CHAPTER 2 

 

 

 
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-1

2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

 

According to DO-12, the NPS policy and guidelines for NEPA analysis, EAs must examine a 

range of reasonable alternatives that meet objectives laid out in the purpose and need, and that 

reduce or eliminate impacts to important environmental resources. The range of alternatives 

includes those reasonable alternatives that are evaluated throughout the document, as well as 

alternatives that were initially considered but were eliminated from further study. This EA 

analyzes four alternatives, as identified below. Alternatives considered but eliminated from 

further study are discussed in Section 2.5. 

The four alternatives that are analyzed throughout this document include: 

• Alternative A (Zoning Alternative), which would result in a boathouse for the University 

as approved by the D.C. Zoning Commission, with a footprint of 18,682 square feet and a 

maximum height of 51’ measured from grade to the ridge of the roof.1

 This alternative 

would meet the program requirements for the boathouse as identified by the University. 

• Alternative B (MOA Alternative), which is a reduced size alternative that provides a 

boathouse for the University as agreed in a 1997 Memorandum of Agreement between 

the NPS, D.C. State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation with a maximum footprint of 15,000 square feet and a maximum height of 

40’ measured from grade to the ridge of the roof.2

 This alternative would not meet the 

program requirements as identified by the University. 

• Alternative C (Reduced Height Alternative), which is a reduced height alternative 

resulting in a boathouse for the University with a footprint of 18,682 square feet and a 

maximum height of 36’– 6” measured from grade to the ridge of the roof. This alternative 

would meet the program requirements for the boathouse as identified by the University. 

For the purposes of this EA, this is the Preferred Alternative. 

• The No Action Alternative, under which a boathouse would not be constructed at this 

location, and the University would continue to row out of Thompson Boat Center 

(TBC). The possibility of the University to develop a boathouse on the upstream parcel 

would remain, or the University could sell its parcel and access easement for 

development by others. 

 

1

 District of Columbia Zoning Commission Order No. 02-30. The District restricts building height measured from finished 

grade to the ceiling of the uppermost story; therefore, this alternative results in a maximum height of 40’ and meets the 

building height limits as defined by zoning. 2

 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the parties identified to address potential effect on historic properties by 

the proposed land exchange, prepared in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-2

2.1 Alternative A – Zoning Alternative 

 

Under Alternative A, the University would construct a boathouse on Tract 102-114, along with a 

dock adjacent to the boathouse on the Potomac River. This alternative meets the long-term 

space requirements of Georgetown’s men’s and women’s crew programs. The project would 

consist of the following elements: 

• Boathouse Building

Under Alternative A, the University would construct a boathouse, with a gross footprint 

of 18,682 square feet, and a total gross area of 33,771 square feet. The building would be 

280’ long in the east-west direction parallel to the river and 57’– 0” to 81’– 5” wide in the 

north-south direction perpendicular to the river (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The building 

would include two stories, along with attic space for mechanical equipment. It would 

consist of three segments – a central portion, flanked by wings on either end. The highest 

point would be the ridge of the central wing at 50’– 8” above grade. The ridge of the 

wings would be 37’– 6” above grade (see Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1). 

 

Source: O’Doherty Group, 2005. 

Figure 2-1: Alternative A – Site Plan 

 

 

 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-3

 

Source: Muse Architects, 2005. 

Figure 2-2: Alternative A – Building Plans 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-4

 

 Source: Muse Architects, 2005. 

Figure 2-3: Alternative A – Building Elevations 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-5

The building would have gabled roofs, be constructed of stone and cedar shingles, and have 

porches and decks that reflect traditional boathouse architecture, as well as the design of the 

other boathouses along the Georgetown waterfront. According to the architect, the design is 

intended to create a classically-styled boathouse building with covered porches, arcades, and 

detailing to provide an image consistent with the traditions of boathouse design. 

Table 2-1: Physical Dimensions of the Proposed Boathouse under Alternative A 

Height from First Floor 

Footprint Length Width (Height above C&O Canal Towpath) 

Central Portion Hyphens3 Side Wings 

18,682 SF 280 feet 57 feet at wings/ 

81’-5” at center 

50’-8” 

(22’-8” ) 

33’-6” 

(5’-6”) 

37’-6” 

(9’-6”) 

Source: Muse Architects, 2005. 

