HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-18RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
!=. O. BOX 18 · CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22S02-0018 · (SO4)
FUTURE WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT INFORMATION PACKET
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC MEETING
APRIL 20, 1999
PRESENTED BY
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
AND
VANASSE HANGEN BRUTLIN, INC.
\XFS2\Shared Documents\Water\Cover sheet with contents of VHB CQA sheet.doc
SERVING CHARLOTTESVILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CONTENTS
Preliminary Alternatives Public Information Meeting Minutes with Comments,
Questions and Answers ................................................................................ 1-8
Elizabeth Murray Letter ................................................................................. 9
Lawrence S. Miller Letter ........................................................................ 10-13
League Of Women Voters - Marsha Parkinson Letter ...........................................14-18
Donna Bennett to Sally Thomas E-mail .......................................................... 19-23
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) Deborah Murray/Kay Slaughter Letter .... 24-25
Donna and Jim Bennett Letter ...................................................................... 26-30
William McDonough + Partners Letter ........................................................... 31-35
League of Women Voter and Charlottesville/Albemarle County Rivanna River Basin
Roundtable Letter .................................................................................... 36-37
\XFS2\Shared Documents\Water\Cover sheet with contents ofVHB CQA sheet, doc
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
I=. O, l=lOX 18 · CHARLOTTIESVILL. I"-. VIRGINIA 22g~02-OO$8 t (804)
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Water Supply Project
Preliminary Alternatives Public Information Meeting Minutes
April 20, 1999
A public meeting of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) was called to order on
Tuedsay, April 20, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director, RWSA, in the
Council Chambers, City Hall, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Mr. Petrini opened the presentation with a special thanks to the League of Women Voters for their
assistance in the preparation of materials and for advertisement of this meeting. Mr. Petrini then
introduced Ms. Nancy Barker, Project Manager, for Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB).
Ms. Barker stated that the members of the VHB team were all pleased to be there to describe the
permit process that RWSA is embarking on and to present information gathered to date on the
preliminary list of alternatives. Ms. Barker introduced the VHB team members: Ms. Karin Ertl,
who is responsible for the environmental evaluation, and Mr. Larry Welford, who is responsible for
the demand analysis. Ms. Barker introduced the O'Brien and Gere Engineers team members: Mr.
George Rest, who is responsible for the supply analysis and oversight of the engineering analysis
and Mr. Thomas Dumm, who is responsible for the engineering investigations. Ms. Barker
introduced Mr. Bill Ellis, of McSweeney, Burtch and Cramp, who is the RWSA's legal counsel.
Ms. Barker stated that Mr. Ellis is very familiar with water supply projects and is providing input on
regulatory issues and permitting requirements. Ms. Barker stated that there are also several other
members of the team including the consulting firm of Gray and Pape, Inc. who are conducting the
cultural resources investigations and several independent consultants who are assisting VHB with
threatened and endangered species surveys.
Ms. Barker then gave a brief explanation of the agenda [attached]. Ms. Barker turned the
presentation over to Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Ellis noted that he appreciated the opportunity to work with RWSA and to speak with the
public about their water supply needs. Mr. Ellis said that depending on the alternative that is
selected, there may be no permits required or there may be many permits that are required. He said
that at this point, their job is to gather the necessary information that will be needed to satisfy the
regulatory agencies and any legal requirements that might be applied to the alternative or
combination of alternatives that may be chosen. Mr. Ellis stated that one of the most important parts
of this project is the complex inter-relationships between all of the local, state, and federal agencies
that may be involved. Mr. Ellis stated that his job is to make sure that all the agencies and legal
requirements are satisfied so that the RWSA only goes through this process once. With respect to
alternatives, Mr. Ellis said that he believed the most challenging, restrictive and demanding
standards to satisfy are those administered by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the United
Stated Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies can only issue a permit for the
-1-
H:\Water'~RWSA Public Meeting minutes04-20-99 updated 6-17-99.doc
SERVING CHARLOTTESVILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Mr. Ellis said that when considering
"practicability", technical feasibility, cost and logistics are all reviewed.
Mr. Ellis said that tonight, summaries of the alternatives developed to date would be presented.
With respect to each alternative, the basic questions to be addressed would be: what are its
environmental effects; what are its costs; what are its logistical considerations; is it technically
feasible; and to what extent, if any, will the alternative assist the community in meeting its water
needs? Mr. Ellis stated that the study team has been assembling information and preparing
documentation for each alternative and is now presenting this information to the community so they
can provide RWSA with their input. This information will also be presented to the regulatory
agencies for their review and comment. Mr. Ellis stated that the alternatives are currently being
evaluated and that the team hopes that the community will be a part of this evaluation process. Mr.
Ellis turned the presentation over to Mr. Rest.
Mr. Rest said that the study began by looking at what sources of supply are providing raw water to
the Urban Service Area. Mr. Rest stated that there are currently three source of raw water: 1) the S.
Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, 2) the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir System, and 3) the
N. Fork Rivanna River. He said that their task was to determine the safe yield (the amount of water
that can be supplied in a severe drought situation) of this water supply system through 2050, the
planning period that was selected for this study. Mr. Rest discussed the process of sedimentation
which gradually silts in reservoirs and how this decreases the productive life of a reservoir,
particularly the S. Fork Rivanna Reservoir. As a result, the safe yield of the water supply system is
actually decreasing over time. Mr. Rest mined the presentation over to Mr. Welford.
Mr. Welford said that in late 1997, the VHB team produced two reports, one of which documented
the supply analysis and the other which documented the demand analysis for the Urban Service
Area. [The Supply Analysis Report and the Demand Analysis Report are available from RWSA].
Mr. Welford stated that the reports were presented to the public and were also submitted to the
regulatory agencies for their review and comment. To examine water demand, Mr. Welford
explained the fact that the Authority has two customers, the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) and the City of Charlottesville (which includes the University of Virginia). The City and
the ACSA then retail the water to the end users. Mr. Welford said that the system here is unique in
that the water is metered in only two general locations. The raw water intake into the system is
metered at each of the water treatment plants and then also at the end user (the residential home,
business, etc.). Mr. Welford described how four approaches were used to predict future water
demand for this system: 1) projecting historic trends in raw water volumes, 2) projecting population
trends and per capita water consumption, 3) prediction of consumption based on full build-out as
defined in the City and County Comprehensive Plans, and 4) projecting historic trends in demand
for each individual component of the system. For purposes of analysis, the system was broken
down into 5 primary components: 1) the City of Charlottesville, 2) the University of Virginia, 3) the
ACSA, 4) water uses currently outside of the Urban Service Area, and 5) unmetered water use
(includes fire fighting, street washing, etc.). Mr. Welford defined "water uses outside of the Urban
Service Area" as residential developments that rely on wells for their water supply but which are-
expected to be brought into the Urban Service Area in the future. In fact, subsequent to the Demand
Analysis Report release, one of those communities was brought into the RWSA's Urban Service
-2-
H:\Water~RWSA Public Meeting minutes04-20-99 updated 6-17-99.doc
Area system. He stated that when the information from the Demand Analysis and the Supply
Analysis are brought together, one can understand why we are here: the demand for water is
growing and the supply of water is decreasing. It was important for the Authority to move forward
with identifying solutions to this problem and that is what this team has embarked on, on behalf of
RWSA. Mr. Welford turned the presentation back to Ms. Barker.
Ms. Barker noted that the Authority, for the last 20 years or so, has had several studies done to
evaluate potential water supply alternatives. She stated that the VHB team went back through those
studies and reviewed and re-evaluated the alternatives that had been identified previously. In
addition, the study team developed a wide range of new potential alternatives. Ms. Barker explained
that what they have done is compile a series of alternatives that can be broken down into two
primary categories. One category of alternatives represents some sort of improvement to the
efficiency of the existing resources. This includes modifications to existing reservoirs, drought
management, water conservation, and reducing sediment loads into the S. Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir. The second category represents physical additions to the existing water supply system
and includes options such as the construction of a new reservoir or surface water withdrawals. Ms.
Barker said they will describe the 30+ alternatives that have been identified, each of which falls into
one of those two categories. Ms. Barker indicated that these alternatives were evaluated from both
an engineering and an environmental perspective. She said that they had made preliminary
evaluations of the projected cost, the potential safe yield, feasibility, and potential environmental
impacts to sensitive resources such as wetlands, threatened and endangered species, historic sites
and residential displacements. Ms. Barker stated that those items are the groundwork for the
evaluation of each alternative.
Ms. Barker went over the assumptions used to develop and cost each alternative, which is located in
the draft Water Supply Project Preliminary Alternatives document. [attached]
Ms. Barker turned the presentation over to Ms. Ertl and Mr. Dumm both of whom then summarized
the available information compiled and developed on each alternative to date. Mr. Dumm
addressed the safe yield, cost and technical feasibility of each alternative while Ms. Ertl addressed
the environmental issues associated with each alternative. All of the information presented was
included in the preliminary alternatives document available at the meeting. Following the review
of alternatives, Mr. Dumm turned the presentation over to Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Ellis described another alternative under investigation aimed at reducing future water demand:
growth management within the Urban Service Area. Mr. Ellis reminded everyone that a large part
of the future water deficit occurs as a result of a decrease in existing supply, not a result of increase
in demand. The population in the City of Charlottesville is not projected to grow significantly
through the year 2050. In Albemarle County, this alternative looks at projected growth within the
Urban Service Area portion of the county. He noted that it has been the policy of the county to
intentionally channel and direct growth into the Urban Service Area, a policy which has been
successful over the last 20 years at least. The growth management alternative would restrict growth
in the Urban Service Area and essentially reverse the existing policy. He said that if this was done
and was effective, that it would probably result in greater growth in the present rural areas of
Albemarle County outside of the Urban Service Area. Mr. Ellis stated that some of the effects of
this alternative would be the need for infrastructure improvements in the rural areas, such as
-3-
H:\Water\RWSA Public Meeting minutes04-20-99 updated 6-17-99. doc
additional roads and utilities. If the policy were successful, the study team estimated the reduction
in demand within the Urban Service Area might reach as much as 1.5 MGD.
Mr. Ellis described another alternative that looks at cooperating with other water service providers
in the region. He explained that "Regional Cooperation" is the sharing of resources among
neighboring jurisdictions in order to reduce the environmental effects of each jurisdiction pursuing
separate projects. He said that geography is such that, for the most part, this is not a very promising
alternative. He said that in general, the public suppliers in the area are far away and they serve a
dispersed population with no great demand. He said that the only real opportunity identified for
possible regional cooperation is with the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA), which serves four
isolated areas in Greene, Madison, Orange and Louisa counties. The closest these two systems come
to one another is approximately 4 miles - - RWSA has a pipeline that proceeds north adjacent to
Route 29 and comes within about 4 miles of a smaller RSA line to the north. Mr. Ellis stated that
the existing pipes might need to be replaced if the two systems were interconnected. Based on
recent information, the Rapidan Service Authority is also expecting an unmet future demand and
does not yet know where their 2050 water supply will be coming from. He said that the study team
is trying to do the best they can to identify what opportunities do exist for regional cooperation in
order to satisfy regulatory requirements.
There were comments, questions and answers after the presentation. The public was asked to send
written comments to either VHB or RWSA and to feel free to call if they had any other questions,
comments, or concerns.
Ms. Barker thanked the public for their questions, comments and input and noted that the study
team looked forward to hearing from the community. Mr. Petrini thanked the public and adjourned
the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
-4-
H:\WaterXRWSA Public Meeting minutes04-20-99 updated 6-17-99.doc
PLIBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
Water Supply Project: Permit Process Update and Alternatives Presentation
Sponsored by: Rivanna Water & Sewer Authorit~
Tuesday, April 20, 199g
LOCATION: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TIME: 7:00 PM TO 9:30 PM
AGENDA
II.
IH.
IV.
VIe
INTRODUCTION
0 Introduction of Study Team
PERMIT PROCESS OVERVIEW
0 General Phases o£ Permit Process
SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY NEEDS
0 Existing and Future Water Supply
0 Existing and Future Water Demand
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
~ Structural Alternatives
~ Non-structural Alternatives
NEXT STEPS
0 Where We Go From Here
PUBLIC INPUT/QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
\\willva\projects\30502\wp\mise~PIO42099agenda
-5-
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
COMMENTS-QUESTIONS-ANSWERS
Public Meeting April 20, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Attendees Study Team:
Art Petrini - Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Bill Ellis - McSweeney, Brutch & Crump
Larry Welford - Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Nancy Barker - Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Karin Ertl - Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
George Rest - O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Thomas Dumm - O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Comment: For the Growth Management alternative, recommendation that a
reduction in growth in the Urban Service Area not necessarily result in increased
growth in the rural area.
Comment: The following four alternatives should be implemented in the near term:
· Growth Management
· Demand Management
· Water Conservation
· Leak Detection
Comment: Additional land may be needed around Buck Mountain due to proposed
road around mountain shown on a map available from the RWSA, causing an impact
to residences.
Comment: Support designation of county owned land near Preddy Creek as a
Natural Area. A reservoir in this location would be compatible with such a
designation.
Comment:
·
·
·
Four fundamental principles to keep in mind:
Optimize instream flows; impact to Moormans River is unacceptable.
Water conservation is a must.
With 45" of rain/year, the community should be able to live within limits of the
watershed - no regional cooperation.
Leverage what already have:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Strongly support reducing siltation into reservoir
Strongly support aggressive water conservation
Ought to keep in the retrofit option
Support Reuse option
-6-
H:\Water\Public Meeting Question and Answers for 04-20-99. doc
April 20, 1999
Page 2
Comment: In addition to the macroscale level of reuse, it may be useful to also
consider a more microscale reuse option; i.e. the treatment of
residential/commercial wastewater from landscaping, golf course irrigation, etc.
Comment: The groundwater safe yield is accurate; maybe even too generous.
Comment: Look hard at water conservation and retrofit options.
Comment: Complimentary of the wide range of alternatives under consideration.
Comment: It would be beneficial to also see the operations/maintenance costs
associated with the alternatives.
Question: Is the study team looking at the potential for sedimentation associated
with new reservoirs?
Answer: Yes
Question: Is the cost of dredging the S. Fork Rivanna Reservoir reduced if the
reservoir is put off-line during the dredging event?
Answer: The cost would be reduced only minimally.
Question: Is it true that the City of Richmond has exclusive water rights to the
James River?
Answer: No
Question: Did the study team do their own groundwater investigation? Safe yield
of 0. lmgd sounds low.
Answer: The study team did not perform groundwater investigations; information on
groundwater was obtained from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Question: Why is there a range in safe yield of 4.1 to 4.8 mgd for the existing
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir system?
Answer: Uncertainty due to 1930's versus 1954 drought of record.
-7-
April 20, 1999
page 3
Question: Are the land costs based on current value?
Answer: Yes; $!l,O00/acre
Question: Is consideration being given to a MIF release at the Sugar Hollow
Reservoir?
Answer: The Rivanna and Water Sewer Authority Board's written policy statement
is that consideration of an MIF will be given when a new water supply is available.
Question: What is the expected time line for completion of the study?
Answer: The time will vary depending on the alternative(s) that is implemented.
-8-
20 April 1999 For Hearing 0;%. Future Public Water Resources
My name is Elizabet~: and I'm the former Co=ordinator at the Ivy Creek Natural Ar(
as ~x~s=_~,f_ yo_u k~ow, locate~'%n the. ~O_Uth Rivanna Reservoir. I was a volunteer Board
membe~ ~=~ TM Ivy Creek Foundatton~'~-~'~elped the City and County establish and then
mana§e the A~ea~ and co-ordinator for ten years.
Watershed protection was a big selling point in the establishment of the Area,
unfor=uns.tely it doesn't do enough~ the Area is only round par= of the reservotr and hasn't
saved tt from =he probl~ we're all ~are of. Pity ~ doesn't ~o all the way round.
I resSgned partly to devote ~re ~me ~o the establtsh~nt of otherApublic
Natural Areas, ~ fifteen years ~here had been none, despite all o=. ~rowth. I'm happy
=o may now we have one ~=e In =he Clty/Co~ty area~ Ragged ~untat~a~ ~h~ch doe~ go
all the ~ay ro~d =he ReSEed Mo~tain Reservoir.
I started looking at other public land~ and County staff directed me to Preddy
Creek, 268 acres, bought specifically with future water resources in m/nds and when I
first raised the ~dea of designating ~t a Natural Area, I was told there mi§hr be a reserve
there.. T~at's not necessarily incompatlble with a Natural Area. In fact as watershed
protectfon~ a Natural Area is about the Best. thinE you could have round a reservoir, plus
the benefit of ~nother public amenity for passive recreation.
In 1985 there was a rumor that Preddy 'Greek might be sold or logsed, and a former
State For.ester and his Deputy submitted a~ independent report urging the Gounty to do
neither. This report is in the public record.
In 1995 I wemt back to ?teddy .cr~em~.k~tth one of these foresters and we submitted
a further report re-iterating the same g-h~ and also urging that in the upcoming
Comprehensive Plan revision Freddy Creek be earmarked as e future Natural Area. This is
also in the publle record. A~d I'm happy to say that early this year, during the hea~lngs
for the ~=ap=er two r~v~s~ons of =he Comprehensive Plan~ the worain~ on Preddy Creek was
amended to reflect a need to study it for future passive recreation.
I understand ~t's not at the top of your list as a future reservoir site, but I
would ltk~ to ask you~ pleases to remember as you d~scuss it, that there is this history
of support= for Natural Area desi~nation~ so that any reservoir construction ~ould be
compatib].e with future natural area status .....
..... ,a~d indeed, o~ any o~her sites ~hat you consider for a reservoirs plea;e
consider aleo that public land permanently desi~nated Natural Area ~s the best possible
protectio~ for any watershed~ plus providing additional public amenity.
