Item_5_-_Environmental_Assessment_for_L_Enfant_Promenade.pdf

L’ENFANT PROMENADE AND BENJAMIN

BANNEKER PARK EA

Environmental Assessment for Improvements to L’Enfant Promenade and Benjamin Banneker Park

March 2006

DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Michelle Pourciau, Acting Director 2000 14 P th P St., NW, 6P th P Floor, Washington, DC 20009

Government of the District of Columbia Anthony A. Williams, Mayor

This page intentionally left blank

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA EFLHD) in coordination with and on behalf of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) to assist in identifying and evaluating the potential environmental impacts and benefits of improvements to the existing roadway and sidewalks associated with L’Enfant Promenade (10th Street, SW) and Benjamin Banneker Park. The proposed action is the modification of L’Enfant Promenade, within the public road right-of-way, and Banneker Park to fulfill their original purpose by creating a more aesthetically pleasing street environment and improved pedestrian links between the National Mall and the Southwest waterfront. The proposed modifications and improvements would also provide private vehicle and tour bus parking at Banneker Park for visitors to the Southwest waterfront and National Mall in proximity to existing and new transit modes proposed by DDOT.

The modifications to L’Enfant Promenade and Banneker Park are intended to better accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and to revitalize the two sites by incorporating public amenities (e.g., landscaping, site furniture, parking facilities, etc.) and other enhancements. The proposed enhancements would also provide a more befitting venue for the proposed Benjamin Banneker Memorial. The Proposed Action has been designed to achieve the following objectives:

♦ Establish a gateway between the National Mall and the Southwest waterfront as originally intended in the Urban Renewal Plan for Southwest Washington, DC;

♦ Provide an intermodal facility for private automobile and tour bus parking for visitors of the National Mall and Southwest waterfront; and

♦ Address structural deficiencies associated with L’Enfant Promenade’s bridges.

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

For descriptive purposes, the modifications and improvements being considered in this project are described separately for L’Enfant Promenade, between Independence Avenue and its bridge over I-395, and Banneker Park, located just south of I-395.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P L A Z A P R O M E N A D E &

B E N J A M I N B A N N E K E R P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T S iii

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO L’ENFANT PROMENADE

Improvements to L’Enfant Promenade would be implemented to enhance the urban design character of the Promenade and provide an accessible route for pedestrians, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Promenade roadway would continue to have a single traffic lane in each direction with curbside parking. Additional design features and modifications include:

♦ Modification of the roadway median;

♦ Addition of street trees and/or other landscaping along the roadway;

♦ Addition of an on street bicycle lane ♦ New street lighting;

♦ Addition of seating and site furnishings (e.g., trash receptacles, bicycle racks, etc.);

♦ Implementation of a way-finding/signage system;

♦ Construction of new stairway and elevator connections to 10th Street from L’Enfant

Promenade;

♦ Construction of pedestrian crosswalks at Independence Avenue and Maine Avenue;

♦ Implementation of intersection modifications at 12th Street-Independence Avenue and

12th Street-C Street, increased pedestrian crossing time each of those intersections, and optimization of all study area traffic signals;

♦ Repair of deficiencies associated with the L’Enfant Promenade bridge structures.

Two design options are being considered for modifying the Promenade roadway median:

retaining the existing 39 foot median width and replacing the paving with a grass lawn or reducing the median width to five feet. Reducing the width of the median would allow widening of the adjacent sidewalks by approximately 17 feet on each side of the roadway.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO BENJAMIN BANNEKER PARK

Banneker Park would undergo major renovations, which include construction of an intermodal transportation center and parking facility (ITC) within the park property. The ITC would be designed to accommodate up to 1,150 automobiles and 75 tour buses. The facility would be recessed into the hillside, designed to blend into the topography of the park. The highest elevation of the park, which is the same height as L’Enfant Promenade, would remain unchanged. Due to the modification of the sloping park hill required to construct the ITC, the existing circular park would be eliminated and the traffic circle would be modified into a smaller traffic circle at a location closer to I-395.

