WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY
CONTROL STUDY
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN
VIRGINIA
(Salem Church Reservoir)
/J i;
BALTIMORE
\oev--i
CHARLOTTESVILLE
RICHMOND
VA._
N.C.
STUDY OF NEEDS AND VALUE OF STORAGE FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER OUALITY OFFICE
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA JANUARY 1971
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
REQUEST AND AUTHORITY 1-1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1-2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1-3
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS II-l
FINDINGS II-l
CONCLUSIONS H-2
III. ECONOMY III-l
IV. DESCRIPTION IV-1
THE AREA IV-1
RESERVOIR LOCATION IV-1
STREAM FLOW IV-2
STREAM QUALITY IV-2
V. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY V-l
PRESENT WATER USES V-l
Municipal V-l
Industrial V-2
FUTURE WATER REQUIREMENTS V-3
Municipal V-3
Industrial V-b
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
V. (continued)
WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS V-6
Desalinization Y-lb
Ground Water V-l6
Wastewater Recycling V-17
VI. WATER QUALITY CONTROL VI-1
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES VI-2
Present VI-2
Future VI-3
Water Quality Standards VT-5
Water Quality Evaluations VI-8
Organic Waste VI-9
Flow Regulation VI-10
Waste Dispersion Pipelines to the
Rappahannock Estuary VT-11
Waste Diversion Pipelines to the
Potomac River Vl-lb
Other Alternatives VI-15
Salinity Control VI-16
VII. BENEFITS VII-1
WATER SUPPLY VII-1
WATER QUALITY VII-6
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
REQUEST AND AUTHORITY
In a memorandum dated. October 17, 19&9, the Under Secretary of the
Department of the Interior directed the Commissioner, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration^/, and other Interior agencies to form
a Task Group to reexamine the free-flowing characteristics of the Rappa-
hannock River. The Task Force compiled available information and, by-
January, provided the Secretary's Office with a report (Phase i) advising
the Secretary that the Rappahannock River met the qualities necessary for
inclusion in the scenic river system and that the merits of maintaining
the River in a free-flowing state should be considered in any future
planning of this watershed.
In March 1970 the Task Force was directed by the Office of the
Secretary of the Interior to undertake Phase II of the study to provide
the additional information needed in order for the Department to determine
the proper position to take ont (l) the desirability of preserving the
Rappahannock River in a free-flowing condition; (2) construction of the
Salem Church Project; and (3) alternative means of meeting water supply
and water quality control, power, and commercial sport fisheries' needs
of the Basin.
1/ The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in April 1970 was
changed to the Federal Water Quality Administration and in December
1970 was changed to the Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Quality Office.
-------
1-2
In addition to the Department of the Interior directive to
restudy the Rappahannock River and the proposed Salem Church Project,
the Norfolk District Corps of Engineers, in a letter dated February 9,
1970, requested the Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA) to
reevaluate the -water supply and water quality control needs of the
Basin and provide this information by September 1970. The restudy by
the Corps was inititated as part of the preconstruction planning studies
of the Salem Church Reservoir Project as directed by the Public Works
Appropriation Act of 1970, PL 91~llUk
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
In order to comply -with the Interior Department directive and
the request of the Corps of Engineers,, the reevaluation of water supply
and water quality control needs was undertaken for the Rappahannock
River Basin. Specifically, emphasis was given to evaluating changes
in economic forecasts and improvements in was^e treatment and water
quality technology since the I96U report by the Public Health Service^/
2j The Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, provided the Norfolk District Corps of Engineers with an
evaluation of the water supply and water quality needs in the
Rappahannock River in its 196^ report to the Corps of Engineers.
The water supply portion of the 196^ study was made in accordance
•with the Memorandum of Agreement dated November U, 1958, between
the Department of the Army and the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare relative to the Water Supply Act of 1958? as amended
(U3 U0S0C. 3906)o The water quality control aspects were con-
sidered under authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U0S0C„ k-66 et seq. ). Responsibility for these
activities has since been transferred (effective May 10, 1966)
from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the
Department of the Interior by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966.
-------
1-3
or the changes that could materially affect project benefits re-
sulting from flow regulation from the proposed Salem Church Project
or other alternative means of eliminating or reducing pollution of
the Rappahannock River in the Fredericksburg area. The determination
of present and future -water supply needs and potential sources of
meeting these needs for Fredericksburg and other Basin communities
is also presented to indicate potential changes from needs presented
in the I96I+ Public Health Service report.
The findingss conclusions, and recommendations are presented
herein for consideration by the Department of the Interior Task Group
in their report to the Secretary of the Interior and for the Norfolk
District Corps of Engineers for their use in determining the needs
and value of the proposed Salem Church Project.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation and assistance of the following Federal,, State,
and local agencies are gratefully acknowledged;
U. S. Array Engineer District, Norfolk, Virginia
U. S. Geological Survey, Richmond, Virginia
U„ S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Boston, Massachusetts
U„ S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Raleigh, North Carolina
Uo S. Department of Agriculture, Richmond, Virginia
U„ S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Atlanta, Georgia
Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia
-------
1-4
Virginia Department of Water Resources, Richmond, Virginia
Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, Virginia
City of Fredericksburg, Virginia
Town of Warrenton, Virginia
Town of Culpeper, Virginia
American Viscose Division, FMC Corporation, Fredericksburg,
Virginia
-------
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS
1. The Norfolk District, U„ S. Army Corps of Engineers, is
considering construction of a multipurpose reservoir on the Rappahannock
River, approximately five miles upstream from the community of
Fredericksburg, Virginia.
2. The study encompasses all of the Rappahannock River Basin,
having a drainage area of about 2,715 square miles. The study area
includes all or portions of Fauquier, Culpeper, Madison, Orange, Essex,
Greene, King George, Middlesex, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Rappahannock,
Richmond, Caroline, and Westmoreland Counties.
3. Principal communities within the study area are Warrenton,
Culpeper, Madison, Orange, Remington, and Fredericksburg. The i960
population of these six communities was approximately 23,000 persons,
about lU,000 of whom were located in the City of Fredericksburg.
Warrenton and Culpeper are the next two large communities, with
populations of 3S500 and 2,400, respectively.
The major industry in the study area is the American Viscose
Division, FMC Corporation, at Fredericksburg, Virginia. Small industries
engaged in the manufacturing of wood products, wearing apparel, metal
products, and electrical equipment are scattered throughout the study
area.
5. The 1970 municipal and industrial water use in the study area
is estimated at 30.5 mgd, including cooling water.
-------
II-2
6. Estimates of treated and untreated municipal and industrial
¦wastes in 1970 indicate that more than U,000 pounds per day of 5-day
BOD were contributed to the -waters of the study area.
7. The Rappahannock River is intermittently degraded downstream
from the community of Remington which discharges primary treated wastes.
Chlorination of these wastes has not been practiced in the past, and.
high bacterial counts have been observed downstream from this discharge.
8. Localized degradation has been experienced in Mountain Run,
downstream from the waste discharge at Culpeper. During late summer,
extremely low-to-zero dissolved oxygen levels have been reported,
primarily because of very low stream flow in proportion to the secondary
treated waste flow.
9. Degradation of the Rappahannock River occurs downstream from
the City of Fredericksburg during low-flow periods as a result of
secondary wastes discharged by the City and. the FMC Corporation.
10. The Rappahannock River is an interstate stream throughout
the estuarine reaches. Both the interstate portion and the intrastate
upstream portion of the Basin have water quality standards established
to protect the uses of these waters. The primary uses to be preserved
in these waters are recreation, shellfish production, sport fishing,
and municipal and. industrial water supply.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The population of the study area is expected to increase to
1,1+00,000 by the year 2020, with the major growth occurring around
Fredericksburg3 and northward in Stafford and. Fauquier Counties.
-------
II-3
2. Both Fauquier County (the upper portion of which is outside
the Rappahannock River Basin) and adjacent Prince William County (also
outside the Basin) are expected to experience extremely high growth
rates in the future, with estimated populations of 165,000 and 795»000,
respectively, by year 2020.
3. Municipal water use in the study area is estimated to increase
from l+.U mgd. at present to 33 mgd by year 2020. Of this projected
quantity, Fredericksburg and adjacent Counties of Stafford and
Spotsylvania are expected to need about 19.5 mgd.
1+. Municipal water use outside of the Basin in the northern
portion of Fauquier County (exclusive of Warrenton) and Prince William
County for year 2020 is estimated at 9k mgd, a portion of which may be
met from the Rappahannock River Basin.
5. Industrial water use in the study area, exclusive of cooling
water, is projected to increase from the current 6.0 mgd to 39 mgd by
year 2020.
6. Investigation of the study area indicates that existing natural
stream flows9 presently developed ground water supplies, further
development of ground water resources, and small watershed, reservoirs
could adequately meet the projected municipal and industrial needs of
Madison, Orange, Culpeper, and Remington.
7. In the Fredericksburg area, industrial cooling and process
water is expected to continue to be met from the Rappahannock Estuary.
A detailed study is needed, to determine potential buildup of dissolved
solids in the Estuary as a result of process and municipal waste
-------
Il-b
discharges. If this possibility precludes the Estuary from being a
potential source in the future, additional development of fresh water
sources will have to be considered to meet the projected process needs
of 32 mgd by year 2020.
8. For municipal and industrial potable -water needs of the Fredericks-
burg area, natural stream flows (7-day, 25-year low flow approximately
12.9 mgd) are nearly adequate to meet the projected needs of 13-^ mgd for
2020. However, to prevent the further reduction of drought flows and to
ensure meeting these needs, as well as a portion of the potential needs of
10.5 mgd. for Stafford County and 2.7 mgd for Spotsylvania County, addi-
tional developmental measures for 13-7 mgd, were evaluated5 these included
ground water, small watershed reservoirs, desalinization, and electro-
dialysis as possible alternatives to the proposed large reservoir
project.
9. Preliminary estimates of subsurface conditions in the vicinity of
Fredericksburg indicate that ground water may be adequate to meet contin-
uous demands of 13-7 mgd. However, detailed, information was not avail-
able concerning the potential of ground water for meeting these needs
and, therefore, ground water was not considered in depth in this study.
It is expected, however, that conjunctive use of ground water and
surface water will be the most likely form of development in these areas.
10. Amortized, over a 100-year period, from 1980 to 2080 at 5 l/8
percent interest, the average annual cost of desalinization for meeting
the projected additional water supply needs of the Fredericksburg Water
Service Area and adjacent counties, excluding cooling water needs,
-------
II-5
would "be $6l6j700 (excluding distribution system). For reasons of
current high costs and. other available alternatives, desalinization
was not considered as an economical solution for meeting the needs of
the Fredericksburg area at the present time.
11. Another water supply alternative is electrodialysis applied
to a highly treated, sewage effluent from the Fredericksburg area.
The average annual cost associated with this alternative would be
$203,200 (excluding distribution system). This is based on an interest
rate of 5 l/8 percent over a 100-year amortization period. This
method of meeting projected water supply needs also proved to be more
expensive than the other alternatives at the present time.
12. The least costly alternative source of dependable municipal
water supply for the Fredericksburg Water Service Area and adjacent
counties, in the absence of the proposed Federal project, are stage-
constructed, single-purpose reservoirs. To meet the estimated
additional needs for year 2020 of approximately 13-7 mgd for the
Fredericksburg Water Service Area and adjacent counties will require
equivalent storage which will have an average annual cost of $58,000
(excluding distribution system), including operation, maintenance, and
amortization for 100 years at 5 l/8 percent interest.
13. The cost of meeting the maximum projected needs of 88 mgd. for
year 2020 for the northern portion of Fauquier County and all of Prince
William County in the absence of the proposed. Federal project is also
based on stage-constructed, single-purpose reservoirs. The average
annual cost of meeting this need is estimated at $325,U00 (exclusive
-------
II-6
of distribution system). It is expected that small watershed reservoirs
in conjunction -with greater use of ground water could meet a substantial
portion of the projected needs for the earlier years of the study.
However, if the proposed Salem Church Project is constructed, these
counties are expected to favor the Project to satisfy future needs;
otherwise, reservoir storage potential in the Upper Rappahannock River
Basin and/or Potomac Basin should be investigated.
Ik. If surface -water is used to meet the increasing water supply
needs of the Fredericksburg Water Service Area and adjacent counties,
the proposed Salem Church Project would have to provide storage to
meet a demand of approximately ih mgd through year 2020, excluding
industrial cooling and process water. Including industrial cooling
and process water, additional storage of 72 mgd and 32 mgd would be
needed, respectively, for these purposes.
15. The water supply benefits for the purpose of this report
were considered to be equal to the least costly alternative. Storage
in stage-constructed, single-purpose reservoirs to meet the projected
needs of the Fredericksburg Water Service Area and adjacent counties
would, therefore, yield average annual benefits of $58,000, with
storage fcr industrial cooling and process water being excluded.
For the northern portion of Fauquier County and all of Prince William
County, average annual benefits would be $325,400.
16. It is estimated that the municipal and industrial waste
loadings to the Rappahannock River by 2020 from the Fredericksburg
-------
II-7
area "will amount to about 10,200 pounds of BOD5, following secondary-
treatment with 85 percent BOD removal.
17. With the anticipated growth in the Fredericksburg area, the
residual waste loads after secondary treatment from these communities
¦will exceed the assured stream assimilative capacity of the Rappahannock
River by the year 1980. With secondary treatment provided at
Fredericksburg and FMC Corporation, flow requirements to maintain
criteria established by water quality standards are estimated to
range from approximately 505 cfs in 1980 to more than 2,500 cfs by
2020 during the critical summer and early fall months.
