DOCSLIB.ORG

Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Fort Dupont Subwatershed Provisional Restoration Project Inventory - July 2009 Table of Contents I. Background ................................................................................................................. 2 II. Restoration Inventory .................................................................................................. 3 A. Impervious Features Summary ............................................................................ 4 B. Existing Stormwater Management Facilities Summary ...................................... 7 C. Candidate Restoration Project Summary ........................................................... 10 D. Fort Dupont Candidate Restoration Projects ..................................................... 13 1 I. Background The Fort Dupont tributary is a third order tributary to the Anacostia River and is 443 acres (0.69 square miles). Although the tributary lies entirely within the District of Columbia, the National Park Service (NPS) owns about 85-percent of the land (376 acres) drained by Fort Dupont and its three small tributaries. Approximately 80-percent of the NPS-owned land is forested by mature eastern hardwoods. The average impervious level in the watershed is 13.3-percent, located primarily in the watershed’s headwaters. Despite this relatively low level of imperviousness, the impacts of uncontrolled stormwater runoff to the stream channel are clear. Approximately 1.5 miles of the Fort Dupont’s 1.9-mile main stem has unstable, eroding banks, caused by downcutting. These unstable banks contribute sediment to the Anacostia River. Since approximately 85-percent of the watershed is part of Fort Dupont National Park, which is used as recreational/preserved lands and is covered by eastern deciduous hardwoods, nutrient loading of the tributary is less of a concern. The upper portion of the watershed does, however, lie in residential areas, which contribute runoff pollution to the stream in the form of oil and other automobile fluids. Measurements taken during storm events also show that high stormwater flows may also move high levels of copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) from the stream banks into the stream. Approximately 2,240 linear feet of the Fort Dupont tributary is piped, prohibiting all fish migration and decreasing the habitat area for macro-invertebrates. The longest piped sections are at the downstream end of the tributary and the section that passes under Fort Davis drive and the associated fill area. Recognizing both the severity and extent of environmental and ecological problems affecting the Anacostia River watershed and the need to better coordinate restoration efforts and resources, the three jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments entered into a Federal cost-sharing agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare a 10-year watershed restoration plan. The Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan will identify opportunities and approaches for restoring and protecting the 14 major subwatersheds and the tidal river reach within the Anacostia River basin. 2 Northwest Paint )"108 Branch Branch Little Paint Branch )"97 "198 Prince )"28 ) )"650 George's )"198 County )"182 Indian ut29 Creek Upper Beaverdam Lower Creek ¦¨§95 Ely d n Montgomery 2 Montgomery d 197 3 E )" r 3 3 a t o s F County 895 e )" n 295 in ÆÄ M 295 t )" t n 97 s a )" 1 G R s 3 s i d d i n F g o o r r e 201 2 t Du 3 ¦¨§495 )" C pont F Trib o utar rt y D e 516 l u )" d p n o a n C t h A R B M a la a u p ss r b 320 a n l a )" 193 c in )" hu s m L s ou et F a d ts o r t R 787 )" D id M g h a e t v h t 4 is 4 3 195 3 )" Still Creek )"212 Middle n we District of Brier Ditch Bo District of )"410 Ma B ss e ac c hu ma k 501 se Alaba Columbia )" tts )"450 Upper )"208 Hickey Run )"202 Lower ut29 Beaverdam )"295 ut50 Creek )"704 ut50 ¦¨§395 )"214 )"332 ± Watts Branch Fort Dupont ¦¨§295 ± 0123 Miles Pope Branch Tributary Fort Dupont Tributary Figure 1- Fort Dupont Subwatershed Figure 2- Fort Dupont Subwatershed Unit II. Restoration Inventory The following sections include stormwater retrofit, stream restoration, wetland restoration, fish blockage removal, and riparian restoration