Friends of Sligo CreekMeeting with WSSC et al.

Re: Plans in Development for Consent-Decree Implementation

19 July 2011

Present at the meeting

which was held at the Dennis Rec Center, approx 7-8:30P, were:

■ FromWSSC—Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (office in Laurel, Maryland)

  1. Ed Carpenetti, Principal Civil Engineer (Environmentally Sensitive Area Contracts, Sewer Rehabilitation Unit, Engineering and Construction Group)

FromGreeley and Hansen, program manager under contract with WSSC

A national environmental engineering firm “specializing in water and wastewater engineering and utility management consulting”; office in Landover, Maryland

  1. Angela (Angie) Essner and her staff:
  2. Elaine A. Flinn,WSSC Laurel & Landover
  3. Arturo Acevedo, Landover
  4. Patricia Braimbridge, Landover
  5. Brandon Flora, Landover

From URS Corporation(Baltimore), the engineering-design consultants contracted by WSSC

  1. Celina Perez, P.E.—the lead designer, working on all 26 basins of Montgomery and Prince George’s County

Consultant

An independent consultant employed via Parsons Corporation—a national engineering firm that WSSC uses for “staff augmentation”—this consultancy specifically for the Consent Decree project, responsible for arborist expertise and for liaison with Maryland-National Capitol Park and Planning Commission, retired following a 30+ year career with M-NCPPC:

  1. Eugene Rose, Arborist

■ FromFriends of Sligo Creek

  1. Laura Mol—liaison designated by the Board of Directors for consent decree follow-up (also, steward for Dennis-University section of Sligo Creek watershed;natural history)
  2. Ed Murtagh—Friends of Sligo Creek Stormwater Committee; steward of the Kemp Mill section (north of University Blvd); also member ofStormwater Partners Network and Sligo’s liaison with adjacent watershed group, Neighbors of Northwest Branch
  3. Christopher Victoria—recent Sligo Board member; stream/watershed assessment professional for Anne Arundel County; steward in Long Branch tributary of Sligo Creek

Materials provided(one set for each of the three Sligo Friends participants)

  • A bulleted summary, “Sligo Creek Basin Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation”—a single sheet, double sided (copy attached). Note that COG, the Metro Council of Governments, should have been added to the last page list of agencies with whom the project must coordinate.
  • For each of the 7 “projects” (sections) of the decreed rehabilitation, a “Concept Finalization Report”—a packet prepared by URS and comprised of:
  • The map of the whole Sligo basin (sewershed), with the specific, numbered projects of that area indicated
  • A set of detailed satellite maps for each of the projects
  • A list of property addresses, owners, and kind of access needed

Presentation and discussion points

After participants were introduced and the 7-part “Concept Finalization Report” distributed, further points were made and questions from other sides answered and discussed.

a)Friends of Sligo Creek hopes to provide specific knowledge of very local habitat that should be protected during the process of gaining access to the repair sites. WSSC hopes that Friends of Sligo Creek will help with communicating with homeowners who may be reluctant to allow access through their property. [Working with Friends of Sligo Creek has been written into the approved Scope of Work for the project.]

b)This meeting covers only projects occurring on or through parkland. Another contractor is handling rehab and repairs occurring on residential streets.

c)Priority 1 designation means that failure of the “asset” (manhole/pipeline) can be expected within 5 years or it is part of a fish blockage. The consent decree mandated that Priority 1 problems be addressed. The Priority 2 and 3 projects are included in the current work because it is far more efficient to address those problems once access has been achieved for the Priority 1 problems.

d)The consent decree requires that all work in all basins be completed by the end of 2015, with the work staggered to match the availability of contractors. The Broad Branch, Rock Creek, and Cabin John basins are ahead of Sligo Creek; the rest are behind Sligo. The Sligo work is in the permitting phase, with plans in preparation for an early-winter submission to the Army Corps of Engineers. Work on the ground is expected in Sligo during 2013.

e)To prepare the Concept Report, Celina described the work of investigation, transversing all sites to assess sewer integrity, to discuss minimizing environmental damage with the arborist-consultant, and to determine which of different technologies would minimize damage.

f)The arborist, Gene Rose, described the plan to mulch access paths with material that could be left on-site to disintegrate naturally. He reported that few trees would require removal.

g)The Sligo workwill be on

  • 104 manholes, which are identified as Priority 1 work; an additional 312 manholes are adjacent Priority 2-3 sites and will be incorporated into the work.
  • Sewer rehab of 59 pipe segments (6-42” in diameter)
  • 17 “stream restoration sites,” which work was described as grade control and bank stabilization

h)How much follow-up would be provided for plantings done as part of the “restoration” work? Only a 2-year check-up replied Ed Carpenetti.

i)The work, in total, is expected to take the wastewater infrastructure to a life of 50 more years. (The ultimate inadequacy of so short a timeframe was noted and acknowledged, along with the political and economic constraints of doing better than that.) In general, WSSC operates on a 30-year timeframe.

j)The M-NCPPC reviewer for this project will be Andy Frank, reported to have much stream-restoration experience.

Further notes from the Rock Creek FORCE meeting held the next evening:

  • There are five kinds of access roads, depending on the number of passes to be made and the size of the equipment making them (Rosen)
  • “Mitigation” plantings must be of trees with a diameter of ¾ to 1 inch (Rosen)
  • The intent is to minimize digging (Perez)
  • Part of the review process by the Army Corps of Engineers is a period of public comment.

______

Laura Mol