Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Presentation to City of Charlottesville Workshop South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) Dredging Concept Review May 6, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Community Water Supply Plan Update Public Meeting Monticello High School September 21, :00 pm.
Advertisements

Comparative Analysis Two Potential Sites for a New High School.
Fox River Cleanup Overview Project Participants  Responsible Parties (RPs) – NCR– Arjo Wiggins / Appleton Papers Inc. – PH Glatfelter– US Mills.
  October 11, 2000 Former Plymouth County Hospital Site Public Workshop #2 
Eliot Route 236 TIF District Sewer Extension Economic Impact Analysis April 11, 2012.
Lake Whetstone Sediment Removal by Hydraulic Dredging
CARROLL 2030 TASK FORCE APRIL 19, 2013 Infrastructure & Transportation Cluster.
Watershed Dams in Georgia 1. –357 Total –195 High Hazard (NRCS) –NRCS constructed – owned by local sponsors –Most built between 1950s-1970s for flood.
CITY OF SAN MARCOS/TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY 2015 WORK PLAN BUDGETED CONSERVATION MEASURES.
Community Water Supply Resources Implementation Strategy Lane Auditorium Albemarle County Office Building September 13, 2007.
Latest on flooding issues from Little Bear Fire: 1. New Mexico Homeland Security Director Don Scott met with two regional directors of FEMA today, Ken.
Industrial Market Overview September 2005 prepared for Presented by Raymond A. Stache Senior Director Cushman & Wakefield.
1 Manassas Park Town Meeting 29 October Welcome This is the first Manassas Park Town Meeting Governing Body implemented this as a way to improve.
Project Slide Show. This 1893 photograph is of the Prather pump in the Shasta River Canyon about five miles upstream of the mouth of the river. Large.
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Community Water Supply Mitigation Plan Public Meeting November 2, 2006.
Mudboils AEES Pre-Conference Workshop Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Nate Barlet Brandon Winfrey Roy Wood.
Water Resources Report Rob Montgomery River Flow & Lake Levels TMDL Study Floodplain mapping revisions Dredging 101.
Dredging, Disposal Management and Impacts on Lake Sediments US Army Corps of Engineers.
Lecture(3) Instructor : Dr. Abed Al-Majed Nassar
A Career in Civil Engineering Presented By: Georgia Section of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
The situation in Norway concerning sediments/dredging Tore Lundestad, Port of Borg, Norway.
Mark Kempic President Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc. Maryland-District of Columbia Utilities Association Fall Conference Fueling the Economic Engine.
Tom Singleton Associate VP, Director, Integrated Water Resources an Atkins company Linking TMDLs & Environmental Restoration.
Equus Beds ASR Program – Wichita’s Future Water Supply September 6, 2012.
COMPREHENSIVE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT : Promoting Wise Uses of Floodplains CA Department of Water Resources/ CIFMCG Workshop July 2006.
OUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY … THE PLAN FOR MEETING OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY NEEDS LAWRENCE C. TROPEA, JR., P.E.,DEE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RIVANNA WATER & SEWER.
Session 131 A community profile provides a base for overlay analysis and for discussing a hazard’s impacts on a community.
1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Indian River Lagoon North Restoration Feasibility Study Public Meeting September.
Ground Water Conditions around the Lathers Property Town of Waukesha Douglas S. Cherkauer PhD, PG, PH November 15, 2007.
May 5, 2015 Water Resources Meeting Heather Gutherless Jefferson County Planning & Zoning
NRCS NRCS Watershed Program In Texas. Water Resources AuthoritiesAuthorities Project ActivitiesProject Activities RehabilitationRehabilitation FundingFunding.
TVA Kingston Ash Recovery Project Roane County, TN Project Update September, 2012 Neil Carriker.
Department of Solid Waste Management FY11 Budget Update Mayor’s Report Harry J. Hayes, Director January 19, 2011.
Cornell University Storm Water Utility Presentation to the Water Resources Council --- November 17, 2014.
Chapter 37 Pipeline Construction. Objectives After reading the chapter and reviewing the materials presented the students will be able to: Explain the.
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Community Water Supply Mitigation Plan Public Meeting November 2, 2006.
Clinton Lake Sedimentation Earl Lewis Kansas Water Office.
The Superfund ERA Process. What is Superfund? Superfund was created on December 11, 1980 when Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
The development of communities. Why do you think the first communities started to develop? The first humans probably stuck together in family groups.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Understanding Sedimentation and Land Use Cover Relationships in the Lake Sidney Lanier Watershed Russell A.
E GNV Orange County Solid Waste Management Facility Southern Expansion Site Project.
Regional Recycling Solutions, LLC.   County purchased 103 acres in July of 1993 from Greene Land Company  Elchin Inc purchases 40 acres in April 1998.
Baseline Scenario Quality Growth Strategy.
Kwasi Badu-Tweneboah, Ph.D., P.E. – Geosyntec Consultants Jacksonville, Florida, USA Kenneth W. Cargill, P.E. – KW Cargill, P.A.. Punta Gorda, Florida,
Transportation Projects City Council Workshop May 14, 2013.
Impacts of Increased Runoff Localized flooding Changes flood plain in larger streams Changes stream channels (deepens, widens, steeper banks)
Proposed MMWD Rate Restructure MCOE District Business Officials November 4, 2015.
NID Data Model based on HUC CE394K.3 Term Project by Seungwon Won December 7, 2000.
Cleaning up the Lower Fox River Greg Hill, Wisconsin DNR Winnebago Project University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, May 23, 2008.
The Jordan Cove Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline and Terminal.
LAND Subdivie a 4.27 acres into 18 lots 17 detached single family homes One duplex Base density allows for unit Affordable housing bonus.
 Clean Water Act 404 permit  Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water 401 water quality certification  Ohio Revised Code 6111 – Placement of dredged materials.
Beneficial Use of Dredge Materials: Introduction to Dredging and Policy J. Bailey Smith US Army Corps of Engineers April 4, 2011.
1.  Quick Overview of the History and Need  What is Planned for the Fire Department  What is Planned for the Police Department  Financial Details.
Snoqualmie Retail Market Analysis Presented July 2, 2007 City of Snoqualmie.
Richland Creek Water Supply Program Briefing
The Cost savings on an Ecosystem Restoration project if the area is treated with Microbes First The example used for this comparison was the Stevenson.
North Texas Municipal Water District “Regional Service Through Unity … Meeting Our Region’s Needs Today and Tomorrow” Water Supplies Vital for the Future.
Potholes Supplemental Feed Route Project
Sand Deposits and Flooding Along the San Jacinto River
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
Economic Study for Watts Branch Stream Restoration N. E
North Georgia Water Resources Partnership Spring Annual Meeting/ Educational Seminar RUSSELL CREEK RESERVOIR April 25, 2018.
Chesterfield Neighborhood Coal Ash Update January 9th, 2019
Senator Dance Town Hall Coal Ash Update December 5, 2018
Southern Maine Dredge Purchase Feasibility Study
BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mutually Beneficial Partnerships in Groundwater Banking Paul Weghorst Irvine Ranch Water District August 15, 2019.
Southern Maine Dredge Feasibility Study:
Presentation transcript:

Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Presentation to City of Charlottesville Workshop South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) Dredging Concept Review May 6, 2008  Previous Studies  Other Communities Experience  Cost and Other Considerations  Summary & Conclusion OVERVIEW

Current & Future Conditions Approximately 2.2 million CY of sediment has accumulated in the useable storage portion of SFRR In the 50 year planning period, an additional 3 million CY is projected to be deposited Approximately 5 million CY must be removed over this 50 year period Dredging must continue in perpetuity Results in ~ 100,000 CY of material that must be dredged per year for 50 years plus 75,000 CY per year after 2055

Sediment Volume In Scott Stadium…… The annual dredged material volume would stack up to approximately 26 feet deep. Total dredged material removed over 50 years would fill the stadium roughly 20 times. Carl Smith Center, home of David A. Harrison III Field at Scott Stadium

Safe Yield Urban System Safe Yield is 12.8 MGD based on current useable volume at SFRR and historical voluntary stream releases If nothing is done at SFRR, safe yield will fall to about 8.8 MGD by 2055 due to lost volume If SFRR were restored as closely as possible to original conditions, the Urban System safe yield would be 14.3 MGD Regulators are likely to require additional stream releases and the safe yield would decrease

Many Logistical Uncertainties Where is the removed sediment slurry dewatered and disposed? Can it be disposed at dewatering site or is re-handling and offsite disposal required? Is any of the material marketable? Is land purchase required for dewatering and disposal? Hydraulic Dredging is predictable. Dewatering and disposal of the sediment is not.