projects, and actions for further evaluation by others. As previously noted, the restoration projects presented herein are conceptual or planning level only. It is recognized that more detailed drainage and site analyses are required, and that facility size and costs shown represent approximations. To facilitate reader understanding of the Fort Dupont Subwatershed: Provisional Restoration Project Inventory, information has been organized into the following four sections: Section A - Impervious Features Summary Section B - Existing Stormwater Management Facilities Summary Section C - Candidate Restoration Project Summary Section D - Fort Dupont Candidate Restoration Projects 3 A. Impervious Features Summary 4 Figure 3 - Summary: Fort Dupont Impervious Features Lower Ely d n d 2 E r 3 3 3 a t o s F e n 295 in ÆÄ M t t n s a 1 s 3 G s R i i o d r F g d C o rt e n Dup 2 ont 3 F Tri o buta rt ry D e l u d p n o a n C t h A R B a la u p r b n l M in a L as s m o sa For ud ch a us e t t R ts D i M dg a h e t v h 4 i s 4t 3 3 Middle wen Bo Ma B ss e ac c hu ma k se laba tts A Upper Legend Streams Subcatchment Subwatershed Unit Waterbody Buildings ± Roads, Parking Lot, and Sidewalks 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet 5 Table 1. Fort Dupont: Summary - Impervious Surfaces Category Acres Miles 1. Roads 26.1 8.5 a. State/Fed 1.9 0.1 b. Local 24.2 8.4 2. Parking Lots 10.6 a. Public/Institutional 9.9 b. Private 0.7 3.Roofs 12.6 a. Public/Institutional 2.3 b .Private 0.1 c. Single Family 10.2 3. Other a. Sidewalks * 3.0 b. Single Family Driveways ^ 5.3 Total 57.6 Avg. % Imperviousness 12% # of Single Family Homes 379 Total Drainage area 494 ^ Driveways assumptions Average Driveway=0.014 Acres Width equal to 4 feet with a sidewalk running the * Sidewalks assumptions length of one side of the road. Note: Drainage area and tributary area calculated using the USGS 30-meter digital elevation model (DEM) 6 B. Existing Stormwater Management Facilities Summary 7 Figure 4 - Summary: Fort Dupont Existing Stormwater Management BMP Sites ! Lower Area: 106 ac # of BMPs: 0 Ely d n ! d 2 E r ! 3 3 ! 3 a t o s F e n 295 in ÆÄ M t t n 1s a G 3 !! R s s i i d g o F d o r rt e n D C up 2 ont 3 F Tri o buta rt ry D e u l p d o n n C ! t A a B h ! a la R u p r b n l M in a L as s m o sa For ud ch a us e t t R ts D i M dg a e th v h 4 i s 3 4t 3 Middle Area: 224 ac wen # of BMPs: 2 Bo Ma B ss e ac c hu ma k se laba tts A Upper Area: 201 ac # of BMPs: 0 Legend Subwatershed Unit ! Existing Stormwater BMP Stormwater Controlled Drainage Area ± Subcatchment 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet 8 Table 2. Fort Dupont: Summary –Existing Stormwater Management BMPs No. of Percent of D.A. Controlled Type Facilities Total BMP's (ac.) 1. Dry Pond 2. ED Dry Pond 3. Wet Pond 4. ED Wet Pond 5. Wetland (non-ED and ED) 6. Infiltration (Trench or Basin) 7. Oil Grit Separator Water Quality Inlet (e.g. 8. Stormreceptor, Bay Saver, etc) Bioretention /Rain Garden 9. 5 100.0 2.4 10. 'Green Street'* 11. Bioswale 12. Grass Swale w/ Check Dams 13. Porous Pavement 14. Sand Filter 15. Underground Pipe Storage 16. Cistern 17. Green Roof 18. Other Total 5 100.0 2.4 May include a mix of LID techniques including, but not limited to: bioretention, * rain garden, bioswale, soil amendment, etc. 9 C. Candidate Restoration Project Summary 10 Table 3. Summary: Restoration Candidate Projects Impervious Number Estimated Acreage Length Acreage Candidate Project Type of Cost ($) Controlled (ft) (ac) Projects (ac) 1 Stormwater Retrofit 16 4,575,133 42.8 - 72.5 2 Stream Restoration 7 2,280,000 - 7,600 - 3 Wetland Creation/Restoration 2 30,000 - - 0.6 Fish Blockage 4 11 5,175,000 - 8,185 - Removal/Modification Riparian Reforestation, 5 Meadow Creation, Street Tree 1 14,000 - - 1.0 and Invasive Management 6 Trash Reduction 0 - - - - 7 Toxic Remediation 0 - - - - 8 Parkland Acquisition 2 2,370,000 - - 23.7 Total 39 14,444,000 42.8 15,785 97.8 11 Table 4. Fort Dupont Subwatershed: Provisional Restoration Project Inventory ‘Unit Costs’* No. Practice Approx. Unit Cost ($) Stormwater Retrofit Existing Stormwater Management 1 ~ $1,000-3,000/acre of drainage Pond/Wetland Retrofitting New Stormwater Management 2 ~$3,000-5,000/acre of drainage Pond/Wetland Construction LID-Bioretention (w/Underdrain 3 ~ $100,000/ impervious acre System) 4 LID-Curbside/Street Planter ~ $100,000/ impervious acre 5 LID-Tree Box Filter ~ $54,450 - $65,340/impervious acre 6 LID-Green Roof ~ $42/square foot LID-Single Family Home Rain 7 ~ $5,000 per individual garden Garden LID-Single Family Home Rain 8 ~ $200/barrel (Typically, two per house) Barrel 9 Sand Filter ~ $20,000 to $25,000 per impervious acre** 10 Underground Pipe Storage ~ $15,000 per impervious acre*** 11 Permeable Pavement ~ $4.00 per square foot 12 LID Bioswale ~ $100,000/impervious acre 13 Storm Filter ~ $80,000/acre Stream Restoration/Fish Passage/Wetland Creation 14 Stream Restoration ~ $300/LF 15 Concrete Stream Channel Removal ~ $1,000/LF 16 Stream ‘Day Lighting’ ~ $2,000/LF Regenerative Stormwater 17 ~ $370/ft Conveyance System Fish Passage/Riffle Grade Control 18 ~ $150,000 per one foot barrier height Structure 19 Wetland Creation ~50,000/Acre Riparian Reforestation/Meadow Creation/ Invasive Plant Management 20 Riparian Reforestation ~ $9,000/acre 21 Wildflower Meadow Creation ~ $5,000/acre 22 Invasive Plant Management ~ $5,000/acre Trash Reduction/Water Quality 23 Manual Trash Pickup ~ $300/100 LF 24 Fresh Creek Trash Netting System ~ $1,000/acre of drainage 25 Signage ~ $1600 26 End–of-Pipe Trash Catching System ~ $4,000/ acre of drainage 27 Street Sweeping**** ~ $50/curb mile/year 28 Storm Drain Trash Grate ~ $500/inlet Land Acquisition 29 Land Acquisition ~ $100,000/acre *includes (where appropriate) design and construction/installation costs ** escalated to 2009 dollars from “Schueler, T.R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nehemiah Homes at Fort Dupont Planned Unit Development
    202.942.5000 ARNOLD & PORTER 202.942.5999 Fax 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 July 17, 2001 Ms. Carol Mitten, Chair District of Columbia Zoning Commission 441 4th Street, N.W. Suite 210 Washington, D.C. 20001 Re: Pre-Hearing Submission Zoning Commission Case No. Ol-12C Nehemiah Homes at Fort Dupont Planned Unit Development Dear Ms. Mitten and Members of the Commission: Pursuant to§ 3013 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure before the Zoning Commission, we are herewith submitting twenty (20) copies of the Pre-Hearing Submission on behalf of the applicant in the above-referenced case. This information includes the following items: 1. Twenty (20) copies of the original application booklet, modified in part to reflect more refined plans. 2. A list of witnesses who will testify at the public hearing, a summary of their testimony, and an estimate of the time required for the applicant's presentation. 3. Additional reports and plans, including: • Architectural Plans by Heffner Architects • Revised Site Plan by Ben Dyer and Associates • Traffic Impact Analysis Study by O.R. George & Associates, Inc. 4. Twenty (20) copies ofreduced plans and two (2) sets of full-size plans 5. As to the requirement in§ 3013.3 to name the property owners in the ~ase of a map amendment, no rezoning is proposed in this application. ZONING COMMISSION 6. Certification pursuant to § 3013.7: ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 01-12 ZONING COMMISSION Washington, DC New York Los Angeles Century City Denver London NorthernDistrict Virginia of Columbia CASE NO.01-12 EXHIBITDeletedEXHIBIT NO.16A1 NO.16 Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Projects
    PROJECTS COMPLETED BY PROLOGUE DC HISTORIANS Mara Cherkasky This Place Has A Voice, Canal Park public art project, consulting historian, http://www.thisplacehasavoice.info The Hotel Harrington: A Witness to Washington DC's History Since 1914 (brochure, 2014) An East-of-the-River View: Anacostia Heritage Trail (Cultural Tourism DC, 2014) Remembering Georgetown's Streetcar Era: The O and P Streets Rehabilitation Project (exhibit panels and booklet documenting the District Department of Transportation's award-winning streetcar and pavement-preservation project, 2013) The Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia: The First 100 Years (exhibit panels and PowerPoint presentations, 2013) Historic Park View: A Walking Tour (booklet, Park View United Neighborhood Coalition, 2012) DC Neighborhood Heritage Trail booklets: Village in the City: Mount Pleasant Heritage Trail (2006); Battleground to Community: Brightwood Heritage Trail (2008); A Self-Reliant People: Greater Deanwood Heritage Trail (2009); Cultural Convergence: Columbia Heights Heritage Trail (2009); Top of the Town: Tenleytown Heritage Trail (2010); Civil War to Civil Rights: Downtown Heritage Trail (2011); Lift Every Voice: Georgia Avenue/Pleasant Plains Heritage Trail (2011); Hub, Home, Heart: H Street NE Heritage Trail (2012); and Make No Little Plans: Federal Triangle Heritage Trail (2012) “Mount Pleasant,” in Washington at Home: An Illustrated History of Neighborhoods in the Nation's Capital (Kathryn Schneider Smith, editor, Johns Hopkins Press, 2010) Mount
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 BID Profiles
    2017 DC BID PROFILES A REPORT BY THE DC BID COUNCIL 1 WISCONSIN AVE COLUMBIA RD 16TH ST 14TH ST NEW YORK AVE MASSACHUSETTS AVE M ST K ST H ST ST CAPITOL NORTH 2017 DC BID PROFILES DC BID Data .......................................................... 4 CONSTITUTION AVE DowntownDC BID ............................................... 6 Golden Triangle BID ............................................8 INDEPENDENCE AVE Georgetown BID .................................................10 Capitol Hill BID .................................................... 12 Mount Vernon Triangle CID ............................14 SOUTHEAST FRWY Adams Morgan Partnership BID ...................16 NoMa BID .............................................................. 18 Capitol Riverfront BID .....................................20 Anacostia BID ..................................................... 22 Southwest BID ....................................................24 GEORGETOWN BID DC BID Fast Facts .............................................26 ADAMS MORGAN BID S ANACOSTIA FRWY GOLDEN TRIANGLE BID DOWNTOWNDC BID MT VERNON TRIANGLE CID NOMA BID CAPITOL HILL BID SWBID N CAPITOL RIVERFRONT BID W E ANACOSTIA BID S COLLECTIVE IMPACT OF DC BIDS IN 2017 DC Business Improvement Districts invested over 30 million dollars into making the District of Columbia’s $30,877,082 high employment areas better places to live, to work and to visit. Building on a strong foundation of core clean and safe TOTAL AMOUNT BIDS INVEST IN services, BIDs work with their private and public
    [Show full text]
  • Ward 7 Heritage Guide
    WARD 7 HERITAGE GUIDE A Discussion of Ward 7 Cultural and Heritage Resources Ward 7 Heritage Guide Text by Patsy M. Fletcher, DC Historic Preservation Office Design by Kim Elliott, DC Historic Preservation Office Published 2013 Unless stated otherwise, photographs and images are from the DC Office of Planning collection. This project has been funded in part by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant funds, administered by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Office. The contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This program has received Federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the District of Columbia. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its Federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • DC for Beginners
    DC Living Guide for Fellows Immersing yourself in the greatest parts of DC Updated November 2018 1 Table of Contents Housing Tips 3 Important Mobile Apps 6 Social Media Accounts 7 Useful Websites 8 Favorite Restaurants 9 Performing Arts and Music 12 Gyms 13 Shopping Areas 14 Pet Care 15 Getting Out of the City 16 The following information has been gathered from past and current Knauss fellows. These lists are not exhaustive and DC changes quickly, so some of these suggestions may not be complete or current. New suggestions are always 2 welcome. Housing Tips “I lived with two other Knauss fellows and "I live right near that Van Ness metro one did the searching and found a great 3 station on the Red Line in northwest DC. I bedroom for us. We lived in Columbia work downtown, so the commute is easy. Heights, not far from the metro station. I It's a great place to live for those who like recommend Columbia Heights, Meridian a quieter neighborhood with great access Hill area, Mt. Pleasant, parts of up and to basic amenities (groceries, metro, dry coming Petworth.” cleaning, etc.) and Rock Creek Park. I would not recommend it for someone who is working in Silver Spring because of the "I lived with college friends already in the commute. There aren't a lot of public area. Those fellows new to the area transit options that go east-west across should avoid neighborhoods east of the Rock Creek park. Most fellows end up Anacostia River in SE. Good living in Columbia Heights, which is a 45 - neighborhoods: Columbia Heights, Mount 60 minute walk, 15 minute drive ($10 on Pleasant, U.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2017 Annual Report
