Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-27 AfternoonSeptember 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 27, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., at the Forum at Monticello High School, 1400 Independence Way, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from September 19, 2001. PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris and Mr. Charles S. Martin. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey. ALSO PRESENT: Charlottesville City Council members: Mr. Blake Caravati, Mr. Maurice Cox, Mr. Kevin Lynch and Ms. Meredith Richards, along with Mr. Gary OConnell, City Manager. = Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA): Mr. Richard Collins, Chairman of the RWSA Board and Mr. Gene Potter, Director of Water and Wastewater. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA): Mr. Randy Parker, Chairman, and Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director. __________ The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mr. Richard Collins, chosen as chair for this informational meeting. The meeting began with Mr. Collins introducing Mayor Blake Caravati, Chairman Sally Thomas and Chairman Randy Parker. He asked these persons to speak. Ms. Thomas read from a prepared statement. I will bring you up-to-date on the Albemarle Board A of Supervisors actions or study sessions. We had a work session on water supplies on September 5, 2001. = For background materials, we had papers from citizens and the League of Women Voters regarding some recurrent issues in water management. We also had a memo from the Countys Engineering Department = staff regarding something called integrated resource planning. It may go by different names in different A@ organizations, but it was described as being a way to integrate water supply needs with other community values such as environmental resources, economics and land use planning. Our staff suggested that the current water supply project, which is what brings us together tonight for this important input session, meets some, but not all of the principles in a system of total resource management. The resource we are talking about is the life blood of our community. We can all agree that water is important, but disagreements can start quickly after that initial agreement. Focusing a spotlight on total water resource management provides an opportunity to deal with longstanding issues and to think pro-actively to prepare for future challenges, and to think about the sustainability goal of acting today in ways that do not destroy our resources for the future. On the other hand, we are close to, if not already in, a situation where the water supply is vulnerable to severe drought. We need to make some decisions fairly quickly in order to be responsible to water users. We can also commit to begin tonight a process which goes beyond simply providing additional water supply capacity. The we in any of these statements is a simple pronoun, but it includes complex A@ relationships and responsibilities shared by citizens, by advocates for particular bodies of water, by water users and by the authorities which in turn include the City, the County, the ACSA and most crucially, the RWSA. It should also include at some stages the communities which are impacted downstream by our uses of our water. I think the Albemarle Board feels the RWSA and their consultants, VHB (Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.), have creatively put together a package of recommendations to address the communitys water = quantity needs and that package has a high probability of being permitted by Federal and State agencies. Their proposal is complex and each piece of it should be analyzed carefully, but await some decision by us before each can proceed to get the more stringent analysis it needs. Its a chicken and egg situation, needing the go-ahead in order to get more information which is needed for a definite decision to go. But, while we are involved in that discussion, we somehow, somewhere, need to do more. There are really difficult issues involving adequate stream flow, how to define that, and how to achieve it. The other major issue involves managing the sedimentation of our relatively small reservoir which sits in a relatively large watershed full of very erodible soils. We need to link water supply decisions to the Countys planning for its development areas. We need to work on the demandside of the supply demand = equation. We need to consider the environmental and cultural importance of our running rivers. We need to link surface water and groundwater issues. We need to establish a sense of responsibility for fitting all these various aspects into one comprehensive management of our water. The Albemarle Board asked our staff to look deeper into establishing an integrated resource planning process. The various policy boards have received that staff initial memo on that subject. I hope that while proceeding expeditiously with the water supply project that is the focus of tonights meeting, we = officials can also commit to looking at our water resources in the broadest possible light. @ Mr. Caravati said City Council has not taken an in-depth look at the water supply for the future. However, City Council knows this is an important issue. It is particularly important because it is a regional issue. Council appreciates that it is both downstream and upstream, and we are not protecting just our September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) resource, but protecting a more super regional resource that all must have. To that end, there has been no clear definition of how to proceed on the part of Council. Most members have participated in various meetings throughout this process with the consultants. An integrated look is a necessity because it is what will allow us to live, and to accommodate the future. There is a keen sense about a small reservoir in a very large watershed. A couple of the issues surrounding the reservoir, particularly siltation, are most important. As far as the ultimate end of the capital improvements that will go on, he should mention that the University of Virginia plays a big part in this. They certainly should be, and will be, at the table. They are the Citys number one customer and probably the largest customer in the region. The City will proceed with = the County and the University, the ACSA and the RWSA, is together. It is an important venture not only to our pocketbooks, but more importantly, to the environment. Mr. Parker said the RWSA is a wholesaler and it has two customers, the City, and the County through the Albemarle County Service Authority, of which he is Chairman of that Board. When RWSA and the ACSA were set up through the Four-Party Agreement years ago, a voice in these decisions was given to Albemarle County through the Service Authority, and the Board of Supervisors. That is the reason he is here. He will be listening to input and taking his lead from the Supervisors. Mr. Collins then introduced Mr. Gene Potter, member of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority staff. Mr. Potter is to give a report on what the consultants think should be done to meet reasonably foreseeable water needs. Mr. Potter introduced Ms. Carolyn Buskar, Ms. Cheryl Snelly and Mr. Stephen Bowler, members of staff who helped put together the presentation (slides). He said that five years ago VHB was hired by RWSA to begin a water planning process. The goal of that process was to put into play supplemental raw water supplies that would meet the needs of the Charlottesville/Albemarle urban water service area. The intended goal at that time was to obtain both Federal and State permit approval to construct and put into service the Buck Mountain Reservoir. That goal, which had been the RWSAs long-range plan since 1977 = was redefined on the advice of the consulting team who said a Federal permit would only be issued for the most practicable, lease environmentally-impacting alternative or set of alternatives. That then became the redefined goal to meet future water needs. With that in mind, the process that was started in 1977 started over again, essentially from scratch. To date, four reports have been generated. The report summaries were made available for those present tonight, with the exception of the fourth, Recommended Alternatives. Mr. Potter said he would review the significant conclusions from these reports. He showed a slide depicting the supply analysis. He