Pedestrian facilities constructed at Banneker Park and integrated with the ITC would include:

an exterior staircase from the top of the hill, at the L’Enfant Promenade elevation, to the bottom of the hill, a new mid-block pedestrian crossing of Maine Avenue, and interior staircases and elevators between parking levels to provide an ADA compliant connection between the upper areas of Banneker Park and Maine Avenue.

iv

“NO BUILD” ALTERNATIVE

Although no changes would be made to the physical configuration of L’Enfant Promenade and Banneker Park under the “No Build” alternative, DDOT would schedule and carry out a general rehabilitation and repair of the Promenade’s bridge structures in order to extend the serviceability or lifespan of the Promenade structures an additional 25-3050-75 years. At Banneker Park, the No Build Alternative provides for only routine maintenance, such as repairing minor cracks in sidewalks, general upkeep (mowing, trimming hedges), and trash removal. The existing park and fountain and vehicle circulation would be maintained.

There are several levels of general rehabilitation and enhancement possible under the No Build Alternative, depending on funding availability. A basic rehabilitation would correct the structural deficiencies associated with the Promenade bridges (excluding the replacement of the Promenade bridge decks, paving and drainage systems) and implement a way-finding signage system for the Promenade and Banneker Park. An enhanced rehabilitation option has also been identified, as an additional short-term measure to provide minimal enhancement of the Promenade aesthetics and pedestrian connectivity. The enhanced rehabilitation option does not duplicate the basic rehabilitation items; rather it includes the rehabilitation of the Promenade median to replace the existing paving with a grass lawn, widening of the sidewalk across the I-395 bridge by expanding it into the existing on-street parking lane (and eliminating parking on the bridge), and the addition of an ADA accessible stairway and elevator between the Promenade and D Street

The No Build alternative also provides a baseline condition with which to compare the environmental impacts or consequences associated with the Proposed Action.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The Proposed Action project site does not contain the following environmental resources, and therefore, impact analyses relating to these resources are not included in this EA:

wetlands, floodplains, Coastal Zone, Wild and Scenic Rivers, farmland or biologic resources (including threatened or endangered species). The implementation of the Proposed Action would have no adverse impacts to the areas of land use and zoning, community features, environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, hydrology and water resources, topographic and geologic resources, and utilities. The Proposed Action would have a positive impact on District economic conditions (from parking revenue associated with the ITC), aesthetics and visual resources, parkland, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

Minor, adverse impacts would occur to roadway traffic conditions, air quality and noise, primarily as a result of construction activities. Hazardous waste requiring disposal would be generated as a result of the Promenade bridges rehabilitation. Intersection modifications and signal optimization included as part of the Proposed Action would improve future traffic operations at most study area intersections. In cases where traffic operations are projected to deteriorate, the deterioration would be due to increases in traffic attributable to traffic v redistribution, increases in background traffic levels resulting from new development in or adjacent to the study area or changes in intersection signal timing. At those intersections where traffic operations decline, the level of service – a measure of traffic conditions based on vehicle delay – would deteriorate by only one grade in the qualitative rating system used to rate intersection level of service (where “A” is the best and “F” is the worst). All would continue to operate at a level of service “D” or better. The nature, extent, and proposed mitigation for adverse impacts are detailed in the Environmental Assessment.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION

A public meeting was held at the time of the initiation of this EA, for scoping purposes, to generate public interest and receive comments from local residents and members of the general public regarding preferences for improvement alternatives. Property owners within the study area, neighborhood organizations, and other community organizations as identified by FHWA and/or DDOT, were contacted, by letter inquiry, to inform them of the initiation of the EA, solicit input, and to assess interest in the outcome of the investigations. Additionally, FHWA and DDOT have made information on the proposed improvements and alternatives available through the distribution of newsletters and on their respective web sites on the Internet.

Consultation and coordination has occurred with over 20 agencies and organizations having jurisdictional approval authority relative to the Proposed Action or having a vested interest in the project plans and decision process. Comments of agencies and organizations responding to initial, written scoping inquiries have been addressed, where applicable, in the EA. Finally, meetings were held throughout the alternatives development and evaluation process with representatives of the National Park Service, Washington Interdependence Council, FHWA DC Division, National Capital Planning Commission, DC Office of Planning and U.S.