    Mount Vernon Triangle Community Improvement District Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017 twitter.com/MVTCID facebook.com/MountVernonTriangleCID instagram.com/mvtcid flickr.com youtube.com COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Dear Valued Stakeholders: recent headline proclaimed Mount Vernon Triangle a “Nexus Neighborhood.” Our community couldn’t agree more. More than half of the 700-plus respondents to our most recent neighborhood survey work within a one-mile radius of Mount Vernon Triangle, with 40% of respondents indicating that walking was their preferred mode of transportation to and from work. “Convenient” was the word most often cited by respondents to describe their perception of the MVT neighborhood of today. And a location- related attribute comprised four of the top six reasons why residents said they chose to live in Mount Vernon Triangle, with “Centralized location within DC” and “Proximity to work” comprising the top two most important determining factors. Clearly, “Location, Location, Location” is central to what makes #LifeinMVT so special. But as a prototypical nexus neighborhood, we recognize that the fruits of our efforts extend beyond our borders. Promoting the merits of our community’s location, convenience and livability while working to create stronger connections with surrounding neighborhoods, are all necessary and essential to the future of both Mount Vernon Triangle and downtown DC. Indeed, Mount Vernon Triangle Berk Shervin and Kenyattah Robinson sits at the epicenter of a vibrant and dynamic part of the District: • To our north is 655 New York Avenue—a project that includes multiple creative historic adaptive reuse elements—that will house The mission and vision for the Mount Vernon Triangle Advisory Board, EAB and others within 750,000+ SF of Class-A space.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Report – District of Columbia a G St 2016 Pdate
    A G ST 2016 PDATE PROGRESS REPOR Our Work to Upgrade Reliability District of Columbia Progress Results 1. TRIMMING TREES Many of Pepco’s outages are a direct result of trees We trimmed trees along 52.13 miles of power lines in falling on power lines. Pepco is aggressively trimming the District of Columbia during August, bringing the trees along public rights of way to obtain increased annual total to 278.2 miles. The annual target for clearance between the overhead electric wires and 2016 is 400 miles. existing trees. Pepco also works with District of Columbia communities and homeowners to remove potentially hazardous trees which fall outside of the company’s right of way area. 2. IMPROVING PRIORITY FEEDERS A feeder is an electric power line that distributes In August, we completed work in the Navy Yard area. power to up to 1,100 customers within a specific We continued work in the areas of Fort Davis, geographic area. Each year, across the District of Capitol Hill, Deanwood, Hillbrook and Fort Dupont. Columbia, Pepco selects feeders for additional work We plan to complete 16 projects during 2016. to improve performance. 3. PREPARING FOR SYSTEM GROWT Similar to upgrading electric service to your home to In August, we completed work in the Metro Center accommodate new appliances and electronic devices, area. We continued work on projects in the areas of Pepco is continuing to upgrade power lines and is eorgetown, Foggy Bottom, Petworth and Brookland. adding circuits to accommodate new customers and We plan to complete six projects during 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia Watershed (Washington, DC/Maryland)
