Loading...
1982-06-30 adj273 June 30, 1982 (Adjourned from June 16, 1982) An Adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle COunty, Virginia, was held on June 30, 1982, beginning at ?:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County. Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from June 16, 1~82. Present: Mr. James R. Butler (arrived at ?:35 P.N.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at ?:42 P.M.) and Miss Ellen Absent: Mr. J. T'o Henley, Jr. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne; and Assistant Director of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler. 1 Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at ?.43- P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. City/Coun$.y Public Hearing: Buck Mountain ~Creek Reservoir Study. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June Z9 and June 23, 1982.) Present from City Council were: Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason and Messrs. Francis Buck, John Conover and E. G. Hall. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Authority, to summarize the Authority's recommendations to the Board and Council. Mr. Williams said that Buck Mountain Creek was first identified in 1972 as a potential future water supply source in a report by Malcolm Pirnie dealing with water supply and wastewater treatment. In 1977, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority retained Camp ~resser and McKee to study alternative and supplemental water supply sources as an adjunct~to the BetZ Water Quality Study which was being done on the South Rivanna Reservoir at that time. Eight alternatives were reviewed as potential water supply sources. That study indicated that Buck Mountain Creek was worthy of more detailed investigation as a future supplemental water supply source. In January 198~, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority entered into a contract with Camp Dresser & McKee to do a detailed study of the potential future water supply site in the Buck Mountain Creek area. This was preceded by a two-year building permit moratorium enacted by the Board of Supervisors in August, 1980; this ordinance is scheduled to expire on August 13 1982. The Authority members feel that a.decision on building a future reservoir should be made by August 13 so that affected property owners will know what the future holds and the purchase of property can be initiated. The study o-f the Buck Mountain area~ has been undertaken in four phases: l) Review of quantity and quality of water available; 2) review of geologic and seismic conditions; 3) subsurface investigation; and 4) preliminary design. The study through Phase 3 is now complete. The final phase will be undertaken once a decision is reached on the other~issues such as dam s~be location, extension of the buffer zone, etc. A total of four possible sites were examined during the course of the study. The studies show that a dam at Site "C" can produce a safe yield of 19 million gallons per day. The quality of water will not be pristine but will be significantly better~ than that found in the South Rivanna Reservoir. Sound watershed management practices will be required. (For explanation of "Watershed Management Practices" see Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan - Preliminary Revision, 1982, Environmental Standards, Water Supply Watersheds.) Mr. Williams said that a revi.ew of the geology of the area indicates that a dam at Site "C' is clearly the best choice from a geological standpoint. Subsurface investigation has confirmec that Site "C" is preferable to the other three sites considered. The Buck Mountain studies have been financed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority through its wholesale water rate structure. It is envisioned that construction of the dam and acquisition of land, etc., will be paid from the wholesale urban Water rate of the Authority. This is mentioned since there seems to be some confusion as to-whether such improvements would be paid out of City and County tax revenues. Mr. Williams said a review was also made on the feasibility of utilizing the James River as a future source of public water. Results of this analysis shOw that high capital and operating costs make such a solution not feasible. In addition to this, the community has no control over the quality of its raw water source. Mr.~ Williams said that the Board of Directors of the Authority, make the following recommendations to the Board and Council: 2) 3) 5) That Buck Mountain be selected as a future raw water supply source and that a dam be built, at the appropriate time, at Site "C" as identified in the Camp Dresser and McKee study. That land be purchased now by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority using the fee simple method ~ith leaseback provisions where appropriate. No permanent structures would be permitted in the leaseback area and no clear cutting would be permitted in the buffer zone. That a buffer zone of 300 horizontal feet, as measured from the normal pool level, be acquired by either fee simple or easement. The buffer zone would be modified on a parcel by parcel basis based on: a) small remainder of parcel justifying acquisition of complete parcel b) slope of land and length of slope beyond the take line c) wishes of the property owner d) access to the property. That a 100-foot buffer zone be acquired on tributary streams with in-stream impoundments at appropriate locations to control sediment. That the James River not be fUrther considered at this time because of high capital and operating costs. 0.~0 4oO0 · Hr--I 0 tO ~ OJ..~ · ,o ~,r-I 0 0 0.,~ O4O 0 Ofl~O 0~ · · ~ ~00 000 ~mO~O~h o m~ 0 ~0 ~.H ~ ~o~ H 0 0 ~) Cl Ss,r-IH 0 ~ Cl ~0 00~0 ~00~ 0 ~ · o~ 0 o 000-~ ~ ~ o 0 ~ I Oo o oo ~ ~o~ ~ o o~ ~ I ~ o oo~ ~ 0 ~ 0 · ~ ~ o ~o~ o o ~ o $~ o~ o o ~ o  .H ~ ~~o ~ ~o~ r-t -ti 4~ ,0000 0 ~o~ ~o~ o~ o ~ o~ I o.o~ ~o 0 · ~00o O~ ~0~ · H ~ ~ 0 0 ~ o ~ ~ ~o~ ~ o o ~ o.~ ~ ~ 0 June BO, 1982..