The boathouse would include space for storing crew boats, exercise equipment, and 

locker/shower space as described in Table 2-2. 

Table 2-2: Program Elements of the Proposed Boathouse under Alternative A 

Program Element Gross 

Area 

Brief Description 

First Floor Level 

Storage Bays 8,706 SF There would be 5 double loaded storage bays (three in the center and two to the 

side). The three central bays would store 36 eights, and the two side bays would 

store 12 eights, 12 fours and 12 pairs (a total of 48 eights, 12 fours and 12 pairs) 

Rowing Tank 3,604 SF The tank would accommodate 16 to 18 persons. 

Entrance Lobby/ Circulation 1,500 SF Would include viewing gallery overlooking the rowing tank. 

Boat Repair/Boatman’s Office 684 SF 

Porches 1,500 SF 

Second Floor Level 

Exercise Room 2,820 SF The room would accommodate 56 rowing machines (ergometers). 

Weight Room 427 SF 

Coaches Office Space 310 SF 

Showers/Restrooms 978 SF Would include two sets of showers/restrooms – one for men and one for women. 

Locker Rooms 2,240 SF Two locker rooms (92 lockers each) – one for men and one for women. 

Club Room/Kitchenette 402 SF 

Visiting Team Area 858 SF Would include locker room. 

Laundry/Janitor’s Closet 210 SF 

Exercise Room Storage 200 SF 

Mechanical Rooms 416 SF Plus attic area used for mechanical equipment. 

Observation Deck 2,501 SF Would accommodate 15 rowing machines (ergometers). 

Source: Muse Architects, 2005.

 

3

 “Hyphen” is defined as the portion of the roof connecting the central section of the building with the side wings.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-6

• Site/Design Features 

 

- Size of Property – The subject site is 1.09 acres. It is approximately 490’ long in the 

east-west direction, with a depth varying between 94’ and 127’ in the north-south 

direction. 

- Setbacks – Under Alternative A, the central wing of the boathouse would be set back 

15’ from the mean high water level, with the porch overhang reaching to 

approximately seven feet of the mean high water level. The boathouse would also be 

set back a minimum of 25’ from the toe (bottom) of the C&O Canal Towpath (at the 

eastern corner of the building), 50’ from its eastern boundary, and 71’ from its 

western boundary. The distance between the eastern face of the boathouse and the 

western face of the Washington Canoe Club (WCC) building would be 90’. The 

existing fence to the west of the WCC would be removed (prior to the land 

exchange). 

- Access to River – A system of decks to the south of the boathouse would provide 

access for boats to the river (see Figure 2.1). A fixed wooden deck would be located 

adjacent to the boathouse. There would also be a floating dock in the river to 

provide a launching area for rowing shells and crew boats. A gangway would 

connect the fixed deck to the floating dock. The floating dock would measure 

approximately 25’ by 240’, where its distance from the boathouse would vary 

depending upon the level of the river. The distance of the floating dock from the 

boathouse is dependent on the ability to maneuver the longest of the rigged shells 

(eights, that are approximately 58’ long and up to 6’-8” wide) out of the boathouse 

and into the river. Similarly, the fixed dock portion would extend approximately 45’ 

from the boathouse to allow the boats to be removed during flood conditions. 

- Access to Boathouse – The University has a 15 foot wide right-of-way (ROW) that is 

located concurrent with the CCT. To provide access to the proposed boathouse, the 

paved area between the eastern end of the CCT to the western boundary of the 

boathouse site would be expanded to a width of 22’. This would require a portion of 

the WCC fence to be shifted slightly to the south. This area would be striped with 

special markings to indicate the current alignment of the CCT and to highlight the 

portion of the shared lane for access by service and emergency vehicles, as well as 

trailers conveying boats to and from the site during regatta events. To the west of the 

boathouse building, an area would be provided to allow boat trailers, and service and 

emergency vehicles to turn around. This turn-around would measure approximately 

55’ by 50’ and would be constructed with pervious geoblock paving. No regular 

automobile use or parking on the site will be permitted as a result of deed covenants 

and the DC Zoning Order. 