Elizabeth Murray
1601 Bent]lvar Farm Road
Charlotte;;ville VA 22911
(804) 973-6693
Thank You
-9-
April 23, 1999
Lawrence S. Miller
P. O. Box 6
Free Union, VA 22940
lqaney Barker
Vanasse Hangen B~
477 McLaws Circle~ Suite 1
Willi~masburg, VA 23185
Dear Ms. Barker.
Thank you leading the very informative public presentatioa on the RWSA's water supply options. I
regr=t that I missed the prior pubI/c meeting on th/s subject.
A nu~aber of questions and comments have come to mind since last Tuesday's meeting:
Comlmrison of Wetland Losses
Will the relative value ofwetIands inundated by the various alternatives be considered, or wilI onIy
total l~reage be part of the decision? Crest controls for south l~ork Rivanna Dam are estimated to
inundate up to 39 acres. However, most of those wetlands were probably created incidental to the
ori~,/n~l impotmdmem. They are man.made. Their loss wilt be completely mitigated by the new
wetlands created when tha pool elevation is increased. In contrast, naturally occurring wetlands ~
be los! to a new reservoir. These will not be replaced by wetlands of equivalent ecological or
enviromnental value. In comparing wefl~ losses of the various alternatives, a distinction should be
m_~de i~ween natural wetlands and 8oncomitant wetlands.
Propert), Tax losses
The project assumptions make no mention ofpotentiaI property tax Iosses to Albemarle County.
Some :alternatives require the acquisition of large areas of land. For example, RWSA acquired or
encumbered nearly 2000 acres for the Buck Mountain reservoir site. Much of this land is currently
leased., with lessees paying the taxes. AP~ impotmdme~ wilt R.WSA pay property taxes? If so, has
th/s be~n included in the unit cost (S/gallon) or project costs? Ii'not, will the i~-an¢ial impact on ~e
coun~ be corns/tiered?.
-10-
Laml Acquisition for Buck Mountain Alternative
Contrary to statements/n the project descriFt/on, new land acquisition may be necessary. The Iand
thus l~ar acquired was based on a normal pool elevation of 464 feet. The project description mentions
a normal pool elevation of 480 fee~ This pool elevation will inundate land the RWSA does not own,
I believe this will only affect land subject to RWSA. easements, but the easements do not grant rights
to flood this land.
Development Attraction of New Impoundments
Lake.,; and reservoirs tend to attract development. Albemarle Cotmty is already stru§gling with
.gro~_'h issues, and of course this is one reason for this project. Although a new impoundment may
be part of the 'solution for the area's water needs, it also becomes part of the problem.
Impact on South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
Several of the alternatives consist of new impoundments in the existflag South Fork reservoir's
watershed. Do the calculated increases in safe yield quantities for these impoundment alternatives
account for losses they will came to the existing reservoir, or are safe yields only calculated for the
retirement date (2050) of the existing reservoir7 How will these impotmdmen~s affect the ability to
mai_~_, a/n required flowby at the South Fork clam? New impoundments in the existing watershed are
reaIIy just additional storage devices. Wouldn't it be more lag/cai to deveIop a new sowce, i.e. a
cliffenmI watershed?
Wate:rshed Area and Prolonged Droughts
Is tokai watershed area a limiting factor/n meeting demand during proIonged drougt~t7 W~ storage
ciq~acity alone be mxfficient to get us through any foreseeable drought? Could global warming
invalidate assumptions about drought duration or severity? It would seem that we could increase our
rear, ha of safcO/by locating any new reservoir 6utside the South Fork watershed.
Increase-in-Safe-Yield Calculations
In tetras of/ncrease/n safe. yield, the North Fork R/va~na option exceeds the Buck Mounm/n opt/on
by onl:y 7%. Yet thc North Fork Reservoir would have a storage capacity 9 I% greater and a
watershed area 65% greater, Is this anomaly solely the result of the lower percent flowby assumed
.for the. Buck Mountain option? Can we safely assume this favorable flowby require-meat will not
cb ,~mg~: during the life of the impoundment? How would the yields for these two options compare
using lhe same percent flowby assumpt/on for each?
FIowby and Environmen~i Tradeoffs
FIowby requ/remen~s appear to be one ortho most significant constra~ts ~n produdng a I~gh sa~'e
yield from a reservoir. I know flowby requirements axe intended to ~eve~t ecological har~ to
streams, but how many miles of stream above the dam are we entirely eliminating to avoid occasional
damage to the s~rea~ below th~ dam? The revised flowby regimen akernativc for thc South Pork
rezePtoir yields an addi~oaal 3.8 mgd without redu¢ir~g flow below ~mraI levels during drought.
How much more y~elcl woulc[ be obta~ed /f we were ~ to accept lower flow rates during drought
events? Any. damage sustz~ed by this practice would probably be limited to the 3-mile segment
between the South Fork dam and the confluence with the North Fork. Compare this to the
~prc.ximately 20 miles of str~_m_s and tributaries that would be flooded by any one cf the new
reservoir options.
Recommendations
In tetris of cost effective~s, dislocations, and enviroumental impacts, pumPback to thc South Fork
Reservoir is clearly thc best single-fix option. Rccycling water ~is way will probably be common by
2050, but there migh~ be some problems with public perceptions today.
PhasB~g-m several low-yield options n~y be nex~ b~st. I have attached a list of the leas~
object,on'lo and most pra~cal low-yield options. I believe that none of these options affect the
practi,~diW of the others on the list. Although I have listed six optiom, notice tha~ the fu'st five options
show .~ net yield grea~er tha~ the most cost-effective new reservoir option (Buck Mountain), but at
one hfflt'the cost, and without dislocations, acquisitions o.r si~o~i~cant wetland impact.
We s~ould maintain and/or upgrade existing sources to the extent poss~le to meet future needs. We
shouldn't destroy another stream and its adjacent wetlands when the resulting reservoir will ultimately
fill with sediment antnzray. If a new impound .m_er~ is the o~ly solution, then it should be bulk outside
the South Fork water~he~
Your ~sponse to my comments will be very much appreciated, lvlany of my questions are just
rheton!c~l, bu~ in the hope you con provide answers to thc othci's, I will look forward to hearing from
you.
S c ly,
· Lawrence S. Miller
cc: BE['Ellis, McSwcency Buctch & Crump
-13-
1928 Ayilngton Blvd., Room 105, Ottatlotteevlll®, VA ;a~;:)3 (804) 970-1707 Plane {8(~4) 971-1708 Fax
May 17,1999
Mr. A~thur Petrini, Executive Director
RiYanna Water and Sewer Authority
Post Office Box 18
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Petrini:
We, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chapter of the League of Women Voters, are writing to
provide our responses to the "Water Supply Project: Preliminary Alternatives" meeting held
April 20, 1999, during which your consultants, VHB, presented their analysis of water
demand and supply alternatives for out area, We have long supported water conservation
and stewardship of the natural environment in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Thus, we
especially applaud those Alternatives which recommend the reuse and more efficient use of
water, and the protection and recovery of existing water sources. In order to educate the
public on these important subjects, we have written articles, prepared a booklet '~/ater in the
New Millennium: Balancing the Needs of People and the Environment', recommended the
creation of a Citizen Advisory Board to the RWSA, and invited VHB to speak at a League
meeting early in the "permitting process".
Also, as part of this effort, we have promoted "public undersfanding and participation in
decision making as essential elements and responsive management of our natural
resources", a National League of Women Voters position. For this reason, we have
remained integrally involved in the ".permifling process" since it began two and a half years
ago. During that time, one of our top priorities has been to encourage a meeting for
community-wide participation in the analysis of our water demand and supply problems.
Our commitment to encouraging community input arises from our belief that, as a
co~nmunity, we must plan wisely for the future. The future development of water supply
resources ia not an issue related only to providing adequate potable water, but rather is an
extremely important component of the overall community-planning process. Our commitment
to informed decision making by our community provides the context for the comments and
questions by League members, which are included below.
Three areas are of special interest to us: 1) the nature and extent of the April meeting, 2)
the informational content of the meeting, and 3) the scope of the Water Conservation and
Drought Management Plans presented as Alternatives.
I. The Nature and Extent of the Meeting: The April meeting took place late in the VHB
study process. Until that time. there had been little opportunity for community consensus
-14-
building, For two and a half years, while VHB completed an evaluation, of water supply
and demand and compiled their final report for presentation to regulatory agencies, most
of the public has had only a vague awareness that a "permitting process" for a water
supply was under way. The April meeting represented an important chance to bring
about public discussion regarding which alternative or alternatives our community felt
would be the most practicable, environmentally sound way to meet its future water
demands. The meeting emphasized information, not an open discussion of the VHB
report. During the necessarily short question period, a wide range of citizens' concerns
was introduced. Some comments and questions required additional information or
answers that could not be given to the public at that time, For example, one person
noted that costs were presented as "apples and oranges" and requested a conversion
chart. Another person asked whether the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir would be
abandoned? And if so, what would be the cost? Many asked questions about water
conservation. We think a follow-up meeting should have been scheduled to address
these concerns, in advance of the meeting RWSA and VHB will have with regulating
agencies on May 21, 1999. Since a follow-up meeting did not occur, we hope another
public meeting will take place before too many further decisions ara made.
2. The Informational Content of the Meeting: The following comments and questions
address those areas we think need either clarification or additional information to assist us
public in making an informed decision among alternatives;
GRAPHS.
a. A variety of scenarios at the out, et of the VHB study. Why dlcl VHB present
only the worst case scenado for demand and not model other outcomes-such as,
population growth with a 10% or a 20% reduction in
water consumption, or limited population growth combined with reduction of
demand? At a February, 1999, RWSA Board of Directors Meeting, a League
member asked the consultants ~ they didn't Include a variety of graphs at the
outset of thelr study. VHB representatives answered that they were waiting until
they presented their list of Alternatives to the public, However, these graphs were
not presented at the April 20th meeting.
b. Demand. The demand figures are based on historical (unregulated) water
demand in our community. Although a formal conservation plan requiring a
permanent 10% reduction in water use was proposed and approved by
RWSA in 1979, following the 1977 drought, it was never implemented, Our
community would be considered irresponsible if it continued to use water as
excessively as it has up lo the present. Why should we assume this rligh level of
demand will continue for the next 50 year~? A series of graphs projecting water
demand but incorporating 10% and 20 % reductions of water consumption shou Id
have been presented for comparison.
c. Population Growth. The graph that projects population growth and water
demand depicts continuation of a hyperbolic growth rate in the Albemarle County
servioe area, projected to the year 2050.Why didn't VHB also present more
-1_5-
conservative models, representlrtg a median between the slower growth rate that
preceded '1 gg0 and the faster growth rate since the early '90's'? Graphs depicting
both a more conservative population growth curve and more conservative water
demand figures should have been offered,
Worst Case Drought. The RWSA has utilized a graph titled "Supply and
Demand" to depict the extent of a potential water defiGit through the year 2050.
This graph is mislea~ling to all but the most careful observer, and it fails to contain
information which is essential to fully understand and measure potential water
supply deficits. The graph does not depict a decrease in actual water supply
through 2050. It only depicts what the "worst case" water deficit would be for
each veer if a moat severe drought occurred in that particular year. The
interpretation is further confounded because the demand Line depicts the
projected desire for water rather than the ~neeq f~r water. This is significant,
because it is unrealistic to believe that un,er any drougl~t condition, the "demand"
for water would (or should) remain at a constant accelerating level. This analysis
ignores the fact that as drought conditions become more severe, more water '
would be conserved through voluntary and mandatory measures. At any point on
the supply line, as a severe drought develops, the "demand" line would be
expected to drop substantially, an~t the amount Of any actual deficit would not
as great as the graph provided would suggest. None of this is meant to imply,
however, that the provided graph does not depict an actual problem. Rather, the
provided graph is presenting the discrepancy between supply and demand when
D.o drouaht manaJ_~_ ement ~olicv is in effect. Thus, once the assumptions behind
the provided graph are understood, it is obvious thai considerably more data is
needed to enable the public to make judgments on what improvements we should
make (and pay for) in our water supply system,
ao
All previous studies used the 1950's drought for predictions, which utilized actual
flow data in our reservoir water sources to estimate safe yields. Changing to the
1930's drought for these estimations is limited to use of flow data from surrogate
rivers, which may not be relevant to our situation. Thus, the validity of the
recluced safe yield calculations is questionable.
GENERALQ~JESTION. S ABOUT DATA. IN_THE VHB REPOR?
a. Do the regulatory agencies verify tl~ information given by VHB regarding costs,
estimations of environmental impact, etc., or ia all information assumed to be
correct?
b. At what point will VHB present a more detailed study to the public regarding: the
operation and maintenance costs of different alternatives, the costs of buying
parcels of lend, and the costa of replacing roadways, etc.?
-16-
_DATA IN
a.
Co
SP ECIFIC_ALTE R~_~AT. IVE$
North Fork-Trio drainage area of the North Fork is 63 square miles. However,
the rel3ort does not indicate that a large portion of the watershed lies in Greene
County, and is not protected by Albemarle County's Watersl~ed Protection Policy.
Crest Controls on the 8outh Fork Rivanna Reeervoir-VHB needs to clarify,
what is meant by an increase of 'safe yield' for 4' and 8' crest. 4' will increase safe
yield bv 6 mgd; 1 8' by 11 mgd. Have they considered the loss in mgd
represented by the 8 mgd required to maintain aquatic life downstream in the
Rlvanna? When Black and Veatch calculated the costs of crest controls for the
SFRR, they included the costs of replacing the roadway (which would be
inundated), the pumping station and the pil3e lines. VHB estimates trte 4' crest
control would cost $4 million; Black and Veatch estimated $'19 million. VHB
estimates the 8' crest control would cost $14 million; Black and Veatch estimated
$28 million. These figures are substantially different. Also, Black and Veatch
estimated more homes affected than VHB.
Buck Mountain Reservoir, VHB omits mention of the necessity of replacing two
roads and replacing two of Chaflottesvtlle's gas lines that otherwise would be
buried beneath the reservoir. Thus, their estimate of cost is likely too Iow, and the
environmental impact of these additional projects needs to be included in the
analysis of impact of the Buck Mountain Reservoir alternative.
Dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir- Costs include water treatment
plant improvements, pump station and intake improvements, weflancl mitigation,
administrative, and land costs. The source of cost estimate for dredging was a
marine contractor. The unit costs 13er cubic.yard for removal were $4-6. Tile unit
costs per cubic yard for disposal were $10. VHB considered only large scale
marine dredging instead of small-scale reservoir recovery, dredging, which has
been utilized by many other communities with similar reservoir siltation problems.
Large scale marine dredging would produce substantial turbidity, restricting the
usefulness of the SFRR as a water supply during the dredging process and
adversely affecting reservoir ecology. More co~t effective and less invasive
alternatives are available. These derive from the use of small barges with
suction/auger mechanisms which remove silt and allow it to be pumped several
miles, if necessary, to reclamation areas. These barges work in as little as 21" of
water and do not produce turbidity. A recent reservoir recovery project involving
a 1400-acre reservoir produced a cost analysis of 67 cents ;3er c. ubic yard for
removal and transfer of slit. This cost included ail labor and materials,
maintenance, and depreciation of the dredge barge. It did not include costs of
land acquisition for the reclamation area. Case studies show that dewatered silt
can be sold for rebuilding landscapes, landfill cover, or road fill. A UVA biologist,
who attended the April 20th meeting, suggested the fill could also be considerecl
a valuable gardening product. A farm, presently located along the South Fork
Rivanna River, produces compost. Perhaps the silt taken from the SFRR would
be valuable to this operation.
-17-
3, Water Conservation and Drought Management
a. Mare Aggressive Water Conservation Plan Needed - For years, members of
the LVVV have been advocating the adoption of a serious water conservation
program for the urban area. Early in the permitting process we recommended
that VHB study the v;'ater usage pafferns in our community to determine how we
could reduce our water cor~umpfion, Although VHB indicated at RWSA meetings
that they have had experience designing aggressive water conservation plans for
other communities, they were not asked to model a comprehensive conservation
plan for our community as an alternative. We have researched [he methods other
communities use to reduce water consumption. By proactively retrofitting
inefficient water fLxtures, promoting more efficient outdoor watering practices, and
block pricing, much greater water savings can be gained than the 10% reported
by VHB,
b. More Aggressive Drought Management Plan Needed - Last summer, our
community ironically reached an all time high in water demand ¢luring a drought
perioct when total reservoir capacity was approaching the 70% level w~ere
voluntary conservation would be requested, A water management plan applicable
to evolving droughts should be enacted sooner than when the entire reservoir
system reaches 70%. A long range more modern drought-management plan
should replace the present sho~t-range plan
In closing, we would like to say that we hope you share with us a commitment to
presen/ing the natural environment in Albemarle County and will make every effort to involve
the public in the ongoing decision-making process for a future water source. The impact of
this decision will have repercussions for our county for years to come. Every stakeholder,
from individual citizens to members of the Board of Supervisors and City Council, should be
invited to play a role in this important process that will shape our future in such a significant
way.
Sincerely,
Marsha Parklnson
Co-Chair
Natural Resources Committee
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville City Council
C01. Allan Carroll, Army Corps of Engineers
Regina Poeske, E.P.A.
Janet Norman. U. S. Fish an<:l Wildlife Service
-18-
..... Original Message .....