said the figures represent the 1997 and year 2050 safe yields of existing water sources in the urban water supply system. The numbers are based on the 1930's drought stream flow records. That was the worst drought of record. The amount of water available is defined in terms of safe yield which is the amount of water which can be withdrawn from a reservoir over the duration of the drought. It is determined by what is received in terms of stream flow and precipitation, and what goes out, primarily, evapo-transpiration, seepage, downstream releases, and takeouts for water demand, and the volume of the reservoir. A significant part of the future need for supplemental water supplies is based on the fact that the volume of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) is being reduced due to sedimentation. The next slide summarized the demand analysis. Two different approaches were used to come up with the report demand figures. The first approach was to look at the historic demand from 1973 until 1996, determine the line of best fit for that data and extend that to the year 2050. That statistical approach yielded a future 2050 demand of 20.4 mgpd. The demand was broken down into its individual components. Total demand being the sum of the individual components of demand. One of these techniques was based on population trends and per capita water consumption, the second was based on build-out under the comprehensive plans for each of the jurisdictions, and the third was based on historic trends in each of the components of demand. Mr. Potter said this study concludes, using all four approaches and the best available data, that demand can be expected to continue to rise from its current level to the design year 2050. The two reports, supply analysis, and demand analysis, have been presented to the public, revisions made, and subsequently both were presented to Federal and State regulatory agencies for review and both have been accepted. Mr. Potter said the Analysis of Alternatives identified and evaluated 33 alternatives to meet future A@ water supply needs. Those alternatives were listed in one of the hand-outs tonight. Finally, the Recommended Alternatives report, which is to be discussed tonight, ranks the viable alternatives for A@ implementation. With one exception, he will mention only the alternatives recommended for immediate implementation. The reason they are recommended for immediate implementation is the concern that if there were a 1930's drought-type situation, there would not be enough water in the current system to meet projected demands. He said the report discusses further the other alternatives and it is available on the Rivannas Web page, or a copy can be obtained at the RWSAs administrative offices. == Mr. Potter said the first alternative is a release scenario at the SFRR. With the exception of a 30- day period in 1999, the RWSA has consistently released a minimum of 8.0 mgpd downstream of the SFRR dam. This alternative recommends that in the event of a drought RWSA reduce the release to mimic the nature in-flow until other alternatives have been placed into service. A statistical examination of available hydraulic stream flow records indicate that flow would be less than 8.0 mgpd one percent of the time. Mr. Potter said the second two alternatives recommended for immediate implementation are water September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) conservation and drought management which would help to eliminate future needs, as well as manage the currently available resources in the event of a drought. Mr. Potter said the fourth alternative for immediate implementation is to reduce the sediment load in the SFRR. That will be a long-term undertaking and will not result in immediate improvement. Earlier he said that reduction in volume is responsible for significant portions of the future need, approximately 50 percent of it. The cause of that reduction is the on-going sedimentation of the SFRR. To whatever extent sedimentation can be reduced, the useful volume of the reservoir will be extended. Mr. Potter said the last alternative is for crest controls. The idea is to increase the existing volume of the SFRR by adding four-foot crest controls to the top of the dam. There are several ways to do this. One way is to add a five-foot rubber bladder to the crest of the reservoir, such as the one added to the Sugar Hollow Dam to replace the gated control structure there which was an impediment to the passage of the big storm in June, 1995. He said there are several technologies available to do this. At the time of the rehabilitation of the Sugar Hollow Dam, the consultants evaluated four different technologies and the rubber dam was the recommended alternative. Mr. Potter said the one exception to the alternatives listed above is dredging. He said the next speaker, Mr. Bob Pound, will go into that in detail. Before that, he wants people to know the sheer volume involved in any dredging alternative. When the SFRR was constructed in 1966, it had a recorded volume of 1.76 million gallons. Its current volume, based on a March, 2001 bathymetric survey, is 1.15 million gallons. This calculates to a total loss over 35 years of just over 3.0 million cubic yards, or 236 cubic yards per day. He will not talk about how to dredge out that material, or how to de-water it, or even how to dispose of it. He will not talk about environmental impacts such as noise, odors, traffic or odor problems in treated water, other than to say that based on his experience, the solids removed as part of the water treatment process smell worse than almost anything ever smelled at the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Potter said that in earlier presentations he spoke of 236 cubic yards per day as being equivalent to 12, twenty cubic yard dump truck loads every day, 365 days a year just to maintain the status quo. His statement was wrong. A twenty cubic yard of dirt cannot legally be hauled over the highway because of weight limitations. Even though the truck volume might be twenty cubic yards, it actually would be hauling between ten and 12 actual yards of dirt. His revised figure, because of the weight limitations, is 20 to 24 trucks per day, 365 days per year, for however long it takes to maintain reservoir capacity until sedimentation load is reduced. That can be one truck load per hour 24 hours per day, or it can be one truck every 20 minutes, eight hours a day. It is a lot of truck loads. Mr. Potter said in addition to that, to restore the SFRR to its original capacity and its design 12.0 mgpd safe yield, in addition to those dump trucks running every day, something needs to be done to the 35 years of accumulated sedimentation, about 3.0 million cubic yards of material. That is equivalent to almost 19 feet of material stored on 100 acres of land. He is not suggesting that dredging is not doable. It makes sense to extend the useful life of the reservoir. One must be realistic in grasping the enormity of what dredging means. If it is cost-effective, or even if it is not cost-effective and the urban water users are willing to pay for it, dredging will be done. He then introduced Mr. Robert Pound, Vice-President of Aquadredge, a specialized hydraulic dredging firm. He said Mr. Pound went out with Mr. Thomas Dunn, RWSAs = engineering representative from OBrien & Gere Engineers, Inc. They looked at some potential dredge = spoil sites. Mr. Pound said he would speak about the different ramifications and different methodologies which can be used to dredge a body of water. He said he has been vice-president of Aquadredge since 1975. They do projects for the Federal government, state, local and private organizations. They have done Superfund toxic waste sites, marinas, fresh water and salt water bodies of water. He was asked to talk about the nature of hydraulic dredging which is one of the alternatives proposed as a way to mediate the SFRR. He said there are three basic parts to dredging when using the hydraulic method. There is the dredging process itself. There is the mobilization of the plant onto the site. There is the construction and maintenance of the containment areas that the dredge spoils are placed into. He said dredging sounds simple at first. Take the material, dig it from Point A, pump it to Point B. However, each job is unusual and unique. He has looked at the reservoir site, observed the nature of the body of water, the sediments in it, the debris in the body of water, some of