OCR Scan (approximately)

This OCR scan may contain automatically generated text as generated using Apache Tika and Tesseract. It may not be correct. No effort has been made to correct any of these scans (so far). These OCR scans are also used in the site's Search feature. Please review the Search Policy for details about the site features. The OCR scan is provided here for reference purposes. It provides searchable text when the underlying document might not. But the scan process may not always work perfectly.

RPT_-11_0324-Section_9-_Water_Source_Alternatives.doc
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9.0 WATER SOURCE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION … 1
9.1 Description of Water Source Alternatives … 1
9.1.1 Introduction … 1
9.1.2 Groundwater Sources … 2
9.1.3 Reservoir/WTP Alternatives: … 3
9.1.4 River or Stream Intake Alternatives … 3
9.1.5 Interconnection Alternatives … 3
9.1.6 Reuse and Recycling … 4
9.1.7 Water Demand Management … 4
9.2 Evaluation of Alternatives … 5
9.2.1 Overview of Screening Criteria … 5
9.2.2 Applicability … 6
9.2.3 Safe Yield or Reliable Capacity … 7
9.2.4 Environmental Impacts … 8
9.2.5 Human Impacts … 9
9.2.6 Relative Cost … 9
9.2.7 Availability … 9
9.2.8 Summary of Evaluation … 10
9.3 Description of Water Source Alternatives for the Cumberland Plateau … 11
9.3.1 Introduction … 11
9.4 Description of Water Source Alternatives for LENOWISCO … 17
9.4.1 Introduction … 17
9.0 WATER SOURCE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
9.1
9.2
9.3
94
10324 = Section 9 -
BLE OF CONTENTS
Description of Water Source Alternatives
1 Introduction.
Groundwater Sources
Reservoir/WTP Alternatives:…
River or Stream Intake Alternatives
Interconnection Alternatives.
Reuse and Recycling,
7 Water Demand Management .
Evaluation of Alternatives…
1 Overview of Screening Criteria
Applicability
Safe Yield or Reliable Capacity.
Environmental Impacts
Human Impacts
Relative Cost
Availability …
Sunimary of Evaluation
Description of Watet Source Alternatives for the Cumberland Plateau
9.341 Introduction… ses
Description of Water Source Alternatives for LENOWISCO
DAA InttOdUCtiON essere
ane oR
peepee pe
weer epee
Water Source_Altematives doe
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  1
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
9.0 WATER SOURCE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
9.1 Description of Water Source Alternatives
9.1.1 Introduction
Water supply source alternatives have been studied by some members of the MRPDC Region as
a part of their individual water supply planning processes. In order to thoroughly assess the water
source alternatives for the Region as a whole, potential alternatives were re-evaluated in this
Plan.  This may include alternatives that individual communities have already eliminated from
their plans, as well as alternatives that are currently being implemented.  Because this Plan is a
living document, future updates to the list of water supply alternatives may include new
alternatives that have not been identified in this version of the Plan.
The water source alternatives are broken down by type of alternative, since one particular
alternative may benefit more than one of the MRPDC members.  The categories of alternatives
include the following:
Groundwater Sources
Reservoir/Surface Water Impoundments/WTP
River or Stream Intakes
Interconnections
Reuse and Recycling (an alternative to reduce demand)
Demand Management
Based on Section 8.0, the need for some form of future water supply alternative are limited to
Washington County and the Towns of Saltville and Wytheville since these localities are the only
localities within the MRPDC Region that are projected to experience a water supply deficit by
2060 or before.  Also, although many of the water supply concerns with this region have been
implemented either through the building of the New River Regional Water Authority Water
Treatment Plant (NRRWA WTP) or the interconnecting of various systems within the region,
interconnections and water purchasing are viable options for any locality in this water supply
region.
9.0 WATER SOURCE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
9.1 Description of Water Source Alternatives
9.1.1 Introduction
Water supply source alternatives have been studied by some members of the MRPDC Region as
a part of their individual water supply planning processes. In order to thoroughly assess the water
source alternatives for the Region as a whole, potential alternatives were re-eValuated in this
Plan. This may include alternatives that individual communities have already eliminated from
their plans, as well as alternatives that are currently being implemented. Because this Plan is a
living document, future updates to the list of water supply alternatives may include new
alternatives that have not been identified in this version of the Plan.
The water source alternatives are broken down by type of alternative, since one particular
alternative may benefit more than one of the MRPDC members. ‘The categories of alternatives
include the following:
Groundwater Sources
Reservoir/Surface Water Impoundments/WTP
River or Stream Intakes
Interconnections
Reuse and Recy¢ling (an alternative to reduce demand)
Demand Management
eoeeee
Based on Section 8.0, the need for some form of future water supply alternative are limited to
Washington County and’the Towns of Saltville and Wytheville since these localities are the only
localities within the MRPDC Region that are projected to experience a water supply deficit by
2060 or before. Also, although many of the water supply concerns with this region have been
implemented either through the building of the New River Regional Water Authority Water
Treatment Plant (NRRWA WTP) or the interconnecting of various systems within the region,
interconnections and water purchasing are viable options for any locality in this water supply
region.
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 1
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  2
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
9.1.2 Groundwater Sources
Washington County
Washington County relies on the Mendota Well in the lower Poore Valley for 0.006 MGD and
two spring sources, Reservation and Cole Springs for 0.86 MGD and 1.1 MGD respectively.
Currently, the County’s Mill Creek WTP is capable of producing 2.5 MGD, but the Cole Spring
allocation is only 1.1 MGD. If the County increased VDH permitted capacity from Cole Spring,
overall capacity would go from 6.5 MGD to 8 MGD, thereby supplying the county with a surplus
until 2020, at which time, the County would need to explore other source water options.
Town of Saltville
The Town of Saltville currently maintains two groundwater wells and one spring. The
groundwater wells, Cardwell Well and Well No. 10, produce a collective total of 1.04 MGD and
Witt Spring produces an additional 0.12 MGD. VDH permitted capacities of the Town’s three
sources only allows withdrawal of 0.58 MGD, which puts the Town in a deficit. If the Town
were to upgrade current VDH withdrawal permits to account for the total of the source design
capacities (1.16 MGD), the Town would experience a surplus of 0.27 MGD as well as
experience surplus into 2049 at which point, alternative sources of water would need to be
explored. It should be noted that this information is based on knowledge associated with actual
withdrawals, actual capacities were not provided by the Town.
Town of Wytheville
The Town of Wytheville does not maintain a groundwater source. Water is supplied to the Town
by the New River Regional Water Authority (NRRWA) WTP as described in Section 9.1.3;
therefore, the Town would likely require additional purchase of water from the NRRWA WTP
by the year 2040.
9.1.2 Groundwater Sources
Washington County
Washington County relies on the Mendota Well in the lower Poore Valley for 0.006 MGD and
two spring sources, Reservation and Cole Springs for 0.86 MGD and 1.1 MGD respectively.
Currently, the County’s Mill Creek WTP is capable of producing 2.5 MGD, but the Cole Spring
allocation is only 1.1 MGD. If the County increased VDH permitted capacity from Cole Spring,
overall capacity would go from 6.5 MGD to 8 MGD, thereby supplying the county with a surplus
until 2020, at which time, the County would need to explore other source water options:
Town of Saltville
The Town of Saltville currently maintains two groundwater wells/and one spring. The
groundwater wells, Cardwell Well and Well No. 10; produce a collective total of 1.04 MGD and
Witt Spring produces an additional 0.12 MGD. VDH permitted capacities of the Town’s three
sources only allows withdrawal of 0.58. MGD, which puts the Town in a deficit. If the Town
were to upgrade current VDH withdrawal permits to account for the total of the source design
capacities (1.16 MGD), the Town would experience a surplus of 0.27 MGD as well as
experience surplus into 2049 at hich pointy alternative sources of water would need to be
explored. It should be noted that this information is based on knowledge associated with actual
withdrawals, actual Capacities were not provided by the Town.
