Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-02-04 / February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 4, 1976, at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes vitle, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from January 28, 1976. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: St. John. County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey and County Attorney, George R. The meeting was called to order and immediately a motion to adjourn into execUtive session to discuss personnel and legal matters was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded Vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 7:30 P.M. the Board reconvened at Jack Jouett Jr. High School for a public hearing advertised on January 20 and ~January 27, 1976~ as follows: '~Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-504, notice is hereby given that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, will conduct a public hearing on February 4, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. at Jack Jouett Jr. High School, Hydraulic Road, Charlottesville, Virginla,-to consider adoption of an ordinance entitled 'ORDINANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY OF WA'TER IN THE SOUTH RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR." The purpose of this ordinance is to protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of the South Rivanna River Reservoir resulting from development in the drainage basin thereof on an interim basis pending the completion of studies designed to determine the effect of such development upon the reservoir. This ordinance was adopted as an emergency measure on January 14, 1976, and this hearing is being held to consider adoption of the ordinance in accor- dance with the Code section stated above." (Clerk's Note~ The following public hearing is set out in the form of a condensed transcript. The total transcript is on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Fisher: The purpose of this hearing is to discuss an Ordinance to protect the quality of the water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir. This was enacted as an emergency ordinanc on January 14. It has a life time of 60 days only. If the ordinance is to be continued in effect, it must be done pursuant to an advertised public hearing. This public hearing was advertised on January 20 and January 27 and~a display advertisement was run in the Daily Progress on February 2, not as a part of the legal advertising, but to make certain that people knew about this hearing. A number of people are present tonight from various agencies; the State Health Department, the State Water Control Board, VPI-SU, and Betz Environmental Engineers. First, I will ask that Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning for Albemarle C0un.ty~3.give a presentation on the area involved in the existing moratorium; the densities Qfland use and existing zoning. Following that presentation, I will ask the people from State agencies to speak and then we will hear from the list of people who have signed to speak. Dorrier: Before you start, I ~ill abstain from the discussion and vote on this issue because of the reasons I gave at the previous meeting on this matter. I asked the Common- wealth's Attorney for an opinion as to whether or not I have a conflict of interest. He said this ordinance is a matter of general application and not special application. Under the Conflict of InterestsAct this means that it applies broadly to all citizens in the area, but, knowing that my law fi~m represents parties in the area and that there might be an appearance of impropriety if I voted on this issue, I have decided that it would be in the best interest of the County, and my best interest, to abstain. ~ Tucker: The Planning Staff has prepared fOr the Board's review, pertinent land use and zoning characteristics within the Rivanna Reservoir study area; an area somewhat larger than the five-mile radius area of the moratorium. This area involves the sub-watershed for the entire South Fork Rivanna River watershed. We have provided a list of all major sub- divisions within the study area. A major subdivision is one which contains ten lots or more and generally requires road building and central utilities. There are 20 major subdivisions within the study area containing a total of 935 lots. The average lot size in these sub- divisions is 1.61 acres. The total acreage contained in these lots is 1,507+.~ The staff has also provided a list of minor subdivisions; those containing less than 10 lots. Since t~0,.'~145 lots containing a total of 455.7 acres with an average lot size of 3.14 acres, have been approved in-this category. There are five urban, residential developments within the study area; Old Salem Apartments, Georgetown Square, Hessian Hills apartments, Hessian Hills duplexes, and Georgetown Green. Industrial activity includes Teledyne and Murray Manufacturing. 87.21% of the study area is presently zoned A-1. 7.24% of the area is zoned R-1 and is primarily located in the Farmington, Hessian Hills, Colthurst areas. R-3 represents 1% of the study area. All other zones in the area comprise less than 1% of the total. The staff also prepared a saturation potential in terms of population and find that to be 81,594 persons, or 3.13 persons per acre. The dwelling unit saturation would be 10,734 dwelling units. If the area were zoned totally A-l, the population saturation would be 31~68t persons or 1.31 persons per acre, with 9,000 dwelling units. While this history wilL~e insight into what has transpired in the study area to date, it is difficult to ascertain what impact development will have on the Reservoir. The impact of development and its implications cannot, in the staff's opinion, be assessed until the Betz Study is complete It is hoped that questions concerning the prospective life of the Reservoir and the effect of urban and agricultural run-off will be answered.at that~-~time. February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) Bailey: Did you say the stud~:~area has'~been extended beyond the moratorium area following the roadline? Tucker: Yes. It takes in the boundaries of the watershed area, but it is extended by ridge lines. This is primarily a sub-watershed area that the staff studie~, rather than just the five-mile radius. Bailey: Is the R-2 and R-3 concentrated in one area or scattered? Tucker: It is basically located around the urban area of the County. The R-3 zoning is located off of Hydraulic Road. The study area itself is primarily agricultural. Fisher: Would Dr. Frank Browne, Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc., come forward? Dr. Brow~ we know that you are in the process of making your study and that any results you have today are preliminary only. When will this StUdy be completed and how much information can you give us on the effects of suburban and urban development on the Reservoir? Browne: At the present, we are about six months into the study. Basically, we are on schedule. We should be finished at the end of the 12 to 14 months. At the present time, we are following a very scientific approach, even though we realize there are a lot of political problems concerning land use right'~now. The first few months we have basically looked at the total watershed. We are not looking just at urban run-off. We are looking at ~the ecological condition of the Reservoir and what is causing that ecological condition. The last five weeks we have been increasing our sampling stations up the different streams and can now pinpoint some sources of pollution. We have also found seasonal differences as could be expected. Fisher: We know that you are studying the existing condition in the watershed. The problems that we have in the Reservoir have been brought to our attention by many different people. At present the watershed is primarily agricultural with some industrial, .forest and a small percentage of urban development. Do you think there will be enough data to determine what effect the addition of more urban development will have on the Reservoir or if development can be handled under controlled conditions? Browne: We are somewhat limited by the small amount of existing urban development in the area. That does not mean that if there ~were more urban development, we could do a better study. Studies made throughout the country are inconclusive concerning urban run-off. At the present, there are many regional 208 studies being per.formed and paid for by the Federal government. Most of these studies are looking into non-point source urban and suburban run-off. By the time all these studies are concluded, there will be more scientific information on areas like the South Rivanna Reservoir area. In the sampling that Betz is doing, we are picking areas that are either under construction now or in a stabilized urban area. Right now we are doing a total balance of the loading for different land uses. By the end of the study, we will know what loading a reservoir can take to remain healthy or get better. We are finishing the computer program and then we say that certain factors of loading, based on storms and land use and increased urbanization, will change the loading in the Reservoir. As you know, scientific work is never 100% sure. Eventually, I think we will have the answer to your question. Iachetta: Did you say you will~ be able to delineate the difference between a shore- line development and a distant development? Browne: Ail the data seems to indicate that we will be able to since we will be able to look at the time of travel in a stream. In certain areas where there are high nutrients in the upstream and these decrease downstream because of sedimentation, it will depend on the management of the storm. If it takes a day to get there, a good deal gets there. If it slows down, a lot of it settles out. But, with a heavy rain, the time of travel is increased. Iachetta: Will you be able to, :fr~m'!eithe~your data o~..you ~lxterature, ~ the so-called heavy metal problem associated with urban traffic? Browne: We should be able to if we change the type of study we are making. At the moment the study is basically aimed at nutrients. We are not monitoring for heavy metals. It would be more costly to monitor on a weekly basis for heavy metals. At the moment, the problem is eutrophication, although a lot of urban development could add to the toxicity which would be heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides. Roudabush: Dr. Browne, you served on the 14-day Blue Ribbon Committee that developed the interim guidelines and I believe that was a unanimous report. Have you found anything that has since changed your mind, or do you still stand behind the report-of that committee and it's recommendations? Browne: Yes, I still stand behind the report of the committee. Fisher: The purpose of that committee was to determine how development could take place without influencing the study. What about the long-term effects of urban pollution? Browne: At the time, we pointed out that these catch basins and slope modifications could help to reduce the pollution loading to a reservoir or to a stream. It would probably never eliminate this. In order to catch all of the rainfall from a good heavy storm, the basin would be so large that all you would have would be a basin instead of homes. Not enough studies have been done on places that have catch basins. Throughout the country, catch basins have been used by highway departments and contractors during construction, but these are removed once construction is completed. Roudabush: Do you have any information that concludes that if the entire watershed were protected against human passage, it~would be better in the long run to have high density development rather than low density scattered development? Is there any correlation between no development in the watershed and high density? Browne: There are studies which show that the higher the development, the higher February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) Iachetta: Did the Blue Ribbon Committee address the procedure that would be needed after construction is finished, particularly for areas immediately on the coastline of the impoundment? Browne: ~The committee recommended that-these basins operate continuously during and after construction. Iachetta: I asked the question because the guidelines as proposed do not do that. Browne: That was our intention. Construction has the main impact initially. There is also the problem of run-off. The discussion~at that meeting centered around who~.would actually take care of the basins after they are in operation. Bailey: Was there any area marked for additional facilities, if~-they are needed once the land is occupied and urbanized? I believe the report called for .space being reserved for additional people, but the~treatment needed was not stipulated. There guidelines were an interim measure to take while waiting for the results of your study. Browne: That is right. You do/no~J~nt to stipulate exactly what treatment will be required until you know the magnitude of the problem. There are studies which show you can get good removal from just sedimentation, but you can actually get better removal by adding aluminum sulfate or some sort of coagulant. At this point, it is hard to say what exactly to treat first. That is why I think there was not that much in the ordinance. Iachetta: Does your expertise include knowledge of how one takes heavy metals out Browne': Yes. For years we have been doing heavy metal removal for different waste waters. It is a very simple problem. Iachetta: What about the cost? Browne: That is not as simple. Most often you just collect the water, raise~the PH of the water by adding lime and some sort of a coagulant aid. Then you let it set for a while. But, you need somebody to go there and throw a bunch of bags off'stuff there. Then you need a mixer or in a more sophisticated removal system yqu~would have it where the flow comes in and would have PH control instruments, chemical feed instruments, and then you would let it settle~_,and drop out. It is simple in theory, but it takes a lot of maintenance. · ....... - .. ~'~.