DOCSLIB.ORG

Anacostia River Watershed December 31, 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anacostia River Watershed December 31, 2014 Watershed Existing Condition Report for the Anacostia River Watershed December 31, 2014 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 8. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 2. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 9. MD DNR _SCA 3. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 10. MD DNR _SCA 4. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 11. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 5. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 12. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 6. MD DNR _SCA 13. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. Tetra Tech, Inc. Anacostia River Watershed Existing Conditions Report Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Problem Identification and Basis for Listing ........................................................................ 6 1.2.3 TMDL Identified Sources .................................................................................................... 7 1.2.4 Previous Studies ................................................................................................................. 8 2 Watershed Description ....................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Physical and Natural Features .................................................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Climate/Precipitation ......................................................................................................... 13 2.1.3 Topography/Elevation ....................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Land Use and Land Cover .......................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Land Use Distribution ........................................................................................................ 17 2.2.2 Percent Imperviousness ................................................................................................... 20 3 Water Quality and Flow Conditions ................................................................................... 24 3.1 Water Quality Data ...................................................................................................................... 26 3.1.1 Fecal Bacteria ................................................................................................................... 26 3.1.2 DO and BOD ..................................................................................................................... 28 3.1.3 Nitrogen ............................................................................................................................. 30 3.1.4 Phosphorus ....................................................................................................................... 32 3.1.5 Sediment ........................................................................................................................... 34 3.1.6 PCBs ................................................................................................................................. 35 3.2 Biological Station Data ................................................................................................................ 36 3.3 Flow Data .................................................................................................................................... 39 4 Pollutant Source Assessments ......................................................................................... 42 4.1 NPDES Permitted Facilities ........................................................................................................ 42 4.1.1 MS4 (Phase I, Phase II, SHA, Federal) ............................................................................ 42 4.1.2 Other NPDES Permitted Facilities .................................................................................... 43 4.1.3 Wastewater ....................................................................................................................... 46 4.2 Nonpoint and Other Sources ...................................................................................................... 49 4.3 Existing BMPs ............................................................................................................................. 49 4.4 Existing Condition Analysis ......................................................................................................... 52 4.5 Stressor Loading Analysis .......................................................................................................... 57 5 Next Steps............................................................................................................................ 65 6 References ........................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix A: TMDL Factsheets .............................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Water Quality Summaries ................................................................................ B-1 Table B-2. Summary of available BOD and DO data in the Anacostia River watershed ................... B-2 Table B-3. Summary of available total nitrogen data in the Anacostia River watershed ................... B-4 Table B-4. Summary of available total phosphorus data in the Anacostia River watershed.............. B-4 Table B-5. Summary of available TSS data in the Anacostia River watershed ................................. B-5 Table B-6. Summary of available PCB data in the Anacostia River watershed ................................. B-6 Appendix C: NPDES Permitted Dischargers ........................................................................ C-1 Table C-1. Active NPDES permits in the Anacostia River watershed in Prince George’s County .... C-1 i Anacostia River Watershed Existing Conditions Report Table C-2. Available permit limits for NPDES permits in the Anacostia River watershed in Prince George’s County ..................................................................................................................... C-11 Table C-3. Summary of available discharge information for NPDES permits in the Anacostia River watershed in Prince George’s County .................................................................................... C-13 ii Anacostia River Watershed Existing Conditions Report Figures Figure 1-1. Schematic for typical pollution diet (TMDL). ............................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1. Location of the Anacostia River watershed. ............................................................................. 11 Figure 2-2. Population density (people per square mile) in the Anacostia River watershed. ..................... 12 Figure 2-3. Elevation in the Anacostia River watershed. ............................................................................ 14 Figure 2-4. Hydrologic soil groups in the Anacostia River watershed. ....................................................... 16 Figure 2-5. Land use in the Anacostia River watershed. ............................................................................ 18 Figure 2-6. Impervious areas in the Anacostia River watershed. ............................................................... 22 Figure 2-7. Percent impervious areas in the Anacostia River watershed. .................................................. 23 Figure 3-1. Flow and water quality monitoring stations in the Anacostia River watershed. ....................... 25 Figure 3-2. Plot of enterococci over time in the Anacostia River watershed. ............................................. 27 Figure 3-3. Plot of E. coli over time in the Anacostia River watershed. ...................................................... 