[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                                                      RNAL PRODUCT     FY'94 Task 35,
                                                                      Crater PDC Technical Assistance




                          APPOMATTOX RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY


                                                   PHASE III


                                             WATER QUALITY
















                    Prepared by the Crater Planning District Commission with assistance from the
                                  Crater Coastal Resource Management Task Force






                                                   September, 1995




                           This report was funded, in part, by tlie Dept. of Environmental Quality's Coastal
                           Resources Management Program through Grant # NA470ZO287-01 of the
                           National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal
                           Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
                           amended.
                 Mu'











                                                                   PAGE


                INTRODUCTION                                          I


           Ii.  E)GSTING WATER QUALITY                                3

                Virginia's Water Quality Standards
                Water Quality Monitoring

           III. WATER QUALITY POLICIES                                7

                The Appomattox River Water Flow Agreement
                The Richmond-Crater Interim Water Quality Management Plan

           IV.  WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS               10


                Erosion and Sediment Control Act
                Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Regulations
                Stormwater Regulations
                Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy
                Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program
                Riparian Restoration and Protection

           V.   WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS                    16

                Petersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
                Virginia-American Water Company Facility Upgrade
                Appomattox River Water Authority Water Treatment Plant Expansion
                Brasfield Dam Hydroelectric Generation Facility
                Chesterfield County Riverfi7ont Project
                Lake Chesdin Watershed Study

           VI.  SUMMARY                                              21




                                         'Rec'd. by 000C 01'
                                        Environmental aualivy


                                           NOV 1 16: 1995


                                          Public & inter-
                                        governmental Affair-S











             I.     ENTRODUCTION


                    The Appomattox River is a major tributary of the James River. It flows in an easterly
             direction across@ the piedmont and coastal plain of south central Virginia between Appomattox
             Courthouse and its confluence'%krith the James River in Hopewell. The River is an important
             regional resource that is unique and irreplaceable. The portion of the River in the Crater Planning
             District meanders through six jurisdictions: the Counties of Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, and Prince
             George, and the Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell and Petersburg, and is a valuable resource
             for commerce, industry, farming, fishing, and recreation. (See map 1).

                    As more growth occurs, more pressure is being placed on the Appomattox River and its
             adjacent lands. Competing uses must.find ways to survive compatibly, without significantly
             depleting the resources available.

                    A primary problem with providing a regional perspective has been the lack of a single
             reliable source of information about the natural, scenic, historic, and man-made features of the
             Appomattox River. I-Estorically, the River has been the boundary for local planning and decision-
             making.

                    The purpose of this corridor study is to help decision-makers understand the complex
             nature of managing the Appomattox River, and find innovative solutions to balance competing
             interests while protecting valuable resources. This task is envisioned as the beginning of a
             corridor effort to establish a regional data base for the purpose of improved coastal planning.

                    Phase I of the corridor study, completed in 1993, inventoried recreation and riverfront
             features, such as riverfront configuration, parks and recreation, scenic and cultural areas, as well
             as wildlife and natural areas. A total of twenty-three existing and potential public access sites
             were identified. The second phase of the study examined existing and future land use information,
             zoning, ownership patterns, water and sewer utilities, as well as soils and mineral resources within
             the corridor. It was completed in 1994.

                    The third phase will address water quality issues as they relate to the study corridor. This
             includes local water quality policies, recent water quality improvement efforts, and state and
             federal water quality regulations and programs.











                                                                           APPOMATTOX RIVER

                                         RICH 0 0
                                                                           CORRIDOR STUDY




                  CHESTERFIELD CO.                                                    Map 1       Location Map

                   APPOMATTOX                               L
                           RIVER COLOHIAL
                                        HEIGHT

                                                    rot, it                            es
                                               ET                           clo"
                                                     PRt   GEORGE  CO/' f                       1P
                    DINVADWE CO                                               SURRY CO.

                                                                          41


                                                                %hv- r





                                         'Sony cf&;;

                                                           sus x CO.











                                         EMPOnt

                                              -rpm,,



                                         LS CO.









               H.     E)aSTING WATER QUALITY

                      Water quality is a reflection of a body of water's composition as it is affected by natural
               processes and human activity. According to the latest water quality assessment reported by the
               Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) in 1994, the water quality of a section of
               the Appomattox River between Lake Chesdin and its confluence with the James is generally good.

               Virginia's Water Qualfty Standards

                      Virginia!s water quality standards establish a definition of acceptable ambient quality.
               Statewide standards are based on criteria to support recreational use, propagation of aquatic fife,
               and protection of human health. The standards serve as a benchmark for water quality monitoring
               and for the regulation of discharges. All dischargers of wastewater into the Appomattox River
               must receive a permit which requires a certain minimum level of treatment. If the Virginia
               Department of Environmental Quality determines that such a treatment level is insufficient to meet
               the water quality standards, more stringent treatment is required.

