MLA Thesis Book - Healing Rock Creek

HEALING ROCK CREEK [remediation] of combined sewer overflow

Monica K. Streeper

In memory of my father who supported me and always kept me working on the latest version of AutoCad.

This Thesis is Submitted to the Faculty at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University In Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Landscape Architecture School of Architecture + Design Washington Alexandria Architecture Center

__________________________________________________ Laurel McSherry, FAAR Committee Chair

__________________________________________________ Paul Kelsh, Ph.D., ASLA Committee Member

__________________________________________________ Brian Katen, ASLA Committee Member

i

Remediation, in the context of landscape architecture, is a term that has come to mean- the act of healing injured sites for ecological improvement. With ecological concerns growing at a rate constant to the expansion of cities, the practice of remediation is increasingly treated as a means to an end. Systematic changes made to the land through technical interventions alone, threaten the integrity of remediation as a holistic healing process. How may opportunities to create meaningful places in the landscape come from an act of healing as opposed to remediation as a mere act of problem solving?

The intention of this thesis was to seek to elevate the notion of remediation as a tool for finding creative solutions to ecological threats through design. By researching a specific ecological threat in the context of Washington D.C., I was able to identify various opportunities for the treatment and prevention of contamination caused by the overflow of D.C.’s combined sewer system. The siting and design of 5 separate sites, located along the banks of Rock Creek, each developed from unique and critical cleaning tactics. All were meant to work together for a more holistic remediation approach. By pushing the designs to expand beyond the purpose of work, such as the collection of storm-water or the filtering of water, and to seek to also respond to the history of the site as well as encourage public use, the value and beauty of the remediation process can begin to rise. Through the act of remediation the potential in Rock Creek is found as it transforms to a recognizably healing park system.

ABSTRACT

ii

n]

sio

61 64 72

clu

60

on

58

[C

]

ns

sig

De

56

7

ite

[S

49 51 52 54

PA RT

6

y]

ra te g

St

48

PA RT

ign

es

46

[D

44

5

s]

ie

ud

St

40

PA RT

e

38

as

28

[C

18

4

16

Re vie w ]

8

PA RT

[L ite ra tu re

n]

6

3

cti o

le

Se

]

iii

PA RT

ite

[S

on

cti

du

[In tro ii

2

1

i

PA RT

PA RT

80 86 92 100 102

Thanks

Bibliography

Site 5 [filtration peninsula]

Site 4 [treatment wetland]

Site 3 [primary treatment]

Site 2 [retention]

Site 1 [infiltration]

Master Plan

Analysis Synthesis

Site Analysis

Case Study Synthesis

Sponge Park

The Back Bay Fens

Remediation in Theory

Remeidation in Practice

Review of Recommendations

Contamination of Rock Creek

Rock Creek History

A Context for Remediation in Washington D.C.

Contents

Abstract

Required Signatures

CONTENTS

103

iii

remediation, n.1 1. The action of remedying or correcting something. 2. The process of restoring a site or a natural product by rendering harmless or removing pollutants and contaminants.

part 1 INTRODUCTION My interest in remediation lies in its ability to transform. As an action that remedies or corrects something (as described in the first definition above), remediation refers to a pre-existing condition as something that has fallen to ruin or changed and in need of correcting. Remediation can therefore become a powerful tool in returning to a previous desired, healthy state. Transformations in the landscape through remediation are simply acts of healing the land in some way or using the land to heal. In the context of contemporary landscape architecture, the term remediation almost exclusively refers to the issue of site contamination (as stated in the second definition above). In this sense, a typical act of remediation is as follows. First, pollutants or contaminants, such as waste from industry, infiltrate soil and/or groundwater by negligent human activity. Next the pollutants are removed through various means of technical site alterations, and finally pre-contamination conditions are restored, if only to mean non-toxic.2

6

[Figure 1] Pierre-Charles L’Enfant’s original plan for Washington D.C., 1791. Rock Creek is pictured on the western boarder of the city creating the limits of the original grid.

1. Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved March, 2, 2011 from < http://www.oed.com > 2.Russ, Thomas H. (2002,2009). Restoring Landscapes. Site Planning and Design Handbook: Second Edi tion. (pp.299-344). New York: McGraw Hill.

Because of recent ecological concerns and growing environmental awareness, remediation is sometimes introduced as a sort of ‘buzz’ word to promote sustainability. Specifically, the remediation of post-industrial sites has emerged as a new strategy for park-making that deals with contamination as a way to reintroduce contaminated spaces back into the active urban fabric.3 “Sustainable parks”, as outlined in an article in Landscape Journal, are emerging from within the profession in growing numbers to respond to the ecological issues that persist in the urban environment. “Sustainable Parks employ a diverse array of strategies to reduce the need for resources and to increase self-sufficiency. These strategies are woven into every aspect of park design, construction, and management” (Cranz, 2004, p.106). Of the diverse strategies, remediation is only one.

It was from within this context of promoting sustainability that my original interest in remediation grew. At the outset, this necessitated questioning why remediation within landscape architecture seemed limited to becoming a mere part of projects promoting ideas of sustainability. In other words, remediation as an act of healing is alone a powerful objective - one that is much different than sustainability. While sustainability relies on certain continuity that goes along with “self-sufficiency”, remediation can be seen as a more linear process–– starting when the healing starts and ending when the pre-existing conditions are achieved. It is an action, and remediation in the landscape requires a certain obligation to the task at hand. It seems that there is a tension between remediation as a healing act designed for that reason alone, and remediation within a design of a park that focuses on long-term sustainability. Certainly, remediation within the design of a park directs more focus to accommodate for human activity than an engineering remediation effort would, for example. But how much of the true nature of remediation gets lost as a result? Exploring remediation within the context of landscape architecture is a valuable exercise since it is a powerful and dynamic tool- one that can be celebrated as transforming the land through healing. I will argue that it should not be hidden within engineering efforts that fail to engage people that will benefit from the efforts. Or, at the other extreme, perhaps become misrepresented within landscape architecture as a part of the design rather than a separate objective entirely. Since a true remediation

project that celebrates the temporal nature of a healing act has not been explored as much with the profession, it is mostly attributed as part of sustainable design and is often subject to the same scrutiny.

Within landscape architecture there has been much debate about how the commercial appeal of “sustainable design” as privileging ecological issues, may be contributing to the neglect of fundamental human issues. James Corner writes in his introduction to Recovering Landscape, “The difficulty of advancing landscape is not only an issue of sentimentality and conservation; it is further hindered by a growing contingent that believes landscape concerns ought to be directed solely toward stewardship of the natural world. . . The culturally innovative aspects of landscape architecture are often overlooked or even suppressed as emphasis is placed on more technical procedures aimed at the restoration of an essentially cultureless natural world” (Corner, 1999, p.3). According to Corner, innovative technical designs can easily become a distraction from a more holistic landscape approach in which human issues play an important role. Indeed, the act of remediation can aim to heal the land and therefore restore the environment though -what may be serious technical alternations. However, it is the challenge of the landscape architect to embed these moves within cultural significance. This does not have to be either technical or culturally significant. Rather, a design that is true to healing act will speak true to the people that use the site and bring meaning to that place. It is a meaningful site that will be the one to bring cultural significance, and remediation can be a meaningful effort- one that is about holistic healing of the land, rather than a technical means to an end.

This thesis explores remediation as a design intervention. More specifically, it examines remediation as a specific act of healing within the context of the urban landscape. Looking at one remediation project in Washington D.C. from each decade for the past 100 years, evolving ideas about remediation were examined n an effort to more clearly understand its range of meanings from holistic remedy to contaminant removal. This knowledge will help to anticipate how remediation can adapt to the goals for this thesis and future goals for health and healing as related to both humans and ecology.

This research, along with a literature review of remediation in the fields of landscape architecture and engineering, as well as an in-depth examination of case studies, enabled an expansion of the notion of remediation as a seemingly technical act to one that might potentially ground culturally meaningful design.

By researching the history of changes made to the land in Washington DC, for health reasons alone, the following section explores how ideas of remediation developed simultaneously with larger social patterns and urban trends. Although the projects vary somewhat from the two proceeding definitions of remediation, understanding the more general acts of healing in the context of the city helped to inform a discussion about remediation based on specific interventions and how they may relate to culture. Some of the questions that emerged were, “In a city aimed to become a national symbol, how has remediation been used to achieve this goal? Was there an overlap between interventions made to maintain health for humans and compared to those made for the environment? How have the projects held up over time and what could all of this point to for remediation in the future?

3. Cranz, Galen and Michael Boland. (2004). Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks.

Landscape Journal. vol. 23 no. 2, 102-120.

7

The image to the right is a time line outlining the history of remediation in Washington D.C. as a response to health concerns. Since the city was planned as an ideal, special attention is paid to what was visible and what was represented in changes to the land. Because of this, D.C. is helpful to study leading up to a design intervention to express remediation. Yet, it is certainly not the only city that has a history of remediation. Therefore the trends found can be seen as a reflection of the social motivations of the greater population, but with more of an understanding of what was desired or ideal at the time.

The time line begins at the turn of the 20th century and compares one remediation project each decade up to present day. Each of the projects made big changes to the landscape that aimed to correct some aliment. Each was carefully chosen as the most significant project from its decade that reflected the attitude of the decade the best. Comparing projects from the first four decades, 1900-1940 one can notice a trend. All of the projects were seeking to improve the health of humans that was threatened by the marshy environment in some way. Building a city on land with such a high water table created problems in the early years that remediation efforts tried to fix. Another trend was that in the process to efforts to improve the health of the people of city, all of the projects were creating a public amenity (Figure 2).

[ A context for remediation in Washington D.C. ] In Washington D.C., healing has, in a way, taken place in the city since its conception. “The Plan for Washington, and its partial realization in the Washington we know today, is a vindication of Enlightenment beliefs in the power to create a healthy environment in a highly organized, comprehensive urban design. This urban design reveals as well a certain social and political vision contained in the image of a “healthy” city in which people can breathe freely” (Sennet, 1994, p.265). The plan for Washington D.C. as designed by Pierre Charles L’Enfant in 1791 was very much of a city ideal and defiantly included ideas about health (Figure1).

The recognition of a balance between humans and the environment is evident in the careful siting of landmarks. For example, the existing ridge became the outermost limit of the formal street pattern and the location of present day Florida Avenue. The siting of the Capital Building was a response to the location of Jenkins’s hill which was seen as a natural pedestal for the grand building.4 As a result of L’Enfant’s plan, future development of the city was conscious of a context as a national symbol as well as somewhat conscious of how the city related to the natural environment- if not necessarily the ecology. D.C. did not grow as did many other cities centered on industrialization. Instead, the changes that were made to heal the land were done so out of widespread concerns attributed to a number of different social trends.

8

[Figure 2] Key enlargement to the time line to the right

4. Extract from L'Enfants reports on the selection of building sites. See Design of The Federal City map by William T. Partridge in; Gutheim, Frederick, Consultant for the National Capital Planning Commission. (1977). Worthy of the Nation. City of Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, p.31.

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1900

2010

2000

HOW

epa superfund site planned renewal of mt. vernon plan never realized due to social riots

urban renewal Potomac River dredged

new government buildings built creek restored according to “open valley plan” as opposed to channeled in culvert

“slum clearance” flats filled and sea wall constructed to hold material pumping station and reservoir treatment for drinking water underground sand filter

new concepts for row houses and subdivisions

over 9000 dwelling including historic structures bulldozed and redeveloped as “superblocks”

little design

debris removed from rock creek valley during parkway construction

new land made into park system

removed industrial safety hazzards from abandoned gas plant

bought land from C+O property

550 acres in SW cleared by federal government and developers

slums developed around industrial establishments removed area viewed as a public amenity

saved from highway zone

RESTORATION (improving existing to repair) treats 300 million gallons of waste water per day

removed phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients

epa superfund site

RENEWAL (changing to repair) part of park system along riverfront

developed privately capping of landfill with good soil and vegetation

historic significance retained in name

“slum clearance”

existing filled wetland underground pumping and filtering of groundwater in treatment wells

capped contaminated soil with parking lot, good soil, and vegetation

WHY

INNOVATION (creating to repair) urbanization led to extensive deforestation inadequate water supply and erosion left grass from washington aqueduct flats that collected trash and sewage park designed on surface

by Frederick Law Olmsted sanitation, recreation and navigation

create a business center for federal workers

replaced use of recreation moved from unsanitary water from wells neighborhood streets for many residences where it was deemed unhealthy to public waterfront

renewal of “seedy area” that developed due to the tiber canal making the area undesirable

restore a neglected section of the creek provide urban renewal for the area becoming a “public health menace”

efficiency, function, and economy valued

WHAT A

ES

1905 McMillan Reservoir Sand Filtration Site [completed]

[0]

unsafe neighborhood of mt. vernon

“horizontal city”

repair social problems

need for post war housing

1917

planned as a result of “hoovervilles during the great depression”

ES

1926-8

health hazard from area due to poor condition of established neighborhood

to change waterfront from industrial to commercial

area fallen to degraded conditions due to past industry “packaged living” of Columbia Plaza planned as new mixed use social center

updated to treat nutrients adverse to river water quality

S

1938

1945

great flood 1936

Federal Triangle [planned]

[2]

S

Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway [planned]

New Housing Projects Anacostia [built]

[3] Marshal Heights + Berry Farms

[1]

S

1953

1962

hurricane hazel 1954

New Housing Projects SouthWest [built]

S

urbanization led to the need for treatment facility to expand

first mixed use facility replaced with superblocks [6]

[5]

Blue Plains Treatment Plant [opened 1938]

DC Redevelopment Act [passed 1945]

contamination from trash leaking into groundwater and into river

need to contain the contamination before redevelopment by separate party

E

E

1983

1997

Foggy Bottom Blue Plains redevelopment Treatment Facility [planned] [expands to advanced treatment]

[8]

[7]

E

Barney Circle Landfill [remediated]

[9]

2005 Washington Gas Site [remediated]

[ 10 ]

Downtown Revitalization

[4] 1902 McMillian Commission

adjacent to river and pollution occurred

to improve river health

landfill no longer used

1975

Watergate Complex [built]

oil barrels and ruble degraded to cause contamination of groundwater

to improve river health

to lift spirits during depression

S

Potomac Park [completed] + Flats [reclaimed]

redeveloped to take advantage of natural and historic value

need for rapid transit from growing suburbs

poor living conditions in city due to overcrowding

reconnect rock creek park to the downtown and provide a place of escape from the crowded city

solution to unsafe working conditions

S

cars became popular

Metro [planned 1957]

Beltway [complete 1967]

-Gallery Place -PA -Market Square -7th

EPA superfund project [established 1980]

[NATURAL or HISTORIC AMENITY] DESIGN ENGINEERING PLANNING

VALUING

DESTROYING

SANITATION

RESTORING

CREATING

SAFETY

WASHINGTON DC

9

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1900

2010

2000

HOW

epa superfund site planned renewal of mt. vernon plan never realized due to social riots

urban renewal Potomac River dredged

new government buildings built

flats filled and sea wall constructed to hold material pumping station and reservoir treatment for drinking water underground sand filter

new concepts for row houses and subdivisions

creek restored according to “open valley plan” as opposed to channeled in culvert

“slum clearance”

over 9000 dwelling including historic structures bulldozed and redeveloped as “superblocks”

little design

debris removed from rock creek valley during parkway construction

new land made into park system

removed industrial safety hazzards from abandoned gas plant

bought land from C+O property

550 acres in SW cleared by federal government and developers

slums developed around industrial establishments removed area viewed as a public amenity

saved from highway zone

RESTORATION (improving existing to repair) treats 300 million gallons of waste water per day

removed phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients

epa superfund site

RENEWAL (changing to repair)

capping of landfill with good soil and vegetation

historic significance retained in name

existing filled wetland underground pumping and filtering of groundwater in treatment wells

part of park system along riverfront

developed privately

“slum clearance”

capped contaminated soil with parking lot, good soil, and vegetation

INNOVATION (creating to repair)

WHY

McMillan Reservoir and Sand Filtration Plant (1905) The McMillan Reservoir and sand filtration plant was completed in 1905 in northwest D.C. on the site of the former Smith Spring.5 The reservoir was planned as part of the 1901 McMillian Commission that called for new improvements to the city.6 It was also planned to have an important sanitation function. In 1859, the Washington Aqueduct pumped drinking water from the Potomac River to city residents. While this helped to support the surging population during the civil war, local rivers were at the same time getting more polluted with sewage that was discarded into connecting waters. “Before the end of the war, there were epidemics of smallpox, typhoid and malaria, which took many thousands of lives” (Hawkins, 2011). In addition to implementing miles of new sewer lines that drained sewage miles down river, the filtration plant created a new source for drinking water by filtering out impurities. Sand filtration was both an innovative and effective practice at the time, and the system remained in use until 1986. The abandoned infrastructure of the sand filtration plant and the park that was designed on top of the underground filtration tanks remain in ruins today.7

urbanization led to extensive deforestation inadequate water supply and erosion left grass from washington aqueduct flats that collected trash and sewage park designed on surface

by Frederick Law Olmsted sanitation, recreation and navigation

create a business center for federal workers

replaced use of recreation moved from unsanitary water from wells neighborhood streets for many residences where it was deemed unhealthy to public waterfront

renewal of “seedy area” that developed due to the tiber canal making the area undesirable

restore a neglected section of the creek

ES

need for rapid transit from growing suburbs

poor living conditions in city due to overcrowding

unsafe neighborhood of mt. vernon

“horizontal city”

repair social problems

need for post war housing reconnect rock creek park to the downtown and provide a place of escape from the crowded city

solution to unsafe working conditions

S

cars became popular

provide urban renewal for the area becoming a “public health menace”

efficiency, function, and economy valued

redeveloped to take advantage of natural and historic value

planned as a result of “hoovervilles during the great depression”

health hazard from area due to poor condition of established neighborhood

to change waterfront from industrial to commercial

area fallen to degraded conditions due to past industry “packaged living” of Columbia Plaza planned as new mixed use social center

updated to treat nutrients adverse to river water quality

to improve river health

urbanization led to the need for treatment facility to expand

ES

S

S

S

S

to improve river health contamination from trash leaking into groundwater and into river

adjacent to river and pollution occurred need to contain the contamination before redevelopment by separate party

landfill no longer used

to lift spirits during depression

S

oil barrels and ruble degraded to cause contamination of groundwater

E

E

E

WHAT A

Potomac Park (1917) This large park, located today along the western waterfront of D.C., was designed over an extended period of time until the finishing touches of the tidal basin concluded its initial development in 1917.8 The first factor that led to its introduction to the city was the extensive dredging that occurred in the Potomac to allow for navigation of the waterways by large ships. This dredging continued for a decade to deepen the waters, and as a result, fill was stockpiled on existing flats to create the Potomac Park. One reason for this decision was the WASHINGTON DC poor conditions of the low lying land or “flats” (Gutheim, 1977, p.94,95). Due to agricultural deforestation and erosion up river, the grass covered flats collected waste and debris along the face of the capital city. Sewage also accumulated in the area causing foul conditions that sparked the need for remediation. With such a vast area of [Figure 3] First trend of the time line that corresponds to the explanations on this page new land created by the fill, the park system was introduced not only to develop the area, but to provide a place for recreation. As conceived of by the city planners, Potomac Park aimed to provide a place for public recreation Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway (1936) that was out of the city streets deemed and residential areas that were deemed unhealthful. “By the new comThe parkway opened in 1936 after numerous revisions by the Frederick Law Olmbination of open spaces and playgrounds, the city gained in the adornment of its landscapes in the “desirable and sted’s fi rm and city planners. “The parkway was intended to link The Mall and Rock Creek healthful resorts for outpouring of surcharged populations” (Gutheim, 1977, p.143).