28 Figure 3-4. Plot of BOD over time in the Anacostia River watershed. ........................................................ 30 Figure 3-5. Plot of DO over time in the Anacostia River watershed. .......................................................... 30 Figure 3-6. Plot of total nitrogen over time in the Anacostia River watershed. ........................................... 32 Figure 3-7. Plot of total phosphorus over time in the Anacostia River watershed. ..................................... 33 Figure 3-8. Plot of TSS over time in the Anacostia River watershed. ......................................................... 35 Figure 3-9. Plot of total PCBs over time in the Anacostia River watershed. ..............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Restoration Plan for the Anacostia River Watershed in Prince George’s County December 30, 2015 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. USEPA 2. Tetra Tech, Inc. 8. USEPA 3. Prince George’s County 9. Montgomery Co DEP 4. VA Tech, Center for TMDL and 10. PGC DoE Watershed Studies 11. USEPA 5. Charles County, MD Dept of 12. PGC DoE Planning and Growth Management 13. USEPA 6. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services _Tom Liptan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 3 1.1.1 What is a TMDL? ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 What is a Restoration Plan? ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marilandica, Summer/Fall 2002
    MARILANDICA Journal of the Maryland Native Plant Society Vol. 10, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2002 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Marilandica Journal of the Maryland Native Plant Society The Maryland Native Volume 10, Number 2 Summer/Fall 2002 Plant Society ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (MNPS) is a nonprofit organization that uses education, research, and Table of Contents community service to increase the awareness and appreciation of Native Woody Flora of Montgomery County native plants and their habitats, By John Mills Parrish leading to their conservation and Page 3 restoration. Membership is open to ~ all who are interested in Maryland’s MNPS Field Botany Updates native plants and their habitats, preserving Maryland’s natural By Rod Simmons, Cris Fleming, John Parrish, and Jake Hughes heritage, increasing their knowledge Page 8 of native plants, and helping to ~ further the Society’s mission. In Search of Another Orchid Species By Joseph F. Metzger, Jr. MNPS sponsors monthly meetings, Page 11 workshops, field trips, and an ~ annual fall conference. Just Boil the Seeds By James MacDonald Page 13 Maryland Native Plant Society ~ P.O. Box 4877 MNPS Contacts Silver Spring, MD 20914 www.mdflora.org Page 15 ~ Some Varieties of Andropogon virginicus and MNPS Executive Officers: Andropogon scoparius By M.L. Fernald, Rhodora, Vol. 37, 1935 Karyn Molines-President Page 16 Louis Aronica-Vice President Marc Imlay-Vice President Roderick Simmons-Vice President Jane Osburn-Secretary Jean Cantwell-Treasurer MNPS Board Of Directors: Carole Bergmann Blaine Eckberg Cris Fleming Jake Hughes Carol Jelich Dwight Johnson James MacDonald Joe Metzger, Jr. Lespedeza repens John Parrish Mary Pat Rowan Submissions for Marilandica are welcomed. Word documents are preferred but Louisa Thompson not necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards
    Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards EPA Approval Date: July 11, 2018 Table of Contents Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards ............................................ 3 Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria Considered with Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Re-evaluation of Maryland’s Restoration Variances ...................................................................... 5 Other Future Water Quality Standards Work ................................................................................. 6 Water Quality Standards Amendments ........................................................................................... 8 Designated Uses ........................................................................................................................... 8 Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Antidegradation.......................................................................................................................... 24 2 Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that States review their water quality standards every three years (Triennial Review) and revise the standards as necessary. A water quality standard consists of three separate but related
    [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]
  • The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2008 INTEGRATED REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND U.S. CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 305(b) AND 303(d) CLEAN WATER ACT (P.L. 97-117) District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division Government of the District of Columbia Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor PREFACE PREFACE The Water Quality Division of the District of Columbia's District Department of the Environment, Natural Resources Administration, prepared this report to satisfy the listing requirements of §303(d) and the reporting requirements of §305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). This report provides water quality information on the District of Columbia’s surface and ground waters that were assessed during 2008 and updates the water quality information required by law. Various programs in the Natural Resources Administration contributed to this report including the Fisheries and Wildlife Division and the Watershed Protection Division. Questions or comments regarding this report or requests for copies should be forwarded to the address below. The District of Columbia Government District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division 51 N St., NE Washington, D.C. 20002-3323 Attention: N. Shulterbrandt ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Paint Branch PAINT BRANCH Begins As a Few Small Springs, Which Flow from the an Ridge Line South of Route 198 in Spencerville, Maryland
    Restoring Paint Branch PAINT BRANCH begins as a few small springs, which flow from the An ridge line south of Route 198 in Spencerville, Maryland. It becomes a single stream just above Fairland Road. Roughly half of its 17- mile length is in Montgomery County, the lower half in Prince Overview George’s County. Paint Branch begins at an elevation of approxi- mately 480 feet and flows southeast. The stream drops to about 30 Of The feet above sea level where it meets Indian Creek to form Northeast Branch in College Park. It collects many tributaries along the way, Paint the principal being Little Paint Branch. Overall, it drains 31.5 square miles of land. Paint Branch may be the most diverse stream in the Anacostia Branch subwatershed. Several sections are notable for their scenic quali- ties. Cool springs and wetlands feed its headwaters, in an area largely residential in character. In the spring the stream valley is punctuated with a surprising number and variety of wildflowers, particularly in the upper reaches. The upper watershed also is home for the only long-term naturally reproducing trout popula- tion in the metropolitan Washington area. The boulder-strewn gorge area downstream near Route 29 is especially beautiful. The middle segment of Paint Branch is generally attractive, in spite of 2 some evident deterioration. Below the Beltway, the stream leaves the hilly Piedmont terrain and enters the Coastal Plain. As Paint Branch moves toward University Boulevard and through more urbanized areas, it changes from a pool and riffle stream to a nat- ural meander with only occasional pools and riffles.
