Loading...
1977-05-18AMay 18, 1977 (Afternoon - Adjourned from May 16, 1977) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was he!~ on May 18, 1977, beginning at 3:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County ©fficerBuilding, Charlottesville, Virginia, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May lg, 1977. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, @eorge R. St. John; Deputy County Attorney, Fred W. Payne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Discus.sion Betz Study of the S'~uth Rivanna River Reservoir. Mr. Fisher said this meeting was being held to review the second draft of the Betz Report. The ordinance adopted in 1976 for protection of water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir expirf on June 30, 1977. The Board does not want to extend that ordinance further but to adopt permanent controls for protection of the Reservoir. It is obvious from the fact that the final report from Betz has not been received, that this will be difficult. However, this meeting was called in order to try to advertise a permanent ordinance for hearing on June 8. Mr. Agnor has arranged for a presentation of Chapter 6 of the Betz Report today and the County Attorney has made a rough draft of a proposed ordinance. Mr. Agnor said Mr. J. Harvey Ba~ley, the County Engineer, h~d served with the technical advisory body of engineers on the study of the reservoir and has had a conference with Dr. Frank Browne of Betz, and he asked that Mr. Bailey give this report. Mr. Bailey said the contract awarded to Betz had several goals: to determine present sources, quantities and types of nutrients in the drainage basin, present conditions of the reservoir in terms of sedimentation and eutrophication, expected changes that would ensue from different basin management techniques, the symmetry and current storage capacity of the reservoir, types of water treatment required to maintain acceptable drinking water quality under various basin management techniques, the projected life of the reservoir as a public water supply and the potential use of Buck Mountain Creek as a future water supply in terms of quality and quantity. The report gives the following conclusions: The South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir is eutrophic. This is evident from the high nutrient loadings to the reservoir, high blue-green algae popula- tion and depleted oxygen in the bottom waters of the reservoir during the summer months. 2. The blue-green algae blooms that appear in the summer produce taste and odors in the drinking water supply necessitating the application of copper sulfate to the reservoir to control the alg~. The addition of activate~ carbon at the water treatment plant is often necessary to remove taste and odors from the drinking water. 3. Results of the study indicate that phosphorus is the limiting nutrient responsible for the eutrophic ~condition of the reservoir. o A high rate of bacterial decomposition occurs in the bottom waters and sediments of the reservoir as a result of the settling of algae and other organic materials. The high rate of decomposition in the reservoir causes anaerobic condi- tions in the bottom waters of the reservoir. T~se anaerobic conditions release additional nutrients from the nutrient~laden reservoir sediments, resulting in'~the aggravation of the eutrophic/condition of the reservoir. The annual phosphorus loading of th~ reservoir must be reduced by 60% to 80% to produce a significant response in the reservoir to an oligotrophic or mesotrophic condition. However, smaller reductions in phosphorus loading will produce beneficial effects and slightly reduce the magnitude of the eutrophication of the reservoir. o Sedimentation in the reservoir is producing an annual loss in capacity of about eight million gallons. At this rate, the reservoir should be able to maintain at safe y~ld of twelve million gallons per day until about 2020. There is no significant~heavy m~tal problems in the reservoir or i~ the tributary streams. Changes in land use from rural, or undeveloped, to developed, however may increase the quantity of metals entering the reservoir. o 10. Non-point sources account for almost all of the suspended solids (99.8%) and nitrate (96.4%) loadings of the reservoir. On an annual basis the ~oint sources account for 24% of the annual phosphorus loading to the reservoir. On a seasonal basis, however, the point sources account for 34% to 90% of the annual phosphorus loading to the reservoir. 11. Morton Frozen Foods contributes 93% of the annual point source phosphorus loading to the reservoir and 22% of the total annual phosphorus loading to the reservoir. May 18, 1977 (Afternoon - Adjourned from May 16, 1977) 12. Undeveloped land contributes roughly 32% of the total annual phosphorus loading. Agricultmre contributes about 27% of the annual phosphorus loading and the developed land contributes roughly 16% of the annual phosphorus loading. 