From: Donna Bennett [SMTP:MoormansR@email.msn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 12:11 PM
To: Sally Thomas
Subject: handouts at NRC Meeting
Sally: The following are some handouts from the LoVVV NRC meeting, last
Thursday. In preparation for Thurday's meeting, we were to write down
areas
from the VHB presentation that were of interest or concern to us. I
looked
into dredging costs-and called VHB for their sources. I also included
> information from Mud Cat that we took from the WEB. Along the way, I
> also
> became interested in learning about the storage capacity vs treatment
> capacity of our reservoirs. For example, I had wondered what the safe
> yield
> number meant relative to treatment capacity. The SWCB allows (still
> permits) 5.4 mgd safe yield from SH/RM system. However, the treatment
> capacity of the OH Treatment Plant is 7.7. How much can be used? The
> Virginia Department of Health (¥DH) says that any available water, up to
> 7.7
> mgd can be used. However, this greatly limits Beaver Creek --where the
> storage capacity is 560 million gallons, the safe yield is 2.8 mgd--but
> the
> treatment plant can only process 1.0mgd. Because of the newspaper
article
> in the DP about sewer hookups and possible leasing/purchase of Camelot
> pumping station in Rapidan (RSA)--I included notes from an ACSA Meeting I
attended. Thus the following information is divided into three sections:
1.
Treatment Capacity; 2. Dredging (water conservation and reuse); 3.
Rapidan
sewer expansion. Regards. Donna
1 .Treatment Capacity:
Information from VA Dept of Health
Operating permit, called Waterworks Operation Permit
Additional information, Engineering Description Sheet (Engineering
Description includes a description of raw water sources, the storage
> facilities, the mechanical operation of filtering, and a list of
chemicals
> used for purification, etc.)
:>
Information from Planning Bulletin #335: Safe Yield of Municipal Surface
Water
Supply Systems in VA, dated 1985. (Source for VHB Reports)
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir:
Safe Yield (by SWCB = 5.4 mgd.,
Treatment Capacity of Observatory Hill Plant = 7.7 mgd.
Raw Water Flow Capacity of combined
reservoirs = 8 mgd
-19-
Additional storage capacity:
1. Storage tank near Route 29 and 250 intersection = 3 mg
2.Lewis Mountain Storage Tank = 507,580 gallons.
Sugar Hollow storage capacity = 430 million gallons all of which is
available for water supply
Ragged Mountain storage capacity = 513.6 million gallons
Beaver Creek:
Safe Yield = 2.8 mgd).
Treatment Capacity = 1.0 mgd.
( limited by plant capacity)
Beaver Creek Storage Capacity = 615 million gallons (total water capacity
equal to 1,100 gallons of which 520 million gallons are available for
water
supply-Bulletin)
Additional Storage Capacity =
1 500, 000 tank near treatment plant
2.200,000 gallon tank near Mint Springs
3.2 million gallon tank near St. George Ave.
> Totier Creek Reservoir: Scottsville:
> Sage yield = 2.5 mgd
> Design Basis of Treatment Plant = .25 mgd
> Totier Creek Reservoir storage capacity = 182 million gallons, 120
million
> available for water supply
> Additional Storage = 250,000 gallon standpipe
> South Fork Rivanna Reservoir:
> Safe Yield =10.4
> (Safe yield of reservoir is 18.4 mgd. "Water quality models show that a
> release of 8 mgd from the reservoir during dry periods would be required
> SO
> that water quality standards be met at the wastewater treatment plant
> downstream. Were this 8 mgd release to be honored throughout the 120 day
> critical drought period then the safe yield of the Soouth Fork Rivanna
> Reservoir would be 18.4 - 8 = 10.4.")
> Treatment Capacity = 8.0 mgd (Raw Water
> Pumping Capacity 10.0 mgd with single largest pump out of service.
> Filtration = 8.064. "Hence, the design capacity of this treatn~ent
facility
> is limited by the 4 gpm filtration rate and is equal to 8.0 mgd")
> South Fork Rivanna River storage capacity = 1.76 billion gallon
Storage facilities:
1. 1.0 mg tank near treatment plant
2. 5 mg tank on Pantops Mountain.
North Fork Rivanna Treatment Plant:
> Treatment Capacity = 2.0 mgd (Two phase distribution system). ("The
> above
> mentioned water distribution systems are interconnected to the system
> serving the City of Charlottesville.")
>
> "The 2.0 mgd filter plant was originally designed with the thought that
> water from Chris Greene Lake could be released to occasionally augment
Iow
-20-
> flows in the river."
> 2. Dredging:
> VHB: Karen Ertl (Heads consultant team) Comments on Alternatives:
> Alternatives will be presented to the regulatory agencies on May 21st.
> This
> should not serve as a deadline for comments; however, they should be
> submitted soon after this. The regulatory agencies will pay special
> attention to these comments after they have a.chance to discuss the
> Alternatives. Seek information on what the community wants. Karen Ertl
> gave
> the following example: After the April 20th meeting, a citizen wrote
> comments, concluding with strong support for reuse of water. Ms. Ertl
> noted
> that many communities would be opposed to reuse and that strong support
> for
> this innovative concept would enhance its consideration (by VHB and
> agencies) as a serious alternative.
>
> Rapidan Partnership as an Alternative: Asked why this was considered as
>an
> "alternative". Her answer: Regulatory Agencies look for ways to promote
> 'regional cooperation'. They looked at buying water from Rapidan and
also
> Rapidan buying water from RWSA. But, they discovered that buying water
> would increase the demand.
proposed
> partnership?)
>
> Dredging as an Alternative:
> Total: $79,300,000
(Did Rapidan Authority know about the
Cost: $ 300,000 for water treatment plant improvements
$76,700,000 for dredging
$1,500,000 for pump station and intake improvements
$ 790,000 for wetland mitigation
> Other costs: $79,300,000 X 20% = $95,100,000
> $95,100,000 X 15% (Engineering, Legal and Administrative)
> Land costs (300acres X $11,000/acre) = $3,300,000
Total: $112,000,000
Facility improvement costs represent increased amount of water available.
More details: Type of dredging: Marine Contractors
Hydraulic dredging (type used for fine sediments)
National firms.
Unit costs: $4-6 per cubic yard for removal
Dewatering and disposal: Used localities (Denver,D.C., Fairfax) Unit
costs: $10 per cubic yard for disposal.
(Members asked for following quote:)
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1123
-21-
> "As we approach the 21 st century, the limited water supply and
established
> water storage and distribution systems must be managed effectively to
meet
> increasing demands. Evidence abounds, however, that the era of building
> large dams and conveyance systems has ended. Thus, "new" future supplies
> likely will come from conservation, reuse, and improved water-use
> efficiency
> rather than from ambitious water-supply projects."... "the President
> signed
> into law the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102--486), which calls
> for government agencies to take the lead in water-use efficiency measures
> and sets new standards for water-conserving plumbing fixtures. A supply
> that
> has ecological and economic limits cannot be continuously expanded to try
> to
> meet insatiable demands. Comprehensive streamflow data are needed to
> account
> for the water in the Nation's hydrologic systems and to quantify the
> stress
> on existing supplies. Just as managers needed supply information during
> the
> dam-building era, they now need more comprehensive streamflow data to
> assess
> the effectiveness of various management options and to monitor mandated
> instream flows.
Recommend: Efficient use of water, Reuse, and Dredging as a way of
solving Water Demand
1. Adopt 1979 RWSA Water Conservation Plan (already approved by Board)
calling for Permanent Reduction in Consumption of Water.
2. Find Creative Solution to Dredging Problem in SFRR
3. Seriously consider reuse (including David Hirschman's incremental
plan).
Information about Mud Cat Dredging:
Small scale dredging in contrast to large scale 'marine' dreging.
Mud Cat is a small barge containing a suction/auger mechanism to channel
silt long distances(a mile and a half, for example) to holding area.
Works in as little as 21" of water
Does not produce turbidity
Cost for removal = $0.67 per cubic yard
Dewatered silt used for rebuilding landscape of reservoir (terraced area
created), taken to landfill for use in daily cover, used as roadfill by
transportation department. Said to be valuable topsoil when dewatered
Many communities restore lakes or reservoirs to original pristine
conditions
Find information (Case Histories) at
www.d redge.com/cases_mudcat/water.html
-22-
3. Pumping Station.
ACSA Meeting: March 19, 1998
From "Other Matters Not on the Agenda"
Rapidan has approached ABSA (RWSA?) about purchasing the pumping station
that is located just across the county line near Greene County. Rapidan
is
anticipating growth in the near future (shopping center???). (For
Albemarle
County, a new pumping station will be needed to serve this area,
> anyway-because the present station will not have the capacity to serve
the
> proposed growth that will take place in this sector of AC.)
> Rapidan's request is under consideration at this time. Many factors come
> into play as this idea is evaluated. The Four Party Agreement must be
> taken
> into account. Even though the station is located within AC, the other
> members must agree. Also, there is the (political) question of treated
> waste water crossing the county line.
> Question of effluent. Rapidan is located between the Rappahannock River.
> Basin and the James River Basin. If Rapidan builds its own treatment
> facility (which it must do, anyway), the effluent will flow into the
North
> Fork Rivanna River. (Special use permit?). So, either way-whether they
buy
the AC existing treatment plant or whether they build their own-as far as
effluent goes, the outcome will be the same.
AC Growth Area. Route 785, Hollymeade, Camelot, other development
potential
in DGIC, 1100 A. Zoned commercial (available), proposed new elementary
school, Dr. Hurt property, Advance Mills, (4000 A.), Industrical Park, W.
Woods, UVA Research Park. This potential for growth must be taken into
consideration now. We need to plan for the future now (even though,
presently, the pumping station is working at only 1/3 its capacity).
In two years, Rapidan will need pumping station.
Monday, April 3, 1999. DAILY PROGRESS. "As Ruckersville sewer work ends,
growth may begin" (Patrick Hickerson)
Ruckersville Area Sewer Project, 10 mile line from Ruckersville Village
Shopping Center to Standardsville Wastewater Treatment Plant. Plans to
further increase sewer capacity-"by obtaining use of treatment
plant-called
Camelot-in norther AC, or by building a plant in Ruckersville." "The
Rapidan and Albemarle service authories have been discussing since last
year
the possibility of the RSA stretching a line to the plant along the north
fork of the Rivanna River...etc...."
-23-
Southern
Environmental
Law Center
201 West Main St., Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065
804-977~4090
Fax 804-977-1483
selcva@selcva.org
May 20, 1999
Jack Marshall
3570 Brinnington Rd.
Charlottesville, VA
22901
Dear Jack:
We are aware that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(~RWSA") is meeting on Friday with representatives from the
various regulatory agencies and we therefore would like to
express our specific concerns regarding the ongoing study for
the future water needs of the area.
While there have been two public presentations about the
proposed reservoir at Buck Mountain over the past year, there
has been no opportunity for feedback about the proposed project.
There is a corps of citizens who are fairly well informed and
concerned about the issue. We believe that it is important to
obtain feedback on your plans from the community so that future
studies can answer legitimate questions that have been raised.
In particular, we are concerned that there has not been a
concerted effort between City Council, the Board of Supervisors
and the RWSA to understand the long-term ramifications of water
supply planning for our community. Instead, the process appears
to us to be driven by a team of consultants, who, while
knowledgeable and experienced in the technical details of
reservoir planning, are no substitute for community
decisionmaking.
Over the past several years, there have been questions
raised about, among other things, the demand projections;
efforts to increase existing supply and storage; the lack of a
meaningful and coordinated water conservation plan, including an
aggressive educational program; the importance of additional
-24-
Carolinas Office: 137 Est Franklin St., Suite 404 · Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3628 · 919-967-1450
DeO Sous O~ce: The Candler Building · 127 Peachtree St., Suim 605 * Atlanta, GA 30303-1800 · 404-521-9900
100% recycled paper
land use planning measures to protect existing sources;
additional conservation tools such as recycling or reused water;
retrofit/rebat~ programs; and revisions to the rate structure to
discourage wasteful use and encourage conservation.
We understand full well that the environmental studies
related to this project will require public participation, but
we think that it is critical for the RWSA, the City and the
County.to provide additional opportunities for public
participation in advance of these studies. This will better
involve and reflect the preferences of the community and could
prevent subsequent adversarial battles as well.
From our work on the James City County Reservoir and the
King William Reservoir in the Tidewater region, we have learned
much about the issues that will face the RWSA, and we would be
happy to share the information that we have collected over the
course of the last decade.
We suggest that the RWSA consider a joint public hearing
with' the City.and.County governing bodies, at which time the
consultants could present their findings'and the public would
have an opportunity to give input on the plans to date.
We would be glad to discuss this further with you at your
convenience. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Murray
Kay Slaughter
/CS
CC:
Regina Poeske, EPA Region III
Joe Hassell, Dept. of Environmental Quality
Pam Painter, U.S. Corps of Engineers
~rt Petrini, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Charlottesville City Council
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
-25-
Donna and Jim Bennett
June15,1999
Arthur Petrirmi, Executive Director
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Post Office Box 18
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Petrinni:
We are writing to provide our responses to the public meeting held April 20, 1999,
during which your consultants, VHB, presented their analysis of water demand and
supply alternatives tbr our area. Although the report included much valuable information,
we fkel it is inadequate for our community's needs and that additional meaningful public
input into the permitting process is required.
As you know, we have been campaigning for several years for RWSA to release water
during the summer-fall months from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir into the .begimfing of
the State Scenic portion of the Moormans River below the Sugar Hollow Dam. We have
persisted in this request because of our concern about ecological damage to the
Moormans riverbed and related wetlands brought about by man-made cyclical drying of
the river during these summer-fall dry spells, which in 1998-99 lasted 7 months.
When we first approached you prior to the VHB study process, you suggested that we
make our request known at a public meeting to be held by RWSA and VHB early in the
permitting process--with the idea that release into the Moormans could be planned for
during the subsequent period of evaluation. Because the public meeting did not take
place until two and a half years later, we appealed to RWSA Board instead We were told
by the Board that consideration of the subject of release of water into the Moormans
could not occur until after an additiolml water supply is in place. As a consequence of this
decision, no provision was made for water release into the Moormans in the VHB
demand analysis for a new water supply.
As you know, we have recently proposed a voluntary "proportional release" plan
whereby 50% of total inflow into the Sugar Hollow reservoir, measured at weekly
intervals, be released into the Moormans dtaSag the summer-fall period. Our proposal
includes a cap of lmgd maximum release, and release would cease if mandatory water
conservation measures were triggered by a prolonged drought. This proposal could have
been easily modeled by VHB, and should have been included along with more realistic
modeling of demand during drought conditions (see below).
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/FAX 804-823-2636
-26-
Crozet, I/.4 22932
email : M oormansR(a_)msn, corn
Donna and Jim Bennett
As a result of our concerns for the [ack of water in the Moormans River, we have
taken a special interest in water supply and demand problems in our community. Over
the past six years we have watched the level of the Sugar Hollow reservoir fall quickly at
the beginning of June, with no flow over the dam for the next six months (or more).
Reports last summer of the highest demand on record in our area of 14.5 mgd, during the
period of time when a serious drought was evolving, show that peak summertime usage
plays a major role in diverting flow from the Moormans. Yet, 'although a laudable
Conservation Plan was proposed to and approved by RWSA in 1979, which would have
required a permanent 10% reduction in water consumption, to date our area has not
utilized any method of controlling demand. Even with the example of an unnaturally dry
river bed, dramatically demonstrating the cm~sequences of RWSA's continuing to meet
unchecked water demands, the same practice of meeting excessive needs of water users
has been incorporated into the demand figures projected by VHB. In addition, no
provision is made in these projections to allow for water release into the community's
most treasured river, a river accorded the honor of State Scenic status as well as
nomination and unanimous community support for Tier III designation.
Our area is recognized both nationally and locally for its great natural beauty,
including its typical Blue Ridge rivers. The tact that these waterways are much beloved
by those who live here is exemplified by the following: Two years ago, many residents
volunteered to doctunent .and assess the streams of the Rivanna River Basin, as part of a
year long, EPA-sponsored, study. In addition, although Albemarle County is located far
from the coast, we have adopted Chesapeake Bay Protection regulations and have been
the recipient of an award for our efforts to help preserve the Bay by protecting the
drainage area of the Blue Ridge. Thus, it can be seen that our community possesses a
tradition of serious commitment to the preservation of our watershed areas. Yet,
ironically, this concerned community has had no opportunity for meaningful public input
during the two and a half year long permitting process for a new water supply. The recent
public meeting, held April 20th, took place too late for true public involvement. The April
meeting functioned only to convey information, not to promote open discussion of the
VI-lB report. During the question period, which occurred at the end of the report, citizens
asked a wide range of important questions. Some of these questions required additional
information to be provided at a later time in a public setting. Unfortunately, no public
meeting is scheduled to take place before the meeting with federal and state regulators.
Thus, as citizens, our only opportunity to ask questions or make comments about the
alternatives must unfortunately occur outside of a public forum, within the confines of
this letter:
1. As mentioned earlier, we feel the demand analysis presented is too limited.
Demand figures are based on historical (unregulated) usage in our community. There has
been no opportunity for public debate on the important question of whether we should
expect to continue to use water at current rates for the next 50 years, as is represented by
demand figures. Graphs projecting water demand, but incorporating 10% and 20%
reductions of water consumption, would have given the public an opportunity to study its
options. A series of graphs should have been given for comparison.
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/F, qX 804-823-2636
-27-
Crozet, g,4 22932
., ft
email: MoorrnansR,~msn. corn
Donna and Jim Bennett
2. Likewise, the presented graph projecting population growth and water demand
utilized continuation of a hyperbolic growth rate in the Albemarle County service area,
projected to the year 2050. Why didn't VHB also present more conservative models,
representing a median between the slower growth rate that preceded 1990 and the faster
growth rate since the early '90's? Graphs depicting both a more conservative population
grox~a curve and more conservative water demand figures should have been offered.
