Attachment_F_-_Environmental_Assessment_July_2019.pdf

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Buzzard Point Park National Capital Parks- East Washington, D.C.

Environmental Assessment Buzzard Point Park Improvements

This page intentionally left blank

NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS- EAST

BUZZARD POINT PARK IMPROVEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DRAFT July 2019

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Capital Parks-East

Buzzard Point Park Improvements

Environmental Assessment

July 2019

PROJECT SUMMARY

Buzzard Point Park (Project 78364) is located in the Buzzard Point neighborhood of Southwest DC, and is bordered on the south and east by the Anacostia River. The Park is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and managed by National Capital Parks - East. The Park is comprised of a collection of parcels administered by the NPS collectively totaling 7.75 acres. Of that acreage, only 3.33 acres are on land; the remainder of the site includes parcels that lie within the Anacostia River. The site includes approximately 1,500 linear feet of shoreline along the Anacostia River.

The Park is currently closed to visitors, with the exception of the Matthew Henson Center (MHC) at the northern extent of the property. The MHC is a former Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) facility that is currently being used by the Earth Conservation Corps (ECC) through a three-party agreement with PEPCO and the NPS. A majority of the infrastructure onsite is related to the Park’s previous use as a marina and includes a variety of paved, bituminous, and gravel walkways; a concrete retaining wall adjacent to the location of the old dock facilities and concrete boat ramp; a former marina office building;

and a restroom facility. Both the office building and restroom facilities are also closed.

As the neighborhood around the Park transforms from an industrialized peninsula to a residential and mixed-use waterfront community, the NPS proposes to transform the Park into an accessible community waterfront amenity that continues the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail (ART).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates two project alternatives: a No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proposed Action (Alternative B), which is the NPS preferred Alternative. Alternative B would redesign the park to provide residents and visitors with more open space, recreational opportunities, and ways to connect with the Anacostia River while enhancing visitor experience of Buzzard Point Park. Alternative B is divided into two options that work to bring park visitors closer to the waterfront. The Proposed Action would have potentially adverse but short-term impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), wetlands, and the floodplain. There would also be permanent impacts to wetlands and floodplains. Overall, however, a redesigned park would enhance

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

visitor experience and better control stormwater runoff.

NOTE TO REVIEWERS AND RESPONDENTS

If you wish to comment on this EA, you may mail comments within 30-days of the publication of this document to the name and address listed below, or you may submit your comments electronically at the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) Website (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=78364).

Before including personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Tammy Stidham

Attn: Buzzard Point EA Comments

National Capital Region

National Park Service

1100 Ohio Drive SW

Washington, DC 20242

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED 7

Introduction 7

Purpose And Need For Action 7

Project Background 7

Project Location And Site Description 8

Issues And Impact Topics Retained For Detailed Analysis 10

Issues And Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Analysis 11

CHAPTER 2- ALTERNATIVES 13

Alternative A: No-Action 13

Alternative B: Proposed Action And NPS Preferred Alternative 13

Summary Of The Preferred Alternative 18

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 19

Wetlands And Floodplains 20

Visitor Use And Experience 28

Summary Of Environmental Consequences 32

CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 34

Public Involvement 34

Public and Agency Coordination 34

Section 7 Consultation and Coordination 34

Section 106 Coordination 35

CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF PREPARERS 38

CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES 39

APPENDIX A Shoreline Treatments

APPENDIX B Wetlands and Floodplains Statement of Finding

APPENDIX C Wetland Memorandum

APPENDIX D Public Involvement and Agency Coordination

List of Figures

Figure 1. Buzzard Point Park Vicinity and Existing Conditions Showing Four (4) Different Shoreline Treatments 9 https://jmt365.sharepoint.com/sites/13-1429-23A/Shared%20Documents/02%20-%20EA%20and%20Section%20106/EA%20-%20June%202019/Buzzard%20Point%20EA_July%202019_track%20changes.docx#_Toc14086246 https://jmt365.sharepoint.com/sites/13-1429-23A/Shared%20Documents/02%20-%20EA%20and%20Section%20106/EA%20-%20June%202019/Buzzard%20Point%20EA_July%202019_track%20changes.docx#_Toc14086246

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Figure 2. Rendering of Alternative B, Option 1, with Revetment Shoreline Treatment 15

Figure 3. Rendering of Alternative B, Option 2, with Boardwalk/Observation Area and No Revetment 16

Figure 4. Environmental Features 22

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of Alternative B Options 17

Table 2. Alternative B impacts to the riverine wetland portion of the Anacostia River 25