13. Buck Mountain Creek can be used for a future water supply, but occasional alga~ problems probably occur since the phosphorus loading rate of the Buck Mountain Creek is indicative of meso- trophic conditions. That is conditions between oligotrophic (low nutrients, low algae) and eutrophic (high nutrients, high algae). 14. Pollutant loading rates developed for the watershed indicate that developed land produces the highest phosphorus loading per acre of land. 15. 16. Pollutant loading rates for suspended solids i~dicate that crop land produces the highest suspended solids loading per acre of land. Both point and non-point source abatement measures will be necessary to halt or reverse the process of eutrophication. 17. Point and non-point source control measures for future development and activities in the watershed will be necessary to halt or reverse the process of eutrophication. Recommendations: The watershed management plan described in Chapter 6 of the Betz report should be implemented as summarized below. Reservoir management via the addition of copper sulfate to the reservoir should be continued indefinitely until the reduction of phosphorus loadi~ng produces a beneficial effect in the reservoir. If insufficient phosphorus reductions are obtained, chemical algicides may h~ve to be applied for the life of the reservoir. Activgted carbon treatment facilities should be added to the water treatment plant when it is expanded. Morton Frozen Foods should reduce their phosphorus loading to the reservoir by at least 95% to 98%. New developments in the watershed should be designed so that the post-development storm water runoff characteristics, that is the flow and pollutant loading, do not exceed pre-development conditions. Emphasis should be placed on reducing ~rosion along the stream banks, highway rights-of-way and drainage ditches in the watershed. Agricultural practices presently being advocated by the Soil Conservation Service should be strongly encouraged. The reservoir and major tributaries should be monitored at intervals to measure the response of the streams and the reservoir to nutrient reductions and watershed management activities. Mr. Bailey said the study had shown that the rate of collection of sedimentation is apparently considerably less than the allowable rate projected by the firm that designed the reservoir. Zf the quality of the water can be prevented from deteriorating beyond the point where the treatment of the water is unable to make it acceptable, then the life of the reservoir can be lifted to about the year 2020. Chapter 6, as originally presented to the Rivamna Water and Sewer Authority, has been completely reworked to give some guidelines for watershed management. The suggestions given are no~ corrective measures to the reservoir but to the treatment facilities and the care of the reservoir in terms of controlling growth and algae in the reservoir and treating water to relieve the taste and odors that come from overproduction of blooms. The report states that "ultimately nutrient and sediment enrichmen of the reservoir must be reduced by control of both point and non-point pollution," but "if this is not done, the ability to produce useable water may disappear." Chapter 6 outlines actions from abatement of reservoir problems to reservoir management Of point and non-point source control. Along with these remedial steps, there is a need for additional water supply treatment in the filtration plant by an increment of an additional four million gallons per day capacity. This increase would be repeated a second time in the future to bring the capacity of the plant to twelve million gallons per dyy that corresponds to the safe yield th~ is projected to be obtained by the year 2020. The characteristics of the known point sources is the total phosphorus loading of the known point sources which discharge into the watershed are presented in Chapter 4. The only significant contribution from point sources if the total phosphorus loading of the reservoir. "Approximately 13,200 pounds per year of the phosphorus discharge if fr'om point sources. Morton Frozen Foo~s represents about 95% of that or 12,700 pounds per year. Based on the assessment of the eutrohpication process occurring within the reservoir, total phosphorus is the limiting nutrient. Zn order to reverse or at least suppress the eutrophication process, it is necessary that the watershed'management prog~ require phosphorus control from both'point and non-point sources. On a loading basis, approximately 60% to 80% phosphorus removal is required." Mr. Bailey said this statement occurs repeatedly i~ the report; supposedly by reason of its importance. With respect to the effect of the loading from point sources, it is pointed out that "during the critical two months of July and August, when the algae bloom peaks, point sources represent 90~ of the total loading to the reservoir." A second source