National Park Service

US Department of the Interior
Anacostia Park
Washington, D.C.
Anacostia Park
Anacostia Riverwalk Trail
Environmental Assessment
December 2004

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ANACOSTIA RIVERWALK

December 2004


































ANACOSTIA PARK
Washington D.C.




United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
ANACOSTIA RIVERWALK

ANACOSTIA PARK, WASHINGTON D.C.

Executive Summary

This Environmental Assessment was prepared in coordination with the District of Columbia
Department of Transportation to assist the National Park Service in identifying and evaluating
the potential environmental impacts and benefits of the Anacostia Riverwalk. The proposed
action is the creation of a multiuse trail and its connecting points that run on the east side of the
Anacostia River from the Washington Navy Yard to Benning Road, and on the west side of the
Anacostia River from the Anacostia Naval Station to the Bladensburg trail in Prince George’s
County, Maryland.

The proposed trail is a key component of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, which is the
Framework Plan for revitalizing the District’s waterfront areas. The Anacostia Waterfront
Initiative proposes a comprehensive 48-mile trail system, including twenty miles of trails along
waterfront areas that would provide residents and visitors access to the District’s riverfronts.

The purpose of the Anacostia Riverwalk is to provide a safe and convenient means for park
visitors to access the Anacostia waterfront and enjoy Anacostia Park. In order to do so, the
National Park Service plans to construct a trail system that would provide bicyclists and
pedestrians with:

• Nearly continuous access to the east side of the river from South Capitol Street to the
Bladensburg Trail in Maryland;
• Continuous access to the west side of the river from 11
th
Street to Benning Road; and
• Safe and convenient access points to enter the Park from the surrounding neighborhoods.

This Environmental Assessment analyzes potential impacts of the proposed alternatives on the
human environment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. During
the environmental review process, the National Park Service considered a broad range of
environmental issues that could affect communities and natural resources on a general (or
system-wide), regional, and local level. This approach allowed identification and assessment of
potential environmental impacts and the development of reasonable preliminary environmental
mitigation measures to address potential adverse impacts.

For the purpose of analyzing impacts in this Environmental Assessment, the National Park
Service divided the proposed project into three design sections. The National Park Service
considered multiple trail alignments for each section (including the No-Action Alternative), as
follows:

Design Section 1 includes all portions of the trail east of the Anacostia River from the Anacostia
Naval Station at the southern extent of the project north to Benning Road. The National Park
Service considered two trail alignments along with the No-Action Alternative.

Design Section 2 includes all portions of the trail west of the Anacostia River from the
Washington Navy Yard at the southern extent of the project north to Benning Road. The
National Park Service considered two trail alignments along with the No-Action Alternative.

Design Section 3 includes all portions of the trail east of the Anacostia River from Benning
Road north to the Bladensburg Trail in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The National Park
Service considered three trail alignments along with the No-Action Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative in all three design section would have no or negligible impacts to the
areas of socio-economic environment, agricultural lands and prime and unique farmland soils, air
quality, noise, Indian Trust resources, environmental justice, community facilities and services,
park operations, floodplains, wildlife and habitats and rare, threatened and endangered species.
No impacts would occur to historic or archaeological sites in design sections 1 and 2; however,
minor impacts may occur to an archaeological site in Design Section 3. One archaeological site
that may have been previously destroyed lies within the preferred alignment.

Minor impacts would occur to planning documents since it would require a minor change to trail
network concepts but the trail still conforms to planning document concepts. Due to minor
encroachments, water quality, wetlands and waterways would incur minor impacts.

Due to the conversion of open land to trail, the preferred alternative would have moderate
impacts with regard to park and recreation facilities. Minor and short-term impacts would also
occur to wildlife and habitat, wetlands and water quality during construction. The nature, extent,
and proposed mitigation for minor and moderate impacts are detailed in the Environmental
Assessment.

By increasing access to the park and utilizing low-impact development techniques during
construction and operation of the proposed facility in accordance to the National Park Service
mission, neighborhoods, visitor experience, and the visual/aesthetic qualities of the park will
benefit.

Public Outreach

A Public Hearing to elicit public comment on the Environmental Assessment is scheduled for
January 6, 2005. The public hearing will be held from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. at the Marshall Heights
Community Development Corporation (MHCDC) offices at 3939 Benning Road NE in
Washington, DC. MHCDC is located on the east side of the Anacostia River near the geographic
center of the study area. The public hearing will be preceded by an open house.

The environmental document is posted for public review on the District Department of
Transportation (http://ddot.dc.gov under Transportation Studies) and National Park Service
(www.nps.gov/anac) websites. The document is also posted on the official project website,
www.arwstudy.com. The project website includes the document as well as the capacity to accept
public comments. The comments will be summarized and reviewed by the study team for
consideration in preparation for the final environmental document.

Note To Reviewers And Respondents

If you wish to comment on the Environmental Assessment, you may mail comments to the name
and address below by January 20, 2005. Public comments, including names and home addresses
of respondents, will be available for public review during regular business hours. Individual
respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will
honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you
must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions
from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives
of organizations or businesses available for public inspection in their entirety.

Please address all comments to:

Stephen W. Syphax
Chief - Resource Management Division
National Capital Parks – East
1900 Anacostia Drive S. E.
Washington D.C. 20020-6722

Or on the project website www.arwstudy.com.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Table of Contents i


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 NEED ........................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 OTHER PROJECTS AND PLANS.............................................................................. 1-4
1.5 IMPACT TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS ANALYSIS.............................................. 1-4
1.5.1 Topics Included In Detailed Analysis............................................................... 1-4
1.5.2 Topics Eliminated From Detailed Analysis...................................................... 1-7

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.3.1 Design Section 1 ............................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.2 Design Section 2 ............................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.3 Design Section 3 ............................................................................................... 2-8
2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY............................... 2-11

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 NEIGHBORHOODS.................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Design Section 1 Neighborhoods...................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Design Section 2 Neighborhoods...................................................................... 3-3
3.1.3 Design Section 3 Neighborhoods...................................................................... 3-3
3.1.4 Neighborhood Access and Mobility Overview................................................. 3-4
3.2 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.......................................................... 3-4
3.3 VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE........................................................................... 3-6
3.4 AREA PLANNING DOCUMENTS ............................................................................ 3-6
3.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC SITES......................................................... 3-6
3.5.1 Area of Potential Effects................................................................................... 3-7
3.5.2 Historic Potential .............................................................................................. 3-7
3.5.3 Archaeological Potential ................................................................................... 3-7
3.6 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS ..................................................................................... 3-8
3.7 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ..................................................................................... 3-12
3.7.1 Habitat............................................................................................................. 3-12
3.7.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 3-13
3.7.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) Species......................................... 3-14
3.8 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS.......................................................................... 3-14
3.8.1 Published Information..................................................................................... 3-16
3.8.2 Field Investigation .......................................................................................... 3-17
3.9 FLOODPLAINS ......................................................................................................... 3-24
3.10 WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................... 3-26
3.11 CONTAMINATION................................................................................................... 3-24
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Table of Contents ii



CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 NEIGHBORHOODS.................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.......................................................... 4-3
4.3 VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE........................................................................... 4-3
4.4 AREA PLANNING DOCUMENTS ............................................................................ 4-4
4.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES ................................................... 4-4
4.5.1 Effects on Archaeological Resources ............................................................... 4-5
4.6 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS ..................................................................................... 4-7
4.7 HABITAT AND WILDLIFE ....................................................................................... 4-8
4.8 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED (RTE) SPECIES............................. 4-9
4.9 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS............................................................................ 4-9
4.10.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts........................................................ 4-11
4.10 FLOODPLAINS ......................................................................................................... 4-13
4.11 WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................... 4-14
4.12 CONTAMINATION................................................................................................... 4-16
4.13 PERMITTING............................................................................................................ 4-17
4.13.1 Habitats ........................................................................................................... 4-17
4.13.2 Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 4-17
4.13.3 Water Quality.................................................................................................. 4-18
4.14 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 4-18
4.14.1 Scoping ........................................................................................................... 4-18
4.14.2 Resource Characterization ............................................................................. 4-19
4.14.3 Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................... 4-19
4.15 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 4-20

CHAPTER 5: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
5.1 Identification of the Preferred Alternative.................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Design Section 1 ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Design Section 2 ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.3 Design Section 3 ............................................................................................... 5-2
5.2 MITIGATION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .......................................... 5-2

CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
6.1 HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Public Outreach................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PROJECT TEAM......................................................... 6-2
6.3 LIST OF RECIPIENTS ................................................................................................ 6-3

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES
7.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................... 7-4

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Table of Contents iii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Anacostia Riverwalk Regional Map.................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2. Anacostia Regional Trails.................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 2-1 Typical Paved Section.......................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2 Typical Boardwalk Sections ................................................................................ 2-2
Figure 2-3 Typical Reconstructed Existing Sidewalk ........................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-4 Typical Trail and Existing Roadways.................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2-5 ARW Alternatives – Design Section 1 ................................................................ 2-3
Figure 2-6 ARW Alternatives – Design Section 2 ................................................................ 2-6
Figure 2-7 ARW Alternatives – Design Section 3 ................................................................ 2-9
Figure 3-1 ARW Project Location......................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 ARW Area Parks.................................................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3-3 ARW Archaeological Sites................................................................................ 3-10
Figure 3-4 ARW Viewsheds................................................................................................ 3-11
Figure 3-5 ARW Wetlands – Design Section 1................................................................... 3-18
Figure 3-6 ARW Wetlands – Design Section 2................................................................... 3-19
Figure 3-7 ARW Wetlands – Design Section 3................................................................... 3-20
Figure 3-8 ARW Area Floodplains...................................................................................... 3-25
Figure 3-9 ARW Potential Contaminated Sites................................................................... 3-27

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................ 3-8
Table 3-2 Wetlands and Waterways Within the Study Area.............................................. 3-21
Table 3-3 Contaminated Sites ............................................................................................ 3-28
Table 4-1 ARW Connection Locations................................................................................ 4-2
Table 4-2 Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways Within Section 1..................................... 4-12
Table 4-3 Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways Within Section 2..................................... 4-12
Table 4-4 Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways Within Section 3..................................... 4-13
Table 4-5 Environmental Impacts Summary Matrix.......................................................... 4-22
Table 4-6 Needs and Objectives Matrix............................................................................. 4-23

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Anacostia Waterfront Initiative MOU
Appendix 2 Master Plan Summaries
Appendix 3 Archaeological Survey Reports
Appendix 4 Draft Wetland Delineation Report for the Proposed Anacostia Riverwalk Trail
Appendix 5 Contamination File Review
Appendix 6 Floodplains Draft Statement of Findings
Appendix 7 AWI Public Involvement
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 1: Purpose And Need For Action 1-1


CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service (NPS) National Capital Parks-East, in collaboration with the District
of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT), proposes to construct multi-use trails along
the east and west sides of the Anacostia River within and adjacent to Anacostia Park in
Washington, D.C. (District) - see Figure 1-1. This Environmental Assessment documents the
evaluation of the potential effects resulting from implementation of this trail plan, identified as
the Anacostia Riverwalk (ARW), and the proposed mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 1500-1508), the
National Park Service’s Director’s Order 12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
Analysis, and Decision-making, NPS Director’s Order 77-1 Wetland Protection, NPS Director’s
Order 77-2 Floodplain Management, and Section 800.8 of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation’s regulations (36 CFR 800)
1
. The process and documentation required for
preparation of this Environmental Assessment will also be used as the foundation for complying
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of the project is to provide a safe and convenient means for park visitors to access
the Anacostia waterfront and enjoy Anacostia Park (Park). In order to do so, NPS plans to
construct a trail system that would provide bicyclists and pedestrians with:

• Nearly continuous access to the east side of the river from South Capitol Street to the
Bladensburg Trail in Maryland, a distance of seven miles;
• Continuous access to the west side of the river from 11
th
Street to Benning Road, a
distance of three miles; and
• Safe and convenient access points to enter the Park from the surrounding neighborhoods.

The proposed trail is a key component of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI), which is the
Framework Plan for revitalizing the District’s waterfront areas. The AWI is the product of the
commitment made by twenty Federal and local agencies to cooperatively develop a vision for the
waterfront. The commitment, formalized in March 2002 with a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), led to three years of planning, public meetings, and public discussion. The resulting
AWI proposes a comprehensive 48-mile trail system, including twenty miles of trails along
waterfront areas that would provide residents and visitors access to the District’s riverfronts (See
Appendix 1 for the MOU and AWI Vision Map). While the ARW would be a valuable
contribution towards realizing the overall AWI plans, it also would have independent utility
because the trail does not depend on the AWI to meet many of the visitor and community needs
for such a facility.

1
Although DDOT is providing engineering design services and is supporting preparation of the environmental
document, their efforts are directly funded by congress. Therefore, Federal Department of Transportation
environmental regulations and guidance (such as Section 4(f) requirements) are not applicable to this assessment.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 1: Purpose And Need For Action 1-2



Fig 1-1. Anacostia Riverwalk Regional Map


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 1: Purpose And Need For Action 1-3


1.3 NEED

The need for the ARW is interrelated with transportation and recreational considerations. In the
project area, there is limited and discontinuous bicycle and pedestrian access between the
riverfront and adjacent communities. Residents of many communities that abut Anacostia Park,
such as Lincoln Park, Kingman Park, Langston, Barry Farms, Twining, Greenway, and Central
Northeast, do not have pedestrian or bicycle access to the Park even though they may live only a
few hundred feet from the park boundary. In some cases, limited-access highways and bridges
isolate the neighborhoods adjoining the Park from the Park. On both sides of the Anacostia
River, existing Park roads generally connect with major arterials and highways that carry high
volumes of vehicular traffic, which is not ideal for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Visitors that do not drive to Anacostia Park currently must rely on a fragmented transit system,
District streets, internal park service roads, and limited trails. Currently, in addition to bus
service, both the Green and Blue/Orange METRO lines pass close to the Park and have stations
located within one-half mile of the riverfront. There is no signage directing visitors from the
stations and bus stops to the Park.

Within the Park, visitors must cross the park roads to reach the riverfront and there is no separate
facility for bicyclists and pedestrians. On the west side, Water and M streets, which run from the
Washington Navy Yard to RFK Stadium, serve as the Park road. These roads dead end just east
of the existing CSX rail line. From this point north the only park roadway is the RFK Stadium
service road and parking lots. These roads are narrow and do not have lane markings to separate
two-way vehicular traffic and bicyclists. Furthermore, on event days, heavy traffic is present on
the RFK stadium roads making bicycle or pedestrian usage difficult. On the east side, Anacostia
Drive, which runs from South Capitol Street to the recreation area just north of Pennsylvania
Avenue, serves as the Park road. It is also narrow and does not have lane markings separating
traffic.

Few trails exist that allow park users to walk or ride from one area of the park to another. For
example, a visitor wishing to travel from the Anacostia Park’s basketball courts located near the
River Terrace Community to the Anacostia Recreation Center near Pennsylvania Avenue would
find that the existing marked and paved trail ends abruptly at East Capitol Street. Another
fragmented trail is located between East Capitol Street and the boat ramp parking facility near
the Pavilion. This portion of the Park contains an unmarked gravel maintenance road that also
crosses an active CSX rail line at multiple locations. These crossings are at-grade, not equipped
with warning signals and when rail cars are staged on the track, crossing the track is impossible.
An isolated pedestrian “River Trail,” is located between Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens and the
Anacostia River; it is primarily an interpretive trail for the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens and the
Anacostia River wetlands and does not connect to any other trail segment.

On a regional level, multiple regional trails, including the Bladensburg Trail, the Potomac
Heritage Scenic Trail, Rock Creek Trails, Mount Vernon Trail, Anacostia River Tributary Trails,
Anacostia Greenway, Suitland Parkway Trail, and Fort Circle Trails surround and approach the
Park area. Smaller trail elements also exist or are proposed as well. Connections among some of
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 1: Purpose And Need For Action 1-4


these trails would provide opportunities for recreational distance riders and bicycle commuters.
Figure 1-2 illustrates some of the existing and proposed trails in the region.

The Anacostia area is densely populated and highly developed, and while recreational
opportunities are present, they are not adequately accessible to meet the needs of the surrounding
community and national visitor. In the District’s recent Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan
efforts, nearly all neighborhoods that abut Anacostia Park identified increasing recreational
opportunities as one of their top priorities, along with related priorities of increased public
amenities, increased open space, and youth development.

Anacostia Park is one of Washington DC’s largest and most important recreational areas and
receives heavy, year-round use and attracts visitors from around the region and nation. While
Anacostia Park’s 1,200 acres offer passive and active recreation (see Section 3.2) they do not
offer extended biking and walking opportunities. Nor, as described above, is the Park itself easily
accessible to the surrounding communities and national visitor.

1.4 OTHER PROJECTS AND PLANS

As part of the analysis, it was considered whether the ARW would conflict with or preclude
implementation of existing plans for the Anacostia Area. In addition, NPS identified plans that
would contribute to the potential cumulative environmental impact of the proposed ARW. The
plans included in this analysis are:

• NPS’ General Management Plan for Anacostia Park (currently in development);
• National Capital Planning Commission’s Extending the Legacy and Memorials and
Museums Master Plan;
• The District of Columbia Office of Planning (DCOP) East of the River Initiative;
• DCOP Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans; and
• Multi-agency Anacostia Waterfront Initiative.

1.5 IMPACT TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS ANALYSIS

On the basis of Federal laws, regulations, Executive Orders, National Park Service Management
Policies (2001), the Environmental Screening Form (ESF) from Director’s Order 12, and from
NPS knowledge of limited or easily impacted resources, impact topics were identified for
detailed analysis, including construction impact and cumulative effects analysis, in this
Environmental Assessment. Impact topics that were identified as non-controversial and the
potential for adverse impact was negligible were eliminated from detailed analysis.

1.5.1 Topics Included In Detailed Analysis

• Neighborhoods—Meeting community needs for increased access to the riverfront,
transportation linkages, and recreation is part of the purpose for developing the ARW.
Implementation of the ARW is intended to provide these benefits; therefore, effects to
neighborhoods and communities are included in the detailed analysis.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 1: Purpose And Need For Action 1-5


Fig 1-2. Anacostia Regional Trails



Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 1: Purpose And Need For Action 1-6


• Parks and Recreational Facilities—Providing connections to facilities within Anacostia
Park and to surrounding parks is part of the purpose and need of the project; therefore,
effects to parks and recreational facilities as a system is included in the detailed analysis.

• Visitor Use and Experience—Anacostia Park is the largest component of the National-
Capital Parks East park system. Over 1 million people visit this park system each year.
The proposed ARW is expected to increase use and improve the visitor experience within
Anacostia Park; therefore, this issue is included in the detailed analysis.

• Area Planning Documents—NPS is in the process of developing and analyzing general
management plan strategies for Anacostia Park. Additionally, the area surrounding the
Park is the focus of a major District plan; therefore, this issue is included in the detailed
analysis.

• Archaeological and Historic Resources—Several potentially significant archaeological
sites and areas likely to yield artifacts exist within the Park; therefore, the potential for
effects to these resources is included in the detailed analysis.

• Visual and Aesthetic Resources—As the nation’s capital, the District has views and
vistas that have cultural and historical significance. This project also has the potential to
offer visitors new views of the Anacostia River and its associated natural areas as well as
contribute or detract from the aesthetics of Anacostia Park; therefore, this issue is
included in the detailed analysis.

• Wildlife and Habitats—A variety of habitats that support different types of wildlife are
present in the study area. Allowing public access to some of these areas is a purpose and
need of the project; therefore, the potential impacts of this access are included in the
detailed analysis.

• Wetlands and Floodplains— Areas within the 100-year floodplain, riparian buffers and
several types of wetlands exist in the project area. Federal and local laws and regulations,
including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulate development in these areas.
Additionally, the NPS Director’s Orders 77-1 Wetland Protection and 77-2 Floodplain
Management set out policies for protecting these resources; therefore, this issue is
included in the detailed analysis.

• Water Quality—The quality and quantity of stormwater runoff is regulated at the
Federal and local level. As the proposed action would increase impervious areas, the
potential of the project to compromise water quality is included in the detailed analysis.

• Contamination—Sites with documented contamination exist within or in close
proximity to the project area; therefore, this issue is considered in the detailed analysis.



Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 1: Purpose And Need For Action 1-7


1.5.2 Topics Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

• Social and Economic Environment—Over 50,000 people live within walking distance
(approximately one-quarter mile) of the proposed ARW trail alignments. Most reside
within the District, with a small percentage in Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, and other
suburbs of Maryland. Overall, the population is primarily minority (over 90% are African
American) and many areas contain significant numbers of persons whose income falls
below poverty level. Preliminary analysis of socioeconomic considerations indicated that
none of the alternatives considered for this project would:

• Require relocation of people, businesses, or community facilities;
• Diminish community cohesion by displacing any residences, isolating one part of
the community from another, or creating barriers between them;
• Increase or decrease employment opportunities;
• Spur economic development or induce changes in land use or zoning that would
disrupt neighborhood patterns;
• Impede the ability of emergency service providers to access parts of the study
area; or
• Change access to any community facilities outside of Anacostia Park.

NPS determined that including Neighborhoods and Communities in the detailed analysis
would effectively address the issues of concern in the socioeconomic environment (e.g.,
access to the Park and increased recreational opportunities). On this basis, impacts to the
listed aspects of the socioeconomic environment are negligible.

• Environmental Justice—Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations (Clinton, 1994), directs
Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects that its programs, policies, and activities may have on
minority and low-income populations. Although socioeconomic data indicated that the
study area includes minority and low-income populations, the trail itself would not result
in an increase in the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects to
Environmental Justice populations. The affected population was also part of the overall
AWI planning process, which included many meetings in environmental justice
population areas, thus allowing for meaningful participation of minority and low-income
residents.

• Park Operations—DDOT will construct, operate and maintain the proposed trail;
therefore, the proposed project would have a negligible impact on park operations and
this issue was eliminated from further study.

• Agricultural Lands and Prime and Unique Farmland Soils—No farms exist in the
project area and there are no areas containing prime and unique farmland soils that meet
the criteria for protection under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act; therefore,
this issue was eliminated from detailed analysis.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 1: Purpose And Need For Action 1-8



• Air Quality—The primary source of air quality impacts is related to vehicular traffic and
emissions. The proposed ARW would provide non-motorized travel options to the area in
the form of bicycle and pedestrian traffic that does not generate a significant amount of
air pollutants, thus there would be negligible effect on air quality. In addition,
Washington DC is a non-attainment area for ground level ozone according to federal
health standards and a reduction in the amount of vehicular traffic near the Park has a
potential to have a beneficial impact to local and regional air quality.

• Noise—Anacostia Park is located in an urban setting and ambient noise sources include
traffic, railroads, aircraft, and other urban activities. Bicycling and walking do not
generate significant amounts of noise-especially in comparison to the surrounding area;
therefore, noise was removed from further consideration in this Environmental
Assessment.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-1


CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the ARW Alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, evaluated in
this Environmental Assessment. Early in the study, NPS considered multiple concept
alternatives for the location and design of the ARW. Based on preliminary analysis of how well
the concept met the project purpose and need and the environmental, engineering, and
construction feasibility, some concepts were eliminated from further consideration (see Section
2.4). To facilitate presentation and evaluation of the alternatives, the project area has been
divided into three design sections described as follows:

• Design Section 1 consists of the east side of the Anacostia River between the South
Capitol Street and Benning Road.

• Design Section 2 consists of the west side of the Anacostia River between the
Washington Navy Yard and Benning Road.

• Design Section 3 consists of the east side of the Anacostia River from Benning Road to
the Bladensburg Trail in Maryland.

2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No-Action Alternative, NPS would not construct a new trail or make any
enhancements to existing bike and pedestrian facilities. NPS would continue to maintain and
operate Anacostia Park and implement minor improvements as part of its normal maintenance
and safety operations. NPS would continue to develop and ultimately finalize its General
Management Plan. The No-Build Alternative serves as a basis for comparing all of the other
alternatives.

2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The Action Alternatives consist of multi-use trail options that generally parallel the Anacostia
River. The typical section (e.g., the width, material, and landscaping) for the trail would vary by
location.