~ ......~ ........................ ~' ~ ~ -~. ~ -.~ .... .-- . .... ~,/~_-'~f~ '~'~ ~. ....... ~ ..... ..~'".~. Ro~abu~h':~i~ ha~e~one~.~qu~stion~ ~ho~'~waitin~.~f~ th~ ~es~ts.'~f.~..~oU~s~".and wi~hd~%_:bannin~ al~'-".de~el~pm~nt~'in~the~wate~h~do~r~a¥-~is~he~any ~easonable.way to determi theve~ten~6f a~buffer-zone tha~'would reasonably protect the quality of the water if development were~'~to occur in near proximity to the water, surface? Browne: If you are asking whether or not we can actually determine if it should be five miles or ten miles, or more away, there is no way to tell.~<tAt~him~>moment, it would be guesswork. Fisher: Mr. Bradley Chewning of the State Water Control Board is present to answer questions from Board members about the position of the State Water Control Board. Chewning: I don't have a presentation, but will answer any questions you might have. Bailey: You were on the Blue Ribbon Committee. Would you care to say whether or not your position with respect to that committee's report is the same now as it was at the time the committee was active? Chewning: I have not found anything since that time that would change my position. The committee recommendations with regard to slope, 15%, was changed at the time of adoption. That gave me a little problem, but it is only personal because I have no real data or technical expertise on which to argue that point. David: How many meetings did the committee.~have during it~.s fourteen day length? Chewning: I am not sure, but I think it was about three. Board of Supervisors meetings which we attended. That did not include the David: Is it correct that the main focus of the committee's study was to see if ~here would be a serious impact on the reservoir during the length of the Betz study if there were any major changes in the area? Chewning: Yes. Bailey: Do you recall if it was discussed that there would be a change in the emphasis of treatment needs from the construction period to the occupation period and if the construction period could be taken care of during the 14-month study, if the matter of permanent treatment should then be addressed? Chewning: We saw this as two phases. First, what occurs during the construction period when there is open land and second, what happens after occupation. I think the problems could be different. This was one reason for setting aside additional land for future treatment if it was determined that this would become necessary. Henley: Was there any discussion of the amount of construction that might take place during the 14-month study? Chewning: Yes. We felt there would be no change in the agricultural and industrial aspect. The only change would be involved with the residential development~and we did not feel that there would be any appreciable increase in reSidential development during this period. February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) Iachetta: In reading the statement you made to the Board of Supervisors on August 6, 1975, I had problems regarding how we should proceed to set a reasonable boundary. Let me read two paragraphs which address the question of development which is pertinent to the recent conflict: "The situation regarding development immediately adjacent to the reservoir is a bit clearer because in this location anything that is dropped, spilled, or eroded from the spot into the reservoir directly is therefore undesirable. This would include loss by run-off and may carry such loads as domestic t~ash, general debris, pesticides, ferti- lizers, petroleum products, silt, snow melting chemicals and many other pollutants. The physical and the aesthetic ~ffects of these inputs, trash for example, can be appreciated without an actual data base. Others such as nutrient and various chemical inputs must await completion of the studies to assess their long-term effects. I refer here primarily to inputs originating in the reservoir watershed, some distance from the reservoir. There is no doubt that inputs from immediately adjacent land should be prevented." That was with- out qualification. One other item mentioned in the letter was to establish a sizeable buffel zone around the reservoir and disallow all development or cOnstruction within this area. Fairfax County, for example, has developed some of the land adjacent to the Occoquan Reservoir for public parks. Reading that and then reading what the Blue Ribbon Committee recommended, the two things just do not square in my mind. Do you have any comments that would help me reconcile this? Chewning: I will make one comment. I found of interest your map which denotes the slopes. I think if you look at the slopes that are the steepest, they are adjacent to the reservoir and protecting those steep slopes is essentially what I commented on in my presentation and what the committee came up with. Fisher: The question is the proper size for a buffer zone. Chewhing: That has always been the question. We addressed it in the slop/and that gives you a definition. Roudabush: Do you feel the 15% slope in the area is the critical concern? Chewning: I am not an expert on soil erodibility, so I ha~e to qualify anything I say with regard to that. 15% is the number that was developed by the committee. Fisher: Mr. Ronald Conner of the State Health Department is also present. Conner: I will try to answer any questions I can. I think you are aware that I served on the committee that set up the guidelines. Basically, I had the same problem with the slopes that Mr. Chewning had. Most of the recommendations we saw were 15% and came generally from the Soil Conservation Service. We did address whether the fringes, commercial and industrial development, would be included in these guidelines. We were more or less concerned with the problem of residential development. Fisher: Going back to some of the letters received from your department back last summer, a letter dated July 24, 1975, signed by ~ Mr. Young, indicated that "it is the desire of this department to prohibit any .~ ~evelopment along the South Rivanna Reservoir at least until the results of the Pese~oi~e been finalized." Then, as a follow~UP, you~letter dated September 2, 1975, indicated that "this department does not recommend development along this reservoir. However, we have no statutory authority with ~hich to prohibit development along the reservoir, and we served on the study committee to supply input and to insure that~any guidelines adopted would minimize the affects of development on the reservoir during the study." That was the purpose of the committee. We are now concerned with the question of long-range affects of continual run-off and how we control it and what should be done beyond the construction phase. Who would pay for treatment of storm waters if that should become necessary? Do you have anything f~'add~to the~%question beyond the development phase? Conner: We were primarily concerned with the impact on the reservoir during the study period. We did not want to second guess~the study. We have supported this study and requested it for a long time. Once the study is completed, we may have to throw~ the guidelines out. On the other hand, they may be satisfactory. Iachetta: Can you give any guess as to how far back from the water's edge a buffer should be set as a minimum? Conner: The committee could not come up with an answer. The best answer available at this time is the slope. Fisher: Here tonight is Dr. Thomas Grizzard of VPI-SU. He is a laboratory director of the Occoquan study which has been going on for some three years. We received yesterday a copy of a short document entitled The impact of Urban Runoff on Water Quali~y in the Occoquan Reservoir. It is not dated but the bibliography does cite at least one date of 1975. I presume it is a fairly recent document. I asked him to be present tonight not to associate our problems with the Occoqu~n Reservoir, but to tell us what has occurred in that watershed. Grizzard: That report was written in November, 1975.. ~I ~ill show you a few photos of things that have been going on in the Occoqu~an Reservoir for the past three years. The Occoqu~n watershed is the major water supply impoundment for most of suburban Virginia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. It drains an area of about 600 square miles. The main body of the Reservoir lies directly downstream from the rapidly urbanizing areas of Manassas Park and western Fairfax County. It is a very long narrow body of water similar to ths type of situation you have h~re. Currently, development on the northern side of tbs Reservoir is somewhat limited. Fairfax County has taken action to limit development on their side to parks or very low density residential areas. Since the middle sixties there have been severe water quality problems noted in the Reservoir, attributed entirely to the presence of untreated waste discharges in the upstream areas. The Fairfax County Water Authority has been forced into us±ng rather str±ngent means So they can produce water that February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, t~976) is suitable for drinking purposes; applying copper sUlfate on almost a continual basis throughout the summe~ growing season when algae production is a severe problem. In 1971, the State Water Control Board promulgated a policy for waste water management in the Occoquan watershed which required that a reg±onal waste treatment plant of advanced design be con- structed to consolidate all the existing major waste discha~ges~and treat them at very high levels. It is essentially a conventional secondary waste treatment plant and will produce treated waste water that is of considerably higher quality than the stream it is discharging into. At the time, they thought this action would alleviate water quality problems in the Occoqu~n. The Water Control Board also required that a monitoring subcommittee be established with members from concerned governmental agencies to establish a monitoring program to assure that conditions of the surface waters of the basin were sufficiently good to produce a treat- able water at the Fairfax County Water Authority'S facility in the reservoir. Since then, we have instrumented a number of continuous sampling stations throughout the watershed as well as in the reservoir itself and have been able to establish a continuous record of water quatit throughout the 600 square mile. basin. In these years, we have refined our sampling techniques We have been able to come up with very precise estimates of the sources of nutrients within a basin. Last summer, we did some continuous sampling on a small urban watershed within the Manassas area throughout a number of different storms, A graph of the production of