18. Flow regulation from upstream reservoir development could
meet the projected water quality management needs either alone
(assuming secondary treatment providing 85 percent BOD removal at
Fredericksburg and FMC Corporation) or in combination with increased
levels of BOD removal resulting from advanced waste treatment. If
secondary treatment is provided throughout the study periods,
approximately i+39>000 acre-feet of single-purpose reservoir storage
would be required. The annual cost to provide this storage is
approximately 170,000.
19. With single-purpose reservoir development, the least costly
alternative method for meeting water quality standards in the Rappa-
hannock River below Fredericksburg is advanced waste treatment
providing BOD removal of 90, 95, and 98 percent for years 1980, 2000,
and 2020, respectively, in combination with 3*+>000 acre-feet of
-------
II-8
reservoir storage for water quality control. The total annual cost
of this alternative is $1,515jOOO ($935,000 for treatment and $580,000
for storage) amortized over a 100-year period from 1980 to 2080 at
5 1/8 percent interest, including operation and maintenance cost.
20. The above storage-treatment combinations would not provide
the needed flows for increased oyster production through salinity
control—potentially another purpose of the proposed Federal project.
Streamflow needs estimated by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(formerly Bureau of Commercial Fisheries) and the Virginia Institute
of Marine Science would require flow releases from the proposed
reservoir of 1,700 cfs during the months of July through September to
alleviate oyster drills and increase oyster production downstream from
Towles Point. Reservoir storage to provide for salinity control during
these months is estimated at 185,000 acre-feet.
21. With a multipurpose reservoir project, the flows for salinity
control could result in a savings to water quality control by deferring
advanced waste treatment until after 1980 and by reducing the volume
of storage for water quality control. There still would be a need for
reservoir storage and flow releases in months other than July, August,
and September to maintain water quality standards. These latter
storage needs are estimated at 22,000 acre-feet (vs. the 3l+,000 acre-
feet above), costing $39°,000 annually. Associated, treatment levels
would now be 85, 90, and 95 percent for years 1980, 2000, and 2020,
respectively, having a total annual cost of $Ul6,700. Total cost for
water quality control, if salinity control storage is provided, is
$806,700 annually.
-------
H-9
22. Other alternatives considered were: (l) diversion of highly
treated wastes from the Fredericksburg area to the Potomac Estuary
(Zone 3); snd (2) piping the waste from the Fredericksburg area down-
stream and dispersing the wastes throughout the lower reaches of the
Rappahannock Estuary, For the first diversion alternative, the high
BOD and nutrient removal requirements for discharges to the Potomac
caused this alternative to be more costly than many of those considered
within the Rappahannock Basin. The second diversion alternative appears
to have merit, but the greater costs and the uncertainties of the
effects of the dispersed discharges on downstream water quality do
not permit serious consideration of this alternative without further
field investigations.
23. The least costly storage-treatment combinations given above
may not necessarily be the most desirable from the standpoint of
implementation. Although more costly than the treatment-storage
combination discussed above, another alternative providing waste
treatment of 95? 98, and 98 percent BOD removal for years 1980, 2000,
and 2020, respectively, in combination with 19,000 acre-feet of
single-purpose reservoir storage could be more desirable from the
implementation standpoint. This alternative would cost $1,88^,500
vs. $1,515>000 discussed above but would defer reservoir construction
for flow regulation purposes until year 2000 rather than I98O as
required by implementation of the least costly alternative.
-------
11-10
2k. For purpose of this report, the method used in assigning
benefits for water quality management is based on the assumption that
the benefits are at least equal to the least costly alternative of
achieving water quality standards„ Therefore, for single-purpose
reservoir development, the value of benefits from maintaining water
quality standards is estimated at $1,515,000.
25. Of the total benefits ($1,515>000) only $580,000 can be
ascribed to reservoir storage of 3^>000 acre-feet for flow regulation
purposes. Storage of 3^+jOOO acre-feet for water quality control would
constitute an annual savings of at least $580,000 in costs for advanced
waste treatment facilities.
26. For a multipurpose project with salinity control provided,
the value of benefits from maintaining water quality standards is
estimated at $806,700 annually; the $708,300 savings compared to the
$1,515jOOO alternative above is additional benefit to the salinity
control storage. Benefits to reservoir storage of 22,000 acre-feet
for this scheme of development are estimated at $390>000 annually.
27. The above values include, among other uses, the benefits
attributable to increased fishery and recreational uses of the Lower
Rappahannock Estuary. The annual benefits attributable to these
uses have been estimated by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to be $61,300 and $15,000, respectively.
28. In addition to benefits from increased recreation and
fishing uses gained by enhanced water quality, the present uses would
-------
11-11
be maintained, thereby preserving annual sport fishery values of
$1,1+50,000 and commercial finfishing values of $293>000 per year.
The existing recreational value that will be preserved is estimated
at 50,000 man-days, having an estimated value of $50,000.
29. In order to avoid damages to existing oyster production
between Bowlers Wharf and. Towles Point, any development of upstream
structures, such as proposed Salem Church Reservoir, must release or
pass flows equivalent to natural discharges of April or May as a
mitigation measure.
30. The primary beneficiaries from maintaining water quality
standards are the people, both within and outside the Basin, who use
the Rappahannock River for recreation, fishing, shellfish harvesting,
or who appreciate the value of a clean stream. Additional benefits are
attributable to water quality improvements as a result of aesthetic
enjoyment and the maintenance of property values in the vicinity of the
stream. These and other intangible benefits cannot be adequately
measured at this time.
31. Nutrients discharged by the upstream communities of Culpeper,
Warrenton, Remington, Orange, and Madison pose potential problems to
the recreational usage of the proposed Salem Church Reservoir. Post-
operative surveillance measures would be necessary to determine nutrient
levels in the proposed, reservoir and to initiate action toward provision
of adequate nutrient removal facilities at these communities if there
is indication of eutrophication attributable to these sources.
-------
11-12
32. There is a need for detailed project formulation by the
Interior agencies, Environmental Protection Agency, and the State agencies
in cooperation -with the Army Corps of Engineers, to determine limitations
on reservoir storage by the various project purposes in order to satisfy,
insofar as practicable, each agency's needs. Only after such a determi-
nation can the least costly and/or most desirable plan of action for the
development of the -water resources, as 'well as preservation of the
environmental qualities of the Rappahannock River Basin, be determined.
-------
III. ECONOMY
From i960 to 1969s counties in the Rappahannock River Area, as
a whole, grew at a rate lower than that of the Stated Whereas the
State's annual growth was approximately two percent, the region's rate
was about 1.5 percent0 The area around Fredericksburg grew fairly
rapidly with a rate of over two percent per annum, while the counties
below Fredericksburg experienced an annual increment of less than
one percent .it/
Much of the area is rural in character. In 1969 the Basin had a
population density of about kk persons per square mile, compared to the
State density of about 115. Fredericksburg is the only large City
within the Basin with an estimated population of about 15,000. Some of
the larger towns include W&rrenton, Culpeper, Orange, and Tappahannock.
Much of the future growth will be associated with the Fredericksburg
Area and those counties which border the Washington, D„ C.-Northern
Virginia Metropolitan Area^ Many of the counties will grow in response
3/ This data is based on whole county units. The Basin counties
included are Culpeper, Fauquier, Greene, Madisons Orange, Rappahannock,
Caroline, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Essex, King George, Lancaster,
Middlesex, Richmond, and Westmoreland, and the independent City of
Fredericksburg,
hj These growth rates are based upon U„ S„ Census Bureau data for i960
and estimates of the Bureau of Population and Economic Research,
University of Virginia, for 1969° Preliminary 1970 census data
indicate that the 1969 estimates may have been too high.
5/ The county population projections of the Division of State Planning
and Community Affairs, Governor's Office9 Commonwealth of Virginia,
were used as control totals throughout this section of the report.
These totals are higher than those of the National Planning Associa-
tion for the same area and somewhat higher than those of the Office
of Business Economics, U. S„ Department of Commerce for the York-
Rappahannock Water Resources Planning Area.
-------
Ill-2
to external economic developments, as contrasted to internal, and
these counties will experience large amounts of net out-commuting to
the labor markets in adjacent metropolitan areas. Population data
and projections for whole counties within the Rappahannock River
Basin are summarized in the following table„
Manufacturing industries account for more than 20 percent of
total employment within the Basin. The counties surrounding and west
of I^redericksburg are more heavily industrialized and diversified, than
those downstream. Important sources of employment are the textiles,
apparel, food products, and furniture industries. There is one large
chemical plant located at Fredericksburg. A fairly recent development
within the area has been the increase in employment within the higher-
wage metals and. machinery industries. The fisheries and seafood
processing industries are important sources of employment within the
downstream counties, as are lumbering and textiles. The per capita
income for the region was about 90 percent of the State level in 1967.
Although per capita income has increased, fairly rapidly in the downstream
counties within the past few years, it is still only about 75 percent of
the level for the State ^
Most of the growth in employment is expected to occur in the
noncommodity sectors, with burgeoning¦employment in services and trades
6/ Derived, from Personal Income Estimates: Virginia Counties and
Cities, i960, 19655 an^ 19675 a report of the Bureau of Population
and Economic Research, University of Virginia.
-------
III-3
Historic Population Data and Projections for
Rappahannock River Basin on a Whole County Basis
(in thousands)
County 1960^ 1969^/ 1980S/ 2000^/ 2020S/
Caroline
12.7
14.4
17.0
23.0
31.0
Culpeper
15.1
17.0
21.1
31. ^
46.6
Essex
6.7
7.6
9.2
12.4
16.7
Fauquier
24.1
29.0
34.4
75.4
165.2
Greene
4.7
5-5
7.0
10.0
14.3
King George
7.2
8.1
10.4
13.7
17.5
Lancaster
9.2
9.^
10.5
11.8
14.0
Madison
8.2
8.8
10.2
13.0
16.4
Middlesex
6.3
6.1
6.3
6.6
6.8
Orange
12.9
13.3
15.3
20.6
27.7
Rappahannock
5.^
5.5
6.1
6.7
Richmond
6.4
6.8
8.0
10.2
12.9
Spotsylvania
13.8
17.2
23.0
37.0
59-^
Stafford
16.9
23.3
32.6
60.0
110.0
Westmoreland.
11.0
12.4
15.0
19.7
25.3
Fredericksburg
13.6
15.0
18.3
23.2
29.5
(independent City)
TOTAL 174.2 199.2 243.8 37^.0 600.0
a/ U. So Census of Population.
b/ Bureau of Population and Economic Research estimates, University
of Virginia.
c/ Projections of Virginia Division of State Planning and Community
Affairs, Richmond, Virginia.
-------
Ili-U
which cater to residential communities„ It is not expected that the
region can accommodate any more significantly large water-using firms^
Agriculture should continue to be an important source of income in the
upper reaches of the Rappahannock, while fisheries and related
industries should continue to be important in the estuarine zone area.
Sightseeing and water-oriented recreation are expected to increase
significantly. The increase will be in response to greater demand from
nearby emerging and existing metropolitan areas.
The only major water-using industry is a chemical plant near '
Fredericksburg identified by SIC 2821. The employment has tended
sharply downward within the last 10 years, dropping from 2,500 in i960
to 1,650 in 1969^ Some recent data show employment of less than 1,200.
The index of production, which follows, represents projected increases'
in industrial output, with 1970 as the base. Employment levels within
the industry are not expected to increase dramatically, and may actually
experience farther decline„ Consequently, increased output is accounted
9/
for through projected increases in productivity per worker.—'
7/ The National Planning Association and the Virginia Division of State
' Flanning and Community Affairs indicate that the Rappahannock River
Basin area is noncompetitive for large water-using industries,
particularly chemicals.
8/ Industrial Directory of Virginia, Virginia State Chamber of Commerce,
Richmond, Virginia. Various years.
9/ The increases in productivity per worker were based upon projections
of the Office of Business Economics for the Richmond, Virginia
Economic Subregion.
-------
III-5
Production Index; Fredericksburg
1970 1980
100 150
2000
^00
2020
700
The projected increases in population will place additional demands
on the region's water resources for water supply and waste disposal. It
is anticipated, that the population increases will not be distributed
evenly throughout the study area but will be largely concentrated near
established urban centers. As an area becomes more intensely populated,
water and sewerage service will be extended to a greater percentage of
the total population.
The following table lists the number of people expected to be on
central water supply systems for various areas through 2020Prince
William County is included, although outside of the Basin, because this
county is expected to make demands upon the Rappahannock for water
supply.-ii/ The same is true for other counties, such as Stafford and
Fauquier, only parts of which are in the Rappahannock drainage area.
10/ The Virginia State Division of Water Resources (SDWR) has made
high, medium, and low water service projections for certain
counties within the Rappahannock Basin. The figures which appear
in this report are somewhat lower than those of SDWR's medium
series. The difference is believed to be in this report's
estimates of rural and. rural-nonfarm population.
In the case of Fauquier and. Prince William Counties, this report
uses water service projections which are equivalent to SDWR's low
series and which are in closer agreement with the population
projections .of the Virginia Division of State Planning and
Community Affairs.
11/
Prince William's population projections are as follows:
1980—200,700; 2000—1*00,000; and 2020—796,000.
