1. No category

Virginia State Corporation Commission
eFiling CASE Document Cover Sheet
Case Number (if already assigned)
PUE-2013-00047
Case Name (if known)
Joint Petition of Aqua Virginia, Inc and Caroline Water
Company, Inc .
Document Type
RQFH
Document Description Summary
Request for Hearing for Lake Caroline Property
Owners Association
Total Number of Pages
56
Submission ID
7341
eFiling Date Stamp
8/16/2013 8:44:49AM
1-b
W
a
00
A
GreeneHudocker
PA
W
Attorneys at Law
Brian Ft. Greene
GREENEHuRLocKr=R, PLC
(5
707 East Main St, Suite 1025
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 672-4542 (Direct)
kMnaftreeoghudacker.com
August 16, 2013
By Electronic Filina
Mr. Joel H. Peck, Clerk
State Corporation Commission
Document Control Center
Tyler Building, First Floor
1300 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Re:
Joint Petition of Aqua Virginia, Inc. and Caroline Water
Company, Inc
PUE-2013-00047
Dear Mr. Peck :
Enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter please find the Request for
Hearing of the Lake Caroline Property Owners Association, Inc.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Brian R. Greene
BRGtwd
Enclosures
C:
Mr. Richard Clarke
Service List
www.GreeneHurlocker.com
00
4
COMMONWALTH OF VIRGRqIA
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
1-4
W
43
00
00
-Ok
JOINT PETITION OF
AQUA VIRGINIA, INC.,
Case No. PUE-2013-00047
and
CAROLINE WATER COMPANY, INC.
d/b/a LADYSMITH WATER COMPANY
For approval of a transfer of utility assets pursuant
to the Utility Transfers Act, Va. Code § 56-88 et seq.
REQUEST FOR HEARING
OF THE
LAKE CAROLINE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
The Lake Caroline Property Owners Association, Inc. ("Association!), by counsel,
pursuant to ordering paragraph 6 of the Coninfission's June 3, 2013 Order for Notice and
Comment, requests an evidentiary hearing relating to the May 6, 2013 Joint Petition filed by
Aqua Virginia, Inc. ("Aqua!) and Caroline Water Company, Inc. d/b/a Ladysmith Water
Company ("Caroline Water") (collectively,"Petitioners').
1.
Introduction and Backeroun
The Petitioners have requested, under the Utility Transfers Act, § 56-88 el seq. of the
Code of Virginia, approval of a sale by Caroline Water to Aqua of utility assets located in
Caroline County, Virginia. In addition, the Petitioners have requested approval to trander
Caroline Water's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to furnish public utility
service in Caroline Water's certificated service territory from Caroline Water to Aqua, pursuant
to § 56-265 .3 D of the Code of Virginia, and any other necessary authority to serve the Lake
Caroline community.
Under the Utility Transfers Act, the Petitioners have the burden of proving that their
proposed transaction will not impair or jeopardize "adequate service to the public at just and
reasonable rates."' Under the Utility Facilities Act~ the Petitioners have the burden of proving
that the proposed transaction is in the public interest, and the Commission may authorize the
tranuction subject to conditions that will promote the public interest. 2
The Petitioners' proposed transaction must be viewed, and ultimately decided, through
the lense of the long and complex history regarding Caroline Water's service to the Lake
Caroline community. For years, the Association, Commission Staff, Caroline County, and the
Commission have expended resources to ensure that the Lake Caroline community receives
reliable water service at just and reasonable rates. The Petitioners' proposed transaction involves
numerous issues that will have a significant impact on water service both in the near- and longterms, yet the Petitioners have not addressed these issues in fidl in their Joint Petition. Other
issues have simply not been raised . More importantly, there is no factual evidence in the record
as to any issue. Yet, the issues in this case are not as simple or straightforward as the Petitioners
seemingly would have this Commission believe. Without a complete factual record, there is no
way the Commission can determine whether the Petitioners have satisfied their burdens of proof
under the Utility Transfers Act and the Utility Facilities Act.
A hearing is necessary to address the issues described below, and others as may become
evident throughout the course of the proceeding. The issues described below are not mutually
exclusive, as the determination of one issue is likely to impact other issues and, collectively, play
I Va, Code § 56-90.
'Va. Code § 56-265 .3 .D.
2
1-6
W
0
a large role in the future of water service in the Lake Caroline community. At the heart of the
Association's concerns is the absolute and unequivocal desire - indeed, obligation - to forever
protect the residents' recreational use and enjoyment of Lake Caroline. The issues raised below
certainly are related to this public interest concern and also impact reliability, rates, and terms
and conditions of water service in the Lake Caroline community.
H.
Request for Hearing
A.
Any approval of the transaction should include a condition that Aqua, for as
long as it Is the fi-anchised water provider, never take action that would in
any manner impede or inhibit the recreational use of Lake Caroline.
The Association is concerned that, if the transaction is allowed, Aqua will, at some point
in the future, take action that will impede the recreational use of Lake Caroline. Lake Caroline is
a 277-acre recreation lake containing an estimated 1 .5 bidlion gallons of ftesh water and other
small lakes situated throughout the development .3 Preservation and enjoyment of the Uke are
paramount to residents of the Lake Caroline community and also to Caroline County. As County
witness John Boryschuk testified in Case No. PUE-2005-00115 :
. . . the community residents don't want to see that lake used as a County reservoir.
They use it for recreational purposes. That is, to a certain extent, the reason for
the existence of the community. It is a lake community. People swim and boat
and fish in it. And they have made it rather plain to the County and the Board of
Supervisors that it's their desire that [the] lake remain a recreational lake, to
which the County has respected repeatedly that they agree that that's what it is,
it's a recreational lake. And it pretty much, if anything were to happen to take
away the recreational use of that lake, the community as it is now would really not
be the same . You know, there would be no reason for many of these people to
continue having their homes, since that's what drew them them to begin with .4
W Boryschuk continued that jeopardizing the recreational use of Lake Caroline would have a
"major impact" on Caroline County because its tax base and property values would decrease .5
' Case No. PUE-2005-00115, Testimny of Jerry NorviUe at 4 (filed Nov. 6, 2006).
4 Case No. PUE-2005-00115, Transcript of Hearing at 99 (J. Boryscliuk).
5 Id. at 1 ()0 .
3
I.a
W
0
With no factual record in this proceeding, the Commission cannot be assured that Aqua
will not take action in the fiture that would impede the recreational use of Lake Caroline.
Although Aqua stated in a discovery response that it will operate "in accordance with all
regulations and permits which by design, will not impede recreational use of Lake Caroline,"
Aqua seemingly will not agree, as was requested in the discovery request, to provide written
assurance to the Association and the Commission that it will not take any action, such as
modifying current permits or selling water off-system, that would impede the current recreational
use of Lake Caroline. 6 In fact~ as explained in more detail below, Aqua's desire to sell water
from Lake Caroline to Caroline County on an emergency basis and perhaps "from time to time,"
and potentially to sell water to other Aqua systems, raises concerns that future recreational use
could be jeopardized . 7 Add to this the potential of Aqua seeldng to increase the rating capacity
of the water facility, and it is clear that the issue of continued recreational use, and the actions
Aqua has highlighted and discussed more fully below that could impact recreational use, deserve
to be fleshed out in an evidentiary hearing.
B.
There is no evidence in the record that Aqua's request to rebuild the
Caroline Water facility is necessary or reasonable, or in the public interest
Caroline Water discontinued water treatment plant operations on April 6, 2009 and began
purchasing 100% of its water supply from Caroline County on an "interim" or 46emergency"
basis.8 On February 7, 201 1, the Commission entered an Order requiring Caroline Water to
6 Petitioners Response to the Association's Interrogatory No. 4, attached as Exhibit 1.
7 Petitioners Response to the Association's Interrogatory No. 6 (stating that
Aqua may sell water to
Caroline County "during an emergency, or f3rom time to time . . .."), attached as Exhibit 2; see also
Response to Staff Interrogatory No. 3 (stating that Aqua would consider selling water to other Aqua
systems "if project costs are justified and benefit ratepayers," and that any sale of water rights would have
no negative impact on Lake Caroline), attached as Exhibit 3.
a Report of Michael D. Thomas, Hearing Examiner at 7, Case No. PUE-2005-00115 (Jan. 14,2010) .
4
I-A
W
a
co
hi
0
10
$-A
W
purchase, on a permanent basis, 100% of its water supply firom the County.9 In reaching this
decision, the Commission undertook an analysis comparing the proposed cost to rebuidd with the
cost of purchased water, and the impact that each option would have on rates. The Commission
made the factual determination that purchasing water from the County, as opposed to Caroline
Water's proposed rebuild of the facility, would be a less costly alternative for ratepayers. The
Commission adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendation that "the cost to the Company's
ratepayers of wholesale water purchase would be significantly less than the cost associated with
rebuilding the Company's treatment facilities .'" .
The Petitioners would have the Commission undo its February 7, 201 1 Order and rebuild
the water facility. There is no evidence supporting the Petitioners' request on this issue,
including not only the comparative costs of a rebuild versus purchased water but also the
reasonableness of Aqua's proposed repairs and their costs. Moreover, when litigating Case No.
PUE-2005-00115, Caroline Water proposed improvements to the water facility that totaled
approximately $3 million, much of which was the product of a PER and which Caroline Water
testified were necessary to make the facifity operational. There is no evidence yet in this
proceeding to explain whether Aqua's proposed improvements, which total much less than $3
million, are sufficient or reasonable, and how or why they differ fium Caroline Water's proposal
just a few years ago.
Finally as to the issue of rebuild versus purchased water, Caroline Water's
interconnection with the County has been in place now for over four years. The Commission
may need to determine whether allowing Aqua to rebuild the water facility would result in
redundant or duplicative facilities, as there would be an interconnection and also a rebuilt
' Order, Case No. PUE-2005-00115 (Feb. 7, 201 1).
'old. at 6-7.
H
W
facility. It is generally accepted that the original purpose of the Utility Facilities Act was to
prevent the economic waste and public inconvenience resulting from duplication of utility
facilities ." The Commission has determined that the uneconomic and wasteful duplication of
utility facilities is contrary to the public interest, and a concern for duplication of facilities
permeates the Utility Facilities Act.
12 In fact, the Virginia Supreme Court specifically found that
"the public ultimately pays" for duplication of facilities. 13 Similarly, the Commission has
determined that the Utility Facilities Act "was designed to avoid wasteful and costly duplication
of public utility facilities."14 Here, the Lake Caroline ratepayers have paid for the cost of the
interconnection, and now they are being asked to also pay for the rebuild. Whether a rebuild, as
Petitioners propose, is consistent with the Utility Facilities Act should be the subject of an
evidentiary hearing.
C.
There is no evidence in the record that Aqua's intention to reduce Lake
Caroline's safe yield to 1.4 MGD from 2.2 MGD is reasonable; in contrast,
the appropriate safe yield could be lower than 1.4 MGD.
Aqua intends to seek a reduction in the current safe yield for Lake Caroline from 2.2
MGD to 1 .4 MOD. While the Association welcomes this reduction, it might not be enough
even the Lake's current vohune and depth levels which have changed considerably over time.
The Safe Yield Analysis that Aqua presented in discovery, performed on August 6, 2013, used
data from 2001-2002. In 2008, the Association retained GKY & Associates, Inc. ("GKY") to
1 1 See e.g., July 14, 1972 Memorandum to All Electric Utilities fi= the Commission's Director Public
Utilities, 1987 Manual of Commission Rules, Regulations, Directives, Instructions and Circulars
Governing Virginia Public Utilities at Vol. 11 1 .42. 1, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4.
" Application ofCommonwealth Gas Services, Inc and Virginia Natural Gas, Inc For a certificate of
fublic convenience and necessity, Case No. PUE-1986-00063, 1987 SCC Ann. Rept. 266.
3 Id. at 267 (citing Jessup v. Commonwealth, 174 Va. 133, 138 (1939) and Petersburg, Hopewell and
City Point Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 152 Va. 193, 201 (1929)).
14 Application of Commonwealth Gas Pipeline Corporation For a certificate ofpublic convenience and
necessity under the Virginia Utility Facilities Act, Case No. PUE- 1989-00072, November 22,1989 Order
on Motion for Jurisdictional Determination at 3.
conduct a bathymetric survey and provide dredging volume computations for areas of the Lake .