total organic carbon indicates the variation in total organic carbon in suspended solids. Total organic carbon eventually reached 30 milligrams per liter, which is comparable to very poorly treated secondary waste effluent. Suspended solids loading ~reached a level in excess of 1000-milligrams per liter, which again is indicative of a~very poor situation as far as suspended material in the waste flow of a storm water runoff. This is a summary of the same. storm indicating the yield of or the variation of concentration of total phosphorus. The accepted value, used for years, of total phosphorus needed to limit water quality problems in an impounded water is .01 milligrams per liter. A small flow of this type in the Occoquon Reservoir would not have a great effect on the existing concentration. Finally, this is an indication of the nitrogen yield during the same stor~ It reached a-~concentration of four milligrams per liter, which is higher than what is accepted as the limiting value for algae production in the surface waters. We have found in the course of our studies that urban runoff is indeed a serious problem in the Occoqu~n. Urban development currently represents ab, 20%~2to 30% of the basin. Over a period of time, with our continuous sampling efforts, we have been able to come up with some fairly accurate mass balances of the sources of different types of materials entering the reservoir. The Occoqu~n Creek watershed is primarily an agricultural portion of the basin. It drains something less than 400 square miles and represe~ about two-thirds of the entire watershed. Lower Bull Run is primarily an area that contains all the dense urban development in that sub-watershed. It drains about 170 square miles; about one-third of the basin'above the reservoir. Agricultural areas are currently the greatest source of nutrients entering the reservoir. From the. results of our efforts in the Occoquan, we feel there is a long-term problem to deal with in urban development. Echoing wha I have heard heme, development directly on the reservoir has different consequences in terms of water quality in an impounded body than upstream development has. Iachetta: Ail of this is nutrients. pollutants urban areas produce? Do you have any data on the other types of Grizzard: We have looked at heavy metals on a spotty basis in the reservoir itself. Equipment in our laboratory does not enable us to do it on a regular basis. Literature that is available on the subject indicates that heavy metals are indeed a problem in urban runoff, particulary from areas tb~t have large parking spaces. ~_ Iachetta: Do you know of any correlation between numbers of vehicles versus Concentratiol Grizzard: No. We have not done any work along that line. Fisher: Do the Board members have further questions? Roudabush: area might be? Do you have any data that might indicate what an acceptable buffer or setback Grizzard: The report that you have was written in response to your request to the Water Control Board. We feel that from a water quality standpoint, that development in this locatio~ is undesirable because it is right in the vicinit'y of the water input. However, we have not done any work on nutrient concentration decrease with time of transport down below the stream. The Occoquan has a unique situation by having a submerged dam near the headwaters that acts as a barrier to rapid nutrient or algae cell mass transport through the body of water. Most of the growth does occur in the upstream areas. The algae die there and settle to the bottom. Consequently, water quality in the lower areas is still qui~e high. Addressing the buffer zone ~s difficult~ Attacking it on a slope ba~i~, width, an analysi~ of erodibility of soils is the correct appuoack~ Th~ data ~ have sko~n you is f~om a ~tah!lized medium-density urban development in Manassas on flat slopes. All indications that we have indicate that increased slopes do result in a direct correlation with increased nutrient export. Fisher: For the benefit of the people who are here, ! want to read the summary that is attached to your report of the Occoquan study-~ This may not have any direct bearing on the problems of the Rivanna, but is the summary of their study areas.~ SUMMARY. The intensive development of shoreline propertieS in the reaches of the reservoir between the Occoquan Dam and Jacob's Rock (Station 3 on Figure 1) appears to be unacceptable, in view of the production sensitivity of these reservoir surface waters to increased loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus. If the Occoquan Reservoir is to be preserved as a suitable source of raw water for the present and future needs of Northern Virginia, serious consideration should be given to measures that will protect the shoreline areas of the lower reservoir from intensive development.. The implementation of the more stringent water supply provisions of the ~ederal Safe Drinking Water Act ~PL93-523), will make it even more imperative to assure that future development in the Occoquan Basin be consistent with the goal of preserving the impoundment. Large expenditures of funds to remove wastewater borne nutrients from the basin are likely to prove ineffectual in the long run if diffuse nutrient sources are left unchecked. The solution to water quality problems in the Occoquan Basin must, it appears, be composed of a comprehensive plan of wastewater, rural and urban land management to prevent the influx of excessive, quantities of damaging poll~- February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) Bailey: What population sits astride the~ 600 square miles of drainage area? Grizzard: The dense popular±on, urban and suburban, is about 20,00.0. Fisher: Thank you Dr. Grizzard for..coming and bringing your equipment. Mr. Bailey dO you have anything to add at this time? Bailey: The staff has done some work on this situation, and it is a little different than what you have addressed so far. You have before you a report. I will not read it all. STAFF REPORT SOUTH RIVANNA RESERVOIR FEBRUARY 3, 1976 As an aid to determining the disposition of the ordinance entitled "An Ordinance to Protect the Quality of Water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir", the County staff has prepared some computations and comments on the reservoir and the land surrounding it for the convenience of the Board of Supervisors. Consultants' Report - Present Use The South Rivanna Reservoir location was chosen by the City of Charlottes- ville on the recommendations of Polglese and Bazenburg, Consultants, who made a study of five water sources within the County. This source was selected as the most suited~for the City's needs from the standpoint of sufficiency, con- venience and economics. The combined storage and runoff during the projected critical flow period was considered ample to supply all the City's needs through the year 1990 from this one installation. The population served and average daily demand were 60,000 and 6,000,000 gallons per day, respectively. An allowance of 19.6 MG per year was alloted to siltation. The net capacity of the reservoir in the year 1990 was projected at 1,760 MG. By comparison with the projected needs, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has produced an average of 7.98 MGD during the first six months of the current fiscal year. This production was divided as follows: Sugar Hollow - Ragged Mountain System ....................... 4.95 MGD South Rivanna System ........................................ 2.96 MGD North Rivanna System ........................................ 0.07 MGD Total ......... 7.98 MGD The number of people served approaches 60,000. It appears there is ample water capacity to serve the community through 1990.. South Rivanna and Comprehensive Plan A question has been raised regarding the importance given the South Rivanna Reservoir in the County's comprehensive plan. The County's comprehensive plan briefly discusses water supply for the County. It cites data from studies which were made by the Soi~ Conservation Service. Four impoundments are listed to demonstrate the physical possibility. These could be used in conjunction with existing developed sources. To quote: "They should be designed to complement the existing water supply impoundments, with consideration of possibl~ phasing out the existing impoundment on the Sou~h .Fork of the Rivanna at that future time when nearby and upstream developments preempt~its suitability as a public water source." There is nothing in the foregoing observation to suggest that the "future time" is not a distant future. ' Incidentally, the four impoundments that were given showed a capacity for storage of nine billion gallons and an ability to supply 160,000. However, nothing suggesting there, the cost of the engineering of this. Cost ItemS The following list of items are suggested in determining the relative cost of moratoriums and non-moratoriums for the .area under consideration: Items to consider in determining relative costs within area of moratorium. 1) No moratorium ~ development as per present zoning: a) b) c) d) Additional cost of construction of erosion and sedimentation control items. Cost of maintaining and operating erosion and sedimentation facilities. Cost of additional treatment required for potable water. Reduction in usable life of reservoir. 2) Moratorium followed by re-zoning of R-3, R-2, Commercial and Industrial Land to A-1 or Conservation ZOning: YoU ~will recognize at once that this is preempting any results of study that is in progress, and what suggestion may be made, but is something never- theless some have visualized happening. The first reductiqn of cost would be in reduction of land values or second, and fairly minor~ the loss of tax revenue coincident with the reduction and see the legal cost which derive from Settlement of damage claims. There ~is no data presently available on which a computation of most of these costs may be based. However, a reduct±on of land values has been computed by- the staff as a guide to what we consider a major item, This has been done on the proposition that no more intensive use than that / February 4, 1976 ~Adjourned frOm January 28, !976~ will be a reduction in value of something over.$3,0OQ,000, Now, in conclusion; Division of Costs - Participants Whatever the costs may be for whate~er policy the Board may adopt, it seems to us the question "who pays?" should be put now. The City of Charlottesville has as much or more to gain by th~Protection as does the County. If the cost of the program for protection is substantial, it seems proper that the City bear its proportionate share, provided the City agrees with the measures adopted. There is a good probability that the costs would be passed on to the water customers of the City and County and for this reason, there should be input from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority on what measures are adopted for the protection of water quality in the South Rivanna Reservoir. Fisher: Do the Board members have any questions of Mr. Bailey on his report? Roudabush: attachment? Was the $3,000,000 figure you mentioned taken from the last page of the Bailey: Yes. If ~kere are any questions on how that was de:rived, Mr. Bradshaw is and you can~ask him. Fisher: Do you have any questions on how this was done, Mr.~. Roudabush? Roudabush: No. Iachetta: Was that the appraised value o~ the 15% ratio value? Bradshaw: It is the appraised value. Fisher: We want to ~proceed now to go down the list of people who have signed up to speak. At the completion of .this list, I will ask if there are any present to speak who did not sign. Mercer Garnett, Jr: I am an owner or have a family-interest in some 1,000 acres in the area covered by the moratorium. My family and my wife's family have owned and farmed, paid taxes on and lived on this land for several generations. It has been the principal source of income and represents our life savings and obligations and hopefully an income for retirement when converted to other uses. The present moratorium,I feel,~destroys the previous value and has eliminated my life savings and my ~ability to convert to retirement income. I would like to raise a number of questions about the present moratorium: 1 - Is it necessary? . 2 - Has the County not failed to police or enforce the present tools; the Site plan ordinance and the soil erosion ordinance? 3 - Is development really a problem when it conforms %o the soil erosion ordinance? 4 - Does it make sense to build a house on a one-acre lot, if a road cannot be built? Do we want our 'highways literally lined with hou~aeS? 5 - Why have known problems like the discharge from Mortons and other sources not been dealt with? Is the County going to build the Crozet interceptor? 6 - Is Farmington a problem? Would this not be solved by the Crozet interceptor? After the reservoir study is completed, who is going to see it and intempret it? If farming is a problem,what do you propose? I am one of those farmers in that 87% and I am there are not many here tonight, but I know they are all interested. Abou~ one-third of the County and a high percentage of the good farm land drains into this impoundment. Is someone using the reservoir to promote a no-growth policy? My impression of the recent election was a vote against "conflict of interest" rather than a no-growth.policy. In 1968, land zoning and a County map were adopted. In 1971, the Comprehensive-Plan and the public water and sewer plan, plus other steps were taken to insure orderly growth. A limited number of people have been promoting a no-growth policy. I question if this is the wishes of the majority. Do %he no-growth folks own major properties in the area affected? What is the position of the Board? Agreed, a Short moratorium-is reasonable. The real is the direction in~Wh.ich this Board is going. Daley~Craig: I am a prgperty owner within the moratorium area, therefore, I have lost value and 1 am Concerned abo~t it. 1 want to take this opportunity, which I underStand the law provides me, to register my objection to that deprivation and to make several brief statements which are in addition to those that Mr. Garnett just made; which I entirely agree with. The land I am concerned with was purchased back in 1969. The condition of the ~ was~that it be rezoned. It was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission that it be rezoned and was unanimously rezoned without objection by the public or anyone else by the Board of Supervisors. I understand that it is t'he position of the County that a mistake was made. Certainly evidence given so far does not support that conclusion. I do not think it is supportable. If a mistake was made, it was made by the Board of Supervisors. I got interested in thiS subject about a year and a-half ago when I saw the no-growth people interested in using the reservoir as a tool to further their purpose. tha~:;interested~;~me~was if the problem was eutrophication and siltation, and if th~ entire drainage area consisting of 260 square miles was paved, there of course would be neither eutrophication or siltation. That is a ridiculous solution, just like the one you adopted in January. I had a test ma~e by Research Laboratory of the water in the Four Seasons Lake, because, obviously, if housing is bad for lakes, with 600 families living around it, it ought to be awful. I.:got those studies and compared them with the figures given me by the ~irector of the Rivanna Service Authority. In it's worst condition, the Four Seasons Lake is over twice as good as the Rivanna Reservoir, which in effect says you are getting your water from the wrong place. I cannot believe that the Board would take the action you have taken if you were personally responsible for that action. I strongly object to government that shelters people February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from ~anuary 28, 1976) devious means of accomplishing y-our purposes. If you want no-growth and down~zon±ng, then ahead and pa~ for it. Address it for what it is. I think the figHre of $3,000,000 may be too small. I want to read briefly from a study entitled "Commonwe~ltk of Virginia, State Water Control Board, 1969 Occoquan Reservoir Study, April, 1970, Metcalf and Eddy Engineers." This study, in its introduction, states prec±sely the situation that we have here in Albemar] a desire to stop urban growth. If you will read this,~uco~td_not possibly do what you did. "The waters of Little Bull Run were of the highest quality except for those of Cedar Run at Station 6 below Warrenton Reservoir. Since Little Bull Run drains a significant urban area, it's high q~ali~y supports the conclusion that urban drainage does not offer the threat to public water supplies that agricultural drainage do'es. This leads to the obvious conclusion that~,.natural stream waters flowing to the Occoquan Reservoir will improve as agricultural land is taken out of production and used for home sites." This conclusion is supported by recent studies on the Potomac River watershed. you read it. I recom- Grizzard: I would like to make a couple of comments regarding the Metcalf and Eddy study. It was commissioned by the Water Control Board. The recommendations of that study were to construct an advanced wastewater plant in the watershed to centrally remove all nutrient materials entering the basin from waste discharges. Not feeling they had gone far enough, the Water Control Board saw fit to commission the current study which has been going on for three years now at a yearly funding level of $I60,'000 to look at the entire problem from another standpoint. The study conducted by Metcalf and Eddy was excellent as far as it went. It was, however, subject to many limitations. Insufficient funding was the major problem. They did not sample continuously in the basin. The water quality data that was collected was the result of a grab..sampling program in which they went out at intervals through the year, collected samples during periods of runoffs, and on some occasions, during periods of dry weather. The fact that the Water Control Board saw fit to commission a furths study is significant to me. Howell Bowen: I am one of the property owners in the moratorium area. As you heard, this property was purchased six years ago-subject to zoning. I do not argue with your ability to declare a moratorium whether or not it will benefit the reservoir. I do want to go on record as objecting to your taking away my rights to use the'property as it has been zoned for the past several years. If the County did make a mistake in granting the present zoning to the property, I do not believe the private property owners should, have to pay for the County's mistake. Therefore, I will expect compensation for my loss; which is substantia J. K. Haviland: I am representing the Citizen's for Albemarle. I have a statement. citizens for Albemarle supports the continuance of the Ordinance for the Protection of the QUality of Water in the South. Rivanna River Reservoir, as originally adopted on January 14, 1976. We believe that the Board has a paramount obligation to protect this vital water supply, essential to ma~y citizens of Albemarle and of Charlottesville, so that public water will continue to be available at a cost which everyone can affor~ ~"x~.~..~~ We have examined many other possible courses of action, but we have been unable to identify an alternative by which thc Board can meet these obli~ gat±one, other than by approval of the above-mentioned Ordinance. I have a personal comment. 'I have property that is assessed at about $3,000 an acre within this area. I believe that is a typical value within quite a few'miles around Charlott v±lle now. I do not understand how, if this land is worth $3,000 an acre in agriculture, how anyone can be. losing money on it. John Longley: I have here some Xerox copies of thc petition that was addressed to the Board in 1975 on this issue. I feel that the willingness of some 1,800 people to go on record in this matter might be of some interest to the Board. SAVE THE RESERVOIR "Because the water supply of 30,000 people, including 8,000 citizens of the County and 14 subdivisions depends upon the already endangered Rivanna Reservoir, we, the undersigned residents of both City and County, most earnestly petition the Albemarle Planning Commission and Board.of Supervisors to heed and honor the recent, unanimous request of the Charlottesville City Council: ~1) to halt immediately approving any further development around the reservoir until the current study of the reservoir can be completed; (2) as soon as possible, to create a special conservation district -around the entire reservoir for its~rotection, with whatever down-zoning and compen- sation might be necessary for the general good." Francis~Fife: I am representing the City Council of the City of Charlottesville. The City has joined with you in having a study. I certainly hope that we. can wait until the results of that study are in hand rather than running any risks in the meantime. Some of the conversations I have heard tonight, from representatives of the State Water Control Board and others, sound very tentative to me. I am astonished, after having appeared before the Water Control Board and some other State agencies, at'the strictness with which they make us adhere to certain practices. To hear them sound as if this is something that we can take a sho~ at and maybe it will work and maybe it won't~ surprises me a little bit, I have heard some comments about growth and no-growth. I am not personally against growth. However, it does seem to me that if I wanted to prevent g~owth in the northern section of the County, one of the things I would want to do is to knook out that reservoir so that the growth ~ould have to stop. I therefore submit that the protection of that reservoir is a protection for future gruwth. I was astonished when somebody called my attention to the fact that in the County's master plan there is a.statement that th~ South Rivanna Reservoir might be phased out.- cannot remember that the City was ever approached on the suggestion that one of it's main reservoirs might be phased out. There have been numerous resolutions before ~±n the past) requesting that you do everything in your power to protect that reservoir, This resolution was adopted on January 20, 1976, by City Council, and this ~s the last in the line of resolut .one. February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28,~ !~76) "Whereas, this Council previously has adopted resolutions requesting the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to consider fully all lawful means within their power to prevent intensive and potentially detrimental development of property in the area surrounding the Rivanna Reservoir and to adopt such measures as will best safeguard this vital community resource; Now, Therefore, this Council wishes to express its appreciation to the Board of Supervisors for taking such actions as the Board thought best to safeguard the reservoir." Bud Jameson~ I am here tonight as the President of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce. Due to the importance of the thing you are considering, I would like'nfo read this statement as opposed to just making off the cuff comments. This is concern~ the South Rivanna River Moratorium: "The Board of Directors of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce met last Friday, January 30th in a special called meeting with Board Supervisors, Gerald Fisher and Bill Roudabush; and George Williams, Director, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. After this special meeting, all facts were. reviewed and the Chamber Board unanimously adopted the following policy statement. "The Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce commends the County Board of Su~ for its concern in the issue of a healthful water supply from the Rivanna Reservoir and for its support of the current study in progress %o aid in determining the cause of the dangers to it. However, in light of all known facts to date and in light of the unanimous reDort ~h%~h as an aside I heard reaffirmed by the three people who were on the committe~~ ~ue Ribbon Committee of experts appointed by the Board of that no irreversible damage could be done to the Reservoir, if guidelines for dl proposed by the Committee were adopted and in light of the fact that even if damage occur to the Reservoir,)the present course set by the Albemarle County Board of Su~ is improper. "The ~oard of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce unanimously opposesthe present emergency moratorium and the contemplated extension of that moratorium together with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors resolution to request the County Planning Commissi¢ to revise, the Master Plan and to set in motion the process of downzoning of land in the South Rivanna Watershed. "We believe the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County know or should know that their actions to date and those contemplated tonight strike a blow at the heart of the Con- stitution of the United States. The Fifth Amendment says in part, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensa.t~n , and that from their positio] of immunity, it is improper and anA irresponsible violation of the public trust to take action contrary to the law of the land which has the result of compelling individuals to defend their constitutional rights through lengthy and costly court battles. "The results of prior studies have already indicated that~there are point sources which could be, but have not yet, been corrected; as well as non-point sources which include eutrophic nutrients broadly supplied in the watershed from the general use of fertilizers both in residential and agricultural pursuits. '~Obviously, it is more difficult for the County to curtail the use of fertilizers by homeowners and those in agriculture than it is to curtail the tiny fraction of property owners who own land which has been zoned for, and, in some cases who have plans for land development, especially on the periphery of the major basin of the Reservoir itself. "The Chamber Board does not address the possibility that development might further endanger the Reservoir, but the Board of Directors of the Chamber unanimously deplores any method which chooses property owners on an arbitrary or discriminatory basis as the scapegoat for a difficult issue. There will be a wave of requests for abatement of real estate taxes by owners whose property values will be adversely affected,thus adding to the burden of other taxpayers. By using a moratorium to delay a more positive action dollar damages will continue to accrue to those owners barred from developing their property in conformation with its zOned usage. "In an era when the rights of the property owner are often threated by confiscatory practices, it is time for us to set an example of responsible action, without fear of the future. It is imperative that we minimize future costs now by recognizing our responsibility. Any deferral of positive action will cost the taxpayer more later. Not all is or should be criticism, therefore, we will try to give several positive suggestions or points. "WE believe in and support the proper exe~B~ of the rights of eminent domain given under our governments~s powers, which insures an individual of fair compensation when deprived of the use of their land on which the use and zoning has been previouSly established by governmental authority and on which the individual relied in good faith and on which the individual was assessed taxes consistsnt with that use and zoning. "WE join the County in urging the use of farming techniques now being developed for a better retention of soil nutrients_ which might damage our Reservoir. "WE urge the County to also take positive action against point sources, including the raw sewage which is being emptied daily into streams feeding the Reservoir, by possible temporary diversion to the under-used Brownsville sewage system. "WE commend the County for its erosion control and suggest its continued stringent enforcement. "WE support the proposition that regardless of what our community's requirements may be to provide and ~nsure a plentiful and high quality water supply that whatever resources are called for shall be borne bYi~the .community as a whole, or, at the least, the users, and not solely by those landowners who find themselves in the watershed of our public February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) "WE are concerned and vitally interested in the quality, preservation, and cost of our water resources for this community. "WE pledge ourselves to participate in any~?~i?Ywe can to assist in identifying the problems, evaluating the alternative solutions and implementing a course of action that will provide our community good water and at the same time be consistent with the recognition and rights of individuals under The Constitution of the United States. "In closing, we would like to restate that we ~re for clean water. The proposed moratorium and downzoning, however, will not accomplish this goal. This is not the opinion of the Chamber of Commercie, but the opinion of the Blue Ribbon Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors and reaffirmed here again tonight. Therefore, we encourage the Board to abandon this course of action and vote against the Moratorium Ordinance." Michael Neurochy: I am a water resources engineer for Hitman Associates'in Columbia, Maryland. I came tonight at ~the request of Mr. Wendell Wood, to present some alternatives and outside perspective on the case. Originally we became involved with Mr. Wood when he started developing one of the developments along the reservoir. We got a:call one day asking if anything can be done to protect a city water supply if you are going to build a development on it~ We looked at the site and preliminarily designed some controls. Ever' is concerned about water supplies. I will cite a few facts as I know them. There have been some U..S. Forest Service studies on water samples'-~on clear mountain streams in the middle of Kentucky and out in the Rocky Mountains. A lot of times these streams have higher pollutant loadings than many urban streams. It depends on the time of the year. Leaf litter will contribute large quantities of nitrogen and phosphOrus to the stream. The question is, should there be a moratorium to protect part of the watershed? The question then becomes how large the moratorium should be; should it be five miles;~ should it be ten; should it be the whole watershed? If it is proposed that the whole watershed will solve the problem of the degradation of theater supply, I can say no to that. I offer an alternative; a planned development with adequate run-off controls. Without adequate run-off controls, you will get problems in your reservoir. You will get it from agricultural runoff, nitrogen and phosphorus, pesticides, herbicides and organic loadings from animal wastes. A lot of the studies, for example, the Occoquan studies and the E.P.A. studies show that there are potentials for a large number of pollutants entering reservoirs. Evidence points to data that agriculture is the prime candidate to be suspect. The original Occoquan study has to be taken into account. A lot of development took place before Virginia had a sedimentation and erosion control ordinance. A lot of silt and nitrogen and phosphorus ran off before it could be controlled by law. ~The E.P.A. has recently done studies on highly urbanizing watersheds'~in Maryland. These were done by water resources engineers and they found that~in~spite of the big ballyhoo that E.P.A. had put on construction, they found that agriculture contributed the greatest amount Of sediment to any watershed because there were no controls on agri- culture. They found that construction is a minor part when compared to the overall loading of sediment from agriculture. I do not believe the status quo in the watershed is kept by imposing a complete moratorium on the whole watershed. Stringent controls will cost money, but they are engineering and~technically feasible. Hitman has done a number of studies, in fact have recently measured the suspended solids loadings from sediment basins, from surface mining activities and also are doing some applied research on removing fine grain sediments from run-off water. I can say without a doubt that sOlutions are feasible. Gay Blair: I have a short statement from The Piedmont Environmental Council: "The Rivanna Reservoir is in trouble. A fast, permanent and effective solution is needed or a new reservoir will have to be built. "There is still ~time to act to alleviate the problem before it hits us over the head. What can we do? We can act now to prevent any further pollution, or sedimentation, at least where we have the power to do so. The State Water Control Board has said we should protect the quality of water in the existing reservoir to the fullest extent possible. Further, they say, we have no practical technology with which to effectively control sedimentation due to runoff of surface rain water. "Should we not use our planning documents as they were intended, that is, to regulate development in the interest of wise land ~use and the public welfare? Surely with the current study of the reservoir now underway, we should hold up any further development in the area until we have a more accurate assessment of the problem." George W. Williams: I am Executive Director of the"Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. This agency was chartered through joint action by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle specifically for the purpose of impoundment, production, and transmission of and the interception, treatment and discharge of wastewater. The South Rivanna Reservoir and water treatment plant were'completed in the fall of 1966, having been built by the City of CharlOttesville at a cost of over $3,000,000. The tributary area of the South Rivanna Reservoir drainage basin is approximately 260 square miles. The reservoir has a holding capacity of 1.76 billion gallons and has a safety'~yield of 12,000,000 gallons per day. This ~s one of three reservoirs serving the urban area in addition to a diversion structure at the Camelot water treatment plant located on the North Fork of the Rivanna River. The other reservoirs that serve this area are the Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain Reservoirs which have a combined safety yield of 5,000,000 gallons per day. The Authority presently treats approximately 8,000,000 gallons of water per day from all the reservoirs combined. Approximately 3,000,000 gallons per day are withdrawn from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. This reservoir has at times ~resented problems to the Rivanna Authority in terms of its source as a public water supply. This has primarily resulted from an excess of algae contained in the reservoir, producing taste and odor problems and resulting from a eutrophic condition within the reservoir. This primarily is a seasonal problem normally occurring in the late summer and early fall. It is imperative to note the importance of the South Rivanna Reservoir as a potable.'~ubtic water supply for this community. While the present withdrawal rate from the reservoir is approximately 3,000,000 gallons per day, the plant is designed for a withdrawal rate of 4,000,000 gallons per day and is designed for ease of expansion. It is the plan for this reservoir to become the major source of public water ~ ~+ +~ ~eh P~v~nna Reservoir is the only February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) next 15 year period. Eventually a supplemental source of water will have to be found to augment the South Rivanna Reservoir. Should thi~ Reservoir be lost as a source of public water supply, the feasibility of obtaining water from the James River would have to be investigated. The economics of such a proposal are monumental. As you know, the Authority has, at the request of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville, contracted with the firm of Betz Environmental Engineers to conduc~ a rath.er intensive study of the South Rivanna Reservoir and its tributary area. Dr. Frank Brown, who is the project manager for the study, has made a presentation to you tonight. We are very optimistic that With full cooperation f~om the City, the County and the Albemarle County Service Authority that this eutrophic trend can be reversed and this source of water supPly preserved for the future. Fisher: When you made your presentation at an earlier meeting, you made a couple of statements that I thought were important. You gave us a rough estimate for replacement of the reservoir. Can you give that to us again? Williams: The most consistent figure I have heard is $10,000,000. Fisher: How do you rate this reservoir among the other reservoirs in the State as to it degree of eutrophication? Williams: It is easily in the five or six most eutrophic. eutrophic reservoir that we operate. It certainly is the most iachetta: Where would you put a replacement? Williams: There is no one single source that could replace it. There would need to be two impoundments for sufficient water. Kathryn ~u.±zp~=-~: I have a statement from the League of Women voters: "The League's concern for the reservoir has been stated many times. We have asked repeatedly for conservation zoning to protect our water supply from the probable ill-effects of urban development. We, therefore, support the moratorium as an action in the public interest. Tonight we would like you to consider the addition of a true conservation zone to amend the present zoning ordinance. In speaking of conservation areas, the Comprehensive Plan states, 'these areas should be protected from commercial, industrial and intense residential development.' In order to implement this protection, Albemarle County needs a conservation zone, which it does not have, either in the present ordinance or the current proposed ordinance. We believe that conservation zoning with very limited uses allowed will best accomplish this proteCtion 6f''our water supply." Wendell Wood: The action which this Board proposes to take is something which you may have been pushed into without fully realizing the results which may be expected to flow from such action, and which may have urofound implications on the future of Albemarle County. You have attempted to justify your actions in part by a reliance upon the experience of and knowledge gained from the Occoquan Reservoir° There are significant differences in the Occoquan and Rivanna watersheds. The Occoquan has 11 secondary waste treatment plants in the basin accounting for a total flow of about eight MGD. This is the approximate equivalent of discharging all of the effluent from Charlottesville's Meadow Creek and Moores" Creek wast~ water treatment plants into the Rivanna Reservoir. The "VPI" study of the Occoquan states the upper reaches of the Occoquan "are currently exhibiting Classical symptoms of cultural eutrophication .... " ".The~most.severe water quality problems are being experienced in the upper reaches of the Bull Run Arm" which drains the most non-urban, the most rural portions of the Occoquan watershed - that is the area to the south and west of Dulles Airport. The VPI study continues: "The poorest water quality during the summer growing season is observed in the Bull Run Arm .... Moving downstream, however, one notes a marked increase in the quality of the reservoir waters .... In the area between Sandy Run and the Occoquan Dam, water quality increases measurably from that in the Bull Run Arm." It is thus apparent that the poorest water quality is in the western - and more rural portion of the watershed~ and that as you progress downstream towards the more urban part of the watershed, that the water quality improves. This conclusion'from the VPI study-is supported by the "1969 Occoquan Reservoir Study, April, 1970" prepared f~r~he state'Water Control Board by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Engineers. I quote to you from that study as follows: "There is no question but what the quality of water in the naturally flowing runs is influenced greatly by agricultural pursuits..... The waters of Little Bull Run were of the highest quality, except for those of Cedar Run at Station 6, below Warrenton Reservoir. Since Little Bull Run drains a significant urban area, its high quality supports the conclusion that urban drainage does not offer the threat to public water supplies that agricultural drainage does. This leads to the obvious conclusion that natural stream waters flowing to the Occoquan Reservoir will improve as agricultural land is taken out of production and used for homesites. This conclusion is supported by recent studies on the Potomac River watershed:" This was an excerpt direct from the study; n~t _my 'comments. Now, let me bring you to our local situation. In the Virginia Water Quality Inventory prepared by the State Water Control Board, we find that: "The problems begin in the Crozet area as point and non-point discharges to the lower portion of Lickinghole Creek have caused bacteriological and dissolved oxygen problems .... This portion of Mechums River below its con- fluence with Lickin~hole Creek also experiences problems of fecal coliforms and low dissolved oxygen levels." 028 / F~bruar¥ 4~Adjourned from Januar~ 28: ~976k__ "This raw sewage has created a potential health hazard caused by high fecal coliform~coun~ The fecal coliform problem is brought about by the discharge of approxi- mately 2,500 gallons per day of raw sewage into the South Rivanna drainage basin from a point source in Crozet. This discharge emits approximately 9.5 million virus particles per day.". I am unaware of any efforts on your part to correct this problem. In fact, I believe some of you have actiVely resisted a solution to the Crozet problem. Mr. Fisher, you are the main one that has stopped the Crozet interceptor line. You made the statement that you will not put a Crozet interceptor line because of growth that will occur along that line. So you are a little inconsistent in the position that you take. That Crozet is a major problem~ is borne out by the Ecol Sciences report that the phosphorus loading to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir exceeds the critical loading ratio. Morton's Frozen Foods contributes ap~ 87% of the point source phosphorus load to the reservoir and a major total phosphorus load to the reservoir. Pesticide pollution is also a problem. State Water Control Board records that the Mechum River area is continuously subjected to chronic levels of pesticide dischar( The point source and non-point source discharges that~are causing problems in Lickinghole and the Mechum River are also causing problems of eutrophication in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The data shows that Mechum River contributed the-largest amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus to the reservoir, and that as in the Occoquan water~hed/'water quality and the associated algal problems are worst in the upper agricultural headwaters versus downstream near the impoundment. The moratorium which you propose to adopt tonight is thus not supported by factual data. To put a moratorium on just high density development is blatantly discrimi- natory. You have attempted to raise the flag of preservation for the public health. A more honest flag would be the flag of no-growth. You as a governing body must have the political courage to legislate only in accordance with the facts and not as a reaction to the emotions. I would like to address a question brought up by Mr. Fife. When the City purchased this land in 1965 or 1966, they had their experts come in and when they were condemning the land, the biggest reason that they gave for the prices paid was that the remaining land would be enhance in value because of the addition of the water; there would be access to the reservoir. For some reason, Mr. Fife now seems to disclaim that. Let's not talk about the Occoquan Reservoir where the sewage of a population the total of that for the City of Charlottesville is going into the reservoir. Let's bring ~verything into perspective. Mr. Fisher, I would like to bring up something; a point the public will be interested in. You, Gordon Wheeler, Fred Payne from the County Attorney's Office, Mr. Bailey from the County Engineering Office, and myself had a meeting just prior to Christmas. I requested this meeting because of the run around I was getting from the County. I had conformed to everything I had to do. I had complied with every ordinance, but, I go down and it's like I had bad breath. Nobody wants to talk to me. I want a permit. Everybody is gone. They are sick. They have headaches. They can't be reached on the radio. Two minutes prior to that they are talking on the radio. I get on the radio; buzz - mt. It goes bad for some_reason. In that meeting, after all these things had happened, after I had complied, after the County Attorney's Office says everything is in order; they write a bond; I still donL~.% get my permit. I call this meeting because I happen to think you are the culprit. You are the guy who is saying no, we are not going to have this development. In that meeting, I think I spoke of that issue to you, I said, "Gerry, I think you are the guy. You are the one." You said, "Wendell, I am not the guy; we are not stopping this." I asked about a moratorium; "no moratorium. We< are not even thinking about a moratorium. It's not our place to get involved_with this permit." You gave me your personal assurance, in front ~ re WO~ D~ of seven other people tha~no moratorium, and I said, "Gerry, I am relying on that, I take you at your word." What appears to happen since that time is that apparently you have a seventh member to this Board'that did not agree with that advice you gave me and it seems to have thrown a wrench into it. I just think the public 'should be made aware of the ill-will that you are creating in this community by the actions.'that you are taking when you represent one thing and you do entirely the opposite. That was done supposedly in good faith, on your part. As it turns out, it wasn't a lot of good faith involved in it. I was hoodwinked into backing off and saying - I think you said - "Wendell, in due course the permit will be issued I relied upon it and I think the public should know this is not the only deal the County has backed out of and I think the public should start being made aware of how you are conducting business. Fisher: I will not respond to matters of which you have enjoined the.County in litigati, I think that should be carried out in a court of law. I make no apologies for the fact that I have questioned whether %he $2-$3,000,000 o~ pUblic funds should be used for a raw sewage problem from 20 houses. I have questioned the land use implications of that as they relate to the Comprehensive Plan. The E.P.A. agreed that there are land use implications in the question, but they could find no other acceptable solution. The Crozetinterceptor is being designed at this time. It will be built. It will not solve all the problems and if development occurs along it, the E.P.A. says the runoff from such development may indeed be more of a problem than what presently exists. The~County has asked for development block funds to try and solve the problem of raw sewage by taking it to the treatment plant at Brownsville. We do not know whether these funds will be granted, but the question of spendin a large amount of public funds to resolve the problem of a few residents is not one that I wi to be involved in again. Mr. Grizzard, do you have any response to the questions made about your study? Grizzard: I stand by the validity of my study in the Occoquan basin. I think our understanding of problems of non-point pollution has increased during the past seven years. Ted Allen: Although the Planning Commission has stringently reviewed and approved it, it seems clear' that this moratorium is being proposed to stop the Panorama project. I believ that is regrettable, but, even more unfortunate, the study will adversely affect many other citizens. The moratorium will cost more than the conservative $3,000,000 figure mentioned earlier. It will cost jobs. Frankly, I don't believe this County can afford a moratorium and-what it means-at this time; no-growth and wharf's worse, no-growth at the expense of the taxpayers. Clinton Parker: I have several points I would like to make about the first comments mad by Dr. Browne of Betz Environmental Engineers. As I re, all, the request for proposals (for study of the reservoir) asked that d~ffere~t-.~pes.'~£ land uses be ~a=n=d use~s?.~may~no~:~?.bei~in;-~he31:re~er~oi~-Ldrainage area, so that a comparison can be made b-etwee~l ..... L ........ ~+=~= =n~ +h~ ~mn] ~t~d document used as a tool for planning. If that~t February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from JanUary 28,~ 1976) contract and it be included. I would also suggest that Some effort be made to look at particular heavy metals. A lot of discussion has taken place aboUt no-growth people and growth people. There are also short people, fat people, and tall people. I think one point has been overlooked by a number of people. There are not enough sewage connections available to guarantee that anyone will be able to hook to the sewage system. That in itself limits growth. I hope this Board will have the foresight to look at this reservoir in light of future needs. Some~discussion has revolved around what should be done dUring construction. I think irreversible land use patterns are an important element that follow construction. With these preliminary comments, I would like to introduce to thi~'Board evidence that suggests, on a technical basis, that there is indeed a threat to the public health and safety of those people consuming waters that come from urban runoff. I suggest that this Board add to its vocabulary the words "heavy metals" and not just eutrophication. Evidence collected during the past several year.s indicates that a serious problem could develop as a result of heavy metals in urban runoff. I would like to enter for the record the Water Quality~St~ndards published by the State Water Control Board. Included is a classification on the South Fork of the Rivanna Reservoir, and I quote: "South Fork Rivanna River and its tributaries, except Ivy Creek from Charlottesville's South Fork Rivanna River Dam to the confluence of the SoUth Fork Rivanna River and Moorman's ~iver~ and Ivy Creek to a point five miles ~bove the dam. " This is where the classification exists for the public water supply. In the same documel is a section that says: "In addition to other standards established for the protection of public or municipal water supplies, the following standards will apply at the raw watel point:" Quoted here are such things as: arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, c6oper,' iron, lead, sulfate, silver, selenium, a whole group of inorganic compounds, as well as organics, and the pesticides and herbicides, as well as radio activity. If you are keeping up to date with Federal legislation, you know there is now in PL 93523, the Safe Drinking Water Act. It sets standards for drinking waters throughout the United States. Listed are cantaminan~s~which include inorganic chemicals as well as the organic. Among these are chromium at a c0hcentrati0n of .05 milligrams per liter; lead at .05;~and mercury at .002. The National Interims_Primary Drinking'~Water Standards become effective in June, 1977. (I will have these documents for you when I leave the mike.) In 1972, the Water Pollution Control Federation, a national journal, published an article Sht~tted:. ~ "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants." I have extracted from this article an item which~ says: "The quantity and character of contaminants which includes pounds per curb miles." Thi~ is pounds per curb mile of street surfaces which ran off. I don't know where they gotl curb mile from, however, it is explained in the section underneath the table. The article states that: "Significant amounts of heavy metals were detected in the contaminant materials collected from street surfaces. Heavy metal compounds have the potential 6f being highly detrimental to biological systems, depending on their specific chemical form." In addition to that, in October, 1974, an article in The University Council on Water'Resources~ page 23, has a statement which reads: "Study observations commissioned by the Council of Quality show that storm runoff from a typical moderate-sized U.S. city will discharge as much as 250,000 pounds of lead and up to 30,000 pounds of mercury a year." A more recent survey funded by the E.P.A. is ~itled Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff. This particular study was funded by the ~.P.A. for an area in Durham, North Carolina, containing 1.67 square miles, and which included urban areas of different densities. This document is evidence that when you compare the urban runoff with raw sewage untreated from home, that pollutants in the urban runoff are equivalent to if not higher than that which you would find if you flushed your sewers straight into the street. You will find in medical literature dealing with biological systems, that metals can be.toxic and certainly can be a threat to public health and well being. Douglas L. Zirkle: I am interested in controlled growth within the County. I am also interested in land within the moratorium area which has been zoned for it's intended use for ~a number of years. My~list of notes has diminished with some of the expert testimony that has been presented tOnight. I definitely do not agree with the moratorium. We relied upon and still strongly recommend that you rely upon the testimony of the Blue Ribbon Committe. There have been comments about catch basins and them being allo~ed to go out of style or diminish in use after construction. I do not think that has ever been intended nor do I it is wise for you to allow such to happen. There bas been no real pro6f of the percentage of effect by a development on a body of water. The development of runoff can, and should, will be controlled in anything that we or my associates are interested in. I support Mr. Craig's and Mr. Wood's stand. I hopeyou will take this matter into consideration, and when you do make a determination about the extension or the continuation of the moratorium, that you will do as I think Mr. Wood suggested; deal with the basics as we have them here and not necessarily Boulder Dam or some body of water somewhere else in the United States. Sally Thomas: I did not realize the question of degree of slope was going to come up again tonight. There are ways to find out the damage that comes from different degrees of slope. The State Highway Department does not consider land buildable at the 15% slope. I was curious as to why the words "highly erodible soil" were removed from the ordinance. This was suggested by the Blue Ribbon Committee. The Soil Conservation Service has assured me that all soil in Albemarle County is considered highly erodible and thus did not need to be in the ordinance. The McNair and Associates plan drafted before the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was formed, rejected the four impoundments suggested by Rosser Payne in the County's Comprehensive Plan. This was an annexation ploy and should be recognized, as such. The Comprshensive Plan was to be an annexation battle tool. NOW that the Rivanna Authority is in operation and water has been removed from the annexation courts, the situation has changed. The words "water quality" have been mentioned many times this evening. Water is defined by the State Water Control Board almost compiet~ly in terms of dissolved oxygen. A few weeks ago, the State Water Control Board wrote that the quality in Lickinghole Creek good; that is good in terms of dissolved oxygen. We are not talking about dissolved oxygen when we are talking about the quality of water in the reservoir. Good quality is defined 030 February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) differently by the Health Department when talking in terms of water which must be fit for human consumption. We ~re not talking in those same terms when we talk about what is happening to that reservoir. We are ~talking about sedimentation. When the Blue Ribbon CommiCtee suggested that a one-hour retention pond is going to take care of sedimentation, you wonder what kind of soil particles they are talking about. Clay particles will not settle out in an hour. In fact, they may not settle out in a year. We are talking about eutrophication in the reservoir and a settling pond is not going to take care of eutrophication. Several people have said we should be talking about metals. 'If the Rivanna Reservoir had to be shut down, there would be very little fire protection in the north Of the City. It would certainly lead to a health problem. Life without the South Rivanna Reservoir is the best way to stop growth. Letting the reservoir die is a nice way to stop growth. I hope you will not allow either of th~se to happen. Kathy Tompkins: I represent the Woodbrook community Association. I would like to make it clear that the Woodbrook Community Association does not wish to be aligned with the no,gro group. We are consumers of the water from the reservoir who are paying for the study. From all indications tonight we will also be paying for whatever future runoff control measures are put into effect if they become necessary. The Woodbrook Community Association endorses the enactment of this ordinance. There seems to be ample evidence from studies of other reservoirs that urban development near such a body of water will indeed be detrimental to the quality of thewater. Several people have said "let's not rely too much on other bodies of water. Let's only consider our own reservoir." If we cannot learn from what has happened in other localities, we are indeed in very bad shape. It is clearly within t~e police powers of the Board of Supervisors to prevent activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to the public water supply within the designated five mile area. In August, our Association presented a proposal similar to this ordinance to the previous Board of Superviso Many others spoke in favor of a moratorium of some sort. The action that Board finally took was questioned from the outset and many of the points questioned have already proved weak. Therefore, as consumers of the water, we view this proposed ordinance as vitally necessary .for the protection of our water supply. This is a serious and drastic step to take, but in matters where the viability of the public water supply may be at stake, private investment must yield to the public interest. It is unfortunate that we are forced into considering a moratorium. It seems to me, however, that those who insist on mo~ing~right along with major~development in close proximity to the reservoir appear to be equally as guilty of preempting the study as they charge proponents of the ordinance to be. We are confident that this ordinance is both necessary and right, and we applaud the efforts of this new Board in taking decisive and immediate action which is long overdue. Leigha Middleditch: I am speaking as a lawyer and citizen Of Albemarle County. As citizens of the County, we can demand two principal things of our elected representatives. The first is that they be honest. The second is that they make their judgments based on the best available facts. I find it difficult to determine the distinction between the facts you have tOnight and those you had when the ordinance was enacted in September, 1975. That ordinance was entitled "An Ordinance to Protect the Quality of Water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir." It contained two factual findings as a basis for that legislation. "1) It is not necessary for the protection of the reservoir that the heretofore imposed moratoriu on building and development in the watershed~be continued." This was based on the report of the special committee. A paragraph from that report s~tes on the matter of maintaining the status quo of the reservoir: "the committee forsees no change in farming practices or indust which will significantly affect the reservoir, nor does it see how new development now propos can exert an appreciable change in this environment wi~hih the 14-month study." As I understand it, you.were concerned that the controls suggested might not be effective after construction~is ~completed. If that is correct, three or four members of that committee have made comments tonight and none of them has taken a different position from that taken when the report was drawn. Admittedly, the report did not address the long-range impact of development after completion of the 14-month study. There have been two points made by members of the public. The first is that the slope limitations in the ordinance of last September were too great in terms of runoff. Secondly, Dr. Parker has said the StudY does not contain ~an analysis of heavy metals. I.~that correct? Browne: At the present time, the only heavy metals we are looking into are the heavy metals coming into the streams or from urban or suburban runoff. Fisher: Only bottom.