    Anacostia Watershed (Washington, DC/Maryland) Ambassador Erin Garnaas-Holmes (Anacostia Waterfront Trust) (202) 223-4560 [email protected] Co-Leads Catherine King (EPA) (215) 814-2657 [email protected] Tammy Stidham (NPS) (202) 619-7474 [email protected] Overall Assessment of the Partnership since the Beginning The Anacostia River has been part of the Urban Waters Partnership since 2011 when the first pilot locations were selected. The watershed’s relatively small size (176 square miles), as well as its location, surrounded by federal government owned-land, is an area that has seen significant change in recent decades. Further, there are many federal, state and local agencies, watershed groups, and citizen-based groups that work in the watershed, challenging efforts to coordinate projects. Despite these considerations, there has long been robust potential and varied successes. Many partnerships and coalitions are working to restore the river, and there is significant data on water quality, restoration activities, and other parameters in the Anacostia. A critical element of the Urban Waters Partnership in the Anacostia has been to plug into and enhance existing efforts underway to restore the Anacostia and reconnect underserved communities to the river and its waterfront, much of which is public land. There have been successful Urban Waters initiatives in the watershed, and as the Partnership continues to evolve, the location expects to see more project successes, and an enhanced ability to coordinate Urban Waters efforts. 1 August 2017 Members of the Partnership The federal agency co-leads for the Anacostia location are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Park Service (NPS).
    [Show full text]
  • Ephemeral Stormwater Outfall Restoration Park Drive RSC Fort Dupont Park (National Park Service), SE Washington DC Dcwater
    Ephemeral Stormwater Outfall Restoration Park Drive RSC Fort Dupont Park (National Park Service), SE Washington DC DCWater Project Goals: • Provide stable conveyance ofofof 100100100- 100 ---yearyear storm event through thethethe design ofofof boulder cascades andandand cobble riffles, thus minimizing sediment loading tototo receiving stream channel, • Minimize impacts tototo well vegetated, steep slopes past thethethe gully’s toptoptop ofofof bank • Maximize nutrient uptake andandand improve water quality tototo thethethe unnamed tributary ofofof thethethe Anacostia River bybyby promoting infiltration, detention, andandand seepage through thethethe sand/mulch fill,fill,fill, which increases denitrification andandand sediment filtering, • Dissipate energy atatat thethethe existing outfall discharge point through thethethe design ofofof aaa series ofofof dissipation poolspools. ... Additional Project Benefits: • Enhance thethethe ecological functions ofofof thethethe sitesitesite through thethethe recharging ofofof groundwater andandand creation ofofof riffle/pools complexes, • Attenuate stormwater peak discharges tototo thethethe downstream, unnamed tributary ofofof thethethe Anacostia River through thethethe conversion ofofof surface flow tototo subsubsub- sub ---surfacesurface flow, • Preserve valuable over story trees bybyby minimizing construction impacts tototo thethethe adjacent woodlands, • Install aaa viable demonstration project tototo showcase costcost- ---effectiveeffective andandand ecologically appropriate restoration techniquestechniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia Great Outdoors Factsheet (PDF)
    Anacostia’s Great Outdoors: Fact Sheet Connecting People and the Anacostia removal of more than 20 acres of landfill. Additionally, the In partnership with the federal government, the District of project included: planting 85,000 wetland plants, reforesting Columbia and State of Maryland are working to restore the 14 acres of land, creating 20 acres of tidal wetland, and Anacostia River and provide safe and convenient means for preserving four acres of habitat along the Anacostia River. people to access the Anacostia River and enjoy the outdoors. Connecting DC and Maryland The Anacostia Riverwalk Trails will link together hundreds of Maryland, the District, and the U.S. Department of miles of regional trails; including the Fort Circle Trail (DC), the Transportation are working to design and build the critical Bladensburg Trail (MD), the Rock Creek Trail (DC and MD), the Kenilworth Gardens Section, which will connect the Maryland Mount