Department of Energy to keep them informed of the planning and preliminary engineering progress and solicit informal comments on the various improvement alternatives.

vi

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N

B A N N E K E R P A R K I M P R O V E M E N T S vii

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... iii

1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. Summary of Proposed Action .......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2. Existing L'Enfant Promenade and Benjamin Banneker Park ...................................... 1-3

1.3. Background and History.................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.1. L'Enfant Plan and Early History......................................................................... 1-3

1.3.2. Development of L'Enfant Promenade and Benjamin Banneker Park.......... 1-5

1.3.3. Benjamin Banneker Memorial............................................................................. 1-6

1.4. Memorandum of Agreement ............................................................................................ 1-8

1.5. Project Phases...................................................................................................................... 1-8

2. Purpose and Need........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1. Gateway Between the National Mall and the Southwest Waterfront ......................... 2-1

2.2. Provide Visitor and Tour Bus Parking ............................................................................ 2-4

2.3. Address Deficient Structural Conditions ........................................................................ 2-6

3. Description of the Proposed Action................................................................ 3-1

3.1. Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1. Development of the Proposed Action............................................................... 3-1

3.1.1.1. Plan Sources ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1.2. Urban Design Concepts ......................................................................... 3-2

3.1.1.3. Limiting Conditions ................................................................................ 3-2

3.1.1.4. Required Elements of the Proposed Action........................................ 3-3

3.1.2. Proposed Improvements...................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.2.1. L'Enfant Promenade............................................................................... 3-4

3.1.2.2. Benjamin Banneker Park ...................................................................... 3-13

3.1.3. Estimated Cost .................................................................................................... 3-15

3.2. Alternatives Considered But Rejected ........................................................................... 3-16

3.2.1. L'Enfant Promenade........................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.1.1. Restore Maryland Avenue Deck.......................................................... 3-16

3.2.1.2. L'Enfant Promenade Park.................................................................... 3-16

3.2.1.3. L'Enfant Promenade Park Hybrid ...................................................... 3-16

3.2.2. Benjamin Banneker Park.................................................................................... 3-17

3.3 No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................ 3-17

4. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................ 4-1

4.1. Scope of Environmental Assessment .............................................................................. 4-1

4.2. Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 4-3

4.2.1. Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.2. Priority Development Areas................................................................................ 4-5

4.2.2. Proposed Development ....................................................................................... 4-5

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N viii

4.2.4. Potential Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-5

4.2.4.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts .................................................... 4-5

4.2.4.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ..................................................... 4-7

4.2.5. Consistency with Land Use and Development Plans ...................................... 4-7

4.2.5.1. Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital .................................... 4-7

4.2.5.2. Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan................................................ 4-8

4.2.4.3. Development Plan and AWI Vision for the

Southwest Waterfront............................................................................. 4-9

4.2.5.4. Extending the Legacy: Planning America's Capital

for the 21st Century................................................................................ 4-11

4.2.5.5. Memorials and Museums Master Plan................................................ 4-11

4.2.5.6 Transportation Vision, Strategy and Action Plan for the

Nation's Capital...................................................................................... 4-12

4.2.5.7. The National Capital Urban Design and Security Plan.................... 4-12

4.2.5.8. Department of Energy Forrestal Complex Perimeter Security

Improvements........................................................................................ 4-12

4.3 Socio-Economic and Community Features.................................................................. 4-13

4.3.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-13

4.3.1.1 Social and Economic Characteristic ................................................... 4-13

4.3.2.2. Community Facilities ........................................................................... 4-15

4.3.2. Potential Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-16

4.3.2.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts .................................................. 4-16

4.3.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ................................................... 4-16

4.3.2.3. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898).............................. 4-16

4.4. Historic Properties............................................................................................................ 4-16

4.4.1. Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................... 4-16

4.4.2. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-17

4.4.3. Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-18

4.4.3.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts .................................................. 4-18

4.4.3.2. Long-Term Impacts .............................................................................. 4-18

4.5. Aesthetic and Visual Resources ...................................................................................... 4-19

4.5.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-19

4.5.2. Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-21

4.5.2.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts .................................................. 4-21

4.5.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ................................................... 4-21

4.6 Parks and Recreational Resources.................................................................................. 4-22

4.6.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-22

4.6.2. Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-23

4.6.2.1 Construction or Immediate Impacts .................................................. 4-23

4.6.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ................................................... 4-23