(Adjourned from June 16, 1982) Supplemental~A!ternative "A"._ 100-Foot Buffer on Tributaries In order to provide protection for the impoundment not~ provided by the alternatives listed above, a 100-foot buffer would be established along each side'of each minor tributary stream entering-the impoundment. The major tributaries (i.e. Piney Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, Burruss Branch and Elk Run) could be protected by in-stream controls. No cost figures are currently available for these active in-stream~cont'rols. This alternative would be an extension of the-existing oontrols which are present in the area (i.e. the 100-foot sePtic setback as required by the Runoff Control Ordinance). This alternative would only be effective if coupled with~a buffer-~zone as outlined in the previous alternatives. Cost of Supplemental Alternative Only - $B60,000. Alternative #10. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Proposal The Rivanna Water and Sewer Autho. rity proposal is based on a systematic comprehensive approach to watershed management including both passive and active measures for water quality protection. This alternative provides for the acquisition of a buffer zone predicated on a minimum take_ line of BOO horizontal feet from the normal pool level of the reservoir at site "C". Modification of the take line would be made on a parcel by parcel basis based on the following criteria: a) b) c¸) The slope and length of slope beyond the minimum buffer. The creation of lots~_too.~-small to be developed would be discouraged (these lots would have to be acquired). The wishes of the propertyowners with regard to having a larger portion of' his property acquired beyond the buffer zone. d) Adequate access should be provided throughout'the buffer for ease of maintenance and enforcement of regulations. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority proposal provides for the establishment of a 100-foot buffer zone along each side of all minor tributary streams entering the reservoir. The major tributaries would be p~otected by in-stream controls established as needed. ~hese controls (in-stream sedimentation ponds) should be located within the buffer zone of the impoundment. If the prime locations are outside the buffer zone, additional land would be obtained at some future date when earth-disturbing activities in the. area of the tributary warrants the need for additional water quality protection. Estimated Cost of Alternative --$2.6 million. Note: The information outlined above is shown on the chart that follows, along w~th.-the number of dwellings and other structures affected by the alternatives-, the acreages involved, and the estimated tax loss. Alternative Acreage Dwelling Cost Tax Loss/Yr. "Do Nothing" "Pool Area" "Pool Area/Flood" 300'/Normai 300':/Flood 500'/Normal :~00'/Flood Sub Basiu Watershed "AU. Minor Tributaries 10 RWSA Proposal -o- -o- $ -o- $ -o- 488 3 $80,000 11,000 633 3 1,100,000 14,000 '1,188 10 2,200,000 29,000 1,488 11 2,700,000 35,000 1,587 ' 14 2,9'00,000 38,000 1,918 18 3,500,000 45,000 6,~41 147 12,200,000 158,000 22,0-00 349 39,800,000 517,000 198 -0- 360,000 4,700 1,386 10 2,600,000 33,700 Mr. Fisher asked Er. Norris to explain the in-stream control measures. Er. Norris said this would basically be an in-stream pond to help settle out pollutants entering the body of water. A large in-stream impoundment could be located on each major tributary stream or small structures could be located on the tributaries entering those streams. 'Mr. Conover asked what type of pollutants would come into the impounded area from a one hundred year flood. Mr. Norris said nutrients are carried by any stream entering the water supply. During a one hundred year flood, there is a lot of scouring, so.there would be special maintenance needed in some areas to restore the integrity of t'he buffer zone after one of these floods. Mr. Conover asked which comes first, the BOO-foot buffer area or the one hundred year flood plain line. Mr. Fisher said the buffer would be measured at BOO horizontal feet-from the edge of the water at normal pool; adding the one hundred flood line. at that point would make the edge of the water ten feet higher during a one hundred year flood. If the slope of the land were gradual, the line might be moved back much farther than ten feet. Mr. Conover asked if he were correct in assuming that the one hundred year flood plain~ ~lus'the BOO- foot buffer is designed to protect the buffer rather than Protecting the reservoir from the entrance of pollutants. Mr. Norris said that was a correct assumption,, but by maintaining the integrity of the buffer, the water quality of the reservoir is also being protected. Miss Nash said that the Rivanna Board and Mr; Norris both think that the BOO-foot buffer is adequate, and she would like to know why 500 feet is not better. Mr. Norris said that the recommendation for BOO feet is based on a Corps of Engineers policy for a minimum amount of land needed to maintain physical Control of the reservoir shore line; to 'provide for a wildlife habitat corridor around the:reservoir perimeter; and to protect-the aesthetic characteristics of the reservoir shore line; not specifically fOr a water.supply impoundment, but any impoundment. The Corps of Engineers also believes that BOO feet is adequate to provide protection from a one hundred year flood, to prevent interaction of septic fields, and they also state that if the one hundred year flood plain exceeds that buffer, that the buffer should be increased to include all of the one hundred year flood plain. June B0, 1982 (Adjourned from June 16, 1982) 275 .... ~ Mrna. Buck ~alid~'t~hat~in Mr.~!~NOrris!~report of June 14, "sheet flow"~is mentioned and he digit'not knOw wh!at that terminology means. Mr. Norris said that when runoff goes across land, not in~ a defined channel, it is referred to as sheet flow. The Highway Department has determined that usually water will not flow in a sheet for a distance in excess of BOO feet; beyond that point the~water Channelizes'. Mr. Fisher said that "sheet flow" is low velocity, low erodable water, but after it gets into a channel, it gathers speed and carries off more soil, etc. Mr. Norris~said the Rivanna Authority had used this as additional backup for their BOO-foot recommendation. They were trying to point out that after BOO feet, the water might not have a nice flat, grassy area to run through, but separate into channels. Mr. Lindstrom asked if-the staff had done any.work on determining the average slopes i~ediately adjacent to'the proposed impoundment. Mr. Keeler said the topography of this area ~is similar to that of the South Fork Rivanna. The areas immediately adjacent are fairly steep, but further back from the edge, the slopes