Town of Wytheville
The Town of Wytheville does not maintain a groundwater source. Water is supplied to the Town
by the New River Regional Water Authority (NRRWA) WTP as described in Section 9.1.3;
therefore, the Town would likely require additional purchase of water from the NRRWA WTP.
by the year 2040.
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 2
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  3
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
9.1.3 Reservoir/WTP Alternatives:
Regional WTP at Austinville Site
This 12 MGD regional WTP was recommended as a water supply alternative in the July 2000
New River Regional Water Study and serves the Counties of Carroll, Grayson and Wythe, the
City of Galax and the Towns of Fries, Hillsville, Independence and Wytheville. The WTP pumps
water to a regional tank at Austinville. Water is moved north from the Austinville tank to a
regional tank near Fort Chiswell using a 24-inch main and pump station located along Route 52.
Another pump station located near the eastern Wytheville corporate limits moves water from the
Fort Chiswell tank to the existing Wytheville low level tank. Water is moved south and west
from the Austinville tank to a regional tank near Poplar Camp using a 24-inch main and pump
station located near Austinville. A pump station located near Poplar Camp moves water from the
Poplar Camp tank to the Route 620 tank. The level in the Route 620 tank is adequate to serve the
Carroll, Galax and Grayson areas. The connection for Hillsville is located on Route 58 at the
western corporate limits. The connection for Galax is on Route 58 at the eastern corporate limits.
Also, a regional tank located near Hickory Flat floats with the Route 620 tank. Fries is served by
the Hickory Flat tank using a 12-inch main. A pump station near the Independence eastern
corporate limits moves water from Hickory Flat to the Independence low level tank.
9.1.4 River or Stream Intake Alternatives
New River Intake
In the Galax area, the New River maintains a safe yield of approximately 187 MGD as defined
by VDH. For the Counties of Carroll, Grayson and Wythe, the City of Galax and the Towns of
Fries, Hillsville, Independence and Wytheville the New River provides the necessary capacity
due to the construction of the WTP at the Austinville site.
9.1.5 Interconnection Alternatives
Washington County – Interconnection with City of Bristol
9.1.3 Reservoir/WTP Alternatives:
Regional WTP at Austinville Site
This 12 MGD regional WTP was recommended as a water supply alternative in the July 2000
New River Regional Water Study and serves the Counties of Carroll, Grayson and Wythe, the
City of Galax and the Towns of Fries, Hillsville, Independence and Wytheville. The WTP pumps
water to a regional tank at Austinville. Water is moved north from the Austinville tank to a
regional tank near Fort Chiswell using a 24-inch main and pump stationlocated along Route 52.
Another pump station located near the eastern Wytheville corporate limits moves water from the
Fort Chiswell tank to the existing Wytheville low level tank, Water is moved south and west
from the Austinville tank to a regional tank near Poplar Camp using a 24-inch main and pump
station located near Austinville. A pump station located near Poplar Camp moves water from the
Poplar Camp tank to the Route 620 tank. The leyel’in the Route 620 tank is adequate to serve the
Carroll, Galax and Grayson areas. The connection for Hillsville is located on Route 58 at the
western corporate limits. The connection for Galax is on Route 58 at the eastern corporate limits
Also, a regional tank located near Hickory Flat floats with the Route 620 tank. Fries is served by
the Hickory Flat tank using a/12-inch main. A\ pump station near the Independence eastern
corporate limits moves water from Hickory Flatto the Independence low level tank.
9.1.4 River or Stream Intake Alternatives
New River Intake
In the Galax aréa, the New River maintains a safe yield of approximately 187 MGD as defined
by VDH. For the Counties of Carroll, Grayson and Wythe, the City of Galax and the Towns of
Fries, Hillsville, Independence and Wytheville the New River provides the necessary capacity
due to the construction of the WTP at the Austinville site.
9.1.5. Interconnection Alternatives
Washington County ~ Interconnection with City of Bristol
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 3
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  4
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Washington County relies on an interconnection with the City of Bristol to offset their current
deficit of 0.60 MGD. Washington County also purchases a very small amount of water from the
Town of Saltville, and has a joint plant operation at the Mill Creek WTP with the Town of
Chilhowie, but relies mostly on the City of Bristol to cover their deficit. Bristol currently
maintains a surplus of approximately 6.25 MGD and will maintain a surplus of approximately
4.00 MGD by 2060 as discussed in Section 8.0 of this report. If Washington County increases
VDH permitted capacities to design capacities, and continues to maintain a purchase agreement
with the City of Bristol to make up the deficit, then the Bristol interconnection with Washington
County will serve the County into 2060, with a collective surplus between the County and the
City of Bristol of 0.70 MGD. If VDH permitted capacity increases are not allowed, then the
county would need to investigate additional means of water source supply by 2044.
9.1.6 Reuse and Recycling
A current trend in reducing potable water demands includes the reuse of treated wastewater
effluent for non-potable uses, such as irrigation and industrial process water.  In the MRPDC,
various treatment plants exist which treat a large portion of the wastewater from the surrounding
communities.  Conceptually it makes sense to utilize the treated effluent from these WWTPs at
local facilities.  To date, the opportunities to utilize effluent have been very limited.  It will be
beneficial to explore future opportunities, since the use of effluent can offset the need to expand
water source, treatment or distribution facilities.
9.1.7 Water Demand Management
Water conservation is the conscious effort by a utility, business or individual to save water.
Every gallon of water not used is one less to be stored, treated, and distributed.  It also may
represent one less gallon that must be heated for washing or bathing, thus saving energy costs, or
one less gallon of water that must pass through some form of wastewater treatment before it is
returned to the environment.  Normal conservation practices can provide long-term benefits by
permanently reducing water demands during normal operating conditions.
As discussed in Section 6.0, the MRPDC members have adopted numerous water conservation
measures, including the following:
Adjustment of standard operating procedures to improve water conservation;
Washington County relies on an interconnection with the City of Bristol to offset their current
deficit of 0.60 MGD. Washington County also purchases a very small amount of water from the
Town of Saltville, and has a joint plant operation at the Mill Creek WTP with the Town of
Chilhowie, but relies mostly on the City of Bristol to cover their deficit, Bristol currently
maintains a surplus of approximately 6.25 MGD and will maintain a surplus of approximately
4.00 MGD by 2060 as discussed in Section 8.0 of this report. If Washington County increases
VDH permitted capacities to design capacities, and continues to maintain a purchase agreement
with the City of Bristol to make up the deficit, then the Bristol interconnection with Washington
County will serve the County into 2060, with a collective surplus between the County and the
City of Bristol of 0.70 MGD. If VDH permitted capacity increases are fot allowed, then the
county would need to investigate additional means of water sourée Supply by 2044
9.1.6 Reuse and Recycling
A current trend in reducing potable water demands includes the reuse of treated wastewater
effluent for non-potable uses, such as irrigation and industrial process water. In the MRPDC,
various treatment plants exist which treat a large portion of the wastewater from the surrounding
communities. Conceptually it makes sense to utilize the treated effluent from these WWTPs at
local facilities. To date, the opportunities t0 utilize effluent have been very limited. It will be
beneficial to explore future opportunities, since the use of effluent can offset the need to expand
water source, treatment or distribution facilities.
9.1.7 Water Demand’ Management
Water conservation is the conscious effort by a utility, business or individual to save water.
Every gallon of water not used is one less to be stored, treated, and distributed. It also may
represent one less gallon that must be heated for washing or bathing, thus saving energy costs, or
one less gallon of water that must pass through some form of wastewater treatment before it is
returned to the environment. Normal conservation practices can provide long-term benefits by
permanently reducing water demands during normal operating conditions.
