DOCSLIB.ORG

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Consent Decree Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Consent Decree Update Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Consent Decree Update July 15, 2020 1 Agenda • Background • Strategic Priorities • Schedule Update – Roads • Schedule Update – ESAs • Consent Decree Costs • National Park Service • Summary 2 Background • On December 7, 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered a Consent Decree to resolve civil claims that WSSC Water violated the Clean Water Act and Maryland water pollution control, health and nuisance laws. Four citizens groups - the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc., Friends of Sligo Creek, and the Natural Resources Defense Council intervened as plaintiffs in the underlying civil action and signed the Consent Decree. In a First Amendment to the Consent Decree another citizens group- the Patuxent Riverkeeper also intervened as a plaintiff. • The purpose of the 2005 Consent Decree is to eliminate the sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) occurring in WSSC Water’s collection system by requiring WSSC Water to inspect the condition of its sewer basins, identify structural and capacity problems contributing to SSOs, and to propose and implement rehabilitation plans to remediate such problems. • The 2005 Consent Decree, as entered, required WSSC Water to complete its collection system repair work by December 7, 2015. • Due to delays in obtaining necessary permits from governmental agencies, and the need to institute condemnation proceedings to obtain access to private property to perform sewer rehabilitation, WSSC Water entered into a 2nd Amendment to the Consent Decree which extended the deadline for completing collection system repair work to February 9, 2022. • Twenty-two (22) sewer basins encompassing WSSC Water’s service area are involved in the collection system repairs. 3 Strategic Priorities Optimize Infrastructure Protect Our Resources 4 Schedule Update: Roads Work by Basin • 135 Construction Task Orders o 131.4 miles awarded for construction o 131.09 (99%) miles rehabilitated as of April 27, 2020 Sligo Creek 100% Western Branch 100% Cabin John 99% → 100% Mattawoman 100% Paint Branch 100% Northwest Branch 100% Lower Anacostia 100% Horsepen Branch 100% Beaverdam 100% Northeast Branch 99% → 99% Seneca Creek 100% Oxon Run 99% → 99% Dulles Interceptor 100% Rock Creek 100% Muddy Branch 100% Rock Run 100% Broad Creek 100% Little Falls 99% → 99% Piscataway 100% Watts Branch 100% Parkway 100% 5 Schedule Update: Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Work by Basin • ESA includes a total of 257 Construction Task Orders o 255 (99%) Construction Task Orders issued for construction • ESA includes a total of 158.49 miles o 158.28 (99%) miles awarded for construction o 124.53 (79%) miles rehabilitated as of April 27, 2020 Muddy Branch 81% → 100% Rock Run 81% → 100% Western Branch 89% → 92% Paint Branch 80% → 84% Seneca Creek 100% → 100% Beaverdam 98% → 98% Watts Branch 68% → 76% Piscataway 95% → 95% Parkway 79% → 87% Rock Creek 97% → 100% Oxon Run* 78% → 78% Sligo Creek 91% → 91% Horsepen Branch 100% Cabin John 93% → 100% Dulles Interceptor 100% Northeast Branch* 80% → 80% Mattawoman 100% Lower Anacostia 100% → 100% Monocacy 100% Northwest Branch 91% → 91% Patuxent North 100% Broad Creek* 94% → 94% Patuxent Center 100% Little Falls 74% → 74% 6 $10,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $40,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 Cost($) $0.00 1-Jul-05 1-Oct-05 1-Jan-06 $1,503,405,463 Cost: Projected Cumulative $1,320,888,127Cost: Actual Cumulative $1,324,364,309and Cost: Budgeted Cumulative As of Dec 31, 2021:Dec As of As of March 31, 2020:31, March As of 1-Apr-06 Actual Nonlabor Cost Cum Budgeted Nonlabor Cost Cum Cost Actual Nonlabor Cost Nonlabor Budgeted 1-Jul-06 1-Oct-06 1-Jan-07 1-Apr-07 1-Jul-07 1-Oct-07 1-Jan-08 1-Apr-08 1-Jul-08 1-Oct-08 1-Jan-09 1-Apr-09 1-Jul-09 1-Oct-09 1-Jan-10 Mar till vs. Actual Cost Planned Decree Consent 1-Apr-10 1-Jul-10 1-Oct-10 1-Jan-11 1-Apr-11 1-Jul-11 1-Oct-11 1-Jan-12 1-Apr-12 1-Jul-12 1-Oct-12 1-Jan-13 1-Apr-13 1-Jul-13 1-Oct-13 1-Jan-14 1-Apr-14 1-Jul-14 1-Oct-14 1-Jan-15 1-Apr-15 1-Jul-15 1-Oct-15 1-Jan-16 1-Apr-16 1-Jul-16 1-Oct-16 - 1-Jan-17 2020 1-Apr-17 1-Jul-17 1-Oct-17 1-Jan-18 1-Apr-18 1-Jul-18 1-Oct-18 1-Jan-19 1-Apr-19 1-Jul-19 1-Oct-19 1-Jan-20 1-Apr-20 1-Jul-20 1-Oct-20 1-Jan-21 1-Apr-21 1-Jul-21 1-Oct-21 1-Jan-22 $0.00 $200,000,000.00 $400,000,000.00 $600,000,000.00 $800,000,000.00 $1,000,000,000.00 $1,200,000,000.00 $1,400,000,000.00 $1,600,000,000.00 7 Cumulative Cost Consent Decree Costs Description Projected Total Actual Cost to Date Cost to Date