Save Klingle Valley

Links

Environmental Protections for Klingle

A road proposal faces substantial environmental legal hurdles before it can even get a permit to be built. In order to qualify for federal funding (which comprises the vast majority of DC's DOT spending), a road project must meet federal environmental protection standards (NEPA). Although most roads in DC get what is called a categorical exclusion, a federally funded project must have a finding of no siginificant impact (FONSI) under an environmental asessment process that is carefully detailed, and if it will have a significant impact, then a detailed mitigation plan must be crafted and approved.

If this is not enough, if a project borders federal parkland, as Klingle does, then compliance with US DOT section 4f must be evaluated to get federal funding. In order to pass this test, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must find that there is not a "prudent and feasible alternative" to the impact and use of federal land, and that the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm.

Since the National Park Service has already said it will not support any solution that will remove trees or tree roots on federal land, there must be no alternative for the construction of the road. In 1990, DC's emergency services thought that they would need Klingle, but since there has been no call for Klingle based on emergency services. In that case, there are abundant transportation alternatives to a paved road in Klingle.

There is also the matter of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have jurisdiction over the waters of the United States - they must issue a fill and dredge permit for Klingle.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there is the District's own environmental laws. DC's EPA law calls for the "fullest possible preservation and protection of the environment through a requirement that the environmental impact of proposed District government ... actions be examined before implementation and to require the Mayor, board, commission, or authority to substitute or require an applicant to substitute an alternative action or mitigating measures for a proposed action, if the alternative action or mitigating measures will accomplish the same purposes as the proposed action with minimized or no adverse environmental effects." Again, the threshold here is that there would be no alternative, and with Klingle, the transportation need is just not significant enough.

Klingle Creek is also a SWDC designated segment (SPECIAL WATERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA), and anything which might affect the water quality must meet it's provisions:

"(b)Construction or development projects…. which may lead to pollution of the water shall be permitted on a case by case basis to insure that there are no long term adverse water quality effects and no impairment of the designated uses of the segment occurs; or….
(c)Short term degradation of water quality in a SWDC segment due to construction projects may be permitted provided that prior notice is given to the public as well as other local and federal government agencies, and provided that their concerns are properly addressed."

All of these standards. laws and regulations spell one thing for Klingle: a very steep uphill battle for a paved road, perhaps an insurmountable feat.