Park on northwest Washington with an attractive tree-lined corridor to provide an appealing escape from the city streets while rehabilitating the lower portion of Rock Creek valley, Federal Triangle (1926) which had degenerated into an eyesore and public health menace” (Miller, 1967,p.128).

The Federal Triangle was planned in 1926 to become a center for federal workers, and this function The plan was developed according to an “open valley plan” for the creek. This was innovaremains today. The triangular plot of land was previously a neighborhood called “Murder Bay” (Reps, 1967, tive for the time since urban streams were commonly covered over to run in culverts; a p.44). The plan of Federal Triangle was also meant to redevelop and area that had degraded to dangerous slums. practice recognized today to be harmful for the ecological health of a creek. Designing the Tracing back the history of the site, “murder bay” grew around the location of the former Tiber Canal. The ChanParkway also called for cleaning debris from the creek and removing overgrown vegetation. neling of Tiber Creek formed the canal as part of L’Enfant’s original plan, but did not remain present in the city At the time of completion, the Parkway was valued more for providing neighborhood revitalfor long. Poor drainage in the city due to the high water table left much of the area around Tiber Canal a swampy ization in the area that had gained a “seedy reputation”, than it was for any improvement to and infested with malaria. The burying of the canal was meant to amend this problem, but left as a result of the the ecological health of the creek.

9 history of poor conditions; slums remained in the area until the development of Federal Triangle.

1905

McMillan Reservoir Sand Filtration Site [completed]

[0]

1917

Potomac Park [completed] + Flats [reclaimed]

1926-8

1938

1945

great flood 1936

Federal Triangle [planned]

[2]

Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway [planned]

New Housing Projects Anacostia [built]

[3]

Marshal Heights + Berry Farms

[1]

1953

1962

hurricane hazel 1954

New Housing Projects SouthWest [built]

Watergate Complex [built]

first mixed use facility replaced with superblocks [6]

[5]

DC Redevelopment Act [passed 1945]

1997

Foggy Bottom Blue Plains redevelopment Treatment Facility [planned] [expands to advanced treatment]

[8]

[7]

Barney Circle Landfill [remediated]

[9]

2005

Washington Gas Site [remediated]

[ 10 ]

Downtown Revitalization

[4]

Blue Plains Treatment Plant [opened 1938]

1902 McMillian Commission

1983

1975

Metro [planned 1957]

Beltway [complete 1967]

-Gallery Place -PA -Market Square -7th

EPA superfund project [established 1980]

[NATURAL or HISTORIC AMENITY]

DESIGN

ENGINEERING PLANNING

10

VALUING

DESTROYING

SANITATION

RESTORING

CREATING

SAFETY

5,7. Most Endangered Places: McMillan Reservoir and Sand Filtration Site. (2007). Retrieved April 4, 2011, from D.C. Preservation League website,< http://www.dcpreservation.org/endangered/2005/mcmillan.html >.

6. See, Designing the Nation’s Capital:The 1901 Plan for Washington D.C., By: Sue Kohler and Pamela Scott, (Ed.) 2006.

8-9. Gutheim, Frederick. Consultant of the National Capital Planning Commission. (1977). Worthy of a Nation: The History of Planning for the National Capital. City of Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1900

2010

2000 epa superfund site

HOW

New Housing Projects: Anacostia (1940) Marshal Heights and Berry Farms were new housing developments built in the 1940s for the cities’ growing population. Both consisted of subdivisions along the southern side of the Anacostia that responded little, if at all, to its natural conditions. These project necessitated the extension of urban infrastructure to areas previously off the grid. As a result, residences that were already in the area benefited from having water and sewer lines connected to their houses and streets.10

planned renewal of mt. vernon plan never realized due to social riots

urban renewal Potomac River dredged

new government buildings built

“slum clearance” flats filled and sea wall constructed to hold material pumping station and reservoir treatment for drinking water underground sand filter

new concepts for row houses and subdivisions

creek restored according to “open valley plan” as opposed to channeled in culvert

over 9000 dwelling including historic structures bulldozed and redeveloped as “superblocks”

little design

debris removed from rock creek valley during parkway construction

new land made into park system

removed industrial safety hazzards from abandoned gas plant

bought land from C+O property

550 acres in SW cleared by federal government and developers

slums developed around industrial establishments removed area viewed as a public amenity

saved from highway zone

RESTORATION (improving existing to repair) treats 300 million gallons of waste water per day

removed phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients

epa superfund site

RENEWAL (changing to repair) part of park system along riverfront

developed privately capping of landfill with good soil and vegetation

historic significance retained in name

“slum clearance”

existing filled wetland underground pumping and filtering of groundwater in treatment wells

capped contaminated soil with parking lot, good soil, and vegetation

create a business center for federal workers

replaced use of recreation moved from unsanitary water from wells neighborhood streets for many residences where it was deemed unhealthy to public waterfront

renewal of “seedy area” that developed due to the tiber canal making the area undesirable

restore a neglected section of the creek

S

ES

1905 McMillan Reservoir Sand Filtration Site [completed]

[0]

redeveloped to take advantage of natural and historic value

need for rapid transit from growing suburbs

poor living conditions in city due to overcrowding

unsafe neighborhood of mt. vernon

“horizontal city”

repair social problems

need for post war housing reconnect rock creek park to the downtown and provide a place of escape from the crowded city

planned as a result of “hoovervilles during the great depression”

ES

1926-8

health hazard from area due to poor condition of established neighborhood

to change waterfront from industrial to commercial

area fallen to degraded conditions due to past industry “packaged living” of Columbia Plaza planned as new mixed use social center

updated to treat nutrients adverse to river water quality

S

1938

1945

great flood 1936

Federal Triangle [planned]

[2]

Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway [planned]

New Housing Projects Anacostia [built]

[3] Marshal Heights + Berry Farms

[1]

S

S

1953

1962

hurricane hazel 1954

New Housing Projects SouthWest [built]

S

urbanization led to the need for treatment facility to expand

first mixed use facility replaced with superblocks [6]

[5]

DC Redevelopment Act [passed 1945]

contamination from trash leaking into groundwater and into river

adjacent to river and pollution occurred need to contain the contamination before redevelopment by separate party

E

E

1983

Foggy Bottom Blue Plains redevelopment Treatment Facility [planned] [expands to advanced treatment]

[8]

[7]

E

1997 Barney Circle Landfill [remediated]

[9]

2005 Washington Gas Site [remediated]

[ 10 ]

Downtown Revitalization

[4] Blue Plains Treatment Plant [opened 1938]

1902 McMillian Commission

to improve river health

landfill no longer used

1975

Watergate Complex [built]

oil barrels and ruble degraded to cause contamination of groundwater

to improve river health

to lift spirits during depression

S

1917 Potomac Park [completed] + Flats [reclaimed]

cars became popular

provide urban renewal for the area becoming a “public health menace”

efficiency, function, and economy valued

solution to unsafe working conditions

WHAT A

New Housing Projects: Southwest (1953) In 1953 a massive redevelopment plan for Southwest D.C. was issued and hundreds of acres were bulldozed by the Redevelopment Land Agency.11 This was one of the first areas targeted by the agency to be degraded and filled with “miserable and disreputable housing” (Gutheim, 1977, p.318). Developers flocked to the area and quickly put up multilevel apartment buildings and modern condominiums, but with a limited conceptualization of the area as a whole. What had previously existed was more in line with the street pattern that L’Enfant had designed, and contained some truly remarkable historic homes. Most of these were destroyed however when new plans went in to redevelop 550 acres because of what were deemed “obsolete dwelling”, or slums and “potential threats to public health” (Gutheim, 1977, p.317). Also, an updated look was desired for the face of the national capital.12

WHY

INNOVATION (creating to repair) urbanization led to extensive deforestation inadequate water supply and erosion left grass from washington aqueduct flats that collected trash and sewage park designed on surface

by Frederick Law Olmsted sanitation, recreation and navigation

Metro [planned 1957]

Beltway [complete 1967]

-Gallery Place -PA -Market Square -7th

EPA superfund project [established 1980]

The 1960s marked a rise in social issues that were highlighted especially in the streets of Washington WASHINGTON DC D.C.13 It was also a time when ideas of conservation and preservation became more popular as a response to past insensitivity and uniformity seen in developments as discuss in the previous phase. Ian McHarg writes about Washington D.C. in his 1969 book, Design with Nature. He remarks how the growing suburbs around D.C. counter- [Figure 4] Second trend on the time line that corresponds to the first two explanations on this page act the solving of any social problems by creating bigger problems, mostly ecological.

[NATURAL or HISTORIC AMENITY]

DESIGN

ENGINEERING PLANNING

“And so the transformation from city to metropolitan area contains all the thwarted hopes of those who fled the old city in search of clean government, better schools, a more beneficent, healthy and safe environment, those who sought to escape slums, congestion, crime, violence, and disease. There are many problems cause by the form of metropolitan growth. . . subdivided we fell, and the instinct to find more natural environments became the impulse that destroyed nature, an important ingredient in the social objective of this greatest of all population migrations” (McHarg, 1969, p.153-154).

His proposal in Design with Nature was to analyze the metropolitan area of D.C. though the lens of geology and designate suitable and unsuitable areas to be either developed, or preserved. From his analysis of the varying land conditions of the area, more awareness for a value of regional landscape identity was the result. A few years prior, McHarg prepared a plan for the National Capital Planning Commission titled, Toward a Comprehensive Landscape Plan for Washington, D.C., using the same principles to lay out where the significant geological formations were in the area.

VALUING

DESTROYING

SANITATION

RESTORING

CREATING

SAFETY

The NCPC called for this investigation and others remarking that, “This communication of natural and man-made values could be made clearer by more emphasis on identifying special streets and places and by identifying and strengthening the district communities” (Gutheim, 1977, p.303). Plans to redevelop certain areas of the city were starting to be selected to include ideas based on natural or “special” features as well as historic features.

In 1963 President Kennedy helped to save historic buildings around the Downtown area and sparked a new historic building awareness phase.14 Although many projects during this time (1960s-1970s) were only planned and never built given the heated cultural climate, the ideas to remediate the local identity of the city through restoring the importance of natural and historic features resonated in the city that suffered socially as well as ecologically. These new ideas of Valuing also resonated in the following two projects. Though not particularly environmentally sensitive, these project are still responding to issues of the time.

10.Gutheim, Frederick. Consultant of the National Capital Planning Commission. (1977). Worthy of a Nation: The History of Planning for the National Capital. City of Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 235238.

11.Bergheim, Laura. (1992). The Washington Historical Atlas. Woodbrine House. p.303.

12.Gutheim, Frederick. Consultant of the National Capital Planning Commission. (1977). Worthy of a Nation: The History of Planning for the National Capital. City of Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 320.

13.In 1963 Martin Luther King Jr. delivers his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln memorial. When King is assassinated in 1968, riots erupt in the city. People are killed and tension between races were high. See, Begheim, Laura. (1992). The Washington Historical Atlas. Woodbrine House. p.335.

14.Begheim, Laura. (1992). The Washington Historical Atlas. Woodbrine House. p.335.

11

12

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1900

2010

2000

HOW

epa superfund site planned renewal of mt. vernon plan never realized due to social riots

urban renewal Potomac River dredged

new government buildings built

flats filled and sea wall constructed to hold material pumping station and reservoir treatment for drinking water underground sand filter

new concepts for row houses and subdivisions

creek restored according to “open valley plan” as opposed to channeled in culvert

“slum clearance”

over 9000 dwelling including historic structures bulldozed and redeveloped as “superblocks”

little design

debris removed from rock creek valley during parkway construction

new land made into park system

removed industrial safety hazzards from abandoned gas plant

bought land from C+O property

550 acres in SW cleared by federal government and developers

slums developed around industrial establishments removed area viewed as a public amenity

saved from highway zone

RESTORATION (improving existing to repair) treats 300 million gallons of waste water per day

removed phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients

epa superfund site

RENEWAL (changing to repair)

capping of landfill with good soil and vegetation

historic significance retained in name

existing filled wetland underground pumping and filtering of groundwater in treatment wells

part of park system along riverfront

developed privately

“slum clearance”

capped contaminated soil with parking lot, good soil, and vegetation

WHY

INNOVATION (creating to repair) urbanization led to extensive deforestation inadequate water supply and erosion left grass from washington aqueduct flats that collected trash and sewage park designed on surface

by Frederick Law Olmsted sanitation, recreation and navigation

create a business center for federal workers

replaced use of recreation moved from unsanitary water from wells neighborhood streets for many residences where it was deemed unhealthy to public waterfront

renewal of “seedy area” that developed due to the tiber canal making the area undesirable

restore a neglected section of the creek

S

ES

1905 McMillan Reservoir Sand Filtration Site [completed]

[0]

redeveloped to take advantage of natural and historic value

need for rapid transit from growing suburbs

poor living conditions in city due to overcrowding

unsafe neighborhood of mt. vernon

“horizontal city”

repair social problems

need for post war housing reconnect rock creek park to the downtown and provide a place of escape from the crowded city

planned as a result of “hoovervilles during the great depression”

ES

1926-8

health hazard from area due to poor condition of established neighborhood

to change waterfront from industrial to commercial

area fallen to degraded conditions due to past industry “packaged living” of Columbia Plaza planned as new mixed use social center

updated to treat nutrients adverse to river water quality

S

1938

1945

great flood 1936

Federal Triangle [planned]

[2]

Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway [planned]

New Housing Projects Anacostia [built]

[3] Marshal Heights + Berry Farms

[1]

S

S

1953

1962

hurricane hazel 1954

New Housing Projects SouthWest [built]

S

urbanization led to the need for treatment facility to expand

first mixed use facility replaced with superblocks [6]

[5]

DC Redevelopment Act [passed 1945]

contamination from trash leaking into groundwater and into river

need to contain the contamination before redevelopment by separate party

E

E

1983

Foggy Bottom Blue Plains redevelopment Treatment Facility [planned] [expands to advanced treatment]

[8]

[7]

E

1997 Barney Circle Landfill [remediated]

[9]

2005 Washington Gas Site [remediated]

[ 10 ]

Downtown Revitalization

[4] Blue Plains Treatment Plant [opened 1938]

1902 McMillian Commission

adjacent to river and pollution occurred

to improve river health

landfill no longer used

1975

Watergate Complex [built]

oil barrels and ruble degraded to cause contamination of groundwater

to improve river health

to lift spirits during depression

S

1917 Potomac Park [completed] + Flats [reclaimed]

cars became popular

provide urban renewal for the area becoming a “public health menace”

efficiency, function, and economy valued

solution to unsafe working conditions

WHAT A

Watergate Complex and Columbia Plaza (1961, 1975) As part of the planning document for the city to inform future development, McHarg’s landscape study placed the D.C. waterfront in part of a larger regional context.15 The waterfront of D.C. was especially valued as a natural amenity and development projects, “focused attention on the quality of the city’s entire waterfront” (Gutheim, 1977, p.305). The Watergate and Columbia Plaza were the first two mixed use complexes built in D.C. Although they were built privately, their locations along the waterfront were undoubtedly chosen for the natural and historic value. The fact that the sites were left abandoned from past industry is in line with the idea of remediation in the sense of correcting something.