As discussed in Section 6.0, the MRPDC members have adopted numerous water conservation
measures, including the following:
Adjustment of standard operating procedures to improve water conservation;
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 4
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  5
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Installation of low-flow and/or no-flow fixtures in their facilities and/or government
buildings and facilities;
Provided “yard taps” to their customers for purchase, so that customers can track their
outdoor water use;
Implementation of educational programs to address water conservation through
reduction of use;
Water conservation rate structures that encourage reduction of water use by
increasing water rates with increasing water usage;
Incentive programs to customers that retrofit or replace older fixtures and appliances
to reduce water use;
Leak detection and repair programs with regularly scheduled water audits;
Replacement of aging water distribution pipes; and
Implementation of practices or policies to track unauthorized connections.
Greater water conservation in the region could be achieved if all of the MRPDC members
implemented the measures listed above, as well as other water conservation measures, such as
“smart” irrigation systems, outdoor water use allocation calculations (to support a conservation
rate structure), informative billing, or a new ordinance with outdoor use provisions.
9.2 Evaluation of Alternatives
9.2.1 Overview of Screening Criteria
This section describes the methods used to evaluate potential water source alternatives for the
MRPDC members.  Each water supply alternative has the potential to provide some public water
supply benefit for one or multiple MRPDC members; therefore, each alternative was evaluated
with respect to the following feasibility or practicability criteria:
Applicability – determine the degree to which the alternatives match the local and
regional needs of the members
Safe Yield or Reliable Capacity – look for some measure of the maximum quantity of
water that may be withdrawn throughout a critical dry period without depleting the
source.  Reliable capacity may refer to the potential WTP capacity or the capacity of a
piped interconnection between communities.
Potential Environmental Impacts – assessment of alternatives on the basis of general
environmental suitability.
Potential Human Impacts – stakeholder satisfaction is often very important for the
viability of an alternative.  Human impacts such as land acquisition or easements,
traffic impacts, etc. factor into the screening criterion.
Relative Cost – alternatives may be economically infeasible if they are too costly to
implement relative to other options.
Installation of low-flow and/or no-flow fixtures in their facilities and/or government
buildings and facilities;
@ Provided “yard taps” to their customers for purchase, so that customers can track their
outdoor water use;
¢ Implementation of educational programs to address water conservation through
reduction of use:
@ Water conservation rate structures that encourage reduction of water use by
increasing water rates with increasing water usage;

Incentive programs to customers that retrofit or replace older fixtures and appliances
to reduce water use;

Leak detection and repair programs with regularly scheduled water audits;
Replacement of aging water distribution pipes; and
¢ Implementation of practices or policies to track unauthorized Connections.
Greater water conservation in the region could be achieved if’all of the MRPDC members
implemented the measures listed above, as well as other water conservation: measures, such as
“smart” irrigation systems, outdoor water use allocation calculations (to stipport a conservation
rate structure), informative billing, or a new ordinance with outdoor use provisions.
9.2 Evaluation of Alternatives
9.2.1 Overview of Screening Criteria,
This section describes the methods used to evaluate potential water source alternatives for the
MRPDC members. Each water supply alternative has the potential to provide some public water
supply benefit for one or multiple MRPDC members; therefore, each alternative was evaluated
with respect to the following feasibility of practicability criteria:
Applicability —“determine the degree to which the alternatives match the local and
regional needs of the members
4 Safe Yield or Reliable Capacity ~ look for some measure of the maximum quantity of
water that may. be withdrawn throughout a critical dry period without depleting the
source. Reliable capacity may refer to the potential WTP capacity or the capacity of a
piped interconnection between communities.
Potential Environmental Impacts — assessment of alternatives on the basis of general
environmental suitability.
Potential Human Impacts — stakeholder satisfaction is often very important for the
viability of an alternative. Human impacts such as land acquisition or easements,
traffic impacts, etc. factor into the screening criterion.
Relative Cost — alternatives may be economically infeasible if they are too costly to
implement relative to other options.
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 5
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  6
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Availability – some alternatives may have legal, regulatory or institutional issues that
could severely delay or even prevent implementation.
Alternatives were rated as “good”, “fair”, or “poor” for each of the criteria.   Alternatives could
be eliminated from further consideration if a fatal flaw was recognized with respect to any one of
the criterion.  Remaining practicable alternatives were then carried forward for comparison
against each other based on the aforementioned criteria.
As discussed in the Section 8.0, not all of the MRPDC members are projected to experience a
water supply deficit by the end of the planning horizon. The region as a whole is projected to
have a surplus of approximately 5.52 MGD (2016 MG/year) in 2060.  Based on existing PWS
capacities and projected 2060 demands, the following members are projected to experience a
water supply deficit sometime within the planning horizon:
Washington County (2060 deficit = 4.68 MGD)
Town of Saltville (2060 deficit = 0.67 MGD)
Town of Wytheville (2060 deficit = 0.83 MGD)
The deficits for localities will occur at various times between now (2009) and 2060.  The
following sections highlight the alternatives that scored the best and worst under each screening
criterion, and the reasons for those rankings.  A summary of the top-ranked alternatives and the
current status of these projects is also presented.
9.2.2 Applicability
Lowest Rated Alternatives
Alternatives received a “poor” rating for the applicability criterion if the alternative does not
meet the needs of the member, or would not be needed at the time that it is planned for
implementation because other options will provide necessary water supply needs.  The following
alternatives were not eliminated from consideration, but received “poor” applicability ratings:
Groundwater Development Projects – because these alternatives are not easily
defined for capacity before project construction work starts, the value of the projects
in meeting the water demands of the region cannot be well defined as the project is
being evaluated.  However, with a high probability of locating groundwater in certain
areas, the development of wells is often lower cost than surface water supply
Availability — some alternatives may have legal, regulatory or institutional issues that
could severely delay or even prevent implementation.
Alternatives were rated as “good”, “fair”, or “poor” for each of the criteria, Alternatives could
be eliminated from further consideration if a fatal flaw was recognized with respect to any one of
the criterion. Remaining practicable alternatives were then carried forward for comparison
against each other based on the aforementioned criteria.
As disc
sed in the Section 8.0, not all of the MRPDC members are projected to experience a
water supply deficit by the end of the planning horizon. The region as a whole is projected to
have a surplus of approximately 5.52 MGD (2016 MGiyear) in 2060," Based on existing PWS
capacities and projected 2060 demands, the following members.are projected to experience a
water supply deficit sometime within the planning horizon:
Washington County (2060 deficit
Town of Saltville (2060 deficit
Town of Wytheville (2060 defici
4.68 MGD)
.67 MGD)
0.83.MGD)
The deficits for localities will occur at various times between now (2009) and 2060. The
following sections highlight the alternatives that scored the best and worst under each screening
criterion, and the reasons for those rankings…A summary of the top-ranked alternatives and the
current status of these projects is also presented.
9.2.2. Applicability
Lowest Rated Alternatives
Alternatives feceived a “poor” tating for the applicability criterion if the alternative does not
meet the»needs of the member, or would not be needed at the time that it is planned for
implementation because other options will provide necessary water supply needs. The following
alternatives were not eliminated from consideration, but received “poor” applicability ratings:
Groundwater Development Projects — because these alternatives are not easily
defined for capacity before project construction work starts, the value of the projects
in meeting the water demands of the region cannot be well defined as the project is
being evaluated. However, with a high probability of locating groundwater in certain
areas, the development of wells is often lower cost than surface water supply
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 6
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  7
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
development.  In general, the applicability of groundwater projects would be for local
service only (one jurisdiction).
Highest Rated Alternatives
Water source alternatives received “good” ratings for applicability because they met the needs of
the community that they would benefit, or it was applicable for more than one community:
Regional WTP at Austinville – The regional WTP at the Austinville site has taken
care of many supply issues with various localities to include the Counties of Carroll,
Grayson and Wythe, the City of Galax and the Towns of Fries, Hillsville,
Independence and Wytheville.
Washington County Interconnection with City of Bristol – the interconnection
between the City of Bristol and Washington County currently provides Washington
County with the surplus water that it requires to make up the 0.60 MGD deficit.
Increase VDH Permitted Capacities – Increased VDH permitted capacities would
improve supply conditions at all three localities projected to experience a deficit.
