Dredging Lake Accotink is not financially or environmentally feasible
At a virtual community meeting Feb. 15, Fairfax County officials explained why the dredging project that had been proposed to save Lake Accotink is no longer feasible.
County public works staff are recommending that “Lake Accotink not be dredged due to significant community and environmental impacts and excessive costs.”
A new analysis found the project would cost $395 million, a huge increase over the $30 million price tag projected earlier. That cost includes maintenance dredging every five years, as well as an initial dredge.
An in-person meeting covering the same information will be held this evening, at 7 p.m., at Kings Glen Elementary School in Springfield.
A final decision on the future of Lake Accotink will be made by the Board of Supervisors. The new recommendation, along with input from the public, will be presented to the BoS this spring after the public comment period ends on April 1.
Comments can be emailed to [email protected]. A survey will be posted Friday on the project website.
A big disappointment
“We’re very disappointed. We’ve been working on this project for a lot of years,” said Board of Supervisors Chair Jeffrey McKay.
“There are folks angry about what they’ve heard. I’m angry, too,” said Braddock Supervisor James Walkinshaw. “We can’t sugarcoat it. The prognosis for this project is not good. The amount of sediment and cost is not a matter of opinion.”
Walkinshaw addressed a rumor that the county will sell the lake to a developer. “That is not going to happen. We don’t sell parkland to developers.”
Chris Herrington, director of the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES), said he’s heard about “the deep connection people have had with Lake Accotink.”
The latest recommendation “will be extremely disappointing to you,” Herrington said. But “we cannot proceed with a full dredging of Lake Accotink.”
To fund the nearly $400 million cost of dredging, the county would have to raise taxes, he said. And there won’t be money for other more effective projects elsewhere to reduce flooding and retain stormwater.
The project would not be in line with policies adopted by the BoS on greenhouse gases, sustainability, efficient government, safety, and the environment, he said. The dredging project would require 50,000 greenhouse gas-emitting truckloads of sediment removed from the lake.
A future wetlands park
In lieu of dredging, county staff recommends the Park Authority carry out a new Master Plan development process for Lake Accotink Park.
The property will remain a park, said Charles Smith, the branch chief for stormwater planning at DPWES.
The lake will remain for the foreseeable future, but vegetation will gradually take over the margins and the lake will transform into wetlands, Smith said. He wouldn’t speculate on how soon that would happen, as it would depend on the severity of storms in future years.
A wetlands would dramatically increase the wildlife diversity and abundance in the park, Smith said. The lake currently has poor water quality and is not a good environment for fish.
Related story: Lake Accotink dredging project not likely to happen, due to increased cost
Both the original and updated studies looked at solutions to increase the depth of the lake to eight feet to ensure its viability for recreational uses. The depth currently ranges from one to four feet.
The dredging project called for building a pipeline to transfer the dredged material to a dewatering site and transporting the dried sediment by truck to an offsite location, explained environmental engineer Amanda Kohler of Arcadis, the consulting company that carried out both studies for the county.
A new analysis
Several community members at the meeting questioned how the cost estimate could have soared from $30 million to nearly $400 million.
“Some of the critical assumptions have changed,” said Herrington. “The initial analysis included low-cost disposal options and underestimated the amount of sediment.”
The latest study found 500,000 cubic yards of sediment would have to be removed during the initial dredging. The initial estimate was 360,000 cubic yards. Another 150,000 cubic yards would have to be removed every five years.
Among the two sites identified as the best options for dewatering, use of the maintenance facility in Wakefield Park would require clearing seven acres, Kohler said. That’s much larger than originally estimated. The other site, on Southern Drive, would require 190 trucks a day through neighborhood streets carrying sediment out of the area.
No good alternatives
Arkadis reconsidered one of the other initial options for saving the lake – creating a new offline smaller lake in the park.
According to county staff, that is “not a suitable alternative for lake management due to significant community and environmental impacts, unreasonable risk for long-term safety and maintenance, and high project costs.”
Creating a new smaller lake – about half the size of Lake Accotink – would require dredging 825,000 cubic yards of sediment from the existing lake, importing 340 cubic yards of fill dirt to construct an earthen berm, rechanneling Accotink Creek, removing part of the existing dam, and building a new dam. Kohler said.
That would cost about $192 million, not including maintenance, and might not be sustainable over the long term.
Without the dredging project, Smith said the county will still carry out stream restoration projects throughout the Accotink watershed.
The county would not be fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for sending more sediment to the Chesapeake Bay, he said. “Fairfax County is not compelled to maintain Lake Accotink.”
The vast majority of sediment is flushed out into flood plains in the system, he said. “We are not seeing a tremendous impact from sediment on downstream estuaries.”
“Given what we know now, managing this lake is extremely difficult and expensive,” he said. “It’s like digging a hole on the beach with water constantly coming in and filling it up.”
25 responses to “Dredging Lake Accotink is not financially or environmentally feasible”
Leave a reply
This is totally unacceptable and is malfeasance at worse. How much money did they spend studying this issue for 5 years and then missed the amount of cost by $360 million. They missed the amount of dredging needed by a 140 thousand cubic feet. The county should get a refund on the initial study. How much did that cost, and who knows how much the second study cost. Something is very wrong and the Board of Supervisors is responsible, especially Walkinshaw and McKay, who feign disappointment.
Terribly disappointed. Wonderful treasure to visit and bike and hike through. So what is the Board of Stupids (BOS), answer to this, probably to sell it off to a developer and plop section 8 housing in it.
Happy to know that the BOS are such good stewards of the environment…..NOT!
I think the way nature would take care of it (without human intervention) would be for it to slowly become a marsh, then a meadow and eventually a forest. So how do we keep the park and enjoy it and let it do what it’s going to do?
Shocking that you have no problem pissing away taxpayer funds when it has a direct impact to you. So sorry you’ll have to deal with this minor inconvenience.
Also A+ work to find a way to get in a ‘poor people/minorities bad’ dig on something completely unrelated.
If you understood the dynamics of social engineering; concentrations of section 8 housing is self defeating. It actually promotes, recycles and self-perpetuates poverty more than it solves by keeping the poor from pulling them selves out of the lower income strata and crime ridden ghettos.
The lake is an oasis, returning it to a marsh would create other environmental problems than it would solve. This is just another example of bad governance by the BOS.
It’s amazing that you’re an expert on social engineering and environmental studies. Facebook University is really coming in handy for you.
Good job wasting time, money, manpower! You boobs look like the Commaders front office!
The lake is essential for stopping the flow of sediment and floodwaters, it needs to be dredged as everyone with a brain knows.
A sound, fiscally responsible decision. Sometimes the right thing to do is disappointing and sad, but that is just too much money to maintain it. Give it back to nature. I will be sure to visit soon and pay my respects.
Would you be open to a privatized, smaller lake with usage fees for all the amigos who use the lake parking like a repair garage? Residents who are losing property value may want to buy and maintain a smaller lake. Shoot – just a few of the well paid Amazon engineers coming in 2025 might want to buy the lake. If Backlick road VRE had more thoughtful development and schedule wouldn’t a lake community be more attractive to developers (a la Vienna Va, Pimmit Hill). Sell the lake to the state or the NPS? Get low interest loan; float a bond; all of the above. Being fiscally responsible may also mean being competent and weighing ALL options – not just the easy ones that fit your narrative.
Absolutely. What is the lake barcroft model? They should consult with that HOA.
The following comment by Supr. Walkinshaw is misleading: “Walkinshaw addressed a rumor that the county will sell the lake to a developer. “That is not going to happen. We don’t sell parkland to developers.”
Here in Reston, the County Board has tried twice (and so far failed) to develop county-owned land (not specifically parkland) as part of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP). This enables them to reap profits from nominally publically-owned land. So, Annandale, watch out for a PPP-initiative to develop Lake Accotink, something that is done secretly by state law (can’t reveal financial details). And kiss Lake Accotink goodbye. So much for the Board’s commitment to environmental and park goals, much less the wishes of the community.
Sorry this happening. NO ONE but developers will gain from such a maneuver.
Corrupt to the core. Dredging of some of the largest lakes around the world costs 3-6 million. Somehow tiny lake in this county is 400 mil. How do people just swallow all these lies here?
People who think a marsh is a desirable option have never lived near a marsh. Swamp gas smells like an open sewer and gets worse in the heat. Mosquitos and other large bugs not to mention an explosion in the rat population – it will get intense — but let’s get real – the county want this area to be used for high density rental housing. So destroying the lake is just step one — dropping property values is next – followed by homes getting changed into multi family rentals block by block. More renters means fewer engaged home owners who fight against additional zoning changes — and then fall into a trashed neighborhood accelerates quickly. That is the plan folks. Just look at the old turn of the century neighborhoods of Nee England. Many are now multi family family rentals that smell like cat pee. Save lake Accotink to save a great community and stop the train to high density.
