1982-06-14 adjJune l~, 19~2 (Adjonrned~from June 9, 19~2)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on June 14, 1982, at ?:50 P.M. in Meeting Room #5, County OffiCe Building, Charlottesville,.
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from June 9, 1982. .~
Present: Messrs. James R. Butler (arrived at ?:40 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy
Lindstrom (arrived at 7:BB P~M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, Frederick
W. Payne; and Assistant Director of Planning, Ronald S~ Keeler.
The purpose of this meeting was to meet with members of City Council to hear a report
from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors on a proposal to build a water
supply impoundment on Buck Mountain Creek. This was a follow up to the meeting held on May
1982 for this same purpose. (Present from City Council were: Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason,
M~. John Con,vet and Mr. E. G. Hall.)
Mr. Cole Hendrix, acting Chairman of the Rivanna Authority, said that the Authority has
now received the final report on dam site "C" (Buck Mountain Feasibility Study, Phase III
Final Report, Subsurface Investigation at Site C, June 1982 from Camp, Dresser and McKee).
The Authority Board met today and makes the following recommendations to City Council and
the Board of Supervisors regarding future water supplies for the Charlottesville-Albemarle
urban area:
"l. The James River should not be used as a future supply for the following
reasons~
ae
The capital cost is estimated to be $10~$20 million more
than the Buck Mountain project.
Operating costs are estimated to be higher than the Buck
Mountain pro~ect.
The City-County would have no controls over water quality
in the James River.
The Buck Mountain Reservoir should be built at the appropriate time with
the dam placed at "Site C" in accordance with the Camp Dresser and McKee ·
Report.
~The land for the Buck Mountain reservo&r should be purchased now by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority using a fee simple method with lease-
backs. No structures Would be permitted in the leased area and no clear
cutting of timber would be allowed in the buffer zone.
A buffer zone of 500 horizontal feet from the maximum pool level should
be acquired through either fee simple or easement. A 10O foot buffer
zone should be acquired on all tributaries with in-stream impoundments
placed on tributaries as needed."
Mr. Hendrix ended by stating that the Rivanna Authority Board should probably take some
action on this matter at its meet&ng on JulY 19, since the County's ordinance imposing a
moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the Buck Mountain Creek area expires in
August. Mr. Agnor said he is concerned that from the end of the building moratorium until
the actual acquisition of land begins, that some persons will try to Obtain building permits.
Pertinent to this discussion was a report of the Watershed Management Official dated
June l, I982, entitled "Watershed Management Buffer Zones", which had been mailed to the
Board and City Council earlier. This report contains the following recommendations:
"All available information indicates~that the most important area of 'land to
consider for water quality protection is the land adjacent to streams, water-
courses, lakes and impoundments. Protection of these areas of land is ~ven
more important when dealing with a water supply impoundment and its associated
tributaries~
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville are 1currently facing a
decision as to how to provide protection of a future water supply impoundment
that is still in the planning stage. The quality of the water that will-be
consumed and used by future residents of the City and County will be determined
in part by the decision. ·
The future impoundment site, Buck Mountain Creek, has been proteeted since
September 29, 1977, by the Runoff Control Ordinance which applies in all the
area's water supply watersheds. (The Buck Mountain Creek watershed is part
of the South Fork Rivanna Watershed.) The Buck Mountain area has also had
the added protection of a building moratorium which was enacted on August lb,
1980, and is due to expire on August lb, 1982.
Now is the time to establish methods to protect the impoundment site and
watershed area for the time that it will'be needed. It is recommended that
a combination of protection techniques be used to provide this protection.
These techniques should include the following:
l) All lands associated with the impoundment area, dam and appurtenant
structures should be acquired.
2) All land within the 100 year flood plain~of~the impoundment should
be acquired.
5) All lands that are required by the RWSA to provide for access and
maintenance of the impoundment, dam, and appurtenant structures should
be acquired.
262
June 14, 1982 (Adjourned from June 9., 1982)
4) Lands within a minimum horizontal distance of BOO feet from the 100
year flood level o£ the impoundment should be acquired. (The actual
width of this buffer area should be determined by; .a) The land use
adjacent to the buffer area, b) the slope of the land above the buffer,
c) the length of the slope above the area, and d) the erodibilityt of
the soil above the area.)
5) Watershed Management areas should be established along each water
supply impoundment and its associated tributaries. ~TheSe management
areas should include all those lands identified above plus an area that
extends a minimum of 100 horizontal feet from ~he edge of any tributary
stream of the impoundment. (The actual width of the area should be based
on the parameters listed in item #4 above.)
6) Limitations and restrictions on development and other land-disturbing
activities in the rema£nder of the watershed area should be ~enforced.
(These should include the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance., the
Runoff Control Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance regulations.)
7) Limited recreational use should be provided for in the Water Supply
impoundment area by enforcement of a Recreational Use Ordinance.
Acquisition of the needed.properties and establishment of the watershed manage-
ment areas should begin immediately to insure the quality of water for the
future. Once these lands have been acquired, a routine maintenance program
should be established to-maintain the integrity of the areas. This~could be
accomplished in conjunction with the establishment of a limited access and
limited recreational use natural area, similar to the Ivy Creek natural area,
to encompass the entire managed area until the reservoir is needed.
Until new innovative methods have been developed for the protection and
management of water supply impoundments and watershed areas, this combination
of management techniques appears to be the most logical solution presently
available for the protection of the water quality of the future Buck Mountain
Reservoir.
It is recommended that these examples and conclusions be.examined and that
a decision be made as to the. methods to be used~..for the protection ~of~ Buck
Mountain Creek Reservoir at the earliest possible date-,"
An addendum to the June lreport of the Watershed Management Official dated June 14, 1982,
was also furnished to the Board and City Councit Members:
"The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Technical-Committee, dnring a
meeting on Friday, June 4, 1982, discussed the issue of how much buffer
zone was adequate to provide water quality protection for the proposed
Buck Mountain Water Supply impoundment. The committee decided after
much deliberation to recommend that a minimum buffer zone of BOO hori-~
zontal feet from normal pool elevation of an imDoundment with a .dam
at "Site C" be established. This buffer was to be established based on
the following modifications: a) the slope and length 'of slope beyond
the minimum buffer, b).~the c~eation of lots too small to be developed
would be discouraged (these-lots should also be acquired), c) the
wishes of the property owners with regard to having a larger portion
of his property acquired beyond the buffer zone, and d) adequate access
should be provided throughout the buffer for ease of maintenance and
enforcement of regulations.
Following a reevalua$ion of the comments made during the June 4 meeting
and a reexamination of the literature references, it appears that the
committee's recommendations are in fact a logical way to~proceed. However,
the discussions held on June 4 leave open the issue. Of w~ether ~00 feet
is an adequate buffer width to provide pro.tection for the water quality
of the proposed impoundment. The BOO-foot buf£er sho.uld provide protection
of the~water quality from sheet flow in the immediate area of the impound-
ment. The major problem that is not addressed is that of the water passing
through this buffer and entering the impoundment by way of; a)major
tributaries, b) minor tributaries, and c) natural drainage~ays or inter-
mittant streams. ~
After consultation with Mr. ~Maynard Elrod, the County Engineer,~and
Mr. Ron ~Keeler, the Assistant Director of Planning, the following water
quality protection scenario has been developed:
1. The BOO-foot buffer width as recommended by Camp Dresser and McKee
was established by the Army Corps of Engineers as the minimum distance
that should be acquired to provide for the adverse effects of saturation,
seepage, wave action and bank erosion. In addition to the uses identified
above, the BOO-foot buffer zone width is used by both the Department of
the Army and the Department of the Interior as the minimum land needed
to realize the following resource management objectives:
Maintain physical and pyschological control of the reservoir
shore line to assure unimpaired' availability for general public
use.
Provide a wildlife habitat corridor aroUnd the reservoir peri-
meter, especially for'temporary cover for animals that move-in
and out of the reservoir area in response to water level
fluctuation.
June 14, 1982 (Adjourned from June 9, 1982)
263
c)
Protect the aesthetic characteristics of the Meservoir shore line
so as to sustain the potential for optimum benefits to the general
public.
It was further indicated that the thrust of the 300-foot buffer zone as
the minimum horizontal distance was for the purposes enumerated above
rather than for health reasons or to protect a water supply.
2. It is difficult to find in nature or built-up areas examples of sheet
flow in excess of 300 feet; beyond that distance the flow accumulates in
channels or swales and the filtering capacity of the buffer is lost.
Taking this information into consideration, it would seem prudent to
provide this minimum 300-foot buffer zone above the normal pool of the
proposed impoundment to provide some measure of water quality protection.
This buffer zone should be acquired and established in vegetation at the
earliest possible date to provide an uninterrupted zone over which the
pollutants in sheet flow from adjacent property can be filtered out.
3. In order to provide additional water quality protection for the future
impoundment, the following measures should also be undertaken:
A buffer zone 100 feet wide should be obtained along ~ll minor
tributary streams which directly enter the reservoir. This buffer
should.also be established~in vegetation to provide a filter for
any over land flow entering the tribut~ary from adjaCent_propertieS.
b)
The design flood level for the ~impoundment proper which extends
into the tributaries beyond the B00-foot acquisition line should
also be obtained (i.e. the 100 year flood level).
c)
The major trib'utaries (i.e. Piney Creek~ Burruss Branch, Elk Run
and Buck Mountain) should be~protected by the placement~of in-
stream sedimentation ponds where possible within the ~00-foot
buffer zone. If the prime locations are outside of the buffer
zone, then additional land would have to be obtained at some
future date when earth-diSturbing activities-on the area of the
tributary warranted the need~for additional water quality protection.
d) Intermittant or wet weather streams or drainage ways outside of
the buffer area should~be controlled at a future date when
activities ~n the area would impact the imPoundment. Small sedi-
mentation basins might be located in those drainage ways where
activities i~ediately upstream would drain into the~impoundment
and cause an impact on water quality. These small regional ponds
could be paid for by the developments which would impact the
reservoir.
Since the acquisition of the entire watershed area would appear to Ne cost
prohibitive, and since there is no agreed upon basis in the literature for
the establishment of a larger buffer zone, enactment of the Scenario outlined
above should prOvide b~tter~water quality protection fo~ theimpoundment~for
the dollar spent than any other currently available option. Therefore, if
there is a consensus that more Water quality protection is needed t~an would
be provided bythe BG0-foot minimum buffer zone, it~is recommended~that the
scenario outlined above be examined and implemented at the earliest pbssible
date."
Mr. Lindstrom asked~if the-exa~t amount of acreage tO~be~acquired has been determined.
Mr. Hendrix said that'the next phase of this projeCt will be the preliminary design of the
dam itself by the engineers. Mr. Herb Scaffe from c~mp Dresser and McKee said that about
1200 acres are to be acGuired including the BOO-foot buffer around~the normal pool elevation.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if that amount of~acreage includes a 100-foot-buffer along the tributary
streams. Mr. Scaffe said~no. Mr'~ Norris said that t~e buffer alone the tributary~streams
would add about 145 acres to the 1200.
Mr~ Fisher said when the moratorium was originally, enacted, it included an area containing
the one hundred year flood level. He asked if it is not necessary to consider the one hundred
year flood level since there ~re some very low slopes in the Buck~MOuntain area and a Change
of just a few feet in elevation might then exceed the B00~foot buffer. Mr. Scaffe s~id the
normal pool elevation will be about ~6~. The Proposed buffer zone generally follows the
500-foot contour line~ He ran an analysis, to see what increase in elevation a 500 year storm
would cause and found it to be about ten feet or ~?~. The~only way to'tell exactly is to do
a hydrologic model. Mr. Fisher asked if the one hundred Year flood is expected to exceed
the BOO-foot buffer-at any point. Mr. Scaffe said~that from She preliminary analysis, it
appears that any increase from~a flood would be'within the one hundred year flood line, except
for some areas in the farthest reaches of the watershed on the~tributary streams.
Mr. Fisher said~that~in the Watershed Management'-Official~s rePort'dated~June l, 1982,
recommendation #~ states: "Lands within a'minimum horizontal distance of B00 feet from the
one hundred year f~ood level of the impoundment should be acquired, etc~.''~ Mr,'Fisher said
that seems to be a rational way to approach the matter, yet that recOmmendatiOn seems to
have been ignored by the Eivanna Authority. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said that
the whole idea of a buffer is to filter and trap suspended solids in the runoff. As long as
water is in a sheet flow across a flat surface, the water is being filtered. As soon as
that water gets into a channel or stream, it goes directly into the reservoir with no further
filtration occuring. Mr. Hendrix said he understands that the ~00-foot buffer zone is to be
forested or grassy lands and that there would be no clear cutting in that buffer zone even
on a leaseback basis.
26,4,
June 14, 1982 (Adjourned from June 9., 1982)
Mr. Lindstrom said that the Rivanna's recommendation for a buffer of BOO feet measured
from the maximum pool level and the Watershed Official's recommendation for a buffer of BOO
feet measured from the one hundred year flood line are quite different. Re-asked why the
Watershed Official's recommendation was dropped. Mr. Norris said the Technical Committee
felt that B00 feet measured from the normal~pool level, coupled with some'control on the
tributary streams, would be better than a wide buffer zone with no control on the'tributary
streams. --
Mr. Fisher said that if the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is continued in use, then this
additional reservoir is designed to meet the~water needs of the community for 50 or 60
years. That is really a short pe~riod of time~ With the County changing so rapidly, and
with the cities in the eastern part of the State fighting for water from the James River,
the County may have to take extraordinary steps to protect Buck Mountain as a water supply
source. Mr. Fisher said he did~not believe the minimum buffer zone shou!d~be the maximum
buffer considered. Mr. Agnor said theEivanna Board took action on the basis that the South
Rivanna reservoir will continue to serve the water needs of the community and that a reservoir
on Buck Mountain will act as a supplemental water supply.
Mr. Conover said he would prefer to have a recommendation listing some dollar alternative
He said it is foolish to hope that all members of these governing bodies will understand the
scientific basis of what another foot of elevation here and there will mean. As policy
makers, he feels the decision will have to made based on the burden on rates and if there is
any doubt, he would liketo look 'at what is recommended as a minimum.
Mr. Lindstr0m asked if enough is known aboU~ the proposed Buck Mountain, impoundment
itself to know if flashboards could be used to increase the normal pool of the reservoir.
Mr. Scaffe said the analysis done by the engineers shows that the hydrologic cycle of this
part of the watershed will not-support the addition of flashboards;~-in order to raise the
level of the reservoir, water would have. to be pumped in from the Mechum River.. The reservoir
will be designed to maximize the water already in the watershed. Mr. Conover asked what
land uses will be taking place in this northwest corner of the County in the future. Mr. FishE
said that Buck Mountain is a part of the South Fork Rivanna watershed, so the area is already
covered by protective zoning measures and the Runoff Control Ordinance. It is designated as
a future reservoir area in the Comprehensive Plan; it is not expected to be a growth area.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to commend the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of
Directors. He feels they have worked hard the last two years to come up with a recommendation
as to the best site for a future water supply impoundment for the citizens~ He, personally,
is willing to accept the recommendation that this~is the best site for a dam; he does not
feel that recommendation is in conflict with County ordinances.
Miss Nash asked if there is time to find out how many'acres are invOlved in a buffer of
~00 feet from the 100-year flood level~ Mr. Scaffe said the consultants have run some
analyses which show that during a 500 year flood, the elevation would rise about ten feet;
in other words, ten feet of water would go over the spillway~ This would cause a very small
increase in the perimeter area~ Mr. Fisher said that would have an effect in areas' where
there are low slopes. He said tha~ he agrees with the first three recommendations of the
Rivanna Authority (set out above). The one item that causes'him concern is whether or not
to expand the buffer zone. When a minimum is made a maximum, it causes him to have misgivings
He asked for some further information on alternatives.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not understand recommendation #5 in Mr. Norris' report of
June I ("Watershed management areas should be established alOng each water supply impoundment
and its associated tributaries, etc.). Mr."Norris said he had studied ways'to provide
protection on the tributary streams without' actually acquiring the land. In'the back of
that report he had outlined some of the restrictions that would apply in the-management
area; these restrictions could be handled in a way that would not increase the dollar amount
of the "take" line.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt all available 1alternatives should be studied to see what can
legitimately be done in the watershed management area without acquiring the land and what
extra protection is obtained when the~land is purchased. Also, a cost figure on acquiring
all of the land within 300 feet of the one hundred~year flood level is needed. Mr. Hendrix
said the Rivanna Authority will try to get any information requested. Mr. Fisher said it
seems that the burden has been put on the Board and Council to respond to these~recommendation~
Mr. Hendrix said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said he will try to schedule a discussion of
this matter on the Board's agenda for July l~. Mr. Conover asked how much of this is a once
and for all decision. Mr. Hendri~x said as soon as the Rivanna Authority gets a recommendation
from the Board and Council as to the area'to be acquired, the Authority will immediately
proceed to obtain financing and then negotiate for properties. Mr~ Agnor said that in
fairness to the property owners who have waited for two years while the sutdy was being
conducted, he hopes the Rivanna Board willbe able to give them an answer on August 14 as to
what the long~range-use of their properties will be.~
Er. Conover asked if the alternatives are between a B00~foot buffer measured from the
~6~ foot normal pool, or a BOO-foot buffer from the new one-hundred-year flood plain, and if
so, he does not know how to go about learning the difference so that he can make an intel-
ligent decision. Mr. Williams said it is~a pure judgment factor. Mr. Hendrix said the
Rivanna Authority had received a letter from the League of Women~Voters-dated June ll in
which the League asks for a 500-foot buffer based on a letter from the Interior Department
and the Authority subsequently received a letter in which it is stated that~the 500 feet
which the League of Women Voters recommends is arbitrary based on empirical evidence. Mr.
Lindstrom said that the Army Corps of Engineers analysis mentioned in Mr. Norris' report has
more of a scientific footing than other literature he has read.
June 14, 1982 (Adjourned from June 9, 1982)
Mr. Agnor said he would like to clarify whether the next meeting on this subject will
be. a joint meeting of the two governing bodies. Mr. Lindstrom said that is a good idea and
asked if there would be another work session and then a public hearing on the Board's con-
clusions. Mr. Fisher said he would suggest June 30 as a date for both. All present agreed,
so motion was then offered by Miss Nash to advertise for June 50 a public hearing on the
recommendations from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority relative to a water supply impoundme
on Buck Mountain Creek. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
At 8:48 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:00 R.M. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it
would be desirable to hold a brief executive session with City Council members to discuss
personnel in the way of the Chairman for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Motion to this
effect was then offered by Mr, Lindstorm, seconded by Mr. Butler, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 9:15 P..M. and immediately adjourned.
C~irman