9.2.3 Safe Yield or Reliable Capacity
Lowest Rated Alternatives
One alternative received a “poor” rating for safe yield or reliable capacity:
Groundwater Development Projects – because these alternatives are not easily
defined for capacity before project construction work starts, the value of the projects
in meeting the water demands of the region cannot be well defined as the project is
being evaluated.  However, with a high probability of locating groundwater in certain
areas, the development of wells is often lower cost than surface water supply
development.  In general, the applicability of groundwater projects would be for local
service only (one jurisdiction).
Highest Rated Alternatives
Several of the water source alternatives received “good” ratings for safe yield or reliable
capacity.  An alternative received a “good” rating if the source met most or all of the needs of the
benefitting community (or communities) and/or if the alternative provides a new source of
supply to supplement an existing source, which provides additional reliability to a community’s
PWS.  The following alternatives received a “good” rating for Safe Yield or Reliable Capacity:
Regional WTP at Austinville – The regional WTP at the Austinville site obtains its
water from the New River, with an allowable source withdrawal capacity of >150
MGD.
development. In general, the applicability of groundwater projects would be for local
service only (one jurisdiction).
Highest Rated Alternatives
Water source alternatives received “good” ratings for applicability because they met the needs of
the community that they would benefit, or it was applicable for more than one community:
Regional WTP at Austinville ~ The regional WTP at the Austinville site has taken
care of many supply issues with various localities to include the Counties of Carroll,
Grayson and Wythe, the City of Galax and the Towns of Fries, Hillsville,
Independence and Wytheville.
Washington County Interconnection with City of Bristol\— the ‘interconnection
between the City of Bristol and Washington County currently provides Washington
County with the surplus water that it requires to makeup the 0.60 MGD deficit.
Increase VDH Permitted Capacities — Increased VDH permitted capacities would
improve supply conditions at all three localities projected to experience a deficit.
9.2.3 Safe Yield or Reliable Capacity
Lowest Rated Alternatives
One alternative received a “poor” rating for safe yield or reliable capacity:
@ Groundwater Development Projects — because these alternatives are not easily
defined for capacity before project construction work starts, the value of the projects
in meeting the water demands of the region cannot be well defined as the project is
being evaluated.» However, with a high probability of locating groundwater in certain
areas, the development of wells is often lower cost than surface water supply
development. In general, the applicability of groundwater projects would be for local
service only (one jurisdiction).
Highest Rated Alternatives
Several of the water source alternatives received “good” ratings for safe yield or reliable
capacity. An alternative received a “good” rating if the source met most or all of the needs of the
benefitting community (or communities) and/or if the alternative provides a new source of
supply to supplement an existing source, which provides additional reliability to a community’s
PWS. The following alternatives received a “good” rating for Safe Yield or Reliable Capacity:
@ Regional WTP at Austinville — The regional WTP at the Austinville site obtains its
water from the New River, with an allowable source withdrawal capacity of >150
MGD.
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 7
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  8
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Washington County Interconnection with City of Bristol – the interconnection
between the City of Bristol and Washington County currently provides Washington
County with a reliable water source and sufficient capacity. The source also has
enough capacity at current operations to provide Washington County with sufficient
source supply until 2044 and still maintain City of Bristol demand.
Increase VDH Permitted Capacities – Increased VDH permitted capacities would
improve supply conditions at all three localities projected to experience a deficit.
9.2.4 Environmental Impacts
Lowest Rated Alternatives
An alternative was rated “major” with regards to its environmental impacts if it would
substantially impact wetlands, streams, or other environmental factors.  While many of the
alternatives have not been specifically assessed for environmental impacts, conceptual level
evaluations resulted in the following alternatives receiving “major” ratings:
Interbasin Transfer Projects – Any projects that take water from one basin and
introduce it to another basin may cause minor environmental concerns or introduce
political and legal challenges.  These projects would have to be evaluated on a case
by case basis.
Highest Rated Alternatives
Several of the water source alternatives received “minor” ratings for the environmental impacts
criterion.  An alternative received a “minor” rating if the planned project did not involve
substantial impacts to wetlands, streams or other environmental resources.  The following
alternatives received a “minor” rating for environmental impacts:
Regional WTP at Austinville – The regional WTP at the Austinville requires very
little environmental impact since the WTP is along the New River. The WTP
provides water for seven localities.
Washington County Interconnection with City of Bristol – the interconnection
between the City of Bristol and Washington County requires no major environmental
impact.
Increase VDH Permitted Capacities – Increased VDH permitted capacities would
slightly affect environmental regulation of source withdrawals and would need to be
reviewed to ensure continued compliance with source supply needs.
Washington County Interconnection with City of Bristol — the interconnection
between the City of Bristol and Washington County currently provides Washington
County with a reliable water source and sufficient capacity. The source also has
enough capacity at current operations to provide Washington County with sufficient
source supply until 2044 and still maintain City of Bristol demand.
Increase VDH Permitted Capacities — Increased VDH permitted capacities would
improve supply conditions at all three localities projected to experience a deficit.
9.2.4 Environmental Impacts
Lowest Rated Alternat
An alternative was rated “major” with regards to its environmental impacts if it would
substantially impact wetlands, streams, or other environmental factors. While many of the
alternatives have not been specifically assessed for environmental impacts, conceptual level
evaluations resulted in the following alternatives receiving “major” ratings:
Interbasin Transfer Projects — Any projects that take water from one basin and
introduce it to another basin may cause minor environmental concerns or introduce
political and legal challenges. These projects would have to be evaluated on a case
by case basis.
Highest Rated Alternatives
Several of the water source alterhatives réceived “minor” ratings for the environmental impacts
criterion. An alternative received a “minor” rating if the planned project did not involve
substantial impacts to Wetlands, streams or other environmental resources. The following
alternatives received “minor” rating for environmental impacts:
Regional WIP at Austinville — The regional WTP at the Austinville requires very
little environmental impact since the WTP is along the New River. The WTP
provides water for seven localities.
4 Washington County Interconnection with City of Bristol — the interconnection
between the City of Bristol and Washington County requires no major environmental
impact.
@ Inctease VDH Permitted Capacities — Increased VDH permitted capacities would
slightly affect environmental regulation of source withdrawals and would need to be
reviewed to ensure continued compliance with source supply needs.
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 8
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  9
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
9.2.5 Human Impacts
Lowest Rated Alternatives
An alternative was rated “major” with regards to its human impacts if it would require land
acquisition, excessive easements or other impacts to the public.  Conceptual level evaluations
resulted in the following alternatives receiving “major” ratings:
None Noted.
Highest Rated Alternatives
Several of the water source alternatives received “minor” ratings for the human impacts criterion.
An alternative received a “minor” rating if the planned project did not require land acquisition or
excessive easements.  The following alternatives received a “minor” rating for human impacts:
Virtually All – Most of the project work considered in this study is free of significant
human impact.
9.2.6 Relative Cost
Most of the alternatives that were evaluated for the Plan have already been implemented in the
past.  Costs for the New River Regional WTP were estimated to be >$50M in 2000. Costs
associated with Washington County continuing to purchase water from the City of Bristol are
ongoing and minimal.
9.2.7 Availability
Lowest Rated Alternatives
Alternatives received a “poor” rating if there were legal, regulatory or institutional issues that
could severely delay or even prevent implementation.  The following alternatives received a
“poor” rating with regards to availability of the project:
Intake Installation Projects – Where a new intake is to be placed in a river or
reservoir, permitting will be an issue.  In most cases, the justification for a new intake
will allow the permit to be obtained.
9.2.5 Human Impacts
Lowest Rated Alternatives
An alternative was rated “major” with regards to its human impacts if it would require land
acquisition, excessive easements or other impacts to the public, Conceptual level evaluations
resulted in the following alternatives receiving “major” ratings:
@ None Noted.
Highest Rated Alternatives
Several of the water source alternatives received “minor” ratings for the human impaets criterion,
An alternative received a “minor” rating if the planned project did not require land acquisition or
excessive easements. The following alternatives feceived a “minor” rating for human impacts:
Virtually All ~ Most of the project work considered in this study is free of significant
human impact.
