After a decade of effort, the District took control of the RFK Campus site in January, following DC Council approval of federal legislation. This transfer came as Events DC began the phased demolition of the 64-year-old RFK Stadium.
“Now we have the opportunity to shape a vision and deliver for the residents of the District of Columbia,” Mayor Muriel Bowser said at a public meeting on February 12. The city is already exploring potential locations for an NFL stadium, which the mayor envisions as the centerpiece of the site’s redevelopment.
Mayor Bowser has confirmed that initial development plans for the 177-acre site are underway. This prime real estate—one of the last large tracts within the District—features extensive Anacostia River frontage and is adjacent to Kingman and Heritage Islands.
But environmentalists focused on protecting the river, wetlands, and wildlife say that transparency around these plans has been lacking. Stakeholders report that the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) has held meetings with invited parties centered on business, sports, as well as parks and open spaces. However, no meeting has yet been held with stakeholders focused on environmental concerns.
“It feels like at some point out of the blue, there’s going to be some sort of deal made, and things are going to move quickly,” said Lora Nunn, a Kingman Park resident and environmental activist. “As advocates, it’s been on us to independently prepare for whatever contingencies arise—whatever type of stadium or no stadium situation.”
Protecting the Anacostia River
Environmental activists are particularly concerned about the Anacostia River, which nurtures Washington, D.C. They fear that ongoing development could reverse hard-won progress in restoring the river and nearby Kingman and Heritage Islands, putting wildlife, water quality, and surrounding communities at risk.
“Our concern is always for the well-being of the river and everyone who uses it, including those who haven’t yet,” said Anacostia Riverkeeper Trey Sherard. A major issue is stormwater runoff, which carries heat, pet waste, trash, and oil into the river.
For the past 50 years, organizations have worked to clean up the Anacostia. The city has invested nearly $3 billion in the Clean River Project, constructing two massive tunnels to capture stormwater and sewage for treatment. The District Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) retrofits about 200 acres of streets annually to absorb stormwater, and private developments must implement runoff management systems. The Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Act—commonly known as the “bag tax”—has also reduced plastic bag litter in the river by 75%.
Advocacy groups like the Anacostia Watershed Society (AWS) continue restoration efforts. AWS volunteers, including Nunn, help reintroduce mussels that naturally filter water and restore wetlands. Casey Trees planted 400 trees along the river in 2019, while DOEE’s planting efforts further reduce soil erosion and improve water filtration.
The effects of these efforts are visible. The river is the cleanest it’s been in decades, according to DOEE. However, new construction could harm these gains. “Nature is delicate,” said Nunn. “Even if something is accidental or unplanned, it could have a devastating effect on the progress that’s been made.”
One concern is that increased sediment flow during construction could harm mussels, cloud the water, and hinder the growth of underwater vegetation—disrupting the entire ecosystem. Environmental advocates are pushing for infrastructure that protects the water from stormwater pollution and construction runoff.
“It’s an opportunity to create additional habitat and plant more trees,” said City Wildlife’s Linton. She emphasized the importance of natural habitat for wildlife, adding the benefits extend to people. “It’s about habitat for humans too and making sure that that area around the river is a place where people can enjoy, play and learn,” Linton said. While planning, she said the city could also consider how nature will interact with a newly built environment.
Early development plans included footbridges linking the campus to the southern tip of Kingman Island, but advocates are concerned about the impact on delicate wildlife habitats located there. The District should work to promote access to the riverfront and to the islands by expanding a main entrance on Benning Road, Linton said, preserving access to the river from the RFK side but not making the island into a thoroughfare.
In 2018, Mayor Bowser designated Kingman and Heritage Islands as the District’s State Park to preserve their natural resources and scenic beauty. However, Nunn worries that the stadium’s significance may overshadow efforts to protect the parks and wildlife.
Access to the islands is already challenging. During the annual Earth Day cleanup, Nunn noted that festival attendees’ needs elsewhere on campus often take priority over volunteers’ access and resources.
“These challenges make it difficult for the community to trust that, as development grows, the needs of the islands, parks, and residents will be respected,” she said.
What Lies Beneath
Beyond the environmental impacts, there are concerns about what lies beneath the RFK site. The area has a long history, with materials from the dredging of the Anacostia River in the late 1800s used to fill in marshes. Later, the site was filled with soil, rubble and other materials before RFK Stadium was built in 1960. In 2019, The Fields at RFK opened, but much of the site remains covered in asphalt.
The exact condition of the land remains unclear. River advocates stress that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary before any construction. The site’s history as a marsh, combined with various fill materials over the years, raises concerns about toxins and structural issues.
The last EIS conducted for the site was in 1993 when a new stadium was proposed. That statement found contaminated soils, including lead and semi-volatile organics, from the fill materials. An environmental assessment for The Fields at RFK had missed lead in initial tests, leading to an additional $3.7 million in remediation costs once digging began.
Dr. Larry Martin, Chair of the DC Sierra Club Committee on Water and Natural Places, argues that an EIS is too generic. He wants the city to hold itself to its own standards. “What we really need is an environmental impact assessment that looks at our laws and evaluates development proposals against what we’ve already said we want for our city.”
In 2022, the Sierra Club created a tool to place monetary value on ecosystem benefits. The same year, DC amended the Green Building Act to require city-funded buildings to meet net-zero energy standards. Despite these progressive goals, the city hasn’t always followed through.
In January, the city granted renovations to Capitol One Arena an exception from the net zero energy standards required in city-funded building improvements, which also condemn energy from fossil fuels. At the public meeting with Bowser, the Sierra Club’s Beyond Gas DC Co-Chair Mark Rodeffer asked the mayor to commit to developing RFK in conformity with the District’s climate commitments and environmental law.
“We’re not at that level of planning,” Bowser said. “That was a disappointing response,” Sierra Club’s Martin said when I asked him about it. He said the mayor often supports admirable legislation, like the Net Zero building commercial codes. Martin said. “But then she doesn’t always support these lofty goals with the budget to realize them,
Limits to Growth
Mayor Bowser has assured the public that the city will consult the community once it determines the required environmental assessments under federal law. “We’re going to develop 177 acres there,” she said.
However, not all 177 acres are available for development. The legislation transferring the site to the city requires that 32 acres be preserved as riparian wetlands and 30% of the site—about 42 acres—be maintained as parks and recreational space. Bowser has also committed to keeping the Fields at RFK, which occupy 27 acres. This leaves roughly 100 acres for development.
Activists argue that far less land is actually suitable. The Sierra Club, for example, points out that about a third of the site lies within a floodplain, making development risky. Approximately 60 acres are in the FEMA-designated “1% floodplain”—an area prone to severe flooding from once-in-a-century storms. In the past six years, flash floods have occurred twice, and climate change models predict rising sea levels will further increase flood risks in the coming decades.
“We do not need to be building in the floodplain,” said Martin. “Floodplains are meant to absorb floodwater, preventing downstream flooding.”
Rising sea levels also contribute to higher groundwater levels. Sherard noted that sea levels in the District rose 9 inches from 1970 to 2020 and are projected to rise another 11 inches by 2050. This could make it difficult to construct stable foundations for large structures like a stadium or housing.
Cautiously Optimistic
The Hill Rag sent a list of questions to the Mayor’s office, DMPED and DOEE, but none provided direct answers. Interestingly, DC DOEE referred questions about the project to DMPED and the Mayor’s Office.
In a statement, DMPED said, “Washingtonians have an incredible opportunity to create a new waterfront neighborhood at RFK. As the planning process continues, DC will continue to safeguard our air, water, and natural spaces. The District will follow the requirements of NEPA, NHPA, and the transfer legislation, including protecting and maintaining the riparian area, setting aside 30% of the campus for green space, improving public access to the Anacostia River, and restoring the wetlands south of Kingman Island.”
Despite the challenges, activists remain cautiously optimistic that the District and DOEE will do the right thing and hold a city project to the same standards as a private project, in terms of environmental standards for building as well as construction practices. “I have great hope there,” said Sherard, “and I trust DOEE to keep doing it, but they will have to hold their ground, right? One of the things that is awkward for [the agencies] in this kind of situation is that when one arm of the city is saying, we are developing this and they frankly want to do it really quickly, it’s awkward for a different arm of the city, DOEE, to have to be the cops for that.”
But they are realists. “I expect they will do their due diligence,” Linton said. “Whether or not everything that DOEE recommends happens, is another story.”
They are hoping for a balance between economic development and public good. “Just because we have these ideas on the books doesn’t mean they’re always going to be honored when push comes to shove,” said Martin. “Economic development is always a struggle between making money and serving the public interest.”
He believes that both goals can be achieved. “There’s always an opportunity to talk to developers and find solutions that can benefit the public interest and economic development at the same time.”