For example, in areas that are currently maintained as turf, the section would consist of a 10- to
12-foot wide asphalt path that meanders around existing trees and wetlands. The trail would be
landscaped with additional trees and plants, similar to the representative paved section shown in
Figure 2-1. In environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and river edges, the walkway
may be constructed as a boardwalk, as shown in Figure 2-2. Other portions of the trail will
include reconstructing existing roadways, as shown in Figure 2-3 and constructing the trail in
existing sidewalk areas, as shown in Figure 2-4.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-2














Figure 2-1: Typical Paved Section Figure 2-2: Typical Boardwalk Section













Figure 2-3: Typical Reconstructed Existing Figure 2-4: Typical Trail and Existing
Roadway Sidewalk

2.3.1 Design Section 1

Design Section 1 is illustrated in Figure 2-5.

Alternative 1A (Preferred) would begin just south of the South Capitol Street Bridge at the
terminus of an existing trail that runs from the Anacostia Naval Station to the South Capitol
Street Bridge. The trail would meander around the large trees and wetlands located within the
southernmost section of Anacostia Park between Anacostia Drive and the river. From
approximately 11
th
Street north to Pennsylvania Avenue, where the area between Anacostia
Drive and the river becomes quite narrow, existing Anacostia Drive would be relocated
approximately 20 feet to the east, to allow placement of the trail between the relocated road and
the river. The west edge of the proposed trail would be located at the west edge of the existing
roadway. A 5-foot unpaved buffer would separate the trail users from the road. On its new
location, Anacostia Drive would be approximately 22 feet wide and would include the same
number or more parking bays than exist today. Just south of Pennsylvania Avenue, the relocated
Anacostia Drive would join with existing Anacostia Drive.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-3



Fig 2-5 ARW Alternatives – Design Section 1


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-4


From approximately Pennsylvania Avenue north, the trail would generally parallel the river until
it reaches the boat ramp parking area. In this area, the trail would cross Anacostia Drive.
Anacostia Drive would be striped and signed to alert drivers of the presence of bicyclists and
pedestrians. From that point, the trail would pass around the boat ramp parking area, parallel the
railroad for a short distance, and then pass over the CSX tracks on a new 16-foot wide pedestrian
bridge. From the CSX tracks north, the trail would be located on the existing NPS service road
until it connects with an existing trail just north of East Capitol Street. This service road,
currently unpaved, ranges in width from 14 to 20 feet wide. Occasionally, NPS service vehicles
or the U. S. Park Police would use the trail to access the northern area of the Park. North of East
Capitol Street, the existing trail, which ends at Benning Road, would be widened to 12 feet. The
existing trail spur that provides pedestrian access to Anacostia Avenue would be reconfigured to
include accessibility ramps.

At various points along the length of the trail, way-finding signs identifying the existing
sidewalks, streets, and service roads that connect to the trail would be posted. In some cases,
minor alterations to existing sidewalks or re-striping of the road may be required to meet safety
requirements for facilities shared by bicyclists, walkers, service vehicles, or traffic. For
Alternative 1A, these major connection points would include:

• Howard Road near South Capitol Street;

• The Anacostia Metro Station;

• Good Hope Road near the existing park entrance;

• Nicholson Street near the existing park entrance; and

• Ft. Dupont Park. In this location, the existing NPS service road would be extended to
connect with G Street near the DC Center for Therapeutic Recreation. This extension
would pass under the Anacostia Freeway Bridge over the CSX Railroad tracks at grade
and connect to G Street SE.

Alternative 1B would be identical to Alternative 1A except between 11
th
Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue. In this area, the trail would run between the existing Anacostia Drive and
the river; a 5-foot wide buffer would separate the two facilities. Because this section of the
corridor is so narrow, the trail would pass very close to the river’s banks. In these
environmentally sensitive areas, an elevated boardwalk section may be needed in select locations
to avoid impacts to the existing riverbank slopes. Alternative 1B would include the same trail
connections as Alternative 1A.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-5


2.3.2 Design Section 2

Design Section 2 is illustrated in Figure 2-6.

Alternative 2A (Preferred) would reconstruct Water Street to provide a uniform 20-foot width
for vehicular traffic and a 12-foot wide path in the sidewalk space on the east side of Water
Street. North of the District of Columbia Department of Public Works (DCDPW) facility, the
trail would deviate from Water Street eastward, run closer to the Anacostia River, rejoin the
Water Street alignment just south of the Eastern Power Boat Club property, and follow Water
Street until it passes the District Yacht Club. At this location the trail would again turn east,
away from Water Street, and connect to M Street. The trail would generally be 12 feet wide with
a 10-foot minimum width in restricted areas.

At M Street, between 11
th
Street and the traffic circle at Maritime Plaza the trail would run on the
north side of the street and have a minimum width of 10 feet within the sidewalk space.
Northeast of the traffic circle, the trail would join M Street as a shared roadway. M Street would
be reconstructed along its existing alignment from this location north to Pennsylvania Avenue to
provide a uniform width of 20 feet for vehicular and bicycle traffic and a 6-foot sidewalk on the
east side of the street. In some locations, the alignment would be shifted slightly to the east to
avoid encroachment into the existing clearance envelope of the CSX Railroad tracks. Just north
of Pennsylvania Avenue, the proposed trail would turn west away from M Street, where the
proposed 6-foot sidewalk and reconstructed width of M Street would terminate. Existing M
Street would be resurfaced from this location north to enhance access from the trail to the
Seafarers Yacht Club at the end of the street.

The trail would leave M Street, cross the existing CSX Railroad tracks at-grade and then turn
north along the east side of the RFK Stadium service road. A 2 to 30 foot variable width grass
buffer would be maintained between the existing service road and the proposed trail. The trail
would generally be 12 feet wide but would narrow in some locations to minimize impacts to
existing vegetation.

At the southern end of the RFK Stadium South Parking Lot, the turf area between the Anacostia
River and the service road widens allowing the trail to meander closer to the Anacostia River.
The 12-foot wide trail alignment would closely parallel the existing riparian vegetation, winding
between existing individual trees north to the East Capitol Street Bridge. The trail would then
continue through the open turf area between the RFK Stadium North Parking Lot and the
Anacostia River, and continue to follow the existing riverbank vegetation north to Benning Road
while avoiding recent reforestation, and ‘no mow’ meadow areas. The mainline trail would
terminate at the existing sidewalk on the south side of Benning Road.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-6



Fig 2-6 ARW Alternatives – Section 2


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-7


This portion of the trail would include the following trail connections:

• Just north of Barney Circle, a trail connection would cross the existing RFK Stadium
service road, travel along the north side of the circle, and then cross Barney Circle to
connect to an existing trail stub. The trail connection would use the existing sidewalk
along Barney Circle to its intersection with 17
th
Street. The newly constructed portions of
the trail connection would be a minimum of 10 feet wide.

• At Independence Avenue and RFK Stadium near the southern end of the RFK Stadium
South Parking Lot, a trail connection would cross the existing RFK Stadium service road
and travel along an existing trail on the west side of the parking lot. South of
Independence Avenue the trail would transition to a proposed multi-use path and then
split. One portion of the trail would connect to the sidewalk on the south side of
Independence Avenue. The other portion of the trail would continue along an existing
trail crossing beneath Independence Avenue adjacent to RFK Stadium to a location near
the DC Armory. The proposed trail constructed for this connection would be a minimum
of 10 feet wide.

• Along the south side of East Capitol Street, a trail connection would utilize the existing
parking lot and a reconstructed existing trail to connect to the Independence Avenue
connection described above.

• Along the north side of East Capitol Street the trail would link to an existing trail at the
intersection of C Street and Oklahoma Avenue. A gap in the existing trail just east of
Oklahoma Avenue would be completed with a proposed multi-use path. The proposed
trail constructed for this connection would be a minimum of 10 feet wide.

• Approximately 800 feet south of Benning Road, a trail connection would include a
proposed multi-use path that connects to the existing bridge to Kingman Island. The
proposed path would be a minimum of 10 feet wide.

• Along the south side of Benning Road to Oklahoma Avenue, a trail connection would
include a proposed multi-use path constructed just south of the existing sidewalk and
bollards along Benning Road. The proposed path would be a minimum of 10 feet wide.

Alternative 2B includes reconstruction of Water Street from the intersection of 12
th
Street to M
Street to provide a uniform 30-foot width for vehicular and bicycle traffic. The road would be
designed with two 10-foot vehicular travel lanes and two 5-foot bicycle lanes along each side of
the road. A 6-foot sidewalk would also be provided on the east side of Water Street.
Reconstructed Water Street would generally follow the same alignment as existing Water Street.

At M Street, between 11
th
Street and an existing traffic circle the trail would be a minimum
width of 10 feet within the sidewalk space on the north side of M Street. Northeast of the
existing traffic circle, the trail would transition to two 5-foot bicycle lanes on reconstructed M
Street, which would include two 10-foot vehicle lanes north to Pennsylvania Avenue.
Reconstructed M Street would generally follow the same alignment as existing M Street. In some
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-8


locations the alignment would be shifted to the east to avoid encroachment into the existing
clearance envelope of the CSX Railroad tracks. North of Pennsylvania Avenue Alternative 2B is
the same as that of Alternative 2A.

This alternative also examined the option of providing the same roadway typical section as
existing M Street between 11
th
Street and the traffic circle to the portion of M Street between the
traffic circle and Water Street. This 52-foot wide typical section includes a 4-foot raised median,
two, 12-foot vehicular travel lanes and two 12-foot shared parking and bicycle lanes. A 6-foot
sidewalk on the east side of M Street is also provided.

The same trail connections are proposed for Alternative 2B as are in Alternative 2A.

2.3.3 Design Section 3

Design Section 3 is illustrated in Figure 2-7.

Alternative 3A (Preferred) would connect the southern portions of Anacostia Park with
Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens and the Bladensburg Trail in Maryland. Under this option, the
existing trail that currently ends near the Benning Road Bridge would be extended north,
paralleling the river until it passes the small cove near the Potomac Electric Power Company
(PEPCO) power plant, where it would turn east. This portion of the trail would be located on the
edge of the NPS maintenance yard and the DCDPW Trash Transfer Station. At the southeast
corner of the Transfer Station the trail would turn east and follow the existing NPS service road
to the intersection of Anacostia Avenue and Foote Street. From this intersection to the
intersection of Deane Avenue and Kenilworth Terrace, the trail will be designated on existing
streets. The trail will head north on Anacostia Avenue, turn west on Hayes Street, then turn
north again on Kenilworth Terrace. Portions of the trail in this section will be located in the
existing sidewalk space due to existing roadway widths and the presence of a one-way street.
Trail dimensions would be as follows:

• Anacostia Avenue between Foote and Hayes Streets— In this section, Anacostia Avenue,
is 34 feet wide and is comprised of two 12-foot travel lanes that would be shared by
vehicles and bicycles and two 5-foot unmarked parking areas, one on each side of the
street. Pedestrians will use the existing sidewalk areas.
• Hayes Street between Anacostia Intersection and Kenilworth Terrace—In this area,
Hayes Street, is 36 feet wide and accommodates one lane of one-way westbound traffic
and two 5-foot unmarked parking areas. Westbound trail traffic would use existing
Hayes Street as a shared roadway. Eastbound trail traffic would be accommodated on the
existing sidewalk area.
• Kenilworth Terrace between Hayes Street and Jay Fort Street—In this area, Kenilworth
Terrace is 34 feet wide and is comprised of two, 12-foot travel lanes that would be shared
by vehicles and bicycles and two, 5-foot unmarked parking areas, one on each side of the
street.
• Kenilworth Terrace between Jay Fort Street and Deane Avenue—In this area, the
southbound trail would use the existing west side sidewalk of Kenilworth Terrace, which
is 8 feet wide. The curb lane of Kenilworth Terrace would be widened to accommodate
northbound traffic.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-9



Fig 2-7 ARW Alternatives – Design Section 3


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-10


This portion of the trail includes a connection along Hayes Street to the existing pedestrian
bridge over Kenilworth Avenue. This pedestrian bridge is a direct link to the Minnesota Avenue
Metro Station. The trail connection would consist of approximately 100 feet of improved
sidewalk with a minimum width of 10 feet on the south side of Hayes Street from the
intersection of Hayes Street and Kenilworth Terrace to the pedestrian bridge.

At the intersection of Kenilworth Terrace and Deane Avenue the proposed trail would turn west
and transition to a 12-foot wide multi-use path, then continue west between Watts Branch and
Deane Avenue to an existing path that crosses Watts Branch and Deane Avenue. The alignment
would meander to avoid impacts to existing vegetation and an existing playground near Deane
Avenue. The trail would then cross Deane Avenue in the same location as the existing path and
generally follow the existing path to the Kenilworth Parkside Recreation Area. The existing path
location would be revised to improve alignment with the sidewalk along Anacostia Avenue near
the intersection of 40
th
Street.

From 40
th
Street to Quarles Street, the proposed trail would consist of a multi-use path in the
sidewalk space on the west side of Anacostia Avenue. A 5-foot grass buffer would separate the
trail from Anacostia Avenue. The trail width would narrow to approximately 8 feet at the
existing bridge over a small creek mid-way along Anacostia Avenue.

Near Quarles Street, the proposed trail would turn to the west between an existing football field
and tree line, continuing to the northeast corner of the Kenilworth Greenhouse property. The trail
would then turn north towards Lower Beaver Dam Creek. Just south of Lower Beaver Dam
Creek, the trail would turn west again and would be located on an existing berm until it reaches
the Anacostia River, where it would turn north along the east bank of the Anacostia River
crossing over Lower Beaver Dam Creek and beneath the Amtrak Railroad and New York
Avenue bridges. The portion of the trail along the Anacostia River bank would be on an elevated
boardwalk structure to minimize impacts to wetland areas and existing vegetation. North of New
York Avenue the proposed trail would gradually turn away from the Anacostia River to the east
until it terminates at the connection with the Bladensburg Trail. Additional elevated boardwalk
structures may be required in this area to minimize impacts to wetlands and vegetation. The
proposed trail in this area would be 12 feet wide and the proposed boardwalk sections would be
14 feet wide to accommodate railings.

Alternative 3B is the same as that of Alternative 3A except for the segment between Anacostia
Avenue and the Bladensburg Trail. The proposed trail would turn to the west near Quarles Street
between an existing fence line and football field, continuing to the southeast corner of the
Kenilworth Greenhouse property. From the southeast corner of the Kenilworth Greenhouse the
trail would turn to the north and then west, skirting the perimeter of the property, and continue
west on an existing berm until it reaches the Anacostia River. From the east bank of the
Anacostia River at the Amtrak Railroad to its terminus at the Bladensburg Trail, Alternative 3B
is the same as Alternative 3A.

Alternative 3C is the same as that of Alternative 3A except for the segment between Benning
Road and Kenilworth Terrace. The trail would begin at the southwest corner of the Benning
Road/Anacostia Avenue intersection, cross Anacostia Avenue and Benning Road at existing
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-11


crosswalks, and continue east along the sidewalk on the north side of Benning Road to
Kenilworth Avenue. The trail would turn north along the sidewalk on the west side of
Kenilworth Avenue and continue to Foote Street. The existing sidewalks on Benning Road, N.E.
and Kenilworth Avenue would vary in width from 5 to 8 feet and are of varying condition.

The trail would turn west on Foote Street to Kenilworth Terrace, and then turn north on
Kenilworth Terrace continuing to the intersection of Kenilworth Terrace and Deane Avenue.
From this intersection to the northern limit of Anacostia Avenue Alternative 3C is the same as
that of Alternative 3A.

Near the northern limit of Anacostia Avenue the proposed trail would enter a wooded area and
turn northwest towards Lower Beaver Dam Creek. The initial portion of the trail in the wooded
area would be on an elevated boardwalk structure to minimize impacts to wetlands and
vegetation. The trail would then turn north crossing over Lower Beaver Dam Creek. On the
north side of the creek the trail would turn west and head towards the Anacostia River between
Lower Beaver Dam Creek and the Amtrak Railroad tracks. From this point on Alternative 3C is
the same as Alternative 3A.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY

In Design Section 1, an at-grade crossing of the CSX railroad was considered. This alternative
was eliminated due to concerns with trail safety and railway operations that would result from a
crossing being located so close to the high-traffic rail yard.

In Design Section 2, an alternative with wider footprints for M Street and Water Street was
considered. A separate alternative involved the relocation of the RFK Stadium service road. Both
of these alternatives were eliminated because they are subjects of other, ongoing studies and are
beyond the scope the ARW project as defined in the Purpose and Need section (Chapter 1). The
construction of either of the remaining alternatives in Design Section 2 would not preclude the
future widening or relocation of these roads.

In Design Section 2, an alternative was considered that provided a separate pedestrian trail
paralleling the main trail along the RFK Stadium parking lots. This alternative was eliminated
from consideration due to avoiding interruption of the turf area between the parking lots and the
river with multiple trails. As an alternative, spur trails may be added in select locations to bring
pedestrians closer to the river.

In Design Section 3, an alternative was considered that would have crossed Lower Beaver Dam
Creek approximately 300 yards east of the Anacostia River. The trail would have then continued
west to Anacostia River between Lower Beaver Dam Creek and the Amtrak railroad north of the
creek. This alternative was eliminated from consideration to avoid impacts to the floodplain and
wetlands, to route the trail away from the noisy railroad, and for reasons of constructability.

Design Section 3 also included an alternative that directed the trail through the former
Kenilworth Park Landfill. This site is currently undergoing studies for remediation of
contaminated material. Due to exposure risk of the trail user and safety concerns during remedial
activities this alternative was not pursued. After remediation activities are completed, placement
of the trail in this location may be further explored.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-1


CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The project area for the proposed ARW includes areas east and west of the Anacostia River. On
the east, the project area extends from South Capitol Street to the Bladensburg Trail,
approximately two miles beyond the District-Maryland border. On the west, the project area
extends from South Capitol Street to Benning Road. The project area includes Anacostia Park
and the portions of the communities that lie within walking distance (¼ mile) from the Park
boundary as shown in Figure 3-1. The study area for each type of resource identified as a
potential issue is included in each resource description.

3.1 NEIGHBORHOODS

The study area for this resource includes those neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed ARW
and its connections, as shown in Figure 3-1. The District’s original street plan is evident in areas
west of the Anacostia River with its hierarchical system of boulevards and major and minor
streets that create natural neighborhood boundaries. Neighborhoods in the area east of the
Anacostia River grew in a more suburban pattern, often with small enclaves platted out and
constructed as residential developments. District of Columbia Office of Planning (DCOP) is
leading an effort to support, strengthen, and revitalize neighborhoods throughout the District and
a major focus of their effort is development of Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans (SNAPS)
for all areas of the city.

NPS is one of the main SNAP Action Plan Partners. The SNAP for each neighborhood cluster
identifies NPS commitments to neighborhood priorities, which range from general support of the
AWI to more specific pledges such as improving maintenance of NPS properties along
Pennsylvania Avenue. The neighborhoods adjacent to each Design Section are listed below.

3.1.1 Design Section 1 Neighborhoods

Barry Farm – Established after the Civil War as one of the first African American communities
in Washington DC, most of the area was razed and replaced with public housing projects after
World War II. With no direct access to the riverfront, Barry Farms neighborhood residents must
travel to Howard Road to reach Anacostia Park.

Hillsdale – This residential and commercial area includes a mixture of single-family, semi-
detached, and multifamily apartment housing units. Residents reach the park via its entrance at
Howard Road.

Historic Anacostia – Formally known as Uniontown, Historic Anacostia includes houses and
businesses. Current residents can reach the Park and waterfront via Howard Road and Good
Hope Road.

Fairlawn – Fairlawn is one of the older neighborhoods east of the river and mostly consists of
single-family detached and semi-detached homes. Nicholas Street provides Fairlawn residents
with a direct route to Anacostia Park and the waterfront.

Twining/Greenway – Consisting of single-family homes, residents in both communities are
currently isolated from the Park and waterfront by I-295 and must walk or drive to reach the Park
via Nicholson Street.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-2



Fig 3-1 ARW Project Location


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-3


3.1.2 Design Section 2 Neighborhoods

Washington Navy Yard/Near Southeast – An active military facility, the Navy Yard’s
waterfront is not accessible to the public. Residents of the Near Southeast neighborhood, located
west and northwest of the Navy Yard, reach Anacostia Park and waterfront via M and Water
Streets.

Barney Circle/Hill East – One of the project area’s older neighborhoods, many homes and
businesses were constructed before the turn of the 19
th
century. The Hill East area is dominated
by commercial and transportation land uses. The neighborhood route to the waterfront is via
Barney Circle.

Lincoln Park/Kingman Park – Most of Kingman Park consists of homes constructed in the
District’s typical urban row house style. Access to the Park and waterfront is difficult because of
the RFK Memorial Stadium and its adjacent parking facilities. Residents must use Benning Road
for access to the Park and waterfront.

Langston – Langston Dwellings, one of the first federally financed public housing complexes in
the District, comprise the Langston neighborhood. Access to the Park and the waterfront is
limited to Benning Road due to the Langston Golf Course.

3.1.3 Design Section 3 Neighborhoods

River Terrace – This community of mostly single-family row houses lies adjacent to the
Anacostia Park waterfront. It is isolated from other residential areas, with the Anacostia
waterfront to the west, I-295, to the east, and Benning Road to the north. The community has
direct access to the Park and waterfront along Anacostia Avenue.

Mayfair – Built between 1925 and 1949, it was one of the city’s first housing developments for
African Americans. The community is located adjacent to the Park; however, because of fencing,
access to the Park and the waterfront is limited to Deane Avenue and portions of Anacostia
Avenue.

Eastland Gardens/Kenilworth – Consisting primarily of single-family, detached and semi-
detached homes, this isolated community is bordered by I-295 to the east and recreational
facilities located in Anacostia Park to the north and the west. The community has direct access to
the Park, its recreational facilities, and the waterfront via Anacostia Avenue and Deane Avenue.

Central NE – Residents of this neighborhood, which includes multiple housing types and styles,
have no direct access to the Park or waterfront.

Colmar Manor/Bladensburg – Located in Prince George’s County, Maryland, the towns of
Colmar Manor and Bladensburg are old port towns that still retain their original street grids of
narrow roads. Colmar Manor residents have access to the Bladensburg trail through Colmar
Manor Park. Bladensburg residents have access to the path via Bladensburg Waterfront Park.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-4


3.1.4 Neighborhood Access and Mobility Overview

Residents on either side of the river have few routes to the Anacostia waterfront. On the east,
major highway and rail lines run the entire length of the river and block the communities’ access
to Anacostia Park. A limited number of streets directly connect communities to Anacostia Park
areas and the waterfront, including: Good Hope Road, Nicholson Street, Deane Avenue, Douglas
Street, portions of 40
th
Street, and portions of Anacostia Avenue. These existing connections are
a significant distance apart, e.g. two miles separate the Anacostia Avenue/Benning Road access
from the Nicholson Road access. Four neighborhoods – Kenilworth, Mayfair, Eastland Gardens,
and River Terrace – abut the Anacostia Park and have direct access to the Park via local roads
and Anacostia Avenue.

On the west side of the Anacostia, difficulties exist in reaching the waterfront. I-395 and the
CSX rail line function as a border that isolates neighborhoods to the north. Access to the
waterfront for local neighborhoods is also impeded by large properties that abut the river such as
the RFK Stadium, Langston Golf Course, and the National Arboretum. Public access to the river
from the west is mainly achieved via Water Street, M Street, Benning Road, and Barney Circle.

