The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) is in the process of selecting a preferred alternative for expanding its water supply system. Gannett Fleming completed a Water Supply Alternatives Supplemental Evaluation in July 2004 supplemented by studies of Beaver Creek Reservoir in October 2004 and concluded that there are four primary water supply expansion concepts that have the potential to satisfy the raw water supply to the RWSA Urban System through 2055. These four concepts include: (1) an intake on the James River, (2) expanding the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, (3) expanding the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR), and (4) dredging the SFRR. This technical memorandum discusses only the concept of expanding the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. This evaluation of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion concept is intended to be used for comparison with the other water supply expansion concepts being evaluated.

As part of the Urban Area System, RWSA owns and operates two dams in the Ragged Mountain region located immediately west of the City of Charlottesville. Upper Ragged Mountain Dam and Lower Ragged Mountain Dam form the Ragged Mountain Reservoir System. Currently, the two reservoirs are operated to store a combined total of 514 Million Gallons (MG) or 1,578 acre-feet of water. Of this volume, approximately 463 MG are considered to be usable storage and the remainder (51 MG) is considered to be dead storage.

The Upper Ragged Mountain Dam (Upper Dam) impounds water from an unnamed tributary to Moores Creek. The drainage or watershed area for the dam was determined to be 1.26 square miles (mi2) with 0.81 mi2 (66%) located upstream of an Interstate 64 (I-64) embankment culvert. Located immediately downstream of the embankment toe of the Upper Dam, is the reservoir for the Lower Ragged Mountain Dam (Lower Dam). No record drawings of the Upper Dam are known to exist which could identify the Upper Dam’s as-built spillway crest elevation (normal pool level); however, 1960s drawings for the original construction of I-64 through the Upper Reservoir area identify the normal pool level as approximately Elevation 655.3 feet (GF local datum). The drawings also suggest that the highway alignment included a horizontal curve to avoid encroaching on the Upper Reservoir.

As part of the federally sponsored National Dam Safety Program conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, both the Upper and Lower Dams were inspected to evaluate their design adequacy in terms of presenting any potential hazards to public safety associated with passing the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event. According to information provided in the 1978 Phase I Inspection Report, the Upper Dam was originally constructed around 1885. This earth embankment structure is 47 feet high and 470 feet long with a stone-masonry core wall. The embankment crest is approximately 12 feet wide and the upstream embankment slope is 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) and the downstream embankment slope is 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (2.5H:1V). The spillway for the structure is an open concrete-lined channel with an approximately 9-foot crest length located in the right (south) abutment area.

A freestanding stone-masonry intake tower with a wood-frame gatehouse is located within the Upper Reservoir at about the midpoint of the embankment. A 10-inch outlet pipe and transmission line originates at the intake tower and passes through the embankment and follows the original streambed

downstream to the intake tower for the Lower Dam. Reportedly, a break exists along some point of the 10-inch transmission line that is located within the Lower Reservoir such that the pool levels for the Upper and Lower Reservoirs equalize during normal low base flow conditions.

The Lower Dam and Reservoir are located immediately downstream of the Upper Dam on the same unnamed tributary to Moores Creek. The drainage or watershed area for this dam was reported to be 1.83 mi2 with 1.28 mi2 (70%) located upstream of the Upper Dam. The as-built (and current) spillway crest for the Lower Dam is at Elevation 641.0 feet (GF local datum).

According to information provided in the 1978 Phase I Inspection Report, the Lower Dam was originally constructed in 1908. The Phase I report mistakenly identified the structure as an “earthfill dam with an upstream concrete gravity wall.” Based on a review of 1908 record drawings and original construction photographs, the structure is a 67-foot-high and 400-foot-long cyclopean concrete gravity dam founded on bedrock. The cyclopean masonry or concrete construction method represents a transition period (1870s-1920s) in dam building in the United States, between the earlier time when gravity dams were constructed of stone masonry and the later time when conventional mass concrete was used. Cyclopean concrete is formed by embedding large stones (up to 6 feet plus in diameter), commonly referred to as “plum” stones, into wet concrete mortar. Subsequently, the spaces between the plum stones were also filled with wet concrete mortar to form a continuous matrix of concrete and plum stones throughout the structure. Often times, these structures did not have horizontal lift joints or vertical contraction joints within the mass. Based on the construction photographs and record drawings, this also appears to be the case for the Lower Dam.

The gravity section geometry consists of a vertical upstream face and a sloping downstream face with an 8-inch horizontal to 1-foot vertical (0.67H:1V) batter. The spillway for the structure is an open concrete and stone-masonry lined channel with an approximate 13-foot crest length located in the left abutment area. A concrete intake tower with a concrete gatehouse is adjoined to the upstream face of the gravity dam at about the midpoint of the dam crest length. According to information provided in the 1978 Phase I Inspection Report for the Upper Dam, an earthfill buttress was placed against the downstream face of the Lower Dam in the 1930s to reportedly “strengthen” the structure.

In accordance with Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), Division of Dam Safety Regulations the Upper Dam’s size classification is “Medium” since the embankment height is greater than 40 feet and the hazard potential classification is “I” meaning probable loss of life and excessive economic loss would occur as a result of dam failure. Therefore, the required spillway design flood (SDF) for the existing Upper Dam is the probable maximum flood (PMF). The 1978 Phase I Inspection report concluded, “…that the dam would be overtopped for all floods exceeding approximately 10 percent of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The spillway is therefore adjudged seriously inadequate…Since the spillway capacity is unusually small and the consequences of dam overtopping and failure could cause a catastrophic event; the dam is classified as unsafe, emergency.”

The Lower Dam’s current size classification is also “Medium” since the gravity dam height is greater than 40 feet and the maximum storage capacity is greater than 1,000 acre-feet. The hazard potential classification is “I” meaning probable loss of life and excessive economic loss would occur as a result of dam failure specifically since residences, businesses, Interstate 64, US Route 29, and the City of Charlottesville are located within a reasonable distance downstream. Therefore, the required SDF for the existing Lower Dam is also the PMF. The 1978 Phase I Inspection Report concluded, “…the dam would be overtopped for all storms exceeding approximately 25 percent of the Probable Maximum Flood. The spillway is, therefore, judged as seriously inadequate, and the dam is assessed as unsafe, non-emergency.”

Based on information provided by RWSA staff and associates, the spillway at the Upper Dam was modified sometime in the mid-1980s. Only limited information is available regarding this work; however, part of this improvement may have involved slightly lowering the spillway crest from the originally-constructed level to further improve overall spillway capacity. The Upper Dam’s current spillway crest elevation is Elevation 654.7 feet (or 0.6 feet lower than the as-built spillway crest elevation and 13.7 feet higher than the normal pool for the Lower Reservoir).

The reservoir behind the Upper Dam is currently maintained at the same pool level as the reservoir behind the Lower Dower Dam (Elevation 641 feet, GF local datum). Based on information obtained from RWSA file documents, this operational mode began sometime in the mid-1980s as a concession with VDCR Dam Safety to address spillway capacity deficiencies at both the Upper and Lower Dams. The Upper Reservoir is maintained at a lower-than-normal level to provide flood storage to reduce the spillway discharge capacity requirement for both dams during a flood event.

Since the issuance of the Phase I Inspection Reports, no dam modifications to either structure have been designed or constructed to fully address the dam safety deficiencies. The dams are currently being operated under “conditional” operation and maintenance certificates provided by VDCR Division of Dam Safety. The conditions stated for the operation and maintenance certificates for each dam are given below:

In February 2003, Gannett Fleming, Inc. issued the results of a Feasibility Study in a report titled “Feasibility Study for Upgrading the Ragged Mountain Dams.” The purpose of the study was to re- evaluate the design adequacy of the Lower Dam using state of the art engineering analysis methods developed since the 1978 Phase I inspections. The scope of this study also included the conceptual-level development of remedial or upgrade alternatives to address the design deficiencies.

The February 2003 Feasibility Study confirmed the inadequacy of the spillway capacity at both the Upper and Lower Dams. The investigation also found that the static and dynamic (earthquake) stability of the embankment slope for the earthfill buttress for the Lower Dam is likely inadequate. The report recommended that if the upgrade alternative involves the continued use of the existing earthfill buttress, that the potential for liquefaction of the buttress soils be investigated. Each of the remedial upgrade alternatives developed as part of the study included partially breaching the Upper Dam embankment to remove it from service and raising the normal pool of the Lower Dam by 3.2 feet to regain reservoir storage capacity lost from the Upper Dam. None of the alternatives included upgrading the Upper Dam since the cost to increase spillway capacity at two dams would be greater than for one dam and any reservoir volume lost by removing the Upper Dam from service could be regained in raising the normal pool of the Lower Dam as part of its upgrade measure. The recommended remediation project consists of removing and replacing the existing earth buttress with a roller-compacted concrete (RCC) buttress.