Vernon Trail (VA) and the C&O Canal Trail (DC and and District Anacostia Riverwalk Trail Networks. Design is 65 MD). These connections will also provide access to the East percent complete and construction will begin in 2012. Coast Greenway, a network of trails linking Maine to Florida. Maryland is providing an additional $1 million from the Cycle Maryland Bikeways Program to build this critical connection. Anacostia Riverwalk Trail - DC With 12 miles already in place and a total of 20 miles planned, New Cycle Maryland Bicycle Funding Programs the Anacostia Riverwalk trail in Washington, DC will connect Today, Governor O’Malley announced two new bicycle sixteen waterfront neighborhoods to Anacostia Park and the funding programs to move forward his Cycle Maryland Anacostia River.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington's Waterfront Study
    WASHINGTON’S WATERFRONTS Phase 1 December 1999 The Georgetown Waterfront Anacostia Park’s West Bank Potomac River r Rive Anacostia The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Washington Navy Yard and Southeast Waterfront National Capital Planning Commission Southwest Waterfront Anacostia Park’s East Bank 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 301 Bolling Anacostia Waterfront Washington, D.C. 20576 tel 202 482-7200 fax 202 482-7272 An Analysis of Issues and Opportunities Along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers www.ncpc.gov TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.............................................2 A. Overview B. Study Origin C. Study Process D. Study Goals E. Study Area II. THE WATERFRONT.......................................4 A. Regional Context B. Area Description C. Existing Conditions D. Land Use E. Transportation F. Urban Image III. WATERFRONT ISSUES..............................12 A. Identification of Concerns B. Planning Issues C. Opportunities D. Development Guidelines E. Implementation Tools IV. THE WATERFRONT PLAN.........................16 Recommended Outline V. CONCLUSION.............................................17 VI. APPENDIX..................................................18 1 7. Develop a waterfront redevelopment zone in areas 2. Enhance public access to the river. I. INTRODUCTION where major new development is proposed and ensure that existing maritime uses are protected. 3. Protect the natural setting of the valued open spaces A. Overview along the rivers. 8. Establish public transportation where needed and This document was developed to study the waterfront as a resource encourage the development of adequate parking in 4. Identify opportunities for attracting additional river- that belongs to all of the people of the United States and to the resi- redeveloped areas. related activities that can aid in revitalizing the District's dents of the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Washington, D.C.'S Neighborhoods A-3
    State of Washington, D.C.’s Neighborhoods Prepared by Peter A. Tatian G. Thomas Kingsley Margery Austin Turner Jennifer Comey Randy Rosso Prepared for The Office of Planning The Government of the District of Columbia September 30, 2008 The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 UI project no. 08040-000-01 State of Washington, D.C.’s Neighborhoods ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................. vi About this Report ............................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction...................................................................................................... 3 II. Demographics................................................................................................. 9 Population......................................................................................................................9 Households..................................................................................................................13 III. Economy – Jobs and Income ..................................................................... 15 Employed Residents and Unemployment Rate...........................................................15 Poverty and Household Income ..................................................................................18 Public Assistance
    [Show full text]