Table 3. Alternative B floodplain impacts 27

Table 4. Summary of the anticipated environmental consequences 32

Table 5. Agencies consulted 36 https://jmt365.sharepoint.com/sites/13-1429-23A/Shared%20Documents/02%20-%20EA%20and%20Section%20106/EA%20-%20June%202019/Buzzard%20Point%20EA_July%202019_track%20changes.docx#_Toc14086247 https://jmt365.sharepoint.com/sites/13-1429-23A/Shared%20Documents/02%20-%20EA%20and%20Section%20106/EA%20-%20June%202019/Buzzard%20Point%20EA_July%202019_track%20changes.docx#_Toc14086248 https://jmt365.sharepoint.com/sites/13-1429-23A/Shared%20Documents/02%20-%20EA%20and%20Section%20106/EA%20-%20June%202019/Buzzard%20Point%20EA_July%202019_track%20changes.docx#_Toc14086248 https://jmt365.sharepoint.com/sites/13-1429-23A/Shared%20Documents/02%20-%20EA%20and%20Section%20106/EA%20-%20June%202019/Buzzard%20Point%20EA_July%202019_track%20changes.docx#_Toc14086249

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AoE Assessment of Effects

APE Area of Potential Effect

ART Anacostia Riverwalk Trail

BMP Best Management Practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

CWA Clean Water Act

DC Inventory District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Places

DCP Development Concept Plan

DC SHPO District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Office

DDOT District Department of Transportation

DoD Department of Defense

DOEE District Department of Energy and Environment

DOI Department of the Interior

EA Environmental Assessment

ECC Earth Conservation Corps

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

GIS Geographic Information Systems

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation

MHC Matthew Henson Center

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NCR National Capital Region

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NOAA National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPS National Park Service

PEPC Planning, Environment and Public Comment

PEPCO Potomac Electric Power Company

ROW Right-of-way

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

SoF Statement of Findings

SF Square Feet

USC United States Code

USCG United States Coast Guard

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing improvements to Buzzard Point Park (the Park) in the Buzzard Point Neighborhood near the Anacostia River, in Southwest DC.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) describes two alternatives for the proposed park improvements including one action Alternative and the No-Action Alternative. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 United States Code [USC] 4332(2)(c)); the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); NPS Director’s Order #12:

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-Making (DO #12); the NPS NEPA Handbook (NPS 2015); and DO #28 Cultural Resource Management.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose of the Buzzard Point Park Improvements project is to transform the Park into an accessible community waterfront amenity that continues the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail (ART). The Park would provide residents and visitors with more open space, recreational opportunities, and ways to connect with the Anacostia River while enhancing visitor experience of Buzzard Point Park.

This project is needed because historically the industrial nature of the Park’s site and location amidst a variety of large utility buildings in Southwest DC greatly limited its ability to serve as more than a marina for the surrounding community. Currently, the ART ends abruptly on both ends of the Park. By continuing the ART through the Park, the NPS can enhance the experience for the trail user. In addition, the existing community in Buzzard Point greatly needs more accessible green, open space for recreation and reflection. Lastly, with the rapid private development and increase in local population occurring around the Park, special effort is needed to ensure that the Park identifies as a public park available to all and complements the neighborhood’s character.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

A third-party concessioner (the Buzzard Point Boatyard Corporation) operated an NPS-owned marina at Buzzard Point Park for over 50 years. The aging infrastructure of the marina would have required extensive renovations in order to continue safe operation of the marina. In March 2016, the marina was closed after the decision was made that the investment for needed upgrades to the facility would not allow for a financially viable business while providing safe and effective visitor services. The marina docks were removed and the Park was fenced until renovations could be completed.

With the closure of the marina, the opportunity to envision alternative uses of the Park and redesign the Park to better serve the public at large was realized. Buzzard Point Park is located on an industrialized peninsula along the Anacostia River in Southwest DC. Much of

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

the area near Buzzard Point Park is under construction or proposed for redevelopment.

The location of the Park on the shores of the Anacostia River offers the potential to connect the public with the Anacostia River.

The NPS initiated a Development Concept Plan (DCP) study to identify a conceptual vision for the redevelopment of Buzzard Point Park. The NPS conducted a series of public meetings and outreach with key stakeholders to gather input and assist with answering questions regarding the future park use. An open-house style public meeting was held in July 2016 to solicit public feedback regarding the programming and uses for the Park. A stakeholder meeting was held in September 2016 to inform key stakeholders of the results from the first public meeting and to present early concepts for discussion. In December 2016, a second public meeting presented preliminary concepts for the design of the Park.

PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Buzzard Point Park is administered by the NPS and managed by National Capital Parks - East (NACE). It is located in the Buzzard Point neighborhood of Southwest DC, and is bordered on the south and east by the Anacostia River (Figure 1, page 9). The Park is comprised of a collection of parcels administered by the NPS collectively totaling 7.75 acres. Of that acreage, only 3.33 acres are on land; the remainder of the site includes parcels owned by the NPS within the Anacostia River. A boundary survey showing parcel ownership is appended to the Wetlands and Floodplains Statement of Finding (SoF) in Appendix B (JMT 2019a). However, the NPS has jurisdiction of the river bed extending to the pierhead line throughout the 1,500 linear feet of shoreline along the Anacostia River.

The Park is currently improved with the former marina office building, a restroom facility, and the Matthew Henson Center (MHC). The MHC is a former Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) facility that is currently being used by the ECC through a three-party agreement with PEPCO and the NPS. The Park is served by public water and sewer, and power is supplied to the site through overhead lines on First and Half Street, SW. The power lines presently serve the MHC. Power has been disconnected from the former marina office building and restroom facility.

A majority of the infrastructure onsite is related to the Park’s previous use as a marina. A variety of paved surfaces are found throughout the old marina portion of the site including concrete walkways, some bituminous walkways, and gravel. There is a concrete retaining wall adjacent to the location of the old dock facilities and concrete boat ramp. The concrete boat ramp is very steep and does not meet current standards for boat ramps. Much of the existing concrete surfaces at the site are in a state of disrepair.

The shoreline of the Park currently contains at least four distinctly different edge treatments (Figure 1, page 9 and Appendix A). Rocky shores are found at the northernmost and southernmost extent of the Park. At the former marina docks, the edge is a concrete platform/seawall. East of the old boat ramp is a combination of vegetated shoreline and a stone seawall. The seawall is typical of other shoreline areas along the Anacostia. Further east, the shoreline is a combination of concrete revetment wall, stone, and vegetation.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Figure 1. Buzzard Point Park Vicinity and Existing Conditions Showing Four (4) Different Shoreline Treatments

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

The NPS, participating agencies and stakeholders, and members of the public identified specific issues and concerns through the DCP and project scoping efforts. Some of these issues and concerns were considered by the NPS, but were dismissed from detailed analysis because they were not determined to be relevant to the proposal or of critical importance. Other issues and concerns were retained for detailed analysis and are included in the impact topics discussed in the “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences” section of the EA.

ISSUES

The proposed project would affect visitor experience at Buzzard Point Park. The alternatives presented in this EA will change the visitor use and experience of Buzzard Point Park by allowing the NPS to connect park users with the Anacostia River in safe, updated, user friendly facilities. The alternatives also have the potential to attract more users to the Park by re-opening existing closed portions of the Park back up to the public and connecting the Park to users via multi-modal sources via the ART.

The proposed project could impact existing or future growth of submerged aquatic vegetation in the project area. Several species of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) exist directly off the shoreline in the project area, as mapped by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS). The District Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) also actively manages SAV at this location. The proposed project would include reconstruction of the Park’s armored shoreline, which could positively or adversely affect the adjacent established and future SAV beds. The proposed project involves reconstruction of these existing edge treatments by constructing one consistent edge along the length of the Park.

This would involve removing the existing shoreline treatments and building a hardened edge (sea wall) along much of the shoreline and an option to include rip rap (revetment), with the exception of the dock area, which would be reconstructed with a new floating dock. Any alterations to the shoreline due to construction of the proposed project could uproot SAV or change the existing land-water interface in some capacity. Changes in the land-water interface can potentially affect nearshore hydrology where SAV is present or could potentially grow. Under the Proposed Action, hydrologic changes that may positively or adversely impact SAV could include modifications to the river current, water clarity, wave energy, water depth, and nutrient content.

The proposed project could impact wetlands and floodplains within the project area.

Construction of the proposed project may impact wetlands within the project area.

Additionally, flood risk mapping conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the DOEE indicate that Buzzard Point Park is almost entirely within the 100-year floodplain, with the exception of the northwesternmost portion being in the 500-year floodplain. Modeling predictions provided by DOEE indicate that, at the Park’s current elevation, there is a high risk of increased annual flooding and potential infrastructure damage due to storm surges. Park infrastructure, topography, and landscape should be designed to be resilient to the affects from flooding from storm events, to ensure that the

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

investment the NPS is making into the Park re-design is sustainable and remains a resource for Park visitors. Impacts associated with wetlands and flood risk are evaluated in the “Wetlands” and “Floodplains” section of the “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences” chapter of this EA.