9.2.6 Relative Cost
Most of the alternatives that were evaluated for the Plan have already been implemented in the
past. Costs for the New River Regional WTP were estimated to be >$50M in 2000. Costs
associated with Washington County continuing to purchase water from the City of Bristol are
ongoing and minimal.
9.2.7 Availability
Lowest Rated Alternatives
Alternatives teceived a “poor” rating if there were legal, regulatory or institutional issues that
could severely delay or even prevent implementation. The following alternatives received a
“poor” rating with regards to availability of the project:
Intake Installation Projects — Where a new intake is to be placed in a river or
reservoir, permitting will be an issue. In most cases, the justification for a new intake
will allow the permit to be obtained,
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 9
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  10
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Interbasin Transfer Projects – Where there will be interbasin transfers of water,
regulatory obstacles may become a problem.  If the transfer is significant enough,
there may be no means to overcome the regulatory requirements and permits may not
be available.
Increase VDH Permitted Capacities – Increased VDH permitted capacities would
improve supply conditions at all three localities, but would likely require a significant
amount of permitting and could involve significant delay.
Highest Rated Alternatives
Alternatives received a “good” rating if minimal permitting would be required, and there was
political and stakeholder support of the project.  Many alternatives received a “fair” rating for
this criterion because the project would require one or more minor permits that are not expected
to delay implementation.  The following alternatives received a “good” rating with regards to
availability of the project:
Regional WTP at Austinville – The regional WTP at the Austinville site has already
been built and permitted, and will be able to provide enough water to the Town of
Wytheville in the future.
Washington County Interconnection with City of Bristol – the interconnection
between the City of Bristol and Washington County currently provides Washington
County with the surplus water that it requires to make up the 0.60 MGD deficit,
requires no permitting and would expect no delays to implement.
9.2.8 Summary of Evaluation
Alternatives were compared using the criteria described above, and were compared to each other
to determine the short list of water source options that would satisfy the needs of the MRPDC
member (or members) with the least environmental and human impacts.
The following water source alternatives are recommended to satisfy the future demands of the
MRPDC members:
Washington County
Maintain the continued interconnection with the City of Bristol and attempt to revise/upgrade
VDH permitted capacities. The City of Bristol provides enough water to Washington County to
make up the current 0.60 MGD deficit of water. Based on City of Bristol current demand
projections, if Washington County continues to purchase water from the City of Bristol, Bristol’s
10.00 MGD WTP will be able to sustain Washington County with surplus water until 2044. If
Interbasin Transfer Projects — Where there will be interbasin transfers of water,
regulatory obstacles may become a problem. If the transfer is significant enough,
there may be no means to overcome the regulatory requirements and permits may not
be available.
Increase VDH Permitted Capacities — Increased VDH permitted capacities would
improve supply conditions at all three localities, but would likely require a significant
amount of permitting and could involve significant delay.
Highest Rated Alternatives
Alternatives received a “good” rating if minimal permitting would be required, and there was
political and stakeholder support of the project. Many alternatives received “fair” rating’ for
this criterion because the project would require one or more minor permits that are’not expected
to delay implementation. The following alternatives received @ “good” rating, with regards to
availability of the project:
Regional WTP at Austinville — The regional WTP at the Austinville site has already
been built and permitted, and will be able to provide enough water to the Town of
Wytheville in the future.
Washington County Interconnection with City of Bristol — the interconnection
between the City of Bristol and Washington County currently provides Washington
County with the surplus water that it requires to make up the 0.60 MGD deficit,
requires no permitting and would expect no delays to implement.
9.2.8 Summary of Evaluation
Alternatives were compared using the criteria described above, and were compared to each other
to determine the short list Of water source options that would satisfy the needs of the MRPDC
member (or members) With the least environmental and human impacts.
The following water source alternatives are recommended to satisfy the future demands of the
MRPDC members:
Washington County
Maintain the continued interconnection with the City of Bristol and attempt to revise/upgrade
VDH permitted capacities. The City of Bristol provides enough water to Washington County to
make up the current 0.60 MGD deficit of water. Based on City of Bristol current demand
projections, if Washington County continues to purchase water from the City of Bristol, Bristol’s
10.00 MGD WTP will be able to sustain Washington County with surplus water until 2044, If
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 10
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  11
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Washington County increases VDH permitted capacities and continues to purchase water from
the City of Bristol, capacity for both locations will last through 2060 and beyond.
Town of Saltville
Upgrade current VDH withdrawal permits to account for the total of the source design capacities
(1.16 MGD), the Town would currently experience a surplus of 0.27 MGD as well as experience
surplus into 2049 at which point, alternative sources of water would need to be explored. It
should be noted that this information is based on knowledge associated with actual withdrawals,
actual capacities were not provided by the Town. It is possible that the Town of Saltville may
currently and into the future have sufficient capacity.
Town of Wytheville
The Town of Wytheville is currently supplied 4.00 MGD of capacity from the New River
Regional Water Authority WTP. Provided the Town continues to obtain water from the
NRRWA, the Town will have sufficient capacity into 2041, at which point alternative sources of
water would need to be explored and may include additional purchase from the NRRWA or
request additional capacity from VDH.
9.3 Description of Water Source Alternatives for the Cumberland Plateau
9.3.1 Introduction
In the Cumberland Plateau Regional Planning Area, existing water sources are projected to be
inadequate to meet demand at the end of the planning period (2040) for Russell County.  The
Russell County water supply is projected to be inadequate in the Castlewood Water and Sewer
Authority (CWSA) service area and also in the Belfast/Rosedale water system and proposed
waterline extensions operated by the Russell County PSA which are supplied water treated at the
Tazewell County PSA’s Claypool Hill WTP.
Two basic approaches are considered for addressing source water inadequacies.  The quantities
required can be reduced through a reduction in unaccounted-for water losses beyond the amount
included in the projections, and additional sources can be supplied.  Additional sources may
supplement existing sources with potable water from adjacent water systems, or new sources
Washington County increases VDH permitted capacities and continues to purchase water from
the City of Bristol, capacity for both locations will last through 2060 and beyond.
Town of Saltville
Upgrade current VDH withdrawal permits to account for the total of the source design capacities
(1.16 MGD), the Town would currently experience a surplus of 0.27 MGD as well as experience
surplus into 2049 at which point, alternative sources of water would need to be explored. It
should be noted that this information is based on knowledge associated with actual withdrawals,
actual capacities were not provided by the Town. It is possible that the Town of Saltville may
currently and into the future have sufficient capacity.
Town of Wytheville
The Town of Wytheville is currently supplied 4.00 MGD of capacity from the New River
Regional Water Authority WTP. Provided the»Town continues to obtain water from the
NRRWA, the Town will have sufficient capacity into 2041, at which point alternative sources of
water would need to be explored and may includeadditional purchase from the NRRWA or
request additional capacity from VDH.
9.3 Description of Water Source Alternatives for the Cumberland Plateau
9.3.1 Introduction
In the Cumberland Plateau Regional Planning Area, existing water sources are projected to be
inadequate to meet demand at the’end of the planning period (2040) for Russell County. The
Russell County water supply is projected to be inadequate in the Castlewood Water and Sewer
Authority (CWSA) service area and also in the Belfast/Rosedale water system and proposed
waterline extensions operated by the Russell County PSA which are supplied water treated at the
Tazewell County PSA’s Claypool Hill WTP.
‘Two basic approaches are considered for addressing source water inadequacies. The quantities
required can be reduced through a reduction in unaccounted-for water losses beyond the amount
included in the projections, and additional sources can be supplied. Additional sources may
supplement existing sources with potable water from adjacent water systems, or new sources
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan ul
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  12
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
could be developed.  The amount of treatment required for new sources is site specific.  These
approaches are presented in turn for each of the localities projected to have inadequate water
sources at the end of the planning period.