at this time is what is within the bottom deposits ~.f t~e reservoir and what would be released throug~ the anaerobic conditions that cause the exhaustion of the oxygen supply and change in the system that will release nutrients from the bottom deposits for use by the algae. The report states that "it is apparent that watershed management program must control point source dischargeseG~ ! -78 point source loadings, phosphorus removal from this discharge must be implemented.. In order achie~ the overall goal of 60% to 80% removal of total phosphorus through poi. nt and non-poin~ source control, watershed management program should require 95% to 98% phosphorus removal fro~ Morton Frozen Foods. The other point source contributors of phosphorus, Farmington Country Club, Miller School, Acme Visible Records and Teledyne Avionics, should be more intensely monitored under watershed ~anagement program to determine ~f treatment of these discharges arc also required. For any new point source discharge within the watershed, phosphorus projectioz should be evaluated. Based on an assessment of the existing conditions within the Watershed and the projected load from a new discharger, appropriate phosphorus control should be requir~ Mr. Bailey said that page 19 of chapter 6 contains a statement that is important and musl be ~iven due consideration in any ordinance enacted. "For all practical purposes, the state- of-the art of non-point source control is in its infancy. Non~p6int sources by their nature represent extremely complex sources of pollution. It is extremely difficult to pinpoint exacl the method by which the pollution is generated, the transport technique, and finally what eff~ it has on the receiving body of water. Once these questions are answered, a control techniqu~ can be selected and implemented." "Zt is generally recognized that the current understanding of non-point source control techniques does not yet permit a recommended pl.an of action which clearly defines the concept of maximum prudent development within the watershed." "~ cannot be overemphasized that, whatever control technique is selected for a particular non-point sou~ it must be evaluated through a comprehensive monitoring program in order to determine its effectiveness in relation to the program objectives." Mr. Bailey said Betz had not yet given a comprehensive monitoring program, but this will accompany the final publication which iS due around the first of June. Mr. Fisher asked what Mr. Bailey expected this program to cover. Mr. Bailey said he was reluctant to say what "comprehensive" means until he sees the recommendation. The Betz s~udy is a result of a stud~ of conditions during a twelve-month period, and a certain set of circumstances which transpir~ during that oeriod. These same circumstances might not repeat themselves a second year. Mr. Agnor said as Betz established monituring stations, they were established in a permanent manner and left so the monitoring could continue. Mr. Bailey said the report addresses speciJ land uses and then it addresses whole stream basins that,.contain all types of land uses. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. George Williams, Executive Directo~ of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority who was present, what would be included in the comprehensive monitoring program. Mr. Williams said he did not know What Betz will recommend, but he felt that detailed monitor~ ~ill be directed to the basin itself. Dr. Iachetta said the Board and the Rivanna Authority come up with a set of regulations on what people can or cannot do in the watershed. The information furnished has only quantified the problem. The report says the phosphorus loadin must be reduced by 60% to 80%. That statement has nothing to do with further monitoring. Getting Mortons' Off of the reservoir will'eliminate 27% immediately. That was a fact the Board already knew. How does the Board go about drafting regulations which will reduce ~3% and hopefully 53%. Dr. Iachetta sa±d he hopes the final draft will give the Board a lead into the kind of quantifi'cation that is needed in order to formulate land use practice ordinance. Mr. W~lliams said the Betz report is directed toward the portion of the problem t? can be dealt with immediately. Mr. Bailey said Ghapter 6 of the report suggests that the development of land will be so regulated that this development will not increase the amount of runoff of phosphorus and sedi~ but that will not reverse anything. The report states that "emphasis should be placed on on-site detentionTstorage and the use of land treatment systems for handling and disposal of storm wate'r. Thers is a need to recognize that temporary ponding on an individual lot is a potential solution rather than a problem in many situation~. Control of runoff from developme can best be accomplished by enactment of a comprehensive runoff control ordinance based on environmental performance