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

Archeological Resources & Historic Structures

Buzzard Point Park has undergone dramatic changes as the result of continuous redevelopment and manmade and natural erosion and sedimentation. Although the project area and its surrounding neighborhood are sensitive for prehistoric and historic archeological resources, the various episodes of dredging, filling, grading, and construction along the shoreline at Buzzard Point that have occurred since the nineteenth century have very likely disturbed any archeological resources, and, therefore archeological sensitivity in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is considered low to non-existent and no further archeological investigation is warranted (JMT 2018a). If previously unknown archeological resources are discovered during construction, the NPS would halt all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until the resources can be identified and documented and a mitigation strategy developed in consultation with the DC state historic preservation office (DC SHPO) and, if appropriate, any associated Native American Tribes.

An investigation of above-ground resources concluded that there are three historic properties within the project APE including Anacostia Park, the Fort McNair Historic District, and the Buzzard Point Power Plant. Anacostia Park is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Fort McNair Historic District is listed in the DC Inventory of Historic Sites, and is eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Buzzard Point Power Plant, which includes a water intake structure that is now known as the MHC, is currently under consideration by the DC SHPO to be placed on the DC Inventory of Historic Sites. An Assessment of Effects (AoE) was prepared for these properties, which is presently under review by the DC SHPO (JMT 2019a).

Federally-Listed Species

Four federally-listed species could occur in or adjacent to the project area: the threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and the endangered Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus). The redevelopment of Buzzard Point Park is not expected to affect these species, so they were dismissed from further detailed analysis. The full rationale for each listed species is provided below.

Northern Long-eared and Indiana Bats: It is possible that northern long-eared bats or Indiana bats could occur in or adjacent to Buzzard Point Park. However, no known roost trees for either species are in the project area, and no impacts to northern long-eared bats or Indiana bats are anticipated because tree removal for construction would be limited to late fall or winter after bats return to their hibernacula. There would be minimal tree removal required for the redevelopment of the Park, and several trees would be planted back on the site to offset any potential impacts from habitat reduction.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon: Two species of federally-listed endangered sturgeon may be present in the Potomac River- the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus). Critical habitat for the Atlantic Sturgeon was designated by the NOAA in August 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 39160 at 39216).

Within the Potomac River, critical habitat for the Chesapeake Bay distinct population segment includes the entire main stem of the Potomac River from the Little Falls Dam to the mouth of the river. Although transient sturgeon may enter the Anacostia River, the critical habitat does not include any of the tributaries to the Potomac River. By observing time-of-year restrictions from February 15 to June 15, individual sturgeon of adult, sub-adult, or juveniles are unlikely to be exposed to any direct or indirect impacts resulting from construction activities in the water. To avoid or minimize any potential impacts to the extent possible, the following conservation measures will be implemented:

● Any in-river work will be completed outside of the time of year restriction period from February 15 to June 15 of any year;

● All appropriate best management practices for Sediment & Erosion control and stormwater management will be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat.

NPS submitted a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the federally endangered shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon to NOAA-NMFS in May 2018, and will continue coordinating with the agency.

Hazardous material releases from adjacent sites may have leached into the Park’s subsurface soils. The Park is in a once industrialized area of Washington DC. Several adjacent properties to the Park have stored hazardous materials in above-ground and underground storage tanks, or manage permits for the temporary collection of hazardous materials. Many sites at a higher elevation than the Park have experienced spills or other accidental/unauthorized releases of such materials over time. Some of the hazardous materials and hazardous waste products may have migrated to the Park. Such substances can pose a human health risk to site workers during construction if workers are exposed to contaminated soils, groundwater, or toxic vapors. Likewise, general fluctuations in subsurface water levels as well as other factors, e.g., heavy rainfall, can also cause contaminants to migrate and result in human exposures.

The NPS strives to ensure the safety of Park visitors, employees, and workers on its lands, and will work diligently to identify and prevent injury or potential contamination threat to human health and the environment. Several Director’s Orders address NPS policies toward protecting human health and safety. These policies include DO #50B Occupational Safety and Health Program (NPS 2008) and DO #50C Public Risk Management Program (NPS 2010). Therefore, the NPS will work to identify, reduce, or remove hazards, or otherwise apply the appropriate mitigation measures that will safeguard human health and safety, and be protective of environmental resources. Taking action may include coordinating with federal and state regulatory agencies, and the entities responsible for causing any such contamination to ensure those parties bear the responsibility for complying with the laws and regulations that govern mitigation or remediation measures, if required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 2- ALTERNATIVES

This EA analyzes a No-Action Alternative and one action alternative for the proposed redevelopment of Buzzard Point Park. The elements of these alternatives are described in detail in this section. Impacts of each of the alternatives are outlined in the “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences” section of this EA.

