19910326 Ver 1_More Info Received_19930726

FEDERi
TO THE PARTIES ADDRESS
Enclosed is the P
application to amend t
Gaston Developments Px
amendment would author
supply intake at Lake
yet unconstructed wate
City of Virginia Beach,

I V
;014',
Ijp, 0y?ar'
199"
NORTH CAROLINA
:FT, OF ATTORNEY O`-IN X71
or the
iids and
proposed
?1 water
>ly water to a
reyance to the
>mmunities.
The EA documents the views of the Commission's staff and
includes staff recommendations on the proposed amendment of the
license. The EA, along with all comments and recommendations
received in response to this application, will be part of the
record from which the Commission will make its decision.
All entities on the service list are invited to review and
comment on the EA. Any comments on the EA should be specific and
include the factual basis to support the comments. Any
references to other documents should be properly cited to the
appropriate page. If you do not wish to modify comments or
recommendations previously filed with the Commission, no
additional filing is required.
An original and eight copies of any comments should be filed
within 30 days from the date of this notice with:
The Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop: DPCA, HL-21.1
825 North Capitol Street, NE.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Once any additional comments are filed, with appropriate service
to all parties, we will allow until 45 days from the date of this
letter for the parties to submit reply comments to the
commission. Questions regarding this proceeding should be
referred to John A. Schnacl at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mark Robinson
irector, Division..-of--Project
Compliance and Administration
Enclosure
cc: Service List
service List
Robert B. Broughton,
North Carolina Farm
Federation
5301 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27611
Esquire James L. Gale, Esquire
Bureau Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore
316 West Edenton Street
P.O. Box 27525
Raleigh, NC 27611
Michael F. Corcoran
Ex. V. President
North Carolina Wildlife
Federation
1024 Washington Street
Raleigh, NC 27605
Alan S. Hirsch, Esquire
North Carolina, Attorney
General of Department of
Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
G. Macon Reavis, Jr., Supt.
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary
District
Sanitary District Road
635 Hamilton Street
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Ronald Wilson, Esquire
Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund (DC)
1531 P Street, N.W.
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Frederick M. Lowther, Esquire
Dicksten, Shapiro & Morin
2101 L Street,'N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Chester Harrell, Esquire
Harrell, Chester
Route 1
Box 155
Ahosike, NC 27910.
M. Terry Pratt, Esquire
Pratt, Terry M
Route 1
Box 178-A
Merry Hill, NC 27957
Patrick M. McSweeney, Esquire
McSweeney, Burtch & Crump
Nine South 12th Street
Post Office Box 1463
Richmond, VA 23212
James S. Dockery, Jr. Esquire
Petree, Stockton & Robinson
1001 West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400
Thomas M. Leahy, III, Esquire
Virginia Beach, City of (VA)
Department of Public Utilities
Municipal Center/Operations
Bldg., Rm.-220
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
W. R. Cartwright
Vice President
Virginia Electric & Power
Company
Innsbrook Technical
Center - 1NE
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Samuel M. Brock, III, Esquire
Mays & Valentine
P.O. Box 1122
Richmond, VA 23208-1122
Patrick M. McSweeney, Esquire
McSweeney, Burtch & Crump
Nine.South 12th Street
Post Office Box 1463
Richmond, VA 23212
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Hydropower Licensing
Environmental Assessment
Non-project Use of Project Lands and Water for the
City of Virginia Beach Water Supply Project
FERC_ 2009-003
July 23, 1993
Applicant: Virginia Power
Brunswick County, Virginia
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Hydropower Licensing
Division of Project Compliance and Administration
310 First Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20426
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Board (Virginia State Water Control Board)
cfs (cubic feet per second).
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
DO (Dissolved Oxygen)
EA (Environmental Assessment)
EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)
ESA (Endangered Species Act)
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
FONSI (Finding of no significant impact)
fps (feet per second)
FS (Feasibility Study)
ft. (feet)
FWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
kWh (kilowatt hour)
mgd (million gallons per day)
mg/L (milligrams per liter)
msl (mean sea level)
MW (megawatts)
MWh (megawatts per hour)
NC (State of North Carolina)
ND (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District)
NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)
NRHP (National Register of Historic Places)
ppm (parts per million)
ROW (right of way)
RRBA (Roanoke River Basin Association)
rpm (rotations per minute)
SEA (Supplement Environmental Assessment)
SETS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement)
SSOS (Supplemental Statement of Findings)
SWCB (State Water Control Board)
Virginia Beach (City of Virginia Beach, Virginia)
WD (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District)
WET (Wetlands Evaluaticn Technique)
Table of Contents
1.0 APPLICATION SUMMARY 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 2
2.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action 2
2.2 Need for Non-project Use of Project Lands and Waters 2
2.3 Scope of This Environmental Assessment 4
2.3.1 Regulatory Framework 4
2.3.2 Previous Environmental Assessments and
Court Actions Included by Reference 6
2.3.3 Previous Studies Included by Reference 10
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 12
3.1 Description of the Proposed Action 12
3.1.1 Project Operations 15
3.1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 16
4.0 CONSULTATION 17
5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 19
5.1 Background 19
5.2 Description of Project Environment 20
5.2.1 Lake Gaston Project Waters 20
5.2.2 Project Lands 20
5.3 Description of Pipeline Corridor Environment 20
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 23
6.1 Impacts to Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Developments 23
6.1.1 Project Hydropower Operations 23
6.1.2 Project Economics 23
6.1.3 Project Environment 24
6.1.4 Proposed Pipeline Effects 29
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 39
7.1 Direct Effects 39
7.2 Indirect Effects 39
7.3 Need for Action 40
7.4 Staff Recommendations 40
8.0 LITERATURE CITED 41
9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 43
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Map and Pipeline Alignment
Figure 2 Intake location, Lake Gaston
Figure 3 Location of Principal Project Features
Figure 4 Pea Hill Creek Facilities
Page
3
13
14
21
1.0 APPLICATION SUMMARY
1. Project Name:
2. Application Type:
3. Filing Date:
4. Applicant:
5. Water Body:
6. County and State
Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Developments
FERC Project No: 2009-003
Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters
or Virginia Beach Water Supply Project
February 21, 1991
Virginia Power
Lake Gaston
Brunswick County, Virginia
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
2.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action
Virginia Power (applicant) operates the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston
Developments, which include two of three adjacent impoundments of the
Roanoke River in the states of Virginia and North Carolina. The lower
impoundment, Roanoke Rapids, is directly downstream of the middle
impoundment, Lake Gaston. The upper impoundment formed by Kerr
Dam, creating Buggs Island Reservoir, is operated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) for multiple, uses. Hydropower generating
facilities are associated with each impoundment.
Virginia Power has applied with the Commission for an Order Approving
the Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters at Lake Gaston. The
applicant is seeking the order to allow it to enter into agreements with
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (Virgnia Beach) for the construction of
a municipal water supply project. Virginia Beach is an intervenor.
Specifically, Virginia Beach proposes to construct a water supply system
from Lake Gaston to Lake Prince near the City of Norfolk. Virginia
Beach proposes to construct a water intake structure on Lake Gaston.
The proposed intake would be located cn the Pea Hill Creek Cove of
Lake Gaston in Brunswick County, Virginia, just north of the
Virginia-North Carolina border. The proposed water supply project would
include a 60-inch diameter pipeline to c--nvey raw water through portions
of 4 Virginia counties to connect with the City of Norfolk's water facilities.
The proposed pipeline is intended to eventually provide up to 60 million
gallons per day (mgd) of water to Virginia Beach, and secondary users
including the municipality of Chesapeake and the Counties of Isle of
Wight and Franklin. The proposed pipeline route traverses sections of
Brunswick, Greensville, Sussex, and Isle of Wight Counties, Virginia.
Figure 1 shows the project. iocation and the general alignment of the
water supply pipeline.
2.2 Need for Non-project Use of Project Lands and Waters
The need for a reliable source of additicnal water to serve Virginia Beach
has been discussed in previous studies ;Corps, 1984; Virginia Beach
1988a and b; Virginia State Water Control Board, 1988). The emerging
water supply problem was recognized more than 20 years ago during
public hearings related to the Northeast United States Water Supply
legislation in 1967. The cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake,
Virginia Beach, Suffolk, and Franklin, and all of Isle of Wight and
Southampton Counties, had water restrictions in 1977, and rationing in
1980 to 1981 (Corps, ND, 1984).
2
?.??"nom' ? a ? a n/ I
F
O
w Z
t, C, c
S
l _ ? O I
Jc?
?V ? .-7 V ? Y J• j rf d.
z 1 O
w r g ? •. \ w _
10
> w s"Y w a i
s !a
CJ/ # i
/ ; (l a m
C 1 O w 3 '?-?._
J u
m
?1 x
O ? u
a '
C
c c
O O
cn E
a
E c
C F`
Z _
c
W cs N
¦
Y C
u
r QPy,/?P?/f
J r
_ ?+ Z ?HO'N PN E
W
C p?
i. c Q I w
I o ?• ¢
¢ W
W m ``
o J,
¢
x F I
?r X
a 7'.
LL
J )
S
a J
¢
3 ? f
I
3
V

