asia trail elephant facility - National Zoo - Smithsonian Institution

A SIA T RAIL 

ELEPHANT F ACILITY 

N ATIONAL Z OOLOGICAL P ARK 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 

S UPPLEMENTAL 

E NVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMENT 

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

J ANUARY 2005

A SIA T RAIL 

E LEPHANT F ACILITY 

N ATIONAL Z OOLOGICAL P ARK 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 

S UPPLEMENTAL 

E NVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMENT 

Responsible Organization: 

The Smithsonian Institution 

Office of Facilities, Engineering, and Construction 

Attn: Tom Myers, Project Executive 

750 9 th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20560-0908 

(202) 673-4704 

myerst@si.edu 

Cooperating Federal Agency: 

The National Capital Planning Commission 

Abstract: 

The Smithsonian Institution (SI) has prepared this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) to 

evaluate the proposed relocation of the elephant exhibit within the Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park in 

Washington, D.C. The exhibit would be relocated from the existing Elephant House to a new elephant facility to be 

constructed adjacent to and north of Olmsted Walk near the Zoo’s Visitors Center. This Supplemental EA builds 

upon the EA issued by SI in December 2003 for the development of Asia Trail, a modernization and consolidation 

of Asian-themed animal exhibits and infrastructure along a new elevated pathway south of Olmsted Walk. A 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in January 2004 for the Asia Trail project. Subsequently, 

new space requirements for the elephant exhibit have generated the need to relocate the exhibit from its existing 

location at the Elephant House, rather than attempt to modify this aged structure. This Supplemental EA addresses 

the potential impacts associated with the proposed changes for the elephant exhibit and recommends mitigation 

measures to minimize identified impacts. SI prepared this Supplemental EA consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Government agencies and 

the public are encouraged to review and comment on this Supplemental EA. Comments must be submitted during 

the official 30-day public review period, beginning on January 14, 2005 and concluding on February 13, 2005. 

Direct written comments on the EA via mail, email, or fax to: 

Elephant Facility Supplemental EA 

c/o EDAW, Inc. 

601 Prince Street 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

email: elephantea@edaw.com; fax: (703) 549-5869 

J ANUARY 2005

ASIA TRAIL - ELEPHANT FACILITY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION – NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK 

Page 

1.1 Overview of the Supplemental EA ...............................................................1-1 

1.2 Summary of the Asia Trail Project ...............................................................1-2 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the New Elephant Facility..........................................1-4 

1.4 Determination of Environmental Issues ........................................................1-5 

1.5 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination .............................................1-6 

2.0 SUPPLEMENTAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 

2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................2-1 

2.2 Proposed Alternative – Relocation of Elephant Exhibit to a New Facility ...2-2 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

3.1 Geophysical Resources ..................................................................................3-1 

3.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................3-2 

3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife.................................................................................3-5 

3.4 Air Quality .....................................................................................................3-7 

3.5 Noise ..............................................................................................................3-8 

3.6 Infrastructure/Utilities....................................................................................3-10 

3.7 Planning Controls and Policies ......................................................................3-13 

3.8 Visitation and Visitor Experience..................................................................3-14 

3.9 Pedestrian Circulation....................................................................................3-16 

3.10 Archaeological and Historic Resources.........................................................3-16 

3.11 Visual Resources............................................................................................3-23 

4.0 Appendices 

4.1 References 

4.2 Preparers 

4.3 Notification List

ASIA TRAIL – ELEPHANT FACILITY 

1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter includes information summarizing the purpose of the proposed elephant facility, the 

scope of this environmental document, the context of the larger Asia Trail project, and the 

relationship of this Supplemental EA to previous environmental documentation. This chapter 

also describes the coordination of the project with government agencies and the public at large. 

1.1 Overview of the Supplemental EA 

The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is modernizing and revitalizing the Asian-themed animal 

exhibits at the National Zoological Park (the National Zoo) through the on-going development of 

the overall Asia Trail project. SI previously prepared Asia Trail at the National Zoological Park, 

Washington, D.C. Environmental Assessment (Asia Trail EA) consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Asia 

Trail project. 

Phase I of the Asia Trail project is currently under construction. The proposed elephant facility, 

which is the subject of this Supplemental EA, would be constructed as part of Phase II of the 

Asia Trail project. 

The Asia Trail project originally included plans to modernize and revitalize the Asian elephant 

exhibit at its existing location at the Zoo’s Elephant House, as part of Phase II. However, 

subsequent preliminary design efforts for the modernized elephant exhibit at the Elephant House 

identified: (1) expanded space requirements for the exhibits; (2) the limitations of modifying the 

building due to its age: (3) and the results of further architectural and engineering studies, which 

recommended structural building reinforcement and modernization of building systems. 

Therefore, SI has decided to relocate the elephant exhibit and construct a new facility at an 

alternate site at the Zoo in proximity to the Asia Trail project, rather than relocate, reconstruct, or 

modify the existing Elephant House. The new elephant facility would be constructed on the 

current cheetah site adjacent to and north of Olmsted Walk. After the new elephant facility is 

completed, the Elephant House would continue to be used for other animal exhibits that would 

not require major modifications to the structure. In 2005-2006, SI will conduct a master 

planning study that will look at the Zoo comprehensively, and will address all Zoo structures, 

including the new and old elephant facilities. This Supplemental EA addresses the potential 

impacts of the proposed exhibit relocation, and construction of the new elephant facility. 

This Supplemental EA is based upon and updates the elephant exhibit component of the Asia 

Trail EA, and is limited in scope to the elephant exhibit and the proposed elephant facility. This 

Supplemental EA will evaluate the new facility and its location as it differs from its previous 

proposed use of the Elephant House, as addressed in the Asia Trail EA. This Supplemental EA 

addresses the resource areas that are likely to be affected by the proposed project change. During 

the development of the original and supplemental environmental documentation, the National 

Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) has served as a responsible federal agency, and the latest 

version of NCPC’s Environmental and Historic Preservation Policies and Procedures has been 

employed. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION – NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK 1-1


1.2 Summary of the Asia Trail Project 

Background on the Asia Trail Project at the National Zoo 

The National Zoo consists of 163 acres and is located east of Connecticut Avenue and west of 

Rock Creek in Northwest Washington, D.C. (see Figure 1-1). Rock Creek meanders through the 

eastern portion of the Zoo and flows south to the Potomac River. The majority of the Zoo’s 

property consists of public area, which is approximately bounded to the north and east by the 

Zoo’s perimeter road; to the south by Rock Creek; and to the west by Connecticut Avenue, 

Hawthorne Street, and Cathedral Avenue, N.W. The Asia Trail project area is located in the 

northwest corner of the Zoo near its main entrance at 3001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. (see 

Figure 1-2). 

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map 

Source: National Park Service 2003, EDAW 2004 



Source: GlobeExplorer 2002, EDAW 2004 

Figure 1-2 Aerial Photograph of the National Zoo 

The Asia Trail project is the first component of the National Zoo’s ongoing renewal plan to 

reorganize and rebuild the Zoo by grouping animals into themed exhibits according to their 

natural geographic locations. The Asia Trail project will feature Asian-themed animal exhibits 

including sloth bears, clouded leopards, fishing cats, red pandas, Japanese giant salamanders, 

giant pandas, Asian elephants, and Asian small-clawed otters. The Asia Trail project will: 

modernize, revitalize, rebuild, and relocate the Zoo’s existing Asian-themed animal exhibits and 

the associated infrastructure and utilities; introduce new Asian-themed exhibits; provide ADAcompliant 

pedestrian access; increase integration of animal science into the exhibits; promote 



more natural animal behaviors; and enhance the visitor interpretive experience. In addition, the 

project will implement some of the objectives of previous and existing planning efforts for the 

Zoo including the 1986 Revised Master Plan for the Zoo, the 1996 facilities study, the 2000 

renewal plan, the 2001 failing facilities study, and the 2001 Site Utility Improvement Plan. In 

addition, the Zoo will undertake a comprehensive facilities master plan in 2005 to coordinate 

these and other efforts with the long-term needs of the Zoo. 

Background on the Asia Trail EA 

Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the 

Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, SI prepared the 

Asia Trail at the National Zoological Park Environmental Assessment (Asia Trail EA) in 

December 2003 to evaluate the potential impacts of the Asia Trail Project. Although SI is not a 

“federal agency” within the meaning of NEPA, it is SI’s policy and intent to inform and involve 

host communities during the planning of its facilities and SI is committed to integrating 

environmental considerations into its planning and decision-making activities. 

The Asia Trail EA evaluated development of the Asia Trail as the Proposed Alternative, and also 

evaluated a No Action Alternative. SI analyzed the technical and procedural components of the 

Asia Trail EA, along with comments received during the public review period regarding the EA. 

Based on the lack of significant impacts expected under the Proposed Alternative, as described in 

the EA, SI issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in January 2004. As a federal 

agency with an approval role on the project, NCPC adopted and developed a FONSI in February 

2004 on the original Asia Trail EA. Implementation of the Asia Trail project is currently 

underway in phases and construction has begun on Phase I. The proposed facilities are scheduled 

to be completed and operational in 2008. 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the New Elephant Facility 

Provision of a suitable facility for a modernized and revitalized Asian elephant exhibit is an 

important component of the Asia Trail project. A new facility for the exhibit is needed due to the 

lack of functionality of the Elephant House and because only limited modification of the existing 

structure is possible. 