- Utilities – The boathouse would connect to existing utilities along Water Street via 

the University’s 15 foot wide right-of-way (see Figure 2.4). An active sewer line is 

located approximately 380’ to the east of the site, between the WCC and the 

Alexandria Aqueduct bridge abutment; and an active 12-inch water main is located 

approximately 670’ to the east of the site, past the abutment. 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-7

Source: A. Morton Thomas and Associates, Inc., 2004 

 Figure 2-4: Alternative A – Utility Access Typical Section 

• Boathouse Operations

The boathouse would be a training facility for the University’s men’s and women’s crew 

program. Coaches are anticipated to be at the facility year-round, with students also 

anticipated to use the facility throughout the year, particularly during training periods 

and before regattas. 

Heaviest use will be during the academic school year, from the end of August to the end 

of May. Most week days, the facility will open from approximately 6:00 a.m. until 7 or 

8:00 pm. Weekend use would be primarily, but not exclusively, in the mornings 

throughout the year. During summer months, some Georgetown students may use the 

facility. In addition, the University is committed to operating a summer rowing program 

for high school aged youth, primarily from the District of Columbia. 

In accordance with the Zoning Commission’s approval for a boathouse on this site, the 

facility will be precluded from use for social functions other than occasional gatherings 

of Georgetown University crew team members, personnel, or alumni.4

 To meet NPS 

requirements, the boathouse site would not be fenced in and would allow public access 

on the site, including to the waterfront, similar to access at the TBC. No vehicle parking, 

boat storage or other outdoor uses would be allowed on-site. 

 

 

4

 District of Columbia Zoning Commission Order No. 02-30. 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-8

2.2 Alternative B – MOA Alternative 

 

Under Alternative B, the University would construct a smaller boathouse at the same site, along 

with a dock adjacent to the boathouse on the Potomac River. While this alternative meets the 

parameters established by the previously signed Section 106 MOA, the alternative does not meet 

the University’s long-term space requirements for training facilities and storing shells for its 

men’s and women’s crew program. The project would consist of the following elements: 

• Boathouse Building

Under Alternative B, the University would construct a boathouse, with a gross footprint 

of 14,997 square feet, and a total gross area of 26,177 square feet. The building would be 

255’ long in the east-west direction and 45’ to 81’– 5” in the north-south direction (see 

Figures 2-5 and 2-6). The building would include two stories, along with attic space. It 

would consist of three segments – a central portion, flanked by wings on either end. The 

highest point would be the ridge of the central wing at 40’–0” above grade. The ridge of 

the wings would be 32’– 6” above grade (see Figure 2-7 and Table 2-3). 

 

 Source: O’Doherty Group, 2005. 

Figure 2-5: Alternative B – Site Plan 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-9

 Source: Muse Architects, 2005. 

Figure 2-6: Alternative B – Building Plans 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-10

Source: Muse Architects, 2005. 

Figure 2-7: Alternative B – Building Elevations 

 

 

 

 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-11

Table 2-3: Physical Dimensions of the Proposed Boathouse under Alternative B 

Height from First Floor 

Footprint Length Width (Height above C&O Canal Towpath) 

Central Portion Hyphens Side Wings 

14,997 SF 255 feet 45 feet at wings/ 

81’-5” at center 

40’-0” 

(12’) 

31’-6” 

(3’-6”) 

32’-6” 

(4’-6”) 

Source: Muse Architects, 2005. 

The building would be constructed of stone and cedar shingles and would reflect 

traditional boathouse architecture, using scale relationships that complement the 

adjacent structures along the waterfront. However, the building lacks some of the 

exterior porches and other design detailing on the outside and a number of storage and 

support functions within the interior. In addition, almost all of the interior support 

spaces, such as storage bays, locker rooms, and exercise and training areas, are reduced 

in dimension from Alternatives A and C to fit within the 15,000 square foot footprint 

identified in the MOA and would not meet the long-term crew program needs. The 

boathouse would include space for storing crew boats, exercise equipment and 

locker/shower space as described in Table 2-4. 

Table 2-4: Program Elements of the Proposed Boathouse under Alternative B 

 

Program Element Gross Area Brief Description 

First Floor Level 

Storage Bays 7,393 SF There would be three double-loaded and two single-loaded storage bays (two 

double-loaded and one single-loaded in the center, and one double-and one 

single-loaded bay in the side). The central portion would store 30 eights, and the 

side portion would store 6 eights, 6 fours and 6 pairs (a total of 36 eights, 6 fours 

and 6 pairs). 

