DOCSLIB.ORG

Northern Shenandoah Regional Water Supply Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northern Shenandoah Regional Water Supply Plan Northern Shenandoah Regional Water Supply Plan 6/30/2011 The Draft Regional Water Supply Plan was prepared by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and Technical Advisory Committee members from the twenty jurisdictions participating in this Plan. The contents of this Plan are draft and should be considered preliminary in nature until each jurisdiction sha had the opportunity to review and approve of this Regional Water Supply Plan. The Regional Water Supply Plan was prepared to meet the mandate set forth in 9 VAC 25 780. ii Table of Contents Executive Summary: Regional Water Supply Plan Statement of Need Section-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1.0 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 2.0 Existing Water Supply---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 2.1 Existing Water Sources------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 2.1.1 Clarke County-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 2.1.2 Town of Berryville----------------------------------------------------------------------------10 2.1.3 Town of Boyce--------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 2.1.4 Frederick County------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 2.1.5 Town of Middletown-------------------------------------------------------------------------10 2.1.6 Town of Stephens City-----------------------------------------------------------------------11 2.1.7 Page County------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 2.1.8 Town of Luray---------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 2.1.9 Town of Shenandoah-------------------------------------------------------------------------11 2.1.10 Town of Stanley------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 2.1.11 Shenandoah County-------------------------------------------------------------------------12 2.1.12 Town of Edinburg---------------------------------------------------------------------------12 2.1.13 Town of Mt. Jackson------------------------------------------------------------------------12 2.1.14 Town of New Market-----------------------------------------------------------------------13 2.1.15 Town of Strasburg---------------------------------------------------------------------------13 2.1.16 Town of Toms Brook-----------------------------------------------------------------------13 2.1.17 Town of Woodstock-------------------------------------------------------------------------13 2.1.18 Warren County-------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 2.1.19 Town of Front Royal------------------------------------------------------------------------14 2.1.20 City of Winchester---------------------------------------------------------------------------14 iii 2.2. Amount of Water Available to be Purchased from Outside each Jurisdiction------------------------------------------------------------14 2.3 Estimate of Agricultural Users of More Than 300,000 Gallons per Month-----------------------------------------------------------------------15 2.3.1 Clarke County---------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 2.3.2 Frederick County------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 2.3.3 Page County------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 2.3.4 Shenandoah County---------------------------------------------------------------------------15 2.3.5 Warren County--------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 2.4 Residences and Businesses that are Self‐Supplied and Individual Wells Withdrawing Less than 300,000 Gallons per Month----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 2.5 Wellhead Protection Ordinance / Source water Protection Programs------------------------------18 3.0 Existing Water Use Information--------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 3.1 Community Water Systems Use-------------------------------------------------------------------------20 3.2. Clarke County---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20 3.3 Town of Berryville----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 3.4 Town of Boyce--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 3.5 Frederick County------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 3.6 Town of Middletown-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 3.7 Town of Stephens City-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 3.8 Page County------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 3.9 Town of Luray---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 3.10 Town of Shenandoah------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23 iv 3.11 Town of Stanley------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23 3.12 Shenandoah County-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23 3.13 Town of Edinburg---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 3.14 Town of Mount Jackson--------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 3.15 Town of New Market------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 3.16 Town of Strasburg---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 3.17 Town of Toms Brook------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 3.18 Town of Woodstock-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 3.19 Warren County-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 3.20 Town of Front Royal------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 3.21 City of Winchester---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 3.22 Estimate of Water Used by Self‐Supplied Nonagricultural Users of More than 300,000 Gallons----------------------------------------------25 3.23 Estimate of Water Used by Self‐Supplied Agricultural Users of More than 300,000 Gallons per Month of Surface and Groundwater Outside the Service Areas of the Community Water