[House Document 104-257]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 104-257
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND
----------
COMMUNICATION
from
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
transmitting
A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DATED
NOVEMBER 15, 1994, SUBMITTING A REPORT WITH ACCOMPANYING PAPERS AND
ILLUSTRATIONS
September 4, 1996.--Referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and ordered to be printed
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND
104th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 104-257
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND
__________
COMMUNICATION
from
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
transmitting
A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DATED
NOVEMBER 15, 1994, SUBMITTING A REPORT WITH ACCOMPANYING PAPERS AND
ILLUSTRATIONS
September 4, 1996.--Referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and ordered to be printed
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Letter of transmittal............................................ xiii
Comments of the Office of Management and Budget.................. xv
Comments of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources......... xvi
Comments of the District of Columbia............................. xix
Comments of the Department of the Interior....................... xx
Comments of the Environmental Protection Agency.................. xxi
Comments of the Department of Transportation..................... xxii
Report of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army......... 1
Report of the District Engineer:
Final Feasibility Report and EIS............................. 5
Page
* Cover Sheet......... 5
* Abstract and 7
Syllabus.
1 Introduction........ 10
1.1 Purpose of study. 10
1.2 Study authority.. 10
1.3 Study area....... 11
1.4 Scope of study... 11
1.5 Study and report 13
process.
1.5.1 Reconnaissance 13
results.
1.5.2 Feasibility 14
study sharing
agreement
[FCSA].
1.6 Associated 14
environmental
restoration
efforts.
1.6.1 Anacostia
watershed
restoration
committee
[AWMC]........ 15
1.6.2 Six Point 15
action plan.
1.7 Strategy for 16
restoration of
the Anacostia
River Basin.
1.8 Feasibility study 16
sponsors and
cooperating
agencies.
1.8.1 District of 17
Columbia
sponsoring
agencies.
1.8.2 Regional 17
sponsoring
agencies.
1.8.3 State 18
sponsoring
agencies.
1.8.4 Local/county 18
sponsoring
agencies.
1.8.5 Cooperating 19
landowning
agencies.
1.9 Prior studies and 19
reports.
1.10 Existing water 19
resource
projects.
1.10.1 Reclamation of 22
Anacostia
Flats.
1.10.2 Washington 22
Harbor.
1.10.3 Washington D.C. 22
and vicinity.
1.10.4 Anacostia River
and tributaries,
District of
Columbia and
Maryland........ 24
1.10.5 Anacostia River
and tributaries,
Prince George's
County, Maryland 24
1.11 Report 24
organization.
1.12 Abbreviations and 25
acronyms used in
this report.
2 * Baseline Conditions 27
& Affected
Environment.
2.1 General 27
description of
the Anacostia
River Basin.
2.1.1 Physical 27
setting.
2.1.1.a Physiography. 27
2.1.1.b Hydrology.... 29
2.1.1.c Land use..... 30
2.1.1.d Climate...... 31
2.1.2 Environmental 31
resources.
2.1.1.a Aquatic 31
resources.
2.1.2.b Wetlands..... 32
NOTE: * Indicates section required for NEPA compliance.
2.1.2.c Terrestrial 32
resources.
2.1.2.d Rare, 33
threatened
and
endangered
species.
2.1.2.e Water quality 34
2.1.2.f Air quality.. 34
2.1.2.g Hazardous,
toxic and
radioative
waste [HTRW] 35
2.1.3 Aesthetic and 35
recreational
resources.
2.1.4 Cultural 36
resources.
2.1.5 Social and 38
economic
setting.
2.1.5.a Population... 38
2.1.5.b Employment... 38
2.1.5.c Households... 45
2.1.5.d Land use..... 45
2.2 Tidal Anacostia 45
River.
2.2.1 Physical 45
setting.
2.2.1.a Location......... 45
2.2.1.b Hydrology........ 46
2.2.2 Environmental 46
resources.
2.2.2.a Aquatic 46
resources.
2.2.2.b Wetlands..... 47
2.2.2.c Terrestrial 48
resources.
2.2.2.d Rare, 49
threatened
and
endangered
species.
2.2.2.e Water quality 49
2.2.2.f Air quality.. 50
2.2.3 Aesthetic and 50
recreational
resources.