3.2 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

A number of parks and recreational facilities are located within the study area, as shown in
Figure 3-2. Anacostia Park is the largest park and dominates the study area, offering both passive
and active recreation. Its resources include:
• Kenilworth Park and Kenilworth Marsh - located within the upper section of Anacostia
Park, a portion of this 180-acre site was once used as a landfill, but restoration efforts
have been initiated and portions are now being used as a multi-purpose recreational area;
• Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens - 14 acres of aquatic plants located on the east bank of the
Anacostia River within the Park;
• Poplar Point –adjacent to the historic Anacostia District and consisting of park service
buildings and several abandoned greenhouses formerly used by the Architect of the
Capitol;
• Boating facilities - including three marinas, the Eastern Power Boat Club, the District
Yacht Club, Seafarers Yacht Club, Washington Yacht Club, the public Anacostia
Community Boathouse, marinas and a public boat ramp;
• Langston Golf Course - located west of the Anacostia River, this historic site offers an
18-hole course and driving range,
• Anacostia Park Pavilion - located east of the Anacostia River and north of Pennsylvania
Avenue, it contains 3,300 square feet of space for roller skating and special events;
• Playing fields and courts; and
• Picnic and other passive recreation areas.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-5



Fig 3-2 ARW Area Parks


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-6


Other park and recreation facilities in or near the study area include:

• Kingman and Heritage Islands in the Anacostia River, which are under redevelopment as
educational and low-impact recreation sites.
• Several sections of the Fort Circle Parks which contain a hiker-biker trail that winds its
way through Fort Chaplin Park, Fort Mahan Park, Fort Dupont Park, Fort Davis Park and
Fort Stanton Park and ends just south of Fort Stanton Park at the Anacostia Museum.
• Fort Dupont Park, which includes a 400-acre wooded park with trails, an ice-rink, and a
community-nature center.
• Watts Branch Park, under the jurisdiction of DC Parks and Recreation is being restored
by community volunteers. The park extends 1.5 miles through the far northeast
neighborhoods of the District to the banks of the Anacostia River.
• RFK Stadium, which hosts various regional and local activities, including sporting events
and concerts.
• Numerous local recreation centers in the study area, including the Barry Farms
Recreation Center, Kenilworth-Parkside Recreation Center, Orr Recreation Center,
Anacostia Fitness, River Terrace Recreation Center, Rosedale Recreation Center, and
Savoy Recreation Center.
• Nearly 30 small landscaped medians, triangles, and other types of streetscape areas that
are scattered throughout the study area.

3.3 VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Approximately 1.3 million people visit this park system every year. The Park offers its visitors a
variety of recreational options as described in the previous sections. Visitor experience varies by
section, as do the types of visitors, which includes both tourists and residents. Some portions of
the Park attract mostly local residents; other portions, such as the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens,
attract mostly tourists.

3.4 AREA PLANNING DOCUMENTS

The District’s Comprehensive Plan guides future land use for the study area and includes
projects and improvements affecting recreational facilities in the project area. Other land use
plans with recreational initiatives affecting the project area include the Anacostia Park General
Management Plan, the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) Framework Plan, and the East of
the River Initiative. Summaries of these master plans can be found in Appendix 2.

3.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC SITES

“Historic properties” are defined by the implementing regulations of the National Historic
Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or
object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. This term
includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties, as
well as traditional and culturally significant Native American sites and historic landscapes. The
term “eligible for inclusion in the National Register” includes both properties formally
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-7


determined to be eligible and all other properties that meet National Register listing criteria.
Archaeological resources are defined in the National Park Service’s Cultural Resource
Management Guideline (Director’s Order 28) as the remains of past human activity, and records
documenting the scientific analysis of these remains.

3.5.1 Area of Potential Effects

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for archaeological/historic sites includes the area within 50
feet of the centerline of each proposed alternative alignment, for a total width of 100 feet. The
APE was limited to 100 feet total width due to the small footprint of the proposed trail and the
limited earthwork required to build the trail. The area of analysis encompasses the area of
potential ground disturbance to archaeological and historical resources; it was not expanded to
take into account the effects of noise and vibration to historic sites and structures because no
noise or vibration impacts are anticipated from this project.

Information regarding archaeological and historic resources within the study area was collected
from the DC Historic Preservation Office (DCHPO), the National Park Service’s National
Capital Parks-East offices, and the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT).

3.5.2 Historic Potential

The area surrounding the Park contains historic structures within Historic Districts; however,
these Districts are located outside of the project’s area of analysis. DCHPO provided base maps
and survey reports with the locations of historic sites/structures listed on the District’s Historic
Sites Inventory. In addition, the study team met with a District Historic Preservation Planner to
determine locations of known historic structures; with the assistance of the preservation planner,
the study team determined that there were no historic structures in the APE. The study team
visited the library at the National Capital Parks-East headquarters, which also contains cultural
resource survey reports and other research materials relating to land use and cultural history of
the Anacostia Park area. MHT maintains data on historical structures, archaeological surveys,
and known archaeological sites on its Geographic Information System (GIS) database.
Information obtained from survey reports provided by these agencies is presented in Appendix 3.

3.5.3 Archaeological Potential

DCHPO provided base maps and survey reports with the locations of archaeological surveys and
known archaeological sites. In addition, the Study Team met with the District Archaeologist to
determine the locations of known archaeological sites in the APE. The DCHPO recorded 22
archaeological sites within an area that encompasses Anacostia Park and its immediate environs.
Seven of these archaeological sites are located within the APE associated with the alternatives.
MHT records did not indicate any archaeological sites within the Prince George’s County
segment of the study area. Table 3-1 presents the limited site information for the known
archaeological sites, shown in Figure 3-3.


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-8



Previous investigations have noted that archaeological sites are generally located on upper
terraces along the Anacostia River, mostly at the mouths of tributary streams. Most known site
locations are situated on the east side of the river rather than the marshy west bank. Both sides of
the river have been subjected to extensive grading and filling; however, the disturbance has been
much more extensive on the western bank than on the eastern bank through activities to reclaim
the extensive marshlands (Bromberg et al. 1989; Baumgardt et al. 1994; Overbeck n.d.).

3.6 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS

Beginning in the late 17
th
century, successive waves of urbanization have transformed the
character of the Anacostia watershed from a thriving natural ecosystem of dense forests, streams,
and a river teeming with wildlife, into a bustling metropolitan area with a population of over
63,000 within the study area. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the agency
responsible for “planning orderly development of the national capital and the conservation of its
important natural and historical features,” identifies the maintaining of the cultural and historic
setting of the District’s “topographic bowl” as an overall goal in developing and redeveloping
various areas of the city.
1
The ridgeline that surrounds the center of the city creates a natural
bowl that allows a variety of views into and out of the city. The AWI Viewsheds Plan (Figure 3-
4) depicts important views in the study area. Additionally, preservation of the green setting of the
Anacostia Hills is an NCPC objective. The Anacostia Hills are the eastern ridge of the
topographic bowl, which runs roughly east of the Anacostia Freeway. Strategies for preserving
these cultural, natural, and historic views include limits on building height and location and use
of landscaping to frame or emphasize the vistas.

Several distinctive visual environments exist within the study area. The center of the study area
includes both sides of the Anacostia River and its surrounding parkland. The parkland itself
includes forested, wetland, and landscaped or turf areas. Some parts of the park include man-
made features such as playing fields, boat docks, recreational centers, and other structures to
support visitor use and park maintenance.


1
National Capital Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan for the Nations Capital, Federal Elements Draft,
2004.
Table 3-1
Archeological Sites
Site
Number Type Site Condition
51SE6 Prehistoric Contact Period/Multi-
Component
Unknown
51SE13 Prehistoric Unknown Unknown
51SE15 Unknown Unknown
51SE16 Prehistoric Quarry Disturbed
51NE1 Prehistoric Unknown Extensively disturbed/destroyed
51NE13 Unknown Unknown
51NE15 Prehistoric Woodland Period Camp/Multi-
Component
Extensively disturbed/possibly mapped in
wrong location
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-9


Anacostia Park is located amid many urbanized neighborhoods; each with a distinctive
architectural style that reflects its construction date. Typically, the residential neighborhoods
have medium- to high-density row houses and multifamily dwellings that were built between
1900 and 1950. East of the river, many of the original turn-of-the-century row houses and much
of the historical architecture remain. These older structures and neighborhoods are interspersed
with urban industry and retail and crisscrossed by an extensive network of local and arterial
roadways. The PEPCO plant is a large industrial site north of Benning Road. In park areas east
of the Anacostia River and north of East Capitol Street, the residential neighborhoods are visible
from the Park. South of East Capitol Street, the Anacostia Freeway separates the residential
neighborhoods from the park. Area residents and visitors can only experience the broad visual
quality of the study area through limited glimpses from the highway or one of the six bridges that
cross the river. However, a tree line along the Park’s eastern edge blocks the view of the
roadway from the park. Therefore, Anacostia Freeway does not dominate the visual and aesthetic
environment of the park.

West of the Anacostia River, Anacostia Park is visually and physically separated from the
residential neighborhood by institutional buildings such as the Washington Navy Yard, DC Jail,
The Stadium Armory, RFK Stadium and parking areas. The visual character of the study area is
urbanized with a mix of residential and recreational uses. Additionally, some of the streets on the
west side of the river and park are lined with large trees and have expanded intersections with
park areas, particularly those that travel towards the Capitol Hill area. The Washington Navy
Yard dominates the southern end of the study area visually. Large administrative facilities fill the
visual landscape, though the ships docked at the base provide a point of visual interest for
individuals with access to the attractive waterfront promenade on the naval base. RFK stadium is
located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Benning Road and the Anacostia River;
this structure is noteworthy because it is a visual feature on the western shore of the Anacostia
due to its size.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-10



Fig 3-3 ARW Archaeological Sites


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-11



Fig 3-4 ARW Viewsheds


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-12



3.7 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

Approximately 70 percent of the Anacostia Watershed has been developed, and only 25 percent
of the watershed’s original forest cover still exists. Similarly, within the Park and ARW area, 23
percent of the land has original forest tree cover (District of Columbia, 2003b). Anacostia Park
covers over 1,200 acres, and despite the loss of forest cover and other natural features over the
last two centuries, it still consists predominantly of ‘green space’ and includes several habitat
types that support a diverse variety of flora and fauna species.

The presence of a riparian floodplain, emergent and forested wetlands, and particularly the
Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens and Kenilworth Marsh provide a unique natural environment in an
otherwise urban area. The Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens is the only National Park facility used to
grow and display aquatic plants. The gardens were created in 1882 and were purchased by the
Federal Government in the 1930s to be incorporated into Anacostia Park. The Kenilworth Marsh
is the District’s last tidal marsh and provides an opportunity for environmental study and
education. Although the marsh has degraded over time due to pollution and dredge and fill
activities, it still supports a diversity of wetland plant and wildlife species that are unusual in an
inner city (NPS, 2004c).

According to the AWI Framework Plan, the northern half of the study area (roughly the area
north of the CSX rail line) is an area where maximum habitat and environmental integrity should
be promoted because this area is less impacted by development than the area south of the CSX
rail line. The southern half of the study area is targeted primarily for maximum habitat and
environmental integration by promoting sustainable development that would have a minimum
impact on the Anacostia River and its floodplain.

The field investigation for the wildlife and habitat investigation covered a corridor ranging
between 100 feet and 400 feet wide along the proposed ARW alignments.

3.7.1 Habitat

The alignments would extend through several different habitat types within Anacostia Park. In
certain habitats, invasive vegetation such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and tree
of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) threaten to compromise the native flora and fauna of the park. A
description of the habitat types within the study area, including the dominant flora, follows.

Riparian Buffers: Portions of the Anacostia floodplain, particularly in areas north of Benning
Road, are heavily forested, providing a natural riparian buffer that protects the river from
erosion, filters stormwater runoff, and provides habitat for a number of species. However, a
significant portion of the Anacostia floodplain is developed or open turf. The AWI outlines a
plan for creating a natural riparian buffer in these areas that would provide similar functions as
the forested buffer north of Benning Road. A description of the types of vegetation identified in
emergent and forested wetlands as well as in upland forests within the riparian buffer is
presented in the following sections.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-13



Emergent Wetlands: Several emergent wetlands that support diverse biotic communities are
located within the Anacostia River floodplain, both west of the River between the Whitney
Young Memorial Bridge and the Benning Road Bridge, and east of the River between the
Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge and the CSX railroad bridge. Plant species that dominate
these wetlands include: broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis),
shallow sedge (Carex lurida), blunt broom sedge (Carex tribuloides), water bentgrass (Agrostis
semiverticillata), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), swamp rosemallow (Hibiscus moscheutos),
curly dock (Rumex crispus), and devil’s beggar ticks (Bidens frondosa).

Forested Wetlands: NPS identified several forested wetlands within the Anacostia River’s
riparian buffer north of Benning Road. These wetlands provide habitat for a number of flora and
fauna species. Plant species that dominate these wetlands include: red mulberry (Morus rubra),
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), blunt broom sedge (Carex
tribuloides) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).

Upland Forests: The proposed ARW would also extend through areas of upland forest within
the Anacostia River riparian buffer, north of Benning Road. Plant species that dominate these
forests include: tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), red mulberry (Morus rubra), black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia), tartarian honeysuckle, willow oak (Quercus phellos), box elder (Acer
negundo), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), northern catalpa (Catalpa speciosa), silk tree
(Albizia julibrissen), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra).

Landscaped Areas: There are several areas of maintained right-of-way along roadways and
bridges that cross the study area, and several maintained recreational fields within the study area.
Typical vegetation in these areas includes Gramineae grass species, white clover (Trifolium
repens), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata).

Meadows: There are 27 acres of actively managed meadows within the Park; another 15 acres
exist in the Kenilworth Gardens.

3.7.2 Wildlife

National Capital Parks-East has documented 191 bird, 50 butterfly, 23 fish, 20 reptile, 18
amphibian, and 17 mammal species as either residents within or migrants passing through
Anacostia Park. Local predators include red and gray fox (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon
cinereoargentus), raccoons (Procyon loter), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), red-tailed hawks (Buteo
jamaicensis), and transitory bald eagles (Haliaetus leucocephalus). Other species include
opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), gray squirrels (Sciurus caroliniensis), and various species of
bats, butterflies, dragonflies, snakes, turtles, migratory songbirds, and waterfowl.

Field investigations identified evidence of the following species in their respective habitats:

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-14


• Various species of amphibians, including marbled salamanders (Ambystoma opacum),
red-spotted newts (Notophthalmus viridescens), and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer),
in both emergent and forested wetlands;
• Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) in forested uplands;
• Black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) on the RFK access road;
• Eastern tiger swallowtail butterfly (Papilio glaucus) in upland fields;
• Mammals including red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) in forested uplands, and beaver (Castor canadensis) in forested wetlands;
• Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) in emergent wetlands and floodplain fields;
• Egret species in open water of the Anacostia;
• Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
in maintained fields;
• Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) in the Anacostia riparian buffer;
• Great blue heron (Ardea herodias Linnaeus) and double-crested cormorant
(Phalacrocorax auritus) flying over the Anacostia;
• Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos), rough-winged
swallow (Stelgidopteryx Baird), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), great black backed gull
(Larus marinus Linnaeus), laughing gull (Larus atricilla Linnaeus), and ring-billed gull
(Larus delawarensis) along the banks of the Anacostia;
• Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) in upland forests; and
• House sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris Linnaeus), and
gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) in developed areas of the park.

3.7.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) Species

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, requires each federal agency to ensure
that “any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the
Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with the affected States, to be critical, unless such
agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee.”

NPS corresponded with Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2004 to determine if any RTE species exist within the ARW
study area. The responses received from MDNR (Byrne, July 9, 2004) and USFWS (Moser,
September 14, 2004) indicated that no state or federally listed RTE species have been
documented as resident within the study area and the Park contains no Critical Habitat for
Threatened or Endangered Species.

3.8 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS

Wetlands and waterways (also referred to as “waters of the U.S.”) are resources protected under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
to issue a permit for activities that result in the discharge of dredge or fill material into wetlands
and waterways. Executive Order (EO) 11990, “Protection of Wetlands” further defines impacts
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-15


to wetlands to include indirect effects, provides a long-term goal of “no net loss of wetlands,”
and requires federal agencies to adopt procedures that ensure compliance with EO 11990.
National Park Service’s Director’s Order 77-1: Wetland Protection provides the framework for
NPS to meet its responsibilities in protecting and preserving wetlands in a manner that is
consistent with EO 11990 and states NPS’ longer-term goal of achieving a net gain of wetlands
on lands managed by NPS. DO 77-1 outlines NPS’ policies and procedures for avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands as well as preferred mitigation measures to compensate for
unavoidable impacts to wetlands.

USACE and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) define wetlands as areas that
are saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life
in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands typically include swamps, marshes, bogs, vernal pools, and
similar areas. “Waters of the U.S.” are defined by USACE as “coastal and inland waters, lakes,
rivers, and streams that are navigable waters of the United States, including their adjacent
wetlands” and “tributaries to navigable waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands”
(Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual [Environmental Laboratory, 1987]).

Due to development, it is estimated that approximately 2,500 acres of tidal emergent wetlands
have been lost along the Anacostia River from Bladensburg to the Potomac River. There are
approximately 100 acres of tidal emergent wetlands remaining along the Anacostia River
between Bladensburg and the confluence with the Potomac River, representing a loss of roughly
90 percent of the original wetlands that once existed (District of Columbia, 2003b).

NPS followed procedures outlined in Section 5.1 of the procedural manual, Wetland Inventories,
to identify wetlands and waterways subject to EO 11990 within a corridor that ranged between
100 feet and 400 feet wide along the proposed ARW alignments throughout Anacostia Park. The
Wetland Inventory was used in development of alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts to
wetlands. NPS reviewed published information to identify known wetlands and waterways in the
study area (including planned wetland creation/restoration projects). Because of the nature of the
project, NPS performed an enhanced inventory of wetlands and waterways, including ground-
truthing of published information and field delineation of wetlands, including incidental and
intentional artificial wetlands, within the study area. Artificial wetlands are defined in Section
4.2.B of DO 77-1 as wetlands that have formed in uplands resulting from human activities, and
include incidental systems such as artificial impoundments due to inadequate roadway drainage,
and intentional systems such as constructed ponds or reservoirs. NPS field delineated all
potentially jurisdictional wetlands not identified during the prefield investigation. All data
collection was performed according to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) using the routine on-site method. However, in accordance
with DO 77-1, NPS classified each wetland and waterway into system, subsystem, class, and
subclass according to Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States
(Cowardin, et al., 1979), and determined the functions and values of each system with respect to
the Anacostia watershed. A draft Wetland Delineation Report for the Proposed Anacostia
Riverwalk Trail (Straughan Environmental Services, Inc. [SES], 2004) that presents additional
details on the methodologies used and data collected is included as Appendix 4.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-16


3.8.1 Published Information

NPS reviewed the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map for Anacostia, DC-Maryland
(USFWS, 1981a) and the NWI Map for Washington East, DC-Maryland (USFWS, 1981b) to
identify potential wetlands within the study area. Both maps identify the Anacostia River as a
riverine, tidal, open water, permanent tidal (R1OWV) waterway adjacent to the ARW alignment.
Additionally, the NWI Map for Washington East, DC-Maryland identifies one palustrine,
forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally saturated (PFO1E) wetland and one palustrine,
aquatic bed, semi-permanent (PABF) wetland within the study area, north of New York Avenue,
and one palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous/emergent, narrow-leaved persistent,
seasonal tidal (PFO1/EM5R) wetland within the study area immediately south of New York
Avenue. The proposed ARW would also cross or parallel Lower Beaver Dam Creek, identified
on the NWI Map for Washington East, DC-Maryland as a riverine, tidal, open water, permanent
tidal, excavated (R1OWVx) waterway, and Watts Branch, identified on the NWI Map for
Washington East, DC-Maryland as a riverine, lower perennial, open water, intermittently
exposed/permanent, excavated (R2OWZx) waterway.

The District of Columbia Wetland Conservation Plan (District of Columbia, 1997) identifies
three wetlands within the study area. Wetland No. 1 is identified as a palustrine, forested,
broadleaved deciduous, saturated/seasonally saturated (PFO1B/E) wetland along Lower Beaver
Dam Creek at Kenilworth Courts. Wetland No. 20 is identified as a riverine, tidal, emergent,
non-persistent, regular (R1EM1N) wetland along the east bank of the Anacostia River,
immediately north of the Benning Road Bridge. Wetland No. 29 is identified as a palustrine,
emergent, persistent, seasonal (PEM1C) wetland within Anacostia Park at the 11th Street Bridge.
All of these wetlands were identified during field investigations.

The AWI outlines the District’s recent and planned wetland restoration and creation projects
along the Anacostia River, which include:

• Kenilworth Marsh, a 77-acre emergent wetland encompassing the Kenilworth Aquatic
Gardens. It is the District’s last tidal freshwater marsh. The USACE, USEPA, NPS, and
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) conducted a restoration
project in this area in 1992, adding an additional 32 acres to the site. This was the largest
tidal freshwater marsh restoration project to date.

• Watts Branch, a perennial stream flowing into the Anacostia River through the Park.
Watts Branch is being studied by community organizations and the DC Departments of
Health and Parks and Recreation in an effort to improve water quality. A new wetland
has already been constructed alongside the stream to capture and mitigate urban runoff.

• Approximately 31 acres of riparian wetland in the area between the PEPCO Power Plant
and Massachusetts Avenue. These wetlands have been restored in an effort to replace
some of the wetlands that were filled during development of the Park in the early 1900s.


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-17



The Soil Survey of District of the Columbia (USDA, 1976a) indicates that seven soil types occur
within the Washington, DC portion of the study area. These soils include Ponded Fluvaquents
(FD), the Galestown-Urban land (GeB) complex, the Galestown-Rumford (GfB, GfC) complex,
Iuka sandy loam (Ik), the Iuka-Urban land (Ip) complex, Urban land (Ub), and various types of
Udorthents soils. The Fluvaquents, ponded soils are listed in the District of Columbia Hydric
Soils List (USDA, 1976b), indicating that these are wetland soils.

The Soil Survey of Prince George’s County, Maryland (USDA, 1967a) indicates that two soil
types occur within the Prince George’s County portion of the study area. These soils include
Tidal Marsh (TM) and Swamp (Sx) soils. Both soil types are listed in the Prince George’s
County, Maryland Hydric Soils List (USDA, 1967b), indicating that these are wetland soils.

3.8.2 Field Investigation

In accordance with DO 77-1, NPS field delineated all wetland areas that could potentially be
impacted by any of the proposed alternatives and classified the systems according to Cowardin.
et al. (1979), and documented functions and values of delineated wetlands. Functions and values
considered by NPS include:

• Biotic functions such as fish and wildlife habitat, floral and faunal productivity, native
species and habitat diversity, and threatened and endangered species;
• Hydrologic functions such as flood attenuation, stream flow maintenance, groundwater
recharge and discharge, water supply, erosion and sediment control, water purification,
and detrital export to downstream systems;
• Cultural values such as aesthetics, education, historical values, archaeological values,
recreation, and interpretation;
• Research/Scientific values such as “reference sites” for research on unimpacted
ecosystems; and
• Economic values such as flood protection, fisheries, and tourism.

NPS identified 17 wetlands and 13 waterways during pre-field and field investigations that
provide flood storage, wildlife habitat, nutrient retention, and stream bank stabilization functions.
Wetlands in proximity to the proposed trail alignment are illustrated by Design Section in
Figures 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7. Table 3-2 provides locations and descriptions of each of the wetlands,
including their functions and values, identified within the study area. The DRAFT Wetland
Delineation Report for the Proposed Anacostia Riverwalk Trail (SES, 2004) is included in
Appendix 4.



Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-18



Fig 3-5 ARW Wetlands – Design Section 1


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-19



Fig 3-6 ARW Wetlands – Design Section 2


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-20



Fig 3-7 ARW Wetlands – Design Section 3


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-21



Table 3-2
Wetlands and Waterways Within the Study Area
Wetland/Waterway Type
Functions and
Values (see notes)
Size Within study
area Location
Wetland WL001 PFO1N A, B 5,679 square feet
Northeast of the John Phillip
Sousa Bridge exit ramp,
between the RFK Stadium
access road and the CSX rail
line, northwest of the
Anacostia River
Waterway WL001a
Ephemeral
channel A,B 63 linear feet
10 feet south of the Water
Street and M Street
Waterway WL002
Ephemeral
channel A,B 79 linear feet
1,200 feet northeast of the exit
ramp for the John Phillip
Sousa Bridge and immediately
east of the access road for
RFK stadium, northwest of the
Anacostia River
Wetland WL003 PEM1B A,B 1,861 square feet
800 feet south of Benning
Road and immediately west of
the Anacostia River
Wetland WP003a PEM1A A,B 634 square feet
800 feet south of Benning
Road and 100 feet west of the
Anacostia River
Wetland WP003b PEM1A A,B 682 square feet
800 feet south of Benning
Road and 200 feet west of the
Anacostia River
Waterway WL003c
Ephemeral
channel A,B 350 linear feet
750 feet south of Benning
Road and immediately west of
the Anacostia River
Wetland WP003d PEM1A A,B 3,282 square feet
1,100 feet south of Benning
Road and 100 west of the
Anacostia River
Waterway WL004
Ephemeral
channel A,B 48 linear feet
750 feet south of the Benning
Road Bridge and immediately
northwest of the Anacostia
River
Wetland WP005 PEM1B A,B 3,327 square feet
335 feet northeast of the 11th
Street Bridge and directly
southeast of Anacostia Drive,
east of the Anacostia River
Wetland WP005a PEM1A A,B 1,040 square feet
1,200 feet northeast of the
Frederick Douglas Memorial
Bridge and adjoining
Anacostia Drive to the
southeast, east of the
Anacostia River
Wetland WP005b PEM1B A,B 396 square feet
South of the Officer Kevin J.
Welsh Memorial Bridge, west
of the Anacostia Park access
road, and east of the Anacostia
River
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-22


Table 3-2
Wetlands and Waterways Within the Study Area
Wetland/Waterway Type
Functions and
Values (see notes)
Size Within study
area Location
Wetland WP006 PEM1B A,B 2,814 square feet
West of Anacostia Drive,
approximately 500 feet
northeast of the John Phillip
Sousa Bridge, and adjacent to
the east bank of the Anacostia
River
Waterway WL007
Ephemeral
channel A,B 924 linear feet
Impounded to the north by the
CSX rail line and to the south
by an access road originating
at Anacostia Drive, east of the
Anacostia River
Waterway WL008
Ephemeral
channel A,B 184 linear feet
Impounded to the north by a
CSX rail line and to the south
by an access road originating
at Anacostia Drive, 1050 feet
east of the Anacostia River
Waterway WL009
Ephemeral
channel A,B 200 linear feet
Approximately 230 feet
northwest of Anacostia Drive
and 1,250 feet east of the
Anacostia River, impounded
to the north by a CSX rail line
Wetland WP010 R1OWV A,B 26,510 square feet
Approximately 130 feet north
of the Benning Road Bridge,
west of the PEPCO plant,
along the east bank of the
Anacostia River
Waterway WL011
Ephemeral
channel A,B 50 linear feet
Approximately 1,500 feet
north of the Benning Road
Bridge and directly east of the
Anacostia River
Wetland WP011a PFO1A A,B
68,824.8 square
feet
Approximately 1,200 feet
north of the Benning Road
Bridge, along the eastern bank
of the Anacostia River
Waterway WL012
Perennial
stream A,B 30 linear feet
West of Anacostia Avenue,
approximately 300 feet south
of Douglas Street
Waterway WL013
(Watts Branch)
Perennial
stream A,B 203 linear feet
Approximately 4,600 feet
north of Benning Road and
east of the Anacostia River
Wetland WL014 PFO1E A,B,C,D 43,656 square feet
Approximately 770 feet east
of the Anacostia River, north
of the Kenilworth greenhouse
Waterway WL015
(Beaverdam Creek)
Perennial
stream A,B 1,387 linear feet
Adjacent to the south side of
the Pennsylvania rail line, near
the Washington, DC-Maryland
border
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-23


Table 3-2
Wetlands and Waterways Within the Study Area
Wetland/Waterway Type
Functions and
Values (see notes)
Size Within study
area Location
Wetland WL015a PFO1B A,BC 5,607 square feet
Approximately 1,200 feet east
of the Anacostia River,
parallel to Beaver Dam Creek,
and crossing over the District
of Columbia/Prince George’s
County, Maryland line
Wetland WL016 PFO1C A,B,C,D,E 149,839 square feet
Approximately 1,400 feet east
of the Anacostia River, north
of Anacostia Avenue and
south of the Pennsylvania rail
line.
Wetland WL017 PFO1J A,B,C,D 17,109 square feet
Approximately 100 feet north
of the Pennsylvania rail line
and east of the Anacostia
River
Waterway WL018
Perennial
stream A,B 127 linear feet
Approximately 80 feet south
of New York Avenue, and east
of the Anacostia River
Wetland WL019 PFO1H A,B,C,D 66,438 square feet
Approximately 130 feet north
of New York Avenue and 300
feet east of the Anacostia
River
Wetland WP019a PFO1N A,B,C,D 8,863 square feet
Approximately 50 feet north
of New York Avenue and 50
feet east of the Anacostia
River
Waterway WL020
Perennial
stream A,B 640 linear feet
Approximately 800 feet north
of New York Avenue and east
of the Anacostia River
Notes:

Legend:
PEM1A-
PEM1B-
PFO1A-
PFO1C-
PFO1E-
PFO1J-
PFO1H-
PFO1N-
R1OWV-
A = Biotic functions, B = Hydrologic functions, C = Cultural values, D = Research/Scientific values,
E = Economic values

Palustrine, emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, saturated
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded/saturated
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, intermittently flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, permanently flooded
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, regularly flooded, tidal
Riverine, tidal, open water, permanent tidal

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-24



3.9 FLOODPLAINS

The area of analysis for floodplains includes all of the zones transected by or waterward
(between the trail and the Anacostia River) of the proposed trail. This area of analysis reflects the
trail’s narrowness and the likelihood that impacts to floodplain drainage would occur in the area
immediately surrounding the trail.

Floodplain protection and management actions in units of the NPS are guided by Director’s
Order 77-2 and its implementing procedures in Procedural Manual 77-2: Floodplain
Management, that was developed to meet the requirements of E.O. 11988 “Floodplain
Management”. Development in the floodplain is also governed by rules established by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for administering the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In a 100-year event, floodplain drainage is designed so that
cumulative increase in water on the floodplain will not exceed 1 foot. Building codes are based
on this premise. Structures and facilities within NPS property need to be designed consistent
with the intent of the standards and criteria of the NFIP.

Portions of the proposed trail lie in areas within the 100-year floodplain of the Anacostia River
and it tributaries as depicted in Figure 3.8. Generally, the 100-year floodplain extends several
hundred feet from the river. Exceptions include the areas surrounding estuaries and tributaries of
the Anacostia River. Due to the trail’s proximity to the river, the mainline trail is predominantly
located within the 100-year floodplain. Portions of the trail that deviate far from the river’s path
and spurs that connect to other area trails tend to fall outside the 100-year floodplain.

The proposed construction of the trail within the 100-year floodplain is classified as a Class I
action as defined in DO 77-2 and is subject to the NPS floodplain policies and procedures.

3.10 WATER QUALITY

The lower Anacostia River is essentially an embayment of the Potomac River with very low
flow. Even though the lower 8.4 miles of the river are tidally influenced (2.9′ average tide
height), the river has a very poor flushing rate. Heavy siltation, accumulation of toxic metals and
organic chemicals in sediments, and sewage overflows all contribute to poor water quality in this
section of the river.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-25




Fig 3-8 ARW Area Floodplains


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-26




The Anacostia River and all but two of its tributaries are designated as Class A Waters (Primary
Contact Recreation) by the Federal water quality standards. The section of the Anacostia River
that lies along the project corridor has been classified by the District as an Impaired Segment
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and as a Region of Concern by the
Chesapeake Bay Program. Impaired Segments are waters that do not or are not expected to meet
water quality standards as given in the CWA. Pollutants of concern that have been listed in
Section 303(d) for the Anacostia River include BOD, bacteria, organics, metals, total suspended
solids, and oil & grease. Maryland’s 2002 Section 303(d) list includes the Anacostia River and
specifies excess nutrients, suspended sediment, bacteria, BOD, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and heptachlor epoxide as pollutants of concern. The EPA has established TMDLs,
which limit the amount of pollutants that can enter a water body, and a high priority has been
placed on controlling these factors along the lower Anacostia River.

There are 17 combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls located on the Anacostia River. The two
largest CSO outfalls are the Northeast Boundary CSO, which drains into the Anacostia near RFK
Stadium/ East Capitol Street), and the “O” Street Pump Station, just below the Navy Yard.
According to the Washington Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), approximately 2.1 billion
gallons per year flow into the Anacostia River from all CSO sources combined.

The existing Anacostia Drive stormwater drainage systems consists of curb and gutter collection
and appears to either discharge directly into the Anacostia River or through groundwater
infiltration.

3.11 CONTAMINATION

The study area for contamination includes the area within 50 feet of any of the alternative trail
alignments. This level of analysis was chosen to account for possible contaminant migration
from contaminated sites that may affect construction of trail alignments and public health and
safety. Any existing contamination outside this boundary should not affect the proposed project.

Investigations included a regulatory file review at the Washington DC Department of Health,
Environmental Health Administration Section, Water Quality Division, on August 20, 2004 and
a search of the EPA databases. In addition, a windshield survey of the project corridor was
conducted to identify potential sites not on regulatory databases that may present a
contamination risk to construction activities. A total of 14 sites have been identified as potential
contamination risks (Table 3.3). They are discussed further below. Figure 3.9 shows the location
of these sites. Appendix 5 contains the contamination information resulting from the reviews.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-27



Fig 3-9 ARW Potential Contaminated Sites


Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-28



ID Site Name Address ID Number
Contaminant of
Concern
Tanks
1 B&L Auto 631 Howard Road SE DCD 983970435
Hydrocarbons,
Solvents
AST
2 Washington Navy Yard 7
th
Avenue and M Street SW DC 9170024310
Metals, Solvents,
Hydrocarbons,
PCBs
- -
3 Anacostia Marina 1900 M Street DCD 983968538 Hydrocarbons - -
4
PEPCO Benning
Generating Station
3400 Benning Road DCD 983967951 Hydrocarbons AST
5 Support Terminal Services 1333 M Street SE DCD980350974
Hydrocarbons,
Solvents
- -
6
Kenilworth Park Landfill
Site
Deanne Avenue DCFSN0305462 PCBs, Metals, VOA - -
7 US Park Police 1900 Anacostia Drive SE DCD003254273
Hydrocarbons,
Solvents
AST/UST
8 Poplar Point 705 Howard Drive SE DCN000305662
Hydrocarbons,
Pesticides, Arsenic
AST/UST
9 Stadium Exxon 2651 Benning Road DC0000444539 Hydrocarbons UST
10 Huntley Limited Barney Circle Hydrocarbons UST
11 DC Armory (Nat. Guard) 2001 East Capitol Street SE Metals, Solvents - -
12 District Yacht Club 1409 Water Street Hydrocarbons AST
13 Barney Circle Landfill Barney Circle Metals - -
14 Washington Gas 1240 12
th
Street SE
Hydrocarbons,
Metals
AST
AST = Aboveground Storage Tanks UST = Underground Storage Tanks

Poplar Point: The Poplar Point site at 705 Howard Drive SE is listed on EPA’s CERCLIS
database. The EPA has evaluated the site and removed it from the National Priorities List in July
2002. Above ground (AST) and underground (UST) storage tanks for storage of hydrocarbon
products have been maintained on site. Pesticides were extensively used for many years. In an
environmental assessment conducted in 2003, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane), DDE
(dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) and arsenic were documented in soil samples and
groundwater monitoring wells throughout the site.

Kenilworth Park (former DC landfill): NPS owns the Kenilworth Park site, located on Deane
Avenue in Kenilworth Park. This site is listed on the EPA’s CERCLIS database for metal and
volatile organic contamination. From the late 1940s until the early 1970s, the site was used as a
landfill for waste generated within the District. In a soil sampling event conducted in 2002,
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, (PAHs), PCBs, arsenic, copper, magnesium, iron, lead, and
volatile organics were detected. In May 1999, EPA determined that a removal action was not
necessary and removed the site from the National Priorities List. The NPS is currently
conducting further assessment of the area to develop a remedial action plan.

Table 3.3
Contaminated Sites
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-29


Barney Circle Landfill: The Barney Circle Landfill Site is a 10-acre lot adjacent to the
Anacostia River in a primarily residential area of the District. From 1898 to 1935 municipal
waste and sediment from USACE dredging operations in the Anacostia River were deposited in
this site. In 1935, the property was transferred to the NPS. Instead of removing the contaminated
soil, other remedies such as onsite stabilization, erosion controls, and construction of barriers
were constructed in July 1997. The remedial action stabilized conditions at the site and has
prevented the continued migration of hazardous substances, particularly lead, into the adjoining
wetland and Anacostia River.

Washington Gas: The East Station site of Washington Gas at 1240 12
th
St. NE covers an area
of approximately 19 acres. A portion of the site within NPS property formerly contained the East
Station gas manufacturing plant. The plant was put into operation in 1888 and operated
continuously until 1948. Between 1948 and 1983, the plant was used only intermittently for
periods of peak gas demand. The plant was demolished in 1985 and the oil tanks were removed
in 1997.

Since 1976, Washington Gas has been pumping and treating ground water to remove the
dissolved organic constituents of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL). This DNAPL
largely consists of the manufacturing tars and petroleum oils that were by-products of the natural
gas production process. In 1993, a new ground water treatment facility was installed in the
treatment/office building on the East Station property. Washington Gas also pumps free-phase
DNAPL directly from five other recovery wells in which it naturally pools.

Washington Navy Yard/Southeast Federal Center: The Washington Navy Yard, located at
901 M Street SE, is listed on the EPA National Priorities List as a hazardous waste site and
numerous cleanup efforts have been undertaken. The wastes generated during the ordnance
production and shipbuilding activities that occurred on the site included metals, paints, cleaning
solvents, cyanide, phenols, creosote, various petroleum products, and PCBs. Releases of PCBs,
PAHs, and heavy metals have been documented on site and in the Anacostia River.

Remedial actions already underway or completed include: removal of contaminated sediments
(heavy metals and PCBs) from stormwater outfalls; razing of buildings contaminated with PCBs,
heavy metals, and asbestos; remediation of soil hot spots at 11 sites contaminated with heavy
metals and PCBs; seawall renovation at the Anacostia River; lead paint abatement; PCB and
mercury removal; and the rehabilitation of nearly six miles of stormwater and sanitary sewer
pipes.

US Park Police: The US Park Police facility located at 1900 Anacostia Drive NE has two
fueling facilities. A 12,000-gallon AST located near the US Park Police heliport is fairly new and
complies with current AST construction standards. The fleet fueling facility west of the US Park
Police building has one 10,000 gallon UST which was installed in 1996. Although no discharges
or contamination has been documented, the current condition of this tank is unknown and a
recent assessment has not been performed.

Other Sites: Several other potential sites are located nearby but present limited contamination
risk to construction activities based on distance to the site, level of documented contamination,
and/or limited construction activity in vicinity of the contaminated site. These include PEPCO
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-30


Benning Generating Station, DC Armory, Support Terminal Services, Huntley Limited, B&L
Auto, and Stadium Exxon.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-1


CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Environmental consequences associated with each of the alternatives were assessed in
accordance with National Park Service’s (NPS) Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning,
Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision-making as follows.

4.1 NEIGHBORHOODS

The potential effects of the proposed ARW alternatives on neighborhoods and communities are
defined below.

• Negligible – the effect would not be perceptible by neighborhood residents and would not
affect their quality of life.
• Minor – the effect would be noticeable to neighborhood residents and would result in
minor impacts or improvements to their quality of life and their access to the Anacostia
Park and its resources.
• Moderate – the effect would be noticeable to neighborhood residents and would result in
obvious impacts or improvements to their quality of life and their access to the Anacostia
Park and its resources.
• Major – the effect would substantially change neighborhood resident’s access to
Anacostia Park and its resources and would result in significant improvements or severe
impacts to their quality of life.

The No-Action Alternative would have a negligible effect on neighborhoods. All current access
to Anacostia Park and its resources would be maintained. Minor improvements associated with
normal maintenance and safety operation would be implemented by NPS.

The Action Alternatives would have a moderate benefit on the resident’s access to the Park and
resident’s overall quality of life. Benefits common to each of the Action Alternatives would
include:

• Increased connectivity between communities and park resources and facilities;
• Improved bicycle and pedestrian access to the Anacostia River, the Anacostia Park, and
other areas along the waterfront; and
• Improved bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Although the specific location of each proposed action alignment within park boundaries varies,
each provides improved pedestrian and bicycle connections to Anacostia Park from
neighborhoods adjacent to the Park as shown in Table 4.1.






Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-2


Table 4.1: ARW Connection Locations
Design
Section
Path Connections Communities that Would Benefit
1 Howard Road near South Capitol Street Barry Farms, Hillsdale, and Historic
Anacostia
1 Good Hope Road near the existing Anacostia Park
Entrance
Historic Anacostia and Fairlawn
1 The Anacostia Metro Station Barry Farms, Hillsdale, and Historic
Anacostia
1 Nicholson Street near the existing Anacostia Park
entrance
Fairlawn and Twining
1 DC Center for Therapeutic Recreation at G Street, SE Twining and Greenway
2 South side of Benning Road to Oklahoma Avenue Langston and Kingman Park
2 Intersection of C Street and Oklahoma Avenue along
the north side of East Capitol Street
Kingman Park and Lincoln Park
2 DC Armory at East Capitol Street Lincoln Park
2 South side of East Capitol Street to Independence
Avenue
Hill East
2 Intersection of 17
th
Street, SE and Barney Circle Barney Circle
2 M Street between 11
th
Street, SE and Barney Circle Washington Navy Yard and Near
Southeast
2 Water Street, SE from 12
th
Street, SE to M Street at
the Washington Navy Yard
Washington Navy Yard and Near
Southeast
3 Hayes Street to Minnesota Avenue Metro Station Mayfair-Parkside
3 Bladensburg Trail Colmar Manor and Bladensburg

Additionally, the ARW, with its continuous trail, would function as a link between certain
neighborhoods and neighborhood facilities. The trail would allow residents to bike or walk a
more direct path to existing park facilities, resulting in shorter, less circuitous routes to reach
local resources. Neighborhoods on the east side of the Anacostia River would have improved
access to:

• Anacostia Field House • DC Public School
• Anacostia Metro Station • Anacostia Park
• DC Center for Therapeutic Recreation • Fort Circle Parks
• Minnesota Ave Metro Station • Poplar Point
• Kenilworth Parkside Recreational Area and Park • Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens
• Bladensburg Waterfront Trail

Neighborhoods on the west side on the Anacostia River would have improved access to:

• Eastern Power Boat Club • Kingman Island
• District Yacht Club • RFK Stadium
• Seafearers Yacht Club • Langston Golf Course
• Washington Yacht Club • Anacostia Park
• Anacostia Community Boathouse

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-3


The ARW would not change access across the Anacostia River, and existing pedestrian bridge
crossings would remain.

4.2 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

The potential effects of the proposed ARW on park and recreational facilities are defined below.

• Negligible – the effect on parks and recreational facilities would not be perceptible to
visitors.
• Minor – the effect would be noticeable to visitors and would result in minor impacts or
improvements to park and recreational facilities.
• Moderate – the effect would be noticeable to visitors and would result in obvious impacts
or improvements to park and recreational facilities.
• Major – the effect would substantially change the visitors’ perception of the parks and
recreational facilities.

The No-Action Alternative would have a negligible effect on parks and recreational facilities in
the study area. Current access to and between Anacostia Park and associated recreational
facilities would be maintained. Minor improvements associated with normal maintenance and
safety operation would be implemented by NPS.

Trail alignments associated with the Action Alternatives would have a moderate effect on parks
and recreational facilities within the study area. Each would require minor conversions of land
from open space to a trail. The ARW would also allow new areas of the Park with different
environments to be accessible to visitors. Additionally, the Park would be more accessible to
visitors via Metro and from the various trails in the area.

4.3 VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

The potential effects of the proposed ARW on visitor use and experience are defined below.

• Negligible – the effect would not be perceptible by most visitors.
• Minor – the effect would noticeably change a few visitors’ experience and would result in
minor impacts or improvements in the quality of the experience.
• Moderate – the effect would noticeably change many visitors’ experience and would
result in obvious impacts or improvements in the quality of the experience.
• Major – the effect would substantially change many visitors’ experience and would result
in significant improvements or severe impacts in the quality of the experience, such as
the addition or elimination of a recreational opportunity or a permanent change in an
area.

The No-Action Alternative would have a negligible effect on visitor use and experience. Under
the No-Action Alternative, NPS would not construct a new trail or make any enhancements to
existing bike and pedestrian facilities. However, NPS would continue to maintain and operate
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-4


Anacostia Park and implement minor improvements as part of its normal maintenance and safety
operations.

The Action Alternatives would have a moderate, beneficial effect on visitor use and experience.
Each Action Alternative would supplement the existing trail system and provide additional
opportunities for bicycling, walking, and enjoying the river. Visitor experience would be
enhanced by the proposed ARW because it would provide safe and convenient means for park
visitors to enter the Park from the surrounding neighborhoods to enjoy the Anacostia waterfront
and Anacostia Park resources. The trail would also enhance visitor experience by improving
connectivity between activity centers in Anacostia Park.

4.4 AREA PLANNING DOCUMENTS

The potential effects of the proposed ARW on existing plans are defined below.

• Negligible – the effect would not require any adjustment or change in plan concepts.
• Minor – the effect would require a minor change in the siting of certain facilities but
would still conform to planning document concepts.
• Moderate – the effect would require a change of location or function of activity types but
the basic plan would remain intact. The action would not preclude implementation of
planning document concepts.
• Major – the effect would preclude implementation of plan concepts.

The No-Action Alternative would have a moderate effect on existing plans. Two main planning
documents, the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) and the draft Anacostia General
Management Plan concepts exist. The AWI plan suggests an extensive multi-use trail network in
the Anacostia area, and the No-Action Alternative would not support that concept. However, it
would not preclude the development of a trail network in the future. Because the Anacostia
General Management Plan is not yet finalized and the decision whether to implement the ARW
precedes scheduled finalization, there is no potential effect to the proposed plans. However,
based on the two draft management strategies, it would not preclude either concept.

The Action Alternatives would have a minor effect on existing plans. The trail network concept
in the AWI plan is longer and more extensive than the proposed ARW trail. The proposed trail
would be in a similar location and serve the same function as the trail concept in the AWI. It is
consistent with planning documents for the study area, which call for riverfront accessibility
improvements primarily focused on the Anacostia Park and other recreational facilities. It also
would not preclude trail additions in the future. The details of these plans are provided in
Appendix 4.

4.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES

Section 101(b)(4) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), as
amended, requires the Federal government to coordinate and plan its actions to, among other
goals, "preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage....” The
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-5


Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing regulations requires the consideration
of impacts on cultural resources either listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of
Historic Places.

Impacts to archaeological resources are described in terms of type, context, duration, and
intensity, which is consistent with the regulations of the CEQ that implement NEPA. These
impact analyses are also intended, however, to comply with the requirements of both NEPA and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR
Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties), impacts to archaeological resources are identified
and evaluated by (1) determining the area of potential effects; (2) identifying cultural resources
present in the area of potential effects that are either listed in or eligible to be listed in the
National Register of Historic Places; (3) applying the criteria of adverse effect to affected
cultural resources either listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register; and (4)
considering ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, a determination of either adverse effect or no adverse
effect must be made for affected National Register-eligible cultural resources. An adverse effect
occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any characteristic of a cultural resource
that qualifies it for inclusion in the National Register (e.g. diminishing the integrity of the
resource’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association). Adverse
effects also include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the preferred alternative that would
occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment
of Adverse Effects). A determination of no adverse effect means there is an effect, but the effect
would not diminish in any way the characteristics of the cultural resources that qualify it for
inclusion in the National Register.

4.5.1 Effects on Archaeological Resources

As noted in Section 3.6, archaeological resources along the Anacostia River are located primarily
on upper river terraces. Each ARW alternative primarily follows the low Anacostia river terraces
or is located within existing roadways on the upper terrace where possible, minimizing impacts
on known archaeological resources.

