DOCSLIB.ORG

Stream Erosion Methodology Technical Memorandum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stream Erosion Methodology Technical Memorandum Technical Memorandum Stream Erosion Methodology Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1 2 Purpose .........................................................................................................................................................1 3 Technical Approach .....................................................................................................................................1 4 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 8 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 Analysis Attachments ................................................................................................................................................. 10 Comprehensive Baseline Comprehensive – , 2014 , December 22 December Consolidated TMDL Implementation Plan Implementation TMDL Consolidated Technical Memorandum: Stream Erosion Methodology List of Tables Table 1: Measured Rate of In-stream Erosion in District Streams ................................................................. 3 Table 2: WTM In-Stream Erosion Relationships ............................................................................................ 4 Table 3: Comparison of In-Stream Erosion Load Calculation Methods for Hickey Run .............................. 6 Table 4: Proposed Scaling Factors .................................................................................................................... 6 Table 5: Comparison of in-stream erosion loads ............................................................................................. 7 List of Figures Figure 1: Empirical equation established by MDE to correlate percent watershed impervious and percent stream bank erosion .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: SBE (as a percent of total TSS load) as a Function of Imperviousness and Stream Degradation Potential ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 ii | Page Technical Memorandum: Stream Erosion Methodology 1 Introduction The District Department of Environment (DDOE) is required to develop a Consolidated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan (IP) as established in the District’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (U. S. EPA 2011 and U. S. EPA 2012). The IP will define and organize a multi-year process centered on reducing pollutant loads originating within the District MS4. The level of pollutant control will be based on past TMDL studies performed to protect impaired water bodies in the District. The IP will include a summary of the regulatory compliance strategy to satisfy TMDL-related permit requirements, a summary of data and methods used to develop the IP, specific prioritized recommendations for stormwater control measures, a schedule for implementation and attainment of Waste Load Allocations (WLAs), and a method for tracking progress. Substantial public involvement will be sought in plan development. This Technical Memorandum on the methodology for estimating pollutant loads associated with in- stream erosion is one in a series of technical memoranda that provide detailed information on research, analysis, programs and procedures that support development of the Consolidated TMDL IP. 2 Purpose There are two primary generators of pollutant loads applicable to the District’s MS4 area: runoff loads associated with the build-up and wash-off of pollutants from the surrounding watershed, and in-stream loads associated with erosion of native bed and bank material and accumulated legacy sediments. Runoff loads are discussed further in separate technical memoranda. In-stream erosion loads are the topic of this Technical Memorandum. The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to document the selection of the method used to calculate in-stream erosion loads. The Technical Approach employed includes: • A review of accounting for and calculating in-stream erosion loads in District TMDL development. • A literature review of in-stream erosion load calculation methods. • An evaluation of in-stream erosion load calculation methods and the selection of a method to apply in the IP Modeling Tool. • A review of applicable sediment delivery ratios. The Results section of this Technical Memorandum presents the selected in-stream erosion load calculation method and provides commentary on the rationale for the method’s selection and use in the IP. 3 Technical Approach 3.1 Review of In-Stream Erosion in the District TMDLs An evaluation of documentation from the various District TMDLs was conducted to determine if and how in-stream erosion was calculated in the development of each TMDL, and whether the in-stream erosion load is considered a point source or a non-point source. This evaluation was used to determine whether and how in-stream erosion should be accounted for in the baseline pollutant load modeling required to support development of the Consolidated TMDL IP. A full review of how in-stream erosion is handled in each of the TMDLs is presented in Attachment A. There are five TSS TMDLs for the District, and each addresses in-stream erosion to some extent. These include: 1 | Page Technical Memorandum: Stream Erosion Methodology 1. 2002 TMDL for TSS for the Upper and Lower Anacostia – This TMDL implicitly accounts for in- stream erosion by applying a high TSS EMC value for “open channel” tributaries (i.e., tributaries that do not have piped sections – which include Watts Branch, Popes Branch, Fort Dupont, and Nash Run) that are thought to have significant in-stream erosion. This high TSS EMC represents TSS contributions from in-stream erosion as well as from land-based sources. All stormwater loads, including loads from in-stream erosion, are considered a non-point source and are accounted for under the Load Allocation (LA). 2. 