4.7. Section 4(f) Evaluation of Benjamin Banneker Park................................................... 4-23

4.7.1. Avoidance Alternatives....................................................................................... 4-25

4.7.2. Mitigation Measures............................................................................................ 4-25

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N ix

4.8. Hydrology and Water Resources .................................................................................... 4-26

4.8.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-26

4.8.2. Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-26

4.8.2.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts .................................................. 4-26

4.8.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ................................................... 4-26

4.9. Topographic and Geologic Resources........................................................................... 4-27

4.9.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-27

4.9.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-27

4.9.2.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts .................................................. 4-27

4.9.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ................................................... 4-27

4.10. Transportation and Traffic Conditions ......................................................................... 4-28

4.10.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-28

4.10.1.1. Existing Roadway Network........................................................... 4-28

4.10.1.2. Traffic Movements and Flow Patterns........................................ 4-30

4.10.1.3. Collision Information..................................................................... 4-31

4.10.1.4. Transit Facilities and Services ....................................................... 4-32

4.10.1.5. Pedestrian Circulation .................................................................... 4-34

4.10.1.6. Bicycle Circulation .......................................................................... 4-35

4.10.1.7. Parking Resources........................................................................... 4-35

4.10.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-36

4.10.2.1 Future Traffic Conditions.............................................................. 4-36

4.10.2.2. Construction or Immediate Impacts............................................ 4-37

4.10.2.33. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ............................................ 4-38

4.11. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4-41

4.11.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-41

4.11.1.1. Relevent Pollutants ........................................................................ 4-41

4.11.1.2. Air Quality Regulations.................................................................. 4-41

4.11.1.3. Transportation Planning and Air Quality Conformity.............. 4-42

4.11.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-43

4.11.2.1 Construction or Immediate Impacts............................................ 4-44

4.11.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ............................................ 4-44

4.12. Noise................................................................................................................................... 4-45 4.12.1.Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 4-45

4.12.1.1. Characteristics of Noise................................................................. 4-45

4.12.1.2. Noise Regulations ........................................................................... 4-46

4.12.1.3. Existing Noise Environment ........................................................ 4-47

4.12.2. Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-48

4.12.2.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts............................................ 4-48

4.12.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ............................................ 4-49

4.13. Utilities................................................................................................................................ 4-50

4.13.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-50

4.13.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-51

4.13.2.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts............................................ 4-51

4.13.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ............................................ 4-51

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N x

4.14. Hazardous Waste .............................................................................................................. 4-52

4.14.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-52

4.14.2. Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-55

4.14.2.1. Construction or Immediate Impacts............................................ 4-55

4.14.2.2. Operational or Long-Term Impacts ............................................ 4-55

4.15. Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................... 4-55

4.15.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 4-55

4.15.2. Potential Impacts................................................................................................. 4-56

4.16. Impacts Summary ............................................................................................................. 4-56

4.17. Mitigation Measures and Required Permits .................................................................. 4-56

4.18. Relationship of Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity .................................... 4-60

4.19. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................ 4-60

5. Public Involvement ......................................................................................... 5-1

6. List of Preparers .............................................................................................. 6-1

7. References ....................................................................................................... 7-1

Appendices I. Benjamin Banneker Memorial Authorization II. Memorandum of Agreement for the Planning, Design Engineering and Construction Services Associated with The Redesign and Rehabilitation of L’Enfant Promenade III. Structural Condition Assessment IV. Structural Plans V. Transportation and Traffic Technical Report VI. Air Quality Technical Report

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N xi

L I S T O F F I G U R E S FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location of Project Site .........................................................................1-1 FIGURE 1-2 L’Enfant Promenade and Vicinity ........................................................................1-2 FIGURE 1-3 Study Area ................................................................................................................1-4 FIGURE 1-4 The L’Enfant Plan of 1791 ....................................................................................1-5 FIGURE 1-5 Benjamin Banneker Memorial Concept (1997) Showing Proposed