In the late 1950s, the site of the present-day Watergate Complex was a former post-industrial property along the Potomac. Washington Gas and Light had moved locations and sold the land to developers and in 1961 plans for the Watergate were made. The complex was designed to restore the area that harbored abandoned industrial debris with a new building that was described as a “a city within a city” (Lindsay, 2005). The buildings created a local identity in itself by providing many social functions in the structures such as shops, office spaces, and restaurants. It also responded to the history of the site, by having the name Watergate, as a tribute to the historic water gate that once marked the entrance to rock creek for boats navigating to the C+O canal in Georgetown.16 Both the Watergate and later Columbia Plaza in 1975 were planned with the goal of being “packaged living” (Gutheim, 1977, 325). In turn, both sparked controversy on the size and height and whether they became obstacles or connections to the waterfront from the monumental core that the National Capital Planning Commission so desired. The two projects remain today and are closely related in proximity. The shift of this area (Foggy Bottom) from an industrial center with slums located accordingly around it, to an innovative and productive use of valuable space close to the river, is successful in these two projects, even if they are not architecturally memorable.

Metro [planned 1957]

Beltway [complete 1967]

-Gallery Place -PA -Market Square -7th

EPA superfund project [established 1980]

[NATURAL or HISTORIC AMENITY] DESIGN ENGINEERING PLANNING

VALUING

DESTROYING

SANITATION

RESTORING

CREATING

SAFETY

WASHINGTON DC

[Figure 5] Third trend of the time line that corresponds to the explanations on this page

15. See, “The River Basin”, in Design With Nature. By, Ian McHarg. (1969). pp. 127-162.

16. Livingston, Mike. (2002, June 17). Watergate: The Name that Branded More than a Building. Business Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from <http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/sto ries/2002/06/17/focus11.html >

Barney Circle Landfill and Washington Gas (1997) After the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) officially established its Superfund initiative in 1983, a number of sites in DC were listed to be remediated. This term emerges now to describe what had previously existed, but in way that provided more regulation about the specific types of contamination. For example, Barney Circle was remediated from landfill waste, while Washington Gas was remediated from post-industrial contamination. Both are listed as completed EPA Superfund projects. Barney Circle was listed as complete in 1997, while the site of Washington Gas was not completely remediated, according to the EPA, until 2005.

Barney circle was closed as an active landfill in the 1930s and while it sat abandoned, the remaining trash leached bacteria into the groundwater and soil. The remediation process included capping the contaminated soil with good soil and vegetation. The site of Washington Gas is much larger, but also located along the Anacostia waterfront. Remediation in both cases was to protect the river from contamination in the process of restoring the site.17

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1900

2010

2000

HOW

epa superfund site planned renewal of mt. vernon plan never realized due to social riots

urban renewal Potomac River dredged

new government buildings built

“slum clearance”

pumping station and reservoir treatment for drinking water underground sand filter

new concepts for row houses and subdivisions

creek restored according to “open valley plan” as opposed to channeled in culvert

flats filled and sea wall constructed to hold material

over 9000 dwelling including historic structures bulldozed and redeveloped as “superblocks”

little design

debris removed from rock creek valley during parkway construction

new land made into park system

removed industrial safety hazzards from abandoned gas plant

bought land from C+O property

550 acres in SW cleared by federal government and developers

slums developed around industrial establishments removed area viewed as a public amenity

saved from highway zone

RESTORATION (improving existing to repair) treats 300 million gallons of waste water per day

removed phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients

existing filled wetland underground pumping and filtering of groundwater in treatment wells

epa superfund site

RENEWAL (changing to repair) part of park system along riverfront capped contaminated soil with parking lot, good soil, and vegetation

developed privately capping of landfill with good soil and vegetation

historic significance retained in name

“slum clearance”

WHY

INNOVATION (creating to repair) urbanization led to extensive deforestation inadequate water supply and erosion left grass from washington aqueduct flats that collected trash and sewage park designed on surface

by Frederick Law Olmsted sanitation, recreation and navigation

create a business center for federal workers

replaced use of recreation moved from unsanitary water from wells neighborhood streets for many residences where it was deemed unhealthy to public waterfront

renewal of “seedy area” that developed due to the tiber canal making the area undesirable

restore a neglected section of the creek

S

ES

1905 McMillan Reservoir Sand Filtration Site [completed]

[0]

redeveloped to take advantage of natural and historic value

need for rapid transit from growing suburbs

poor living conditions in city due to overcrowding

unsafe neighborhood of mt. vernon

“horizontal city”

repair social problems

need for post war housing reconnect rock creek park to the downtown and provide a place of escape from the crowded city

planned as a result of “hoovervilles during the great depression”

ES

1926-8

health hazard from area due to poor condition of established neighborhood

to change waterfront from industrial to commercial

area fallen to degraded conditions due to past industry “packaged living” of Columbia Plaza planned as new mixed use social center

updated to treat nutrients adverse to river water quality

S

1938

1945

great flood 1936

Federal Triangle [planned]

[2]

Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway [planned]

New Housing Projects Anacostia [built]

[3] Marshal Heights + Berry Farms

[1]

S

S

1953

1962

hurricane hazel 1954

New Housing Projects SouthWest [built]

S

urbanization led to the need for treatment facility to expand

first mixed use facility replaced with superblocks [6]

[5]

DC Redevelopment Act [passed 1945]

contamination from trash leaking into groundwater and into river

need to contain the contamination before redevelopment by separate party

E

E

1983

Foggy Bottom Blue Plains redevelopment Treatment Facility [planned] [expands to advanced treatment]

[8]

[7]

E

1997 Barney Circle Landfill [remediated]

2005 Washington Gas Site [remediated]

[ 10 ]

[9]

Downtown Revitalization

[4] Blue Plains Treatment Plant [opened 1938]

1902 McMillian Commission

adjacent to river and pollution occurred

to improve river health

landfill no longer used

1975

Watergate Complex [built]

oil barrels and ruble degraded to cause contamination of groundwater

to improve river health

to lift spirits during depression

S

1917 Potomac Park [completed] + Flats [reclaimed]

cars became popular

provide urban renewal for the area becoming a “public health menace”

efficiency, function, and economy valued

solution to unsafe working conditions

WHAT A

Blue Plains Treatment Facility (1983) In 1983, the Blue Plains Treatment Facility expanded to treat 300 million gallons of wastewater per day.

This was an improvement and an upgrade to “advanced treatment” (Hawkins, 2011). Advanced treatment is classified by, not only an increased volume of treatment flow, but also the removal of phosphorous and nitrogen in the process. These nutrients are harmful to the river water quality, and therefore the improvement of the Blue Plains Treatment Facility project marks the first project to be categorized as restoring a natural or historic amenity on the time line of projects maintaining health in Washington D.C. (Figure 6). The health that is being maintained, or restored in this case, is the health of the river with the removal of excess nutrients that pollute and eventually contribute to the killing of fish. Ultimately humans also benefited. By improving the facility to advanced treatment, “levels were greatly improved in order to restore the Potomac River to recreational and commercial use” (Hawkins, 2011).

Metro [planned 1957]

Beltway [complete 1967]

-Gallery Place -PA -Market Square -7th

EPA superfund project [established 1980]

[NATURAL or HISTORIC AMENITY] DESIGN ENGINEERING PLANNING

VALUING

DESTROYING

SANITATION

RESTORING

CREATING

SAFETY

WASHINGTON DC

[Figure 6] Fourth trend of the time line that corresponds to the explanations on this page

13 17. Mid-Atlantic Cleanup. Received, March, 11 2011. from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website.

On reflection, creating the time line helped to clarify some remediation ‘trends’ over time.

For an introduction to a thesis that seeks to remediate in a way that becomes culturally meaningful through the way it removes contaminants, the exercise illuminated that while over time environmental awareness has increased, the remediation projects have not grown to be more ambitious. Instead, recent projects have become smaller and more numerous, perhaps as a result of remediation becoming more systematized as a quick fix. The earlier projects on the time line are more of a larger scale and more ambitious projects (such as Potomac Park and Rock Creek Parkway) that sought to solve human health issues but also solved a fair amount of ecological issues as well. The projects also created large and iconic public amenities that have lasted through the years (Figure 7). If this is a fair assumption of the earlier projects, then one can appreciate more of James Corner’s fear that the technical ambition of remediation can mislead projects that may otherwise seek to become culturally significant. In the process of systematically identifying and fixing numerous pockets of contaminated sites, remediation has become synonymous with technical innovations. The value of remediation in a larger context gets lost. This is not to say that we should go back to the way things were, but perhaps understand that modern technical innovations combined with the realization that remediation as healing, is an iconic notion in itself. To express this in the land accordingly, can have value as a multi-layer treatment of multiple symptoms and bring remediation to a whole new level.

The recent projects (Barney Circle and Washington Gas) were ambitious and innovative in the way they removed contaminants that would impact the river, yet as only small parts of a larger initiative, they fail to be iconic as seeking to achieve cultural significance. They are decentralized parts to the remediation efforts of the whole Anacostia River. Although the term remediation is hardly associated with the earlier parks, I thought they had more of a centralized focus that gave more meaning to the landscape.

A comparison of projects also revealed that nearly all of them engaged a body of water. Looking at the first trend, Potomac Park, Rock Creek Parkway, Federal Triangle, and even the McMillan Reservoir were all acts for remedying the problems caused by the needs of a growing urban population in an area with swampy soils. The high water table of the city up against urban demands, makes an interesting overlap between ecological vs. (what I will call) social causes for remediation. Since the time of these early projects, the waterfronts of D.C. have constantly been in flux between the both of these causes for remediation. From being the location of slums in the Southeast to harboring new redevelopment projects along the Anacostia, the waterways are always somewhere between an urban amenity and liability. Today, however, the water bodies suffer mostly from contamination due to urbanization, which is the reason for the ecologically focused recent remediation projects previously discussed. Since the goal of this thesis is to explore what remediation can mean for the future, it is therefore beneficial to look beyond what has been done before, to the potential of the water bodies for holistic remediation.

14

[3]

[7]

[7] [6]

]

[ 2] [1]

[Figure 7] Enlargement of the map on opposite page. The numbers on the map relate to the numbers listed on the time line and show the location of the projects explained on the time line.

The shape of the sites are lined up on the left in order of size. The list moves from the largest sites located at the top to the smallest sites concluding at the bottom. The numbers correspond to the decade the site represents.

[1]

[3] [0]

[5] [3]

[4]

[7]

[6]

[ 2] [1]

[0]

[3] [5] [9]

[8] [ 10 ]

[6] [4]

[7] [9]

[8]

15 [ 10 ]

Considering the relationship between several former projects and water, together with observations about scale, three water bodies impacted by remediation were selected, each with a different scale to compare: The McMillan Reservoir (small), Rock Creek, and the Anacostia River (large). Of the three, Rock Creek became a primary site of interest. Rock Creek, which suffered in the past from neglect, pollution, and a perilous position in the midst of an urban area, was remediated through the building of Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. However, Rock Creek also suffers from a specific ailment currently that remains untreated. The overflow of sewage from Combined Sewer Outfalls (CSOs) plagues this creek. It is an ailment that is current and treating it would be more proactive than perhaps remediating the impact of obsolete infrastructure – as would be the case for the McMillan Reservoir. CSOs also line the Anacostia River, but the Creek, with a higher number of outfalls, has more concentrated pollution levels and therefore is a more focused and centralized site. The impact and specifics of the CSOs will be discussed more later. First, the history of Rock Creek and the intervention of the Parkway will be presented in depth. By extracting critical site specific details in this way, an intervention for this thesis will seek to respond to the site conditions in its efforts to remediate.

part 2 SITE SELECTION In addition to providing an introduction to the evolution of remediation in Washington D.C., the time line also provided a lens for site selection. In particular, narrowing the field of possible locations to those that were former sites of remediation –– in essence, going beyond what has been done previously. Regarding the trends that were found, I will also argue that thesis will consider a new trend for remediation. The goal will be to move from what can be considered the current trend restoring into what I will call re-creating. This is different from restoring in that it is not only solving the problems of the past as an intervention, but seeking to create something new through improving the situation. Yet, the improvement will be sensitive to what has been learned from the past in a way that creating may not have been.

16

[Figure 8] Enlargement of the map on opposite page showing potential sites researched before deciding on Rock Creek

[2] ROCK CREEK

WASHINGTON DC

[3] ANACOSTIA RIVER

[social remedia on with the addi on of the parkway]

[sanita on issue with drinking water]

[ecological remedia on with the clearing of rock creek]

[due to growing popula on]

[sanita on issue due to contamina on of water from past industry] [remedia on complete a er capping contamina on] SCALE [NTS]

[comtamina on con nues from other sources]

[remedia on needed of a different kind now] MCMILLIAN RESERVOIR [1]

17 SCALE [1”=500’]

The Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, “was constructed in the 1920s-30s to restore the polluted lower Rock Creek valley and to provide an attractive drive between Washington’s monumental core and Rock Creek Park” (National Park Service, 2011). According the National Park Service, the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway exists today for two reasons.

1. To connect Rock Creek Park and the National Zoological Park (National Zoo) to Potomac Park with a scenic road.

2. To prevent pollution and obstruction of Rock Creek.2 While all of the land around Rock Creek, including the northern portion, has battled against the impacts of urbanization in an area that became surrounded by the city, the lower portion of the creek has had more of a history of neglect and, in turn, the most potential for the thesis process.

[ Rock Creek History ] Rock Creek is pictured on the western edge of L’Enfant’s plan for Washington D.C. and delineates the limit of the original grid for the city (Figure 1). However, most of the Creek and surrounding wooded area remained well beyond the young city limits and served as a rural retreat long before it was declared part of a federal park in 1890 by Congress.1 As one of the first official parks in the city, Rock Creek was seen almost as a necessity. The Senate directed a resolution to obtain a large portion of the land surrounding the creek as a park, “which shall combine convenience of access, healthfulness, good water, and capability of adornment” (Mackintosh, 1985). The 1,754 acres of Rock Creek Park was and is limited to the northern portion of the creek above where the National Zoo had already established in 1889. The southern portion of the creek, from the National Zoo to the mouth of the Potomac is another story. Most people may not realize that it was developed as part of a separate park.

18

PARK ZONES

[ North to South ]

Rock Creek Park National Zoo Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway

PARK ZONES

PARK ZONES PARK ZONES [North [to South] North to South ]

[ North to South ]

Rock Creek Park National Zoo Creek and Potomac Parkway

Creek Park Rock Rock Creek Park NationalZoo Zoo National Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway

[Figure 9] Enlargement of the map on opposite page showing the different parks located along Rock Creek and the number of outfalls located in each park.

1. Spilsbury, Gail. (2003). Rock Creek Park. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, p.2.

2. Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Beach Drive and Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway from P Street to Calvert Street: Environmental Assessment and Assessment of Effect (2007). Washington, D.C. National Park Service. p.3

PARK ZONES [North to South] PARK ZONES [ North to South ] ROCK CREEK PARK ROCK CREEK PARK NATIONAL ZOO NATIONAL ZOO CREEK AND POTOMAC ROCK CREEKROCK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY PARKWAY

9 CSOs 0 CSOs 18 CSOs

9 CSOs 0 CSOs 18 CSOs

PARK ZONES

[ North to South ]

Rock Creek Park National Zoo Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

rock creek watershed combined sewer system combined sewer shed water

27 927 9 13 13

ROCK CREEK WATERSHED

COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [wasa watershed zones]

COMBINED SEWER SHED

WATER

[context] MAP [context] MAP

ROCK CREEK [Combined Sewer Outfalls] POTOMAC [Combined Sewer Outfalls] ANACOSTIA [Combined Sewer Outfalls]

ROCK CREEK [ Combined Sewer Outfalls ] POTOMAC [ Combined Sewer Outfalls ]

ANACOSTIA [ Combined Sewer Outfalls ]

combined sewer sub-shed combined sewer system water COMBINED SEWER SUB-WATER SHEDS

COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM

WATER

[outfall] MAP

[outfall] MAP

19

THE LOWER PORTION The lower portion of Rock Creek was surrounded by urban conditions as early as 1873.

Georgetown grew to the immediate west of the site while the monumental core and L’Enfant’s grid developed to the east. Unlike the northern portion, the southern section of Rock Creek was not valued as a rural retreat and therefore omitted when the Zoo and Rock Creek Park were established.

Later, in 1917 when Potomac Park was created, the lower portion of Rock Creek was regarded as a physical barrier and ugly obstacle between so many different valued spaces. It was left in a position of peril. As the National Park Service states of the conditions of the creek before the Parkway was built, The histories of urban streams frequently conclude with their tunneling and conversion to underground sewers, hidden from public view beneath city streets. Such was the fate of Washington’s Tiber Creek, initially transformed in its lower reaches as part of the Washington City Canal, then buried beneath B Street Northwest (today’s Constitution Avenue) after the Civil War. By the late 1880s the lower portion of Rock Creek seemed destined for similar treatment. It carried odoriferous sewage from adjoining industrial development. Its valley had become an unsightly dumping ground and was perceived as a barrier to convenient access between Georgetown and Washington. “Arching” the creek and filling in the valley over it would cover the sewage and refuse, eliminate the need for bridges, and create valuable new land for building” (Mackintosh, 1985).

The debate continued between the open-valley plan for the creek vs. the closed-valley plan from the 1880s all the way until the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway commission gained rights to the land in 1930. The open-valley plan was finally adopted, “on grounds of economy, convenience, and beauty” (Mackintosh, 1985). Yet, by 1930, much work was needed to make the land suitable for a parkway. Not only were the banks covered with trash and debris as a result of its location in the modern metropolis, but the creek itself was littered with remnants of past use.