                      As of October 1990, the surface water standards are a combination of (a) narrative
               statements (concerning general requirements, pollutant mixing zones, anti-degradation of high
               quality waters, and stream flow); (b) statewide numeric standards for dissolved oxygen, pK and
               temperature, (c) numeric standards for bacteria and for several parameters that are applied to
               surface sources of public water supplies on a site-specific basis; and (d) non-mandatory water
               quality criteria for additional parameters. The standards are applied to specific river basins,
               subbasins, and stream sections.

                      Again, according to the Virginia Water Quality Assessment Report for 1994, the surface
               water quality of the Appomattox River basin meets the standards of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

               Water Qualfty Monitorin

                      The key to effective implementation of the standards is an effective monitoring program.
               In the Appomattox River Corridor the VDEQ maintains five fixed water quality monitoring
               stations including one "core" station at which fish tissue and sediments are monitored, and two
               biological stations (See map 2). The water quality stations monitor up to 28 different parameters
               at variable frequencies ranging from monthly to annually.

                      The fish tissue monitoring program provides biennial sampling of predatory and bottom
               feeding fish tissue, and analysis of detectable concentrations of 14 different toxic metals and
               pesticides.










                                                                3





                APPOMATTOX RIVER
                CORRIDOR STUDY
                                                                                                                            ul





                                                                                        ......            @CCQL N
                                                                                                                                FOR
                                                                                                                                   L



                                                                                 W115
            WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATION                         W =

            BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STATION                            B =




                                                                                     W116
                                                                                @M 'V@@jq
                                                        \W117





                          DINWbDIE CO.

                                                                           lob


                                                                                   PE  ERSEWRd


                           1Z








                      Biological monitoring, conducted sen-dannually in the study corridor, examines benthic
              macro-invertebrate communities as an indicator of water quality. Evaluation of the communities
              is based on species type, diversity, and density, and provides a qualitative water quality rating of
              six categories ranging from "good" to "fair" to 11poor" to "no aquatic life."

                      Table I presents the water quality data as monitored in the Appomattox River.

                      Small quantities of toxic chemicals called PCBs were found in the sediment near the City
              of Hopewell (River mile 0.0 to River mile 6.0). The source of the toxicant is unknown. VDEQ
              does not consider this segment's water quality to be impaired because the quantity of pollutants
              found in the River does not exceed the state water quality minimum standards.

                      One case each of fecal coliform bacteria was found at three monitoring stations. These
              pollutants are commonly found in the storm water which carries manure, oil and other waste
              associated with farms, streets and yards. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria.does not mean
              pathogens are present. It does mean that contamination by warm blooded animals exists and that
              there is a potential for pathogen contamination. Only two or more samples collected within a 30-
              day period that exceed state minimum standards is considered a violation of the state's water
              quality standards. Since only one sample failed to meet the standards, the, water quality in the
              Appomattox River is considered generally good.





























                                                              5





















                                                                                                Table I

                                                            Monitoring Stations in the Appomattox River Corridor and Water Column Data


                                                                                                                                                                               CB
                                                                                                                                                 T                             OA
                                                                                                                                                 E         D                   cc
         Map Key                     Station ID                 River Name                     Station Description                 Type          M         0        ph         IT
         W 109                     2-APPOO 1.53              Appomattox River             BUOY 8 (City of Hopewell)                 a,c          0/29     0/29     0/27        1/20
         W 114                     2-SFTOO4.92               Swift Creek                  Route I Bridge (Colonial Heights)         a            0/8      0/8      0/8         015
         W 115                     2-OTC002.49               Old Town Creek               Route 1-301 Bridge (Colonial Heights)     a            0/8      0/8      2/8         1/5
         W 1.16                    2-APPO 12.79              Appomattox River             Route 36 Bridge (Petersburg)              a            0/24     0/24     0/24        1/18
         W 117                     2-APP016.38               Appomattox River             Route 600 Bridge (Chesterfield Co.)       a            ---      ---      ---         ---
         B. 36                     2-APP001.53               Appomattox                   BUOY 8 (Hopewell)                         b            ---      ---      ---         ---
         B. 38                     2-APPO 13.00              Appomattox                   0.2 mi. upstream of                       b            Not Impaired
                                                                                           Route 36 Bridge (Petersburg)
         W      Water Quality Monitoring Station                                                                                   a    Ambrient
         B      Biological Monitoring Station                                                                                      b    Biological
                                                                                                                                   c    Core (Fish Tissue)









                III. WATER QUALITY POLICIES

                       There are two over-arching policy statements that impact upon all water quality issues
                within the Appomattox River Corridor. They are (1) the agreement between the Appomattox
                River Water Authority (ARWA) and the City of Hopewell on water flow and (2) the Richmond-
                Crater Interim Water Quality Management Plan (R-CWQMP) on setting the wasteload allocation
                process for the Appomattox River.

