Protection of potable water supply study and plan Lancaster County, Virginia

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

Lprotection of Potable Water Supply
Study and Plan

Lancaster County, VA
May, 1995

MOO

Prepared By:
Patrick G. Frere, Environmental Planner
Lancaster County Planning and Land Use Office

CSI
Ilis Comprehensive Plan was funded, in part, by the Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources
Management Program through Cirmt #NA47OZO287-01 ofthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office
of Oemn and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Ad of 1972, as amended. The views
expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of NOAA or any of its subagencies.

Ibis Comprehensive Plan was finuled, in part, by a grant from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department,
Commortwealth of Virginia

Table of Contents

L Surface Water

A. Surface Water Quality

1. Measures of Surface Water Quality ............................................ 2
a. Condemned Shellfish Grounds ......................................... 2
b. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring ................................... 2
C. Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring .............................. 4

2. Sensitive Surface Water Features ............................................... 4
a. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ........................................ 4
b. Wetlands ................................................. ****'*,**,*'**'***5
C. Shellfish Grounds. . ....................................................... 5

3. Threats to Surface Water Quality ............................................... 5
a. Role of Soils in Pollution ........ :,*****--***--*'"** ---- ******"* 5
b. Sources of Surface Water Pollution ................................... 7
i. Nonpoint Source Pollution ..................................... 7
ii. Point Sources/Permitted Discharges .......................... 8
iii. Septic Systems/Sewage Disposal .............................. 9

B Potential of Surface Waters for Future Water Supply .......................... 10

11. Groundwater

A. Groundwate%Structure .................................................................. 12
1 . ColumbiaAquifer ................................................................ 13
2. Yorktown-EastoverAquifer ..................................................... 14
3. Chickahominy-PineyPointAquifer ............................................. 14
4. Brightseat-UpperPotomacAquifer ............................................. 15
a. Effects of Drawdown in the Brightseat-
UpperPotomac .................................................. 16

B. Existing and Projected Demand for Groundwater in Lancaster Co .......... 17

C. Threats to Groundwater Supply ...................................................... 18
1 . Septic Systems/Sewage Disposal ............................................... 18
2. UndergroundStorageTanks ..................................................... 19
3. Uncapped/AbandonedWells .................................................... 20
4. Improper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste ......................... 20

111. Assessment ofExisting Conditions ........................................................... 21

A. SurfaceWater .............................................. ............................. 21

B. Groundwater ............................................................................. 9)

IV. GoalsandObjectives .............................................................................. 23

V. Potable Water Supply Plan ...................................................................... 25

A . Groundwater ............................................................................. 25
f . Water Table Aquifers ............................................................ 25
2. AbandonedWells ................................................................. 26
3. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day ................................. 26
4. GroundwaterManagementDistrict ............................................. 26
5. Drilling TestWells ............................................................... 26
6. Regional Water System Plan .................................................... 27

B . SurfaceWater ............................................................................. 27
1 . Septic System Inventory ......................................................... 27
2. Identify Possible Impoundment Areas ......................................... 27
3. Continue Present EnforcementLevels ......................................... 27

GlossaryofTerms ......................................................................................... 28

Appendix
I Condemned Shellfish Ground List
2. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Map
3. Wetlands Map
4. Shellfish Ground Map
5. List of Permitted Dischargers
6. Housing Units Using Septic Systems Map
7. Proposed Impoundment Area Maps
8. USGS Test Well Data for Lancaster County
9. USGS Water User Data for Regional Aquifers

Table of Maps
1. Surface Waters of Lancaster County
2. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Stations
3. State Hydrologic Units
4. Groundwater Graphic
5. Generalized Groundwater Structure of Lancaster County
6. Housing Units Using Shallow/Dug Wells
7. Housing Units Using Individual Drilled Wells
8. Housing Units Using Public Supply Wells

Protection of Potable Water Supply

The ground water and surface water supplies of Lancaster County are recognized to be one
of its most valuable natural resources. Lancaster's ground water resources provide the
County with 100% of its potable water supply. Meanwhile, the County's surface water
provides a source of employment for the seafood industry, a major attraction for the tourism
industry, a source of recreation for citizens, and a potential future water supply for the
County. The health of the people, the economy, and the hope for future growth are all
dependent on the quality of these important water resources.

The Lancaster County Potable Water Supply Study and Plan will assess the existing state of
this resource, develop goals and objectives concerning the water supply, and present
recommendations for protecting and enhancing the water supply in the future. The study
will be divided into two sections. The first will examine the existing surface water
conditions in Lancaster County. The second will investigate the existing groundwater
conditions in the County. The plan will be realistic in that it recognizes that-surface and
ground water resources are regionally shared and therefore require regional efforts to assure
their protection. However, the plan also recognizes that much can be done within the
county's boundaries to protect our vital water resources. Recommendations proposed in this
plan will address the regional and local nature of these resources.

-I SUREACE WATER

Lancaster County is bordered by the Chesapeake Bay to the East and the Rappahannock
River to the South. Many tidal water bodies meander through the County on the way to the
Bay and River including Lancaster Creek, the Corrotoman River, including the Western and
Eastern Branches, Carters Creek, Indian Creek, Dymer Creek, Tabbs Creek, Antipoison
Creek, as well as many smaller creeks. Combined these water bodies give Lancaster County
264.77 miles of tidal shoreline. (See Lancaster County Surface Water Bodies Map on Next
Page)

Lancaster County also has many existing privately owned millponds which would be
categorized as surface water. These millponds are generally located in the freshwater
sections at the headwaters of the above mentioned creeks and were created through the use
of impoundment structures. Included in this group are Balls, Blakemore, Camps, Chinns,
Davis, Duntons, and Norris millponds.

Lancaster Coi-nty
Lancas ter S@xfc)De Water Bodies
Creek I-Yiqy, 1995

ry
NiLJlbeFry
Cr e
D 6qp--"j,
Cre6l@
'Qrdwh

k-, i.e
Green"Ole, Indian Creek
Creek
Creek El mer Creek
f y
I F-v-- t s B
Rappahannock
RIV er-
aLbs Creek
N,
wFitehdiq@e 4' t Antipoison Creek
N
Creek Little Bay
Corrot man
Carter
Riv er
Creek
squito Rappal-annock
Tf@
0

A. Surface Water Quality

Quality of surface waters is of vital importance to the Lancaster County community. First many
commercial fishermen, seafood industry owners, marina owners, and related employees dep'end
on local waters for their livelihood. Second, citizens of the county enjoy living in a rural scenic
setting which is -enhanced by views of, and access, to the water. Lastly, the water is a source
of recreation for man in the Lancaster County community, as well as for many visitors to the
area.

L MeasureS of Surface Water Quality

a
Condemned ShellfiSh Grounds
One indicator of surface water quality is the location of condemned and seasonally condemned
shellfish grounds. Every two years the Commonwealth of Virginia prepares a report on the
quality of the State's Waters and presents it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the United States Congress. The document is called the 305 (b) Roort to EPA and ConU-ess
and addresses bow well the State is meeting the Federal Clean Water Act's goals of providing
fishable and swimmable waters. In this report state waters are evaluated as to whether they are
"Fully Supporting", "Fully Supporting But Threatened", "Partially Supporting", or "Not
Supporting" concerning the goal of fishable waters. Local waters which have been condemned
for shellfishing by the Virginia Department of Health fall under the category of Partially
Supporting in regards to fishing.

As of 1988, Lancaster County had 1,372 acres of condemned shellfish grounds (Pg. 84,
Lancaster Comty Shoreline Manag-ement Study Preliminw.-y Results, 1988). Typically shellfish
condemnation areas in Lancaster County are found only in small portions of creeks, not
throughout the entire creek. Exceptions are Carter Creek, Greenvale Creek, Paynes Creek,
Beach Creek, Lancaster Creek, and Mulberry Creek, which are all mostly, or totally, designated
as condemned or seasonally condemned. A complete listing of Lancaster County shellfish
condemnations can be seen in the Appendix.

Locations of shellfish condemnations are important water quality indicators because the waters
have been condemned due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria. High levels of fecal
coliform bacteria can be due to animal (domestic and wild) waste, failing septic systems,
marinas, or the flushing characteristics of the particular water body.

Ambient Water QuaI4 Mgnitoring

Another measurement of water quality which is addressed in the 305 (b) R=g_r_t is ambient water
quality monitoring results. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has designated
monitoring stations at various locations in the different surface water bodies throughout the state.
The stations are used to monitor four conventional pollutant levels including, dissolved oxygen,

pH, temperature, and fecal coliform bacteria. Data collected from each station is then assessed
to see if it meets the Virginia Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxyg?,n . 12H. aW Maximum
Temperature. There are seven ambient water quality stations which are located in, or very close
to, Lancaster County's boundaries. Five of these are located in the Rappahannock River, one
in the Corrotoman River, and one in Indian Creek. Results from these seven stations are listed
below:

W 22 (Station ID: 3-CRROO3.38) - This station is located in the Corrotoman River near Red
Buoy #6 in Lancaster County. This station recorded 0 violations of the Virginia Water Quality
Standards. During the reporting time frame, there were 25 samples taken for temperature, 24
samples of dissolved oxygen, 26 for pH, and 14 for coliform bacteria. (p. B-7 of the Appendix,
305 (b) Rgport to EPA and Congress)

W 23 (Station ID: 3-RPP010.60) - This station is located in the Rappahannock River off
Orchard Point near the Lancaster County and Middlesex County boundary in the Rappahannock
River Basin. This station recorded 0 violations of the Virginia Water Quality Standards. During
the reporting time fi-ame, there were 26 samples taken for temperature, 24 samples of dissolved
oxygen, 26 for pH, and 15 for coliform bacteria. (p. B-8 of the Appendix, 305 (b) R=ort to
EPA and Congress.)

W 24 (Station ID: 3-RPPO 17.72) - This station is located near buoy #8 southwest of the mouth
of Greenvale Creek near the Lancaster County and Middlesex County boundary in the
Rappahannock River Basin. This station recorded 0 violations of the Virginia Water Quality
Standards. During the reporting time fi-ame, there were 27 samples taken for temperature, 22
samples of dissolved oxygen, 27 for pH, and 14 for coliform bacteria. (p. B-8 of the Appendix,
305 (h) R=rt to EPA and CongLeu.)

W 25 (Station ID:3-RPP025.52) - This station is located near buoy #11 off Goose Point on
the Middlesex County side in the Rappahannock River Basin. This station recorded 0 violations
of the Virginia Water Quality Standards. During the reporting time fi-ame, there were 23
samples taken for temperature, 20 samples of dissolved oxygen, 23 for pH, and 0 for coliform
bacteria. (p. B-8 of the Appendix, 305 (b) Rg&,= to EPA and Congress)

W 26 (Station ID:3-RPP031.57 - This station is located opposite Morattico on the Middlesex
County side in the Rappahannock River Basin. This station recorded 0 violations of the Virginia
Water Quality Standards. During the reporting time frame, there were 23 samples taken for
temperature, 21 samples of dissolved oxygen, 23 for pH, and 0 for coliform bacteria. (p. B-8
of the Appendix, 305 (b) R=ort to EPA and Conaess.)

