Master Plan
Lake Accotink Park

The Board of Supervisors Environmental Committee discussed Lake Accotink. At the recommendation of Supervisors Walkinshaw, Lusk, and McKay, the group decided to form a task force to study the problem and provide findings. What form this task force will take does not seem clear. What it could possibly find that has not already been studied to death is also not clear, other than a more thorough examination of the nature and cost of wetland conversion. We can only assume the Lake Accotink Park Master Plan will continue to be delayed until the task force reports.

Task Force Announcement - Supervisor Walkinshaw
Task Force Announcement - Supervisor Lusk
Environmental Committee Meeting Reporting

During the current Lake Accotink dam repairs, the water level has been lowered by 2 – 3 feet. The surface area of the lake has shrunk an estimated 30 to 50 percent, conjuring an image of what the near future of the lake might become without dredging.

A revelation was the dozens of freshwater mussel shells on the exposed mudflats. This indicates only a very small population of mussels in the lake, but it is a pleasant surprise when we had believed the population to be near zero.

Photos & Observations

The main channel of Accotink Creek winds its way past the mudflats.

This is not new. Here’s a description of similar woes in the Washington Post from 1982.

Neighbors are understandably disappointed and frustrated, some to the point of a pitchfork and torches mood. The discussion at Save Lake Accotink is illustrative.

Although the Story Map suggests the lake could become a new Huntley Meadows. One must wonder, given the invasives that dominate the upper end of the lake that filled in years ago.

If the sediment goes over the dam, the mussels are doomed. There is some faint hope the Flag Run restoration could be designed to provide a sanctuary and we need to pursue that idea.

The Friends of Accotink Creek have submitted Comments indicating our position.
In summary:

• Our prediction is that the passion of the neighbors will carry the day and the lake will be retained.
• The Friends of Accotink Creek concur that retaining the lake is the least bad option now available.
• A bond issue should be placed on the ballot to allow all Fairfax County citizens to definitively voice their position.
• The situation constitutes an emergency calling for an “Accotink Creek Project” as driven as the Apollo Moon Project.

Participate in the community survey on the future of Lake Accotink
Comment by email to "F515@PublicInput.com"
Or use the comment box HERE

Comments of the Friends of Accotink Creek
Meeting notes , Meeting video February 15, 2023
Meeting notes , February 16, 2023
Dredging FAQs
Annandale Today Article , February 16, 2023
WJLA report, February 17, 2023
Washington Post Article, March 5, 2023
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Presentation to North Springfield Civic Association, March 21, 2023

Accotink Marsh Park - a new Huntley Meadows?
Or “Humpy Meadows”, dominated by mounds of Multiflora rose overgrown with Porcelainberry?

Washington ABC affiliate WJLA carried a report examining the dredging issues.
Report text & video link

The public meeting confirmed that the options for dewatering sediment from the Lake Accotink dredging have dwindled down to two sites:

• Beside the Wakefield Park maintenance yard, which would involve clearing seven to ten acres of forest and running a 1.5 mile industrial pipeline through the streamside woods to the lake.
• In the industrial park next to the lake, which would put heavy truck traffic on Highland Street through a residential area.

The comments submitted by the Friends of Accotink Creek begin with a summary of the muddle we find ourselves in:
"Please circle your selection:
A. Lake Accotink is a beloved aesthetic and recreational amenity for surrounding neighborhoods
B. Lake Accotink is an invaluable sediment control resource.
C. Lake Accotink replaces some of the wetlands we have lost so much of in other areas.
D. Lake Accotink is an unwelcome barrier to the natural movement of aquatic wildlife.
E. Lake Accotink is an unending, expensive, divisive, and insoluble maintenance headache.
F. ALL OF THE ABOVE"
FULL TEXT OF OUR COMMENTS

After the years of considering different bad options for the future of Lake Accotink, it has come down to two unpalatable choices for a dredge spoils dewatering site:

• Spare the trees? - A location in the industrial park
  - or -
• Spare the people? - A 1.5 mile pipeline and 6 acres of woods cleared

The February 10, 2022, public meeting is likely to be quite contentious as neighbors protest increased truck traffic on residential streets.