In the Lake Caroline Bathymetry & Dredging Study, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5,
GKY concluded that, from 1978 to 2006, Lake Caroline incurred a total volumetric decrease of
13.64%, and another 1 .01% from 2006 to 2008 ." GKY estimated that, since 1978, Lake
Caroline has reduced in volume by approximately 25 million cubic feet, a reduction that is likely
the result of silt, sediment, and organic matter flowing into the Lake from intermittent and
perennial feeder streams. 16 In sum, GKY concluded that, "sedimentation has led to a significant
loss of storage volume in the lake."17 These 2008 findings regarding the significant reduction in
Lake volume, compared with Aqua's reliance on 2002 data for its safe yield analysis, call into
question -whether the appropriate safe yield for the Lake should be lower than 1 .4 MGD.
Whether a reduction in the safe yield to 1 .4 MGD is reasonable should be considered in
an evidentiary hearing. The determination of that issue could impact Aqua's desire to increase
the rating capacity of the cur-rent facility, as Aqua suggests it might do and which is explained
below. It could also impact Aqua's ability to sell water off-system to Caroline County or to any
other purchaser, also discussed below. Moreover, it underscores the importance of protecting the
recreational use of Lake Caroline.
D.
Evidence is needed with respect to Aqua's intentions regarding the facility's
current permitted withdrawal capacity.
When asked in discovery whether it intends to seek modifications to the withdrawal
permit establishing a 0.576 MGD rating for the facility, Aqua responded that it intends to rebuild
the facility "within the existing VDH issued Operations permit of 0 .576 MGD based on the
ExMbit :5 at 8-9.
Id. at 9.
Id. at 5.
I-&
W
Im
ca
treatment filter unit capacity which will be replaced ."18 That response sounds Re Aqua does not
intend to increase the facility's rating. However, Aqua also produced in discovery a Minor
Surface Water Withdrawal Permit Application for the Caroline Water System. A copy of the
pertinent portions of the application is attached as Exhibit 7. In the application, Aqua states that
Im the event domestic water can be supplied to Caroline County as a back-up to its water supply
system, future daily withdrawal would be 1 .2 MGD." Aqua continues that, "[tlhe existing
withdrawal supplies water to the existing Ladysmith Water Company plant with a rated capacity
of 0.576 MGD, which is readily expandable to 1.2 MGD."'9 This reference to a potential
expansion from 0.576 MGD to 1 .2 MGD begs numerous questions, such as whether and when
Aqua intends to increase the facility's rating capacity, not to mention what, if any, impact that
may have on reliability, rates, the recreational use of the Lake, and the public interest in general.
E.
Evidence Is needed with respect to Aqua's Intention to sell water from Lake
Caroline outside of the Lake Caroline community.
As explained above, in discovery responses, Aqua has stated its intention to keep the
current interconnection with the County intact and to sell water to the County on an emergency
basis or from time to time . Also as stated above, Aqua has included in an application with the
DEQ a statement that should it render service to the County, it will need to increase the pernfitted
capacity of the current fiLcility. Furthermore, Aqua has not ruled out selling water from Lake
Caroline to other Aqua systems.
Aqua's intent to sell water off-system raises at least three concerns on which evidence is
needed . First, there is an issue as to whether Aqua legally may sell water from Lake Caroline to
anyone other than residents of the Caroline community. In 1970, the developer, Lake Caroline,
Petitioners Response to the Association's Inteffogatory No. 2, attached as Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 7 at 5.
I"
W
0
PA
W
0
Inc., conveyed Lake Caroline to the Association." In Caroline Water Company, Inc., v. Lake
Caroline Property Owners Association, Inc., At Law No. 980069 (Cir. Ct. Caroline County Sept.
22, 1999), the Court analyzed a 1970 deed and a 1971 corrected deed by which the developer,
Lake Caroline, Inc., conveyed the water system, land, etc., to Caroline Water. The Court
determined that, under the deed and corrected deed, the conveyance fimn the developer to
Caroline Water "carried with it [an] implied easement to draw water fium Lake Caroline without
compensation to the defendantfor the purpose ofserving lots in the Lake Caroline
Development."21 (Emphasis added). Since Aqua would only acquire from Caroline Water an
implied easement to serve lots in the Caroline development, Aqua would not be allowed to
expand that implied easement and sell water to Caroline County, other Aqua systems, or other
purchasers outside of the Lake Caroline community. 'Me sale of water outside of the Lake
Caroline community is not consistent with the current implied easement nor does it satisfy the
common law elements necessary to establish an implied easement to sell off-system . 22
Second, assuming off-system sales are allowable, Aqua's intent to sell water off-system
could lead to reliability issues, impact rates, and would raise public interest concerns. Aqua's
proposal to sell off-system would result in increased revenues for Aqua, but there is no proposal
before the Commission relating to the sharing of these revenues between Aqua's shareholders
and the Caroline Water ratepayers. It would not be fair (and possibly unlawful) to the residents
of the Lake Caroline community - who have cared fbr the Lake, who own the Lake, and who
A cM of the September 19, 1970 dead conveying the Lake to the Association is attached as Exhibit S.
A copy of the Caroline County Circuit Court, s September 22, 1999 judgment Order is attached as
1FTh It 9.
22 See, e-g-, Brmm v. Haley, 233 Va. 210, 219 (1987), holding that "[w]hen a landowner conveys a
portion of his land, he implieffly conveys an easement for any use that is continuous, apparent, reasonably
necessary for the enjoyment of the property conveyed, and in existence at the time of the conveyance.,'
Here, off-systm sales do not satisfy those legal elements necessary for an implied easement because
there have never been any off-system sales, nor are such sales "necessary for the enjoyment of the
property conveyW."
have been forced to live with Caroline Water's problems on a seemingly daily basis - to receive
no benefit from off-system sales. There is also a concern about whether such revenues should be
included in Aqua's consolidated rate structure or be reserved solely for the benefit of the Lake
Caroline community.
Finally, it should be noted that in Case No. PUE-2002-00094, the Commission agreed
with the Association and directed Caroline Water to remove fi-om its proposed tariff a provision
allowing it to sell water off-system .23 Aqua's request would undo that prior decision, yet Aqua
has presented no evidence that it is reasonable to do so.
F.
Evidence is needed for Aqua to show that its proposed transaction Will lead
to rates that are just and reasonable.
Aqua states that the base rates for Caroline Water customers will remain the same until
the community is metered and sufficient time passes to assess usage, at which time Aqua will file
a rate case and incorporate Caroline Water customers into its consolidated rate structure .24 in
discovery, Aqua estimates what the rates might be under its consolidated rate structure, but on
this issue the Commission must find, under the Utility Transfers Act that the proposed
transaction will not impair just and reasonable rates. Given the long history of rate-related
proceedings involving Caroline Water, including Case No. PUE-2005-00115 which has been an
open case for almost eight full years, evidence is needed as to this transaction's impact on rates.
Furthermore, the Association has long contended that the current water rates are
excessive as a result of the Company's shift to purchasing 100% of its supply from the County.
The Commission in its February 7, 201 1 Order in Case No. PUE-2005-00115 directed Caroline
Water to file a rate case no later than July 29, 201 1, but Caroline Water did not comply with this
directive, sought extensions, and ultimately submitted an incomplete rate case application in
230rder at 12, Case No. PLTE-2002-00094 (Dec. 15, 2004).
24 See, e.g., Joint Petition at 2, 6-7.
10
00
October 201 1 . The Association has on two occasions requested that the Commission enter a
procedural schedule and proceed with the rate case. In any event, while that rate case sits idle,
Caroline Water's ratepayers continue to be charged, and to pay, too much for their water service.
Testimony is needed with respect to whether Aqua's curr-ent proposal would impair just and
reasonable rates in the short-term by continuing the current excessive rates while improvements
are made to the water facility .
1111.
Conclusion
The Association is not, as of this date, firmly opposed to the proposed transaction, but
evidence is needed to ensure that the Lake Caroline ratepayers' interests are protected . It may
very well be that the Commission, with input from the parties and Commission Staff, can fashion
conditions on the transaction to ensure that the recreational use of Lake Caroline is never
jeopardized, that the Caroline community directly benefits from any reasonable and necessary
off-system sales in which Aqua engages, and that reasonable rates and reliable service am not
impaired. The Association, through the introduction of written and oral testimony, including
cross-examination, looks forward to fleshing out these issues and developing a complete factual
record to ensure that its members' interests are protected and that the transaction, should it go
forward, complies with applicable law.
WHEREFORE, the Association requests that the Commission issue a notice setting this
matter for an evidentiary hearing, including the filing of written testimony.
11
I-A
43
43
00
N3
Q
14
Q0
Al
f-A
W
a
Respectfully submitted,
LAKE CAROLINE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
%
A
By Counsel
11,
Brian R. Greene (VSR438215)
GreeneHurlocker, PLC
707 East Main Sbvet
Suite 1025
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Tel. (804) 672-4542
Fax (804) 672-4540
BGreene(Wreeneflurlockencom
CERTUICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Participation was mailed on August 16,
2013 to:
Anthony J. Gambardella, Jr.
Woods Rogers PLC
Riverfivnt Plaza, West Tower
901 E Byrd St, Suite 1550
Richmond VA 23219
C. Meade Browder, Jr.
Sr. Assistant Attorney General
Office of the. Attorney General
Division of Consumer Counsel
900 East Main St., Second Floor
Richmond VA 23219
Mary 1~L Hopper
Regulatory Counsel
Aqua America, Inc.
762 W. Lancaster Ave.
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Douglas A. Scott
Douglas A. Scott, PLC
1805 Monument Ave
Richmond VA 23220
Bryan D. Stogdale
Frederick D. Ochsenhirt
State Corporation Commission
P.O. Box 1197
Richmond, VA 23218
*146.
12
EXHIBff
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE CORPORATION CONMSSION
JOINT PETITION OF AQUA VIRGINIA, INC.
and CAROLINE WATER COAVANY
SCC CASE NO. PUE-2013-00047
Response to Lake Caroline Property Owners Association, Inc.'s
Interrogatories and Document Requests (Set 1)
E
Interrogatory #4:
Would Aqua agree to provide a written assurance to the Association and the Commission that it
will not take any action, such as modifying current permits or selling water off-system, that
would in any way impede the current recreational use of Lake Caroline?
Response :
Aqua Virginia, Inc. is regulated by the State Corporation Commission (SCC),
VVinia Department ofHeafth (YDII), and the Department ofEn4ronmental Quality (DEP).
Aqua wiU operate thefaciUdes in accordance with all regulations andpermirs which by
design, will not impede recreational use of Lake Caroline Infact, the revisedpermit being
requested under Aqua~ further reduces the historic safeyield amount from Z2 MGD to L4
MGD. Aqua has been very clear aboutprotecting the Lake in its communications with the
State Corporation Commissio?4 Caroline County, the VDH, DEQ, and the Lake Caroline
P~-qperty Owners Association meeting held on March 12d4 2013.
The fbregoing response, and attached responses are made, by and under the supervision of
Clifton L. Parker, IV, P.E., Director, Corporate Development and Engineering of Aqua
Virginia, Inc.
6
1-h
W
40
M
hi
40
F-A
1 BB1I
:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
JOINT PETITION OF AQUA VIRGINLA., INC .
and CAROLINE WATER COMPANY
SCC CASE NO. PUE-2013-00047
Response to Lake Caroline Property Owners Association, Inc.'s
Interrogatories and Document Requests (Set 1)
Interrogatory #6:
Describe in detail any discussions between Aqua and any third party regarding the potential sale
by Aqua of water to be withdrawn ftom Lake Caroline. Provide copies of all documents used in
any such discussions and identify each entity and individual that participated in the discussions .
Response :
On March 20, 2013, Aqua Virginia Presiden4 Shannon Becker, Director of
Corporate Development and Engineering, Clifton Parker, PE, and Operations Manager, Tim
Castillo met with Caroline County staff including County Administrator, Mr. Culley, Board
Member, Mr. Acors, and Utility Director, Mr. SchiebeL During this meeting Aqua indicated
its intentions to repair the waterfdter and the desire to turn the emergency interconnect into a
normally closed emergency interconnec4 which could be usedfor eitherparty in an
emergency as stated in the Joint Petition. The consensus was that worldng together beneflaed
all customers and would be in the interest ofpublic health. Until the SCC has ruled in this
transfer case, nofurther activity will occur on this matter. ShouldAqua sell water to Caroline
County during an emergency, orfrom time to time, the additional revenuefrom water sales
would help mitigatefuture water rate increases and therefore beneflt Lake Caroline
customers.
This meeting was conversational only and no agreements or documents m1A
The foregoing response and attached responses are made by and under the supervision of
Clifton L Parker, IV, P.E., Director, Corporate Development and Engineering of Aqua
Virginia, Inc.
8
PA
W
00
0
0
A
EE-XHIIBrr
I Do any plans exist for intmwmecting with other nearby Aqua Virginia owned
water utHities, such. as Lake lmd`Or~ and sharing water supply sources, in either the
near-term or long-term? If so, what would be Aqua Virginia!s plans for the DEQ issued
surface water withdrawal permit? If selling the water wfthdrawal rights is NOT one of
the options~ would Aqua Virginia be willing to provide Caroline Watur Homeowners
Association a written assurance regarding that water withdrawal pemit?
