DOCSLIB.ORG

Remedial Investigation Report (Draft)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Remedial Investigation Report (Draft) Prepared for: Prepared by: Pepco and Pepco Energy Services AECOM Washington, D.C. Beltsville, Maryland February 2016 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (DRAFT) Benning Road Facility 3400 Benning Road, NE Washington, DC 20019 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (DRAFT) Benning Road Facility 3400 Benning Road, N.E. Washington, DC 20019 PREPARED FOR: Pepco and Pepco Energy Services 701 9th Street, NW Washington, DC 20068 PREPARED BY: AECOM 8000 Virginia Manor Road, Suite 110 Beltsville, MD 20705 February 2016 AECOM Project Team ________________________________ ________________________________ Robert Kennedy Betsy Ruffle Data Management and Forensics Lead Human Health Risk Assessment Lead ________________________________ ________________________________ Maryann Welsch Helen Jones Ecological Risk Assessment Lead Background Data Evaluation Lead ________________________________ ________________________________ Ben Daniels John Bleiler Field Operations Lead and Report Compiler Senior Technical Reviewer ________________________________ Ravi Damera, P.E., BCEE Project Manager ES-1 Executive Summary This draft Remedial Investigation Report presents the results of recently completed environmental investigation activities at Pepco’s Benning Road facility (the Site), located at 3400 Benning Road NE, Washington, DC. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Study Area consists of a “Landside” component focused on the Site itself, and a “Waterside” component focused on the shoreline and sediments in the segment of the Anacostia River adjacent to and immediately downstream of the Site. A significant number of sediment quality studies have been completed within the Anacostia River. The findings of these studies consistently show the presence of PCBs, PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, and metals in sediment samples collected from up and down the 8.4 mile-long stretch of Anacostia River in DC. For decades, there has been a broad recognition that the water quality and sediment quality in this urban river is degraded due to a variety of factors, including shoreline habitat degradation, point sources, non-point sources, combined sewer overflows, input from tributaries, atmospheric deposition, storm water runoff, and refuse disposal practices. The Pepco Benning Road Facility was identified by DOEE as one of six sites along the lower Anacostia River suspected to be a significant source of contaminants in the river. The RI/FS work has been conducted under the framework of a Consent Decree that documents an agreement between Pepco and the District of Columbia (District) which is part of the District’s larger effort to address contamination in and along the Anacostia River. The RI field activities were conducted in accordance with the RI/FS Work Plan and two Work Plan Addenda approved by the DOEE. The principal field activities were conducted between January 25, 2013 and December 31, 2014, and included sampling of landside soils, groundwater, storm drains, and Anacostia River sediment and surface water. The purpose of the RI/FS is to: (a) characterize environmental conditions within the Study Area, (b) investigate whether and to what extent past or current conditions at the Site have caused or contributed to contamination of the River, (c) assess current and potential risk to human health and the environment posed by conditions within the Study Area, and (d) develop and evaluate potential remedial actions, as may be warranted. This draft RI Report addresses the first three objectives. The FS Report will address the development and evaluation of potential remedial actions. The RI samples were analyzed for a broad suite of analytes, including metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons Benning Road Facility DRAFT February 2016 RI Report ES-2 (TPH), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins and furans. Project data quality objectives established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) were met, and over 99.9% of the laboratory results were deemed valid and usable for project decisions. The RI results are summarized below for the Landside and Waterside areas of investigation. The following discussion addresses the constituents of interest (COI) that were identified based on comparison of Study Area sampling data to conservative risk-based screening values. Landside Investigation Area A total of eighteen Target Areas (TAs) were investigated in the Landside Investigation Area. The major Landside findings are as follows: Many of the inorganics and all of the pesticides, VOCs, and SVOCs (except for a limited number of PAH compounds) that were detected