903R92008
CBP/TRS 79/92
July 9, 1992
TP
225
.A51
R27
1992
The Restoration of the
Anacostia River
The Report to Congress
..._^:i s scarce
.,iA 13107
Printed on recycled paper
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
-------
RegionjI Center for Environmental Information
US EPA Region Ml
]650ArdiSt
Philadelphij, PA 19103
-------
f I
The Restoration of the
Anacostia River
The Report to Congress
.
; -; -,'•'. ..-^L'.i.i uasoarce
; -" ' ^"../ii'-set
F v!:a,PA 19107
Chesapeake Bay Program
July 9, 1992
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
THE RESTORATION
OF THE
ANACOSTIA RIVER
TJie Report to Congress
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 4
Executive Summary 5
Study Authority and Purpose 16
Physical Description of the Watershed 16
Land Use and Impacts 18
Land Use in the Major Sub-Basins 21
Growth in the Anacostia Watershed 23
The Trend Towards Imperviousness 25
Summary of Industrial Activities
in the Anacostia Watershed 27
Public Access and Recreation along the Anacostia 27
Condition of the River 28
The Monitoring Network 28
Anacostia Water Quality 30
Condition of Habitats 36
Wildlife 36
Aquatic Life 37
Fish Passage 37
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 38
Wetlands 39
Forest Cover 39
The Restoration is Undenvay 40
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee 40
Development of a Sue-Point Action Plan 41
Stormwater Controls 41
Integrated Pest Management 48
NPDES Point Source Permits 48
NPDES Storm Water Regulations 57
Combined Sewer Overflow Controls 56
The "Blueprint for the Restoration" 63
Federal Assistance In The Anacostia's Restoration 63
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 63
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 64
U.S. Department of Agriculture 64
Soil Conservation Service 64
U.S. Forest Service 65
-------
Department of the Interior 65
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 65
National Park Service 65
Federal Involvement As Land Owners And Custodians 65
EPA Study Conclusions and Recommendations 66
The Restoration Is Needed 66
The Existing Action Plan Is An Essential Foundation 66
The Existing Action Plan Should Be Expanded 67
Schedule of Future Activities 72
References 73
Appendices:
Appendix A A Blueprint for the Restoration of the Anacostia Watershed
Appendix B Industrial Facilities Located in the Anacostia Watershed
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Major Stream Systems in the Anacostia Watershed 17
Land Use in the Anacostia Watershed Based on Imperviousness ... 26
The Area Served by the District of Columbia's
Combined Sewer System 57
LIST OF TABLES
Land Use in the Anacostia River Basin 19
Federally Owned Lands in the Anacostia
River Basin . . ' 20
Population Changes in Prince Georges County,
Montgomery County, and the District of Columbia 23
Changes in Housing Units in Prince Georges
County, Montgomery County, and the District
of Columbia Between 1980 and 1990 24
Summary of Tributary Monitoring Locations
Included in the CAMP Program 29
Summary of the Monitoring Stations Contained
Within the CAMP Network 31
Water Quality Index for Streams Tributary to the Anacostia 32
Anacostia Point Source Permits 49
Habitat Restoration Projects Authorized for Early Implementation . . 64
-------
A CKNO WLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay
Program Office. We would like to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of those who assisted
in its preparation. They include the staff of the Department of Environmental Programs of the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin, the staff of the Baltimore District of the Corps of Engineers. Others who
contributed suggestions include the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation.
Others in EPA who assisted included the staff of the Water Management Division in Region HI
and in the Office of Water in Washington.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STUDY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in their approval of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) FY92 Operating Plan directed EPA to conduct a study
of the Anacostia River. This study "should include. ..an analysis of the extent to which pollution
in the Anacostia River is harming the Bay's ecosystem; what steps are needed to restore the
Anacostia's water quality and a timeline showing when these steps could be met; potential roles
for EPA in the Anacostia River clean-up and that of other federal agencies; and an inventory of
activities currently underway to restore the river."
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHED
The Anacostia: A Degraded Urban Watershed
The Anacostia River is a tributary of the Potomac River with a 170 square mile watershed that
comprises part of the District of Columbia and AW counties in Maryland. It is heavily
urbanized. From its headwaters in Maryland, to its confluence with the Potomac River it flows
through some of the most densely populated and economically depressed areas of the Washington
Metropolitan Area. The Anacostia watershed though small in comparison to the Potomac River
is vitally important to the Chesapeake Bay system since whatever effects the Anacostia River as
it flows through Maryland and the District of Columbia, will impact the Potomac River and
eventually the Chesapeake Bay.
The Anacostia watershed has suffered from a number of persistent water quality problems. In
the tributary portions of the watershed, sediment, streambank erosion, and high bacteria levels
are the most severe problems. In the tidal reaches, the river suffers not only from high sediment
and bacteria loadings generated and delivered from upstream, but also from the effects of
combined sewer overflows. These overflows and additional sources of bacteria and nutrients
generate massive loadings of oxygen-demanding materials during storms that deplete oxygen in
the tidal river needed to support life there. Recently, the sediments in the tidal river have been
found to contain high levels of toxic organics and heavy metals. Debris in the tidal Anacostia
represents a substantial impediment to the restoration of the Anacostia River system.
Uncontrolled stormwater runoff and structures in the waterway, have severely degraded the
habitat quality of hundreds of miles of urban streams in the Anacostia. Recent fish surveys in
the tributaries and tidal Anacostia reveal that fisheries have improved, but are significantly
below the historical levels of abundance and diversity.
-------
THE RESTORATION IS UNDERWAY
Regional efforts have always been necessary to protect and restore the water resources of the
Metropolitan area. Tfiese programs have involved local, state, and often federal agencies.
v
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
In 1987, a new regional Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement among the District of
Columbia, the State of Maryland, and Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties established
goals for restoring the Anacostia. It also formed the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee (AWRC) to develop a restoration plan, and to coordinate the ejforts of the dozens of
local, state and federal agencies to rapidly implement it. The AWRC now includes the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers out of recognition of its central role in many aspects of the river's
restoration.
Through the AWRC, great strides have been made in developing a strong and broad-based
coalition to clean up the river. The coordinated effort of dedicated public agencies, and citizen
volunteer groups have yielded important progress.
The Six-Point Action Plan
The AWRC has adopted a far-reaching action planl6 to restore the Anacostia River by the turn
of the next century. The six goals of the Action Plan are:
Goal No. L Dramatically reduce pollutants coming into the tidal estuary so as to measurably
improve water quality conditions.
This goal will be achieved through action in several areas. First, the phased implementation of
more than 159 urban stormwater projects will control the quality and quantity of nonpoint
sources from over 35 square miles, nearly 28 percent of the watershed. Additional controls to
be imposed through local, state and federal laws will further reduce pollution loads. Principal
among these is the correction of combined sewer overflows within the District of Columbia under
the federal NPDES Program.
Stormwater Controls - Since 1987, $35 million has been spent implementing urban nonpoint
source controls at more than 39 sites in the basin. Indian Creek, in Prince Georges County, for
example, has suffered severe impacts from nonpoint sources. Although original stormwater
controls provided flood protection, they did little to remove pollutants. Prince Georges County
with the assistance of the State of Maryland completed two stormwater retrofit projects to
improve and protect the upper reaches of Indian Creek. This has resulted in improved water
quality benefits and enhanced downstream channel erosion control.
-------
Local governments have adopted stringent requirements for new development in the watershed
to lessen its impact on the Anacostia. Tliese restrictions have included pioneering regulations in
the area of stormwater management, sediment control, forest conservation, wetland protection
and stream buffers. Many of these regulations have become national models.
NPDES Stormwater Regulations
The NPDES program has focused on traditional municipal and industrial wastewater discharges.
The stormwater regulations now bring a new range of discharges under the control of the
NPDES program. By controlling stormwater discharges from large and medium municipalities
and industry under the permitting process, primarily through the implementation of management
plans for industries and municipalities, EPA expects that the discharge of pollutants in
stormwater will be greatly reduced..
Combined Sewer Overflow Controls
A combined sewer system serves approximately one third of the District of Columbia's drainage
area and transports sanitary sewage mixed with stormwater runoff. During dry weather,
sanitary sewage is transported to the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. During storm
events, stormwater runoff enters the combined sewer system in large volumes. Frequently, under
these conditions, flow exceeds sewer capacity. Consequently, the excess is diverted to an
overflow sewer which transports the raw, untreated, sanitary sewage and the stormwater runoff
to the tidal portion of the Anacostia River. *•
The District of Columbia's combined sewer overflow abatement program includes a t\vo
segment strategy, with a mid-course Segment I performance evaluation and a reassessment of
CSO objectives in the context of water quality goals. The construction of Segment I controls was
completed in June, 1990, costing over $34.3 million.
Segment I included the installation of a 400 million gallons per day (MOD) swirl concentrator
for the Northeast Boundary Trunk Sewer to reduce loadings by providing coarse solids treatment
and some disinfection. In addition to the swirl concentrator, Segment I included the installation
of inflatable dams and regulator modifications to increase sewer system capacity, separation of
sanitary and storm sewers in extensive areas of the city, and the installation of overflow
monitoring and telemetry systems.
Segment II controls require additional design and monitoring in order to quantify the reductions
in overflows accomplished through Segment I construction.
Goal No. 2. Restore and protect the ecological integrity of degraded urban streams so as to
enhance the diversity of the aquatic community and to provide better opportunities for a quality
urban fishery.
-------
Several degraded streams have been restored in the basin, and are now showing greater aquatic
diversity. One of these is the Wteaton Branch of Sligo Creek in Montgomery County. Storm-
flows and pollutant loads to the stream are now controlled by a state-of-the-art pond and marsh
treatment system built in a partnership benveen Montgomery County and the State of Maryland.
The degraded stream below the pond has been extensively restored to provide better habitat for
fish. Native fish were re-introduced into Wheaton Branch for the first time in decades.
Goal No. 3. Restore the spawning range of anadromous fish to its historical limits.
This goal is to be accomplished by removing key barriers to fish migration, and creating better
spawning and resting habitat for anadromous fish species. To date, rwelve of 400 identified
Small Habitat Improvement Projects have been started or completed.
The first fish barrier was removed in the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia in the spring of
1989, through the cooperative effort of the State of Maryland, the Maryland National Capital
Park and Planning Commission and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
(ICPRB). Tim action was critical in restoring fish to (heir ancestral spawning grounds.
The Corps of Engineers is now completing designs for two fish passage projects on the Northeast
Branch and one on Paint Branch. Tfie Maryland Highway Administration and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources are initiating concept plans for culvert modifications on Paint
Branch under the Capital Beltway.
Gaol No. 4. Increase the natural filtering capacity of the watershed by sharply increasing the
acreage and quality of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.
This goal will be realized by a strong program designed to achieve no further loss of wetlands
by development and by the creation of several hundred acres of new urban wetlands across the
watershed. To date, ten of 34 identified projects have been started.
The largest wetland restoration project planned for the watershed is the restoration ofKenilworth
Marsh. The Chesapeake Bay Program has supported the District of Columbia and other
members of the Anacostia Restoration Program in a study of the feasibility of restoring
Kenilworth Marsh, a portion of the National Park Service-owned inlet off the Anacostia River.
It is generally supported that the material dredged from the Anacostia's navigation channel
should be used to implement the marsh restoration project. This navigational dredging project
has progressed to the stage of final preparations.
Goal No. 5. Expand the range of forest cover throughout the watershed and create a
contiguous corridor of forest along the margins of its streams and rivers.
8
-------
This goal is being met by a major watershed reforestation program that includes forest
protection, watershed reforestation, and the targeted reforestation of more than ten linear miles
of stream buffers. To date, 25 of 68 identified reforestation opportunities have been started or
completed.
Goal No. 6. Make the public aware of its key role in the cleanup of the river and increase
its participation in watershed restoration activities.
Public education and participation efforts have reached more than 40,000 Anacostia residents
since it began in 1988 through newsletters and other educational products. A prime objective
has been to get every foot of every stream adopted by local residents and business owners.
Many of the outreach projects are combined with actions needed as a pan of other elements of
the program. A good example of this is the Small Habitat Improvement Program (SHIP). This
program, that provides technical assistance, is a small scale volunteer restoration effort that can
be implemented across the watershed at low cost. Projects have included riparian reforestation,
small gully repair, instream habitat improvements, pond and wetland planting, debris cleanup,
stormdrain stenciling, and more.
EPA has provided seed money and staff time to launch an environmental education enrichment
program targeted to inner-city students. This program, called Champions for the Chesapeake,
' is being initially piloted by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office in the Anacostia Watershed -
starting with the District of Columbia and with plans to later advance to Prince Georges County.
The interest in the Watershed Restoration Program may be significant beyond the restoration of
degraded "natural" urban habitats. The social significance of the restoration cannot be
overlooked. Interest, for instance, in Community Policing in Prince Georges County, has
revealed the significance of the community concern for the amount of litter in low income
neighborhoods. Cleaner communities have been linked to greater self-esteem which is a goal
of the Anacostia's restoration and protection program.
The Blueprint for the Restoration
The AWRC is also preparing a "Blueprint for the Restoration" of needed projects in pollution
prevention and control as well as habitat restoration.
Federal Assistance In The Anacostia's Restoration
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
As a part of the Corp's habitat restoration efforts, six projects have been identified for early
implementation and authorized under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986.
-------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The contributions of the EPA to the restoration of the Anacostia include a wide range of
activities from criteria development, standard setting, and compliance assurance under Clean
Water Act provisions. It has also funded many aspects of pollution reduction including planning
studies and citizen education. The EPA has funded projects in habitat restoration, although to
afar less extent than those funded by the Corps of Engineers. The EPA also helped fund the
early steps in building the institutional structure now responsible for coordinating the Anacostia
restoration.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service - The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) has provided technical assistance for a wide range of restoration activities in areas
tributary to the Chesapeake Bay, and has worked with the District of Columbia Soil and Water
Conservation District on rvvo streambank stabilization projects in Watts Branch in the District.
U.S. Forest Service - The Forest Service has provided a staff member to work with the District
of Columbia and one to the Chesapeake Bay Program, each with interests in assisting the
Anacostia Restoration Program. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has assisted with
funding intended to help implement the reforestation programs.
U.S. Department of the Interior - Tlie Fish and Wildlife Service has assisted the Corps of
Engineers in its studies of habitat restoration in the Anacostia watershed. The National Park
Service has also encouraged the restoration of the river by enhancing the community services
provided at the Anacostia River Park.
Federal Involvement As Land Owners And Custodians:
Ten federal agencies own 16,000 acres, or 14 percent of the Anacostia watershed.
Tfiis land is likely the source of some of the contaminated sediment in the river, and ownership
agencies should participate in further assessments of sediment remediation. Ownership by
certain agencies, most notably the National Park Service and the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Service, can play an important role in the watershed's restoration. The AWRC's Six-point
Action Plan has noted the significance of the four miles of tributary reforestation sites that lie
within the boundaries of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
10
-------
CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
This study has concluded (hat there is a continuing need for the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Program, and that the Six-Point Action Plan to restore the Anacostia River is an essential
foundation upon which an expanded action plan can be built. This expanded action plan should
combine an accelerated restoration program with more attention to planning.
There Is a Continuing Need For the Restoration Program
The Anacostia River is an underutilized community resource. It has long been manipulated and
managed to serve the needs of navigation and industry. It is now recognized as a valuable, but
neglected component of the urban landscape requiring restoration of its water quality and its
important habitats.
The Existing Action Plan Is An Essential Foundation
The current citizen/government alliance under the leadership of the Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Committee (AWRC) is responsible for innovative pollution controls and efforts to
restore many components of the basin's degraded habitats. The AWRC was created in 1987 by
compact and serves as the basis for strong local, state, and federal partnership needed to restore
the river. It has provided the community with the information it needs to become involved in the
program. Federal agencies now involved with the restoration appear to be willing to support
this alliance as the foundation offiiture coordinated progress in restoring the Anacostia River.
Work should continue to implement the AWRC's Six-Point Action Plan in a timely fashion.
federal participation in the Anacostia's restoration has proven that the government can both
learn from, and contribute to the program. The Anacostia River is burdened by pollution and
the pressures of urbanization only relatively recently addressed by national pollution control
programs. The remedies administered by these national programs include pollution prevention
from land use changes and regulatory controls on urban stormwater. The Anacostia will benefit
from the implementation of these programs.
The Corps of Engineers' Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study is an impressive local/state/federal
commitment to badly needed habitat restoration. The results of this study should be available
by December of 1994. It is anticipated that potential projects that would result from this study
would complement the pollution controls now underway.
The Existing Action Plan Should Be Expanded
Existing restoration efforts have focused on water and related habitats. Projects under this
program have been well designed and implemented, setting an example for urban stream
restoration in the Nation. As additional resources are committed to the program, the need will
grow to ensure that new projects reinforce the pollution reduction of the other controls built
before them, and that they are setting a pace to attain the environmental quality goals set for
the River. This will require the program to undertake additional planning. A system-wide
approach for reducing pollution to the tidal Anacostia should be developed which addresses not
11
-------
only upstream nonpoint sources and stormwater outfalls, but also the need to further control
combined sewer overflows.
Additional programs in pollution prevention, community involvement, and the involvement of
federal land owners will continue to ensure that the Anacostia Restoration Program continues
to enrich the life of the community and the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.