-------
II1-6
Population Served, by Central Systems Within
the Fredericksburg Area
(in thousands)
Area 1980 2000 2020
Total
35-0
75-0
148.0
Fredericksburg City
18.0
23.0
30.0
Stafford County
10.0
ko.o
9^.0
Spotsylvania County
7.0
12.0
24.0
Other Important Water Service
Areas
(in thousands)
Culpeper Service Area
8.5
15.0
25.0
Warrenton Service Area
7.5
15.0
27.0
Orange Service Area
5.0
8.0
12.0
Prince William County (entire)
120.0
320.0
755.0
Fauquier County (except Warrenton)
10.0
30.0
89.O
-------
IV. DESCRIPTION
THE AREA
The Rappahannock River Basin is located in eastern Virginia and is
bounded on the north and west by the Potomac-Shenandoah River Basin, on
the east by the Chesapeake Bay, and on the south by the York River Basin.
The Rappahannock River Basin includes all of Culpeper, Lancaster,
Madison, Rappahannock, and Richmond Counties, and parts of Caroline,
Essex, Fauquier, Greene, King George, Middlesex, Orange, Spotsylvania,
Stafford, and Westmoreland Counties.
The headwaters of the Rappahannock River and its principal tributary,
the Rapidan River, lie in Greene, Madison, Rappahannock, and Fauquier
Counties in the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The River
flows approximately 185 miles in a southeasterly direction, entering
the Chesapeake Bay between Lancaster and Middlesex Counties. Tidal
effects extend up to the "Fall Line," a distance of about 110 miles, in
the vicinity of Fredericksburg. The total drainage area of the Basin
is 2,715 square miles.
RESERVOIR LOCATION
The site of the proposed Salem Church Project is on the Rappahannock
River, approximately 5.6 miles upstream from the City of Fredericksburg.
The proposed, dam structure would control approximately 1,600 square
miles of drainage area above the site.
-------
IV-2
STREAM FLOW
The U, S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains seven gaging stations
•within the Basin, in addition to the six maintained by the Virginia
Division of Water Resources. Flow records are available from October
1907 at a station located 3-8 miles above Fredericksburg. According to
the records, flows have varied from a minimum of 5 cfs to a maximum of
1^0,000 cfs with a mean discharge of 1,615 cfs.
Records for the above station and for selected gaging stations
upstream from the proposed reservoir are summarized in Table 1.
STREAM QUALITY
The Rappahannock River is intermittently degraded downstream from
the community of Remington, which discharges wastes from a primary
treatment plant. Chlorination of wastes has not been provided at this
community, and bacterial counts in the River of 11,000 (MPN) per 100 ml
have been observed.
Mountain Run, a small tributary to the Rappahannock, has experienced
localized degradation resulting from discharge from overloaded secondary
treatment facilities at Culpeper, Virginia. The secondary facilities
have been enlarged at this community; however, because of extremely
small flows of Mountain Run during summer months, continued degradation
can be expected unless flow augmentation from upstream Soil Conservation
Service Reservoirs or higher levels of treatment are provided.
Serious water quality problems have been experienced in the
Rappahannock downstream from Fredericksburg. The quality varies with
river flows and tides. For the lower range of flows (less than 500 cfs),
-------
TABLE 1
Stream Flow Characteristics*
Drainage Stream Flov 7-day Mean Low Flow
Area (gfs)~ Occurrence Interval
Location (sq. mi.) Mean Max. Min. 10 " 25
Rappahannock River
near Fredericksburg 1599 1615 1^0,000 5.0 50.0 20.0
Rappahannock River
near Warrenton 192 l8l 32,000 0.7 2.8 1.3
Rappahannock River
near Remington 616 628 90>000 2.8 10.0 U.3
Mountain Run
near Culpeper lU.7 1^-3 5s^0 0.09 0.2 0.1
Rapidan River
near Orange U65 *+91 58,100 2.1 16.0 6.0 est.
*Source: Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Water Resources,
Preliminary Vol. I, Rappahannock River Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Plan,
June 1970.
M
-------
IV-k
when fresh water inflow is not sufficient to .overcome tidal effects,
wastes accumulate in the Estuary creating-seriously degraded conditions.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations have approached zero, fish kills have
been reported, and the River becomes generally undesirable for most
legitimate uses. Sampling data (1965-I969) reported by the Virginia
State Water Control Board (Appendix A) indicates DO values as low as
1.0 mg/l (avg. U.3)j BOD as high as 3.6 mg/l (avg. 2.2), and bacterial
counts as high as U60,000/l00 ml (median count 21,000/100 ml) during
summer months at Station Buoy 1212 downstream from the Fredericksburg
area.
Sampling results by FWQA during the survey, from spring through
July 1970, indicate water quality to generally be suitable for most
uses, with values of DO as low as 2.75 nig/l (avg. 5-80) at Buoy 116,
and BOD^ as high as 1+.80 mg/l (avg. 2.29 mg/l) at Bernard Bar.
Bacteriological samples during the limited survey were not taken.
The Rappahannock River, in the vicinity of the proposed Salem
Church Reservoir site, is relatively free of pollution. The wastes
originating upstream at Warrenton, Culpeper, Orange, and Remington have
been assimilated by the time flows reach the proposed reservoir site
about 5.6 miles upstream from the City of Fredericksburg. Data at the
proposed reservoir site are not available, but at the Fall Line sampling
results by FWQA indicate average DO and BOD^ values of 8.53 fflg/l and
1.20 mg/l, respectively. This station is upstream from the waste sources
at Fredericksburg and should be indicative of existing water quality
conditions at the proposed reservoir site.
-------
V. MUNICIPAL AMD INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY
PRESENT WATER USES
Municipal
In order to facilitate analyses for water supply requirements and
¦waste loads in the Rappahannock River Basin, "-water service areas" were
established to coincide with geographic concentrations of municipalities
and industries. Under the water service area concept, such areas can
contain urbans suburban, and rural residential areas and commercial and
industrial complexes. These areas of concentrated use are expected to
act as nuclei for future growth in the study area. By including the
major municipalities and industries in one service area or another, all
of the significant water users and waste producers are encompassed in
the determination of water supply requirements and waste loads. While
at the present time a small percentage of the total population in any
water service area may be served by central water systems, past experience
indicates that with growth and development, an increasingly higher per-
centage of the population of water service areas can be expected to be
connected to central systems. For planning purposes, it is considered
reasonable that central systems will provide all water needs in the
water service areas by the year 2020.
For the purpose of this report, six water service areas were established;
these are given in Table 2, along with the source and quantity of water
used by each.
-------
V-2
TABLE 2
Present Municipal and Industrial Water Supply*
Source of Supply
Water Service
Population
Ground
Water
Surface
Water
Total
Area
Served
(mgd)
(mgd)
mgd
gpcd
Warrenton
5,000 est.
0.36
0.200
0.56
112
Remington
600 est.
0.06 est.
-
0.06 est.
100
Madison
500 est.
0.05 est.
-
0.05 est.
100
Orange
3,600
-
0.330
0.33
91
Culpeper
5,000 est.
-
0.86
0.86
172
Fred eri cksburg
18,620
2.bo
2.U0
129
American Viscose
Division (FMC)
26.1
26.1
Total
36.36
*Source: (l) Virginia Department of Health
(2) Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic
Development,'Division of Water Resources,
Preliminary Vol. I, Rappahannock River Basin
Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, June 1970
(3) Community Officials
Industrial
Generally, industry is classified as either wet or dry, depending
on the quantity of water required for operation. Wet industries
utilize a significant amount of water for operation, the actual quantity
varying with the plant location, size, availability of water, product
mix, recirculation, and the particular'industrial process. Dry industries
require little or no water in their operation. Examples of the "dry-type"
-------
v-3
industry found in the Basin includes the manufacturing of furniture and
other wood products, wearing apparel, metal products, and electrical
equipment„
The principal industry in the Basin, American Viscose Division of
FMC Corporation, is located immediately downstream from Fredericksburg
in Spotsylvania County„ The industry, one of the largest cellophane
plants in the -world, is the largest water-using industry in the Basin
and presently uses approximately 26 mgd from the Rappahannock River
(shown in Table 2). For" the purpose of this report, FMC is the only
industry for which future water supply and waste load projections will
be treated separately from municipal or community projections.
FUTURE WATER REQUIREMENTS
Municipal
It is believed that municipal water needs in the future will
fluctuate according to the economy, availability of water, size of the
municipality, living standards, and topography. Other" factors, such as
meter installation, degree of industrialization, and water quality, are
also expected to exert some influence on future municipal water
requirementSo
National water-use trends, as well as water and sewerage studies
by engineering consultants^/ for the studies in the Rappahannock River
12/ Source: Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Studies by engineering
consultants for the County Planning Commissions in
cooperation with FHA, USBA.
-------
v-U
Basin, suggested a 1.0 percent annual increase in per capita water use
was reasonable for planning purposes; therefore, a 1.0 percent annual
increase in per capita water use was used to project to the year 2020
municipal water requirements for all water service areas, except
Culpeper. The ommunity of Culpeper reflected a high per capita base
usage primarily because of numerous commercial and light industry
supplied by the central system. For this community, the per capita
usage was projected to 250 gpcd. and held"constant throughout the remainder
of the study period. For county projections, that is, residential areas
outside of the water service areas of Table 3 but which are expected to
be served, by central water systems, a base per capita figure of 75 gal/day-
was selected and was increased 1.0 percent per year to the year 2020. The
projected municipal water supply needs for the six water service areas are
presented in Table 3«
Industrial
Estimates of future industrial water use requirements are based on
projections of industrial productivity indices described earlier in the
economic section. Present industrial water consumption by the FMC
Corporation was obtained from inventories furnished by the Virginia
Division of Water Resources. This base water use was multiplied by the
13/ Source: Obtained, from a range of water consumption values given
for Northern Virginia in Comprehensive Water and Sewerage
Studies by engineering consultants for the County Planning
Commission in cooperation with FHA, USDA.
-------
TABLE 3
Projected Municipal Water Needs
1980 2000 2020
Water Service Population Population Population
Area
Served
mgd
gpcd
Served
mgd
gpcd
Served
mgd
gpcd
Warrenton
7,500
0.9
12b
15,000
2.3
151
27,000
5.0
184
Remington
800
0.1
110
1,200
0.2
135
2,000
0.3
164
Madison
800
0.1
110
1,100
0.2
135
1,600
0.3
164
Orange
5,000
0.5
100
8,000
1.0
123
12,000
1.8
150
Culpeper
8 9 500
1.6
190
15,000
3.5
232
25,000
6.2
250
Fred eri cksburg
20,000
2.8
lU2
23,000
4.0
174
30,000
6.4
212
42,600
6.0
63,300
11.2
97,600
20.0
County Systems
•within Basin*
Stafford County
10,000
0.8
82
40,000
3.9
97
94,000
10.5
112
Spotsylvania County
7,000
0.7
82
12,000
1.2
97
24,000
2.7
112
17,000
T3
52,000
571
118,000
13.2
Areas Outside
of Basin
Prince William County
120,000
9.9
82
320,000
31.0
97
755,000
84.0
112
(entire)
Fauquier County
10,000
0.8
82
30,000
2.9
97
89,000
10.0
112
(net of Warrenton)
9ZT0
130,000
10.7
350,000
33.9
844,000
*Portions of these needs could be provided through the Fredericksburg system. <.
I
\J1
-------
v-6
indices of productivity to obtain estimates of future -water requirements
for the years 1980, 2000, and 2020, The projected water usage for FMC
is presented in Table
TABLE 4
Projected Water Supply Needs for FMC
Present Future Weed
Usage 1Q80 2000 2020
Potable 1.0* 1.5 h 7
Process k,6 6.9 18 32
Cooling 20.5** 26.0 ^9 72
Total 26.1 3U.4 71 111
* Furnished by the Fredericksburg System (assumed to continue in future).
** Present recirculation ratio is 3 to,l..
Table 5 summarizes the total present and. projected water supply needs
for each of the water service areas of the Basin and potential county
needs which may be satisfied, outside of the Basin from the Rappahannock
River. The table also presents the estimated 7-day, 25-year low flow of
the stream nearest each service area to give some indication as to the
potential of meeting future needs from surface water sources.
WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS
The Fredericksburg Water Service Area, including FMC, has the largest
water supply need in the Rappahannock River Basin and will require
additional resource development to meet the projected needs. Alternatives
-------
TABLE 5
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Needs
Water Service
Area
Warrenton
Remington
Madison
Orange
Culpeper
Fred eri eksburg
American Viscose
Division, FMC
Present Water
Need s (mgd,)
0.56
0.06
0.05
0.3
1.0 .
3 .U2/
25. W
H.6&
Projected Water
Supply Needs (mgd)
1980-^-—2000 2020
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.6 ,
32.9^/
6.9^
2.3
0.2
0.2
1.0
3'5«/
8.0&/
Natural Stream Flow
(min. 7-day flow
once in 25 yrs.)
5.0
0.3
0.3
1.8
6.2 ,
13. W
River
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
White Oak Run
Rapidsn River
Mountain Run
Rappahannock
cfs
1.3
M
6.0 est.
0.03
20.0
57-0^ lOlf.oS/
18.0& 32.0&
Rappahannock 20.0
mgd_
0.8k
2.78
3.87
0.02
12.9
12.9
Counties within
the Basin
Stafford County
(90% projected population)
0.8
3.9 10„5 (Potential Source - Rappahannock
River Basin)
Spotsylvania County
(50$ projected population)
0.7
1.2
2.7
Areas outside
of Basin
Prince William County
(Entire)
9-9
31.0 84.0
(Potential Source
River Basin)
- Rappahannock
Fauquier County
(Net of Warrenton)
0.8
2.9 10.0
c
I
-J
a/ Includes present and projected potable -water needs for FMC.