in Site surface and subsurface soils were present at concentrations below their respective screening levels. The COI identified in Landside soils include a limited number of inorganics, PAHs, petroleum hydrocarbons in the aboveground storage tank (AST) area, PCBs, and dioxins and furans (surface soil only). Additional field investigation is necessary to understand Site contributions to the observed COIs. A limited number of metals, VOCs (primarily PCE and its daughter products), PAHs, pesticides, dioxins and furans, and PCBs were detected in groundwater above screening levels. PCE in the vicinity of DP-09 is not considered to be Site-related. However, the source of PCE concentrations observed in MW-01 and MW-02 in the southwest corner of the Site is not known, and an additional field investigation will further address these detections. The low levels of hydrophobic organics (i.e., PAHs, pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins and furans) observed are likely associated with turbidity in the groundwater samples. In an upcoming additional field sampling phase, affected groundwater monitoring wells will be redeveloped and resampled to confirm the effect of sample turbidity on groundwater COI concentration levels. Several metals, PAHs, TPH, low levels of pesticides, and PCBs were detected in storm drain residue and water samples. In general, the PCB levels in the storm drain residue samples were significantly lower than levels detected during previous investigations. No non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) were observed in Site soils or groundwater. Preliminary forensic analysis suggests that PAHs in site soils are predominantly from combustion-related sources (pyrogenic) rather than fuels (petrogenic). This predominantly pyrogenic pattern is consistent with PAHs from urban background sources, such as vehicular exhaust and road runoff that have been reported in other urban rivers and waterways. Preliminary forensic analysis also indicated that the composition of PCBs detected at the Site differs from the composition of PCBs detected in Anacostia River sediments. Benning Road Facility DRAFT February 2016 RI Report ES-3 Additional follow-up forensic analyses will be needed to better define offsite versus onsite sources of PAHs and PCBs. An additional investigation is necessary to delineate the COI exceedances observed in this investigation. The additional investigation is needed in multiple locations including, but not limited to the following: o PCB impacts in soils around the cooling tower concrete basins (TA #5); o Petroleum impacts from historical spills in the AST area (TA #13); and o PCE in the vicinity of DP-09 is not considered to be Site-related. However, the source of PCE concentrations observed in MW-01 and MW-02 in the southwest corner of the Site is not known, and an additional field investigation will further address these detections. The additional field investigation will be documented in an addendum to the RI/FS Work Plan that will be reviewed and approved by DOEE prior to its implementation. Waterside Investigation Area The Waterside Investigation Area focused on sediment and surface water adjacent to the Site, as well as ten background locations in the Anacostia River. The major Waterside findings are as follows: Several metals, pesticides, PAHs, PCBs, and dioxins and furans exceed ecological screening levels in sediment in the Waterside area of investigation. An evaluation of background conditions using Site-specific data indicates that the levels of most COI in surface sediment in the Study Area are consistent with Site- specific background conditions, although a few inorganics, PCBs, and dioxins and furans may be locally elevated relative to Site-specific background. The elevated levels of these constituents are generally located in the cove of the River into which Outfall 013 from the Site and three other discharge pipes not associated with the Site (referred to as non-Pepco outfalls) discharge. The levels of constituents in Study Area surface water are below ecological screening levels, with the exception of dissolved barium, two PAH compounds, and 4,4’-DDT. However, Study Area concentrations of these COI are consistent with Site-specific background. Based on an evaluation of fish tissue data collected by the District and the state of Maryland in support of consumption advisories, PCB levels in fish tissue are similar throughout the Anacostia River. Similar PCB levels were observed in species caught in the three reaches that were sampled, including the Lower Anacostia (from the confluence with the Potomac to the CSX railroad bridge), Upper Anacostia (from the CSX railroad bridge to the DC-Maryland state line, which includes the stretch adjacent to the Site), and the Benning Road Facility DRAFT February 2016 RI Report ES-4 upstream reach in Maryland. These findings