the possible sites looked at as containment sites, and the distances these sites are from the dredging area. Also, there have been many discussions about how long a period of time this dredging project would take. Mr. Pound said the size of the dredge plant itself will be a factor on how fast the project can be done and its overall cost. Also, the final grades to be obtained to be sure the dredge plant can float in the designed depths must be determined. They have to look at the amount of materials to be taken out per dredge event. If a large amount is to be taken out, a larger plant might make more sense because the higher costs of mobilizing on the site would be offset by the higher production rates. If the amount to be taken out over a period of time is a smaller amount, smaller machinery is more cost-effective because it is less expensive to bring it to the site and mobilize. Particularly, if this is to occur over several years only several months each time. Mr. Pound said they look at the type of materials in the waterway, grain size, mud, sand, clay, organic matter, debris, rock, logs, sticks and other organic matter, human debris, etc. These are things which slow down the dredging process. A certain velocity must be maintained by the water in order to pump the dredging material through the pipeline to the spoil area. The larger and heavier the material, the more velocity is required to carry the material through. They look at the distance the dredge material must be pumped, and the size of materials will decide if boosters are needed to pump the required distance. September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) Boosters increase the cost of the dredging operation. Mr. Pound said that in the SFRR there are a lot of different materials, such as sand, mud and coarse gravel. He feels there are other objects and materials which have not been identified at this time because significant investigations have not yet been performed. The mobilization he mentioned previously is simply the cost to bring the plant on the site and the number of events done. The size of the equipment will affect that cost. Mr. Pound said the third cost to be looked at is the size of the spoil area, both to construct it and maintain it. If the area is large enough to do one event and leave the material on site, that will be the cheapest way. More events are required for the smaller the containment area. Each event requires a down time to allow the material to dry and settle out. Then, the material would have to be trucked away and the area reclaimed for the next event. The type of material, how long it takes to dry, how much can be put in a truck, and the distance to be traveled, all affect cost. There are many parameters which need to be investigated and presented for alternatives if the dredging method is chosen. Mr. Potter asked Mr. Pound about the consulting engineers estimate of costs for this project based = on his experience. Mr. Pound said based on projects they have done over the past few years, the cost range is not out of line. He cannot give an exact cost because of all the parameters which have to be considered. In the last five years, they have not bid a job where the dredging itself was less than $6.00 per yard for this type of project. In addition, there is the cost of procuring land and the design and construction of the spoiler. He believes this job would require a booster pump because of the grain analysis and the distance to the pump. Mr. Collins said a number of citizens have previously indicated they felt the projected costs for dredging were too high and the benefits underestimated. Therefore, a person was invited to speak tonight about that aspect. It has been seen this evening that the original estimates of costs and the associated issues are in line. He then invited members of the public to speak. First to speak was Mr. Nick Evans who said he lives in Barboursville. He is Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD). He said the water supply project has led to a sensible mix of near-term solutions. There are modest engineered alternatives which build on existing infrastructure, and measures such as drought management and water conservation that will require individuals to take responsibility for living within the natural resources base. He does not think this is the time to end the discussion. How to interface with water supply planning, water resources protection and planning for growth and development needs to be reexamined. Water supply planning and planning for growth are linked. It is the resource protection planning that often gets disconnected from the other planning processes. Sustainable water supplies need to be in place to meet the needs of homes and businesses enabled through land use decisions. The cumulative affect of incremental actions should not degrade the natural resource base. Mr. Evans said there is a lot of talk these days about integrated resource planning. This concept reflects an approach to community decision-making where sustainability of the natural resource base gets equal footing with other interests. In terms of what is practical and immediate, integrated resource planning might mean firming up the connections between existing entities operating in the realm of water resource protection, and entities which manage the water supply and make near-term and long-term planning decisions. Mr. Evans said the SWCD one existing entity which operates in the realm of water resources protection. It serves a multi-jurisdictional area which enables it to work with individual localities toward uniformity of approach across the watershed. He outlined three areas where he feels the District might partner with RWSA, the City and the County, in the future. 1) Sedimentation: reducing sediment influx into the reservoir will continue to be part of the water supply management plan. The District and the County have been working together on sediment reduction for decades, but it continues to settle and accumulate in the reservoir, so it is hard to tell how effective the methods used have been. More needs to be known about how the sediment transport system works in order to determine the most cost-effective way to apply resources. Mr. Evans said the Thomas Jefferson SWCD Water Resources Advisory Committee looked into this issue during the past year and developed a draft proposal. The proposal includes data gathering and monitoring to help better define where the sediment comes from, and testing of alternative mitigation strategies to find the best approach to working with the problem. This activity is in the realm of soil and water conservation, and the District is prepared to serve as project umbrella, but resources will be needed to accomplish this. He would like for the SWCD, the County and the RWSA to get together with a proposal and seek funding for it. 2) Water Budget: developing a regional water budget means integrating data on surface water and ground water with meteorological data to give a real time picture of how much water resides in the various components of the watershed. This tool can be extremely helpful in making water supply management and planning decisions, particularly, once data has been accumulated over a period of years, and long-term trends can be established. For example, it is difficult to make an equitable policy on how much water to release from a given reservoir if there are not good numbers on how much water is flowing in from the top, how much is being contributed by groundwater and how much is being lost to the atmosphere through evaporation. Mr. Evans said it is difficult to monitor the effect of development in different parts of the County on groundwater supplies if there are no long-term numbers on water table levels. In order to begin developing a regional water budget, additional surface water gauging stations and groundwater observation wells will September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) need to be established. Somebody will need to tie it together with meteorological data on a computer. This is a project which could involve multiple players with long-term monitoring and data base management tasks. The SWCD stands ready to help put the pieces together. 