Iy Includes cooling water,
c/ Excludes cooling water.
-------
V-8
considered to meet these projected needs include greater use of ground
water, surface water, reservoirs., 'wastewater recycling, and desalinization.
In this section of the report alternatives are also discussed for com-
munities in the Upper Basin expected to experience growth in population
and. for the northern portion of Fauquier County and all of Prince William
County. Although outside of the Rappahannock River Basin, these latter
two counties have indicated to the Corps of Engineers a desire to acquire
storage potential from the proposed Salem Church Project.
Small reservoir development is possible on many of the tributaries
to the Rappahannock River, according to information obtained from the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation -Service; and reports
of Martin, Clifford; and Associates, an engineering and consulting firm
in Stafford, Virginia. The firm has prepared, in cooperation with the
U„ S. Department of-Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, comprehen-
sive plans for water and sewerage facilities for counties in the
Rappahannock River Basin; these are the basis for the following discussions
of small reservoir potential of meeting future water- supply needs.
The community of Culpeper is served by a Soil Conservation Service
reservoir located upstream from the community on Mountain Run. This
impoundment has a water supply capacity of 500 acre-feet. The projected
water supply needs by year 2020 are estimated at 6.2 mgd. The Soil
Conservation Service has proposed two additional impoundments on Mountain
Run. Ball, Muddy, and Cedar Runs also have potential for small reservoir
development to meet the future water supply needs for the Culpeper Water
Service Area.
-------
v-9
The Town of Orange obtains its 'water supply from the Rapidan River.
Projected water supply needs for the Orange Water Service Area are
1.8 mgd by year 2020. The estimated natural stream flow, based, on a
minimum 7-day low flow occurring once in 25 years of 3-87 mgd in
Rapidan River, should be more than adequate to meet the projected needs
of the Orange Water Service Area. There is a potential for development
of small reservoirs on tributaries of the Robinson River, a tributary
to the Rapidan River; these should, more than ensure the adequacy of
meeting the future needs of Orange if natural stream flows of the
Rapidan River require flow augmentation.
Water supplies for the Madison Water Service Area are obtained from
the Soil Conservation Service reservoir on White Oak Run. This impound-
ment has a water supply design capacity of 500 acre-feet which should be
adequate to meet needs well into the future. The Soil Conservation
Service has indicated many sites are available for development which
would be more than adequate to meet projected needs of the Madison
Water Service Area.
As indicated by Table 5, natural stream flow in the Rappahannock
River is adequate to satisfy future needs for the Remington Water Service
Area. The estimated, natural stream flow in the Rappahannock River near
Remington, minimum 7-day flow once in 25 years, is estimated at 2.78 mgd;
while the needs for this service area would be approximately 0.33 mgd.
In addition, the Soil Conservation Service has plans for small multipurpose
projects in the Hazel River Watershed near the Town of Remington.
-------
V-10
The Town of Warrenton presently obtains its -water from the Potomac
River Basin and discharges its wastes to the Rappahannock River Basin.
The present source is expected to serve the near-future needs; but, to
ensure meeting the projected needs of the future, an additional source
is needed. The community has expressed, its desire to obtain -water from
the Rappahannock River Basin in the future and has indicated to the
Corps of Engineers its -willingness to participate in -water resource
development in the Basin.
The present water needs of 0„56 mgd for the Town of Warrenton are
expected to increase to 5.0 mgd by the year 2020 (see Table 5)° Utiliza-
tion of the estimated natural stream flow, minimum 7-day flow once in
25 years, of 0.8^ mgd in the Rappahannock River at Warrenton would not
alone satisfy the projected needs. The Soil Conservation Service
advises that a field survey is underway to formulate plans for an
impoundment on Carters Run. Preliminary plans provide an estimated
7,500 acre-feet of storage for water supply purposes. Development of
this resource would help satisfy near-future needs, but not long-range
needs.
Also, because of the nearness to the Washington Metropolitan Area,
much of the northern portion of Fauquier County and all of Prince
William County are expected to experience considerable growth. As shown
in Table 3, these counties, although outside of the Rappahannock Basin,
might be expected to rely more on the Rappahannock River as a source
rather than the Potomac Basin because of the existing and ever-increasing
pressures being placed on the Potomac for water supply.
-------
V-ll
At present, both Fauquier and Prince William. Counties express
interest in utilizing the water resources of the Rappahannock River
Basin for future water supply needs. Fauquier_County has provided
the Corps of Engineers with a copy of their latest comprehensive plan.
This plan indicates a need for 26.0 ragd at year 2020. Prince William
County has indicated to the Corps of Engineers a desire to acquire
70 mgd storage potential from the Rappahannock River Basin.
The Soil Conservation Service advises that, to date, no studies
have been initiated on potential sites for small watershed, reservoirs
in Prince William County, and only limited surveys have been made in
Fauquier County.
For the Fredericksburg Water Service Area? natural stream flow,
as shown by Table 5> should be nearly adequate to satisfy the projected
municipal and industrial potable water needs of 13.^ mgd. An additional
degree of protection will be provided, by a small reservoir presently
being constructed on Motts Run. This reservoir will provide a safe water
supply draft of 3»5 ragd when completed. Other reservoirs were considered
in the 1967 report by Martin, Clifford, and Associates for the Sub-
committee for Water Impoundment and Land. Acquisition, Virginia State
Legislature. In addition to the Motts Run reservoir, this engineering
study recommended construction of two other reservoirs on Horse Pen and
Hunting Runs. These two reservoirs would provide safe drafts of 1A3
and I.75 mgd, respectively. The combined total of 6.68 mgd for the three
reservoirs would provide flow augmentation in the Rappahannock River to
-------
V-12
meet the municipal water supply needs of the City of Fredericksburg during
drought years. This supply, however, would, not be sufficient to meet the
anticipated industrial water supply needs in the area. Therefore,
additional sources will have to be developed, to meet future needs of the
Fredericksburg area if the cooling and./or process water needs are to be
met by fresh water sources. However, FMC presently obtains both the
cooling water and process water below the Fall Line from the Estuary, and
it is expected that increased use of the Estuaxy is possible in the future.
This available resource should be more than adequate to satisfy the projected
process and cooling water needs. The possibility of dissolved solids
buildup as a result of the process waste discharge and the City's discharge
may lessen the desirability of the Estuary as a source for process water
in the future. However, flow regulation, as provided for quality and/or
salinity control (discussed in later section of the report) by upstream
reservoirs, would tend, to offset this possibility. Without flow regula-
tion potential, development of fresh water sources may become the more
desirable alternative in the future. A detailed investigation is needed
to determine the most desirable of alternatives for meeting the industrial
process water needs.
In addition to the Fredericksburg Water Service Area, portions of
Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties may rely on the Rappahannock River for
future water supply. For the purpose of this report, it is estimated that
up to 90 percent of the population of Stafford County and as much as
50 percent of the population of Spotsylvania County might be. served by
the Rappahannock River. Portions of the estimated needs for year 2020
-------
V-13
of 10.5 mgd for Stafford County and 2.7 mgd for Spotsylvania County
could be provided through expansion of the..Fredericksburg system,
although in this report they are treated as individual centralized
systems, for the respective counties.
Stafford County has developed a water supply reservoir on Aquia
Creek and is presently constructing one on Potomac Creek. Aquia Creek
reservoir has a water supply storage capacity of 3S000 acre-feet and a
maximum safe yield of 2.8 mgd. This system is expected to serve areas
along U. S. Route 1 from Stafford Courthouse to Boswell's Corner and on
¦State Route 6l0 from U. S. Route 1 to Garrisonville. The Potomac Creek
reservoir is a Soil Conservation Service project, constructed under
their authority of Public Law 566; when completed, it will provide
3,000 acre-feet of storage and a maximum safe yield of 3*0 mgd. It is
intended to serve the southern part of Stafford County. Therefore, of
the 10.5 mgd projected for Stafford County, k.J mgd might come from the
Rappahannock River.
Spotsylvania County, in conjunction with the Soil Conservation
Service, has plans for construction of a reservoir on the Ni River near
Spotsylvania Courthouse. This proposed reservoir would have available
for water supply use approximately 3j000 acre-feet of water with a
maximum safe yield of U.8l mgd„* It would service an area from Spotsyl-
vania Courthouse to the City of Fredericksburg, and should be adequate
to meet the projected needs as given in Table 5*
* More recent estimates furnished by the Virginia Division of Water
Resources indicate the safe yield for water supply is.about 1 mgd
if releases are provided to maintain stream flows for quality
control.
-------
V-lk
In its studies of the two counties, Martin, Clifford, and. Associates
'J*
has identified a number of sites in Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties as
potential sites for the development of small water resource projects to
satisfy the future water supply needs of these two counties. Therefore,
it appears that there are many small watershed sites available for
meeting future water supply needs in and around Fredericksburg and ad-
jacent counties; however, considerable planning will be necessary before
detailed plans can be formulated.
Besides small watershed reservoirs to meet future water supply needs,
ground water, wastewater recycling, and desalinization were considered as
possible alternatives.
Desalinization
Ion exchange, reverse osmosis, distillation, electrodialysis, freezing,
and electrochemical treatment are methods being explored for reducing the
mineral content of municipal wastewater to an acceptable level. Of these
methods, three are currently receiving support as desalting processes
for commercial application.
Distillation is the process in which water containing salt is boiled
and the fresh water vapor condensed. Distillation is used exclusively
in the desalting of sea water which contains approximately 35,000 ppm
dissolved solids. Even when combined with electric power generation,
the cost of this process is about 50 cents per thousand gallons.
Crystallization is the method in which ice crystals are formed in a
saline solution and are then washed and melted to obtain fresh water.
Like distillation, its primary application is to sea water desalting.
-------
v-15
The third method of demineralization involves membrane processes.
Electrodialysis uses electricity to pull the salt ions out of solution,
¦whereas reverse osmosis forces fresh water through a membrane leaving
salt behind. These processes are used for the desalting of brackish
waters in the general range of 2,000 to 10,000 ppm of total dissolved
solids.
The present state-of-the-art of desalinization is such that the
membrane processes are receiving more consideration as possible water
supply sources where water is extremely scarce. For other areas where
¦water is more plentiful but needs better management, desalinization is
not as competitive with other practical means of meeting water supply
needs at the present time.
According to reports of the Office of Saline Water, forecases of
product water costs of about 27 cents per 1,000 gallons for present
technology of reverse osmosis and 19 cents per 1,000 gallons for
projected technology appear realistic for plants of 50 mgd capacity.
The product water cost for plants using the electrodialysis processes
with the highest salinity water ranged from 57 cents to 32 cents per
1,000 gallons for capacities of 1 to 50 mgd, respectivelyThe
process utilizing desalinization membrane techniques was selected as a
possible alternative for meeting the projected water supply needs of
the Fredericksburg area. The feasibility of this alternative, when
compared with others, is given in a later section of this report.
14/ Source: Research and Development Progress Reports Nos. 488 and
509, Office of Saline Water, U„ S. Department of the
Interior.
-------
v-i6
Ground Water
The USGS advises that in terms of the development of ground water
supplies, quantities adequate for domestic and. many farm uses can be
obtained from wells in most of the Upper Rappahannock River Basin above
the City of Fredericksburg, and. locally from springs in much of the
Upper Basin, but conditions suitable for the development of larger
supplies are more localized. Most wells and springs will range in yields
from up to a few gallons per minute,to a maximum well yield being on the
order of 100 gallons per minute. Generally, the recharge rate is small
because topography and-geological conditions contribute to rapid runoff.
In the Lower Basin below Fredericksburg, maximum well yield is
higher than in the Upper Basin of the Rappahannock River. However, the
USGS advised that the ground water supplies in the Lower Basin could
not sustain the large needs projected for this area, particularly the
estimated 32 mgd process water needs for the Fredericksburg Water Service
Area by the year 2020. The availability of a potential water source for
artificial recharge of the ground, water aquifers to provide a continuous
ground water supply for the Fredericksburg area is not present. It is
expected, however, that in combination with other water sources it may
be possible to supply the additional future municipal and industrial
potable water needs of Fredericksburg and adjacent counties from ground,
water sources, but sufficient data are not available to adequately assess
this potential. It is expected, however, that for these areas, conjunctive
uses of both ground water and surface water will constitute the most likely
means of development.
-------
V-17
Wastewater Recycling
In order to obtain the higher water quality standards being
promulgated by the Virginia State Water Control Board, communities in
the Rappahannock River Basin are required to provide high degrees of
wastewater removal. Of the various wastewater treatment alternatives,
as discussed in the water quality section of this report, most water
quality management schemes call for advanced waste treatment. For
example, for the Fredericksburg area, one treatment scheme would require
90, 95, and 98 percent removal of BOD^ at stage-constructed, advanced
waste treatment plants at years 1980, 2000, and 2020, respectively,
during the 100-year period of analysis with subsequent nutrient removal.
The highly treated effluent obtained from this plan would be amenable to
further purification by electrodialysis for recycling and reuse for
domestic water supply purposes. Cost estimates for-wastewater recycling
for the Fredericksburg area are discussed und.er the water supply benefits
section of this report.