Potential Water Savings from Water Demand Management Actions
Water demand management includes conservation activities, reuse of water, and reducing
unaccounted-for water losses in existing systems.  Conservation activities in place at the
beginning of the planning period include rates that are higher than state averages and adoption of
building codes addressing water fixture consumption.  Additional conservation activities were
not projected to reduce water demand during the planning period.
Reuse of water is not projected to reduce water demand during the planning period.  Virginia
regulations (12 VAC 5-590-820) require that preference is given to the best available sources of
supply which present minimal risks of contamination from wastewaters and which contain a
minimum of impurities that may be hazardous to health.  For potable water applications in the
planning area, reuse would not provide the best available source of supply.
Reduction of unaccounted-for water losses was included in water demand projections through
the planning period.  Each system for which existing water sources are projected to be
inadequate by end of the planning period was projected to have unaccounted-for water losses less
than or equal to 30 percent.  The annual volume of water demand reduction for CWSA due to
reduced unaccounted-for water losses is projected to be 41.5 million gallons in 2040.
Potential Alternatives for New Supplies
Both nontraditional alternatives and traditional alternatives are considered as ways to increase
the volume of water to systems projected to have inadequate water supply at the end of the
planning period.  The primary nontraditional alternative considered is interconnection between
water systems.  Desalination is not practical for the planning area.  Traditional alternatives
include groundwater, stream intakes, and surface water impoundments.
Potential Alternatives for CWSA Water System
could be developed. The amount of treatment required for new sources is site specific, These
approaches are presented in tu for each of the localities projected to have inadequate water
sources at the end of the planning period.
Potential Water Savings from Water Demand Management Actions
Water demand management includes conservation activities, reuse of water, and reducing
unaccounted-for water losses in existing systems. Conservation activities in) place at the
beginning of the planning period include rates that are higher than state averages and adoption of
building codes addressing water fixture consumption. Additional conservation, activities were
not projected to reduce water demand during the planning period.
Reuse of water is not projected to reduce water demand during the planning period. Virginia
regulations (12 VAC 5-590-820) require that preference is given to the bestavailable sources of
supply which present minimal risks of contamination from wastewaters and which contain a
minimum of impurities that may be hazardous to health. For potable water applications in the
planning area, reuse would not provide the best available source of supply.
Reduction of unaccounted-for water losses was included in water demand projections through
the planning period. Each system for which existing water sources are projected to be
inadequate by end of the planning period was projected to have unaccounted-for water losses less
than or equal to 30 percent. The annual volume of water demand reduction for CWSA due to
reduced unaccounted-for water losses is projected to be 41.5 million gallons in 2040.
Potent rnatives for New Supplies
Both nontraditional alternatives and traditional alternatives are considered as ways to increase
the volume of water to systems projected to have inadequate water supply at the end of the
planning period. The primary nontraditional alternative considered is interconnection between
water systems. Desalination is not practical for the planning area. Traditional alternatives
include groundwater, stream intakes, and surface water impoundments.
Potential Alternatives for CWSA Water System
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 12
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  13
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Interconnections
Two (2) interconnections with the CWSA water system are considered as alternatives.  The first
is an existing interconnection with the St. Paul water system.  The St. Paul WTP withdraws
water from the Clinch River for treatment in the 0.5 MGD production capacity WTP.  CWSA
has an agreement with the Town of St. Paul to purchase up to 0.129 MGD.  The Town uses
approximately 0.2 MGD within the Town’s service area.
A second interconnection could be made with the Russell County PSA’s Swords Creek water
system.  This interconnection is dependent upon construction of the Big A Mountain to Back
Valley Interconnection project, a project that has been funded.  The interconnection will connect
the CWSA and PSA systems.  A tank will be installed to float with the existing Red Oak and
Blue Devil tanks.  Future installation of a pump station would enable water to be returned from
the CWSA system into the PSA system to address short-term water demand issues.
Additional water capacity could be provided from the Town of Honaker water system.  The
Town has considered development of additional groundwater sources (wells) to address potential
capacity demands through the PSA system. The Town’s four wells produce 160 gpm, and a
supplemental flow of 50 gpm from additional wells is a conservative approximation.
Groundwater
The CWSA’s Seven Springs Well #03 has a permitted capacity of 110 gpm.  However, this
source is under the direct influence of surface water and exceeds the secondary limits for iron
and manganese and is not in service.  Additional testing of sequestering agent would indicate if
this source could be purified through membrane filters.  Potential site of treatment is the Seven
Springs WTP.  During the course of additional testing as the well water has been pumped, the
levels of iron and manganese in the source water have decreased.  This trend may obviate the
need for sequestration prior to treatment.
Additional groundwater sources near the Seven Springs WTP are the Hart/Dickenson Spring and
the Trig Moore Spring.  Both would require treatment.  If used as a source, additional treatment
capacity at the Seven Springs WTP could be doubled with the addition of three (3) more filter
skids (at 45 gpm each).  Existing skids can be rated at 45 gpm, as well.
Interconnections
‘Two (2) interconnections with the CWSA water system are considered as alternatives. ‘The first
is an existing interconnection with the St. Paul water system. The St. Paul WTP withdraws
water from the Clinch River for treatment in the 0.5 MGD production capacity WTP. CWSA
has an agreement with the Town of St. Paul to purchase up to 0.129 MGD. The Town uses
approximately 0.2 MGD within the Town’s service area.
A second interconnection could be made with the Russell County PSA’s Swords Creek water
system. This interconnection is dependent upon construction of the Big A Mountain to Back
Valley Interconnection project, a project that has been funded. The interconnection will connect
the CWSA and PSA systems, A tank will be installed to float with the existing Red Oak and
Blue Devil tanks. Future installation of a pump station would enable water t6 be returned from
the CWSA system into the PSA system to address shortsterm water demand issues.
Additional water capacity could be provided from the Town of Honaker water system, The
Town has considered development of additional groundwater sources (wells) to address potential
capacity demands through the PSA system. The Town’s four wells produce 160 gpm, and a
supplemental flow of 50 gpm from additional wells is a conservative approximation.
Groundwater
The CWSA’s Seven Springs Well #03 has a permitted capacity of 110 gpm. However, this
source is under the directinfluence of surface water and exceeds the secondary limits for iron
and manganese and is notin service. Additional testing of sequestering agent would indicate if
this source could be purified through membrane filters. Potential site of treatment is the Seven
Springs WTP. During the course of additional testing as the well water has been pumped, the
levels of iron and manganese in the source water have decreased. This trend may obviate the
need for sequestration prior to treatment.
Additional groundwater sources near the Seven Springs WTP are the Hart/Dickenson Spring and
the Trig Moore Spring. Both would require treatment. If used as a source, additional treatment
capacity at the Seven Springs WTP could be doubled with the addition of three (3) more filter
skids (at 45 gpm each). Existing skids can be rated at 45 gpm, as well.
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 13
Section 9
ob No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  14
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Stream Intake
The CWSA operates two (2) membrane filtration WTPs.  This technology is not used for surface
water application, so a surface water treatment plant would have to be constructed in order to
utilize a stream intake.  This would result in a cost that greatly exceeds other alternatives.  In
addition, permitting a new raw water intake on the Clinch River would be difficult.
Surface Water Impoundment
A surface water impoundment would have significant challenges, including both regulatory
aspects (permitting) and financial aspects (constructing).  In addition, a water treatment facility
would likely be required to treat water from the impoundment.  This alternative is the lowest
priority alternative to meet the needs of the CWSA.  In perspective of the other alternatives, a
surface water impoundment is not feasible.
CWSA Alternative Analysis
To meet demand in 2020, an additional source capacity of 176 gpm is required.  This may be
addressed through development of the three (3) groundwater sources noted in the “Groundwater”
section above, plus the interconnection with Russell County PSA through the proposed Big A
Mountain to Back Valley project, for which the Town of Honaker could develop additional
groundwater sources.  The capacity limitation of 0.129 MGD through the St. Paul
interconnection could be revisited to determine if additional capacity could be obtained.  A
collection of some or all of the different alternatives should provide sufficient source water to
meet the CWSA peak water demand in 2020 and the reduced projected water demand at the end
of the planning period in 2040.
