acre impoundment with 2.91 BG estimated gross storage at the normal
pool elevation (100 feet msl); a 1,100-foot long dam on the Eastern Branch of Black Creek, creating
a 448-acre impoundment with 3.50 BG estimated gross storage at the normal pool elevation (100 feet
msl); an intake structure in the Southern Branch impoundment, and a 20 mgd capacity, gravity flow
pipeline connecting the two Black Creek reservoirs; a 40 mgd intake structure and pump station on
the Eastern Branch of Black Creek; a 6.8 mile long 40 mgd raw water pipeline between Black Creek
Reservoir and the headwaters of Diascund Creek Reservoir; a 40 mgd intake structure and pump
station near the Diascund Creek dam; and a 5.5 mile long 40 mgd capacity pipeline from Diascund
Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir.
The 75 mgd raw water intake structure and pumping station would be located 2.7 river miles
upstream of Richmond's Bosher Dam on the southern bank of the James River in Chesterfield
County, approximately 121.9 river miles upstream of the mouth of the James River. Average
streamflow in the James River at the intake location is estimated at 4,871 mgd, based on an
approximate contributing drainage area of 6,758 square miles.
From the James River pumping station, water would be pumped to Black Creek Reservoir
through 43 miles of 60-inch, 75 mgd capacity pipeline in Chesterfield, Henrico, Charles City, and
New Kent Counties. The raw water pipeline would leave the pumping station site and follow an
existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW) south through Chesterfield County for 6.6 miles to a point
approximately 0.8 miles north of the Powhite Parkway - Route 288 interchange. At this point, the
pipeline would turn and follow an existing power line ROW southeast towards Centralia for 13.7
miles. Along this portion of the route, the pipeline would cross Powhite Parkway, U.S. Route 360,
State Routes 10 and 288, and Falling Licking, Reedy, and Proctors Creeks. Southeast of Centralia,
the pipeline would follow the power line ROW east for 2.8 miles across State Route 288, U.S. Route
1, and Interstate 95, to the James River just north of the Virginia Power Dutch Gap Power Station.
The pipeline would cross the James River at Dutch Gap by directional drill and continue northeast
for approximately 6.5 miles along a power line ROW, crossing Roundabout Creek, State Route 5,
and Interstate 295, en route to another existing power line ROW east of Varina Grove. The pipeline
would continue northeast from this point for approximately 13.4 miles to an outfall site at the
headwaters of the Southern Branch of Black Creek. Along this portion of the route, the pipeline
would cross State Routes 156 and 249, the CSX Railroad, U.S. Route 60, and Interstate 64. The
outfall would be located at elevation 100 feet msl approximately 1 mile east of the intersection of
State Routes 249 and 612.
The other components of this alternative are described in Section 3.4.13 including updated
reservoir dimensions and pipeline routes.
3114-017-319 3-37
-------
Safe Yield
This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw Water
'System Safe Yield Model for a 51-year simulation period (The 51 -year simulation period is shorter
than that used for the preceding Black Creek alternative because a shorter streamflow record was
available for the James River near Richmond gage than for Pamunkey River Basin gages.) The Black
Creek Reservoir project was evaluated as an interconnected component of the existing Newport News
Waterworks system. The total treated water safe yield of this alternative is 24.8 mgd. The detailed
methods of analysis used for estimating the safe yield of the Black Creek Reservoir alternative are
presented in Section 3.3.3 and in Report D, Alternatives Assessment: (Volume I - Practicability
Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to
this document.
To calculate the safe yield benefits of this alternative to the RRWSG member jurisdictions,
the total treated water safe yield value must be reduced by the amount of a host jurisdiction allowance
for New Kent County, where the reservoirs and many other components of the reservoir/river
pumpover project would be located. As explained in the DEIS, this host jurisdiction allowance has
been assumed to be a 3 mgd treated water safe yield benefit; however, as discussed in Sections 3.3.3
and 3.4.13, the full extent of New Kent County's projected needs would not be served by the project
After subtracting the host jurisdiction allowance, the balance remaining for the RRWSG is 21.8 mgd
(24.8 mgd-3 mgd).
Practicability Analysis
Host Jurisdiction Approval
As discussed in Section 3.4.13, New Kent County is opposed to development of the Black
Creek Reservoir by the RRWSG. In addition, Richmond area localities, acting through the Richmond
Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC), have taken a strong position against withdrawals
by the Lower Peninsula jurisdictions from the James River above Richmond, and this project could
not be developed without approvals from several of its member jurisdictions (i.e., Chesterfield,
Henrico, Charles City, and New Kent Counties) under applicable zoning and local consent laws (see
discussion in Section 3.4.13). Furthermore, Henrico County's plans for withdrawals of up to 55 mgd
from the James River above Richmond could delay any RRWSG efforts to pursue this alternative.
••
Life Cycle Project Costs
A preliminary project cost estimate has been made for the Black Creek Reservoir with
pumpover from the James River alternative (see Table 3-IB). This cost estimate has been revised
to account for the reduced dam embankment sizes (due to higher creek bottom elevations determined
through recent topographic mapping efforts) and the new route proposed for the pipeline from Black
Creek Reservoir to Diascund Creek. The Year 1992 present value of the life cycle costs of the
project, including land acquisition, construction, and operation and maintenance, is $197.8 million.
To allow comparison of this alternative's costs to those of other alternatives, the life cycle cost
of water treatment and transmission to the Lower Peninsula service areas must be considered. For
the 24.8 mgd combined RRWSG and New Kent County treated water safe yield benefit calculated
for this alternative, the Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs for treatment and transmission is
estimated at $23.3 million. The cost of providing treated water to New Kent County could increase
3114-017-319 3-38
-------
TABLE 3-1B
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH PUMPOVER FROM THE JAMES RIVER
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
COST CATEGORY
Item
LAND ACQUISITION
River Pump Station Site - Acres (1)
Pipeline Easements, Urban/Suburban - Acres (1)
Pipeline Easements, Rural - Acres
•Reservoir and Buffer - Acres (2)
Soil Borrow Area - Acres(3)
Mitigation Area - Acres(3)
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
75 mgd James Pump Station and Intake -LS
60— Inch Transmission Main to James River -LF
42-Inch Directional Drill -LF
60- Inch Transmission Main to BC Res. - LF
Reservoir Clearing up to 94' msl - Acres
EB Dam, Clearing -LS
EB Dam, Excavation -LS
EB Dam, Slurry Wall - LS
EB Dam. Embankment -LS
EB Dam, Emergency Spillway - LS
EB Dam, Release Structure -LS
EB Dam, Raising Route 609 -LS
SB Dam, Clearing -LS
SB Dam, Excavation -LS
SB Dam, Slurry Wall - LS
SB Dam, Embankment -LS
SB Dam, Emergency Spillway - LS
SB Dam, Release Structure -LS
SB Dam, Raising Route 249 -LS
36- Inch Dir. Drilled Reservoir Transfer Pipeline - LF
Southern Branch Res. Transfer Pipeline Intake Structure - LS
40 mgd Black Creek Pump Station and Intake -LS
42- Inch Trans. Main to Diascund Creek - LS
42- Inch Outfall Branches to B.C. - LS
40- mgd Diascund Pump Station and Intake -LS
42- Inch Transmission Main to Little Creek - LF
Mitigation, On -site Berms and Dams - LS
Mitigation, Off-site Fish Hatchery Imp. - LS
Mitigation, Off-site Dam Breaching and Imp. - LS
SUBTOTAL
Permitting, Preliminary Engineering & Legal (5%)
Design, Construction Management & Administration (1 2%)
Contingencies (20%)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Unit Cost Quantity Totals
$20,000 5 $100,000
$10,000 90 $900,000
$1,000 200 $200.000
$1,500 1300 $1,950.000
$1.500 150 $230,000
$1.500 350 $530,000
$3.910.000
$10,000,000
$300 122000 $36.600,000
$850 2000 $1.700,000
$300 103000 $30,900,000
$2.250 950 $2,140,000
$200.000
$1.200.000
$1.000.000
$7,000,000
$1,000,000
$400,000
$250,000
$200,000
$700.000
$800.000
$5,000,000
$1.000,000
$400,000
$1,000.000
$700 3600 $2.520,000
$1.000,000
$6.500.000
$200 35900 $7.180,000
$200 2100 $420.000
$5,600,000
$200 29000 $5,800,000
$1 ,500,000
$550,000
$550,000
$133.110.000
$6.660,000
$15,970,000
$31,150,000
$186.890.000
October 1996
-------
TABLE 3-1B
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH PUMPOVER FROM THE JAMES RIVER
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
(Continued)
COST CATEGORY
Hern Unit Cost Quantity Totals
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Electric Power tor Pumping -LS James P.S. $1,280,314
Back Creek P.S. $853,451
Diascund P.S. $736.085
Operations and Maintenance - LS James P.S./Pipeline $1,668,237
Black Creek P.S./Pipeline $1,668,237
Diascund P.S./Pipetirw $834,118
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS $7.040.000
TOTAL YEAR 19S2 PRESENT VALUE COST $197.840.000
Atotas.
Allcottt in Ymr 1OO2 dollars.
1) Ch&torfotd County »*>uldacqur*mndl*s» to RRWSGjurisdictions
S) Now Kent County would *cqur» mntllmsf to RRWSG jurisdictions.
3) RRW5G jurisdictions would fcquir*.
October 1996
-------
this estimate since a smaller-scale treatment facility to serve the County's needs would not have the
economy of scale associated with much larger treatment facilities serving the Lower Peninsula.
Summing these estimates yields a total project life cycle cost estimate of $221.1 million, or
$8.9 million per mgd of total treated water safe yield benefit. These estimated unit costs are more
than 10 percent above the RRWSG's adopted cost feasibility level which equates to approximately
$8 million per mgd of treated water safe yield. (Unit costs above this level for an alternative yielding
approximately 30 mgd would result in projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion of 1.5 percent of Lower Peninsula median household income.) For
this reason, this alternative is considered economically infeasible and impracticable at this time.
For this cost analysis, it has been assumed that New Kent County would pay for its share of
the project safe yield. The assumed 3 mgd treated water host jurisdiction allowance represents
approximately 12 percent of the project's total treated water safe yield (24.8 mgd). If New Kent
County pays for its pro-rata share of project safe yield, the RRWSG share of the total project life
cycle cost estimate would be approximately $194.6 million, or 88 percent of the total cost ($221.1
million).
3.4.15 King William Reservoir With Pumpover From Mattaponi River
Description
This alternative would consist of the following components: a 75 mgd raw water intake
structure and pumping station, located on the Mattaponi River at Scotland Landing, in King William
County; approximately 1.5 miles of 54-inch, 75 mgd capacity river water pipeline between the river
pumping station and King William Reservoir; a dam on Cohoke Creek; an intake structure in the
Cohoke Creek impoundment; a 50 mgd pump station at the King William Reservoir dam site (for
KWR-E, KWR-III, and KWR-IV configurations); a raw water pipeline between King William
Reservoir and Diascund Creek Reservoir; a 40 mgd intake structure 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 (see Figures 3-11 and 3-11A in Section 3.5).
Cohoke Creek flows into the Pamunkey River approximately 3.3 river miles downstream of
the proposed dam. The Cohoke Creek watershed is located entirely in King William County. The
75 mgd raw water intake structure and pumping station would be located at Scotland Landing, on the
southern bank of the Mattaponi River in King William County, 24.2 river miles upstream^from the
mouth of the Mattaponi River at West Point. Average streamflow in the'Pamunkey River at the
intake location is estimated at_494 mgd. based on an approximate contributmgjkainagearea of 781
square miles (see Section 3.3.3).
From Scotland Landing, water would be pumped to the King William Reservoir through 1.5
miles of 54-inch, 75 mgd capacity pipeline. This raw water pipeline would run cross-country from
the pump station site in a southwesterly direction, crossing State Route 30, and discharging to the
reservoir in the headwaters of Cohoke Creek. The reservoir outfall would be located approximately
2 miles southeast of King William Courthouse.
Four King William Reservoir configurations were evaluated and are compared in the
following table:
3114-017-319 3-39
-------
Dam She
KWR-I (Originally
Proposed)
KWR-n(RRWSG's
P. .I*., j . i tst«\
reierreo. oitc;
KWR-m
KWR-IV (Currently
Proposed)
Normal Pool
Elevation
(feet,ms1)
90
96
96
96
Normal Pool Area
(acres)
2,284
2,222
1,909
1,526
Total Volume
(BG)
21.2
21.2
16.6
12.2
For the RRWSG's originally proposed KWR-I configuration, Cohoke Creek would be
impounded by construction of a 92-foot high, 2,400-foot long dam located approximately 1.8 miles
upstream of the existing Cohoke Millpond dam. The 2,2S4-acre reservoir would drain 13.17 square
miles and store 21.2 BG at a normal pool elevation of 90 feet msl.
For the RRWSG's preferred KWR-H configuration, Cohoke Creek would be impounded by
construction of a 92-foot high, 2,400-foot long dam located approximately 2.4 miles upstream of the
existing Cohoke Millpond dam. The 2,222-acre reservoir would drain 11.45 square miles and store
21.2 BG at a normal pool elevation of 96 feet msl.
The reservoir configuration and dimensions presented above, for the RRWSG's preferred
KWR-II configuration, have been updated from those presented in the DEIS for the originally
proposed KWR-I configuration. The Cohoke Creek dam site has been moved approximately 2,900
feet upstream of the originally proposed KWR-I dam site. A 6-foot increase in the proposed reservoir
normal pool elevation (from elevation 90 to 96 feet msl) was also incorporated to maintain the
original KWR-I reservoir volume. Principal benefits of the KWR-II reservoir reconfiguration
include:
• Reduction in the area of wetlands inundated. Virtually all of the wetlands in the King
William Reservoir impoundment site are located below 90 feet msl. Moving the dam
upstream by 2,900 feet would avoid inundation of 94 .acres of wetlands. However,
raising the normal pool elevation by 6 feet would inundate an additional 15 acres of
wetlands above elevation 90 feet msl in the reconfigured reservoir. Therefore, the net
reduction in total wetlands inundated by the reservoir would be 79 acres (574 acres for
KWR-II configuration versus 653 acres for KWR-I configuration) as a result of moving
the dam site upstream.
• Avcvdance of potential impacts to Bald Eagles which occupy a nest along Cohoke
Cret iust downstream of the originally proposed KWR-I dam site.
• Reduced volume of material required for dam embankment construction and closer
proximity of proposed soil borrow area to new dam site. This would result in a
$7.7 million reduction in estimated Year 1992 dam embankment construction costs,
from $19.7 million to $12.0 million.
3114-017-319
3-40
-------
Under contract with the RRWSG, Air Survey Corporation (ASC) prepared new detailed
topographic maps of the reservoir area. ASC conducted its aerial photography flights on
February 17,1994. In July 1994, ASC computed the dimensions of the reservoir, both as originally
proposed (KWR-I) and with the KWR-II dam location. These computations were made from ASC's
digital files containing 1" = 200' scale topographic maps with 2-foot contour intervals compiled by
photogrammetric methods from ASC's aerial photographs. These dimensional estimates are
considered to be more accurate than the previous estimates, which were based on planimetry of
contours shown on 1" = 2,000' scale USGS topographic maps with 10-foot contour intervals.
The volume of the reservoir would not be substantially changed as a result of moving the dam
upstream from dam site KWR-I to KWR-II and raising the normal pool elevation by 6 feet to
elevation 96 feet msl. Moving the dam upstream, while keeping the normal pool elevation as
originally proposed (90 feet msl), would reduce the reservoir volume by 4.23 BG. However, by
raising the normal pool elevation by 6 feet at the new dam location, the volume of the reservoir
would be increased by 4.22 BG. Because the Cohoke Creek bottom elevation is higher at the
RRWSG's preferred KWR-II dam site than at the originally proposed KWR-I dam site, the height
of the dam would not change, despite the higher normal pool elevation.
The USCOE directed consideration of additional upstream dam configurations for this
alternative (i.e., KWR-HI and KWR-IV). For the KWR-HI configuration, Cohoke Creek would be
impounded by construction of an 83-foot high, 4,400-foot long dam located approximately 3.0 miles
upstream of the existing Cohoke Millpond dam and 0.7 miles downstream of the Route 626 crossing
of Cohoke Creek. The 1,909-acre reservoir would drain 10.33 square miles and store 16.6 BG at a
normal pool elevation of 96 feet msl.
For the RRWSG's currently proposed KWR-IV configuration, Cohoke Creek would be
impounded by construction of a 78-foot high, 1,700-foot long dam located approximately 3.5 miles
upstream of the existing Cohoke Millpond dam and 0.2 miles downstream of the Route 626 crossing
of Cohoke Creek. The 1,526-acre reservoir would drain 8.92 square miles and store 12.2 BG at a
normal pool elevation of 96 feet msl. Because dam construction and spillway design concepts are
preliminary, it is possible that further studies could lead to a different recommendation about the
normal pool elevation and, consequently, change the reservoir's capacity. The currently proposed
KWR-IV dam site is located approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the originally proposed KWR-ll
dam site and would involve a corresponding storage reduction of 9.0 BG.
As directed by the USCOE, the possibility of extending the King William Reservoir (KWR-I
configuration) gravity flow pipeline to a discharge point on the open water portion of Diascund Creek
Reservoir was also considered. This pipeline extension would require approximately 8,008'
additional feet of 60-inch diameter pipe. To maintain the gravity flow capability of the KWR-I
pipeline, the pipeline route would have to follow the course of Beaverdam Creek from the originally
proposed outfall location to the reservoir. The pipeline would be laid along the western edge of the
bottomland of Beaverdam Creek. The total additional present worth cost of extending the pipeline
is estimated to be $4.0 million. Because this would be a substantial additional expenditure, extension
of the KWR-I gravity flow pipeline all the way to the pool of Diascund Creek Reservoir was not
incorporated in the alternative. However, in order to minimize potential erosional effects, the|
Beaverdam Creek outfall location was extended 0.5 miles farther downstream for the KWR-II, KWR-
III, and KWR-TV configurations. The potential hydrologic impacts of die proposed Beaverdam
Creek outfall are discussed in Section 5.2.3.
3114-017-319 3-41
-------
For the KWR-I configuration, 10.0-mile, 42-inch and 60-inch pipeline would convey water
south from the reservoir across the Pamunkey River to elevation 35 feet msl on Beaverdam Creek
in New Kent County. This pipeline would initially operate in a gravity flow mode, with a capacity
of approximately 30 mgd. In the future, as demands increase, a reservoir pump station would be
constructed to increase the pipeline's capacity to 40 mgd
The reservoir pump station was not required for the originally proposed configuration (KWR-
I). As originally proposed, the minimum reservoir pool elevation would have been 70 feet msl (i.e.,
20-foot maximum drawdown, preserving 47 percent dead storage), and the pipeline would have
discharged farther upstream on Beaverdam Creek. Under the RRWSG's preferred configuration
(KWR-II), the minimum reservoir pool elevation would be 64 feet msl (i.e., 32-foot maximum
drawdown, preserving 25 percent dead storage), the outfall would be at 30,5 feet msl, and the
pipeline would be longer. When the reservoir is drawn down to 64 feet msl, the reduced hydraulic
head would have reduced the capacity of a gravity pipeline to approximately 25 mgd.
The reduction in the amount of dead storage (from 47% to 25%) would lead to larger
fluctuations in reservoir operating levels and, therefore, increase the duration of periods when
recreational use of the reservoir would be limited. However, using more of the total reservoir storage
would offer greater flexibility in the tuning of Mattaponi River withdrawals. The original project
safe yield benefit could be maintained under a more restrictive river MF than the originally proposed
40/20 Tcnnant MIF, whereas project safe yield could be enhanced if the 40/20 Tennant MIF was
retained. "
The KWR-II, KWR-ffl, and KWR-IV configurations would include a 50 mgd reservoir pump
station at the King William Reservoir dam site. The 50 mgd capacity pipeline would have inside
diameters of 42 and 48 inches. The pipeline would leave the reservoir from a location just north of
Cohokc Milipond and run south through the community of Cohoke in King William County and into
New Kent County. Along this portion of (be route, the pipeline would cross under the bed of the
Pamunkey River in a directionally-drilled pipeline crossing. The pipeline then would run southeast
crossing Routes 628, 249, and 33, to the discharge point on Beaverdam Creek, which is a major
tributary of Diascund Creek Reservoir. The gravity pipeline terminus would be located
approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the Interstate 64 - Route 33 interchange, 0.3 river miles
upstream of where Beaverdam Creek flows under a 75-foot long bridge on Interstate 64, and 0.8 river
miles upstream of the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir.
The overall 10.4-, 11.2-, and 11.7 -mile pipeline routes described above for the KWR-II,
KWR-III and KWR-IV configurations have been modified from the route for KWR-I described in
the DEIS. The modifications were made to account for the Cohoke Creek dam site being moved
farther upstream, to minimize potential conflicts with private landowners in New Kent County, and
to minimize potential erosional impacts to Beaverdam Creek.
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. 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.
3114-017-319 3-42
-------
Safe Yield
This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw Water
System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. The JCing William Reservoir project was
evaluated as an interconnected component of the existing Newport News Waterworks system. The
new reservoir configuration and 25 percent dead storage assumption were incorporated into this
analysis. In addition, the assumed Mattaponi River MIF was made comparable to that proposed for
the Pamunkey River. Use of the Modified 80 Percent Monthly Exceedancc Flows MIF developed
for the Mattaponi River (instead of the originally proposed 40/20 Tennant MIF assumed for the
KWR-I configuration) would preserve the general shape of the Mattaponi River's natural seasonal
hydrograph and establish monthly MIF levels which are higher for each month of the year. The total
treated water safe yield of the RRWSG's preferred KWR-E configuration is 29.0 mgd. The detailed
methods of analysis used for estimating the safe yield of the King William Reservoir alternative are
presented in Section 3.3.3.
To calculate the safe yield benefits of this alternative to the RRWSG member jurisdictions,
the total treated water safe yield value must be reduced by the amount of host jurisdiction allowances
for King William and New Kent Counties, where the reservoir and most other components of the
reservoir/river pumpovcr project would be located. Owing to conditions set forth in the King
William Reservoir Project Development Agreement (King William County and City of Newport
News, 1990), King William County has the option to reserve up to 3 mgd of the King William
Reservoir capacity. In addition, the City of Newport News has executed a Project Development
Agreement with New Kent County which guarantees the County up to 1 mgd of raw water safe yield
if the King William Reservoir project is developed. The treated water safe yield remaining for the
RRWSG is JZ5.4 mgd; This is based on a total treated water safe yield of 29.0 mgd for the RRWSG's
preferred'KWR-II configuration, less 3.6 mgd of treated water safe yield due to 4 mgd in host
jurisdiction raw water allowances. (The 3.6 mgd treated water reduction is equivalent to a 4 mgd raw
water safe yield reduction after estimated treatment and transmission losses are factored into the
calculation).
Safe yield estimates for four King William Reservoir project configurations are presented
below. Dimensions for each reservoir configuration are presented in Section 3.3.3. The KWR-II and
KWR-ffl configuration safe yield estimates included the application of the Modified 80 Percent
Monthly Exccedence Flows MIF. A 40/20 Tennant MIF was used for KWR-I. To provide a |
sufficient safe yield benefit for the storage limited KWR-IV configuration and minimize reservoir 4
drawdown, the originally proposed 40/20 Tennant MIF was retained for KWR-IV.
Frojeet
Configuration
KWR-I^
KWR-H
KWR-m
KWR-IV
Dead
Storage
%
25
25
25
25
Treated Water Safe Yield
(mgd,Total/RRWSG)
40/20 Tennant MIF
30.7/27.1 =
—
—
26.8/23.2,
80% Exceedance MIF
..
29.0/25.4 |
25.3/21.7
—
3114-017-319
3-43
-------
The location of the dam site and pipeline route for each of the above configurations is depicted
in Plate 2 (see map pocket at rear of report).
A King William Reservoir scenario involving no pumpover from either the Mattaponi River
or Pamunkey River was also considered. Based on 11.45 square miles of drainage area for KWR-n,
the estimated average surface water inflow to the reservoir would be about 8 mgd. From this amount
would be subtracted a 3 mgd normal reservoir release, reservoir seepage losses (2 mgd allowance),
3 mgd for King William County, and 1 mgd for New Kent County. The average surface water runoff
rate is not sufficient to offset these allowances and, consequently, there would be no safe yield
benefit for the RRWSG.
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.
This section has been updated to present information on practicability considerations for
which circumstances have changed since publication of the DEIS.
Host Jurisdiction Approval
The proposed King William Reservoir and its drainage area lie entirely within King William
County. Because King William County is not currently a member of the RRWSG, the County's
approval would be critical to the RRWSG's successful implementation of this project. To this end,
King William County and the City of Newport News signed the King William Reservoir Project
Development Agreement (King William County and City of Newport News, 1990) and subsequent
Addenda Numbers 1 and 2 (King William County and City of Newport News, 1992 and 1995). The
Agreement and Addenda outline the terms and conditions upon which cooperative development of
the King William Reservoir project could proceed. Under this Agreement, King William County has
the option to construct, own, and operate a separate King William Reservoir intake structure and
pumping facility for raw water withdrawals of up to 3 mgd.
Provisions for recreational use of King William Reservoir also are included as part of the
Project Development Agreement. For example, public use of the reservoir would be allowed through
at least five access sites mutually agreed upon by the City of Newport News and King William
County. Recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, and boating (excluding the use of internal
combustion engines) would be allowed in the reservoir.
As previously mentioned, the reduction in proposed reservoir dead storage to 25 percent of
total volume would lead to larger fluctuations in reservoir operating levels. An analysis of predicted
reservoir operating levels over the entire 58-year safe yield simulation period, under projected Year
2040 demand conditions, showed that during 71 and 84 percent of the time, water surface elevations
within the reservoir would be within 5 and 10 feet, respectively, of the 96-foot spillway elevation (for
KWR-II configuration). (Prior to the Year 2040, water level drawdowns would be smaller because
lower demands would be made on the reservoir.) The average water level predicted in these
simulations was 91.7 feet msl, which is only 4.3 feet below the proposed spillway elevation. Under
the originally proposed KWR-I configuration, a maximum reservoir drawdown of 20 feet was
assumed. Under the RRWSG's preferred KWR-II configuration, reservoir drawdowns of more than
20 feet would occur about 5 percent of the time..,
3114-017-319 3-44
-------
Under projected Year 2040 demand conditions, full recreational use could still continue during
approximately 95 percent of the months in the simulation period. During the earlier years of
reservoir use, before the Year 2040 demand conditions are reached, the larger drawdowns and
consequent reduction of recreational opportunities would be even less frequent.
King and Queen County Cairo to Mattaponi River
In King and Queen. County's April 19, 1994 comments on the DEIS, the County's attorney
asserted that the stretch of the Mattaponi River contiguous to King William County lies entirely
within King and Queen County. King and Queen County relies, in part, on the 1702 Act of the,
Virginia General Assembly by which King William County was formed from a part of King and
Queen County. That Act assigns territory on each "side" of the Mattaponi River to the respective
Counties, but it does not appear to support King and Queen County's claim that the boundary IKS on
the south (King William County) bank of the Mattaponi River. .
The general rule concerning boundaries along waterways holds that the boundary is the center
of the channel, unless otherwise expressly stated in the legislation creating the boundary. Moreover,
Virginia law provides that in determining the location of territorial boundaries specified in legislative
acts, due weight should be given to their "contemporaneous [sic] interpretation... by the courts and
other lawful authorities within the same and by the population at large residing therein" (Supreme
Court of Virginia, 1856, Hamilton v. McNeil, 54 Virginia (3 Gratt.) 389,395). Further, maps of the
territory in question "made out or published by authority of law" may serve as "persuasive evidence"
of the boundary (ibid).
The center of the navigational channel has been used as the County boundary on all maps that
have been made available to the RRWSG (e.g., USGS topographic quadrangle maps, Virginia
Department of Transportation General Highway Maps for King William County and King and Queen
County, King William County tax maps, etc.). Moreover, there is a seemingly universal (and
probably long-standing) practical interpretation of the law by the two Counties, to the effect that the
boundary line follows the center of the channel of the River. That interpretation appears to be
followed uniformly in the exercise of the Counties' respective police powers and taxing powers. The
proposed intake structure would be south of the center of the navigational channel, and therefore it
would be in King William County, not in King and Queen County.
The Mayor and staff from the City of Newport News, on behalf of the RRWSG, met with the
King and Queen County Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board of Supervisors and County staff in
December 1996 to discuss issues of mutual interest. The Chair and Vice-Chair agreed to discuss
possible needs of the County with which Newport News might assist as a cooperative by-product of
the reservoir project. In addition, Newport News agreed to specifically address any concerns, issues,
or questions raised by the County. The Chairman agreed to send both to the Mayor. As of the end
of 1996, a list of questions regarding the project had been received and a response was being drafted.
The County has not yet responded with a reaction to the offer for cooperative assistance.
Life Cycle Project Costs
A preliminary project cost estimate has been made for the King William Reservoir with
pumpover from the Mattaponi River alternative (KWR-II configuration) (see Table 3-1C). This cost
estimate has been updated to reflect the new configurations of the reservoir, reservoir pump station,
and pipeline to Diascund Reservoir. The Year 1992 present value of the life cycle costs of the
project, including land acquisition, construction, and operation and maintenance, is $123.8 million.
3114-017-319 3-45 -r
-------
TABLE 3-1C
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR
WITH PUMPOVER FROM THE MATTAPONI RIVER
KWR II CONFIGURATION
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
COST CATEGORY
Kern
LAND ACQUISITION
River Pump Station Site - Acres (1)
Pipeline Easements, River to KW Res. - Acres (1)
Reservoir and Buffer — Acres (2)
Pipeline Easements, KW Res. to Dias. - Acres (3)
Soil Borrow Area - Acres(3)
Mitigation Area -Acres(3)
**" TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
75 mgd Mattaponi Pump Station and Intake -IS
54- Inch Transmission Main to KW Res. - LF
48- Inch Transmission Main to Pamunkey River - LF
42- Inch Dir. Drill Pamunkey River Crossing - LF
48 -Inch Transmission Main - LF
42-Inch Transmission Main - LF
Dam, Clearing -LS
Dam, Excavation -LS
Dam, Slurry Wall -LS
Dam, Embankment -LS
Dam, Emergency Spillway — LS
Dam, Withdrawal & Release Structure -LS
50- mgd King William Pump Station -LS
Reservoir Clearing up to 90' msl - Acres
40- mgd Diascund Pump Station and Intake -LS
42- Inch Transmission Main to Utte Creek - LF
King William County Landfill Relocation - LS (4f
County Route 626 Replacement - LF
Mitigation - LS
SUBTOTAL /
Permitting, Preliminary Engineering & Legal (5%)
Design, Construction Management & Administration (12%)
Contingencies (20%)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Unit Cost
$5,600
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$1,500
$1,500
$250
$225
$850
$225
$200
$2,250
-
$200
$250
Quantity
25
8
4025
60
125
500
8000
17000
4500
23000
10500
2000
29000
8000
Totals
$140,000
$16.000
$6,040,000
$60,000
$190,000
-$780.000**
$7.200.000
$10,000,000
$2,000.000
$3,830,000
$3,830,000
$5,180,000
$2,100,000
$400,000
$1,900,000
$1,900,000
$12.000,000
$2,300,000
$800.000
$5,500.000
$4,500,000
$5,600,000
$5,800,000
$3,000.000"**
$2,000.000
$5,000,000
$77.640.000
$3,880,000
$9,320,000
$18,170,000
$1O9.O10.0QO
November 1996
-------
TABLE 3-1C
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR
WITH PUMPOVER FROM THE MATTAPONI RIVER
KWR II CONFIGURATION
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
(Continued)
COST CATEGORY
Ham
Unit Cost
Quantity
Totals
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Electric Power tor Pumping - LS
Operations and Maintenance -LS
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Matt, P.S.
Booster P.S.
Diaseund P.S.
Matt P.S./Pipeline
Booster P.S./Pipeline
Diaseund P.S./Pipeline
$2,334,502
$784,822
$711.423
$1,668,237
$1,251,178
$834,118
$7.580,000
TOTAL YEAR 1992 PRESENT VALUE COST
$123,790.000
Notes:
All costs m Ymr lOOSOottfn,
1) Assumes King William County and RRWSG would jointly own.
2) Assumes King William County would acquire and <••** to RRWSG jurisdictions.
3) Assumes RRWSG jurisdictions would acquire
4) Landfil relocation may not berequred its part of this project
November 1996
-------
To allow comparison of this alternative's costs to those of other alternatives, the life cycle cost
of water treatment and transmission to the Lower Peninsula service areas must be considered. For
the 29.0 mgd combined RRWSG, King William County, and New Kent County treated water safe
yield benefit calculated for this alternative, the Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs for
treatment and transmission is estimated at S27.4 million.
Summing these estimates yields a total project file cycle cost estimate of $151.2 million, or
$5.2 million per mgd of total treated water safe yield benefit For this cost analysis, it has been
assumed that King William County and New Kent County would pay for their shares of the project
safe yield. According to Section ffl(c) of the King William Reservoir Project Development
Agreement (King William County and City of Newport News, 1990):
"Investment In Structural Improvements: COUNTY [King William County] shall reimburse
CTTY [City of Newport News] an amount equal to 9.1 percent of the total of all principal and
interest payments made or payable by CUT over the financing period for those structural
improvement?, which are necessary to the provision of water to COUNTY (i.e., the
impoundment, river pumping station, connecting pipeline, and associated rights-ofway and
land ownership)."
Based on the itemized costs presented in Table 3-1C, the total Year 1992 present value of
construction and land acquisition costs which fall within the agreement provision outlined above
would be approximately SS5.3 million. Assuming that King William County would pay for 9.1
percent of this amount, the RRWSG's share of the total project cost would be reduced by
approximately $5.0 million. The 1 mgd raw water allowance for New Kent County represents
approximately 3 percent of the project's total raw water safe yield (29.0 mgd). If New Kent County
pays for project costs (excluding treatment and transmission costs since a raw water allowance has
been assumed for the County) based on its pro-rata share of project safe yield, the RRWSG share of
the total project life cycle cost estimate would be reduced by approximately $3.7 million. If both
Counties pay for their pro-rata shares of project safe yield as outlined above, the RRWSG share of
the total project life cycle cost estimate would be approximately $142.5 million, or 94 percent of the
total cost ($151.2 million).
3.4.16 King William Reservoir With Pumpovcr From Pamimkey River
Description
This alternative would consist of the following components: a 100 mgd raw water intake
structure and pumping station, located on the Pamunkey River near Montague Landing, in King
William County; approximately 5.7 miles of 60-inch, 100 mgd capacity river water pipeline between
the river pumping station and King William Reservoir; a 2,400-foot long dam on Cohoke Creek at
the KWRII dam site, creating a 2,222-acre impoundment with 21.2 BG estimated gross storage at
the normal pool elevation (96 feet msl); an intake structure in the Cohoke Creek impoundment; a
10.4 mile long raw water pipeline, having inside diameters of 42 and 48 inches, between King
William Reservoir and Diascund Creek Reservoir; a 50 mgd pump station at the King William
Reservoir dam; a 40 mgd intake structure 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.
The 100 mgd raw water intake and pumping station would be located in the vicinity of
Montague Landing on the northern bank of the Pamunkey River in King William County. Montague
Landing is located approximately 38 river miles upstream from the mouth of the Pamunkey River.
3114-017-319 3-46
-------
Average streamflow at Northbury, 2 river miles upstream of Montague Landing, is estimated at 774
mgd based on an approximate contributing drainage area of 1,279 square miles.
From Montague Landing, water .would be .pumped to King William Reservoir through 5.7,
miles of 60-inch, 100 mgd capacity pipeline. This raw water pipeline would run cross country from
the pump station site in a northeasterly direction for approximately 2.7 miles, crossing State Route
632 near Mt Olive Church. The pipeline would then continue cross country northeast for another
3 miles, crossing State Route 633, and discharging at elevation 90 feet msl at the headwaters of
Cohokc Creek. This outfall would be located approximately 0.2 miles southeast of Jerusalem
Church.
The other components of this alternative are described in Section 3.4.15 including the updated
reservoir configuration, changes in the pipeline to Diascund Creek Reservoir, and the 50 mgd King
William Reservoir pump station.
Safe Yield
This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw Water
System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. The King William Reservoir project was
evaluated as an interconnected component of the existing Newport News Waterworks system. The
new reservoir configuration and 25 percent dead storage assumption were incorporated into this
analysis. Thetotal treated water safe yield of this alternative is 33.2 mgd. The detailed methods of
analysis used for estimating the safe yield of the King William Reservoir alternative are presented
in Section 3.3.3.
To calculate the safe yield benefits of this alternative to the RRWSG member jurisdictions,
the total treated water safe yield value must be reduced by the amount of host jurisdiction allowances
for King William and New Kent Counties, where die reservoir and most other components of the
reservoir/river pumpover project would be located. Although no host agreements are in place for this
alternative, the same host jurisdiction allowances described in Section 3.4.15 (for Mattaponi River
pumpover scenario) are assumed for this Pamunkey River pumpover scenario. It has thus been
assumed that King William County and New Kent County would receive raw water safe yield
allowances of 3 mgd and 1 mgd, respectively. The treated water safe yield remaining for the
RRWSG is 29.6 mgd. This is based on a total treated water safe yield of 33.2 mgd, less 3.6 mgd of
treated water safe yield due to 4 mgd in host jurisdiction raw water allowances. (The 3.6 mgd treated
water reduction is equivalent to a 4 mgd raw water safe yield reduction after estimated treatment and
transmission losses are factored into the calculation.)
Practicability Analysis
Based on the environmental, technical, and institutional constraints discussed below, a
Pamunkey River pumpover to King William Reservoir alternative appears to be less practicable than
a Mattaponi River pumpover alternative.
3114-017-319 3-47
-------
Environmental Constraints
The pipeline route from the Pamunkey River to King William Reservoir would be nearly four""
times as long as that from the Mattaponi River (5.7 versus 1.5 miles, respectively) and would require
a larger diameter pipeline. As a result, additional stream crossings and greater temporary land
disturbance would occur. Energy requirements also would be greater, causing additional impacts
from increased energy generation. With increased construction and operating costs, the total Year
1992 present value of project costs for the Pamunkey River pumpover scenario would be
approximately $12.7 million higher than for the Mattaponi River pumpover.
The environmental impacts of a Pamunkey River pumpover could be larger than those of the
proposed Mattaponi River withdrawals, for several reasons. First, existing and projected future water
demands are much greater in the Pamunkey River Basin than in the Mattaponi River Basin. As
presented in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3, estimated Year 1990 consumptive water use in the Pamunkey
; River Basin is 11 times as great as that estimated for the Mattaponi River Basin (34.2 mgd versus 3.1
mgd); and projected Year 2030 consumptive uses (without a RRWSG project) in the Pamunkey Rivet
Basin are more than 9 times as great as in the Mattaponi River Basin (51.1 mgd versus 5.5 mgd). /
Water Quality Reliability
The number of existing and planned wastewater discharges to the Pamunkey River raises
concerns about water quality that do not exist for the Mattaponi River. There currently are several
point source discharges in the Pamunkey River Basin, including four SWCB-designated "major"
municipal and industrial discharges upstream of Northbury. Chesapeake Corporation operates a large
Kraft pulp and paper mill in the Town of West Point which is a major industrial discharger to the
lower portion of the Pamunkey River. Hanover County, King William County, and New Kent
County have each recently planned or developed new sewage treatment plant (STP) 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 SWCB-^esignatcd stream segment which includes Scotland Landing.
That segment extends more than 30 river miles upstream and 11 river miles downstream of the
proposed Scotland Landing intake site. *
Host Jurisdiction Approval
The proposed King William Reservoir and its drainage area lie entirely within King William
County. Because King William County is not currently a member of the RRWSG, the County's
approval would be critical to the RRWSG's successful implementation of this alternative. As
discussed in Section 3.4.13, the governing body (City Council or County Board of Supervisors) of
a host locality must grant its approval for another locality's development of public water supply
facilities within its borders, under numerous provisions of Virginia law. These include zoning and
local consent laws.
King William County has stated its opposition to withdrawals by the RRWSG from the
Pamunkey River as the primary source for augmenting storage in the proposed King William
Reservoir (D. S. Whitlow, King William County, personal communication, 1992, and reconfirmed
in May 1995). That statement is consistent with its prior actions. In the mid-1980's, King William
County joined with Hanover and other Counties in the Pamunkey River Water Study Committee, an
organization that was formed to oppose withdrawals from the Pamunkey River by Lower Peninsula
3114-017-319 3-48
-------
jurisdictions. King William County's subsequent agreement with the RRWSG to support the King
William Reservoir was based upon the reliance on a Mattaponi River pumpover.
Life Cycle Project Costs
A preliminary project cost estimate has been made for the King William Reservoir with
pumpover from the Pamunkey River alternative (see Table 3-ID). This cost estimate has been
updated to reflect the new configurations of the reservoir, reservoir pump station, and pipeline to
Diascund Creek Reservoir. The Year 1992 present value of the life cycle costs of the project,
including land acquisition, construction, and operation and maintenance, is $136.4 million.
To allow comparison of this alternative's costs to those of other alternatives, the life cycle cost
of water treatment and transmission to the Lower Peninsula service areas must be considered. For
the 33.2 mgd combined RRWSG, King William County, and New Kent County treated water safe
yield benefit calculated for this alternative, the Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs for
treatment and transmission is estimated at $31.2 million.
Summing these estimates yields a total project life cycle cost estimate of $167.6 million, or
$5.0 million per mgd of total treated water safe yield benefit. For this cost analysis, it has been
assumed that King William County and New Kent County would pay for their pro-rata shares of the
project safe yield. The combined 4 mgd raw water allowance for the two Counties represents
approximately 11 percent of the project's total raw water safe yield (36.9 mgd). If both Counties pay
for project costs (excluding treatment and transmission costs since raw water allowance have been
assumed for the Counties) based on their pro-rata shares of project safe yield, the RRWSG share of
the total project life cycle cost estimate would be reduced by approximately $15.0 million. Overall,
the RRWSG share of the total project life cycle cost estimate would then be approximately $152.6
million, or 91 percent of the total cost ($167.6 million).
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 57.5 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).
3114-017-319 3-49
-------
TABLE 3-1D
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR
WITH PUMPOVER FROM THE PAMUNKEY RIVER
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
COST CATEGORY
Ham
LAND ACQUISITION
River Pump Station Site - Acres (1)
Pipeline Easements. River to KW Res. - Acres (1)
Reservoir and Buffer - Acres (2)
Pipeline Easements, KW Res. to Dias. - Acres(3)
Soil Borrow Area — Acres (3)
Mitigation Area - Acres(3)
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
100 mgd Pamunkey Pump Station and Intake -LS
60- Inch Transmission Main to KW Res. - LF
48- Inch Transmission Main to Pamunkey River - LS
42- Inch Dir. Drill Pamunkey River Crossing - LF
48- Inch Transmission Main - LF
42- Inch Transmission Main - LF
Dam. Clearing -LS
Dam, Excavation -LS
Dam. Slurry Wall -LS
Dam. Embankment -LS
Dam. Emergency Spillway -LS
Dam. Withdrawal & Release Structure -LS
50- mgd King William Pump Station -LS
Reservoir Clearing up to 90' msl - Acres
40- mgd Diascund Pump Station and Intake — LS
42- Inch Transmission Main to Little Creek - LF
King William County Landfill Relocation - LS (4)
County Route 626 Replacement - LF
Mitigation - LS
SUBTOTAL
Permitting, Preliminary Engineering & Legal (5%)
Design, Construction Management & Administration (12%)
Contingencies (20%)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Unit Cost
$5,600
$2,000
$1,500
$1.000
$1.500
$1.500
$300
$225
$850
$225
$200
$2,250
$200 '
$250
Quantity
25
35
4025
60
125
500
30000
17000
4500
23000
10500
2000
29000
8000
Totals
$140.000
$70.000
$6,040,000
$60,000
$190,000
$750.000
$7.250.000
$12.000,000
$9,000,000
$3,830.000
$3.830,000
$5,180,000
$2,100,000
$400.000
$1.900.000
$1,900,000
$12.000,000
$2,300.000
$800.000
$5,500.000
$4,500,000
$5.600,000
$5.600,000
$3,000,000
$2,000.000
$5,000,000
$86.640,000
$4,330,000
$10,400,000
$20,270,000
$1 21 .640.000
November 1996
-------
TABLE 3-1D
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR
WITH PUMPOVER FROM THE PAMUNKEY RIVER
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
(Continued)
COST CATEGORY
torn
Unit Cost
Quantity
Totals
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Electric Power for Pumping -US
Operations and Maintenance - LS
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Pamunkey P.S,
Booster P.S.
Diascund P.S.
Pamunkey P.S./Pipeline
Booster P.S./Pipeline
Diascund P.S./Pipeline
$2.317,1 S3
$784,822
$700,161
$1,668,237
$1.251.178
$834,119
$7,560.000
TOTAL YEAR 1882 PRESENT VALUE COST
$136,450,000
Notes:
All costs in Year 1982 dollars.
1) Assumes King William County mil RRWSG would jointly own.
S) Assumes King William County would acquit* and Mm* to RRWSG juriscfctions
3) Assumes RRWSG jutisdiciions would acquire
4) Landfilrftocationmay not be required as part of this project
November 1996
-------
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,
The ChiclKb OTiiny River is already critical to the welfare of the Lower Peninsula and
excessive reliance ii single river source would not be prudent. Additional reliance on the
Chickahominy wou., uot 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, 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
hi 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, 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
3114-017-319 3-50
-------
elevation at Diascund Creek would require, at a minimum, the modification of the existing
spillway structure and pump station, the addition of a splash wall 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 mis 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.
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.
3114-017-319 3-51
-------
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 mat 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 1V&
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
marinmm day demand (MDD) factor of 1.4S, 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, mis 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 pennittable 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.
3.4.20 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.
3114-017-319 3-52
-------
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 hi the experimental stage
and there is no present basis for assuming that this technology may be applied on the Lower
Peninsula. In addition, mere 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, mis 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 mis alternative. These potential drawdown
Impacts create considerable uncertainty as to whether this alternative would be permittable by the
State. For these same reasons, mis 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 hi 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 beTusea* 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 aetermined that mis 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 could change.
The well sites are spaced approximately 8,000 feet apart around the perimeter of the reservoir.
Approximate well locations are listed below:
3114-017-319 3-53
-------
Weil Number
LC-1
LC-2
LC-3
LC-4
Production Rate (gpm)
800
800
800
800
Latitude
37°22'14"
37°22'57"
37°21'0r
37°21'53"
Longitude
76°50'34"
76°48'35"
76°50'10"
76°48*45"
piascund 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 die
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 (epm)
950
950.
950
950
Latitude
37°26'50"
37"27'02"
37°25'44"
37°25f46"
Longitude
76e54'04"
76°52'20"
76°55'03"
76°53'31"
Safe Yield
' *'"^s«- .-* "" " "
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 mat 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 farther environmental analysis.
3114-017-319
3-54
-------
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 mgd of average day demand treated water safe yield is estimated at 54 mgd.
—•"••"'•.'-: ''"•"• - - .••---.. . . t
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 mat it is always possible to use the full 54 mgd of firm withdrawal capacity, this
alternative would provide a treated water safe yield benefit equal to approximately 30 mgd of the
projected Year 2040 Lower Peninsula deficit of 39.8 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 mis 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 mis 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 typically
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.
3114-017-319 3-55
-------
-This groundwater alternative would.indude 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 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 * 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 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 assumer *• !0-mgd firm well production capacity, the estimated treated water
safe yield benefit of this-aissnastive was preliminarily estimated at 6.4 mgd! However, more
detailed studies of Newpor ;ws Waterworks' brackish groundwater desalting project have
placed the treated water safe yield benefit of this alternative at 5.7 mgd (D.W. Tucker, VDH,
personal communication, 1995).
Practicability Analysis
Newport News Waterworks is actively pursuing a brackish groundwater desalting project.
In August 1994 the VDEQ approved a draft groundwater withdrawal permit for Newport News.
3114-017-319 3-56
-------
Final design of desalting facilities and pipelines began in April 1996, following completion of
feasibility studies, pilot testing, and preliminary design (RRWSG, Summer 1996). ^ WeU^
installation and final design of the treatment facility should be completed by the end of 1996 and,,
start-up for the desalting facility is scheduled for mid-1998.. Once the facility is on-line, an
estimated 5.7 mgd of desalted groundwater will become part of the finished water flow from *
Newport News Waterworks' Lee Hall WIT, *
Large-scale groundwater withdrawals are not considered to be available. In view of the
current overused and degraded condition of the major regional aquifers and the level of state
regulation under the Ground Water Management Act, the RRWSG does not consider it feasible
to rely on large groundwater withdrawals for permanent use on the Lower Peninsula. A
groundwater modeling analysis was conducted by Malcolm Pimie in 1993 using the USGS
Coastal Plain Model to assess whether simultaneous operation of the two practicable groundwater
alternatives would be permittable under state Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (VR 680-13-
07). Tliis analysis is presented in Appendix 1-21 of Report D (Volume I). The results from this
analysis demonstrate that potential drawdown impacts to other existing groundwater users, and
the potential for saline groundwater intrusion, could make it very difficult for large groundwater
withdrawals to be permitted under the regulations. Therefore, an alternative that relies on
substantial groundwater use may not be available. However, based on the progress to date on
the Newport News Waterworks* brackish groundwater desalting project, 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
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 approximately of 30 mgd, mis alternative must
actually be able to supply a maximum day demand (MOD) 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.
3114-017-319 3-57
-------
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, mis alternative would
provide a treated water safe yield benefit of approximately 30 mgd.
Sturgeon Point Intake
It was assumed that an MDP 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 mgd.
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,frqm.^ljfc^jl 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.
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 mis 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 mis 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.
3114-017-319 3-58
-------
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
die 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 large 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 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-traveled 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 all 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.
3114-017-319 3-59
-------
As presented in this document, there are otter 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 hi 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 mis alternative per mgd of treated water safe yield
benefit would result in projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's adopted
affbrdability criterion. This conclusion is true for bom 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.
3.4.25 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 approximately 30 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,
mis alternative could theoretically provide a treated water safe yield benefit of approximately 30
mgd.
However, a major limitation upon safe yield exists since this alternative involves a river
withdrawal for which compliance with an MIF would likely be required. In December 1991 the
SWCB agreed that it is appropriate to assume that an MIF would be in place for any new
Pamunkey River withdrawal considered as part of this study (I. P. Hassell, SWCB, personal
communication, 1991). Therefore, during droughts witii extended periods of low river flow at
or below the MIF level (s), withdrawals could not occur.
3114-017-319 3-60
-------
This desalting alternative would produce finished water without any intermediate raw water
storage step, and would thus rely on die 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
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. For this reason, this alternative is not considered practicable by the USCOE and
USEPA. Therefore, this alternative is considered infeasible and impracticable at this time.
3.426 York River Desalination I
Description
This alternative would consist of the following components: an 85 mgcUjaw water intake
structure and pumping station, located on the York River in James City Countyfl3.6>»niles of dual*
42-inch, 85-mgd capacity raw water pipelines between the river pumping station and a reverse
osmosis (RO) desalting facility; an RO desalting facility in York County capable of producing 44*f
mgd of finished water; a 20-mile, 36-inch 41 mgd capacity concentrate disposal pipeline between the
RO plant and the York River; and a concentrate disposal outfall in the York River near the existing
outfall of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District's (HRSD) York River STP in York County.
Finished water would be supplied directly to the Lower Peninsula water distribution systems^ without-
intermediate'freated water storage. To provide an average day demand (ADD) treated water safe
yidd^f 30 mgd, therefore, this alternative must be able to supply a maximum day demand (MDD)
of 1 .45 times the ADD, or approximately 44
The York River withdrawal facilities would be located mid-way between Sycamore Landing
and York River State Park in James City County, approximately 23 river miles upstream from the
mouth of the York River.
The dual raw water pipelines would run cross-country from the York River pump station site
in a southwesterly direction for approximately 3.6 miles through Croaker towards State Route 607.
After crossing Interstate 64 just northwest of the interstate's junction with State Route 607, the
pipelines would continue southwest for 3 miles towards an existing Virginia Power ROW. The
pipelines would then follow the ROW for approximately 7 miles to an RO plant located near
Williamsburg's Waller Mill water treatment plant in York County.
The RO plant would be designed to treat maximum raw water total dissolved solids (IDS)
levels of 23,500 mg/L under summer conditions. Current membrane technology can achieve a
product water recovery rate of 50 to 55 percent with raw water of this quality. Substantial treatment
facilities would be required to condition the feed water before it reaches the RO membrane modules.
Pre-treatment would include physical screening, conventional sedimentation and filtration (with a
product water recovery rate of approximately 96 percent), and chemical addition for scale control and
pH adjustment.
3114-017-319 3-61
-------
After pro-treatment, the feed water would enter the RO modules, which would be configured
in parallel, with two-pass reject staging. Post-treatment of the RO permeate would include chlorine
addition for disinfection, chemical conditioning for corrosion control, and degassing to remove
excess carbon dioxide.
Initial treatment backwash water would be settled and returned to the head of the pre-trcatment
process. Residuals would be mechanically dewatered and disposed of off-site. Dependent on what
contaminants may be present in the raw water, it is possible that special treatment of residuals prior
to disposal could be required.
Concentrate from the RO process would also be disposed of off-site. If treatment chemical
addition is minimised, the concentrate could possibly be discharged to the Chesapeake Bay at the
mouth of the York River, where the normal IDS level in the river is high, but substantially less than
the expected worst-case concentrate IDS level. The concentrate would be transported in a 20-mile,
41-mgd capacity pipeline that would discharge into the York River near the existing outfall of
HRSD's York River STP in York County.
Assuming a worst-case feed water quality of 23,500 mg/L TDS, a water recovery rate of 52
percent, and a TDS rejection rate of 99 percent, the 41 mgd worst-case concentrate stream would
have a TDS level of approximately 46,500 mg/L. Assuming dissolved inorganics constitute nearly
all of the dissolved solids, the corresponding concentrate salinity would be approximately 45 ppt
By comparison, the average fall salinity level at the mouth of the York River is 24 to 26 ppt (SWCB,
1987a; SWCB, 1987b; SWCB, 1989; SWCB, 1991). The concentrate could possibly be discharged
at this point, if dilution with York River STP effluent and an offshore diffuser outfall were provided.
The maximum salinity of the combined discharge would be approximately 40 ppt. Phosphate levels
in the concentrate are not expected to be above standard permit limits.
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 mgd.
In order to evaluate safe yield of this alternative, it was assumed that no MIF would apply to
York River withdrawals. The basis for waiving the MIF requirement would be that the proposed
withdrawal is located within the York River estuary where substantial tidal influx would preclude
dewatering of aquatic habitat and allow traditional forms of water recreation to continue as before.
Salinity intrusion effects are likewise not a potential concern since York River withdrawals would
not be fresh, but would contain high levels of salinity. In December 1991 this assumption was
reviewed and deemed suitable for this preliminary analysis by the SWCB (J. P. Hassell, SWCB,
personal communication, 1991).
Practicability Analysis
For the reasons outlined below, the York River Desalination alternative is considered
technologically and economically infeasible and therefore impracticable at this time.
3114-017-319 3-62
-------
Technological Reliability
- .-^,^,..s»> jsf* •*' ^<^- -;•••'-.-•-
Utilization of the York River as a source of public water supply raises serious concerns
pertaining to water quality and the reliability of available treatment technologies to consistently
Treatment of water from a highly variable estuary source to
dnnking water standards has not been accomplished on a permanent basis anywhere at any scale.
Any process fir treating water from such a source must therefore be considered experimental,
The intake site proposed for York River withdrawals would be located just below the upriver
limit of saltwater in the lower York River estuary. The area of mixing at the upriver limit of
saltwater is often called the "salinity transition zone" (SWCB, 1991). This area of a tidal river
experiences the most dramatic changes in salinity! in response to tides, changing strcamflow, and
climatic events. This area of increasing salinity can cause some material suspended in the lower
salinity, less dense upper water layer (flowing downstream) to coagulate, flocculate, and settle into
the higher salinity, more dense bottom water layer (which has a net flow upstream). These materials
can men be transported back upriver where they are reintroduccd into the upper water layer or settle
as sediment. This dynamic process create an area of high turbidity, greater resuspension, and
increased deposition; thus another name for this area of a tidal river is "turbidity maximum zone"
(SWCB, 1991). As a result of the above-described processes, the turbidity maximum zone becomes
a trap for nutrients, sediment, and toxics.
The widely fluctuating salinity levels in the vicinity of the proposed York River intake are a '
concern due to the difficulties they would cause in controlling the treatment process and the increased.
probability of varying product water quality and disruptions to treatment processes. , During the
course of a year, salinity concentrations in the vicinity of the intake site may vary from approximately «
4to25ppt(Hyeretal, 1975; SWCB, 1987a; SWCB, 1987b; SWCB, 1989; SWCB, 1991). Extreme
high flow or low flow conditions (outside the limits of streamflow conditions under which salinity
levels have been monitored) would likely extend this range of salinity levels at the intake site.
Salinity level swings would also occur about every 6 hours due to the normal tidal cycle. In fact,
salinity level swings of approximately 6 ppt have been monitored within 6-hour periods at York
River mile 22.2, immediately downstream of the proposed intake site (Hyer et al., 1975). During the
course of 24-hour periods, even larger salinity level swings would occur. For example, a 24-hour
salinity level swing of approximately 8 ppt (4 to 12 ppt) has been monitored at York River mile 22.2
(Hyer etal., 1975),
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 (a component of the Chesapeake Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve System). 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 HRSD's York River STP outfall is located just downstream of Marlbank Creek.
Likewise, Amoco (Yorktown facility) and Virginia Power (Yorktown facility) are major industrial
dischargers to this reach of thp York River. Potential downstream intake locations therefore are not
considered viable.
3114-017-319 3-63
-------
Upstream of the proposed York River intake site 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 where a pumping station could possibly be built. However, the York River
offshore of this area of River bank is shallow and would render intake construction very difficult
Above Philbates Creek, the York River begins its transition to a 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 also would be in closer proximity to
the discharge from the Chesapeake Corporation's industrial wastewater treatment plant approximately
10 river miles upstream of the proposed water intake site. This plant serves an existing Kraft pulp
and paper mill located in the Town of West Point Potential upstream intake locations are therefore
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 at this time. Therefore, this alternative is not considered to be technologically reliable.
Life Cycle Project Costs
A preliminary project cost estimate has been made for the York River Desalination alternative.
The Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs, including land acquisition, construction, and
operation and maintenance costs is $344.7 million. A breakdown of these costs is provided in
Table 3-1E.
No additional cost estimates are required to allow comparison of this alternative's cost to the
cost of other alternatives, since this alternative provides a treated water supply.
The total project life cycle cost estimate is then $344.7 million, or $11.5 million per mgd of
the approximately 30 mgd treated water safe yield benefit These estimated unit costs are more than
40 percent above the RRWSG's adopted cost feasibility level which equates to approximately $8
million per mgd of treated water safe yield. (Unit costs above this level for an alternative yielding
approximately 30 mgd would result in projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion of 1.5 percent of Lower Peninsula median household income.) For
this reason, this alternative is considered economically infeasibfe.
Surface Water Desalting Status and Trends
The use of desalting to produce potable water from brackish surface (estuary) water remains
experimental, and actual construction and operating cost data is lacking. An evaluation of the
feasibility of using surface water desalting methods from ocean based sources was therefore
conducted and is presented below.
Although technological advances have reduced desalting costs as much as 50 percent during
the last three decades, surface water desalination remains very energy intensive, and as a result, has
been used as a water supply of last resort (Frederick, 1995). Most of this surface water desalting
capacity is located in the Middle East and the Carribean, where freshwater sources are not available.
As of September of 1994, installed surface water desalting capacity in the United States totaled 13
mgd. - Approximately 3 mgd was used for potable and non-potable water production, while the
remainder has been placed.on standby. The 1992 International Desalting Association (IDA)
Worldwide Desalting Plants Inventory listed 8 proposed seawater desalting plants in lfie"United
States with a total capacity of 67 MGD. None of the plants was considered to be a viable water
3114-017-319 3-64
-------
TABLE3-1E
YORK RIVER DESALINATION
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
COST CATEGORY
Item
Unit Cost
Quantity
Totals
LAND ACQUISITION
River Pump Station Site - Acres (1)
Pipeline Easements, Urban/Suburban - Acres (1)
Pipeline Easements, Rural - Acres (1)
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COSTS
$40,000
$10,000
$1,000
3
100
100
$120,000
$1,000.000
$100,000
$1,220.000
CONSTRUCTION
85 mgd York Rivw P.S. and Intake -LS
Dual 42-Inch Trans. Main to Treatment Plant - LF
36- Inch Concentrate Disposal Main to Outfall - LF
36-Inch Outfall and Dfflusar -LS
Unadjusted Total of Desal. Treatment Facilities - LS
Present Worth of Phased Desalination Treatment Facilities
48- Inch Finished Water Main to Wngsmll - LF
SUBTOTAL
Permitting, Preliminary Engineering & Legal (5%)
Design, Construction Management & Administration (12%)
Contingencies (20%)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$450
$175
$212,200,000
$225
$16,000,000
71800 $32,310.000
105600 $18,480,000
$2,000,000
$102,995,827
34000 $7.680.000
$179.435,827
$8,970.000
$21.530,000
$41.990.000
$251.930.000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Pilot Studies / Permitting of Treatment Process
Electric Power for Pumping -LS
Operations and Maintenance -LS
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
York fiver P.S.
York River P.S./Pipeline
WTP/R.O. Process
$5,000,000
$1,834.714
$1.668,237
$83,063,962
•81.57O.OOO
TOTAL YEAR 1992 PRESENT VALUE COST
$344,720,000
All coat* in YfUf 1002 doHtn
1) Auumut flffl*SG/ur»«fcfon» would sequin.
June 1993
-------
supply source by 1994 (Leitner, 1994). Projected 1996 surface water plant construction in Ihe
United States was limited to a single 0.3 mgd facility proposed by the Marina Coast Water District
in California, Thus, surface water desalting technologies in the United States have not been applied
to the mainstream United States potable water markets.
Feasibility investigations and limited plant construction has occurred along the California and
Florida coasts (Water Desalination Report, 1995). Due to the frequency of extended drought
conditions in California, surface water desalting has been used as a standby source of potable water.
A 1993 California Coastal Commission list of permitted potable water surface water desalting plant
locations, plant size, and water production costs are listed below.
.v:W>x'SO>:^S^SK:v.: ;-:::ii^:" :-:-:C:i'::W:-:::-:-:-:-:-X:;i.»:o:iy -.•:•••:•'-. :-.-: .-: '. \ :•'_' . : x-™. ... :': '.
^mm^^^im^m^^boiiKmmy^^m\^
:>:*:*;y;y::>;<^:¥::^
CityofMorroBay
City of Santa Barbara
California Department of Parks &
Recreation, San Simeon Region
Proposed Hotel/Conference Sterling
Center, Sand City
Santa Catalina Island
Cambria Community Service District
": :;! ilSJPtittlt' Slietill
'-. . ''<-. y^:'\-''-'.'-''-f'jf''''''-''- •'•'•'•'«\Xv.'^'x x::-.;.''::''
•<>»*miw^^«m
0.600
0.750
0.040
0.020
0.132
0.100
Water Production Costs
^^.^fiioo»siiiSiJ^S
$5.37
$5.89
Costs Not Listed
Costs Not Listed
$6.14
Costs Not Listed
Although the 1995 City of Newport News Waterworks water production cost estimates are
approximately $0.70 /1000 gallons, a comparison of discrete utility water production costs may not
be justified. These costs include site specific capital costs and terms for debt service. Operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs do not include debt service, and a comparison of these variable costs is
more appropriate. Cost estimates for a proposed 5 mgd Marin Municipal Water District facility in
California were $5.80 /1000 gallons, which included an O&M cost estimate of $2.30 /1000 gallons
(Kartinen, 1993). This is more dun five times greater than the City of Newport News Waterworks
current O&M cost of approximately $0.40 /1000 gallons.
The need for potable water supplies from surface water desalting sources in Florida are not
a result of frequent and lengthy drought conditions. Florida has investigated the use of seawater
desalination to meet specific geographic constraints. Development pressure along the coasts has
increased in areas that support only limited supplies of fresh water. Following Hurricane Andrew,
the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, for example, brought a 3 mgd SWRO facility back on-line as
an emergency source of potable water (Benson and Moch, 1994). The Southwest Florida
Management District is investigating the feasibility of a SO mgd surface water desalting facility in
Tampa Bay which will use energy from electric power plants to make potable water from seawater.
The use of pilot studies for the project have been delayed, and technological investigations are
continuing.
3114-017-319
3-65
-------
The vast majority of existing surface water desalting plants in the United States have
capacities less than 1 mgd, which is not on the same order of magnitude as the RRWSG's projected
needs. These plants are typically used as standby sources of potable water because of the high energy
requirements associated with the technology. As a result of high energy requirements to produce
potable water, desalting costs will vary regionally, and are susceptible to changing economic and
regulatory conditions. The Lower Peninsula service area needs to develop new, economically stable,
water supplies for continuous use, not just standby use. The use of this source of potable water was,
therefore, considered economically infeasible.
Smaller-Scale Option
The RRWSG has considered the possibility of developing a smaller-scale York River
Desalination alternative. A smaller-scale desalination facility could be used in conjunction with other
alternatives which, by themselves, are not sufficiently large to meet the entire 39.8 mgd projected
Year 2040 deficit A 10 mgd treated water safe yield would require a York River desalination plant
sized to produce a daily maximum of 14.5 mgd, with a raw water intake capacity of approximately
28 mgd. The cost of a plant of this size was estimated, using pipeline routes, plant location, and
treatment processes identical to those in the full size version of this alternative (see Table 3-IF). The
Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs, including land acquisition, construction, and operation
and maintenance costs is $229.5 million, or approximately $23 million per mgd of the 10 mgd treated
water safe yield benefit. The cost of this smaller scale York River desalination alternative would,
place it as the second most expensive alternative, on a unit basis. In addition, these estimated unit
costs are nearly three times greater than the RRWSG's adopted cost feasibility level which equates
to approximately $8 million per mgd of treated water safe yield.
The smaller-scale version of the York River Desalination alternative also would be fraught
with the same water quality and technological reliability problems associated with the full size
alternative. The smaller alternative would be twice as expensive as the full size alternative on a costt
per mgd safe yield basis (i.e., $23 million versus $11.4 million). For these reasons, the smaller scale
alternative is also considered technologically and economically infeasible and impracticable.
' ""- ' •Si.^v., ;-,
3.4.27 (Regeneration
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 thjs project as originally planned by Hadson.
3114-017-319 3-66
-------
TABLE 3-1F
YORK RIVER DESALINATION
10MGD SAFE YIELD
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
COST CATEGORY
Unit Cost
Quantity
Totals
LAND ACQUISITION
River Pump Station Site - Acres (1)
Pipeline Eas*m*nt>, Urban/Suburban - Acm (1)
Pipeline Easements, Rural - Aeras (1)
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COSTS
$40.000
$10,000
$1,000
3
100
100
$120,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
$1.220.000
CONSTRUCTION
28 mgd York Hwr P.S. and Intake -US
36-Inch Trans. Main to Treatment Plant - LF
24-Inch Concentrate Disposal Main to Outfall - LF
24-Inch Outfall and Dtffussr -US
Treatment Facilities
Ckxwentional Pretreetment - IS
Pretreatment Residual Handling - LS
RO Plant Structure - LS
RO Piping & Mechanical - LS
Standby Power - LS
RO Modules-LS
30-Inch Finished Water Main to Kngsmll - LF
SUBTOTAL
Permitting, Preliminary Engineering & Legal (5%)
Design, Construction Management & Administration (12%)
Contingencies (20%)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$175
$120
71800
105600
$150
34000
$5,000,000
$12,170,000
$12,670,000
$1,400,000
$36,000,000
$11,000,000
$4,000,000
$8,000,000
$2,900,000
$22,000,000
$5,100,000
$120.640,000
$6,030,000
$14,480,000
$28,230.000
$169.380.000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Pilot Studies / Permitting of Treatment Process
Electric Power for Pumping -LS
Operations and Maintenance -US
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
York River P.S.
York River P.S.fPipdine
WTP/RO. Process
$5,000.000
$985,993
$1,668,237
$51,275,930
$58.930,000
TOTAL YEAR 1992 PRESENT VALUE COST
$229,530,000
All Cost* in Y»ar 1902 dollfT*.
1) Assume* flflkVSG/ur«t*e*on» wouldacquin
May 1995
-------
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 die power plant 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 be 20 mgd. 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, hi 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.
3.4.28 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 Hall 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
3114-017-319 3-67
-------
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 pennittable 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.
3.429 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 fir traditional potable water, this alternative would
make available an additional supply of potable -( that could be utilized by new customers.
Additionally, the safe yi^id 'ffleets only that us- un-potable water that traditionally would have
been supplied by the potai - ublic supply sys The use of non-potable reuse water instead of
low quality groundwater by industry would not represent any overall safe yield benefit to the potable
public supply system.
In December 1991, Malcolm Pimie conducted a telephone survey of existing large industrial
water customers on the Lower Peninsula. Industrial customers surveyed use »sss of 100,000
gallons per day of potable public water for non-potable uses. Based on this SIL . ... 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 sirjiilar 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
3114-017-319 3-68
-------
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 Pimie 1993).
3.4 .30 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Additional conservation measures and use restrictions were defined and discussed in Section
2.6.1. They are evaluated in this section as an alternative to new source development.
Additional Conservation Measures
As presented in Section 2.6.4, Lower Peninsula water demands are projected to increase
at an annual average rate of 1.16 percent, from 55.2 mgd in the Year 1990 to 98.2 mgd in the
Year 2040. These demand projections assume that the same level of conservation that has
occurred on the Lower Peninsula, and has resulted in the existing usage rates, will be maintained
throughout the planning horizon. However, as a result of the additional aggressive water
conservation activities within the study area, the potential exists that existing usage rates can be
reduced even further. 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 aggressive conservation
measures.
As part of the RRWSG's conservation strategy, Reasonable Conservation Objectives
(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. The RRWSG's conservation strategy is described
in detail in Report A, Water Demand Reduction Opportunities (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) which
is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document.
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 conservation measures to
3114-017-319 3-69
-------
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 mis 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 avenge 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 mis total to 60.2 gpcpd. This indoor usage with conservation was adopted
by the RRWSG. This analysis assumes that plumbing retrofits with low-flow plumbing, as
mandated by the Federal Energy Policy Act, will occur hi the Lower Peninsula over the next SO
years.
To develop a residential RCO, a value must be added to the indoor usage value of 60.2
ngpcrxi to represent outdoor usager-After a careful review of billing cycles and usage patterns,
-sm estimated outdoor use value OT^6.7 gpcpd was adopted by the RRWSG. Adding this estimated
outdborusage^value to the RRWSu adopted indoor usage value of 60.2 gpcpd results in an RCO
of 66.9, oH>7 gpcpd. This conservation goal was used as a basis for estimating future residential
water demaTntdslwithin 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 RCO
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 RCO
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.
3114-017-319 3-70
-------
Safe Yield
Applying the RCO's to the demand projections presented in Section 2 (see Table 2-17) results
in the demand projections presented in Table 3-1G. These projections reflect the reduction in
residential per capita usage of 8.1 percent throughout the planning period. The per capita use rates
are 72.9 gpcpd for the Year 1990, declining to 67 gpcpd for the Years 2010 through 2040 as a result
of anticipated expansion in additional conservation efforts. Commercial, institutional and light
industrial demand projections are also expected to decrease by 8.1 percent in the planning period.
The per-employee use rate is 70.4 gpepd for the Year 1990 declining to 64 gpcpd for the Years 2010
through 2040. All other assumptions used in projecting demands in Section 2 remain the same.
A comparison of demand projections with and without additional conservation measures is
presented in Table 3-1H. The data in Table 3- 1H indicate that additional conservation measures will
reduce Year 2040 demands by approximately 5.6 mgd (5.7 percent). Therefore, the safe yield benefit
of additional conservation i
Further Discussion of Conservation Objectives
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) provided comments on the 1994 DEIS
to the USCOE (D.W. Carr, SELC, personal communication, 1994). The SELC advocated a
demand side management approach employing aggressive conservation measures to postpone the
need for additional water supplies. To support its view, the SELC cited examples of demand side
projects being used in Denver, Seattle, and Southern California. However, there are differences
in water use patterns between these Western United States areas and Southeastern Virginia which
lead to differences in water demand reductions actually achievable.
Caution is required when comparing the actual demand reductions achieved in one area
to those which may be achieved in another. Water savings are often defined in terms of
percentages. For example, it is not unusual to see demand reductions of 25 percent or greater
following the implementation of conservation plans in the Western United States. Per capita
water usage in the West is generally much higher than in the East, due to the differences in
climate between the two areas. In the West, outdoor water usage is a much greater percentage
of total demand than it is in the East. Therefore, substantial demand reductions in the West can
often be achieved by targeting outdoor usage. The potential for similar reductions in outdoor
usage is not available on the Lower Peninsula. As described above; estimated outdoor usage on
the Lower Peninsula is very low (about 7 gpcpd). Substantial demand reductions must therefore
occur within the home or establishment.
The Reasonable Conservation Objectives (RCOs) identified above, which were used as a
basis for developing demand projections for the residential and commercial demand categories,
are aggressive conservation targets for the Lower Peninsula region. While the percentage
reduction in demand expected from additional conservation may not be as great as those
experienced in the West, they are considerable reductions for urban areas in the Virginia Coastal
Plain. For example, the RRWSG's residential and commercial RCOs represent 8.1 percent
reductions from base year usage rates in the Lower Peninsula.
3114-017-319 3-71
-------
TABLE 3-1G
CALCULATION OF PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA TOTAL WATER DEMAND
WITH ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION MEASURES (2000-2040)
fmgd)
YEAH
TOTAL
REGION.
POP.
A
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
459978
.
519281
554077
594S65
636306
RE8DENTML
CIVILIAN
POP.
SERVED
B
REQ.
AVQ
QPCPD
C
DEMAND
D
425646
485071
519687
559145
599648
70
67
67
67
67
29,80
32.55
34.82
87.46
40.19
COMM jNSTJUBHT. MD.
TOTAL
COMM.
EMPL
E
ma.
AVQ,
GPEPD
F
DEMAND
Q
174511
196654
208717
223125
238170
67
64
64
64
64
11.69
18.59
• 13.96
14.29
15.24
HEAVY WATER UK NDUSTRY
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
H
ICW
TOTAL
1
EXIST.
J
ICW
K
EXIST.
MO.
DEMAND
L
37275
42081
44901
48162
51565
4564
9370
12190
15471
18854
746
1106
1411
1816
3121
3818
6264
10779
13656
15733
10.37
12.02
12.10
12.16
12.31
NEW INDUSTRY
GPEPD
M
DEMAND
N
TOTAL
ND,
DEMAND
O
640
640
640
640
640
2.44
5.29
6.90
6.74
10.07
. v&yx*:*:«:-y
lifi
mm.
llffp
I |ipe:
IIHIs
FEDERAL
NSTALL
DEMAND
P
:-:>•• ::':-:v:-;:" :-;-:-•;
:;£x£:?:::v:-: •*•
lllI4
ftSSSSSi A
f|f:i,4i
::::-"::::-':'"v ;
PIN ;•
W:$ 1
llf'!5.52
SUBTOTAL
DEMAND
Q
59,12
67.90
72.65
78.17
83.33
UAW
%
R
DEMAND
3
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
6.57
7.54
«J7
a.69
9.26
TOTAL
DEMAND
T
65.69
75.44
80.73
86.66
92,59
JPROJECTED VALUES USED IN ARRIVING AT TOTAL DEMAND
LEGEND:
A -TOTAL PROJECTED POPULATION ON LOWER PENINSULA, FROM TABLE 2-10.
B -TOTAL PROJECTED RESO6NTIAL POPULATION SERVED ON LOWER PENINSULA, FROM TABLE 2-12.
C -PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL USAGE RATE (GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY), WITH ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION.
D -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN B*C,
E -TOTAL PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT ON LOWER PENINSULA MINUS EMPLOYMENT N 1C AW
WATER USE INDUSTRY AND MILITARY EMPLOYMENT.
F -PROJECTED COMMERCIAL/INSTTTUT1ONAULIGHT INDUSTRIAL USAGE RATE (GALLONS PER EMPLOYEE
PER OAYJ, SAME PERCENTAGE REDUCTION DUE TO CONSERVATION AS IN RESOENT1AL USAGE.
G -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN E*F.
H -TOTAL PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT IN HEAVY WATEfl USE INDUSTHES ON THE LOWBR PENINSULA
INCREASE IN THIS EMPLOYMENT IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO INCREASE IN TOTAL POPULATION.
I - TOTAL NEW EMPLOYEES WORKING IN HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRES, COLUMN H-32,711 (NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES IN YEAR 1990).
J -hEWEMPLOVEES HFED BY EXISTING HEAVYWA7ER USE IM3USTRESON THE LOWER PENNSULA
DUE TO GROWTH OF THESE INDUSTRES. SEIF-PROJECTED BYEXBTWG INDUSTRES. FROM APPENDIX
REPORTS, TABLE 4-11.
K -NEW EMPLOYEES HFED BY FUTURE NEW HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRES ON THE
LOWER PENINSULA COLUMN I-J.
L -PROJECTED DEMAND, SELF-PROJECTED BY EXISTING HEAVY WATER USE
INDUSTRES ON THE LOWER PENINSULA
M -PROJECTED HEAVY WATER USE INDUSTRIAL USAGE RATE (GALLONS PER EMPLOYEE
PER DAY). FROM APPENDIX REPORT B, SECTION 4.
N -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN M*K.
O -PROJECTED TOTAL HEAVY WATEfl USE INDUSTRIALDEMAND, COLUMN L+N.
P -FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS DEMAND, FROM REPORT B. TABLE 4-23.
Q -SUBTOTAL OF PROJECTED METERED DEMANDS, COLUMN D+Q+O+P.
R -PROJECTED UNACCOUNTED-FOR WATER PERCENTAGE EXPRESSED AS PERCENT
OF TOTAL FINISHED WATER PUMPED NTO THE DISTRBUDON SYSTEM.
S -PROJECTED DEMAND, COLUMN Q*(R/(100-R»
T -TOTAL PROJECTED LOWER PENNSULA DEMANDS, COLUMN 0+S.
REVISED 17-Od-
-------
TABLE 3-1H
COMPARISON OF YEAR 2040 DEMANDS
WITH AND WITHOUT CONSERVATION
Demand Category
Residential
Commercial, Institutional
and Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Federal Installations
Unaccounted-for Water
Total
Regional Demands (mgd)
Without
Conservation
43.73
16.77
22.3S
5.52
/9.82 ]
Wil
With
Conservation
40,19
15.24
22.38
5.52
( 9.26 \
^'"*9UB»
Savings from
Normal Conservation
(med)
3.54
1.53
0
0
0.56
5.63
(%)
'8.1
8.1
0
0
5.7
5.7
3114-017-319
January 8,1997
-------
To examine the validity of the residential RCO, the experience of the nearby City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia was reviewed. A series of droughts beginning in 1976-77 have caused
severe water supply shortages in the City. Since 1981, Virginia Beach has operated under an
intensive water conservation program. Virginia Beach also enacted a City Ordinance in February
1992 which imposed mandatory year round water use restrictions, pending completion of the
Lake Gaston pipeline project. In 1993, after imposition of these restrictions, Virginia Beach's
total per capita demand was estimated at 80 gpcpd (City of Virginia Beach, 1994). Assuming
that Virginia Beach's industrial and commercial demands remained at 15 gpcpd as estimated for
1986', its domestic and public usage in 1993 was 65 gpcpd6.
For the Lower Peninsula, the 1990 residential per capita demand is estimated at
approximately 73 gpcpd. With the implementation of additional conservation measures, the
RRWSG expects to reduce the residential per capita demand to 67 gpcpd by tb Year 2010. The
RRWSG's goal is to meet this target all the time instead of only dunng water supply
emergencies, which makes this an aggressive target in light of the estimated 65 gpcpd use rate
which Virginia Beach achieved in 1993 during a severe water shortage.
Use Restrictions
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 summarized in the following table.
Reservoir Storage Capacity (% of total)
100-75
75-50
50-0
Demand Reduction Measures
Additional Conservation Measures
Voluntary Restrictions (Tier 1)
Mandatory Restrictions (Tier 2)
Report L, Water Conservation Management Plan (City of Newport News, Department of
Public Utilities, 1995) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document,
includes a use restrictions plan which relies on a risk-based assessment of reservoir conditions which
varies throughout the year. The actual plan in effect in the service area is simplified herein for use
in this analysis. Water rationing is required in the water conservation management plan under
extreme conditions, but is not included in this schedule. It would not be prudent management for a
1 Prior to the 1980-81 drought, Virginia Beach's total per capita water demand was
approximately 97 gpr v (1976-77) (Malcolm Pimie, 1991). By 1986 its total demands had
been reduced to an es ated 87 gpcpd, with domestic and public water demands accounting
for 72 gpcpd. The ii gpcpd difference was attributed to industrial and commercial usage
(City of Virginia Beach, 1988).
2 If reductions in industrial and commercial demands also contributed to the reductions
achieved since 1986, then domestic and public usage contributed a larger portion of the 1993
total than 65 gpcpd.
3114-017-319 3-72
-------
water utility to plan on water rationing to meet the future water needs of its service area, due to the
severe socioeconomic impact this could have on water customers. Rather, water rationing should
be reserved as a safety factor for possible use during water supply emergencies.
Demand reduction objectives have been developed for the residential, commercial, heavy
industrial, and federal installations water demand categories. For the residential category, the Tier
1 and Tier 2 objectives are 64 gpcpd and 62 gpcpd, respectively. These factors represent a 4.5
percent and a 7.5 percent reduction in demand in addition to an 8.1 percent reduction goal (to be
achieved through additional conservation measures). The same percentage reductions are assumed
for commercial, heavy industrial, and federal installations demands. The commercial objectives are
also in addition to the 8.1 percent reduction included for additional conservation measures. These
use restriction objectives are presented as demand reduction factors as shown below:
Demand Reduction Measures
Voluntary Restrictions (Tier 1)
Mandatory Restrictions (Tier 2)
Average Annual
Usage Goals (%)
4.5
7.5
Demand Reduction factors
0.955
0.925
Safe Yield
The treated water safe yield benefit of the use restrictions alternative was calculated using the
Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. Safe yield
determinations were based on the demand reduction factors and corresponding raw water storage
threshold levels defined in the preceding description of this alternative. Assuming operation of the
existing system with its current safe yield, the treated water safe yield benefit of the use restrictions
alternative would be approximately 1.5 mgd.
An analysis was also conducted to determine the safe yield benefit of the use restrictions
alternative as part of the King William Reservoir with Mattaponi River Pumpover alternative.
Operating at a demand level equivalent to the safe yield of an expanded system with the King
William Reservoir project on-line, the RRWSG's treated water safe yield benefit attributable to use
restrictions would be as follows, depending on which King William Reservoir configuration is
considered.
KWR-I 5.5 mgd
KWR-n 5.2 mgd
KWR-m 4,9mgd
KWR-IV V4,9mgd »
\_
*x /
Practicability Analysis """"
Based on information compiled to date, there is no basis for deeming the Additional
Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative impracticable. Therefore, this alternative
has been retained for further environmental analysis.
3114-017-319 3-73
-------
Summary
Based on the analysis presented above, Additional Conservation Measures and Use
Restrictions have a combined safe yield which ranges from 7.1 mgd to 11.1 mgd. Projected demands
with and without the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative are
presented in Figure 3-1D.
The data presented in Figure 3-ID are based on the assumption that there would be a steady
increase in the safe yield benefit of use restrictions beginning in the Year 2000. At that time, the use
restrictions benefit would be 1.5 mgd and, after the addition of new King William Reservoir Storage,
would steadily increase to a maximum benefit of approximately 5 mgd in the Year 2040 as projected
demands increase. These simplifying assumptions were used for the purposes of presentation.
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 BIS, 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 purveyors
could place 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).
3.4.32 Additional Alternatives Considered
The RRWSG considered four additional reservoir alternatives. Two of those alternatives were
identified during the course of interagency scoping, and the other two alternatives (Side-Hill
Reservoir and King William'Reservoir with Two River Pumpovers) were identified subsequent to
publication of the DEIS. None of those alternatives was included in the original list of 31 alternatives
3114-017-319 3-74
-------
PROJECTED LOWER PENINSULA DEMAND WITH AND WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION MEASURES AND USE RESTRICTIONS
100 r
"O
CD
ra
Without Conservation
and Use Restrictions
70
60
50
2000
With Conservation
and Use Restrictions
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
Year 2040 demand reduction of up to 11.1 mgd possible with Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
in conjunction with King William Reservoir with Mattaponi River Pumpover alternative.
•TI
<5"
(D
-------
in the USCOE's Conceptual Scoping Outline for the Lower Peninsula's Raw Water Supply Draft
EIS (W. H. Poem, 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 its investigations are summarized below.
3.4.32.1 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
Description
This project would be similar to the Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey
River alternative described in Section 3.4.13, but the primary raw water source would be the
Mattaponi River instead of the Pamunkey.
Safe Yield
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 the Black Creek
Reservoir due to lower average flow levels in the Mattaponi and a smaller river pumping station
capacity than the 120 mgd capacity proposed on the Pamunkey.
This conclusion is supported by safe yield evaluations conducted for the Ware Creek
Reservoir alternative, which would have a similar volume as Black Creek Reservoir (6.87 versus 6.41
BG). The safe yield analysis results presented in Section 3.4.11 show that a S.I mgd reduction in
safe yield would occur if the Mattaponi (at 75 mgd withdrawal capacity) is used instead of the
Pamunkey (at 120 mgd withdrawal capacity) to supply Ware Creek Reservoir. In reality, this
reduction would be even larger since die Mattaponi River MIF now being considered (i.e., Modified
80 Percent Monthly Exceedance Flows) establishes higher MIF values for each month of the year
than the MIF used to calculate the results presented in the DEIS (i.e., 40/20 Tennant). Consequently,
it is expected that the reduction in Black Creek Reservoir project safe yield could be on the order of
5 mgd or more if the Mattaponi were used as a pumpover source instead of the Pamunkey.
Practicability Analysis
Given the reduction in project safe yield described above, development of a 39.8 mgd project
alternative which includes the Black Creek Reservoir with Mattaponi River pumpover, rawer than
the Pamunkey River pumpover, would require development of a greater number of water sources.
The environmental impacts associated with developing additional water sources likewise would 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 temporary land disturbance
would occur. Energy requirements to pump river withdrawals also would 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 than for the Pamunkey River pumpover, with no reduction in impacts.
The Mattaponi River intake and a portion of the pipeline route would lie within King William
County. Because King William County is not a member of the RRWSG, the County's approval
would be critical to the RRWSG's successful implementation of this alternative. As discussed in
3114-017-319 3-75
-------
Section 3.4.13, the governing body (City Council or County Board of Supervisors) of a host locality
must grant its approval for another locality's development of public water supply facilities within its
borders, under numerous provisions of Virginia law. These include zoning and local consent laws.
One of the key requirements for obtaining King William County's local consents and
approvals is the capacity 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 MD7 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, and reconfirmed
in May 1995). The County has thus given a strong indication that it would deny local consents and
approvals for the construction of the Mattaponi River intake structure, pumping station, and raw
water transmission line required for this Black Creek Reservoir pumpovcr alternative.
Based on the environmental, technical, and institutional constraints discussed above, a
Mattaponi River pumpover to Black Creek Reservoir is less practicable than a Pamunkcy River
pumpovcr. Therefore, a Mattaponi River pumpover scenario for the Black Creek Reservoir was not
retained for further environmental analysis.
3.4.32.2 Ware Creek Reservoir (Three Dam Alternative) with Pamunkey River
Pumpover
Description
This alternative Ware Creek project was proposed in the course of the USCOE's evaluation
of James City County's Section 404 permit application for Ware Creek Reservoir. One dam would
be located across Ware Creek at a point 3,000 feet upstream of the Ware Creek dam site proposed
by the County. A second dam would be located on Cow Swamp at a point 2,250 feet upstream of
its confluence with France Swamp. A third dam would be located in the extreme headwaters of
France Swamp, approximately 1,500 feet south of Interstate 64. The normal pool elevations of these
three impoundments would be at 40,50, and SO feet msl, respectively; and the combined surface area
of the three impoundments would be 955 acres for a combined storage volume of 4.95 BG (USCOE,
1987).
As a regional project for the RRWSG, the three impoundments would be interconnected with
one another and with the Newport News Waterworks system, and augmented by a 120 mgd capacity
Pamunkey River pumpover.
Safe Yield
This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw Water
System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. Ware Creek Reservoir was evaluated as
an interconnected component of the existing Newport News Waterworks system. The total treated
water safe yield of this alternative is 20.8 mgd. The detailed methods of analysis used for estimating
the safe yield of the Ware Creek Reservoir alternative are presented in Section 3.3.3.
To calculate the safe yield benefits of this alternative to the RRWSG member jurisdictions,
the total treated water safe yield value must be reduced by the amount of host jurisdiction allowance
for New Kent County, where a portion of the reservoir and other components of the reservoir/river
pumpover project would be located. As explained in Section 3.3.3, a combined 3 mgd host
3114-017-319 3-76
-------
jurisdiction treated water safe yield allowance was subtracted from the total safe yield for alternatives
which include Ware Creek Reservoir with river pumpover. After subtracting this host jurisdiction
allowance, the balance remaining for the RRWSG is 17.8 mgd (20.8 mgd- 3 mgd (for New Kent
County)).