Rowing Tank 3,277 SF The tank would accommodate 16 to 18 persons. 

Entrance Lobby/Circulation None 

Boat Repair/Boatman’s Office 631 SF 

Porches 712 SF 

Second Floor Level 

Exercise Room 2,296 SF The room would accommodate 44 rowing machines (ergs). 

Weight Room 427 SF 

Coaches Office Space 310 SF 

Showers/Restrooms 828 SF Would include two sets of showers/restrooms – one for men & one for women. 

Locker Rooms 1,540 SF Two locker rooms (64 lockers each) – one for men and one for women. 

Club Room/Kitchenette 402 SF 

Visiting Team Area 838 SF Would include locker room. 

Laundry/Janitor’s Closet 87 SF 

Exercise Room Storage None 

Mechanical Rooms 1,012 SF Plus attic area used for mechanical equipment. 

Observation Deck 2,049 SF Would accommodate 13 rowing machines (ergs). 

Source: Muse Architects, 2005. 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-12

• Site/Design Features 

- Size of Property – Under Alternative B, the project site would be the same as that 

under Alternatives A and C. 

- Setbacks – Under Alternative B, the central wing of the boathouse would be set back 

15’ from the mean high water level, with the porch overhang reaching to 

approximately seven feet of the mean high water level. The boathouse would also be 

set back a minimum of 25’ from the toe (bottom) of the towpath, 62’ from its eastern 

boundary, and 85’ from its western boundary. The distance between the eastern face 

of the boathouse and the western face of the WCC building would be 107’. 

- Access to River – A system of decks to the south of the boathouse would provide 

access for boats to the river (see Figure 2-4). A fixed wooden deck would be located 

adjacent to the boathouse. There would also be a floating dock in the river to 

provide a launching area for rowing shells and crew boats. A gangway would 

connect the fixed deck to the floating dock. 

- Access to Boathouse – Under Alternative B, the access to the boathouse would be the 

same as that under Alternative A, where the paved area between the eastern end of 

the CCT and the western boundary of the boathouse site would widened. Also, 

similar to Alternative A, a turn-around would be created between the boathouse and 

the property’s western boundary. 

- Utilities – Under Alternative B, the boathouse would connect to existing utilities 

along Water Street via the University’s 15 foot wide right-of-way. 

• Boathouse Operations

Under Alternative B, the boathouse operations would remain exactly the same as that 

under Alternative A. 

 

 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-13

2.3 Alternative C (Preferred) – Reduced Height Alternative 

 

Under Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative, the University would construct a boathouse with 

the same footprint as Alternative A, and at the same site, along with a dock adjacent to the 

boathouse on the Potomac River (the site plan for Alternative C would be the same as Figure 2-

1). The boathouse would have a reduced height but would meet the program needs of the 

University and would consist of the following elements: 

• Boathouse Building

Under Alternative C, the University would construct a boathouse, with a gross footprint 

of 18,682 square feet, and a total gross area of 33,771 square feet. The building would 

include two stories, along with a minimal attic space. Similar to Alternative A, the 

boathouse would consist of three segments – a central portion, flanked by wings on 

either end. The highest point would be the ridge of the central wing at 36’– 6” above 

grade. The ridge of the wings would be 29’– 6” above grade (see Table 2-5). The building 

would be 280’ long in the east-west direction and 57’– 0” to 81’-5” wide in the northsouth direction (see Figures 2-8 and 2-9). 

This is the lowest achievable height for the boathouse due to the following reasons: 

- The Federal Emergency Management Administration guidelines for constructing 

in a flood zone require structural systems, HVAC ducts, sprinkler systems and all 

habitable spaces to be above the base 100 year flood elevation (19’ above mean sea 

level); and 

- A minimum ceiling height of 9’-0” on the second floor would provide reasonable 

space for athletes to use the shower and locker facilities that would be located in 

the wings of the boathouse. 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-14

 Source: Muse Architects, 2006 

 

 

Figure 2-8: Alternative C –Building Plans 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-15

 

 Source: Muse Architects, 2006 

 

Figure 2-9: Alternative C – Building Elevations 

 

 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-16

Table 2-5: Physical Dimensions of the Proposed Boathouse under Alternative C 

 

Height from First Floor 

Footprint Length Width (Height above C&O Canal Towpath) 

Central Portion Hyphens Side Wings 

18,682 SF 280 feet 57 feet at wings/ 

81’-5” at center 

36’-6” 

(8’-6”) 

30’-6” 

(2’-6”) 

29’-6” 

(1’-6”) 

Source: Muse Architects, 2006. 