Potential Alternatives for Russell County PSA Water System Extensions
Interconnections
Stream Intake
‘The CWSA operates two (2) membrane filtration WTPs. This technology is not used for surface
water application, so a surface water treatment plant would have to be constructed in order to
utilize a stream intake. This would result in a cost that greatly exceeds other alternatives. In
addition, permitting a new raw water intake on the Clinch River would be difficult.
Surface Water Impoundment
‘A surface water impoundment would have significant challenges, including both regulatory
aspects (permitting) and financial aspects (constructing). In addition, a water treatment facility
would likely be required to treat water from the impoundment. ‘This alternative is the lowest
priority alternative to meet the needs of the\CWSA. ‘In perspective of the other alternatives, a
surface water impoundment is not feasible.
CWSA Alternative Analysis
To meet demand in 2020, an’ additional source capacity of 176 gpm is required. This may be
addressed through development of the three (3) groundwater sources noted in the “Groundwater”
section above, plus the interconnection with Russell County PSA through the proposed Big A
Mountain to Back Valley project, for which the Town of Honaker could develop additional
groundwater sourées. ‘The Capacity limitation of 0.129 MGD through the St. Paul
interconnection could be revisited to determine if additional capacity could be obtained. A
collection of some ofall of the different alternatives should provide sufficient source water to
meet the CWSA peak water demand in 2020 and the reduced projected water demand at the end
of the planning period in 2040.
Potential Alternatives for Russell County PSA Water System Extensions
Interconnections
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 14
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  15
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
The PSA’s Belfast/Rosedale water system and proposed system extensions are interconnected
with the Tazewell County PSA’s Claypool Hill water system and are supplied water produced at
the Claypool Hill WTP.
An interconnection with the CWSA system has been described in the section above.  In order for
water to be transferred back into the PSA system, installation of a pump would be required.
Interconnection with the Town of Honaker system would supplement the water available to the
PSA.  The magnitude of this source would be increased if the Town is able to develop additional
wells.
The PSA is investigating a potential interconnection on U.S. Route 19/58 with the Washington
County Service Authority.  Funding has been requested for a preliminary engineering study of
this interconnection.
Groundwater
Groundwater sources may not be viable portions of the Belfast/Rosedale system, due to geology
similar to that of the Claypool Hill water system.  An alternative water source study performed in
2005 in the Claypool Hill system area indicated that groundwater was not a viable option, due to
the depth of the water bearing zone and the production of very fine sands.  The study concluded
that groundwater is not a viable option.
Existing groundwater sources, such as the Town of Honaker’s referred above in the
“Interconnections” section, may supplement the existing supply, but are not sufficient to meet
the additional demand.
Stream Intake
In order to utilize a stream intake, a surface water treatment plant would have to be constructed.
This would result in a cost that greatly exceeds other alternatives.  Increasing capacity of the
existing Claypool Hill WTP would be much more cost effective.  The Claypool Hill WTP
receives raw water withdrawn from the Little River.
The PSA’s Belfast/Rosedale water system and proposed system extensions are interconnected
with the Tazewell County PSA’s Claypool Hill water system and are supplied water produced at
the Claypool Hill WTP.
An interconnection with the CWSA system has been described in the section above. In order for
water to be transferred back into the PSA system, installation of a pump would be required.
Interconnection with the Town of Honaker system would supplement the water available to the
PSA. The magnitude of this source would be increased if the Town is able to develop additional
wells.
The PSA is investigating a potential interconnection on U.S. Route 19/58 with the Washington
County Service Authority. Funding has been requested for a preliminary engineering study of
this interconnection,
Groundwater
Groundwater sources may not be viable portions of the Belfast/Rosedale system, due to geology
similar to that of the Claypool Hill water system, Anvalternative water source study performed in
2005 in the Claypool Hill system area indicated that groundwater was not a viable option, due to
the depth of the water bearing zone and the production of very fine sands. The study concluded
that groundwater is not a viable option.
Existing groundwater sources, such as the Town of Honaker’s referred above in the
“Interconnections” section, may supplement the existing supply, but are not sufficient to meet
the additional demand.
Stream Intake
In order to utilize a stream intake, a surface water treatment plant would have to be constructed.
This would result in a cost that greatly exceeds other alternatives. Increasing capacity of the
existing Claypool Hill WTP would be much more cost effective. The Claypool Hill WTP
receives raw water withdrawn from the Little River.
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 15
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  16
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
A 2005 safe yield study of 44 years of data from the gage at the Clinch River at Richlands for its
137 square mile basin determined a safe yield of 0.07 cfs per square mile, based on one day, 30-
year low flow.  For the 82 square mile Little River basin this extrapolates to 5.8 cfs (3.8 MGD or
2,600 gpm).  The existing intake on the Little River is permitted for 1.0 MGD.
A new stream intake could be constructed on the Clinch River.  However, this would be much
more costly than modifying the existing Little River intake.  Regulatory approval of a new intake
on the Clinch River could be difficult and time consuming to obtain.  Increasing existing
treatment capacity is less expensive than building a new WTP.
Surface Water Impoundment
A surface water impoundment would have significant challenges, including both regulatory
aspects (permitting) and financial aspects (constructing).  In addition, a water treatment facility
would likely be required to treat water from the impoundment.  This alternative is the lowest
priority alternative to meet the needs of the PSA’s system.  In perspective with the other
alternatives, a surface water impoundment is not feasible.
Russell County PSA Waterline Extensions Alternative Analysis
Increasing available potable water through an interconnection with the Claypool Hill WTP is the
most attractive alternative.  A surface impoundment or stream intake with associated treatment
facilities would be expensive and require extensive permitting.  Groundwater sources are not
reliable.  The Claypool Hill WTP intake capacity would need to be increased.
Improving Reliability of Water Supplies Throughout the Planning Area
The ability of the water providers in the Cumberland Plateau Regional Planning Area is
dependent on managing water demand through reduction of unaccounted-for water losses
throughout the planning period.  Every system was projected to have reduced unaccounted-for
water losses to a maximum of thirty percent (30%).
Although seventy-five percent of the community water systems in the Cumberland Plateau
Regional Planning Area currently achieve this level of water demand management, it is vitally
A 2005 safe yield study of 44 years of data from the gage at the Clinch River at Richlands for its
137 square mile basin determined a safe yield of 0.07 cfs per square mile, based on one day, 30-
year low flow. For the 82 square mile Little River basin this extrapolates to 5.8 cfs (3.8 MGD or
2,600 gpm). The existing intake on the Little River is permitted for 1.0 MGD.
‘A new stream intake could be constructed on the Clinch River. However, this would be much
more costly than modifying the existing Little River intake, Regulatory approval of a new intake
on the Clinch River could be difficult and time consuming to obtain. Increasing existing
treatment capacity is less expensive than building a new WTP.
Surface Water Impoundment
A surface water impoundment would have significant challenges, including both regulatory
aspects (permitting) and financial aspects (constructing). In addition, a water treatment facility
would likely be required to treat water from the impoundment. This alternative is the lowest
priority alternative to meet the needs of the PSA’S system. In perspective with the other
alternatives, a surface water impoundment is not feasible.
Russell County PSA Waterline Extensions Alternative Analysis
Increasing available potable water through an interconnection with the Claypool Hill WTP is the
most attractive alternative. A surface impoundment or stream intake with associated treatment
facilities would be expensive and requite extensive permitting. Groundwater sources are not
reliable. The Claypool Hill WTP intake capacity would need to be increased.
Improving Reliability of Water Supplies Throughout the Planning Area
The ability of the Water providers in the Cumberland Plateau Regional Planning Area is
dependent on managing water demand through reduction of unaccounted-for water losses
throughout the planning period. Every system was projected to have reduced unaccounted-for
water losses to a maximum of thirty percent (30%),
Although seventy-five percent of the community water systems in the Cumberland Plateau
Regional Planning Area currently achieve this level of water demand management, it is vitally
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 16
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  17
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
important for each system to annually review its capital improvement program and fund
necessary projects.  Those systems with unaccounted-for water losses greater than thirty percent
will not reduce water demand to acceptable levels without replacement of leaking water
transmission lines.  Funding of water line replacement and rehabilitation is the critical need to
reduce water losses.