Practicability Analysis
Without the King William Reservoir, the combined safe yield benefit of the practicable
groundwater and additional conservation measures and use restriction alternatives would be 17.2
mgd. For purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that both of the groundwater development
projects would be permitted, which may be uncertain (see Section 3.5). If 17.2 mgd were available
Jrom those alternatives, and if it were coupled with the RRWSG safe yield benefit of 17.8 mgd from
the Ware Creek Reservoir three dam alternative, the resulting total (35.0 mgd) still would be 4.8 mgd
short of the RRWSG's projected Year 2040 deficit of 39.8 mgd. Even when combined with the three
practicable alternatives which do not involve new reservoir construction, the Ware Creek Reservoir
three dam alternative would fail to meet projected RRWSG needs, so it is considered impracticable
lit this time arid has not been retained for further environmental analysis.
3.4.32.3 Side-Hill Reservoir
Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, regulatory agency personnel expressed interest in the
efforts of Hanover County to identify a viable side-hill reservoir project. As directed by the USCOE,
the RRWSG conducted an investigation of using a side-hill reservoir or reservoirs as the off-stream
storage component of a project that would yield approximately 30 mgd. The results of this side-hill
reservoir investigation are described in Report M, Practicability Analysis of Side-Hill Reservoir
Alternatives in the Lower Pamunkey River andMattaponi River Valleys (Malcolm Pirnie, 1995)
which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document.
Description
A side-hill reservoir differs from a conventional water storage reservoir because a naturally
occurring stream valley is not required to form the storage pool. Rather, a side-hill reservoir is
constructed on an upland site, utilizing existing terrain such as the face of a bluff adjacent to a flat
plain to form one or two sides of the impoundment. The possibility of locating a reservoir in an area
with very few wetlands represents the potential environmental advantage of a side-hill reservoir.
The remaining sides of such an impoundment structure are constructed of compacted earth
fill dams or embankments. Water is withdrawn from a nearby river through an intake structure and
pumped through a transmission main to the reservoir. Water is withdrawn or pumped from the
reservoir for treatment, or conveyed through another transmission main to the next component of the
raw water storage system.
For this proposal, the side-hill reservoirs would be located against bluffs existing along either
the Mattaponi or the Pamunkey River valleys. Water would be withdrawn from one of the rivers and
pumped to the side-hill reservoirs. Water would then be pumped from the side-hill reservoirs through
a transmission main to the existing Diascund Creek Reservoir watershed.
3114-017-319 3-77
-------
The areas evaluated for side-Mil reservoir sites were the corridors along the Matlaponi and
Pamunkey River valleys. Due to costs associated with increased piping distances, and the strong
potential for jurisdictional conflicts, it was determined that the potential sites should be no farther
west than the western borders of King William County. Also, due to increasing salinity levels and
development densities, it was determined that the RRWSG side-hill reservoir sites could be located
no farther downstream than the confluence of the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers at the Town of
West Point
Areas in Hanover County were not evaluated, in part, because the distance from any possible
Hanover County reservoir sites to the existing Lower Peninsula reservoirs would result in excessive
raw water transmission costs. Moreover, Hanover County, in cooperation with Richmond, has
studied and evaluated its own side-hill reservoir project to serve the County's needs and provide more
water to serve the needs of the Greater Richmond Area. Therefore, it appears unlikely that Hanover
County would allow the RRWSG to develop potential sites located within the County's borders for
the purpose of providing water to the Lower Peninsula,
Areas in New Kent County also were eliminated, because of the relationship between the
RRWSG and New Kent County. On September 19, 1994, the New Kent County Board of
Supervisors adopted a motion stating its opposition to the RRWSG's activities in New Kent County
and its intention not to cooperate with Newport News on the Black Creek Reservoir project (R. J.
Emerson, New Kent County, personal communication, 1994). Based on this action, and other past
dealings between New Kent County and Newport News, it appears unlikely that New Kent County
would allow the RRWSG to develop a side-hill reservoir, which would offer fewer recreational,
economic, and aesthetic benefits to the County than the Black Creek Reservoir project, which it has
already rejected. The one potential site identified in New Kent County, near Gleason Marsh,
appeared to contain over 650 acres of wetlands, so it would likely have been eliminated from further
consideration regardless of the County's opposition.
Several assumptions have been made with respect to the required configuration and operating
rules associated with a RRWSG side-hill reservoir alternative. The most important of those
assumptions are listed below.
• Total side-hill reservoir storage capacity of approximately 20 BG and available storage
of approximately 15 BG.
• Reservoir dead storage equal to 25 percent of total reservoir volume. This is consistent
with the dead storage assumptions used by the RRWSG to evaluate other reservoir
alternatives, and with the Virginia Department of Health's historical practice of using
a 25 percent volume dead storage value in studies of drinking water reservoirs for
which a specific dead storage value is not defined by pumping equipment
configuration.
• Maximum operating water depth of 50 feet. Topographic relief in the areas under
study is more limited than farther west in Hanover County. This operating depth is
based on the maximum possible height of the embankments, which is 60 feet, reserving
ten feet of freeboard to protect the dams against wave action, flooding, and other
operating uncertainties.
3114-017-319 3-78
-------
• Upstream and downstream embankment faces should have 3:1 slopes. These
embankment slopes were selected as the most cost-effective configuration that should
maintain structural integrity.
• Rip rap should be placed on upstream embankment face from the top of the
embankment down to 5 feet below the minimum operating pool elevation. The rip rap
would help protect an underlying liner on the embankment from possible damage from
floating debris, boats, and other hazards.
• A slurry wall should be installed at the toe of the upstream embankment slope to
control seepage losses beneath the embankment.
To avoid large wetland tracts and minimize impacts to wetland areas, potential side-hill
reservoir sites were screened using USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and SCS Soil
Survey maps. Field studies were also conducted at the sites to further verify the locations of potential
wetland boundaries. Four sites within King William County were selected and configured so as to
impound at least 5 billion gallons each, while minimizing impacts to potential wetland areas. The
reservoirs would be interconnected, and constructed one at a time, as needed.
Safe Yield
This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using a spreadsheet-based model for a
58-year simulation period. The total treated water safe yield of this alternative is 26.5 mgd. This
estimate also assumes that a 75 mgd capacity Mattaponi River pumping station would be used to
supply the side-hill reservoirs.
To calculate the safe yield benefits of this alternative to the RRWSG member jurisdictions,
the total treated water safe yield value must be reduced by the amount of host jurisdiction allowances
for King William and New Kent Counties, where the reservoirs and most other components of the
reservoir/river pumpover project would be located. Although no host agreements are in place for this
alternative, the same host jurisdiction allowances described in Section 3.4.15 for King William
Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River alternative, are assumed for this alternative (i.e., 3
mgd for King William County and 1 mgd for New Kent County). The treated water safe yield
remaining for the RRWSG is 22.9 mgd. This is based on a total treated water safe yield of 26.5 mgd,
less 3.6 mgd of treated water safe yield due to 4 mgd in host jurisdiction raw water allowances. (The
3.6 mgd treated water reduction is equivalent to a 4 mgd raw water safe yield reduction after
estimated treatment and transmission losses are factored into the calculation.)
Practicability Analysis
Life Cycle Project Costs
A preliminary project cost estimate for this alternative is presented in Report M. The
Year 1992 present value of the life cycle costs of the project, including land acquisition, construction,
and operation and maintenance, is $309.1 million.
3114-017-319 3-79
-------
To allow comparison of this alternative's costs to those of other alternatives, the life cycle cost
of water treatment and transmission to the Lower Peninsula service areas must be considered. For
the 26.5 mgd combined RRWSG, King William County, and New Kent County treated water safe
yield benefit calculated for this alternative, the Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs for
treatment and transmission is estimated at $24.9 million.
Summing these estimates yields a total project life cycle cost estimate of $334.0 million, or
$12.6 million per mgd of total treated water safe yield benefit. These estimated unit costs are nearly
60 percent above the KRWSG's adopted cost feasibility level which equates to approximately $8
million per mgd of treated water safe yield. (Unit costs above this level for an alternative yielding
approximately 30 mgd would result in projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion of 1.5 percent of Lower Peninsula median household income.) For
this reason, this alternative is considered economically infeasible at this time.
For this cost analysis, it has been assumed that King William County and New Kent County
would pay for their pro-rata shares of the project safe yield. The combined 4 mgd raw water
allowance for the two Counties represents approximately 14 percent of the project's total raw water
safe yield (29.4 mgd). If both Counties pay for project costs (excluding treatment and transmission
costs since raw water allowance have been assumed for the Counties) based on their pro-rata shares
of project safe yield, the RRWSG share of the total project life cycle cost estimate would be reduced
by approximately $43.3 million. Overall, the RRWSG share of the total project life cycle cost
estimate would then be approximately $290.7 million, or 8? percent of the total cost ($334.0 million).
Conclusions
Side-hill reservoirs are an innovative concept to provide water supply while minimizing
impacts to wetlands. In certain areas of the United States and even other areas of Virginia, side-
hill reservoirs could be a part of a solution to a projected raw water supply shortage. However,
as a potential alternative water supply source for the Lower Peninsula, side-hill reservoirs do not
compare favorably to the RRWSG's practicable alternatives.
It is unlikely that King William County would grant approval to the RRWSG to build a
side-hill reservoir project. Without the economic, recreational, and aesthetic benefits associated
with a traditional reservoir, there would be little incentive for King William County to agree to
such a project.
Although each of the elements of the side-hill reservoir design has been successfully
implemented individually in other projects, reliability concerns exist regarding the overall
construction and operation of these reservoirs.
Even though the side-hill reservoir sites were selected to minimize potential wetland
impacts, development of the four sites identified could still result in large wetland losses. The
four sites are mapped as containing a total of approximately 530 acres of hydric soil areas on SCS
Soil Survey maps and 90 acres of wetlands on USFWS NWI maps. Therefore, it appears that
potential side-hill reservoir sites in the lower portions of the Pamunkey River and Mattaponi
River valleys may not afford the same opportunity to minimize wetland impacts as in other areas.
3114-017-319 3-80
-------
3.4.32.4 Smaller King William Reservoir with Two River Pumpovers
In Section 5.9 of the Supplement, a two river pumpover scenario was discussed as a possible
means of enhancing the King William Reservoir Project (KWR-II configuration) to supply the needs
of a larger region. The RRWSG has no plans at this time to develop such an enhanced King William
Reservoir Project. However, at the USCOE's direction, the RRWSG has evaluated a two river
pumpover scenario for a smaller King William Reservoir that would meet the projected needs of the
RRWSG.
Description
This alternative would consist of the following components: a 75 mgd raw water intake
structure and pumping station located on the Mattaponi River at Scotland Landing; approximately
1.5 miles of 54-inch, 75 mgd capacity river water pipeline from the Mattaponi pumping station to
the King William Reservoir; a 45 mgd raw water intake structure and pumping station located on
the Pamunkey River near Montague Landing; approximately 5.7 miles of 42-inch, 45 mgd capacity
river water pipeline from the Pamunkey pumping station to the reservoir; a dam on Cohoke Creek
located upstream of dam site KWR-IV and below the County Route 626 crossing, creating an
impoundment covering approximately 1,500 acres and storing approximately 12 BG at a normal pool
elevation of 96 feet msl; an intake structure in the reservoir; a 50 mgd capacity King William
Reservoir pump station; an 11.7- mile long, 42-inch and 48-inch diameter raw water pipeline between
the King William Reservoir pump station and Diascund Creek Reservoir; a 40 mgd intake structure
and pump station near the Diascund Creek Reservoir dam; and a 5.5 mile, 42-inch diameter raw
water pipeline from the Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir. More detailed
descriptions of the pipeline routes and pump stations can be found in Sections 3.4.15 and 3.4.16.
Safe Yield
This alternative's safe yield benefit was calculated using the Newport News Raw Water
System Safe Yield Model for a 58-year simulation period. The King William Reservoir project was
evaluated as an interconnected component of the existing Newport News Waterworks system. The
approximate dam site configuration and a 25 percent reservoir dead storage assumption were
incorporated into this analysis. The total treated water safe yield of this alternative is approximately
28.3 mgd. The detailed methods of analysis used for estimating the safe yield of the King William
Reservoir alternative are presented in Section 3.3.3.
To calculate the safe yield benefits of this alternative to the RRWSG member jurisdictions,
the total treated water safe yield value must be reduced by the amount of host jurisdiction allowances
for King William and New Kent Counties, where the reservoir and most other components of the
reservoir/river pumpover project would be located. Although no host agreements are in place for this
alternative, the same host jurisdiction allowances described in Section 3.4.15 (for Mattaponi River
pumpover scenario) are assumed for this dual river pumpover scenario. It has thus been assumed that
King William County and New Kent County would receive raw water safe yield allowances of 3 mgd
and 1 mgd, respectively. The treated water safe yield remaining for the RRWSG is approximately
24.7 mgd. This is based on a total treated water safe yield of 28.3 mgd, less 3.6 mgd of treated water
safe yield due to 4 mgd in host jurisdiction raw water allowances. (The 3.6 mgd treated water
reduction is equivalent to a 4 mgd raw water safe yield reduction after estimated treatment and
transmission losses are factored into the calculation).
3114-017-319 3-81
-------
PracticabilityAnalysis
A smaller King William Reservoir with two river pumpovers would reduce the gross acreage
of wetlands affected, but would rely on an additional pumpover from the Pamunkey River. A smaller
King William Reservoir would provide less storage to withstand droughts, thus requiring larger total
river withdrawals to meet projected demands during periods of drought Such withdrawals would
come from both the Mattaponi and the Pamunkey. As a result, the impacts of river pumping during
droughts would be both spread more widely and increased in intensity.
Further technical evaluation of a smaller King William Reservoir Project with two river
pumpovers was not conducted because such a project is not considered practicable, for several
institutional reasons. These reasons are as follows:
First: When the host agreement with King William County was amended at the request of the
City of Newport News in 1995 and allowed for the possibility of a second river withdrawal from the
Pamunkey River, the County agreed to this change reluctantly, and only with certain conditions. One
of the required conditions for a second river pump station is that it must enhance the yield of the
reservoir project and provide King William County with additional raw water. King William County
has since stated that"... [to] reduce the size of the pool and yet require a second pump-over without
any increase in the amount of water available for users is not acceptable to the County." (C.T. Redd,
King William County, personal communication, 1996). Under Virginia law, each "host" jurisdiction
for any portion of a public water supply project has a 'Veto" power over those portions of the project.
Sections 15.1-37, 15.1-37.1, 15.1-456, 15.1-875, and 15.1-1250 of the Virginia Code provide the
basis for this position. King William County's statement that a reduced King William Reservoir is
"not acceptable" is backed by the County's legislative and regulatory authority under Virginia law.
Second: As discussed in Section 3.4.13, New Kent County has already expressed its
opposition to a RRWSG-sponsored reservoir at Black Creek with a withdrawal from the Pamunkey
River. Its opposition is based in part on local concerns that its water resources already are heavily
committed to supplying water to the Lower Peninsula, through the City of Newport News* Diascund
Reservoir and its existing withdrawal rights from the Chickahominy River. With the Chickahominy
River already fully committed to the Lower Peninsula's public water supply, New Kent County must
look to the Pamunkey for both future water supply and sewage discharge purposes. Given its future
reliance on the Pamunkey River, "New Kent County would be very concerned about any proposed
withdrawal from the Pamunkey River..." (E. D. Ringley, New Kent County personal communication,
1996). Furthermore, providing more water to New Kent County from a smaller King William
Reservoir would not be possible, even with two river withdrawals. At best, such a project could only
help satisfy the RRWSG's own projected needs through the Year 2040.
Third: Competition for Pamunkey River water would bring Hanover County into conflict
with the RRWSG. As discussed in Section 5,9.1, Hanover County has a long history of pursuing
development of Pamunkey River withdrawals to expand the County's water supply. Also, as
discussed in Section 4.2.1, Hanover County is planning future wastewater discharges to the
Pamunkey River upstream of potential RRWSG withdrawal locations (R. J. Klotz, Hanover County,
personal communication, 1996). Hanover County is not a "host" jurisdiction and, therefore, does
not have veto power over the King William Reservoir Project; however, its opposition to Pamunkey
River withdrawals would probably be given considerable weight by the State and federal agencies.
3114-017-319 3-82
-------
Fourth: State support for the proposed King William Reservoir Project has resulted in large
part from the careful planning, and unified regional support, for that project (B. N. Dunlop, Virginia
Office of the Governor, personal communication, 1996). That unified support could quickly
disappear if the RRWSG were to pursue a smaller King William Reservoir with a second pumpover
from the Pamunkey (O. Pickett, U.S. House of Representatives, personal communication, 1996; A.
A. Diamonstein, etal., Virginia General Assembly, personal communication, 1996). Besides the
power of the host jurisdictions to veto a reduced King William Reservoir project, the disputes that
would likely follow any proposal to develop such a project would substantially delay its
implementation. Under these circumstances, the State might not issue a Virginia Water Protection
Permit (VWPP) and Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. Without a VWPP and a Section 401
Certification, the project would not be eligible for a Section 404 Permit and could not be built It is
unlikely the State would support the allocation of water from both the Mattaponi and Pamunkey
rivers to meet a need which could be met from the Mattaponi alone, when other jurisdictions are also
interested in securing water supplies for their future from the Pamunkey.
For the foregoing reasons, the RRWSG believes that a smaller King William Reservoir
alternative with two river pumpovers is not institutionally practicable.
Life Cycle Project Costs
A preliminary project cost estimate has been made for the Smaller King William Reservoir
with Two River Pumpovers alternative (see Table 3-11). The Year 1992 present value of the life
cycle costs of the project, including land acquisition, construction, and operation and maintenance,
is $144.3 million.
To allow comparison of this alternative's costs to those of other alternatives, the life cycle cost
of water treatment and transmission to the Lower Peninsula service areas must be considered. For
the 28.3 mgd combined RRWSG, King William County, and New Kent County treated water safe
yield benefit calculated for this alternative, the Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs for
treatment and transmission is estimated at $26.6 million.
Summing these estimates yields a total project life cycle cost estimate of $170.9 million, or
$6.0 million per mgd of total treated water safe yield benefit. For this cost analysis, it has been
assumed that King William County and New Kent County would pay for their pro-rata shares of the
project safe yield. The combined 4 mgd raw water allowance for the two Counties represents
approximately 13 percent of the project's total raw water safe yield (31.5 mgd). If both Counties pay
for project costs (excluding treatment and transmission costs since raw water allowance have been
assumed for the Counties) based on their pro-rata shares of project safe yield, the RRWSG share of
the total project life cycle cost estimate would be reduced by approximately $18.8 million. Overall,
the RRWSG share of the total project life cycle cost estimate would then be approximately $152.1
million, or 89 percent of the total cost ($170.9 million).
3114-017-319 3-83
-------
TABLE 3-11
SMALLER KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR
WITH PUMPOVERS FROM THE MATTAPONI AND PAMUNKEY RIVERS
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
COST CATEGORY
Hem
LAND ACQUISITION
River Pump Station Site - Acres (1)
Pipeline Easements, River to KW Res. - Acres (1)
Reservoir and Buffer — Acres (1)
Pipeline Easements, KW Res. to Dias. - Acres(2)
Soil Borrow Area - Acres (2)
Mitigation Area - Acres(2)
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
75 mgd Mattaponi Pump Station and Intake -IS
54- Inch Transmission Main to KW Res. - LF
45 mgd Pamunkey Pump Station and Intake - LS
42- Inch Transmission Main to KW Res. -LF
Dam, Clearing -LS
Dam, Excavation - LS
Dam, Slurry Wall -LS
Dam, Embankment -LS
Dam, Emergency Spillway -LS
Dam, Withdrawal & Release Structure -LS
SO- mgd King William Pump Station -LS
48- Inch Transmission Main to Pamunkey River - LF
42-Inch Dir. Drill Pamunkey River Crossing - LF
48- Inch Transmission Main - LF
42— Inch Transmission Main - LF
Reservoir Clearing up to 90' msl - Acres
40 -mgd Diascund Pump Station and Intake -LS
42— Inch Transmission Main to Little Creek — LF
King William County Landfill Relocation - LS (3)
County Route 626 Replacement - LF
Mitigation - LS
SUBTOTAL
Permitting, Preliminary Engineering & Legal (5%)
Design, Construction Management & Administration (1 2%)
Contingencies (20%)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Unit Cost Quantity
$5,600 50
$2,000 38
$1,500 2900
$1,000 60
$1,500 125
$1,500 500
$250 8000
$200 30000
$225 24000
$850 4500
$225 23000
$200 10500
$2,250 , 1600
$200 29000
$250 6000
Totals
$280,000
$76,000
$4,350,000
$60,000
$190,000
$750,000
$5,710,000
$10,000,000
$2,000,000
$7,600,000
$6,000,000
$400,000
$1,900,000
$1,900,000
$12,000,000
$2,300,000
$800,000
$5.500,000
$5,400,000
$3,830,000
$5.180.000
$2,100,000
$3,600,000
$5,600,000
$5,800,000
$3,000.000
$1,500,000
$5,000,000
$91,410,000
$4,570,000
$10,970,000
$21,390,000
$128,340,000
January 1997
-------
TABLE 3-11
SMALLER KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR
WITH PUMPOVERS FROM THE MATTAPONI AND PAMUNKEY RIVERS
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
(Continued)
COST CATEGORY
Item
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
_. . _ j n • i f»
cioctnc Kower tor rtimping — LO
Operations and Maintenance -LS
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Unit Cost Quantity
Mattaponi P.S.
Pamunk«y P.S.
King William P.S.
Diascund P.S.
Mattaponi P.S./Pipeline
Pamunkey P.S./Pipeline
King William P.S./Pipeline
Diascund P.S./Pipeline
Totals
$2,334,502
$1,369,042
$784,822
$711,423
$1,668,237
$1,251.178
$1.251.178
$834,119
$10.200.000
TOTAL YEAR 1992 PRESENT VALUE COST
$144.250.000
Notts-
All costs In Year 1882 dollars.
1) Affumms King William County would acquit* and ttatf to RRWSG jurisdictions
2) Assumes flflttSG/ureofcSons wouldacqurt,
3) LMndfil relocation may not benquirtd as part of this project.
January 1997
-------
3 J SUMMARY OF PRACTICABILITY ANALYSES
This section summarizes the results of practicability analyses conducted for the alternative
components described in Section 3.4.
To be practicable in this analysis, a project alternative (which may consist of several elements
or components) must satisfy the following 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. The long-term deficit is 39.8 mgd, which is the
projected regional deficit through the Year 2040 (see Section 2.7).
The project alternative must have the least cumulative environmental impact possible,
while satisfying Criterion No. 1.
.T
The combination of project alternative components should tye institutionally acceptable
and cumulatively feasible while satisfying Criteria No. 1 and 2>~
2.
3.
From the list of practicable alternative components, it has been demonstrated that to satisfy
the projected Year 2040 regional water supply deficit, any project alternative must include a reservoir
component. (The combined treated water safe yield benefit of the practicable alternatives which do
not involve new reservoir construction is only 21.2 mgd, which is 18.6 mgd less than the 39.8 mgd
projected Year 2040 deficit).
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 additional conservation measures and use restrictions to make up the remaining
project deficit. Alternative components are listed in Table 3-II
Based on the results of the environmental analysis presented in Report D, Alternatives
Assessment (Volume II - Environmental Analysis} (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) which is incorporated
herein by reference and is an appendix to this document, the environmental impacts of the practicable
non-reservoir project components rank as follows:
Alternative Component
Additional Conservation Measures and Use
Restrictions
Fresh Groundwater Development
Groundwater Desalination in Newport News
Waterworks Distribution Area
RRWSG Treated
Safe Yield
(med)
7.1-11.1
4.4
5.7
Degree of
Environmental Impact
Least
Most
3114-017-319
3-84
-------
TABLE 3-1J
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT
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
KWR-I
KWR-II
KWR-IH
KWR-IV
5. Groundwater Desalination in Newport News
Waterworks Distribution Area
6. Additional Conservation Measures and Use
Restrictions
7. No Action*
TREATED SAFE YIELD (mgd)
TOTAL
26.2
21.1
30.7
29.0
25.3
26.8
4.4
5.7
7.1-11.1
0.0
RRWSG**
23.2
18.1
27.1
25.4
21.7
, 23?}
7ZT).
0.0
* Although it is not considered a feasible alternative, the No Action alternative has
been carried forward for further environmental analysis pursuant to the Council
on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA regulations.
* * For reservoir alternatives, RRWSG treated water safe yield benefits are less than
total benefits due to assumed host jurisdiction allowances for King William,
New Kent, and/or James City Counties. For Black Creek Reservoir, the full
extent of New Kent County's projected needs would not be served by the host
jurisdiction allowance for this alternative (see Section 3.4.13).
Notes: Principal alternative changes and additions subsequent to publication of DEIS are as
follows:
1. The total host jurisdiction treated water allowance was reduced from 7 mgd to 3 mgd due
to including all of James City County's needs in the RRWSG's deficit projections. This
alternative's overall RRWSG safe yield benefit therefore increased from 19.2 to 23.2
mgd.
3114-017-319
January 11,1997
-------
TABLE 3-1J
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
(Continued)
3. The originally proposed KWR-1 project configuration was presented in the DEIS.
sferred KWR-II project configuration was presented in the Supplement.
'reservoir pump station was added to the KWR-II project configuration
•"publication of the Supplement. Additional modeling of this transmission
limit resulted in a safe yield reduction of 0.1 mgd.
The KWR-III and the currently proposed KWR-IV project configurations were added
subsequent to publication of the Supplement. The total and RRWSG safe yields are
greater for the KWR-IV project configuration than for KWR-III, because a less stringent
MIF was used for KWR-IV.
5. More detailed studies of this alternative resulted in a 0.7 mgd reduction in safe yield.
6. Use restrictions were remodeled as a component of the King William Reservoir
alternative and additional conservation measures were added to this alternative. Safe yield
estimates therefore increased from 1.7 mgd to between 7.1 and 11.1 mgd, depending on
which KWR configuration is considered.
3114-017-319 January 11, 1997
-------
These components will generally be brought on line in the order of least impact to most
impact, while taking into consideration criteria 1 and 3 identified above.
Table 3-2 contains the results of life cycle cost estimates for 19 of the original 31 components.
(It was not necessary to evaluate the remaining 12 alternatives with respect to cost, because those
alternatives were eliminated based on other practicability criteria (i.e., availability and/or
technological reliability) or were not amenable to generating cost estimates (i.e., Additional
Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions and No Action alternatives). These cost estimates have
been updated since February 1994, when the DEIS was published, based on changes in project
configuration and/or safe yield assumptions for alternatives involving the Ware Creek, Black Creek,
and King William reservoirs with river pumpovers.
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. All alternatives with unit costs that exceed
the affordability criterion are considered economically infeasible and therefore impracticable. Unit
costs above approximately $8 million per mgd of treated water safe yield would, for an alternative
yielding approximately 30 mgd, result in projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion of 1.5 percent of Lower Peninsula median household income.
Table 3-4 summarizes the fatal flaws which caused many alternatives to be considered
impracticable.
The locations of key physical features of the practicable alternative components (and the
Black Creek Reservoir alternative) are shown on Plate 2 (see map pocket at end of this document)
and Figures 3-4 through 3-8. The three reservoir alternatives are depicted schematically in Figures
3-9 through 3-11A.
To identify project alternatives that will satisfy short-term as well as long-term demands, the
RRWSG has developed an evaluation of the region's short-term or interim needs, defined as the net
amount of additional water that will be required to meet regional demands until a reservoir
realistically can be expected to become operational. It can take as much as 10 years or even more,
from the present, to permit, design, construct, and fill a reservoir for use. In this analysis, it is
assumed that completion of a reservoir project component would require another 10 years, or through
the Year 2006. It is believed that completion of the Black Creek Reservoir alternative could take
longer than either of the other reservoir alternatives because of the additional time that might be
required to complete the zoning (special use permit) and local consent processes in New Kent County
and the litigation processes that likely would be required to overturn the County's anticipated denials
of necessary zoning and local consent approvals (see Section 3.4.13). Nevertheless, since time to
completion could vary for any of the reservoir projects, the assumed 10-year implementation period
was not varied by alternative.
Regional water demands are expected to equal the combined safe yields of the existing Lower
Peninsula supplies before the Year 2000, with the deficit growing at a rate of approximately 0.8 mgd
per year thereafter. Without additional conservation, use restrictions, groundwater or surface water
supplies, the projected Year 2006 interim regional deficit is 14.8 mgd. The projected Year 2006
interim deficit of the Newport News Waterworks service area is 11.9 mgd if no action is taken, and
a deficit could be experienced at any time under severe drought conditions. Newport News
Waterworks is projected to experience a deficit situation earlier than other Lower Peninsula water
purveyors, but surplus capacity in other systems is not readily transferable.
3114-017-319 3-85
-------
TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATES
(Year 1992 Present Worth in $ million)
DISCOUNT RATE = 7.00%
Total Treated
Safe Yield
(M6D)
Raw water Project
Treatment ft Transmission
Alternative Components *
2. Lake Chesdin
5, Rappahannock River above Fredericksburg
8. James River above Richmond w/o New Off-Stream Storage
7. City of Richmond Surplus Raw Water
6. City of Richmond Surplus Treated Water
10. Ware Creek Reservoir
11. Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
12. Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from James River
13. Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
14, Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from James River
15. King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
16. King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
17. Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase
18, Chick, River Pumping Cap. Incr. & Raise D.C. and L.C. 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
9.1
26.2
30.5
21.1
24.8
29.0
33.2
0.2
5.0
4.4
30.0
5.7
30.0
30.0
107.61
251,34
122.44
92.13
m
9.04
31.82
17.25
12.98
11.19
7.43
6.67
6.87
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
45.54
127.51
197.00
118.26
197.84
123.79
136.45
0.64
16.04
5.74
5.00
4.87
6.46
5.60
7.98
4.27
4.11
3.20
3.21
1.30
A
I 8.55
j
1 24.63
28.67
19.84
23.31
27.26
31.21
0.19
4.70
4,4
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
118.80
258.77
129.11
98.80
198.91
54.09
152.14
225.67
138.10
221.15
151.05
167.66
0.83
20.74
9.88
78.68
34.21
261.63
344.72
Cost estimates are shown for 19 of the 31 original alternatives. It was not necessary
to evaluate the remaining 12 alternatives with respect to cost, because these
alternatives were eliminated based on other practicability criteria or were not
amenable to generating cost estimates.
October 1996
-------
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 Par MGD
(Low to High)
21 . Fresh Groundwater Development
22. Groundwater Desalination as the Single Long -Term Alternative
17. Chickahominy River Pumping Capacity Increase
18. Chick. River Pumping Cap. Incr and Raise D.C. and L.C. Dams
16. King William Reservoir wtth Pumpover from Pamunkey River
15. King William Reservoir wtth Pumpover from Mattaponi River
1 1 . Ware C reek Reservoir wtth Pumpover from Pamunkey River
10. Ware Creek Reservoir
23. Groundwater Desalination in NN Waterworks Dist. Area
13. Black Creek Reservoir wtth Pumpover from Pamunkey River
1 2. Ware Creek Reservoir wtth Pumpover from James River
8. City of Richmond Surplus Treated Water
24. James River Desalination
14. 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
1
I
s
I
I
I
I
I
\
$
I
1
1
'•i
1
i
X
^
1
1
I
1
1
Total Treated i
•
Safe Yield I
•
4.4
30.0
0.2
9.0
33.2
29.0
28.2
9.1
3,7
21.1
30.5
23.9
30.0
24.8
11.9
30.0
7.1
7.1
7.9
t, ft
| Total 1
•; •
j Cost par MGD 1
i of Sato Yield* I
i 2.24
2.62
4.14
I 4.15
i 5.05
I 5.21
I 5.81
5.94
6.00
6.54
7.40
8.32
8.72
8.92
9.98
:
i 11.49
I
i 13.92
i
: 18.19
| 32.76
•
I Impracticable 1
;: due to Cost** 1
:; •
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
j
Cost estimates from Table 3-2.
Unit costs above approximately $8 million per mgd of treated water safe yield would, for an alternative
yielding approximately 30 mgd, result In projected household water bills which exceed the RRWSG's
adopted affordability criterion of 1.5 percent of Lower Peninsula median household income.
October 1996
-------
TABLE 3-4
PRACTICABILITY ANALYSIS SCREENING RESULTS
NUMKH
1
2
3
4
5
«
7
&
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
NAME
LAKEGENITO
LAKECHESBIN
LAKE ANNA
LAKE GASTON
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER ABOVE FREOERICKSBURG
JAMES RIVER ABOVE RICHMOND
WITHOUT NEW Off -STREAM STORAGE
CITY OF RICHMOND SURPLUS RAW WATER
CITY OF RICHMOND SURPLUS TREATED WATER
JAMES RIVER BETWEEN RICHMOND AND HOPEWELL
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR WITH
PUMPOVER PROM PAMUNKEY RIVER
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR WITH PUMPOVEH
FROM JAMES RIVER ABOVE RICHMOND
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH
PUMPOVER FROM PAMUNKEY RIVER
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH PUMPOVER
FROM JAMES RIVER ABOVE RICHMOND
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR WITH
PUMPOVER FROM MATTAPONI RIVER
KINO WILLIAM RESERVOIR WITH
PUMPOVER FROM PAMUNKEY RIVER
RRWSG TREATED
SAFE YIELD
Cmsrt)
398
11. •
3B.B
398
7.9
7.1
7.1
23.B
398
7.1
23.2
27S
181
21 i
254
29»
PRACTICABILITY CRITERIA FATAL FLAWS
AVAILABILITY
UBCOE, USEPA, and USFWS
Opposition due to Impacts
Virgin** Power Opposition
Local Content A Legal Deleys
Local Compel Bon for Source
Local Consent
(RRPDC Opposition) »
Local Compeltioft tor Source
Local Consent
(RRPDC Opposition)
Aveilabllty Highly Uncertain
and OuMde RRWSG Control
VDH Opposition
due to Pubic HnMi Conce«nt
Two USEPA Velo.s
Local Consent
(RRPDC OpposMon) ft
Local CompHBon lor Sourc*
Local Consent
(New Kent County Opposition)
Local Consent
(New Kent » RRPDC Opporitlon) &
Local Companion tor Source
LocelComent (King
Wlllem County Opposition) &
Local Compelllon lor Source
COST
Eiceeds RRWSG CiHerion
Eiceedi RRWSG Criterion
Exceeds Rflwsa CMerlon
Exceeds RRWSG Criterion
Exceeds RRWSEJ CilWrton
Exceeds RRWSG Cdterion
Higher Costs end Impact! trt*n
tor Mattaperi River pympover
TECHNOLOGICAL
RELIABILITY
Quesfcmabie TreeteMlty
Water Qualty RelaUlty Concerns
Due to Watershed Development
More Water Qualty Rtlabllty
Concerns than tor Manaponf
Ryer Pumpover
PRACTICABLE ?
(Unshaded
alternatives are
carried forward)
YES *
NO"
YES
Mattaponi Fiver ind expended CHckatwmlny River purripaverf to Wire Creek Reservoir if* not
h not considered available or pracl cable by the RFWSG tNs Black Creek Reservotr alternalvt wat retitned for further environ
s pursunrttto USCOE inttructiorw.
-------
TABLE 3-4
PRACTICABILITY ANALYSIS SCREENING RESULTS
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
NUMBER
1T
11
tg
20
21
22
2S
24
25
it
27
21
29
30
31
NAME
CHICKAHOMNV RIVER PUMPING CAPACITY INCREASE
CHICKAHOMNY RIVER PUMPINQ CAPACITY INCREASE
AND RAISE DIA5CUND AMD LITTLE CREEXDAMS
ASH CONST RANED BY NUMBER OF WELLS
ASR UNCONSTWMNH) BY NUMBER OF WELLS
FRESH GHOUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT
GROUNOWATER DESALINATION AS THE
SINGLE LONG-TERM ALTERNATE
GROUNDWATEH DESALINATION IN NEWPORT NEWS
WATERWORKS OtSTHBUTDN AREA
JAMES RIVER DESALINATION
PAMUNKEY RIVER DESALINATION
YORK RIVER DESAUN ATDN
COGENERATION
WASTEWATER REUSE AS A
SOURCE OF POTABLE WATER
WASTEWATER REUSE FOR NON-POTABLE USES
ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION MEASURES
AND USE RESTRICTIONS
NO ACTION
RRW9G TREATS)
SAFE YIELD
Onfffl
02
50
91
».«
44
300
5,7
300
00
300
Unknown
37-6.5
00-S.O
7.1 - 11.1
00
PRACTICABILITY CRITERIA FATAL FLAWS
AVAILABILITY
Naad Governor'* Approval Amandvd
* CoJd Trigger HI0w MIF
Nttd Govamor% Approval Amtndad
* CoiM Trlgg* Hgrwr MF
VDiQ PMnMMKy IMkdy
DuitoPatanM
R»gior«l AquHv Drawdawn
VDEO Pwrninabdlty Urffloly
DuttoPoMlIM
Riglonl Aqriltr DratKiown
VDEO. P«rmiH»blrty UriiK^y
Du*toPeMnM
R^orml AquHwOnw*»in
VK4 Oppoil§ori
-------
\ NEWPORT
\ NEWS
%
LEGEND
• GROUNOWATER WITHDRAWAL
A (X3NCXNTRATE OIS^ARGE OUTFALL
— CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE PIPELINE
MAICCXM
PIRNIE
MARCH 1993
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
GROUNDWATER DESALTING ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT LOCATION
5 0 5
SCALE IN MILES
-------
CONCENTRATE
OUTFALL
** ,
FEiRUARY 1993
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
GROUNDWATER DESALTING ALTERNATIVE
SITE 1 LOCATION
HRNIE
2,000
2.000
SCALE IN FEET
-------
CONCENTRATE
OUTFALL
MAUDOUV1
PIRNIE
0\
fcfc-N'
FEBRUARY 1993
LOWER 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 i|
FEBRUARY 1993
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
GROUNDWATER DESALTING ALTERNATIVE
SITE 3 LOCATION
2,000 0 2,000
PIRNIE
SCALE IN FEET
-------
RESERVOIR
•P, ^ CONCENTRATE
OUTFALL
MARCH 1993
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
GROUNDWATER DESALTING ALTERNATIVE *
SITE 4 LOCATION
2.000 0 2,000
SCALE IN FEET
-------
Figure 3-9
EXPANDED WARE CREEK PROJECT CONCEPT
120 MGD
PS
PAMUNKEY RIVER
40 MGD
Outfall
DIASCUND CREEK
RESERVOIR
(Existing)
DIASCUND CREEK
WARE CREEK
RESERVOIR
40 MGD
PS
3.6 mi.
CHICKAHOMINY
RIVER
41 MGD PS *
(Existing)
NEWPORT NEWS
RAW WATER MAINS
(Existing)
I
•
*
f
*
*
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 35 ft msl
Minimum Pool Elevation 16.5 ft. msl
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
120 MGD
PS
PAMUNKEY RIVER
BLACK CREEK
RESERVOIR
(Southern and eastern branches
of Black Creek connected by
0.7-mile transfer
pipeline)
YORK
RIVER
DIASCUND CREEK.-
I 5.7
: mi.
DIASCUND CREEK
RESERVOIR
(Existing)
LITTLE CREEK
RESERVOIR
PROJECT FEA TURES
^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.
+ 6.8-mile, 40 mgd capacity pipeline for BC Reservoir withdrawals
^ Pipeline terminus at 60 ft. msl on Diascund Creek in New Kent County
4* 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 73 and 87 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
6.41 BG
910 ac
100ft. msl
76 ft. msl
25%
5.47 sq mi
1.2 mgd
-------
Figure 3-11
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR PROJECT CONCEPT
RRWSG's PREFERRED CONFIGURATION (KWR-II)
75MGD
PS
MATTAPONI RIVER
KING WILLIAM
RESERVOIR
(Cohoke Creek)
^ m
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PIPELINE (TYP.;
50 mgd PS
DIRECTIONAL
DRILL
I BEAVERDAM CREEK
0.8 mi. .'
DIASCUND CREEK
RESERVOIR
(Existing)
PS
RIVER
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
50 mgd in-line pump station for K.W. Reservoir withdrawals
10.4-mile, 50 mgd capacity pipeline from K. W. Reservoir to Beaverdam Creek
Pipeline discharge flows 0.8 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 92 ft high at a crest elev. of 106 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
(varies monthly)
21.2BG
2,222 ac
96 ft. msl
64 ft. msl
25%
11.45sqmi
3 mgd average during normal conditions
1 mgd average during critical periods
-------
Figure 3-11A
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR PROJECT CONCEPT
CURRENTLY PROPOSED CONFIGURATION (KWR-IV)
75MGD
•-..PS
MATTAPONI RIVER
PIPELINE (TYP.)
50 mgd PS
KING WILLIAM
RESERVOIR
(Cohoke Creek)
PAMUNKEY RIVER
0.8 mi.;
DIASCUND CREEK
RESERVOIR
(Existing)
5.5 mi
w
1ITTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
PROJECT FEATURES \
75 mgd Matteponi River intake and pump station at Scotland Landing
1.5-mile, 75 mgd capacity pipeline from Matteponi River to K. W. Reservoir
50 mgd in-line pump station for K.W. Reservoir withdrawals
11.7-mile, 50 mgd capacity pipeline from K. W. Reservoir to Beaverdam Creek
Pipeline discharge flows 0.8 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 1,700 ft long and 78 ft high at a crest elev. of 106 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
(varies monthly)
12.2BG
1,526ac
96 ft. msl
67 ft. msi
25%
8.92 sq mi
2 mgd average during normal conditions
1 mgd average during critical periods
-------
There is another factor that must be considered when assembling alternative components into
an overall regional project. 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 the individual components described (e.g., 10 mgd of fresh groundwater during
periods of substantial reservoir drawdown to produce a 4.4 mgd treated water safe yield, or 10 mgd
of brackish groundwater for desalination during any period to produce a 5.7 mgd treated water safe
yield). In view of the current overused and degraded condition of the major regional aquifers and
the level of state regulation under the Ground Water Management Act, the RRWSG does not consider
it feasible to rely on pumping a total of 20 mgd of groundwater for permanent use on the Lower
Peninsula. A groundwater modeling analysis was conducted by Malcolm Pimie in 1993 using the
USGS Coastal Plain Model to assess whether simultaneous operation of the two practicable
groundwater alternatives would be permittable under state Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (VR
680-13-07). This analysis is presented in Appendix 1-21 of Report D (Volume I). The results from
this analysis demonstrate that potential drawdown impacts to other existing groundwater users, and
the potential for saline groundwater intrusion, could make it very difficult for such joint groundwater
withdrawals to be permitted under the regulations. Therefore, an alternative that relies on the
development of both groundwater components to their full capacities may not be available. Based
on the above information, the project alternatives were assembled around each reservoir component
as depicted in Table 3-4A,
These project alternatives have now been defined in a manner that facilitates further
comparison. The Ware Creek and King William Reservoir projects would meet the projected regional
deficit of 39.8 mgd through the Year 2040, and they have been assembled from components with the
least potential environmental impacts. The Black Creek Reservoir project would fall just short (1.1
mgd) of meeting the 39.8 mgd deficit. The Ware Creek and Black Creek projects would rely more
heavily on new groundwater development, with the Black Creek Reservoir requiring long-term
reliance equaling the combined 10.1 mgd treated water safe yield benefit of the fresh groundwater
and groundwater desalting alternatives (4.4 and 5.7 mgd, respectively). Because the Black Creek and
Ware Creek reservoir sites are located wholly or partially within New Kent County, the County
would be an integral participant in a project involving one of these reservoirs, and a region larger
than the Lower Peninsula could therefore be opened to potential groundwater development.
3.6 RRWSG'S PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
3.6.1 Impact Comparison for Evaluated Alternatives
The DEIS compared the potential impacts of the six alternatives which were considered
practicable at that time. The potential impacts of the No Action alternative also were evaluated, as
required by the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations. The impact comparison was
made, in part, using a matrix which contained impact scores for each of the seven alternative
components carried forward in the detailed environmental analysis. The impact scores were totaled
separately for the 16 aquatic ecosystem impact categories and for all 23 environmental impact
categories. Differentiation for magnitude of impacts within individual impact categories was made
by assigning relative numerical scores ranging from +3 to -3.
Following receipt of comments on the DEIS, the USCOE recommended that the numerical
impact scoring matrix be eliminated from the BIS, since such ranking could be interpreted as biased
and is not necessary for the intuitive comparison of alternatives. In accordance with the USCOE's
request, the RRWSG has reassessed the favorable and unfavorable environmental impacts of the
3114-017-319 3-86
-------
TABLE 3-4A
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Component
Additional
Conservation
Measures and
Use
Restrictions**
Combination of
Fresh
Groundwater &
Groundwater
Desalting***
Reservoir with
Pamunkey River
Reservoir with
Mattaponi River
Total Supply
RRWSG Treated Water Safe Yield (mgd)*
Ware Creek
Interim
7.1
7.7
0
14.8
Long-
Term
10.5
6.1
23.2
39,8
Black Creek
Interim
7.1
7.7
0
14.8
Long*
Term
10,5
10.1
18.1
38.7
King William
(KWR-I)
Interim
7.1
7.7
—
0
14.8
Long-
Term
11.1
1.6
-
27.1
39.8
King William
(KWR-II)
Interim
7.1
7.7
—
0
14.8
Long-
Term
10.8
3.6
—
25.4
39.8
King William
(KWR-1II)
Interim
7.1
7.7
—
0
14.8
Long-
Term
10.5
7.6
—
21.7
39.8
King William
(KWR-IV)
Interim
7.1
7.7
...
0
14.8
Long-
term
10.5
6.1
—
23.2
39.8
3114-017-319
January 11,1997
-------
TABLE 3-4A (CONTINUED)
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
* Interim supply yield or demand reduction is required until the anticipated date that the reservoir component is operational (Year 2006
assumed for each reservoir in this analysis). Long-term numbers indicate the long-term supply yield or demand reduction benefits
of each component of the project alternatives.
** The estimated long-term safe yield benefit of additional conservation measures and use restrictions is 10.S mgd for the smallest King
William Reservoir configuration (KWR-IV), but may be somewhat less than this for the Ware Creek and Black Creek Reservoir
alternatives.
* * * The two groundwater alternatives have been combined since Newport News Waterworks currently is pursuing a brackish groundwater
desalting project; and it may proceed with that project before developing new fresh groundwater sources. Therefore, an alternative
that relies on the development of both groundwater components to their full capacities mav not be available.
>17-319 January 1'
-------
evaluated alternatives without the use of an impact matrix. Without a matrix, the comparison of
impacts could be interpreted as more subjective. Nevertheless, the RRWSG concluded mat, based
on impact analyses performed to date, the seven alternative components compare as follows with
respect to their overall net impacts after accounting for potential benefits:
Least Damaging
• Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Minor Negative Impacts
• Fresh Groundwater Development
• Groundwater Desalination in Newport News Waterworks Distribution Area
Moderate Negative Impacts
• King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattapom River
• Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
Major Negative Impacts
• Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
Most Damaging
• No Action
The Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative would have very few
adverse impacts and is thus a desired component of any project to meet the RRWSG's Year 2040
needs.
The two practicable groundwater alternatives would have negative impacts which, on an
overall basis, are considered minor. The Fresh Groundwater Development alternative is considered
somewhat less damaging than the Groundwater Desalination alternative. One of the reasons for this
distinction is that the fresh groundwater would be discharged to existing reservoirs when they are
drawn down to critical levels. This reservoir storage augmentation would provide benefits to aquatic
biota that depend on these freshwater aquatic ecosystems. The fresh groundwater alternative also
would not have the impacts associated with the long concentrate discharge pipelines and concentrate
outfalls necessary for groundwater desalination. Fresh groundwater discharges to reservoirs may lead
to reservoir eutrophication, however, depending on levels of phosphorus concentration in the
groundwater.
Many of the adverse impacts of the various reservoir alternatives would result from
conversion of existing wetland and terrestrial habitat to lacustrine habitat. Associated benefits would
also result from reservoir development. For example, the proposed reservoirs would create lacustrine
freshwater fisheries, offer water-related recreational opportunities, allow creation of new parks, and
in some cases provide socioeconomic benefits.
3114-017-319 3-87
-------
Some of the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the Black Creek Reservoir and
King William Reservoir alternatives are listed below:
King William Reservoir (KWR-II Configuration) Advantages Over Black Creek Reseyvo|r
• The King William Reservoir would provide a 37 percent (8.0 mgd) greater total treated
water safe yield benefit than the Black Creek Reservoir (29.0 versus 21.1 mgd). The
King William Reservoir therefore would have a greater beneficial impact on the public
water supply systems represented by the RRWSG — and potentially on other public
systems in the region as discussed below in Section 3.7,2 (discussion of Safe Yield
Benefits) and Section 5.9.
• The King William Reservoir would provide 3/4 times more available storage than the
Black Creek Reservoir (15.81 versus 4.84 billion gallons).
• A 39.8 mgd project alternative involving the King William Reservoir would require
development of a long-term groundwater supply with a treated water safe yield of at
least 3.6 mgd. Given the list of practicable alternatives components, a 39.8 mgd
project alternative involving the Black Creek Reservoir would require development of
a long-term groundwater supply with nearly three times as much safe yield as would
the King William Reservoir (10.1 versus 3.6 mgd, respectively). Even with additional
conservation measures and use restrictions and both groundwater alternatives, a Black
Creek Reservoir project would still fall 1.1 mgd short of meeting the projected Year
2040 deficit.
• The King William Reservoir would rely on Mattaponi River withdrawals, while the
Black Creek Reservoir would rely on Pamunkey River withdrawals. The risk of
long-term adverse impacts of potential resource overuse, and heightened levels of local,
state and federal conflicts over competing uses of increasingly limited available
resources, would be much greater with a Pamunkey River withdrawal alternative.
Estimated Year 1990 consumptive water use in the Pamunkey River Basin (34.2 mgd)
is 11 times greater than that estimated for the Mattaponi River Basin (3.1 mgd). In the
Year 2040, Pamunkey River Basin withdrawals, including those for the Black Creek
Reservoir project, are projected to reach 87.0 mgd, or 9.9 percent of the estimated mean
historical freshwater discharge at the mouth of the Pamunkey River (883 mgd).
Mattaponi River Basin withdrawals, including those for the King William Reservoir
project, are projected to be 37.1 mgd, or 6.4 percent of the estimated mean historical
freshwater discharge at the mouth of the Mattaponi River (581 mgd).
• Based on simulations using a salinity model developed by VIMS, Mattaponi River
withdrawals to supply the King William Reservoir, in combination with other existing
and projected consumptive uses in the Mattaponi River Basin, are not expected to
result in substantial salinity changes. There is a greater potential for salinity intrusion
impacts on the Pamunkey River from the Black Creek Reservoir alternative in
combination with other existing and projected consumptive uses.
• The King William Reservoir would result in creation of nearly 2% times as much
surface area that could be used as lacustrine fish and waterfowl habitat than would the
Black Creek Reservoir (2,222 versus 910 acres).
3114-017-319 3-88
-------
• The King William Reservoir impoundment site, and areas immediately below the
proposed dam site, are isolated from anadromous fish passage by the existing Cohoke
Millpond Dam, which is located 2.4 river miles downstream of the proposed King
William Reservoir Dam. By comparison, only lesser obstructions to fish passage, such
as road crossings and beaver dams, exist below the proposed Black Creek Reservoir
dam sites.
• Because Cohoke Creek already is impounded below the proposed King William
Reservoir dam site, it is 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 greater flood flow reductions from those currently experienced.
• No existing homes would be displaced by the proposed King William Reservoir. In
contrast, the Black Creek Reservoir would result in the displacement of existing homes,
and the potential for inundation or other direct impacts to houses within reservoir
buffer zones that would be established (e.g., septic systems relocations, restrictions on
additional construction on developed parcels, etc.).
Black Creek Reservoir Advantages Over King William Reservoir (KWR-II Configuration)
• The Black Creek Reservoir would inundate an estimated 285 acres of wetlands and
open water, whereas the King William Reservoir would inundate 574 acres.
• The Black Creek Reservoir would inundate an estimated 625 acres of uplands, as
compared to 1,648 acres of uplands for the King William Reservoir. In each case, most
of these losses would be forested habitats, which are common in this region. The
projected losses would represent less than 1 percent and 2 percent of the forested land
in New Kent and King William Counties, respectively.
• Field studies to date have revealed no individuals of the federally-listed threatened
Small Whorled Pogonia within the Black Creek Reservoir site. Small Whorled
Pogonia were found at two locations within the proposed King William Reservoir site.
In addition, the Black Creek Reservoir site does not contain an active Great Blue Heron
rookery as does the King William Reservoir site.
• The Black Creek Reservoir watershed does not contain any landfills. The King
William Reservoir watershed contains a closed landfill which lies above the proposed
reservoir normal pool elevation.
• The Black Creek Reservoir would be expected to have larger growth-inducing benefits
to New Kent County than would the King William Reservoir for King William County.
This expectation is based on the location of the Black Creek Reservoir sites in closer
proximity to major transportation corridors, population centers, employment areas, and
existing utility systems. In addition, substantial residential development already has
occurred in the Black Creek Reservoir watershed.
3114-017-319 3-89
-------
Of the three reservoir alternatives, the 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:
• The proposed Ware Creek Reservoir dam site is in tidal and navigable waters of the
United States. The Black Creek and King William Reservoir dam sites are located in
non-tidal waters which are upstream of existing man-made obstructions such as dams
and road crossings.
• Like the Black Creek Reservoir project, the Ware Creek Reservoir project would rely
on Pamunkey River withdrawals, while the King William Reservoir would rely on
Mattaponi River withdrawals. Both current water demands and projected long-term
increases in water demands are greater on the Pamunkey than on the Mattaponi; and
there would be a greater risk of long-term adverse impacts from potential resource
overuse (including salinity intrusion), and increased levels of local, state and federal
conflicts over competing uses of available resources.
• 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 Ware Creek Reservoir would have the largest impact on the hydrologic and
salinity regimes of wetlands below a proposed dam site. The reservoir would eliminate
a tidal freshwater zone and greatly reduce or eliminate oligohaline areas below the
dam.
• Intense development in the "Stonehouse" community is occurring 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.
• Of the three reservoir alternatives, 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 used by anadromous fish, including Striped Bass.
There is no evidence, and a low probability, that either the Black Creek Reservoir or
King William Reservoir sites are used by anadromous fish.
• The Ware Creek Reservoir would impact the largest and most diverse area of wetlands
(590 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands).
• The Ware Creek Reservoir would provide a 10 percent (2.8 mgd) lower total treated
water safe yield benefit than the King William Reservoir. Therefore, the Ware Creek
Reservoir would have less beneficial impact on municipal water supply systems.
• The Ware Creek Reservoir would impact the largest number of existing roadways,
including potential flooding of low points on Interstate 64 under conditions more
severe than 100-year storm events.
The No Action alternative is considered by the RRWSG to be the most damaging overall of
the seven alternatives evaluated. Major negative impacts would result if no action were taken to
develop additional water supplies. These would include severe adverse impacts on municipal and
private water supplies. Surface water reservoirs would be drawn down to much lower levels and for
3114-017-319 3-90
-------
longer periods, causing more frequent and more severe water quality problems and adverse impacts
to aquatic habitat in those 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 to occur during this decade.
Likewise, if no action were taken, negative socioeconomic impacts likely would occur on the
Lower Peninsula, such as implementation of growth-limiting measures to conserve the existing water
supply. For example, water purveyors might be forced to place moratoriums on new hook-ups,
which could reduce new sources of revenue for the region (e.g., state and local income taxes, state
sales taxes, and local property taxes).
3.6.2 Comparison of Alternative Component Practicability
The preceding subsection compares the overall impacts of the seven alternatives carried
forward in the detailed environmental impact analysis. The recommendation of specific alternative
components to be included in an overall project alternative should also be supported by the results
of the practicability analysis. Therefore, a discussion is presented below on the relative technical
merits of the evaluated alternatives.
The No Action alternative is not considered practicable, since it would 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 Environmental Quality's NEPA
regulations. Given these factors, the practicability of the No Action alternative is omitted from the
following discussion.
Safe Yield Benefits
The available storage capacity of the King William Reservoir (15.81 billion gallons for the
RRWSG's preferred KWR-II configuration) would be more than three times greater than that of
either the Black Creek Reservoir (4.84 billion gallons) or the Ware Creek Reservoir (S.16 billion
gallons). Therefore, the King William Reservoir alternative would serve much more of the RRWSG's
projected Year 2040 needs than either of the other two reservoir alternatives.
The King William Reservoir with Mattaponi River Pumpover alternative also offers the
greatest potential for future enhancement to supply water to a larger region than the Lower Peninsula
and/or to meet water demands beyond the Year 2040. As discussed in Section 5.9, the King William
Reservoir Project (KWR-I or KWR-II configurations) offers the ability to meet some of the additional
needs of jurisdictions outside the RRWSG boundaries, with few additional wetland impacts. (These
potential benefits are in addition to the host jurisdiction allowances assumed for King William,.
New Kent Counties.)
In Section 5.9 of the Supplement, a two river pumpover scenarw^fje., Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Rivers) was discussed as a possible means of enhancing the King William Reservoir
Project (KWR-II configuration) to supply the needs of a larger region. This enhancement option is
not available for either the Black Creek or Ware Creek Reservoirs, because of their substantially
smaller storage capacities. The RRWSG has no plans at this time to develop such an enhanced King
William Rieservotr Project. However, at the USCOE's direction, the RRWSG has evaluated a two
river pumpover scenario for a smaller King William Reservoir that would meet the projected needs
of the RRWSG (see Section 3.4.32.4).
3114-017-319 3-91
-------
The fresh and brackish groundwater alternatives would produce estimated treated water safe
yield benefits of 4.4 mgd and 5.7 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 18 mgd of the RRWSG's projected Year 2040 treated water deficit
of 39.8 mgd.
The Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative would provide a 7.1
to 11.1 mgd treated water safe yield benefit and is considered an integral component of any overall
project developed.
Availability
Host Jurisdiction Approval
King William Reservoir. The City of Newport News has executed a host jurisdiction
agreement with King William County for development of the King William Reservoir alternative.
This represents a major step toward successful implementation of this reservoir alternative.
Ware Creek Reservoir. Over the past four 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 still may be possible, acceptable resolution
of safe yield, operational, and financing issues remains uncertain at this time.
Black Creek Reservoir. Beginning in June 1992, the RRWSG made efforts to develop a
project development agreement with New Kent County for the Black Creek Reservoir alternative.
In September 1994, however, New Kent County's governing body terminated those discussions and
directed the RRWSG to discontinue all work concerning the Black Creek Reservoir. New Kent
County further informed the RRWSG that the County has no intention at this'time of cooperating
with the RRWSG on Black Creek Reservoir development (R. J. Emerson, New Kent County,
personal communication, 1994). This position was reiterated in April 1996 (E.D. Ringley, New Kent
County, personal communication, 1996). Even if this opposition is overcome in the future, there
would remain the local issues of displacement of residents and impacts to additional subdivided land
with millions of dollars of assessed value.
Fresh Groundwater. James City County has 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) James City County, until some agreement between the City
of Newport News and James City County could be negotiated.
For nearly four years, the City of Newport News and New Kent County conducted
negotiations designed to reach an agreement allowing fresh groundwater development in New Kent
County. The two jurisdictions were considering development of deep groundwater withdrawals
within New Kent County to supply future County needs and augment storage in Diascund Creek
Reservoir, In April 1994, however, the County called off the proposed sale of up to 2.1 mgd of
groundwater to Newport News. The County cited accelerated development, including the then-
3114-017-319 3-92
-------
proposed horse racetrack and a new golf course, as a primary reason for terminating the sale. The
County elected to retain its groundwatcr supply to serve these growing water demands. There were
also indications that the County would have been subject to additional VDEQ permitting
requirements restricting the sale of the groundwater to another jurisdiction.
Brackish Groundwater Desalination. This alternative is the most available of the evaluated
water supply development alternatives from a host jurisdiction approval standpoint, 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. Newport News Waterworks is actively pursuing a brackish groundwater
desalting project In August 1994 the VDEQ approved a draft groundwater withdrawal permit for
Newport News, WeU installation and final design of the treatment facility should be completed by
the end of 1996 and start-up for the desalting facility is scheduled for mid-1998. Once the facility
is on-line, a treated water safe yield benefit of 5.7 mgd is expected.
Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions. This alternative would be
implemented (and in fact, it already is being implemented) by the participating jurisdictions. No host
jurisdiction approvals are required.
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. The King William Reservoir would rely on
a 45-mgd smaller river withdrawal capacity (75 versus 120 mgd), but it would provide a greater safe
yield benefit than would either the Ware Creek or the Black Creek Reservoir.
Existing and projected future consumptive water uses are much greater in the Pamunkey River
Basin than in the Mattaponi River Basin. This includes Hanover County's pursuit of large-scale
Pamunkey River withdrawals over the past several years to supply potential new off-stream storage
facilities. 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 state regulation of groundwater use is stringent and competition for
development of future groundwater supplies is high among local jurisdictions and private water
supply developers. As previously indicated, however, the VDEQ has approved a draft groundwater
withdrawal permit for Newport News that may lead to development of a brackish groundwater
desalination project.
Costs
Life cycle costs have been estimated for all five water supply source development alternatives
which were carried forward in the detailed environmental impact analysis (for the King William
Reservoir with Mattaponi River Pumpover alternative, a cost estimate has only been prepared for the
RRWSG's preferred KWR-II configuration.) These costs have been related to estimated total treated
water safe yield benefits to provide a more equal comparison of alternatives. This cost comparison
assumes that each non-RRWSG host jurisdiction receiving a water supply allotment would pay for
its pro-rata share of total project safe yield.
3114-017-319 3-93
-------
of the five alternatives is 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 King William Reservoir and Groundwater
Desalinatio>-jaheiuativ6s_ffiould be the next most cX;:::_.Xx:X:^:":~! ::!--:>x"::~: V,:";""":"!"::::-:x-:'. .- " • . • :'y.
Ware Creek Reservoir
Black Creek Reservoir
King William Reservoir
(KWR-II Configuration)
Fresh Groundwater
Groundwater Desalination
••^fTrawted : Water;? 1^
Safe Yield (mgd)
::i> TOtil U
26.2
21.1
29.0
4.4
5.7
mm&*
23.2
18.1
25.4
4.4
5.7
Year 1992 Present Value
Cost Per rogd of Total Treated
:-J:e: Water Safe VieW v'- -m
... - . ... ... -... . .•....-...-.• .......
'- "••••• , . ••.;••.-• ••.".- ••••.• '"::-:V" •' -- "• :: "".".•• "-:' " .":':":-. ":•;•
S5.81M
S6.54M
$5.2 1M
S2.24M
S6.00M
. * For reservoir alternatives, RRWSG treated water safe yield benefits are less than total benefits due
to assumed host jurisdiction allowances for King William, New Kent, and/or James City Counties.
For Black Creek Reservoir, the full extent of New Kent County's projected needs would not be
served bv the host jurisdiction allowance for this alternative (see Section 3.4. 1 3Y
Technological Reliability
For the five water supply source development alternatives, the principal reliability concerns
focus on the long-term water quality of the proposed river or groundwater sources and of surface
water runoff in the proposed reservoir watersheds.
River Pumpover Water Quality
Currently, there are no "major" (as classified by the VDEQ) 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 currently are four major municipal and industrial discharges
upstream of the proposed intake site at Northbury. Chesapeake Corporation operates a large Kraft
pulp and paper mill in the Town of West Point which is a major industrial discharger to the lower
portion of the Pamunkey River. In addition to these existing discharges, Hanover County currently
plans to put in place a major sewage treatment plant (STP) discharge to the Pamunkey River
upstream of Northbury. King William County currently holds a permit to develop a 25,000 gallon
per day STP on Moncuin Creek, a Pamunkey River tributary which discharges to the Pamunkey
approximately 6V4 river miles upstream of Northbury, and it may eventually increase the STP
capacity to 500,000 gallons per day (D. S. Whitlow, King William County, personal communication,
1993). In New Kent County, a new regional jail site downstream of Northbury will discharge treated
3114-017-319
3-94
-------
wastewater into the Pamunkey River at Parham Landing. A permit has also been issued to New Kent
County for a 0.25 mgd STP discharge at an existing Cumberland Hospital STP outfall point on
Cumberland Thorofare (a side channel of the mainstem Pamunkey River) downstream of Northbury.
The number of existing and planned wastewater discharges to the Pamunkey River raises questions
about water quality that do not exist for the Mattaponi River.
The Ware Creek Reservoir project could lead to an increase in phosphorus loadings in the
Diascund Creek Reservoir, which could result in eutrophic conditions in both the Diascund Creek
and Ware Creek Reservoirs. This would occur because the Ware Creek Reservoir alternative would
involve a direct pumpover from the Pamunkey River to the Diascund Creek Reservoir and a
subsequent pipeline from the Diascund Creek Reservoir to die Ware Creek Reservoir. For the other
two jcservoir alternatives, water from the Pamunkey or Mattaponi River would be pumped to an
intermediate storage reservoir (either the Black Creek Reservoir or the King William Reservoir) prior
- to transmission to the Diascund Creek Reservoir. Owing to its much larger total storage capacity (3.3
times that of the Black Creek Reservoir), the King William Reservoir would provide a much longer
hydraulic retention time for incoming river water than would the Black Creek Reservoir. This would
allow a higher degree of paniculate settling, which would result in a substantial reduction in
concentrations of phosphorus and other p articulate-borne constituents in the water column and could
greatly improve the quality and treatability of the raw water delivered to the Diascund Creek
Reservoir and the rest of the existing Lower Peninsula raw water storage system.
The pipeline configuration for the Black Creek Reservoir alternative also would allow a
portion of the Pamunkey River withdrawals to be pumped directly to Diascund Creek, bypassing the
Black Creek Reservoir. Such direct discharges of Pamunkey River water could lead to increased
phosphorus loadings and resulting eutrophication of the Diascund Creek Reservoir.
Reservoir Watershed Water Quality
There is minimal existing or planned development within the 11.45-square mile King William
Reservoir (KWR-II configuration) watershed. However, there are some concerns regarding
groundwater quality and surface water runoff quality, because the King William County Landfill is
located within the reservoir drainage area (but above the proposed normal pool elevation of
96 feet msl). King William County has discontinued acceptance of waste at this landfill. Closure
construction began at the site in the spring of 1994 and was completed in April 1995. As part of the
closure, a final cap system was placed over the entire limits of the waste disposal area, to limit
infiltration of surface water and minimize leachate generation through the post-closure period.
Several alternatives exist for corrective action in the event of a release of leachate constituents from
the landfill and confirmed impact on reservoir water quality.
Intense development plans associated with the "Stonehouse" community generate substantial
water quality concerns associated with the Ware Creek Reservoir alternative. This 7,230-acre
planned community will occupy 73 percent of the 9,903 acres that would drain to the Ware Creek
Reservoir (excluding the reservoir normal pool area). Within James City County, the Stonehouse
development ultimately will 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 the quality of surface water runoff to the reservoir.
3114-017-319 3-95
-------
Marked residential growth has occurred and continues to occur in portions of the 5.47 square
mile Black Creek Reservoir watershed. There are currently at least four residential subdivisions
within the proposed reservoir watershed; and no buffers have been established between these
subdivisions and the proposed reservoir normal pool area. For example, the large Clopton Forest
subdivision borders the western edge of the Southern Branch Black Creek reservoir site. This
residential 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, nutrient loads
from lawn fertilizer runoff, and migration of pollutants from septic tanks. The problem would be
exacerbated by future development that likely would be stimulated by reservoir construction.
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, phosphorus loadings resulting from fresh groundwater discharges to the Reservoir
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.
Due to the potential 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. Newport News'
current brackish groundwater desalination project should provide answers as to whether successful
treatment of the proposed feed water can be accomplished using a low-pressure membrane system
designed for brackish waters.
Summary
Based on investigations to date, the King William Reservoir alternative appears superior to
the other two reservoir alternatives with respect to each of the technical evaluation criteria discussed
above. Brackish groundwater development appears at this time to be more available to the RRWSG
than fresh groundwater development. If available, however, fresh groundwater withdrawals would
be much more cost-effective.
3.6 J RRWSG's Proposed Project Alternative
Based on the results of the environmental impact analysis, the practicable alternative
components which appear to be the least damaging are listed below and are proposed as long-term
components of an overall 39.8 mgd project alternative. The RRWSG's treated water safe yield
3114-017-319 3-96
-------
benefits from each component are shown in the following table for each of the four King William
Reservoir project configurations.
Project
Component
Additional Conservation Measures and
Use Restrictions
Combination of Fresh Groundwater
Development and/or Groundwater
Desalination
King William Reservoir with Pumpover
from Mattaponi River
Total Treated Water Safe Yield for
RRWSG(mgd)
Reservoir Configuration
KWR-I
11.1
1.6
27.1
39.8
KWR-II
10.8
3.6
25.4
39.8
KWR-III
10.5
7.6
21.7
39.8
KWR-IV
10.5
6.1
23.2
39.8
Through the Year 2040, the RRWSG's projected 39.8 mgd treated water supply deficit can
be met with a combination of additional conservation measures and use restrictions, fresh and/or
brackish groundwater withdrawals, and the King William Reservoir.
A tiered use restriction program has been developed and adopted by the Newport News City
Council so that it may be implemented when the need arises. Other RRWSG member jurisdictions
should do likewise. These use restrictions would be contingency measures, beyond routine
conservation measures, employed to produce short-term demand reductions during water supply
emergencies.
The environmental impact analysis and technical merits of the King William Reservoir
alternative support its inclusion as part of the proposed overall 39.8 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.
Assuming a 10-year time to completion for King William Reservoir, interim groundwater
supplies yielding at least 7.7 mgd would be required to satisfy projected interim water supply deficits
before the new reservoir becomes operational. This estimate also assumes implementation of
additional conservation measures and use restrictions capable of reducing short-term demands by at
least 7.1 mgd.
3114-017-319
3-97
-------
3,7 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLANS FOR RRWSG'S PREFERRED KING
WILLIAM RESERVOIR PROJECT (KWR-II CONFIGURATION) AND OTHER
RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVES (PREVIOUSLY NUMBERED AS 3.8 IN DEIS)
Conceptual mitigation plans have been developed for each alternative reservoir project, to
allow comparison of the overall, net impacts of the three reservoir alternatives. A detailed mitigation
plan was previously submitted to the USCOE for the Ware Creek Reservoir Project, as part of James
City County's Section 404 permit requirements. The principal components of that plan are
summarized in Section 3.7.3. This document summarizes James City County's Ware Creek Reservoir
mitigation plan (James R. Reed & Associates, 1992) without modification.
Conceptual mitigation plans for each reservoir alternative have been developed to compensate
for the unavoidable loss of vegetated wetlands which would be filled and/or inundated by the
respective reservoir projects. Compensation is the third and final step in the mitigation sequencing
process required by the February 6, 1990, Memorandum of Agreement between the USEPA and
USCOE (USEPA, 1990). The first two steps, avoidance and minimization, have been addressed in
flie selection and configuration of the alternatives during the alternatives analysis procedure.
Numerous mitigation techniques would need to be employed to establish the number of acres
of wetland mitigation required for a large water supply reservoir. To guide the selection of
techniques, a hierarchy was established which reflects the mitigation priorities of the USCOE,
USEPA, and USFWS. The general types of mitigation were investigated in the following order:
1. Restoration of wetlands on-site (within the reservoir watershed)
2. Creation of wetlands on-site (within the reservoir watershed)
3. Restoration of wetlands off-site (within the Pamunkey and/or Mattaponi River
valleys)
4. Creation of wetlands off-site (within the Pamunkey and/or Mattaponi River
valleys)
Wetland restoration is defined as the establishment of previously existing wetland character
and functions at a site where wetlands have ceased to exist or exist only in a degraded condition.
Wetland creation is defined as the establishment of a functional wetland where one previously did
not exist Because 'wetland restoration sites have previously supported wetlands, the likelihood of
successful mitigation is much greater for wetland restoration than for creation of wetlands where
none have previously existed. Once all restoration possibilities within the reservoir watershed have
been exhausted, therefore, a balance must be struck between the benefits of on-site creation and the
greater likelihood of success for off-site restoration. That balance is governed by the particular
opportunities for each type of mitigation at a specific project location.
The conceptual mitigation plans present general descriptions of the primary components of
each mitigation technique. Detailed designs, hydrologic budgets, and monitoring plans will be
developed for the final mitigation sites selected.
3114-017-319 3-98
-------
3.7.1 RRWSG's Preferred Reservoir Project - King William Reservoir With
Pumpover From Mattaponi River (KWR-II Configuration)
A conceptual mitigation plan has been developed by the RRWSG to compensate for the loss
of vegetated wetlands that would be permanently filled or flooded by the King William Reservoir
Project (KWR-II configuration). For the smaller proposed KWR-IV configuration, impacts and
associated mitigation would be less. Nevertheless, the conceptual mitigation plan for the RRWSG's
preferred KWR-II configuration provides a description of the type of mitigation envisioned for the
project. An abridged version of the mitigation plan is described below. Additional detail is presented
in die August 1996 King William Reservoir Project Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (Malcolm Pirnie, 1996) which is included in Volume n of
this FEIS Main Report.
Although the primary purpose of this section is to describe the wetland compensation
components of the RRWSG's conceptual mitigation plan, it also describes the RRWSG's upland
mitigation proposals. The RRWSG's intention with this plan is that the project's wetland impacts
will be more than offset by compensatory mitigation projects. The wetland restoration/creation
component was developed based on the following objectives:
• Provide a ratio of 2 acres of vegetated wetlands gained for every 1 acre of
vegetated wetlands lost as a result of the reservoir project.
• Restore, enhance, or create wetlands to provide a functional capacity equal to or
greater than that of the existing wetlands at the reservoir site.
• Maximize the probability of success for establishing viable wetlands.
A functional assessment, using the Evaluation for Planned Wetlands (EPW) procedure and the
Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), will be used to evaluate the final plan to ensure that the 2:1
level of compensation will provide a substantial net gain in wetland functional benefits. The
functional assessments will be refined when the results of the HEP study are completed and final
mitigation elements established.
A wetland restoration/creation plan has been developed to provide in excess of 2:1
compensation by acreage. Specific parcels on-site and off-site have been identified to provide most
of these wetlands improvements. The conceptual mitigation plan places the highest priority on
finding and restoring prior converted croplands to wetlands, because such efforts have a better record
of success than other efforts to construct wetlands. A secondary priority is to create wetlands in sand
and gravel pits and in borrow areas for dam construction materials. Because the wetland creation
components of the plan possess ample hydrologic inputs, they have a great likelihood of success.
The final acreage for on-site and off-site mitigation and for each mitigation technique will
depend on the particular opportunities available and will be determined during the detailed wetland
mitigation design. The following summarizes the components of the conceptual mitigation plan.
3114-017-319 3-99
-------
On-Site Mitigation Within Reservoir Watershed
Restoration of Prior Converted Croplands and Fanned Wetlands
Prior converted croplands and fanned wetlands in the Cohoke Creek watershed were
investigated. Several altered groundwater deprcssional wetland systems were identified as candidates
for restoration. Following an evaluation of site feasibility, these potential mitigation sites were
rejected as viable restoration areas. A reliance on groundwater discharges as a primary source of
hydrology is considered precarious. Centuries of watershed manipulation from agricultural activities
may have altered the local water table. The site locations also lack secondary sources of water. In
addition, the former groundwater depressional wetlands are extremely small (<1 acre) and, as a result,
are more costly per acre than the identified off-site wetland restoration areas. These small patches
of potential groundwater depressional prior converted croplands and farmed wetlands would also be
disruptive to farming practices because they would be located in prime agricultural farmland.
Borrow Area Constructed Wetlands
As part of the reservoir dam construction, suitable soil material must be excavated and
transported to the dam site. Preliminary soil borings have indicated that suitable sandy and clay soils
are available on the ridges adjacent to the rim of the proposed reservoir. The soils of the borrow area
will be excavated to bring the land surface elevation down to the normal pool elevation of the
reservoir. Those excavated borrow areas will provide an opportunity for the construction of wetlands
adjacent to the reservoir.
A number of potential sites exist adjacent to the reservoir and in close proximity to the
proposed dam site. Each of these areas was selected based on its size, its relative distance from the
dam site, and its current vegetative community. The potential borrow area constructed wetland sites
provide the possibility of creating large, contiguous blocks of wetland habitat for sensitive interior
species such as neo-tropical migratory birds.
The plan for the borrow area wetlands calls for the creation of approximately 89 acres of
diverse wetland habitat. Because the reservoir is located within the East Coast Migratory Flyway, the
wetland mitigation effort includes habitat for breeding and migratory birds. Small open water and
upland islands will be constructed in the borrow area wetlands to provide suitable habitat for
waterfowl.
The borrow area constructed wetlands would be formed by excavating soil down to
approximately the normal reservoir pool elevation. The micro-topography would vary irregularly
to provide water depths from -2 feet to +2 feet, to provide a diversity of wetland types. Excavation
would remain approximately 100 feet from the reservoir pool area, with the intervening undisturbed
area acting as a berrn to retain water when the reservoir is drawn below the minimum water elevation
of the constructed wetland. The berm also would shelter the mitigation areas from wind, and thereby
protect the mitigation areas from wave erosion. If necessary, the berm could be planted with
emergent vegetation or armored with rip rap to reduce further the risk of erosion. The upland berm
would also provide added ecosystem diversity to the mitigation areas.
Hydrologic connections to the reservoir would be provided by a series of channels between
the borrow areas and the reservoir pool. Each of those channels would contain a water control weir
which would act as a valve, allowing water to spill into the borrow areas when the reservoir pool was
3114-017-319 3-100
-------
within 2 feet of its normal elevation and retaining water in the borrow area when the reservoir was
drawn down more than 2 feet below its normal elevation.
The components of the planned borrow area constructed wetlands are discussed below:
Hydrology: The hydrology of the proposed borrow area constructed wetlands
would be supported primarily by the presence of the reservoir. Limited amounts
of water also would be provided by direct precipitation and surface water runoff.
Before die reservoir's entire yield is needed, water level fluctuations would be
small, thereby providing a stable source of hydrology. In later years when the
reservoir levels periodically fall, the berm structure would keep water from
draining from the borrow area constructed wetlands.
Seepage from the mitigation areas would be contained by the Yorktown
Formation, a low permeability layer of silty to sandy clays lying beneath these
areas. Seepage would also be contained by the accretion of organic material in the
wetland areas. A substantial layer of organic material would develop and retain
water through absorption and by clogging pore spaces of sandy substrates.
Soils: After excavation, soils in the borrow areas would be composed primarily
of low permeability clays and silty sands. Those soils would be amended with
topsoils from wetlands within the reservoir pool area. As vegetation, particularly
emergent vegetation, become established in the first few years, accumulated
organic matter (detritus) would further condition the soil. Fertilizer would be
applied if necessary, to ensure adequate nutrient levels.
Vegetation: With irregular microtopography, the proposed borrow area
constructed wetlands would contain a mosaic of wetland vegetative communities.
The seed source would be supplied by the topsoil added from the wetlands within
the reservoir pool area. Once the hydrologic conditions become evident,
supplemental plantings could be implemented if necessary.
Portions of the 100-foot buffer zone around the borrow areas border the reservoir pool. These
upland buffers would be preserved in perpetuity, therefore allowing for the establishment of mature
forests retaining cove hardwood areas through natural succession.
Aquatic Fringe Habitat
Valuable aquatic fringe habitat would become established naturally around the perimeter of
the reservoir. These areas would provide a suitable environment for many species including fish,
amphibians, reptiles, shorebirds, and mammals, and their supporting food web (AWWA, 1988).
Many migratory waterfowl could use these areas for feeding, resting, and wintering habitat. Similar
reservoirs in the area have been examined and found to be heavily utilized by Egrets, Great Blue
Herons, and Osprey for nesting, and Bald Eagles for feeding. The fringe habitat established around
the reservoir would also improve water quality by filtering sediments and nutrients and would
stabilize the shoreline to minimize erosive forces of waves, seiches, and boat wakes.
3114-017-319 3-101
-------
Open Water Habitat
In addition to the aquatic fringe habitat and open water habitat on the mitigation sites, the
reservoir would provide valuable open water habitat for freshwater fish, invertebrates, and migratory
waterfowl. Clearing would not occur on the reservoir fringe, leaving dead standing timber as habitat
for Wood Ducks, Osprey, and Great Blue Herons. Due to the undulating topography, small islands
are expected to form within the reservoir perimeter. The islands would provide valuable foraging and
resting habitat for Great Blue Heron and other waterfowl; and they would create a diversity of habitat
for other species in the reservoir area, as well as potential roosting/perching sites for osprey and bald
eagle. Because there are only 1,000 acres of freshwater lakes in all of King William County, this
reservoir would substantially increase the availability of this valuable freshwater fishery habitat and
its recreational use. In addition, based upon an assessment of wetlands currently located below the
project's dam site, the reservoir would dissipate flood events and may help maintain these wetlands.
Off-Site Mitigation within the Pamunkey and Mattaponi River Valleys
In addition to the mitigation areas within the King William Reservoir watershed, several
hundred acres of wetland mitigation areas would be located along the Pamunkey and Mattaponi River
valleys within King William County. Several off-site mitigation areas have already been identified
in King William County and are depicted on Figure 3-12C. The generic design features of those sites
are discussed below:
Berm Construction
The establishment of specific wetland vegetation types requires water containment areas and
precise water-level control. Some of the selected wetland mitigation sites may require small berms
with gentle slopes to maintain proper hydrology. Berms would extend to the wetland areas,
providing large upland/wetland transition zones around the mitigation sites. To protect berm
integrity during storm events, emergency spillways would be constructed. The spillways would
prevent excess flow from overtopping the berm or water control structure.
Water Control Structure
Water control structures may be required in some areas to facilitate adaptive management
practices. These water control structures would reduce water velocities and dissipate energy. The
resultant conversion of channel flow to sheet flow would enhance the water quality functions of the
restored wetland areas. Water gages would be placed in the vicinity of the control structures to
facilitate monitoring.
Buffer Areas
r •<•
Although specific mitigation sites may have geographic and legal constraints, the mitigation
plan would attempt to maximize the interdependence and interaction of wetlands and adjacent upland
landscape areas. The establishment of adjoining upland restoration areas would promote the long-
term existence of the constructed wetland systems. These buffers would serve to protect the wetland
from off-site disturbances.
3114-017-319 3-102
-------
LEGEND:
DENOTES SITE LOCATION
meow
PIRNIE
SITE DESCRIPTION:
I MEADOW FARM
2 KW SAND & GRAVEL
3 BLEAK HILL FARM
4 THE ISLAND'
5 DIXON CREEK
6 LANESV11.LE
Z3
AUGUST 1996 2
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA in
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP JT\
OFF-SITE WETLAND RESTORATION/ ,
CREATION SITES IN V
KING WILLIAM COUNTY L
NOT TO SCALE N)
o
-------
Species Diversity
The mitigation areas would be designed to optimize species diversity. The larger mitigation
sites would have an undulating landscape, thereby creating integrated patches of vegetation classes
and high cover type interspersion. The established vegetative communities would, therefore, contain
emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetland systems.
Sitel
One identified mitigation site is located north of Aylett, Virginia. The site is bordered by
existing farm operations to the northwest and southeast and the Mattaponi River to the east. The
mitigation areas on the property are illustrated on Figure 3-12D. The three mitigation areas proposed
on the property would contain 183 acres of wetland creation from sand and gravel mining operations
and restoration of prior converted cropland. The mitigation site would also include upland
preservation and restoration allowing for the establishment of a buffer which would be preserved in
perpetuity.
On-going sand and gravel operations may allow for additional mitigation areas at the site.
Site 2
The Site 2 mitigation area is located on the northwestern border of King William County (see
Figure 3-12C). The mitigation area would include 186 acres of restored prior converted cropland and
wetland creation in the areas of on-going sand and gravel mining. As shown in Figure 3-12E, the
southern section of Site 2 (Site A) is bordered to the south and west by Boot Swamp Creek and
existing wetlands. The northern section (Site B) is also bordered by existing wetlands to the west,
north, and east (see Figure 3-12F). The existing wetlands located adjacent to the mitigation sites
would be preserved, therefore enhancing the continuity and long-term viability of the mitigation
effort.
Site 3
Site 3 is situated in the western corner of King William County across the Pamunkey River
from Hanover County as indicated in Figure 3-12C. The Pamunkey River borders the southern
extent of the property, including the mitigation areas. The wetland restoration area is located on the
lowest terrace of the property and is bounded by a defining bluff to the north, Hornquarter Creek to
the east, and agricultural land along the western perimeter. The existing site topographic information
for the 53-acre wetland restoration site is identified on Figure 3-12G and 3-12H. The mitigation site
would also consist of upland restoration, upland preservation, and wetland preservation. Hydrologic
inputs to the wetland restoration area include precipitation, surface water from the flooding of
Hornquarter Creek, and seepage from the northern bluff. Any existing drainage tiles on the PC
cropland would be broken and the numerous drainage ditches filled.
Site 4
The Site 4 mitigation area is located in the vicinity of Manquin, Virginia. The site is
completely encircled by surface water from Monquin Creek and a second perennial creek that also
flows into the Pamunkey River. The lower sections of the streams are influenced by Pamunkey River
tidal fluctuations. The mitigation effort on the site would result in the construction of 66 acres of
various wetland communities and would include upland restoration forming a buffer around the
3114-017-319 3-103
-------
iSjM-PwJffiJ&j^ f
!