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anacostia RI Work Plan
    Comment Form Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Anacostia River Sediment Project, Washington DC Commenter/ Section/Table/Figur Page Number Representative Organization Type e Nos. No. Comment Response The discussion of Sources does not seem to treat the re-suspension of in situ legacy sediments as a source of the toxics under The re-suspension and re-deposition of sediments is expected to occur during storm inv estigation. It may well be that a major source of the toxic sediments in any one place is depostion of these resuspended toxic ev ents and is a secondary source of sediment contaminants. The relativ e Anacostia materials af ter they hav e been stirred up by storms , dredging or other ev ents. While the extent of this source and the nature in which it signif icance of this process is dif f icult to quantif y and would v ary f rom storm to Watershed Citizens 1 William Matuszeski Env ironmental Group 3.1.2 24 deliv ers these toxics is dif f icult to determine, it is important to establish its relativ e contribution as a source. storm. Although the concentration distribution in sediments is expected to change in Adv isory response to these processes ov er time, the sampling approach presented in the RI Committee Work Plan will prov ide the data needed to support an ef f ectiv e f easibility study . The discussion of Ongoing Activ ites should include a detailed discussion of the current ef f ort by EPA and DCDOE to develop a new Total DDOE is engaged in an ef f ort to characterize the tributary mass loadings of the key Maximum Daily Load f or toxics in the Anacostia.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Access Points Within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill
    Public Access Points within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill Public Access Point Boat Ramp Fishing Swimming Restrooms Hiking/Trekking Location 2900 Virginia Ave NW, Thompson's Boat Center X X X X Washington, DC 20037 3244 K St NW, Washington, DC Georgetown Waterfront Park X X 20007 George Washington Memorial Theodore Roosevelt Island X X X Pkwy N, Arlington, VA 22209 West Basin Dr SW, Washington, West Potomac Park X X DC 20024 Capital Crescent Trail, Washington Canoe Club X Washington, DC 20007 600 Water St SW, Washington, DC Ganglplank Marina X X X X 20024 George Washington Memorial Columbia Island Marina X X X Parkway, Arlington, VA 22202 99 Potomac Ave. SE. Washington, Diamond Teague Park X X DC 20003 335 Water Street Washington, DC The Yards Park X 20003 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, Anacostia Boat House X Washington, DC 20003 700-1000 Water St SW, Washington Marina X X X X Washington, DC 20024 Anacostia Park, Section E Anacostia Marina X X X Washington, DC 20003 2001-2099 1st St SW, Washington, Buzzard's Point Marina X X X DC 20003 2038-2068 2nd St SW, James Creek Marina X X X Washington, DC 20593 Anacostia Dr, Washington, DC Anacostia Park X X X 20019 Heritage Island Trail, Washington, Heritage Island X DC 20002 Kingman Island Trail, Washington, Kingman Island X DC 20002 Mt Vernon Trail, Arlington, VA Gravelly Point X X 22202 George Washington Memorial Roaches Run X X X X Pkwy, Arlington, VA 22202 1550 Anacostia Ave NE, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens/Park X X X Washington, DC 20019 Capital Crescent Trail, Jack's Boat House X X Washington, DC 20007 Daingerfield Island X X X X 1 Marina Dr, Alexandria, VA 22314 67-101 Dale St, Alexandria, VA Four Mile Run Park/Trail X X X 22305 4601 Annapolis Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • The River - Welcome
    Placeholder Image Return to the River - Welcome N Annual Meeting Luncheon & State of the Capitol Riverfront a Thursday, January 17, 2019 m e D a t e Capitol Riverfront “Dashboard” • 500 acres • 37.5M square feet • 65% built-out • 34,000 employees • 9,500 residents • 7 subareas • 2 grocery stores • 2 sports stadiums • 13 acres of parks Why We Are Here… River Connections “Eventually everything connects – people, places, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se.” Charles Eames “Take me to the river, drop me in the waters…washing me down” Talking Heads We are all Connected… Physically Spiritually Generationally By Place By Social Media By Events And Rivers Connect Us… Anacostia Destinations Arboretum Tidal Basin/ Langston Golf Hains Point Kingman Island Yards Park Kenilworth RFK Stadium Aquatic Gardens Washington Channel Poplar Point Anacostia Park Anacostia Destinations Rivers Have Sustained Us… Early Settlements Shipping/Commerce Manufacturing Agriculture Hydro-Electricity Water Supplies Recreation But We Have Not Always Been Kind… Inspiration 2003 Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan “You can’t be unhappy in the middle of a big, beautiful river.” Jim Harrison Framework Plan Themes 15 Years of Implementation “A Plan Is Not Great Unless It Is Put Into Action.” Connections Clean the River Public Parks Community Events Boating Communities Infrastructure Recreation Fields s n o i t c e n n o C s n o i t c e n n o C Partners in the Effort Anacostia River Corridor Anacostia River & Parklands • 8.5 mile river corridor connects 1,800 acres of public parks • Connects to amenities such as: Washington Channel, Hains Point, Yards Park, Anacostia Park, Kingman & Heritage Islands, National Arboretum & Kenilworth Gardens, Nats Park, Audi Field, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2021 Committee Budget Report
    FISCAL YEAR 2021 COMMITTEE BUDGET REPORT TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia FROM: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh Chairperson, Committee on Transportation & the Environment DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: DRAFT Report and recommendations of the Committee on Transportation & the Environment on the Fiscal Year 2021 budget for agencies under its purview The Committee on Transportation & the Environment (“Committee”), having conducted hearings and received testimony on the Mayor’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 for the agencies under its jurisdiction, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Support Act of 2020, as proposed by the Mayor, and proposes several of its own subtitles. Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................... 3 B. Operating Budget Summary Table .................................................................................................. 7 C. Full-Time Equivalent Summary Table ............................................................................................. 9 D. Operating & Capital Budget Ledgers ........................................................................................... 11 E. Committee Transfers ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interior Flooding in Washington, DC a First Look at Where It Occurs in the District of Columbia
    Interior Flooding in Washington, DC A first look at where it occurs in the District of Columbia DC Silver Jackets Interior Flooding Task Group August 25, 2017 Figure 1: A portion of the map produced by the DC Silver Jackets that is the subject of this paper. The full map is at the end of the document. Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 About the DC Silver Jackets ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 What is Interior Flooding? ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Why Study Interior Flooding? ................................................................................................................................. 3 Report Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Background .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Recent Interior Flood Events .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Project Area Scroll (PDF)
    What will the street look like at this location? Sidewalk Buffer and Travel Lane Travel 11'–12' Lane Travel 4'–8' 11' 1) (Track Travel Lane Travel 10' Median 11' (Track 2) (Track What choices are available for 18'–19' Lane Travel 11' Lane Travel the configuration of the stops? WESTBOUND 10' Travel Lane Travel Grass 11' 4' Track Cycle Buffer 8' IMPROVED BICYCLE/ EASTBOUND Sidewalk 0-2' PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 6' Benning Road Kingman Island Car Barn Training Bridge over Center (CBTC) Kingman Lake – PEPCO Rehabilitation KINGMAN ISLAND 36TH ST 26TH ST LANGSTON GOLF ANACOSTIA AVE 34TH ST COURSE EADS ST ANACOSTIA RIVER RIVER TERRACE Ethel Kennedy OKLAHOMA AVE Bridge – Rehabilitation Kingman Island Locator Map Provides shared-use path, sidewalk, and buffers Allows left turns into Driving Range Travel lane with streetcar tracks Streetcar platform What will the street look like at this location? Grass Sidewalk Travel Lane Travel 6' Lane Travel 4' (Track 1) (Track PARKSIDE Sidewalk What choices are available for 11' Lane Travel 10' Median 11' Lane Travel 7' (Track 1) (Track Travel Lane Travel (Track 2) (Track VARIES Lane Travel 12' the configuration of the stops? Median 12' Lane Turn 11' Lane Travel 5' (Track 2) (Track 10' Lane Travel 11' Lane Travel Grass WESTBOUND 11' 12' WESTBOUND Lane Travel 4' Track Cycle IMPROVED BICYCLE/ Buffer Shared 12' Use Path 8' Sidewalk PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 0-2' EASTBOUND 10' 6' EASTBOUND Anacostia Avenue to East of 36th Street NE 34th Street NE FORT MAHAN PEPCO 39TH ST PARK MINNESOTA AVE MINNESOTA KINGMAN ISLAND 41ST ST 36TH ST 40TH ST 40TH 42ND ST ANACOSTIA AVE 34TH ST 295 EADS ST ANACOSTIA RIVER Lorraine H.