2.3 Northwest branch 50
sub-watershed.
2.3.1 Physical 50
setting.
2.3.1.a Location..... 50
2.3.1.b Physiography. 50
2.3.1.c Hydrology.... 50
2.3.2 Environmental 51
resources.
2.3.2.a Aquatic 51
resources.
2.3.2.b Wetlands..... 52
2.3.2.c Terrestrial 52
resources.
2.3.2.d Rare, 52
threatened
and
endangered
species.
2.3.2.e Water quality 52
2.3.2.f Air quality.. 52
2.3.3 Aesthetic and 53
recreational
resources.
2.4 Sligo Creek sub- 53
watershed.
2.4.1 Physical 53
setting.
2.4.1.a Location..... 53
2.4.1.b Physiography. 53
2.4.1.c Hydrology.... 53
2.4.2 Environmental 54
resources.
2.4.2.a Aquatic 54
resources.
2.4.2.b Wetlands..... 55
2.4.2.c Terrestrial 55
resources.
2.4.2.d Rare, 55
threatened
and
endangered
species.
2.4.2.e Water quality 55
2.4.3 Aesthetic and 56
recreational
resources.
2.5 Paint Branch sub- 56
watershed.
2.5.1 Physical 56
setting.
2.5.1.a Location..... 56
2.5.1.b Physiography. 56
2.5.1.c Hydrology.... 56
2.5.2 Environmental 57
resources.
2.5.2.a Aquatic 57
resources.
2.5.2.b Wetlands..... 57
2.5.2.c Terrestrial 58
resources.
2.5.2.d Rare, 58
threatened
and
endangered
species.
2.5.2.e Water quality 58
2.5.2.f Air quality.. 58
2.5.3 Aesthetic and 58
recreational
resources.
2.6 Little Paint 59
Branch sub-
watershed.
2.6.1 Physical 59
setting.
2.6.1.a Location..... 59
2.6.1.b Hydrology.... 59
2.6.2 Environmental 59
resources.
2.6.2.a Aquatic 59
resources.
2.6.2.b Wetlands..... 60
2.6.2.c Terrestrial 60
resources.
2.6.2.d Rare, 60
threatened
and
endangered
species.
2.6.2.e Water quality 60
2.6.2.f Air quality.. 60
2.6.3 Aesthetic and 60
recreational
resources.
2.7 Most probable 61
future
conditions.
2.8 Land in federal 61
ownership.
2.9 Related Corps of 63
engineers
restoration
activities.
2.9.1 Section 1135 63
WRDA 1986
reports.
2.9.2 Beneficial uses 63
of dredged
material.
3 Problem 64
Identification.
3.1 Problems, needs 64
and
opportunities.
3.1.1 Problems....... 64
3.1.2 Needs.......... 65
3.1.3 Opportunities.. 66
3.1.4 Modern historic
condition of
the Anacostia
River Basin... 67
3.1.4.a Early 67
historical
period.
3.1.4.b Wetlands..... 68
3.1.4.c Fisheries.... 68
3.1.4.d Wildlife..... 69
3.1.5 Effects of 69
previous corps
projects.
3.2 Federal 71
objective.
3.3 Planning 72
objectives and
constraints.
3.4 Chesapeake Bay 73
Tributaries
strategy.
3.5 Indicator 74
species.
3.5.1 American Shad
(Alosa
Sapidissima)
and Hickory
Shad (Alosa
Mediocris).. 75
3.5.2 Alewife
(Alosa
Pseudohareng
us) and
Blueback
Herring
(Alosa
Aestivalis). 76
3.5.3 White Perch 76
(Morone
American.
3.5.4 Striped Bass 77
(Morone
Saxitili).
3.5.5 Yellow Perch 77
(Perca
Flavescens).
3.5.6 Wood Duck 78
(Aix Sponsa).
3.5.7 Canvasback 78
(Aythya
Valisineria).
3.5.8 Redhead 79
(Aythya
Americana).
3.5.9 Colonial 79
Wading Birds
(Herons and
Egrets).
3.5.10 Osprey 79
(Pandion
Haliaetus).