2003 TMDL for Total Suspended Solids in Watts Branch – This TMDL back-calculates the individual TSS contribution from land sources and in-stream erosion using the total Watts Branch TSS load estimated in the 2002 Anacostia TMDL. The contribution of TSS from in- stream erosion was estimated to be 52 tons/yr. The loads from in-stream erosion are considered a non-point source and are accounted for under the LA. 3. 2007 TMDL of Sediment/Total Suspended Solids for the Anacostia River Basin – This TMDL calculates in-stream erosion explicitly, but only for Watts Branch within the District (in-stream erosion is calculated for other water bodies in Maryland). The contribution of TSS from in- stream erosion in Watts Branch was estimated to be 67 tons/yr. The TMDL does not calculate in- stream erosion for other DC tributaries. The Watts Branch in-stream erosion load is considered a point source and is accounted for under the MS4 WLA. 4. 2010 Chesapeake Bay TSS TMDL – The Bay TMDL documentation implies that in-stream erosion is implicitly accounted for through model calibration. The documentation also implies that loads from in-stream erosion are considered a point source and are accounted for under the MS4 WLA. The inconsistency in accounting for in-stream erosion in the TMDLs is partly due to the fact that EPA, over time, has evolved a policy of specifying that in-stream sediment loads in urban areas are to be assigned to the MS4. This evolving policy in turn affected where it is accounted for in the TMDL IP baseline load modeling. Several factors ultimately informed the decision to include in-stream erosion in the MS4 baseline load modeling for addressing the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, and in the direct drainage baseline modeling for local TMDLs. These factors include the following: • The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) gives credit towards MS4 WLAs for stream restoration. A significant component of the credit accounting for stream restoration relates to the control of in- stream erosion (CWP/CSN 2014). This implies that the CBP links in-stream erosion at least in part to MS4 flows. Therefore, in-stream erosion will be included as part of the MS4 baseline load when accounting for the loads for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. • The local TMDLs are inconsistent in allocating the loads from in-stream erosion to the MS4 or direct drainage areas. In addition, the local TMDLs do not calculate in-stream erosion for all DC tributaries even though all tributaries are known to have varying degrees of in-stream erosion. Because of these inconsistencies, in-stream erosion will be included as part of the direct drainage baseline load, until a future time when the TMDLs can revisit the issue of in-stream erosion. 3.2 Review of In-Stream Erosion Load Calculation Method The mechanisms of in-stream erosion are complex and often very location-specific. Stream erosion is dependent upon a number of variables, including extent and composition of development within the stream drainage area, channel geomorphology and geometry, presence and orientation of piped drainage, number of outfalls, and condition of riparian vegetation. In addition, eroded soils can be deposited at downstream “sinks”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 282
    Cl>lAat;i<,<:>';i^;}Oit3Cl <a f^.S^ iVi^ 5' i ''*«0£Mi»«33'**^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY I NotUTus albater, new species, a female paratype, 63 mm. in standard length; UMMZ 102781, Missouri. (Courtesy Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan.) UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 A Revision of the Catfish Genus Noturus Rafinesque^ With an Analysis of Higher Groups in the Ictaluridae WILLIAM RALPH TAYLOR Associate Curator, Division of Fishes SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1969 IV Publications of the United States National Museum The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • DC Flood Insurance Study
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments Received
    PARKS & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (DRAFT RELEASE) LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Notes on List of Comments: ⁃ This document lists all comments received on the Draft 2018 Parks & Open Space Element update during the public comment period. ⁃ Comments are listed in the following order o Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions o Comments from Local & Regional Agencies o Comments from Interest Groups o Comments from Interested Individuals Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE National Capital Region 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W. IN REPLY REFER TO: Washington, D.C. 20242 May 14, 2018 Ms. Surina Singh National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 500N Washington, DC 20004 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Open Space Element Comments Dear Ms. Singh: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft update of the Parks and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements. The National Park Service (NPS) understands that the Element establishes policies to protect and enhance the many federal parks and open spaces within the National Capital Region and that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) uses these policies to guide agency actions, including review of projects and preparation of long-range plans. Preservation and management of parks and open space are key to the NPS mission. The National Capital Region of the NPS consists of 40 park units and encompasses approximately 63,000 acres within the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Our region includes a wide variety of park spaces that range from urban sites, such as the National Mall with all its monuments and Rock Creek Park to vast natural sites like Prince William Forest Park as well as a number of cultural sites like Antietam National Battlefield and Manassas National Battlefield Park.