That is a conspiracy theory. Or, that is a logical, nefarious plan that has been successfully implemented countless times.
The county staff who said the cost of dredging would mean raising taxes – would mean sacrificing other projects. Really? How does he know that’s how citizens of the county want prioritize and manage the county? He made a big assumption. That statement reflects a total lack of competence and complete lack of creativity. This could be funded with a combination of measures – issue a bond; get low interest loan from the State; collect usage fees for parking at the lake; seek large donation from Amazon and the land trust.
I think I read that the $400 million is over 25 years. Fairfax county has like a million people. $100/head over 25 years doesn’t sound like that much.
Yet the county’s investment in Tyson’s corner environmental hellscape of concrete was approved without a thought to how that development and its tax revenue should be used to maintain parks and green space? Instead residents get stuck living near a mosquito swamp vs a lake … what happened to the other three proposals for a smaller lake? There’s no analysis for different time frames, alternative funding; cost of all the bad alternatives; total lack of effort and vision – poor leadership
Would you be open to a privatized, smaller lake with usage fees for all the amigos who use the lake parking like a repair garage? Residents who are losing property value may want to buy and maintain a smaller lake. Shoot – just a few of the well paid Amazon engineers coming in 2025 might want to buy the lake. If Backlick road VRE had more thoughtful development and schedule wouldn’t a lake community be more attractive to developers (a la Vienna Va, Pimmit Hill). Sell the lake to the state or the NPS? Get low interest loan; float a bond; all of the above. Being fiscally responsible may also mean being competent and weighing ALL options – not just the easy ones that fit your narrative.
Started going to Lake Accotink since the early 1960s. Sad to see it go. But the entire Mason area has gone to complete shit — from a bunch of lovely neighborhoods, to over-dense, crime-ridden, extremely dangerous, deteriorating vestiges of a former civilization.
Things were still very nice up until around 1985.
What do you suppose is the factor that drove this total destruction over the last 35 years? It certainly wasn’t a lack of tax dollars.
Reading through the articles & comments on Lake Accotink, I’ve seen lots of finger-pointing, but not a single mention of the cause of the lake’s demise: sediment washing down from upstream. The Accotink Creek watershed is entirely within Fairfax County. Less-than-careful management of sediment from the intense housing & transportation projects upstream gave us this situation. If you blame the Board of Supervisors, blame them for lax oversight (within their authority) of rapid development upstream.
But really, folks…. A wetland park, a smaller version of Huntley Meadows, will be an asset to the community. And there’s no other feasible choice at this point.
No one has mentioned losing 7 acres of high quality forest at Wakefield Park as if that isn’t an issue. At a time when we need the carbon capture losing this habitat to preserve the a Lake that was never intended to be a Lake seems like a very high price to pay. I’ve seen people say you can replant trees. Really, where??? this will be an ongoing forever project that will only cost more. Turning a forest into an industrial site seems to have gotten lost in this convo. I appreciate the Lake is a treasure. So is the forest across the street.
The invasive vines along Braddock will take out at least 7 acres of trees in the next 25 years.
The invasive vines and most of the trees along Braddock Road will be gone with the new multi-modal project in the works, not yet finalized but the money is already there. And if left you are correct the invasives will kill the trees but it won’t take 25 years. Wakefield Park has a much higher quality forest than the trees with vines along Braddock Road. Trees provide a valuable service by storing metric tons of carbon. Since this area is very close to the Beltway it is important that those trees be saved for both air quality and heat island issues in Annandale.
The south drive option and a smaller lake really are viable — along with alternate funding sources. It’s just a total lack of will on the part of the county staff… perhaps put the entire design out to bid and get a REAL idea of the cost and not the lame sad sack analysis we were presented with. The idea of the “”magical wetlands”” is ridiculous — the lake slowly filling in over decades means a smelly mosquito breeding ground with exploding rodent population abutting human populations… this ain’t gonna be a Huntley Meadows – not by a long shot. It’s going to be swarms of gnats and bugs – smelly mud – and invasive weeds as far as the eye can see. Basically a giant toilet for the rest of the county – at least we know what the BOS and staff think of middle class voters.
It has been clear for some time that the problem of Lake Accotink has no good solutions. Keeping Lake Accotink as a lake still seems the least bad option, and the surest way to keep the last Accotink Creek mussel population alive. Let Harmony, Accord, and Goodwill guide us as we together seek our way out of this muddle.
https://www.accotink.org/2016/MasterPlanLakeAccotink2016.htm