DOCSLIB.ORG

Record of Decision (Rods)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record of Decision (Rods) FFA Final Record of Decision for Site 10 Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III District of Columbia Department of the Environment May 2009 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................v 1 Declaration..............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Site Name and Location ...............................................................................................1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose..................................................................................1-1 1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy...........................................................................1-1 1.4 Statutory Determinations.............................................................................................1-2 1.5 Authorizing Signature..................................................................................................1-2 2 Decision Summary ................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief Description ..............................................................2-1 2.2 Site History, Previous Investigations, and Enforcement Activities.......................2-1 2.2.1 Site History .......................................................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Previous Investigations...................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Enforcement Activities....................................................................................2-4 2.3 Community Participation ............................................................................................2-4 2.4 Scope and Role of the Response Action.....................................................................2-5 2.5 Site Characteristics........................................................................................................2-5 2.5.1 Site Overview ...................................................................................................2-5 2.5.2 Physical Setting ................................................................................................2-5 2.5.3 Ecology ..............................................................................................................2-6 2.5.4 Conceptual Site Model ....................................................................................2-6 2.5.5 Nature and Extent of Contamination............................................................2-6 2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses..........................................2-7 2.7 Summary of Risks .........................................................................................................2-7 2.7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Process.....................................................2-8 2.7.2 Human Health Risk Assessment Results – Before Removal Action.........2-9 2.7.3 Human Health Risk Assessment Results – After Removal Action.........2-11 2.7.4 Ecological Risk Assessment Process............................................................2-11 2.7.5 Ecological Risk Assessment Results – Before Removal Action ...............2-12 2.7.6 Ecological Risk Assessment Results – After Removal Action .................2-13 2.8 Selected Remedy .........................................................................................................2-14 2.9 Documentation of Significant Changes ...................................................................2-14 3 Responsiveness Summary ...................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Overview........................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Background on Community Involvement ................................................................3-1 3.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period, Navy Responses.......................................................................................................................3-1 4 References ...............................................................................................................................4-1 090540001WDC III FINAL-RECORD OF DECISION FOR SITE 10 Tables 2-1 Summary of RME Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices 2-2 Summary of CT Hazard Indices 2-3 Surface Soil Lead Model Results 2-4 Site 10 - ERA Step 3 Surface Soil Screening for Lead for Lower Trophic Level Receptors 2-5 Site 10 Quarters A - ERA Step 3 Surface Soil Screening for Lower Trophic Level Receptors 2-6 Site 10 Lawn Areas - ERA Step 3 Surface Soil Screening for Lower Trophic Level Receptors 2-7 Site 10 Garden Areas - ERA Step 3 Surface Soil Screening for Lower Trophic Level Receptors 2-8 Site 10 Spigot Areas - ERA Step 3 Surface Soil Screening for Lower Trophic Level Receptors 2-9 Summary of Hazard Quotients for Food Web Exposures For Site 10 2-10 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment Step 3 COCs Figures 2-1 Washington Navy Yard Location Map 2-2 Washington Navy Yard Site Plan 2-3 Extent of Removal Actions for Site 10 2-4 Conceptual Site Model for Potential Human Exposure 2-5 Conceptual Site Model for Potential Ecological Exposure Appendixes A DDOE Letter of Concurrence B Site 10 Removal Action Confirmatory Soil Results C Public Meeting Transcript—September 10, 2008 IV 090540001WDC Acronyms and Abbreviations CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS ID Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System Identification COPC constituent of potential concern CSF cancer slope factor CTE central tendency exposure CSM conceptual site model DDOE District of Columbia Department of the Environment EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPC exposure point concentration ERA Ecological Risk Assessment FFA Federal Facilities Agreement FS Feasibility Study HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables HHRA human health risk assessment HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IC Institutional Control IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model IR Installation Restoration IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LOAEL lowest observed adverse effect level Navy United States Department of the Navy NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NOAEL no observed adverse effect level NPL National Priorities List PA Preliminary Assessment ppm parts per million RAB Restoration Advisory Board RBC risk-based concentration RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RfD reference dose RFI RCRA Facility Investigation RI Remedial Investigation RME reasonable maximum exposure ROD Record of Decision 090540001WDC V FINAL-RECORD OF DECISION FOR SITE 10 SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SEFC Southeast Federal Center SERA Screening Ecological Risk Assessment SSA 12 Site Screening Area 12 SVOC semi-volatile organic compound UCL upper confidence limit VOC volatile organic compound WNY Washington Navy Yard VI 090540001WDC SECTION 1 Declaration 1.1 Site Name and Location This Record of Decision (ROD) was prepared for the soil at Site 10 at the Washington Navy Yard (WNY) in Washington, D.C. By definition, this site consists solely of soil; basewide groundwater is addressed as a separate operable unit. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System identification (CERCLIS ID) number for the WNY is DC9170024310. 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose This ROD presents the basis for determining that further remedial action is not necessary for Site 10 at the WNY. The determination has been made in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). In accordance with Section 113(k) of CERCLA, this decision is based on the Administrative Record file for the WNY. The United States Department of the Navy (Navy) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III jointly issue this ROD. The District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix A). Public comments that were received during the public meeting and 30-day comment period on the Proposed Plan for this site are discussed in Section 3, “Responsiveness Summary.” 1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy No further CERCLA remedial action is the selected remedy for the soil at Site 10. The no­ further-action remedy selection is based on the remedial investigations (including the baseline human health and ecological risk assessment), the subsequent non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA) of over 2,000 cubic yards of soil, and the results of 313 confirmatory soil samples. No further action under CERCLA is necessary to protect human health, welfare, or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment from the soil at Site 10. Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • QUES in ARCH HIST I Jump to Today Questions in Architectural History 1
    [email protected] - QUES IN ARCH HIST I Jump to Today Questions in Architectural History 1 Faculty: Zeynep Çelik Alexander, Reinhold Martin, Mabel O. Wilson Teaching Fellows: Oskar Arnorsson, Benedict Clouette, Eva Schreiner Thurs 11am-1pm Fall 2016 This two-semester introductory course is organized around selected questions and problems that have, over the course of the past two centuries, helped to define architecture’s modernity. The course treats the history of architectural modernity as a contested, geographically and culturally uncertain category, for which periodization is both necessary and contingent. The fall semester begins with the apotheosis of the European Enlightenment and the early phases of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century. From there, it proceeds in a rough chronology through the “long” nineteenth century. Developments in Europe and North America are situated in relation to worldwide processes including trade, imperialism, nationalism, and industrialization. Sequentially, the course considers specific questions and problems that form around differences that are also connections, antitheses that are also interdependencies, and conflicts that are also alliances. The resulting tensions animated architectural discourse and practice throughout the period, and continue to shape our present. Each week, objects, ideas, and events will move in and out of the European and North American frame, with a strong emphasis on relational thinking and contextualization. This includes a historical, relational understanding of architecture itself. Although the Western tradition had recognized diverse building practices as “architecture” for some time, an understanding of architecture as an academic discipline and as a profession, which still prevails today, was only institutionalized in the European nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Delegated Action Template
    Delegated Action of the Executive Director PROJECT NCPC FILE NUMBER Relocation of Historic Watchbox 7628 Washington Navy Yard Washington, DC NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER 41.11(61.10)44048 SUBMITTED BY ACTION TAKEN United States Department of the Navy Preliminary and final approval of site and building plans REVIEW AUTHORITY Approval per 40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1) and (d) The Navy has submitted preliminary and final site and building plans for the relocation of a historic watchbox from Naval Support Facility Indian Head, Maryland to the Washington Navy Yard. The project is mitigation for the adverse effect caused by the demolition of Piers 3 and 4 at the Washington Navy Yard. Piers 3 and 4 are contributing elements to the Washington Navy Yard Central Yard National Historic Landmark. As such, their demolition constitutes an adverse effect on historic properties. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Navy entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Officer and Maryland Historical Trust to mitigate the adverse effect. The mitigation defined in the MOA was to relocate a historic watchbox from Naval Support Facility Indian Head, Maryland to the Washington Navy Yard. The watchbox was constructed ca. 1853-1854 at the Washington Navy Yard. It stood just inside the Latrobe Gate (8th and M Streets SE) and functioned as a sentry post manned by Marines assigned to the Washington Navy Yard. In approximately 1905, the building was moved to the Naval Proving Ground at Indian Head. The watchbox has been at three locations at Indian Head and has served as a foreman’s office, telephone switchboard office, and storage building.