SUBSTRATE
Impacts
WATER QUALITY
Stream/Groundwater Quality
Stream/Wetland Crossings
Cumulative Impacts
Development
River Salinity Impacts
HYDROLOGY
Source
Streams/Aquifer Drawdown
Perennial/Intermittent Streams
Impact To Tidal Waters
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
Aquifer Impact
SOIL/MINERAL RESOURCES
Prime Agricultural Soils
AIR QUALITY
Construction Impacts
permanently impacts 0.34 ac and temporarily impacts 1 .2 ac
Elimination of tidal freshwater zone
21 stream/wetland crossings
ncreased phosphorus loading to proposed WCR and OCR
Stonehouse runoff impacts and minor impacts from construction
Negligible
Year 2040 average river withdrawals = 25 mgd (3,2% of Pamunkey R, flow)
3astn wide projected cumulative average streamflow reduction at Year 2040 -
8.8% (77.1 mgd)
37.1 miles of channels impounded
Would impound tidal waters
Seepage recharge to shallow aquifers
Alleviates current and future demand on groundwater supply
20 acres
Cause elevated fugitive dust and fuel combustion, minor & temporary
Greatest potential to impact nearby residents with elevated air pollution
3ermanently impacts 0.21 ac and temporarily impacts 1 .4 ac
Black Creek surface water depth increased to maximum of 63' & 77' at the two dams
J4 stream/wetland crossings ' j
ncreased phosphorus loading to OCR especially during BCR by-pass operation
Residential development runoff impacls
ncrementally negligible. Some potential for cumulative impacts
year 2040 average river withdrawals » 33.3 mgd (4.4% of the Pamunkey R. flow)
Jasin wide projected cumulative average streamflow reduction at Year 2040 -
9.9% (87.0 mgd)
13.7 miles of channels impounded
*4o impact anticipated
Seepage recharge to shallow aquifers
Alleviates current and future demand on groundwater supply
17 acres
Cause elevated fugitive dust and fuel combustion, minor & temporary
permanently impacts 0.21 ac; temporarily impacts 1 .5, 3.0, 2.9, & 3.0 ac for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Dohoke Creek water depth increased to maximum of 82', 82', 73', & 68' for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
55, 60, 58, & 60 stream/wetland crossings for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
ncreased phosphorus loading to OCR
Monitoring recommended for potential reservoir contamination from closed landfill
Negligible
/ear 2040 average river withdrawals = 31 .6 mgd (6.5% of Mattaponi R. flow) for KWR- II
Basin wide projected cumulative average streamflow reduction at Year 2040 »
3.4% (37.1 mgd) for KWR- II
28.3, 26.5, 24.4, & 21.0 miles of channels impounded for KWR- 1, II. Ill, & IV, respectively
to impact anticipated
Seepage recharge to shallow aquifers
Alleviates current and future demand on groundwater supply
342, 298, 277, & 228 acres for KWR- 1, II. Ill, & IV, respectively
Few residences near area so dust is not a concern, temporary & minor
ENDANGERED, THREATENED
AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
FISH AND INVERTEBRATES
OTHER WILDLIFE
Habitat Lost *
Habitat Gained
SANCTUARIES/REFUGES
WETLANDS/VEGETATED
SHALLOWS
MUD FLATS
Inundates 590 ac of wetlands and open water habitat
Impacts to tidal spp. from change in hydrology and water quality
Inundates one Small Whorled Pogonia location
Creates 1 ,238 ac of fish and invertebrate habitat
Closes access to anadromous fish in Ware Creek
Salinity distribution changes wil! impact present habitat
625 ac of forested upland habitat
Loss of 98 nest Great Blue Heron rookery
1 , 1 94 ac of open water habitat
No impacts anticipated
Inundates 590 ac of nontidal and tidal wetlands and open water
Conversion of tidal freshwater zone
No impacts anticipated
Inundates 285 ac of wetlands and open water habitat
Creates 910 ac of fish and invertebrate habitat
546 ac of forested upland habitat
864 ac of open water habitat
No impacts anticipated
Inundates 285 ac of nontidal wetlands and open water
No impacts anticipated
inundates 653, 574, 51 1 , & 437 ac of wetlands and open water habitat for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Inundates two Small Whorled Pogonia locations
Creates 2,284, 2,222, 1 ,909, & 1 ,526 ac of fish and invertebrate habitat for KWR- 1. II, III, & IV, respectively
1 ,588, 1 ,394, 1 , 1 82, & 875 ac of forested upland habitat for KWR- 1. II. Ill, & IV, respectively
Loss of 1 7 nest Great Blue Heron rookery
2,210, 2,1 81 , 1 ,868, & 1 ,490 ac of open water habitat for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
No impacts anticipated
Inundates 653, 574, 51 1, & 437 ac of nontidal wetlands and open water for KWR- I, II, HI, & IV, respectively
No impacts anticipated
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL SITES
1 prehistoric site within the vicinity of the proposed river pumping station
Impacts 45 identified cultural resources within the proposed reservoir pool area
5 sites are located in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline
Additional survey work recommended
1 prehistoric site within the vicinity of the proposed river pumping steton
Impacts 4 Identified sites within the proposed reservoir pool area
2 sites located within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline
Additional survey work recommendeo
5 sites located within the vicinity of the proposed river pumping station
131 , 120, 103, & 92 cultural resources identified within impoundment area for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
19 sites located within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline
Phase I survey work complete
MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE
WATER SUPPLIES
RRWSG Safe Yield Benefits
RECREATIONAL AND
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
Commercial Importance
Recreational Importance
OTHER WATER-RELATED
RECREATION
AESTHETICS
PARKS AND PRESERVES
LAND USE
Total Land Disturbance
Agricultural / Forestal Districts
Houses Displaced
NOISE
Affected areas
INFRASTRUCTURE
X
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Affected Municipality
23,2 mgd, 25% dead storage (1 .7 BG)
Requires long-term groundwater safe yield of 6.1 mgd
Benefits greatly outweigh negative impacts to private water supplies
Ware Creek damming negatively impacts anadromous fisheries
1 ,238 ac of habitat created
350 ac of recreational facilities for Stonehouse Community
Creates more open water areas stocked with fish
Reduced land area for hunting
144 houses within 500' of reservoir pool or 300' of pump station or pipeline
Unique and pristine wetlands tost but replaced by
visuaBy appealing open water area
Positive impact due to potential for designation of parks at these sites
Negative impacts to 1 ,400 ac
Inundates 226 ac
0 houses
Increase in levels associated with pump stations
Noise generated could be excessive due to combination with I-64
Minor navigation impacts in Pamunkey River
Dam in navigable waters of Ware Creek, recreational navigation impacted
Abandon portion of Rt. 606, modify 4 roads (including 1-64)
13 miles of new or upgraded electrical transmission tines
Major growth-inducing benefit
No house displacement
18.1 mgd, 25% dead storage (1 .6 BG)
Requires long-term groundwater safe-yield of 10.1 mgd
Jenefits greatly outweigh negative impacts to private water supplies
Creates 91 0 ac of habitat
Portions of proposed reservoir designated as county parks
Creates more open water areas stocked with fish
Reduced land area for hunting
104 houses within 500* of reservoir pool or 300' of pump station or pipeline
Unique and pristine wetlands lost but replaced by
visually appealing open water area
Positive impact due to potential for designation of parks at these sties
Negative impacts to 1 ,032 ac
Inundates 376 ac
3 houses
Increase in levels associated with pump stations
Minor navigation impacts in Pamunksy River
No known commercial or recreational navigation in Black Creek impoundment areas
Modify Rt. 249
15 miles of new or upgraded electrical transmission lines
Growth-inducing benefit
Displaces 3 houses
27.1 , 25.4, 21 .7, & 23.2 mgd for KWF- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively. 25 % dead storage
Requires long-term groundwater safe yield of 1.6, 3.6, 7.6, & 6.1 mgd for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Benefits greatly outweigh negative impacts to private water supplies
Creates 2,284, 2,222, 1 ,909, & 1 ,526 ac of habitat for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV respectively
5 recreational sites developed with reservoir access
Creates more open water areas stocked with fish
Reduced land area for hunting
73, 72, 72, & 69 houses within 500' a! reservoir pool or 300' of pipeline for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Unique and pristine wetlands tost bui replaced by
visuaHy appealing open water area
Positive impact due to planned designation of parks at these sites
Negative impacts to 2,381, 2,322, 2,013, & 1,633ac for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Noimpacts
Ohouses
Increase in levels associated with pump stations
No navigation impacts in Mattaponi River
No known commercial or recreational navigation in Cohoke Creek impoundment area
Replace portion of Rt. 626 -
2.5 miles of new or upgraded electrical transmission lines
Minor growth-inducing benefit since site is not readily accessible
No house displacement
January 1997
-------
-------
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
1
SUBSTRATE
Impacts
WATER QUAUTY
Source
Stfeam/Groundwater Quality
Wetland Crossings
Cumulative impacts
Development
Salinity Impacts
HYDROLOGY
Source
Streams/Aquifer Drawdown
Perennial/Intermittent Streams
Impact To Tidal Waters
GROUNOWATER RESOURCES
Aquifer Impact
SOIL/MINERAL RESOURCES
Predominant Soil Type
Prime Agricultural Soils
AIR QUALITY
Construction Impacts
permanently impacts 0. 1 8 ac
^Qssible short term chemical changes
ncreased Cl, HC03, Na, SO4, Fl, and P in OCR and LCR
No impacts anticipated
May reduce yield of existing wells in vicinity
Deduce groundwater availability and reduce yield of existing wells
ncreased potentel for sailtwater encroachment
3ermanent impacts to 4 ac due to construction
impacts should be minor and temporary
|
'ermanently impacts 0.09 ac and temporarily impacts 0.1 8 ac
Concentrate pipeline discharges to polyhaline and meso/oiigohaline
vater bodies which could pose some water quality problems
Concentrate discharge
Middle and Lower Potomac aquifer may experience slight drawdown
drawdown in Middle and Lower Potomac aquifer on regional scale
Permanent construction impacts to toss than 5 ac
Elevated levels of air pollution expected from increased traffic flow
to impacts anticipated
4o mpacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
Jo impacts anticipated
1o impacts anticipated
Negatively affects species using current reservoirs
Increased drawdown of existing reservoirs negatively impacts habitat
Increased drawdown could impact existing species
No impacts anticipated
Negatively affects wetlands associated with current reservoirs and
groundwater drawdown
Dewatering during extended periods of reservoir drawdowns
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL SITES
MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE
WATER SUPPLIES
Safe Yield fienefits
RECREATIONAL AND
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
Commercial Importance or
Recreational Importance
OTHER WATER-RELATED
RECREATION
AESTHETICS
PARKS AND PRESERVES
LAND USE
Total Land Disturbance
Agricultural Forested Districts
Houses Displaced
NOISE
Affected areas
INFRASTRUCTURE
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Affected Municipality
Could result in very minor negative impacts
Concentrate discharge pipelines could impact archaeological sites
Well locations can be relocated if cultural areas identified on site
No impacts anticipated
i
No impacts anticipated
4.4mgd , 1 1 % of Lower Peninsula's projected water supply deficit
Cause minor groundwater drawdown and groundwater quality impacts
Jenefits > Cost
Deduces drawdown of existing reservoirs
No impacts anticipated
vlinor and temporary impacts to 9 houses
No impacts anticipated
Negative impacts to 8 ac
Long term impacts result from operation of groundwater wells
Transportation and navigation impacts negligible
Limited impacts to energy sources
17 miles of new or upgraded electrical transmission lines
Feasible with respect to cost
Impacts result from casts incurred by water purveyors
S.7mgd, 14% of Lower Peninsula's projected water supply deficit
Cause minor groundwater drawdown and groundwater quality impacts
Benefits > Cost
No impacts anticipated
Minimal and temporary impacts to York County New Quarter Park
to impacts to other recreational areas anticipated
Results in temporary and long term visual impact to 224 houses
1 ac in Newport News Park temporarily impacted
6.9 ac in York County New Quarter Park temporarily impacted
No impacts to Colonial National Historic Parkway
Negative impacts to 5 ac at well sites and RO facilities, 65 ac impacted
byR-O-W
Long term impacts result from operation of groundwater wells
combined with traffic
Outfall structures not located near navigable channels
Transportation impacts negligible
Limited impacts to energy sources
Feasible with respect to cost
Impacts result from costs incurred by water purveyors
7. 1 - 1 1 . 1 mgd; 1 8% to 28% of Lower Peninsula's projected water supply deficit
No impacts anticipated
Adverse impacts to private &. public facilities reliant on non-essential water
Amof negative impacts to existing reservoirs & recreational facilities
Negative impacts due to limited irrigation
Negative impacts to parkland s, residential areas, and businesses
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
Negative impacts to Lower Peninsula water users
Severe adverse impacts on municipal and private water supplies
4egative impact associated with reservoir drawdown
Adverse impacts due to existing reservoir drawdown
Negative impacts to existing reservoirs
Negative impacts associated with reservoir drawdown
Severely limit future land use development
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
Negative impact due to constraint on future economic growth
January 1997
-------
-------
MITIGATION AREAS
ACCESS ROADS
WATER DIVERSION TO
SITE "B
SITE B
PIRNIE
[5JH
NOVEMBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP
COUNTY OF KING WILLIAM, VIRGINIA
SITE 1
NOT TO SHAi f
-------
HATCH TO FIGURE 3-12F t 11BMOOO
PROPOSED
SITE BOUNDARY
NOVEMBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP
SITE 2
SOUTHERN SECTION
SCALE IN FEET
-------
NOVEMBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA 3
, REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP g
SITE 2 3
NORTHERN SECTION o.
0 400 800 _[.
SCALE IN FEET
-------
NOVEMBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP
SITE 3
WESTERN SECTION
4QO
a oo
SCALE IN FEET
fO
O
-------
NOVEMBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA Z3
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP 8
SITE 3 %
EASTERN SECTION v
400
800
SCALE IN FEET
-------
mitigation site. Figure 3-121 provides current site topographic information of the proposed mitigation
site.
An artificial channel excavated below the water table currently drains the eastern side of the
site from north to south. A control structure adjacent to the access road has deepened the northern
section of this channel. This weir structure would be removed and placed farther downstream. The
wetland construction would contain a mosaic of wetland types.
Site 5 and Site 6
Two additional small mitigation sites located on PC croplands have been identified in the
County. Mitigation activities at Site 5 would include the restoration of 7 acres of wetlands. Site 6,
located at the bottom of a large swale, would include the restoration of 4.6 acres of wetlands.
Existing contours and site information for mitigation Site 5 and Site 6 are depicted in Figures 3-12J
and 3-12K, respectively. The hydrology for the two sites would be acquired mainly from surface
water runoff along intermittent and spring fed headwater streams.
Additional Mitigation Sites
The wetland restoration/creation portion of the conceptual mitigation plan would be expanded
to provide restoration/creation of at least twice the acreage lost. The plan also includes wetland
preservation, upland restoration, and upland preservation. Preservation of these areas would occur
through the imposition of deed restrictions which would forbid their future disturbance.
Investigations are continuing on additional sites in King William County and elsewhere along the
Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers. As sites are identified, conceptual designs will be developed based
on site-specific characteristics.
Riverine Restoration
The RRWSG is committed to a program of riparian habitat restoration and preservation. This
program is expected to include:
Opening stream segments to anadromous fish passage.
River corridor preservation.
Fish hatchery improvements.
The RRWSG is currently working with VDGIF's fish passage unit to identify one or more
priority streams in the York River Basin to open to fish passage. Potential streams identified include:
Stream :--- •'.••••;-- - : :
South Anna River
Herring Creek
Gravett's Mill Pond
, •:,. .• Miles - • ••"-.:> ' •
10
9.5
4
3114-017-319 3-104
-------
NOVEMBER 1996 ^
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA c
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP ^
SITE 4 w
0 400 800
SCALE IN FEET
H
-------
PROPOSED
SITE BOUNDARY
NOVEMBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP
SITE 5
200
-------
FIGURE 3-12K
t 11*19000
C 11920000
c umooo
PROPOSED
SITE BOUNDARY
NOVEMBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP
SITE 6
zoo 4QO ago ego
LJ t .r*
SCALE IN FEET
-------
Once the details of these passage ways are determined, specific plans will be developed in
consultation with the VDGIF and USFWS.
River corridor sites are being considered for preservation. Evaluations will lead to the
identification of priority sites and possible preservation of one or more sites. A stream corridor
(upper reaches of Poquoson River, York River Tributary) consisting of 2 miles, which is under
extreme development pressure, is being considered for preservation. This action would prevent water
quality deterioration in the upper reaches of the Poquoson River and in Harwood's Mill Reservoir,
as well as preserve a valuable wildlife corridor link between the National Battlefield and the
watershed protection area around the existing reservoir.
Fish hatchery improvements are proposed to facilitate the replenishment of shad in
Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Other anadromous fish species may also be included.
Wetland Education
Wetland education opportunities are among the valuable functions provided by wetland
systems. The RRWSG intends to support a proposal by the Pamunkey Indians to provide wetland
education opportunities to the public on reservation wetlands adjacent to the Pamunkey River.
Upland Restoration and Preservation
As required by the November 13, 1990 Project Development Agreement amended May 14,
1992 and August 8,1995 between the City of Newport News and King William County, a minimum
100-foot buffer, to extend at least seven vertical feet above the pool elevation, would be established
around the King William Reservoir. An additional 100-foot construction setback would extend
beyond the buffer area. Preservation of the buffer area around the reservoir would preserve
contiguous upland habitat in perpetuity.
The restored and/or preserved uplands associated with each mitigation site would be preserved
in perpetuity along with the wetland mitigation areas. Management of these areas would allow the
uplands to mature into mixed deciduous forests and cove hardwood areas. Most of the mitigation
'sites are also located adjacent to existing forested areas; therefore, restoration of adjacent forested
areas would provide additional large contiguous upland tracts in King William County.
Small Whorled Pogonia
Approximately 20 acres in either James City or Gloucester County that contain a healthy
population of Small Whorled Pogonia would be acquired or otherwise set aside for permanent
preservation. A buffer area around individual Pogonia populations would be maintained.
Sensitive Joint-Vetch
The RRWSG would assist the Nature Conservancy and the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science in the development and management of a long-term monitoring program to evaluate any
changes in Sensitive Joint-vetch colonies in Mattaponi River tidal marshes.
3114-017-319 3-105
-------
Summary
In summary, the mitigation plan involves the following elements to compensate for the
inundation of vegetated wetlands, open water, and uplands:
Elements
Wetland Restoration/Creation
Open Water Habitat
Aquatic Fringe Habitat
Wetland Preservation
Upland Restoration
Upland Preservation
Riparian/Riverine Corridor Restoration/Preservation
Stream Channel Opening
Fish Hatchery Improvements
Wetland Education Opportunities
Small Whorlcd Pogonia Preservation
Sensitive Joint-Vetch Monitoring
The RRWSG's intention with this plan is that the project's wetland impacts will be more than
offset by compensatory mitigation projects.
3.7.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
The RRWSG has developed a conceptual mitigation plan to compensate for the loss of an
estimated 239 acres of vegetated wetlands that would be permanently filled and/or inundated by the
Black Creek Reservoir Project. This number represents the total estimated amount of wetlands and
waters of the United States within the impact area (285 acres), minus the amount of unvegetated open
water (46 acres). The RRWSG's intention with this conceptual mitigation plan is that the project's
wetland impacts will be more than offset by compensatory mitigation projects. The proposed
conceptual mitigation plan for the Black Creek Reservoir Project was developed based on the same
objectives as the mitigation plan for the King William Reservoir Project, i.e.:
Provide a ratio of 2 acres of vegetated wetlands gained for every 1 acre of vegetated
wetlands lost as a result of the reservoir project.
Restore, enhance, or create wetlands to provide a functional capacity equal to or greater
than that of the existing wetlands at the reservoir site.
Maximize the probability of success for establishing viable wetlands.
The Black Creek Reservoir mitigation plan consists of the creation of wetlands within the
reservoir watershed, and the restoration or creation of wetlands along the Pamunkey River valley.
Based on aerial photography interpretation, there appears to be little opportunity for wetland
restoration within the Black Creek Reservoir watershed; therefore, all on-site mitigation would be
accomplished with wetland creation.
3114-017-319 3-106
-------
Two techniques would be used to create wetlands within the reservoir watershed: borrow area
wetland construction and headwater wetland construction. Mitigation along the Pamunkey River
valley would be accomplished by restoration of prior converted croplands and farmed wetlands, and
creation of wetlands in low-lying croplands. Figures 3-12L and 3-12C present the conceptual
mitigation plan and depict the possible location of various plan components. Various additional
proposed wetland mitigation techniques are described below.
The final acreage for on-site and off-site mitigation and for each mitigation technique would
depend on the particular opportunities available and would be determined during the detailed wetland
mitigation design.
On-site Mitigation within Reservoir Watershed
Prior converted croplands and fanned wetlands in the Black Creek watershed were
investigated. Several altered groundwater depressional wetland systems were identified as candidates
for restoration. Following an evaluation of site feasibility, these potential mitigation sites were
rejected as viable restoration areas. A reliance on groundwater discharges as a primary source of
hydrology is considered precarious. Centuries of watershed manipulation from agricultural activities
may have altered the local water table. The site locations also lack secondary sources of water. In
addition, the former groundwater depressional wetlands are extremely small (<1 acre) and, as a result,
are more costly per acre than the identified off-site wetland restoration areas. These small patches
of potential groundwater depressional prior converted croplands and fanned wetlands would also be
disruptive to farming practices because they would be located in the midst of prime agricultural
farmland.
Borrow Area Constructed Wetlands
Constructed wetlands would be developed in the soil borrow areas using the same techniques
described in Section 3.7.1. The plan for the borrow area constructed wetlands calls for the creation
of diverse wetland habitat, including forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands, with open water
channels. Because the reservoir would be located within the East Coast Migratory Flyway, the
wetland mitigation plan includes habitat for breeding and migratory birds. Islands would be
constructed in the borrow area wetlands to provide nesting and roosting sites for waterfowl.
A number of potential sites exist adjacent to the reservoir and in close proximity to the
proposed dam site (see Figure 3-12L). Each of these areas was selected based on its size and its
relative distance from the dam site. The potential borrow area constructed wetland sites provide the
possibility of creating large, contiguous blocks of wetland habitat for sensitive interior species such
as neo-tropical migratory birds.
The conceptual design and operation of the borrow area constructed wetlands would be the
same as described in Section 3.7.1, including the variable microtopography, the 100-foot undisturbed
area or berm between the mitigation areas and the reservoir, and the channels between the borrow
areas and the reservoir pool. The components of the planned borrow area constructed wetlands are
discussed below:
3114-017-319 3-107
-------
• ROWNt
CORNIN
LEGEND
POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS
POTENTIAL HEADWATER
CONSTRUCTED WETLAND
APRIL 1995 rf
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA ^j
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY PI
POTENTIAL ON-SITE MITIGATION AREAS
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR T
PIRNIE
2,ooo
2,000
SCALE IN rtci
-------
• Hydrology: The elevated groundwater levels associated with the reservoir would be the
primary source of wetland hydrology, with additional inputs from direct precipitation
and surface water runoff. Before the full reservoir yield is needed (projected Year
2040 water demands), water level fluctuations would be small, thereby providing a
stable source of hydrology. When the projected Year 2040 water demand is reached
and the reservoir is in full operation, the pool level is projected to remain above
elevation 98 feet msl (i.e., within 2 feet of the normal pool elevation) approximately
70 percent of the time. One of the potential sites could receive additional water by
diversion of a portion of the Pamunkey River pumpover through the mitigation area.
• Soils: The same soil amendments as mentioned in Section 3.7.1 would be required to
provide a suitable planting substrate.
• Vegetation: With irregular microtopography, the proposed borrow areas constructed
wetlands will contain a mosaic of wetland vegetative communities. The seed source
would be supplied by the topsoil added from the wetlands within the reservoir pool
area, obtained primarily from areas that currently support facultative species which can
survive extended dry periods.
Headwafer Constructed Wetlands
The Black Creek Reservoir mitigation plan includes headwater constructed wetlands, which
would be constructed in a fashion similar to the borrow area constructed wetlands, but in headwater
areas adjacent to the normal pool instead of in excavated borrow areas. Disturbed upland areas (i.e.,
clear cuts) with less than 10 percent slopes immediately above the normal pool elevation would be
targeted. Those areas would be graded to achieve elevations between -2 feet and +2 feet of normal
pool elevation. If possible, the existing slope would be used to create a berm; otherwise, a berm
would be constructed from the graded material
Connection with the reservoir would be provided by channels similar to those associated with
the borrow area constructed wetlands. Two of the potential sites could receive additional water by
diversion of a portion of the Pamunkey River pumpover through the mitigation areas. Potential
headwater constructed wetland sites are shown in Figure 3-12L.
Aquatic Fringe Habitat
Valuable aquatic fringe habitat would become established naturally around the perimeter of
the reservoir. These areas would provide a suitable environment for many species including fish,
amphibians, reptiles, shorebirds, and mammals, and their supporting food web (AWWA, 1988).
Many migratory waterfowl could use these areas for feeding, resting, and wintering habitat. Similar
reservoirs in the area have been examined and found to be heavily utilized by Egrets, Great Blue
Herons, and Osprey for nesting, and Bald Eagles for feeding. The fringe habitat established around
the reservoir would also improve water quality by filtering sediments and nutrients and would
stabilize the shoreline to minimize erosive forces of waves, seiches, and boat wakes.
Qpign Water Habitat
In addition to the aquatic fringe habitat and open water habitat on the mitigation sites, the
reservoir would provide valuable open water habitat for freshwater fish, invertebrates, and migratory
waterfowl. Clearing would not occur on the reservoir fringe, leaving dead standing timber as habitat
3114-017-319 3-108
-------
for Wood Ducks, Osprey, and Great Blue Herons. Due to the undulating topography, small islands
are expected to form within the reservoir perimeter. Hie islands would provide valuable foraging and
resting habitat for Great Blue Heron and other waterfowl; and they would create a diversity of habitat
for other species in the reservoir area, as well as potential roosting/perching sites for osprey and bald
eagle. This reservoir would substantially increase the availability of valuable freshwater fishery
habitat and its recreational use in New Kent County. In addition, based upon an assessment of
wetlands currently located below the project's dam site, the reservoir would dissipate flood events
and may help maintain these wetlands.
Off-Site Mitigation within the Pamunkey River Valley
In addition to the mitigation areas within the Black Creek Reservoir watershed, wetland
mitigation areas would be located along the Pamunkey River valley. The mitigation sites would be
located in prior converted croplands and farmed wetlands, and the constructed wetlands would be
located in low-lying agricultural areas. Several mitigation areas have already been identified in the
Pamunkey River and Mattaponi River drainage basins as shown on Figure 3-12C. The generic design
features of those sites are discussed in Section 3.7.1.
3,7.3 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
Through consultation with the USCOE, a detailed mitigation plan for the Ware Creek
Reservoir was developed by James City County as part of its Section 404 permit requirements (James
R. Reed & Associates, 1992). James City County's mitigation plan consists of the following six
components, which are summarized in the following subsections.
Cranston's Pond - Functional Replacement Wetlands
Island Mitigation and Blue Heron Replacement Habitat
Tidal Wetlands Mitigation Plan
Perimeter Pond Mitigation - Mitigation Above the Normal Pool Elevation
Perimeter Reservoir Pond Mitigation - Mitigation within the Reservoir Pool Elevation
Conservation Zone Wetlands
James City County's Ware Creek Reservoir mitigation plan has been summarized without
modification. It is assumed that functional replacement issues have been addressed. Therefore, a
functional assessment of the compensatory mitigation is not included in this discussion.
James City County's Ware Creek Reservoir mitigation plan would result in approximately 337
acres of wetland mitigation and 18.4 miles of stream restoration. However, it should be noted that
revised wetland estimates have identified 590 acres of wetlands at the Ware Creek Reservoir site.
Therefore, additional mitigation would be needed to meet the goal of "no net loss" of wetland
function or acreage at a replacement ratio of 2:1.
3114-017-319 - 3-109
-------
Cranston's Pond
As proposed, the Ware Creek Reservoir would dam a tidal creek documented as habitat for
anadromous fish and would interrupt 20.3 miles of free-flowing stream. To compensate for that
impact, James City County's mitigation plan includes a project to breach the dam at Cranston's Pond,
thereby restoring the free-flowing nature of 18.4 miles of Yarmouth Creek (see Figure 3-22C).
Yarmouth Creek presently is disconnected from the tidal Chickahominy River by a dam which
interrupts fish passage and detrital export from the Yarmouth Creek headwaters and associated
wetlands. Breaching the dam and draining the lake would reconnect 18.4 miles of stream and
approximately 506 acres of wetlands to documented anadromous fish habitat in Yarmouth Creek.
As part of the dam breaching project, 37 acres of Bald Cyprus swamp would be restored at
the location of the existing Cranston's Pond. Immediately below Cranston's Pond dam, fish passage
is restricted by culverts at the Route 632 crossing. James City County's Ware Creek Reservoir
mitigation plan also includes upgrading the Route 632 crossing with a bridge or larger culverts.
Island Mitigation and Blue Heron Replacement Habitat
The Ware Creek Reservoir impoundment area contains a 98-ncst Great Blue Heron rookery
that would be flooded by the reservoir. James City County's Ware Creek Reservoir mitigation plan
includes building 16 small islands within the reservoir pool area to provide Great Blue Heron habitat
after construction (see Figure 3-22D). The islands would range in size from 0.1 to 0.6 acres and
would be constructed by physically severing small points of land along the perimeter of the reservoir.
Field investigation during a Blue Heron study indicated that the islands would not possess
certain critical requirements for Blue Heron nesting and colonization. Specifically, the islands would
be too small (minimum required size is two acres), they would not provide the Herons' preferred tree
species, and they would not have a large tree canopy (James R. Reed & Associates, 1992). The
islands nevertheless would provide valuable foraging and resting habitat for Great Blue Heron and
other waterfowl; and they would create a diversity of habitat for other species in the reservoir area,
as well as potential roosting/perching sites for osprey and bald eagle.
Tidal Wetlands Mitigation Plan
The Ware Creek Reservoir dam is located in the upper reaches of the. Ware Creek tidal system.
As a result, the Ware Creek Reservoir would fill and/or inundate 49 acres of tidal freshwater
wetlands. To replace the acreage of tidal wetlands lost, the mitigation plan includes the construction
of 27 acres of tidal wetlands at five sites downstream of the proposed dam (see Figure 3-22E). That
mitigation would be provided in borrow area sites, by removing dam construction material in upland
soils and grading the areas down to an elevation slightly below that of the adjacent marshes. The
mitigation areas then would be backfilled to marsh grade with organic topsoil excavated from the
dam site wetlands.
The existing seed bank in the topsoil and surrounding marshes was assumed to be adequate
to revegctate the mitigation areas. If necessary, supplemental sprigging or seeding would be
conducted to cover unvegetated areas. Because the wetlands at the dam site are tidal freshwater
marshes, freshwater species would have an early advantage in colonizing the mitigation areas.
However, the reduction in freshwater flow caused by the reservoir would convert most of the marshes
downstream of the dam, including the mitigation areas, to mesohaline marsh communities.
3114-017-319 3-110
-------
FIGURE 3-22 C
•y?::^.
'- -*v* r
; ^tC~«"
i<^%^N/ ^,^g**^ray
nSB C^^S,. :
fl. •-. .• :»jb^c^z^- /
"^ ••• \*s^.^^/: ^r -^w
££S=Z^CZ:-~~T ::~:-;^ - __j.."^^>^.r.;JE^"_>s<'.": .
->^"vV~ - i*^\ •>-i'*--^V'-*<:U- X*=3
^-S^.-ji^^ 'V'^ •', i •1-r-ri'^"
-------
FIGURE 3-22 D 1
ISLAND MITIGATION SITE
LOCATION MAP
SCALE: l"=20QO'
-------
FIGURE 3-22 E
\f SOURCE: J.R. REED & ASSOCIATES
WARE CREEK MITIGATION PLAN
DRAFT REPORT
WARE CREEK MITIGATION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DOWNSTREAM TIDAL AREAS
SITES 1-1 THRU T-6
SCALE: 1"= 3000'
USGS QUADRANGLE MAP, TOANO, VA,
-------
Perimeter Headwater Impoundment Mitigation - Mitigation above the Normal
Pool Elevation
James City County's mitigation plan includes the construction of 39 acres of wetlands by
constructing headwater impoundments in swales and valleys above the normal reservoir pool
elevation, to compensate for the inundation of non-tidal wetlands. A total of 35 potential sites were
identified where a minimum 1-acre mitigation area could be located without disturbing existing
wetlands (see Figures 3-22F and 3-22G). The headwater impoundments would be constructed by
building a berm to retain surface water and groundwater. The elevation of the berm would be 5 feet
above the existing grade. Within the mitigation area, the existing grade would be cut to 1 foot below
desired grade and then backfilled with topsoil from wetlands within the reservoir impoundment area.
The topsoil would provide the seed bank to naturally rcvegetate the mitigation area.
The headwater impoundments would be seasonally inundated and permanently saturated,
similar to many of the existing beaver ponds in the Ware Creek Reservoir watershed. Because the
headwater impoundments above the normal pool elevation would not be dependent on the reservoir
for hydrology, those impoundments could be constructed prior to reservoir construction, thereby
minimizing temporal wetland losses.
Perimeter Headwater Impoundment Mitigation -Mitigation within the Normal
Pool Elevation
To compensate further for the loss of non-tidal wetlands that would be inundated by the Ware
Creek Reservoir, 64 acres of headwater impoundments would be constructed within the normal pool
elevation. The impoundments would be constructed and would operate in a similar fashion to the
headwater impoundments above the reservoir's normal pool elevation, except that the top of the berm
would be at the normal pool elevation. Therefore, the impoundments would receive additional
hydrologic inputs from the reservoir when the reservoir was at normal pool elevation. When the
reservoir was drawn down, the impoundments would retain water and thereby extend the hydroperiod
of the mitigation areas.
The headwater impoundments would be designed to consist of 25 to 30 percent open water
and 70 to 75 percent vegetated wetlands, with an ultimate goal of 70 percent forested wetland
coverage. A total of 11 sites encompassing 72 acres have been identified as potential headwater
impoundments within the normal pool area (see Figure 3-22H). However, beaver activity could
eliminate some of these sites from future consideration. There is a large beaver population in the
Ware Creek watershed, which could substantially alter the potential headwater impoundment areas
before and after the reservoir is built. By cutting down trees, beavers could convert mostly wooded
habitats to mostly open water areas. They could also dam the spillways, thereby increasing the water
depth, which could prevent vegetation from becoming established and threaten the integrity of the
berms. If necessary, management measures could be implemented to ensure the success of the
mitigation.
Conservation Zone Wetlands
The final component of James City County's mitigation plan involves designating existing
wetland areas between elevations 35 and 50 feet msl for inclusion in the James City County
Reservoir Protection Overlay District. This would provide the designated wetlands protection from
3114-017-319 3-111
-------
-"«<
i%> -'^C^Sir5^"**-*!!^" ::- -" ~
,"* -*--- FIGURE 3-22 F
.i5#
• --
SOUMCE; JJL REED & ASSOCIATES ./
WARE CREEK MITIGATION PLAN
DRAFT REPORT fc
~- jc.rm -..•^.-~\css^-'-f
Muf-JT"-,.;• .'i~ ^JL^1. ^-1_3r--
'*»-*41B2aai«
- i fV»*i -^=5>*-
PERIMETER MITIGATION-
HEADWATER POND
LOCATION MAP 1
NOT TO SCALE
-------
FIGURE 3-22 G
SOURCE:
J.R. REED & ASSOCIATES "
WARE CREEK MrTTGATION PLAN '
DRAFT REPORT
PERIMETER MITIGATION-
HEADWATER POND
LOCATION MAP 2
NOT TO SCALE
-------
*-=. FIGURE 3-22 H
.7*5*^ ;*3r:^
SOURCE: J.R. REED & ASSOCIATES
WARE CREEK MITIGATION PLAN
DRAFT REPORT
PERIMETER MITIGATION-
HEADWATER POND
LOCATION MAP 3
NOT TO SCALE
-------
development, beyond the protections which are provided by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
A total of 67 potential sites comprising 163 acres of wetlands have been identified within the Ware
Creek Reservoir watershed and would be included in the Overlay District (see Figure 3-221). As
specified in the County ordinance, the designated wetlands would be protected by a 200-foot buffer
zone above the 50 foot msl elevation. The buffer zone would be approximately 2,500 acres in size.
3.7.4 Mitigation Plan Implementation
Future Protection of Mitigation Areas
To ensure the future protection of the mitigation areas, conservation easements would be
established on the mitigation areas and some surrounding land.
Conservation easements are deed restrictions placed upon the land to ensure that it will be
preserved in perpetuity. Such restrictions may be imposed by landowners voluntarily in exchange
for fair market compensation and are not necessarily imposed by the government If necessary,
however, easements can be acquired by condemnation. The deed restrictions would not have any
effect upon the ownership of the land, except by restricting the character of its use to protect the
existing or enhanced character of the property. The easements may grant interests in the property
to an appropriate public agency or civic organization (such as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or
the Nature Conservancy), pursuant to the Open-Space Land Act (Virginia Code §§ 10.1-1700, ej
seq.) or the Virginia Conservation Easement Act (Virginia Code §§ 10.1-1009, et seq.). however, to
ensure that the easement restrictions could be enforced if necessary.
The conservation easement is a flexible concept, because no specific conservation plan is
required The landowner can tailor the conservation plan to suit his wishes. Only the specific use
rights that landowners choose to give up (or which are acquired by condemnation) would become
restrictions on their properties. Landowners would be allowed to own, sell, lease, mortgage, or
otherwise use the properties consistent with the terms of the conservation easements.
The conservation easements proposed in these mitigation plans would remove the designated
mitigation areas from agricultural use and dedicate them for wetland protection in perpetuity. The
present landowners would retain ownership (aside from the easements), and they could reserve the
right to allow hunting and other activities which are compatible with wetland preservation. The land
would remain private, and the easements would not give the general public any rights to the land
unless the landowners decided to include such rights in the easements.
Monitoring Plan
The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of each mitigation area would be monitored as part of
the mitigation plan implementation. The monitoring period for each site would depend on the
lifecycle of the wetland community planned for a particular site. Emergent wetlands would be
monitored for 4 years, and scrub-shrub and forested wetlands would be monitored for a period of 10
years.
During the monitoring period, two site visits would be made during the first growing season,
in the early spring (April through May) and in mid-summer (July through August). During the spring
visit, inspectors would look for evidence of soil erosion, plant success, and wildlife utilization of the
site. During the summer visit, the inspectors would determine the health and vigor of the plantings,
note insect damage, and identity colonization of undesirable plant species (i.e., Common Reed
3114-017-319 3-112
-------
-&•*•
i~? * -
v.*-
:rrx
-*T •*
'>_
.XiV;=
5—-'' ^-»*r--
-•^V:i*V*
- _r^ - 't»
FIGURE 3-22 I
•'C---'- -fw'
^--~ -
?r&£~
-v . .
'
CONSERVATION ZONE
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
-------
(Phragmites) and Purple Loosestrife). For the duration of the monitoring period, an annual visit
would be made during the height of the growing season (July and August).
During the monitoring period, the following data related to vegetation, soils, hydrology, and
wildlife would be collected for each site:
Emergent Wetlands
Percent Area! Coverage
Species Composition
Soil profile
Quarterly water table elevations
Wildlife species present
Scrub-Shrub and
Forested Wetlands
Stem Density
Species Composition
Soil profile
Quarterly water table elevations
Wildlife species present
Invasion by noxious plants can negatively affect the success of a mitigation project. The
vegetative diversity of the mitigation area may be reduced, thereby compromising the created or
restored wetland functions. 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 were
allowed to go to seed, control would become more difficult because a seed bank would become
established (Eggars, 1992).
If Purple Loosestrife becomes established to the point where hand removal is not feasible,
application of an herbicide approved for use in wetlands/waters is the next option. Herbicide
treatment on an annual basis may be required to control the species. Herbicide application would
comply with state and federal requirements.
Common Reed (Phragmites) is another invasive species which can interfere with mitigation
projects. That plant also 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 usually will suppress Phragmites, but also
would suppress other emergent plants.
Under certain circumstances, an herbicide application would be used to eliminate Phragmites.
Application during the late summer when the plant is in bloom and treatment early during the
following growing season would effectively eliminate Phragmites.
3114-017-319 3-113
-------
If either Purple Loosestrife or Phragmites infestation became an issue at the proposed
mitigation sites, the following steps would be taken:
Evaluate extent of infestation.
Remove individual plants by hand from the mitigation area.
If removal by hand is not effective, evaluate and implement other control techniques,
such as herbicide application or temporary flooding of the mitigation area.
Once the invasive species are controlled, regrade and replant the area, as necessary, to
achieve 85 percent areal coverage.
If proper wetland hydrology were not being maintained in any of the mitigation areas, due to
drought or excessive water drawdowns, the feasibility of modifying reservoir operations or re-
contouring mitigation areas would be examined.
Another potential problem is the inability to achieve sufficient vegetative cover in the
mitigation areas. If designated areal coverages or stem densities are not achieved, supplemental
planting would be initiated during the monitoring period. Mitigation areas would be regraded and
replanted only as a last resort, after all other attempts to achieve an appropriate coverage had failed.
The planted species also may be reviewed to determine whether other species would be better suited
to the mitigation sites.
3.7.5
Summary
Conceptual mitigation plans for the King William Reservoir, Black Creek Reservoir, and
Ware Creek Reservoir would include the following mitigation projects:
Mitigation
Technique
King William
Reservoir
Black Creek
Reservoir
Ware Creek
Reservoir
ON-SITE MITIGATION
Borrow Area Wetland
Construction
Headwater Wetland
Construction
Headwater Impoundments
Fringe Wetlands
Island Creation
Open Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3114-017-319
3-114
-------
Mitigation
Technique
Wetland Preservation
Upland Preservation
King William
Reservoir
X
Black Creek
Reservoir
X
Ware Creek
Reservoir
X
OFF-SITE MITIGATION
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
Wetland Preservation
Upland Restoration
Upland Preservation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OTHER MmcATioN COMPONENTS
Stream Restoration
Stream Channel Opening
Fish Hatchery Improvements
Wetland Education
Opportunities
Small Whorled Pogonia
Preservation
Sensitive Joint-Vetch
Monitoring
*
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
* To be determined.
3.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
(Trrviomhy Numbered « 3.6 fai DEIS)
Environmental consequences of the seven alternatives carried forward for detailed
environmental analysis are summarized in Table 3-14. Detailed discussions of environmental
consequences are presented in Section 5.0.
3114-017-319
3-115
-------
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the affected environment in terms of the physical, biological, cultural,
and socioeconomic resources that would be impacted by each of the candidate alternatives and the No
Action alternative. A more detailed review of these topics is contained in Report D (Volume II),
Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) which is
incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document.
Each of the 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.
4.2 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.
3114-017-319 4-1
-------
Substrate
This section identifies the existing aquatic ecosystem substrate at project areas associated with
each alternative. Aquatic ecosystem substrate is considered to be the 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 (bXl) 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 (bXl) 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
3114-017-319 4-2
-------
to consider pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act,
4.2.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
Subjtrate
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
tiie 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/wetland 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.
WaterQuality
Intake
At the proposed Pamunkey River intake location at Northbury (Pamunkey River mile 40), 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.
3114-017-319 4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1
PAMUNKEY RIVER WATER QUALITY AT WHITE HOUSE
Parameter Units
pH SI
Salinity g/L
Transparency M
Dissolved Oxygen mg/1
Chlorophyll a mg/I
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
Total Phosphorus mg/1
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/1
Orthophosphate mg/1
Nitrate mg/1
Nitrite mg/1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/1
Ammonia mg/1
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).
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
The SWCB has identified two permitted point source discharges to the Pamunkey River
segment between River Miles 29.5 and 57.3 (SWCB, 1992). Both of these permitted discharges are
downstream from the proposed intake site at River Mile 40. 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 ofNorthbury. In addition, non-point
sources, such as agricultural runoff, drain into the Pamunkey River and impact water quality.
A recent study conducted for Hanover County recommended the construction of a 5 mgd
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that would discharge treated sewage into the Pamunkey River
in the vicinity of Totopotomoy Creek, east of U.S. Route 360 (Wasson, 1996). This site was selected
because it would cause the least environmental impact on the river, and thereby allows for a future 10
mgd plant expansion. 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.
A regional water quality model was developed by Hanover County to assess the ability of the
Pamunkey River and its tributaries to assimilate these wastewater needs. A QUAL2E model was
applied to 73 miles of river to evaluate the combined effects of current wastewater dischargers. Model
data were acquired from previous modeling studies and monitoring data collected by Hanover County.
Summer and winter critical conditions were used to calibrate the model. The model results
demonstrated that the dissolved oxygen criterion of 5.0 mg/L may be violated in several river reaches
during the summer 7Q10 condition. Although the modeling simulation was upstream of the
Northbury site, a U.S. Route 360 river reach dissolved oxygen concentration of 4.9 mg/L was
modeled during this summer critical condition (Quinlan and Dumm, 1996).
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 ofNorthbury.
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. Also in New Kent County, a new regional jail site will discharge treated wastewater into
the Pamunkey River at Parham Landing, 5.6 river miles above the mouth of the Pamunkey River.
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.
3114-017-319 4-4
-------
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.
Presently, there are no permitted facilities discharging directly to Diascund Creek Reservoir.
However, there is an active WWTP which was constructed for use at the 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. In
June 1992, the SWCB issued a VPDES permit to the VDC for this facility. Henrico, Goochland, and
New Kent counties are building a regional jail in New Kent County that will house the inmates
currently located at the VDC's old Camp 16. Consequently, the Camp 16 WWTP will be token off-
line in 1997 (D.Cook, VDEQ, personal communication, 1996). The SWCB issued a VPDES permit
for the new jail on November 8,1994, allowing direct low flow, advanced high quality discharges to
the Pamunkey River.
Diascund Creek Reservoir stratifies in the summer months, typically between June and August
(CDM, 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 and its
tributaries 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 mourn 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 eoliform 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 of truck
3114-017-319 4-5
-------
TABLE 4-2
DIASCUND CREEK RESERVOIR AND TRIBUTARY WATER QUALITY
RESERVOIR
Parameter Units Depth
pH SI 3 ft
pH SI 18
Chlorophyll a mg/1 3 ft
Total Phosphorus mg/1 3 ft
Total Nitrogen mg/1 3 ft
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, COM, 1989.
RESERVOIR TRIBUTARIES
Parameter Units
pH SI
Fluoride mg/1
Chloride mg/1
Sulfate mg/i
Total Phosphorus mg/1
Orphosphate mg/i
Iron mg/I
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
2.5
0,11
Min.
6
ND
4.1
ND
0.011
< 0.001
0.63
0.04
Max.
8.8
ND
75
ND
0.23
0.59
4.8
0.26
Beaverdam 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
1.8
0.01
< 0.001
0.65
0.02
Max.
8.3
< 0.1
75
2.3
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
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
TABLE 4-3
WARE CREEK WATER QUALITY AT RICHARDSON MILLPOND
Parameter Units
pH SI
Specific Conductance pS/cm
Alkalinity mg/J
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 jjg/1
Manganese ^g/1
Number Samples
Total
33
33
23
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
33
32
33
33
Above DL
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
Min.
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
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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 Reservoir
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/wetland area
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.
The Stonehouse project is proceeding without the Ware Creek Reservoir. The construction of
the 800 homes associated with the first phase of planned community is planned for late 1996 or early
1997. The community golf course for the first phase of construction has been completed.
Pipeline
Construction of 26.3 miles of pipeline for this alternative would involve minor crossings of 21
stream/wetland areas. 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
3114-017-319 4-6
-------
discharge from the 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 SO 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 Plate 1 and
Figure 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 approximately 1,279 square miles. The proposed
120-mgd maximum withdrawal capacity represents 15.5 percent of the estimated average freshwater
discharge at Northbury (774 mgd). More detailed streamflow characteristics of the Pamunkey River
at the proposed intake site are presented in Table 3-A.
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 tidally and non-tidally influenced, perennial and intermittent
streams. While drainage from Bird Swamp and Ware Creek 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 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.
3114-017-319 4-7
-------
FIGURE 4-1
SCOTLAN
LANDING
/C/A/G WILLIAM
RESERVOIR
BLACK
CREEK
RESERVOIR
BEAVEROAM CREEK
OUTFALL
LOIASCUND CREEK
OUTFALL SITE 1
X.'
*.. A.
*/*.
WARE CREEK
ESERVOIR
OIASCUNO
OUTFALL
URESERVOIR i-FRANCE SWAMP
OUTFALL
MALOOUVt
PIRNIE
APRIL 1993
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSL'Jk
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
LOCATIONS OF RESERVOIR/PUMPOVER ALTERNATIVES
SCALE IN MILES
-------
WARE
TABLE 4-5
RESERVOIR STREAM ORDER ANALYSIS
Stream Order '
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
River Miles
Perennial * .
1.82
3.30
3.%
1.06
0.15
Intermittent 3
19.37
7.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Total
21.19
10.74
3.%
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.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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 26.3 miles of pipeline would be required for this alternative. The pipeline
would cross 21 stream/wetland areas. 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 stream/wetland areas. 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.
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
3114-017-319 4-8
-------
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 Chiekahominy-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.
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, clay, 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.
3114-017-319 4-9
-------
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 CaCO,, mg/1 5
Chloride, dissolved, mg/1 19
Sulfate, dissolved, mg/1 17
Specific conductance, ps/cm 7
pH, standard units IS
Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate dissolved, mg/1 ..... 1
Phosphate, ortho., dissolved, mg/1 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, pgfl 7
Iron, dissolved, jig/1 4
Manganese, total, /*g/l 5
Manganese, dissolved, jtg/1 2
Dissolved solids, residue at 180°C, mg/1 IS
86.00
14
4.3
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
4.3
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, CaCO, is calcium carbonate, mg/1 is milligrams per liter, fig/l is micrograms per liter, jislcm is microsiemens per centimeter,
°C is degrees Celsius, — indicates insufficient number of constituent analyses, < indicates less than value shown.]
Source: Laczniak and Meng, 1988.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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 would disturb 42 acres of soil. The dam
footprint would cover approximately 13 acres, while the emergency spillway would cover
approximately 16 acres. Portions of the dam embankment and access roads would account for the
remaining 13 acres of disturbed soil.
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
3114-017-319 4-10
-------
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/1 34
Magnesium, dissolved, mg/1 34
Potassium, dissolved, mg/1 25
Sodium, dissolved, mg/1 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 + N03, dissolved, mg/1 4
Phosphate, ortho., dissolved, mg/1 . 5
Organic carbon, total, mg/1 1
Hardness, total as CaC03, mg/1 30
Fluoride, dissolved, mg/1 29
Silica, dissolved, mg/1 26
Iron, total, pg/1 11
Iron, dissolved, pgfl 13
Manganese, total, /ig/1 3
Manganese, dissolved, jig/1 2
Dissolved solids, residue at 180°C, mg/1 29
261.00
39
16
804
294
1190
119
4380
8.9
.25
.52
812
40
8700
120
210
170
2280
.9
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
123.33
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
21.32
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, jtg/1 is micrograms per liter, ^s/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.
3114-017-319
June !993
-------
TABLE 4-8
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
SOILS WITHIN THE PIPELINE ROUTE
1A
2A
3A
SA
6B
7B
7C
0A
108
10C
11B
12B
13A
15B
16A
18B
19B
19C
20B
21A
23A
26D
26E
26F
28B
30B
31 A
33A
34B
35A
37A
40B
41 B
AltaVista
AltavJsta-Dogue complex
Augusta
Bojac
Caroline
Caroline— Emporia complex
Caroline-Emporia complex
Conetoe
Craven
Craven
Craven-Caroline complex
Craven -Uchee complex
Dogue
Emporia
Johnston
Kempsville
Kempsville- Emporia complex
Kempsvilte- Emporia complex
Kempsville -Suffolk complex
Lanexa
Mundan
Nevarc-Remlic complex
Nevarc-Remlic complex
Nevarc-Remlic complex
Norfolk
Pamunkey
Roanoke
Slagle
Slagle-Empona complex
State
Tarboro
Uehee
Udorthents
^^^|^^Si^^^^|i^^|Mi|^^||^W^fc;ii^^^^^^i:i^^ll
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
2-0% slope. Very deep, gentry 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 eloping, 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-silty 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 (eve) 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, gentry sloping, moderately weH 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
Empona complex
10-15% slope. Deep, moderately well drained Emporia soils & similar soils over fossil shells
15E
Empona complex
15-25% slope. Deep, steep, wall 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
Mucky—team, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, very poorly drained
18B
Kern ps vil le
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
Kenans \rilte
Loamy-fine sand. 2-6% slope. Deep, gently sloping, and well drained. On upland ridges
25B
Norfolk
Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
29A
Slagle
Fine sandy-loam. 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
29B
Single
Fine sandy-loam. 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
31B
Suffolk
Fine-sandy loam, 2-6% slope. Deep, gently sloping and well drained
34B
Uchee
Loamy-tine sand, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping. & well drained
* Source used tor the identification of soil types was the Soil Survey of New Kent County, Virginia (Hodges et at, 1SB9)
** Source used for the idemiftostion of soil types was the Soil Surrey of James City and Yorfc Counties and the Crty of Williamsburg, Virgina (Hodges et al, 1985)
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
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. Residential
development near the proposed reservoir area might be sensitive to construction activities. No
indication of a nuisance dust problem in this area has been recorded.
4.2.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover 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.
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.
3114-017-319 4-11
-------
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.
Pipeline
The construction of 19.6 miles of pipeline for this alternative would involve 34 stream/wetland
area crossings. 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.
3114-017-319 4-12
-------
TABLE 4-9
CRUMP CREEK WATER QUALITY
Parameter Unto
pH SI
Alkalinity mg/l
Hardness mg/l
Total Diuolved Solidi (TDS) mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD,) mg/l
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) mg/1
Total Phosphorus (TP) mg/l
Orthophosphate (OPOJ mg/1
Total Nitrogen (TN) mg/l
Nitrate (NO,) mg/l
Told Kjeldahl Nitrogen (IKN) mg/l
Ammonia (NH,) mg/l
Chloride (Cl) mg/l
Fluoride (F) mg/l
Anenic (As) mg/l
Barium (Da) mg/l
Calcium (Ca) mg/l
Cadmium (Cd) mg/l
Chromium (Cr) mg/l
Copper (Cu) mg/l
Iron (Fe) mg/l
Lead (1%) mg/l
Magnesium (Mg) mg/l
Manganese (Mn) mg/l
Mercury (Hg) mg/l
Selenium (Se) mg/l
Silver = (Ag) mg/l
Sodium (Na) mg/l
Zinc fZn) mg/l
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
M*M
6.3
SJ
16
47
1.6
6.8
0,066
0,03
1.22
0.298
0.9
< 0.3
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
Mmmmm
6.1
2.5
12
33
0.9
4.2
0.028
0.01
0.94
0.111
0.2
0.1
5.7
< 0.10
< 0.0005
< 0.05
1.55
< 0.002
< 0.005
< 0.005
1.10
< 0.02
0.76
0.035
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.002
3.9
0.005
Mwdmam
6.6
7.0
22
60
3.9
10J
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.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
TABLE 4-10
MATADEQUIN CREEK WATER QUALITY
Ftruutcr Units
pH SI
Alkalinity mg/1
Hairiness mg/1
ToUl Dissolved Solid* (TDS) mg/1
Turbidity ITU
Specific Conductance jiS/cm
Diuotved Oxygen (DO) mg/1
Feed Coliform /100 mL
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD^ mg/1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) mg/l
ToUl Phosphorus (TP) mg/1
Otthophosphate (OPOJ mg/1
Nitrate (NO,) rag/I
Toul Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/1
AmmonU (NHj) mg/1
Chloride (CI) mg/1
Fluoride (F) mg/1
Arsenic (As) mg/1
Cadmium (Cd) mg/1
Chromium (Cr) mg/1
Copper (Cu) mg/1
Iron (Fe) mg/1
Lead (Pb) mg/1
Manganese (Mn) mg/1
Nickel (Ni) mg/1
Zinc (Zn) mg/1
Number
S«mpto
11
9
7
9
S
9
10
6
9
S
I
4
9
9
9
7
7
9
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Mean
6.4
10
28
48
6.9
54
8.9
107
1.9
4.8
<0.1
< 0.04
0.15
0.5
< 0.04
5
<0.1
<0.01
< 0.01
<0.01
< 0.01
2.2
<0.01
0.062
<0.01
< 0.01
MUB..B
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 Janua . 1993 for period August 1990 - November
1992.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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 the Pamunkey River. The hydrologic system
of the drainage area primarily consists of non-tidal, perennial, and intermittent streams. While
drainage from the Southern Branch Black Creek is interrupted by a minor impoundment, Crumps
Millpond, flow from the remainder 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 msl. 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 19.6 miles of pipeline would be required for this alternative component.
The pipeline would cross 34 stream/wetland areas. 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 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.
3114-017-319 4-13
-------
TABLE 4-11
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR STREAM ORDER ANALYSIS
Stream Order »
First
Second
Third
River Miles
Perennial2
0.34
4.39
1.43
Intermittent *
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.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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.
Construction of the Black Creek Reservoir dam would disturb 48.5 acres of soil. The dam
footprint would cover approximately 23.4 acres, while the emergency spillway would cover
approximately 8 acres. Portions of the dam embankment and access roads would account for the
remaining 17.1 acres of disturbed soil.
There are no known mineral recovery facilities that would be affected by the construction of
the proposed reservoir (VDMR 1976; Sweet and Wilkes, 1990).
Pipeline
Construction of the 19.6 miles or raw water pipelines associated with this alternative would
cause the disturbance of approximately 119 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 miles 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 lists the type of soils affected by the pipeline and
outfall structures.
3114-017-319 4-14
-------
TABLE 4-12
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
SOILS WITHIN THE PIPELINE ROUTE
1A
2A
3A
SA
88
?B
7C
SA
10C
118
13A
15B
1BA
188
IBB
19C
21 A
23A
SSD
26E
26F
28B
30B
31A
33A
34B
37A
41 B
AltaVista
Ate vista -Dogue complex
Augusta
Bojac
Caroline
Caroline-Emporia complex
Caroline-Emporia complex
Conetoe
Craven
Craven -Carolne complex
Dogue
Empcxia
Johnston
Kemps ville
KempsviUe-Emporia complex
Kemps ville-Emporia complex
Lanexa
Munden
Nevarc— Remlic complex
Nevarc-Remlic complex
Nevarc-Remlic complex
LNorfolk
Pamunkey
Roanoke
Slagle
Slagle-Emporia complex
Tarboro
Udorthents
firm sandy loam, 0-2 % slope*. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
0-2% slopes . Very deep, nearly level, moderately will drained
Fine sandy-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, nearly level, poorly drained
Loamy-sand, 0-2% slope. Very deep.nearry level, well drained
Loam, 2-8% slop*. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
2-6% slope. Very deep, gentry 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, wall drained. On low river terraces
Loam, 6-10% slopes. Very deep, strongly sloping, moderately will drained
2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping. On narrow ridgetops and side slopes
Fin* sandy —loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
Fine 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, wall drained. On upland ridges
Mucky-titty 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
1 5-25% 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, & moderately wall 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 ptts providing foundation materials & areas of landfills ;
10B
Craven
2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, moderately wall drained
11C
Craven
6-10% slopes. Very deep, strongly sloping, moderately well drained
148
Emporia
Fine sandy—toam, 2—6% slope. Very deep, gently slpoing, well drained
15E
Emporia
15-25% slopes. Very deep, well drained.
15F
Emporia
28-50% slopes. Very deep, well drained
168
Kemps ville-Empofia complex
2—6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained. On upland ridges
25B
Norfolk
Fine sandy—loam, 2—6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
27
Peawick
0-3% slope. Deep and moderately well drained.
29A
Stogie
Fine sandy-loam. 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately wall drained
298
Stagle
Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
31B
Suffolk
Fine sandy—toam, 2—6% slopes. Peep, well drained.
34B
Uchee
Loamy fine-sand, 2-i% slopes. Deep, 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 James City and York Counties, and the
City of Wiilwnsburg, Virginia (Hodges et al, 1985)
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
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
Four dam configurations are being presented with the King William Reservoir with pumpover
from the Mattaponi River alternative: KWR I, KWRII, KWR HI, and KWRIV. The intake site and
the majority of the pipeline route for all four dam configurations are the same; only the dam location
and reservoir pool elevation vary. The normal pool elevation for the KWR I project configuration is
90 feet msl, and the normal pool elevation for all other project configurations is 96 feet msl. Unless
otherwise specified, physical resources are the same for all dam configurations of the King William
Reservoir alternative. The river water pipeline between the river pumping station and the reservoir,
and the portion of the pipeline route from the directional drill under the Pamunkey River to Diascund
Reservoir, then from Diascund Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir, remains as proposed in the DEIS
for all configurations. The entire pipeline for KWR I remains a gravity pipeline with the route as
proposed in the DEIS. KWR II, HI, and IV will be pumped pipelines with new portions of pipeline
routes identified from each proposed pump station to the Pamunkey River directional drill location.
In addition, the outfall location into Diascund Reservoir for KWR II, III, and IV has been extended
downstream of that proposed in the DEIS for KWR I.
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 Nevarc-Remlik-Johnston.
Pipeline
The area of substrate disturbance at each minor stream/wetland 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 for the KWR I project configuration, and 0.8
river miles upstream of the reservoir for all other project configurations. Substrate at this outfall
location originates from Johnston Mucky Loam soil. The second raw water outfall location would be
located on Little Creek Reservoir, approximately 2,000 feet south of St. Johns Church on State Route
3114-017-319 4-15
-------
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
hydrie 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 S WCB-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 Gametts 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. The discharge permit was reissued in 1995 and is valid for an additional 5
years. As of October 1996, the facility had remained inactive (D. Barnes, VDEQ, personal
communication, 1996).
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 - 30S(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/or 1992 - 30S(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.
Reservoir
Estimates of the water quality for Cohoke 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 Creek water quality conditions because all
3114-017-319 4-16
-------
TABLE 4-13
MATTAPONI RIVER WATER QUALITY AT SCOTLAND LANDING
Parameter Units
Temperature C
pH SI
Dissolved Oxygen mg/1
BOD3 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 ftgll
Cadmium fig/I
Chromium ngl\
Copper /ig/1
Lead jig/1
Mercury /*g/l
Nickel fig/I
Zinc pg/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
10
11
3
25
Source: USEPA STORET data retrieval in May 1989 for period June 1972-October 1975.
Notes: BDL = Below Detection Limit
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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
Aluminum
Units
C
SI
NTU
mg/1
^mhos/cm
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
MI/1
Chromium Mg/1
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
MI/1
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.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
TABLE 4-15
MATTAPONI RIVER WATER QUALITY AT WALKERTON
Parameter
Temperature
pH
Salinity
Dissolved Oxygen
Units
(C)
(SI)
(g/0
(mg/1)
Chlorophyll a (pg/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.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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
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.
Available water quality data were compiled for Cohoke Creek over a one year time period.
Samples were collected at the Route 626 Bridge on the creek between June 1995 and June 1996.
Based on a review of the limited sampling results of Cohoke Creek listed in Table 4-1SA, the data
suggest that the water quality at Crump Creek and Matadequin Creek is representative of Cohoke
Creek, The Cohoke Creek minimum value of 0.7 mg/1 for the dissolved oxygen parameter, and
maximum value of 0.13 mg/1 for the orthophosphate, may reflect either the site specific conditions of
the sampling location, or inefficient sampling techniques. The lower dissolved oxygen reading could
be attributed to the seasonal anaerobic conditions associated with swamps, while the higher
orthophosphate concentration could have resulted from high fertilizer use in the adjacent agricultural
areas. The higher total organic carbon concentrations in Cohoke Creek could be explained by the high
-humicjuid fiilvic acid concentrations typically found in swamp environments.
Within the Cohoke Creek watershed there is minimal existing or planned development. There
are some concerns regarding ground water quality and surface water runoff quality since portions of
the King William County Landfill are located within the reservoir drainage area. This 85-acre landfill
parcel is located above the proposed normal pool elevation (90 feet msl for KWR I; 96 feet msl for
KWRII, III, and IV), along the south side of State Route 30, near the intersection of State Routes 30
and 640. Municipal solid waste (MSW) was deposited in the King William County Landfill from
1988 to 1994, In addition, Chesapeake Corporation disposed of a small quantity of pulp waste in the
landfill. This type of waste is not known to pose any greater threat to the public health and
environment than MSW when disposed of in a properly designed MSW facility. Closure construction
began in the spring of 1994 and was completed in April 1995.
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 by a gravity pipeline for the KWR I configuration, and pumped for the other project
configurations, to the Diascund Creek Reservoir basin, for eventual transmission to Newport News
Waterworks'terminal reservoirs. The construction of 17.0,17.4,18.2, and 18.7 miles of pipeline for
the KWR I, KWR II, KWR HI, and KWR IV configurations, respectively, would involve 65,60,58,
and 60 stream/wetland area crossings, respectively. In addition, the pipeline would cross the
Pamunkey River and an arm of Little Creek Reservoir. The route for KWR I remains to the east of
Cohoke Millpond prior to crossing the Pamunkey River, whereas the other configurations would
follow a more direct path to the west of the Cohoke Creek and Cohoke Millpond.
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 for the KWR I configuration, and 4.1 mgd for all other project configurations. The maximum
flow rate from the pipeline to Beaverdam Creek would be 40 mgd for the gravity pipeline associated
with the KWR I configuration, and 50 mgd for the configurations that will use a reservoir pump
station (KWR II, HI, and IV). Water quality for Beaverdam Creek is routinely measured by the USGS
at Station 02042736, which is at the State Route 632 crossing north of Interstate 64. This monitoring
station is approximately 0.6 and 1.1 miles upstream from the proposed discharge location for the
3114-017-319 4-17
-------
TABLE 4-15A
COHOKE CREEK WATER QUALITY AT ROUTE 626 CROSSING
Parameter 1Mb
pH SI
Alkalinity mg/1
HaniiiGas mg/1
Turbidity JTU
Specific Conductance jiS/cm
Dii»otvcd Oxygen (DO) mg/1
Fecal Colifbnn /100 mL
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODj) mg/1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) mg/1
Total Phoiphorui (DP) mg/1
Orthopho*pbau (OPOJ mg/1
Nitrate (NOj) mg/1
Total KjeUahl Nitrogen
-------
KWRI configuration, and remaining configurations, respectively. Water quality data for the station
are summarized in Table 4-2.
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 estimated mean tidal range is 3.56
feet at Scotland Landing (Basco, 1996).
Contributing drainage area at Scotland Landing is approximately 781 square miles. The
proposed 75-mgd maximum withdrawal capacity represents 1S.2 percent of the estimated average
freshwater discharge at Scotland Landing (494 mgd). More detailed sireamflow characteristics of the
Mattaponi River at the proposed intake site are presented in Table 3-B.
Reservoir
Cohoke Creek drains a watershed of 13.17, 11.45, 10.33, and 8.92 square miles above the
proposed King William Reservoir dam site configurations KWR I, KWR II, KWR III, and KWR IV,
respectively. The entire Cohoke Creek watershed has an estimated drainage area of 17.0 square miles.
Cohoke Creek flows in a southeasterly 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 0.4,1.0,1.9,
and 2.1 river miles and 1.8,2.4,3.3, and 3.5 river miles, respectively, downstream of the proposed
King William Reservoir dam site configurations KWR I, KWR II, KWR HI, and KWR IV.
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 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 Milipond 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 for the KWR I configuration, and 96 feet msl for all other configurations, would be affected.
A total of 28.3,26.5,24, and 20.3 river miles of perennial and intermittent streams are located within
the proposed reservoir pool area for the KWR I, KWR II, KWR III, and KWR IV configurations,
respectively. 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 for the respective configurations. Average
3114-017-319 4-18
-------
TABLE 4-17
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR STREAM ORDER ANALYSIS
Reservoir
Configuration
KWRI
KWRH
/
KWRID
KWRIV
Strewn
Order1
First
Second
Third
River Miles
Perennial *
3.07
3.94
5.16
First
Second
Third
3.07
3.18
4.59
Intermittent 3
15.32
0.76
0.00
Total
15.28
0.38
0.00
Total
First
Second
Third
First
Second
Third
3.07
3.18
3.83
3.07
2.61
3.45
13.95
0.38
0.00
Total
11.48
0.38
0.00
Total
Total
18.39
4.70
5.16
28.25
18.35
3.56
4.59
26.50
17.02
3.56
3.83
24.41
14.55
2.99
3.45
20.99
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 hi direct response to precipitation. It may be dry for
a large part of the year, ordinarily more than three months.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
streamflow at the proposed dam site is estimated to be 9.3, 8.0, 7,3, and 6,2 mgd for the KWR I,
KWR n, KWR in, and KWR IV configurations, respectively.
Pipeline
The construction of 17.0, 17.4, 18.2, and 18.7 miles of pipeline for the KWR I, KWR H, KWR
HI, and KWR IV configurations, respectively, would be required for this alternative component The
60, 58, and 60 stream/wetland areas for the KWR L, n, III, and IV
---, , , , , ,
configurations, respectively. Two major stream 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 Bcaverdam 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 streatnfiows (Section 4.2.1), and was
adjusted to the drainage area at the point of discharge. Based on an estimated contributing drainage
area of 5.4 and 6.4 square miles at the discharge location on Beaverdam Creek for the KWR I and
all other configurations, respectively, average streamflow rates at these points are estimated to be 3,5
and 4.1 mgd.
Field studies were conducted in July 1992 and January 1993 to obtain stream cross-sectional
measurements at the raw water discharge location on Beaverdam Creek. The proposed discharge
location is approximately 0.75 river miles upstream of Interstate 64 and 1.3 river miles upstream of
the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir for the KWR I configuration. The discharge
location has been moved farther downstream to a site 0.3 miles upstream of Interstate 64, and 0.8
river miles upstream of the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir for the remaining
configurations. Field studies of the downstream discharge location were conducted in September
1996.
To identify die 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 each location.
At the proposed KWR-I outfall site, the estimated average annual stream discharge is 3.5 mgd
based on a 5.4-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 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.
Daily flows at a USGS gaging station on Beaverdam Swamp near Ark in Gloucester County,
Virginia were adjusted to acquire an estimate of the daily flows at the downstream discharge point
on Beaverdam Creek. The flows were adjusted in proportion to die respective drainage areas. The
drainage area at the USGS gaging station on Beaverdam Swamp is 6.6 square miles. Beaverdam
Creek has a drainage area of 6.4 square miles at the pipeline discharge site associated with the KWR
II, KWR III, and KWR IV configurations. Adjusting the daily flows recorded from October 1949
to September 1987 at the Beaverdam Swamp gage to the Beaverdam Creek drainage area results in
an estimated average daily streamflow of 4.5 mgd. The maximum pipeline discharge rate for this site
is 50 mgd.
3114-017-319 4-19
-------
To assess the erosion potential to the stream from the downstream pipeline discharge, a profile
and cross-section survey was conducted from the discharge site to the open water of Diascund Creek
Reservoir. Cross-sections were taken approximately every 500 feet along the stream. For a flow of
54.5 mgd (50 mgd peak pipeline discharge plus current average daily flow), the maximum flow
velocity calculated at any section was 1.3 feet per second (fps). This velocity is generally non-erosive
for all soil types. The bed and banks of Beaverdam Creek in this area are generally composed of stiff
clay type soils. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook recommends a permissible
velocity of 5.0 fps for excavated channels in stiff clay soils. The relatively low flow velocity is due
partially to the relatively flat channel bottom slope from the pipeline discharge location to the
reservoir.
The Beaverdam Creek channel bottom profile from State Route 249 to Diascund Creek
Reservoir is illustrated in Figure 4-1 A. The downstream pipeline discharge is located at an elevation
(27.1 feet msl) that is between the Diascund Creek Reservoir normal pool (26.0 feet msl) and the
Diascund Creek Reservoir elevation during a 100-year flood event (30.2 feet msl). This downstream
discharge channel bottom location is only 1.1 feet above the normal pool elevation of the reservoir.
At the point where the creek enters the open water of the reservoir, the main channel bottom is at
elevation 22 feet msl. The resulting average channel bottom slope between the discharge point and
the reservoir is approximately 0.1 percent, or 0.1 foot per 100 horizontal feet.
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 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).
3114-017-319 4-20
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
O)
•*
CM
111
D
O
Of
HI
C/3
BEAVERDAM CREEK
CHANNEL BOTTOM PROFILE
Ul
8
O
W
S
Ul
Ul
Q.
a
ui
8
E
m
3
I
ui
w
ui
cc
O
Q
Diaseund Creek Reservoir at lOOYear Flood - W.S. EL, 30.2
Pipeline Discharge Site - Bottom El. 27.1
Diascund Creek Reservoir Normal Pool - W.S. EL. 26.0
0+00 30+00 60+00 90+00 120+00
Station
(feet)
Source: ASC Topographic Mapping (1994)
USGS Walkers Quadrangle Map
Field Survey by Draper, Aden Assoc., Inc. (September, 1996)
150+00
180+00
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
210+00
BEAVERDAM CREEK
CHANNEL BOTTOM PROFILE
SCALE: HORIZ. 1"=3000'
VERT. 1"=20'
<*
I
>
11/26/96
-------
Reservoir
Soils located within the proposed pool area of King William Reservoir constitute the affected
environment. Nevarc-Remlik-Johnston appears to be the major soil association. Approximately 342,
298,277, and 228 acres of these soils for the KWR-I, KWR-II, KWR-III, and KWR-IV configurations
are considered prime agricultural soils. The area currently used for crop cultivation is negligible.
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).
Construction of the King William Reservoir dam, emergency spillway, reservoir pump station,
access road, and associated structures would disturb 59,52, 53, and 43 acres of soil for the KWR I,
II, III, and IV project configurations, respectively. The dam footprint would cover approximately
18.5,18.0,17.7, and 14.2 acres for the KWR I, II, III, and IV project configurations, respectively. The
emergency spillway would cover approximately 11,10, 8, and 7 acres for the KWR I, II, III, and IV
project configurations, respectively. The reservoir pumping station affiliated with the KWR II, HI,
and IV project configurations would disturb 3 acres of soil.
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 17.0,17.4,18.2, and 18.7 miles
of raw water pipeline associated with the, KWR-I, KWR-II, KWR-III, and KWR-IV configurations
for this alternative.
There are two potential raw water outfall locations associated with the pipeline from King
William Reservoir to Beaverdam Creek. These Beaverdam Creek outfall sites are located 1.3 and 0.8
river miles upstream of the normal pool area of Diascund Creek Reservoir for the KWR-I and all other
configurations, respectively. The soil type at these locations 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.
An outfall would also 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 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
3114-017-319 4-21
-------
TABLE 4-18
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
SOILS WITHIN THE PIPELINE ROUTE
1A
AltaVista
Fin* sandy team, 0-2 % slopes. Very deep, nearly tool, moderately well drained
3A
Augusta
Fine Bandy-loam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, neatly level, poorly drained
7B
Caroline-Emperia complex
2-8% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, will tfrained on broad upland ridges
8A
Conetoe
Loamy sand, 0-4% stones. Very deep, nearly level, well drained. On low river terraces
13A
Doflue
Fin* sandy-team, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, moderately well drained
16A
Johnston
Mucky-toam, 0-2% slopes. Very deep, marly level, very poorly drained
22A
Matten
Mock, 0-1% slope. Peep, nearly level, and poorly drained. In freshwater swamps
23A
Munden
Sandy-loam, 0-2% stops. Very deep, nearly level, moderately w»ll drained. On ridges
28D
Nevare-Remlic complex
8-15 % slope. Very deep, moderately steep. On »ide slopes along rivers
26E
Nevare-Remlic complex
15-25% ilopes. Very deep, steep On sides of slopes along rivers and creeks
26F
Nevarc-Remlie complex
25-60% slopes. Vary deep, very steep. On sides of slopes along rivers & creeks
306
Pamunkey
Fine tandy-loam. 2-8% slope. Very deep, gantry sloping, and w»ll drained
3SA
State
Vary fine tandy-loam., 0-2% tlope. Very deep, marly level, well drained
38A
Tetotum
0-2% »topet. Very deep, nearly level, and moderaiery well drained
30A
Tomotety
Loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, poorly drained. On bread flats
411
Udorthents
Loamy, gentle slope. Coraats of pte providinfl foundafaon materials & areas of landfils
Rernlic-SuffoN complex
6-15% slope
4F
Remlic—SuHpfc complex
15-50% slope
8A
Fine sandy-loam. 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently tipping, t moderately wall drained
8B
Stogie
Fine sandy-loam. 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately well drained
10A
Suffolk
Fine-sandy loam, 0-2% slope. Peep, gently sloping and well drained
10B
Suffolk
Firte-tandy loam. 2-0% slope. Peep, gently sloping and well drained
11A
Conetoe
Loamy sand, 0-4% slopes. Very deep, neafV level, and well drained
13B
Wickham
0-2% slope
14B
Bojae
Loamy sand, 2-6% slope. Very deep, nearly level, and well drained
15B
Kempsville
0-?% slope
21B
Kenansville
Loamy-fine sand, 0-4% slope. Deep, gently tipping, and well drained. On upland ridges
34A
Emporia
Fine-»andy 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
Hoanoke
Sift-team. 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, and poorly drained
69
Dalevilte
0-2% slope
132A
Eunola
0-2% slope
145
Tomotety
team, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nee/ty level, poorly drained. On bread Hate
149
Sea brook
Loamy sand, 0-2% slope. Very deep, nearly level, and moderately well drained
10B
Craven
2-6% slopes. Very deep, gentry sloping, moderately well drained
11C
Craven
6-10% slopes. Very deep, strongly sloping, moderately well drained
148
Emporia
Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slope. Very deep, gently sipping, wall drained
15E
Emporia
15-25% slopes. Very deep, wall drained.
1SF
Emporia
25-50% slopes. Very deep, well drained.
19B
Kempsvilte- Emporia complex
2-6% slopes. Very deep, gentiy sloping, well drained. On upland ridges
25B
Norfolk
Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slopes. Very deep, gently sloping, well drained
27
Pea wick
0-3% slope. Deep and moderately well drained.
29A
Slagle
Fine sandy-loam, 0-2% slope. Very deep, gently sloping, & moderately wall drained
298
Fine sandy-loam, 2-6% slope Very deep, gently sloping. & moderately will drained
31B
Suffolk
Fine sandy-loam. 2-6% ilopes. Deep, well drained.
34B
lUchee
Loamy fine-sand, 2-6% slopes. Deep, wall drained.
Source used for the identification of soil types was the Soil Survey of New Kent County, Virginia (Hodges et al, 1889)
1 Source used for the identification of soil types was the Soil Survey of King Willam County, Virginia (Hodges et al, 1885)
'* Source used for the identification of soil types was the Soil Survey of James City and York Counties, and the
City of Willnmsburg, Virginia (Hodges et al, 1985)
3114-017-319
January 11,1097
-------
close down stream, in Cohoke Millpond, which could be sensitive to air quality impacts if fugitive
dust emissions was not adequately controlled. No indication of a nuisance dust problem in the project
development area has been recorded.
4.2.4 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.
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 wells 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 msl.
3114-017-319 4-22
-------
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 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
Well 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.
3114-017-319 4-23
-------
TABLE 4-19
DIASCUND CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Parameter Data
pH
Conductivity j
-------
TABLE 4-20
LITTLE CREEK RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY
Tg^^^^^^f^^ Wl^Jfl—
FwnnMMr mra
Conductivity fiMHOt/cmm
pH SI
T$fi)|)GHdlIfe C
DUioived Oxygen mg/1
DiuolvBd Oxygen (Sat.) %
Alkalinity mg/1
Suite mg/i
Chloride* mg/1
Nitnle mg/1
AnunonU mg/1
Toul Kjeld*hl Nitrogen mg/1
Total Fbotphonii mg/1
Iron (Toul) fig/1
M«ng«ne»e (Toul) Mg/1
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
Chlorophyll a jig/1
Pheophytin • : pg/1
3 to 10 foot Depth
NMter
Sumjm
58
58
58
58
58
37
6
37
60
59
60
60
37
37
30
18
18
MMB
107
7.1
18
9.2
95
21
6.6
12
0.022
0.042
0.6
0.015
388
70
6.9
10
5
Mm.
78
6.4
2
6.3
68
15
5.5
8.4
< 0.005
< 0.002
<0.2
< 0.004
80
<10
4.8
33
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 Deptk
Number
Su>pk.
58
57
58
58
58
23
6
37
60
60
60
60
37
37
23
18
18
MM*
122
6.8
10
4.8
40
23
5.7
13
0.045
0.332
0.9
0.015
4240
539
6.7
7.5
5.6
Ma.
81
6J
2.5
0
0
14
<1
7.8
< 0.005
<0.002
0.3
0.004
200
20
5.2
1.2
0.1
Ma*.
211
7.4
17
13.2
100
45
7.5
31
0.329
1.9
3.1
0.105
28000
1600
9.4
18
25
Sources: Pmgh et al., 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.
USGS Station 0204275430 - Little Creek Reservoir.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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;
interbedded 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 silty 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.
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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, Hgnitic, 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 silty 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.
20-160
TOO
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: Lacmiak and Meng, 1988.
3114-0)" "19
Januar
997
-------
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 pipel ine 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.
Air Quality
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.
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.
3114-017-319 4-24
-------
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 riprap 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
(Laczniak 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 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 Mill) West bank of the Poquoson River
3114-017-319 4-25
-------
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
7.5
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".l.
0.12
0.3
Minimum
7.0
1.39
225
< 0.1
0.42
< 0.01
15
0.3
540
64
0.2
1.5
6.1
2.4
520
13
0.69
0.03
0.01
Maximum
8.0
7.96
422
< 0.1
2.7
0.1
32
1.3
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).
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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.
A discussion of the affected hydrologic 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. :
GrpundwaterResources
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 ah, 1981). Use of these brackish aquifers has not been
3114-017-319 4-26
-------
TABLE 4-23
JAMES RIVER WATER QUALITY
AT PROPOSED CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
James River Station LE 5.1
Near Skiffe's Creek
Parameter Units
pH SI
Salinity g/1
Nitrate mg/1
Ammonia mg/1
Phosphate mg/1
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/1
Silica mg/1
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
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
30.2
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).
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
TABLE 4-24
YORK RIVER WATER QUALITY
AT PROPOSED CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
York River Station LE 4.2
Near Queens Creek
Parameter Units
pH SI
Salinity g/1
Nitrate mg/1
Ammonia mg/1
Phosphate mg/I
Silica mg/I
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).
3114-017-319
January 8, 1997
-------
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 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. The City of Newport News and York County are located in an ozone non-
attainment area. 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 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Substrate
No aquatic ecosystem substrate would be affected by this alternative.
Water Quality
Implementation of this alternative is not expected to affect existing water quality conditions.
Hydrology :
The hydrology of water resources in the project areas is described in Sections 4.2.1through
4.2.5.
Groundwater Resources
The setting for evaluating effects of this alternative on the groundwater resources of the region
is described in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.5.
Soils and Mineral Resources
This alternative would not have any effect on soils or mineral resources.
3114-017-319 4-27
-------
Air Quality
The implementation of this alternative would not adversely effect ambient air quality,
4.2.7 No Action
Spbstrale
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.
Air Quality
If no action was taken, these would be no adverse affect on ambient air quality.
4.3 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 (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).
3114-017-319 4-28
-------
Fish and 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).
Vegetated shallows are permanently 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).
Mudplats
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).
3114-017-319 4-29
-------
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
EndangeredT 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 to 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. The VDCR provided a list of natural heritage resources of the tidal
Pamunkey River. Five of the nine species listed are either endangered, threatened, or candidate
species at the federal and/or state levels (see Table 4-25).The agencies concluded that there are no
known natural heritage resources or endangered or threatened animal, plant, or insect species to
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 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, 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, to 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. As of November 1996, no final regulatory action had been taken (J. R. Tate,
VDACS, personal communication, 1996).
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) conducted a study of the Sensitive Joint-
vetch (also referred to as the Northern Joint-vetch) to the vicinity of the proposed intake site on
the Pamunkey River. The study is documented in Identification of Historic Locations of
Aeschynomene virginica in the Tidal Freshwater Zone of the Pamunkey River, Virginia (Perry,
1993) which is included as an appendix to Report E, Biological Assessment for Practicable
Reservoir Alternatives (Malcolm Pirnie, 1994) which is incorporated herein by reference and is
an appendix to this document. 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 U.S. 360 bridge crossing
of the river. The proposed intake site is included in this area.
3114-017-319 4-30
-------
TABLE 4-25
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
OF THE TIDAL PAMUNKEY RIVER
Scientific Name
Aeschynomene virginica
Bacopa stragula
Chamaecrista fasticulata var. macrosperma
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lasmgona subvirdis
Federal Legal Status
LE - Listed endangered
LT - Listed threatened
SC - Species of concern
NL - No listing available
State Legal Status
LE - Listed endangered
PE - Proposed endangered
NL - No listing available
Fed
Common Name Sta
Sensitive Joint-vetch L
Mat-forming Water-hyssop N
Prairie Senna S
Bald Eagle L
Atlantic Heelsplitter S
eral State
tus Status
T PE
L LE
C NL
T LE
C NL
Sources: VDCR, 1992; VDACS, 1993; VDCR, 1996,
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
The VIMS study identified the Sensitive Joint-vetch as having been recorded at three sites
along the Pamunkey River from Sweet Hall Marsh (Pamunkey River mile 12.9) to Whitehouse
(Pamunkey River mile 32.4). The species' historical range is, therefore, at least 19.5 river miles
on the Pamunkey River. The locations of the three recorded 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 Northbury intake site is outside
of the species' historical range on the Pamunkey River and is located in a deep water channel of
the river with no potential habitat documented along either bank in the immediate vicinity.
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 Virginia Register. This proposed
regulatory action would remove Mat-forming Water-hyssop from the Virginia endangered or
threatened species list. As of November 1996, no final regulatory action had been taken (J. R.
Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 19%).
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 (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which is a federally-listed threatened and state-
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 a Bald Eagle in flight approximately 2 river miles downstream of Northbury in May 1990
(Malcolm Pirnie, 1990).
The Prairie Senna (Chamaecristafasciculata var macrospermd) and the Atlantic Heelsplitter
(Lasmigom subvirdis) are two federal species of concern 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
Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle is currently listed as a threatened species on the federal list and an
endangered species on the Virginia list.
The USCOE's Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Water
Supply Study - Hampton Roads, Virginia (USCOE, 1984), identified the Bald Eagle as potentially
being present in the Ware Creek system. The USCOE's FEIS for James City County's Ware
Creek Reservoir project (USCOE, 1987) also stated that Bald Eagles have been sighted in the
3114-017-319 4-31
-------
project area, but no active nests within the project area had been found as of 1983. According to
VDGIF records, the closest Bald Eagle nest as of 1992 is approximately 1 mile north of the project
area (VDGIF, 1992). No critical habitat has been designated by the USFWS for the Bald Eagle
(50CFR17.il).
Small Whorled Pogonia
The Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a member of the orchid family and is
a federally-listed threatened and state-listed endangered species. In the USCOE's 1984 evaluation
of the Ware Creek Reservoir as a component of a regional water supply alternative, the Small
Whorled Pogonia was identified as occurring in James City County, No critical habitat has been
designated by the USFWS for the Small Whorled Pogonia (50 CFR 17.12).
A botanical survey of the Ware Creek watershed for Small Whorled Pogonia in October
1983 did not reveal any individuals of the species (Scanlan, 1983). However, the month of June
is considered to be the most appropriate time 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). Later
in the year, extant specimens may not be found due to factors such as herbivory by deer and other
animals and desiccation through weathering in hot weather months.
Additional limited field studies were conducted in the Ware Creek Reservoir watershed as
part of the National Areas Inventory of the Lower Peninsula of Virginia: Cfty of WUKamsburg,
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 each on August 17, 1989, and July 24, 1990, with two participants on each visit.
Limited areas along Ware Creek and Bird Swamp were inspected. No Small Whorled Pogonia
were found. The field surveyors prepared a site survey summary indicating that more exploration
should be performed farther upstream in the Ware Creek watershed and farther downstream in the
Bird Swamp watershed (D.M.E. Ware, The College of William & Mary, personal communication,
July 1993).
In 1993, the USFWS recommended conducting additional surveys for Small Whorled
Pogonia at the site of the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir, due to the existence of potential habitat
at the reservoir site and the less than ideal timing of the previous study (K. L. Mayne, USFWS,
personal communication, 1993). USFWS' recommended methodology and the methodology
selected for the survey are described in detail in Report E.
Potential habitat for Small Whorled Pogonia within the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir area
was identified in May 1993 by Dr. Donna Ware of The College of William & 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 A Survey of the Ware Creek Watershed for Small
Whorled Pogonia (Scanlan, 1983) to determine which areas were examined during the 1983
survey. Only 7 of the 56 sites identified by Dr. Ware as prime habitat had been examined
previously. Only one of those sites was identified in the 1983 survey as not having the potential
for prime habitat. That 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 six remaining areas
surveyed in 1983 were included in the search area, along with the other 49 potential habitat areas
identified by Dr. Ware.
3114-017-319 4-32
-------
Due to lack of access to the Ware Creek site, field surveys were delayed until May 1994.
During that survey, two specimens of Small Whoried Pogonk were identified within the proposed
Ware Creek Reservoir pool area, which would be flooded by the proposed reservoir project. The
two specimens were found on a southwest facing slope in the remaining ruts of a logging road or
skidder trail. The area appears to have been logged about 10 years ago. The field studies are
documented in Report E.
Sensitive Joint-vetch
In June 1992, the Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) (also known as Northern
Joint-vetch) became a federally listed threatened species. On January 11, 1993, Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) formally proposed to list the
Sensitive Joint-vetch as a state endangered species. As of November 1996, no final regulatory
action had been taken (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1996).
Sensitive Joint-vetch is an annual legume which occurs in high-diversity, slightly brackish
tidal marshes of river shores and river banks in a zone generally dominated by annual species
(Ware, 1991b). It is found in areas with an average salinity of 0.5 ppt (tidal freshwater-oligohaline
transition zone), and it is usually not found in waters with substantially lower or higher salinities
(J. E. Perry, VIMS, personal communication, 1992). No critical habitat has been designated by
the USFWS for the Sensitive Joint-vetch (50 CFR 17.12).
The USFWS has indicated that Sensitive Joint-vetch may exist in tidal wetlands within the
Ware Creek watershed (K. L. Mayne, USFWS, personal communication, 1993). VIMS conducted
a study of the potential occurrence of Sensitive Joint-vetch in the tidal wetlands of Ware Creek.
This study is documented in Investigation of Potential Distribution of Aeschynomene virginica
in the Tidal Wetlands of Ware Creek, Virginia (Perry, 1993c) (Appendix 9 of 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 that support populations of the species were further investigated by walking the
habitat area and inspecting for Sensitive Joint-vetch. While many examples of the species' habitat
were found in Ware Creek, no populations of Sensitive Joint-vetch were discovered in the study
area (Perry, 1993c).
Other species
A 1992 database review by the VDACS indicated that no other state-listed threatened or
endangered plant or insect species are known to occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
dam site and downstream areas. (J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1992). Limited
field studies conducted by Malcolm Pimie field biologists in October 1992 also did not reveal the
presence of any threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the proposed dam site.
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
3114-017-319 4-33
-------
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 nest. Recent review
by the VDGIF has indicated that the pipeline to the reservoir would come within 0.5 miles of this
nest (VDGIF, 1996). 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 (Morone saxatilis)
" 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 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-Horn, 1981). This assessment indicated that a diverse freshwater fish population exists
3114-017-319 4-34
-------
TABLE 4-26
FISH SPECIES OF THE PAMUNKEY RIVER (1949 - 1978)
Page 1 of ;
Scientific Name
Acipenser oxyrhynchus
Alosa aestivalis
Alosa mediocris
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alosa sapidissima
Amia calva
Anguilla rostrata
Aphredoderus sayanus
Brevoortia tyrannus
Centrarchus macropterus
Clinostomus fimduloides
Cyprinus carpio
Dorosoma cepedianum
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Erimyzon oblongus
Esox niger
Etheostoma olmstedi
Fundulus diaphanus
Fundutus heteroclitus
Gambusia affinis
Hybognathus regius
Ictalurus catus
Ictalurus natilis
Common Name
Atlantic Sturgeon
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
iEastern Silvery Minnow
White Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
1949
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1950
1954
•
•
•
•
•
1955
•
•
•
•
1958
1967
•
•
•
•
1969
•
•
•
1971
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1973
•
•
•
•
•
•
1978
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
<-017-319
November 199'
-------
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
Morons saxatilis
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropus amoenus
Notropus analostanus
Notropus hudsonius
Noturus gyrinus
Perca flavescens
Petromyzon marinus
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Semotilus corporalis
Strongylura manna
Trinectes maculatus
Common Name
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Longnose Gar
Redbreast Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Inland Silverside
Largemouth Bass
White Perch
Striped Bass
Shorthead Redhorse
Golden Shiner
Comely Shiner
Satinfin Shiner
Spot tail 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.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-27
TYPICAL INVERTEBRATES OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND ITS
TRIBUTARIES,
TIDAL FRESHWATER ZONE
Scientific Name
Anodonta sp.
Callinectes sapidus
Cambarus diogens
Cordytophora caspia
Ferrissia spp.
Gananarus sp.
Goniobasis virginica
Hydrobia spp.
Lampsitis spp.
