At the June 26th public meeting on a project that would address the century-old sewer system running through the Soapstone Valley, no one challenged the need for relining the pipes and repairing manholes. DC Water’s presentation made it clear that the pipes and manhole covers, now more than 110 years old, have degraded to the point where action is needed. They presented photos of holes in the infrastructure, pipes invaded by tree roots, and a pipe exposed at a stream crossing. They talked about a significant leak into Soapstone Valley Stream in 2015.
DC Water’s presentation did meet with some challenges from the crowd, however. This was the public’s first chance to ask questions about the Soapstone Valley Park Sewer Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment (EA), and the meeting room at Forest Hills of DC was packed with neighbors who showed up to hear Louis Arguello, head of the project for DC Water. William Elledge, the previous head of this project for DC Water, also participated in the presentation, along with Nick Bartholomew, the point person for the National Park Service; and Eric Lienhard, a representative of the consulting firm Hazen and Sawyer.
A number of audience members were from the Van Ness apartments immediately to the south of the Soapstone site, and from Audubon Terrace, the street immediately to the north. Members of the ANC 3F Parks and Trails Committee were in attendance, as well as David Dickinson, chair of ANC 3F. Neighbors listened intently and asked many questions.
The meeting was civil, but there was some tension in the air. Responses to some questions did not sit well with an audience concerned that this valuable community asset will become a major construction site beginning late 2020 or early 2021 if the EA receives a “finding of no significant impact,” or FONSI.
Some of the tensions with the community may arise from the EA itself. It is, by design, a “worst-case scenario,” said Steve Saari of the Department of Energy and the Environment and Energy. In an interview, he gave the example of the EA for the Broad Branch Stream daylighting project. It had estimated 40 trees would have to be removed, but only two actually were.
However, the public meeting also left important questions unanswered about the process of repairing and relining the aging sanitary sewers and manholes, installing protection and erosion prevention around these assets, and restoring two storm sewer outfalls in the valley.
With respect to relining of the pipes, ANC 3F Parks and Trails committee member Marjorie Share had found an alternative to the steam and hot water technology that is DC Water’s preferred method for curing the new lining. UV curing has been gaining acceptance primarily because it requires a smaller footprint and is the less polluting of the two. At the community meeting, DC Water mentioned the UV method but again stated that its preference is the hot water and steam method, and did not explain its rationale.
Also, DC Water appeared to depart from what was in the EA as to the purpose of constructing heavy equipment access paths and construction sites. At the meeting, DC Water said the paths would be used for streambank stabilization and other stream rehabilitation work to protect the newly-repaired pipes and manholes from further damage and erosion. The EA itself suggests, at least at first, that the purpose of the paths is the equipment for relining the pipes. These are the steps outlined in an EA appendix for a trenchless pipe rehabilitation (Statement of Findings, page 6):
- Clearing along access paths
- Installation of mulch matting along access paths
- Installation of bypass pumping equipment at manholes downstream and upstream of the project area
- Sewer pipe cleaning, which requires access for water jetting and closed-circuit television trucks
- Installation and sealing of cured-in-place liner, which requires access with a refrigerated delivery truck and boiler truck
- Site restoration
Four pages later, the appendix reveals a need for more heavy equipment access paths once the relining work is complete. At the meeting, DC Water said they would use the same roadways built for the relining work to do the asset protection work. But this raised more questions: What are they really basing the size of their construction site on? Could the footprint be smaller?
Another question was concerning the estimated loss of 371 trees and the impact on the stormwater runoff and pollution. The response was that the tree loss would have no significant impact on the flood plain. Tree replanting and erosion protection is clearly outlined in the EA as mitigation efforts, but the impact of tree removal itself is not considered.
Frustration with lack of clarity on these issues and others bubbled up at the ANC 3F Parks and Trails Committee meeting on Monday, July 8th. This meeting was also attended by Soapstone Valley neighbors from Van Ness apartment buildings and Audubon Terrace. They were upset that DC Water had not contacted immediate neighbors directly about the public meeting, and they want the agency to provide a contact person to hear their concerns and complaints once the project begins.
To deal with questions about whether the EA was using best practices, committee member Marjorie Share proposed hiring an engineer for an expert opinion. David Dickinson and others voiced interest, but it was left up in the air. In the end, the committee voted to support the EA with modifications. Committee chair Alex Sanders and David Bardin planned to have a draft resolution with requested modifications to the ANC by Friday, July 12th. The date of the next ANC 3F meeting is to be determined.
But the wider community still has a chance to give feedback on the EA to DC Water and the National Park Service. NPS is collecting comments through Friday, August 2nd. Submit them through its online comment form or write:
Superintendent Rock Creek Park
Attention: Soapstone Valley Sewer Rehabilitation EA
3545 Williamsburg Lane
Washington, DC 20008
Green Eyeshades says
Thank you very much for this very detailed report on the last two public meetings about this project. Two of your paragraphs state clearly that DC Water (WASA) contradicteds portions of the Environmental Assessmewnt (EA) and clearly imply that WASA has lied and is continuing to lie about what it is doing in the Soapstone Ravine under the disguise of the sewer rehab project. DC Water has a well-documented history of lying to DC residents and acting as if it operates independently of the DC government and the federal government, esp. with regard to its failure to “get the lead out” for the past several decades.