Expand Quantified Planning - Planning through quantified goals will establish an overall
strategic context for accomplishing specific environmental results. The current restoration effort
has always strived to implement incremental improvements, and it has developed procedures for
measuring increments of pollution reduction it achieves, but the current approach will not predict
whether the controls it prescribes will allow the Anacostia to reach the water quality goals now
contained in the Maryland or District of Columbia's water quality standards. This is true for
stormwater controls, erosion controls, and controls on combined sewer overflows.
The planning needed to gauge this degree of progress will require quantitative evaluation tools
such as those used on the Potomac and Occoquan Rivers to chart their restoration and protection
in the last 25 years and now being used in planning (he restoration of the Patuxent River and
the Chesapeake Bay. The Anacostia Restoration Program can benefit from similar planning to
help define success and set project priorities.
Include Permitting - As planning becomes more quantitative, it should also be more closely tied
to permitting. The two activities can both benefit from a closer relationship. Permitting is now
recognized as a step in the restoration program, but permit writers have not been closely
associated with the planning process. Both the efficiency of implementation and the quality of
permitting decisions necessitate that permitting be intertwined with the planning of the
restoration program to reinforce it, and not be implemented only as a separate and subsequent
phase in the process. The planning should be structured and complete enough to address
permitting concerns, and permit writers should become aware of the goals of the overall program
in order to understand the impacts expected from the entire plan, not just the incremental project
under review.
Extend Monitoring - In the Anacostia, expanded planning will first be built around an expanded
monitoring network capable of relating pollution loads to ground water discharges, to permitted
wastewater discharges, and to weather-related combined sewer and stormwater flows in the
watershed.
Once monitoring data can provide a sufficient period of record, water quality models, which
already exist for the tidal section of the Anacostia, can be better calibrated to predict the impacts
of changes in hydrology and reduced pollution loads. It is too early to expect that such
quantified planning can be immediately employed, but it is not too early to identify the
computational tools and to collect the information that will support such planning in the future.
12
-------
Promote Pollution Prevention - Local governments now a part of the Anacostia restoration
program have led the country in innovative pollution prevention measures to control stormwater
from new community development. Tfiese programs form the basis for the watershed's future
protection from urbanization. TJ.ie Restoration program should extend the success of these
pollution prevention procedures to the reduction of discharges from the numerous small
commercial and industrial establishments in the watershed suspected of contributing to the large
burden of heavy metal and toxic organic pollution documented in the watershed.
Another beneficial pollution prevention program, a demonstration of nutrient management in the
Anacostia watershed, will assist the Chesapeake Bay Program in extending these successful
agricultural programs into urban areas where they have never been implemented.
Continue Community Outreach - Tlie program should consider expanding the existing effort to
integrate the Anacostia's restoration with other community concerns. Tins can be done in at
least three ways that have not been completely demonstrated in the current program.
First, by concentrating restoration efforts in neighborhoods, the benefits of the many components
of the restoration effort can be made more obvious to the residents of the watershed. Second,
programs such as Champions for the Chesapeake, which target the school students to strengthen
their math and science skills through the utilization of classroom and field activities centered
around environmental protection of the Anacostia River Watershed, should be continued. Third,
by seeking to more aggressively involve the talents of local universities in the Anacostia
Restoration Program, the interest and valuable expertise can be directed to the Anacostia.
Involve the Owners of Federal Lands - The Corps of Engineers, as the federal representative
on the A WRC, should organize federal land owners to better contribute to future restoration
programs.
Continue Federal Assistance - Federal assistance is provided as a supplement to local interest
and investments. The continued involvement of federal programs must be viewed as a means of
strengthening local programs.
The Corps of Engineers should continue its important habitat restoration work in the watershed
to complement the benefits of the aggressive pollution prevention and control programs that have
been begun there.
The Environmental Protection Agency should continue to assist state and local governments in
their coordinated program for the restoration of the Anacostia River. EPA should continue to
assist in setting water quality standards and will lead a task force to examine the feasibility of
contaminated sediment remediation.
13
-------
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE ACTIVITIES
ACTION ITEM
RESPONSIBILITY
PROPOSED START DATES*
Complete and Adopt the "Blueprint "
Slormwater Controls
Habitat Remediation
Prepare Quantified Planning Workplan
Permitting Workplan
Augment the Monitoring Network
Review Available Watershed Model1;
Collect Detailed Watershed ami Climatological Data
Initiate Small Business Pollution Prevention and
Nutrient Management Programs
Assemble Committee of Federal Landowners
Expand Outreach ami Education
Assess Remedial Sediment Action Measures
AWRC
Note A
Note B
AWRC
Permitting
Agencies
AWRC
AWRC/EPA
AWRC
AWRC/Permit
Agencies
COE
AWRC
EPA
9/92
1990-2000
1990-2000
3/93-9/93
3/93-9/93
3/93
3/93
12/93-12/94
6/93
9/92
3/93
6/93-12/94
* Timing is resource dependent
Note A: MD, DC. Mtgy Co., P. G. Co. and EPA
Note B: MD, DC, Mtgy Co., P. G. Co. and COE
14
-------
THE RESTORATION
OF THE
ANACOSTIA RIVER
The Report to Congress
15
-------
STUDY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in their approval of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) FY92 Operating Plan directed EPA to conduct a study
of the Anacostia River. This study "should include... an analysis of the extent to which pollution
in the Anacostia River is harming the Bay's ecosystem; what steps are needed to restore the
Anacostia's water quality and a timeline showing when these steps could be met; potential roles
for EPA in the Anacostia River clean-up and that of other federal agencies, and an inventory of
activities currently underway to restore the river."
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHED
An Urban Watershed
Tlie Chesapeake Bay, formed by tributaries flowing from Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware, is heavily influenced by drainage from the Potomac River. The Potomac River, in
turn, is formed by other tributaries, one of which is the Anacostia River. The Anacostia
watershed (169.9sq.mi.), though small in comparison to the Potomac River (14,670 sq.mi.), is
vitally important to the Chesapeake Bay system since whatever effects the Anacostia River as it
flows through Maryland and the District of Columbia, will impact the Potomac River and
eventually the Chesapeake Bay.
The Anacostia watershed, which encompasses portions of Prince Georges (86.7 sq.mi.) and
Montgomery (58.3 sq. mi.) Counties, MD, and the District of Columbia (24.9 sq. mi.), is formed
by nine major sub-basins: Northeast Branch, Northwest Branch, Sligo Creek, Paint Branch,
Mickey Run, Indian Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Watts Branch and the Tidal Anacostia. Forming
a fan-like drainage pattern, Sligo Creek joins the Northwest Branch at Hyattsville, Maryland,
and Paint Branch, Indian Creek, and Beaverdam Creek drain into the Northeast Branch. The
Northwest and Northeast Branches connect at Bladensburg, Maryland, to form the Anacostia
proper. Just below Bladensburg, the main stem of the Anacostia drops to near sea level and
changes from a free-flowing river into the tidal freshwater embayment of the Potomac estuary.
Watts Branch, Lower Beaverdam Creek1 and Hickey Run join the tidal portion of the Anacostia
proper inside the District line, near the National Arboretum. Figure 1 shows the major stream
system in the Anacostia watershed.
The drainage area of the watershed is comprised oft\vo physiographic provinces, the Piedmont
Plateau and the Coastal Plain. The boundary benveen the r\vo provinces, and the Fall Line, a
zone of descent with rapids and waterfalls, are distinguished in Figure 1. The topography of the
Piedmont Plateau is highly diversified with a variety of metamorphic rock types, steep stream
valleys, and a riverscape characterized mostly by fast-moving waters complemented by millponds
I Lower Beaverdam is not specified by MWCOO as a priority sub-watershed, but is included in ihc discussion for the purposes of this report
16
-------
and a few wetlands before becoming (he Coastal Plain. Approximately 70 percent of the
Anacostia watershed in located within the Coastal Plain, a mass, primarily comprised of
unconsolidated sediments including gravel, sand, and clay. The tributaries located within the
Coastal Plain naturally tend to meander slowly towards tidal waters, but flood control efforts
have caused these streams to become largely channelized L
FIGURE 1.
MAJOR STREAM SYSTEMS IN THE ANACOSTIA WATERSHED
Source: (ICPRB, 1988)
17
-------
The hydrologic features of (he Anacostia basin have changed dramatically over time, in large
part due to flood control and development. Despite seasonal variation in stream/low, the
Anacostia's tributaries are prone to flash flooding, causing drastic rises or falls inflow. These
significant fluctuations inflow are caused by the steep stream valleys in the upper reaches of the
watershed, natural imperviousness (nonabsorbent clay soils), and imperviousness resulting from
development. Many streams within the watershed are channelized for purposes of flood control.
As water enters the Coastal Plain and the tidal portion of the Anacostia, it slows down and
becomes an estuary influenced by a 3-foot tide. While the Anacostia, at this point, "looks like
a river, it acts like a lake or a sink, with its movement sluggish. Primarily because of tides, the
flushing time of its- waters to the Potomac is long" (approximately 20 days)'.
In addition to natural processes, various land use practices have reshaped and transformed the
Anacostia watershed. The land uses that have the most significant impact on the different sub-
basins located in Maryland and the District of Columbia include agriculture and urbanization.
As will be discussed in the next section, these land use practices have had both profound and
subtle impacts on the basin.
Land Use and Impacts
In (he face of modernization, the Anacostia watershed has been drastically transformed by both,
agriculture and urbanization. Early in (he 17th Century, European settlement and agricultural
developments became the source of intense deforestation within the watershed. By the end of
the Civil War, most of the land within the watershed had been cleared for agriculture, mostly
tobacco, corn, and cotton farming. As a result, soil erosion began to impact the river, causing
severe sedimentation and preventing commercial navigation due to extreme deposits of sediment
in the upper reaches of the Anacostia. Tfie main channel of (he Anacostia became "choked and
extensive mud-flats formed along the shoreline... and by 1902, Congress approved funding for
the Corps of Engineers to dredge portions of the tidal Anacostia up to the Anacostia Navy Yard,
and a smaller channel upstream to the District line". Urbanization has since replaced
agriculture as the leading cause of impairment to the Anacostia watershed. Since the 1950's,
suburban development has continued to expand to the upper reaches of the watershed, causing
increased sedimentation, flooding, and down-stream channel erosion ~.
Today, land use within the Anacostia watershed covers a spectrum ranging from rural to highly
urban. The rural areas remain mostly in (he upper reaches of the watershed while urbanization
intensifies with closer proximity to (he District of Columbia. For the portions of the watershed
located outside of the Belnvay, in Maryland, land uses include mostly commercial, residential,
agricultural, and woodland. The Anacostia tributaries, even within the highly urbanized District
of Columbia, are generally buffered with parkland to reduce the impacts of periodic flooding,
protect streams from the impacts of development, and provide better access to the water for
recreational purposes -.
The basic land use categories, and percentages for such uses within Maryland and D. C., are
identified in Table 1 below.
18
-------
TABLE 1
LAND USE IN THEANACOSTIA RIVER BASIN
Land Use Category
Urban (includes residential
and commercial)
Agriculture
Forested/Wetlands
Parklands (includes
cemeteries)
Industrial (includes surface
mining)
TOTAL
Maryland
(%)
54
10
27
7
2
100
District of
Columbia (%)
76
0
0.5
23
0.5
100
Total % of
Watershed
57.3
8.5
23.1
9.3
1.8
100
Source: Reference 3.
Land use characteristics of the District of Columbia are primarily urbanized (76%), including
residential and commercial development. Parklands, including cemeteries, essentially account
for the remainder (23%), with a small portion of land utilized for industry and preserved for
forest and wetlands.
In assessing land use in the District of Columbia, it is interesting to note that 30 percent of the
land not othenvise developed for residential or commercial use is federally owned. The three
largest federal land uses in the watershed are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center (7,500 acres), the 4,097 acres owned by the U.S. Department of
Interior, National Park Service, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
(NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (1,276 acres). Table 2 provides a more detailed list of
the federally owned land within the basin, and the agency owning it.
Even though the Maryland portion of the watershed is less developed than the District of
Columbia portion, it remains largely urban. As reported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
"forested and wetlands comprise approximately 27 percent of the watershed in Maryland;
agriculture occupies approximately 10percent;... industrial use (2 percent) is largely devoted
to sand and gravel surface mining operation in the vicinity of Indian Creek...along with
numerous industrial parks located around Indian Creek and in the Lower Beaverdam Creek
watershed. There is little industrial development in the Montgomery County portion of the
watershed"3.
19
-------
Table 2
FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS IN THE ANACOSTIA RIVER BASIN
Ownership
Acres
Treasury Department
U.S. Secret Service
James J. Rowley Training Center 496
Department of Agriculture
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center 7,500
National Arboretum 444
Department of the Interior
National Park Service 4,097
Department of Defense
U.S. Army
Harry Diamond Laboratories 23
Army Reserve Center Rivera"ale 5
Fort McNair 84
Beltsville Agricultural Reserve Site 218
Laurel National Guard Site 23
U.S. Navy
Naval Surface Warfare Center 732
Anacostia Naval Station 299
Navy Yard 66
Navy Annex 12
U.S. Marine Corps
Marine Corps
Marine Barracks 4
U.S. Air Force
Boiling Air Force Base (partly in basin) • 605
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center 1,276
The U.S. Soldiers'Home ' 302
General Services Administration 55
Q
TOTAL 16,241
Source: Reference 3.
20
-------
Land Use in the Major Sub-Basins
Information describing land use characteristics ofHickey Run is limited and information on Nash
Creek is not available at this time, thus the discussion of land uses in all the tributaries is limited
to those with sufficient data provided. This section describes the character of the priority sub-
basins identified by Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG).
Sligo Creek - As is the case in a number of the tributaries in the Anacostia watershed, Sligo
Creek is buffered with a narrow strip of wooded parkland running throughout its watershed.
Despite this protection, however, Sligo Creek drains one of the most densely populated and
developed areas in the watershed. The Sligo Creek watershed area is 70 percent urbanized,
almost exclusively residential, with single family homes. There are some small areas of
commercial and light industrial parks ' . As reported by the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin (ICPRB), with the exception of the Wheaton and Long Branches, all the
major tributaries to Sligo Creek have dried up or disappeared underground due to suburban
development. As a result of such development, branches such as Wheaton Branch are now
required to drain a much larger area due to enormous increases in runoff from impervious areas.
For example, Wheaton Branch now "drains a 1,000-acre area made 55 percent impervious to
water [fromI roofs, roads and parking lots"4.
Northwest Branch - Although woodland is the major land use, the Northwest Branch, which
drains the largest watershed in the Anacostia system, continues to be impacted by suburban
development. The Branch has an extensive stream valley park system and is rural to moderately
suburban in the upper reaches of Montgomery County. Population becomes more dense and
commercial activity more prevalent on the other side of the Beltway, into Prince Georges
County. Evidence of the Northwest Branch's urban nature- is obvious from any one of the sixteen
major roads that cross over it. Despite a strong urban environment, however, the Northwest
Br.anch is valued as a recreational asset, with some of the most diverse riverscape qualities in
the watershed. Unfortunately, this recreational value also poses a threat to the health of the
branch due to three wheeled All Terrain Vehicles, and unauthorized steep entrance trails5.
Paint Branch - Beginning in Montgomery County, the upper portions of Paint Branch remain
relatively undeveloped and characterized by wooded and light residential areas. As the tributary
moves through Prince Georges County and reaches towards 1-95, it becomes progressively more
developed and increasingly urbanized2. Paint Branch is fairly well buffered by wooded parklands
owned and controlled by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
Tiie Paint Branch has a diverse assortment of land uses including agricultural (27%), woodland
(14%), urban (57%), and surface mining (2%)'. Paint Branch is the only tributary with good
water quality and the only naturally reproducing brown trout population in the greater
metropolitan Washington area '.
21
-------
Indian Creek - Due to intense commercial activity, Indian Creek, has disappeared from the
public eye. As reported by ICPRB, "in its upper portion, the Indian Creek sub-basin is still
fairly rural with large tracts of woodland and some sparse residential development. The
significant land use in the area is the sand and gravel operations, which are scattered
throughout a large area"6. While many of the surface mines have been abandoned, 15 surface
mines remain in operation covering 584 acres. Between Route 1 and Powder Mill Road, Indian
Creek essentially becomes a concrete stream due to heavy commercial/industrial activity. Part
of the Creek remains in a fairly natural state due to the presence of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture's Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (7,500 acres), but the remaining portion
either flows through highly urbanized areas, gravel washing operations, or has been channelized
for flood and streambank erosion6.
From the headwaters to where Beaverdam Creek joins Indian Creek land use characteristics are
as follows: Agriculture (28%), Woodland (29%), Urban (27%), Surface Mines (16%)'.
Beaverdam Creek - Beaverdam Creek begins in the upper reaches of Prince Georges County.
Although Beaverdam Creek joins Indian Creek just outside the Beltway in a relatively developed
area, the area is predominately undeveloped since most of it lies within the boundaries of the
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Land use in the watershed is as follows: agricultural
(29%), woodland (64%), urban (7%), surface mines (0%)'.
Northeast Branch - Agriculture, primarily tobacco farming, dominated land use during the
colonial period. However, now that urbanization has taken root, the Northeast Branch, though
buffered with parkland, has largely .been converted to channelization in order to control flood
waters. In fact, "almost all of the main stem has been channelized in one form or another. It
has become a man-made, wide and shallow channel flowing benveen artificial levees "7.
Throughout a predominately residential main stem, the Northeast Branch is occupied by scattered
clusters of commercial and light industrial activity (near Kenilworrh Avenue). Four major roads
cross the Northeast Branch 7. Land use in the Northeast Branch is predominately urban (56%).
