DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTByANACOSTIA WATERSHED SOCIETYJames R. & Cynthia A. Collier

QUARTERLY MONITORINGRIVER SEGMENTS = 9 = 5,143 ft = 1,507

items of trashSTREAM SEGMENTS = 38 = 35,653 ft =

28,883 items of trashLAND USE SEGMENTS = 25 areas = 916

items of trashWINDSHIELD SURVEY = 1,578 Blocks =

47,367 items of trash (one side only)Quarterly about 78,673 pieces of trash were

counted.

Anacostia River-Total Trash

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NYA-MD NYA-DC Penn Ave Buzzard Pt Poplar Pt

Item

s/10

0' Summer

Fall

Winter

Spring

Anacostia River Trash Composition

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P. Bags

Styro

F. Wra

p

Bot&Cans

Paper

Debris

Other

Per

cen

t

Percent

Kingman Lake Trash Composition

05

101520253035404550

Per

cen

t

Percent

Watts Branch Average Annual Trash

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160180

200

Item

s/10

0'

Items

Watts Branch Average Annaul Debris

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

WB-MD WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-4 WB-5

Item

s/10

0'

Debris

Watts Branch Total Plastic Bags

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Summer Fall Winter Spring

To

tal

Bags

During the last survey there were 1.2 bags per foot of stream channel

Watts Branch Plastic Bags

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Summer Fall Winter Spring

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l T

rash

Plastic Bags

Streams Trash Composition

05

101520253035404550

P Bags

Bot&Cans

Styro

Fd Wra

p

Paper

Debris

Other

Per

cen

t

%

All Streams Drink Containers

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

To

tal

Summer

Fall

Winter

Spring

All Streams Drink Containers

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Summer Fall Winter Spring

To

tal

Streams Seasonal Cups

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Styrofoam Plastic Paper

Cu

ps

Summer

Fall

Winter

Spring

Annual AverageTrash

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Anacos

tia

Kingm

anFD-1

FD-2Texa

s

Ft DuP

Pope

Ft Chap

Ft Sta

nt

Wat

tsNash

Item

s/10

0'o

r100

0sf

Trash

RIVER AND STREAM TRASH

Streets Trash Composition

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Per

cen

t

%

Streets by Land Use

0

5

10

15

20

25

Po

pe

Gra

nt 4

2-44

Fra

nklin

-R

-17t

hF

rank

lin-

17-1

8

Fra

nklin

-18

-20

Na

nnie

HB

Go

odho

pe

Pe

nn

Bld

nsbr

g

Se

rvic

eR

d

RES RES RES RES INST/RES COMCOM COM COM IND

ite

ms/

1000

sf

Land Based Trash

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P Bags

Bot&Cans

Styro

Fd Wra

p

Paper

Debris

Other

Plstc

cups

Per

cen

t

%

Land Based Trash

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Summer Fall Winter Spring

To

tal

Item

s

Trash

Land Drink Containers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

LiquorBot

BeerBot

BeerCan

SoftDrkBot

SoftDrkCan

WaterBot

SportDrkBot

JuiceCans

JuiceBot

Item

s

Summer

Fall

Winter

Spring

Transect vs Windshield Trash

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Transect

Win

dsh

ield

Trash

Hickey Run Street Trash

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Summer Fall Winter Spring

Item

s/B

lock

Trash

HOT STREETSHickey Run Block Count Street Block Count Street Block Count

1.(50-74)Street 2.(75-99) 3.(100+)

S. DakotaVistaBladensburg 57.5

Rhode Island Ave 17-15 78.75 S. Dakota V-NYA 108.75

Bladensburg 28-26 58.75 Evarts RIA-17 93.75 N. York AveSD-Bladensburg 237

Franklin 18-20 71.25 W St 16-Montana 75.75N. York Ave

Wva-16 205

Evarts 18-20 59.25 25 Pl Blad-End 83.75N. York Ave

16-Fenwick 212.5

Evarts 22-24 58.25 W. Va. Fenwick-16 80N. York Ave

Fen-Kendal 182.5

Evarts 24-26 65 W.Va. 16-NYA 86.25 Vista 26-SDA 167.5

Evarts 28-end 50 17 StW VA- Montana 87.5 Montana 18th-NYA 191.25

Hamlin 18-20 70.75 24 Pl Blad-End 237.5

22ndDouglas-Channing 56.25 Montana

WVa-Bldnsbrg 233.75

18 Pl 55

Channing 22-24 50

Adams 31-33 61.7

Basin Trash

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ite

ms

/blo

ck

STREET TRASH BY BASIN

Stream Trash vs Street Trash

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

FD-1 FD-2 Texas FtDuP

Pope FtChap

FtStant

Watts Nash

Item

s/ 1

00' o

r b

lock

Stream

Streets

Trash Relationships

05

101520253035404550

P. Bags

Styro

F. Wra

p

Bot&Cans

Paper

Debris

Other

Per

cen

t River

Streams

Land

Epicurean Philosophy of Trash

EatDrinkBe merryWork

CONCLUSIONSTrash is an interstate problemPlastic bags, bottles & cans and Styrofoam are

70-80% of the problem. Legislative solutions are available.