System------------------------------------------------------------------------------26 3.24 Estimate of Water Used by Self‐Supplied Agricultural Users of More than 300,000 Gallons per Month of Surface and Groundwater Inside the Service Areas of the Community Water System------------------------------------------------------------------------------26 v 3.25 Estimate of Water Used by Self‐Supplied Agricultural Users of More than 300,000 Gallons per Month of Surface and Groundwater Outside the Service Areas of the Community Water System-------------------------------------------------------------------------26 3.26 Estimate of Water Used by Self‐Supplied Users of Less than 300,000 Gallons per Month of Surface and Groundwater Inside the Service Areas of the Community Water System---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26 4.0 Existing Resource Information---------------------------------------------------------------------------------29 4.1 General Environmental Setting--------------------------------------------------------------------------29 4.1.1 Detailed Resource Characteristics-------------------------------------------------31 4.2 State or Federal Listed Threatened or Endangered Species or Habitats of Concern-------------------------------------------------------32 4.3 Anadromous Fish, Trout, and Other Significant Fisheries-------------------------------------------32 4.4 State Scenic River segments and Significant Recreational Rivers----------------------------------33 4.5 Wetland-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35 4.6 Riparian Buffers and Conservation Easements--------------------------------------------------------35 4.7 Land Use and Land Cover-------------------------------------------------------------------------------36 4.8 Impaired Streams------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------39 4.9 Point Source Discharges----------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 4.10 Potential Threats to Water Quantity and Quality----------------------------------------------------50 5.0 Projected Water Demand----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------53 5.1 Population Data--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------53 5.2 Projected Water Demand---------------------------------------------------------------------------------55 vi 6.0 Water Demand Management------------------------------------------------------------------------------------89
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flood History 1. According to Records
    Flood History 1. According to records from the NOAA Event Records database, the months when the most flooding occurs are March, with five (5) reported floods from 1950 to present, September, with four (4) reported floods, and January and February both with three (3) reported floods. There have been 29 flood events in Jefferson County since 1993, 18 of which were river floods, 11 that were considered flash flood events. 2. The worst hazard events experienced in Jefferson County were incidents of flooding resulting from heavy rains and snow melt. The earliest flood on record occurred in 1870 when the Shenandoah River was recorded at 12.9 feet above flood stage in the community of Millville. The following are brief descriptions of historical floods that have occurred in Jefferson County. a. October 1962 – Flooding of the Shenandoah River at Millville resulted in estimated damages to over 40 homes and mobile homes. The river crested at 32.45 feet. b. April 22, 1992 – Both the Shenandoah and the Potomac Rivers crested above flood stage after 4.5 inches of rainfall. A car and a mobile home were destroyed by the high waters. c. March 25-28, 1993 – Flash flooding occurred after snow melted throughout the county. Several people were evacuated and approximately $5,000 in damages to public facilities was reported. d. January 19-21, 1996 – A three-day period of flooding resulted from snow melting after the Blizzard of 1996. Several roads were closed and many structures were affected or damaged by the high water. This flooding resulted in approximately $593,000 in damages to public and private facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C
    Final Report Potomac River Source Water ~s.ejgitllm~tsjjK.,..~IW1I~ for Marylan . Prepared by: Becker and O'Melia, LLC in association with Straughan Environmental Services, Inc. Becker and O'Melia, LLC WATER PROCESS RESEARCHERS AND CONSULTANTS POTOMAC SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS Introduction The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments required states to develop and implement source water assessment prograIlli to evaluate the safety of all public drinking water systems. A Source Water Assessment (SWA) is a process for evaluating the vulnerability to contamination ofthe source of a public drinking water supply. The assessment does not address the treatment processes, or the storage and distribution aspects of the water system, which are covered under separate provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is the lead state agency in this source water assessment effort. There are three main steps in the assessment process: (1) delineating the watershed drainage area that is likely to contribute to the drinking water supply, (2) identijYing potential contaminants within that area and (3) assessing the vulnerability, or susceptibility, of the system to those contaminants. Public notification is the final component of the source water assessment report process. The goal of the source water assessment program is to provide a framework for local stakeholders and governments in developing a Source Water Protection Plan. The source water assessments for Maryland water systems utilizing the Potomac River was undertaken as a joint effort by MDE, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Conunission (WSSC), and several consultants, including The Center for Watershep Ptotection, and Becker & O'Melia, the lead consultant.