THE MOUTH Before much of the urbanization, the mouth of Rock Creek was broad and used as a harbor for ships docking close to Georgetown. It was navigable as far as P Street in the 1700s. However, when the construction of bridges and roads began along the creek to increase access and trade, severe erosion started to constrict the flow of the water. Upstream farming also contributed to the sand and silt that collected at the lower portion of the creek.3 Despite efforts to protect the creek as early as 1792, the creek slowly narrowed.4 It ceased being used for boats for a short time before the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company (C&0 Canal Company) opened the mouth again in the 1830s.

Then, the banks where armored to become an industrial basin for chartering boats from the Canal in Georgetown to the Potomac through Rock Creek. 1871 was the peak year for the use of the Canal.5 In the years to come, rail lines became more popular and took most of the trade from the Canal Company.

20

[Figure 10] Enlargement of the map on opposite page showing the current road map overlaid with the oldest map I could find. The lower portion of the creek is manipulated by the close proximity of the urban grid very early on.

3. Boshong, William. (1990). Rock Creek Park District of Columbia: A Historic Resource Study. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. p.34.

4. In 1792 Maryland legislature passed a law forbidding the erection of weirs in the stream within two miles of the Potomac.

5. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historic Park. Retrieved June, 1, 2011 from Washington, D.C. A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary, National Park Service website,<http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc6.htm>

1793 MAP OVERLAID WITH CURRENT ROAD MAP

1793 MAP OVERLAYED WITH CURRENT ROAD MAP

SITE FOCUS SITE FOCUS OUTFALL CONCENTRATION AND CHANGE OVER TIME

2011 2011

P STREET

P STREET

M STREET

M STREET

2011 2011

1793 1793

21

After the Potomac flooded for the third time during the reign of the Canal Company in May of 1924, the tidal lock and rectilinear basin were left in ruins. The C&O Canal Company maintained their rights to the creek even with no intention of rebuilding and put up a fight with the Parkway Commission that began making plans for the land as part of the parkway as early as 1867.6 Once the Parkway Commission finally gained rights to the land and creek in 1930, the property was far from being the entrance to the naturalistic pleasure drive that Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. desired. As a member of the Parkway Commission, he wrote in 1925, “This land, held by the Canal Company and occupied in part by plants for handling gravel and sand, lies directly across the view to the Potomac and the Virginia shore just at the point where anyone driving southward in the parkway would otherwise have that view burst upon him on crossing K Street. I understand that the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Commission found it impossible to deal with the Canal Company for this land on any reasonable basis....

In order to provide an unobstructed park foreground to the river view at the point where all the southbound users of the parkway will first become aware of that view and eager to enjoy it. Whether north bound or south bound, users of the parkway will make the transition in this locality from the open broad river bank scenery to the self-contained sylvan scenery of the creek valley or vice versa, and considering the strength and persistency of first impressions this is probably the worst place on the whole line to permit ugly commercial structures and uses to intrude conspicuously on the scenery of the parkway” (Mackintosh, 1985).

THE PARKWAY Extensive excavating and re-grading went along with the construction of the parkway south of P Street. Most of the vegetation was overgrown and had to be cleared out. The creek was even dramatically re-routed to have a gentler curve between P and N street and decrease the risk of flooding 22nd street. The space between the old curve of the creek and new flow of the creek remains open today as a strange park/meadow. The disconnected segment of land is used as unprogrammed space for sunbathers and anyone living in the densely populated area. It is affectionately known today as P street beach.

In order to create the Parkway as a picturesque pleasure drive that the turn of the century plans called for, a completely man-made lower valley had to be created and an artificial curvilinear shape was given to the mouth of the creek.7This was done over half a decade after the original plans however, and even before the Parkway was completed it became almost obsolete in its original intentions. In the 1940s and 1950s the population had increased and the automobile grew very popular. The parkway became a major artery in the city for commuters. In the time between the original plans and the completion of the design, the culture of the city had changed. The transition becomes apparent in the development of the plans.

22

[Figure 11] Drawing that focuses on the Parkway land showing extracted lines from current road compared to 1793 Map.

6. The parkway was not authorized by Congress until 1913. Mackintosh, Berry. (1985). Rock Creek Park: An Administrative History. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from History Division, National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. < http://www.nps.gov/rocr/historyculture/adhit.htm > 7. Davis, Timothy. HABS Historian. (1991-1992). Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway: History and Discription.

Washington, D.C. Historic American Building Survey, National Park Service, Dept. of Interior, pp.7-8.

ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY LAND ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY LAND

1793 CREEK 1793 CREEK ROUTE

2011 2011 MAP MAP

1793 MAP OVERLAYED WITH 1793 MAP OVERLAID WITH CURRENT ROAD MAP CURRENT ROAD MAP

CURRENT CREEK ROUTE CURRENT CREEK

1793 1793 MAP MAP

PPSTREET STREET

DUPONT CIRCLE DUPONT CIRCLE

MM STREET STREET ORIGINAL SHORELINE WASHINGTON CIRCLE WASHINGTON CIRCLE

FILL AREA OFMOST MOST CHANGE AREA OF CREEK CHANGE

1793SHORELINE HISTORIC SHORELINE ORIGINAL

[comparison] MAP 100 0

200

[comparison] MAP 2

23

One crystallizing example was the transformation of the bridal paths to bike lanes for commuters before construction even started. Horses were never allowed on the Parkway.

Since the lower portion of the Parkway was the last to be completed, the integrity of the Parkway as a retreat had already begun to be compromised. I believe that the efforts in the lower portion were halfhearted at best. The creek was not part of the picturesque view as intended, but tried to imitate the upper portion in a very unconvincing way. South of P street has such a different history and a different feel that it should not have been treated the same at all. The curve of the creek near the mouth seems forced in such an established urban environment and is not even part of the view from the Parkway. Instead, the pedestrians who would be viewing this area are submerged in the city and not in the comfort of their car.

In the modern era, Rock Creek south of the Zoo faced challenges that the design of the Parkway could not and did not solve. Despite Olmsted’s wishes, most of the development impaired any continuity of the space as a linear park. It also failed as a transition between Georgetown and the Monumental Core, both of which were getting modern updates (The Watergate, Kennedy Center etc.), while the Parkway aimed for traditional appeal. One exception to this was the National Capital Water Sports Center, or Thompson Boat Center. The modern building was completed in 1960 at the very end of the creek and remains in use today.8 Over time, buildings and urban developments have blocked most of the views of the Potomac from drivers as Olmsted feared. The mouth of the creek entering the Potomac is described as “anticlimactic “by the Historic American Buildings Survey historian, Timothy Davis. “The junction of Rock Creek and Potomac River – a potentially dramatic design feature – is obscured by a clump of bushes and small trees that conceal a nondescript public boathouse” (Davis, 1992, p. 14). Another significant addition was the Swedish Embassy. The controversial building that overhangs the creek was built in 2006.

It seems that this part of the creek could embrace the contemporary urbanity of its setting.

A remediation effort here could take on an interesting role as re-creating cultural significance in a place it has been attempted, but not necessarily made successful.

THE PARKWAY TODAY Most of the land around the creek south of the Zoo is still part of the Parkway today. “The parkway – the term encompassing the strip of park land, not just the road extending along it – continues southeast along the Potomac from the creek to West Potomac Park at the Lincoln Memorial” (Mackintosh, 1985). The 2.5 miles of road line the Creek and is surrounded by thick vegetation from the Zoo south to around P street. South of P street, that was most modified during construction, has a different feel. The vegetation is smaller, and the creek becomes almost invisible south of M street as the road turns away from creek. Exit ramps and large buildings mark a transition into the downtown, but dispute what could be considered urban appeal in this area, accessibility to the creek remains a problem.

24

[Figure 12] Illustration showing the change in the shore line of creek starting with the earliest map and moving to more recent. Major changes are due to the presents of the canal.

8. Mackintosh, Berry. (1985). Rock Creek Park: An Administrative History. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from History Division, National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. < http://www.nps.gov/rocr/historyculture/adhit.htm >

M STREET STREET M

STREET PP STREET

ROCK ROCKCREEK CREEK AND POTOMAC AND POTOMAC PARKWAY PARKWAY

1792 1792

1857 1857

1864 1864

1887 1887

1908 1908

1933 1933

1917 1917

FIRST PARKWAY PLAN FIRST PARKWAY PLAN

[historic] MAP

[ historic ] MAPS

25

A mixture of public parks line the Parkway and contain a range of programed spaces. Rose Park for example is on the outskirts of Georgetown and adjacent to the Parkway. Unfortunately it is separated by a steep hill ranging from approximately 15 to 40 feet high. There are a number of footpaths on the east bank of the creek that allow for people to access to the water, but reaching these foot paths remains treacherous and seemingly unauthorized.

The winding footpaths along the steep eastern bank allow for anyone to be secretly tucked away in the wooded area. This character contributes to the landscape as collecting marginal social uses. Drug users and homeless populations thrive here, and the P street beach is known as a hangout for homosexuals. These uses are not the cause, but the result of the creek access being restricted. The cause for limited access to the water is no surprise, since the creek water is polluted, making accessibility not only somewhat unmanageable but often dangerous.

THE CREEK Today, the only tributaries of Rock Creek that remain open are “broad branch” and “piney branch”. The other numerous tributaries that feed into Rock Creek are channelized in culverts or part of the combined sewer system.9 The lower portion of the creek, which was the first part of the creek to be urbanized, used the tributaries to Rock Creek as underground sewer lines that ran constantly into Rock Creek. This was the case until a more extensive sewer system was installed between the years of 1871 and 1874. The system was designed to channel sewage and stormwater miles down river primarily to reduce the foul conditions of low laying areas collecting sewage close to the city center. The combined sewer system, meaning a network of pipes that drained both stormwater and sewage, did not actually treat the water or remove contaminants until 1938.10 Prior to that time, however, new pipes were built which operated as a “separate system”. This means that there was a realization that the combined system was not only polluting and causing the rivers to smell, but also flooding became an issue when stormwater exceeded the capacity of the pipes. A “separate system”, on the other hand, used separate pipes to convey stormwater away to water bodies. This left a more constant level of sewage to be channeled to where it was eventually treated at Blue Pains by the Water and Sewer Authority (WASA). Today, however, one-third of the District of Columbia still operates on an outdated Combined Sewer System (CSS).

1 2011

1933

1933

1908

[Figure 13] An overlay of the shorelines illustrated in Figure 12.

26

9. Boshong, William. (1990). Rock Creek Park District of Columbia: A Historic Resource Study. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. p.34.

10. The Blue Plains Treatment Plant opened in 1938 where most of the sewage was already being pumped – being the southernmost point in the District of Columbia. Hawkins, George. S. (2011). History of Sewer System.

Retrieved June, 9, 2011, from District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority website.

P STREET

P STREET

ROAD PARKWAYPARKWAY ROAD

PARKWAY LAND PARKWAY LAND

M STREET

M STREET

PARKWAY DIVERTS PARKWAY DIVERTS FROM CREEK

FROM CREEK WASHINGTON WASHINGTON CIRCLE CIRCLE

2011 2011

1933

1933

1908 1908 1864 1864 1792 1792

[ historic ] MAPS 2 100 SCALE 200 100 00 [1.200] 200

[historic] MAP 2

27

[ Contamination of Rock ] Contamination is the inevitable precursor to remediation. What follows is a discussion of the contaminants of Rock Creek and their possible nexus to both micro-site selection and intervention scenarios.

LIGHT RAIN

H E AV Y R A I N

outfall [Figure 14] Synthesis of the overflow conditions along rock creek. An overflow occurs when the pipe shown as a cross section is over capacity. (This drawing was created from an actual DC Water and Sewer Authority site survey.)

28

S E WA G E [from

buliding]

LIGHT RAIN [street section]

A good summery of the problem with this system is described by the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority; “One-third of the District of Columbia is served by a combined sewer system (CSS), which was developed before 1900. A combined sewer system conveys both sanitary sewage and stormwater in one piping system. In dry weather, the system delivers wastewater to the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant (which removes contaminants before water enters the Potomac). During periods of significant rainfall, the capacity of a combined sewer may be exceeded. When this occurs, regulators are designed to let the excess flow, which is a mixture of stormwater and sanitary wastes, to be discharged directly into the Anacostia River, Rock Creek, the Potomac River, or tributary waters. This excess flow is called Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). Release of this excess flow is necessary to prevent flooding in homes, basements, businesses, and streets. There are 53 permitted CSO outfalls in the District” (Hawkins, 2011).

PIPE SECTION [ water to be treated at DCwasa]

[details]

drain inlet

S E WA G E [from outfall

H E AV Y R A I N [ s t re e t s e c t i o n ]

building]

These combined sewer overflow outfalls are visible along Rock Creek and become active during heavy rains.

Looking at a map of the location of these outfalls as the source for raw sewage entering receiving waters in D.C., Rock Creek has the highest concentration of Combined Sewer Outfalls over any other waterway in the city (Figure 9). Of the 29 outfalls located along Rock Creek, 19 are located along the creek adjacent to the Parkway. Of these 19, 10 are located south of M street in the lower portion of the creek, which was the first part to be “urbanized”. This area, that sparked my interest as being neglected in the history of human occupation at Rock Creek, is now realized to be an area that has suffered also from significant ecological neglect. The contamination from combined sewer outfalls is a problem that continues today and effects both humans and ecosystems with unhealthy conditions.

O U T FA L L [ i n to R o c k C re e k ]

[rain event] DETAILS 29 [ rain event ] DETAILS

The Environmental Protection Agency requires a Class A standard in water quality for “primary contact recreation” (Gordon, 2004, p.2). This would include activities such as swimming and water skiing. To meet the Class A standard, no more than 200 fecal coliforms in 100 mL of water can be present past 30 days after an overflow. The number of days a year that Rock Creek has over 200 fecal coliforms in 100 mL of water is 294.

The combined sewer outfalls are a direct source for the contamination of Rock Creek. Further examination and evaluation of health risks is critical to inform the direction of remediation efforts. A student studying the contamination of the waters of D.C. for a thesis in Environmental Science tested the waters in 2003. Compared to the Anacostia River and the Potomac, “Rock Creek had the smallest flow rate, and the poorest potential for dilution [of containments]. This was reflected in the very high percentage of samples that violated water quality standards for . . . fecal coliforms. The station impacted by fecal loading the most appeared to be FR07, the furthest site downstream. The impact by fecal coliforms decreased at each successive station upstream” (Porter, 2003, p.90). This valuable information gained by testing the waters for fecal contamination proves that the lower portion of the creek is the most polluted segment. It makes sense that the majority of contamination would be there after the flow has passed all of the CSO contamination points to reach the mouth. The water from Rock Creek therefore becomes a point source for pollution to the Potomac and beyond to the Chesapeake Bay – the largest estuary in the United States.13 HUMAN HEALTH RISKS A 2002 study by DC WASA documented the specific contaminants that enter D.C. waterways during an overflow event. Of the numerous pollutants, those that had the highest levels in Rock Creek specifically were ammonia, nitrate, nitrogen, phosphorus, and Fecal Coliform. Fecal coliform are bacteria found in the intestines of warm-blooded animals, including humans. While many types of fecal coliform are not particularly dangerous, they are clear indicators of water polluted by human feces. “Waters polluted with human feces are generally regarded as a greater risk to human health as they would be more likely to contain human specific pathogens” (Porter, 2003, p.1). E.coli is a type of Fecal coliform that can be harmful to humans. People exposed to E.coli can experience fever, diarrhea, chest pain, abdominal cramps, and even hepatitis. Other pathogens of fecal origin that are health threats include Salmonella, Shigella, and Psuedomonas aeruginosa.11 High levels of E.coli and other fecal coliforms are found in Rock Creek most of the time (Figure 13).

[Figure 15] Historic map showing some of the first sewer lines to be built in this part of the city.

Note how many end along Rock Creek where outfalls likely exist today.

30

11. Bruhn, Laura and Lois Wolfson. (2007). Citizens Monitoring Bacteria: A Training Manual for Monitoring E. coli. Lyn Crighton et. All (Ed.), Retrieved June 15, 2011 from USA water quality website, < http://www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer/Ecoli/June2008Manual/Final_ecoli_06c1.pdf >

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH RISKS While the harm that contamination can cause for humans is serious, the effects of pollution may be more detrimental to aquatic populations that cannot avoid contact. Other than fecal coliform, the contaminants that are prevalent in Rock Creek are ammonia, nitrate, nitrogen, and phosphorus. These contaminants are often referred to as access nutrients in the water. While water bodies do need some of these nutrients to thrive, high amounts of nutrients, especially Nitrogen and Phosphorus, are harmful. The change in the natural balance promotes invasive algae blooms to grow and rapidly multiply.

The extra algae can cloud the water, especially water with a low flow rate such as Rock Creek. The murky conditions of the water can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the native plants causing a decrease in photosynthesis and oxygen levels of the water. Fish and other species that rely on oxygen in the water can parish.14 “Pollution has adversely affected the ability of Rock Creek and its tributaries to support aquatic life. In 1993 it was determined that 58% of the tributaries of Rock Creek were classified as severely impaired for habitat quality and biological water quality using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biological assessment standards, and that the remaining 42% of the creek’s tributaries were moderately impaired” (Reconstruction, 2007,p.33).

While species such as salamander and frogs can be found in wetland areas, most of the habitat below P Street is maintained by mowing. The fish are the species that are affected most by pollution in this area. Around 35 species of fish have been documented in Rock Creek. Some examples include shiners (Notropis spp.), bullheads (Ictalurus spp.), and three species of sunfish (Lepomis spp.). Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) are also fairly common in the creek.

Other appearances of fish such as carp (Cyprinus carpio), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) also occur in the creek.15 Unfortunately, the stormwater runoff and urban pollution problems, “have adversely affected fish number and diversity in the [creek]” (Reconstruction 2007, p.37).