W 9 (Station ID: 7-IND002.26) - This station is located in Indian Creek opposite Kilmarnock
Wharf on the Northumberland County side of the creek in the Chesapeake Bay Basin. This
station recorded 0 violations of the Virginia Water Quality Standards. During the reporting time
frame, there were 22 samples taken for temperature, 21 samples of dissolved oxygen, 22 for Ph,
and 21 for cofiform bacteria. However, there was one instance where the test of sediments

Ta"

SF
oat@mb @1@
oynt.

Lon

U_
Al
'jZ 1""", ;v

IN
-ILL.
ILA

kv
Indian
0
t ot
@iv er-." Creek
gg
Ot,
A eets

C F F5 (I
BcV
%nix
a Lanc
W, nnock
11@clp@
Plan
Of fi
/er
Ri
A R Im
R
U
Sour
:W1
As

-7,
g-
@.4@w 4-1
(13

exceeded standards due to copper (metals) in the creek sediment. (p. B-14 of the Appendix, 305
(b) Report to EPA and Congress.)

LE 3.6 (Station ID: LE3.6) - This station is located at the mouth of the Rappahannock River
between Windmill and Stingray Points in the Chesapeake Bay Basin and is designated as a
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Station. No data could be found to determine water
quality for this area.

C. Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitadn-g (Will be addressed below under "Threats to
Surface Water Quality" section.)

2. Sensitive Surface Water Features

Lancaster County is fortunate to benefit from an abundance of marine resources which are
directly related to the quality of its surface water bodies. These natural resources include
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Wetlands, and Shellfish Grounds. Descriptions of these features,
their functions in the man-made and natural environments, and the extent of their presence in
Lancaster County are given below.

a- Sub trged Aguatic Vegetation

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV), or seagrass, is a valuable nann-al marine resource which
is found adjacent to the shoreline in many parts of Lancaster County. SAV is important because
it provides ideal habitat for blue crabs and juvenile finfish. SAV also acts to provide protection
for molting crabs and is a source of food for waterfowl. Lastly, as evidenced by the important
role it plays in the marine environment, SAV is also of great value to the County's commercial
and recreational fisheries.

According to the 1993 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Veg=tjon in the Cbesapcake Bay
(Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science; The College of William and
Mary), SAV beds in Lancaster County are found in the Corrotoman River, along the north shore
of the Rappahannock River from the Corrotoman River to Windmill Point; as well as in Dymer
Creek, Indian Creek, Little Bay, and Fleets Bay. Furthermore, this report notes that SAV beds
have declined in the area of the Rappahannock River between Carters Creek and the mouth of
the CorTotoman River. However, SAV has also slowly expanded in some areas of Lancaster
County. One large bed near Windmill Point is cited as having grown from 28 hectares in 1992,
to 44 hectares in 1993. (Specific distribution of SAV in the lower part of Lancaster County can
be seen in the "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, 1993 Irvington, Fleets Bay, Wilton, and
Deltaville, VA Quadrangles" map in the Appendix.)

b- Wetlands

Wetlands are defined by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as "lands transitional
between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or
the land is covered by shallow water" (Pg. 4, Atlaa of National Wetlands InvenLQU Maps of
Chesapca@k Bay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; September, 1986.). Generally, wetlands can
be classified as either tidal or non-tidal. Locally, Lancaster County has approximately 4,504
acres of tidal wetlands and 1,349.26 acres of non-tidal wetlands (Figures were obtained using
the Lancaster County Geographic Information System utilizing a digital National Wetland
Inventory map layer). (Distribution of tidal and non-tidal wetlands in Lancaster County can be
viewed on the "Tidal and Non-tidal Wetlands" map in the Appendix.)

Wetlands are important natural resources which provide many positive benefits to the man-made
and-natural environments. Wetlands provide aesthetic, recreational, and economic benefits to
the community. Furthermore, wetlands are spawning and nursery grounds for finfish and
shellfish, feeding and wintering sites for migratory waterfowl, nesting habitat for shore birds,
and homes to a wide variety of wildlife. Wetlands ftu-ther serve as important areas for
groundwater recharge, flood control, pollution absorption, and retention of sediment from
stormwater run-off (Pg 1, Atlas of National Wetlands Inventoa Maps of Che=eake Bay. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services; September, 1986.).

Shellfish Grounds

Lancaster County has a wealth of suitable shellfish grounds in the water adjacent to its shores.
Despite dramatic decreases in shellfish populations and catches-in the last decade due to the
diseases MSX and Dermo, these grounds remain a valuable resource which should be protected.
Although it can not be determined if, or when, shellfish populations will recover from these
diseases, the possibility remains that the resource could thrive again. (Distribution of shellfish
grounds in Lancaster County are depicted on the Shellfish Grounds" map in the Appendix.)

Threats to Surface Water Ouality

Rol of Soils in Pollution
Pollutants generally affect water quality through two different methods: rim-off and leaching.
Run-off refers to water which is not absorbed by the soil, but is instead carried off by natural
or man-made drainage courses to a surface water body. Leaching refers to water which is
absorbed by the soil and percolates into the soil layers underneath. The effect of this type of
pollution is usually felt on the groundwater supply. The amount of run-off or leaching in a
community is usually dependent on the present land cover. Generally the more heavily an area
is developed, the more susceptible the area is to run-off due to increased amounts of impervious

land cover such as parking lots, buildings, and roads. The less intensely an area is used, the
more the area is prone to leaching because of the large amount of pervious groundwater recharge
areas such as large tracts of farmland and forest.

Impacts from run-off and leaching are further complicated by the types of soils present in
different areas 6f the County. Highly erodible soils have the potential to become a source of
pollution in times of large run-off such as heavy rain storms and melting periods after ice or
snow storms. This combination of a high amount of run-off and the presence of highly erodible
soils can result in a higher concentration of sediments entering the county's surface waters.
Furthermore, individual occurrences of pollution through leaching can be worsened through the
presence of highly permeable soils. Awareness of these soil properties as they relate to existing
and future land uses can help in pinpointing areas currently in need of mitigation efforts, as well
planning for the avoidance of further contamination of water resources through improper land
use.

Lancaster County Soils which are highly erodible and the percent each soil type comprises of the
County's total soils:

1. Caroline very fine sandy loam, sloping eroded (0. 17 %)
2. Caroline clay loam, sloping, severely eroded (0.05%)
3. Caroline clay loam, strongly sloping, sev. eroded (0. 18 %)
4. Craven silt loam, sloping, eroded (0.02%)
5. Craven clay loam, strongly sloping, severely eroded (0.21 %)
6. Kempsville fine sandy loam, sloping, severely eroded (0.09%)
7. Matapeake silt loam, strongly sloping, eroded ( < 0. 0 1 %)
8. Sassafras fine sandy loam, sloping, severely eroded (0.46%)
9. Sassafras fine sandy loam, strongly sloping, eroded (0.07%)
10. Sassafras fine sandy loam, str. sloping, sev. eroded (0.08%)
11. Sloping sandy land (9.26%)
12. Steep sandy land (18.13%)

Lancaster County Soils which are highly permeable and the percent each soil type comprises of
the County's total soils:

1 . Coastal Beach (0.48%)
2. Dragston fine sandy loam (3.19%)
3. Lakeland loamy fine sand, gently sloping (0. 61 %)
4. Rumford loamy sand, gently sloping (0. 16 %)
5. Rumford loamy sand, sloping, eroded (0.05%)
6. Sloping sandy land (9.26%)
7. Steep sandy land (18.13%)

b. Sources of Surface Water Pollution

i. Nonpoint Source Pollution
One measure of the effect of pollution on the water quality of Lancaster County's surface water
is found in the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment Report (VA
Department of Conservation and Recreation; March, 1993). This report divides the State of
Virginia into 491 different watersheds or hydrologic units. A watershed is defined as "a land
area drained by a river/stream or system of connecting rivers and streams such that all water
within the area flows through a single outlet". There are three state hydrologic units in Lancaster
County: EO1, E02, and C16. EOI and E02 are part of the Rappahannock River Basin and C16
is part of the Chesapeake Bay Coastal Basin. This report compares water quality of hydrologic
units throughout the state in order to prioritize nonpoint source pollution protection efforts.

State Hydrologic Units in Lancaster County

LEGEND
E01
E02
C16
State
E02 Hydrologic
Units
E01
Lancaster County, VA

Created by:

Lancaster County
Planning & Land Use
Office

April, 1995

A brief summary of watersheds in Lancaster County is given below:

EOI - This watershed is cited as having "significant levels of urban use impacts due to
urban erosion and nutrient loadings, and the amount of disturbed urban land" (Pg. 138).
However, this watershed is not described as having any significant water quality
violations for fecal coliforms or pH levels. Statewide this watershed is given a final

nonpoint source pollution rank of "MEDIUM -", with a rank of "High+" being the
highest priority watersheds for state nonpoint source pollution protection, efforts

E02 - This watershed is not described as having any significant water quality
violations due to fecal coliforms or pH level. Additionally, this watershed is not
cited for having "significant levels of urban use impacts". Statewide this watershed
is given a final nonpoint source pollution rank of "MEDIUM -", with a rank of
"High+" being the highest priority watersheds for state nonpoint source pollution
protection efforts.

This watershed is rated as a "medium priority watershed for agricultural
nonpoint source pollution concerns. Due primarily to existing development,
watershed C16 is rated in the top 10% statewide for urban pollution potential."
Additionally, the water shed is cited as having a large number of shellfish
condemnations because of "urban nonpoint source influences". However, the
watershed was not cited for having any significant violations of state water quality
standards. Statewide this watershed is given a final nonpoint source pollution rank
of "High + ", with a rank of "High + " being the highest priority watersheds for state
nonpoint source pollution protection efforts.

ii. Point Sources/Permitted Discharges
Point source pollution sources are often referred to as the "end of the pipe" type of
pollution. This means that the discharge into the water body can be traced to a single,
identifiable source. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires a uniform permit
program nationwide which acts to regulate this type of pollution- In Virgin:ia, the
Department of Environmental Quality runs a permitting program named the Virginia
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VAPDES) which carries out the requirements of
the federal act. VAPDES is a permit program which establishes, on an individual basis,
limits on the quantity and/or concentration of pollutants allowed in the discharge.