3) Conservation Easements: (Mr. Collins interrupted to ask Mr. Evans to complete his presentation.) Easements are a powerful tool. A foundation is being developed to administer the SWCD program, and they aim for lands which are critical for water interests. Mr. Angus Murdoch said he was present with a statement from the Rivanna Conservation Society. RCS supports the RWSA proposal for a four-foot crest increase at the SFRR as the best, short-term alternative to increased municipal water supplies. However, before the Authority proceeds with the permitting process, several important environmental issues related to regional water resources need to be addressed. 1) Moormans River. The highest priority should be given to restoring a greater proportion of the natural flow of the Moormans River, especially during low flow periods. The excessive diversion of water from the Sugar Hollow Dam to municipal use continues to compromise the ecology of the Moormans. The scenic river status of the Moormans River is one of Albemarle Countys important environmental assets and = must be protected by restoring vigorous natural flows in the river. 2) Water Conservation and Drought Management. They appreciate the current water conservation efforts of the City and County. However, additional efforts need to be taken. The RWSA should adopt more sophisticated early warning systems for droughts and implement strong voluntary and/or mandatory water conservation measures well before reservoirs reach critically low levels. Drought management plans should budget water for run-of-the-river releases to maintain healthy riparian eco-systems even during low flow conditions. 3) Dredging in the South Fork. Over the long-term, the SFRR will require periodic dredging to prevent the creation of a serious environmental and public safety hazard. All parties should recognize that the proposed crest increase is at best a temporary stop-gap measure. Analysis of various dredging options for the SFRR need to be given a higher priority. The future costs of dredging should be treated as the costs of maintaining the reservoir and included in the present water rate structure. 4) Minimum Releases from the SFRR. RCS advocates a formal, guaranteed minimum release of 8.0 million gallons per day from the SFRR. If RWSA opts for a variable flow release, this variable release should be equal to the actual in-flow in the South Fork, plus any diversions from Sugar Hollow to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Any efforts to link SFRR releases to the run of the river will require major improvements and flow monitoring infrastructure, including the construction and rehabilitation of numerous gauging stations throughout the watershed. 5) Future Water Supplies. During the 1999 summer drought, water levels in the Rivanna River were dangerously low. Droughts of similar size have occurred in each decade since the 1930s. Several factors are presently increasing water demands from the Rivanna River watershed. These include residential, commercial and industrial demands within the RWSA and the Fluvanna County Aquasource service areas, increasing groundwater uses in both counties outside these service areas, and increases in impervious surfaces such as new construction and paved parking lots. Accumulative impacts of increased uses in both surface and groundwater throughout the Rivanna watershed are significant and need to be carefully monitored. There are already some indications that groundwater levels are declining in some areas of the County. The negative impact of excessive groundwater withdrawals on surface water availabilities is well established. RCS supported the Countys decision to drill observation wells for monitoring groundwater levels. While = RWSA exists to produce and distribute potable water, no County agency is presently designed to monitor ecological conditions of local rivers and streams. RCS advocates the creation of a new multi-jurisdictional agency focused on these environmental watershed issues. Mr. John Via said he has had many years to think about what he would say tonight. He will say we A told you so. When land was taken at Buck Mountain, everything was supposed to have been solved. We @ tried to get you all to pick from another watershed area, and you wouldnt do it because you are using the = same water from the same impoundment area as now. If you could go elsewhere and use the money put into the Buck Mountain area, it would be beneficial. Mr. John Kauffman said he lives in Free Union, and is with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. They support construction of the bladder on the SFRR feeling it is a logical use of the existing reservoir, and the most inexpensive way to increase the yield in the facility. There are two opportunities in implementation of the overall project. One would be a more aggressive program for riparian protection to reduce both sediment and nutrients into the reservoir. Second would be an aggressive demand reduction program that would put into place aspects such as better seasonal pricing and an educational program to reduce continuing demand. They also think the public recognizes the value of the river system and work needs to be done on reestablishing natural flows into the States Scenic Moormans River. He said the = proposal for an integrated plan encompassing the whole system would ensure there would be water again in the Moormans River. Ms. Lois Rochester was present for the League of Women Voters. She said this is a critical stage in the communitys determination of how to proceed to provide adequate public water, as well as = addressing important water-related issues. Will a patchwork approach be continued, or will a new paradigm be reached for in managing water resources? Over the course of this water project, the League has worked to inform itself, other citizens, and elected officials, about water issues important to the whole community. The Leagues publications, presentations and public statements have looked at water supply = planning in the broader context of comprehensive management of water resources. In previous communications, the League has suggested development of a mechanism for accomplishing comprehensive water management, possibly in the form of a commission or council. In September, the Albemarle County Water Resources staff presented their own professional assessment of the communitys = water management. They also looked at problems inherent in the current way of dealing with multiple water issues. To address such problems, staff recommended to the Board of Supervisors an integrated resource planning approach which has been mentioned many times this evening. Several possibilities were put forth as to the form such an approach might take. September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Ms. Rochester said in keeping with the Leagues longstanding support for comprehensive water = management, it wholeheartedly supports the IRP concept, even though the form is not yet set. They urge the City and the County to work together to set this concept in motion at the same time as, and in concert with, the on-going planning for public water supply. Help exists for this process, The Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Division of the Department of Conservation and Recreation provides a model for an administrative entity to carry out integrated resource planning. In accordance with the Water Quality Improvement Act, the DCR has created watershed round tables for the nine major watershed regions of Virginia. Charlottesville/Albemarle sits in the Piedmont Middle James part of the larger James River watershed. The round table concept seeks to accomplish goals through strategies similar to those of integrated resource planning. Thus, the DCR and the local SWCD office could provide infrastructure, expertise and support. In addition to facilitating the development of a local IRP, they could help synchronize planning efforts with statewide water protection goals. Ms. Rochester said with regard to the water supply project recommendations themselves, the League strongly endorses the proposed incremental approach to meeting public water supply needs. This strategy of matching source management and development to changes in demand in a gradual, interactive way, will enable efficient, responsible use of water resources. It will also allow for other water needs such as recreational uses, minimum in-stream flows, and will serve to protect water resources for future generations. As has been done in the past, the League also supports the recommended drought management and water conservation alternatives. The League recognizes that they are not, strictly speaking, alternatives, but rather, a required component of the community plan. Measures