Leptodora kindtii
Uroneca ovalis
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.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-28
FISH SPECIES OF WARE CREEK (1980-1993)
Page 1 of 1
Scientific Name
Acantharcus pomotis
Amia calva
Anchoa mtchilli
Anguilla rostrata
Aphredoderus sayanus
Cyprinodon variegatus
Cyprinus carpio
Dorosoma cepedianum
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Erimyzon oblongus
Etheostoma olmstedi
Fundulus diapkanus
Fundulus heteroctitus
Gambusia affinis
Gobiosoma bosci
Ictalurus catus
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalurus nebulosus
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis humilis
Lepomis macrochirus
Leostomus xanthurus
Menidia beryttina
Micropogonias undulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Morone americana
Monroe saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Perca flavescens
Pomatomous saltatrix
Common Name
Mud Sunfish
Bowfm
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-28
FISH SPECIES OF WARE CREEK (1980-1993)
Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Strongylura marina
Umbra pygmaea
Common Name
Black Crappie
Atlantic Needlefish
Eastern Mudminnow
1980
1981
1982
•
1992
•
•
1993
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.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-29
FISH SPECIES OF FRANCE SWAMP (1980 - 1992)
Page 1 of 2
Scientific Name
Acantharcus pomotis
Anchoa mitchilli
Anguilla rostrata
Aphredoderm sayanus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Emeacanthus gloriosus
Erimyzon oblongus
Esox americanus
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma olmstedi
Fundulus diaphanus
Fundulus heteroditm
Gambusia affinis
Ictalurus catus
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalurus nebulosus
Leostomus xanthurus
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Menidia beryllina
Micropogonias undulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Morone americana
Morone saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Perca flavescens
Common Name
Mud Sunfish
Bay Anchory
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Gizzard Shad
Bluespotted Sunfish
Creek Chubsucker
Redfm 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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-29
FISH SPECIES OF FRANCE SWAMP (1980 - 1992)
Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Trinectes maculatw
Umbra pygmaea
Common Name
Black Crappie
Hogchoker
Eastern Mudminnow
1980
1981
1992
•
•
•
Sources: Buchart-Horn, 1981; H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, August 11,
1992; and Dowling, 1993.
• Indicates observation of fish species in particular year.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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 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. 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 5%-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, 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,
3114-017-319 4-35
-------
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 Wonns
Species
Glossophnid spp.
Helobdella elongata
Myzobdella lugubris
Cyathura pottta
Edotea trilpba
Corophium lacustre
Grammarus spp.
Hyalella azteca
Leptochirus plumulosm
Orchestia grillus
Callinectes spp.
Crayfish
Palaemonetes spp.
Sialis spp.
Brachycentrus spp.
Dolophilodes spp.
Hydropsyche spp.
Dugesia spp.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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
Umnodrilus spp,
Lumbricilus spp.
Nais spp.
Peloscolex multiseptosus
Belostoma spp.
Pelocoris spp.
Berosus spp.
Bidessus spp.
Baetisea spp.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-30
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES OF WARE CREEK AND FRANCE SWAMP (1980
- 1981)
Page 3 of 3
Class or Order
Common Name
Species
Odonata
Damselflies &
Dragonflies
Agrion spp.
Archilestes spp.
Dorocordulia spp.
Erythemis spp.
Gomphus spp.
Marcromia spp.
Octogomphus spp.
Perithemus spp.
Plathems spp.
Tetragoneuria spp.
Triacanthagyna spp.
Diptera
(family) Ceratopogonidae
(family) Chironomidae
Trae Flies
Biting Midges
True Midges
(family) Dolichopodidae
(family) Simuliidae
(family) Tipulidae
Dolichopotid Flies
Blackfiles
Craneflies
Palpomyia spp,
Cturonomus spp.
Coelotanypus spp.
Cricotopus spp.
Cryptochironomus spp.
Dicrotendipes spp.
Polypedilum spp.
Prodauidtts spp.
Unknown
Simulium spp.
Tipula spp.
Source: Buchart-Hora, 1981.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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).
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).
3114-017-319 4-36
-------
TABLE 4-31
TYPICAL FRESHWATER INVERTEBRATES OF THE LOWER VIRGINIA
PENINSULA
Scientific Name
Alasmidonta undulata
Anodonta catamcta
Anodonta grandis
Cambarus bartonii
Cambarus diogenes
Cambarus robustus
Elliptic angustata
Elliptic complanata
Elliptic congamea
Elliptic lanceolaia
Fallicambarus uhleri
LAgumia nasuta
Orconectes limosus
Strophitus uadulatus
Common Name
Triangle Floater Mussel
Eastern Floater
Giant Floater Mussel
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Carolina Lance Mussel
Eastern Elliptic
Carolina Slabshell Mussel
Yellow Lance Mussel
Crayfish
Eastern Pond Mussel
Crayfish
Squawroot Mussel
Source: H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, August 11, 1992.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
According to Anderson's methodology and field inspection, 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-Hom, 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 Homed 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 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.
3114-017-319 4-37
-------
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 herodias) 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 Hognose 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).
The USCOE, USFWS, USEPA, VDGIF, and James City County conducted a Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP) analysis for the 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. Upland and wetland habitats within the drainage area were 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 habitat suitability index values (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 4-31 A. The baseline
calculations show that uplands and forested, herbaceous and open water wetlands at the Ware
Creek site provide 20,744 habitat units for the species evaluated.
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
3114-017-319 4-38
-------
TABLE 4-31A
BASELINE CALCULATIONS OF HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES (HSIs) AND
HABITAT UNITS (HUs)
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR
Page 1 of 2
Evaluation Element
HSI
HU
Pileated Woodpecker
Upland mixed pine-hardwood forest
Upland mixed pine-hardwood
forest/low density residential
Upland hardwood forest
Upland hardwood forest/low density
residential
Forested Wetland ^ --
0.35
0
0.64
0
0.79
1369.72
0
3717.38
0
217.80
Gray Squirrel r
Upland mixed pine-hardwood forest
Upland mixed pine-hardwood
forest/low density residential
Upland hardwood forest
Upland hardwood forest/low density
residential
Forested Wetland c-
0.34
0
0.55
0
0.49
1330.59
0
3194.62
0
135.09
Woodcock
Upland mixed pine-hardwood forest
Upland mixed pine-hardwood
forest/low density residential
Upland hardwood forest
Upland hardwood forest/low density
residential
Forested Wetland
Scrub-shrub Wetland
1.0
0
0.98
0
0.32
0.38
3913.5
0
5692.23
0
88.22
27.89
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-31A
BASELINE CALCULATIONS OF HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES (HSIs) AND
HABITAT UNITS (HUs)
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR
Page 2 of 2
Wood Duck (brood habitat)
Forested Wetland ^ r -/ 0
Scrub-shrub Wetland r:3
Herbaceous Wetland ' t -
Beaver
Forested Wetland
Scrub-shrub Wetland
i ~" /"
Herbaceous Wetland
/
Lacustrine Open Water Wetland L o n
0.28
0.71
0.68
0.55
0.95
0.85
0.87
77.20
52.11
134.71
151.64
69.73
168.39
57.86
Yellow Warbler
Scrub-shrub Wetland " • "'••
0.87
63.86
Red-Winged Blackbird
Herbaceous Wetland •
0.26
165.49
Largemouth Bass
Lacustrine Open Water Wetland v.
0.77
51.20
Spot (juvenile)
Estuarine, Open Water
0.97
Total
64.99
20,744.22
Source: Ffflftl Environmental Impact Statement. James Citv County's Water Supplv
Reservoir on Ware Creek CUSCOE. 1987}
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
are included in Alternatives Assessment (Volume H - Environmental Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie,
1993) Section 6,6.1, which is appended to this document.
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 virginica), Pickerel weed (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 (Pofygonum
spp.), 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 rubmm), Black Gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), and ash (Fraxinus sp.). 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 (Platanus occidentalis), Red Maple, Sweet
Gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 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 verticUlatus), and Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)
(Silberhorn and Zacherle, 1987).
3114-017-319 4-39
-------
Reservoir
Wetlands at the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir site have been identified and delineated
using the criteria described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USCOE,
1987). The methodology used to delineate wetlands included a combination of in-house and
routine on-site methods for estimating wetland impacts. Wetland classification, diversity analysis,
and functional assessment studies were also conducted. Detailed descriptions of the methodology
and results of these studies are presented in Report F, Wetland Assessment for Reservoir
Alternatives (Malcolm Pirnie, 1995) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix
to this document; and Wetland Evaluation of Proposed Ware Creek, Black Creek, and King
Wffliam Reservoir Sites (Malcolm Pimie, 1993, Appendix II-l of Report D (Volume H)).
Preliminary wetland acreage estimates were developed from available map sources,
including:
MAP SOURCE
USFWS NWI Maps
SCS Soils Maps
Ware Creek EIS (USCOE) '
USFWS (1985) 2
James City County 3
ACRES OF WETLANDS
507
501
425
583
653
Notes:
1 USCOE, 1987.
2 U.S. Department of the Interior (1985); 539 acres vegetated; add 44 open water to result in 583
acres.
3 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 based on the
Ware Creek Final EIS (USCOE, 1987).
Because review of these individual sources did not result in similar wetland acreage
estimates, a separate wetland identification was performed using aerial photograph interpretation
with field verification. Mapping of the area was conducted 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)
3114-017-319 4-40
-------
• Aerial Photography - 1982 NHAP (Scale 1 inch = 1,250-feet; Date Flown; March,
7, 1982)
• James City County Mapping - Zoning maps adopted 1992 (Wetlands and 2-foot
contours)
" VIMS Tidal Wetland Inventory, 1980
A detailed wetland delineation was conducted in the fall of 1993. The final wetland
determination consisted of detailed field mapping of all the wetlands within the reservoir
impoundment area using the routine on-site inspection methodology from the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (USCOE, 1987). The methodology for the field mapping was
developed and agreed upon by the USCOE, representatives of the RRWSG, and representatives
of James City County. Field investigations were conducted by teams consisting of two or three
wetland professionals with at least one representative of the RRWSG and James City County on
each team.
Field investigations of the Ware Creek Reservoir site and preparation of wetland field maps
were conducted between October 27 and November 10, 1993. The methodology for the field
mapping entailed taking field measurements of wetland dimensions and marking the wetland/upland
border on topographic maps (1 inch = 100 feet). Wetland dimensions were measured with hip
chains or by pacing, and wetland/upland mosaic areas were assigned a wetland percentage based
on transects or visual estimation agreed upon by all team members. Wetland acreage was
calculated by planimetering the final field maps. A total of 590 acres of wetlands were delineated
at the site below 35 feet msl (normal pool elevation).
Wetland types for the Ware Creek Reservoir site were presented in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement - James City County's Water Supply Reservoir on Ware Creek
(USCOE, 1987) and are listed in Table 4-32. A wetland classification map based on the RRWSG's
delineation is included in Report F. This classification was developed by an interagency team with
aerial photograph interpretation and field inspections using the USGS topographic map as a base
(scale 1 inch = 2,000 feet).
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 (Scirpus spp.) 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 (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), 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 cernuus),
blueberries (Vacdnium spp.), sedges (Carex spp.) and various ferns (USCOE, 1987).
Scrub-shrub wetlands at the site are commonly vegetated with Alder, Black Willow,
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus accidentally), and Red Maple and Sweetgum saplings. Typical
understory vegetation includes bur-reeds, cattails, and Rice Cutgrass (USCOE, 1987).
3114-017-319 4-41
-------
TABLE 4-32
WETLAND TYPES FOUND IN THE WARE CREEK RESERVOIR
IMPOUNDMENT AREA
Abbreviation
PFO1A
PFO1C
PFO1E
PFO1F
PF01R
PFOlCb
PFOlEb
PFOlFb
PFOSEb
PFOSFb
PEM1C
PEM1E
PEMlEb
PEMlFb
PSS1C
PSS1E
PSS1R
PSSlEb
PSS1F
POWHh
POWZh
LlOWHh
E10WL
E2EM1P
PFO1/EM1C
PFOl/EMlEb
PFOl/SSlEb
PFOS/lFb
PFO5/EMlEb
PFO5/EMlFb
PFO5/EM1R
PFO5/SSlFb
PFO5/OWFb
PEMl/FO5Fb
PEM1/SS1C
PEM1/SS1E
PEMl/SSlEb
PEMl/OWFb
PSSI/EMlEb
PSSl/EMlFb
PSSI/EM1R
PSSI/OWFb
E2EM1/2P
Description
Palustine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
Palustine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
Palustine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonlly saturated
Palustine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded
Palustine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonlly tidal
Palustine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, beaver
Palustine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonlly saturated, beaver
Palustine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustine, forested, dead, seasonlly saturated, beaver
Palustine, forested, dead, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonlly saturated
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonlly saturated, beaver
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally saturated
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally tidal
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally saturated, beaver
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, open water, permanently flooded, impounded
Palustrine, open water, intermittently exposed, impounded
Lacustrine, limnetic, open water, permanent, impounded
Estuarine, subtidal, open water, subtidal
Estuarine, intertidal, emergent, persistent, irregularly tidal
These remaining wetland types depict situations in which two distinct subsystems or
classes occur within a single
ecological system. For instance, PFO1/EM1C refers to a wetland in tthe palustrine
ecological system, which is dominated by broad-leaved deciduous trees and has a
subdominant, but not insignificant, wetland class comprised of persistent emergent
vegetation. The water regime for the wetland in this case is seasonlly flooded.
In all of these cases the dominant subsystem or class is shown first,and the
subdominant one is shown following a slash (/)•
Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement - James City County's Proposed Dam and Water Supply
Reservoir on Ware Creek (USCOE, 1987).
Note: Nomenclature and abbreviations used are from Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
in the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979).
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
The Ware Creek FEIS does not include wetland acreage for each of the detailed wetland
types1, but it does present a breakdown of wetland acreage by wetland class. Using this
breakdown, a Brillouin Index was calculated to describe the wetland diversity within the Ware
Creek Reservoir impoundment area. The wetland diversity was then compared to wetland
diversity at the Black Creek and King William Reservoir sites. The Brillouin Index traditionally
is used to measure species diversity, including species richness (the number of species) and species
evenness (the relative abundance of individuals among the species) (Murdoch et al., 1972). By
substituting wetland types for species and acres for individuals, the Brillouin Index can also be used
to measure landscape diversity. The Brillouin Index calculates a relationship between the total
number of wetland acres in the project area and the number of acres in each wetland cover type.
When wetland acres for an examined area are distributed among many wetland classes, diversity
is high. However, when a large percentage of wetland acres are concentrated in few wetland
classes, diversity is low. The Brillouin Index was selected from the many diversity indexes
because it is designed for situations where data has been collected for the entire area in question.
Table 4-32A presents the wetland acreage included in the Ware Creek FEIS by wetland class and
the calculated Brillouin Index. A full description of the wetland diversity analysis is included in
Report F.
In April 1993, a wetland evaluation was completed for tidal and non-tidal wetlands within
the area of the proposed Ware Creek Reservoir impoundment. The USCOE's Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET) was utilized to assess the functions and values of the wetlands at Ware Creek
(Adamus et al., 1987; Adamus et al., 1991). WET is a broad brush approach to wetland
evaluation, based on information about predictors of wetland functions that can be gathered
quickly. WET estimates the probability that particular functions would occur in a wetland area and
provides insight into the importance of these functions. A detailed discussion of the methodology
and results of this analysis is contained in Appendix II-1 of Report D, Volume II.
Separate evaluations were prepared for estuarine and palustrine systems within the
impoundment area, using the wetland classifications provided in the Ware Creek Reservoir FEIS.
For the purposes of this analysis, the site of the proposed impoundment was considered the
assessment area (AA) and the impact area (IA). Therefore, this WET analysis provides an
assessment of the palustrine and estuarine wetland complexes as a whole. Because the palustrine
system consists of many different types of wetlands, the evaluation of any particular wetland site
could be different from the overall results achieved in this analysis.
Tables 4-33 and 4-34 summarize the results of the WET analysis for the Ware Creek
Reservoir palustrine:and estuarine wetlands. According to this analysis, the palustrine system has
a high probability of being effective in providing floodflow alteration, sediment stabilization,
sediment/toxicant retention, and wildlife habitat. It has a moderate probability of providing
production export functions, and a low probability of being effective in providing groundwater
recharge, groundwater discharge, nutrient removal/transformation, and aquatic
diversity/abundance.
On the whole, the estuarine wetland complex is rated lower than the palustrine system. The
estuarine wetland complex within the impoundment area received high scores only for sediment
stabilization and wildlife wintering habitat. It received moderate scores for nutrient
removal/transformation, productivity export, wildlife breeding habitat, and aquatic diversity.
1 "Detailed wetland types" refers to the wetland classification using the full Cowardin et al.
classification including hydrologic modifiers.
3114-017-319 4-42
-------
TABLE 4-32A
NWI WETLAND DIVERSITY ANALYSIS
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR IMPOUNDMENT AREA
Wetland Class*
Palustrine Emergent
Palustrine Scrub/Shrab-Emergent
Palustrine Forested
Open Water**
Estuarine Water
Total
Diversity Index
Brillouin Index
Acres
181
49
152
40
3
425
1.75
**
Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement, James City County's Water
Supply Reservoir on Ware Creek (USCOE, 1987).
Open Water includes both palustrine and lacustrine open water.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
According to the results of this analysis, the estuarine wetland complex at Ware Creek Reservoir
has a low probability of being effective in providing five functions: groundwater recharge,
groundwater discharge, floodflow alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, and wildlife migration
habitat.
The results of the WET analysis for the estuarine wetlands seem to conflict with existing
field data and appear likely to underestimate the value of the wetlands. These wetlands are located
in an oligohaline/tidal freshwater transition zone and provide many more ecosystem functions and
benefits to fish and wildlife than oligohaline, mesohaline, or haline marshes. However, the WET
program does not distinguish between the near-freshwater, oligohaline, mesohaline and haline
classes of wetlands. Therefore, the near-freshwater 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 conducted a Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP) analysis for the Ware Creek Reservoir project as proposed by James
City County. Forested wetland, scrub-shrub wetland, herbaceous wetland, lacustrine openjvater,
and estuarine open water were among the cover types analyzed for the study. Results,of the stMy;
are summarized in Table 4-31 A. The baseline calculations show that forested and herbaceous
wetlands at the Ware Creek site provide moderate habitat values for the wetland indicator-species
evaluated.
There are approximately 480 acres of tidal wetlands along Ware Creek and its side channels
downstream of the Ware Creek Reservoir dam site, according to the VIMS Tidal Marsh
Inventories for James City County (Moore, 1980) and New Kent County (Doumlele, 1979) and
the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map. Using the species indicators for salinity regimes
included in the Ware Creek Reservoir Release Study (Hershner and Perry, 1987), the approximate
acreage of tidal freshwater, oligohaline and mesohaline communities can be identified as follows:
TIDAL WETLANDS DOWNSTREAM OF WARE CREEK RESERVOIR
Tidal Freshwater Wetlands
Oligohaline Wetlands
Mesohaline Wetlands
Total Wetlands
66 acres
99 acres
260 acres
480 acres
3114-017-319
4-43
-------
Pipeline
There are approximately 21 stream/wetland area crossings along the 26.3 miles of new
pipeline. The majority of affected stream/wetland areas 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.
4.3.2 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.
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, no known federal endangered or threatened
species were found in the project area (USCOE, 1984).
Bald Eagle. The results of the 1994 and 1996 VDGIF aerial Bald Eagle surveys confirmed
that while the Bald Eagle is known to exist in New Kent County, no active nests or concentration
areas are located within several miles of the impoundment (D. Bradshaw, VDGIF, personal
communication, 1994; VDGIF, 1996). No critical habitat has been designated for the Bald Eagle
by USFWS (50 CFR 17.11).
Small Whorled Pogonia. The Small Whorled Pogonia is a member of the orchid family and
is a federally-listed threatened and state-listed endangered species. The USFWS has indicated that
a historic record for Small Whorled Pogonia is known for New Kent County and that appropriate
habitat for this species may exist at the Black Creek Reservoir sites (K.L. Mayne, USFWS,
personal communication, 1993). 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. USFWS' recommended methodology and the methodology selected for
the survey are described in detail in Report E. No critical habitat has been designated by the
USFWS for the Small Whorled Pogonia (50 CFR 17.12).
3114-017-319 4-44
-------
Potential habitat for Small Whorled Pogonia within the proposed Black Creek Reservoir was
identified in May 1993 by Dr. Donna Ware of The College of William & 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 Pimie biologists and Small Whorled Pogonia experts conducted field surveys of
the areas of potential habitat located within the proposed reservoir sites, in early July 1993 and
again in early August 1994. No specimens of Small Whorled Pogonia were found within suitable
habitat in the project area. The field studies are documented in Report E.
Sensitive Joint-vetch. Because there are no tidal wetlands within the Black Creek Reservoir
area, there is no suitable habitat present to support this species and no search was undertaken.
Other species. A 1992 VDGIF review of the proposed reservoir site identified two other
species of concern in the project vicinity: Mabee's Salamander (Ambystoma mabeei) and the
Northern Diamondback Terrapin (Malademys terrapin) (VDGIF, 1992). 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). No individuals of this species have been found in the
project area.
The VDACS indicated that no other state-listed threatened or endangered plant or insect
species are known to occur in the immediate area of the proposed Black Creek Reservoirs (J.R.
Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1992).
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.
VDGIF review of the pipeline route from the proposed intake site at Northbury to Black
Creek Reservoir has identified an active Bald Eagle nest located within 0.5 miles of the proposed
pipeline (VDGIF, 1996). 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.
3114-017-319 4-45
-------
Reservoir
Both VDGIF and Malcolm Pirnie have conducted numerous fish surveys within the pool
area and downstream reaches of the Black Creek Reservoir sites. VDGIF conducted surveys in
1983 and 1993, and Malcolm Pirnie conducted surveys in 1990, 1992, and 1994-1995. The
combined results of those surveys are presented in Table 4-38A. The table was revised based on
review by Dr. Robert Jenkins of Roanoke College (Jenkins, 1996). Species that are not likely to
persist in Black Creek under normal conditions were eliminated from the table: A detailed
discussion of the methodology and results of the surveys is presented in Report H, Fish Survey for
Areas Affected by Proposed King William Reservoir and Black Creek Reservoir Impoundments
(Malcolm Pimie, 1995) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this
document.
The fish survey results indicate that no listed or candidate threatened or endangered fish
species inhabit Black Creek. However, the Least Brook Lamprey (Lamptern aepyptera), which
was found in the non-tidal portion of Black Creek, apparently has declined in Virginia and is
considered threatened in North Carolina (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).
VDGIF has identified herring species as a primary focus of its concerns, due to the
currently depressed condition of regional herring populations. Historical accounts indicate that
"Tivef "herring and shad have used the tidal and non-tidal portions of Black Creek for spawning
habitat in the past. In its report on nsJ993 Black Creek survey, VDGIF noted that it "would
expect herring to [be] found in this creek if further collections had been made later in April"
(VDGIF, 1993) (Appendix 4 of Report H).
_^X"~\
A single female Blueback Herring containing eggs was collected in thenidal portion of Black
Creek during one of the 1994-1995 Malcolm Pirnie fish surveys. Its presence-indicates that river
herring still utilize Black Creek for spawning but the extent of their activity in the non-tidal
portions of Black Creek is unknown. In the non-tidal portions of Black Creek, numerous
beaverdams exist which can have an additive impact on fish passage in that fewer and fewer fish
are able to traverse each successive dam (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).
White Perch (Morone americana), which are considered semi-anadromous (Jenkins and
Burkhead, 1993), also have been found in the tidal portions of Black Creek. Like fully
anadromous fish, White Perch move upstream to spawn in the spring; but instead of returning to
the sea, they remain in mid-estuary zones.
Pipeline
Construction of the 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).
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).
3114-017-319 4-46
-------
Table 4-38A
Combined Fish Survey Results
Black Creek Watershed
Page 1 of 2
Location
Non-Tidal
Waters
Species
Scientific Name
Ameiurus nebulosus
AnguUla rostrala
Aphredoderus sayanus
Clinoilomus funduloides
Enneacanthus glorioius
Enmyzon oblongus
Esox americama
Esox aiger
Etheostoma otmsiedi
Gambusia holbrooki
Hybognathia regim
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis gulostis
Lepomis macrochirm
Microplerus dolomieui
Microptenu salmoides
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Nolropu amoema
Noturus gyrinus
Rhimchthys alratulia
Semotilus corporal is
Semotiltu atromaculatvs
Umbra pygmaea
Common Name
Brown Bullhead
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Rosyside Dace
Bluesponed Sunflsh
Creek Chubsucker
Redfln Pickerel**
Chained Pickerel
Tessellated Darter
Eastern Mosquiiofish
Eastern Silvery Minnow
Least Brook Lamprey
Redbreast Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Warmouth
Bluegill Sunfish
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Bluehead Chub
Golden Shiner
Comely Shiner
Tadpole Madtom
Blacknose Dace
Fallfish
Creek Chub
Eastern Mudminnow
VDGIF
1983*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MPI
1990
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MPI
1992
X
x-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VDGIF
1993
MPI
1994-95
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total Number of Species 26
* - Sampling locations within Black Creek watershed were not specified in VDGIF records Species assemblage
.indicates that sampling was conducted primarily in non-tidal waters.
•* - Listed as Grass Pickerel in Draft EIS.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
Table 4-38A
Combined Fish Survey Results
Black Creek Watershed
(Continued)
Page 2 of2
Location
Tidal
Waters
Species
Scientific Name
Alosa aestrvalis
Ameiurus naialis
Anguilla rostrata
Aphredoderus sayanus
Dorosoma cepediamm
Emeacanthuj glorioaa
Erimyzon oblongus
Etheosloma olmstedi
Fundulus diaphanus
Fundulus hettroclilm
Gambttsia holbrooki
Ictaluhdae
Lepisosleus osseus
Lepomis aurilus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis mocrochina
Micro/Menu lalmoides
Morane americana
Percaflavescens
Trinecles maculatus
Common Name
Blueback Herring
Yellow Bullhead
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Gizzard Shad
Blucspotted Sunfish
Creek Chubsucker
Tessellated Darter
Banded Killifish
Mummichog
Eastern Mosquitofish
Catfish
Longnose Gar
Redbreast Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
White Perch
Yellow Perch
Hogchocker
VDGIF
1983*
MPI
1990
MPI
1992
VDGIF
1993
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MPI
1994-95
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total Number of Species 20
Tola! Number of Species for Watershed 36
* - Sampling locations within Black Creek watershed were not specified in VDGIF records. Species assemblage
indicates that sampling was conducted primarily in non-tidal waters.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39
FISH SPECIES OF THE FRESHWATER TRIBUTARIES
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Page 1 of 4
Scientific Name
Family Acipenseridae
Acipenser 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
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39
FISH SPECIES OF THE FRESHWATER TRIBUTARIES
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Page 2 of 4
Scientific Name
Family Chipeidae
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 keteroclitus
Fundulus majalis
Lucania parva
Family Engraulidae
Anchoa mitcMlti
Common Name
Herrings
Blueback Herring
Hickory Shad
Alewife
American Shad
Atlantic Menhaden
Gizzard Shad
Threadfin Shad.
Minnows and Carps
Goldfish
Silvery Minnow
Golden Shiner
Satinftn Shiner
Spottail Shiner
KHlifishes
Sheepshead Minnow
Banded Killifish
Munnichog
Stripped Killifish
Rainwater Killifish
Anchovies
Bay Anchovy
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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 cams
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Family Lepisosteidae
Lepisosteus osseus
Family Percichthyidae
Morone americana
Morone saxatilis
Family Percidae
Etheostoma olmstedi
Perca flavescens
Family Poeciliidae
Gambusia afflnis
Family Sciaenidae
Leiostomus xanthurus
MicropoRonias 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
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
Other Wildlife
Intake
Existing conditions at the proposed Pamunkey River intake site are described in Section
4.3.1.
Reservoir
To compile a list of typical wildlife species expected at the reservoir sites, Malcolm Pirnie
scientists conducted the biological analyses using a combination of classification of vegetative
community types, examination of existing wildlife references, and on-site field inspections.
Existing community types ware classified as prescribed by Anderson et al. (1976) based on
reviews of false color-infrared aerial photography of the proposed project sites. According to this
analysis, the vegetation community types in the reservoir drainage area, including the pool area,
were estimated to comprise 320 acres of coniferous forest; 77 acres of deciduous forest; and 2,375
acre&^mixed coniferous/ deciduous forest2; 458 acres of agricultural, residential, and open field;
andfz&JJacres of wetlands (including forested wetlands), and open water. The remaining area
consists of roads, which have limited wildlife habitat value.
Vegetation communities in the reservoir pool area were estimated to be 15 acres of
coniferous forest; 34 acres of deciduous forest; 497 acres of mixed coniferous/deciduous forest;
79 acres of agricultural, residential, and open field communities; and 285 acres of wetlands and
open water.
A list of wildlife species from the Biota of Virginia database (BOVA) was obtained from
VDGIF. The list included wildlife species known to occur in riparian habitats along the
Chickahominy, Pamunkey, and Mattaponi Rivers and Ware Creek, Black Creek, and Diascund
Creek (VDGIF, 1992). Additional published wildlife references were also reviewed to identify
wildlife species typical for each identified community type.
Malcolm Pirnie biologists also conducted field studies at the Black Creek Reservoir site
during May and June of 1990. Those field studies were based on the single-dam Black Creek
Reservoir site being evaluated by the RRWSG at that time; but the biological analysis addresses
the entire Black Creek watershed, so the findings regarding current (baseline) conditions should
not be affected. Wildlife species typical of each community type are listed in Tables 4-39A
through 4-39G.
VDGIF's records for the area downstream of the proposed impoundment identified several
heron rookeries located along the Pamunkey River, approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the
mouth of Black Creek (H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992). The Great Blue
Heron is ranked by the State as rare to uncommon and is considered a species of special concern
by the USFWS. Therefore, it is federally protected from "takings" as defined in the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712.
2 Mixed coniferous/deciduous forest is defined as an area where both evergreen and
deciduous trees are growing and neither predominates.
3114-017-319 4-47
-------
TABLE 4-39A
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE MIXED FOREST COMMUNITY
Page 1 of 2
Scientific Name
Amphibians
Bufo americanus
Bufo woodhousei fowleri
Pleihodon glutinosus
Common Name
American Toad
Fowlers Toad
Slimy Salamander
Reptiles
Agkistrodon contortrix
Carphophis amoenus
Diadophis punctatus
Terrapene Carolina
Virginia valeriae
Copperhead
Worm Snake
Ringneck Snake
Eastern Box Turtle
Smooth Earth Snake
Birds
Accipiter striatus
Buteo ttneatus
Buteo platypterus
Carduelis pinus
Catharus guttatus
Contopus virens -.
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Cyanodtta cristata
Dendroica coronata
Dryocopus pileatus
Junco hyemalis
Melanerpes carolinus
Pants atricapillus
Pants biocolor
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad Winged Hawk
Pine Siskin
Hermit Thrush
Eastern Pewee
American Crow
Blue Jay
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Pileated Woodpecker
Northern Junco
Red-bellied Sapsucker
Black-capped Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39A
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE MIXED FOREST COMMUNITY
Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Pants carolinensis
Picoides pubescens
Picoides villosus
Sphyrapicus varius
Troglodytes aedon
Vireo gilvus
Zenaida macroum
Zonotrichia albicollis
Common Name
Carolina Chickadee
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
House Wren
Warbling Vireo
Mourning Dove
White-throated Sparrow
Mammals
Didelphis virginiana
Glaucomys volans
Odocoileus virginianus
Peromyscus mam.cu.kaus
Sciurus carolinensis
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Virginia Opossum
Southern Flying Squirrel
White-Tailed Deer
Deer Mouse
Gray Squirrel
Gray Fox
Sources: Martof et al., 1980; Peterson, 1980; Webster et al., 1985.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39B
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
DECIDUOUS FOREST AND COVE HARDWOOD COMMUNITY
Page 1 of 2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Amphibians
Ambystoma maculatum
Ambystoma opacum
Bufo americanus
Bufo woodhousei fowleri
Eurycea bislineata cirrigera
Plethodon glutinosus
Spotted Salamander
Marbled Salamander
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Southern Two-lined Salamander
Slimy Salamander
Reptiles
Agkistrodon contortrix mokason
Carphophis amoenus
Diadophis punctatus
Elaphe obsoleta
Eumeces fasciatus
Lampropeltis calligaster
Opheodrys aestivus
Storeria dekayi
Storeria occipitomaculata
Terrapene Carolina
Virginia Valerias
Copperhead
Worm Snake
Ringneck Snake
Rat Snake
Five-lined Skink
Mole Kingsnake
Rough Green Snake
Northern Brown Snake
Redbelly Snake
Eastern Box Turtle
Smooth Earth Snake
Birds
Accipiter striatus
Buteo lineatus
Buteo platypterus
Coccyzus americanus
Contopus virens
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Cyanocitta cristata
Dryocopus pileatus
Empidonax virescens
Hylocichla mustelina
Melanerpes carolinus
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Eastern Pewee
American Crow
Blue Jay
Pileated Woodpecker
Acadian Flycatcher
Wood Thrush
Red-bellied Sapsucker
3114*017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 4-39B
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
DECIDUOUS FOREST AND COVE HARDWOOD COMMUNITY
Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Pants atricapillus
Parus bicolor
Parus carolinensis
Picoides pubescens
Picoides villosus
Polioptila caerulea
Seiurus aurocapillus
Setophaga ruticilla
Sphyrapicus varius
Troglodytes aedon
Vireo flavifrons
Vireo gilvus
Zenaida macroura
Common Name
Black-capped Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
Carolina Chickadee
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Ovenbird
American Redstart
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
House Wren
Yellow-throated Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Mourning Dove
Mammals
Blarina brevicauda
Didelphis virginiana
Glaucomys volans
Peromyscus leucopus
Peromyscus maniculatus
Seiurus carolinensis
Sorex hoyi
Tamias striatus
Northern Short-tailed Shrew
Virginia Opossum
Southern Flying Squirrel
White-footed Mouse
Deer Mouse
Gray Squirrel
Pygmy Shrew
Eastern Chipmunk
Sources: Martof et al, 1980; Peterson, 1980; Webster et al., 1985,
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 4-39C
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE PINE PLANTATION AND
CONIFEROUS FOREST COMMUNITY
Page 1 of 3
Scientific Name
Amphibians
Bufo americanus
Bufo woodhousei
Hyla crudfer
Plethodon glutinosus
Common Name
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Spring Peeper
Slimy Salamander
Reptiles
Agkistrodon contortrix
Carphophis amoenus
Diadophis punctatus
Sceloporm unduUttus
Scincella latemlis
Storeria occipitomaculata
Terrapene Carolina
Virginia Valerias
Copperhead
Worm Snake
Ringneck Snake
Eastern Fence Lizard
Ground Skink
Redbelly Snake
Eastern Box Turtle
Smooth Earth Snake
BWs
Accipiter striatus •.
Aimophila aestivatis
Asia otus
Bubo virginianus
Buteo lineatus
Cardinalis cardinalis
Carduelis pinus
Catharus guttatus
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Bachman's Sparrow
Long-eared Owl
Great Homed Owl
Red-shouldered Hawk
Northern Cardinal
Pine Siskin
Hermit Thrush
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39C
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE PINE PLANTATION AND
CONIFEROUS FOREST COMMUNITY
Page 2 of 3
Scientific Name
Certha familiaris
Cnordeiles minor
Coccyzus americanus
Contopus virens
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Cyanocitta cristata
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica dominica
Dendroica pinus
Dryocopus pileatus
Otus asio
Picoides villosus
Polioptila caerulea
Regulus calendula
Regulus satrapa
Sitta carolinensis ..
Sphyrapicus varius
Spizella passerina
Strix varia
Troglodytes aedon
Troglodytes troglodytes
Common Name
Brown Creeper
Common Nighthawk
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Eastern Pewee
American Crow
Bluejay
Yellow-ramped Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler
Pine Warbler
Pileated Woodpecker
Common Screechowl
Hairy Woodpecker
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Golden-crowned Kinglet
White-breasted Nuthatch
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Chipping Sparrow
Barred Owl
House Wren
Winter Wren
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39C
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE PINE PLANTATION AND
CONIFEROUS FOREST COMMUNITY
Page 3 of 3
Scientific Name
Tyto alba
Zenaida macroura
Zonotrichia albicollis
Common Name
Barn Owl
Mourning Dove
White-throated Sparrow
/Mammals' ' -•.;-•-.• •----•.. ,.-.-.. ^ - .. -.
Didelphis virginiana
Lasiurus cinereus
Peromyscus maniculatus
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Virginia Opossum
Hoary Bat
Deer Mouse
Gray Fox
Sources: Martof et al., 1980; Peterson, 1980; Webster et al., 1985.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-3SH)
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE OPEN FIELD/
AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY
Page 1 of 1
Scientific Name
Amphibians
Biffo americanus
Bufo woodhousei
Common Name
American Toad
Fowlers Toad
Reptiles
Coluber constrictor
Elaphe obsoleta
Ophisaurus attenuatus
Sceloporus undulatus
ThamnopMs sirtalis
Black Racer
Black Rat Snake
Slender Glass Lizard
Eastern Fence Lizard
Eastern Garter Snake
Birds
Carduelis tristis
Carpodacus mexicanus
Circus cyaneus
Columba livia
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Falco sparverius
Hirundo rustica
Mimas pofyglottos
Molothrus ater
Otus asio
Passer domes ticus :
Progne subis
Sialia stalls
Spizella passerina
Spizella pusilla
American Goldfinch
House Finch
Northern Harrier
Rock Dove
American Crow
American Kestrel
Barn Swallow
Northern Mockingbird
Brown-headed Cowbird
Common Screechowl
House Sparrow
Purple Martin
Eastern Bluebird
Chipping Sparrow
Field Sparrow
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39D
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE OPEN FIELD/
AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY
Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Stumella magna
Stumus vulgaris
Turdus mgratorius
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tytoalba
Zenaida macroura
Mammals
Condylura cristata
Cryptotis parva
Didelphis virginiana
Marmota monax
Mephitis mephitis
Microtus pennsylvamcus
Microtus pinetorum
Must e la frenata
Odocoileus virginianus
Peromyscus leucopus
Procyon lotor
Reithrodontomys humulis
Scalopus aquaticus
Sorex long irostris
Sylvilagus floridanus
Vulpes vulpes
Zapus hudsonius
Common Name
Eastern Meadowlark
European Starling
American Robin
Eastern Kingbird
Barn Owl
Mourning Dove
Star-nosed Mole
Least Shrew
Virginia Opossum
Woodchuck
Striped Skunk
Meadow Vole
Woodland Vole
Long-tailed Weasel
White-tailed Deer
White-footed Mouse
Raccoon
Eastern Harvest Mouse
Eastern Mole
Southeastern Shrew
Eastern Cottontail
Red Fox
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Sources: Martof et al., 1980; Peterson, 1980; Webster et al., 1985.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39E
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
PALUSTRINE FORESTED BROAD-LEAVED DECIDUOUS COMMUNITY
Pagel of 2
Scientific Name
Amphibians
Ambystoma maculatum
Ambystoma opacum
Bufo americanus
Bufo woodhousei
Desmognathus fascus
Eurycea bislineata
Eurycea guttolineata
Hyla chrysoscelis
Hyla crucifer
Notophthalmus viridescens
Plethodon dnereus
Plethodon glutinosus
Pseudotriton montanus
Pseudotriton ruber
Rana palustris
Rana sphenocephala
Common Name
Spotted Salamander
Marbled Salamander
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Northern Dusky Salamander
Two-lined Salamander
Three-lined Salamander
Green Frog
Spring Peeper
Eastern Newt
Red-backed Salamander
Slimy Salamander
Mud Salamander
Red Salamander
Pickerel Frog
Southern Leopard Frog
Reptiles
Agkistrodon pisdvorus
Carphophis amoenus
Diadophis punctatus
Elaphe obsoleta
Eumeces fasciatus
Nerodia erythrogaster
Sdncella lateralis
Terrapene Carolina
Thamnophis sirtalis
Cottonmouth
Worm Snake
Ringneck Snake
Rat Snake
Five-lined Skink
Redbelly Water Snake
Ground Skink
Eastern Box Turtle
Eastern Garter Snake
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39E
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
PALUSTRINE FORESTED BROAD-LEAVED DECIDUOUS COMMUNITY
Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Birds;- ••••.:. • -•
Aix sponsa
Anas platyrhynchos
Euphagus carolinus
Geothfypis trichas
Meleagris gallopavo
Seiurus motacilla
Strix varia
Common Name
Wood Duck
Mallard
Rusty Blackbird
Common Yellowthroat
Wild Turkey
Louisiana Waterthrush
Barred Owl
Manunals
Didelphis virginiana
Mustela vison
Odocoileus virginianus
Peromyscus leucopus
Procyon lotor
Sorex longirostris
Ursus americanm
Virginia Opossum
Mink
White-tailed Deer
White-footed Mouse
Raccoon
Southeastern Shrew
Black Bear
Sources: Martof et al., 1980; Peterson, 1980; Webster et al., 1985.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39F
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE SCRUB-SHRUB COMMUNITY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Amphibians
Bufo americanus
Bufo woodhousei
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Reptiles
Sceloporus undulatus
Eastern Fence Lizard
Birds
Accipiter striatus
Cardinally cardinalis
Columba livia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica discolor
Dendroica petechia
Dumetella carolinensis
Oporornis formosus
Thryothorus ludovidanus
Vireo griseus
Zenaida macrourd
Zonotrichia albicollis
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Northern Cardinal
Rock Dove
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Gray Catbird
Kentucky Warbler
Carolina Wren
White-eyed Vireo
Mourning Dove
White-throated Sparrow
M animals
Didelphis virginiana
Odocoileus virginianus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Virginia Opossum
White-tailed Deer
Eastern Cottontail
Sources: Martof et al., 1980; Peterson, 1980; Webster et al., 1985.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39G
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
EMERGENT/OPEN WATER COMMUNITY
Page! of 2
Scientific Name
Amphibians ':-;-;" "';•'.:" ..-••. '--:': -''- - •'
Acris crepitans
Ambystoma maculatum
Ambystoma opacum
Amphiuma means
Bufo americanus
Bufo woodhousei
Hyla cinerea
Hyla crucifer
Notophthalmus viridescens
Rana clamitans
Rana sphenocephala
Common Name
Northern Cricket Frog
Spotted Salamander
Marbled Salamander
Two-toed Amphiuma
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Green Treefrog
Spring Peeper
Eastern Newt
Green Frog
Southern Leopard Frog
Reptiles
Clemmys guttata
Kinostemon subrubrum
Sternotherus odoretus
Terrapene Carolina
Spotted Turtle
Eastern Mud Turtle
Eastern Musk Turtle
Eastern Box Turtle
'Birds " ' ' ' " "' " />vv •-•:•• v-v.--'- - : ' •'
Aix sponsa
Anas acutta
Anas platyrhyncnos
Anas rubripes
Ardea herodias
Branta canadensis
Circus cyaneus
Melospiza georgiana
Wood Duck
Common Pintail
Mallard
American Black Duck
Great Blue Heron
Canada Goose
Northern Harrier
Swamp Sparrow
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-39G
TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
EMERGENT/OPEN WATER COMMUNITY
Page 2 of 2
Scientific Name
Mammals
Castor canadenis
Didelphis virginiana
Odocoileus virginianus
Oryzomys palustris
Procyon lotor
Zapus hudsonius
Common Name
Beaver
Virginia Opossum
White-tailed Deer
Marsh Rice Rat
Raccoon
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Sources: Martof et al., 1980; Peterson, 1980; Webster et al., 1985.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
In 1983, the USCOE and the USFWS conducted a HEP analysis (USFWS, 1983) to
determine the value of the habitat proposed for impoundment with the single dam Black Creek
Reservoir configuration evaluated in the Norfolk District USCOE's Water Supply Study, Hampton
Roads, Virginia (USCOE, 1984). The value of the habitat was determined by measuring
vegetative components for selected species and determining the appropriate habitat suitability index
from species models to obtain habitat units (HU) for the evaluated species. Based on the twelve
species analyzed, it was determined that there is a total of 13,439 HU available in the project site
watershed. Results of the Black Creek HEP study are presented in Table 4-39H.
Pipeline
Assuming a right-of-way width of 50 feet, the new pipeline would disturb approximately
119 acres of land (excluding the Little Creek Reservoir crossing). Existing vegetation communiry
types along the proposed pipeline route were identified through reviews of USGS topographic
maps and color-infrared aerial photography.
One of the criteria used in siting the pipeline route was to utilize existing maintained
rights-of-way, such as roads and power lines, and to avoid forested or wetland areas when feasible.
Based on USGS topographic maps, of the total 19.6 miles of new pipeline required for the Black
Creek Reservoir project, approximately 8.4 miles (43 percent) would be along or within existing
rights-of-way, approximately 7.6 miles (39 percent) of the pipeline routes would be located in
forest or wetland areas, and 3.6 miles (18 percent) would cross agricultural fields. Wildlife
species typical of these community types are listed in Tables 4-39A through 4-39G. Of the 8.4
miles of pipeline within existing rights-of-way, approximately 4.3 miles of new pipeline between
Diaseund Reservoir and Little Creek Reservoir would be laid and maintained within an existing
raw water pipeline right-of-way through James City County. Because rights-of-way are
periodically mowed, vegetation is typical of early stages of succession or old field communities.
An additional 4.1 miles of the Black Creek Reservoir pipeline route would follow existing road or
utility corridors, thereby minimizing forest fragmentation.
Approximately 3,600 linear feet of pipeline between the two Black Creek Reservoir
impoundments would be directionally drilled, avoiding any impacts to surface vegetation or
wildlife habitat.
Sanctuaries and Refuges
No existing designated sanctuaries or refuges are located within the vicinity of the proposed
intake at Northbury, the Black Creek Reservoir watershed, or pipeline routes for this alternative
(VDCR, 1989; Delorme Mapping Company, 1989; RRPDC, 1991; JCC, 1991).
Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
Intake
A description of the wetlands located adjacent to and downstream of the Northbury site is
included to Section 4.3.1.
Reservoir
Wetlands at the proposed Black Creek Reservoir site have been identified and delineated
using the criteria described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USCOE,
1987). The methodology used to delineate wetlands included a combination of in-house and
3114-017-319 4-48
-------
TABLE 4-39H
BASELINE CALCULATIONS OF HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES (HSLs)
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
Bullfrog
Total
HSI
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.20
LOO
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 Studv fUSFWS.
1983)
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
routine on-site methods for estimating wetland impacts. Wetland classification, diversity analysis,
and functional assessment studies were also conducted. Detailed descriptions of the methodology
and results of these studies are presented in Report F and in Appendix II-1 of Report D (Volume
II).
Available information from existing map sources was first compiled to identity 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
ACRES OF WETLANDS
158
246
Because these sources did not agree on wetland acreage, color-infrared aerial photographs
were obtained. Detailed wetland mapping of the proposed reservoir area was conducted by
compiling the following 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 -1984 NHAP (Scale 1 inch = 1,300 feet; Date flown: 4/24/84)
• Aerial Photography -1989 NAPP (Scale 1 inch = 830 feet; Date flown: 3/11/89)
A preliminary wetland map was developed using the 1989 NAPP 1 inch = 830 feet aerial
photographs as a base, and overlaying the USGS topographic map adjusted to the same scale. The
1989 photographs were used for Black Creek because the poor quality of the 1984 photographs
made vegetation types difficult to discern. Once interpretation of the aerial photography was
complete, field studies were initiated to correct the map based on actual field conditions.
The entire wetland boundary was inspected and the wetland line was adjusted in several
places. This analysis estimated mat 285 acres of wetlands would be impacted at the Black Creek
Reservoir below the 100-foot msl elevation.
Final detailed field mapping of all the wetlands within the reservoir impoundment areas was
planned using the routine on-site inspection methodology from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (USCOE, 1987). The methodology for the field mapping was developed and
agreed upon by the USCOE, representatives from the RRWSG, and representatives from James
City County.
Field mapping at the Black Creek Reservoir site was begun in August 1994. Soon
thereafter, however, the New Kent County Board of Supervisors asked the RRWSG to terminate
all studies related to the Black Creek Reservoir. Before field mapping was interrupted,
approximately one-half of the Southern Branch Black Creek impoundment area had been
3114-017-319 4-49
-------
completed. Therefore, the 1993 wetland estimate, based on aerial photograph interpretation and
available field verification, is presented for comparison with the other reservoir sites.
Wetlands within the Black Creek Reservoir impoundment areas were classified according
to the classification system developed by Cowardin et al. and published in Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979). For purposes of
this analysis, two modifications were made to Cowardin's classification system. First, no
distinction was made between dominant and subdominant subclasses (i.e., PFO1/EM1 was
considered the same as PEM1/FO1). Second, hydrologic modifiers were limited to temporarily
flooded, seasonally flooded, semi-permanently flooded, permanently flooded, and intermittently
exposed/permanent.
Because detailed Black Creek field mapping could not be completed, wetland classifications
are presented only for the Southern Branch of Black Creek where half of the field mapping was
completed. Wetland classification was accomplished with field notes from the detailed wetland
field mapping and aerial photograph interpretation. The field notes assisted the scientists in
identifying the aerial photograph signatures for each wetland type. Table 4-40 presents the 28
wetland types identified in the Southern Branch of Black Creek impoundment area. A wetland
classification map is included in Report F. The materials used in the wetland classification analysis
include the following:
« 1 inch = 200 feet scale enlargements of 1 inch = 660 feet scale aerial photographs
(ASC, 3/12/94)
• 1 inch = 200 feet scale reductions of 1 inch = 100 feet scale topographic maps
(ASC, 3/12/94)
Typical species found in non-tidal forested wetlands at the site include Red Maple, Alder,
Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tutipifera), River Birch, Black Willow, Arrowood (Viburnum
dentatum), and various sedges, cattails, rushes, and ferns. Typical species found in palustrine
emergent wetlands at the Black Creek Reservoir site include sedges, Soft Rush (Juncus effuses),
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.
To better describe the wetland complexes of the Black Creek Reservoir sites, a diversity
analysis was performed. In landscape level analyses, diversity can be broken down into two
components: composition and configuration. Composition is a non-spatial feature related to the
number of cover types and the proportion of the total area that each type represents (also known
as evenness). Configuration relates to the shape of the landscape patches and the spatial
arrangement of those patches. (A patch is a subunit of the landscape which is generally
homogeneous in cover type for the scale at which the analysis is performed.) More complexity
in patch shape within a landscape (i.e., areas with irregular edges) generally allows for more
interaction between patches. Likewise, greater numbers of cover types immediately adjacent to
one another generally increases the interaction between cover types, thereby increasing diversity.
3114-017-319 4-50
-------
Table 4-40
Wetland Types Found in the Black Creek Reservoir
Southern Branch Impoundment Area
Class
Unvegetated
U.S. Waters
Palustrine
Emergent
Dalustrine
rorested
Palustrine
Scrub-Shrub
Dalustrine
Emergent/
Scrub-Shrub
Palustrine
Forested/
Emergent
Palustrine
Forested/
Scrub-Shrub
Palustrine
Open Water/
Emergent
Total
Abbreviation
Channel
POWZb
POWZh
PUBHh
PEM1A
PEM1C
PEM1F
PEMIFb
PEMIFh
PEM2Fb
PFO1A
PFO1C
PFOICh
PSS1A
PSS1C
PSS1F
PSSIFb
PEM1/SS1C
PEM1/SS1F
PEM1/SS1Fb
PEM1/SS1Fh
PFO1/EM1A
PFO1/EM1C
PF01/EM1Fb
PFO1/SS1C
POW/EM1Fb
POW/EM1Zb
POW/EM2Zb
%
6%
2%
1%
13%
<1%
4%
8%
.. 1%
1%
2%
11%
9%
2%
<1%
2%
3%
1%
2%
2%
3%
<1%
4%
7%
1%
8%
2%
1%
1%
100%
Subtotal
22%
16%
22%
6%
7%
12%
8%
4%
100%
Wetland Description
Small unvegetated stream channel
Palustrine, open water, intermittently exposed, beaver
Palustrine, open water, Intermittently exposed, impounded
Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, impounded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded, impounded
Palustrine, emergent, non-persistent, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, impounded
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded, beaver
These remaining wetland types depict situations in which
two distinct subsystems or classes occur within a single
ecological system. For instance, PFO1/EM1C refers to a wetland
in the palustrine ecological system, which is co-dominated by
broad-leaved deciduous trees and persistent emergent vegetation.
The water regime for the wetland In this case is seasonally flooded.
Note Nomenclature and abbreviations used are from 'Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States'
(Cowardin, et. al., 1979).
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
Diversity indices traditionally are used to measure species diversity, including species
richness (the number of species) and species evenness (the relative abundance of individuals among
the species). By substituting cover types for species and acres for individuals, the diversity index
also can be used to measure landscape diversity.
Composition diversity was calculated for the Southern Branch of Black Creek impoundment
area, using the wetland classes from detailed wetland classification. The Brillouin Index,
Shannon's Index and Romme's Relative Evenness were calculated (Murdoch et al. 1972). The
Brillouin Index was selected from the many diversity indices because it is designed for situations
where data has been collected on the entire area in question, as was the case for the King William
project and the Ware Creek alternative. The Brillouin Index calculates a relationship between the
total number of wetland acres in the project area and the number of acres in each wetland cover
type. When wetland acres for an examined area are distributed among many wetland classes,
compositional diversity is high. However, when a large percentage of wetland acres are
concentrated in few wetland classes, compositional diversity is low.
Shannon's Index is very similar to the Brillouin Index in that it incorporates the number of
wetland classes, the total number of classes, and the evenness of acreage distribution. However,
it is designed to measure the compositional diversity of a sample from a larger population, and
therefore may be more appropriate in this case because the entire BCR impoundment area is not
included. Romme's Relative Evenness addresses only the evenness of acreage distribution and
normalizes for the number of wetland classes.
To measure configuration diversity, a Modified Fractal Dimension (Olsen et aL, 1993) was
used. Fractal dimensions are commonly used in landscape analyses to describe the complexity of
patch shape and the associated patch interaction. The Modified Fractal Dimension calculates a
relationship between the modified perimeter of a patch, the area of the patch, the number of
adjacent cover types, and the total number of cover types in the project area.
Table 4-40B presents the diversity indices calculated for the Southern Branch of Black
Creek impoundment area using the detailed wetland classification.
The results of the wetland diversity analysis indicate that the Southern Branch impoundment
area includes a diverse wetland complex. In comparison to the King William Reservoir wetland
complex, the Southern Branch impoundment area is more diverse in composition and similar in
configuration. The higher compositional diversity in Black Creek is primarily due to the more
even distribution of acreage among the number of wetland types over the total wetland area.
Therefore, Romme's Relative Evenness is much higher for the Black Creek wetlands than for the
King William wetlands. A full description of the wetland diversity analysis is presented in
Report F,
In April 1993, a wetland evaluation was completed for non-tidal wetlands within the area
of the proposed Black Creek Reservoir impoundments. The USCOE's Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET) was utilized to assess the functions and values of the wetlands at Black Creek
(Adamus et al., 1987; Adamus et aL, 1991). WET is a broad brush approach to wetland
evaluation, based on information about predictors of wetland functions that can be gathered
quickly, WET estimates the probability that particular functions will occur in a wetland area and
provides insight into the importance of those functions. A detailed discussion of the methodology
and results of this analysis is contained in Appendix II-1 of Report D (Volume II).
3114-017-319 4-51
-------
Table 4-4QB
Wetland Diversity Analysis
Black Creek Reservoir
Southern Branch Impoundment Area
Composition
Shannon's Index (Base 2 log)
Brillouin's Index (Base 2 log)
Romme's Relative Evenness
H = [log N - sum(n*log n)/N]
H = [log N! - sum(log n!)]/N
E = -100(ln(sum PiA2))/ln(s)
2.81
2.60'
88.50
Configuration
Modified Fractal Dimension
D = 2*ln((P+(2'(A-irC/(Ct-1))/4)
1.46
* For purposes of comparison to the wetlands at Ware Creek, the Brillouin Index calculated for the NWl
wetland acreage for the Black Creek impoundment area was 1.94.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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
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.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
For purposes of this analysis, the impoundment was considered the assessment area (AA)
and the impact area (1A). Therefore, this WET analysis provides an assessment of the palustrine
wetland complex as a whole. Because the palustrine system consists of many different types of
wetland, the evaluation of any particular wetland site could be different from the results achieved
in this analysis.
At the time this analysis was performed, the only wetland acreage estimate available was
based on NWI maps; therefore, the acreage of wetlands was considered to be 158 acres. As
described previously, a more detailed delineation of the wetlands in the Black Creek impoundment
area was conducted in August 1994. This delineation, based on aerial photography and available
field-verified mapping, yielded 285 acres of potential wetland impacts. A detailed on-site
delineation comparable to that conducted for the Ware Creek and King William Reservoir projects
was not conducted. The WET analysis of the Black Creek Reservoir was updated to reflect this
change in potential wetland impacts. Table 4-41 summarizes the results of the WET analysis for
the Black Creek Reservoir palustrine wetlands.
The results of the WET analysis indicate that the palustrine system has a high probability
of being effective in providing sediment stabilization, floodflow alteration, sediment/toxicant
retention, and wildlife habitat. It has a moderate probability of providing grbundwater discharge
and production export functions. It received a low score for groundwater recharge, nutrient
removal/transformation, and aquatic diversity/abundance.
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 wetlands, herbaceous wetlands, herbaceous/shrub
wetlands and lacustrine open water were among the cover types analyzed. Results of this HEP ,
sStudy are summarized to Table 4-39H. The baseline calculations show that the habitat provides
moderate to high habitat values for the wetland indicator species evaluated.
According to the USFWS NWI maps, there are approximately 210 acres of wetlands
between the Black Creek Reservoir impoundment areas and the Pamunkey River. Approximately
60 of the 210 acres lie between the impoundment areas and the mainstem of Black Creek. Most
of the wetlands directly downstream of the impoundment areas are semipermanently or
permanently flooded, primarily due to the presence of beaver dams.
Pipeline
Approximately 34 stream/wetland area crossings are involved along the 19.6 miles of new
pipeline. This estimate was based on review of the following:
« USGS Topographic Maps, 1 inch = 2000 feet scale
" USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Maps, 1 inch = 2000 feet scale
• Aerial Photographs, National High Altitude Photography (NHAP), 1 inch = 1300
feet scale
• Aerial Photographs, National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP), 1989, 1
inch = 650 feet scale
3114-017-319 4-52
-------
TABLE 4-42A
POTENTIAL STREAM/WETLAND IMPACTS FROM PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR PROJECT*
Wetland Type
LlOWHh
PEM1E
PEMlFb
PFO1A
PF01C
PFOlCb
PFOlEh
PSS1C
PUBHh
Total (SqJFt.)
Total (Acres)
Wetland Area
Black Creek
Reservoir Pipeline
(square feet)
10,000
62,000
18,750
20,000
12,000
122,750
2.82
Diascund to Little Creek
Reservoir Pipeline Upgrade
(square feet)
25,000
25,000
26,250
25,000
12,500
12,500
27,500
153,750
3.53
Total
(square feet)
25,000
25,000
10,000
88,250
43,750
20,000
12,500
12,500
39,500
276,500
635
* Stream/wetland area and type estimated from small scale (i.e., 1"=2000') topographic
maps and aerial photographs. Wetland area based on 50' pipeline corridor.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
• Aerial Photography, Air Survey Corporation (ASC), 1994, 1 inch = 650 feet scale
(reservoir impoundment areas only)
Table 4-42A summarizes the stream/wetland types and acreage which occur along the Black
Creek Reservoir pipeline route, including the segment of pipeline between Diascund Reservoir and
Little Creek Reservoir. Most of the affected stream/wetland areas 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 also would cross the open water of an arm of Little Creek Reservoir.
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 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,
4,3.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover from the Mattaponi River
Four dam configurations are being presented with the King William Reservoir with
pumpover from the Mattaponi River alternative: KWR-I, KWR-II, KWR-III, and KWR-IV. The
intake site, pump station size, and a majority of the pipeline route for all four dam configurations
are the same. The dam locations, pool elevations, and river withdrawal operating rules vary. The
specific characteristics of each configuration are outlined in Section 3.4.15. Unless otherwise
specified, biological resources are the same for all dam configurations of the King William
Reservoir alternative.
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 consisting of five sub-populations is known
along a 15-mile stretch of the Mattaponi River in King and Queen and King William counties (J.
R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1993). The species has been noted as far downstream
as the Wakema/Gleason Marsh (downstream limit near Mattaponi River mile 13) to as far upstream
as Walkerton (upstream limit near Mattaponi River mile 28) (Perry, 1993). The closest known
populations of this species have historically been observed on the north side of the Mattaponi
River, across from the proposed intake site, and on the south side of the river, approximately 600
feet upstream of the proposed intake site (C. Clampitt, VDCR, personal communication, 1992;
Rouse 1996).
3114-017-319 4-53
-------
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 Aeschynomene virginica
in the Scotland Landing Region of the Mattaponi River, Virginia (Perry, 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 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). However, the USFWS Draft
Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) Recovery Plan indicates that 49 plants were
observed at the Garnetts Creek site during another survey in 1993 (USFWS, 1993).
In 1994, Garrie Rouse conducted a study of the Sensitive Joint-vetch at nine sites along the
Mattaponi River. His findings are described in Sensitive Joint-Vetch Life History and Habitat
Study, 1994 Field Season, Mattaponi River System, Virginia (Rouse, 1995). Observations during
the growing season indicate that the vetch occurred at four of the nine sites examined.
Approximately 88 individuals were recorded in Garnetts Creek marsh, across from the proposed
intake at Scotland Landing. Historical data show that the size of the population at Garnetts Creek
fluctuates from year to year. Factors influencing population size include environmental conditions,
disease and predation (Rouse, 1995).
Further surveys by the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage (VDNH) and Malcolm Pirnie
biologists recorded the presence of the Sensitive Joint-vetch at Garnetts Creek marsh and at a
smaller marsh adjacent to White Oak Landing, upstream of Scotland Landing, on the south side
of the river (VDCR, 1995, Malcolm Pirnie, 1995). A 1996 field survey by Garrie Rouse and
Malcolm Pirnie confirmed the presence of over 460 Sensitive Joint-vetch individuals within 5
distinct sub-populations at Garnetts Creek marsh. In addition, 6 individuals of the Sensitive Joint-
vetch were identified at the mouth of a small creek located between White Oak Landing and
Scotland Landing, on the south side of the river (Rouse, 1996).
According to the VDNH, Garnetts Creek marsh also supports populations of the rare plants
Prairie Senna and Parker's Pipewort (Eriocaulon parkeri). Prairie Senna is a Chesapeake Bay
endemic and is known only from tidal marshes and estuaries in Virginia and Maryland. The
Garnetts Creek population is described as being composed of less than 100 individuals located in
small groups throughout the tidal marsh (VDNH, 1995). Parker's Pipewort is a low, erect
perennial herb with small white flowers in dense button-shaped heads at the end of stalks. It occurs
in tidal freshwater and occasionally in slightly brackish marshes from Maine to North Carolina
(Tiner, 1993). It is a rare species in Virginia but does not hold federal or state legal status.
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, which is a federally-listed threatened and state-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 VDGIF has reported the presence of an
3114-017-319 4-54
-------
TABLE 4-43
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
OF THE TIDAL MATTAPONI RIVER
Scientific Name
Aeschynomene virginica
Bacopa stragula
Qumaecristafasciculata var. macrosperma
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lampsitis cariosa
Federal Legal Status
LE - Listed endangered
LT - Listed threatened
SC - Species of concern
NL - No listing available
State Legal Status
Fed
Common Name Sta
Sensitive Joint-vetch L
Mat-forming Water-hyssop N
Prairie Senna S
Bald Eagle L
Yellow Lampmussel S
eral State
tus Status
T PE
L LE
C NL
T LE
C NL
LE - Listed endangered
PE - Proposed endangered
NL - No listing available
Sources: VDCR, 1992; VDACS, 1993; VDCR, 1996.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
observed in 1995, but Malcolm Pirnie staff did not observe specimens in either colony during a
field survey in May 1996. The field studies are documented in Report E. Both locations
containing the Small Whorled Pogonia would lie within the pool area of each King William
Reservoir configuration.
Sensitive Joint-vetch. Because mere are no tidal wetlands within the King William
Reservoir area, there is no suitable habitat present to support this species and no search was
undertaken.
Other Species. A 1992 VDGIF review of the proposed reservoir site identified two other
species of concern in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir: Mabee's Salamander (Ambystoma
mabeei) and Northern Diamondback Terrapin (Malademys terrapin) (VDGIF, 1992). 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). No individuals of this species have been
found in the project area. A detailed herpetology survey was conducted within the project area by
Dr. Joseph Mitchell and Malcolm Pirnie biologists in 1994. A detailed description of the sites
surveyed, survey methods and results are presented in Amphibians and Reptiles of the Cohoke
Mitt Creek Watershed, King WWam County, Virginia incorporated herein by reference as Report
O to this document. No threatened or endangered species were observed during the survey
(Mitchell, 1994).
The VDACS identified no 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).
Pipeline
The VDGIF has reported the presence of an active Bald Eagle nest in New Kent County
within 0.5 miles of the King William Reservoir pipeline to Diascund Reservoir (VDGIF, 1996).
Project review conducted by the VDCR, VDGIF and VDACS identified no additional
known natural heritage resources or endangered or threatened animal, plant or insect species along
the pipeline route or in the vicinity of the reservoir pump station associated with any King William
Reservoir configuration component (T. J. O'Connell, VDCR, personal communication, 1992;
H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992; J. R. Tate, VDACS, personal
communication, 1992; J. Trollinger, VDGIF, personal communication, 1996).
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 al., 1985):
" Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis)
3114-017-319 4-56
-------
active Bald Eagle nest approximately 1,800 feet west (0.34 mile) of the.residence and pump station
proposed at Scotland Landing (VDGIF, 1996).
The Prairie Senna and the Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) are two candidate species
for federal listing and are included on the VDCR list of resources of the tidal Mattaponi River.
Reservoir
Bald Eagle. As of August 11, 1995, the Bald Eagle has been listed as a threatened species
on the federal list and remains listed as an endangered species on the Virginia list. No critical
habitat has been designated by USFWS for the Bald Eagle (50 CFR 17.11).
The USFWS and other sources have documented the presence of a Bald Eagle nest located
near the King William Reservoir site (K. L. Mayne, USFWS, personal communication, 1993).
The nest was constructed during the 1992 nesting season, and has produced young each year (M.
A. Byrd, The College of William & Mary, personal communication, 1995; VDGIF, 1996).
The nest is located approximately 375 feet downstream of the toe of the KWR-I dam site.
To minimize wetland impacts and to avoid impacts to this Bald Eagle nest, the KWR-I! dam site
is located 2,900 feet (channel distance) upstream from the KWR-I site, thereby locating the dam
3,275 feet (channel distance) and 2,975 feet (direct distance) from the nest. The KWR-ffi dam site
is approximately 7,900 feet upstream of the nest and the KWRIV dam is approximately 10,100
feet upstream.
The 1996 VDGIF aerial Bald Eagle survey confirmed that no other Bald Eagle nests are
located in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir site (VDGIF, 1996).
Small Whorled Pogonia. The USFWS also indicated that appropriate habitat for Small
Whorled Pogonia 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. USFWS1 recommended methodology and the methodology selected for the
survey are described in detail in Report E. No critical habitat has been designated for the Small
Whorled Pogonia by USFWS (50 CFR 17.12).
Potential habitat for Small Whorled Pogonia within the King William Reservoir was
identified in May 1993 by Dr. Donna Ware of The College of William & 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 biologists and Small Whorled Pogonia experts conducted field surveys of
the areas of potential habitat located within the proposed reservoir site, in June 1993 and again in
June 1994. Specimens of Small Whorled Pogonia were discovered at two locations at the King
William Reservoir site. During the 1993 field survey, an individual specimen was found in an
approximately 60 to 70 year old upland deciduous forest adjacent to a cleared forested area, at the
lower section of a southwest slope uphill from the confluence of two small streams. The same
individual was found again during the 1994 survey. In addition, the 1994 survey found a colony
of five specimens on an upland median in the floodplain of a braided stream in an east-facing
ravine surrounded by a young (approximately 10 year old) pine plantation. Because of the high
degree of habitat disturbance at these sites, the specimens are most likely remnants of a declining
population; therefore, it is unlikely that a viable population would develop at either site (D.M.E.
Ware, The College of William & Mary, personal communication, 1995). These plants were again
3114-017-319 4-55
-------
" American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)
" Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris)
• Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
• Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis)
In September 1996, Malcolm Pirnie biologists sampled the lower tidal freshwater benthic
community from Scotland Landing downstream to Gleason Marsh. The oligohaline community
was sampled from Gleason Marsh to the Route 33 bridge crossing adjacent to West Point. Figure
4-IB depicts the sample locations. Sampling areas at Gleason Marsh were conducted in the
transition zones where the vegetative community consists of Wild Rice (Zizarda aquatica),
Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), and Saltmarsh Cordgrass (Spartina aherniflom). Benthic
collections were performed using an Eckman Dredge and a 0.5 mm screen (ASTM 40 sieve) and
all organisms and organic material were preserved in a solution of formalin. Samples were sorted
and identified by Malcolm Pirnie biologists to the lowest possible taxon. Results from the
macroinvertebrate surveys for the Mattaponi River are summarized in Table 4-45A. Dominant
invertebrates in the tidal freshwater samples included midge larvae (Subfamily Chironominae and
Subfamily Tanypodinae), Mayfly larvae (Genus Hexagenia), and Asiatic Clam (Corbicula
manilensis). Dominant invertebrates in the oligohaline samples included midge larvae and aquatic
earthworms (Class Oligochaeta).
Reservoir
Both VDGIF and Malcolm Pirnie have conducted numerous fish surveys in Cohoke Creek,
above, within, and below Cohoke Millpond. VDGIF conducted surveys in 1992 and 1993, and
Malcolm Pimie conducted surveys in 1990 and 1994. The combined results of those surveys are
presented in Table 4-45B. This table was revised based on review by Dr. Robert Jenkins of
Roanoke College (Jenkins, 1996). Species mat are not likely to persist in Cohoke Creek underx
normal conditions were eliminated from the table. A detailed discussion of the methodology and
results of the surveys is presented in Report H.
The fish survey results indicate that no listed or candidate threatened or endangered fish
species inhabit Cohoke Creek. However, the Least Brook Lamprey (Lamptem aepyptera), which
was found in the non-tidal portion of Cohoke Creek, apparently has declined in Virginia and is
considered threatened in North Carolina.
VDGIF has identified herring species as a primary focus of its concerns, due to the
currently depressed condition of regional herring populations. VDGIF reported that it captured
seven adult blueback herring (five in pre- or post-spawning condition) and missed others in the
pool below the Cohoke Millpond spillway, in its 1993 survey, and it stated that: "This catch
indicates that ripe herring would potentially spawn in the upper reaches of this creek if fish passage
was provided" (VDGIF, 1993) (Appendix 4 of Report H). Anadromous fish passage to the non-
tidal portions of Cohoke Creek is currently blocked by the Cohoke Millpond dam as well as by
numerous beaverdams above Cohoke Millpond. It is possible that the turbulent waters in the
tailrace of the Millpond dam attract migrating herring, resulting in the concentration of herring
observed by VDGIF (1993).
3114-017-319 4-57
-------
TABLE 4-44
FISH SPECIES OF THE MATTAPONI RIVER (1939-1961)
Scientific Name
Alosa sapidissima
Angmlla rostrata
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Etheostoma olmstedi
Fundulus diaphanus
Hybognathus regius
Ictalurus catus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Morons americana
Morone saxatilis
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1958
•
•
•
•
1961
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sources: H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communications, August 9, 1989 and August 11,
1992.
• Indicates observation of fish species in particular year.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
Table 4-45A
Benthlc Macro-4nvertebrate Survey within the Mattaponl River
Page 1 of 2
Macro- Invertebrate*
Scientific Name
ORDER Diptera
FAMILY Chlronomldae
Chironomidae pupae
SUBFAM. Chlronomlnae
GENUS/SPECIES #1
GENUS/SPECIES *2
SUBFAM. Tanypodinae
SUBFAM. Orthocladinae
SUBFAM. Diameslnae
FAMILY Ceratopogonidae
GENUS Bezzia
ORDER Megatoptera
FAMILY Sialktee
GENUS SMs
ORDER Trichoptera
FAMILY Potycentropodidae
SUBFAM. Dipseudopsinae
FAMILY Hydropsychfdae
FAMILY Leptoeerktae
Oecatfs inconspicua
ORDER Ephemeroptera
FAMILY Ephemertdae
GENUS Hexagenia
FAMILY CaenkJae
GENUS Brachycercus
GENUS Caenis
ORDER Coteptera
FAMILY Hydrophilidae
7GENUS Berosus
FAMILY Elmidae
GENUS Stenelmis
FAMILY Chrysomelidae
GENUS Donada
Convnoffi NMTMI
Aquatic Flies, Midges, MosquMos
Midges
Midge pupae
Biting Midges
FtehfUes, DobsonlHes, AWerffie*
Alderflies
Caddisflies
Trumpet + TubemaMng Caddisflies
Common Netsplnners
Longhomed Case Makers
Mayflies
Common Burrowers
Small Squaregills
Water Beetles
Water Scavenger Beetle
Rifle Beetles
Aquatic Leaf Beetles
Site Number
Mesohaline Sites
1
1
KL)
a
3(U
a
KL)
KL)
3(L)
4
KL)
3(L)
2(1)
2(1)
1
7(U
KL)
«
3
«L)
14(L)
KL)
3(L)
201
OHgohallne Sites
T
10
190{L)
7(L)
7(L)
1(L)
KL)
KP)
19 (L)
2(1)
KL)
KL)
KL)
S
1
KL)
3(1)
HI)
3{L)
7(L)
KL)
1
5(1)
27(1)
20(1)
2(1)
KL)
13 (L)
10
2(L)
4(L)
KL)
-------
f NOVEMBER 1996
REGIONAL RAW WATER STUDY GROUP
BENTHIC SAMPLE LOCATIONS
MATTAPONI RIVER
SCALE: i"= 11,250'
MALOOUV1
PIRNIP
SOURCE: VIRGINIA ATLAS &. GAZETTEER
COPYRIGHT 1989 DeLORME MAPPING
-------
Table 4-45B
Combined Fish Survey Results
Cohoke Creek Watershed
Page 1 of 2
Location
Non-Tidal
Water*
Above
MiUpond
j.j.j.^fflwwaS^^^S'.Ws^
Cohoke
Millpond
Species
Scientific Name
Ameiurus nalalis
Ameiurus nebtilanu
Amiacalva
AnguUla rattnao
Aphreduienu tayantu
Centrarchut macropuna
EnneaeanAu* gloriouu
Ertmyzon oblong us
Etaxiugtr
Etax americanus
Elheosuma olmsudi
Gambusia holbrooU
Lompetra aepyptera
Lepamis gibbosus
Lepomis gulosta
L. gibbosus X.L. maerocUna
Micropterus lalmaides
Notrmigonus crysaleucas
Noiorus gyrinus
Rhinichihys atraoiius
Umbra pygmaea
Common Name
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
Bowfin
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Flier
Blueipotted Sunfiah
Creek Chubmcker
Chain Pickerel
Red fin pickerel
Tessellated Darter
Eastern Mo«quilofiih
Least Brook Lamprey
Pumpkiiueed
Warmouth l
Bluegill Sunfish
Hybrid Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
Golden Shiner
Tadpole Madiom
Blacknose Dace
Eastern Mudminnow
MPI
1990
X
X
X
X
X
X
VDGIF
1992
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VDGIF
1993
MPI
19M-95
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Toul Number of Speciet , 22
Ameiunts nebulosus
AngidUa rvttmta
Cyprinus carpio
'iorosoma cepedianum
Erimyton obiongus
'•sax niger
'jcpomis gibbosus
Ltpomis gulosus
'jepomis macroeUna
'jepamis microlophia
Micropterus taimoides
Uorone amtricana
Noiemigoruu crysoleucas
°erca flovescens
°omaxis annuiaris
"omeaca nigromacultuus
Brown Bullhead
American Eel
Common Carp
Gizzard Shad
Creek Chubmcker
Chain Pickerel
Pumpkinaeed
Warmouih
Bluegill Sunfish
Redear Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
White Perch
Golden Shiner
Yellow Perch
White Crappie
Black Crappie
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total Number of Species 16
!llpSliiillliilll»W^^
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
Tabte4-4SA
Benthte Macro-Invertebrate Survey within the Mattaponl River
Page 2 of 2
Macro- Invertebrates
Scientific Name
ORDER Isopoda
FAMILY Anthuridae
Cyathura poffa
FAMILY Sphaeromidae
Sphaeroma sp.
ORDER Amphlpoda
FAMILY Gammaridae
GENUS Gammarus
(CLASS BivaMa)
ORDER Pelecepoda
FAMILY Corbteulldae
Corbtcula mantensls
FAMILY Macfridae
Rangr's cuneata
FAMILY Sphaeriidae
Sphaerium spp.
FAMILY Telltnidae
Macoma tenta
(CLASS Gastropoda)
((PHYLUM Nematoda))
(CLASS Oligochaeta)
(CLASS Hirudinea)
(CLASS Crustacea)
ORDER Decapoda
FAMILY Xanthurldae
(CLASS Arachnoidea)
ORDER Hydracarina
Coftvnon Name
Aquatic Sow Bugs
Slender Isopod
Sea PHI Bug
SCUDS
Bivalves
Clams, Mussels
Common Asiatic Clam
Mactra Surf Clams
Brackish-water Clam
Fingernail Clams
Tenta Macomi
Snails
Aquatic Earthworms
Leeches
Crabs, Shrimp, Crayfish, Lobster
Mud Crabs
Water Mites
Site Number
Mesohaline Sites
1
3
1
2
1
2
18
2
7
2
3
-15
carap.
4
20
2
S
1
1
1
13
3
f
4
1
7
-35
OUgotMlirM Sites
7
S3
15
1
1
12
3
1
1
8
1
•
5
6
3
2
10
1
5
6
2
3
11
31
3
1
2
pinc0r
12
3
18
9
1
1
Notes: (1) (L) = Larval Stage, (A)« Adult Stage
(2) Refer to Figure 4-1B for site location map
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
White Perch (Morone americana), which are considered semi-anadromous (Jenkins and
Burkhead, 1993), have been found in the tidal portions of Cohoke Creek, below the Millpond
Dam. Like fully anadromous fish, White Perch move upstream to spawn in the spring; but instead
of returning to the sea, they remain in mid-estuary zones.
The American Eel (AnguiUa rostrata) was found in the non-tidal waters above the millpond
in 1990, 1992, and 1994 surveys (VDGIF, 1993; Malcolm Pirnie, 1995). Eels are catadromous
fish, living most of their life in freshwater and migrating to the Atlantic Ocean to spawn.
In order to determine the wildlife habitat value provided by the wetlands and uplands of the
KWR project area and proposed buffer, a baseline evaluation using the Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP) methodology is being conducted. An interagency team has selected eleven
wildlife evaluation species and one fish species as indicators of all species which utilize the area.
The Redfin Pickerel was selected to determine the habitat value provided by the open water and
vegetated wetlands of the project area to fish species. A more complete description of the HEP
methodology is provided in toe Other Wildlife section below.
Invertebrate species observed in Cohoke Creek by Malcolm Pirnie biologists are listed in
Table 4-46. Because this water body is typical of Lower Peninsula freshwater streams,
invertebrate species listed in Table 4-31 may also be present in Cohoke Creek.
Pipeline
Construction of the new pipeline associated with the KWR-I configuration would require
minor crossings of 9 perennial and 17 intermittent streams. The pipeline associated with KWR-II
would require crossings of 33 perennial and 19 intermittent streams. The pipeline associated with
KWR-III would cross 32 perennial and 18 intermittent streams. The pipeline associated with
KWR-IV would cross 35 perennial and 18 intermittent streams.1 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 each KWR configuration. 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).
No wetlands or stream crossings would be associated with the construction of the booster
pump station.
3 The pipeline route for KWR I follows the gravity pipeline route as proposed in the DEIS.
The pipeline route for KWR II, III, and IV follows a different pumped pipeline route. This
different route accounts for the large difference in stream crossings between KWR I and
the other dam configurations.
3114-017-319 4-58
-------
Table 4-4 5 B
Combined Fish Survey Results
Cohoke Creek Watershed
(Continued)
Page 2 of 2
Location
Tidal
WateW
BekJw
Millpond
Specie*
Scientific Name
Alota aativaiis
Ameiunu catut
Ameiurut nebulofia
Anguilia rotcrata
Cypiinelia analatuma
Dorotema eepedianum
Eitieottoma obiutedi
FtffMJttitts ^jfipAdftftf
Fundulus helfroctiuu
Hybognaltuv regiut
Ictaluna punclaau
Lepisasteus aueia
Lepomis gibbonu
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomit tnicrolophut
Microptenu talmaUet
Uorone americana
Notropis hudsonius
Ptrcafiavescens
Pomaxis nigromaculatus
Common Name
Blueback Herring
WhheCatfuh
Brown Bullhead
American Eel
Salinfin Shiner
Gizzard Shad
Tewellaled Darter
Banded Killifiah
Mununicho^
Eirtero Silvery Minnow
Channel Catfiih
LoagnoaeGar
Puinpkinieed
BluegUI Sunfiih
Redear Sunfiah
Larfemoulh Ban
White Perch
Spottail Shiner
Yellow Perch
Black Crappie
MPI
1990
VDGIF
1992
VDGff
1993
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MPI
1994-95
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total Number of Species 20
Total Number of Speciei for Watenhed 38 |
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
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 potentkl 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
-------
TABLE 4-46
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES OF COHOKE CREEK (1990)
Scientific Name
Argia spp.
Cidndela spp.
Corydalus cornutus
Gerris spp.
Palaemonetes paludosm
Procambarus spp.
Common Name
Damselfly
Tiger Beetle
Eastern Dobsonfly
Water Strider
Grass Shrimp
Crayfish
Source: Preliminary Report on Field Studies for the Environmental Impact Statement.
Malcolm Pirnie, 1990,
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-47 A
TAXONOMIC CHECKLIST OF THE AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
OF THE COHOKE CREEK WATERSHED,
KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Page 1 of 4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Class Amphibia
Order Anura
Family Bufonidae
Bufo americanus americanus Holbrook
Bufo terrestris (Bonnaterre)
Bufo woodhousiifowleri Hinkley
Family Hylidae
Acris crepitans crepitans Baird
Hyla chrysoscelis Cope
Hyla cinerea (Schneider)
Hylafemoralis Bosc in Daudin
Pseudacris crucifer crucifer Wied*Neuwied
Pseudacris triseriata feriarum (Baird)
Family Pelobatidae
Scaphiopus holbrookii holbrookii (Harlan)
Family Ranidae
Rana catesbeiana Shaw
Rana clamitans melanota (Rafinesque)
Rana palustris LeConte
Rana sphenocephala Cope
Family Microhylidae
Gastophryne carolinensis (Holbrook)
Frogs and Toads
Toads
Eastern American Toad
Southern Toad
Fowler's Toad
Treefrogs
Northern Cricket Frog
Cope's Gray Treefrog
Green Treefrog
Pine Woods Treefrog
Northern Spring Peeper
Upland Chorus Frog
Spadefoot Toads
Eastern Spadefoot
True Frogs
Bullfrog
Green Frog
Pickerel Frog
Southern Leopard Frog
Narrow-mouthed Toads
Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
Table 4-46 A
Cover Types Within the King William Reservoir Pool Area
Cover Type
KWRI KWRII
Acreage Acreage
Mixed Deciduous/Evergreen Forest
Evergreen Forest
Deciduous Forest
Cove Hardwood Forest
Early Successional Logged Area
Agriculture/Open Field
Vegetated Wetlands and Open Water
877
383
134
254
<1
574
KWR III
Acreage
803
245
134
216
511
KWR IV
Acreage
661
114
100
214
437
Total
2222
1909
1526
Note: The cover type breakdown has been altered since publication of the DEIS, so upland
acreages are not comparable. However, uplands within the KWR I pool area
total 1631 acres.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
TABLE 4-47A
TAXONOMIC CHECKLIST OF THE AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
OF THE COHOKE CREEK WATERSHED,
KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Page 3 of 4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Class Reptilia
Order Testudines
Family Chelydridae
Chelydm serpentina serpentina (Linnaeus)
Family Emydidae
Chrysermts picta picta (Schneider)
Clemmys guttata (Schneider)
Pseudemys rubriventris rubriventris (LeConte)
Terrapene Carolina Carolina (Linnaeus)
Family Kinosternidae
Kinosternon Baurii (Garman)
Kinosternon subrubrwn subrubrum
(Bonnatere)
Sternotherus odoratus (Latreille in Sonnini and
Latreille)
Order Squamata
Suborder Sauna
Family Iguanidae
Sceloporus undulaius hyacinthinus (Green)
Family Scincidae
Eumeces fasciatus (Linnaeus)
Eumeces laticeps (Schneider)
Scincella lateralis (Say in James)
Family Teiidae
Onemidophorm sexlineatus sexlineattis
(Linnaeus)
Turtles
Snapping Turtles
Snapping Turtle
Pond Turtles
Eastern Painted Turtle
Spotted Turtle
Red-bellied Turtle
Eastern Box Turtle
Mud and Musk Turtles
Striped Mud Turtle
Eastern Mud Turtle
Stinkpot
Lizards, Snakes, and Amphisbaenians
Lizards
Sceloporine Lizards
Northern Fence Lizard
Skinks
Five- lined Skink
Broad-headed Skink
Ground Skink
Tegus and Whiptails
Six-lined Racerunn
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 4-47A
TAXONOMIC CHECKLIST OF THE AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
OF THE COHOKE CREEK WATERSHED,
KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Page 2 of 4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Class Amphibians
(Continued)
Order Caudata
Family Ambystomatidae
Ambystoma maculatum (Shaw)
Ambystoma opacum (Gravenhorst)
Family Plethodontidae
Desmognathusfoscusfiiscus (Green)
Eurycea bislineata (Green)
Eurycea longicauda guttolineata (Holbrook)
Hemidactylium scutatum (Schlegel)
Plethodon cinereus (Green)
Plethodon cylindraceus (Harlan)
Pseudotriton montanus montanus Baird
Pseudotriton ruber ruber (Latreille in Sonnini
and Latreille)
Family Sirenidae
Siren intermedia intermedia Barnes
Family Amphiumidae
Amphiuma means Garden
Family Salamandridae
Notaphthalmus viridescens viridescens
(Rafmesque)
Salamanders
Mole Salamanders
Spotted Salamander
Marbled Salamander
Lungless Salamanders
Northern Dusky Salamander
Northern Two-lined Salamander
Three-lined Salamander
Four-toed Salamander
Eastern Red-backed Salamander
White-spotted Slimy Salamander
Eastern Mud Salamander
Northern Red Salamander
Sirens
Eastern Lesser Siren
Congo Eels
Two-toed Amphiuma
True Salamanders
Red-spotted Newt
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
with modifications applied to tailor the model to the project area or for use with a surrogate
species. Field work for the HEP study was conducted with 4 interagency teams of 3 to 4 members
each for 3 weeks during July 19%. Variables sampled within each cover type corresponded to the
selected evaluation species using that habitat. A total of 231 wildlife sites and 34 fish sites across
14 cover types were sampled. Cover type maps were updated using data collected during the
extensive field work. Results of the field sampling are being analyzed and will be used for
comparison with the habitat value provided by the proposed mitigation sites.
Pipeline
The river water pipeline from the intake site to the reservoir, and the portion of the pipeline
route from the directionally drilled crossing under the Pamunkey River to Diascund Reservoir,
then from Diascund Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir, remains as proposed in the DEIS for all
KWR configurations. The entire pipeline for KWRI remaim agr£vity_japeline-winVilie' route as
proposed in the DEIS. For'^W^^,^^S!il^f»aaf^-p^M^iK^dadBA with new portions
of the pipeline routes ideiraed !ft)o1neach proposed pump station to the Pamunkey River
directional drill location Jnjiddition, the outfall location into Diascund Reservoir is extended 0.5
miles downstream from that proposed in the DEIS, for KWR II, III, and IV.
Assuming a pipeline right-of-way of 50 feet, the new pipeline for KWR I would disturb
approximately 103 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 17.0 miles of new pipeline would impact
primarily mixed forested and agricultural land. Typical wildlife species of these community types
are included in Tables 4-39A through 4-39G.
Assuming a pipeline right-of-way width of 50 feet, the new pipeline for the KWR II
configuration would disturb approximately 105 acres of land (excluding the Little Creek Reservoir
crossing). Existing vegetation community types along the proposed pipeline route were identified
through reviews of USGS topographic maps and color-infrared aerial photography.
One of the criteria used in siting the pipeline route was to utilize existing maintained
rights-of-way, such as roads or power lines, and avoid forested or wetland areas when feasible.
Of the total 17.4 miles of new pipeline required for the King William Reservoir II project,
approximately 7.7 miles (44 percent) would be along or within existing rights-of-way.
Approximately 4.3 miles of new pipeline between Diascund Reservoir and Little Creek Reservoir
would be laid and maintained within an existing raw water pipeline right-of-way through New Kent
and James City County. Because the rights-of-way are periodically mowed, vegetation is typical
of early stages of succession or old field communities. An additional 3.4 miles of stages of the
King William Reservoir pipeline route would follow existing road or utility corridors, thereby
minimizing forest fragmentation.
Approximately 4,500 linear feet of pipeline under the Pamunkey River and 3,000 linear feet
under high ground would be directionally drilled, thereby avoiding impacts to the surface
vegetation.