The National Zoo, with its variety of 19 th and 20 th century zoo-related structures, is a listed site in 

the National Register of Historic Places, and is also listed in the District of Columbia Inventory 

of Historic Sites. According to the Zoo’s National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 

the Zoo contributes to the cultural heritage and visual beauty of the District. The Elephant 

House, while not individually listed in the Historic Register, is eligible for listing due to its age 

(68 years) and its status as a contributing element to the Zoo’s National Register listing. As a 

result, SI would strive to meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties for potential structural changes to the Elephant House, consistent with SI policy and, 

depending on the scope of the project, Public Law 108-72. 



Continued use of the Elephant House as an elephant facility is severely constrained by its age 

and current configuration. Specific plans to improve the Elephant House as necessary to 

accommodate an upgraded elephant exhibit have been defined based on architectural and 

engineering studies. The needed changes to the building would include: structural 

reinforcement; modernization of building systems; renovation and expansion; and possibly 

relocation and reconstruction. Such modifications of the Elephant House are not a viable option 

due to the structure’s cultural significance. 

Therefore, relocation of the Asian elephant exhibit to a new facility is proposed. Due to the large 

land area requirements of the updated elephant exhibit, and the lack of available land on the 

Elephant House grounds, an alternate site has been identified for the new facility. Given that the 

new Asian elephant exhibit is part of the Asia Trail project, the proposed site is located 

contiguous with other elements of the Asia Trail project. 

1.4 Determination of Environmental Issues 

Through an initial evaluation of potential impacts from development of the proposed Elephant 

Facility, the following elements of the environment were determined to require further analysis 

in this Supplemental EA: 

• geophysical resources, 

• water resources, 

• vegetation and wildlife, 

• air quality, 

• noise, 

• infrastructure/utilities, 

• planning controls and policies, 

• visitation and visitor experience, 

• pedestrian circulation, 

• archaeological and historic resources, and 

• visual resources. 

The existing conditions and potential project impacts, with respect to the above subjects, are 

described in Section 3.0 of this Supplemental EA, Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences. 

Other resource areas, initially considered for evaluation in this Supplemental EA, were 

eliminated from detailed study because there would be no anticipated impacts specific to the 

project site, or these impacts were previously addressed in a broader sense in the Asia Trail EA. 

The areas excluded from detailed study include land use, demographics and environmental 

justice, traffic, parking, transit systems, and bicycle pathways. 



1.5 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination 

Agency Coordination 

Several government agencies and interested parties were consulted concerning the scope of this 

Supplemental EA including: 

• National Park Service (NPS); 

• National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC); 

• D.C. Office of Planning, Historic Preservation Division 

• State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and 

• Friends of the National Zoo (FONZ) (a non-governmental group). 

Notification of the availability of the Supplemental EA for public review was sent to the Federal 

and District agencies, and public organizations, on the notification list included in Appendix 4.3. 

Community Outreach 

As part of the environmental scoping process, SI invited residents of adjacent apartment 

buildings to participate in a community meeting in November 2004. Five local residents 

attended. The meeting included an informational presentation of the overall Asia Trail project, 

the proposed elephant facility project, and the environmental review process. A discussion of the 

project and community issues followed the presentation. 

Public/Agency Comments on the Supplemental EA 

Agencies and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the content of this 

Supplemental EA. Agencies, organizations, and individuals on the notification list in Appendix 

4.3 have been notified by letter of the 30-day availability of the Supplemental EA for review 

from January 14, 2005 to February 13, 2005. The availability of the Supplemental EA was also 

announced in the Washington Post. Copies of the Supplemental EA are available for review at 

the following locations in the District: 

• The National Zoological Park Library, Visitor Center, 3001 Connecticut Avenue, NW; 

• The Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library, 9 th and G Streets, NW; 

• National Capital Planning Commission Library, 401 9 th Street, NW, North Suite 500; and 

• The Cleveland Park Branch Library, 3310 Connecticut Avenue, NW. 

The Supplemental EA will also be available for review electronically, on the internet, at the 

project website: http://nationalzoo.si.edu. Hard copies of the Supplemental EA will be available 

upon request from John Gibbons, Office of Public Affairs at (202) 673-0209 or 

gibbonsjp@si.edu. Comments on the Supplemental EA must be submitted during the official 30day 

comment period concluding on February 13, 2005. 



Comments should be mailed, emailed, or faxed to: 

Asia Trail Elephant Facility Supplemental EA 

c/o EDAW, Inc. 

601 Prince Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Email address: elephantea@edaw.com 

Fax number: (703) 549-5869 

Copies of public comments should also be addressed to: 

National Capital Planning Commission 

Attn: Eugene Keller 

401 9 th Street. NW 

North Lobby 

Washington, D.C. 20576 

Email address: gene.keller@ncpc.gov 

Fax number: (202) 482-7272 

Following publication and review of the Supplemental EA, SI will consider the EA conclusions 

and all comments received regarding the Supplemental EA and either: (a) issue a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) that explains the basis for SI’s decision regarding the environmental 

review, or (b) may prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if it is determined that the 

proposed action will significantly affect the quality of the environment. 

Historic Preservation Consultation 

A review of the project’s potential effects on historic resources is being undertaken, consistent 

with Section 106 of the NHPA and Smithsonian policy. In consultation with the DC State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), and 

the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), SI is applying appropriate historic preservation standards 

(including following the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties) and applicable regulatory procedures during planning, design, and construction. 

SI conducted a meeting and site visit with the DC SHPO in January 2004 to review plans for the 

existing Elephant House. Once the decision was made to relocate the elephants, a progress 

meeting was held in June 2004 to review the concept submission for a new elephant facility. At 

the June meeting, the determination was made by the DC SHPO that there was no need for an 

archaeological study of the cheetah site due to prior ground disturbance. That same month, SI 

formally initiated the Section 106 process by submitting a letter of intent to the DC SHPO. SI 

has had a subsequent meeting with DC SHPO in November 2004 to review the model, drawings, 

and rendered perspectives for the new elephant facility at the cheetah site. In December 2004, SI 

submitted a letter to the DC SHPO requesting concurrence with its determination that the 

elephant facility would have no adverse effect on historic resources. 



2.0 

SUPPLEMENTAL DESCRIPTION OF THE 

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 


ASIA TRAIL - ELEPHANT FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

2.0 SUPPLEMENTAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 

This chapter provides background on the National Zoo’s initial proposal to upgrade the existing 

facilities and describes the current proposal to relocate the Asian elephant exhibit. The Proposed 

Alternative is the relocation of the elephant exhibit to a new site near the Zoo’s Visitor Center. 

2.1 Introduction 

The National Zoo initially considered several alternatives for upgrading the Asian elephant 

exhibit. These options included renovating and expanding the historic Elephant House, 

dismantling and reconstructing the Elephant House on the existing site, or relocating the elephant 

exhibit to another site within the Zoo. The Asia Trail EA evaluated upgrading the Elephant 

House and its grounds to meet the requirements for the new elephant exhibit. Subsequent to that 

initial effort, further architectural and engineering studies concluded that the Elephant House 

would need structural reinforcement, modernization of building systems, and major renovation 

and expansion to accommodate the upgraded elephant exhibit needs. 

Given the range of architectural, engineering, and historic preservation challenges, after issuance 

and approval of the Asia Trail EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the National 

Zoo has revised its design of the Asia Trail project to relocate the elephant exhibit to a site 

adjacent to the Asia Trail project area (see Figure 2-1). This eliminates the need to renovate and 

expand the Elephant House for the Asian elephant exhibit. 

Figure 2-1 Aerial Photograph of the Proposed Project Site 

Source: Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park, Chatelain Architects 2004 



Proposed Alternative – Relocation of Elephant Exhibit to a New Facility 

The National Zoo proposes to relocate the Asian elephant exhibit to an area immediately north of 

Olmsted Walk, contiguous with other Asia Trail elements (see Figure 2-2). A new elephant 

facility and new yards would be constructed on the site of the current cheetah, zebra, and 

kangaroo exhibits, which would be relocated within the Zoo or at the Zoo’s Front Royal, 

Virginia facilities prior to construction. The proposed site was selected for the new elephant 

facility due to its prominent location and adjacency to the Asia Trail, and because cheetahs do 

not prefer to be located in active or highly visited settings. The relocation of current exhibits and 

associated animals under the Proposed Alternative would be initiated in 2005 as part of the ongoing 

Asia Trail project, whose boundary has been modified to incorporate the new elephant 

facility site. 

Figure 2-2 Revised Asia Trail Project Boundary 

Source: Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park, Chatelain Architects, and EDAW, Inc., 2004. 

The altered Asia Trail project boundary would exclude the existing Elephant House and yards, 

which would no longer contain Asian-themed animal exhibits. The elephant exhibit space at the 

Elephant House and grounds would be stabilized with a new roof and would continue to be used 

for animal exhibits not requiring major modifications and expansion to the Elephant House 

structure. It is intended that the building would house giraffes, rhinos, and hippos, as it has 

historically. 



The proposed elephant facility and associated pathways would be constructed as part of Phase II 

of the Asia Trail project. Asia Trail-Phase I activities (now underway) include construction of 

the main Asia Trail pathway and the relocation and/or renewal of adjoining animal exhibits 

accommodating sloth bears, clouded leopards, fishing cats, red and giant pandas, Japanese giant 

salamanders, and small-clawed otters. 

