APPENDIX 

 
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES 

 

Federal and State Laws and Regulations 

Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 

District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Title 11, Zoning Regulations. 

District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Title 20, Chapter 27 – Noise Control. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations. 

 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Public Law 184-83rd Congress, H.R. 5804, 1953, (Enabling Legislation for the C&O Canal NHP). 

Public Law 91-664, 91st Congress, H.R. 19342, 1971 (Enabling Legislation for the C&O Canal NHP). 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

Documents, Reports and Articles 

 

Bird, Betty. Potomac Boat Club National Register Nomination Form, 1989. 

Bird, Betty. Washington Canoe Club National Register Nomination Form, 1989. 

 

Bureau of Land Management, Visual Resource Management Program. 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Volume 17, Parts 260 to 265, Maximum Concentration of 

Contaminants for the Toxicity Characteristic, Revised July 1, 1998. 

Commission of Fine Arts. Georgetown Historic Waterfront, Washington, DC: A Review of Canal and 

Riverside Architecture, 1993. 

 

Commission of Fine Arts and Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

Cooke, Lawrence H., edited by Joseph Durkin, S.J. The History of Georgetown Crew; Swift Potomac’s 

Lovely Daughter p. 332-333, 1990. 

Cummins, James D., The Potomac River American Shad Restoration Project, 2002 Status Summary; The 

Stocking Effort, Assistance to Schools-in-Schools, and Monitoring. The ICPRB Living Resources 

Section. 2002 

Posted 2005 at: < http://www.potomacriver.org/living_resources/2003shadprojsum.pdf> 

Curran, Robert Emmet. Bicentennial History of Georgetown University: From Academy to University, 

1789-1889 Volume I, 1993. 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

District of Columbia, Department of Transportation. Memorandum: Zoning Commission Case No. 02-

30: Application for Map Amendment from unzoned to W-O, May 2003. 

District of Columbia. District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan, 1984. 

District of Columbia. Zoning Commission Order No. 02-30.

District of Columbia Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration. The District of 

Columbia 2004 Nutrient and Sediment Tributary Strategy, 2004. 

District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office. D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites, 2005. 

District of Columbia Watershed Protection Division. Stormwater Management Guidebook, Undated. 

Durkin, Joseph. Georgetown University: First in the Nation’s Capital, 1964. 

Environmental Assessment, Proposed Exchange of Properties between the NPS and Georgetown 

University within the District of Columbia and within the Boundary of Potomac Palisades Park within 

the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, 1995. 

Federal Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) for Region III 

Industrial Soils, 2000. 

Federal Register, 11804 and 11815-11816, Toxicity Characteristic Constituents and Final Regulatory Levels, 

March 29, 1990. 

FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93, Openings in Foundation Walls Required for Buildings Located in Special 

Flood Hazard Areas. 1993. 

Georgetown College Journal. Boat Club, August, September, October 1876. 

Georgetown Historic District Act. Public Law 808-81st Congress-H.R. 7670, D.C. Code 5-801, 64 Stat. 

903. 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. The Potomac River American Shad Restoration 

Project, Living Resources, January 2003. 

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. 

Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Supply Program, WSSC Data, Great Falls, 2004. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Maryland Biological Stream Survey Fish Distributions, 2004. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife & Heritage Division. Inventory for Rare Plants & 

Significant Habitats along the C&O Canal NHP and Potomac River, 2001. 

McKissak and McKissak. Crew and Sailing Boathouse Study for Georgetown University, January, 1992.

Mitchell, Alexander D. Washington, DC: Then and Now, 2000. 

National Capital Planning Commission. Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements, 

1990, 2004. 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

National Park Service. Director’s Order #12 and Handbook: Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Impact Analysis, and Decision Making, Washington D.C., 2000. 

National Park Service. Draft Supplemental Report, Non-Motorized Boating on the Potomac River in 

Georgetown, 2000. 

National Park Service. Evaluation of Native Freshwater Mussel Populations in the C&O Canal NHP Final 

Report, 2004. 

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

County and Vicinity, August 2002. 

National Park Service. Final Schematic Design, Georgetown Waterfront Park, March 31, 2003. 

National Park Service. Finding of No Significant Impact, Exchange of Properties, Chesapeake and Ohio 

National Historical Park in the District of Columbia, 1995. 

National Park Service. Management Policies, Washington D.C., 2001. 

National Park Service. Non-motorized Boating in the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, Washington, DC, 

1989. 

National Park Service. Survey of Non-Motorized Boating Activities along the Georgetown Waterfront, 

1985. 

Patton Harris Rust & Associates. Georgetown University Boathouse Hydraulic Impact Analysis, February 

2004. 

Pauley, Dr. Thomas K., Herp Species observed by habitat at CHOH Surveys, NPS-Center for Urban 

Ecology, 2005. 

Preliminary Agreement to Exchange Real Property. Signatories – Office of University Counsel and 

Regional Director, National Capital Region, NPS. October 1998. 

Raesly, Richard L., Inventory and Biological Monitoring of Fishes in National Parks of the National 

Capital Region, NPS, 2004. 

Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 Northeast (Region 1). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 111 pp. 

Romigh, Philip S. and Barry Mackintosh. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Register Nomination 

Form, 1976-1979. 

Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Washington, DC, 1888-1903. 

Schnabel Engineering Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report for Proposed Georgetown 

University Boathouse, November 14, 2002. 

Sellers, Robert. The Potomac Boat Club: Entwined with History of Georgetown; The Georgetowner p. 9, 

July 23-August 5, 1982. 

Storm Water Management Guidebook” (Watershed Protection Division Bureau of Environmental Health 

Administration Department of Health, DC) Section 2.2 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey for the District of Columbia, 1976. 