Based on USGS topographic maps, approximately 6.3 miles (36 percent) of the total King
William Reservoir II pipeline route would be located in forest or wetland areas, and 1.9 miles (11
percent) would cross agricultural fields. Wildlife species typical of these community types are
listed in Tables 4-39A through 4-39G,
3114-017-319 4-60
-------
TABLE 4-47A
TAXONOMIC CHECKLIST OF THE AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
OF THE COHOKE CREEK WATERSHED,
KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Page 4 of 4
Scientific Name
Suborder Serpentes
Family Colubridae
Carphophis amoenus amoenus (Say)
Coluber constrictor constrictor (Linnaeus)
Diadophis punctatus punctatus (Linnaeus)
Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta (Say in James)
Heterodon platirhinos Latreille in Sonnini and
Latreille
Lampropeltis getula getula (Linnaeus)
Nerodia sipedon sipedon (Linnaeus)
Opheodrys aestivus aestivus (Linnaeus)
Storeria dekayi dekayi (Holbrook)
Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata
(Storer)
Thamnophis sauritvs sauritus (Linnaeus)
Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis (Linnaeus)
Virginia striatula (Linnaeus)
Virginia valeriae valeriae (Baird and Girard)
Family Viperidae
Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen (Daudin)
Common Name
Snakes
Coiubrids
Eastern Worm Snake
Northern Black Racer
Southern Ring-necked Snake
Black Rat Snake
Eastern Hog-nosed Snake
Eastern Kingsnake
Northern Water Snake
Rough Green Snake
Northern Brown Snake
Northern Red-bellied Snake
Eastern Ribbon Snake
Eastern Garter Snake
Rough Earth Snake
Smooth Earth Snake
Vipers and Pitvipers
Northern Copperhead
Source: Mitchell, 1994.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
Available information from existing map sources was first compiled to identify wetland
acreage at the site. The following wetland acreages were obtained through interpretation of the
listed map sources for the Rang William Reservoir I.
MAP SOURCE
USFWS NWI Maps
SCS Soils Maps
ACRES OF WETLANDS
293
554
Because these sources did not agree on wetland acreage, color-infrared aerial photography
of the site was obtained. Detailed wetland mapping of the proposed reservoir area was conducted
using the following 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: I 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 wetland map was developed using the 1982 NHAP photographs (1
inch = 1,270 feet) as a base and overlaying the USGS topographic maps adjusted to the same
scale. The 1993 photography (1 inch = 1,000 feet) was used to verify areas on the NHAP
mapping that were difficult to interpret. Upon completion of the aerial photograph interpretation,
field studies were conducted to correct the map based on actual field conditions. Virtually the
entire proposed reservoir perimeter was inspected and the wetland line adjusted in several places.
Based on this analysis, it was estimated that 479 acres of wetlands would be inundated by King
William Reservoir I below a normal pool elevation of 90 feet msl.
A final detailed wetland delineation was planned for the site to eliminate differences in the
quality of base maps and the level of field verification for each alternative reservoir site, so that
the alternatives could be properly compared. Detailed field mapping of all the wetlands within the
King William Reservoir I impoundment area was conducted using the routine on-site inspection
methodology from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USCOE, 1987). The
methodology for the field mapping was developed and agreed upon by the USCOE, representatives
from the RRWSG, and representatives from James City County. Teams were composed of two
or three wetland professionals with at least one representative from the RRWSG and James City
County on each team.
Field work for the wetlands field mapping was conducted from May 9 to May 24, 1994.
The methodology for the field mapping entailed taking field measurements of wetland dimensions
and marking the wetland/upland border on topographic maps (1 inch = 200 feet). Wetland
dimensions were measured with hip chains or by pacing and wetland/upland mosaic areas were
3114-017-319 4-62
-------
Much of the KWR-III pipeline route would match that of KWR-II with an additional 0.8
miles located in forested and wetland areas. The total length for the KWR III pipeline would be
^8»2,miles with an approximate disturbance area of 110 acres* The KWR-IV pipeline route would
also be similar to the KWR-II pipeline route, with an additional 1.3 miles located in forested and
wetland areas. The total length for the KWR-IV pipeline would be 18.7 miles with an approximate
disturbance area of 113 acres.
A reservoir pump station for KWR-n, -ID, and -IV would be located adjacent to the toe of
each dam. Each proposed pump station would disturb less than 3 acres of mixed forest (KWR-IV)
or evergreen forest (KWR-II and KWR-III) habitat. The wildlife species associated with these
cover types are listed in Tables 4-39A and 4-39C.
Sanctuaries and Refuges
No existing designated sanctuaries or refuges are located within the vicinity of the proposed
intake at Scotland Landing, King William Reservoir watershed, or pipeline routes for this
alternative (VDCR, 1989; Delorme Mapping Company, 1989; KWCPD, 1991; JCC, 1991).
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 (Silberhom 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 SON 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 (Potygonum sagittatum), Rice Cutgrass, and
Walter's Millet (EchinoMoa waited) (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 (Acorus
calamus), Pickerelweed, Arrow Arum, and Spatterdock (Silberhorn and Zacherle, 1987).
Reservoir
Wetlands at the King William Reservoir site have been identified and delineated using the
criteria described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USCOE, 1987). The
methodology used to delineate wetlands included a combination of in-house and routine on-site
methods for estimating wetland impacts. Wetland classification, diversity analysis, and functional
assessment studies were also conducted. Detailed descriptions of the methodology and results of
these studies are presented in Report F and in Appendix II-1 of Report D (Volume II).
3114-017-319 4-61
-------
Table 4-48
Wetland Types Found in the King William Reservoir
Impoundment Area
Page 1 of 3
illplaiiiiili
Unvegetated
U.S. Water*
Palustrine
Emergent
Palustrine
Forested
Palustrine
Scrub- Shrub
SS«Wibwi»le1liB»t;gS¥:
Channel
POWZb
POWZh
PUBHh
PEM1A
PEM1B
PEM1C
PEMICb
PEM1E
PEM1F
PEMIFb
PEM1H
PEMIZb
PEM2C
PEM2E
PEM2E6
PEM2F
PEM2H
PEM2Hb
PFO1A
PFO1B
PF01C
PFOICb
PF01E
PF01F
PFOIFb
PSS1A
PSS1B
PSS1C
PSS1E
PSS1F
PSSIFb
PSS1H
;«'Apj*lli(iifS:x
3
38
8
25
9
7
4
14
1
18
19
154
86
1
24
30
1
7
9
17
iiiiiiii
<0.5
30
11
0
2
3
4
0
2
2
0
8
2
1
2
<1
S
10
4
88
34
62
<1
23
8
8
3
2
4
3
4
<1
1
iiiiiiii
<0.5
30
11
0
2
3
0
2
2
0
6
2
1
2
0
5
7
3
84
34
60
0
23
6
0
2
2
4
1
4
0
1
--0
28
8
0
2
0
1
0
2
2
0
e
2
0
2
0
5
7
2
71
34
55
0
21
6
8
2
2
3
1
4
0
1
Small unvegetated stream channel
Palustrine, open water, intermittently exposed, beaver
Palustrine, open water, intermittently exposed, impoundment
Palustrine, uneonaoHdatad bottom, permanently flooded, impounded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, saturated
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded, beaver
Paluitrine. emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded/saturated
Palustrine, emergent, persietent. semipermanently flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, permanently flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, intermittently exposed, beaver
Palustrine, emergent, non-persistent, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, emergent, non-persistent, seasonally flooded/saturated
Palustrine. emergent, non-persistent, seasonally flooded/saturated, beaver
Palustrine, emergent, non-persistent, semipermanently flooded
Palustrine, emergent, non-persistent, permanently flooded
Palustrine, emergent, non-persistent, permanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, saturated
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, beaver
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded/saturated
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, saturated
Palustrine. scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded/saturated
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded
Paluetrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded, beaver
Palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, permanently flooded
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
assigned a wetland percentage based on transects or visual estimation agreed upon by all team
members. Wetland acreage was calculated by planimetry of the final field maps and by computer
analysis after the wetland boundaries were digitized. Using these methods, a total of 653 acres of
wetlands were delineated at the site below 90 feet msl (normal pool elevation) for KWR-I.
Simply moving the dam 2,900 feet upstream of the KWR-I location would avoid inundation
of 94 acres of wetlands. However, raising the normal pool elevation by six feet to 96 feet msl (to
maintain the proposed reservoir volume) would inundate an additional 15 acres of wetlands above
elevation 90 feet msl in the reconfigured reservoir. Therefore, the net reduction in total wetlands
inundated by the reservoir would be 79 acres (574 acres for the KWR-n configuration versus 653
acres for the KWR-I configuration) as a result of moving the dam site upstream. Wetland acreage
between elevations 90 and 96 feet msl was estimated by identifying points on the final field maps
where wetlands continued above the 90-foot contour. At those points, the distance between the
90- and 96-foot contours was measured and multiplied by the width of the wetlands at the 90-foot
contour. Generally, wetlands decrease in width or end as elevation increases. Therefore, this
methodology should provide a conservative estimate of the wetland acreage avoided by the revised
King William Reservoir configuration. The final estimate of wetlands that would be inundated with
the KWR-II configuration is 574 acres.
Based on the detailed mapping available, estimates of wetlands within the remaining
proposed pool areas were made. Approximately 511 acres of wetlands lie within the KWR-m pool
area and approximately 437 acres of wetlands lie within the KWR-IV pool area.
Wetlands within the King William Reservoir impoundment areas were classified according
to the classification system developed by Cowardin et al. and published in Classification of
Wetlands and Deep/water Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979). For the purposes
of this analysis, no distinction was made between dominant and subdominant subclasses (i.e.,
PFO1/EM1 was considered the same as PEM1/FO1).
Wetland classification was accomplished with field notes from the detailed wetland field
mapping and aerial photograph interpretation. The field notes assisted the scientists in identifying
the aerial photograph signatures for each wetland type. Table 4-48 presents the wetland types
identified in the King William Reservoir impoundment area. Wetland classifications for KWR
wetlands are included in the watershed cover type map presented in Plates 3A, 3B, and 3C. The
materials used in the wetland classification analysis include the following:
« 1 inch *= 200 feet scale enlargements of 1 inch = 660 feet scale aerial photographs
(ASC, 2/17/94)
1 inch = 200 feet scale topographic maps (ASC, 2/17/94)
Typical species found in non-tidal forested wetlands at the King William Reservoir site
include Red Maple, Smooth Alder (Alnus serrulata), Bayberry (Myrica cerifera), Sycamore, River
Birch, Silky Dogwood (Cornus 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 (Caret spp.), Soft Rush, Arrow
Arum, Sensitive Fern, Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum), Smartweeds, Pickerelweed, Woolgrass
Bulrush, Marsh Fern (Thetypteris thefypieroides), and Broad-leaved Cattail (Fypha latifolia), with
American Beech (Fagus grandiflora) and American Holly (Ilex 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.
3114-017-319 4-63
-------
n
"o
Pi
*
o
•
ill
1
11
l&ft^i
B
1
WIS:
aim
jijm
m
II
•
11
Hi |
it i
|
i%l
Illff
li|
Ipfi
H
^w
111
i
iii
ifl
||
im
pi
1
?
i
1
/
o
s
D
i
o
A.
|Paluatrina
CO
•-
o>
(D
i
1
||Foreatad/
0
u>
*•*
1C
o>
o
i
o
S
f
i
o
o
V
n
U
i
o
8:
m
CD
B
UJ
1
O
Ol
*•
«M
£
1
o
8:
to
CD
CD
U.
1
O
u.
a.
o
o
o
V
_o
1
d.
a.
o
o
o
1
1
1
jjPalustrine
O
O
*
U
1
i
o
u.
||Fof
S
"
I
i
1
1
|
f3
T1
I
|
o
«-
»•
**
ja
LM
1
§
1
J
i
g
a
•
(or the wetland in thm caaa i
I
I
1
n
n
n
X
S
t
0
o
V
.a
S
?
«»
«
*
N
i
§
»
in
*
fl
S
3
N
«M
«
1
2
||Palu8trine
O
O
O
n
i?
!
t
o.
1
O
O
o
o
f
c
2
IJScrub-Shrub
O
«
N
6
i
5
o
o
«M
1
1
£
f !
a Q
o i
0 E
|«I
III
Q- > u.
:S
|i;
1
Ji:
m
'"•$',
i
:§:
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
ri
;
i
•*•!•'
ii
i
ff:
1
SI
0
i!
;s|
»;
1
O)
o>
C
"6
t
1
f
3
,f
I
o
1
i
I
"S
I
i
0
1
S
f
jg
TJ
I
9)
n
r«>
o
n
-------
Table 4-48
Wetland Types Found In the King William Reservoir
Impoundment Area
Page 2 of 3
Paluttrin*
Emergent/
Scrub- Shrub
Palustrine
Forested/
Emergent
l\ -'
"alustrine
Forested/
Open Water
PEM1/SS1A
PEM1/SS1B
PEM1/SS1C
PEM1/SS1Cb
PEM1/SS1E
PEM1/SS1F
PEMI/SSIFb
PEM1/SS1H
PEM2/SS1C
PEM2/SS1E
PEM2/SS1F
PEM2/SS1H
PEM2/SS1Hb
PF01/EM1A
PF01/EM1B
PFO1/EM1C
PFOI/EMICb
PFO1/EM1H
PF01/EM1Hb
PFO1/EM2B
PFO1/EM2C
PF01/EM2E
PF01/EM2Eb
PFO1/EM2H
PFO1/OWF
PFO1A)WFb
PFOS/OWFb
2
8
2
60
10
31
19
2
2
2
2
8
itfclliiil
0
2
8
2
6
9
0
5
2
21
16
29
3
0
1
7
2
2
2
<0.5
11
15
<1
1
iifliipfes
0
2
7
2
5
9
0
5
2
20
18
15
3
0
1
7
2
2
2
0
11
15
0
1
0
0
0
Ilijiiijill;
0
2
7
1
6
8
0
5
2
20
7
3
3
0
1
7
2
2
2
0
10
15
0
1
0
0
0
Thee* remaining wetland types depict situation*, hi which
two distinct subeysteme or clacie* occur within • elngle
ecological system. For instance, PFOI/EMf C refer* to • wetland
in the paluctrine ecological system, which • co-dominated by
The water regime for the wetland in this case h seasonally flooded.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
Table 4-48B
Wetland Diversity Analysis
King William Reservoir II
Composition
Shannon's Index (Base 2 log)
Brillouin's Index (Base 2 log)
Romme's Relative Evenness
H = [log N - sum(n*log n)/N]
H = [log N! - sum(Iog n!)]/N
E= -100(ln(sumPiA2))/ln(s)
2.48
2.40'
60,51
Configuration
Modified Fractal Dimension
= 2*ln((P+(2*(A-1)*C/(
1.45
* For purposes of comparison to the wetlands at Ware Creek, the Brillouin Index calculated for the
NWI wetland acreage for the King William Reservoir II impoundment area is 1.62.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
To better describe the wetland complexes of the King William Reservoir 0 site, a diversity
analysis was performed. In landscape level analyses, diversity can be broken down into two
components: composition and configuration. Composition is a non-spatial feature related to the
number of cover types and the proportion of the total area that each type represents (also known
as evenness). Configuration relates to the shape of the landscape patches and the spatial
arrangement of those patches. (A patch is a subunit of the landscape which is generally
homogeneous in cover type for the scale at which the analysis is performed.) More complexity
in patch shape within a landscape (i.e., areas with irregular edges) generally allows for more
interaction between patches and thus, increases diversity. Likewise, greater numbers of cover
types immediately adjacent to one another generally increases the interaction between cover types.
Diversity indices traditionally are used to measure community diversity, including species
richness (the number of species) ami species evenness (the relative abundance of individuals within
each species). By substituting cover types for species and acres for individuals, the diversity index
also can be used to measure landscape diversity.
Composition diversity was calculated for the King William Reservoir n impoundment area,
using the wetland classes from detailed wetland classification. The Brillouin Index, Shannon's
Index, and Romme's Relative Evenness were calculated (Murdoch et al., 1972). The Brillouin
Index was selected from the many diversity indices because it is designed for situations where data
has been collected on the entire area in question. The Brillouin Index calculates a relationship
between the total number of wetland acres in the project area and the number of acres in each
wetland cover type. When wetland acres for an examined area are distributed among many
wetland classes, compositional diversity is high. However, when a large percentage of wetland
acres are concentrated in few wetland classes, compositional diversity is low.
Shannon's Index is very similar to the Brillouin Index in that it incorporates the number of
wetland classes, the total number of classes, and the evenness of acreage distribution. However,
it is designed to measure the compositional diversity of a sample from a larger population.
Romme's Relative Evenness addresses only the evenness of acreage distribution and normalizes
for the number of wetland classes.
To measure configuration diversity, a Modified Fractal Dimension (Olsen et al., 1993) was
used. Fractal dimensions are commonly used in landscape analyses to describe the complexity of
patch shape and the associated patch interaction. The Modified Fractal Dimension calculates a
relationship between the modified perimeter of a patch, the area of the patch, the number of
adjacent cover types, and the total number of cover types in the project area.
Table 4-48B presents the diversity indices calculated for the King William Reservoir II
impoundment area using the detailed wetland classification.
The results of the wetland diversity analysis indicate that the King William Reservoir II
impoundment area includes a diverse wetland complex. The King William Reservoir area is less
diverse in composition and similar in configuration to the Southern Branch of Black Creek
Reservoir wetland complex. The lower compositional diversity is primarily due to the domination
of the total wetland area by a few wetland types. Therefore, Romme's Relative Evenness is much
lower for the KWR II wetlands than for the Black Creek wetlands. A full description of the
wetland diversity analysis is presented in Report F.
In April 1993, a wetland evaluation was completed for non-tidal wetlands within the area
of the King William Reservoir II impoundment. The USCOE's Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET) was utilized to assess the functions and values of the wetlands at the proposed reservoir site
3114-017-319 4-64
-------
TABLE 449
SUMMARY OF WET ANALYSIS RESULTS
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR II WETLANDS
Function/Value
Groundwater Recharge „ —
Gfoundwater 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.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
(Adamus et al., 1987; Adamus et aL, 1991). WET is a broad brush approach to wetland
evaluation, based on information about predictors of wetland functions that can be gathered
quickly. WET estimates the probability that particular functions will occur in a wetland area and
provides insight into the importance of those functions. A detailed discussion of the methodology
and results of this analysis is contained in Appendix II-1 of Report D (Volume II).
For purposes of this analysis, the impoundment was considered the assessment area (AA)
and the impact area (LA). Therefore, this WET analysis provides an assessment of .the palustrine
wetland complex as a whole. Because the palustrine system consists of many different types of
wetlands, the evaluation of any particular wetland site could be different from the results achieved
in this analysis.
Table 4-49 summarizes the results of the WET analysis for the King William Reservoir II
palustrine wetlands. At the time this analysis was performed, the only wetland acreage estimate
available was based on NWI maps; therefore the acreage of wetlands was considered to be 293
acres.
The results of the WET analysis indicate that the palustrine system has a high probability
of being effective in providing floodflow alteration, sediment stabilization, sediment/toxicant
retention, and wildlife habitat. It has a moderate probability of providing groundwater discharge
and production export functions. It received a low score for groundwater recharge, nutrient
removal/transformation, and aquatic diversity/abundance.
As a portion of the functional assessment of the wetland impacts associated with the King
William Reservoir project, the Evaluation for Planned Wetlands (EPW) methodology, developed
by Environmental Concern, Inc. (Bartoldus et. ah, 1994), was applied to the wetlands within the
KWR n project area. The EPW format provides a quantitative evaluation of the wetlands through
the following six wetland functions:
« Shoreline bank erosion control
• Sediment stabilization
« Water Quality
• Fish
• Wildlife
• Uniqueness/Heritage
In EPW, specific physical, chemical, and biological elements of the wetland or landscape
are identified. These elements are quantified by their relationship to a particular function and are
combined in assessment models to derive Functional Capacity Indices (FCIs). FCIs are multiplied
by the size of the assessed wetland to acquire Functional Capacity Units (FCUs).
Table 4-49A summarizes the Functional Capacity Indices and Functional Capacity Units, for
the wetlands within the KWR II project area. Acreage calculations were based on the results of
the detailed wetland delineation. The results indicate that the existing wetlands provide a high
degree of sediment stabilization and water quality functions and a moderate degree of wildlife and
fish functions. A full description of the EPW study is presented in the King William Reservoir
3114-017-319 4-65
-------
TABLE 4-49A
EVALUATION FOR PLANNED WETLANDS
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR II
Paae2 of 2
mmmmmmmmm
mam stem, southern portion
Wetland Type
PSS1/EM2C
56
0.95
0,78
0.79
0.35
0.31
upper end of a targe western tributary
PSS1/EM2H
33
0.82
0.96
0.53
NA
PSS1/EM1C
35
0,57
0.45
0.58
0.43
0.44
NA
mouth of small tributary to the eastern branch
PSS1/EM2H
37
0.62
0.66
0.9
0.68
0.59
NA
main stem, southern portion (closest to dam rile)
PSS1/EM1Fb
0.47
0.89
0.89
0.64
0.54
NA
main stem, northern branch
PSS1/EM2E
32
06
0.85
0.83
0.59
0.53
NA
larger western tributary, near confluence with main stem
PSS1/EM1Fb
30A
0.57
0.64
0.85
0.61
0.74
NA
main stem, northern branch
Avg. PSS/EM
7stte«
0.66
0.76
0.83
0.S7
0.4*
0.74
FCU
117 ae.
77.22
87.75
•7,11
68.68
•7.33
86.58
PSSIZb
0.82
0.79
0.79
0.51
0.56
NA
Ensln stefti, nwtfwn branch
PSS1C
51
0.82
0.74
0.79
0.75
0.6
NA
PSSIZb
0.67
0.74
0.64
0.64
0.79
NA
northwest tributary
PSS1C
15A
NA
0.88
0.97
0.54
0.44
NA
small tributary at confluence with main stem
PSS1F
12
0.66
0.66
0.79
0.61
0.54
NA
main stem
Avg. PSS
5 sites
0.74
0,76
9.71
0.61
O.S4
0.79
NA
FCU
3S«c.
21.9
26.6
27.65
21.31
18.9
2748
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 4-49A
EVALUATION FOR PLANNED WETLANDS
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR II
Pagel of 2
Wetland Type
Pj*p6r|rB».f#pe^
PFO1C
PFO1C
PFOIFb
PFO1C
PFO1C
PFO1E
PFO1C
PFO1C
PFO1A
PFO1C
PFO1A
PFO1C
PFO1A
PFO1C
Average PFO
FCU
PFO/EM1
PFO/EM1
PFO/EM2
Avg. PFO/EM
FCU
(^fti|l.$|.tfttMi^:i^!O^IJMil!inl
PFO1/SS1C
PFO1/SS1C
PFO1/SS1A
PFO1/SS2A
PFO1/SS1E
PFO1/SS1B
PFO1/SS1C
Avg. PFO/SS
. -- , . ..,, FCU
Sttef
^ftf|iffi|||SKft;*ff?
21
W
T
40
16
14
15
8
13
1
53
52
5
A
14 cites
262 ac.
30
19
22
3 sites
*ac.
50
18
34
20
Z
38
36
7irt.es
30 ac,
SB
0.6
0.67
0.67
0.58
0.82
U.DO
0.82
0.57
0.67
0.77
0.79
NA
0.82
0.92
0.71
186.02
0.69
0.91
0.6
0.73
*J7
<3wSWMM5wjM««i*'!
0.76
0.91
NA
0.9
0.79
0.79
0.54
0.78
23*
ss
0.74
0.74
0.58
0.79
0.72
0.42
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.89
0.79
0.78
0.79
0.89
0.78
196.S
0.68
0.84
0.78
0.77
,..:..M3.;..-'
W^X&'ifflMXu
0.89
0.86
0.82
0.82
0.75
0.84
0.82
0.83
24 J
WQ
0.58
0.86
0.87
0.59
0.85
0.66
0.55
0.65
0.57
0.78
0.5
0.89
0.79
0.88
0.72
188.64
0.7
0.71
0.72
0.71
- ;,:v8.3i ...
ig«;i«Sgg«gggj
JMHW&M
0.85
0.91
0.93
0.73
0.81
0.86
0.76
0.84
26.2
WL
0.39
0.51
0.57
0.42
0.7
u.bo
0.58
0.65
0.57 .
0.76
0.64
0.69
0.52
0.68
OJ9
1S4.68
0.74
0.46
O.S4
O.IS
.:".i.22'.:: :',.
m$$%Mx%i'M&
mfmiSfi»Msms.
0.69
0.67
0.49
0.65
0.62
0.53
049
0.19
17.7
FS
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.51
0.54
U.Z
0.45
0.57
0.45
0.59
0.44
0.65
0.36
0.49
0.49
128.38
0.57
0.43
0.53
0.11
4.M
Kig
;gj|gjg||s|ggj|
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
t
Geographic Descriptor |
small tributary, near confluence wltti eastern branch |
main stem, southern end
main stem , northernmost sample location
small eastern tributary
Bastem branch, near confluence wKh main stem
upper eno 01 eastern trroutary, downstream ot farm pond
small eastern tributary
upper end of northern tributary
upper end of a western tributary
northwest tributary near confluence with main stem
upper end of western tributary, upstream of a pond
ftiafn stem
fflaJn stem, northern branch
small tributary to the eastern branch, near mouth
Tialn stem, northern branch
lear mouth of western tributary
eastern branch
M^s^^i^^MM^^^MS^^Mi^aM^^M^&KM'M^M!^^^^
^mM^^^miii^^^mm^^mmimmimWM^mmmM^mmim^
main stem
Tialn stem
Ttaln stem
^)par end of small easteiii Mbutary
main stem
larger western tributary
sastem branch
j
1997
-------
TABLE 4-49B
Potential Stream/Wetland Area Impacts from Pipeline Construction
King William Reservoir Project
Wetland Type
UOWHh
PEM1C
PEM1E
PEM1F
PFO1A
PFO1C
PFO1E
PFOIEb
PFOIEh
PFO1F
PFO1R
PFO3A
PSS1C
PSS1E
PSSIEb
PEM2/SS1C
PEM1/SS1F
PSS1/EM1E
PSS1/EM1Eb
PFO1/SS1B
PUBHh
PUBFb
R2UB4
R1OWV
Total (Sq.Ft)
Diascund to
Little Creek Upgrad
Total(Sq. Ft.)
Wetland Area
King William
Reservoir 1 Pipeline
(square feet)
13,000
5,500
6,500
22,750
39,375
18,000
12,000
15,500
1,500
23,500
30,500
37,500
2,000
10,000
1,750
23i,375
e
153,750
King William
Reservoir II Pipeline
,. (square feet)
13,000
28,250
39,375
25,000
12,000
15.500
30,000
5,500
23,500
30,500
37,500
2.000
10,000
600
24,000
296,72$
153,750
King William
Reservoir III Pipeline
(square feet)
13,000
24,250
39,375
25,000
12,000
15,500
30,000
23.500
30,500
17,000
37,500
2,000
10.000
600
24,000
304,225
153,750
King William
Reservoir IV Pipeline
(square feet)
13,000
24,250
41,375
25,000
12,000
15,500
30,000
23,500
30,500
4,500
37,500
2,000
3.750
10,000
600
24,000
297,475
153.750
3114-017-319
Wetland Area
Diascund to Little Creek
Reservoir Pipeline Upgrade
(square feet)
25.000
25,000
26.250
25,000
12.500
12.500
27,500
January 1997
-------
Project Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(Malcolm Pirnie, 1996).
The wildlife habitat value provided by the wetlands of the KWR-II project area will be
evaluated as part of the KWR HEP study. Several wetland indicator species were selected by the
interagency HEP team to accurately reflect the wildlife value of the wetland cover types within the
project area. Results of the HEP field sampling are being analyzed and will be used for
comparison with the habitat value provided by the proposed mitigation sites.
According to aerial photography interpretation, there are approximately 55.3 acres of
wetlands in the main channel of Cohoke Creek between KWR-I dam site and the Pamunkey River.
There are approximately 78.3 acres of wetlands between the KWR-II dam site and the Pamunkey
River. Forty acres of wetlands occur between KWR-D and the upper reaches of Cohoke Millpond,
nearly all of which are permanently flooded. Approximately 81 acres and 105 acres of wetlands
occur between KWR-ffl and KWR-IV, respectively and Cohoke Millpond. The hydrology of these
wetlands ranges from seasonally flooded to permanently flooded. There are approximately 1.3
acres of fringe wetlands associated with Cohoke Millpond and 37 acres of tidal wetlands
downstream of the Millpond dam. Additional wetland acreage downstream, which would have
been inundated with the KWR-I configuration, would no longer be affected with the KWR-II,
KWR-III, or KWR-IV dam locations.
Pipeline
There are approximately 65 potential stream/wetland area crossings associated with the 17.0
miles of new pipeline for KWR-I. Approximately 60 potential stream/wetland area crossings are
involved along the 17.4 miles of new pipeline needed for KWR-II. The new pipeline associated
with KWR-III has 58 potential stream/wetland area crossings along the total 18.2 miles. The
pipeline associated with KWR-IV has 60 potential stream/wetland area crossings along the total
18.7 miles. This estimate of stream/wetland area crossings was based on a review of the following
sources:
• USGS Topographic Maps, 1 inch = 2000 feet scale
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Maps, 1 inch = 2000 feet scale
" Aerial Photographs, National High Altitude Photography (NHAP), 1 inch = 1300
feet scale
• Aerial Photographs, National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP), 1989, 1
inch = 650 feet scale
• Aerial Photography, Air Survey Corporation (ASC), 1994, 1 inch = 650 feet scale
(impoundment area and pipeline routes)
• Topographic Maps, Air Survey Corporation (ASC), 1994, 1 inch = 200 feet scale
(impoundment area and pipeline routes)
Table 4-49B summarizes the stream/wetland types and acreage which occur along the King
William Reservoir pipeline routes, including the segment of pipeline between Diascund Reservoir
and Little Creek Reservoir. Most of the affected stream/wetland areas would be palustrine
forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands. Typical tree species of these Virginia Coastal Plain
3114-017-319 4-66
-------
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 forest. Wildlife
species typical of this community type are included in Table 4-39A.
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 stream/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.
4.3.5 Groundwater 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.
VDCR 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 species typical of this water body would be typical of those found in the polyhaline
waters (18 to 30 ppt salinity) of the lower Chesapeake Bay.
3114-017-319 ' 4-68
-------
palustrine systems include Sweetgum, River Birch, Black Gum, Red Maple, Green Ash, and
Sycamore.
The pipeline also would cross underneath the Pamunkey River and the open water of an arm
of Little Creek Reservoir.
The proposed reservoir pump stations for KWR-n, KWR-ffl, or KWR-IV would not impact
any existing stream/wetland areas.
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 any of the
proposed dam sites on Cohoke Creek. Also, no mud flats were identified along the pipeline route
or in the vicinity of the reservoir pump station for KWRII, KWR ID, or KWR IV.
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 reservoirs (T. J, O'Connell,
VDCR, personal communication, 1992; H. E. Kitchel, VDGIF, personal communication, 1992;
J. R. Tate, VDAGS, 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, BluegiU, Blue
Catfish, and Channel Catfish. Since 1986, only Walleye have been stocked. (VDGIF, 1993).
Fish surveys conducted by VDGIF in 1992 revealed that Bluegill, Largemouth Bass, Brown
Bullhead, and American Eel 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 (VDGIF, 1993). Fish surveys
conducted by VDGIF in 1992 revealed that Biuegill, Gizzard Shad, Black Crappie, and Red-ear
Sunfish were numerically the most abundant fish species in Diascund Creek Reservoir.
Invertebrate species present in these two reservoirs would be typical of those found ta
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
3114-017-319 • 4-67
-------
TABLE 4-50
FISH SPECIES OF SKIFFE'S CREEK (1990)
Scientific Name
Alosa sapidissima
Anchoa mtchilli
Brevoortia tyramus
Cynoscion recalls
Dorosoma cepedianum
Fundulus majatts
Ictalurus cams
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus punctatus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Menidia beryttina
Micropogonias undulatus
Morone americana
Morone saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Pomatomus saltatrix
Trinectes maculates
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.
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
The Site 2 (Upper York County Ground Storage Tank) concentrate discharge pipeline route
would cross one perennial tributary of Jones Millpond and one intermittent tributary of Jones
Millpond. Centrarchid (i.e. sunfish) species would most likely dominate in this habitat type. Fish
species occurring in this water body would be similar to those listed in the freshwater tributaries
of the Chesapeake Bay (see Table 4-39). Invertebrate species would be similar to those listed in
Table 4-27. The proposed concentrate pipeline would discharge into polyhaline waters on Queens
Creek, a tributary of the York River.
The Site 3 (Harwood's Mill WTP Clearwell) concentrate discharge pipeline route would
cross one perennial and one intermittent stream. Fish and invertebrate species present in these
streams would be similar to those listed in Tables 4-39 and 4-27, respectively. The concentrate
pipeline outfall would be on the Poquoson River in polyhaline waters.
The Site 4 (Lee Hall WTP Clearwell) concentrate discharge pipeline route would not cross
any streams. The outfall at Skiffe's Creek would occur in waters which are typically mesohaline
and sometimes oligohaline. Anadromous and resident fish surveys were conducted on Skiffe's
Creek in April 1990 and August 1990, respectively (International 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 Table 4-39D), 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 stream/wetland areas 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 follow 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).
3114-017-319 4-69
-------
Other Wildlife
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
alternative should have no effect on existing wildlife on the Lower Peninsula.
Sanctuaries and Refuges
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
alternative should have no effect on sanctuaries or refuges in the region.
Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
alternative would have no effect on wetlands in the region.
Mud Flats
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
alternative would have no effect on mud flats in the region.
4.3.7 No Action
Endangered. Threatened, or Sensitive Species
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. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species within these
areas are described in Sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.5.
Pjsh andInvertebrates
Fish and invertebrates associated with existing reservoirs are described in Sections 4.3.1
through 4.3.5
Other Wildlife
Wildlife species dependent on communities within and adjacent to existing reservoirs 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. As a result, these reservoirs would be
increasingly drawn down to levels which could negatively affect adjacent wetland communities.
Wetlands within project areas are described in Sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.5.
3114-017-319 4-71
-------
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 Clearwell) 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 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 Virginia Council on the
Environment reported that Eelgrass (Zostera marina) and Widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima) were
the dominant species in these SAV beds (Orth et al., 1991).
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 associated 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).
4.3.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Endangered. Threatened^ or Sensitive Species
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
alternative should not affect endangered, threatened, or sensitive species.
Fish and Invertebrates
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
alternative should have no effect on fish and invertebrate species on the Lower Peninsula.
3114-017-319 4-70
-------
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 Pimie were in attendance. It was agreed at this meeting that the RRWSG would rely on the
report, A Phase I Archaeological 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 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
Five 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:
• 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:
• 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). Abandoned early 19th century structure. It was most recently
investigated in early 1970s.
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.
3114-017-319 • 4-73
-------
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).
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 may
date from as early as ca. 10,000 B.C. to ca. A.D. 1600 and consist of Native American sites; historic
sites may date from ca. A.D. 1600 to the present. Architectural sites include structures and objects,
which date back at least 50 years 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
Report G, Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed King William Reservoir, King
William County, Virginia and a Background Review, Architectural Survey and Archaeological
Reconnaissance for the Proposed Black Creek Reservoir, New Kent County, Virginia (MAAR
Associates, 1996) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document.
While a complete Phase I Survey was not conducted for the pump station site, the area was examined
as part of a Preliminary Phase I study. The study identified the presence of one previously recorded
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 adjacent areas.
VDHR records indicate that there is also 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
50KW13bytheVDHR.
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
at that time, no known sites were identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed intake site.
3114-017-319 4-72
-------
The Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey report by MAAR Associates 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 included in 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)
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.
Zongquarter - 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.
3114-017-319 4-75
-------
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 Report G. No Phase IB Field Survey was conducted for the Black Creek alternative due
to the selection of the King William Reservoir as the RRWSG's preferred alternative.
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 prehistoric sites located in the impoundment area.
3114-017-319 4-74
-------
the architectural survey was conducted within a somewhat larger area of potential effect which
considered not only the area of direct impact defined by the 96-foot flood pool elevation, but also areas
adjacent to the impoundment which might be within the viewshed of individual historic structures
(MAAR 1996). The Area of Potential Effect was subsequently narrowed and confined to all those
areas located within 500 feet of the 110-foot contour interval.
The preliminary Phase I survey conducted prior to the initiation of the subsequent systematic
field survey relied primarily on archival research and limited field reconnaissance for archaeological
resources, and a systematic windshield and pedestrian reconnaissance for architectural resources. The
subsequent systematic field reconnaissance of the proposed reservoir involved the excavation of over
6,000 shovel test pits placed at systematic intervals across the project area, based on the perceived
sensitivity as defined in a predictive model, and surface collection in those portions of the project area
where surface exposures were present (i.e. tilled fields, erosional gullies, etc.).
Architectural Sites:
Preliminary Phase I data indicated that there were no previously recorded architectural sites
located below the 110-foot contour interval; however, the site files of the VDHR contained three
known historic structures near the 110-foot contour which could potentially be affected. These
resources and their respective VDHR site numbers are as follows:
" Canton (50KW11)
" Colosse Baptist Church (50KW15)
•— "MaTbourne (50KO40)
In addition to the above-listed resources, the King William Historical Society indicated that
there were 15 sites in the vicinity of the proposed King William Reservoir (S,A. Colvin, King William
County Historical Society, personal communication, 1993). The sites include the following: Mt.
Hope, Mt. Rose, Free Hall, Locust Hill, Sheltons, French Town, Lilly Point, Poplar Spring, Brooks
Springs, Cedar Lane, Rose Garden House, Woodside, Marl Hill, Churchville, and Bethany Church.
The subsequent comprehensive survey examined all of the above-enumerated architectural sites
and also resulted in the identification and recordation of over 100 additional sites which were
determined to be at least 50 years old. The subsequent narrowing of the Area of Potential Effect, to
include only those areas within 500 feet of the 110-foot contour, resulted in the intensive survey of
76 architectural sites. Of the 76 sites which were studied in detail, 13 were subsequently determined
to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and three additional sites were
determined to be "potentially" eligible (VDHR 1993).
Archaeological Sites:
The comprehensive Phase I survey of the King William County Reservoir impoundment
resulted in the identification of 132 sites, 125 of which are located at or below the 96-foot contour
interval, and seven of which are located adjacent to, but at a higher elevation. These 132 sites include
25 prehistoric basecamps, 82 prehistoric transient procurement camps, and 37 historic Euro-American
sites, several of which overlap prehistoric sites. All 25 prehistoric basecamps, 50 of the prehistoric
transient camps, and 25 of the sites containing historic period resources have been identified as
potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (MAAR 1996). Two
of the historic period sites overlap prehistoric transient camps.
3114-017-319 4-77
-------
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 previously
recorded sites west of Tunstall Station (MAAR Associates, 1996). 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.
/
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, 1996).
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:
• 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
The proposed intake for the King William Reservoir consists of a pump station to be located
at Scotland Landing and a segment of pipeline extending approximately 1.5 miles south to the
proposed reservoir impoundment. The initial preliminary Phase I study indicated that there were no
previously recorded cultural resources near the proposed pump station and pipeline. The subsequent
comprehensive field survey confirmed that no architectural resources were located near the proposed
facilities; however, five archaeological sites were located in the course of systematic testing. These
archaeological sites include two prehistoric base camps, one transient camp, and two historic period
homesteads/farmsteads. All five of the sites have been identified as potentially eligible for nomination
to the National Register of Historic Places.
Reservoir
The investigated reservoir impoundment area includes all the terrain from the Cohoke Creek
stream bed to the 96-foot contour upstream of the originally proposed KWR-I dam site. The Phase
I archaeological survey (See Report G) was conducted in the area defined by these parameters, while
3114-017-319 4-76
-------
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 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Implementation of this 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 effect 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 (bXl) Guidelines which addresses
potential effects on human use 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 Section 404 (bX 1) 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 (bXl) 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).
3114-017-319 4-79
-------
Pipeline
The pipeline for the King William Reservoir extends from the originally proposed KWR-I dam
site, in a southeasterly direction through parts of King William and New Kent Counties over a distance
of approximately 13 miles. The preliminary Phase I survey of the gravity pipeline route indicated that
there were three previously recorded archaeological sites and no architectural sites located within or
adjacent to the proposed pipeline right-of-way. The preliminary survey also indicated mat the pipeline
route intersected several high potential areas. The subsequent comprehensive field survey confirmed
the absence of architectural sites likely to be affected by the proposed pipeline, and also resulted in
the location of nineteen archaeological sites. The 19 archaeological sites include six prehistoric
basecamps, 11 transient camps, and three historic period sites, one of which overlaps a transient
prehistoric site. Twelve of the sites, including six basecamps, five transient camps, and one historic
site, have been identified as potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places (MAAR 1996), (see Report G). It is possible that further pipeline route studies could lead
to a different route and, consequently, create the need for additional cultural resource
investigations.
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.
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
3114-017-319 4-78
-------
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 irrigators 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 April 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 & Veateh, 1989).
Summing all of the above withdrawal figures results 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 because
the 2,103.7 mgd figure (1) includes groundwater withdrawals which do not directly reduce
streamflows, and (2) 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 river 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 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, and therefore, are not included in the calculation of total consumptive use.
Consumptive use by Virginia Power's North Anna Nuclear Power Plant is estimated to be 24.1 mgd.
The derivation of this consumptive use estimate is described in Section 2.3.2 of Report I, Pamunkey
River Saiinity Intrusion Impact Assessment for Black Creek Reservoir Alternative (Malcolm ?\rn\e,
1995) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document. Adding together
all of the estimated consumptive uses results in an estimated Year 1990 consumptive use of 34.2 mgd
within the entire Pamunkey River basin.
Total freshwater discharge at the mouth of the Pamunkey River is estimated at 883 mgd.
Estimated Year 1990 consumptive water use in the basin represents 3.9 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.
There is also an interbasin transfer of water to the Pamunkey River basin from the Rapidan
River (Rappahannock River basin). The Rapidan Service Authority recently submitted a Joint Permit
Application to the USCOE to increase its Rapidan River withdrawal from 1.1 mgd to 3.0 mgd. The
withdrawal is used to supply the Germanna Highway Corridor, a portion of which is located within
the Pamunkey River basin (Black & Veateh, 1996).
3114-017-319 4-81
-------
Parks and Preserves
This section describes the existing parks and preserves within proposed project areas. 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 (bXl) 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,
Other 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 other socioeconomic impacts 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.
3114-017-319 4-80
-------
TABLE 4-51
MAJOR RESERVOIRS, STREAM INTAKES,
AND GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS
IN THE PAMUNKEY RIVER BASIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stream intake
South Anna River
Town of Ashland (Ashland WTP)
Groundwater Withdrawal
3 Wells
Hanover County
Stream Intake
North Anna River
Hanover County (Doswell WTP)
Stream Intake
North Anna River
Bear Island Paper Company (Doswell Plant)
Reservoir (Meadows Pond)
Bear Island Paper Company (Doswell Plant)
Stream Intake
Little River
General Crushed Stone Company (Verdon Plant)
Groundwater Withdrawal
13 Wells
Hanover County and Private
Groundwater Withdrawal
3 Wells
Hanover County and Private
Groundwater Withdrawal
6 Wells
Hanover County and Private
Groundwater 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
2 Wells
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 (runoff-fed)
Closed System off South Anna River
Feldspar Corporation (Montpelier Plant)
0.903
0.019 (c)
1.833
0.462
0.995
0.256
0.144 (c)
0.027 (c)
0.086 (c)
0.079
0.155
0.005
0.047
2,064.1
0.022
0.022
0.415
16.65 (d) I
Operational since April 1992
14.400
a) See Figure 4-6.
b) Reported 1990 withdrawals retrieved from the Virginia Water Use Data System
(P.E. Herman, SWCB, personal communication, 1993).
c) 1984 withdrawal as reported in York Water Supply Plan (SWCB, 1988).
d) 1983 non-consumptive industrial cooling water withdrawal as reported in
York Water Supply Plan (SWCB, 1988).
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
ORANGE
SPOTSYLVANiA
ALBEMARLE
LEGEND
A RESERVOIR
• STREAM INTAKE
* QROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL
•Jr PROPOSED INTAKE SITE
(NORTHBURY)
FLUVANNA
KINO WILLIAM
QOOCHLANO
PIRNIE
NEW KENT
OCTOBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
MAJOR RESERVOIRS, STREAM INTAKES AND GROUNDWATER
WITHDRAWALS IN THE PAMUNKEY RIVER BASIN
10 l> 10
•n
SCALE IN MILES
-------
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 (i.e., 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 (Callinectes
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 M illpond 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 (USCOE, 1987). Fish species
present in the Ware Creek Reservoir impoundment are discussed in Section 4.3,1.
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.
3114-017-319 4-82
-------
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.
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
3114-017-319 4-83
-------
TABLE 4-52
SUMMARY OF HOUSES NEAR THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE PROJECT AREAS
Alternative
Ware Creek
Reservoir
Black Creek
Reservoir **
King William Reservoir
KWRI
KWR II
KWR III
KWR IV
Fresh Groundwater
Development
Groundwater Desalination
In Newport News
Waterworks Distribution Area
Intake *
within 500 teet
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
425
425
0
0
0
0
350
400
Number
of
Houses
4
4
0
0
0
0
9
19
Dam
within 500 feet
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
0
250
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Number
of
Houses
0
1
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Reservoir
within 500 feet
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
354
268
263
275
275
283
N/A
N/A
Number
of
Houses
33
41
28
27
27
24
N/A
N/A
Pipeline
within 300 feet
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
133
171
188
188
188
188
0
140
Number
of
Houses
107
62
45
45
45
45
0
205
Total
Average
Distance
To Houses
(feet)
192
210
217
221
221
221
350
162
Number
of
Houses
144
104
73
72
72
69
9
224
* Major river withdrawal or groundwater withdrawal points.
** Does not include 3 existing houses that would be directly impacted by the proposed Black Creek Reservoir.
N/A = Not Applicable
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
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.
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).
In addition, the 1,200-acre Cumberland Marsh Nature Conservancy Preserve is located on the
Pamunkey River (T. McNeil, Nature Conservancy, personal communication 1996), approximately 11
river miles downstream of Northbury. Cumberland Marsh is a large, tidal freshwater marsh.
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.
3114-017-319 4-84
-------
Pipeline
No existing paries 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).
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
3114-017-319 4-85
-------
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 with these lands. Wetland acreage 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 developed 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).
3114-017-319 4-86
-------
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.
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
TABLE 4-54
NEW KENT COUNTY LAND USE (1989)
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.
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
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, lames 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 mat approximately 60,000 acres (65 percent
of the total area) are in forests of one form or another.
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
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.
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
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 land. 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.
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.
3114-017-319 ' 4-87
-------
TABLE 4-57
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED LAND USE IN ALTERNATIVE PROJECT AREAS
Alternative
Ware Creek Reservoir
Black Creek Reservoir
King William Reservoir***
KWRI
KWRII
KWRIII
KWRIV
Fresh Groundwater Development
Groundwater Desalination in
Newport Waterworks
Distribution Area
Intake*
Acres
Disturbed
3
3
AFD
Land
(acres)
3
3
Number
of
Houses
0
0
Reservoir**
Acres
Disturbed
1,238
910
AID
Land
(acres)
246
376
Number
of
Houses
0
3
Pipeline
Acres
Disturbed
159
119
Number
of
Houses
0
0
Total
Acres
Disturbed
1,400
1,032
AFD
Land
(acres)
249
379
Number
of
Houses
0
3
3
3
3
3
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,284
2,222
1,909
1,526
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
94
97
101
104
Minimal
65
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,381
2,322
2,013
1,633
8
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+*+
N/A
Major river withdrawal of groundwater withdrawal points.
Excludes reservoir buffer area.
King William County does not currently designate AFD lands.
Not Applicable.
3114
119
Jair
. 1997
-------
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).
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 (i.e., 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.
3114-017-319 4-88
-------
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 shallow depth of the creek" (USCOE, 1987). Commercial navigation is not
likely to occur in Ware Creek; any shellfish beds which may have been harvested in the past 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).
Since the 1970s, great changes in land use in James City County have occurred. The County,
which has historically 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 in James City County in 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 in median household income in the
County in those years. 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).
Within James City County, all categories of housing types have increased within the past
decade, and single family homes have increased as a percentage of the total. Recently, the County has
been experiencing extensive new upscale housing development. As of October 1996, real estate
within the County was taxed at a rate of $0.87 per $100 assessed value.
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 January 1996, the County real estate tax rate was $0.82 per $100 assessed
value. The total assessed value of taxable real estate in New Kent County increased 20 percent from
1995 to 1996, to a total value of $697.2 million (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1996).
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 in the work force within the County are employed by the retail
trade industry (20 percent). The next largest percentage (13 percent) work in the field of educational
services.
3114-017-319 4-89
-------
Within James City County there are several large businesses which employ many people,
Owens-Brockway Glass Container reported employing 240 persons when surveyed in 1990 as part
of mis study, Anheuser-Busch employed an additional 1,100 persons in 1990. Ball Metal and The
Williamsburg Pottery are also large employers in 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 in James City County, 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.
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.
3114-017-319 4-90
-------
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,
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 clubs 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 19.6-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.
Three houses were identified within the proposed pool area and one house is located within 500
feet of a proposed dam. A total of 41 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).
3114-017-319 4-91
-------
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.
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, USGS topographic maps and field inspections 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. 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 (60 percent), with wetlands
and open water comprising the next largest land area (31 percent). Agricultural/rural residential land
uses are also located within the reservoir pool area, constituting approximately 9 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 color-infrared aerial photography in conjunction with USGS topographic mapping and
small-scale topographic mapping developed by Air Survey Corporation, there appear to be three
3114-017-319 ' 4-92
-------
TABLE 4-58
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR WATERSHED LAND USE (1989)
Land Use Category
Residential 2
Agricultural/Rural Residential *
Roads
Wetlands and Open Water
Forest
TOTAL
Acreage
49
409
1
289
2,772
3,520
% of Total1
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 die
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") updated with more recent aerial
photographs flown by Air Survey Corporation (March 1994), and field investigations of
wetland areas.
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
TABLE 4-59
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR NORMAL POOL AREA LAND USE (1989)
Land Use Category
Agricultural/Rural Residential '
Wetlands and Open Water
Forest
TOTAL
Acreage
79
285
546
910
% of Total
8.7
31.3
60.0
100
1 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') updated with more recent aerial
photograpahs flown by Air Survey Corporation (March 1994),and field inspections of
wetland areas.
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
existing houses which are at or below the proposed reservoir normal pool elevation of 100 feet msl
or that would be displaced by die 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.
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 RRWSG 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 19.6 miles and an assumed ROW width of 50 feet,
would disturb approximately 119 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. The pipeline route would traverse
forested and agricultural land, as well as some existing ROW's. To provide an indication of the
portion of the pipeline route which would traverse existing undeveloped land, as opposed to land
which has already been developed, the total acreage of undeveloped forest which would be cleared
for the pipeline ROW is presented below.
Pipeline Length through
Undeveloped Forest
(miles)
7.6
Total Pipeline
Length
(miles)
19.6
Pipeline Length through
Undeveloped Forest
(as % of total length)
39
A summary of affected land use in project areas for this alternative is included in Table 4-57.
3114-017-319 4-93
-------
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 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 atNorthbury are described in Section 4.5.1.
3114-017-319 4-94
-------
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 January 1996, the County real estate tax rate was $0.82 per $100 assessed
value. The total assessed value of taxable real estate in New Kent County increased 20 percent from
1995 to 1996, to a total value of $697.2 million (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1996).
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.
3114-017-319 4-95
-------
4.5.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
Municipal and Private Water Supplies
Intake
An analysis of existing water use and cumulative stream flow 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 urigators 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 (1) includes groundwater withdrawals which do not directly reduce streamflows,
and (2) 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 river 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 Supply 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 consumptive use of
3.1 mgd within the entire Mattaponi River basin (exclusive of Chesapeake Corporation).
3114-017-319 4-96
-------
Total freshwater discharge at the mouth of the Mattaponi River is estimated at 581 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 5 river miles upstream of Scotland Landing.
Reservoir
Individual homeowners in the vicinity of the proposed King William Reservoir site (including
all dam alternatives) have their own wells. No municipal or private surface water supplies were
identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed reservoir site.
Pipeline
A 50 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 5 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).
Reservoir
Within the proposed impoundment area (including all dam configurations), Cohoke 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.
3114-017-319 4-97
-------
TABLE 4-60
MAJOR RESERVOIRS, STREAM INTAKES,
AND GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS
IN THE MATTAPONI RIVER BASIN
^3i^S^^sSsS:ylS!ss^^s^^
^g^^^^^Sg^J^^^^^^^g^^
^^^^gg^^gggggagggcgBssaa!^^^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^a^^l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B;
Ground water Withdrawal
1 Wall
Alpha Water Corporation (Bsinor*)
Groundwater Withdrawal
4 Walls
Town of Bowling Oman
Ground water Withdrawal
1 Wall
Carolina County (Carolina High School)
Groundwater Withdrawal
1 Wall
Foralgn & Domestic Woods, Inc. (Bowling Green Plant!
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Walls
Carolina County (MHford Sanitary District)
Groundwater Withdrawal
3 Walls
Carolina County Utility System
Stream Intake
Mattaponi River
Smith Sand & Gravel, Inc. (Ruther Glan Plant)
Groundwater Withdrawal
1 Well
Days Inn
Groundwater Withdrawal
3 Walls
VA Dapt. of Transportation (1-95 Bowling Green Rest Area)
Reservoir (Lake Caroina)
Lake Carolina Water Company
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Walls
Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. (Campbell's Creek)
Groundwater Withdrawal
26 Walls
U.S. Army (Fort AP Hill)
Reservoir (Ni)
Spotsylvanio County (Ni River WTP)
Groundwater Withdrawal
1 Wall
Lake Land 'or Utility Company
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Walls
Spotsylvania County (Winewood Estates)
Groundwater Withdrawal
3 Walts
Po River Water & Sawar Company (Indian Acres Club
ofThornburg)
Groundwater Withdrawal
2 Walls
Walkerton Water System, Inc.
Groundwater Withdrawal
14 Walls
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)
2.318
0.053
0.011
0.063
0.015
18.295
a) See Figure 4-7.
b) Reported 1880 withdrawals retrieved from the Virginia Water Use DataSystem
{P.E. Herman, SWCB, personal communication, 1993).
c) 1984 withdrawal as reported in York Water Supply Plan (SWCB, 1988).
d) 198C withdrawal as reported in Virginia Watar Withdrawals 1986 (SWCB. 1987).
August 1993
-------
ORANQ
SPOTSYLVANIA
LEGEND
A RESERVOIR
• STREAM INTAKE
• QROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL
^T PROPOSED INTAKE SITE
(SCOTLAND LANDING)
CAROLINE
KING AND QUEEN
KING WILLIAM
GLOUCESTER
MAUDOUV1
PIRNIE
OCTOBER 1996
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
2
O
C
MAJOR RESERVOIRS, STREAM INTAKES AND GROUNDWATER g
WITHDRAWALS IN THE MATTAPONI RIVER BASIN
10
SCALE IN MILES
-------
The majority of the recreational fishing in the vicinity of the proposed impoundment area
occurs downstream in Cohoke Millpond. Cohoke Millpond 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.
Pipeline
A review of color-infrared aerial photography, USGS topographic maps, and small-scale
topographic maps developed by Air Survey Corporation was conducted to determine the number of
pipeline stream crossings for the King William Reservoir project configurations. The number of
stream crossings for each dam configuration are presented below:
Stream Type
Perennial
Intermittent
Number of Crossings
KWRI
9
17
KWRD
33
19
KWRIH
32
18
KWRIV
35
18
The pipeline route for all dam configurations 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 5 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).
3114-017-319
4-98
-------
Reservoir
The primary water-related recreation within the proposed King William Reservoir watershed
(for all dam configurations) 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 Holly Grove Hunt Club 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 on the millpond and a private fishing dock
immediately downstream of the Cohoke Millpond dam.
Pipeline
Based on review of color-infrared aerial photography, USGS topographic maps, and small-
scale topographic maps developed by Air Survey Corporation, the majority of the pipeline routes
traverse forested lands. It is likely that portions of these areas are leased to private hunt clubs. The
pipeline routes for each dam configuration cross under 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 Reservoir watershed (for all dam configurations) 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 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 for any of the
reservoir configurations or in the vicinity of any of the proposed dam sites. The number of houses
identified within 500 feet of the proposed reservoir pool area for each dam configuration are presented
in Table 4-52.
3114-017-319 4-99
-------
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).
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 any of the King William
Reservoir configurations (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.
In addition, the 1,200-acre Cumberland Marsh Nature Conservancy Preserve is located on
the Pamunkey River (T. McNeil, Nature Conservancy, personal communication, 1996),
approximately 10 river miles upstream 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 Pimie 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
3114-017-319 4-100
-------
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.
The Comprehensive Plan for King William 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 October 1996, 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, 1996).
Reservoir
Color-infrared aerial photographs, USGS topographic mapping, small-scale topographic
mapping developed by Air Survey Corporation, and field inspections were used to identify existing
land uses within the proposed project areas for the King William Reservoir configurations.
Existing land uses within the reservoir drainage area, including the pool area, for KWR I and
KWR II are identified in Table 4-61. The land use categories present in the watersheds of the
KWR III and KWR IV configurations would be the same as those identified in Table 4-61;
however, the acreages would be less since the watersheds are smaller for KWR in and KWR IV.
Land uses within the normal pool area for each configuration are identified in Table 4-62.
Development within this region has been slow within the past decade (KWCPD, 1991).
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 wetland delineations. 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.
As quantified in Table 4-62, the majority of the reservoir watershed is currently forested
for each configuration. 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 msl. However, some uninhabited structures were identified below 100 feet msl.
The remainder of the watershed consists of open water, wetlands, and roads.
Forested lands also compose the majority of the proposed reservoir pool area for each
configuration, with wetlands composing the next largest land area.
No existing houses were identified that would be displaced by the proposed reservoir or dam
for any of the configurations. This determination was made based on review of recent color-
infrared aerial photography, USGS topographic maps, and small-scale topographic mapping
developed by Air Survey Corporation.
The King William Reservoir drainage area is designated as a CBPA in accordance with the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (KWCPD, 1991). Cohoke Creek and immediately adjacent
3114-017-319 4-101
-------
TABLE 4-61
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR WATERSHED LAND USE
Land Use Category
Agricultural/Rural Residential 3
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Subtotal
Wetlands and Open Water
Forest
TOTAL
Reservoir Configuration *
KWRI
Acreage
1,441
62
_SZ
129
479
6,380
8,429
% of Total2
17.1
0.7
fiJ
1.5
5.7
75.7
100
KWRD
Acreage
739
N/A4
574
5,998
7^11
% of Total2
10.1
N/A
7.9
82.0
100
Existing land uses within the drainage area are presented for KWR I and KWR H. The land use
categories present in the watersheds of KWR III and KWR IV would be the same as those
identified above; however, the acreages would be less since the watersheds are smaller for KWR
m and KWR IV.
Percent of total column may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding associated with the
individual percentages presented for each land use category.
Agricultural/Rural Residential acreage includes all agricultural lands and houses or structures
associated with these lands.
Acreages for the KWR n configuration are based on computations from digital cover type
mapping generated from field inspections. The acreage of roads within the area were not
quantified in the field or covertype mapping exercise. It is likely that the acreage of roads in the
watershed for KWR n are included in the total forested acreage, as the roads are likely to
traverse forested areas.
Sources: KWR I -
KWRH-
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.
Land use acreages are based on computations from digital cover type
mapping generated from field inspections using contour mapping at a
scale of 1 inch equals 500 feet.
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
TABLE 4-62
KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR NORMAL POOL AREA LAND USE
FOR EACH RESERVOIR CONFIGURATION
Land Use Category
Agricultural/Rural
Residential '
Wetlands and Open
Water
Forest
TOTAL
KWRI
Acres
%of
Total
See Footnote2
653
28.6
See Footnote2
2,284
100
KWRD
Acres
<1
574
1,648
2,222
%of
Total
<1
25.8
74.2
100
KWRIH
Acres
0
511
1,398
1,909
%of
Total
0
26.8
73.2
100
KWRIV
Acres
0
437
1,089
1,S2«
%of
Total
0
28.6
71.4
100
1 Agricultural/Rural Residential acreage includes all agricultural lands and house or structures associated with
these lands.
2 The land use breakdown has been altered since publication of the DEIS, so KWRI upland acreages are
not comparable to other configurations. However, uplands within the KWR I pool area total 1,631 acres.
Source: Land use acreages are based on computations from digital cover type mapping generated from field
inspections using contour mapping at a scale of 1 inch equals 500 feet.
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
TABLE 4-d3
KING WILLIAM COUNTY LAND USE (1988)
Urban
Agricultural
Forest and Other '
Water2
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).
3114-017-319
January 7, 1997
-------
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.
As of October 1996, no AFDs were in effect within King William County (D. W. Carney,
King William County, personal communication, 1996).
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 lengths of the proposed pipeline routes for each configuration and the anticipated area
of disturbance (assuming a 50 foot ROW) associated with each are quantified in the following
table:
Reservoir Configuration
KWRI
KWRII
KWRHI
KWRIV
Pipeline Length (Miles)
17.0
17.4
18.2
18.7
Area Disturbed (Acres)*
94
97
101
104
* Excludes the Parnunkey 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. The pipeline routes for each
configuration would traverse forested and agricultural land, as well as some existing ROW's. To
provide an indication of the portion of the pipeline route which would traverse existing
undeveloped land, as opposed to land which has already been developed, the total acreage of
undeveloped forest which would be cleared for the pipeline ROW for each configuration is
presented below.
3114-017-319
4-102
-------
Reservoir
Configuration
KWRI
KWRII
KWRffl
KWRIV
Pipeline Length
through Undeveloped
Forest (miles)
6.3
6.6
7.4
7.9
Total Pipeline
Length
(miles)
17.0
17.4
18.2
18.7
Pipeline Length through
Undeveloped Forest
(as % of total length)
37
38
41
42
57.
A summary of affected land use in project areas for this alternative is included in Table 4-
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 die 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.
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).
3114-017-319
4-103
-------
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 estimated mean tidal range at Scotland Landing is 3.56 feet (fiasco, 1996).
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 sites are located in non-tidal waters on Cohoke
Creek. Cohoke Creek flows in a southeasterly direction into Cohoke Millpond, which is an
existing impoundment downstream of the proposed dam sites, and is a tributary to the Pamunkey
River.
No known commercial navigation currently occurs on Cohoke Creek. Recreational
navigation is unknown within the proposed impoundment sites, and the main channel of Cohoke
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 sites in Cohoke Millpond. Limited
recreational navigation may also occur in the short tidal reach of Cohoke Creek downstream of the
Cohoke Millpond Dam (i.e., State Route 632 Bridge crossing).
Other SocJQCConpmic 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).
3114-017-319 4-104
-------
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. The estimated current withdrawal from the Middle Potomac aquifer is
15.9 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 groundwater 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 bom reservoirs.
3114-017-319 4-105
-------
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: Groundwattr R*sourcM of th« York-Jamas Paninsula of Virginia (Laczniak and M*ng. 1988).
August 1993
-------
FIOUHI <-•
WELL IDENTIFICATION
I. CMKWONO
COUXM.ADRUT
AUONMLI
•UmSMNWM
HOLLY BOOB
SPAM] MEADOWS
WALNUT OHO*
HQHKMTMMS
W. HANOVBtrAlMS
11, MANN TRACT
It I
It I WATER SUPPLY WB1S
,*!»«««««»,
It. OXWYCX
1«. THOfW HURST
It.
a ours
«. »OHDtTFBET
tt HU06P
SS. tAMOTOHWOOM
M. MMUYACHCS
JS.
a.
It. WMTIOMHUI
» TALLIYIMUJi
10.
M.
St. DBMM*M
«.
x. rontrs COLOW FC«
V, CHOMHOMNYHQAOPACUrY/
JtWES OTY SSMCl AUTMOWTr LCM1
». WOOOHAVCNWATBI COMPANY. tC.
m Mr.aoN/MmcwBU
APOI. tnj
LOKCd MRGNA KMNSUU
KGKMM. tA* NATCH SUPPLY STUDY
CNVMONMCNTM. ANM.YSS
PERMITTED WITHDRAWALS
FROM POTOMAC AQUIFERS
SCM.C M MIS
-------
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).
Par|cs 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.
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
3114-017-319 ' 4-106
-------
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. The estimated current withdrawal from the Middle
and Lower Potomac aquifers is 19.4 mgd.
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 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.
3114-017-319 4-107
-------
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 me 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.
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.
3114-017-319 4-108
-------
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 in 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 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.
3114-017-319 4-109
-------
Other Socioeconomic Impacts
The potential socioeconomic effect of increased water rates to the consumer could also
occur if this alternative component is implemented,
4.5.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Municipal grid Private Water Supplies
Based on safe yield modeling results, this alternative would allow Lower Peninsula water
systems to provide an additional 7.1 to 11.1 mgd of treated water safe yield.
and Commercial Fishees
This alternative 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.
Park$ 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.
Us.g
Existing land uses within project areas are described in Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.5.
This alternative would have no effect on ambient noise levels.
Infrastructure
This alternative should have no effect on existing infrastructure.
Qther Socioeconomic Impacts
The socioeconomic setting of the project areas is presented in Sections 4,5.1 through 4.5.5.
3114-017-319 4-110
-------
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.
Qther 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 of the seven alternatives carried forward for detailed environmental
analysis is summarized in Table 4-65. Detailed discussions of affected environment are presented in
Section 4.0.
3114-017-319 ' 4-111
-------
-------
TABLE 4-65
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
? ffi ;:^s|^;KKpiiI;li!il-^l 'Ilti Is ;
fiHYSiC^RESOURCES: r^Sii v';:i;; :;S:i!;^^^
SUBSTRATE
WATER QUALITY
Source
Stream/Groundwater Quality
Existing Discharges
Development
HYDROLOGY
Source
Streams/Aquifers
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
Aquifers Affected
SOIL/MINERAL RESOURCES
Predominant Soil Type
Prime Agricultural Soils
AIR QUALITY
Affected Area During Construction
Contributes to the quantity and quality of affected aquatic ecosystem (
Water from Pamunkey pumped to Diascund then to WCR for storage \
Excessive levels of phosphorus, manganese, and zinc
Several municipal/industrial discharges located upstream of Northbury '
ntense watershed development underway; active landfill located in watershed
Average discharge of the Pamunkey at Northbury is 774 mgd
Ware Creek and tributaries drain 17.4 sq. mi above the proposed dam
Columbia and Yorktown aquifers
Gently sloping.to very steep to floodplain which is clayey-loam
20 ac
Development near the proposed reservoir might be sensitive
Contributes to the quantity and quality of affected aquatic ecosystem C
Water pumped from Pamunkey into BCR for storage \
Data not available • I
several municipal/industrial discharges located upstream of Northbury C
Residential area with several houses
Average discharge of the Pamunkey at Northbury is 774 mgd
Two branches of Black Creek drain 5.47 sq. mi above proposed dam
Columbia and Yorktown aquifers
Moderately sloping to very steep to flcodplain which is clayey-loam
17 ac
Residential development near proposed reservoir might be sensitive
Contributes to the quantity and quality of affected aquatic ecosystem
Water pumped from Mattaponi into KWR for storage
High levels of orthophosphate and total organic carbon, but data limited
Currently no major municipalflndustrial discharges in Mattaponi River
tfinor development anticipated, closed landfill located in watershed
Average discharge of the Mattaponi at Scotland Landing is 494 mgd
Sohoke Creek drains 1 3.2, 1 1 .5, 10.3, & 8.9 sq, mi above proposed dam for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Columbia and Yorktown aquifers
Moderately sloping to very steep to floodplain which is clayey-loam '*
342. 298, 277, & 228 ac for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Residences near the proposed reservoir might be sensitive
ENDANGERED, THREATENED
AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
FISH AND INVERTEBRATES
OTHER WILDLIFE
Primary Habitat
SANCTUARIES/REFUGES
WETLANDS/VEGETATED
SHALLOWS
MUD FLATS
One location of Small Whorled Pogonia in proposed reservoir site
Ware Creek Reservoir site is used by anadromous fish
Forested uplands which represent 625 ac of pool area
Contains 98 nest Great Blue Heron rookery
No resources in the immediate vicinity
Affects 590 ac of tidal and nontidal wetlands and open water
Mud flat 8,000 feet downstream of intake
"tone Found
Black Creek provides limited access for anadromous fish
Forested uplands which represent 546 ac of pool area
No resources in the immediate vicinity
Affects 285 ac of nontidal wetlands and open water
Mud flat 8,000 feet downstream of intake
Sensitive Joint-vetch in vicinity of Mattaponi intake
Two locations of Small Whorled Pogonia in proposed reservoir site
Two Bald Eagle nests; one 1 ,800 feet irom river pumping station and one 375, 2,975, 7,900, & 10,100 feet
downstream of the dam tor KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Cohoke Creek blocked to anadromous fish
Forested uplands which represent 1 ,5)38, 1 ,394, 1 ,1 82, & 875 ac of pool area for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Contains 17 nest Great Blue Heron rookery
No resources in the immediate vicinity
Affects 653, 574, 51 1 , & 437 ac of noMidal wetlands and open water for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
Mud flats 3,500 ft upstream of the intake and 2,200 ft downstream of the intake
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL SITES
MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE
WATER SUPPLIES
Source Consumption
Supplies in Project Vicinity
RECREATIONAL AND
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
Commercial Importance
Recreational Importance
OTHER WATER-RELATED
RECREATION
AESTHETICS
PARKS AND PRESERVES
LAND USE
Residential Development
Total Land Affected
Agricultural/Forestal Districts
NOISE
Affected Receptors
Duration of Construction
INFRASTRUCTURE
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Affected Municipality
1 prehistoric site within the vicinity of the proposed river pumping station
45 sites identified within the proposed reservoir pool area
5 sites are located in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline
Additional survey work recommended
1 prehistoric site within the vicinity of ;he proposed river pumping station
4 sites identified within the proposed reservoir pool area
2 sites located within the vicinity of the proposed pipelines
Additional survey work recommended '
5 sites located within the vicinity of the- proposed river pumping station
131 , 120, 103, & 92 sites identified within the proposed reservoir pool area for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
19 sites located within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline
Year 1990 consumptive use in Pamunkey River basin is 34.2 mgd
*to municipal or private supplies in immediate vicinity of alternative
Fish species harvested from Pamunkey River
Minimal freshwater and estuarine fishing in Ware Creek basin
Ware Creek is used by anadromous fish including Striped Bass
Pamunkey River supports year-round recreational boat activity
Several privately owned hunt clubs and duck blinds impacted
Includes hunting, fishing, boating, and canoeing
144 houses within close proximity to physical features of alternative
The value is its predominantly natural, scenic beauty
No resources within the immediate vicinity.
Large residential community being developed
1 ,400 ac of disturbed land
246 acres within proposed pool area
Residential areas near alternative features
2- 3 years (estimated)
Roadways affected (including I-64), energy requirements
Pamunkey River and Ware Creek channel navigation
Ware Creek dam site in navigable waters
Located within JCC and NKC
JCC is changing into an urban and suburban environment
NKC is primarily rural but is exoeriencina growth
Year 1990 consumptive use in Pamunkey River basin is 34.2 mgd
>Jo municipal or private supplies In immediate vicinity of alternative
Fish species harvested from Pamunksy River
Small size of Black Creek contributes to limited recreational fishing
Jmited access for anadromous fish
^amunkey River supports year-round recreational boat activity
Several privately owned hunt dubs and duck blinds impacted
Primary recreation impacted is hunting
104 houses within close proximity to physical features of alternative
The value is its predominantly nature1, scenic beauty
No resources within the immediate vicinity.
Residential growth has occurred and continues in watershed
1 ,032 ac of disturbed land
376 ac within proposed reservoir poo* area
Residential areas near alternative features
3 years (estimated)
Roadways affected, energy requiremsnts
Pamunkey River navigation
Black Creek Reservoir dam sites in non-navigable waters
Located primarily within NKC
NKC is primarily rural but is experiencing growth
Year 1990 consumptive use in Mattaponi River basin is 3.66 mgd
>4o municipal or private supplies in immediate vicinity of alternative
:ish species harvested from Mattaponi River
Majority of fishing occurs in 15 ac private Cohoke Mill Pond
Blocked to anadromous fish
Mattaponi River supports year-round tecreational boat activity
Several privately owned hunt dubs and duck blinds impacted
Primary recreation impacted is hunting
73, 72, 72, & 69 houses within close proximity to physical features of KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
The value is its predominantly natural, scenic beauty
No resources within the immediate vicinity.
No known residential development planned
2,381 , 2,322, 2,013, & 1 ,633 ac of forested and wetland areas for KWR- 1, II, III, & IV, respectively
None within proposed reservoir pool area
Residential areas near alternative features
3 years (estimated)
Roadways affected, energy requirements
Mattaponi River navigation
King William Reservoir dam site in non-navigable waters
Located primarily within KWC
KWC remains primarily rural
-------
-------
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
WATER QUALITY
Source
Stream/Groundwater Quality
Withdrawal from 8 fresh groundwater wells for reservoir storage
3H, chloride, and sulfate concentrations are high in two reservoirs
HYDROLOGY
Source
Streams/ Aquifers
GROUNOWATER RESOURCES
Aquifer Impact •
SOIL/MINERAL RESOURCES
Predominant Soil Type
Prime Agricultural Soils
AIR QUALITY
Construction Impacts
onlfibules to the quantity and quality o( affected aquatic ecosystem
Fresh groundwater withdrawal from new well fields in NKC and JCC
To augment capacity of Little Creek and Diascund Creek Reservoirs
Seepage recharge to Middle Potomac Aquifers
Well drained soils
No impacts anticipated
Residential development near proposed pipeline route may be sensitive
Dontributes to the quantity and quality of affected aquatic ecosystem
Mo impacts anticipated
Withdrawal from 5 brackish groundwater wells for desalftation
Brackish water has high chloride concentration
N/A
Deep brackish groundwater withdrawal to supply four RO facilities
Concentrate discharge pipelines terminate at four tidal water bodies
Seepage recharge to Middle and Lower Potomac aquifers
Well drained soils
No impacts anticipated
Discharge pipelines cross medium to high density residential areas
impacts anticipated
Withdwal from existing sources
Deration of water quality in existing reservoirs
No impacts anticipated
Impact to consumers currently serviced by Lower Peninsula purveyors
Reduction in impact to aquifers currently used as water source
N/A
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
No irrcts anticipated
Stress-Chickahon
Ngggfvjmpacts all aquifers cu
N/A
No i
pated
ated
mmmmm£$!mi®mMmmsmiK
ENDANGERED, THREATENED
AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
FISH AND INVERTEBRATES
OTHER WILDUFE
Primary Habitat
SANCTUARIES/REFUGES
WETLANDS/VEGETATED
SHALLOWS
Acreage
Classification
MUD FLATS
* i'^^KSS^ rs*i •••• • *>:- i^X** j*<-;r:*?'^i'f ; ^iSS'^i' r'~*^S>;<<:*:-:fe!P-':?/ :>3**Y;K:~:>i
No impacts anticipated
Reservoirs are currently stocked and monitored
Permanent impacts to forested land which represents 4 ac
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
fish and invertebrate species impacted by concentrate pipeline outfalte
Variety of community types
No impacts anticipated
Less than 1 ac impacted by outfall structures associated with pipelines
Estuarine
Mud fiats located in vicinity of concentrate discharge pipeline outfalls
Ho impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
No impacts anticipated
Impass
Fish ,iv
Impa-is
No im<
Affecrtl
bygna
Morem
LHii!g!ia_e>istinfl reservoirs
eservolr drawdown
Impaaociated with wildlife species within
existing reservoirs
~anas are associated with current reservoirs and areas suj
ppfe,
SW»HB(»Be^pSPSSiilsillgS1«ilfi
ARCHAlOLOGIGAL AND
HISTORICAL SITES
MUNICipAL AND PRrVATl
WATER SUPPLIES
Source Consumption
RECREATIONAL AND
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
Commercial Importance
Recreational Importance
OTHER WATER-RELATED
RECREATION
AESTHETICS
PARKS AND PRESERVES
LAND USE
Total Land Disturbance
Agricultural/Forestal Districts
Houses Displaced
NOISE
Affected Receptors
Duration of Construction
INFRASTRUCTURE
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Affected Municipality
.S^i~^t|™*M^P<*<^
7 sites exist within the vicinity of Little Creek Reservoir well sites
Current Middle Potomac aquifer withdrawal total is 1 5-9 mgd
N/A
Recreational fisheries exist in Diascund and Little Creek reservoirs
*Jo impacts anticipated
3 houses are within S00! of groundwater withdrawal points
*> impacts anticipated
Maximum area of disturbance is 8 ac
None
None
Residential areas near well sites and pipelines
6 months (estimated)
Impacts to existing roadways, energy requirements
Financial impact to Lower Peninsula consumers
I
Discharge pipelines may affect a number of sites
Current withdrawal from Middle and Lower Potomac aquifers is 19.4 mgd
"Jo impacts anticipated
Concentrate pipeline discharges into water bodies used for recreation
Two discharge pipelines cross parks
224 houses within close proximity to physical features of alternative
1 groundwater well and RO facilities located within Newport News Park
Pipeline located in York County New Quarter Park
aipetine crosses Colonial National Historic Parkway
Maximum area of disturbance is less than 70 ac
None
None
Hesidentel areas near well sites and pipelines
1 year (estimated)
Impacts to existing roadways, energy requirements
Impacts to water bodies associated with discharge outfalls
Financial impact to Lower Peninsula consumers
No impacts anticipated
!
Current Lower Peninsula groundwater withdrawal is 3.6 mgd
-------
-------
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section is devoted to the probable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
candidate 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
alternative is presented, but only in as much detail as needed to make meaningful comparisons
among mem. A more detailed evaluation of potential impacts is contained in Report D (Volume
II), Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental Analysis) (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993)
which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document.
The environmental effects of alternatives identified in Section 3.5 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 3.8.
3114-017-319 5-1
-------
5J 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.
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 were 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. Potential impacts to groundwater resources are
divided into two broad categories:
• Impacts to Groundwater Quantity
• Impacts to Groundwater Quality
3114-017-319 5-2
-------
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.
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.
53.1 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 21 stream/wetland areas along the pipeline route.
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. _ •> \, , ,^ i , ' - "
j/\j I*AT p. •'- * r!' • •'"', - ,
From a drinking water treatment perspective, another concern associated with Pamunkey
River water quality is possible intrusion of salinity, and associated 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 Minimum Instream Flowby (MIF) which precludes withdrawals
during drought conditions, Pamunkey River withdrawals would be avoided or prevented during any
periods of detectable salinity near the intake.
3114-017-319 5-3
-------
The primary long-term impact to the water quality of Diascund Creek Reservoir is the addition
of flow from the Pamunkcy 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.
The runoff control measures planned for the Stonehouse development 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 those 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
3114-017-319 5-4
-------
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 are 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 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 3.2 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, 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 1
also performed. There is only a small increase in flow contraventions under post-withdrawal 1
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 c °•'~e"
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 mis alternative
since the proposed intake site is located in tidal waters. • '
/ •••
The pipeline for this alternative would cross 21 stream/wetland areas. Impacts to the
hydrology of these streams would be temporary in nature, and are deemed minimal.
As part of this alternative, Diascund Creek would be used as an inter-reservoir conveyance
channel. Based on the field measurements and flow calculations described in Section 4.2.1, the
channels at the proposed outfall sites appear capable of accommodating maximum flows during
pumpover operations. When reservoirs are near capacity and natural high flow events occur,
pumpovers from the Pamunkey River to the Diascund Creek Reservoir would be unnecessary.
Therefore, pumpover operations should not increase the frequency at which the banks of Diascund
Creek are overtopped by high flow events.
3114-017-319 5-5
-------
PAMUNKEY RIVER FLOW DURATION CURVES
Ware Creek Reservoir Alternative
(Simulated Flows Past Northbury for 10/29 - 9/87)
5,000
4,000
"D
D)
£ 3,000
o
U-
2,000
1,000
0
Post-Withdrawal
Pre-Withdrawal
o
20 40 60 80
PERCENT OF TIME FLOW EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
120 MGD WITHDRAWAL CAPACITY
100
fl
(i*
3
01
-------
PAMUNKEY RIVER MONTHLY FLOWS PASTNORTHBURY
Jan Feb Mar
Jun Jul
Month
Oct Nov Dec
MIF Value Existing Average Monthly Flows Average Flow (774 mgd)
* 120 rngd withdrawal capacity simulated.
(Q
I
en
rb
-------
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, higher nutrient flushing rates, and greater saturation of the floodplain
wetlands through recharge^ « Potential impacts to Diascund Creek through channel scouring and
increased sediment loading are discussed below.
The outfalls to Diascund Creek would be standard U.S. Bureau of Reclamation impact type
structures, designed for maximum discharge capacities. Discharge channels would connect the
outfall to the main Diascund Creek channel. The outfalls would be designed to dissipate most of the
energy associated with die high velocity incoming flow of water before it reaches the stream channel.
If erosional problems develop in some portion of Diascund Creek, additional control measures such
as check dams or natural deadfall timbers could be placed at strategic locations in the creek channel
to dissipate flow velocities and reduce potential bank undercutting. As discussed in Section 4.2.1,
pumpover operations should not increase the frequency at which the banks of Diascund Creek are
overtopped by high flow events.
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.
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 deteriorate
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 tatter is considered a prime agricultural soil (Hodges et ai, 1985).
3114-017-319 5-6
-------
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. However, open
water and perennial streams already inundate an estimated 54 acres of this area. Therefore, 1,184
acres of soils 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.
Ayr 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 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.
53.3, 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.
3114-017-319 5-7
-------
Water Quality
Surface waters involved in this alternative are the Pamunkey River (new intake source), two
tributaries of Black Creek (locations of new reservoirs), the Diascund Creek and Little Creek
Reservoirs (existing impoundments), and 34 stream/wetland crossings.
Intake
The water quality characteristic of the Pamunkey River which is of greatest concern relative
to the proposed withdrawal is salinity. An analysis was conducted by Malcolm Pirnie to estimate the
impact of the proposed withdrawal on salinity concentrations in the Pamunkey River (see Report I,
Pamunkey River Salinity Intrusion Impact Assessment for Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
(Malcolm Pirnie, 1995) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this
document). This analysis concluded that the salinity regime of the Pamunkey River, and the
biological resources existing in that environment, should not be greatly affected by incremental
salinity changes due to withdrawals proposed as pan of the Black Creek Reservoir Project Natural
Pamunkey River salinity fluctuations greatly exceed any salinity changes that are predicted due to
the proposed RRWSG withdrawals. The Pamunkey River salinity modeling results demonstrate that
the RRWSG's withdrawals would not affect the upstream limits of detectable salinity intrusion. The
proposed,withdrawals would, however, cause small increases in the frequency of given levels of
salinity intrusion at points which already are periodically exposed to comparable salinity levels.
Malcolm Pirnie also evaluated potential cumulative salinity changes in the Pamunkey River
resulting from the proposed RRWSG withdrawal in combination with other existing and projected
consumptive water uses in the Pamunkey River Basin (see Report I). Based on mis additional
analysis, there appears to be some potential that measurable cumulative impacts would result from
the combination of all existing and reasonably foreseeable withdrawals. These potential cumulative
impacts would most likely be small since potentially affected areas are subject to large natural
salinity fluctuations which occur as a result of normal daily, seasonal, and annual variations in
streamflow and tidal conditions. Also, these potential impacts would probably occur slowly, over
several decades, so that most existing communities may have time to adjust to the changes or
possibly to migrate to upstream locations.
From a drinking water treatment perspective, another concern associated with Pamunkey
River water quality is possible intrusion of salinity, with its associated concentrations of chlorides
and sodium, as far upstream as the proposed intake site at Northbury. This can occur under natural
conditions, regardless of any proposed withdrawal. Based on review of available Pamunkey River
salinity data, and based on the proposed MIF which precludes withdrawals during low flow
conditions, Pamunkey River withdrawals would be avoided or prevented during periods of detectable
salinity near the intake.
Reservoir
Long-term water quality changes to the Southern Branch and Eastern Branch of Black Creek
would result from filling the impoundment area of the proposed reservoirs with water from the
Pamunkey River. Surface water quality records are not available for the Black Creek Reservoir
watershed. As presented in the DEIS, 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 drainage areas, topography, and land use within their watersheds. Using these surrogate data,
it was found that there are only minor differences in water quality between Crump Creek,
3114-017-319 5-8
-------
Matadequin Creek and the Pamunkey River. Potential water quality changes through altered
hydrologic conditions in the Black Creek Reservoir basins are discussed below.
The most notable change at the proposed reservoir sites would result from increasing the depth
of the surface water to maximums of 77 feet in the Eastern Branch Black Creek impoundment and
63 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. Downstream water quality problems would be expected if water
were released only from the bottom of the reservoir, resulting from the temperature variations, the
low dissolved oxygen, and nutrient enriched water. Mitigative measures such as multi-level releases
could be used to regulate the quality of the water released from the reservoir.
Hie proposed minimum combined reservoir release of 1.2 mgd represents 32 percent of thjp
estimated combined average flow at the two dam sites. Long-term water quality characteristics of
Black Creek downstream of the two dams are not expected to be adversely impacted, either by the
net reduction in volumes of flow below the impoundments or by the addition of water of similar
quality from the Pamunkey River.
Short-term water quality impacts to Black Creek could occur during dam and outfall
construction, and from clearing associated with preparation for filling the reservoir. Such impacts
would consist largely of increased turbidity as a result of increased erosion in cleared areas. Efforts
would be made to control such erosion at the source. Additionally, as the reservoir begins filling,
concentrations of nutrients can be expected to temporarily rise from decomposition of leaf litter,
stumps, and other organic material left after clearing.
Potential reservoir water quality impacts associated with existing and potential future
development in the Black Creek Reservoir watershed could occur as a result of 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. There are currently at least fou*
residential subdivisions within the proposed reservoir watershed, including the large Clopton Forest
subdivision which borders the western edge of the Southern Branch Black Creek impoundment site.
In general, the water quality of the Pamunkey River is better than the existing water quality
in Diascund Creek Reservoir, with the notable exception that the mean total phosphorus
concentration is higher in the Pamunkey River than in Diascund Creek Reservoir (0.07 versus 0.04
mg/L). Therefore, there could be periods when eutrophication impacts could occur in Diascund
Creek Reservoir due to increased nutrient loading from the addition of water directly from the
Pamunkey River.
Much of the water reaching the Diascund Creek Reservoir from the Pamunkey River would
first be routed through the Black Creek Reservoir system. A substantial amount of particulate
settling would occur within these reservoirs, owing to their large volume and depth. This would
reduce concentrations of particulate-bome constituents, such as phosphorus, in the water column,
before the water is transferred on to Diascund Creek Reservoir and the rest of the existing Newport
News Waterworks raw water supply system. If suspended solids levels in the Pamunkey River
occasionally reach unacceptably high levels, the river pump station operators would have the option
of discontinuing withdrawals until water quality improves. However, water from the Pamunkey
River could sometimes be pumped (directly to the headwaters of the Diascund Creek Reservoir,
thereby increasing nutrient loading during those periods.
3114-017-319 5-9
-------
Since raw water can be transferred from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir,
water quality can also be affected there, but to a lesser extent. Nutrients would be attenuated in
Diascund Creek Reservoir and not all water would be routed through Little Creek Reservoir.
Malcolm Pirnie conducted additional water quality analyses on Pamunkey River water
samples in October 1994 and found slightly higher concentrations of organic compounds than in
existing raw water sources in the Newport News Waterworks system. The addition of Pamunkey
River water, with these higher organic concentrations, is not expected to cause unmanageable water
quality problems in Newport News Waterworks reservoirs. However, the treatment process would
have to be adjusted to accommodate these generally elevated levels of organic compounds in the raw
water supply.
Pipeline
Impacts to the 34 stream/wetland areas along the proposed pipeline routes would be limited
to the period of construction. It is also possible that the pipeline would be constructed during the
drier months of the year, at which time many of the intermittent streams may not be flowing. Any
impacts on the water quality of those streams would be temporary and minimal.
Hydrology
Intake
The potential hydrologic impacts of a maximum 120 mgd withdrawal from the Pamunkey
River at Northbury were evaluated under projected Year 2040 demand conditions. The Year 2040
represents the end of the project planning horizon, and presumably the year in which withdrawals
would be greatest. Hydrologic impacts in earlier years would be smaller.
From safe yield analyses, data are available on the quantities of water which must be
withdrawn to meet the project's yield requirements through the planning period. To evaluate the
effects of those withdrawals, it was necessary to examine the 58-year record of streamflow on the
Pamunkey River and its principal tributaries, collected at the following gages: for the period 10/29-
9/41, North Anna River near DosweH (441 square mile drainage area); for the period 10/41-9/69,
Pamunkey River near Hanover (1,081 square mile drainage area); for the period 10/69-9/70, North
Anna River near Doswell (441 square mile drainage area); and for the period 10/70-9/87, Pamunkey
River near Hanover (1,081 square mile drainage area).
For each month in this historic record, a model was used to predict the flow at the Northbury
(1,279 square mile drainage area) intake site (without any withdrawal), the amount required to be
withdrawn, and the remaining River flow past the site. The following hydrologic impact assessment
techniques were used in that evaluation:
• Streamflow duration curves were developed and compared for the pre- and post-
withdrawal conditions.
• Monthly withdrawals for each individual month of the simulation period (Water Years
1930-1987) were summarized graphically.