In keeping with the Zoo’s plans for renewal of its animal exhibits, the elephant exhibit would be 

modernized and rebuilt at this new site to promote natural animal behavior that would improve 

the health and reproduction of the animals and provide a more interactive educational experience 

for the visitors. The Proposed Alternative would also replace and modernize outdated 

infrastructure including utility systems (electrical, water, sewer, stormwater, and contaminated 

storm sewer) and pedestrian pathways that are not compliant with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Implementation of the Proposed Alternative would include a sequence of project tasks. The 

tasks would include relocation of existing animals out of the project area, demolition of elements 

not to be retained for Asia Trail (buildings, structures, pathways, fence lines, utility lines, and 

selected trees), pre-construction site preparation, replacement and upgrade of utility lines, 

construction of new facilities, and placement of animals in the new exhibit. Specific major 

actions involved in development of the new elephant exhibit are described below: 

Asian Elephant Exhibit: The relocated Asian elephant exhibit would be located on the existing 

site of the Zoo’s cheetah, zebra, and kangaroo exhibits along Olmsted Walk, adjacent to the 

proposed Asia Trail at its northeastern connection with Olmsted Walk. Development of the 

expanded, upgraded, and modernized elephant exhibit would involve constructing an elephant 

holding building, yards, paddocks, and trek (see Figures 2-3, 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6). The exhibit 

would be built to accommodate a multi-generational herd of eight elephants. 

The conceptual plans for the Asian elephant facility were submitted to NCPC in October 2004 

for renewal and approval. NCPC issued conceptual design approval for the facility in December 

2004. 

Features of the new elephant facility would include: 

• a 42,500-square foot, “T”-shaped, elephant holding building; 

• a 38,000-square foot, cow yard and a 21,800-square foot bull yard; 

• a 250-seat terraced amphitheater and visitor walkway separating the cow and bull yards; 

• a pedestrian boardwalk and elevated deck for viewing; 

• a cow pool with barriers for viewing of elephant demonstrations; 

• an 800-linear foot elephant trek; and 

• new vegetation including Asian-themed and native deciduous canopy trees, planters with 

sub-canopy trees, perennials, rock outcrops, boulders, and grasses to create a lush shaded 

area for approximately 300 visitors. 



Figure 2-3 Proposed Plan for Asian Elephant Facility 

Source: Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park, Chatelain Architects 2004. 



Figure 2-4 Rendering of Proposed Cow Pool and Pedestrian Deck 

Source: Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park and Chatelain Architects 2004. 

Figure 2-5 Rendering of Proposed Elephant Trek and Pedestrian Viewing 

Source: Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park, and Chatelain Architects 2004. 



Figure 2-6 Rendering of Proposed Elephant Holding Building Elevations 

Source: Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park, Chatelain Architects 2004. 



3.0 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This section describes the affected environment to document the existing conditions of the 

project area, and provide a technical baseline for the subsequent evaluation of impacts. Those 

resource disciplines that would potentially be affected by the project alternatives are included. 

This section also identifies the potential impacts of the proposed project and recommends 

appropriate mitigation measures. Potential impacts to resources within the project study area may 

include direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts. Direct impacts would be caused by the 

proposed action, and would occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect impacts 

would be caused or influenced by the action and would occur later in time or further removed in 

distance. Cumulative impacts would result from the incremental impact of the proposed action, 

when added to the impact of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

3.1 Geophysical Resources 

The natural topography of the Zoo consists of a moderately to steeply sloping basin, descending 

eastward from the main entrance of the Zoo to the eastern Zoo boundary near Rock Creek (a 

change from approximately 210 feet (ft) to 55 ft in elevation, relative to mean sea level). The 

topography of the project area slopes moderately to the Zoo perimeter road to the north and 

gently to Olmsted Walk to the south. The natural topography of the proposed project site has 

been previously modified over time by the introduction of fill material to create animal exhibits 

(e.g., the cheetah and zebra exhibits) at this location. 

The soils of the project site are classified as urban land soils, which are soils that have been 

previously cut (excavated) and filled with other soil materials. The project site soils have been 

historically disturbed for exhibit construction and operation, and/or covered with impervious 

materials such as asphalt, concrete, and building materials. In steeply sloped areas of the site, 

soils may be mixed with bluestone, which was used to stabilize the soil from disturbance from 

animal traffic. There is no known history of soil contamination or previous use of contaminated 

fill at the project site. 

In the project area, natural soils overlie bedrock, generally at depths of 25 ft below the natural 

soil surface, based on recent geotechnical explorations on the site. Bedrock in the area may also 

occur at greater depths due to the placement of fill material during past development of previous 

and existing exhibits in the project area. 

The project area has mature and fully developed vegetative cover with few areas of exposed soil, 

except within the animal exhibit yards. Paved pedestrian pathways are provided around the 

animal exhibits. Overall, minor potential exists on-site for soil erosion and sediment transport 

due to stormwater runoff. 

Potential Geophysical Resource Impacts 

Under the Proposed Alternative, project site topography would be altered by demolition, grading, 

fill placement, excavation, and construction activities. However, there would not be major 

elevation or topographic profile changes to the project site. Excavated soils would not be 

anticipated to contain contaminants and would, therefore, be suitable for reuse on-site. 



Project site soils would be subject to disturbance from demolition of existing exhibit 

infrastructure, clearing and grubbing of vegetation, and surface grading to prepare the site for the 

proposed facilities. The construction of the proposed elephant facility, which would occur in an 

area of previously disturbed fill material, would require regrading, and potentially the placement 

of additional fill material, to create level areas for the facility and its yards. It is not anticipated 

that bedrock would be encountered during construction due to the typical depth of bedrock on 

the site (25 ft or greater). Thus, there would be no anticipated construction complications (i.e. 

pile driving and/or blasting/drilling of rock outcrops) related to bedrock. 

Clearing of the project site and construction of the elephant facility may occur during the same 

time period as the on-going construction activities of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the impacts 

to site topography, soils, and geology from this project would cumulatively contribute to the ongoing 

changes to topography; including the movement of soil within the Asia Trail project. 

However, the project area has been previously disturbed to establish animal exhibits. Therefore, 

there would be no impacts to original undisturbed soil and topography. In addition, there would 

be no cumulative impacts to geology. Overall, development of the elephant facility would likely 

result in minor impacts to topography, moderate temporary impacts to site soils, and no impact to 

geology. 

Mitigation 

The potential for soil erosion impacts during construction, due to the disturbance of on-site soils 

and vegetation, would be temporary and mitigated by the implementation of appropriate best 

management practices (BMPs) addressing soil erosion. If detected, contaminated soils would be 

collected, transported, and disposed of using appropriate BMPs for handling hazardous materials. 

3.2 Water Resources 

Surface Water 

The project site is located in one of the larger, highly urbanized surface drainage areas in the 

District, with an impervious surface area estimated at 50 percent, based on D.C. standards for 

urban areas. The site naturally drains to Rock Creek, which is located along the Zoo’s eastern 

boundary. The project site does not include wetlands and is not within the Rock Creek 

floodplain. 

Rock Creek is a natural water body and a minor tributary to the Potomac River, which is part of 

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. It meanders through the lower portions of the Zoo, separating 

the public area and animal exhibits of the Zoo from other parts of the Zoo to the south. Rock 

Creek is considered jurisdictional “waters of the United States,” subject to the regulatory control 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Rock Creek is also a designated Special Waters of the 

District of Columbia (SWDC) and subject to the water quality requirements of the District of 

Columbia as currently maintained under US EPA agreements with the District Water and Sewer 

Administration (WASA). 



Portions of Maryland and the District drain into Rock Creek, and the water quality and biological 

communities of the Creek are impacted by the deposition of sediment, pesticides, hydrocarbons, 

and animal fecal coliform from urban and agricultural runoff (USGS 2002). Rock Creek does 

not meet the water quality standards established for the Creek, primarily due to fecal coliform. 

The Creek is not designated for primary contact recreation (e.g., swimming). Stormwater runoff 

(excluding contaminated stormwater) collected from the Zoo, as well as Rock Creek Park, 

discharges directly into Rock Creek; therefore, appropriate stormwater management at the Zoo is 

critical to preventing adverse impacts to Rock Creek. 

Stormwater 

Stormwater flows from developed drainage basins, such as the Zoo, are typically much greater 

than flows from undeveloped basins due to the presence of more impervious surfaces. Higher 

stormwater flows increase the potential for stream erosion and scour, and subsequent stream 

bank failure and channel widening. Impervious surfaces of the project site include pedestrian 

pathways and the roofs of structures. Stormwater runoff is collected at the Zoo via storm drains 

and discharged to Rock Creek via several outfalls. Under Asia Trail Phase I, sand filters (known 

as bay savers) were installed to improve the quality of the stormwater discharge, for which a 

permit was issued by the DC Department of Health. In addition, a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit addresses this discharge. 

Contaminated Stormwater 

Animal exhibits at the zoo are generally designed to be level, thereby reducing the potential for 

sediment and contaminate transport by stormwater. Solid animal waste in the exhibit areas is 

collected daily to reduce the level of contamination to stormwater runoff from the exhibit areas. 

The Zoo’s animal pens also have separate stormwater collection systems from the Zoo’s 

stormwater system (known as contaminated storm sewer). The contaminated stormwater runoff 

is collected and transported by underground pipeline to a large, central holding tank prior to 

release to the District’s sanitary sewer system. The Zoo’s contaminated storm sewer system and 

holding tank are designed to avoid overflow releases into Rock Creek. 

Groundwater 

Depth to bedrock within the project site is estimated to be deeper than approximately 25 ft 

beneath the natural soil elevation, based on geotechnical studies performed in December 2004. 