When a VAPDES permit is issued guidelines are established which discharged effluent is
required to meet. Moreover, the owner of the discharging facility is required to monitor the
quality of the effluent and report the results of testing to the state. Additionally, the
Virginia Department of Health designates condemned shellfish areas around certain point
source discharges to act as a buffer zone from the impact of the discharge. In Lancaster
County there are currently 10 VAPDES, 14 Special Consent Orders (Extensions to
VAPDES), and 1 VPA permit issued to various businesses throughout the County. The
chief industry utilizing these types of permits in Lancaster County is the seafood industry,
with resort hotels a distant second. (See APPENDIX for complete listing).

jiL S=tic Systems/Sewage Disposal
Approximately 83% of all private residences in Lancaster County utilize septic systems for
sewage disposal purposes (See Septic System Map in APPENDIX). The chart belo* giyes some
indication of the actual numbers of septic systems in the County and if they-are located in or
outside of the three towns.

S=@c/Ces4QW for Sewage Disposal
Lancaster- Cgoly- VA - 1990

Towns 534 51.90% of Housing Units in Towns
County 4.370 89.38% of Housing Units in County
Total 4,904 82.87% of all Housing Units

Source: 1-990 United States Census Statistics.

The potential for septic systems causing pollution of surface water bodies can stem from the
initial improper siting of the system, or from the failing of aged or not properly maintained
systems. Often septic systems have been placed in soils which can act to heighten the negative
impact of the system. In soils with seasonally high water tables, the water table can rise into the
septic systems' drainfields and intermix with the relatively untreated effluent. Furthermore, high
water tables can cause pooling of septic effluent on the ground surface. During a rain storm,
pooled effluent can then quickly drain into nearby surface water bodies.

Highly permeable soils also can act to increase negative impacts of septic systems. These soils
allow septic effluent to percolate more quickly through soils underneath the drainfield, while not
allowing for proper filtration. If the effluent percolates before it is properly treated then it can
become a threat to the ground or surface water which it acts to recharge. The combination of
high water tables and highly permeable soils is particularly a problem in densely developed areas
close to the county's shoreline. The high number of septic systems in conjunction with poor soil
conditions can lead to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in adjacent surface water bodies,
which can then result in the condemnation of the area for shellfishing.

B. Potential of Surfa-ce Waters for Future Water S=ly

Much of the surface water in Lancaster County is tidally influenced and has saline levels too high
to be considered as a potential drinking water source. Additionally, in the upper reaches of the
creeks where the water is fresh enough to be used for drinking water, there is not enough stream
flow to allow for direct intakes from the water body. However, at the headwaters of these
creeks there are a number of existing millponds. Furthermore, with improved, higher
impoundment structures there is the potential to create larger ponds or reservoirs. The existing
millponds, or the potential new ponds, could be possible surface water drinking water sources.

In 1973, the Northern Neck Planning District Commission conducted a water and sewage
facilities plan for the Norbiern Neck (Water Quality Management Plan - Planning@ District 17.
Northern Neck Planning District Commission and Deward M. Martin and Associates, Inc.;
Callao, VA: 1973). This plan recommended several possible impoundment sites for each of the
counties of the Northern Neck. In most cases the proposed impoundment sites roughly coincided
with existing millpond locations at the headwaters of the creeks. However, the proposed
impoundments were usually larger than the existing millponds, with new impoundment structures
located a little further downstream than the existing structures. Eight possible impoundment
sites, and their proposed sizes, were identified in Lancaster County. They included:

I . Reservoir #: LBBI Streams: Balls Btanch. Lancaster C
The drainage area for this proposed reservoir site is approximately 1,287 acres or 2.01 square
miles. The proposed reservoir would have a total maximum storage of 1,212 acres. The 1,212
acres would be divided into 483 acres allotted for flood and sediment volume, 561 acres for
water supply volume, and 167 acres for fish and wildlife volume. The maximum water supply
draft from the reservoir would be 0.58 Million Gallons Daily.

2. Reservoir #: LCMI Streams: Camps Millp-Qnd
The drainage area for this proposed reservoir site is approximately 3,944 acres or 6.16 square
miles. The proposed reservoir would have a total maximum storage of 849 acres. The 849 acres
would be divided into 164 acres allotted for flood and sediment volume, 685 acres for water
supply volume, and 0 acres for fish and wildlife volume. The maximum water supply draft from
the reservoir would be 1.78 Million Gallons Daily.

3. Reservoir #: LLBI Streams: Little Branch. Corrotoman River
The drainage area for this proposed reservoir site is approximately 2,694 acres or 4.21 square
miles. The proposed reservoir would have a total maximum storage of 1,736 acres. The 1,736
acres would be divided into 562 acres allotted for flood and sediment volume, 1, 174 acres for
water supply volume, and 0 acres for fish and wildlife volume. The maximum water supply
draft from the reservoir would be 1.22 Million Gallons Daily.

4. Reservoir #: LLB2 Streams: Little B=ch, Corrotoman River
The drainage area for this proposed reservoir site is approximately 1, 178 acres or 1. 84 square
miles. The proposed reservoir would have a total maximum storage of 1,350 acres. The 1,350
acres would be divided into 442 acres allotted for flood and sediment volume, 792 acres for
water supply volume, and 116 acres for fish and wildlife volume. The maximum water supply
draft from the reservoir would be 0.53 Million Gallons Daily.

5. Reservoir #: LMSI Streams: McMahon Swa=. Corrotoman River
The drainage area for this proposed reservoir site is approximately 3,390 acres or 5.30 square
miles. The proposed reservoir would have a total maximum storage of 4,693 acres. The 4,693
acres would be divided into 1,271 acres allotted for flood and sediment volume, 1 47.9 acres for
water supply volume, and 1,943 acres for fish and wildlife volume. The maximum water supply
draft from the reservoir would be 1.53 Million Gallons Daily.

6. Reservoir LMS2 Streams: McMahon Sw=. Corrotoman River
The drainage@aiea for this proposed reservoir site is approximately 2,657 acres or4.15 square
miles. The proposed reservoir would have a total maximum storage of 2,365'acres. The 2,365
acres would be divided into 996 acres allotted for flood and sediment volume, 1, 159 acres for
water supply volume, and 210 acres for fish and wildlife volume. The maximum water supply
draft from the reservoir would be 1.20 Million Gallons Daily.

7. Reservoir #: LCRI Streams: Upper West Branch Corrotoman River
The drainage area for this proposed reservoir site is approximately 5,495 acres or 8.59 square
miles. The proposed reservoir would have a total maximum storage of 3,719 acres. The 3,719
acres would be divided into 1,322 acres allotted for flood and sediment volume, 2,397 acres for
water supply volume, and 0 acres for fish and wildlife volume. The maximum water supply
draft from the reservoir would be 2.48 Million Gallons Daily.

8. Reservoir LOCI Streams: Quarter Cove
The drainage area for this proposed reservoir site is approximately 3,944 acres or 6.16 square
miles. The proposed reservoir would have a total maximum storage of 849. The 849 acres
would be divided into 164 acres allotted for flood and sediment volume, 685 acres for water
supply volume, and 0 acres for fish and wildlife volume. The maximum water supply draft from
the reservoir would be 1.78 Million Gallons Daily.

(Source: Martin, Clifford, & Associates, NEDCO R!4=, Volume II, Pgs. VIH-44, VIII-45.)

Precise locations and boundaries for these reservoir locations as they were identified in the 1973
plan can be viewed in the APPENDIX.

H. GROUNDWATER

A. Groundwater Structure

As stated previously, Lancaster County residents are 100% dependent on groundwater for their
drinking water supplies. Lancaster County's ground water resources come from an underground
system of aquifers which reflect the geology of the Coastal Plain Region of Virginia.
Underground, the coastal plain is made up of unconsolidated gravels, sands, silts, and clays in
addition to variable amounts of shells. This mixture of deposits rest on an underground rock
surface called the basement, which slopes gently eastward. The basement rocks actually come
out of the earth's surface at the fall line of the rivers, which is the dividing line between the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of Virginia. As a point of reference the fall line of the
Rappahannock River is at Fredericksburg, the fall line of the James River is at Richmond, and
the fall line of the Potomac River is at Washington, D.C.. At the fall line the thickness of the
coastal plain sediments is zero; however, going east from the fall line the basement rock slopes
down and the coastal plain sediments become thick. By the time the downward slope stops at
the coast, the coastal plain sediments are over 6,MO feet thick.

4- Fall Line
Ground SLrface

Sea Le,ei
ovt Eled

HID

VC
-4,
ier
Car&
I
.'A
IOCCI
._X:

i500
EA orccsier Co.
Kinc Georce Co. S7 TL T FEE7

Containedin the Coastal Plain sediments are a system of underground aquifers. These aquifers
can pe pictured as underground rivers which travel through sand. These rivers also come to the
surface near the fall line, then they slope downward to the east. At the fall line the aquifers are
recharge , meaning this is the point where water enters them. From this point on the aquifers,
except for the water table aquifer, are deep below ground. Additionally, each aquifer is
separated from those above and below by clay confining beds, from which they get the name

confined aquifers. -These confining beds act to trap the water in between, allowing water to
escape up and dowfi only at very slow rates. The confining beds also act to add pressure to the
water, therefore, when the aquifers are tapped by a well the pressure enhances the'flow of the
water upward.

Throughout the Coastal Plain there is also an unconfined, water table aquifer. The water table
aquifer is found between the ground surface and the top of the first confining bed. This aquifer
is not pressurized and is the one used by shallow wells. This aquifer is recharged at ground
surface level by rain water and below the ground surface by water bodies such as creeks and
rivers. Because this aquifer is unconfined and recharges from the surface, it is very susceptible
to contamination. Anything that permeates the ground surface can quickly reach the water table
aquifer.

Wells in Lancaster County tap four underground aquifers. Shallow wells utilize the Columbia
and Yorktown-Eastover Aquifers, which are the water table aquifers. Deep wells, or artesians,
tap the Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer and the deeper Brightseat-Upper Potomac Aquifer.
Detail on each of these aquifers is given below.

Columbia AQuifer Mater Table)

The water table aquifer in the higher elevated parts of the western and central, and throughout
the entire eastern section of Lancaster County is actually an aquifer named the Columbia. The
Columbia Aquifer is moderately used as a drinking water supply by the residents and businesses
utilizing shallow wells in Lancaster County (See Shallow Well Chart on Page 14 and "Dug/
Shallow Well Map" on next page). This aquifer is unconfined and made up of sand and
sediment deposits found underground from an elevation approximately at sea level, to about 100
feet above sea level. However, clayey sediments can produce localized confined or semi-
confined conditions (Pg. C52, USGS Professional Paper 1404-C).

The saturated thickness of the Columbia Aquifer ranges from 15 feet at the aquifer's western
limit to about 80 feet in the southeastern part of the Coastal Plain (Pg. F5, USGS Professional
Paper 1404-F). The local recharge area for the Columbia Aquifer is the ground surface of
Lancaster County. The major sources of recharge are rain, ice, and snow storms on the ground
level and underwater surface water body flows below the ground surface. Local conditions
including topography, drainage patterns, and land cover influence where the most important
recharge areas in the county are located. However, because the aquifer recharges primarily from
the surface, it is very susceptible to contamination. Septic system discharge, agricultural and
lawn fertiaers, leaking underground storage tanks, and improper disposal of hazardous home
waste can cause contamination of this aquifer. Contamination in this aquifer also affects lower
aquifers, because the Columbia is also a source of recharge for the underlying confined aquifers
(Pg. F5, USGS Professional Paper 1404-F).