On a side note, the vegetation along the Parkway is unique in the way it reflects the physiographic provinces that are different on either side of the creek. “Rock Creek runs along the topographic break separating the Piedmont Plateau and the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces” (Reconstruction, 2007, p. 35).

Since the goal is to remove contaminants that are harmful to humans and ecosystems, the removal and excess nutrients as well as E.coli is essential. This requires controlling the overflow from combined sewers.

12. Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Beach Drive and Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway from P Street to Calvert Street: Environmental Assessment and Assessment of Effect (2007) Washington, D.C. National Park Service. p.32 13. Estuaries are partially enclosed bodies of water located between the ocean and the rivers and support a variety of important habitats. See, About the Bay. Retrieved June 10,2011 from the Chesapeake Bay Program website, < http://www.chesapeakebay.net/aboutbay.aspx?menuitem=13953 > 14. Water:Nutrients (2011). Retreived June 15, 2011 from Environmental Protection Agency website, < http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/basic.cfm >

31

CSO No.

This set of drawings shows a comprehensive examination of the drainage areas that connect to each individual outfall. Each outfall has a number and a drainage area associated with it. The outfalls are listed in three columns on the first drawing in order of each column title. The dashed boxes around the numbers at the top indicate the outfalls called out on the second map.

The third map shows the density of the city in relation to the drainage areas and the oufalls.

Through this analysis of specific outfall information, I was able to find where I might make an intervention. Because my research of the history of the site led me to focus on the lower portion of the creek, I questioned the outfalls in this area more intently. Outfall # 33 got my attention due to the relatively high frequency of overflows. Also, the average volume in each overflow is high leaving the site in need of remediation. However the drainage area shows up as small so a great eďŹ&#x20AC;ect could be had with the least amount of interference.

32

OVERFLOWS (avg. per year)

CSO No.

VOLUME (mg)

CSO No.

DRAINAGE AREA (acres)

36

29

49

39.73

49

2,433.20

49

25

33

4.48

35

546.69

57

15

57

2.33

52

108.50

31

9

36

1.64

57

84.50

33

6

47

.25

43

70.31

37

3

31

.22

36

69.76

47

3

43

.15

39

54.25

48

2

48

.08

50

36.41

45

2

37

.05

42

36.22

46

2

40

.03

41

27.17

40

1

45

.03

48

26.06

43

1

46

.01

40

24.52

32

0

32

0

47

18.16

34

0

34

0

46

17.38

35

0

35

0

45

17.17

38

0

38

0

44

7.07

39

0

39

0

37

16.61

41

0

41

0

33

13.08

42

0

42

0

51

11.87

44

0

44

0

32

10.38

50

0

50

0

38

9.54

51

0

51

0

31

1.11

52

0

52

0

53

5.50

53

0

53

0

58

5.24

54

0

54

0

34

1

56

0

56

0

56

0

58

0

58

0

54

0

[CSO watershed] MAP enlargement area [cso watershed ] MAP

49

49

48

48

47

47

46

46

45

45

44

44

43

43

42

42

41

41

40

40

39

39

58 57

58 57 38

38

56

56

[ combined with 53 ]

[ combined with 53 ]

37

37

54

54

[ combined with 53 ]

[ combined with 53 ]

36

36

53

53 35 34

35 34

52

52 33

33

51

SCALE [1.650]

0

32

32

31

31

AREA

50 VOLUME

OVERFLOWS

50

51

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION ( 2000 census )

25,001-100,000

[CSO watershed] MAP 2 [cso watershed ] MAP

SCALE [1.650]

0

650

10,001 -25,000 1,001-10,000

650

[CSO watershed] MAP [cso watershed] MAP 3 3

33

Apart from looking at the numbers associated with each outfall and overflow data, I visited each site personally. This drawing shows sections sketched on site that cut through individual outfalls. The outfalls are called out on the plan to show the location along the creek. This page shows outfall #33 as the one that first drew my attention.

34

33

P STREET

35

34

M STREET

52

33

32 51

100 SCALE [1.200]

0

200 [ outfall [outf all]] PHOTOS PHOTOS 32

35

This section of outfall #33 shows as accurately as possible the exact location of the pipe connected to the drainage area. The spot elevations were extracted from the D.C. water drawings overlaid in the background. This drawing was meant to illustrate the existing conditions along the pipe connected to the outfall. The diverse terrain and contrasting spaces sparked ideas for enhancing the unique character of the site.

36

SCALE [1.20]

nts

[ outfall #33 ] SECTION [outf all #33] SECTION

37

The next category looks at remediation tactics found in practice. These may or may not be discussed in the Long Term Control Plan. This section was informed by a review of mostly engineering texts that contain information that could be helpful in the field of landscape architecture.

The remainder of the Literature Review identified and investigated remediation in the theory of landscape architecture. For this I turned to James Corner, Beth Meyer, and Bernard Lassus. While the goal for remediation to become culturally significant led to re-remediate Rock Creek, and the goal to improve health for both people and ecosystems led to the investigation of the remediation of CSOs- The final goal for this thesis is for remediation, as an often slow and seemingly technical means to an end, to become recognizable as a beautiful healing process. This goal that will drive the thesis forward and leads to the following questions, 1.Why is it important to make the healing process recognizable?

2.How does remediation become beautiful?

These questions with be discussed within the theory of landscape architecture to help inform decisions about an intervention of remediation.

part 3 LITERATURE REVIEW More of an understanding about the specific ailments to humans and to ecosystem health due to the issue of combined sewers led to a literature review of historic and contemporary precedents. At this stage it was helpful to organize the various articles into three categories. One category is the most site-specific and included a review Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) for D.C. The LTCP by the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority was analyzed for recommendations for both the prevention and treatment of CSOs. Although the document did not make a clear distinction, I found it helpful to think about remediation as both the treatment and the prevention of overflows. Both include methods to remedy an obsolete system. The discussion of these tactics and the role of the landscape architect in this specific case of remediation follow after a review of the larger problem with stormwater management. This was necessary to understand the extent of recommendations of the Long Term Control Plan.

38

[Figure 16] Photograph taken of a rain garden and sign in front of the EPA Headquarters Building explaining the benefits of rain gardens for stormwater management.

Stormwater Management and CSOs Urban development impacts the natural drainage pattern of a watershed by introducing impervious surfaces. Runoff is created almost instantly in these areas from rainwater hitting roadways, sidewalks, and rooftops. “Historically, the primary concern in dealing with stormwater was to remove it as quickly as possible from a development to maximize convenience and protection. Traditionally this was accomplished by conveying runoff by storm sewers, swales, gutters, and channels to the nearest water body, usually a stream or river. Little consideration was given to potential off-site impacts and this practice has had a cumulative effect on environmental and water quality” (Strom and Nathan, 1998, pp. 133-4). Storm drains and storm sewers are necessary to prevent flooding and erosion, but leads to other problems. According to Thompson and Sorvig, “With increased runoff comes a dramatic increase in water pollution. [The] loss of infiltration due to development is one of the single most serious barriers to sustainability” (Thompson and Sorvig, 2008, p.155).

In urbanized areas, contaminants such as oil and grease from cars tend to build up on surfaces. Stormwater runoff picks up these contaminants and transfers them to streams or groundwater. Degradation of water quality can result in a decline in plant and animal diversity in a sensitive water body ecosystem. It may also affect drinking water supplies and recreational uses of water such as swimming. Pollution prevention can be put into practice by individuals, municipalities, and businesses to reduce contamination of stormwater, but unfortunately, the effects of urbanization cannot be mitigated through prevention alone.1 The aging of stormwater infrastructure is a serious issue contributing to pollution. Corroding and crumbling walls of a system first built centuries ago, and outdated construction practices, such as the inadequate separation of sewer and storm sewer pipes is a leading factor for water body contamination.2 It becomes a major challenge to update infrastructure designed and built prior to modern sanitary engineering practices especially if the area is densly populated.3 During periods of heavy rainfall or snow-melt, the wastewater volume in a combined sewer system can exceed the capacity of the sewer system or treatment plant. For this reason, combined sewer systems are designed to overflow occasionally and discharge excess wastewater directly into nearby streams, rivers, or other water bodies. “These overflows, called combined sewer overflows (CSOs), contain not only stormwater but also untreated human and industrial waste, toxic materials, and debris. They are a major water pollution concern for the approximately 772 cities in the U.S. that have combined sewer systems” (EPA,1999).

1. Ministry of the Environment (2003). Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual 2003. Prepared by Aquafor Beech Ltd. and Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd. pp.2-3.

2.. McGuire, Gordon et. All. (2010). Reinventing Rainwater Managemant: A Strategy to Protect Health and Restore Nature in the Capital Region.Holly Pattison (Ed.), Environmental Law Clinic: University of Victoria. pp.66-68.

3. Combined Sewer Overflows. (2009). Retrieved June, 10, 201 from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website, < http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5 >

39

[ Review of Recommendations ] The District of Columbia operates on about a 38 percent combined system. Fifty-three combined sewer outfalls are listed in the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.4 The city is required by the US Environmental Protection Agency to develop Long Term Control Plans (LTCP) for stormwater management including a solution of the CSOs. The plan for D.C. was completed in 2002.

As part of the federally-mandated $2.2 billion plan, construction of approximately 12 miles of large underground tunnels is specified for much of the prevention of the combined sewer overflows. Another method outlined in the LTCP calls for separating the stormwater pipes from the sewer pipes in selected locations. This is an expensive but effective solution. Perhaps the most cost efficient tactics are described as “source controls”. Source controls include methods to help decrease the amount of stormwater entering the pipes. Although most of these plans have yet to be realized in D.C., most have been used extensively in other cities for overflow mitigation.

40

[Figure 17] Enlargement of map on right to show the outfalls along Rock Creek as part of the LTCP

4. Greeley and Hansen LLC. (2002). Combined Sewer System Long Term Control Plan. District of Columbia: Combined Water and Sewer Authority (WASA).

41

RETENTION CSO retention methods, as they are called, include underground storage facilities, inreceiving water storage tunnels, retention basins, and expensive holding tanks.5 Sometimes called end-of-pipe controls, they work by intercepting the pipes carrying combined sewage to capture and store most of the excess flow that would otherwise be allowed to overflow into receiving waters. Stored flows are subsequently returned to the sewer system during dry weather periods and when capacity is available at the wastewater treatment facility.6 Retention basins and storage facilities can also be designed to treat some contaminants.

The Swirl Facility, for example, is a retention and treatment facility located in Southeast D.C. that separates out solids while water was being stored. The Swirl Facility was part of the first phase of the Control Plan and provides treatment and disinfection for up to 400 millions of gallons per day (mgd) of combined sewer overflow.7 Storage tunnels will replace the need for the Swirl Facility and it is scheduled to be abandoned and demolished by 2012.8 While retention methods do work to control flows and prevent pollution to water-ways, they also take massive construction efforts, money, and specific engineering skills to make sure they can handle the expected amount of flow.

Also, maintenance takes time and money to keep the facilities up to date. This may not even prevent the facilities from becoming obsolete, such as the case of the Swirl Facility. Of the 29 outfalls along Rock Creek, four are planned to be intercepted with one storage tunnel costing 43 million dollars.

42

SEPARATION Surprisingly, compared to storing CSOs, separation may have fewer benefits. Separation involves the construction of a new system in which stormwater and sewage run in different pipes. Like the storage facilities, construction can be very expensive, but separation impacts a larger area of disturbance during construction than does a storage facility. This is because the separation has to include the entire drainage area and not just the end of the pipe where a storage facility would be built. Although separating the pipes would eliminate the outfall of sewage entirely, stormwater from densely populated areas would still be allowed to run untreated into receiving waters. Stormwater, as the cause for some pollution, does not get the benefit of being treated as it does in the combined system or after being stored in a facility. According to the LTCP, a complete separation for one-third of the District would have, “numerous drawbacks” and water quality could be improved more with other methods.9 Separation is the chosen method only for select outfalls with smaller drainage areas. Specifically, Rock Creek is the targeted water body for this proposal on no more than four outfalls.

[Figure 19] Chart from DC Water showing the levels of days per year where fecal coliforms exceed over the Class A standard amount for water quality.

5. Combined Sewer Overflows. (2009). Retrieved June, 10, 201 from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency website,< http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5> 6.Combined Sewer Overflow Fact Sheet: EPA 832-F-99-042. (1999) Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.

7.Greeley and Hansen LLC. (2002). Combined Sewer System Long Term Control Plan. District of Columbia: Combined Water and Sewer Authority (WASA).

8.Clerk, U.S. District Court. (2005). Anacostic Watershed Society v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

9.Greeley and Hansen LLC. (2002). Combined Sewer System Long Term Control Plan. District of Columbia: Combined Water and Sewer Authority (WASA). p.12

SOURCE CONTROLS

RECOMMENDED TACTICS FOR CSO TREATMENT IN D.C.

Source controls are discussed as a much different approach to mitigation of CSOs. Instead of looking for solutions that temporarily control the flow after it has already made its journey through an obsolete system, the focus is put on trying to treat the problem at the source.

Within the profession of landscape architecture, there is a general consensus that source controls are the best practice for reaching the long term sustainable goals for controlling stormwater.

These stormwater management practices are discussed in the LTCP as equally effective against CSOs. Source controls are designed to control runoff as close as possible to where it lands. The further runoff travels, the faster it moves and more water collects. Speed and volume give water erosive and sediment carrying force that also allows for pollution to gather in or out of pipes. “Thus, controlling water quality and run off damage is most easily and economically achieved if stormwater management starts at the point that water contacts the earth” (Thompson and Sorvig, 2008, p.156). Most source controls can be classified either as storage controls or infiltration controls. Storage controls are designed to temporarily store stormwater runoff and release it at a controlled rate. This is different than storage facilities previously discussed that are designed for the end of the pipe. Here, stormwater alone is stored and much easier treat since it has not yet entered the combined system and mixed with sewage.

Infiltration controls promote infiltration into the ground near the source in order to maintain a natural hydrologic cycle. Rain gardens, sand filters, vegetated filter strips, grassed swales, reduced lot grading, rear yard surface ponding, rear yard soak-away pits, and infiltration trenches are all types of infiltration controls that can be used to help prevent flooding downstream during a rain event. Runoff is slowed and therefore does not arrive at the stream all at once, preventing a combined sewer outfall to overflow. Source controls, together with conveyance controls, and end-of-pipe controls such as engineered wetlands, make up some of what is called; green infrastructure.10 Stormwater management plans for D.C. include initiatives for source controls in the near future.

In New York City, the 2008 Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan included initiatives such as the planting of a million trees, zoning amendments to require street trees and green parking lots, a green roof tax abatement, new regulations and standards for development, and funding for source controls.

The funding for inventive source controls was approved by the Mayor of New York City as, “funds that would otherwise go to building expensive storage tunnels and other conventional infrastructure” (Bloomberg, 2008, p.1). Washington D.C. may not far behind New York in creating funding for source controls. In the meantime, however, the city is still waiting for engineered end-of-pipe treatments that could contribute to more obsolete infrastructure.

The Long Term Control Plan for DC provides a detailed assessment of the best ways to prevent and treat CSOs overflows. Of the prevention and mitigation tactics discussed in the previous section, retention and separation are the two that are favored. They may be the most effective at quickly managing the problem, but are much more expensive and intensive than the implementation of source controls.

Some of the treatment tactics favored in the LTCP are screening, chemical treatment, side stream aeration. These treatment tactics are not as thoroughly outlined as the prevention tactics since prevention is always the best solution for fighting an ailment. However, since remediation relies on pre-existing contamination, the recommended treatments need to be examined.

SCREENING Screening is a borderline prevention tactic since it involves the separation of solids from liquids before CSO volume enters receiving waters. The screens or nets are placed at the mouth of the outfalls to collect “floatables”. One limitation is that the outfalls have to be in a accessible location for trucks to come in and remove the debris. Screens are also not very ascetically pleasing.

CHEMICAL Treatment with chemicals can be done in storage facilities but involves a specific design that contains different chambers and pumps to move water. Various chemicals are added to the water to coagulate the sewage into a sludge that is them moved to a separate chamber to settle at the bottom. Clean water moves through while the waste is left and collected. This complex process takes place in enclosed storage basins usually below ground, and beyond public view.

SIDE STREAM AERATION Side Stream Aeration, on the other hand, takes place above ground. Since one side effect of CSO pollution is the decreased oxygen content of the water due to excess nutrients, aeration works to improve the dissolved oxygen content of the water by adding air. This is done with a series of treatment pools that allows water to drop down between each pool level. A series of waterfalls treat the water to the side of the stream before it is diverted back into main channel.

10.Ministry of the Environment (2003). Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual 2003. Prepared by Aquafor Beech Ltd. and Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd.

43

[ Remediation in Practice ] In an eďŹ&#x20AC;ort to arrive at a solution to combined sewer contamination, the District of Columbia considered many options in the LTCP and researched alternatives found in other cities. While their eďŹ&#x20AC;orts were useful to my own investigation, in the end I found it necessary to examine other sources given that my objective varies from what the EPA requires. For example, engineered wetlands, while still described in the LTCP, were not recommended due to the amount of space needed for a wetland to be eďŹ&#x20AC;ective in treating large volumes of contaminated water. The following section outlines common forms of remediation used in landscape architecture today, such as engineered wetlands and tactics for biodegradation and phytoremediation) that are closer to a notion of remediation as an expression of health. [Figure 20] Sketch and interpretation of traditional remediation strategies involving physical

removal of contamination rather than treatment on site.

44

BIODEGRADATION Biodegradation is the process of using microorganisms to render toxins harmless. As described in Remediation Technologies, “The physical removal of toxic pollutants is usually a temporary solution and chemical treatments traditionally employed have the potential to further contaminate the environment. These methods often 'relocate' the contaminants instead of eliminating them” (Bhandari, 2007, p.199200). Biodegradation, on the other hand, entirely eliminates containments through complete metabolism breakdown.

These microorganisms include bacteria, algae, yeast, and fungi.

Application of the process requires specific hardware that penetrates the soil if the contaminants can be collected there.

In the case of Rock Creek, overflow would need to be dispersed into the soil before it reaches the stream for this method to be effective. While biodegradation is effective for soil contamination, phytoremediation is more common and more effective at larger scales.11 PHYTOREMEDIATION “The term phytoremediation is derived from the Greek prefix “phyto” meaning plant and the Latin suffix “remedium” meaning to cure.” (Bhandari, 2007, p.290). The method includes the use of plants to break down contaminants using the passive treatment of plant induced biological, chemical, and physical processes. Different plants have different toxin absorbing capabilities not to mention growing habits. Finding the right plants for the microclimates as well as for the remediation task is critical to the success. Research has developed over the past two decades and the practice is preferred since it is primarily solar powered and relatively low maintenance.

In the case of CSOs, plants can work to absorb excess nutrients if the flow is diverted into soils before entering receiving water. In some plants the roots and rhizomes work to break down contaminants while in others the plant need toxins to transpire the through the leaves to eliminated.12 Some wetland plants can also remediate. Wetlands are poorly

drained areas of often shallow water that can occur naturally but also can be constructed. Plant can either root in marshy soil under shallow water or remain completely submerged with roots surrounded by water.

Either situation of wetland plants can allow for some breakdown of containments to occur. The processes of wetland plants absorbing excess nutrients from water without diverting into the soil allows for exciting possibilities. However, this method for phytoremediation takes place after the CSO has reached the receiving water and is best used in addition to other methods.

In Manufactured Sites, phytoremediation is discussed in the context of landscape architecture. “Beyond remediation is the opportunity to combine phytoremediation with site design and planning” (Kirkwood, 2001, p. 36). This section of the book describes that one way to successfully combine the treatment capabilities of the plants with a design is to increase species diversity. It may be more common to see monocultures of phytoremediation plants, but it is more beneficial to have a diverse amount to improve the health of the plant species and the health of the contaminated environment. Another benefit to increased diversity is an increased habitat for different kinds of insects.

Other helpful information from this text includes the explanation of the phytoremediation process as long term. “Phytoremediation is a long-term remedial technology at most sites, with treatment times on the order of several years. In addition, the technology can be implemented only where the contaminants are present at depths within about twenty feet of the land surface and for contaminants that are located less than a few feet below the water table” (Kirkwood, 2001, p. 44).

11. Bhandari, Alok et. All. (2007). Remediation Technologies for Soils and Groundwater. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineering. pp.199-280 12. Bhandari, Alok et. All. (2007). Remediation Technologies for Soils and Groundwater. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineering. pp.290-302

45

[ Remediation in Theory ] The following section seeks to measure ‘practices’ of remediation against ‘theories’ of remediation. The examples chosen are related to remediation in practice as written about by theorists, or they were chosen as exploration of the goal to make the remediation recognizable as a process of healing.

[Figure 21] Sketch of ideas for moving water through a treatment system

46

ELIZABETH MEYER In Seized by Sublime Sentiments, Elizabeth Meyer writes about one on the first efforts of a park attempting remediation. Her reaction to Gas Works Park is to the experience of the park and is surprisingly in favor of the ineffectiveness of the remediation efforts to completely control the contamination.

In her critique, Meyer argues that the buildings are less consequential than the contaminated soil that was minimally remediated at the time. In time, tar has oozed from the depths of the ground, and pockets of toxins have mixed with the seeping groundwater. To Meyer, the periodic surfacing of this hidden filth creates a pleasing atmosphere of unpredictability and fearful uncertainty. The revealing of hidden contamination makes the site, “terra incognita; that which is visible is challenged by the invisible. The aesthetic of the surface yields to the dynamic of flux and inundation” (Meyer, 1998, P. 7). The effect of the random surfacing of contamination often causes the temporary closure of the park or to re-directing of public use.

What may be considered consequences of site contamination actually provide a dynamic connection between the conditions of the site and its social role that otherwise perfectly contained contamination would not. The surfacing of the contamination becomes a subtle reminder to anyone experiencing the site of .the detrimental impact that the past industry had.

The exploration of a desired experience that engages visitors raises another article by Beth Meyer entitled, “Sustaining beauty: The performance of appearance”. This article led me to re-evaluate the role of the “sustainable parks” that were introduced at the beginning of this paper.1 While sustainability is an admirable goal, Meyer expands on this idea of sustainability to include not only technical methods but also aesthetics, particularly beauty. Beauty, she describes, is part of the all-encompassing experience of a place. It is not just a visual reaction, but can be felt, heard, and smelled. It is not trivial or superficial but preforms in its own right beyond that of a technical method for sustainability. “Sustainable landscape design must do more than function or perform ecologically; it must perform socially and culturally” (Meyer, 2008, p.16). In creating a beautiful landscape, the experience will therefore be beautiful and in this way has the power to become a meaningful landscape. Methods used to achieve beauty became important for me to explore.

BERNARD LASSUS Looking at the writings of Bernard Lassus, he makes a distinction between landscape as a view and landscape as “concrete space”.

He explains that experiencing the change from the visible landscape to the tactile landscape as the “difference between visual appearance and tactile discovery of the concrete that results in a 'going toward',” (Swaffield, 2002, p. 65). This introduces the idea that the change between what we see and what we experience is created by what propels us to discovery. He also explains how the tactile experience depends on what is revealed to us visibly. That is to say, if we are interested in what we see, then we are propelled to move forward and discover it. Visibility is very important in creating a meaningful experiential design.

Lassus describes the movement in the landscape reveals process. “The term 'process' itself designates the ensemble of the interactive moments of the place” (Swaffield, 2002, p.71). The process is created experientially, moving from one moment to the next.

This “ensemble of associated structures” can create simultaneously different moments that are engaged through movement and create a change of perception between what is visible and what is tactile.

Process in the landscape, is therefore perceived by the temporal dimension of discovery, experienced by movement and found in the moments within.

While Lassus describes “process” as being experiential and essentially moving from one moment to the next, I wonder about his description of “process” in terms of remediation. Since one goal for the thesis is to recognize remediation as a process of healing, it seems that one way would be to make the healing of Rock Creek perceivable as an assemblage of, “interactive moments”. From Lassus's description I find relevant to think how remediation can not only be visible as healing, but also tactile to create these interactive moments. To make remediation tactile seems easy enough since accessibility is already an issue at Rock Creek that needs to be solved and bringing people through the site will allow for closeness to remediation. Making remediation visible seems more concerning.

For actual healing to be visible, either the time it takes to remove the contaminates had to be dramatically shortened to be perceivable as a process, or specific moments in the extended time it takes to remediate needs to occur separately, and simultaneously. These isolated moments of the healing process will not only achieve visible remediation but also can allow for people to move through and engage in.

JAMES CORNER While from Lassus and Meyer I gained perspective on the importance of the experience of what could be the healing process, James Corner argues for a more subtle and less perhaps superficial approach.

“The emphasis here shifts from object appearances to process of formation, dynamics of occupancy, and the poetics of becoming. While these processes may be imagined, they are not necessarily susceptible to picturing. As with reading a book or listening to music, the shaping of images occurs mentally.

Thus, if the role of the landscape architect is less to picture or represent these activities than it is to facilitate, instigate, and diversify their effects in time, then the development of more performative forms of imaging (as devising, enabling, unfolding techniques) is fundamental to the task” (Cor ner, 1999 p.158).

Corner is arguing that it is not the role of the landscape architect to represent process in the concept of the design but more to allow for it to take place after. He describes what he means by process as the natural processes that take place in the landscape without the help of the landscape architect. The “poetics of becoming” in design may or may not include the perceivable process in the experience of a design. Instead it is more important to him to explore changes over time in a drawing or diagram rather than on a site itself.

In thinking about my conclusion from the writings of Lassus, I see that Corner may not think it necessary to make the healing process literally perceivably, through the concept of a staged simultaneous occurrence perhaps, but more important to make the remediation process every effective and combine it with programed use. The remediation efforts may not affect the forms on the site, but it will be perceived over time as the place changes and heals and becomes a part of the lives of the people using it.

An interesting question is posed to me in light of these readings. Is there a way to combine the experience of site with the “becoming” of remediation? I would not want to impose an experience as Lassus implies, but I would not want the program of a site to impose either without a specific relationship to the remediation efforts. Although the theorists seem at odds, I think a combination of an experience that Lassus and Meyer value can be combined with a true remediation effort that would evolve slowly over time. Whether remediation be a beautiful intervention, a simultaneous occurrence, or at the slow and steady pace favored by James Corner, it can truly be the grounding for a meaningful design.

47

part 4 CASE STUDIES The following two projects were chosen as good examples of landscape designs that incorporated cleaning water from sewer contamination. Since sewer contamination is an issue often dealt with by engineers and city planners, there are not too many landscape architecture projects to look at. The two case studies selected were both built out of concern for many of the same issues.

Remarkable however, they were constructed more than a century apart. By comparing these two projects in particular, the diďŹ&#x20AC;erent approaches can be assessed as new or old techniques, while the similarities between the projects can be identified as having survived the test of time as healing an incredibly persistent problem.

[Figure 22] Aerial view of the Back Bay Fens in Boston, MA.

48

Boston developed on marshy land that was similar to the land on which D.C. developed if not more swampy. Extensive filling took place in the oldest part of the city while the Back Bay remained a swamp on the outskirts of town. The Back Bay's history is surprisingly similar to that of the lower portion of Rock Creek. Both areas were seen as marginal landscapes and became a refuge for social acuities that were not allowed in the city. The Back Bay was home for the homeless, illegally used as hunting grounds for agriculture by the poor. Later, when Boston began to grow, the Back Bay was used as a dumping ground for debris like the lower area of Rock Creek. While the Back Bay is much larger in area, both areas collected sewage that ran untreated from the pipes of the early urban sewer system.

The Marshes of the Back Bay were much more equipped for treating the sewage than the area around Rock Creek however. Vast acres of wetland plants worked hard against the sewage that accumulated there, but soon the Back Bay was overwhelmed with waste and the pressures of urbanization. The native plants of the wetland dwindled and with the location so close to the city center, more filling took place to contain the smell and threat of the waste water from flooding. The filled area around the Back Bay became part of new elite developments that replaced the slums that had established. The new population combined with the poor condition of the Back Bay as the wild landscape that it once had been, created a need to turn the land into a park.

Outfall into Back Bay during he

Stony Brook Cond

Outfall into Back Bay during heavy rain- wetland plants c

Flood control of

Stony Brook Conduit to combined sewer outfall

Outfall into Back Bay during heavy rain- wetland plants could treat more

Flood control of Charles River with plants

[ The Back Bay Fens ]

TREATMENT AREA TREATMENT AREA

TREATMENT AREA

[Figure 23] Diagram showing some of the strategies present in the Back Bay Design

[Opposite Page] Overlay of Frederick Law Olmsted’s Plan with the current outline of the Fens including the pipes connected to the Bay

Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. designed what he named The Back Bay Fens to elevate the area as part of a Parkway. The Back Bay Fens, or “the Fens” for short, was built from the 1880s to the 1890s.

What makes the Fens an important case study is- that unlike the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway built by Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in D.C., the Fens was designed first and foremost as a landscape for treating sewage. The Fens was the first documented “constructed wetland” landscape design. Native and exotic species were planted extensively not as much to restore the appearance past wetlands, although the “wild” landscape style was admired at the time, but the plantings were more for flood control and for the removal of wastes. Although little to no knowledge of the exact science of phytoremediation was used to support Olmsted's design, there was an understanding about how the landscape had functioned effectively in the past as a wetland. This precedent and Olmsted's enthusiasm for a new and novel landscape, was enough to approve the plans for the Fens as a landscape system.

For the first time, the ecology of the site was a large part of the consideration. However, it was a landscape system in other ways. The plans for the Parkway and constructed tidal marsh also called for foot paths to allow for pedestrians and allotted space for the development of the city's first street car line.

The Parkway, foot paths, and street car line, created social layers within the land that could have easily been taken over by flood control and sewage infrastructure. The Fens combined a social framework with a landscape that worked to remove waste and provide flood control.

49

14

50

13. For more information on the Back Bay Fens, visit, Evolutionary Infrastructure by Kathy Pool.

Retrieved from <http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/backbay/fenssite/html/docs/marginal.html >

Charles River

TREATMENT AREA TREATMENT AREA

Stony Brook Conduit to combined sewer outfall

Outfall into Back Bay during heavy rain- wetland plants could treat more

Flood control of Charles River with plants connection of Back Bay to the emerald necklace

However, dispute the remarkable accomplishments of this landscape, the Fens only functioned as designed for 15 years. In 1910, the Charles River Dam was built, “diminishing the importance of the Fens for flood control” (Spirn, 1994, p.109). This change in the hydrology of the wetlands also caused almost all of the plants planted by Olmsted to die. Yet, Instead of replanting the wetlands and maintaining the wetlands to still treat the sewage that remained present in the water, what was left of the Fens changed to become a more traditional park. Programed spaces such as ball fields sprung up in the areas that were clearly outside of the character of such an innovative landscape system.

I believe the extent of the Fens may not have been fully appreciated in its time. Since the effect of the constructed wetlands seemed very wild- allowing for creatures to inhabit the unmanicured park, the Park may not have been valued as a sophisticated designed space. Olmsted perhaps, was too far ahead of his time to truly articulate the significance of the project. As a result, the Back Bay Fens still suffers as Rock Creek from the pollution from a combined sewer system. Even more regrettable is the fact that since 1980, the restoration efforts of the Back Bay Fens have not included any efforts to treat sewage as the original design did. The restoration is for only the appearance of the Olmsted landscape and seems to diminish the significance still today since the water could still greatly benefit. Considering not only the past Fens as a case study, but also the state of the Fens today, sheds more light on the contamination situation as a extremely negligent. In the Back Bay Fens, not only does contamination still exist, but a plan exists for a solution in the exact same location.

A reliance on traditional infrastructures has been detrimental to the Fens landscape, and I can't help but make a connection between this ill-fated landscape and the design of Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, a much less ambitious project.

The Rock Creek Parkway was designed after the Fens had failed. Although the Rock Creek Parkway did aim to protect the creek from pollution as well as become have a social impact on people driving and experiencing the city, its shortcomings may have the Fens to blame. The Fens seemed to be successful when the goal for the project was first and foremost about removing waste and flood control. The social layers worked in accordingly. This seems to be different than how the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway was designed, where protecting the creek was clearly an afterthought. The muddled concept could have easily contributed to the confusing curve of the creak at the lower portion as well as the timid approach to have any set programed space for the purpose of treating the water. Perhaps what could be learned most from the Fens was to not make the landscape more naturalistic, but more perceivably man-made. This would make it harder to forget to treat the water with respect and allow people to notice the efforts being made.

Fredrick Law Olmsted Sr. designed what he named The Back Bay Fens to elevate the area as part of a Parkway. The Back Bay Fens, or “the Fens” for short, was built from the 1880s to the 1890s. What makes it an important case study is- that unlike the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway built by Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr. in D.C., the Fens was designed first and foremost as a landscape for treating sewage. The Fens was the first documented “constructed wetland” landscape design.

Native and exotic species were planted extensively for flood control and for the removal of wastes. Although little to no knowledge of the exact science of phytoremediation was used to support Olmsted's design, there was an understanding about how the landscape had functioned effectively in the past as a wetland. This precedent and Olmsted's enthusiasm for a new and novel landscape, was enough to approve the plans for the Fens as a landscape system. For the first time, the ecology of the site was a large part of the consideration.

However, dispute the remarkable accomplishments of this landscape, the Fens only functioned as designed for 15 years. In 1910, the Charles River Dam was built, “diminishing the importance of the Fens for flood control” (Spirn, 1994, p.109). This change in the hydrology of the wetlands also caused almost all of the plants planted by Olmsted to die. Yet, instead of replanting and maintaining the wetlands to still treat the sewage that remaines present in the water, what was left of the Fens changed to become a more traditional park.

Programed spaces such as ball fields sprung up in the areas that were clearly outside of the character of such an innovative landscape system.

The Back Bay MA] CASE STUDY TheFens[boston Back Bay Fens [ boston MA ] CASE STUDY

treatment of canal water with wetland plants

remediated stormwater is released stormwater levels treated with plants along terraces

filtration swales adjacent to roadways

cso pipe intercepted to run into park

remediation of soil from past industry

[ Sponge Park ]

PREVENTION AREA PREVENTION AREA

TREATMENT AREA TREATMENT AREA

Designed in 2007, the Park is planned to be built in 2011 The Gowanus Canal was once a wetland creek and like Rock Creek, has remained an open waterway in the midst of a growing metropolis.

Gowanus Canal is much more polluted however, with city blocks pressing in on all sides, toxic soils, and abandoned debris left along the banks from past energy companies. The numerous combined sewer outfalls that line the canal overflow with as little as .01 inches of rain. The poor state of the Canal caused a call for action.

Other than plans for traditional infrastructure improvements, non-profit organizations looked for more ways to clean and restore the integrity of the Gowanus Canal. This is how Sponge Park was planned and designed by Dland Studio- a Brooklyn based landscape architecture firm. The idea for Sponge Park is to use wetland plants to absorb stormwater run-off that would otherwise enter the combined sewer system causing an overflow of wastewater to enter the canal. This approach is different from traditional source control approach because the wetland plants are located along the canal edge, activating the end of the pipe and also branching out to filter as much run-off as possible near the source. The design also features wetland plants to treat the water along a few of the branches of the canal.

The contemporary project, trademarked as “Sponge Park”, was designed in 2007 and is planned to be completed this year. Located on the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, New York, the landscape seeks to control some to the pollution that plagues the Gowanus Canal. The Canal was once a wetland creek and like Rock Creek, has remained an open waterway in the midst of a growing metropolis. Gowanus Canal is much more polluted however, with city blocks pressing in on all sides, toxic soils, and abandoned debris left along the banks from past energy companies. The numerous combined sewer outfalls that line the canal overflow with as little as .01 inches of rain. The poor state of the Canal caused a call for action.

Other than EPA mandated plans for traditional infrastructure improvements, non-profit organizations looked for more ways to clean and restore the integrity of the Gowanus Canal. This is how Sponge Park was planned and designed by Dland Studio- a Brooklyn based landscape architecture firm. The idea for Sponge Park is to use wetland plants to absorb stormwater run-off that would otherwise enter the combined sewer system causing an overflow of wastewater to enter the canal. This approach is different from traditional source control approach because the wetland plants are located along the canal edge, activating the end of the pipe and also branching out to filter as much run-off as possible near the source. It is also different than a traditional bio-swale or infiltration trench for example, because it is a network of spaces designed for the purpose of stormwater management as well as for people to enjoy. A series of boardwalks will allow people to walk along the water's edge in an area that is currently inaccessible.14 Again I am forced to make a distinction between remediation as treatment and remediation as prevention. Since the problem with CSOs is on-going it requires attention to both aspect of healing. While the wetlands plants used by Olmsted were treating the sewage that had already entered the water, the wetlands at Sponge Park will treat the pollutants in stormwater, and relieve the system from more pressure to overflowtherefore more about prevention. However, plants will also be selected to treat contaminants from the soil that harbors toxins other than those caused by CSOs, so the distinction gets muddled again. In this way, the use of wetlands plantings is similar to the way Olmsted incorporated his plantings because they are multi-functional. However, Sponge Park does not seek to be a wilderness and the contemporary forms of the boardwalk combined with unique materials, will assure that the landscape is recognized as designed.

Also the introduction of wetland plants in a place that Is strictly asphalt and impervious surface now, will be more of a transition than I am assuming was the case for the Fens. Hopefully, with an advanced understanding of plant capabilities, and more of a clear notion of how important pervious surfaces are for watershed health, Sponge Park will be a success in a way that the Fens was not.

With the clearly defined canal edge marking the boundary between water and land, I wonder about the effectiveness of healing of the water specifically, since all the efforts are on the land. Where is the balance, I wonder, between the Fens -that was an extensive wetland that erased any edge between water and land and treated the waste everywhere- and Sponge Park- that keeps the clearly defined canal edge, celebrating the fact that it is man-made, but as a result not allowing wetland plants to treat the already polluted water. Sponge Park has the advantage of activating the site near the water, but I think the act healing is more true to the design of the Fens.

51 Sponge[brooklyn Park [ brooklyn NY ] CASE STUDYSTUDY Sponge Park NY] CASE

14. Drake, Susannah C. and Yong K. Kim. (2009). Sponge Park, New York City: A flexible stormwater management project in Brooklyn seeks to clean up a waterway and imporve public access. Topos. Vol. 68, pp.23-28.

[ Case Study Synthesis ] PL

A

[Figure 24] Enlargement of Drawing on opposite page

52

] rease

TION

] gas + oil + grease

[

BSORBTION

N

The two precedents led me to create this drawing. The top half of the drawing title prevention shows how rain water collects contaminants and how water volumes can be treated to prevent overflows and the spread of contamination. This is similar to what happens as Sponge Park. The lower half of the drawing shows how contamination that resides in a water body can be treated with vegetation along the shore or waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge. This ideas comes from the plan for the Fens park that recreated natural wetland conditions. The other idea that is shown in the lower half of the drawing is on that is explored in the plan for this thesis. The idea is to take water from a pipe containing combined stormwater and sewage, and treat it in a separate location, rather than letting it flow into a water body.

RE

ME DIA

TION

option 1 [ F R O M P I P E ]

[ S T O R M WAT E R M A N A G E M E N T ]

[ filtration swale

] [ infiltration

]

PH Y

[

T

0-2” ponding

] [

CCOONNTTAAMMI N I NAATTI O I ONN cso outrall

automobiles

]

urban areas sediments nutrients

[

]

oil + gas + greese hydrocarbons heavy metals

[

]

[ relative threat

canal edge

]

[

[

]

PCBs + heavy metals

PCBs + heavy metals

ABSORBTION

ABSORBTION

gas + oil + grease

cso outrall

[

ABSORBTION

C O N TA M I N AT I O N

A

natural edge [ wetland ]

]

PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyl]

heavy metals

stormwater run-off

O

TREATMENT past industry specific to sponge park

[

PREVENTION

constructed treatment wetland

pipe interception

nutrients

ES

fecal coliform phosphorous

rain event

ESS

FROM PIPE

OC

DIVERT

PR

]

T

sewage

N

[

PL

C CL EL EA ANNI NI NG G SPONGE SPO ONG NGE G PA PARK RK RK

0-12” ponding

]

BACK BAY FENS option 2 [ F R O M R E C E I V I N G W A T E R ]

53

]

part 5 DESIGN STRATEGY The following are drawings that were produced in order to clarify the existing conditions of the site. The first two drawings show problems and opportunities of the land adjacent to the creek.

These maps were helpful to make after being conscience of the commination factors aďŹ&#x20AC;ecting the site. Also, being aware of neighborhood dynamics and other social factors, made is easy to look at the site, and give hierarchy to the spaces. I selected the areas of interest due to proximity to outfalls, or for the unique character of the context.

[Figure 25] Overlay of the Problems and Opportunities map at the outfall #33 location. The watershed of Outfall #33 is shaded all four site analysis drawings

54

problem on which to concentrate

stormwater stormwater

sewage

100

sewage

0

poor accessibility to creek (due to slope or barriers) accessibility problem to creek (due to slope or barriers)

100 0

200

SCALE [1.200]

200

place opportunity place opportunity

100

0

200

place opportunity transitional space opportunity

[ problems ] MAP

[problems] MAP

100 0

200 SCALE [1.200]

55 [ opportunites ] MAP

[opportunities] MAP

[ Site Analysis ] A somewhat traditional zoning map delineates the land use in the area. The next map on the opposite page shows an overlay of the historic sewer lines as well as the current flood plain. The importance of this map is that it shows what largely influences my site, but is not visible. Although the sewer lines are historic, the majority still exist today and remain connected to the outfalls.

Together these two maps two very diďŹ&#x20AC;erent sides of the context. The zoning map helps to interpret social uses, while the base map, helps to locate areas that may require remediation.

[Figure 26] Overlay of the Zoning and Base map at the outfall #33 location.

56

P STREET

+56

+60

+0 54 +54

8 +58

+60

+62 +

West End [neighborhood]

23 th STREET nw

+52

25 th STREET nw

+56

+52 52 +62

M STREET

+56 +60 +76

+46

+62 +20 +42 +70

+52 +0

+60

+8

+64

+44

+32

WASHINGTON CIRCLE

K STREET +16

+2

+34

+12

+12 +46

+22

+14 +18 +16 +18 +28

park public commercial institutional residential high density residential SCALE [1.200] 100 0 200 mixed use

+46

+18

PARK

+34 +10

PUBLIC

COMMERCIAL

100 year flood plain 1890 historic map sewer lines

INSTITUTIONAL

100 year Ĺ&#x2021;ood plain

1890 historic map sewer lines

RESIDENTIAL

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE

[zoning] MAP

[ zoning ] MAP

100 0

200 SCALE [1.200]

57

[base][ base MAP ] MAP

[ Analysis Synthesis ] Through the study of the site analysis drawings, and with careful consideration of the overflow numbers listed and organized on the drawings from page 32 and 33, I was able to create the following collage of information. The sections are accurate and cut along the site at critical locations, such as where oufalls are present. To my surprise, only Outfall #33 and Outfall #31 frequently overflow in this portion of the site. Since this is the case, there opportunity to prevent the overflow from oufall #33 that overflows with a high volume. At Oufall #31 there is an opportunity to treat the overflow that flows into the pipe and divert the flow of the combined sewage from the creek. This is explain more in the next section.

The bar graph at the bottom of the page shows corresponds to the section numbers and shows approximate information along that section that was taken from the analysis drawings. In this graph, the change in the conditions of the creek can be seen moving from South to North. While the open space increase as the sections move North, the high density buildings decrease. The historic value comes from the areas previously indicated the changed frequently over time. The diďŹ&#x20AC;erences between the North and South parts of the creek led to my design strategy.

58

[Figure 27] Three areas of interest, including the two outfalls and the mouth of the creek that is a prim location to continually treat the contamination in the creek as it flows into the Potomac.

25

ENTEROCOCCI

[cubic feet per second]

Enterococci Counts/ 100mL

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

over 35 counts /100 mL [ 100% ]

22 23 24

FLOW RATE

TIDE

WINTER

20 19

2:55 AM 2.3 8:41 AM 0.1 3:06 PM 2.6 9:59 PM 0.2

High 4:29 AM 3.2 Low 11:11 AM 0.5 High 4:51 PM 3.1 Low 11:29 PM 0.4

10

SUMMER

11

12

13

14

SPRING

15

16

17

18

High Low High Low

12:38 AM 7:27 AM 1:00 PM 7:26 PM

3.3 0.4 3.1 0.3

8

FALL

7 6

FECAL BACTERIA CONTRIBUTION [ DRY SEASON ] JAN-MARCH

J

23.7

F

39.5 39 5

M

80.1 80 1

A

144.7 M 147.8 147 8

J

29.5 29 5

J

56.6

A

31 3 31.3

S

78 7 78.7

O

82.0

N

183 4 183.4

D

22 % HUMAN

9

14 % HUMAN

High Low High Low

53.9 53 9

percipitation for enterocolli sample year [ 2003 ]

feet

21

1 day [time]

High 3:04 AM Low 9:57 AM High 3:42 PM Low 10:13 PM

3.0 0.3 2.8 0.3

FECAL BACTERIA CONTRIBUTION [ WET SEASON ] JAN-MARCH

4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 [in] AVERAGE ANNUAL RAIN

3

.7 inches to overflow

2

OUTFALL 33

1

.3 inches to overflow

100 0

200

OUTFALL 31

SCALE [1.200]

open space low density buildings high density buildings

59 historic variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RK W AY

P STREET

ROC

KC

REE

KA

ND

POT OM AC PA

N STREET

M STREET

part 6 SITE DESIGN

NW

NE

SW

SE

RO

CK

CR

EEK

K STREET

NW WASHINGTON DC POTOMAC RIVER

60

[existing] CONDITIONS

100 0

200

38 54’ 25.91 N 77 03’ 09.66 W

K

N STREET RK W AY

.51 acres

POT OM AC PA

[high to low]

RETENTION TIME 3 hrs 2 YEAR STORM 35,230 cubic ft [max per hr]

SITE [ 2 ]

1.7 acres

KC

45,000 [ponding ]

ROC

2,300 [ infiltration/hr ]

PREVENTION

SITE [ 2 ]

PEAK FLOW RATE 441 cubic feet /min

STORMWATER

ND

SITE [ 1 ]

6,232 [ponding ] 2,583 [ infiltration/hr ]

REE

KA

2 YEAR STORM 7945 cubic ft [max per hr] PEAK FLOW RATE 13.25 cubic ft /min

SITE [ 1 ]

M STREET

[ relatvie contaminent concentration]

CREE

[ treatment vs. prevention]

ROCK

[ water volumn/ change over time]

[size]

P STREET

RETENTION TIME 15 hrs

24,000 cubic feet [average per overflow] FLOW RATE 450 cubic feet /min 26,000 [ponding ]

.16 acres

TREATMENT [FROM PIPE]

K STREET

SITE [ 3]

0 [ infiltration] 3 cubic feet/min [ flow rate to wetlands] RETENTION TIME 6 days

EE

K]

24,000 cubic feet [average per overflow]

OM

CR

PEAK FLOW RATE 441 cubic feet /min

T[

FR

68,292 [ponding ]

1.2 acres

SITE [ 4 ]

1.8 cubic feet/min [ flow rate from wetlands] RETENTION TIME 10 days

TR

EA TM

EN

SITE [ 4 ]

0 [ infiltration]

SEWAGE AND STORMWATER

SITE [ 3 ]

PEAK FLOW RATE 10,000 cubic feet /min

200

0 [ponding ]

POTOMAC RIVER

aprox. 13,000 [ filtration/hr ]

SITE [ 5 ]

2.6 acres

RETENTION TIME 0

NW WASHINGTON DC CREEK WATER

100 0

38 54’ 25.91 N 77 03’ 09.66 WSITE [ 5 ]

[proposed] CONDITIONS

61

Reference to page 59

62

AREA

VOLUME

6 4.48 13 [AVERAGE [MILLION [ACRES] PER YEAR] GAL PER OVERFLOW]

OVERFLOWS

[ Stormwater Calculations ]

PREVENTION

OUTFALL 33 [DRAINAGE AREA]

Reference to page 33

STORMWATER VOLUMES [cubic feet] max per hr 2 [year] 10 [year] 17 [year] 100 [year] 4,725

7,371

7,938

12,474

3,220

5,020

5,410

8,500

13,930

21,740

23,415

36,790

20,200

31,512

33,936

53,330

8 1100

1,700

1,850

2,900

TOTAL VOLUMES [cubic feet] 17 yyear strom 1,850 41,475

40,000

30,261

21,480

TOTAL

Page 61 shows the master plan of the creek and an illustration of the design strategy as laid out in the previous section. The 5 diďŹ&#x20AC;erent sites are specific to a range of treatment and prevention tactics outlined in the page 61 chart. Site 1 and 2 focus on the prevention of overflow by diverting stormwater that would enter the pipe and contribute to overflows at outfall #33. Site 3 and site 4 work together to treat the water that would overflow from outfall # 31. Site 5 works to treat water flowing in the creek at all times.

This page shows where the prevention strategy starts. The given outline of the drainage area to outfall #33 is shown in more detail here. A break down of water volume amounts helped to sharpen an understanding of site conditions according to the direction of run-oďŹ&#x20AC;. The watershed is divided into 4 areas (shown as shaded area in the plan on this page), due to the 4 drain inlets along the road that receive water currently. These 4 locations are where water enters the pipe that may cause and overflow at oufall #33. To prevent the overflow, the strategy became clear. The two shaded sub-drainage areas on the right must divert the water volume from the inlet, to the site 1 location, while the 3 shaded subdrainage areas to the left must divert the volume of water to the site 2 location.

35

0

70

outfall #33 [SUB- DRAINAGE AREAS]

63

[ Site 1 ] INFILTRATION

2 YEAR STORM 7945 cubic ft [max per hr] PEAK FLOW RATE 13.25 cubic ft /min 6,232 [ponding ] 2,583 [ infiltration/hr ] RETENTION TIME 3 hrs

Reference to page 61

64

.51 acres

CIRCULATION

VEGETATION

65

WATER

Site 1 divert stormwater from two existing drain inlets on the opposite street. The water passes under the road through a grate covered channel. It then enters a series of infiltration ponds that holds the water until it reaches a certain amount. It is then designed to overflow over a number of weirs in a path illustrated in the following drawings.

The site design works through stormwater management as well as it works to actives a currently vacant space positioned in the midst of a highly active area. The neighboring middle school and public sport courts, provide an opportunity for this space to be used for gathering, or passing through. The circles represent platforms placed in a playful pattern to allow for circulation through the site, and over the weirs. The infiltration area is available for viewing from these platforms and even when the weather is dry, the plants that stimulate the infiltration of stormwater, provide a gardenlike experience.

BASKETBALL BASKETBALL COURT COURT

BRIDGE

TENNIS C INFILTRATION AREA

WEIR

[ Site 1 ]

EXISTING TREE REMOVAL

PLATFORM

INFILTRATION AREA

WEIR INFILTRATION AREA

WEIR

INFILTRATION AREA

6,200 PONDING 7,945 2 YEAR STORM 15,500 INFILTRATION

OPE

[gra te]

FILTER STRIP

Existing site photo

66

OVERFLOW CHANNEL

EXISTING TREES

Reference to page 61

Schematic site plan

APARTMENT B

0

20

22

A2

24

26

28 30 32 52

34

54

36

38

40 42 44 46 48

BASKETBALL COURT 46 52 47.5 47

54

56

52

47.5

50

56 56

47 56

50

54

50

46.9

52

54

50

56 49

56

TENNIS COURTS

56

56

52

51 56

56

54

58

55

55

54 56

60

56

FRANCIS JR HIGH SCHOOL

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY CLG

58

52

54

56

58

58

A1

56

23 RD STREET NW

N STREET NW 50

24TH STREET NW

58

56

15

0

30

[ Site 1 ] plan

67

PARTIAL PLAN

DRIAN INLET

GRATE

EXISTING ROAD

CHANNEL INLET 9” POND

NATIVE GRASS FILTER STRIP

STONE

147’

] A1

68

[ Site 1 ] section /elevation showing the path of water through the site 4

0

8

enlargement area

EXISTING TREES

PLATFORM EXISTING PATH

PONDING DEPTH’ 2” GRAVEL 2’ RAIN GARDEN MIX

PROPOSED STEPS

40% POROSITY [ 2”/ hr] INFILTRATION RATE

EMERGENT PLANT MIX EXISTING GRADE

OVERFLOW TO ROCK CREEK

A2

69

Switchgrass (Panicum vigatum) Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)

Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus) Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus) 8.5’

13’

1%

26’

SLO

PE

Joe-Pye Weed Joe-Pye Weed (Eupatorium (Eupatorium purpureum) purpureum) Swamp milkweed Swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) (Asclepias incarnata) 11’

SU

B-S

UR

FAC EF LO W

NA TIV

EG R

AS

SB ED

Feather Reed Grass Feather Reed Grass (Calamagrostis x (Calamagrostis x acutiflacutiflora) ora)

9” PONDING DEPTH 2’ RAIN GARDEN MIX

70

tion nlargement aand nd ssuggested uggested p lanti tin n [ Site 1 ] secti on eenlargement planti ngg

[ Site 1 ] perspective

71

[ Site 2 ] RETENTION

2 YEAR STORM 35,230 cubic ft [max per hr]

1.7 acres

PEAK FLOW RATE 441 cubic feet /min 45,000 [ponding ]

RETENTION TIME 15 hrs

Reference to page 61

72

ENTION

2,300 [ infiltration/hr ]

CIRCULATION CIRCULATION

BIO-RETENTION AND BIO-SWALE VEGETATION BIO-RETENTION AND BIO-SWALE VEGETATION

WATER PATH WATER PATH

[ Site 2 ] high perspective to show context in city

73

74

AY

Site 2 divert stormwater from two existing drain inlets on the adjacent street. The water passes under the road through a grate covered channel. It then enters and settles in a retention pond after moving quickly over a filtration trench. The retention pond is designed to hold over the 15 year storm volume. Rain over that amount will enter an overflow pipe that empties into a grass swale. Water left in the pond will remain until infiltrated or evaporated.

By introducing a pond to the site, the treatment of stormwater, and the prevention of sewer overflow is expressed in a beautiful way. The major gesture of the site is the movement of earth for the sake of the pond. The design takes all of the cut taken from the site and uses it to create the form of the pyramids. The pyramids provide a place for passive use and recreation. Also, the program of the public pool can be extended to the area as a place for sun-bathing and lounging. New public paths allow people to enter the site and the open and formal lines respond to the new and corporate buildings that line the street.

Existing site photo

Reference to page 61

Schematic site plan

public swimming pool

B2

a re a n

o nti e t re

C2 pe

22%

%

slo

27

slop

e

ti exis ng g e rad

B1

overflow pipe

12%

slop

e

30%

slo

pe

FLOWERING CHERRY TREES

20% slope

30% slope

17% slope

C1 15

0

30

[ Site 2 ] plan

75

GRAVEL FOR DRAINAGE

SWALE

OUTFALL 33

ROCK CREEK

B1 76

[ Site 2 ] section /elevation

4

0

8

FILL CUT 2.5’ OVERFLOW PIPE

B2 77

GRAVEL DRAINAGE TRENCH

CONCRETE BENCH

ROOT BALL

CRUSHED STONE PATH WITH EDGING

GRAVEL FOUNDATION

FILL

C2

C1

78

[ Site 2 ] section / detail/ perspective 8

0

16

[ Site 2 ] perspective

79

[ Site 3 ] PRIMARY TREATMENT 24,000 cubic feet [average per overflow FLOW RATE 450 cubic feet /min 26,000 [ponding ] 0 [ infiltration] 3 cubic feet/min [ flow rate to wet RETENTION TIME 6 days

Reference to page 61

80

.16 acres

PUBLIC SPACE

PUBLIC SPACE

S

SOLID

L STREET

PRIMARY TREATMENT AREA PRIMARY TREATMENT AREA

LIME KILN DRAN INLET

SPLITTER

DISTRIBUTOR

LA

ET

TW

EN

M AT

RE

OT ET

PIP ND

WATER PATH WATER PATH

81

Unlike site 1 and 2 that work to treat stormwater before it enters the pipe, site 3 works to treat the stormwater combined with sewage after it has entered the pipe. The primary treatment tank was designed to capture the overflow from the existing #31 outfall. Instead of allowing the overflow to enter the creek, the tank holds the overflow and releases it at a controled rate to be purified more in the treatment wetlands designed on site 4. The holding time of the flow allows solids to settle with is a necessary first step for treatment.

The design of site 3 responds to its surroundings in the way it is posited in the hillside. The current dead end of L street is extended with the form of the tank giving the whole street more significance. While this gesture has strenght in its simplicity, it is also very pactical because the mantinace that will need to take place. Also, the form mimicks the protruding structure of the adjacent historic ruin of a lime kiln and is envisioned to be a contemporary counterpart. The smoote cast in place concrete surface of the tank in a random rectangular pattern, reflects the stone facade of the kiln, while mainting its own identity. The functionality of the lime kiln lives on in the running of the treatment tank. Lime will be used on the settled solids left in the tank to help control the smell and condense the solids before they are removed.

82

26,000 cubic ft

LIME KILN RUIN

volumn per 24,000 cubic ft

Existing site photo

Reference to page 61

Schematic site plan

PEN

NSY LVA NI

A AV E

46

48

26TH STREET NW

44

THE SALVATION ARMY 42

1

D 40 2 18

L STREET

D2

18

20

18 18

36

38

40

42

K AND

POTO

MAC PAR

KWAY

K

CREE

C

EE

34

ROCK

RO

R KC

32

15

0

30 [ Site 3 ] plan

83

D1

84

D2

L STREET details DRAIN INLET

SPLITTER

[ CUT ]

STABILIZATION POND DISTRIBUTOR

[ FILL ]

OVERFLOW PIPE BREAK

PIPE TO DC WASA

PIPE TO TREATMENT WETLANDS OUTFALL 31

[site 3 ] PLAN

85

[ Site 4 ] TREATMENT WETLANDS

24,000 cubic feet [average per overflow PEAK FLOW RATE 441 cubic feet /min 68,292 [ponding ] 0 [ infiltration] 1.8 cubic feet/min [ flow rate from RETENTION TIME 10 days

Reference to page 61

86

1.2 acres

T PIPE

INFLUEN

E1

VEGETATION VEGETATION

E2

SWEDISH EMBASSY

ROCK CR

EEK AND

RO CK CRE EK

POTOMA C PA

RKWAY

SWEDISH EMBASSY

CIRCULATION CIRCULATION

EEXISTING XISTING P ARKING PARKING

15

0

WATER PATH

30 WATERWATER

87

17’

FLAT AT 15’ 18’

FLAT AT 12.5’ E OR ON UT ST IB TR

18’

DIS

DS

14’ 12’

BE ND LA ] ET LOW TW F EN CE TM RFA EA U TR UB-S [S

14’

2’

FLAT AT 6’

AL W

17’

x 18’ 20’ E OR ON UT ST IB TR DIS

18’

12’

16’ 14’

x

17’

E OR ON UT ST IB TR

OUTLET AT 1’

DIS

BOAT STAGING AREA PUMP x

R

TE WA

17’

N

16’

x

0’

x x 16’ x 14’ 12’ 10’ 8’

x

N IO

x

6’

AT

x x

IG

2’

IRR

x

4’

x

2’

RS

TE

AN

PL

16’

Existing site photo

Reference to page 61

x

AY KW

D

E AT EV

EL

EA

88

x

CL

Theatment wetlands are not typically thought of as being practical in an urban enviromnent.

However, for the treatment of this particular outfall, the average overflow is a low enough volume that a big difference in a relativly small space. Half of the existing parking can remain on the site, while the other half is activated with a series of shallow gravel beds filled with reeds and other treatment grasses. It is still facinating to me that with a slow controled flow through a bed filled with the right plants, can purify water almost as well as modern septic systems. The plants encourage microbacterial to form that work to matabolise contaminants, so the water that enter the creek is clean!

The form of the design, situates the southern end of the last tank intersecting the creek.

This creates a beautiful condition where the clean water enters the creek, opening up the densly vegetated creek bank, and making it accessible for use. A different type of planting is proposed for this area that can thrive in a tidal condition.

Schematic site plan

18’

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)

PLANT MIX

.3” inundation- 3’ above

Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) .5” inundation-3’ above

Broomsedge (Andropogon virginianus)

21’

1’ inundation -1’ above

PUMP Bulltongue Arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia)

157’

2’ inundation- 1’ above

5’ ROCK CREEK

TIDAL FLAT

1’

EXISTING BIKE PATH

2% CROSS SLOPE 2% CROSS SLOPE 2% CROSS SLOPE ROCK CREEK

E1 SCALE [ 1.8 ]

E2

89

filtration by gravel

Water leve l

phyto-extraction

microorganism metabolism

rhizome-degradation

sedimentation

90

separation of larger materials. odor control

plant tissue (stem and leaf ) above water degradation

removal of phosphorus. nitrogen. fecal bacteria

root zone activity. phyto-stabilzation/ absorption

gravity separated particles and debris

91

[ Site 5 ] FILTRATION PENINSULA

PEAK FLOW RATE 10,000 cubic feet /min 0 [ponding ] aprox. 13,000 [ filtration/hr ] RETENTION TIME 0

Reference to page 61

92

N 3 7

2.6 acres

93

VEGETATION VEGETATION

The intention of the this design was an attempt to redesign the existing anti-climactic finaly of the jouney along Rock Creek by creating new significance at this point with a new story of healing.

The design would work through the cleaning of creek water as it exits the creek and moves through the site. Filtration with plants at diďŹ&#x20AC;erent water levels is an eďŹ&#x20AC;ort that also helps transform the space that can be seen and experienced as it cleans. The continuous moving water can be witnessed by guests visiting to access the boat ramp, or by sitting along the armored edge of the pryimids.

The pyrmidas shape comes again from a desire to use the fill that will be cut from the site, but also to give more surface space to the edge between land and water where most of the cleaning would take place. The angle of the cuts in previously whole peninsula, come from the direction of old cannel lock that would remain on the site, reclaimed with the passive use of holding floating wetlands.

CIRCULATION CIRCULATION

94 WATER WATER

F1 rs ve a p

ix

tati e g ve

m on

ge

Potomac Channel Edge

d ke

c

lo al

n ca g n

lo

a ne

sto

F2

95 15

0

30

HIGH TIDE HIGH TIDE

LOW TIDE LOW TIDE

F1

96

filter

phyto-extraction

rhizome-degradation

phyto-stabilization (water sits in soil)

filter

phyto-extraction

rhizome-degradation

Hydrocarbon absorption (on surface)

filter (by plants)

phyto-extraction

oxygenate water

Water level

F2

97

NATIVE GROUNDCOVERS

douglas aster

wild strawberry

showy milkweed

FLOATING

reed canarygrass

tule rush

EMERGENT

common reed

sweet-flag

SUBMERGED -EMERGENT

parrot feather watermilfoil

EXISTIN

98

G CREE

hornwart

K BOT T OM

tule rush

pennsylvainia sadge

STONE STEPS

PLANT BED

DRAINAGE

STONE RETAINING WALL

METAL PATH

REINFORCEMENT

GEOTEXTILE MESH

TOPSOIL TOPSOIL

GRAVEL SUBSTRATE GRASS RAILING GLASS RAILING

SCALE [ 1.2 ]

TREATED WOOD/ METAL STRUCTURE

99 SCALE [ 1.8 ]

part 7 CONCLUSION Although my research led me to Rock Creek in Washington D.C. the scope of the work aims to be beyond the finite acres of the 5 small sites. In analyzing the data, my interventions were carefully selected, but had I chosen to work somewhere different along the creek, the approach would have been the same. First, to think of remediation as it related to an entire watershed, or in the context of a natural system. Next, to look at the human impacts of the site and the surrounding land, in the context of human history. And finally, to conclude how the sites could be formed to achieve the goals extracted from my research. I drew what I thought, and diagramed the way that case studies worked. Breaking down complex ideas and make them approachable to me through my own drawings, helped to make the ideas translatable to my own designs. I used this understanding of remediation and overlapped it with my knowledge of each site. In this way, the same gestures worked to activate the space for human use as they worked to clean and heal through remediation. This was, at least the intention, and with 5 examples to reflect on, I can tell where it was more successful. Site 3 is perhaps the most straight forward example of a very site specific design that also works to clean the combined sewer at one critical part of a larger treatment system. As a result, it may be the best example for future designers to learn from. I hope this work can be applied to different scales, different sites, and to an endless amount of damaged sites in 100 need of thoughtful healing.

[SITE 1] model

[SITE 5] model

101

Bergheim, Laura. (1992). The Washington Historical Atlas. Rockville, MD: Woodbine House.

Bloomberg, Michael R. (2008). plaNYC: Sustainable Stromwater Management Plan 2008. Retreived June 2, 2011 from The City of New York website, < http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/water.shtml > Boshong, William. (1990). Rock Creek Park District of Columbia: A Historic Resource Study. United States Department of the Interior: National Park Service.

Bruhn, Laura and Lois Wolfson. (2007). Citizens Monitoring Bacteria: A Training Manual for Monitoring E. coli. Lyn Crighton et. All (Ed.), Retrieved June 15, 2011 from USA water quality website, < http://www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer/Ecoli/June2008Manual/Final_ecoli_06c1.pdf > Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historic Park. Retrieved June, 1, 2011 from Washington, D.C. A National Register of Histoic Places Travel Itinerary, National Park Service website, < http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc6.htm > Combined Sewer Overflow Fact Sheet: EPA 832-F-99-042. (1999) Washington, D.C: Environmental Protection Agency, OďŹ&#x192;ce of Water.

Hawkins, George. S. (2011). Combined Sewer System. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority website, < http://www.dcwasa.com/wastewater_collection/css/default.cfm > Hawkins, George. S. (2011). History of Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority website, < http://www.dcwater.com/about/gen_overview.cfm > Mackintosh, Berry. (1985). Rock Creek Park: An Administrative History. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from History Division, National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. < http://www.nps.gov/rocr/historyculture/adhit.htm > McHarg, Ian H. (1969). Design With Nature. Philadelphia, PA: The Falcon Press.

McGuire, Gordon et. All. (2010). Reinventing Rainwater Managemant: A Strategy to Protect Health and Restore Nature in the Capital Region.Holly Pattison (Ed.), Environmental Law Clinic: University of Victoria.

Meyer, Elizabeth. (1998). Seized by Sublime Sentiments. In William S. Sunders (Ed.), Richard Hagg: Bloedel Reserve and Gas Works Park. Harvard University Graduate School of Design: Princeton Architectural Press.

Miller, Iris. (2002). Washington In Maps. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.

Corner, James. (1999). Introduction: Recovering Landscape as a Critical Cultural Practice. In James Corner (Ed.), Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture (pp.1-12).New York,NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Ministry of the Environment. (2003). Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual 2003. Prepared by Aquafor Beech Ltd. and Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd.

Cosgrove, Denis. (1984,1998). Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Most Endangered Places: McMillan Reservoir and Sand Filtration Site. (2007). Retrieved April 4, 2011, from D.C. Preservation League website, < http://www.dcpreservation.org/endangered/2005/mcmillan.html >

Clerk, U.S. District Court. (2005). Anacostic Watershed Society v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. United Porter, Kimberly Rae. (2003). Determining Sources of Fecal Pollution in Washington D.C. Waterways. (Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Thesis, Virginia Tech).

States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Available from ETDs Thesis Database. (etd-12082003-100603) Cranz, Galen and Michael Boland. (2004). Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks. Landscape Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from National Park Service website, Journal. vol. 23 no. 2, 102-120. < http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hih/rock_creek_potomac/rock_creek_potomac1.htm >.

Davis, Timothy. HABS Historian. (1991-1992). Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway: History and Discription. Washington, D.C. Richard Sennet. (1994). Moving Bodies. Flesh and Stone: The Body and City in Western Civilization.

Historic American Building Survey, National Park Service, Dept. of Interior. (p.265-330). New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Drake, Susannah C. and Yong K. Kim. (2009). Sponge Park, New York City: A flexible stormwater management project in Reps, John W. (1967). Monumental Washington: The Planning and Development of the Capital Center. Princeton, New Brooklyn seeks to clean up a waterway and imporve public access. Topos. Vol. 68, pp.23-28.

Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Gordon, Theodore J. (2004). District of Columbia Final Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Rock Russ, Thomas H. (2002,2009). Restoring Landscapes. Site Planning and Design Handbook: Second Edition. (pp. 299-344). New Creek. Retrieved from Environmental Protection Agency website, York,NY: McGraw Hill. < http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/26245_RockCreekBacReport.pdf > Greeley and Hansen LLC. (2002). Combined Sewer System Long Term Control Plan. District of Columbia: Combined Water and Sewer Authority (WASA).

Gutheim, Fredrick. Consultant of the National Capital Planning Commission. (1977). Worthy of a Nation: The History of Planning for the National Capital. City of Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Spilsbury, Gail. (2003). Rock Creek Park. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Spirn, Anne Whinston. (1994). Consturcting Nature: The Legacy of Fredrick Law Omsted. In William Cronon(Ed.), Uncommon Ground, p.91-113.

Storm, Steven and Kurt Nathan. (1998). Site Engineering for Landscape Architects, 3rd edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Thompson, William J. and Kim Sorvig. (2008). Heal Injured Sites. Sustainable Landscape Construction: Second Edition. (pp.71-109) Washington:Island Press.

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Special thanks to Laurel McSherry, Paul Kelsh, and Brian Katen- to the WAAC, Yann Holt, and the achitecuture facualty for making my learning experience more rich and interesting than I ever thought possible. I will continue to think about the world diďŹ&#x20AC;erently because of you all. Thank you to my friends and family- for the constant support, love, and understanding.

THANKS

103