standards. Traditionally specification standards have been used in the past to control Iand ~se. Specification standards determined the ~e~±red pa~tern of land use controls, building codes and other devices. Specification standards, by indicating what one'acan or cannot do, restrict innovation and are aimed at controlling man-made features rather than at protecting the environment. Environmental performance standards, unlike specification standards, sets specific ~oals to be bbtained. The stipulation ~hat post- development runoff characteristics be the same ore-similar to pre-development characteristics i an environmental performance standard. A performance standard eliminates the need for the enforcing agency to know about and test all available runaff control processes. Instead, the developer must prove that the proposed control processes will perform as required. Performanc standards, in effect,.are concerned with results and not with the type of process used." Mr. Bailey noted that on page 24 of the report, it says "an effective runoff control ordinance for the Rivanna watershed should include the following components- 1. Environmental performance standards. 2. Submittal of a runoff control plan. 3. Permit requirements. 4. Control of construction on steep slopes. 5. Requirements for setbacks from watercourses. Provisions for field inspection and review of control facilities. A ~unoff control plan should be required ~or all earthmoving adtivities except the follow: 1. Farming and forestry. 2. Existing developed lots. 3. Wells and sewage disposal systems. 4. Small developments. (e.g., less than ~ acre, less than 500 square feet of impervious coverage, less than 100 cubic years of earthmoving.) The runoff control plan should include the following: 1. Topographic features of project area. 2. Soil and slope characteristics. 3. Proposed development or alteration of the area. Projected runoff quantity and characteristics. 5. Staging of earthmoving and construction activities. Temporary control measures and facilities for use during earthmoving and construction activities. ly ct ce, ~C ~g ~st t ~nts, ~t ng: May 18, 1977 (Afternoon - Adjourned from MaY 16, 1977) ' 77 8. Maintenance program for the control facilities. The ~unoff control plan should be thoroughly reviewed and evaluated prior to the issuance of a construction permit. If various proposed control processes are questionable, the applicant should be required to submit additional information or data. For significant developments in sensitive areas, where the effectiveness of the control plan is questionable, monitoring of stormwater events before, during and after constructi©n, should be required. Development should 'not be permitted on slopes greater than 25%. For slopes between 15% to 25% strict runoff control measures should be required." Mr. Bailey said the summary states, "pollution fram stormwater runoff from development should be controlled by implementing a detailed runoff control oHdinance based on excessive sediments and nhtrients, the environment performance standard of post-development runoff characteristics being the same as pre- development characteristics will t~nd to at least maintain the status quo. With the reductio in point source contributions to the reservoir and with some improvements in agricultural practices, the reservoir water quality should improve with time." Betz also noted that "for highways and rights-of-way~ drainage ditches should be maintained by the appropriate municipal agencies. Proper vegetation should be encouraged~in drainage ditches in order to control runoff. The existing drainage ditches should be evaluated to determine if reconstruction is required in order to reduce pollutant loads. In several reaches of streams, significant erosion is evident. Stream meandering has generated high vertical banks of 6 to 10 feet. In order to reduce the pollutant load, these areas should be evaluated and, as required, rip-rap should be installed in order to suppress stream erosion." Umder agricultural control, it is noted that "land use management practices must be implemented in order to reduce the loading from agricultural sources." Under conservation tillage, it is noted that "one of the most promising techniques for the control of soil and nutrient losses via storm runoff is conservation tillage. Conservation tillage can be defined as either employing no-till, or minimum tillage." Mr. Bailey said this is an item which cannot be controlled by an ordinance, but must be pressed upon agricultural people through agricultural agencies. On page 33 of the report it states "protection and control of erosion on pasture land can be accomplished by controlling livestock intensity,~r by increasing the p~oductivity of Hegetation." Mr. Bailey said that is n~ce to know, but that is like some of the other practices mentioned, no one knows exactly how to do it when in a situation of a drought like that at present. Mr. Fisher said there are some suggestions made for control of agriculture lands, but nc suggestions made for residential uses of land. He asked if t~ere were any practices that people ~ho now live in residential areas can undertake to red.ucc this problem. Mr. Bailey said yes, ~nd they ~ould~be on the same basis as agricultural recommendations. There is no way to compel the limited use of fertilizers, etc. Mr. Henle~ noted that only suggestions are made for agricultural uses. He said for every one of the suggestions made, ~he ~ad writt~ down t~o or three reasons why~they ~ould not be done. No-till is great, if it works; ~t ~t does not always wor~. It takes skill and knowledge and there are twice as many failures usin this system. Mr. Henley said he could foresee different ways of handling this matter. Maybe ohe day there will be a committee made up of people who have sufficient knowledge to advise farmers. Mr. Bailey said what has been said so far illustrates graphically the problems and expectations that can be derived from non-point control. It will work sometimes and not work others. There will be ups and downs in what is coming into the reservoir and some years Will be ~etter than others. Mr. Fisher said ~e was not suggesting that an ordinance be drafted on existing land uses but because non-point sources on existing lands are a major part of non-point sources, he feels the Board will have to look for ways to encourage people~$h &ll types of land uses to help reduce the problem. He then asked if the Board wanted to discuss a proposed ordinance. Mr. Roudabush noted that a draft had been received only today. Mr. Fisher noted that the whole basis for performance control standards is that there be monitoring. This would cause a new bureaucracy and he was not sure how this would be funded. He noted that he had informa discussions with City representatives and the City seems to be willing to take on some of the responsibility, with the County, for the cost of monitoring and maybe for the cost of the procedures required for runoff permits. If this can be worked out, it might become a functio~ of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority so the cost will be paid for by the water users. Dr. Iachetta said in reading revised Chapter 6 of the Betz rep~rt.~ it had occurred to him that the County does not have staff people available, nor do~'~&~I~ity, to advise the Board on the dual funcVions they are trying to accomplish. The Board needs to have someone help formulate the rules. He suggested the Board consider asking the City to join with the County to finance the expertise to put together a workable ordinance. If this is done, the Board cannot complete that work by July 1. Mr. Roudabush said there were experts on the "Blue Ribbon Committee", and everyone said they did not know what they were talking about. He was not sure how you identified an expert anymore. Mr. St. John said he is not ready to submit for consideration what has been drafted There are some basic concepts included which he is not sure he can recommend. He noted that Mr. Bailey, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Payne and himself had collaborated in the drafting of an ~rdinanc~ which is more restrictive within the five-mile arc than what is presently in effect. Mr. Fisher said he realized that the standards are missing from the draft of the ordinance furnis~ to the Board, and that adopting this ordinance without standards or a mechanism for reviewing the plans wi~! not work well. Since he has not previously seen theaordinance, it appears that it will be difficult to have this adopted within a few weeks. Mr. Fisher said ~f there are to many problems to be worked out, he thinks the Board will have to consider an extension of the emergency ordinance. Mr. Henley said he did not see why Mr. Bailey, Dr. Iachetta, and anyone else who has something to contribute, could not get together with Dr. Grizzard fro~ V.P.Z. and see what they can come up with. He did not think the Board is going to get too mu~ more information from~the Betz people. Dr.. ¥~che~ta felt that the Board could obtain further information from Dr. Grizzard because he~~~orking on similar problems in Virginia. M: St. John said his office has been trying to get concrete standards and recommendations on th~ type of control for years, and has not been able to get anything. Nobody is going to give anything but a general guideline. Trial and error is the onl~ way anything is going to be worked out. Mrs. ~avid said if talking to Dr. Grizzard would be useful, she felt the Board May 18, 1977 (Afternoon - Adjourned from May 16, 1977) should have e×p~ora~y~'~nsei~vations with him about working with the County. he felt an answer could be received before next Monday night from Dr. Grizzard. suggested that the Board go over the schedule again at tonight's meeting. At 6:08 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Mr. Agnor said Mr. FiSher Chamrma~+~~