Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />is better at SFRR because it has not been dredged. She said the study should include the <br />content of the material, best places to start, and stump location as a compliment to what <br />the Task Force is recommending. She said the tree stumps could be a barrier to dredging. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said that publicly financed dredging outside of water gains does not <br />make a lot of sense to him. He said we may want to get U. Va. to pay for dredging for <br />their rowers. He said we need options so we can make the best choices as we move <br />forward with the water supply plan. He said we need a feasible disposable site on the <br />scale of what would be needed for dredging for water needs. He said we may choose to <br />dredge earlier. <br /> <br /> Mr. Slutzky said that to preserve potential water supply in the future, we may still <br />want to do opportunistic dredging. <br /> <br /> Ms. Thomas said that making a comparison today of the cost of raising the dam <br />versus dredging may be hard to do. <br /> <br /> Mr. Don Wagner, Chair of the Albemarle County Service Authority, asked if <br />there are any objections with the first five recommendations of the SFRR Task Force. <br /> <br /> Mr. Dennis Rooker, member of the Board of Supervisors, said that if we change <br />the plan we have to show that the new plan is the least environmentally damaging and the <br />most practicable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said he agrees with the first five recommendations, but is not <br />convinced that dredging is necessary for other public benefits. He said we need better <br />information on disposal sites on a scale to enhance/supplement the current plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Slutzky asked about dredging to maintain the status quo and to preserve the <br />potential for more large scale dredging if it is needed for the water supply later. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said that seems to be a delaying strategy. He said if we are going to <br />spend energy and money we should do a broader study. <br /> <br /> Dr. Palmer said the Task Force’s recommendations give us a basis for moving <br />forward. She said she thinks it is a prudent use of public funds to address their <br />recommendations. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown asked how much capacity is lost if wetlands cannot be touched. <br /> <br /> Ms. Thomas said you can still dredge deeper down rather than out, but she said <br />she does not have a clear answer to that question. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rooker said that to know the cost in the future we would need to tie down the <br />cost of the disposal site. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said he wants to know if dredging estimates can be lowered <br />dramatically as some have suggested. He said we owe it to the taxpayers to see, and if <br />we find out it costs less it might influence the water supply plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gaffney noted that one estimate to dredge one time was $30 million, and it <br />would be much larger to dredge from now until 2055. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rooker said the only want to nail down the cost is to issue an RFP. <br /> <br /> Dr. Palmer said if we want to revisit the water supply plan we need to get legal <br />advice on the implications. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown noted that the perception by many in the City is that the decision not to <br />dredge was based on bad information. He said he feels that dredging was rejected <br />because it did not give us enough water. He said he wants to look at the issues involving <br />dredging to answer questions so that everyone has the same information. He agreed that <br /> <br />