3.5.11 Bald Eagle 80
(Haliaeetus
Leucocephalu
s).
3.5.12 River Otter 80
(Lutra
Canadensis).
3.5.13 Brown Trout 80
(Salmo
Trutta).
3.6 Summary.......... 81
4 Plan Formulation for 82
Feasibility Phase.
4.1 Federal 82
considerations.
4.1.1 Resource 82
significance.
4.1.1.a Institutional 83
recognition.
4.1.1.b Public 84
recognition.
4.1.1.c Technical 85
recognition.
4.1.2 Linkage to 85
previous corps
projects.
4.2* Non-federal 85
sponsor
considerations.
4.2.1 District of 86
Columbia.
4.2.2 Prince George's 86
County.
4.2.3 Montgomery 87
County.
4.3 Type of habitat 87
restoration
considered.
4.3.1 Focus of the 87
formulation
process.
4.3.2 Restoration 88
strategy.
4.4 Formulation of 90
locations for
restoration.
4.4.1 Sites 92
eliminated
from detailed
study.
4.4.2 Site selection 92
process--level
II analysis.
4.4.3 Site selection-- 93
stormwater
wetlands.
4.4.4 Site selection-- 93
stream
restoration.
4.4.5 Site selection-- 98
tidal and non-
tidal wetlands.
4.5 Sites selected 98
for development
of alternatives.
4.5.1 District of 100
Columbia.
4.5.1.a Kingman Lake. 100
4.5.1.b River Fringe 102
Wetlands.
4.5.2 Prince George's 102
County.
4.5.2.a Fordham 102
Street
Wetland.
4.5.2.b Northwest 103
Branch
Stream
Restoration.
4.5.3 Montgomery 103
County.
4.5.3.a Stewart/April 104
Lane.
4.5.3.b Lockridge 104
Drive.
4.5.3.c Snowden's 104
Mill I.
4.5.3.d Snowden's 105
Mill II.
4.5.3.e Tanglewood... 105
4.5.3.f Gum Springs.. 105
4.5.3.g Sligo Creek.. 106
4.5.3.h Paint Branch. 106
4.5.3.i Northwest 106
Branch.
4.6 Fish and wildlife 107
habitat
restoration
measures.
4.6.1 Wetland habitat 107
restoration.
4.6.2 Bottomland 109
habitat.
4.6.3 Aquatic habitat 110
restoration.
4.7 Alternatives 111
considered for
the selected
sites.
4.7.1 Wetland 112
construction
alternatives.
4.7.2 Stream 112
restoration
alternatives.
4.7.3 Stormwater 112
wetland
alternatives.
5 * Alternative 119
Assessment and
Evaluation.
5.1 No-action plan... 119
5.2 Kingman Lake- 120
District of
Columbia.
5.2.1 Environmental 125
effects.
5.2.1a Aquatic 125
resources.
5.2.1.b Wetlands..... 127
5.2.1.c Terrestrial 128
resources.
5.2.1.d Threatened 130
and
endangered
species.
5.2.1.e Prime and 130
unique
farmlands.
5.2.1.f Water quality 130
5.2.1.g Air quality.. 131
5.2.1.h Hazardous, 131
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.2.2 Aesthetic and 131
recreational
effects.
5.2.3 Cultural 131
effects.
5.3 River Fringe 132
Wetlands--Distri
ct of Columbia.
5.3.1 Environmental 133
effects.
5.3.1.a Aquatic 133
resources.
5.3.1.b Wetlands..... 136
5.3.1.c Terrestrial 137
resources.
5.3.1.d Threatened 137
and
endangered
species.
5.3.1.e Prime and 137
unique
farmlands.
5.3.1.f Water quality 137
5.3.1.g Air quality.. 138
5.3.1.h Hazardous, 138
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.3.2 Aesthetics and 138
recreational
effects.
5.3.3 Cultural 139
effects.
5.4 Fordham Street 139
Wetland--Prince
George's County.
5.4.1 Environmental 140
effects.
5.4.1.a Aquatic 140
resources.
5.4.1.b Wetlands..... 140
5.4.1.c Terrestrial 143
resources.
5.4.1.d Threatened 143
and
endangered
species.
5.4.1.e Prime and 143
unique
farmlands.