The building would have similar architectural features as Alternative A and would 

include space for storing crew boats, exercise equipment and locker/shower space as 

described in Table 2-6. 

Table 2-6: Program Elements of the Proposed Boathouse under Alternative C 

 

Program Element Gross Area Brief Description 

First Floor Level 

Storage Bays 8,706 SF There would be 5 double-loaded storage bays (three in the center and two to the 

side). The three central bays would store 30 eights, and the two side bays would 

store 10 eights, 10 fours and 10 pairs (a total of 40 eights, 10 fours and 10 pairs). 

Rowing Tank 3,604 SF The tank would accommodate 16 to 18 persons. 

Entrance Lobby/Circulation 1,500 SF Would include viewing gallery overlooking the rowing tank. 

Boat Repair/Boatman’s Office 684 SF 

Porches 1,500 SF 

Second Floor Level 

Exercise Room 2,820 SF The room would accommodate 56 rowing machines (ergs). 

Weight Room 427 SF 

Coaches Office Space 310 SF 

Showers/Restrooms 978 SF Would include two sets of showers/restrooms – one for men & one for women. 

Locker Rooms 1,836 SF Two locker rooms (76 lockers each) – one for men and one for women. 

Club Room/Kitchenette 402 SF 

Visiting Team Area 858 SF Would include locker room. 

Laundry/Janitor’s Closet 210 SF 

Exercise Room Storage 200 SF 

Mechanical Rooms 762 SF Mechanical room from attic moved to 2nd floor due to lower roof pitch. 

Observation Deck 2501SF Would accommodate 15 rowing machines (ergs). 

Source: Muse Architects, 2006. 

 

• Site/Design Features/ Boathouse Operations

Under Alternative C, the size of the property, building setbacks, access from the 

boathouse to the river, access along the CCT and connection to utilities would remain 

the same as that under Alternative A. Also, under Alternative C, the boathouse 

operations would remain the same as that under Alternative A. 

 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-17

2.4 Alternative D – No Action Alternative 

 

As part of the NEPA analysis, the potential environmental consequences of a No-Action 

Alternative are also considered. Under the No-Action Alternative, the University would not 

construct a boathouse at the subject site. Instead, the University’s crew would continue to row 

out of TBC. Boats stored outside would remain in the outdoor fenced compounds. 

The preliminary agreement to exchange the subject site (Tract 102-114) with the University’s 

parcel (Tract 102-109) located upstream was based on the condition that the University would 

construct a boathouse for its crew program at this proposed site, Tract 102-114. Under the No 

Action Alternative, the preliminary land exchange agreement would no longer be valid. Tract 

102-114 would remain park land under the jurisdiction of the NPS. According to NPS policies, 

this land is within the boathouse zone identified by the Georgetown Waterfront Park Plan. 

Therefore, the site could be developed for a boathouse in the future. 

Also, the University would retain ownership of the parcel upstream (Tract 102-109) along with 

the 15-foot wide right-of-way for a distance of one mile that it holds concurrent with the CCT. 

In accordance with its intention to pursue the construction of a boathouse for its crew program, 

the University could seek to develop the upstream site for this purpose in the future. The site 

could also be developed for uses permitted under the existing C-M-1 zoning which allows 

commercial and light manufacturing uses. This could result in adverse impacts to existing 

resources, such as the historic incline plane, wooded areas, and prime wetlands on that site, as 

well as adversely affect users on the CCT due to potential vehicular access along the one-mile 

distance to the site. 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-18

2.5 Alternatives Considered But Rejected 

According to DO-12, “alternatives that could not be implemented if they were chosen, or that do 

not resolve the need for action and fulfill the stated purpose in taking action to a large degree, 

should be eliminated as unreasonable before impact analysis begins.”5

 In addition to the four 

alternatives identified above that are analyzed throughout this document, there were additional 

alternatives identified during the scoping process. These additional alternatives were eliminated 

from further consideration based on their feasibility to achieve the objectives identified in the 

purpose and need section of this document. These alternatives are listed below along with the 

reasons for their elimination. 