-------
VI. WATER QUALITY" CONTROL
Continuing, control of water quality is necessary if the beneficial
uses of the water resources of the Rappahannock Basin are to be main-
tained o Without adequate control measures, water quality will be degraded
by the wastes normally associated, with economic growth and will, adversely
affect recreation, fish and wildlife, and general aesthetics of area
streams. By meeting water quality requirements, waste treatment and flow
regulation will assure that the area streams can serve a variety of uses.
As a result of better water quality, economic benefits often accrue from
less costly treatment for water supplies; from greater opportunity for
water-based recreation; from less corrosion of navigation equipment,
water structuresj and industrial equipment; and, from improvements in
real estate values.
A stream normally assimilates a limited amount of organic waste
through natural biological processes. When the waste load discharged to
a stream exceeds the assimilative capacity, additional treatment is
needed to maintain its quality. If the water quality remains degraded
after conventionally accepted waste treatment (at present generally con-
sidered to be a minimum of well operated secondary treatment) has been
applied, then additional stream flow and/or waste treatment requirements
can be used to ensure that a "Suitable water quality will be maintained
in the stream.
-------
VI-2
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Present
In order to facilitate analyses of the water quality control
requirements, "sewer service areas" were established to define waste
load or discharge points". These sewer service areas generally coincide
with the water service areas presented in the previous section, with
the exception that the population served by sewers may not be as great
as the-number served, by the water service areas; i.e., sewers have not
been extended to all areas served by the water systems. The six sewer
service areas for the purposes of this report are Warrenton, Remington,
Culpeper, Orange, Madison, and Fredericksburg. These service areas
(•including FMC) are summarized in Table 6.
TABLE 6
Municipal and Industrial Wastes
Sewer Estimated. Present Discharges
Service Population
Area Served
Waste Flow,
(nysd)
Type
Treatment
BODjj. lbs/day
Iq68*-iq6q
Warrenton
If,000
0.58
secondary
22l+
Remington
600
0.06
primary
71
Madison
500
0.05
13
Orange
3,100
0.33
secondary
79
Culpeper
^,500
O.92
secondary
2k3
Fredericksburg
15,350
2.38
secondary
1,100
American Viscose
Division, FMC
Process
5°9
secondary
91+0
Cooling
19.5
none '
1,1*00
*Present discharges
obtained, from available inventories and from
"Preliminary Vol. 1, Rappahannock River Basin Comprehensive River
Basin Plan, 'Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic
Development, Division of Water Resources
-------
vi-3
Future
In projecting waste loadings to the year 2020, it is assumed that
adequate treatment -will be provided at each -waste source prior to
discharge into a stream. For purpose of this report, adequate treatment
is defined as secondary treatment with 85 percent reduction in BOD.
Organic "wastes produced generally will be amenable to reduction in
existing biological waste treatment processes. Greater reductions can
be obtained on wastes actually reaching secondary treatment facilities,
but fluctuations or variations in treatment efficiency often result in
an overall average reduction in BOD of approximately 85 percent.
Based upon present waste strengths with allowances for additional
light to medium industrial contributions to the central systems, waste
loads from domestic sources are estimated to be equivalent to 0.21, 0.23,
and, 0.25 pounds of BOD5 per person per day for 1980, 2000, and 2020,
respectively. Industrial waste discharges are much more difficult to
appraise. Even in the manufacture of a single product, the use of
different industrial techniques and processing equipment may result in
wide variation in quantity and strength of wastes. For FMC at Freder-
icksburg, future wastes were estimated, using the projected productivity
indices and applying these-to present discharge data obtained from the
industry, as provided to the FWQA by the Virginia State Water Control
Board.
The estimated raw waste loadings for each of the seven sewer service
areas (including EMC) are summarized in Table 7.
-------
TABLE 7
Projected Municipal and Industrial Wastes
Sevier
1980
2000
2020
Service
Population
Waste Flow
BODc
Population
Waste Flow
BODc
Population
Waste Flow
BOD5
Area
Served
(mgd)
(lbs)
Served
(mgd)
(lbs)
Served
(mgd)
(lbs,
Warrenton
6,800
0.81*
1U30
lU,200
2.15
3260
27,000
U.97
6750
Remington
720
0.08
150
1,150
0.15
2o5
2,000
0.33
500
Madison
720
0.08
150
1,050
O.lU
2k0
1,600
0.26
U00
Orange
k,500
0.U5
9^5
7,600
0.93
1750
12,000
1.80
3000
Culpeper
7,650
1.U6
1610
1^,200
3.32
3270
25,000
6.25
6250
Fredericksburg
18,000
2.56
3780
22,000
3.90
5060
30,000
6.35
7500
American Viscose
Process
9
7200
Process
23
19200
Process
37
33600
Div. (FMC Corp.)
Cooling
25*
2100
Cooling
35*
5600
Cooling
65*
98OO
(~Assumes 5-10$ evaporative loss)
Stafford County*
5,000
O.Ul
1250
20,000
1.9^
5000
1+7,000
5.25
11800
Spotsylvania County** 6,300
0.61
1320
10,800
1.05
2U80
22,000
2.1+6
5500
~Assumes 50$ of population served by central water supply system will be served by a
central sewage system to Rappahannock River.
~~Assumes 90$ of population served by central water supply system served by a central
sewage system to Rappahannock River.
-------
Vl-5
The population of the sewer service areas of Table 7 is assumed to
be equal to the water service areas by 2020; i.e., sewers will have been
extended to all facilities and areas served, by central water systems for
each of the seven communities. For Spotsylvania County, waste from only
90 percent of the population served by the central water system is
assumed to return to the Rappahannock River; the remaining 10 percent
is assumed to be discharged to individual disposal systems or diverted
to tributaries of the Mattaponi River Basin as suggested in an engineering
consultant' s study of water and sewerage facilities for Spotsylviania
County.
For Stafford County, the assumption was made that waste from
50 percent of the population served by the central water system would
be returned, to the Rappahannock River; the remaining 50 percent would
be discharged to individual disposal systems or be discharged to treat-
ment facilities in one or more of the northern river basins in Stafford
County, such as Aquia, Accakeen, and/or Potomac Creek Basins.i^/
Water Quality Standards
Increased use of water resulting from population growth combined
with increased per capita consumption, expanding industrial requirements,
protection and enhancement of shellfish production areas, and the mounting
emphasis placed on recreational use of surface waters all contribute to
15/ Source: Comprehensive Water" and Sewerage Studies by engineering
consultants for the County Planning Commission in
cooperation with FHA, USDA0
-------
vi-6
the importance of maintaining water quality so as to permit maximum
utilization of vater resources. Water quality standards provide an ob-
jective basis for the planning of water resource programs so that water
will be maintained at a quality suitable for anticipated beneficial
uses.
Water quality standards considered necessary to maintain desired
uses may be met by setting increasingly stringent limitations on concen-
trations and volumes of all waste effluents discharged to a stream or
by limiting the concentrations of waste in the stream itself by a
combination of treatment and regulation of the flow in the stream.
In Virginia, the State Water Control. Board utilizes stream classi-
fication and assigns quality standards to be maintained for each class.
Classifications are established according to "best usage" which is
defined as the usage requiring the highest level of quality considered
to be in the best public interest for the intended areas.
Water quality standards for the entire Rappahannock River Basin
were revised in 1970 and adopted by the Virginia State Water Control
Board. Interstate standards apply to the tidal portion of the river
below Fredericksburg; above Fredericksburg intrastate standards apply
to the river and its tributaries. These standards apply to stream flows
equal to or exceeding the 7-day low flow to be expected once on 10 years.
The following classes have been adopted to protect the principal
uses given for each zone.
-------
Location
VI-7
Class Principal Uses
Rappahannock Estuary-
Main Stem above" Fredericksburg
Rapidan River and most other
tributaries
II B Fishing, swimming,
shellfish
III B Fishing, swimming
lushing, secondary
III A contact recreation
In addition, the segment of the River immediately above Fredericks-
burg is used for public water supply.
The criteria for various stream quality parameters for each class
given above are as follows:
1. Dissolved oxygen -
all classes . 0 mg/l minimum
5.0 mg/l daily average
2. pH - all classes 6.0 - 8.5
3. Temperature -
Class II B 1.5° F* rise
June, July, August
U° F. rise
September-May
Class III A &.III B . 5° F. rise; 90° F. max.
Standards also provide for a max. of 3° F., heat
rise in lakes outside of an allowable mixing zone.
h. Fecal coliforms -
Class II B Not to exceed a 30-day log
mean of 200/100 ml.
Not over 10% of samples to
exceed kOO/lOO ml.
Class III A Not to exceed a 30-day log
mean of 1000/100 ml.
Not over 10% of samples to
exceed 2000/100 ml.
-------
vi-8
In the Estuary, where shellfish beds are present, the bacterio-
logical standards adopted by the U. S. Public Health Service^/ are
applicable. These standards specify not over 70 total coliforms per
100 ml in shellfish growing waters.
Standards also give maximum allowable concentrations of chemicals
and radioactive substances (ref. Water Quality Standards, Virginia State
Water Control Board, Commonwealth of Virginia).
Water Quality Evaluations
Present water quality and stream uses were evaluated for the
Rappahannock River Basin, and it was determined that dissolved oxygen
and coliform bacteria were generally the most critical quality standards
to be maintained to protect present and future uses of the streams and of
the Upper Estuary. In the Lower Rappahannock Estuary downstream from
Towles Point, salinity control becomes equally important in order to
limit the spread of predators, such as oyster drills and MSX virus,
reaching the oyster beds.
The coliform "bacteria can be controlled by adequate disinfection of
wastes prior to discharge, but to maintain the DO standards, waste
treatment (either secondary or greater), flow regulation, waste diver-
sion, or combinations of the above will be necessary in areas where the
dissolved oxygen becomes deficient due to waste discharges. Salinity
control, however, may be accomplished only by hydrologic changes. The
16/ As contained in National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of
Operations, Part K, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas, 1965
Revision, U. S. Public Health Service.
-------
VI-9
following discussion treats the organic wastes and salinity control as
two separate considerations with needs and control measures evaluated
independently of the other,,
Organic Wastes
In order to evaluate the potential needs, for water quality control
from the proposed Salem Church Project and alternatives to the project,
the present study was limited to .the reaches downstream from the proposed
reservoir.
All of the communities., except Fredericksburg, in Table 7 are
located above the proposed Salem Church Project and would not benefit
from reservoir storage.unless flows were recycled to these headwater
areas. For these upstream communities it is expected that where greater
than secondary treatment is needed, either advanced waste treatment or
flow releases from small watershed impoundments or both will be con-
sidered. This higher treatment level, however, may only be necessary
for the communities of Warrenton and Culpeper unless nutrient's threaten
to cause eutrophication of the proposed Salem Church Reservoir. In
this case, nutrient removal facilities would likely be necessary at all
upstream communities.
In the evaluation of needs and potential benefits resulting from
water quality management measures, the following alternatives were
investigated;
1. All water quality control storage; i.e., secondary treatment
supplemented by flow regulation from the proposed reservoir.
-------
VI-10
2. Advanced waste treatment; i.e., 90 "to 98 percent BOD removal,
with and/or -without flow regulation,
3. Pipeline dispersing wastes throughout selected reaches of the
Rappahannock Estuary,
4. Pipeline diverting waste to Potomac River.
Flow Regulation
The Rappahannock River downstream, from the Reservoir, particularly
the Fredericksburg area and beyond, could benefit from low flow releases
from the proposed Salem Church Project, Consequently, the water quality
evaluations were confined to the Estuary downstream from Fredericksburg.
In order to evaluate the effects of the waste discharges on the
Rappahannock Estuary for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 above, an estuarine
simulation model employing the Streeter-Phelps formulation of the
oxygen-sag equation was -utilized. The model was developed from DO and
BOD profiles and other tidal data gathered during a field survey by FWQA
from April through July 1970s and from inventory and other data furnished
by the Virginia State Water Control Board., Virginia Division of Water
Resourcess Virginia Department of Health, Corps of Engineers, and
community and industrial officials.
By simulating in the model conditions observed in the stream, the
model was "fitted" to the Rappahannock Estuary. Water quality flow
requirements for assimilating the future waste loadings (Table 7)5
while maintaining an average DO level of 5 mg/l during low stream flow con-
ditions, were determined, for the waste treatment efficiencies of 85, 90s
95, and. 98 percent for the Fredericksburg Sewer Service Area; these
-------
VIT11
results are summarized in Table 8 for alternatives 1 through 3. Hydro-
logical analyses were analyzed by the Corps of Engineers to determine
the potential and, costs of upstream reservoir development for meeting
future water quality flow requirements shown in Table 8. The reservoir
alternatives -were based on single-purpose reservoir evaluations for
estimation of benefits during preliminary project planning. Detailed
costs and allocations of storage will be evaluated by the Corps of
Engineers during later phases of project formulation, if the project
appears justified on the basis of the preliminary studies. The reservoir
storage requirements are based on meeting the stream flow requirements
throughout 95 percent of the year, a protection level commonly used for
water quality control purposes,, These storage requirements are summar-
ized in Table 9 for the four levels of waste treatment and for years
1980, 2000, and- 2020.