                I .    The Appomattox River Water Flow Agreement

                       To ensure enough water for wasteload assimilation for the Petersburg Wastewater
                       Treatment Plant and an adequate supply of water for the City of Hopewell, a resolution
                       was signed between the Appomattox River Water Authority and the City of Hopewell in
                       April, 1993. The resolution follows:

                       of... the Authority agrees that any dam on the Appomattox River built or operated by it or
                       under its authority shall be operated in accordance with the following terms and
                       conditions:


                       (1) On any calendar day when the average daily water flow of the Appomattox River
                       into the upstream end of the lake created by the dam is 100 million gallons or more, the
                       amount of water discharged into the Appomattox River on the downstream side of the
                       dam during the next calendar day shall be no less than 100 million gallons.

                               "Average daily flow" or "average daily water flow" as used in this agreement shall
                       mean the number of gallons of water resulting from dividing by thirty on every calendar
                       day the total gallons of water flow of the preceding thirty consecutive calendar days.

                                Water discharged into the Appomattox River on the downstream side of the
                       dam," so" used in this agreement, is defined as follows:

                               (a) All water pumped from the lake by the Authority which can reasonably be
                       expected to find its way back to the Appomattox River below the dam, and

                       (b) The water overflowing or released past the dam. The quantity of water described in
                subparagraph (a) shall be determined by the pumping records of the Authority and the quantity of
                the water described in subparagraph (b) by suitable gauging facilities installed at or immediately
                below the dam and maintained by the Authority.

                       (2) On any calendar day when the average daily flow from the Appomattox River into
                       the lake is less than 100 million gallons, then the water discharged into the Appomattox
                       River on the downstream side of the dam during the next succeeding calendar day shall be
                       no less than such average daily flow on the preceding calendar day.

                       A copy of the complete resolution is presented on pages 22-23, Appendix A.



                                                               7









               2.      The Richmond-Crater Interim Water Quality Management Plan

                       During the 1970's and early 1980's the Crater PDC, working in conjunction with the
                       Richmond Regional PDC and the State Water Control Board (Now Department of
                       Environmental Quality), spent considerable effort to resolve the wasteload allocation on
                       the James River and establish a model for the Appomattox River in order that wasteloads
                       could be established.


                       The crux of the problem was that the estuary from Richmond to Hopewell could not
                       continue to receive increasing amounts of treated wastes and exhibit good water quality.
                       Therefore, in order to meet state water quality standards in this portion of the estuary,
                       particularly with reference to dissolved oxygen, and to satisfy the demands for additional
                       quantities of waste to be discharged into the river, a unique and serious approach to this
                       problem had to be taken.

                       In the early 1970's the State Water Control Board (SWCB), recognizing the need for
                       region-wide water quality management, gave consideration to the idea of developing a
                       comprehensive water quality management study of the lower James River Basin where the
                       Appomattox River is a tributary. On July 1, 1971, the SWCB entered into an agreement
                       with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 3(c) of the Federal Water
                       Pollution Control Act of 1965, as amended. This project was completed in July, 1974.

                       Early in the year 1980, the SWCB was designated by th    e Governor to complete the
                       areawide2.08 management plan, which would control the area's point and nonpoint
                       sources of water pollution so water quality standards could be met. The most significant
                       part of this effort was the development of alternative wasteload allocation scenarios for
                       the James estuary including the Appomattox. The calibrated and verified James River
                       Water Quality Management Model was an important tool in this endeavor.

                       Due to the conflicts associa ted with the modelling process, and the need to develop
                       current infon-nation about the James and Appomattox Rivers, Crater PDC and Richmond
                       Regional PDC requested $300,000 from the 1982 Virginia General Assembly to monitor
                       the rivers.


                       The James River Water Quality Monitoring Program was first implemented during the
                       Summer of 1983, pursuant to the Richmond/Crater 208 Interim Water Quality
                       Management Plan. The primary objectives of the Monitoring Program included the
                       following:

                               Protection of vital water supplies
                               Evaluation of wastewater treatment needs and scheduling
                               Assessment of water quality conditions
                               Establishment of a data base to provide for water quality modeling.





                                                                8









                       During the initial year of monitoring (1983 -84) 25 sampling locations were established on
                       the mainstem James River and on the Appomattox River. Based upon the results of that
                       work, the modelling for the James and Appomattox Rivers was revised and completed.
                       This wasteload allocation process is currently used for both rivers. Over this long period
                       of time the Crater PDC working with Richmond Regional PDC ensured that the local
                       governments were organized and had direct involvement in this vital process. This effort
                       established the foundation for determining how the Region would develop in the future.










































                                                            9









                IV. WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS

                        Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is caused by diffuse sources not regulated as point
                sources which include runoff from agriculture, silviculture, urban land use, construction, and
                resource extraction activities; runoff and leachate from land disposal of wastes; impacts of
                hydraulic channel modification; and other sources, such as atmospheric deposition, leaks, and
                spills.

                        While the federal government has provided a relatively strict program for source control,
                NPS controls have been left primarily to the State. Two state programs were enacted by the
                General Assembly in 1988 attempting to curb NPS pollution.