Clock Tower.............................................................................................................1-7 FIGURE 2-1 View South from Independence Avenue to L’Enfant Promenade .................2-2 FIGURE 2-2 View from L’Enfant Promenade North to Independence Avenue.................2-2 FIGURE 2-3 View South towards the Southwest Waterfront .................................................2-2 FIGURE 2-4 Deteriorating Light Standards and Debris along Promenade...........................2-3 FIGURE 2-5 Sidewalk on I-395 Bridge .......................................................................................2-3 FIGURE 2-6 Banneker Park Fountain.........................................................................................2-3 FIGURE 2-7 Sidewalk Across Banneker Park to 9th Street ......................................................2-4 FIGURE 2-8 Path from Maine Ave. Across Banneker Park to L’Enfant Promenade.........2-4 FIGURE 2-9 Tour Buses Loading and Unloading on F Street, NW, near Ford’s Theater .2-5 FIGURE 2-10 L’Enfant Promenade Bridges ................................................................................2-7 FIGURE 2-11 Missing Canopy Panel on I-395 Bridge ...............................................................2-8 FIGURE 2-12 Misaligned Granite Curb........................................................................................2-8 FIGURE 3-1 Proposed L’Enfant Promenade Improvements, Narrow Median Design Option............................................................................3-5 FIGURE 3-2 Proposed L’Enfant Promenade Improvements, Wide Median Design Option ................................................................................3-6 FIGURE 3-3 Typical Section of L’Enfant Promenade .............................................................3-8 FIGURE 3-4 Section of L’Enfant Promenade at U.S.P.S. Headquarters and

L’Enfant Promenade Hotel ...................................................................................3-9 FIGURE 3-5 Proposed Roundabout and Memorial “Nodes”

(Narrow Median Design Option) .......................................................................3-10 FIGURE 3-6 Proposed Memorial “Nodes” (Wide Median Design Option).......................3-11 FIGURE 3-7 Section of L’Enfant Promenade at I-395...........................................................3-12 FIGURE 3-8 Proposed Benjamin Banneker Park Improvements.........................................3-14 FIGURE 4-1 Existing Land Use...................................................................................................4-4 FIGURE 4-2 Priority Development Areas and Special Zoning Areas....................................4-6 FIGURE 4-3 Proposed Development of Banneker Park, AWI Framework Plan and the

Development Plan for the Southwest Waterfront .............................................4-8 FIGURE 4-4 Proposed Land Use for the Southwest Waterfront, Development Plan and

AWI Vision for the Southwest Waterfront .......................................................4-10 FIGURE 4-5 Census Tracts.........................................................................................................4-14 FIGURE 4-6 L’Enfant Promenade and Independence Avenue Intersection......................4-19 FIGURE 4-7 View from the Promenade South to the Benjamin Banneker

Park Fountain ........................................................................................................4-19 FIGURE 4-8 View from the Promenade Midpoint North to the Forrestal Building.........4-20

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N xii

FIGURE 4-9 View from the Promenade Northeast to the U.S. Capitol ..............................4-20 FIGURE 4-10 View from Banneker Park West .........................................................................4-20 FIGURE 4-11 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes .............................................................4-29 FIGURE 4-12 Transit Facilities.....................................................................................................4-33

L I S T O F T A B L E S TABLE 3-1 Estimated Cost of the Proposed Action (2005 $) ............................................3-15 TABLE 3-2 Estimated Rehabilitation Cost of the No Build Alternative (2005 $)............3-18 TABLE 4-1 Year 2000 Demographic and Economic Characteristics.................................4-15 TABLE 4-2 Existing Levels of Service at Intersections and Freeway Segments and Ramps..............................................................................................................4-31 TABLE 4-3 Summary of Collision Data (January 2000 through December 2001) ..........4-32 TABLE 4-4 Existing Parking Resources .................................................................................4-36 TABLE 4-5 Study Area Levels of Service – 2025 No Build and 2025 Build.....................4-38 TABLE 4-6 Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria..........................4-47 TABLE 4-7 Ambient Noise Measurements............................................................................4-47 TABLE 4-8 Summary of Public Utilities by Street ................................................................4-50 TABLE 4-9 Properties Reporting Hazardous Waste Activities within the Study Area

(RCRA Database)..................................................................................................4-52 TABLE 4-10 Registered USTs with the Study Area ................................................................4-53 TABLE 4-11 LUST Sites within the Study Area ......................................................................4-53 TABLE 4-12 Summary of Impacts.............................................................................................4-57 TABLE 4-13 Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................4-58 TABLE 4-14 Permit and Regulatory Review Requirements...................................................4-59