may` W
U
? Z
m
J
z
' l
C-
,. I
•tL3 v
C •Q
?(? 2W
`V I
Ea
O
tQ 4-1
O"
Y
T
L

3
The Corps sponsored studies in the early 1980s to evaluate options for
supplying these water demands. These studies culminated in a
Feasibility Report (FS) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Hampton Roads area (including Virginia Beach) in December 1984
(Corps, 1984). This report selected direct withdrawal from Lake Gaston
as the alternative of choice to supply Virginia Beach and other southside
Hampton Roads communities.
Virginia Beach engaged in water supply studies of its own (Virginia
Beach, 1988a and b) and participated in joint studies with others (Virginia
Department of Health, 1983). Other alternative sources of water,
including desalting, wastewater reuse, ground water, and alternative
lakes and rivers, were explored before Virginia Beach decided its best
alternative for a reliable source was Lake Gaston in the Roanoke River
Basin. This alternative has been confirmed in legal proceedings (State of
N.C. v. Hudson, 1987).
2.3 Scope of This Environmental Assessment
2.3.1 Regulatory Framework
The environmental assessment (EA) contained in this document has
been conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider, as part of
their decision-making process, the environmental consequences of their
proposed actions. The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, or enhance
the environment through well-informed federal decisions.
To comply with NEPA, and to assess potential effects on the
environment associated with the proposed action, other pertinent
regulations must be considered. These include, -in part, the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the National Pistoric Preservation Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other applicable federal statutes and
Executive Orders.
The results of consultation with acoropriate federal, state, and regional
interests are contained in this document in Section 4.0, Consultation.
Specifically, this EA addresses the proposed project's effect on:
• direct environmental impacts Essociated with water withdrawal from
Gaston-Kerr system;
• indirect environmental impacts associated with the Virginia Beach
pipeline construction and operations;
• hydropower operations impacts to Virginia Power; and
• project economics.
4
Direct impacts include those to Virginia Power's project lands and waters
resulting from the water supply project. Indirect impacts are those not
associated directly to project lands and waters but to other areas as a
result of the water supply project.
This EA is intended to reduce redundancy by reviewing and adopting the
findings and conclusions of previous environmental documents and
assessments where appropriate'. The potential environmental impacts of
project modifications which were not addressed by the previous NEPA
actions are assessed. The information in this EA supplements a number
of environmental documents and legal decisions previously prepared for
the overall action proposed by Virginia Beach. The findings of these
previous studies are incorporated by reference into this EA.
The specific actions covered in this EA, which were not included in
previous NEPA documents, include those related to Virginia Power's
authorization pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) License for Project No. 2009, as well as particular
modifications to the Corps' Section 404 permit number 83-0747-06
issued by the Norfolk District (ND). Previous Corps NEPA documents
fully evaluated the impacts associated with the proposed water supply
project.
Minor revisions to the Corps-issued Section 404 permit issued in
December 1992 were made subsequent to the Corps' most recent NEPA
document. However, the Corps addressed these modifications in a letter
dated July 16, 1992 to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The
Corps asserted that these modifications did not constitute significant
changes to the project scope that would warrant modification of the
Corps' Final EA, Statement of Findings, Finding Of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), or 404 (b) analysis.
Modifications to Permit No. 83-0747-06 were approved by the Corps on
December 17, 1992. The modifications include:
Modification 1:Alternative pipeline materials to include ductile iron and
welded steel for 60-inch pipe.
Modification 2: Minor pipeline route, realignments around two
cemeteries, and a cultivated field with agricultural
drain tiles.
'This practice of avoiding redundancy is in conformance to Council on Environmental Quality (CEO)
guidelines (48 FR 34265-66).
5
Modification 3: Substitution of a buried (submarine) crossing at
Darden Mill Pond for a previously authorized
overhead crossing.
Modification 4: Riprap stabilization at buried stream crossings.
Modification 5: Riprap fords for vehicle and equipment access.
Modification 6: Installation of drain valves.
Modification 7: Lowering the intake pipes in Lake Gaston.
Modification 8: Alteration of the pipeline terminus, either to
discharge into the headwaters of Lake Prince, or for
_ a route realignment.
?2.3.2'?revious Environmental Assessments by R
?1-- eference
Findings of previous studies constitute the basis of fact for assessing
impacts to the Gaston Project as well as permit modifications considered
in this EA. The following is a summary and chronology of these previous
studies and proceedings:
• Norfolk District Corps of Engineers Final EA and FONSI
(December 7, 1983)
The Corps' (ND) initial NEPA review of Permit Application No.
83-0747-06 indicated Virginia Beach's proposal to withdraw 60 mgd of
water from Lake Gaston would not negatively affect public health and
safety, and have only minor short-term effects on historic/cultural
resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers,
and ecologically sensitive areas. The Corps found no effects on
endangered and threatened species from the.project (FONS1,1983; p. 2).
The Corps (ND) arrived at its final EA action after issuing a public notice
on July 25, 1983 describing the proposed project and requesting
comments. The public notice was followed by three public meetings held
in locations .in North Carolina and Virginia. A draft EA and draft FONSI
were issued requesting additional comments on October 11, 1983.
The most significant socioeconomic impacts identified by the Corps were
the perceptions of local residents and other groups that the project would
set a precedent in allowing future, similar interbasin withdrawal and
transfer of water and that the project could depress property values near
Lake Gaston.
The Corps (ND) issued a FONSI on the quality of human environment
and determined that an EIS was not required. However, the Corps
6
subsequently issued, Water Supply Study of Hampton Roads Virginia
Feasibility Re ort Final Environmental Im act Statement, in December
1984.
• Norfolk District Corps of Engineers Statement of Findings
(January 9, 1984)
The Statement of Findings addressed comments raised by the Roanoke
River Basin Association (RRBA) concerning Lake Gaston water level
fluctuations due to the project, water conservation by Virginia Beach, and
future agricultural water users.
The State of North Carolina's (NC) comments asserted interests in
coastal zone consistency attributed to "predicted substantial changes in
the salinity profile of Albemarle Sound". Other NC interests included:
riparian doctrine, interbasin transfer of water,
NC maintained concerns about the project's poand need for tential effects ho project.
anadromous striped bass of the lower Roanoke River and Albemarle
Sound.
The Corps (ND) concluded that coastal zone consistency certification2
was not required in this case, asserting that,
"the issue of reallocation of storage in Kerr Reservoir (related not within
downstream agricultural users) has been raised. This is hin
the scope of the permit process and is properly handled as a
separate action by the Wilmington District".
The Corps (ND) found in all other issues,
"based on my evaluation of the above, the public and private need,
reasonable alternatives and the extent and permanence of the
beneficial and/or detrimental effects, I have determined that the
issuance of this permit is in the public interest, and have incorporated
all reasonable conditions to minimize environmental impacts".
The Corps' permit was issued to Virginia Beach on January 9, 1984.
2A subsequent request was made by NC to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAH) of the U.S. Department.of Commerce, which initially ruled that a CZM consistency determination
was required. This decision was over-ruled by the Secretary of Commerce on December 3, 1992. The
Secretary ruled that NC had no grounds to require Virginia Beach to obtain a CZM review.
7
• Wilmington District Corps of Engineers Final FONSI (January 13, 1984)
Virginia Beach's proposal to withdraw water from Lake Gaston included a plan
to reallocate water in the Kerr Reservoir. The Corps (WD) evaluated the
proposed reallocation of water reserved for hydropower production to water
supply reserves. The Corps (WD) found the Corps' (ND) EA to be adequate
and adopted it as their own. The Corps (WD) held that the proposed 60 mgd
(93 cubic feet per second (cfs)) withdrawal was not a significant withdrawal
from the Roanoke River Basin. In addition, the Corps (WD) did not find any
future water allocations proposed for Kerr Reservoir that would result in a
significant cumulative impact.
The Corps (WD) also determined that a reallocation of water would not directly
or significantly impact the coastal zone of North Carolina (i.e., Albemarle
Sound) and therefore determined that a coastal zone consistency determination
was not required. The Corps (WD) did-not identify significant impacts and
determined that an EIS was not required.
• Norfolk District Corps of Engineers Water Supply Study, Hampton
Roads, Virginia Feasibility Report, and Final Environmental Impact
Statement (December 1984)
The Corps (ND) developed water supply plans for both Southside Hampton
Roads (cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Suffolk, and
the counties of Isle of Wight and Southampton) and the Northside Hampton
Roads (cities of Newport News, Hampton, Poquoson, and Williamsburg, and the
counties of James City and York).
This regional study examined. six water supply alternatives to meet long-range
needs of Southside Hampton Roads. The selected plan for Virginia Beach was
direct withdrawal from Lake Gaston. The Lake Gaston Plan was similar to
Virginia Beach's present plan. The major difference was that the Corps'
alternative specified a withdrawal of 55 mgd, and a longer route.
• Norfolk District Corps of Engineers Final Supplement EA and FONSI
(December 21, 1988)
As mandated by the U.S. District Court (see North Carolina v. Hudson, 665 F.
S'ucp. 428 (E.D.N.C. 1987)), the Corps (ND) conducted further environmental
assessments regarding impacts to striped bass and Virginia Beach's need for
additional water. The Corps (ND) issued a draft Supplement EA (SEA) and
FONSI on June 6, 1988, and invited public comments. The Corps' permit
issued to Virginia Beach required flow mitigation to protect spawning habitat of
striced bass during the critical spring spawning season. Analysis of potential
impacts to striped bass by the Corps affirmed the conclusions presented in the
1983 EA. The Corps (ND) found that the project would not have any
discernible impacts to any fishes (including striped bass) resulting from water
8
level fluctuations due to increased withdrawals by Virginia Beach (EA, 1983; p.
6).
Likewise, the 1983 EA indicated that there was a general decline of striped
bass since the 1970s in Albemarle Sound and the Roanoke River, continuing to
the present. The Corps (ND) identified through referenced studies that
excessive harvest due to recreational and commercial fishing was most likely
the primary contributor to striped bass decline and that the maximum drawdown
of Kerr Reservoir by Virginia Beach (0.15 foot) would not affect spawning
season flows and spawning of striped bass (EA, 1983; p. 7).
With respect to the need for an additional water supply for Virginia Beach, the
Corps (ND) determined that additional supplies, such as the Lake Gaston
Project, would be needed. The Corps (ND) determined that forced imposition
of water reductions and rationing several times during the 1980s in Virginia
Beach reinforced the need for the project. The Corps concluded that conditions
would only worsen with time unless additional supplies were secured.
The FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) both requested an
EIS based upon their determination of deficiencies in the Corps' (ND) SEA.
The SEA was challenged on the basis of existing and future cumulative water
withdrawal impacts. The Corps (ND) countered that such issues had been
determined by the court to be adequately addressed in the 1983 EA or had
been addressed in the Supplement Statement of Findings (SSOF). Concerning
striped bass, the Corps (ND) stated that mitigation (in the form of releases from
the allocation held in Kerr) was still required of the applicant and would be
adequate to offset any impacts. The Corps (ND) reaffirmed the finding of the
previcus EA relating to conducting an EIS, stating,
"related, reasonably foreseen projects have been clearly shown in the
SEA, the Supplement Statement of Findings and elsewhere in the
administrative record. I therefore reaffirm the findings of the previous
Norfolk District Engineer that this action will have no significant impact on
the quality of the human environment and that an EIS is not required"
(Corps ND, SEA, unpaginated).
• Wilmington District Corps of Engineers Final Supplement FONSI
(December 23, 1988)
The issuance of the final supplement FONSI was preceded by the issuance of
a dralft FONSI on July 5, 1988. The Corps (WD) stated, "Thus, I find there will
be no significant impacts on striped bass and that no additional mitigative
measures with respect to striped bass are necessary." [Corps (WD), FONSI,
1988; p. 2]. The Corps (WD) found no significant impact on the quality of the
human, environment, and stated that an EIS was not required. The U.S. District
Court subsequently affirmed the Corps' (WD) authority to allocate water to
Virginia Beach from the Kerr (Bugg's Island) Reservoir. North Carolina v.
9
Hudson, 731 F. Supp. 1261 (E.D.N.C. 1990).
• Norfolk District Corps of Engineers, Permit Modification Notification
Letter (December 17, 1992)
The Corps (ND) granted Virginia Beach's September 13, 1991 request for eight
permit modifications.
• Court Actions
The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Corps (ND) to issue its
permit. Roanoke River Basin Ass'n et al. v. HuHu 940 F.2d 58 (4th Cir.
1991). After further review on remand, the U.S. District Court also affirmed the
permit. North Carolina v. Hu 731 F. Supp. 1261 (E.D.N.C. 1990). The
District Court subsequently issued an order enjoining certain construction, which
order was reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals, North Carolina V.
City of Virginia Beach, 951 F. 2d 596 (4th Cir. 1992).
2.3.3 Previous Studies Included by Reference
Other studies conducted independently of the environmental documentation
prepared by the Corps have been used in establishing the need for, and
environmental consequences of the Virginia Beach proposal. Insofar as they
relate to the Commission's assessment of Virginia Power's request, they are
summarized here.
• James Water Supply Plan, Planning Bulletin #337, March 1988 by the
Virginia State Water Control Board, Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1981, the Virginia General Assembly directed the Virginia State Water
Control Board (Board) to prepare a statewide water supply plan. Eleven basin
reports were prepared in 1987. The James Water Supply Plan covers the
Virginia Beach area as served by the James River system. The basin plans
include, to the extent practicable, the capacity of existing surface and
subsurface waters. to meet current and future water uses, including minimum
instream flows during drought conditions (Code of Virginia, Sec. 62.1 - 44.38).
Findings of the James Water Supply Plan concerning Virginia Beach were that
water resources within the planning area were adequate to meet the area's
average and peak water demands during normal and average flow conditions.
However, during periods of low flow, such as those that occur once in 30 ears
some areas will have difficulty meeting demand, especially if the water users
are solely dependent on naturally available stream flow (James Water Sunoly
Plan, p. III-13).
The Board found that for the Virginia Beach area, the most desirable
supplementation appears to be the Lake Gaston .alternative. The water
10
environmental and hydrologic impacts of Lake Gaston were found to be few
compared to other alternatives including withdrawals from the Nottoway River
with off-channel storage at Assamoosick Swamp, and a combination of small
sources in the Chowan River Basin (James Water ?? ??„i?, plan p. III-450).
• City of Virginia Beach EA of Design Studies (August 1991)
This document provides details of the eight design modifications proposed for
the project and assesses the potential environmental impacts of each. These
modifications and the associated impacts are independently assessed herein.
11
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Description of the Proposed Action
Virginia Power's request is to allow for the implementation of a regional water
supply program requiring use of project lands and water withdrawal from Lake
Gaston that will alleviate a long-term water supply deficit in Virginia Beach and
surrounding municipalities. The proposed facilities associated with Virginia
Beach's project that would be partially or totally located within the project
boundaries of FERC Project No. 2009 are:
• facilities for withdrawing water, including two wedge-wire screen intake
assemblies with slot openings of 1.0 millimeter, each with a pipeline and
associated facilities, and a fish spawning facility below the water level in
Lake Gaston. The fish spawning structure would be installed to enhance
walleye spawning in Pea Hill Creek Cove of Lake Gaston. The structure
would consist of submerged rock riprap and would cover one third acre
of lake bottom. Figure 2 shows the location of the intake structure in
Lake Gaston;
• boat ramp, pier, boathouse and
appurtenant and,facilities along the Pea Hill
Creek Cove shore of Lake Gaston;
• short section of underground pipeline and associated facilities which
cross a minor tributary to the Pea Hill Creek branch of Lake Gaston, east
of the pump station on other lands within Project No. 2009.
In addition to the intake and pumping facilities at Pea Hill Creek Cove (Figure
2), Virginia Beach's project would include a buried 60-inch pipeline that will
convey water from Lake Gaston to one of two eastern terminus locations.
These locations are shown in Figure 3. The applicant's preferred alternative is
the Ennis Pond Channel, which flows directly to Lake Prince. Lake Prince is
the current location of a raw water intake and distribution facility operated by
the City of Norfolk. The alternative terminus is a connection to Norfolk's water
supply system near the Red Top area of the City of Suffolk.
The Lake Prince alternative includes weir/aeration structure modified from an
existing stilling basin would be located at the eastern terminus of the pipeline to
aerate water traveling through the pipeline to achieve dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations of 6 mg/L or greater before the water is discharged into the
Ennis Pond Channel (Application Exhibit 2, p. 10). Figure 3 shows the
proposed pipeline alignment.
12

