December ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN PREPARED FOR DISTRICT

December, 2008 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN PREPARED FOR: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT December, 2008 PREPARED BY: ANACOSTIA WATERSHED SOCIETY Acknowledgements The raw data that was collected for this report was done with the assistance of two unpaid volunteers. Cynthia Collier provided 307 hours of work and Philip Collier provided 197 hours of work. Transects were surveyed in snow storms and streams were waded in the middle of the winter and data recorded with nearly frozen fingers. Mudflats, rabid raccoons, stray dogs, drug paraphernalia, water snakes, ticks, sewage, poison oak, and crawling through tangled log jams were daily occurrences. Few people would work so long and so hard for so little financial reward. We would like to thank the citizens who stopped us while we were working. Their thoughts and concerns about trash in their neighborhoods and streams were encouraging when we were hot and sweaty or cold and shivering. In thirty years of working to improve streams, never has there been an issue that the public was so concerned about and so wanted to succeed. Hopefully, we will not fail them. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 INTRODUCTION ANACOSTIA BASIN DESCRIPTION MONITORING DATA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES EXISTING PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE LONGTERM MONITORING PROGRAM ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The District of Columbia is a partner in the Trash Free Potomac Watershed Treaty. The goal of the treaty is a trash free watershed by 2013. The Anacostia River, an urban tributary to the Potomac River, has a severe problem with excessive trash. This has resulted in both the District of Columbia and State of Maryland determining that pollution has impaired the quality of the river to the point that trash loads must be reduced. The two entities have agreed to use the Anacostia as a model of how to reduce trash in a river and move toward a trash free Potomac Watershed. The District Department of the Environment (DDOE) decided to undertake a systematic assessment of the types and sources of trash. This assessment is needed to develop a five year plan to make significant reductions in the amount of trash in the Anacostia River. The District of Columbia Water Quality Standards list the following provisions in 21 DCMR Chapter 11 that relate to trash in the rivers and streams: 1104.1 The surface waters of the District shall be free from substances attributable to point or nonpoint sources discharged in amounts that do any one of the following: (a) (b) 1104.3 Settle to form objectionable deposits; Float as debris, scum, oil or other matter to form nuisances; Class A waters shall be free of discharges of untreated sewage, litter and unmarked, submerged or partially submerged, man-made structures which would constitute a hazard to the users. Dry weather discharges of untreated sewage are prohibited. The aesthetic qualities of Class B waters shall be maintained. 1104.4 Pursuant to Section 303 (d) of the Federal Clean Water Act, DDOE evaluated the amount of trash in the Anacostia River and found the Anacostia River does not meet these standards. Consequently, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be prepared to restore the river. Anacostia Basin The Anacostia watershed is approximately 117,353 acres with the drainage area being 49% in Prince George’s County, 34% in Montgomery County, and 17% in the District of Columbia. Land use is mostly residential and forest. The watershed is 30% park and forest lands which are evenly dispersed throughout the watershed such as the National ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Park Service’s Anacostia Park and Greenbelt Park, and the US Department of Agriculture’s National Arboretum and Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. The industrial and manufacturing land use is largely confined to the tidal area of the basin such as Hickey Run, Lower Beaverdam Creek, and Indian Creek. These creek subwatersheds contain impervious landuses as high as 80%. In the District, the Anacostia watershed is heavily urbanized. The Anacostia River watershed’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) consists of 9,460 acres with 168 outfalls. The drains carry the rainwater into the streams and rivers when they discharge. The remaining areas are served by combined sewers that may overflow during rainstorms, discharging sanitary sewage, storm water, and trash to the river. In the study area shown by the figure below (Figure 1), the storm sewer areas are tan while the combined sewage overflow (CSO) areas are white. The red lines represent the storm sewers and the black lines represent the boundary of a storm sewer drainage basin. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 1 Anacostia River Watershed Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In DC, the Anacostia basin has nine tributaries and Kingman Lake. It was divided into sub-watersheds and storm sewersheds for this study. The water quality of the Anacostia River is very poor. As a result, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been calculated for twenty pollutants and assigned to the various sources that contribute those pollutants. The CSO’s are major sources of several of the pollutants. The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) has developed a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) to retrofit the CSO system, and this is now being implemented. The separate storm sewers in the District, which are regulated by an EPA permit, have also been assigned pollution load reductions which must be met. Monitoring Trash was monitored in the Anacostia River, Kingman Lake, the tributaries, various different land use transects, and by windshield counts of all of the streets in the MS4 areas. Transects were established at five locations on the main stem of the Anacostia River. Another four transects were placed at major outfalls along the shoreline of Kingman Lake and at the downstream entrance near the Northeast Boundary Sewer CSO. The transects consisted of different types of shoreline varying from mudflats to vertical seawalls. At each transect the amount and types of trash and debris in the stream channel were determined quarterly. Debris includes items such as tires, lumber, bicycles, shopping carts and furniture. Each tributary was divided into segments of approximately 500 - 1000 foot lengths and the amount and types of trash and debris in the stream channel were determined quarterly. Intermittent streams and stream segments were not monitored. Transects did not extend into the tidal zone of the tributaries. Different types of land uses were selected for determining the amount of trash that could potentially be transported to a waterway. An attempt was made to have land use transects in all of the major basins. Transects were established and measured. Then quarterly detailed trash counts were conducted. The drainage basins of each tributary and or MS4 system were surveyed quarterly for trash on the streets that might reach the tributary. This was done by windshield survey of all of the streets quarterly. The streets were broken down into about one block or two block long segments. The monitoring team would drive along in a vehicle at about 20 mph. A person would count all of the visible trash that could be seen from the passenger side window. The visible space would be from about 10 feet from the curb of the road to a point 10-12 feet from the curb to private property. No attempt was made to identify types of trash. Only a gross count was made on one side of each street. The street ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY transects under the landuse monitoring are related to the windshield surveys and can be used to adjust the data. Data Analysis In the main stem Anacostia River, trash was surveyed from upstream of the District border with Maryland (New York Avenue, NYA) down to where it joins the Potomac (Figure 2). The quantity of trash is governed by the potential of the area to trap and collect trash. Mudflats, riprap slope and tidal pools behind broken seawalls will collect large amounts of trash. Figure 2 Anacostia River – Seasonal Variation of Total Trash Anacostia River-Total Trash 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NYA-MD NYA-DC Penn Ave Buzzard Pt Poplar Pt Summer Fall Winter Spring Items/100' The largest categories of trash are plastic bags, Styrofoam products, snack wrappers (potato chip and candy bar packaging) and bottles and cans. They compose nearly 85 percent of the items (Figure 3). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 3 Anacostia River Trash Composition Anacostia River Trash Composition 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s P. Ba gs F. W ra p De br is Pa pe r O th er St y ro Percent In the tributary streams, the plastic bags dominate all other categories (Figure 4). This appears to be related to the amount of brush and vegetation that will snag the bags. Bottles and cans, Styrofoam and snack wrappers are also prevalent. Paper products are not found in the streams except in very localized areas. Figure 4 Stream Trash Composition Streams Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 Percent 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 P Bags Bot&Cans Styro Fd Wrap Paper Debris Other ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN vi Bo t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Plastic Bags in the streams doubled over the one year survey period (Figure 5). It is unclear whether this trend will continue on a long term basis. Figure 5 Seasonal Variation of Plastic Bags in Streams All Streams Plastic Bags 16000 14000 12000 Number 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Plastic Bags The food wrappers increased over the study period (Figure 6). Figure 6 All Streams Seasonal Food Wrappers All Streams Seasonal Food Wrappers 8000 7000 Food Wrappers 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There were not many glass bottles counted but there is a lot of broken glass (Figure 7). Even though the cans often sink, they can still be seen and identified. Plastic bottles float until they get enough sand and dirt inside to overcome their buoyancy. Figure 7 Seasonal Variation of Total Drink Containers Found in Streams All Streams Drink Containers 1200 1000 800 Total 600 400 200 0 Bo ttl Be es er Bo t tl es Be er So Ca ft Dr ns in k Bo So t tl ft es Dr in k C W an at s er Sp Bo or tD ttl es rin k Bo ttl es Ju ic e C an Ju s ic e B ot tle s Summer Fall Winter Spring The Anacostia River and Kingman Lake have about the same amount of trash per visible intertidal area. For streams, both sides and the bottom are counted. There were several fairly clean streams that had trash levels of 20 pieces per 100 feet or less. Pope Branch is an intermediately affected stream and Ft Chaplin, Ft Stanton, Watts Branch and Nash Run are heavily impacted by trash (Figure 8). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN viii Li q uo r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 8 Annual Average Trash Annual AverageTrash 160 140 Items/100'or1000sf 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Trash Various types of land uses were surveyed. The streets were surveyed, and were categorized as residential, commercial, or industrial. The trash from the street surveys was dominated by paper products (Figure 9). Figure 9 Streets Trash Composition Streets Trash Composition 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 % An ac os Ki tia ng m an &C an s P ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN ix Bo t Fd D eb ris Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro Ft D av Ft is1 D av is 2 Te xa Ft s D uP Po pe Ft C ha Ft p St an t W at ts Na sh EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recreational areas were also surveyed. The buffer zone at the edges of a soccer field and a fishing area contained a lot of trash. In these areas, there was roughly the same number of glass beer bottles as beer cans. Buffer zones do a good job of trapping trash. However, the trash deteriorates the original purpose of the buffer zones which were created as wildlife habitat. Figure 10 Seasonal Variation of Drink Containers on Land transects Land Drink Containers 120 100 80 Items 60 40 20 0 Liquor Beer Bot Bot Beer Can Soft Drk Bot Soft Water Sport Juice Juice Drk Bot Drk Cans Bot Can Bot Summer Fall Winter Spring A windshield survey was conducted quarterly for each stream in an MS4 drainage basin. Trash was counted per block on one side. The windshield count achieved 85 percent accuracy when compared to detailed transect counts that were conducted on the same street. Some basins have cleaner streets than others as shown in Figure 11, but it appears that there are about 30 items per block on average for one side. In general, the residential streets had less trash than commercial streets. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 11 Basin Trash Basin Trash 60 50 Items/block 40 30 20 10 0 Many different analyses were performed on the relationships between the amount of trash in a stream and the amount of trash on the streets. One problem with developing a simple relationship is that the streams are different lengths. One reason causing this is that they often originate and end in pipes. The channel roughness affects whether plastic bags and food wrappers are snagged and bottles are trapped. Data were converted to determine trash per acre in the drainage basin and then compared to average stream trash levels; however, this did not provide any valuable insight. The number of items per block as determined from the windshield survey is a good “indicator” of trash levels in a stream, but not a quantitative “predictor” (Figure 12). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xi M S 4 C ha F t pl D in up on t St ck f W t at ts N as h Ec ap S St tan an to to n nM S4 Ft D Ely av M S4 Pe n N n ay Ki lo ng r m a H n ic ke y e FD -1 FD -2 Te xa s Po p Po p e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 12 Stream Trash vs. Street Trash Stream Trash vs Street Trash 160 140 Items/ 100' or block 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 FD-1 FD-2 Texas Ft DuP Pope Ft Ft Watts Nash Chap Stant Stream Streets The types of trash from the river were compared to the types found in the streams and on the land (Figures 13). Figure 13 Trash Relationships Trash Relationships 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 River Streams Land Percent &C an s P. Ba gs F. W ra p The data suggest a relationship between plastic bags and snack items and drink items. This would suggest that often when a person purchases a drink and a snack such as chips, the bag becomes litter, the drink container or cup becomes litter and the snack wrapper ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xii Bo t D eb r is Pa pe r O th er St y ro EXECUTIVE SUMMARY becomes litter. Paper products such as napkins and paper bags are common on the land but are seldom found in stream channels. Debris is constant. There is very little trash that does not have a relationship to eating or drinking. The ratio of bottles and cans found would be more uniform, but the bottles tend to be broken in the streams and there are a lot of glass fragments present in the streams. Best Management Practices There are many structural devices and management techniques available to reduce the amount of trash reaching the streams and rivers. Trash can be sorted into four components for best management practices (BMP) evaluation purposes. The first component is floatables, such as plastic drink bottles, foam cups and clamshells and woody debris which are about 15 percent of the trash. Next there are high density sinking objects such as glass bottles and aluminum beverage cans which comprise about 15 percent. Third, there is a very minor fraction of degradable objects such as paper bags and newspapers. Finally, some 70 percent of the trash that is observed in the streams is neutrally buoyant objects such as plastic bags and snack wrappers which will float under quiescent conditions while clean but are more likely to be entrained by velocity currents. Best management practices need to be able to remove all four trash components. Additionally, all other studies have found that at least 50 percent of captured material will be leaves, sticks, and twigs. Because there are 20 other total maximum daily load related pollutants that require reduction, it is more economical if a device or practice can not only remove trash but also the other pollutants. Because controlling the amount of trash that reaches a storm sewer and then discharges to a waterway is a relatively new concern, there is a significant amount of old and new technology that is available but has not been extensively tested for removing trash. The most promising and simplest technology is to place screens on the entrances to the storms sewers and use street sweepers to remove the trash and leaves that will collect there. End of the pipe structural devices have been tested in California and some were found to be effective. Low Impact Development techniques such as curb cuts can be adapted for trash removal by capturing this material in rain gardens and other pervious applications. Stormwater ponds and wetlands have been used in the District for many years to remove pollutants and they are effective. Existing Programs The MS4 permit issued to the District of Columbia by EPA, required the development of an Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan for all of the listed pollutants. This plan was previously submitted by the District to EPA and was approved. It is a legally enforceable component of the permit. The plan relies heavily on street sweeping and catch basin cleaning. The Department of Public Works is conducting the study required by the plan to assess the need for vacuum assisted or regenerative air street sweepers which are much ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY more effective at removing pollutants from the streets than the older mechanical broom variety and the need for more frequent sweeping of more streets. As part of the retrofit of the combined sewer system, WASA achieved a 40% reduction of combined sewer overflows to the Anacostia River in September 2008, which also means that they achieved at least a 40% reduction in trash discharged from the combined system. The WASA skimmer boats are effective at removing the floatable component of trash once it has actually gotten into the river (Figure 14). Figure 14 WASA Floatables Program WASA Floatables Program 1200 1000 800 Tons 600 400 200 0 FY 94 FY 96 FY FY FY FY FY 06 02 98 00 04 Trash There are five DC departments which enforce litter related regulations. In addition, there is the Clean City Coordinator who performs quarterly qualitative surveys of the neighborhoods. The data collected by this study demonstrate that the Earth Day river cleanup events sponsored by the Anacostia Watershed Society (AWS) and the Alice Ferguson Foundation (AFF) in April provide significant reductions of trash on the Anacostia River. Implementation Strategy The purpose of the implementation strategy is to lay out a plan that, when implemented, will make significant and measurable progress in achieving a trash free Anacostia River within five years. The results should be measureable in terms of less trash. The recommended plan will not only meet those objectives but exceed them. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legislative Solutions The executive branch of DC government should work with the legislative branch to produce three pieces of legislation which will reduce trash not only in the Anacostia Basin, but also in Rock Creek and the Potomac River drainages. If legislation is not enacted, then the entire burden of the trash reduction will fall upon the shoulders of the WASA rate payers since rates paid through residents’ water bill for stormwater control will escalate. The legislative agenda should deal with 1) plastic bags, 2) foam cups, clamshells and plates, and 3) beverage bottles and cans. This will result in a 57% reduction of trash in the Anacostia River and a 66% reduction in the tributaries. Plastic Bags The most significant trash reductions can occur from political action. The single largest component of trash in the streams, and most likely in the river, is plastic bags. Legislation requiring convenience store, grocery and food items bags to be biodegradable or to eliminate the use of any kind of “free” bag will effectively remove 47% of the trash from the tributaries and 21 % from the main stem of the river. It is believed that the main stem number may be much greater than the data show due to the selection of the monitoring stations. A larger number of mudflat stations would most likely have produced a higher percentage of plastic bags. Alternatives to plastic bags are readily available and the data collected during this survey demonstrates that the alternatives are not a major source of trash. Paper bags such as those currently used by McDonalds and Wendy’s do not persist in the hydraulic transport from the streets and through the storms sewers to the streams. Two of the streams surveyed, Watts Branch and Ft. Stanton, are in very close proximity to these types of establishments. The McDonald’s on Watts Branch is actually on the shoreline and the only instances of their paper bags being in the stream were in the vicinity of the footbridge where it appeared that pedestrians discarded the bags right into the stream. There was a notable absence of the bags downstream, indicating that they disintegrate before being transported any appreciable distance. To confirm this, tests were conducted on paper bags which determined that disintegration begins immediately upon their getting wet. The paper within a short time simply ceases to exist as anything other than small pieces. The survey initially was designed to count the different types of plastic bags, but it was simply not feasible due to the abraded nature of the bags. While no quantitative data was compiled, it is a safe estimate that less than five percent of the bags were yard and leaf bags. Trying to remove plastic bags with treatment devices, such as grates and screens, is going to be very high maintenance due to the fact that only a few bags can quickly clog the openings thereby reducing the effectiveness of the device and causing bypasses. Using BMPs to remove plastic bags will be a long term financial burden on the rate payers. Each “free” plastic bag that becomes litter costs somebody else money to clean it up. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Styrofoam – Expanded Polystyrene Foam The category of Styrofoam encompasses items made from expanded polystyrene foam (EPF) and it includes cups, plates, takeout food packaging (such as clamshells), and various broken pieces of foam. This category is about 11% in the river and 5 % in the streams. About three fourths of the foam items are cups. There are effective alternatives to EPF containers available and in use. Starbucks Coffee now uses paper cups and insulators. McDonald’s and Wendy’s use corrugated paper clamshells. Paper cups and clamshells were very seldom found in the stream. Switching to plastic items will not remove much trash from the streams. The switch must be to a reusable or biodegradable item. In California, there has been legislation enacted in various forms to reduce the amount of expanded polystyrene foam containers in streams. The cities of Malibu, Laguna Hills, Berkeley, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Woods, Huntington Beach, San Clemente, Laguna Beach, Santa Margarita Water District and the county of Ventura all have some type of legislation or ordinance restricting the use of foam containers. Oakland enacted a special litter tax on fast food and convenience stores near schools to fund litter cleanup. Beverage Bottles and Cans Beverage bottles and cans comprise a quarter of the trash in the Anacostia River and 14 percent in the tributaries. This does not include the hundreds of thousands of pieces of broken glass in the streams. The survey results demonstrate that glass bottles which have been discarded wind up broken, and, therefore, the amount of liquor bottles and beer bottles counted is low while the amount of broken glass in the streams is high. Removal of the source of glass bottles will assist in achieving streams that are safe for recreation activities such as wading as well as in reducing the trash loads. The survey team observed that, generally, there are no trash cans near the places where bottles are found. Another explanation is that some people are not interested in properly disposing of their bottles. The hundreds and hundreds of bottles and cans in the bushes at Kingman Lake, Kenilworth Park, Texas Avenue and Burbank are testimony to the fact that whether a trash can exists or doesn’t, bottles are discarded into the bushes. A “bottle bill” will remove about 25 percent of the total trash from the streams and rivers. Eleven states currently have some form of Bottle Bill implemented. People who need a few dollars, or groups like the Boy Scouts who wish to raise funds, will comb the road sides and bushes to collect these redeemable bottles for a monetary refund, just like people used to do 50 years ago. Snack Wrappers One quarter of all items found in the river and streams, and 70% of those found at schools were chip bags and candy wrappers. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The estimates are that nearly 20% of the population is at risk from type II diabetes which has poor dietary habitats as a causative factor. Linked to this are high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, high cholesterol, and gum disease. The types of trash that are found on the land and in the streams indicate that the local health departments have lost the battle with the TV advertising of candy and chips and soda and beer. The data show that the 70% of the trash at schools is snack wrappers. This is where the hearts and minds and bodies are lost. The District of Columbia Public Schools system (DCPS) needs to remove these materials from the schools. Schools should be a place to learn important skills for life such as good dietary habits. The Department of Health and DCPS need to deal with the children’s health, and in so doing, will improve the quality of the environment. The schools need to ensure that the children have food and snacks that are beneficial. The price to the taxpayer of later life health issues for people who suffer from these ailments is not estimated here, but clearly the number is enormous. Consideration should be given to a special litter tax on these types of items and the funds used to pay the costs of cleaning them up. Total Legislative Package A total legislative package that deals with plastic bags, EPF and drink bottles and cans has the ability to remove collectively 21%, 11%, and 25% of the items from the River. This is 57 % of the total Anacostia River trash. In the tributaries, the removal would be 47 %, 5 %, and 14% for a total removal of 66%. This is at no cost to the rate payers. Removing this material through other means will require capital expenditures and ongoing operation and maintenance costs to be paid for by the rate payers. Preliminary estimates are that it will cost DC rate payers an ADDITIONAL $32,400,000 to clean up other people’s poor disposal habits in the Anacostia basin alone. If the citizens in the other parts of the District wish to have cleaner streets, neighborhoods and streams, then additional costs will be incurred. These costs will be on top of the millions already being spent. Because a TMDL for trash is being created, which will be accompanied by a regulatory requirement in the EPA-issued stormwater permit that contains severe monetary penalties for non-compliance, there is no way to avoid the additional costs. Penalties under the Federal Clean Water Act can be up to $32,500 per day per violation. A violation would occur with each rainfall event and it rains about 100 days per year in DC. A year of non-compliance would cost $32,500,000, which will cost the same as compliance. The benefits of having clean neighborhoods are not weighed in this report which details how to achieve clean streams; but, it is believed that people would like to live in clean neighborhoods. New Programs The only new program recommended in this report is the development of a stream maintenance program. At one time there was a stream a maintenance program whose ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY function was to remove log jams and blockages. Many of the existing steam structures are in very poor shape, and the entrances to pipes are clogged because there is no agency responsible for maintaining them. This effort involves removing debris from streams, cutting up fallen trees and removing debris dams from inlet structures. The program was housed in the Department of Public Works when it existed. Enhancements to Existing Programs The Enhancements Package to the MS4 permit is a beneficial group of activities and programs and needs to be implemented. DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) It is recommended that DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) investigate the quantity of trash being discharged from CSOs. New York City uses floating skirted booms around the outfalls and skimmer boats to clean up the trash after rainfall events trigger CSOs, and WASA could adopt the same type of program since they already have skimmer boats and are experienced working in and around the booms at the railroad bridge. The current schedule is to clean all catch basin once a year. WASA should commission a study to determine whether some catch basins fill up more quickly, and then clean those out more frequently. Clean City Coordinator The office should build upon its existing Adopt a Block and Adopt a Storm Drain programs run through the Clean City Coordinator. The Cleanliness Surveys should be modified to be more quantitative. Actual counts of trash per block should be made and recorded. This could be a very useful tool in preventing litter from reaching the streams. District law requires property owners to sweep or keep clean the area in front of their homes or businesses, from the curb line out 18 inches into the roadway. The Clean City Coordinator should bring together the management of the District’s Departments of Transportation (DDOT), Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), Environment (DDOE), Health (DOH) and Public Works (DPW) to consider developing common guidelines and standards for enforcing litter and trash regulations. The principal agencies should meet and agree to a “standard” for their inspectors. Such a standard might be 10 pieces of trash per 1000 square feet or 100 lineal feet. Agreement should be reached on enforcement actions to be taken once the standard is violated. Uniformity is not the desired goal. Less trash is what is desired. There should be a discussion of any areas at certain types of facilities where there is not sufficient enforcement. Gaps in enforcement should be eliminated. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xviii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY District Department of the Environment (DDOE) The erosion control and stormwater regulations should require that all BMPs have trash and litter controls included. The design manual is currently being revised to include more Low Impact Development techniques. The BMPs in the manuals need to be reviewed to determine if the BMPs can be enhanced to remove even more trash. Inspectors should begin checking for construction debris and litter that can escape a site and get to a storm drain or stream. DDOE should review the water quality catch basin design and modify it as needed to capture more trash. This modified design should be piloted in a few high trash locations. DDOE needs to adopt a final regulatory definition of trash that can be used for design purposes for such things as mesh size of grates and screens. Trash monitoring should be conducted quarterly on the Anacostia River and a few of the larger tributaries. The DDOE is the water quality certification agency for all NPDES permits. They should “conditionally” certify all permits with a condition that the permittee develop and submit for approval a trash discharge elimination plan for the facility. Since trash is now listed as a pollutant, it is easy to legally require the reduction of the discharge of trash along with other pollutants. Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Transportation (DDOT) needs to review their policies and design criteria concerning grate spacing and reduce it to the final dimensions that are determined in the TMDLs. DDOT needs to retrofit their bridges to eliminate trash discharges to the river from bridge stormwater runoff. DDOT needs to make installing water quality catch basins a component of a major street work, not just reconstruction projects. An ideal time to install LID BMPs is during construction and replacement of sidewalks and of curbs & gutters. There are street endings and street “T”s where DDOT has allowed water to run off of roads in an uncontrolled manner, which causes severe gully erosion as well as trash to be transported overland. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DC Housing Authority Many of the public housing units had very clean grounds. Maintenance staff workers were observed with wheeled trash cans and brooms and shovels cleaning the gutters and sidewalks. They should be asked to increase the emphasis on trash and litter cleanup. Possibly they can be enlisted to install and maintain inlet screens. National Park Service (NPS) The National Park Service (NPS) needs to develop a better trash can policy. There are many people of goodwill who simply do not know exactly how to dispose of their bagged trash in the trash cans. The National Park Service needs to install trash cans at the fishing area in Kenilworth Park and along the buffer zone of the soccer field. This will be cheaper than manually picking up the trash item by item. The National Park Service needs to review all of their facilities and modify their storm drains to exclude trash. This includes all NPS roads. Anacostia Drive from South Capitol Street to the Boat Ramp at the DDOE Aquatic Education Center should have curb cuts installed. Sub-basin Trash Reduction Strategies To develop the strategies for the sub-basins, the following criteria were established: 1. 2. 3. The tributaries to the main Anacostia River should be as clean as the river. The strategy should build upon or compliment the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan for the 20 specified pollutants. To be cost effective, stormwater should not be treated twice to remove trash. There are a number of tributaries which drain into very large storm sewers and are co-mingled with other storm water flows before reaching the Anacostia River. To the extent reasonable, the actions should be those that the government has demonstrated that it knows how to perform well. The citizens should be satisfied with the results. The costs should be something that can be afforded. Where risks are involved with unproven techniques, small basins are to be prototyped before moving to large basins. 4. 5. 6. 7. It is recommended that the basic Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan be upgraded with three actions. 1. The inlets to the catch basin should be covered with screens to prevent trash from entering the storm sewer. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. 3. High efficiency street sweepers should be purchased by DPW and the streets swept weekly to keep the screens clear. The catch basins should be cleaned by WASA at a frequency that maximizes pollutant removal efficiency. The basins for which these actions are the recommended are as follows; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ft Davis 1 & 2 Watts Branch Texas Avenue Fort Stanton Nash Run Pope Branch Ft. DuPont Ft. Chaplin Part of Kingman Lake drainage End of pipe solutions adjacent to the Anacostia River which utilize constructed wetland systems are recommended for the following areas. It is recognized that the wetland system may be more expensive than screening and sweeping, but the environmental and habitat considerations are important to the restoration of the river itself. As has been noted throughout the report, wildlife is trying to colonize a lot of marginal areas. 1. 2. 3. 4. Part of Kingman Lake MS4 Drainage (M & Maryland Avenue area) Naylor MS4 Stickfoot MS4 Ely MS4 Schedule The five year schedule outlined below is developed following the concept of beginning work on the tributaries which are easiest to clean up using the easiest actions to accomplish. The more complicated and expensive actions are placed later in the schedule. Existing programs such as the Hickey Run BMP are compatible as currently planned. DPW will need to acquire more street sweepers, as the area and frequency of sweeping increases. Year 1 - 2009 Ft DuPont A. B. C. D. Screen catch basins Sweep Streets Curb Cuts Clean up debris ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xxi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E. F. Ft Davis 1 A. B. C. D. Ft Davis 2 A. B. C. D. Nash Run A. Fence Repair outfall Screen catch basins Sweep Streets Curb Cuts Clean trash rack Screen catch basins Sweep streets Curb Cuts Remove tires Install temporary netting system to protect the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens CSO Outfall #006 A. LID the MS4 Unscreened CSO Outfalls A. Conduct study of trash discharges and boom and skim WASA to study catch basin cleaning and performance Year 2- 2010 Ft Chaplin A. B. C. D. Screen catch basins Sweep streets Curb Cuts Clean trash rack Pope Branch and Pope MS4 A. Implement Restoration plan B. Screen catch basins C. Sweep streets D. Curb Cuts E. Clean trash rack Hickey Run BMP A. Proceed as planned B. Evaluate untreated outfalls ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xxii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kingman Lake A. Feasibility study for wetland at M and Maryland Year 3 - 2011 Texas Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets C. Curb Cuts D. Relocate storm sewer and treat. E. Clean Trash Rack Nash A. B. Screen catch basins Sweep streets Ft Stanton and MS4 A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets Kingman Lake A. Screen catch basins B Sweep streets C. Install LID and daylight for the M Street & Maryland Avenue area Ely MS4, Stickfoot MS4 and Naylor. A. Initiate planning and design for wetlands. Year 4 -2012 Watts Branch A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets C. LID East Capitol MS4 A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets C. LID Fort Davis MS4 A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xxiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Year 5 - 2013 Ely, Stickfoot and Naylor MS4’s A. Construction of wetlands. Costs The present cost of a trash free Anacostia River is about $32.4 million (Table 1). The schedule recommended is not a constant average expenditure. Instead, it is based upon working in small drainages, and monitoring to ensure that the selected methods will work under the conditions found in the District of Columbia. If a more constant expenditure is desired, then some of the more expensive and larger basins can be moved up in the schedule. The costs can be greatly reduced with legislative solutions for plastic bags, Styrofoam and beverage cans and bottles. Table 1 Cost Table: Basin Screen and Sweep and Wetland Creation Basin Pope FD-1 FD-2 Texas Pope MS4 Chaplin Ft DuPont Stickfoot Watts Nash E Cap MS4 Stanton StantonMS4 Ely Ft Davis MS4 Penn Kingman Naylor Subtotal S&S $940,903 308,530 158,004 622,043 310,674 954,070 281,690 6,233,968 1,959,372 5,868,800 344,110 861,877 2,704,673 947,298 1,119,542 423,926 $21,334,811 Total = Wetland $3,887,967 557,838 3,887,967 $11,038,448 $32,373,259 Estimated total capital costs per basin are shown below in Table 2. Construction of wetlands is expensive on a per acre basis. The plan has a capital cost of $13.7 M which is beyond the fundable range of the storm water fee revenue that is produced. The costs can be reduced if the legislative packages are implemented. Costs may be reduced if the wetlands are cost shared with the Corp of Engineers. It is compatible and complements ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xxiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY other pollutant removal plans. About one third of the total costs are already scheduled to be made pursuant to the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan. Table 2 Cost Table: Estimated Total Capital Costs per Basin S&S $190,248 56,675 34,670 113,795 74,007 193,137 57,708 1,159,734 370,277 979,730 49,566 124,915 2,396,142 170,249 216,475 86,069 $3,877,262 Total Capital Cost = Wetland Pope FD-1 FD-2 Texas Pope MS4 Chaplin Ft DuPont Stickfoot Watts Nash Ecap Stanton StantonMS4 Ely Ft Dav MS4 Penn Kingman Naylor $3,444,455 494,204 3,444,455 $9,779,257 $13,656,520 The plan achieves a trash free Anacostia River by the year 2013. Total capital costs are $13.7 million dollars but the majority of costs are deferred until year five (Table 3). The wetlands are more expensive than several other options but they provide significant additional environmental benefits to the Anacostia River ecosystem. Once fully implemented, the operation and maintenance cost will be about $2.6 million a year. About one third of the costs and activities of the plan are already included in the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan. The expansion of that plan with the additional street sweeping and wetlands construction will enhance the removal of the other TMDL pollutants, and help achieve the required permit allocations for those pollutants. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xxv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 3 Cost Table: Capital Costs by Year Capital Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total $149,054 $457,393 $1,455,305 $2,309,714 $9,285,053 $13,656,520 As mentioned previously, the plan has a moderate capital cost and a high O&M cost. A high capital and low O&M cost plan can be used, but it leaves the Anacostia River clean and the neighborhoods dirty. The recommended plan achieves a beautiful District of Columbia for the citizens at home and down by the river. Long-Term Monitoring Program A long-term monitoring program will be necessary to document improvements achieved by the trash reduction implementation plan. A simplified version of the monitoring conducting for this study is recommended. The data collected using the simplified plan, including the composition of trash, should be accurate enough to help DOE prioritize resources and chose the institutional and structural trash controls for implementation. The recommended stations to be monitored are: 1. Anacostia – Mudflat above New York Avenue Bridge 2. Anacostia – Poplar Point 3. Kingman Lake – Below Benning Road Bridge 4. Fort Stanton – From end of the stream at the grate to 100 feet upstream 5. Ft Dupont - Minnesota Avenue to 100 ft down stream 6. Ft Davis 1 - From grate to 100 feet upstream 7. Texas Avenue - From grate to 100 feet upstream 8. Pope- From grate to 100 feet upstream 9. Nash - From Anacostia Drive to 100 feet upstream 10. Watts - From the foot bridge between Jay Street and Deanne Avenue in Kenilworth Park to a point 100 ft downstream. 11. Ft Chaplin - From grate at C Street to 100 feet upstream Once a trash reduction plan, including institutional and structural controls, has been implemented in a tributary drainage basin, the tributary should be cleaned up and then monitored to insure that there are no uncontrolled sources remaining. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN xxvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose The District of Columbia is a signatory to the Trash Free Potomac Watershed Treaty. This agreement calls for the Potomac River and tributaries to be trash free by the year 2013. The District has decided to focus its efforts on the Anacostia River. Consequently, the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) decided to develop the Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. The purpose of the plan is to conduct the necessary research, and develop a comprehensive framework, that will guide the trash reduction efforts in the watershed. Upon completion of the Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Anacostia, the Trash Reduction Plan will serve as the implementation plan for the TMDL in the District of Columbia portion of the watershed. It will also guide efforts in Rock Creek and the Potomac by serving as example of how a basin can be made trash free. History The District of Columbia is located at the confluence of the Anacostia River and the Potomac River. In the early development, the larger navigable rivers were a main artery of transportation of people and goods. Ports at Georgetown and Alexandria on the Potomac River, and Bladensburg on the Eastern Branch were important to the economy of the region. The Eastern Branch of the Potomac was later renamed the Anacostia River. The many small streams of the region provided shad and herring during the spring spawning runs. As the region developed, pollution problems developed. Sewage and sediment ran unchecked into the rivers. Early improvements to the sewage system routed the effluent to the nearest stream, and once the stream was too putrid to tolerate, it was enclosed and routed to the next larger stream. In the end, few of the small streams survived the process. The District was developed with three types of sewers. In the early days, combined sewers were constructed. These carry the sanitary sewage at all times of the day, and during precipitation events, they also carry storm water. Before treatment facilities were constructed, they simply discharged to a stream or river. Once treatment facilities were available, the combined sewers were extended to the facility, but because they were not large enough to carry all of the runoff from all of the rainfall events, the sewers were constructed with overflow points along the way to relieve the pipes of the surplus flow. An overflow can be triggered by as little as a quarter inch of rainfall for some of these combined sewers. Because the combined sewers intercept storm water runoff from the streets, any trash and litter that is washed in from the streets is transported through the network of pipes, and any overflows from this system will contain trash and litter. Later in the development of the District, separate sanitary and storm sewers were constructed. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 1-1 CHAPTER 1 The separate sanitary sewers collect sewage and transport it to Blue Plains WWTP. The separate storm sewers collect runoff from inlets along the streets and transport it to a stream where it is discharged. In general, the older developed areas of the District have combined sewers and the newer parts of the District have separate sewers. As development continued and pollution increased, the situation with the Anacostia reached a point where it was silted in, overloaded with sewage and believed to be the source of mosquito borne diseases. The debate over whether to dredge the river ended beginning in the 1920’s, with the river being dredged and straightened. The wetlands that were the source of the mosquitoes were filled along and rock seawalls constructed. On the east side of the river only one stream survived the construction of the railroad and that was Watts Branch. Every other stream, such as Pope Branch, enters a pipe and is transported underground to outfalls at the Anacostia River seawall. On the West side, only Hickey Run survived and enters the Anacostia River as a free flowing stream. Figure 1.1 View of the United States Capital across the Anacostia River ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 1-2 CHAPTER 1 Modern Events In 1989, Robert Boone created the Anacostia Watershed Society (AWS) with the well recognized logo of START: Stop Trashing the Anacostia River Today. Figure 1.2 Anacostia Watershed Society Logo This was the first effort to draw attention to the amount of trash in the Anacostia River. Since its inception in 1989, AWS has mobilized over 55,500 volunteers who have planted over 13,200 trees and stenciled 1,200 storm-drains within the watershed with antidumping messages as well as removed 790 tons of trash and over 12,800 tires from the watershed. Furthermore, AWS has educated 17,911 people with its slide presentation which explains the river’s history and the current threats it faces, as well as the different lifestyle choices and changes citizens can undertake to improve the condition of the watershed. In addition to these education and restoration events, AWS has introduced 8,200 people, of which 4,500 were children, to the river through paddling clinics, canoe adventures and pontoon boat tours along the “Kingfisher Canoe Trail,” a scenic five-mile stretch of the Anacostia River. All AWS programs teach citizens that they are integral participants in the restoration and preservation of this urban river. The Alice Ferguson Foundation has been organizing trash Cleanups of the Potomac Watershed for twenty years. They realized that simply picking up the trash was a never ending task and set about to eliminate the trash. A Trash Free Potomac Watershed Treaty was developed and has now been signed by the governor of every state in the Potomac Watershed including the Mayor of the District of Columbia. The key provision was for entities to develop strategies for reducing trash. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 1-3 CHAPTER 1 Regulating Trash Since at least 1896, it has been illegal to throw trash into the rivers of the District. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 1-4 CHAPTER 1 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Title 21 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) Chapter 11 contains the Water Quality Standards (WQS). The Anacostia River has the designated beneficial uses of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Class A- primary contact recreation, Class B- secondary contact recreation, Class C- protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, Class D - protection of human health related to consumption of fish & shellfish, Class E- navigation. Primary contact recreation - those water contact sports or activities which result in frequent whole body immersion and/or involve significant risks of ingestion of the water. Secondary contact recreation - those water contact sports or activities which seldom result in whole body immersion and/or do not involve significant risks of ingestion of the water. The provisions that deal with trash are as follows: 1104.1 The surface waters of the District shall be free from substances attributable to point or nonpoint sources discharged in amounts that do any one of the following: (a) (b) Settle to form objectionable deposits; Float as debris, scum, oil or other matter to form nuisances; 1104.3 Class A waters shall be free of discharges of untreated sewage, litter and unmarked, submerged or partially submerged, man-made structures which would constitute a hazard to the users. Dry weather discharges of untreated sewage are prohibited. The aesthetic qualities of Class B waters shall be maintained. 1104.4 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act has provisions that relate to streams that have pollutants in quantities that affect the uses of the streams. Section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) states: ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 1-5 CHAPTER 1 Each state shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by section 301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standards applicable to such waters. The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. Further section 303(d)(1)(C) states: Each state shall establish for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculations. Such load shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. In 1996, the District of Columbia developed a list of waters that do not, or are not, expected to meet water quality standards as required by section 303(d)(1)(A). The list was updated in 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This list, submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency every two years, is known as the Section 303(d) list. For each of the listed waters, states are required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) which calculates the maximum amount of a pollutant that can enter the water without violating water quality standards, and which allocates that load to all significant sources. Pollutants above the allocated loads must be eliminated. The District of Columbia 2006 303(d) list, as approved by EPA, specifies that the Anacostia River is impaired by trash. The State of Maryland has also listed their portion of the Anacostia as impaired by trash. The District and Maryland are currently working in cooperation to develop a TMDL for trash. The TMDL will determine the level of trash that can be in the river and will assign load reductions (allocations) to the point and nonpoint sources. The load reductions will become a part of the discharge permits for the systems which discharge trash to the Anacostia River. In the District of Columbia, the two main systems will be the WASA combined sewer system regulated under the Blue Plains Waste Water Treatment Plant permit and the storm sewers regulated under the stormwater permit. Once the allocations are incorporated into the discharge permit, trash reduction will no longer be a voluntary exercise, but will become a mandated enforceable provision of the permits that must be followed. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 1-6 CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 ANACOSTIA BASIN DESCRIPTION Anacostia Basin Description Around the 1800s, the Anacostia River was a major thoroughfare for trade in the area now known as the District of Columbia and Bladensburg was a deep water port in Maryland. By 1850, the Anacostia River had developed sedimentation problems due to deforestation and improper farming techniques related to tobacco farms and European settlements. Channel volumes were greatly decreased and stream flow patterns were altered. Due to the continuation of the urbanization process, the river was never able to flush out the excessive amount of sediment and nutrients. The District of Columbia, as many cities in the 19th and early 20th centuries, developed a combined sewer system, which transported both rainfall and sanitary sewage away from the developed areas and discharged it into the rivers. The two major combined sewage outfalls were at the present location of the O” Street Pump Station and at the North East Boundary Sewer just below what is now Kingman Lake. In the 1930s, Blue Plains Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) was constructed and flows of dry weather sewage flows were transported across the Anacostia River to Blue Plains. However, the wet weather flows were, and are, often greater than the transmission capacity of the pump stations and piping system, and there are overflows to the rivers and streams. Later, modern sewer system construction utilized two pipes so that the storm water could be kept separate from the sanitary sewage. Storm water is transported to the nearest stream channel and discharged while the sanitary sewage is transported to Blue Plains WWTP for treatment. The Anacostia watershed is approximately 117,353 acres, with the drainage area being 49% in Prince George’s County, 34% in Montgomery, and 17% in the District of Columbia. Two thirds of the basin lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the remaining is in the Piedmont. The Anacostia River watershed is mostly residential and forest. There are 30% park and forest lands evenly dispersed throughout the watershed such as the National Park Service’s Anacostia Park and Greenbelt Park, the National Arboretum and Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. The industrial and manufacturing land use is largely confined to the tidal area of the basin such as Hickey Run, Lower Beaverdam Creek, and Indian Creek. These creek sub- watersheds contain impervious land uses as high as 80%. The head of tide for the Anacostia River is at Bladensburg, MD. Above Bladensburg, the river is composed of the Northeast Branch and the Northwest Branch. The mean annual stream flow for Northwest Branch is 48.6 cubic feet per second and the mean annual flow for the Northeast Branch is 86.4 cubic feet per second. This provides a combined mean annual flow of 135 cubic feet per second (cfs). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-1 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.1 Anacostia Watershed and Sewershed ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-2 CHAPTER 2 District of Columbia Anacostia Watershed In the District, the Anacostia watershed is heavily urbanized and there are 9,460 acres of areas that are served by storm sewers with 167 outfalls. The drains carry the rainwater to the streams and rivers where they discharge. The majority of the drainage basin in the central part of the District is served by combined sewers. A Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) has been developed that will reduce the frequency and volume of overflows which contain trash. The map below shows the MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System = MSSSS= MS4) areas in orange with the storms sewers in red. The majority of the data collection for this report occurred in those areas. Figure 2.2 Anacostia MS4 Systems ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-3 CHAPTER 2 Land use in the MS4 portion of the study area is predominantly residential with a lot of open space. Imperviousness of each land use is given in Table 2.2. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 56.35% according to the MS4 Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan. The acres of MS4 in the drainage basin of each free flowing tributary are shown. These numbers are different from the total numbers of acres in the natural basins in several instances because it is based upon storm sewers. Most of the streams become piped at some point and the acres of MS4 below that point are included in the direct drainage to the Anacostia. The number of storm sewer outfalls for each basin is shown in Table 2.3. Table 2.1 Anacostia MS4 Land Use LAND DESCRIPTION Federal Industrial Institutional Local Public Facilities Low Commercial + Low Residential Low Density Commercial Low Density Residential Medium Commercial + Medium Residential Medium Commercial + Moderate Residential Medium Density Commercial Medium Density Residential Medium-high Commercial + Industrial + High Residential Medium-High Commercial + Institutional + High Residential Medium-High Density Commercial Moderate Commercial + Industrial Moderate Commercial + Industrial + Medium Residential Moderate Commercial + Medium Residential Moderate Commercial + Moderate Residential Moderate Density Commercial Moderate Density Residential Parks Water Sum of acres 183.5 567.3 376.1 408.7 40.4 172.8 2461.5 61.2 64.6 13.7 93.1 116.9 33.5 1.5 61.2 5.2 80.0 17.2 50.7 2836.671835 1792.2 4.2 SUMMARY Commercial Industrial Mixed Industrial and Commercial Mixed Residential and Commercial Parks Public - Federal and Institutional Residential Water Sum of acres 238.6 567.3 216.8 263.3 1792.2 968.3 5391.3 4.3 Parks + Residential 7183.5 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-4 CHAPTER 2 Table 2.2 Land Use Type Codes Runoff Coefficient (Rvi) 0.48 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.68 0.73 0.77 0.59 0.48 0.68 0.68 0.64 0.73 0.7 0.73 0.67 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.68 0.35 1.00 Land Use Type Low Density Residential Moderate Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Commercial Moderate Density Commercial Medium Density Commercial Medium-High Density Commercial Moderate Commercial + Moderate Residential Low Commercial + Low Residential Medium Commercial + Medium Residential Medium Commercial + Moderate Residential Moderate Commercial + Medium Residential Industrial Moderate Commercial + Industrial Medium-High Commercial + Industrial + High Residential Moderate Commercial + Industrial + Medium Residential Medium-High Commercial + Institutional + High Residential Federal Local Public Facilities Institutional Parks Water Total Acres is 9442 Total Impervious Acres @ 56.35 % Impervious Land Use Code R1 R2 R3 C1 C2 C3 C4 M1 M2 M21 M5 M6 I1 M10 M14 M15 M23 P1 P2 P3 P4 W1 5,321 imp. Acres ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-5 CHAPTER 2 Table 2.3 Drainage Basin Acreage and Outfalls Anacostia direct drainage Hickey Run Watts Branch Nash Run Ft Chaplin Fort DuPont Pope Branch Fort Davis Texas Ave. Park Drive Ft Davis -2 Hillcrest- Texas Fort Stanton Stickfoot Acres 6,466 848 1,025 320 151 99 149 51 36 24 103 62 56 54 Number of Outfalls 60 4 54 4 5 9 6 5 4 3 5 3 3 2 167 Other (St. E) Total 9,442 Water Quality The Anacostia water quality has been assessed and it was determined that the water quality standards were not being achieved. Consequently, the pollutants causing the nonattainment of Anacostia River were listed pursuant to Section 303 (d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. Using computer simulations, the Total Maximum Daily Load of each pollutant was determined and allocations were established for all the sources including the MS4 system. EPA then inserted that allocation into the relevant NPDES permits including the MS4. Pollutants identified for reductions in discharges from the MS4 include: • • • • • • • Specific TMDL fecal coliform bacteria Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Total nitrogen (TN) Total phosphorous (TP) Total suspended solids (TSS) Oil and grease Zinc ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-6 CHAPTER 2 • • • • • • • Lead Copper Arsenic Chlordane Heptachlor expoxide Dieldrin Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), including: o PAH-1 - naphthalene, 2-methyl naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, and phenanthrene; o PAH-2 - fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, and chrysene; o PAH-3 - benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, perylene, • indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, and • dibenzo[a,h+ac]anthracene. DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) DDE (dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene) DDD (dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethane) Total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). • • • • Individual Drainage Basins The Anacostia watershed was divided up into sub-basins with each free flowing tributary having a separate database. The MS4 systems were also sub-divided but sometimes a few small ones would be grouped together with a large one for ease of data collection and analysis. Hickey Run Hickey Run is a western tributary of the Anacostia River which flows approximately 0.9 miles southeast to the Anacostia. The total watershed area is roughly 1,079 acres or 1.7 square miles. It has an average flow of about 8 cfs. The northern half of Hickey Run’s watershed lies in a heavily industrialized and mostly impervious area above New York Avenue and is essentially a sewershed, as it is completely piped. The southern half of the stream is open channel fed by this complex storm sewer system and traverses the USDA National Arboretum to the Anacostia River. Due to the heavily developed and mostly impervious northern half of the watershed, high peak flows with short times of concentration for even relatively minor rain events are the norm. As a result Hickey Run is heavily degraded, as are most of the streams in the highly urban Anacostia River watershed. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-7 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.3 Hickey Run Kingman Lake Kingman Lake direct drainage is about 367 acres, composed of about 50 percent parkland, 25 percent residential and 25 RFK stadium and parking lot. The portions of the lake above the Benning Road Bridge is chiefly drainage from a golf course, a high school and a few blocks of residential area (100,000sqft). The portion below Benning Road on the northwestern shore is predominately developed as residential and a stadium and parking while the southeastern shore is parkland. The stadium parking has a green space buffer along the lake shore. Kingman Lake is tidal with an opening at each end. Tidal amplitude is about 3 feet. The lake was originally about 94 acres but after creation of 44 acres of wetlands there was 50 acres of open lake left. There is a small stream which may be perennial that emerges in Langston golf course from the storm drain serving M and Maryland Streets. There is a combination of several storm sewers sheds that discharge to Kingman Lake. They lie to both the east and west of Benning Road. RFK Stadium and Langston Golf Course occupy much of the land. There are three schools in the neighborhoods and commercial activities along Benning Road. Both low density and medium density landuses are present. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-8 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.4 RFK & Kingman Lake MS4s Nash Run Nash Run has been heavily altered as it lies within the developed areas of the District and Maryland. The Nash Run watershed measures approximately 0.7 mi2 (460 acres), with approximately two-thirds of the watershed in the District of Columbia. The remainder of the watershed is in Deanwood Park, Prince George’s County, Maryland. All but 5% of the watershed is urban residential and commercial property drained by storm drains. It has an estimated flow of 2 cfs. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-9 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.5 Nash Run Watts Branch Watts Branch is the largest tributary of the Anacostia River in DC. Roughly half of the Watts Branch watershed is contained within the District of Columbia. The headwaters of Watts Branch drain Prince George’s County, Maryland. From Southern Avenue, the stream flows three miles, in a northwesterly direction, eventually meeting the Anacostia River in Kenilworth Park, a National Park Service property. The tidal influence of the Anacostia River reaches upstream for about 1200 feet. There is a tributary that arises in Maryland and joins the main stem below Southern Avenue. At the head of tide there is a ditch that the beaver has flooded with its dam. This flooded wetland area has a few storm sewer discharges from the adjacent residential area. The entire Watts Branch watershed measures 3.53 square miles. Half a square mile of this area, or less than 15% of the watershed, is forested. Most of this forest area lies along the Watts Branch stream corridor, serving dually as parkland and riparian buffer. The U.S. National Park Service once controlled all of this parkland surrounding Watts Branch. However, a 1973 agreement with The District transferred authority of the park, upstream of the Kenilworth Park property, to the DC Department of Parks and Recreation. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-10 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.6 Watts Branch Watts Branch is a perennial, low gradient, warm water stream. Channel width varies from approximately 20 feet (widest), to 5 feet (where the stream enters the District). The average stream gradient for Watts Branch is 1%. This gradient is relatively low and is common for slower moving, coastal plain streams. Average flow is about 5 cfs. These flows increase dramatically during storm events due to the imperviousness of the watershed. A USGS stream flow gauging station (USGS site # 01651800), funded by the District, is located on Watts Branch and provides accurate stream flow data on a continuing basis. Flow during the study period is displayed in the chart. The summer of 2007 was very dry and flow was low for the first quarterly survey. Peak flows were about 20-30 cfs: however, the May, 2008 rainfall caused flows that were about 200 cfs. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-11 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.7 USGS Watts Brach at Washington, DC East Capitol Street MS4 This is a very large system of storm sewers that discharge to the Anacostia River. There are four major discharge points. One along Benning Road is primarily commercial landuse and it discharges at a point about 10 feet above the constructed wetland. A second storm sewer collects water from the River Terrace residential area as well as the Minnesota Avenue commercial area. It discharges to a gut cut through the wetland. A small storm sewer serving the residential area discharges to the wetland above the East Capitol Street Bridge and it is screened and cleaned by WASA and the contributing streets are swept by DPW weekly. The major storm sewer serves the East Capitol, Benning Road area all the way to Southern Avenue. The sewer shed collect the water from Ft Chapin tributary. It discharges below the wetland. The East Capitol Street Bridge stormwater drops into a system of chutes under the bridge and enters the Anacostia. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-12 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.8 East Capitol Street MS4 Ely MS4 This is a small system bounded by Ely Place and Ridge Road. It contains a significant amount of public housing. The Potomac Division of the DC Housing Authority is located here. After the storm sewer travels under the railroad, it then goes under the elevated portion of the Anacostia Freeway and goes from there to the Anacostia River. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-13 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.9 Ely MS4 Fort Chaplin Fort Chaplin is a small first-order tributary to the Anacostia River, draining a 344 acre watershed area within the southeast quadrant of the District of Columbia. It has an average flow of about 0.2 cfs. There are two open stream channels that combine for an approximate total length of 2,900 feet. The first open channel is an intermittent stream that originates downstream of Ridge Road. The channel heads in a northwesterly direction for approximately 1,000 feet whereupon it enters an approximately1,800 feet long 24” RCP pipe storm drain system which terminates immediately below Texas Avenue. At this point, the stream is considered to be perennial. The perennial stream portion also flows in a slight northwesterly direction for approximately 1,900 feet whereupon it enters a 48” RCP pipe immediately upstream of ‘C’ Street which is the East Capitol Street MS4 system. The mean open stream channel gradient for Fort Chaplin is, approximately 1.4 percent and is considered slightly high for a Coastal Plain stream. In comparison, the mean stream gradient for the adjacent Fort DuPont and Pope Branch tributaries were 1.9 and 2.6 percent, respectively. These higher than average stream gradients are a function of the river terrace-influenced morphology in this portion of the Anacostia watershed. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-14 CHAPTER 2 The predominant land uses for the Fort Chaplin sub-watershed include a mix of residential, institutional and commercial areas. The land uses for the drainage area above the Texas Avenue are predominantly single family and row house residential. This area drains approximately 113.0 acres, with 97.8 acres (86.5 percent) associated with the previously mentioned land use types and the remaining 15.2 acres (13.5 percent) is deciduous forest. Heading downstream, the catchment area between Texas Avenue and ‘C’ Street, drains 51.8 acres. Of the 51.8 acres, 35.2 acres (78.0 percent) is associated with single-family, row house residential and, garden apartment land uses. The remaining 16.6 acres (32.1 percent) is deciduous forest. Figure 2.10 Fort Chaplin Fort DuPont The Fort DuPont tributary is a small third-order stream draining a 443.0 acres (0.69 mi ) watershed area. The stream originates in the vicinity of Alabama Avenue and Burns Road and flows in a northwesterly direction for approximately 1.9 miles before entering the Anacostia River. The lower two-thirds of the stream cuts through ancient river terrace deposits. Along the way, the stream flows under Fort Davis Drive, Minnesota Avenue and the CSX rail line area. Approximately 2,240 linear feet of the stream system (14.7 percent) is piped. Stream gradient for the Fort DuPont main stem is at 1.9 percent, relatively high for a Coastal Plain stream. This 2 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-15 CHAPTER 2 high gradient is largely a function of the stream’s river terrace-influenced morphology. It has an average flow of about 0.7 cfs. The Fort DuPont tributary is atypical of District of Columbia streams in that most of its drainage area is undeveloped, wooded parkland. Approximately 376 acres (85 percent) are owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS). Current park uses and facilities include tennis and basketball courts, athletic fields, a softball diamond, an ice skating rink, an activity center, Park Police stables, maintenance yard, amphitheater, picnic areas and a community garden. It should be noted that the park formerly included an 18-hole golf course, which was abandoned around 1970. Since then, much of the former golf course area has been allowed to naturally reforest itself. Impervious surfaces in the Fort DuPont sub-watershed such as rooftops, roads and parking lots comprise only 13.3 percent. Figure 2.11 Fort Dupont Pope Branch Pope Branch is a 1.6-mile first-order tributary originating downstream of Fort Davis Drive and flowing in a northwesterly direction towards the Anacostia. A portion of this stream (1,700 linear feet or 20%) is piped beginning at the CSX railroad and ending at an outlet to the ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-16 CHAPTER 2 Anacostia. The stream and surrounding riparian forest are known as Pope Branch Park. Originally, this park land was managed by the National Park Service; however, in the early 1970’s Pope Branch Park lands were split off from Fort DuPont Park and management authorities were transferred to DC Department of Parks and Recreation. The piped portion of the stream is located under the Lower Anacostia Park, managed by the National Park Service. The Pope Branch sub-watershed encompasses a 248.5-acre area and is roughly bounded by Alabama Avenue to the east, Pennsylvania Avenue to the south, and Massachusetts Avenue to the north. It has an average flow estimated to be 0.24 cfs Figure 2.12 Pope Branch Texas Avenue Tributary This is a small first order stream. One fork of this stream arises in the residential neighborhoods of Hillcrest and Ft Baker Drives and emerges from a pipe in Ft Davis Park and flows down toward Texas Avenue and 28th Street where it joins the other fork. The second fork arises in the woods of Ft Davis Park and flows under 28th Street. The combined stream enters a pipe at 27th Street and becomes a part of the flow in the Pennsylvania Avenue MS4 system which discharges to the Anacostia River. The watershed of Texas Avenue Tributary measures 0.17 mi2 (110 acres) ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-17 CHAPTER 2 and is about 40% forested parkland and 60% residential and light commercial property. It has a flow of about 0.75 cfs. Below the tributary, the MS4 system serves a mixed use area with a significant amount of commercial area in the vicinity of Pennsylvania Avenue and Minnesota Avenue. Figure 2.13 Pennsylvania MS4 & Texas Avenue Tributary Fort Davis Fort Davis is a first order eastern tributary of the Anacostia River. There are two arms of the stream. The eastern arm runs parallel with Pennsylvania Avenue from just below Alabama Avenue down to 33rd Street near Branch Avenue. The western arm runs along Branch Avenue from about Park Drive to just above Pennsylvania Avenue. The streams are now conducted by storm drains to the Anacostia River. The entire watershed measures about .11 mi2 (70 acres) but about 15% of its watershed is drained away independently of the stream by storm drains. Approximately half of the watershed is forested parkland with the other half existing as urban residential and including an elementary school. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-18 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.14 Fort Davis Tributaries & MS4 Naylor MS4 This MS4 system serves the predominantly residential area along Naylor Road. It discharges to the Anacostia River upstream of the DC Recreation Center. There is some uncertainty concerning the accuracy of the storm sewer maps in the commercial areas at the upper parts of the drainage system. It is possible some drainage may go over to the Texas Avenue system and some may go to Ft Stanton. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-19 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.15 Naylor MS4 Fort Stanton Fort Stanton’s watershed measures approximately .28 square miles (180 acres). Roughly half of the watershed is National Park Service parkland with the remaining land existing as residential and commercial property. It has an average flow of about 0.05 cfs. One arm of the stream begins near the Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum and flows about 1700 feet to the main stream. The primary stream flow emerges from a storm sewer below the Skyland Terrace community and flows about 1300 feet parallel to Good Hope Road where it enters another storm sewer. The lower portion of the stream was rip rapped a few years ago. The Fort Stanton MS4 system collects the water from Fort Stanton Tributary as well as Historic Anacostia and some of the Alabama Avenue/Good Hope Road commercial district. Predominant land use is residential. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-20 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.16 Fort Stanton Stickfoot Sewer This sewer is the old Stickfoot Creek and the trunk line runs along Suitland Parkway and crosses under the Poplar Point wetlands and discharges to the Anacostia River. The terrain in the upper part of the system is very steep and convoluted and affects the development and the sewer line locations. A very small portion of Historic Anacostia is drained to this storm sewer. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-21 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.17 Stickfoot Sewer Combined Sewer System The combined sewer sheds compose most of the west side of the Anacostia except for the RFK and Hickey Run basins. On the East side, the old Anacostia neighborhood and business sections are on combined sewers. System 006, the smallest of the three in the east side of the river is scheduled to have the combined sewers separated; so, it will be served by storms sewers. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-22 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.18 Anacostia CSO Outfalls and CSS Drainage Areas ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 2-23 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 MONITORING DATA 3.1 Data Collection Introduction The purpose of the monitoring activities was to determine the amounts and kinds of trash in the Anacostia River and tributaries and to determine the potential sources of the trash on the land. The data gathered would be needed to provide a baseline to use in developing a plan to reduce the levels of trash in the streams. To the extent possible, “hotspots” needed to be identified both in the waterways and on land. Also, the data would be used as a reference in future years to determine the effectiveness of the reduction plan, and the data would be supportive of the proposed Trash TMDL. It was understood that additional data would need to be collected for the TMDL. Coordination It was requested that the data collection procedures developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and Alice Ferguson Foundation (AFF) be followed to the extent reasonable. Meetings and conference calls were held to discuss the monitoring procedures. The methodologies developed for this effort were coordinated with the involved parties and were essentially modified techniques from MWCOG trash surveys using modified forms from AFF. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have any approved methods for trash monitoring. A Quality Assurance Project Plan was developed and submitted to the District of Columbia Department of Environment (DDOE) prior to any monitoring being conducted. A midterm review of the monitoring activities was conducted and two additional stations were added to determine the trash levels in MD above the DC line on the Anacostia and on Watts Branch. Methodology Transects were established using known locations such as bridges, street corners or other easily identifiable landmarks when possible. When landmarks were not available, such as in some of the streams, a GPS was used to acquire coordinates and tape was used as a marker. A normalizing index was developed that rated the likelihood of a transect collecting trash. A rating index of 1-5 was used, with a rating of 1 being a bare concrete channel or seawall and a rating of 5 being dense vegetation within the stream channel. Debris dams and log jams which acted as sieves to strain and collect trash were recorded to further rate the likelihood of a stream channel retaining trash. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-1 Only visible trash was counted. In cases where there were several hundred items present of the same type such as plastic bags and food wrappers, estimates would be used instead of a detailed count. As can be seen in Figure 3.1.1, certain items are visible and easily counted individually. The plastic bags wrapped around the limb in the foreground would be estimated, the few that are visible in the log jam would be counted individually and the ones buried in the leaves out of sight would not be counted. Such log jams would be counted from the front and the rear to insure all visible trash was recorded. Figure 3.1.1 Trash collected by a log jam ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-2 The photo below (Figure 3.1.2) is probably the most extreme situation of undercounting that occurred. The bottles and cups are nearly two feet deep on the photo bottom and left side, which means that nearly a third of the items are not visible, and by the methodology used, are not counted. Figure 3.1.2 Most extreme example of undercounting due to methodology used ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-3 The survey counted to bank full depth. In Figure 3.1.3 below, demonstrates that such a measure is open to judgment. This photo was taken on the last survey and one will notice that there is a piece of vinyl siding in the upper right hand corner wrapped around a tree. That piece of siding has probably moved 3 miles downstream in nine months. Figure 3.1.3 Bankfull Depth One issue arose that created a few anomalies in the data. Two of the streams had moderately to severely braided sections. There was no plan for dealing with those conditions, and the first trash count of the Ft. Stanton tributary included every portion of every channel, causing the counts to be very high. Subsequently, the method of counting only in one channel was used. Ft. DuPont below Minnesota Avenue is slightly braided, and the same channel was not counted every time since the majority of the flow was flowing down different channels on different survey days. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-4 Monitoring Sites The map in Figure 3.1.4 shows the Anacostia River and Kingman Lake transects highlighted in red. The streams surveyed are in blue and the land use sites are in yellow. Figure 3.1.4 Monitoring Sites Anacostia and Kingman Lake Transects were established on the main stem of the Anacostia and surveyed quarterly. The transects consisted of different types of shoreline. 1. Above New York Avenue Bridge – West side - mudflat 2. Below New York Avenue Bridge – East side - seawall 3. Pennsylvania Avenue storm sewer outfall – East side- seawall 4. Poplar Point at the Stickfoot Sewer Outfall - East side- broken seawall 5. Buzzard Point – West side- riprap and sloped gravel shoreline ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-5 Transects were established along the shoreline of Kingman Lake adjacent to the major outfalls and at the downstream entrance near the Northeast Boundary Sewer CSO outfall, and they were surveyed quarterly. 1. Above Benning Road - mudflat 2. Below Benning Road - mudflat 3. Along the wetland – hay bale barrier 4. Above North East Boundary Combined Sewer- mudflat Tributaries The tributaries and their drainage basins were surveyed quarterly. Each tributary was divided into segments of approximately 500 - 1000 foot lengths and the amount and types of trash and debris in the stream channel were determined. Because these are urban streams, segments length were determined by street crossings or other recognizable land marks when possible. The study did not include intermittent streams. If a stream channel was dry, it was not surveyed, and the survey would begin once actively flowing water was observed. Transects did not extend into the tidal zone of tributaries. It should be noted that the summer of 2007 was very dry so some stream segments might have water in wetter years or seasons. 1. 2. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Ft Davis 1 (Penn. Ave) Ft Davis 2 (Branch Ave) Watts Branch Texas Avenue Fort Stanton Nash Run Pope Branch Ft DuPont Ft Chaplin Number of segments = 1 Number of segments = 1 Number of segments = 14 Number of segments = 2 Number of segments = 3 Number of segments = 2 Number of segments = 3 Number of segments = 10 Number of segments = 2 Land Use Surveys Different types of land uses were selected for determining the amount of trash that could potentially be transported to a waterway. An attempt was made to have landuse transects in all of the major basins. Transects were be established and the area measured and detailed counts conducted quarterly. Parks 1. 2. 3. Kenilworth Park fishing area Watts Branch Park below Recreation Center Langdon Park – Hickey run Recreational Fields 1. Kenilworth Park soccer field buffer zone 2. Anacostia Park soccer field buffer zone ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-6 Trails 1. Watts Branch Foot Bridge at Eads Street Commercial Streets 1. Pennsylvania Ave. - Minnesota Ave.– 27th St, south side 2. Good Hope Rd. -25th – Alabama, east side 3. Nannie Helen Burroughs – Minnesota -44th St, west side 4. Bladensburg – South Dakota – 30th St, north side Residential Streets 1. Pope Street, Branch – Nash west side 2. Grant St - 42-44 St east side 3. Franklin St – Rhode Island Ave – 17th St., south side 4. Franklin St- 17-18th St, south side 5 Franklin St 18-20th St, south side (also school and parkland use) Light Industrial Streets 1. I-295 Service Road - Foot bridge/crosswalk – Polk St, south side Parking lots 1. Auto Zone at Naylor and Good Hope Road 2. RFK parking lot 3. Ft Chaplin Apts. & Townhomes parking lot Institutional 1. HD Woodson High School- Watts Branch 2. Phelps/ Brown School – Kingman Lake Transportation 1. Bus stops - Good Hope Road Bridges 1. 2. 3. 11th Street Bridge Pennsylvania Avenue Benning Road Windshield Surveys The drainage basins of each tributary and or MS4 system were surveyed quarterly for trash that might reach the tributary. This was done by windshield survey of all of the streets. The streets were broken down into about one block to two block long segments. The survey team would drive along in a vehicle at about 20 mph. A person would count all of the visible trash that could be seen from the passenger side window. The visible space would be from about 10 feet from the curb of the road to a point 10-12 feet from the curb to private property. This would ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-7 theoretically include the tree space and the sidewalk. Only one side of each block was counted, and on different surveys there was no attempt to count the same side of the same block. Obviously, parked vehicles affected the amount of trash that could be seen. No attempt was made to identify types of trash. Only a gross count was made. The windshield survey was halted during periods of reduced visibility such as intense rainstorms and snow storms. The street transects under the land use monitoring are related to the windshield surveys and can be used to adjust the data. Special Studies While not part of the work plan, there were events that occurred that prompted the collection of additional data to further understand the normal data and to clarify issues that arose. Five such studies were done. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The effects of rainfall on windshield counts. The effect of counting on different sides of the street during windshield counts. The effects of week days versus weekend windshield counts. The effects of garbage collection on transect counts. Broken glass counts in the stream beds. Schedule of Monitoring The monitoring was performed quarterly and spanned approximately two to three weeks of time. Data collection was suspended for leaf-fall and snow-fall because the trash could not be seen. Stream surveys were interrupted by the May 8, 2008 rainfall which produced flood flows. The invasive porcelain berry vines in Ft Stanton were simply impenetrable during the summer survey. The first quarter data was collected in late August, early September 2007. The second quarter data was collected in November and December 2007. The third quarter data was collected in February and March 2008. The fourth and final quarter of data was collected in May and June 2008. Monitoring Sites Detailed Locations Anacostia Mainstem Stations 1. New York Avenue Bridge START DESCRIPTION: First path to river END DESCRIPTION: Mouth of Kenilworth Marsh LENGTH: 941’ WIDTH: mid channel ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-8 BANKFULL DEPTH: top of seawall CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 1 very sparse vegetation in the channel Figure 3.1.5 Anacostia Mainstream Stations: New York Avenue Bridge ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-9 2. Pennsylvania Avenue Storm Sewer START DESCRIPTION: UPSTREAM EDGE OF PARKING LOT END DESCRIPTION: UPSTREAM EDGE OF PENN AVE BRIDGE LENGTH: 875’ WIDTH: SEAWALL TO MIDCHANNEL BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 1 SPARSE Figure 3.1.6 Anacostia: Pennsylvania Avenue Storm Sewer ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-10 3. Buzzard Point START DESCRIPTION:SMOKING GAZEBO END DESCRIPTION: POINT ABOVE JAMES CREEK MARINA LENGTH: 651’ WIDTH: 5’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 – RIPRAP ALONG BANK Figure 3.1.7 Anacostia: Buzzard Point ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-11 4. Poplar Point START DESCRIPTION: Park Police HQ drive way END DESCRIPTION: 450 ft below Stickfoot sewer LENGTH: 1000’ WIDTH: Seawall to mid channel BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 1 for downstream count and 4 for upstream count The Seawall was broken in places. Upstream of stick foot sewer for 600 feet the trash was counted behind the seawall to high tide line. Below the Stickfoot sewer, trash was counted only in front of seawall Figure 3.1.8 Anacostia: Poplar Point ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-12 5. Above New York Ave START DESCRIPTION: Bridge END DESCRIPTION: first wetland fence upstream LENGTH: 526’ WIDTH: 20 feet at low tide BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 1 mostly a mudflat This station straddles the DC/MD boundary and was added after the midterm review of the data. Figure 3.1.9 Anacostia: Above New York Avenue ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-13 Kingman Lake Station KL-1a. Benning Road Bridge Upstream START DESCRIPTION: Storm sewer out fall END DESCRIPTION: Bridge abutment LENGTH: 346’ WIDTH: 10 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 - mostly mud banks Figure 3.1.10 Kingman Lake Stations: Benning Road Bridge Upstream ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-14 KL-1b. Benning Road Bridge downstream START DESCRIPTION: approximately 300 ft downstream of bridge abutment is orange transect tape on a willow tree END DESCRIPTION: about 200 ft from the first transect tape will be a second transect tape LENGTH: 200’ WIDTH: 15’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 - mostly mud banks Transect located to avoid homeless person living under the Benning Road bridge. Figure 3.1.11 Kingman Lake: Benning Road Bridge Downstream ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-15 KL-2. East Capitol Street Marsh START DESCRIPTION: Marsh beginning at storm sewer outfall END DESCRIPTION: Marsh ending at upstream edge of East Capitol Street Bridge LENGTH: 441’ WIDTH: 5’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Survey conducted by walking along the marsh wall and counting trash on the water side of the retaining wall. Figure 3.1.12 Kingman Lake: East Capitol Street Marsh ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-16 KL-3. Northeast Boundary Sewer START DESCRIPTION: STORM DRAIN END DESCRIPTION: Storm Drain LENGTH: 689’ WIDTH: 10’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 This station is basically the intertidal zone. Figure 3.1.13 Kingman Lake: Northeast Boundary Sewer ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-17 Watts Branch Station WB-1. Southern – 61 St START DESCRIPTION: Bridge at Southern Avenue END DESCRIPTION: Bridge at 61st Street LENGTH: 569 ft WIDTH: 12 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.14 Watts Branch: Southern – 61 St ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-18 WB-MD. East Capitol - Southern START DESCRIPTION: Bridge at Eagle St END DESCRIPTION: Bridge at Southern Avenue LENGTH: 447 ft WIDTH: 12 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.15 Watts Branch: East Capital - Southern ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-19 WB-1a. Tributary START DESCRIPTION: Mainstem END DESCRIPTION: East Capitol LENGTH: 567 WIDTH: 12 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.16 Watts Branch: Tributary ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 3-20 WB-2. 61 St – 58 St START DESCRIPTION: 61ST STREET BRIDGE END DESCRIPTION: 58th Street LENGTH: 1339ft WIDTH: 12 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.17 Watts Branch: 61 St – 58 St ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-21 CHAPTER 3 WB-3. 58 St – 55 St START DESCRIPTION: 58TH STREET BRIDGE END DESCRIPTION: 55TH STREET BIRDGE LENGTH: 1364 ft WIDTH: 10ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.18 Watts Branch: 58 St – 55 St ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-22 CHAPTER 3 WB-4. 55 St – Division Ave START DESCRIPTION: 55TH STREET BRIDGE END DESCRIPTION: DIVISION AVE BRIDGE LENGTH: 1373ft WIDTH: 12 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.19 Watts Branch: 55 St – Division Ave ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-23 CHAPTER 3 WB-5. Division Ave – 50 St START DESCRIPTION: DIVISION AVENUE BRIDGE END DESCRIPTION: 50TH STREET TUNNEL LENGTH: 1049 ft WIDTH: 20 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.20 Watts Branch: Division Ave – 50 St ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-24 CHAPTER 3 WB-6. 50 St – 48 St START DESCRIPTION: TUNNEL OUTLET AT 50TH STREET END DESCRIPTION: 48TH STREET BRIDGE LENGTH: 536 ft WIDTH: 10 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.21 Watts Branch: 50 St – 48 St ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-25 CHAPTER 3 WB-7. 48 St – 44St START DESCRIPTION: 48TH STREET BRIDGE END DESCRIPTION: LENGTH: 1538ft WIDTH: 20 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 5 Figure 3.1.22 Watts Branch: 48 St – 44St ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-26 CHAPTER 3 WB-8. 44St – Hunt Pl START DESCRIPTION: 44th Street END DESCRIPTION: Hunt Place LENGTH: 1091ft WIDTH: 15 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.23 Watts Branch: 44St – Hunt Pl ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-27 CHAPTER 3 WB-9. Hunt Pl – Kenilworth Ave START DESCRIPTION: Hunt Place END DESCRIPTION: Kenilworth Avenue LENGTH: 1007 ft WIDTH: 20 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 1 Figure 3.1.24 Watts Branch: Hunt Pl – Kenilworth Ave ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-28 CHAPTER 3 WB-10. Kenilworth Ave – Foot Bridge START DESCRIPTION: Kenilworth Avenue END DESCRIPTION: Foot Bridge LENGTH: 1727 ft WIDTH: 25 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 5 Figure 3.1.25 Watts Branch: Kenilworth Ave – Foot Bridge ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-29 CHAPTER 3 WB-11. Foot Bridge – 1000’ START DESCRIPTION: FOOT BRIDGE END DESCRIPTION: ORANGE TRANSECT TAPE ON FALLEN TREE – GO TO FIRST WEEPING WILLOW LENGTH: 937 ft WIDTH: 25 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 5 Figure 3.1.26 Watts Branch: Foot Bridge – 1000’ ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-30 CHAPTER 3 WB-12. Station 11 to small tributary. START DESCRIPTION: Orange transect tape on downed tree near first weeping willow END DESCRIPTION: Small Tributary LENGTH: 1209 ft WIDTH: 25 ft BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 4 Beaver dam at the Tributary and tidal affects Figure 3.1.27 Watts Branch: Station 11 to small tributary. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-31 CHAPTER 3 Texas Avenue – Mainstem START DESCRIPTION: 27th Street END DESCRIPTION: PIPE LENGTH: 475’ WIDTH: 2’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.28 Texas Avenue Mainstem ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-32 CHAPTER 3 Texas Avenue – tributary START DESCRIPTION: Culvert at Hiking Trail END DESCRIPTION: Mainstem LENGTH: 768’ WIDTH: 2’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.29 Texas Avenue – Tributary ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-33 CHAPTER 3 Fort Stanton Fort Stanton: 1 START DESCRIPTION: Tributary Junction END DESCRIPTION: PIPE WITH 4 INCH SPACING GRATE LENGTH: 801’ WIDTH: 3’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 5 Figure 3.1.30 Fort Stanton: 1 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-34 CHAPTER 3 Fort Stanton: 2 START DESCRIPTION: Storm Sewer END DESCRIPTION: Tributary Junction LENGTH: 516’ WIDTH: 3’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 4 Figure 3.1.31 Fort Stanton: 2 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-35 CHAPTER 3 Fort Stanton: 3 START DESCRIPTION: About 200 feet below the Storm Sewer END DESCRIPTION: Tributary Junction LENGTH: 1960’ WIDTH: 3’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.32 Fort Stanton: 3 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-36 CHAPTER 3 Nash Run NR-1 I-295 – Pipe START DESCRIPTION: I-295 Service Road END DESCRIPTION: Upstream end of conduits LENGTH: 704’ WIDTH: 12 BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.33 Nash Run: I-295 – Pipe ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-37 CHAPTER 3 NR-2 Pipe -Anacostia Ave START DESCRIPTION: Downstream end of conduits END DESCRIPTION: Anacostia Avenue LENGTH: 466 WIDTH: 12 BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.34 Nash Run: Pipe -Anacostia Ave ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-38 CHAPTER 3 Pope Branch PB-1. Nash – Branch Ave START DESCRIPTION: Outfall at Nash and Texas END DESCRIPTION: Branch Avenue LENGTH: 2914’ WIDTH: 5’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 1’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.35 Pope Branch: Nash – Branch Ave ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-39 CHAPTER 3 PB-2. Anacostia Rd – Minnesota Ave START DESCRIPTION: Minnesota avenue END DESCRIPTION: Branch Avenue LENGTH: 802 WIDTH: 5’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 1’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.36 Pope Branch: Anacostia Rd – Minnesota Ave ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-40 CHAPTER 3 PB-3. Minnesota Ave – Fairlawn START DESCRIPTION: Minnesota Avenue END DESCRIPTION: Fairlawn Avenue trash rack with 4” spacing LENGTH: 734’ WIDTH: 5’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 1’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3.5 Figure 3.1.37 Pope Branch: Minnesota Ave – Fairlawn ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-41 CHAPTER 3 Ft Dupont Segment 1 This segment was dry and not monitored. Figure 3.1.38 Ft. Dupont: Segment 1 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-42 CHAPTER 3 FDp-2. START DESCRIPTION: FOOT BRIDGE END DESCRIPTION: ORANGE TRANSECT TAPE ON FALLEN OVERHEAD TREE LENGTH: 1060 WIDTH: 5 BANKFULL DEPTH: 10’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.39 Ft. Dupont: 2 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-43 CHAPTER 3 FDp-3. Segment 2 – trib junction START DESCRIPTION: ORANGE TRANSECT TAPE ON FALLEN OVERHEAD TREE END DESCRIPTION: TRIB JUNCTION LENGTH: 930 WIDTH: 6 BANKFULL DEPTH: 4’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.40 Fort Dupont: Segment 2 – trib junction ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-44 CHAPTER 3 FDP-3a. Trib Junction - ~ Ft Davis Dr START DESCRIPTION: Confluence END DESCRIPTION: culvert LENGTH: 450 ft WIDTH: 4’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 3’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.41 Fort Dupont: Trib Junction - ~ Ft Davis Dr ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-45 CHAPTER 3 FDp-4. Junction – Ft Davis Dr START DESCRIPTION: Tributary junction END DESCRIPTION: Ft Davis Drive LENGTH: 870 ft WIDTH: 6’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 21 Figure 3.1.42 Fort Dupont: Junction – Ft Davis Dr ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-46 CHAPTER 3 FDp-5. Ft Davis Dr – meadow START DESCRIPTION: LARGE PIPE OUTLET END DESCRIPTION: PIPE WITH BEAVER DAM LENGTH: 1145 ft WIDTH: 6’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 1’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 WITH INTERMITTENT FLOW The beaver dam was broached by the NPS during the course of the study Figure 3.1.43 Fort Dupont: Ft Davis Dr – meadow ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-47 CHAPTER 3 FDp- 5a. Lower Tributary START DESCRIPTION: MAINSTEM END DESCRIPTION: PIPE LENGTH: 570’ WIDTH: 3’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 1’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.44 Fort Dupont: Lower Tributary ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-48 CHAPTER 3 FDp-6. Meadow – Path START DESCRIPTION: LOWER END OF PIPE END DESCRIPTION: PATH BRIDGE LENGTH: 499 WIDTH: 6 BANKFULL DEPTH: 1 FT- PARTIALLY DRY/ INTERMITTENT CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.45 Fort Dupont: Meadow - Path ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-49 CHAPTER 3 FDp-7. Path – Minnesota START DESCRIPTION: PATH BRIDGE END DESCRIPTION: Minnesota Avenue LENGTH: 540’ WIDTH: 4’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.46 Fort Dupont: Path – Minnesota ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-50 CHAPTER 3 FDp-8. Minnesota Ave – Railroad START DESCRIPTION: Minnesota Avenue END DESCRIPTION: Pipe at Railroad LENGTH: 1187’ WIDTH: 4’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 2 Figure 3.1.47 Fort Dupont: Minnesota Ave – Railroad ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-51 CHAPTER 3 Ft Chapin 1. Headwater – 1000’ START DESCRIPTION: Pipe outlet END DESCRIPTION: Orange transect tape on fallen tree LENGTH: 1000’ WIDTH: 10’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 3’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 4 Figure 3.1.48 Fort Chapin: Headwater – 1000’ ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-52 CHAPTER 3 2. Segment 1 – C St – 750’ START DESCRIPTION: Orange transect tape on fallen tree END DESCRIPTION: TRASH RACK WITH 4 INCH SPACING LENGTH: 750’ WIDTH: 15’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 3’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 4 Figure 3.1.49 Ft. Chapin: Segment 1 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-53 CHAPTER 3 Ft. Davis Ft Davis -1 START DESCRIPTION: Seep END DESCRIPTION: Pipe at Penn and Carpenter LENGTH: 1502” WIDTH: 5’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 1’ CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 3 Figure 3.1.50 Fort Davis: 1 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-54 CHAPTER 3 Ft. Davis Ft Davis -2 START DESCRIPTION: TWO PIPE OUTFALLS END DESCRIPTION: PIPE LENGTH: 624’ WIDTH: 5’ BANKFULL DEPTH: 2 FEET CHANNEL VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: 4 Figure 3.1.51 Fort Davis: 2 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-55 CHAPTER 3 Land Use Resources Parks 1. Kenilworth Park (fishing area) Figure 3.1.52 Kenilworth Park fishing area ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-56 CHAPTER 3 Land Use Resources 2. Watts Branch Park below Recreation Center Figure 3.1.53 Watts Branch Park below Recreation Center ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-57 CHAPTER 3 Land Use Resources 3. Langdon Park – Hickey Run 100’ X100’ Figure 3.1.54 Park – Hickey Run ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-58 CHAPTER 3 Recreational Fields 1. Kenilworth- buffer strip Length 300 feet width 3 feet Figure 3.1.55 Kenilworth- buffer strip ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-59 CHAPTER 3 Recreational Fields 2. Anacostia – buffer strip Length 347 feet width 3 feet Figure 3.1.56 Anacostia – buffer strip ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-60 CHAPTER 3 Trails 1. Watts Branch Foot Bridge At Eads Street Length 242 ft X 20ft Figure 3.1.57 Watts Branch Foot Bridge at Eads Street ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-61 CHAPTER 3 Commercial Streets 1. 2. 3. 4. Residential 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 Pope Street, Branch – Nash west side Grant St - 42-44 St east side Franklin St – Rhode Island Ave – 17th St., south side Franklin St- 17-18th St, south side Franklin St 18-20th St, south side Pennsylvania Ave- Minnesota – 27th St, south side Good Hope Rd -25th – Alabama, east side Helen Nannie Burroughs – Minnesota -44th St, west side Bladensburg – South Dakota – 30th St, north side Light Industrial 1. Box Store 1. I-295 Service Road - Foot bridge/crosswalk – Polk St, south side Auto Zone parking lot at Naylor and Good Hope Road Figure 3.1.58 Auto Zone parking lot at Naylor and Good Hope Road ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-62 CHAPTER 3 Box Stores 2. Ft Chaplin Park Apts & Townhomes Figure 3.1.59 Ft. Chaplin Park Apts & Town homes ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-63 CHAPTER 3 Box Stores 3. RFK Parking lot. Figure 3.1.60 RFK Parking lot ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-64 CHAPTER 3 Institutional 1. HD Woodson High School- Watts Branch Figure 3.1.61 Woodson High School – Watts Branch ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-65 CHAPTER 3 2. Phelps/Brown High School – Kingman Lake Figure 3.1.62 Phelps/Brown High School ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-66 CHAPTER 3 Transportation 1. Bus stops - Good Hope Road Figure 3.1.63 Bus stops – Good Hope Road ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-67 CHAPTER 3 Bridge Stations 1. Penn Ave Northbound- Anacostia Length 1254 ft Figure 3.1.64 Penn Ave Northbound ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-68 CHAPTER 3 Bridge Stations 2. Benning Road Northbound – Kingman Lake Length 703 ft Figure 3.1.65 Benning Road Northbound ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-69 CHAPTER 3 Bridge Stations 3. 11th Street Bridge Northbound – Anacostia Length 1219 ft Stairway to stairway Figure 3.1.66 11 Street Bridge Northbound th Data Forms The data forms for the stream surveys and land transects were modified after the summer survey to be more convenient to the user. The category “cup lids and straws” was deleted and the category “tires” was added. Glass was recorded on the front page of the survey form. Survey Form The first page of the survey form was completed on the first survey, and thereafter it was printed as the completed form along with a picture of the transect area for each subsequent survey. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-70 CHAPTER 3 Following the survey forms are the definitions for each category and an estimated weight of the general type of items. STATION DESCRIPTION NAME:_____________________________________________ WATERSHED:____________________________________________ TYPE OF STATION: (Stream or landuse)____________________________________ START COORDINATES:_________________________________________________ START DESCRIPTION:___________________________________________________ END COORDINATES:____________________________________________________ END DESCRIPTION:_____________________________________________________ WIDTH:________________________________________________________________ BANKFULL DEPTH______________________________________________________ VEGETATION, ROOTS, OBSTRUCTIONS: CHANNEL______________________________________________________________ TRANSECT/BANK_______________________________________________________ TRANSECT AREAL DIMENSIONS:_______________________________________ TRANSECT IDENTIFYING FEATURES: _________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: VEGETATION SHOULD BE DESCRIBED NUMERICALLY USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE. 1. NONE – PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK OR GRAVEL 2. SLIGHT -MOWED LAWN, A FEW ROOTS AND BUSHES 3. MODERATE- BANKS HAVE OVERSTORY OF TREES AND UNDERSTORY THAT IS EASILY WALKED THROUGH. 4. DENSE – THICK, UNDERSTORY OR WAIST HIGH WEED BUFFER THAT WOULD TRAP MOST TRASH. 5. IMPENETRABLE- UNDERSTORY WITH VINES AND WEEDS THAT WOULD ELIMINATE ANY POSSIBILITY OF TRASH REACHING A STREAM . ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-71 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.1.1 Survey Form STATION TRASH plastic bags Liquor Beer Bottles Bottles Cans Bottles Cans Soft Drinks Water Sports Drinks Plastic Plastic Juice Cans Bottles Styrofoam cups Styrofoam Styrofoam Plastic Paper Food Wrappers Aseptic (sterile packaging) Take-out food packaging Cigarette packs, matches, cigars, tobacco Napkins, paper towels, tissues Rings, cartons Toiletries Drugs Games, cassettes, CDs Beverage carriers Toiletries TOYS toys, balls Misc. Other Newspapers, Magazine, Books Advertising, signs, cards Home food packaging - - LITTER ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-72 CHAPTER 3 Styrofoam, plates Styrofoam, foam packaging Styrofoam, chunks large Styrofoam chunks small Other misc. cartons Other metal, foil packets Other fabric Clothing Auto DEBRIS Vehicle Small car parts <1ft Large car parts >1 ft Tires Small items: < 1sq. Ft Large items: > 1 sq. ft. Products containers Construction material Appliances, bicycles, shopping carts, etc. Carpet Misc large Debris Misc plastic LOGJAMS Trash traps Site Number Other Sampler Date ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-73 CHAPTER 3 Definitions and Weight Plastic Bags- Plastic grocery bags, shopping bags, garbage bags, newspaper sleeves, and the shreds or parts of torn bags. Wt = 0.1 – 0.12 ounce Liquor Bottles- Bottles that originally held an alcoholic beverage other than beer, such as wine, vodka, whiskey, rum, or bottled mixed drinks. Includes all sizes and types of bottles, from plastic single shot mini bottles to large multiple-serving size glass bottles. Broken bottles are only included if they are roughly 90% intact. Wt = 9.3 ounces Beer Bottles- Glass bottles that originally held beer or a similar malt beverage. In the absence of a distinguishing label, bottle shape and color are used to deduce the original contents. Broken bottles are only included if roughly 90% intact. Wt = 7 ounces Beer Cans- Metal cans of various sizes, whether flattened or not, that appear to originally have contained beer or a similar malt beverage. This also includes beverages that are beer based, but have additives such as caffeine and may be marketed as a form of alcoholic energy drink. In the absence of a clearly distinguishable label, a best guess of original contents is made based on size, shape, and any remaining label color and patterns; unlabeled cans may be confused with soft drink or juice cans. Wt = 0.5 ounces Soft Drink Bottles- Bottles of any size, usually plastic and rarely glass, that originally contained a non-alcoholic, carbonated beverage. In the absence of a contradicting label or distinguishing bottle cap, any bottle shaped like a standard soft drink bottle falls into this category, even though a small number of waters and juices are distributed in similar bottles. All bottles, whether crushed or torn, are included if they can be identified. Wt = 1.0 ounces Soft Drink Cans- Metal cans, whether flattened or not, that originally contained a non-alcoholic, carbonated beverage. Also includes similarly marketed and distributed non-carbonated tea i.e., Arizona Tea. In the absence of a clearly distinguishable label, a best guess of original contents is made based on size, shape, and any remaining label color and patterns; unlabeled cans may be confused with beer or juice cans. Wt = 0.45 ounces Water, Plastic- Plastic bottles originally sold containing drinking water. Does not include gallon jugs or any larger bottles intended for use with a dispenser. Does not include lost re-usable water bottles. Wt = 0.65 ounces Sports Drinks, Plastic- Plastic bottles that originally held a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage commonly marketed for improved hydration during sports, e.g., Gatorade, Powerade. Also includes “enhanced water,” water that has been heavily augmented with flavor, color, or sugars e.g., Vitamin Water, Propel Fitness Water. These beverages come in a fairly unique style of bottle that makes them easy to distinguish. Rarely, juice may be sold in a similar style bottle and though those juice bottles are generally smaller, they may be confused with a sports drink bottle when unlabeled. Wt = 1.55 ounces ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-74 CHAPTER 3 Juice Cans- Metal cans that originally contained a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage marketed as a juice drink, whether or not the actual beverage contained any real fruit juice. In the absence of a clearly distinguishable label, a best guess of original contents is made based on size, shape, and any remaining label color and patterns; unlabeled cans may be confused with soft drink or beer cans. Wt = 0.5 ounces Juice Bottles- Glass or plastic bottles that originally contained a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage marketed as a juice drink, whether or not the actual beverage contained any real fruit juice. Juice bottles come in many shapes and sizes and are most easily identified by their label. Wt = 1.3 ounces Styrofoam Cups- Foam beverage cups or large pieces of those cups. Pieces can be identified by the distinctive rim and curved shape. Includes all types of foam beverage cups, from small 8 oz generic white coffee cups to extra large size cups commonly used with lids and straws to sell fountain soda and iced beverages. If several pieces of the same cup appear in one area, they are counted as a single cup. Styrofoam is a word that is used for objects that are more correctly made from expanded polystyrene foam (EPF). Wt = 0.2 ounces Plastic Cups- Disposable cups made of plastic or large pieces of those cups. If several pieces of the same cup appear in one area, they are counted as a single cup. Wt = 0.4 ounces Paper Cup- Disposable cups made of paper, most often heavily treated or coated paper. If several pieces of the same cup appear in one area, they are counted as a single cup. Wt = 0.3 ounces Food Wrappers- This includes many kinds of wrappers and bags that food comes packaged in, such as potato chip bags, candy wrappers, packaging from individually wrapped pastries or sandwiches, etc. Also includes juice pouches (i.e., Capri Sun.) Also included are discarded packets of flavored rolling paper intended for use with loose tobacco. The packages look so much like candy wrappers with their large colorful cartoon pictures of whatever fruit they are flavored to resemble that they were always included in the food wrapper count. Wt = 0.1 ounces Take Out Food Packaging- Anything used in the packaging of prepared foods, including Styrofoam, plastic, or cardboard hinged lid containers, disposable lidded containers, and French fry cups. Wt = 0.25 ounces for EPF clamshells Cigarette Packs, Matches, Cigars, Tobacco- Smoking related products and their packaging. Does not include cigarette butts or other items of less than 1 inch. Wt = 0.2 ounces Napkins, Paper Towels, Tissues- Disposable paper-based products intended for cleaning or drying. Wt = 0.15 ounces Beverage Carriers, Rings, Cartons- Plastic ring-type beverage carriers, cardboard carriers or boxes. Wt = 1.5 ounces ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-75 CHAPTER 3 Toiletries- External personal care products and their packaging, including soap, shampoo, lotions, antiperspirant, cosmetics, and fragrances. Wt = 2.0 ounces Drugs- Prescription and over-the-counter therapeutic drug packaging, usually plastic bottles, as well as illegal drug packaging and paraphernalia, including tiny baggies and hypodermic syringes. Wt = 1.0 ounces Games, Cassettes, CDs- Includes audio or computer CDs, audio or video cassettes and their tape, and vinyl records. Wt = 0.55 ounces Toys, Balls- Includes all types and sizes of recreational balls made from any material and any toy or part of a toy larger than 1 inch. A piece of plastic may carry a brand name, picture, or pattern that make it clear it came from a toy or the shape and color of the piece may be identifiable as a toy part. Some toy parts are not recognizable and may have been categorized as miscellaneous plastic. Wt = 14.0 ounces (soccer) Toys, Misc. Other- Includes things that are not strictly toys, but fit in no other categories, such as backpacks, school supplies, wallets, credit and identification cards, portable CD players, calculators, cell phones, batteries, etc. Wt = 4.0 ounces Newspapers, Magazine, Books- Any paper publication. In the case of a book torn in half, the two parts are counted as a single item. In the case of a newspaper blown apart, each sheet is counted individually. In the rare case that a newspaper is still all folded together, it is counted as a single item. Wt = 0.6 ounces per double page Advertising, Signs, Cards- Includes corrugated plastic advertising signs, election posters, paper flyers, postcard advertisements, and lost street signs. Wt = 2.0 ounces Home Food Packaging- Packaging from foods traditionally eaten in the home or that would require a special tool to open or prepare. Includes cans that require a can opener, packets of powdered mashed potato, cake mix boxes, milk jugs, etc. Wt = 2.0 ounces Styrofoam plates- Expanded polystyrene foam plates or parts of plates. In the case of multiple pieces of plate that clearly came from the same plate, the pieces are counted as a singe plate. If the pieces may have come from different plates, a rough guess is made of how many plates are represented. Wt = 0.25 ounces Styrofoam, foam packaging- Foam packing material such as foam packing peanuts or foam wrapping sheets. Wt = 0.65 ounces Styrofoam Chunks- Miscellaneous and unidentifiable pieces of foam. If the piece is less than 12 square inches, it is considered Small. Large is 12 square inches or more. Small Wt = 0.6 ounces. Large Wt = 2.0 ounces ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-76 CHAPTER 3 Other Misc. Cartons-Bottle, cartons, and containers that do not fit in any other category. Includes large juice and water jugs. Wt = 2.7 ounces Other Metal, Foil Packets- Metal food or drink containers not covered by other categories and aluminum foil. Wt = 0.5 ounces Other Fabric- Fabric that cannot be identified or did not come from clothes or as part of a car or appliance. Includes blankets, towels, and cloth used to wrap items for transport. Wt = 8 ounces Clothing- In addition to the usual clothes such as shirts, pants, and socks, clothing also includes hats, shoes, purses, and umbrellas. Wt = 10 ounces Auto Products Containers- Bottles, cans, tubes, and other containers that held products used in the care and maintenance of an automobile. Includes oil and other engine fluid bottles, washer fluid bottles, and car wax or polish containers. Wt = 3.0 ounces Vehicle Debris- Anything that was once part of an automobile. Includes various metal auto parts, pieces of the car body, seats, hubcaps, mirrors, hood ornaments, and license plates. Items less than 1 square foot were marked as Small; items of 1 square foot or larger were counted as Large. Though there is a separate category for tires, many were instead counted as Large Car Parts in this category. A tire with no wheel inside of it weighs about 24 pounds. The average large car part that is not a tire weights perhaps 2 pounds. A small car part Wt = 0. 25 ounces, Large car part Wt = 5 pounds Construction Material- Items that were used in the construction or deconstruction of something. Includes building material such as lumber, vinyl tile, siding, or roofing material. Also includes tools such as hammers, shovels, and hoses. Small Wt = 0.5 pounds Large Wt = 4.0 pounds Appliances- Includes bicycles, shopping carts, strollers, scooters, lawnmowers, furniture, and appliances such as washing machines, refrigerators, radiators, etc. Wt = 10 pounds Carpet- Includes carpet and carpet pad. Wt = 20 pounds Miscellaneous Large Debris- Large debris that does not fit in any other category or is not identifiable. Includes garbage cans and recycling bins. Wt = 2 pounds Miscellaneous Plastic- All plastic debris that does not fit in any other category or is not identifiable. Wt = 1 pound ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-77 CHAPTER 3 3.2 RIVER AND STREAM TRASH DATA Introduction Trash was surveyed quarterly in the Anacostia Basin. The summer data collection occurred in August and September, 2007. The fall data collection occurred in November and was suspended until the leaf-fall and the DPW leaf collection was over, and it then finished in January, 2008. The winter collection occurred in March and April 2008, and the spring collection occurred in May 2008, with an interruption by very heavy rainfall causing it to be finished in June of 2008. The rain of May 8-12 was about a 25 year storm and the monthly total was near the level of record. Figure 3.2.1 Precipitation June 2007- May 2008 Precipitation 12 10 8 Inches 6 4 2 0 Ju l Au g Se pt O ct N ov De c Ja n Fe b M ar ch Ap ril M ay Ju n Anacostia River Transects Five transects were monitored in the Anacostia River. Four of these were surveyed during each of the four quarters, and the station above the New York Avenue Bridge was added and included during the last two quarterly surveys inorder to have a mudflat station at the MD-DC boundary. There were basically two types of shore lines surveyed: mudflats and seawalls. The total trash data from the five stations for each of the four quarterly surveys are shown in Figure 3.2.2 below ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-78 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.2 Anacostia River – Total Trash Anacostia River-Total Trash 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NYA-MD NYA-DC Penn Ave Buzzard Pt Poplar Pt Summer Fall Winter Spring Items/100' The data clearly show that the station above New York Avenue (NYA-MD) has more accumulated trash than any other station surveyed on the Anacostia River. About half of the station is in DC and about half of it is in Maryland. The station is a wide mudflat. The NYADC station is across the river and downstream of New York Avenue, but is characterized by a seawall and there is nothing there to trap and hold trash. Since this site is immediately downstream of the Lower Beaverdam Creek tributary, it would be reasonable that there could be a large supply of trash present, but since a vertical seawall is present there, it does not trap and accumulate trash. Similarly, the Pennsylvania Avenue station has only a few bushes growing in the seawall to trap trash. Buzzard Point is a semi rip-rapped shore line with a small amount of mudflat. Poplar Point has a seawall but it is broken in many places and trash gets trapped behind it in tidal pools; also, it has a large sand bar at the Stickfoot sewer outfall. One can conclude that the different stations have different trash trapping efficiencies. More importantly, one can conclude that the Anacostia River has an average of 29 pieces of trash per 100 feet of shoreline at the present time. This amount of trash is doubled if you count both shorelines to about 58 pieces of trash per 100 feet of river and this does not include any estimate of trash lying underwater in the river. On the District side of the river, the New York Avenue and South Dakota Avenue interchange has a large wet pond which removes trash from the storm water before discharge. The Fort Lincoln New Town development also has stormwater BMPs that remove trash. Thus, there is no large source of trash from the District. From Maryland, Lower Beaverdam Creek is known to export large quantities of trash. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-79 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.3 Anacostia River Trash Composition Anacostia River Trash Composition 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 F. W ra p Bo t& Ca ns P. Ba gs De br is Pa pe r O th er St y ro Percent Counting plastic bags in the Anacostia River is problematic; and, it was only discovered in the fourth quarter that the plastic bags initially float and then become sediment laden inside and outside and settle to the bottom. The mud coating camouflages them and they are extraordinarily difficult to see. At seawall stations there is very little river bottom exposed, so not many bags are counted. The fourth quarter data at the NYA-MD station contains a relatively accurate count of plastic bags. There are 1.6 plastic bags per 100 square feet of exposed river bottom. More than 20% of the fourth quarter survey items were plastic bags. Styrofoam items (cups, clamshells, plates and any chunks and pieces) were 10%. Food wrappers were the largest category, exceeding 25 %, and the drink bottles and cans were about 25 % as well. Paper items (cigarette packaging, matches books, newspaper, napkins and advertising material) were about 5%, as were debris items. One of the interesting things is that the winter counts were collected prior to the Anacostia Watershed Society’s Annual Anacostia River Earth Day Trash Cleanup, and the spring survey was collected after the survey. The NYA –MD spring survey was performed after the May 8-12, 2008 heavy rainfall of 7.41 inches which moved a lot of trash into the river, but the other stations were completed before the rain. It appears that the AWS Cleanup has a measureable effect on the amounts of trash along the banks of the Anacostia. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-80 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.4 Anacostia River – Debris Anacostia River - Debris 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NYA-MD NYA-DC Penn Ave Buzzard Pt Poplar Pt Summer Fall Winter Spring Items/100' Debris is similar to plastic bags in that it is chiefly the type of material that will settle to the bottom. Therefore, the station that has the most exposed river bottom may have more debris than stations where only floating materials are observed. If one normalizes the debris data to items per 100 square feet of observable river bottom, then Buzzard Point and NYA-MD would have very similar levels. Kingman Lake Kingman Lake can receive trash from four sources: 1) it can be carried in by tidal action from the Anacostia River; 2) it can be delivered by storm sewers; 3) the NE Boundary Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) can discharge, or; 4) it can be deposited as litter by users of the shoreline. The average amount of trash per hundred feet was 36.7 items. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-81 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.5 Kingman Lake Trash Kingman Lake Trash 120 100 Items/100' 80 60 40 20 0 Above Beng Rd Below Beng Rd E Cap Marsh NEB Sewer Summer Fall Winter Spring The station above Benning Road Bridge is just below a storm sewer, while the station below Benning Road Bridge is adjacent to a homeless person who lives next to the Bridge. Homeless people generate significant localized accumulations of trash along water bodies. The storm sewer does not seem to produce a high level of trash in the transect area. The dike of hay bales protecting the marsh collects a significant amount of trash. Interestingly enough, there was no observable effect caused by the Northeast Boundary Sewer, which is a major combined sewer overflow discharge location, on the amount of trash present. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-82 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.6 Kingman Lake Trash Composition Kingman Lake Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro Percent Percent P The composition of trash within Kingman Lake is characterized by a predominance of bottles and cans. These seem to come from the RFK parking lot as the underbrush next to the transect area is loaded with beer cans and beer bottles. It is unclear how high the counts would be without the underbrush to serve as a buffer zone, but perhaps three times more would be a reasonable estimate. What the data do not show is that a significant amount of debris is items such as grills and folding chairs from tailgating parties. About two percent of all items are composed of paper. Tributaries The tributaries to the Anacostia were surveyed quarterly. Nash Run This very small tributary has astronomical levels of trash. At levels of 260 pieces of trash per 100 feet it is the dirtiest of all streams. Even in the spring, when it was “clean” it had more trash than most tributaries. While not a part of the surveyed segments, the portion of Nash Run in the Aquatic Gardens was observed during the AWS Earth Day Cleanup. There are thousands and thousands of pieces of trash in the braided and tidal section. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-83 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.7 Nash Run Segments – Total Trash Nash Run Segments- Total Trash 300 250 Items/100' 200 150 100 50 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring NR1 NR2 The levels of trash in Nash Run decreased by 80% over the period of the study. Most of the decrease was in the upper segment. It may be that after the dry summer the rainfall in October flushed it downstream. Following Earth Day, both segments were less trashy, although they still had 50 pieces of trash per 100 feet. Figure 3.2.8 Nash Run Segments - Debris Nash Run Segments - Debris 12 10 Items/100' 8 6 4 2 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring NR1 NR2 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-84 CHAPTER 3 The lower segment of Nash Run, which runs from the culvert to Anacostia Avenue, had consistently about 43 pieces of debris. After the Earth Day Clean Up it had no debris and the levels of trash had also decreased by about 75%. Figure 3.2.9 Nash Run Trash Composition Nash Run Trash Composition 35 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P Trash composition was characterized by nearly equal amounts of plastic bags, drink containers and snack wrappers. About one percent was paper items. Ft. Stanton Ft. Stanton was a very challenging stream to survey. The tributary was dry in at least the upper reaches and was not surveyed in the summer. The main stem was overgrown with porcelain berry vines and blackberry briars. In the fall, once the leaves were off and access improved, a detailed survey was made. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-85 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.10 Ft. Stanton – Trash Ft Stanton - Trash 300 250 Items/100' 200 150 100 50 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Stanton 3 Stanton 2 Stanton 1 The tributary arising in the vicinity of the Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum has a very low level of trash. This stream segment, Stanton 3, becomes braided in one area and the fall survey included counts of the entire braided area. The ensuing counts were conducted of only one channel, and the counts are noticeably lower. The origin of the tributary is difficult to determine because of the overgrowth of porcelain berry vines. These vines have trapped several thousand plastic bottles and a variety of plastic and Styrofoam cups from the storm sewer discharge. Following the May, 2008 heavy rainfall events, the trash levels had doubled in the main stem, Segment 1. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-86 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.11 Ft. Stanton – Debris Ft Stanton - Debris 4 3.5 3 Items/100' 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Stanton 3 Stanton 2 Stanton 1 The debris in the small tributary is all very old tires which have been there for decades. In the main stem stations, debris is mostly construction lumber. The source of the lumber is not clear. Figure 3.2.12 Ft. Stanton Trash Composition Ft Stanton Trash Composition 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Percent % &C an s P ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-87 Bo t Fd D eb r is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro CHAPTER 3 Ninety percent of the trash is principally four categories: plastic bags, bottles and cans, Styrofoam items and snack wrappers. Paper items are almost non-existent, even when trash levels rise to 250 items per 100 feet. Pope Branch Figure 3.2.13 Pope Branch - Trash Pope Branch - Trash 160 140 120 Items/100' 100 80 60 40 20 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring PB-1. PB-2. PB-3. The upper two segments of Pope have relatively low levels of trash; however, the segment between Minnesota Avenue and Fairlawn Ave. has high levels. The lower segment trash levels decreased after the first survey. Once again it is notable that the fourth quarter levels had decreased tremendously. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-88 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.14 Pope Branch – Debris Pope Branch - Debris 3.5 3 2.5 Items/100' 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring PB-1. PB-2. PB-3. Debris levels in the lower segment decreased markedly in the fourth quarter. Figure 3.2.15 Pope Branch Trash - Composition Pope Branch Trash composition 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 % &C an s P Ninety percent of the trash was plastic bags, drink containers, Styrofoam and snack wrappers. There are almost no paper items. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-89 Bo t Fd D eb ris Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro CHAPTER 3 Watts Branch Trash levels in Watts Branch are extremely high. The segment in MD had more trash per unit length than any of the DC segments. The small tributary has moderate levels of trash compared to the other segments. Even the cleanest segments have over 60 pieces of trash per 100 feet. Figure 3.2.16 Watts Branch Average Annual Trash Watts Branch Average Annual Trash 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 W BM W D Btr i b W B1 W B2 W B3 W B4 W B5 W B6 W B7 W B8 W BW 9 B1 W 0 B1 W 1 B12 Items/100' Items Most segments had higher levels of trash in the winter and spring (Figure 3.2.17). Figure 3.2.17 Watts Branch – Trash Watts Branch - Trash 250 200 150 100 50 0 W BM W D Btr i b W B1 W B2 W B3 W B4 W B5 W B6 W B7 W B8 W BW 9 B1 W 0 B11 W B12 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-90 items/100' CHAPTER 3 Averaging the level of trash per segment shows the general pattern of increase. This was not a weighted average as the different lengths of the segments were not taken into account (Fig. 3.2.18) Figure 3.2.18 Watts Branch Average Seasonal Trash Watts Branch Average Season Trash 160 140 120 Items/100' 100 80 60 40 20 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Items Looking at the total number of item per survey, one should remember that two new segments are included in the Winter and Spring surveys, but even that does not account for the amount of trash in the stream doubling. Figure 3.2.19 Watts Branch Total Trash Watts Branch Total Trash 25000 20000 15000 Items 10000 5000 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-91 Items CHAPTER 3 Figures 3.2.20 & 3.2.21 below are two pictures of the same location, with one taken during the fall survey and one taken in the spring survey (see also the cover photo). There is an orange transect marking tape hanging from the tree limb in the far background. Trash is at least two feet deep but according to the survey methodology only the “visible” portion is counted. Figure 3.2.20 Fall Survey Figure 3.2.21 Spring Survey ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-92 CHAPTER 3 Debris in the Maryland segment of Watts Branch is very high. This debris is dumped in two locations in Maryland and is transported downstream into the District. An interesting observation was that an amount of vinyl siding found in WB-1 in the summer was no longer in WB-1 in the fall, but had been scattered downstream. By the spring survey, it had reached the last three segments, and much of it was partially buried. There were two locations in the District where excessive dumping had actually caused items to reach the water, and action are recommended in the implementation plan for Watts Branch. Figure 3.2.22 Watts Branch - Debris Watts Branch - Debris 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 W BM W D Btr i b W B1 W B2 W B3 W B4 W B5 W B6 W B7 W B8 W BW 9 B1 W 0 B1 W 1 B12 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-93 Items/100' CHAPTER 3 Debris increased in the same ratio as trash on a seasonal basis, as seen in Figure 3.2.23. Figure 3.2.23 Watts Branch – Seasonal Debris Watts Branch Seasonal Debris 10 9 8 7 Items/100' 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Debris The annual average of debris simply makes the point that Maryland is a large source of debris to the District. Figure 3.2.24 Watts Branch – Average Annual Debris Watts Branch Average Annual Debris 35 30 Items/100' 25 20 15 10 5 0 W BM W D Btr i b W B1 W B2 W B3 W B4 W B5 W B6 W B7 W B8 W BW 9 B1 W 0 B1 W 1 B12 Debris ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-94 CHAPTER 3 If one removes the tributary segment and expands the scale a little, as shown in Figure 3.2.25, the effect of Maryland on the District becomes much clearer. The dumping in Maryland is moving debris into the District segments. Figure 3.2.25 Watts Branch – Average Annual Debris Watts Branch Average Annaul Debris 35 30 25 Items/100' 20 Debris 15 10 5 0 WB-MD WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-4 WB-5 Figure 3.2.26 shows a picture of debris in the Maryland segment of Watts Branch. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-95 CHAPTER 3 In the picture are the following items starting in the lower left and moving counterclockwise: length of pipe, 55 gallon drum, large picnic table umbrella, 55 gallon drum, hot water heater, plastic highway drum, tire, 5 gallon bucket, a car door, a wheel, and a shopping cart. Figure 3.2.26 Debris in the Maryland segment of Watts Branch Watts Branch is the largest tributary to the Anacostia in DC and it is dominated by plastic bags. Over half of the trash is plastic bags as shown in Figure 3.2.27. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-96 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.27 Watts Branch – Trash Composition Watts Branch Trash Composition 60 50 Percent 40 30 20 10 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-97 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 The only way to describe the blight is with pictures. The following photos (Figs. 3.2.28-3.2.34) provide an idea of what the stream looks like with that many plastic bags. Figure 3.2.28 Plastic Bags in the stream ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-98 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.29 Plastic Bags in Watts Branch ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-99 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.30 Plastic Bags in Watts Branch Figure 3.2.31 Plastic Bags in Watts Branch ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-100 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.32 Plastic Bags in Watts Branch ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-101 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.33 Plastic Bags in Watts Branch Figure 3.2.34 Plastic Bags in Watts Branch ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-102 CHAPTER 3 The only place that paper bags were observed are where people throw their beer cans into the stream still inside the paper bag near Division Street and at the foot bridge behind MacDonald’s on Nannie Helen Burroughs. Neither source of paper bags are found more than a few hundred feet downstream of the point of being discarded. The plastic bags observed are small carryout bags capable of holding one drink and one snack item. There are no Safeway or Giant stores in the drainage basin and the distinctive blue or tan plastic bags were very seldom seen. Perhaps one plastic bag in a thousand would be those distinctive colors. Figures 3.2.35 - 3.2.37 are pictures showing the effects drug users have on Watts Branch. Figure 3.2.35 Paper bags and debris left where drug and alcohol users loiter ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-103 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.36 Drug paraphernalia found near streambed ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-104 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.37 Trash found in the streambed ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-105 CHAPTER 3 There are many myths about trash, and one of them is the belief that the bottles and cans are all from beer drinkers. The number of water bottles was the most surprising discovery. The truth is interesting (Figure 3.2.38). Figure 3.2.38 Watts Branch – Drink Containers Watts Branch Drink Containers 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 Liquor Bot Beer Beer C Soft Bot Drink B Soft Water Sport Drink B Dk B C Juice Cans Juice Bot % ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-106 CHAPTER 3 One can inspect the seasonal variation of the bottles (Figure 3.2.39) to see if there is a strong seasonal signal, and it appears that there was a significant decrease during the November survey, although this may be an artifact of reduced counts due to the tremendous amount of leaves. It was estimated that the counts might be as much as 20% lower due to the leaves present, and, later, when even more forested tributaries were surveyed, the visibility was so bad that all surveying was halted. Figure 3.2.39 Watts Branch – Seasonal Variation of Bottles and Cans Watts Branch Seasonal Variation 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Percent of Total Trash Summer Fall Winter Spring Review of the percentage of total observed trash shows that the percentage of the trash that is bottles and cans decreases from the warmer months through the colder months; although, the absolute number remained about the same for the summer, winter and Spring surveys. The seasonal composition of plastic bags did not change much, except that being as they are often suspended above the water line, they were more visible to the survey team during the Fall survey. (Figure 3.2.40). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-107 Bo ttl Be es er Bo tt l es Be er So Ca ft Dr ns in k B So ot ft tle Dr s in k C W an at s er Sp Bo or tD ttl es rin k Bo ttl Ju es ice C an Ju s ice Bo t tl es Li q uo r CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.40 Watts Branch – Plastic Bags Watts Branch Plastic Bags 70 Percent of Total Trash 60 50 40 Plastic Bags 30 20 10 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring The total amount of plastic bags in Watts Branch doubled over the survey period, even though the portion that was plastic bags remained relatively constant (Figure 3.2.41). Figure 3.2.41 Watts Branch – Total Plastic Bags Watts Branch Total Plastic Bags 14000 12000 10000 Total 8000 Bags 6000 4000 2000 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring There is one plastic bag for every 1.2 feet of stream. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-108 CHAPTER 3 Fort DuPont Fort DuPont drainage basin is predominantly parkland, and much of the stream is relatively clean, with trash counts below 20 items per 100 feet. The two small tributaries are very clean since they have no storm sewer outfalls emptying into them. Segment 1 was not monitored because it was dry, so the survey started with FDp-2. There are a few storms sewers which discharge to FDp-1 and 2, but none to FDp-3 and FDp-4. The levels of trash decrease significantly as the distance from the storm sewer discharges increases. The tributary has very little trash. Trash levels increase again in FDp-5 because of unmapped storm sewer outfalls serving Ft Davis Drive. The little tributary FDp-5a has no trash. Trash levels continue to decrease in the next two segments and then increase in the segment below Minnesota Avenue because of the storm sewer outfalls. (Figure 3.2.42). Figure 3.2.42 Ft. Dupont - Trash Ft Dupont Trash 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FDp-2 FDp-3 FDp- FDp-4 FDp-5 FDp- FDp-6 FDp-7 FDp-8 3a 5a Summer Fall Winter Spring Items/100' ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-109 CHAPTER 3 Total trash behaved much as in Watts Branch, with a large increase in the fourth quarter (Figure 3.2.43). Figure 3.2.43 Ft. Dupont – Total Trash Ft Dupont Total Trash 2500 2000 All Items 1500 Items 1000 500 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring The levels of debris increased dramatically in the fourth quarter, particularly in those segments with MS4 discharges (Figure 3.2.44). Figure 3.2.44 Ft. Dupont – Debris Ft Dupont Debris 3 2.5 Items/100' 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 FDp-2 FDp-3 FDp- FDp-4 FDp-5 FDp- FDp-6 FDp-7 FDp-8 3a 5a Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-110 CHAPTER 3 About 80% of the trash is the same four categories with paper being very low (Figure 3.2.45). Figure 3.2.45 Ft. Dupont – Trash Composition Ft Dupont Trash Composition 35 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 % &C an s P Even with only a few storm sewers, the level of plastic bags tripled with time (Figure 3.2.46). Figure 3.2.46 Ft. Dupont – Plastic Bags Ft Dupont Plastic Bags 800 700 Total Plastic Bags 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Plastic Bags ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-111 Bo t Fd D eb ris Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro CHAPTER 3 The food wrappers are plastic and are transported the same as plastic bags. They are, in fact, simply form fitted plastic bags. The amount of these in the streams is phenomenal (Figure 3.2.47). Figure 3.2.47 Ft. Dupont – Food Wrappers Ft Dupont Food Wrappers 700 600 Total Food Wrappers 500 400 Food Wrappers 300 200 100 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring The ratio of the different bottles is about the same as other streams except that soft drink cans are a little lower (Figure 3.2.48). Figure 3.2.48 Ft. Dupont – Drink Containers Ft Dupont Drink Containers 140 120 Total Count 100 80 60 40 20 0 Bo ttl Be es er Bo ttl es Be er So Ca ft Dr ns in k B So ot ft tle D s rin k C W an at s er Sp Bo or tD ttl es rin k Bo ttl es Ju ic e C an Ju s ic e B ot tle s Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-112 Li q uo r CHAPTER 3 Fort Chaplin Interestingly, the two segments of Ft. Chaplin displayed exactly the opposite trend with the upper section being high in the middle quarters and the lower segment being higher in the summer and spring. Total trash in the stream was relatively constant (Figure 3.2.49). Figure 3.2.49 Ft. Chaplin – Trash Ft Chaplin Trash 140 120 100 Items/100' 80 60 40 20 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Chaplin-1 Chaplin-2 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-113 CHAPTER 3 The storm of May, 2008 appears to have shifted the debris from segment 1 to segment 2 (Figure 3.2.50). Figure 3.2.50 Ft. Chaplin – Debris Ft Chaplin - Debris 7 6 5 Items/100' 4 3 2 1 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Chaplin-1 Chaplin-2 The stream is dominated by plastic bags and the four food and drink related items are 90% of the trash (Figure 3.2.51). Figure 3.2.51 Ft. Chaplin – Trash Composition Ft Chaplin Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro Percent % P ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-114 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 Fort Davis Fort Davis -1, which runs along Pennsylvania Avenue, is a pleasant and clean little stream. A beaver had attempted to colonize it at one time, but no longer lived there. Instead of containing 250 pieces of trash per hundred feet, there are only about 5 pieces (Figure 3.2.52). Figure 3.2.52 Ft. Davis-1- Trash Ft. Davis -1 - Trash 8 7 6 5 Items/100' 4 Trash 3 2 1 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring The amount of debris in the stream is only about 5 pieces over a 1500 foot length. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-115 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.53 Ft. Davis – 1 – Debris Ft Davis-1 Debris 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 Iitems/100' 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Debris In this stream bottles and cans predominate, possibly because there is little pedestrian activity, but mostly commuter traffic along Pennsylvania Avenue. There was absolutely no paper of any kind ever found in this stream (Figure 3.2.54). Figure 3.2.54 Fr. Davis – Trash Composition Ft. Davis-1 Trash Composition 40 35 30 25 Percent 20 % 15 10 5 0 P Bags Bot&Cans Styro Fd Wrap Paper Debris Other ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-116 CHAPTER 3 Fort Davis - 2 The stream along Branch Avenue varies between moderate levels of trash to fairly low levels. Access is difficult and the banks are severely eroded. Trash levels were higher in the summer and spring (Figure 3.2.55). Figure 3.2.55 Ft. Davis – 2 – Trash Ft Davis-2 Trash 45 40 35 Items/100' 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash Because the stream is relatively protected by a buffer strip of forest, there is very little variation in the amount of debris. Larger material tends to remain, and the smaller material moves or gets buried. A significant amount of debris has probably been there for decades and there are a significant number of old tires (Figure 3.2.56). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-117 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.56 Ft. Davis – 2 – Trash Composition Ft Davis-2 Trash Composition 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s D eb r is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P Once again four items account for 70% of the trash. Paper products are basically absent. Because the general level of trash is moderate the percentage of debris is a bigger number even though there is not a lot of debris. Texas Avenue Tributary The Texas Avenue Tributary was only surveyed in the Spring. The main stem of the stream has more trash than the tributary arm because it receives most of the storm sewer inputs (Figure 3.2.57). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-118 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.57 Texas Avenue – Trash Texas Avenue Trash 40 35 30 Items/100" 25 20 15 10 5 0 Texas Texas Trib Trash The big four comprise 75% of the trash items, and paper products are minimal. “Other” was a bigger category than normal and is mostly plastic cups (Figure 3.2.58). Figure 3.2.58 Texas Avenue – Trash Composition Texas Avenue Trash Composition 35 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 % &C an s P ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-119 Bo t Fd D eb ris Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro CHAPTER 3 Composite of All Stream Data Summing up the trash by category for all of the stream segments surveyed provides an overview of the situation. Of course, this composite is dominated by Watts Branch which is large compared to the rest of the streams. Plastic bags dominate the streams at 47% of the total, with the snack wrappers comprising a quarter of all items. Bottles and cans are 15 % of the problem followed by Styrofoam at 6 %. These four items are 93% of the trash. Paper products simply are not a factor (Figure 3.2.59). Figure 3.2.59 Stream Trash – Composition Streams Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Percent % &C an s P In terms of raw numbers, there were over 14,000 plastic bags counted in the spring survey. During the one year of the study, the number doubled. The occurrence of food wrappers was examined to determine if there was a seasonal signal, and a decrease in the fall was found (Figure 3.2.60). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-120 Bo t Fd D eb r is Pa pe r W ra p O th er CHAPTER 3 Ba gs St y ro Figure 3.2.60 Streams Seasonal Streams Seasonal 8000 7000 Food Wrappers 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Fd Wrappers Interestingly, the number of bottles and cans showed the same pattern of decreasing in the fall as did the food wrappers. It is not known why this occurs, but two explanations are: people are not outside in the cold weather to litter as much, or they are just more difficult to count with a lot of leaves present (Figure 3.2.61). Figure 3.2.61 All Streams – Drink Containers All Streams Drink Containers 1200 1000 800 Total 600 400 200 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-121 Bo ttl Be es er Bo t tl es Be er So C ft an D r in s k B So ot ft tle D s r in k C W an at s er Sp Bo or tD ttl es rin k Bo ttl es Ju ic e C an Ju s ic e Bo tt l es Li q uo r CHAPTER 3 The ratio of beer cans to beer bottles in the streams is 7 to 1 (Figure 3.2.62). This fact will become important in the discussion of broken pieces of glass, and in the land transect data analysis presented later in the chapter. Figure 3.2.62 All Streams – Drink Containers All Streams Drink Containers 4500 4000 3500 3000 Total 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Cups showed the same decrease in the fall, as did the food wrappers and bottles and cans (Figure 3.2.63). It would seem that there was a general decrease in the amount of food and beverage litter. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-122 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.63 Streams – Seasonal Cups Streams Seasonal Cups 900 800 700 600 Cups 500 400 300 200 100 0 Styrofoam Plastic Paper Summer Fall Winter Spring The average annual average trash levels of each stream are shown in Figure 3.2.64. The two Fort Davis tributaries, Texas Avenue and Fort Dupont, are relatively clean streams. The worst streams are Fort Chaplin, Fort Stanton, Watts Branch and Nash Run. The data for the Anacostia River and Kingman Lake only represent the intertidal zone and only one side of the river. Figure 3.2.64 Annual Average Trash Annual AverageTrash 160 140 Items/100'or1000sf 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 An ac os Ki tia ng m an -2 Te xa Ft s Du P Po pe Ft Ch a Ft p St an t W at ts Na sh -1 FD FD Trash ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-123 CHAPTER 3 Glass All streams have a Designated Use of Class B in the DC Water Quality Standards. This means the streams should be suitable for wading. The presence of broken glass is an impairment of that use because of the hazards to injury. Glass is not a natural component of the streams and, therefore, falls into the category of trash. However, there was no known method of accurately counting the hundreds of thousands of pieces of broken glass. During the monitoring, an estimate was taken from each stream segment of the amount of visible glass piece per square foot of stream channel. This estimate is only of the glass visible on the surface. It was noticed that the glass was usually only found in the sand and gravel bars and was not found in fine-grained muddy and silty bottoms. The hydraulic characteristics of glass must be similar to pea gravel. The scientific validity of the data is debatable, but it gives a qualitative understanding of the issue that affects the aesthetic value and the recreational use of the stream, and, most importantly, it is a form of litter. Much of the glass is colored green or brown. The discrepancy between the ratio of beer can counts and beer bottle counts on the land versus those in the stream can be explained by the fact that the glass represents the missing glass bottles. Table 3.2.1 below shows the pieces of glass per square foot of stream bottom. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-124 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.2.1 Pieces of glass per square foot of stream bottom Watts Branch WB-MD WB-trib WB-1. Southern – 61 St WB-2. 61St - 58 St WB-3. 58 St – 55 St WB-4. 55 St – Division Ave WB-5. Division Ave – 50 St WB-6. 50 St – 48 St WB-7. 48 St – 44 St WB-8. 44 St – Hunt Pl WB-9. Hunt Pl – Kenilworth Ave WB-10. Kenilworth Ave – Footbridge WB-11. Footbridge – 1000' WB-12. Station 11 – Tributary Fort Stanton FS-1 Mainstem FS-2 North Trib FS-3 South Trib Nash Run NR-1. I-295 – Pipe NR-2. Pipe – Anacostia Ave Popes Branch PB-1. 35 St – Branch Ave PB-2. Branch Ave – Minnesota Ave PB-3. Minnesota Ave – Fairlawn Ave Fort Dupont FDp-2. Footbridge – FDp-3. Segment 3 – Tributary Junction FDp-3a. Trib Junction – ~Ft Davis Dr FDp-4. Trib Junction – ~Ft Davis Dr FDp-5. Ft Davis Dr – meadow FDp-5a. Lower Tributary FDp-6. Meadow – Path FDp-7. Path – Minnesota Ave FDp-8. Minnesota Ave – Railroad Fort Chaplin FC-1. Headwater – 1000' FC-2. Segment 1 – C St Fort Davis-1 Fort Davis-2 Texas Ave Mainstem Texas Ave Trib 5 5 5 1 3 5 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-125 CHAPTER 3 A stream segment 1000 feet long and 10 feet wide with a glass count of 5 pieces per square foot would have 50,000 pieces of visible glass. Looking at the distribution of glass in Watts Branch, (Figure 3.2.65), it shows that, as the stream gradient lessens, the amount of glass decreases. There is no estimate of the amount that is not visible. Figure 3.2.65 Watts Branch – Glass Watts Branch Glass 6 5 Pieces/sf 4 3 2 1 0 W BM W D Bt ri b W B1 W B2 W B3 W B4 W B5 W B6 W B7 W B8 W BW 9 B1 W 0 B1 W 1 B12 Glass Channel roughness. Each stream segment had the channel rated from 1 to 5 to provide an estimate of the likelihood of a piece of trash being retained or snagged. This was simply an experimental indexing technique to try to better understand the effects of the stream morphology on the trash counts. Figure 3.2.66 shows the segments of Watts Branch. The first group of bars on the left (“data”) is the raw data in pieces of trash per 100 feet. The second group of bars in the middle (“Data/R”) depicts the first group divided by the channel rating factor for each segment. The last group of bars on the right (“Data/sqrtR”) shows the first group divided by the square root of the channel rating factor for each segment. Using the square root minimized the judgment of the rater and makes a more accurate indicator. It appears that there is some fundamental relationship between the trash retained and the “roughness” of the channel. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-126 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.66 Channel Roughness Channel Roughness 200 180 160 140 Items/100' 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 data Data/R Data/sqrtR WB-MD WB-trib WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-4 WB-5 WB-6 WB-7 WB-8 WB-9 WB-10 WB-11 WB-12 Logjams and natural trash straining blockages were also inventoried but did not provide a good index even though they do trap a lot of trash (Figure 3.2.67). Figure 3.2.67 Trash in logjam ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-127 CHAPTER 3 Even the beaver had to put up with trash when constructing his dam on Watts Branch. Figure 3.2.68 Trash in Watts Branch beaver dam Paper Products Because the absence of paper items in the stream was so pronounced, it was decided to investigate the durability of paper in water. It was believed that the sanitary engineering jar test procedure would be appropriate. A paper bag such as would be received with a single beer can and a white paper receipt were placed in a jar of water and observed. The glue on a paper bag dissolved within ten minutes, and the bag opened up and became a sheet of brown paper. Within 30 minutes the structural cohesiveness of the paper was weakened to the point that it could not be lifted from the water without tearing. After one hour the jar was shaken for two minutes and observed. The bag and receipt were reduced to pieces of about two inches square or less as shown in Figure 3.2.69. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-128 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2.69 Jar Test -one hour ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-129 CHAPTER 3 The jar was allowed a quiescent period of one more hour and shaken for two minutes again. The paper separated into even smaller pieces as shown in Figure 3.2.70. Figure 3.2.70 Jar Test two hours It is concluded that a paper bag lying in the gutter of a road will not survive the rainfall and being transported down the concrete curb and gutter and falling into the catch basin. It will be macerated with other trash, sticks and sand. Then, from the catch basin, it travels down the concrete sewer to where empties into the stream. A plastic bag was subjected to the jar test and showed no changes. It is concluded that only the plastic bags will survive such a high energy transport along the curb, into the catch basin, and down the sewer into the stream. Weight The weight of a small plastic bag is about a tenth of an ounce. There were about 14,000 plastic bags counted in the streams the last quarterly survey. This is a weight of 87.5 pounds. Four tires without wheels would weigh more than all of the plastic bags combined, but the aesthetic blight caused by four tires is very small compared to that caused by the plastic bags. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-130 CHAPTER 3 3.3 Land Use Data Interpretation Introduction There were twenty-five land use transects surveyed quarterly. Of these, there were ten streets, three bridges, three parking lots, a bus stop, two schools, and six recreational areas. Detailed counts of trash were made using the same categories as for the streams. Parking Lots Three different parking lots were surveyed. One was the Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) stadium parking lot and that transect was the grass strip between the parking lot and the bike path. The auto parts parking lot was surveyed because of the tremendous amount of un-validated information concerning the runoff from those types of parking lots. The third parking lot was located in a high density residential complex. Figure 3.3.1 Parking Lot Trash Parking Lot Trash 40 35 Items/1000sqft 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring RFK Apts Autozone The transect at the RFK stadium parking lot had 135 snack wrappers counted the first quarter but this level dropped to 17 in the fall and then down to only one and back up to 5 during the last survey. Exactly why there was such a large amount during the first survey is unknown but may be connected to the recent construction of the bike path. Perhaps a temporary construction fence had trapped the snack wrappers and after the fence was removed, the transect was surveyed before the site was cleaned up by the maintenance staff. The other anomaly at RFK was the ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-131 CHAPTER 3 persistent amounts of “Home Food Packaging”. Items such as sardine and Vienna sausage cans were very high compared to any other transect surveyed. It should be noted that RFK parking lot is used for the Farmers Market on weekends and during the week it is used as a staging area for the massive Benning Road reconstruction project. The auto parts store parking lot had about 1 piece of trash per 1000 square feet. Figure 3.3.2 Auto Parts Store Trash Composition Auto Parts Store Trash Composition 70 60 50 Percent 40 30 20 10 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P Two items of interest are that the debris level is zero (which means that there were no actual auto parts) and the other category contains 10% auto part containers such as an oil can or a part packaging although very few fluid containers were actually counted, there simply was not a category called “auto parts packaging” on the survey form. Such stores have policies prohibiting changing oil in their parking lot, but often people will add a quart of oil or transmission fluid and usually they will put the empty container in a trash can. Being as there were very few oil cans/bottles found in the streams and very few in the parking lot there is no evidence to support the myth of streams clogged with used oil containers and that they are coming from these establishments. The apartment complex parking lot was relatively clean. About eighty percent of the paper products are napkins. This transect has a screened in garbage dumpster for the residents and there is a portion of the total trash that is associated with the dumpster. This phenomenon was observed repeatedly in the study that the act of disposing of garbage creates litter (usually by the resident). Very few plastic bags were found in the three parking lots. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-132 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.3 Apartment Parking Lot Trash Composition Apt Parking Lot Trash Composition 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P Recreational Areas Six recreational areas were surveyed of which three were athletic fields. This included the actual field itself for Langdon Park and the “No Mow” buffer zones behind the spectator sideline areas for the soccer fields in Kenilworth Park and Anacostia Park. It was enlightening to find what was in the buffer zones. A hiker biker path in Watts Branch was surveyed in two places. The presence of men drinking beer early in the morning at the Watts Branch Foot Bridge at the end of Eads Street is an indication of why the foot bridge has a lot of trash while the bike path elsewhere has very low levels. The fishing area in Kenilworth Park was surveyed. Because the National Park Service has crews that manually pick up the trash from the mowed areas it is impractical to survey a recreational field itself that is on NPS property unless the survey is done immediately after it is used. The crews do not pick up trash in the buffer zones and the buffer zone integrate trash over time. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-133 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.4 Recreational Areas Trash Recreational Areas Trash 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 La ng do n ld d Fo ot br id ge tr a il W at ts Ar ea Fi el Fi e Items/1000sf Summer Fall Winter Spring Ke ni lw or th An ac os tia Langdon Field and the Watts Branch bike trail had levels of under 5 pieces of trash per 1000 square feet. The buffer zone at the Anacostia Soccer field had trash levels that increased with time and then immediately before the fourth quarter survey the NPS mowed the buffer zone which removed a lot of trash. Kenilworth Soccer Field and the Kenilworth Fishing area had moderately high levels of trash until the AWS Earth Day cleanup which is held in this area and then they got cleaned up by the volunteers. The foot bridge across Watts Branch showed a similar decrease in trash levels. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-134 Fi s hi ng CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.5 Recreation Areas Trash Composition Recreation Areas Trash Composition 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P The high level of bottles and cans, Styrofoam containers and snack wrappers is associated with outdoor recreation. Some of the Styrofoam containers were fishing bait containers for night crawlers. About half the drink containers were beer bottles and cans. There is very little debris associated with these areas. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-135 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 Schools Two schools were surveyed (Figure 3.3.6). The transect at Woodson High School was on the school grounds where the maintenance staff would have clear responsibility for trash removal. At Springarn High School, the transect was chosen to be across the road from the school and on public space. The Springarn transect was bordered by the Langston Golf Course chain link fence which is very effective for capturing trash. Figure 3.3.6 School Trash School Trash 50 45 40 Items/1000sf 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Woodson Springarn The significant decrease of trash in the transect across the street from Springarn High School may have been due to Earth Day Cleanup activities or it may have been due to the beginning of the grass mowing season. Some people pick up the trash before mowing and other people cut it up with the mower. Being as the survey does not count pieces of trash less than one inch square, the trash shredded by a mower is not counted. Both practices were observed frequently during the study. The question of what kinds of trash are found at and near a school has been debated for some time. Prior studies have shown that it is part of this group of people who contribute to the general littering problem. Answering that question was a basic purpose of selecting these transects. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-136 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.7 School Trash Composition Schools Trash Composition 80 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P Seventy percent of the trash was food wrappers. Unfortunately, their choices of food are not very healthy ones. Transportation Facilities Three major bridges over the Anacostia River were surveyed, one set of bus tops (both sides of Good Hope Road) and ten commercial and residential streets. Good Hope Road Bus Stop These two bus stops are well maintained, covered facilities with trash cans on both sides of the road. Metro has an Adopt a Stop program and it appears that this is one of them. Someone sweeps it and carefully puts the sweepings in the trash can. This was observed on two occasions and on one occasion the person was observed cleaning up the trash while the team was trying to survey the amount of trash. This phenomenon of trying to count trash while people were trying to pick it up occurred frequently. No attempt was made to adjust the count because of the cleanup. The person was very conscientious and only once was any appreciable amount of trash found. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-137 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.8 Bus Stop Trash Bus StopTrash 16 14 12 Items/1000sf 10 8 6 4 2 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash It was assumed that bus stops would be a major source of trash to the waterways; but, this study does not support that. Paper products such as cigarette packaging and napkins are the prevalent items (Figure 3.3.9). Figure 3.3.9 Bus Stop Trash Composition Bus Stop Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Percent % &C an s P ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-138 Bo t Fd D eb ris Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro CHAPTER 3 Bridges The bridges were surveyed by walking along the pedestrian walkway and counting the trash. Obviously there are two sides of a bridge but each survey counted the upstream side of the bridge. In order to try to normalize the data to an area concept, the length of the bridge surveyed was multiplied time 10 feet which is the approximately the area that the trash actually occupies. To convert to a lineal concept the term “Items/1000 square feet” simply becomes “Items/100 feet”. Figure 3.3.10 Bridges - Trash Bridges -Trash 25 20 Items/1000sf 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring 11th St Penn Benninng The level of trash on the three bridges varies greatly; but, the Benning Road Bridge has significantly more thrash than the other two and the 11th Street Bridge is pretty clean. There is no apparent seasonal pattern (Figure 3.3.10). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-139 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.11 Bridges Trash Composition Bridges Trash Composition 35 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P It is interesting that the amount of snack wrappers is high, as it appears a lot of people eat and drive. About 7% of the items were cups and if you add that to the bottles and cans then you come up with equal amounts of eating items and drinking items. One third of the bottles and cans were alcohol related. Half of the paper products were napkins and one quarter were smoking related. Two thirds of the debris was small broken pieces of automobiles, less than one square foot in size. A significant amount of clothing was counted. Streets Ten streets were surveyed. The three blocks of Franklin Street were selected to see if one could demonstrate that residential streets had lower levels of trash as one moved away from the commercial corridor. This street selected did not demonstrate that this is true, although there is other data that supports the concept. The effect of normalizing the data by the area, versus normalizing it by length, is to make the data for the 17-18 block of Franklin Street comparable to the 18-20 block and similar to Nannie Helen Burroughs. Unfortunately, the windshield survey data discussed later in the chapter has no measurement of width and cannot be normalized by area. For the purposes of the landuse analysis, the areal data is superior, but for the windshield data, the length analysis will be used. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-140 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 3 A clean street has less than five pieces of trash per 1000 square feet and a trashy street has over ten. Figure 3.3.12 Streets – Trash by Area Streets - Trash by Area 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Po pe Pe nn Bl dn sb G rg ra nt 42 -4 Se 4 rv Fr ic e an R kli d nR Fr -1 an 7t kl h in -1 Fr 7an 18 kl in -1 8Na 2 nn 0 ie H B G oo dh op e Items/1000sf Summer Fall Winter Spring Looking at trash per 100 feet causes the 18th to 20th block of Franklin Street to have higher levels of trash relative to using an area type measurement. This is because there are a lot of trash items on the far side of the sidewalk which is a hill and captures trash. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-141 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.13 Streets – Trash by length Streets - Trash by length 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Po pe Pe nn Bl dn sb G rg ra nt 42 -4 Se 4 rv Fr ic e an R kli d nR Fr -1 an 7t kl h in -1 Fr 7an 18 kl in -1 8Na 2 nn 0 ie H B G oo dh op e Summer Fall Winter Spring In the figure below (Figure 3.3.14), the first four streets are residential, Franklin Street from18th20th Streets is adjacent to a school and is about 25 percent residential use and 75 percent institutional, Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue through Bladensburg are commercial streets and the I- 295 service road is a light industrial land use. Landuse does not seem to have a significant effect on the levels of trash with the notable exception of the I-295 service Road. However, other industrial streets were counted and the industrial streets where the front door is to the sidewalk are relatively clean and the industrial streets which are fronted by chain link fences are relatively dirty. In other words, there are light industries that take pride in the appearance of the front of their facility. V Street is a good example of a clean industrial street even though the street could certain use a good repair by DDOT. W Street has all of the buildings hidden behind fences and is very trashy. It should be similarly noted that Franklin Street from 18-20th Streets is orphaned from the school and there are no doors nor entrance on that side, so apparently the maintenance staff do not take care of it. It is also across the street from Langdon Park. The average trash level per 1,000 square feet for the four seasons by use category are: residential = 9.1, institutional = 11.8, commercial = 10.2 and light industrial = 22.8. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-142 Items/100' CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.14 Street by Use Streets by Land Use 25 20 items/1000sf 15 10 5 0 Grant 4244 FranklinR-17th Franklin17-18 Goodhope Nannie H B Bldnsbrg Franklin18-20 Service Rd IND CHAPTER 3 3-143 Pope RES RES RES RES INST/RES COM COM COM Penn COM The amount of trash on the streets in the summer was very high (Figure 3.3.15). It was a dry summer with little rain before the survey. One should remember that the streams had very low levels of trash in the summer and then once the rains began in October trash levels in the streams increased to very high levels. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN Figure 3.3.15 Streets - Seasonal Streets Seasonal 1400 1200 1000 Total Items 800 Items 600 400 200 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring The trash composition is dominated by paper items of which about half are napkins. A part of the paper items are bus transfer slips from the bus stops on these streets. Paper products are not found in the streams in any significant numbers. The debris items are mostly automobile pieces larger than one inch. The “Other” category is dominated by plastic cups. The relationship between snack wrappers and bottles and cans is similar to other land uses. About a third of the bottles and cans are alcohol related. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-144 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3.16 Streets Trash Composition Streets Trash Composition 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 % &C an s P Plastic cups are displayed in this to this particular graph (Figure 3.3.17) because they are a larger percentage of the items surveyed than normal. Figure 3.3.17 Streets Seasonal Composition Streets Seasonal Composition 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Bo t Fd D eb r is Pa pe r W ra p Percent &C an s P D eb r is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y Bo t Fd ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-145 Pl s tc Cu ps ro O th er Summer Fall Winter Spring Ba gs St y ro CHAPTER 3 Total Annual Composition It is interesting to note that from the beginning of the survey to the end that over half of the trash on the streets is no longer present. It is also noted that the trash in the streams seemed to has increased. Figure 3.3.18 Land Based Trash Land Based Trash 2500 2000 Total Items 1500 Trash 1000 500 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-146 CHAPTER 3 The land based trash is dominated by four categories but paper items have replaced the plastic bags as one of the four. Paper was not found in the streams but is a large component of land based trash (Figure 3.3.19). Figure 3.3.19 Land Based Trash Land Based Trash 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is O th er Ba gs Pa pe r W ra p St y cu ps ro % P Bo t Fd ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-147 Pl s tc CHAPTER 3 The drink containers are almost uniformly distributed except for liquor bottles and juice cans (Figure 3.3.20). The equal number of beer bottles and cans on the land is greatly different from what was found in the streams where there were seven times more cans than bottles. As was previously mentioned, it is believed that the bottles do not survive the trip down the gutter and through the storm sewer without shattering and producing pieces of glass. Figure 3.3.20 Land – Drink Containers Land Drink Containers 120 100 80 Items 60 40 20 0 Liquor Beer Bot Bot Beer Can Soft Drk Bot Soft Water Sport Juice Juice Bot Drk Cans Bot Drk Bot Can Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-148 CHAPTER 3 There were a lot of drink containers in the transects that were cleaned up by AWS on Earth Day and the data shows the beneficial aspect of those cleanups Figure 3.3.21 All Lands – Seasonal Drink Containers All Lands Seasonal Drink Containers 450 400 350 300 Total 250 200 150 100 50 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Bot & Cans Very few plastic bags were found in the land based transects and there were less in the spring survey. Figure 3.3.22 All Lands – Plastic Bags All Lands Plastic Bags 90 80 70 60 Total 50 40 30 20 10 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring P Bags ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-149 CHAPTER 3 Cups also got cleaned up on Earth Day. Figure 3.3.23 All Lands – Seasonal Cups All Lands Seasonal Cups 140 120 100 Total Cups 80 60 40 20 0 Styrofoam Plastic Paper Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash Collection Days The question arose during the survey period concerning the effects of trash collection by the Department of Public Works (DPW) on the amount of trash on the street. It was decided to try to determine if it was a significant problem in the drainage basin that required investigation. Pope Street is a residential street with no alley and trash is collected from supercans and the blue wheeled recycle containers from in front of the houses. Pope Street is a clean well cared for neighborhood and it was believed that any increase would be obvious. It is also a regular transect station so there is a history of data on it. The street was surveyed early in the morning after the trash cans were set out for collection, but before DPW arrived. It was then surveyed about an hour after DPW collected the trash and the recyclable material. The difference in trash was exactly one piece and it is certain that that piece was present but not counted in the morning survey because it was under the supercan and hidden from view. So there was no increase in trash from the DPW crew; however, as previously stated the act of setting the trash out seems to cause trash. Also, this was a very calm and windless day. If the study had been done on a day with 10-20 mph wind gusts, then perhaps things might have been different. On a second day while conducting other studies, the survey team followed a DPW trash truck for about ten blocks and they did not lose a single piece of trash. Once again this was a windless day; but, they were very efficient. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-150 CHAPTER 3 While only observational information exists, placing trash in plastic bags or open topped containers seems to create a lot of loss to the streets. This was observed repeatedly, that improper setting trash out on the curb tore the bags or allowed animals to tear open the bags and create a nuisance. 3.4 WINDSHIELD SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS Introduction The streets in the study area were driven once a quarter and a gross count of the amount of trash on one side of each block was made. This method allowed for the trash to be counted from about ten feet out into the street up to the curb, and then to about ten feet on past the curb. If there was a fence, wall or mow line, then that was used as the far edge of the count. Because chain link fences, mow lines, and walls collect trash, this methodology causes counts on certain types of streetscapes to be very high. However, it is noted that if a property owner cleans up their property, these places will not be harboring trash. Consequently, if they are neglected, they can contain hundreds and hundreds of pieces of trash. It was very rare for every street in a drainage basin to get surveyed, but the third and fourth quarter surveys probably accounted for 95-98% of the streets in each basin. Some complicating factors encountered were that, often, streets that exist on maps are not present on the ground, and street names differ from those listed on maps. Street signs are also not properly aligned or are missing altogether. Reliability of the data is actually very good considering the technique used. In order to evaluate blocks which might be contributing excessive trash to streams, the data was analyzed for “Hot Streets”. The streets that had very high average annual counts of trash are listed for each drainage basin. An average value for a block is about 25-30 pieces of trash. Three categories are used for those streets with higher than average amounts of trash. The streets blocks having more than 50 pieces of trash, but less than 75, are in Category 1. Those blocks with 75 to 99 pieces of trash are in Category 2 and all streets over 100 pieces of trash are in Category 3. An average block is about 500 feet long so the streets were checked to make sure that the high counts are not caused by it being an excessively long block. The average length of a block as used in the windshield survey was 501 feet long in the Watts Branch watershed. Windshield Data Calibration The windshield data is based upon what can be seen from a moving vehicle. Factors such as parked cars, excess leaves in the gutter and high weeds will cause the trash counts to be low. The trash counts of the streets from the detailed land use survey were paired with the data for the corresponding street block in the windshield survey in order to obtain an estimate of the accuracy of the windshield counts. Figure 3.4.1 shows the paired data for the four quarterly surveys. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-151 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.4.1 Transect vs. Windshield Trash Transect vs Windshield Trash 180 160 140 Windshield 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Trash Transect Each data point is the result of one land use street transect and the same block for the same quarter data from the windshield survey. Regression analysis indicates that the windshield survey counts 85.4 % of the actual trash. The correlation coefficient is 0.64. This was obtained by excising the count of 512 versus 20 because a street crew was seen that cleaned up this trash. Given the number of factors affecting the amount of trash on a street with counts being several days apart, the results are amazingly accurate. Trash on one side of the street can be doubled to obtain trash on both sides of the street and then adjusted by using 85.4% and get a very reasonable estimate of the total amount of trash. The information can be used to estimate total amounts of the different types of trash in a basin. Kingman Lake MS4 The Kingman Lake drainage basin is composed of three components: 1) the Maryland and M street area; 2) the Benning Road area; and 3) the RFK drainage MS4s. The streets were segregated by land use, and average values of trash per block versus trash per 100 feet were compared set at normal block length in the area. Land Use Commercial Institutional Single Family Multi-family Res. Trash/block 57.6 23.4 33.2 42.6 Trash/100’ 11.1 5.1 5.9 7.2 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-152 CHAPTER 3 The small area of Maryland and M Streets is interesting because it is an isolated MS4 and potentially has a small stream that could be rehabilitated. There was significantly more trash in the fall than in the other seasons (Figure 3.4.2). Figure 3.4.2 M St/ Maryland Ave Trash M St/ Maryland Ave Trash 80 70 60 50 Items/Block 40 30 20 10 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash The same seasonal pattern applies to the whole Kingman Lake basin (Figure 3.4.3). Figure 3.4.3 Kingman Lake – Basin Trash Kingman Lake Basin Trash 70 60 Items/Block 50 40 Trash 30 20 10 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring The annual average of each block was summed to find the total amount of trash on the streets at any time. Because that number represents only one side of each block, the number is doubled ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-153 CHAPTER 3 and then is adjusted by the 85.4 % accuracy factor. This does not include alleys, parking lots, etc. If there were streets not surveyed, then they are not included in the number. Windshield Trash One Side of Street = 1,720 Estimated Basin Total = 4,047 Acres = 230 Street Trash/acre = 17.6 Table 3.4.1 lists the “Hot Street” in the Kingman Lake drainage using the three categories. There were no blocks with counts in Category 1. Many of the streets with high levels of trash are those that are closest to the commercial street, Benning Road. Table 3.4.1 Kingman Lake Hot Streets RFK 1.(50-74) Street 2(75-99) 25th Oklahoma M M M E-Benning E-Benning Maryland-21pl 21 pl-21 St 21-Summit 96 92 70 83 98 Block Count Street 3.(100+) 23Pl Benning Benning-E Bridge-26 145 225 Block Count Hickey Run MS4 This basin features several very long commercial streets, which provides an opportunity to get estimates of trash per length of a commercial street. Street New York Avenue - SDA- 9th Bladensburg – SDA – R Rhode Island Ave. – SDA –Metro underpass Items/100’ 11.81551 5.895309 5.09567 Items/block 136 29.04 33.2 The sub-division of single family residences located off Bladensburg Road bounded by R St, 24th St and S St., had a trash level of 0.46 items/100” or about 2 pieces per block. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-154 CHAPTER 3 Trash levels in the basin were significantly lower in the spring (Figure 3.4.4). Figure 3.4.4 Hickey Run – Street Trash Hickey Run Street Trash 43 42 41 Items/Block 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash Total Trash One Side of Street = 6530 Estimated Basin Total = 15,293 Acres = 848 Street Trash/acre = 18.0 Hickey Run has several commuter streets that travel through commercial and light industrial areas and these had blocks with high levels of trash. The prevalence of chain link fences which trap and hold trash influenced the counts significantly. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-155 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.4.2 Hickey Run – Hot Streets Hickey Run Block Count Street Block Count Street Block Count 1.(50-74)Street VistaBladensburg 28-26 18-20 18-20 22-24 24-26 28-end 18-20 Douglas -Channing 22-24 31-33 South Dakota Bladensburg Franklin Evarts Evarts Evarts Evarts Hamlin 22nd 18th Pl Channing Adams St 57.5 58.75 71.25 59.25 58.25 65 50 70.75 56.25 55 50 61.7 2.(75-99) Rhode Island Ave Evarts W St 25 Pl W Va W Va 17 St 3.(100+) 108.7 5 237 205 212.5 182.5 167.5 191.2 5 237.5 233.7 5 17-15 RIA-17 16Montana Blad-End Fenwick-16 16-NYA W VAMontana 78.75 93.75 75.75 83.75 80 86.25 87.5 South Dakota New York Ave New York Ave New York Ave New York Ave Vista Montana 24 Pl Montana V-New York SD-Bladensburg Wva-16 16-Fenwick Fen-Kendal 26-SDA 18th-NYA Blad-End W Va- Bldnsbrg ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-156 CHAPTER 3 Nash Run The levels of trash on the streets in Nash Run drainage basin were high and fairly consistent (Figure 3.4.5). Figure 3.4.5 Nash Run – Street Trash Nash Run Street Trash 40 39 38 Items/block 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash The levels of trash on several of the very long residential streets were converted to items per 100 feet. Small variations of average block length will have small effects on the data. Single family residential Streets Meade Nash Lee Items/100’ 6.2 7.5 4.8 Items/block 18.5 17.2 15.6 The residential values can be compared to Sheriff Road, a mixed use corridor which has 9.5 Items/100’ and 34.2 Items/block, and also to Eastern Avenue, which has 9.2 Items/100’ and 48.3 items/block Total Trash One Side of Street = 3815 Estimated Basin Total = 8,976 Acres = 320 Street Trash/acre = 28.1 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-157 CHAPTER 3 Hot Streets Many of the streets listed in Table 3.4.3 are those intersecting Sheriff Road, a mixed use street. Table 3.4.3 Hot Streets Street 1.(50-74) Quarles Douglas 49thEastern Kenilworth45 45Anacostia Anacostia44 MinnesotaB vr Bvr Hgts.50 OrdDouglas 47 Pl- 48 St 49pl-50pl 50St - 51St Sheriff-Lee LeeMeade LeeMeade Nash-Minn 68 51 70 61 68 61 58 63 51 60 63 50 70 55 Block Count Street 2.(7599) Polk Eastern Sheriff Rd 45pl 48St 48Pl Block Count Street 3.(100+) Service Rd Service Rd Block Count Anacostia end NashMeade 51 St Eastern Sheriff-Lee Sheriff-Lee Sheriff-Lee 88 75 85 90 78 77 NHBCrosswalk CrosswalkPolk 270 110 Ord Eastern Kenilworth Kane Pl Sheriff Rd 45 St 48st Watts Branch The winter level of trash is nearly 30 percent less than the other seasons. During the survey it became clear that a lot of trash was simply gone. It was then discovered that there was a crew from the Dept. of Public Works cleaning up the wet leaves from the curbs, and this were very effective in removing trash. Most of the basin was surveyed before they had cleaned it up but they still had done enough to noticeably affect the amount of trash available to be counted. The same issue was encountered during the summer survey when the I-295 service roads were cleaned up, causing localized data in both Watts and Nash to be affected. It is also notable that the amount of trash in Watts Branch increased. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-158 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.4.6 Watts Branch – Street Trash Watts Branch Street Trash 40 35 30 Items/block 25 20 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash Figure 3.4.7 DPW crew removing leaves and trash from curb in Watts Branch sub-watershed ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-159 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.4.8 Street sweeper The spring survey of the streets in the Watts Branch sewershed began on the Tuesday after the Memorial Day three-day weekend. The Memorial Day weekend had very pleasant weather for outdoor activities. Nannie Helen Burroughs was the first street surveyed in the spring survey after Memorial Day. There is about a 50% increase in the accumulation of trash from a three day weekend as shown in Figure 3.4.9. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-160 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.4.9 Nannie Helen Burroughs – Trash Nannie Helen Burroughs Trash 70 60 50 Items/block 40 Trash 30 20 10 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring The post Memorial Day weekend trash levels increased from 6.7 items/100’ to 10.9 items/100 feet. A few residential streets were analyzed to determine the relationship between trash per block and trash per 100 feet. Street Blaine Brooks Jay Items/100’ 6.2 4.2 7.8 Items/block 19.8 16.8 32.6 The streets in the Mayfair Terrace area were very clean with trash levels below 2 items/100’. Some of the storm drains from this area drain to a beaver pond connected to Watts Branch. Total Trash One Side of Street =11,384 Estimated Basin Total = 26,786 Acres = 1,025 Street Trash/acre = 26.1 The primary commercial street in the basin is Nannie Helen Burroughs and it consistently had high levels of trash. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-161 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.4.4 Hot Streets Street Block Count Street Block Count Street Block Count 1.(50-74) Clay St Dix Eads Eads Eads Eads Foote Cloud Grant Hayes Hunt Pl Hunt Pl Hunt Pl Eastern Eastern Eastern Southern 62 St 61St 61St 60 St 60 St 57 St 56 St 55 St 54 St Division Division 51 St 50 St 49 Place 49 St 46 St Kenilworth N Helen Burr N Helen Burr N Helen Burr N Helen Burr 63/Southern-62 44-42 61-60 60-59 58-57st 44-42 48-47 Div-53 Minesota-42 Division -54pl 42-44 44-46 46-48 Foote-Eads Eads-Dix Dix-Southern 63-Eastern Clay-Dix Eads-Dix Banks-Clay Eads-Dix Eads-Foote Blaine-Clay Eads-Foote Blaine-Clay Clay-Dix Clay-Cloud Jay-Just Blaine- Clay NHB- Hayes Fitch-NHB Hayes-Jay Hunt - Sheriff Irving-Foote 56-55 Div-50 46/Hayes-44st Minn-Kenilwth Trrce 58 51 65 52 53 60 67 56 72 51 63 65 58 62 68 72 62 65 56 57 54 67 52 53 61 52 56 73 51 56 56 56 58 61 51 53 65 62 2.(75-99) Minnesota Eads Foote Grant Gault Jay St Gay Division 49 St 48 Street N Helen Burr N Helen Burr Sheriff -HNB 47-45 44-42 44-46 42-44 Just-50pl Div-54pl Eads-NHB Jay-Sheriff Hayes-Sheriff Eastern-58 44-Minnesota 93 85 85 88 98 96 86 94 90 98 78 97 3.(100+) Dix Edison Pl Gault Gault Hayes Jay St Southern Southern 61 St 56 St 48 Pl Hayes T/Mayfr/St N Helen Burr 47-45 42-44 Minesota-42 44-NHB 46-48 48pl-50pl Division-Hunt 58-C 58-E Cap E Cap - banks Blaine-Clay Hayes-Sheriff AnacostiaKenilworth 55-Division 105 167 140 101 115 103 102 145 167 241 121 178 116 100 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-162 CHAPTER 3 East Capitol MS4 Sewer Shed Trash levels in this basin were fairly consistent from survey to survey. One anomaly occurred. A new street was built and renamed between the winter survey and spring survey. A prior culde-sac was opened up all the way to East Capitol. It is only one block of data out of many blocks of data. There were a couple of other streets in this drainage basin that were opened and closed for construction activities during the survey. Figure 3.4.10 E. Capitol MS4 Street Trash E. Capitol MS4 Street Trash 35 30 25 Items/block 20 Trash 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Benning Road had 5.9 Items/100’ and 40 Items/block, while East Capitol Street had 2.8 Items/100’ and 20.5 Items/block. Total Trash One Side of Street = 7,398 Estimated Basin Total = 17,407 Acres = approx. 1007 Street Trash/acre = 17.3 Benning Road, as well as quite a few of the streets intersecting it, had high levels of trash (Table 3.4.5). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-163 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.4.5 Hot Streets Street 1. (50-74) Minnesota Ridge Central A St. Texas C St C St Call Pl Queens Stroll Pl Hannah Pl Hannah P Benning Rd Benning Rd Benning Rd Benning Rd Benning Rd 53rd Astor Astor Anacostia Ave 45th St Brooks Blaine Ames Southern E Cap-B E Capitol/Minn 51st 49th C Texas 49th 50th-52 53rd end- 51st 51-Benning Hanna E Ecap-44th 39 34th E capCentral 50-51 51-53 Benning-Dix BenningBlaine 42-44 Burns-40 Minn-35 Bowen 50 67 55 50 60 54 60 54 59 53 68 58 50 63 58 52 52 73 71 58 55 59 55 55 50 Block Count Street 2. (7599) Minn B St G St Benning Rd 51st St Astor Eads 35th Block Count Street 3. (100+) HughBenning Texas Benning SouthernH Southern -H 53Central 34-36 AmesClay 85 78 87 98 78 96 96 84 F St Hannah Pl Hillside Rd Southern 36th 46th Benning46 46th D-C AmesClay 183 106 100 156 120 Block Count ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-164 CHAPTER 3 Fort Chaplin Tributary Trash showed very little seasonal variation in this basin and levels are below 20 pieces per block (Figure 3.4.11). Figure 3.4.11 Ft. Chaplin – Street Trash Ft Chaplin Street Trash 20 18 16 Items/block 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash Total Trash One Side of Street = 1,096 Estimated Basin Total = 2,579 Acres = 151 Street Trash/acre = 17.1 This is a very clean drainage basin which is principally residential with a couple of schools present. The majority of the homes are very well maintained and the yards are well tended. For example, Burns Street has an average trash value of 12.0 items per block and 2.3 items per 100’. There is one block that has a lot of weeds and the weeds capture a lot of trash. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-165 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.4.6 Hot Streets Street 1.(5074) D Block Count RidgeBurns 65 Texas Avenue Tributary Trash levels on the streets draining to Texas Avenue tributary are relatively clean except for one small area of Texas Avenue and 28th and 29th Streets. Figure 3.4.12 Texas Avenue – Street Trash Texas Avenue StreetTrash 18 16 14 Items/block 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash Total Trash One Side of Street = 502 Estimated Basin Total = 1,181 Acres = 103 Street Trash/acre = 11.5 There were no” hot streets,” but that is an artifact of the methods used. The windshield survey did not have a constant route, thus the side of a street which was counted was not consistent. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-166 CHAPTER 3 Pennsylvania Avenue MS4 Sewershed Below Texas Avenue Tributary A couple of special studies were conducted in this sewershed because of the nature of Pennsylvania Avenue. Pennsylvania Avenue from Fairlawn to Alabama Avenue is a combination of commercial, residential, open space and institutional. It has an average of 33 items per block and 5.2 items per 100’. Pennsylvania Avenue from 31st Street to Branch Avenue on the west side is open space, and the mow line collects a lot of trash. Figure 3.4.13 Pennsylvania Ave MS4 – Street Trash Pennsylvania Ave MS4 Street Trash 40 35 30 Items/block 25 20 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash Total Trash One Side of Street = 1,994 Estimated Basin Total = 4,692 Acres = approx. 181 Street Trash/acre = 25.9 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-167 CHAPTER 3 Hot Streets There are a cluster of streets below Minnesota Avenue that have high trash levels (Table 3.4.7). Table 3.4.7 Hot Streets Street 1.(50-74) Pennsylvania Ave Young St 22nd St 28th 30th Texas Avenue Block Count Street 2.(75-99) Pennsylvania Ave 25 St Block Count Fairlawn-Minn Fairlawn-22 FairlawnMinnesota R -Q R-Pennsylvania 28Pl-29 St 55 59 73 53 53 51 31-Branch Park Minnesota 91 92 Stickfoot MS4 Sewer Shed There is an astronomical amount of trash in this sewer shed. One reason is that there is a lot of undeveloped land present and the trash on it is not cleaned up (Figure 3.4.14). Figure 3.4.14 Stickfoot MS4 Street Trash Stickfoot MS4 Street Trash 70 60 50 Items/block 40 Trash 30 20 10 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-168 CHAPTER 3 Total Trash One Side of Street = 3,364 Estimated Basin Total = 7,915 Acres = 230 Street Trash/acre = 34.4 Table 3.4.8 Hot Streets Street 1.(50-74) 25th St/Ala Chicago Block SuitlandIrving MLK-RR ShannonMLK MLK-Bowen West-Hunter PomeroyStanton BowenHoward EvansPomeroy Talb-End MorrisTalbert Langston-25 Count Street 2.(75-99) Knox Pl Morris Rd Howard Rd Sheridan Stanton Block Count Street 3.(100+) Raynolds Morris Rd Block Langston Pl-Br West-MLK Count 51 52 78 HunterWest Firth SterlingMLK Howard Suitland Evans 80 111 146 Talbert Howard Rd 66 72 60 55 53 51 65 57 50 95 80 82 Pomeroy Stanton Sheridan SheridanPomeroy BruceSuitland 330 160 162 Sheridan Sayles Pl Stanton Shannon Pl Mtn View Ainger Pl ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-169 CHAPTER 3 Fort Davis Tributaries These are clean streets with low levels of trash. The levels dropped significantly in the spring (Figure 3.4.15). Figure 3.4.15 Ft. Davis – Street Trash Ft Davis Street Trash 25 20 Items/block 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Ft D-1 Ft D-2 Total Trash One Side of Street Ft Davis-1 = 247 Estimated Basin Total = 581 Acres = 51 Street Trash/acre = 11.4 Total Trash One Side of Street Ft Davis-2= 167 Estimated Basin Total = 393 Acres = 24 Street Trash/acre = 16.4 Total Trash One Side of Street Ft Davis MS4 = 1309 Estimated Basin Total = 3,080 Acres = 158 Street Trash/acre = 19.5 Hot Streets for FD-1, FD-2 and FD MS4 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-170 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.4.9 Ft. Davis - Hot Streets Street 1.(50-74) Minnesota 28th St Branch Block N-Penn PennMinn AlabamaU Count 54 73 55 Naylor MS4 This MS4 drainage area is chiefly residential with moderate levels of trash (Figure 3.4.16). Figure 3.4.16 Naylor MS4 – Street Trash Naylor MS4 Street Trash 35 30 25 Items/block 20 Trash 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-171 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.4.10 Naylor MS4 – Hot Street Street 1.(50-74) Naylor Street R Q 18th AltamontGood Hope Block 16-Minnes Minn-18 R-Q 63 Count 58 58 61 Block Count Street 2.(75-99) 17th Street Q-R Block 91 Count Block Count Street 3.(100+) Naylor Street FairlawnMinnesota Block 125 Count Block Count Total Trash One Side of Street = 1,309 Estimated Basin Total = 3,080 Acres = 230 Street Trash/acre = 13.4 Fort Dupont While there are not many streets in this drainage basin, those present are concentrated either at the top or at the bottom of the basin, and have moderate levels of trash (Figure 3.4.17). Figure 3.4.17 Ft. Dupont – Street Trash Ft Dupont Street Trash 40 35 30 Items/block 25 20 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-172 CHAPTER 3 Total Trash One Side of Street = 501 Estimated Basin Total = 1,178 Acres = 99 Street Trash/acre = 11.9 There were no Hot Streets. Pope Branch Similar to several other sub-watersheds, some of the streets in the Pope Branch sub-watershed drain into storm sewers which discharge into the free flowing, open stream, and other streets drain through storm sewers into a buried pipe through which Pope Branch flows (MS4). These two sets of streets are segregated for this basin (Figure 3.4.18). Figure 3.4.18 Pope Branch – Street Trash Pope Branch Street Trash 25 20 Items/block 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Stream MS4 It is clear that the streets in the buried MS4 pipe below Minnesota Avenue have higher levels of trash than those up in the free flowing stream basin. Total Trash One Side of Street tributary to the stream itself = 734 Estimated Basin Total = 1,727 Acres = 149 Street Trash/acre = 11.6 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-173 CHAPTER 3 Total Trash One Side of Street tributary to MS4 system = 487 Estimated Basin Total = 1,146 Acres = 45 Street Trash/acre = 25.5 Table 3.4.11 Hot Streets - Stream Street 1.(50-74) Anacostia Rd Nelson Ft Davis Drive 2.(75-99) Nelson Block Minnesota Minnesota-Anacostia Penn-Mass Minnesota-Fairlawn Count 56 47 64 81 Table 3.4.12 Hot Streets -MS4 Street 1.(50-74) Circle 56 Block Count ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-174 CHAPTER 3 Ft. Stanton The MS4 system that drains to the stream has high trash levels comparable to the MS4 system below the stream (Figure 3.4.19) Figure 3.4.19 Ft. Stanton – Street Trash Ft Stanton Street Trash 60 50 Items/block 40 30 20 10 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Stream MS4 Total Trash One Side of Street tributary to the stream itself = 363 Estimated Basin Total = 854 Acres = 62 Street Trash/acre = 13.7 Total Trash One Side of Street tributary to MS4 system = 1169 Estimated Basin Total = 2,751 Acres = 155 Street Trash/acre = 17.7 Table 3.4.13 Hot Streets - Stream Street 1.(50-74) Erie St 25th St 25th St Block Bruce- 17 Ala-Wagner WagnerGood Hope Count 50 69 70 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-175 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.4.14 Hot Streets –MS4 Street 1.(50-74) Good Hope Good Hope 18th 18th 18th V Block Count Street 2.(7599) Fendall Block Count Street 3.(100+) Good Hope Block Count 22-Altamnt 24-25 Good Hope-T end-V V-U 16-18 70 54 53 50 55 65 Good Hope 88 17- Minn. 124 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-176 CHAPTER 3 Ely MS4 This small drainage basin has very high levels of trash due to three very dirty streets (Figure 3.4.20). Figure 3.4.20 Ely Street – Trash Ely StreetTrash 50 45 40 Items/block 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Trash Total Trash One Side of Street tributary to Ely MS4 = 1703 Estimated Basin Total = 4,007 Acres = 160 Street Trash/acre = 25.0 Table 3.4.15 Ely Street – Hot Streets Street 1.(50-74) Ely Pl D B St 33rd St Block Count Street 3. (100+) Anacostia R 37th Pl Dubois Pl Block Count Anacostia-37th St 33rd-Minn 34-end D-Ely 53 53 73 63 Ely -B Ely -B 37th-Ely 223 223 144 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-177 CHAPTER 3 Naylor MS4 This basin is chiefly residential with moderate levels of trash (Figure 3.4.21). Figure 3.4.21 Naylor MS4 – Street Trash Naylor MS4 Street Trash 35 30 25 Items/block 20 Trash 15 10 5 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Total Trash One Side of Street = 1,309 Estimated Basin Total = 3,080 Acres = 230 Street Trash/acre = 13.4 Table 3.4.16 Naylor Street - Hot Street Street 1.(50-74) Naylor R Q 18th Block AltamontGood H 16-Minnes Minn-18 R-Q Count Street 2.(75-99) Block Count Street 3.(100+) Block FairlawnMinnesota Count 63 58 58 61 17th Q-R 91 Naylor 125 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-178 CHAPTER 3 Special Studies Rainfall Effects During the second quarter of monitoring, a precipitation event occurred that prompted the gathering of additional data. This was the first time in the monitoring effort that data collection was interrupted by rainfall. The windshield survey was the part of the monitoring effort that was interrupted. It was decided to re-survey four long street segments after the rainfall that had been surveyed the day before the rain. The rainfall was 2.05 inches and was relatively uniformly distributed over a 12 hour period with brief high intensity periods. The streets surveyed were as follows: 1. Pennsylvania Avenue from Fairlawn to Alabama Avenue – predominantly a commercial land use 2. Fairlawn Avenue from Pennsylvania to M Place- a multi family and single family, commercial land use. 3. Q Street SE from Naylor to 30th Street – single family residences 4. R Street SE from Naylor to 30th Street – single family residences The results were surprising considering the magnitude of the rainfall. Pennsylvania Avenue showed a 9 % reduction in trash, while Q Street showed a 52 % increase, R Street showed a 170 % increase and Fairlawn showed a 38% increase in trash. These results are, on face value, extremely strange until grouped by vehicle parking practices. Pennsylvania Avenue has very little on-street parking, and therefore, windshield survey trash counts are relatively consistent because visibility of trash is not obscured by parked vehicles. Conversely, Fairlawn Avenue, which is close to a major bus route, appears to have a lot of commuter parking, and is very difficult to survey accurately on week days due to the many parked cars. The residential streets of Q and R also had a noted reduction of parked vehicles on Saturday, allowing for better visibility and higher counts. It was noticed during the first quarter windshield survey that there were large numbers of cars parked at residences during the week days, and that the accuracy of the windshield survey was going to be lower than expected. The use of public transportation to get to work is commendable, but it does create issues with accuracy of trash counting. The absence of vehicles on a Saturday can be explained by the use of the vehicle to run errands which are not as easily done with public transportation. It is concluded that measuring the movement of trash off the street to the storm sewer during rain storms using the windshield survey method is confounded by land use and sociological factors of automobile use on week days versus week ends. It is also concluded that the windshield survey must be performed during the same part of the week in order to be consistent. As a tool to assess transport to the stream, the windshield survey would need to be modified to only count trash on impervious surfaces draining directly to the gutter. After this rainstorm, there was a noticeable, but un-quantified reduction of leaves in the street gutters. There was also a noted, but un-quantified reduction of trash in the street gutters at the bottoms of the hills but not at the top. There was not a noticeable reduction of trash on vegetated ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-179 CHAPTER 3 surfaces. Only the hard surfaces appeared to have lost trash during the rain. This suggests that for moderate rains, any mechanism that captures trash in the gutter is effective. It also suggests that a rainstorm mobilizes about 10 % of the trash that is counted during a windshield survey, and that it is from the gutters at bottom of the hills where there is sufficient depth and velocity of flow to suspend the trash and allow it to move. Figure 3.4.22 Rainfall Effects on Penn Ave – Street Trash Rainfall Effectts on Penn Ave Street Trash 350 300 250 Items 200 150 100 50 0 Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o ck 10 To ta l ck 8 ck 1 ck 6 ck 2 ck 7 ck 3 ck 4 ck 5 ck 9 Pre-rain Post-rain ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-180 Bl o CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.4.23 Trash ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-181 CHAPTER 3 Variability of Opposite Sides of the Street It was decided to investigate the variability involved with surveying one side of the street versus surveying the other side of the street. Consequently, Pennsylvania Avenue was surveyed on each side after the rainfall event. The west side has more parkland which is not cleaned up in the winter, and it has twice as much trash as the more developed east side of the street. This is a very common issue when land uses differ on the opposite sides of a street (Figure 3.4.24). Figure 3.4.24 Penn Ave Street – Trash Variability Penn Ave Street Trash Variability 450 400 350 300 Items 250 200 150 100 50 0 Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o Bl o ck 10 To ta l ck 4 ck 3 ck 1 ck 6 ck 7 ck 8 ck 5 ck 9 ck 2 Westside Eastside Weekday versus Weekend Based upon the rainfall survey results, it was decided to look at the results of trash counts from weekday observations versus weekend observations. The results were surprising. It appears that a lot of vehicles parked along the streets are not moved during the weekday and that public transportation is used. On weekends, these vehicles are used. This was the reverse of the initial assumptions, which postulated that more cars would be used during the weekday, than on the weekend. Therefore, on weekends when fewer cars are parked, more trash is visible (Figure 3.4.25). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-182 Bl o CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.4.25 Weekday vs. Weekend – Data Variability Weekday vs Weekend Data Variability 70 60 50 Items 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Blocks Thursday Saturday Based upon the streets selected, there was 60% more trash observed on a weekend. This information conflicts with the detailed transect counts which says that the windshield surveys account for 85% of the trash. A more controlled experiment needs to be conducted to understand these data. The only thing for certain is that there was definitely a lot more trash on Saturday and fewer cars. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-183 CHAPTER 3 Summary There are basins which have cleaner streets as compared to other areas (Figure 3.4.26). Figure 3.4.26 Basin Trash Basin Trash 60 50 Items/block 40 30 20 10 0 As shown in Figure 3.4.26, the upper drainage basins of the two Ft. Davis tributaries, Texas Avenue Tributary and Pope Branch have trash levels below 15 items/block. Lower Pope and Ft. Chaplin have a similar level. The streets in the Stickfoot drainage basin have exceptionally high levels of trash per block. One reason is that the terrain of the drainage basin is very steep. A significant portion of the land there is vacant, undeveloped land. Trash accumulates along the roads, and there is no occupant to pick it up. Many of the undeveloped streets are longer than normal blocks, but that fact does not solely explain the high levels of trash that persist in the area. There are some very clean parts of the neighborhood but they cannot balance out the severe levels of trash elsewhere. The basins of Nash Run, Watts Branch, East Capitol MS4, Fort Stanton, Ely, Lower Texas Avenue MS4, and Pennsylvania Avenue MS4 all have high levels of trash per block. Comparing the average level of trash on the streets with the average level of trash in the associated stream produces some interesting results but does not account for many other factors (Figure 3.4.27). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-184 M S 4 C ha F t pl D in up on t St ck f W t at ts N as h Ec ap S St tan a n to to n nM S4 Ft D Ely av M S4 Pe n N n ay Ki lo ng r m a H n ic ke y e FD -1 FD -2 Te xa s Po p Po p e CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.4.27 Stream Trash vs. Street Trash Stream Trash vs Street Trash 160 140 Items/ 100' or block 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 FD-1 FD-2 Texas Ft DuP Pope Ft Ft Watts Nash Chap Stant Stream Streets ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-185 CHAPTER 3 3.5 DATA SUMMARY Introduction The preceding sections compared data by the type of monitoring performed to collect it. The relationships between the different types of data provide some insight into the nature of the problem with trash in the streams and river. The issue still to be addressed in the future is how does the trash move from the land to the stream and what transformations occur in that process. Anacostia River and Tributaries In the main stem Anacostia River trash was surveyed from above the District line down to where it joins the Potomac River. The quantity of trash is governed by the potential of the area to trap and collect trash. Mudflats, riprap slope and tidal pools behind broken seawalls will collect large amounts of trash. Figure 3.5.1 Anacostia River – Total Trash Anacostia River-Total Trash 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NYA-MD NYA-DC Penn Ave Buzzard Pt Poplar Pt Summer Fall Winter Spring Items/100' The largest categories of trash are plastic bags, Styrofoam products, snack wrappers and bottles and cans. They compose nearly 85 percent of the items (Figure 3.5.2). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-186 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.5.2 Anacostia River – Trash Composition Anacostia River Trash Composition 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 F. W ra p Bo t& C an s P. Ba gs De br is Pa pe r O th er St y ro Percent In the tributary streams, the plastic bags dominate all other categories (Figure 3.5.3). This appears to be related to the amount of brush and vegetation that will snag the bags. Bottles and cans, Styrofoam and snack wrappers are prevalent. Paper products do not exist in the streams except in very localized areas. Figure 3.5.3 Streams – Trash Composition Streams Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Percent % &C an s P ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-187 Bo t Fd De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro CHAPTER 3 Below is an example of some paper that was counted in Watts Branch (Figure 3.5.4). It originated from the homeless drug users that frequent the area (one can also see a plastic bottle and cup sat upright by the individual and a Styrofoam plate). The other source of paper was the paper bags from beer singles. They were found usually within throwing distance of a bridge. Paper clamshells food containers were a rarity in the streams. Figure 3.5.4 Example of some paper that was counted in Watts Branch ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-188 CHAPTER 3 Plastic Bags in the streams doubled over the one year survey period. It is unclear whether this continues on a long term basis (Figure 3.5.5). Figure 3.5.5 All Streams – Plastic Bags All Streams Plastic Bags 16000 14000 12000 Number 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Plastic Bags ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-189 CHAPTER 3 The food wrappers increased over the period but it may just be seasonal (Figure 3.5.6). As was noted, the survey in the fall was halted because of the large amount of the stream that was covered with leaves and it was felt that the survey might be undercounting these types of items. Figure 3.5.6 Streams – Seasonal Streams Seasonal 8000 7000 Food Wrappers 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Fd Wrappers ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-190 CHAPTER 3 There were not many glass bottles counted. Even though the cans often sink, they can still be seen and identified. Plastic bottles float until they get enough sand and dirt inside to overcome their buoyancy (Figure 3.5.7). Figure 3.5.7 All Streams – Drink Containers All Streams Drink Containers 1200 1000 800 Total 600 400 200 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-191 Bo ttl Be es er Bo ttl es Be er So C ft an D r in s k B So ot ft tle D s r in k C W an at s er Sp Bo or tD ttl es rin k Bo ttl es Ju ic e C an Ju s ice B ot tle s Li q uo r CHAPTER 3 The Anacostia River and Kingman Lake have about the same amount of trash per visible intertidal area (Figure 3.5.8). There were several streams that had trash levels of about 20 pieces per 100 feet or less. Pope Branch is an intermediately affected stream and Ft Chaplin, Ft Stanton, Watts Branch and Nash Run are heavily impacted by trash. Figure 3.5.8 Annual Average Trash Annual AverageTrash 160 140 Items/100'or1000sf 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Trash ac os tia Ki ng m an ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-192 An Po pe Ft Ch ap Ft St an t W at ts N as h FD -2 Te xa s Ft Du P FD -1 CHAPTER 3 Landuse Survey Ten streets were surveyed. The surveyed streets represented residential, commercial, and industrial land use. The trash was dominated by paper products (Figure 3.5.9). Figure 3.5.9 Streets – Trash Composition Streets Trash Composition 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 % &C an s P ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-193 Bo t Fd De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro CHAPTER 3 Recreational areas were also surveyed. The buffer zones at soccer fields and the fishing area had a lot of trash. There was roughly the same number of glass beer bottles as beer cans (Figure 3.5.10). Buffer zones do a good job of trapping trash. The trash deteriorates the original purpose of the buffer zone which is for wildlife habitat. Figure 3.5.10 Land – Drink Containers Land Drink Containers 120 100 80 Items 60 40 20 0 Liquor Beer Bot Bot Beer Can Soft Drk Bot Soft Water Sport Juice Juice Bot Drk Cans Bot Drk Bot Can Summer Fall Winter Spring Windshield Survey A windshield survey was conducted of each stream and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) drainage basin quarterly and trash was counted per block. The windshield count achieved an 85 percent accuracy when compared to detailed transect counts on the same streets. Some basins have cleaner streets than others, but it appears that there are about 30 items per block on average (Figure 3.5.11). In general, the residential streets had less trash than commercial streets. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-194 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.5.11 Basin Trash Basin Trash 60 50 Items/block 40 30 20 10 0 Relationships Many different analyses were performed on the relationships between the amount of trash in a stream and the amount of trash on the streets (Figure 3.5.12). It is difficult to develop a simple relationship because the streams are all different lengths. The fact that many of the streams originate or end in pipes contributes to difference in lengths. The channel roughness affects whether plastic bags and food wrappers are snagged and bottles are trapped. Data was converted to trash per acre in the drainage basin and then compared to average stream trash levels but this did not provide any additional insight. “Items per block” from the windshield survey is good an “indicator” of trash levels in a stream. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-195 M S 4 C ha F t pl D in up on t St ck f W t at ts N as h Ec ap S St tan a n to to n nM S4 Ft D Ely av M S4 Pe n N n ay Ki lo ng r m a H n ic ke y e FD -1 FD -2 Te xa s Po p Po p e CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.5.12 Stream Trash vs Street Trash Stream Trash vs Street Trash 160 140 Items/ 100' or block 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 FD-1 FD-2 Texas Ft DuP Pope Ft Ft Watts Nash Chap Stant Stream Streets The types of trash from the river were compared to the types found in the streams and on the land (Figure 3.5.13). Figure 3.5.13 Trash Relationships Trash Relationships 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 River Streams Land Percent &C an s P. Ba gs F. W ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-196 Bo t De br is Pa pe r O th er ro St y ra p CHAPTER 3 The data suggests a relationship between plastic bags and snack items and drink items. This would suggest that a person purchases a drink and a snack such as chips and that the bag becomes litter, the drink container or cup becomes litter and the snack wrapper becomes litter. Paper products such as napkins and paper bags are common on the land but are seldom found in stream channels. Debris is constant. There is very little trash that does not have a relationship to eating or drinking. The ratio of bottles and cans would be more uniform but the bottles tend to be broken in the streams and there is a lot of glass fragments present. Interstate Transport The Anacostia River and Watts Branch were surveyed in Maryland. The Maryland stations had more trash than the downstream DC stations (Figure 3.5.14). The Anacostia station was a mudflat in the tidal area and on the DC side of the river the storm water inputs went through best management practices (BMPS) and had trash removed while on the Maryland side Lower Beaverdam Creek entered and delivered trash. The Maryland station on Watts Branch (WB-MD) had very high levels of trash compared to the nearby downstream stations in DC (Figure 3.5.14). The amount of debris in the Maryland segment was over 30 items per 100 feet of stream channel. Figure 3.5.14 Watts Branch – Average Annual Debris Watts Branch Average Annaul Debris 35 30 25 Items/100' 20 Debris 15 10 5 0 WB-MD WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-4 WB-5 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 3-197 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Introduction There are many Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as structural devices and management techniques available to reduce the amount of trash reaching streams and rivers. Trash can be sorted into four components for BMP evaluation purposes. There are floatables such as plastic drink bottles, foam cups and clamshells and woody debris which are about 15 percent of the trash (Figure 4.1). There are high density sinking objects such as glass bottles, and aluminum beverage cans which are about 15 percent. There is a very minor fraction of degradable objects such as paper bags and newspapers. Finally, some 70 percent of the trash that is observed in the streams is neutrally buoyant objects such as plastic bags and snack wrappers which will float under quiescent conditions while clean, but are more likely to be entrained by velocity currents. Figure 4.1 Streams – Trash Composition Streams Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro Percent % P Best management practices need to be able to remove all components of the trash. Additionally, all studies have found that at least 50 percent of captured material is going to be leaves, sticks, and twigs. Because there are TMDL related pollutants to be reduced, it is beneficial if a device or practice can not only remove trash but also the other pollutants. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-1 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 4 Stormwater Management BMPs The District of Columbia water pollution control laws require all new development and redevelopment to install BMPs to control the runoff of pollutants from the site during construction and after construction. The Watershed Protection Division of DDOE maintains design criteria and manuals for the BMPs and they are updated as new techniques become available. The program has been in place for 20 years and there are many BMPs installed throughout the District. The regulations require that the BMPs be maintained. Some of these BMPs are very effective in removing trash as can be seen in the new storm water pond serving a housing subdivision located in the East Capitol MS4 drainage basin. Figure 4.2 Stormwater pond serving a housing subdivision ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-2 CHAPTER 4 DDOT installed a stormwater management pond at the interchange serving New York Avenue and Rhode Island Avenue. It captures trash and other pollutants from the interchange. Figure 4.3 Stormwater management pond at the interchange serving New York Avenue and Rhode Island Catch Basins The DDOE, WASA and DDOT have reached consensus on a new design of a standard catch basin for road construction projects (Figure 4.4). The new design has three chambers and under normal rainfall events will remove oil and grease, floatable trash and debris as well as settleable solids. It is not designed to remove neutral buoyancy material. This type of catch basin will be installed as the roads are reconstructed, although if there are opportunities and funds available, low impact development (LID) techniques may be used. The new type is a significant improvement over the old standard design. Depending on sizing, it may remove 25 – 50 percent ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-3 CHAPTER 4 of the suspended solids as well as capturing floatables and oil and grease. A few of them should be modified to have a mesh screen across the second opening to remove neutral buoyancy materials. Figure 4.4 New catch basin standard design ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-4 CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.5 New catch basin standard design Low Impact Development The DDOE design manual is currently being revised to include more Low Impact Development (LID) techniques such as this curb cut in the Ely MS4 drainage basin (Figure 4.6). The BMPs in the manuals need to be reviewed to determine if the BMPs can be enhanced to remove even more trash. Most LID BMPS are effective at removing the Anacostia TMDL pollutants. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-5 CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.6 Curb cut in the Ely MS4 drainage basin Rain Gardens such as the one shown below (Figure 4.7) provide flow detention as well as infiltration up to design flow. Figure 4.7 Rain Garden ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-6 CHAPTER 4 Existing Inlet Grates and Screens There are a lot of inlet grate designs and they are present in many locations. For an inlet grate, the bar spacing is the most critical aspect in preventing trash from entering the storm sewer. Maintenance of the grates and screens is required to prevent clogging and flooding. The inlet grates used at Langdon Park, shown in the photo below (Figure 4.8), have about a 2 inch spacing while those at the James Creek Marina have a one inch spacing. James Creek Marina staff remove trash daily as a requirement of their concession contract with the NPS. Figure 4.8 Inlet grates used at Langdon Park ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-7 CHAPTER 4 The grates at RFK stadium have a two inch spacing and cans and bottles will pass through once they are crushed a little by vehicular traffic (Figure 4.9). These particular grates have treatment so the trash does not actually escape to Kingman Lake. The grates on the Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge have a three inch spacing. Figure 4.9 The grates at RFK stadium ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-8 CHAPTER 4 Screens over the catch basin inlet must be maintained or else they will clog and the water will create problems. The screen at the multifamily housing complex in Fort Stanton has clogged with dirt and some dirt was removed for the photograph to demonstrate the problem. Water from this clogged screen is diverted to another area of the parking lot and flows down hill creating erosion problems for the adjacent landowner. A screen with no maintenance can be worse than no screen. Figure 4.10 Catch basin screen clogged with dirt There are several types of screens that can be placed at the inlet of storm sewer catch basin. Some are static and some will open under high flow events and allow the trash to go into the catch basin. Obviously, if trash only floats down the gutter during high intensity events, then the flow activated bypass will allow most of the trash to go into the storm sewer, defeating the purpose of the screen. Fixed screens may clog and cause localized flooding. Grating size will effect the operation of the ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-9 CHAPTER 4 screens. Los Angeles found that screens were suitable in places where there was regular maintenance such as street sweeping (Figure 4.11). There are no known installations of catch basins screens in areas prone to snow and ice. The effect of snow plow operations is unknown and needs to be tested. Screens and grates installed as stand alone BMPS are not effective at removing the Anacostia TMDL pollutants. Figure 4.11 Screen grating in Los Angeles No Mow Buffer Zones No Mow buffer zones are effective for catching and retaining trash. The picture demonstrates the amount and types of captured trash (Figure 4.12). Some of the highest land use counts in this study were the no mow buffer zones near heavily used recreational fields. Wild and natural vegetation barriers prevent trash from getting to the streams. This was encountered repeatedly during the windshield counts that large amounts of trash accumulate at the edge of the mowing zone on streets such as Pennsylvania Avenue. The Fort Davis tributaries have very low trash counts while being in very close proximity to high use roads, because the streams have vegetative buffers. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-10 CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.12 No mow zone Education There are a large number of education programs that touch on littering as stewardship of the environment. Programs are operated by the Alice Ferguson Foundation and the Anacostia Watershed Society. DC government agencies have numerous education programs and brochures. The photo shows a DDOE Don’t Dump sticker at the James Creek Marina grate (Figure 4.13). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-11 CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.13 DDOE Don’t Dump sticker at the James Creek Marina grate Booms Booms have been used on the Anacostia River for decades. They are only effective once the trash has actually reached the river and are only effective for buoyant objects. They need a mechanism for removing the trash such as by skimmer boat, which in this case WASA performs the required removal. They do not prevent the other Anacostia TMDL pollutants ftom reaching the river. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-12 CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.14 Trash Boom Catch Basin Inserts There are many varieties of inserts available ranging from socks, boxes, screens and trays. Some inserts are made from absorbent material and will remove oil and similar pollutants. Montgomery County has investigated catch basin inserts and found them to be very high maintenance (Figure 4.15). They tend to clog easily and begin to bypass trash. This was also found to be the case in California. The picture is of the White Oak Mall, Md. test insert. Most inserts have a small volume and will fill quickly requiring frequent maintenance. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-13 CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.15 Catch basin inset Bay Saver A Baysaver is a multi chambered stormwater treatment device that functions as a hydrodynamic particle separator and has been used extensively in the District and the Anacostia basin (Figure 4.16). The device has been tested and certified by New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology and will meet the state requirements for suspended solids removal. There are no known tests of trash removal. The manufacturer does not claim it will remove neutral buoyancy items. It has an advantage that during flows over design criteria, the bypass does not scour the material out of the second chamber, although trash may be lost from the first chamber. The device can be used either inline or at end of pipe. Because it will remove oil and grease and particulate matter it is applicable to the needs of removing other TMDL pollutants. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-14 CHAPTER 4 A Bay Saver unit has been selected to be used for treatment of the stormwater at Hickey Run in the National Arboretum The principle components to be removed are trash and oil and grease. In order to remove the trash component a separate device will be installed ahead of the Baysaver. Figure 4.16 Baysaver Continuous Deflection Separation Technology The Continuous Deflection Separation Technology (CDS) units are a proprietary device for removing suspended and floating material (Figure 4.17). The solids and material are hydrodynamically separated from the water by the swirl action as well as a screen. The ability to capture entrained neutrally buoyant material such as plastic bags and snack wrapper is an important consideration. Two CDS units were tested by the California Department of Transportation over a two year period and were found to remove about 85-92 percent of the gross solids (trash). The manufacturer’s claims for suspended solids removal have been verified by New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology. The device is suitable for end of pipe treatment of large flows. A problem has been observed by DDOE that when flows exceed design criteria, the previously captured material may be released with the bypass. Because it will ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-15 CHAPTER 4 remove oil and grease and particulate matter it is applicable to the needs of removing other TMDL pollutants. Figure 4.17 Continuous Deflection Separation Technology ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-16 CHAPTER 4 Trash Nets WASA is currently using a Fresh Creek Trash net at CSO outfall #18. The device was monitored by MWCOG and they concluded it had a capture efficiency of 83 %. The nets will capture floating sink and neutral buoyancy trash. However they are not effective for removing other TMDL pollutants and they require vehicular access to the site for maintenance. They can also be installed inside storm sewers. Mechanically Cleaned Bar Screens Prince Georges County has installed mechanically cleaned bar screens at two storm water pump stations for removing trash. Mechanical clean screens require a significant amount of site work for installation. They must be maintained regularly. Static Screens California Department of Transportation evaluated two types of static screens, (linear radial and inclined) for trash removal and they were both in excess of 95% efficient. Linear radial gross solids removal devices such as the ones manufactured by Roscoe Moss Company (Figure 4.18) have been used in California for trash removal and are a certified full capture device. They accumulate trash inside the drum for a period and are cleaned using a vacuum truck. Figure 4.18 Linear Radial, Gross Solids Removal Screens ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-17 CHAPTER 4 Inclined screens are installed in vaults and are sized to store the solids remove inside the vault. Solids removal is by vacuum truck. These devices are not effective for removal of other Anacostia TMDL pollutants. BMPs Costs The costs of Best Management Practices (BMPs) were investigated in the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan for the parameters of concern. The installation costs per acre as well as the maintenance costs were developed. Present worth was calculated as well as the cost per pound of pollutant removed as shown in Table 4.1. The Anacostia TMDL pollutant that is most prevalent is Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Table 4.1 Cost Benefit Analysis of BMPs for Removal of Total Suspended Solids in the Anacostia River Watersheds Cost Benefit Analysis of BMPs for Removal of Total Suspended Solids in the Anacostia River Watershed Present Worth per Impervious Acre $279 $2,139 $10,397 $9,527 $9,722 $13,353 $13,494 $12,203 $16,356 $10,464 $29,972 Present Value ($) per Pound Removed $0.12 $0.62 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $4 $12 BMP Catch Basin Cleaning Vacuum Sweepers - 1/month Bay Saver Aqua Swirl Vortex Sentry Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) Downstream Defender Environment 21 Stormceptor Grass Swales, Grass Strips, Grass Corners Extended Detention Shallow Wetland Stormwater Wetlands Useful Life (yrs) 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 %Removal 61 93 88 80 80 90 85 70 91 77 69 The street sweeping and catch basin cleaning are very low cost and very effective methods. It should be noted that the cost for vacuum sweepers is based upon once per month sweeping. Using the end of pipe structures is more expensive. Constructing LID facilities such as extended detention wetlands is the most expensive. The present worth of the curb screens is about $800 per impervious acre using the same factors as used in the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 4-18 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 EXISTING PROGRAMS Introduction Litter and trash has been a problem for centuries and there are many programs that have evolved over that time and have an impact of on the amount of trash. These include land based programs as well as water based programs. Because most of the trash that reaches the river comes through the storms drains, the programs that prevent it from reaching the storm drain inlets or capture it at the storm drain are critical. Capturing it once it is in the water should be a last resort. MS4 TMDL Implementation Plan The MS4 permit issued by EPA required the development of the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan. This plan was submitted by the District to EPA and was approved. It is now a legally enforceable component of the permit. A summary table from the document lists the activities being performed to reach the allocations for each TMDL pollutant. Table 5.1 Summary table of the activities being performed to reach the allocation for each TMDL pollutant Standard Structural Device Street and Catch Basin Cleaning Pollutant Fecal Coliform Bacteria BOD Nitrogen Phosphorus TSS Oil/Grease Zinc Lead Copper Arsenic PAH1 PAH2 PAH3 Chlordane Source Control Public Outreach Inspection and Enforcement x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-1 CHAPTER 5 Pollutant Heptachlor Epoxide Dieldrin DDD DDE DDT Total PCB Source Control Public Outreach Standard Structural Device Street and Catch Basin Cleaning Inspection and Enforcement x x x x x x x x x x The current activities submitted to EPA list the following: In FY 2007 – FY 2008, DDOT plans to install LID facilities to capture runoff from the bridge and adjacent roadway at Watts Branch Crossing (49th Street, Division Avenue, 55th Street, and61st Street). This project is tied to the related bridge construction. In FY 2009, DDOT plans to install: • A vegetated swale at the intersection of Texas Avenue, SE, and Ridge Road, SE (working with DDOE) • A vegetated swale at the intersection of Ridge Road, SE, and Burns Street, SE (working with DDOE) • A combination of various LID techniques along the 1.5 miles roadway of Nannie Helen Burroughs. DDOT recently initiated construction of the Watts Branch Bicycle Trail. A portion of the project will remove paved surfaces and install BMPs. Total cost of the construction is $3.1 million. Under a separate contract, DDOE is providing for stream bank restoration. The Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan states: During FY 2008, the existing sweeping schedule throughout the District will be evaluated and adjustments will be made as possible to improve removal of pollutants of concern from the Anacostia MS4. These adjustments will be made within the constraints of current budget, manpower levels, and service requirements of the citizens. The District has a 10-year street sweeping equipment replacement schedule and budget. The current replacement budget funds the purchase of additional mechanical sweepers. The FY 2008 budget includes an additional $490,000 from the Enterprise Fund to fund the difference in the purchase price between mechanical sweepers and the more efficient vacuum assisted or regenerative air sweepers, and $60,000 for any additional O&M costs associated with operating the newly purchased sweepers. To continue funding the difference in purchase price of high efficiency sweepers, the projected FY 2009 budget is $290,000. The $60,000 additional O&M is also budgeted for FY 2009. Operation of these sweepers will be focused on the Anacostia MS4. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-2 CHAPTER 5 As part of the street sweeping route and schedule evaluation, additional sweeping may be recommended in the Anacostia MS4 area to optimize the reduction of pollutants of concern based on the cost benefit analysis. This analysis will be completed by the end of FY 2007, and any additional sweeping will be implemented in FY 2008 or later depending on the results of the analysis. In FY 2008 and FY 2009, an additional $90,000 has been earmarked for the cost of implementing the recommendations of the sweeping analysis. The need and amount of funding will be dependent upon the results of the sweeping analysis and the cost benefit comparison of additional sweeping versus other stormwater pollutant reduction activities. The Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan will be effective for trash removal and the Anacostia Trash TMDL will be completed by 2010. Once the TMDL is complete the waste load allocation to the MS4 system will become an enforceable provision of the permit. Trash Collection At individual residences trash is collected once a week using supercans. Recyclable material is also collected in wheeled containers with lids. This is a highly effective means of controlling trash. Trash collection at businesses and multifamily dwelling is done by private contractors. Trash dumpsters can be a localized source of trash depending upon the maintenance staff and whether they regularly clean the area. DPW has installed trash cans at many locations where there are large amounts of litter. There were trash cans observed along the park side of the Texas Avenue stream and Ft Chaplin stream and there were large quantities of dumped trash within 10 feet of the can. Street and Highway Trash Removal The DPW sweeps the streets and use crews to perform manual litter pickup along the highways and streets. The National Park Service also performs manual trash pickup along the roads that are under their responsibility. The District sweeps nearly 4,000 "lane miles" of city streets every month. DPW uses tractorsized street sweeping machines to clean those residential streets that receive a high volume of pedestrian traffic and litter or are near neighborhood commercial streets. Since these are residential, not commercial streets, the residents must agree to move their cars from the curbside during posted sweeping hours, or risk ticketing and towing. Mechanical street sweeping is a weekly service in heavily trafficked residential sections of Wards 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In other residential areas, unscheduled cleaning takes place on an "as needed" basis—generally monthly or quarterly. Street and Alley Cleaning crews also respond to individual requests for one-time street cleaning. Commercial areas' cleaning cycles range from daily to weekly. Street-sweepers operate by spreading a thin layer of water under their rotating brushes before sweeping debris into a large hopper under the machine. To prevent potentially icy conditions, ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-3 CHAPTER 5 street cleaning is temporarily suspended each winter, when temperatures traditionally drop below freezing. Parking restrictions related to street sweeping are lifted during the suspension. According to DPW, each mile swept mechanically removes 10 pounds of grease and oil; three pounds of nitrates and phosphates; and, one to two pounds of heavy metals. According to the Federal Highway Administration publication Stormwater Best Management Practices in Ultra-Urban Setting: Selection and Monitoring: The effectiveness of streetsweeping programs depends on several factors, including: Type and operation of equipment used: Vacuum-assisted and regenerative air sweepers are generally more efficient than mechanical sweepers at removing finer sediments, which often bind a higher proportion of heavy metals (Table 18). The performance of sweepers can be enhanced by operating them at optimal speeds (6 to 8 mi/h), ensuring that brushes are properly adjusted, and ensuring that appropriate rotation rates and sweeping patterns are used. Tests conducted on the newer vacuum-assisted dry sweepers have shown they have significantly enhanced capabilities to remove sediment compared to conventional sweepers, with projected reductions of up to 79 percent in total suspended solids loadings from urban streets. In addition, these sweepers are extremely effective at removing respirable (PM-10) particulate matter (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns) compared to conventional sweepers (Table 19) and are designed to help meet National Ambient Air Quality standards. Table 18 Efficiencies of mechanical (broom) and vacuum-assisted sweepers Efficiencies of mechanical (broom) and vacuum-assisted sweepers Constituent Total Solids Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen COD BOD Lead Zinc Mechanical sweeper efficiency (%) 55 40 42 31 43 35 47 Vacuum-assisted sweeper efficiency (%) 93 74 77 63 77 76 85 Source: NVPDC (1992), as cited in Young et al. (1996). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-4 CHAPTER 5 Table 19 PM – 10 Particulate removal efficiencies for various sweepers PM-10 Particulate removal efficiencies for various sweepers Sweeper type Mechanical - Model 1 Mechanical - Model 2 Regenerative Air Vacuum-assisted wet - Model 1 Vacuum-assisted wet - Model 2 Vacuum-assisted dry Removal Efficiency (%) -6.7 8.6 31.4 40.0 82.0 99.6 Sweeping frequency and number of passes: To achieve a 30 percent removal of street dirt, the sweeping interval should be less than two times the average interval between storms. To achieve 50 percent removal, sweeping must occur at least at least once between storms. Generally two passes per run should be conducted, which will result in the removal of up to 75 percent of total solids present before sweeping. Certain conditions may warrant increased sweeping frequencies. These include streets with high traffic volumes in industrial areas and streets with high litter or erosion zones. In addition, the sweeping frequency should be increased just before the wet season to remove sediments accumulated during the summer. Climate: Sweeping appears most effective in areas with distinct wet and dry seasons. Factors that limit the overall effectiveness of street sweeping programs include: • • • Presence of parked cars and traffic congestion during sweeping. Poor road surface and curb conditions. Presence of construction projects nearby. Vacuum assisted sweepers are extremely efficient for the TMDL parameters in the Anacostia Basin. A map of the areas that are swept in Anacostia is shown below (Figure 5.1). The green and blue streets are swept weekly during the sweeping season and cars must be moved out of the way. The pink streets are swept on an unscheduled basis and cars do not have to be moved. As can be seen there are very few streets in t he study area that receive weekly cleaning. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-5 CHAPTER 5 Figure 5.1 Map of the areas that are swept in the Anacostia DPW is moving to sweeper mounted cameras to take pictures of illegally parked so that parking enforcement tickets can be mailed to the owners. This will be much like the red light cameras ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-6 CHAPTER 5 and speeding cameras. It will increase compliance with vehicle removal and will therefore increase the amount of trash removed from the streets. Catch basin cleanout WASA is required by the MS4 permit to cleanout every storm sewer catch basin annually. Once a catch basin has filled up it loses its ability to trap pollutants and trash. A special study was supposed to be performed to investigate whether enhanced cleaning would improve performance, but funding was not available. WASA CSO Longterm Control Plan WASA has been running skimmer boats on the Anacostia River as a part of the Nine Minimum Controls (Figure 5.3). They remove approximately 400 tons of trash per year. During FY03 and FY04, the CSO inflatable dams were removed for repairs. The amount of trash captured in the river increased significantly while the inflatable dams were out of service (Figure 5.2). This indicates that the inflatable dams are effective in preventing trash from reaching the river. The trash captured by the skimmer boats is only the component that floats. Figure 5.2 WASA Floatables Program WASA Floatables Program 1200 1000 800 Tons 600 400 200 0 FY 94 FY 96 FY FY FY FY FY 06 02 98 00 04 Trash ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-7 CHAPTER 5 Figure 5.3 Skimmer Boat There are a set of booms at the railroad bridge and the skimmer boats remove the trash captured by the booms (Figure 5.4). The booms help keep trash from the marina and from the DDOE boat launching ramp. Figure 5.4 shows the booms and the sand bar from the outfall of Pope Branch. The density of trash on the sand bar is very high. Figure 5.4 Trash boom ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-8 CHAPTER 5 WASA also has a Fresh Creek netting system on the Anacostia River at CSO outfall #018 that removes about 400 – 1,000 pounds of trash and leaves per rain event. This system was estimated by MWCOG to be about 83 % efficient in capturing floatable trash. Figure 5.5 WASA Fresh Creek netting system WASA is not satisfied with the netting system because of their difficulty in maintaining it. Staff and equipment resources are high. They prefer to have facilities that use existing techniques such as vacuum trucks. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-9 CHAPTER 5 Department of Transportation The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) replaces existing catch basins with “water quality” catch basins during road reconstruction projects. These catch basins are much more effective at removing trash and other pollutants in the storm water runoff. A reconstruction project is when a road is completely rebuilt from the base up. Catch basins are not replaced when curbs and gutters are replaced nor when a simple repaving is done. In the Anacostia Basin, DDOT operates two storm water pump stations. The DDOT is also responsible for the design specifications of the grates on bridges over the rivers. Obviously, the grate spacing is an important determinant in the amount and size of trash that is discharged from the bridge to the river. Figure 5.6 is one of the East Capitol Street Bridge downspouts and one of the channels that takes the stormwater and trash to the Anacostia River without treatment. Figure 5.6 East Capitol Street Bridge downspouts ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-10 CHAPTER 5 Parks Both the US National Park Service and the DC Department of Parks and Recreation use summer workers to manually pickup trash in the parks. This is performed only in the mowed areas. Trash is not routinely removed from the no-mow buffer zones and is not removed from streams. There does not appear to be any attempt to enter the wooded areas of the parks and clean up debris and trash. Figure 5.7 is a buffer zone along Watts Branch in Kenilworth Park. It shows that the mowed area is clean; but, there is a tremendous quantity of trash in the buffer zone. Figure 5.7 Buffer Zone Along Watts Branch in Kenilworth Park District of Columbia Housing Authority The District of Columbia Housing Authority operates a number of housing complexes in the drainage basins. They are shown in Figure 5.8. The maintenance staff are responsible for maintaining the exterior and usually do a very good job of keeping the trash cleaned up. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-11 CHAPTER 5 Figure 5.8 Location of public housing in the District of Columbia District Inspection Activities There are five District agencies which perform inspections and enforce litter laws and six agencies if Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is counted. Department of Public Works – litter enforcement There are about three inspectors per ward who enforce dumping, litter and trash laws. Each inspector has an assigned area which is covered on a monthly basis as well as responding to complaints in the area. The civil infraction ticket process is used and numerous of tickets are written. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-12 CHAPTER 5 Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs - Housing Inspections All property owners are responsible for their frontage and grounds. The multifamily dwellings have maintenance staff who are responsible for cleaning up the side walk and street in front of the building. The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs inspects these units and the relevant items on the inspection sheet are: • • • Cleanliness: All walks must be free of dirt, garbage, litter, rats, mice, and insects. The grass must be cut. Trash: Waterproof plastic or metal covered trash cans must be provided. Grounds and walks must be free of junk, trash, and litter. Walkways: Walkways must be free of obstructions and trash. Holes in the sidewalk are not permitted. About 10% of the violations and enforcement actions reported by DCRA involved trash and/or weeds. Department of Transportation – Public Space Permits The DDOT public space permits have the following condition: 3. Improper housekeeping violations on job sites relating to dirt and debris in the public space shall be grounds for a fine of $500.00 per block/per day and/or revocation of this permit. Department of Health - Food Establishments Inspections The Department of Health inspects food establishments and checks for improper trash disposal. They also inspect for rodent infestation which is often associated with improper trash disposal. DCRA & DDOE - Construction Sites Inspections DCRA and DDOE and DDOT inspect construction sites. The larger construction sites will often use chain link fences. These fences catch a lot of trash on the street side. Clean City Coordinator - Citywide Cleanliness Assessment According to the Clean City Coordinator Website: Every three months cleanliness assessment teams survey the corridors/interstate highways, highvisibility communities, residential streets and alleys, and industrial areas within each of the city's eight wards, and rate the cleanliness level of each area. The 16 National Highway System major routes are surveyed once a month. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-13 CHAPTER 5 Site Surveys are conducted by Rating Teams of six people and cover four Rating Zones. Surveys require a maximum of six hours and rate the cleanliness of the area (1 - Clean, 2 - Moderate, 3 Dirty, 4 - Hazardous). Responses are recorded on PDAs with the Cleanliness Computer Application Program installed for easy processing (training provided). Once all of the data is collected, the information is reviewed and analyzed by the Senior Program Manager, who compiles a summary and prepares the charts for mapping. One of the summary vehicles is a series of maps depicting the cleanliness levels of each of the city's eight wards. The clean city summary ratings and a detailed report on the findings are provided to the City Administrator, Department of Public Works, Department of Transportation, DC Council, and the Office of Neighborhood Services for their information and use. The District utilizes this information to allocate resources where they are most needed. The last available survey is shown below. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-14 CHAPTER 5 Figure 5.9 District of Columbia, Clean City Initiative August 2006 survey ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-15 CHAPTER 5 Nonprofit Organizations The analysis of the monitoring data demonstrates that the nonprofit organizations are having a significant impact on the levels of trash in some streams and areas. The Earth Day clean up by AWS and AFF reduced trash levels dramatically in the areas of the cleanup. Organizations and community groups such as Washington Parks and People, and the volunteers at the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens have localized beneficial affects. Both DPW and DDOE will provide support to community and stream cleanups. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 5-16 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Introduction The purpose of the implementation strategy is to lay out a plan that when implemented will make significant and measurable progress in achieving a trash free Anacostia River within five years. The results should be measureable in terms of less trash. The strategy set forth in this chapter will not only meet those objectives but exceed them. Legislative Solutions The executive branch of DC government should work with the legislative branch to produce three pieces of legislation which will reduce trash not only in the Anacostia Basin, but also in Rock Creek and the Potomac River. If legislation is not enacted, then the entire burden of the trash reduction will fall upon the shoulders of the rate payers. Rates for stormwater control contained in the water bill will escalate. The legislative agenda should deal with 1) plastic bags, 2) foam cups, clamshells and plates, and 3) beverage bottles and cans. A shown in the following figures, this will result in a 57 % reduction of trash in the Anacostia River and a 66% reduction in the tributaries (Figure 6.1-2). Figure 6.1 Anacostia River Trash Composition Anacostia River Trash Composition 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0 F. W ra p Bo t& Ca ns P. Ba gs De br is Pa pe r O th er St y ro Percent ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-1 CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.2 Streams Trash Composition Streams Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro Percent % P Plastic Bags The most significant reductions can occur from political action. The single largest component of the trash in the streams, and most likely in the river, is plastic bags. Legislation requiring convenience store, grocery and food items bags to be biodegradable or to eliminate the use of any kind of “free” bag will effectively remove 47% of the trash from the tributaries and 21 % from the main stem. It is believed that the main stem number may be much greater than the data shows due to the selection of the monitoring stations which bias the data to be low. A larger number of mudflat stations would most likely have produced a higher percentage of plastic bags. Alternatives to plastic bags are readily available and the data collected during this survey demonstrates that the alternatives are not a major source of trash. Paper bags such as those currently used by McDonalds and Wendy’s do not persist in the hydraulic transport from the street and through the storms sewers to the streams. Two of the streams survey transects, Watts and Ft. Stanton, are in very close proximity to these types of establishments. The McDonald’s on Watts Branch is literally on the shoreline and the only instances of their paper bags being in the stream was in the vicinity of the footbridge where it appeared that pedestrians discarded the bags right into the stream. There was a notable absence of the bags downstream from the restaurant, indicating that they disintegrate before being transported any appreciable distance. Tests were conducted on paper bags which showed that disintegration begins immediately upon getting wet. Within a short time, the paper simply ceases to exist as anything other than small pieces. The survey initially was designed to count the different types of plastic bags but it was ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-2 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 6 simply not feasible due to the abraded nature of the bags. While no quantitative data was compiled it is a safe estimate that less than five percent of the bags were yard and leaf bags. The major grocery stores allow customers to bring their own reusable bags and sell reusable bags. Giant will deduct $0.05 from the bill for each reusable bag the customer supplies. It should be remembered that trying to remove plastic bags with treatment devices such as grates and screens is gong to be very high maintenance due to the fact that just a few bags can quickly clog the openings, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the device and causing bypasses. This will be a long term financial burden on the rate payers. Each “free” plastic bag that becomes litter costs somebody else money to clean it up (Figure 6.3). Figure 6.3 All streams – Plastic bags All Streams Plastic Bags 16000 14000 12000 Number 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Summer Fall Winter Spring Plastic Bags Legislation to reduce the number of plastic bags could be in several different forms. One option would be to require an added cost to the consumer for each plastic bag. The other extreme is a prohibition of using plastic bags for carryout food items. Consideration could be given to legislation that establishes a sliding increased cost to the consumer and then a total prohibition. A structure such as a five cent cost for each plastic bag for the first two years then ten cents for each bag for two years and then twenty-five cents for each bag for one year and at the end of the five years a total ban on plastic bags for carryout food could be used. The recommended monitoring plan in Chapter 8 can be used to assess the effectiveness of the legislation over the five years. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-3 CHAPTER 6 Styrofoam – Expanded Polystyrene Foam The category of ‘Styrofoam’ is defined as items made from expanded polystyrene foam (EPF), and it contains cups, plates, takeout food packaging such as clamshells, and various broken pieces of foam. This category is about 11% of the trash found in the river and 5% of the trash found in the streams. About three fourths of the foam items are cups. It should be noted that the survey did not differentiate between plastic clamshells and foam clamshells. There is a portion of the take out food containers that are not EPF but it is probably only a quarter of the category. There are effective alternatives to EPF containers available and in use. Starbucks Coffee now uses paper cups and insulators. McDonald’s and Wendy’s use corrugated paper clamshells. One note is that their French Fries container is a semi-durable plastic coated paper, and it persists longer than uncoated paper but does degrade, from the forces acting on it in a stream environment. Paper cups were very seldom found in the stream. Switching to plastic cups will not remove much trash from the streams. The switch must be to a biodegradable cup. In California, there has been legislation enacted in various forms to reduce the amount of expanded polystyrene foam containers. The cities of Malibu, Laguna Hills, Berkeley, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Woods, Huntington Beach, San Clemente, Laguna Beach, Santa Margarita Water District and the county of Ventura all have some type of legislation or ordinance restricting the use of foam containers. Oakland enacted a special litter tax on fast food and convenience stores near schools to fund litter cleanup. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-4 CHAPTER 6 Beverage Bottles and Cans Beverage bottles and cans comprise a quarter of the trash in the Anacostia River and 14 percent in the tributaries (Figure 6.4). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of pieces of broken glass in the streams. Figure 6.4 All streams – Drink Containers All Streams Drink Containers 1200 1000 800 Total 600 400 200 0 Bo ttl Be es er Bo ttl es Be er So Ca ft Dr ns in k B So ot ft tle Dr s in k C W an at s er Sp Bo or tD ttl es rin k Bo ttl es Ju ic e C an Ju s ice Bo tt l es Summer Fall Winter Spring The survey counted pieces of broken glass in the streams. It is clear that discarded glass bottles wind up broken. Therefore, the count of liquor bottles and beer bottles is low while the amount of broken glass in the streams is high. Removal of the source of glass bottles will assist in achieving streams that are safe for recreational activities such as wading, as well as in reducing the trash. When bottles were worth money, people scavenged them from the roadways so that they could redeem the cash value (Figure 6.5). Sometimes it is the old and tried and proven ideas that work the best. There are currently eleven states with some form of Bottle Bill enacted. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-5 Li q uo r CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.5 Return for deposit Coca Cola A “bottle bill” will remove about 25 percent of the total trash from the streams and rivers. People who need a few dollars, or groups like the Boy Scouts who wish to raise funds, will comb the road sides and bushes to collect these redeemable bottles for a monetary refund, just like people used to do 50 years ago. Snack Wrappers The estimates are that nearly 20% of the population is at risk from type 2 diabetes. Linked to this are high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, high cholesterol, and gum disease. Controlling type 2 diabetes involves proper nutrition. The types of trash that are found on the land and in the streams indicate that the local health departments have lost the battle with the TV advertising of candy and chips and soda and beer. High sugar, high salt, high carbohydrate food packaging are the predominate source of trash and they are detrimental to long term health when consumed in disproportionate quantities. The data show that the 70% of the trash at schools is ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-6 CHAPTER 6 snack wrappers. This is where the hearts and minds and bodies are lost. The District of Columbia Public Schools system (DCPS) needs to remove these materials from the schools. Schools should be a place to learn important skills for life such as how dietary choices affects one’s health. The Department of Health and DCPS need to deal with the children’s health, and in so doing, will improve the quality of the environment. The schools need to ensure that the children have food and snacks that are beneficial. The price to the taxpayer of later life health issues for people who suffer from these ailments is not estimated here, but clearly the number is enormous. Figure 6.6 Schools Trash Composition Schools Trash Composition 80 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 &C an s De br is Pa pe r W ra p O th er Ba gs St y ro % P Consideration should be given to a special tax on individual snack items that have non biodegradable wrappers. The tax should be allocated to the MS4 revenue account for use in removing trash. Total Legislative Package A total legislative package that deals with plastic bags, EPF and drink bottles and cans has the ability to remove collectively 21%, 11%, and 25% of the items from the River. This is 57 % of the total Anacostia River trash. In the tributaries, the removal would be 47 %, 5 %, and 14% for a total removal of 66%. This is at no cost to the rate payers. Removing this material through other means will require capital expenditures and ongoing operation and maintenance costs to be ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-7 Bo t Fd CHAPTER 6 paid for by the rate payers. Preliminary estimates are that it will cost DC rate payers an ADDITIONAL $32,400,000 to clean up other people’s poor disposal habits in the Anacostia basin alone. If the citizens in the other parts of the District wish to have cleaner streets, neighborhoods and streams, then additional costs will be incurred. These costs will be on top of the millions already being spent. Because a TMDL for trash is being created, which will be accompanied by a regulatory requirement in the EPA-issued stormwater permit that contains severe monetary penalties for non-compliance, there is no way to avoid the additional costs. Penalties under the Federal Clean Water Act can be up to $32,500 per day per violation. A violation would occur with each rainfall event and it rains about 100 days per year in DC. A year of non-compliance would cost $32,500,000, which will cost the same as compliance. The benefits of having clean neighborhoods are not weighed in this report which details how to achieve clean streams; but, it is believed that people would like to live in clean neighborhoods. New Programs There is only one new program recommended; a stream maintenance program. Stream Maintenance Program • At one time there was a stream a maintenance program whose function was to remove log jams and blockages. Many of the existing steam structures are in very poor shape, and the entrances to pipes are clogged because there is no agency responsible for maintaining them. This effort involves removing debris from streams, cutting up fallen trees and removing debris dams from inlet structures. The program was housed in the Department of Public Works when it existed. Enhancements to Existing Programs There are a lot of very good programs that are already working well to remove trash and some of them could remove even more trash with enhancements. MS4 Permit Enhancements The District submitted a permit enhancement to the Environmental Protection Agency, and EPA has administratively amended the permit to include the new activities. Many of these will reduce stormwater runoff peak flow, which will subsequently reduce the washing of trash into the storm sewers. These enhancements are listed in the Tables 6.1 and 6.2. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-8 CHAPTER 6 Table 6.1 MS4 Permit Enhancements ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-9 CHAPTER 6 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-10 CHAPTER 6 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-11 CHAPTER 6 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-12 CHAPTER 6 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-13 CHAPTER 6 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-14 CHAPTER 6 DC Department of Public Works Street Sweeping and Cleaning The collected data show there are clean streets and dirty streets. Street sweeping is very effective in removing the TMDL pollutants as well as trash. At this time it is not known what the exact quantitative impact of street sweeping and street cleaning is on the levels of trash in the streams. As can be seen in the photo (Figure 6.7), it is clear that the exact area of the street that these two activities target is the area where street trash gets transported to the storm sewer via stormwater. Figure 6.7 Areas Targeted by Street Sweepers and Street Cleaning ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-15 CHAPTER 6 The street sweeping and cleaning program should be expanded to include more streets, more often. Very little of the Anacostia Basin is swept on a weekly basis. High efficiency sweepers should be purchased as planned to achieve the maximum benefit of removing not just trash but also the other TMDL pollutants. A team (perhaps from the Clean City Coordinators Office) should perform windshield surveys on a quarterly basis exactly as was done in this study, and problem streets should be cleaned. The teams should code the problems streets according to what type of cleaning is needed. Some streets can simply be swept, some need a combination of a street crew and a sweeper, and some will need just a manual trash pickup. This survey team should be trained and capable of enforcing solid waste laws. Private trash dumpsters with excessive spillage should be addressed. DC Water And Sewer Authority (WASA) There are two studies that need to be performed by WASA to determine if additional trash reductions can be achieved. 1. CSO Trash from the combined sewer overflow (CSO) will be greatly reduced by the end of 2008 from the pump station upgrades. It is believed that the 40 % reduction in overflows that will be achieved will reduce the trash discharge at least that amount, and likely by a larger percentage. The CSO area that serves the Historic Anacostia area, and which discharges through outfalls 005, 006 and 007, should be ‘greened’ with curb cuts and other LID BMPs that will exclude trash. This should be accompanied by enhanced street sweeping. Outfall 006 will have the combined sewer system separated, and the discharge of combined sewage into the Anacostia River will be eliminated by 2010. The stormwater from the 006 drainage area will have water quality inlets installed by WASA as shown in the Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Location of Water Quality Catch Basins Water Quality Catch Basin 3 5 6 14 Location Between MLK and Good Hope Road Between MLK and U Street Between MLK and V Street Total ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-16 CHAPTER 6 The remaining inlets will need to be screened and swept regularly. The remaining CSOs will be connected to the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) tunnel system by 2018. The storage being provided by the current configuration of the tunnels system is expected to accomplish the overflow reduction scheduled for 2025 by 2018. In the interim, it is recommended that WASA investigate the quantity of trash being discharged. New York City uses floating skirted booms around the outfalls and skimmer boats to clean up the trash after rainfall events and WASA could adopt the same type of program. The booms might need to be removed during January and February when the river will sometimes freeze over. 2. Catch Basin Cleaning The current schedule is to clean all catch basin once a year. WASA should commission a study to determine whether some catch basins fill up more quickly and clean those out more frequently. Education One of the largest components of the trash is the food wrappers such as potato chip and candy bar bags. They are constant at 25 percent of the total trash in both the streams and rivers. These are made out of plastic. They do not degrade. They are a very poor nutritional choice and have little value for the money. Given the prevalence of diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity, one begins to understand a connection between the bottles and cans, cups, and snack wrappers. Trash is a health related issue. Poor dietary habits and poor citizenship seem to be related. The Department of Health and the DC Public Schools need to develop a coordinated educational program. The education of the fishing community needs to be made a priority. The fishing area surveyed was one of the worst of all of the areas, and it was right on the bank such that trash could easily get into the river. Similarly, the athletic community needs to be educated by DC Parks and Recreation. The soccer field at Kenilworth has a lot of beer bottles in the buffer zone. Clean City Coordinator The city should build upon its existing Adopt-a-Block and Adopt-a-Storm Drain programs run through the Clean City Coordinator, and should encourage community groups and non-profits to undertake trash reduction activities by offering them both supplies and monetary grants. One of the Adopt-a-Block groups is the Ambassador Baptist Church at the intersection of Good Hope Road and Minnesota, and they were observed on several occasions cleaning up the sidewalk and street. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-17 CHAPTER 6 The Cleanliness Surveys should be modified to be more quantitative, as recommended earlier in the Street Sweeping section. Actual counts of trash per block should be made and recorded. This could be a very useful tool in targeting street cleaning, and preventing litter from reaching the streams. Litter Enforcement District law requires property owners to sweep or keep clean the area in front of their homes or businesses, from the curb line out 18 inches into the roadway. There were some beautiful neighborhoods surveyed, but it was observed that one unkempt house will degrade a whole block. There is enough work in the Anacostia drainage basin to keep all the enforcement staff busy full time. The citizens of the Skyline Terrace area complained bitterly to the survey team about the lack of enforcement by Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The citizens would write down the tag numbers of Maryland license plates that dumped bags of garbage in their neighborhood and would get no response from MPD. The Clean City Coordinator should bring together the management of the Departments of Transportation (DDOT), Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), Environment (DDOE), Health (DOH) and Public Works (DPW) to work together to develop common guidelines and standards for enforcing litter and trash. The principal agencies should meet and agree to a “standard” for their inspectors. Such a standard might be 10 pieces of trash per 1000 square feet or 100 lineal feet. Agreement should be reached on enforcement actions to be taken once the standard is violated. Uniformity is not the desired goal. Less trash is what is desired. There should be a discussion of any areas of any types of facilities where there is not sufficient enforcement. Gaps in enforcement should be eliminated. Each of the high trash streets in Chapter 6 should be checked, and a determination of appropriate action made. Once the Cleanliness Surveys become quantitative they can be used to target enforcement inspections. District Department of the Environment (DDOE) The erosion control and stormwater regulations should require that all Best Management Practices (BMPs) have trash and litter control included. The design manual is currently being revised to include more Low Impact Development techniques. The BMPs in the manuals need to be reviewed to determine if the BMPs can be enhanced to remove even more trash. In particular, the new water quality catch basins should be test with screen in place to catch entrained trash and determine the maintenance requirements with screens in place. The regulations could be amended to require large construction sites to proved trash receptacles for their employees. Inspectors should begin checking for construction debris and litter that can escape the site and get to a storm drain or stream. District Department of Environment (DDOE) should review the water quality catch basin and modify it as needed to capture more trash. The modified design should be piloted in a few high trash locations. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-18 CHAPTER 6 DDOE needs to adopt a final regulatory definition of trash that can be used for design purposes for such things as mesh size of grates and screens. Trash monitoring should be conducted quarterly on the Anacostia River and a few of the larger tributaries. The DDOE is the water quality certification agency for all NPDES permits. They should “conditionally” certify all permits with a condition that the permittee develop and submit for approval a trash discharge elimination plan for the facility. Since trash is now listed as a pollutant, it is easy to legally require the reduction of the discharge of trash along with other pollutants. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) In the first Trash Summit, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to look into the legality of requiring trash reduction measures in the general stormwater permits. That has not occurred, and EPA needs to require the same controls that DDOE will require. EPA has been coordinating the Anacostia River Basin Trash TMDL to be performed by DDOE and Maryland Department of the Environment. This activity will lead to upstream controls. EPA has been very conscientious in approving the Maryland TMDLs to insure that the Maryland allocations are legally enforceable. At the 2008 Trash Summit, Montgomery County agreed to accept a numerical trash reduction goal in their MS4 permit. Department of Transportation (DDOT) The Department of Transportation (DDOT) needs to review their policies and design criteria concerning grate spacing and reduce it to the final dimensions that are determined in the TMDLs. DDOT needs to retrofit their bridges to eliminate trash discharges to the river from bridge stormwater runoff. DDOT needs to make installing water quality catch basins a component of a major street work, not just reconstruction projects. An ideal time to install LID BMPs is during construction and replacement of sidewalks and of curbs & gutters. There are street endings and street “T”s where DDOT has allowed water to run off of roads in an uncontrolled manner, which causes severe gully erosion as well as trash to be transported overland. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-19 CHAPTER 6 Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Most of the metro parking lots and stations were very clean, and that included the curbs. Their facility maintenance program appeared to be excellent. The Adopt-a-Bus Stop program is working well at the bus stop surveyed by the study. It seems to be an excellent program and should be expanded as much as possible. There are a few bus stops without trash receptacles, and Metro should survey those facilities to determine if trash cans are warranted. DC Department of Parks and Recreation Most of the undeveloped parks have a moderate amount of dumping that occurs. Very little of it is into the streams, but this dumping does still degrade the watershed. Better enforcement and better maintenance is needed. Most of the maintenance effort seems to be placed upon “improved” parkland which has been landscaped and mowed. Figure 6.8 is a photo taken from the MacDonald’s parking lot on Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, and there is a six person team cleaning up the park adjacent at the Watts Branch foot bridge. They will not venture out of the mowed areas. Some of them are most likely volunteers. Figure 6.8 Six person team cleaning up the park adjacent to the Watts Branch foot bridge ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-20 CHAPTER 6 DC Housing Authority Many of the public housing units had very clean grounds. Maintenance staff workers were observed with wheeled trash cans and brooms and shovels cleaning the gutters and sidewalks. They should be asked to increase the emphasis on trash and litter cleanup. Possibly they can be enlisted to install and maintain inlet screens. National Park Service The National Park Service (NPS) needs to develop a better trash can policy. There are many people of goodwill who simply do not know exactly how to dispose of their trash. Figures 6.9-6.11, while taken in Rock Creek drainage, depict conditions which are common to all areas. The public goes to a lot of trouble to bag their trash and then winds up leaving it on the ground for raccoons and crows to scatter. The NPS field staff then have to manually pick it up, which they do, and do very well. However, this creates additional work, and the possibility for scattered trash to be moved before it is picked up. Figure 6.9 Bagged trash placed next to trash can The public does not know how to deal with their trash bags and the small doors on the trash cans. It is not obvious that the lid is removable or hinged. As can be seen, the citizens go to a lot of trouble to neatly bag their trash and carry it to the trash cans. For the purposes of the photo the lid has been pivoted to prove that the trash cans are less than half full (Figure 6.10). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-21 CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.10 Trash can lids removed to show that the trash cans are less than half full A well designed decal that showed how to open the top of the trash can might prevent a lot of trash from ending up on the ground and in the streams, as well as prevent unnecessary maintenance staff costs. Figure 6.11 There is room for a well designed decal demonstrating how to open the lid of this trash can ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-22 CHAPTER 6 Clearly there is room for a sticker on the trash can lid, and it can easily be printed in both English and Spanish. The National Park Service needs to install trash cans at the fishing area in Kenilworth Park and along the buffer zone of the soccer field. This will be cheaper than manually picking up the trash item by item. The National Park Service needs to review all of their facilities and modify their storm drains to exclude trash. This includes all NPS roads. Anacostia Drive between South Capitol Street to the Boat Ramp at the DDOE Aquatic Recreation Education Center should have curb cuts installed which will help collect trash. Basin Specific Strategies The desired outcome of this program is that at the end of five years, a measureable reduction in the amount of trash in the Anacostia River will have been made. There are several ways of doing that. WASA measures the amount of trash that they skim out of the river and certainly that is a “measureable reduction” which causes the river to have less trash. It is always good to be able to measure trash removed. It is also good to measure trash that is not present in the river in the first place, and it is this concept that is at the heart of the recommended plan. The goal is to remove the trash before it gets to the tributaries. By getting them clean first, they are eliminated as a source of trash to the Anacostia River. It should be noted that in 2018, WASA will prevent trash from reaching the river from CSOs when full implementation of the CSO Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) is achieved. Thus, the fundamental concept of this plan is to clean up the tributaries that flow to the river, as well as cleaning up the main stem of the river. Conversely, any plan that involves screening or bagging a tributary where it flows into the river should be rejected outright as being an unacceptable premise. The tributary itself must be clean. Where storm sewers flow directly into the river they obviously must be dealt with or else the river will still receive excessive trash. To develop the strategies for the sub-basins a few criteria were established: 1. The tributaries to the main Anacostia River should be as clean as the river. 2. The strategy should build upon or compliment the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan for the twenty specified pollutants. 3. To be cost effective, storm water should not be treated twice to remove trash. There are a number of the tributaries which drain into very large storm sewers and are comingled with other stormwater flows before reaching the Anacostia River. 4. To the extent reasonable, the actions should be those that the government has demonstrated that it knows how to perform well. 5. The citizens should be satisfied with the results. 6. The costs should be something that can be afforded. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-23 CHAPTER 6 7. Where risks are involved with unproven techniques, small basins are to be used as a prototype before moving to large basins. The basic components of the EPA approved Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan is to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the storm sewers by street sweeping and catch basin cleaning. Trash will become one more component of that plan. The costs of that type of solution are competitive with other types of solutions. The government agencies are familiar with the implementation and operation of those practices. Because controlling the amount of trash that reaches a storm sewer and then discharges to a waterway is a relatively new concern, there is a significant amount of old and new technology that is available but has not been extensively tested for removing trash. The most promising and simplest technology is to place screens on the entrances to the storms sewers and use street sweepers to remove the trash and leaves that will collect there. End of the pipe structural devices have been tested in California, and some were found to be effective but are not recommended. Low Impact Development techniques, such as curb cuts, can be adapted to trash removal. It is recommended that the primary method of controlling trash be to install permanent screens on the catch basin inlets and sweep the streets weekly all year long, including winter. Because this has not been proven on a large scale, and in a cold climate, it should be tested on the smaller basins first before proceeding to the larger drainage areas. Kingman Lake Trash Reduction Plan The area of M Street and Maryland Avenue can be dealt with by any of four methods: 1. An inline device such as a Baysaver or CDS can be installed in the vicinity of Maryland Ave. and M Street. 2. A LID water quality treatment system such as a wetland can be installed to remove all TMDL related pollutants, and the stream should be daylighted. A small study would need to be done to determine that the stream actually has flow enough of the time to sustain the plants. 3. A netting trash trap system can be installed in the golf course and maintained via the golf cart trail. 4. Catch basins can be screened and the streets swept. It is recommended that a wetland be constructed The storm sewer system that runs along Benning Road will have new catch basins installed as a part of the reconstruction, but they are the old design and will provide little water quality improvement. They should be modified to capture trash and pollutants. The catch basins should be screened to capture trash and swept weekly. The MS4 system above RFK stadium parking lot area should be screened and the streets swept. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-24 CHAPTER 6 The Sports and Entertainment Authority should accept responsibility for the trash in the buffer zone along Kingman Lake and hire a crew to clean it up. This includes the inter-tidal area. They should ensure that the trash from tailgating parties is properly disposed. They should screen all of the inlets in their parking areas and maintain them. The commercial car washing activities in the parking lot on the weekend are a violation of the MS4 permit and need to be eliminated. Hickey Run This basin is scheduled to have a trash removal component as part of an end of pipe treatment for the largest storm sewer. A two component treatment train consisting of a trash removal device and a Baysaver unit has been selected, and it is believed construction will begin in 2010. The smaller basins can be dealt with in the same manner, being as the maintenance requirements will be the same. The small MS4 basin south of New York Avenue and east of Bladensburg Road is very clean. It is debatable whether it needs any controls. The outfall should be monitored to determine if there is any issue with trash. The DC Department of Parks and Recreation should install trash cans at the Langdon ball fields. The inlet grates have a width opening of two inches, and one inch hardware cloth could be inserted under the grate. Nash Run The beginning of Nash Run is not easily accessible as it currently exists. In order to clean up the tributary, the solution will need to be up in the MS4 system. All catch basins will need to be screened. The streets will need to be swept regularly, and the catch basins maintained. On an interim basis, trash can be caught and collected at a downstream point with a structural device such as a fence or net to protect the Kenilworth Marsh. Watts Branch – DC Portion Watts Branch is an inter-jurisdictional stream with half its basin in Prince Georges County, Maryland. The Maryland basin is a significant source of debris and trash. Solutions should be coordinated with Maryland because both Maryland and DC have total suspended solids (TSS) TMDLS that affect Watts Branch. These two jurisdictions should consider a holistic solution that achieves significant flow reduction. Large debris items float down the stream during high flow events, and, therefore, any in-stream device would need to be armored to withstand heavy impacts. In-stream devices do not appear to be feasible at this time. 1. Catch basins should be modified with screens starting with the upstream MS4 basins. The areas should be swept weekly to clean the screens. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-25 CHAPTER 6 2. The Environmental Crimes Unit should be asked to investigate the dumping behind a residence on the 44-46th Block of Gault Place, NE (Figure 6.12). This material is reaching the stream. It is believed that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) would be the most appropriate first contact at this residence. DDOE could wade alongside in the stream and verify the house number to assist. Figure 6.12 Motorcycle in Streambed Behind a Residence of the 44-46th Block of Gault Place 3. There are about 20-50 people who are usually present in Marvin Gaye Park in the vicinity of Division Avenue. There is a lot of trash and litter associated with some of the people. The trash ranges from needles and cooking lids to newspaper, beer cans & glass bottles, and a lot of plastic cups & water bottles and Styrofoam plates. The Umoja Treatment Center Methadone Maintenance at 5140 Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, NE should be contacted to see if the amount of trash can be reduced. 4. There is a minor amount of dumping at 46th and Grant Street, NE. 5. A broken sewer line at Eads St. and Watts Branch was reported to DDOE and was fixed immediately. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-26 CHAPTER 6 6. The Mayfair Parkside community would be a good place to do curb cuts. The streets are relatively clean and well maintained. 7. The NPS needs to install about 15 trash cans in Kenilworth Park. There should be one at each end of the fishing area, about four around each of the soccer fields, and one at the abandoned bridge over Watts Branch. This will be much cheaper than having the maintenance crew manually pick up trash from the ground each week. 8. For the single family residence area of Lee, Lane, Marne, 40th and 44th Streets, NE, the two storm sewers are relatively shallow and accessible, and there is enough room for LID to be used if the NPS is agreeable. 9. Progressive litter enforcement should occur with the businesses along the I-295 Service Road. A site visit to each, and an informational brochure about litter control could be presented during the first visit. A second visit could include a small civil infractions fine and followed by further follow up actions of increasing intensity. Fort DuPont Fort DuPont has only a few small storm sewers and is easily remedied. It should be one of the first streams targeted. 1. The area adjacent to Burns Street and Ridge Road, NE needs to have the dumped debris removed and then a decorative rail fence installed to discourage future dumping. 2. There are about 19 catch basins in the Burns Street area which need to be screened. One of them has had curb cuts installed, but the inlet should still be screened and swept (Figure 6.13) ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-27 CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.13 Curb cuts and unscreened catch basin 3. The seven catch basins adjacent to the Ridge Road Recreation Center should be screened. One of them has had a curb cut installed, but the catch basin inlet is still unscreened. 4. The storm sewer outfall from the Ridge Road Recreation Center area needs to be repaired. The whole outfall structure has collapsed and there is severe erosion occurring (Figures 6.14 & 6.15) ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-28 CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.14 Collapsed Storm Sewer Outfall from the Ridge Road Recreation Center ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-29 CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.15 Storm Sewer Outfall 5. The NPS should reduce the opening size on the storm water inlets along Ft Davis Drive to one inch or install inserts under the grates. 6. The NPS should check for other inlets which are not mapped and remedy them also. 7. The inlets along F Street already have curb cuts. It would be good to replace the five inlets along E street with curb cuts although some places do not seem to have very much space available. The F Street curb cuts are shown in the pictures (Figures 6.16 & 6.17). ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-30 CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.16 F Street curb cut Figure 6.17 F Street curb cut ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-31 CHAPTER 6 8. Litter enforcement officials should visit the alley behind the 3200 block of E Street S.E. 9. The park area adjacent the alley of the 3200 block of E street should be targeted for a cleanup. 10. There are some inlets on 32nd Street near D and Ely Streets, and it is not known where they discharge. 11. While not an objective of this report, there were a few other things noticed: a. The NPS should daylight the stream adjacent to their maintenance yard. They should also remove the culvert below Ft Davis Drive before the stream removes it and severe erosion of the streambank occurs. The catch basins that are screened will need to be swept regularly. b. The park land below Minnesota Avenue needs to have all the trash picked up. It is exceptionally dirty. c. There is a lot of dumping under the elevated portion of the Anacostia Freeway, but it does not reach any waterway (Figure 6.18). The stormwater from the Anacostia Freeway drains down onto the ground and forms puddles. This should be resolved with the resolution of Ely MS4 by constructing a wetland. Figure 6.18 Below the elevated portion of the Anacostia Freeway ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-32 CHAPTER 6 Fort Chaplin 1. This stream should have the catch basins screened except right along the park where curb cuts will work. 2. The downstream inlet needs to have regular maintenance. 3. The streets should be swept regularly. 4. Litter enforcement needs to visit D Street and Ridge Road 5. There is a lot of dumped garbage, trash and household items in the park along Burbank Street. There are several trash cans along there but they do not seem to be used. The material is not reaching the stream, but it degrades the park. Ft. Davis-1 and Ft. Davis -2 These two streams have very clean neighborhoods draining to them. Ft Davis-2 has serious erosion problems. 1. The two basins should have curb cuts installed where there is room, and screens where there is not so much room, combined with regular street sweeping. There are about 10 inlets for FD-1 and about 21 for FD-2. 2. To help with the erosion problem, the stormwater energy from the steep slopes of the storm sewer lines needs to be dissipated. 3. The downstream end of FD-1 needs to be maintained. The inlet to the pipe is clogged and sediment has been deposited in the old stream channel. 4. The MS4 System below Fort Davis can either be handled with an inline system because the outfall is easily accessible, or the system can be handled by screening the inlets and sweeping the streets. It would be better to screen and sweep, so the flow from the upper section would not have to be treated twice. Texas Avenue Tributary and Pennsylvania Avenue MS4 1. For some areas of this stream basin, curb cuts could be used and would work well, however, other parts such as Hillcrest Drive and Park Drive are very steep and there is not much space. 2. The storm sewer serving 28th Place and Texas Avenue is a serious source of trash and is causing severe gully erosion. Consideration should be given to a more holistic BMP that would reduce volumes and energy of the water. One solution would be to pipe the storm ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-33 CHAPTER 6 water down the hill to 28th Street, dissipate the velocity, and remove the trash before discharge. 3. There is a lot of dumping along Texas Avenue above 27th Street and a decorative rail fence would help as a deterrent, although in this area it is more garbage than debris that is dumped. There are trash cans along that side of the street, but the dumping of beer bottles and cans persists anyway. 4. On the main stem channel there is an inlet to the culvert just above the intersection of Park Drive and Hillcrest Drive. The grate is clogged and needs to be cleaned. 5. The Texas Avenue Tributary drains to the Pennsylvania Avenue MS4 and is about one third of the area. Consequently, to avoid treating that much water twice, the Pennsylvania Avenue MS4 should also be screened and swept. 6. There is a degraded wetland in the drainage basin. DDOE should conduct a feasibility study to determine the rehabilitation potential. Fort Stanton 1. The design of the water quality catch basin serving the Anacostia Community Smithsonian Museum parking lot should be checked for trash removal. If they do not have it incorporated, then they should be screened and maintained by the staff. 2. The roadway inlets along Fort Place that drain to this tributary should be screened and perhaps the museum staff could be persuaded to maintain them. There are 8 inlets. 3. There are thousands of bottles and cups in the discharge area of the storm sewer at Fort Place. These are trapped in the porcelain berry vines. They represent an extreme fire hazard as well as a potential source of trash to the stream. They must be removed. A similar but not as extreme situation exists in a braided section of the tributary that may be caused by the storm sewer serving Ainger Place. The debris in the tributary, which is mostly some very old tires, should be removed. WASA has constructed a temporary access road for work on the drinking water system and the debris can be easily removed. 4. The main stem needs the construction debris removed. 5. The six Ainger Place storm sewer inlets should be screened. Alternatively, an inline treatment and removal device can be evaluated. 6. The storm sewer serving the Skyland -Wagner area should be screened and swept. The residents of this small community have organized themselves and take turns cleaning up the neighborhood on a weekly basis. They would greatly appreciate any help in achieving a clean neighborhood. They currently complain that Maryland residents come and dump trash bags in their neighborhood, and when they report it to MPD they get no satisfaction. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-34 CHAPTER 6 7. The lower Ft. Stanton MS4 system can be screened and swept. Pope Branch There is a restoration plan for Pope Branch and many of the non-trash problems will be taken care of with the restoration. 1. Upper Pope Branch storm sewers should have all of the inlets screened, or where there are opportunities, curb cuts can be used. 2. The streets need to be swept on a regular basis. 3. The restoration of Pope Branch will have to deal with some of the storm sewers that need energy dissipation such as at Texas and Nash. LID techniques that reduce peak flow will help reduce trash also. 4. Lower Pope Branch storm sewers along Fairlawn drain into the pipe that carries Pope Branch under the railroad and to the Anacostia. The inlets need to be screened and/or curb cut, and the streets swept regularly so the total out flow does not have to be treated at the Anacostia outfall. MS4 Systems Because most of the MS4 systems have no open stream channel to protect they can usually be handled with an end of pipe solution. The exception is the largest of the East Capitol Street MS4s. The solution should be to achieve a reduction for all of the TMDL parameters, not just trash. Screening the catch basin and sweeping the streets will work, the costs are comparable and the citizens get clean neighborhoods. East Capitol MS4s There are about four or five pipes in this system that discharge to the Anacostia. They are all accessible for end of pipe solutions. The Ft. Chaplin tributary drains to the largest of the MS4 systems, and it will cost about an extra $1M to retreat the Ft. Chaplin flow, so this system should be screened and swept. Ely MS4 The end of the pipe is not readily accessible due to parkland which is also a wetland. However, it crosses under an elevated portion of the Anacostia Freeway. Ideally, it would be good to explore the possibility of constructing a wetland under the Freeway to treat both the storm water from the Freeway as well as from the MS4 (Figure 6.19). A wetland would enhance the Anacostia River habitat. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-35 CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.19 Possible location of wetland under an elevated portion of the Anacostia Freeway Significant portions of this area are under control of the Potomac Division of the District of Columbia Housing Authority. More emphasis on outside trash and litter clean up would be helpful. The Housing Authority should help install and maintain the inlet screens if that solution was used. Naylor MS4 This system is amenable to an end of the pipe system. The pipe goes across the open field in Anacostia Park near the Recreation Center. It can be daylighted and treated by constructing a wetland. Stickfoot MS4 Stickfoot Sewer is actually an old stream, and it should be daylighted and the trash captured at the point of daylighting. It would seem that there might actually be an application for an electrically operated screening facility. A better option would be to construct a more environmentally compatible LID system so that all of the TMDL pollutants are removed. Post Implementation Measures Once the implementation of trash reduction measures for a tributary have been completed, then the tributary should be cleaned up. There are a number of organizations which are capable of ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-36 CHAPTER 6 cleaning up trash and debris from tributaries. The DC Summer Jobs Program could be used, for example. After the trash has been cleaned up, then the stream should be periodically surveyed to ensure that there were no sources of trash left uncontrolled. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 6-37 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The goal is to achieve significant and measurable reductions of trash discharged to the Anacostia River by 2013. A five year schedule of activities was developed that will reasonably lead to a Trash Free Anacostia River. It will also make significant reductions in the amount of trash in Rock Creek and the Potomac. General Activities There are recommendations that are for the whole Anacostia Basin. They should be done as soon as possible. The legislative solutions if enacted quickly will alter the alternatives and costs of the program and save the ratepayers significant amounts of money. Activities such as developing a coordinated litter inspection and enforcement program should begin immediately. Basin Schedules The five year schedule outlined below is developed following the concept of beginning work on the tributaries which are easiest to clean up using the easiest actions to accomplish. The more complicated and expensive actions are placed later in the schedule. Existing programs such as the Hickey Run BMP are compatible as currently planned. DPW will need to acquire more street sweepers, as the area and frequency of sweeping increases. Additionally, because the application of inlet screens has not been proven in the climatic conditions of Washington, DC, they should be used for the smaller basins where the costs will be less. Year 1 - 2009 Ft DuPont A. B. C. D. E. F. Ft Davis 1 A. B. C. D. Ft Davis 2 A. Screen catch basins Sweep Streets Curb Cuts Clean up debris Fence Repair outfall Screen catch basins Sweep Streets Curb Cuts Clean trash rack Screen catch basins ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 7-1 CHAPTER 7 B. C. D. Nash Run A. Sweep streets Curb Cuts Remove tires Install temporary netting system to protect the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens CSO Outfall #006 A. LID the MS4 Unscreened CSO Outfalls A. Conduct study of trash discharges and boom and skim WASA to study catch basin cleaning and performance Year 2 - 2010 Ft Chaplin A. B. C. D. Screen catch basins Sweep streets Curb Cuts Clean trash rack Pope Branch and Pope MS4 A. Implement Restoration plan B. Screen catch basins C. Sweep streets D. Curb Cuts E. Clean trash rack Hickey Run BMP A. Proceed as planned B. Evaluate untreated outfalls Kingman Lake A. Investigate potential for wetland at M and Maryland Year 3 - 2011 Texas Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets C. Curb Cuts ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 7-2 CHAPTER 7 D. E. Nash A. B. Relocate storm sewer and treat. Clean Trash Rack Screen catch basins Sweep streets Ft Stanton and MS4 A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets Kingman Lake A. Screen catch basins B Sweep streets C. Install LID and daylight for the M Street & Maryland Avenue area Ely MS4, Stickfoot MS4 and Naylor. A. Initiate planning and design for wetlands. Year 4 - 2012 Watts Branch A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets C. LID East Capitol MS4 A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets C. LID Fort Davis MS4 A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep streets Year 5 - 2013 Ely, Stickfoot and Naylor MS4’s A. Construction of wetlands. Cost Comparison Using the cost information from the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan and estimates of impervious acres per sub-basin, a rough cost can be obtained for the different basins. The costs for screening and weekly sweeping (S&S) include the regular catch basin cleaning costs which ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 7-3 CHAPTER 7 may be reduced with a lower amount of trash entering the catch basin. Conversely, the recommended study on catch basin cleaning might conclude that more frequent cleaning is needed. A cost of $500 was used for screening a catch basin with a 20% operation and maintenance (O&M) cost and four per block, each 8 feet long. This cost may be about 25 % high in some areas; but, it is not a major component of the cost of screening and sweeping. The cost of wetlands is very capital intensive and is approximately three times more costly than screening and sweeping; however, the areas where they are recommended are based upon there being habitat benefits to offset the costs. The option of screening and sweeping has a capital cost of about $4.5M, while going solely with CDS type hydrodynamic units have a capital cost of about $20M, and using only wetlands would require $60M. Weekly sweeping of streets has a very high O&M value while hydrodynamic units and wetlands have a very low O&M value. It is not recommended that wetlands or other inline solutions be used for controlling trash in the areas draining to and from the tributaries. Once a tributary has been treated and enters a storm sewer, it is very expensive to re-treat it after it becomes comingled with other untreated flows. This study recommends that a detailed evaluation be made of the Naylor, Ely & Stickfoot storm sewers, and of the small area of Maryland and M Street. Designing a wetland detention system is a critical issue and needs to be done on a site specific basis. Many areas are amenable to curb cuts which often times are recommended when it is known that they will work and there is space available, but they are not included in the price of any basin. Benefits One of the major benefits of regular street sweeping is that the neighborhoods are cleaner. The amount of TMDL pollutants will be reduced on a per sweeping basis but there will be a decrease in effectiveness on a per sweeping basis. The effectiveness of the catch basin in removing TMDL pollutants will be enhanced but it is not known before hand by how much. Some localized flooding may occur or it may occur more frequently from the screens being blocked. Experience will need to be gained with leaf fall and snow fall. Using controls such as screening and street sweeping will clean up the tributaries as well as the main stem Anacostia. To the extent that Low Impact Development (LID) can be used in the upper basin of the tributaries, the benefits of ground water filtering and recharge to the stream and the wildlife that depends upon it will be worth the extra cost. Restoring the extensive wetlands that were lost decades ago when the Anacostia River was dredged and the wetlands filled, will assist in restoring wildlife to the river. It is possible that federal funding might be available to offset the extra cost if the wetland sites are included in the Corp of Engineers Anacostia River basin planning effort. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 7-4 CHAPTER 7 Total Costs By using the estimates of the costs of the BMPS and the basin recommendations, a present value total cost figure can be derived for the main components of the recommended plan. This cost does not include such things as the Hickey Run BMP nor WASA’s cost for booming and skimming CSO areas. The difference between a wetland for Ely MS4 and a hydrodynamic unit such as a Baysaver is about a million dollars more in costs. Table 7.1 below is a planning estimate to be used until more experience is gained with the solutions. Table 7.1 Total Cost Planning Estimate Basin Pope FD-1 FD-2 Texas Pope MS4 Chaplin Ft DuPont Stickfoot Watts Nash E Cap MS4 Stanton StantonMS4 Ely Ft Dav MS4 Penn Kingman Naylor Subtotal S&S $940,903 308,530 158,004 622,043 310,674 954,070 281,690 6,233,968 1,959,372 5,868,800 344,110 861,877 2,704,673 947,298 1,119,542 423,926 $21,334,811 Total = Wetland $3,887,967 557,838 3,887,967 $11,038,448 $32,373,259 The present worth cost of a trash free Anacostia River is about $32.4 million. The schedule recommended is not a constant average expenditure. Instead, it is based upon working in small drainages, and monitoring to ensure that the selected methods will work under the conditions found in the District of Columbia. If a more constant expenditure is desired, then some of the more expensive and larger basins can be moved up in the schedule. The costs can be greatly reduced with legislative solutions that discourage the throw away mentality of plastic bags, Styrofoam and beverage cans and bottles. The costs can be further reduced by using screening and sweeping in all basins and foregoing the wetlands. Wetlands cost about three times more per acre; but, they provide habitat restoration benefits to the Anacostia River. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 7-5 CHAPTER 7 Estimated total capital costs per basin are shown below in Table 7.2. Construction of wetlands is expensive on a per acre basis. Table 7.2 Estimated Total Capital Costs per Basin Basin Pope FD-1 FD-2 Texas Pope MS4 Chaplin Ft DuPont Stickfoot Watts Nash E Cap Stanton StantonMS4 Ely Ft Dav MS4 Penn Kingman Naylor Subtotal S&S $190,248 56,675 34,670 113,795 74,007 193,137 57,708 1,159,734 370,277 979,730 49,566 124,915 2,396,142 170,249 216,475 86,069 $3,877,262 Wetland $3,444,455 494,204 3,444,455 $9,779,257 $13,656,520 Total Capital Cost = Capital Expenditures per year are presented in Table 7.3 below. O&M costs are high with this plan and will be about $2,600,000 per year once fully implemented. Table 7.3 Capital Costs Capital Cost $149,054 $457,393 $1,455,305 $2,309,714 $9,285,053 $13,656,520 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 7-6 CHAPTER 7 The plan has a capital cost of $13.7 M which is beyond the fundable range of the storm water fee revenue that is produced. The costs can be reduced if the legislative packages are implemented and if the wetlands are cost shared by the Corps of Engineers. It is compatible and complements other pollutant removal plans. About one third of the total costs are already scheduled to be made pursuant to the Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan. The major benefit is that the recommended plan restores the rivers and the communities. Next Steps This document presents a plan based upon what is currently known. There are several problem areas and several unknown issues. These need to be resolved. DDOE should continue to work with EPA and Maryland to prepare a basin wide trash TMDL. This will include gathering data to determine exactly what types of trash actually exit a storm sewer to a stream. Based upon the current data it is already known that the different land uses have different types and amounts of trash. The information needed is to determine what and how much trash is coming from which types of land use, and then loadings can be calculated and allocations performed. There is a very severe problem of interstate transport of pollutants. The amount of trash and debris measured in Maryland exceeds what is found in DC. There needs to be a concerted effort in Maryland to achieve controls of trash and many other pollutants. Based upon the outcome of prototype work and the implementation of the recommended plan in the smaller basins, this plan may need to be revised as more information and experience is gained. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 7-7 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 LONGTERM MONITORING PROGRAM Introduction The District of Columbia Department of the Environment should implement an ambient trash monitoring program for the waterways. The data collected for this report provides a good foundation to build upon so that the future data is able to detect trends in the effectiveness of the trash reduction program. The long-term methodology chosen should be comprehensive enough to give valuable data on the sources of trash, the composition of trash, and the surrounding land use. The methodology chosen and data collected will significantly contribute to the institutional controls and the structural controls that DOE chooses to implement to reduce trash loads. Institutional controls for trash include: enforcement, public education, more trash receptacles, street cleaning, more frequent trash pickups and greater recycling rates. Structural controls include storm-drain catch basins, trash traps, and vegetative trash buffer zones. Both types of control measures will be needed to reduce trash. The institutional controls and structural controls have differing costs associated with implementation. Institutional controls will help reduce the actual source of trash entering the water while structural controls serve as “mitigation” for trash. The long-term monitoring chosen and trash data composition will help prioritize DOE resources and gauge the effectiveness of trash controls chosen by DOE to implement. After a through review of existing national and regional trash monitoring methodologies, the recommend long-term monitoring program recommend is the Simplified Program. Below is a detailed review of four monitoring plans. The four plans were evaluated for cost and the value of data collected. Four options are presented. 1. 2. 3. 4. Simplified Program Full Program as conducted by AWS California State Water Control Board Assessment MWCOG Survey Methods 1) Simplified Program The simplified program takes a representation of trash. A majority of trash monitoring plans use a representative sampling of trash and is the industry-wide accepted survey methodology. This includes the data monitoring being conducted by Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties for the baseline data monitoring plan for the development of the Anacostia TMDL. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-1 CHAPTER 8 This simplified program takes the information gained in the original baseline survey of trash and reduces the number of stations down to a smaller number and reduces the length of the segments. The benefit of this program is that it can be accomplished in two days by a team of two people. The survey should be conducted quarterly, but can be done semi-annually. Based upon the data collected in this report, some of the categories in the survey form can be eliminated without materially affecting the accuracy of the method. The data collected using the simplified plan, including the composition of trash, should be accurate enough to help DOE prioritize resources and chose the institutional and structural trash controls for implementation. The recommended stations to be monitored are: 1. Anacostia – Mudflat above New York Avenue Bridge 2. Anacostia – Poplar Point 3. Kingman Lake – Below Benning Road Bridge 4. Fort Stanton – From end of the stream at the grate to 100 feet upstream 5. Ft Dupont - Minnesota Avenue to 100 ft down stream 6. Ft Davis 1 - From grate to 100 feet upstream 7. Texas Avenue - From grate to 100 feet upstream 8. Pope- From grate to 100 feet upstream 9. Nash - From Anacostia Drive to 100 feet upstream 10. Watts - From the foot bridge between Jay Street and Deanne Avenue in Kenilworth Park to a point 100 ft downstream. 11. Ft Chaplin - From grate at C Street to 100 feet upstream Once a trash reduction plan, including institutional and structural controls, has been implemented in a tributary drainage basin, the tributary should be cleaned up and then monitored to insure that there are no uncontrolled sources remaining. Recommendation The simplified program is recommended for use by DOE and gathers the most accurate data and is the most cost-effective of the four plans represented in this document. In the District of Columbia, The Clean City Coordinator Cleanliness Surveys are qualitative and do not seem to correspond well to the quantitative data. Their methodology is dated and should be revised to provide more useful information. A revised survey would augment the stream monitoring conducted by DOE very well. The Alice Ferguson Foundation (AFF) has developed a Volunteer Visible Trash Survey(VTS) handbook and will be implementing the volunteer program in 2009. The AFF data sheet for the composition of trash was used in this report for the initial baseline monitoring of trash. The data collected by AFF would also augment the recommended simplified program. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-2 CHAPTER 8 2) Full Program A full program would duplicate the survey done in this study. A full program would take three or four people at least a week, and with rain and snow could possibly take two weeks. A full program long-term monitoring strategy would be comprehensive, but have a significant dollar cost for staff time involved to implement. As stated above, a majority of trash monitoring plans, including the data monitoring being conducted by Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties for the baseline data monitoring plan for the development of the Anacostia TMDL use a representative sampling of trash. The District of Columbia is unique in the Anacostia watershed because of the small land mass located in its jurisdiction. DOE may chose to conduct trash monitoring outside of the Anacostia watershed at some point in time. Trash monitoring for the entire District of Columbia including the larger Potomac River watershed using the full program method would be very costly and an unrealistic alternative to the simplified plan. Recommendation The Full Program is not recommended for DOE use due to the financial costs associated with a long term monitoring plan. 3) California Method The California method is very time consuming in the level of detail and meticulous nature of the counting. There are sometimes 82,000 pieces of broken glass in a segment of Watts Branch and the California method requires that they all be picked up, counted and hauled away. It would take forever to count all of the broken glass pieces in Watts Branch. The method is similar to the method used in this report but is much slower. The California method is simply economically infeasible for counting trash without modification. RAPID TRASH ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Monitoring Design. The rapid trash assessment can be used for a number of purposes, such as ambient monitoring, evaluation of management actions, determination of trash accumulation rates, or comparing sites with and without public access. Ambient monitoring efforts should provide information at sites distributed throughout a waterbody, and several times a year to characterize spatial and temporal variability. Additionally, the ambient sampling design should document the effects of episodes that affect trash levels such as storms or community cleanup events. Pre- and post-project assessments can assist in evaluating the effectiveness of management practices ranging from ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-3 CHAPTER 8 public outreach to structural controls, or to document the effects of public access on trash levels in waterbodies (e.g., upstream/downstream). Such evaluations should consider trash levels over time and under different seasonal conditions. Revisiting sites where trash was collected during previous assessments enables the determination of accumulation rates. This methodology was developed for sections of wadeable streams, but can be adapted to shorelines of lakes, beaches, or estuaries. Ultimately, the monitoring design will strongly affect the usefulness of any rapid trash assessment information. Site Definition. Upon arrival at a designated monitoring site, a team of two people or more defines or verifies a 100-foot section of the stream or shoreline to analyze, associated with a sampling location or station. When a site is first established, it is recommended that the 100-foot distance be accurately measured. The length should be measured not as a straight line, but as 100 feet of the actual stream or shore length, including sinuous curves. Where possible, the starting and ending points of the survey should be easily identified landmarks, such as an oak tree or boulder, and noted on the worksheet (“Upper/Lower Boundaries of Reach”), or documented using a global positioning system (GPS), so that future assessments are made at the same location. The team should confer and document the upper boundary of the banks to be surveyed, based on evaluation of whether trash can be carried to the water body by wind or water (e.g., an upper terrace in the stream bank). The team documents the location of the high water line based on site-specific physical indicators, such as a debris line found in the riparian vegetation along the stream channel. If the high water line cannot be determined, it is suggested that bankfull height be documented, noting the high water line could not be determined. Trash located below the high water line can be expected to move into the streambed or be swept downstream during the next winter season. Visually extend all boundaries in order to encompass the 100’ section. Defining site characteristics will facilitate the comparison of trash assessments conducted at the same site at different times of the year. Survey. It is highly recommended that all trash items within an assessed site be picked up, so the site can be revisited and re-assessed for impairment and usage patterns. A survey, including notes and scoring, will take approximately one to two hours based on how much trash is at the site and how many people are working together. The first time a site is assessed, the process will generally take longer than on subsequent visits. Begin the survey at the downstream end of the selected reach so that trash can be seen in the undisturbed stream channel. Tasks can be divided according to the number of team members. In one scenario of a team with two members, one team member begins walking along the bank or in the water (wear waders) at the edge of the stream or shore, looking for trash on the bank up to the upper bank boundary, and above and below the high water line. This person picks up trash and tallies the items on the trash assessment worksheet as either above or below the high water line based on the previously determined boundary. The other person walks in the streambed and up and down the opposite bank, picking up and calling out specific trash items found in the water body and on the opposite bank both above and below the high water line, for the tally person to mark down appropriately on the trash assessment sheet. All team members pick up the trash items as they are found. Keep in mind that the person tallying will not be able to pick up nearly ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-4 CHAPTER 8 as much trash as the other team members. All team members make sure to avoid injuries by using gloves. Avoid touching trash with unprotected hands! The person tallying the trash indicates on the sheet whether the trash was found above the high water line on the bank, or below the high water line either on the bank or in the stream (i.e., tally dots or circles (•) for above high water line, tally lines (|) for below). If it is evident that items have been littered, dumped, or accumulated via downstream transport, make a note in the designated rows near the bottom of the tally sheet - this will help when assessing scores. A trash grabber, metal kitchen tongs, or a similar tool should be used to help pick up trash. Be sure to look under bushes, logs, and other plant growth to see if trash has accumulated underneath. The ground and substrate should be inspected to ensure that small items such as cigarette butts and pieces of broken glass or Styrofoam are picked up and counted. The tally count is an important indicator of trash impairment and should be used in conjunction with the total score to assist in site comparisons. It is important not to miss items that can affect human health such as diapers, fecal matter, and needles; these items can strongly affect the total score. When the team finishes tallying, use the tally sheet margins to count up two totals for each trash item line, one total for items found above the high water line, and one total for items found below the high water line. Now sum the totals of above and below for each trash category, and write in next to each trash category. Be sure to complete the worksheets before leaving the site while everything is still fresh in the memory. The team should discuss each parameter and agree on a score based on a discussion of the condition categories. Discuss and document possible influential factors affecting trash levels at the site, such as a park, school, or nearby residences or businesses. Within each trash parameter, narrative language is provided to assist with choosing a condition category. The worksheet provides a range of numbers within a given category, allowing for a range of conditions encountered in the field. For instance, trash located in the water leads to lower scores than trash above the high water line. Not all specific trash conditions mentioned in the narratives need to be present to fit into a specific condition category (e.g., “site frequently used by people”), nor do the narratives describe all possible conditions. Scores of “0” should be reserved for the most extreme conditions. Once the scores are assigned for the six categories, sum the final score and include specific notes about the site at the end of the sheet. A site should be assessed several times in a given year, during different seasons, to characterize the variability and persistence of trash occurrence for water quality assessment purposes. Trash Assessment Parameters. The rapid trash assessment includes a range of parameters that capture the breadth of issues associated with trash and water quality. The first two parameters focus on qualitative and quantitative levels of trash, the second two parameters estimate actual threat to water quality, and the last two parameters represent how trash enters the water body at a site, either through on-site activities or downstream accumulation. 1. Level of Trash. This assessment parameter is intended to reflect a qualitative “first impression” of the site, after observing the entire length of the reach. Sites scoring in the “poor” range are those where trash is one of the first things noticeable about the waterbody. No trash should be obviously visible at sites that score in the “optimal” range. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-5 CHAPTER 8 2. Actual Number of Trash Items Found. Based on the tally of trash along the 100-foot stream reach, total the number of items both above and below the high water line, and choose a score within the appropriate condition category based on the number of tallied items. Where more than 100 items have been tallied, assign the following scores: 5: 101-200 items; 4: 201-300 items; 3: 301-400 items; 2: 401-500 items; 1: 501-600 items; 0: over 600 items. Use similar guidelines to assign scores in other condition categories. Sometimes items are broken into many pieces. Fragments with higher threat to aquatic life such as plastics should be individually counted, while paper and broken glass, with lower threat and/or mobility, should be counted based on the parent item(s). Broken glass that is scattered, with no recognizable original shape, should be counted individually. The judgment of whether to count all fragments or just one item also depends on the potential exposure to downstream fish and wildlife, and waders and swimmers at a given site. Concrete is trash when it is dumped, but not when it is placed. Consider tallying only those items that would be removed in a restoration or cleanup effort. 3. Threat to Aquatic Life. As indicated in the technical notes, below, certain characteristics of trash make it more harmful to aquatic life. If trash items are persistent in the environment, buoyant (floatable), and relatively small, they can be transported long distances and be mistaken by wildlife as food items. Larger items can cause entanglement. Some discarded debris may contain toxic substances. All of these factors are considered in the narrative descriptions in this assessment parameter. 4. Threat to Human Health. This category is concerned with items that are dangerous to people who wade or swim in the water, and with pollutants that could accumulate in fish in the downstream environment, such as mercury. The worst conditions have the potential for presence of dangerous bacteria or viruses, such as with medical waste, diapers, and human or pet waste. 5. Illegal Dumping and Littering. This assessment category relates to direct placement of trash items at a site, with “poor” conditions assigned to sites that appear to be dumping or littering locations based on adjacent land use practices or site accessibility. 6. Accumulation of Trash. Trash that accumulates from upstream locations is distinguished from dumped trash by indications of age and transport. Faded colors, silt marks, trash wrapped around roots, and signs of decay suggest downstream transport, indicating that the local drainage system facilitates conveyance of trash to water bodies, in violation of clean water laws and policies. Technical Notes on Trash and Water Quality Trash is a water pollutant that has a large range of characteristics of concern. Not all litter and debris delivered to streams are of equal concern to water quality. Besides the obvious negative aesthetic effects, most of the harm from trash in surface waters is imparted to aquatic life in the form of ingestion or entanglement. Some elements of trash exhibit significant threats to human health, such as discarded medical waste, human or pet waste, and broken glass. Also, some household and industrial wastes may contain toxic substances of concern to human health and wildlife, such as batteries, pesticide containers, and fluorescent light bulbs that contain mercury. Larger trash such as discarded appliances can present physical barriers to natural stream flow, ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-6 CHAPTER 8 causing physical impacts such as bank erosion. From a management perspective, the persistence and accumulation of trash in a waterbody are of particular concern, and signify a priority area for prevention of trash discharges. Also of concern are trash “hotspots” where illegal dumping, littering, and/or accumulation of trash occur. Rapid Trash Assessment. Trash assessment includes a visual survey of the waterbody (e.g., streambed and banks) and adjacent areas from which trash elements can be carried to the waterbody by wind, water, or gravity. The delineation of these adjacent areas is site-specific and requires some judgment and documentation. The rapid trash assessment worksheet is designed to represent the range of effects that trash has on the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of water bodies, in accordance with the goals of the Clean Water Act and the California Water Code. The worksheet also provides a record for evaluation of the management of trash discharges, by documenting sites that receive direct discharges (i.e., dumping or littering) and those that accumulate trash from upstream locations. Trash Characteristics of Concern. For aquatic life, buoyant (floatable) elements tend to be more harmful than settleable elements, due to their ability to be transported throughout the waterbody and ultimately to the marine environment. Persistent elements such as plastics, synthetic rubber and synthetic cloth tend to be more harmful than degradable elements such as paper or organic waste. Glass and metal are less persistent, even though they are not biodegradable, because wave action and rusting can cause them to break into smaller pieces. Natural rubber and cloth can degrade but not as quickly as paper (U.S. EPA, 2002). Smaller elements such as plastic resin pellets (a by-product of plastic manufacturing) and cigarette butts are often more harmful to aquatic life than larger elements, since they can be ingested by a large number of small organisms which can then suffer malnutrition or internal injuries. Larger plastic elements such as plastic grocery bags are also harmful to larger aquatic life such as sea turtles, which can mistake the trash for floating prey and ingest it, leading to starvation or suffocation. Floating debris that is not trapped and removed will eventually end up on the beaches or in the ocean, repelling visitors and residents from the beaches and degrading coastal and open ocean waters. Trash in water bodies can threaten the health of people who use them for wading or swimming. Of particular concern are the bacteria and viruses associated with diapers, medical waste (e.g., used hypodermic needles and pipettes), and human or pet waste. Additionally, broken glass or sharp metal fragments in streams can cause puncture or laceration injuries. Such injuries can then expose a person’s bloodstream to microbes in the stream’s water that may cause illness. Also, some trash items such as containers or tires can pond water and support mosquito production and associated risks of diseases such as encephalitis and the West Nile virus. Leaf litter is trash when there is evidence of intentional dumping. Leaves and pine needles in streams provide a natural source of food for organisms, but excessive levels due to human influence can cause nutrient imbalance and oxygen depletion in streams, to the detriment of the aquatic ecosystem. Clumps of leaf litter and yard waste from trash bags should be treated as trash in the water quality assessment, and not confused with natural inputs of leaves to streams. If there is a question in the field, check the type of leaf to confirm that it comes from a nearby riparian tree. In some instances, leaf litter may be trash if it originates from dense ornamental stands of nearby ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-7 CHAPTER 8 human planted trees that are overloading the stream’s assimilative capacity for leaf inputs. Other biodegradable trash, such as food waste, also exerts a demand on dissolved oxygen, but aquatic life is unlikely to be adversely affected unless the dumping of food waste is substantial and persistent at a given location. Wildlife impacts due to trash occur in creeks, lakes, estuaries, and ultimately the ocean. The two primary problems that trash poses to wildlife are entanglement and ingestion. Marine mammals, turtles, birds, fish, and crustaceans all have been affected by entanglement in or ingestion of floatable debris. Many of the species most vulnerable to the problems of floatable debris are endangered or threatened by extinction. Entanglement results when an animal becomes encircled or ensnared by debris. It can occur accidentally, or when the animal is attracted to the debris as part of its normal behavior or out of curiosity. Entanglement is harmful to wildlife for several reasons. Not only can it cause wounds that can lead to infections or loss of limbs; it can also cause strangulation or suffocation. In addition, entanglement can impair an animal's ability to swim, which can result in drowning, or in difficulty in moving, finding food, or escaping predators (U.S. EPA, 2001). Ingestion occurs when an animal swallows floatable debris. It sometimes occurs accidentally, but usually animals feed on debris because it looks like food (i.e., plastic bags look like jellyfish, a prey item of sea turtles). Ingestion can lead to starvation or malnutrition if the ingested items block the intestinal tract and prevent digestion, or accumulate in the digestive tract, making the animal feel "full" and lessening its desire to feed. Ingestion of sharp objects can damage the mouth, digestive tract and/or stomach lining and cause infection or pain. Ingested items can also block air passages and prevent breathing, thereby causing death (U.S. EPA, 2001). Common settled debris includes glass, cigarettes, rubber, construction debris and more. Settleables are a problem for bottom feeders and dwellers and can contribute to sediment contamination. Larger settleable items such as automobiles, shopping carts, and furniture can redirect stream flow and destabilize the channel. In conclusion, trash in water bodies can adversely affect humans, fish, and wildlife. Not all water quality effects of trash are equal in severity or duration, thus the trash assessment methodology was designed to reflect a range of trash impacts to aquatic life, public health, and aesthetic enjoyment. When considering the water quality effects of trash while conducting a trash assessment, remember to evaluate individual items and their buoyancy, degradability, size, potential health hazard, and potential hazards to fish and wildlife. Utilize the narratives in the worksheet, refer to the technical notes and trash parameter descriptions in the text as needed, and select your scores after careful consideration of actual conditions. Recommendation The California Method is not recommended for DOE use. It is comprehensive, but not recommended due to the financial cost associated with a long term monitoring program. However, the interpretation of the effects of trash outlined above can be applicable for DOE when choosing intuitional and structural controls for trash and should be considered. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-8 CHAPTER 8 4) Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Method A draft manual was prepared by Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and it is presented below. The MWCOG method was modified and used to collect the data for this report. The major modification is the detailed data sheet such that one is able to categorize the types of trash. Anacostia Stream Trash Surveying Methodology and Indexing System A. Pre-Survey Considerations and Preparation Seasonal factors and rainfall/stream discharge conditions can significantly affect trash generation and accumulation rates (Syrek, 1986); therefore, a given stream reach should be surveyed at approximately the same time each year. Note, stream access and surveying will typically be easier during late winter and early spring due to a reduction in vegetation along stream banks. Surveying should be conducted on dry days and at least two to three days after the last significant storm event so that the stream is running clear and trash items within the stream and its channel are clearly visible. Furthermore, every attempt should be made to organize volunteer teams so that all survey sites within a sub-basin are surveyed during approximately the same time period (i.e., preferably within the same one to four week period). B. Equipment Essential equipment for trash surveyors include the following: water-resistant or water-proof boots, or hip-waders if available,1 hand-held tally counter, Anacostia Tributary Trash Survey form, clip board, mechanical pencil.2 As an option, a large-scale, planning-level topographic map (1 in. = 200 ft.) may be used to highlight conditions and measure distances. Finally, if available, a camera equipped with color slide film provides excellent photo-documentation of representative conditions and/or notable areas observed while surveying. C. Surveying Procedures and Counting Guidelines As COG staff discovered during their pilot survey of Sligo Creek, the best vantage point for observing and counting trash is generally within the stream channel. However, due to varying and unpredictable water depths along even a short stretch of stream, this option is only possible if hipwaders are available. The second best option is to employ two surveyors, one on each stream bank. The third and final option requires the lone surveyor to record while walking along one side of the stream channel. Using a hand-held tally counter, the surveyor(s) walks within the stream channel or along the stream bank counting each trash item that is bottle cap size or larger (i.e., approximately one inch ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-9 CHAPTER 8 diameter or larger). Surveyors should count only those trash items observed within the bankfull channel (i.e., everything from top-of-bank to top-of-bank including items visible within the stream itself). As a general rule, surveyors should not count very small trash items (i.e., items smaller than a bottle cap, such as cigarette butts, styrofoam packaging chips or bits of paper) unless several are observed. If two surveyors are walking within the stream channel each should count only those trash items from the middle of the stream channel to his or her respective bank. If two surveyors are walking along opposite banks, one person should count both the trash items observed along his or her stream bank and those within the stream itself, while the other should count only those items on his or her bank. Finally, if only one surveyor is available and cannot survey within the stream channel, he or she should be aware that many trash items along the opposite bank could be hidden from view. To avoid overlooking these trash items, the surveyor should stop intermittently at points that offer a clear view of the opposite bank. Items of special interest and concern (e.g., oil quart containers, tires, etc.) should be tallied during the survey. Once the stream reach has been surveyed, the surveyor(s) should complete the trash survey form by noting the total number of trash items counted, the different categories of trash items observed, and the three categories of greatest abundance. When possible, noteworthy areas should be photo-documented. III. Stream Trash Indexing System In an effort to standardize the reporting of trash levels observed along Anacostia tributaries, COG staff developed a simple, relative trash indexing system. COG’s Stream Trash Indexing System uses a verbal ranking to characterize the number of trash items observed per 100 feet of stream surveyed. The system ranks the level of trash as follows: No. Items/100 ft. 0 - 10.0 10.1 - 25.0 25.1 - 50.0 > 50.1 Verbal Ranking None - Very Light Light Moderate High COG staff developed this indexing system during its pilot trash survey of Sligo Creek watershed. A total of twenty survey reaches within the Sligo Creek watershed, distributed along its mainstem and major tributaries, were surveyed. In addition, reference streams assumed to have low trash levels based on low population densities and low development levels within their drainage areas were selected and surveyed to provide baseline trash levels for a clean stream. The surveyed reference streams include: Mary Bird Branch (a tributary of South Fork Quantico Creek in Prince William Forest Park, Prince William County, and Virginia), the Talbot Farm Tributary (a tributary to South Fork Catoctin Creek, Loudoun County, Virginia) and sections of Upper Paint Branch (Montgomery County, Maryland). Recommendation The MWCOG Anacostia Stream Trash Surveying Method is not recommended for DOE use. Its Indexing System is weak in the data collection sheet because it does not include a comprehensive ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-10 CHAPTER 8 composition of trash. The MWCOG methodology is dated and was developed using the Syrek method, but does not include improvements in trash monitoring developed after they defined their methodology. MWCOG is in the process of concluding their baseline monitoring for Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties in the development of the Anacostia trash TMDL. Their updated monitoring plan was requested for review. MWCOG’s baseline monitoring methodology is not complete and therefore was not available for review for inclusion in this document. Conclusion and Recommended Long Term Monitoring Program for DOE The long-term monitoring program chosen and trash data composition will help prioritize DOE financial resources, staff resources and gauge the effectiveness of trash controls chosen by DOE to implement. After a through review of existing national and regional trash monitoring methodologies, the recommend long-term monitoring program recommend is the Simplified Program. The data collected from a Simplified Program will meet the needs of DOE for long term monitoring of trash. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN 8-11 CHAPTER 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY Municipal Best Management Practices for Controlling Trash and Debris in stormwater and Urban Runoff, California Coastal Commission and Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Anacostia 2032: Plan for a Fishable and Swimmable Anacostia River, District of Columbia Department of the Environment, 2007 A Rapid Trash Assessment method Applied to the Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region: Trash Measurement in Streams, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, January, 2007 An Update of the 1999 Catch Basin Retrofit Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, June 26, 2002 Sligo Creek Trash Reduction Plan, Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, January, 2000 Anacostia Stream Trash Surveying Methodology and Indexing System, John Galli and Kathy Corish, Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, May 19, 1998 AMAFCA/Albuquerque MS4 Floatable & Gross Pollutant Study, ASCG Consulting, October, 2005 Fort Chaplin Subwatershed Restoration: 2003 Baseline Stream Assessment Study – Physical, Chemical, and Biological Conditions, 2004 Fort Dupont Subwatershed Restoration: 1999 Baseline Stream Assessment Study – Physical, Chemical and Biological Conditions, 2000 Fort Dupont Watershed Implementation Plan, District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Watershed protection Division, October, 2003 Fort Dupont Subwatershed Restoration: 1999 Baseline Stream Assessment Study – Physical, Chemical and Biological Conditions, Department of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, April, 2000 Hickey Run Watershed Implementation Plan, District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Watershed protection Division, July, 2005 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN BIB-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Draft Alternatives Report Hickey Run Stormwater Pollution Abatement Project, Earth Tech, Inc., June, 2005 Subwatershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) Watts Branch, District of Columbia, Department of the Environment, Watershed protection Division, June, 2000 Watts Branch TMDL, District of Columbia, Department of the Environment, January, 2003 Pope Branch Watershed Implementation Plan (Draft), District of Columbia, Department of the Environment, Watershed Protection Division, March, 2004 Pope Branch Subwatershed Restoration: 2002 Baseline Stream Assessment Study – Physical, Chemical, and Biological Conditions Department of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, May, 2003 Fort Chaplin Subwatershed Restoration: 2003 Baseline Stream Assessment Study – Physical, Chemical, and Biological Conditions Department of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, October, 2004 Assessment of Proprietary and Nonproprietary Products for Pretreatment of Larger Discharges, Thomas Schueler Roscoe Moss Company, http://www.roscoemoss.com/stormwater.html Anacostia TMDL, District of Columbia, Department of the Environment, 2003 Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan, District of Columbia, February, 2005 WASA Floatables PowerPoint, Water and Sewer Authority, 2005 WASA, Email, 2008 Trash And Debris Best Management Practice (Bmp) Evaluation, Orange County Storm Water Program, RBF Consulting, June, 2003 High Trash-Generation Areas And Control Measures, City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division, January, 2002 Draft Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, March, 2007 Street Sweeping For Pollutant Removal, Meosotis C. Curtis, Watershed Management Division, February, 2002 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN BIB-2 BIBLIOGRAPHY An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County, County of Los Angeles, August, 2007 Proposed Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance, Baltimore Street Sweeping, Department of Public Works, Email, 2008 Litter Enforcement, Department of Public Works, Personal communication, 2008 Litter Enforcement, Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, Web site Litter Enforcement, Department of Environment, Personal communication, 2008 Litter Enforcement, Clean City Coordinator, Personal communication, 2008 Baysaver, Baysaver.com, 2008 CDS, Contech Inc website, 2008 ANACOSTIA WATERSHED TRASH REDUCTION PLAN BIB-3 BIBLIOGRAPHY