1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) on behalf of the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to disclose the potential impacts associated with the proposed rehabilitation and improvements to L’Enfant Promenade and Benjamin Banneker Park, located in the Southwest (SW) quadrant of the District of Columbia (the District) and shown in Figure 1-1. L’Enfant Promenade is formally known as L’Enfant Plaza, but is referred to in this report as “L’Enfant Promenade” to distinguish it from the open space surrounded by the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel and two office buildings and frequently also called “L’Enfant Plaza”. This document was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); and the FHWA environmental impact related procedures (23 CFR 771).

1.1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION

DDOT proposes to modify L’Enfant Promenade, within the public road right-of-way, and Benjamin Banneker Park to fulfill their original purpose by creating a more aesthetically pleasing street environment and improve pedestrian links between the National Mall and the Southwest waterfront along the Washington Channel locales (see Figure 1-2).

FIGURE 1-1: Regional Location of Project Site

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N

1-1

S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N B A N N E K E R P A R

I M P R O V E M E N T S 1 - 2

Insert FIGURE 2: L’Enfant Plaza and Vicinity

L’Enfant Promenade and Vicinity

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A K

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

L’ENFANT PROMENADE & BENJAMIN BANNEKER

PARK IMPROVEMENTS

FIGURE 1-2:

L’Enfant Promenade and Vicinity

Additionally, the proposed improvements would provide private vehicle and tour bus parking for visitors to the Southwest waterfront and National Mall in proximity to existing and new transit modes proposed by DDOT.

1.2. EXISTING L’ENFANT PROMENADE AND BENJAMIN BANNKER

PARK

L’Enfant Promenade is a two-lane roadway, with a 40-foot wide median and on-street metered parking. Large, multi-story buildings line each side of the roadway (see Figure 1-3).

Additional structured parking is located below the Promenade buildings and is accessed from 9th, 10th and 12th Streets. L’Enfant Promenade limits are from Independence Avenue on the north to Benjamin Banneker Park and 9 Street on the south end. At the north end, the Department of Energy (DOE) headquarters, known as the Forrestal Building, straddles the roadway. The road right-of-way is 150 feet wide from Independence Avenue to I-395 and 101 feet wide from I-395 to Benjamin Banneker Park. The majority of L’Enfant Promenade consists three bridge structures that span the th

CSX Railroad, D Street, 10th Street and Interstate 395 (I-395). Additional vehicular access to the Promenade is via ramps from 10th Street, north of I-395.

Benjamin Banneker Park consists of a formal, circular landscaped park with a fountain in the center that is aligned with the centerline of L’Enfant Promenade. The fountain park is surrounded by a 5-and-a-half foot tall wall and is level with the Promenade, but is on top of a 30-foot tall hill from the perspective of Maine Avenue. The L’Enfant Promenade roadway and sidewalks curve around the fountain park to an intersection with 9th Street. Grass lawns surround the fountain park and roadway and slope downward to Maine Avenue, 9th Street and I-395. The 4.68 acres encompassing Banneker Park and the surrounding grass lawn is in the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The road right-of-way is in the jurisdiction of the District.

1.3. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

1.3.1. L’Enfant Plan and Early History

The area to the southwest of the U.S. Capitol was an original component of the plan of the city of Washington designed in 1791 by Pierre L’Enfant (1754-1825) and mapped the following year by Andrew Ellicott (1754-1820). It developed in a traditional grid street pattern that extended south from Independence Avenue to the Potomac River’s edge and included 10th Street, on which the current-day Promenade and Banneker Park are constructed.

Maryland Avenue (see Figure 1-4) bisected this quadrant of the city and served as a major thoroughfare, providing a direct link between the Capitol and the Potomac River.

From the early 1800’s to early-1900’s the Southwest quadrant of the city was home to a racially diverse, predominantly blue collar residential population and a thriving shipping and industrial district along the Washington Channel shoreline. By the early 1940’s, however, much of the southwest area became economically depressed, resulting in blighted and unhealthy living conditions.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N

1 - 3

M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E

P R O V E M E N T S 1 - 4

FIGURE 3: Study Area

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S N J A M I N

B A N N E K E R P A R K I M

Source: DC OCTO

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

L’ENFANT PROMENADE & BENJAMIN BANNEKER

PARK IMPROVEMENTS

FIGURE 1-3:

Study Area

N.W.