become more gradual. Three hundred feet will be an adequate buffer along most of the reservoir, but a greater buffer may be needed on Burruss Branch. Mr. Conover asked Mr. Norris which alternative he would.recommend for the buffer area. Mr. Norris said he would recommend the Riva~na Authority approach as long as the 100-foot buffer on the tributary streams is either purchased or acquired by easements. Mr. Fisher said that Alternative #10 is the RWSA recommendation and includes the 100-foot buffer on minor tributary streams, plus the in-stream contrOls on major tributaries. He asked Mr. Norri~ if he agreed with that recommendation. Mr. Norris said that the recommendation is basically sound if it is mOdified to include lands where the one hundred year flood level exceeds the BOO-foot buffer. Mr. Buck said the RWSA proposal mentions acquiring the land through fee simpl?, and he asked if any of these lands could be acquired by easement instead. Mr. Norris said that if the land around the pool area is acquired by easement, the RWSA would have no controI over the land. The' only area which he feels could be acquired by easements is the area along the tributary streams and only with the watershed management standards (.restrictions) mentioned in his report of June 1. Mr. Buck asked what type of restrictions these would be. Mr. Norris said that on the tributary streams there would be no earth-disturbing activities and no clear cutting, but livestock access to the tributary streams would have to be allo~ed or farmers would be deprived of their access to the water. Around the impoundment itself, there would be further controls because the BWSA would not want to create lake front Droperties with boat landings and docks. At 8:B5 P.M., the public hearing was opened. An unidentified gentleman said that taking easements on the tributary streams would cut his property off from its present access. He wondered if a bridge would be built across the tributary to his property. Mr. Norris said he did not think the property could be cut off without access; but such decisions would be made on a case by case basis at a later date. Mr. Harry Wellons inquired as to what effect the statement "sound watershed management principals wouldneed to be~carried out in the Watershed" will have on h~s ability to raise crops. Mr. George ~illiams said that these are~the same practices which are presently being recommended for lands in the South Fork Rivanna watershed on a.voluntarymbasis. Mr. Wellons asked if these practices could not be spelled out during-these~deliberatiOns. He said that it has been mentioned that the buffer zone wilt affect ten residences; which residences are these? The property owners need~to know the impact of the proposal on their properties. The Buck Mountain watershed contains about 22,000 acres, yet less than one percent of the land is contemplated to be acquired. Surel~ that will. not control much pollution in the watershed. He questioned how large the buffer zone would need to be to make a major impact on overall pollution in the watershed. He felt there should be engineering studies on this question. Mr. Lindstrom said that based on the literature he has read, and the report of the Watershed Management ~Officia~, the area.that has been identified.is the most critical area in protecting the water supply itself. If there is control of the access adJacent~to the water supply, this ~iI1 protect the water supply from anything that happens elsewhere within that 22,000 acres. That one percent in land area cannot be looked at~as being~'just a one percent value. It is much more significant than that.. Mr. Agnor said it is clearly more than one percent, in fact, closer to six and one-half percent of the ~total Buck Mountain area and about twenty percent of the subbasin. Mr. Venable Minor said that at one of~the meetings of the Ri~anna Authority Board, the consultant said that acquiring a buffer l~rger than the BOO ~feet recommended would not help water quality that much. What has~been mentioned here ~tonight is a greater amount of land than that recommended by the RWSA and he asked if the Board and~Council are considering ~what the RWSA recommended or not. Mr. Fisher said the two governing bodies are here to consider the alternatives which have been asked. Mr. Minor said he would like to point out that the consultants said that any amount of land over and above the ~00-foot buffer would no~ appre- ~ciably solve any water problems in the reservoir, so he cannot imagine that the Board and Council will consider the 500-foot proposal. ~ Mr. Dennis Marcello said he is an'affected landOwner. Most of the.property owners~in the area are opposed to the whole idea, but feel that if it has to~be,~there shonld be a leaseback of property for grazing cattle and cutting hay~with some restrictions. He.would also like for the landowner to h~ve the option of requirinmg that~all of his land be~taken if it affects his life style drastically. Mr.~ Marcello said that Buck Mountain Creek goez directly through his property, so he is concerned about Alternative #lq. He .understands from Mr. NorriS that the land values in his report were based on a county-wide study, but Mr. Marcel~o said he feels that this area is a more desirable place to live than other parts of the County, so the land values are low. Dr. Reynolds Cowles said he operates an equine veterinary clinic on Route 667 which will be affected by the dissolution of Route 667 as it now comes into~the ~area. He feels there has been little information given to the landowners affected. The~landowners were not directly notified of meetings and did not know ~what would be discussed tonight. He asked what will happen to Route ~667. He said'that~the property owners in this area do not want the reservoir, but understand ~that the County needs the water for future citizens. He understands that any iand~taken in excess of the ~O0-foot buffer Will not materially affect June~B0, 1982 (Adjourned'from June 16, 1982) pollutiOn control of the reservoir~ He said the B~d~sho~!~m!n~i~he~i2~eC~o~.