Other land use activities include: agriculture (12%), woodland (31 %), and surface mines (1%)
Watts Branch - Watts Branch is almost evenly divided between Prince Georges County (52%)
and the District of Columbia (48%) and is formed by t\vo unnamed tributaries, each
approximately 1.5 miles in length, that run out of heavily wooded, mostly privately owned stream
valleys. Urbanization, as it has affected other Anacostia tributaries, has impacted Watts Branch
in much the same way. Tfie branch parallels major transportation and commercial areas after
entering the District. The significantly large number of roads, streets, and bridges that pass
over and parallel Watts Branch contribute largely to the amount of impervious area in the
watershed. The branch does have a canopy of trees, and shrubs and grasses lining 80 to 90
percent of the streambank, but Waffs Branch has, nonetheless, been channelized to some degree.
22
-------
Tidal Anacostia - TJie tidal portion of the Anacostia is almost entirely developed, with woodlands
and open space limited to scattered parklands. In Maryland, land uses include: agriculture
(24%), woodland (6%), urban (68%), and surface mining (2%). In the District of Columbia,
land use in the tidal portion is 77 percent developed, and 23 percent undeveloped or in
park-land'.
It is apparent that land use in the District of Columbia and lower reaches of Maryland is
predominately urban while the upper reaches of the watershed remain relatively undeveloped.
That situation, however, is changing as the demographics of the watershed change with
increased growth and development.
Growth in the Anacostia Watershed
Wfiile the population in the District of Columbia has decreased moderately benveen 1980 and
1990, Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties experienced substantial population growth in
the same period. Tlie comparison of 1980 and 1990 Census data provided in Table 3 reveals
representative population changes within the Anacostia Watershed.2
TABLE 3
POPULATION CHANGES IN PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, AND D.C.
District of Columbia
Prince Georges
County
Montgomery County
TOTAL
1980
638,333
665,071
579,053
1,882,457
1990
606,900
729,268
757,027
2,093,195
NET
CHANGE
-31,433
64,197
177,974
210, 738
PERCENT
-4.9%
9.7%
30. 7% '
11.2%
Source: Reference 8.
In addition to a dramatic increase in population within the Aw counties, the number of housing
units, as reported in the Census data, has increased for the r\vo counties and Washington D.C.
as well. Table 4 provides statistics indicating such changes in the number of housing units
within the given area.3
2 The Census data provided in Table 3 includes, but is not limited to the population exclusively within the boundaries of the Anacoslia Watershed.
3 Tli? Census dala provided in Table 4 includes, but u not limited to (lie population exclusively witiun tfie boundaries of liie Anacostia Watershed.
23
-------
TABLE 4 .
CHANGES IN HOUSING UNITS IN PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY.AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BETWEEN 1980-90
District of Columbia
Prince Georges
County
Montgomery County
TOTAL
1980
276,984
236,465
216,221
729,670
1990
278,489
270,090
295, 723
844,302
NET
CHANGE
1,505
33,625
79,502
114,632
PERCENT
0.5%
14.2%
36.8%
15. 7%
Source: Reference 8.
Before an analysis of the above data curt he made, it is important to note that the statistics in
Tables 3 and 4 represent total population and housing unit changes for the entire area contained
within the r\vo counties and D. C., not just the area within the boundaries of the Anacostia
watershed. However, a general assessment can be made that the trend towards suburban
development occurring within the counties and D. C. is also occurring in the watershed.
Based upon the data in Table 4, the population in the District of Columbia has decreased, while
the population in surrounding counties has increased substantially. As a result, the significant
growth occurring in Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties will undoubtedly place greater
stress on the watershed in terms of increased development and use. Moreover, a decline in.
population within the District of Columbia emphasizes the fact that there is a general trend
towards suburban development, rather than urban dwelling. Since the District of Columbia is
already so heavily urbanized, a decrease in population is not likely to significantly effect
development trends, however, the shift of previously urban dwellers to the suburbs will
undoubtedly increase impervious area in the upper watershed. Finally, the increase in additional
housing units primarily within Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties (Table 4) is also a
strong indication that suburban development is escalating within the boundaries of the Anacostia
Watershed.
Data reported by MWCOG in 1990, reveals that the actual population within the boundaries of
the watershed was 569,000 in 1980, and is expected to increase by 17 % by the year 2010. The
number of additional housing units needed to accommodate this growth is projected to be
67,000.
24
-------
Such development and growth present significant implications for the Anacostia Watershed as
it attempts to accommodate a population expanding to the upper reaches of the watershed. The
next section of this chapter will address the environmental impacts associated with increased
suburban development in the watershed.
The Trend Towards Imperviousness
The trend towards imperviousness began during the 1950s due to a dramatic increase in
construction. ICPRB reported, "it has been estimated that by the early 1970s, 24% of the
Maryland portion of the Anacostia watershed was impervious".
Greater environmental stress in the watershed can be attributed to the fact that "as development
pressures continue to increase...surface imperviousness will increase dramatically in the
watershed"9 .Increased suburban development, without question, implies that larger amounts of
land will become impervious with construction of roads, sidewalks, rooftops, parking lots, and
other structures. According to MWCOG, watershed imperviousness is an excellent indicator of
the degree of development in an area and subsequent intensity of watershed disturbance.
Depending upon the intensity of imperviousness in an area, storm water runoff and flow velocity
can increase dramatically within a watershed, having severe impacts on stream hydrology,
shape, wafer quality, and ecology v .
Figure 2 maps existing and future land use based upon the percentage of imperviousness within
the Anacostia watershed. As depicted by the figure, (he amount of impervious area within the
watershed is expected to increase dramatically given time, increased population, and greater
suburban development.
In order to prevent the undeveloped portion of the Anacostia watershed from resembling those
highly urbanized portions in the major metropolitan Washington area, the Maryland-National
Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) created a development plan based on the
concept of establishing "wedges and corridors". For the past 28 years, development of the
watershed had progressed according to the plan and attempted to, direct growth of commercial,
industrial, and heavy residential land uses to transportation corridors extending ounvard from
the metropolitan area. Land uses such as parks, recreation centers, reserved open spaces, and
low density residential developments are located in wedges between the transportation corridors,
buffering the heavily urbanized areas. As a result of M-NCPPC's predominate ownership and
control over parklands in the watershed, most streambanks are buffered and not heavily impacted
by industrial development3 .
25
-------
FIGURE 2.
LAND USE IN THE ANACOSTIA WATERSHED BASED ON 1MPERVIOUSNESS
Future Land Use
(Muttr plan)
Existing Land Use
(1980) '
^Sources: (CH2M Hill, 1982; Satterwaite Assoc., 1988, Water Resources Center, 1986)
26
-------
Summary of Industrial Activities in the Anacostia Watershed
Of the 23,120 industries loaned within the boundaries of the Anacostia watershed, percentages
of the different types of industrial categories break down as follows (FACTS data base):
Industrial Category % Total
Research and Development 17.7
Health Services 15.8
Misc. Retail Businesses 11.4
Personal Services 7.4
Wholesale Durables 6.1
Educational Services 5.1
Printing and Publishing 4.3
Auto Repair, Sen'ices, Parking 4.2
Auto Dealers, Gas Stations 3.6
Wholesale nondurable^ 3.4
Misc. Repair Services 2. 7
Trucking and Warehousing 2.4
Amusement and Recreation Services 2.1
Agricultural Services 1. 7
Transport Services 1.6
Hotels and Lodging 1.1
Building, Hardware Materials 1.0
All Others <1.0
While these numbers do not reveal the relative impacts of the different types of industries on the
watershed, the information shows groupings of industrial types to target for training and
outreach activities, particularly in the realm of pollution prevention.
Public Access and Recreation along the Anacostia
Despite its condition, the Anacostia remains a major focus for recreation in the area,
particularly along the publicly-owned park corridors along the River's edge. Within the District,
the National Park Service manages these parklands, and owns the Greenbelt National Parkland
the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in the Maryland portion of the watershed3. Other major
recreational facilities in the watershed include the Kenilworth Aquatic Garden, the National
Arboretum, Langston Public Golf Course, and Robert F. Kennedy Stadium. Boat access and
dockage is available along the tidal Anacostia at several marinas and private boat clubs.
27
-------
CONDITION OF THE RIVER
The Anacostia watershed has suffered from a number of persistent wafer quality problems. In
the tributary portions of the watershed, sediment, streambank erosion, and high bacteria levels.
are the most severe problems. In the tidal 'reaches below Bladensburg, Maryland, the river
suffers not only from high sediment and bacteria loadings generated and delivered from
upstream, but from the effects of combined sewer overflows. These overflows and additional
rural and urban sources of bacteria and nutrients also generate massive loadings of oxygen-
demanding materials during storms that deplete the oxygen in the tidal river needed to support
life there. Recently, the sediments in the tidal river have been found to contain high levels of
toxic organics and heavy metals13.
The Monitoring Network
Hie sources of the pollutants and the nature of their delivery to the Anacostia, is difficult to
accurately quantify due to the limited number of water quality monitoring stations throughout
the watershed12.
Although a few monitoring stations have existed throughout the Anacostia watershed over time,
only relatively recently was an effort undertaken to coordinate monitoring activities in the basin.
In 1984, the various state and local governments, and the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (MWCOG), joined forces to develop the Coordinated Anacostia Monitoring
Program (CAMP). Tins effort represents the most extensive and comprehensive monitoring of
the Anacostia watershed. The data generated from the CAMP monitoring stations are used by
MWCOG to develop annual reports on water quality conditions, as well as to support other
research endeavors.
Ti]e CAMP monitoring network consists of 46 water quality monitoring stations located
throughout the watershed. By far, most of the -stations are located on the tidal portion of the
Anacostia River and are maintained by the D. C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs, Environmental Control Division; only 16 stations occur on the upstream tributaries. As
shown in Table 5, most of the tributaries have only one or two sampling stations. The
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection operates 6 tributary stations, the
Prince Georges County Health Department controls 10 stations, and the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) is the lead agency for one station. The MWCOG coordinates the
sampling activities benveen all of the stations and maintains computerized compilations of the
water quality data2. Table 6 provides a summary of the monitoring stations contained within the
CAMP nenvork.
The goal of the CAMP is to provide same day sampling at each of the stations to provide for
consistency of flow and weather conditions. Generally, an attempt is made to analyze for similar
parameters benveen all of the stations, although some variability does occur depending on the
lead agency for the sampling location.
28
-------
TABLE 5. Si'MMARY OF TRIBUTARY MONITORING LOCATIONS
INCLUDED IN THE CAMP PROGRAM12.
Tributary
Sligo Creek
Long Branch
Northwest Branch
Paint Branch
Northeast Branch
Little Paint Branch
Indian Creek
Beaverdam Creek
Lower Beaverdam Creek
Watts Branch
Number of Sampling Stations
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
7
2
/
Although CAMP is the most ambitious water quality monitoring effort within the Anacostia
watershed, some additional stations and sampling efforts do occur.
• Dissolved oxygen monitors - The Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory operates
nvo continuous dissolved oxvgen/temperadtre monitoring stations on the tidal Anacostia
at Benning Road and Seafarer's Marina.
• Nonpoint Source Monitoring Network - Four storm monitoring stations were developed
to measure pollutant loadings and assess the impact of urban storm runoff to the tidal
estuary. TJtree of these are watershed monitors designed to determine water quality from
three tributaries to the Anacostia (Northeast Branch, Northwest Branch, and Indian
Creek). The other station is a performance monitor, located at River Terrace, designed
to measure pollutant levels within the storm drain system.
• D. C. Water Quality Monitoring Program • In addition to the stations it maintains as
part of CAMP, the D. C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental
Control Division (DCECD) maintains nine other water quality stations.
Tfie Anacostia Watershed monitoring efforts summarized above are supplemented by additional
data from the National Weather Service and the United Stated Geological Survey (USGS).
Specifically, (he precipitation data from (he National Arboretum and flow data from nvo USGS
stations (Northeast and Northwest Branches) have been summarized by MWCOG12.
29
-------
In addition to water quality monitoring, a number of biological monitoring activities occur within
the Anacostia Watershed. Two of the most important types of biological surveying efforts within
the Anacostia watershed involve sampling the number and diversity of the macroinvenebrate
community and the resident fish population. Both of these types of data have been used to assess
overall water quality in the watershed V""J. Two additional, and very important, programs
conducted by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Both of these efforts are
summarized in a 1991 report " as follows.:
• Benthic Macroinvenebrate Sampling - Forty-one sites over a t\vo-year time frame were
sampled to provide baseline data for future comparative efforts. The first year results,
published in 199125, were based on 26 sites and the second year results were based on
15 additional sites. All of these sites were located throughout the watershed, on every
major tributary.
• Fisheries Investigations - Fisheries investigations in the Anacostia have been occurring
since 1988. Tlie first year of the program focused on temporal comparisons with
previous studies offish communities at 26 sites in (he watershed and evaluated migratory
fish passages. The second \ear of the program assessed gamefish populations and
reassessed migratory fish blockages. The third year concentrated on resident fish surveys
sampled from 15 sites throughout the watershed. The fish sampling generally occurred
at the same locations used for the macroinvenebrate sampling.
Anacostia Water Quality
There are many important measures by which to assess the quality of surface waters and the
physical conditions and pollution stresses upon them.
Upper Tributary Water Quality Index - The water quality of the nine tributaries to the tidal
Anacostia River is heavily influenced by each of the watershed's land uses, hydrology, and the
industrial dischargers using these streams as waste disposal. The report Anacostia Water Quality
Conditions: 1986-1987 'contains a description of these watersheds as well as the hydrology and
land uses that influence their water (inality. This report also notes evidence that certain of the
permitted dischargers in the basin have impacted water quality.
As was noted above in the physical description of the watershed, the Anacostia Basin is largely
urbanized with highly impervious surfaces that prevent the percolation of rainwater into soils,
meaning that stormwater must be collected and diverted to the river. This high degree of
imperviousness has t\vo unfortunate consequences to the hydrology of the watershed. The most
obvious is that more stormwater must be drained away from these areas during wet weather.
The second is caused by there being less natural recharge of ground water which robs channels
of flow during dry periods. These extremes of high and low flows are detrimental to both water
quality and to habitats.
30
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF THE MONITORING STATIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CAMP
NETWORK n.
NOTE: For the tidal Anacostia River stations, river miles are measured from Bladensburg.
STATION TYPE:
M=Mainstem of the Anacostia
E=Embayment on the Anacostia
T=Tributary of the Anacostia
AGSTA
ANA-01
ANA-02
ANA-03
ANA-04
ANA-OS
ANA-06
ANA-07
ANA-08
ANA-09
ANA-10
ANA-11
AN A- 12
ANA-13
AN A- 14
AN A- 15
AN A- 16
ANA-17
AN A- 18
AN A- 19
ANA-20
ANA-21
PWC-04
ANA-22
AN A -23
ANA-24
ANA-2S
ANA-26
ANA-27
ANA-29
ANA0082
50010
50033
50035
50037
50060
50120
A4
A7
All
A12
A15
AI7
Bl
B6
S-19
W-34*
LOCATION
ANACOSTIA & N.Y. AVE.
ANAC. @ AQU. GARDEN N.
ANAC. @ AQU. GARDEN S.
ANAC. ©ARBORETUM
ANAC. ©MICKEY HILL
ANAC. &K1NGMAN LAXE
ANAC. ©BENNING POWER
ANAC. ©BENNINC POW S.
ANAC. ©K1NCMAN IS. N.
ANAC. ©E. CAP ST. BR.
ANAC. ©KINCMAN IS: S.
ANAC. ©KINGMAN L. OUT.
ANAC. ©CONRAIL RR BR
ANAC. (gPEN'N AVE
ANAC. ©PENS' AVE SOUTH
ANAC. ©PARK POOL S.
ANAC. ©11TH ST. BR.
ANAC. ©NAVY YARD EAST
ANAC. ©NAVY YARD
ANAC. ©NAVY YARD WEST
ANAC. ©6 CAP ST BR.
W CHANNEL ©MUNIC PIER
ANAC. @S CAP ST BR. S.
ANAC. ©BUZZARD PT PO.
ANAC. ©BUZZARD PT MAR.
ANAC. ©GREENLEAF POINT
ANAC ©WASH. CHAN.
ANAC. ©HAINS POINT
POTOMAC ©HAINS POINT
ANAC. R. ©BLADENSBC
SUGO CR ©WASH. HOSP
LONG BR. ©CARROL AVE
LONG BRANCH @E. WAYNE
NW BR. ©OLD R1CCS RD.
NW BR. © RANDOLPH RD.
PAINT BR. @ FAIR RD.
t,
NWJTR. ©QUEEN'S CHAPEL
NE BR. ©RIVERDALE RD.
LITTLE PAINT BRANCH
INDIAN CR ©GREEN. RD.
BEAVERDAM CR @RES.
INDIAN CR ©SUNNYSIDE
LOWER BEAVER CR ©BOR.
LOWER BEAVER SER. RD
SUCO CREEK
WATTS BRANCH
AGENCY
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD
DCECD .