3114-017-319 5-10
-------
• Average monthly withdrawals and flows past the proposed intake site were simulated
and compared tabularly and graphically for the pre- and post-withdrawal conditions
for:
1. The entire simulation period (Water Years 1930-1987).
2. Wet years (10 percent exceedance water years).
3. Average years (45-55 percent exceedance water years).
4. Dry years (90 percent exceedance water years).
• An analysis was made of those periods when flows are less than nominal threshold
levels (i.e., flow contravention analysis). A comparison was made between the
number of months in which those levels would not be met, under pre- and post-
withdrawal streamflow conditions.
• An analysis of basin-wide consumptive use was conducted to estimate cumulative
streamflow reductions with and without the project
The safe yield model uses simulated Pamunkey River withdrawal records which are based
only on MIF conditions and pump station capacity. These simulated withdrawals overestimate the
quantity of river withdrawals required to produce a given safe yield, because the model assumes that
withdrawals would occur even if the reservoir is already Ml. To remedy this situation, each of the
monthly Pamunkey River withdrawal rates was reduced by the corresponding monthly amount of
Black Creek Reservoir water spilling over the top of the dam. In making these corrections, adjusted
withdrawal rates were not permitted to go below zero.
Figure 5-2A depicts the percentages of time in which simulated flows past the proposed intake
occurred under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions. The decrease in flow past the intake under post-
withdrawal flow conditions is small at given recurrence frequencies.
Figures 5-2B through 5-2G show simulated monthly withdrawals for each individual month
of the simulation period (Water Years 1930-1987). The 58-year simulation period was divided into
six sequential time periods to better portray these data. These six graphs show that the amount
withdrawn would be very small relative to total river flow. During particularly low flow months,
when the proposed MIF would severely limit or preclude withdrawals, the amount withdrawn would
be very limited or there would be no withdrawals.
Under the proposed Pamunkey River MIF (i.e., Modified 80 Percent Monthly Exceedance
Flows described in Section 3.3.3), the proposed maximum withdrawal of 120 mgd could represent
a maximum of 40 percent of the total flow on a single day at Northbury. This could occur during
the month of October (MIF value of 180 mgd is the lowest monthly MIF value), if a daily flow past
the intake was 300 mgd and the maximum withdrawal of 120 mgd was made (300 -180 = 120). This
would not be a frequent occurrence since, in October, flows at Northbury exceeding 300 mgd occur
only 28.5 percent of the time. In fact, during 48 percent of the time in October, flows are less than
180 mgd and no withdrawals would be allowed.
3114-017-319 5-11
-------
5,000
I 4,000
u.
.>
2 3,000
jx'S*
j= D)
c 3-
O
2,000
01
O)
S
0)
1,000
PAMUNKEY RIVER FLOW DURATION CURVES
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
(October 1929 - September 1987)
Post-Withdrawal *
20
* 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir,
Pre-Withdrawal
40
60
80
Percentage of Time Flow Exceeded
100
i
en
-------
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
(OCTOBER 1929-SEPTEMBER 1939)
3,500
-^3,000
"O
O)
E-
j2 2,000
0)
a> 1,500
1,000
500
, 1
1
1
1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 193S 1936 1937 1938 1939
Water
* 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity
at Northbury to supply Black Creek
Reservoir,
I Remaining River
1 ' Plow
River Withdrawal
TJ
&
i
en
ib
01
-------
3,000
2,500
E> 2,000
E.
O 1,500
0>
.> 1,000
Of
500
0
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
(OCTOBER 1939-SEPTEMBER 1949)
t
120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir,
h
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949
Water Year
D
Remaining River Flow
River Withdrawal
3
ca*
i
en
iss
O
-------
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
(OCTOBER 1949-SEPTEMBER 1959)
4,000
3,500
3,000
D)
2,500
O 2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1950
t
I
19S1
19S2 1953 1954 1955
Water Year
1956
1957
1958
1959
* 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir.
Remaining River Flow
River Withdrawal'
(Q
i
S
D
-------
5,000
4,500 -
4,000 -
9" 3,500
cn
E, 3,000
J 2,500
fe 2,000
>
£ 1,500
1,000
500
0
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
(OCTOBER 1959-SEPTEMBER 1969)
1960
1961
1962 1963 1964 1965
Water Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity al
Northbury lo supply Black Creek Reservoir
Remaining River Flow
River Withdrawal
c
c
i
cn
to
m
-------
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
(OCTOBER 1969-SEPTEMBER 1978)
3,500
3,000
|* 2,500
I 2,000
LL
<5 1,500
£
1,000
500
0
•
•
'
J
nd
tfijl
i
_M
I
•
if
1970 1971
i
i
_. m
i
l
•
[
•
i
•
n
PI •
•
•
1
L*M_J I
1
•..
k
U"
M
.... - , , . ,.., ,
rf
1972 1973 1974 1975
Water Year
Remaining River Flow ^H River Withdrawal
1
In
• i
i
1976
*
P
1
i
lihTmly
.
•
"
4
1977 1978
"ii
co'
c
3
120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir,
-------
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
(OCTOBER 1978-SEPTEMBER 1987)
4,000
3,500
^ 3,000
T3
O)
E 2,500
JO 2,000
li.
1,500
1,000
500
0
1979
il
1980
1981 1982 1983 1984
Water Year
1985
1986
1987
* 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir,
Remaining River Flow
River Withdrawal
IQ
I
-------
Table 5-1 and Figure S-2H contain summaries of the simulated average withdrawals and flows
past the intake site under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions over the entire simulation period
(Water Years 1930-1987). The average simulated withdrawal was 33.3 mgd and represents a 4.4
percent decrease in the estimated average flow past the intake. On a monthly basis, die greatest
percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions was an 8.6 percent reduction in mean flow for
the month of June.
An analysis also was conducted of selected wet, average, and dry years to distinguish among
the quantities that could be withdrawn under these ranges of flow conditions. Tables 5-2 through 5-4
and Figures 5-21 through 5-2K contain summaries of the simulated average withdrawals and flows
past the intake site under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions for wet, average, and dry years.
Wet years were defined as 10 percent exceedance water years, which are the six wettest water
years during the 58-year simulation period. The average simulated withdrawal was 36.9 mgd and
represented a 3.0 percent decrease in the estimated average flow past the intake for those years. Chi
a monthly basis, the greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions was a 9.1 percent
reduction in mean flow for the month of August.
Average years were defined as 45 to 55 percent exceedance water year, which are the six
average water years during the 58-year simulation period. The average simulated withdrawal was
30.4 mgd and represented a 4.2 percent decrease in the estimated average flow past the intake for
those years. On a monthly basis, the greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions was
a 13.3 percent reduction in mean flow for the month of June.
Dry years were defined as 90 percent exceedance water years, which are the six driest water
years during the 58-year simulation period. The average simulated withdrawal was 19.3 mgd and
represented a 5.6 percent decrease in the estimated average flow past the intake for those years. On
a monthly basis, the greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions was a 9.5 percent
reduction in mean flow for the month of July. As Figure 5-2K shows, some withdrawals would occur *
during months in which the average baseline river flow was less than the monthly MIF value. The
withdrawals are simulated on a daily basis. Streamflows usually exceed the MIF condition on some
days during low flow months; therefore, withdrawals can be made on those days without violating
the MIF requirement.
Table 5-5 shows when Pamunkey River flows would not meet nominal threshold levels (i.e.,
flow contravention analysis), under both pre- and post-withdrawal conditions. This table shows that
the withdrawals would have little effect on Streamflows under the proposed MIF conditions. The
greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions would be a 4.2 percent increase in the
number of months in which Streamflows were less than or equal to the 50 Tennant flow level (i.e.,
50 percent of mean historical flow). The small (3.3%) incremental increase in months when average
Streamflows would not meet stated threshold levels occurs in dry years when some daily withdrawals
would be allowed even during low flow months (i.e., average monthly flow below monthly MIF
value), but only on days on which the streamflow rises above the monthly MIF condition. Theset
daily withdrawals during low flow months would not violate the proposed MIF.
The preceding discussion describes the potential individual impacts of a withdrawal from the
Pamunkey River in the vicinity of Northbury. An analysis of the potential cumulative streamflow
reductions in the entire Pamunkey River Basin was also conducted, which required the identification
of additional withdrawals which could affect future Streamflows in the Pamunkey River. Table 5-6
contains a summary of estimated cumulative streamflow reductions in relation to total Pamunkey
3114-017-319 5-12
-------
TABLE 5-1
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS (1)
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
(macfl
1,089,1
1,204.3
1,299.4
1,218.7
730.9
495.3
380.9
501.0
345.8
472.0
568,5
799.5
758.8
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(mqd)
34.6
28.8
28.3
29.1
40.7
42.8
30.4
30,6
23.5
29.9
42.9
37.9
33.3
Average
Withdrawal
(% of Flow)
3.2
2.4
2.2
2.4
5.6
8.6
8.0
6.1
6.8
6.3
7.5
4.7
4.4
Remaining
Streamflow
(mud)
1,054,5
1,175.5
1,271.1
1,189.6
690.2
452.5
350.5
470.4
322.3
442.1
525.6
761.6
725.5
MIF
Value (3)
(mud)
430.8
534.9
584.5
521.6
361.7
231.0
205.0
205.0
205.0
180.0
188.4
299.3
328.9
(1) Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values over a
696—month simulation period (October 1929 through September 1987).
(2) 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Northbury to supply Black Creek
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated Black Creek Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows applied to each daily Streamflow value.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
1,400
1,200 -
1,000 -
800 -
o
u!
*S^ f»
£ B
400 -
200 -
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
MIF Value **
Surplus River Flow
River Withdrawal
120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir.
Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows.
Tl
<5'
c
3
01
10
-------
TABLE 5-2
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS
FOR WET YEARS (10% EXCEEDANCE WATER YEARS) (1)
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May_
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
fmad)
1,695.1
1,742.6
1,937.4
1,777.7
1,316.9
996.5
929.7
618.6
553.2
727.0
994.2
1,682.4
1,247.6
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(mqd)
22.2
21.6
19.7
26.8
39J
58.0
46.1
56.4
23.2
33.0
53.7
42.2
36.9
Average
Withdrawal
f% of Flow)
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.5
3.0 j
5.8
5.0
9,1
4.2
4.5
5.4
2.5
3.0
Remaining
Streamflow
(mad)
1,672.9
1,721.0
1,917.7
1,751.0
1,277.0
938.4
883.7
562.2
530.0
694.0
940.5
1,640.3
1,210.7
MIF
Value (3)
fmo;d}
430.8
534.9
584.5
521.6
361.7
231.0
205.0
205.0
205.0
180.0
188.4
299.3
328.9
(1) Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values tor six wettest water years (1973,1984,
1972,1949,1975, and 1978} out of a 58-year simulation period (Water Years 1930 through 1987).
(2) 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Northbury to supply Black Creek
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged tor each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated Black Creek Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows applied to each daily Streamflow value.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 5-3
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS
FOR AVERAGE YEARS (45-55% EXCEEDANCE WATER YEARS) (1)
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
(mad)
785.8
1,144.8
1,205.9
896.0
480.4
305.2
223.3
762.9
135.6
852.3
1,197.6
745.4
727.9
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(mad)
30.7
26.0
34.5
38.8
38.1
40.6
21.0
24.1
15.1
27.7
29.7
38.5
30.4
Average
Withdrawal
(% of Flow)
3.9
2.3
2.9
4.3
7.9
13.3
9.4
3.2
11.2
3.3
2.5
5.2
4.2
Remaining
Streamflow
(mad)
755.1
1,118.8
1,171.4
857.2
442.3
264.6
202.3
738.7
120.5
824.6
1,167.9
706.8
697.5
MIF
Value (3)
(mad)
430.8
534.9
584.5
521.6
361.7
231.0
205.0
205.0
205.0
180.0
188.4
299.3
328.9
(1) Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values for six average water years (1953,1943,
1986, 1938,1955, and 1957) out of a 58-year simulation period (Water Years 1930 through 1987).
(2) 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Northbury to supply Black Creek
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated Black Creek Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows applied to each daily Streamflow value. Some daily withdrawals would
be allowed during low flow months (ie; average monthly flow below monthly MIF value), but only on days on which
the Streamflow rises above the monthly MIF value. Those daily withdrawals during low flow months would not
violate the proposed MIF policy.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 5-4
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS
FOR DRY YEARS (90% EXCEEDANCE WATER YEARS) (1)
BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
2
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
(mud)
362.7
607.9
742.0
536.2
617,9
213.5
251.7
134.1
145.1
134.4
154.9
211.5
342.6
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(mad)
18.5
22.3
27.4
24.5
45.9
12.4
23.9
10.9
12.1
12,4
14.6
6.9
19.3
Average
Withdrawal
(% of Flow)
5.1
3.7
3.7
4.6
7.4
5.8
9.5
8.1
8.3
9.2
9.4
3.3
5.6
Remaining
Streamflow
(mqd)
344.2
585.6
714.6
511.7
572.0
201.1
227.8
123.2
133.1
122.0
140.3
204.6
323.3
MIF
Value (3)
(mad)
430.8
534.9
584.5
521.6
361.7
231.0
205.0
205.0
205.0
180.0
188.4
299.3
328.9
(1) Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values for six driest water years (1981,1931,
1954,1966,1956, and 1932) out of a 58-year simulation period (Water Years 1930 through 1987).
(2) 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Northbury to supply Black Creek
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated Black Creek Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows applied to each daily Streamflow value. Some daily withdrawals would
be allowed during low flow months (ie; average monthly flow below monthly MIF value), but only on days on which
the Streamflow rises above the monthly MIF value. Those daily withdrawals during low flow months would not
violate the proposed MIF policy.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
2,500
2,000 -
1,500 -
® 1,000
£
500 -
0
Jan
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
FOR WET YEARS (10% EXCEEDANCE WATER YEARS)
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Base River Flow
River Withdrawal'
Remaining River Flow
MIF Value "
120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir.
Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows.
Dec
•n
<5'
c
3
V
N>
-------
1,400
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
For Average Years (45-55% Exc. Water Yrs.)
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Base River Flow
River Withdrawal
Remaining River Flow
MIF Value "
* 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir
" Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows,
Dec
3
ea"
c
3
en
-------
800
600 -
•o
at
I 400
E
200 -
0
Jan
PAMUNKEY RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
For Dry Years (90% Exceedance Water Years)
Black Creek Reservoir Alternative
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Base River Flow
River Withdrawal
Remaining River Flow
MIF Value
* 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at
Northbury to supply Black Creek Reservoir.
** Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows.
Dec
(O
c
3
Ol
-------
TABLE 5-5
CONTRAVENTIONS OF SELECTED PAMUNKEY RIVER FLOW LEVELS
(IN PERCENTAGES OF TIME AT OR BELOW SPECIFIED FLOW LEVELS) (1)
Flow
Levels • . ..
76.3 mgd
(10 Tennant) (3)
152. 6 mgd
(20 Tennant) (3)
228.9 mgd
OOTennant) (3)
305.2 mgd
(40 Tennant (3)
381. 5 mgd
(50 Tennant) (3)
Proposed
MIF Policy (4)
Contraventions of Flow Levels (% of time)
Baseline Streamflow
Conditions
4.7
12.5
22.3
30.0
37.2
24.9
Post-Withdrawal (2)
Streamflow Conditions
4.7
13.6
25.4
33.9
41.4
28.2
Incremental
Increase
0.0
1.1
3.1
3.9
4.2
3.3(5)
(1} Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values over a
696-month simulation period (October 1929 through September 1987).
(2) 120 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity fin 10 mgd pumping increments) at Northbury to supply Black Creek
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated Black Creek Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Tennant refers to a percentage of the mean historical Streamflow. Mean historical Streamflow at Northbury was
estimated at 763 mgd based on the 52-year gaged Streamflow record available for the Pamunkey River near Hanover
(Water Years 1942-1993) which was adjusted to the 1.279 square mile contributing drainage area at Northbury.
(4) Modified 60% Monthly Exceedance Rows.
(5) Some daily withdrawals would be allowed during low flow months (ie: average monthly flow below monthly MIF value}.
but only on days on which the stream rises above the monthly MIF value. Those drily wifrirawals during low flow
months would not violate the proposed MIF.
3114-017-319
13-Jan-97
-------
TABLE 5-6
PAMUNKEY RIVER CUMULATIVE STREAMFLOW REDUCTIONS
FOR BLACK CREEK RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
Flow Condition
Historical flows (1)
Year 1990 flows (2)
Year 2030 flows without
RRWSG project (3)
Year 2040 flows with
RRWSG project (4)
Estimated
Flows
(mgd)
883.0
848.8
831.9
796.0 <^_
Net Flow
Reduction
(mgd)
n/a
34.2
51.1
87.0
Percentage
Change
n/a
-3.9
-5.9
-9.9
(1) Mean historical freshwater discharge at the mouth of the Pamunkey River was estimated at 883.0 mgd based on a 33-year gaged
Areamflow record for the Pamunkey River near Hanover (Water Years 1942 through 1994) which was adjusted to the 1,460 square
mile Pamunkey River Basin drainage area.
(2) Derivation of the Year 1990 consumptive use estimate for the Pamunkey River Basin is similar to that described in Section 4.5.1,
except that estimated Virginia Power use has recently been refined.
(3) The 51.1 mgd Year 2030 consumptive use projection for the Pamunkey River Basin is based on the following consumptive use
components'
• 5.0 mgd irrigation use. The SWCB (1988) projected Year 2030 irrigation demand of 8.2 mgd for the Pamunkey River
Basin. The USGS (Solley et al., 19S3) reported that 61% of irrigation withdrawals in Virginia are consumptive.
• 10.0 mgd remaining SWCB projected use. The SWCB<(1988) projected Year 2030 demand of 25.6 mgd (excluding
irrigation and power use) for the Pamunkey River Basin. The SWCB also developed an estimated Pamunkey Basin
consumptive use factor of 0.44 based on consumptive use data published by Solley et al. (1983). Separating out
irrigation use reduces the estimated Pamunkey Basin consumptive use factor to 0.39 for remaining demands.
• 10.8 mgd allowance for additional Hanover County/Richmond region use. Additional Pamunkey River withdrawals of
up to 80 mgd are assumed for the Hanover County/Richmond region. Using pumping regime data presented by J. K.
Timmons &. Associates (1992), an average Pamunkey River withdrawal of 23.0 mgd was calculated for a 100 cfs (64.6
mgd) maximum withdrawal capacity. The ratio of 23.0/64.6 mgd was used to estimate a 28.5 mgd average Pamunkey
River withdrawal for an 80 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity. An estimated overall consumptive use factor of 038
was applied to these demands. This assumes that 5 mgd of the demand would be by Henrico County and would be
removed from the Pamunkey Basin. It is assumed that 73% of the remaining 23.5 mgd demand (in the James River
Basin) is returned to the Pamunkey River as treated wastewater effluent
• 1.2 mgd Diamond Energy use. This is a maximum consumptive use allowance for Diamond Energy's new cogeneration
plant on the North Anna River (R. Barrows, Hanover County, personal communication, 1992).
• 24.1 mgd Virginia Power use. The derivation of this consumptive use estimate for Virginia Power's North Anna Nuclear
Power Plant is described in Section 2.3.2 of the RRWSG's Pamunkey River Salinity Intrusion Impact Assessment
(Malcolm Pirnie, 1995).
(4) The 87.0 mgd average Year 2040 flow reduction is based on a 33.3 mgd average Year 2040 Pamunkey River withdrawal with
a 120 mgd pump station at Northbury, a 2.6 mgd average flow reduction at the Black Creek dam sites, and the SI.1 mgd projected
Year 2030 flow reduction without a RRWSG project.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
River flows through the Year 2040. It is projected that by the Year 2040, with all currently identified
potential uses taken into account, the average Pamunkey River streamflow would be reduced by 9.9
percent. The basis for this basin-wide consumptive use projection is described in Table 5-6. (This
projection includes the average 2.6 mgd reduction in flows from the Black Creek watershed to the
Pamunkey River that would result from operation of the Black Creek Reservoirs.)
Water depth in the Pamunkey River would not be affected by this alternative, because the
proposed intake is located in tidal waters.
Reservoir
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. Strcamflows
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.
Pipeline
The pipeline for this alternative would cross 34 stream/wetland areas. These minor crossings
would be accomplished using conventional cut and fill techniques. It is possible that the pipeline
would be constructed during the drier months of the year, at which time many of the intermittent
streams may not be flowing. Flowing streams could be temporarily diverted with cofferdams, which
would be removed following pipeline construction. Any impacts to the hydrology of those streams
would be temporary and minimal.
The pipeline would also cross an arm of the Little Creek Reservoir using either conventional
cut and fill techniques, directional drilling techniques, or an elevated crossing.
As part of this alternative, Diascund Creek would be used as an inter-reservoir conveyance
channel. 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, higher nutrient
flushing rates, and greater saturation of the floodplain wetlands through recharge.
^ V 'Potential impacts to] Diascund Creek through channel scouring and increased sediment loading
are discussed below. /
\
Much of the water reaching Diascund Creek from the Pamunkey River would first be routed
through the Black Creek Reservoirs. (The project configuration would also allow water to be moved
from the Pamunkey River to Diascund Creek Reservoir without going through Black Creek
Reservoir.) Maximum Black Creek Reservoir withdrawals pumped to Diascund Creek (about 40
mgd) would be much less than maximum Pamunkey River withdrawals (120 mgd). In addition,
Black Creek Reservoir withdrawals would be much less variable than Pamunkey River withdrawals
which would be subject to the high natural variability of River flows. This flow attenuation would
reduce the intensity of changes in hydrologic regime in Diascund Creek.
The outfall to Diascund Creek would be a standard U.S. Bureau of Reclamation impact type
structure, designed for a maximum discharge capacity of 40 mgd. A discharge channel would
connect the outfall to the main Diascund Creek channel. The outfall would be designed to dissipate
3114-017-319 5-13
-------
most of the energy associated with the high velocity incoming flow of water before it reaches the
stream channel.
After reaching Diascund Creek at elevation 60 feet msl, the reduced velocity flow would
travel 5,7 miles downstream to the open waters of the Diascund Creek Reservoir at elevation 26 feet
msl. The average water surface slope along this path is only 0.11 percent. This very gradual slope
would mifrif«izc potential erosionaJ effects from the increased flow level in Diascund Creek.
Based on the field measurements and flow calculations described in Section 4.2.1, the channel
at the proposed Diascund Creek Outfall Site 1 should be capable of accommodating an estimated
maximum flow of at least 53 mgd without overtopping its banks. (Pamunkey River pumpover to
Black Creek Reservoir could be up to 120 mgd, but not more than about 40 mgd to Diascund Creek.)
When reservoirs are near capacity and natural high flow events occur, pumpovers from the Black
Creek Reservoirs to the Diascund Creek Reservoir would be unnecessary. Therefore, pumpover
operations should not increase the frequency at which the banks of Diascund Creek are overtopped
by high flow events.
If erosional problems develop in some portion of Diascund Creek, additional control measures
such as check dams or natural deadfall timbers could be placed at strategic locations in the creek
channel to dissipate flow velocities and reduce potential bank undercutting,
Qroundwater 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.
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 mis 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
3114-017-319 5-14
-------
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, emergency spillways, access roads, and associated structures would cover a combined total
area of 48.5 acres.
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 119 acres of soils within me 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 small
amount of emissions relative to other sources of air pollution in the region and since these
activities would be temporary.
5.2.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
Four dam configurations are being presented with the King William Reservoir with
pumpover from the Mattaponi River alternative: KWR I, KWR H, KWR ffl, and KWRIV. The
intake site and the majority of the pipeline route for all four dam configurations are the same;
only the dam location and reservoir pool elevation vary. The normal pool elevation for the KWR
I project configuration is 90 feet msl, and the normal pool elevation for all other project
configurations is 96 feet msl. Unless otherwise specified, physical resources are the same for
all dam configurations of the King William Reservoir alternative. The river water pipeline
between the river pumping station and the reservoir, and the portion of the pipeline route from
the directional drill under the Pamunkey River to Diascund Reservoir, then from Diascund
Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir, remains as proposed in the DEIS for all configurations. The
entire pipeline for KWR I remains a gravity pipeline with the route as proposed in the DEIS.
31144)17-319 5-15
-------
Hie KWR n, ID, and IV configurations will include pumped pipelines with new portions of
pipeline routes identified from each proposed pump station to the Pamunkey River directional
drill location. In addition, the outfall location into Diascund Reservoir for KWR n, in, and IV
has been extended downstream of that proposed in the DEIS for KWR I.
Substrate
Hie King William Reservoir alternative would impact, at a minimum, an estimated 1.7,
3.2, 3.1, and 3.2 acres of aquatic ecosystem substrate for the KWR I, KWR n, KWR ffl, and
KWR IV configurations, respectively. Approximately 0.16 acres of substrate would be disturbed
at the Scotland Landing intake site for all configurations; 1.5, 3.0, 2.9, and 3.0 acres of
substrate would be disturbed as a result of pipeline construction for each respective configuration;
and 0.05 acres of substrate would be disturbed, removed, or permanently covered by construction
of outfall structures for all configurations. 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 for the KWR I configuration,
and 96 feet msl for the remainder of configurations, would result in the inundation of
approximately 2,234, 2,222, 1,894, and 1,587 acres, of which 106, 98, 93, and 88 acres are
currently open water and perennial stream areas containing substrate for the KWR I, KWR n,
KWR ID, and KWR IV, respectively. 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 (new intake source),
Cohoke Creek (location of new reservoir), the Diascund Creek and Little Creek Reservoirs (existing
impoundments), and the Pamunkey River and 65, 60, 58, and 60 stream/wetland crossings for the
KWR-I, KWR-n, KWR-m, and KWR-IV configurations (pipeline).
Intake
As with the Pamunkey River, the water quality characteristic of the Mattaponi River which
is of greatest concern relative to the proposed withdrawal is salinity. An analysis was conducted by*
the VIMS to estimate the impacts of the proposed withdrawal on salinity concentrations in the*
Mattaponi River (see Report J, Tidal Wetlands on the Mattaponi River: Potential Responses of the
Vegetative Community to Increased Salinity as a Result of Freshwater Withdrawal (Hershner et
al., 1991) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document). The VIMS
salinity model is based on the assumption that the Mattaponi River is completely mixed from top to
bottom and side to side. Therefore, the salinity value predicted for each transect represents an
average of the salinity levels across the river's cross-section. Salinity has been reported to increase
with depth along the lower 19.6 miles of the Mattaponi River (Mattaponi River Slack Water Data
Report- Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen 1970-1978 (Brooks, 1983). The average salinity
levels used in the model will tend to slightly overestimate near surface salinity levels. Model
predictions are, therefore, considered conservative because the aquatic species that are the most
sensitive to salinity variation (i.e., plants) persist in the surface waters.
3114-017-319 5-16
-------
Natural Mattaponi River, salinity fluctuations greatly exceed any salinity changes that -are
predicted due to the proposed withdrawals. Thc
-------
The normal reservoir releases, which would average 3 mgd and 2 mgd, respectively, for the
KWR-n and KWR-IV configurations, represent one-third or more of the estimated average flow at
the dam sites. Long-term water quality characteristics of Cohoke Creek downstream of the dam are
not expected to be adversely impacted by the net reduction in volumes of flow below .the
impoundment. Paniculate settling processes during reservoir retention of Mattaponi River
withdrawals would substantially reduce concentrations of particulate-bome phosphorus in the water
column, thereby reducing potential nutrient loading impacts below the dam from reservoir releases.
Short-term water quality impacts to Cohoke Creek and Cohoke Millpond could occur during
dam and outfall construction, and from clearing associated with preparation for filling the reservoir.
Such impacts would consist largely of increased turbidity as a result of increased erosion in cleared
areas. Efforts would be made to control such erosion at the source. Additionally, as the reservoir
begins filling, concentrations of nutrients can be expected to temporarily rise from decomposition
of leaf Utter, stumps, and other organic material left after clearing.
There is minima] existing and planned development within the Cohoke Creek watersheds:
However, there are some concerns regarding groundwater quality and surface water runoff quality
because the King William County Landfill is located within the reservoir drainage area. The 85-acre
landfill is located above the revised normal pool elevation, along the south side of State Route 30
near the intersection of State Routes 30 and 640.
It was determined several years ago that, once closed, the landfill would not pose an
unmanageable threat to water quality in the proposed reservoir. Since that time, the landfill has been
closed; however, the proposed reservoir pool elevation has been raised from 90 to 96 feet msl.
Potential water quality problems, plans for monitoring of potential reservoir contamination, and
(contingency plans for isolating the landfill from the reservoir in the event of a contaminant release
nave been reevaluated in light of these changed conditions. >
Municipal solid waste (MSW) was deposited in the King^ituWCduTOy-LandfULfrom 1988
to 1994. In addition, Chesapeake Corporation disposed^ offa small quantity of pulp waste^in the
landfill. This type of waste is not known to pose any^^greater threat to the public health and
environment than MSW.
The landfill consists of three waste disposal cells designated Al, A2, and A3. The disposal
cells were operated as trench and area fills with waste disposed below and above grade within the
limits of each cell. The bottom liner configuration varies among the cells. The Cell Al and A3 liner
systems consist of 2 feet of clay with a specified permeability of 1 x 10'7 cm/sec, overlain by a 1-foot
thick layer of sand. The Cell A2 liner consists of a single 60-mil thickness high density polyethylene
(HOPE) flexible membrane. The landfill base extends to about elevation 113 feet msl, approximately
7 to 10 feet below existing grade, and varies between disposal cells. Disposal cells appear to be
located within an upper sand unit underlying the surficial silty clay soils. Leachate is collected via
gravity in each of the disposal cells and temporarily stored on-site in two 4-foot diameter buried
manholes which provide a total storage capacity of 1,500 gallons. The collected leachate is trucked
to a wastewater treatment plant for disposal.
Closure construction began in the spring of 1994 and was completed in April 1995. As part
of the closure, a final cap system was placed over the entire limits of the waste disposal area. The
final grade is provided with vegetative cover to minimize erosion and infiltration. The final cap
system should effectively limit surface water infiltration and minimize leachate generation through
the post-closure period.
3114-017-319 5-18
-------
The groundwatcr table aquifer is contained within the upper sand unit underlying the surficial
silly clay soils, approximately between elevations 104 and 108 feet msl, and flows in a southwesterly
direction toward Cohoke Creek Therefore, any teachatc leaving the landfill site would flow toward
the-resc^oir. However, the quantities of such leachate would likely be small, due to the small size
of the existing landfill cells.
Evaluation of existing groundwater quality data for the period December 1989 to September
1994 is inconclusive. There appears to be some variability in pH and specific conductivity, which
may be attributable either to the presence of leachate in the groundwater or to natural variability. To
monitor for potential reservoir contamination, two. additional downgradient monitoring wells could
be installed between the approximate limits of waste deposit and the nearest reach of the reservoir
normal pool area. Well screens for the monitoring wells would be located within the upper sand unit
which comprises the major groundwater source in the water table aquifer. These new monitoring
dwells would be added to the existing groundwater monitoring well network and monitored in
|ltecordance with regularly scheduled monitoring events. Monitoring of both inorganic and organic
constituents in the groundwater would be useful in examining potential reservoir water quality
•impacts.
^ Several alternatives exist for corrective action in the event of a release of leachate constituents
from the landfill and confirmed impacts on water quality. Corrective action, if necessary, would only
be selected after thorough consideration of existing site conditions, State requirements, engineering
feasibility, and costs. Corrective action alternatives are as follows:
(1) Isolation: Contaminated groundwater movement toward the reservoir could be minimized
by construction of a perimeter slurry wall around the limits of the waste deposits, extending
from the ground surface through the water table aquifer, and keying the bottom of the wall
into the low permeability confining layer present at about 30-foot depth. The slurry wall
would be constructed with a low permeability soil-bentonitc backfill with a permeability not
exceeding Ix 10'7 cm/sec. The wall would effectively isolate buried waste materials from the
water table aquifer.
Potential leachate migration to the reservoir from deeper aquifers is not expected to occur
since only a small fraction of groundwater in the water table aquifer would reach deeper
aquifers through vertical leakage. Furthermore, available soil boring data indicate that deeper
aquifers (i.e., below the water table aquifer) would not be major contributors of groundwater
discharge to the reservoir.
(2) Source Removal: Existing waste materials could be exhumed and disposed off-site at
another MSW landfill.
(3) Mitigation: Water quality impacts resulting from any release of leachate constituents
could be mitigated by installation of a series of groundwater recovery wells located down-
gradient of the limits of the waste deposits. Groundwater recovered from the wells would
require pre-treatment prior to discharge, or it might possibly be trucked off-site to a
wastewater treatment plant.
Impacts from the proposed transfer of water from King William Reservoir to Diascund Creek
Reservoir are expected to be similar to the impacts that would result from the corresponding
pumpover from the Black Creek Reservoirs. Phosphorus concentrations in the Mattaponi River
appear higher than in the Pamunkey River; however, all of the water reaching Diascund Creek
3114-017-319 5-19
-------
Reservoir from the Mattaponi River would first be routed through King William Reservoir. This is
unlike the Black Creek Reservoir Project, which would allow Pamunkey River water to be pumped
directly to the headwaters of the Diascund Creek Reservoir.
A high degree of paniculate settling would occur within the King William Reservoir, owing
to its very large volume and depth. The King William Reservoir volume would be more than three
times that of Black Creek Reservoir and would provide a much longer hydraulic retention time for
incoming river water. The result would be a substantial reduction in concentrations of particulate-
borac constituents, such as phosphorus, in the water column, before the water is transferred on to
Diascund Creek Reservoir and the rest of the existing Newport News Waterworks raw water supply
system. If suspended solids levels in the Mattaponi River occasionally reach unacceptably high
levels, the river pump station operators would have the option of discontinuing withdrawals until
water quality improves. Given these offsetting factors, average nutrient levels in row water reaching
Diascund Creek Reservoir from King William Reservoir would likely be similar to those in raw water
reaching Diascund Creek Reservoir from the proposed Black Creek Reservoirs.
Since raw water can be transferred from Diascund Creek Reservoir to Little Creek Reservoir,
water quality can also be affected there, but to a lesser extent. Nutrients would be attenuated in
Diascund Creek Reservoir and not all water would be routed through Little Creek Reservoir.
Malcolm Pimie conducted additional water quality analyses on Mattaponi River water
samples in October 1994 and found slightly higher concentrations of organic compounds than in
existing raw water sources in the Newport News Waterworks system and in Pamunkey River samples
taken during the same time period. The addition of Mattaponi River water, with these slightly higher
organic concentrations, is not expected to cause unmanageable water quality problems in Newport
News Waterworks reservoirs. However, the treatment process would have to be adjusted to
accommodate these generally elevated levels of organic compounds in the raw water supply.
Pipeline
Impacts to the 65, 60,58 and 60 stream/wetland crossings for the KWR I, KWR E, KWR
HI, and KWR IV configurations, respectively, along the proposed pipeline routes would be
limited to the period of construction. It is also possible that the pipelines would be constructed
during the drier months of the year, at which time many of the intermittent streams may not be
flowing. 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, appropriate environmental controls would be used. Any impacts on the water quality
of these water bodies would be temporary and minimal. The pipeline crossing of the Pamunkey
River would be completed using directional drilling techniques. Therefore, no impact on
Pamunkey River water quality should occur.
Hydrology
Intake
The potential hydrologic impacts of a maximum 75 mgd withdrawal from the Mattaponi River
at Scotland Landing were evaluated under projected Year 2040 demand conditions. The Year 2040
represents the end of the project planning horizon, and presumably the year in which withdrawals
would be greatest. Hydrologic impacts in earlier years would be smaller.
3114-017-319 5-20
-------
From safe yield analyses, data are available on the quantities of water which must be
withdrawn to meet the project's yield requirements through the planning period. To evaluate the
effects of those withdrawals, it was necessary to examine a 58-year record of streamflow on the
Mattaponi River simulated using data collected at the following gages: for the period 10/41 - 9/87,
gage on Mattaponi River near Beulahville (built in 1941; 601 square mile drainage area); and for the
period 10/29 - 9/41 (before Beulahville gage was built), gage on North Anna River near Doswell
(441 square mile drainage area),
For each month in this historic record, a model was used to predict the flow at the Scotland
Landing (781 square mile drainage area) intake site (without any withdrawal), the amount required
to be withdrawn, and the remaining River flow past the site. The following hydrologic impact
assessment techniques were used in that evaluation:
• Streamflow duration curves were developed and compared for the pre- and post-
withdrawal conditions.
* Monthly withdrawals for each individual month of the simulation period (Water Years
1930-1987) were summarized graphically.
• Average monthly withdrawals and flows past the proposed intake site were simulated
and compared tabularly and graphically for the pre- and post-withdrawal conditions
for:
1. The entire simulation period (Water Years 1930-1987).
2. Wet years (10 percent exceedance water years).
3. Average years (45-55 percent exceedance water years).
4. Dry years (90 percent exceedance water years).
• An analysis was made of those periods when flows are less than nominal threshold
levels (i.e., flow contravention analysis). A comparison was made between the
number of months in which those levels would not be met, under pre- and post-
withdrawal streamflow conditions.
• An analysis of basin-wide consumptive use was conducted to estimate cumulative
streamflow reductions with and without the project.
The safe yield model uses simulated Mattaponi River withdrawal records which are based
only on MIF conditions and pump station capacity. These simulated withdrawals overestimate the
quantity of river withdrawals required to produce a given safe yield, because the model assumes that
withdrawals would occur even if the reservoir is already full. To remedy this situation, each of the
monthly Mattaponi River withdrawal rates was reduced by the corresponding monthly amount of
King William Reservoir water spilling over the top of the dam. In making these corrections, adjusted
withdrawal rates were not permitted to go below zero.
The originally proposed KWR 1 safe yield benefits were derived from Mattaponi River
withdrawal simulations using a 40/20 Tennant MIF. Hydrologic impacts from this configuration are
presented in Section 6.3.3 of Report D, Alternatives Assement, Volume JJ- Environmental Analysis
3114-017-319 5-21
-------
(Malcolm Piratic, 1994), which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this
document
A Modified 80 Percent Monthly Exceedance Flows MIF was assumed for the RRWSG's
preferred KWR n configuration to provide a more balanced comparison of potential safe yield
benefits associated with the use of either the Pamunkey or Mattaponi River as pumpover sources for
new reservoirs. Potential Mattaponi River hydrologic impacts from the KWR M project
configuration are not reported. It was assumed that the KWR n project configuration would
withdraw greater dairy quantities of water from the Mattaponi River than the KWR M project
configuration under the same MIF (Modified 80 Percent Monthly Exceedance Flows) because of the
larger modeled safe yield benefits. Figure 5-3 depicts the percentages of time in which simulated
flows past the proposed intake occurred under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions for the KWR-n
configuration. The decrease in flow past the intake under post-withdrawal flow conditions is small
at given recurrence frequencies.
Figures S-3A through 5-3F show simulated monthly KWR n withdrawals for each individual
month of the simulation period (Water Years 1930-1987). The 58-year simulation period was
divided into six sequential time periods to better portray these data. These six graphs show that the
amount withdrawn would be very small relative to total river flow. During particularly low flow
months, when the proposed MIF would severely limit or preclude withdrawals, the amount
withdrawn would be very limited or there would be no withdrawals.
Under the Modified 80 Percent Monthly Exceedance Flows MIF described in Section 3.3.3^
for the KWR n configuration, the proposed maximum withdrawal of 75 mgd could represent a
maximum of 39.7 percent of the total flow on a single day at Scotland Landing. This could occur
during the months of August, September, or October (MIF values for all three months are -
approximately 114 mgd which are the lowest monthly MIF values) if a daily flow past the intake was
189 mgd and the maximum withdrawal of 75 mgd was made. This would not be a frequent
occurrence since, in September, for example, flows at Scotland Landing exceeding 189 mgd occur
only 30 percent of the time. In fact, during 48.4 percent of the time in September, flows are less than
114 mgd and no withdrawals would be allowed.
Table 5-7 and Figure 5-3G contain summaries of the simulated average withdrawals and flows
past the intake site (for the KWR-II configuration) under pre- and -post-withdrawal conditions over
the entire simulation period (Water Years 1930-1987). The average simulated withdrawal was 31.6
mgd and represents a 6.5 percent decrease in the estimated average flow past the intake. On a
monthly basis, the greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions was a 12.6 percent
reduction in mean flow for the month of June.
An analysis of the KWR II configuration also was conducted of selected wet, average, and dry
years to distinguish among the quantities that could be withdrawn under those ranges of flow
conditions. Tables 5-8 through 5-10 and Figures 5-3H through 5-3J contain summaries of the
simulated average withdrawals and flows past the intake site under pre- and post-withdrawal
conditions for wet, average, and dry years.
Wet years were defined as 10 percent exceedance water years, which are the six wettest water
years during the 58-year simulation period. The average simulated withdrawal was 39.0 mgd and
represented a 4.7 percent decrease in the estimated average flow past the intake for those years. On
a monthly basis, the greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions was a 20.3 percent
reduction in mean flow for the month of September.
3114-017-319 5-22
-------
3,000
£ 2,400
o> 1,800
§ 1,200
600
0
o
MATTAPONI RIVER FLOW DURATION CURVES
KWRII Configuration
(OCTOBER 1929-SEPTEMBER 1987)
V
X
Post-Withdr
2
* 75 mgd maximu
Landing t
^~— •CTx..^'
aiA/al *
a vvcii
t
0
T} withdrawal capaci
o supply King Williar
Pre-Withd
^^
^
40 6
ty at Scotland
n Reservoir.
rawal
;:>.
""^" — -~~ .-.
80
0 1(
)0
Percentage of Tme Flow Exceeded
-------
2,500
2,000
TJ
O
E 1,500
1
u.
O 1,000
500
0
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWRII Configuration
(October 1929 - September 1939)
ML
Lfl
i
Hll
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
* 75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir,
Remaining River Flow
River Withdrawal
(
c
tn
fc
-------
2,000
1,500 -
•o
D)
o 1,000
0)
>
£
500 -
0
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWR II Configuration
(October 1939 - September 1949)
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir.
j j Remaining River Flow II River Withdrawal'
(Q
cn
6
CD
-------
2,000
1,500
D)
1,000
Q)
500
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWR II Configuration
(October 1949 - September 1959)
1950
1
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir.
Remaining River Flow
River Withdrawal'
CQ
C
i
Ol
6
O
-------
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWR II Configuration
(October 1959 * September 1969)
2,500
2,000
•o
O)
£ 1,500
i
UL
1,000
500
0
Jl
1960
...
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir,
Remaining River Flow
River Withdrawal'
3
£*
w
O
-------
3,000
2,500
•O 2,000
O)
O 1,500
1,000
500
0
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWR II Configuration
(October 1969 - September 1978)
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
175 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir,
Remaining River Flow
River Withdrawal
11
aS*
01
£>
m
-------
3,000
2,500 -
T3 2,000
O)
O 1,500 -
u_
0)
1,000 -
500 -
0
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWR II Configuration
(October 1978 - September 1987)
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
' 75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir,
Remaining River Flow •• River Withdrawal'
fl
(5*
i
w
-n
-------
TABLE 5-7
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS (1)
KWR II CONFIGURATION
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
(rngd)
681.6
758.3
840.8
810.8
517.4
325.3
251.3
275.4
212.3
276.1
362.0
498.1
484.1
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(mad)
32.4
28.1
27.6
30,4
,. AOM
41.1
253
27.4
22.1
27.2
41 .0
^35.0
f^6
Average
Withdrawal
(%of Row)
4.8
3.7
3.3
3.8
7.9
12.6
10.2
10.0
10.4
9.8
11.3
7.0
•>
6.5
/'
Remaining
Streamflow
(mad)
649.2
730.2
813.2
780.4
476.8
284.2
225.6
248.0
190.2
248.9
321.0
463.1
452.6
MIF
Value (3)
(mad)
328.9
422.9
434.4
346.9
205.8
115.1
115.5
114.2
113.8
113.6
125.1
231.5
222.3
(1) Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values over a
696-month simulation period (October 1929 through September 1987).
(2) 75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Scotland Landing to supply King William
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated King William Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows applied to each daily Streamflow value.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
800 -
600 -
O)
E
I
0)
400 -
200
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWRII Configuration
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
75 mgd max withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir.
Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows.
MIF Value " ;,•',, Surplus River Flow
River Withdrawal'
Dec
31
<5'
c
3
VI
CO
O
-------
TABLE 5-8
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS
FOR WET YEARS (10% EXCEEDANCE WATER YEARS) (1)
KWR II CONFIGURATION
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
(mad)
1,133.5
1,168.7
1,248.8
1,336.3
1 ,045.3
767.9
522.5
389.6
151.3
409.7
613.0
1,127.9
826.2
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(mad)
36.6
21.4
20.3
26.8
37.2
58.4
51.2
53.8
30.7
44.1
51.4
36.2
39.0
Average
Withdrawal
(% of Flow)
3.2
1.8
1.6
2.0
3.6
7.6
9.8
13.8
20.3
10.8
8.4
3.2
4.7
Remaining
Streamflow
(mad)
1,096.9
1,147.4
1,228.5
1,309.5
1 ,008.1
709.5
471.3
335.8
120.5
365.5
561.6
1,091.7
787.2
MIF
Value (3)
(mad)
328.9
422.9
434.4
346.9
205.8
115.1
115.5
114.2
113.8
113.6
125.1
231.5
222.3
(1) Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values for six wettest water years (1972.1984,
1958,1949,1978, and 1973) out of a 58-year simulation period (Water Years 1930 through 1987).
(2) 75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Scotland Landing to supply King William
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated King William Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows applied to each daily Streamflow value.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 5-9
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS
FOR AVERAGE YEARS (45-55% EXCEEDANCE WATER YEARS) (1)
KWR II CONFIGURATION
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Ju!
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
(mad)
642.3
765.5
746.6
667.6
458.8
203.2
202.6
109.3
198.5
519.0
508.6
465.6
457.3
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(mad)
38.7
37.0
30.8
39.0
52.9
38.2
30.8
11.8
20.1
46.1
50.6
49.1
37.1
Average
Withdrawal
(%ofHow)
6.0
4.8
4.1
5.8
11.5
18.8
15.2
10.8
10.1
8.9
10.0
10.5
8.1
Remaining
Streamflow
(mad)
603.6
728.5
715.8
628.6
405.9
165.0
171.8
97.5
178.4
472.8
458.0
416.5
420.2
MIF
Value (3)
(mad)
328.9
422.9
434.4
346.9
205.8
115.1
115.5
114.2
113.8
113.6
125.1
231.5
222.3
(1} Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values for six average water years (1950,1943,
1957,1970,1938, and 1947) out of a 58-year simulation period (Water Years 1930 through 1987),
(2) 75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Scotland Landing to supply King William
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged tor each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated King William Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Modified 60% Monthly Exceedance Flows applied to each daily Streamflow value. Some daily withdrawals would
be allowed during low flow months (ie; average monthly flow below monthly MIF value), but only on days on which
the Streamflow rises above the monthly MIF value. Those daily withdrawals during low flow months would not
violate the proposed MIF policy.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
TABLE 5-10
MATTAPONl RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS
FOR DRY YEARS (90% EXCEEDANCE WATER YEARS) (1)
KWR II CONFIGURATION
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
(mad)
281.6
323.5
433.9
330.7
304.5
150.2
88.1
165.6
85.8
49.7
90.2
205.7
209.1
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(mad)
18.2
11.9
23.6
12.2
30.8
18.8
10.2
19.0
9.4
4.6
8.8
17.3
15.4
Average
Withdrawal
{% of Flow)
6.5
3.7
5.4
3.7
10.1
12.5
11.5
11.5
10.9
9.2
9.8
8.4
7.4
Remaining
Streamflow
(mad)
263.4
311.5
410.3
318.4
273.6
131.4
77.9
146.6
76.4
45.2
81.4
188.3
193.7
MIF
Value (3)
(mad)
328.9
422.9
434.4
346.9
205.8
115.1
115.5
114.2
113.8
113.6
125.1
231.5
222.3
(1) Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values for six driest water years (1981,1931,
1966, 1942,1954, and 1968) out of a 58-year simulation period (Water Years 1930 through 1987).
(2) 75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Scotland Landing to supply King William
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulation period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated rang William Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows applied to each daily Streamflow value. Some daily withdrawals would
be allowed during low flow months (ie; average monthly flow below monthly MIF value), but only on days on which
the Streamflow rises above the monthly MIF value. Those daily withdrawals during low flow months would not
violate the proposed MIF policy.
3114-017-319
January 1997
-------
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWRII Configuration
For Wet Years (10% Exceedance Water Years)
Jan
Feb Mar Apr
Oct
Nov
Base River Flow
River Withdrawal
Remaining River Flow
MIF Value
75 mgd max. withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir.
Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows.
Dec
Tj
(5*
i
en
-------
1,000
800 -
|> 600
1
u.
| 400
£
200 -
0
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWRII Configuration
For Average Years (45-55% Exceedance Water Years)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Base River Flow
River Withdrawal*
Remaining River Flow
M1F Value **
75 mgd max. withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir.
Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows.
Dec
11
&
a
en
-------
500
400 -
300 -
o
§» 200
E
100 -
0
Jan
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWR II Configuration
For Dry Years (90% Exceedance Water Years)
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Base River Flow
River Withdrawal *
Remaining River Flow
MIF Value "*
75 mgd max. withdrawal capacity at Scotland
Landing to supply King William Reservoir.
Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Flows.
Dec
II
c5*
i
01
I
-------
Average years were defined as 45 to 55 percent exceedance water years, which are the six
average water years during the 58-year simulation period. The average simulated withdrawal was
37.1 mgd and represented an 8.1 percent decrease in the estimated average flow past the intake for
those years. On a monthly basis, the greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions was
an 18.8 percent reduction in mean flow for the month of June.
Dry years were defined as 90 percent exceedance water years, which are the six driest water
years during the 58-year simulation period. The average simulated withdrawal was 15.4 mgd and
represented a 7.4 percent decrease in the estimated average flow past the intake for those years. On
a monthly basis, the greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions was a 12.5 percent
reduction in mean flow for the month of June. As Figure 5-3J shows, some withdrawals would occur •
during months in which the average baseline river flow was less than the monthly MIF value. The
withdrawals are simulated on a daily basis. Streamflows usually exceed the MIF condition on some -
days during low flow months; therefore, withdrawals can be made on those days without violating,
theMIF requirement
Table 5-11 shows when Mattaponi River flows would not meet nominal threshold levels (i.e.,
flow contravention analysis), under both prc- and post-withdrawal conditions for the KWR-n
configuration. This table shows that the withdrawals would have little effect on Streamflows under
the proposed MIF conditions. The greatest percentage change from pre-withdrawal conditions would
be a 5.4 percent increase in the number of months in which Streamflows were less than or equal to
the 40 Tennant flow level (i.e., 40 percent of mean historical flow). The small (4J%) incremental
increase in months when avenge Streamflows would not meet stated threshold levels occurs in dry
years when some daily withdrawals would be allowed even during low flow months (i.e., average
monthly flow below monthly MIF value), but only on days on which the streamflow rises above the
monthly MIF condition. These daily withdrawals during low flow months would not violate the
proposed MIF.
The preceding discussion describes the potential individual impacts of a withdrawal from the
Mattaponi River in the vicinity of Scotland Landing using the KWR II project configuration. An
analysts of die potential cumulative streamflow reductions in the entire Mattaponi River Basin was
also conducted, which required the identification of additional withdrawals which could affect future
Streamflows in the Mattaponi River. Table 5-12 contains a summary of estimated cumulative
streamflow reductions in relation to total Mattaponi River flows through the Year 2040. It is
projected that by the Year 2040, with all currently identified potential uses taken into account, the
average Mattaponi River streamflow would be reduced by 6.4 percent.' The basis for this basin-wide
consumptive use projection is described in Table 5-12. The Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality has reviewed these York River Basin consumptive use projections, and confirmed that they
represent the most recent published projections (I. Hassell, Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, personal communication, 1996).
To enhance the safe yield benefits of the currently proposed KWR IV project configuration,
and minimize reservoir drawdown, the originally proposed 40/20 Tennant MIF was retained. This
MIF allows for more frequent withdrawals. Figure 5-3K depicts the percentages of time in which
simulated flows past the proposed intake occurred under pre- and post-withdrawal conditions for the
KWR-IV configuration. The decrease in flow past the intake under post-withdrawal flow conditions
is small at given recurrence frequencies. Table 5-I2A and Figure 5-3L contain summaries of the
simulated average withdrawals and flows past the intake site under pre- and post-withdrawal
conditions ova the entire simulation period (Water Years 1930-1987) for the KWR-IV configuration.
The average simulated withdrawal was 32.6 mgd and represents a 6.7 percent decrease in the
3114-017-319 . 5-23
-------
TABLE 5-11
CONTRAVENTIONS OF SELECTED MATTAPONI RIVER FLOW LEVELS
(IN PERCENTAGES OF TIME AT OR BELOW SPECIFIED FLOW LEVELS) (1)
Flow
Levels
49.0 mgd
(10 Tennant) {3)
98.0 mgd
(20TennanQ (3)
147.0 mgd
(30 Tennant) (3)
196,0 mgd
(40 Tennant) (3)
245.0 mgd
(SOTennan!) (3)
Proposed
MIF Policy (4)
Contraventions of Flow Levels (% of time)
Baseline Streamflow
Conditions
5.6
13.1
22.1
29.9
36.6
22.4
Post- Withdrawal (2)
Streamflow Conditions
5.6
14.4
27.0
35.3
40.8
27.2
Incremental
Increase
0.0
1.3
4.9
54
4,2
4.8 (5)
(1} Analysis based on average monthly streamflow and withdrawal values over a
696-month simulation period (October 1929 through September 1987).
(2) 75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Scotland Landing to supply King William
Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulator period.
Calculated withdrawals were then reduced by simulated King William Reservoir spillage for corresponding month.
(3) Tennant refers to a percentage of the mean historical streamflow. Mean historical streamflow at Scotland Landing was estimated
at 490 mgd based on the SO—year gaged streamflow record available for the Mattaponi River near Beulahville (Water Years
1942-1987 and 1990-1993) which was adjusted to the 781 square mile contributing drainage area at Scotland Landing.
(4) Modified 80% Monthly Exceedance Rows.
(5) Some daily withdrawals would be allowed during low flow months fie: average monthly flow below monthly MIF value),
but only on days on which the stream rises above the monthly MIF value. Those daily wrthrawals during low flow
months would not violate the proposed MIF.
3114-017-319
13-Jan-97
-------
TABLE 5-12
MATTAPONI RIVER CUMULATIVE STREAMFLOW REDUCTIONS
FOR IQNG WILLIAM RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE
KWRII Configuration
Bow Condition
Historical flows (1)
Year 1990 flows (2)
Year 2030 flows without
RRWSG project (3)
Year 2040 flows with
RRWSG project (4)
Estimated
Flows
(mgd)
581.0
577.9
575.5
543.9
Net Flow
Reduction
(mgd)
n/a
3.1
5.5
37.1
Percentage
Change
n/a
-0.5
-1.0
-6.4
(1) Mean historical freshwater discharge at the mouth of the Mattaponi River was estimated at
581 mgd based on a 51-year gaged streamflow record for the Mattaponi River near
Beulahville (Water Years 1942-1987 and 1990-1994) which was adjusted to the 918 square
mile Mattaponi River Basin drainage area.
(2) Derivation of the 3.1 mgd Year 1990 consumptive use estimate for the Mattaponi River Basin
is described in Section 4.5.3.
(3) The 5.5 mgd Year 2030 consumptive use projection for the Mattaponi River Basin is based
on the SWCB's projected Year 2030 Mattaponi Basin withdrawals of 8.33 mgd and the
SWCB's estimated consumptive use factor of 0.66 for the Mattaponi Basin (SWCB, 1988).
(4) The 37.1 mgd average Year 2040 flow reduction is based on a 31.6 mgd average Year 2040
Mattaponi River withdrawal with a 75 mgd pump station at Scotland Landing and the 5.5 mgd
projected Year 2030 flow reduction without a RRWSG project
31144)17-319
Jarauuy 13,1997
-------
Figure 5-3K
3500
MATTAPONI RIVER FLOW DURATION CURVES
(OCTOBER 1929 - SEPTEMBER 1987)
KWR IV CONFIGURATION
T3
O)
O
JX
+•»
O
0)
O)
1000
500
3000 -4
2500
2000
1500
withdrawal capacity sjt Scotland Landing
William Reservoir.
• Pre-Withdrawal
• * Post-Withdrawal
o%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentage of Time Flow Exceeded
-------
TABLE 5-12A
MATTAPONI MVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL ANALYSIS (1)
KWRIV CONFIGURATION
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Averages
Baseline
Streamflow
fmed)
681.6
758.3
840.8
810.8
517.4
325.3
251.3
275.4
212.3
276.1
362.0
498.1
4841
Average
Withdrawal (2)
(«I«D
33.9
32.1
34.9
35.6
37.1
39.5
26.2
26.7
22.7
26.9
40.7
34.7
32.6
Average
Withdrawal
(•/. of Flow)
5.0
4.2
4.1
4.4
7.2
12.1
10.4
9.7
10.7
9.8
11.2
7.0
6.7
Remaining
Streamflow
(mud)
647.7
726.2
805.9
775.2
480.4
285.8
225.1
248.7
189.6
249.1
321.3
463.4
451.5
MIF
Value (3)
(mgd)
205.0
205.0
205.0
205.0
205.0
106.0
106.0
106.0
106.0
106.0
106.0
205.0
155.5
(1) Analysis based on average monthly Streamflow and withdrawal values over a 6% - month simulation period
(October 1929 through September 1987).
(2) 75 mgd maximum withdrawal capacity (in 10 mgd pumping increments) at Scotland Landing to supply King
William Reservoir. Withdrawals were calculated on a daily basis and averaged for each month of simulation
period. Calculated withdrawals were then (educed by simulated King William Reservoir spillage for
corresponding month.
(3) 40/20 Tennant MIF value applied to each daily Streamflow value.
3114-017-319
January 11, 1997
-------
Figure 5-3L
1000
MATTAPONI RIVER AVERAGE MONTHLY WITHDRAWALS
KWRIV CONFIGURATION
800
600
$
£
I
o
D)
2
5
400
200
n
fhrr
II
•t£
• River Withdrawal *
D Surplus River Flow
EMIF Value"
^t
'
n
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month
*75 mgd max. withdrawal capacity at Scotland Landing to supply King William Reservoir.
"40 / 20 Tennant Flow
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
-------
estimated average flow past the intake. On a monthly basis, the greatest percentage change from pre-
withdrawal conditions was a 12.1 percent reduction in mean flow for the month of June. The results
of this KWRIV configuration analysis suggest that the hydrologic impacts to the Mattaponi River
from liver withdrawals are approximately -equivalent to those resulting from the KWR fl "
configuration.
"n«tawi-.
nAn -evaluation of the effects of Mattaponi River withdrawals on the natural streamflow
variability was conducted for the RRWSG's preferred KWR D configuration. As depicted in Figures
5-3M through 5-3Q, the comparisons of minimum and maximum monthly flow values demonstrate
that the streamflow variability is either unchanged or only slightly reduced as a result of simulated
withdrawals. Both of the seasonally varying Mffs evaluated for the Mattaponi River preclude
withdrawals during low flow periods. During high flow periods, maximum river withdrawals are far
exceeded by natural flow levels. Consequently the peaks and valleys of the natural streamflow
hydrograph would be preserved. This conclusion is further supported by the 'high-flow skimming'
method of proposed withdrawals and the extremely large magnitude of tidal influence at Scotland
Landing. The proposed high flow skimming withdrawals from the Mattaponi River would be made ,
without impoundment of the river to minimize potential impacts when salinity naturally migrates
farther upstream during extended dry periods. The estimated mean tidal range at Scotland Landing
is 3.56 feet (Basco, 1996). According to the VIMS publication, Hydrography and Hydrodynamics
of Virginia Estuaries. V. Mathematical Model Studies of Water Quality of the York River System
(Hyer et al., 1975), the average tidal current at Walkerton, about 5 river miles upstream of Scotland
Landing, is 1.5 feet per second and the cross-sectional area is 5,800 square feet. Using these values,
the average tidal flow past Walkerton can be estimated as 8,700 cfs or about 5,600 mgd, an order of
magnitude greater than the estimated average freshwater discharge at Scotland Landing of 494 mgd.
Water depth in the Mattaponi River would not be affected by this alternative, because the
proposed intake is located in tidal-waters.
An analysis of the water velocities and sediment transport potential at Scotland Landing
before and after intake construction was conducted to determine the relative change in sediment
transport patterns. It was determined that the increased mean velocities and sediment transport
potential caused by the intake structure would be so small that the possibility for erosion of Gametts
Creek marsh and the south side shoreline is minimal to non-existent Sediment deposition along the
north side (inner radius) of the meander bend is expected to continue to increase the size of Gametts
Creek marsh in the future. Natural sediment erosion along the south side (outer radius) of the
meander bend is also expected to continue due to high velocities during elevated water level,
freshwater flooding events. These findings are documented in Report N, Study of Potential
Erosional Impact of Scotland Landing, Water Intake Structure on Gametts Creek Marsh,
Mattaponi River, Virginia (Basco, 1996), which is incorporated herein by reference and is an
appendix to this document.
The King William Reservoir with pumpover from the Mattaponi River alternative also would
increase cumulative streamflow reductions in the Pamunkey River, because the King William
Reservoir would impound a tributary of the Pamunkey River. The estimated net reduction in average
flows from Cohoke Creek to the Pamunkey River would be 5 mgd. This estimate for the RRWSG's
preferred KWR-II configuration is based on an estimated average flow of 8 mgd at the KWR-II dam
3114-017-319 5-24
-------
MATTAPONI STREAMFLOW AT SCOTLAND LANDING
MAXIMUM MONTHLY VALUES
3,000
2,500
"§) 2,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Mar Apr
Month
Jun Jul Aug Sep
Pre-Withdrawal $& Post-Withdrawal
* KWR II Configuration Withdrawals
•n
(5*
§
V
w
-------
MATTAPONI STREAMFLOW AT SCOTLAND LANDING
MINIMUM MONTHLY VALUES
300
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
KWR II Configuration Withdrawals
Mar Apr May Jun
Month
Jul Aug Sep
-------
MATTAPONI STREAMFLOW AT SCOTLAND LANDING
MEAN MONTHLY VALUES
1,000
800
O»
E 600
•*-f
I
5:
3 400
200
Pre-Withdrawal
Post-Withdrawal *
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Mar Apr May Jun
Month
Jul Aug Sep
* KWR II Configuration Withdrawals
CD
§
01
-------
MATTAPONI STREAMFLOW AT SCOTLAND LANDING
MEAN +1 STANDARD DEVIATION MONTHLY VALUES
1,400
•g- 1,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Pre-Withdrawal M Post-Withdrawal*
* KWR II Configuration Withdrawals
3
en
-------
MATTAPONI STREAMFLOW AT SCOTLAND LANDING
MEAN -1 STANDARD DEVIATION MONTHLY VALUES
(ft
500
Pre-Withdrawal
Post-Withdrawal *
-200
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Mar Apr
Month
May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
* KWR II Configuration Withdrawals
CO
i
tn
-------
site and a normal reservoir release which averages 3 mgd1. A 5 mgd net reduction in average Cohoke
Creek flow represents a 0.6 percent decrease in the estimated average freshwater discharge in the
Pamunkey River Basin (883 mgd). In reality, the net flow reduction would be somewhat less than
this, since reservoir seepage losses and spillage would increase average flows below the dam to a
level greater than the minimum release.
» *» '
Reservoir
Construction of a dam on Cohoke Mill Creek would inundate 28.25,26.50,24.41, and 20.99
miles of five flowing perennial and intermittent streams for the KWR I, KWR H, KWR HI, and KWR
rVVconfigurations, respectively. Strcamflows would be restricted to 38 percent of existing average
•4hnv.v The net reduction in freshwater discharge at the proposed dam sites would be 5 mgd.
Pipeline
The pipeline for this alternative would cross 65,60,58, and 60 stream/wetland areas for the
KWR I, KWR II, KWR m, and KWR IV configurations, respectively. These stream/wetland
crossings would be accomplished using conventional cut and fill techniques. It is possible that the
pipeline would be constructed during the drier months of the year, at which time many of the
intermittent streams may not be flowing. Flowing streams could be temporarily diverted with
cofferdams, which would be removed following pipeline construction. Any impacts to the hydrology
of those streams would be temporary and minimal.
The Pamunkey River crossing would be completed using directional drilling techniques which
can be accomplished from the shore and should not affect the hydrology of the Pamunkey River. The
pipeline would also cross an arm of the Little Creek Reservoir using either conventional cut and fill
techniques, directional drilling techniques, or an elevated crossing.
As part of this alternative, Beaverdam Creek would be used as an inter-reservoir conveyance
channel. 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 50
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, higher nutrient flushing rates, and greater saturation of the floodplain wetlands
through recharge. These latter changes could be beneficial to aquatic life by providing a hydrologic
regime that supports a wide assemblage of aquatic organisms.
Potential impacts to Beaverdam Creek through channel scouring and increased sediment
loading are discussed below.
All of the water reaching Beaverdam Creek from the Mattaponi River would first be routed
through the King William Reservoir which would serve to attenuate flows eventually reaching
Beaverdam Creek. Maximum King William Reservoir withdrawals conveyed to Beaverdam Creek
(about 50 mgd) would be less than the maximum Mattaponi River withdrawals (75 mgd). In
addition, King William Reservoir withdrawals would be much less variable than Mattaponi River
1 For the currently proposed KWR-IV configuration, the minimum release would average 2
mgd during normal higher reservoir pool conditions and 1 mgd during critical reservoir
drawdown periods (see Section 3.3.3).
3114-017-319 5-25
-------
withdrawals which would be subject to the high natural variability of river flows. This flow
attenuation would reduce the intensity of changes in hydrologic regime in Beaverdam Creek.
The outfall to Beaverdam Creek would be a standard U.S. Bureau of Reclamation impact type
structure, designed for a maximum discharge capacity of 50 mgd. A short, riprapped discharge
channel would connect the outfall to the main Beaverdam Creek channel. The outfall would be
designed to dissipate most of the energy associated with the 8 feet per second maximum velocity of
water exiting the pipeline. ^Additional energy would be dissipated and the flow velocity reduceii in
cipiapped channel.
After reaching Beaverdam Creek, the reduced velocity flow would travel 0.8 miles
downstream to the open waters of the Diascund Creek Reservoir at elevation 26 feet msl. The
average water surface slope along this path is only 0. 1 percent. This very gradual slope minimizes
potential erosional effects from the increased flow level in Beaverdam Creek.
To further evaluate the impact of the pipeline discharge on the 0.8 miles of Beaverdam Creek
between the discharge point and the reservoir, daily flows at the discharge point both with and
without the discharge were estimated and compared. Daily flows at a USGS gaging station on
Beaverdam Swamp near Ark in Gloucester County, Virginia were adjusted to acquire an estimate of
the daily flows at the discharge point on Beaverdam Creek. The flows were adjusted in proportion
to the respective drainage areas. The drainage area at the USGS gaging station on Beaverdam
Swamp is 6.6 square miles. Beaverdam Creek at the pipeline discharge point has a drainage area of
6.4 square miles. The resulting adjusted flow record for the period from October 1949 through
September 1987 was combined with the projected monthly average pumpover flows from King
William Reservoir to Diascund Creek Reservoir. These pumpover flows were projected for the same
period of record using the Newport News Waterworks safe yield model, with the King William
Reservoir being utilized to its full safe yield potential for the entire period. With the projected
pumpover flows added to the estimated natural stream flows, the projected average dairy fjpw
increased to 32.6 mgd, from the estimated natural average daily flow of 4.5 mgd
To assess the erosion potential of this higher average flow, a profile and cross-section survey
and inspection of the channel's physical characteristics was conducted from the downstream
discharge site to the open water of Diascund Creek Reservoir. Cross-sections were taken
approximately every 500 feet along the stream. At a flow of 32.6 mgd (projected future average daily
flow), the maximum calculated flow velocity at any section was 1.2 feet per second (fps) or less. At
a flow of 54.5 mgd (50 mgd peak pipeline discharge plus current average daily flow) the maximum
calculated flow velocity was 1.3 fps. At a flow of 59.3 mgd (50 mgd peak pipeline discharge plus
current 10 percent exceedence flow) the maximum calculated flow velocity was 1.4 fps. The flow
velocities are relatively low due to the relatively flat channel bottom slope of 0.1 percent from the
pipeline discharge point to the open water of the reservoir.
In order to compare projected flows with the pipeline discharge to existing high flow
conditions, the peak flow rates from the 2- Year and smaller storms were estimated using the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service TR-55 Graphical Peak Discharge method. The following table presents a
summary of estimated existing and future flows at the pipeline discharge point
3114-017-319 5-26
-------
Event
Estimated historical average daily flow
Estimated future average daily flow at Ml
utilization of King William Reservoir
Estimated historical average daily flow plus
50 mgd pipeline discharge
Estimated 1 0 percent exceedance daily flow
plus SO mgd pipeline discharge
Estimated 2.0-inch rainfall peak flow
Estimated 2.5-inch rainfall peak flow
Estimated 3.0-inch rainfall peak flow
Estimated 3 .5-inch rainfall peak flow (2-Year
Storm)
Flow
(mgd)
4.5
. 32.6
54.5
59.3
52.0
63.0
163.0
305.0
Velocity
(fps)
0.70
1.16
1.32
1.35
1.30
1.37
N/A
N/A
•Velocity for 3.0- and 3.5-inch rainfalls not calculated due to out-of-bank flow condition
Comparison of the estimated future flows with the peak pipeline discharge flow included to
the estimated existing peak storm flows shows the future flows to be comparable to or less than the
peak flows associated with 2.0-inch and 2.5-inch rainfall events. These types of rainfall events occur
relatively frequently and are not generally associated with marked channel erosion or alignment
changes in natural stream systems. Stream channel size and characteristics are generally controlled
by the 1.5-Year recurrence interval storm (Rosgen, 1994). For the Beaverdam Creek watershed at
the pipeline discharge point, these storms are estimated to generate peak storm flows that are 3 to 6
times greater than the majority of flows attributable to the pipeline discharge. I
Due to the relatively flat channel bottom slope between the pipeline discharge point and the
open water of Diascund Creek Reservoir, and the magnitude of difference between the 1.5-Year
storm flows and projected pipeline discharge flows, no marked channel changes are predicted for
Beaverdam Creek below the pipeline discharge point. This analysis shows that a flow of 54.5 mgd
would be expected to have minimal erosive effects on the natural stream channel from the pipeline
discharge point to the open water of Diascund Creek Reservoir. Maximum velocity at the point of
discharge is expected to be only 1.3 fps, and the natural Beaverdam Creek stream channel contains
stiff clay soils that are resistant to erosion. The stream bed at the discharge point is also periodically
disturbed by floodwater from Diascund Reservoir, so this natural lotic system has already been
altered by lake inundation.
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 which precludes
3114-017-319
5-27
-------
withdrawals during drought conditions, and based on salinity 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 KWR-II configuration pool area would result in the inundation of
approximately 2,222 acres of land. However, open water and perennial streams already inundate
an estimated 98 acres of this area. Therefore, 2,124 acres of soil would be inundated by the
reservoir. Prime agricultural soils account for 342,298, 277, and 228 acres for KWR-I, -II, -El,
and -IV, respectively, and would be inundated. Presently, a negligible amount of this prune
agricultural land is being used for fanning purposes, while the remaining land is either wetland
or forested land.
A total of approximately 59, 52, 53, and 43 acres of soil would be either removed or
covered by the dam, emergency spillway, reservoir pump station, access road and associated
structures for the KWR-I, -II, -HI, and-IV configurations, respectively.
Effects to soil due to the construction of the raw water pipeline are expected to be
temporary. A total of 94, 97, 101, and 104 acres of soils within the pipeline ROW would be
temporarily disturbed for the KWR-I,-H,-m,-IV configurations, respectively. 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.
3114-017-319 5-28
-------
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 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 and 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. Figures 5-4A and 5-4B show the predicted drawdowns after one year of
pumping from a single production well located at each of the reservoir sites. 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 Plain 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 1992 modeling 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, 1992c and 1992d), There was no simulation done for
this specific 10 mgd alternative; however, the results of the previous modeling provide insight
into the approximate drawdowns anticipated from the two proposed well fields. The following
3114-017-319 5-29
-------
DIASCUND RESERVOIR
TEST WELL SITE
SOURCE: GERAGHTY ft MILLER, 1988
ESTIMATED DRAVOOWN IN THE MIDDLE
POTOMAC AQUIFER AFTER ONE YEAR OF
PUMPING (AT 1,000 GPM.)
MA1XXXM
PIRNIE
DECEMBER 1992
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
DIASCUND CREEK TEST WELL SITE
SCALE IN MILES
-------
LITTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
. TEST WELL SITE
SOURCE: GERACHTY ft MILLER. 1988
ESTIMATED DRAWDOWN IN THE MIDDLE
POTOMAC AQUIFER AFTER ONE YEAR OF
PUMPING (AT 800 GPM.)
DECEMBER 1992
LOWER VIRGINIA PENINSULA
REGIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
LITTLE CREEK TEST WELL SITE
MMOOLM
ERNIE
SCALE IN MILES
-------
table shows the regional drawdown predicted in the Middle Potomac Aquifer for a 10 mgd
withdrawal located in James City and New Kent counties, based on previous modeling studies.
Estimated Drawdown from Fresh Groundwater Development
Middle Potomac Drawdown . Average Distance From Center
(feet) Of Well Field fMilesl
-30 5
-20 12
-10 35
-5 50
Drawdown (or the lowering of groundwater levels) is a result of the nature of converging
flow. Impacts may result from the lowering of water levels. Based on the results of the 1988
test well program and recent regional modeling, the anticipated drawdown from die two proposed
well fields should not create drawdown exceeding 5 feet in the Yorktown, Chickahominy-PIney
Point, and Aquia Aquifers. These aquifers are used for domestic, agriculture, and light industrial
use throughout the Lower and Middle Peninsulas. Hie intervening confining sequences between
the Middle Potomac Aquifer and the shallower aquifers limits the amount of vertical hydraulic
communication between aquifers.
Based on the approximated regional drawdown in the Middle Potomac Aquifer, increased
lift costs and possible lowering of pumps may be expected for some existing groundwater users.
These users may include Chesapeake Corporation, the Town of West Point, the City of
Williamsburg, the James City Service Authority, and New Kent County. Based on the previous
studies conducted by Malcolm Pirnie, and projected future withdrawals based on groundwater use
data, a new 10 mgd withdrawal does not appear 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 would release limited quantities of combustion
emissions.
3114-017-319 5-30
-------
5.2.5 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/wetland area 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 t&
nwfiohaline 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
mirrimaU localized impacts on the hydrology of the receiving waters.
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 in southeastern Virginia should not experience drawdowns from the
proposed desalination well system in excess of 5 to 10 feet. Water level declines of S to 10 feet
are not normally considered severe unless pumping appurtenances are subsequently dewatered.
3114-017-319 5-31
-------
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. Permanent
construction impacts are expected to affect less than 5 acres of soil.
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 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Substrate
Implementation of this alternative would have no impact on aquatic ecosystem substrate.
Water Quality
Implementation of this alternative is not expected to impact existing water quality
conditions.
Hydrology
This alternative component could stimulate the installation of new shallow wells to provide
water for nonessential uses. However, additional conservation measures and 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 additional conservation measures and use restrictions by municipal water
purveyors would be expected to have a negligible impact on groundwater resources.
3114-017-319 . 5-32
-------
gojl and Mineral Resources
The implementation of this alternative would have no impact on soil and mineral
resources.
Air Quality
The implementation of this alternative would have no adverse impact on ambient air
quality.
5.2.7 No Action
Subgtrate
This alternative would have no impact on aquatic ecosystem substrate.
Water Quality
•sap** >*
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. Diascunl
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 rag/1. Concentration^,
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. EutrophMf
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
limited 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 mat dewatering of limited western portions of some aquifers, and
an increase in the potential for salt water encroachment, could occur (Laczniak and Meng, 1988).
Soil and Mineral Resources
The No Action alternative would have no impact on soil and mineral resources.
3114-017-319 • 5-33
-------
Air Quality
The No Action alternative would have no adverse impact on ambient air quality.
5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ___
53.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
No critical habitat has been designated by the USFWS for the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), or Sensitive Joint-vetch
(Aeschynomene virginica). Therefore, this alternative would not result in the destruction or
adverse modification of any USFWS designated critical habitat.
Due to the distance between the proposed intake on the Pamunkey River at Northbury and
the Bald Eagle nests in the vicinity, no consequential adverse impacts to the nest sites are
expected as a result of the intake construction or operation. In addition, no measurable impacts
to transient individuals are expected, due to the small size of the area of disturbance as compared
to the large area of remaining habitat available to the species in the region. The proposed
pipeline from the Northbury intake site to the Ware Creek Reservoir may be far enough away
from the Bald Eagle nest to preclude direct impacts. However, the VDCR has recommended
consultation with the USFWS and the VDGIF to ensure that potential impacts are minimized (T.J.
O'Connell, VDCR, personal communication, 1992). If necessary, potential impacts could be
avoided by conducting construction activities in areas closest to the Bald Eagle nest outside of the
eagle breeding and nesting season to the maximum extent possible.
No direct impacts to Bald Eagles are anticipated as a result of reservoir construction. The
presence of an open water system and food source would enhance the potential for eagles to
inhabit the area.
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 populations
of Sensitive Joint-vetch are located in the vicinity of the proposed intake site at Northbury on the
Pamunkey River (Perry, 1993) (Appendix 8 of Report E, Biological Assessment for Reservoir
Alternatives (Malcolm Pirnie, 1995) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix
to this document). The species' historical range encompasses at least 19.5 river miles of the
Pamunkey and the closest known population of this species occurs approximately 5 miles
downstream of the proposed intake site (C. Clampitt, VDCR, personal communication, 1992).
The wide geographic range of the Sensitive Joint-vetch along the Pamunkey River shows
that this species may be tolerant of oligohaline conditions and even mesohaline conditions on
occasion. Sweet Hall Marsh (the most downstream occurrence of the species) is an extensive
marsh which is drained by many tidal channels which have little freshwater input. Therefore,
salinity conditions in this marsh would be expected to be closely approximated by salinity levels
at adjacent Pamunkey River transects as indicated in Report I, Pamunkey River Intrusion Impact
Assessment for Block Creek Reservoir Assessment (Malcolm Pirnie, 1995) which is incorporated
3114-017-319 5-34
-------
herein by reference and is an appendix to this document. At Pamunkey River Transect 36, adjacent
to Sweet Hall Marsh, the predicted mean baseline salinity level was 0,67 ppt, or slightly oligohaline.
Maximum predicted baseline salinity levels at Transect 36 fall into the mesohaline category (i.e., >5
ppt).
A recent University of Kentucky study submitted to the USFWS has shown that nondormant
seeds of the Sensitive Joint-vetch can germinate to high percentages at low (10 ppt) concentrations
of various salts, including Nad, NajSO,,, and MgSO4. However, at moderate to high (15 ppt) salt
concentrations, germination is inhibited and after several days of incubation at these concentrations,
the seeds lose viability (Baskin and Baskin, 1995a).
The salt concentrations tested in Baskin's study were more than an order of magnitude larger
than the predicted mean baseline salinity levels at the most downstream occurrence of the Sensitive
Joint-vetch at Sweet Hall Marsh. Even at 10 ppt, the Sensitive Joint-vetch was shown to germinate.
As shown above, maximum salinities at Sweet Hall Marsh based on expected Year 2040 withdrawals
were predicted to be substantially less. Therefore, based on salinity modeling results and known
salinity tolerance of the species, the small predicted salinity increases from withdrawals by the
RRWSG should not have an effect on the distribution of the Sensitive Joint-vetch in the Pamunkey
River.
A site survey for Sensitive Joint-vetch resulted in the identification of no extant populations
of the species within Ware Creek tidal wetlands (Perry, 1993) (Appendix 9 of Report E). Impacts
to approximately 12 acres of potential habitat of the species could occur during construction activities
at the proposed reservoir site. Impacts to approximately 2.S acres of downstream habitat also could
occur through construction activities.
The potential for loss of propagule source due to construction activities is unknown (Perry,
1993). Stands reappear many consecutive years at isolated sites, which indicates that either a
substantial number of the seeds lodge near their source each year or that seed banking is involved,
or both. On the other hand, some colonies have been noted to exhibit radical population changes
from year to year. (Terwilliger, 1991). A recent study submitted to the USFWS has shown that
Sensitive Joint-vetch seeds are impermeable to water when fresh but lose dormancy (i.e., seed coats
become permeable to water) under extended dry laboratory storage. However, neither wet/dry cycles
nor continuous drying for 75 days had an effect on germination of the seeds. (Baskin and Baskin,
1995b). Therefore, it is unlikely that minor changes in hydrology during construction will have an
adverse effect on the habitat.
Downstream impacts could be minimized by locating work staging areas away from these
areas and by implementing sediment control measures at all times. 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.
Two Small Whorled Pogonia specimens were found during the 1994 Ware Creek survey. The
two plants are located in young forest stands within the proposed pool area and would be flooded by
the proposed reservoir. It is possible that the two plants are part of a larger dormant colony. Given
the less than ideal habitat (heavy overstory) and the presence of only two vegetative shoots without
buds, it is unlikely that a viable population is present. These two plants may be remnants of a
previously larger population which is in decline due to timbering, replanting and associated
disturbance of the area.
3114-017-319 5-35
-------
The life history of the Small Whorled Pogonia is not well known or understood. Searches for
new populations are necessary throughout the species' range and continued monitoring of existing
populations should be conducted until the life history of the species is better understood (D.
M. E. Ware, 1991). Study sites for the Ware Creek Reservoir survey were selected using accepted
methodology and criteria. However, Small Whorled Pogonia have been found in areas which do not
meet the accepted criteria. The presence of Small Whorled Pogonia in the project area indicates that
the species occurs in the area and may continue to do so if it is left undisturbed. It also is possible
that additional plants are present in the project area outside the study sites. However, all known sites
with suitable habitat have been surveyed, thereby minimizing the possibility that any undiscovered
plants are part of a viable population.
The RRWSG is investigating mitigation alternatives for potential impacts to Small Whorled
Pogonia resulting from any of the reservoir project alternatives. Possible components of a mitigation
plaa^include purchasing a conservation easement for a known viable population which is imminently
threatencdL With the assistance of Dr. Donna Ware from the Collegc;of WmiWindMary^^
possible preservation sites for the Small Whorled Pogonia have been identified^ One site, in James
City County, is subject to development pressure. The second site, in Gloucester County, has had as
: many as 40 individuals identified. Details of proposed Small Whorled Pogonia preservation are
4 outlined in Section 3.7.
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 are
expected to include loss of tidal freshwater vegetation and reduction or elimination of the oligohaline
assemblage.
Fish and Invertebrates
Potential impacts from intake structures 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 distributed throughout the water column. The
NMFS generally recommends that through-screen velocities at raw water intakes not exceed 0.25
feet per second (fps), for the protection of anadromous fish larvae. To meet this requirement,
approximately 40 wedge-wire profile submerged intake screens would be used. These screens
would be approximately 5 feet in diameter and 5 feet in length. Screens would require a water
depth of at least IS 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., £ 0.25 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. Also, 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.
3114-017-319 5-36
-------
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.
It is possible, but probably not likely, that viable river herring eggs or larvae could be
transferred from the Pamunkey River to the reservoir and that river herring could become established
in the reservoir. If that were to occur, there would be a slight possibility that viable river herring (or
eggs or larvae) could be transferred in turn from the reservoir to the James River basin, through
reservoir withdrawals. However, it is unlikely that such a transfer would occur at all, or that it would
have an adverse effect on the population of river herring in the James River. A more detaijpd
discussion of the possibility for interbasiirteaosfer of river herring is presented in Section 5.3.3.
*
Anadromous fish species should not be measurably affected by any potential changes in
Pamunkey River salinity conditions caused by river withdrawals. These impacts are analyzed in
Report I. As indicated in the report, only slight differences in simulated historical and withdrawal
salinity records for Pamunkey River transects were observed in salinity model output^
Major impacts to fish and invertebrate species in Ware Creek would result from dam
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 die proposed impoundment site.
A Habitat Evaluation Procedures (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.
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
3114-017-319 5-37
-------
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.
With a combined maximum raw water discharge capacity of 120 mgd, the two proposed
pipeline discharges to Diascund Creek would create a substantially higher flow regime in the
Creek. Given mis high discharge rate, this reservoir alternative would have the highest
probability of adversely affecting fish and invertebrate species at and downstream of the
discharge sites due to potential stream scouring and increased sediment suspension.
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). Approximately 1,194 acres of open water habitat would be
gained with reservoir development.
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 mat the Great Blue Heron rookery would be threatened by inundation of the
reservoir area (T. J. O'ConneU, 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. Negative impacts are anticipated on amphibians requiring
3114-017-319 5-38
-------
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 temporarily 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 die proposed Ware Creek Reservoir, or as a result of pipeline construction.
Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
No direct impacts to wetlands at the intake site are anticipated because the pump station would
be built on a high bluff above the river and the intake structures would be installed by directional
drilling.
Potential secondary impacts would include:
Increased sedimentation and wetlands loss downstream due to intake structure
construction.
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 wastcwater discharges or dramatically increased irrigation withdrawals,
the vegetative species composition of the tidal freshwater wetlands should not change appreciably
as a result of the proposed water supply withdrawals. Potential salinity intrusion impacts to
Pamunkey River wetlands are examined in detail in Report I.
A total of approximately 590 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands, including 40 acres of open
water, in the Ware Creek watershed would be lost through filling, dredging or inundation as a direct
result of construction of the Ware Creek Reservoir.
The Ware Creek Reservoir watershed encompasses approximately 76 percent of the entire
Ware Creek watershed. The 590 acres of wetlands affected by the Ware Creek Reservoir project lie
within both James City and New Kent Counties. These include nearly all of the wetlands within the
reservoir watershed except a small number of headwater streams and isolated wetlands above the
normal pool elevation. On a county scale, the 590 acres of wetlands represents approximately 1.8
percent of the estimated 32,957.2 acres found in James City County, or about 2.7 percent of the
estimated 21,889.6 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands in New Kent County (VDCR, 1990).
3114-017-319 . 5-39
-------
According to the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) analysis performed for the estuarine
and palustrine wetlands at the Ware Creek Reservoir site, the existing wetlands which would be
inundated have a high probability of performing the following functions: floodflow alteration,
sediment stabilization, sediment/toxicant retention, and wildlife habitat. There also would be a
moderate probability that nutrient removal/transformation and production export functions would be
lost
Although the proposed reservoir would function differently from the existing wetlands, the
reservoir would have a high probability of providing a number of the same functions that may be lost
Because of the reservoir's large capacity to store water, it would have a high probability of providing
floodflow alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, and nutrient removal/transformation. It also would
provide aquatic habitat and groundwater recharge. Additionally, it would have a high probability of
providing recreation.
Sediment stabilization, wetland-specific wildlife habitat, and uniqueness/heritage value are
three wetland functions and values, now likely to exist, which would not be provided by the
reservoir. Any loss of the sediment stabilization function would be largely offset by the reservoir's
large capacity for sediment retention. Although the proposed reservoir would very likely provide
much lacustrine habitat and possibly even rare species habitat, habitat for wetlands dependent species
would be lost. Additionally, the existing wetlands have a moderate probability of performing
production export and groundwater discharge functions which also would be lost.
Additional impacts related to short-term reservoir construction effects could cause an increase
in levels of suspended sediment resulting in siltation of vegetated wetlands below the dam site.
However, these impacts would be temporary and could be minimized by effective sediment control
measures.
Long-term changes in flow regime would occur in downstream wetlands. To indicate the
degree of impact on the downstream segment of Ware Creek, the percent reduction of flow 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 by at least 85.6 percent and perhaps as much as 96.4 percent. During more water-
abundant times, a great deal more water than the minimum would be released These releases do not
include the amount of water recharged from the reservoir into local groundwater below downstream
wetlands.
The Ware Creek dam would be built in the transition zone between freshwater and oligohalinc
waters. A VIMS study (Hershner and Perry, 1987) indicated that under average flow conditions after
the dam was built, nearly all wetlands downstream of the dam, except those at the mouth of Ware
Creek, would experience some change in vegetation community. Those tidal freshwater wetlands
which remained downstream of the dam initially after its construction would be eliminated and
replaced by an oligohaline 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 stream/wetlands would be temporarily disturbed by construction of
pipeline crossings. As discussed in Section 5.2.1, an estimated 1.2 acres of substrate would be
affected by the 21 minor stream/wetland crossings required for pipeline construction. Based on the
more detailed investigation of stream/wetland areas along the Black Creek Reservoir and King
William Reservoir pipeline routes, the area of stream/wetland disturbance along the route would
likely be 5 to 6 acres. Reforestation along the pipeline route would be suppressed to maintain the
3114-017-319 5-40
-------
right-of-way. Pipeline construction and maintenance in forested areas could therefore result in
fragmentation of habitat for some interior forest dwelling species. In addition, palustrine forested
wetlands would most likely be converted to a palustrine emergent system after pipeline construction.
Construction of the pipeline could allow Phragmites communis and other exotic species that thrive
in disturbed areas to revegetate the pipeline right-of-way.
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.
5.3.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
A biological assessment of the Bald Eagle, Sensitive Joint-vetch, and Small Whorled Pogonia
was undertaken to identify potential impacts to these species. The detailed results of this assessment
are presented in Report E.
No critical habitat has been designated by the USFWS for the Bald Eagle, Small Whorled
Pogonia, or Sensitive Joint-vetch. Therefore, this alternative would not result in the destruction or
adverse modification of any USFWS designated critical habitat.