For purposes of analyzing impacts to archaeological resources either listed in or eligible to be
listed in the National Register, the thresholds of change for intensity of an impact are:

• Negligible – the effect would be at the lowest level of detection (barely measurable with
no perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial); for purposes of Section 106,
the determination of effect would be no adverse effect.
• Minor – the effect would result in minor disturbance of a site with little to no loss of
integrity or maintenance and preservation of a site; for purposes of Section 106, the
determination of effect would be no adverse effect.
• Moderate – the effect would result in disturbance of a site with a loss of integrity or
stabilization of a site. For purposes of Section 106, the disturbance of a site would be an
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-6


adverse effect. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is executed among the National
Park Service and applicable state or tribal historic preservation officer and, if necessary,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b). The
mitigation measures identified in the MOA reduce the intensity of impact from major to
moderate. For purposes of Section 106, the stabilization of a site would not be adverse
effect.
• Major – the effect would be disturbance of a site with a loss of integrity or active
intervention to preserve a site. For purposes of Section 106, the disturbance of a site
would be an adverse effect, and the National Park Service and applicable state or tribal
historic preservation officer are unable to negotiate and execute a MOA in accordance
with 36 CFR 800.6(b). For purposes of Section 106, the active intervention to preserve a
site would not be adverse effect.

A description of the potential impacts to each of the archaeological sites that are located within
the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for each of the design sections follows.

Design Section 1: In Design Section 1, NPS identified five archaeological sites (51SE6,
51SE13, 51SE15, 51NE13, and 51NE15) within the APE of both action alternatives. Four of
these sites (51SE13, 51SE15, 51NE13, and 51NE15) may be impacted by construction activities.
Sites 51SE6 is adjacent to a portion of the trail that would be located within existing pavement
on an NPS service road and would not be subjected to ground disturbance. This site may have
been disturbed by previous road construction but would not be impacted by any of the Action
Alternatives.

Design Section 2: Archaeological site 51SE16 also lies within the APE of the Action
Alternatives of Design Section 2. This site has been previously disturbed but would not be
impacted by construction activities associated with any Action Alternatives because the site is
located on the existing pavement of M Street and Water Street.

Design Section 3: In Design Section 3, NPS identified one archaeological site (51NE1) within
the APE of the Action Alternatives. This site is disturbed and possibly destroyed, according to
DC HPO site records. If not, this site would be impacted by construction activities with all
Action Alternatives.

For each alternative, the impacts to archaeological resources would be minimized and/or avoided
because the alternatives are:

• Located on the lower Anacostia River terrace. This is likely to preclude any impacts to
any of the archaeological sites, which are unlikely to occur in the lower terrace of the
river;
• Located within a narrow construction footprint that would involve minimal, shallow earth
movement and disturbance; or
• Located within existing roadway alignments where possible.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-7


However, further consultation with the DC HPO and the NPS to determine the National Register
eligibility and to determine the effects of each of the alternatives on archaeological sites would
be necessary before project alternatives are finalized.

4.6 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS

Analyses of the potential impacts on visual and aesthetic qualities of the park and surrounding
areas are defined below.

• Negligible – the effect would be localized and not measurable or at the lowest level of
detection.
• Minor – the effect would be localized and slight but detectable.
• Moderate – the effect would be readily apparent and appreciable.
• Major – the effect would be severely adverse and highly noticeable.

While the No-Action alternative would have negligible effects, construction of any of the build
alternatives would have positive visual and aesthetic impacts for the park and the surrounding
areas. The trail itself would provide a means for area residents and visitors to experience the
entire park as a ‘green space.’

A wide variety of river views are provided in areas where the trail meanders close to the river
and where the spurs built into each of the alternative alignments lead down to the waterfront.
Increased visibility of the river might also foster a sense of ownership, increasing awareness of
the Anacostia River’s pollution problem and leading to intensified clean-up efforts.

Construction of the trail would also result in a rehabilitation of areas immediately surrounding
the trail. New signage would be installed to facilitate connections with other area trails and
provide interpretive information at sites of natural, historic or cultural interest. Landscaping
would also be installed providing shade to the trail, vegetative screening from nearby roads and
highways, and a more natural environment. To avoid potential minor aesthetic impacts on Park
viewsheds, bridge structures and boardwalks would be designed to meet NPS Standards and to
blend with the surroundings and natural environment of the Anacostia Park.

Design Section 3: Design Section 3 is the only section that has alternatives with unique visual
impacts. Immediately north of Benning Road the alignments of Alternatives 3A (Preferred) and
3B continue north between the PEPCO plant and the river and then turn east following the
northern boundary of the DCDPW Trash Transfer Station to Anacostia Avenue NE. The
industrial aesthetics of the power plant and trash transfer station would be a visual imposition
upon trail users in this area and would need to be mitigated through creative design. This might
entail the use of a berm or vegetation as a visual buffer for trail riders. In the same portion of the
trail, Alternative 3C travels east along the north side of Benning Road. This is a major divided
roadway and would require that designers provide clear signage to insure the safety of users.
Physical barriers such as trees or bollards would also be used to spatially distance trails users
from the roadway.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-8


4.7 HABITAT AND WILDLIFE

The potential effects of the ARW on the study area’s habitat and wildlife are defined below.

• Negligible – no species of concern and/or their habitats are present; no impacts or only
temporary impacts are expected;
• Minor impacts – non-breeding animals of concern and/or their habitats are present, but
only in low numbers; no critical habitats are present; occasional disturbance to wildlife
may occur but would not impact feeding, nesting, or breeding;
• Moderate impacts – breeding animals of concern and/or their habitats are present;
animals are in vulnerable life stages; occasional mortality or interference with survival
activities are expected but would not threaten the species present;
• Major impacts – breeding animals are present in relatively high numbers and/or during
vulnerable life stages; habitat has a history of being used by wildlife during critical
periods and is somewhat limited; mortality is expected on a regular basis and could
threaten species survival.

Under the No-Action Alternative no construction or trail implementation would occur; therefore,
there would be negligible impacts to habitat and wildlife.

Design Section 1: The Action Alternatives for the proposed ARW would have negligible
impacts on habitats and wildlife within Design Section 1 because the trail would be constructed
mostly on existing turf or paved areas. The trail would be boardwalked over emergent wetlands
creating small areas of direct impacts. None of the Action Alternatives within Design Section 1
would permanently fragment habitats, or isolate or create barriers to wildlife migration or
movements because the trail is only 14 feet wide and it would be constructed either at-grade or
as a bridge, not on a berm that would create a blockage to wildlife movement.

Design Section 2: The Action Alternatives for the proposed ARW would have negligible
impacts on habitats and wildlife within Design Section 2 because the trail would be constructed
mostly on existing turf or paved areas. The trail would be boardwalked over emergent wetlands
creating small areas of direct impacts. None of the Action Alternatives within Design Section 2
would permanently fragment habitat, or isolate or create barriers to wildlife migration or
movements because the trail is only 14 feet wide, and it would be constructed either at-grade or
as a bridge, not on a berm that would create a blockage to wildlife movement.

Design Section 3: The Action Alternatives for the proposed ARW would have minor impacts
on habitats in Design Section 3 because the trail would encroach on forests and wetlands in the
northern portion of Section 3, between Anacostia Avenue and the Bladensburg Trail. The trail in
Section 3 would approach the river and cross over Lower Beaver Dam Creek as well as an
extensive area of forested wetlands. In this area, the trail would be an elevated boardwalk
structure to minimize impacts to riparian and aquatic habitats. Additionally, in some areas north
of Benning Road, the proposed ARW would pass through areas of upland forest; however,
because the trail would be less than 14 feet wide throughout its length, upland forest impacts
would be minor because construction of the trail would not create large openings in the canopy,
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-9


and NPS would use construction techniques requiring few tree takings. Occasional disturbances
to wildlife may occur when pedestrians and bicyclists use the trail; however, the species
inhabitating Anacostia Park are tolerant of human presence. None of the Action Alternatives
within Design Section 3 would permanently fragment habitat, or isolate or create barriers to
wildlife migration or movements because the trail is only 14 feet wide and it would be
constructed either at-grade or as a bridge, not on a berm that would create a blockage to wildlife
movement.

Construction Impacts: Various wildlife species, including small mammals, reptiles, and
several species of birds were identified throughout the study area. The effects of construction on
wildlife would be short-term and minor since species inhabiting Anacostia Park are acclimated to
urban noises and disturbances and any relocation would be temporary.


4.8 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED (RTE) SPECIES

NPS used the same criteria to assess impacts to RTE species as used in assessing impacts to
habitat and wildlife. NPS corresponded with Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2004 to determine if any RTE
species exist within the ARW study area. The response received from MDNR indicated that no
state- or federally-listed RTE species have been documented within the study area; however,
MDNR stated that “if appropriate habitat is available, certain species could be present without
documentation because adequate surveys have not been conducted” (Byrne, July 9, 2004). The
response received from USFWS (Moser, September 14, 2004) indicated that no federally listed
RTE species are documented within the study area with the exception of occasional transient or
migratory individuals. Based on these responses, the No Action Alternative and each of the
Action Alternatives are expected to have negligible impacts on RTE species.

4.9 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS

Impacts to tidal and non-tidal wetlands and waterways from the proposed Action Alternatives
would require approval by the NPS Regional Director, authorization from USACE, and for the
portions of the trail within the State of Maryland, the Maryland Department of the
Environment’s (MDE) Tidal Wetlands Division and Non-tidal Wetlands and Waterways
Division. The process for avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation is generally
consistent among these agencies, with the exception that NPS’ preferential sequence of
mitigation begins with restoration of degraded wetlands.

The criteria for impacts to wetlands and waterways varies among the USACE, MDE, and NPS
guidelines. Therefore, to determine level of impact, NPS will apply the strictest criteria to
evaluate impacts to wetlands and waterways. These criteria are summarized in the list below:

• Negligible – impacts to wetlands and waterways less than or equal to 0.1 acre would not
require mitigation under USACE, MDE, or NPS guidelines.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-10


• Minor – impacts to wetlands between 0.1 and 1.0 acre, or to less than 300 linear feet of
waterways, may require mitigation under all guidelines.
• Major – impacts to wetlands over 1.0 acre, or to more than 300 linear feet of waterways,
would require mitigation under all guidelines.

This project qualifies as an Excepted Action under DO 77-1, specifically described in Section
4.2.A.1.a of Procedural Manual 77-1 as “…scenic overlooks and foot/bike trails or boardwalks,
including signs, the primary purposes of which are public education, interpretation, or enjoyment
of wetland resources (not to include parking lots, access roads, and other associated facilities).”
The implementation of the preferred alternative would result in minimal impacts to wetlands and
would satisfy all criteria detailed in Appendix 2 of Procedural Manual 77-1 entitled “Best
Management Practices (BMPs)/Conditions” to be Applied When Proposed Actions Have the
Potential to Have Adverse Impacts on Wetlands that must be met in order for a project to qualify
as an Excepted Action. These include:
• Effects on hydrology: Action must have only negligible effects on site hydrology,
including flow, circulation, velocities, hydroperiods, water level fluctuations, and so on.
• Water quality protection and certification: Action is conducted so as to avoid degrading
water quality to the maximum extent practicable. Measures must be employed to prevent
or control spills of fuels, lubricants, or other contaminants from entering the waterway or
wetland. Action is consistent with state water quality standards and Clean Water Act
Section 401 certification requirements (check with appropriate state agency).
• Erosion and siltation controls: Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must be
maintained during construction, and all exposed soil or fill material must be permanently
stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
• Effects on fauna: Action must have only negligible effects on normal movement,
migration, reproduction, or health of aquatic or terrestrial fauna, including at low flow
conditions.
• Proper maintenance: Structure or fill must be properly maintained so as to avoid adverse
impacts on aquatic environments or public safety.
• Heavy equipment use: Heavy equipment use in wetlands must be avoided if at all
possible. Heavy equipment used in wetlands must be placed on mats, or other measures
must be taken to minimize soil and plant root disturbance and to preserve preconstruction
elevations.
• Stockpiling material: Whenever possible, excavated material must be placed on an upland
site. However, when this is not feasible, temporary stockpiling of excavated material in
wetlands must be placed on filter cloth, mats, or some other semipermeable surface, or
comparable measures must be taken to ensure that underlying wetland habitat is
protected. The material must be stabilized with straw bales, filter cloth, or other
appropriate means to prevent reentry into the waterway or wetland.
• Removal of stockpiles and other temporary disturbances during construction: Temporary
stockpiles in wetlands must be removed in their entirety as soon as practicable. Wetland
areas temporarily disturbed by stockpiling or other activities during construction must be
returned to their pre-existing elevations, and soil, hydrology, and native vegetation
communities must be restored as soon as practicable.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-11


• Topsoil storage and reuse: Revegetation of disturbed soil areas should be facilitated by
salvaging and storing existing topsoil and reusing it in restoration efforts in accordance
with NPS policies and guidance. Topsoil storage must be for as short a time as possible to
prevent loss of seed and root viability, loss of organic matter, and degradation of the soil
microbial community.
• Native plants: Where plantings or seeding are required, native plant material must be
obtained and used in accordance with NPS policies and guidance. Management
techniques must be implemented to foster rapid development of target native plant
communities and to eliminate invasion by exotic or other undesirable species.
• Boardwalk elevations: Minimizing shade impacts, to the extent practicable, should be a
consideration in designing boardwalks and similar structures. (Placing a boardwalk at an
elevation above the vegetation surface at least equal to the width of the boardwalk is one
way to minimize shading.)
• Wild and Scenic Rivers: Action cannot be "excepted" (see Section 4.2 of these
procedures) if proposed in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System or
in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the
system while the river is in official study status.
• Coastal zone management: Action must be consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with state coastal zone management programs.
• Endangered species: Action must not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened
or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, including degradation
of critical habitat (see NPS Management Policies (1988) and guidance on threatened and
endangered species).
• Historic properties: Action must not have adverse effects on historic properties listed or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

4.9.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
Following the guidance provided in Procedural Manual 77-1: Wetland Protection, NPS
quantified and evaluated potential direct and indirect impacts of various ARW alternatives on
wetlands and waterways delineated within the study area. NPS developed the ARW design
section alternatives by avoiding wetland impacts to the greatest extent possible and refined
alternatives to minimize the unavoidable impacts. Impacts include direct impacts such as fill and
shading and indirect impacts such as changes to hydrology. NPS minimized unavoidable
impacts to the greatest extent practicable by realigning the trail, reducing trail footprint, utilizing
low impact construction techniques, and maintaining hydrology through stormwater management
design that ensures overall hydrology that supports wetland systems.

The ARW would allow park users to view and appreciate the restoration projects planned
throughout Anacostia Park without impacting these sensitive areas. The ARW alternatives are
designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and waterways, especially those designated
for or currently undergoing restoration, such as Watts Branch, the Kenilworth Marsh, and the 31-
acre wetland mitigation site near the PEPCO power plant. None of the areas planned for
restoration would be impacted by the ARW. In areas where the trail would be placed in
landscaped or managed turf areas, it would meander around existing trees and wetlands to avoid
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-12


impacts to those resources. Additionally, elevated boardwalk structures would be used in areas
where the trail would pass over large wetlands or along the riverbank.

The wetlands and waterways identified during field investigations and the impacts expected from
the various alternatives are presented in Tables 4.2 to 4.4. The No-Action alternative would not
have any impacts to wetlands. Each Action Alternative would result in minor impacts to
wetlands and/or waterways. Tables 4.2 through 4.4 summarize the impacts associated with each
alternative in each design section for each wetland or waterway identified by NPS.


Table 4.2
Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways Within Section 1
Wetland/Waterway Type Alternative 1A Alternative 1B
Wetland WP005 PEM1B 508.7 square feet No impact
Wetland WP005a PEM1A No impact No impact
Wetland WP005b PEM1B No impact No impact
Wetland WP006 PEM1B 233.9 square feet 233.9 square feet
Waterway WL007 Ephemeral channel No impact No impact
Waterway WL008 Ephemeral channel No impact No impact
Waterway WL009 Ephemeral channel No impact No impact
Total Wetland Impacts (square feet) 742.6 233.9


Table 4.3
Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways Within Section 2
Wetland/Waterway Type Alternative 2A Alternative 2B
Wetland WL001 PFO1N
No impact No impact
Waterway WL001a Ephemeral channel
No impact No impact
Waterway WL002 Ephemeral channel
233.3 square feet 233.3 square feet
Wetland WL003 PEM1B
No impact No impact
Wetland WP003a PEM1A
No impact No impact
Wetland WP003b PEM1A
No impact No impact
Waterway WL003c Ephemeral channel
No impact No impact
Wetland WP003d PEM1A
No impact No impact
Waterway WL004 Ephemeral channel
No impact No impact
Total Wetland Impacts (square feet) 233.3 233.3










Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-13


Table 4.4
Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways Within Section 3
Wetland/Waterway Type Alternative 3A Alternative 3B Alternative 3C
Wetland WL010 R1OWV 1473.2 square feet N/A No impact
Waterway WL011 Ephemeral channel No impact No impact No impact
Wetland WP011a PFO1A No impact No impact No impact
Waterway WL012 Perennial stream No impact No impact No impact
Waterway WL013
(Watts Branch)
Perennial stream No impact No impact No impact
Wetland WL014 PFO1E No impact No impact 13632.8 square feet
Waterway WL015
(Beaverdam Creek)
Perennial stream 1291.7 square feet 1291.7 square feet 1291.7 square feet
Wetland WL015a PFO1B 276.5 square feet No impact N/A
Wetland WL016 PFO1C 55.1 square feet 2942.3 square feet N/A
Wetland WL017 PFO1J No impact No impact No impact
Waterway WL018 Perennial stream No impact No impact No impact
Wetland WL019 PFO1H No impact No impact No impact
Wetland WL019a PFO1H 812.5 square feet 812.5 square feet 812.5 square feet
Waterway WL020 Perennial stream 1014.5 square feet 1014.5 square feet 1014.5 square feet
Total Wetland Impacts (square feet) 4923.5 6061 16,751.5

Construction Impacts: Most impacts to wetlands and waterways resulting from construction
would be temporary. Boardwalks through wetland areas would be constructed in a low-impact
manner. This would entail setting the first boardwalk pilings from an adjacent non-wetland area
and then proceeding with construction of the trusses and planking to complete an initial portion
of the boardwalk. The work would then proceed linearly, with all construction equipment using
newly constructed boardwalk as a working platform to extend the trail through the wetland. All
construction equipment would remain within the ultimate footprint of the trail. Activities in these
areas may cause a temporary disturbance; however, the construction of the boardwalk areas
would not lead to a significant loss of wetland.

4.10 FLOODPLAINS

The potential intensity of floodplain impacts were derived from the available information on
Anacostia Park, including available flood rate insurance maps. Impacts on floodplains are
defined as follows:

• Negligible – floodplains would not be affected, or changes would be either non-
detectable or if detected, would have effects that would be considered slight and local;
• Minor impacts – changes in floodplain would be measurable, although changes would be
small, and the effects would be localized. No mitigation measure associated with water
quality or hydrology would be necessary;
• Moderate impacts – changes in floodplain would be measurable and would be relatively
local. Mitigation measures associated with water quality or hydrology would be
necessary and the measures would likely succeed; or
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-14


• Major impacts – changes in floodplain would be readily measurable, would have
substantial consequences that would be measurable and widespread. Mitigation measures
would be necessary and their success would not be guaranteed.

All of the Alternatives in each of the Design Sections have portions of their alignments within
the 100-year floodplain of the Anacostia River. The No Action alternative would have no impact
on existing flood elevations and the existing floodplain’s function would remain unchanged.

Due to the large floodplain area and its topography the encroachment potential of the project is
anticipated to be negligible. The trail footprint is narrow and would be constructed at-grade
except in areas where an elevated boardwalk structure is employed to minimize impacts to
wetlands and maintain conveyance of drainage ditches. Except for Alternative 2 in Design
Section 1, this project would not involve the replacement or modification of any existing
drainage structures under any of the alternative alignments. The road relocation in Alternative 2
of Design Section 1 would require fill and new drainage structures; however, since this system
would essentially replace the existing stormwater management system for this portion of
Anacostia Drive no change in hydraulics is anticipated.

The proposed trail and associated structures would perform hydraulically in a manner equal to or
greater than the existing structure, and backwater surface elevations are not expected to increase.
Boardwalk areas would allow flood waters to pass unobstructed through the pilings. As a result,
there would be no significant adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.

There would be no significant change in flood risk, and there would not be a significant change
in the potential for interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation
routes as the portions of the trail alignments located within the 100-year floodplain are not
through roads.

Any impacts of the trail construction on floodplain values would be minimized and mitigated.
Therefore, the construction of any of the alternative trail alignments is not anticipated to have
any significant impacts on floodplains. However, due to the classification of the proposed action
within the floodplain as a Class I action, the NPS procedure for implementing DO 77-2:
Floodplain Management requires that a Statement of Findings (SOF) be prepared for these
actions within a regulated floodplain.

The NPS Procedural Manual 77-2: Floodplain Management lists actions that are excepted from
additional procedures in compliance with floodplain management requirements. These excepted
actions include foot trails. However, the proposed Riverwalk would include paved sections for
bicycle use, and would also be wider than a foot trail. Therefore, a draft SOF has been prepared
and is attached to this EA in Appendix 6.

4.11 WATER QUALITY

The effects on water quality within the Anacostia watershed are defined as follows:

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-15


• Negligible – stormwater management systems would not be affected or changes would be
either non-detectable or if detected, would have water quality effects that would be
considered slight and local;
• Minor impacts – changes in stormwater management systems would be measurable
although changes would be small, and the effects on water quality would be localized. No
mitigation measure associated with water quality or hydrology would be necessary
• Moderate impacts – changes in stormwater management would be measurable and effects
on water quality would be relatively local. Mitigation measures associated with water
quality or hydrology may be necessary; or
• Major impacts – changes in stormwater management would be readily measurable and
effects on water quality would be measurable and widespread. Mitigation measures
would be necessary.

The AWI outlines the District’s plan for improving water quality in the vicinity of the Anacostia
River. Restoration projects include daylighting streams, which involves taking a stream out of a
buried pipe and re-forming a natural channel. This process improves water quality, provides
increased habitat, and enhances public space. Watts Branch is one stream within the Anacostia
watershed that has been daylighted, and plans are currently underway to improve water quality in
the stream. The ARW trail would cross or parallel tributaries of the Anacostia, providing park
users an opportunity to appreciate the efforts made to improve water quality within the
watershed. The trail would cross these tributaries on existing crossings or along boardwalks,
avoiding impacts to the waterways.

The quantity and quality of stormwater runoff is not expected to be significantly affected by any
of the proposed build alternatives. Each alternative in each of the design sections would have
similar increases in impervious area. Alternatives in Design sections 1, 2 and 3 would result in
approximately 6.5 acres,

3.7 acres,

and 3.7 acres of increased impervious area, respectively. One
exception, Alternative 3C in Design Section 3, would result in approximately 1.4 fewer acres of
increased impervious area. Anacostia Park is comprised of over 1,200 acres and this increase in
impervious area would account for approximately one percent of the total area. Furthermore,
although impervious areas would be increased with the proposed project, the increased pollutant
load resulting from a bicycle/pedestrian trail would be minimal. In addition portions of the trail
would be constructed on boardwalks allowing opportunity for stormwater to pass under or
through the structure.

The No-Action alternative would not provide for opportunities to upgrade the drainage features
of the existing stormwater management system. The construction of the trail would either allow
stormwater to sheet flow across the trail or utilize existing or upgraded drainage features. The
Anacostia Drive relocation in Alternative 1B of Design Section 1 would require new drainage
structures; however, since this system would essentially replace the existing stormwater
management system for this portion of the road, no change in hydraulic capacity is anticipated.
Therefore, the proposed trail would have no impact on stormwater conveyance. The proposed
stormwater design would include, at a minimum, the water quality requirements for water quality
impacts as required by the DC Department of Health, Watershed Protection Division. Therefore,
no further mitigation for water quality inputs would be needed.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-16



Construction Impacts: To avoid water quality impacts during construction, a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Best Management Practices
(BMPs) such as the placement of silt fences would be employed throughout construction.