                        In 1988, the General Assembly passed the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, which
                established a comprehensive program for land use control in Tidewater to reduce water quality
                impacts. The Legislature also amended the Erosion and Sediment Control Act which aimed at
                strengthening local implementation. Also, in 1988, the General Assembly passed enabling
                legislation for local governments to develop and/or amend zoning and subdivision ordinances to
                protect surface and groundwater.

                Erosion and Sediment Control Act


                        Virginia!s Erosion and Sediment Control Law (ESCL) provides one of the few regulatory
                components of the state's NPS control program. Administered by the Division of Soil and Water
                Conservation (DSWC), the program provides unusual state government involvement in local
                private land use. However, the program is implemented by local governmentswith the assistance
                of soil and water conservation districts. All jurisdictions in the corridor have adopted the new
                Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. Local programs must contain regulations consistent
                with nineteen specific standards. The standards range from soil stabilization, to the use of a
                sediment basin for drainage areas greater than three acres, to stormwater runoff control to protect
                downstream properties and waterways. Those proposing regulated land-disturbing activities must
                submit for approval a control plan consistent with the standards. Following plan approval and
                installation of controls, certified local officials must inspect the work immediately following
                installation, at least once every two weeks, witl@iin 48 hours after a storm, and at completion of the
                project.

                Chesapeake BU Preservation Act and Regulation

                        The General Assembly realized that only through effective and widespread land use
                controls to reduce NPS pollution could the goals and objectives of the Bay Agreement be
                achieved, and that local governments must play the leading role in implementing them.








                                                                 10









                       With the exception of Dinwiddie County, each of the other corridor localities is required
                to amend its comprehensive plan to address the importance of water quality protection under the
                Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Regulations. According to the Regulations, "it shall be the
                development policy of the locality to protect and enhance the quality of state waters pursuant to
                the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. All functions of the local government shall be administered
                in a manner which recognizes that what occurs on the land ultimately affects water quality. Land
                use and development occurring in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas located within the
                locality shall comply with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Regulations".

                       The regulations have three basic elements: (1) specific local requirements and deadlines
                for adoption, (2) criteria for designating local Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (CBPA), and
                (3) performance criteria for land use and development in CBPAs. The preservation areas are
                divided into Resource Protection Areas (RPAs), which have special water quality value (e.g., tidal
                wetlands, tidal shores) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs), which are less sensitive than
                RPAs but still may impact water quality. Areas outside of designated RPAs are not subject to the
                regulations.

                       Areas within RPAs and RMAs that have existing development designated as Intensively
                Developed Areas (IDAs) may be redeveloped so long as the applicable performance criteria are
                met. Other non-IDAs, that have existing development may also be redeveloped.

                Ston-nwater Regulations

                       Stormwater run-off, unlike pollution from point sources, is diffluse both in terms of its
                origin and in the manner in which it enters ground and surface waters. It results from a variety of
                human activities such as agriculture, construction, motor vehicle usage, pesticide application and
                logging, activities that take place over wide geographic areas. Currently, there are three
                programs, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the State Stormwater Management Regulations
                and the,EPA Stormwater Perrnitting Regulations, which deal with state and federal stormwater
                management programs and requirements. The following section briefly summarizes each of these
                three programs.

                       The Chesapeake B4y Preservation Act

                       As previously mentioned, the goal of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) is to
                maintain or restore water quality in the Bay and its tributaries through the protection of
                preservation areas. To meet this goal, Tidewater jurisdictions are required to implement
                stormwater management programs and achieve the following objective: prevent a net increase in
                nonpoint source pollution from new development, achieve a 10 percent reduction in nonpoint
                source pollution from redevelopment, and achieve a 40 percent reduction in nonpoint source
                pollution from agricultural and silvicultural uses.








                       In order to achieve these goals and objectives, a set otperformance standards are
               necessary to minimize erosion and sedimentation potential, -reduce land application of nutrient and
               toxics, maximize rainwater infiltration, and ensure the long-term performance of the measures
               employed.

                       All localities in the study corridor subject to the CBPA have elected to pursue the use of
               on-site best management practices to satisfy the required stormwater management criteria.

                       State Stormwater Management Regi1lations

                       The 1989 Virginia General Assembly passed the Stormwater Management Act, enabling
               local governments to establish, by ordinance, stormwater management programs. Under this
               legislation, localities may implement stormwater management programs which would requite
               submission and approval of a stormwater management plan prior to any non-exempt development
               activity. State regulations establishing minimum acceptable technical criteria and administrative
               procedures become effective on December 5, 1990. These regulations require that local
               stormwater management ordinances do the following: (1) require regulated development
               activities to maintain post development peak runoff rates at or below pre-development runoff
               rates; (2) establish minimum technical criteria to control nonpoint source pollution and localized
               flooding; (3) require the provision of long-term responsibility for and maintenance of stormwater
               management facilities; and (4) require local programs to include certain minimum administrative
               procedures.

                       The implementation of a local stormwater management program is voluntary.