Potential impacts to endangered, threatened and other sensitive species resulting from the
proposed Pamunkey River withdrawal at Northbury are discussed in Section 5.3.1.
No known populations of designated endangered or threatened species would be directly'*
impacted by construction of the Black Creek Reservoirs. However, the following sensitive species
are known to be, or may be, present in the vicinity of the reservoir site: Mabee's Salamander, Bald
Eagle, Northern Diamondback Terrapin, and Small Whorled Pogonia.
Surveys of potential suitable habitat for Small Whorled Pogonia were conducted in the
proposed reservoir areas in July 1993 and August 1994. No specimens of Small Whorled Pogonia
were identified in these surveys. 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 valuable open water habitat. This would
provide important foraging habitat for the Bald Eagle.
The proposed minimum combined release of 1.2 mgd represents 32 percent of the estimated
combined average flow at the two dam sites. This release is anticipated to preserve the quality of
downstream habitat in Black Creek that sensitive species may use.
The proposed pipeline from the Pamunkey River to the Black Creek Reservoir may be far
enough away from the Bald Eagle nest to preclude any direct impacts. However, the VDCR has
recommended consultation with the USFWS and the VDGIF to ensure that potential impacts are
minimized (TJ. O'Connell, VDCR, personal communication, 1992). If necessary, potential impacts
31144)17-319 5-41
-------
could be avoided by conducting construction activities in areas closest to the Bald Eagle nest outside
of the eagle breeding and nesting season to the maximum extent possible.
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 distributed throughout the water column. The NMFS
generally recommends that through-screen velocities at raw water intakes not exceed 0.25 fps for the
protection of anadromous fish larvae. To meet this requirement, approximately 40 wedge-wire
profile submerged intake screens would be used. These screens would be approximately 5 feet in
diameter and 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, very low entrance velocities (sO.25 firs), and very small screen
openings (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.
It is possible, but probably not likely, that viable river herring eggs or larvae could be
transferred from the Pamunkey River to the reservoir and that river herring could become established
in the reservoir. If that were to occur, there would be a slight possibility that viable river herring (or
eggs or larvae) could be transferred in turn from the reservoir to the James River basin, through
reservoir withdrawals. However, it is unlikely that such a transfer would occur at all, or that it would
have an adverse effect on the population of river herring in the James River. A more detailed
discussion of the possibility for interbasin transfer of river herring is presented in Section 5.3.3.
Anadromous fish species should not be measurably affected by any potential changes in
Pamunkey River salinity conditions caused by river withdrawals. These impacts are analyzed in
Report I. As indicated in the report, only slight differences in simulated historical and withdrawal
salinity records for Pamunkey River transects were observed in salinity model output.
Construction of the Black Creek Reservoir dams and inundation of the pool areas would cause
the largest potential impacts to fish species in Black Creek. Impacts associated with reservoir
construction could include an increase in levels of suspended sediment, resulting in siltation which
might affect fish in the project area. However, these effects would be temporary and could be
minimized by effective sediment control measures.
The proposed reservoir project would convert the flowing creek system within the pool area
to a lacustrine system with deep water habitat and shallow shoreline areas. Some fish species present
in the pool area may be eliminated by the loss of benthic food organisms and vegetation for
spawning, nursery, and shelter. However, most of the species currently present in Black Creek
commonly inhabit reservoir environments (see Table 5-12B).
3114-017-319 5-42
-------
Table 5-12B
Occurrence of Fish Species in Reservoir Environments
Black Creek Non-tidal Waters
Species
Scientific Name
Ameiurus nebulosus
Anguilla rostrate
Aphredoderus sayanus
Clinostomus fitnduloidcs
Enneaamthw gloriosus
Erimyzon oblongas
Esax americanus
Esaxniger
Eiheostoma olmstedi
Gambusia holbroold
Hybognathus regius
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbostts
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
Nocomis leptoctphalus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis amoenus
Noturus gyrinus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus corporalis
Semotilus airomaculatus
Umbra pygmaea
Total Number of Species
Common Name
Brown Bullhead
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Rosyside Dace
Bluespotted Sunfish
Creek Chubsucker
Redfin Pickerel
Chain Pickerel
Tessellated Darter
Eastern Mosquitofish
Eastern Silvery Minnow
Least Brook Lamprey
Redbreast Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Warmouth
BluegiU Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
Bluehead Oiub
Golden Shiner
Comely Shiner
Tadpole Madtom
Blacknose Dace
Fallfish
Creek Chub
Eastern Mudminnow
25
Commonly Inhabit
Reservoir Environments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
Rarely Inhabit
Reservoir Environments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
Sources:
Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993
VDGIF, 1993
R. Jenkins, personal communication, 1996
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
According to Dr. Robert Jenkins of Roanoke College (Jenkins, 1996), 14 of the 25 species
found in Black Creek spawn in reservoirs. Eight of the 1 1 remaining species may spawn in the
headwaters and persist in the reservoir: Rosyside Dace, Creek Chubsucker, Tessellated Darter, Least
Brook Lamprey, Bluehead Chub, Blacknose Dace, FaUfish, and Creek Chub. Although the Creek
Chubsucker spawns in creeks, this species may thrive in reservoir environments. The Comely Shiner
and Eastern Silvery Minnow are riverine species and may become extirpated from the pool area
(Jenkins, 1996), The catadromous American Eel is the only migratory fish found in the Black Creek
Reservoir pool area. Although the eels present in the pool area could survive, recruitment of the
species from outside the reservoir would be eliminated.
j. Construction of the two reservoirs would also block the potential passage of spawning
anadromous or catadromous fish into the upper 3.8 miles and 2.8 miles of the Southern and Eastern
branches of Black Creek, respectively, above the dams. Tl^ ^would effectively terminate all,
ing fish passage in the Southern and Eastern branches of Black Creek above the|lam^ and
lude future restoration of potential anadromous fish spawning habitat in Black Creek. Currently,
jassage in Black Creek is impeded, but not completely blocked, by numerous beaverdams which
occur sporadically throughout the non-tidal portions of Black Creek. The impact of numerous
beaverdams on fish passage is additive in that fewer and fewer fish are able to transverse each
successive dam (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). Catadromous American Eels (Anguilla rostrata) were
found in the upper reaches of the Black Creek watershed, but that does not indicate possible
anadromous fish passage because eels are able to surmount much greater structures than most fish
species (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).
By reducing freshwater flow rates, the operation of the reservoirs could affect fish habitat in
Black Creek below the dams. If the reservoirs are built and operated as proposed, however, at least
one-third of the average streamflow of Black Creek would be released from the dams at all times.
x These releases are expected to be sufficient to maintain existing fish habitat downstream of the dams.
Therefore, only minimal changes in fish assemblages are anticipated in these areas.
Impacts to fish and invertebrates associated with pipeline construction would be minimal and
temporary. With a maximum raw water discharge capacity of 40 mgd, the proposed pipeline
discharge to Diascund Creek would create a higher flow regime in the Creek. Given this discharge
rate, this reservoir alternative may adversely affect fish and invertebrate species at and downstream
of the discharge site due to potential stream scouring and increased sediment suspension. However,
adverse effects would be substantially less than the Ware Creek alternative which would have a
maximum raw water discharge capacity of 120 mgd through two pipeline discharges.
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 546 acres of forested land (60 percent
of the normal pool area) would be converted to open water. In addition, it is estimated that 285 acres
of wetlands and 79 acres of agricultural/open field communities would be inundated. The loss of 910
acres of habitat represents 0.7 percent of the total 126,556 acres of forest open space and agricultural
area in New Kent County (RRPDC, 1991). Approximately 864 acres of open water habitat would
be gained
3114-017-319 5-43
-------
The reservoir fringe and pool would provide habitat for some resident species and for some
new species; however, terrestrial and wetland dependent wildlife would be affected by the inundation
of wetland and forested areas. Species inhabiting the flooded area would be forced to migrate to
other areas of similar habitat. If neighboring habitat patches are at or near their carrying capacity for
a particular species, the increased population could alter population dynamics of that species until
the population reaches equilibrium. For instance, an increased population could reduce the amount
of food available per individual causing malnutrition and reduced survival of juveniles. If the
population is at its carrying capacity, it also could be affected by reduced reproduction, increased
predation, increased natural mortality, or increased emigration. If so, the overall effect would be a
reduced population of that species in the region.
Less mobile species and species dependent on large contiguous habitat patches would be the
most affected by reservoir construction. Reptiles, amphibians, and some small mammals would be
least able to migrate to other habitat unless suitable habitat was available adjacent to the pool area.
Birds would most likely be able to migrate, but could be limited by available suitable habitat
Reduction in habitat also could affect temporary resident species. For example, many
neotropical migratory song birds rely on large patches of temperate forest for breeding. Because of
continued forest fragmentation and decreasing habitat, neotropical migratory birds have become more
susceptible to predation. Therefore, reduction in habitat could result in decreased breeding success
for certain neotropical migratory bird species.
Impacts to species currently utilizing palustrine 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. Negative impacts are anticipated on amphibians requiring specific habitats for breeding
and egg laying, such as specific water flow velocities or certain vegetation sizes.
Some indirect effects (such as reduced foraging areas) could be felt by heron rookeries as a
result of reservoir construction. However, no direct adverse effects upon these resources are
anticipated because they are not in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Due to the relatively narrow width of the pipeline right-of-way, and the restoration of affected
land, where possible, the construction of the underground pipeline should not permanently impact
vertebrate species. Once revegetation is complete, the pipeline right-of-way would provide open
field or scrub/shrub habitat
To allow access for maintenance of the pipeline, reforestation of the right-of-way would be
suppressed. Therefore, sections of the pipeline traveling through forested areas could result in
fragmentation of habitat for some species. The pipeline right-of-way could introduce edge species
which may compete with or prey on forest interior species. For less mobile species, the right-of-way
also could pose an impassable barrier, thereby dividing a previously single population into two. This
could result in decreased genetic diversity and increased susceptibility of each resulting population
to disturbances.
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
3114-017-319 5-44
-------
proposed Black Creek Reservoir, or 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.
uritif^
be*tmiiMiate4 filled, or removed by construction of the Black Creelc impoundment Estimates of the
number of acres of wetlands affected were increased as a result of limited field verification. Before
verification could proceed very far at the Black Creek Reservoir site, however, the New Kent County
Board of Supervisors directed that this field work (and other studies related to construction of this
Reservoir) be stopped.
The Black Creek Reservoir watershed encompasses approximately 17 percent of the entire
Black Creek watershed. If built, the Reservoirs would flood or otherwise destroy almost all of the
wetlands in Black Creek above the dams. The exceptions would be those wetlands on the small
number of headwater streams and isolated wetlands above the normal pool elevation. The number
of acres impacted by the Black Creek Reservoir were compared with the number of acres of wetlands
throughout New Kent County, according to The Virginia Non-Tidal Wetlands Inventory (VDCR,
1990). The estimated 285 acres of wetlands affected by the Black Creek Reservoir project comprise
approximately 1.3 percent of the estimated total of 21,889.6 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands in
New Kent County (VDCR, 1990).
According to the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) analysis performed for the palustrine
wetlands at the Black Creek Reservoir site, the existing wetlands which would be inundated have a
high probability of performing the following functions: floodflow alteration, sediment stabilization,
sediment/toxicant retention, and wildlife habitat. There also would be a moderate probability that
groundwater discharge, and production export functions would be lost.
Although the proposed reservoir would function differently from the existing wetlands, the
reservoir would have a high probability of providing a number of the same functions that may be lost
Because of the reservoir's large capacity to store water, it would have a high probability of providing
floodflow alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, and nutrient removal/transformation. It also would
likely provide aquatic habitat and groundwater recharge. Additionally, it would have a high
probability of providing recreation.
Any loss of sediment stabilization function would be largely offset by the reservoir's large
capacity for sediment retention. Although the proposed reservoir would very likely provide much
lacustrine habitat and possibly even rare species habitat, habitat for wetlands dependent species
would be lost. Additionally, the existing wetlands have a moderate probability of performing
production export and groundwater discharge functions which also would be lost.
Additional impacts related to short-term reservoir construction effects could cause an increase
in levels of suspended sediment resulting in siltation of vegetated wetlands below the dam sites.
However, these impacts would be temporary and could be minimized by effective sediment control
measures.
3114-017-319 5-45
-------
Based on iield inspections df existing water supply reservoirs in the Virginia Coastal Plain*
construction of the reservoir would likely result in hide dcwatcring of the 210 acres of wctlandf
between the impoundment areas and the mouth of Black Creek. The combination of increased local
groundwater levels caused by reservoir seepage, beaverdams, and the proposed minimum release of
1.2 mgd should be sufficient to maintain the hydrology of the downstream wetlands. However, slight
vegetation community changes could take place downstream as a result of a relative shift in
hydrologk source from surface water to groundwater and the attenuation of both flood and drought
streamflows.
Approximately 6.4 acres of stream/wetland areas would be temporarily disturbed by
construction of pipeline crossings. Reforestation along the pipeline route would be suppressed to
maintain the right-of-way. Pipeline construction and maintenance in forested areas could therefore
result in fragmentation of habitat for some interior forest dwelling species. In addition, palustrine
forested wetlands would most likely be converted to a palustrine emergent system after pipeline
construction. Construction of the pipeline route could allow Phragmites communis and other exotic
species that thrive in disturbed areas to revegetate the pipeline right-of-way. Pipeline construction
across an arm of Little Creek Reservoir would affect a deep open water area approximately 500 feet
wide. Approximately 0.15 acres of stream/wetland areas would be affected by the outflow structure
at Diascund Creek
Mud Plate
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.
5.33 King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
Four dam configurations are being presented for the King William Reservoir with
pumpover from the Mattaponi River alternative: KWR I, KWR II, KWR ffl, and KWR TV. The
intake site, pump station size, and a majority of the pipeline route for all four dam configurations
are the same. The dam locations, pool elevations, and river withdrawal operating rules vary.
Specific characteristics of each dam configuration are described in Section 3.4.15. Unless
otherwise specified, biological resources are the same for all dam configurations of the King
William Reservoir alternative.
Endangered. Threatened or Sensitiyg.Species
A biological assessment of the Bald Eagle, Sensitive Joint-vetch and Small Whorled Pogonia
was undertaken to identify potential impacts to these species. The detailed results of this assessment
are presented in Report E.
No critical habitat has been designated by the USFWS for the Bald Eagle, Small Whorled
Pogonia, or Sensitive Joint-vetch. Therefore, this alternative would not result in the destruction or
adverse modification of any USFWS designated critical habitat
3114-017-319 5-46
-------
No appreciable impacts to Mattaponi River tidal freshwater vegetative communities are
expected at a result of salinity changes due to the proposed withdrawal. 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.
Colonies or specimens of Sensitive Joint-vetch, .which is a federally-listed threatened plant
specks and has been proposed for state listing as endangered, have been recorded in five areas along
a 15-mile stretch of the Mattaponi River, from Wakema/Gleason Marsh (downstream limit near
Mattaponi River mile 13) upstream to just below Walkerton (upstream limit near Mattaponi River
mile 28) (J.R. Tate, VDACS, personal communication, 1993). During a 1993 VMS survey,
approximately 2.5 acres of Sensitive Joint-vetch habitat were identified within the Garnetts Creek
Marsh area directly across the River from the intake site (Perry, 1993). Subsequent surveys kaye
recorded the presence of the vetch in Garnetts Creek Marsh and in a marsh approximately 600 feet
upstream of Scotland Landing on the south side of the river (Rouse, 1995; Malcolm Pirnie, 1995;
Rouse, 1996),
The wide geographic range of the Sensitive Joint-vetch along the Mattaponi River shows that
this species may be tolerant of oligohaline conditions and even mesohaline conditions on occasion.
Wakema/Gleason Marsh (the most downstream occurrence of the species) is an extensive marsh
which is drained by many tidal channels which have little freshwater input. Therefore, salinity
conditions in this marsh would be expected to be closely approximated by salinity levels at adjacent
Mattaponi River transects as indicated in Report J, Tidal Wetlands on the Mattaponi River:
Potential Responses of the Vegetative Community to Increased Salinity as a Result of Freshwater
Withdrawal (Hershner et al., 1995) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to
this document Based on historical data, at Mattaponi River Transect 32 adjacent to
Wakema/Gleason Marsh, the predicted mean baseline salinity level was 0.46 ppt, or slightly
oligohaline. Maximum predicted baseline salinity levels at Transect 32 are 6.07 ppt, which fall into
the mesohaline category (i.e., >5 ppt). Maximum salinities based on expected Year 2040
withdrawals were predicted to be 6.09 ppt, or 0.02 ppt greater than baseline levels.
The resolution of the VIMS salinity model is limited by the distance between adjacent
transects. However, the model includes 43 Mattaponi River transects over the lower 36.2 miles of
the river with only small differences in predicted salinity levels between adjacent transects. The
predicted mean annual salinity levels in the critical tidal freshwater-oligohaline transition zone would
differ by only about 0.1 to 0.2 ppt r This magnitude of salinity change is small compared to the
salinity tolerance ranges for aquatic plants and animals which are documented in Report I. Therefore,
salinity predictions for additional intermediate transects (obtained through refining model resolution)
would not improve biological impact assessment capability, since predicted salinity changes between
closer transects would be even smaller relative to species' tolerance limits. The Sensitive Joint-vetch,
which was considered to have relatively narrow salinity tolerance limits, has been recorded within
a 15-mile reach of the Mattaponi River and a 19.5 reach of the Pamunkey River. These river reaches
are 18 to 23 times longer than the average distance separating the salinity model's current Mattaponi
River transects (0.84 miles).
A recent University of Kentucky study submitted to the USFWS has shown that nondorrnant
seeds of the Sensitive Joint-vetch can germinate to high percentages at low (10 ppt) concentrations
of various salts, including NaCl, NajSO* and MgS04. However, at moderate to high (15 ppt) salt
concentrations, germination is inhibited and after several days of incubation at these concentrations,
the seeds lose viability (Baskin and Baskin, 1995 a).
3114-017-319 5-47
-------
The salt concentrations tested in Baskin's study were more than an order of magnitude larger
than the predicted baseline salinity levels at the most downstream occurrence of the Sensitive Joint-
vetch at Wakema/Gleason Marsh, where predicted salinity effects on the species are greatest Even
at 10 ppt, the Sensitive Joint-vetch was shown to germinate. As shown above, maximum salinities
at Wakema/Gleason Marsh based on expected Year 2040 withdrawals were predicted to be
substantially less. Therefore, based on the VMS salinity modeling results and known salinity
tolerance of the species, the^anall predicted salinity increases from withdrawals by the RRWSG
should not have an effect on the distribution of the Sensitive Joint-vetch in the Mattaponi River.
Impacts to Sensitive Joint-vetch individuals and approximately 2.5 acres of potential Sensitive
Joint-vetch habitat could occur during construction activities and operation of the Mattaponi River
intake site. Little information on the availability of seed for the species from the seed bank is
available. Stands reappear many consecutive years at isolated sites, which indicates that either a
substantial number of the seeds lodge near their source each year or that seed banking is involved,
or both. On the other hand, some colonies have been noted to exhibit radical population changes
from year to year. (Terwilliger, 1991). Potential propagule loss and damage to species habitat would
be reduced or eliminated by:
Locating work staging areas away from wetland areas.
Implementing sediment control measures at all times.
Avoiding compaction and disturbance of wetland soils.
In its 1993 Sensitive Joint-vetch study, VIMS concluded that: "... it appears that no existing
plant will be impacted within the primary or secondary study areas by the proposed project" (Perry,
1993). The primary study area was defined by VIMS as both sides of the Mattaponi River from just
below Scotland Landing upstream to Mantua Ferry. The secondary study area was defined by VMS
as the remainder of the tidal freshwater zone of the Mattaponi River. The tidal freshwater zone of
the Mattaponi River encompasses all of the sites along the River for which historic Sensitive Joint-
vetch occurrence records exist.
Consideration was given to the possibility that changes in river water velocities and sediment
as a result of intake operation might alter Gametts Creek marsh and impact Sensitive Joint-vetch
habitat Dr. David fiasco, a civil/coastal engineer, prepared the Study of Potential Erosional Impact
of Scotland Landing Water Intake Structure on Garnetts Creek Marsh, Mattaponi River, Virginia
(Basco, 1996) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document (Report
N). The study concluded that the relative change, if any, in water velocities and sediment transport
potential are so small that the possibility for increased erosion on either side of the river is minimal
to non-existent. Sediment deposition on the north side of the meander bend is expected to continue
to increase the size of Garnetts Creek marsh in the future, providing more possible habitat for the
Sensitive Joint-vetch. Natural sediment erosion on the south side of the meander bend does occur
due to inundation and high velocities during freshwater flood events, and this is expected to continue.
The habitat suitable for the south side colony of the Sensitive Joint-vetch is impacted by high bend
velocities during normal, freshwater flood events (Basco, 1996). The results of the study show that
no impacts are expected to the Sensitive Joint-vetch habitat at Garnetts Creek marsh as a result of
3114-017-319 5-48
-------
intake operation. However, monitoring of conditions at the south side colony was suggested as a
precaution to determine the cause of any erosion that may occur.
The proposed KWR pump station and residence at Scotland Landing is approximately 1,800
feet from a Bald Eagle nest. No adverse impacts to 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 and the distance of the structures from the
nest Noise resulting from operation of the pump station is not expected to disturb the eagles.
The KWR I dam would be approximately 375 feet from an existing Bald Eagle nest Potential
impacts to die eagles have been minimized by locating the KWR n dam 2,900 feet (channel distance)
farther upstream. Additionally, the KWR 01 and KWR IV dams would be 7,500 and 9,700 feet
(channel distance), respectively, from the KWR I dam site. However, the gravity pipeline for KWR
I would still approach within 375 feet of the nest. The pipelines for KWR II, III, and IV would be
more than 0.5 mile from the nest.
The primary threat to eagles using this nest is considered to be the short-term noise and
disruption which would result from pipeline construction activities for the KWR I configuration.
Those impacts can be avoided by conducting construction activities in the areas closest to the Bald
Eagle nest outside of the eagle breeding and nesting season to the maximum extent possible.
The Bald Eagle nest in New Kent County (located within 0.5 miles of the KWR pipeline) is
not expected to be affected by the project (J. Trollinger, VDGIF, personal communication, 1996).
Once the reservoir is constructed, it would provide valuable open water habitat for Bald
Eagles. 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 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 die 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 existing land use conditions, in which the site
is used for timbering and hunting.
3114-017-319 5-49
-------
To minimize potential impacts and to enhance Bald Eagle habitat at the proposed reservoir,
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.
Small Whorled Pogonia were found in two locations within the pool area common to all |
proposed King William Reservoir configurations. A single specimen was found in 1993 and 1994
in an upland deciduous second growth forest, and five plants were found in 1994 on an upland
hummock between two small streams within a young pine stand. Both locations would be flooded
by the proposed reservoir.
It is possible that both these areas may have supported more individuals of the species in the
past. However, given the presence of only one shoot in two years of monitoring and the less than
ideal habitat at the first location, and given the high degree of habitat degradation and
uncharacteristic habitat at the second location, it is unlikely that these plants are part of a viable
population.
The life history of the Small Whorled Pogonia is not well known, and the ability of scientists
to predict where individual specimens may be found is limited. The presence of Small Whorled
Pogonia in two locations in the project area indicates that the species can be found in the area and
may be present in areas outside the study sites. However, all known sites with suitable habitat have
been surveyed, thereby minimizing the possibility that any undiscovered plants are part of a viable
population. Furthermore, three teams of biologists inspected the entire pool area of the reservoir
during the Small Whorled Pogonia flowering period while conducting the wetland delineation.
3114-017-319 5-50
-------
r The RRWSG is investigating mitigation alternatives for potential impacts to Small Whorled
pogonia resulting from any of the reservoir project alternatives. Possible components of a mitigation
f plan include relocation of threatened individuals and purchasing a conservation easement for a
^ known viable population which is imminently threatened. With the assistance of Dr. Donna Ware
prom the College of William and Mary, two possible preservation sites have been identified. One
ssite, in James City County, is subject to development pressure. The second site, in Gloucester
fCounty, has had as many as 40 individual specimens. Details of proposed Small Whorled Pogonia
mitigation are outlined in Section 3.7.
k
Other sensitive species which may be present in the vicinity of the reservoir site include
Mabee's Salamander and the Northern Diamondback Terrapin.
The originally proposed KWR-I minimum reservoir release is 3 mgd and does not vary
seasonally. An alternative release schedule has been developed for the RRWSG's preferred KWR-n
configuration which would average 3 mgd during normal higher reservoir pool conditions and 1 mgd
during critical reservoir drawdown periods.2 The 1 mgd average release schedule would be triggered
when available King William Reservoir storage declines to less than 80 percent. The alternative
release scenario varies by month to mimic the natural Cohoke Creek streamflow hydrograph * A 3
mgd release which, under projected Year 2040 demand conditions, would be in place approximately
70 percent of the time, represents 38 percent of the estimated average flow of Cohoke Creek at the
KWR-n dam site. Both release scenarios are anticipated to preserve the quality of downstream
habitat in Cohoke Millpond and Cohoke Creek mat sensitive species may use. The reservoir is
expected to also increase local groundwater recharge rates, thereby helping to preserve the quality
of the downstream habitat.
Fish and Invertebrates
Potential impacts as a result of intake operation include entrainment and impingement offish
eggs and larvae. Alewife and Blucback Herring could be susceptible to greater impacts man other
anadromous fish species because their eggs are distributed throughout the water column. The NMFS
generally recommends that through-screen velocities at raw water intakes not exceed 0.25 fps for the
protection of anadromous fish larvae. To meet this requirement, approximately 12 wedge-wire
profile submerged intake screens would be used. These screens would be approximately 7 feet in
diameter and 7 feet in length; Screens would require a water depth of at least 21 feet and would be
placet midway between the river bottom and average water surface.
With wedge-wire screens, very low entrance velocities (^0.25 fps), and very small screen
openings (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 mat the majority of the eggs would be
located below the intake entrance and would not be affected.
2 For the currently proposed KWR-IV configuration, the minimum release would average 2
mgd during normal higher reservoir pool conditions and 1 mgd during critical reservoir
drawdown periods (see Section 33.3).
3114-017-319 5-51
-------
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.
It is possible, but probably not likely, that viable river herring eggs or larvae could be-
transferred from the Mattaponi River to the reservoir and that river herring could become established
in the reservoir. If that were to occur, there would be a slight possibility that viable river herring (or
eggs or larvae) could be transferred in turn from the reservoir to the Pamunkey or James River basins,!
through reservoir releases or withdrawals. However, it is unlikely that such a transfer would occur;
at all, or that it would have an adverse effect on the populations of river herring in the Pamunkey or
James Rivers. This is due to the improbability of the transfer offish from the Mattaponi River to the
reservoir, the improbability of the transfer offish from the reservoir to the Pamunkey or James River
basins, the naturally occurring genetic mixing of river herring populations in Chesapeake Bay
tributaries, incidental mixing of stocks by man, and naturally occurring genetic variability in these
fish populations, A full examination of the potential impact to river herring is presented in Report
P, Literature Review on the Genetic Variability and Migration Patterns of Alemfe andBlueback
Herring Stocks in Chesapeake Bay Tributaries (Malcolm Pimie, 1996) which is incorporated herein
by reference and is an appendix to this document.
Anadromous fish species should not be measurably affected by any potential changes in
Mattaponi River salinity conditions caused by river withdrawals. These impacts are analyzed in
Report J. As indicated in the report, only slight differences in simulated historical and withdrawal.
salinity records for Mattaponi River transects were observed m salinity model output)
Due to the slight differences in historical and withdrawal scenarios for the Mattaponi River
transects simulated in the VIMS model, measurable impacts to Mattaponi River tidal freshwater
invertebrates are not expected as a result of river withdrawals. Many invertebrate species which
inhabit the Mattaponi River can tolerate wide ranges of salinity. Invertebrate species that inhabit
transitional areas (e.g., the tidal freshwater/oligohaline transition zone) are necessarily adapted to
variable salinity conditions that occur both seasonally and as a result of short-term weather
conditions.
Chironomid Midges, which are dominant species found in both tidal freshwater and
oligohaline benthic samples from the Mattaponi River, have an approximate LCW of 8.85 ppt salinity
(Chironomus attenuates tested in sodium chloride)3 (USEPA, 1988). Other invertebrates, such as
Oligochaete worms, scuds, snails, Nematode worms, Mayflies, and Aquatic Leaf Beetles were found
in both freshwater and oligohaline samples. This range implies some tolerance of variable salinity
conditions. Some water beetles and Caddisflies were only found in tidal freshwater samples. Of
these, Hydroptila angusta, a Caddisfly, has an approximate LC*, of 7.30 ppt salinity (tested in
sodium chloride) (USEPA, 1988). These toxicity values exceed the overall mean and maximum
salinity values predicted for the tidal freshwater/oligohaline transition zone (Mattaponi River
Transect 32). As presented in Report J, the predicted overall mean salinity under Year 2040
withdrawals is 0.49 ppt, or 0.03 ppt over the mean historical value. The predicted overall maximum
salinity under Year 2040 withdrawals is 6.09 ppt, or 0.02 ppt greater than the maximum historical
3 An LCjo is the lowest concentration tested in which SO percent mortality of the test
organisms was observed. LCjoS in the literature are expressed in terms of mg/1 of chloride.
Values are converted to parts per thousand salinity using the following equation: salinity
(ppt) = 1.80655 chlorinity (ppt) (Sturnm and Morgan, 1981).
3114-017-319 5-52
-------
value. Natural Mattaponi River salinity fluctuations greatly exceed any salinity changes that were
predicted under the Year 2040 withdrawal scenario. Because of the range of benthic invertebrates
observed within the Mattaponi River samples, the LCK values of species observed, and the small
increases in salinity values predicted for tidal freshwater transects in the Mattaponi, impacts to tidjj}
freshwater benthic invertebrates are not expected as a result of predicted salinity changes under Year
2040 withdrawals
Construction of the King William Reservoir dam and inundation of the pool area would cause
the largest potential impacts to fish species in Cohoke Creek Impacts associated with reservoir
construction could include an increase in levels of suspended sediment, resulting in siltation which
might affect fish in the project area. However, these effects would be temporary and could be
minimized by effective sediment control measures.
Once completed, the reservoir would convert the flowing creek system within the pool area
to a lacustrine system with deep water habitat and shallow shoreline areas. Some fish species present
in the reservoir pool area may be eliminated by the loss of benthic food organisms and vegetation for
spawning, nursery, and shelter, but most species currently present in Cohoke Creek have been
documented in reservoir environments (Table 5-12C).
According to Dr. Robert Jenkins of Roanoke College (Jenkins, 1996), 17 of the 22 species
found in Cohoke Creek spawn in reservoirs. Four of the five remaining species may spawn in the
headwaters of the reservoir. Although the Creek Chubsucker spawns in creeks, the species may
thrive in the reservoir environment. The Tessellated Darter, Least Brook Lamprey, and Blacknose
Dace may also persist in the reservoir; however, the Blacknose Dace may be absent from the majority
of the reservoir pool area (Jenkins, 1996). The catadromous American Eel is the only migratory fish
found in the King William Reservoir pool area. Although the eels present in the pool area could
survive, recruitment of the species from outside the reservoir would be eliminated.
Construction of the reservoir would also block the potential passage of spawning anadromous
or catadromous fish into the upper 10 75 miles of potential anadromous fish habitat above the KWR
I dam. Construction of the KWR II dam would block approximately 10.2 miles of potential
anadromous fish habitat. Construction of the KWR m dam would block approximately 9.3 miles
of potential anadromous fish habitat and construction of the KWR IV dam would bloctt
approximately 8,2 miles of potential habitat. Reservoir construction would effectively preclude
future opening of potential anadromous fish spawning habitat in Cohoke Creek. However, fish
passage in Cohoke Creek is presently limited by the Cohoke Millpond dam and further by numerous
beaverdams upstream of the Millpond. Results of fish sampling in the Chickahominy River by the
VDGIF have shown that the quantity of anadromous fish collected upstream of beaverdams was
considerably lower than the quantity collected downstream of the beaverdams (D. L. Fowler,
VDGIF, personal communication, 1996).
Construction of a reservoir dam in Cohoke Creek would further restrict fish passage in the
project area, but the incremental impact would be minimal because the downstream Cohoke Millpond
dam effectively bars fish passage into the project area. Catadromous American Eels (Anguilla
rostrata) were found in the upper reaches of the Cohoke Creek watershed, but that does not indicate
possible anadromous fish passage because eels are able to surmount much greater structures than
most fish species (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993), Although the Millpond dam is privately owned by
the Cohoke Club, the state does have the authority to require installation of a fishway for passage of
migratory fish (Virginia Code § 29.1-532). However, the Cohoke Millpond dam is not currently
listed as one of the state's priority areas for restoration offish passage (VDGIF, 1995) and no plans
3114-017-319 5-53
-------
Table 5-12C
Occurrence of Fish Species in Reservoir Environments
Cohoke Creek Non-tidal Waters Above Cohoke Milipond
Species
Scientific Name
Ameiurus natatis
Ameiurus nebulosus
Amia calva
Anguitta rostrate
Aphrediderus sayanus
Centrarchus macropterus
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Erimyzon oblongus
Esox niger
Esox americanus
Etheostoma olmstedi
Gambttsia holbrooki
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis macrochirus
L gibbosus X.L. macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
Notemigonas crysoleucas
Noturus gyrinus
Wiinichthys atratulus
Umbra pygmaea
Total Number of Species
Common Name
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
Bowfin
American Eel
Pirate Perch
Flier
Bluespotted Sunfish
Creek Chubsucker
Chain Pickerel
Redfin Pickerel
Tessellated Darter
Eastern Mosquitofish
Least Brook Lamprey
Pumpkinseed
Wannouth
Bluegill Sunfish
Hybrid Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
Golden Shiner
Tadpole Madtom
Blacknose Dace
Eastern Mudminnow
22
Commonly Inhabit
Reservoir Environments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18
Rarely Inhabit
Reservoir Environments
X
X
X
X
4
Sources:
Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993
VDGIF, 1993
R. Jenkins, personal communication, 19%
3114-017-319
November 1996
-------
exist for removal of the dam. Given the long history of private ownership of the Cohoke Millpond
dam (over 100 years) and the surrounding homes, it appears unlikely that the dam will be removed,
By reducing freshwater flow rates, the operation of the reservoir could affect fish habitat in
pbhoke Creek below the dam. The originally proposed KWR-I minimum reservoir release is 3 mgd
Juid does not vary seasonally. An alternative release schedule has been developed for the RRWSG's
|>referred KWR-n configuration which would average 3 mgd during normal higher reservoir pool
(conditions and 1 mgd during critical reservoir drawdown periods4. The 1 mgd average release
^schedule would be triggered when available King William Reservoir storage declines to less than 80
|percent. The alternative release scenario varies by month to mimic the natural Cohoke Creek
fNstreamflow hydrograph. A 3 mgd release which, under projected Year 2040 demand conditions,
! would be in place approximately 70 percent of the time, represents 38 percent of the estimated
* average flow of Cohoke Creek at the KWR-II dam site. .Comparing this to Termant's methodJipr
idefming instream flow recommendations, 40 percent of average streamflow would maintain
| ^outstanding" fisheries habitat during dry months and "good" fisheries habitat during wet months.
Therefore, only minimal changes in fish species composition are anticipated in the existing fish
I habitat downstream of the dam.
The Pamunkey Indian Fish Hatchery is located on the Pamunkey River approximately 3.0
river miles upstream of Cohoke Creek. There are no impacts to the fish hatchery anticipated as a
result of project implementation; Implementation of the project will not reduce fish nursery habitat
and will not affect the size of the Pamunkey River fish populations. In addition, the flow of Cohoke
Creek is minute when compared to the flow of the Pamunkey River as a whole. Therefore, potential
reduced flow from Cohoke Creek as a result of project implementation will not affect flows in the
Pamunkey River.
Impacts to fish and invertebrates associated with pipeline construction would be minimal and
temporary. No impacts to fish and invertebrates would be realized as a result of reservoir pump
station construction for KWR U, HI, or IV.
The proposed pipeline discharge to Beaverdam Creek for KWR I would create a higher flow
regime in the lower 1.3 miles of the Creek above the normal pool of the Diascund Reservoir. For
KWR n» ED, and IV, the outfall location was extended downstream 0.5 miles which will create a high
flow regime in only the upper 0.8 miles of the creek above the normal pool of Diascund Reservoir.
This extends the outfall to an area where the channel is better suited to accepting high flows, thereby
reducing potential erosional effects. The calculated maximum stream velocity is 1.3 fps, which is
non-erosive for most soil types. Beaverdam Creek has stiff, erosion-resistant clay soils in its bed and
banks. Therefore, expected erosional effects are minimal. The proposed change in outfall location
should minimize potential impacts to fish and invertebrates.
Other Wildlife
Construction of a pump station at Scotland Landing would disturb 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.
* For the currently proposed KWR-IV configuration, the minimum release would average 2
mgd during normal higher reservoir pool conditions and 1 mgd during critical reservoir
drawdown periods i(see Section 3.3.3).
3114-017-319 " ^—-5-54
-------
Within the proposed KWRI pool area, approximately 1,588 acres of forested upland habitat
would be converted to open water. There are approximately 1,394 acres, 1,182 acres, and 875 acres
of forested upland habitat within the KWR II, KWR HI, and KWR IV pool areas, respectively. The
Joss of acres of this forested wildlife habitat represents 1.2,1.0,0.9, and 0:6 pereenffor KWR I, n,
III, andWj respectively, of the total 137,978 acres of forested and other habitat, including
recreational and wildlife areas, in King William County (SWCB, 1988). Approximately 2,210,
2,181, 1,868, and 4,490 acres of open water habitat would be gained with KWR I, II, m and IV?
respectively.
Although the reservoir fringe and pool would provide habitat for some resident species and
for some new species, terrestrial and wetland-dependent wildlife would be affected by the inundation
of wetland and forested areas. Many species inhabiting the flooded area would be forced to migrate
to other areas of similar habitat. If neighboring habitat patches are at or near their carrying capacity
for a particular species, the increased population could alter population dynamics of that species until
the population reaches equilibrium. For instance, an increased population could reduce the amount
of food available per individual, causing malnutrition and reduced juvenile survival. If the
population is at its carrying capacity, it also could be affected by reduced reproduction, increased
predation, increased natural mortality, or increased emigration. Under such circumstances, the
overall effect would be a reduction of the population of that species in the region.
Less mobile species and species dependent on large contiguous habitat patches would be the
most affected by reservoir construction Reptiles, amphibians, and some small mammals would most
likely be unable to migrate to other habitat unless suitable habitat was available adjacent to the pool
area. Birds would most likely be able to migrate, but could be limited by the extent of available
suitable habitat.
Reduction in habitat also could affect temporary resident species. For example, many
neotropical migratory song birds rely on large patches of temperate forest for breeding. Because of
continued forest fragmentation and decreasing habitat, neotropical migratory birds have become more
susceptible to predation. Therefore, reduction in habitat could result in decreased breeding success
for certain neotropical migratory bird species.
Although the proposed reservoir will affect wildlife, current timbering practices which occur
in the majority of the watershed are already affecting wildlife. Approximately 65 percent of the
watershed is currently used for silviculture. Selected areas of pine, hardwood, or mixed forests are
clear cut, burned, and either replanted with Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) or left to regrow naturally.
Pine plantations are thinned by about 30 to 40 percent when the stand is 17 to 22 years old. Saw
timber is harvested by clear cutting when the stand is about 30 to 35 years old. Hardwoods used for
pulpwood are harvested at 25 years. Hardwoods used for saw timber are thinned at 20 years and
harvested at 40 years (C. Kerns, Delmarva Properties, personal communication, 1995). While in the
past timbering companies concentrated on fast growing pine forests, current market demands are
causing them to rely on mixed hardwood forests as well. Therefore, all forests within the KWR
watershed are susceptible to clear cutting. In addition, due to improvements in cutting machinery,
forests on steep slopes or in wetlands that could not have been cut in the past can now be cleared (J,
Willis, Delmarva Properties, personal communication, 1995).
Clear cutting of large segments of forest causes loss of wildlife habitat, forest fragmentation,
and changes in community structure. Clear cutting also affects adjacent wetland water quality and
vegetation due to increased sedimentation and debris deposition, increased floodflow, and increased
nutrient/toxicant influx. These forestry practices are expected to continue in the watershed.
3114-017-319 5-55
-------
However, with reservoir development, a permanent buffer area would be established around the
perimeter and would protect existing cove hardwood stands. This would also allow for natural
succession of the remainder of the buffer area into fully mature cove hardwood forests and mixed
deciduous/evergreen forests.
Impacts to species currently utilizing palustrine 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. Much of their food sources would be destroyed by the removal and flooding of
vegetation. However, the wetland fringe expected to develop in the shallows of the reservoir should
provide foragchabitat for these species.
The^Grett {BlueHeronrookery tvodd^e inundated by the reservoir, forcing the breeding
individuals to find another area to nest However, suitable nesting habitat is likely to be available
in abundance in nearby adjacent watersheds.
Due to the relatively narrow width of the pipeline right-of-way; and the restoration of affected
land, where possible, the construction of the underground pipeline should not permanently impact
vertebrate species. Once revegetation is complete, the pipeline right-of-way would provide open
field or scrub/shrub habitat.
Reforestation of the right-of-way would be suppressed to provide access for maintenance of
the pipeline. Pipeline construction and maintenance in forested areas could therefore result in
fragmentation of habitat for some species. The right-of-way could also allow the introduction of
edge species which compete with or prey on forest interior species. For less mobile species, the
right-of-way could pose an impassable barrier, dividing a previously single population into two. This
could result in decreased genetic diversity and increased susceptibility of each resulting population
to disturbances.
Construction of the reservoir pump station for KWRII, HI, or IV would disturb less than 3
acres of forested land. Birds and small mammals which forage in the area would be most affected
by construction. Wildlife would be displaced to adjacent habitats.
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 as a result of pipeline construction for this alternative
component.
Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows
No direct impacts to wetlands at the intake site are anticipated because the pump station would
be located on a high bluff above the river and the intake structure would be installed by directional
drilling.
3114-017-319 5-56
-------
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, such as increased wastewater discharges or dramatically increased irrigation withdrawals,
the vegetative species composition of the tidal freshwater wetlands should not change appreciably
as a result of the proposed water supply withdrawals. Potential salinity intrusion impacts to
Mattaponi River wetlands are examined in detail in Report J. Based on this VIMS study, predicted
mean salinity levels at all transects under withdrawal conditions were less than the historical mean
salinity levels at adjacent downstream transects. Given this finding, VIMS concluded that little or
so impact to wetland plant distributions is anticipated as a result of salinity changes caused by
proposed freshwater withdrawal levels. Natural Mattaponi River salinity fluctuations greatly exceed
any salinity changes that were predicted due to withdrawals.
Impacts to non-tidal wetlands and open water as a result of the four KWR dam configurations
are presented in the following table:
Cover Type
Unvegetated U.S. Waters
Vegetated Wetlands
Total Waters of the U.S.
KWRI
Acreage
74
579
653
KWR II
Acreage
41
533
574
KWRIII
Acreage
41
470
511
4EWRIV
Acreage
f
34
,403*
437
The 574 acres of vegetated wetlands and open water that would be inundated by KWR n
represent 2.1 percent of the estimated 26,768 acres of wetlands in King William County (VDCR,
1990). The total wetlands in the Pamunkey River system and the York River system are
approximately 70,000 and 127,000 acres, respectively.5 Therefore, the wetlands that would be
impacted by the project are a very small percentage of the total wetlands in the Pamunkey and York
River basins (0.82 and 0.45 percent, respectively) and in King William County.
The KWR I watershed encompasses approximately 78 percent of the entire 17.0 square mile
Cohoke Creek watershed. The watersheds for KWR II, III, and IV encompass approximately 67,61,
and 52 percent, respectively, of the entire Cohoke Creek watershed. If built, the Reservoir would
inundate almost all of the wetlands in Cohoke Creek above the King William Reservoir dam. The
The wetland estimates for the Pamunkey and York River basins were developed by
Malcolm Pimie based on the National Wetland Inventory Maps and wetland estimates
presented in Hyer, P.V., C.S. Fang, E.P. Ruzecki and W.J. Hargis, Jr. Studies of the
distribution of salinity and Dissolved Oxygen in the Upper York System, VIMS, 1971.
3114-017-319
5-57
-------
exceptions would be those wetlands on the small number of headwater streams and isolated wetlands
above the normal pool elevation,
I According to the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) analysis performed for the palustrine
Wetlands at the King William Reservoir II site, the existing wetlands which would be inundated have
§ high probability of performing the following functions:, floodflow alteration, sediment stabilization,
sediment/toxicant retention, and wildlife habitat. They also would have a moderate probability of
perfonninggroundwater discharge and production export functions which also would be lost-
According to the Evaluation for Planned Wetlands analysis performed for the wetlands alt the
KWR n site, the existing wetlands provide a high degree of sediment stabilization and water quality
functions, a moderately high degree of shoreline bank erosion control functions, and a moderate
^degree of wildlife and fish functions.
Although the proposed reservoir would function differently from the existing wetlands, the
reservoir would have a high probability of providing a number of the same functions that may be lost
Because of the reservoir's large capacity to store water, it would have a high probability of providing
floodflow alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, and nutrient removal/transformation. It also would
likely provide aquatic habitat and groundwater recharge. Additionally, it would have a high
probability of providing recreation.
Sediment stabilization, wetland-specific wildlife habitat, and uniqueness/heritage value are
three wetland functions and values, now likely to exist, which would not be provided by the
reservoir. Any loss of the sediment stabilization function would be largely offset by the reservoir's
large capacity for sediment retention. Although the proposed reservoir would very likely provide
much lacustrine habitat and possibly even rare species habitat, habitat for wetlands dependent species
would be lost
There also would be a moderate probability that production export and groundwater discharge
would be lost However, the existing Cohoke Millpond already limits the amount of primary
productivity^ exported from Cohoke Creek to the greater Pamunkey River system. This factor was
not fully addressed in the WET analysis, because the assessment area was limited to the reservoir
. watershed.
Additional impacts related to short-term reservoir construction effects could cause an increase
in levels of suspended sediment resulting in siltation of vegetated wetlands below the dam site.
However, these impacts would be temporary and could be minimized by effective sediment control
measures.
Based on field inspections of existing water supply reservoirs in the Virginia Coastal Plain,
construction of KWR I should result in little dewatering of the 17 acres of wetlands in the main stem
between the King William Reservoir dam site and the upper reaches of Cohoke Millpond. These
wetlands are supported hydrologically by flows upstream of the King William Reservoir dam site.
Forty acres of wetlands lie between the KWR II dam site and the upper reaches of Cohoke Millpond_
.Eighty-one acres occur between KWR III and the upper reaches of Cohoke Millpond and 105 acres ]
occur between KWR TV and Cohoke Millpond.—It is unlikely that dewatering of downstream
wetlands would occur with any reservoir configuration.
3114-017-319 . 5-58
-------
The existing Cohokc Millpond already provides a sizeable degree of streamflow moderation
in the lower readies of Cohoke Creek. The combination of increased local groundwater levels
caused by reservoir seepage, beaverdams, and the minimum reservoir release should be sufficient to
maintaip the hydrology of the downstream wetlands. However, slight vegetation community changes
could take place downstream as a result of a relative shift in hydrologic source from surface water
to groundwater and the attenuation of both flood and drought streamflows.
As presented in Table 4-49B, approximately 9.0 acres of stream/wetland areas would be
temporarily disturbed by construction of the KWRI pipeline crossings. Approximately 10.3 acres
of stream/wetland areas would be temporarily disturbed by construction of the KWR II pipeline
crossings. Approximately 10.5 acres of stream/wetland areas would be disturbed by construction of
the KWR III pipeline and 10.4 seres of stream/wetland areas would be disturbed by construction of
the KWR IV pipeline. Reforestation along the pipeline route would be suppressed to maintain the
right-of-way. Pipeline construction and maintenance in forested areas could therefore result in
fragmentation of habitat for some interior forest dwelling species, hi addition, palustrme forested
wetlands would most likely be converted to a palustrine emergent system after pipeline construction.
Construction of the pipeline route could allow Phragmites communis and other exotic species that
thrive in disturbed areas to revegetate the pipeline right-of-way.
Approximately 0.30 acres of wetlands would be affected by the KWR I outfall structure at
Beaverdam Creek. The high flow regime could result in some scouring of the natural channel and
existing wetlands in Beaverdam Creek downstream of the KWR I outfall, hi order to reduce possible
erosional effects, the proposed outfall for KWR II, HI, and IV was moved downstream 0.5 miles.
Beaverdam Creek at this location has a flatter slope and its channel is wider, allowing for a greater
flow than the upstream location. Approximately 0.15 acres of wetlands would be affected by the
KWR-II, in, and IV outfall structure. Much of the channel downstream of the outfall location to the
reservoir is flooded under normal conditions. At a flow of 54.5 mgd (50 mgd peak pipeline discharge
plus current average daily flow), the maximum flow velocity would be about 1.3 feet per second.
This relatively low velocity is expected to have minimal erosive effects on the natural stream
channel's stiff clay soils and existing wetlands downstream of the proposed outfall location.
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 Cousiac Marsh.
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 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.
5_3.4 Fresh Groundwater Development
Endangeredt Threatened or Sensitive Species
No endangered, threatened or sensitive species would be adversely impacted from
development of this alternative.
3114-017-319 • 5-59
-------
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 develop ,cnt 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 SO feet long, mis 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
(PFO1 A) 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.
5.3.5 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.
3114-017-319 5-60
-------
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.
Three of the four concentrate discharge pipeline outfalls would be placed in areas where
polyhaline conditions already occur, to avoid any potential impacts to existing fish and invertebrate
species. The fourth outfall (Site 4), located at the south bank of the mouth of Skiffes Creek, could
cause impacts since natural salinity is lower at this location.
Newport News Waterworks is actively pursuing a brackish groundwater desalting project that
would include a concentrate outfall in the vicinity of Site 4. However, rather than using Site 4, an
outfall location has been identified along the east bank of the James River, approximately 1,300 feet
downstream of an existing wastewater pipeline and outfall. It is in an open stretch of the James
River, which will likely have better mixing and dilution characteristics than a closer location near the
existing wastewater outfall, which is in a protected inlet area and does not appear to have good flow
turnover (Camp Dresser & McKee, 1996).
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
have minimal impacts on 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 flats in Hampton Roads Harbor. No sizeable impacts to mud flats would be
anticipated for the other well sites.
3114-017-319 5-61
-------
5.3.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Endangered. Threatened or Sensitive Species
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative
would have no impact on endangered, threatened or sensitive species on the Lower Peninsula.
Fish and Invertebrates
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative
would have no impact on fish and invertebrate species in the Lower Peninsula.
Other Wildlife
Implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative
should have no impact on existing wildlife resources in the Lower Peninsula.
Sanctuaries and Refuges
The implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
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 Additional
Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative
Mud Flats
No impacts to mud flats would occur with implementation of the Additional Conservation
Measures and Use Restrictions alternative.
5.3.7 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.
3114-017-319 5-62
-------
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.
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 frequently exposed to the atmosphere, and for longer periods
of time. 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.
3114-017-319 5-63
-------
5.4.1 Ware Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey River
Intake
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 Report G, Phase I
Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Sag William Reservoir, King William County,
Virginia and a Background Review, Architectural Survey and Archaeological Reconnaissance
for Ou Proposed Black Creek Reservoir, New Kent County, Virginia (MAAR Associates, 1996)
which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document. However, the
survey concentrated on the reservoir area with limited research conducted at the intake site.
One known prehistoric she identified during field studies of the proposed intake site would
be affected by construction of the proposed intake and pump station. Impacts to "Chericoke",
which is also located in the vicinity of the Northbury withdrawal site, would not be anticipated
since the resource is well separated from 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 addition, 16
historic-period sites could be impacted.
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 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.
3114-017-319 5-64
-------
5.4.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover from Pamunkey 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 conducted at the reservoir
site (See Report G), construction of the reservoir would directly impact Crump's Mill (63NK70).
Ibis 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 likely to be few 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, 1996).
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 63-70), 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 mat
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 mat 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.
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 known resources adjacent to the pipeline.
5.4 J King William Reservoir with Pumpover from Mattaponi River
The Phase I survey of the proposed King William Reservoir project area resulted in the
location and identification of 156 archaeological sites at the intake site, reservoir site (upstream of
the originally proposed KWR-I dam site and up to elevation 96 feet msl), and along the pipeline
route. In addition, 76 architectural sites were identified within the project's Area of Potential Effect,
which is defined as those areas located within 500 feet of the 110-foot contour interval. No
architectural sites and 148 archaeological sites are located in the reservoir impoundment area (below
3114-017-319 5-65
-------
the 96-foot contour interval and upstream of the originally proposed KWR-I dam site), the pump
station project area, or within the pipeline rights-of-way. Thirteen of the architectural sites were
identified to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and an additional
three were identified as warranting further investigation for potential eligibility. Ninety-eight of the
archaeological sites were identified as potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places.
Architectural Resources:
Of the 16 architectural sites identified as eligible or potentially eligible for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places, all were located at or above the 110-foot contour interval and/or
located well away from the proposed facilities. Based on these findings, it was determined that there
would be no direct impact to any of the architectural sites. A further analysis of project plans and
architectural site locations led to a finding that the project was not likely to have any indirect visual
impact on architectural sites. Based on these findings, it appears unlikely that any of the King
William Reservoir project configurations would have an adverse effect on architectural resources,
and that further investigations of architectural resources would not likely be required (VDHR Review
Committee Finding, December 17,1993), (MAAR 1996). Only after full interagency coordination
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, will there be a final determination of
the effects of the project on historic resources.
Archaeological Resources:
Of the 156 archaeological sites recorded in the course of the Phase I Survey of the proposed
King William Reservoir project (MAAR 1996), eight were determined to be outside of the Area of
Direct Impact. Of the remaining 148 sites, 98 have been identified as potentially eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The 98 sites include 25 prehistoric
basecamps, 50 prehistoric transient camps, and 25 sites containing historic period resources. Two
of the historic period sites overlap prehistoric transient camps.
••.• «, Phase n evaluation surveys are being recommended for all of the potentially eligible sites
which are likely to be adversely affected by direct and indirect construction activities, as well as
inundation due to the creation of an impoundment in the upper reaches of Cohoke Creek.
Intake
A total of five potentially eligible archaeological sites may be adversely affected by
construction of the intake, including four sites located in the vicinity of the proposed pump station
at Scotland Landing and one along the associated pipeline right-of-way. These sites include two
prehistoric basecamps, one prehistoric transient camp, and two historic period sites. All of the sites
were identified to be potentially significant.
Reservoir
Up to 80 potentially eligible archaeological sites will be adversely affected by the construction
of the originally proposed KWR-I impoundment. These sites include 25 prehistoric basecamps, 50
prehistoric transient camps, seven historic period sites, and 18 historic period sites which overlap
some of the prehistoric basecamps and transient camps. A Phase II evaluation will be conducted as
needed to establish eligibility or non-eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places.
3114-017-319 5-66
-------
The RRWSG's preferred KWR n impoundment would avoid 11 sites, six of which are
potentially significant downstream archaeological resources. The RRWSG's preferred KWR n
configuration would adversely affect 74 potentially significant sites. Other dam configurations
would further avoid potential impacts to identified sites. The KWR-III configuration would impact
62 potentially significant sites and the currently proposed KWR-IV configuration would impact 55
potentially significant sites. Table 5-12D lists the identified archaeological sites within the proposed
impoundment area for each KWR configuration.
VK« ' ** - . »*-,-*^B»iV^Si'JS1
Pipeline
Up to 12 potentially eligible sites may be adversely affected by the construction of the pipeline
•which extends through portions of King William and New Kent Counties. These sites include five
prehistoric basecamps, six prehistoric transient camps, one historic period site, and two additional
historic components which overlap with prehistoric basecamps. Phase n evaluation surveys have
been recommended for all 12 sites in order to establish eligibility or non-eligibility for nomination
to the National Register of Historic Places. It is possible that further pipeline route studies could lead
to a different route and, consequently, create the need for additional cultural resource investigations.
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.
5,4.5 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.
3114-017-319 5-67
-------
TABLE 5-12D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WTTfflN IMPOUNDMENT AREAS AFFECTED
BY KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR (KWR)
DAM CONFIGURATIONS
SITE*
44KW82
44KW83
44KW84
44KW85
-4KW86
44KW87
44KW88
44KW89
44KW90
44KW91
44KW92
44KW93
44KW94
44KW95
44KW96
44KW97
44KW98
44KW99
44KW100
44KW101
44KW102
44KW103
44KW104
44KW105
44KW106
KWR I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
3114-017-319
Januaiy 11,1997
-------
TABLE5-12D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN IMPOUNDMENT AREAS AFFECTED
BY KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR (KWR)
DAM CONFIGURATIONS
(CONTINUED)
SITE*
44KW107
44KW108
44KW109
44KW110
44KW111
44KW112
44KW113
44KW114
44KW115
44KW116
44KW117
44KW118
44KW119
44KW120
44KW121
44KW122
44KW123
44KW124
44KW125
44KW126
44KW127
44KW128
44KW129
KWR I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR II I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWRIV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
3114-017-319
January 11,1997
-------
TABLE5-12D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN IMPOUNDMENT AREAS AFFECTED
BY KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR (KWR)
DAM CONFIGURATIONS
(CONTINUED)
f|fJSriWi||l
44KW130
44KW131
44KW132
44KW133
44KW134
44KW135
44KW136
44KW137
44KW138
44KW139
44KW140
44KW141
44KW142
44KW143
44KWI44
44KW145
44KW146
44KW147
44KW148
44KW149
44KW150
44KW151
44KW152
JiCWIlIJ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
3114-017-319
January 11,1997
-------
TABLE 5- 12D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN IMPOUNDMENT AREAS AFFECTED
BY KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR (KWR)
DAM CONFIGURATIONS
(CONTINUED)
SITE*
44KW153
44KW154
44KW155
44KW156
44KW157
44KW158
44KW159
44KW160
44KW161
44KW162
44KW163
44KW164
44KW165
44KW166
44KW167
44KW168
44KW169
44KW170
44KW171
44KW172
44KW173
44KW174
44KW175
KWRI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR 11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
3114-017-319
January 11,1997
-------
TABLE5-12D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN IMPOUNDMENT AREAS AFFECTED
B V KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR (KWR)
DAM CONFIGURATIONS
(CONTINUED)
SITE#
44KW176
44KW177
44KW178
44KW179
44KW180
44HV181
44KW182
44KW188
44KW189
44KW190
44KW191
44KW192
44KW193
44KW194
44KW195
44KW196
44KW197
44KW198
44KW199
44KW200
44KW201
44KW202
44KW203
KWR I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWRffl
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KWR IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
3114-017-319
Januaiyll,1997
-------
TABLE 5- 12D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN IMPOUNDMENT AREAS AFFECTED
BY KING WILLIAM RESERVOIR (KWR)
DAM CONFIGURATIONS
(CONTINUED)
SITE*
44KW204
44KW205
44KW206
44KW207
44KW208
44KW209
44KW210
44KW211
44KW212
44KW216
44KW217
44KW218
44KW219
44KW220
44KW221
Total Sites
Potentially
Significant
Sites
KWR I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
131
80
KWR 11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
120
74
KWR HI
X
X
X
X
X
X
103
62
KWR IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
92
55
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
3114-017-319
Januaiy 11,1997
-------
5.4.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Implementation of this 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 direct impacts to cultural resources within the region.
5.5 SOQOECONOMIC 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,
31144)17-319 5-68
-------
which are the estimated areas from which observers are likely to see the construction activities and
structures associated with each alternative.
Paris 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 land 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.
Other 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 Pumpover 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 a proposed Hanover
County water supply project. In 1992, Hanover County submitted a permit application to construct
the Crump Creek Reservoir in Hanover County. Since that time, the permit application was modified
to endorse a side-hill reservoir project. The proposed project has since been deemed not feasible.
3114-017-319 5-69
-------
The permit application has been administratively withdraw! and is no longer considered active. As
of October 1996, the USCOE has no active permit applications from Hanover County for a water
supply project (K. Kimidy, USCOE, personal communication, 1996). Nonetheless, die County has
entered into an agreement with the City of Richmond for future water supply development and is
continuing to investigate potential water supply alternatives focusing on Pamunkey Basin sources.
Pamunkey River withdrawals for Lower Peninsula use would compete with any future Pamunkey
River water supply projects for Hanover County.
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 die 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 die 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 offish 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 die
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 die 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 die
reservoir. Some stream species could be eliminated by die change from a stream to a lake habitat.
The loss of benthic food organisms and vegetation for spawning, nursery, and shelter could also
3114-017-319 5-70
-------
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.
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.
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.
3114-017-319 5-71
-------
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.
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. However, this new open water habitat
could be considered an aesthetic resource by residents. Short-term impacts to residents in the ares
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 alternative 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 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.
3114-017-319 5-72
-------
Paries and Preserves
No direct impacts to existing parks or preserves are anticipated as a result of intake, reservoir,
or pipeline construction associated with this alternative.
Nine parks are planned throughout the reservoir drainage area in association with the
Stonehouse Community.
Land Use
Due to the remoteness of the proposed Pamunkcy 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.
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-acre pump site is also located within an AFD. While 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 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 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.
3114-017-319 5-73
-------
Hie total land area encompassed by the pipeline ROW v^ould 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 of the Ware Creek Reservoir could be
excessive since highway traffic from Interstate 64 crossing this site would increase 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 !/j to 1 foot of flooding a low point on Interstate 64. In
addition, based on the extent of planned development associated with the Storehouse community,
there would be an increase in 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 developed. Increased business and
employment activity associated with reservoir construction would have a beneficial impact on the
local economy.
An analysis was conducted to estimate the impact of the proposed withdrawal on salinity
concentrations in the Pamunkey River (see Report I, Pamunkey River Salinity Intrusion Impact
Assessment for Mack Creek Reservoir Alternative (Malcolm Pimie, 1995) which is incorporated
herein by reference and is an appendix to this document). The study concluded that natural
Pamunkey River salinity fluctuations greatly exceed any salinity changes that are predicted due to
the proposed RRWSG withdrawals (see Section 5.2.2). The modeling study demonstrated that the
RRWSG's proposed withdrawals would not affect the upstream limits of detectable salinity intrusion
However, the withdrawals would cause small increases in the frequency of given levels of salinity
intrusion at points which already are periodically exposed to comparable salinity levels. As a result,
additional analysis has been conducted to identity the potential impacts of predicted salinity shifts
on irrigation of crops along the Pamunkey River.
3114-017-319 5-74
-------
Small salinity shifts would be expected to have more impact in reaches of the river where
salinity levels are higher. Therefore, to provide a worst-case scenario analysis, the potential impacts
to the most downstream Pamunkey River irrigation withdrawal location from the proposed Northbury
intake site were examined. Based on 1995 irrigation withdrawal data obtained from the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (C.S. Torbeck, VDEQ, personal communication, 1996) and
information obtained from the Virginia Agricultural Extension Service (M. Day, VAES, personal
communications, 1996b and 1997; P. Davis, VAES, personal communication, 1996c), the most
downstream irrigator is Davis Farm. Davis Farm is located in New Kent County on the Pamunkey
River across from Sweet Hall (see Figure 5-4C). Hie Davis Farm grows produce including
watermelon, cantaloupe, and pumpkins (P. Davis, VAES, personal communication, 1996c).
A literature review was conducted to identify the salinity threshold level at which these crops
may experience adverse effects. Salinity affects plants by limiting the availability of crop water. A
review of available literature indicated that the threshold level at which some crops begin to
experience negative impacts from salinity is approximately 0.45 to 0.50 ppt (Wescot and Ayers,
1984; FAO, 1985).
As defined in the Pamunkey River MIF (see Section 3.3.3), it is assumed for this analysis that
irrigation occurs primarily during the months of April through September. Table 5-12E presents
predicted salinity changes for the spring, summer, and autumn seasons at the nearest salinity model
transect to the Davis Farm (located at Pamunkey River Mile 14.9). Maximum salinity data are
presented to provide a worst-case scenario, although the Pamunkey River MIF would preclude
withdrawals during low-flow periods when maximum salinities typically occur.
Under all three scenarios, maximum salinity levels at River Mile 14.9 exceed the salinity
tolerance range for plants (0.45 -0.50 ppt) which was identified in the literature review. Predicted
maximum salinity levels at River Mile 14.9 for the 551-month simulation period were shown to
increase most substantially under the Cumulative Effects Scenario (which assumes RRWSG and all
other anticipated withdrawals from the Pamunkey River). However, the incremental impact of
RRWSG withdrawals only resulted in 0.01 to 0.03 ppt increases in the predicted maximum
seasonal salinity levels.
5.5.2 Black Creek Reservoir with Pumpover 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 Reservoir drainage area lies entirely within New Kent County. As such,
Hew 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.
3114-017-319 5-75
-------
t
LOCUST OROVe FARM
I.-'" ' \ •-'
ENFIELD NURSERY
'GRAVES PLANT FARM
>'
ENFIELD FARM
1 ~. ,**: \^ ,._ •
'' '1>1
I iriH 91.4
1MH91 »"*
" • V-TVr
, im.414 (B-t4,, ' ,,rra _
«*•»?• " " '• ' ' "*•«•« .'-*
VJ--/ . >, .
2, ,„ 4 ^b^ Ho-sisHot F«« i SCOTLAND LANDING1
I .,. \/T AM V:.-: • '. ; / •: .
ENFItTLDFARM ,
»'' ) I
P » Pamunkey River Transect 1
f" ~ r-wfiiuniwjF nnvi I rvnBBCI
M • Msllaponl Rrver Transect
«L
_ William Reservoir
Dam Site II
Mattaponl River;
Black Creek Reservoir
Dam Sites . ''.
-"""• ' ' - -' 4 '''-.
••' -•-•..'
'L. *««MH6AR
WHITE HOUSE
* . /
, ., -> ' "
\\ .
\\.
'I
0 1 2
Mih»
> "*.. > "* A -^ » p^.i7i • ~*>-r •! -. *\
^ -.«:. ^ ... i ^.^ „,-!•>. ; fv-
-^i^-^ ••? .,*i«i4;;=i: •'-•/=*?*,:• ',.
-;r , TAX. ' i«« ' I ^''"l^' . t "•*•$ ^A» . -'
••--',•' !r r 2^/s^>^*.^--^.*»/.-\\-.- '•
,-.- f «j^t^'.' SSS<^v2;M, -"v. H- >"'v'-v>^
< ^.--.--^..Ti.T",-: ;: ;«i.sj:-...,<;*:' X_;:' .\"712 •
•'•»-""•.-./ i^. ..Vv\-;.,\« » . • X* •—•*,
1 / *'*••. *v. /«J . - WT . \ , m|
^ • ., "* .^ I • * _ji_ > • - •<•. n ft »/ P4A
Pamunkey River
.•**$ "" IT* 4~«
.. M*
int.! 8
YorkRh,. __ ,,
P i. • - *.
SELECTED
ii
NOVfMiH 4tM
PAMUNKEY AND MATTAPONI RIVER BASIN IRRIGATION WITHDRAWAL LOCATIONS ^SKSTSKKSUr
-------
TABLE 5-12E
CHANGES IN MAXIMUM PAMUNKEY RIVER
SALINITY LEVELS NEAR DAVIS FARM
(PAMUNKEY RIVER MILE 14.9)
(551-Month Simulation - Oct 1941 through August 1987)
Scenario
1
2
3
Maximum Salinities (ppt)
Spring
0.58
0.59
0.73
Summer
3.50
3.53
4.01
Autumn
4.95
4.98
5.43
Source: Appendix Report I. Pamunkey River Salinity Intrusion Impact Assessment
for Black Creek Reservoir Alternative (Malcolm Pirnie, 1995)
Notes: Scenario 1 — Baseline
Scenario 2 = Incremental Effects
Scenario 3 = Cumulative Effects
Spring months are defined as March, April, and May
Summer months are defined as June, July, and August
Autumn months are defined as September, October, and November
3114-017-319
January 14,1997
-------
Substantial municipal water supply benefits would be derived from interconnecting the new
Pamunkey River withdrawal and Black Creek Reservoir with the existing Lower Peninsula water
systems.
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 910 acres of valuable open water
habitat for freshwater fish. Species currently present in the drainage area would populate the
reser '-. Some stream species could be eliminated by the change from a stream to a lake
habu -. The loss of benthic food organisms and vegetation for spawning, nursery, and shelter
could also eliminate some species. However, a fisheries management program hi cooperation
with the VDGIF 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 streamfiow at the two dam sites, 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
North bury on the Pamunkey River are identified in Section 5.S.I.
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 mis 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.
31144)17-319 5-76
-------
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.
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 mat 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.
3114-017-319 . 5-77
-------
Although there would be a loss of approximately 546 acres of forest through clearing
operations and subsequent inundation, this represents less than 1 percent of the forested land in
New Kent County. At least three existing houses would be displaced by reservoir construction.
At least three additional houses within the proposed reservoir buffer areas could also be
displaced.
In general, construction of die reservoir is consistent with local land use plans for the area,
which designate the region as remaining rural hi nature in the future.
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
operations and subsequent inundation. This represents only l.S 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 die 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 mis 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 119 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.
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 Black Creek Reservoir alternative would inundate portions of one state route. It
would require IS 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 North bury. The
dam site, however, would not have a substantial impact on navigation.
3114-017-319 5-78
-------
Other Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential impacts to litigators in the Pamunkcy River Basin resulting from proposed
Pamunkey River withdrawals are addressed in Section 5.5.1.
While the Black Creek Reservoir alternative would displace three or more families, this
alternative could also result in many positive socioeconomic impacts, especially during construction
when business activity in the area would be increased. Like any publicly-owned reservoir project,
however, this alternative would reduce the County's property tax revenues by removing the project
area from private ownership. It is estimated, as a worst-case scenario, that the annual tax revenue
loss would be $83,267.
The proposed reservoir project is estimated to impact 79 acres of agricultural land and 546
acres of forested land. While these acreages would no longer be available for agricultural or
silvicultural uses, the loss of these resources would represent less than 1 percent of the total forested,
open space and agricultural areas in the County. Abundant resources within the County would
remain available for economic development.
Providing additional water supply is likely to induce residential, commercial and industrial
growth, and growth-related impacts, in New Kent County. Studies of existing reservoirs in the
southeastern United States have shown that residential development around reservoirs is strongly
influenced by: accessibility to existing road networks, schools, and employment areas; availability
of utility systems; and proximity to business districts and major urban centers (Burby, 1971).
The proposed Black Creek Reservoir project area is located in close proximity to major
transportation corridors, population centers, employment areas, and existing utility systems. It is
easily accessible to existing local and regional roads (e.g., State Route 249 and Interstate 64), schools
(New Kent Elementary School), and employment areas in Richmond, Hcnrico County, and the
Bottoms Bridge commercial center. A County-owned water system is presently available in the
Quinton area. As part of a host jurisdiction agreement between New Kent County and the RRWSG,
the County would be given access to additional quantities of water if this project is developed. Sewer
service is generally unavailable, with virtually all homes served by septic tanks. However, a
wastewater treatment plant is planned to serve a new 350-home subdivision adjacent to the existing
Kenwood Farms subdivision. According to the VDEQ, a VPDES permit was recently reissued for
this plant, which would discharge treated wastewater to the Clopton Swamp drainage basin (D.
Osbome, VDEQ, personal communication, 1995).
New Kent County is located in close proximity to the Richmond metropolitan area. Many
people living in the County commute to Richmond for work (RRPDC, 1992). New Kent appeals
particularly to those who want to live in a primarily rural environment, and the County's population
is expanding as people migrate from the nearby metropolitan area. Population and business growth
are expected to receive an extraordinary boost from Colonial Downs, a horse racetrack facility which
is currently under construction.
The Black Creek watershed is currently undergoing residential development. Field studies
conducted for this document indicate that there are at least four residential subdivisions within the
Black Creek watershed (i.e., Clopton Forest, Kenwood Farms, Essex Hills and Marl Springs), some
of which border the proposed reservoir site. The majority of the lots within these existing
subdivisions are four to five acres in size. There are still large areas of undeveloped land surrounding
Black Creek, and the area appears to have a high potential for future development. The aesthetic and
3114-017-319 5-79
-------
recreational benefits of a reservoir would make the Black Creek area an even more attractive place
to live,
5.5.3 King William Reservoir with Pumpover from 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
Pimie's knowledge, the only recent proposal for sizeable additional withdrawals from the Mattaponi
River basin was 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 die reservoir could have eventually reduced mean flow downstream of the dam by up
to 8.4 mgd (Hayes, Scay, Mattern & Mattcm, 1989). However, federal agencies indicated a strong
opposition to this project based on its environmental impacts (R. Poeske, USEPA-Region m,
personal communication, 1992). Subsequently, Spotsylvania County applied for and received a
permit from the USCOE in February 199S for the Hunting Run Reservoir Project, which is located
entirely within the Rappahannock River Basin.
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.
The RRWSG has considered the effect of withdrawals on the use of the Mattaponi River for
future wastewater discharges. Currently there are no permitted wastewater discharges within the
Mattaponi River basin near Scotland Landing. With the proposed withdrawal in place, permitted
wastewater discharges would have to comply with the State's Public Water Supply (PWS) Standards,
These standards could mean additional treatment if metal levels are elevated in wastewater. This
could occur if untreated industrial wastes were received by a sewage treatment plant. Additional
treatment could also be required if nutrient levels (e.g., ammonia, nitrate, or phosphorus) are elevated
in wastewater. However, effluent nutrient limits are likely to become more strict anyway as work
continues to meet Chesapeake Bay Agreement goals, and since discharge permits are renewed every
5 years, requiring compliance with new effluent limitations.
...fr'^'
State PWS standards would apply within a zone that the State would establish following a
public comment process. However, State regulations do allow permittees to demonstrate that less
strict water quality standards should apply to their discharges in PWS zones. The proposed PWS
boundaries are developed on a case-by-case basis by the VDH and VDEQ. Disinfection requirements
3114-017-319 5-80
-------
would also apply to permitted sewage discharges which are within IS miles upstream or one tidal
excursion downstream (approximately 2.7 miles) from the water supply intake.
The State has also received nominations for "exceptional waters." Within designated
exceptional waters, new or increased pollutant discharges will not be allowed. If so designated, this , ,
would limit wastewatcr discharges much more than PWS standards and disinfection requirements. \/J^ *
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation nominated the Mattaponi River and other Coastal Plain rivers '
exceptional waters status; however, that nomination was later withdrawn (J. Gregory, VDEQ,
personal communication, 1996). } *'
The withdrawal of water from the Mattaponi River and discharge into the proposed King
William Reservoir (in the Pamunkey River basin) would constitute an interbasin transfer of water.
The rights of water users along the Mattaponi River in Virginia are protected by the riparian doctrine
of water use which is defined in Section 2.8.2. Its applicability to the King William Reservoir
alternative is discussed herein.
As described in Section 3.4.15, the proposed King William Reservoir project is designed to
operate as a flood-skimming project, with water being withdrawn from the Mattaponi River primarily
during periods when the flow is above prescribed minimum instream flowby (MIF) levels and,
therefore, should not affect the availability of the resource for use by other water users. The
withdrawal of surface water by a municipality for water supply, particularly if the water is transferred
to another watershed (as is the case with the proposed project), is not a recognized use of right under,
the riparian doctrine. However, because the project would rely on surplus water not needed by
riparian users in the Mattaponi River, the proposed interbasin transfer would not violate any other :
landowner's riparian rights.
& • „,,,,-'„..•
- Under the riparian doctrine, owners of riparian land have legal claims only for those amounts
of water that they can use at present or in the foreseeable future, based on reasonable projections.
Riparian owners located on the Mattaponi River between the downstream boundary of the intake site
and the confluence with the York River would have standing to enforce their riparian rights, but they
would be entitled to relief only if they could show that the diversion caused them an actual injury.
It is likely that other owners have potential standing to enforce riparian rights. These include owners
on: Cohoke Creek below the proposed dam, the Pamunkey River below its confluence with Cohoke
Creek, and the York River. However, any owner with potential standing would have to prove actual
injury from the diversion.
Due to the nature of the proposed project, which would primarily withdrew surplus water,'
injury to other water users should not occur. If other users were adversely affected, however, the
remedies provided under the riparian doctrine (typically damages for "inverse condemnation") would
be available to anyone who could prove injury.
Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
'"Potential impacts from the intake structures include the entrainment and impingement offish
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, the King William Reservoir alternative would provide freshwater fish approximately
2,284,2,222,1,909, and 1,526 acres of valuable open water habitat for KWR-I, KWR-II, KWR-HI,
3114-017-319 5-81
-------
and KWR-FV, respectively. Most 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 late 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.
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 operations.
The proposed normal reservoir releases, which would average 3 ragd and 2 mgd, respectively,
for the KWR-II and KWR-IV configurations, represent one-third or more of average estimated flow
at the dam sites. These releases are expected to be sufficient to maintain good quality fishery habitat
in Cohoke Millpond and the lower reaches of Cohoke 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 Hews, 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 Han
(VDRC, 1989), include hunting areas, swimming areas, and picnic and camping sites, which the
watershed could be designed to provide.
3114-017-319 5-82
-------
Impacts to Cohoke Millpond could include siltation during reservoir construction. This could
cause temporary impacts on fishing in the pond. However, environmental controls would be used
during construction to minimize any impacts to Cohoke Millpond from increased turbidity in Cohoke
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 may 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, .
,V-<^ rv^ '. °
Reservoir C°S'x'y/T<''"'<
/ "
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 forresidents. 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
3114-017-319 5-83
-------
restricted within the reservoir buffer areas. These provisions would help enhance and preserve the
positive aesthetic values associated with the new reservoir.
Pipeline
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 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 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.
The maximum area of forest that would be lost through clearing operations and subsequent
inundation is 1,648 acres for KWR-I. Even as a worst-case scenario; however, this represents only
l.S 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 required 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 their natural state to protect the
water quality of the reservoir. Therefore, it is likely that future development within these areas would
be precluded.
3114-017-319 5-84
-------
The total land area encompassed by the proposed pipeline ROW ranges from 94 to 104 acres
for the four reservoir configurations. Use of the selected ROW 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. ^Duc
to the relatively small area of land disturbance in any one area along the routes 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 construction of the proposed King William Reservoir.
This alternative would result in many positive socioeconomic impacts, particularly during
construction when business activity in the area would be increased. Like any publicly-owned
reservoir project, however, this alternative would reduce the County's property tax revenues by
removing the project area from private ownership. It is estimated, as a worst-case scenario, that the
annual tax revenue loss would be $147,280. However, this impact would be mitigated through lease
payments made to the County by the City of Newport News as defined in the King William Reservoir
Project Development Agreement (King William County and City of Newport News, 1990).
Very little agricultural land is expected to be impacted by the proposed project. However,
each configuration of the proposed reservoir project is estimated to impact forested land. While the
forested acreages presented in Table 4-62 would no longer be available for agricultural or
silvicultural uses, the loss of these resources would represent less than 1 percent of the total
agricultural, forested and open space areas in the County. Abundant resources within the County
would remain available for economic development.
This reservoir project is not expected to promote much new residential or business growth,
because the site lacks important factors for attracting residential, commercial, or industrial
development to the area.
The proposed King William Reservoir project area is relatively inaccessible to population
centers, major employment areas, and existing regional roads (e.g., Interstate 64) which provide
access to major urban centers. Central water and sewer service are not available in the immediate
reservoir area; and are not expected to be made available in the future, since the County expects most
3114-017-319 5-85
-------
of its future development to occur in the vicinity of U.S. Route 360. and in areas northwest of U.S.
Route 360 (King William County, 1994). Under the King William Reservoir Project Development
Agreement (King William County and City of Newport News, 1990), the County would have an
option to withdraw up to 3 mgd from the reservoir. The County does not currently intend to develop
a central water system to take advantage of this new source of raw water. It is more likely that the
^ater source would be used to attract industry to the County (King William County, 1994).
1 \ There has been very little development in the Cohoke Creek watershed; and there are no'
vKnown occupied residential or commercial structures within the proposed King William Reservoir
*rea or buffer zone. The average size of land parcels located, in whole or in part, within the proposed
reservoir pool area or buffer zone for KWR-II is approximately 74 acres, confirming that the area is
very rural in nature.
'f—**While development of a reservoir might have some growth-inducing impacts, there are
mechanisms in place to prevent extensive development in the King William Reservoir watershed.
The area is zoned "Agricultural-Conservation" and the entire watershed is designated "General
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area" on the County's Future Land Use Plan (King William County
-Pfenning Department, September 1991). The King William Reservoir Project Development
Agreement (King William County and City of Newport News, 1990) provides for the recreational
use of the reservoir and watershed development:' Recreational development of the reservoir by the
-Xaun^jnay^mclude swimming, fishing, and some boating. The County has agreed to implement a
waterehed protection~programrwhich would-inchid^jTOvisions for a special purpose watershed
protection district and the establishment of l^ufTefMnSalongjzCTcnnial and intennittent streams.
A minimum 100-foot buffer around the reserVojrwguhfpe acquired by the County and leased to the
City of Newport News. The County's watershed protection program would require that new
construction be set back another 100 feet beyond the 100-foot buffer zone leased to the City. These
provisions would greatly restrict development in close proximity to the reservoir.
An analysis was conducted by VIMS to estimate the impact of the proposed withdrawal on
salinity concentrations in the Mattaponi River (see Report J, Tidal Wetlands of the Mattaponi River:
Potential Responses of the Vegetative Community to Increased Salinity as a Result of Freshwater
Withdrawal (Hershner et al., 1991) which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to
this document). The study concluded that natural salinity fluctuations greatly exceed any salinity
changes that are predicted due to the proposed withdrawals (see Section 5.2.2). The modeling study
demonstrated that the RRWSG's proposed withdrawals would not affect the upstream limits of
detectable salinity intrusion.. However, the withdrawals, in combination with other existing and
reasonably foreseeable consumptive water uses, would cause small increases in the frequency of
;- given levels of salinity intrusion at points which already are periodically exposed to comparable
salinity levels. As a result, additional analysis has been conducted to identify the potential impacts
of predicted salinity shifts on irrigation of crops along the Mattaponi River.
Small salinity shifts would be expected to have more impact in reaches of the river where
salinity levels are higher. Therefore, to provide a worst-case scenario analysis, the potential impacts
to the most downstream Mattaponi River irrigation withdrawal location from the proposed Scotland
Landing intake site were examined. Based on 1995 irrigation withdrawal data obtained from the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (C.S. Torbeck, VDEQ, personal communication,
1996) and information obtained from the Virginia Agricultural Extension Service (M. Day, VAES,
personal communications, 1996b and 1997), the most downstream reporting irrigator is Enfield Farm,
Enfield Farm is located in King William County on the Mattaponi River, just downstream of the
3114-017-319 5-86
-------
Walkcrton bridge (see Figure 5-4C), Its primaiy crops are com, soybeans, and turf grass (M. Day,
VAES, personal communication, 1996a),
A literature review was conducted to identify the salinity threshold level at which these crops
may experience adverse effects. Salinity affects plants by limiting the availability of crop water. A
review of available literature indicated that the threshold level at which some crops (e.g., corn) begin
to experience negative impacts from salinity is approximately 0.45 to 0.50 ppt (Wcscot and Ayers,
1984; FAO, 1985). Specifically, the salinity threshold levels for the crops grown at Enfield Farm are
listed below:
Crop
Corn
Soybeans
Grass
Salinity Threshold (ppt)
0.44-0.50
2.3
1.7-3.4
Source: Maas and Hoffman, 1977.
As defined in the Mattaponi River MIF (see Section 3.3.3), it is assumed for this analysis that
irrigation occurs primarily during the months of April through September. Predicted salinity changes
for these months at the nearest downstream salinity model transect to Enfield Farm (located at
Mattaponi River Mile 27.9), are presented in Table 5-12F. Maximum salinity data are presented to
provide a worst-case scenario, although the Mattaponi River MIF would preclude withdrawals during
low-flow periods when maximum salinities typically occur.
Under baseline conditions (no withdrawals), maximum salinity levels at River Mile
below the salinity tolerance range for plants (0.45-0.50 ppt) which was identified in the literature
review, as well as the threshold tolerance for specific crops grown at Enfield Farm. Predicted
maximum salinity levels at River Mile 27.9 for the 540-month simulation period were shown to
increase slightly under withdrawal conditions (which assumes RRWSG withdrawals in addition to
all other existing and reasonably foreseeable consumptive uses), but are still below the crop tolerance
threshold levels identified for plants. In addition, the predicted maximum salinities are below the
specific crop tolerance range for plants grown at Enfield Farm. Therefore, impacts to irrigators are
not anticipated as a result of predicted salinity changes from the proposed Mattaponi .River
withdrawal at Scotland Landing.
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 4.4 mgd (11 percent) of the Lower Peninsula's projected Year 2040 treated water
supply deficit of 39.8 mgd. However, this alternative would also cause groundwater drawdown and
groundwater quality impacts.
3114-017-319 5-87
-------
TABLE 5-12F
PREDICTED CHANGES IN MAXIMUM MATTAPONI RIVER
SALINITY LEVELS NEAR ENFEELD FARM
(MATTAPONI RIVER MILE 27.9)
(540-Month Simulation - Oct 1942 through September 1987)
With
Withdrawals
Ho
Yes
Maximum Salinities (ppt)
April
0.00
0.00
May
0.00
0.00
June
0.00
0.00
July
0.02
0.03
August
0.17
0.19
September
0,29
0.33
Sou- •: King WUUam Reservoir Alternative - Preliminary Report on Aquatic
Resource Issues (Malcolm Pirnie, 1989).
Notes: "No Withdrawals" is equivalent to baseline conditions.
"With Withdrawal" assumes RRWSG withdrawals in addition to all
otter existing and reasonably foreseeable consumptive uses in the
Mattaponi River Basin.
3114-017-319
January 14,1997
-------
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
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.
Parks and Preserves
No impacts to parks or preserves are anticipated as a result of implementation of mis
alternative.
Land Use
The area of impact for well placement and placement of transmission pipeline to the reservoir
would be minimal.
Npige
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 Socioeoonomic 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
3114-017-319 5-88
-------
this alternative component, the Year 1992 present value of life cycle costs is S9.9 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 5.7 mgd (14 percent) of the Lower Peninsula's projected Year 2040 treated water
supply deficit of 39.8 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.
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,
3114-017-319 5-89
-------
long-torn 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 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 plants. 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
3114-017-319 5-90
-------
materials to the sites. Total noise levels dining construction of die 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.
InfrflStrycture
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 5.7-mgd
treated water sale yield benefit calculated for this alternative component, the Year 1992 present value
of life cycle costs is $34.2 million. This is equivalent to $6.0 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.
5.5.6 Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions
Municipal and Private Water Supplies
This alternative would allow for Lower Peninsula water systems to provide 7.1 to 11.1 (18
to 28 percent) of the Lower Peninsula's projected Year 2040 treated water supply deficit of 39.8 mgd.
Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
The implementation of additional conservation measures and use restrictions should have no
adverse impacts on fish species of recreational or commercial importance.
Other Water-Related Recreation
The implementation of additional conservation measures and 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 this 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
3114-017-319 5-91
-------
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 this alternative on the Lower Peninsula could result in negative impacts
to parks preserves. It islikely 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 additional conservation measures and 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.
The implementation of this alternative would have no adverse impact on ambient noise levels.
Infrastructure
The implementation of this alternative would not cause impacts to infrastructure.
Other Socioeconomic Impact?
Implementation of additional conservation measures and use restrictions could result in
varying degrees of socioeconomk 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.
3114-017-319 5-92
-------
5.5.7 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 mote frequent and
more severe water qualify 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, mere
could be negative impacts to fish species of recreational importance due to the 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.
3114-017-319 5-93
-------
Paries and Preserves
If no action were taken to augment the existing water supply on the Lower Peninsula, existing
paries 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.
LandUsg
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.
Qther Sociocconomic Impacfs
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.
3114-017-319 5-94
-------
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.
Substrate
All three reservoir alternatives would involve removal of substrate at the intake and outfall
locations. The Fresh Groundwater Development (FGD) alternative would involve removal of
^ubstrate at the pipeline outfall locations. The Brackish Groundwater Development (BGD)
v [alternative would involve removal of substrate at the concentrate discharge pipeline outfalls. For
eac^h alternative, permanent impacts would involve less than 0.4 acres of substrate.
Water Quality
All three reservoir alternatives would result in increased phosphorus loading to Diascund
Creek Reservoir (DCR). For the Black Creek Reservoir (BCR) alternative, this impact would
be most pronounced when Pamunkey River withdrawals are pumped directly to DCR, bypassing
BCR. For the Ware Creek Reservoir (WCR) alternative, increased phosphorus loading to WCR
and elimination of the tidal freshwater zone of Ware Creek would also occur.
The FGD alternative would result hi increased levels of chloride, bicarbonate, sodium,
sulfate, fluoride, and possibly phosphorus in DCR and Little Creek Reservoir (LCR). The BGD
alternative would add concentrate to polyhaline (18 to 30 ppt salinity) and mesohaline (5 to 18
ppt salinity) to oligohaline (0.5 to 5 ppt salinity) water bodies.
Under the No Action alternative, the frequency and severity of excessive dissolved nutrient
conditions in existing reservoirs would increase.
Hydrology
Implementation of the WCR alternative would impound 37.1 miles of channels and would
impound tidal waters. The basin wide cumulative average streamflow reduction at Year 2040 is
projected to be 8.8 percent.
The construction of the BCR alternative would impound 13.7 miles of channels and would
reduce basin wide cumulative average streamflow at Year 2040 by 9.9 percent. Construction of
the King William Reservoir (KWR) alternative (KWR II configuration) would impound 26.5
miles of channels and would reduce basin wide projected cumulative streamflow at Year 2040
by 6.4 percent.