4.12 CONTAMINATION

The analysis of potential contamination impacts on the trail placement were derived from
available information on sites within the vicinity of the AWR, including available regulatory
databases. Impacts from contamination are defined as follows:

• Negligible –After a review of all available information, there is nothing to indicate
contamination would be an issue. Public health and safety would not be affected, or the
effects would be at a low level of detection and would not have an appreciable effect on
the public health or safety.
• Minor impacts – The former or current operation deals with hazardous materials;
however, based on all available information there is no reason to believe there would be
any involvement with contamination. The effects would be detectable but would not
have an appreciable effect on the public health or safety.
• Moderate impacts – After a review of all available information, indications are found that
identify known soil and/or water contamination and that remediation would be required.
The effects would be readily apparent and would result in a noticeable effect on the
public health or safety.
• Major impacts – After a review of all available information, there is a potential for
contamination issues. The effects would be readily apparent and would result in
substantial noticeable effect on the public health or safety on a regional scale.

The alternative alignments vary only slightly horizontally, therefore, minimization of
contamination concerns for trail construction through the selection of an alternative alignment is
not an option. The No- Action Alternative will have no involvement with contaminated sites.

The general risk of contamination affecting this project from the sites assessed in this report is
minimal despite the proximity of some of the sites to the proposed alternatives. Of the sites listed
in Table 3.3, some have documented on-site contamination but the contamination is not expected
to extend into the project area due to the location of the contaminant plume. These sites include
Poplar Point Nursery, US Park Police, PEPCO Benning Generating Station, Barney Circle
Landfill, DC Armory, Washington Navy Yard, and Kenilworth Park Landfill. Other sites, such
as The District Yacht Club, Anacostia Marina, Washington Gas, Support Terminal Services,
Huntley Limited, B&L Auto, and Stadium Exxon are sites that may have contamination that
potentially lie within the proposed alignments and may affect trail construction.

Analytical results of groundwater and soil sampling events indicated that contaminants at the
Poplar Point Nursery, Kenilworth Park Landfill, and the Barney Circle Landfill sites have
stabilized and should represent minimal contamination threats for trail construction and users.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-17


Information from a file review of the PEPCO Benning Generating Station indicates that
chemicals used and stored onsite as well as above ground and underground storage tanks are
outside the area of analysis for contamination. Therefore no impacts from contamination are
expected to occur as a result of the construction of the trail in this area.

Some construction impacts can be minimized by the avoidance of areas of known and/or
suspected contamination during the design of the drainage and lighting improvements. A Phase
II investigation may be performed to verify the type and extent of contamination present. Where
drainage and lighting improvements cannot be avoided in the areas of concern, technical special
provisions may be included in the plans to require that the construction activities performed in
these areas be performed by a contamination contractor.

4.13 PERMITTING

4.13.1 Habitats

The State of Maryland established a Forest Conservation Act (FCA) in 1991 to provide
protection for the State’s trees and forests. The FCA requires the identification of forest stands,
protection of high priority stands in sensitive areas, and protection of large (specimen) trees.
However, because the entire Maryland portion of the trail would be within Maryland’s
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, this portion of the trail woud not be subject to the FCA but would
have to adhere to the forest preservation requirements of the state’s Critical Area Law and
Criteria. Mitigation in the form of reforestation or afforestation is required for unavoidable
impacts to forest stands. Mitigation for any forest or vegetation cleared for construction of the
trail would be a ratios of: 1:1 for clearing up to 20% of the parcel; 1.5:1 for clearing up to 30%;
and 3:1 for clearing in excess of 30% of the parcel.

4.13.2 Wetlands and Waterways

Based on the impact analysis presented in Section 4.10, Wetlands and Waterways, construction
of the proposed ARW would require approval from the USACE and MDE (for those portions in
Maryland) for impacts to wetlands and waterways. This approval would be in the form of a
permit authorizing the unavoidable impacts from the project. USACE and MDE may require
mitigation for these impacts. This mitigation would likely be through restoration of degraded
wetlands based on NPS’ sequence of preferred mitigation. NPS would coordinate with USACE
and MDE to select an appropriate degraded wetland site at which the mitigation would be
performed. The amount of mitigation would be detailed in the permit but would likely not exceed
a 3:1 mitigation ratio. None of the alternatives would require more than 1.0 acre of wetland
mitigation.

A request would be submitted to the Baltimore District of the USACE to conduct a Jurisdictional
Determination (JD) to verify wetland and waterway boundaries within the ARW study area.
Once a field visit with USACE is conducted and the wetland survey approved by the USACE,
the permitting process would begin.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-18


For most wetland impacts, NPS requires a Statement of Findings (SOF) to be submitted with an
EA as well as mitigation for impacts. However, certain projects including “foot/bike trail or
boardwalks, including signs, the primary purpose of which are public education, interpretation,
or enjoyment of wetland resources” are exempted from the SOF and mitigation requirements
(NPS, 2002).

Lower Beaverdam Creek may be considered by the US Coast Guard (USCG) to be "navigable
waters". This determination would occur after formal review by the USCG District having
regional jurisdiction. NPS would initiate this process by sending a letter of inquiry and
accompanying information to the Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District. The USCG
would then make an official determination. If the creek were determined to be "navigable
waters," NPS would submit a Bridge Permit Application to the Coast Guard to obtain approval
for the portion of the boardwalk crossing Lower Beaverdam Creek.

4.13.3 Water Quality

For water quality protection during construction, EPA administers and issues the NPDES permit
for stormwater discharge from construction sites. As part of this permit a SWPPP would be
developed that details BMPs to minimize and control the effects of erosion during construction
activities.

Additional water quality permits would be required from Department of Health, Watershed
Protection Division for any stormwater discharge associated with the completed trail project.
Stormwater discharge quantities and quality would be dictated by Department of Health
guidelines.

4.14 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

A cumulative effects analysis was conducted to evaluate secondary impacts and cumulative
effects on the environment which may result from the ARW project and other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future actions related to the project. Guidance for this action was obtained
from NPS’ 2001 guidelines, Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
Analysis, and Decision-making, and the Council of Environmental Quality’s 1997 guidelines,
Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Using this
guidance, NPS conducted the analysis using the following steps.

4.14.1 Scoping

At a June 2, 2004 ARW scoping meeting agency representatives indicated wetland, floodplain,
and water quality issues were of concern. On the basis of these concerns, NPS identified that the
most appropriate geographic boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the watershed of the
Anacostia River. The basis for this decision is recognition that all potential stresses associated
with the interrelated wetlands, waterways, and floodplains are reflected at the watershed level. It
was determined to use watershed data as a basis for evaluating cumulative effect because the
watershed boundary would encompass all of the areas vulnerable to cumulative effects. A
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-19


temporal boundary of 2025 was identified. Many recent, District planning documents, including
the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) Plan, guide development in the Anacostia River area.
These plans forecast growth and development for a 20-25 year time frame.

4.14.2 Resource Characterization

The 173-square mile Anacostia River watershed spans Maryland’s Montgomery and Prince
George’s counties and the District. The upper portion of the watershed is relatively free-flowing
and converges in Bladensburg where the tidal river begins and flows through the District for just
over 8 miles. Generally, land use in the watershed is highly urbanized, with the most intense
development in the portion of the watershed that lies within the District (approximately 17
percent of the watershed). Originally forested, water quality in Anacostia began to degrade with
early European settlement when land uses were converted to agriculture. Without the forest to
control the quantity and quality of stormwater, the Anacostia River became filled with silt. In
spite of dredging and other strategies, the broad and deep watered Anacostia was transformed
into a narrow channel surrounded by low lying wetlands. After the turn of the 19
th
Century, these
wetlands were filled to form Anacostia Park, a key element of the McMillan Plan for the city at
that time. In addition to having dramatically altered drainage patterns, the District and Prince
George’s County became urbanized in a period when stormwater and raw sewage were routinely
routed to waterways without treatment. Since the passing of the Clean Water Act, the local
jurisdictions have worked to correct that situation. However, the Anacostia River remains highly
polluted; indicators of aquatic health show that the watershed does not meet clean water or
natural resources goals (refer to Section 3.5 for a discussion of water quality in the Anacostia
River). Urbanization has also resulted in impervious areas that approach 50 percent of the
watershed land cover. Studies have shown that when impervious surface levels are above 25
percent, stream quality degrades appreciably. In most cases, habitat structures needed to support
fish and aquatic insects are eliminated, water quality falls to poor levels, and biodiversity is
reduced such that only pollution-tolerant species can exist
1
. Watersheds, such as the Anacostia
Watershed, that in this category are considered highly impacted and not vulnerable to future
development.

4.14.3 Cumulative Effects

NPS considered whether the proposed ARW would trigger connected projects and determined
that there would be little potential for the project to induce development outside of the Park. In
addition, construction of a trail would not require construction of supporting facilities such as
additional parking lots. Future activities in the watershed include the projects listed in AWI plan,
as well as planned park improvements such as repairing internal park roads. However, most of
these projects would redevelop existing developed areas and would include modern
environmental preservation strategies such as:

• Riparian buffers along portions of the river’s shore
• Managed meadows along portions of the shore

1
Zielinski, Jennifer. Center for Watershed Protection. January 2002. Watershed Vulnerability Analysis.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-20


• Woodland buffers along the highway
• Naturalized, or bio-engineered, shorelines
• New wetlands
• Restored tributary streams
• Green development practices
• Environmentally sensitive landscaping

Analysis of direct effects indicated that the proposed ARW would cause direct impacts to
wetlands, water quality, and floodplains.

• Wetlands – the ARW would impact less than half an acre of wetland. These impacts
would be mitigated so no loss of wetland functions and values would occur in the
watershed. Wetland impacts would be mitigated during the permitting process and by
adhering to existing NPS directives.
• Water quality – the Action Alternatives would increase the amount of impervious
area by approximately 14 acres. However, this increase would be insignificant in a
watershed that approaches 50 percent impervious surfaces. Water quality impacts
would be offset by a required stormwater management plan.
• Floodplains – The proposed trail and associated structures would perform
hydraulically in a manner equal to or greater than the existing structures and
roadways, and backwater surface elevations are not expected to increase. As a result,
there would be no significant adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain
values.

Based on the level of direct impacts, in the overall context of the highly degraded watershed and
future opportunities for mitigation, the potential for cumulative effects is insignificant.

4.15 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 4.5 provides a summary of the impacts resulting from each alternative for each design
section. Table 4.6 compares the effectiveness of the alternatives in meeting the needs and
objectives of the project.

No or negligible impacts are expected for air quality, agricultural lands, Indian Trust resources,
environmental justice, socio-economic environment, community services, park operations, noise,
and rare, threatened or endangered species under any of the alternatives. For all environmental
parameters analyzed the No-Action Alternative would result in no impacts. Under all build
alternatives, positive impacts would occur with respect to neighborhoods, visitor experience, and
visual/aesthetic quality of the park.

There are a minor effects associated with impacts to master plans, wildlife and habitat, wetlands,
floodplains, archaeological sites, wildlife and habitat, and contaminated sites under all build
alternatives. Moderate impacts would also be associated with parks and recreational facilities and
water quality under all build alternatives.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-21


Standard precautions would be implemented during construction, including monitoring by
qualified professionals as necessary, to avoid impacts relative to these issues. All build
alternatives would directly impact wetlands as detailed in Tables 4.2 through 4.4. A conceptual
mitigation plan will be developed and implemented in accordance to NPS procedures.

The No-Action alternatives for each of the Design Sections do not meet any of the needs or
objectives of the project. All of the Action alternatives meet the basic needs of the proposed
project , where applicable.
Table 4.5 Environmental Impacts Summary Matrix
ALTERNATIVES
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
P
a
r
k
s

a
n
d

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
V
i
s
i
t
o
r

U
s
e

a
n
d

E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
A
r
e
a

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
A
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

a
n
d

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

S
i
t
e
s
V
i
s
u
a
l

a
n
d

A
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
H
a
b
i
t
a
t

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
R
a
r
e
,

T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d

a
n
d

E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
F
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s
W
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Design Section 1
Alternative 1A Moderate+ Moderate Moderate+ Minor Negligible Moderate+ Negligible Negligible Minor- Negligible Minor Negligible
Alternative 1B Moderate+ Moderate Moderate+ Minor Negligible Moderate+ Negligible Negligible Minor- Negligible Minor Negligible
No-Build Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate- Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Design Section 2
Alternative 2A Moderate+ Moderate Moderate+ Minor Negligible Moderate+ Negligible Negligible Minor- Negligible Minor Negligible
Alternative 2B Moderate+ Moderate Moderate+ Minor Negligible Moderate+ Negligible Negligible Minor- Negligible Minor Negligible
No-Build Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate- Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Design Section 3
Alternative 3A Moderate+ Moderate Moderate+ Minor Minor- Moderate+ Minor- Negligible Minor- Negligible Minor Negligible
Alternative 3B Moderate+ Moderate Moderate+ Minor Minor- Moderate+ Minor- Negligible Minor- Negligible Minor Negligible
Alternative 3C Moderate+ Moderate Moderate+ Minor Minor- Moderate+ Minor- Negligible Minor- Negligible Minor Negligible
No-Build Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate- Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
+/-= Positive(Benefits)/Negative(Adverse) Impacts
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-23




Table 4-6 Needs and Objectives Matrix
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
Needs No-Action 1A 1B No-Action 2A 2B No-Action 3A 3B 3C
Pedestrian/Bicycle access to the park √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Connection to Non-Major Arterial Roads √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Connection to METRO stations √ √ N/A N/A √ √ √
Eliminate need to cross roads within the park √ √ N/A N/A √ √ √
Improve Safety/Suitability for Bicycling and Walking √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Provide Separate Facilities for Bicyclists/Pedestrians √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Continuous Trail Between Major Park Areas √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Connect ARW to Regional Trails √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Opportunities for Extended Cycling and Walking √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Objectives No-Action 1A 1B No-Action 2A 2B No-Action 3A 3B 3C
Provide Access to the Riverfront √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Provide Access to the Park for Neighborhoods √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Trail Proximity to the River √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 5: Preferred Alternative 5-1


CHAPTER 5: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Based on the issues discussed in the Purpose and Need (Chapter 1) the alternative ARW
alignments were confined to NPS park land and DDOT ROW and routed primarily through
Anacostia Park. With agency support, the ARW study team identified several project objectives
that led to the rejection of some alternatives and guided the selection of others:

• Access to the Anacostia River and Anacostia Park;
• Desired viewsheds from the trail;
• Physical connectivity to local communities, transportation infrastructure, and local and
regional trails;
• Proximity to the river; and
• Providing improved access to important park features, including recreational facilities
and areas of natural and cultural interest.

Using these criteria, several alternative trail alignments were considered but rejected. Three
refined alternatives that met the needs and objectives and that were significantly different from
each other have been identified. Unless one of these alternatives provided distinct advantages
over another relative to the stated objectives, the Preferred Alternative was the one that
minimized impacts across the range of all environmental impacts analyzed. The following is a
brief comparison of all alternatives within each design section. The discussion will explain the
rationale behind the selection of the Preferred Alternative for each Design Section.

5.1.1 Design Section 1

The only location in Design Section 1 where the alternatives differ is in the area between 11
th

Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. In Alternative 1A, the Preferred Alternative, Anacostia Drive
would be shifted to the east and the trail would hold the existing western alignment of Anacostia
Drive. In Alternative 1B, the trail is routed through the narrow strip of land between Anacostia
Drive and the river and elevated boardwalk sections are used to minimize impacts to the bank
slope. The potential for negative impacts as a result of routing the trail so close to the stream
bank was the factor that most heavily influenced the choice of the Preferred Alternative in this
area.

5.1.2 Design Section 2

The primary difference between Alternatives 2A and 2B for Design Section 2 is in the area along
Water Street. Under Alternative 2A, the trail alignment would move away from Water Street and
closely parallel the existing riparian vegetation in the areas between Eastern Power Boat Club
and District Yacht Club and between the District Yacht Club and the terminus of Water Street at
M Street. Under Alternative 2B, the shared use trail would remain adjacent to Water Street until
it joins M Street.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 5: Preferred Alternative 5-2


For Design Section 2, Alternative 2A was selected as the Preferred Alternative. The rationale
behind this request was to take advantage of the open green space between Water Street and the
river, bringing trail users to the waterfront, thereby achieving an identified ARW objective.

5.1.3 Design Section 3

Alternative 3A was selected as the Preferred Alternative for Design Section 3. This selection was
based on the difference in alignment from Benning Road to Kenilworth Terrace and the amount
of wetlands impacted under each alternative in the area from Anacostia Avenue to Bladensburg
Trail. Alternative 3A routes the trail around the north side of the PEPCO Plant and the DCDPW
Trash Transfer Station, and avoid using Benning Road to connect to Anacostia Avenue. This is
preferred due to the safety concerns associated with Benning Road, which is marginally suitable
for non-vehicular traffic. Also, Alternative 3B had the greatest impact to wetlands.

5.2 MITIGATION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will be determined through coordination with the
regulatory agencies. Potential wetland mitigation may include restoration on park land or credits
from an approved wetland mitigation bank.

Additionally, as a result of more than two centuries of development that did not incorporate
environmental controls, the Anacostia River has become seriously degraded. To correct the
problem, regulatory agencies now require environmentally sensitive and sustainable design
strategies, also known as low-impact development, to be incorporated in all new and
redevelopment projects in the watershed. NPS is committed to conservation, and as a major land
steward in the watershed, development of the ARW would allow NPS to lead by example in the
use of these techniques.

Stormwater management areas will be developed in accordance with regulatory requirements;
therefore, water quality impacts will be insignificant and mitigation will not be required.
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 6-1
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


6.1 HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In March 2000, 20 Federal and District agencies having jurisdiction and/or interest along the
Anacostia River formulated and signed the AWI Memorandum of Understanding. The District’s
Office of Planning (DCOP) is the coordinating agency for the AWI, but the NPS, the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), the District’s Department of Parks and Recreation, and the DDOT
play significant roles in the planning required to realize many of the AWI’s objectives. A
complete list of the parties involved in the AWI Memorandum of Understanding is given in
Appendix 1. A brief listing of the extensive AWI public involvement process through Fall 2003
is given in Appendix 7.

Coordination specific to the ARW included an initial Agency Scoping period and subsequent
Scoping Meeting. Agencies that participated include the NPS (National Capital Parks - East), the
DC Sports and Entertainment Authority (DCSEA), DDOT, DC Department of Environmental
Health, DC Department of Public Works, DCOP, DC Department of Parks and Recreation,
National Capital Planning Commission, Washington Metro Area Transit Authority, Prince
George’s County [Maryland], Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, and the Maryland Department of Transportation.

Additionally, as this project is one of the many addressed in the 2003 Federal Workplan for the
Anacostia River Watershed, multiple agencies have reviewed it in the context of ecosystem
management and restoration efforts on federal lands within the Anacostia River watershed.
Participating groups and agencies include the USACE; EPA; Chesapeake Bay Program; the
Federal Agencies Committee (FAC) of the Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC).

6.1.1 Public Outreach

The target of the outreach effort is the leadership in Ward 7 and parts of Ward 6. Specifically,
Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner commissioners and commissioners-elect in ANC 6B,
7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D; presidents and presidents-elect of civic associations and resident councils;
elementary, middle and high school principals; clergy; key businesses; social service agencies,
individuals who have expressed specific interest in the project and city staff with responsibilities
for neighborhood-level planning.

A public hearing to elicit public comment on the Environmental Assessment is scheduled for
January 6, 2005. The public hearing will be held from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. at the Marshall Heights
Community Development Corporation offices at 3939 Benning Road NE in Washington, DC.
MHCDC is located on the east side of the Anacostia River near the geographic center of the
study area. The public hearing will be preceded by an open house.

On December 13, 2004 approximately 175 individuals received an email invitation to attend the
public hearing. On December 17, 2004 a subsequent email that included information about the
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 6-2
availability of the environmental report was distributed. The email requests that individuals who
are interested in attending to RSVP to the invitation. December 20-22 telephone calls will be
placed to all individuals for whom there are phone numbers available, with a reminder of the
public hearing. In late-December, a signed invitation from the District Department of
Transportation will be made to the entire mailing list. Following the distribution of the letter
another round of telephone calls will be placed to all individuals who have received invitations to
the public hearing. January 3-6 a final round of reminder calls will be made to those individuals
who have accepted the invitation.

The environmental document is posted for public review on the District Department of
Transportation (http://ddot.dc.gov under Transportation Studies) and National Park Service
(www.nps.gov/anac) websites. The document is also posted on the official project website,
www.arwstudy.com. The project website includes the document as well as the capacity to accept
public comments. The public review period will be open for comments for 30 days and
comments will be accepted until January 20, 2005. The comments will be summarized and
reviewed by the study team for consideration in preparation for the final environmental
document.

6.2 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PROJECT TEAM

National Park Service

Patrick Gregerson, Chief of Planning

Stephen W. Syphax, Chief Resource Management Division

Michael P. Wilderman, Resource Management Specialist

District of Columbia Department of Transportation

Allen Miller, P.E., Project Manager

T.Y. Lin International

Darin Bryant, P.E., Project Manager
BS in Civil Engineering

Robert W. Carter, PhD, Environmental Scientist
BS in Applied Biology, PhD in Marine Biology

Jon Dunlop, Environmental Scientist
BA in History, BS in Environmental Science

Colin P. Henderson, Environmental Manager
BS in Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, MS in Environmental Engineering

Matt Martin, P.E., Senior Engineer/Project Manager
BS in Civil Engineering
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 6-3
Eric Mongelli, Civil Engineer
BS in Urban Planning

Steve Moore, Environmental Scientist
BS in Environmental Science, MS in Entomology

Straughan Environmental Service, Inc.

Jennifer Bird, Environmental Scientist
BS in Environmental Science

Alverna Durham, Planner
BS in Industrial Technology

Eileen B. Hughes, AICP
BA in Urban Studies

Leyla E. Lange, Senior Scientist
MS in Marine-Estuarine Environmental Sciences, BS in Natural Resource Management

Chimere Lesane-Matthews, Planner
BS in Civil Engineering

Sarah Michailof, Cultural Resources Specialist
BA in Anthropology and Biology

Steven J. Quarterman, Environmental Scientist
BA in Biology with a minor in Environmental Science and a MEM in Resource
Ecology/Conservation Biology

Russell Ruffing, Director of Operations
BS in Environmental Resource Management


6.3 LIST OF RECIPIENTS

Kristina Alg
DC Commission on Fine Arts
401 F Street, NW
Suite 312
Washington, DC 20001-2728

Don Mauldin
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21230

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 6-4
Robert Gore
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715

Alexis Grant
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401

Dave Washburn
US Fish and Wildlife Service
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035

Jordan Branem
US Coast Guard
2100 2
nd
Street, SW
G-ITA, Room 3416
Washington, DC 20593

Regina Eslinger
Chief, Project Evaluation Division
Critical Area Commission
1804 West Street, Suite 100
Annapolis, MD 21401

Ed Sheldahl
Federal Highway Administration
1990 K Street, NW
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20006

Scott D. Whipple
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crownsville, MD 21032-2032

Rob Nieweg
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1785 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 6-5



Peggy Armstrong
National Capital Revitalization Corporation
1801 K Street, Suite 1210
Washington, DC 20006

John Imparato
US Navy
Corporate Information Management
HQ, Naval District Washington
Code NOOI
Washington, DC 20374

William Dowd
National Capital Planning Commission
401 9
th
Street, NW
North Lobby, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20576

Gary C. Thresher
DC Public Schools
Office of Facilities Management
1709 3rd Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

Jim Connley
Anacostia Watershed Society
4302 Baltimore Ave
Bladensburg, MD 20710 1031

Peter Hill
DC Department of Public Health
825 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

Uwe Brandes
DC Office of Planning
801 North Capitol Street, NE
Suite 4000
Washington, D.C. 20002

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 6-6



Michael Lucy
DC Department of Parks and Recreation
3149 16
th
Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20010

Warren Graves
DC Sports and Entertainment Commission
RFK Memorial Stadium, SE
Washington, D.C. 20003

A. Davis
DC Fisheries and Wildlife Division
51 N Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

Sean Garvin
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Sylvia Ramsey
Maryland Department of Transportation
7201 Corporate Center Drive
Hanover, MD 21076

Eileen Navera
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Bi-County Office
6611 Kenilworth Avenue
Riverdale, MD 20737




Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 7: References 7-1

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES

7.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baumgardt, Kenneth. 1994. A Phase II Cultural Resource Survey for the Anacostia River Basin
Environmental Restoration Project, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties,
Maryland and Washington, District of Columbia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Planning Division, Baltimore District. Baltimore, MD.