?1.1 \ - 22Bl ` ? ? li?1 I ?. I q?'`, t?• / ? !? ?° l``Ji ? _ , ,.-?:
'250 /%- ? II ,-. it 1 n \I ???? w 1 j'. I ? l ?- '?,??. •
TII I
- r 626 `\. ' /?\, (... /? • - _ . _ ; , ,. _ /,' I . ???
I\\ ^ n a ?' III \\
if
?• /?r- I ' S/\.'%rir?( i '_ ? '?(?'/ ? 1? ?: I_ (co I I ('
626
.01
1 %/ 1. / ) - ?' %/ ice' I ; X51 (( - rf ' \\•"'1 ` / `
12/ a:1Pkr
?\r ` r lerAi?(\ IntCike I 669 ?-
` Structure
I Qyze. =?°?? I irk
cry'/?. ? \'I? .-, J' /r?_? ,\J\ 10 ,•? ?i •v 1y I L? //'??I.1 /r.Ih l; ^I r ?/ ?? I ? : \
O?Y ` ?, ``J? I i J I l,i?? \` ??-'1^ I S?• ' ?/ ?_`--, 1 \\??'-'\\?,"{j '.tt(? l? / • , \ 1 tI1 ?r? 1\\`,•
?T?'.-_-?
/,?•\ 4, 1
\` 1. \\, \ ( \\'?_,r `/11? 260 p\? t \.?t „° r •.
/ f!
/r.
•..J 1 \ \•.
I 1';°\ 1 --??1? /(( NOWT NiPITiQ I ;C' - I\?- 1
%
IN Wl
II
y? (? __ ??' ??,,r ) C-`.------????J1 w 0 ? ='i"r? 1, ??6 ii l •.?; r.: I ? ? ? __`? ???
r \\ /r? _ / ^c _/ J i-• l? ' 1• '' )?r Source: 'USES To
pographic Quadrangles, Gadsbur9
and
Valentines, Virginia North
Carolina.
1 1000 0 100
0 2000
Environmental Assessment
y Scale in Feet r?--auJ^ 6•ll ,;:_ /', FERC Project No. 2009-003
?- 1
Park;l Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Devel
Figure 2. Intake location, Lake Gaston
Lake Gaston water supply project
opments
W
a
3
Y
LU
m
J
w
Z
x
m
\ Y
O
I
° i
C v
.?E\ ?.
wp0
O
\
c

LL i
O k Cc \ ro o LL
? O I
? 4J
° JOJ ?
Q cc \\ ? ?
E y
p \ LL
e
Q'O$ O v

? \ I
ri ,

\\
Dar Y ? -• ? Q
\ U Z
\\\?Salpuosu? ? -' -. ? J
Swa'a - _ Q I O
\ Route 35 v
a j
Hollow
zz CJ
ay
z z (?
j Q River O
F i
O \ - 2

x Q
?
In \
O
\
C)
v) O
o' o \ Z
\
\
\

oee m
?O
\\ /
\ I I
b ? I
z
Z w j- W

0U
\
. 1 °
\
i
'
J 1

W \
a >
N

3 O i

/ o
e
/ y Cq
C O lC

U CC v O

© 4 CV >?r
O
C
m
in
z-0
O
Z
U V
?^ L
Q
CL >.
i0.
_a
U ?
C y
^Q
J C
_ O
j N
a?
? Y
J?
N
L
Along the approximate 80-mile length of pipeline3, there would be 38
subaqueous crossings of streams and 6 aerial crossings of streams. Two sets
of pressure sustaining valve batteries would be installed along the route to
maintain a full pipeline by controlling pipeline hydraulic gradients.
The proposed project requires a number of permits and approvals, including:
• Corps' permit for construction and operation of the project under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act;
• Water Quality Certification by the Virginia State Water Control Board
under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act;
• local consent by Brunswick County, as required under Virginia law; and
• other local consent by affected jurisdictions including Greensville County,
Isle of Wight County, Town of Jarratt, and County of Sussex.
3.1.1 Project Operations
The scope of the proposed action considered in this EA includes the
environmental impacts and costs associated with the impact to project lands
and waters, and eight modifications to the Corps' Section 404 permit as outlined
in Section 5.1. The only modifications of the originally proposed design plans
that may affect the project operations are the lowering of intake pipes in Lake
Gaston and the pipeline terminus location.
The originally proposed action included an intake structure at a depth of 15 feet
below the normal pool elevation (200 ft mean sea level (msl)) of Lake Gaston.
Virginia Power is authorized to draw down the surface level by eight (8) feet
every six (6) years to control excessive growth of nuisance aquatic weeds. To
offset intake operational problems due to this periodic maintenance practice,
Virginia Beach proposes to lower the intakes 8 additional feet to a depth of 23
feet below normal pool level in order to compensate for this episodic drawdown.
Altering the pipeline terminus with discharge into the headwaters of Lake Prince
also involves operations of the Norfolk raw water supply system. The pumping
schedules of Norfolk from other water sources and from Virginia Beach's
pumpage of Lake Gaston are not projected to increase to the maximum of 60
mgd until the year 2030. These two discharges would not adversely impact
each other in dry or normal conditions, and it is unlikely that maximum pumping
would occur during storms or years of high water yields.
aThe actual length of the pipeline is 76 miles for the Lake Prince terminus alternative and 84.5 miles
for the Red Top terminus alternative.
15
3.1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Other sources of water were considered b
1983; Virginia Beach, 1988 a and b; Virginia pStateuWater Control Board, 198
The Corps (ND) considered alternative locations of the proposed intake, 8)
desalting of ocean water, control of Virginia Beach's growth, other reservoir
locations, direct withdrawal from other rivers, local cooperation and
interconnection of existing systems, water conservation, water recycling,
groundwater sources, use of coal slurry pipeline, icebergs and no action
alternatives in their December 7, 1983 Final EA and FONSI (p. 12-14). Each
alternative was dismissed based on technical, cultural or environmental
concerns.
The no-action alternative is the only alternative to the proposed action
considered in this EA. The no-action alternative would maintain the status u
i.e., the current status of all resources and uses of Lake Gaston and the q o,
proposed pipeline corridor.
16
4.0 CONSULTATION
After the Commission issued a public notice regarding Approval of Non-Project
Use of Project Lands and Waters for the Roanoke Rapids and Lake Gaston
Project on March 11, 1991, the following entities filed motions to intervene.
Motions to Intervene
Date of Motion
Roanoke-Chowan Wildlife Club
Inc
,
.
North Carolina Wildlife Federation 4/24/91