The FGD alternative may reduce the yield of existing wells in the project vicinity.
Implementation of the BGD alternative could result in a slight drawdown in the Middle and
Lower Potomac aquifers. The No Action alternative would result in continued stress on limited
surface water and ground water sources and would dewater limited western portions of some
surface aquifers.
3114-017-319 5-95
-------
Groundwater Resources
Implementation of FGD alternative would result in reduced groundwater availability and
reduced yield of existing wells in the project vicinity. Hie FGD alternative could result in the
saltwater encroachment. Implementation of the Groundwater Desalination or Additional
Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternatives may result in aquifer drawdown. The
No Action alternative increases the potential for saltwater encroachment.
$oil and Mineral Resources
Implementation of the three reservoir alternatives and the FGD alternative would result
in permanent loss of soils within die project areas and well sites, respectively.
Air Quality
Implementation.^ the-B€r&alteFnafive would result in elevated levels of air pollution
expected frortf increased trafficjlows. Minor and temporary dust and elevated hydrocarbon
pollutants occumng-duHngTJonstruction at the WCR and JJCR alternatives could impact nearby
residents.
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species
The construction of the WCR, BGR, and KWR (KWR II configuration) would result in
the inundation of approximately 590 acres, 285 acres, and 574 acres, respectively, of wetlands
and open water habitat.
•«T*<;£. ',.-" •
The implementation of the WCR and KWR alternatives would result in the permanent loss
of the federally-listed threatened and state-listed endangered Small Whorled Pogonia populations
located within the reservoir pool areas.
Fish and Invertebrates
The implementation of the WCR alternative would close access to anadromous fish in
Ware Creek. The WCR alternative would also impact present habitat by changing salinity
distribution and would eliminate some fish and invertebrate species currently inhabiting the Ware
Creek system. Implementation of the BCR and KWR alternatives would eliminate some of the
fish and invertebrates currently existing in the Black Creek system and Cohoke Creek system,
respectively. The BGD alternative would result in minor impacts to fish and invertebrates from
the concentrate pipeline discharges. The No Action alternative would result in increased
drawdown of existing reservoirs which would negatively impact fish and invertebrate habitat.
Other Wildlife
The implementation of the WCR, BCR, and KWR (KWR II configuration) alternatives
would result in the loss of 648 acres, 625 acres, and 1,648 acres, respectively, of terrestrial T
habitat within the reservoir pool areas. Reservoir construction would convert the terrestrial
habitat within the pool area to open water habitat. Construction of the WCR alternative would
result in the loss of a 98 nest Great Blue Heron rookery. The KWR alternative would result in
the loss of a 17 nest Great Blue Heron rookery. The FGD and BGD alternatives would
3114-017-319 5-96
-------
temporarily displace terrestrial species during construction. Continued drawdown of existing
reservoirs resulting from the No Action alternative could impact existing wildlife species.
Wetlands/Vegetated Shallows
Hie construction of the WCR alternative site .would result hi the permanent loss of 590
acres of tidal and nontidal wetlands and open water habitat. Implementation of the BCR and
KWR (KWR n configuration! alternative sites would result in the permanent loss of 285 acres
and 574 acres; respectively, of existing nontidal wetlands and open water habitat. * The FGD and
BGD alternatives would provide impacts to wetlands located at the associated outfall structures.
Groundwater drawdown and drawdown of existing reservoirs resulting from the No Action
alternative would result in adverse impacts to wetland habitat.
Mud Flats
Implementation of the BGD alternative would negatively impact mud flats in the vicinity
of the concentrate discharge outfalls. The No Action alternative would result in dewatering
^Wiring extended drawdown periods in the existing reservoirs.
Archaeological and Historical Sites
Construction of the WCR and KWR alternatives would provide thesiargest number of
impacts to identified cultural resources'. Prehistoric sites located within the BCR impoundment
areas would also be directly impacted by project construction.
Municipal and Private Water Supplies
The implementation of the FGD and BGD alternatives would cause minor groundwater
drawdown and groundwater quality impacts. The No Action alternative would result in severe
impacts on municipal and private water supplies.
^Recreational and Commercial FJsherie^
Implementation of the WCR alternative would result in the closure of Ware Creek to
anadromous fisheries including Striped Bass. The No Action alternative would provide negative
impacts to recreational and commercial fisheries due to existing reservoir drawdown.
' Other Water-Related Recreation
All three reservoir alternatives would reduce the land available for hunting.
Implementation of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative would
negatively impact private and public recreational facilities reliant on non-essential water use (e.g.,
swimming pools, golf courses, parks, and fields for sporting events). The No Action alternative
would result in adverse impacts to water-related recreation due to existing reservoir drawdowns.
Aesthetics
All three reservoir alternatives would result in the loss of unique and pristine wetlands.
Construction of the three reservoir alternatives would affect aesthetics during construction and
3114-017-319 5-97
-------
in the vicinity of nearby houses. Implementation of the BGD alternative results in the temporary
and long term visual impact to nearby houses. Hie No Action alternative would result in
negative impacts to the existing reservoirs.
Parks and Preserves
The Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions alternative would result in
irrigation restrictions and resulting impacts to parks and preserves identified in Section 5.5. As
a result of reservoir drawdown, implementation of the No Action alternative would impact parks
and preserves associated with existing reservoirs such as Newport News Park (adjacent to Lee
Hall Reservoir) and Waller Mill Park (adjacent to the City of Williamsburg's Waller Mill
Reservoir).
Land Use
Land disturbance associated with the WCR alternative would negatively impact 1,400 acres
of forested and wetland areas and inundate 249 acres of agricultural/forestal districts.
Implementation of the BCR alternative would negatively impact 1,032 acres of forested and
wetland areas and inundate 379 acres of agricultural/forestal districts. The BCR alternative would
displace at least three houses. Construction of the KWR alternative (KWR II configuration)
would result in the impact of 2,322 acres of forested and wetland areas.
The total land disturbance associated with the BGD alternative is approximately 5 acres
at the well locations and 65 acres impacted by the pipeline right-of-way. Additional Conservation
Measures and Use Restrictions would result in negative impacts to parklands, residential areas,
and businesses. The No Action alternative would severely limit future land use development in
the regiOfi.
Noise
All three reservoir alternatives would result in increased noise levels associated with the
pump stations. Noise generated by the WCR alternative could be excessive due to combination
with Interstate-64 traffic. Implementation of the FGD and BGD alternatives would result in long
term noise impacts resulting from operation of groundwater wells.
Infrastructure
Construction of the WCR and BCR alternatives would result in minor and temporary
impacts to navigation in the Pamunkey River. The WCR alternative would dam navigable waters
of Ware Creek and impact recreational navigation. Construction of the WCR would require
modification of 4 roads (including 1-64) and abandonment of portion of Route 606. The BCR
would require modifications to one road. Implementation of the KWR would result in minor and
temporary impacts to navigation in the Mattaponi River and modification of one road.
Socio-Economics
The BCR alternative would require the displacement of at least three houses.
Implementation of the FGD and BGD alternatives would increase costs incurred by water
purveyors. Implementation of Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions would
3114-017-319 5-98
-------
provide negative impacts to Lower Peninsula water users and the No Action alternative would
constrain future economic growth in the region.
. 5.7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
Impacts would result from each of the evaluated alternatives which cannot be mitigated or
replaced in the future. With the exception of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use
Restrictions and No Action alternatives, all of the alternatives would require the same types of
resource inputs. These include substrate, land areas and wildlife habitat, water, and capital
resources and labor. The amount used for each alternative may vary considerably depending on
the resource.
No resources would be irreversibly or irretrievably committed for the Additional
Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions or No Action alternatives. The irreversible and
irretrievable impacts for the remaining alternatives are described below in general terms.
Substrate areas at the proposed intake sites and/or outfall locations t\- the evaluated
alternatives would be committed to the project.
The-thfee~rfiservoir alternatives would commit land areas and wildlife ''nbitat (excluding
wetlands) at the proposed^ump-stations and withjiHhfefeservoir pool area to u.. project. Areas
along the pipeline routes would be restored tolPnatviral state following pipeline construction, and
would not be irretrievably committed. Lana^areas^ana wildlife habitat (excluding wetlands) at
the proposed well locations for the FGD and BGD alternatives would be committed to the project.
Implementation of one of the three reservoir alternatives would irretrievably commit river
withdrawals from the Pamunkey River or Mattaponi River to the project. Average Year 2040
river withdrawals of 25 mgd (3.2 percent of Pamunkey River flow) would be irretrievably
committed to the WCR alternative. The BCR alternative would irretrievably commit average
Year 2040 river withdrawals of 33.3 mgd (4.4 percent.of Pamunkey River flow) to the project.
Average Year 2040 river withdrawals of 31.6 mgd (6.5 percent of the Mattaponi River flow)
would be irretrievably committed to the KWR project (KWR-II Configuration). The FGD and
BGD alternatives would irretrievably commit groundwater withdrawals to the projects.
All of the alternatives would require capital resources and labor for the construction of the
project. These resources would be irretrievably lost through project implementation. However,
the overall benefit of the project to the Lower Peninsula is expected to outweigh these losses.
3114-017-319 5-99
-------
5.8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
Short-term impacts primarily occur during the construction phase of the projects and then
are dissipated following construction. 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.
During construction of the reservoir alternatives and BGD alternative, increased erosion
and turbidity could occur temporarily within the project area drainage basin and outfall location.
Substrate, soils, and streams crossed by the pipelines would also be temporarily disturbed during
project construction.
With the exception of the Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions and No
Action alternatives, all of the alternative project areas would experience short-term disruption
from increased air emissions, noise, and traffic. *
The three reservoir alternatives would cause a direct loss of wetlands. It is estimated that
the WCR alternative would impact 590 acres of tidal and nontidal wetlands, the BCR alternative
would impact 285 acres of nontidal wetlands, and the KWR-II configuration would impact 574
acres of nontidal wetlands. Mitigation of these wetlands would require replacement of similar
wetland types and functions to compensate for the wetland loss. Mitigative measures would also
include development of a biologically productive lacustrine habitat within the reservoir capable
of supporting a diversity of fish and wildlife species.
All of the project alternatives would have impacts that would result in long-term changes
in productivity. Silviculture production would be lost permanently in the project areas.
Agricultural/fbrestal district lands would be permanently impacted at the project sites. Terrestrial
habitats would be permanently changed at the reservoir sites, and temporarily disturbed at the
FGD and BGD locations. Preservation and restoration of terrestrial habitats would compensate
for the upland losses. Loss of silviculture production within the upland buffer of the KWR
alternative could result in a positive change in habitat productivity with the implementation of the
alternative compared to pre-project conditions.
The No Action alternative would result in drawdown of existing reservoirs resulting in a
loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat and ecological productivity.
Upon construction of one of the three reservoir alternatives, recreational facilities may be
developed 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. The
Additional Conservation Measures and Use Restrictions and No Action alternatives could result
in negative impacts to water-related recreation.
The long-term benefit provided by the three reservoir alternatives, the FGD alternative,
and the BGD alternative would be the availability of an additional water supply to the Lower
Virginia Peninsula. Although the FGD, BGD, and Additional Conservation Measures and Use
3114-017-319 5-100
-------
Restrictions alternatives would result in a financial impact to Lower Peninsula consumers, the
Action alternative would negatively impact economic growth of the Lower Peninsula, t
'^^Theavafl^ility of an additional water supply would serve projected needs that result from
.future land use development and would facilitate new commercial development, thereby
increasing employment over the long-term. Therefore, the short-term impacts and use of
resources by the proposed additional water supply is consistent wim the enhancement of long-term
productivity for the Lower Peninsula:
5.9 ADDITIONAL REGIONAL NEEDS
5.9.1 Introduction
The RRWSG's water supply planning focuses on the water needs of die Lower Peninsula
jurisdictions represented by the RRWSG members. However, the water needs of other
jurisdictions (i.e., the Counties of New Kent, King William, and Gloucester and the Town of
West Point) may also be relevant and important to this study effort.
Each of the three practicable reservoir alternatives considered in this document would be
located outside the boundaries of the core planning area. The King William Reservoir Project
would involve a new reservoir in King William County, plus new pipeline and pumping facilities
in King William and New Kent Counties. The Black Creek and Ware Creek Reservoir Projects
would both involve new reservoirs located entirely or partially within New Kent County, plus
new pipeline and pumping facilities in New Kent County.
To develop a project located entirely or partly outside of the core Lower Peninsula
planning area, various local consents and conditional use permits and other approvals would be
required from the host jurisdictions under various provisions of Virginia state law. Such
approvals are often conditioned upon the provision of water to the host jurisdiction. For
example, the City of Newport News has executed Project Development Agreements which
guarantee King William County and New Kent County up to 3 and 1 mgd of raw water safe
yield, respectively, if the King William Reservoir Project is developed. Because the "host*
jurisdictions are likely to look to the RRWSG to supply all or part of their needs from the
RRWSG's project, it is necessary to estimate those jurisdictions' future water supply needs to
determine whether any individual reservoir project will produce enough water to meet both the
hosts' and die RRWSG's needs.
The RRWSG also has identified two other jurisdictions - Gloucester County and the Town
of West Point — which, although not part of the core planning area or potential host jurisdictions,
have water supply needs mat are not likely to be met through independent or other regional water
supply development efforts. Gloucester County, in particular, has recently expressed an interest
in participating with the RRWSG regional study.
King & Queen County and Hanover County were also considered for inclusion in an
expanded regional study area. In 1994, the City of Newport News, on behalf of the RRWSG,
invited both localities to participate in discussions concerning an expanded project concept (City
3114-017-319 5-101
-------
of Newport News, 1994a; City of Newport News, 1994b), King & Queen County did not
respond to the invitation. Hanover County's position is discussed below.
Over the past several years, Hanover County has actively pursued development of
Pamunkey River withdrawals to supply a new off-stream storage reservoir. In 1992, Hanover
County submitted a permit application to the USCOE to construct the Crump Creek Reservoir
in Hanover County. Due to environmental considerations associated with the Crump Creek
Reservoir project, the County began investigating a side-hill reservoir project which could have
less environmental impact than the Crump Creek Reservoir project. The original permit
application was modified in 1994 to endorse a side-hill reservoir project. The County teamed
with the City of Richmond to study and evaluate this new concept (City of Richmond and
Hanover County, 1994). These additional studies indicated that the proposed project was not
feasible. The County's permit application has since been administratively withdrawn and is no
longer considered active (K. Kimidy, USCOE, personal communication, 1996). As of October
1996, the USCOE has no active permit applications from Hanover County for a water supply
project (K. Kimidy, USCOE, personal communication, 1996). However, due to continuing
actions by the County to secure a future water supply, Hanover County's needs have not been
included in the RRWSG's study of additional regional needs.
The future water supply needs of the following areas have been projected through the Year
2040 and are discussed in subsequent sections:
• New Kent County
• King William County
« Gloucester County
» Town of West Point
Figure 5-5 shows the locations of these areas. More detailed analyses of water supply,
demand, and deficits for these areas are described in the New Kent County Potable "Water Supply
Needs Assessment (Malcolm Pirnie, 1995) and technical memoranda for each of the other areas.
These documents are included in Appendix K, which is incorporated herein by reference and is
an appendix to this document.
5.9.2 New Kent County
The New Kent County Department of Public Works currently owns 14 wells and serves
eight local service areas within the County. Seven of the County-owned well systems serve
residential subdivisions and one serves the County courthouse complex. The rest of the County
is served by individual private wells.
Based on review of the VDH Water Description Sheets for the New Kent County systems,
the total estimated safe yield of the existing operating systems is 500,200 gpd (0.5 mgd).
Population projections for the County were adopted from projections made by the New
Kent County Planning Department, which are documented in Draft Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, New Kent County, Virginia (RRPDC, 1992). This report projects population to the Year
3114-017-319 5-102
-------
FIGURE 5-5
^
TOWN OF
WEST POINT
GLOUCESTER i
COUNTY / „
l&
4 rftw
•* #j /
POQUOSOWV '//
HAMPTON
NORFOLK
PETERSBURG
/- VIRGINIA
/ BEACH
"
LOWERrmQINIA PENINSULA
WAl^R SUPPLY STUDY
XOWEE v PE WNSUIA: ; AND
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL AREAS
/NOT TO SCALE v
MAlttXM
-------
2010. A linear extrapolation of the Year 1980 to Year 2010 projections was used to estimate
population through the Year 2040. The resulting population projections which have been adopted
for this analysis are presented in the table following this page.
Not all of the County's population is served by public water systems. Review of VDEQ
Regulation 11 Water Withdrawal Reports filed in 1993 for systems in New Kent County indicated
mat approximately 1,871 people were served by centrally-supplied water systems in 1993. For
reasons explained in Appendix K, it is assumed that the percentage of New Kent County's
population served by public water supply systems will increase to 70 percent (21,600 people) in
the Year 2040. The forecasts of population to be served are presented on the following table.
POPULATION AND POPULATION SERVED
ESTIMATES - NEW KENT COUNTY
Y«ar
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Population
10,445
14,400
19,500
23,000
26,600
30,200
Population Served
1,871
4,300
8,300
12,000
16,400
21,600
The methodologies used to project New Kent County's potable water demands are
described in Appendix K. Demand projections with conservation for the following four water
demand categories are presented in Table 5-14:
• Residential
• Commercial, Institutional and Light Industrial
• Heavy Industrial
• Unaccounted-for Water
New Kent County's water needs in the Year 2040 are projected to be 9.6 mgd. Based on
mis projected demand and the estimated safe yield of the existing operating systems (0.5 mgd),
the Year 2040 deficit hi New Kent County would be 9.1 mgd.
A separate independent study of demand projections was prepared for New Kent County
in 1994 by Greenhorne & O'Mara. This report is included with Appendix K and included a Year
2010 demand projection of 9.2 mgd. There is precedent for this type of explosive growth in
water demand as evidenced by recent rapid growth in such Virginia communities as Virginia
Beach, Stafford County, and Henrico County.
3114-017-319
5-103
-------
TABLE 5-14
SUMMARY OF NEW KENT COUNTY POTABLE WATER DEMAND
PROJECTIONS*
Year
1993
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Residential
Demand
(mgd)
0.12
0.29
0.56
0.80
1.10
1.45
Commercial
Demand
(mgd)
1.70
2.78
3.85
4.93
5.23
Heavy
Industry
Demand
(mgd)
0.56
0.99
1.32
1.66
1.99
Unaccounted-
for water
Demand
(mgd)
0.16
0.33
0.52
0.76
0.96
Total
Demand
(mgd)
0.12
2.71
4.65
6.50
8.44
9.63
* Detailed analysis included in Appendix K.
3114-0)7-319
January 9,1997
-------
5.93 King William County
King William County currently owns two wells it one location which serve King William
County schools and additional wells which serve the Courthouse area. Its remaining demands
are presently served by privately-owned water systems or individual ground water wells. Based
on review of the VDH Engineering Description Sheet for the well system which serves the
schools, the estimated safe yield of the school wells is 15,000 gpd. No VDH Description Sheets
are available for the Courthouse well system.
Population projections for the County were adopted from projections made by the Virginia
Employment Commission (VEC) from the period 1990 to 2030. Projections were rounded to the
nearest hundred. A linear extrapolation of the Year 1990 to Year 2030 projections was used to
estimate population through the Year 2040. The resulting population projections which have been
adopted for this analysis are presented in the following table.
The County does not currently provide potable water to any of its residential population
and has no near-terms plans to develop a public water system to serve residential areas (King
William County, 1994). Residents are served by private water companies or private wells. For
water supply planning purposes, however, the potential for the County to begin providing public
water service at some later date during the 50-year planning period should be considered.
It is assumed that a maximum of 50 percent of the total population of King William
County will be served by public water supplies in the Year 2040. This assumes that growth will
continue to be centered in the current growth areas (Route 360 - Route 30 junction), and that the
County will develop a water system to meet those needs by the Year 2010. The total population
served in the Year 2040 is estimated to be 9,300. Estimates of population served for the planning
period are presented on the following table.
POPULATION AND POPULATION SERVED
ESTIMATES - KING WILLIAM COUNTY
Year
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Population
10,913
12,700
14,100
15,600
17,000
18,700
Population Served
0
0
1,400
4,700
6,800
9,300
Methodologies used to project King William County's water demands are described in the
technical memorandum for King William County included in Appendix K. Demand projections
with conservation for the following four water demand categories are presented in Table 5-16:
3114-017-319
5-104
-------
TABLE 5-16
SUMMARY OF KING WILLIAM COUNTY POTABLE WATER DEMAND
PROJECTIONS*
Year
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Residential
Demand
(«ld)
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.31
0.46
0.62
Commercial
Demand
(mgd)
0.39
0.58
0.77
0.96
1.15
Heavy
Industry
Demand
(mgd)
0.52
0.84
1.16
1.48
1.80
Unaccounted-
for water
Demand
(mgd)
0.00
0.11
0.20
0.29
0.40
Total
Demand
(mgd)
0.00
0.91
1.63
2.44
3.18
3.97
Detailed analysis included in Appendix K.
3114-017-319
January 9, 1997
-------
• Residential
• Commercial, Institutional and Light Industrial
• Heavy Industrial
• Unaccounted-for Water
King William County's water needs in die Year 2040 are projected to be 4.0 mgd. Unless
a water system is developed before that time, the Year 2040 deficit would also be 4.0 mgd.
5.9.4 Gloucester County
Although Gloucester County lies north of the York River, it is closely tied to the Lower
Peninsula. Gloucester County's population has increased dramatically in the past twenty years
as it has become a bedroom community for the more urbanized Newport News-Hampton area.
This upward population trend is expected to continue, as the capacity of the Route 17 bridge
between York and Gloucester Counties was recently expanded. Gloucester County has become
a member of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District, and it is served by a new trunk sewer line.
Evidencing further that its future is tied to the Lower Peninsula rather than the Middle Peninsula,
Gloucester County has recently joined the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, in
which the northside and southside Hampton Roads jurisdictions are members.
Gloucester County owns four groundwater wells: three deep wells and one radial collector
wdl. None of these wells are currently being used due to water quality problems, but the radial
collector well is on standby (Gloucester County, 1994b). The County's demands are being met
by the Beaverdam Swamp Reservoir, which replaced the groundwater systems that previously
served Gloucester Courthouse and Gloucester Point.
The VDH estimates that these four wells have a combined yield of 524,000 gpd.
However, safe yield of the existing well system is limited by its pump capacity to 519,200 gpd
(0.52 mgd). The Beaverdam Swamp Reservoir can supply 2.5 mgd of raw water (Gloucester
County, 1994a), and the treatment plant has a design production capacity of 2.0 mgd. The
County limits the plant's operations to 1.9 mgd in order to reduce the number of operators
required at the plant. Based on mis restriction, and assuming 3 percent treatment plant losses and
a 1.5 maximum day demand (or peaking) factor, the existing reliable system delivery capacity
of the plant to meet average day demands is 1.2 mgd. Therefore, the existing reliable system
delivery capacity of the Gloucester County systems including the four wells and the treatment
plant, is 1.7 mgd.
It would be possible for the County to modify the existing conditions which limit the safe
yield of its system (i.e, increase well pump capacity and increase the production capacity of the
water treatment plant) to increase its safe yield to 2.9 mgd. With additional well pump capacity,
the well safe yield could be increased to a maximum of 524,000 gpd. With additional treatment
capacity, the safe yield of the reservoir system could be increased to 2.4 mgd (2.5 mgd source
safe yield with assumed 3 percent treatment plant losses).
Population projections developed for Gloucester County by the Hampton Roads Planning
District Commission (HRPDC, 1994) from the Year 1990 to the Year 2015 (rounded to the
3114-017-319 5-105
-------
nearest hundred) were used in projecting the County's future water de nds. A linear
extrapolation of these projections was used to estimate population throug the Year 2040,
assuming a County buildout population of approximately 81,400 in the Year 2040. The resulting
population projections adopted for this analysis ire presented in the table below.
Not all of the population within the County is. currently served by public water. County
billing data do not provide a reliable estimate of the population served in a given year. However,
a recent survey of customers conducted by the County Department of Public Utilities indicated
that mere are approximately 8,500 people in residences served by the water system (Gloucester
County, 1995). Estimates of population served throughout the planning period are presented in
the table below:
POPULATION AND POPULATION SERVED
ESTIMATES - GLOUCESTER COUNTY
Year
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Population
30,131
43,800
53,700
62,800
72,000
81,400
Population Served
8,500
13,100
21,500
31,400
43,200
57,000
Water demand projection methodologies used to project Gloucester County's demands are
described in the technical memorandum for Gloucester County included in Appendix K. Demand
projections with conservation for the following four water demand categories are presented in
Table 5-18:
• Residential
• Commercial, Institutional and Light Industrial
• Heavy Industrial
* Unaccounted-for Water
Gloucester County is projected to have a Year 2040 water demand of 7.9 mgd. The
estimated safe yield of the existing system is 1.7 mgd. Removal of the present limitations on the
system would result in a system safe yield of 2.9 mgd. Assuming that the County would remove
the limitations in the near future to increase its yield, the Year 2040 deficit would be 5.0 mgd.
5.9.5
Town of West Point
The Town of West Point is currently served by two wells with a permitted withdrawal of
approximately 1.1 mgd (Town of West Point, 1994). A third well was recently constructed to
provide an interconnected well system and serve as a back-up well. The well is capable of
3114-017-319
5-106
-------
TABLE 5-18
SUMMARY OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY POTABLE WATER DEMAND
PROJECTIONS*
Year
1994
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Residential
Demand
(mgd)
0,53
0,88
1.44
2.10
2,89
3,82
Commercial
Demand
(mgd)
0.90
1.20
1.50
1.80
2.10
Heavy
Industry
Demand
(mgd)
0.27
0.50
0.72
0.95
1.18
Unaccounted-
for water
Demand
(mgd)
0.15
0.26
0.40
0.58
0.79
Total
Demand
(mgd)
0.53
2.20
3.40
4.73
6.22
7.89
Detailed analysis included in Appendix K.
3114-017-319
January 9,1997
-------
pumping up to 675 gpm (G. Beasley, VDH, personal communication, 1996). As of January
1997, the Town had not applied for a permit amendment to increase the permitted withdrawal (V.
Newton, VDEQ, personal communication, 1997). Elevated storage facilities provide 600,000
gallons of storage. Based on review of the VDH Engineering Description Sheet for the Town
of West Point well system, the estimated safe yield of the existing system is 528,000 gpd
(0.53 mgd).
The Town's population projections for the Year 1990 to the Year 2030, which are
documented in A Comprehensive Han, Town of West Point, Virginia (Town of West Point
Planning Commission, 1994), were used hi projecting its future water demands. A linear
extrapolation of these projections was used to estimate population through the Year 2040. The
resulting population projections adopted for this analysis are presented in the following table.
It is estimated that the Town of West Point currently provides public water service to 99
percent of its population (Town of West Point Planning Commission, 1994; SWCB, 1988). It
is assumed that the population served will remain at 99 percent throughout the planning period.
Estimates of population served for the planning period are presented in the following table.
POPULATION AND POPULATION SERVED
ESTIMATES - TOWN OF WEST POINT
Year
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Population
2,938
3,300
3,600
3,800
4,000
4,300
Population Served
2,950
3,300
3,600
3,800
4,000
4,300
Methodologies used to project the Town of West Point's water demands are described in
the technical memorandum for the Town of West Point included in Appendix K. Demand
projections with conservation for the following four water demand categories are presented in
Table 5-20:
• Residential
• Commercial, Institutional and Light Industrial
• Heavy Industrial
" Unaccounted-for Water
3114-017-319
5-107
-------
TABLE 5-20
SUMMARY OF WEST POINT POTABLE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS*
Year
1993
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Residential
Demand
(mgd)
0.22
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.29
Commercial
Demand
(mgd)
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
Heavy
Industry
Demand
(mgd)
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Unaccounted-
for water
Demand
(mgd)
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
Total
Demand
(mgd)
0.43
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.55
0.59
* Detailed analysis included in Appendix K.
3114-017-319
January 9,1997
-------
The Town of West Point is projected to have a Year 2040 water demand of 0.6 mgd. The
estimated safe yield of the existing system is 0.5 mgd. Therefore, the Year 2040 deficit is
estimated to be 0.1 mgd.
5.9.6 Summary of Additional Regional Needs
A summary of the supply, demand, and deficit projections for these additional areas is
presented in Table 5-21. Although none of the additional regional areas identified in Table 5-21
is currently experiencing a water deficit, each is projected to experience a deficit by the Year
2040. The projected Year 2040 deficits of the outlying jurisdictions are as follows:
Jurisdiction
New Kent County
King William County
Gloucester County
Town of West Point
Projected Deficit
(mgd)
9.1
4.0
5.0
0.1
Any or all of these localities may wish to obtain raw water and/or treated water from a
regional water supply project.
5.9.7 Additional Impacts
If the outlying jurisdictions do not contract to obtain water from a regional project, they
will likely pursue individual local water supply projects (additional groundwater wells or reservoir
projects). If surface water supplies are selected, additional wetlands areas could be affected.
The most likely water supply development option for Gloucester County appears to be one
of several off-stream storage reservoir alternatives. In the Final Environmental Impact
Statement - Gloucester County's Water Supply Reservoir on Beaverdam Swamp (USCOE,
1985), alternatives to Beaverdam Swamp Reservoir included reservoirs on Harper Creek or
Carvers Creek. These reservoir alternatives were said to impact estimated wetland areas of 222
and 136 acres, respectively. Corresponding raw water safe yield benefits of these reservoir
alternatives would be 2.5 mgd with Dragon Swamp pumpovers, and 1.25 mgd or less without
pumpover augmentation. Moreover, withdrawals from Dragon Swamp may not be available due
to institutional and environmental constraints.
Other Gloucester County options were either considered impracticable or determined to
have limited potential for success. Groundwater desalination is considered infeasible by
Gloucester County based on cost and a variety of reliability problems. Groundwater
3114-017-319
5-108
-------
TABLE 5-21
SUPPLY, DEMAND AND DEFICIT PROJECTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL
REGIONAL AREAS
Jurisidiction
1990
New Kent County
King William County
Gloucester County
Town of West Point
2UUU
New Kent County
King William County
Gloucester County
Town of West Point
2010
New Kent County
King William County
Gloucester County
Town of West Point
2020
New Kent County
King William County
Gloucester County
Town of West Point
2030
New Kent County
King William County
Gloucester County
Town of West Point
104(1
New Kent County
King William County
Gloucester County
Town of West Point
SUDD! v (med)
0.50
A
1.70
0.53
llllliilillilllll*
x::::::W:*V£;::f:::::;^
0.50
A
2.90
0.53
0.50
A
2.90
0.53
•**:•/ ^^^XWX^f:*^^*^:-**:^
iiiSllllllllilllllsliS
0.50
A
2.90
0.53
0.50
A
2.90
0.53
SjglJgS-^
.-,*.•.:*•«&•••-"!&•:• • .- :•':•'/, f-v.ff,f •"•'•'- :':>.-.•--.;.-:::•!•--.• .•».%•, -.->X;!v
0.50
A
2.90
0.53
Demand (med)
0.12
0
0.47
0.43
2.71
0.91
2.20
0.48
4.65
1.63
3.40
0.50
•.:-:-:.:.:.:-;-:.:..--.»:-:..-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.:-:.>:.:.:.:-:-:-:.:.:v:-:-:-:-:v;-;-:-;-;-:
6.50
2.44
4.73
0.52
8.44
3.18
6.22
0.55
lilBCllilllsiii
.-:•:•:•:•:•,•:•:•;•.•;",•,-:•;•:•:•:•.-:-:•;<•:•:•:•-'•:•;•:•-'•:•:• '.-'•:•:•'•'•:•:• :•:•:•?•:•:•:
9.63
3.97
7.89
0.59
Deficit B (med)
-0.38
0
-1.23
-0,10
mmmmmmmm:m>:mvsfftww
2.21
0.91
-0.70
-0.05
4.15
1,63
0.50
-0.03
o:->>^:•:•:•:•:^-:v:-:-x•^:^-:^:"X<^v-:•>:•:l•:•:-:-^:V.^•xox.::o:"^:^v
•mmmmmmmmmmmmmi
6.00
2.44
1.83
-0.01
mmmmmK';m
-------
augmentation of Beaverdam Swamp Reservoir would produce a limited safe yield benefit
water quality problems would be likely.
One of the RRWSG's practicable reservoir alternatives, the King William Reservoir
Project, offers the potential to meet some of the additional regional needs identified in Section
5.9, without impounding additional wetlands in a new basin. This is due to the reservoir's
potential storage capacity being more man three times that of the other reservoir alternatives.
The RRWSG has conducted safe yield analysis for the King William Reservoir with
Mattaponi River Pumpover alternative for four configurations (see Table 3-4A). This analysis
indicates that if the dam were sited at dam sites KWR-n or KWR-I, rather than at the currently
proposed KWR-IV dam site, the project could supply between 2.2 and 3.9 mgd of additional
treated water safe yield benefit beyond mat which is needed to meet the RRWSG's projected Year
2040 needs. As this analysis indicates, the King William Reservoir with Mattaponi River
Pumpover alternative (KWR-n or KWR-I configurations) could serve additional regional
demands, while avoiding the greater adverse impacts of constructing an additional reservoir to
service these projected demands. In the interest of preserving this option, the City of Newport
News and King William County are considering reserving lands for possible future reservoir
expansion that would extend downstream of the currently proposed KWR-IV dam site. Until
such time as a permitted expansion of the reservoir might occur, the reserved land would serve
as a wildlife preservation area and corridor:
In Section 5.9 of the Supplement, a two river pumpover scenario (i.e., Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Rivers) was discussed as a possible means of enhancing the King William Reservoir
Project (KWR-n configuration) to supply the needs of a larger region. The RRWSG has no plans
at this time to develop such an enhanced King William Reservoir Project. However, at the
USCOE's direction, the RRWSG has evaluated a two river pumpover scenario for a smaller King
William Reservoir that would meet the projected needs of the RRWSG (see Section 3.4.32.4).
S.10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
In February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 entitled "Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations."
The order requires^each^ Federal agency to: "make achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations
and low-income populations...." In addition, a Presidential memorandum which accompanied
the Executive Order requires federal agencies to "analyze the environmental effects, including
human health, economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority
communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by NEPA,"
To evaluate the potential for environmental justice impacts resulting from the proposed
King William Reservoir project, the socioeconomic characteristics of the reservoir project area
(King William and New Kent Counties) was compared to the Lower Peninsula area which would
be receiving King William Reservoir water (the Lower Peninsula jurisdictions, including Newport
News, Hampton, Poquoson, WUliamsburg, James City County and York County). (King William
and New Kent Counties would also receive water pursuant to host jurisdiction agreements.)
3114-017-319 5-109
-------
Socioeconomic characteristics of the jurisdictions in which the reservoir would be located and
those which would be receiving the resource are presented in Table 5-22.
The reservoir project area (King William and New Kent Counties) has a minority
population which is at or above the state average of 23 percent. This includes an aggregate
Native American population of 355 (U.S. Census of Population, 1990). In comparison, the
percentage of the total minority populations, including Native Americans, in the Lower Peninsula
varies with each jurisdiction. The minority populations in Newport News and Hampton well
exceed the state average. Minority populations represent 34 percent of the total Lower Peninsula
population, which includes a total Native American population of 1,201 (U.S. Census of
Population, 1990). This percentage of minority populations exceeds that estimated for the
reservoir project area, and the total Native American population in the RRWSG is nearly four
times as great as in the reservoir project area. As a result, the proposed project would transfer
water from an area with a lower percentage of minority populations and fewer Native Americans
to an area with a higher percentage of minority populations and a larger number of Native
Americans. Minority populations in each of die Lower Peninsula jurisdictions and in the
reservoir project area counties are listed in Table 5-23.
The poverty population of the reservoir areas is less than the statewide average. However,
in the Lower Peninsula, the poverty population exceeds the statewide average in two of its
jurisdictions (Newport News and Hampton). The population in the Cities of Newport News and
Hampton represents 75 percent of the total population in the Lower Peninsula. Therefore, it is
concluded that the proposed project would transfer water from an area with a lower poverty
population to an area with a higher poverty population.
The data presented in Table 5-22 concerning unemployment indicate that the reservoir
project area has low unemployment rates in relation to the statewide average. The Lower
Peninsula, however, experiences unemployment rates higher than the statewide average in three
of its jurisdictions (Newport News, Hampton and Williamsburg). The remaining jurisdictions
within the Lower Peninsula have unemployment rates at or near the statewide average. Based
on the data presented in Table 5-22, the proposed project would transfer water from an area with
lower unemployment to an area with higher unemployment.
Two Commonwealth of Virginia recognized Native American tribes in King William
County were evaluated for potential environmental justice impacts due to their proximity to the
proposed King William Reservoir project area. The Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indian
Reservations are located on opposite sides of the reservoir site, each within 5 miles of the
reservoir or intake sites. Although reservoir construction activities, including clearing,
excavation, building operations, and transportation, are expected to increase the short-term noise
levels in the vicinity of the project area, there should be no discernable impact to either
reservation. The displacement of reservation residences from construction would not occur. In
addition, the maintenance and operation of the reservoir is not expected to adversely affect
reservation tribal members or die Native American culture on the reservations. Reservoir
activities would be confined to the reservoir buffer area and intake site, and along the pipeline
route configuration. These project components are not located on reservation land.
An evaluation of the predicted noise levels produced by the proposed 75 mgd Mattaponi
River pump station at Scotland Landing was conducted. The projected levels are based onl
proposed pump station building location approximately 150 feet from the south shoreline of the *
31144)17-319 5-110
-------
TABLE 5-22
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction
Minority
Pop. (%)
Reservoir Project Area m
.K ing WfflJanrCwmTy'""""
New Kent County
Group Average^
Receiving Jurisdictions
Newport News
Hampton
Poquoson
Williamsburg
York County
James City County
Group Ajjerage^
State of Virginia
iJ)8-\
-T®*
23
28
37
42
3
19
19
20
"3* *
23
Poverty
Pop. (%)P)
Average Per
Capita
Income
7.1
3.6
5.4
$13,294
$14,993
$14,125
12.2
8.8
2.3
5.9
4.0
4.2
9.1
7.7
$12,711
$12,099
$16,930
$11,822
$15,742
$18,139
$13,384
$15,713
1989
Median
Household
Income
$33,676
$38,403
$35,988
$27,469
$30,144
$43,236
$25,393
$40,363
$39,785
$31,135
$33,328
Unemployment
Rate(%)
2.8
3.3
3.0
6.8
6,7
3.1
4.9
4.4
3.7
6.1
4.5
Source: USDC, 1990. U. S. Census of Population
a) Poverty data are presented as percentages of all families below the poverty level.
(2)
(3)
King William County and New Kent County would also receive water pursuant to host
jurisdiction agreements.
Group averages are calculated as weighted averages based on each jurisdiction's estimated
1990 population.
3114-017-319
January?, 1997
-------
TABLE 5-23
MINORITY POPULATIONS IN AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction
Native American
Population
Other Minority
Population
Total Minority
Population
Reservoir Project Area 0) /
King William County
New Kent County
Group Total
Receiving Jurisdictions
Newport News
Hampton
Poquoson
Williamsburg
York County
James City County
Group Total
219
136
355
3,316
2,231
5,547
T3s§r~">
2,367
5,902
579
392
24
25
112
69
1,201
63,048
55,252
253
2,137
7,823
6,986
135,499
63,627
55,644
277
2,162
7,935
7,055
*136,700 f
Source: USDC, 1990. U. S. Census of Population.
0' King William County and New Kent County would also receive water pursuant to host
jurisdiction agreements.
3114XH7-319
January?, 1997
-------
river. At this location the Mattaponi Indian Reservation is approximately 3.5 miles south of the
pump station site. |
For a water pump station, the majority of noise will be produced by the electric pump
motors that will operate continuously for extended periods of time. In addition, short duration
noise of generally higher levels may be produced by a diesel engine driven emergency electrical
generator and air compressors. These noise levels will not normally be continuously produced,
except in the case of the emergency generator during a commercial power outage. On average,
the higher noise levels produced by the intermittently operated equipment are expected to occur
during die day for an average of 4 hours per week.
The USCOE imposed a noise limit of 54-64 decibels (dB) at 100 feet from the structure
for the City of Virginia Beach's Lake Gaston Project pump station at Pea HU1 Creek on Lake
Gaston. The Lake Gaston Pump Station is located within 120 feet of the open water of Pea Hill
Creek.
Assuming a noise limit of 54 dB at 100 feet were imposed on the Mattaponi River pump
station, the resulting sound pressure level at the Mattaponi Indian Reservation was calculated
based on the inverse square law. Use of this relationship is appropriate for outdoor locations
away from other buildings, paved or hard ground surfaces, or other sound reflecting surfaces.
The relationship does not account for die additional drop in sound levels that can occur over large
distances due to atmospheric absorption.
Day-night sound levels are used by the USEPA to account for the generally greater
annoyance caused by sound during the night. The day-night sound level is calculated by
averaging noise levels over a 24-hour day, but with a 10-dB additional weighting added to the
actual sound levels that occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Assuming the Mattaponi Indian Reservation is 18,000 feet from the pump station, sound
pressure and day-night sound levels of 9dB and IS dB, respectively, were predicted. These
values are well below the noise levels identified by the USEPA as requisite to protect public
health and welfare. As stated in Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (USEPA, 1974), a 55-dB
noise level for outdoor activity interference was identified as the lowest outdoor sound threshold.
The Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indian Reservations are adjacent to the Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Rivers, respectively. The water quality of the rivers should not be substantially
affected by freshwater river withdrawals. Potential salinity intrusion impacts were analyzed in
detail in Report J, Tidal Wetlands on the Mattaponi River Potential Responses of the Vegetative
Community to Increased Salinity as a Result of Freshwater Withdrawal (Hershner et.al., 1991)
which is incorporated herein by reference and is an appendix to this document. Neither
reservation is currently using river water for irrigation. Although Pamunkey Indian Reservation
tribal members have recently harvested crabs for commercial gain, predominant Mattaponi and
Pamunkey River uses by the reservations are related to water recreation activities. Existing
fishing, hunting or boating activities in the vicinity of the reservations are expected to persist
unaffected by the project river withdrawals. Increases in regional recreational areas would also
be provided by the proposed reservoir.
3114-017-319 5-111
-------
The Pamunkey Reservation operates a shad fish hatchery in conjunction with the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission. The fish hatchery has been restocking the York River basin with
shad almost continuously since 1918. The Mattaponi Reservation also possesses a viable shad
hatchery operation. Shad is an integral component of each reservation's tribal culture. Shad
habitat in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey River systems should not be altered by Mattaponi River
withdrawals. The proposed Scotland Landing intake site is located several miles upstream of the
Mattaponi Reservation. In addition, the intake structure is designed to minimize impingement
and entrainment of anadromous fish eggs and larvae. The maximum through-screen velocities
will comply with the National Marine Fisheries Service recommendation of 0.25 rps and very
small screen openings (1 millimeter slots) will be used.
In accordance with the King William Reservoir Project Development Agreement, King
William County will also acquire a continuous revenue stream from the lease of the reservoir land
to the RRWSG (King William County and City of Newport News, 1990). This additional County
revenue would possibly be used to enhance community projects, libraries, and schools. These
facilities are available to reservation constituents.
Based on the analysis presented above, the proposed King William Reservoir project would
not result in any "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects...
on minority populations and low-income populations," as mandated in Executive Order 12989,
"Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations." In addition, the project would not be exclusively transferring water from one area
to another. It is a regional project, providing water to all communities of the Lower Peninsula,
as well as New Kent and King William Counties.
3114-017-319 5-112
-------
-------
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Study investigations were conducted by the KRWSG, 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
16
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
T. Britt McMillan
B.S. Civil Engineering
M.S. Civil Engineering
Water Resources
B.A. Biology
M.A. 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
M.A. Geography
Wetlands Evaluation
Habitat Evaluation
B.S. Geology
M.S. Geology
Water Quality Assessments
Computer Modeling
23
18
9
8
6
9
12
Project Officer
Project Manager
Project Leader
Demand
Forecasting,
Conceptual
Engineering
Conservation,
Parks, Refuges,
Cultural
Resources, Land
Use,
Socioeconoimcs
Wetlands,
Mudflats
Water Quality,
Groundwater
Modeling
3114-017-319
6-1
-------
Name
Rebecca W. Dorsey
Michael S. D'Annucci
Kathryn B. Sweeney
William H. Street
Mariellen J. Soltys
Ronald E. Harris
Anthony D. Gruber
Edward N. Antoun
Susan T. Murdock
Hope Yendersin
Floyd W. Hatch
Edward F. Rogers, III
James P. Noonan
Mark A. Thompson
Training/
Expertise
B.S. Zoology
Wetland Evaluation
Habitat Evaluation
B.A. History/Business Administration
M.E.M. (Environmental Management)
M.E. Civil Engineering
B.S. Biology
M.A. Biology
B.S. Commerce
M.E.M. (Environmental Management)
M.P. Environmental Planning
B.S. Biology
Wetlands Evaluation
Endangered Species
B.S. 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
Associate in Arts and Forest Technology
B.A. Biology
A.A.S. Natural Resources
B.S. Natural Resources
B.S. Applied Geography in Natural
Resource Management and
Environmental Studies
M.S. Environmental Science
B.S. Chemical Engineering
Air Quality
B.S. Civil Engineering
M.S. Environmental Engineering
Hydraulic Analysis
Design
B.S. Chemistry
Water Treatment
Membrane Processes
Experience
(Years)
5
5
5
5
6
15
9
5
7
5
31
9
22
16
Primary
Responsibility
Wildlife,
Fisheries,
Endangered
Species, Wetland
Evaluation
Wetland
Mitigation,
Editorial Review
Recreation,
Endangered
Species, Wetland
Evaluations and
Mitigation,
Aesthetics
Wetland
Delineation,
Wetland
Mitigation
Endangered
Species, Wildlife
Groundwater
Resources
Substrate, Soils
Safe Yield
Analysis
Wetland
Delineation
Wetland
Evaluation
Wetland
Delineations and
Wetland
Evaluation
Air Quality,
Noise
Conceptual
Engineering
Desalination
Processes
3114-017-319
6-2
-------
Name
Richard W. Carsia
Glenn M. Tillman
Robert H. Reinert
John C. Henningson
Anthony M. Russo
Subcontractor Staff
Name
Jerome D. Traver
Lauren C. Archibald
Carl H. Hershner, Ph.D.
James E. Perry, Ph.D.
Game D. Rouse
Donna M. E. Ware,
Ph.D.
William Saunders, Ph.D.
Virginia Crouch
Allen Plocher, Ph.D.
Suzanne Ruck
Michelle Moody
Joseph C. Mitchell,
Ph.D.
David R. Basco,
Ph.D.,P.E.
Training/
Expertise
B.S. Marketing Management
A.A.S. Drafting Design
A.S. Biology
B.A. Geology
Water Treatment
Water Distribution
M.E. Mechanical Engineering
Water Design
Project Management
B.A. Biology
M.S. Environmental Engineering
Environmental Management
B.S. Biology
M.S. Environmental Biology
Environmental Assessments
Firm /Institution/Organization
MAAR Associates
MAAR Associates
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Rouse Environmental Services
The College of William & Mary
The College of William & Mary
The Nature Conservancy
Old Dominion University
Independent Subcontractor
Independent Subcontractor
The University of Richmond
Old Dominion University
Experience
(Years)
11
15
38
29
14
Primary
Responsibility
AutoCADD
Mapping
Editorial Review
Technical Review
Technical Review
Technical Review
Primary Responsibility
Phase I Cultural Resource
Survey
Principal Investigator
Phase I Cultural Resource
Survey
Architectural Historian
Salinity Study
Sensitive Joint- Vetch Surveys
Sensitive Joint- Vetch Surveys
Small Whorled Pogonia
Surveys
Small Whorled Pogonia
Surveys
Small Whorled Pogonia
Surveys
Wetland Delineations
Wetland Evaluation
Wetland Evaluation
Herpetological Survey
Sediment Transport Study
3114-017-319
6-3
-------
-------
7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Throughout die project planning process, die USCOE was consulted. "Hie USCOE required
that die federal advisory agencies be involved in the identification of practicable alternatives and,
further, with tile 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, mis 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 (DEIS). 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
• Virginia Department of Transportation
3114-017-319 7-1
-------
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). Thirty-one of the alternatives
evaluated in mis 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.
On February 4, 1994, the Norfolk District, USCOE announced the availability of a DEIS
for the RRWSG's proposed long-term public water supply for the Lower Virginia Peninsula. The
USCOE held a Public Hearing on the DEIS on March 8, 1994. The comment period on the DEIS
closed on April 20,1994. Based on the record of the Public Hearing and other written comments
received, the USCOE on June 8, 1994, announced its decision to prepare a Supplement to the
DEIS. On August 1, 1994, the USCOE provided formal, written instructions to the RRV/SG
regarding additional studies and analyses required for preparation of the Supplement (A.M.
Perkins, USCOE, personal communication, 1994).
On December 29, 1995, the Norfolk District, USCOE announced the availability of a
Supplement to the DEIS for the RRWSG's proposed long-term public water supply for the Lower
Virginia Peninsula. The USCOE, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, King William
County, and RRWSG participated in a public information meeting on the Supplement on February
29,1996. The comment period on the Supplement closed on March 13, 1996. Based on written
comments received, the USCOE on May 13, 19% provided formal, written instructions to the
RRWSG regarding additional studies and analyses required for preparation of the Final EIS
(FEIS). (R.H. Reardon, USCOE, personal communication, 1996).
The following is a list of Agencies and Organizations to which the DEIS and Supplement
were sent:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Department of Commerce
U. S. Department of Interior
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3114-017-319 7-2
-------
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
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
Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers Association
City of Hampton
City of Newport News
City of Poquoson
City ofWilliamsburg
Hanover County
James City County
King and Queen County
King William County
New Kent County
York County
Hampton Public Library
3114-017-319 7-3
-------
Heritage Library
lames City County Public Library
Newport News Public Library
Pamunkey Regional Library
Poquoson Public Library
Williamsburg Regional Library
York County Public Library
All of the letters received during die comment periods for the DEIS and the Supplement
to the DEIS are included in Volume D of this FEIS Main Report. Numbers appear in the right
margins next to each comment requiring a response. At the end of each letter, the comments are
addressed in their numerical order.
3114-017-319 7-4
-------
REFERENCES
Adamus, P. R., E, J. Clakain, 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 {WE'D; Volume I: Literature Revie^v and Evaluation
Rationale. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. 287 pp. plus appendix.
Air Survey Corporation. 1994. Personal communication between Martin Zook and Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc. Jury 22,1994.
Air Survey Corporation. 1994. Personal Communication between Marlin Zook and Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc. December 8,1994.
American Association of Nursery Men. 1990. American Standards for Nursery Stock. Approved
by the National Standards, Inc., Washington, D.C.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 1988. Expanding Water Projects: Benefits
Assessment and Wetland Mitigation Banking. Prepared for the American Water Works
Association.
Anderson, D.L., D. Mulville - Friel, and W.L. Nero. 1993. The Impact of Water-Conserving
Fixtures on Residential Water Use Characteristics in Tampa. Florida. In: Proceedings of
Conserv 93. December 12-16,1993.
Anderson, J. R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Winner. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover
Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 964. 28pp.
Bartoldus, C.C., E.W. Garbisch, and M.L. Kraus. 1994. Evaluation for Planned Wetlands (EPWV
Environmental Concern, Inc. St. Michaels, Maryland 327 pp. plus appendices.
Basco, D. R. 1996. Study of Potential Erosional Impact of Scotland Landing. Water Intake Structure
on Garnetts Creek Marsh. Mattaponi River. Virginia. Prepared for Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
September 1996.
Baskin, J. M. and C. C, Baskin. 1995a. The Effect of Salinity on Germination of Nondormant Seeds
of the Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, White Marsh, Virginia. 1995.
Baskin, J. M. and C. C. Baskin. 199Sb. Parameters Affecting Germination in Sensitive Joint-vetch
(Aeschvnomene virginica). Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis,
Maryland. 1995.
3114-017-319 R-l
-------
Bellrose, F. C. 1976, Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Benson, R. E. and I. Moch. 1994. Reactivating After 11 Years a 3 mgd Seawater RO Plant in
Florida. Membrane and Desalting Technologies, 1994 Biennial Conference and Exposition,
September 11-15,1994, pp. 553-567.
Black & Vcatch, Inc. 1989. Crump Creek Reservoir Environmental Report. Prepared for Hanover
County, Virginia.
Black & Vcatch, Inc. 1989. Crump Creek Reservoir Project Development Report. Prepared for
Hanover County, Virginia.
Black & Veatch. 1996. Joint Permit Application and Supporting Documentation for Increased
Water Supply Withdrawals. Prepared for the Rapidan Service Authority. February 1996.
Brady, N. C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soil. 8th Edition, MacMillan Publishing
Company, Inc., New York, New York.
Brooks, T. J. 1983. Mattaponi River Slack Water Data Report - Temperature. Salinity. Dissolved
Oxygen 1970-1978. Data Report No. 21. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
Point, Virginia. 36 pp. plus appendices.
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-Hom, Inc. 1981. Preliminary Dam Design and Environmental Assessment for Ware Creek
Reservoir. Prepared for James City County.
Buchart-Hom, 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.
Burby, R.J. 1971 A Model for Simulating Residential Development in Reservoir Recreation Areas.
University of North Carolina Center for Urban and Regional Studies, North Carolina Water
Research Institute. Report Number 52.
Camp Dresser & McKee (COM). 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.
3114-017-319 R-2
-------
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). 1989. Newport News Raw Water Management Plan. Prepared for
the City of Newport News, December 1989.
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), 1989. Newport News Raw Water System Safe Yield Model -
Documentation and Users Manual. Prepared for the City of Newport News. December
1989.
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). 1993. Long-Term Water Conservation Program. Prepared for
Spotsylvania County.
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). 1995. Memorandum from Charles Moore to Ronald E. Harris
(Water Resources Project Manager, City of Newport News Waterworks). May 3,1995.
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). 1996. Preliminary Design Report for Brackish Groundwater
Development Project - Phase II. Prepared for City of Newport News Waterworks. March
1996 Draft Report
City of Newport News Waterworks. 1996. Letter from Eileen Leininger, P.E. (Assistant Director)
to Jim Gibson (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). August 21,1996.
Clampitt, C. A. 1991. Natural Areas Inventory of the Lower Peninsula of Virginia: Citv of
WiUiamsburg. 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. 16pp.
College of William and Mary. 1993. Personal communication between Dr. Mitchell A. Byrd and
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. March 2,1993.
College of William and Mary. 1993. Personal communication between Dr. Donna M. E. Ware and
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. March 26,1993.
College of William and Mary. 1993. Personal communication between Dr. Donna M. E. Ware and
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. July 6,1993.
College of William and Mary. 1995. Personal communication between Dr. Mitchell A. Byrd and
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. May 4,1995.
College of William and Mary. 1995. Letter from Dr. Donna M. E. Ware to William H. Street
(Malcolm Pimie). May 5,1995.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. La Roe . 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
Delmarva Properties, Inc. 1995. Personal communication between Charles Kerns (Delmarva
Properties) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. December 13,1996.
3114-017-319 . R-3
-------
Delmarva Properties, Inc. 1995. Personal commumc. ;n between Jim Willis (Delmarva
Properties) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. December 13,1996.
Delonne Mapping Company. 1989. Virginia Atlas and Gazetteer.
Doumlelc, 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. 59pp.
Dowling, D.C. 1993. Aquatic Resources Investigation VA-DJ-F-111-Rl-Studv HI: 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.
Frederick, K. D, 1995. America's Water Supply: Status and Prospect? for the Future.
Consequences Vol. 1 No. 1. Spring 1995.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1985. Water Quality for
Agriculture. Irrigation, and Drainage. Paper No. 29.
Gannett Fleming, toe. 1992. Ware Creek Reservoir Project: Conceptual Level Study - F'^eening
Analysis Report. Prepared for James City County.
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.
Gloucester County. 1994a. Our Future Volume Needs. Technical summary prepared by Gloucester
County staff. Fall 1994.
Gloucester County. 1994b. Personal communication between Lawrence Dame (Director of Public
Utilities) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. October 4,1994.
Gloucester County. 1995. Personal communication between Lawrence Dame (Director of Public
Utilities) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. January 24,1995.
Hampton, City of. 1996. Personal communication between Ms. Mason (Planning Department) and
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. July 31,1996.
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC). 1994. Gloucester County Subarea
Computer Modeling Study. Prepared for Gloucester County, Virginia. June 1994.
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC). 1996. 1996 HRPDC Economic Outlook.
July 1996.
Hampton Roads Statistical Digest. 1996. Corporate Growth a Positive Force. Volume 20. July
1996.
3114-017-319 R-4
-------
Hanover County. 1992. Personal communication between Reed Barrows (Assistant Director of
Public Utilities) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. August 1 1, 1992.
Hanover County. 1996. Letter from Raymond J. Klotz, Jr. (Chairman, Hanover County Board of
Supervisors) to District Engineer (USCOE-Norfolk District). March 11, 1996.
Harris,!. 1995. Board Launches Permit Bid to Draw Water From River. Published in the
s. February 9, 1995.
Harsh, J. F. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology of |ameg C|ty 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. HL, 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 Citv 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.
Hyer, P.V., C.S. Fang, E.P. Ruzecki, and W. J. Hargis. 1971. Studies of the Distribution of Salinity
and Dissolved Oxygen in the Upper York System. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Hyer, P. V., A. Y. Kuo, C. S. Fang, and W. J. Hargis. 1975. Hydrography and Hydrodynamics of
Virginia Estuaries. V. Mathematical Studies of Water Quality of the York River System.
Special Report No. 104 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 168 pp.
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 Citv County to 2040. Prepared by James
City County Staff, March 1986.
James City County (JCC). 1991. James Citv County Comprehensive Plan.
3114-017-319 R-5
-------
James City County (JCC), 1991. Personal communication between R. Patrick Fnel (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.
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 Pimie, Inc. November 30,
1992.
James City County (JCC). 1994. Personal communication between Sanford B. Wanner (Assistant
County Administrator) and R. W. Hildebrandt (Assistant City Manager, City of Newport
News). June 1,1994.
James City County. 1995. Resolution - Participation in the Expansion of King William Reservoir
Project. Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia.
February 21,1995.
James City County. 1996. Personal communication between Matthew Maxwell (County Planner)
and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. July 31,1996.
James City County. 1997. Personal communication between Carol Guiliano (Planning Department)
and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. January 7,1997.
James City County and New Kent County. 1983. Agreement - Ware Creek Reservoir.
December 19,1983.
James City Service Authority (JCSA). 1994. Letter from James C. Dawson (Environmental
Engineer) to Donald P. Rice (Water Resources Engineer, City of Newport News
Waterworks). March 18,1994.
James City Service Authority (JCSA). 1996. Facsimile transmittal from Larry M. Foster (General
Manager) to Paul Peterson (Malcolm Pimie). September 23,1996.
James City Service Authority (JCSA). 1997. Personal communication between Larry M. Foster
(General Manager) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. January 2,1997.
James R. Reed & Associates, Inc. 1982. A Study to Determine the Use of Ware Creek and Its
Tributaries bv Anadrornffiis Fish, with Emphasis on Potential Spawning and Nursery Areas
At and Above Dam Site Vof the Proposed Ware Creek Reservoir. Final Report Submitted
to Buchart-Horn, Inc.
James R. Reed & Associates, Inc. 1992. Ware Creek Mitigation Plan Draft Report. November
1992.
3114-017-319 . R-6
-------
Jenkins, R. E. and N. M, Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Jenkins, R. E. 1996. Personal communication with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. August 29,1996.
J.K. Timmons & Associates, P.C. 1992. Pamunkey River Water Supply - Alternative Study.
Prepared for Hanover County, Virginia.
Kartinen, E. O.» Jr. 1993. Summary and Comparison of Sea Water Desalting Projects in California.
Proceedings of 1993 Membrane Technology Conference, August 1-4,1993. pp 755-775.
King and Queen County Board of Supervisors. 1994. Letter from Paul C. Jacobson (Sands,
Anderson, Marks & Miller, P.C.) to Colonel Andrew M. Perkins, Jr. (District Engineer,
USCOE-Norfolk District). April 19,1994.
King William County. 1992. Personal communication between Dennis W. Carney (Director of
Planning) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. July 1992.
King William County. 1992. Letter from David S. Whitlow (County Administrator) to Edgar
Maroney (City Manager, City of Newport News). August 10,1992.
King William County. 1993. Personal communication between David S. Whitlow (County
Administrator) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. April 12,1993.
King William County. 1993. Personal communication between David S. Whitlow (County
Administrator) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. June 17,1993.
King William County. 1994. Personal communication between David S. Whitlow (County
Administrator), Dennis W. Carney (Director of Planning) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
October 11,1994.
King William County. 1995. Personal communication between David S. Whitlow (County
Administrator) and Randy Hildebrandt (Assistant City Manager, City of Newport News)
May 30,1995.
King William County. 1996. Letter from C. Thomas Redd, III (Chairman, King William County
Board of Supervisors) to Colonel Robert H. Reardon, Jr. (District Engineer, USCOE,
Norfolk District). June 10,1996.
King William County. 1996. Personal communication between Dennis Carney (Director of
Planning) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. October 21,1996.
King William County and City of Newport News. 1990. King William Reservoir Project
Development Agreement. November 13,1990.
King William County and City of Newport News. 1992. Addendum No. lr King William Reservoir
Project Development Agreement. May 14,1992.
King William County and City of Newport News. 1995. Addendum No. 2. King William Reservoir
Project Development Agreement. Augusts, 1995.
3114-017-319 R-7
-------
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.
Laczniak, R. J. and A. A. Meng, ffl. 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.
Leitner, G. F. 1994. Whatever Happened to Sea Water Desalting in the U.S.? (Can the Trend be
Changed?). Membrane and Desalting Technologies, 1994 Biennial Conference and
Exposition, September 11-15,1994, pp. 179-193.
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.
Lippson, A.J., and R. L. Lippson, 1984. Life in the Chesapeake Bav. The Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Lynch, D.D. 1992. Water Quality and Evaluation of Raw Water - Routing Scenarios.
Chickahominv. Diascund Creek, and Little Creek Reservoirs. Southeastern Virginia. 1983-
86 U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 92-4034,104 pp.
MAAR Associates, Inc. 1996. Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed King William
Reservoir. King William County. Virginia and A Background Review. Architectural Survey
and Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Proposed Black Creek Reservoir. New Kent
County. Virginia. Final report submitted to Malcolm Pimie, Inc. October 1996.
Maas, E. V. And G. J. Hoffman. 1977. Crop Salt Tolerance - Current Assessment In: Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Volume 103, No. 1R2. June 1977.
Maddaus, W. O. 1987. The Effectiveness of Residential Water Conservation Measures. Journal
American Water Works Association, March 1987, pp. 52-58.
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. 1978. Comprehensive Water System Study. Prepared for the City of Newport
News Department of Public Utilities.
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. 1989. King William Reservoir Alternative - Preliminary Report on Aquatic
Resource Issues. Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study
Group.
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. 1990. Preliminary Report on Field Studies for the Environmental Impact
Statement. Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
3114-017-319 R-8
-------
Malcolm Piraie, Inc. 1991. Phase I Summary Report. Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula
Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Piraie, Inc. 1991. FERC Application for Project No. 2009. Exhibit 8 - Description of
Public Need and Benefit. Prepared for the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public
Utilities.
Malcolm Piraie, Inc. 1992. Regional Groundwater Impacts of a 2.03 MGD Withdrawal in Western
lamps City County. Virginia. Prepared for the City of Newport News Waterworks.
Malcolm Piraie, Inc. 1992. Water Treatment and Transmission Study. Prepared for the Lower
Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1992. Well Field Feasibility Study - New Kent County. Prepared for the City
of Newport News Waterworks.
Malcolm Pimie, toe. 1993. Methodology for Identifying. Screening, and Evaluating Alternatives.
Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1993. Alternatives Assessment (Volume I -Practicability Analysis). Prepared
for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pirnie, toe. 1993. Alternatives Assessment (Volume II - Environmental Analysis).
Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pimie, toe. 1993. Water Demand Reduction Opportunities. Prepared for the Lower
Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pirnie. 1993. Water Supply, Demand and Deficit Projections. Prepared for the Lower
Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pimie, 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, toe. 1995. Biological Assessment for Reservoir Alternatives. Prepared for the
Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pimie, toe. 1995. Wetland Assessment for Reservoir Alternatives. Prepared for the Lower
Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pimie, fac. 1995. Fish Survey for Areas Affected fay Proposed King William Reservoir
and Black Creek Reservoir Impoundments. Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula
Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Pimie, toe. 1995. New Kent County Potable Water Supply Needs Assessment. Prepared
for the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group.
3114-017-319 . R-9
-------
Malcolm Pirate, Inc. 1995. Pamunkev River Salinity Intrusion Impact Assessment for Black Creek
Reservoir Alternative. Prepared fen- the Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water
Study Group.
Malcolm Piraie, Inc. 1995. Practicability Analysis of Side-Hill Reservoir Alternatives in the Lower
Pmnpflfcey jyyer and Mattaponi River Valleys, Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula
Regional Raw Water Study Group.
Malcolm Piraie, Inc. 1995. Rare Species Sighting Form. Submitted to the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). September 21,1995.
Malcolm Pirate, toe. 1996. Literature Review on Genetic Variability and Migration Patterns of
Alewife and Blueback Herring. Stocks in Chesapeake Bav Tributaries. Prepared for the
Lower Virginia Peninsula Regional Raw Water Study Group. June 1996.
Malcolm Pirate, Inc. 1996. King William Reservoir Project Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the
Virginia^ Department of Environmental Quality. Prepared for the Lower Virginia Peninsula
Regional Raw Water Study Group. August 1996.
Martin, J.H. and D. J. Tolson. 1996. Virginia's Population - 1995 Estimates. June 1996.
Martof, B. S.f W. M. Palmer, J. R, Bailey, J. R. Harrison, HI, and J. Dermid. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. 264pp.
Massmann, W. H. 1953. Relative Abundance of Young Fishes in Virginia Estuaries. Trans. North
Amer. Wildl. Conf. 18:439-449.
Meng, A. A., in and J. F. Harsh. 1988. Hydro-geologic Framework of the Virginia Coastal Plain.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401-C, 82 pp., 4 plates.
Mitchell, J. C. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Cohoke Mill Creek Watershed. King William
County. Virginia. Prepared for Malcolm Piraie, Inc. October 21,1994.
Moore, Kenneth A. 1980. James Citv County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Prepared for James City
County by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers (MRCE). 1989. Reservoir and Dam Site Evaluation - King
William Bounty. Virginia. Final report submitted to Malcolm Pimie, Inc.
Murdoch, W. W., F. C. Evans, and C. H. Peterson, 1972. Diversity and Pattern in Plants and Insects.
Ecology 53:819-829. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.
Nature Conservancy. 1996. Personal communication between Tim McNeil and Malcolm Pirate, Inc.
November 21,1996.
New Kent County. 1991. New Kent County Zoning Ordinance.
New Kent County. 1992. Personal communication between Nicholas Hahn (Planner) and Malcolm
Pirate, Inc. July 20,1992.
3114-017-319 R-10
-------
New Kent County. 1992. Personal communication between Nicholas Hahn (Planner) and Malcolm
Pimie, Inc. November 30,1992.
New Kent County, 1994. Letter from H. Garrett Hart, ffl (County Administrator) to Colonel
Andrew M. Perkins, Jr. (District Engineer, USCOE - Norfolk District). April 15,1994.
New Kent County. 1994. Letter from R. J. Emerson, Jr. (Acting County Administrator) to Randy
W. Hildebrandt (Assistant City Manager, City of Newport News). September 20,1994.
New Kent County. 1996. Letter from E. David Ringley (Chairman, New Kent County Board of
Supervisors) to Colonel Robert H. Reardon, Jr. (District Engineer, USCOE, Norfolk
District). April 23,1996.
New Kent County Historical Society. 1992. Letter from James M. H. Harris (President) to Andrea
B. Terry (Malcolm Pimie). October 7,1992.
Newport News, City of, Department of Parks and Recreation (NNDPR). 1992. Personal
communication between Mike Poplawski and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. September 8,1992.
Newport News, City of. 1994a. Letter from Edgar Maroney (City Manager) to Raymond F. Alsop
(King & Queen County Board of Supervisors). November 8,1994
Newport News, City of. 1994b. Letter from Randy W. Hildebrandt (Assistant City Manager) to
Steven R. Lohr (Hanover County). September 19,1994.
Newport News, City of, Department of Public Utilities. 1995. Water Conservation Management
Plan. Adopted April 25,1995.
Newport News, City of. 1996. Personal communication between Eric Chen (Comprehensive
Planner) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. July 31,1996.
Newport News, City of, Waterworks. 1996. Letter from Eileen M. Leininger (Assistant Director)
to Jim Gibson (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). August 21,1996.
Newport News, City of and City of Williamsburg. 1992. Water Agreement. July 1992.
Odum, W. E., T. J. Smith, IH, J. K. Hoover, and C. C. Mclvor. 1984. The Ecology of Tidal
Freshwater Marshes pf the United States East Coast: A Community Profile. FWS/OBS -
83/17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 177pp.
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.
Olsen, E.R., R.D. Ramsey, and D.S. Winn. 1993. A Modified Fractal Dimension as a Measure of
Landscape Diversity. Photogrametric Engineering & Remote Sensing 59(10):1517-1520.
3114-017-319 R-ll
-------
Orth, R. J., A.A. Frisch, K. P. Kiley, and J. R. Whiting. 1991. Distribution of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and the Chincoteapie Bay - 1990.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Council on the Environment. Report submitted to
the USEPA, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. September 1991.
Perritt, W. R. 1993. Hanover. Newport News Tugging at Mattaponi and Pamunkey. Published in
the Country Courier. March 31,1993.
Pcny, J. E. 1993. Distribution of Aeschvnomene virginica in the Scotland Landing Region of the
Mattaponi River. Virginia. Final report submitted to Malcolm Pimie, Inc. by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Pcny, J. E. 1993. Identification of Historic Locations of Aeschvnomene virginica within the Tidal
Freshwater Zone of the Pamunkev River. Virginia. Final report submitted to Malcolm
Pimie, Inc. by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Perry, J. E. 1993. Investigation of Potential Distribution of Aeschvnomene virginica in the Tidal
Wetlands of Ware Creek, Virginia. Final report submitted to Malcolm Pimie, toe. by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia
Peterson, R. T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghten Mifflin Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Pitometer Associates. 1991. Report on Pitometer Master Meter Tests - Newport News. Virginia.
1991.
Planning and Management Consultants, LTD. 1990. The Regional Urban Water Management Plan
for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. November. 1990.
Plunkett, A. J. 1995. Closing Cost Saved Eustis. Published in The Daily Press. March 5,1995.
Poquoson, City of. 1996. Personal communication between Debbie Vest (City Planner) and
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. August 5,1996.
Priest, W. I., ffl, G. M. Silberhom, 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.
Pragh, 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. 441pp.
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-9Q-1. 407 pp.
3114-017-319 R-12
-------
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. 389pp.
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. 592pp.
Prugh, B. J., Jr. and E. D. Powell, 1992. Water Resources Data - Virginia - Water Year 1991:
Volume 2. Ground Water and Ground Wa|er Quality Records. U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Data Report VA-91-2. 399pp.
Quinlan, E. A. and T. E. Dumm. Development of a Regional Water Quality Model for the
Pamunkev River. Virpnia. Proceedings of Watershed 1996. June 8-12,1996. pp 688-691.
Regional Raw Water Study Group (RRWSG). 1996. Update. Issue #7. Summer 1996.
Richmond, City of and Hanover County. 1994. Water Contract. July 1,1994.
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC). 1991. Draft Comprehensive Land
Use Plan -NewKent County. Virginia.
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC). 1992. Draft Comprehensive Lanj
Usg Plan -IJew Kent County. Virginia. June 15,1992. Adopted December 1992.
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC). 1992. Metropolitan Richmond
Regional Water Resources Plan for Planning District 15. December 1992.
Richmond Times-Dispatch. 1996. Assessed Realty Values Rise 20 % in New Kent. January 24,
1996.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catera. pp. 169-199.
Rouse Environmental Services. 1996. Letter from Carrie D. Rouse (Rouse Environmental Services)
to Thomas Sankey (Malcolm Pimie, Inc.). October 2,1996.
Rouse, G. D. 1995. Sensitive Joint-vetch Life History and Habitat Study, 1994 Field Season.
Mattaponi River System. Virginia. February 15,1995.
Scanlan, M. J. 1983. A Field Survey of the Ware Creek Watershed for the Small-Whorled Pogonia
(Jsotria medealoides). Report submitted to James R Reed & Associates, Inc.
SDN Market Research. 1990. Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Chesapeake Bav Preservation
Act on the Virginia Peninsula. Presented by the Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce,
August 30,1990.
Silberhom, 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. 56pp.
3114-017-319 R-13
-------
Siydula, E. A., T. D. Bergund, and V. P. Newton. 1977. Grounawater 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.
Solky, 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.
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). 1994. Letter from David W. Carr, Jr. (Staff Attorney)
to the District Engineer of the USCOE - Norfolk District April 20,1994.
Sprock P. C., 1996. Big Bethel Water Treatment Plant Back On Line. Published in Casemate.
August 9,1996.
Stevens Institute of Technology. 1991. East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Conservation
Study. Rep;-. No. R219. Thomas P. Konin (Project Director).
Stonehouse, Inc. 1991. Stonehouse Proffers. Made on October 22,1991.
Stumm, W. and J. J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry: An Introduction Emphftgi^ing Chemical
Equilibria in Natural Water. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York. 780 pp.
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.
Tiner, R.W. 1993. Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States. The
University of Massachusetts Press. Amherst, Massachusetts. 1993.
Town of West Point 1994. Personal communication between Watson Allen (Town Manager) and
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. October 4,1994.
Town of West Point Planning Commission. 1994. A Comprehensive Plan - Town of West Point
Virginia. Draft report. September 26,1994.
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). 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement -
Gloucester County's Water Supply Reservoir on Beaverdam Swamp. June 1985.
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.
3114-017-319 R-14
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). 1987. final Environmental Impact Statement-James
CJty County's Wa|erSupply Reservoir on Ware Creek.
U.S. Army Craps 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 Pimie, 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 Pimie, Inc. June 8,1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). 1994. Letter from Colonel Andrew M. Perkins, Jr.
(Norfolk District Engineer) to Brian L. Ramaley, P.E. (Chairman, Regional Raw Water
Study Group). August 1,1994.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). 1994, Letter from Colonel Andrew M. Perkins, Jr.
(Norfolk District Engineer) to Brian L. Ramaley, P.E. (Chairman, Regional Raw Water
Study Group). November 21,1994.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). 1996. Letter from Colonel Robert H. Reardon, Jr.,
(Norfolk District Engineer) to R. J. Emerson, Jr. (Acting County Administrator). March 29,
1996.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). 1996. Letter from Colonel Robert H. Reardon, Jr.,
(Norfolk District Engineer) to Brian L. Ramaley, P.E. (Chairman, Regional Raw Water
Study Group). May 13,1996.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). 1996. Personal communication between Ken Kimidy
(Regulatory Branch, Norfolk District) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. October 10,1996.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1985. Soil Conservation Services. Hydric Soils
of the State of Virginia 1985.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), 1983. Climatic Atlas of the United States. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
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 - Hiph 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.
3114-017-319 R-15
-------
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). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Arlington, Virginia. EPA 550/9-74-004.
March 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1986. Final Determination in Attleboro Mall
Pursuant to Section 404(0"). May 13, 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988. Ambient W^ter Quality Criteria for
Chloride. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C. PB88-175047 EPA 440/5-88-001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Highlights of Section 404: Federal
Regulatory Program to Protect Waters of the United States. Office of Wetlands Protection.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990a. Final Determination of the USEPA, 's
Assistant Administrator for Water Pursuant to Section 404 fc> Concerning the Two Forte
Water Supply Impoundments. Jefferson and Douglas Counties. Colorado. November 23,
1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990b. Guidance Manual for Compliance with the
Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Surface Water
Sources. Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Final Determination on Remand of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Administrator for Water Pursuant to
Section 404fc> of me Clean Water Act Coneeminp the Proposed Ware Creek Water Supply
Impoundment. James City County. Virginia. March 27, 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Personal communication between Regina
Poeske (Region IH) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. May 19, 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Personal communication between A. W.
Marks (Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, USEPA Headquarters) and Malcolm
Pimie, Inc. May 3, 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Personal communication between Haig
Farmer (Municipal Support Division, Office of Water, USEPA Headquarters) and Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc. November 13, 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Personal communication between Peter
Shanaghan (USEPA Headquarters) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. November 15, 1996.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Draft Coordination Act Report.
Southside/Northside Water Supply Study. Annapolis, Maryland.
3114-017-319 R-16
-------
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Analysis:
Reservoir Construction on Wang Creek, James Citv 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. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Sensitive Joint-Vetch (Aeschvnomene virgintca)
Recovery Plan. Technical/Agency Draft. Hadley, Massachusetts. 51pp. September 1994.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1991. Letter from Gary S. Anderson (Richmond, Virginia Office)
to Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnie). November 15,1991.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1996. Letter from Owen Pickett (Member of Congress) to Robert
Perciasepe (Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, USEPA) and Michael McCabe
(Regional Administrator, USEPA, Region HI). June 26,1996.
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1986. Letter from Edward W. Christoffers
(Assistant Branch Chief, Habitat Conservation Branch, Management Division, Oxford,
Maryland) 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, Oxford,
Maryland) to J. Robert Hume, HI (USCOE-Norfolk District). November 13,1986.
U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 1981. Nationwide Rivers Inventory - Final List of Rivers -
Virginia. U.S. Department of Interior, Northeast Regional Office, Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Van der Leeden, F., F. L. Troise, and D, K. Todd. 1990. The Water Encyclopedia. Lewis
Publishers. 808 p.
Vickers, A. 1993. The Energy Policy Act: Assessing its Impact on Utilities. Pages 56-62 in the
Journal of the American Water Works Association. August 1993.
Virginia Agricultural Extension Service (VAES). 1996a. Personal communication between Michael
Day (King William County and King & Queen County Extension Agent) and Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc. October 30,1996.
3114-017-319 R-17
-------
Virginia Agricultural Extension Service (VAES). 1996b. Personal communication between Michael
Day (King William County and King & Queen County Extension Agent) and Malcolm
Pimie, Inc. November 21,1996.
Virginia Agricultural Extension Service (VAES). 1996c. Personal communication between Paul
Davis (New Kent County Extension Agent) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. November 22,1996.
Virginia Agricultural Extension Service (VAES). 19964 Personal communication between Paul
Davis (New Kent County Extension Agent) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. December 20, 1996.
Virginia Agricultural Extension Service (VAES). 1997. Personal communication between Michael
Day (King William County and King & Queen County Extension Agent) and Malcolm
Pimie, Inc. January 2,1997.
Virginia Beach, City of. 1988. Lake Gaston Water Supply Project City of Virginia Beach.
Summary Document September 1988.
Virginia Beach, City of. 1994. Historical Information on Water Conservation and Water Demand
for Virginia Beach System. Department of Public Utilities. 14pp.
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 Pimie). 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 Pimie). 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 Pimie). January 8,1993.
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS). 1996. Personal
communication between John R. Tate (Office of Plant and Pest Services) and Malcolm
Pimie, Inc. November 22,1996.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 1989. The 1989 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 Pimie). 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 Pimie). March 5,1992.
31144)17-319 R-18
-------
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 Pimie). September 1,1992.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 1992. Personal communication
between Christopher Clampitt (Ecologist, Division of Natural Heritage) and Malcolm Pimie,
Inc. November 17,1992.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 1992. Personal communication
between Timothy J. O'Connell (Environmental Review Coordinator, Division of Natural
Heritage) and Malcolm Pimie, 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
I Soltys (Malcolm Pimie). January 5, 1993.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) 1996. Personal communication
between Beth Willis (Data Management Intern, Division of Natural Heritage) and Malcolm
Pimie, Inc. November 14,1996.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 1994. Letter from Joseph P. Hassell
(Environmental Program Manager, Office of Water Resources Management) to the District
Engineer of the USCOE - Norfolk District. April 19,1994.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 1995. Personal communication between
Diane Osbome (Environmental Engineer) and Peterson Associates. January 20,1995.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) 1996. Personal communication between
Debra Barnes (Environmental Engineer, Tidewater Regional Office) and Malcolm Pimie,
Inc. October 17,1996.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 1996. Personal communication between
Diane Cook (Environmental Engineer, Piedmont Regional Office) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
October 17,1996.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 1996. Personal communication between
Jean Gregory (Division of Scientific Research) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. November 25,
1996.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 1996. Letter from C. Stuart Torbeck
(Environmental Program Analyst) to Paul E. Peterson (Malcolm Pimie, Inc.). December 5,
1996.
Virignia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 1997. Personal communication between
Virginia Newton (Tidewater Regional Office) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. January 7,1997.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1989. Personal communication
between H. E. Kitchel (Research Associate) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. August 9,1989.
3114-017-319 R-19
-------
Virginia Department of Game ami Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1992. Letter from Steven Carter-
Lovcjoy (Wildlife Analyst) to Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pirnic). January 17,1992. r
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1992. Letter from Helen E. Kitchel
(Research Associate) to Andrea B. Terry (Malcolm Pimic). March 6,1992.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1992. Personal communication
between H. E. Kitchel (Research Associate) and Malcolm Pimic, Inc. August 11,1992.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1992. Personal communication
between Hank Gamer (Game Warden for King William County) and Malcolm Pirnic, Inc.
August 25,1992.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1992. Letter from Helen E. Kitchel
(Research Associate) to Kathryn A. Baskctte (Malcolm Pirrue). August 31,1992.
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. Dowiing
(District Fisheries Biologist) to Mariellen J. Soltys (Malcolm Pirnie). December 22, 1992.
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. Dowiing (District Fisheries Biologist) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. May 24,
1993.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1993. Letter from Dean L. Fowler
(Fisheries Biologist, VDGIF) to C.C. Crowder (Director, City of Newport News Department
of Public Utilities). June 18,1993. .
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1993. Letter from David C. Dowiing
(District Fisheries Biologist) to Paul E. Peterson (Malcolm Pirnie). June 23,1993.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1994. Personal communication
between Dana Bradshaw (Wildlife Biologist) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. August IS, 1994.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1995. Fish Passage Priority List.
May 1995.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1996. Personal communication
between Dean L. Fowler (Fisheries Biologist) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. July 19,1996.
3114-017-319 R-20
-------
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1996. Letter from Jeff Trollinger
(Research Specialist, VDGIF) to Kathryn Sweeney (Malcolm Pimie, Inc.). October 1,1996.
Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 1991. Engineering Description Sheet - King William
County Schools. March 8,1991.
Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 1991. Engineering DescriptionSheet - Town of West Point
June 24,1977.
Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 1993. Personal communication between Steve Shaw (Office
of Water Programs, East Central Environmental Engineering Field Office) and Malcolm
Pimie, Inc. April 6,1993,
Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 1993. Letter from Allen 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). 1995. Letter from Dixon W. Tucker, P.E. (District Engir
Office of Water Programs) to Christopher R. Schulz, P.E. (Camp Dresser & McKee).
October 25,1996.
Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 1996. Personal communication between Greg Beasley
(Inspector) and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. October 17,1996.
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 Pimie). 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 Pimie). December 21,
1993.
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. 1987. Virginia Statewide Building
Code. Commonwealth of Virginia.
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development 1994. Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code. Volume I - New Construction Code. Division of Building Regulation.
Effective April 1,1994.
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 Pimie, Inc. August 11,
1992.
3114-017-319 R-21
-------
Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (VDMR). 1976. The Mineral Industries and Materials in
County.
Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). 1990. Virginia Population Projections 2000. April 1990.
Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). 1993. Virginia Population Projections. 2010. June
1993.
Virginia General Assembly. 19%. Letter from Alan A. Diamonstein (Member of House of
Delegates) et al. to Thomas L. Hopkins (Executive Director, VDEQ). September 10, 1996.
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.
Virginia Office of the Governor. 1996. Letter from Becky Norton Dunlop (Secretary of Natural
Resources) to Colonel Robert H. Reardon, Jr. (District Engineer, USCOE, Norfolk District).
March 11, 1996.
Virginia Peninsula Economic Development Council (VPEDC). 1996. Letter from Jill K. Watson
(Research Coordinator) to Andrea Terry (Malcolm Pimie, Inc.). October 10, 1996.
Virginia Senate Finance Committee (VSFC). 1993. Report of the Special Subcommittee on Defense
Base Closure. December 1993.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1987a. Tributary Water Quality 1984-1985
Characterization Report. Basic Data Bulletin No. 75. September 1987.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1987b. Tributary Water Quality 1986
Characterization Report. November 1987.
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. Letter from Charles H. Martin (Engineer) to
James C. Dawson (Environmental Engineer, James City County Department of Development
Management). July 1988.
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.
3114-017-319 R-22
-------
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1988. Potomac Water Supply Plan. Planning Bulletin
No. 336.
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). 1989. Tributary Water Quality 1987 Characterization
Report. Basic Data Bulletin No. 77. June 1989.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1990. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 1990 -
305fl?> Report to USEPA and Congress. Information Bulletin 579.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1991. Tributary Water Quality 1988 Characterization
Report. Basic Data Bulletin No. 78.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1991. Virginia Revolving Load Fund - Program
Design Manual. July 1991.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1991. Personal communication between Joseph P.
Hassell (Environmental Program Manager, Office of Water Resources Management) and
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. December 12,1991.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1992. Personal communication between Diane
Osbome (Environmental Engineer, Piedmont Regional Office) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
June 29,1992.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1992. Letter from Stuart Torbeck (Environmental
Program Analyst) to Walter M. Altaian, m (J. K. Timmons & Associates, P.C.). July 29,
1992.
Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB). 1992 Virginia Water Quality Assessment for 1992 -
305fb"> 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.
Wagner, W. 1993. New Kent is Site of New Regional Jail. Published in the Richmond Times-
Dispatch. February 11,1993.
Ware, D. M. E. 1991. Small Whorled Pogonia. In: Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings
of a Symposium. Coordinated by K. Terwilliger, Nongame and Endangered Species
Program, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia, pp. 95-97.
3114-017-319 R-23
-------
Wasson, B. 19%. New Plant. Pamunkey Options Recommended. Published in the Richmond
Times Dispatch. January 23,1996.
Water Desalination Report 1996. Year in Review. Volume 32, Number 1. January 4,1996.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 19S5. Mammals of the Carolinas. Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carobna. 255pp.
Wescot, D. W. and R. S. Ayers. 1984. Water Quality Criteria. In: Irrigation with Reclaimed
Municipal Wastewaten a Guidance Manual. Edited by G. S. Pettygrove and T. Asano, State
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California.
Wilber, A. C., D. Hepwath, 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, 1985. Comprehensive Water System Study for the Cjtyof Williamsburp. Virginia.
April 1985.
Wiley & Wilson. 1991. Engineering Study of Big Bethel Water Plant. Project No. WEO-28-9P.
August 1991.
Williamsburg,Cityof. 1996, Draft Comprehensive Plan Update. Draft March 6,1996.
York County. 1996. Personal communication between Michael King (Comprehensive Planner) and
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. July 30,1996.
York County. 1997. Personal communication between Penny Morris (Planning Department) and
Malcolm Pimie, Inc. January 7,1997.
York County Department of Planning and Community Development. 1991. The County of York
Comorehensive Plan
3114-017-319 R-24
-------
INDEX
Subject
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Alternatives
Biological Resources
Clean Water Act
Conservation
Costs
Cultural Resources
Deficits
Demands
Endangered Species
Environmental Justice
Fish
Geology
Gloucester County
Groundwater
Historic Resources
Hydrology
Infrastructure
Invertebrates
King William County
Land Use
Mineral
Mitigation
Mud Hats
Municipal and Private Water Supplies
New Kent County
No Action
Noise
Parks
Permits
Physical Resources
Population Projections
Practicability
Preserves
Rate Structures
Recreation
Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Refuges
Regional Raw Water Study Group (RRWSG)
Safe Yield
Sanctuaries
Section 404
Sensitive Species
Socioeconomic Resources
Soil
State Government
Streamflow
Substrate
Report Section(s)
4.5,5
4.2,5
3.4
4.3,5
3.2
2.6
3.3.2,
1.4.4,
2.7,2
2.5,2
1.4.2,
5.10
4.3, 5
4.2, 5
5.9.4
4.2, 5
4.4, 5
4.2, 5
4.5, 5
4.3, 5
5.9.3
4.5, 5
4.2, 5,
3.7
4.3, 5,
4.5, 5.
5.9.2
3.4.31
4.5, 5,
4.5, 5,
1.5
4.2, 5,
2.6.3
3.3.2,
4.5, 5,
2.3.8
4.5, 5,
4.5, 5.
4.3, 5,
1.1,2.
3.3.3
4.3, 5.
3.2
4.3, 5.
4.5, 5.
4.2, 5.
2.8
4.2, 5.
4.2, 5.
.5
.2
3.4
4.4, 5.4
,9
,6, 2.9
4.3, 5.3
,3
,2
,2
4
.2
5
3
5
2
3
5
3.5
5
5
5
3
2
3114-017-319
1-1
-------
Supply 2.3
Threatened Species 4.3, 5.3
Vegetated Shallows 4.3, 5.3
Vegetation 4.3,5.3
Water Quality 1.4.3, 4.2, 5.2
West Point 5.9.5
Wetlands 1.4.1, 4.3, 5.3
Wildlife 4.3,5.3
3114-017-319 . 1-2
------- |