Aqua does not Wendlo Waconnectwith otherAqua Virginia systems such avLake
Land'Or In the near%4erm; however, as both system continue to develop over time
resources could be shared to heneflt users #project cos& arejustifted and beneJU
ratepayem Aqua has no plans to sell water righ&from Me water withdrawalpermit or
have any negathoe hMact on Lake Caroline wha&oepm Aqua has met with DEV,
FIDH, and the Lake Cbroline .POA and made It vny dearprofecdan ofthe Lake ft
paramount Aqua & worldng to emAtare the water wfthdrawd andprotect the Lake ht
cooperation wah VDH and DEQ to be certain the Lake can be used by the community
Can Na. PUB 2013-M7. Mmgafmy&1NbJRq"n= Page J
W
#4
w
0
for recreational and other benejldd use. Aqua Is not only willing, but kiends, to
anum Lake Caronne homeowners ofI& conunitment to the Lake wh Ich Is at the h eart
oftheir commnky.
cm)VO. PUE20134wa, iwvrcswmysdmol pj4wLw. POP 2
cc
A
W
.,,4M0NWEALT1+ OF V1RGjrjj,,
'7'
sox 1197
XICMMOXM VA- US
?&"PW0N&7VWM11
STATE MRPORATION COMAHMON
amalom or
PUSUC LmLrrgn
July 14, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO ALL ELECTRIC U==ES
PROCEDURES UNDER THE ifrILITY FACILITIES ACT AND HOUSE BILL 967
As originally conceived the purpose of the Ut:L3.ity
Facilities Act was to prevent the economic wasta .and public
inconveuience rasult:Lng from duplication of utility facilities .
Consequently, the Act provides for the division of the state
i nto terr i tori es wi thin whi ch on ly one utili ty o f a kind can
lawfully operate .
Further the Act forbids a utility to zwn
any public utility facilities outside its own territory without
a certificate from the Commission permitting it to do so .
Withou-t
such a certificate it cannot enlarge its plant "except ordinary
extensions or improvements in the usual course of business within
the territory in which it is lawfully authorized to operate" .
This ph=ase was originally deemed to imply that the utility
company could construct facilities for the generation, transmission
and selling of elect-ricity in its own territory without further
authority from the Commission .
Although not required to do so,
-the utilit4es as a matter of practice applied for certificates
for tranandsaion lines within as well as outside their territories .
111 .42 .1
00018~
I
ca
-A
-2The Commission did not govern where f acilities were to be
located or what they ware to look like .
AM authority in this
area rested solely with the localities th--ougb zoning ordinances .
The only "intei6sted parties" requiring notification of application
for certification ware those companies in whose territory the
pla=ed construction mas located .
The Con titution of Virginia which boonne effective JulY
1, 1971 in Article XI, "ConservationO, illustrates the increased
concern of legislators,
administrators and the public for the
environmonta2 well-being of the Commonwealth .
This Article and
recent Acts of the Virginia Assembly, specifically House Bill NO .
967,
(Chapter 652, Acts of Assembly 1972 ; §56-46 .1 Code of Virginia)
have given the Commission now responsibilities .
Zz the future, Certificates of Convenience and Necessity will
be required for electric utility facilities
1.
in the fo2l~winq instances :
Within a utility's service area :
a.
Por transmission lines of 200 kilovolts or
more as described in §56-46 .1 and for substations associated with such lines .
b.
For generating units of 10,000 kilowatts or
I
more construction of which has not co=zonced on
the date of this memorandum .
2.
All ra.-acilitios outside of the utilitY'S ServiCS
area.
000183
111 .42 .2
t4
W
10
0
-3House Bill 961 requires the Commission to .9i've CQnsideration to the effect of electrical utility facilities an
the environment whenever approval of proposed construction
is required .
In order to facilitate the administrative
procedurets all applications where approval is required for
transmission lines and power plants shall include information
coxxce=ing the i=act the proposed construction, will have on
the environment.
This information shall include
necessarily be limited to)
10
(but not
the following :
1.
The necessity for the project .
2.
Infor=tion concerning alternate locations
which have been considered .
3.
Design data of the facility including
appro3d-te size, material and appearance .
4.
In the case of transmission liner., information
should be submitted concerning the width of
right-of-way, width of clearing, method of
clearing, method of disposal of trees and
bxmsh, proposed ground cover and maintenance
of the right-of-way alter the line is constructed .
5.
In the case of power plants, detailed information
should be submitted concerning emissions into the
atxosphera or water, waste heat disposal, and
cons--tive use of water .
0
800181
111-42 .3
1-h
-46.
A list of the state agencies which may
reasonably be expected to have an interest
in the proposed construction .
Certification of electric transmission lines of 200 kv
or more where required by 556-46 .1 shall be preceded by at least
30 days advance notice by publication once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in newspapers of general cixculation in the
counties and municipalities through which the line is proposed
to be built .
Approval is conditioned on the Commission's
determination that the route the line is to follow will reasonably
minimize adverse impact on the scenic, envixonmenta2 and historic
assets of the area concrened .
Prior to such approval any interested
party including residents or propetty owners in each county ormunicipality through which the transmission line is proposed to be
built may request a public hearing .
The commission will hold such
hearing as soon as reasonably practicable after the request .
-Certification is contingent upon proof b_v the utility that existing
in
rights-of-way do not adequately serve the needa .of the utility .
the case of generating stations and- in all other caies; whe-re the
Co=nission deems it desirable to have a formal hearing under 556-265 .2
notice substantially the same as that specified in 556-46 .1 shall be
given .
All applications for certificates for facilities should
be accompanied by two capies of a map showIng the location Or
route oil the proposed const=uction .
county maps published by the
000185
0
111-42 .4
a
-5State Highway DQPI%rtzm!nt Will Continue to be used for this
puxpose .
It is suggested that copies of 'applications for
transmission lines of 200 kv and over or for power plant
be
sent to all Sta:te agencies having conce= with environmental
matters which may be affected by the proposed construction .
It is further recommended that transmission lines be constructed
to the extent practicable in accordance with the guidelines
set forth by the Fec~eral Power Commission in Appendix A,
Docket No .
R-365, order No . 424, issued November 27, 1970 .
These guidelines have also been publisheE in booklet form by
the FPC entitled Electric Power Transmission and the Environment .
Copies of House Bill 967 and the guidelines are attached .
Yours very truly,
Exmast X. Jordan, J
000186
111 .42 .3
EXHIBIT
4U9 LmfiyM CMW Drive
suitelm
Chmmlly. VA 20151
703 .970-7000 (ph) 703 .642 .5367 (fax)
www.Sky.com
GKY & Associates, Inc.
Lake Carolm
&Dredg!MSk*
5
F-b
Tabk ofConkn&
Area Description ...... . ................................................................. . ............................................................. 3
Bethymetric Me&odokUTechnical Approach . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 5
Bethymetry Remits
Summary of Results. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . .. . .. . . . . .. . ... .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. ... ... . . . . . . . . 5
Bathymetric Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 6
Morphologic and Bathymetric Changes From 2006 - 2009 . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Dred&g-.
___.___J9
Dredging Overview . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . .... . . ... . . ..... .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . ... . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . ... . . .. . . . ... . . .. .. . . ... . . . ... . . ... . . . . .. . . . .... . . . . ..9
Dredging Volume Quantity Takeoff . . . ... . .. ... . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . . ... . . . . . .. . . .... . . .. . . .... . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . ... . . . . . .. . . ... .. . . .. . . . .... . . .. .. 9
Dredging Options. . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . ... . . .... . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . .. . .... . . ... . .. .. . . . ... . . ... . . .. . . .. . . ..... . . . ... . . .... . .. .. . . ... .. . . .... . . . .. . . . 12
Dredging Costs . . . . . ..... . . .. . . ... .. . . . .. . . .... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. . ... . . ... . . .. .. . . . . ... . . ... . . . ... . . . .... . . ... . . ... . ... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . .... . .... . . is
Cost by Lake Area ... .. . . .. . . . .. .. . ... . . ... . . . . . .. . . . ... . . .... . . . .. . . ... . . .. .. . . . ... . . . ... . . .... . . . ... . . ... . . . . . .... . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . ... . . ._17
CAnchnion
-- -----_is
L&Offkywa
Figure I - General Vicinity Map ... . .......... .......................... ... ..... . .......... . .............
.... . ...... .... ..............4
Figure 2 - Local Street Map ......................... ................................. . .......... . ... . ............................. . .......................... 4
Figure 3 - GKY 2006 Bathymetric Map ...... ... . .............. ............. . ..
. ......... . ....... ........ ..... . .. . ....... .............. 6
Figure 4 - GKY 2009 Bathymetric Map ............ ........................................ ...................................................... 7
Figure 5 - Dipper Dredge ...... .............. ........................................ .................................................................. 13
Figure 6 - LlamshcH Dredge ....................... .................................................................................................. 13
Figure 7 - Cuttefficad Pipeline Dredge .................................................... ..... ......... . ..................................... 14
Figure 9 - Hopper Dredge........................ .... ............ .......................................................................... ............ 15
Lo& of Tabla
Table I - Wow Volunictric Distribution by Souxiing ibr 1978,2006, & 2009 Studies .. ... . .. .......... .................... 8
Table 2 - Apprwdmate Dredging Volumes by Area .... . .. .... ..... ... . ...................... . ..
II
Table 3 - Dredging Volume % Diffuence by Datum Eriation and Year .. ................. ....................................... 12
Table 4 - MwAhnical Dredging Cost Summary ..... ... . .. . ................ .......... ...... . ................... ........ ......... ... . .. -16
Table 5 - Hydraulic Dredging Cost Summary . .......... ............. ....... . .. . ......... . ... .. ................. . ...... . .. . ................ 17
Table 6 -Approximale Onetime Costs by Dredging Type........ .... .. . .. . ......... . .. . .. ........... . ... . ... .. . .. . .............. is
Lim
Of MWS
Map I - 2006 Bathymetric Mapping .... .. .......... . ... .. . ...... .. .... .................. ... ................... .... ......... . ......... ... .. 20
Map 2 - 2008 Bathymetric Mappffig ................. . ... ............. .... ................... ........................... ...... ................... .. 21
Map 3 - Dredging Areas .... ......... ... . .......................................................................... ..................... ........... .. . ... .. 22
Map 4 - Proposed CAmtour Mapping ............... .......... . ...................... ....... ... . ........... ......................................... . . 23
Map 5 - 1978 Bathymetric Mapping ......... .. ... . ..... . ... ............. .... ...................... ............................ ......... . ....... 24
hi
431
14
W
Lake Caroline Bathymetty & Dredging Study
GKY & Associates, Inc. (GKY) was retained by Lake Caroline Property Owners
Association (LCPOA) to conduct a bathymetric survey and provide dredging volume
computations for areas of the lake . Lake Caroline is in Ruther Glen, Virginia, (Figure 1),
north of Richmond, Virginia and south of Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Area Description
Lake Caroline, constructed in 1967, is a 277-acre man-made lake and is located within
the Pole Cat Creek drainage basin. The lake has approximately 10 miles of shoreline that
is predominantly surrounded by single family homes. The lake is positioned west of
Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1), north of Cedar Fork Road (Route 601), south of
Ladysmith Road (Route 699), and can be accessed via Lake Caroline Drive (see Figure 2
for map showing local streets) .
Prior to conducting the bathymetry survey, GKY reviewed the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographical Quadrangle Map for Hewlett, Virginia (1984
revision), available aerial photography, a previous bathymetric survey map performed by
Virginia Tech from 1978-1980 and GKY's bathymetric survey from 2006 . The above
referenced images were included in the 2006 report prepared by GKY for the LCPOA
and can be found in that report .
The USGS Quadrangle Map shows Stevens Mill Run as the main flow source with
several additional intermittent and perennial systems supplying flow to the lake as well.
Stevens Mill Run drains the lake to the east via the principal spillway along Lake
Caroline Drive which is located on top of the dam. The USGS quad map depicts the
majority of the Lake Caroline watershed as forested and some cleared areas associated
with residential development .
The USGS quad map, however, does not show the construction of Pendelton a
residential
'
development and golf course community directly north of Lake Caroline. ihe
Pendelton community drains into Lake Caroline at areas I - 4 (See Map 3 - Dredging
Areas & Aerial Photography for locations) with the northwestern-most cove (Area 4) of
Lake Caroline (referred to as "the pumps area") separated from the main lake by Lake
Caroline Drive (Route 683) . This cove eventually drains into Lake Caroline via a series
of concrete culverts .