Town of Weldon, North Carolina 4/26/91

Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District 4/26/91

Roanoke River Basin Association 4/26/91

Sierra Club 4/26/91

North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. 4/26/91
5/1/91
National Marine Fisheries Service

Department of the Interior 5/1/91

Department of the Interior 8/21/91
12/24/91
Letters were received from federal agencies and departments including the
Department of the Navy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the Department of the Interior, as well as from
state and local agencies in Virginia and North Carolina.
The Corps, the Navy, and Virginia state and local agencies supported the
project as necessary and in compliance with all the pertinent environmental
policies and regulations.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, the Department of the Interior, and the
North Carolina state agencies opposed the project as an unnecessary,
out-of-basin consumptive withdrawal that would have adverse impacts on water
quality, wetlands, fish, and wildlife in the Roanoke River basin.
Department of the Navy - April 25, 1991
The Department of the Navy supported the Lake Gaston Project on the grounds
that it would be the most technically feasible and cost effective alternative for
providing a reliable water supply for Virginia Beach. The Navy depends on
Virginia Beach's water supply for a number of its facilities.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - April 26, 1991
The Corps supported the Lake Gaston Project on the grounds that it would be
the most suitable and least environmentally-damaging alternative for providing a
needed additional water supply for Hampton Roads.
17
National Marine Fisheries Service - May 29, 1991
The National Marine Fisheries Service opposed the Lake Gaston Project
because of the impacts the project might have on striped bass, other fisheries,
and water quality in the lower Roanoke River.
Department of the Interior - August 21, 1991
The Department of the Interior opposed the Lake Gaston Project because of
the precedent that would be set for out-of-basin water withdrawals and the
constraints that the loss of water would put on the rest of the Roanoke River
basin as well as the associated wetlands, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife
impacts.
Department of the Interior - December 24, 1991
The Department of the Interior opposed the Lake Gaston Project because of
the deficiencies of studies done on wetlands impacts.
North Carolina Division of Coastal Zone Management - March 19, 1991
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Zone Management opposed the Lake
Gaston Project because of the impacts the project might have on fisheries,
water quality, and system hydrology and water budgets.
Virginia Council on the Environment April 24, 1991
The Virginia Council on the Environment supported
the grounds that it complies with all local, state, a dt federal pol cies and sect on
regulations with regard to water quality, wetlands, fisheries, and wildlife, and
because of Virginia Beach's need for an additional water supply.
Hampton Roads Planning District - April 25, 1991
The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission supported the Lake Gaston
Project on the grounds that no other viable solution exists for the region's
long-term water supply needs.
Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce April 25, 1991
The Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce supported the Lake Gaston
Project on the grounds that an additional reliable water supply is needed to
sustain economic growth of the region.
18
5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The request by Virginia Power for non-project use of project lands and waters
for Virginia Beach's proposed water supply project potentially affects Lake
Gaston, the Roanoke River basin, and the corridor through which the pipeline
extends to the Virginia Beach area. Each of these areas were reviewed
extensively in previous NEPA documents. Section 5.1 below highlights the
affected environment related to those areas included in a recently modified
Corps' 404 permit for the project.
5.1 Background
Virginia Beach proposed modifications to its 404 permit subsequent to the
Corps' original EA. These modifications were approved by the Corps on
December 17, 1992. The modifications are largely design changes to meet
requirements of local agencies and current environmental field conditions of
project. The modifications include: the
• use of alternative pipeline materials;
• minor route realignments;
• an additional submarine stream crossing;
• riprap stabilizations at buried pipeline stream crossings;
• riprap fords at vehicle access stream crossings;
• installation of pipeline drain valves;
• lowering intake pipes in Lake Gaston; and,
• alteration of the pipeline terminus to either discharge into Lake Prince (via
Ennis Pond Channel), or to the original terminus at Red Top, Virginia,
which requires a route realignment.
The minor realignment modifications made to the pipeline route as proposed in
Virginia Beach's EA dated August, 1991 will avoid two cultural resources
that were originally overlooked. These areas include two cemeteries along as
section,of an existing Virginia Power right-of-way (ROW). The other g
realignment modification avoids an agricultural field.
According to the FWS, records from the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage,
Department of Conservation, indicated that a federally-listed endangered
species, the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), may occur in the
area surrounding the proposed route of the pipeline. The FWS also stated that
there will be a loss of forested habitat for migratory birds along the pipeline route. 9 proposed
The description of the affected environment in this EA is broken down into the
"Project," which includes Lake Gaston and its boundary, and "Non-Project "
which covers the pipeline corridor and terminus. '
19
5.2 Description of Project Environment
The purpose of this section is to describe the project area, Lake Gaston and
immediate boundary lands, from which an analysis of the environmental
impacts (Section 6.0) can be developed.
5.2.1 Lake Gaston Project Waters
Lake Gaston is a 4,227-acre reservoir, 8 miles long with a 47 mile shoreline,
located in the Southern Piedmont on the Virginia and North Carolina border.
Pines and hardwood forests surround the lake. The lake supports a
warm-water fishery. The proposed.intake and support facilities would be
located on the Pea Hill Creek Cove of Lake Gaston (Figure 3), and includes
habitats immediately adjacent to the shoreline. Withdrawal depth would be 23
feet below normal pool. Water quality and recreational use of Lake Gaston
have been adequately described in past studies, such as the Water Supply
Study, Hampton Roads (Corps of Engineers, 1984), and the Corps' 1988 Final
SEA. Design of the proposed intake structure and on-shore building have been
shown, in detail in Virginia Power's application to the Commission, Project 2009,
"Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Developments", dated February, 1991, Exhibit 2,
Construction Description (Figure 4).
Recreational use of the lake is high and many shoreline homes have been
constructed on the lakeshore. Four public access points have been provided
for fishing.
5.2.2 Project Lands
Adjacent land areas are predominantly forested, with a mixture of young oaks
and pines (10 to 40 years old). A recent site investigation (ERM, April 1993)
revealed no wetlands at the location that the water pipeline would come ashore.
The proposed pipeline path on project lands to the east of the intake consists of
a forested area comprised primarily of young pine trees.
5.3 Description of Pipeline Corridor Environment
The pipeline corridor includes all those lands and waters which are traversed by
the water supply pipeline and terminus structure which are outside the Lake
Gaston boundary.
The proposed pipeline makes use of various existing powerline, abandoned
railroad, and aqueduct ROWs in the four sparsely populated southeastern
Virginia counties it traverses. Land use along the proposed 100-foot wide ROW
predominantly includes agriculture and forested areas. Timber harvest by clear
cutting was a common land use observed by ERM in 1993. The proposed
pipeline route will cross 38 streams and rivers, 6 of which will be spanned by
overhead crossings. The total area of forest land that will be affected by the
20

0
1 D
C
ro
U
0*
d
L
o
z ?
o N
` ?a
m m
mm ?rn
3ro t
a
c
,
ti U aC p

a?
?o S
m
E;>: c

:
t
#
Q
m
Y
ro
_C
m
ro y
m

?,a W
?a
v

• a
a

LL
Q
a?

L
U

m
ca

m ;,
Y a
fu CU
cQ ?