(Website Resource: http://www.sawgal.umd.edu/nrcsweb/DCsoils/DC.pdf) 

U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Evaluation of Native Freshwater Mussel Populations 

in the C&O Canal National Historical Park: Strategies for Integrating Management of Biological with 

Cultural Resources, 2003. 

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, College of William and Mary. 2002 Distribution of Submerged 

Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays, December 2003. 

Washington Post, “New Water Sports Center Dedicated with Bow to All who fought its Fight,” September 

25, 1960. 

Washington Post, “Potomac Boat Houses,” August 7, 1921. 

Washington Post, “W-L Rowers Win 5 Races on Potomac,” April 30, 1967. 

Wiegand, Lynne. The Inventory for Rare Plants & Significant Habitats Along the C&O Canal NHP and 

Potomac River; Field Forms & Maps (Part Three), April 2001. 

William Baist and Sons. Baist's Real Estate Atlas of Surveys of Washington, District of Columbia, Vol. 3, 

1909-1945. 

Zoning Commission for the District of Columbia. Notice of Final Rulemaking, Z.C. Order No. 02-30 

(Georgetown University Boathouse -- Map Amendment, Special Exception, Variance), December 

2003. 

Zoning Commission for the District of Columbia. Notice of Final Rulemaking, Z.C. Order No. 02-42 

(Waterfront Open Space Recreation Zone District), April 2004. 

Boathouse information:

Joe Murtaugh, Crew Coach at Princeton University; Rodney Pratt, Crew Coach at Boston University; 

Chris Clark, Crew Coach at University of Wisconsin; Tom Taft, Director of Crew Operations at Yale 

University; and Michael Zimmer, Director of Rowing at Columbia University; e-mail 

correspondence, 2005 

Websites 

Chesapeake Bay Program website, 2005: 

<http://chesapeakebay.fws.gov/Coastpgm.htm>; 

< http://chesapeakebay.fws.gov/savpage.htm> 

Capital Crescent Trail. <http://www.cctrail.org> 

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. < http://www.dcwasa.com> 

Georgetown University Athletics. <http://guhoyas.collegesports.com> 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin website, 2005: 

<http://www.potomacriver.org/about_potomac/history.htm#> 

<http://www.potomacriver.org/water_supply/co-op.htm> 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

Maryland DNR-Chesapeake and Coastal Bays Water Quality Conditions, 

<http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net> 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources website, 2005: 

<http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mbss/fishes.cfm> 

National Park Service. <http://www.nps.gov> 

National Park Service’s Plant Conservation Alliances, Alien Plant Working Group List for the MidAtlantic States, website 2005: <http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/midatlantic.htm> 

Potomac Boat Club. <http://www.rowpbc.com> 

Potomac River Safety Committee. <http://www.w-lcrew.org/safety/safety.html> 

Thompson Boat Center. <http://www.thompsonboatcenter.com> 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science website, 2005: 

<http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav02/segments/pottf_page.html> 

Washington Canoe Club. <http://www.wcanoe.org> 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

APPENDIX B: NOTIFICATION LIST 

 

National Capital Planning Commission 

401 9th Street, NW 

Suite 500 – North Lobby 

Washington, DC 20576 

Patricia Gallagher 

Executive Director 

Gene Keller 

Environmental Review Officer 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

 

 John P. Wolflin 

Supervisor 

 

Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) 

National Building Museum 

441 F Street, NW 

Suite 312 

Washington, DC 20001-2195 

Thomas Luebke 

 

Council on Environmental Quality 

722 Jackson Place, NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

Dinah Bear 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 3 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Barbara Rudnick 

 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CENAB-OP-RMS 

P.O. Box 1715 

Baltimore, MD 21203-1715 

 Walter Washington, Jr. 

 

 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 

Authority (WMATA) 

600 5th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

 

James Ashe 

 

DC Office of Planning 

801 North Capitol Street, NE 

Suite 4000 

Washington, DC 20002 

Ellen McCarthy 

Director 

DC State Historic Preservation Office 

801 North Capitol Street, NE 

3

rd Floor 

Washington, DC 20002 

David Maloney 

Acting SHPO 

 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Room 8809 

Washington, DC 20004 

 

John M. Fowler 

Executive Director 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

 

Richard Moe 

President 

DC Preservation League 

401 F Street, NW 

Room 324 

Washington, DC 20001 

 

Rebecca Miller 

Program Manager 

 

 

 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

DC Department of Health 

Water Quality Control Branch 

51 N Street, N.E., Room 5005 

Washington, DC 20002 

Gregory Hope, Chief 

Soil & Sediment Technical Services Branch 

Watershed Protection Division 

51 N Street, N.E., Room 5021 

Washington, DC 20002 

Timothy Kari-Kari, Chief 

 

DC Water and Sewer Authority 

5000 Overlook Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20032 

 

 Michael Marcotte, PE 

Deputy General Manager/Chief 

Engineer 

 

DC Department of Transportation 

2000 14th Street, NW 

6th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

 

 Michelle Pourciau 

Acting Director 

 

DC Fire and EMS Department 

441 4th Street, NW 

Suite 370 

Washington, DC 20001 

 Captain Richard D. Fleming 

C&O Canal Association

P.O Box 366 

Glen Echo, MD 20817-0366 

 

 Fred Mopsick 

 

 

 

 

 

Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail 

P.O. Box 30703 

Bethesda, MD 20824 

Advisory Neighborhood Commission 

(ANC) 

ANC 2E 

3265 S Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

 William Starrels 

ANC 3D 

P.O. Box 40846 Palisades Station 

Washington, DC 20016 

 Alma H. Gates, Chair 

Georgetown Waterfront Commission 

3321 P St., NW 

Washington DC 20007 

Mrs. Barbara Downs, Chair 

C&O Canal NHP Advisory Commission 

Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld 

3059 Q Street NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

Barry A. Passett 

3115 Brooklawn Terrace 

Chevy Chase, MD 20815 

Jack Reeder 

7314 University Avenue 

Glen Echo, MD 20812 

Charles J. Weir 

2812 Thaxton Lane 

Oakton, VA 22124-3019 

Mary E. Woodward 

2309 S. Maplewood Drive 

Bridgeport, WV 26330 

Donna Printz 

884 Lost Road 

Martinburg, WV 25401 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

Ferial S. Bishop 

3210 Chestnut St., NW 

Washington, DC 20015 

Nancy C. Long 

3l Wellesley Circle 

Glen Echo, MD 20812 

Jo Reynolds 

10909 Rock Run Drive 

Potomac, MD 20854 

Dr. James H. Gilford 

7003 Glen Court 

Frederick, MD 21702 

George E. Lewis, Jr. 

2711 Lander Road 

Jefferson, MD 21755 

Charles D. McElrath 

19914 Benevola Church Road 

Boonsboro, MD 21713 

Patricia Schooley 

Old Forge Farm 

20702 Old Forge Road 

Hagerstown, MD 21742 

Brother James Kirkpatrick, F.S.C. 

Bishop Walsh School 

700 Bishop Walsh Road 

Cumberland, MD 21502 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

APPENDIX C: LIST OF PREPARERS 

 

EDAW, Inc. 

Richard Dorrier, AICP, Principal-in-Charge/Senior Environmental Planner 

M.L.A., Landscape Architecture, University of Massachusetts, 1978 

B.A., Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, 1975 

Amit Prothi, AICP, Project Manager/Environmental Planner 

 M.L.A., Landscape Architecture, University of Massachusetts, 2000 

 M.R.P., Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts, 1996 

B. Arch., Architecture, School of Planning and Architecture at New Delhi, 1992 

Alan Harwood, Senior Environmental Planner 

M.U.R.P., Urban Planning/Real Estate Development, George Washington University, 1991 

B.S., Geography, University of South Carolina, 1983 

Jeff Goodson, Environmental Engineer 

B.S., Civil Engineering, Clemson University, 1987 

B.S., Geology, The College of Charleston, 1981 

 

Jeanette Studley, Environmental Planner 

M.U.R.P., Urban and Regional Planning, Virginia Tech, 2005 

B.S., Integrated Science & Technology (Energy & Environment), James Madison University, 2001 

Stephanie Dyer-Carroll, AICP, Environmental Planner 

M.A., Architectural History, University of Virginia, 1994 

B.A., Art History, Georgetown University, 1989 

Michael Arnold, Architect 

B. Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, 1992 

A. Morton Thomas 

Robert Warner, PE, RLA, AICP 

 M.C.R.P., Catholic University of America, 1976 

 B.S., Landscape Architecture, Pennsylvania State University, 1969 

EHT Traceries, Inc. 

Laura Hughes, Senior Architectural Historian 

M.S., Historic Preservation, University of Pennsylvania, 1988 

B.A., Historic Preservation, Mary Washington College, 1984 

Janet Emery Flynn, Architectural Historian 

M.S., Preservation-Planning, Eastern Michigan University, 2002 

B.A., Historic Preservation, Mary Washington College, 2000 

 

 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

Schnabel Engineering Associates, Inc. 

Jane Offringa Rowan, P.W.S., Environmental Engineer 

Post Graduate Work/Botany, Drexel University 

M.S., Environmental Science, SUNY College of Environmental Science and 

 Forestry, Syracuse, 1982 

B.S., Biology and Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, 1978 

Jean Marie Bovello, P.E., Environmental Engineer 

M.E., University of Maryland, 2002 

B.C.E., Catholic University, 1992 

Kathryn M. Sheridan, Environmental Scientist 

B.S., Environmental Resource Management, Pennsylvania State University, 1999 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

APPENDIX D: LIST OF ACRONYMS 

B&O Railroad Baltimore and Ohio Railroad 

CCT Capital Crescent Trail 

C&O Canal Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 

C&O Canal NHP Chesapeake and Ohio National Historical Park 

CE Categorical Exclusion 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFA Commission of Fine Arts 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DC District of Columbia 

DC WASA District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority 

DC DOH District of Columbia Department of Health 

DDOT District of Columbia Department of Transportation 

DO-12 NPS Environmental Compliance Field Guide - Director’s Order 12 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act (Federal) 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

GLOC Georgetown Local Organizing Committee 

GWMP George Washington Memorial Parkway 

GWU George Washington University 

GUTS Georgetown University Transit System 

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning 

FAR Floor Area Ratio 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

MDDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association 

NCPC National Capital Planning Commission 

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NPS National Park Service 

PBC Potomac Boat Club 

PID Photoionization Detector 

PQL Practical Quantization Limits 

RT&E Rare Threatened & Endangered 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

TBC Thompson Boat Center 

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USPP United States Park Police 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

WCC Washington Canoe Club 

WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

W-O Zone Waterfront Open Space Zone 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

APPENDIX E – INDEX 

Alexandria Aqueduct Bridge ........................................................................... 1-5, 11-6, 11-23, 111-1, 111-2, 111-9, 111-13, 111-14, 111-17, 111-18, 111-19, 

111-20, 111-23, 111-25, 111-56, 111-57, IV-13, IV-14, IV-30, IV-60, IV61, IV-64 

Arlington County Boathouse........................................................................... 1-9, 11-26, 111-4, 111-34, IV-63, IV-64, IV-65, IV-66, IV-67 

Aquatic Vegetation............................................................................................ 1-10, 111-43, 111-44, 111-49, 111-51, 111-43, 111-44, 111-49, 111-51, IV-1, 

IV-48, IV-54, IV-55, IV-67 

Best management practices.............................................................................. IV-49, IV-58 

Capital Crescent Trail (CCT) .......................................................................... 1-1, 1-3, 1-9, 1-11, 11-2, 11-6, 11-12, 11-16, 11-17, 11-26, 111-1, 111-2, 111-3, 

111-9, 111-13, 111-22, 111-28, 111-32, 111-33, 111-35, 111-46, 111-50, IV-2, 

IV-3, IV-4, IV-5, IV-9, IV-10, IV-12, IV-27, IV-38, IV-39, IV-40, IV41, IV-42, IV-43, IV-44, IV-45, IV-51, IV-59, IV-62 

Chesapeake & Ohio National Historical Park (C&O) Canal NHP .......... 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-8, 1-11, 11-24, 111-1, 111-2, 111-3, 111-5, 111-6, 111-8, 

111-9, 111-12, 111-13, 111-14, 111-22, 111-23, 111-25, 111-44, 111-52, 111-53, 

111-54, IV-1, IV-2, IV-4, IV-6, IV-11, IV-12, IV-15, IV-19, IV-64 

C&O Canal Towpath........................................................................................ 11-2, 11-5, 11-6, 11-11, 11-12, 11-16, 11-26, 111-1, 111-2, 111-3, 111-9, 111-13, 

111-25, 111-28, 111-31, 111-35, 111-44, 111-46, 111-52, 111-56, IV-4, IV12, IV-15, IV-30, IV-31, IV-33, IV-35, IV-37, IV-38, IV-39, IV-43, IV44, IV-59 

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)..................................................... 1-1, 1-7, IV-63 

Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................... 1-1, 1-8, 1-9, IV-1, IV-63, IV-64, IV-65, IV-66, IV-67 

DC Zoning Commission .................................................................................. 1-6, 11-1, 11-7, 11-20, 111-7, 111-8, 111-34, IV-7, IV-40, IV-42 

DC Water & Sewer Authority (DC WASA) ..................................................111-2, 111-56, 111-57, IV-3, IV-60, IV-61 

Endangered species........................................................................................... 111-3, 111-6, 111-45, 111-54, 111-55 

Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 1-10, 1-11 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .....................................................111-45, 111-46, 111-48, IV-59, IV-60 

Fletcher’s Cove .................................................................................................. 11-26, 11-27, 111-9, 111-38, 111-42, 111-54, IV-2 

Floodplains......................................................................................................... 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 111-44, 111-47, 111-54, 111-56, IV-49, IV-50, IV-51 

George Washington University Boathouse................................................... 1-5, 1-9, 11-2, 11-21, 111-10, IV-63, IV-64 

Georgetown Historic District .........................................................................111-22, 111-23, 111-24, IV-11, IV-12, IV-15 

Georgetown University transit service (GUTS)...........................................111-34, IV-44 

Georgetown Waterfront Plan.......................................................................... 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-9, 11-17, 11-18, 11-21, 11-24, 111-1, 111-2, 111-4, 

111-5, 111-10, 111-25, 111-34, IV-2, IV-3, IV-5, IV-6, IV-7, IV-8, IV-9, 

IV-13, IV-63, IV-64, IV-65, IV-66, IV-67 

Groundwater......................................................................................................111-43, 111-45, 111-46, 111-56, IV-51, IV-52, IV-53, IV-54 

Incline Plane....................................................................................................... 1-1, 11-17, 11-18, IV-15 

Interceptor sewer .............................................................................................. 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 11-23, 111-1, 111-2, 111-46, 111-47, 111-54, 111-56, IV-3, 

IV-5, IV-48, IV-51, IV-52, IV-60, IV-61 

Key Bridge .......................................................................................................... 1-1, 1-2, 1-9, 11-18, 11-21, 11-22, 11-26, 111-1, 111-2, 111-4, 111-5, 111-9, 

111-10, 111-14, 111-18, 111-23, 111-24, 111-25, 111-26, 111-27, 111-28, 111-

30, 111-33, 111-34, 111-36, 111-38, 111-42, 111-52, 111-54, 111-55, IV-5, 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

IV-6, IV-8, IV-9, IV-10, IV-12, IV-13, IV-14, IV-17, IV-19, IV-23, IV25, IV-30, IV-38, IV-45, IV-46, IV-63, IV-64, IV-65 

Land Exchange EA............................................................................................ 1-4, 111-5, IV-3, IV-5, IV-6, IV-9, IV-53, IV-57, IV-64 

Land Use............................................................................................................. 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 111-1, 111-5, 111-6, 111-55, IV-1, IV-2, IV-3, IV-9, IV-13, 

IV-63 

Memorandum of Agreement........................................................................... 1-1, 11-2, 11-8, 11-11, 111-8, 111-34, IV-2, IV-5, IV-6, IV-8, IV-9, IV-15, 

IV-18, IV-40 

National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) ................................................... 1-1, 1-3, 1-7, 1-8, 1-11, 1-12, 11-1, 11-17, 11-18, IV-63, IV-64, IV-66 

National Register............................................................................................... 111-14, 111-15, 111-18, 111-22, 111-23, 111-24, 111-48, IV-11 

Noise ................................................................................................................... 1-10, 111-55, IV-1, IV-48, IV-58, IV-67 

Non –motorized boating study ....................................................................... 11-22, 11-23, 111-3, 111-6, 111-7, 111-25, IV-5, IV-7, IV-9, IV-45, IV-47, 

IV-64 

Parking Management Plan...............................................................................111-34, IV-40, IV-41 

Potomac Boat Club (PBC)................................................................................ 111-1, 111-4, 111-9, 111-10, 111-15, 111-16, 111-17, 111-19, 111-22, 111-23, 

111-24, 111-25, 111-33, 111-37, 111-55, IV-2, IV-9, IV-13, IV-14, IV-18, 

IV-42, IV-46, IV-47, IV-66 

Potomac Gorge.................................................................................................. 111-22, 111-23, 111-24, IV-11, IV-12, IV-13, IV-15, IV-39 

Potomac Heritage Trail .................................................................................... 111-29, IV-19 

Potomac River.................................................................................................... 11-2, 11-8, 11-13, 11-24, 11-26, 111-1, 111-2, 111-3, 111-5, 111-6, 111-10, 111-

11, 111-12, 111-13, 111-14, 111-15, 111-16, 111-23, 111-24, 111-25, 111-26, 111-

27, 111-29, 111-30, 111-32, 111-37, 111-38, 111-39, 111-40, 111-41, 111-43, 

111-46, 111-47, 111-50, 111-51, 111-52, 111-53, 111-54, 111-56, IV-2, IV-8, 

IV-13, IV-24, IV-26 

Potomac River Safety Committee...................................................................111-10, 111-38, 111-39, 111-40, IV-10, IV-45, IV-47, IV-66 

Regatta................................................................................................................. 11-6, 11-7, 111-33, 111-37, 111-38, 111-40, 111-41, 111-42, IV-40, IV-41, 

IV-42, IV-43, IV-44, IV-45, IV-58, IV-63, IV-64, IV-65, IV-66 

Scoping................................................................................................................ 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 11-18, 11-23, 11-24, 111-25, 111-28, IV-16, IV-18 

Stormwater .........................................................................................................1-10, 111-43, 111-45, 111-56, IV-1, IV-48, IV-49, IV-52, IV-53, IV-54, 

IV-59, IV-60 

Stormwater management .................................................................................111-45, 111-56, IV-1, IV-48, IV-49, IV-52, IV-54, IV-59, IV-60 

Title IX ................................................................................................................ 1-5 

Washington Canoe Club (WCC).................................................................... 11-6, 11-12, 11-23, 111-1, 111-2, 111-3, 111-4, 111-9, 111-10, 111-15, 111-16, 

111-17, 111-18, 111-19, 111-20, 111-23, 111-25, 111-26, 111-31, 111-32, 111-

33, 111-35, 111-37, 111-40, 111-42, 111-42, 111-55, 111-56, IV-2, IV-3, IV4, IV-5, IV-13, IV-14, IV-15, IV-18, IV-19, IV-23, IV-27, IV-30, IV-41, 

IV-43, IV-45, IV-46, IV-47, IV-50, IV-64 

Water Quality..................................................................................................... 1-10, 111-43, 111-44, 111-45, 111-52, 111-54, IV-48, IV-49, IV-52, IV53, IV-54, IV-55, IV-59, IV-66 

Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 1-8, 1-10, 11-17, 111-44, 111-45, 111-46, 111-50, 111-52, 111-53, IV-52, 

IV-55 

Wildlife habitat ................................................................................................. 1-8, 1-10, 111-44, 111-45, 111-49, 111-52, 111-54, 111-55, IV-1, IV-54, IV56, IV-57, IV-67 

W–O Zoning....................................................................................................... 1-6, 111-3, 111-7, 111-8, IV-7, IV-8, IV-40
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

APPENDIX F – SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING SCOPING 

 

The following table provides a summary of all the comments that were received during the 

public scoping process. The comments have been categorized in relationship to where they are 

addressed in the Environmental Assessment. For example, comments received regarding the 

background of the project are addressed under Chapter 1 (Description of the Purpose and 

Need) of the EA. Similarly, comments received regarding hydrological (or other environmental) 

resources are addressed either under Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) or Chapter 4 

(Environmental Consequences) of the EA. The specific section of the EA providing 

information on each comment is listed in the response column. 

COMMENTS RELATED TO CHAPTER 1 (DESCRIPTION OF THE PURPOSE AND 

NEED) 

Category 

 

Issue Response 

 

• Goal of NPS / C & O Canal Park. • See EA Section 1.2 

• Why are EAs for land swap and boathouse separate? 

The land swap EA is more than 9 years old and 

outdated. 

• First EA dealt with concept of 

land exchange and is still valid 

as conditions have not 

changed; second EA deals 

primarily with the boathouse 

design and construction and 

related impacts. 

• Any written restrictions on Georgetown University’s 

use of the land? 

• See EA Sections 3.1.3 and 4.1.3 

• Demand for rowing – impact on rowing community 

if delayed. 

• See EA Section 1.2 

• Consistency with C & O Canal Park mandate and 

mission. 

• See EA Section 1.2 

• Relationship to NPS mission. • The park purpose statement 

for C&O Canal GMP provides 

for recreational access to the 

Potomac River. 

• Was the land exchange of equal value? Land 

appraisal should be provided for both sites. A copy 

of the financial agreement between GU and NPS is 

requested. 

• According to NPS, the value of 

the two sites is equal because 

the land value of the GU parcel 

is unrestricted and the NPS 

parcel will be restricted to 

boathouse use only. Appraisals 

are confidential and not 

available (even under FOIA). 

No other agreements have 

been made between the two 

parties. 

• This is a case of private use of public land. • See EA Sections 3.1.1 and 4.1.1 

Background 

Information 

• Retain land in public ownership. • According to NPS, retaining 

the NPS parcel in public 

ownership would leave the 

upstream (GU) parcel in 

private ownership with the 

threat of private development 

in the future. 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

• Ensure appropriate distribution/notification. • See EA Section 1.5 

• Ensure document is tiered, not segmented. • See EA Sections 1.6 and 4.6 

• Prepare analysis of entire waterfront area to identify 

alternative sites and cumulative impacts. 

• See EA Sections 1.6, 2.5 and 4.6 

• Why was an EIS required for the Arlington 

boathouse? Could it be required here? 

• See EA Section 1.9 

• An EIS should be prepared. The following factors 

meet Do-12 criteria for an EIS: unique characteristics 

of the area; degree to which public safety and health 

are impacted (safety hazards for CCT and towpath 

users, especially during regattas); degree to which 

impacts are likely to be highly controversial; 

precedent for future actions (no private structure 

has been constructed in the C&O Canal NHP since 

its inception). 

• See EA Section 1.9. An EIS still 

could be required if 

determined necessary or 

warranted by NPS based on the 

results of the EA. 

• What is the difference between an EA and an EIS? • See EA Section 1.9 

Process 

 

• Evaluate decision of significance of impact in 

accordance with CEQ 1508.27. 

• See EA Chapter 4 

• John Parsons/Sally Blumenthal should recuse 

themselves from the NEPA process. 

• NPS has designated Kevin 

Brandt, Superintendent, 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 

National Historical Park, as the 

NPS representative responsible 

for this document. 

• EA should be posted on the NPS website. • See EA Section 1.5 

• Provide full time-line from 1985. • See EA Section 1.2 

• Parties/weddings at the boathouse. • See EA Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 

• Exclusive use of boathouse by a private university. • See EA Sections 2.1 and 4.1.1 

• Change (reduce footprint) to create space for 

unaltered towpath, unshared hiker-biker path and 

needed fire/access lane. 

• See EA Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 

4.1.2 

• Facility size is out of proportion for need. • See EA Section 1.4 

• Do rowing tanks have to be on site? Concerned with 

use of chlorine. 

• See EA Sections 1.4 and 2.5 

• What is the relationship between the floor level of 

the boathouse and the dock? 

• See EA Figure 4-1 

• Hours of operation. • See EA Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 

• Need verses wants of Georgetown University. • See EA Section 1.4 

• Why the need for high ceilings which are driving 

height? 

• See EA Section 1.4 

• Height of boat stacking area is too high? • See EA Section 1.4 

• Insufficient boathouse storage space in the area. 

Growing interest at high school level. Woodrow 

Wilson Senior H.S. has grown from 60-95 students 

in the past three years. Recent construction of 

Swedish Embassy has reduced storage space at TBC. 

• Comment noted 

Boathouse 

Program 

• This enormous structure would only free up limited 

number of spaces at TBC. What is the minimum size 

and height structure required to provide public 

benefit derived by removing GU’s shells from TBC. 

• See EA Sections 1.3 and 1.4 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

• Any new boathouse should have a public benefit 

component – public use of any new dock or 

launching platform, community or high school use 

of some space in the building, or improvement of 

nearby shoreside infrastructure such as trails, etc. 

• Proposed Action will allow 

public access to waterfront; 

GU is planning to provide high 

school rowing programs during 

the summer. See EA Sections 

2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 

 

• How many days in a year is it necessary to use the 

rowing tank? 

• See EA Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 

• A programmatic EIS to address cumulative impacts 

of all boathouses proposed, on views, parking, bike, 

pedestrian and auto traffic, and river use. 

Cumulative • See EA Sections 1.6, 1.9 and 4.6 

Impacts 

• Expansion of Thompsons. • See EA Section 2.5 

 

 

COMMENTS RELATED TO CHAPTER 2 (ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED) 

Category 

 

Issue 

• Use Dempsey site. • See EA Section 2.5 

• Dempsey’s site is too small and would cause 

unacceptable congestion on the water for both WCC 

and PBC. 

• See EA Section 2.5 

• Locate along Anacostia Waterfront. • See EA Section 2.5 

• Anacostia is not a valid option – GU rowers require a 

non-motorized means of access and travel time 

would have a serious negative impact on program. 

• See EA Section 2.5 

• Georgetown waterfront east of Key Bridge. • See EA Section 2.5 

• Immediately downstream from GWU’s site though 

not through a land exchange but through a longterm lease where NPS retains ownership of land. 

• See EA Section 2.5 

• Joint boathouse for Georgetown and George 

Washington Universities. 

• See EA Section 2.5 

• Universal boathouse below Key Bridge for GU, 

GWU and high schools. 

• See EA Section 2.5 

• On Virginia side on NPS land. • See EA Section 2.5 

• Explore dock designs that can eliminate the 

additional extra length into the river. 

• See EA Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 

• Current plus originally proposed. • Comment noted 

• Can the Washington Canoe Club be moved 

upstream? 

• Not part of EA scope 

• Need for services for visitors on Capital Crescent 

Trail. 

• Services for visitors for CCT 

are available at the Boathouse 

at Fletcher’s Cove and in 

Georgetown 

• Discuss public use of boathouse for events (evening). • See EA Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 

• Is upriver site buildable? Demonstrate the feasibility 

of building at that site. 

• See EA Section 2.5 

Alternatives 

• Preserve land east of 34th Street to Washington 

Harbor as a park – opposed to expanding the 

boathouse zone to the east. 

• See EA Section 2.5 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

• Smaller size without rowing tanks and exercise 

spaces. 

• See EA Section 2.5 

• Height should be no higher than Canoe Club. • See EA Section 2.2 

• Use of Fletcher’s Boathouse • See EA Section 2.5 

• Partnership between NPS and GU to construct a 

boathouse. 

• NPS has final approval for 

construction of the proposed 

boathouse (and any other 

facilities) within their property. 

There is no formal 

“partnership” for this purpose. 

• Impact on Metro if Alternative site is chosen. • See EA Sections 3.3.2 and 4.3.2 

• Redevelopment of TBC. • See EA Section 2.5 

• If NPS should build a new facility, it should 

accommodate sweep boats not already 

accommodated at TBC. 

• Comment noted 

• Public bathrooms, amenities, cabanas. • Public restroom facilities, etc. 

are not planned as part of the 

proposed boathouse. 

However, public access is 

required on the site. 

 

 

COMMENTS RELATED TO CHAPTER 3 (AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT) AND 

CHAPTER 4 (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES)

Category 

 

Issue 

• Impact on existing fishermen. • See EA Sections 3.1.2 and 4.1.2 

• Number of users along Capital Crescent Trail and 

River, and how it has increased since the land 

exchange (EA). 

• Users have undoubtedly 

increased but no specific data 

are available. See Sections 3.3 

and 4.3. 

• Open/Green space impact and impact of public 

access to river. 

• See EA Sections 3.1.2, 3.4.3, 4.1.2 

and 4.4.3 

• Impact on Canoe Club, Jack’s Canoe and other 

current programs. 

• See EA Sections 3.1.4 and 4.1.4 

• Impact on C & O Canal Park/Park users. • See EA Sections 3.1.2, 3.2, 4.1.2 

and 4.2 

• Locating a boathouse in a park is appropriate – 

numerous examples across the country. Rowing is a 

recreational use which is one of the primary uses for 

public parks. 

• Comment noted 

• Impact on C & O Canal visitor experience. • See EA Sections 3.1.2, 3.2, 4.1.2 

and 4.2 

Land Use 

 

• Property should return to public use if GU becomes 

fiscally insolvent and wants to sell the property. NPS 

may want to add restrictions to use in case boating is 

no longer popular in 50 years. 

• W-O Zoning designates 

allowed uses for the property 

(See EA Sections 3.1.3 and 4.1.3) 

SocioEconomic 

Resources 

• Economic impacts on Georgetown. • See EA Section 1.8 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

• C & O Advisory Commission policy not to have 

development between Canal and River. 

• According to NPS, there are 

other recreational facilities 

between the canal and the 

river, including public and 

private development in 

Georgetown, Cumberland, 

Williamsport and Brunswick. 

The C&O Canal GMP allows 

for this type of use. 

• Update Old Coast Guard study of river usage/safety. • See Proposed Mitigation 

Measure under EA Section 

4.3.4 

• Why is there a boathouse zone? • See EA Section 1.2 

• Georgetown Waterfront Park Plan - Specifies 4,000 

square feet. Should boathouse zone be changed? 

• See EA Sections 3.1.3 and 4.1.3 

• Inconsistent with NCPC’s Federal Elements that 

states that, “C&O NHP should be preserved...and 

also serve as a recreational area...although 

preservation should take precedence.” 

• See EA Sections 3.1.3 and 4.1.3 

• Precedence of allowing one school to acquire a large 

parcel on park land for exclusive use raises a 

question of whether other schools will request 

similar parcels. Should NPS encourage placing a new 

boathouse for private use rather than public use in 

national parks. 

• See EA Sections 3.1.1 and 4.1.1 

• Waterfront issues related to goals of the DC Comp 

Plan. 

• See EA Sections 3.1.3 and 4.1.3 

Planning 

Policies 

• Only 3 miles of the C&O Canal NHP are within DC 

boundary and should remain within public domain. 

• Comment noted 

• Impact on Canoe Club, Canal. • See EA Sections 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 

• Consider historic scale of Georgetown and 

waterfront. 

• See EA Sections 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 

• NPS standards for maintenance of historic 

structures? 

• See Section 4.2.1 

• Section 106 process. • See Sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.1 

• History of entire waterfront and system of river use. • See EA Sections 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 

Historic 

• Prior use of land and environmental impacts (past 

century, docks/historical ports). 

• See EA Sections 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 

• Impact on views from tow path, from Potomac 

River, from Virginia side, from Rosslyn, Key Bridge. 

From Key Bridge all you see is trees on the upriver 

side. 

• See EA Sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.2 

• Impact on Gateway to Capital Crescent Trail. 

Tunnel effect along CCT. 

• See EA Sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.2 

• Views of Roosevelt Island and Aqueduct from 

CCT/tow path. 

• See EA Section 4.2.2 

Visual 

Resources 

• Add green roofs along all boathouses to minimize 

visual impacts. 

• GU and its architects 

determined that a pitched roof 

was a more appropriate design 

for a proposed building in the 

Georgetown Historic District. 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

• Transition from Canal to City is a crucial part of the 

experience which would be diminished by a 

structure that is too high and large. 

• See EA Sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.2 

• The views from C&O Canal will be marred for 

several seconds, but those views are already marred 

for the entire portion in Georgetown. 

• See EA Sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.2 

• Evaluation on whether the change in views is 

consistent with C&O Canal NHP plan and DC 

Comprehensive Plan. How many users will be 

affected by the changed views; how many months of 

the year will these views be affected. 

• See EA Sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.2 

• Bringing boats down during regattas. • See EA Sections 3.3 and 4.3 

• Impact of parking for social events. • See EA Sections 3.3 and 4.3 

• Impact of access drive on trail, Canal bank and 

Washington Canoe Club. 

• See EA Section 4.3.1 

• Safety concern due to conflicts between boat trailers 

and other trail users. 

• See EA Sections 3.3 and 4.3 

• Access/parking for crew boat trailers. • See EA Sections 3.3 and 4.3 

• Capital Crescent Trail will be the size of a roadway 

and will no longer be a “trail”. 

• See EA Sections 3.3 and 4.3 

• Will deconstruction of Whitehurst Freeway affect 

this project? 

• See EA Section 4.6 

• Impact of widening Canal Road. • Currently there are no plans to 

expand Canal Road in the 

vicinity of the project site. 

• Maintain access to both trail and towpath during 

construction. 

• See EA Sections 3.3 and 4.3 

• Consider river barges during construction. • The shallow river depth 

adjacent to the project site will 

not allow use of barges during 

construction. 

• Traffic impact in Georgetown due to construction 

vehicles. 

• See EA Sections 3.3.1 and 4.3.1 

• Engineering studies to determine impact on WCC 

from large construction trucks and boat trailers that 

could potentially hit the building. 

• Standard construction 

practices will be used to avoid 

any impacts to WCC. See 

Section 4.3.1. 

Vehicular 

Traffic and 

Parking 

• Provide detailed counts of trail users at different 

times of the day/seasons. 

• Data not available and not 

within scope of EA. See 

Section 4.3.1 for potential trail 

user impacts. 

• Conflict between users (rowers row backwards, 

canoes paddle forward). 

• See EA Section 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 

• Safety of canoes, kayaks and small boats that were 

protected by safety guidelines on the DC side versus 

guidelines of rowing along the VA shore. 

• See EA Section 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 

• Impact on canoe/kayak training and racing courses. • See EA Section 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 

• Impact on paddlers due to (1) docks, and (2) 

increased use of the river. 

• See EA Section 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 

River 

Navigation/

Use 

• Potential conflict during afternoons particularly 

from April to November. 

• See EA Section 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

 

• “Traffic study” type of analysis for river use. • See EA Section 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 

• Mediation techniques including management of 

boating lanes should be discussed in EA to resolve 

user conflicts. 

• See EA Section 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 

• Wakes from coaches boats – would wakeless boats 

be used? 

• See EA Section 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 

• Flood water would be channelized behind the 

building and would magnify the force of water 

resulting in damaging the Canal embankment and 

WCC. 

• See EA Section 3.4.1 and 4.4.1 

• On average the Potomac floods once every 12 

years. Impacts on river including depths, flows, 

and riverbed contours; potential for riverbed 

changes due to deposition and scour of sediment 

and the need for dredging. 

• See EA Section 3.4.2 and 4.4.2 

• Impact of dock and bank riprap on river bank, 

area boathouses. Consult environmental review 

for Clyde’s floating boat proposal. 

• See EA Section 3.4.1 and 4.4.1 

• Fast moving flood waters could form eddies or 

backwater that can fill up with trees, and other 

debris. These materials would essentially 

constitute a number of battering rams and would 

damage/destroy WCC. Such an eddy could result 

from the fixed portion of the dock. 

• See EA Section 3.4.1 and 4.4.1 

• Impact of ice. • No impacts are expected from 

ice. Ice “floods” as occurred 

during the 19th century are no 

longer an issue due to upstream 

dams. 

• Impacts related to stormwater. • See EA Section 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 4.4.1 

and 4.5.1 

• Green roofs above boathouse for stormwater 

management. 

• This is not being considered by 

GU because of the design 

concept suggested in the MOA 

and the location of the 

proposed boathouse in an 

Historic District. See Section 

4.5.1 for planned stormwater 

management system on-site. 

• Increased run-off including chemicals and 

hazardous materials used during construction that 

would wash into the river; chemicals, oils and 

other substances including chlorine from rowing 

tanks would enter the river during floods. 

• See EA Section 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4.4.1 

and 4.4.2 

Hydrological 

Resources 

Impact on wetlands & functions they serve of 

filtering water/ providing habitats. 

• See EA Section 3.4.1 and 4.4.1 
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BOATHOUSE

National Park Service 

• Silt build up due to docks. • See EA Section 3.4.2 and 4.4.2 

• Geotech analysis to determine impact of 

construction on C&O Canal embankment and 

WCC. Establish Escrow fund to repair potential 

damage to Canal/WCC. 

• See EA Section 3.4.1 and 4.4.1; 

Appendix F1. 

• No physical damage to either 

the Canal or WCC is expected 

as a result of the Proposed 

Action. 

Geology, Soils 

and 

Topography 

• Geotech feasibility of constructing on fill. • See EA Section 3.4.1 and 4.4.1; 

Appendix F1 

• Vegetation management – land and water. • See EA Section 3.4.3 and 4.4.3 

• Benefit of land exchange to ecosystem. • See EA Section 4.1.3 and 4.4.3 

• Impact on PawPaw plants. • See Section 3.4.3 and 4.4.3. 

• Impact of barbed wire fence on wildlife. • No barbed wire fencing is part 

of the proposed construction 

or operation of the boathouse. 

• Impact on eagles on TR Island. • See Section 3.4.3 and 4.4.3. 

• I have looked at satellite photos – between the site 

and Wilson Bridge, there is not a single wooded 

area along the north side of the river with the 

exception of TR Island. 

• Comment noted 

• Removing vegetation eliminates natural shade that 

cools the City and provides fish and wildlife 

habitat. 

• Comment noted 

Terrestrial/ 

Aquatic 

Vegetation 

and Wildlife 

• Impact of dock on spawning fish going upstream. • See EA Sections 3.4.3 and 4.4.3 

• Impact on Dulles interceptor. What would be the 

public health impact if the corroding of the sewer 

line results in erupting it? 

Utilities/ • See Section 4.5.2. 

Infrastructure 

• Can the interceptor be moved? • Interceptor sewer cannot be 

moved. 

Lightscape • Affects on wildlife, night light. • See EA Sections 3.4.3 and 4.4.3. 

Species near the site are typical 

of urban/suburban areas and 

not negatively impacted by 

nightlight. 

• Discuss maintenance of the grounds. • GU is responsible for 

maintaining the grounds 

around the proposed 

boathouse. 

Other 

• Duration of construction. • See EA Section 4.3.1