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia Section 303(D) List and Supplements
    West Virginia Section 303(d) List and Supplements uunnamednnamed ttributaryributary ooff Elk-twoElk-two MMileile CCreekreek iinn KKanawhaanawha CCountyounty PPhotohoto bbyy PPatat CCampbellampbell The format of the 2004 Section 303(d) list is organized around the Watershed Management Framework. The fi ve hydrologic groups (A-E) of the framework provide the skeleton. Within each hydrologic group, watersheds are arranged alphabetically and impaired waters are sorted by stream code in their appropriate watershed. The information that follows each impaired stream includes the stream code, the affected water quality criteria, the affected designated use, the general cause of the impairment (where known), the impaired length (or, by default, the entire length), the planned or last possible timing of TMDL development and whether or not the stream was on the 2002 list. The cause of impairment is often unknown or uncertain at the time of listing and is so indicated on the list. The cause(s) of impairment and the contributing sources of pollution will be identifi ed in the TMDL development process. Many waters are listed, by default, for their entire length. In most cases, it is doubtful that the entire length of stream is impaired, but without further data, the exact length of impairment is unknown. Each listed stream will be revisited prior to TMDL development. The additional assessments performed in the pre-TMDL monitoring effort will better defi ne the impaired length. A West Virginia Watershed Management Framework map is provided to assist navigation within the list. A key is also provided to aid in the interpretation of presented information.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cacapon Settlement: 1749-1800 31
    THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 5 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 The existence of a settlement of Brethren families in the Cacapon River Valley of eastern Hampshire County in present day West Virginia has been unknown and uninvestigated until the present time. That a congregation of Brethren existed there in colonial times cannot now be denied, for sufficient evidence has been accumulated to reveal its presence at least by the 1760s and perhaps earlier. Because at this early date, Brethren churches and ministers did not keep records, details of this church cannot be recovered. At most, contemporary researchers can attempt to identify the families which have the highest probability of being of Brethren affiliation. Even this is difficult due to lack of time and resources. The research program for many of these families is incomplete, and this chapter is offered tentatively as a basis for additional research. Some attempted identifications will likely be incorrect. As work went forward on the Brethren settlements in the western and southern parts of old Hampshire County, it became clear that many families in the South Branch, Beaver Run and Pine churches had relatives who had lived in the Cacapon River Valley. Numerous families had moved from that valley to the western part of the county, and intermarriages were also evident. Land records revealed a large number of family names which were common on the South Branch, Patterson Creek, Beaver Run and Mill Creek areas. In many instances, the names appeared first on the Cacapon and later in the western part of the county.
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Control Board Page 1 O F16 9 Vac 25-260-350 and 400 Water Quality Standards
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 O F16 9 VAC 25-260-350 AND 400 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 9 VAC 25-260-350 Designation of nutrient enriched waters. A. The following state waters are hereby designated as "nutrient enriched waters": * 1. Smith Mountain Lake and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 2. Lake Chesdin from its dam upstream to where the Route 360 bridge (Goodes Bridge) crosses the Appomattox River, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter between the dam and the Route 360 bridge; 3. South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 4. New River and its tributaries, except Peak Creek above Interstate 81, from Claytor Dam upstream to Big Reed Island Creek (Claytor Lake); 5. Peak Creek from its headwaters to its mouth (confluence with Claytor Lake), including all tributaries to their headwaters; 6. Aquia Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 7. Fourmile Run from its headwaters to the state line; 8. Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 9. Little Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 10. Gunston Cove from its headwaters to the state line; 11. Belmont and Occoquan Bays from their headwaters to the state line; 12. Potomac Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 13. Neabsco Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 14. Williams Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with Upper Machodoc Creek; 15. Tidal freshwater Rappahannock River from the fall line to Buoy 44, near Leedstown, Virginia, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter the tidal freshwater Rappahannock River; 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Overview
    WWeett WWaaddeerrss aanndd BBeeyyoonndd TThhee CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff OOuurr SSttaattee’’ss WWaatteerrss AA CCiittiizzeenn’’ss PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee 1 WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water and Waste Management, Nonpoint Section 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 The document was prepared by Tim Craddock, WV DEP’s Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator and is available electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF). To request your copy send e-mail to Tim Craddock at: [email protected]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Color photographs provided by: Alana Hartman, DEP’s Potomac Basin Coordinator; Abby Chappel, WV River Network; Sherry Evasic, Blue Heron Environmental Network; Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute; Suzanne Hubbard, The Mountain Institute; Renee Cain, Lower West Fork Watershed Association; Martin Christ, Friends of Deckers Creek; Bobby Bonnett, Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization; Diana Green, Davis Creek Watershed Association; James Grey, Morris Creek Watershed Association; Larry Orr, Kanawha Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Valerie Wilson, Science Teacher, Oak Hill Catholic Center; Brad Durst, WV Conservation Agency and Curtis Canada, Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association. WV Save Our Streams would like to recognize all the volunteer monitors, not only those directly associated with the program, but any others who have given their time and energy in an effort to protect our state’s streams and rivers. WV Save Our Streams would also like to recognize all of the agency and other partners who have provided assistance of any kind, to help guide volunteers through the myriad of processes involved with water quality issues. “Perception is not acquired by formal education, nor is it reserved for persons learned in the arts or sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Log of the Geology of Frederick County, Virginia W
