Exposed sewer pipe in the Soapstone Valley.
The National Park Service has released the environmental assessment of DC Water’s plans for rehabilitating the century-old sewer system in Soapstone Valley. This sets in motion a 59-day public comment period on work that will keep Soapstone users out of the park for as many as four years.
NPS has scheduled a public meeting on Wednesday, June 26th from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Forest Hills of DC Assembly Hall (4901 Connecticut Avenue). It is also accepting comments online and by mail through Friday, August 2nd.
The environmental assessment lays out the impacts of taking no action, and of DC Water’s preferred method of addressing the sewer system degradation: lining the existing sewer pipes in what is called the “trenchless” alternative. The Soapstone Valley would be off-limits to visitors for 18 to 24 months of work and another two years of post-construction restoration.
Other options have been relegated to an appendix. You’ll find all the documentation on the project here.
The project is moving forward after years of delay, with plans going back and forth between DC Water and NPS, which has jurisdiction over this project.
DC Water first came to ANC 3F in 2013 after four years of deliberations with the National Park Service about the need to fix this aging system. The ANC is requesting access to both DC Water and the National Park Service and a reasonable time period for public assessment and input.
At ANC 3F’s May 21 meeting, the commission discussed the impending release of the environmental assessment and the need for a more open process.
3F chair David Dickinson told Forest Hills Connection:
“ANC 3F is looking for an adequate and reasonable public process to both evaluate and comment on a critical project in our community that will have lasting environmental benefits and impacts for decades to come. We appreciate the efforts of DC Water and NPS, but there needs to be an opportunity for the community to engage and provide input on the technical aspects of the project [emphasis added], as well as gain a full understanding of the environmental impacts to an important community asset during the construction phase of the project.”
The ANC’s four-page resolution asks, among other things, that NPS also schedule a second public meeting a couple of weeks after the first for the purpose of asking and follow-up questions.
Anna Marie says
Wow…no park users for up to 4 years?!? You certainly grabbed my attention with that header. I’ll be at the meeting later this month!
Elizabeth Mettler says
We are out of town for the next meeting but would like to add in that while we are very happy to see the work being done – 4 years??? My kids were even upset. I’ll send in comments but is this due to real reasons or is NPS working very slowly. Witness Beach Drive project. Could we at least get a sidewalk down Broad Branch first as Soapstone is our major park access point?
Alex says
According to the Soapstone EA, the entire Park will be closed for construction for an expected 18-24 months. The trails are supposed to be opened after construction is finished. Portions of the Park will be closed for another two years for restoration work. We do not yet know which areas of the Park will be within that category, though a reasonable guess would be those within the heavy equipment zones. So 4 years of closure will only affect unknown areas of the Park- not the entire Park.
This is certainly worthy of exploration at the public meeting on the 26th, and residents should submit comments to DC Water and NPS- before August 2!
Barbara Berman says
What type of construction will this involve? Removable of trees?? Noice level? Sewage pipes are
important for the neighborhood, but 4 years to do it? Can it be done in stages?
Pat says
Removal of 371 trees, “trimming” of 74 more, and loss of Soapstone Valley Park for up to 4 years (not to mention noise and dust) is a shocking price to pay for eliminating toxic sewage! Why not simply divert sewage along Albemarle St. and add needed pump at Linnean St., described in Discarded Alternatives (Appendix D, paragraph 2) and leave existing unused sewers and manholes to decay and return to nature? Disruption along Albemarle and Linnean Streets would be regrettable, but ultimately less destructive.
Kathy Pickens says
The owner of the wooded area behind my house in Delaware removed about 3/4 of the trees for some sort of maintenance turning this property into a wasteland. The loss of the forest is one of the reasons I sold that house and moved here. Isn’t there another way to do this work without eliminating an old growth forest? How sad for all of us who treasure its existence just next door to home.