    [Show full text]
  • 'CHEMICAL COCKTAILS' of TRACE METALS USING SENSORS in URBAN STREAMS Carol Mo
    ABSTRACT Title of thesis: TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS Carol Morel, Masters of Geology, 2020 Thesis directed by: Professor Sujay Kaushal Department of Geology Understanding transport mechanisms and temporal patterns in metals concentrations and fluxes in urban streams are important for developing best management practices and restoration strategies to improve water quality. In some cases, in situ sensors can be used to estimate unknown concentrations and fluxes of trace metals or to interpolate between sampling events. Continuous sensor data from the United States Geological Survey were analyzed to determine statistically significant relationships between lead, copper, zinc, cadmium and mercury with turbidity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and discharge for the Hickey Run, Watts Branch, and Rock Creek watersheds in the Washington, D.C. region. At Rock Creek, there were significant negative linear relationships between Hg and Pb and specific conductance (p<0.05). Watershed monitoring approaches using continuous sensor data have the potential to characterize the frequency, magnitude, and composition of pulses in concentrations and loads of trace metals, which could improve management and restoration of urban streams. TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS by Carol Jisnely Morel Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Geology 2020 Advisory Committee: Professor Sujay Kaushal, Chair Dr. Kenneth Belt Dr. Shuiwang Duan Professor Karen Prestegaard Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without data collection and sharing by the USGS.
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia Washington, D.C
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN for VARIOUS TMDLS in MARYLAND October 9, 2020
    IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND October 9, 2020 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND F7. Gwynns Falls Watershed ............................................ 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS F8. Jones Falls Watershed ............................................... 85 F9. Liberty Reservoir Watershed...................................... 94 Table of Contents ............................................................................... i F10. Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs Watersheds .. 102 Implementation Plan for Various TMDLS in Maryland .................... 1 F11. Lower Monocacy River Watershed ........................... 116 A. Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses ....................... 1 F12. Patuxent River Lower Watershed ............................. 125 B. Watershed Assessment Coordination ...................................... 3 F13. Magothy River Watershed ........................................ 134 C. Visual Inspections Targeting MDOT SHA ROW ....................... 4 F14. Mattawoman Creek Watershed ................................. 141 D. Benchmarks and Detailed Costs .............................................. 5 F15. Piscataway Creek Watershed ................................... 150 E. Pollution Reduction Strategies ................................................. 7 F16. Rock Creek Watershed ............................................. 158 E.1. MDOT SHA TMDL Responsibilities .............................. 7 F17. Triadelphia
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV – MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans
    Part IV MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans Part IV MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION IMPERVIOUS RESTORATION AND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION COORDINATED TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2010a; MDE, 2011a). The allocated trash baseline for MDOT SHA is to IV. MDOT SHA WATERSHED be reduced by 100 percent (this does not mean that trash within the watershed will be reduced to zero). The allocation is divided into TMDL IMPLEMENTATION separate requirements for each County. PLANS PCBs are to be reduced in certain subwatersheds of the Anacostia River watershed. The Anacostia River Northeast Branch subwatershed requires a 98.6 percent reduction and the Anacostia River Northwest A. ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED Branch subwatershed requires a 98.1% reduction. The Anacostia River Tidal subwatershed requires a 99.9% reduction. A.1. Watershed Description A.3. MDOT SHA Visual Inventory of ROW The Anacostia River watershed encompasses 145 square miles across both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland and an The MS4 permit requires MDOT SHA perform visual assessments. additional 31 square miles in Washington, DC. The watershed Part III, Coordinated TMDL Implementation Plan describes the terminates in Washington, D.C. where the Anacostia River flows into MDOT SHA visual assessment process. For each BMP type, the Potomac River, which ultimately conveys water to the Chesapeake implementation teams have performed preliminary evaluations for each Bay. The watershed is divided into 15 subwatersheds: Briers Mill Run, grid and/or major state route corridor within the watershed as part of Fort Dupont Tributary, Hickey Run, Indian Creek, Little Paint Branch, desktop and field evaluations.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Class 6 Outline Water Class I. Recap of Acid Rain Issues And
    Class 6 Outline Water Class I. Recap of Acid Rain Issues and Transition to Water Pollution. A. What is acid rain? B. How i s it formed? SO2 emissions from coal burning power plants. C. Why is it a problem? Critters and plants that live in water may be harmed. D. How do we measure whether water is affected by acid rain? We measure its pH. II. Experiment: Measuring the pH of water. A. pH ranges. Scale from 0 -14. 7 is neutral. 0 -6 is acidic. 8 -14 is basic. B. Place 3 cups in front of students. Put tap water in each cup . C. Take piece of red and blue paper. Place in any one of the three cups. See what happens. D. Place lemon juice or vinegar in one of the cups. Keep track of which one. Then place blue paper in the cup where the vinegar was inserted. What happened? Chan ged the pH. Made it more acidic. That ’s why paper changed from blue to red. E. Place baking soda in one of the other 2 cups, not the same cup that help the baking soda. Place piece of the red paper in the cup. What happened? Change pH. This time mad e it more basic. 1. Now what is the actual pH of the water? Pass out the pH paper (orangish, tan). 2. Dip pH paper in the cup with no additives. What is the pH on the scale? 3. Dip another piece of pH paper in the cup with the acid. What is the pH on the scale? 4.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Prince George's County Tax Sale Listings
    2018 Prince George’s County Tax Sale Listings 06 0488320 12 1339142 BATCH ONE 4005 LEISURE DR LL 4005 LEISURE DR 6178 OXON HILL PRO 6210 THOMPSON NOTICE OF PUBLIC TAX SALE OF REAL ESTATE 18 2013506 TEMPLE HILLS 20748 17,197.00 SQ FT & LN OXON HILL 20745 22,691.00 SQ FT IN PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND 1002 58TH AVE LLC 1002 58TH AVE CAPI- IMPS LOT 27 BLK 1 SUB GORDONS COR- & IMPS PAR 252 GRD C4 MAP 096 VA- TOL HEIGHTS 20743 3,125.00 SQ FT & IMPS NER ASSESSED FULL CASH VALUE $346,900 CANT LOT ASSESSED FULL CASH VALUE INTERNET-BASED TAX SALE LOT 19 BLK A SUB FAIRMOUNT HEIGHTS TAXES $6,302.38 $223,533 TAXES $4,134.66 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2018 ASSESSED FULL CASH VALUE $87,400 TAX- ES $2,146.44 18 2095248 12 1354893 414 CARMODY HILLS 414 CARMODY A Tax Sale does not automatically convey title to a purchaser; there are legal 6178 OXON HILL PRO 6178 OXON HILL 05 0411454 HILLS DR CAPITOL HEIGHTS 20743 5,000.00 procedures that must be satisfied before becoming the owner of an auctioned RD OXON HILL 20745 1.08 ACRES & IMPS 10114 S CAMPUS WAY 4101 DANVILLE SQ FT & IMPS BLK N SUB CARMODY PAR 253 GRD C4 MAP 096 ASSESSED FULL property. The current owner may redeem by paying the taxes owed. Until the HILLS S HALF LOT 8 L ASSESSED FULL time a deed is issued to the Tax Sale purchaser, the current owner maintains RD BRANDYWINE 20613 21,780.00 SQ FT CASH VALUE $1,838,900 TAXES $520.49 CASH VALUE $142,900 TAXES $2,878.93 ownership of the property.
    [Show full text]