to conserve water and to respond to serious drought are already in place, but the League suggests that they be refined and expanded, ideally, by means of an integrated planning mechanism. A community-wide commitment to the implementation of these recommendations could result in important additional benefits, such as economic savings, improvement of water quality, and maintenance of aquatic eco-systems. Alternatives that involve improvements to already existing water resources, such as sediment load reduction and SFRR crest controls, should be pursued. Integrated resource planning would benefit essential efforts underway to reduce and prevent sedimentation and it would be an important mechanism to address impacts of crest controls. The League has also suggested a further study of dredging in spite of all its problems, in order to expand the life of the major reservoir. An IRP could help in the assessment of the need for and potential impacts of dredging. These recommendations all assume a sufficient public water supply can be assured by using what we have and using it more efficiently, instead of, by the more costly and likely non-permittable construction of a new reservoir. Ms. Rochester said on the whole, the League reviews the recommended alternatives as consistent with environmental protection and sustainability goals of the community, and of the regulatory agencies which have guided the project. In a real sense, the water supply planning process represents an environmental assessment and negotiation between the community and the eco-system it inhabits. This is an excellent mode to guide the community in present and future decision-making about its water needs and supplies. Achieving sustainability goals embodying the recommendations presented requires a new community-wide resolve to protect the watershed. During the course of the water supply planning process, a new century has begun. It affords an opportunity to take a fresh look at how critical resources are managed, and to move into that new paradigm. This must be done with increased scientific understanding of those resources, and with the informed and full participation of citizens and their elected officials. Mr. Collins said the RWSA Board has benefited immensely from the Leagues work and to have it = summarized this evening so succinctly is a compliment to this organization. Mr. John Schwab said he had served on the Rivanna Roundtable, and he lives on property next to the SFRR. He said droughts have been mentioned this evening, but he is more concerned about an event such as (Hurricane) Camille or (Hurricane) Agnes and how a bladder would hold up during such periods. Also, looking at the current safe yield of 7.2 million gallons, he thinks a second reservoir or second place for water needs to be reconsidered. If there were another event like Agnes or Camille, and the dam went A down what would be used for water? He thinks that should be answered tonight. @ Mr. Bruce Dotson said he is a resident of Albemarle County. He is concerned about the land use consequences of water supply. Each year there are about 200 building permits issued for the rural area of Albemarle County and thats too many. He is concerned that if the problem is not addressed, and there is = not an adequate urban water supply, development may be forced for lack of water further into the rural area. While land use efforts are going forward to try and reduce that impact, the water supply needs to work in a consistent way to support more in-fill development in the urban community. This is an urban problem, but it is also a regional problem, and the urban and rural needs have to be balanced at the same time. Mr. Blair Hawkins said he lives in the City, and is the editor of a new community resource newspaper called The Witness Report. He distributed copies of his paper to people in the audience. He A@ said the worse time to have a drought is in the middle of a flood. That is when there is a shortage of drinking water. Most dam failures occur during a flood. Mr. John Hermsmeier said he lives in the County. He said the issues with the water supply study are not so much about the study itself, but the fact that it is conducted separately from, or is only a piece of a truly comprehensive water plan. It is based on local comprehensive plans which were made without full consideration of their impact on water usage, and therefore, supply. The plans on which it is based can be September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) changed if citizens decide to change them, yet the study confines a discussion of growth management to the parameters of existing policy. He asked if the community has decided to use 20.0 million gallons of water in the year 2050. He does not think it has gone through a process to make that decision. Integrated resource planning could overcome this problem if it were pursued without delay. Otherwise, water supply decisions will be made and then the roles and policies of a community water plan established. Stop-gap measures may be acceptable if they buy enough time to create such a plan, and if they address the short- term yield question. He suggested that water be treated like land in terms of planning. Watersheds are primarily land. The term land use planning is used, so why not talk about land supply planning. It is a A@A@ finite resource whether talking about a county boundary or a watershed boundary. When talking about water, it is called water supply planning. The water supply is simply the amount of precipitation that falls A@ over a defined area. How much is stored in reservoirs, or gathered underground for use is the question. He suggested that all think about water use planning and not water supply planning. While there is land A@A@ for millions of people, and water could possibly be provided for millions of people, development and associated population will likely stabilize at far less than that because we have chosen directives like DISC and the protection of open areas instead of turning the entire community into one big growth area. Land use planning implies the protection of certain uses, so places a limit on other uses. It also implies a stopping point in the increase in population and associated development. Water use planning needs to do the same, not necessarily in terms of carrying capacity, but in terms of the choices of the free people. If we dont want to pave over the landscape, is it possible to stop it? Water policy should not be a covert growth = policy. As population grows, it becomes harder to provide a quality of water and a quantity of water. The per capita access to free flowing, non-dammed rivers drops with population growth and drops even more if this growth is associated with more dams. Growth is a double whammy. There are more users, and more watersheds are sealed with the development associated with this growth. There is less infiltration, less available groundwater and more pollution from the impervious surfaces. To sum up, the community can decide its water use and its associated implications. Mr. Dennis Rooker said he is a citizen of Albemarle County. He has three questions to ask the panel. First, what process will be followed in making the ultimate selection among the options? Second, what are the mechanisms in place to fund the cost of these options? Has any discussion been given to the implementation of mechanisms to fund the cost of the options selected? Finally, the report says that this A combination of options would meet the needs of the urban area through approximately 2030, allowing adequate time to monitor and select future longer term measures. He asked what continued effort is @ planned to study and pursue the longer term measures the community will need beyond 2030 to satisfy its water needs. Mr. Rooker said he hopes, as part of this process, that a formal mechanism will be put into place to explore and vigorously pursue the longer term options. Mr. Collins said he will see that these questions are addressed after all of the speakers have been heard. Mr. William Orr said nothing has been said about the Buck Mountain Reservoir, so he wonders if that project is still on the table and will be built. He said that the flow in the Rivanna River on a day-to-day basis is lower than what it used to be. Yet, when there is a rain, the level rises promptly and for a couple of days, it is way up. He suspects that is the result of development and the impervious surfaces created. He wonders why we are looking at