The paragraphs that struck me as showing WASA obfuscating and lying are the following:
“Also, DC Water appeared to depart from what was in the EA as to the purpose of constructing heavy equipment access paths and construction sites. At the meeting, DC Water said the paths would be used for streambank stabilization and other stream rehabilitation work to protect the newly-repaired pipes and manholes from further damage and erosion. The EA itself suggests, at least at first, that the purpose of the paths is the equipment for relining the pipes. These are the steps outlined in an EA appendix for a trenchless pipe rehabilitation (Statement of Findings, page 6) ….
“Four pages later, the appendix reveals a need for more heavy equipment access paths once the relining work is complete. At the meeting, DC Water said they would use the same roadways built for the relining work to do the asset protection work. But this raised more questions: What are they really basing the size of their construction site on? Could the footprint be smaller?”
Pat Kasdan says
Another concern: The Soapstone plan calls for raising the level of the stream bed to bury the relined sewer pipes and manholes (up to their covers, I presume). After the torrential rain a week ago the big crossing on the cover of the report was completely under water. It is below our apartment windows and usually looks like a waterfall after rain — last week it was one big lake! If the stream bed is raised, heavy rains could flood the ground floors of the Park Van Ness and Park Connecticut buildings.
David Jonas Bardin says
This is in reply to Pat Kasdan: Looking at EA Exhibit E, WETLAND IMPACT PLATE, Sheets 2 and 3 of 8, it appears to me that the highest elevation of stream bed (above sea level) being proposed would still be at least 10 feet below elevations (above sea level) at edges of Park Connecticut and Park Van Ness Buildings.
David Jonas Bardin says
The photo which helps us understand issues today was snapped on June 19, 2010, by closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera. DC Water wanted a good understanding of conditions inside these sanitary sewer pipes. So it turned to CCTV. Its contractor ran drone-like equipment through a deep manhole on Albemarle Street, outside the Park (and another on Audubon Terrace, also outside the Park). This equipment ran through 4,519 feet of pipe under the Park or DDOT Right of Way on three nights, video-recording what it “saw.”
Green Eyeshades says
If you did in fact mean to write “2010” as the year when the CCTV video was recorded, that would be a remarkable fact. That would mean that conditions which looked bad NINE YEARS ago did not, in fact, lead to any catastrophic failure of the ancient sewer line.
If the sewer line has remained status quo for nine years, with no major repairs or re-lining, why should our community be willing to sacrifice 370 trees to do a massive construction job, including what now appears to be a massive amount of earth moving to regrade the entire stream bed?
Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you wrote about when the CCTV footage was taken.
David Jonas Bardin says
CCTV inspection did happen in 2010. In 2015, an alert DOEE water quality inspector detected and reported leakage into Soapstone Creek. DC Water checked and confirmed it came from their pipe. They acted quickly and lined 456 feet of pipe. EA refers to event generally as “emergency” action. DC Water and its contracting team did not cut down a single tree. FHC published a more detailed description that same year, co-authored by Marjorie Share and me, which is worth your reading. (This reply addresses your question to me. I will write more.)
Green Eyeshades says
These two articles published on the Connection in the summer of 2015 appear to be the descriptions of the “emergency action” taken that summer; the first was posted July 31, 2015, the second August 4, 2015:
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/featured/soapstone-sewer-leak-repairs-expected-to-start-monday/
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/dc-water-presents-new-soapstone-sewers-alternative/
David Jonas Bardin says
More on that June 19; 2010, CCTV camera photo which illustrates this article: It was taken inside a 270-foot stretch of 18-inch diameter pipe between two manholes on the north side of Soapstone Creek within the Park. This location was roughly 275 feet downstream of an exposed manhole (pictured on the EA cover) which receives sanitary sewage.via an 18” pipe from Albemarle Street and from a 15” spur pipe between Park Van Ness and Park Connecticut. This videoed 270-foot stretch of pipe runs between the two western wings of Soapstone Valley Trail. DC Water’s 2011 report, SOAPSTONE VALLEY CREEK BED REHABILITATION PROJECT- Sewer Assessment – March 15, 2011 provides CCTV Inspection Logs in its Appendix B for each stretch of pipe inspected..
David Jonas Bardin says
DC Water’s CCTV contractor also inspected two of three 1908 pipes which join at an exposed manhole pictured on the EA cover. They inspected a 111-foot stretch upstream and a 180-foot stretch downstream. (Each has 18-inch diameter. The third, uninspected pipe has a smaller diameter.) As detailed in CCTV inspection logs, neither stretch showed any leaks, any cracks, any roots anywhere in that stretch. Both of these stretches had been lined years before. Yet EA never mentions those “good news” inspection results. EA does not cite them as evidence that lining can work — and already has worked — to seal off 1908 pipes in Soapstone Valley. Odd silence.
.
Green Eyeshades says
We are all deeply worried about the trees in our cherished Soapstone Valley. But the blizzard of maps, charts, engineering drawings and dozens of pages of text in the Environmental Assessment (EA) serves to hide the impact of this project on our trees, not to explain the impact of this project on our trees.