Waste-Dispersion Pipeline to Rappahannock Estuary
A pipeline was initially considered to transport the wastes from
the Fredericksburg- area and disperse it at multiple discharge points
throughout downstream reaches of the Estuary. According to the stream
sampling data this alternative would require transporting the wastes
about 30 miles or more downstream,,
Piping waste from the Fredericksburg area to a single point or
multiple points approximately 30 miles downstream in the Rappahannock
Estuary would improve water quality conditions over at least a portion
of the distance down to that point. This alternative would have
-------
TABLE 8
Flow Requirements to Maintain 5-0 mg/1
Average DO Standard in the Rappahannock River
Downstream from Fredericksburg Sewer Service Area*
Treatment
Level, %
Year
BOD Removal
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1980
85
50
50
50
55
160
380
505
505
295
55
50
50
90
50
50
50
50
50
220
305
305
lUo
50
50
50
95
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
98
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2000
85
100
100
150
255
Uoo
850
1U00
1U00
660
255
185
100
90
50
50
55
150
270
565
730
730
U50
150
85
50
95
50
50
50
50
85
260
380
380
185
50
50
50
98
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2020
85
1U0
1U0
2U5
UUo
725
1700
2500
2500
1280
Mo
310
IkO
90
70
70
155
280
^55
1060
1570
1570
795
280
200
70
95
50
50
50
100
205
U55
620
620
355
100
50
50
98
50
50
50
50
50
100
270
270
50
50
50
50
Temp.
6
6
12
17
21
27
30
30
25
17
lU
6
*
The tabulated flow requirements are those needed upstream of the waste discharges; i.e., flows
necessary to mix with and assimilate waste flows. All flows are reported in cubic feet per
second (cfs).
**
Treatment level applies to municipal and industrial process wastes. For industrial cooling
water, "inhouse" modifications were assumed to reduce waste loadings to 1050 lbs. BODj. in
1980, 1120 lbs. B0D5 in 2000, and 1^70 lbs. BOD^ in 2020.
-------
VI-
TABLE 9
Single. Purpose Storage Requirements
at the Proposed Salem Church Reservoir to Meet
Project Flow Requirements in the Rappahannock River
Downstream from the Fredericksburg Sewer Service Area
Treatment Storage
Level Requirement s
Year (jo) (acre-feet)
1980 85 56,000
90 2*1,000
95 0
98 0
2000 85 202,000
90 92,000
95 3^>000
98 0
2020 85 ^39,000
90 233,000
95 72,000
98 19,000
-------
vi-ik
additional merit because of increased dispersion characteristics of the
downstream reaches. With all other conditions being equal, "water quality
would be better below a downstream outfall site than below an- upstream
outfall. Howevers a limited amount of field data in the downstream
reaches indicate a low dissolved oxygen concentration (as shown in
Figures 2 through k). The samples taken downstream from the outfall in
the Fredericksburg area did not show a delayed nitrogenous demand, nor
did they show BOD concentrations high enough to account for the DO
depletion found 20 or 30 miles downstream.
It is believed that it would be unwise to consider superimposing
the waste loadings from the Fredericksburg area upon downstream reaches
without further investigations to determine the source and extent of the
BOD contribution. Therefore, for this study, the pipeline was not con-
sidered a suitable alternative to upstream waste disposal practices.
Waste Diversion Pipeline to the Potomac River
Another alternative investigated involved a pipeline transporting
a portion or all of the waste from the Fredericksburg area to the
Potomac River. For this alternative, an initial pipeline (36-inch dia.)
was provided which would convey treated municipal and industrial
effluents from the Fredericksburg area through year 2000; an additional
pipeline (30-inch dia.) would be provided in 2000 to handle the wastes
through 2020. The diversion pipeline would involve a distance of about
10 miles and would, discharge to the main channel of the Potomac River
near the Potomac Creek confluence. The principal disadvantage in
-------
VI-15
transporting waste to the Potomac involves the need for a high level of
nutrient removal. According to the staff of the FWQA Chesapeake Tech-
nical Support Laboratory (CTSL), who are presently studying nutrient
transport relationships in the Potomac Estuary, Zones 1 and 2 require
removals up to 96 percent of phosphates and 85 percent of nitrates prior
to discharge. The proposed pipeline from the Rappahannock Basin would
discharge into Zone 3- This zone is already experiencing profuse algal
growth as a result of upstream nutrient loadings; and, therefore, future
discharges into the Potomac—either upstream from or in Zone 3 itself—
would necessitate high-level nutrient removal. Hence, for the waste
diversion line to the Potomac, nutrient removal facilities providing
96 percent phosphates and 85 percent nitrate removal, comparable to the
requirements for the Upper Potomac Estuary, were assumed to be necessary
adjuncts to this alternative.
Other Alternatives
Other alternatives initially considered included small watershed
reservoir projects and utilization of ground water for water quality
control. However, an evaluation of this potential indicated neither to
be adequate because of the relatively small yields of these impoundments
or aquifers in upstream areas in comparison with the high flow require-
ments presented in Table 8 downstream from the Fredericksburg area. As
indicated earlier in the water quality section, small reservoirs and/or
ground water are available to meet rural and small concentrated water
supply uses; but for large sustained yields, such as those presented for
water quality control in the Rappahannock Estuary, these two sources
would not be feasible alternatives.
-------
vi-i6
Salinity Control
The oyster beds within the Lover Rappahannock Estuary are classified
by fisheries experts as one of the prime areas in the State of Virginia
because of relatively low infestations of oyster predators and disease.
Oysters are found in the Rappahannock Estuary from its mouth to the
vicinity of Tappahannock. In all, about 69,000 acres of oyster bottom
are available for harvesting by commercial fishermen or private
individuals.
According to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and other fish-
eries experts, oyster predators and diseases are controlled by a salinity-
temperature-time relationship„ In general, the lower the salinity and the
higher the water temperature the less time required for effective control.
Water temperatures must be greater than 15° C. for low salinity concentra-
tion to be effective. At lower temperatures, the predators and diseases
are nearly dormant and are only slightly affected; conversely, at the
high water temperatures the oysters, as well, could be harmed by low
salinity.
The reach of river from Towles Point upstream to Bowlers Wharf accounts
for most of the oyster production in the Lower Estuary. In this reach, an
excellent habitat is provided for oyster growth during most years; oyster
production is further enhanced by the low incidence of oyster predators
and diseases. The natural flow regimen provides high springtime discharges
lowering salinities at a time when temperatures are favorable, and this
-------
VI-17
results in periodic elimination of oyster drills and a general sup-
pression of other predators and diseases, such as red and yellow
sponges, sea squirts, and the MSX virus.
Fisheries experts have indicated that some of the oyster drills
are killed each year by the spring freshets, such as in April and May
when temperatures first climb above 15° C. and salinities are reduced;
however, the distribution of drills is reported to be largely regulated
by low spring salinities in irregularly occurring wet years. Accord-
ingly, only the wet years were considered adequate to control oyster
drills.
In order to ensure continuance of the above natural phenomenon,
any development of upstream structures, such as the proposed Salem Church
Reservoir, must release or pass flows equivalent to natural discharges of
April and May. Earlier studies suggested maintenance of 10 parts per
thousand salinity for 20 consecutive days at a bed depth of 15 feet near
Urbanna, at River Mile 15. This is the present "drill line" or upper
limit of oyster drill populations in the Rappahannock Estuary as observed
regularly in surveys by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Maintenance of this concentration would involve a minimum release
of about 6,500 cfs for 20 days about May 1 during a wet year to adequately
protect the oyster industry. On the average, this flow has been estimated
to be needed about one year in three. Reservoir storage to provide this
flow has resulted in the term "mitigation flows" or release to provide
the degree of protection from disease and predators under natural
conditions without the project.
-------
VI-18
In addition to preserving existing oyster beds, it is reportedly-
possible to extend the oyster production areas downstream from Towles
Point. These downstream areas are suitable for both seed and market
oyster production, but because of higher incidence of predators and
disease associated with the higher salinities prevailing in this reach
of the Estuary, oyster production in the past.has been low.
Studies have indicated that oyster production in the areas down-
stream from Towles Point could be increased by reducing the salinity to
15 parts per thousand at the 15-foot depth during July through September.
This would involve "flow augmentation" from upstream sources and would
require approximately 1,700 cfs.
-------
VII. BENEFITS
WATER SUPPLY
Fredericksburg and the adjacent counties of Spotsylvania and
Stafford will have water supply deficiencies within the Basin if
additional sources are not developed in the future. The projected
needs could be satisfied practicably by storage by small tributary
reservoir projects as an alternative to the proposed Rappahannock
River Reservoir. The upstream communities in the Basin expected to
have water supply deficiencies are remote from the regulated reaches
of the Rappahannock River and. are located in areas where alternative
sources are available for development at lesser cost to meet the
projected needs. Therefore, it is not expected that provision of
storage in the proposed reservoir would be of benefit to the upstream
users of the Basin.
Outside the Basin, the northern portion of Fauquier County and
Prince William County have expressed interest in obtaining water from
the Rappahannock River Basin and could benefit from storage in
potential reservoirs in the Basin.
For the areas with projected deficiencies, water supply benefits
were evaluated in terms of the cost of the water supply most likely to
be developed by the community. Alternative water supply sources con-
sidered were: (l) development of ground water, (2) provision of a
single-purpose water supply reservoir and/or systems, (3) desalinization,
and (4) wastewater recycling.
-------
VII-2
Ground water development was initially proposed as an alternative
for meeting the future water supply needs in the Rappahannock River
Basin. However,, the resource potential to continuously meet the future
needs of the area of greatest need, that of the Fredericksburg Water
Service Area and adjacent counties, is uncertain.
For this reason, ground water development was not considered to
be a feasible alternative to meet the larger projected needs of this
report. Ground water will continue to be used to meet smaller and less
concentrated needs throughout the Basin.
Small reservoir development on tributaries of the Rappahannock
River was considered, as an alternative for meeting the future water
supply needs in the Basin. For the most part, future needs of communi-
ties in the Upper Basin will be met by the expansion of present water
supply sources. The greatest future needs have been identified for the
Fredericksburg Water Service Area and adjacent counties in the Basin
and Prince William County and the northern portion of Fauquier County
outside the Basin. Although outside the Basin, these latter two
counties have expressed a desire to obtain water from the Rappahannock
River Basin. The future needs of these areas have been assessed and
the costs for meeting these needs through construction of single-
purpose reservoirs are set forth in Table 10 of this report.
Desalinization of brackish water was considered as an alternative
for meeting the future needs in the Rappahannock River Basin, particularly
in the Fredericksburg Water Service Area. For the purpose of estimating
-------
TABLE 10
Reservoir- Storage for Water Supply-
Alternative
Single-Purpose
Reservoirs
Date Addnl.
of Existing Devel. Size of Initial Annual
Need Demand Supply Need Reservoir Cost 0 & M
(year) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (million) Costs
Average
Present Annual
Worth Cost
1980 (1980-2080)
Fred er i cksbur
y
1980
2000
2020
5.8
13.1
26.6
12.9
12.9
12.9
13.7
13.7
$ -
2.7U
$
16,440
16,4110
$1,12*1,300 $ 58,000
Pr. William Co.
S/
1980
2000
2020
9-8
31.0
84.0
9.8
31.0
84. 0
31.0
84.0
5.1
7-0
30,600
72,600
72,600
6,056,800 313,000
Fauquier Co.
1980
2000
2020
0.8
2.9
10.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
1.6
9,600
240,800 12,400
Amortized for 100 years @5 l/8$> = $383?^00
1/ Includes needs of approximately 90$ of Stafford County population and 50$ of Spotsylvania County
population.
2j Data were not available to adequately assess existing-supplies. To accomplish this, a comprehensive
study would be necessary to determine the water supply potential in the county.
3
M
I
U>
-------
\ni-k
costs for meeting the needs of the Fredericksburg Water Service Area
by utilization of desaliniation membrane processes, a finished product
water cost of 50 cents per 1,000 gallons is assumed. The cost of
meeting the needs for the Fredericksburg Water Service Area is set
forth in Table 11.
Another alternative means of water supply considered for meeting
the projected needs of the Fredericksburg Water Service Area and adja-
cent counties was wastewater recycling by means of electrodialysis
applied to a highly treated effluent. The average annual cost of this
alternative would be $203,200, amortized over a 100-year period from
1980 to 2080 at 5 1/8 percent interest, including operation and main-
tenance costs. This alternative would not be the least costly one at
this time.
Based on the examination of alternative water supply sources for
meeting the projected needs of the Fredericksburg Water Service Area
and adjacent counties, the least costly alternative for meeting these
needs would be the construction of single-purpose reservoirs as the
need arises during the 50-year period of analysis. As set forth in
Table 10, the average annual cost for satisfying these needs would be
$58,000 amortized over a 100-year period from 1980 to 2080 at 5 per-
cent interest, including operation and maintenance costs. For the pur-
pose of this report, it was assumed that the benefits attributable to
water supply storage would be at least equal to the least costly means
-------
VII-5
TABLE 11
Desalinization and Electrodialysis
for Water Supply for
Fredericksburg Water Service Area and Vicnity
I98O
2000
2020
Projected Water Supply Demand (mgd)
5.8
13-1
26.6
Existing Water Supplies (mgd)
12.9
12.9
12.9
Additional Developmental Needs (mgd)
—
13.7
1/ Includes needs of approximately 90 percent of Stafford County
population and 50 percent of Spotsylvania County population.
Desalinization:
Total Present
Amortized for
Electrodialysis:
Total Present
Amortized for
h ni
Worth - 1980
100 years @5 l/8$
Worth - 1980
100 years @5 l/8%
$11,951,500
616,700
$ 3,937,900
203,200
-------
vii-6
of supply needs. Therefore, the annual value of water supply benefits
•would be $58,000 for the Fredericksburg Water Service Area and adjacent
counties.