The main water transmission lines that convey potable water from the John Flannagan WTP to
the Buchanan County PSA and Town of Clintwood water systems is in need of replacement.
This potable water is subsequently conveyed to more than a dozen water systems in the planning
area.  Replacement or rehabilitation of these lines is essential to provide water service to a large
portion of the planning area.
Although there is no substitute for conveying water from the John Flannagan WTP, the cost of a
replacement/rehabilitation project is estimated to be $36 million.  One supplemental approach
prior to and during the transmission line project is treatment of groundwater by membrane
filtration at select locations.  For example, a 2009 study indicated that the safe yield of a
discharge from an abandoned mine in Buchanan County, near Harmon, is 250 gpm.  The safe
yield was calculated based on correlation with the one-day, thirty year flow determined at nearby
Levisa Fork River gaging station.  This type of groundwater source does not have resource issues
typically associated with surface water withdrawals.  Further availability of the Harmon source is
on hold at this time due to recent mining activities in this area.  The Buchanan County PSA will
continue to monitor water flow and conduct annual chemical testing of water quality during the
life of the mining activities, which is estimated to be six to seven years.
9.4 Description of Water Source Alternatives for LENOWISCO
9.4.1 Introduction
In the LENOWISCO Planning Area, existing water sources are projected to be adequate to meet
demand at the end of the planning period (2040) for Lee County, Scott County, Wise County, the
City of Norton, and the Towns of Appalachia, Big Stone Gap, Clinchport, Coeburn, Dungannon,
Gate City, Jonesville, Nickelsville, Pennington Gap, Pound, St. Paul, and Wise.
Significance of Reducing Unaccounted for Water Losses
important for each system to annually review its capital improvement program and fund
necessary projects. Those systems with unaccounted-for water losses greater than thirty percent
will not reduce water demand to acceptable levels without replacement of leaking water
transmission lines. Funding of water line replacement and rehabilitation is the critical need to
reduce water losses.
‘The main water transmission lines that convey potable water from the John Flannagan WTP to
the Buchanan County PSA and Town of Clintwood water systems is in need of teplacement.
This potable water is subsequently conveyed to more than a dozen water systems in the planning
area, Replacement or rehabilitation of these lines is essential to provide water setyice to’a large
portion of the planning area.
Although there is no substitute for conveying water from the John Flannagan WTP, the cost of a
replacement/rehabilitation project is estimated to be $36 million. One supplemental approach
prior to and during the transmission line project is treatment of groundwater by membrane
filtration at select locations. For example, a 2009 study indi¢ated that the safe yield of a
discharge from an abandoned mine in Buchanan County, near Harmon, is 250 gpm. The safe
yield was calculated based on correlation with the one-day, thirty year flow determined at nearby
Levisa Fork River gaging station.) This type of groundwater source does not have resource issues
typically associated with surface water withdrawals. Further availability of the Harmon source is
on hold at this time due to recent mining activities in this area. The Buchanan County PSA will
continue to monitor water flow and conduct annual chemical testing of water quality during the
life of the mining activities, which is estimated to be six to seven years.
9.4 Description of Water Source Alternatives for LENOWISCO
9.4.1 Introduction
In the LENOWISCO Planning Area, existing water sources are projected to be adequate to meet
demand at the end of the planning period (2040) for Lee County, Scott County, Wise County, the
City of Norton, and the Towns of Appalachia, Big Stone Gap, Clinchport, Coeburn, Dungannon,
Gate City, Jonesville, Nickelsville, Pennington Gap, Pound, St. Paul, and Wise.
Significance of Reducing Unaccounted for Water Losses
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 7
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  18
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
The ability of the water providers in the LENOWISCO Planning Area is dependent on managing
water demand through reduction of unaccounted for water losses throughout the planning period.
Every system was projected to have reduced unaccounted for water losses to a maximum of
thirty percent (30%).  It is vitally important for each system to annually review its capital
improvement program and fund necessary projects.  Funding of water line replacement and
rehabilitation is the critical need to reduce water losses in the planning area.
Water System Reliability Improvement through Interconnections and Improvements
A number of interconnections between water systems in the LENOWISCO Regional Planning
Area are in place and greatly improve the reliability of those systems in the event of a disruption
within a particular water system.  The disruption may be short-term, due to power outage, or may
be long-term, which could occur due to alteration of quality or quantity of an existing water
source.  In order to strengthen the reliability of other water systems in the planning area,
additional system improvements and interconnections between water systems are recommended.
These interconnections and improvements will provide water suppliers with auxiliary source(s)
of finished water for distribution.
The proposed improvements and interconnections are identified below.  Specific benefits and
costs would be developed as opportunities occur.
Interconnection between Appalachia system and Big Stone Gap system
Interconnection between Appalachia system and Norton system
Interconnection between Dungannon system and Nickelsville system
Interconnection between Dungannon system and Scott County Public Service
Authority (SCPSA) Ft. Blackmore system
Interconnection between Dungannon system and the Castlewood Water and Sewage
Authority’s Mew Road system
Interconnection between SCPSA system and City of Kingsport, TN system
Interconnection between SCPSA Daniel Boone system with SCPSA Natural Tunnel
system (requiring a bore under Clinch River)
Interconnection between SCPSA system and the Bloomingdale, TN, Utility District
system (requiring a bore under Holston River at Wadlow Gap)
Interconnection between SCPSA Cove Creek system and Washington County Service
Authority’s Mendota system
The ability of the water providers in the LENOWISCO Planning Area is dependent on managing
water demand through reduction of unaccounted for water losses throughout the planning period.
Every system was projected to have reduced unaccounted for water losses to a maximum of,
thirty percent (30%). It is vitally important for each system to annually review its capital
improvement program and fund necessary projects. Funding of water line replacement and
rehabilitation is the critical need to reduce water losses in the planning area.
Water System Reliability Improvement through Interconnections and Improvements
‘A number of interconnections between water systems in the LENOWISCO Regional Planning
‘Area are in place and greatly improve the reliability of those systems in the event ofa disruption
within a particular water system. The disruption may be short-term, due to power outage, or may
be long-term, which could occur due to alteration of quality. or quantity of an existing water
source. In order to strengthen the reliability of other water systems in the planning area,
additional system improvements and interconnections between water systems are recommended.
These interconnections and improvements will provide water suppliers with auxiliary source(s)
of finished water for distribution.
The proposed improvements and interconnections are identified below. Specific benefits and
costs would be developed as opportunities occur.
Interconnection between Appalachia system and Big Stone Gap system
Interconnection between Appalachia system and Norton system
Interconneetion between Dungannon system and Nickelsville system
Interconnection between Dungannon system and Scott County Public Service
Authority (SCPSA) Ft. Blackmore system
¢ Interconnection between Dungannon system and the Castlewood Water and Sewage
‘Authority’s Mew Road system
4 Interconnection between SCPSA system and City of Kingsport, TN system
Interconnection between SCPSA Daniel Boone system with SCPSA Natural Tunnel
system (requiring a bore under Clinch River)
Interconnection between SCPSA system and the Bloomingdale, TN, Utility District
system (requiring a bore under Holston River at Wadlow Gap)
Interconnection between SCPSA Cove Creek system and Washington County Service
Authority’s Mendota system
eeee
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 18
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan  19
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03
The SCPSA could evaluate the benefit of drilling additional wells to strengthen the raw water
supply to the Duffield Water Treatment Plant.
The SCPSA could evaluate the benefit of drilling additional wells to strengthen the raw water
supply to the Duffield Water Treatment Plant.
Mount Rogers Regional Water Supply Plan 19
Section 9
Job No. B06226-03