Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-13 adj2 .2 May 12, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 17. At 3:42 P.M. motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn to May 13, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Rooms #5-6. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vo~e: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Chairman May 13, 1982 (Night Meeting) (Adjourned from May 12, 1982) An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on May 13, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6 of the Albemarle County office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from May 12, 1982. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 7:37 P.M.), Mr. Gerald E. Fisher and Miss Ellen V. Nash. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr., and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Maynard Elrod, County Engineer; William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Call To Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that a quorum was not yet present. The meeting was turned over to Mr. Cole Hendrix, Acting Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority~ who introduced the Rivanna Board members and representatives from the consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee. Mr. Hendrix noted the presence of two members of the Charlottesville City Council; Francis L. Buck and John Conover. (NOTE: At 7:37 P.M., Mrs. Cooke arrived.) Mr. Hendrix then turn the meeting over to Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, who made a twenty minute presentation on the Buck Mountain Water Supply Study, A Summary of Findings, (Note: a complete copy of Mr. Williams' presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) The following is a condensation of Mr. Williams' presentation: The Charlottesville/Albemarle urban area presently obtains potable water from four surface water impoundments. These reservoirs are adequate for near future needs but the need for additional water beyond the year 2000 is apparent. Projections based on the 1977 study by Camp Dresser & McKee have been modified to show effects that water conservation programs have brought about.- Projec- tions will be reviewed periodically in the future to determine exact timing. Several options were investigated as potential sources of future public water supply including: North Fork Rivanna River - quantify of water is adequate but a portion of the drainage basin is outside the jurisdiction area (Greene County) 2. Mechums River - eliminated due to poor water quality e Rivanna River - eliminated due to location in highly urbanized area causing severe water quality problems 4. Buck Island Creek - eliminated due to high pumping costs Preddys Creek - eliminated due to low yield Moormans River - eliminated due to low yield in drought conditions 7. James River - option does exist, very-expensive e Buck Mountain Creek - good yield, acceptable water quality, proximity of South Rivanna water plant; subject of present study Another option which could be utilized is the use of collapsible flashboards on the South Rivanna Dam. Flashboards would add four feet to the dam height and provide an additional safe yield of 6.4 million gallons per day and would delay development of a new source by approximately ten years. The Buck Mountain watershed was selected for concentrated study by the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. A two year moratorium on building in the area was enacted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, and is scheduled to expire on August 13, 1982. May 13,1982 (Adjourned Night Meeting) 213 The Buck Mountain Study is being conducted in four phases: Phase I is an analysis of quantity and quality of water. Phase II is an evaluation of geologic factors~ Phase III is the subsurface investigation and Phase IV is the prelim- inary design phase. Three dam sites were initially selected for study; Al, A and B. Site A1 was eliminated during Phase II because of the small yield, and an amendment to the study contract added Site C at this point of the study. Based on geologic review, records and upon surface investigation of geologic structures, a good location for the spillway could not be identified at Site A. Phase III, which included preliminary drilling, proceeded on Sites B and C. At the same time, the costs of the following non-geologic factors would be roughly quantified: 1. relocation of roads 2. relocation or protection of City of Charlottesville gas pipelines 3. relocation of power lines 4. land acquisition 5. construction of: dam and related structures water transmission mains to the South Rivanna Treatment Plant. Site B - borings revealed very irregular rock to soil profile and the existence of weathered rock. Probable drainage and seepage problems. Site C - no major problems were encountered. economic construction of a dam. Best possibilities for Borrow Sources - adequate material for construction of earthen dams was available near each dam site. 2. NON-GEOLOGIC: ao Acquisition of land required for the dam, spillway, reservoir pool and protection zone (300 horizontal feet from pool edge). Acreage required is: Pool Protection Zone Total Cost/Acre Site A 494 706 1,200 $1,673 Site B 364 468 832 1,150 Site C 450 748 1,198 1,811 Road Location - Sites A and C will require rerouting of Routes 665 and 667 and will cover a private road. Site B will affect only the private road. Pipeline Protection - The Charlottesville natural gas transmission main would lie under the pool for both Sites A and B. Raw Water Transmission Main - included cost of pipe, pumping stations, river crossings and easements for the most economic route from each dam site. re Electric Utility Relocation - Both Vepco and Central Virginia Electria Cooperative service areas would be affected for Sites A and C. Construction of dam and other structures - The range of costs are summarized in the following chart. FACTOR Land Acquisition (to 300 ft. line) Road Relocation Pipeline Protection Transmission Mains Electric Utility Location Construction of Dam and Appurtenances SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS (In Million $) SITE A SITE B $ 2.01 $ .95 $ 1.27- 2.98 $ -0- $ .31- .37 $ .03- .04 $ 4.20- 5.79 $ 3.86- 5.26 $ .01 $ .01 $ .01 $13.64-19.56 $13.70-20.31 SITE C $ 2.17 $ 1.62- 2.52 $ .31- .37 $ 4.09- 5.65 $11.72-17.73 TOTALS $21.44-30.72 $18.55-26.57 $19.92-28.45 1. GEOLOGIC: Phase III interim report was presented to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors on April 6, 1982, as follows: May 13, 1982 (Adjourned Night Meetin~g~)_ ~ As a result of information gathered thus far, it was recommended that Site C be the designated site for the detailed drilling in the remainder of Phase III. This drilling is now underway. Site C has both a higher yield and a lower geologic risk although estimated capit-al costs are roughly equal. Phase IV of the study is intended to provide a detailed preliminary design of the dam and apourtenances, the various relocations of roads and utilities, and also precise routing and preliminary design of the transmission mains. Following the conclusion of Mr. William's presentation, Mr. Hendrix asked for ideas and questions from Board and City Council members. Mr. Fisher asked if it was the official position of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board that Buck Mountain Creek was the best site within the jurisdiction to provide a future water supply. Mr. Hendrix said based on the study conducted, this is the best location. Mr. Hendrix said the recommendation for the buffer area used in the study is not firm. Mr. Hendrix added that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's past experience with other reservoir areas has been that buffer areas have been inadequate. Mayor Buck asked if the Rivanna Board intended to purchase the land outright, or purchase it and lease it back to the former owners. Mr. Hendrix said that has not been studied, but doubted if a lease-back procedure would work. Mr. Hendrix said there are several subdivisions platted for that area of the County, which could be developed under a lease agreement and any development would make the construction of a reservoir more difficult. Mr. Fisher said the property owners in the moratorium area surrounding BucM Mountain Creek deserve a speedy answer from the governments and the Rivanna Board, because a moratorium of this type drastically restricts the use of the property. Mr. Fisher added that he did not wish to extend the moratorium. Mr. Butler asked how long the actual construction of the project would tame. Mr. Williams said he felt ten years was not excessive. Mr. Butler expressed his concern about inflation affecting costs over the years and rendering this project far too expensive to be afforded by the citizens. Mr. Hendrix said that although construction costs go up each year, the value of the dollar is lower, so the economic difference is not that great. Mrs. Darlene Samsei1 thought a chart of cost projections would be helpful in this matter. Mr. Hendrix said to project thirty-five years into the future would be far too inaccurate. Mrs. Treva Cromwell said that a study of-income and costs conducted by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has shown a 225% increase between 1970 and 1980. Mr. Hendrix said this is the reason the Rivanna Board recommends buying the property now while the number of homes are fewer and costs to purchase the land would be lower. Mayor Buck asked to what depth the option of using the James River was investigated. Mr. Williams said that although the supply of water from the James River is adequate, quality control would be difficult and the legal question of infringing on the City of Richmond's water rights would have to be answered. Mayor Buck felt that if the Rivanna Board used the James River, it would become an unlimited source of water due to the tremendous volume of water flow. Mr. Fisher said it would be far too costly to pump water from the James River to the City and County and that water storage would be essential. Mr. Fisher felt gravity flow from Buck Mountain Creek would be far better and less costly. Mayor Buck felt it would be wiser to spend more money initially and obtain water from the James River, than to construct a reservoir at Buck Mountain Creek and then fifty years later require an additional water source. Mrs. Cromwell said the General Assembly is considering possible legislation regarding "Inter-Basin Transfer of Water", that being one community obtaining water from a source located in some other community. Mrs. Cromwell said if such legislation is enacted, it~ could allow the State to dictate how local communities make use of certain lands which have potential as futur~ water sources. Mrs. Cromwell said the City of Richmond is presently the only "community" in the State having legal rights to water, that being 400 million gallons per day from the James River. Mr. Butler said he would hesitate connecting to the James River, not only because of infringing on the water rights of the City of Richmond, but because other communities upstream from Charlottesville could also connect and affect this areas water supply. Mayor Buck said he has heard no firm rejection from the Rivanna Board for using the James River so he thought it was still a viable option. Mr. Agnor said that the option to use the James River is only being kept open if all the test sites at Buck Mountain Creek prove unusable. There were no further questions and Mr. Hendrix thanked everyone for being present. At 9:03 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn to 5:30 P.M. on May 19, 1982, at the Hardware Store Restaurant. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.