• Georgetown University Tract 102-109 – As discussed in Chapter 1, the University 

acquired Tract 102-109 located approximately one mile north of Key Bridge from CSX 

railroad in 1988. Tract 102-109 is zoned CM-1, which would allow a boathouse to be 

constructed on the site. This property was the subject of a feasibility study for a 

boathouse prepared in 1992. The feasibility study, completed by McKissack & 

McKissack Architects/Engineers, determined that an approximately 27,400 square foot 

boathouse could be constructed at this site. The natural features of the site pose some 

constraints to development and use; however, according to the study, appropriate design 

and engineering measures could make the project possible. The site is narrow and long, 

and McKissack & McKissack prepared a preliminary boathouse design to fit within this 

configuration (see Figures 2-10 and 2-11). Access would be available by using the 

University’s easement that runs from Water Street to the site (gifted from CSX to the 

University in 1988), and utilities would be provided from existing utility lines along Canal 

Road. 

Despite these findings and based on discussions with NPS, the University has decided 

not to pursue a boathouse on Tract 102-109, primarily because of the intrinsic 

environmental characteristics of this site, the presence of historical remnants associated 

with the incline plane at the site, and the potential opportunity to exchange it for a site 

located closer to the University and in NPS’s boathouse zone within Georgetown 

Waterfront Park. For these reasons, this site has been eliminated from further 

consideration for a boathouse at this time. 

 

5

 DO12 NEPA Handbook, National Park Service, 2003. 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-19

Source: McKissack and McKissack, 1992. 

Figure 2-10: Site Plan for proposed boathouse on Tract 102-109 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: McKissack and McKissack, 1992. 

Figure 2-11: Elevation for proposed boathouse on Tract 102-109 

 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-20

• Reduced Boathouse Program at the Waterfront Site – This alternative proposed 

building a substantially smaller boathouse at the proposed site (Tract 102-114) and 

locating portions of the boathouse program on the Georgetown University campus. 

Under this alternative, the storage area for all crew boats and locker/shower spaces 

would be located within the boathouse, and training equipment and the rowing tank 

would be located on campus (off-site). This alternative does not fulfill the purpose and 

need of constructing a boathouse to provide training and boat storage to successfully 

compete in NCAA rowing events and was eliminated from further consideration due to 

the following additional reasons: 

- Inadequate in meeting the training requirements of the crew program: Typically, 

when the rowing tank is located adjacent to where the students access the river, a 

coach has the ability to demonstrate a technical point in the rowing tank that the 

crew team is to practice in the water. Also, a coach can take a particular athlete or 

squad into the rowing tank immediately after an on-water session to practice a 

part of their rowing stroke. In addition, locating both the rowing tank and 

ergometers within the boathouse provides coaches with the ability to have 

students practice on days when a squad has uneven number of rowers, or when 

the crew does not row on the water due to inclement weather. According to the 

University’s crew coach, all of these factors necessitate co-locating training 

equipment and all other crew functions together. 

- Lack of room on campus for crew training equipment or the rowing tank: There 

is presently no room on the University campus for additional athletic training or 

equipment associated with the men’s and women’s crew program. In addition, 

the University’s Campus Plan would have to be revised if a new facility providing 

these facilities was considered, which would require additional approval by DC 

Zoning Commission. 

- Reduced time for crew practice and training: Typically, students spend 

approximately two hours at the boathouse between the time they arrive and 

when they leave to return to campus. By separating the rowing tank and the 

ergometers from the boathouse, students would lose between 20 and 30 minutes 

from their practice time, or require additional practice time that might affect their 

academics or other student activities. 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-21

• Georgetown Waterfront East of Key Bridge / 34th Street Site – This alternative 

proposed locating a boathouse for the University on NPS land between Key Bridge and 

34th Street, NW. George Washington University (GWU) is currently proposing a 

boathouse in this location. As part of the public design process for the Georgetown 

Waterfront Park Plan in 2002-03, a suggestion was made to study locating two 

boathouses in this area, potentially to accommodate one collegiate and one scholastic 

program (see Figure 2-12). According to the analysis conducted, two boathouses could be 

accommodated in this location – one with a footprint of approximately 10,000 square 

feet and the other with a footprint of approximately 7,500 square feet.6

 Neither of these 

footprints meets the space requirements of either Georgetown or GWU. The boat 

storage requirement alone for Georgetown is over 8,700 square feet with locker rooms, 

training and the other support areas in addition to this. GWU is proposing a facility at 

this same site which uses the entire site for a single boathouse building. Therefore, 

locating a boathouse for the University in addition to an anticipated boathouse for 

George Washington University in this area would not be feasible. 