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 -- A6^ P""--**^ OMB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See in liiiiirnTr©miTfijffi to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Capitol Hill Historic District (boundary increase)___________________________________ other names _______________________________________________________ 2. Location street & number Reservations 251 & 126 and Squares 905, 906, 907, 928, 929, 930, & 952 D not for publication city or town Washington____________________________________ _____ n vicinity state District of Columbia code DC county code 001 zip code 20003 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this D nomination Q request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property D meets D does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence Disposals in the UK Contrasted with Sustainable Redevelopment in Four US East Coast Navy Yards
    Defence Sites 243 Learning from experience: defence disposals in the UK contrasted with sustainable redevelopment in four US east coast navy yards C. M. Clark Wessex Institute of Technology, UK Abstract Modern war is now conducted remotely – via unmanned military drones, robots and chemical weapons; troops can be moved into battle rapidly from advanced positions. These developments in attack and defence technology render many facilities in fixed positions – navy bases, garrisons, forts, airbases, training grounds – increasingly redundant. Many governments are disposing of these surplus defence sites, some of them historic, but the processes and the outcomes vary enormously from country to country. In the UK large swathes of defence land are earmarked for sale in the near future; the Ministry of Defence is under increasing pressure to rationalise its holdings and save public money. The United States Government is considering selling off many more of its publicly owned assets in the face of prolonged recession. Although the closure of military sites is happening all over the world, transfers of learning from the accumulating experience of post-defence reconstruction, both within and between countries has at best been sporadic. This conference is one of the first to examine the complex and particular challenges to land reuse thrown up by reductions in defence budgets. Planned disposals offer a unique opportunity to provide long-term benefits to local communities whose economies are affected by losses of defence related employment, but they do not always result in such outcomes. Examples of good practice in this paper are drawn from post defence experience in navy bases on the east coast of America, complementing the paper on Brooklyn Navy Yard.
    [Show full text]
  • Arindam Dutta, Reinhold Martin, Mabel O. Wilson Teaching Fellows
    Questions in Architectural History 1 Faculty: Arindam Dutta, Reinhold Martin, Mabel O. Wilson Teaching Fellows: Óskar Arnórsson, Caitlin Blanchfield, Christopher Cowell, Eva Schreiner, Elliott Sturtevant, Ife Vanable Martin, Wilson: Wed 11am-1pm Dutta: Thurs 11am-1pm Fall 2017 This two-semester introductory course is organized around selected questions and problems that have, over the course of the past two centuries, helped to define architecture’s modernity. The course treats the history of architectural modernity as a contested, geographically and culturally uncertain category, for which periodization is both necessary and contingent. The fall semester begins with the apotheosis of the European Enlightenment and the early phases of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century. From there, it proceeds in a rough chronology through the “long” nineteenth century. Developments in Europe and North America are situated in relation to worldwide processes including trade, imperialism, nationalism, and industrialization. Sequentially, the course considers specific questions and problems that form around differences that are also connections, antitheses that are also interdependencies, and conflicts that are also alliances. The resulting tensions animated architectural discourse and practice throughout the period, and continue to shape our present. Each week, objects, ideas, and events will move in and out of the European and North American frame, with a strong emphasis on relational thinking and contextualization. This includes a historical, relational understanding of architecture itself. Although the Western tradition had recognized diverse building practices as “architecture” for some time, an understanding of architecture as an academic discipline and as a profession, which still prevails today, was only institutionalized in the European nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
    JUNE 2019 F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER INSIDE: 8 On & Off the Hill 24 Regional Meetings 26 Navy Yard Museum ADVANCEDHEARING AID TECHNOLOGY For Only $19 999 “I was amazed! Sounds I hadn’t heard in years came back to me!” — Don W., Sherman, TX How can a hearing aid that costs only $19999 be every bit as good as one that sells for $2,400 or more? The answer: Although tremendous strides have been made in Advanced Hearing Aid Technology, those cost reductions have Can a Hearing Aid Delay or Prevent not been passed on to you. Until now... Alzheimer’s and Dementia? MDHearingAid® uses the same A study by the National Institute on Aging suggests older individuals with hearing loss kind of Advanced Hearing Aid Technology are signifi cantly more likely to develop incorporated into hearing aids that cost Alzheimer’s and dementia over time than those thousands more at a small fraction who retain their hearing. They suggest that an of the price. intervention — such as a hearing aid — could delay or prevent this by improving hearing! Over 350,000 satisfi ed MDHearingAid customers agree: High-quality, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR FDA-registered hearing aids don’t 45-DAY RISK-FREE TRIAL! have to cost a fortune. The fact is, Hearing is believing and we invite you to try you don’t need to spend thousands this nearly invisible hearing aid with no for a hearing aid. MDHearingAid annoying whistling or background noise for is a medical-grade hearing aid yourself. If you are not completely satisfi ed offering sophistication and high with your MDHearingAid, return it within 45 Nearly Invisible performance, and works right out days for a FULL REFUND.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Navy Yard Relocation of Historic Watchbox