Groundwater is assumed to be confined at bedrock, unless impermeable layers, such as clay, 

perch groundwater above the bedrock within the soil layers. Groundwater is not a source of 

water supply on the project site and there are currently no groundwater wells on site. There are 

no known septic tanks, associated effluent drainage fields, or underground storage tanks located 

on the project site. In addition, there is no known groundwater contamination from contaminant 

spills (fuels, oils, lubricants, pesticides, etc.) or imported fill material. 



Potential Water Resource Impacts 

The proposed project would not likely impact water resources due to the proposed improvements 

to the Zoo’s storm and sewer systems. Construction activities would temporarily disturb soil and 

vegetation on the project site. However, the implementation of appropriate BMPs to control 

sedimentation and stormwater would prevent sedimentation impacts to the Creek. The proposed 

project would not occur within the floodplains of Rock Creek. 

With the development of the proposed project, the amount of impervious surface on the project 

site would moderately increase due to the additional surface area of the elephant facility 

structures and paved areas. To minimize the potential impact of the additional stormwater runoff 

that the increased surface area would generate, appropriate BMPs would be implemented to 

control stormwater quality and quantity on the project site, maintaining current stormwater 

discharge rates from the Zoo to Rock Creek. A vegetated “green” roof is proposed for the 

elephant facility to reduce stormwater runoff and to absorb heat rather than radiate heat. 

Stormwater runoff collection and transportation systems would be upgraded by the demolition 

and replacement of failing pipeline and appurtenances on-site, thereby reducing the potential for 

contaminated stormwater runoff from the proposed elephant pens from reaching other 

stormwater, groundwater, and surface water resources. 

Under this project, additional sand filters (known as bay savers) are proposed to improve the 

quality of the stormwater discharge. The DC Department of Consumer Affairs issued a combined 

erosion control/ sedimentation plan permit and stormwater permit (permit #B46069) for the Asia 

Trail project. In addition, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

General Permit addresses this discharge. 

Groundwater flow on-site would not be confined due to the implementation of the proposed 

project. Minor increases in impervious surfaces would result in a minor reduction of the recharge 

area for groundwater on the site. Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during 

construction. Therefore, there would be no anticipated impact on groundwater resources. 


time period as the on-going construction activities of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the potential 

impacts to water resources generated would cumulatively contribute to the potential for impacts 

to water resources. However, through the use of appropriate construction BMP’s impacts to 

water resources from erosion and sedimentation would be minimized, and potential operational 

impacts would be unchanged since this exhibit is moving from the existing Elephant House on 

the Zoo grounds. Overall, the proposed demolition and construction of facilities and 

infrastructure on-site would result in minor impacts to water resources. 

Mitigation 

Construction is not anticipated to encounter groundwater at depth; however, dewatering 

measures will be implemented for subsurface construction if groundwater is encountered. Prior 

to beginning construction activities, an erosion and sedimentation control plan and a stormwater 



management plan would be prepared and submitted to the D.C. Department of Consumer and 

Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). The erosion and sedimentation control plan would address runoff 

and pollutant discharge and include measures to prevent erosion of cleared areas and the 

transport of soil and sediment. The stormwater management system for the elephant facility 

would be upgraded to adhere to DC water quality programs and permits consistent with current 

agreements between US EPA and DC WASA. Therefore, as part of the Asia Trail project, the 

elephant facility would obtain erosion control and water quality permits from DCRA. Overall, 

implementation of these mitigation measures would avoid or minimize impacts to water 

resources from implementation of proposed project. 

3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Vegetation 

Within the project site, there is a variety of vegetation including a mixture of native and 

introduced tree species. Healthy mature trees provide the greatest environmental value for animal 

habitat and visual benefits. On the project site, there are approximately 102 trees consisting of 26 

species. A recent tree survey of the Zoo categorized the value of the trees for insurance purposes 

based on their diameter at breast height (4.5 feet), species factor, health factor, and regional 

value constant and ranked them into six categories (in decreasing order of value): heritage, 

significant, transplant, expendable, removal, and not affected. On the project site, the majority of 

the trees are expendable undesirable species and comparatively little vegetation is worthy of 

preservation. There are two heritage and two significant trees on the project site. 

Immediately northwest of the project site on the Zoo grounds, there is a dense stand of mature 

deciduous trees between the Zoo’s perimeter road and a high-rise residence building on 

Connecticut Avenue approximately 200 feet from the road (see Figure 1-2). During the spring 

through fall, this stand of trees provides a visual and noise barrier between the Zoo facilities and 

the residence building. Conversely, in the winter months, the trees are bare of leaves and the 

building can be seen from the Zoo facilities. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for conserving, protecting and 

enhancing plant species that are federally protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 

National Park Service (NPS), which administers Rock Creek Park, maintains records of rare and 

endangered species that occur within the Park and on various properties adjacent to the Park. 

According to these records, there are no threatened and endangered plant species, as defined by 

the ESA, located within the project site or surrounding areas. 

Wildlife 

The presence of multiple canopy layers and a diversity of plant species on the project site is 

conducive to wildlife use. In addition, the Zoo parcel is not completely isolated within the 

surrounding urban setting. Rock Creek Park provides a green, contiguous corridor that allows 

animal migration in and out of the Zoo. Transient wildlife such as bird, small mammal, 

amphibian, and reptile species are likely supported on the project site. Bird species may use the 

forested areas for breeding as well as visits during spring and fall migration. Raccoons (Procyon 



lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), and opossums (Didelphis marsupialis) are common to 

urban forest habitats, are known to occur at the Zoo, and may occur on the project site. Whitetailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are commonly seen on the Zoo grounds and the red fox 

(Vulpes vulpes) is most likely present also. 

There are no listed threatened or endangered animal species known to occur naturally on the 

project site. One listed species occurring naturally at the Zoo, the Hay’s Spring amphipod 

(Stygobromus hayi), has only been documented to occur in a single spring at the south end of the 

Zoo grounds and at two locations in Rock Creek Park (Nature Serve 2003). 

In addition to native and migratory animal species, the project site may be subject to undesirable 

feral animals including wild dogs and cats that enter and leave the Zoo by breaching the Zoo’s 

perimeter fence. These feral animals are attracted to the available animal food and captive 

animals in the Zoo exhibits, as well as other wild animal species within the Zoo, and prey upon 

them. 

Potential Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts 

Based on the Zoo tree survey, of the 102 trees in the project area, 31 trees are identified to be 

retained on-site, 10 are to be relocated off-site, and 61 are to be eliminated, resulting in a total 

loss of 71 trees (1,283 diameter inches) on-site or approximately 70 percent. The 31 trees to be 

retained are not in the project construction area and include the 2 heritage and 2 significant trees 

on the site. Relocated transplanted trees are desirable species 12 inches or less in diameter to be 

relocated to other areas at the Zoo. The primary reason for removing the 71 trees is because they 

are in the project construction area. However, based on the tree survey data, many of the trees to 

be eliminated are in poor to fair health, are weak-wooded, short-lived species not recommended 

for growth in public areas, intolerant to construction or grade changes in their root zones, or 

naturally toxic and therefore, undesirable to have around animal exhibits. The addition of Asianthemed 

trees as part of the elephant facility would substantially offset the amount of trees 

removed from the site. 

In addition to trees, other vegetation would also be disturbed during construction. However, by 

implementing phased construction and through the use of appropriate BMPs, the vegetation 

disturbance would be minor and short-term. As described above regarding trees, native and 

Asian-themed vegetative species would be introduced in the project area and the proposed 

building design includes a green-roof system with sustainable vegetation. The revegetation plan 

has not been developed; however, as a matter of SI policy it will be prepared in compliance with 

applicable DC regulations. This aspect of the project will be incorporated into future 

submissions to external review agencies, such as NCPC. 

Wildlife and exhibit animals in the project area would be temporarily disrupted by the 

construction of the proposed project. Zoo animals in the existing exhibits of the project area 

would be relocated to other parts of the Zoo, moved to the Zoo’s facility in Front Royal, 

Virginia, or temporarily sent to other Zoos. Once constructed, the proposed project would result 

in moderate positive impacts to wildlife and vegetation, due to elimination of undesirable tree 

species and an overall increase in the number of trees and tree diameter in the project area. This 



increase would provide additional shelter and nesting areas for native and migratory birds, as 

well as other animals, occurring in the project area. 


time period as the on-going construction activities of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the impacts 

to vegetation and wildlife would cumulatively contribute to the existing vegetation and wildlife 

impacts of Asia Trail Phase I. However, as with Phase I, clearing vegetation to re-landscape the 

exhibit area removes undesirable tree species, preserves desired tree species (including heritage 

and significant trees), and plants new desired trees. 

Mitigation 

To minimize the short-term impacts from tree and other vegetation removal, phased construction 

and appropriate BMPs would be implemented to minimize the short-term reduction of tree 

canopy and ground-level vegetative habitat for wildlife species. Long term impacts would be 

minimized by the planting and development of the new trees. To maximize the ecological value 

of new vegetation being added to the new elephant facility, the new trees and shrubs should be 

clustered. 

3.4 Air Quality 

In response to the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, and the CAA Amendments of 1977 and 1990, 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, 

lead, particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in size (PM10), and fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5). The EPA assesses regional compliance with the NAAQS and regions not in 

compliance with the NAAQS are identified as “nonattainment areas.” 

The proposed project is located in a region that currently meets the NAAQS for all criteria 

pollutants except ozone (USEPA 2004). In 2003, the EPA redesignated the region from 

“serious” non-attainment to “severe” non-attainment for ozone. In non-attainment areas, the 

CAA requires the region to achieve attainment based on a regional attainment plan. Federal 

agencies in such regions are required to either determine the conformity of their planned actions 

with the plan or to determine that the actions are exempt from conformity determination. 