5.4.1.f Water quality 143
5.4.1.g Air quality.. 144
5.4.1.h Hazardous, 144
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.4.2 Aesthetic and 144
recreational
effects.
5.4.3 Cultural 144
effects.
5.5 Northwest Branch
Stream
Restoration--Pri
nce George's
County.......... 145
5.5.1 Environmental 145
effects.
5.5.1.a Aquatic 145
resources.
5.5.1.b Wetlands..... 148
5.5.1.c Terrestrial 148
resources.
5.5.1.d Threatened 148
and
endangered
species.
5.5.1.e Prime and 149
unique
farmlands.
5.5.1.f Water quality 149
5.5.1.g Air quality.. 149
5.5.1.h Hazardous, 150
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.5.2 Aesthetic and 150
recreational
effects.
5.5.3 Cultural 150
effects.
5.6 Stewart/April 151
Land--Montgomery
County.
5.6.1 Environmental 151
effects.
5.6.1.a Aquatic 151
resources.
5.6.1.b Wetlands..... 154
5.6.1.c Terrestrial 155
resources.
5.6.1.d Threatened 155
and
endangered
species.
5.6.1.e Prime and 155
unique
farmlands.
5.6.1.f Water quality 155
5.6.1.g Air quality.. 156
5.6.1.h Hazardous, 156
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.6.2 Aesthetic and 156
recreational
effects.
5.6.3 Cultural 157
effects.
5.7 Lockridge Drive.. 157
5.7.1 Environmental 160
effects.
5.7.1.a Aquatic 160
resources.
5.7.1.b Wetlands..... 161
5.7.1.c Terrestrial 161
resources.
5.7.1.d Threatened 161
and
endangered
species.
5.7.1.e Prime and 161
unique
farmlands.
5.7.1.f Water quality 162
5.7.1.g Air quality.. 162
5.7.1.h Hazardous, 162
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.7.2 Aesthetic and 162
recreational
effects.
5.7.3 Cultural 163
effects.
5.8 Snowden's Mill I-- 163
Montgomery
County.
5.8.1 Environmental 164
effects.
5.8.1.a Aquatic 164
resources.
5.8.1.b Wetlands..... 167
5.8.1.c Terrestrial 167
resources.
5.8.1.d Threatened 168
and
endangered
species.
5.8.1.e Prime and 168
unique
farmlands.
5.8.1.f Water quality 168
5.8.1.g Air quality.. 168
5.8.1.h Hazardous, 168
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.8.2 Aesthetic and 169
recreational
effects.
5.8.3 Cultural 169
effects.
5.9 Snowden's Mill 169
II--Montgomery
County.
5.9.1 Environmental 170
effects.
5.9.1.a Aquatic 170
resources.
5.9.1.b Wetlands..... 173
5.9.1.c Terrestrial 173
resources.
5.9.1.d Threatened 174
and
endangered
species.
5.9.1.e Prime and 174
unique
farmlands.
5.9.1.f Water quality 174
5.9.1.g Air quality.. 174
5.9.1.h Hazardous, 174
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.9.2 Aesthetic and 175
recreational
effects.
5.9.3 Cultural 175
effects.
5.10 Tanglewood--Montg 175
omery County.
5.10.1 Environmental 176
effects.
5.10.1.a Aquatic 176
resources.
5.10.1.b Wetlands..... 179
5.10.1.c Terrestrial 179
resources.
5.10.1.d Threatened 179
and
endangered
species.
5.10.1.e Prime and 179
unique
farmlands.
5.10.1.f Water quality 180
5.10.1.g Air quality.. 180
5.10.1.h Hazardous, 180
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.10.2 Aesthetic and 180
recreational
effects.
5.10.3 Cultural 181
effects.
5.11 Gum Spring-- 181
Montgomery
County.
5.11.1 Environmental 184
effects.
5.11.1.a Aquatic 184
resources.
5.11.1.b Wetlands..... 185
5.11.1.c Terrestrial 186
resources.
5.11.1.d Threatened 186
and
endangered
species.
5.11.1.e Prime and 186
unique
farmlands.
5.11.1.f Water quality 187
5.11.1.g Air quality.. 187
5.11.1.h Hazardous, 187
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.11.2 Aesthetic and 188
recreational
effects.