    [Show full text]
  • Kingman Island Project
    VISITOR STATION, OUTDOOR CLASSROOMS, & TRAILS RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION MEETING February 27, 2019 AGENDA 1 Project history 2 Where we left off 3 What DOEE has done since 4 SOW components 5 Contract community engagement timeline 6 Project timeline 7 Interim projects 8 Questions? TAG THIS PRESENTATION: @DOEE_DC PROJECT HISTORY • Kingman & Heritage Island Feasibility Study Act 2016 – Released July 2017 • Hickok Cole and DOEE present plan to RTCO – September 2017 • Mayor Bowser Announces $4.7 Million Investment in Kingman and Heritage Islands – January 12, 2018 • Kingman Island Community Advisory Group (Kingman CAG) First Meeting – July 2018 • DOEE Meets with River Terrace Community at Anacostia Park – August 2018 TAG THIS PRESENTATION: @DOEE_DC DOEE & RIVER TERRACE AT ANACOSTIA PARK Issues Discussed: • Kingman Island Benning Road Access (pedestrian entrance upgrade, wider gate, visible signage, etc.) • East Capital Street sidewalk needs upkeep • Benning Road sidewalk on west side needs repair • Programming on the Islands for the local community • Coordination with local schools for environmental education programming @DOEE_DC WHAT DOEE HAS DONE SINCE 1. Research visits to other parks for relevant features 2. Drafting the SOW a) Kingman and Heritage Island Feasibility Study as basis b) DOEE expertise consulted includes: wildlife management, green building, energy, toxic substances, building permit plan review, stormwater management c) Sister Agencies: DGS, DPR, OCTO, DDOT 3. Market Research 4. Interim Projects 5. Seeking Additional Funding 6. 2nd meeting with Kingman Advisory Group (2/5/19) @DOEE_DC SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT GOALS & FEATURES A flagship project showcasing state-of-the-art Design a Visitor Center at the Benning sustainability goals for the District of Columbia.