Emissions from construction-related equipment and vehicles, and operational emissions from 

vehicles and buildings, are subject to conformity determinations. However, actions are exempt 

where the total of all reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect emissions from project 

construction and operation: (1) would be less than specified “de minimis” thresholds for emission 

rates, and (2) would be less than ten percent of the area’s annual emission budget. In severe nonattainment 

areas for ozone, the respective de minimis thresholds for volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), the primary pollutant constituents forming ground-level 

ozone, are 25 tons per year. 



The existing air pollutant sources at the project site include gas-powered maintenance equipment 

and employee vehicles. Emission sources adjacent to the site include vehicle traffic on nearby 

roadways and natural gas-burning heating equipment at residential and office buildings. 

Potential Air Quality Impacts 

Construction under the Proposed Alternative may temporarily affect air quality due to emissions 

from equipment and employee vehicles as well as fugitive dust produced by soil disturbance 

activities. Once project construction is completed, pollutant emissions may be generated by the 

burning of natural gas to provide heat and hot water for the project facilities. The emissions 

from such operations are anticipated to be negligible. Since the proposed project would not 

result in increased vehicle trips, there would be no generation of additional mobile emissions. 

Annual project emissions are predicted to be less than the de minimis threshold levels for ozone 

precursors VOC and NOx and less than 10 percent of the projected 2005 VOC and NOx budget 

from the area’s attainment plan. Therefore, determination of the proposed action’s conformity 

with the regional air quality attainment plan is not required. 


time period as the on-going construction activities of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the air 

quality emissions generated for the project would cumulatively contribute to the air emissions of 

Phase I. However, annual combined emissions are estimated to be below the de minimis 

threshold levels for ozone precursors VOC and NOx and less than 10 percent of the projected 

2005 VOC and NOx budget from the area’s attainment plan. Therefore, the projects would 

continue to be exempt for an air quality conformity determination. 

Mitigation 

Appropriate BMPs would be implemented during construction to eliminate or minimize 

construction and dust emissions. Applicable BMPs would include: 

• providing commercial electric power for construction instead of portable generators 

wherever feasible; and 

• watering or covering active grading areas and stockpiles to stabilize soil from wind 

erosion. 

3.5 Noise 

Noise levels are measured and expressed in decibels (dB) that are perceivable by the human ear 

or dB(A). District of Columbia regulations that limit the noise levels allowable in residential, 

commercial, and industrial zones, respectively, have recently been revised. Allowable noise 

levels for construction and demolition activities (excluding pile driving) are limited to 80 dB(A), 

and may occur only from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m (previously 7:00 p.m.). 

Receptors generally considered to be sensitive to noise include humans performing specific 

activities, or located within specific land uses, that may be stressed by significant interference 

from noise. Sensitive noise receptors include residential dwellings, hotels, hospitals, nursing 



homes, education facilities, and libraries, where sleeping, healing, or concentrating is a priority. 

Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered biological species, or their 

habitat, during breeding and/or nesting seasons. Commercial (office buildings) and industrial 

land uses are not considered to be sensitive to noise. 

Sensitive noise receptors on the project site include the Zoo’s animal exhibits, which are 

designed to encourage natural animal behaviors such as social interaction, sleeping, and 

breeding. Off-site, sensitive noise receptors within the project area include multi-storied 

residential buildings adjacent to the Zoo boundary to the east on Hawthorne Street (near the 

service gate) and to the northeast on Connecticut Avenue (near the main visitor entrance). 

The predominant source of noise in the project area is vehicle traffic on Connecticut Avenue and 

the Zoo’s perimeter road. With the on-going implementation of Asia Trail Phase I, demolition, 

earth-moving, and construction activities currently generate noise during the hours specified by 

the District for construction. Specific noise-related activities in the vicinity of the residential 

buildings include construction vehicles arriving at the Hawthorne Street entrance at 7:00 a.m. 

and construction of the relocated sloth bear facility for Asia Trail Phase I. 

Potential Noise Impacts 

Sensitive noise receptors on and adjacent to the project site would be subject to noise from 

demolition, grading, renewal, and construction activities associated with the proposed project. 

The closest receptors to the project site would be the residential buildings on Connecticut 

Avenue approximately 200 feet northwest of the project site at the Zoo’s perimeter. The line-ofsight 

between the residential building and the project site is blocked by the trees in the spring 

through fall months. However, during the winter months, when the trees are bare of leaves, the 

construction activities on the project site would be visible from the building, and therefore, the 

construction noise would potentially be more audible and perceived to be louder. The benefit of 

the winter months is that windows of the residences would be predominantly closed. In addition, 

the development-related noise would occur when ambient noise levels are typically elevated by 

the sounds of urban activity (e.g. vehicle traffic, voices and other construction), and would not 

affect nocturnal sleep at animal exhibits or surrounding residences. Since no pile driving is 

anticipated, the noise level from construction activities would not exceed the District’s allowable 

limits for daytime construction. 

Noise from trucks transporting materials to and from the project site could also disturb noise 

receptors adjacent to the haul-route. Residences located near Zoo entrances used for construction 

access would likely be affected by hauling-related noise. However, hauling operations are 

anticipated to occur during times when heavily trafficked Connecticut Avenue would carry the 

greatest volumes of construction-related traffic. Overall, development under the Proposed 

Alternative would likely result in minor temporary construction impacts with respect to noise 

levels. 

Since implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to permanently increase 

visitation, there would be no expected increase in traffic associated with the project. Operational 

noises would be limited to those transferred from the Elephant House to the proposed elephant 



facility, moving the noise source closer to the residences on Connecticut Avenue. Therefore, the 

minor operational noise levels from the elephant facility would be closer to the residences. 

However, the predominant noise levels would be associated with visitation activities 


time period as the on-going construction activities of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the noise 

generated would cumulatively contribute to the existing site noise. However, when noise levels 

are combined, the resulting noise level is not the sum of the noise, but an incremental increase in 

the noise level for all Asia Trail projects, short-term construction noise is anticipated to be at 

levels in compliance with the District noise regulations based on the activities to be performed. 

Mitigation 

Construction-related noise would be controlled at the source, through implementation of best 

management practices, as necessary to meet the District noise standards. Noise barriers should 

be used, if necessary, to attenuate excessive construction noise in proximity to sensitive noise 

receptors. It is recommended that construction specifications require the selection of truck routes 

that would minimize the potential for noise impacts to residences from trucks during 

construction, particularly during truck delivery of construction materials including imported fill. 

3.6 Infrastructure/Utilities 

As with other exhibit areas of the Zoo, the project site contains underground and above ground 

utilities systems (e.g., pipelines, pumps, conduits) for potable water supply, sanitary sewer, 

contaminated storm sewer, stormwater sewer, energy systems, and solid and hazardous waste. A 

study of the Zoo facilities identified the utilities at the project site (the existing cheetah exhibit 

area) to be in fair condition, while the utilities at the Elephant House and grounds were identified 

as failing. 

Water Supply 

The project site uses potable water originating from the Potomac River, supplied via District 

reservoirs, treatment plants, and distribution pipelines. The Zoo’s water supply system including 

the project site is scheduled for improvements and selective replacement of pipes, fire hydrants 

and water meters due to age and inadequate capacity. 

Sanitary Sewer 

Sewage from Zoo is collected and discharged via pipeline to the District’s sanitary sewer main 

along Rock Creek, and transported to the District’s Blue Plains Waste Water Treatment Facility 

for treatment and subsequent discharge to the Potomac River. The Zoo’s sewage system 

including the project site is scheduled for improvements and selective replacement of pipes and 

pumps due to age and inadequate capacity. 



Contaminated Storm Sewer 

As discussed under Section 3.2, Water Resources, the contaminated storm sewer collects 

stormwater runoff from animal exhibit areas, which contain solid animal waste. The Zoo’s 

contaminated storm sewer system including the project site is scheduled for improvements and 

selective replacement of contaminated storm sewer pipes and pumps due to deterioration with 

age. 

Stormwater Management Systems 

As discussed under Section 3.2, Water Resources, the stormwater management system at the Zoo 

collects stormwater runoff from areas of the Zoo, other than animal exhibit areas, including 

impervious surfaces such as parking lots, streets, and pathways. The Zoo’s stormwater system 

including the project site is scheduled for improvements and selective replacement of stormwater 

pipes and pumps due to deterioration with age. 

Energy Systems 

The Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) provides electricity to the Zoo. Zoo facilities 

are currently heated by a variety of systems including: electricity (smaller exhibit enclosures), 

natural gas (Panda House), and steam (Elephant House). SI plans to convert to natural gas 

heating for future Zoo facilities. The Energy Management Branch of the Smithsonian Institution 

is responsible for energy conservation at the Zoo. 

Solid Waste 

The Zoo’s solid waste includes non-hazardous waste such as rubbish from employees and 

visitors as well as manure from animals. SI contracts with waste haulers to remove nonhazardous 

solid waste. Currently, there is not enough animal waste generated at the Zoo to 

warrant recycling of the waste via a fuel generation cell. 

Hazardous Waste 

Hazardous materials such as solvents, paints, pesticides, and chemicals are used at the Zoo’s 

animal hospital and other facilities. Hazardous waste generated at the Zoo is centrally collected 

at an accumulation facility prior to transport and disposal. The Zoo’s hazardous waste generation 

is relatively small by volume, requiring only one 55-gallon drum to contain the accumulation. 