1.3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF L’ENFANT PROMENADE AND BENJAMIN

BANNEKER PARK

To address depressed economic conditions in Southwest DC, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) developed an Urban Renewal Plan for Southwest DC in the mid 1950s.

The Urban Renewal Plan replaced the 18th and 19th century neighborhoods with a mixed-use complex of offices, housing and commercial uses designed in the Modernist architectural style popular in the post-World War II period. I-395 was also constructed during this period, which had the effect of severing the Southwest waterfront and neighborhoods from the National Mall and the rest of the city.

The area south of Independence Avenue to the Washington Channel, between 4th and 12th Streets was designated as Project Area C in the Urban Renewal Plan. The plan designated that L’Enfant Promenade, then called the 10th Street Mall, function as a stately pedestrian and vehicular bridge between Southwest Washington and the city as a whole. The plan included a park at the mall’s southern terminus, Overlook Park (now Benjamin Banneker Park), which was intended to provide motorists and pedestrians a grand view of the waterfront and residential Southwest Washington beyond. The plan also called for a L’Enfant Promenade roadway connection with Maine Avenue and underground parking at Overlook Park. Due to unsuitable topographic conditions at the Overlook Park site, the roadway connection to Maine Avenue was never built. Instead, a roadway/ramp was constructed that connects to 9th Street.

Figure 1-4: The L’Enfant Plan of 1791

U.S. CAPITOL

WHITE HOUSE

N.E.

Independence Ave.

th

S t.

NATIONAL MALL

S.W. S.E.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N

1 - 5

This roadway is still operational today. While the underground parking at Overlook Park was not constructed, the concept has resurfaced in subsequent planning efforts.

In 1971, at the unveiling of the newly constructed 10th Street Mall and Overlook Park, the National Park Service (NPS) held a public dedication ceremony renaming the street L’Enfant Plaza in homage to Pierre L’Enfant for his role in helping to plan the nation’s capital. Also at that time, Overlook Park was officially named Benjamin Banneker Park in commemoration of Benjamin Banneker (1731-1806) for his role in the survey and design of the nation’s capitol.

Both names were authorized by the U.S. Department of Interior as official commemorative designations celebrating the contributions of these two historic figures.

1.3.3. Benjamin Banneker Memorial

In 1996, the Washington Interdependence Council (WIC) launched a campaign to commemorate Benjamin Banneker with a memorial within DC’s monumental core. Historical research by WIC notes that Banneker, an African-American mathematician, scientist and astronomer, was a free black man who assisted in the 1791 survey of the "Federal Territory," a ten-mile square that includes the present-day District of Columbia and a portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia located west of the Potomac River. He was also the author of Benjamin Banneker’s Almanac, a yearly almanac of astronomical calculations and weather forecasts, which he published from 1792 to 1797. Public Law 105- 355, signed into law during Banneker’s birth month of November 1998 by President Clinton, authorized WIC to establish a memorial in DC to honor and commemorate Banneker’s accomplishments (see Appendix I).

After receiving Congressional authorization, WIC began pursuit of site approval from the National Capital Memorial Commission (NCMC) to erect the memorial along L’Enfant Promenade and at Benjamin Banneker Park. The NCMC is a federal advisory committee responsible for making recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding proposals for commemorative works on federal lands within the National Capital Region. The Banneker Memorial concept advanced by WIC envisioned a linear park within the L’Enfant Promenade median extending from Independence Avenue to Benjamin Banneker Park that would encompass a series of commemorative elements including a clock tower, exhibits and statuary, terminating with a heroic statue of Banneker at the park site and a pedestrian bridge crossing over Maine Avenue. In 1999, the NCMC rejected WIC’s proposal, citing that the park was too large for the Banneker statue proposed by WIC, and stating its preference to reserve the park for a future presidential memorial or monument to a major event in the history of the nation (see Appendix I). The Commission concluded that the relationship between Banneker and L’Enfant is such that placing the memorial on L’Enfant Promenade would be the most logical location in DC. It recommended a single location on L’Enfant Promenade for the memorial rather than using the entire length of L’Enfant Promenade as proposed by WIC.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N