~$iS~ L~ proposal both economically~and aesthetically upon the landowners in the'area. He feels that leasebacks should be looked at and agricultural uses should be spelled out before the Board makes a final decision. He said that he is aware of County ordinances, but this ar~a is a ~hosphorus deficient area for livestock-and the farmers must continually apply phosphorus to the land to make it suitable for cattle and horse production. He asked that the Board not rush into making a decision because he does not think the property owners have had the information necessary to respond in such a short period of time. Mr. James Murray, Jr., was present to represent the owners of Hickory Ridge Farm. He noted that ~e-~'h~d attended a number of the Riv~nna Authority meetings the last few months, and it is his impression that so many rights will have to be acquired within the BOO'foot buffer area that it will be the equivalent of purchasing the land, so it would be impractical to consider Just taking easements in that area instead of outright purchase of the land. He urged that the Board take some action on this question in the near future since the moratorium that has been in effect for the past two years has created an extreme economic'hardship for his clients. Mr. Murray said it has been proposed that there be no clear cutting in the buffer zone, but that-the land be leased back to the landowner after it iS condemned. He also understands~that the Rivanna Authority intends to impose a restriction against clear cutting as soon as the land is acquired. It is possible that a farmer with a 5G-acre hay field could have that field cut in half with B~0 feet of cedars and weeds for the next thirty years with no certainty that a reservoir wiI1 be built. Mr. Murray said he wo~ld hope that the farmers in this area will be permitted the fu!l use of their agricultural land under any leaseback and that they will not be subjected to the problem of haVing woods in the middle of the land they leaseback. Mr. Jim ~Hahn said that M~. Murray had expressed his opinions~on leaseback versus the fee simple approach~ Mrs. ~Flora Patterson, re~resenting the League of Women VoterS~ read the Tollowing statement: "The League of Women Voters of Charlottesville & Albemarle County favors the selection of Buck Mountain Creek as a site for a drinking water impound- ment to provide future, water supplies for Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Though we consider control of the entire watershed to be the optimum, but realizing this may be practical, the League recommends a 500-foot bUffer around the pool area an'd a 100-foot buffer on the tributaries. According to figures which we have received, the cost of the land for the pool area and a BOO-foot buffer would only raise the cost of water for an average family about ninety seven cents a month. Ninety seven cents seems a modest increase for the benefits assured, and increasing the buffer to' 50.0 feet would not add substantially to the overall cost. Effective protection of the watershed should be considered a top priority. As development increases so does siltatiOn from erosion, increased nitrates, phosphates from fertiliZers and on-site sewage disposal, and increases in heavy metals and hydrocarbons from cars. In addition, natural vegetation is disturbed in an effort to tidy up the grounds around new development. Trees and natural vegetation are known to be the most effective means of controlling runoff and, in an effort to ~tilize this natural ~r~tection, we call for a definition of '~clea~ cutting'~ and consideration f~or how the buffer would be maintained. ~ - Lack of adequate watershed protection has a direct bearing on water~ quantity° Lake Accotink in FairfaX County, Va. illustrates this point. Originally designed as a reservoir for Ft. BeIvoir, the lake was turned, over to the County for recreational use. Now, even that has become nearly impossible. Since its incep'tion ~0 years ago, the lake has shrunk approximately ~0%, About 2~ of the 60 acres of the lake are marsh or mudflats. Poor construction and landscaping practices, and county Ordinances Which fail to set strict' conser- vation requirements, have resulted in tons of dirt being swept, into the lake with most of this silt having been collected in the last 10-15 years. Park officials blame the problem on virtuaIly unchecked residential and commercial development near the lake. Siltation from erosion from lack Of_proper water- shed management fills in a reservoir or lake from the sides and from the bottom thereby losing storage capacity. In estimating the trophic status for the proposed impoundment, Camp Dresser and McKee assumed 'that no further development will occur upstream from the impoundment' and noted that 'any development in the Piney Creek Watershed would cause water quality in that watershed to ~eteriorate below that of the South Rivanna Reservoir'. Note that the previous quotes are from a report which, at that time, was considering Piney Creek as a possible reservoir site. However, its watershed is a part of that of the presently proposed site. CDM continued, 'It is assumed~ in the analysis (of the quality of the proposed sites) that no nonpOint source discharge will be allowed upstream of the pro.posed impoundment." Therefore~, should .not particular effort b~ made ~to. include all'of the Piney Creek subbasin in the area to~ receive primary protection? The League strongly believes that the Buck Mountain Creek site should be preserved now. We also urge that adequate and effective protection of the entire watershed be given a top priority." Mr. Buck asked about the recommendation for a 500-foot buffer zone and~ asked if the recommendation is based on any engineering data. Mrs. Patterson said the recommendation is based on a letter received from the Department of Interior in which it is stated: "The optimum is to acquire all of the watershed, and the second best is to acquire in fee only those lands which are directly associated with the reservoir. This should include those lands which, if developed, could have a septic system discharging directly into the reservoir. This would probably be all lands within 500 feet horizontally of the maximum pool elevation of the reservoir." June B0, 1982 (Adjourned from June 16, 1982) Mr. Norris said the letter quoted by Mrs. Patterson was mentioned in his first report on alternatives for the buffer area. In a sUbsequent letter, it is ~stated that the 500 feet is a random number based on an assumption on the soils in the area.. Mr. Layton McCann said he is a user of water in the~County and is not happy to see a 28% increase on his water bill~ however, he does support the Hivanna AUthority recommendation coupled with-Mr. NorriS' recommendation on the one hundred year flood plain. Mr. McCann said he thinks the whole buffer area should be purchased'; that would 'be the BOO-foot buffer plus any additional land needed for the one'hundred year floOd Plain. There are a lot of questions about this entire matter which have not been answered yet. SinCe the development rights of many owners will be lost, Mr. McCann saidhe feels the BOard~should consider purchasing those development rights. Also, the water and sewer authority is a three-headed monster, 'and Mr. McCann said he feels it is time to look at having Just one authority to handle the water and sewer needs of the community, thus doing away with two of the departments. Mr~ Rolf Benzinzer said he supports purchase of the land, and not leaseback. He s~upports protecting all of~ the slopes in the tributaries where the Slopes are steep, even thoUgh that would be a compliCated solution. Speaking about the entire 22,000 acre~watershed, Mr. Benzinze said it would be cheaper t0 preVent pollution now, than to try~and ta~ke'out phosphates later. BuCk Mountain has the only clean water in the county and there are onl~y a couple of hundred dwellings in the area'. Mr. Benzinzer said he had JuSt spent six months in Corvales, Colorado, where there is a total block on development in the Mary's Peak watershed. This block was put on by a committee which includes the~major developers of Benton County. These developers realized that in order to have growth in the county, there must be clean water. Mr. Benzinzer said he was disappointed not'to See any deVelopers present at these meetings, since if the water rates in this area rise to those in Fairfax or Montgomery counties, this area will be at a distinct disadvantage. Mr. Benzinzer said the Buck Mountain watershed can be protected by either~purchasing the entire watershed or by buying the land'and trading development rights. This watershed has the advantage-of being located entirely in Albemarle County, and also there would be gravity flow from the dam to the~treatment plant. If the James River were used for a water supply, it would take enormous sums of money to pump the water. He agreed with the Rivanna's recommendation to drop the James River from consideration and said he felt a good job had been'done of this Whole issue. Mrs. Babs Huckle, representing Citizens fOr Albemarle, read~ thin'roll'owing statement: "It is~hoped that this time the goVerning b~dies~will,p~ofi~bythe~ ~xperie-nce with the South RiVanna-reservoir and not Squander this unique reservoir site through lack of watershed protection. It is an accepted fact that natural vegetatiOn is the'best protection against erosiOn, so we hope there~will~be a buffer of natural~ vegetation at least 500 feet beYOnd t:he 100 year flOod level of the pool. In very steeps-areas, thiSmight even be extended ~o the'ridge line. Since a great deal of run-of2 is channeled into tributaries, these shOuld be protected by a buffer of'natural vegetation for a minimum of 10G.feet on either side. we are very concerned with the vagueness of the phrase "n0~clear cutting" in the proposed plan. This could be interpreted to mean that all vegetation could be removed with the exception of a few trees. To protect a reservoir from erosion and Siltation, forestsrs recommend that~ all natural vegetation be retained to act as a filter. If selected cutting is to be done', no~skidders or tractors shoUld be~alloWed in the buffer zone. When the present Rivanna Reservoir was proposed, our family was living on property bordering Ivy Creek~ At that time we were appalled at'the laCk of~ protectiOn proposed for the i~poUndment, but we' did not speak out. As owners who lost half'thefr propertY, I have great empathy~with these people who own land'~which will be affected by the Buck Mt. reservoir, If we are gOing to ask these people to sell their land and forego~plans they may have had for it, it is hoped that this time the watershed of the impoundment will be protected and their sacrifice not be made in vain. Without any effectiVe~buffer, the county has'tried tO protect the South~Rivanna reserVoir'by regulation~ ~ would like to Show, you~ a feW-slides which show that regulation has not been effective in keeping out silt and the chemicals which adhere to it. As you know silt is filling in the South Rivanna reservoir and loWering its storage Capacity. The ~nitrates and phosPhates~.are nutrients which increase algae blooms and lead to eutrophicatiOn ~and early death of the lake. ~ ~ The foresight~ of the RWSA ~and the city"and county governments'to-consider reservation of this land is greatly to be commended. Other cities have had similar foresight ~t0 ProVide water supply for coming generations and thus~insure the future of their area. In Boston in 1926, farSighted leaders planned another reservoir for use in 20 years. This project, which dammed the Swift~River 65 miles from Boston, required the elimination of four towns and the relocation of 2'500 people. That Water Commission protected their B9 square mile P0ol~bY owning 60% of the Watershed around it. Their buffer is one-half to two miles wide in most places., and is zoned for best use in watershed management - recreation,-wild life and aesthetics. The care with which this reservoir is managed hasDaid off handsomely. After nearly 60 years~ the Quabbin reservoir provides water'for two million people. BetWeen three and four million board feet of timber is cut yearly in acCOrdance with the strictest conSservati0n principles. Most'important of all, this water is so pure that it does not require any treatment~except She hddition of a little chlOrine when it enters the ~distribution sYstem~ Think of the savings in'treatment cOsts they have realized in 60 years. It is hoped that some day it will be said of you that 'generations of water users may be thankful to men and women of vision and wisdom who many years ago conceived a dream that has materialized into a pure and adequate supply of water, mankind's most precious resource'." 279 June ~30, 1982 (Adjourned from June 16, 1982) Mr. Donald Robertson said he would like to know the major capital~costs associated with getting water from the James 'River. What is ~being .disoussed is spending about $5 million immediately for something that-will not have an effective use for another thrity years. Adding to that the amount of lost interest, etc., plus construction of a dam, Mr. Robertson said he feels $100 million will be spent for the Buck Mountain reservoir. He said that someone should make sure that Buck Mountain is an adequate resource, sinc~e nature hadPprovided adequate water in the James River, Mr. George-Williams said the best estimate of the cost to go to the James River in today~'s dol!ars:is.$62 million, ~which~includes the cost of treatment facility. Mr. Robertson..said he thinks the james River has to be considered because it is the only adequate s~ce of~Waterleft. You may talk about quality,~ but quantity becomes the problem, and he does not. think that Buck Mountain will do the job, Mr. Lionel Key commended the BOard and Council for looking to the future. He asked how many employees will be added if this land is purchased by-the Rivanna.Authority, Mr, Williams said there will not be any employees added. Mr. Key said that everyone should keep that in mind. He then asked how much water ~rates Will be increased. Mr, Wil~liams said thewholesale rates will increase abOUt 19% in fisca1-year!98~.- M~. Key~.asked h6w~much.'~his p~oPosal will cost the Water customers over'the, next35 years.~. HealSo asked ~if the Count-y.~will be reimbursed for loss of~'taxes when,the property-is purchased. Mr. Fisher-said that is a question the Board intends to ask.. Mr. Key asked why the Rivanna Authority'needs an answer by July 15 on this questio,n. Mr. Fisher said the County adopted an ordinance two Years ag9 imposing a moratorium on the issuance Omf building, permits.- Mr. Fisher said he has personally told the Rivanna Authority that he does.not-want to extend that~moratorium past its expiration date on August ll, that is~the reason a quick answer is'~eede,d~ Mr. Key,asked~if the property, after purchasing, will belong to the ~Cit~and County or the Rivanna AUthority. He personally does not believe t'he Authority is~too ~concerned about expenses.~. Mr.~Fisher said the Rivanna Authority proposes to own,the property and lease~it, back to any~presDnt tenants who may wish to use it on a long-term lease basis. For~,people who,do-n0t want to enter into'a lease~ for otherpersons to lease. Mr, Fisher Mr. Wellons sai~ he has been a frustrated citizen for the past~few ~years-. He feels the opportunity to come and speak to the governing mbody is more psychotherapythan anything else. He does not feel that as a property owner in the affected area that he is being heard and that concerns him. First there was adoption of the ~revised zoning ordinance and now there is this possible confiscation of property. At the time he built his present home, he hea~d~-om~'~h~s~b'arb~?,~h~a~n ~mp.o~~?~w~:~b,~ng~.?~s~dered on Buck Mountain Creek. He inquired at various offices including the Rivanna Authority, and.nobody knew anything about the proposal. Soon after he built his home, three and one-half years.ago, he was told that this was very much a consideration., He has asked many questions about which r'esidenoes, will be affected; if a 500-foot buffer is taken, it will affect.his residence.~ If the people who have been watching the Rivanna.Reservoir during periods of flooding had looked UP in the tributary streams, they would have seen a lot of sil~. Obviously at some time in its life, the reservoir will silt up, so taking a~500-foot bUffer as-opposed to a 300-foot buffer will not make that much difference. This area of the County is already covered by restrictions in the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Wellons said he also is concerned about what will happen in the buffer because that will affect his property:and he feels these things should be spelled out. . Mr. Marcello said Mr. George Williams told him that the recommendation for a 300-foot buffer came from a ~tudy by F. X. Browne. The idea~of'a 500-foot b~ffer was sort of pulled out of a hat. Mr. Marcello said he feels that to increase the buffer beyond 300 feet will increase the cost of land acquisition and put a hardship on the property owners. Mr. Marcello said he felt use of the James River had been.ruled out of the question, but he does not believe the question has been studied thoroughly and asked that the Board consider this alternative again. Mr. Marcello said he-disagrees with the recommendation f~om the League of Women Voters~for a buffer of 500 feet. He said that if a reservoir is built on Buck Mountain Creek he woul, d like to see some drastic limitations imposed on boating and access to the water by the general public, so this reservoir will not~-become like the South Fork Rivanna. _ Mr. Minor said that the property owners in the general area-are frustrated because they have not been given very much information. There are a lot more questions being asked tonight, than there, are answers being given, He asked if any one ,can explain what will happen to Routes 665 and 66?, Mr. Jim .Murray said he would, like-to know. what will be,allowed in the immediate future in the buffer zone if the ,buffer is~,purchased in fee simple. An unidentified lady said that this proposal will landlock her property and she asked what she will do when there~is no longer a bridge on her. road and she can't get out.~ Mr, Gene Potter said there have been a lot of comments tonight.about_the James River. There have been reports by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff which addressed many of the questions raised tonight. The costs mentioned are today's costs for such a pro~ect. Those costs do not include future day-in and day-out operating costs. In order to, bring water from the James River, both a treatment plant and a pumping facility would be needed. Mrs. Evelyn Cowles asked when thelandowners Will know if their~homUses will be affected. Mr. Marcello said that the Buck Mountain stream is somewhat eutrophic now, so when a dam is built it will just make it more so. Mr. George Allen said one of~ the main problems seems to be a lack of notice of meetings and lack of understanding of the proposal by the people in the affected area. He hopes that when the Board and Council make the decision, that it is realized how this type of thing goes against the grain of our type of government. The people in the area are giving up their rights to their land fairly quietly. There~ should be another factor weighed into whether the James River is used besides dollars. The loss of tax revenues when .the