entrapping water before it gets to Charlottesville and not some way to catch the overflow when there is a crest after a rain. Mr. Timothy Hulbert said he lives in the City. He works for the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce representing 1400 businesses, who employ 45,000 people in the community. He complimented the Mayor and Chairman Thomas on the excellent work product of the consultants. He was given a copy of the report earlier and found it to be a well done product. It lays out a number of alternatives for what should be done with the communitys most precious natural resource. His personal perspective is = that the recommended immediate actions are logical, reasonable, environmentally-sensitive and affordable. All should embrace conservation, no matter how much there is of a resource. He thinks the other things make sense: alternate release, reduce sedimentation in a reasonably efficient way, and addition of the four-foot crest controls. That is his perspective, not the Chambers perspective. He is not a = big fan of dredging. He understands it has to be done on a regular basis. He comes from the Upper Hudson Valley which is looking at A nightmare regarding dredging. It is a sloppy, Herculean, atrocious chore. It is something he does not think should be in the first round of options. He said the Chamber will engage its public process. They have done some interviewing, some research and some analyses. They will engage their Government Affairs Committee and ultimately their Board of Directors. Later in the year, they will share with all what they think in an official and formal way. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier said that in listening to the remarks, he thinks the governing bodies are lucky to have so many fine people testifying about water. It appears that everybody takes water for granted. The question is, how much is spent, and how is the money directed? From his standpoint, he thinks the area is fortunate because it has an abundance of water, and there are new ways to get more. The plan that has been developed has new reservoirs proposed, and it is a question of which ones to implement and when. He thinks that out of the group assembled tonight, the political bodies should mobilize this group, coordinate it and come up with a recommendation for a plan of action that moves into the next 50 years. His question is one Mr. Rooker brought up about how much money the community is willing to spend. Everything cannot be done at once, so it is a question of allocating the funds and moving ahead with the project on a piecemeal basis. Fixing the SFRR seems to be something all agree needs to be done, so it is a question of when and how to do it. He thinks that should be the first priority. The new sources of water would come into the plan later in the 50-year period. He does not see the system as being broken right now. If you want to prevent future problems, it is a question of how much money will be spent, and nobody has talked about that. September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) Ms. Ann Lederer said she lives on the SFRR. She is one of a small minority of people who are affected. There has not been a lot of discussion about the impact it will have on people who bought land there with nothing in their deeds about impoundment and nothing on their dock permits about losing their docks and boat houses. She has heard nothing about the cost of resurveying their land if they lose some of it. Who will pay for it? It seems unfair. It will affect their real estate taxes. When some of the houses were built, and in some cases, not by the present owners, the setback provision was 125 feet. She understands it is greater now, but those who live there were never notified of any change. Should those setback provisions be grandfathered so if they need to change the footprint of existing houses, they can do it. There are other costs she has not heard mentioned this evening. There are two bridges which will be affected, one over Woodland Road which does meet VDOT standards at this time, and the other is a bridge over Earlysville Road. Will these be hidden in a VDOT budget when the change is needed? She said there will be an impact on the wildlife in the area. She asked that the concerns of the present landowners not be ignored even though there are few of them. Ms. Katherine Jordan said she is a planning student and a resident of Albemarle County. Given the fact that a large portion of the North Fork Rivanna River watershed lies in Greene County, are there plans to work with Greene County now or in the future? Me. Bruce Appleyard said he is the Transportation Land Use Planner for the Southern Environ- mental Law Center. He said SELC believes that conservation and the enhancement and protection of the existing water supply should compose the foundation of any plan for the future of the communitys water = supply. At the November 18, 1999, forum, SELC spoke to the Board of Supervisors, the City Council and RWSA, and urged that an effective plan for water conservation be developed. They support the drought management and conservation alternatives in the report and urge the two governments in conjunction with the RWSA to develop and adopt a comprehensive water conservation plan. They also urge the Board, City Council and the RWSA to take A close look at the projected demand for water. The effectiveness of better land use practices and lowering demand on the water supply need to be taken into account. They urge these bodies to protect and enhance the existing supplies including the SFRR and Sugar Hollow Reservoirs before moving ahead with construction of, as it is referred to in a rather simplistic and sanitized fashion, new water impoundment. A@ Mr. Kevin Lynch said he is a member of Charlottesville City Council. He wanted to ask a question of the dredging expert. He wonders if the costs of dredging in the past have tended to go up or down. With technology getting better, is there a decrease in the costs? He is concerned that even with the crest controls, only a little time is being bought. Could this time create a less expensive solution later, or is it likely to be a more expensive solution? A second question, for those communities which have decided not to dredge, what have they done with their expended reservoirs? Mr. Collins asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. Since there was no reply, he suggested that the list of questions imposed tonight be discussed. There is the question about dredging costs, a question related to the land impacts on the reservoir if the proposal goes forward, a question about bridges, a question of setbacks. He suggested that the technical issues be discussed first. He asked if the impact of the proposed four-foot crest controls on the landowners and those whose properties abut the SFRR have been taken into account. Mr. Potter said when the City purchased the land for the SFRR back in the mid-sixties, theoretically they purchased a take of up to elevation 387 feet. The spillway of the dam is at elevation 382. Theoretically the City of Charlottesville owns a ring of land around the reservoir that would be defined by projecting the existing water level five feet higher and extending it out horizontally. He says theoretically because he knows from the experience of a local surveyor who was involved with that take a number of years ago, that there are some areas of the reservoir (not in the vicinity of the Earlysville Road bridge) where the land flattens out enough that the horizontal projection of that five foot vertical ring would go so far removed from the reservoir that somebody made the decision that enough is enough and said we will A@A draw the line here. He does not know where those lines are. It is his opinion that some additional land @ would have to be acquired. Mr. Collins asked if there is an estimate for this additional land in number of acres. Mr. Potter said it has been estimated to be less than 100 acres. That actual determination would not be made until after a decision to go forward with that particular alternative. The other part of that is, in the event of a flood event, the advantage of a bladder type crest control is that it would be collapsed so regardless of the storm event, the reservoir would revert back to its existing spillway elevation of 382 feet. The crest control would not result in the flooding of any additional land. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Potter to address the question of whether bridges would need to be replaced if this option is chosen. Mr. Potter said it is possible that the bridge crossing Ivy Creek would have to be replaced. They have talked with VDOT about this, and VDOT has requested an engineering study of the bridge. At this time, no determination has been made. Mr. Collins asked if the bridges have to be elevated, who would pay that cost? Mr. Potter said he thinks the determination of who will pay will depend on why the bridge is being raised, its remaining usable life, and a number of other factors. Given the slowness with which VDOT is perceived to move, if there were urgency in getting this done, RWSA would probably have to pay for it with some expectation of reimbursement. In reference to the question of the boat docks, these docks exist on the reservoir at the pleasure of the City and the RWSA. Permits are issued for each of the existing boat docks with the September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) understanding that should future plans call for a change in operation that would result in the removal of the boat docks, that is the homeowners experience. As far as the setbacks are concerned, that is a County planning matter, and he cannot address that question. Mr. Collins said there are other possibilities. A speaker mentioned the possibility of conservation easements. Also, cost-sharing programs or other types of programs could be introduced to move setbacks and possibly compensate for any additional setbacks. This is all speculative. As to Mr. Lynchs question, = on the average and over the long-term, have costs declined or increased for the type of dredging mentioned? Mr. Pound said dredging costs have increased over the years, as is the case in almost every aspect of the economy. There have been significant cost increases over the last 26 years in which he has been in this business. Technology has improved somewhat, but overall, dredging has not changed much in the last 20+ years. There are several methods of dredging. There is mechanical versus hydraulic. There are different kinds of mechanical and different kinds of hydraulic. Mechanical dredging would be more expensive than a hydraulic method in this particular project. He would like to point out that hydraulic is much cleaner than a mechanical method. The mechanical method would require a barge-mounted excavator or a cable-arm crane and the bottom is dug out mechanically, the material put on a barge, taken to shore, off-loaded, de-watered, and then transported somewhere else. Every time the material is handed, it increases the cost. Also, with mechanical there is a lot of mess, and a lot of turbidity created. That can cause secondary problems on the water treatment facility downstream. For the hydraulic method, there are two forms of hydraulic dredgers. One is called a cutter-head dredge, and the other is an auger-type dredge where the cutter-head looks like a large snow blower. The auger-type dredge can draw the material mechanically to the center at a much slower rate which causes less turbidity, and then it is sucked up like a vacuum cleaner. The cutter-head dredger has a basket with teeth which spins around, and the syntrophical force throws a lot of material out which causes more turbidity, but both methods are cleaner than mechanical, and usually they are more cost-effective because the material is dug one time at the dredge site with it being pumped directly to the containment area where it is then de-watered and stored. As far as methods are concerned, hydraulic is historically cheaper, but prices have increased over time. Mr. Collins said he saw some hands raised by people who want to discuss this further. He will exercise his prerogative to leave the dredging issues for the moment because there are bigger issues on A the table. He asked Mr. Potter to discuss any technical operation issues he may have. Then, bigger @ questions about money, what process will follow this meeting and what to do about the term beyond 2030 will be discussed next. Mr. Potter said he will discuss some of the questions asked. Ms. Jordan questioned the impacts on the North Fork Rivanna watershed. He said at present there are no plans to do anything in that watershed. The improvements at the SFRR would not impact the North Fork Rivanna watershed. There was a question from Mr. Orr about a reservoir in the southern part of the County. He said the Buck Island Creek reservoir was an alternative looked at. It had a relatively high cost compared to Alternative 1 because the water is not in a place where the current demand is located, so it would require pumping, transmission lines and a water treatment plant. It was estimated to impact approximately 20 existing structures, and there were other issues. Ms. Thomas said there was also a question about where the Buck Mountain Creek reservoir project stands now. Mr. Potter said reservoirs are out of favor from a permitting standpoint. In this instance, given that there are less environmentally-impacting practicable alternatives, the chances of getting a permit for a new reservoir would not be favorable. However, the current implementation of recommended alternatives only carries the area through the year 2030. Unless demand can be decreased or the attractiveness of dredging improved, other alternatives will look different in the future. The Buck Mountain reservoir may be one of those other alternatives. Mr. Collins said he will respond to the basic question of what will happen now, and what are the succeeding steps. He said the RWSA is the wholesale distributor of water. It is an independent legal agent, but it is politically responsible to the City and the County who created it for their joint needs. The consultants report and the recommendations seen this evening are still under discussion by the Board of the RWSA. What has been heard this evening, along with other information, will be taken and considered further. If and when they decide to accept these recommendations, they will then recommend them to the City and the County for consideration. The City and the County would then undertake their own processes of deliberations. Both the time and the process are uncertain in the sense that it is not known when a decision will be made to go forward with these recommendations. Mr. Caravati asked what kind of a schedule the Supervisors have. Mr. Collins said he believes a tentative schedule was adopted by RWSA to try and make some sort of a recommendation by next month. Whether that schedule will be maintained will depend on how what has been said this evening is assessed. There may be other factors they want to discuss. It could be as soon as one month, or considerably longer depending on how the RWSA responds to the information provided, and what they hear from the City and the County as to what they want to see. Mr. Collins said there is the question of money and financing in general, and perhaps of cost. This may not have been adequately addressed from the standpoint of members of the audience. The first question has to do with money. How would the costs have to be paid? How much would it cost? He asked the estimated cost of just the bladder and four-foot crest controls. September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Potter said he does not have those figures tonight. He will look to Mr. Brent and Ms. Mueller for an answer, but he is not aware of any funds for any of the alternatives other than the urban water users rate structure. There may be some grant money somewhere for issues such as sedimentation and dredging, but as far as the bladder and other capital type improvements, they will have to be paid for by the urban water users in the form of the operating budget, or by long-term debt. He said this is a project which was not envisioned when the RWSA was formed, so who pays what as far as the shares by the City customers or ACSA customers has to be negotiated. Ms. Collins said the costs are not known for that alternative at this time. However, it is assumed that those costs would most likely be paid out of the water charges made to those properties connected to the system. Ms. Mueller just pointed out that the agreement between the City, the County and ACSA does not set a criteria or a standard for sharing these costs. The respective shares to be paid by the City users or the County users is something that would be settled through discussion among those two bodies and other parties. Mr. Collins said normal costs associated