The existing facilities at the project site, built in the 1970s, potentially contain hazardous 

building materials such as lead-based paint, PCB-containing fluorescent lighting, and asbestoscontaining 

materials. The proposed demolition and renovation activities would potentially 

disturb these materials if they exist, creating health hazards for workers (e.g. incidental ingestion, 

absorption of materials from contact, or inhalation of airborne particles). 



SI has established policies for handling and disposing of hazardous materials. If encountered, 

hazardous materials are removed from the Zoo, properly treated, and disposed of at an 

appropriate hazardous waste facility, in compliance with applicable regulations. Licensed 

hazardous waste haulers, not general solid waste haulers, are contracted to handle hazardous 

wastes. 

Zoo Security 

Security elements for visitors and animals include animal containment measures to contain Zoo 

animals, to allow visitors to view animals from a safe distance, provide pleasant interpretive 

experiences by remaining unobtrusive, and prevent intrusion into exhibits by animals in other 

exhibits, outside wildlife, and visitors. 

The National Zoo is bisected by Rock Creek, Rock Creek Parkway and an adjacent recreation 

trail, and accessed by roadway entrances along the southern and eastern Zoo perimeter. 

Independent of the Asia Trail project, the Zoo’s perimeter fence is undergoing renovations due to 

age, and is being upgraded to preclude access via Rock Creek. Near to the Asia Trail project 

area, the Zoo’s perimeter fence is located along Hawthorne Street by the main entrance to the 

Zoo. 

Potential Infrastructure/Utilities Impacts 

Demolition and construction activities would generate an additional short term quantity of solid 

waste which may require additional waste haulers. 

The proposed relocation of the elephant exhibit into a new, modern facility would provide 

improved sanitary, sewer, contaminated storm sewer, and stormwater lines, an expanded natural 

gas system, and updated security for the elephant exhibit. Therefore, the project would result in 

minor positive impacts with respect to overall Zoo infrastructure/utilities and exhibit security. 


time period as the on-going construction activities of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the changes 

to the elephant exhibit infrastructure and utilities would cumulatively contribute to the changes 

under Phase I. However, these would be positive changes with the replacement and upgrade of 

aged piping systems, reducing the release of water and wastewater. 

Mitigation 

Appropriate BMPs for the removal and disposal of stockpiled demolition and construction 

materials would be implemented. 



3.7 Planning Controls and Policies 

There are several plans and policies that are applicable to the project site. These include the 

following: 

• The Olmsted Concept – Prepared by the landscape architecture firm of Frederick Law 

Olmsted, the plan conceived of the Zoo as a naturally scenic park in which the display of 

animals would be the prime consideration. The pathways and carriageways were 

designed in a curvilinear manner respectful of the site’s steep topography and to avoid 

“the ordinary directness of line in towns-streets, with its resultant regularity of plan” to 

provide a sequence of changing vistas for visitors. 

• 1972 Master Plan – The plan proposed to increase indoor and outdoor spaces for animals 

and replace conventional Zoo barriers with landscape devices. The plan called for the 

introduction of water into the Zoo landscape to separate animals and people and 

encouraged the construction of underground structures, built into the sides of hills, to 

provide exhibit space without destroying the continuity of the landscape. 

• 1986 Revised Master Plan - The plan retained the design objectives of the 1972 Master 

Plan but proposed a conceptual change to gradually transform the Zoo into a “Biopark”. 

The Biopark concept divided the Zoo into 11 thematic zones, each containing 

ecologically-related exhibits. The 1986 plan identified three zones (aquatic habitats, 

forests, and grasslands) and indicated further thematic zones could be developed in the 

future. 

Ongoing Planning Efforts 

A facilities study conducted in 1996 evaluated the conditions of the various exhibit areas in the 

Zoo and sorted them into five categories - “failing”, “poor”, “fair”, “good” and “in process”. 

This study identified the Elephant House as “failing” and the cheetah exhibit area as “fair”. 

In an effort to restore its place as a world-class zoo, the National Zoo prepared a renewal plan 

based on a vision to transform the animal exhibits into “animal programs”, which integrate all 

aspects of the physical facility (the exhibit) with research, education and conservation in order to 

focus on an animal or group of animals, and provide visitors with a more in-depth experience 

involving the animals and habitats. Animal programs already in place include the “Think Tank” 

(cognitive learning facility for primates), Giant Pandas (conservation program for giant pandas in 

China), and Amazonia/Science Gallery (conservation and research in the neotropics) programs. 

The Asia Trail will constitute another such program. 

In addition, the Zoo will undertake a comprehensive facilities master plan in 2005-2006 to 

comprehensively address the future development of the National Zoo. The master plan will 

incorporate the ongoing renewal efforts into a single coordinated plan. 



Potential Planning Impacts 

As recommended in the Olmsted Concept, the proposed elephant exhibit would continue the 

practice of providing viewing areas located off of secondary paths. The proposed development 

would also retain some of the park-like setting envisioned in the Olmsted Concept by locating 

the proposed facility away from Olmsted Walk, and continuing a landscape buffer adjacent to the 

walk. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Olmsted Concept. The 

proposed project would also be consistent with the 1972 Master Plan, as it would continue the 

use of buffering methods alternative to fencing, including the use of water, to separate animals 

and people. The proposed project would also be consistent with the 1986 Master Plan, as it 

would expand the area of the Asia Trail program and would continue the 1986 Master Plan’s 

intention of establishing thematic zones. In addition, the proposed elephant facility is in 

compliance with the renewal plan for the Zoo. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent 

with previous Zoo plans and would result in positive impacts to planning controls and policies. 

The relocation and construction of a new elephant facility would coincide with the ongoing 

development of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the potential impacts to planning policies would 

add to the potential planning policy impacts of Phase I. However, as with Phase I, the project 

would be consistent with the Olmsted Concept, existing master plans, and the Zoo’s renewal 

plans. Therefore, there would be no adverse cumulative impacts. 

3.8 Visitation and Visitor Experience 

Visitation 

The Zoo provides a recreational resource for residents of the Washington metropolitan area and a 

draw for national and international tourists visiting Washington D.C. The animal exhibits 

provide an opportunity for visitors to learn about wildlife and its conservation in a peaceful and 

quiet setting within an urban environment. The elephant exhibit at the Elephant House is one of 

the major exhibits of the Zoo, and is a popular destination for Zoo visitors. The number of 

visitors to the elephant exhibit is anticipated to remain approximately unchanged from the 

Elephant House to the elephant facility. A temporary initial increase in visitation would be 

anticipated when the new facility opens. 

Visitor Experience 

The Elephant House is located on Olmsted Walk (the primary pedestrian pathway of the Zoo) in 

a relatively central location among Zoo exhibits, with circuitous infrastructure aligned in an eastwest 

orientation. Most amenities serving Zoo visitors, such as cafes and gift shops, are located 

along Olmsted Walk and various animal exhibits are located along secondary paths that extend 

from Olmsted Walk. A visitor’s experience at the elephant exhibit begins immediately off of 

Olmsted Walk at the entrance of the Elephant House. Inside the House, visitors pass through a 

large, high-ceilinged room with elephant pens on either side. Visitors can leave the House and 

traverse the perimeter of the elephant yards on paved sidewalks (see Figure 3-1). 



Source: EDAW 2004 

Figure 3-1 Entrance and Holding Pens of the Elephant House 

In the project area, a secondary path splits from Olmsted Walk, immediately to the east of the 

Visitor Center. The path loops around the cheetah exhibit and branches near the bus zone. One 

branch of the path loops back to Olmsted Walk; the other connects to the Panda Pavilion. 

Visitors to the project area may currently view cheetahs, kangaroos and zebras in outdoor pens 

(see Figure 3-2). Other structures are also associated with each exhibit area. The structures that 

house the cheetahs are mostly hidden behind bermed mounds, while the structures that house the 

kangaroos and zebras are visible to visitors. 


Figure 3-2 Visitor Experience at the Kangaroo and Zebra Exhibits 

Potential Visitation Impacts 

The visitation changes due to the proposed elephant facility are anticipated to be the same as 

those identified in the Asia Trail EA. Overall, the Proposed Alternative is not anticipated to have 

a direct long-term impact on visitation to the Zoo; however, the new elephant facility is expected 

to initially attract more Zoo visitors for a limited period of time after it opens. 



The proposed improvements would have a beneficial impact on the experience of visitors to the 

Zoo. The proposed elephant facility would improve and enhance an area of the Zoo that was 

identified to be in “fair” condition in the facility study, and is in need of modernization. The new 

facility would be designed to reflect contemporary methodologies of research and observation, 

and is anticipated to be an improvement in comparison to the existing elephant exhibit at the 

Elephant House. The new facility would be designed to promote more natural elephant 

behaviors, and would emphasize scientific research to study, protect and celebrate Asian 

elephants. By visiting the elephants at the proposed elephant facility, visitors will be exposed to 

the importance of conservation efforts in preserving these animals and the ecosystems that 

support them. 


development of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the potential impacts to visitation and visitor 

experience would add to the potential impacts of Phase I. However, as with Phase I, the project 

would not increase visitation and would improve the visitor experience. Therefore, there would 

be no adverse cumulative impacts from this project. 