The option for a smaller but cuter lake we thought was discarded may yet be reconsidered, due to the astronomical financial cost of dredging.

The last two desperate options - Wakefield Park vs. Industrial Park - People vs. Trees?
Trees have no tongues and no votes.

About 30 members of the public were present at the July 29th in-person meeting and about 125 at the August 5 online meeting. Supervisor Walkinshaw attended, as well as former Supervisor Cook.

The meeting presentation was a synopsis of the contractor’s report (178 pages), followed by question and answer.

The options for a dewatering site have dwindled to:

• Wakefield Park by the maintenance yard, sacrificing up to six acres of forest
• Wakefield Park by the power station, sacrificing up to six acres of wetlands
• Lake Accotink Park at the 1980’s dredge disposal site, called Upper Settling Basin, again, six acres, but a marginal area that has never recovered
• Lake Accotink Park on an island (with option to expand to a peninsula), with a smaller footprint of 3 acres, due to drier dredge material

• Along the CCT, underground
• Along Flag Run to either Port Royal Road or 495, not clear if all would be underground

The Upper Settling Basin pipeline would follow a long stretch of the main trail, to avoid abrupt elevation change.

There were surprisingly few public comments. None of the comments by other attendees evidenced much emotion or hostility or advocacy for particular options. A few agreed with our general point of minimizing environmental impact, especially as regarded Wakefield Park. No one advocated for any site other than the island.

Other noteworthy points:

• Actual dredging should begin in fall 2023 and end in 2026.
• The estimate of material to be dredged has grown from 350K to 500K cubic yards
• The future frequency of repeat dredging is still up in the air.
• Fish/eel passage solutions will not be incorporated in the dredge project.
• More than one dewatering site is not out of the question.
• The County had earlier secured Commonwealth of Virginia loan commitments of up to $30 million. Due to rising cost estimates, the Board of Supervisors authorized an application for an additional $30 million from the same source.

Statement made at the in-person meeting, speaking on behalf of FACC:

It is our sincere belief that, had this information been available during earlier public discussions of the future of Lake Accotink, the decision could well have taken a different course. The costs of all of these options are high in negative environmental, recreational, and community impacts.

The existing island with rotation of truck traffic along different routes is not a good option, but may be the least bad. Yes, the nuisance impact would fall on park users and neighbors, but they are also the most direct beneficiaries of dredging to maintain the full lake.

We suggest that planning begin now for a longer term future – that of incorporating the dredge spoils to construct the berm that will enable us to reconnect Accotink Creek and to have a smaller, deeper, cleaner, and even cuter Lake Accotink.

Further, we citizens of Fairfax County must focus on eliminating the sediment at its source, which is excessive stormwater runoff from our roads, roofs, and parking areas.

• Written Comments of Friends of Accotink Creek

The existing island option is the least environmentally distasteful among all the bad options.

The public meeting offered little that was not known, but did advise that on-the-ground studies are underway in preparation for the dredge. Unfortunately, all options seem to have narrowed to the certainty of a pipeline from the lake to a sediment dewatering site north of Braddock Road. Options for locating the dewatering facility are very limited and there seems little hope that the site selected will not choose the path of least resistance by sacrificing several acres of trees in Wakefield Park.

• Meeting notes

Braddock District Supervisor James Walkinshaw, his staff, our new park manager, Dan Grulke, Park Authority staff, Stormwater Planning Division, neighbors of Lake Accotink, and members of FLAP, Save Lake Accotink, and Friends of Accotink Creek met to walk the route of the proposed dredge spoils pipeline. Many thanks to all who turned out and to the Community of Christ for permission to use their property as our starting point.

After months of public discussion culminating in a commitment to preserve the full lake, an added cost has become apparent - a dredge spoils pipeline proposed to run from Lake Accotink Park to Wakefield Park - plus 5 acres of cleared woods in Wakefield Park for dewatering. This industrialization of our parks is not what the neighbors expected as the price to keep the full lake.

To better understand the costs vs. the benefits, the gathering walked along the Cross County Trail, observing the forests and habitat, stopping here and there for closer looks, from the upper end of Lake Accotink to the baseball diamonds area in Wakefield Park.

Along the way, the narrators pointed out the proposed pipeline route is entirely in floodplain wetlands dotted with short-term pools supporting amphibian reproduction. As we heard the calls of pickerel and wood frogs spotted wood ducks and mallards on one such pool, likely preparing to nest nearby. .

The discussions covered various concerns about the pipeline, such as the eyesore it would be, the difficulty of threading the narrow points of the corridor between creek, homes, and historic sites, the damage pipeline equipment would cause, the negative interactions of pipeline and floodwaters, the obstacle the pipeline would pose to movement of wildlife, etc.

The group pondered alternatives to yet one more tree removal project in our parks, such as dewatering the sediment on barges in the lake, running the pipeline along the railroad to a dewatering area in one of the industrial parks, or even reconsidering the option of a smaller lake.

The group learned as well that Fairfax County is now engaging a contractor to develop more concrete plans and that further public input will be needed when those plans are on the table.

Cars had been staged at the end point of the walk to ferry participants back, but almost all preferred to spend still more time in Nature on this mild late winter day, and chose to return on foot.

Everyone who was there is now aware firsthand of the impacts and the need to think about them. The turnout demonstrated to the county side that there is a level of citizen concern.

At the end of the trail

• Pipeline Ponderings
• Pipeline Route Map
• Lake Accotink Park General Management Plan 1992 exerpts
• Pipeline Alternatives Map
• Pipeline Route Wastewater Map

After a lengthy pause for study and planning, the plan to preserve Lake Accotink was presented, amid much enthusiasm from public servants and the public. The sour note is the proposed permanent pipeline from the Lake to a dewatering site in Wakefield Park, an eyesore and a graffiti magnet that will sacrifice trees and habitat in the name of what?
Fuller Version of Meeting Memo
Link to Meeting Presentation Slideshow
Public Statements at Meeting by Friends of Accotink Creek
Comments by Friends of Accotink Creek to Board of Supervisors

Some highlights of the briefing were:

• DPWES and others will conduct fish population studies, to evaluate fish passage options
• The recommended dewatering location is north of Braddock Road in Wakefield Park.
• This will require tree loss both for the site and for a pipeline alongside the Cross County Trail.
• Revised cost estimates may lead supervisors to ask the public to reconsider the lake's future.
• Public meetings should resume by mid-2019.

The next step for the lake will be county staff recommendations on a bond issue to go before the voters in November, 2019. REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER -

Now that the future of the lake seems clear, we may expect the Master Plan to continue forward with public meetings to consider other aspects of planning. We must continue to advocate for nature and habitat over active recreation and asphalt. We must keep fish and eel passage on the table.

• Retention of the existing Lake Accotink dam with addition of a sediment forebay
• Inclusion of passages for fish and eels in plans for the future of the dam

Supervisors Cook, McKay, Gross, and Herrity were in attendance. Supervisor Cook acted as the "master of ceremonies". He and Supervisor McKay fielded most of the questions, with some input as well from Supervisor Gross.

Supervisor Cook estimated the crowd at over 300. The sentiment (not sediment) of the audience was preponderantly in favor of retaining the lake and each speaker in favor of the lake received enthusiastic applause.

Supervisor Cook noted some new citizen suggestions that are now being officially studied on the Park Authority side:

• Proposals to locate forebays upstream at Braddock Road
• Proposals to pipe sediment to Braddock Road for dewatering
• Proposals to transport sediment by rail.

On the topic of the upstream forebay, Supervisor Cook noted some challenges, including that of capturing the flow from the Long Branch tributary. He invited citizens with ideas to submit sketches of possible solutions.

The Park Authority handout available at the meeting makes a depressing statement that "The solution would be to improve the stream channels..." which was echoed in comments by Supervisors Cook and McKay. [This means lining our streams with stone, rather akin to "fixing" an ailing leg with a prosthetic limb.] There was no reference to healing the cause of the erosion, ever-expanding paved surfaces without adequate stormwater controls. Supervisor McKay did at least mention that the stormwater tax is used to fund projects other than stream restorations to address the sediment.

Also depressing was Supervisor Cook's comment that there is "not a square inch of natural area left in Fairfax County". This is a notion we have heard with some frequency from Supervisor Cook. More encouraging was Supervisor Cook's statement, "I don't think making money is really the goal" of Lake Accotink Park.

Supervisor Cook extended an offer to speak to any community or organization wishing to have a meeting on the topic of Lake Accotink. Speakers from Save Lake Accotink made the same offer.

Supervisor Cook mentioned that the county is catching up to the consideration of downstream costs. He observed that without the dam, Fairfax County would likely be obligated to collect an equivalent amount of sediment at twice the cost. Speakers from Save Lake Accotink echoed this and pointed out it would apply specifically to the proposals for a smaller lake or no lake.

Supervisor McKay marveled that Lake Accotink has received more commentary and more review than any project in recent Park Authority history.

Supervisor Cook expressed admiration and appreciation for the efforts of Save Lake Accotink. He plans to present their petition signatures to the June 19 Board of Supervisors meeting. [Plan now to be there with your SLA t-shirt or sign!]

When the subject of a possible special tax district to support Lake Accotink was broached, both Supervisor Cook and Supervisor McKay were quick to give their thumbs down, to enthusiastically affirming audience applause.

Supervisor Gross, noting that she had just returned today from a stormwater planning meeting in Richmond, discussed the effect we might expect climate change to have, in terms of more intense rainstorms. Referring to Lake Accotink, she said "I look at this as a great big BMP [BMP = Best Management Practice, in this case for stormwater]

Su Jewell, our friend from Friends of Lake Accotink Park, spoke on the environmental benefits of stream reconnection, noting that she works in the very office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that deals with migratory fish passage.

Our own Kris Unger lamented the impediments to letting the beavers solve the sediment problem in our suburban environment. He praised Save Lake Accotink for its success and thanked the audience for the concern they had shown by attending. Kris urged all to "Get involved and stay involved".

The train surely seems to be gaining steam in the direction of keeping the dam. As things proceed, we will need to more vocally advocate for a fishway as a consolation prize for fish and other wildlife that will benefit from stream reconnection.

Media coverage in the Connection Newspapers was good, although there was some misunderstanding of the concept of forebays. Also pre-meeting coverage in The Patch

★ Neighbors are swiftly building momentum in favor of preserving the lake. ★
★ And have generated a petition HERE ★
★ Find them at SaveLakeAccotink.org and on Facebook ★

At the Fairfax County Park Authority Master Plan webpage for Lake Accotink Park, you may read background information, review documents, and sign up for email notifications.

Submit your written comments by e-mail at parkmail@fairfaxcounty.gov .

Lake Accotink Park's website

"For many years, the dam, which was completed in 1928, actually improved water quality in the lower Susquehanna and the Upper Bay by trapping sediment and accompanying nutrients from farm runoff, wastewater and urban stormwater. But over the decades, the reservoir filled with sediment, and the dam is no longer acting as a trap. Because of that lost trapping capacity, studies show the Upper Bay can’t achieve sufficient dissolved oxygen levels in its deep waters to sustain fish without additional nutrient pollution reductions of about 5 percent." ARTICLE 1 / ARTICLE 2 / ARTICLE 3

• Dredging of the lake combined with a new sediment-capture forebay (Option C)
• Breaching the dam to reconnect the stream while sculpting a smaller lake (Option F)
• A variation of Option C that would move the forebay to near Braddock Road was also given consideration

Nonetheless, both supervisors expressed determination to make the funding happen if community support is there. Supervisor McKay made his commitment clear by stating, "If we decide to save this lake, I will kill myself to get the money."