ALTERNATIVE A: NO-ACTION

Under the No-Action Alternative, the current level of management of the Park would continue into the foreseeable future. The Park is currently not accessible to visitors, and it would remain this way into the foreseeable future, due to safety hazards and other current conditions. The structures and features that are present today would not be removed, restored, or otherwise improved upon.

The southern area of the Park, which is adjacent to V Street, SW and 1st Street, SW, and was associated with the former marina, would remain partially grassy and partially covered with a large concrete pad, which is in disrepair. The former marina office building, restroom facility, and the concrete boat ramp and retaining wall would also remain.

Access to the northern portion of the Park, which is adjacent to the intersection of V Street, SW and Half Street, SW, would remain partially obstructed by trees and overgrown vegetation. The viewshed of the Anacostia River would also remain obstructed in this area.

The northern portion of the Park located along Half Street, SW, would remain improved with the MHC and associated parking. Restroom facilities and the boat dock would continue to be accessed from inside the MHC.

ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ACTION AND NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Under Alternative B, Buzzard Point Park would be transformed into a linear waterfront amenity settled within the Buzzard Point neighborhood. Alternative B includes clearing the Park of existing overgrown vegetation and remnant concrete or asphalt pads. The existing shoreline treatments would be completely removed and replaced with an eight-foot high concrete seawall reinforced with steel piles, and overlooks in the northern and southern extent of the Park. Infrastructure in the southern portion of the Park, specifically the former marina office building, restroom facility, and remnant concrete boating ramp would be demolished and removed from the site. Much of the Park would be regraded and replanted. Alternative B includes two different options for the shoreline treatments with a similar design for the rest of the Park.

Alternative B, Option 1: Under Option 1, a new stone revetment would be placed along the length of the seawall in the Anacostia River to approximately the mean low water level (14 to 21 feet). The stone revetment would act to reinforce and protect the seawall from erosion and storm surge while improving the visual appearance of the shoreline and providing access to the river. On the landward side of the seawall, a passive walking trail would follow along the edge of the wall in the central section of the Park. A rendering of Alternative B, Option 1 is shown as Figure 2, page 15.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternative B, Option 2: Under Option 2, a railing would be placed along the edge of the seawall for visitor safety. No stone revetment would be placed. Option 2 includes a passive walking trail along the water’s edge with overlook trail/plaza area extended out over the water in some places. The overlook areas would improve visitor experience by providing sweeping views of the Anacostia River. A rendering of Alternative B, Option 2 is shown as Figure 3, page 16.

For both Options, the ART would be extended through the Park as a multi-use trail of varying widths (between 10-16 feet) to allow for access to recreational features along the trail without inhibiting circulation. The multi-use trail would be higher in elevation than the passive walking trail and would continue through the central portion of the Park. The trail would then tie into the terminus of the existing ART at the southern end of the Park.

Recreational opportunities in the Park would include walking, running, or cycling along the ART, a play area for children, level and mounded (elevated) lawns for observation of the river and Capitol Building (looking north along V Street, SW), a dock for users who wish to access the Park from the river, and the MHC.

With respect to the MHC, the building will be expanded southward to accommodate restrooms with separate exterior access. The boat dock that is presently only accessible by entering the building would also be rebuilt, with new exterior access provided from a separate walkway and pier from the passive (walking) trail. The MHC itself would continue to offer educational opportunities that enhance visitor experience. Limited parking options would remain outside the building. Parking would be redesigned to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible.

Just beyond the MHC, the ART would continue its connection north of the Park. Signage would be posted for park visitors at the northern extent of the Park, also adjacent to V Street, SW (central), and near the round-about adjacent to 1st Street, SW in the southern tip of the Park.

Aside from accessing the Park via the ART, visitors would have ample parking options to select from at the nearby mixed-use development (residential and commercial uses with private and public parking access). Additionally, the Navy Yard Metro Station (Green Line) is located approximately 5,000 feet north of Buzzard Point Park.

With respect to the shaded area along First Street, SW shown on Figures 2 and 3, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) controls the right-of-way (ROW) and is considering design options from both NPS and the Riverpoint Development.