Because the counties of Fauquier and Prince William expressed interest
in obtaining water from the Rappahannock River Basin, an analysis was made
to determine the cost of meeting the projected needs of these areas
through stage-constructed, single-purpose reservoirs. The average annual
cost for this least costly alternative would be $325 ,^+00. The annual
value of water supply benefits would, therefore, be $325,1+00, which is
considered to be a measure of annual value of water supply benefits to
these Counties.
The combined average annual cost of the least costly alternative for
the Fredericksburg Water Service Area and Fauquier and Prince William
Counties would be $383?^00 amortized over a 100-year period from 1980 to
2080 at 5 l/8 percent interest, including operation and maintenance costs.
Similarly, the annual value of water supply benefits would be $383j^00.
WATER QUALITY
The benefits from provision of flow regulation or other alternative
means for maintaining water quality standards may be appraised as the
increased value of goods and/or services resulting if quality is controlled,
as compared with their value in the absence of these measures. The benefits
from maintaining water quality include increased economic activity, in-
creased or improved recreational opportunities,.reduced treatment costs
for municipal and industrial water supply, increased industrial production,
improved, health and welfare, greater availability of fish and other aquatic
life, and enhanced aesthetics of the aquatic environment.
-------
VII-7
The significant damages that would result in the Rappahannock River
Basin in the absence of water quality control measures are loss of recrea-
tional opportunity, damage to fish and -wildlife, degradation of aesthetics,
and greater costs for municipal and industrial water supply. The shell-
fish beds further down the Estuary are another significant use for which
suitable quality is imperative to their continued productivity.
Recreation represents a significant potential use to be preserved by
water quality control measures in the Rappahannock River. The Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation estimates that at the present time the recreational
use in the 100-mile reach downstream from Fredericksburg is approximately
50,000 recreation days. Although 87,000 acres of flat water offer, a
tremendous potential for various recreation opportunities, only six public
boat ramps have been identified by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the
100-mile estuarine segment of the River. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
advises that present use of this area would greatly increase, provided
public access and facilities are made available in the future.
Sport fishing and commercial finfishing also represent an important
use to be preserved in the Rappahannock River. Present estimates of the
U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife indicate an average annual
productivity in the lower 100-mile reach of the River of about 42,100,000
pounds of sport and commercial finfish species. The average annual total
sustained harvest of sport and commercial finfish species is estimated
at approximately 10,000,000 pounds or one-fourth of the total standing
-------
VII-8
crop. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife values the average
annual total sustained harvest from sport fishing at $1,U50,31^ and
from commercial finfishing at $293jOOO.
The U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and. the Virginia Institute
of Marine Science advise that shellfish harvesting in the Lower Rappa-
hannock River Estuary has resulted in an average annual oyster production
of 870,000 "bushels (1959-19&3) "with a dockside value of $2,785,000.
Recent reports sho"w an average annual oyster production of W>7,200
bushels (196U-I969) with an annual value of $2,101,000.
The above represents but three important uses of the Rappahannock
Estuary. Sufficient data are not available to directly evaluate the
economic value of all of the effects of water quality improvement; how-
ever, the approved water quality standards indicate the quality and
uses desired in the Rappahannock River. The cost of achieving this
quality after other use-needs are satisfied should be a reasonable
estimate of the benefits obtained. In all likelihood, the benefits
could conceivably exceed this cost should monetary values be assigned
to all potential benefits, tangible and intangible.
For the area of this study, the water quality improvement alterna-
tives considered to have the greatest potential application are flow
regulation, advanced waste treatment, and waste diversion (or combinations
of these).
Various methods of advanced waste treatment have been developed for
removal of very high percentages of pollutants from waste flows. One
-------
vii-9
method, the carbon adsorption unit process, has been proven effective
in full-scale operation and was used in the present evaluation. Carbon
adsorption units are usually preceded by conventional secondary treat-
ment followed by lime-alum coagulation, sedimentation, and sand filtra-
tion. Treatment efficiencies using these processes may be expected to
17 /
aehieve as high as 99 percent BOD removal.—' An associated high-level
reduction of phosphates (up to about 95-96$) can also be attained, through
use of these treatment processes. High-level nitrogen (80-90$) removal
can be obtained using ammonia stripping or biological denitrification
processes.
The water quality evaluations indicated that operation of the
advanced waste treatment facilities, except for nutrient removal, would
be needed during the critical period extending from June through October.
However, to allow for startup and to ensure adequate treatment through-
out the low-flow periods often extending into November, operation of the
advanced waste treatment facilities was assumed from early May through
November. Therefore, advanced treatment includes operational costs for
seven months of the year. During other months of the year secondary
treatment and the available streamflows, as indicated in historical flow
records, are adequate to maintain water quality at or above standards.
The above operation is for advanced waste treatment facilities for
organic waste removal. For nutrient removal, operational costs were
17/ Stephan, D„ G., "Water Renovation - Some Advanced Treatment
Processes," Civil Engineering, Volume 35> September 1965.
-------
VII-10
determined on a 12-month basis. Advanced waste treatment costs are
based on estimates presented by Smithi^/ and -were adjusted to Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index of lUl8 (August 6, 1970) and amortized
at 5 l/8 percent interest.
The values presented in Table 12 indicate that Alternative G is the
least costly means of meeting the water quality standards in the Rappa-
hannock Estuary. This alternative requires 90? 95> and 98 percent BOD
removal for 1980, 2000, and 2020, respectively, of all wastes in the
Fredericksburg area and 3^j000 acre-feet of reservoir storage for water
quality control. The waste diversion pipeline to the Potomac Estuary
(Alternative J) is comparable in cost to Alternative I of Table 12, from
the standpoint of organic wastes; but because of the need for nutrient
removal, this alternative to discharge to the Potomac Estuary is more
costly than many of the others shown in Table 12. The total annual cost
of Alternative J is estimated at $2,813,100.
Other alternatives considered were piping and dispersing the wastes
throughout downstream reaches of the Rappahannock Estuary. A detailed
analysis of these alternatives could not be made because of insufficient
stream assimilation data in these lower reaches; however, a preliminary
evaluation indicated the pipeline costs, plus storage levels comparable
to those of Table 12, resulted in higher total costs than the storage-
treatment costs shown in Table 12. The dispersion pipeline alternatives
18/ Robert Smith, "A Compilation of Cost Information for Conventional
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants and Processes," U. S.
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, December 1967.
-------
TABLE 12
Comparison of Water Quality Management Alternatives
Water Quality Storage - Advanced Waste Treatment Combinations
Treatment
Level
Total
Total-i/
Storage
°!o BOD
Removal
Advanced Waste
Trentment Cost
Treatment
Storage
Total
(ac.-ft.)
1980
2000
2020
Industrial
Municipal
Cost
Cost
Cost
A
439,000
85
85
85§/
90^/
95^
__
_
4,170,000
4,170,000
B
233,000
85
85
i|0,100
15,500
55,600
3,780,000
3,835,600
C
202,000
85
85
185,400
75,000
260,1*00
3,720,000
3,980,400
D
92,000
85
90
95
299,200
117,500
416,700
2,580,000
2,996,700
E
72,000
85
95
95 .
985/
1+38,200
164,500
602,700
1,200,000
1,802,700
F
56,000
85
95
570,800
229,000
799,800
1,075,000
1,874,800
G
34,000
90
95
98
661,500
273,500
935,000
580,000
1,515,000
H
24,000
90
98
98
912,900
376,700
1,289,600
420,000
1,709,600
I
19,000
95
98
98
1,087,700
456,800
1,544,500
340,000
1,884,500
2,935,500^
J
-
98
98
98
1,921,000
766,200
2,687,200
-
_1/ Storage costs based on Reservoir constructed in 1980.
2j 85°lo treatment is assumed to be standard secondary treatment.
3/ 90% treatment is assumed to be an improved secondary treatment plant vith increased detention
time and expanded auxiliary units.
hj 9% treatment is assumed to be a 90$ plant with coagulation-sedimentation-rapid sand filtration
units added on.
5/ 98$ treatment is assumed to be a 95% plant with granular carbon adsorption units added on.
%] Includes $248,300 annual costs for piping to the Potomac Estuary.
Note: This table is based on 5 l/8% interest.
M
-------
VII -12
appeared to have some merit because of the presumably greater dispersion
characteristics in the loner reaches of the Estuary, but the uncertainties
at this time as to the possible effects the diverted -wastes would have on
downstream -water quality does not permit serious consideration of this
alternative -without detailed field investigation in the Lo-wer Estuary.
Of the alternatives listed in Table 12, the least costly -water
quality managment scheme is Alternative G, resulting in reservoir storage
of 3^,000 acre-feet -with advanced -waste treatment providing an overall
removal of 90, 95, and 98 percent BOD for years 1980, 2000, and 2020,
respectively. As indicated in Table 12, this alternative may be expected
to cost approximately $1,515,000 ($935,000 for treatment and $580,000 for
storage) annually (in addition to an adequate level of secondary treat-
ment),, including amortization over a 100-year period at 5 l/8 percent
interest and operation and maintenance charges. This evaluation assumes
a single-purpose reservoir project from which stream flo-ws are to be
provided only for water quality control. For single-purpose development,
the cost of Alternative G may be taken as a measure of the value of
benefits attributable to water quality control under the assumption that
the benefits are at least worth the cost of meeting the water quality
standards established to protect present and anticipated stream uses
and, therefore, would be valued at $1,515,000.
Under present policy of the Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Quality Office, water quality storage needs will be satisfied only after
storage requirements to satisfy downstream flow needs for all other
project purposes have been identified and the benefits and costs assigned
-------
VII-13
accordingly. In view of this policy, an attempt was made to assess
benefits to other uses to be preserved in the Rappahannock Estuary.
Recreation and fishing uses, for example, -would be satisfied if the
measures of Alternative G were provided. Therefore, the $1,515,000
value would include, among other uses, the benefits attributable to
fishery and recreational uses of the Lower Rappahannock Estuary. The
annual benefits attributable to these users have been estimated by the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
to be $61,300 and $15,000, respectively.
In addition to recreation and fishing benefits gained by enhanced
water quality, the existing recreational and fishery uses would be
maintained, thereby providing annual sport fishery values of $1,^50,300
and annual commercial finfishing values of $2933000. The existing
recreation value to be preserved is estimated at 50,000 man-days having
an estimated value of $50,000.
Of the total benefits ($1,5159000) under this single-purpose
scheme of development, only $580,000, which includes the aforementioned
fishery and recreational benefits, could be ascribed to reservoir
storage of 3^*000 acre-feet for flow regulation purposes. Storage of
3*1,000 acre-feet for water quality control would constitute an annual
savings of at least $580,000 in costs for advanced waste treatment
facilities.
The water quality control measures, as given in Alternative G,
although satisfying the recreational and fishery uses, will not provide
the needed flows for increased oyster production through salinity
-------
vil-l^
control—another purpose of the Federal project. Estimates by the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
indicated flow releases of 1,700 cfs would be required during the months
of July through September to alleviate oyster drills and increase oyster
production areas downstream from Towles Point. The increased oyster
production from these areas is estimated to have a total annual benefit
of $3,0^0,000.
Conversely, these flaws for salinity control could result in savings
to water quality by reducing advanced -waste treatment costs. There still
•would, be a need for substantial storage and flow releases in months other
than July through September to maintain water quality standards. In
addition, flow releases would have to provide a water quality control
protection level of 95 percent on a yearly basis. Indications are that
the 1,700 cfs required for salinity control would only be needed approxi-
mately two out of three or four years, which means, on an annual basis,
a protection level of about 67 to 50 percent. Preliminary estimates
indicate approximately 185,000 acre-feet of storage would be needed for
salinity control.
Assuming salinity control storage is provided, reservoir storage
for water quality control purposes for months other than July through
September were determined and are shown in Table 9-B. Also, with salinity
control being provided, the waste treatment-water quality storage combina-
tions, as previously shown in Table 12, were evaluated and are summarized
in Table 12-B. The least costly alternative is now $806,700 vs. $1,515,000,
as previously shown in Table 12. This represents a savings of about
-------
TABLE 9B
Storage Requirements at the Proposed Salem Church Reservoir
-to Meet Projected Flow Requirements in the Rappahannock River
Downstream from the Fredericksburg Sevier Service Area
Year
1o
BOD
Remova1
Salinity
(Acre-Feet)
Salinity Plus
Water Quality Control
(Acre-Feet)
Incremental
Water Quality
(Acre-Feet)
Water Quality
Only
(Acre-Feet)
1980
85
185,000
197,000
12,000
1
56,000
90
185,000
-
2^,000
95
185,000
-
-
98
185,000
-
-
2000
85
221,000
36,000
202,000
85*
314,000*
129,000*
308,000*
90
207,000
22,000
92,000
95
190,000
5,000
3^,000
98
185,000
-
-
2020
85
450,000
265,000
1+39,000
85*
609,000*
1+2*1,000*
593,000*
90
252,000
67,000
233,000
90*
375,000*
190,000*
356,000*
95
200,000
15,000
72,000
98
185,000
-
19,000
¦^Includes mitigation flows for protection of existing oyster beds.
-------
TABLE 12B
Comparison of Water Quality Management Alternatives
Water Quality Storage - Advanced Waste Treatment Combinations
Storage
'ac-.-ft.)