                       EPA Stormwater Permitting Regulation

                       Due to the improved understanding of NPS pollution problems and the difficulties
               encountered by the EPA in developing stormwater permitting regulations, the 1987 amendments
               to the Clean Water Act significantly increased federal involvement in NPS control. Storrawater
               discharge permitting provisions contained in the Act directed the EPA to promulgate stormwater
               permit regulations. They require localities to establish stormwater management programs that
               will affect the manner in which land is developed and managed. At present, permit requirements
               only apply to communities with a population of more than 100,000. In the study corridor, only
               Chesterfield County is required to complywith these regulations. The regulatory process to
               impose similar restrictions on communities with populations of less than 100,000, the balance of
               the region, are still. under evaluation.

               Chesapeake Bgy TributM Strategy

                       The Chesapeake Executive Council (Council), established in 1983, is charged with
               coordinating the Chesapeake Bay Program. Through the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the
               Council agreed to specific goals and activities. Of major significance was the agreement to





                                                             12









                develop, adopt and implement a basin-wide strategy to achieve at least a 40 percent reduction, by
                the year 2000, of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay. This
                goal guides ongoing point and nonpoint source management programs in the Bay region.

                       The nutrient reduction target was re-evaluated and the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
                amended in 1992. The 1992 Amendment reaffirmed the target and indicated the Council's belief
                that water quality conditions in the major tributaries to the Bay are critical to the health of the
                Bay.

                       The individual states are responsible for developing specific strategies for achieving the 40
                percent reduction target for their tributaries. Strategies are currently being developed for the
                Potomac. A series of meetings were held in late 1994 to gather public comment on how to
                achieve innovative, cost-effective tributary strategies. The strategies for the James River,
                including the study corridor are planned for completion in the Fall of 1996. Several state agencies
                are cooperatively undertaking the technical work necessary to develop VirginWs strategy.
                Although nutrient loadings from Virginia's tributaries are considered to have minimal impact on
                main stem water quality, the 40 percent reduction target will serve as an interim measure. Final
                reduction targets will reflect the characteristics of the individual tributaries.

                Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program

                       In 1990, Congress reauthorized the Coastal Zone Management Act. Section 6217
                contains provisions that require states with coastal zone management programs to develop coastal
                nonpoint source pollution programs to control sources of nonpoint pollution which degrade
                coastal water quality or face the loss of federal grant funds. It defines nonpoint source pollution
                as "...poUution of our nation's waters caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the
                ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural pollutants and pollutants
                resulting from human activity, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters
                and ground waters."

                       Both the biological and economic productivity of coastal and estuarine waters are
                threatened by increases in nonpoint source pollution. Coastal waters are natural resources which
                are vital for the well being of individual states and the nation. In January 1993, EPA and NOAA
                issued guidance for use by states in developing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
                Programs. This guidance specifies required nonpoint source pollution control measures and
                technical specifications for those measures. It recommends Best Management Practices to control
                nonpoint source pollution from agriculture, forestry, urban activities, marinas and recreational
                boating and hydrological modifications. It addresses protection of wetlands and riparian areas
                and use of vegetated treatment systems. Although these measures are considered to be generally
                applicable, states are to develop additional measures, if necessary to address local conditions.








                                                              13









                          The state's lead nonpoint source agency is the Department of Conservation and Recreation
                 (DCR). With the assistance of DEQ and several other cooperating state agencies, DCR submitted
                 its Virginia Threshold Review Report to NOAA in May, 1994. It outlines how Virginia's current
                 coastal nonpoint regulations comparevNith federally crafted guidelines. While Virginia has not yet
                 decided whether to participate in the federal program, the report is the first step in formulating a
                 plan that has the potential to impact local govenunents, homeowners, and farmers- alike. After
                 review and comment by EPA and NOAA, which is expected to be completed in late 1995, the
                 state will begin developing legislative and regulatory implementation strategies. Extensive public
                 participation in developing the program will be required and local governments and agencies will
                 be called upon to participate through workgroups and regional meetings.

                 Riparian Restoration and Protection

                          At the October 1994 meeting of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, a directive on
                 riparian restoration and protection was adopted. It requires the state to develop a comprehensive,
                 watershed-wide policy to enhance the maintenance, restoration and stewardship of riparian
                 forests. The lands that border the stream contain unique and valuable qualities. These border
                 lands are called riparian areas. They play a critical role in protecting water quality, soil, fish and
                 wildlife. "Forests have the ability to absorb and denitrify nitrogen in surface and groundwater,
                 and to trap phosphorus-laden sediment and other pollutants resulting from adjacent land uses,
                 thereby protecting water quality. Riparian forests provide shade, organic matter, and often
                 streambank stability which in turn provide a range of living resource habitat benefits, including the
                 moderation of stream temperature, support of the food web, protection of fish habitat and
                 sediment and erosion control. Riparian forest buffers deliver the greatest range of environmental
                 benefits of any type of stream buffer.

                          Since the passage of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) in 1988, restoration
                 and revegetation of riparian buffers has been a required component of development and
                 redevelopment. The requirement to re-vegetate demanded buffers which serve to increase water
                 quality.