Future planning in the DDOT ROW should be accomplished in coordination with the NPS, with a design that is sympathetic with the surrounding designed landscape. Off-shore areas outside of DDOT’s ROW (but within the pierhead line) are also administered by the NPS, and would also require some level of NEPA and environmental compliance (e.g., Section 106 of the NHPA, other agency coordination) to facilitate design and construction. Any future proposed work within the riverine wetland area would also be subject to a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit and coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Table 1, page 17 provides a brief comparison of Alternative B options.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Figure 2. Rendering of Alternative B, Option 1, with Revetment Shoreline Treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Figure 3. Rendering of Alternative B, Option 2, with Boardwalk/Observation Area and No Revetment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Table 1. Comparison of Alternative B Options

Key Feature Alternative B: Proposed Action

Existing Infrastructure ● The former marina office and restroom facilities would be removed

● The concrete pad would be removed, the area regraded

● The boat ramp would be removed

Seawall ● The existing seawall treatments would be removed and rebuilt with one consistent treatment for the whole park

● Under Option 1, a stone revetment would be placed along the length of the seawall

● Under Option 2, a railing would be placed along the edge of the seawall for visitor safety. Overlook trail/plaza areas extended out over the water in some places to provide sweeping waterfront views.

ART ● The ART would run through the Park as both a multi-use trail and also a passive (walking) trail that is seated close to the seawall and river’s edge

Recreational Opportunities ● A playground, observation areas, and viewing opportunities would be built

Matthew Henson Center ● The MHC would be available for multiple, community-centered purposes

● The building would be expanded southward for restrooms accessible from outside the building

● The dock would be rebuilt and would be accessible to the ART

Alternatives Dismissed From Further Analysis

The NPS began the process to redesign Buzzard Point Park in the summer of 2016, to create a vision for new recreational opportunities and improvements to the Park, amidst the transformation of the entire Buzzard Point peninsula. Following a public planning and information session (held on July 14, 2016), a 30-day public comment period ending on August 15, 2016, as well as a stakeholder meeting (held on September 26, 2016), the NPS introduced two preliminary concepts for the Buzzard Point Park improvements at a public scoping meeting held on December 13, 2016. From December 2016 through January 2017, the NPS received comments and suggestions during a 45-day comment period that helped to finalize Park design concepts.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

In May 2017, the NPS published the Buzzard Point Park Development Concept Plan (DCP), which presented two concept designs for the Park that included access and use of the ART (NPS 2017). Concept 1, as presented in the DCP, is carried forward for further design as Alternative B in this EA (the Action Alternative). Concept 2, as presented in the DCP, retained all the same park design features as Concept 1 (i.e., continuation of the ART, a separate pedestrian-only promenade, grass dunes, etc.), but placed a portion of the ART on an elevated structure out in the river.

The NPS received public feedback raising concern over visitor safety along the elevated pedestrian structure. Some additional feedback included the potential for trash to be improperly discarded from the elevated pedestrian structure into the river; and concern that the structure could obstruct the river’s viewshed from shore. Additionally, Concept 2 would have resulted in noise and vibration impacts to fish and other aquatic species from piledriving piers into the riverbed and would have resulted in numerous additional permits and regulatory requirements for the NPS to comply with pre- and post-construction.

Finally, such a structure would have substantially increased the cost of the Park’s redesign and construction.

Therefore, based on public feedback, a number of unreasonable environmental impacts, and costs associated with the elevated pedestrian structure, the NPS eliminated Concept 2 from further analysis.1

RATIONALE FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The preferred alternative is the alternative that “would best accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed action while fulfilling [the NPS] statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other factors” (46.420(d)). The preferred alternative may not ultimately be selected. The selection of the NPS preferred alternative is not a final agency decision.

The NPS identifies Alternative B, Option 2 as the preferred alternative. Alternative B is preferred because this alternative would improve the entire park and offer recreational opportunities amid a rapidly transforming and urbanized community. Option 2 would offer an additional trail/plaza overlook at the water’s edge, but would not include placing stone revetment within the Anacostia River. A railing would be constructed along the water’s edge to protect visitor safety along the sea wall. Option 2 is preferred because there would be fewer permanent impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and SAV. In addition, the “cleaner” edge (no rip rap) would mean less maintenance is required at the park, and fewer opportunities for trash to collect among the stone revetment.

The environmental impacts associated with each of the alternatives and options are evaluated in the following chapter of this EA.

1 A copy of the DCP, which includes comment reports on public meetings held by the NPS, and other related documents, can be found on-line at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/BuzzardPointPark_ea http://parkplanning.nps.gov/BuzzardPointPark_ea

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

This chapter describes current environmental conditions in and surrounding the project area. The discussion is focused on resources that could potentially be affected by the implementation of the proposed project and provides a baseline for understanding the current condition of the resources. The section also includes an analysis of the environmental consequences, or “impacts,” of the no action and action alternative.