LE GEI'-ID
0 - 9-9 K
1D - 19.9%
20 - 29.97.
30 - 29.9%.
40 - 49-9%
water
Percent of Housing
WIN.
in Bock Group
Uni
-th Du
-NY Wells.

TER COUPM(
LAJJub@-:,
W
1995

Prepared By:
Lancas ter County
-1 Land Use
Planr ng
Of f I
199D LIS. Cerrus
Source.
Blocl-@. Group Data

The ground water supplies of the Columbia Aquifer usually fluctuate..according to the seasons
of the year, with lowest supplies present during local drought conditions. Lastly, localized high
chloride concentrations in wells utilizing the Columbia are due t6io'cal intrusion of w7ater from
the Chesapeake Bay and its major estuaries (Pg. 11, USGS WRI Report 92-4175). This
condition is reported to be present in shallow wells in some parts of Lancaster County which are
very close to large surface water bodies.

2. Yorktown-Eastover aInconfined- Water Table and Confin@d)

The Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer is unconfined in its western limits, but becomes confined as the
aquifer slopes eastward (Pg. F7, USGS Professional Paper 1404-F). The western limit of the
Yorktown-Eastover is in the western part of Lancaster County. In this part of the County, the
Yorktown-Eastover acts as the water table aquifer. This area also serves as the recharge area
for the confined part of the aquifer (Pg. F7, USGS Professional Paper 1404-F). The unconfined,
water table recharge areas of the Yorktown-Eastover are important because it is where
contaminants can quickly reach the aquifer through the ground surface. This is of ftu-ther
concern because the Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer if a primary source of drinking water for the
Eastern Shore of Virginia (Pg. C51, USGS Professional Paper 1404-C).

The Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer is not used heavily in Lancaster County (See Shallow Well
Chart Below and "Dug/Shallow Well" Map). Use in Lancaster County would be by people with
shallow wells in the western part of the County, and with wells reaching 75-85 feet in depth in
the eastern parts of the County. Lastly, localized high chloride concentrations in wells utilizing
the Yorktown-Eastover, like the Columbia, are due to local intrusion of water from the
Chesapeake Bay and its major estuaries. This condition is reported to be present in shallow wells
in some parts of Lancaster County which are very close to large surface water bodies.

Dug (Shallow) Well for Source of Water Supply
Lancaster County. VA - 1990

Towns 27 2.62% of Housing Units in Towns
County 1.652 33.79% of Housing Units in County
Total 1,679 28.37% of all Housing Units

Source: 1990 United States Census

3. Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer (Confined)
This confined aquifer is located approximately 200-425 feet below the ground surface in
Lancaster County and averages 50 to 100 feet in thickness throughout its reach, with a maximum
thickness of 140 feet in Lancaster County (Pg. C46, USGS Professional Paper 1404-C). The

GENERALIZED GRQUNUN,--JER STRUCTURE OF LAI,,JQIN7.:11ER QOUflY

Columbia

Seo Level
stover.

CqP_ i I a

P:
5CO
ed

CUE (3
r@icidle i:@O t: O,M C *3 C,
in.

'WjtL m
Egg
1 C) P-0
ower Poto _60

z"v

15cf)

FEET
Stofford
CLAY Approx. Lergth of
King GeOF T_ Loncimter County
Counties
S. APID
Source- U-S- Geological &jr-vqv
IENT
Professionol PcL%er 14(-'4-F

Chickahominy-Piney Point starts at outcrop areas near the major stream valleys in Stafford and
King George Counties, on down through Caroline, Hanov @ east
,er, and Henrico Countieslj st of
the fall line (Pg. C46, USGS Professional' Paper 1404-C). The major recharge area for this
aquifer is also found at the outcrop location. Water entering from the recharge area flows down
and eastward tor reach Lancaster County. Lesser recharge of the aquifer also occurs in smaller
amounts from vertical seepage between the confining beds of the other aquifers and along
existing well conduits. This aquifer is not as prone to contamination as the water table aquifer
due to its limited recharge potential in Lancaster County. Furthermore, supply in this aquifer
is not as susceptible to decreases due to local drought conditions.

This aquifer is moderately used as a deep/artesian well supply by many light industrial, small
municipal, and domestic users in Lancaster County (See Individual Drilled Well Chart on Page
17 and the "Drilled Well" Map on the Next Page). Furthermore, the aquifer is thought to be
capable of supplying large quantities of water suitable for most uses (Pg. C47, USGS
Professional Paper 1404-C). Water in this aquifer contains concentrations of sodium, dissolved
solids, and fluoride, which decrease while moving west in the aquifer. Specifically, sodium
concentrations exceed 20mg/L throughout most of the aquifer, fluoride concentrations exceed
2mg/L in the south-central part of the aquifer, and concentrations of sulfate, chloride, and
dissolved solids exceed the U.S. EPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level in the easter part
of the aquifer (Pgs. 13, 14, and 15, USGS WRI Report 92-4175).

4, Brightseat-U1212er Potomac Aguifer (Confined)
This aquifer is located approximately 525-725 feet below the ground surface in Lancaster
County. The aquifer is actually two aquifers located very close together, and separated by a thin
confining bed. The Brightseat is the smaller aquifer and is located above the Upper Potomac
Aquifer. The Upper Potomac Aquifer is located further below the surface at depths of 750 feet
to 820 feet. These aquifers start from "subsurface pinchouts" east of the fall line and build to
almost 400 feet in thickness to the east (Pg. C42, USGS Professional Paper 1404-C). Recharge
areas for these aquifers are located at the start of the "pinchouts" east of the fall line. Recharge
also occurs in much smaller amounts from vertical seepage between aquifers and along existing
well conduits. These aquifers are not as prone to contamination as the water table aquifer due
to its limited recharge potential in Lancaster County. Furthermore, supply of these aquifers is
not susceptible to decreases due to local drought conditions.

Most deep wells in Lancaster County tap the Brightseat Aquifer, not the Upper-Potomac. Water
in the Brightseat Aquifer is of the sodium bicarbonate type in the central part of the aquifer, and
becomes of the sodium chloride type when moving east. Additionally, ground water in this
aquifer becomes more mineralized the further one moves east. For Lancaster County this means
that certain parts of the county utilizing this aquifer have higher concentrations of sodium,
fluoride and chloride in their drinking water. Specifically, dissolved-solid concentrations exceed
the 500 mg/L U.S. EPA SMCL in the eastern part of the aquifer, fluoride concentrations exceed
the 4mg/L U.S. EPA MCL in the south-central part of the aquifer and the 2mg[L U.S. EPA
SMCL in the rest of the aquifer, and chloride concentrations exceed the 250 mg/L U.S. EPA

LEGEND
'ID 19-9%
20 2-9-9v
I'D 39.9%
4-0 49-97

W(3teF

-cent of Houses
in Block Group -with
Ned Wells

LANC4STER COUM

Mar&i, '1995

PrepCIFed By,
Lanecster County
Plani--ing & Land Use
Of f ice.

Sour-c:e, lq CeFv
._go US
us
Block Group DcAc

LEGEND

20 - 2@9-9%
40 - 59.9%

Percent of Hoi-ses
in Block Group -with
Public Supply 'Water
(Pufficly Owned or
Pr vately Owned)

LANNCA-STER -COU@M(, %/A
May, 1995

Prepared By,
Lancm ter County
Planring & Land Use
Of ficp-

ource, 1990 U.S, Cerrus
Block Group Ddc

SMCL in the eastern part of the aquifer (Pg. 15, USGS WRI Report 92-4175). Locally, there
are elevated concentrations of sodium, fluoride, and chloride in water drawn from this aquifer.
These levels are particularly high in areas from White Stone east including Palmer, Foxwells,
and Windmill Point. Sodium levels are approximately 230 mg/L in White Stone, 300 mg/L in
Palmer, 400 mg/L in Foxwells, and as high as 500 mg/L at Windmill Point.

a. Effects of Drawdown in the Brightseat-Upper Potomac

The Brightseat-Upper Potomac Aquifers are heavily tapped for deep/artesian well supplies in
Lancaster County and regionally (See Individual Drilled Well Chart on Page 17 and *Drilled
Well Map on the previous page). The aquifers are a principal source of groundwater for
municipal, industrial, and agricultural use in the York-James, Middle, and Northern Neck
Peninsulas of Virginia (Pg. F9, USGS Professional Paper 1404-F). Due to this heavy use there
has been some regional drawdown in the aquifer throughout the Coastal Plain Region.
Drawdown is caused by the withdrawal of large amounts of ground water from the confined
aquifers. The result of drawdown is that water levels in the confined aquifers have declined and
the underground flow of water has changed. These resulting situations could present future
problems for Lancaster County deep well users.

Several United States Geological Survey reports have studied the Coastal Plain ground water
aquifers, as well as the effect of drawdown caused by heavy pumping. According to one report,
the decline in the level of water in the aquifers has changed the direction of ground-water flow
toward the major pumping centers. When considering the Brightseat-Upper Potomac Aquifers,
these centers are located near the cities of Franklin, Williamsburg, Suffolk, and Alexandria and
the towns of West Point and Smithfield. Total withdrawal from these centers is estimated to
have been 65 MGD in 1980. Franklin alone had withdrawals over 40 MGD in 1980 (Pg. F83,
USGS Professional Piper 1404-F).

Furthermbre, this report states that the heavy withdrawals have increased vertical leakage through
confining units, reduced the volume of water stored in the ground-water flow system, increased
flow from the water-table aquifer into the confined flow system, and decreased local ground-
water discharge to streams and regional discharge to coastal water. Basically the natural balance
between recharge and discharge that existed prior to periods of heavy pumping had been
disturbed. Areas of heavy pumping now capture a large part of the water previously discharged
from the ground-water flow system to surface water, such as the Chesapeake Bay and the
Rappahannock River (Pgs. F 10, F 11, and F 12, USGS Professional Paper 1404-F).

For Lancaster County this means that contaminants in the water table aquifer can now more
easily reach the confined aquifers. Furthermore, future underground water supplies are
decreasing at faster rates than before periods of heavy pumping. Lastly, ground water supplies
which used to travel all the way to the coast to recharge surface water bodies with fresh water
get detoured before they reach the surface water. Impacts of this situation on the water quality
of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is unknown. (Specific data on water levels in wells

monitored in Lancaster and surrounding counties by the United States Geological Survey, as well
as a Est of major water use areas can be seen in the Appendix.)

Despite all the problems surrounding regional drawdown, it is believed that ample'ground water
supplies exist for the foreseeable future. The Brightseat-Upper Potomac Aquifer is documented
as capable of producing large quantities of high-quality water suitable for most uses (Pg. C42,
USGS Professional Paper 1404-C).