    [Show full text]
  • C U R R E N T S
    A N A C O S T I A Currents PUBLISHED BY THE ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION COMMITTEE 2002 Dear Friends of the Report, the restoration effort has gained a new focus, as well as a comprehensive system for tracking Anacostia Watershed: restoration progress until 2010. The Annual Report, with its colorful and user friendly format, will also This is an exciting time for the help to increase public interest and involvement in the member governments and agencies restoration effort. of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC). In addition to fulfilling their AWRC-related obliga- The year began on a high note tions, the individual Anacostia jurisdictions are CATHERINE RAPPE, pursuing a variety of restoration and water quality 2002 AWRC CHAIR following the adoption by the leaders of the District of Colum- enhancement projects throughout the watershed. The bia, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, and District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority took the State of Maryland of a new Anacostia Restoration a major step forward with the recent completion of its Agreement last December. Between this landmark CSO Long Term Control Plan. Meanwhile, District event and the release this fall of the 2001 Annual planners and resource specialists are coordinating with other agencies and organizations to implement a number of stream restoration and Low Impact Development (LID) projects. Montgomery County continues its active role in design and implementing numerous stormwater management, stream restoration, wetland creation and reforestation projects in its portion of the Anacostia watershed. Prince Georges County completed several stormwater retrofit and LID projects this year and recently secured a $1 million grant from EPA for LID demonstration projects throughout the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Dorchester Pope Family
    A HISTORY OF THE Dorchester Pope Family. 1634-1888. WITH SKETCHES OF OTHER POPES IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA, AND NOTES UPON SEVERAL INTERMARRYING FAMILIES, 0 CHARLES HENRY POPE, MllMBIUl N. E. HISTOalC GENIIALOGlCAl. SOCIETY. BOSTON~ MASS.: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, AT 79 FRANKLIN ST. 1888 PRESS OF L. BARTA & Co., BOSTON. BOSTON, MA88,,.... (~£P."/.,.. .w.;,.!' .. 190 L.. - f!cynduLdc ;-~,,__ a.ut ,,,,-Mrs. 0 ~. I - j)tt'"rrz-J (i'VU ;-k.Lf!· le a, ~ u1--(_,fl.,C./ cU!.,t,, u,_a,1,,~{a"-~ t L, Lt j-/ (y ~'--? L--y- a~ c/4-.t 7l~ ~~ -zup /r,//~//TJJUJ4y. a.&~ ,,l E kr1J-&1 1}U, ~L-U~ l 6-vl- ~-u _ r <,~ ?:~~L ~ I ~-{lu-,1 7~ _..l~ i allll :i1tft r~,~UL,vtA-, %tt. cz· -t~I;"'~::- /, ~ • I / CJf:z,-61 M, ~u_, PREFACE. IT was predicted of the Great Philanthropist, "He shall tum the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of children to their fathers." The writer seeks to contribute something toward the development of such mutual afiection between the members of the Pope Family. He has found his own heart tenderly drawn toward all whose names he has registered and whose biographies he has at­ tempted to write. The dead are his own, whose graves he has sought to strew with the tributes of love ; the living are his own, every one of whose careers he now watches with strong interest. He has given a large part of bis recreation hours and vacation time for eight years to the gathering of materials for the work ; written hundreds of letters ; examined a great many deeds and wills, town journals, church registers, and family records ; visited numerous persons and places, and pored over a large number of histories of towns and families ; and has gathered here the items and entries thus discovered.
    [Show full text]
  • WSSC Update on Consent Decree Projects
    Presentation to the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Water Quality Advisory Group Consent Decree Projects in Montgomery County October 21, 2013 Discussion Points Sewer Repair, Rehabilitation & Replacement (SR3)Program Overview Basins in Montgomery County Consent Decree Project Overview Lateral Contracts Roads Contracts ESA Contracts Expectations During Construction Activities Questions SR3 Program Overview Background Federal Consent Decree between the United States, the State of Maryland, Citizen Groups and WSSC Priority 1 Assets must be completed by December 7, 2015 Large scale program to improve collection system performance and restore condition Reduce sewer overflows and backups Basins in Montgomery County •Cabin John •Dulles Interceptor •Little Falls •Muddy Branch •Monocacy •Northwest Branch •Paint Branch •Patuxent North •Rock Creek •Rock Run •Seneca Creek •Sligo Creek •Watts Branch Consent Decree Projects Overview Laterals Repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of sewer house connections (laterals) and the installation of cleanouts and mainline lateral connection seals. Lateral repairs will involve work between the main line sewer and the property line. Roads Repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of aging and defective sewers using Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP), pipe bursting, and open cut excavation. Work also includes chemical grout injection, internal spot repairs, external point repairs, manhole grouting and lining, and cleaning and inspection of sewers. Work occurs in neighborhoods and populated areas. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Sanitary sewer system rehabilitation utilizing mainly trenchless methods. Some repair work will require open cut methods. Work consists of the rehabilitating sewer mainline, lateral, and manhole systems. Work will be associated with stream restoration activities and the construction of temporary access roads in ESA.
    [Show full text]