The affected environment description is followed by the environmental consequences analysis for each resource topic. The resource topics analyzed here correspond to the planning issues and concerns described in the “Purpose and Need” section of this EA.

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, the environmental consequences analysis includes the direct, indirect, and Cumulative Impacts potentially resulting from the proposed alternatives (40 CFR 1502.16). The intensity of the impacts is assessed in the context of the park’s purpose and significance, and any resource-specific context that may be applicable (40 CFR 1508.27). Where appropriate, mitigating measures for adverse impacts are described and their effect on the severity of the impact is noted. The methods used to assess impacts vary depending on the resource being considered, but are generally based on a review of pertinent literature and park studies, information provided by on-site experts and other agencies, professional judgment, and park staff knowledge and insight.

Cumulative Impacts Analysis Methodology

Cumulative Impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). As stated in the CEQ handbook, Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997), Cumulative Impacts need to be analyzed in the context of the specific resource, ecosystem, and/or human community being affected and should focus on impacts that are truly meaningful. Cumulative Impacts are considered for each of the alternatives, including the No-Action alternative.

Cumulative Impacts are determined for each resource topic by combining the impacts of the alternative being analyzed with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that would also result in beneficial or adverse impacts. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions to be included in the analysis were identified through internal and external scoping processes and are described below. Because some of these actions are in the early planning stages, the evaluation of Cumulative Impacts is based on a general description of the projects.

PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS

River Point, 2100 2nd Street SW, Washington, DC - River Point is a redevelopment of the

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

former Coast Guard building on the western boundary of Buzzard Point Park. The building will be redeveloped as a mixed-use residential and commercial development with over 60,000 SF of ground floor retail space and 485 residential units. Plans for this project include construction of a floating dock and gangway directly adjacent to the James Creek Marina, and a large water taxi pier within DDOT ROW directly off First Street, SW.

Construction is currently underway and is scheduled to be completed by 2020.

1900 Half Street SW, Washington, DC - 1900 Half Street is a redevelopment of a vacant office building on the northeastern boundary of Buzzard Point Park. The building will be redeveloped as a mixed-use residential and commercial development with over 15,000 SF of ground floor retail space, 419 residential units, and associated parking, and is scheduled to be completed by 2020.

Peninsula 88, 88 V Street SW, Washington, DC - Peninsula 88 is a new 110-unit condominium development on the northern boundary of Buzzard Point Park. Construction is currently underway and is scheduled to be completed in late 2019.

Audi Field, D.C United Soccer Stadium, 100 Potomac Avenue SW, Washington, DC - Audi Field is a new stadium and cultural venue for events, community activities, and concerts located less than a quarter of a mile northwest of Buzzard Point Park. The facility has a capacity of 20,000 fans and has 500,000 SF of mixed-use retail and residential space on site. The venue opened to the public in July of 2018.

Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, along Anacostia Riverfront - The ART is a continuous 20 mile 10-12 foot wide multi-use trail along the Anacostia River waterfront in Southwest DC.

The trail is a recreational waterfront amenity and a transportation alternative. Currently, 12 out of the 20 miles are complete.

Yards Park, 355 Water Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 - Yards Park is an award-winning 5.4 acre open-space park located in the Navy Yards neighborhood. The Park has become a waterfront destination that provides greenspace, water features, and event space.

WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS

Affected Environment

WETLANDS

Per Director’s Order 77-1: Wetland Protection (NPS 2002), NPS considers water up to 2.5 meters deep (about 8 feet) at low water to be riverine wetlands. One riverine wetland (WET-1, the Anacostia River) was identified and delineated in the project area during a field investigation on December 13, 2017 (Figure 4, page 22). No palustrine wetlands were observed, as all vegetated areas adjacent to the Anacostia River were dominated by vegetation lacking hydric indicators. WET-1 consists of the west bank of the Anacostia River running alongside the eastern edge of the project area. The riverward side of the WET-1 boundary (2.5 meters below low water elevation) was mapped using bathymetric data collected by the DOEE in 2013. The area of WET-1 mapped for the proposed project consisted of approximately 5.69 acres and was delineated as open-ended, continuing further to the northeast and southwest away from the project area. The deeper portions of

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

the Anacostia River beyond the 2.5-meter depth are considered deepwater habitat. As stated in Procedural Manual 77-1, deepwater habitats are not considered wetlands and are not regulated by the NPS per EO 11990; however, the USACE regulates deepwater habitats as either riverine or open water habitat. The substrate observed along the banks of the river included silt, cobbles, and boulders. Steep banks with heights of 6-8 feet or greater were observed throughout the project area.