DCECD
MDE
MONTCO
MONTCO
MONCTO
MONTCO
MONTCO
MONTCO
PGHD
PCHD
PCHD
PCHD
PGHD
PCHD
PCHD -
PGHD
PCHD
PGHD
RIVER STATION LATI-
MILES TYPE TUDE
1.5
1.8
2.0
23
2.5
2.8
3.0
33
35
3.8
4.1
4.3
4.6
48
5.1
53
5.6
5.8
6.1
63
6.6
6.6
6.8
7.1
7.4
7.6
7.9
8.1
8.4
0
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
39
38
39
39
38
38
39
38
39
39
38
55
54
54
54
54
54
54
53
53
53
53
53
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
56
59
59
00
59
03
04
57
57
02
59
01
01
55
05
56
53
46
33
20
07
55
42
27
02
02
38
38
33
27
30
11
13
17
10
25
66
47
40
32
22
10
02
19
00
15
20
44
58
27
20
30
35
00
00
00
00
LONGI-
TUDE
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
76
77
76
77
76
77
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
56
56
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
58
29
59
59
59
00
00
01
00
00
00
01
01
01
01
56
00
59
00
58
01
57
57
56
55
55
52
54
54
31
44
01
12
22
30
38
45
45
48
09
09
20
33
50
06
19
34
49
05
18
21
26
34
47
02
10
15
21
37
44
11
•Note: W-34 sampled only in 1989.
Potomac and Anacostia Rivers Water Quality Data Report 1988-1989
31
-------
An index useful in summarizing water quality was developed by the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin 2.
Table 7
WATER QUALITY INDEX FOR STREAMS TRIBUTARY TO THE ANACOSTIA
TRIBUTARY INDEX
Sligo Creek ' Fair-Good
Northwest Branch Good
Paint Branch **
Little Paint Branch Poor-Fair
Indian Creek Fair
Beaverdam Creek Fair
Northeast Branch Poor
Lower Beaverdam Creek Fair
**
Insufficient Data .
As the Anacostia River becomes tidal, the speed of its flow drops, and it widens allowing
suspended materials to drop from the water column. Once in the sediments of the tidal river,
the materials become a part of cyclical chemical interactions with the overlying waters.
Water Quality Standards - Water (/uality standards are (hose provisions of state or federal law
which define the water quality goals of water bodies by designating the uses to be made of the
waters and by setting criteria necessary to protect these uses. The federal and state Water
Quality Standards Programs are governed by Section 303 of the Clean Water Act and EPA's
Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR Part 131). Tlie Anacostia River is currently
designated for the following beneficial uses:
Secondary contact recreation and aesthetic enjoyment
Aquatic life, waterfowl, shore birds and water oriented wildlife
Raw water source for industrial water supply
Navigational use
In addition to the uses assigned, (he District's Water Quality Standards assign the future
beneficial use of primary contact recreation (Class A) for the Anacostia River. Criteria for 74
constituents such as, dissolved oxygen, oil and grease, and chlorinated organics are applicable
32
-------
to the Anacostia River. Tfie District is responsible for reviewing, establishing and revising water
quality standards. Tlie District is also required to review irs standards at least once every three
years and modify the standards as appropriate. Revisions to the District's standards were last
adopted in 1985. Since 1985, the District has proposed several sets of revisions, although none
have been formally adopted and submitted to EPA for approval. Because (he District has not
adopted all the necessary criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as required by the 1987
amendments to the Clean Water Act in Section 303(c) (2) (b), the District has been included in
EPA's national toxics rule (FR 58459, November 19, 1991) which requires additional efforts to
address water quality.
Bacteria Levels - The levels of bacteria in water are an important indicator of the water's
suitability for recreational contact. Sources of pollution in the Anacostia that contribute fecal
coliform bacteria are well over the District of Columbia's bacterial standard. Moreover, it has
been estimated that the secondary contact standard in the District of Columbia has been
exceeded 90 percent of the time in the tidal section of the Anacostia9. Bacteria levels exceed
Maryland Water quality standards of 200 mpn/100 ml. most of the time in all tributaries2.
Temperature - The temperature of watercourses are seasonally dependent and directly affect the
survival and growth of aquatic organisms. A sharp rise in ambient water temperature can
reduce or eliminate sensitive stream insect and fish species. The occurrence of elevated
temperatures in tributary stream channels during (he warm seasons can be attributed to three
factors: I) the influx of surface runoff from warm rooftops and parking lots; 2) the lack of
vegetation along streambanks that precludes the cooling effects of shading; and, 3) the solar
warming of concrete channel bottoms and shallow waters3.
Maryland water quality standards establish three zones of maximum temperatures that apply to
the tributary streams in the watershed. These standards are met in most cases. Violations occur
in areas inside the Beltway where imperviousness is highest and drainage during the summer is
from hot paved surfaces. Elevated temperatures for example, 92.3 F, have been recorded in a
channelized segment of the Northeast Branch. Other tributaries exhibiting high water
temperatures are the lower Northeast Branch and lower Beaverdam Creek3.
Dissolved Oxygen - Dissolved oxygen is necessary to sustain fish life and to protect the river
from chemical reactions which occur in the absence of oxygen, promoting damaging releases of
toxic materials into the water column. Low levels of dissolved oxygen are a persistent problem
in the tidal Anacostia River. The problem is more dramatic in summer months when high
temperatures diminish the water's ability to hold dissolved oxygen. Levels of dissolved oxygen
also change radically when surges of waste materials consume oxygen as they decompose.
The District of Columbia has adopted a minimum dissolved oxygen standard of 4 mg/l, but this
level is routinely violated in the months ber\veen May and November. In 1989, the District of
Columbia's 4 mg/l dissolved oxygen standard was exceeded 70 percent of the time at the MD/DC
line and 90 percent of the time at the Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge13. In 199214, the District
reported that this standard was exceeded 25 percent and 35 percent of the time respectively at
33
-------
these t\vo locations. Tfiis report notes that these apparent improvements may be due to
variations in rainfall and river flows.
Low dissolved oxygen occurs less frequently in tributary streams than in the tidal portion of the
Anacostia. This is because there are relatively few discharges of strong oxygen-demanding
wastes, and because flowing streams reoxygenate as they travel.
Nutrients - Two nutrients - nitrogen and phosphorus - are a concern not just in the Anacostia
or the Potomac Rivers but throughout the Chesapeake Bay. Phosphorus concentrations in the
tidal Anacostia River are similar to those found in the Potomac River and its tributaries in the
Washington Metropolitan Area. Annual mean total phosphorus concentrations in the Anacostia
vary bet\veen 0.05 and 0.15 mg/l./5. There is a geographic pattern in these concentrations with
the highest values seen near combined sewer overflow points.
Total nitrogen in the Anacostia ranges benveen 1.0 and 3.0 mg/l - a level comparable to those
found in the more agricultural tributaries of the Potomac River. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen,
the most reactive form of nitrogen, is at relatively high levels. As with phosphorus,
concentrations were elevated in the vicinity of combined sewer overflow sites.
pH - Tins parameter is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a stream. While there appears
to be large variations in Ph, there are few records to indicate that this is a problem in the river.
Periodically, high Ph in the Northeast Branch (pH 9.0 to 9.5) may be the result of industrial
discharges.
Sediment - Sediment loads that are found downstream in the tidal portion of the river originate
as pollutants measured as total suspended solids (TSS) in (he river's tributaries.
The sources of sediment in the Anacostia watershed include streambank erosion, urban runoff,
sand and gravel mining operations, agriculture, and earth-moving activities associated with
construction sites. Streambank erosion occurs throughout the tributaries and tidal river due to
the presence of naturally erodible soils and the increased flow velocities caused by storms.
Resuspension of sediments during runoff events also occur. As evidenced by the deltas which
form at the stormwater outfalls along the tidal river, urban runoff is also a significant source
of sediment.
Natural streams usually develop streambanks to contain the largest runoff event which occurs
within a t\vo-year period (50 percent chance of occurrence). Urbanization increases the volume
of runoff and the associated increases in velocity cause streambank erosion when channels
enlarge to accommodate peak flows. Material from the eroded banks contributes to
sedimentation and the associated water quality problems. Runoff from streets, parking lots and
other impervious surfaces contains sediment from yards, construction sites and roadways. Use
of riprap to stabilize eroding banks sometimes increases scouring of the streambed.
34
-------
Sediment concentrations measured as total suspended solids (TSS) are highest in the upstream
segment of the tidal river. High TSS concentrations in this area are influenced by the head of
tide and channel width. Suspended sediments settle out rapidly due to the decrease in velocity
caused by the widening of the channel at the location of the boat basin. Similarly, tidal actions
also resuspend sediment panicles. Farther downstream, the tidal river exhibits lower TSS
concentrations. In general, much of the sediment load settles and remains trapped within the
tidal Anacostia before reaching the mouth of the river.
Ttie three tributaries with the greatest concentrations of TSS are the Lower Northwest Branch,
the Paint Branch, and Lower Indian Creek.
Streambank Erosion - Eroding streambanks are a significant problem. Schueler and Galli have
estimated that Wfieaton Branch ofSligo Creek has expanded from 5 meters to 25 meters in width
because high stormwater velocities and flows have scoured away its banks. Streambank erosion
is compounded by high velocity runoff from paved urban surfaces.
Construction Activities - Construction occurs throughout the watershed. Large quantities of soil
are disturbed for excavation, fill and grading purposes. The Maryland Department of the
Environment estimates that more than 30 square miles of land within Prince Georges and
Montgomery Counties were disturbed for new construction in 1989.
Sand and Gravel Mining - Sand and gravel operations occur mainly in Indian Creek, Paint
Branch, and Little Paint Branch sub-watersheds. Active and abandoned mines as well as
processing areas contribute sediment to receiving waters.
Agriculture - Agriculture in the watershed is confined largely to the tributaries draining into the
Northeast Branch. The practice of tilling the soil loosens soil particles, thereby increasing
erosion. Although agricultural activities in the basin have decreased greatly over the past 100
years, they may be responsible for as much as 11 percent of the present sediment load.
Sediment Contamination - Sediment in the tidal Anacostia contains high levels of contamination.
These high levels have caused elevated contaminant burdens in the benthic species which inhabit
these sediments. Because these life forms are elementary links in the food chain, when they are
consumed, the contaminants become concentrated in the organs of the predators at each higher
level. Accumulations can cause organ failures, reproductive failures, cancer, or other
significant stresses on most life in the river. When levels found in fish caught for human
consumption exceed levels specified by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, these levels
become a public health concern. For wildlife it is often unclear what the significance of these
elevated levels are. The procedures for establishing standards for unacceptable sediment quality
are still being developed.
Measurements of elevated levels of PCBs and chlordane in resident fish in the Potomac River
in 1986 led the District to undertake a sediment survey of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.
The survey was meant to further characterize (he presence, distribution and magnitude of toxic
35
-------
chemicals in the sediments.
Early work, intended as a screening study of both rivers, was conducted by Limno-Tech, Inc.
in cooperation with the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin and the District of
Columbia through its Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Water Hygiene Branch
in the fall of 1989. Tl:e Anacosria was sampled below the Bladensburg Marina near the
Maryland-District line downstream to the Buzzards Point Marina near the confluence of the
Anacostia and Washington Ship Channel. Because there were no sediment criteria to use as a
yardstick to determine whether the sediment contaminant levels were safe or harmful, an
assessment methodology developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) was used to determine the potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed
contamination.
Using an interpretation of the NOAA indices, 28 stations were assessed for PCBs, chlordane
mercury and five other metals. The sediments of the lower Anacostia are very polluted with
several contaminants. Tfie Anacostia sites with the highest levels of contaminants and the
highest potential for adverse biological impacts were in Kingman Lake, the outfall of the
Northeast Boundary CSO, the IIth Street and South Capital Street Bridges, the Buzzards Point
Marina, and in the Washington Ship Channel. The impacts of these elevated levels in the
wildlife of the river corridor cannot be assessed, but elevated levels of PCBs and chlordane have
been found in fish at unsafe levels.
Debris - Once floating materials reach the tidal river they remain in the system for extended
periods of time. The Tidal Anacostia Model10 predicts that the average flushing time of the
system is 12 days and can be as long as 100 days during low flows. Debris in the system can
be deposited along the shoreline during high flow events, exported to the Potomac River system
(and ultimately to the Chesapeake Bay), or become partially buried in the sediments.
Debris in the tidal Anacostia represents a substantial impediment to the restoration of the
Anacostia River system for three reasons. First, the debris is aesthetically insulting: second, it
hinders the establishment of emergent vegetation: and third, the debris gives the public the
perception that the Anacostia River is not a valued resource.
CONDITION OF HABITATS
Uncontrolled stormwater runoff and structures in the watenvay, have severely degraded the
habitat quality of hundreds of miles of the Anacostia's urban tributaries. The increased volumes
of stormwater runoff associated with the urbanization process has profoundly altered the flow,
shape, water quality and ecology of these streams. Increased sediment loads carried by runoff
and increased channel erosion due to high runoff volumes have destroyed many vital habitat
areas. These streams now support only a fraction of the aquatic species they once held16.
Wildlife
A significant loss of wildlife habitat has occurred due to the removal of riparian vegetation to
36
-------
-------
improve stream accessibility within the recreational areas of parks and in the flood control
areas. Despite this, the Anacostia is home to an amazing number of ducks, herons and raptors
that have adapted to life in an urban environment. Their presence in the Anacostia River
corridor is encouraging evidence of (he potential for restored river habitats.
Aquatic Life
Historically, fishery resources in the Anacostia provided the region with a profitable industry and
highly valued recreation. Populations of American and hickory shad, white and yellow perch,
red-breasted sunfish, catfish and herring were abundant before water quality became
problematic. Despite recent efforts to restore water quality, fishery resources of the Anacostia
offer no commercial value. TJie only notable, existing, quality fishery is the naturally
reproducing population of brown trout in (he headwaters of Paint Branch.
During 1988 and 1989, fish surveys in the tributaries and tidal Anacostia were conducted by the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin " . These surveys were based on sampling at
26 sites. When the results were compared to earlier surveys, they reveal that fisheries have
improved but are significantly below the historical levels of abundance and diversity. The
surveys also found severely degraded areas such as Sligo Creek, where no fish were found, and
Lower Beaverdam Creek, where only pollution-tolerant fish were found.
These sources and problems associated with poor water quality have been discussed in a
previous section of this report. Briefly, incoming sediment effectively smothers rocky substrate,
causes turbidity and transports associated pollutants. Inputs of sewage stimulate production of
algae, which in turn increases the demand for oxygen, and effectively lowers the level of
available dissolved oxygen in the water column. These effects generally degrade fish habitat
which in turn reduces the overall spawning success of the various species.
Fish Passage
Anadromousfish species in the Anacostia River include blueback herring, alewife herring, white
perch and striped bass. The freshwater river and tributaries of the Anacostia basin provide
spawning and nursery grounds for these fish. Subsequent to hatching, juvenile fish leave the
freshwater environment for the brackish and salt waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean.
A significant adverse impact on the fisheries in the basin is the existence of barriers to migratory
fish. The ICPRB studies identified nventy-five potential impediments to fish passage in the
tributaries. Structural impediments may be in the form of drop structures, pipeline or utility line
stream crossing, or paved channels. A few of these structures are impediments to fish only
during low flow periods, but many of these structures are impassable for fish throughout the
year. Removal or modification of these structures would allow migratory and resident fish
species to access several additional miles of habitat.
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for three of the impediments identified in the ICPRB
sun'eys. Two impediments are drop structures; one is located upstream of the 38th Street Bridge
37
-------
on (he Northwest Branch, and the other is located on Paint Branch just upstream of the
confluence with Indian Creek (Northeast Branch). Tlie third impediment is the high speed
channel with a paved bottom that is part of the flood control project on the Northwest Branch.
Other impediments to fish passage in the basin, as identified by ICPRB, were constructed or are
currently maintained by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission or utility companies.
Design and construction of flood control channels typically exclude obstructions in thefloodway
that could reduce the conveyance capacity of the flood channel or pose potential hazards in the
event of a flood. Likewise, naturally meandering streams are straightened and channelized to
convey floodwaters efficiently. This is true of the sections of the Northeast and Northwest
Branches that lie within the limits of the flood control project. Over 14,000 linear feet of the
levee andfloodway along these branches are essentially devoid of trees.
77?e lack of vegetative cover in stream channels impacts the aquatic system in several ways.
Incident solar radiation on the wafer surface of shallow streams can cause significant increases
in water temperature which may stress aquatic organisms. Tlie aquatic system also suffers from
a loss of organic material entering the stream from leaf full. TJie decomposition of leaf litter
into paniculate organic matter is a vital link in the aquatic food chain from macroinvenebrates
to fish. Tliese impacts collectively act to diminish the aquatic diversify and abundance of aquatic
life in the stream channel.
Natural channels typically have alternating low and high slopes that are referred to as pools and
riffles. Under normal low flow conditions, pools and riffles provide a variety of depths and
hydraulic conditions (e.g., velocities) that provide resting and feeding areas for both forage and
predaceous flsh. Benthic macroinverrebrate populations also benefit from this variety. Riffles
also add oxygen to the water. Thus, pool and riffle habitat is essential to foster and maintain
diverse populations of aquatic organisms, including flsh.
Flood control channels remove pools, riffles and meanders. Riparian vegetation is replaced with
flat overbank areas which are maintained in a monoculture of short grasses. During non-
flooding periods the low flow spreads our over the channel bottom and the stream becomes very
shallow. Tfie area for solar heating is increased, and the interface beween terrestrial and
aquatic habitats is removed. While the construction of flood control channels successfully
reduced the substantial flooding problems in the vicinity of Bladensburg, the adverse
environmental impacts of this project are significant.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
There is very little submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V) inhabiting the Anacostia River. Aerial
photography taken in 1987 revealed Vallisneria americana (wild celery) and Hydrilla verticillate
growing near the mouth of the Anacostia. The combined effects of high concentrations ofTSS,
high flow velocities, channel configuration, and waves generated by boat traffic, have probably
prevented the establishment and growth of SA V in the river.