property is condemned should also be considered. -280 June 30,'1982 (Adjourned from June 16~, 1982) Mr. Fisher sai~ one of the. first quesitons asked had'to do with what-limitations might be put on agricultural practices in the watershed~ Mr. Norris~sald it is assumed that~the agricultural activities~in the watershed will be those practices approved by the Soil Conservation Service. There is a federally funded B14 project in the Mechum River basin where newly developed best management practices are being implemented on a voluntary basis. There are two different areas in the leaseback~ area~ the-pool area and the buffer area. In the pool area, the land would~be leased~back for agricultural activities suCh aS those presently going on, possibly restricting activities within 100 feet of existing~streams. That would provide protection for the Buck Mountain stream and~for'the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir basically thirty years before the facility'is~needed, · Mr. Conover asked if timbering will be allowed. Mr.~ Norris said it might be allowed in the pool area, but'the BOO-foot buffer is envisioned to be in-natural vegetation. If the buffer is in trees now, it will remain in trees. Similiarly, if-it is in pasture, it will remain in pasture. At the-time ~the impoundment is filled, pastured-areas~of that buffer might~be~planted in trees. Mro Lindstrom asked what restrictions would be placed on livestock use of the streams. Mr, Norris-said there would'probably be point access on a~piece or-property for livestock, and in that area there would need to be special control measures. Mr.. Fisher asked what will happen in th~ buffer area~now, as well as after the dam is constructed. Mr. Williams said he assumes that'there will be restrictions on-construction of~permanent buildings and no clear cutting of~timber~ although agricultural uses would be permitted~ Mr, Buck asked if application of fertilizers Will be permitted,~ Mr.'Williams said yes; as 10ng'as it is done in accordance with the best management practices of the Soil~Conservation'Service. If a no fertilizer Concept was~carried to an extreme, it could create a worse problem by not having anything to hold loose ground cover~ ~' ~ M~ Fisher said the question~about which~properties ~are involved and which~residences are invo~ved~depends on which buffer'-zone is chosen. Mr~Fisher asked if~Mr. Norris had information on which properties and.residences-would~be affected by Alternative #10. Mr. Norris said he had a list~of properties and the~effect this~alternative-~ould ~ave on each~ Mr~ Lindstrom said Mr. Marcello~had urged that the~individual characteristics of~each property be taken into~considera$ion~when.ldeciding~heW~much of that property~Would be He asked if any of this will be taken into consideration° Mr. Harry Marshall, Attorney for the Rivanna AuthOrity and Mr~ Fred Payne,~.Deputy County Attorney, explained various concepts under the condemnation laws in the Virginia Code. Mr~ Fisher~asked~.what will happen to Routes.665 ~and 667 when~the impoundment is built. Mr. Herb Scaffe, representin~g Camp Dresser.and McKee, said that i'n~the analysis of Site "C'~, it was noted that one-~Of~the main roads ~through the~ar~a - Route~665, and a~SoEOute 667 wOuld be af£ected~ Route 665~would be~changed to cross the proposmed dam~and tie back into the existing section of Rout~ 665.' It was decided to terminate Route 6671~because it would only take ~an additional 15'~minutes of travel'time via another route for the people using this road to reach~-their~homes, and it would cost between $2 and SB~million to constrUct a bridge° Mr. Fisher asked~'the'traffic count on Route 667~ Mr. Scaffe said part.of the road is~no~dirt and carries only B0~cars .per day, Mr~· Marce!lo said~a number of residents live on Route 666~and it has nOt been mentioned~in the discussion, An unidentified person also mentioned that this proposal affects Route 776.. ~A'~lady said her property.is not affected at all by ~the~stream, but she woul~d have to ford the ~tream to,get in~and~out O'f~'her propertY. She asked what will"be done about~.~that.- Mr.~Fisher said that nothing will happen tO this road for the~next thirty-three years~ so there~is time to discuss-the roads after the d~ is made about constrnction~of the reservoir. The~lady asked if the lan~d will be taken soon. Mr. Fisher said~the deCiSion at this time-is whet~er to. Buy the land'for a reservoir now and protect that~land, or ~hetmher~to just let~the land develop and buy it. at'the time it is needed~ Mr. Jim Hahn Said even though~there~are a~lot of problems now, if'the Board waits, it will be more difficult to get something that is really needed at some future time. Mr. Conover said he had a few questions about financing of the proposal which he did not beliewe involved the~people in-the audience~~ Miss~Nash sai~ the Buck Mountain area lies mostl.y in Albemarle County,'but if~the community has'to go'to the James~River For. water, there~are ,several jurisdictions~which already have a~claim~to~water in the River. This community would not have control over the James. Mr~Fisher said this is becoming a state- wide issue; as to whether Virginia Beach will get water from the James River and whether Virginia Beach might have rights in future years to water from this area. Mrs. Gleason noted that the City of Richmond is ~alread~ guaranteed~a certain amount of water from the James. Mr. Fisher said that the Board and Council will hold a work session on this question, and if there are no further citizens to speak, he would close the public hearing at this time and ask that the Board and~Council take a'short recess. (ReCessed at 10:20'P.M~ and reconvened at lO:B2 P.M.). Mr. Conover said he basically agrees with Mr. Norris' recommen~ dation for the buffer. He feels the area for the reservoir should be acquired and protected adequately. Although he feels that it is wise to press to protect the future, it is being done for future beneficaries and with the economics of today, there are not a lot of finan~ options. He would like to pursue shifting the burden for this purchase to future users and not present users. He'said it has been mentioned that there could be approximately a 20% increase in rates, and he does not know what type of financing was assumed for this purchase. Mr. Bill Sessoms, Rivanna Authority, said the basic assumption was for bond financing using the values generated by Mr. Norris, on a 25-year bond, with ten percent net interest costs. He also noted that the 20% figure mentioned is the increase in the wholesale rate; the actual increase in the retail rate is projected to be about 7.6%. Mr. Conover said before the Board and Council become too involved in this discussion, he would like to have some more reliable figures as pertains to cost. If the cost is actually $~ million instead of $2 1 million, he would like to know the effect that would have on the water rate. Mr. Conover said he would like to make a clean, pure decision on what is best for the future. He cannot make that decision without complete information. :'-::'281 June 30, 19'82 (Adjourned from June 16, 1982) Mr. Lindstrom said-that ,the best way to shift.~ the burden of this decision to the future is not to do anything at this time.-: Mr. Fisher'~asked'what the County,-s tax los:s, would be under the Rivanna proposal. Mr.: Agnor said that USing no. land use eMatuations, itI .is about SBB,?00 per year. Mr. Buck said he"felt Mr. Fisher's suggestion to. look at this from a planning standpoint in order to give the staff some parameters in which to work, makes sense. He felt. the_ Board and Council should focus first' on the issue of the reservoir itself, and then go to the financial issues. He...said~ he feels satisfied with~ the BOO-foot buffer based-on what has been presented so far, but questions whether an adequate job. is being do'ne to protect the sources of the Buck Mountain Creek from pollution. He asked about the in-stream devices which have been recommended for protection. Mr. Williams said that any impoundmen~ will silt up over a period of time. This proposal woUld put' impoundments on the feeder 'streams to help collect that silt to minimize'the amount of. sediment Which gets .into the main reservoir He noted that sediment has .not been the major problem in the SoUth Fork Reservoir, but eutrophication caused by over-enrichment Caused by phosphorus and .nitrogen. From that standpoint, these in-stream impoundments would not have a dramatic effect, b_ut would remove 60% - 80% of the sediment.. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that the problem that comes with phosphate, and why a buffer is so critical, is that once the. phosphate gets into the water, it does not s. ettle out but stays in the-stream and then Eets into the reservoir. The idea of the buffer is to try and get it to settle o.ut before it gets into-. the stream. Mr. Buck said that in terms of' eutrophication, would it be possible to ~go. further up into-the feeder streams to protect the source. Mr. N'o. rris said the major tributaries basically stop at the end of the .buffer, bnt the one hundred year flood plain extends into the four maj-or trib'utaries The concept of the one hundred year flood plain could be extended for the streams, but he was not sure that the cost and acreage involved would give the same protection that w~ould come from the in-stream impoundments, Mr. Keeler said that the four major tributaries drain about 6000 acres, or 75% of the water coming into. the reservoir area. Mr. Lindstromsaid the Board has done many things tomprotect the present water impoundment in the County.. He asked if the larger buffer is purchased plus a buffer~on the tributary streams~ if that wilt affect the Board's ability to continue with the restrictions on the other water supply facilities in the county: Mr. Payne said to go back and~r~think-the whole design of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is out of the question. As he sees it, the Board is trying to develop controls that are superior to those now in effect, and to do it by acquisition. He did not think this will undermine the viability of the. Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr, Lindstrom said he is inclined to support Alternative #5 and Alternative #A, combined (BOO-foot buffer from the one hundred year flood plain, plUs a 100-foot buffer on the tributary streams). He supports this because the BOO feet is not based on Just a guess, but actual studies Leopold did on groundwater and surface waters. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that where that ~00 feet, plus the one hundred year flood plain, does not include the steep slopes, that enough land should be acquired to include those slopes. The additional $~00,000 adds only an insignificant amount to the water rate and would make the~total increase per thousand gallons, wholesale i ~$/M. Mr. Fisher said he thought Alternative #10 did the same thing with a small modification; that is, instead of using the normal pool level,'tO use the' flood level, and that will take into.account all of the above. Mr._ Buck said .he: believes that Mr. Lindstrom's proposal is close enough to #10 to-work-up the figures'requested by 'Mr.. Conover: Mr. Jim Murray said that in Hickory Ridge there is a house valued at $B50,000 which is within that BOO-foot buffer unless the line can be swung 20 feet: (Mr. Hall left the meeting at ll:B0 P.M. ) Mr. Buck said in terms of planning, 'he is pretty much' in agreement with the buffer proposed. Mr. Fisher said that City Council has asked for some additional cost figures, and he wanted to know if the Board members had any further questions. Mr. Agnor'said he wanted to be sure that the staff understood what Mr. ConOver wants in the way.:of financing information, Mr. Conover said he would like to know the value of the properties and what alternative financing schemes-may be available.. Mr. Williams noted that the Mirginia Water Resources Reseaz Center at VPI-SU had published this week a report entitled "Costs and Legal Issues of Reserving Water Supply Sites for Future Use." He then handed copies to the Board and Council members who were present. Agenda Item No. B'. Mr: Fisher said he had contacted Mrs, Katherine Burton to see if she. would be willing to serve as a member of the Welfare Board. for another term.. She is agreeable. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to reappoint Mrs. Burton as a member of the Welfare Board; said term to expire on June BO, 1986: The motion was seconded'by Miss N.ash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT' Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. _Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. ~. At 11:38 P.M., the meeting'was adjourned. ~h