5.11.3 Cultural 188
effects.
5.12 Sligo Creek-- 189
Montgomery
County.
5.12.1 Environmental 189
effects.
5.12.1.a Aquatic 189
resources.
5.12.1.b Wetlands..... 193
5.12.1.c Terrestrial 193
resources.
5.12.1.d Threatened 193
and
endangered
species.
5.12.1.e Prime and 193
unique
farmlands.
5.12.1.f Water quality 194
5.12.1.g Air quality.. 194
5.12.1.h Hazardous, 195
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.12.2 Aesthetic and 195
recreational
effects.
5.12.3 Cultural 195
effects.
5.13 Paint Branch-- 196
Montgomery
County.
5.13.1 Environmental 196
effects.
5.13.1.a Aquatic 196
resources.
5.13.1.b Wetlands..... 200
5.13.1.c Terrestrial 200
resources.
5.13.1.d Threatened 200
and
endangered
species.
5.13.1.e Prime and 200
unique
farmlands.
5.13.1.f Water quality 201
5.13.1.g Air quality.. 201
5.13.1.h Hazardous, 202
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.13.2 Aesthetic and 202
recreational
effects.
5.13.3 Cultural 202
effects.
5.14 Northwest Branch
Stream
Restoration--Mon
tgomery County.. 204
5.14.1 Environmental 204
effects.
5.14.1.a Aquatic 204
resources.
5.14.1.b Wetlands..... 207
5.14.1.c Terrestrial 207
resources.
5.14.1.d Threatened 208
and
endangered
species.
5.14.1.e Prime and 208
unique
farmlands.
5.14.1.f Water quality 208
5.14.1.g Air quality.. 209
5.14.1.h Hazardous, 209
toxic and
radioactive
wastes.
5.14.2 Aesthetic and 209
recreational
effects.
5.14.3 Cultural 209
effects.
5.15 Cumulative 210
effects.
6 * Plan Selection...... 218
6.1 Incremental 218
analysis.
6.2 Decision matrix 219
for alternatives.
6.3 District of 219
Columbia.
6.3.1 Kingman Lake... 219
6.3.1.a Incremental 222
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.3.1.b Habitat 222
benefits.
6.3.1.c Views of 222
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.3.1.d Summary...... 222
6.3.2 River Fringe 222
Wetlands.
6.3.2.a Incremental 224
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.3.2.b Habitat 224
benefits.
6.3.2.c Views of 224
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.3.2.d Summary...... 224
6.4 Prince George's 224
County.
6.4.1 Fordham Street 226
Wetland.
6.4.1.a Incremental 226
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.4.1.b Habitat 226
benefits.
6.4.1.c Views of 226
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.4.1.d Summary...... 230
6.4.2 Northwest 230
Branch.
6.4.2.a Incremental 230
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.4.2.b Habitat 230
benefits.
6.4.2.c Views of 230
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.4.2.d Summary...... 230
6.5 Montgomery County 232
6.5.1 Stewart-April 232
Lane.
6.5.1.a Incremental 232
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.1.b Habitat 232
benefits.
6.5.1.c Views of 234
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.1.d Summary...... 234
6.5.2 Lockridge Drive 234
6.5.2.a Incremental 234
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.2.b Habitat 234
benefits.
6.5.2.c Views of 234
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.2.d Summary...... 234
6.5.3 Snowden's Mill 238
I.
6.5.3.a Incremental 238
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.3.b Habitat 238
benefits.
6.5.3.c Views of 238
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.3.d Summary...... 238
6.5.4 Snowden's Mill 238
II.
6.5.4.a Incremental 242
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.4.b Habitat 242
benefits.
6.5.4.c Views of 242
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.4.d Summary...... 242
6.5.5 Tanglewood..... 242
6.5.5.a Incremental 242
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.5.b Habitat 247
benefits.
6.5.5.c Views of 247
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.5.d Summary...... 247
6.5.6 Gum Springs.... 247
6.5.6.a Incremental 247
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.6.b Habitat 247
benefits.
6.5.6.c Views of 247
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.6.d Summary...... 251
6.5.7 Sligo Creek.... 251
6.5.7.a Incremental 251
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.7.b Habitat 251
benefits.