3. The RWSA has utilized a graph titled "Supply and Demand" to depict the extent
of a potential water deficit through the year 2050. This graph is misleading to all but the
most careful observer, and it fails to contain infbrmation essential to understanding and
measuring potential water supply deficits.. The graph does not depict a decrease in actual
water supply through 2050. It only depicts what the "worst case" water deficit would be
for each year if a most severe drought occurred in that particular year. This analysis
ignores the fact that as drought conditions become more severe, more water would be
conserved through voluntary and mandatory measures. Thus, the presented analysis is
biased towards increasing the demand-supply disparity, because it is based on the
inaccurate assumption that water usage would not Change during a severe drought. More
data is needed to enable the public to make judgments on what improvements we should
make in our water supply system.
4. The silting in of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) is given as one cause of
projected deficit of future water supply--assuming a steady rate of loss of storage
capacity over time. Recovery of storage capacity in the SFRR would allow expansion of
treatment capacity to 16mgd, as recommended by the James River Basin Plan. In fact,
recovery of storage capacity may be critically necessary for our community if we are to
avoid having to abandon this important reservoir and recreation area. However, the
altemative of dredging the SFRR was presented in such an economically extreme manner
as to appear unfeasible. The source of cost estimate for dredging was a large scale marine
contractor. The unit costs per cubic yard for removal were $4-6; the unit costs per cubic
yard for disposal were $10. Small-scale reservoir recovery dredging has been utilized
effectively by many other communities to solve similar reservoir siltation problems.
Large scale marine dredging would produce substantial turbidity, restricting the
usefuhaess of the SFRR as a water supply during the dredging process and adversely
affecting reservoir ecology. More cost effective and less invasive alternatives are
available. These derive from the use of small barges with suction/auger mechanisms
which remove silt and allow it to be pumped up to several miles, if necessary, to
reclamation areas. These barges work in as little as 21" of water and do not produce
turbidity. A recent reservoir recovery project involving a 1400 acre reservoir produced a
cost analysis of 67 cents per cubic yard for removal and transfer of silt. This cost
included all labor and materials, maintenance, and depreciation of the dredge barge. It did
not include costs of land acquisition for the reclamation area. This is about 5% of the
cost presented by VHB. Case studies show that dewatered silt can be sold for rebuildin.l~
landscapes, landfill cover, or road fill. A UVA biologist, who attended the April 20u'
meeting, suggested the fill could also be considered a valuable gardening product. A
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/FAX 804-823-2636
-28-
Crozet, ~'/t 22932
email: MoormansR(~msn. com
Donna and dim Bennett
farm, presently located along the South Fork Rivanna River, produces compost. Perhaps
the silt taken from the SFRR would be valuable to this operation.
5. We commend VHB's creative suggestions for reuse of water--including piping
effluent from the Moores Creek Treatment Plant to the Mechums River. The idea~of
reuse of water in the Mechums in tandem with the idea of utilizing the Mechums River
Pumping Station to transport water to Ragged Mountain reservoir represents a further
solution for allowing additional biological purification of currently highly treated
wastewater and for creating greater storage capacity. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir is
presently dependent on a very limited drainage area. Other reuse concepts might also be
utilized--such as reuse on a smaller scale, for example, within individual developments
and neighborhoods.
6. Several organizations requested that a comprehensive Water Conservation
Alternative be researched and presented. As mentioned above, our community does not
have an effective, modem water conservation plan. Although VHB indicated at RWSA
meetings that they have had experience designing water conservation plans ~br other
communities, they were not asked to model a comprehensive plan for our community as
an alternative. We feel that by proactively retrofitting inefficient water fixtures,
promoting more efficient outdoor watering practices, and block pricing, much greater
water savings can be gained then the 10% reported by VHB.
7. Drought Management. Our Comprehensive Plan states that ground water and
surface water are interdependent, and all water users have a stake in the preservation of
natural water resources. For this reason, our whole community needs a more
comprehensive and thoughtful drought management plan. Ironically, last summer, public
water consumption reached an all time high during a drought period when total reservoir
capacity was approaching the 70% level where voluntary conservation would be
requested. We need a more modern style of long range planning for drought
management. Mandatory conservation should occur sooner than when the entire reservoir
system reaches 70%. Implementation of such a plan would significantly alter the demand
analysis. Another drought management problem exists, as well. The Sugar
Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir system (sometimes serving more than half the water
consmners) is supplied by a 20 square mile drainage area. The SFRR is supplied by a
260 square mile drainage area. This disparity is not planned for during times of iow
rahrfall. A more comprehensive drought management plan should be designed which
deals with specific characteristics of individual reservoirs.
In summary, we feel that important community issues are not being addressed as part
of the planning for a new water supply and that meaningful public input into the
permitting process has yet to occur. Although we have written this letter as individuals,
we represent the point of view of many in our area who feel we have an obligation to
future generations to preserve exceptional rivers, like the Moormans, and exceptional
natural regions, like Albemarle County. Preservation of important natural resources can
only come about as a result of careful planning where all members of the community
urban, suburban, and rural--work together to help shape the future. The presentation of
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/FAX 804-823-2636
-29-
Crozet, gA 22932
email: Moormar~'R(~msn. corn
Donna and Jim Bennett
Preliminary Alternatives focussed on meeting the future demands of one sector of our
community, the public water users. Significantly, the report did not take into
consideration the vital role communit-y-wide stewardship must play in this planning
process.
Sincerely,
Donna and Jim Bennett
CCi
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville City Council
Col. Allan Carroll, Army Corps of Engineers
Regina Poeske, E.P.A.
Janet Norman, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Joe Hassell, D.E.Q.
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/F/LY 804-823~2636
-30-
Crozet. V~4 22932
email: MoormansR!~msn. corn
WILLIAM McDONOUGH + PARTNERS 410 E Water Street Charlottesville VA 22902 804 979 1111 Fax 804 979 1112
June3,1999
Mr. Jack Marshall
Chair, Board of Directors
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
P.O. Box 18
Charlottesville, VA 22902-0018
Re~
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Water Supply Project
Dear Jack,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments on the water supply alternatives
outlined in the Public Information Meeting of April 20 1999. As you 'know, I was the co-chair
of the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable from 1996 - 1998. The Roundtable is citizen group
appointed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, which is charged with
envisioning the future of the watershed. We spent over a year collecting information and data
on the historical and current conditions of the streams and rivers in the watershed and published
a report on our findings, conclusions and recommendations in early 1998.
One of the things that we realized as we pursued our charge concurrently with the Thomas
Jefferson Sustainability Council is that this is a community that wishes to define and guide its
future on the basis of carefully considered and articulated core values and principles. From the
public presentation, it appears that the Water Supply Project is not based on such a definition of
values. I would posit that'there are four principles with wide currency within our community
that ought to form the b~;.s for your efforts.
I would not for a moment want to suggest that you do not share these values, because I believe
that you do. What I encourage is a public discussion of what our starting point is and how we
should measure success.
Let me suggest the following principles:
1. Preserving the biological vitality of our rivers and streams is a fundamental
responsibility of our ste~vardship of natural systems.
Optimum in-stream flow in our rivers is a starting point for discussions about water
withdrawal. The word optimum is carefully chosen here - minimum in-stream flow is not a
noble goal. Why would we want to define the standard for the health of our aquatic
X:',BIN~US E RSkRKP\W P\LTR99U M060399. DOC
.2.
ecosystems as the minimum necessary for the system to function.9 There is so much that we
do not know about ecosystem function. It would be hubris to suggest that we can
accurately define a minimum quantity of flow that would preserve and support healthy,
vital and resilient surface waters. What if we are wrong.'? We should study the range of
variability of the primary surface waters and err on the side of allowing more water to
course through the system rather than less.
The seasonal deprivation of the Moormans River is unacceptable. We must restore its
historical flows and take all steps necessary to assure that we do not rely on depriving other
rivers in the future for our own inefficient water management practices.
We shauld use only such ...notable water as is necessary and return it to our rivers and
streams in a form that is healthy and ready for reuse.
We are prisoners of a misguided technology that combines human waste with vast
quantities of potable water causing us to expend significant sums of money to remove the
waste prior to release. Over time, this practice will diminish, in favor of more sensible and
less resource intensive solutions. While we work towards this inevitable change in
technology we should aggressively "mine our own inefficiencies" to create new quantities
of available water by using only what is necessary in the course of our activities.
As a community we need to wean ourselves from wasteful landscape practices that involve
the planting of climatically inappropriate species that require irrigation with potable water.
We need for the Authority to provide education and leadership in water conservation.
The water that we release is, by most accounts, very clean. It achieves the. standards for
"fishable and swimmable" water and is close to achieving a standard for potable water. We
count on the biological processes themselves for this final cleansing. The river serves us
well in this capacity. We should make use of its capacity for biological cleansing as a
component of our water supply strategy.
3. We should llve
Our annual rainfall of 45" is sufficient for the current and future water needs in this region.
We should be able to husband this res.ource in such a way as to assure that our needs are
met without going beyond the Rivanna River watershed for supplemental water. We
currently live within these limits and should continue to do so as a model for those in our
neighboring watersheds.
We 'know that our watershed has inherent characteristics that offer challenges in this regard.
Our region's geology does not provide us with abundant resources of stored ground water.
These need to be reserved for those who live outside the reach of the public water supply.
Our region's topography does not give us many good opportunities to impound water
efficiently, that is to say that our shallow valleys with gradual slopes require us to use an
inordinate land area for a small storage capacity. Understanding these realities ,,,,'ill cause
-32-
X:\B INXU SE RS\RK PXW P\LT R99kJ M060399. DOC
us to look to more creative solutions for meeting our water needs while assuring the vitality
of our aquatic ecosystems.
Going down the path of inter-basin transfer is not one of these creative solutions. It
represents a selfish attitude of"getting there first" - staking our claim and letting our
neighboring regions fend for themselves.
4. Leveraging our investment in public infrastructure is fundamentally sensible in the
short and long term.
We now know that the same land use practices that have squandered topsoil for generations
are also responsible for silting in our reservoi?s. In the case of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir, based on today's replacement cost, this careless siltation has cost our community
an average of $170,000 per year. If provided with the proper information, our community
would make the smart choice to leverage its assets by investing in reasonable alternatives
such as vegetated buffers to slow this senseless waste. The Authority could provide
valuable leadership in framing this discussion.
All reasonable options for extending the useful life of this reservoir should be implemented
at once.
In the process of evaluating the alternatives presented to the Authority, 1 find the primary
regulatory criterion, to cause the minimum environmental consequences, to be an instructive
yardstick and one sympathetic with these principles. If one were to accept these principles and
to seriously attend to this regulatory criterion, what course is suggested? I would submit the
following course, in this order:
1. Institute aggressive water conservation now.
This is the most environmentally benign solution available to us and fits well within our
principles. I was disappointed that the consultants dismissed this strategy by setting their
sights too low. We should aim for a 50% reduction in water use and invest as seriously in
this strategy as we would in one of thc engineering solutions that are favored in the
presentation of options. I would propose that a real study of conservation be done. At the
risk of misstating some of the numbers due to lack of available information, let me outline a
possible scenario. -
If we aim to save 6 mgd (half of our water use) and are willing to invest at the rate of
$4.00/g (roughly the lowest rate for the new dam and reservoir alternatives), we ~vould have
a pool of $24,000,000 available for this venture. Nowhere have I been able to find the
precise number of households served by the Authority nor the mix of commercial to
residential use. However, if we have 36,000 households (I doubt it is this high), we could
spend $750/household to invest in state-of-the-art toilets, shower heads, faucets, washing
machines and dishwashers. Buying in bulk and establishing an efficient network of
plumbers who focussed on retrofitting households, we could replace most of the wasteful
-33-
X:\BIN\USERSLRKP\WP\LTR99~JM060399.DOC
fixtures within the Authority's boundaries for this incremental sum, while creating dozens
of jobs.
How would we encourage people to pa~rticipate? The first step would be public education,
then the carrot and stick. The carrot- it's free, the stick- at the end of two years, institute
a stepped rate schedule with the current rate charged for half of the current use (around 50
gallons/person/day). Then institute "conservation pricing" for any greater use. I do not
know what the right formula is for a program like this. I would expect a lively debate in the
course of developing the program, but first we have to start the discussion. By eliminating
a retrofit program from consideration and dismissing the resulting tepid water conservation
option as ineffective, your consultants are not moving us forward in this venture.
With the on-going growth in this region:and the number of residences under construction,
stringent standards should be applied through the building codes for all permitted
construction.
Here is the best part ... no regulators and we can start immediately. Every gallon we save
recharges the Moormans River and builds a buffer against the kind of low rain fall that we
have had in the past year.
2. Leverage our investment in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
The Authority should work with Albemarle CountY to institute land use controls that slow
and eventually stop the siltation of the reservoir. Looking at the cost to all of us of our
inaction on this front, we can hardly afford not to be making this investment as well. This
initiative will take some time so we should start right away to stabilize stream banks,
minimize impervious surfaces and establish healthy stream side vegetated buffers.
. I strongly endorse the alternatives for increasing the height of the dam at the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) to salvage some of its dwindling capacity. These are
inexpensive alternatives and extend our collective investment in this resource. Your
consultants also suggested that this could be a relatively quick alternative to implement,
which is also valuable.
Some members of our community have investigated the technology and economics of
reservoir recovery, as it might be applied to the SFRR. Their research suggests that there is
a significantly less expensive alternative for dredging to the one priced by your consultants.
I would encourage you to have your consultants investigate small hydraulic auger dredges
that remove sediment in a non-turbidity-producing manner. This technology has been
available for over 10 years and deserves careful consideration. I would be very interested
in reading an assessment of the applicability of this technology to the SFRR.
3. Invest in ~vater reuse.
There is no question that water reuse will play a significant role in our water planning
strategy over the 50-year horizon of your study. It would be smart to start now. Our water
-34--
X:\BIN',USERS\RKP\W r~LTR99~J M060399.DOC
use plan currently assumes that the biological processes in the Rivanna River will provide
the final cleansing of the effluent from the Moore's Creek water treatment plant. We
should use that to our advantage. There is something inherently elegant about reusing the
same water over and over again ... forever. This is the sustainable water solution of the
future. It should be possible to balance our retainage and releases to restore the flow
downstream of all impoundments to the natural range of variability in a serious reuse
scenario.
In addition to considering a pumpback to the Meechums River, I am also interested in the
notion introduced by one of the staff of the Authority - to use the two reservoirs at Ragged
Mountain as final treatment sites in a reuse strategy. Over time, if our needs continue to
grow, we may find that we ha¥'e several options for sites ,'o inco¢orate inta the
pumpbac 'k/reuse model.
Thank you for taking the time to work your way through these thoughts. Of all people, you
know how complex this issue is and how deserving of our careful consideration. I must say
that I was disappointed that your consultants in their presentation and analysis exhibited a
strong bias for heavy-handed engineering solutions, primarily focussed on new dams and
reservoirs. We need to be much more creative than that.
This community has no shortage of creativity and will. We need to move beyond old
discredited ideas that are based on the premise that "if brute force isn't working, you are not
using enough of it". We need to move to elegant solutions based on an appreciation for and
understanding of the inherent logic and beauty of natural systems. Please provide the
leadership to move us all in this direction. If you do, you will find a majority of this
community solidly behind you.
I would be delighted to meet to discuss this further at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Russell Perry, AIA
Managing Partner
Cci
Art Petrini, RWSA
Col. Allan Carroll, US Army Corps of Engineers
Regina Poeske, USEPA Region 3
Janet Norman, US Fish and Wildlife Service
City Council of the City of Charlottesville
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
-35-
X:\BIN~U SERS'~RKP\WP',LTR99'd M060399.DOC
~OUNDTA1~L~.
DATE: July 8, 1999
TO:
Charlottesville City Council
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
League of Women Voters of Charlottesville/Albemarle County
Rivanna River Basin Roundtable
Water Policy and Water Supply Planning
The League of Women Voters and the Rivanna R/ver Basin Roundtable advocate sound water
policy and full public participation in water decisions that will impact our community, far into
the fhture. Regarding the Water Supply Planning process now underway by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), we believe that this process is so important that the
ele~cted officials of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville should be setting basic
policy in this matter.
Public participation over the past few years in numerous water forums, summits, and
committees, in the RWSA process, and at the Water Supply Plan public meeting of April 20,
1999, suggest a high level of informed citizen interest and concern.
Therefore, we urge the County, the City and the RWSA, jointly, to in/t/ate a ser/es of
meetings to promote public education, dialog and deliberation on this important issue. We
believe that there w/Il be broad interest in and appreciation for this opportunity for public
discourse. We propose thc following sessions to be held as soon as scheduling permits, but
certainly no later than early September, 1999:
1. An open joint City Council/Board of Supervisors work session with RWSA
presenting their water supply and demand analyses and the potent/al alternatives they have
identified to meet their projected future demand Additionally, service, educational and
conservation groups, and other informed parties that represent the broad spectrum of water
use and interest in the Basin should be invited to make concise, informed presentations.
2. A second open meeting to be held after a period of time to allow our elected
officials to study the information presented and to solicit input from their constituents. This
meeting would give the elected officials an opportun/ty for questions and answers with the
RWSA and for a joint discussion of water supply and use strategies.
3. A public hearing for further input by the community on water policy and
supply issues.
-36=
gO'd £g:6 66, 9'[ In£ O08S-96g-l;'Oe:Xe-~ ),,,<-,r,-,
The Water Supply Planning process is proceeding at a del/berate pace. We see no reason that
the proposed meetings would interrupt or disrupt the process underway. Conversely, now that
the RWSA has identified numerous alternatives for consideration, we feel that this is an/deal
t/me t'or the public and its mpmsentat/ves to be engaged in the dialog. We ask that you
/nitiate this dialog in an expectit/ous manner.
Since the Water Supply Planning process w/Il continue for an undefined time, we also suggest
that you establish a joint City/County and Regional water oversight commission or task force.