Treatment Level
a!o BOD Removal
.WoZJMaZMxL
Advanced Waste Treatment Cost
Treatment
Cost
Total-
Storage
Cost
y
Total
Cost
K
265,000
85
85
9V
95"
-
-
-
3,780,000
L
67,000
85
85
1*0,100
15,500
55,600
1,160,000
M
36,000
85
85
185,1+00
75,000
260,1+00
610,000
N
22,000
85
90
95
299,200
117,500
1+16,700
390,000
0
15,000
85
95
Q5
98^
1+38,200
l61+,500
602,700
270,000
P
12,000
85
95
570,800
229,000
799,800
225,000
ft
5,000
90
95
98
661,500
273,500
935,000
180,000
R
-
90
98
98
912,900
376,700
1,289,600
J
-
98
98
98
1,921,000
766,200
2,687,200
-
3,780,000
1,215,600
870,400
806,700
872,700
1,02U,800
1,115,000
1,289,600
6/
2,935,500-/
1/ Storage costs based on Reservoir constructed in 1980.
2j treatment is assumed to be standard secondary treatment.
3/ 90$ treatment is assumed to be an improved secondary treatment plant -with increased detention
time and expanded auxiliary units.
kf 95$> treatment is assumed to be a 90% plant with coagulation-sedimentation-rapid sand filtration
units added on.
5/ 98% treatment is assumed tu be a 95% plant -with granular adsorption units added on.
%] Includes $2^+8,300 annual costs for piping to the Potomac Estuary.
Note: This table assumes 185,000 acre-feet of storage augmenting for salinity control.
Note: This table is based on 5 l/8% interest.
<
H
&
-------
VII-17
$708,300;, of which $518,300 is the reduced treatment cost (by deferring
advanced -waste treatment costs -until after year 1980) and of which
$190,000 is for the reduction in storage needed. (22,000 acre-feet vs.
34,000 acre-feet). This savings of $708,300 represents an additional
benefit to the provision of the 185,000 acre-feet of storage for salinity
control. The benefits for reservoir storage of 22,000 acre-feet for this
alternative are estimated at $390,000 annually.
The least costly storage-treatment combinations given above may not
necessarily be the most desirable from the standpoint of implementation.
For example, the "water quality needs could be satisfied by increased
levels of waste treatment storage for water quality control until this
later period. This alternative would require treatment levels of 95,
98, and 98 percent BOD removal for years 1980, 2000, and 2020, respective-
ly, in combination with 19,000 acre-feet of single-purpose reservoir
storage in year 2000„ This alternative would cost $1,884,500 vs.
$1,515,000 discussed above but would defer reservoir construction for
water quality purposes until year 2000, rather than 1980 as required by
implementation of the least costly alternative.
In order to avoid damages to the existing oyster production areas
between Bowlers Wharf and Towles Point, which is reportedly possible by
construction of Salem Church Reservoir, flow releases of 6,500 cfs are
needed in the "wet years" for 20 consecutive days during May or when
temperatures reach 15 C. or more„ These flows are expected to be needed
once every three or four years for oyster drill and other predator
control as currently being provided by natural spring freshets without
-------
VII-18
the Reservoir. Maintenance of these flews would not constitute benefits
to water quality control or reservoir storage since they would more
appropriately be considered "mitigation flows" or flows necessary to
maintain present uses now possible without the project.
In conclusion in the absence of a substantial multipurpose reser-
voir project, the least costly water quality managment scheme is advanced
waste treatment providing 90, 95 > and 98 percent BOD removal for years
1980, 2000, and 2020, respectively, in combination with single-purpose
reservoir storage of 3^>000 acre-feet for water quality control, including
recreation and fishing uses. This scheme is estimated at $1,515,000 and
in the absence of a large multipurpose project, is taken as a measure of
the benefits for maintaining water quality standards and preserving
existing and future uses to be made of the Estuary. Provision of the
3^,000 acre-feet, as given for this alternative, would be valued at
$580,000 annually. However, in considering the total needs of an overall
water resource study involving the need for flows, such as 1700 cfs for
salinity control, the possibility of a substantial multipurpose reservoir
project becomes greater. Provision of 185,000 acre-feet of storage to
supply these flows, for example, reduces the cost of water quality
control measures to $806,700, representing a savings of $708,300 which
can be considered as an additional benefit to salinity control storage;
under this scheme of development, the water quality benefits (including
recreation and fishing values) would be valued at $806,700. The value
for providing the 22,000 acre-feet in this alternative is estimated at
$390,000 annually.
-------
VII-19
The purposes of the reservoir project have not been formulated into
a water resource development plan at this time; and, therefore, the
actual benefits to be derived from -water quality control measures cannot
be concluded. However, the above evaluation should provide the necessary
information to determine these benefits during detailed project formula-
tion by the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Virginia agencies,
in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. As specific purposes are
formulated into the project, limitations of each purpose become known,
and realistic evaluations can be made. Only after such an evaluation
can the least costly and/or most acceptable plan of action for the
development of, the water resources, as well as preservation of the
environmental values of the Rappahannock River Basin, be determined.
-------
APPENDIX A
I965-I969 Water Quality Sampling Data
Virginia Water Control Board
Rappahannock River
Date
Yr Mo
Da
Water
Temp,
°C.
DO BOD5
mg/l mg/l
pH
Coliform
¦ MPN
per 100 ml
Nitrate
NOo-N
mg/l
Ammonia
nh3-n
mg/l
Total
POk
mg/l
Sulfa t
SOij
mg/l
Station
- Buoy
105 -
Spring Hill Reach
- River Mile 9^-5:
65 06
28
28.3
5.6
6.50
430
0.10
0.590
0.92
30
65 08
09
29.4
6.6
6.50
930
0.37
0.130
1.68
111
65 08
31
26.1
7.2
6.40
11,000
0.03
0.260
0.42
155
68 07
02
30.5
8.0
8.60
2,300
68 08
07
30.5
6.5
7.00
4,300
69 03
31
9.U
9.8 1.9
6.80
93,000
69 06
22
24.4
6.2 1.2
6.70
750
69 09
07
29.U
6.0 2.7
6.90
230
Station
- Buoy
116 -
Fox Spring Bend -
River Mile
102.4:
65 06
28
28.9
3.8
6.80
9,300
0.01K
0.730
0.39
39
65 08
09
30.0
8.0
6.90
150
0.25
0.090
0.42
75
65 08
31
26.1
6.4
6.20
2,400
0.06
0.240
0.28
192
68 07
02
31.1
6.0
6.80
2,300
68 08
07
30.0
4.0
7.00
9,300
69 03
31
10.0
10.0 2.3
6.80
150,000
69 06
22
25.0
6.6 3.0
6.70
750
69 09
07
29. 4
5.4 l.l
6.90
930
Station
- Buoy
118 -
N.W. of Belvedere
- River Mile 102.9:
65 06
28
29.4
4.4
6.50
1,100
0. OIK
0.560
0.34
40
65 08
09
29. 4
9.2
7.10
750
0.15'
0.180
1.32
50
65 08
31
26.7
6.2
6.40
930
0.29
0.3U0
0.70
38
-------
APPENDIX A
(Continued)
Water Coliform Nitrate Ammonja Total Sulfate
Date Temp. DO BOD5 MPN NOg-N MH3-K Pu) SOU
Yr Mo Da °C. mg/l mg/l gH per 100 ml mg/l mg/l mg/1 mg/l
Station
- Buoy 118 -
N.W. of Belvedere •
- River
Mile 102.9 (
continued):
68 07
02
31.1
5.3
7.10
2,300
68 08
07
31.1
3-8
6.80
4,300
69 03
31
9.4
9.8
2.9
6.40
39,000
69 06
22
25.6
7.0
2.0
6.80
430
69 09
07
29. 4
7.0
1.2
7.00
2,300
Station
- Buoy 120 -
Epson Turn
- River
Mile 103.6:
65 06
28
30.0
3.6
6.50
46,000
0.01K
0.490
0.59
39
65 08
09
30.0
5.1
6.90
9,3oo
0.45
0.210
0.64
62
65 08
31
25.6
3-2
6.20
1,500
0.15
0.590
0.50
38
68 07
02
3.1
5.5
6.90
11,000
68 08
07
30.0
4.5
7.00
15,000
69 03
31
8.9
10.8
1.2
7.80
43,000
69 06
22
26.1
7.0
2.7
7.00
9,300
69 09
07
29.U
7.0
0.9
930
Station
- Buoy
121 -
N.E. of Newton Rk.
- River
Mile 104.8:
65 06
28
31.6
1.0
6.40
21,000
0.01K
1.110
0.50
49
65 08
09
30.6
3-8
6.70
9,300
0.13
0.190
0.42
92
65 08
31
25.6
2.0
6.10
2,400
0.17
0.520
O.56
52
68 07
02
32.2
6.3
7.00
460,000
68 08
07
30.0
4.0
7.00
1,500
69 03
31
8.9
10.6
2.2
7.70
93,000
69 06
22
27.2
6.2
3-6
7.00
150,000
69 09
07
29.k
6.6
0.8
7.00
4,300
-------
APPENDIX A
(Continued)
Water Coliform Nitrate Ammonia Total Sulfate
Date Temp. DO BODc MPN NO3-N NH3-N POj, SOn
Yy Mo P3 °C. mp;/l m/j Pft Per 1QQ ml mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
Station - Fredericksburg - Route 3 Bridge - River Mile 108.1:
68
07
01
27.8
8.0
7-50
2,300
68
08
06
28.3
8.2
7.70
930
68
09
01
23.9
6.5
7.00
9,300
68
10
08
17.0
7.0
7.50
2,300
69
02
27
3-3
12.6
2.5
6.80
9,300
69
05
22
21.1
8.0
1.0
7.10
9,300
69
07
31
23.3
7.8
2.6
6.70
9,300
Station - Fredericksburg - VEPCO Canal - River Mile 110.7:
65
06
28
28.9
8.0
7.20
1,500
0.01K
0.610
0.53
6
65
08
09
28.9
9.0
7-20
U30
0.72
0.080
1.82
22
65
08
31
23.9
6.6
7.00
U,6oo
0.33
0.300
0.76
11
68
07
01
27.2
7.0
7.50
1,500
68
08
06
37.2
7.0
7-10
U30
68
09
06
2k. U
7.0
7.00
U30
68
10
08
17.2
9.0
1.9
7.50
430
69
02
27
9 A
12.0
2.1
6.80
23,000
Station - Fauquier County - Route 620 Bridge - River Mile 138.3:
68
07
01
28.3
9.0
7.50
9,300
68
08
06
2.7
8.0
7.60
9,300
68
09
11
21.1
7.0
6.00
2U0,000
68
10
08
15.5
10.0
1.5
7.00
2,300
69
02
27
3.3
12.6
0.1
6.80
390
-------
Water
Date Temp. DO BOD^
Yr Mo Da ^C_. mg/l mg/l pH
Station - Fauquier County - Route 15-29 Bridge
68
07
01
27.8
8.0
7.50
68
08
06
25.6
9-1
7.80
68
09
11
20.0
6.0
6.50
68
10
08
15.0
9.0
2.1
6.50
69
02
27
3-3
12.2
1.9
6.80
APPENDIX A
(Continued)
Coliform Nitrate Ammonia Total Sulfate
MPN NO^-N NH3-N POi, SOh
per 100 ml mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
River Mile lk2.7:
U,300
3,900
2^0,000
i+30
2,300
-------
x ^7
F A U 0 U 'l £ R %
\ 'v X |w\
% k-^° -*> -A" ""'• \
<'*' '^V
V /X. ,
\C U—L P E P E R V=, Y'
\ V STAFFORD
- '/
N \
; ~
V V%-
G R E E \e /''A
K.
' sw"
»' / \r i,. .
^'\ / V-<
"|. /CAROLINE?1^ V<^--x I-
v-x S *
\-j
^•-A
(
/ *.S"
U^-
LOCATION MAP
N
i
*Vrfa % J
*tn,\\ WW*
BTTFLhl hLE
WATER QUALITY 8 POLLUTION CONTROL STUDY
CHESAPEAKE BAY DRAINAGE AREA
RAPPAHANNOCK
RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFBLE
R&PPAHAWNOCK R8VER
FWQA FBELD SURVEY
(6/4/70)
^FALL LINE
~ 70-
6.0-
5.Q-
BERNARD BAR
RT. SOt BPtDGC
4.0-
A - SAM PL INS S TA TIONS
3,OH
2.0 ¦
Rt
»wjm '
90
V s
XT
80
" I
7SJ
UT
-------
Z!
0
c
»
m
1
O)
9.0-
BOJ
T.O-
2
w
>-
©
e
ty s.<
6-O-t
3
§
4.0-
B.O'
2.0-
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFELE
RAPPAHAM^OCK ROVER
FW0A FBELD SURVEY
(6/8/70)
FALL LINE
¦\so
BERNARD BAR
T
via
RT. 30t 8RWG£
A ~ SAMPLING STATIONS
too
Jo
RSVfiT® E^ia.ET5: (ST*"r"''"E)
T
ao
p-gg.-cg- yfZT
t
TO
-------
D8SSOLVEO QXYGEM PROF8LE
RAPPAHAMMOCK RBVER
FWQA FBELD SURVEY
(7/29/70)
,64
01
AT 301 BRIDGE
BERNARD BAH
90
too
US
A— SAMPLING STAT10MS
li©
i I
®0 SO
qgyers» jyjgu ire (S^*-"TE)
------- |