Task force will wait until January to finish recommendation on future of South Fork Rivanna Reservoir

The South Fork Rivanna Stewardship Task Force has been meeting since August to study the future of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The basic questions:  Is dredging necessary, and if so, for what purposes?  How does the community use the reservoir?  Over the past four months, they have heard from numerous experts on a variety of topics. In two meetings this December, they began hashing out the details of what will be included in their final report.  The Task Force, however, missed its goal of completing its work before the end of the year.  They will continue preparing those recommendations at a meeting in January.

What was to be the final meeting took place on December 18, 2008. After more than three hours, Supervisor Dennis Rooker suggested holding yet another meeting in January to finalize the recommendations. 

“Everyone needs to understand what’s in the report and what it is we’re recommending and I really think we need some time to digest,” Rooker said. 

PODCAST #1:

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081218-SFRR-Part1

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST #1:

• 1:00 - Task Force Chair Sally Thomas introduces the final report, which has been further edited since the meeting on 12/8.
• 2:10 - Thomas goes through the first item: "How the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir benefits the community"
• 4:05 - Liz Palmer disputes Smith's concern
• 5:00 - Thomas offers to rewrite the final report per Smith's concern
• 6:00 - Tom Jones says it is common in final reports to develop an executive summary
• 6:30 - John Martin says there doesn't need to be an executive summary for a ten page report
• 6:45 - Thomas agrees to write an executive summary for the 5-10 page report
• 7:45 - Supervisor Dennis Rooker suggests going through the open issues - Thomas decides to go page by page first
• 9:00 - John Martin says he wants a section describing the current state of the reservoir and its history 
• 10:45 - Dede Smith suggests using Stephen Bowler's report  
• 12:30 - Thomas asks the task force if it is in the correct order
• 13:00 - Ridge Schuyler thanks Thomas and the task force for the "arduous process" they've been through
• 13:45 - Schuyler says the background should include a reference from John Kaufman about lack of public access
• 15:30 - Tom Jones questions whether the 5 facts listed in the background are the most relevant
• 19:30 - Jones says there is a public ramp for access - it's just not well known
• 19:50 - Thomas says that Gary O'Connell suggested a Power Point slideshow for the public presentation
• 20:50 - Task force consents to a background section 
• 21:20 - Discussion turns to the order in which the benefits of the reservoir will be listed
• 23:30 - Palmer says that water storage should not be listed as a benefit
• 24:30 - Jones suggests listing water storage as third, pointing out it currently provides 7% of RWSA's capacity
• 25:30 - Thomas notes that she is using Jones' suggestion on how to order
• 26:30 - Smith argues that water supply should be listed as a benefit
• 27:00 - Martin says reservoir's importance as water storage will decrease
• 27:30 - Fletcher says he is not sure about Martin's point
• 28:44 - Rooker says the reservoir was built to be a water supply source, and not for aesthetic purposes
• 29:50 - Ridge Schuyler says dredging is not needed to preserve the South Fork's status as a water supply within the next 50 years
• 32:00 - Rooker says he doesn't see a problem recommending some form of maintenance dredging
• 32:30 - Schuyler said the report should be absolutely clear that South Fork does not need to be dredged for storage
• 34:30 - Jones points out the distinction between water supply and water storage
• 35:45 - Thomas reorders benefits in the report in this order: water supply, water quality, recreation, physical aesthetics, biota
• 39:30 - Palmer seeks clarification in the document to explain why dredging near SFRR's intake will need to be done in 80-90 years
• 43:00 - Schuyler explains that the SFRR will need to be dredged in 80 to 90 years because dead storage will fill up
• 45:40 - Jones suggests taking out the reference to dredging in 80 to 90 years
• 46:50 - Schuyler defends leaving this fact in so decision-makers have a sense of how the water supply works
• 50:30 - Task force agrees to ask RWSA staff to clarify the 80-90 year reference
• 53:00 - Smith objects to a whole sentence that references Sugar Hollow Reservoir and wants it removed
• 56:30 - Rooker says a reference to removing sediment from Sugar Hollow could be misleading
• 59:30 - Task force removes references to removing sedimentation from other reservoirs, moves on to discussion of water storage
• 1:00:00 - Schuyler states the amount of dead storage and usable storage in SFRR
• 1:06:18 - Task force agrees that SFRR currently is 50% of the RWSA's water storage
• 1:07:45 - Rooker says the task force is talking too much about the water plan, and not enough about what SFRR should be
• 1:08:00 - Schuyler objects to listing that SFRR will be 7% water storage in the future
• 1:12:30 - Task force discusses section that deals with rowing as submitted by Kevin Sauer of UVA
• 1:15:50 - Mark Fletcher of UVA discusses Sauer's report
• 1:21:30 - Tom Jones says different coaches have different assessments about how much room is needed for training
• 1:22:45 - Discussion turns to fishing
• 1:23:45 - Discussion turns to biota - Dede Smith points out a contradiction with the way hydrilla is presented
• 1:27:30 - Fletcher says the report should include information about what the County is doing about hydrilla
• 1:29:30 - Schuyler asks if dredging for hydrilla is practical given that disturbing it might accelerate its spread
• 1:31:30 - Thomas says she will summarize the report on hydrilla by saying more research is needed
• 1:34:30 - Discussion begins on long-term benefits
• 1:36:00 - Palmer questions the claim that 1% of the SFRR's storage fills up every year, and says dredging for extra capacity is not necessary to attain 50-year water plan goals
• 1:37:20 - Jones says sedimentation is causing certain areas to become shallow at first, and then to fill-in
• 1:41:15 - Schuyler quotes Stephen Harper's theory that perhaps 20 acres of the reservoir could become wetlands in the next 50 years
• 1:43:40 - Martin says there is no science behind the argument that preemptive dredging is necessary to prevent wetland formation
• 1:44:10 - Rooker says he wants a legal opinion on wetland formation
• 1:46:50 - Jones points out the flaws in Harper's extrapolation of how siltation will affect the reservoir
• 1:52:40 - Schuyler points out the difference between Palmer's opinion and Jone's’ opinion on the need to dredge preemptively, suggests compromise
• 1:55:10 - Thomas summarizes reasons why immediate dredging might be done
• 1:59:00 - Thomas says the group agrees to say that preemptive dredging of emerging wetlands should be done soon if a legal opinion deems that is necessary

PODCAST #2:

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081218-SFRR-Part2

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST #2:

• 1:00 - Conversation continues on long-term potential of dredging for capacity in the next few years
• 1:30 - Karen Joyner says there should be a footnote that the RWSA is concerned about storage throughout its system
• 3:00 - Thomas says that the task force is for the future of SFRR and not the future of the water supply
• 4:15 - Rooker suggests addressing Joyner's concern in the introduction
• 6:00 - Palmer says flow requirements for construction of new Ragged Mountain Dam anticipates adequate safe-yield, meaning dredging for additional storage at SFRR not necessary
• 8:05 - Palmer says that dredging would take two or three years to be permitted - the same time that new Ragged Mountain dam will be under construction
• 8:30 - Rooker disagrees with Palmer's facts and says that dredging could be done in less than 2 years
• 10:15 - Martin asks Tom Frederick if an insurance policy is necessary given the current modeling
• 10:45 - Frederick asks for clarification on the question
• 11:00 - Rooker phrases the question "If we went into a drought of record today, would we meet the community's needs today?"
• 13:30 - Frederick addresses the limited and temporary role of Beaver Creek Reservoir can play in a drought emergency
• 16:10 - Smith objects and says that it is now unknown how the water supply plan will be implemented given the uncertainty of new Ragged Mountain Dam
• 16:55 - Rooker asks Frederick to comment on maintenance dredging
• 18:00 - Frederick points out some gaps in the presentation from Chris Gibson of Gahagan and Bryant
• 21:30 - Rooker asks if smaller dredging operations would take less time to receive a permit
• 22:30 - Task force returns to discussion of immediate benefits of dredging
• 23:00 - Palmer says it would be doubtful to get additional storage online to satisfy 
• 24:00 - Palmer says any money proposed for dredging should instead go to the South Fork pipeline
• 25:00 - Jones point out what he sees as other benefits of maintenance dredging
• 26:45 - Palmer says that the water system has to take priority to make sure that reliable service to City
• 29:00 - Rooker points out that no final decision has been made about the phasing of the pipeline
• 29:45 - Frederick says RWSA is still assuming that the Ragged Mountain dam will be built in 2011, pipeline by 2021
• 32:00 - Rooker asks Palmer if she would be willing to say that dredging now would be useful for storage during droughts
• 33:10 - Palmer goes along with Rooker's amended sentence as long as a reference to the long term water supply plan is removed
• 33:30 - Schuyler asks if dredging for an “insurance policy” serves other purposes as well;
• 34:50 - Rooker suggests new phrase: "increased capacity at South Fork Rivanna Reservoir might be helpful for storage during droughts"
• 36:45 - Jones says there will be a lot of storage, more than needed, when everything is built
• 38:00 - Palmer says that an expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir will provide extra capacity to withstand breakdowns of Sugar Hollow Pipeline
• 41:00 - Task force begins to make only "easy comments" in an effort to finish up their work
• 51:30 - When discussing recommendations, Rooker addresses the need to get a legal opinion on the status of emerging wetlands
• 54:30 - Schuyler points out that the task force is not saying dredge or not dredge; but giving ideas about how to reach different objectives
• 57:10 - Task force settles on recommending a legal opinion as its first recommendation
• 58:30 - Schuyler addresses how the problems of hydrilla and sedimentation are worse when SFRR is lowered; offers alternative
• 1:00:00 - Smith says that if dredging is not done soon, there will be no capacity for rowing
• 1:02:20 - Thomas relates Joyner's suggestion that the authorities be urged to do non-dredging maintenance (removal of tree stumps, snags, etc)
• 1:05:00 - Joyner points out that water conservation has not been mentioned in the document
• 1:06:00 - Rooker says water conservation is not in the purview of the task force
• 1:07:30 - Rooker asks if everyone is in agreement regarding recommending a feasibility study
• 1:08:00 - Chris Lee says he cannot recommend a full feasibility study as requested by Gahagan and Bryant
• 1:10:40 - Thomas describes the decision-tree handed out by Ridge Schuyler on what to do
• 1:12:30 - Rooker calls for another meeting in January
• 1:14:15 - Schuyler describes his decision-tree
• 1:15:00 - Rooker refers back to the 2001 study by VHB that recommended bathymetric studies be conducted every 5 years
• 1:16:20 - Palmer points out there are many kinds of bathymetric studies