1 - 6

The NCMC determination led WIC to revise its proposal, which now includes having memorial elements within the DC public street right-of-way at two locations on the Promenade: at the axis of the CSX railroad and Maryland Avenue and the area in front of the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel and the U.S. Postal Service Headquarters. At the CSX/Maryland Avenue axis, WIC proposed erecting a heroic-sized statue of Banneker on a pedestal base. At the hotel/headquarters location, WIC proposed a 30-40 foot tall tower clock that would symbolize Banneker’s achievement in designing the first American-made striking clock (see Figure 1-5). In addition to these two memorial sites, WIC proposed building a Founding Architects Visitor’s Center that would provide a historical account regarding the founding and development of the nation’s capitol, highlighting the contributions of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the three members (Daniel Carroll, Dr. David Stuart, and Thomas Johnson) of the Commission appointed by George Washington to govern the city in 1790, and Major Andrew Ellicott, as well as Benjamin Banneker and Pierre L’Enfant. A location has not been identified for the visitor’s center.

FIGURE 1-5: Benjamin Banneker Memorial concept (1997) showing proposed clock tower. Courtesy of WIC.

While the NCMC recommended the placement of the Benjamin Banneker Memorial within L’Enfant Promenade, the official site approval of the revised memorial proposal now rests with the District of Columbia Commemorative Works Commission1, which was established in 2000. Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 6D in Southwest DC approved the WIC proposal in 2004. ANC approval represents the first step towards securing official site approval from the Commemorative Works Commission.

1 The establishment of the Banneker Memorial on federal lands is subject to the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C.

8901-8909). Section 8903(e) states that “any legislative authority for a commemorative work shall expire at the end of the seven-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of such Authority”. The Banneker Memorial legislative authority relative to locating the Memorial on federal lands lapsed on November 6, 2005. This does not preclude the location of the memorial on lands under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N

1 - 7

1.4. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

In 2000, the EFLHD, the FHWA DC Division, the District of Columbia Department of Public Works (DCDPW), the U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS National Capital Region (NCR), and WIC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to work cooperatively to redesign L’Enfant Promenade and Benjamin Banneker Park. DDOT was designated to carry out the roles and responsibilities assigned to the DCDPW in the MOA. A copy of the MOA is located in Appendix II.

1.5. PROJECT PHASES

While the redesign and rehabilitation recommendations developed during the planning process were specifically directed at the L’Enfant Promenade and the Benjamin Banneker Park, these two facilities are also physically and visually connected to the adjacent urban fabric and traffic circulation systems. Therefore, the study area was defined by a northern boundary at Independence Avenue, an eastern boundary at 9th Street, a southern boundary at the Washington Channel, and a western boundary at 12th Street. Figure 1-3 shows the general study area.

The planning process was completed in two phases. The first phase included an urban design assessment of the Promenade and Banneker Park and the identification of redesign concepts at each location. The urban planning study established the design framework from which alternative designs were developed for the rehabilitation of the Promenade and Banneker Park, as the second phase of the planning process. That phase also included environmental analyses of those design plans, as documented in this EA, in compliance with NEPA.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T : L ’ E N F A N T P R O M E N A D E & B E N J A M I N

1 - 8

2 . P U R P O S E A N D N E E D The redesign of L’Enfant Promenade and Benjamin Banneker Park is intended to better accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and to revitalize the two sites by incorporating public amenities (e.g., landscaping, site furniture, parking facilities, etc.) and other enhancements. It is anticipated the proposed improvements will attract visitors to the Promenade and Banneker Park and thereby increase tourist traffic between the National Mall and the Southwest waterfront. The proposed enhancements would also provide a more befitting venue for the proposed Benjamin Banneker Memorial.

This chapter describes the reasons the FHWA is proposing improvements to L’Enfant Promenade and Benjamin Banneker Park. Upon completion of the project, the sponsoring agency seeks to achieve the following objectives:

♦ Establish a gateway between the National Mall and the Southwest waterfront as originally intended in the Urban Renewal Plan;

♦ Provide an…