38
-------
Wetlands
Prior to the colonization of the Anacostia River basin, the river and tributaries were bordered
by tidal wetlands. Historical literature citations refer to the "extensive marshes dominated by
wild rice bordering the East Branch of the Potomac" (i.e., the Anacosna River). Approximately
1,000 acres of emergent tidal wetlands occupied the river as far as the head of tide at
Bladensburg, Maryland. Today, it is estimated that less than 50 acres of emergent tidal
wetlands occupy the entire river.
The largest remaining emergent tidal wetland in the basin is the Kenilworth marsh, located on
the east bank 6 miles upstream from the confluence with the Potomac River. A modest forest
buffer surrounds the marsh and together they provide a variety of habitat including mudflats,
emergent marsh, scrub-shrub wetlands and bottomland forest. Much of the marsh proper is open
water and mudflats. Tfie Corps of Engineers dredged (he open marsh to a depth of 6 feet in the
1930's in order to build what was then referred to as "East Lake". Although much of this area
has now silted in to the point that at low ride, unvegetated mudflats are exposed, the tidal range
of 3 feet prevents the establishment of emergent vegetation.
The National Wetlands Inventory Map for the tidal Anacostia identifies additional wetlands on
or adjacent to the river, primarily between the East Capitol Street Bridge and Bladensburg.
A/though the size of most of these wetlands is on the order of 10 acres or less, they represent
a .significant portion of the ecological diversity found in the tidal river basin. Tfiese small
wetlands along with the remaining wetlands in Kenilworth marsh are all that remains of what
was once an extensive tidal freshwater system.
Wetland resources are widely recognized for the functions and values they provide. The addition
of wetlands to (he basin would increase the opportunity for wetland functions and values and
thus serve to enhance the watershed. Wetland functions and values include 1) aquatic habitat
abundance/diversity, 2) wildlife abundance/diversity, 3) sediment stabilization, 4)
sediment/toxicant retention, 5) nutrient removal or transformation, 6) retention offloodwater,
7) groundwater discharge/recharge, 8) recreation and 9) aesthetics or uniqueness. The dramatic
loss of wetlands has obviously also resulted in the loss of these associated functions and values.
Forest Cover
Virtually all of the virgin deciduous forests that occupied the Anacostia watershed were harvested
200 to 300 years ago. Tfie forest has been replaced with suburban and urban development and
an extensive highway system. Even within the park systems, many of the areas are maintained
with short grasses. Riparian vegetation has been removed to facilitate the movements of
floodwaters.
39
-------
* THE RESTORATION IS UNDERWAY
Recognizing (he need for corrective actions, regional programs have increasingly focused on the
Anacostia 's restoration. Regional efforts have always been necessary to protect and restore the
water resources of the Metropolitan area. These programs have involved local, state, and often
federal agencies that have focused on the Potomac, Occoquan, and the Patuxent Rivers and on
the Chesapeake Bay. Tlte 'Water Resources Planning Board served, for some time as the central
organization for Potomac River planning; and in J979, it recognized the Anacostia as apriority
watershed.
TJie Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments has been actively involved in efforts to
understand and improve conditions in the river and its tributaries. In 1984, jurisdictions in the
watershed signed the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Strategy Agreement, which targeted t\vo
major pollutants - the flow of raw sewage into the Anacostia River from the District, and
sediment runoff and erosion from Maryland. The agreement pulled together the District of
Columbia's control efforts, along with a number of local initiatives under way in Montgomery
and Prince Georges Counties, into a comprehensive strategy to improve Anacostia water
quality '7.
Also in 1984, MWCOG organized the first coordinated Anacostia watershed monitoring program
(the CAMP network) to track water qualify conditions in the basin. Tfie following year,
MWCOG developed a comprehensive report on Anacostia water quality, used to assess
improvements in conditions as regional clean up programs are implemented.
TJie Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
In 1987 a new regional Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement among the District of
Columbia, (he State of Maryland, and Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties established
goals for restoring the Anacostia. To guide the restoration process, the Agreement called for the
formation of an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC) to develop a restoration
plan and coordinate the implementation efforts of the dozens of local, state and federal agencies.
The members of AWRC include the heads of the District of Columbia Department of Consumer
and. Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) and Department of Public Works (DPW), Montgomery County
Department of Environmental Protection, Prince Georges County Department of Environmental
Resources, and the Maryland Departments of the Environment and Natural Resources. It now
includes the V. S. Army Corps of Engineers out of recognition of its central role in many aspects
of the Anacostia's restoration. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Government was
designated under the 1987 Agreement as the lead agency to provide technical and administrative
support to the AWRC through the efforts of its Department of Environmental Program's
"Anacostia Restoration Team." The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)
was also designated to coordinate and implement public education and participation activities
40
-------
as well as to develop a living resources restoration and enhancement effortIfi.
Through the AWRC, great strides have been made in developing a strong and broad-based
coalition to clean up the Anacostia. The coordinated effort of dedicated public agencies and
citizen volunteer groups have yielded important progress.
AWRC's most recent workplan for fiscal 1993 contains more than $12 million specifically
committed by local and state governments to the Anacostia cleanup. The workplan contains
more than 50 major environmental initiatives that are to be carried out by over 40 local, state
and federal agenciesIV.
Development of a Six-Point Action Plan
Tfie AWRC has adopted afar-reaching action plan/6 to restore the Anacostia River by the turn
of the next century. Tfie six goals of the Action Plan are:
Goal No. 1. Dramatically reduce pollutants coming into the tidal estuary so as to measurably
improve water quality conditions.
This goal will be achieved through action in several areas. First, the phased implementation of
more than 159 urban stormwater projects will control the quality and quantity of nonpoint
sources from over 35 square miles, nearly 28 percent of the watershed. Additional controls to
be imposed through local, state and federal laws will further reduce pollution loads. Principal
among these is the correction of combined sewer overflows within the District of Columbia under
the federal NPDES Program.
Stormwater Controls - Since, 1987, $35 million has been spent implementing urban nonpoint
source controls at more than 45 sites in the basin. Indian Creek, in Prince Georges County, for
example, has suffered severe impacts from nonpoint sources. Although original stormwater
controls provided flood protection, they did little to remove pollutants. Prince Georges County
with the assistance of the State of Maryland completed two stormwater retrofit projects to
improve and protect the upper reaches of Indian Creek. T/u's has resulted in improved water
quality benefits and enhanced downstream channel erosion control.
Mickey Run, a heavily industrialized stream located in the District of Columbia, is now the focus
of a major, multi-agency stream restoration effort expected to take three years to implement. The
project will examine the oil and grit separators and streambed rehabilitation and monitoring of
pollution loads in the stream.
Another project, the District of Columbia's Debris Removal Demonstration, initiated with
assistance from EPA will develop procedures for removing debris in the tidal portion of the
Anacostia, a visual blight that degrades much of the recreational opportunities along the tidal
shoreline.
Local governments have adopted stringent requirements for new development in the watershed
41
-------
to lessen its impact on the Anacostia. These restrictions have included pioneering regulations in
the area of stormwater management, sediment control, forest conservation, wetland protection
and stream buffers. ' Many of these regulations have become national models.
The stormwater programs of the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland and other
programs that affect stormwater quality within the context of their actions are an important pan
of efforts to protect the Anacostia from new development and redevelopment. Taken together and
individually, these programs illustrate the broader concept of pollution prevention by
encouraging the reduction of sediment and stormwater runoff and the protection of natural buffer
systems, such as wetlands and flood'plains.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Tfie District has enacted several laws that regulate stormwater and land use activities in the
Anacostia watershed:
D.C. Law 5-188 - Water Pollution Control Act of 1984
D.C. Law 2-23 - Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1977
D.C. Law 1-64 - D.C. Applications and Insurance Implementation Act
The Water Pollution Control Act outlines guidelines for the stormwater management program,
the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act establishes requirements for land-disturbing activities
that may affect stormwater, and the D.C. Applications and Insurance Implementation Act
establishes guidelines for floodplain development. All of these programs are administered by the
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) in concert with the District's
permitting programs so that applications are reviewed by officials in all of the various regulatory
programs interested in reviewing the proposed activity. Each of these programs are described
in more detail below.
Stormwater Management Program - The stormwater management program is guided by the
provisions and procedures outlined in the Water Pollution Control Act, together with specific
design criteria stated in the Stormwater Management Guidebook 2V. The program establishes
procedures to control adverse impacts of increased stormwater runoff due to development and
urbanization. The program develops regulations (hat apply to new developments disturbing land
in excess of 5000 square feet. TJiere are exemptions for the following activities: additions or
modifications to existing single family residential structures, construction and/or grading
operations that do not disturb more than 5000 square feet, residential development consisting
of single family dwellings each on a lot of two acres or greater, or land development activities
which DRCA determines in which stormwater is regulated by other laws.
To comply, developers must submit a stormwater management plan. A permit will not be issued
until the plan is approved and the following requirements have been executed: recorded
easements for the stormwater management facility with proper access for inspection and
42
-------
maintenance, and a recorded stormwater management-maintenance agreement. In addition, the
District directs applicants to comply with the following minimum control requirements:
Maintain pre-development peak discharge rates for the 24-hour, r\vo- and 15-year storm
events through stonnwater management practices that control the volume, timing, and
rate of flows.
Allow no increase in downstream peak discharge for the 100-year storm in watersheds
designated as "flood hazard watersheds."
Treat runoff containing oil and grease that will potentially exceed concentrations of 10
mg/l.
Prevent the discharge of at least 85% of organic animal waste from animal handling
facilities [hat discharge directly info receiving streams.
Maintain consistency with approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Flood
Management Plans.
In order to meet these conditions, permittees must utilize stonnwater management practices in
the site development operation. DCRA has established a list of stonnwater management
practices that may he used individually or in combination with the other practices, in order of
preference, and has established specific design criteria for each practice. The management
measures listed in order of preference are as follows:
Infiltration of runoff on-site (where applicable)
Flow attenuation through use of vegetative swales and natural depressions • •
Stormwater retention structures
Stonnwater detention structures.
DCRA ensures compliance with program requirements through a regular inspection schedule
conducted by DCRA representatives, penalties for non-compliance, and stormwater management
control maintenance agreements with permittees and subsequent landowners.
Erosion and Sediment Control Program - The District's erosion and sediment control program
complements the regulatory efforts of the stormwater management program by specifically
addressing erosion and sedimentation problems caused by land-disturbing activities. The
program, based on Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act and procedures outlined in the'
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook J0. The Handbook states minimum principles for
controlling sedimentation and erosion from land-disturbing activities in the District, provides
guidelines for implementing these principles, and requires the submission of plans for certain
projects. Tliese guidelines and principles emphasize the need to prevent pollution by limiting the
duration of exposure of disturbed and unprotected areas; this concept should be reflected in the
project's design.
43
-------
Toe need to develop a sediment and erosion plan depends on the amount of land disturbance,
total construction cost, and the type of earth disturbing activity. A sediment and erosion plan
is required prior to initiation of the project if the activity disturbs more than 50 square feet of
land and/or costs more than $2500 for total construction. A sediment and erosion control plan
is not required for projects that do not meet the above criteria and for individual spread footings
to support columns and fence post holes or for utility service connections or repairs. In lieu of
a plan, the applicant must provide erosion control notes with the application that documents
compliance with the principles and guidelines.
Floodplain Management - The regulations affectingfloodplain development relate to stormwater
management in that the District implements controls on development in these areas to control
stormwater quantity in efforts to protect individual property. Floodplain areas are allowed to
be developed, provided no other site was feasible. Land use activities are not specifically limited'
within these areas; however, structural controls may be used to mitigate erosion and sediment
damages. Tfiese controls also yield positive benefits in terms of stormwater management and
water quality for the Anacostia Watershed.
MARYIAND
The State of Maryland has enacted several laws aimed at controlling nonpoint source pollution.
Of these, there is a subset of laws that address stormwater management and land use by
designing programs to protect receiving streams from the impacts of development and
urbanization. Ttiese laws vary in terms of implementation. In some cases, these laws require
counties to adopt local ordinances. Other laws are implemented at the state level. To provide
an overview of stormwater laws in Maryland, the discussion introduces several state programs
that affect stormwater management and land use within the Anacostia watershed, then highlights
programs developed by Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties as examples of stormwater
laws that have been developed at the county level.
The state programs that address stormwater derive (heir authority from the following statutes:
Stormwater Management Act of 1982
Erosion and Sediment Control Law of 1970
Forest Conservation Act of 1991
1984 Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Law
Wetlands Act of 1970
Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act of 1989
Each of the programs implemented under these acts are described below.
Stormwater Management Program - Maryland passed the Stormwater Management Act in 1982
to "maintain after development, as nearly as possible, the predevelopment runoff
characteristics." To address this mandate, the state requires incorporated counties and
municipalities to develop stormwater ordinances that provide control measures to address
stormwater quantity as well as quality for every development that disturbs more than 5000 square
feet of land and significantly alters site hydrology. Local ordinances and local programs are then
44
-------
reviewed by the state to determine whether they are "acceptable".
In terms of stormwater quantity, most areas of Maryland must control on-site runoff from the 2
and 10-year storm events. The state utilizes the concept of pollution prevention to address
stormwater quality by directing localities to consider measures, in a hierarchial manner, that
have the greatest pollution reduction potential. To ensure that localities considered these
measure in an hierarchial manner, the state established a list of preferred management practices
in order of pollution removal capabilities. Tlie list requires local officials first to evaluate the
feasibility of using infiltration controls to address the first half-inch of runoff, which contains the
most pollutants in runoff. If infiltration is not feasible, local officials should consider requiring
other practices. These measures, listed by order of preference, include:
Infiltration practices
Vegetative swales
Retention ponds
Extended detention ponds
- . Detention facilities.
To comply with these re<]iiiremenr.\, developers must submit a plan describing control measures
for approval by local agencies prior to most land disturbing activities.
Tin' requirements of this law laid the foundation for the state for issuing NPDES permits for
stormwater discharges. The state has been delegated the authority to issue both general and
individual stormwater permits and intends to issue a general permit to cover the majority of
industrial dischargers. Maryland is currently reviewing permit applications from large- and
medium-size municipalities, including municipalities in Prince Georges and Montgomery
counties. To receive permits, local jurisdictions must have implemented programs to control
urban runoff from both existing and new development.
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program - The state encourages the local governments to
adopt a comprehensive approach towards soil erosion and sediment control that provides a
protective transition from initial site disturbance through project completion and maintenance.
This approach is founded on the principles of pollution prevention by promoting measures that
minimize the opportunity for erosion to occur. Examples of such measures include exposing the
smallest area of land for the shortest possible time; using sediment control practices, such as
phased development and revegetation during construction; and employing permanent stormwater
management practices, such as infiltration ponds, following site development.
The state's program is based on the Erosion and Sediment Control Law passed in 1970. This
law, administered by the Sediment and Stormwater Administration (SSA) within the Maryland
Department of the Environment, requires local governments to adopt and implement sediment
control ordinances. The ordinances require development planners to develop sediment and
erosion control plans for review and approval by the local agency. To assist local governments
in developing ordinances, SSA in cooperation with other agencies published the 1991 Maryland
Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control2? for local governments to
45
-------
used as minimum requirements.
Further measures for controlling- sediment and soil erosion may be required if a project affects
areas classified as "sensitive areas" by state, county or municipality law or regulation.
Examples of sensitive areas are sensitive watersheds (such as the Anacostia), which encompass
streams, tributaries, riparian areas, and estuary areas that are pan of the critical area. Class
III and Class IV streams and tidal and nontidal wetland areas and adjacent steep slopes to any
of these areas. TJie need for additional measures is determined during the review and hearing
process for the project by the planning agencies, soil and water conservation districts, resource
agencies, and environmental commissions and boards. Any disagreements in recommendations
among these organizations are resolved in writing. Final approval of any additional measures
is the responsibility of the review and approval agencies.
Forest Conservation Program - Tliis program was recently created with the passage of the
Forest Conservation Act of 1991. The Act strives to limit the destruction of forest resources by
residential and commercial development. It requires local governments to establish a Forest
Conservation Program and mandates the replanting of a percentage of trees cleared for
development. Local jurisdictions may establish reforestation funds to accept payments from
developers who cannot replant on site or find sites for reforestation off-site.
To comply with (he program, developers must submit a forest stand delineation and forest
conservation plan prior to development approval, if the proposed site exceeds 40,000 square feet
and has a total of 10,000 square feet of woodlands or specimen trees. The delineation serves
as a tool to determine priority areas of forest retention,- however, forest retention is only
recommended, not mandatory, if forest retention is not possible, it is recommended that the
developer preserve high-priority areas, such as wooded floodplains, wooded slopes over 25%,
wooded wetlands, and wooded stream corridors. Proposed developments disturbing more than
40,000 square feet must retain 15 to 50 percent of forest, depending on the proposed use; and
the area must be reforested or afforested if necessary to achieve the retention objective. If a
developer cannot replant on site or find sites for reforestation off-site, the developer must
contribute to the county fund. Although the law contains many stringent requirements, it also
contains several exemptions, such as those for agricultural and silviculture activities. For more
information about complying with the Forest Conservation Program, refer to the Forest
Conservation Manual 2l1 published by the Washington COG.
Wetlands Program - The state's authority to address stormwater and wetlands protection is
derived from several statutes: the Wetlands Act of 1970, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Act,
and the Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act of 1989. Of these Acts, the Nontidal Wetlands
Protection Act is the most significant, because it establishes a permitting framework for wetlands
outside of the Critical Area, and train and certify wetland delineators. The law prohibits
projects in wetland areas from causing a violation of the state's water quality standards. The
Act regulates all land-disturbing activities within a 25 foot buffer strip of the wetland or 100 feet
if the wetland is listed as a wetland of state concern.