This would aIIow the integration of broader water issues with the task of providing an
adequate potable water supply for the public: service area.
We thank you for your attention to these requests, and offer any assistance you would find
helpful in organizing the proposed informational meetings and/or identifying important
participants.
Respectfully yours,
Ruth Wadlington and Sandy Snook
Co-Presidents, League of' Women Voters Charlottesville and Albemarle County
Arthur Bulger, Ph.D.
Chairperson, Rivanna River Basin Roundtable
-37-
£O'd £5:6 66, £l ln£ 008S-96C-~8:xe~
Raw Water
Supply
Facility
Permitting
Supply Analysis
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
Prepared for
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Prepared by
O'Brien & Gem Engineers, Inc.
~r-/~/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
DRAFT
October 1997
fredva:30502~jraphics',cover~30502cov, pm5
l~aw Water Supply Facility Permitting
'O
Water SupplY Analys s
Albemarle County/City of
Charlottesville,
Virginia
Prepared for
Prepared by
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Charlottesville, Virginia
O'Brien & Gere Engineers
8201 Corporate DriVe, Suite 1000
Landover, Maryland 20785
and
· Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
477 McLaws Circle, Suite 1
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
October 1997
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction ............................................................................................................................
System Description ................................................................................................................ 2
South Rivanna WTP ................................................................................................................... 2
Observatory WTP ......................................................... ' .............................................................. 2
North Fork Rivanna WTP ........................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ......................? .................................................................................................... 5
Gauging Station Bata ................................................................................................................. 5
Surrogate Watershed Selection .................................................................................................. 6
Safe Yield Analysis ................................... ~ .......................................................................... 11
Rivanna Reservoir .................................................................................................................... 1.1
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir System ................................................................. 13
North Fork Rivanna River Intake .............................................................................................. 16
System-Wide Safe Yield ..................................................................................................... 18
References ............................................................................................................................. 20
i Table of Contents
\\willva~projects\30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Ina.
FigUres
Figure No. Description Page No.
Urban Service Area .................................................................................. 3
1930 River Flows ...................................................................................... 8
RWSA System-Wide Safe Yield .............................................................. 19
ii Table of Contents
\\willva~projects\30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Executive Summary
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) has been authorized by the Rivanna Water &
Sewer Authority (RWSA) to prepare a raw water supply study to evaluate the future
water needs of the RWSA's Urban Service Area which includes the City of
Charlottesville and surrounding areas. O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. serves as a
subcontractor to VHB on various aspects of the raw water supply study.
Among the initial efforts as part of this study are tasks to: (1) estimate the current and
future safe yield of the existing raw water supply system and, (2) project future water
demand through the year 2050. A comparison of safe yield and demand projections
will enable the RWSA to better understand whether and when it may face a water
deficit, and the magnitude of any such deficit. Subsequent studies will include an
analysis of alternatives to address any water deficit. Alternatives to be evaluated will
include, but will not necessarily be limited to, new sources of supply, water
conservation programs, demand control measures, and options to restore or increase
the safe yield of existing sources.
This report summarizes the results of a raw water safe yield review of the existing
RWSA Urban Service Area system as it has historically operated. This system
includes the (1) Rivanna Reservoir, (2) Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir
system, and (3) North Fork Rivanna River Intake. For purposes of this analysis,
"safe yield" is defined as the maximum raw water yield that can be supplied
consistently over the long term. It is estimated by examining hydrologic data for as
long a time period as possible and then calculating the probable maximum yield of
the raw water supply resource during the most severe drought, also referred to as the
"critical period".
Previous safe yield estimates conducted for the same water supplies used differing
techniques and drought periods to estimate safe yield. For example, the recent Urban.
Area Raw Water Management Plan (Black & Veatch, 1995) used synthesized flow
records simulating the period 1942 - 1991, and particularly the drought of 1954 to
estimate the yield of the Rivarma Reservoir. The Report on Water Works System
Charlottesville, Virginia (Polglaze & Basenberg, 1959) used the 1930 drought to
· predict the safe yield for the Rivanna Reservoir. The Safe Yield of Municipal Surface
Water Supply Systems in Virginia Planning Bulletin #335 (Virginia State Water
Control Board, March 1985) used the 1953-54 critical period to estimate safe yield of
the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain system.
Executive Summary
\\witlva\projects\30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Methods employed for this analysis included a review of United States Geological
Survey (USGS) stream gage data for numerous gauging stations in the region. This
data was used to select representative hydrologic data and to identify the critical
periods for all three water supply sources noted above. System-wide safe yield
evaluations were 'performed for the RWSA Urban Service Area system based on the
1930 drought, which was found to be the critical period for each of the water supply
systems (the Rivanna Reservoir, Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir system,
and the North Fork Rivarma River). The system-wide safe yield was estimated by
adding the safe yield estimates for each component of the system. As no data exist to
directly evaluate the effect of the 1930 drought on the Sugar HolloW/Ragged
Mountain reservoir system, estimates of safe yield based on two surrogate
watersheds were used.
The estimated safe yield of the water supply system is currently 11.9 to 12.6 mgd.
This range in safe yield results from uncertainty regarding the 1930 safe yield of the
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain system. As siltation reduces storage volume in the
reservoirs, this safe yield will decrease over time. Safe yield for the system in Year
2050 is estimated to be 4.5 mgd to 4.8 mgd. Current and future safe yield estimates
for the existing raw water supply system and for each component of the system are
Summarized below.
RWSA Current And Future System-Wide Safe Yield Estimates
Source Current Safe Year 2050 Safe Yield
Yield
Rivanna Reservoir 7.2 mgd 0 mgd
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mtn. 4.1 to 4.8 mgd ¢) 3,9 to 4.2 mgd ¢)
North Rivanna River Intake 0.6 mgd 0.6 mgd
Total System 11.9 to 12.6 mgd 4.5 to 4.8 mgd
(1) Range corresponds.to uncertainty regarding the 1930 drought event.
Executive Summary
\\willva~projects\30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0')
0 "-
(plStu) Ple!A e:[eS Je:l.e~
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Introduction
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) has been authorized by the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) to prepare a raw water
supply study to evaluate the future water needs of the RWSA's Urban
Service Area which includes the City of Charlottesville and surrounding
areas. O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. serves as a subcontractor to VHB
on various aspects of the raw water supply study.
Among the initial efforts as part of this study are tasks to: (1) estimate the
current and future safe yield of the existing raw water supply system and,
(2) to project future water demand through the year 2050. A comparison
of safe yield and demand projections will enable the RWSA to better
understand whether and when it may face a water deficit and the
magnitude of any such deficit. Subsequent studies will include an analysis
of alternatives to address any water deficit. Alternatives to be evaluated
will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, new sources of supply,
water conservation programs? demand control measures, and options to
restore or increase the safe yield of existing sources (i.e. dredging).
This report summarizes the results of a raw water safe yield review of. the
existing RWSA Urban Service Area system as it has historically operated.
This system includes the (1) Rivanna Reservoir, (2) Sugar Hollow/Ragged
Mountain Reservoir system, and (3) North Fork Rivanna River Intake.
For purposes of this analysis, "safe yield" is defined as the maximum raw
water yield that can be supplied consistently over the long term. It is
estimated by examining hydrologic data for as long a time period as
possible and then calculating the probable maximum yield of the raw water
supPly resource during the most severe drought, also referred to as the
"critical period".
1 Introduction
\\willva \projects \30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
System Description
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Urban Service Area system
includes three water treatment plants (WTP): (1) South Rivanna WTP,
(2) Observatory WTP, and (3) North Fork Rivanna WTP. These
treatment plants receive raw water from a water supply system which
includes reservoirs and a river diversion. Major system components are
shown in Figure 1.
South Rivanna WTP
The South Rivanna WTP withdraws raw water from the Rivanna
Reservoir which is located on the South Fork of the Rivanna River. The
reservoir has a usable volume of 880 million gallons (MG) and a drainage
area of 261 mi2. However, since 18 mi2 of the Rivanna Reservoir
drainage basin flows to the Sugar Hollow ReServoir ~see Observatory
WTP discussion below), a drainage basin size of 243 mi (261 mi2 minus
18 mi2 ) has been used to calculate safe yield at the Rivanna Reservoir.
I
Observatory WTP
The Observatory WTP is located in the City of Charlottesville and
withdraws water from the "Upper" and "Lower" Ragged Mountain
reservoirs via an 18 inch raw water pipe. These reservoirs were evaluated
as one with a total drainage area of 1.8 mi2 and a usable volume of 514
MG. The Observatory WTP also withdraws from the Sugar Hollow
Reservoir via another 18 inch raw water pipe. The Sugar Hollow
Reservoir is located at the confluence of the north and south fork of the
Moorman's River, has a drainage area of 18 mi2 and a usable volume of
360 MG. It is located entirely within the drainage basin of the Rivanna
Reservoir and can supply raw water to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir
by way of a weir overflow box that interconnects the system.
II
North Fork Rivanna WTP
The North Fork Rivanna WTP withdraws water from the North Fork of
the Rivanna River via a river intake. The drainage area for the river at
this point is 121 mi2 . That number does not include the drainage area
located above Chris Greene Lake, an impoundment on Jacobs Run.
Jacobs Run is a tributary of the North Fork Rivanna River located
upstream of the RWSA's intake. The drainage area above Chris Greene
2 System Description
\ \willva\ projects \30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Lake was not included in these calculations because the impoundment
historically has been used for recreational purposes and it has not
released water during times of severe drought. Thus, this drainage area
has not contributed to the safe yield of the North Fork Rivanna River
Intake. A full evaluation of using Chris Greene Lake and its upstream
drainage area for water supply purposes will be undertaken as part of the
analysis of alternatives available to the RWSA.
4 System Description
\\wiltva\projects\$0502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Methodology
Gauging Station Data
Based on a review of available documents, 'it appears that recent safe
yield calculations ( Black & Veatch, 1994 and 1995) were not based on
the 1930 drought, an event which, in O'Brien & Gere's experience, has
been the most limiting in estimates of the safe yield of nearbY water
supplies. However, during the1930 drought event, gauging stations were
not in operation at the WTP intake locations which are the focus of this
analysis. In order to estimate the effects of the 1930 drought on the water
supply system as previously described, streamflow data were obtained
from nearby gauging stations in the area which were in service during
1930. These gauging stations were evaluated to determine the suitability
of each for use as surrogates .for the Rivanna River, the Moorman's
River, and the North Fork Rivanna River.
The search for compatible gauging stations encompassed the following
counties in Virginia which are topographically similar and are in close
proximity to the Rivanna System:
Amherst
Albemarle
Greene
Appomattox
Fluvanna
Madison
Nelson
Louisa
Culpeper
Bucki.ngham
Orange
Rappahannock
Table 1 shows the gauging stations which were active in these counties
during the 1930 drought event. The gauging station which was active on
the Rivanna River below Moore's Creek (near Charlottesville) during the
1930 drought was moved upstream to a point near Earlysville near the
Route 29 bridge downstream from the Rivanna Reservoir dam. Data are
available from this location for the period from 1/1/53 to 12/31/57.
5 Methodology
\ \willva\projects\30502\obrien&gere\watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Table 1. Available gauging stations (1930 drought)
Gauging Station/River/Location County
Dates of Available Data
Drainage Area
Rivanna River below Moore's
Creek (later moved to a location
near Earlysville)
Slate River near Arvonia
Tye River near Roseland and
Lovingston
North Anna River near Doswell
Rapidan River near Culpeper and
Rapidan
Albemarle
Buckingham
Nelson
Caroline
Culpeper
10/1/25-3/31/34
(No data for some months)
and (1/1/53- 12/31/57)
4/1/26-9/30/93
(No data from 1935-36)
10/1/27-9/30/93
(Station moved in 1938, no
data for some months of that
year)
4/1/29-9/30/88
4/1/25-9/30/93
(Station moved downstream
in 1930)
507 mie
(216 mi2 @
Earlysville)
226 mi2
68 mi2
441 mi2
472 mi~
SurrOgate Watershed Selection
In determining the safe yield of the water supply system, supplies to the
three WTPs have been analyzed separately.
Rivanna Reservoir
Due to the fact that 18 mi2 of the Rivanna Reservoir drainage basin flows
to the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, which feeds the Observatory WTP during
a drought, the Rivanna Reservoir safe yield has been calculated using a
drainage basin size of 243 mi2 (rather than 261 mi2). Data are available
for the 1930 drought at a gage on the Rivanna River downstream of the
existing reservoir (Rivanna River below Moore's Creek). These data
were used to calculate a safe yield for the reservoir, and a surrogate
watershed (Slate River near Arvonia) was selected to confirm this
calculation.
There are two drought periods for which historical flow data are available
at all of the gauging stations described in Table 1: the 1930's drought of
record and the 1950's drought which was used in previous studies. To
assess the suitability of potential surrogates, average yields were
calculated and compared for each of these watersheds. The results of the
average yield calculations for each historical period are shown in Table 2.
6 Methodology
\ \wilIva\projects\30502\obrien&gere\watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Table 2. Average yield at potential Rivanna River surrogates
Gauging Station/River/Location
County
Avg. Yield,
period of
1011129-3/31134
' (cfs/mi2)
Avg. Yield,
period of
1/1/53-12/31/57
(cfs/mi2)
Rivanna River below Moore's
Creek (10/1/29-3/31/34) and near
Earlysville (1/1/53-12/31/57)
Slate River near Arvonia
Tye River near Roseland
and Lovingston
North Anna River near Doswell
Rapidan River near Culpeper
Albemarle 0.77 0.81
Buckingham 0.74 0.75
Nelson 1.41' 1.93
Caroline 0.69 0.67
Culpeper 0.73 0.84
The average yield of the Rivanna, Slate, and North Anna rivers did not
vary significantly for the two periods (within each basin). The Slate and
Rapidan rivers have yields most similar to the Rivanna River.
More detailed review of the data for the specific drought period between
May and November of 1930, suggests that the Rapidan River had lower
yields than the Rivanna during the drought. (A comparison of daily flow
data is provided in Figure 2). The Rapidan River flow also recovered
more slowly from this drought. Daily data for the Rivanna and Slate
rivers compare more favorably. Because of the repeatability of the
average yield data and the similarities of flow patterns through the
drought, separate safe yield calculations were carried out using both the
Slate and Rivanna gauging station data.
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir System
The Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain Reservoirs have been evaluated
as one system of reservoirs with a drainage area of 19.8 mi2. Since no
streamflow data are available for the Moorman's River during the 1930
drought, two surrogates were selected to use in safe yield calculations for
the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain system. Since the Sugar Hollow
Basin lies entirely within the Rivanna River watershed, the Rivanna River
flows should closely mimic those in the Moorman's River. The Rivanna
River was therefore selected as one surrogate for the Moorman's River.
In order to evaluate other potential surrogates, the flow yield (flow
volume/drainage area) at the gauging stations was compared with that of
the Moorman's River during a period in which data are available for all
gages. The Slate River, which had a yield most similar to that of the
Moorman'~, was also selected as a surrogate. Daily flow data for the
surrogates were adjusted for differences in drainage area and flow yield,
7 Methodology
\\wiltva\projects\30502\obrlen&gere\watersupply1097
o
('!uJ 'bs/$~o) MOI--I
0 ~
0
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
and these adjusted data were used in a safe yield analysis based on the
1930 drought.
In order to verify the use of the Slate River, the evaluation was repeated
using 1954 data from the Slate River gage, and the results were compared
to the existing 1954 data from the Moorman's River gage. This
comparison revealed that simply using the Slate River as a surrogate for
the Moorman's River results in a significant overestimate of the
documented 1954 flows. This difference was used to develop a
correction factor for use in estimating safe yield.
No data are available for the Moorman's River (source for the Sugar
Hollow Reservoir) during the 1930 drought. Therefore, surrogate
watersheds, for which 1930's data are available, were selected for
estimating the safe yield of the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain system
during this drought event. Since the Sugar Hollow Basin lies entirely
within the Rivanna River watershed, the Rivanna River flows should
closely mimic those in the Moorman's River. To determine the
similarities between the Moorman's River and the rivers which had
gauging stations during 1930, available data for the North Fork of the
Moorman's River (1952-1963 and 1982-1983) were compared with data
for the same periods from these other rivers.
Although there is no period for which data are available from both the
Rivanna River gauging station and the Moorman's River gauging station,
the Rivanna River was selected for use as a surrogate because the
Rivanna River watershed includes the Sugar Hollow basin. The average
yields of the Moorman's River and the other potential surrogates are
shown on Table 3.
Table 3. Average yield of potential Moorman's River surrogates'
Gauging County Avg. Yield,
Station/River/Location (cfs/mi2)
North Fork of the
Moorman's River near
White Hall
Slate River near Arvonia
Albemarle 1.50
Buckingham 0.92
Tye River near Roseland Nelson
and Lovingston
2.13
North Anna River near Caroline 0.84
Doswell
Rapidan River near Culpeper 1.02
Culpeper
The Rivanna River is not included because there is no period for which data is available from
both the Rivanna River station and the Moorman's River station.
9 Methodology
\ \ willva\projects \30502\ obrien&gere\w a tersupply 1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Of the rivers analyzed, the Rapidan should be removed from
consideration because, as determined in the analysis and shown on Figure
2 of the Rivanna Reservoir, the Rapidan flows did not mimic recorded
flows in the Rivanna River during the 1930 drought (the Moorman's
River Basin is located within the Rivanna Watershed). Of the remaining
rivers, none appear to have an average yield closely corresponding to that
of the Moorman's River. Therefore, the Slate River data, which indicate
a yield closest to that of the Moorman's River and closely resembled the
Rivanna River Basin during the 1930 drought, was used to estimate safe
yield for the Moorman's River. The Slate River data were adjusted with
a yield factor of 1.50/0.92 to correct for differences in yield.