L

LL
U
?O
L
Na
a? a
=a
v?
c? N
a?
c?
3
c
0
c?
C?
v
Y
3
project is 73 acres, the majority of which is near the intake.
The pipeline route travels approximately six miles through mixed forested
habitats until it reaches a Virginia Power ROW. At that point it follows the
Virginia Power ROW until it reaches two realignment areas, where it briefly
departs and then returns to the original Virginia Power ROW.
The first two realignment areas include rerouting the pipeline around two
cemeteries located in Greensville County. The cemeteries are located at miles
23.5 and 26.5 from the proposed intake. The habitat of the proposed
realignment routes includes mixed pine and hardwood forests.
Just north of the cemetery realignments, the proposed pipeline route leaves the
Virginia Power ROW and follows an abandoned Norfolk and Western railroad
grade. From the railroad ROW, the proposed pipeline route parallels an
existing aqueduct easement of the City of Norfolk.
The proposed pipeline departs from the easement for a minor realignment
around a farm field before returning and paralleling the existing aqueduct to
existing stilling basins at the entrance to Ennis Pond. Ennis Pond and Lake
Prince are part of the raw water storage system operated by the City of Norfolk.
Virginia Beach presently draws some of its municipal water supply from this
system. Located in Isle of Wight, the area along Ennis Pond Channel is
forested with predominantly hydrophytic (wetland) hardwood tree and shrub
species throughout its length to Lake Prince. ,
The alternative route to Red Top parallels existing transportation and utility
ROWs. This route would cross 6,250 linear feet of wetlands, resulting in a
temporary impact to 6.4 acres.
22
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6.1 Impacts to Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Developments
6.1.1 Project Hydropower Operations
Consumptive withdrawal of water from Lake Gaston would slightly reduce the
energy output of the Gaston and Roanoke Rapids projects. The loss of water
would result in a decrease in generation of 0.362 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per
thousand gallons withdrawn (Virginia Power, Exhibit 7). At the full 60. mgd
withdrawal rate, this would result in a daily energy loss of 21.7 megawatt-hours
(MWh) and an annual loss of 7,930 MWh. This represents 0.18 percent of the
total generation from the Kerr, Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids hydropower
complex, or about 0.014 percent of Virginia Power's projected system
generation supplies in 1995. The full 60 mgd withdrawal rate is not expected to
be reached until 2030. These losses are insignificant from both a capacity and
an energy standpoint.
6.1.2 Project Economics
The proposed withdrawal of water would reduce the direct revenue to the
licensee from hydropower generation. Virginia Beach has agreed to
compensate the licensee for this lost power in the form of a replacement power
fixed cost payment and a replacement power variable cost payment. Assuming
a conversion factor of 0.362 MWh per million gallons, 1,900 equivalent hours of
full power operation, and annual fixed charges of $63 per kWh, the annual fixed
cost payment at the full 60 mgd pumping rate would be approximately $262,900
(reference Attachment B to Applicant's Exhibit 7(A)). Assuming a conversion
factor of 0.362 MWh per million gallons and an energy rate of $40 per MWh,
the annual variable cost payment at the full 60 mgd pumping rate would be
$317,100.
Total payments to Virginia Power would compensate for the lost hydropower
production from the system in terms of replacement power costs from
combustion turbines. At full pumping rate, Virginia Beach's withdrawal would
consume an equivalent of about 7,930 MWh. At $80 per MWh, the lost output
at Kerr would have an annual value of approximately $634,000. The
agreement with Virginia Beach would adequately cover the energy replacement
cost.
Indirect costs for items such as the proposed recreational mitigation would be
fully borne by Virginia Beach and would therefore have no impact on project
economics (Applicant, Exhibit 7(A)).
23
6.1.3 Project Environment
The project environment includes lands and waters within the.Gaston Project
boundaries, resources directly impacted as a result of the withdrawal of water
from Lake Gaston, and the corridor and terminus of the proposed pipeline.
6.1.3.1 Project Waters
Lake Gaston
Lake Gaston and Buggs Island Reservoir (the Kerr Project) are impoundments
of the Roanoke River operated and maintained by Virginia Power and by the
Corps (WD) respectively. The proposed withdrawal of water from Lake Gaston
for transmission to Virginia Beach requires the reallocation of storage in the
reservoirs from hydropower to water supply. It is this reallocation that requires
Commission approval.
The intake structure for the water transmission line is proposed for the Pea Hill
Creek Cove portion of Lake Gaston. In addition to the intake structure, the
applicant proposes to construct a timber pier, a concrete boat ramp, and a
boathouse for storage of a boat and other equipment to be used in the
maintenance of the intake structure. A fish spawning structure would also be
installed.
The drainage area of the Pea Hill Creek Cove of Lake Gaston is sufficient to
provide an average flow of approximately 15 mgd. In the future, when Virginia
Beach withdrawal exceeds 15 mgd, the flow in Pea Hill Creek Cove would
begin to reverse flow from Lake Gaston. Operations by Virginia Power in
modifying lake levels between 199 and 201 feet (msl) would compensate for
this tendency. The maximum water withdrawal levels of 60 mgd by Virginia
Beach would represent six percent of the Virginia Power flow. Because the
effect of the Virginia Power flow is 17 times greater, Virginia Beach's withdrawal
should have no significant effect on flows in Pea Hill Creek (EA, 1983; p. 4).
Minimal impact of the withdrawal on water volumes in Lake Gaston and Pea Hill
Creek Cove would similarly have minimal impacts on overall water quality.
Although Lake Gaston water quality is slightly less than that of Pea Hill Creek,
the addition of six percent more water to the lower reaches of Pea Hill Creek
Cove should not be significant (EA, 1983; p. 5).
Pea Hill Creek Cove from time to time stratifies into colder, oxygen-poor waters
along the bottom overlain by oxygen-rich, warmer layers. The submerged level
of Virginia Beach's intake structure would likely be within the colder,
oxygen-poor strata but the currents generated by the intake operation would not
disrupt the thermocline. The effect would be highly localized and overall
positive or negative effects of the thermocline would be dependent on
immediate water chemistry conditions (EA, p. 4). .
24
Many of the fish species found in Pea Hill Creek may be subject to mortality at
intake structures, depending on screen opening size and intake velocities.
Intake impacts to fish will be minimized by the installation of two, wedge-wire
screens with a slot opening of 1.0 mm, and maximum water velocity of 0.5 fps
at the screen. At a distance of three feet from the screen, the intake velocity
will be 0.14 fps, and at five feet, the intake velocity will be 0.08 fps. - Wedge-
wire screens have been shown to be extremely effective in minimizing larval
fish entrainment and all but eliminating fish impingement.
Lake Gaston releases would be maintained under a plan to augment flows in
the Roanoke River to minimize striped bass impacts. Operation of Kerr
Reservoir includes a 50 day "window" in the spring to reserve higher-than-
normal river flows to keep striped bass eggs buoyant until hatching. In worst-
case instances with maximum future withdrawals, the Virginia Beach diversion
of water from the Gaston-Kerr system would eliminate two days from this
"window". This would represent a o percent loss in potential spawning time
every four years. This loss was not considered significant as stated in the
Corps' EA, in December, 1983.
Wetland impacts are estimated to temporarily affect approximately 760,000
square feet of various wetland types, principally due to water crossings of the
pipeline. Impacts are anticipated from construction activities, stockpiling of
excavated materials, and equipment access for temporary construction periods.
No significant impacts are anticipated, as concluded in the 1983 EA, (p. 6).
No significant impacts are expected concerning lake or water course recreation,
aesthetics, cultural, or archaeological resources or land use, because there will
be no significant change in the elevation of Lake Gaston water levels due to the
proposed water supply withdrawal. Potential water supply impacts will be
addressed in the subsequent discussion of effects on the downstream
environment.
6.1.3.2 Project Lands
Within the boundaries of the Lake Gaston Project (elevation 204), the following
facilities are proposed:
• below water level in Lake Gaston: two intake screen arrays, each with
pipeline and associated facilities;
• along the shoreline: boat ramp, pier, and boathouse with associated
facilities; and
• project lands adjacent to Lake Gaston: a short section of buried water
transmission line.
Also within project waters, a fish spawning structure, is proposed as mitigation
25
for potential adverse effects on larval fishes that may be caused by operation of
the intake structure. The remainder of Virginia Beach's proposed project does
not affect Lake Gaston project lands or waters.
Construction of the intake structure and support facilities will cause temporary
minor impacts that will be minimized by implementation of management
practices specified in the Project's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
The Corps has determined the Project will cause minimal effects to hydrology,
water quality, and water volumes (EA, 1983; p.8).
The short segment of water transmission line within the project boundaries will
generate short-term construction impacts that will be reduced by implementing
erosion and sedimentation control practices. Project lands were previously
cleared for the Lake Gaston impoundment, so any effects of pipeline
construction would not be significant.
6.1.3.3 Effects on Downstream Environment
The potential effects of Virginia Beach's withdrawal from Lake Gaston has been
extensively debated and studied by the Corps (Final EIS for the Water Supply
Study, Hampton Roads, Virginia, 1984; Final EA and FONSI by the Wilmington
District, 1984 and the Norfolk District, 1983; plus additional Supplement EAs in
1988 and 1989), the State of North Carolina, Virginia Beach, and the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
At issue were: (1) possible effects of withdrawal and downriver flow on
downstream water use and water quality; (2) anadramous striped bass
productivity in the lower reaches of the Roanoke River near Albemarle Sound,
North Carolina; and (3) the extent of need for new water supply for southside
Virginia.
Downstream users depend on river flows to meet discharge permit conditions
during periods of low flow (typically October) when DO in the water reaches the
? annual low. Conditions of the Commission license for Kerr Dam requires
minimum flows and DO releases at all times. On average, Virginia Beach's
\0 withdrawal would remove approximately one percent of total flows available for
dilution of downstream pollutants (EA, 1983; p. 5).
IV)Y Virginia Beach's withdrawal rate represents approximately 0.5 percent of the
average freshwater flows to Albemarle Sound, the terminus of the Roanoke
River. Salinity in the Sound varies from as much as five parts per million (ppm)
in the eastern reaches to less than one ppm in the western parts. Any potential
impacts to Albemarle Sound will not be significant (EA, 1983; p. 5).
V-P
Findings by the Corp (ND) conclude that: declines in anacirnmnu striped-bass r.o?T
rpopulations are due primarij__to. overfisbing; and the extent of need was determined as serious in the Vir inig a Beach vicinity.' For a major metropolitan
26
area with military installations vital to national defense to experience repeated
water use restrictions and potential system failure was determined to be
catastrophic (SEA, 1988; p.15).
In the Final SEA issued by the Corps (ND) (December 21, 1988), the District
Engineer concluded on these issues that "any lingering controversy over the
effects of this project, as mitigated, on the quality of the human environment to
be insubstantial ...I therefore reaffirm the finding of the previous Norfolk District
Engineer that this action will have no significant impact on the quality of the
human environment and that an EIS is not required."
6.1.3.4 Additional Resources Affected by the Proposed Modifications to
the Corps Permits
The original pipeline permit called for a Lake Gaston intake structure at a depth
of 15 feet below the normal pool level. During the. winter of 1987 to 1988,
Virginia Power lowered the water level eight feet for three months to control an
abundance of nuisance aquatic weeds. It is expected that this lake-lowering
procedure will be repeated every six years. Virginia Beach proposes to lower