46
-------
This regulatory authority supplements the state's role in reviewing dredged and fill activities
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), in which (he state issues CWA section 401
water quality certifications in conjunction with Corps of Engineers CWA section 404 permits.
Stormwatcr management concerns are ad-dressed through both of these review processes.
Although the state, and in some cases, the local governments implement these state-wide
regulatory programs, (he local governments have established a number of regulatory programs
beyond what the state requires or independently of what the stare requires in order to address
the needs of a local condition or situation. Below is a summary of local regulations that exceed
state requirements for stormwater management or land use.
Montgomery County
Montgomery County addresses stormwater management through their stormwater regulations as
well as other regulations affecting land use. Under these regulations (Sections 4-20J, Subtitle
2), developers are required to submit a stormwater management plan to the county prior to
development as a mandatory part of the development process. In addition, there are other
miscellaneous regulations controlling clearing and grading, septic tanks, stream buffers, tree
preservation, open space, fJoodplain development, and impervious surfaces that affect
stormwater quality.
Clearing and grading activities are controlled under the county's erosion and sediment control
regulations, Planning Department's guidelines for tree conservation, and guidelines for
environmental management. An approved plan for these activities must be part of an erosion
and sediment control plan in place prior to construction. The county may waive some erosion
control plan submirtal requirements if the land clearance is phased. Among other items, the
county requires a clearing and grading restriction line within 10 feet from the canopy of trees,
and recommends either avoiding or phasing the clearance of steep slopes (a slope of 15% or
greater). If development on steep slopes is necessary', the county emphasizes reforestation and
revegetation.
The environmental management guidelines also prohibits the installation of septic tanks on slopes
greater than 25 % and requires buffers for all streams identified on the M-NCPPC topographic
maps, depending on slope and stream class. The county's guidelines for tree conservation
recommends the preservation of healthy trees, with a diameter greater than 24 inches whenever
feasible. Such trees must be identified on natural resources inventory map prior to development
approval. Tlie subdivision regulations prohibit the issuance of building permits within 25 feet
of the 100-year fioodplain. The same regulations also require preliminary approval of public
facilities to determine whether they are adequate to support and service the area of the proposed
subdivision. This requirement may be an effective tool in ensuring the implementation of long-
term stormwater management controls. Similarly, such controls should also be a part of the
county's efforts to develop master plans for the conservation and management of each watershed
in the county, required under Sections 8-1 la-02 and 03 of Maryland Law.
47
-------
Prince Georges County
Like Montgomery County, Prince Georges County addresses stormwater management in their
regulations affecting land use. Under the Building Codes (Sections 4-220.1-22), developers are
required to submit a stormwater management plan to the county prior to development as a
mandatory part of the development process. In addition, there are other requirements that
address different aspects of stormwater management. These programs include the county's
regulations in terms of clearing and grading, forest protection, and floodplain development.
Requirements regarding clearing and grading are outlined in the county's Ten-year Water &
Sewerage Plan and Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion in Urbanizing Areas. Among .
other items, the county prohibits intense development or major grading on unstable soils. No
grading is permitted on steep slopes (greater than 25%) unless the developer submits plans for
temporary stabilization and/or structural control and final or permanent stabilization. Graded
slopes should not to exceed a 2:1 ratio. Cut slopes are to be drained when necessary.
Diversions are required at the crest of all slopes to prevent washout or overflow.
In terms of limiting development, flic county has adopted a conservative approach towards
floodplain development. As re
-------
>f^-^3C—«**-|ix>;>''-iko*->'>
*n>ao;>'o>fr^>
TS
OURCE PER
fcSil
s§ im
p o p p
«J 'O O vj
r r r r
f^.^'tXOK^^'-™,1>l--1V-|v*~,'^-t
NT
ANACOSTIA
kl
1
§ i ili
Kg
O 'O
'•*> '"->
a
o
'o
uj m
I 3
fc
c
f-j'v-1<"r-('>i
-------
'o
as
m
Uj Uj Uj Uj Uj
Q Q Q Q Q
^3 V) ^ ^ ^
» r**1 i* i^ !^*
tO ^ V3 *O to
55
Uj Uj Uj Uj Uj Uj Uj
9 P 9 9 9 9 S
^ ^ ^ ^ ^3 ^3 ^
K K h, K K K K
S 12 S 2 "" *°
kl k) kl
999
C/3 V^ ^5
K K K
kl kl kl
S£
'O '-J 'sJ
sss
to :^55
o O o
555
TrTTTTrTTrTTTTTT
kl
kl
5
PCO BUZZARD POINT
CAPITOL POWER PLANT
kl lo
a. i
'^j
Q
5
K
to
Q
-j
•^
(-,
Q
;?
o
IDT NAVAL DIST WASH DC
tt.
w
2 ~
>,
ARMY STUN MD MEM
PLAR PT PUMPING STATIC
£ ^
^ a.
!*J
^f
•r
'ICAGO ST& RR STATION
>OD HOPE RD A NICHOLS
?; >;
u.
c;
S
^
>
U kl
8j
•« R
K =0
•^ ^
£r
t; >,
-* T
i
D .ST@ N PLACE
fT SEWAGE PUMPING STA}
^
^» c
3
IN SEWAGE PUMPING STA
.IN SEWAGE PUMPING STA
^* ^«
^t •<
IN SEWAGE PUMPING STA
-------
NPDES Stormwater Regulations
Stormwater is significant to the Anacostia River, but not unique to it. Stormwater discharges
have been increasingly targeted as a significant source of the pollutants found in our nation's
lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters. In recognition of this problem, Congress amended
the Clean Water Act in 1987 by requiring, EPA to develop NPDES permitting requirements for
stormwater discharges from industrial facilities and from separate municipal storm sewers
serving a population of greater than 100,000. Vie NPDES program has focused on traditional
municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. Tlie stormwater regulations now bring a new
range of discharges under the control of the NPDES program. By controlling stormwater
discharges from large municipalities and industry under the permitting process, primarily
through the implementation of management plans for industries and municipalities, EPA expects
that the discharge of pollutants in stormwater will'be greatly reduced. The implementation of
this program within the Anacostia watershed is particularly important since much of the water
quality problem in the Anacostia is attributed to runoff associated with the rapid rate of
development and urbanization of the area and the types of industrial activities located within the
watershed.
EPA regulations (55 FR 47990) establish the national stormwater program. These regulations
define the initial scope of the program and set forth stormwater discharge permit application
requirements. These regulations represent the- first phase, or Phase 1 of the stormwater
program. Currently, EPA is required to submit two reports to Congress on Phase II of the
stormwater program. These reports are intended to evaluate sources of stormwater that are not
regulated under Phase I and to make recommendations on how this additional class of
stormwater discharge should be regulated.
In the Anacostia watershed, EPA Region III will be the permitting authority for industries and
the separate municipal storm sewer system in Washington, D.C.. The Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE) will issue permits for industries and municipal separate storm sewer
systems in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties.
Scope of the Stormwater Regulations
As established by the Clean Water Act, the scope of the stormwater program extends to two
general classes of discharges - "stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity" and
"discharges from large or medium municipal separate storm sewer systems." These definitions
generally include manufacturing facilities and other industrial activities, and municipal separate
storm sewer systems located in municipalities with a population greater than 100,000. The
regulations apply to federal, state and municipal industrial activities. Other sources of
stormwater discharges may be regulated on a case-by-case basis where they have been
designated by a permitting authority as contributing significant loadings or causing a specific
water quality problem.
51
-------
Industrial Program
To establish the Industrial Stormwater Program, EPA defined the phrase "stormwater discharge
associated with industrial activity" in tenns of 11 categories of industrial activity including
manufacturing, mining, construction, and landfills. EPA generally did not define "stormwater
discharge associated with industrial activity" to include commercial, retail, wholesale or service
facilities such as gas/service stations, auto body shops or distribution facilities which are all
significant in the Anacostia watershed. Vie NPDES Stormwater Program Summary20 provides
a more specific explanation of the industry groupings regulated by EPA's stormwater program.
In order to characterize the types and locations of regulated industries potentially affecting the
Anacostia watershed, EPA conducted an analysis of the FACTS database which lists
establishments by Standard Industrial Category (SIC) codes and location. Because some of the
categories of industrial activities under the regulatory definition of industrial activity are not
easily classified by SIC, this data set does not contain a few categories of regulated industrial
activities. However, the data provide a good overview of industrial activities in the watershed.
Tfie complete results of these analyses are provided in Appendix B of this report.
According to this information, there are over 6,000 fully or partially regulated facilities in the
watershed. Tliese regulated facilities primarily include transportation facilities (trucking, and
local/urban transit), miscellaneous manufacturing industries, printing and publishing, general
warehousing and storage, recycling facilities, stone/clay/glass manufacturers, and lumber/wood
product facilities. In addition, MDE has identified sand and gravel mines as causing significant
water quality problems in the watershed. Based on the FACTS data, the majority of the
regulated industrial activities within the Anacostia watershed are located within the District.
There are numerous federal facilities conducting industrial activities within the watershed that
will be regulated under the program such as Boiling Air Force Base, Fort McNair, and the
Washington Navy Yard.
Municipal Program Within the Anacostia Watershed
Tlie scope of (he NPDES municipal stormwater program extends to discharges from large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer systems sening a population greater than 100,000.
All of the jurisdictions in the Anacostia watershed (i.e., Montgomery and Prince Georges
Counties and the District of Columbia), are regulated under the NPDES stormwater program as
large municipal separate storm sewer systems. Regulatory requirements extend to those portions
of the storm sewer system and their corresponding drainage areas that are owned or operated
by the counties or the District. There may be certain storm sewer systems located within the
respective municipalities over which the municipality does not have legal authority such as small
incorporated places (with populations less than 100,000) and on some federal lands. Because
such segments are not within the jurisdiction of the municipalities, these drainage areas will be
addressed by the stormwater regulations only if they are physically interconnected to regulated
stormwater systems.
52
-------
Regulatory Requirements
Tins section outlines the requirements for these regulated activities, thereby setting the stage for
an assesses how implementation of the stormwater program could impact water quality in the
Anacostia River watershed.
Application Requirements - The November 16, 1990, stormwater regulations are application
regulations. They establish requirements for permit applications, including deadlines, for
stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and discharges from large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems. There are separate requirements for industrial and
municipal applicants.
For industrial dischargers, the stormwater regulations offer three application options, all of
which are due by October 1, 1992. In order to meet this deadline, a number of industries have
already begun putting together applications. For municipalities, a comprehensive, r\vo-part
application is required that focusses on the development of a system-wide stormwater
management program. Pan I of the applications for all municipalities have already, been
submitted. Tlie regulated municipalities in the Anacostia watershed must submit the second part
of their applications by November 16, 1992.
Permit Requirements - Permit applications are the first step in the NPDES permitting process;
but the permits themselves, rather than the applications, are the control mechanism that EPA
and states use to monitor discharges and improve water quality. As noted above, the November
16, 1990, stormwater final rule establishes only application requirements. Other NPDES
regulations also contain specific requirements regarding particular permit conditions that have
been incorporated into NPDES regulations2I>. Specifically, NPDES permits issued to industrial
dischargers must incorporate technology-based (BAT/BCT: Best Available Technology and Best
Conventional Technology) and assure compliance with water quality-based standards. For
permits issued to municipal separate storm sewer systems, the Clean Water Act requires that
discharges be controlled to the "maximum extent practicable" (MEP). There are additional
NPDES regulatory requirements addressing stormwater sampling that must be incorporated into
permits.
For industry, BAT/BCT standards essentially require that permit conditions incorporate the most
up-to-date technologies designed to control pollutants that are economically achievable. There
are tests and criteria to use in determining whether limitation or other control requirement meets
BAT/BCT. At a minimum, however, water quality based standards built upon designated uses
must be met by NPDES permits. Where application of the best available/ conventional
technology does not achieve water quality standards, more stringent conditions must be
incorporated into permits. To meet the municipal MEP standard, permitting authorities will
develop permit conditions designed to reduce pollutants.
EPA can incorporate several different types of permit conditions in order to meet statutory
limitations for both the industrial and municipal sides of the program. In most cases, EPA is
encouraging a preventive approach to controlling stormwater discharges that relies upon the use
53
-------
of Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges.
The application of these BMPs will reflect statutory BAT/BCT and ME? standards. By adopting
this approach, permittees will avoid costly, end-of-pipe treatment responsibilities.
Industrial Permits - In order for industrial permits to meet the BAT/BCT standards, EPA expects
that most permits will require the development and implementation of stormwater pollution
prevention plans. A stormwater pollution prevention plan is a comprehensive, site-specific
strategy consisting of a set of best management practices designed to minimize pollutants in
stormwater discharges. T)ie first requirement in developing a stormwater pollution prevention
plan is to conduct a site assessment to identify potential sources of pollutants. Then to address
these potential sources, plans will typically include such practices as good housekeeping, spill
prevention and response, preventive maintenance, sediment and erosion control, and stormwater
management. Each plan will he unique to a particular facility, depending on site-specific
activities and features.
Initially, industrial stormwater permits will generally contain few numeric effluent limitations due
to the paucity of data available to characterize stormwater discharges. As more data becomes
available with implementation of the stormwater program, permitting authorities will be able to
gain a better understanding of stormwater quality, and muv begin to incorporate more numeric
effluent limitations info permits.
Industrial permits may also contain stormwater sampling requirements. The NPDES regulations
do not require stormwater monitoring for all permittees, but at a minimum, permittees must
conduct an annual site inspection. Requirements for sampling will be established by permitting
authorities on a case-by-case basis or by industry type. Sampling data will be useful to identify
potential sources of pollutants as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMPs being used
at a site. Wfjere monitoring requirements are not established and facilities must conduct an
annual site inspection, the inspection will serve to evaluate the plan and identified pollutant
sources.
Municipal Permits - For municipal permittees, permitting authorities will meet statutory MEP
standards by requiring each municipality to develop and implement a comprehensive stormwater
management program. The program will consist of a series of BMPs that are designed to reduce
pollutants in discharges through the storm sewer system. Specifically, through public education
programs, ordinances, zoning laws, stormwater control structures, inspections, andpreventative
maintenance, and other means, the program will address runoff from commercial and residential
areas, illicit connections to the system, and stormwater discharges from industrial and
construction activities.
In addition, municipalities are required to implement stormwater sampling programs throughout
the term of the permit. The regulations do not establish requirements for sampling frequency,
parameters or number and location of outfalls for this program. Monitoring data will be used
to calculate annual pollutant loadings useful in evaluating the potential impacts of the discharges
on receiving streams. In subsequent years, data can be compared to evaluate the overall
54
-------
effectiveness of the management program.
While industries within the Anacostia watershed are currently at the initial stages of regulatory
compliance, the three municipalities are well into the process and are moving fonvard with
stormwater management programs. Montgomery County, in particular, had in place many
stormwater management projects prior to the finalization of the NPDES regulations. Prince
Georges County, on the other hand, viewed the promulgation of the regulations as a signal to
develop new, more advanced programs. Vie District of Columbia is also looking at new
approaches to stormwafer management.
EPA developed a tiered strategy that will reduce the administrative burden of permitting and that
will establish permit control requirements based on the environmental risk of a discharge. Using
these tiers, permits under the stormwater program, can be issued in one of four ways:
* Baseline general permits - One general permit covers many different industry
types; contains broad and generic pertnit conditions that are applicable to a wide
range of industries;
* Watershed general permits - One general permit covers industries within a
particular watershed and focuses on water (juality concerns, such as a general
permit for the Anacostia watershed or one of its tributaries;
• Industry-specific general permits - One general permit covers one particular
industry type such as landfills and contains conditions specific to the
characteristics of that industry; and,
• Facility-specific permits or individual permits - One unique permit covers one
facility addressing pollutant sources on an individual basis.
The permitting approach that MDE and EPA Region 111 have initially adopted to address most
of the industrial facilities located within the Anacostia watershed is to rely on baseline general
permits. Both EPA and MDE expect to issue final baseline general permits either this summer
or by the October 1, 1992, application deadline. Upon issuance of a general permit, eligible
industrial facilities may easily obtain coverage by submitting a Notice of Intent. As specific
priorities within the watershed are identified, MDE and Region III may decide to develop more
specific permits. For example, stormwater sampling data collected during the term of the
baseline general permit may reveal that automobile junkyards are causing a significant water
quality problem. To address this problem, the permitting authority may decide to issue a general
permit specific to automobile junkyards.
Because there are a limited number of municipalities regulated under this program, permitting
authorities do not face the same administrative burdens associated with the industrial side of the
program. EPA Region HI regulates'one municipality, the District of Columbia, and MDE
regulates nvo municipalities, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties. As part of its effort
55
-------
to address permitting for these r\vo municipalities,"MDE has taken an aggressive role to provide
guidance and assistance by helping [he counties coordinate Part 1 of their application. Region
HI has reviewed and commented on D. C. 's Part ! application.
Water Quality Impacts and Expected Pollutant Reductions
With the expanded reach ofihe NPDES regulatory program in the Anacosria watershed, a large
number of discharges to the Anacostia River that have not been closely monitored in the past are
now subject to regulation under the national stormwater program. Because the program is so
far reaching and still relatively new, and because permit application deadlines have not yet
passed, measurable improvements in the water quality of stormwater discharges to the Anacostia
watershed and pollutant reductions that can be attributed to the implementation of the
stormwater program may not be recognized immediately. As a result, this report cannot
specifically evaluate and quantify effects that the program will have on the water quality of the
watershed.