3.9 Pedestrian Circulation 

Pedestrian traffic within the project area is accommodated by paved sidewalks that provide 

access to animal exhibits and connect to Olmsted Walk and the Zoo’s perimeter road. Pedestrian 

access to the elephant exhibit is provided by paved sidewalks leading directly from Olmsted 

Walk to the Elephant House and elephant yards. Pedestrian access to the Elephant House and the 

exhibits of the project site is ADA-compliant. 

Potential Pedestrian Circulation Impacts 

The proposed project would relocate this popular exhibit of the Zoo, which receives a moderate 

amount of visitor pedestrian traffic, to an area that currently receives less visitor pedestrian 

traffic. With development of the proposed facilities, visitation from Zoo visitors would be 

anticipated to initially increase, as with other Asia Trail exhibits, due to its improved visitor 

experience. Walkways at the project site would be designed to accommodate pedestrian flow to 

the relocated exhibit and would be ADA-compliant. 


development of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the potential impacts to pedestrian circulation 

would add to the potential impacts of Phase I. However, as with Phase I, the project would 

improve pedestrian circulation. Therefore, there would be no adverse cumulative impacts to 

pedestrian circulation from this project. 

3.10 Archaeological and Historic Resources 

Archaeological evidence from the region indicates that Native Americans occupied various areas 

in what is now Washington, D.C. The lands along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, Rock Creek 

and Tiber Creek, and the many tributaries that ran through the Washington, D.C. area, offered 

tribes abundant game animals and fish, a variety of plant foods, and lithic resources. Early 



archaeological investigations of Washington, D.C. revealed a number of village, camp, and quarry 

sites within the present boundaries of the city. 

In the eighteenth century, a tobacco trading wharf was established on the west bank of Rock 

Creek, at the Creek’s mouth in what is now Georgetown. By 1800, at least four mills were 

operating along Rock Creek above Georgetown. One of these, the Columbian Mill, was located 

just below the sharp bend in Rock Creek that now marks the south perimeter of the Zoo. The 

gradual silting of Rock Creek, along with construction of the commercial wharf at its mouth, 

ended its navigability in the 1830s. A topographical survey map of the future location of the Zoo 

was completed in 1867 by Brigadier General N. Michler. The map shows sparse, estate-centered 

development along the Rock Creek valley, dominated by large landowners. Within the perimeter 

of the future Zoo grounds, only a few landowners are noted. 

Archaeological resources have been documented on the National Zoo property. On a hill along 

Harvard Street overlooking the Zoo, an early archaeologist found evidence of the manufacture of 

stone tools and of a village site, represented by anvils, pestles, concave stone vessels, and many 

preforms of quartz and quartzite. Due to the known presence of Native American settlements 

within Washington, D.C., an archaeological study (JMA 2003) was conducted as a part of impact 

assessment for the Asia Trail EA. An initial reconnaissance to identify landforms that warranted 

testing, any surface indication of resources, and localized disturbances, resulted in the 

identification of warranted shovel testing areas within the Asia Trail project area. When the 

shovel tests were performed within the identified areas, none revealed any artifacts of concern. 

The history of the Zoo began when the Smithsonian Institution, founded in 1846, began 

receiving occasional gifts of live animals. Although the Smithsonian collected the skeletons and 

skins of animals from donors nationwide, they were not equipped to care for live animals. To 

meet this need, the National Zoological Park was established by an Act of Congress in 1889. 

The Rock Creek site was selected due to its picturesque and unspoiled natural features, including 

both steep, rugged terrain and more level areas. Early plans for the Zoo included reserving 

remote wooded slopes at the park as space in which endangered species would live, breed and be 

studied by scientists, as well as development of a smaller area with roads, walkways, and live 

animal exhibits for public enjoyment. 

Landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted and his firm worked with Zoo officials to lay out a 

system of roads, walkways, and bridges to provide public access into the park. Development was 

concentrated in the southeastern sector of the park, where a relatively flat area permitted the 

construction of exhibit buildings. Olmsted recommended the upland northwestern portion of the 

park, near the newly developing Connecticut Avenue, as the preferred area for grazing animals. 

Today, the National Zoo, with its variety of 19 th and 20 th century Zoo-related structures, is listed 

in the National Register of Historic Places as an historic site. The Zoo is also listed in the 

District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites. According to the National Register of Historic 

Places Nomination Form, the Zoo contributes to the cultural heritage and visual beauty of the 

District of Columbia. It is significant that the Zoo was planned by Frederick Law Olmsted & 

Co., the most important landscape architectural firm of the period (While not an historic feature, 

Olmsted Walk, the central pathway of the Zoo constructed in 1984, was named for him). In 



addition, the Zoo’s location and its approach to animal care marked an important departure from 

19 th century practices of confining zoological collections to limited areas. 

An elephant barn constructed in 1891 with a timber frame, was the second permanent building 

constructed at the National Zoo. It was demolished in 1938. 

The current Elephant House was one of several large projects undertaken during the 1930s. 

Designed by Chicago architect Edwin Hill Clark, it is a grand monument to the depression-era 

work relief programs at the Zoo and is a unique building for the Zoo. It does not fall into any of 

the stylistic categories constructed before or since. Constructed in 1937, the Elephant House is a 

tall one-story building, generally rectangular in form, clad in multi-colored stone. The exterior 

adopts a classical vocabulary. Fine limestone rustication on the exterior is mirrored on the 

inside, but in concrete, showing an artistic play between stylistic vocabularies. Two rusticated 

porticos project from the north face of the building. Each portico contains a classical arched 

doorway and is capped by a simple cornice (see Figure 3-3). While the Elephant House is not 

listed individually on the National Register, it is a contributing element to the Zoo’s National 

Register nomination and, due to its age, is potentially eligible for individual listing. 

Source: Smithsonian Institution, 1937 

Figure 3-3 The Elephant House, 1937 

The Elephant House originally included indoor exhibit facilities and yards for elephants, giraffes, 

hippopotamus, and rhinoceros (see Figure 3-4). Today, due to the expanded elephant herd, the 

building houses elephants, giraffes, and hippos, but not rhinos. Elephant pens are located on the 

south side of the building. 





Figure 3-4 Elephant House Exhibits, 1937 







In 1986, a Master Plan completed for the Zoo proposed reorganizing the facility by grouping 

animals into themed exhibits according to their natural geographic locations. One themed 

component, the Asia Trail, is currently under construction. The development is intended to 

modernize, revitalize, rebuild, and relocate existing Asian-themed animal exhibits and associated 

infrastructure and utilities. Relocation of the Asian elephants, from the current Elephant House 

to the proposed elephant facility, is a critical component of the Asia Trail project. The Elephant 

House is currently undergoing renovation, including a new roof (see Figure 3-5). 


Figure 3-5 The Elephant House, 2004 

The proposed site of the new elephant facility has been used continuously since the 1920s for 

various Zoo animal exhibits, including its current use for zebra and cheetah exhibits. As a result, 

the site has been subject to grading and the addition of several feet of fill material. Although 

shovel tests were not conducted at the site as part of the most recent archaeological study, intact 

archaeological resources are not likely present after the past decades of soil disturbance. Built in 

1964, the current zebra/cheetah complex consists of a cluster of pens surrounded by fenced open 

space. The complex is not eligible for listing on the National Register, nor is it considered a 

major contributor to the Zoo’s status as a historic site. 

Potential Archaeological and Historic Resource Effects 

Standards for evaluating potential project effects on historic resources are derived from the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. These regulations define “effect” as 

“alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility 

for the National Register” (36 CFR 800.16). Further, an “adverse effect” occurs “when an 

undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property 

that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish 



the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association” (36 CFR 800.5). 

Potential effects to archaeological and historic resources include direct and indirect effects. The 

physical displacement, demolition, or alteration of a resource is a direct adverse effect; changes 

in the use, operation or character of a resource may be either direct or indirect effects; and 

changes to the visual context are considered indirect effects. The term ‘effects’ as used under 

NHPA is equivalent to the term ‘impacts’ as defined in CEQ regulations. 

Under the proposed alternative, the animal exhibits of the project site would be relocated to the 

Zoo’s off-site facility, the structures of the project site would be demolished, a new elephant 

facility would be constructed on the project site, and the elephant exhibit would be relocated 

from the Elephant House. The demolition of the cheetah facility and the construction of the 

elephant facility would be unlikely to affect prehistoric or historic archaeological artifacts, since 

the area has been subject to decades of disturbance. The demolition of the cheetah facility also 

would not adversely affect historic structures, as the cheetah facility is not eligible for listing on 

the National Register. 

The new elephant facility would not affect planned open space at the Zoo, as it would be 

constructed in an area already designated as a building site. The proposed improvements would 

also continue the Zoo’s philosophy of presenting zoological collections in a natural setting, and 

would enhance the visual beauty of the historic site. For the near term, the intended use of the 

Elephant House is the continued exhibit of large animals (giraffes, rhinos, and hippos), consistent 

with its original function and, therefore, would have no adverse affect on the historic structure. 

The new elephant facility would be set back from, and not affect, Olmsted Walk. Overall, 

implementation of the project would potentially positively affect the Zoo as an historic site. 


development of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the potential effects to archaeological and historic 

resources would add to the potential effects of Phase I. However, as with Phase I, the project 

would not affect archeological and historic resources. Therefore, there would be no adverse 

cumulative effects on these resources from this project. 

Mitigation 

• In the event that archaeological resources are uncovered during ground-disturbing 

activity, construction should be stopped until the appropriate archaeological studies have 

been completed. 

• In accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the Elephant House should 

be protected until a new use is determined for the structure during the Zoo’s upcoming 

master plan process. In addition, the new use for the facility should maximize the 

retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 

• The new elephant facility should be designed so that it is compatible with the materials, 

features, size, scale and proportion, and massing of other buildings at the historic Zoo. 