Source: National Park Service, 2003. 

Figure 2-12: Potential Site Plan for Two Boathouses 

between Key Bridge and 34th Street, NW

 

6

 Final Schematic Design – Georgetown Waterfront Park, National Park Service, March 2003.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-22

• Jack’s Boathouse – This alternative proposed locating a boathouse on a privately-owned 

site immediately west of Key Bridge where three townhouses, as well as an outdoor boat 

rental operation commonly referred to as “Jack’s Boathouse” are currently located. 

Under this alternative, the townhouses would be demolished. The 1989 Non-Motorized 

Boating Study identified that a boathouse with an approximately 7,500 square foot 

footprint could be located in this area. The study was updated in 2000. Although the 

updated study explored a different configuration than is shown in Figure 2-13, which was 

developed during the 2002-2003 public design process for the Waterfront Park, a threebay boathouse with a capacity to store a maximum of 36 eight-person shells was 

determined feasible at this location. The maximum size for a facility at this site is 

restricted by the Potomac Boat Club to the west, the Whitehurst Freeway to the north 

and Key Bridge to the east. Further, developing a boathouse here would require 

acquisition and demolition of the three existing townhouses and accommodating the 

existing rental operation. Based on the boathouse that could be located on this site as 

identified by the existing studies, this alternative would not meet the combined space 

requirements of Georgetown’s program and the existing rental operation, and therefore, 

was determined not to be feasible. 

 

Source: National Park Service, 2003. 

Figure 2-13: Potential Site Plan for a Boathouse at the site of Jack’s Boathouse 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-23

 Dempsey’s Site – This alternative proposed locating a boathouse for the University on 

NPS land between the WCC and the Aqueduct Bridge abutment. The 2000 NonMotorized Boating Study analyzed this site and a design configuration was developed 

during the 2002-2003 public design process for the Waterfront Park. Both studies came 

to the conclusion that the site is too small for a scholastic boathouse. According to the 

2000 Non-Motorized Study, the site’s location adjacent to the Alexandria Aqueduct 

Bridge abutment (where the NPS would require a 50 foot buffer between the structure 

and a building) and the presence of the Potomac Interceptor Sewer vault and line would 

restrict the size of a boathouse at this site. 

 

A concept plan provided to NPS during the public scoping period identified that this site 

could accommodate a boathouse with a footprint of 7,500 square feet, and with four bays 

two of which would be 70’ in length and two would be 40’ (see Figure 2-14). This size 

boathouse and bays would not meet the space needs identified by the University. In 

addition, the length of the bays would not accommodate both crew shells and oars, the 

length of the space allotted for the rowing tank would be insufficient for proper training 

purposes, and the spaces identified for exercise areas, restrooms, lockers or mechanical 

areas would be inadequate. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further 

consideration. 

Source: Frank Morgan, 2005. 

 

Figure 2-14: Potential Site Plan for a Boathouse at Dempsey’s
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-24

• East of 34th Street – This alternative proposed locating a boathouse on NPS land along 

the Potomac River east of 34th Street, NW. Figure 2-15 illustrates a design concept for this 

site that was received during the public scoping period. Due to limited space as shown 

on the second floor of the building, this concept would not meet the training 

requirement of Georgetown’s crew program. Also, this site is located at an elevation 

substantially above the river, and the dock that is illustrated in this concept would not be 

feasible. 

Further, this site would be entirely outside the boathouse zone established in the 

Georgetown Waterfront Park Plan. The Final Design for Georgetown Waterfront Park, 

that included public input on several alternatives, identifies the area to the east of 34th

Street as a passive recreational area. As described previously, Phase I of this park is 

scheduled to commence construction later in 2006. Locating a boathouse for the 

University in this location would require modifying the Georgetown Waterfront Park 

Plan, a planning effort that has been ongoing since 1987 when the plan was approved by 

several agencies including the NCPC, Commission of Fine Arts, the District of Columbia 

Historic Preservation Review Board, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission. Due to 

the significant planning effort that has gone into the preparation of the plan, the area to 

the east of 34th Street was eliminated from further consideration as a location for a 

boathouse for the University. 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Plan 

Building Plan 

Source: Frank Morgan, 2005. 