Consent Decree (All Articles) ** $1,994,955,619.84 $1,733,472,648.29 Article 06 $1,503,405,463.00 * $1,320,888,127.58 All Other Articles Total Cost *** $488,813,706.84 $410,115,950.84 General Cost $41,523,501.00 $29,712,390.00 Article 02 $95,863,891.00 $73,718,957.00 Article 03 $41,606,772.84 $32,526,487.84 Article 04 $37,205,477.00 $26,585,159.00 Article 05 $2,708,764.00 $2,708,764.00 Article 07 $13,279,606.00 $681,082.00 • Projected total cost to date (includes: Article 10 $200,623,560.00 $201,418,112.00 Construction, Program Management, Design and Article 11 $50,959,038.00 $37,721,902.00 Environmental Support) ** Includes the Article 06, Supplemental Environmental Projects $5,043,097.00 $5,043,097.00 All Other Articles Total Cost and Stipulated Stipulated Penalties $2,736,450.00 $2,468,569.87 Penalties *** Does not include the Stipulated Penalties 8 National Park Service (NPS) NPS Sites Remain on the Critical Path • Broad Creek Basin Projects – Rehabilitation work was completed in April 2019. • Oxon Run Basin Projects – Rehabilitation work was completed on February 1st 2020. • Northeast Branch Basin Projects – The Rehabilitation projects in Greenbelt Park have been separated into two (2) NPS permit packages: o As a result of NPS building a bridge abutment very close to a WSSC Water sewer main, the sewer main is being relocated and NPS is reviewing the documents under an Environmental Assessment (EA) for issuance of a permit. o Permit for all other rehabilitation projects will be issued under a Categorical Exclusion. o It is anticipated that permits will be issued by the end of July 2020. 9 Summary • Total number of sewer assets to be rehabilitated, repaired, relocated (SR3) under the Consent Decree: 7,071 • Number of sewer assets with designs completed: 6,833. Remainder in design: 238 Anticipated design completion: December 2020. • Anticipated construction completion: December 2021. • In accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements, post construction monitoring for stream projects will continue five (5) years after construction is completed. • Upon completion of SR3 construction in each sewer basin, WSSC Water will conduct a Performance Assessment of the work performed, to determine the effectiveness of the rehabilitation work performed in each sewer basin. 10 Questions? 11.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix M: Aquatic Biota Monitoring Table
    NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX M: AQUATIC BIOTA MONITORING TABLE Final – May 2020 Aquatic Habitat, BIBI, and FIBI Scores and Rankings for Monitoring Sites within the Vicinity of the I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study Corridor Aquatic Habitat BIBI FIBI MDE 12-digit Watershed Site Waterway Source Site I.D. Year Narrative Narrative Narrative Name Coordinates Method Score Score Score Ranking Ranking Ranking Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2008 -- -- -- 19.1 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2009 -- -- -- 15.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2010 -- -- -- 30.5 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2011 -- -- -- 29.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2012 -- -- -- 13.3 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2013 -- -- -- 12.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2014 -- -- -- 38 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2015 -- -- -- 27.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2016 -- -- -- 27.4 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    Gaithersburg A Character Counts! City City of Gaithersburg WATER RESOURCES A Master Plan Element February 17, 2010 2009 MASTER PLAN CITY OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT Planning Commission Approval: January 20, 2010, Resolution PCR-2-10 Mayor and City Council Adoption: February 16, 2010, Resolution R-10-10 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Mayor Sidney A. Katz Council Vice President Cathy C. Drzyzgula Jud Ashman Henry F. Marraffa, Jr. Michael A. Sesma Ryan Spiegel PLANNING COMMISSION Chair John Bauer Vice-Chair Matthew Hopkins Commissioner Lloyd S. Kaufman Commissioner Leonard J. Levy Commissioner Danielle L. Winborne Alternate Commissioner Geraldine Lanier CITY MANAGER Angel L. Jones ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Erica Shingara, former Environmental Services Director Gary Dyson, Environmental Specialist Christine Gallagher, former Environmental Assistant Meredith Strider, Environmental Assistant PLANNING AND CODE ADMINISTRATION Greg Ossont, Director, Planning & Code Administration Lauren Pruss, Planning Director Kirk Eby, GIS Planner Raymond Robinson III, Planner CIT Y CITY OF GAITHERSBURG OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 2 WATER RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................................ 1 2. Background.......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010-2015-Data-Summary-Report