the intake pipes eight feet to retain the capability of supplying full design
capacity of the project.
Lands
Since the only project modification that will affect the immediate Roanoke
Rapids and Lake Gaston developments involves lowering the intake pipes an
additional eight feet in Pea Hill Creek, this particular facet of the project should
not directly impact any land areas adjacent to the lake.
Waters
Increasing the depth of the intake results in a significant increase in dredging
substrate material from an original value of 1,100 cubic yards to a proposed
total of 10,500 cubic yards. Sand and gravel would be used for backfill with 12
inches of riprap in the top layer for stabilization. All materials placed in the
trench should be chemically inert, and therefore not pose any water chemistry
impacts to Lake Gaston. Excavated material not meeting requirements for
backfill would be disposed of off site. Original ground contours are proposed to
be restored.
Provided that excavated materials are properly disposed of in a non-water body
or wetland area (i.e., upland), no significant impacts should occur to the water
quality of Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids River. Although some
resuspension of lake bottom sediments and turbidity will occur in Lake Gaston
with the increased dredging required for the project, the impacts should be
minimal and temporary. Such impacts should be confined to the Pea Hill Creek
Cove area of Lake Gaston, and turbidity should settle out before reaching
27
Roanoke Rapids.
Walleye
The Corps has reviewed and approved the applicant's submittals requesting a
modification of the Pea Hill Creek Cove water intake design. The intake
structure consists of two wedge-wire screens with one millimeter slot openings
installed in 29 feet of water in the Pea Hill Creek Cove. The top of the intakes
was designed to be 15 feet below the water surface. The intakes were
designed for an intake velocity of less than 0.5 fps (0.08 fps at five feet from
the screen). The majority of fish can avoid impingement at this low intake
velocity (Heuer and Tomljanovich, 1979).
Larval walleye were the only fish species assessed to be at any risk from the
intake due to their habit of seeking deeper water. The. applicant proposed to
mitigate for any walleye impacts by constructing a 1/3-acre spawning area for
walleye in Pea Hill Creek Cove. The planned mitigation would increase habitat
quality for walleye; suitable walleye spawning habitat is limited in the cove
presently. The Corps approved the mitigation by their issuance of the project
permits and NEPA reviews.
The spawning structure would consist of a submerged rock bed outside of the
intake's zone of influence. The structure would be located 600 ft. from the
intakes in shallow water along the north shore of the intake site, within the Pea
Hill Creek Cove. The Fish and Wildlife Service and state fisheries agencies
have reviewed and approved the design. Impacts would be limited to
temporary distrubances of the lake substrate during construction. An increase
in turbidity may occur but would be limited to an area of the Pea Hill Creek
Cove.
Essentially, the lowering of the intake will have no appreciable impact on
walleye except for a temporary displacement from the site during construction.
The mitigation site is located away from the intake, and when installed, should
provide usable spawning habitat to walleye spawning in Pea Hill Creek Cove.
Downstream
As mentioned above, turbidity created in Lake Gaston should be confined to the
Pea Hill Creek Cove area of Lake Gaston, and should settle out before
reaching Roanoke Rapids. Therefore, no impacts downstream are expected to
be associated with the modification of lowering the intake, or by constructing
the fish spawning area.
28
Striped Bass
The Corps (ND) addressed striped bass impacts in their December 1988 Final
SEA and Revised FONSI. The Corps found that the project would have no
effect on Virginia Power's ability to meet Commission-required minimum
releases and that, with the use of the Kerr storage, "all project effects on flow
during the striped bass spawning season can be eliminated." The Corps (WD)
adopted the Norfolk District's SEA and issued its own FONSI on the Kerr
Reservoir water allocation issue. Existing Virginia Beach water allocations in
Kerr would be used to compensate for any reduction in flow due to the Virginia
Beach water withdrawal during the critical striped bass spawning period.
Federal courts have upheld the Corps' actions.
NC and RRBA appealed the District Court's decision to U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit. The Circuit Court upheld the District Court's decision.
The Corps' NEPA finding of no significant impacts to striped bass has been
tested and upheld by the courts. There has been no additional information
presented in the record to question these findings.
Mitigation Proposal
In addition to the construction of the 1/3-acre fish spawning habitat, a number
of other items can be described as mitigation. The use of best management
practices in the construction of the intake includes a form of mitigation itself.
The use of chemically-inert crushed stone, clean granular material, and riprap
should aid in reducing possible long-term erosion impacts around the intake by
stabilizing exposed soils. The use of silt curtains should further aid in
controlling turbidity in the lake.
The environmental impacts associated with the construction of fish spawning
area have been assessed by this EA and found to be insignificant.
Overall, impacts associated with other mitigation measures should be temporary
and all mitigation measures described in the original permit should be adequate.
6.1.4 Proposed Pipeline Effects
Approximately 76 miles of pipeline will be required to reach the Lake Prince
terminus alternative and 84.5 miles of pipeline will be required to connect to the
Red Top terminus alternative in Suffolk Virginia. The proposed project has
obtained the following permits and approvals relevant to environmental impacts
of the pipeline:
• Corps' permit for construction and operation of the project under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act;
29
• Water Quality Certification by the Virginia State Water Control Board
under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act; and
• local consent by Brunswick County, Greensville County, Isle of Wight
County, Sussex County, and the Town of Jarratt.
6.1.4.1 Previous NEPA Findings
The Corps (ND) concluded that the proposed pipeline would not negatively
affect public health and safety, and have only minor short-term effects on
historic/cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and
scenic rivers, and ecologically sensitive areas. The Corps (ND) found no
effects on endangered and threatened species from the project.
Lands
The pipeline would cross four sparsely-populated Virginia counties (Greensville,
Brunswick, Isle of Wight, and Sussex). The pipeline would use existing ROWs
for powerlines, abandoned railroads, and waterlines. The pipeline was
purposely designed to be placed in existing ROWs to avoid and reduce
environmental impacts. Land use along the ROWs includes agricultural and
forested areas.
The majority of the approximately 73 acres of forested land affected by the
pipeline lies along the intake area, the first six miles of the pipeline route, and
the last six miles of the route prior to the eastern terminus (Virginia Beach's
Environmental Report, January 1991). Impacts to wildlife along the pipeline
would be minimal because it would follow existing ROWs. Wildlife impacts
would be restricted to areas immediately adjacent to the existing ROWs and the
above noted areas (intake area and terminus). Impacts would be temporary
only during the construction period. Overall, loss of woodland (73 acres) would
be minimal compared. to the vast woodlands of the area.
Staff believes that the proposed pipeline would not impact the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a federally-listed endangered species that may
occasionally occur in the area surrounding the proposed pipeline route. The
red-cockaded woodpecker prefers mature open pine forests afflicted with red
heart disease, which usually occurs in trees of 70 years or older. The majority
of pines along the ROW have been cut prior to their reaching an age of 70
years. Large stands of mature old growth pines do not exist along the ROW,
nor at the proposed terminus of the project. The proposed pipeline route has
been previously cleared of most mature trees by commercial logging, and
suitable habitat for the woodpecker does not exist in the proposed pipeline
area. A recent review of the ROW and terminus options did not locate any
suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat (ERM, 1993). The Corps' 1983 EA
concurs that no known habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists within
the non-project boundaries.
30
Staff also believes that the proposed pipeline would have minimal impacts on
migratory birds. Although the FWS expressed concern that there will be a loss
of forest habitat for migratory birds along the proposed pipeline route, loss of
such habitat has occurred in the past due to logging and is currently occurring
from local logging practices. Timber harvest is common in many areas near the
proposed pipeline route, and habitat impacts due to the proposed pipeline
would be minor and insignificant in comparison to the extent of commercial
logging.
Waters
No permanent impacts to surface waters or wetlands would result because of
the proposed pipeline. The proposed project would unavoidably disturb wetland
areas, streams, and creeks at various locations along the pipeline.
Construction of the pipeline across waterways or through wetlands would
temporarily displace vegetation and habitat within the path of construction.
The excavation and backfill activities would increase turbidity in water
downstream of the construction area. These impacts would be temporary.
Sediments in water would settle or be filtered out after construction in that area
is complete. Vegetation will be replanted and would grow back into the affected
areas, replacing any lost habitat. Proper erosion and sediment control
measures have been designed to minimize the impacts from construction. The
Virginia Department of Soil and Water Conservation approved site-specific
sedimentation and erosion control plans for the various aspects of the project to
control runoff from disturbed areas.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control techniques, as required by the
Virginia State Water Control Board's (SWCB) Section 401 water quality
certification issued to Virginia Beach, would be used to minimize sedimentation
in affected areas (Exhibit 3B). In addition, the materials proposed for use in
construction of the intake structure are chemically inert and therefore will have
no effect on water quality.
Wetlands
Less than 23 acres of wetland area would be temporarily disturbed by the
proposed pipeline (Exhibit 5, Environmental Report, Executive Summary, pg. ii).
Disturbed wetlands will be returned to their original contours and revegetated.
The Corps' (ND) FONSI (December 7,1983) concluded that construction of the
pipeline would result in no significant effects on wetlands. The Corps' (ND)
FONSI noted that.the ecological benefit of increased habitat diversity may result
from the project.
31
Downstream/ Eastern Terminus
Virginia Beach originally obtained permission for the discharge of the 60-inch
water line to connect with a main raw water line in the Red Top area of Suffolk,
Virginia. The Red Top connection point required the pipeline to run parallel with
the Ennis Pond Channel to Route 636, follow Route 636 to Route 460, and then
parallel Route 460 to Red Top.
No environmental impacts would result from the transfer of the raw water from
the proposed pipeline to Norfolk's main raw water line at Red Top.
Mitigation Proposed
The original pipeline route was designed to minimize impacts on sensitive areas
and species and was further mitigated with recently proposed modifications.
These modifications are discussed under the Proposed Modifications section of
this document.
Further mitigation actions will follow requirements of the Section 404 Permit
issued by the Corps (ND), and the 401 Certification required by the Virginia
State Water Control Board (Exhibits 3A and 3B, respectively).
6.1.4.2 Additional Resources Affected by the Proposed Modifications
Lands and Waters
The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Section 404 permit
modifications to the water pipeline would be minimal. The permit modifications
would result in minor additional impacts to the approximately 73 acres of total
forested area to be lost from construction of the project. The total permanent
impacts to wetlands from the modifications would be approximately 0.7 acres.
The pipeline realignment areas (cemeteries and agricultural field) would result in
vegetation impacts through the clearing of forested areas for the easement, as