With the promulgation of the stonnwater final rule on November 16, 1990, the NPDES
permitting program vastly expanded its regulatory authority to hundreds of thousands of
industrial activities and over 200 municipalities nationwide. Within the Anacostia watershed,
the program will regulate discharges from over 6,000 industrial facilities and three large
municipalities. Tfie development of stormwater pollution prevention plans for the industrial
facilities and stonnwater management programs for the municipalities will address the control
of pollutants in stormwater discharges from a preventive approach. However, because the
program is still fairly new and evolving, assessments of water qualify improvements can only be
speculations at this point; full implementation of these pollution prevention and stormwater
management programs could result in significant water quality improvements in the Anacostia
watershed.
Combined Sewer Overflow Controls
A combined sewer system in existence since the late 1800's serves approximately one third of the
District of Columbia's drainage area (12,500 acres), and transports sanitary sewage mixed with
stormwater runoff'-12. Figure 3 3 shows the area served by the District of Columbia's combined
sewer system. During dry weather, sanitary sewage is transported to the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant. During storm events, stormwater runoff enters the combined sewer system in
large volumes. Frequently, under these conditions, flow exceeds sewer capacity. Consequently,
the excess is diverted to an overflow sewer which transports the raw, untreated, sanitary sewage
and the stormwater runoff to the tidal portion of the Anacosria River. This is known as a
combined sewer overflow (CSO).
Newer sewer systems separate sanitary sewage from storm sewage thereby minimizing the amount
of untreated sewage entering receiving waters during storm events.
Because the District of Columbia recognized the serious water quality impacts resulting from
CSOs, it commissioned a study in 1978 to determine the location, magnitude, frequency, and
water quality impacts of CSO discharges. The study indicated that approximately 63 % of the
56
-------
annual CSO discharges to the tidal Anacostia occur benveen RFK Stadium and the Douglas
Bridge2. There are fifteen CSOs and r\vo emergency pump station bypasses leading to the tidal
Anacostia that are regulated by the Blue Plains Wasrewater Treatment Plant's NPDES
permit23. The largest of these discharges is from (he Northeast Boundary Trunk sewer. The tidal
portion
FIGURE 3.
THE AREA SERVED BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM
KEY
COM8NCO SEWCR
AK£A
Source: O'Brien & Gere
57
-------
of the Anacostia, despite improvements made to the system, receives overflows 40-50 times
annually. During a year of average precipitation, the District of Columbia's CSOs release
1,300 million gallons of overflow to the tidal portion of the Anacostia23. As urbanization of the
area increases, flows can also be expected to increase. This is largely due to both the expanding
population which will increase sanitary sewage flow and the increasing conversion of vegetated
areas, with relatively high stormwater infiltration rates, to impervious surfaces such as roads,
buildings, and parking lots.
Combined sewer overflows contribute to the degradation of the Anacostia's water quality in
several ways. CSO discharges deplete oxygen which is dissolved in the water column by
contributing organic, oxygen demanding, materials. Oxygen depletion in the Anacostia results
in fish kills and creates unpleasant odors. Discharges of untreated sewage from CSOs can
contribute pathogens to the receiving waters, making human contact with the waters dangerous.
Tfie tidal Anacostia has continually exhibited high fecal conform levels, an indicator of the
possible presence of pathogens ^ . Other problems associated with CSO discharges include:
• increased suspended solids which can impair the ability offish to obtain dissolved oxygen
and can also contribute to [he accumulation of toxic substances;
• increased toxics from household and industrial toxics use;
• increased debris and floatables which are often captured by stormwater; and,
• increased temperature from both stormwater management devices such as water
impoundments and from stormwater flowing over warm impervious surfaces, which can
adversely affect cold water aquatic species.
The impact of the CSOs frequently depends upon the conditions of flow upstream from the tidal
portion of the Anacostia River. Large storm events can help flush the CSOs into the Potomac
River where the CSOs will be more greatly diluted. Whereas smaller storm events may cause
pollutants from the CSOs to remain in the tidal Anacostia, in which case the dilution factor will
be less23. Pollutant loads from CSOs are difficult to characterize because of the highly variable
nature of the CSO loads and flows. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
(1991) recommends the collection of more site specific data to better understand the CSOs
contribution of pollutants to the Anacostia.
In recognition of the contributions of CSOs to water quality degradation within the Anacostia
watershed, a number of alternative strategies for CSO abatement were considered by the District
of Columbia. The resulting CSO Abatement Program was developed based upon previous work
conducted in 1983, by the firm of O'Brien and Gere. The final plan recommended a two
segment strategy, with a mid-course Segment I performance evaluation and a reassessment of
CSO objectives and water quality goals. Specific goals of the CSO Abatement Strategy are
presented in Exhibit 1. The construction of Segment I controls was completed in June, 1990,
costing over $34.3 million12. Segment II of the program will be implemented after the completion
58
-------
of the Segment I evaluation^. Pending the results of the Segment I evaluation, the estimated
costs for the proposed Segment II controls exceeds $82.3 million, which will be fully funded by
the District of Columbia and are expected to take at least eight years to complete.
Segment I included the installation of a 400 million gallons per day (MGD) swirl concentrator,
the largest of its kind in the U.S., for the Northeast Boundary Trunk Sewer. The swirl
concentrator was designed to reduce loadings to the Anacostia by providing coarse solids
treatment and some disinfection using grit removal, coarse bar screening, settleable solids
reduction, and chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent. In addition to the swirl
concentrator, Segment I included n.
• the installation of inflatable dams and regulator modifications to increase storage
capacity of the combined sewer system so overflows can be treated prior to
release into the Anacostia,'
• separation of sanitary and storm sewers in extensive areas of the city where
feasible; and,
• the installation of overflow monitoring and telemetry systems.
Pending the results of the mid-course performance evaluation, Segment II calls for further
reduction of loading to (he Anacostia by constructing t\vo additional swirl concentrators which
would treat up to an additional 289 MGD of CSOs (5 % of total CSO volume) entering the
Anacostia. Segment II controls also include the separation of storm and combined sewer systems
in the eastern side of the Anacostia sewer district and the construction of an 855 MGD screening
facility on the Piney Branch sewer overflow to remove floatable debris to Rock Creek.
To date, Segment I controls have only been in operation for two years; with the first year being
drier than normal. Consequently, the performance evaluation has limited value. Tfiusfar, two
studies have been completed as part of the performance evaluation. Reports on the efficacy of
Segment I were mixed.
As a result of these detailed studies, MWCOG determined as a central finding that, "the CSO
program, as currently designed, may not improve water quality, particularly dissolved oxygen,
in the tidal Anacostia to the level which was previously estimated, although there is limited
evidence presented of a reduction in the frequency of high fecal coliform levels n. MWCOG
estimated that the Segment I controls reduced the annual volume of untreated CSOs by 50%,
with the Segment II controls estimated to reduce the CSOs by an additional 16%. These
performance levels were less than the 1983 estimates of 57% and 47%, respectively. The
MWCOG study also concluded that the Northeast Boundary is the most significant source of
CSOs to the tidal Anacostia and that improvements to wafer quality were largely dependent on
the performance of the swirl concentrator.
In presenting these results, however, MWCOG warned that the following areas of uncertainty
59
-------
make it difficult to draw unequivocal conclusions: 1) limited recent data on pollutant
concentrations in the CSOs; 2) only modeled estimates of CSO volumes exist which are
uncorroborated by recent measurements: 3) insufficient record of operating Segment I controls;
4) uncertainty, in loadings for tributaries to the tidal Anacostia; and, 5) various levels of
uncertainty in the technical analyses.
The firm of O'Brien & Gere :6 reported in 1992 that the inflatable dams were very successful
in retaining large quantities of combined sewage, but the performance of the Northeast Boundary
Swirl Facility has been mixed. The pollutant removals were consistent with the 30% removals
estimated as part of the planning for the swirl facility. Approximately 18% of these removals,
however, were a result of direct diversion of overflow to the wastewater treatment plant rather
than to solids separation by the swirl facility. Also, reduction in pollutant concentrations
through the swirl facility were approximately half of what was expected. In addition, the
pollutant reduction effects through the swirl concentrator were highly variable, ranging from
undetectable in some storms to approximately 25% in others (O'Brien and Gere, 1992).
Goal No. 2. Restore and protect the ecological integrity of degraded urban streams so as to
enhance the diversity of the aquatic community and to provide better opportunities fora quality
urban fishery.
Tin's goal is to be achieved by an ambitious program that will restore several miles of degraded
urban streams, and to protect several miles of sensitive streams.
Several degraded streams have been restored in the basin, and are now showing greater aquatic
diversity. One of these is the Wheaton Branch of Sligo Creek in Montgomery County. Storm-
flows and pollutant loads to the stream are now controlled by a state-of-the-art pond and marsh
treatment system built in a partnership between Montgomery County and the State of Maryland.
Tlje degraded stream below the pond has been extensively restored to provide better habitat for
fish. Native fish were re-introduced into Wheaton Branch for the first time in decades.
Projects implemented to achieve this goal have involved (he Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin and now are being further studied and implemented by the Corps of
Engineers with funding provided under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act.
The Corps is now developing concept designs and biological evaluation methods for fisheries
habitat restoration on the Northwest Branch.
Twelve of 400 identified Small Habitat Improvement Projects have been started or completed.
Goal No. 3. Restore the spawning range of anadromous fish to its historical limits.
This goal is to be accomplished by removing key barriers to fish migration and creating better
spawning and resting habitat for anadromous fish species.
The first fish barrier was removed in the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia in the spring of
60
-------
1989, through the cooperative effort of the State of Maryland, the Maryland National Capital
Park and Planning Commission and ICPRB. This action was critical in returning fish to their
ancestral spawning grounds.
The Corps of Engineers is now completing designs for two fish passage projects on the Northwest
Branch and one on Paint Branch. The Maryland Highway Administration and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources are initiating concept plans for culvert modifications on Paint
Branch under the Capital Beltway.
In total, implementation to date has been impressive. Six of thirty possible projects are complete
or are in progress.
Goal No. 4. Increase the natural filtering capacity of the watershed by sharply increasing the
acreage and quality of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.
Tins goal will be realized by a strong program designed to achieve no further loss of wetlands
by development, and by the creation of several hundred acres of new urban wetlands across.the
watershed.
The largest wetland restoration project planned for the watershed is the restoration ofKenilworth
Marsh. The Chesapeake Bay Program has supported the District of Columbia and other
members of the Anucostia Restoration Program in a study of the feasibility of restoring
Kenilworth Marsh, a portion of the National Park Service-owned inlet off the Anacostia River.
Tfie seventy-six acre marsh was once known as East Lake when it was excavated from an
emergent wetland by the Corps of Engineers prior to World War II. Ttie East Lake project was
forgotten after the war and the lake silted to the point that very little pubic access is possible.
Because lake bottom elevations remained below low tide, however, little true marsh habitats were
ever reestablished. The original project examined the feasibility of dredging the deep sections
ofKenilworth Marsh to provide fill to raise the levels of about fifteen acres of the marsh's edge
so that periodically inundated wetland habitats could be reestablished.
This project was ready for implementation when the Corps of Engineers announced its intention
to dredge the Anacostia River channel both above and below the site to restore the river's
navigation channel. It is generally supported that the dredged material from the Anacostia's
navigation channel should be used to implement the marsh restoration project. This navigational
dredging project has progressed to the stage of final preparations.
To date, ten of 34 identified projects have been started. These additional projects, including the
restoration of wetlands in Kingman Lake and wetlands along the tidal shoreline are also being
seriously pursued.
Goal No. 5. Expand the range of forest cover throughout the watershed and create a
contiguous corridor of forest along the margins of its streams and rivers.
61
-------
This goal is being met by a major watershed reforestation program that includes forest
protection, watershed reforestation, and the targeted reforestation of more than ten linear miles
of stream buffers. To date, 25 of 68 identified reforestation opportunities have been started or
completed.
Goal No. 6. Make the public aware of Us key role in the cleanup of the river, and increase
Us participation in watershed restoration activities.
Public education and participation efforts have reached more than 40,000 Anacostia residents
since it began in 1988 through newsletters and other educational products. A prime objective
has been to get every foot of every stream adopted by local residents and business owners.
Many of the outreach projects are combined with actions needed as a pan of other elements of
the program. A good example of this is the Small Habitat Improvement Program (SHIP). This
program, that provides technical assistance, is a small scale volunteer restoration effort that can
be implemented across the watershed at low cost. Projects have included riparian reforestation,
small gully repair, instream habitat improvements, pond and wetland planting, debris cleanup,
and s to mid rain stenciling, and more. The interest in volunteer efforts within the watershed
appears to merit the maintenance of a large inventory of available projects.
EPA has provided seed money and staff time to launch an environmental education enrichment
program targeted to inner-city students. This program, called Champions for the Chesapeake -
for the school students it targets, is being initially piloted by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office
in the Anacostia Watershed - starting with the District of Columbia and with plans to later
advance to Prince Georges County. Goals of the program are to strengthen students' math and
science skills through the utilization of classroom -and field activities centered around
environmental protection of the Anacostia River watershed. ^Anacostia High School, in
Conjunction with the University of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia
Government has been awarded a grant through the EPA Public Private Partnerships Program
and the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to develop a model lesson plan and six-week summer
enrichment program which can ultimately be transferred to other schools within (and perhaps
beyond) the Anacostia Watershed. Business and industry participants will also assist with the
field study components of the program. Development and testing of these models will be
completed during the summer of 1992 in order to be introduced to high school classroom in
1992-93. Further work is needed to effectively transfer the models to these classrooms.
The interest in (he Watershed Restoration Program may be significant beyond the restoration of
degraded "natural" urban habitats. Vie social significance of the restoration cannot be
overlooked. For instance, Community Policing in Prince Georges County has revealed the
degree of the community concern for the amount of Utter in low income neighborhoods. Cleaner
communities have been linked to greater self-esteem and this is likely associated with the
environmental stewardship, a goal of the Anacostia's restoration and protection program.
62
-------
The Blueprint for the Restoration
The AWRC is also preparing a "Blueprint for the Restoration" of needed projects in seven areas
of concern. The current, although not formally adopted version of the Blueprint for the
Restoration is contained in Appendix. A.
Federal Assistance In The Anacostia's Restoration
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
^The Corps of Engineers has a long history of implementing water resource improvements in the
Anacostia basin to address flood control, navigation, and erosion problems. Recently, the Corps
has also become heavily involved in the environmental restoration efforts for the basin. In 1988,
Congress authorized the Corps to make a study of the basin and recommend future actions. A
December 1990 reconnaissance reportJ determined there was a Corps of Engineers role and
responsibility in environmental restoration and recommended a cost shared feasibility study be
undertaken. The feasibility study was initiated in January 1992, and has a cost of $2.45 million
which is funded 50 percent by the Corps of Engineers and 50 percent by the six non-federal
sponsors. The sponsors are Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, the District of
Columbia, the State of Maryland, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, and
the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. The feasibility study is evaluating and
designing fish and wildlife habitat restoration projects for some 12 areas in the basin. The final
report on the study is scheduled for completion in December 1994. Project authorization, final
design, and construction will then follow.
As a pan of the Corp's habitat restoration efforts, six projects have been identified for early
implementation and authorized under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 as amended. This authority is limited to the modification of water resource projects
constructed by the Corps of Engineers. The projects included are shown in Table 9. These
projects are separate from those being considered under the Feasibility Study.
Another environmental restoration action being taken by the Corps of Engineers is related to the
beneficial use of dredged material. Hie federal navigation channel in the lower Anacostia River
requires periodic maintenance dredging by the Corps. The next dredging is scheduled for Fall
1992. It is planned to use some of the dredged material as fill to create the proper elevation for
establishment of new wetlands at Kenilworth Marsh. After the dredged fill is placed, wetland
vegetation will be planted.
In view of its significant role in environmental restoration of the Anacostia basin, the Corps of
Engineers has been asked to join the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC). The
Corps serves as the coordinator of federal actions in the basin as well as working closely with
the AWRC on Corps environmental restoration efforts.
63
-------
TABLE 9
HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED FOR EARLY IMPLEMENTATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Project
Modification of the 38th
Street Drop Structure
Modify Paint Branch
Drop Structure
Modification of High Speed
Channel, Northwest Branch
Install Fish Habitat
Features
Riparian Vegetation Planting
Terrestrial Habitat
Estimated
Cost*
$29,200
$58,000
$29,000
$182,000
$196,000
$6,500
Construction
Scheduled
Winter
1993
Winter
1993
Winter
1993
Summer
1994
Summer
1994
Summer
1994
* Cost exclusive of engineering and design costs
** Cost estimates are taken from from Reference 3.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The contributions of EPA to the restoration of the Anacostia include a wide range of activities
from criteria development, standard setting, and compliance assurance under Clean Water Act
provisions. It has also funded many aspects of pollution reduction including planning studies
and citizen education. The EPA has funded projects in habitat restoration, although to afar less
extent than those funded by the Corps of Engineers. The EPA also helped fund the early steps
in building the institutional structure now responsible for coordinating the Anacostia restoration.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service - The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
has provided technical assistance for a wide range of restoration activities in areas tributary to
the Chesapeake Bay and has worked with the District of Columbia Soil and Water Conservation
64
-------
District on nvo streambank stabilization projects in Watts Branch in the District.
