Multilevel Environmental Impact Analysis - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 255

source when water is plentiful, treats the water, and stores it in the ground
water aquifer (Pyne 2005). ASR has many advantages over reservoir develop-
ment, both economic and environmental, including:
r The cost of surface water reservoir construction is avoided.
r The loss of a free-flowing water body and associated aquatic com-
munity in the stream or river is avoided.
r No homes or other developed land uses are displaced.
r Flow is maintained in the stream or river at natural levels.
r The bordering vegetated wetlands associated with the stream are
retained.
r Cultural resources, such as archaeological sites of indigenous people
or historic sites (both of which are frequently associated with lands
adjacent to streams and rivers), are not destroyed by a reservoir.
ASR does have the limitation of strict geologic requirements for the loca-
tion of the storage and recovery area. There must be low permeable strata
that confine the water injected into the aquifer so that it is not lost. Also, the
geochemistry must be suitable so that calcium, magnesium, and other com-
pounds do not precipitate and compromise the transmissivity and yield of
the aquifer.
In the hypothetical example, the environmental analysis of the ASR project
concludes that it is a viable and low impact approach to satisfy the long-term
drinking water supply for the river basin. With a modest and previously
demonstrated and achievable level of water conservation, ASR can supply
the long-term water supply needs, at an affordable price, with little or no
environmental damage and create environmental benefits of keeping the
water in the basin. However, the only location with acceptable geochemistry
and confining geologic strata is within the area proposed for development
under the prior reservoir project and is thus unavailable. The result in this
example would be the construction of an expensive reservoir, even though
the environmentally preferable reservoir site was selected, the proposed
action destroyed a free-flowing stream, inundated the critical bordering veg-
etated wetland habitat, and flooded cultural resources. The environmentally
and economically superior ASR project was not implemented to satisfy the
regional water supply program because the only geological site was lost to
reservoir construction, and an environmentally friendly ASR approach was
not available to meet any future demands.
The hypothetical example described above has many similarities to the
King William Reservoir Project proposed by Newport News, Virginia
(Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District draft EIS 1994, supplemen-
tal draft 1995, and final EIS 1997; also Alliance to Save the Mattaponi, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al ., United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, Case 1:06-cv-01268-HHK Document 88