previously discussed. However, no wetland areas will be impacted in those
areas. Specific impacts to land use, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife
associated with each pipeline modification are presented below.
Alternate Pipeline Materials
The original permit considered the use of only prestressed concrete cylinder
pipe in the water conveyance system. One permit modification request calls for
alternative pipe materials to include welded steel pipe and ductile iron pipe.
All three materials are considered acceptable and safe for the conveyance of
raw water and such material changes should have no impact on water quality.
Likewise, such materials should have no impact on land use, fisheries, or
wildlife.
32
Minor Pipeline Realignments
Two realignments from the original pipeline permit are requested to avoid
damage to two cemeteries during pipeline construction and one realignment is
requested to avoid disruption of a cultivated field and damage to its agricultural
drain tile system. The, first cemetery realignment calls for the pipeline to depart
the Virginia Power ROW for 1,580 feet and to extend no more than 130 feet
from the ROW. The second cemetery realignment calls for the pipeline to
depart the ROW for 2,080 feet and to extend no more than 140 feet from the
ROW. The farm realignment calls for the pipeline to diverge from the original
plan for 3,820 feet along an existing dirt road. The general location of the
cemeteries are shown in Figure 3.
The proposed realignments are not expected to impact any additional wetlands.
Minor impacts to forested areas along the realigned route should be the only
land use impacts. These would not impact any red-cockaded woodpecker
habitat, nor would they have any significant impact on migratory bird habitat or
on any other wildlife. There should be no impact on water quality or fisheries.
Darden Mill Pond Crossing
A subaqueous crossing is proposed at Darden Mill Pond, which was originally
planned as an aerial crossing before an abandoned railroad bridge and piers
upon which it was to be placed were removed. This crossing would be
constructed in a manner similar to that of the other subaqueous pipeline
crossings and would include a series of pipe elbows at a minimum depth of
three feet underground. Existing ground contours would be restored where
possible.
The only land use impacts would be the temporary impacts during construction
to 0.05 acres of wetlands that would be crossed and the permanent
displacement of a much smaller area of wetlands by the riprap associated with
subaqueous stream crossings. Original contours would be restored, and all
original wetland values and functions maintained. Water quality in Darden Mill
Pond would be impacted by minor erosion during construction, but the riprap
would limit continued erosion. Impact on fisheries would be insignificant and
there should be no significant adverse impacts on wildlife.
Riprap Stabilization at Buried Stream Crossings
The-pipeline will cross approximately 38 streams along the first 76 miles of the
route. In an effort to prevent erosion and to maintain cover of backfill over the
pipe within the streams, Virginia Beach proposed that riprap be placed on top of
the pipeline at each crossing and original ground contours be restored where
possible. The riprap will be in the form of coarse gravel and rock.
A total of 0.81 acres of riprap would be placed at buried stream crossings and
33
of this total, 0.46 acres would be located in wetlands. The riprap would reduce
erosion of the streambed and add stability, thereby improving stream water
quality. Impacts on fisheries associated with these land use impacts would be
minor and there should be no significant adverse impact on wildlife.
Riprap Fords
A total of 17 riprap fords are proposed to be constructed across streams to
allow vehicle access to portions of the pipeline ROW, resulting in impacts
similar to those from subaqueous pipeline crossings. Existing ground contours
would be restored where possible.
Fords would provide stabilization at each crossing and reduce erosion and
sedimentation impacts that may result from vehicle traffic. A total of 0.16 acres
of riprap would be placed at fords and of this total, 0.10 acres would be located
in wetlands. Impacts on fisheries associated with these land use impacts would
be minor and there should be no significant adverse impact on wildlife. Stream
water quality would be temporarily impacted by increased erosion during
construction, but improved by the reduction in long-term erosion upon
completion.
Drain Valves
Pipeline drains are included in the modified pipeline design to allow for
dewatering sections of the pipeline in order to perform repairs. There would be
no need to use these drain valves on a routine basis.
Primary drains would be utilized first to remove most of the water and pressure
from the portion of the pipeline being dewatered. They would be placed near
receiving streams which are capable of conveying the flow without damage and
the drain outfalls would discharge to riprap-stabilized channels or aprons to
prevent erosion. Nine primary drains are proposed within the first 76 miles of
pipeline. Discharge rates would be low relative to the flows in the receiving
streams.
Secondary drains would be opened second, where water remained in the
pipeline section to be dewatered. Discharges from the secondary valves would
not be under pressure. They would be placed near intermittent streams and
drainage channels with limited capacity for flow. They would terminate just
above the ground surface with a riprap blanket around the outlet and flow would
be regulated to prevent damage at the outlet or downstream. Twenty-eight
secondary drains are proposed within the first 76 miles of pipeline.
A total of 0.15 acres of riprap would be placed at drain valves and of this total,
0.08 acres would be located in wetlands. Impacts on fisheries associated with
these land use impacts would be minor and there should be no significant
adverse impact on water quality or Wildlife.
34
Eastern Terminus
Currently, there are two alternatives proposed for the eastern. terminus of the
pipeline. The first alternative involves discharging the water withdrawn from
Lake Gaston into the Ennis Pond Channel which flows directly into Lake Prince.
An existing intake on Lake Prince will be utilized for withdrawal into Norfolk's
water supply system.
The second alternative would discharge the Lake Gaston water directly into
Norfolk's raw water transmission main in the Red Top area of Suffolk, Virginia.
The Red Top terminus was the original terminus permitted by the Corps (ND),
but the route to Red Top would be modified slightly. After reaching Red Top,
the water would travel through various pipes to the Moores Bridges Treatment
Plant in Norfolk.
Alternative Discharge to Lake Prince
The Lake Prince pipeline terminus alternative calls for the discharge of Lake
Gaston water into the headwaters of Lake Prince. The pipeline would terminate
at an existing stilling basin which discharges into Ennis Pond Channel located
just upstream of Lake Prince. National Wetland Inventory Mapping of this area
indicates the presence of over 400 acres of palustrine forested wetlands in this
general area. If the Lake Prince terminus alternative is selected, some minor
impacts to the forested wetlands may occur due to more frequent flooding of
Ennis Pond Channel from the discharge of Lake Gaston water. The more
frequent inundation may induce minor changes in the wetland plant community.
Species not able to tolerate more frequent inundation may be replaced by those
species which can. Species would likely shift location to habitats having their
optimal hydraulic regimes. Such shifts would be minor. Overall, the more
frequent flooding would have a positive effect by improving hydric conditions
and increasing the overall size of wetlands.
Hydraulic modeling of the Ennis Pond Channel indicates that the area flooded
by the City of Norfolk's present pumping at maximum rate is 6.1 acres and that
the area flooded by the combined pumping by Norfolk and Virginia Beach at
their maximum rates would be 17.5 acres, under non-storm conditions. Thus,
the incremental flooding caused by Virginia Beach's pumping would be 11.4
acres.
Under all conditions, simulations of only Virginia Beach's pumping yielded
results similar to those obtained from simulations of only Norfolk's pumping.
The effects of Virginia Beach's pumping are expected to be less significant
under storm conditions. Under one-year storm conditions, 28.6 acres would be
flooded with no pumping, 32.2 acres with only Norfolk pumping, and 35.6 acres
with both Norfolk and Virginia Beach pumping, with Virginia Beach incremental
flooding being 3.4 acres. These 3.4 acres are within the area flooded naturally
under a two-year storm. Under two-year storm conditions, 37.8 acres would be
35
flooded with no pumping, 39.7 acres with only Norfolk pumping, and 41.6 acres
with both Norfolk and Virginia Beach pumping, with Virginia Beach incremental
flooding being 1.9 acres. Simulations of the five-year and ten-year storms
indicated that pumping by Norfolk and/or Virginia Beach had negligible impact
on water levels.
Modifications to the culverts or the main channel of Ennis Pond Channel could
alleviate some of the flooding resulting from the Norfolk and Gaston pump
overs (Virginia Beach, Request for Modification). However, such modification
may affect the water balance in the Ennis Pond wetlands. The less frequent
inundation induced by either enlarging the culverts or increasing channel depth
may reduce the total acreage of current wetlands.
In addition to the hydrologic modeling, an analysis of the effect of the proposed
project on the values and functions of the associated wetland areas was
performed using the Wetlands Evaluation Technique (WET). The WET analysis
indicated that the primary values and function of the wetlands are flood flow
alteration, sediment retention, and nutrient removal, and that the values and
function of the wetland areas would not be significantly affected by Virginia
Beach's discharge. Flooding of an additional 11.4 acres of wetlands during
non-storm events should not have a significant impact on these values and
functions and existing wetlands should persist with the same characteristics
after the introduction of increased flows from the project.
There are several water quality issues related more directly to the discharge of
water from Lake Gaston. One basis for concern would be the water quality of
Lake Gaston relative to that of Ennis Pond/Lake Prince. Since the overall
quality of water in Lake Gaston is better than that of Lake Prince, as indicated
by a 1987 study by Virginia Beach, impacts to the water quality of Lake Prince
would be minimal, if not beneficial.
A related concern is the discharge of water with low DO content from the
pipeline into Lake Prince/Ennis Pond, since significant amounts of oxygen can
be expected to be consumed during the 75-mile travel of water from Lake
Gaston. However, a weir aeration structure near the terminus of Virginia
Beach's pipeline would aerate the discharge and ensure that its DO content
would be at least 6 mg/L.
Although Lake Gaston has in recent years experienced some growth of two
nuisance weeds (Brazilian elodea and hydrilla), the threat of these weeds
becoming established in Lake Prince is minimal. The 1-mm slot size and slow
intake velocities of the Pea Hill Creek Cove intakes also lessen the likelihood
that aquatic plants would enter the intake. Should any weeds manage to enter
the pipeline and survive conditions of transport within the pipeline, it is unlikely
that they would survive in Lake Prince because of the fluctuating water levels.
These weeds prefer more stable water levels, such as those of Lake Gaston,
which fluctuates no more than one foot..
36
The relocation of the discharges to the Ennis Pond Channel will increase the
acreage of open water and wetlands. Therefore, aquatic habitat would
increase. Terrestrial species would also utilize these areas periodically.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are expected with regard to fisheries
or wildlife.
Pipeline Route Realignment to Red Top
If the Lake Prince terminus is not selected by Virginia Beach, the alternative
Red Top terminus would be utilized. The Red Top alternative would include the
realignment of a section of the pipeline as described in Virginia Beach's
proposed modifications to accomodate a request made by Isle of Wight County.
Virginia Beach would limit the width of construction in wetland areas along this
route to 45 feet instead of the originally proposed 60 feet. Therefore, the area
of wetlands impacted by the alternate route would only increase to 6.4 acres
from the original value of 4.9 acres. After construction, the wetland areas
would be revegetated. and existing ground contours would be restored. Impacts
would be temporary and minor.
Since the pipeline would discharge the Lake Gaston water directly into Norfolk's
raw water transmission main at Red Top, there would be no water quality