                          In the study corridor, all jurisdictions except Dinwiddie County are required under the
                 CBPA to designate a I 00-foot wide vegetative buffer area along all tidal wetlands, tidal shores,
                 tributary streams, and non-tidal wetlands connected by surface flow as Resource Protection
                 Areas.   There are several grant opportunities for riparian reforestation projects. Under the
                 Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program, DEQ will consider grant projects which
                 address reforestation of riparian buffers, such as planning for restoration sites, actual reforestation
                 on public lands as a demonstration, or creative incentive programs for riparian reforestation on
                 private lands. The Virginia Department of Forestry is also offering grant opportunities to local






                                                                     14









              jurisdictions and groups to enhance riparian areas through Urban and Community Forestry
              Assistance Grants (U&CF) and the Small Business Administration Natural Resources
              Development Program (SBA). Eligible proposals under U&CF grants include riparian forest
              management or urban stream restoration. The purpose of the SBA program is tree planting using
              small business contracts.
























































                                                         15









               V.      WATER QUALITY HAPROVEMENT EFFORTS

                       Currently, within the Corridor, several local efforts are either completed or underway that
               will impact upon the water quality setting.

                       The City of Petersburg is nearing completion of a major upgrade of its wastewater
               treatment plant. The $30 million improvement project is scheduled for completion by the summer
               of 1996. The Virginia-American Water Company, which serves the City of Hopewell area with
               water recently upgraded its facilities. The Appomattox River Water Authority completed an
               expansion of its treatment plant to 46 MGD. STS Hydropower is operating a power generating
               station at Brasfield Dam. Chesterfield County has undertaken a County Riverfi7ont Project and
               Lake Chesdin Watershed Study.

                       All of these efforts impact upon the Appomattox River. Following are brief discussions of
               each of these efforts.


               Petersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade

                       The Petersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently undergoing major upgrade and
               improvement, including the expansion of the plant capacity from 15 MGD to 20 MGD. The
               initial construction phase, already completed, includes a secondary clarifier, sludge dewatering
               and thickening equipment, laboratory, dechlorination facilities and increased pumping capacity at
               the main pumping station.

                       The second phase improvements, currently underway, include primary settling tanks with
               associated scum, grit and screenings equipment, chlorine contact tank, covered sludge storage
               pad, non-potable water system, phosphate control facilities, standby generators, expanded
               electrical service and lime stabilization facilities. The land application method, instead of
               landfiffing, may be used to dispose of lime stabilized bio-solids.

                       Also included in the project is the covering of the primary tanks and installation of an odor
               control system. This improvement will help to control the generation of hydrogen sulfide which
               occurs in larger sewer systems during warmer months.

                       The treated effluent is discharged into the Appomattox River. Since 1992, the plant
               discharge has consistently met its permit limits. Flows have been averaging approximately 10
               million gallons per day. By the time this expansion project is completed in the summer of 1996,
               the Petersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant will not only meet the present permit requirements,
               but also the goals of the Chesapeake Bay initiative for nutrient reduction. The plant's discharge
               permit was reissued in the fall of 1994 for five (5) years.








                                                             16











               Virginia-American Water Company Facilijy Upgrade

                      The Virginia-American Water Company withdraws its raw water supply from the
               Appomattox River. The water intake point is at the east side of the Route 10 bridge. It provides
               domestic, commercial and industrial water service to the customers of Hopewell, Fort Lee and
               parts of Prince George County outside of the Hopewell city limits.

                      The Hopewell plant is a rapid filter plant with a capacity of 33 MGD. After the initial
               purification process, the clarified water then enters two separate filtration buildings. One
               building, equipped with rapid filters, serves the industrial system. It has the capacity of providing
               21 MGD of non-polluted water for industrial or cooling purposes. The other building houses four
               multimedia filters and eight carbon contactors. It has the capacity of providing 12 MGD of
               carbon filtered water for domestic uses. Any water treatment residuals are discharged via a
               forced main pumping station into the Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. No
               water is discharged into the Appomattox from the plant.

                     .From raw water to treated, over 700 samples are collected for analysis each year. The
               water is analyzed for 246 compounds. According to the Virginia-American management, the
               plant performs about 54,700 analyses each year to assure state and federal water quality standards
               are being met. The water in the Appomattox today does not pose any water treatment problems.

                      However, there is one water quality consideration worth noting. It is related to the
               intake's location at the mouth of the Appomattox River and concerns the tidal influence of the
               James River. Because of heavy industrial development along the Hopewell section of the James,
               there is a possibility that the intake is susceptible to pollutant spills from the James.

               Appomattox River Water Authorijy Water Treatment Plant Expansion

                      The Appomattox River Water Authority was created in 1962 by the Virginia General
               Assembly to provide safe drinking water to its customers. Membership is made up of the Cities of
               Petersburg and Colonial Heights, and the Counties of Chesterfield, Dinwiddie and Prince George.