After looking again at the old 2015 articles posted by Mr. Bardin (links above) and looking again at the quotes from the EA in the main article (above), it seems clear that “paths” and at least one “roadway” are going to be built in our Valley REGARDLESS OF WHICH “ALTERNATIVE” is chosen to repair the sewer. Even if those paths and roadway are temporary, trees will be destroyed regardless of which alternative is chosen.
If hundreds of trees are going to be sacrificed no matter which “alternative” is chosen to repair the sewer, then the only alternative which we should support is the one which takes as many sewer “assets” out of the Valley as possible. In other words, if we truly want to “restore” the Soapstone creekbed to its “natural” state, then we should want to REMOVE THE SEWER to the maximum extent possible.
If we allow DC Water to keep its “assets” in and under the NPS land in our Valley, we are allowing DC Water to dictate in perpetuity how we restore and protect the creekbed. DC Water will forever be able to return at any time to “repair” or dig up one part of the ancient sewer after another. There will be no end to intrusions on the NPS parkland.
We should insist that DC Water withdraw its EA, defer to the NPS request to remove the sewer from the parkland, and rewrite the EA to include a full design of the “Reroute Alternative” and address fully all environmental impacts of removing the sewer from the parkland.
The “Statement of Findings” linked to in the main article is “Appendix E” to the EA. Appendix E states the following on page 7:
“As mentioned above, three alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EA: the No Action Alternative, the Trenchless Alternative, and the Reroute Alternative. The Reroute Alternative is not discussed in this document as it was determined not to be the preferred alternative in part due to the construction and operation of a pump station, including a permanent stream crossing necessary for daily pump station access. On June 23, 2016, NPS concurred with DC Water’s selection of the Trenchless Alternative as the preferred alternative for the project.”
Appendix E contains no justification for what the NPS did three years ago to “concur[ ]” with DC Water’s “preferred alternative.” There is no discussion of the NPS decision, no comparison of the impact of the “Reroute Alternative” to the impact of the “Trenchless Alternative,” and no basis for anyone in our community to understand why NPS deferred to DC Water.
We know it is a fact that the “Trenchless Alternative” will NOT do anything to improve the condition of the creekbed, wetlands and riverine portions of the parkland. Appendix E tells us so on page 27:
“Therefore, construction of the asset protection and MS4 outfall elements of the proposed project across all four sites is expected to maintain existing conditions that are noncompliant with DOEE aquatic life use standards.”
“NONCOMPLIANT” with DC’s environmental agency’s “acquatic life use standards.”
See also, the red boxes (“Not Functioning”) on the chart on page 28 of Appendix E.
That is the current condition of the parkland and that will be its condition after the “Trenchless Alternative” is finished. We can do better.
Appendix D to the EA covers “Alternatives Considered and Dismissed.” The last page of that appendix admits that DC Water did not fully study and develop the engineering for the “Reroute Alternative.” Page 7 of Appendix D contains this admission:
“DC Water designed this alternative until approximately 30% design. This alternative meets the purpose and need and is technically feasible. However, it was dismissed due to its overall costs, the necessity for pump stations, and the fact that the sanitary sewer system would not be fully removed from the park.”
“It was dismissed.” Dismissed by whom? Did the NPS agree to DC Water’s decision to stop “design[ ]” on that alternative at the “30% design” stage? On what basis? How much greater would the cost be? Who would pay those costs? What more would we learn if the “Reroute Alternative” were pursued to 100% designed?
Appendix D, to me, is an admission that neither agency cared enough about the possibility of taking as much of the sewer out of the parkland as possible. They killed the concept in its infancy (“30% design”) instead of pursuing it in good faith. We should not accept this.
David Jonas Bardin says
Look at Appendix B, Figure 5 (Tree Impacts) and Figure 6 (Tree Health).
Also, what “NPS did three years ago” — concurring with DC Water on June 26, 2019 — was held secret until NPS released EA June 4, 2019. Had NPS let community know, we might have asked good questions, focused on constructive suggestions.
Slow, secretive, frustrating NEPA process here has exacted high price.
Outside of NEPA, have you asked yourself what emergency measures might Clean Water Act demand if a future storm drives forces sufficient to break wholly-exposed, concrete-encased sewers at Stream Cross #1 (of six), pictured on EA cover — long before end of NEPA process?
Green Eyeshades says
I deeply appreciate your confirmation that a key event “was held secret until … June 4, 2019,” which directly interfered with our ability to “ask[ ] good questions [and] focus{ ] on constructive suggestions.”
We are not “outside” of the “slow, secretive, frustrating NEPA process,” so questions about what we can do outside of that process call for lots of speculation. What do you speculate is the reason that the two (or more) gigantic monsoons we have suffered in the past 30 days were NOT enough to break the exposed sewers at the stream crossing?
We don’t need to speculate to know that DC Water deliberately halted design work on the “Reroute Alternative” at the 30% stage, which was then “dismissed,” although we don’t know who or what “dismissed” it. Those two actions or decisions were also apparently kept “secret” from us until the last minute.