~'sediments then? Browne: Yes. This is shown as being accumulated over the years and we would not expect to find too much in the streams on a weekly basis. It would be costly_to include this on a weekly basis. It might be included somehow on a sporadic basis. Middleditch: I still do not understand the "facts" that have been developed since the September moratorium was enacted. The ordinance before you tonight has the same title. I do not think you have had the factual analysis and expert testimony presented to make a go( faith judgment based on accurate facts. This ordinance (moratorium) was imposed on January 1 You have roughly another 30+ days. I suggest that you consider reconstituting your special committee and if the issue is a question of impact from future development, that that question be included in a charge to the committee. I just do not think you have the facts to make an intelligent decision on the proposed' ordinance. Fisher: We Will take a break. the opportunity when we reconvene. If there are people who ~ave not spoken, they will ~ave James Paine: I am a local architect. I am here about a particular problem. I am against the moratorium in general because I do not believe that I have heard evidence tonight which would justify a moratorium. I designed a building for six dentists who need to occupy the building by early fall. This building happens to fall right on the middle of the boundary line; half of the water draihing into the moratorium area and half draining out. I think we can make all the water drain out of the moratorium area. I was hoping you might use some common sense even though you might pass the moratorium ordinance and don~t just have a flat statement that you cannot dig within the moratorium area even though you can drain all the water elsewhere. ~th Y .~d Feb~Dary 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) Carroll B. Smith: I am spokesman for the Farm Bureau. We in the Farm Bureau are not in favor of a moratorium, nor are we in favor of all out development. We are in favor of moderated growth and controlled growth. We certainly are in favor of protecting that reservoir. I could guarantee certain provisions that would protect it, however, they are expensive and few developers are willing to spend the money necessary to guarantee the protec of the reservoir for its expected lifetime. I keep hearing people say "agriculture" is the cause and primary culprit. That has bothered us in the Farm Bureau for several years. We have been doing a considerable amount of investigating on our own. We ihvi~ed the Chairman of both the Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the Director of the State Water Control Board to tour the area. They did. They wrote an official report back. We gave copies to each of the Board members at that time. I believe you referred to one of them at the last meeting. They were fairly emphatic that "agriculture" is a victim of exaggeration when it comes to pollution of the reservoir. Agriculturally zoned land represents 87.2% of the area, but has anyone investigated to see how much of that land is actually being farmed and how much is in the early stages of development. In listening tonight to the representa- tives of these two Boards (State Water Control Board and Health Department),I was not too impressed~by the substance of what they said because their letters on file are emphatic against heavy development on the immediate edge of the reservoir. They even cite the Occoqua which is good in some ways and bad in others. I think each of you has a record of those two letters and I would recommend that you read them carefully before you make a decision one way or the other. I have read Neurochy: /~. lot of studies done by the E.P.A. '..The great majority of them were done on urban runoff from areas like New York City, or a big city where~.~there is a lot of t~ffic. You might take into account the type of development you are going to have in this area. Fisher: If there is no further public input, the public hearing is closed. BOard members have any comments to make at this time? Do any of David: I would like to ask for sympathetic understanding. It is impossible for most of ~s_ to completely understand all of the information that is being presented to us and evaluated. All we can do is listen, and when we hear one piece of information that another, take note of that. After that, we can only give you what is our best judgment and ask you to believe that it is a judgment that is made with the interests of the people of County in mind. Iachetta: Several who have spoken here this evening have suggested that the Board' policy in trying to find the time to decide what should be done along the particular waters of this reservoir is a no-growth policy. If I had such an idea, I would not know how to go about doing it. The area currently under the moratorium represents 25 square miles of a 277 square mile watershed. That is close to 10% of the watershed. That is only 3% of the total land area in Albemarle County. There are a substantial number of acres either at for development or already being developed that lie outside of that watershed. They are in no way affected adversely by whatever action the Board chooses to take in an effort to find what is the best long-term solution to assure a potable water supply in the South Rivanna Reservoir. We have, in the last six months, developed a rather serious adversary aspect between those who attempt to govern, and at least a small part of the community. I submit this could have been avoided if a few people would have been willing to wait until the study is ~inished. I do not think this Board is going to.%try to stifle anybody's legitimate aspirations now or in the future. I have heard a lot of conflicting testimony. A lot 6f it from experts, but I believe the input from those experts is honest input. It simply emphasizes~the fact that the expertise is not all that precise. We are back to the kind of a ball game engineers often find they are forced to play. That is, you have to make a d~cision not based on exact differential equations. It seems to me that we have to proceed to gain more facts before we commit ourselves to a policy that we cannot turn around. Six or ~ight months down the road is cert&inly not clear now because we do not have sufficient information based on this particular ~eservoir. It is also clear we do not have all the data gathered although the specific question of heavy metals from urban areas in our area would be difficult since we do not now have in this particular watershed any appreciable runoff of that kind. So, I have to ~ecide on what course of action~is best for the majority in the short term with the hope that we will continue to pursue the informatign gathering process until we can get a better handle on what ought to be done in this particular part of the County. At no time is this going to be dictated by any desire on my part to limit growth. Henley: I think we should postpone any action on this tonight. I think we wouid all like to go 'over the information that we~have received and act on it at a later time. Roudahush: I think the whole problem is that we have water getting into the reservoir. It is getting there two ways. It is coming down the streams and it is coming over the lands From what I have heard tonight, the experts pretty much agree that their concern starts when the water coming over land comes over slopes 15% or greater. We cannot solve this problem tonight, but we have got to fac~ it sooner or later. I have a suggestion I would like to mention to the Other Board members for their consideration. What I would suggest is that__ we consider the possibility of amending the preSent interim~ 0rdinance to the effec that for the land within this area which has been defined as the moratorium area, that restrictions be written into the Erosion and Sedime~tion Control Ordinance to the effect that no land-disturbing activity Shall take place ~ithin 500 feet of the reservoir body itself, or these streams which are in some cases intermittent and sometime they are psrennia~ streams, or on slopes greater ~han 15% and that exemptions tO the effect that these things will be exempted; construction, repair, enlargement, or other activity other than road buildin~ relating to a single-family dwelling located on a lot having a minimum area of one acre, except lots of record of this date. ~f courss%~ this one acre provision shOuld, I thin} be subject to the proper zoning, if it is zoned for two acres, then it would have to be a two-acre lot. Also exempt, the repair and or reconstruction of any structure which repair and or reconstruction is necessitated - the same wording that is in the "moratorium ordinanc~ A third item that would be exempt would be the ~illing, planting, or harvesting o~ agricultu] and forest crops and so forth as written into the moratorium area. I think this would simplify the problem within that area. The critical areas would be defined by the slopes which have been suggested by the experts here tonight as critical and the tributaries to the reservoir which also are cr±~ic~l areas that bring water to the reservoir. I would like to thr~w that out as a suggestion to the Board for what you might think it is worth and as an February 4, 1976 (Adjourned from January 28, 1976) Fisher: Are you talking about amending the Soil Erosion Ordinance or are you talking about amending the present "Moratorium Ordinance"? Roudabush: I am talking about amending the interim ordinance that was adopted to protec~ the quality of water in the reservoir in September. Fisher: Which is a special amendment to the Soil Erosion Ordinance. That presently is in effect in the entire watershed. Roudabush: Right, but this would apply only to the area outlined on this map. All of this falls within the same area that the State says that localities have t~he right to regulat~ within a five-mile radius from the intake pipe. Fisher: I agree that there has been discussion of the slopes. I noted that some member~ of the Blue Ribbon Committee did indicate they felt that the 15% figure was probably better than the 25% figure that'~was adopted by the Board in September. But, why 500 feet? Why not 200 feet or 1,000 feet or some other figure? On what kind of standard should me base that sort of decision? Roudabush: I think the width of the strip could probably be related to erodibility. Someone mentioned tonight that the flow time was critical in water reaching the reservoir or its tributary, and I think that the last 500 feet of run of this water is a reasonable critical area to take under consideration. Bailey: The 500 feet would be in the nature then of a minimum? Roudabush: Yes. ~.It~'~:could-be extended further if the slopes were 15% or greater. That 500 feet would then bulge out to include the 15% slope. Bailey: Five hundred feet would prevent construction where the slopes would not do it. Roudabush: Yes. Bailey: It would be somewhat tortuous to determine. That thing has more arms than an octopus. Roudabush: But, they are there. David: Could Mr. Tucker tell us whether or notl.that'~could be done? Bailey: Mr. Tucker and Mr. Keeler have already done a good deal of work of that nature. Fisher: Mr. Roudabush has made a suggestion that sounds as if it is a combination of a moratorium and a soil erosion ordinance which would permit development over probably a significant area of this part of the watershed, but not near streams or near the body of the reservoir itself or on steep slopes. I wonder if other Board members have comments or questions about it? David: i'I like the idea that here is a way to provide the protection that is needed and still reduce the amount of burden on people who are no~ in a position where it is really relevant. I would be inclined to MO~E that we ask our Planning Department to work with Mr. Roudabush to more clearly define the area and that we have a future meeting to review the possibilities and consider whether this is a way we want to go. Roudabush: I would like to emphasize that the areas within these strips down the stream would be usable for single-family dwellings as long as there was no land-disturbing~activity such as building r~ads, provided the zoning was proper. Iachetta: Mr. Tucker could we have added to the slope map which you have created, that 500~foot buffer plus the slope criteria? Tucker: Yes. I think that could be put on without too much trouble. Iachetta: Could that be done with color that woul~ be sufficiently different from what you have so that it would be prominent? Tucker: Yes. Fisher: A~suggestion has been made that this be worked out and brought to the Board to see ~hether or not they wish to take fu~%her action. Is that an acceptable way Of resolving this proposal? We have a me~:on the floor, is there a second? Roudabush: I will SECOND. Fisher: When it is ready, bring it to the Board and we will put it on an agenda and dec.de whether to schedule a public hearing. AYES: Mrs. David a~nd Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier Mo~ion was then Offered to adjourn this meeting until February 10, 1976, at 3:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Motion carried by the following r~corded vote AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. (11:35 P.M.) Chairman