                      The treatment plant capacity was expanded from 22 MGD to 46 MGD in 1983. Today
               the Authority owns and operates a 4,000 acre reservoir and supplies about 22 MGD of drinking
               water to the member localities through approximately 13 miles of water lines. Lake Chesdin
               stores approximately twelve billion gallons of raw water.











                                                           17









                       The upgraded water treatment facility processes the water as follows:

                              The raw water from Lake Chesdin is taken in through a bar screen to prevent large
                       debris from entering on the upstream side of the Dam. Then water flows through a
                       smaller screen which removes leaves and small debris. Raw water then flows into a deep
                       well where the raw water pump picks it up and pumps it to the filtration plant. Chemicals
                       are fed into the raw water deep well.

                              Partially treated water then flows into the settling basin and goes through rapid
                       sand filters. Filtered water goes to a large collection pipe where final chemicals are added.
                       After final chemical treatments the water is ready to be distributed.

                       The water quality in Lake Chesdin is good. The ever-changing Safe Drinking Water Act
               has required more testing and stricter water quality standards. Both lead and copper testing by
               localities have shown no water quality problems.

                       However, on both sides of the lake and upstream of the river, there are development
               pressures. Housing and recreation developments are occurring. Earlier this year a new
               development began on the first section of a large tract on Chesterfield's side of the Lake. Chesdin
               Landing is offering 535 home sites that will surround a golf course and a marina. As'the
               development continues, the reservoir will experience certain pollution and sedimentation problems
               in the future.


               Brasfield Dam Hydroelectric Generation Facility

                       STS Hydropower Ltd., a Chicago-based firm, built a three megawatt power generating
               station at the George F. Brasfield Dam. It began generating power in 1993 using what is called
               "run of the river" flow. That means the more water coming down and flowing over the Brasfield
               Dam, the more power that can be generated. The firm cannot draw on the storage of the
               reservoir to generat e power, thus no water quality impacts in the region are expected.

                       STS Hydropower has a 25 year contract with the Authority. In its first year of operation,
               the firm produced about 13.6 mi'llion kilowatts, which it sold to Virginia Power.

                       A side benefit of this project is an accompanying fish ladder that will restore migration
               routes for anadromous fish such as herring and shad. The fish ladder is required by the Federal
               Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as part of the operating license requirements. T    heFERC
               operating license requires STS Hydropower to work with several state and federal agencies,
               providing fish studies as needed and operating the fish ladder during the spring spawning season.

                       The ladder uses principals of nature to attract fish. Shad and herring are drawn to a
               mechanical elevator by attraction water that drops from above the dam's head waters through a 24
               inch pipe more than 100 feet long, causing turbulence and increased oxygen in the dam's tail
               waters. The elevator then lifts the fish to a square run that provides passage into Lake Chesdin.
               Fish have not migrated beyond the Brasfield Dam since it was completed in 1968.




                                                            18









               Chesterfield Coun1y Riverfront Project

                       In the fall of 1994, Chesterfield County commenced the Riverfront Project. It calls for the
               development of a vision for the future of the County's riverfront. Chesterfield County has
               approximately 75 miles of shoreline along the James and Appomattox Rivers. Over two-thirds of
               the shoreline is along the Appomattox, an area of beauty, sensitive environmental features and
               historic resources. It is also an area of abundant vacant undeveloped land. In Phase H of the
               Corridor study, it was found that over 46 percent of the land area in the corridor was
               undeveloped and most of it was located in Chesterfield County. The Riverfront Project is
               designed to prepare a comprehensive plan and implementation strategy which will help strengthen
               alliances between neighbors and all property owners, preserve aesthetic and environmental
               quality, protect existing and future land uses, achieve appropriate water-oriented development
               along the James and Appomattox Rivers, and foster access and enjoyment of the riverfront.

                       The riverfront planning process is intended to forge a strong partnership among the public,
               private, and non-profit sectors of the community to achieve a common vision for the County's
               riverfront. Through this partnership and continued involvement by the general public, a non-
               profit organization will be formed to undertake the project's action agenda and collaborative
               activities involving other groups. This project is coordinated with the efforts of this corridor
               study to promote the orderly growth and development of area river resources, and to protect the
               area!s water quality. The project is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 1996.

               Lake Chesdin Watershed SgLdy

                       In 1994, Chesterfield County initiated a county-wide watershed management program. It
               identified three critical watersheds in the County where water quality is threatened because of land
               disturbing activities and rapid growth occurring in these watersheds. A citizen watershed
               committee was established to study these problems and investigate the cause and specific sources
               of pollution in each of the reservoirs. Lake Chesdin is one of the three watersheds being studied.

                       The water quality in Lake Chesdin meets the Safe Drinking Water Standards. The primary
               focus of this watershed management effort is not on drinking water standards but on the level of
               eutrophication or biological productivity standards of the Lake. A 1983 consultant study
               indicated that the. reservoir is eutrophic, as evidenced by high levels of nutrients and algae. It
               further reported that the key pollutant causing the Lake's eutrophication problem was phosphorus,
               and concluded that loadings of this nutrient would have to be reduced; even a small reduction in
               pollutants will help in reducing the magnitude of eutrophication problems.












                                                              19









                      The following are goals and strategies recommended by the Chesterfield County
              Watershed Committee for improving the water quality of Lake Chesdin.

                      Goal:


                      To assist the Appomattox River Water Authority in their efforts to improve water quality.

                      Strategies:


                      I .    To provide proactive support to the Appomattox River Water Authority in its
                             continued implementation of the Lake Chesdin Watershed Management Plan. In
                             particular, the County could assist the Authority in its attempts to obtain higher
                             levels of state or federal funding to implement a greater amount of agricultural
                             Best Management Practices.

                      2.     To continue the implementation of the various non-point source controls
                             recommended for the Chesterfield County portion of the reservoir. Some of these
                             measures include encouraging quality development through the use of a good
                             subdivision ordinance and the active implementation and enforcement of the
                             County's Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.

                      3.     To support the Appomattox River Water Authority in its effort to continue
                             monitoring the lake and to update the Watershed Management Plan from time to
                             time.


                      4.     To discourage the use of fertilizer throughout the full spectrum of land uses.

                      5.     To institute an educational program on the impacts of over fertilization and other
                             daily household practices on water quality.





















                                                          20











              VI. SUNWARY


                     Water quality in the Appomattox River is generally good and meets the standards of the
              1972 Clean Water Act. This conclusion is based on the state analysis of water column samples,
              fish tissue, and sediment samples monitored in the Appomattox.

                     There are two water treatment plants in the corridor, the Appomattox River Water
              Authority and the Virginia-American Water Company. They are the water sources for the region.
              One plant operator commented that there is no water quality problem in the Appomattox.

                     The discharges from the Petersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant have consistently met
              the permit limits and pose no water quality problems to the Appomattox. The Appomattox River
              is a major resource in the region. To protect the water quality of the River, all Tidewater
              jurisdictions in the Corridor delineated the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas and adopted land
              development performance standards as required by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and
              Regulations. The goal of the water quality program is to reduce, by the Year 2000, the annual
              load of nitrogen and phosophorus reaching the main Bay by 40 percent.
































                                                          21




  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
 I I                                      Appendix A
  I
  I ,
  I
 I I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I


DEC-15-94   THU 10:34  804  590  9285  ARWA          P.02

	At a special meeting of the Appomattox River Water Authority, duly 
called and held at the principal office of the Corporation in the City of 
Petersburg, Virginia, on April 11, 1963, the following resolution was 
unanimously adopted:

	RESOLVED that if and when bonds are issued and sold by Appomattox River
Water Authority to provide funds for the construction of a dam across the 
Appomattox River at a point west of the City of Petersburg, and before the 
construction of such dam is completed, Appomattox River Water Authority will 
enter into a contract or agreement with the City of Hopewell, Virginia,
 acting through the City Council of said City, substantially as follows:

	"1. On any calender day when the average daily water flow of the 
	Appomattox River into the upstream end of the lake created by the 
	dam is 100 million gallons or more, the amount of water discharged
	into the Appomattox River on the downstream side of the dam during
	the next succeeding calender day shall be no less that 100 million 
	gallons.

	"Average daily flow or "average daily water flow" as used in this
	agreement shall mean the number of gallons of water resulting from
	dividing by thirty on every calender day the total gallons of water 
	flow of the preceding thirty consecutive calender days.

	(a) All that water pumped from the lake by the Authority which
	can reasonably by expected to find its way back into the 
	Appomattox River below the dam, and

	(b) The water overflowing or released past the dam.

	The quantity of water described in subparagraph (a) shall be deter-
	mined by the pumping records of the Authority and the Quantity of 
	the water described in subparagraph (b) by suitable guaging facilities
	installed at or immediately below the dam and maintained by the
	Authority. The average daily water flow entering the lake from the
	Appomattox River shall be determined from data collected by suitabe
	gauging facilities installed and maintained by the Authority measuring
	dailing water flow into the lake.

	(2) On any calender day when the average daily flow from the Appo-
	mattox River into the lake is less than 100 million gallons, then
	the water discgarged into the Appomattox River on the downstream
	side of the dam during the next succeeding calender day shall be no 
	less than such average daily flow on the preceding calender day.

	(3) The Authority agrees to open its records for inspection by
	representatives of the City of Hopewell, as may be reasonably neces-
	sary to verify that this agreement is being fulfilled."




					22


Page # 2

	The consideration for the aforesaid agreement is that the City of 
Hopewell will not oppose the construction of a dam and water reservoir on
the Appomattox River at a point west of the City of Petersburg.

	The secretary of Appomattox River Water Authority was instructed to 
forthwith transmit a copy of the foregoing to the City Manager of the City
of Hopewell, Virginia.

						A COPY, TESTE:
							


						/S/ Frank K. Martin
						Secretary
						Appomattox River Water Authority












									23








                                                                                                                        NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                         3 6668 14112701 1