3.11 Visual Resources 

The area of visual influence for the Asia Trail project is determined by estimating the visibility 

of the proposed alternative to viewers from public places, with particular consideration given to 

the visual sensitivity of those viewers. Generally, the view shed of a project is the area within a 

half-mile radius of the project site, as visibility and visual orientation diminish with distance. 

The Zoo is part of an open space network located within an urban environment of commercial 

and residential uses (Figure 3-6). It is contiguous with Rock Creek Park, a natural wooded 

corridor within the surrounding developed areas. The project area is located towards the western 

portion of the Zoo. As visitors enter the Zoo from the Connecticut Avenue entrance along 

Olmsted Walk, the project area is located to the left (see Figure 3-7), between the Visitor Center 

and the restroom facilities. 

The project area is characterized by grassy exhibit areas, structures accommodating animal 

exhibits, and pedestrian paths. Animal exhibits existing in the project area include the cheetah 

conservation station, and the zebra and kangaroo exhibits. Existing vegetation along most of the 

southern edge of the project area provides a visual buffer between the exhibit area and Olmsted 

Walk. As a result, views to the project area are largely obscured from Olmsted Walk, though a 

few open areas allow viewing of exhibits. From the north, the Zoo’s perimeter road passes 

adjacent to the project area, providing views into the existing exhibit areas. While the project 

area is also visible from the Zoo’s bus parking area and parking lot A (which are shown in Figure 

3-8), the animal pens are not visible to visitors due to vegetation blocking views. 

Figure 3-6 Commercial areas west of the Zoo along Connecticut Avenue 

Source: EDAW 2004. 





Figure 3-7 Olmsted Walk south of the Project Area 

Figure 3-8 The Zoo’s perimeter road and bus parking area 



Potential Visual Resources Impacts 

Improvements of Asia Trail facilities under the Proposed Alternative would create a visual 

environment consistent with existing uses on the Zoo property. The improvements would 

provide an enhanced visual experience for visitors through the use of plants, trees, rocks, and 

other materials native to the ecological environments of the animals exhibited. 

The proposed relocation of the elephant exhibit would extend the Asia Trail area to the north of 

Olmsted Walk. Visitors would experience vegetation representative of the Asian continent as 

they proceed along this portion of Olmsted Walk. Due to existing and proposed vegetation, 

visitors walking along Olmsted Walk would have limited views of the proposed elephant facility. 

Secondary paths within the project area, to the north of Olmsted Walk, would provide greater 

visibility of the elephant exhibit area. While the contents of the project area would change from 

multiple exhibits and older facilities to a single, new facility, the proposed improvements would 

be consistent with the existing visual qualities of the Zoo. 

The proposed improvements would be partially visible from the Zoo’s access road and from the 

bus parking area. The elephant facility would be one of the first structures visible to visitors 

driving into the Zoo. The elephant facility, and the proposed fence at the northern portion of the 

project area, would also be partially visible to visitors using the bus parking area or parking lot 

A. Thus, the visual character of the elephant facility façade and fence would determine the 

extent of the proposed project’s impact on views from the western entrance of the Zoo. 

Vegetation would screen most of the proposed improvements from visibility outside the Zoo. 

However, during winter months, the northern façade of the proposed elephant facility is likely to 

be visible from the multistory apartments north of the Zoo on Connecticut Avenue. This slight 

effect on views is anticipated to be a minor visual impact. 


development of Asia Trail Phase I. Therefore, the potential impacts to visual resources would 

contribute to the potential impacts of Phase I. As with Phase I, the project would initially result 

in moderate visual impacts during construction due to the removal of vegetation and construction 

equipment and activities. However, during future operation of the facility and the regrowth of 

vegetation, the visual impacts would be minimal. Therefore, there would be moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts from this project during construction, with the cumulative impacts becoming 

minimal during operation. 

Mitigation 

Under the Proposed Alternative, evergreen trees would be planted to the north of the elephant 

facility to screen the structure from the view of visitors and residents in multistory apartments 

north of the Zoo on Connecticut Avenue. In addition, the elephant facility façade and fence 

would be designed with visual characteristics appropriate for their location near the entrance of 

the Zoo. 



4.0 

APPENDICES 


ASIA TRAIL – ELEPHANT FACILITY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

4.1 References 

Adams, L.W. and L.E. Dove. Urban Wildlife Habitats, A Landscape Perspective. University of 

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 186 pp. 1989. 

Einhorn, Yoffee, Prescott Architecture and Engineering, P.C. Site Utility Improvement Plan. 

March 9, 2001. 

John Milner Associates, Inc. Draft Cultural Resources Report for Asia Trail at the National 

Zoological Park, Washington, D.C. 2003. 

Moore, John E. Geology, Hydrology, and History of the Washington D.C. Area. American 

Geological Institute: Alexandria, Virginia. 1989. 

Nature Serve. Website article on Hay’s Spring amphipod: http://www.natureserve.org . 

December 2003. 

Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park. Draft Asia Trail II Program Book. May 2003, 

revised September 2003. 

Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park. Environmental Assessment, Asia Trail at the 

National Zoological Park. December 2003. 

Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park. Master Plan Report. 1972. 

Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park. National Register of Historic Places 

Nomination Form. June 20, 1972. 

Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park. Olmsted Walk, Phase I, Preliminary Planning 

& Design – Inventory Summaries. EDAW, Inc.1983. 

Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park. Project Environmental Assessment, Olmsted 

Walk. EDAW, Inc.1984. 

Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park. 1986 Revised Master Plan. November 1986. 

The Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Building and Grounds. Master 

Development Plan for the National Zoological Park of the Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall Architects-Engineers-Planners. 

September 11, 1961. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Area Listings: Classification of Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas, (www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/oindex.html). August 27, 2003. 

APPENDIX


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Listing Hay’s Spring amphipods as an endangered species. Federal Register 47(25): 

5425-26. 1982. 

William H. Gordon Associates, Inc. Analysis of the Water Distribution System, Sanitary Sewer 

System, and Contaminated Storm Sewer System at the National Zoological Park, 

Washington, D.C. March 9, 2001. 

William H. Gordon Associates, Inc. Survey of existing and future impervious surfaces at the 

National Zoo. March 9, 2003. 

APPENDIX


4.2 Preparers 

EDAW, Inc. 

Alan E. Harwood, Principal Planner 

M.U.R.P., Urban Planning and Real Estate Development, 1991 

George Washington University 

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

Jeffrey J. Goodson, Project Manager/Environmental Planner 

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

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

Amit Prothi, AICP, Environmental Planner/Graphic Artist 

M.L.A., 2000, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 

M.R.P., 1996, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 

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

Stephanie Dyer-Carroll, Environmental Planner 

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

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

Jonathan A. Childers, Environmental Planner/Technical Editor 

M.U.R.P., Urban and Regional Planning, 1999, Virginia Tech 

B.S., Biology, 1997, Virginia Tech 

Jeanette M. Studley, Environmental Planner 

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

B.S., Integrated Science and Technology (Energy and Environment), 2001, 

James Madison University 

Avinash Srivastava, Environmental Planner & GIS Analyst 

M.L.A., 1999, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

B. Planning, 1995, New Delhi School of Planning & Architecture 

APPENDIX


4.3 Notification List 

National Park Service 

National Capital Region 

Division of Lands, Resources and 

Planning 

1100 Ohio Drive, SW 


APPENDIX 

John Parsons 

Associate Regional Director 

Sally Blumenthal 

Deputy Assoc. Regional Director 

Rock Creek Park 

3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW 


Adrienne Coleman 

Superintendent 

Steven Potter 

Regional Archeologist 

Council on Environmental Quality 

722 Jackson Place, NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

Dinah Bear 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 3 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Barbara Rudnick 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

John P. Wolflin 

Supervisor 

National Capital Planning 

Commission 


Suite 500 – North Lobby 


Patricia Gallagher 

Executive Director 

Gene Keller 

Environmental Review Officer 

Nancy Witherell 

Historic Preservation Officer 

DC Office of Planning 

801 North Capitol Street, NE 

Suite 4000 


Andrew Altman 

Director 

DC Historic Preservation Division 

(State Historic Preservation Office) 

801 North Capitol Street, NE 

3 rd Floor 


David Maloney 

Deputy SHPO 

Nancy Kassner 

Historical Archaeologist 

Steve Callcott 

Architectural Historian 

DC Department of Public Works 

2000 14 th Street, NW, 6 th Floor 


Leslie Hotaling 

Director


DC Fire and EMS Department 


Suite 370 


APPENDIX 

Captain Richard D. Fleming 

Friends of the National Zoo (FONZ) 

National Zoological Park 

3001 Connecticut Avenue, NW 


Thomas D. LaRock 

Acting Executive Director 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Room 8809 


John M. Fowler 

Executive Director 

National Trust for Historic 

Preservation 

1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 


Richard Moe 

President 

DC Preservation League 

401 F Street, NW 

Room 324 


Rebecca Miller 

Office Manager 

Committee of 100 on the Federal City 

P.O. Box 57106 


Barbara Hartman 

Advisory Neighborhood Commissions 

(ANC) 

ANC 3C01 

2626 Woodley Place, NW 


Alan Hahn 

ANC 1D02 

P.O. Box 43529 


Peter Muller 

ANC 1C01 

Adams Mill Road, NW #208 


Mindy Moretti

asia trail elephant facility - National Zoo - Smithsonian Institution

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?