Paper products degrade QUICKLY. Buffer strips & trash cans are effective. Most trash is eating related

Pollutant Source Control Public OutreachStandard Structural

DeviceStreet and Catch Basin Cleaning

Inspection and Enforcement

Fecal Coliform Bacteria x x x x xBOD x x x x x

Nitrogen x x x x x

Phosphorus x x x x x

TSS x x x x x

Oil/Grease x x x x x

Zinc x x x x  

Lead x x x x  

Copper x   x x  

Arsenic x x   x x

PAH1 x   x x  

PAH2 x   x x  

PAH3 x   x x  

Chlordane     x x  

Heptachlor Epoxide     x x  

Dieldrin     x x  

DDD     x x  

DDE     x x  

DDT     x x  

Total PCB          

TMDL IMPLEMENTATION

WASA Floatables Program

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

To

ns

Trash

Legislative SolutionA total legislative package that deals with

plastic bags, EPF and drink bottles and cans has the ability to remove collectively 21%, 11%, and 25% of the items from the River. This is 57 % of the total Anacostia River trash.

In the tributaries, the removal would be 47 %, 5 %, and 14% for a total removal of 66%.

BMP SELECTION CRITERIA The tributaries to the main Anacostia River should be as

clean as the river.The strategy should build upon or compliment the

Anacostia TMDL Implementation Plan for the twenty specified pollutants.

To be cost effective, storm water should not be treated twice to remove trash. There are a number of the tributaries which drain into very large storm sewers and are comingled with other storm water flows before reaching the Anacostia River.

To the extent reasonable, the actions should be those that the government has demonstrated that it knows how to perform well.

The citizens should be satisfied with the results.The costs should be something that can be afforded.

TYPES OF TRASHTrash can be sorted into four components for BMP

evaluation purposes. floatables such as plastic drink bottles, foam cups

and clamshells and woody debris which are about 15 percent

high density sinking objects such as glass bottles, and aluminum beverage cans which are about 15 percent.

Minor fraction of degradable objects such as paper bags and newspapers.

70 percent of the trash that is observed in the streams is neutrally buoyant objects such as plastic bags and snack wrappers which will float under quiescent conditions while clean, but are more likely to be entrained by velocity currents.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGYFourteen Individual tributary and MS4 basin

trash reduction strategies.Cheapest and most efficient concept was

screening the inlets and high efficiency street sweeping WEEKLY.

Most environmentally friendly was water quality wetland creation for trash and TMDL pollutants removal.

Street sweeping not only helps the streams but also provides clean neighborhoods.

INLET SCREEN

STREET SWEEPER

CAPITAL COSTS BY BASINBasin S&S Wetland

Pope $190,248

FD-1 56,675

FD-2 34,670

Texas Ave 113,795

Pope MS4 74,007

Chaplin 193,137

Ft DuPont 57,708

Stickfoot $3,444,455

Watts 1,159,734

Nash 370,277

E Cap 979,730

Stanton 49,566

StantonMS4 124,915

Ely 2,396,142

Ft Dav MS4 170,249

Penn 216,475

Kingman 86,069 494,204

Naylor 3,444,455

Subtotal $3,877,262 $9,779,257

O& M = $2.6M/YR

Total Capital Cost = $13,656,520

Trash FreePlan provides legislative solution which will

reduce rate increase.Plan has capital costs that are reasonable and

provide not only clean streams but clean communities.

Plan meets all TMDL pollutant removal requirements of MS4 Permit.

Plan achieves trash free Anacostia by 2013.Provides “Reasonable Assurances” for the

Anacostia trash TMDL due Spring 2010.

Plastic Bag Bill

Place a 5-cent fee, paid by consumer, on all disposable recyclable plastic and paper carryout bags from Retail Food Establishment license holders (including grocery stores, food vendors, convenience stores, drug stores, restaurants) and Class A & B liquor licensees.

Ban non-recyclable plastic carryout bags; require that if a plastic carryout bag is offered, that it must be recyclable and clearly labeled as such.

The retail establishment will get 1 cent of fee returned tax exempt to the retailer.

Retailers who choose to offer a carryout bag credit program will retain an additional cent, for a total of 2 cents per bag.

The remaining fee per bag will be deposited into a new Anacostia River Cleanup & Protection Fund.