Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />be the recommendation of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) Stewardship Task <br />Force, which is not necessarily a new proposal. New items on the table as a result of the <br />November 3 resolution include $50,000 for water conservation study. He further <br />estimated that it would cost about $200,000 to contract a group of experts to study the <br />pipeline proposal unless the proposed expert panel could broaden its scope and review <br />both the Ragged Mountain data as well as the feasibility of the pipeline. <br /> <br /> Dr. Liz Palmer, Albemarle County Service Authority, said that if the expert panel <br />had been formed prior to receiving the data on the recent borings performed at the dam <br />site, their recommendation might have been that this was a great project and the all the <br />data was found to be valid. Having an expert panel examine the pipeline proposal <br />without doing an extensive engineering study now might still result in finding problems <br />ten years later. She said the same problems could have been encountered if the James <br />River pipeline had been pursued. <br /> <br /> Mr. Don Wagner, Albemarle County Service Authority, questioned why we want <br />to spend money now when the data will not provide the full answers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said there have been a lot of legitimate questions raised about the <br />pipeline, and the public needs to be reassured about moving forward with this option. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said that many of the neighborhood associations have expressed <br />concern about the price of the dam and lot of residents are concerned about whether they <br />were receiving accurate estimates on the dam, and by extension whether the estimates for <br />the pipeline project were reasonable or contained some type of improper methodology. <br />He said he wanted to hear some information from Tom Frederick about whether the <br />rising estimates on the dam itself are due solely to the presence of the fractured rock and <br />the need to deepen the foundation or are there other reasons why the estimates have <br />increased. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frederick said that in today’s economic climate, it is difficult to estimate how <br />much something will cost with certainty. When RWSA learned of this increase in <br />August, it was mentioned that a $37 million project in 2005-2006 would have at that time <br />been a $42 to $43 million project based solely on inflation in the construction industry. <br />RWSA has publicly stated that the major reason for the change in GF’s estimate was due <br />to their assumption based on their geophysical data review that the dam foundation needs <br />to be much deeper in the ground than what was originally proposed. Contractors will <br />incorporate the current fluctuations in gas prices when bidding on a project with a 24 – 36 <br />month time frame, unless RWSA ties fuel prices to some type of index for construction <br />projects. Mr. Frederick said he feels the best way to determine the cost of a dredging <br />operation would be to conduct a feasibility study similar to what Gahagan & Bryant has <br />recommended. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rooker said that a way to determine current market prices for a dredging <br />operation is by issuing an RFP and receive bids on the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frederick said that if a study is conducted similar to what is being <br />recommended by Gahagan & Bryant with a disposal site identified, he feels that better <br />estimates would be received. <br /> <br /> Mr. Boyd clarified that dredging by itself will not solve the 50-year water needs <br />of this community, and Mr. Frederick said that is correct. He said there might be some <br />variances in the height of the dam, but we will still need to do something else besides <br />dredging, such as some type of water impoundment / supply. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frederick said this community has received a complete review of the safe <br />yield analysis done by GF; the review was performed by Hydrologics and paid for by The <br />Nature Conservancy (TNC). During discussions about stream flows, GF was able to <br />compare and calibrate GF’s model data with Hydrologics. It was important to note that <br />two firms independently came to the same conclusion regarding the safe yield. GF <br />estimated that about 85 percent of the original volume of the SFRR could be restored <br />through a dredging operation. If you accept that assumption, the safe yield accomplished <br /> <br />