6.5.7.c Views of 251
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.7.d Summary...... 251
6.5.8 Paint Branch 251
stream
restoration.
6.5.8.a Incremental 251
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.8.b Habitat 253
benefits.
6.5.8.c Views of 353
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.8.d Summary...... 253
6.5.9 Northwest
Branch stream
restoration--M
ontgomery
County........ 253
6.5.9.a Incremental 253
analysis and
plan
selection.
6.5.9.b Habitat 253
benefits.
6.5.9.c Views of 253
local
sponsors and
landowners.
6.5.9.d Summary...... 253
6.6 Summary.......... 256
7 Description of 257
Selected Plans.
7.1 Description of 257
the selected
plan.
7.2 Real estate 259
considerations.
7.2.1 District of 259
Columbia.
7.2.2 Prince George's 259
County.
7.2.3 Montgomery 259
County.
7.3 Environmental 259
considerations.
7.4 Social and 261
economic
considerations.
7.5 Design 263
considerations.
7.6 Construction 264
considerations.
7.6.1 District of 264
Columbia.
7.6.2 Prince George's 264
County.
7.6.3 Montgomery 264
County.
7.7 Operation,
maintenance and
replacement
considerations.. 264
7.8 Summary of plan 265
accomplishments.
7.8.1 Project life... 265
7.8.2 Sensitivity of 265
cost
contingencies.
7.8.3 Additional 269
benefits.
7.9 Sea level rise... 269
7.10 Sedimentation.... 269
7.11 Risk and 271
uncertainty
analysis.
7.11.1 Future impacts 271
of
urbanization.
7.11.2 Future of the 271
stream valley
park system.
7.11.3 Efficacy of 271
restoration
techniques.
7.12 Project 272
monitoring.
8 Plan Implementation. 273
8.1 Local cooperation 273
requirements.
8.2 Identification of 275
local sponsors.
8.2.1 District of 275
Columbia.
8.2.2 Montgomery 276
County.
8.2.3 Prince George's 276
County.
8.3 Life cycle 277
project
management.
8.4 Draft project 277
management plan.
8.5 Full funding 277
project cost
estimate.
8.6 Funding schedule. 278
8.7 Ability-to-pay 278
determination.
8.8 Financing plan... 278
8.9 Views of local 278
sponsor.
9 * Public Involvement 279
and Coordination.
9.1 Description of 279
public
involvement
activities.
9.1.1 Reconnaissance. 279
9.2 Coordination with 280
non-federal
sponsors.
9.3 Federal resource 281
agency
coordination.
9.4 Coordination with 282
the public.
9.5 Public views and 283
comments.
9.6 Draft report and 283
DEIS recipients.
9.7 Review of the
draft integrated
feasibility
report and
environmental
impact statement 283
10 * Summary and 285
Conclusions.
11 Recommendation...... 287
----------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 Previous reports on
the Anacostia River
Basin............... 20
1-2 Agencies and acronyms
used in this report. 26
2-1 Anacostia River
Watershed population
trends by
jurisdiction (1985-
2010)............... 39
2-2 Comparative
population data..... 40
2-3 District of Columbia
population data by
sub-watershed within
the Anacostia
Watershed........... 41
2-4 Montgomery County
population data by
sub-watershed within
the Anacostia
Watershed........... 42
2-5 Prince George's
County population
data by sub-
watershed within the
Anacostia Watershed. 43
2-6 Anacostia River
employment data
total persons
employed by
jurisdiction (1985-
2010)............... 44
2-7 Anacostia River
household data total
households by
jurisdiction (1985-
2010)............... 44
2-8 Federally owned
lands, in the
Anacostia River
Basin............... 62
3-1 Habitat units
affected by previous
corps projects...... 70
4-1 Summary of Anacostia
blueprint projects.. 91
4-2 Potential stormwater
wetland sites....... 94-95
4-3 A comparison of urban
best management
practices........... 96
4-4 Stream restoration
sites............... 97
4-5 Wetland creation
sites............... 99
4-6 Feasibility study
alternatives........ 114-118
5-1 Kingman Lake--summary
of impacts.......... 121-124
5-2 River fringe
wetlands--summary of
impacts............. 134-135
5-3 Fordham street
wetland--summary of
impacts............. 141-142
5-4 Northwest Branch
Prince George's
County--summary of
Impacts............. 146-147
5-5 Stewart/April Lane--
summary of impacts.. 152-153
5-6 Lockridge Drive--
summary of impacts.. 158-159
5-7 Snowden's Mill I--
summary of impacts.. 165-166
5-8 Snowden's Mill II--