    Washington Navy Yard Relocation of Historic Watchbox _______________ Submitted by Department of the Navy Preliminary and Final Review Project Information Commission meeting date: December 4, 2014 NCPC review authority: Approval - Federal Projects in the District Applicant request: Preliminary and final approval Delegated / consent / open / executive session: Delegated NCPC Review Officer: J. Hirsch NCPC File number: 7628 Project summary: The Navy has submitted preliminary and final site and building plans for the relocation of a historic watchbox from Naval Support Facility Indian Head, Maryland to the Washington Navy Yard. The project is mitigation for the adverse effect caused by the demolition of Piers 3 and 4 at the Washington Navy Yard. Piers 3 and 4 are contributing elements to the Washington Navy Yard Central Yard National Historic Landmark. As such, their demolition constitutes an adverse effect on historic properties. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Navy entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Officer and Maryland Historical Trust to mitigate the adverse effect. The mitigation defined in the MOA was to relocate a historic watchbox from Naval Support Facility Indian Head, Maryland to the Washington Navy Yard. The watchbox was constructed ca. 1853-1854 at the Washington Navy Yard. It stood just inside the Latrobe Gate (8th and M Streets SE) and functioned as a sentry post manned by Marines assigned to the Washington Navy Yard. In approximately 1905, the building was moved to the Naval Proving Ground at Indian Head. (Munitions produced at the Washington Navy Yard were shipped down the Potomac River for proving at Indian Head.) The watchbox has been at three locations at Indian Head and has served as a foreman’s office, telephone switchboard office, and storage building.
    [Show full text]
  • Course Syllabus Jump to Today Questions in Architectural History 1 Faculty: Arindam Dutta, Reinhold Martin, Mabel O
    Course Syllabus Jump to Today Questions in Architectural History 1 Faculty: Arindam Dutta, Reinhold Martin, Mabel O. Wilson Teaching Fellows: Óskar Arnórsson, Caitlin Blanchfield, Christopher Cowell, Eva Schreiner, Elliott Sturtevant, Ife Vanable Martin, Wilson: Wed 11am-1pm Dutta: Thurs 11am-1pm Fall 2017 This two-semester introductory course is organized around selected questions and problems that have, over the course of the past two centuries, helped to define architecture’s modernity. The course treats the history of architectural modernity as a contested, geographically and culturally uncertain category, for which periodization is both necessary and contingent. The fall semester begins with the apotheosis of the European Enlightenment and the early phases of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century. From there, it proceeds in a rough chronology through the “long” nineteenth century. Developments in Europe and North America are situated in relation to worldwide processes including trade, imperialism, nationalism, and industrialization. Sequentially, the course considers specific questions and problems that form around differences that are also connections, antitheses that are also interdependencies, and conflicts that are also alliances. The resulting tensions animated architectural discourse and practice throughout the period, and continue to shape our present. Each week, objects, ideas, and events will move in and out of the European and North American frame, with a strong emphasis on relational thinking and contextualization. This includes a historical, relational understanding of architecture itself. Although the Western tradition had recognized diverse building practices as “architecture” for some time, an understanding of architecture as an academic discipline and as a profession, which still prevails today, was only institutionalized in the European nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Area Element DELETIONS ADDITIONS
    Comprehensive Plan Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Area Element Proposed Amendments DELETIONS ADDITIONS April 2020 Page 1 of 44 Comprehensive Plan Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Area Element Proposed Amendments 1900 Overview 1900 1900.1 The Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Planning Area encompasses at 3.0three square miles of land located along both sides of the Anacostia River in the southwest and southeast quadrants of the District of Columbia Washington, DC. The boundaries include the I-395 Freeway to the north, Anacostia Park and portions of South Capitol Street SE to the east and south, and the Washington Channel to the west. Its boundaries are shown in the Mmap to the left. This Planning Area includes parts of Wards 6, 7, and 8. In the past, portions of this Planning Area have also been in Ward 2. 1900.1 1900.2 The Anacostia waterfront is home to many of Washington, DC’s great vibrant neighborhoods. frontier for the 21st century. Much of its shoreline on the cusp of has been experiencing a transformation initiated by the 2003 Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan, which set a visionary and ambitious plan for the revitalization of the waterfront into a world-class destination. The former being transformed from a landscape of industrial, transportation, and government uses continues to transform into one of new mixed-use neighborhoods, workplaces, civic spaces, parks, and restored natural areas. Established waterfront neighborhoods stand to benefit greatly. This transformation is delivering improved access to the shoreline, new recreational amenities, new housing and transportation choices, and a cleaner natural environment, along with new opportunities to enhance the resilience of the Anacostia waterfront.