2004 Investigations Landowners near SFRR were consulted and no one indicated they would accept 5 million CY of sediment Dredging contractors were contacted to confirm cost estimates for sediment removal at $5 / CY Charlottesville area contractors contacted (including Parham, Faulconer, and A.G. Dillard) –No market for this quantity as topsoil or general fill –Believe that disposal cost would be about $15 / CY depending on distance to disposal site –Many concerns about sediment make-up Confirmed land value with County Assessors Office at $16,500 per acre

Key Decision Pump to adjacent disposal site OR Use onsite dewatering and transport to offsite disposal site –Local Topography (need flat areas) –Available disposal sites adjacent to SFRR Selected Onsite dewatering and transport –Not enough flat terrain adjacent to SFRR –Much more costly –Local roads impacts

Experience of Other Communities Most dredging is done on coastal and navigation projects Large scale reservoir dredging projects are few. Examples: –City of Fairfax Goose Creek Reservoir –Fairfax County Lake Accotink –City of Decatur Lake Decatur

Other Community Experience 200,000 cubic yards of material dredged Pumped into adjacent dewatering/disposal –Approx.15 acre site was cleared –Approx. 70 feet high Was regulated as a dam – Gannett Fleming designed decommissioning Cost $2.44 million in 1997 (~$12/CY) 2 years to complete Current day unit cost would be about $18/CY –Excludes land cost

Fairfax County Lake Accotink Statistics 204,000 cubic yards of material to be dredged Pumped to dewatering/disposal in nearby industrial development –Approx. 3 miles pumping –Material to be used as general fill on industrial site –Project is located in congested urban environment Project will be complete later this year (2 years total) Selected as dredging method to avoid truck traffic Cost $9.5 million (~$47/CY)

Lake Decatur Statistics City has 2 projects One completed by a contractor in 1994 One ongoing project using City forces (started in 2004) City purchased 520 acre site located about 1 mile away for dewatering and permanent disposal –Disposal site is very flat –Used for both projects

Current Lake Decatur Project Statistics About 4.9 million CY of sediment remain and will take 26 years to complete at the current rate City is examining cost to improve pace and shorten time to 5-15 years Estimated remaining cost is $29.7M to $60.3M (~$6-$12 / CY) –Excludes land cost and initial capital cost. Includes some allowance for material reuse. According to Mr. Keith Alexander Director of Water Management

Photo provided by Keith Alexander City of Decatur Director of Water Management

Photo provided by Keith Alexander City of Decatur Director of Water Management

Cost and Other Considerations …..So what does this mean for SFRR??

Almost 1 square mile Dewatering / Disposal Area for Lake Decatur Available continuous flat area near SFRR

Summary Available land for disposal of 5 million CY of sediment adjacent to SFRR is limited –Can not pump to single disposal site like Decatur because very little flat land available near SFRR Land cost in Charlottesville is relatively high Marketability for 5 million CY over 50 years is uncertain Cost for construction of deep sediment disposal facilities like Goose Creek Reservoir will drive costs up dramatically Tree clearing may also be required

Compare to Current Water Supply Plan The current Water Supply Plan including the Expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir will provide an estimated Urban System safe yield of 18.7 MGD If dredging were implemented, it would provide an estimated Urban System safe yield of only 14.3 MGD. –Dredging in perpetuity is required –An additional project would need to be constructed that provides an additional 4.4 MGD. –Additional cost for repairs in the existing system (such as SHR to RMR pipeline replacement and correcting deficiencies at RMR) would also be required. –Repairs to the existing RMR must be made.

Conclusions “…Gannett Fleming continues to conclude that future discussion of the costs and benefits of dredging as a program for the SFRR would better serve the community if studied in the context of maintenance of the reservoir, considering water quality, recreational, and aesthetic objectives, as opposed to water supply objectives...” (1) Note (1): excerpt from Gannett Fleming Memo dated June 15, 2005

Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority OVERVIEW Thank you……..