*Public S=ly Well for Source of Water Sm=l_y
Lancaster County. VA - 1990

Towns 951 92.00% of Housing Units in Towns
County LM 25.00% of Housing Units in County
Total 2,151 36.00% of all Housing Units

*Individual Drilled Well for Source of Water Sg=l
Lancaster Couaiy. VA - 1290

Towns 51 5.00% of Housing Units in Towns
County 1.982 41.00% of Housing Units in County
Total 2,033 34.00% of all Housing Units

Source: 1990 United States Census Statistics

The large majority of the wells utilize the Brightseat-Upper Potomac
aquifers for ground water supplies. A smaller, but significant number use
the Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer.

B. Existing and Projected Demand for Groundwater in
Lancaster County, VA

In 1990 there were 10,896 people in Lancaster County, including approximately 1,100
people in the Town of Kilmarnock. (1,053 in Lancaster, and 56 in Northumberland) The 1, 100
people in Kilmarnock used a total of .129 MGD (million gallons daily) of ground water in 1990.
The 9,769 people in the remainder of Lancaster County used a total of .88 MGD of ground
water in 1990. This comes to a County-wide total of 1.01 MGD for 1990. These figures were
approximating a 117 gallons used per customer per day (GPCD) in the Town of Kilmarnock and

90 gallons used per customer per day in the remainder of Lancaster County. These averages
were obtained from the 1988 R=ahannock W= S=ly 1!1an prepared by the State Water
Control Board. These figures can ftu-ther be used to predict future demand for growid water in
Lancaster County.

First, recent population projections were obtained for Lancaster County from the Virginia
Employment Commission (VA Ponulation ftjections- 2010. VEC, June 1993). The projected
annualized growth rate for the County was then applied to the Town's 1990 population to
calculate projections. Lastly, the previous water use average for each customer per day was
multiplied by the appropriate population for the Town or County to calculated projected ground
water demand. This is detailed in the chart below.

Year Kilmarnock GPCD Town County GPCD County Total Total
Population MGD's Pop. MGD's Pop. MGD's
1990 1,100 117 .129 9,796 90 .88 10,896 1.01

1995 1,141 117 .133 10,162 90 .91 11,303 1.04

2000 1,183 117 .138 10,508 90 .95 11,691 1.09
@@2010 .L 1,250 1 117 11,140 1 90 1.00 1 12,390 1 1. 1

As is evidenced in the above chart, Lancaster County's projected ground water supply needs are
not expected to grow significantly. This projection would be in line with the 1M
R=ahannock Water S=I-y Plan which stated that the present ground water system should be
adequate to meet the needs of Kilmarnock's water supply through the 50 -year planning period.
These projections would indicate that despite the negative impacts of drawdown, the amount of
the water supply is not the immediate problem. Instead the problems with the quality of the
supply, as discussed under the individual aquifer sections, appear to be of more immediate
concern.

C. Threats to Groundwater Supply

@1
L SMIfic Systems/Sewage Di=s.

As discussed previously in the "Surface Water Section", individual home owners sewage disposal
means can act to negatively impact groundwater supplies. The aquifers most susceptible to
contamination from individual sewage disposal systems are the Columbia and the unconfined,
water table part of the Yorktown-Eastover. Localized soil conditions such as high water tables
and highly permeable soils in conjunction with large concentrations of septic -systems can threaten

the quality of the water table aquifers. The charts below detail the number of housing units in
Lancaster County utilizing septic systems for sewage disposal, as well as the number,of housing
units lacking complete plumbing and kitchen facilities.

S=tic/Ce=QW for Sewage Di=s
Lancaster C -. VA - 1990

Towns 534 51.90% of Housing Units in Towns
County 4-370 89.38% of Housing Units in County
Total 4,904 82.87% of all Housing Units

Housing Units Lacking Co=lete Plumbing Facilities
Lancaster CouM. VA - 1990

Towns 8 < 1 % of Housing Units in Towns
County 324 6.63% of Housing Units in County
Total 332 5.61 % of all Housing Units

Housing Units Lacking -Coml2let e Kitchen Facilities
Lancaster CmnJ3@. VA - 1990

Towns 6 < I % of Housing Units in Towns
County 201 4. 11 % of Housing Units in County
Total 207 3.50% of all Housing Units

Source: 1290 Unites States Census Statistics.

2. Undergrgund Storage Tanks

According to the Department of Environmental Quality's Underground Storage Tank database
there are approximately 326 regulated underground storage tanks in Lancaster County (Local
Inventory of Regulated Underground Storage Tanks can be viewed at the Lancaster County
Planning and Land Use Office). Additionally, many people in the county have unregulated
storage tanks which contain fuel for the home heating source or their personal vehicles. These
underground storage tanks can be a possible source of contamination for groundwater in
Lancaster County.

Regulated storage tanks in the county are all tanks over 110 gallons, except for residential/non-
commercial tanks less than 1,100 gallons, farm tanks less than 1,100 gqUons, and
residential/commercial heating fuel tanks less than 5,000 gallons. Therefore, regulated tanks are
generally the tanks found at most gas stations, convenience stores, and automobile distributors
in the county. Current state regulations have strict requirements for the operation of regulated
underground storage tanks. First, these tanks must be protected from corrosion if they are to
be placed underground. Second, owners and operators of new and existing tanks must provide
a method, or combination of methods for release detection. Additionally, these tanks are
required to be monitored periodically by the owners for leaks. Lwdy, the owner and operator
must report, investigate, and clean up any spills and overfills in accordance with state
regulations.

Residential underground storage tanks are not regulated by the Department of Environmental
Quality. Most leaks are discovered and taken care of by the owners of the tanks. Information
available from local oil companies suggests that problems with leaks are only found in areas with
low groundwater tables. In areas with high water tables, water leaks into leaking tanks instead
of fuel leaking out. Leaks in these cases will often be detected when water levels in the tank
cause the owner's furnace or heating source not to light. However, in areas with low water
tables fuel will often leak out and down when a leak occurs. Leaks in these cases will be
detected only by noticing a drop in tank levels, or an increase in the usage of the fuel. The chart
below indicates the number of housing units in the county which utilize fuel oil, kerosene,
propane, etc. for the home heating fuel. It is assumed that these individual heating supplies are
stored in either above or underground storage tanks. However, the percentage of these tanks
located underground is undetermined.

Fuel Oil. Kerosene. etc, for House-Heating Fuel
Lancaster CouM- VA - 1990

Towns 402 46.47% of Housing Units in Towns
County 1.491 40.31 % of Housing Units in County
Total 1,893 41.48 % of all Housing Units

Source: .1990 United States Census Statistics,

Unc=ed/Abandoned Wells
Uncapped abandoned wells are potential sources for groundwater contamination. These wells,
particularly shallow/dug wells, act as direct conduits to the groundwater supply. Disposal of
waste into these wells can quickly lead to contamination. Furthermore, abandoned deep wells
provide direct access to lower confined aquifers which are usually somewhat protected from
vertical leakages. Census figures for Lancaster County indicate that there are possibly several
hundred of these wells in the county.

@4 lm=Mr Di=sal of Household Hazardaus Waste
Due to tightened regulations and prohibitive costs, ma y iural counties'no longer operate their
own landfills to dispose of solid waste. In the North,-rn Neck each of the four counties have
switched to waste wMfer VM of waste collection and disposal. In Lancaster COulftY, waste
and recyclable material are collected at two transfer sites. Waste collected at these -sites is then
carried by a wa@te hauler to a large regional landfill in King & Queen County. Furthermore,
marketable recyclable materials such as cardboard, paper, aluminum, and glass collected at these
sites are sold by the county to generate revenue to support the costs of operating the transfer
sites.

However, due to limitations on the type of waste accepted by the regional landfill and the high
costs of collection and proper disposal of household hazardous waste, Lancaster County has no
system in place for citizens to dispose of this type of waste. Household hazardous waste can
include used motor oil, paint thinners, solvents, antifreeze, etc. Therefore, limited options can
lead homeowners to choose improper means for disposing of this type of waste, which in turn
becomes a threat to groundwater supplies.

111. Assessmmt of Existing. Conditions

A. Surface Water
Lancaster County is fortunate to have large areas of surface water within its boundaries. Overall,
the condition of these surface waters is good; however, there are some areas for concern.
Nonpoint source pollution has caused some degradation of water quality in the EO I (Corrotoman
River) and C 16 (Chesapeake Bay) watersheds. The EO 1 watershed was cited as having
significant levels of urban use impacts due to urban erosion and nutrient loadings, and the
amount of disturbed land. This type of pollution would be attributed to new home or business
construction, particularly on the water. The C16 watershed was cited as havmg a large number
of shellfish condemnations due to urban nonpoint source influences. This type of pollution
would be attributed to high densities of septic systems, or a number of failing septic systems
located close to surface water. The C16 watershed also was negatively impacted from
agricultural nonpoint source pollution. However, despite being mentioned for these specific
nonpoint source pollution impacts, none of the three watersheds were cited as having violations
of state water quality standards.

Lancaster County's surface water resources also have potential, although limited, for use as a
future potable water supply. In the County, there are no smaller fresh water streams which have
suitable flow to allow for raw intake for drinking water purposes. Furthermore, saline conditions
in the larger tidal portions of the County's surface water bodies would make them unsuitable as
a supply for drinking water. However, the County does have a large number of existing
millponds, as well as other possible locations for impoundment of fresh surface water supplies.

The existing millponds already serve an important function, since they act as areas of recharge
for water table aquifer. Furthermore, the existing millponds are generally located at the
headwaters of streams or creeks, and many have sparsely populated areas surrounding them.
With enlarged impoundment structures, these millponds could be potential surface water supplies
for drinking water. Lastly, all the millponds are located upstream of permitted dischargers. This
situation would prevent discharges from affecting millpond or reservoir waters.

B. Groundwater
Lancaster County's citizens get their water from four aquifers; the Columbia, the Yorktown-
Eastover, the Chickahominy-Piney Point, and the Brightseat/Upper-Potomac. The
Chickahominy-Piney Point and the Brightseat/Upper-Potomac are the deeper, confined aquifers.
The two deeper confined aquifers also supply other regions of Virginia with water, as well as
parts of Maryland. Quality problems exist in the Chickahominy-Piney Point and Brightseat-
Upper Potomac aquifers, mainly due to elevated levels of chloride, sodium, and fluoride. Levels
of sodium and fluoride are of particular concern in Lancaster County. Sodium levels are
elevated near White Stone and get higher going towards Windmill Point. Patterns of fluoride
levels are more random, but tend to be high throughout the County.

Each of the four aquifers has a particular recharge area. The Columbia Aquifer recharges from
the ground surface in Lancaster County. The County has some influence through land use
controls on protecting these area. The Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer recharges at the outcrop of
this aquifer in the western part of Lancaster County. Again, the County has some control over
the protection of these areas through land use ordinances. This area is of particular importance
because the Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer is the primary supply of drinking water for the Eastern
Shore of Virginia. Lastly, the two deeper aquifers, the Chickahominy-Piney Point and the
Brightseat-Upper Potomac, primarily recharge at their outcrop areas just east of the fall line.
They also recharge to a lesser degree through vertical leakage from the water table aquifers.
However, the outcrop recharge areas are located near Westmoreland, King George, and Stafford
Counties, and the City of Fredericksburg. To influence how these recharge areas are protected,
the County would have to participate in some type of Ground Water Management District. One
does not exist at this time, although regional interest in developing such a district is growing.

Locally, Lancaster County can act to protect the two water table aquifers. The Columbia is the
principal water table aquifer, and the Yorktown-Eastover is the secondary aquifer. The main
users of the water table aquifers are owners of shallow wells. The water table aquifers are the
most susceptible to pollution, and the recharge area is the land above the aquifers in Lancaster
County. Direct threats include septic systems, underground storage tanks, improper disposal of
hazardous home waste (oil, gas, etc.), and abandoned, uncapped wells. Additionally, recharge
areas can be affected by large areas of impervious cover, local drainage patterns, vegetation, and
drought conditions. Lastly, the highest concentrations of shallow well, water table aquifer users
are most likely found in the older developed areas of the county.

On the surface there appears to be an adequate supply of ground water for the future. However,
recent studies believe that regional drawdowns due to heavy pumpage of deeper, confined
aquifers should cause concern and warrants further study.

JDL Gog1s and Objectives for
Lancaster CQMM Potable Water Supply Plan

Goal 1: Protect and improve quality of surface waters of Lancaster County to assure
their continued benefit to the economy, recreation, and health of the
county.

Objective: Continue strict enforcement of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Erosion
and Sediment Control Act Regulations to assure protection of the water quality
of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

Objective: Continue review of local land use ordinances to assure that ordinances allow for
siting of septic systems in the best location on new lots, and in the area of soils
most suitable for their operation.

Objective: Work in coordination with the local health department to inventory and map septic
systems in the county to develop locations where there are already high numbers
of septic systems in use.

Objective: Explore possible water impoundment areas presented in plan for Lancaster County.

Objective: Support strengthened county ordinances to assure protection of proposed
impoundment areas.

Goal 2: Develop methods to prevent ground water pollution in order to protect the
supply of ground water in Lancaster County and to assure that an adequate
future supply exists for the continued growth of the County.

Objective: Organize a hazardous home waste collection day to give residents an opportunity
to safely dispose of their waste.

Objective: Inventory and map uncapped, inactive wells in the county and identify procedures
to encourage property owners to cap off wells.

Objective: Seek state and federal funding to initiate an Inactive Well Capping Project.

Objective: Develop a method of collecting waste oil in the county to give residents a safe
disposal option.

Goal 3: Develop methods to improve and protect ground water quality in Lancaster
County to assure the continued safe health of the local people and the
economy.

Objective: Work in coordination with existing community organizations and the health
department in efficiently utilizing existing local resources in improving drinking
water quality.

Objective: Inventory and map active shallow wells in the county to lay groundwork for
identification of concentrations of contaminated shallow wells and if feasible
prioritize for upgrading to small community deep well systems.

Objective: Identify possible funding for community well improvements.

Objective: Strongly support Department of Environmental Quality proposals to drill test wells
in the eastern half of the county to monitor water quality problems. (Track inland
movement of dissolved solids; chloride, sodium, and fluoride in groundwater
aquifers.)

Objective: Support future regional efforts to establish a groundwater management district for
the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula areas of Virginia.

Objective: Support preparation of a regional water system plan for the southeastern part of
Lancaster County. Plan would encompass county, as well as the towns of
Irvington, Kilmarnock, and Wbte Stone. Plan would emphasize cost savings of
using a coordinated, regional approach to address future water supply.

V
The Plan

A. Groundwa

1. Water Table Aquifers

In Lancaster County, the water table aquifers are those most susceptible to contamination.
Failing septic systems, agricultural fertilizers, hazardous home wastes, etc. can act to pollute
water table aquifer resources. Furthermore, no regular water quality testing is done on these
shallow wells to determine present areas of contamination. Therefore, it is strongly recommended
that a parcel specific inventory be taken of homeowners utilizing shallow wells for their drinking
water supply. After the inventory is completed, parcels with shallow wells in high septic system
and agricultural areas will be targeted for water sampling. Available outside resources for water
quality testing will -be explored and pursued. When funds are obtained, water samples will be
taken to see if these shallow wells are contaminated by fecal coliform, nitrates, or some other
foreign matter. After the well sample results are determined, areas with large numbers ot
contaminated wells will be targeted for local water system improvements.

If there are existing clusters of contaminated wells it is recommended that outside funds again
be pursued for improvements to these wells. Specifically, if there are enough affected shallow
wells in an area, the possibility of drilling a shared artesian well should be explored. After the
well is in place houses which were previously on shallow wells should be hooked up to the new
deep well. Abandoned shallow wells would then be capped off to prevent them from becoming
new sources of groundwater contamination.

It is further recommended that as these new community systems are established, care be taken
to keep the total number of hook-ups to each system to a maximum of 10. The reason is that
at 15 book-ups a well becomes an official public supply well which must be monitored and
regulated by the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Public Supply wells must
be regularly tested with samples submitted to DEQ. The result is that the well requires careful
monitoring, and costs more money to operate due to required sampling. Keeping the number
of hook-ups below 10 will keep the new well from becoming designated public supply system,
while still leaving a small number of hook-ups available for future development.

Furthermore, it is recommended that a blanket well user agreement be established for users
wanting to switch to the new well. This agreement will be a legally binding document which
each homeowner signs on to. The agreement will assure that each homeowner is fully
responsible for their fair share of maintenance or repair costs for the new well system. This will
hopefully,. obstruct any future disagreements over who is financially responsible for any well
maintenance or repairs.

2. Abandoned Wells

As part of the effort to control threats to the county's groundwater supply, it is reeommended
that the county undertake a parcel specific inventory of all abandoned wells in the couniy. After
wells are identified an informative mailing will be prepared to send to each property owner with
an abandoned well. The mailing will caution owners to protect the well area and not to use it
for disposal of solid or liquid waste. Furthermore, it will ask the owners if they would be
interested in participat:mg in a county-wide abandoned wen-capping project.

The abandoned well-capping project would utilize available outside funding offered for protection
of groundwater supplies. The county would explore sources of such funding and apply for any
available amounts.

3. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day

To provide further protection to the County's ground water resources it is recommended that
Lancaster County establish a semi-annual Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day. This
event could be held at the existing solid waste refuse sites. To sponsor such an event the County
would have to hire a certified waste disposal contractor who would have proper authorization to
handle and dispose of this type of waste. The event would be widely marketed to the public,
and on this particular day Lancaster County residents would be allowed to come and properly
dispose of household hazardous waste. This type of event is offered by other localities and
provides an alternative disposal option for residents with this type of waste.

4. Ground Water Management District

As a way to gain influence over the protection of ground water resources found outside the
County's boundaries, it is recommended that Lancaster County support any future proposals in
the region for the creation of a State Ground Water Management District. Ground Water
Management Districts are found in other areas of the state such as Hampton Roads and the City
of Richmond. However, there is presently no such District to coordinate management and
protection of ground water resources in the Middle Peninsula and the Northern Neck.
Participation in a Ground Water Management District would enable Lancaster County to expand
its ability to protect the supply and quality of ground water resources.

5. Drilling Test Wells

To expand existing knowledge of the ground water resources of Lancaster County and the
Northern Neck, it is proposed that the County endorse previous recommendations made by the
Department of Environmental Quality (then the State Water Control Board) to establish
monitoring wells in Lancaster County and the Northern Neck. Specifically, it is recommended
that a monitoring well be developed to track the possible inland migration of elevated sodium,

chloride, and fluoride levels in the White Stone, Palmer, Foxwells, Windmill Point area.
Understanding water quality problems in the southeastern part of the County is vital to assure
protection of less affected supplies located nearby in the more densely populated areas in and
around Kilmarnock.

6. Regional Water System Plan

To prepare for the coordination and efficient use of the future water supply in Lancaster County,
it is recommended that the County support the preparation of a regional water system plan. The
ongmal proposal for such a plan was made by the State Water Control Board in the 1988
R=ahannock Water S=1.
y Plan, The goal was to develop a plan which would encompass the
County as well as the Towns of Irvington, YdImarnock, and White Stone. The plan would
emphasize the cost savings of using a coordinated, regional approach to address the future water
supply needs, and water quality problems of Lancaster County. This plan could also provide the
opportunity to explore possible water impoundment sites for future potable surface water
supplies.

B . Surface W

1. Septic System Inventory

As part of the effort to assure continued protection of Lancaster County's Surface and Ground
Water Resources, it is proposed that the County inventory and map existing septic systems in the
County. This effort would help to pinpoint high concentrations of septic systems in the County,
which could act cumulatively to negatively impact the quality of Lancaster's surface and ground
water supplies. Information obtained from this inventory would be valuable in developing a
future land use map for Lancaster County. Additionally, once compiled this information would
aid in any future efforts to identify and prioritize areas for efficient placement of a waste water
treatment works.

2. Identify Possible Impoundment Areas

This recommendation can be carTied out in conjunction with the proposal to support creation of
a Regional Water System Plan. (See #6 in the Ground Water Recommendations)

3. Continue Present Enforcement Levels

To assure continued protection of the quality of Lancaster County's surface water bodies, it is
recommended that the County continue its present, active enforcement of the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act and the Erosion and Sediment Control Acts.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Terms and measurements used to ftu-ther undewandi@g of ground water quality descriptions are
listed detailed. They have been obtained from the following United States Geologicil Survey
Report:

Water-Resources Investizations Roort 92-4175. "Quality of Ground Water in the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province of Virginia". Focazio, Michael J.; Speiran, Gary K.; and Rowan, M.
Eileen; U.S. Geological Survey; Richmond, VA: 1993.

Chloride - The U.S. EPA has established a SMCL for chloride of 250 mg/L. (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990c;) Furthermore, the State of Virginia maintains an
antidegradation standard for chloride in groundwater in the Coastal Plain of 50 mg/L
(Commonwealth of Virginia, 1988)

Dissolved Solids - This refers to the measure of the concentration of all dissolved material in
the water. The U.S. EPA SMCL for dissolved solids is 500 mg.L (U.S. EPA, 1990c). The
State of Virginia's antidegradation standard for dissolved solids in groundwater in the Coastal
Plain is 1,000 mg/L. (Commonwealth of Virginia, 1988)

Fluoride - The U.S. EPA has established both an MCL of 4.0 mg/L and an SMCL of 2.0 mg/L
for fluoride. The State of Virginia enforces a standard of 1.8 mg/L. (Commonwealth of
Virginia, 1982)

MCL - This refers to Maximum Contaminant Levels, which is a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1990a) designation. Reported MCL's are set for health concerns. This is the maximum
permissible level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to any user of a public-water system.
The levels are enforceable.

SMCL - This refers to Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels, which is a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1990a) designation. Reported SMCL's are set for aesthetics
(such as taste or odor) or for limits on properties that affect use of the water (such as chemical
aggressiveness, or potential for the water to deposit solid chemicals). These levels are not
enforceable.

Sodium - Presently, there are no Federal drinking-water regulations concerning sodium;
however, the State of Virginia maintains an antidegradation standard for sodium in ground water
in the Coastal Plain of 100 mg/L. The State also advises that persons on sodium-restricted diets
avoid drinking water with sodium concentrations greater than 20mg/L, if the restriction is severe,
and 270 mg/L, if moderate.

Cited Sources

Atlas of National Wetlands Invmtprv Maps of Chesape
.ake Day. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Regional 5 Office; Newton Comer, MA; and Annapolis Field Office; Annapolis, MD:
September, 1986.
Groundwater dthe Northern Neck Peninsula. Virginia. (PLuming Bulletin 307) Newton, V.P.
and Siudyla, E.A.; Commonwealth of Virginia, State Water Control Board's Bureau of Water
Control Management; Richmond, VA: 1978.

Lancaster County Shoreline Invent=. Northern Neck Planning District Commission; Callao,
VA: April 1994.

Lancaster County Shoreline Management 5tudy PreliminwZE Results. University of Virginia,
School of Architecture, Division of Urban and Environmental Planning; Charlottesville, VA:
Spring, 1988.

Local Assistance Manual. Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department; Richmond, VA:
November, 1989.

Management Program for Control of Potential Sources-of Contamination Wellhead Protection
Areas: Lancaster. Live-1,y. and Irvington Public Water S=ly Systems, Qoum of Lancaster.
Virginia. Acer Engineers & Consultants, Inc.; Hagerstown, MD: October, 1994.

1923 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Veggt-a-don in the Cliesapgake Bay. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary; Williamsburg,
VA: December, 1994.

R=ahannock Water Supply Plan- (Planning Bulletin 338) Commonwealth of Virginia, State
Water Control Board; Richmond, VA: March, 1988.

Selected Statistics. United States Departnient of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census; Suitland,
MD: 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990a, Maximum contaminant levels (subpart B of part
141, National primary drinking water regulations): U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,
Parts 100 to 149, revised as of July 1, 1990, p. 559-563.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990a, Maximum contaminant level goals (subpart F
of part 141, National primary drinking water regulations): U.S. Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 40, -Parts 100 to 149, revised as of July 1, 1990, p. 620-621.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990a, Secondary maximum contaminant level goals
(section 143.3 of part 143, National secondary drinking water regulations): U - S - Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Parts 100 to 149, revised as of July 1, 1990, p. 674.

U.S. Geological 5urva Professional Paper 1404-C. (Professional Paper 1404-C)
"Hydrogeologic Framework of the Virginia Coastal Plain". Meng, Andrew A. III, and Harsh,
John F.; United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1988.

U.S. Geological Surygy Professional Paper 1404-F. (Professional Paper ' 1404-F)
"Conceptualization and Analysis of Ground-Water Flow System in the Coastal Plain of @Tirg* 'a
and Adjacent Parts of Maryland and North Carolina". Harsh, John F., and Laczniak, Randell,
J.; United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1990.

Virginia NoMoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment R= Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation; Richmond, VA: March, 1993.

Virginia Water Quality Assessment for 1994-- 305(b) ftort to EPA and Congress (Information
Bulletin #597). Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Richmond: April, 1994.

Water Quality Management Plan - Planning District 17. Northern Neck Planning District
Commission and Deward M. Martin and Associates, Inc.; Callao, VA: 1973.

Water Resources Data - Virginia, Water Year 1993: Volume 1. 5urface-Water Discharge and
Surface-Water Quality Records, United States Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-93-1;
Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and with other
agencies.

Water Resources Data - Virizinia, Water Year 1993: Volume 2_ Grgund -Water -Level and
Ground-Water Q_uality Records. United States Geological Survey Water-Data Report VA-93-2;
Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and with other
agencies.

Water-p,esouLces Investigations R=rt 92-4175 (WRI 92-4175) "Quality of Ground Water in
the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of Virginia". Focazio, Michael J.; Speiran, Gary K.;
and Rowan, M. Eileen; U.S. Geological Survey; Richmond, VA: 1993.

Water Quality Management Plan - Planning District 17. Northern Neck Planning District
Commission and Deward M. Martin and Associates, Inc.; Callao, VA: 1973.

1
4.7 -i ,

APPENDICK

Virginia Department of Health
Shellfish Condemnation Areas in Lancaster County

I Dymer Creek
2. Carter Creek
3. Rappahannock River (at Windmill Point Marina)
4. Indian Creek
5. Eastern Branch, Corrotoman River
6. Rappahannock River/Greenvale Creek
7. Rappahannock River/Paynes Creek
8. Rappahannock River/Beach Creek
9. Rappahannock River/Wyatt Creek
10. Lancaster and Mulberry Creeks
11. Deep Creek
12. Western Branch, Corrotoman River
13. Tabbs Creek
14. Oyster Creek (Rescinded, December 1994)
15. Corrotoman River/Whitehouse Creek
16. Antipoision Creek

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, 1993
Irvington, Fleets Bay, Wilton and
Deltaville VA Quadrangles

\1_0 a Lud NO'." C
607
C%

'Ur y Po n1
<
aln 3z "A@! -4 a 2
r f, 1. 1 A
10 Xpnl Pain$

JOrv

-T T Ri%l` ck
9LUf P0111 11ECK
U -KAI
0 dl?n
W4111
PO
Ini A I
YA1
'OA2
to

..A
CU

U
r
KA2 t) 'htFiS4AY_f1ECK
0.Ustp.
A2
7
LA2 lt@-3 PA3
% ------
_4" : tin
%J0111"Mc
Irvingl POKA "I W C
LA2 rice

I IM
E9
U\2 Ordxwd P I A21
rn *1111'. St
AA
DAZ
14j,"Sas
i W\3

fit,
-vi

A2 Ovop llolo Point
-LA2
645 KAI Mosquito Point A2
All
(Al
12 piuer
Island Rappaltanno'@

4mm
FA2

Wche
'.Icrititel
nA2
... . .... ........
f 14cxr

33 113rd$,-M .. .... Ar
"bor
Jj
Ilk-
L2
t
anvorl
M7
CAZ MAZ Pal*-it
IlayeQ L)k2 ' / - point Fishing
91crid
EA2 -.4

GIMIY Zm Day OtQ
e -k P AA2 p I
113bid A2 rond
ro i Am
Van
JACK L Slo-o Point
. ...... Iran Point
CA2
00clor Pl.
IPX
IloInnd P,
Point
IPA
hit. Godfrey Day Ans.1m
Cobbi
'b

0 too 2600 3000
Scale Imelffs):
SGV#Cll:
U.S. C401891col Surf#,
Dole flown: 5-21-93

LE C-4 E ]I D
ee 13,NN, a t t

TJ, r.-II .-I

C -ON

Land Use.

April, 199:5,

... ........
Lc -1

P ids

-'TEP 'VA
A
il, 1995
p

fu@

-@re if
-ed By
Lat ter oi-vit
Plann nq tlE Land
(if (ice-

-3Lirc,--- Lancixter Co-
Si
j":"AYl
re@ I Fp-. Sti id--
pl-'ell-n-livory Results.,

Permitted Dischargers to State Waters
Lancaster County, Virgina
(DEQ VAPDES Permits, VPA Pertnils, & Special Consent Orders)

Permit Permitted
LQ_# Dis-charger Qgntnt T_Q I e P Ni i ia A dc [ LeM city at-aft ZJP Laftudle L-ongitul
VA0002828 Oyster World, Inc. W.M. Cornwell (604) 436-5470 P.O. Box 732 Weems VA 22576 `3739115N 762625
VA0003735 Abbott Brothers, Inc. Gerald L. Abbott (804) 438-5274 Rt. 1, Box 242 Weems VA 22576 373�37N 762635
VA0003786 Barrack & Reynolds Seafood, Inc. W.M. Reynolds (804) 438-5730 P.O. Box 38 Irvington VA 22480 373939N 762559
VA0004481 E.J. Conrad & Sons Seafood, Inc. J.M. Conrad (804) 462-7400 Rt. 3, Box 971 Lancasler VA 22503 374238N 763239
VA0020788 Town of Kilmarnock STP E.L. Faison (804) 435-1552 P.O. Box 1357 Kilmarnock VA 22482 374231N 762138
VA0029343 The Tides Golf Lodge, Inc. Mac Brockelbank (804) 438-6000 P.O. Box 309 Irvington VA 22480 37401ON 762541
VA0029351 The Tides Inn, Inc. Tom Saunders (804) 438-5000 P.O. Box 480 Irvington VA 22480 373953N 762557
VA0060569 Windmill Point Marine Resort Ronald Rickard (804) 435-1166 P.O. Box 368, VSH 695 While Stone VA 22578 373703N 761724
VA0071579 Bay Seafood and Bait Co., Inc. Meredith Robbins (804) 435-3349 Rt. 2, Box 105 White Stone VA 22578 373740N 762100
VA0071595 Dymer Creek Seafood W.R. Davenport, Jr. (804) 435-2173 RI. 1, Box 3025 While Stone VA 22578 37400ON 762109
VASEA1002 Stingray Point Oyster Co., Inc. Joseph S. Jenkins (804) 438-5237 P.O. Box 504 Irvington VA 22480 37393ON 762607
VASEA1009 J. Henry Talbott Seafood J. Henry Talbott (804) 438-5227 162 Hatton Avenue Kilmarnock VA 22482 37393ON 762615
VASEA110111 Callis Seafood, Inc. Terry Hayden (804) 462-7634 RI. 2, Box 1034 Lancasler VA 22503 37403ON 7629111
VASEA1015 RCV Seafood Corporation Weston F. Conley, Jr. (804) 462-5101 P.O. Box 85 Morattico VA 22523 374712N 763712
VASEA1019 Cap'n Tom's Seafood Thomas E. Stevens (804) 462-5507 Rt. 2, Box 539 Lancaster VA 22503 37392IN 763043
VASEA1022 W. Ellery Kellum, Inc. Joseph A. Kellum (804) 438-5476 P.O. Box 230 Weems VA 22576 373935N 762633
VASEA1024 Julia's Seafood Lewis D. George (804) 435-3764 P.O. Box 832 White Stone VA 22578 373BOON 761830
VASEA1 025 Doggett Brothers, Inc. Morris C. Doggett (804) 462-7970 P.O. Box 66 Mollusk VA 22517 3743`14N 763240
VASEA11028 Irvington Packing Co., Inc. Harmon C. Treakle (804) 435-11600 P.O. Box 86 While Stone VA 22578 373906N 762529
VASEA1030 T/A Pride of VA Seafood Products WSP Stanley O'Bier (804) 435-2063 Rl. 1, Box 4955 White Stone VA 22578 373753N 762054
VASEA1034 W.M. Cornwell Seafood, Inc.#2 W.M. Cornwell (804) 438-6281 P.O. Box 16 Weems VA 22576 373925N 7626118
VASEA1036 WIR. Pittman & Sons, Inc. Edward R. Pittman (804) 462-7955 Rt. 3, Box 332 Lancaster VA 22503 37462ON 763453
VASEA1044 Chesapeake Fish and Oyster Co. Marvin E. George (804) 435-2958 P.O. Box 332 White Stone VA 22578 373737N 762059
VASEA1047 W.F. Morgan & Sons, Inc William C. Morgan (804) 438-5154 Rt. 1, Box 241 Weems VA 22576 373926N 762615
VPA014011 Rappahannock Westminster-Cent. Daniel Oelzel 10 Lancaster Drive Irvington VA 22480

LEGUAD

-.-I'C-4 C
2, C ag, q
IPI'milf
W, "@'z
P*-,-"'Cerjt* of Hoixing
flit;
with septic- SO S@le

t'-Aar ch,
19

@9'

iv-

Pl
t
Llnncrn ter
Plal Iring & Land I-be
CIf f i

0 C < D4.a

insets of Proposed Reservoir LoCations

Cal TO
F^""Am ka
So-

685 1
GIs

=JA I wo sw

:37.
rr \T1 BURG%==stc
6171 600 r. 16 GIs
GIs

6ml
GIs V--w,
690
33 6= "So

ch.-
W@a

7721
7,

$Got
Row Ell 6791
SA 68.1
61A
: o@
(7111 6071 790$

6571
Q- WS
69g" C. : '.@ 1 2.
all
F@3 CONOTO
705
7-.6 67 fr-M71
satl 3
'07n

lost"
611

43 97sl
L!2!! oil 29

660

7-44
j @0117

091
6"l

6321
C,
653

loll
sea CAWA
9
is
771

oo-, all

jQj L24t7l
gal,
INN
I- V

7921 eel,
700

rF LeAw
at
'Alfonso
AV

GOD

Z@ -

Proposed Reservoir#: LE361

(For more information on what part of the County the proposed reservoir is
located in see the "Insets of Proposed Reservoir Locations" Map, Inset 1)

.........I.... .

m
-j
ax
Proposed Reservoir#: LIVIS2

(For more information on what Part Of
the County the proposed reservoirs are
located in see the "Insets of Proposed
Reservoir Locations" Map, Inset 2)

Proposed Reservoir#: LIVIS1
06
L

Al.

wur

5. =NZ

5. .7

Zia

AW .- lip-

Proposed Reservoir#: LCRI

(For more information on what part of the County the proposed reservoir is
located in see the "Insets of Proposed Reservoir Locations" Map, Inset 3)

7z-1

e, rrter

USGS,@'
7:t
116 N tr--svi

Cht

N-

V =.::.

7
ively Sch;-*".,

ZF;A
VT
9.
z-1

'(F-VOUSCS03)

-Map,

Proposed Reservoir#: LLBI Proposed Reservoir LLS2

(For more information on what part of the County the proposed reservoir is
located insee the "Insets of Proposed Reservoir Locations" Map, Inset 4)

lot

LL,

Proposed Reservoir#: LCIVII

(For more information on what part of the County the proposed reservoir is
located in see the "Insets of Proposed Reservoir Locations" Map, Inset 5)

675

Its

% .7

Proposed Reservoir LOCI

(For more information on wliat part of the County the proposed reservoir is
located in see the "Insets of Proposed Reservoir Locations" Map, Inset 6)

214 GROUND-WATER LEVELS

LANCASTER COUNTY

374249076Z30101. Local number,59K 1 SOW 015
LOCATION--Lat 37 42'48", long 76* 23 01", Hydrologic Unit 02080104, at Lancaster County High School in Kilmarnock.
Owner: Lancaster County Public Schools.

AQUIER --Bright& eat-upper Potomac aquifer of Cratacaous-Paleocons age.

WELL CHARACTERISTICS--Drilled unused water wall, diameter 4 in. to 163 ft, diameter 2 in. from 163 to 716 ft,
depth 716 ft, screened 706 to 716 ft.
INSTRUMENTATION--bIMONTHLY measurement with chalked tape by vIRGINia Department Environmental Quality -
Water Division personnel. Sept. 30, 1976, to Oct. 1, 1985, occasional measurement with chalked tape. Prior
to Sept. 30, 1975, continuous strip chart recorder.

DATUM. --Elevation of land surface datum in 85 ft- above mean sea level.. from topographic map. Measuring point:
Top of caning, at land-surface datum prior to July 29, 1991; 0.75' ft above land surface datum thereafter.

REMARKS. --Records provided by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality- Water Division. Water level
affected by local pumpage and regional drawdown.

PERIOD OF RECORD. --October 1967 to current year. Unpublished records avail-able prior to October 1985 in files of
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Water Division.

EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD water level recorded, 95.89 ft below land-Surface datum, Feb. 20, 1968;
lowest measured, 128.23 ft below land SURFACe datum, Aug. Z3. 1993.

WATER LEVEL, IN Feet- BELOW LAND-SURFACE DATUM, WATER YEAR OCTOBER l992 TO SEPTEMBER 1993

WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER
DATE LEVEL DATE LEVEL DATE LEVEL_ DATE LEVEL DATE DATE LEVEL

OCT Z2 124.70 JAN 11 124.08 FEB 18 l23.52 APR22 123.34 JUN 29 125. 75 AUG 23 128.Z3

WATER YEAR 1993 HIGHEST 123.34 APR 22. 1993 LOWEST 128.23 AUG 23, 1993

110

115

120
(

125

130

135

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

WATER YEAR

216 GROUND-WATER LEVELS

LANCASTER COUNTY

374941076254501. Local number, 59L 3.

LOCATION.--Lat 37"49'41"long Hydrologic Unit 02080104, 100 ft southwest Of State Highway 515 at
.Browns Store and 450 ft southeast of the intersection of State Highways 610 and 15. Owner: Alpha Water
Company (Sydnor Hydrodynamics).

AQUIFER--Brightseat-upper Potomac aquifer of Crataceous-Palaocane age.

WELL CHARACTERISTECS.--Drilled withdrawal water well, diameter 4 in. to 210ft, diameter 2in.to 802 ft
depth 802 ft, screened 770 to 800 ft.

INSTRUMENTATION.--Occasional measurement with chalked tape by USGS personnel.

DATUM.--Elevation of land-surface datum is 101 ft above mean sea level, from topographic map. Measuring point:
Top of 0.5 in. copper nipple, 1.35 ft above land-surface datum. Prior to Feb. 10,1981, measuring point was
top of casing, 0.9 ft above land surface datum.

REMARKS--Water level avvected by regional drawdown.

PERIOD OF RECORDS--April 1966 to current year. Unpublished records available prior to October 1988 in files of
the Geological survey.

EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD--hIGHEST water level. measured. 97.00 ft beLOW land-surface datum. Apr.26 1966;
lowest measured, 124.27 ft below land-surface dAtum. Oct. 19, 1992.

WATER LEVEL IN FEET BELOW LAND-SURFACE DATUM,WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1992 TO SEPTEMBER 1993
WATER WAER
DATE LEVEL DATE LEVEL

OCT- 19 124.27 MAR IS 123.91

WATER YEAR 1993 HIGHEST 123.91 MAR 18, 1993 LOWEST 124.27 OCT 19, 1992

110

........ TREND LINE

115

120

.......

125

130

135

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

WATER YEAR

TABLES F93
TABLE 5.-,Wajor udthdrawaLs by a,?Idfer, 1980
rMgaYd, million gallons per dar, do., ditto. Locations of water users shown in fig. s@

Water user Geographic Withdrawal'
number location Aouifer (Moal/d)
020 Franklin Lower Potomac 10.29
025 West Point CID. 3.79

020 Franklin Middle Potomac 2S.21
023 Williamsburg do. 1.95
02S West Point do. 6.S7
038 Franklin do. 1.44
039 Franklin do. 3.66
045 Tidewater do. 4.96
048 Tidewater do. 2.29
068 Henrico County do. 1.96
071 Alexandria do. 1.12

'Smf tfi f i e 14 Srigntseat-upper
Potomac
018 Smithfield CIO. 1.38
023 Williamsburg do. 1.23
025 West Point CIO. 2.61
028 Urbanna do. 1.65
045 Tidewater do. 2.71
054 Williamsburg CID. 1.70

025 West Point Aquia .71
434 Southern Maryland do. .39
445 Southern Maryland CIO. .21

024 James City Chickahominy-Piney Point ..75
1
025 West Point do. -2.37
3D9 Edenton Co. .$a

006 Delmarva Peninsula Yorktown-Eastover 1.55
031 Delmarva Peninsula do. 78
300 Elizabeth City CID. 1:30

GROUND-WATER LEVELS
LANCASTER COUNTY

374142076272701. Local number, 59K 9.

LOCATION.--Lat 37*41,42", long 76*Z7'27", Hydrologic Unit 02080104, on the south bank of Moran. CREek, 1.000 ft
northwest of the intersection of State Highway 530 and a Private diTt drive, 0.8 mi wESt bf Wesley Church,
3 mi north of Weemn, 4 mi west of xILMARNOCK AND THE intersection Of State Highways 629 and -630, and near
Weenms . Owner: Fred Hansen.

AQUIFER. --bRIGHTEAST-upper Potomac Aquifer of Cretacious-palaocane age.

WELL CHARACTERISTICS.--withdrawal water well-, diameter 4 in. to 147 ft, diameter 2 in. from 147 to
585 ft. depth 585 ft, screened 565 to 580 ft.

INSTRUMENTATION. --Occasional measurement with chalked tape by USGS personnel.

DATUM. --Elevation of land-surface datum is 10 ft above mean sea level, from topographic MAP. Measuring point:
top of casting, 1.2 ft above land-surface datum.

REMARKS.--Water level affected by regional drawdown.

PERIOD OF RECORD--September 1969 to current year. Unpublished records available prior to October 1988 in files
a! the Geological Survey.

EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD --Highest water level measured. 40.00 ft. below LAND SURFACe datum, Sept. 16, 1969;
lowest measured, 63.44 ft below land--surface datum, Oct. 10, 1991.

WATER LEVEL, IN FEET BELOW LAND-SURFACE DATUM, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1992 TO SEPTEMBER 1993

WATER WATER
DATE LEVEL DATE LEVEL

OCT 19 63.00 MAR 16 62.89

WATER YEAR 1993 EIGHEST, 62.89 MARCH 16, 1993 LOWEST 63.00 OCT 19, 1992

........TREND LINE

70
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

WATER YEAR

jo. COASTAL SIRVICES CTR LIBRARY '.0
3 6668 14111760 8