    [Show full text]
  • Course Syllabus
    Course Syllabus Jump to Today Questions in Architectural History 1 Faculty: Arindam Dutta Teaching Fellows: Eva Schreiner ([email protected]), Elliott Sturtevant ([email protected]) Time: Thursdays, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Location: Ware Lounge Fall 2017 This two-semester introductory course is organized around selected questions and problems that have, over the course of the past two centuries, helped to define architecture’s modernity. The course treats the history of architectural modernity as a contested, geographically and culturally uncertain category, for which periodization is both necessary and contingent. The fall semester begins with the apotheosis of the European Enlightenment and the early phases of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century. From there, it proceeds in a rough chronology through the “long” nineteenth century. Developments in Europe and North America are situated in relation to worldwide processes including trade, imperialism, nationalism, and industrialization. Sequentially, the course considers specific questions and problems that form around differences that are also connections, antitheses that are also interdependencies, and conflicts that are also alliances. The resulting tensions animated architectural discourse and practice throughout the period, and continue to shape our present. Each week, objects, ideas, and events will move in and out of the European and North American frame, with a strong emphasis on relational thinking and contextualization. This includes a historical, relational understanding of architecture itself. Although the Western tradition had recognized diverse building practices as “architecture” for some time, an understanding of architecture as an academic discipline and as a profession, which still prevails today, was only institutionalized in the European nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRICT of COLUMBIA INVENTORY of HISTORIC SITES ALPHABETICAL VERSION September 30, 2009
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES ALPHABETICAL VERSION September 30, 2009 The District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites is the District government’s list of officially designated historic properties. Properties in the Inventory are deemed worthy of recognition and protection for their contribution to the cultural heritage of one of the nation’s most beautiful and historic cities. 2009 Inventory The D.C. Inventory originated in 1964, with 289 listings. The 2009 version of the Inventory contains more than 700 designations encompassing nearly 25,000 properties. Included in the Inventory are: 500 historic landmark designations covering more than 800 buildings 150 historic landmark designations of other structures, including parks, engineering structures, monuments, building interiors, artifacts, and archaeological sites 50 historic districts, including 28 neighborhood historic districts. Properties in the Inventory properties are protected by both local and federal historic preservation laws. The D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) designates properties for inclusion in the Inventory, and the D.C. Historic Preservation Office (HPO) maintains the Inventory and supporting documentation. A component of the D.C. Office of Planning, HPO is both the staff to the Review Board and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the District of Columbia. Searching the Inventory The 2009 version of the D.C. Inventory is presented in multiple formats for convenience. Each of these formats is available on the HPO website and may be obtained in an electronic copy. The main or thematic version of the Inventory is arranged to promote understanding of significant properties within their historic context. Designations are grouped by historical period and theme (see the Table of Contents).
    [Show full text]
  • Ward 6 Heritage Guide
    WARD 6 HERITAGE GUIDE A Discussion of Ward 6 Cultural and Heritage Resources District of Columbia Office of Planning Ward 6 Heritage Guide D.C. Office of Planning Text by Patsy Fletcher, DC Historic Preservation Office Design by Kim Elliott, DC Historic Preservation Office Unless noted otherwise, images from the DC Office of Planning Published 2018 This Heritage Guide is among a series of guides on the cultural resources and community heritage of the District of Columbia’s eight wards. Each guide focuses on the historical development of communities within the current ward boundaries. 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. Department 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.
    [Show full text]