with existing facilities, or negotiated at the creation of the RWSA, are settled ad hoc by the RWSA Board in consultation with the City and the ACSA. The ACSA is an independent organizational entity within the County, and the relationship between that Authority and the Supervisors is one that is managed by those two parties. Mr. Potter said the ACSA Board is appointed by the Supervisors, so that is the relationship of the entities. Mr. Collins said there is no standard established in previous agreements that would cover the unusual capital expense of creating a new facility. Apportionment of that cost would have to be negotiated, and there might be differing views about that apportionment. Ms. Thomas referred to a hand-out entitled Appendices which contains a Water Supply A@A Alternatives Matrix on which is listed the estimated costs of the various alternatives. She said the way the @ Buck Mountain watershed land was paid for opens a different possibility. The money all comes from the water users though rates, but, in this case, a surcharge was added to the fee for an initial hook-up of a new unit. That puts the burden on every new dwelling unit, so that will be a part of the discussion of how to pay for it all. In previous years, the Federal government picked up a large portion of the costs of public utilities, such as the Crozet Interceptor. That money is no longer available. In some communities across the U.S., water is one of the most expensive things a homeowner has to pay for. Mr. Dorrier asked if it would be appropriate for this panel to establish a joint City/County task force of affected people in the community to deal with the financial aspects of this question. Mr. Collins said that at some point, that will have to take place. An unidentified gentlemen asked if the hook-up fee is still being used to pay for the land at Buck Mountain, or has that debt been retired. If it is not being used for that purpose, is it going to the ACSA or the RWSA. Mr. Bill Brent said the agreement where the City and the ACSA agreed to acquire the Buck Mountain property, required a connection fee on new connections in both the City and the County. They collect that as the collecting agency, and the money is passed to the RWSA. Mr. Collins said the Buck Mountain property was acquired with the expectation that that would be the next additional water supply when it was appropriate. The consultants, VHB, were told it was unlikely that Buck Mountain would be approved in the time period they would like because of Federal and State reviews of new reservoirs and their effect on wetlands and endangered species. There was some evidence that an endangered species would be affected by Buck Mountain and also a lot of wetlands acreage. The standard Mr. Potter mentioned for the planning process (least environmentally-impacted alternative) was one the consultants looked at. They came up with the option for the bladder instead of proceeding with the Buck Mountain option. The land that was acquired for Buck Mountain is still in the ownership of the RWSA. Mr. Brent said it was a 30-year bond issue, with the bonds being issued in 1981. Mr. Tom Jones said he lives in the County near the SFRR. He said in the original matrix there were two line items listed for the dredging option. A single event was listed for $71.0 million, and annual dredging was listed at $7.2 million. He was not sure whether those are two separate alternatives, or if the single event happens three times between now and 2050. Mr. Potter said there are two alternatives listed for dredging. First, a one-time event to restore the reservoir to the level that existed in 1996, which would result in a safe yield of 7.2 million gallons a day. The second approach is for multiple dredges over the 50- year planning period. The cost of either approach is approximately the same. Mr. Thomas Downing with OBrien & Gere has said there are a number of different options for the dredging alternative. First, they = looked at the option of dredging now, dredging in 2030, and then dredging at the end of the period to restore the reservoir to its original volume each time. They decided that was not necessary just to find out the effects of this on the watershed. They can monitor the effects of sedimentation on the reservoir to see if what has been occurring since 1966 continues to occur. Due to new technology, the 1994 bathymetric survey and the most recent survey can be compared closely since the cross-sections were taken from the same locations. That data can be compared on a one-on-one basis to see what the actual sedimentation rate has been. In short, they looked at a couple of different options. If the reservoir were dredged on a one-time event, they would know what sediments had accumulated since 1966 to the present time. There will be a larger volume of sediment in the reservoir when the one-time dredging event occurs in 2030. At that time, the reservoir will return to its original yield in 1966 of 7.2 mgpd. Another approach was to have annual dredging where each year an increment of sediment was removed that would yield a safe yield of 7.2 mgpd. There are a couple of different approaches, and at the end, there is a 7.2 mgpd safe yield in 2050. There would be a large, one-time capital investment for the one event, or an annual dredging cost. September 27, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Murdoch asked if there is any commercial potential for what comes at the end of the dredging process. Mr. Pound said there could be some chemicals in it that would make it unsuitable, or the grain size is unsuitable. If there were a material which is suitable, the problem is the quantity being discussed. There is a potential use of the product, but it depends what the product is, and the availability of it at the time. Mr. Hermsmeier said when the SFRR was originally constructed, it was known that it would accumulate silt, so he wonders if there were a contingency plan put into place at that time. Mr. Potter said there are two, three-foot sediment control gates built into the face of the dam. He thinks the structure was intended to release sediment as it moved toward the dam face. Mr. Lynch asked if there will always be a minimal level in the SFRR. Mr. Potter said the engineer used zero as a 2050 safe yield of the reservoir because that was the most conservative and defensible number for him to use. There is no way for him to predict now what the volume of the reservoir will be because of all the variables. As the reservoir fills in, the detention time will be less, therefore the velocities to move the same amount of water through it will be faster, and some of the sediment settling out will be scoured out in the future. Where that equilibrium point will occur, he cannot predict. He thinks there will always be some capacity available in the reservoir, but he does not know what that number will be. Mr. Collins asked if everyone who wished to speak had done so. Mr. Jason Hulbert asked the amount of per capita water consumption. Mr. Potter said it is approximately 120 gallons per capita per day, but that depends on whether looking at the City, the University, or the County. He does not how this ranks against national figures. He would not try to compare the local number against other localities because the local number includes all uses. Mr. Collins said there is a dispute about what number should be used for an average. In looking at some of the responses from agencies such as the EPA and other organizations which are interested in water policy and water supply, this locality will not receive the scrutiny that it would if trying to build a new reservoir. Newport News is trying to build a new reservoir. The analyses demands they have to meet is quite different from the review that has to be undertaken by the RWSA. Whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage, he cannot say. An unidentified gentleman said he appreciates all the work which has been done. He said a lot of time was used discussing dredging, but little time was spent discussing the bladder. He would like more information on that. Mr. Potter said he would be happy to provide a copy of all the information he has which was developed for this report. Mr. Collins said they will contemplate a variety of ways to respond to individual concerns expressed tonight. He thanked all who attended this meeting tonight. At 9:10 p.m., the meeting ended. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 03/20/2002 Initials: EWC