    1 The Audubon Naturalist Society is pleased to offer this report of water quality data collected by its volunteer monitors. Since the early 1990s, the Audubon Naturalist Society (ANS) has sponsored a volunteer water quality monitoring program in Montgomery County, Maryland, and Washington, DC, to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of conditions in healthy and degraded streams and to create a bridge of cooperation and collaboration between citizens and natural resource agencies concerned about water quality protection and restoration. Every year, approximately 180-200 monitors visit permanent stream sites to collect and identify benthic macroinvertebrates and to conduct habitat assessments. To ensure the accuracy of the data, the Audubon Naturalist Society follows a quality assurance/quality control plan. Before sampling, monitors are offered extensive training in macroinvertebrate identification and habitat assessment protocols. The leader of each team must take and pass an annual certification test in benthic macroinvertebrate identification to the taxonomic level of family. Between 2010 and 2015, ANS teams monitored 28 stream sites in ten Montgomery County watersheds: Paint Branch, Northwest Branch, Sligo Creek, Upper Rock Creek, Watts Branch, Muddy Branch, Great Seneca Creek, Little Seneca Creek, Little Bennett Creek, and Hawlings River. Most of the sites are located in Montgomery County Parks; three are on private property; and one is in Seneca Creek State Park. In each accompanying individual site report, a description of the site is given; the macroinvertebrates found during each visit are listed; and a stream health score is assigned. These stream health scores are compared to scores from previous years in charts showing both long-term trends and two-year moving averages.
    [Show full text]
  • Reliability Enhancement Program Work Plan Location-Subdivision Or MC SAIFI Contribution J and Cheltenham Dr., Bethesda, MD
    Reliability Enhancement Program Work Plan Montgomery County e nt s e e k r nt T m e e or ( k c m a e t l or t W n p ov W n e e h e t r m R de pr m e a ng) e ow m de e g i l r I Location Feeder Location-Subdivision Jurisdiction e m b pgr Status Timeline ov a G na on Fe a m U i pr i C d t y M a t Tr i Im nd n a Loa m r o o ior i r e t ound d a ut P e t gr r t A Fe ge s e i V nde D U Ashford 14379 Dry Ridge Road Montgomery County X Complete 1st Quarter 2012 Aspen Hill 14840 Saddlebrook Park Montgomery County X Complete 3rd Quarter 2011 Aspen Hill 14914 Bel Pre Montgomery County X Complete 3rd Quarter 2012 Bells Mill 14083 Seven Locks Road Montgomery County X Complete 2nd Quarter 2013 Bells Mill 34973 Twinbrook Montgomery County Complete 4th Quarter 2011 Bells Mill 34978 Twinbrook Montgomery County Complete 3rd Quarter 2011 Bells Mill 69179 Beverly Farms, Hunting Hill, Potomac, Rockville Montgomery County Complete 3rd Quarter 2011 Bells Mill 69180 Beverly Farms, Potomac, Rockville Montgomery County Complete 3rd Quarter 2011 Bells Mill 69181 Bells Mill Montgomery County X Complete 1st Quarter 2015 Bells Mill 69181 Potomac and Hunting Hill and David Talyor Model Basin Montgomery County Complete 4th Quarter 2011 Bells Mill 69185 Beverly Farms, Hunting Hill, Rockville Montgomery County Complete 3rd Quarter 2011 Rolling Green Way URD Subdivision around Tuckahoe Way and Bells Mill Road 14081 Montgomery County X Complete 3rd Quarter 2014 Lake Breeze Dr North Potomac, MD Bethesda 14081 Lancelot Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Park Trails Plan Amendment
    MCPB Item #______ Date: 9/29/16 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 22, 2016 TO: Montgomery County Planning Board VIA: Michael F. Riley, Director of Parks Mitra Pedoeem, Deputy Director, Administration Dr. John E. Hench, Ph.D., Chief, Park Planning and Stewardship Division (PPSD) FROM: Charles S. Kines, AICP, Planner Coordinator (PPSD) Brooke Farquhar, Supervisor (PPSD) SUBJECT: Worksession #3, Countywide Park Trails Plan Amendment Recommended Planning Board Action Review, approve and adopt the plan amendment to be titled 2016 Countywide Park Trails Plan. (Attachment 1) Changes Made Since Public Hearing Draft Attached is the final draft of the plan amendment, including all Planning Board-requested changes from worksessions #1 and #2, as well as all appendices. Please focus your attention on the following pages and issues: 1. Page 34, added language to clarify the addition of the Northwest Branch Trail to the plan, in order to facilitate mountain biking access between US 29 (Colesville Rd) and Wheaton Regional Park. In addition, an errata sheet will be inserted in the Rachel Carson Trail Corridor Plan to reflect this change in policy. 2. Page 48, incorporating Planning Board-approved text from worksession #2, regarding policy for trail user types 3. Appendices 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 15. In addition, all maps now accurately reflect Planning Board direction. Trail Planning Work Program – Remainder of FY 17 Following the approval and adoption of this plan amendment, trail planning staff will perform the following tasks to implement the Plan and address other trail planning topics requested by the Planning Board: 1. Develop program of requirements for the top implementation priority for both natural and hard surface trails.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm 67 Lawson.Pdf
    l-1: 13-32 ACHS s tJ:irr.rn RY FOP,~>I 1. Name Tenmile Creek Stream Valley '"~. Planning Area/Site Number 13/32 3 ..HNCPPC Atlas Reference Map 6 I-12 4. Address Northwestern Montgomery County between Route 121 ~West Old Baltimore Road 5. Classifica~ion Summary Category Multiple Resource Ovmership Various Public Acquisition In process Status Occupied Accessible Yes: restricted Present use A~Ti culture, Park, Private Residence Previous Survey Recording M-NCPPC Federal__ State_LCounty_LLocal __ (Titls and date: Inventory of Historical Sites 1976 6. Date 7. Original Owner 8. Apparent Condition b. Altered 9. Descriotion: Tenmile Creek Road, one of but a few dirt roads remaining in le County, winds past a nineteenth century schoolhouse, a slave cabin, a fire- ~:~oof house built on the site of a turreted mansion destroyed by fire in 1945, a Victorian summer boarding house and private park, a mid-nineteenth century mill site and pond, and a deserted, early road. The road leads through a green valley where jersey cows graze, up a gentle rise and around a bend where the trees meet overhead, through a ford, to the intersection with West Old Baltimore Road and a pond of pink and yellow water lilies. The creek valley contains numerous natural springs, many lined with watercress, meadows of wildflowers, surrounded with tree covered hills. 10. Significance: The valley of Tenmile Creek, immediately northwest of Boyds, Md. is an uncompromised historic & environmentally significant area that has suc­ ceeded in maintaining its character. Saved from development, it is now threatened by an impoundment. Historically the area contains potentially signifi­ cant archeological sites -- possibly of prehistoric Indian culture -- associated with woodland settlements of eighteenth century tobacco planters, a mill site, pond, race & house, a large boarding house constructed to accommodate summer visitors after the area became accessible by railroad in 1873, & later structures erected by dairy farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER SUPPLY and SEWERAGE SYSTEMS PLAN 2017 - 2026 PLAN: County Executive Draft – March 2017
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS PLAN 2017 - 2026 PLAN: County Executive Draft – March 2017 CHAPTER 4: SEWERAGE SYSTEMS Table of Contents Table of Figures: ............................................................................................................................... 4-3 Table of Tables: ................................................................................................................................ 4-4 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: ......................................................................................... 4-5 I. THE WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY DISTRICT: ..................................................... 4-10 I.A. Government Responsibilities: ......................................................................................... 4-11 I.B. Programs and Policies: ................................................................................................... 4-11 I.B.1. Facility Planning, Project Development and Project Approval Processes: ................. 4-11 I.B.2. Wastewater Flow Analysis: ........................................................................................ 4-12 I.B.3. Sanitary Sewer Overflows: ........................................................................................ 4-17 I.B.4. Sewer Sizing Policies: ............................................................................................... 4-23 I.B.5. Pressure Sewer Systems: ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "N7T 1976 Status Occupied Accessible No Federal State X County Xlocal Present Use Private Residence 6
    ACHS SUMMARY FORM M: 26-5 1. Name: Watt's Branch Miller's House (Veirs Log Cabin) MAGI #1650055204 2. Planning Area/Site Number: 26/5 3. M-NCPPC Atlas Reference: Map 15 Coordinate C-14 m.. Address: 1050 W. Montgomery Avenue Rockville, Md. 5. Classification Summary Category building Previous Survey Recording MNCPPC Ownership private Title and Date: Historic Sites Inventory Public Acquisition^ "N7T 1976 Status occupied Accessible no Federal State x County xLocal Present use private residence 6. Date: 1790s 7. Original Owner: Richard Wootton 8» Apparent Condition a. excellent b. alte red c< original site . Description: This log and frame house sits at the end of a dirt road near Watts Branch Creek, facing northeast. Built in two sections: the northwest sections is log, it is three bays across and one and a half stories high. The southeast section is frame and is three bays across and two and a half stories in height. The frame section is irregularly shaped and projects forward from the log house. The log house has V-notched logs and concrete chinking. The frame section has beige beaded clapboarding. Both sections have six-over-six double-hung windows. The log section has a gable roof, the frame section has a hipped roof with %3bestos shingles. 10. Significance: This log and frame dwelling is a fine example of an early cabin which grew to meet the needs of the families who lived in it. It sits on land once owned by the "father" of Montgomery County, Dr. Thomas Sprigg Wootton, who introduced the successful resolution on August 31> 1776> to divide Frederick County into 3 parts — Washington, Frederick, and Montgomery Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Ten Polluted Streams
    Stormwater Partners Coalition For Immediate Release Contact: Diane Cameron 301-933-1210; 385-2156 July 21, 2006 Steve Dryden 301-656-0049 Montgomery County’s TOP TEN POLLUTED STREAMS This alphabetical list is based on publicly-available Montgomery County and state of Maryland studies; reports by citizen stream stewardship groups, and visits to the streams. It also takes into account ongoing and planned development. Further details are available through the watershed contacts or websites on page two. CABIN JOHN CREEK - Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) surveyors and volunteers reported “poor” and “fair” biological quality throughout their chosen stream sites in Cabin John for 2003. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) lists Cabin John as impaired for bacteria, nutrients, sediment, and biological quality. Cabin John also suffers from raw sewage leaks (including about 600,000 gallons released in the aftermath of the June 2006 storms). I-270 and I-495, plus shopping centers (Montgomery Mall) and Rockville suburbs contribute large runoff loads. (Watershed contact: Burr Gray, Friends of Cabin John Creek, 703- 607-2740, 301-320-2918) LITTLE FALLS AND MINNEHAHA BRANCH - With its headwaters buried in downtown Bethesda, Little Falls is afflicted by huge volumes of runoff that has rendered the stream segment below Massachusetts Ave. into a lifeless, sandy wasteland. The county rates most of Little Falls as having fair to poor habitat. Minnehaha is a small stream west of Little Falls; it feeds directly into the Potomac. The Montgomery Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) stream condition map published in 1998 listed it as “fair.” (Contact: Steve Dryden, 301-656-0049) LITTLE PAINT BRANCH - More than half the stream network is rated poor or fair by the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality in Montgomery County
    League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, MD, Inc. (rev. 4/1/2014) Fact Sheet, April 2014 WATER QUALITY IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY INTRODUCTION The state of Maryland is responsible for implementing the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and has delegated to the counties Lower the responsibility for preparing a strategic plan for achieving Monocacy the standards set out in the Clean Water Act for each watershed within the county. Seneca Creek Patuxent As shown in the individual watershed reports below, the overall water quality in Montgomery varies considerably, driven Upper Potomac Direct mostly by the degree of urbanized Rock development of the land. Further Creek development in the county constitutes a Lower significant potential for further degradation Potomac Anacostia Direct of the water supply and significantly increases threats of flooding when development occurs on flood plains Cabin in the area. Stormwater runoff, containing nutrients used on farmlands John and on lawns and gardens in developed areas, as well as increased runoff volume due to the increased creation of impervious surfaces, provides a significant threat to water quality in the two rivers bordering the county and to the Chesapeake Bay, into which both rivers drain. To successfully meet its regulatory requirements and environmental goals, Montgomery County must complete watershed assessments on all county lands on a 5-year rotation and develop a specific implementation plan to correct deficiencies found. The implementation plan must include plans to meet the requirements of the County’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit to show progress toward meeting the waste-load allocations for the Environmental Protection Agency-approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) for various reservoirs within the county and how they will affect the Chesapeake Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on the Montgomery County's Existing and Possible Tree Canopy
    A Report on the Montgomery County’s Existing and Possible Tree Canopy Why is Tree Canopy Important? Project Background Tree canopy (TC) is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that The goal of the project was to apply the USDA Forest Service’s cover the ground when viewed from above. Tree canopy provides many TC assessment protocols to Montgomery County. The analysis benefits to communities, improving water quality, saving energy, lowering was conducted based on year 2009 data. This project was city temperatures, reducing air pollution, enhancing property values, made possible through funding from the Maryland-National providing wildlife habitat, facilitating social and educational opportunities, Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), Sandia Na- and providing aesthetic benefits. Establishing a tree canopy goal is crucial tional Laboratories, and the USDA Forest Service. The Univer- for communities seeking to improve their green infrastructure and livibility. sity of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory (SAL) performed A tree canopy assessment is the first step in this goal-setting process, the assessment in collaboration with M-NCPCC and the USDA providing estimates for the amount of tree canopy currently present in a Forest Service’s Northern Research Station. county as well as the amount of tree canopy that could theoretically be established. How Much Tree Canopy? *Possible TC is in addition to Existing TC An analysis of Montgomery County’s tree canopy based on land cover data derived from high-resolution aerial imagery and LiDAR (Figure 1) found that 157,219 acres of the county were covered by tree canopy (termed Existing TC), representing 50% of all land in the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents I
    Table of Contents I. Introduction Introduction Goals and Objectives Benefits of Green Space Green Space, Greenways, & Trail Types II. Regional Green Space and Greenways Framework Vision for Green Space in Metropolitan Washington Existing Green Space Network Green Space Opportunities and Challenges Regional Greenway Projects Accotink Greenway Anacostia Greenway Fort Circle Greenway Metropolitan Branch Trail and Prince George’s Connector Monocacy River Greenway Northwest Branch Greenway Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Prince William County Potomac Heritage Trail Fairfax County Fairfax Heritage Trail and Potomac Heritage Trail Loudoun County Potomac Heritage Trail Prince George’s County Potomac River Greenway and Potomac Heritage Trail Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Trail Community Greenway Access III. Implementation Strategy Overview of the Implementation Process Funding Opportunities Federal Funding State Funding Local Funding Private Funding Community Funding Acquisition and Development Alternatives Federal and State Agencies County and Local Governments Non-Governmental Organizations Private Landowners Management Agreements Management Techniques Safety and Security Maintenance Multi-Use Conflicts Liability Technical Assistance Community Outreach Techniques Confronting Opposition to Greenways Public Outreach Strategies IV. Greenway Resources and Contacts Bibliographical Resources Local Contacts Appendix List of Metropolitan Washington Proposed Greenways Introduction Green Space Past and Present From the National Mall to the region’s stream valley parks and outlying farmland, metropolitan Washington is characterized by natural beauty and green space. In 1791, Pierre L’Enfant laid out the District of Columbia between the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers with 17 park reservations, open space for memorials, civic art, institutions, and broad park-like streets and avenues creating a network of green space. This network was expanded in the late 1800s with the designation of Potomac Park, Rock Creek Park and Anacostia Park.
    [Show full text]