impacts to Lake Prince resulting from this alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are expected with respect to fisheries or wildlife.
Mitigation Proposed
The use of welded steel pipe or ductile iron pipe instead of prestressed
concrete cylinder pipe could result in the introduction of small amounts of
welding slag into the area of the pipeline. However, if proper. construction
practices are followed, this should be removed from the site and no mitigation
would be necessary as a result of this modification. The pipeline realignments
around the cemeteries and the agricultural field are themselves mitigation, and
no further mitigation would be necessary as a result of these modifications.
The riprap associated with the subaqueous crossing of Darden Mill Pond should
be populated by aquatic insects and eventually filled in with sediment, restoring
the site to near its original form. Restoration of existing contours would be
adequate mitigation and no further mitigation would be necessary as a result of
this modification.
Riprap stabilization of buried stream crossings is itself mitigation for potential
stream erosion and the riprap should be populated by aquatic insects and
eventually filled in with sediment, restoring the site to near its original form.
Restoration of existing contours would be adequate mitigation and no further
mitigation "would be necessary as a result of this modification.
Use of the drain valves should be infrequent. They.are planned for use only
37
during repair work. Discharge from drain valves of water with low DO content
would be harmful to aquatic life in receiving streams, but pipeline water would
be re-aerated in the riprap channels between the valves and the streams if the
channels are long enough. If not, steps should be taken to assure discharged
water is sufficiently oxygenated. No further mitigation would be necessary as a
result of this modification.
The additional area of flooding resulting from the alternative discharge to Ennis
Pond Channel at Lake Prince would be minor and should not need to be
mitigated. Although some change in vegetation may result in areas that would
be covered more frequently and for longer periods of time by deeper water, the
vegetation displaced from these areas would probably be replaced at the edges
of the wetland as it spreads over a larger area. The increase in flooding would
take place over an extended period of time since Lake Gaston pumping is not
intended to reach its 60 mgd capacity until the year 2030. If a larger wetland
area is not desired, the additional flooding could be mitigated by modifications
to the culverts through which the channel passes.
The pipeline route realignment to Red Top attempts to minimize wetland
impacts by following existing railroad and gas pipeline ROW's, and by reducing
the width of impact from 60 feet to 45 feet. Revegetation and restoration of
existing contours would be adequate wetlands mitigation and no further
mitigation would be necessary as a result of this modification.
38
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff's review of the request by Virginia Power for non-project. use of project
lands and waters for the Virginia Beach Water Supply Project indicates no
significant and little adverse direct or indirect impacts to the environment.
7.1 Direct Effects
The proposed consumptive use of water by Virginia Beach would result in
insignificant impacts to hydropower capacity or energy output at FERC's Project
No. 2009. Virginia Beach has agreed to a plan that would adequately
compensate Virginia Power for costs to replace lost energy, and Virginia Beach
would bear the full costs of mitigation and other direct costs associated with its
proposal.
Previous NEPA documents and civil proceedings have determined that the
environmental impacts to project lands and waters are acceptable and
insignificant. Staff concurs that Lake Gaston water quality impacts would be
minor. Loss of striped bass spawning within the Roanoke River system would
be minimal and insignificant. Walleye population impacts resulting from the Pea
Hill Creek Cove intake system would be minimal and mitigated through
construction of a spawning gravel bed within the Pea Hill Creek Cove.
Wetlands impacts within the area would be insignificant and the cumulative loss
of wetland habitat, within the project boundaries and along the pipeline corridor,
was found by the Corps to be acceptable. Staff has identified no other adverse
impacts to other resource issues, including recreation, aesthetics, cultural or
archaeological resources, or land use.
Construction impacts.to Lake Gaston would ary and minor. Since
Virginia Beach's receipt of the Corps-iss d 404 per it, Virginia Beach
requested from the Corps approval to dro e_d h of the intake in Pea Hill
Creek Cove by 8 feet. Staff's review of the Corps-approved request to drop the
intake depth by 8 feet concludes that no additional impacts would result to Lake
Gaston fishes. Measures to control erosion and sedimentation and the removal
and disposal of excavated lake sediments at the intake and fish spawning areas
would be implemented as described by Virginia Beach (Application, Exhibit 2)
and as required by the Corps (ND) 404 Permit and Virginia State Water Control
Board. These measures have been assessed by this EA, and are adequate to
prevent environmental impacts.
7.2 Indirect Effects
Development of the proposed pipeline from Lake Gaston to either terminus near
the City of-Norfolk results in insignificant impacts [Corps (ND), 1988]. Loss of
terrestrial habitat (vegetation and wildlife) would be minimized by following
existing ROWs through much of the corridor and impacts would be insignificant.
No federally-listed endangered species would be impacted and no known
39
habitat would be lost. Wetland impacts would be temporary and minor. The
Corps (ND) 404 permit and 1992 permit modification approval letter requires
Virginia Beach to restore or replace all impacted wetlands. Furthermore, these
mitigated wetlands are to be preserved by easements. These compensatory
wetland mitigation measures have been assessed by this EA and are adequate
to prevent significant environmental impacts. Sedimentation and erosion control
would limit soil erosion and sediment loading to waterways along the corridor.
Construction within the waterways would result in temporary and minor impacts.
Approved modifications to the pipeline's 404 permit would result in minor,
insignificant impacts to land and water resources and would beneficially affect
cultural and agricultural resources otherwise impacted by the original design.
With respect to the proposed terminus at Lake Prince, staff concludes that
minor impacts to forested wetlands would result from increased heights of
flooding of Ennis Pond Channel. These impacts could be considered beneficial
to local wetlands. Water quality at Lake Prince would not be adversely
affected; in fact, Lake Gaston discharges may improve Lake Prince water
quality at times, by improving DO levels.
Approval of this proposal would alleviate a long-term water shortage at Virginia
Beach. A secure, safe and reliable water supply would assist planning,
economic development and help to maintain public health in the City of Virginia
Beach and surrounding region.
7.3 Need for Action
The need for additional water supplies in the Virginia Beach area, and the
determination that Lake Gaston is the best alternative to meet that need, has
been adequately established and defended in previous Corps and civil
proceedings.
7.4 Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends that Virginia Power work with the cities of Virginia Beach and
Norfolk to develop a management plan for Lake Prince. This management plan
should include a wetland monitoring and management plan for Ennis Pond
Channel, including potential mitigation for modifications to Ennis Pond
Channel's design to reduce wetland flooding, if necessary. The plan should
also include a plan to monitor flooding during storm events and a plan to
reduce or cease pumping if flooding exceeds the bank-full capacity of the
channel. Such a plan should include a detailed description of monitoring
control, and communications procedures and equipment. Communications and
control between Lake Prince and projects operations center is particularly
needed in order to ensure that pumping of water into the Ennis Pond channel
will be reduced or ceased during times of potential or actual flooding.
40
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
City of Virginia Beach (Virginia Beach) Department of Public Utilities. 1991.
Environmental Assessment of Design Changes Related to Corps Permit No.
83-0747-06.
Environmental Resources Management, Inc. 1993. Personal correspondence,
ERM Project Reconnaissance Trip Report by Don Knorr, ERM, to Jim Teitt,
ERM, April 30.
Geologic Survey. 1985. Hydrology of Major Estuaries and Sounds of North
Carolina.
Heuer, John, H. and David A. Tomljanovich. 1979. A further study on the
protection of fish larvae at water intakes using wedge-wire screening. Technical
Note B33. Division of Water Resources. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris,
TN.
Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Developments: Application for FERC City of
Virginia Beach, 1991. Approval of Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters for Virginia Beach Water Supply Project, Exhibit 1-8.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District (ND). 1983. Final
Environmental Assessment and FONSI.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District (ND). 1984. Water Supply
Study Hampton Roads, Virginia. Feasibility Report and Final Environmental
Impact Assessment.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District (ND). 1988. Final Supplemental
Environmental Assessment and FONSI.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District (ND). July 16, .1992. Letter to
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (WD). 1984. Final
Environmental Assessment and FONSI.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (WD). 1988. Final FONSI.
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina. 1987. State of North
Carolina V. Hudson.
Virginia Beach. 1988a. Water Supply and Demand Summary for Southeast
Virginia, prepared by Thomas M. Leahy, City of Virginia Beach, Department of
Public Utilities, February.
41
Virginia Beach. 1988b. Potential for Future Growth in Irrigation Demand in the
Roanoke Basin, Exhibit 5(k), FERC application for Project No. 2009, City of
Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities. December
Virginia Beach Department of Health. 1983. Letter report to the City of Virginia
Beach from the Virginia Department of Health, April.
Virginia State Water Control Board (Board). 1988. James Water Supply Plan -
Planning Bulletin 337, Commonwealth of Virginia.
42
9.0 LIST OF PREPARER
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Schagl, John (M.S., Biological Sciences, M.S., Limnology)
FERC Task Monitor
CONTRACTOR TEAM
Dwyer, Robert, Ph.D. (B.S., Life Sciences; M.S., Biology; Ph.D., Oceanography)
Over twenty years experience managing and implementing environmental
programs, fourteen of which have dealt with hydropower impact
assessment and licensing, especially concerning water resources issues.
Edwards, Susan, AICP. (B.S., Mass Communications; M.S., Regional
Planning). Fifteen years of experience in impact analysis, land use and
environmental planning.
Emmanuel, Gary, P.E. (B.S., Civil Engineering; M.S., Civil Engineering)
Fourteen years experience in managing environmental engineering
programs involving surface water hydrology and modeling, dam safety
and stability analysis, and water source systems planning and design.
Hall, Peter, Ph.D. (B.S., Geography; M.A., Economic Geography; Ph.D., Civil
Engineering, Transportation). Fifteen years experience in managing
socioeconomic impact assessments, regional economic analyses,
transportation studies, and cultural resource assessments.
Klosowski, Robert (B.S., Electrical Engineering; M.S., Civil Engineering)
Four years of experience in civil/hydraulic and electrical engineering.
Knorr, Donald, F. (B.A., Biology; M.A., Biology)
Nineteen years of experience in managing and conducting environmental
assessments, aquatic, fisheries and wetland assessments.
Mallon, Phillip (B.C.E., Civil Engineering, E.I.T.)
One year of engineering experience in civil, geotechnical, and
environmental design and review of major facilities.
Synoracki, Daniel (B.S., Biology)
Five years of experience in environmental assessment including
terrestrial ecology and wetlands.
43
Teitt, James (B.S., Biology; M.S., Fisheries Biology) .
Deputy Project Manager for this DEIS. Eighteen years experience in
assessing the environmental impacts of power industry facilities including
ecological engineering, and economic assessments of nuclear and
hydroelectric projects throughout the United States.
Weaver, Kelley (B.S., Environmental Studies; M.S., Water Resources)
Eight years experience in conducting water resources assessment and
planning studies.
44