    Vol. 17 MAY, 1971 No. 2 ROAD LOG OF THE GEOLOGY OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA W. E. Nunan The following road log is a guide to geologic The user of this road log should keep in mind features along or near main roads in Frederick that automobile odometers vary in accuracy. Dis- County, Virginia. Distances and cumulative mile- tances between stops and road intersections ages between places where interesting and repre- should be checked frequently, especially at junc- sentative-lithologies, formational contacts, struc- tions or stream crossings immediately preceding tural features, fossils, and geomorphic features stops. The Frederick County road map of the occur are noted. At least one exposure for nearly Virginia Department of Highways, and the U. S. each formation is included in the log. Brief dis- Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps cussions of the geological features observable at are recommended for use with this road log. the various stops is included in the text. Topographic maps covering Frederick County include Boyce, Capon Bridge, Capon Springs, A comprehensive report of the geology of the Glengary, Gore, Hayfield, Inwood, Middletown, Mountain Falls, Ridge, Stephens City, Stephen- County is presented in "Geology and Mineral Re- son, Wardensville, White Hall, and Winchester. sources of Frederick County" by Charles Butts The route of the road log (Figure 1) shows U. S. and R. S. Edmundson, Bulletin 80 of the Virginia and State Highways and those State Roads trav- Division of Mineral Resources. The publication eled or needed for reference at intersections. has a 1:62,500 scale geologic map in color, which Pertinent place names, streams, and railroad is available from the Division for $4.00 plus sales crossings are indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Development of Shenandoah River
    SDMS DocID 2109708 Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) for the Shenandoah River, Virginia and West Virginia I. Introduction The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for those water bodies identified as impaired by the state where technology-based and other controls did not provide for attainment of water quality standards. A TMDL is a determination of the amount of a pollutant from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources, including a margin of safety, that may be discharged to a water qualit>'-limited water body. This document will set forth the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rationale for establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of PGBs for the Shenandoah River. EPA's rationale is based on the determination that the TMDL meets the following 8 regulatory conditions pursuant to 40 CFR §130. 1) The TMDL is designed to implement applicable water quality standards. 2) The TMDL includes a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and load allocations. 3) The TMDL considers the impacts of background pollutant contributions. 4) The TMDL considers critical environmental conditions. 5) The TMDL considers seasonal environmental variations. 6) The TMDL includes a margin of safety. 7) The TMDL has been subject to public participation. 8) There is reasonable assurance that the TMDL can be met. II. Background The Shenandoah River drains 1,957,690 acres of land. The watershed can be broken down into several land-uses. Forest and agricultural lands make-up roughly 1,800,000 acres of watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Department of Historic Resources
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM ................................................................................................................................................ 1. Name of Property ...................................................................-------------------------------------------------------------------===== historic name: Skyline Drive Historic District other namelsite number: N/A ........................................................................ 2. Location ........................................................................ street & number: Shenandoah National Park (SHEN) not for publication: - cityltown: Luray vicinity: x state: VA county: Albemarle code: VA003 zip code: 22835 Augusta VA015 Greene VA079 Madison VA113 Page VA139 Rappahannock VA157 Rockingham VA165 Warren VA187 -----------------------------------------------------=================== 3. Classification ........................................................................ Ownership of Property: publlcc'-~ederal Category of Property: district Number of Resources within Property: Contributing Noncontributing 8 buildings 3 sites 67 structures 1 objects 79 Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register: none Name of related multiple property listing: Historic Park Landscapes in National and State Parks .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the National Speleological
    Note: These pages were produced from a copy of the original document. Some of the text was produced by optical character recognition, but much of it was entered by hand because the original copy was very poor quality. The text has been checked, but it probably still contains some errors. Any critical text should be compared to the original document image before being used. Bob Hoke, March 2008 Bulletin of the National Speleological Society (NSS logo goes here) MAY 1941 50¢ Per Copy TABLE OF CONTENTS Society Emblem-----------------------------1 Advanced Cave Safety-----------------------1 Wm. J. Stephenson Trapping for Cave Beetles------------------4 J. Manson Valentine Marlinton Trip-----------------------------7 Jack Preble Bloch In Interview-------------------------9 Sixth Sense of Togo------------------------10 The Use of Color Photography in Caves------11 John T. Meenehan Interesting Items from the Correspondence Files--------------------------------------12 News from New England----------------------16 Lake Lure Cave Trip------------------------18 Jack Schultz Rumbling Bald Mountain Caves---------------19 Dead Dog Cave------------------------------22 Berryville-Charlestown Road Cave-----------23 Baldwin Caves------------------------------25 Allen's Cave-------------------------------26 Horseshoe Cave-----------------------------27 Trip To Hell-Hole and School House Caves---27 Jean R. Williams Whiting's Neck Cave------------------------29 John's Cave--------------------------------30 Arkansas' Unsung Wonder--------------------30 George
    [Show full text]