One speaker brought up the issue of the current Accotink Creek TMDL, which may mandate that the sediment-capture function of the lake must be retained.

The meeting received media attention in the Annandale Blog and on WJLA Channel 7

Submit your written comments by e-mail at parkmail@fairfaxcounty.gov and complete the Park Authority lake options survey HERE by May 28, 2018.

Read FACC's comments to the Park Authority and Supervisors HERE

★ Neighbors are swiftly building momentum in favor of preserving the lake. ★
★ And have generated a petition HERE ★
★ Find them at SaveLakeAccotink.org and on Facebook ★

It was a full house for a meeting to inform the public about options for the future of the lake. A slide lecture, display stations, and Q&A laid out the financial and sedimentation issues that make maintaining the lake a challenge. A secondary topic was the concept of connecting the upper and lower parking areas, either for the public or for emergency vehicles only. Supervisors Bulova and Cook were present.

The continued filling in of the lake with sediment requires periodic dredging at significant county expense. The dam itself requires ongoing maintenance expense for continued function and safety.

Despite the significant sediment capture, the county cannot obtain MS4 points (for stormwater discharge permits) for Lake Accotink because it does not meet certain technical requirements.

None of the options is ideal. Retaining the lake is a substantial financial cost to taxpayers and leaves a barrier to wildlife movement. Breaching the dam would reconnect the stream for wildlife movement, but would sacrifice the wetlands at the head of the lake and probably cause the extinction of the last population of freshwater mussels in Accotink Creek - in addition to losing the community value of the lake.

The same options for the lake's future laid out at the May 16, 2016, meeting were still on the table tonight, minus one. The option for artificial "beaver dams" had been dropped from consideration. Otherwise the options were:

• Do nothing and watch the lake fill with sediment.
• Continue periodic full-lake dredging
• Install a sediment forebay at the head of the lake, with annual dredging
• Breach the dam and reconnect the stream channel
• Breach the dam, reconnect the stream channel, and sculpt a smaller lake on the north shore

• Avoid the issue of neighborhood truck traffic during dredging
• Avoid a new truck road through forested areas
• Reduce sediment buildup in the lake
• Avoid wetland destruction
• Might be eligible for MS4 points
• Could take the place of stormwater ponds proposed for the Braddock Road widening project
• Graphic Concept of This Proposal

Attendees were asked to vote by paper ballots on their preferred options for the lake and connectivity.

Review the Park Authority meeting summary & presentation.
Review the Lake Sustainabilty Study.
Informative comments in Supervisor Cook's Newsletter

Submit your written comments by e-mail at parkmail@fairfaxcounty.gov .

Master Plan meeting April 24, 2017 at Cardinal Forest Elementary:

The Park Authority scheduled this public meeting at our request, on the topic of natural resources, and combined it with the request of Friends of Lake Accotink Park for a meeting on the topic of historic resources. Both Friends of Accotink Creek and Friends of Lake Accotink Park had tables at the meeting.

The format combined separate staff presentations on natural resources and historic resources with display tables covering each aspect of resource conservation. Public attendance was only in the neighborhood of 25 persons, roughly equal to the number of staff persons there from different agencies. Supervisor John Cook spoke of the park as a place we all want to preserve, describing it as one of our last places "where you can step off the road and not know you're in Fairfax County".

We learned that staff has been conducting biological surveys and that resource protection zones will be defined. These zones will direct development away from sensitive areas and form the basis for future enhhancement and restoration. A natural vegetation community classification has identified 15 habitat types in the park. Earlier studies of habitat areas and species lists are available in the 1992 General Management Plan.

The draft Master Plan is expected to be ready for public review in late 2017.

• Read our meeting notes.
• Review the Park Authority meeting summary, presentation, & handouts.
• Interactive Stakeholder Map.
• Read FACC member Dave Lincoln's alternate proposal for the lake HERE.
• Read FACC's comments to the Park Authority HERE and HERE.