North Fork Rivanna River
As previously noted, the North Fork watershed area is approximately 121
mi2 excluding the portion above Chris Greene Lake. The safe yield
calculation has been carried out based on the 1930 drought using the
same data set from the Rivanna River as was used for the Rivanna, Sugar
Hollow and Ragged Mountain reservoirs (Rivanna River below Moore's
Creek Gauge). Data from the. North Fork Rivanna River near Proffit,
Virginia have also been used to calculate the safe yield of the system and
thus verify previous work.
Recent studies of the North Fork Rivanna River have relied on data from
a gauging station on the North Fork of the Rivanna River (at the Route
606 crossing) near the WTP intake. This gage is an excellent surrogate
but was not in place during the 1930 or the 1954 droughts. In order to
estimate the safe yield of this source during the 1930 drought, O'Brien &
Gere modeled the system using data from the Rivanna River gage which
was active during the 1930 drought (Rivanna River below Moore's
Creek).
10 Methodology
\ \ willva \projects \30502 \obrien&gere \ watersul~l~ly1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Safe Yield AnalYsis
Rivanna Reservoir
Estimated safe yields were calculated for the Rivanna Reservoir using
adjusted data from two gauging stations: the Rivanna River below
Moore's Creek, and the Slate River near Arvonia. Daily flow data for
each of the rivers were adjusted for differences in drainage area.
The watershed area used for the Rivanna River at the reservoir was 243
mi2, a value used in the Interim Memoranda for the Urban Raw Water
Management Plan (Black & Veatch, 1994). This watershed area excludes
18 mi of the ~ivanna Watershed which supplies the Sugar Hollow
Reservoir. It was assumed in the Black & Veatch report that the Sugar
Hollow Reservoir would supply water to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir
during drought conditions.
No adjustment of data for flow yield was necessary, as the yield values
were fairly similar for both the Rivanna and Slate rivers. A 1994
bathymetric survey found a usable storage volume of 880 mg and a
siltation rate of 13.01 mg/year. For current (1997) safe yield
calculations, the Rivanna Reservoir storage volume was assumed to be
841 MG. This value represents the volume between the spillway
elevation (382 ft.) and the lowest water intake gate elevation (367 ft.).
The available volume of 841 MG represents approximately 63% of the
total reservoir volume of 1333 MG (178 million cubic feet). To estimate
the future safe yield of the reservoir, continued loss of storage volume
due to siltation was considered.
In the December, 1959 Report on Water Works System Charlottesville,
Virginia by Polglaze & Basenberg, an evaporation factor of 44 inches per
year was applied. This corresponds to a loss of 1.28 mgd from the
Rivanna Reservoir.
The estimated current safe yield for the 1930 drought was calculated by
determining the date of drought initiation (the day that the net reservoir
inflow began to decrease according to the daily flow records) and
applying daily withdrawal rates and evaporation losses from that date
such that all available storage volume is emptied at the time daily inflows
begin refilling the reservoir. Results of the safe yield calculations are
shown in Table 4.
11 Safe Yield Analysis
\ \willva \pr ojects",30502 \ obrien&gere\Wa tersupply 1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Table 4. Current Rivanna River Unadjusted Safe Yield
Gauging station
Estimated watershed
current safe yield
(unadjusted)
Rivanna River below Moore's Creek
Slate River near Arvonia
15.2 mgd
15.0 mgd
As expected, the Rivanna River and Slate River results are quite similar.
O'Brien & Gere believes that the 15.2 mgd value is the best estimate of
unadjusted safe yield (based on the 1930 drought) for the current
reservoir volume, because the drainage area Of the Rivanna River below
Moore's Creek Gauge includes the Rivanna Reservoir drainage area and
is considered a slightly better surrogate.
In determining available withdrawals for the South Fork Rivanna WTP,
this value has been adjusted to incorporate the minimum flowby currently
used for purposes of maintaining water quality on Moore's Creek
(downstream of the Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant). This
flowby is not mandated by a Minimum Instream Flow requirement.
Discussions with Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)
personnel indicate that the 8.00 mgd currently used is based on an old
modelling effort (from the 1970's) and suggest that additional modelling
could be performed as part of a study to establish a more accurate
estimate. Until such a study is complete, 8 mgd has been used as the best
existing estimate of the minimum flowby required to maintain water
quality. Therefore, the current safe yield for the Rivanna Reservoir is 8
mgd less (7.2 mgd) than the unadjusted 15.2 mgd estimate based on the
1930 drought.
The safe yield (based on the 1930 drought) was projected for the future
using reduced reservoir volumes as projected in the 1994 Black & Veatch
report. Black & Veatch used a bathymetric survey of the reservoir to
evaluate the amount of previously available reservoir volume which has
been displaced by siltation and to predict the future displacement of
storage. The estimated annual storage loss due to siltation was 13.01
MG/year. Siltation is caused by the settling of solids which are carded
into the reservoir by streams and rivers. Because the streams and rivers
typically enter the reservoir in the shallows, and because settling will
occur soon after entering the quiescent reservoir, the siltation typically
occurs in areas which are above the lowest intake (rather than at depths
which are not usable storage volume).
A cursory review of the bathymetric survey report supports the
assumption that the loss of volume is primarily in areas above the
elevation of the lowest intake gate. Therefore, the reservoir volume
would be reduced by 729 MG by the year 2050 (56 years x 13.01 MG/yr.)
to 151 MG. The safe yield calculation was repeated using this reservoir
volume and applying 1930 drought flow data from the gauging station at
the Rivanna River below Moore's Creek. This calculation predicts an
unadjusted safe yield of 6.6 mgd in 2050, using the Rivanna River Gauge
12 Safe Yield Analysis
\ \willva\projects\30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
as a surrogate and 7.7 mgd in 2050 using the Slate River ,Gauge.
Reducing this for the flow-by of 8 mgd provides an estimated safe yield
of 0 mgd. As anticipated, this is lower than the 3.9 mgd safe yield
calculated for the Rivanna Reservoir in the year 2040 using 1954 drought
data as reported in the 1994 Black & Veatch report.
Current estimated safe yield for the Rivanna Reservoir, based on Rivanna
River data from the 1930 drought, is 7.2 mgd. This value is substantiated
by evaluating data from the Slate River, which resulted in an estimated
safe yield of 7.0 mgd. Since the 8 mgd flowby is greater than the 1930
drought flows, the estimated safe yield for the year 2050 is 0 mgd.
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir
System
To determine the likelihood that the 1930 drought was more severe than
· the 1954 drought, minimum instream flows were compared for the four
gauging stations which collected data during both events. Minimum 30-
day average instream flows at these gauging stations are shown on Table
5.
Table 5. Comparison of average instream flows for 1930 and 1954 droughts
1930 Minimum 1954 Minimum
30-Day Average 30-Day Average
Gauging Station Instream Flow Instream Flow
9.9 cfs
State River near Arvonia
Tye River near Roseland and 6.0 cfs
Lovingston
North Anna River near Doswell 8.4 cfs
22.9 cfs
10.8 cfs
8.1 cfs
Rapidan River near 7.7 cfs
Culpeper and Rapidan
12.5 cfs
Rivanna River not shown because its gage was not active in 1954.
At three of the four gauging stations, the 1930 drought was significantly
more severe than the 1954 drought, and at the fourth station the droughts
were similar in magnitude. This evaluation suggests that the 1930 drought
was probably as severe, or more severe, than the 1954 drought in the
Moorman's River Basin. However, no data are available to directly
calculate the safe yield of the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir
system based on the 1930 drought.
In the absence of such direct data, O'Brien & Gere calculated an upper
13 Safe Yield Analysis
\ \ willva\ projects \30502\ obriert&gere\ Watersupply 1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
limit for the reservoir system's safe yield based on the less-severe 1954
drought (verifying previous studies) and an approximation of the
probable safe yield during the 1930's event as described below.
Estimated safe yield for the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir
system during 1930 was calculated in several steps. First, the Slate River
flow data from 1930 were used as one surrogate for the Moorman's
River. Next, the Rivanna River flow data from 1930 were used as a
surrogate. A 19.8 mi2 drainage area was used for the reservoir system
which consists of 18 mi2 for Sugar Hollow and 1.8 mi2 for the Ragged
Mountain Reservoir. These values were taken from the Safe Yield of
Municipal Surface Water Supply Systems in Virginia Planning Bulletin
#335 (Virginia State Water Control Board, March 1985).
The 44 inches/year evaporation factor (discussed above) corresponds to a
loss of 0.6 mgd from the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain. System. The
State Water Control Board used 1953-54 streamflow data for the North
Fork of the Moorman's River to calculate a safe yield of 5.4 mgd.
O'Brien & Gere repeated this evaluation using the same data, and the
same reservoir volume. A safe yield of 4.8 mgd was calculated. The
'difference is apparently a result of the evaporation factor.
A study of the dam at Sugar Hollow Reservoir has recently been
performed to determine the best operat!ng elevation for the spillway
crest. Based on this study, RWSA has decided to operate the Sugar
Hollow Reservoir with crest gates at elevation 975. A recently conducted
hydrographic survey determined the volume of the Sugar Hollow
Reservoir to be 360 MG (with crest gates at elelvation 975). Reducing
this volume by the estimated siltation rate of 1.49 MG/year for three
years resulted in a 1997 volume of 356 MG. The Ragged Mountain
Reservoirs have a total volume of 514 MG. The Ragged Mountain/Sugar
Hollow system was evaluated as one reservoir with a total volume of 870
MG.
Analysis Using Slate River Gauging Station
An additional adjustment was made to the 1930 Slate River data for
differences in the average yield of the two rivers by applying a yield
factor of 1.50/0.92 (based on comparable historical data for the two
rivers, as discussed above). This analysis resulted in preliminary safe
yield estimates for the Ragged Mountain/Sugar Hollow system, based on
Slate River data, of 6.0 mgd.
To assess the validity of the 6.0 mgd estimate, the methodology applied
to the 1930 data was applied to the 1954 data and compared to actual
recorded flows. The safe yield was calculated using Slate River flow
data from 1953-54, adjusted to the Moorman's River by watershed size
and yield, and using the 944 MG reservoir volume (the volume prior to
loss of 70 MG of storage). This calculation resulted in a safe yield
estimate of 8.5 mgd for the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir
system during the 1953-54 drought event. Existing Moorman's River
14 Safe Yield Analysis
\\willva\projects\30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
flow data indicate a safe yield of only 4.8 mgd. The methodology plainly
is overestimating the flows in the Moorman's River.
Accordingly, a correction factor was estimated by comparing the safe
yield calculated using the recorded flows in the Moorman's River during
the 1950's drought (4.8 mgd) with the safe yield calculated using the Slate
River data corrected for drainage area size and yield (8.5 mgd). By
applying this correction factor (4.8/8.5) to the previously calculated safe
yield based on the 1930's drought (6.0 mgd), a safe yield estimate of 3.4
mgd is obtained.
Analysis Using Rivanna River Gauging Station
The Rivanna River has a drainage area of 507 mi2 at the gauging station
versus '19.8 mi2 for the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. Therefore, a correction
factor of 19.8/507 was used in this analysis. This analysis resulted in
preliminary safe yield estimates for the Ragged Mountain/Sugar Hollow
system, based on Rivanna River data, of 4.1 mgd.
Based on the above, O'Brien and Gere believes that 4.1 mgd should be
used for the present safe yield estimate of the Sugar Hollow/Ragged
Mountain reservoir system. However, this report shows the 4.8 mgd
estimate from the 1954 drought to indicate, the upper end of the potential
safe yield. This range reflects the uncertainty in the 1930's hydrologic
data.
No flow-by requirement is currently applicable to this reservoir system.
Therefore, no reduction in safe yield has been employed and it is
assumed that. the entire basin flow may be used for water supply
purposes. Based on that assumption, the numbers shown above are
estimates of reservoir safe yield at present.
The estimated current safe yield of the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain
Reservoir system based on the 1930's drought is 4.1 mgd. Safe yield
estimates are shown on Table 6. The 1954 safe yield (4.8 mgd) and the
1930 Slate River safe yield (3.4 mgd) are also shown in this table for
informational purposes.
15 Safe Yield Analysis
\\wilIva\projects\30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Table 6. Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Current Safe
Yield Estimates
Reservoir volume
1930 1954
1930 Rivanna Moorman's
Slate River River River
analysis analysis analysis*
944 MG (prior to any 4.3 mgd
siltation)
4.8 mgd
874 MG (including siltation
through t997)
3.4 mgd 4.1 mgd 4.5 mgd
* adjusted from Polglaze & Basenberg estimates for evaporation
The reservoirs were constructed with a volume of 944 MG. Recent
studies indicate that this volume has been reduced by 70 MG due to a
recent landslide and general siltation. To account for projected loss of
storage in estimating future safe yield, calculations were carried out using
various reservoir volumes and applying all three methodologies described
above (1930 Rivanna River Data, Slate River Data, and 1954 Moorman's
River Data.) A 1.49 MG/year siltation rate (70 MG loss of storage over
the 47-year reservoir life) was applied for projections of future safe yield
of the Ragged Mountain/Sugar Hollow Reservoir system. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Ragged Mountain/Sugar Hollow future safe
yield estimates (year 2050)
Reservoir volume
1930 Rivanna 1954
1930 River Moorman's
Slate Riveranalysis analysis River
analysis
794 MG 3.1 mgd
3.9 mgd 4.2 mgd
North Fork Rivanna River Intake
Estimated safe yields were calculated for the North Fork Rivanna River
using adjusted data from two gauging stations: the Rivanna River below
Moore's Creek and the Slate River near Arvonia. Daily flow data for
each of the rivers were adjusted for differences in drainage area.
The watershed area of the North Fork Rivanna River at the WTP intake
(exclusive of the Chris Greene Lake portion of the watershed) is 121 mi2.
This value was used in the "Technical Memoranda for the Safe Yield of
the North Fork Rivanna Water System" (Black & Veatch, 1995).
16 Safe Yield Analysis
\ \willva \projects\30502 \obrien&gere \Watersupply 1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
In determining available withdrawals for the North Fork Rivanna WTP,
this value may need to be adjusted for a minimum instream flow
requirement. There is currently no minimum instream flow (MIF) but it
is possible that one may be imposed in the future.
The estimated safe yield of the North Fork Rivanna River at the WTP
intake, during the 1930 drought, was calculated to be 0.6 mgd using the
Rivanna River Gauge and 0.7 mgd using the Slate River Gauge. Because
no storage volume is required for a run of the river intake (like the one at
the North Fork Rivanna WTP), the estimated future (year 2050) safe
yield at the North Fork Rivanna River Intake source is unchanged from
the estimated current safe yield (0.6 mgd).
If the existing Chris Greene Lake and its drainage area were used for
water supply purposes, this safe yield would be increased, The amount of
that increase in safe yield would depend on the balance struck between
use of Chris Greene Lake for recreational purposes, an its use for water
supply purposes. O'Brien & Gere will fully evaluate the potential safe
yield that may result from use of Chris Greene Lake for water supply
purposes in the upcoming analysis of alternatives.
17 Safe Yield Analysis
\ \witlva\project$ \30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
System-Wide Safe Yield
System-wide safe yield evaluations have been performed for the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority Urban Service Area system based on the
1930 drought, which was found to be the critical (drought) period for the
Rivanna, Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoirs and the North Fork
Rivanna River. The system-wide safe yield has been estimated by adding
the safe yield estimate for each component of the system. As no data exist
to directly evaluate the effect of the 1930 drought on the Sugar Hollow
and Ragged Mountain Reservoirs, estimates of safe yield based on two
surrogate watersheds have been used.
The estimated safe yield of the current system is 11.9 to 12.6 mgd
depending on uncertainty regarding the 1930 safe yield of Sugar
Hollow/Ragged Mountain. As siltation reduces storage volume in the
reservoirs, this safe yield will decrease. Safe yield for the system in Year
2050 is estimated to be 4.5 mgd to ,$.8 mgd. Current and future safe yield
estimates for the system and foreach component of the system are shown
in Table 8 and on Figure3.
Table 8. RWSA current and future system-wide safe yield estimates
Source
Current Safe Yield
Year 2050
Safe Yield
7.2 mgd 0 mgd
Rivanna Reservoir
Sugar Hollow/Ragged 4.1 to 4.8 mgd (1) 3.9 to 4.2 mgd (4)
Mountain
North Rivanna River 0.6 mgd 0.6 mgd
Total System 11.9 to 12.6 mgd 4.5 to 4.8 mgd
(1) Range for uncertainty regarding the 1930 drought event
18 System-Wide Safe Yield
\ \willva\projects\30502\obrien&gere\Watersupply1097
E
0
0
(p6tu) ple!A ej. es Je~,e~ ~et:!
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0 ~-
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
References
BLack & Veatch, 1994. Interim Memoranda for the Urban Raw Water Management
Plan, November 1994, t 16 pp.
Black & Veatch, ~1995 (Revised). Urban Raw Water Management Plan Summary
Report, Hevised August 1995, 24 pp.
F:'olglaze. and Bas..enburg, 1959. Report on Water Works System, Charlottesville,
virginia, vecemDer 1959, 101 pp.
Virginia State Water, Control Board, 1985. Safe Yield of Municipal Surface Water
Supply SysTems, Virginia Planning Bulletin #335.