3
SVO/
-Otowelwd
CT
Rw
t
w wmw
c
Foire I - Locallon oftake Caroline and LCPOA Office
F1gure 2 - Lake Caroline Area (from the LCPOA webske)
4
I"
W
Bathyinabic Me#wdokW
Technical Approach
Bathymetry fieldwork was conducted in December 2008 . LCPOA provided a 14'
pontoon boat with an accomplished driver and GKY performed the bathymetric survey
onboard the boat utilizing a Trimble GeoXT Differential Global Positioning System
(DGPS) for horizontal control (horizontal accuracy to less than I meter), linked to an
Odom HT100 echo depth sounding unit (vertical accuracy to approximately 0.1 foot).
Bathymetry data was collected and stored in HyPackg Max (version 6.2) hydrographic
survey software . Ile HTI 00 measures ten soundings per second while the GeoXT OPS
unit collects one sub-meter horizontal location per second in real-time. As a result, one
depth sounding at an associated location was collected per second, stored, and mapped by
Hypack. This data collection scheme and all of the equipment used for the data
collection is considered to be industry-standard equipment for bathymetric survey
activities .
Data was collected along the passable depths of the lakeshore contour, as well as along
broad transects across the body of the lake and coves. Over one million sounding data
points were collected initially. This data was reduced to facilitate the generation of a
three-dimensional model used for analysis and lake contour mapping.
Before survey activities commenced each day, the gauge located near the emergency
spillway was checked to verify the water surface elevation. The water level was
approximately F below the top of concrete at the emergency spillway for all of the
survey days with the exception of the last day when the water was even with the concrete
wall. As a result, the equipment was calibrated to account for the water surface
fluctuation and to ensure that the survey points were consistent with what had already
been collected. The water surface elevation or elevation datum for sounding depth 0 is
assumed for this project to be 197', nearly 0.7' less than GKY's bathymetric survey in
2006. However, to be consistent with GKY's previous bathymetric survey the sounding
depths were adjusted by 0 .7' during the post processing phase. As stated in GKY's 2006
report the assumed datum for the 1978 study was 198' or 0.3' greater than GKY's 2006
& 2008 study.
Bathynkeby ResLft
Summary of Results
Ile results of the current bathymetric survey show that many areas of the lake have
remidned relatively similar to GKY's 2006 mapping, while a few areas have changed
significantly. As stated in GKY's 2006 report, the cove areas, in general, appear to be
significantly shallower then the 1978 study. Since 2006 the contour defintion in the cove
areas has not changed significantly enough to indicate significant volumetric increases or
decreases. Key differences between the current study and the 2006 study occur in the
main portion of the lake where the 15 & 30 foot contours have shifted significantly. The
sedimentation has led to a significant loss of storage volume in the lake.
P
Balthymetric Mapping
The current bathymetric mapping has been prepared to be consistent with the bathymetric
mapping prepared in GKY's 2006 study. GKY's 2006 mapping (Figure 3 & Map 1) and
GKY's current 2008 mapping (Figure 4 & Map 2) are the basis for comparison for
determining the bathymaric changes over the past two years. The bathymetric changes
between the two studies are considered additional to those observed in the 2006 study and
have been considered in determining dredge volumes and areas (Map 4).
'Me
bathymetric maps show soundings at 5-foot intervals and as the soundings get deeper the
shades of blue get darker, documenting a greater depth. The deepest area of the lake is
located along the southeast portion of the dam and is approximately 33' . The 2008
mapping also provides detailed sounding points throughout the entire lake to provide a
depth reference for various areas.
Cumm
coman
Carroma
CUIMO
m7mrs
cmm=
Ca
a
W :a
ft CO
a 0
:,!. :o
,
,
I
,
cc* "P T.A UD .
CQ&7= IACV.
am IIEVAIM
N
I
r
Rgm 3 - GKY2006 BWOmiric MWbW (3-foot Cotaows)
6
C)
=%sm-1 0 0
t..
crxTrAir io o
umm to W
UN-Am to
La
emmm
W
U1 LVEL &
AUTATtOa
-A 3
*41
AHLA4
Z.
Rgure 4 - GKY 2008 BXhynwtrw MappbW (5-foot Contours)
Morphologic and Bathymetric Changes From 2006 - 20M
Between GKY's 2006 and 2008 studies, few significant bathymetric changes have
occurred in the lake and several insignificant bathymetric changes have occurred . As
previously stated, minor sedimentation has continued in cove areas, predominantly areas
I - 5. The sedimentation is evident by contour narrowing and increased distance from
the shoreline . T'he remaining coves appear to be consistent with the documentation in the
2006 study and in comparison to the rest of the lake the continued sedimentation is
insignificant.
The main part of the lake (non cove area) has also continued to shallow since GKY's
2006 study which is evident by interpreting the contours from the western portion of the
lake, adjacent to where Stevens Mill Creek enters (Area 5 on Map 3), eastward to the
dam . In comparing GKY's 2006 study to the current study the sedimentation in the main
part of the lake (Area 10 on Map 3) represents the major bathymetric. change . Tlie
sedimentation can Rely be attributed to silt, sediment and organic matter flowing into
the lake and settling, resulting in a volumetric decrease.
In comparing the 2006 and 2008 studies, a total volumetric decrease of 1 .01% has
occurred in Lake Caroline, with some areas decreasing more than others. Specific areas
that likely contribute to the volumetric decrease can be found on GKY's 2008
Bathymetric Mapping (Figure 4 and Maps 2 & 3) and are described below :
The 15-foot sounding depth line in 2006 ended on the western side of cove Area 3 . In
2008, the sounding depth line ended nearly 1400' downstream of cove Area 3,
indicating that this area had likely filled with material.
1-4
W
In 2006, the 30-foot sounding depth line was depicted on the mapping as a closed,
connected, island located in the south eastern portion of the lake adjacent to the dam.
However, in 2008 the 30- foot sounding depth line was broken into three separate
islands and reduced in size by nearly 75% (see Table 1).
'Me 5-foot sounding depth line in 2006 at the beach at Saratoga Cove appeared to
extend inward from the shore nearly 150' - 250' . In 2008, the 5-foot sounding depth
line is depicted to extend 70' - 100' inward from the shore, which indicates that the
depth closer to the shore has become deeper since GKY's 2006 study . LCPOA staff
confirmed that the beach area had been recently dredged of a couple hundred cubic
yards of sand . The recent dredging contributes to a volumetric increase for the lake .
-
The 5-foot sounding depth line in Area 3 (see Map 3 for location) is depicted in the
2008 mapping approximately 300' downstream of where it was depicted in the 2006
study. The sounding depth line also appears to be located slightly further inward
from the eastern and western shores, which would indicate that this depth has
narrowed as it proceeds upstream into the cove.
-
The 2008 5-foot and 10-foot depth lines in area 5 have been surveyed and depicted
200' and 400' respectively, downstream from where they were surveyed and shown
in the 2006 study. Again, silt and sediment flowing into the lake is likely the cause
of the sounding depth line shift downstream .
-
Contour areas 20-25 & 25-30 have shown insignificant volumetric increases of 0.36%
and 0.22% respectively. Contours 30+ have had a volumetric reduction of 73.46%.
-
The lake has an overall volumetric reduction of approximately 1 .01% from 2006
conditions and 14 .62% since 1978 . The approximated volume distribution by depth
is shown in Table I and shows the comparison for all three studies. This estimation
is based upon a comparison between volumes determined by the use of data
measured, collected and mapped in different manners (1978 vs. 2006 & 2008). Also,
the volumes in the current study were derived using the Average End Area method
using 5-foot contour intervals. This method averages the surface area for consecutive
contours and multiplies that average area by difference in depth . This is a very
common method of estimating volumes within a basin, and it was assumed that this is
the method that was used in the 1978 study. For consistency purposes we chose the
same method for the 2006 study and the current study.
-1436.92%
Table ]- Water VolumetricDistribution by Sownftfor 1978,2006, .& 2008(cubiefeet)
Contour
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30+
TOW
1978
56,122,421
43967199
33,909,853
21 .972.420
11,698,311
4440 67
744546
172,643~114 1
2006
2008
51,745.660
37506595
29,781,711
19.491,399
7,812,145
2,366,545
952 7
149,039,262
53,125,970
39.545.744
27,917,209
16,773,194
7,940,233
2,371 .85
104'j879
147,V9,M
1978-2006%
Difference
-7.80%
-14.50%
-12.17%
-10.93%
-33.16%
-46.70%
2006-2008%
DiNerence,
2.67%
5 .44%
-6.60%
-13.90%
0.36%
0.22%
.46%
-73Oi%
J
10
0
PA
04
A
-
14
W
43
Since 2006, contour areas 0-5 & 5-10 have shown respective volumetric increases in
of 2.67% and 5.44%. The volumetric increase can likely be attributed to additional,
manual "push pole" survey techniques in shallow areas that provide accurate depth
soundings readings that supplement the measures taken by the HTI 00 depth sounder.
Drefting
Dredging Overview
Since 1978 it is estimated that Lake Caroline has reduced in volume by 14.65%, or
approximately 25 million cubic feet . Although there could be several reasons for the
volurnetric reduction, silt, sediment and organic matter has likely flowed into the lake
from intermittent and perennial feeder streams and is the probable source and explanation
for the volumetric decrease . An increase in silts, sediments and organic matter can
potentially limit recreational opportunities. Therefore, dredging lake areas that show
significant volumetric decreases since 1978 is the practical solution for removing fill
material and maximizing recreational potential. Dredging, or underwater excavation,
utilizes heavy equipment that scoops or vacuums material from the lake bottom and
disposes the material outside the footprint of the resource . Dredging is certainly an
option for restoring the original lake bottom . To facilitate the identification and
interpretation of dredging volume quantities for specific locations within the lake, ten
areas have been identified (see Map 3 for area locations) and approximate dredge
quantities have been computed for each area . Estimated dredging volumes for each area
provide an opportunity to establish a priority ranking system based on the amount of
dredge material, access issues, dredging method, and disposal . Upon developing a
priority ranking system, an overall dredging plan can be developed for the lake that
focuses on a timeline for short term and long term dredging goals for the entire lake .
Dredging Volume Quantity Takeoff
The dredging volume quantity takeoff was based on the bathymetric changes to the lake
bottom between 1978 and 2008. Approximately 14 .65% or 25 million cubic feet of lake
volume is believed to have been filled by silt, sediment and organic. Dredging volumes
specific to the areas described above (see Map 3 for area locations) have been developed
based on a comparison between depth soundings from the 1978 study and the current
study. A proposed lake bottom contour alignment (see Map 4) similar to the 1978
contour alignment has been developed for each area to assist in determining the dredge
volumes. Potential dredging areas are described below and Table 2 summarizes the
dredging volume takeoff for each area :
-
Area 10 (shown on Maps 3 & 4), represents the main portion of the lake (non cove
area) and is where an estimated 83 .64% (664,443 cubic yards) of the total dredge
material should be removed to provide a volumetric increase of roughly 13 .73%.
Because of the potential dredge material volume in this area and the fluctuation in
depths, several different dredging methods and equipment may be necessary to
adequately remove the material. For example, in the deeper portions of this area
hydraulic dredging as opposed to mechanical dredging may be necessary due to the
limited depths that a mechanical arm can reach. Also, in the shallower portions of
this area it may make sense to use a pipeline dredge that vacuums material from the
H
W
a
bottom at one and discharges the material to a temporary disposal site . This would
reduce the need for a barge and would limit the risk of a barge bogging down in
shallow areas. However if the lake can be dewatered or lowered, then some portions
of this area can be mechanically dredged using an excavator and hauled with a dump
truck, reducing the need for the barges and hydraulic equipment.
Area I is located adjacent to the main entrance to Lake Carofine and represents 3
small cove areas. An estimated 43,000 cubic yards would need to be dredged from
this area to restore the lake bottom to 1979 conditions . This dredging activity
represents 5.52% of the total dredge volume and would provide a volumetric increase
of 34.44% for this area. A portion of this cove located adjacent to Lake Caroline
Drive may be mechanically dredged from the existing roadway by the LCPOA
maintenance department .
The percentage of total dredge activities for Area 2 (1 .12%) is small in comparison to
other areas, but would provide a volumetric increme of 5 .2%. In comparing the 1978
map (Map 5) for this cove to the current map (Map 2) the primary loss in volume has
occurred from depths 0-5 and since the configuration of this cove is tight it is unlikely
that a barge or heavy equipment would be able to access this area . Portions of this
area could be dredged from land with approval from property owners . To dredge the
remaining portions of this area, the lake could be dewatered or lowered a few feet to
provide additional access from land for an excavator and dump trucks for the
dredging and hauling activities . Both options are potentially within the means of the
LCPOA maintenance department.
In comparing the 1978 mapping and the current mapping, Area 3 appears to have
shallowed significantly, with the 5-foot contour shifted downstream approximately
300' and outward from the shore. Dredging in this area would represent 4.28% of the
total dredge volumed and would provide a volumetric increase of 59 .41% for this
area. Area 3 is a broad shallow cove . As a result, dredging options for this area may
be limited.
-
Area 4 is a main inflow into Lake Caroline and has significantly decreased in volume.
Since the 10-foot contour ends close to this area, perhaps this area can be
mechanically dredged utilizing a dipper dredge or clanishell dredge in conjunction
with a barge. Hydraulic dredging is an option for material removal.
As documented in GKY's 2006 report, LCPOA staff has stated that dredging work
was performed in 1987 for Area 5 with the goal to reduce the amount of aquatic
vegetation in the lake. The exact area and volume of this dredging is unknown.
Regardless, the current conditions show that area should be dredged, providing an
approximate volumetric increase of 16 .02%. This area is long and shallow and
presents access issues for barges and large equipment. Dewatering the lake and
accessing this area from the park located at the western end of this area would
provide access for mechanical dredging equipment to enter the lake for material
removal.
10
A
W
0
-
Amu 6 - 8 have had insignificant volumetric decreases since 1978 and could be
dredged if so desired. 1hese smaU, narrow areas present dredging opportunities from
the adjacent shore with approval from property owners . Dewatering these areas
would also provide opportunity for mechanical dredging . Hydraulic dredging is also
an option .
With approximately 1 .62% of total dredge volume removed in area 9, a volumetric
increase of 17.39% is possible. The 10-foot and 15-foot sounding depth lines am
close to the dredging area providing an opportunity fbr this area to be mechanically
dredged utilizing a dipper dredge or cIamshell dredge and a barge. Hydraulic
dredging is also an option .
Table 2 - Appradnude Drei4ft Volumes by Area
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
r-POM
, Total
2008 Existing
Volume
20M Proposed
Volume
Vohtmetric
]Increase
Cubic Yards
to be Dredged
3,437,165
4,641,724
1,546,224
547,799
2,881,292
296,647
1,229,587
373,636
1,995,182
130,639,823
4,621,054
4,882,870
2,464,974
787.378
3,342,984
286,647
1,310,953
409.226
2,342,052
149,579,779
34."%
5.20%
59.41%
43 .73%
16.02%
O.OOOA
6.62%
9.53%
17 .390A
13 .73%
43,948
9,931
34,024
8.873
17,096
0
3,014
1,318
12,847
664,443
147,S79,085
169,027,720
IL69%
7%,393
% Total
Dredge
Volume
5.5wo
1. 12%
4.28%
1 .12%
2.15%
0.000/0
0.3Me
0.17%
1.62%
93 .64%
100-00%
if the laU is dredged to the proposed depth sounding lines shown on Map 3, the removal
of nearly 795,000 cubic yards of material would result in a volumetric increase of
approximately 12 .69%. The 12 .69% volumetric increase is still 1 .96% lower than the
14.65% difference computed by comparing the 1978 conditions to the current conditions .
However approximately 3 .6 million cubic feet of volume were lost when GKY assumed a
datum at 197.7' or 0.3' less than the daturn assumed by the 1979 Virginia Tech study. If
the 3.6 million cubic feet were added to the overall proposed volume, then the volumetric
increase would go firom 12.69% to 14 .52% and approximately the same volume as the
original 1978 volume. See Table 3 below:
11
Xk
1-h
W
0
Table 3 - Dredging Vahinte % Difference by Dawn Eleyarion and Year
Stt*
Datum
Ellstlng
Volume
Proposed
Volume
Different
Datum
volume Loost
% Diff
Total
Volume
1
1978*
198'
17Z645,114
0
0-- 1 172.645 .114
2006
197.T
149,099,262
169,027,721
0
3,619,936 1 152,709,099
197.T
147,579.085
1 3,619,936 1 172.647,557
2008
Study repmems orighW volume collected at a datum O.Thigher in elevation.
1
1
1
1
% Diff
From
From
Existing orillinal
in Same
1978
Year
volume
0%
0%
~
.M ~l 1.55%
14.52% 1 O.OOOA
Dredging Options
There are three dredging methods that are commonly used throughout the world with
each type achieving different production rates, posing different challenges and
accomplishing different goals. In the United States common dredging methods include
mechanical dredging and hydraulic dredging while internationally, airlift dredging is
commonly used for contaminated material . In this study, mechanical dredging and
hydraulic dredging appear to be two methods that should be explored.
Mechanical dredges employ the use of equipment with buckets that scoop material fi-orn
the lake bottom and place it onto barges. Dipper dredges (Figure 5) and clamshell
dredges (Figures 6) are the most common types of mechanical dredges used, with the
only difference being the bucket configuration . The bucket on a dipper dredge is similar
to a conventional excavator bucket while the clamshell bucket is suspended from a cable
and opens and closes at the bottom . Both types of dredges are generally mounted to a
barge and towed to a desired location . Additional barges would be used to load and
transport dredge material .
Mechanical dredges are easily operated in confined areas and the production yield is
relatively high on a material per bucket basis. When using multiple barges the
excavation is efficient . One barge can be filled while the other(s) can be towed or
unloaded, limiting interruption to operations . Mechanical dredges, however, are bulky
and somewhat awkward to move and are best used for excavation of rocks or highly
compacted lake bottom material. Barges can be large and have a relatively low draft
which may prevent their use in shallower areas. In Lake Caroline's case, many of the
coves am somewhat confined, which would require low draft barges and small to
moderate sized equipment. In certain situations the shallow depths may render
mechanical dredging infeasible.
12
-r.
Fir" 5 - DWff Dre4e
Fipm 6 - Ckmshell Dre4p
Ile two commonly used hydraulic dredges are the pipeline dredge (Figure 7 with a
cutterhead) and the hopper dredge (Figure 8). Both hydraulic dredging types are
mountcd to barges, secured with anchor pilings (spuds) and have an intake pipe that is
submerged to the lake bottom to vacuum material . A cutterhead is a device with rotating
blades or teeth and is generally attached to the intake pipe to loosen material for
facilitating the vacuum process. As the materials are vacuumed from die lake bottom, it
discharges a mixture of solids and liquids into a discharge pipeline that floats on the
water's surface and conveys material to a disposal site or temporary disposal site. 'Me
cutterhead pipeline dredges are generally used in large, deep impoundments and
minimizes lake transport, loading, hauling and unloading, therefore cutting costs while
retaining removal efficiency . The hopper dredge retains removed material in a large
containment area on board the same barge and transports material to the disposal site
13
~A
W
where the material is then pumped from the containment area . In using-a hopper dredge,
it takes time to transport material from the dredging area to the disposal area
consequently losing efficiency and potentially increasing overall cost
For Lake Caroline, a cutterhead pipeline dredge may be a feasible option for many areas
of the lake if there is access to a reasonably close, permitted disposal area . Should no
disposal area exist then one would have to be constructed with a dewatering area and it
should be large enough to accommodate high material volumes. The hopper dredge
probably is not a feasible option for Lake Caroline due to the equipments size and draft
requirements.
Figure 7 - Cmiterhead Pipeline Dredge
Self-propelled see
boppez dredp.
Figure 8 - Hopper Dredge
14
I-&
W
0
00
Dredging Costs
Costs for dredging can be broken down into mobilization/stabilization, removal, tramport
and disposal/dumping . Mobilization/stabilization costs include the costs associated with
moving equipment on site, providing erosion and sediment control, right-of-way
protection and after-project seeding/sodding . Removal costs are associated with the
actual excavation of material from the lake bottom and are fairly consistent for both
dredging methods. Transport costs are related to the actual material movement from the
dredging location to the disposal site. Disposal/dumping costs are relevant for disposing
the dredged material at landfills or other permitted locations. The disposal area location
and its associated components dictates the majority of the dredging project scope and
influences several variables that affect the overall dredging costTypically, onsite disposal, off-site disposal and landfill disposal are viable options for
disposing dredge spoils. Onsite disposal is the disposal of dredge spoils in areas ad acent
to the lake or within the LCPOA lake community . Offsite disposal is the disposal of
dredge spoils outside of the lake community. Landfill disposal is the disposal of dredge
spoils at a permitted landfill site that has the ability to receive mud and/or slurry material.
Onsite disposal is usually the cheapest option and landfill disposal is generally the most
expensive option . Costs for disposal options vary and will fluctuate based on dredging
type as well. For this study, 10% of the overall dredge volume or approximately 80,000
cubic yards will be used to generate approximate costs.
For each disposal option, the mobilization costs for mechanical dredging are generally
the same and include excavation equipment, the associated barges and the construction of
a suging area for spoil unloading . Assuming three or four small to medium sized barges,
(one for dredging equipment and two or three barges for sediment transport) an excavator
for sediment removal from the barges, and several dump trucks, the costs for equipment
mobilization could be $70,000 - $100,000. On a cubic yard basis, removal and barge
transport to the staging area is relatively inexpensive ($IO/CY - $20/CY) assuming an
efficient dredge removal rate and efficient barge transport methods. Additional hauling
transportation costs generally start at $8/CY for one mile (round trip) and increase as the
distance to the disposal area increases. For this study, $30 will be used as the maximum
unit cost for hauling for an assumed 5 mile (round trip) hauling distance. For onsite and
offsite disposal a containment area would be constructed similar to a sediment basin
complete with a dam, riser structure, principal spillway pipe, and an outfall. The
containment area intends to contain the dredge spoils throughout the dewatering process.
The containment area would be constructed to accomodate 80,000 cubic yards and could
cost $10,000 - $20,000. Onsite and offsite disposal would require a closeout period to
ensure the dredge spoils are dewatered. The length of closeout period depends on how
wet the spoils are with extremely wet spoils in a slurry consistency lasting the longesL In
addition to thorough dewatering and monitoring, the containment area would be
deconstructed and graded during the closeout period. The closeout could be $30,000 $50,000. Should onsite or ofEsite disposal not be a viable option then the material could
be disposed of at a permitted landfill for approximately $35/CY. A "closeout" period is
not needed for disposal at a permitted landfill . This cost does not include site specific
costs for permitting, erosion and sediment control plans, land purchase or lease (for
ofEsite disposal areas) for containment construction . Prior to dredging and disposal, a
is
W
0
PA
TPH's (total petroleum hydrocarbons, otherwise known as oil and gas) test and a TCLIP
test (metals, semi volatiles, volatiles, and pesticides) should be conducted to ensure that
no illicit materials are attached to spoil particles . These tests could cost $10,000 $20,000 . Additional site specific costs may be necessary for onsite or offisite disposal and
include permitting, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, Grading Plans and land
purchase or lease (if no offsite disposal area can be determined it may make sense for
LCPOA to purchase or lease land for dredge spoil disposal purposes) . For mechanical
dredging the costs vary from approximately $20/CY - $92CY (Table 4) and are
dependent on a number of variables.
Table 4 -Mechanical Dredging Cost Summary
Onsite/Offslte Onswoffske
Min Unit
Max Unit
M[inimum
Quantity
MONJMUM
cost
cost
cost
cost
$70,000
$100,000
1
$70,000
$1001000
Rem
Unit
Mobilization
EA
Rernoval/Barge
Transport
CY
$10
CY
$8
EA
CY
EA
EA
Hauling
Containment
(onsite & offsite)
Disposal (Landfill)
Closeout
Material Testing
0
Landfffl
Min Cost
Landfill
Max Cost
$70,OOD
$100,000
$20
80,000
$8W1OOO
$1,600,000
$8W,000
$1,6W,DDO
$30
80,000
$640,000
$2,401),000
$640,WO
$2,400,000
$10,000
$20,000
1
$10,000
$20,000
N/A
N/A
$30
$30,000 ,
$10,000
$40
$50,000
$20,000
90,ODO
1
1
N/A
$30,000
$10,000
N/A
$50AW
$20,000
$2,400,WD
N/A
$10,OOD
$3,200,000
N/A
$20,000
$115WIOW
$4,190,OW
$3,920,OW
$7,320,OW
$39.50
sum
$,49.W
I
Total
Z;FCY-T
Hydraulic dredging is generally a less expensive option on a per cubic yard basis.
Additional pipeline mobilization and assemblage generally increases overall mobilization
costs to approximately $90,000 - $120,000. Ile mobilization cost includes two pieces of
equipment, one barge and one hydraulic dredge mounted to the barge, lW' or 12" HDPE
pipe up to one mile and two pipeline assemblages. Because the lake is approximately
two miles long and pipelines generally should not exceed one mile, two containment
(decanting) basins would need to be constructed adjacent to the take for dredge spoils.
The pipeline would have to be dismantled, moved, and reconstructed to ensure that
pumping to the decanting basins does not exceed one mile. On a cubic yard basis,
removal and transport is approximately the sarne as mechanical dredging at $10/CY $20/CY assuming hydraulic pumps produce 3000 - 4500 GPM (gallons per minute) to
maintain the velocities (15 - 20 ft1s) needed to transport the material . The containment
(decanting) basins will have to be engineered and constructed to contain a heavy slurry
material that has an extended dewatering period. The engineered containment area would
typically be located adjacent to the lake for dewatering into the lake while the sediments
are contained. It would be complete with an approximate 8' tall darn, riser structure,
principal spillway pipe and possibly an emergency spillway. Since two of the areas
would be required to accommodate the one mile pumping distance, the cost for the
Is
I-h
W
engineered containment (decanting) basins could be $200,000 - $250,000. To speed up
the dewatering process, decommissioning the dredge spoils is typical and could cost
$2/CY - $5/CY. A TPH's (total petroleum hydrocarbons, otherwise known as oil and
gas) test and a TCLIP test (metals, semi volatiles, volatiles, and pesticides) should be
conducted prior to disposal and could cost $10,000 - $20,000 . A closeout cost of
approximately $120,000 - $160,000 for the containment sites is necessary to ensure the
material is dewatered, graded and stable. Additional site specific costs may be necessary
for onsite or offsite disposal and include permitting, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans,
Grading Plans and land purchase or lease (if no offsite disposal area can be determined it
may make sense for LCPOA to purchase or lease land for dredge spoil disposal
purposes). For hydraulic dredging the costs vary from approximately $18/CY - $33CY
(Table 5) and am dependent on a number of variables .
item
Moblilzation
Removal/Trarksport
Containment
(onsite & offsIte)
DecommLssionlng
Closeout
Material Testing
Tabk 5 -H.)&wific Dre&WV Cwt &wmwy
Onsite/Off'site
Min Unit
Max Unit
Quantity
Minimum
Unit
cost
cost
cost
EA
$90,000
$130,000
1
$90,000
Onsite/Offisite
Maximum
cost
$230,000
CY
$10
$20
80,000
$8W'OoO
$3.600,ODO
EA
$200,000
$250,000
1
$200AW
$250,000
CY
$2
$5
80000
$160,000
$400,000
$70,000
1
$40,000
EA
EA
$120,000
$40,000
$160,GW
1
Total
Cost/CY
$120,000
$160,000
$70,000
$1,410,000
$2,610,000
$17.63
$32.63
Cost by Lake Area
Table 6 below provides a cost summary for mechanical dredging and hydraulic dredging
for each area depicted on Map 2. The cost for mechanically dredging one cubic yard of
material ranges from $20/CY to $9VCY and the cost for hydraulically dredging one
cubic yard of material ranges from $ 1 8/CY to $33/CY.
17
F-A
W
0
Table 6 -Dre4W Cav by dedging Type & Locadon
$2,2%,759
Mechanical
Dredging
Minimum Cost
(IAndfill
Disposal)
$2,148,552
Mechanical
Dredging
Maximum Cost
(Undfill
Disposal)
$4,012,092
$1,782,177
$1,667,176
$3,113,196
Area
Cubic
Yards to
be
Dredged
Mechanical
Dredging
Minimum
cost
Mechanical
Dredging
Maximum
cost
Area 1
43,948
$855,036
Azen 2
8,931
$174,155
9,973
$173,024
Area 3
Area 4
34,024
$663,468
$467,9W
$464,769
$437,619
$434,777
$156,431
$299,526
$0
$0
$0
$895,488
$837,704
$1,564,284
Area 7
3,014
$58,773
$157,973
$147,686
Ama 9
12,847
$250,517
$672,926
Area 10
664,443
$12,956,639
$34,803,524
Area 9
1,319
t;ij 7~9!4V
_=94
T-01.-
W,701
~175~910,61931
so
$69,037
41,61~,3=N
$1,430,760
S811,880
$333,372
so
$773,040
$137,454
17,096
0
Hydraulic
DredgIng
Maximum
cost
$917,197
Area 5
Area 6
Hydraulic
Dredging
Minimum
cost
$599,843
$291,419
$1,110,203
$301,402
$557,842
$275,781
$53,137
$98,347
$629,503
$1,175,501
$226,493
$419,199
$32,557,707
$60,796,535
$11,714,130
$21,680,775
77,687,051
i 14,OK166
25X1,076
$0
$64,582
3kWW J
$120,597
$23,236
$43,006
Conclusion
In comparing three separate bathymetric studies conducted over the past thirty years,
Lake Caroline has had a reduction in lake water volume of nearly 14.65% or 25 million
cubic feet, and is averaging a 0.5% or 1 .2 million cubic feet reduction per year.
Consequently, recreational opportunities have been affected and dredging the
accumulated fill material can restore it to the 1978 conditions. Dredging all 277 acres of
Lake Caroline would likely require a detailed dredging plan that utilizes both mechanical
and hydraulic dredging techniques which are carefUlly planned over many years. As
shown in this report, the costs associated with both dredging types vary and can be
manageable with a dredging plan that focuses on accomplishing the task while managing
LCPOA's short term and long term goals and objectives .
is
I
~4
NbpSheels
19
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
JOINT PETITION OF AQUA V1RGIN`IAj INC.
and CAROLINE WATER COMPANY
SCC CASE NO. PUF,2013-00047
Response to Lake Caroline Property Owners Association, Inc.'s
Interrogatories and Document Requests (Set 1)
E
lEXHIBIrTr
XH
Interrogatory #2:
Provide copies of (1) the DEQ-issued water withdrawal permit establishing a 576,000 gpd rating
for Caroline Water, and (2) the DEQ-issued permit establishing a 2.2 million gpd safe yield for
Lake Caroline. Does Aqua intend to seek any modifications, in any forum, of these permits,
including increasing the gallons per day for either? If your answer is anything other than an
unequivocal "no," list the modification(s) and explain the reasons each such modification is
necessary or desired.
Response :
When thefacillry was built andpermitted, VIrginia Department ofHealth
("VDH") permitted both thefaciW and the withdrawal, Today, VDHpermits thefacility and
DEQpermits the withdrawal, A copy ofthe 2.2 MGD withdrawal calculation ftom YDH is
attached, labeled Exhibit 2-A. A copy of the Operations Permit also issued by the VDH is
attached which limits to thefacility deskn capacity to the waterproduction unin ata576
MGA as Exhibit 2-B.
Aqua intends to modify the current withdrawalpermk by requesting a newpermit to replace
the historic VDH issuedpermit Aqua intends to request a reduction to the maximum safe
yieldfrom Lake Carolinefrom 22MGD, down to only L4MGD. 77teearlieredidonofthe
take analysis did not include leakage and evaporation. Further, the new analysis is a "Worst
case" scenario and is based on the most severe drought condidons ofthepast one hundred
years which are lowerflows than the previous analysis. Aqua plans on rebuilding the plant
within the existing VDH issued Operations permit of 0. 576 MGD based on the treatmentfluer
unit capacity which wX be replaced
The foregoing response and attached responses are made by and under the supervision of
Clifton L. Parker, IV, P.E., Director, Corporate Development and Engineering of Aqua
Virginia, Inc.
4
W
0
43
J~
DEQ PERMIT APPUCATION FOR NEW OR EXPANDED MINOR SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS
WEE
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Virginia Water Protection Program, glh-Floor
Post Office Box 1105
Richmond Virginia 23218
Phone: (804) 698-4000. Fax: (804) 09840M
Websites : fit-tp://www.dea .virn;nla,ctoy/
httP :hwww-deQ-viminIa.ciov/re 'ans/homepage .htmi
Virginia MeiinQ Resou-,-Ges Commission (VMRC)
Management Division
Habitat
'
2QO6Washington .Avenue, 3" Floor
Newport News, Virginia 23607-0756
Phone: (757,) 247-2200, Fax. (757) ~47-80V.
Website: htty-~/t-www.mr6.yiroiri .'a.qo-vPndex .htrn
PURPOSE
This form is intended for sise by applicants who, prcoose to withdrawal water from a surface water body.(ies) in the
Commonwealth of Virgirila that total less Man-90 million gallons per month In accordance with Mrginia Watei Protection
Permit Regulation 9 VAC 25-210-80 C. and for any encroachment requiring permffi-) from the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (VMRC) pursuant to Chapters. 12. 13, and 14 of Title 28 2 of the Code . of Virginia . Please note that other
Federal, State, or local laws and regWations may apoly- to your projecL Other resource protection agencies and local
governments, such as local Orosion and sediment control programs, health departments, and localities subject to th&
Chas apeake Bay Preservation Act, do not use .this. application forM and may have different Informational requirements .
The applicant
'
is .reeporisible-for contactipgthese agencies for Information regarding their permittingrequiraments .
If the stwdures . equipment, or meftds for wfthdrawlng the surface wate! involve disturbing or floodIng, wetlbnds~ or
pat-manent consoxicilion lfivoWng Submerged lands fbeds of h~ays, nvers or creeks), Mease Do Not Lise, This FQm to
apply. ln.Qtead, visit the U.S. Army Corps'of Engineers web site h'WJAN" nao.usace.army.rniVRequ~gtory/JPA .htmI and
'
use the Standard Joint Permit . Application formto apply. Som 0 examples; of withdrawals for which this APPLICATION
FOR NEW OR EXPANDED MINOR SURFACE: WATER WITI-IDRAWALS, may be used are:. suction PIPOS or hoses
rdaced on the ground surface and/or over the barik of'a stream, suc4on pipes or hoses placed on top of the straarn bed .
t.this examplp does not apply in wetlands) ; and auction pipes or hoses fixed'to the piling of an existing,perrnanent dock, or
fAed to an existing floating dock. In these examples, and others not stated here, no digging or dumping of material ocivirs
hi a wetland, or on submerged landt.
The following Instructions and Information are de'signp.d. to .assist you in applying for permits fat Minor water withdrawals.
These Instructions do not supersede'lriformallon reQuirements- contained in any appI.fiMJbIe :r&galatIons covering the
proposed activifies .
INSTRUCTIONS
Complete all sections of the form with as much Information as possible. Attacn a set of 8 % x 1 1 inch drawings detaiiirg
all components of the proposed withdrawal. water, such as- pumps, pipes . hoses,. screens., supports, utilities, intakes, etc.
if you cannot Include all of your project sfte .on one page at a scale no smaller then V = 200', submit a set of 8 % x 1 1 inch
malct-line drawings and A set .of large-sIzed drawings at a scale no smaller than 1"- 200.". If oversized drawings Are
used, attach five copies of the oversized drawings'to you; application . Municipal. golf course. and mining users should
Inciode cross-sectional drawings having the aidditional informeltion noted below. asiit minimum . Drawings should include
the following information at a minimum:
EXHIBIT
%S
~*
,o,
*
*
-c,
0
Name of poriject
Nodh arrow
scalu,
Waterway name . if designated
Em-stIng oontours
Proposad contaurs (if available)
V'Adth of waterway from the mean high water level to thp rnean high water'level (boat atom). at the ordinary high water mwk to the
ordinary high water mark (nonfide : areas)
Direction of flood and ebb (tidal areas), and/or directku , of flow In nonfidal'areas (if apOlcable)
Mean low water level and mean high water level (tidat areas),or ordin.ary high water mark (nontidal areas)
Existing a .id prorcsod structures, Wb.eled as 'e3usting br'proposed% and Moir dimensions .
Submit this form and additional answer sheets to dm-V.MRC at the address noted at the top of this tiorm.
Revised June 2012
C:
Do not send any permit applicabon fees wdh the apipfication, as -feesare subject to change . Permift- application fees
required by DEO for VVVP permits are providled on.' DEQ'O VVebalter at hffi)JA~-deC1 Virginia Gov or on. the
Commonwealth of \Arginia's Wabsite . sit httoLne-ol Atate.vq.ua1QOJY_MWTQL±M under 9-VAC; 2 20 etseq . A DEQ
project manager will contact -you regarding the proper fee and submittal requirements sifter receiving your application,
package . After being contacted by the DEQ. mail the parmh. application
. fee and ft Permit .Application Fee Form. to the.
DEQ* address proAded on Fee Form. Please note that when completing DMs PerTria Application Fee .Foim, .mako sure
that the Applicant name and facility (project) name are the same as thase reported In your applwation . Water withdrawats
for agriculture am. exempt fro(n permit applicaUdh fees, VMRG permit fiest. are $25.00 for projects . costing $10,000 . or less
and $100 for projects costing more then $10,000 . The proper feels paid. at the time of permit Wsuance by VMRC. VMRC
staff will send the parmiftes a le6r notilyinq himftw ofthe proper feO and. submft .t.al requirarrients.
PROCESSING AFTER APPUCATION
.
VMRG will assign a permit application number to your -applicatiOn and then di&bUte- rW'es of the application to the . other
japplicable regulatory agencies . The Initia! application fo surface water,tupply- plojects that require,4 both an individual
Virginia Water Pro.tecto Permit and a Vironia, Mari" Resources p6imit under -§ a2_-1205 $hall be advertised
concurrently by the Department of Environmental Quality and theAtirginim Marine 'Resources Commission S,Uch
advertising shail be paid for by the applicaffl. All -agencies vvill . conduct separate *but -concurrent-reviews of ynur projqct
Please be aware that while one appliciiiVon was submitted, each agency must Issue a separate . permit (or a -notification
that no permit is requireO) . Therofore, mokowee that,you 1mub tecelved all .nucessaty suffiorizations, or documentation
that no partnit, is required from each agency~ prior to boonninp lftq proposed wcuk.
During the appilicatibn review process, site inspections -may be necessary to evalkiate a proposed project . Failure to allow
an auftOzed ftresentative of a regulatory. agency to enter the property, -or to -take photographs of conditions at the
project site, may result in either a peinlnlt application withdrawal or a parmit'derfral .
For certain Federal and 'State permits ; a pubhc notice is published -in -a newspaper
. having'circulation in the project area.
mailed to adjacent property owners,andlor posted on thesigeneysWeb page. The public may comment'.qn the prolix.-t
during a designated comment period., which- varies from agency tip age.rtcy . Some agencies acce pt comments during the
permit, review process, whiloothers only accept-cDmments an draft, permb. Comments are evaluated and a decision is
made whether to isaw a,permft Issuo a permit VAL'i special conddR=,- or to deny .e. permiL You may be responsible fbr
bearing the c9sts fcor advardsement of pubfic notices and wi(l be notWed of your responsibility accordingly.
Protested applications for VMRC permits which can: not be resolved, projects co~stlng over . $500,000 involving
encroachment over State-owned .subaqueous land, and all
" iproj#cts affecting tidal wetlands in localities Mithout a. Local
Wetlands Boards (LWEls) will be scheduled for puDhc hearings by VMRC, at their regularly scheduled monthly commission
meetings, PL;bRc hearings will be hOld by LWOs in tidewater localities that have adopted and administer the tidal wetlands
ordinance . All interested parties wIll Oe officially notified re!garding the date and time of the hearing and Commission
meeting procedures . The; Commisslonwill make si. -decision on the project -at the meeting, inless a decision for
continuance is made. If a proposed pr9ject is approyo, q permit Dr .qgency correspondence Is sent to the applicant. In
sorre cases a notarized -signAture, .as well as procmsing ftpes and myalUes, are required befOre.-the permit. is validated. If
the project Is denled, the resson(s) fordenial will~be provIded In wrifing .
Revised June 2012
14
W
0
PA
W
a)
FOR-AGENCY USE ONLY
APPLICATIONFDRM
Application Number;
.AAall-cmt(s) --pLEAsE PRwr-pR.TYPE' ALL ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION$ BELOW. .0 a queadon does not
'
a001y tD'YQU.r prqjcM PkWsb. 06ht MA. (not appOciable)
In OW space pmy1cled- If addItional'space Is needed, jitfach
exh $ .% X-11 Inch Sheeft ofpnper.
1 . PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION
(Atlach a copy of a MaP, Such as-2 USGS 10I)ociraphic map or siniffar rna[2 -showing all locationq ofall withdravials
asSochited with the application . lt%clude an arrow indicatin _9 the Nlonh Direction .)
I
citypturit.y- c.prollps. I;ounty.
NIA
NO= of w8terbody Or WSWrbDdIW NM WhIch the w9W w*dras* omo*
Lake Carolina
Taut-m(,o~)to- $0vons'N1111 Run
Loftda*end longthl" of wtthdrowEd pcMS)-,(de§rqW rRjKUWS,WMds) :
25"
e-dot. USGS My.drologic Unit Ccdq QjVc)' 020M 05
If mom,'4cate'the 10~ftfuoind 12-dyfMSPp HUCs
io4gip,0201110110503
v-ftt -02080060
9.'5 square mil"
Qow 4. pr6~
.O . poWoe tte 1$0.WIng . 'NIA
.ContributIng drainage area at wMWmwa1' point(s) :
If a Te!arn
Norm of Oakwt%odV or watdMxIdles where-the AjoctMr
Tftb.uWWbs to .
Laft.de and foriM.U46 oldhiftrge pard(s)(Obqrees,thl~um. Wcq*),
LL opt USGS Hydrdoglo UM Code.(HUC) (Soo www aps gcivjqurfj)j
ff known, :pdtqft to 10-ft"d and 124VJUSG$'HUCs-(aoe WpjAmw dgLyi= amcwtsoil a,.For in.t0bm'h .tr.a.n9.f9r.of we* Msoumee PMPoWd ftM aMer the Chowan RKW. NeW RW,'Potomac War. Roar-oke Mm. Big
.Sardy RIM or-Tonnessee Rwr hosins t02MVW.6w bow. providaQw .1bUmpq kdcmmom: 'N/A
For the desdriston boation (dipduqppcmt)-of the-trandw.8. d1gk USGS f+AmbW~-. UnIt.Code'(HUG) (See wWw;e0aqov/Aur0T.
tf known . todiedtio the -10-digil and -12-d1qK'USGS HUCa (sewe htto2,j&w dam IniaAwlsoftA w-~ter;w,
WOW& and WngRW9:
Revised June 2012
I).
AGMVapplMatle)
Or, WUUmiivXr"% M,,-& Tarry BlanknWhip, PE
APPiManttg)
Aqtia VirgWai Inc.
I Meft address
12414 Grianito Ridge Road
Rockville
WHIn address
13321TClothism Tu mpfke~ Suite N
I VA .1 2.3140
(804) 74949898
23143
Fox Of appJ1ca1Xsj
-(804) 749-8002
P4-W-""
i-r(s) (WdRerentftm appli
ity to Scheduled to' TmWW to Ac#m In 4M-13
WISMa
1_90tlp~
Fropem owner's r1aym
maiqnq a=ress
Lake Caroline Homo
-Owners Assoclanon
F~Aflc-rneetlnq scheduMdlimr
Auguetl 7 - Lake Ca0ine .
PropwV Ownen Assochgan
75 04mtop cove
Itu0my Glen, Virgirds 22W
Virginia Departmerit
of Health
CuLm-PeOleW Ofifte, -Offm Of
Watw Prograr",
'
*Onla
D"Wtuant of N"Ith
Culp*W. VkSMM WIN
SWe Corpodition
-PO B=1197
Richmond, VA23219'
Commission
60-im-of TeWsisper having general dreuMon in the greO dr the project _The Free Lance Star
aburg, VA 22401
Address- and phor* PuMbet jindUdIng arm opoel 0fnqW%mpW_GT6.An*U9 Streal
Phonet (50
.) 314-SM
Revised Jurm 2012
4
IZIPWO
I
PA
W
Describe the prdposed use of the water withdnmi and tne time period over whtch thes-amount Is to be
Ju"heation for the -proposm wAhdrawal demand. lhsaftOddNonal.&5'x .ll'gago;ffnecessaty.
Golf courses must provide dQCunw.tatlon.tp fusff'y ihe'arriount of wa*.vA. kWwal.-such-as'the amount of acreage under
irf,gation, the, acreage-of ktrways versus greeM.-and the-potential Gvep0trans0iration deficit fmd assumbd irrigation efficlan CY
Agricultural users must supply rfocumen%tlon jds0yaV.1her requested withdT%&~l dmount; such as Mv of ctoo,~acres irrigated,
Inches of waterappiled artd,frequenr.I of applicatiqn
OUwr usem of wIthdrmaI6 for purposes odw.th#q #m" 4esc4bed above mus.: provide suffVent documentation to justify the
requested withdrawal amounts.
The proposed daily Withdrawal willoserve to supply domestic'water to the. Lake Caroline
subdi'vislion . The eXisting water treatmint. plant has a rated ca'pa city of 0 676 MOD. In the
event domestic water can be supplied to Caroline C6unty as aback-up to4sWat.9r supply
system, future Abily withdrawal-wpuld be 12 MOD..
See attached saft yield analyses from VPH signed by JA Desal for 2-2 MOD.
The existing withdrawal supplies
watortothe existing. .Ladytindth- Water Company plant
.
with a rated capacity of 0 576 MOD, which Js readily expandable to 1 .2 MOD.
A sai% yield analysis Is aftphed requesting ,a oa% :yield of lf-4 MOD from Lake Caroline .
Re~IsW June 2G12
I. Provide for eaL;n wrtnarawai asso.oated with the prplect. the following informadon . For projects where. the withdrawal Is expazted to
increase over time. such as municipal withdrawals . these values-whould he 9W-i for the end of the permit term (.typically 15 years)
I
Proposed maximum Instantaneous withdiawai: goo
Proposed average daily withdrawal: 0. 72 m9d
gpm,
Proposed max:mum dally wiftra%al:. 1 .296 mgd
proposeri maArnurh monthly wfthdrawal: 40.18 . MG
Proposed mammum annual withdrawal- 473.0 MG
If the withdrawal is not I DO% oonsumptive. provide the proposed monthly consumptive volumee
DLq"&- apy buas;one) variations (r. the withdrawal patterns-
s~ummer months fat watering of lawns .
(bpecify units)
Potential for 30% increase in wfithdrawal during
Golf courses must provide the total.arnount'.of water expec!ed to be withdrawn In a drought yeaf and. In an average year.
Agricultural users may provide withdrawal InformaUPp in'units such as acre4nches br .Acro-166t of water . QEQ will convert
these vMues to gallurm after . recoWn your application
The Preliminary Engineering Report for the project is attached .
Intake :
Velocity of withdrawal :
Aps
IntMes / _rnm
Screw mesh si?e :
if oto- srdng units, please specll~r__
Provide a dnscription of the proposed intake:
The intake represents an existing stiucture and'does not require modification for the
proposed plant upgrade .
Providea description of A~qilable~wator-storage faciiihas. InclUde ft volume, .depti, normal pool elavdon, unusable storage
voltime. If applicable, stage-storage relationship W, the Impounding structure and volume or nate .of vOthdraw*s from the storage
facility.
Lake Caroline covers approximately 273 acres - flowing west to .east.'The lake. Is over two miles long
with a depth averaging 15 feet1hroughout; and 32 feet -at the -dam. Seeattached safe yield analysis .
The sedimentation pond stores approximately 20, million -gallons of water; all of which Is useable
when the lowest el&Mlon withdrawal line is In seivibe.
'Po- withdrawals proposed on -an -Impoundmont. prq*6 adescdpbor~
size. wpac1ty, and the mechaniom used to cantrol release.
0 flow or
rejes" control structures . Include "of structure,
The piping from the intake structure to the - pre-sedimentation basin serving the water
treatment plant Is 12 Inches In diameter . The Intake Is covered with a trash rack. located
approximately four feet. below the normal surfaciB water elevation.
Water Is withdrawn from the sedimentation pond -from ofie of three elevations using the
gate valves provided In the raw water Intake structure .
Remsed June 2012
6
PA
W
Q
5 WAIER VVITkdk.AWALS USE . NEED . ANO ALTERNATIVES (corainued)
Provide an alternatives a*ysis fo.t the proposed water wtftrawal prolftL iriciucing a oiscussion ot aii afternatives analyzed; a
narrative outlining the opportunities and status of regions! efforts undeitaken : and the criteria used to evaluate each alternative,
The analysis must addrese all of the criteria contFdned In $.VAC 25-210-115,C-2 and 9VAC 25-210-116 .0. For. pr(gacts that will
after instroarn flows, Include"a discussion of ilhe aftemative sources of water supply available to support opera tions during times of
reduced Instrearn flow.
Two alternatives are considered for -the Lake Caroline development, specifically No Action, and Rehabl.1111tate
and Upgrade Existing Treatment System . Under the No Aidtion afterriative, water would be supplied by
Caroline County as currently provided . Carolina County,has been.,connected to the Lake Caroline community
since 2007 . 7 he Caroline County system does nqt .have thonecessary pressure to adequately service the Lake
Caroline community . There is also concern regarding the quality and .cl 4 a "My of water that Caroline County
can produce for the Lake Caroline . community .
Under the Rehabilitate the Ex1s;fing Treatment System
, . alternative, the Improvements Include replacing
d9terforated equipment, modifying chemical feed sysW Ms .(Improve' plant performance and compliance with
TTHMsand HAAs), and providing additional storage caI Pa.rA. ty~
The Preliminary iEnginsering Reportfor the project Is attachOd .
FroQe Information from the weter Z~_li
pertalr~Fan-ft-t
~s to o_Eveir. Me' ares Ii which the proposed wrater withdrawal project is located
Include inflormation from the plan that
projerted demand.: analysts of aftei nativds, and water cot6servatlon measures .
Discuss any discrepancies between the water supply plan and the proposed project . For projects that propuse a transfer of water
resot -roes from the Chovmn River, New RIver. Potomac River. Roanoke River, Big Sandy Rvor or Tannesm River basins to
anoter r;ver hasin, Informadon should be provided from the.-watersuppiv plans for hoth the source and receiving basins.
For proposed projepts; that Involve a public Kqffte WO
following information required by 9 VAC 25-M-1 15A and. B:
rawal or projects that w;II alter instivarn flows. provide the
Lake Caroline safe y1eld 2.2 MGD. New safe yield 1 .4
MGD at cu rrent demand of 00 6 to 0.2 MGD.
Existing supply sources, yields and demands:
Peak day 4,111drawaL 1 .2 MGD
Average ftly withdrawal: Up to 1,. 2 MGD
Safe yield: VDH 2.2 MGD.,See attached anaW. s for 1 .4 MGD
Lowest daily flow of record : 0.0 MGD
Types of water uses- Domestic .- See Prehrrunary Engineering ReporL
Existing water conservation measures and drought response pan. IncludIng what conditions trigger implementation :
Projected demands ove. a minim.un 30-year planning
Oriod.
See Caroline County Water Supply Plan.
Projectnd demands. in local or regional water supply plan (9 VAC 25-780 at seq.) or demand for trve project service area, if
dud is smaller In wes:
Statistical population (growth) trerfds:
Projected demands by use typix.
Projectse. demands without ~;M"nservafion measuresProjected damaods with tong-twm wa~nr cons.arvatlon fmasures*
Revised June 2012
For interbasin transter ot water resources pmposM from eiVor-the-Croipwan R.NW, New River, Potomac River, Roanoke Mier. E11i;
SandyMver orTennessso Rim bastins to another*wO",'summ9*9'on sapprate-shaetsof paper any coordination and/or
ncfte prmded to the public, lowV912ft goverrimerit, and Interestsd parties In 4W affected riviet basiris Sr4 IdFintIfy any Issues
raised .
N/A
I am hereby applyft for nerrnits typically issued by DEQ'VMRC, the- U.S . Army Coqx of Engoedrs. and Local Wetlands Boefds
torlher activities I have desalbed hemln . I agree to allow the duly authorized repmmkitives of any regulatury oradvisory agency
to enter upon the preftvw of to projeot 10te at reasorable times to inspect and photograph Rite coollitionis .
In addition, I car* undeh- penalty ot .jaw #&at t4is document kind-aff attaohmet* wpm prepared under my 41tv.*in oi supervision In
acconjace vAt O .Oyslem deslWted to assiure. VW qialffvid personnel properly gather and evaluate. the Information submitted.
Based an my mquiry of the person or persons who martage ft qjWom oi thiose persons dir.eeby responsible for gathering the
Information. the infmmation submitted to, to .tho best- of my-knv~%ftp and beW, true accurate and complete. I am aware that
there are significant panaftles for submItHrig false ftmiallon. hdudtng 0* possiblilly of fine and Imprisonment for knowing
Applicants name (pdnted .Qr ty ;wd)
Secono applicent's re.we (pdrftd or iy~)
Applicarirs sl4rAture
Second appftWs sIgHature
Cifftion L. FaFkerIV. P.E.
L
L
Date
TO ALLOWAGENTS TO AcrON APPLICANTS* &EHALF11P APPLJCABLE#
i,ClfftonL .Partcer.IV.P.F~,hembycgltryfttlnmauthwized
(APPLICANrS NAMEE)
PhM .'P
WM1amC.Km
(AGEN-178 NAME)
to act on rpy behalf and take aff ections necessary to the pmooss.ing, h-suallm. and moceptandR of V perrMt and any and all
standaid and specW conditions attached . We bereby cerll~ "t the InfMation subriftKi In this appl= -.s true and accurate
to the beat of our knewledge.
Applicant sSpnisbse.
Revised June 2012
EXHISFT
TRW DEED, made tbiff _d day of
csfea 4a j4e F 1970, by, and
beamen LAKE CAROLINE, INC., a virgInia, comparation, ot Caroline County qw0inaftar,
called-arantor"), and TA
CAROLINE PROMRTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 4NC.,
a VkgWa corporation, not for profit 0=01maltar called "Ormwee) .
WITNBSSHTH :
Thu for One Dollar ($1 .00) and oth
good and valuable consideration, the
receipt of which Is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys with
General Warranty UMD the Grantee the foltowing descrMad real estat adn-ted in
LAIM Caroline Ubdivialom-
PARCEL NO . 1.
Being Q roads, dua, spillway, lakes and basin areas
all as abown an the recorded maps of Lake Carolim
Subdivision and recorded In Deed Book 173, pap 378 and
S74. respectlyft in the MeWo Offlee of Caroline County
Circuit Court .
PARCEL NO. 11 .
,,Lot 18
vrLot 213
,/Lct 49
, Lot 88
v Lot 321
- Let 445
v Lot 879
Deed Book 173,
Deed Book 170,
Dead Pock I",
Deed Book 171,
Dead Book 174
Deed Book 171,
Dead Book 172,
VLOt 962
Deed Book 174,
%-LQt U59 Beach
Deed Book 174,
-Lot 1482 C,
AV) Lct
Deed Book 174,
A.ot 1634 Lake Access
Deed Book 174,
doot 1668 Dam & Recreation AM Deed Book 174,
4,ok 1684 LAU Acmm
Dead Book 174,
vLot:1685 Lake Acceas
Deed Book 174,
rLot 1667 Law Access .
Deed Book 173,
,4m 1773 Recreation Area
Dad Book 174,
~L=1868 Lake Acces
Deed Book 173.
Plaftd Pared Marked "Cemetery' Deed Book 173,
Platted Pared Muted "Road
Accese,
Dead Book 174,
Flatted Parcel Marked "Acem
]UM.1
Dead Book M,
Lot 196
Lot 35
Recreation Area.
Labe Access
Lalm Acce a
Rozeation Arm
take Acem
Lake Access
Lake Access
Lake Acceas
For use of Lots 187.
188. lag. & 190 only
For use of LAM 27, 28,
30, 31. 32, 33, & S4
only
Lot IM For use of Lots 1883,
1834, & M36 only
page 378
psas 300
page S01
page 65
pap 71
pap 553
pap 368
pap 455
page "S a:dd 449
pap 452
pap 446
pop 440
page 488
pop 438
page 386
Me 488
page 381
pap 380
page 460
page 368
Dead Book VO, page 582
Dead Book 170, pop SM
Deed Book 173. pap 385
1-6
W
13082GIS4
I
18111
z
I
~S
. .sit
20
vc
& Ong
w
z
3
-1,82 P%..r 301
CERTWICATE OF CORPORATE RESOLUnON
1, Gail D. O'Brien. Assistant Secretary of Lake Caroline, Luc., hereby certify
that the following Is a true and complete copy of a certain resolution adopted by the
Board of Directors of the Corporation at a meeting duly ca.1led and held on September 18,
1970, a quoxim being present and participating throughout, and that such resolution bas
not been rescJn
d or amended and remains In full force and effect :
"RESOLVED: 7Ut Calvin R. Mangrum., Vice Presi
Of
the corporation, and Barbara D. Blanton, Assistant Secretary of the
corporation, are hereby authorized to execute a deed from Lake
Caroline, Inc.', to lake Caroline Property Owners Association, Inc.,
conveying all the roads, dam, spillway, lake, basis areas, recreation
areas, lake ac4bess lots and common access lots to the Property Owners
Association, and the said Calvin R. Mangrum, and Barbara D. Manton
are hereby authorized to execute a deed from Lake Caroline, Inc. to
CaroUue Water Company, Inc. , conveying lots 14 -A, 2097 and 1612 to
Caroline Water Company, Inc . "
WrMSS my band and the corporate seal of the corporation, this 18th day of
September, 19M.
JP
J
Assistant Secretary
I
ABU
V'NLGM&- TA
rMe Covaty,
VOIJ&
6b day
-
a,,,
0SM(lit,as CIrca Court Of CW04
19-1,Z 1-.b and
des I
p,-'a ft mtWC019-
uat-jUtrA to V-CO94 "t
Toes WWI-
I
.
VMGINIA : IN THE CMCUrr COUICr OF CAROLM COUNTY
CAROIME WA71RR CObOANY,INC .
V.
At Law No. 9M9
LAIM CAROLINE PROPERTY OWNM ASSOCUTION, JKC.
77w Adpum OWw p a!
on Sepumbar 2, !M In d& em b Jw=W vacaM
to, Rule 1:1 of tmRwas ardw Sup"= COM of vkiwa.
72M cam can to be haW an do evkhme td= lan=w 15, IM, an-tba I -14 1
A
of ewwd fbr Pbdndff mW Daftwds* an the km qpkdou of Me C=M OW w"
by
cuumd.
IT APPSARMG TO TEE COURT dac
1. Lca awd by Defimdau is wassom am am not u4m to wow avaikWft
chwgcs, but an Mxwwt to vpAw am ebomw
2. PbLbtdff ham fadk*w calbcdon of awh us= chug= fbr a munber of yem;
3. Low sWimd by Detbadou do am not toed as common aim am x4jea to
Wow avanwAft am*" and. If eaisa~ to MOWS "am System. an MMM to wwor wa
4. The aprlkal& cam of ibmiadow on Ph*WW& Chhu is am (3) yup..
S. Dafivdaut bu tondazed to Pldndff ft oxn of 317,65102 fn addudm of
.1pigh
vcd,h-fbr&xUabMrj*us
udeam
by ft Cww.
6. Pldzdff is not IM& to Ddbad= Mr dm and agmmwa on. Im used In
camawdan wuh ft opendon of bs W&W aimem;
7. 72w convoyawe to Plabdfftiom lake Cawlfm~ Uw. of tlw w=w eyam by dad
i
M
.4
w
Q
1-b
dued sepwmber 19, 1970, murod In dw Offim of the Cimk Cautt of Camlium Clam,
Virsids. in Dead Bwk 182 at page 296, wA deed of wmecdm dvAd MMairy 23, 1971,
ftm
worded in Dad Boat iss, al pw 478, curia vft it imped enema to draw water
l4kv cawim wi&mst
mud= to dw 1 0
i
- Ifar the TMPM Of scrvimg Im. Im 00 LAb
cStoom
NOW. 33ES1 EKMB- It is w ORDWWAnd it is *ctbw ORDERM that I.Mmom of S17,6M.12 Is &Mmninod tobe down= ow
ft waxer avdMEw hm ft mm
Plmh2Wby-DgVwdM
am im lit Me time d3b sawn Was MW an Much
23, IVA, and dW MU 4mm bu ban pidd.
2. Dorovdmt to U*b to PiolnM Or mm um dws" fbr commu me im
coommd to Pblo&rs wou qsu=. U&ming 7* 1 . .1"9.
3 . Dofbndues comm=wm ftrfix4pm spLut PisimW fbr dww wd useumcm
on late owmd by phftdff Is 4bmlmDd.
4. PlibWff has an fmp]W MWMM CO dUW WAIM ftM LAU Qwlb3i wiftut
compeAuMm to the defiodwst for die puma of mv b* I= hk go LAD Camline DrnbpoM.
5. Deftn6nes rW4 of oppod Is mnwvW mgadlm of havkg pW Pbindff do
wu= dowziucd to bc ovied wi&m piftma bavb
bms etwelp I In dist smem.
Amopums of wX VWwom by ftbWftg OX SMXC PNIOWBTWO Of WPW- TO ft WSOU
of tbB Whip boxvin m COMW to do poddom advmcod by elftr VNW. such puW'm
o4ecdow and swod~ to dds Oider an hoft wwA md prout"d.
-
Mw vnim apbdw Imu duad June 23. IM Is hoseby imwporaW by sale co m F
In thk 09dw.
,
14
w
0
Oft mr-i 073'
DAM;
I ASK FOR THIS:
Comselfor ft plaintiff
mW fbr the dofwWa* UM Camilro rmperty Omem Association, hr.
BEEN:
goo 067"-%#
Frw* L Bonew
Courowl for Dw detwukm Ladywith W&W Co.. Inr. WO CardWo Water Co., Inc.
SEEN BY OTHER DEFENDAWM BY NOTICE.
A COPY TOM:
RAY& CAMPBELL. CLERK
my
3
Depury-cmw