Within the project area, WET-1 primarily functions to provide freshwater fish, shellfish, and other wildlife habitat, as well as recreational opportunities through boating. Many riverine wetland functions are highly limited due to the existing modification of the shoreline (e.g., stone seawall and concrete revetment walls) and overall urbanized landscape in the project vicinity.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Figure 4. Environmental Features

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

According to data from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the presence of SAV has been recorded in the Anacostia River in the immediate vicinity of Buzzard Point Park from 2015-2017. The 2017 map depicts an SAV bed with moderate cover running from the southern side of the MHC to the southwestern end of the project area and continuing further west. Species noted included grassleaf mudplantain (Heteranthera dubia), coon’s tail (Ceratophyllum demersum), American eelgrass (Vallisneria Americana), and the non-native invasive waterthyme (Hydrilla verticillata). SAV serves as important habitat for aquatic life and can also improve water quality and stabilize sediments. SAV beds can benefit both juvenile and adult fish, and are suitable for refuge, feeding, and reproduction.

The SAVs in the Anacostia River can serve as a nursery and forage area for a variety of anadromous fish species, including alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus).

FLOODPLAINS

NPS Floodplain Management Guidelines define floodplains as the “lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, and including, at a minimum, that area subject to temporary inundation by a regulatory flood” (NPS 2003). The regulatory boundaries of 100-year floodplains are delineated on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and management of floodplains on NPS property in the District of Columbia is regulated by both federal and District legislation.

The entire project area is located within the FEMA Flood Hazard Zone AE of the 100-year floodplain, with the exception of a small portion that is within the 500-year floodplain (Figure 4, page 22). Natural floodplain functions and values such as flood storage, flood conveyance, groundwater recharge, habitat, and trapping of sediments within the project area are limited because the project area has already been developed; exemplified by the following existing conditions within the 100-year floodplain:

● Presence of several existing structures and other impervious surfaces; and,

● Vegetated portions of park consist primarily of maintained lawn and a narrow riparian fringe.

FEDERAL

Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to both maximize avoidance of long and short term impacts to floodplains and avoid direct or indirect support of development in the floodplain wherever there is a practicable alternative. Moreover, EO 11988 directs each agency to “reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.”

The National Park Service, Director’s Order #77-2 (NPS DO 77-2) applies to all NPS Proposed Actions that have the potential to adversely affect the natural resources and functions of floodplains or increase flood risks. As stated in DO 77-2, it is NPS’ policy to:

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

● Protect and preserve natural resources and functions of floodplains;

● Avoid long and short term adverse effects due to occupancy or modification of floodplains;

● Avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and actions that have the potential to adversely affect the natural resources and functions of floodplains, or increase flood risks; and,

● Restore natural floodplain values previously affected by land use activities within floodplains whenever practicable.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The District of Columbia participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and has enacted floodplain regulations for all new developments and substantial improvements to a structure located partially or entirely within Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain), as outlined in Title 20, Chapter 31 Flood Hazard Rules of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. The purpose of the Flood Hazard Rules is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and minimize losses due to flooding by:

● “Regulating uses, activities, and development which, acting alone or in combination with other existing or future uses, activities, and development, will cause unacceptable increases in flood heights, velocities, and frequencies;

● Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and development from locating within areas subject to flooding;

● Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in flood-prone areas to be protected in order to prevent flood damage; and,

● Protecting individuals from buying lands and structures which are unsuited for intended purposes because of flood hazards.”

The District Department of Energy and Environment coordinates participation in the NFIP and provides assistance to property owners and others on the NFIP, floodplain management, flood insurance, floodplain mapping and development requirements, and flood mitigation.

Methodology

WETLANDS

To analyze potential impacts of both alternatives to wetlands and waters of the U.S., field investigations were completed to delineate the boundaries of the riverine wetland and deepwater habitat, including a functions and values assessment. The conceptual design plans showing the potential improvements and grading plan aided in the analysis, with the determination of impacts being based on best professional judgment considering the level of detail available at conceptual design.

Impacts of Alternative A: No-Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the riverine wetland (WET-1), including SAV, and deepwater habitat associated with the Anacostia River would not be disturbed, therefore there would be no new impacts to wetlands within or adjacent to the site.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Cumulative Impacts

Because the No-Action Alternative would not cause any new impacts to wetlands, there would not be any Cumulative Impacts to wetlands.

Conclusion

There would be no impacts to wetland functions and values under the No-Action Alternative; and, because there would be no impacts, there would not be any cumulative impacts to wetlands.

Impacts of Alternative B

Shoreline treatments would differ between Options 1 and 2. Under Option 1, a new stone revetment would be placed along the length of the seawall in the Anacostia River to approximately the mean low…