20 References
\ \ willva \projects \30502\obrlen&gere \Wa~rsupply1097
Draft
Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority
Preliminary Alternatives [] [] [] Public Information Meeting
April 20, 1999
RIVANNA WATER SEWER AUTHORITY
PRELIMINARY WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
Increase in Estimated Unit Cost
Alternative Safe Yield (mgd) Cost ($) (S/gallon)
Aquifer Storage
& Recovery 0 N/A N/A
Conventional Withdrawal
of Groundwater 0.1 1,200,000 12/gallon
James River Withdrawal
at Scottsville 15 72,000,000 4.80/gallon
Rivanna River
Withdrawal 4.7 17,800,000 3.79/gallon
Mechums River
Withdrawal 0.2 850,000 4.25/gallon
Mechums River Withdraw. +
Conversion of Ragged Mtn.
to Pumped Storage Reservoir 10 47,000,000 4.70/gallon
Construct Dam on
Buck Mountain Creek 14.4 57,000,000 3.96/gallon
Construct Dam on
North Fork Rivanna River 15.4 79,000,000 5.13/gallon
Construct Dam on
Preddy Creek 6.4 91,000,000 14.22/gallon
Construct Dam on
Mechums River
Near Lake Albemarle 13.3 68,000,000 5.11/gallon
Construct Dam on
Mechums River
',lear Midway 5.6 26,000,000 4.64/gallon
Construct Dam on
Buck Island Creek 15 118,000,000 7.87/gallon
Construct Dam on
Moormans River 11.6 106,000,000 9.14/gallon
No Action 0
Comments
\\WillvaLProjects\30502\Sheets~Altemative Comments 3\Sheet 3
4/12/99 @ 9:15 AM
AssumptiOns
All pricing is in current dollars 0anuary 1999)
Costs are based on an "order of magnitude" estimate
Cost for property acquisition based on $11,000/ acre ($8,000/acre for wetland mitigation)
Cost estimates include:
15% engineering/legal/administrative fees
20% contingency
Costs for water distribution system improvements are not included
Transportation costs are not included except where noted otherwise
Wetland mitigation costs are included in the cost estimate and are based on approximate
wetland impacts
Cost estimates do not include costs associated with mitigation for threatened/endangered
species and cultural resources
7Q 10 or 30% mean annual flow is adequate to meet agency requirements
Pipeline alignments are conceptual and for cost estimating purposes only
Peaking factor of 1.5 used to size' the waterworks facilities where appropriate
Operation and maintenance costs not included
8
willva\ 30502ho, p65
Dredging South Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir
Dredging of bottom sediments in the middle and upper reaches of the reservoir
approximately three times through 2050, each time returning the reservoir to
it's original storage capacity. Requires dewatering and disposal of dredged spoil.
Includes 3 mgd expansion of South Fork Rivanna water treatment plant, raw
and finished water pump stations.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- 10 million gallons per day'
· Estimated cost- $112 million through 2050
Locating suitable sites for dredge spoil disposal poses challenge
Approximately 100 acres of land needed per dredging event
· Temporary water quality impacts
· Direct impact to 5 acres of wetlands; additional impacts to shallow water habitat
· No anticipated impacts to cultural resources and threatened/endangered species
· No residential displacements
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Decrease Sediment Load into
South Fork Rivanna, River Reservoir
Implementation of watershedprotection measures within the South Fork
Rivanna River Reservoir watershed which encompasses over 260 square miles.
May include construction of regional stormwater management ponds on target
watersheds, the effects of a new Water Protection Ordinance adopted in 1998,
and possible expansion of stream buffer requirments.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield for regional stormwater management ponds alone- __ million
gallons per day
· Increase in 2050 safe yield for ordinance alone- ~ million gallons per day
· Increase in 2050 safe yield for both regional ponds and expansion of stream buffer
requirements- ~ million gallons per day
· Estimated cost- $.__ million for regional ponds
· Estimated cost for implementation and expansion of stream buffer requirements- $
· Target sites suitable for regional stormwater management ponds
· Environmental benefits to water quality
· Approximately ~ acres of wetland impacts for regional ponds
· May require surveys for threatened/endangered species and cultural resources
· Assumed approximately 50% sediment removal efficiency for regional ponds based on
preliminary results of Lickinghole Creek basin monitoring
10
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Decrease Sediment Load into
South Fork Rivanna' River Reservoir
(continued...)
Assumed __% removal' of sediment load for watershed protection measures implemented as
a result of the watershed protection ordinance
No anticipated residential displacements
Impacts to private property in the form of reduced agricultural land
11
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Revise Downstream Release Regime at
SOuth Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
Presently, the release regime at South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir would
consist of augmenting natural streamflows during severe drought conditions.
The revised release scenario would be operated such that the natural stream-
flow would not be augmented during severe drought conditions. Includes
installation of stream gages on major reservoir tributaries as well as controls/
valves on the existing dam.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- 3.8 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost- $386,000
· Minimal environmental impacts over long term
· Downstream habitat assessment may be required
· No anticipated impacts to cultural resources and threatened/endangered species
· No residential displacements
12
willva\ 30502ho.p65
4' Crest Controls on South Fork
Rivanna Dam
Addition o/four-foot crest controls to increase the normal pool elevation/rom
382feet to 385feet. Requires replacement of Route 67~ bridge over Ivy Creele
and acquisition of land around the reservoir. Assumed no cliscbarge of fill mate-
rial into jurisdictional areas and therefore no requirements for wetland mitiga-
tion.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- 6 million gallons per day ~
· Estimated cost- $~.~ million
· Increases useable storage volume by 600 million gallons
· Increase in storage volume reduces rate of system storage loss over time
· Purchase of approximately 70 acres of land surrounding reservoir
· Requires alteration to existing FERC license exemption
· Approximately ~/acres of wetlands inundated by new pool
· James spiny Mussel previously identified in vicinity; would need to examine potential
impacts
· Possible impact to one previously identified archaeological site (eligibility not determined)~
additional archaeological surveys may be required
· Potential indirect impact to one previously identified historic structure (eligibility not deter-
mined); additional architectural surveys may be required
· Possible displacement of 2 residences
· Possible ira)acts to private property around reservoir such as docks, boat houses, etc.
13
willva\ 30502ho.p65
8' Crest COntrols on South Fork
Rivanna Dam
Addition of eight-foot crest controls to increase the normal pool elevation from
382feet to 390feet. Requires replacement of Route 676 bridge over Ivy Creek
and acquisition of land around the reservoir. Includes 4.5 mgd expansion of
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir intake, plant and pump stations. Assumed no
discharge of fill material into jurisdictional areas and therefore no require-
ments for wetland mitigation.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- i 1 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost- $14.7 million
· Increases useable storage volume by 1,300 million gallons
· Increase in storage volume reduces rate of system storage loss over time
· Purchase of approximately 170 acres of land surrounding reservoir
· Requires alteration to existing FERC license exemption
· Approximately 39 acres of wetlands inundated by new pool
· James Spiny Mussel previously identified in vicinity; potential effects undetermined
· Possible impact to one previously identified archaeological site (eligibility not determined);
additional archaeological surveys may be required
· Potential indirect impact to one previously identified historic structure (eligibility not
determined); additional architectural surveys may be required
· Possible displacement of 2 residences
· Possible impacts to private property around reservoir such as docks, boat houses, etc.
1 4 willva\ 30502ho,p65
South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir as
Pumped Storage Reservoir
High flow sleimming from the Rivanna River into the South Forle Rivanna River
Reservoir. Includes a new pump station and new intake on the Rivanna River
just downstream of the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Rivanna
River. The drainage area of the Rivanna River at the intake is approximately
450 square miles. No withdrawal to occur when flow in the Rivanna River drops
below 30% of mean annual flow.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- 0 million gallons per day
· Insufficient flow exists in Rivanna River when South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir has
available volume to refill
· No storage available in reservoir during non-drought conditions
· Sedimentation into reservoir results in continued reduction in available storage
· Minimal wetland impacts
· No anticipated impacts to cultural resources and threatened/endangered species
· No residential displacements
15
willva\ 30502ho.p65
5' Drawdown of Chris Greene Lake to
Supplement North Fork Rivanna RiVer
Convey water from Chris Greene Lake to the North Fork Rivanna water treat-
ment plant during severe drought conditions to supplement the North Fork
Rivanna River water system. Would be limited to a 5-foot drop of pool elevation,
Includes a 3.2 mgd expansion of the North Fork Rivanna finished water pump
station and water treatment plant. Chris Greene Lake is a 52-acre impoundment
with storage volume of 334 million gallons.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- 3 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost- $7.4 million
· Would require coordination to address prior use of Land and Water Conservation Funds
· Currently designated a water supply protection area
· Currently used for swimming, fishing and boating
· Frequency of occurrence: approximately once every decade
· Possible impacts to existing recreational activities during drawdown
· Anticipate minimal environmental impacts
· No anticipated impacts to cultural resources and threatened/endangered species
· No residential displacements
16
wiilva\ 30502h0,p65
20' DrawdoWn of Chris Greene Lake to
Supplement North Fork Rivanna River
Convey water from Chris Greene Lake to the North Fork Rivanna water treat-
ment plant during severe drought conditions to supplement the North Fork
Rivanna River water system. Would allow for a maximum drawdown of 2O feet.
Includes a 7.2 mgd expansion of the North Fork Rivanna finished water pump
station and water treatment plant.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- 5.5 million gallons per day'
· Estimated cost- $14 million
· Would require coordination to address prior use of Land and Water Conservation Funds
· Greater drawdown could have significant recreational impacts
· Potential impacts to fish populations
· No anticipated impacts to cultural resources and threatened/endangered species
· No residential displacements
17
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Use Chris Greene Lake as Pumped
Storage Reservoir
High jIow skimming from the North Fork Rivanna River into Chris Greene Lake
via a river intake and pump station. During drought conditions, raw water
would be conveyed from Chris Greene Lake to the North Fork Rivanna water
treatment plant. No skimming to occur when flow in the Rivanna River drops
below 30% of mean annual flow.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- 0 million gallons per day '
Insufficient flow in North Fork Rivanna River when Chris Greene Lake has available volume
to refill
· No available storage in reservoir during non-drought conditions
· Minimal wetland impacts
· No anticipated impacts to cultural resources and threatened/endangered species
· No residential displacements
18
willva\ 30502no.1:)65
Dredge Sugar Hollow Reservoir
Dredging of landslide debris and bottom sediments in the reservoir once
through 2050. Requires disposal of dredge spoil but minimal dewatering. During
drought conditions, the additional volume would be released to the South Fork
Reservoir or diverted to the Ragged Mountain Reservoirs.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield- 0.1 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost- $7.4 million
· Locating suitable sites for dredge spoil disposal poses' challenge due to topography
· Approximately 25 acres of land needed for disposal
· Temporary water quality impacts
· Direct impact to 2 acres of wetlands; minimal impacts to shallow water habitat
· No anticipated impacts to cultural resources and threatened/endangered species
· No residential displacements
19 willva", 30502ho.p65
Pumpback to South Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir (Indirect Re. Use)
Pumpback of treated effluent from the Moore's Creek waste water treatment
plant to the Mechums River to augment flow into the South Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir. lncludes a 10.5 mgd expansion of the S. Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
pump stations and water treatmentplant, a new 22.5 mgd pump station at
Moore's Creek, new filters at the Moore's Creek treatment plant, a new 22.5 mgd
booster pump station, and a new 36-inch pipeline along 1-64 for a distance of
approximately 12.5 miles.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield - 15 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost - $56 million
· Will require the acquisition of land along the pipeline corridor
· Anticipate dose scrutiny by Virginia Dept. of Health
· Approximately 2 acres of wetland impact
· James Spiny Mussel previously identified in the vicinity; would need to examine potential
impacts
· Impacts to cultural resources not known; additional surveys may be required
· No anticipated residential displacements
2O
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Water Conservation
Development and implementation of a long term water conservation program
consisting of plumbing fixture changeout (without retrofit program), public
education/awarenessprograms. Short term savings resulting from outdoor
watering restrictions and mandatory conservation are addressed under drought
management.
· Reduction in Demand - 1.5 mgd (Residential) due to plumbing ftxture changes through the
year 2050
· Reduction in Demand - 0.08 mgd (Commercial and Industrial)
· Reduction in Demand - 0.17 mgd (Residential) due to water conservation public awareness
and education
· Cost of plumbing fLxture changeout - $0
· Cost of Public Education/Awareness program - $50K per year ($2.5 million through 2050)
· No major permanent restrictions on outdoor water use assumed
Savings estimates based on the following assumptions:
Fixture Type Current Type Assumed Use
Toilet 3.5 gallons 1.6 gallons
per flush per flush
Showerhead 5.0 gallons 2.5 gallons
per minute per minute
21
wiltva\ 30502ho. P65
Drought Management
Development and implementation of a drought management plan. Plan in-
cludes mandatory water conservation and a ban on outdoor water use. Plan
also includes a drought management operating scenario for the RWSA existing
water supply facilities. Supply side techniques include synergistic operation of
existing facilities, reduction or elimination of downstream releases, and diver-
sion from other uses.
1.8 mgd reduction in demand due to mandatory water conservation and limitations on
outdoor water use during summer drought
· Indoor water consumption reduced by 5%
· Outdoor water consumption reduced by 25%
· 0.6 mgd reduction in demand for similar restrictions during winter drought
· ! mgd increase in safe yield due to system wide drought management
22
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Leak Detection and Meter Calibration
Leak Detection and Meter Calibration programs are implemented by the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and the City of Charlottesville as
the distributors of finished water to the end user. Both currently have active leak
detection and meter calibration efforts underway.
· No specific reduction in demand can be directly attributed to this alternative
· Financial incentive exists for leak detection
· Meter calibration and changeout is revenue neutral
· Overall documented system losses indicate that entire system is operating within generally
accepted limits
· Leaks are detected and responded to early using billing monitoring and written notification
system
· Meter change out is being done systematically by both the ACSA and City
· Meter calibration results from1998 indicate acceptable meter performance
23
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Growth Management
Attempt to slow population growth in the Albemarle County portion of the
Urban Service Area to reduce future demand for public water supply Potential
means include further restricting the size of Urban Service Area, increasing
minimum lot sizes, and actively discouraging industrial, commercial, or
business development within the Urban Service Area.
Could decrease 2050 demand by as much as 1.5 million gallons per day
Costs would be significant but cannot reasonably be qUantified
Reducing population growth 5~rithin the Urban Service Area would likely result in
increased growth in surrounding rural areas on well and septic systems
May be politically infeasible as it reverses Comprehensive Plan and policy of two decades
attempting to guide growth into Urban Service Area and away from rural areas
Secondary impacts would include dispersed development outside the Urban ServiCe Area,
requiring construction and maintenance of infrastructure improvements to roads and
utilities
· Transportation and safety impacts could be expected
24
wiltva\ 30502ho.p65
Regional Cooperation
Interconnection between the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority water supply
system and the Rapidan Service Authority system in order to provide additional
water supply to the Rapidan Service Authority. The Rapidan Service Authority
projects additional demand for approximately 2.0 to 3.0 mgd of water through
the year 2050. Connection would be via pipeline approximately 3.5 miles long
at the closest approach of the two service areas, along U.S. Route 29 south of
Ruckersville. ·
Increase in 2050 demand- 3 million gallons per day
Estimated cost- $~
The Rapidan Service Authority is considering a variety of short term and long term solutions
to their future water needs
Potential environmental impacts not yet determined
25
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Storage of treated water in a suitable aquifer during times when available wa-
ter supply exceeds demand and subsequent recovery of water during drought
conditions.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield - 0 million gallons per day
· Unsuitable geologic conditions: presence of subsurface rock with Iow transmissivity
· Not feasible
26
willva\ 30502ho,p65
Conventional Withdrawal of Groundwater
Installation of 15 shallow groundwater wells and piping water to the existing
South Fork and North Fork water treatment plants (WTP): 6 wells in the vicinity
of North Fork WTP and 9 wells in the vicinity of South Fork WTP. Includes instal-
lation of wells, pump, piping and land acquisition. Groundwater is typically of
good quality but has the potential for high iron.
Increase in 2050 safe yield - O. 1 million gallons per day
Estimated cost- $1.2 million
Minimal environmental impacts
No residential displacements are anticipated
27
willva\ 30502ho.p65
James River Withdrawal at Scottsville
Withdrawal of water from the James River at Scottsville with a new 22.5 mgd
river intake, raw waterpump station, a new 36-inch pipeline to the South Fork
water treatment plant, and a 10.5 mgd expansion of the South Fork Rivanna
water treatment plant and finished water pump station. Alternatively, an option
was considered which included a new 22.5 mgd river intake, raw and finished
water pump stations, and a new water treatment plant at Scottsville with 36-
inch pipeline along Route 20 to Charlottesville. The costs were essentially equiva-
lent. The option presented provides water treatment at the South Fork Plant.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield o 15 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost- $72 million
· Requires acquisition of a 25' wide easement along entire pipeline length
· Approximately 5 acres of wetland impacts
· Impacts to threatened/endangered species not known; additional surveys may be required
· Potential impact to archaeological resources along James River; additional archaeological
surveys may be required
· Potential impact to previously identified Scottsville Historic District; additional surveys
related to historic structures may be required
· No anticipated residential displacements
28
willva\ 30502ho. D65
Rivanna River Withdrawal
Withdrawal of water from the Rivanna River near Glenmo're Country Club.
Includes a new 7 mgd river intake, raw and finished water pump station, water
treatmentplant, booster pump station, and a new 24-inch/16-inch pipeline from
the finished water pump to the existing 16-inch main along Route 250 which
currently serves the Village of Rivanna.
Increase in 2050 safe yield - 4.7 million gallons per day '
Estimated cost- $17.8 million
Potential water quality concerns
Moore's Creek waste water treatment plant discharge is located more than 5 miles upstream
Requires acquisition of a 25' wide easement along entire pipeline length
Approximately 2 acres of wetland impacts
Impacts to threatened/endangered species not known; additional surveys may be required
Impacts to cultural resources not known; additional survey for cultural resources may be
required
'o No antiCipated residential displacements
29 wiiiva\ 30502ho,p65
Mechums River Withdrawal
Skimming of high flows from the Mechums River at the site of the abandoned
intake and pump station near Lake Albemarle and pump to the Ragged
Mountain Reservoirs. Includes rehabilitation of the river intake, pump station
and ancillary features, as well as access road improvements.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield - 0.2 million gallons per day
· Estimated cOst- $850,000
· Insufficient flows in Mechums River during severe drought conditions
· Useful only when there are droughts in two successive years
· Minimal impacts to wetlands
~,Impacts to cultural resources or threatened/endangered species not known; additional
surveys may be required
· No anticipated residential displacements
30
willva\ 30502h0.~65
Mechums River Withdrawal and Conversion
of Ragged Mountain to Pumped Storage
Reservoir
Skimming of high flows from the Mechums River into Ragged Mountain Reser-
voirs by rehabilitating and expanding the abandoned intake and pump station
on the Mechums River to 10 mgd. This option is combined with raising the dam
for Lower Ragged Mountain Reservoir by 50' creating a normal pool elevation
of 700' with a surface area of 275 acres and storage capacity of 2,800 million
gallons. Results in inundation of existing dams. Option also includes new 24-
inch pipeline, 15 mgd intake on Ragged Mountains, and 8 mgd expansion of
Observatory water treatment plant and pump station.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield - 10 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost - $47 million
· Requires purchase of approximately 125 acres of additional land
Approximately 5 acres of wetlands inundated by increased pool elevation at Ragged Moun-
tain Reservoirs
Impacts to cultural resources or threatened/endangered species not known; additional
surveys may be required
· . One potential residential displacement
31 willva\ 30502ho,p65
Construct Dam and Reservoir on Buck
Mountain Creek
Construction of a dam and reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek 1.5 miles up-
stream of the confluence of Buck Mountain Creek and the S. Fork Rivanna Reser- ·
voit. Includes: new 21.6 mgd intake, 9. 6 mgd expansion of the existing S. Fork
Rivanna intake, raw water pump station, water treatment plant and finished
water pump station. Normal pool elevation of the new reservoir 480feet with
surface area. of 670 acres and storage capacity of 5,242 million gallons. Drain-
age area of reservoir 38 square miles.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield - 14.4 million gallons per day
· Estimated Cost - $57 million
· Assumes minimum flowby = 7Q10 based on short affected stream segment
· Does not require purchase of additional land
· Approximately 59 acres of wetland impacts
· Potential impacts to previously identified populations of James Spiny Mussel
· Direct impact to 2 previously identified historic structures (eligibility not determined)
· Potential indirect impacts to 4 previously identified historic properties (eligibility not
determined); additional cultural resource surveys necessary
· Potential displacement of 1 residence
32
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Construct Dam and Reservoir on North
Fork Rivanna River
Construction of a dam and reservoir on North Fork Rivanna River 2 miles west
of the North Fork Filtration Plant. Includes:new 23 mgd intake and pump sta-
tion, 11 mgd expansion of the S. Fork Rivanna Reservoir intake, pump stations
and treatment plant, and a new 36-inch pipeline from the North Fork Rivanna
pump station to the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. Normal pool elevation
of new reservoir 490feet with surface area of 1,057 acres and storage capacity
of 10, 059 million gallons. Drainage area of reservoir 63 square miles.
· Increase in safe yield - 15.4 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost - $79 milliOn
· Will require land acquisition
· Assumes minimum flowby = 30% of mean annual flow
· Approximately 72 acres of wetland impacts
· Impacts to threatened/endangered species not known; additional surveys may be required
Direct impacts to 4 previously identified archaeological sites (eligibility not determined);
additional archaeological surveys required
Potential indirect impacts to 3 previously identified historic properties (eligibility not
determined); additional architectual surveys necessary
· Potential displacement of 2 residences
33
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Construction of Dam and Reservoir on
Preddy Creek
Construction of a dam and reservoir on Preddy Creek 2.5 miles northeast of the
North Fork Rivanna water treatment plant. Includes a new 9. 6 mgd intake struc-
ture, raw water pump station, water treatment plant, finished water pump sta-
tion, and a new 24-inch pipeline. Normal pool elevation of reservoir 460feet
with surface area of 932 acres and storage capacity of 9,134 million gallons.
Drainage area of reservoir 14 square miles.
Increase in 2050 safe yield - 6.4 million gallons per day
Estirriated cost - $91 million
Will require land acquisition
Assumes minimum flowby - 30% of mean annual flow
Approximately 77 acres of wetland impacts
Impacts to threatened/endangered species undetermined; survey may be required
Direct impacts to 4 previously identified historic structures (eligibility not determined);
additional architectural surveys required
Potential indirect impacts to 3 previously identified historic properties (eligibility not
determined); additional surveys necessary
Potential displacement of 6 residences
34 wi{~va~ 30502h0.p65
Construction of Dam and Reservoir on
MeChums River Near Lake Albemarle
Construction of a dam and reservoir on Mechums River 0.5 miles northeast of
Batesville. Includes a new 20 mgd intake structure, 8 mgd expansion of the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir intake, raw water pump station, water treatment
plant and finished water pump station. Normal pool elevation of reservoir 520
feet with surface area of 973 acres and storage capacity of 7,896 million gallons.
Drainage area of reservoir 94 square miles.
Increase in 2050 safe yield - 13.3 million gallons per day
Estimated cost- $68 million
Will require land acquisition
Assumes minimum flowby = 30% of mean annual flow
Approximately 107 acres of wetland impacts
James Spiny Mussel previously identified in vicinity; will need to examine potential impacts
Direct impacts to 1 archaeological, site and 8 historic structures previously identified (eligibil-
ity not determined); additional cultural resource surveys required
Potential indirect impacts to 10 previously identified historic properties (eligibility not
determined)
Potential displacement of 21 residences
35
willva", 30502ho.p65
Construction of Dam and Reservoir on
Mechums River Near Midway
Construction of dam and reservoir on Mechums River one mile upstream of the
1-64 crossing near Midway. Includes a new 8.4 mgd intal~e structure. Normal
pool elevation of reservoir 580feet with surface area of 477 acres and storage
capacity of 3,477 million gallons. Drainage area of reservoir 34 square miles.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield - 5.6 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost - $26 million
· Will require land acquisition
· Assumes minimum flowby = 30% of mean annual flow
· Approximately 52 acres of wetland impacts
· James Spiny Mussel previously identified in vicinity; will need to examine potential impacts
· Possible direct impact to 1 National Register Property (Miller School); will require furture
investigation
· Direct impact to 1 previously identified historic structure (eligibility not determined);
additional architectural survey required
· Potential indirect impacts to 5 previously identified historic properties (eligibility not
determined); additional survey required
· Potential displacement of 6 residences
36
witlva',. 30502ho.p65
Construction of Dam and
Buck Island Creek
Reservoir on
Construction of a dam and reservoir on Buck Island Creek 0.5 miles upstream
of Route 53. Includes a new 22.5 mgd intake structure, raw water pump station,
water treatment plant and finished water pump station. Normal pool elevation
of reservoir 340feet with surface area 1, 707 acres and storage capacity of
13,950 million gallons. Drainage area of reservoir 38 square miles.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield o 15 million gallons per day
· Estimated cost - $118 million
· Will require land acquisition
· Assumes minimum flowby = 30% of mean annual flow
· Approximately 103 acres of wetland impacts
Impacts to threatened/endangered species not determined; additional surveys may be re-
quired
Direct impacts to 4 previously identified historic structures (eligibility not determined);
additional cultural resource surveys required
Potential indirect impacts to 2 previously identified historic properties (eligibility not deter-
mined)
· Potential displacement of 14 residences
37
willva\ 30502ho.p65
Construction of Dam and Reservoir on
Moormans River
Construction of a dam and reservoir on Moormans River just downstream of
confluence with Doyles River. Includes a new 17. 4 mgd intake structure and 5. 4
mgd expansion of the South Fork Rivanna River intake, raw water pump
station, water treatment plant and finished water pump station. Normal pool
elevation of reservoir 680feet with surface area of 817 acres and storage
capacity of 9,202 million gallons. Drainage area of reservoir 53 square miles.
· Increase in 2050 safe yield - 11.6 million gallons per day '
· Estimated cost - $106 million
· Will require land acquisition
· Assumes minimum flowby = 30% of mean annual flow
· Approximately 68 acres of wetland impacts
· Impacts to threatened/endangered species not determined; additional surveys may be
required
· Direct impacts to 9 historic structures and 1 archaeological site previously identified
(eligibility not determined); additional cultural resource surveys required
· Potential indirect impacts to 5 previously identified historic properties (eligibility not deter-
mined)
· Potential displacement of 22 residences
38
wdlva\ 30502ho. D65
12.
13.
14.
15
Water conservation - Development and implementation of a long term water conservation program consisting of
plumbing fixture ehangeout and public education/awareness programs. ,~ Demand = 1.8 mgd
Drought management- Development and implementation of a drought management plan including mandatory water
conservation, ban on outdoor water use, and an operating scenario for RWSA's existing water supply facilities during
severe drought conditions. ,1, Demand = 3.4 mgd
Leak detection and meter calibration - Evaluation of leak detection/meter calibration programs implemented by the
Albemarle County Service Authority and the City of Charlottesville who distribute finished water to the end users.
Growth management - Attempt to slow population growth in the Albemarle County portion of the Urban Service
Area to reduce future water demand. $ Demand = 1.5 mgd
Physical Additions to Existing Water Supply System:
16. Regional cooperation - Identifying opportunities for a regional approach to meeting future water supply needs; based
on coordination to date, only one neighboring water provider is considering short term and long term solutions to meet
their future water needs. 1` Demand = 1.5 mgd
17. Aquifer storage and recovery -~ Storage of treated water in a suitable aquifer when water supply exceeds demand,
and subsequent recovery of water during drought conditions. ? Safe Yield = 0 mgd
18. Groundwater- Conventional withdrawal of groundwater via installation of approximately 15 wells and then piping
water to existing water treatment plants. 1' Safe Yield --- 0.1 mgd
19. James River withdrawal - Withdrawal of water from the James River at Scottsville and pumping it through a new
pipeline to the South Fork water treatment plant for treatment. 1' Safe Yield = 15 mgd
20. Rivanna River withdrawal - Withdrawal of water from the Rivanna River near the Glenmore Country Club and
treating it in a new water treatment plant. 1' Safe Yield = 4.7 mgd
21 Mechums River withdrawal - Withdrawal of water from the Mechums River at the site of the abandoned pump
station during conditions of high flow. Water would be pumped to the Ragged Mountain Reservoirs. Would require
rehabilitation of the pump station and intake. 1` Safe Yield = 0.2 mgd
22. Mechums River withdrawal and conversion of Ragged Mountain to pumped storage reservoir- Combining
previous option with the expansion of the existing Ragged Mountain Reservoir system. Would include raising dam at
Lower Ragged Mountain Reservoir by 50' to increase storage volume. 1` Safe Yield = 10 mgd
23. Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir- Construct a dam and 670-acre reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek 1.5 miles
upstream of confluence of Buck Mountain Creek and the S. Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. 1` Safe Yield = 14.4 mgd
24~ North Fork Rivanna River Reservoir - Construct a dam and 1,057-acre reservoir on the North Fork of the Rivanna
River 2 miles west of the North Fork Filtration Plant. 1' Safe Yield = 15.4 mgd
25. Preddy Creek Reservoir - Construct a dam and 932-acre reservoir on Preddy Creek 2.5 miles northeast of the North
Fork Rivanna water treatment plant. 1' Safe Yield = 6.4 mgd
26. Mechums River Reservoir near Lake Albemarle - Construct a dam and 973-acre reservoir on the Mechums River
0.5 miles northeast of Batesville. 1' Safe Yield= 13.3 mgd
27. Mechums River Reservoir near Midway - Construct a dam and 477-acre reservoir on the Mechums River 1 mile
upstream of the 1-64 crossing near Midway. ? Safe Yield = 5.6 mgd
28. Buck Island Creek Reservoir- Construct a dam and 1,707-acre reservoir on Buck Island Creek 0.5 miles upstream
of Route 53. 1` Safe Yield = 15 mgd
29. Moormans River Reservoir - Construct a dam and 817-acre reservoir on the Moormans River just downstream of its
confluence with the Doyles River. 1' Safe Yield = 11.6 mgd
More information on these alternatives can be found on the RWSA home page: http://monticello.avenue.gen.va.us/Gov/RWSA/
For more information on the Water Supply Study or to obtain copies of the reports referred to in this insert, please
contact the RWSA at (804) 977-2970 ext. I01
WATER SUPPLY STUDY
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) is responsible for providing potable water to the Albemarle
County Service' Authority and the City of Charlottesville Public Works Department who then distribute the
water to their respective customers. The following information is a synopsis of the ongoing water supply
study being conducted on behalf of the RWSA by the firms of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., O'Brien &Gere
Engineers, Inc., and McSweeney Burtch and Crump. This information, still considered "draft", is being
distributed to make each ~customer aware of the study efforts and to keep citizens in our community informed.
PLANNING HORIZON: Year 2050 STUDY AREA: 'Urban Service Area"
City of Charlottesville and portions of Albemarle County
I. SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY AND WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS
There are currently four sources of raw water for customers in the Urban Service Area: 1) South Fork Rivanna River Reservmr,
2) Sugar Hollow Reservoir, 3) Ragged Mountain Reservoirs, and 4) an intake at the North Fork of the Rivanna River. The "safe
yield" of this system (the amount of water that can be safely withdrawn during a severe drought) is currently between 12 and 13
million gallons per day (mgd).
In the fall of 1997, the study team published the results of their water supply and water demand analyses which included
projections of available water supply and anticipated water demand within the Urban Service Area in the year 2050. Based on
the results of the supply analysis, the safe yield of the existing water supply system is expected to decrease to approximately
4.5 mgd in 2050 primarily as a result of sedimentation in the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. Using four different
approaches, the study team also p)ojected the amount of water to be used in the future by customers within the Urban Service
Area. Based on the results of this analysis, water demand in the year 2050 is expected to be between 18 to 21 mgd. Combining
the results of the water supply and the water demand analysis, a future water deficit of approximately 15 mgd is being used for
the ongoing planning efforts.
To meet future water needs, the study team developed the following range of alternatives which may be implemented either alone
or in combination with each other.
II. ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
Improvements to the Efficiency of' Existing Water Resources:
Dredge South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir- Periodic dredging of accumulated sediments from the reservoir
through 2050, each time returning it to its original capacity. ? Safe Yield = 10 mgd
Decrease sedimentation into South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir- Implementation of watershed protection
measures aimed at reducing the amount of sediment transported to the reservoir. ~' Safe Yield = To be determined
Revise downstream release regime at South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir - Revision of current release regime
at S. Fork Rivanna dam such that natural stream flow would not be augmented during severe drought conditions.
? Safe Yield = 3.8 mgd
4' crest controls on South Fork Rivanna dam - Addition of four-foot crest controls on existing dam to increase the
normal pool elevation of the reservoir by four feet. ~' Safe Yield = 6 mgd
8' crest controls on South Fork Rivanna dam - Addition of eight-foot crest controls on existing dam to increase the
normal pool elevation of the reservoir by eight feet. ~' Safe Yield = 11 mgd
Use South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir as pUmped storage reservoir - Removal of water from the Rivanna
River during high flow conditions and pumping it to the existing S. Fork Reservoir for storage. ~' Safe Yield = 0 mgd
5' drawdown of Chris Greene Lake - Convey water from Chris Greene Lake to the North Fork Rivanna River
during severe drought conditions in order to supplement the existing N. Fork Rivanna River water system. Would be
limited to a 5-foot drop of pool elevation in the lake. ~' Safe Yield = 3 mgd
20' drawdown of Chris Greene Lake - Maximum release of water from Chris Greene Lake to the North Fork
Rivanna River during severe drought conditions. '1' Safe Yield = 5.5 mgd
11.
Use Chris Greene Lake as pumped storage reservoir- Removal of water from the North Fork Rivanna River
during high floTM conditions and pumping it to Chris Greene Lake for storage. ~' Safe Yield = 0 mgd
Dredge Sugar Hollow Reservoir - A one-time dredging of Sugar Hollow Reservoir to remove debris deposited in
the 1995 landslide and any accumulated sediment. ~' Safe Yield = 0.1 mgd
Indirect reuse - Pumpback of treated effluent from the Moore's Creek waste water treatment plant to the Mechurns
River via a new pipeline to then augment flow into the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. ~' Safe Yield = 15 mgd
ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
I. NO ACTION
II. REDUCE DEMAND
A. Water conservation
B, Drought management
C. Leak detection and meter calibration
D. Growth management
III, INCREASE SUPPLY
A. Improvements to the Efficiency of Existing Water Resources
1. South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
a. Dredge
b. Decrease sedimentation
c, Revise downstream release regime
d. Add crest controls
ii. 8'
e. Use SFRR as pumped storage reservoir
2. Chris Green Lake
a. 5' drawdown
b. 20' drawdown
3. Sugar Hollow Reservoir: Dredge
4. Indirect reuse: pumpback of treated effluent to Mechums River and SFRR
B. Physical Additions to the Existing Supply System
1. Regional cooperation
2. Aquifer storage and recovery
3. Groundwater withdrawal (wells)
4. Withdrawal of raw water from local rivers
a. James River
b. Rivanna River
c. Mechums River
i. direct withdrawal
ii withdrawal with expansion of Ragged Mt. reservoir system
5. Construction of new reservoirs
a. Buck Mountais Creek
b. North Fork Rivanna River
c. Preddy Creek
d. Mechums River near Lake Albemarle
e. Mechums River near Midway
f. Moormans River