Bromberg, Francine Weiss. 1989. Anacostia Park from a Historical and Archaeological
Perspective. Washington, D.C: Engineering-Science. Report submitted to Fleming
Corporation, DeLeuw, Cather Professional Corporation.

Byrne, Lori A. July 9, 2004. Personal Correspondence. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) Annapolis, MD. Letter to Jennifer Bird, Straughan Environmental
Services, Inc.

Capitol Hill Business Improvement District website. 2004. http://www.capitolhillbid.org.

CH2M Hill. November 2002. FFA Final, Phase II Remediation Investigation, Washington Navy
Yard, Washington D C. Herndon, VA.

Clinton, William J. 1994. Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Washington, DC.

Code of Federal Regulations, 36CFR2.12. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Resource Protection, Public Use and Recreation. Audio disturbances.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC.

Cultural Tourism, DC website. 2004. http://www.culturaltourismdc.org.

District of Columbia Department of Health. 2004. Environmental Health Administration
regulatory files. Water Quality Division. Greg Hope, Branch Chief.

District of Columbia Office of Planning. 1999. The District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan.
Washington, DC.

District of Columbia Office of Planning. 2000. East of the River Plan. Washington, DC.

District of Columbia Office of Planning. 2002. District of Columbia Strategic Neighborhood
Action Plan Neighborhood Cluster 22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,34, and 37.
Washington, DC.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 7: References 7-2

District of Columbia Office of Planning. 2003. Anacostia RiverParks Target Area Plan &
Riverwalk Design Guidelines.

District of Columbia Office of Planning. 2003. The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework
Plan. Washington, DC.

District of Columbia Office of Planning. 2004. DC Geographic Information Systems website:
http://www.dcgis.dc.gov. Washington, DC.

District of Columbia Office of Planning. 2004. Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road Master
Plan. Washington, DC.

HUBZone Program website. 2004. https://eweb1.sba.gov/hubzone/internet.

Hydro-Terra, Inc. March 1999. Additional Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Study, Phase
IV, East Station, Washington D C. Columbia, MD.

Maryland Department of the Environment. 2004. MDE Air Information Center website.
http://www.mde.state.md.us/Air/index.asp.

Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. 2004. Prince George’s County,
Maryland Brief Economic Facts.

Maryland State Highway Administration. 2004. Integrating Community Impact
Assessment/Public Involvement. Baltimore, MD.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 2004. Plan to Improve Air Quality in the
Washington, DC-MD-VA Region, State Implementation Plan, Severe Area SIP.
Washington, DC.

National Park Service. 2003. Anacostia Park General Management Plan Newsletter.
Washington, DC.

National Park Service. 2004. Director’s Order 12 Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
Analysis and Decision Making.

National Park Service. 2003. Director’s Order 77-1 Wetland Protection

National Park Service. 2003. Director’s Order 77-2 Floodplain Management

National Park Service. 2004. National Capital Parks-East website.
http://www.nps.gov/nace/anacostia.com.

National Planning Commission. 1997. Extending the Legacy: Planning America’s Capital for the
21
st
Century. Washington, DC.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 7: References 7-3

Overbeck, Ruth. Not dated. Anacostia Park: 10,000 Years of Human Habitation. Unpublished,
draft manuscript prepared for National Park Service, National Capital Parks – East.

Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources. 2002. Phase I Archeological
Identification Survey of the Anacostia Wetlands Creation Project.

Ridolfi, Inc. June 2003. Site Characterization Report, Poplar Point Nursery, Washington D C.
Seattle, WA.

State of Maryland. 1990. State of Maryland Hydric Soils List. Annapolis, MD.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1967. Prince George’s
County, Maryland Hydric Soils List. Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1967. Soil Survey of Prince
George’s County, Maryland. Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1976. Soil Survey of
District of Columbia, Maryland. Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1976. District of Columbia
Hydric Soils List. Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. Washington,
DC.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. CERCLIS Database Website.
www.epa.gov/enviro/html/cerclis/cerclis_query.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Enviromapper Website.
www.epa.gov/enviro/html/em/index.html

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. National Wetlands Inventory Map for Anacostia,
DC-Maryland. Washington, DC.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. National Wetlands Inventory Map for Washington
East, DC-Maryland. Washington, DC.

United States Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 3 SF3 – Sample Data.

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service. 2003. Anacostia Park News.

United States Department of the Interior. 1995. PEP Environmental Compliance Memorandum
No. ECM 95-3.

Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 7: References 7-4

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2001.
Washington, DC: Metropolitan Greenways and Circulation Systems case study.
Washington, DC.

United States National Arboretum. 2000. United States National Arboretum Revised Master
Plan. Washington, DC.

Washington, DC Marketing Center. 2003. Washington, DC by the Numbers. Washington, DC.

Washington DC A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary website. 2004.
http:www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dcneighbor.htm.

WETA exploredc.org Gateway to America’s Capital website. 2004. http://www.exploredc.org.

7.2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
APE Area of Potential Effects
ARW Anacostia Riverwalk Trail
AST Aboveground storage tank
AWI Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
AWRC Anacostia Watershed Restoration Commission
BID Business Improvement District
BMP Best management practices
BOD Biological oxygen demand
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CEA Central employment area
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CSO Combined sewer overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
DBA Decibels measured on an A-weighted scale
DC Washington, District of Columbia
DCDPW District of Columbia Department of Public Works
DCHPO District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office
DCOP District of Columbia Office of Planning
DCSEA District of Columbia Sports and Entertainment Authority
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDOT District of Columbia Department of Transportation
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane
District Washington, District of Columbia
DNAPL Dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DO Director’s Order
EA Environmental Assessment
Anacostia Riverwalk Environmental Assessment December 2004


Chapter 7: References 7-5

EO Executive order
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
ESF Environmental Screening Form
FAC Federal Agencies Commission
FCA Forest Conservation Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management System
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HUB-Zone Historically underutilized business zone
ID Identification
JD Jurisdictional determination
LID Low Impact Development
LOD Limits of disturbance
MHT Maryland Historic Trust
MD Maryland
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources
MHCDC Marshall Heights Community Development Corporation
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCPC National Capital Planning Commission
NCP-East National Capital Parks East
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Park Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Park Anacostia Park
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
PEPCO Potomac Electric Power Company
Riverwalk Anacostia Riverwalk
RFK Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium
ROW Right of way
RTE Rare, threatened or endangered
SES Straughan Environmental Services, Inc.
SNAP Strategic Neighborhood Action plan
SWMPP Stormwater pollution prevention plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UST Underground storage tank
USDA US Department of Agriculture
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
VOA Volatile Organic Aromatics
WASA Washington DC Water and Sewer Authority
FI GURE 1-1 ANACOSTI A RI VERWALK REGI ONAL MAP









WASHINGTON D.C.
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
tu
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
270
495
495
95
295
95
295
95
395
66
§¨¦
66
396
355
185
390
97
650
50
4
5
210
P

O

T

O

M

A

C
N
R
E
V
I
R
I
A
A
T
S
O
C
A
R

I

V

E

R
¯
Study Area
DCOP 2003
Prince George's GIS
ARW
Source:
0 1.5 Miles










FI GURE 1-2 ANACOSTI A REGI ONAL TRAI LS
WASHINGTON D.C.
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
0 1.5 Miles
¯
Study Area
I
n
d
i
a
n

C
r
e
e
k
P
a
i
n
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
S
l
i
g
o

C
r
e
e
k
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
N
I
A
A
T S
O
C
A
R
E
V
I
R
PROPOSED ARW
R
o
c
k

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
a
i
l
s
(
s
t
y
l
i
z
e
d
)
W
A
B
A

B
i
k
e

R
o
u
t
e
Mal l Vi c i ni t y Tr ai l s
F
o
r
t
C
i r
c
l e
T
r
a
i l
(
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
Anac ost i a Wat er shed Tr ai l s
WABA Bi k e Rout e
O
h
i
o

D
r
i
v
e

T
r
a
i
l
C& O Tow pat h
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
T
r
a
i
l

(
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y

T
r
a
i
l
B
e
a
v
e
r
D
a
m
C
re
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
F
o
r
t

C
i
r
c
l
e

T
r
a
i
l

(
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
S
u
i
t
l
a
n
d
Par k w ay Tr ai l
H
e
n
s
o
n

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
a
i
l
F
o
r
t

C
i
r
c
l
e

T
r
a
i
l

(
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
O
x
o
n

R
u
n

T
r
a
i
l
M
o
u
n
t

V
e
r
n
o
n

T
r
a
i
l
DCOP 2003
Prince George's GIS
ARW Source:
P

O

T

O

M

A

C
R

I

V

E

R







W A S H I N G T O N D C
S
O
U
T
H

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
H
O
W
A
R
D

R
O
A
D
1
1
t
h

S
T
R
E
E
T
ANACOSTI A
METRO
STATI ON
ANACOSTI A
NAVAL
STATI ON
ANACOSTIA
FIELD
HOUSE
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
A

N
A

C

O

S

T

I
A
NPS SERVICE RO
AD
FORT
DUPONT
PARK
G

S
T
R
E
E
T
C
S
X
R
R
BOAT
RAMP
R I V E R
N
I
C
H
O
L
S
O
N

S
T
R
E
E
T
RFK
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
STADI UM
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
I
A

F
W
Y
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
I
A

D
R
I
V
E
G
O
O
D

H
O
P
E
R
O
A
D
¯ DCOP 2002
Source:
ARW Alt 1a Alt 1b
0 0.2 0.4 0.1 Miles
Figure 2-5 ARW Alternatives - Design Section 1
Western edge of ARW
Alternative 1a alignment
to hold the existing western
alignment of Anacostia Drive
Eastern Alignm
ent of Proposed Relocated Anacostia Drive Alt 1a
WASHINGTON DC
A

N

A

C

O

S

T

I

A
R
I V
E
R
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
1
1
t
h

S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
C
S
X
R
R
W
ATER
STR
EET
M

S
T
R
E
E
T
S
E
A
F
A
R
E
R
S
Y
A
C
H
T C
L
U
B
1
7
t
h

S
T
BARNEY
CIRCLE
R
F
K
S
T
A
D
IU
M
S
E
R
V
IC
E
R
O
A
D
DC
ARMORY
C

S
T
R
F
K
S
T
A
D
IU
M
S
O
U
T
H
P
A
R
K
IN
G
L
O
T
K
I
N
G
M
A
N

I
S
L
A
N
D
OKLAHOMA AVE
M
A
S
S
A
C
H
U
S
E
T
S


A
V
E
RFK
STADI UM
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
I
A

F
W
Y
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
IA
D
R
IV
E
WASHI NGTON
NAVY
YARD
¯
DCOP 2002
Source:
ARW Alt 2a Alt 2b
0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles
Figure 2-6 ARW Alternatives - Design Section 2
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
Y
A
C
H
T C
L
U
B
DISTRICT
YACHT
CLUB
EASTERN
POWER
BOAT
CLUB
ANACOSTIA
MARINA
(closed)
M

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
te
r S
tre
e
t
Eastern
Power
Boat
Club
District
Yacht
Club
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N

D
C
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
I A
R
I V
E
R
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
KENILWORTH AVE
KENILWORTH TERR
ANACOSTIA AVE
F
O
O
T
E

S
T
H
A
Y
E
S

S
T
OUTFALL
PEPCO
PLANT
KENI LWORTH
PARK
LANDFI LL
DCDPW
TRASH
TRANSFER
STATI ON
NPS
MAI NTENANCE
YARD
J
A
Y

S
T
W
A
T
T
S

B
R
A
N
C
H
L
E
E

S
T
MI NNESOTA AVE
METRO STATI ON
4
0
t
h

S
T
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
IA
A
V
E
KENI LWORTH
AQUATI C
GARDENS
A
M
T
R
A
K

R
R
N
E
W

Y
O
R
K

A
V
E
L
O
W
E
R

B
E
A
V
E
R

D
A
M

C
R
E
E
K
Q
U
A
R
L
E
S

S
T
¯
DCOP 2002
Source:
ARW Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c
0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles
Figure 2-7 ARW Alternatives - Design Section 3
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
Washi ngt on D.C.
# *
#*
#*
#*
# *
# *
#*
# *
# *
# *
# *
# *
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
Bar r y Far m
Hi l l sdal e
Hi st or i c
Anac ost i a
Fai r l aw n
Tw i ni ng/Gr eenw ay
Near
Sout heast
Washi ngt on
Navy
Yar d
Hi l l
East
Li nc ol n
Par k
Ki ngman
Par k
Bar ney
Ci r c l e
Langst on
Ri ver Ter r ac e
Mayf ai r
East l and Gar dens
Keni l w or t h
Cent r al NE
Figure 3-1 ARW Project Location
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N

D
C
P
O
T
O
M
A
C
R
I
V
E
R
RFK
S
O
U
T
H

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
National
Arboretum
¯
DCOP 2002
NPS 2002
Prince George's Co. GIS
Source:
0 0.5 1 0.25 Mile
A
nacostia
R
iv
e
r
ARW
#*
Typical ARW Access Points and Approaches
1/4-Mile Buffer
Neighborhoods with Direct Access
#*
Col mar Manor /
Bl adensbur g
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N

D
C
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
I
A
R
I V
E
R
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
S
O
U
T
H

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
Washi ngt on D.C.
ANACOSTIA FWY
A
M
T
R
A
K

R
R
Figure 3-2 ARW Area Parks
P
O
T
O
M
A
C
R
I
V
E
R
For t
Dupont
Par k
For t
St ant on
Par k
N
E
W

Y
O
R
K

A
V
E
RFK
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N

D
C
§¨¦
295
Li nc ol n
Par k
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
H
i
l
l
East
Pot omac
Par k
1
1
t
h

S
t
C
S
X
R
R
For t Ci r c l e Par k s
Fr eder i c k
Dougl ass
Nat i onal
Hi st or i c Si t e
For t
Chapl i n
Par k
For t
Mahan
Par k
¯
0 0.5 1 0.25 Mile ARW Anacostia Park
DCOP 2002
NPS 2002
Prince George's Co. GIS
Source:
Other Parks
Popl ar
Poi nt
A
n
a
c
o
s
t i a
P
a
r k
Anac ost i a Par k
Pavi l i on
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e

a
n
d
K
i
n
g
m
a
n

I
s
l
a
n
d
s
Langst on Gol f Cour se
Keni l w or t h
Aquat i c
Gar dens
Nat i onal Ar bor et um
Eastern
Power
Boat Club
District
Yacht
Club
S
e
afarers
Y
acht C
lu
b
Bl adensbur g
Par k
A
n
a
c
os t i a Ri v
e
r
Sai nt
El i zabet h' s
Hospi t al
Anacostia Community Boathouse
Wat t s
Br anc h
Par k
W
ashington
Y
acht C
lub
For t Davi s
Par k
Ox on Run
Par k w ay
Anacostia
Marina
(closed)
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
Washington D.C.
Fort
Dupont
Park
Fort
8tanton
Park
Figure 3-3 ARW Archaeological Sites
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N

D
C
P
O
T
O
M
A
C
R
I
V
E
R
RFK

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
P
I
T
A
L

S
T
N
E
W

Y
O
R
K

A
V
E

DCOP 2002
NPS 2002
Prince George's Co. GIS
Source:
0 0.5 1 0.25 Mile
ARW
Potential Archaeological Site

Anacostia Park

295
Lincoln
Park
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
H
i
l
l
East
Potomac
Park
1
1
t
h

S
t
C
S
X
R
R
ANACOSTIA FWY
A
M
T
R
A
K

R
R
518E13
518E16
518E15
518E6
51NE13
51NE15
51NE1
Ana
c
o
s
t
i
a



R
i
v
e
r
Frederick Douglass
National Historic 8ite
Anacostia
Metro 8tation
National
Arboretum
E
a
s
t

C
a
p
i
t
o
l

8
t
r
e
e
t
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a

A
v
e
n
u
e
8
o
u
t
h

C
a
p
i
t
o
l

8
t
r
e
e
t
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
V
i
e
w

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

V
i
e
w

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
V
i
e
w

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

Figure 3-4 ARW Area Viewsheds
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N

D
C
P
o
t
o
m
a
c
R
i
v
e
r
Fort
Dupont
Park
Fort
8tanton
Park

Anacostia Park
0 0.5 1 0.25 Mile
ARW
Opportunities for Views From Bridges
Main View Corridors
Key Vantage Points

East
Potomac
Park
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
H
i
l
l
N
E
W

Y
O
R
K

A
V
E
A
naco
stia
R
iv
e
r
DCOP 2002
NPS 2002
Prince George's GIS
Source:







W A S H I N G T O N D C
S
O
U
T
H

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
1
1
t
h

S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
A

N
A

C

O

S

T

I
A
NPS SERVICE RO
AD
R I V E R
RFK
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
STADI UM
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
I
A

F
W
Y
Figure 3-5 ARW Wetlands - Design Section 1
¯
DCOP 2002
Source:
ARW
0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles
Alt 1b
Alt 1a
Wet l ands
Eastern Edge of Relocated Anacostia Drive
WP006
WP005
WASHINGTON DC
A

N

A

C

O

S

T

I

A
R
I V
E
R
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
1
1
t
h

S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
C
S
X
R
R
W
ATER
STR
EET
M

S
T
R
E
E
T
EASTERN
POWER
BOAT
CLUB
DISTRICT
YACHT
CLUB
S
E
A
F
A
R
E
R
S
Y
A
C
H
T C
L
U
B
1
7
t
h

S
T
R
F
K
S
TA
D
IU
M
S
E
R
V
IC
E
R
O
A
D
DC
ARMORY
C

S
T
R
F
K
S
T
A
D
IU
M
S
O
U
T
H
P
A
R
K
IN
G
L
O
T
OKLAHOMA AVE
RFK
STADI UM
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
I
A

F
W
Y
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
IA
D
R
IV
E
WASHI NGTON
NAVY
YARD
BARNEY
CIRCLE
Figure 3-6 ARW Wetlands - Design Section 2
K
I
N
G
M
A
N

I
S
L
A
N
D
¯
DCOP 2002
Source:
0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles
ARW
Alt 2a
Alt 2b
Wet l ands
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
Y
A
C
H
T C
L
U
B
ANACOSTIA
MARINA
(closed)
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
I A
R
I V
E
R
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
KENILWORTH AVE
KENILWORTH TERR
ANACOSTIA AVE
F
O
O
T
E

S
T
H
A
Y
E
S

S
T
OUTFALL
PEPCO
PLANT
KENI LWORTH
PARK
LANDFI LL
DCDPW
TRASH
TRANSFER
STATI ON
NPS
MAI NTENANCE
YARD
J
A
Y

S
T
W
A
T
T
S

B
R
A
N
C
H
L
E
E

S
T
MI NNESOTA AVE
METRO STATI ON
4
0
t
h
S
T
A
N
A
C
O
S
T
IA
A
V
E
KENI LWORTH
AQUATI C
GARDENS
A
M
T
R
A
K

R
R
N
E
W

Y
O
R
K

A
V
E
L
O
W
E
R

B
E
A
V
E
R

D
A
M

C
R
E
E
K
Q
U
A
R
L
E
S

S
T
Figure 3-7 ARW Wetlands - Design Section 3
¯
DCOP 2002
Source:
ARW
0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Mile
WL016
WL019a
WL015a
WL015
WL014
Alt 3a
Alt 3b
Alt 3c
Wet l ands
WP010
WL020
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
Washington D.C.
S
O
U
T
H

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
N
E
W

Y
O
R
K

A
V
E
ANACOSTIA FWY
A
M
T
R
A
K

R
R
Figure 3-8 ARW Floodplains
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N

D
C
P
O
T
O
M
A
C
R
I
V
E
R
RFK

DCOP 2002
NPS 2002
Prince George's Co. GIS
Source:
0 0.5 1 0.25 Mile

295
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
H
i
l
l
A
naco
s
tia
R
iv
e
r
1
1
t
h

S
t
C
S
X
R
R
ARW
Areas Within the 100-Year Floodplain
B
E
N
N
I
N
G

R
D
E
A
S
T

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A

A
V
E
Washington D.C.
S
O
U
T
H

C
A
P
I
T
O
L

S
T
0 0.5 1 0.25 Mile
Figure 3-9 ARW Potentially Contaminated Sites
B&L Auto
Poplar Point
Nursery
US Park
Police
Washington
Navy Yard
District
Yacht
Club
Washington
Gas
Support
Terminal
Services
Barney
Circle
Landfill
Anacostia
Marina
DC Armory
Stadium Exxon
PEPCO Benning
Generating Station
Kenilworth Park
(former landfill)
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N

D
C
P
O
T
O
M
A
C
R
I
V
E
R
RFK
N
E
W

Y
O
R
K

A
V
E

DCOP 2002
NPS 2002
Prince George's Co. GIS
Source:
295
295
1
1
t
h

S
t
C
S
X
R
R
ANACOSTIA FWY
A
M
T
R
A
K

R
R
ARW
Potentially Contaminated Sites
Anacostia Park
Within Anacostia Park
Outside Anacostia Park









APPENDIX 1





ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT INITIATIVE
Memorandum of Understanding