    [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]
  • Housing in the Nation's Capital
    Housing in the Nation’s2005 Capital Foreword . 2 About the Authors. 4 Acknowledgments. 4 Executive Summary . 5 Introduction. 12 Chapter 1 City Revitalization and Regional Context . 15 Chapter 2 Contrasts Across the District’s Neighborhoods . 20 Chapter 3 Homeownership Out of Reach. 29 Chapter 4 Narrowing Rental Options. 35 Chapter 5 Closing the Gap . 43 Endnotes . 53 References . 56 Appendices . 57 Prepared for the Fannie Mae Foundation by the Urban Institute Margery Austin Turner G. Thomas Kingsley Kathryn L. S. Pettit Jessica Cigna Michael Eiseman HOUSING IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL 2005 Foreword Last year’s Housing in the Nation’s Capital These trends provide cause for celebration. adopted a regional perspective to illuminate the The District stands at the center of what is housing affordability challenges confronting arguably the nation’s strongest regional econ- Washington, D.C. The report showed that the omy, and the city’s housing market is sizzling. region’s strong but geographically unbalanced But these facts mask a much more somber growth is fueling sprawl, degrading the envi- reality, one of mounting hardship and declining ronment, and — most ominously — straining opportunity for many District families. Home the capacity of working families to find homes price escalation is squeezing families — espe- they can afford. The report provided a portrait cially minority and working families — out of of a region under stress, struggling against the city’s housing market. Between 2000 and forces with the potential to do real harm to 2003, the share of minority home buyers in the the quality of life throughout the Washington District fell from 43 percent to 37 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:00-Cv-00183-TFH Document 115-3 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 4
    Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-3 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 4 Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-3 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 4 Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-3 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 4 Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-3 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 4 Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-4 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3 Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-4 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-4 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3 Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-5 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 34 APPENDIX D Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-5 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 34 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY LONG TERM CSO CONTROL PLAN ANACOSTIA RIVER PROJECTS DOCUMENT II-3:5-FI FACILITY PLAN SUMMARY REPORT AND DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 CDM/HMM, A JOINT VENTURE – FACILITY PLAN, DCFA #399-WSA GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC - OPERATIONAL PLAN, EPMC-III Case 1:00-cv-00183-TFH Document 115-5 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 34 II-3:5-FI Anacostia River Projects Facility Plan Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Summary Report and Detailed Implementation Schedule 1. Background and Introduction ............................................................... 1 2. Project Scope & Description of Facilities............................................. 5 3. Project Setting....................................................................................... 8 4. Investigation and Evaluation of Alternatives.......................................
    [Show full text]
  • The 2020 Transit Development Plan
    DC Circulator Transit Development Plan 2020 Update April 12, 2021 (Page intentionally left blank) DC Circulator 2020 TDP i April 2021 Transit Development Plan 2020 Update DRAFT Table of Contents 1.046T 46T Introduction46T ..............................................................46T .................................................... 1 46T 46T Purpose of the Transit Development Plan (TDP)46T ..............................................................46T ............ 1 46T 46T Transit Development Plan Process46T ..............................................................46T ................................. 3 2.046T 46T DC Circulator System Overview46T ..............................................................46T ....................... 4 46T 46T History46T ..............................................................46T ............................................................................. 4 46T 46T Organizational Structure46T 46T ............................................................................................................... 6 46T 46T Strategic Goals and Objectives46T ..............................................................46T ....................................... 6 46T 46T Levels of Service46T 46T ............................................................................................................................ 8 46T 46T Fare Structure46T ..............................................................46T ............................................................... 10 46T 46T Fleet
    [Show full text]
  • National Capital Planning Commission Ncpc Annual
    2oo5 NCPC ANNUAL REPORT NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION NCPC’S LEGISLATIVE MANDATE The U.S. Congress gave NCPC a broad legislative authority over a range of issues affecting everything from the city’s major monuments and historic treasures to its zoning maps and regulations. Congress established the agency in 1924 as the National Capital Park Commission. In 1952 Congress passed the National Capital Planning Act, renaming the agency and designating it as the cen- tral planning agency for the federal and District government in the National Capital Region (NCR). The Act, amended after D.C. Home Rule and the creation of the District Office of Planning, charges NCPC to provide overall planning guidance for federal land and buildings in the NCR. The Zoning Act of 1938 mandates that NCPC serve on the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment. The Board hears many cases that involve land adjacent to or affected by federal landholdings. Through the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, NCPC serves as a steward of the region’s historic buildings, districts, landscapes, and views. The Commission also operates under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires feder- al agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed projects. The 1968 International Center Act established a campus for foreign chanceries in Northwest Washington. Development plans for all chanceries in the 47-acre International Center are subject to NCPC’s approval. The Foreign Missions Act of 1982 establishes the criteria and procedures by which foreign mis- sions may locate in the District of Columbia. Under the law, NCPC’s executive director must serve as a member of the Foreign Missions Board of Zoning Adjustment, which considers applications by foreign missions.
    [Show full text]