SCS has introduced the District to the benefits of coordination and facilitation of restoration
projects provided by conservation districts across the nation. Conservation districts are valued
institutions in rural areas of the country where they help combine the interests and the funding
of agencies with intersecting jurisdictions. The conservation district in the District of Columbia
has demonstrated that it is an institution which can fill a valuable function in the setting of the
Anacostia's Restoration Program.
U.S. Forest Service - TJie Forest Service has provided a staff member to assist with the
Anacostia Restoration Program - one to work with the District of Columbia and one to the
Chesapeake Bay Program. The EPA has assisted the program with funding intended to help
implement the reforestation programs.
U.S. Department of the Interior
The Fish and Wildlife Service has assisted the Corps of Engineers in its studies of habitat
restoration in the Anacostia Watershed. The National Park Senice has also encouraged the
restoration of the river by enhancing the community services provided at (he Anacostia River
Park.
Federal Involvement As iMtid Owners And Custodians:
Ten federal agencies own 16,000 acres, or 14 percent of the Anacostia watershed. It is
suspected that facilities on these sites have contributed to the degradation of the river. It is more
widely believed that federal land ownership can contribute positively to the watershed'
restoration.
This land is probably the source of some of the contaminated sediment in the river, and
ownership agencies should participate in further assessments of sediment remediation. Certain
agencies, most notably the National Park Service and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
can play an important role in the watershed's restoration. The AWRC's Six-point Action Plan
has noted the significance of the four miles of tributary reforestation sites that lie within the
boundaries of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. The Corps of Engineers, in its role
as a member of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee is ready to be a positive force
in the Restoration Program, and is in the best position to coordinate the involvement of federal
land owners in the program.
65
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
This study has concluded that there is a continuing need for the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Program, and that the Six-Point Action Plan to Restore the Anacostia River is an essential
foundation upon which an expanded action plan can be built. This expanded action plan should
combine an accelerated restoration program with more attention to planning.
There is a Continuing Need For the Restoration Program
The Anacostia River is an underutilized community resource. It has long been manipulated and
managed to serve the needs of navigation and industry. It is now recognized as a valuable, but
neglected component of the urban landscape requiring restoration of its water quality and its
important habitats. Tfie Anacostia is seriously degraded by overflowing combined sewers, storm-
water runoff, si I tat ion, and contaminated sediments, all of which must be further controlled in
order to restore and protect the uses designated for the river.
Tfie Clean Water Act requires that states, and the District of Columbia designate uses for waters
and adopt criteria that will protect those uses. Uses designated for the Anacostia are not being
met. High bacteria levels preclude the intended future use of water contact. Fish are threatened
by low dissolved oxygen and are chemically contaminated to levels that threaten the health of
those who eat them.
The pollutants in the Anacostia are a source of nutrients and possibly toxics to the Chesapeake
Bay. While these contributions are comparatively small, the restoration of the Anacostia is a
priority of the Chesapeake Bay Program for three reasons. First, its restoration will expand
important habitats for the Bay's highly stressed, anadromous fish which need full access to
breeding and nursery areas in order to prosper. Second, the restoration and protection of local
wafer quality is also an essential step in building the ethic of stewardship upon which the future
quality of the Bay depends. Finally, EPA looks to strong, innovative programs, such as those
established by the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee to develop methods and
approaches that will help other groups build strong local programs both within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed and elsewhere in the country.
Just as the restoration of the Bay will be a long-term activity, the restoration of the Anacostia
will take time. Tlie Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee's draft Blueprint for the
Restoration in Appendix A has estimated that it will take ten years and over $40 million to
complete the list of pollution reduction and habitat restoration projects now identified. The
continuing obligation to protect the watershed includes strong local and state controls on
changing land uses, but needs to be expanded to ensure that these controls remain adequate in
the face of continuing growth pressures.
The Existing Action Plan is an Essential Foundation
The current citizen/government alliance under the leadership of the Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Committee (AWRC) is responsible for innovative pollution controls and efforts to
66
-------
restore many components of the basin's degraded habitats. The AWRC was created in 1987 by
compact and serves as the basis for strong local, state, and federal partnership needed to restore
the river. It has provided the community with the information it needs to become involved in the
program. Federal agencies now involved with (he restoration appear to be willing to support
this alliance as the foundation offoture coordinated progress in restoring the Anacostia River.
Work should continue to implement the AWRC's Six-Point Action Plan in a timely fashion.
The competence of the AWRC's staff - the staff of the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, and the participating local
governments — ensures that future investments in the watershed's restoration will be well spent.
The staff has gained nationwide recognition for developing and applying the technologies of
urban stormwater controls and habitat restoration.
Federal participation in the Anacostia's restoration has proven that the government can both
learn from, and contribute to the program. Tfie Anacostia River is burdened by pollution and
the pressures of urbanization only relatively recently addressed by national pollution control
programs. The remedies administered by these national programs include pollution prevention
from land use changes and regulatory controls on urban stormwater. The Anacostia will benefit
from the implementation of these programs.
The Corps of Engineers' Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study is an impressive local/state/federal
commitment to restore badly needed habitat. Vie results of this study will be available in
December of 1994. It is anticipated that the potential projects that would result from the study
will improve the environment of the basin and would complement the pollution controls now
underway.
The Existing Action Plan Should Be Expanded
Existing restoration efforts have focused on water and related habitats. Projects under this
program have been well designed and implemented, setting an example of urban stream
restoration for the nation. As additional resources are committed to the program, it will be
necessary to ensure that new projects continue to reinforce previous pollution reductions, and
that they set the pace to attain the environmental quality goals set for the river. This will
require the program to expand the Anacostia Restoration Fund to undertake additional planning.
A system-wide approach for reducing pollution to the tidal Anacostia should be developed that
addresses not only upstream nonpoint sources and stormwater outfalls, but also the needs of
combined sewer overflow control. It has been suggested, for instance, that delaying the decision
to proceed with Segment 11 controls until the impact of the CSO controls on water quality and
sediment oxygen demand is better understood and performance monitoring and further adjustment
of the Northeast Boundary Swirl Facility and the collection system can give a more complete
picture of their capabilities.
Additional programs in pollution prevention, community involvement, and the involvement of
federal land owners will ensure that the Anacostia Restoration Program will continue to enrich
the life of the community and the Chesapeake Bay.
67
-------
Expand Quantified Planning - Planning through quantified goals will establish an overall
strategic context for accomplishing specific environmental results. Vie current restoration effort
has always strived to implement incremental improvements, and it has developed procedures for
measuring increments of pollution reduction achieved. This approach, however, does not predict
if the controls prescribed will attain the water quality goals established in the Maryland or
District of Columbia water quality standards. This is true for stormwater and erosion controls
and controls on combined sewer overflows.
The planning needed to gauge this degree of progress will require quantitative evaluation tools
such as those used on the Potomac and Occoquan Rivers to chart their restoration and protection
in the last twenty five years and now being used in planning the restoration of the Patuxent River
and the Chesapeake Bay. Tlu'se tools must be further refined to explicitly link pollutant reduction
and habitat improvement activities in the Anacostia. Tlie Anacostia Restoration Program should
consider assembling special advisory panels, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program's Model
Evaluation Group, to guide it and provide peer review in future specialized planning activities.
Some aspects of habitat restoration may also benefit from similar quantitative planning, as has
been demonstrated in the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Include Permitting - As planning becomes more quantitative, it should also become more closely
tied to permitting. The two activities would benefit from a closer relationship.
In the discussion of stormwater permitting, it is noted that the degree of water quality
improvements cannot yet be predicted with confidence because so little is known about specific
discharges coming from regulated facilities. This knowledge can be obtained as the program is
implemented by using permit authority to require that these facilities be monitored. Information
gained from mandated monitoring will improve planning because stormwater loads generated
across the watershed will be known. This information can then be used to establish realistic
controls on permit holders.
T}je discussion of the stormwater permit program also noted the importance of stormwater
pollution prevention plans to ensure compliance with BAT/BCT provisions of the regulations
means that the education and controls technology programs, already a part of the Anacostia
Restoration Program, must be employed and closely related to on-going pollution reduction and
control programs.
Permitting is now recognized as a step in the restoration program, but permit writers have not
been closely associated with the planning process. The ability to implement the nearly 400
restoration projects in the Blueprint for the Restoration will require coordination, support and
informed flexibility from the permitting community. Both (he efficiency of implementation and
the quality of permitting decisions necessitate that permitting be interlined with the planning
of the restoration program to reinforce it, and not be implemented as a separate and subsequent
phase in the process. In addition, permit writers may often have the opportunity to help
implement components of the Blueprint through various mitigation, offset, or waiver conditions.
68
-------
The planning should be structured and complete enough to address permitting concerns, and
permit writers should also become aware of the goals of (he overall program in order to
understand the impacts expected front the entire plan, not just the incremental project under
review. Tfie following permit programs should be assessed to identify opportunities for closer
coordination as planning is expanded:
1. 404 Wetland Permits issued by the ACE and MD DNR
2. Local Governments Wetland Permits
3. 401 Water Quality Certifications
4. Local grading, Stormwater management and sediment and erosion control permits
5. Soil Conservation District 378 Small Pond Approval
6. Water\vay Construction Permits
7. Forest Conservation Act Permits
8. Maryland Historical Trust Reviews
9. NPDES Stormwater Permits
T)u> methods by which closer ries can be forged between permit-issuing agencies and the A WRC's
planning include workshops and special technical sessions, orienratiort for new staff, and cross
[raining between planning and permitting staffs.
Extend Monitoring - In the Anacostia, planning processes should first be built around an
expanded monitoring network capable of relating pollution loads to ground water discharges,
to permitted wastewater discharges, and weather-related combined sewer and Stormwater flows
in the watershed.
Once monitoring data can provide a sufficient period of record, water quality models, which
already exist for the tidal section of the Anacostia, can be better calibrated to predict the impacts
of changes in hydrology and reduced pollution loads. Model predictions can extend monitoring
information into a forecasting tool useful for decisions regarding future goal attainment,
establishing priorities, and giving perspective to the value of future pollution reduction
investments. Modeling can also forecast the impacts of future land use changes, an important
element of the river's protection as urbanization continues in the watershed. It will also ensure
the credibility of the Anacostia's restoration and protection planning as it becomes more closely
tied to existing Regional planning concerns of (he Metropolitan Washington Area. This is
essential to the long-term protection of the Anacostia.
It is too early to expect that such quantified planning can be immediately employed, but it is not
too early to identify the computational fools and to collect the information that will support such
planning in the future. In this assessment, a priority should be placed on watershed monitoring
and modeling tools that can account for changes in urban hydrology, water quality, and
ecological conditions. When developed, these models should have great utility in other
communities and in the Chesapeake Bay.
Promote Pollution Prevention - Local governments now a part of the Anacostia restoration
69
-------
program have led (he country"in innovative pollution prevention measures to control stormwater
from new community development. These programs form the basis for the watershed's future
protection as urbanization continues. The Restoration program should extend the success of
these pollution prevention procedures to the reduction of discharges from the numerous small
commercial and industrial establishments in the watershed suspected of contributing to the large
burden -of heavy metal and toxic organic pollution documented in the watershed.
Another beneficial pollution prevention program, a demonstration of nutrient management in the
Anacostia watershed, will assist the Chesapeake Bay Program in extending these successful
agricultural programs into urban areas where they have never been implemented.
Continue Community Outreach - the program should consider expanding the existing effort to
integrate the Anacostia's restoration with other community concerns. This can be done in at
least three ways that have not been completely demonstrated in the current program.
.First, by concentrating restoration efforts in neighborhoods, the benefits of the many components
of the restoration effort can be made more obvious to the residents of the watershed. T7iis report
outlines no fewer than nine programs, now employed or available in the watershed that could
be implemented simultaneously in neighborhoods to underscore (he current and future
commitment to the Anacostia River. This concentration of effort can better contribute the force
of the current and future cleanup program to other community innovations such as programs in
community policing and housing.
Second, programs such as Champions for the Chesapeake, which target the school students to
strengthen their math and science skills through the utilization of classroom and field activities
centered around environmental protection of the Anacostia River Watershed should be continued.
Third, by seeking to more aggressively involve (he talents of local universities in (he Anacostia
Restoration Program, the interest and expertise so valuable to environmental improvements
across the country can be directed to the Anacostia. In so doing, local students can continue
their environmental education at higher levels, extending the investment in primary and
secondary education.
Involve the Owners of Federal Lands - The Corps of Engineers, as the federal representative
on the A WRC should organize federal land owners to better contribute to future restoration
programs. Federal land ownership in the watershed in Maryland and the District of Columbia
is substantial, comprising 14 percent of the watershed's land. Facilities owned by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the U.S.Navy contribute to the watershed's environmental
stresses while others, such as the National Park Service's Anacostia Park are hurt by some of
the same pollution sources that degrade the river. For this reason, the National Park Service is
an active participant in the current pollution control and habitat restoration effort. Additional
federal land owners may need to be included in an expanded restoration program.
Continue Federal Assistance - Federal assistance is provided as a supplement to local interest
and investments. The continued involvement of federal programs must be viewed as a means of
70
-------
strengthening local programs.
The Corps of Engineers should continue its important habitat restoration work in the watershed
to complement the benefits of the aggressive pollution prevention and control programs that have
been begun there.
The Environmental Protection Agency should continue to assist in state and local governments
in their coordinated program for the restoration of the Anacostia River. Several EPA programs
are effectively implemented with the interest and involvement of the existing institutions working
together under the AWRC. The Chesapeake Bay Program, the national nonpoint sources
program under section 319 of the Clean Water Act and the programs for combined sewer
overflows and stormwater controls are other examples. EPA will continue to assist in setting
water quality standards and will lead a task force to examine of the feasibility of contaminated
sediment remediation. It will continue to advise on the needs to restrict the consumption of
contaminated fish caught in the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers until safe levels are reduced.
EPA will also assist to ensure that the Anacostia Restoration Plan is included in the Chesapeake
Bay Restoration and Protection Plan to ensure eligihilirv for funding under section 117 of the
Clean Water Act.
71
-------
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE ACTIVITIES
ACTION ITEM
RESPONSIBILITY
PROPOSED START DATES*
Complete ami Adopt the "Blueprint "
Stormwater Controls
Habitat Remediation
Prepare Quantified Planning Workplan
Pcrmitlifit; Workplan
Augment the Monitoring Network
Review Available Watershed Models
Collect Detailed Watershed and Climatolo^nal Data
Initiate Small BUM ties i Pollution Prevention and
Nutrient Management Program*
Assemble Committee of Federal Landowners
Expand Outreach and Education
Assess Remedial Sediment Action Measures
AWRC
Note A
Note B
AWRC
Permitting
Agencies
AWRC
A WRC/EPA
A WRC
A WRC/ Permit
Agencies
COE
AWRC
EPA
9/92
1990-2000
1990-2000
3/93-9/93
3/93-9/93
3/93
3/93
12/93-12/94
6/93
9/92
3/93
6/93-12/94
* Timing is resource de/'endcnl
Note A: MD, DC, Af/i/v Co., P.O. Co. and EPA
Note B: MD, DC, Mt^y Co.. P.O. Co. and COE
72
-------
REFERENCES
1. Anacostia: The Other River. ICPRB Publication 55-7, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin,
January 1988.
2. Anacostia Water Qualify Conditions: 1986-1987, Publication 59707, Department of Environmental Programs,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, February 1989
3. Anacostia River Basin Reconnaissance Study, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, December
1990.
4. Restoring Sligo Creek. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, September 1991.
5. Restoring \orthwest Branch. Intervtate Commnvion on the Potomac Ri\er B
-------
17. Restoring the Anacostia River, Chittendon, Wendy, in Region.' Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments.
18. "Crafting an Effective Partnership to Restore the Anacostia River", Testimony of Honorable James
Nathanson. before ihe Subcommittee on Water Resources, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U. S.
House of Representatives, Julv 24, 1991.
19. Fifth Avenue Work Plan for the Restoration of the Anacostia River, October 1. 1992 to September 30,
1993. Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, June 9, 1992, 70 paqes.
*
20. NPDES Storm Water Program Summary - Impacts of the Program on the Anacostia Watershed, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Report in progress, July 1992.
21. Controlling Stormwater: Some Lessons from the Maryland Experience, Litulsey, Gref aiul Cannon, Molly,
Maryland Department of the Environment. Sediment and Stormwater Administration, 1991.
22. Status of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in the Metropolitan DC Area, U.S Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Services Divt\ion, Region 3, Ptnladelphia, Pennsylvania, January 1992. 66 pages.
23. Water Quality Benefits of Combined Sewage Overflow Abatement in the Tidal A'nacostia River: 19SS-1991
Data Repon. Department nf Environmental Pro\;ram\, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
September 1991.
24. A Blueprint for the Restoration of the Anacostia Watershed. Anmo^ini Restoration Team, Department of
Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C. Draft in
preparation, July 1992.
25. 1990 Md Anacostia River Basin Study. Part 1: Habitat, Macrobenthic Invertebrate Community, and Water
Quality. Part 11: Fisheries Rapid Bioassessments and The "Drop in the Bucket Brigades". 1CPRB Report
#91-2, Living Resources Section, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, January 1991.
26. CSO Abatement Program, Segment I Performance Evaluation. O'Brien A Gere, 1992 Prepared for the
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Utility Administration, Washington DC, April 1992.
27. 1991 Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, Maryland Department
of the Environment, 1991.
28. Forest Conservation Manual, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, December 1991.
29. Stormwater Management Guidebook, District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, D. C.
30. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, D.C.
74
------- |