 

Figure 2-15: Potential Site Plan for a Boathouse to the east of 34th Street, NW 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-26

• Anacostia Waterfront – This alternative proposed locating a boathouse for the 

University on NPS land along the Anacostia River. This alternative would not be feasible 

due to added travel time to and from the boathouse. Typically, students return to the 

campus after practice for classes and meals. Requiring them to travel to and from an 

Anacostia location would add considerable time to their practice sessions and negatively 

affect their other scheduled activities. Currently, students bicycle or walk between the 

campus and TBC. If the boathouse were located along the Anacostia River, this would 

not be possible. Also, the University has a policy of not allowing students to have cars or 

other vehicles while living on campus so this further limits their access to a boathouse 

this far away from the school. Based on these factors, this alternative was eliminated 

from consideration. 

 

• Virginia Side on NPS land – The NPS is considering two locations on NPS land along 

the Virginia side of the Potomac River for a boathouse that would accommodate the 

rowing programs of the three high schools in Arlington County.7

 Under this alternative, 

a boathouse for the University would either be constructed separately from the 

boathouse for Arlington County schools, or it would be constructed as a single facility to 

accommodate the needs of the schools and the University. While a location has not been 

established for the Arlington County boathouse, considerable planning has occurred to 

assess the feasibility of constructing a boathouse that meets the needs of the three high 

school programs. 

 

By adding the requirements of the University to those of the three Arlington County 

schools, a decision about the location of a boathouse for Arlington County schools 

would be delayed, as further planning would be necessary. Further, of the two sites 

under consideration, the Rosslyn waterfront site would be the only feasible location for 

the University due to travel time. This site would not accommodate a single boathouse 

that could support the three schools and the University, nor two boathouses for the 

separate collegiate and scholastic programs. To locate a boathouse only for the 

University at this location would not be feasible since this site is still being considered for 

Arlington County. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

 

• Adjacent to the Boathouse at Fletcher’s Cove – This alternative proposed locating a 

boathouse for the University on NPS land adjacent to the existing boathouse at 

Fletcher’s Cove. The Potomac River begins to narrow above the exposed rocks in the 

river called “hens and chickens” (see Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3) about 2 miles upriver from 

Key Bridge, with the stretch adjacent to the D.C. side identified as shallow and 

dangerous by the Potomac River Safety Committee. A boathouse for the University 

adjacent to the existing boathouse at Fletcher’s Cove would not be feasible due to safety 

concerns for students practicing in this area. In addition, Fletcher’s Cove is 

approximately 2.5 miles upstream from the Georgetown University campus (along the 

CCT or C&O Canal Towpath). Whereas, this distance would be reasonable for students 

on bicycles, it would be inconvenient for students who want to walk or jog to the 

boathouse on a daily basis and would reduce practice times. Also, boat trailers could be 

forced to use a route along the CCT, from Georgetown, since access from Canal Road 

 

7

 Facility and Site Analysis for a Boathouse on the Potomac River in Arlington County and Vicinity, National Park Service, 

August 2002. 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park II-27

and maneuverability through the tunnel under the canal would be difficult for trailers 

carrying crew shells. Furthermore, Fletcher’s Cove is a popular place for renting fishing 

boats and canoes for recreational purposes and, because of the narrowness of the river in 

this location, crew boats could create a conflict with these recreational boaters. Finally, 

the area is also actively used for picnicking and weekend recreational use, and a new 

boathouse could potentially reduce the area for this recreational use. For these reasons, 

this site was deemed not appropriate for the University’s boathouse, and the alternative 

was eliminated from further consideration. 

• Expansion of Thompson Boat Center – This alternative proposed expanding the TBC 

to accommodate additional boats for the University. This alternative would not be 

feasible due to limited site area, and the configuration of the site. Further, NPS has no 

future plans to expand this facility. One of the reasons that led to the creation of the 

boathouse zone was to promote multiple facilities for collegiate, schools and private 

users, and to reduce congestion and conflicts at the TBC docks. In addition, removal of 

all boats from outdoor storage areas along the waterfront requires the construction of 

additional boathouses. 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service II-28

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK