Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCPA200800001 Legacy Document 2008-09-30COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 2008-01, Water Supply Planning Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and act on final draft amendments to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets and the Land Use sections of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the approved community water supply plan. STAFF CONTACT(S): David Benish NO AGENDA DATE: October 7, 2008 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES BACKGROUND: The Water Resources component of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section of the Comprehensive Plan, which was originally adopted in 1999, contains substantial discussion regarding surface drinking water sources, watershed management planning, water conservation, and analysis of alternative water supplies. The Utilities components of the Land Use Plan, which was originally adopted in 1996 contains information regarding the yield of existing surface drinking water sources, estimated future demand for water, and also discusses future water supply alternatives. Since the adoption of these sections of the Comprehensive Plan, numerous studies have been completed regarding water use, yield, and demand in preparation of a water supply plan for the Urban Service Area. In addition, significant effort has been expended to analyze and select an alternative to increase the amount of water available through a 50 year planning period — through 2055. Changes in these sections of the Comprehensive Plan are necessary to reflect new studies and community decisions regarding needed water supply for the urban service area, new state requirements for County -wide water supply planning, and new County initiatives that relate to drought response. Text amendments are also necessary to eliminate redundancies between the two sections and provide a streamlined discussion of watershed management and water supply planning. The draft amendment was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission in a work session on July 22, 2008 and at a public hearing on September 16, 2008. DISCUSSION: Following the public hearing on September 16th, the Commission identified additional changes to the text. The following was provided to staff: Water supply planning for the Rural Areas not well is defined in the sections proposed for amendment. Provide for a more county -wide perspective on water supply planning and water conservation discussion. Staff has made several changes to this draft, particularly to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets — Water Resources section of the Plan, specifically the Comprehensive Water Supply Planning section. The Water Conservation/Drought response discussion has been moved from the Utilities Section of the Plan to this section and the discussion expanded to include an Objective and several strategies more reflective of the broader, county -wide purpose of water supply planning and water conservation efforts. The previously reviewed amendment language is in underlined type. The new changes in this draft are in blue underlined type. Regarding some of the Commissioner's request to provide for more specific water resource planning and strategies for the Rural Areas, it should be noted that the primary purpose of this amendment is to update information in the Plan regarding public water supply planning. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that public service not be provided to the Rural Areas, and that uses in the Rural Areas need to rely on private systems (well and septic systems) for water and sanitary service. The plan currently contains an extensive section on groundwater protection, which staff has provided for your information as Attachment B. Potential changes to the Water Resources section of the Plan related to Rural Areas water supply planning will be reviewed with the more comprehensive update of the Natural Resources section of the Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached amendments (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A -- Amendments to Natural Resources and Cultural Assets and Utilities sections, Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENT B — Groundwater sections of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets portion of the Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENT A This is an excerpt from the Albemarle County Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan — Water Resources section pages 39-49, within the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan STAFF NOTE: Amendment language previously reviewed by the Commission is in underlined type. Proposed new language is in blue and underlined type. Watershed Management Planning Surface water supply protection has been a special concern in Albemarle County since 1972 when the City and County adopted a joint resolution forming the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. In November 1973, the Authority appointed an advisory committee to study the reservoir pollution problem. In 1975 a study of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was undertaken by Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc. for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. This study recommended the implementation of a comprehensive watershed management plan that included reservoir management, water treatment modifications, point and non -point source controls, and routine watershed monitoring. Since that time the County has taken numerous proactive steps to protect water quality through land use management, which are bulleted below: • 1977 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a Runoff Control Ordinance applicable in all water supply impoundment watersheds (see Map 2 — 3: Water Supply Watersheds). The purpose of this ordinance was to protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of the public drinking water supply impoundments resulting from land development in the watershed areas ■ 1978 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors rezoned all publicly owned properties except school sites within water supply watersheds to a conservation district designation. ■ 1979 South Rivanna Reservoir Watershed Management Plan was prepared by F. X. Browne and Associates, Inc. and the Watershed Management Plan Committee. ■ 1980 amendments to the 1977 Comprehensive Plan removed all land from the Urban Area also located in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. ■ 1980 comprehensive rezoning of the County placed major limitations on development in the Rural Areas. Special use permit criteria addressed proposed developments located within water supply watersheds ■ 1982 revisions to the Comprehensive Plan removed watershed properties from Growth Areas in Crozet, Scottsville, Earlysville, and Ivy, These properties, containing over 1,000 acres, were rezoned to Rural Areas the following year. Crozet and Ivy, both located entirely in water supply watersheds, were scaled back in size. ■ 1982 Section 208 Watershed Management Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir was completed by F. X. Browne and Associates, Inc. The study concluded that the watershed plan developed in 1977 and refined in 1979 was still valid and should be fully implemented. ■ 1988 Crozet Sewer interceptor goes on-line to alleviate point source discharges and failing septic systems. ■ 1993 Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Basin completed in Crozet to alleviate impacts from nonpoint source discharges from the Crozet Community. ■ 1998 Water Protection Ordinance adopted, which consolidated and streamlined the existing stormwater, erosion and sediment, and stream buffer ordinances. These changes included strengthening the stream buffer requirements, updating stormwater removal criteria, and strengthening the relationship of water quality protection in relation to land use issues. ■ 2007 Water Protection Ordinance amended to include the watershed of the North Fork Rivanna River public water supply intake in the definition of "water supply protection areas" to which extended the requirement of stream buffers to all intermittent streams in that watershed. ■ 2008 Water Protection Ordinance amended to expand the stream buffer requirements to all intermittent streams in the Rural Areas, providing the entire Rural Areas the same protection previously afforded only to specific water supply protection areas. The 2008 amendments also clarified the ability for development projects to impact buffers with stream crossing set specific design criteria for those crossings. Comprehensive Water Supply Planning In 2003 the code of Virginia was amended to require the development of a comprehensive statewide planning process. As part of this requirement, localities are required to submit water supply plan either independently or as part of a region to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ will review all local and regional plans and localities will need to review their plans every five years to assess adequacy. Albemarle County elected to join the City of Charlottesville and the Town of Scottsville to develop a regional planand each locality passed a resolution in MU 2006 authorizing the Rivanna Water and Sewer authority to develop the regionalplan, which is due to DEQ in November 2011. Required elements of the plan include a detailed description of all existing water sources and all existing water use for the entire locality, including both public systems and individual private wells. The plan requires an assessment of the project ted water demand and future need for the entire locality and an analysis of potential alternatives for identified deficits. The plan must also include a description of the condition of all existing water resources, a description of any water management actions, a copy of any relevant plans or ordinances, a resolution approving the plan from each locality is is party to the plan, and proof of a local public hearing_ Some of the required plan elements have already been completed during the water supply planning process for the Urban Service Area, and are discussed in the Utilities component of the County's Land Use Plan. Analysis of the remainder of the County, including Beaver Creek and Totier Creek Reservoirs, the County's numerous community wells, and the segment of the County served by private wells is underway to complete the plan by the 2011 deadline. Water Conservation/Drought Response OBJECTIVE: Support water conservation and use -efficiency measures to minimize impacts to water resource systems and the environment and to prolong the life of existing and future water supplies. Water conservation and use efficiency are important overall objectives for water resources management in the County and the region, for both users of public water and for private groundwater derived systems. Water conservation and efficiency measures have the potential to prolong the life of existing and future water supplies in both the Development Area and Rural Areas, which is important for economic, ecological, and ethical reasons. The Albemarle County Service Authority provides guidance for conserving water in homes and businesses, offers conservation kits that contain water saving devices such as aerators and low -flow showerheads and offers rebates to customers for replacing pre -1992 toilets with new low -flow toilets. Water conservation tips are posted in all County buildings in all bathrooms, and the bathrooms are equipped with either push activated metered faucets or sensor activated faucets and waterless hand soap. On a broader scale, the Coulgy anticipates addressing water conservation and efficiency as part of its Environmental Management System, which is a set of processes and practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating efficiency_ In 2004 a Rivanna Regional DroughtRes_ponse Committee was formed to work cooperatively to provide a coordinated response to drought in the community. Members of the Committee include staff representing the County, the City, RWSA, and ACSA. The Committee developed a Drought Response and Contingency Plan to define a method for predicting and identifyingdroug_ht conditions and specify droughtstages that correspond to Virginia's Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulations. The plan identifies appropriate use restrictions for each drought stage, and clearly defines the process of public notification and information dissemination. Drought stages are derived from the use of software that analyzes statistical probabilities as to the rate at which the water supply levels would diminish, using the historical period of record, current operating procedures, and existing water demand projections. The software model currently utilizes stream flow as an indicator of stress or reservoir levels. Stream flow and rain gage data can be graphed to clearly depict past drought cycles. Staff analysis of County monitoring wells has also shown a direct correlation of groundwater levels to this stream and rain gage data. At this time the County does not possess sufficient well monitoring data to predict drought, but it is clear that the water depth in the wells represents in real time the cumulative recharge that drives the drought cycle. It will be important for the County to continue acquiring additional well monitoring data so that a more complete picture of hydrologic conditions can be utilized when predicting and managing drought conditions. Ultimately, water conservation and use efficiency must be viewed as an issue of community -wide impact. As stated, the need for a conservation program is imminent for users of the public system. Users of public water should realize that their consumption (or over -consumption) ieopardizes natural stream flow in the headwater streams that feed the reservoirs. Withdrawals for water supply conflict with other human or ecological uses supplied by the natural flow of a stream or river. On the other hand, rural residents in the water supply watersheds must understand that proper stewardship of the land is needed to protect the reservoirs and their tributaries upon which the public system users depend. Furthermore, residents of all of Albemarle's rural areas cannot ignore water conservation for their own groundwater -derived systems. Prudent use of well water during the summer months will not only prevent household water shortages but will also help sustain stream flow in the County's rural streams and springs. Thus the need for a cleansafe and sufficient water supply binds together urban, suburban, and rural residents of the County. Strategies: • Promote the concent of water conservation as a community -wide issue. • Continue to initiate proactive measures to encourage community -wide water conservation and use efficiency through multi -agency programs • Support the Albemarle County Service Authority, City of Charlottesville, and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority water conservation and efficiency efforts. Implement recommended measures that require County action through regulatory or non -regulatory programs. • Continue efforts to implement and enhance water conservation and use - efficiency measures at existing and new County -owned buildings and facilities. • Continue participation in the Rivanna Regional Drought Response Committee, and implement Drought Response and Contingency Plan in cooperation with the City, RWSA, and the ACSA. Promote the collection and inclusion of groundwater data in water conservation planning and drought response. ALbevvorLc cokv�,td Covvtprehevl.sLvc T>Lon Map 2 — 3: Water Supply Watershed f 10 Ell 4 MR ,6 -ij j, M Jt� R3 N G �t�zv I 141rr" I - m 17 RT BOIL I., IV E S T. 7 o 2 > 41. V j rk- v A f r2 d • 11 A Ty1c • x A .'y N -qARDEN L WATER SUPPLY V i. Y WATERSHEDS V. I x DESIGNATED WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR L 2 SUCH HOLLOW RESERVOIR 5 V 3 BEAVER CREEK RESERVOIR L J RAGGED MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR TOWN OF J p:iTOTIER SCOrrSVILLC 5 CREEK RESERVOIR MAREnfl)'.' DErARnfFNTOF r1.4NMNG AND COA1XW1Tn'VEVEj.OrA(ENT FICF OFAIAMING. GRAI'MrS AND INFOITAIIATION RESOURCES (00AfGAM) - L05 �6 CHRIS GREENE LAKE 24 Index Al.p NumberInt-st.l. 1118h..y S ­01—y R..ds 29 U.S. Ifigh—Y • RIVER INTAKE WATERSHED 51-mv VA. Primitry 111ghway 7 NORTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER C..nty B.—d-y VA. S,co"d.ry IfiAhw.y Incorc-led Town or City ­.d.ry• BUCK 111010 COUIIIY Lt. 0 1 2 3 4 "Its SOURCES: 0 7 3 1 _6 6— ntco-orns USGS 1 :50.000 County Map - 1991 David Hirschman, Watershed Managem, County of Albemarle, DepL. or Engineerime - 1997 This is proposed revision to the Albemarle County Land Use Plan — Utilities section pages 116-123, within the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Water Service to the Development Areas The geology of Albemarle County makes it necessary to rely on surface water sources for sizeable water supply. All existing water supply facilities are operated by the RWSA. The RWSA Urban Service Area includes the Development Areas Neighborhoods 1-7 Hollymead Piney Mountain and Rivanna. In addition, the Urban Service area also encompasses the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. The RWSA Urban Service Area is sup lip ed by finished water from the following three water treatment plants (WTP): : (1) South Rivanna WTP, (2) Observatory WTP and (3) North Fork Rivanna WTP. These water treatment plants receive raw water from four reservoirs and one river intake. The South Rivanna WTP is served by the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Water from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir can be released into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir via the Moormans River, a tributary to the South Fork Rivanna River. The Observatory WTP is supplied by water from the Upper and Lower Ragged Mountain Reservoirs via an 18 -inch diameter pipeline and from Sugar Hollow Reservoir via another 18 -inch diameter pipeline. Excess water from Sugar Hollow Reservoir can also be transferred to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. The North Fork Rivanna WTP treats water pumped from an intake on the North Fork Rivanna River. The towns of Crozet and Scottsville are not a part of the Urban Service Area but are still served by reservoirs and facilities managed by RWSA. The Beaver Creek Reservoir serves as the source of water for the Town of Crozet, and the water from the Reservoir is treated at the nearby Crozet Water Plant. The Town of Scottsville is served by the Totier Creek Reservoir, where water is treated at the Scottsville Water Plant. Future Water Demand Urban Service Area — The safe yield available from the RWSA Urban Service Area source water system is diminishing with time due to the significant loss of storage capacity from its primary source, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Since the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was constructed in 1966 approximately 40 percent of the total reservoir storage has been lost due to sedimentation. Projected water demand for a 50 -year planning horizon (2055) is 18.7 mgd which will exceed the system's safe yield. In planning for the provision of additional water supply within the Urban Service Area RWSA in coordination with Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the Albemarle County Service Authority explored 32 possible alternatives, then narrowed those alternatives using federal and state environmental impact criteria to a final four alternatives. The four alternatives included a short bladder on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Dam, dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, a new intake and pipeline from the James River, and a new dam at Ragged Mountain. After significant public input it was determined that an expansion project of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir and the construction of a pipeline between South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and Ragged Mountain Reservoir was the least environmentallyging practicable alternative available for expanding the water supply to the Urban Service Area. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors voted to endorse this plan for the Urban Service Area at the June 7 2006 regular Board meeting. Numerous studies and reports have been completed that fully document demand analysis safe yield of the existing resources, and alternatives analysis and selection. These studies are listed below and include as appendices other historical studies. The suite of documents is housed at RWSA and should be referenced for detailed information. • Safe Yield StudX, Gannett Fleming, January 2004 • DemandAnalysisfor the Urban Service Area, Gannett Fleming Ma2004 • Safe Yield Study Supplement No.1, Gannett Fleming, July 2004 • Joint Permit Application, Gannett Fleming and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. June 2006 • Permit Support Document, Gannett Fleming and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. May 2006 • Conceptual Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. December 2006 The long term viability of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as not only a water supply, but also as an important recreational and natural resource continues to be of paramount concern to the County. In June 2008 the County endorsed a separate cooperative study with the City of Charlottesville and RWSA to study the merits of maintenance dredging siltation prevention and other appropriate initiatives to protect and enhance the aquatic health and water quality of the reservoir as a long-term resource for the community. For both Crozet and Scottsville the projected average daily demand for a 30 -year planning horizon (2035) is within each system's safe yield and no expansion to these systems is projected The following studies have been performed, are also housed at RWSA, and should be referred to for more detailed information: • Beaver Creek Reservoir Safe Yield Study, Gannett Fleming June 2008 • Totier Creek Reservoir Safe Yield Study. Gannett Fleming, June 2008 Recommendations ■ Support construction of Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion and connecting_ pipeline from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir ■ Support and participate in evaluating the need and feasibility for maintenance dredgingof f the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to preserve its integrity as a water supply and a recreational resource. ■ Continue to initiate proactive measures to encourage community -wide water conservation and use efficiency through multi -agency programs (see Water Supply Plannitm p. xx, in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section of the Comprehensive Plan). MAP I: COMMUNITY UTILITIES Staff Note: An updated graphic will be provided MAP 1: COMMUNITY UTILITIES Community Utilities MAP I IfIlT , P On mif,� C •e T cat"volp TAKE AR HOLLQ(* W NOR RIVA A P f 1EAV P CREEK, Vol" % RAGGED HT IN, J, 11 MM 6 L R N % p VT TOT CREAK' :.fCOTTIVILLE A04 RESERVOIR RIVER INTAKE WATER STORAGE TANK WATER TREATMENT PLANT --RAW WATER LINE -MAJOR WATER MAIN ...... SEWER INTERCEPTOR A WA9TZ WATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) 118 Attachment B Groundwater OBJECTIVE: Protect the availability and quality of groundwater resources. Groundwater Use in Albemarle County Groundwater protection is important in Albemarle County due to the dependence of a large and growing Rural Area population that relies on this source for its water needs. While all of Albemarle County's major public water supplies are surface water sources, approximately 12,600 households in the County (43% of all County households) rely on private, individual wells, and many other County residents rely on water from small, private, groundwater -dependent water systems. Many businesses, industries, schools, and recreational and cultural sites also utilize groundwater for water supply. Whether the use is residential, commercial, industrial, or recreational, groundwater -dependent systems must be protected. Once a supply is lost through over -pumping or contamination, replacement of the supply is usually very costly, and is even infeasible in some cases. A major concern to the County is that groundwater quantity or quality problems may occur in the Rural Areas, where no extension of public utilities are planned or are not economically feasible to provide. In addition, groundwater supplies "recharge" surface streams. Polluted groundwater can become polluted surface water. For these reasons, groundwater has become a resource of increasing importance in Albemarle County, especially as an expanding population in the rural areas is dependent upon and can adversely impact the quantity and quality of groundwater. Planning and Authority for Groundwater Protection Groundwater protection is expressly included as an element and purpose of comprehensive plans in Sections #15.2-2224 and 2225 of the Code of Virginia, and zoning ordinances in Section 15.2- 2283. In addition, Section 32.1-176.5B allows Albemarle to require testing of water quality prior to issuance of a building permit. Protection of groundwater is currently provided for under the 1973 Virginia Groundwater Act. The main purpose of this law (Code of Virginia Sections 62.1-44.83 - 44.187) is to preserve the quantity of groundwater available for use. It allows the State Water Control Board to designate special areas for the management of groundwater supplies. (The Eastern Shore and the southeastern Tidewater area are currently designated.) Groundwater is also protected under the Virginia Water Control Law (Code of Virginia Sections 62.1-44.2 - 44-34:7). This law creates an anti -degradation policy which protects existing high-quality state waters (both ground and surface waters) and restores other state waters to a quality sufficient for all reasonable public uses. A County effort to protect groundwater can employ a series of tools, in order of priority for implementation as listed below: 1. Information gathering on the nature of the resource and how to best plan the location and amount of development that is dependent on groundwater. 2. Education and outreach for voluntary action to prevent the depletion and degradation of groundwater. 52 3. Regulatory measures through zoning and other ordinances to protect wellheads and ensure adequate groundwater quantity and quality. In 1990, the County developed the Groundwater Protection Study to provide a framework for a County groundwater program. (See Groundwater Protection Study on page 64). The Water Resources Committee evaluated and updated this study in 1993, and made recommendations regarding implementation. One of the suggested implementation measures, a pilot groundwater study, was conducted in the North Fork/South Fork Hardware River Watershed in 1993-94. Additional recommendations resulting from that study were very similar to those set forth earlier by the Water Resources Committee. Using procedures from the pilot study, a County -wide program of household water quality education, including voluntary testing and diagnosis of 497 wells, was conducted during the summer of 1995. When the Groundwater Protection Study was adopted in 1990, responsibility for program implementation was assigned to the Water Resources Manager. This position is responsible for County -wide watershed programs, stormwater management, implementation of the County's stream buffer program, and responding to citizen complaints and concerns regarding water quality. The implementation of the groundwater program envisioned in this Comprehensive Plan will require additional staff resources to accomplish the task. Strategy: Provide adequate staff resources to implement the groundwater program. Strategy: Create a groundwater subcommittee of the Water Resources Committee to implement strategies identified in this Plan. Hydrogeologic Setting Hydrologic Cycle Precipitation is the source of groundwater in Albemarle County. The average annual precipitation at Charlottesville is 45 inches, of which about 30 inches returns to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration, 10 inches becomes surface runoff and 5 inches recharges the groundwater. Over a number of years, the groundwater gain balances with the groundwater lost to wells and inflow to streams or springs. But when winter precipitation is below normal, or summer drought conditions occur, shortages may occur in the warmer months when increased evapotranspiration and inflow to streams cause the groundwater levels to fall. 53 Map 2 — 4: Groundwater Department of Planning and Community Qevel.opmr.M • 4fffne. Of ManPlrtX. Grxip3tsrs and information i2msourseS WQMCnl;fi 54 ALBEMARICOUNTY, VlIR I I mfr, GROUNDWATER `: a:... i : �•••• Province Boundary Triassk Basin Areas .': :.;Y"mWYv Qtr ST?tNTES � =Ksirri°i'sviia.$ - YHY- tfifHtiVHi T9Vjvltgq U YIA$i Xis. <s f'tltHE Y a, t'r'il£ 1 C STRaT£RY Ti>A tX6twts 4 A 'Iirt, I Xt.ANit p. 1§ 14 NRA TEEtWawAt£R Vfit�ik4f laN Sli&qtt< ioaM TAEi ; f ;l��xzY �r gA��e j a M'MD -IE. Aw ly Rf A4REG aY YfRvfHfA K,AYCX CLW 1W.k BQiHl,. --wi{y� '�_'fi"aae CRifiY+a� ��i£m P%�HfM. T9N5 3RAxAR yYRiYMYY Triassic Basin Department of Planning and Community Qevel.opmr.M • 4fffne. Of ManPlrtX. Grxip3tsrs and information i2msourseS WQMCnl;fi 54 Geology Albemarle County consists primarily of metamorphic and igneous rocks overlain by a "regolith" layer composed of soil, saprolite or weathered bedrock, and alluvium from streams. Groundwater is stored in the pore spaces of the regolith and in fractures of the underlying bedrock. Fractures are the usual source of well water, since most wells are cased to the depth of bedrock to prevent surface contamination. Fractures decrease with depth, and most occur within one hundred feet of the top of the bedrock. The greater the number of fractures in the rock aquifer penetrated by the well, the greater the well yield. The occurrence of groundwater resources is related to the physiographic provinces (regions of similar geological structure and climate with characteristic sets of land forms). Albemarle is located within two such provinces, the Piedmont Province and the Blue Ridge Province (see Map 2 — 4: Groundwater). The Piedmont Province includes approximately that portion of the County east of a line through Batesville, Crozet and Free Union. The area to the west is in the Blue Ridge Province. Piedmont Province The regolith in the Piedmont Province averages fifty feet in depth but may be as much as one hundred feet deep on upland flats. Well yields generally range from 3-30 gallons per minute, although many yields are below 3 gpm. There are two areas of sedimentary rocks located in the Piedmont area of Albemarle. The larger area is located west of Scottsville, and a small area is located near the Orange County line. Beds of sandstone and conglomerate in these Triassic basins provide fair to moderately good aquifers. The yield of wells in sedimentary rocks generally increase with depth. The quality of groundwater in the Piedmont is affected by the chemical composition of the regolith and bedrock, and by man-made contamination. Groundwater from crystalline rocks is generally softer, more acidic and lower in dissolved solids than water from sedimentary rocks. Deep wells in sedimentary rocks may have excessive dissolved solids (especially sulfates). Problems with iron and manganese, staining and taste, occur in sedimentary and dark -colored crystalline rocks. Acidic water is common in the Piedmont Province, and can corrode copper water lines. Nitrates in low concentrations occur naturally in groundwater, but higher levels indicate contamination from fertilizer, animal waste or septic tanks. Blue Ridge Province In the Blue Ridge Province, well yields are generally lower (less than 20 GPM) than the Piedmont Province. The most favorable areas for groundwater accumulation are the lower slopes of the mountains where runoff is abundant. Water quality is good due to the relatively insoluble rocks. Iron content is high in some areas. Potential for man-made contamination is high, due to the shallow depth of the regolith. 55 Groundwater Sources Private, Individual Water Supplies As noted earlier, approximately 43% of Albemarle's 29,307 households (approximately 12,600 households) utilize private, individual water supplies for household water. This makes private, individual supplies the most widely used groundwater source in the County, and one that is critical to protect for the health and welfare of the rural areas population. The following private, individual supplies are used in Albemarle County: 1) Drilled Wells: Drilled wells constitute the large majority (approximately 88%) of private, individual supplies in use in the County. Drilled wells are usually drilled down through the bedrock and utilize water from fractures in crystalline rock (in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces). For this reason, drilled wells are less vulnerable to surface contamination than either bored or dug wells (see below). Most drilled wells in the Piedmont are between 100 and 350 feet deep, and yield 1 to 20 gallons per minute (although higher yields are possible). Well yield is dependent on site-specific factors, such as terrain and fracture density, and on regional factors, such as bedrock and surficial geology and regional flow pathways. 2) Bored and Dug Wells: Bored wells (approximately 6% of individual supplies) usually penetrate to or just below the bedrock/saprolite interface (most are 30 to 100 feet deep), and utilize water from near -surface aquifers, often in the saprolite. Dug wells also utilize these near -surface sources. For this reason, bored and dug wells are much more susceptible to surface influence than drilled wells. Correspondingly, the likelihood of bacteria, nitrate, petroleum, or other contamination is higher in bored and dug wells. Yields in these shallow wells are often higher than those for drilled wells. 3) Springs: Some households (approximately 5% of individual supplies) utilize springs for drinking water. Springs appear in places where the water table intersects the land surface, particularly near the bottom of valley side -slopes. In many cases, there is a direct connection between surface water and springs. Therefore, springs are easily contaminated with sediment, bacteria, and any chemical used near the springhead. 4) Other: Cisterns, Surface Water: A small number of households (approximately 1 % of individual supplies) may utilize other types of water supplies, including cisterns. These supplies are probably not reliable from either a water quantity or quality point -of -view. Once a private, individual supply receives a permit from the Virginia Department of Health and is constructed, there is no governmental oversight over the management of the system. This makes private, individual systems the most decentralized and least regulated water supply resource in the County. For this reason, the owners and users of these systems should understand and exercise the stewardship principles necessary to protect their own water supply and those of their neighbors and communities. (See Groundwater Education on page 69). Strategy: Facilitate and fund programs for the testing of private, individual water supplies. 56 Groundwater Contamination OBJECTIVE: Protect groundwater quality through prevention of contamination. Types of Groundwater Contamination Water quality constituents in groundwater can be grouped according to: (a) those that are natural by-products of geology and soils versus those that are introduced by human activities (septic, animal waste, etc.), and (b) those that pose potential human health problems versus those that are "nuisance" problems (taste, odor, color, and/or staining problems). The following matrix (Table 2 — 3: Types of Groundwater Contamination) categorizes the most common water quality constituents based on these considerations. Human Health Nuisance Concern Table 2 — 3: Types of Groundwater Contamination Natural By -Product of Geology & Soils • pH (if metals, such as copper and lead, are leached from household plumbing by corrosive water) • Iron, Manganese, Hardness, Sulfate, Total Dissolved Solids, pH, Fluoride, Corrosive Water Introduced by Human Activities' • Sodium (can be introduced by water softeners) • Copper (can be leached from plumbing by corrosive water) • Nitrate # >1 mg/L (septic, animal waste, fertilizers) • Total Coliform Bacteria (may indicate surface influence on well) • E. Coli Bacteria (septic, animal waste) • Pesticides (agricultural and yard use) • Other Organic Compounds (especially petroleum derivatives, such as benzene and toluene, from underground tanks and spills) • Chloride (septic, road salts, fertilizer, industry, animal waste) 60 Groundwater Protection Strategy: Sources of Contamination Groundwater Protection Strategy for Virginia, published in May 1987, was prepared under a grant from Environmental Protection Agency by the Groundwater Protection Steering Committee (comprised of state agency representatives). Among the recommendations of the report were an increased role for local governments, emphasis on public education, improved data collection, new enabling legislation, and strengthening of regulations. The report assigned top priority to five potential sources of groundwater contamination: underground fuel storage tanks, landfills, waste lagoons, septic systems, and pesticides and fertilizers. The relative importance of these sources of contamination in Albemarle County is discussed below: 1. Septic Systems: Septic systems are by far the most ubiquitous potential pollutant source, since approximately half of the County's households utilize this method of wastewater treatment and disposal. This also makes septic systems a large source of recharge to groundwater and surface water. The main pollutants of concern from septic systems are bacteria and nitrates. Springs and shallow wells used for drinking water are the most vulnerable to septic contamination. The results from the Cooperative Extension water testing conducted in 1995 revealed that, of the 497 water sources tested, 38% of the springs and 19% of the shallow wells had positive E. coli results, while positive results were obtained for only 4% of deep wells. E. coli is an indicator of bacteriological contamination, and the likely source of most of these positive results is septic systems. The state's Groundwater Protection Strategy recommends that the State Health Department and Virginia Water Control Board (now DEQ) consider strengthening domestic sewage regulations. Albemarle County has, in the past, supplemented state regulations with additional area, slope, and setback requirements for septic systems. The County also has the authority to adopt additional regulations concerning minimal depth to rock, depth to water table, and other design considerations, but has not adopted any of these measures. 2. Underground Storage Tanks: Underground storage tanks are also widespread across the County. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has a registration and leak detection program for regulated storage tanks, which include commercial tanks greater than 110 gallons and agricultural/residential tanks greater than 1100 gallons used to store motor fuel. At present, there are approximately 340 registered tanks in Albemarle County. Primarily, these are used by gas stations; convenience stores; schools, commercial, industrial, and office facilities; farms; fire stations and rescue squads; and some residences. DEQ also has a program for the remediation of underground storage tanks that are confirmed to be leaking (leaking underground storage tanks, or LUSTS). At present, there are approximately 50 open LUST cases in Albemarle County that DEQ is investigating, 30 of which are potentially impacting surface water or groundwater supplies. In several of these cases, contamination of nearby water supplies has been confirmed, requiring extensive mitigation measures. 61 The vast majority of tanks in the County, however, are home fuel oil tanks, and these are unregulated by DEQ. Results from the Pilot Groundwater Study indicated that 57% of respondents have a fuel oil tank at the residence, and many of these are underground tanks. In the Cooperative Extension study, 11 % of participants reported that there was a home fuel oil tank within 100 feet of their well. Using the assumption that 50% of Rural Area households have a fuel oil storage tank, there are approximately 8,000 regulated and unregulated tanks in areas of the County where wells, and therefore groundwater, are the primary source of water supply. 3. Pesticides and Fertilizers: Pesticides and fertilizers are in wide use in Albemarle County for both agricultural and residential uses. Fertilizer runoff is a source of nutrients to local reservoirs and streams. Public education is critical to promote proper pesticide and fertilizer use and reduction. Agricultural outreach and cost -share programs -- such as those conducted by Virginia Cooperative Extension, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service -- are critical services to manage pesticide and fertilizer runoff from agricultural operations. Many of these programs include pesticide and nutrient management plans. While lawn and farm chemicals are in wide use, the County's soil and hydrogeology, characteristic of the Piedmont, may provide a degree of protection from groundwater contamination not afforded other communities, especially those in the Coastal Plain and Shenandoah Valley. The 1995 Cooperative Extension study included follow-up analysis of pesticides in "high-risk" wells (those having contamination in the first round of testing and/or proximate to orchards, crop land, and golf courses). The great majority of results were below laboratory detection limits, and none of the results exceeded EPA Health Advisory or Maximum Contaminant Levels. While pesticide contamination of groundwater cannot be ruled out, it may be that in Albemarle County, these contaminants are more readily reaching surface waters through runoff and near -surface flow than they are recharging groundwater. 4. Landfills and Waste Lagoons: There are far fewer landfills and waste lagoons than the other sources of contamination discussed above. However, each facility may have a proportionately greater impact on surrounding groundwater sources and groundwater recharge to streams. At present, there is one active landfill, the Ivy Landfill (which scheduled to stop accepting municipal solid waste in July of 1998), and one inactive landfill, the Keene Landfill. Both are regulated by DEQ and have a network of monitoring wells that must be maintained through closure and post -closure periods. There are a small number of industrial waste lagoons in the County that do not discharge to surface water. These are either pumped out and the effluent treated at a wastewater treatment plant, or are reuse/recycle systems where the effluent is reused in the industrial process (closed-loop systems). These types of facilities are required to have a Virginia Pollutant Abatement (VPA) Permit from DEQ. 62 Landfills and waste lagoons have both been cited for known groundwater contamination incidents. In these instances, DEQ must work with the responsible party through consent orders and other regulatory mechanisms to ensure proper clean-up. In most cases, this type of clean-up takes decades to fully accomplish. In addition to septic systems, pesticides, and fertilizers, other sources of contamination from individual households include: chemicals used in termite control, cleaning products, paint, and automotive products. Because it is difficult to monitor the disposal of these products, public education is critical regarding individual responsibility for clean groundwater. Albemarle County has one Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site located at the former Greenwood Chemical Company near Newtown. EPA has removed the contaminated soil and is now developing a plan for treating contaminated groundwater. There is one common denominator for each source of groundwater contamination discussed in this section: Groundwater pollution is difficult and expensive to detect and remove. The most economical and effective groundwater protection strategy is the prevention of contamination. Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability One method of preventing groundwater contamination is to map those areas with increased vulnerability to contamination based on soils, geology, land uses, and other factors. These types of maps can be used when making land use decisions and for site designs to minimize the opportunities for groundwater contamination. One technique to perform this type of mapping is the DRASTIC system, which has been used by the Environmental Protection Agency, Virginia Water Project, and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). TJPDC has produced DRASTIC maps for Louisa and Nelson counties. While DRASTIC is known to have some shortcomings with regard to data availability and data analysis, other similar techniques are available or could be developed. This effort would overlap with the mapping of surficial and bedrock geology and other hydrogeologic features (see section on Hydrogeological and Water Quality Testing). Strategy: Seek an effective way to collect, store and use groundwater contamination source information. The County should work with the Division of Mineral Resources, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Department of Environmental Quality, and University of Virginia to identify and map existing and potential sources of groundwater pollution. The County's evolving geographic information system should be utilized. Management objectives should be developed. Strategy: Conduct groundwater vulnerability mapping in coordination with other hydrogeologic mapping and wellhead protection efforts. 63 Strategy: Conduct a study of possible shortcomings of current state septic regulations to protect groundwater and any necessary improvements to current design criteria. Implement additional non -regulatory and/or regulatory measures needed to adequately protect groundwater from septic systems, such as septic system maintenance and homeowner education. Strategy: Assemble relevant local, regional, state and federal agencies for a groundwater summit. The purpose would be to improve coordination and facilitate information sharing. Strategy: Ensure that the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) investigations and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Superfund projects are coordinated with Virginia Department of Health activities in granting well and septic permits, and with County efforts for groundwater planning and management. Additional information regarding community water supplies and local pollution sources may be found at http://epa.gov/enviro/html/ef home.html and http://www.scorecard.org. Groundwater Protection Study Water Resources Committee Update The Groundivater Protection Study for Albemarle County was developed by the Department of Planning and Community Development. The Board of Supervisors accepted the report in principle June 13, 1990, and assigned program implementation to the Watershed Management Official, now the Water Resources Manager. In 1993, the Board of Supervisors requested an update on implementation of the study from the Water Resources Committee. The original study contained 20 recommendations for addressing groundwater issues in Albemarle County. Of the 20 original recommendations, the Committee gave highest priority to maintaining a pollution source data base and developing a public education and voluntary action program. Maintaining water quality testing data in a database was also rated high, but it is dependent on a water quality testing requirement which has not yet been implemented. The Committee's evaluation identified the following high priority actions consistent with the Groundwater Protection Study recommendations: 1. Tackle coordination of groundwater information and data analysis and public outreach on a scale smaller than the whole County. Procedures developed for this pilot area could subsequently be applied to other areas of the County, and, ultimately, County -wide. 2. Educate the public and homeowners about responsible stewardship of groundwater resources. 3. Continue coordination by the Water Resources Manager, the Planning Department, and 64 other relevant agencies of groundwater and surface water activities. 4. Continue to develop a quality comprehensive database of groundwater information, witli evolution towards a geographic information system (GIS). 5. Offer voluntary well testing programs. An initial program could be offered as part of the pilot area project. 6. Assemble relevant local, regional, state, and federal agencies for an Albemarle County groundwater summit to improve coordination and facilitate information sharing. 7. Continue activities of the Water Resources Committee to study groundwater issues, oversee a pilot watershed project, and advise the Board of Supervisors on continued implementation of the Groundiavater Protection Study's recommendations. All of these high priority actions are reflected in the strategies listed in this Plan. Strategy: The Groundwater Subcommittee of the Water Resources Committee should develop an action plan to reflect current priorities and to implement the recommendations of the Groundwater Protection Study. North Fork/South Fork Hardware River Watershed Pilot Groundwater Study The Water Resources Committee recommended a pilot groundwater study to develop procedures for data collection and analysis that could later apply to a County -wide program, and to provide information for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. The North Fork/South Fork Watershed was selected because the watershed is entirely dependent on groundwater for drinking water supplies, and the watershed contains the former Village of North Garden where groundwater availability had been an issue identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The pilot study identified private water systems that provided representation across natural and cultural variables, such as geology, land use density, and well construction type and age. Ninety private water systems were tested, and a survey administered to the users of the systems. This was done to determine if water quality and quantity results could be related to the variables, and if any spatial patterns emerged. The most widespread water quality problem evident from both the user survey and laboratory results was low pH, or acidic water, which is very common for well water across the Piedmont. Positive total coliform and nitrate -nitrogen levels in excess of 1 milligram per liter were each present in 24% of raw water (untreated) samples. (Note: the EPA has set a maximum level of 10 mg/L of nitrate for public water supplies. Levels in excess of 1 mg/L are higher than would normally be found in groundwater.) The most important factors influencing positive results were the age and construction of the water system. Older systems, springs, and bored and dug wells (which tend to be shallower than drilled wells) are more susceptible to water quality problems. About 20-25% of well users are knowledgeable about how their water systems work, and are aware of potential contamination and /or low flow problems. The remainder would benefit from education about the stewardship practices necessary to protect their own water supplies and those of their neighbors and communities. 65 An issue raised by the survey which has the potential to be a serious concern for groundwater users is that 57% of respondents reported having an underground or above ground storage tank for home fuel oil, gasoline, or other materials. Resident testing for hydrocarbons was nearly nonexistent. Almost nothing is known about the extent of damage these tanks, particularly underground tanks, may be causing to well water. Recommendations developed from the pilot study are. 1. Conduct regional hydrogeological studies for areas where extensive water supply development is anticipated or possible, and no public utilities are foreseeable. A regional study could include geologic mapping, additional resident surveys, and pump testing of selected wells. 2. Prescribe policy guidelines for on-site hydrogeologic testing when needed to verify a suitable water supply for development proposals. 3. Pursue voluntary well testing programs as an educational tool for groundwater users, and to facilitate the collection of data. Support the Virginia Cooperative Extension Household Water Quality Testing program planned for the spring/summer of 1995. 4. Develop educational programs for groundwater users that address specific information needs highlighted by this study. 5. Seek an effective way to collect, store and use groundwater data. Coordinate with the Health Department. Utilize the County's evolving geographic information system (GIS). 6. Address County staff resources needed to implement a groundwater program. All of these recommendations are reflected in the strategies listed in this Plan. Cooperative Extension County -Wide Well Testing Program During the summer of 1995, a voluntary program of household water quality education, which included water sampling, testing, and diagnosis, was conducted, sponsored by Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. Water samples from 497 households were analyzed. These analyses identified corrosivity and bacteria as the major water quality problems in the County. After completion of the general water -testing program, water supplies from 19 households were resampled for the testing of 25 pesticides and other chemical compounds. None of the samples had contaminants exceeding EPA Health Advisory or Maximum Contaminant Levels. Following completion of the program, survey forms were mailed to the 497 participants. Two hundred eighty-four participants returned the forms, indicating reasons for participating in the survey and what measures they planned to take, or had already taken, to correct water quality problems identified in the testing program. Forty-nine percent of the households that reported having at least one water quality problem had taken, or planned to take, some measure to improve the quality of their water supply, including obtaining water treatment equipment, shock chlorination, additional water testing, and improving the physical condition of the water source, among other measures. 66 Groundwater Database The development of a groundwater database system was initiated in 1990 by the Department of Planning and Community Development which utilized information from well completion reports. During the summer of 1996, the Division of Mineral Resources took an active interest in using Albemarle as a case example for developing a usable and useful groundwater database using GIS. The Health Department currently collects well completion reports and sends copies to the County These reports are now being forwarded to the Department of Mineral Resources for its database. Another source of information for the database is the well testing program. Ultimate uses of the database include tracking the location of wells, relating well yields to bedrock geology, and identifying areas where regional aquifers may be dropping due to groundwater pumping. The database would be useful not only to the County for planning purposes, but to well drillers, developers, citizens, and other government agencies. Strategy: Seek an effective way to collect, store and use groundwater data. Coordinate with the Health Department and Division of Mineral Resources to develop a useable and continuously maintained groundwater database. Utilize the County's evolving geographic information system (GIS). Management objectives that outline how, for what purpose, and by whom the data base will be used should be developed. Strategy: Provide cost -share and staff assistance to Division of Mineral Resources to complete the Albemarle County pilot groundwater data base. Strategy: Consider groundwater resource data in the review of rezoning and special use permit applications. Groundwater resource studies are to be done on a periodic basis to update data. Hydrogeological and Water Quality Testing Hydrogeological testing may be implemented on two scales for different purposes. On a County- wide or regional scale, studies can be initiated by the County to generate data for planning purposes. On a smaller scale, it would be beneficial to require a property owner to provide site specific hydrogeologic testing to determine the adequacy of groundwater to serve a proposed development. Hydrogeological testing is intended to protect and preserve groundwater quantity and quality through: 1) careful subdivision design; 2) better assurance of adequate water supply for future residents; 3) assessment of the effects of anticipated withdrawals on neighbors; and 4) planning generally for the location of development in relation to recharge areas and other factors. 67 County -Wide or Regional Scale Studies: The Groundwater Protection Study makes several recommendations pertaining to hydrogeologic studies and mapping projects. While these types of projects are expensive, they can be focused to best meet specific County needs. Planning for growth in areas not accessible by public water and sewer involves attempting to understand hydrogeologic constraints for both water supply and quality. A regional study conducted by the County could include detailed geologic mapping, resident surveys, and pump testing of selected wells. The Division of Mineral Resources is currently updating the geology for specific Albemarle County USGS quadrangle maps. Studies could also include regional recharge/discharge analysis, identification of recharge areas, and regional flow paths. A prioritized list of watersheds should be developed based on development potential, hydrogeological setting, and other factors. Studies and mapping should be designed in a manner that provides guidance to the County's decision makers about the capabilities and limitations of groundwater resources to support certain types and scale of rural development. Site or Development Scale Testing: Hydrogeologic testing can also be applied to specific development proposals. However, the County does not have any policy guidelines detailing what type of information is required, or how it would be used to make decisions about specific development proposals. Also, the County needs to confirm that existing enabling legislation provides authority to require such testing. Consideration should be given to requiring hydrogeological testing prior to subdivision approval in the Rural Area to ensure that the water supply quantity and quality is adequate to serve the eventual inhabitants of the area. Also, consideration should be given to requiring hydrogeological testing for site plans in the Rural Area. Key components of this hydrogeological testing policy should include the following information: 1. A clear understanding of when hydrogeological information would be required (e.g., size of development, location factors, etc.) 2. Clarification of how hydrogeological information would be used to make decisions about individual development projects. This is an important factor since County approval could be construed by a potential homeowner as a guarantee that adequate water exists. On the other hand, if hydrogeological information is used to reject a development proposal, the technical and legal basis of this rejection must be defensible and equitable. 3. Clear guidance of what type and detail of information is required, and approved method for collecting the data. Albemarle County has received enabling legislation, along with several other Virginia counties, to require reasonable testing of water quality prior to issuance of a building permit. This allows the assessment of poor water quality before a dwelling is constructed. It is also a method to collect water quality data. The Health Department does not require water quality testing of private wells, with the exception of bacteriological (coliform) testing. 68 Strategy: Work with the Division of Mineral Resources to conduct additional mapping in Albemarle County on recharge/discharge, lineaments, surficial and bedrock geology, and regional groundwater flow. Provide local cost -share funds to perform this mapping. Strategy: Continue to gather information on groundwater by watershed areas using the Pilot Groundwater Study as a prototype. Produce a prioritized list of watersheds using criteria developed by the Groundwater Subcommittee of the Water Resources Committee. Strategy: The Groundwater Subcommittee should investigate a requirement for hydrogeological testing to verify suitable groundwater quantity and quality in the Rural Area and develop a draft hydrogeological testing policy and ordinance language for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Strategy: The Groundwater Subcommittee should investigate a requirement for a water quality testing requirement for private wells prior to issuance of a building permit and develop draft ordinance language for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Groundwater Education The Pilot Study and County -wide Well Testing program provided some clarification of the educational messages that are important for County groundwater users. These principles include: periodic water testing, proper septic system maintenance, knowledgeable yard and garden care, best management practices for pasture and other agricultural uses, water conservation, proper household hazardous materials use and disposal (including automotive products), and fuel oil tank monitoring and maintenance. In addition, private, individual system owners and users should strive to become informed about their systems (e.g., age and depth, and proper treatment for specific water quality problems). Forums should be identified, in collaboration with other agencies, for the effective dissemination of educational materials. Strategy: In conjunction with other educational efforts and organizations, the County should disseminate relevant information to groundwater users about stewardship principles, including specific information needs identified by the Pilot Study and Well Testing Program. Wellhead Protection This section has been adapted from Wellhead Protection, A Handbookfor Local Governments in Virginia, and Wellhead Protection: Case Studies of Six Local Governments in Virginia, Virginia Ground Water Steering Committee, Fall, 1993. 69 Wellhead protection is the term applied by EPA and others to describe a process for: (1) Assessing potential threats to groundwater, (2) Managing land uses and activities in the area near public water supply wells, and (3) Planning to prevent problems before they arise. A wellhead protection area is a specified area in the vicinity of a public water supply well designated for special protection to prevent pollution of the groundwater from nearby surface and sub -surface activities. The size and shape of the protection area is a function of factors such as the hydrogeology in the vicinity of the well, its daily withdrawal rate, land use activities existing or likely in the area, and assessment of options if the well were to become polluted. The area could range from a few acres to several square miles or more. Special protection measures which could be applied to a wellhead protection area include zoning limitations on the types of land uses allowed, performance standards to contain and manage potential pollutants, contingency plans for hazardous spills, and coordination among local, state, and federal governments and property owners. Objectives for wellhead protection should be defined, to address issues such as: 1. Protection of groundwater resources from contamination; 2. Management of land -use activities that store, handle or produce regulated substances; 3. Minimizing the expenditure of public and private monies for the establishment or extension of the current public system; and 4. Planning for emergency response in the case of hazardous materials spills, flooding, and other emergencies. Strategy: The Groundwater Subcommittee of the Water Resources Committee should develop a wellhead protection plan and implementation program for the County (Include as an Action Agenda Item). Strategy: As a first step in a wellhead protection program, map all current public water supplies that utilize wells and springs, including the latitude and longitude of all source supplies. Produce this map for emergency response personnel, the Comprehensive Plan, and other groundwater planning applications. Groundwater Standards The following GENERAL STANDARDS should be applied to protect groundwater: • Construct wells and septic systems prior to construction of a new home or building. 70 Locate wells as far as possible and uphill from potential sources of contamination, such as septic systems, fuel storage tanks, buildings treated for termite control, aminal feedlots, and roads subject to de-icing compounds. Suggested Minimum Separation Distances From Wells Septic system drainfield - 100 ft. Septic tank - 50 ft. Termite -treated dwelling - 100 ft. Barnyard or feedlot - 50 ft. (downhill from well) Source: State Health Department • Locate wells on the high ground away from areas that flood. Surface drainage should be directed away from the well site. • In addition, the following are important guidelines that promote conservation and maintain groundwater quality for individual households and the County's general health and safety. These should be exercised by the general citizenry and included in public information brochures: Test wells for bacteria and nitrates once a year and for chemicals every three years. Maintain and pump septic systems regularly, every three to five years. • Maintain grass cover over a septic drainfield. Trees or shrubs should not be planted where roots may damage the lines. • Avoid garbage disposal units unless the septic system has been designed for the extra solids load. Avoid disposal of toxic and hazardous chemicals -- such as gasoline, pesticides, paints, solvents, and photographic chemicals -- in a septic system. They may harm the septic action, damage the soil absorption system, and contaminate the groundwater. Household hazardous materials should be collected and taken to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority household hazardous waste collection site (currently at the Ivy Landfill). Practice water conservation methods, such as low -flow faucets, showerheads, and conservation equipment. Use alternate water sources for irrigation of yards and gardens. • Apply pesticides and fertilizers, when necessary, in as limited amounts as necessary to complete the task. Empty containers should be disposed of properly. Chemicals should never be used, mixed, or stored near a well. 71 To reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides, use ground cover or mulch in lieu of a maintenance -intensive lawn. Dispose of hazardous and toxic wastes from households and businesses properly. Motor oil and paint thinner should be recycled. • Underground and above ground storage tanks for home fuel oil and other hazardous materials should be monitored annually for fuel level and checked thoroughly by a qualified professional if a leak is suspected. Old underground tanks should be replaced with above ground tanks with proper spill containment. 72