summary of impacts.. 171-172
5-9 Tanglewood--summary
of impacts.......... 177-178
5-10 Gum Springs--summary
of impacts.......... 182-183
5-11 Sligo Creek--summary
of impacts.......... 190-191
5-12 Paint Branch--summary
of impacts.......... 197-198
5-13 Northwest Branch--
Montgomery County--
summary of impacts.. 205-206
6-1 Criteria supporting
plan justification
as utilized in the
decision matrix..... 220-221
6-2 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Kingman Lake,
District of Columbia
wetland restoration
project............. 223
6-3 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
River Fringe
Wetlands, District
of Columbia Wetland
Restoration Project. 225
6-4 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Fordham Street
Wetland, Prince
George's County
construction project 227
6-5 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Northwest Branch,
Prince George's
County, stream
restoration project. 231
6-6 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Stewart/April Lane,
Montgomery County
wetland construction
project............. 233
6-7 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Lockridge Drive,
Montgomery County
wetland construction
project............. 236
6-8 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Snowden's Mill I,
Montgomery County
wetland construction
project............. 239
6-9 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Snowden's Mill II,
Montgomery County
wetland construction
project............. 243
6-10 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Tanglewood,
Montgomery County
wetland construction
project............. 246
6-11 Decision matrix for
alternatives at Gum
Springs, Montgomery
County stream
restoration project. 250
6-12 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Sligo Creek,
Montgomery County
stream restoration
project............. 252
6-13 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Paint Branch,
Montgomery County
stream restoration
project............. 254
6-14 Decision matrix for
alternatives at
Northwest Branch,
Montgomery County
stream restoration
project............. 255
7-1 Selected plan........ 258
7-2 Environmental
compliance
evaluation.......... 260
7-3 Estimated annual
operation and
maintenance costs,
District of Columbia 266
7-4 Estimated annual
operation and
maintenance costs,
Prince George's
County.............. 267
7-5 Estimated annual
operation and
maintenance costs,
Montgomery County... 268
7-6 Estimated annual
nutrient and
sediment loads,
captured at
stormwater
management wetland
sites............... 270
----------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1 Anacostia River
and tributaries
study area..... 12
1-2 Existing Corps
of Engineers
projects....... 23
2-1 Anacostia sub-
watersheds..... 28
4-1 Project
locations...... 101
6-1 Fordham street
stormwater
wetland
extended
detention
inflow and
outflow........ 228
6-2 Fordham Street
stormwater
wetland 2-Year
inflow and
outflow........ 229
6-3 Stewart-Apn'l
Lane stormwater
wetland
extended
detention
inflow and
outflow........ 235
6-4 Lockridge Drive
stormwater
wetland
extended
detention
inflow and
outflow........ 237
6-5 Snowden's Mill I
stormwater
wetland
extended
detention
inflow and
outflow........ 240
6-6 Snowden's Mill I
stormwater
wetland 2-year
inflow and
outflow........ 241
6-7 Snowden's Mill
II stormwater
wetland
extended
detention
inflow and
outflow........ 244
6-8 Snowden's Mill
II stormwater
wetland 2-year
inflow and
outflow........ 245
6-9 Tanglewood
stormwater
wetland
extended
detention
inflow and
outflow........ 248
6-10 Tanglewood
stormwater
wetland 2-year
inflow and
outflow........ 249
----------
LIST OF ANNEXES
Page
A--Public Views, Comments, and Responses......................... 289
B--Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act Report....................... 403
C--Section 404(b)(1) Evaluations................................. 433
D--Environmental Impact Statement Index.......................... 491
E--List of Preparers............................................. 493
F--References.................................................... 495
G--Plate Portfolio (8.5" x 11").................................. 501