APPENDIX 1

ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT INITIATIVE
Memorandum of Understanding
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into this 22nd day of March 2000, by and
among the following entities:
General Services Administration
The Government of the District of Columbia
Office of Management and Budget
Naval District Washington
Military District Washington
Commanding Officer Marine Barracks Washington
US Department of Labor
US Department of Transportation
National Park Service
US Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
District of Columbia Housing Authority
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
National Capital Planning Commission
District of Columbia Sports and Entertainment Commission
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
National Arboretum of the United States Department of Agriculture
US Small Business Administration
(Each a "Party" and collectively, the "Parties").
PREAMBLE
The Parties, each of whom owns land on, or otherwise has an interest in the waterfront of the District of Columbia,
have joined together to create a new partnership that will help to attain a vision for the waterfront areas. This
partnership will build on the great historic plans for the District of Columbia as an investment undertaken in
partnership with the people of the District of Columbia (the "Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor" or "Endeavor").
The Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor envisions a new, energized waterfront for the next millennium that will
unify diverse waterfront areas of the District of Columbia into a cohesive and attractive mixture of recreational,
residential, and commercial uses by capitalizing on one of the City's greatest natural assets, its shoreline. The
Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor will contribute to the revitalization of surrounding neighborhoods, provide
enhanced park areas, develop Government-owned land for the benefit of the people of the District of Columbia and
the federal and District of Columbia Governments, where appropriate, increase access to the water, where
appropriate, and enhance visitor participation in the activities and opportunities provided along the new waterfront.
The Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor will contribute to urban revitalization through better coordination of
waterfront development, as well as provide greater access to adjacent neighborhoods, where appropriate, and
connect the waterfront and its adjacent neighborhoods with Downtown, the Mall, Georgetown, Capitol Hill,
Southwest and the Anacostia neighborhoods. The Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor will provide for investment in
building the capacity of surrounding communities to create wealth and jobs, as well as mechanisms for enhancing
local labor force development through training and apprenticeships. Upon completion of the Waterfront
Revitalization Endeavor and concurrent private and community efforts, the Parties believe that the waterfront of the
District of Columbia will rival that of any of the great cities of the world and serve to maintain the City as one of the
most beautiful capital cities in the world.
The Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor is made possible by the commitment of the United States Government and
the federal parties listed above to devote time and resources, as agreed upon by the parties to the Waterfront
Revitalization Endeavor, and by the willingness of the District of Columbia Government to engage in the Waterfront
Revitalization Endeavor. In furtherance of the Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor, the District of Columbia Office
of Planning will develop a plan for the Anacostia Waterfront in partnership with the National Park Service and the
General Services Administration. Over seventy percent of the subject land area and over ninety percent of the
subject shoreline is currently publicly owned, with the Department of Defense and the National Park Service among
the major landowners.
The Parties have joined together to sign and implement this Memorandum of Understanding to set forth their goals
and requirements for the Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor in a spirit of cooperation and shared vision. By
working together, the Parties believe that they can cause the dream of a new waterfront for the Federal City and the
District of Columbia to become a reality. This is a great and good endeavor which will leave an inspired legacy for
the future citizens of the District of Columbia and the people of this great nation. It will be one of the most important
partnerships ever made between the District of Columbia and federal governments.
AGREEMENT
The Parties agree as follows:
1. Specific Goals. Among the specific goals of the Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor are the following:
a. To realize the full potential of the District of Columbia's waterfronts (the "Waterfronts") in order
to enhance the quality of life for residents of, and visitors to, the greater Washington, DC area
through a partnership which will provide access to, where appropriate, and improvement of the
Waterfronts. For purposes of this Memorandum of Understanding, and as more fully described in
Exhibit A, the Waterfronts consist of, inter alia, both shores of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers,
and landmarks such as the Southwest Waterfront, Fort McNair, the Navy Yard, RFK Stadium, the
Anacostia River parks, the National Arboretum and the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. It is clearly
understood by all of the parties to this agreement that security is the number one priority of
military installations. Consequently, where issues arise concerning public access to waterfront
areas on military installations, the installation commanders will be the ultimate decisionmakers.
b. To ensure that the Waterfronts are planned and developed to provide the appropriate development
potential for the District of Columbia and the federal government. This development will preserve
the environment and encourage the use of sustainable development techniques. Waterfront
development should be planned to take advantage of its location, particularly view corridors and
where appropriate, access to green spaces.
c. To build on existing relationships to ensure that Waterfronts are planned and developed with the
participation and input of surrounding communities and community organizations. The Waterfront
Revitalization Endeavor will build on existing relationships between the City, federal agencies,
and the Washington, DC community (e.g., the Bridges to Friendship initiative).
d. To assess existing infrastructure with respect to anticipated future demand, particularly with
respect to transportation, storm water management, wetland restoration, and bulkhead
rehabilitation. The infrastructure will be planned in order to support the mix of private
development and park protection and rehabilitation desired by the District of Columbia
Government, the federal government, and the surrounding communities.
e. To build a framework by which the Parties will develop a cooperative plan for the Waterfront
Revitalization Endeavor.
f. To develop a timetable and appropriate implementation and management mechanisms for the
realization of the Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor. The implementation should assess the
impact of development in the project area on environmental quality, economic development,
access to open space, where appropriate, and sustainability of the entire region.
g. To build on existing plans for the District of Columbia, including the L'Enfant Plan and the
McMillan Plan, to create consistent and compatible development.
h. To bring economic development, employment, and recreational opportunities to the communities
surrounding the Anacostia River consistent with all applicable laws.
2. Endeavor. The parties agree to partner in the Endeavor for the purpose of carrying out the terms of this
Agreement. The signatories, or their designees, for each of the constituent federal agency parties shall meet
with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, once a year, to review the status of the Endeavor and the
progress of the Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor.
3. Management. The coordination of the Endeavor will be the responsibility of a Joint Management
Committee comprised of one or more representative(s) from each of the Parties. The primary responsibility
for coordinating the affairs and activities of the Joint Management Committee shall be borne jointly by the
representative of the General Services Administration and the District of Columbia Office of Planning. The
Parties agree to appoint their initial representatives to the Joint Management Committee on or before April
19, 2000 and to schedule an initial meeting of the Joint Management Committee on or before April 26,
2000. The Joint Management Committee will make recommendations regarding joint planning and project
development matters. The individual agency or agencies affected will be responsible for obtaining all
required approvals from planning and permitting agencies and ensuring compliance with all applicable
local and federal rules, regulations and statutes. The Party that appointed a member may remove and
replace that member at its sole discretion.
4. Community Participation Process. The parties recognize the importance of public participation in the
planning and implementation of projects along the Waterfront. To that end, when appropriate, outreach will
be made to the community and stakeholders to discuss proposals and plans. As appropriate, the Endeavor
will work with existing organizations and others. This process is only for the area designated in Appendix
A and will not supersede requirements and missions of the parties.
5. Planning. The Parties involved with the Endeavor will collaborate with the overall planning effort for the
Anacostia Waterfront that is being developed by the District of Columbia Office of Planning in partnership
with the National Park Service and the General Services Administration.
6. Funding for the Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor. It is the intention of the Parties that the costs of the
planning process may be funded by the parties involved, consistent with the missions, authority, and budget
process of each constituent Party.
7. Implementation. It is the intention of the Parties that implementation will be an effort by the appropriate
parties and others in the private and public sectors as will be determined by the Joint Management
Committee. The Joint Management Committee shall make recommendations with respect to
implementation and where appropriate, shall facilitate coordination among relevant stakeholders.
Recommendations shall be coordinated with appropriate federal and local bodies.
8. Timetable. Within sixty (60) days of the date the parties enter into the MOU, the Joint Management
Committee will agree to the initial scope of the Endeavor's planning efforts, including community
participation mechanisms for the Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor; will establish mechanisms to review
projects and provide recommendations to appropriate agencies/organizations; and will develop a list of
initial projects that can be completed relatively quickly to further the stated goals of the Endeavor and to
provide momentum for the Waterfront Revitalization Endeavor.
9. Miscellaneous Provisions.
a. Entire Agreement. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with respect
to the subject matter thereof.
b. Admission. Parties who own land on or otherwise have an interest in or concern about the
waterfront of the District of Columbia may join the Endeavor at any time throughout the term of
the Endeavor.
c. Amendment/Modification. This Agreement may be amended or modified with respect to a party
upon notice by a party to the agreement.
d. This agreement is intended only to improve the management and collaboration on the matters
referenced herein and does not create any new regulatory, permit, zoning, or other federal or
District of Columbia approval requirements or any enforceable rights against the United States, its
agencies, its offices or any person.









APPENDIX 2






MASTER PLAN SUMMARIES















APPENDIX 2

MASTER PLAN SUMMARIES

The District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan

The District of Columbia has a Comprehensive Plan (District of Columbia, 1999) that provides overall guidance for
future planning and development of the city. The Office of Planning is in the process of updating the current
Comprehensive Plan. Some of the major themes in the current plan are stabilizing and improving the District’s
neighborhoods; increasing the quantity and quality of employment opportunities in the District; preserving and
promoting cultural and natural amenities; respecting and improving the physical character of the District; promoting
enhanced public safety; and providing for diversity and overall social responsibilities. In the study area, the plan
identifies several specific recommendations, including:

• Support of economically appropriate development in certain commercial areas including the Minnesota-
Benning Metro area and the Martin Luther King, Jr. corridor;
• Support use of the rivers for transportation and recreational purposes by promoting construction of a continuous
pathway along both the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers to provide walking, bicycling, and scenic vistas, and
increase use of many areas of parkland which are currently underused for recreational purposes; and
• Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation within neighborhoods.

Anacostia Park General Management Plan (GMP)

The National Park Service has a GMP (National Park Service, 2003) for Anacostia National Park which serves as
the basic foundation for decision making in managing the Anacostia Park for the next 10 to 15 years. The National
Park Service has developed two alternatives for the future management of Anacostia Park based on the Park’s
natural resources, cultural resources, and public input received at community meetings from activities associated
with the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. To comply with NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement is being
prepared for the GMP. Elements common to both GMP alternative concepts are:

• Enhancing access to and through the park by taking better advantage of existing Metro access, by
improving vehicular access within the park, and by improving the trail system, including connections to the
larger riverwalk planned in the District of Columbia and Maryland; and
• Providing experiences that commemorate the park’s role in American history and its integral position as a
gateway to the monumental core of the Nation’s Capital, with the focus of these activities at Poplar Point.

Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) Framework Plan

The AWI plan (District of Columbia, 2003) is a framework to guide the revitalization effort in the Anacostia
Waterfront area. The District of Columbia Office of Planning is the coordinating agency for the AWI process that
includes about 20 Federal and local agencies. The five themes of the framework include:

• Creating a clean and active river;
• Eliminating barriers to neighborhoods and providing access to residents;
• An improved urban riverfront park system;
• Cultural destinations of distinct character; and
• Building strong waterfront neighborhoods.

Priorities 2000: Metropolitan Washington Greenways

The Metropolitan Washington Greenways Study (US Department of Transportation, 2001) identifies a framework
for preservation and use of green space in the Washington area, identifies regional greenway priorities, and proposes
an implementation strategy. The most relevant projects on the Local Priority Greenway List include an Anacostia
greenway connecting from Buzzards Point to Bladensburg Marina, a Fort Circle greenway connecting Civil War
fortifications with an urban greenway streetscape around the District, a Suitland Parkway Trail connecting the
District to Prince George’s County along the parkway, and a Watts Branch Greenway. The most relevant projects on
the Regional Priority Projects list include an Anacostia Greenway and Fort Circle Greenway.

Extending the Legacy: Planning America’s Capital for the 21
st
Century

Extending the Legacy: Planning America’s Capital for the 21
st
Century (National Planning Commission, 1997)
establishes a framework for Washington’s Monumental Core. Its objectives include enlarging L’Enfant’s original
vision by protecting Washington’s open spaces and by distributing federal funds to all quadrants of the city. This
plan calls for the city’s waterfront to become a continuous band of open space from Georgetown to the National
Arboretum and recommends:

• More circulators, water taxi, and bicycle paths;
• Elimination of obsolete freeways, bridges, and railroad tracks that fragment the city;
• Reclamation of the District’s historic waterfront for public enjoyment;
• Addition of parks, plazas, and other amenities; and
• Revitalization of the South Capitol/M Street Corridor.

East of the River Initiative

In conjunction with the Department of Housing and Community Development, the District of Columbia Office of
Planning’s East of the River Plan (District of Columbia, 2000) was commissioned as an east of the river
redevelopment, marketing, and implementation development strategy with an emphasis on expanded job
opportunities, commercial and retail services, new and rehabilitated housing, and improved infrastructure. An
objective is to spur economic development by relocating District agencies to neighborhood commercial areas.
Certain areas are targeted for revitalization including:

• Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road – A master plan outlining a government center that will provide
office space for the Department of Employment Services and the Department of Human Services, ground
floor retail, and a Metro Station parking garage was released in the summer of 2004.
• Anacostia Gateway – A government facility will be located on the northeast corner of Martin Luther King,
Jr. Avenue and Good Hope Road, SE in closed proximity to the planned light rail line, and it will be the
headquarters building for the District Department of Transportation. A master plan is imminent.









Appendix 3





Archaeological Survey Reports
























Appendix 3

Archaeological Survey Reports

Engineering-Science, Inc. October 1989. Anacostia Park from a Historical and Archeological Perspective.

• Survey Limits: Anacostia Park on both sides of the river, north of the 11th Street Bridge and south of the
Benning Road Bridge.
• Type of Survey: Archival research only
• Summary: Identified seven areas of moderate to high archaeological potential and three areas of limited
archeological potential within Anacostia Park, based on an analysis of known environmental,
archaeological, and historical data (see Figure 3-x).

U.S Army Corps of Engineers. November 1994. A Phase I/II Cultural Resource Survey for the Anacostia
River Basin Environmental Restoration Project, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland, and
Washington, District of Columbia.

• Survey Limits: A rectangular area approximately 9,500 feet north/south by 4,500 feet east/west surrounding
Kingman Lake.
• Type of Survey: Archival research only, based on record of disturbance, dredging of river bed materials,
construction of seawalls, and placement of large amounts of fill within Anacostia Park.
• Summary: Determined that placement of dredge materials within the lake and wetlands creation would
have no effect on cultural resources due to past disturbance.

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 1993. A Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the
Proposed Anacostia Tributaries Trail in Hyattsville-Bladensburg, Prince George's County, Maryland.
• Survey Limits: 4.5 linear miles of a 20-foot wide corridor on the Northwest Branch of the Anacostia River
(outside of the Study Area).
• Type of Survey: Surface reconnaissance and shovel testing at 100 foot intervals.
• Summary: No prehistoric or historic sites were located. There was a generally low potential for finding
cultural resources due to the active nature of the floodplain, but a high potential for finding resources on
relatively undisturbed low terraces.

Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources. February 2002. Phase I Archaeological
Identification Survey of the Anacostia Wetlands Creation Project.
• Survey Limits: 4.2-acre wetland creation plot at the confluence of the Northwest and Northeast branches of
the Anacostia River (outside of the Study Area).
• Type of Survey: Excavation of eight shovel test pits.
Summary: No prehistoric or historic artifacts were located. A pedological and geomorphological
analysis indicated that intact former land surfaces were located beneath fill and recent alluvium.
Investigators determined that the potential for archeological resources was low.





Appendix 4


Draft Wetland Delineation Report for the Proposed
Anacostia Riverwalk Trail















Available Upon
Request





























APPENDIX 5




CONTAMINATION FILE REVIEW



DOCUMENTED CONTAMINATION
Source: Tar Contamination Mapping Report
At East Station
Washington D.C.
By: Hydro-Terra Inc.
Columbia, Maryland
September, 1998
706G1::/lelRerBIGW.t3W-VOCSRF -2I3IV8
FIGURE 6-13
Total vac Concentrations in Groundwater (Fill Unit)
6-51
lfydro-Tl!rra
I
N 1350 I
N 1200
N1050 -
N 750
N 600
\.
N 300
FIGURE 6-12
Location of Phase IV Soil Borings and Test Pits
Used to Investigate the Presence of LNAPL
1 2 3
u~
4
5 G 7 8 9 JU 1
I 1': 1
I
L
r~
j~.
.~'(rooC'
2" ""'1
~
K
-
.\'... .
i I ,.. .
, CII
l
~ ..'"... ~
:.::. ,.,...' .""
,~.. '.
-,
t-
;
H
G
.
~
,...
\);
...
F
E
.-,
0
..~
0 ISO )00
I 1-1-1-
, Anacoslia River
0
BTX Conccntration
I 10 pPIII
.;'1
.,", 2 ppal
:"'"'.';
,'"
c
B
:~ 1\
PHASE II SOil-GAS MAP
DOCUMENTED CO NT AMIN A TI 0 N
Source: Phase II Remedial Investigation -Derived Waste Plan
Sites 1,2,3,7,8,9,11,13, and 17
Washington Navy Yard
Washington D.C.
By: CH2MHill
Herndon, Virginia
November 2002
APPENDIX C
Quantitalive Site Data
Used for the Final Relative Risk Ranking System
Data CoHection Sampling and Analysis Reporl
Contaminant Maximum Concentration
15,300
5.9
59.6
4.6
18.6
58.2
203
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium and compounds
Beryllium and compounds
Chromium VI and compounds
Lead
Manganese and compounds
Arsenic
Iron
11.2
63,600
5.8
2.9
51.8
1,460
2,400
Arsenic
Beryllium and compounds
Lead
Manganese and compounds
Methylene chloride
4.2
4.2
55.700
Arsenic
Beryllium and compounds
Iron
6.0
5.9
5.0
27,300
57.2
746
Arsenic
Beryllium and compounds
B is (2 -ethylhe xyl )phtha late
Iron
lead
Manganese and compounds
8.1
1.3
33,200
Arsenic
Beryllium and compounds
Iron
G-1
WDCO23520006.ZIPIKTM
~
APPENDIX C
Quantitative Site Data
Used for the Final Relative Risk Ranking System
Data Coflection Sampling and Analysis RejDOIt
Contaminant Maximum Concentration
5.8
42.0
38.2
Beryllium and compounds
Chloromethane
Lead
Manganese and compounds
Methylene chloride
Nickel and compounds
18.0
532
3,550
u.'" ..
810
3.8
Copper and compounds
Lead
Mercury and compounds
PCBs
3,780
3,570
810
3.8
Copper and compounds
lead
Mercury and compounds
PCBs
3,570
810
Lead
Mercury and compounds
83.6
0.29
1.1
53,900
4,420
Arsenic
Benzo{a)pyrene
Beryllium and compounds
Iron
Lead
23,100
61.7
6.9
22.0
3,910
1,080
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium and compounds
Chloromethane
Copper and compounds
Lead
C-2 WDCO23520006.ZlPIKTM
APPENDIX C
Quantitative Site Data
Used for the Final Relative Risk Ranking System
Data Collection Sampling and Analysis Repolt
Contaminant
Maximum Concentration
Arsenic
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b )nu roanthene
Beryllium and compounds
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
9.6
9.0
5.6
469
432
17.0
232
Beryllium and compounds
Bis(2 -ethyl hexyl)phthalate
Cadmium and compounds
Lead
Manganese and compounds
Methylene chloride
Nickel and compounds
65.4
7.2
305
990
2.2
Arsenic
Cadmium and compounds
Lead
Manganese and compounds
Polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs)
52.6
1.3
2.4
2.1
0.32
567
1.2
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium and compounds
Chrysene
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
Lead
Mercury
WOC023520000ZIP/KTM C.3
~
APPENDIX C
Quantitative Site Data
Used for the Final Relative Risk Ranking ~)ystem
Data Collection Sampling and Analysis REport
Contaminant Maximum Concentration
Nickel and compounds
Polychlorinated bYphenyls (PCBs)
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4
84.7
38
490
11.3
21
25
22
9.8
0.62
21
0.45
15
Arsenic
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Beryllium and compounds
Chrysene
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
16.9
656
237
14.0
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese and compounds
Methylene chloride
22-4
0.51
0.94
0.14
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium and compounds
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
4.3
0.68
Arsenic
Beryllium and compounds
5.3
7.6
440
1,880
Beryllium and compounds
Lead
Manganese and compounds
Nickel and compounds
Lead
18,700
C-4 WDCO2352~.zIP/KTM
APPENDIX C
Quantitative Site Data
Used for the Final Relative Risk Ranking System
Data Collection Sampling and Anaiys:is Report
Contaminant Maximum Concentration
33.2
15.0
12.0
20.0
5.0
5.4
13.0
3.9
7.1
851
Arsenic
Benz( a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranlhene
Benzo(k )flu roanthene
Beryllium and compounds
Chrysene
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
Indeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
PCBs 10.0
PCBs 20.0
Mercury Free Phase
c-s WDC02352(XX)6 ZIP /KTM
DOCUMENTED CONT AMINA TION
Source: Site Characterization Report
Poplar Point Nursery
Washington D. C.
By: Ridolfi Inc.
Seattle, Washington
June 2003
Site Characterization Report
Poplar Point
Washington, D.C.
Figure 4-5
Motor Oil-Range Hydrocarbons in Soil
---
Figure 4-4
Site Characterization Report
Poplar Point
Washington, D.C. Diesel Range-Hydrocarbons in Soil





Appendix 6


Floodplains Draft Statement of Findings














DRAFT
FLOODPLAIN
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

Environmental Assessment
Anacostia Riverwalk Trail
Anacostia Park
National Capital Parks-East
National Park Service
Washington, D.C.

Anacostia Park is a federally owned facility located in the southeast and northeast quadrants of
Washington, D.C. It is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The park is on both
shores of the Anacostia River and is administered by National Capital Parks-East, a unit of the
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Areas of Anacostia Park lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Anacostia River, as seen in
Figure 3-8 in the environmental assessment. The purpose of the trail is to provide access to and
along the river, which would enhance appreciation of the river resource through visitor
experience and interpretation. Therefore, there are no alternatives outside the floodplain for
developing the trail.

Due to the large floodplain area and its topography the encroachment potential of the project is
anticipated to be negligible. The trail footprint would be as narrow as possible and would be
constructed at-grade and conform to existing slopes to maintain drainage patterns. Permeable
pavement is being explored and will be utilized as feasible.

The proposed trail and associated structures would perform hydraulically in a manner equal to
or greater than the existing structure, and backwater surface elevations are not expected to
increase. Boardwalk areas would allow flood waters to pass unobstructed through the pilings.

There will be little or no excavation. The conduit for electricity for lighting will only require a
small amount of trenching, and interpretive and other signs would require minor ground

disturbance. Plans for this work will be submitted for review by the District of Columbia
Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration, Watershed Protection Division to
determine the appropriate permit requirements.

The Anacostia River is slow flowing and floods gradually. There would be no added risks to
the safety of park visitors and employees, and there would not be a significant change in the
potential for interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation routes
as the portions of the trail located within the 100-year floodplain are not through roads.

Therefore, the construction of any of the alternative trail alignments would have no significant
impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.



RECOMMENDED: ____________________________________________________
Superintendent Date
National Capital Parks-East



CONCURRED: ____________________________________________________
Water Resources Division Date
Washington Office



CONCURRED: ____________________________________________________
Environmental Compliance Officer Date
National Capital Regional Office



CONCURRED: ____________________________________________________
Safety Officer Date
National Capital Regional Office



APPROVED: ____________________________________________________
Regional Director Date
National Capital Regional Office





Appendix 7


AWI Public Involvement












Appendix 7
AWI Public Involvement

Date

March 22, 2000
April 29, 2000
May 30-31, 2000
July 26, 2000
October 21,
October 28, 2000
December 21, 2000
March 13, 2001
March 24, 2001
April 7, 2001
May 19, 2001
November 8, 2001
November 15, 2001
December 5-6, 2001
January 23, 2002
February 20, 2002
February 27, 2002
February 27, 2002
February 28, 2002
March 1-3, 2002
March 13, 2002
March 20, 2002
March 31, 2002
April 2, 2002
April 13, 2002
May 22, 2002
June 14, 2002
July 18, 2002
July 22, 2002
July 24, 2002
October 15, 2002
November 2002
January 2003
February 10, 2003
March 12, 2003
March 18, 2003
March 19-20, 2003
March 25, 2003
April 23, 2003
April 29, 2003
June 5, 2003
June 12, 2003
Fall 2003
Event

AWI Memorandum of Understanding Signing Ceremony, Washington Navy Yard
AWI Goals and Objectives Workshop, Savoy School
Near Southeast Neighborhood Workshop, Van Ness Elementary School
Anacostia Riverwalk Goals and Objectives Workshop, Earth Conservation Corps
Anacostia Riverwalk Workshop, Savoy School, Historic Anacostia
Kingman Island Workshop, River Terrace School
Kingman Island Draft Master Plan Presentation, St. Benedict the Moor Church
Mayor’s Vision Statement and Consultant Team Introduction
Anacostia River Environmental Summit, Savoy School, Historic Anacostia
Simultaneous Neighborhood Target Area Workshops
River-wide Framework Themes Workshop, National Building Museum
Presentation of Preliminary Framework Recommendations, National Building Museum
Citizen Advisory Group Meeting
Southwest Waterfront Public Workshops, St. Matthews Church
Reservation 13 / Hill East Waterfront Project Commencement Meeting, DC Armory
Reservation 13 / Hill East Waterfront Background Information Meeting, DC Armory
Poplar Point Public Workshop / Focus Group, Matthews Memorial Baptist Church
Southwest Waterfront Public Presentation of Planning Alternatives, St. Matthew’s Church
Poplar Point Preliminary Recommendations Presentation, Birney School
Reservation 13 / Hill East Waterfront Public Workshop, Eastern High School
South Capitol Street Gateway Study Press Conference, Earth Conservation Corps
Reservation 13 / Hill East Waterfront Public Presentation, Eastern High School
Public Release of Hill East Draft Master Plan
Poplar Point Focus Group, DC Office of Planning
Anacostia River Parks Summit, Savoy Elementary School
Citizen Advisory Group Meeting, MLK Memorial Library
Near Southeast Preliminary Vision Presentation, Capper Carrollsburg Rec. Center
Adoption of the DC-WASA Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan
Southwest Waterfront Draft Plan Public Presentation, St. Matthew’s Church
Southwest Waterfront Draft Plan Public Presentation, National Building Museum
DC City Council approval of Hill East Master Plan
Citizen Advisory Group Meeting
Citizen Advisory Group Meeting
Public Release of Draft Southwest Development Plan and AWI Southwest Vision
Public Hearing on Southwest Waterfront Plan, St. Augustine’s Church, SW
South Capitol Street Gateway Study Presentation, St. Augustine’s Church, SW
Citizen Advisory Group Roundtable Discussions, DC Office of Planning
Citizen Advisory Group Meeting, Old Council Chambers
East of the River Focus Group, St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church, SE
Near Southeast Planning and Zoning Forum, Van Ness Elementary School, SE
Public Release of South Capitol Street Gateway and Improvement Study
Groundbreaking of Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail, River Terrace
Public Release of AWI Draft Framework Plan

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful