Appendices for

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for

Implementation of 

2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Recommendations and Related Army Actions at

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

prepared by

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

with Technical Assistance from

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

March 2007
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

Appendix-i

APPENDIX CONTENTS 

Appendix A – Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statements 

Appendix B – Agency Coordination and Scope of Statement 

Appendix C – Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination 

for Proposed BRAC Implementation at Fort Belvoir 

Appendix D – Transportation Supporting Documentation 

Appendix E – Air Quality Supporting Documentation 

 E.1 – Draft General Conformity Determination 

 E.2 – Vehicle Microscale CO Concentration Modeling 

 E.3 – Criteria Air Pollutants—Sources and Impacts 

 E.4 – Permitted Sources of Air Emissions—Potential–to–emit 

Calculations 

Appendix F – Storm Water and Watershed Modeling Methodology 

Appendix G – Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) Analysis and 

Population Estimations 

 G.1 – EIFS Model Analysis for Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

 G.2 – Population Estimate Calculations 

Appendix H – Off-Post Cumulative Projects List 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

Appendix-ii

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-1

Appendix A 

Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statements for 

Realignment Actions Resulting from the 2005 Base Closure and 

Realignment Commission’s Recommendations 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70793 

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 

In addition to those disclosures 

generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 

552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records 

or information contained therein may 

specifically be disclosed outside the 

DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The 

‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the 

beginning of the Air Force’s compilation 

of record system notices apply to this 

system. 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, 

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

STORAGE: 

Maintained in file folders, note books/ 

binders, in computers and on computer 

output products. 

RETRIEVABILITY: 

Retrieved by name, Social Security 

Number and detachment number. 

SAFEGUARDS: 

Records are accessed by person(s) 

responsible for servicing the record 

system in performance of their official 

duties and by authorized personnel who 

are properly screened and cleared for 

need-to-know. records are stored in 

locked rooms and cabinets. Those in 

computer storage devices are protected 

by computer system software. 

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: 

Records at unit of assignment are 

destroyed one year after acceptance of 

commission or one year after 

disenrollment. Records at HQ AFROTC 

for disenrolled cadets are destroyed 

after three years. Computer records are 

destroyed when no longer needed. 

Records are destroyed by tearing into 

pieces, shredding, pulping, macerating 

or burning. Computer records are 

destroyed by erasing, deleting or 

overwriting. 

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 

Director of Senior Program, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110, and Commander 

of appropriate AFROTC detachment. 

Official mailing addresses are 

published as an appendix to the Air 

Force’s compilation of systems of 

records notices. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: 

Individuals seeking to determine 

whether this system of records contains 

information on them should address 

inquiries to the AFROTC Detachment 

Commander at location of assignment. 

Official mailing addresses are published 

as an appendix to the Air Force’s 

compilation of system of records 

notices. 

Request for information involving an 

investigation for disenrollment should 

be addressed to Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should 

include full name and SSN. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

Individuals seeking to access records 

about themselves contained in this 

system should address requests to the 

AFROTC Detachment Commander at 

location of assignment. Official mailing 

addresses are published as an appendix 

to the Air Force’s compilation of 

systems of records notices. 

Request for information involving an 

investigation for disenrollment should 

be addressed to Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should 

include full name and SSN. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

The Air Force rules for accessing 

records, and for contesting contents and 

appealing initial agency determinations 

are published in Air Force Instruction 

33–332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be 

obtained from the system manager. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Sources of records in the system are 

educational institutions, secondary and 

higher learning; government agencies; 

civilian authorities; financial 

institutions; previous employer; 

individual recommendations, 

interviewing officers; and civilian 

medical authorities. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

Portions of this system may be exempt 

under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(5), as applicable, but only to the 

extent that disclosure would reveal the 

identity of a confidential source. 

Parts of this system may be exempt 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only 

to the extent that disclosure would 

reveal the identity of a confidential 

source. 

[FR Doc. 05–23131 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Intent To Prepare Environmental 

Impact Statements for Realignment 

Actions Resulting From the 2005 Base 

Closure and Realignment 

Commission’s Recommendations 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment (BRAC) Commissions were 

established by Public Law 101–510, the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

Act of 1990 (BRAC Law), to recommend 

military installations for realignment 

and closure. The 2005 Commission’s 

recommendations were included in a 

report which was presented to the 

President on September 8, 2005. The 

President approved and forwarded this 

report to Congress on September 16, 

2005. Since a joint resolution to 

disapprove these recommendations did 

not occur within the statutorily 

provided time period, these 

recommendations have become law and 

must be implemented in accordance 

with the requirements of the BRAC Law. 

The BRAC Law exempts the decisionmaking process of the Commission from 

the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Law also relieves the 

Department of Defense from the NEPA 

requirement to consider the need for 

closing, realigning, or transferring 

functions and from looking at 

alternative installations to close or 

realign. Nonetheless, the Department of 

the Army must still prepare 

environmental impact analyses during 

the process of property disposal, and 

during the process of relocating 

functions from a military installation 

being closed or realigned to another 

military installation after the receiving 

installation has been selected but before 

the functions are relocated. These 

analyses will include consideration of 

the direct and indirect environmental 

and socioeconomic effects of these 

actions and the cumulative impacts of 

other reasonably foreseeable actions 

affecting the installations. 

The Department of the Army intends 

to prepare individual Environmental 

Impact Statements (EIS) pursuant to 

section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, regulations 

of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR 1500–1508), and the 

Army NEPA regulation (32 CFR 651 et 

seq.) for each of the actions listed below. 

Opportunities for public participation 

will be announced in the respective 

local newspapers. The public will be 

70794 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 

invited to participate in scoping 

activities for each EIS and comments 

from the public will be considered 

before any action is taken to implement 

these actions. 

Environmental Impact Statements are 

planned for each of the following 

realignment actions: 

a. Fort Meade, Maryland. The BRAC 

realignment action will co-locate and 

consolidate Department of Defense 

information and information technology 

missions at Fort Meade. 

(1) EIS alternatives could include 

evaluating siting locations for structures 

and related projects within Fort Meade 

that involve new building construction 

only or new building construction 

combined with renovation of existing 

facilities. The alternatives would 

evaluate areas to provide for 

construction of, but not be limited to, 

six to eight 4-story administration 

buidlings, a full day care child 

development center, a standard-design 

Whole Barracks Complex, and a 

physical fitness center. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the infrastructure and facilities 

construction that will be required to 

accommodate an estimated increase of 

over 5,500 personnel. Significant issues 

to be analyzed in the EIS may include 

potential impacts to air quality from 

increased vehicle emissions, installation 

and regional traffic increases, land use 

changes, natural resources, water use, 

solid waste, cultural resources, and 

cumulative impacts from increased 

burdens to the facility based on 

projected growth. 

b. Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), 

Maryland. APG will be receiving 

numerous Army, Navy and Air Force 

activities to transform it into a full 

spectrum research, development, 

acquisition center for Command, 

Control, Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Defense 

Chemical and Biological Systems. The 

Army Test and Evaluation Command 

Headquarters and Civilian Personnel 

Offices will also be consolidated at 

APG. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS could include alternative 

distribution of new activities between 

APG and the Edgewood Area for 

military field training exercises; 

alternative siting schemes for placement 

of buildings and related infrastructure to 

accommodate an increase of about 

15,000 Army personnel within the APG 

and Edgewood Area. These may include 

siting schemes for new building 

construction only, or new building 

construction combined with renovation 

of existing facilities. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an increase of 

personnel and military training 

operations. Significant issues to be 

analyzed in the EIS will include on-post 

and local air quality conditions, on-post 

and regional traffic conditions, housing, 

socioeconomics, noise due to increased 

vehicle use, threatened and endangered 

species to include bald eagle habitat, 

historic buildings and archeological 

resources, wetlands, biological 

resources, land use, and community 

facilities and services. 

c. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Fort Belvoir 

will be receiving numerous Department 

of Defense activities from leased space 

within the National Capital Region 

(NCR); National Geospatial Intelligence 

Agency units from various NCR leased 

locations and Bethesda, Maryland; 

primary and secondary medical care 

functions from Walter Reed Medical 

Center to a new, expanded DeWitt Army 

Hospital; and inventory control point 

functions for consumable items to the 

Defense Logistics Agency from the 

Naval Support Activist, Mechanisburg 

and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio. 

(1) EIS alternatives may consist of 

moving all activities to the Fort Belvoir 

Main Post, moving all activities to the 

Engineer Proving Ground (EPG), or 

moving a portion of the activities to the 

Main Point and a portion to the EPG. 

Other alternatives could include 

alternative land locations for specific 

projects within Fort Belvoir, within the 

EPG, or a combination of both; new 

construction only; new construction 

combined with renovation of existing 

facilities; alternative facility siting 

schemes, or other modifications of 

specific projects. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an estimated 

increase of over 18,000 personnel. 

Significant issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS will include potential impacts to air 

quality condition in the Northern 

Virginia region, transportation systems 

in the Northern Virginia region, traffic 

conditions with Fort Belvoir, threatened 

and endangered species, historic 

buildings and archeological resources, 

wetlands, biological resources, land use, 

and community facilities and services. 

d. Fort Lee, Virginia. Fort Lee will 

receive the Transportation Center and 

School from Fort Eustis, Virginia, and 

the Ordnance Center and School from 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 

These functions will be consolidated 

with the Quartermaster Center and 

School, the Army Logistics Management 

College, and Combined Arms Support 

Command to establish a Combat Service 

Support Center at Fort Lee. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS may include the usage of only Fort 

Lee for field training exercises, the 

usage of other military installations 

(Fort A.P. Hill) for field training 

exercises, or a combination of both; 

alternative land locations for specific 

projects with Fort Lee and Fort A.P. 

Hill; new construction only; new 

construction combined with renovation 

of existing facilities; alternative facility 

siting schemes, or other modifications of 

specific projects. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an estimated 

increase of over 7,000 personnel. 

Significant issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS will include air quality conditions, 

traffic conditions, noise due to 

increased training activities, threatened 

and endangered species, historic 

buildings and archeological resources, 

wetlands, biological resources, land use, 

and community facilities and services. 

e. Fort Benning, Georgia. Fort Benning 

will receive the Armor Center and 

School from Fort Knox, Kentucky; 81st 

Regional Readiness Center from Fort 

Gillem, Georgia; and the U.S. Army 

Reserve Center from Columbus, Georgia. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined by the 

EIS may consist of alternative siting 

locations with Fort Benning for facility 

construction projects, new construction 

only, renovation and use of existing 

facilities, or a combination of both new 

construction and use of existing 

facilities, and usage of alternatives land 

locations within Fort Benning for 

training activities. 

(2) As a result of new construction 

and training activities associated with 

moving nearly 10,000 personnel to Fort 

Benning, the BRAC action has the 

potential to cause significant 

environmental impacts to threatened 

and endangered species such as the redcockaded woodpecker, archeological 

sites, wetlands, soil erosion, and 

increased noise impacts to the 

surrounding public. 

f. Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Navy and 

Air Force medical training activities 

from various locations within the U.S. 

and the 59th Medical Wing from 

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will 

move to Fort Sam Houston to form a 

Department of Defense medical training 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70795 

center. The Army Installation 

Management Agency (IMA) 

Headquarters from Virginia, the 

Northwest IMA Regional office from 

Illinois, and the Army Environmental 

Center from Maryland will also move to 

Fort Sam Houston. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS could consist of alternative 

locations within Fort Sam Houston for 

siting facility construction, new 

construction only, renovation and use of 

existing facilities (to include historic 

buildings), or a combination of both 

new construction and use of existing 

facilities, and usage of alternative 

locations within Camp Bullis, a sub-post 

of Fort Sam Houston, for training 

activities. 

(2) As a result of moving 

approximately 9,000 new personnel to 

Fort Sam Houston and associated new 

construction, renovation and training 

activities, implementing the proposed 

BRAC action could have potential 

significant impacts to traffic on and off 

post, air quality and historic properties, 

to include contributing elements of the 

Fort Sam Houston National Historic 

Landmark District. 

g. Fort Carson, Colorado. Fort Carson 

will receive a Heavy Brigade Combat 

team and a Unit of Employment 

Headquarters from Fort Hood, Texas, 

and the inpatient care services from the 

U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado. 

Another Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

from overseas could also be transferred 

to Fort Carson as a result of the BRAC 

recommendation. 

(1) Alternatives that may be 

considered in the Fort Carson EIS could 

include phasing movement of units to 

the fort, alternative siting locations 

within the post of placement of new 

facilities, construction of only new 

facilities, utilization and renovation of 

existing facilities, a combination of new 

construction and utilization of existing 

facilities, and utilization of alternative 

locations within Fort Carson for training 

activities. 

(2) Fort Carson will gain 

approximately 10,000 Army personnel 

as a result of the BRAC action. 

Construction of new facilities, 

renovation of existing infrastructure and 

additional training activities could have 

significant environmental impacts on 

Fort Carson and its environs. Impacts 

could concur to local air and water 

quality, archaeological resources, noise 

and traffic. 

h. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site, 

Colorado. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site 

(PCMS) is a subpost of Fort Carson and 

a primary training area for units 

stationed at Fort Carson and other Army 

posts. The new combat units stationed 

at Fort Carson will increase the training 

tempo at the PCMS. 

(1) The EIS to be prepared for the 

PCMS will examine a number of 

implementation alternatives that could 

include alternative placement of new 

construction projects, alternative 

locations within the PCMS for training 

activities, and alternative timing for 

units to conduct training activities at the 

PCMS. 

(2) The Fort Carson BRAC action has 

the potential to significantly impact 

natural resources at the PCMS since the 

approximately 10,000 new personnel to 

be stationed there will now be training 

at the PCMS on a regular basis. New 

construction and increased training 

activities at the PCMS could have an 

impact on archaeological resources, 

natural resources, air and water quality, 

and soil erosion. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Public Affairs Office of the affected 

installations or the appropriate higher 

headquarters as indicated: (1) Fort 

Meade, MD—(301) 677–1301; (2) 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD—(410) 

278–1147; (3) Fort Belvoir, VA—(703) 

805–2583; (4) Fort Lee, VA—(804) 734–

6862; (5) Fort Benning, GA—(706) 545–

3438; (6) Fort Sam Houston, TX—(210) 

221–1099; (7) Fort Carson and Pinion 

Canyon Maneuver Site, CO—(910) 396–

2122/5600. 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

Addison D. Davis IV, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health), OASA(I&E). 

[FR Doc. 05–23162 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Logistics Agency 

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records 

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency. 

ACTION: Notice to add a system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency 

proposes to add a system of records 

notice to its inventory of record systems 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

DATES: This action will be effective 

without further notice on December 23, 

2005 unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, 

Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–6221. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Susan Salus at (703) 767–6183. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Defense Logistics Agency notices for 

systems of records subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 

have been published in the Federal 

Register and are available from the 

address above. 

The proposed system report, as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was 

submitted on October 5, 2005, to the 

House Committee on Government 

Reform, the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) pursuant to 

paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB 

Circular No. A–130, ‘Federal Agency 

Responsibilities for Maintaining 

Records About Individuals,’ dated 

February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 

FR 6427). 

Dated: November 17, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Information Technology Access and 

Control Records. 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

Director, Information Operations, 

Headquarters Defense Logistics Agency, 

ATTN: J–6, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, 

Stop 6226, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–

6221, and the Defense Logistics Agency 

field activities. Official mailing 

addresses are published as an appendix 

to DLA’s compilation of systems of 

records notices. 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM: 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

civilian and military personnel, 

contractor employees, and individuals 

requiring access to DLA-controlled 

networks, computer systems, and 

databases. 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

System contains documents relating 

to requests for and grants of access to 

DLA computer networks, systems, or 

databases. The records contain the 

individual’s name; social security 

number; citizenship; physical and 

electronic addresses; work telephone 

numbers; office symbol; contractor/ 

employee status; computer logon 

addresses, passwords, and user 

identification codes; type of access/ 

permissions required; verification of 

need to know; dates of mandatory 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March2007 

B-1

Appendix B 

Agency Coordination and Scope of Statement 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March2007 

B-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 




2005 BRAC Recommendations for Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

The BRAC Commission made 35 recommendations concerning Fort Belvoir. The essence of each 

recommendation is outlined below. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA by relocating and consolidating Sensors, Electronics, and Electronic Warfare 

Research, Development and Acquisition activities to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD except the Night 

Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (the Night Vision Lab) and the Project Manager Night 

Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (PM NV/RSTA), and by relocating and 

consolidating Information Systems Research and Development and Acquisition (except for the Program 

Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems) to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign the PM Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Enterprise Systems and Services (ALTESS) 

facility at 2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA, a leased installation, by relocating and consolidating 

into the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Army Prime Power School training to Fort Leonard Wood, MO. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) to Marine 

Corp Base Quantico, VA. 

Realign Ballston Metro Center, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the U.S. Army Legal 

Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close 1500 Wilson Boulevard and Presidential Towers, leased installations in Arlington, VA, by 

relocating offices accommodating Pentagon Renovation temporary space to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close Metro Park III and IV (6350 and 6359 Walker Lane), a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by 

relocating the Defense Contract Management Agency Headquarters to Fort Lee, VA. 

Realign 400 Army Navy Drive, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and the DoD Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Realign the Webb Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Department of 

Defense Education Activity and the Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Rosslyn Plaza North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating offices accommodating 

Pentagon Renovation temporary space, Washington Headquarters Services and the Defense Human 

Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Gateway North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and the DoD Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Realign 2001 North Beauregard Street, 621 North Payne Street, Ballston Metro Center, Crystal Square 4, 

Crystal Square 5, Crystal Plaza 6, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Skyline 5, and Skyline 6, leased installations 

in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 3, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service at Fort Belvoir, VA. 
Realign Hoffman 1, Crystal Gateway 1, Crystal Gateway 2, Crystal Gateway 3, and the James K. Polk 

Building, leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

Washington Headquarters Services to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign the Nash Street Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Defense 

Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Alexandria Tech Center IV, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the Defense 

Technology Security Administration to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1400-1450 South Eads Street, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the DoD 

Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1401 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort 

Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1555 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating offices of the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense and Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 2-3-4 and Skyline 4, leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating Washington 

Headquarters Services to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close the Suffolk Building, a leased installation in Falls Church, VA. Relocate all Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) functions, except the Ballistic Missile Defense System Sensors Directorate, to Redstone 

Arsenal, AL. 

Realign176 the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) Building, a leased installation in 

Huntsville, AL. Relocate all functions of the Missile Defense Agency to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Federal Office Building 2, Arlington, VA, by relocating a Headquarters Command Center for the 

Missile Defense Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA, and by relocating all other functions of the Missile Defense 

Agency, except the Command and Control Battle Management and Communications Directorate, to 

Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Soldier Magazine to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA by relocating Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the Security Assistance 

Command (USASAC, an AMC major subordinate command) to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Dalecarlia and Sumner sites, Bethesda, MD; 

Reston 1, 2 and 3, leased installations in Reston, VA; Newington buildings 8510, 8520, and 8530, 

Newington, VA; and Building 213 a leased installation at the South East Federal Center, Washington, 

DC. Relocate all functions to a new facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. Realign the National Reconnaissance 

Office facility, Westfields, VA, by relocating all NGA functions to a new facility at the Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Consolidate all NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence College functions on Fort Belvoir into the new 

facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, as follows: relocate all tertiary (subspecialty and complex care) medical services to National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, 
establishing it as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD; relocate Legal 

Medicine to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD; relocate sufficient 

personnel to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD, to establish a 

Program Management Office that will coordinate pathology results, contract administration, and quality 

assurance and control of DoD second opinion consults worldwide; relocate all non-tertiary (primary and 

specialty) patient care functions to a new community hospital at Ft Belvoir, VA; relocate the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense supporting unit to Fort Belvoir, VA; disestablish all elements of the Armed Forces 

Institute of Pathology except the National Medical Museum and the Tissue Repository; relocate the 

Armed Forces Medical Examiner, DNA Registry, and Accident Investigation to Dover Air Force Base, 

DE; AFIP capabilities not specified in this recommendation will be absorbed into other DoD, Federal, or 

civilian facilities, as necessary; relocate enlisted histology technician training223 to Fort Sam Houston, 

TX; relocate the Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function (with the exception of those organizational 

elements performing neuroprotection research) of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest 

Glen Annex) and the Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function of the Naval Medical Research Center 

(Forest Glen Annex) to the Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX; relocate Medical 

Biological Defense Research of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest Glen Annex) and 

Naval Medical Research Center (Forest Glen Annex) to Fort Detrick, MD, and consolidate it with US 

Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases; relocate Medical Chemical Defense Research of 

the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest Glen Annex) to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and 

consolidate it with the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense; and close the main 

post. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Chemical Biological Defense Research component of the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency to Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD. 

Realign Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg, PA, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items, except those Navy items 

associated with Nuclear Propulsion Support, Level 1/Subsafe and Deep Submergence System Program 

(DSSP) Management, Strategic Weapon Systems Management, Design Unstable/Preproduction Test, 

Special Waivers, Major End Items and Fabricated or Reclaimed items to Defense Supply Center 

Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point functions; 

disestablish the procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables and 

designate them as Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions; and relocate 

the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, 

Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements 

Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for 

Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement management and related support functions for Depot 

Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Marine Corps Base, Albany, GA, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon 

System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for any residual Consumable Items to Defense 

Supply Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point 

functions; disestablish the procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level 

Reparables and designate them as Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point 

functions; and relocate the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, 

Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, 
Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control 

Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement management and related support 

functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, by relocating the oversight of Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of 

procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense 

Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by assigning the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, 

Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System 

Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical 

Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement 

management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, 

Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Defense Threat Reduction Agency National Command Region 

conventional armament Research to Eglin Air Force Base, FL. 
Enclosure 2 

List of Projects to be Analyzed in Fort Belvoir BRAC EIS 

Project 

number Project title 

Fiscal 

year 

65416 NGA Administrative Facility 2007–11 

64234 WHS Administrative Facility 2008–10 

67320 MDA Facility 2008–09 

64238 Hospital 2008–11 

64241 Dental Clinic 2010–11 

64293 Medical Guest House 2009 

65871 NARMC Headquarters Building 2009 

67959 Infrastructure 2008–09 

64076 Emergency Services Center (EPG) 2008 

65448 Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS) 2010 

65447 USANCA Support Facility 2008 

55661 Child Development Center (NGA) 2011 

55662 Child Development Center 2011 

65450 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220) 2011 

63571 Access Control Point 2009 

66228 AMC Relocatables 2007 

65592/67231 PEO EIS Administrative Facility 2007 

62752 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO) 2008 

61450/65747 Gunston Road Improvements 2010 

54347 Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area 2011 

62892 Modernize Barracks 2011 

64531 Expand and Renovate PX 2007 

57508 Corps of Engineers Integration Office (Temporary) 2007 

54898 MWR Family Travel Camp 2007–10 
















Information Services Order Form

Please check the services desired and provide details in the spaces provided. You do 

not have to fill in all of the spaces in order to submit the form. Due to a technical issue, 

online submission is currently unavailable, please print out and mail the form to: 

Project Review Coordinator 

DCR Division of Natural Heritage 

217 Governor St. 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Voice: (804) 786-7951 Fax: (804) 371-2674 

The following 3 services are free of charge; however, due to staff and budget 

constraints we ask that you submit serious inquiries only, please. 

Rare Vascular Plant Species of Virginia 

Rare Animal Species of Virginia 

County Lists of Natural Heritage Resources (also available on our website at 

www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/nhrinfo.htm). 

For county lists, please specify the counties of interest: 

Fairfax County

The following services have varying charges associated with them, please read all 

the documentation carefully and be sure to fill in all the necessary fields.

Project Review.............................$60 per site; add $35 for 1-5 occurrences, $60 for 6 

or more occurrences 

Project Review 

Details: Describe project below, please include detailed project description, 

Location information, Conditions (photographs if available). Fax additional 

information as necessary. 
In order to ensure an accurate assessment, please fax a site map (preferably 

from a USGS topo) to: 

Environmental Review Coordinator @ (804) 371-2674. 

Please see attached letter and map.

Natural Heritage Resource Reports & Maps 

County Conservation Sites Maps (specify counties)...............$20/county 

Custom NHR Maps (describe, call for more information).......$60/hour 

Custom NHR Reports (describe, call for more information)....$60/hour 

Digital Conservation Sites Subscription Service (specify area of interest; 

complete license agreement) 

 Less than 1 county or 12 quads).....$1000/yr. 

 13-100 quads................................$3500/yr. 

statewide coverage........................$6000/yr. 

Please provide details below: 

Priority Service(3 day turnaround)...............$200 surcharge 

Conditions:

1. Digitized DCR natural heritage resource locational data for GIS or map 

production, whether provided by DCR digitally or entered by the client from 

tables or reports, may not be used without first completing a data licensing 
agreement with DCR Division of Natural Heritage. A License form is available 

here . 

2. Although DCR-DNH data are closely quality controlled, DCR-DNH makes no 

warranty as to the fitness of the data for any purpose. 

3. Any publication of data provided by DCR,whether as text,table or map, must 

acknowledge Virginia DCR-Natural Heritage Program, and include the date the 

data were provided by DCR. 

4. If fees are assessed, an invoice will be included with the response. Payment is due 

within 30 days of receipt. Minimum charge for hourly fees is $60. 

I understand and agree to the above conditions: Yes 

Send data and invoice (if applicable) to:

(Please be sure to include a phone number so we may contact you if we have any 

questions regarding your data needs) 

Name: Patrick Solomon 

Email: patrick.solomon@tetratech-ffx.com 

Company: Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Address: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 

City: Fairfax 

State: VA 

Zip Code: 22030 

Phone: 703-385-6000 

Taxpayer ID#: 

Clear Form

Go back to the Information Services page 

Return to the Virginia Natural Heritage Program home page 




















Prepared for: 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

and 

US Army Corps of Engineers, 

Mobile District 

Prepared by: 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 

Fairfax, VA 22030

Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement for Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Implementation & Master Plan 

Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

August 2006 
Scope of Statement for the Environmental Impact Statement 

for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Implementation 

 & 

 Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

prepared for 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

& 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

by 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

August 2006 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

 

 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acronym List................................................................................................................................ iii 

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 

1.1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................1 

1.2 PURPOSE OF SCOPING..................................................................................................................3 

1.3 INITIAL SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS................................................................................................3 

2 SCOPING PROCESS SUMMARY ..........................................................................................4 

2.1 PUBLIC NOTICE ...........................................................................................................................4 

2.2 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS...................................................................................................4 

2.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING LETTERS ....................................................................................5 

2.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING .........................................................................................................5 

2.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS.....................................................................................................................7 

3 COMMENT ANALYSIS............................................................................................................7

4 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................13 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A – BRAC RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX B – NOTICE OF INTENT

APPENDIX C – SCOPING NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS

APPENDIX D – PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING LETTERS

APPENDIX E – PUBLIC AND AGENCY MAILING LISTS

APPENDIX F – PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING DISPLAYS

APPENDIX G – PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

APPENDIX H – PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING HANDOUTS

APPENDIX I – AGENCY AND PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ROSTERS

APPENDIX J – AGENCY SCOPING MEETING DISCUSSION POINTS

APPENDIX K – DEBRIEFING MEETING SUMMARY

APPENDIX L – SUBMITTED COMMENTS
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006

iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AMC Army Materiel Command 

BNVP Belvoir New Vision Planners 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EQC Environmental Quality Corridor 

MDA Missile Defense Agency 

MSF Million Square Feet 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGA National Geospatial Agency 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NST NEPA Support Team 

NV/RSTA Project Manager Night Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target 

Acquisition 

PEO EIS Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems 

WHS Washington Headquarters Services 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

1

SECTION 1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

The Department of the Army and Fort Belvoir conducted public scoping to solicit input to help 

identify all relevant issues that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

being prepared for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) action at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

This report contains the details of the public scoping and communications effort, which included 

letters, media announcements, and an open house public meeting held in Springfield, Virginia, 

on June 7, 2006. This report presents an analysis of the comments received during the open 

comment period and presents conclusions relating to the scope of the EIS. 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

The Army is realigning functions and closing installations as mandated by Title XXX of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Public Law 107-107. The 2002 BRAC 

law amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, by 

authorizing another round of realignments and closures in 2005. The Army is implementing 

discretionary realignments and disposing of the excess property made available by the closing 

actions to support the national force structure objectives. The BRAC law exempts consideration 

of the need for the action or alternative installations in preparing environmental documentation 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). However, an appropriate 

level of NEPA documentation is required to analyze how the BRAC actions will be implemented 

for concurrent actions, both BRAC-directed and discretionary, at each installation that is 

receiving realigned missions. 

The overview below outlines the BRAC Commission’s 2005 recommendations for Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia, under provisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. A detailed 

description of the Commission’s recommendations is at www.brac.gov/finalreport.asp and is 

provided in Appendix A. 

The Commission recommended the realignment of the following agencies/activities with 

relocation to Fort Belvoir, Virginia: 

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) 

• Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) 

• Army Leased Space 

• Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS) 

• Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center (MDA) 

• DeWitt Army Community Hospital 

• National Museum of the United States Army 

• Selected Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) activities from leased space to Rivanna 

Station, Charlottesville, Virginia (to be analyzed under a separate NEPA document from 

this EIS) 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

2

The Commission also recommended the realignment of the following agencies/activities to move 

from Fort Belvoir: 

• The Army Materiel Command (AMC) Headquarters and the U.S. Army Security 

Assistance Command to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 

• The Army Prime Power School to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 

• The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Headquarters to Quantico, Virginia 

• The Soldiers Magazine to Fort Meade, Maryland 

• The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Chemical Biological Defense Research to 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 

• The Defense Threat Reduction Agency conventional armaments research functions to 

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida 

• The Army Research Office to the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland 

• The Sensors, Electronics, and Electronic Warfare Research, Development and 

Acquisition activities to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, except the Night Vision 

and Electronic Sensors Directorate (the Night Vision Lab) and the Project Manager Night 

Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (PMNV/RSTA) 

• The Information Systems Research and Development and Acquisition (except for the 

Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems) to Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, Maryland 

The BRAC Commission recommendations for relocating administrative, medical, and 

special/intelligence missions to Fort Belvoir will result in the relocation of approximately 22,000 

personnel to the installation, which could require the construction of approximately 6- to 7–

million square feet of new facilities, plus parking; new roads or road improvements (on- and offsite) and possibly the creation of a new multimodal transportation infrastructure; new utilities; 

other base support; and use or renovation of existing space. The BRAC realignment activities at 

Fort Belvoir consist of administrative, research, and other special missions to be placed in newly 

constructed, renovated, or existing buildings. No new field training facilities will be required. 

The Army’s overall goal for this BRAC action is to complete realignment by September 14, 

2011. The Army procured the services of an urban planner, Belvoir New Vision Planners 

(BNVP) to develop siting alternatives for the BRAC action and future development at Fort 

Belvoir. BNVP is tasked with transforming Fort Belvoir into a world-class facility that supports 

a community of military and national security organizations as well as updating the installation’s 

master plan. The master plan effort will gather tenant requirements and desires and develop 

courses of action for siting the BRAC and non-BRAC missions at Fort Belvoir. The Army will 

concurrently conduct the master plan process and prepare the BRAC realignment EIS. The EIS 

will analyze the long-range component of the master plan and address potential impacts, 

including impacts from changes in land use designations from the 1993 master plan as well as 

potential land use compatibility issues. Therefore, the information developed by the urban 

planner is required for analysis in the BRAC realignment EIS. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

3

1.2 PURPOSE OF SCOPING 

Under regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)1

, the evaluation of 

potential environmental effects of federal actions is open to the public. Public participation in the 

NEPA process promotes both open communications between the public and the Army and better 

decision making. All persons and organizations that have a potential interest in the proposed 

action, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native American groups, are urged 

to participate in the NEPA environmental analysis process. 

Public participation opportunities with respect to the proposed action are guided by CEQ and 

Army regulations.2 These regulations provide for five major aspects of public participation 

available in conjunction with preparation of this EIS: (1) Notice of Intent, (2) scoping, (3) 45-day 

public review of the draft EIS, (4) public hearing on the draft EIS, and (5) 30-day public review 

of the final EIS. 

Throughout this process, the public can obtain information on the status and progress of the 

proposed action and the EIS through the Fort Belvoir Public Affairs Office by calling the 

Directorate of Public Affairs at 703-805-5001 or visiting the BNVP Web site 

(www.belvoirnewvision.com) and clicking “Links and Resources.” 

1.3 INITIAL SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS 

The Notice of Intent (NOI), informing the public that an EIS will be prepared is the first formal 

step in the NEPA public involvement process. The notice is published in the Federal Register by 

the agency proposing the action. The NOI includes a description of the proposed action and gives 

the name and address of an agency contact person. The NOI declaring the Army’s intent to 

prepare an EIS for realignment of Fort Belvoir was published in the Federal Register on 

November 23, 2005 (Appendix B). 

Numerous issues and concerns will affect selection of alternatives and identification of issues to 

be addressed in the EIS. A representative listing of such issues includes land use, aesthetics and 

visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, 

cultural resources, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, and hazardous and toxic substances. 

The EIS will consider a range of alternatives to accommodate BRAC recommendations for the 

realignment of Fort Belvoir including a No Action Alternative. The EIS will also evaluate 

alternative siting locations at the installation for agencies and activities relocating to Fort 

Belvoir, the associated master plan update, and cumulative effects. 

The following sections describe the process of scoping and efforts to solicit public and agency 

input to refine the scope of the EIS (Section 2.0), summarize the comments received during the 

scoping process (Section 3.0), and describe the issues that will be addressed in the EIS, as well as 

those that will not be addressed (Section 4.0). Appendix C and Appendix H contain press 

 

1

 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500–1508. 2

 Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, 32 CFR Part 651. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

4

releases, letters, brochures, and other information provided at the scoping meetings and 

throughout the scoping process, as well as the public comments received during the open 

comment period. 

SECTION 2.0 

SCOPING PROCESS SUMMARY 

The scoping meeting was an integral part of a broader scoping effort the Army conducted to help 

clarify issues of major concern, identify any information sources available to analyze and 

evaluate impacts, and obtain public input on the range and acceptability of alternatives. The 

alternatives will include options for construction, siting and design of facilities, and the types and 

extent of transportation improvements needed to accommodate the new facilities. 

The overall scoping process consisted of the following elements: 

• Publishing the NOI in the Federal Register 

• Distributing a public notice to newspapers 

• Mailing of public and agency scoping letters 

• Conducting a public scoping meeting to inform the public about the BRAC Commission’s 

recommendations for Fort Belvoir and solicit oral and written comments on the issues that 

should be addressed in the EIS 

• Reviewing, analyzing, and evaluating oral and written comments received within the open 

comment period 

2.1 NOTICE OF INTENT 

As described above, the NOI (see Appendix B) was published in the Federal Register on 

November 23, 2005, informing the public that an EIS will be prepared. This is the first formal 

step in the NEPA public involvement process. The NOI encouraged public participation to 

promote open communication on the issues surrounding the proposal. All federal, state, tribal, 

and local agencies and other persons and organizations were urged to participate in the scoping 

process. The following contact was listed as a source for additional information: 

Public Affairs Office 

Fort Belvoir, VA 

703-805-2583 

2.2 PUBLIC NOTICE FOR NEWSPAPERS 

Advertisements were published in several newspapers in the region (Table 2-1 and Appendix C). 

The advertisements included information on the proposed action, as well as the date and location 

of the public scoping meeting. The following contact information was provided for readers with 

questions or comments: 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

5

Directorate of Public Works 

ATTN: BRAC EIS Comments 

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116 

703-805-5001 

environmental@belvoir.army.mil. 

www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on “Links and Resources”) 

Table 2-1 

 Advertised public notices 

Date of publication Publication Location 

May 25 and June 1, 2006 Mount Vernon Gazette Mount Vernon, VA 

May 28, 2006 Washington Post Washington, DC 

June 1, 2006 Fort Belvoir News Fort Belvoir, VA 

June 1, 2006 Springfield Times Springfield, VA 

2.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING LETTERS 

Agency and public scoping letters (Appendix D) were mailed on May 17, 2006, to 188 

individuals, organizations, tribes, and state and federal agencies (Appendix E) to inform them 

about the proposed action at Fort Belvoir, solicit their input concerning issues that should be 

addressed in the EIS, and invite them to attend the public scoping meeting. 

The letters included information about the BRAC action at Fort Belvoir, the scope of the EIS, 

directions to the meeting, and instructions for submitting comments concerning the proposed 

action. 

Fort Belvoir provided the mailing. The letters instructed recipients to send written comments to 

the Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works no later than July 2, 2006, or to submit written or 

oral comments at the scoping meeting. The Directorate of Public Works and the Web site 

(www.belvoirnewvision.com) were identified as resources for obtaining further information on 

the EIS. 

2.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING 

The public scoping meeting was held on June 7, 2006, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Hilton 

Springfield Hotel in Springfield, Virginia. The venue was chosen because of facility availability 

and accessibility to the public throughout the Fort Belvoir region. More than 100 members of 

the public (including representatives from federal, state, and local agencies and the press) 

attended the public scoping meeting. 

COL Brian Lauritzen, Fort Belvoir Garrision Commander, kicked off the public scoping meeting 

by welcoming attendees and explaining the meeting’s format and layout. COL Lauritzen then 

introduced the Honorable Dana Kaufman, Fairfax County Supervisor, Lee District, who also 

welcomed attendees to the meeting. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

6

An open house format was used at the meeting. Nine stations with displays (Appendix F), 

PowerPoint presentations (Appendix G), and handouts (Appendix H) were available for viewing. 

Each booth was staffed by personnel from the Army, Fort Belvoir, the BRAC NEPA Support 

Team (NST), and representatives from the BNVP, Master Planning Team. 

The interactive stations presented information on NEPA; population, economics, and the 

proposed action; traffic and air quality; natural, historic, and archeological resources; and other 

EIS elements. Additionally, welcome, court reporter, and comment tables were available to 

provide information and accept oral and written comments. 

Attendees were welcomed at the entrance and provided a handout of all the display materials, a 

color brochure, and a comment form. Attendees were asked to sign in (Appendix I) and were 

provided instructions for viewing the displays, which they were encouraged to visit in any 

sequence they desired. A Scoping Meeting Participants’ Guide display at the welcome station 

provided further guidance on how to proceed through the exhibit hall and provide comments. 

Throughout the room, pens and forms were available for attendees to submit their comments in 

the comment box. A computer was also available for submitting online comments. Across the 

hall, a private room for submitting oral comments to a court reporter was available with a display 

detailing how comments would be used. Army and other master planning and environmental 

experts were available to answer questions. 

In addition to the public scoping meeting, the Army reserved a time to meet with federal, state 

and local agency officials to discuss the scope of the EIS. This meeting was conducted at 1:30 

p.m. on June 7, 2006, before the public scoping meeting, at the Hilton Springfield Hotel. About 

30 people representing approximately 15 agencies attended the meeting (a roster of the attendees 

is provided in Appendix J). Ms. Susan Holtham, BRAC NST, opened the meeting with a brief 

background of the BRAC EIS process and the proposed action at Fort Belvoir. Colonel Brian 

Lauritzen, Fort Belvoir Garrison Commander, stated that the public scoping process is an 

opportunity to identify issues and draw out agency concerns. The meeting was then opened for 

questions. Members of the audience representing federal, state, and local agencies asked 

questions or offered comments, and the BRAC NST provided input for discussion. Questions on 

planning, transportation, socioeconomics, environmental resources, cultural resources, and the 

scoping process were all raised during this meeting. The following issues were discussed at 

length: 

• Siting of new development (particularly the DeWitt Hospital) 

• The locations from which new personnel will be coming 

o Potential for shift in residence for these personnel 

o Potential for influx of new school-aged children into Fairfax County 

• Impacts to transportation and potential mitigation measures 

• Funding for transportation improvements 

• Preservation and public access for the Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) on the 

Engineering Proving Ground (EPG) and the wildlife refuges on the Main Post 

o Maintenance of the forest and wildlife corridor through the installation 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

7

• The ability of agency representatives and the public to make substantive comments at this 

stage in the planning process 

• The need to have the master plan completed before conducting the EIS 

A summary of the discussion points is provided in Appendix J. 

Following the public scoping meeting, the BRAC NST conducted a debriefing meeting. Overall 

impressions of the public’s response to each booth were noted as were frequently asked 

questions, comments or concerns. A summary of this meeting is included in Appendix K. 

2.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Written comments were accepted by mail, e-mail, online, or in person at the public scoping 

meeting. Additionally, a court reporter was available at the public scoping meeting to accept oral 

comments. No comments were submitted to the court reporter. The Army requested that all 

comments concerning the EIS be submitted by July 2, 2006, addressed to the Fort Belvoir 

Directorate of Public Works, ATTN: EIS Comments, 9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100, Fort 

Belvoir, VA 22060-5116; by e-mail to: environmental@belvoir.army.mil; or on the BNVP Web 

site: www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on “Links and Resources”). 

The following section contains a review, analysis, and evaluation of the comments received 

during the scoping process. Appendix L contains the scoping comments received as of July 2, 

2006, and a copy of each of the original public comment forms that were submitted. 

SECTION 3.0 

COMMENT ANALYSIS 

Each comment received during the scoping process for the EIS for Fort Belvoir was carefully 

reviewed and grouped into one of the following six categories of common issues: 

socioeconomics, cultural resources, traffic and transportation, land use, natural resources, and 

other. After the initial review, the issues were studied further to determine the issues of specific 

concern. As a result, 72 specific concerns were identified. 

Table 3-1 lists the six categories of issues identified and the specific concerns for each category. 

The manner in which the issues can be addressed in the EIS is noted in the right-hand column. 

Any new issues identified following the close of the scoping comment period or during the 45-

day public comment period following publication of the Draft EIS (to be published in winter 

2006–2007) will be incorporated into the Scope of Statement appendix in the Final EIS. The EIS 

section addressing each issue will be included in a third column that will be added to Table 3.1 in 

the Scope of Statement appendix in the Draft EIS. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

8

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

Socioeconomics 

• Need to know the potential impact on local schools and their capacity to 

accommodate the number of incoming students, both during the construction 

phase and after military and civilian personnel move to the post. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Need to accurately estimate the number of school-aged children who will be 

coming to the Fort Belvoir area as a result of BRAC 2005. 

• The number of school-aged 

children will be included in this EIS 

as such information becomes 

available 

• Potential for the need to construct new schools/expand existing schools to 

accommodate the expected influx of school-aged students, particularly in Fairfax 

County. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Need for federal funding to support the hiring of teaching and support staff and 

the full range of other professionals necessary to ensure an appropriate 

education; the purchase of desks, chairs, tables, computers, and other 

classroom resources. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Need for increased support for extracurricular activities (particularly club sports) 

as the percentage of students from military families increases. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Request for federal resources to conduct a study of the socioeconomic and 

environmental effects of the changes at Fort Belvoir on the Fairfax County 

Public School system. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Request for designation of the Fairfax County Public Schools as a “cooperating 

agency. 

• Comment noted 

• Local communities will not have a sufficient tax base for hiring teachers and 

creating additional space to accommodate the influx of students. 

• Comment noted 

• Examine the real commuter, road, and air quality impacts; include the precise 

number of contractors serving DOD entities to be relocated and the dollar 

figures of contracts under which these contractors perform. 

• Transportation and air quality 

effects will be addressed in the 

EIS; contractor estimates will be 

included as they become available 

• Include precise lease language for commercial, for-profit, opportunities on 

federal property and include an assessment of the economic impact of these 

commercial activities if they had been located in adjacent Fairfax County 

commercial space. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Include precise numbers of bedrooms in the proposed housing to plan the 

precise number of children who will attend Fairfax County Public Schools. 

• The RCI program will address this 

issue 

Cultural resources 

• Request that the Army continue to consult with the Department of Historic 

Preservation (DHP) on the impact that the BRAC actions will have on historic 

properties and archaeological sites at Fort Belvoir. 

• The Army will consult with the 

SHPO on this issue 

• Request that construction within sight of the Friends Meetinghouse at Woodlawn 

be screened from view. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Request that Woodlawn Gate be closed and access to the Meetinghouse at 

Woodlawn from Route 1 be restored. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

9

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

Traffic and transportation 

• Need to know the potential impact on local transportation, especially the 

increased congestion on I-495 and I-95. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Need to expand and improve public transportation regionally to accommodate 

the increase in population in the area. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Consider the numerous additional private contractors that will be required to 

relocate to the immediate vicinity of Fort Belvoir. 

• Contractor estimates will be 

included in the EIS as they 

become available 

• The Army should consider both direct and indirect transportation effects of the 

proposed BRAC action at Fort Belvoir, along with mitigation measures. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Any serious analysis of the long-term Fort Belvoir transportation needs must 

consider more than just the final segment of the Fairfax County Parkway and the 

I-95 fourth lane. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Need to consider electric bus or light rail systems for employees who commute 

and visitors to Fort Belvoir to minimize disruption to surrounding communities, 

traffic, noise, and air pollution. 

• Comment noted 

• Need for better data on the number of current and future commuters coming 

from each ZIP Code area. 

• Comment noted 

• The hospital should be located at the Engineering Proving Ground (EPG) to 

avoid the traffic problems if it is on the Main Post. 

• Comment noted 

• A grade-separated intersection needs to be constructed for the Fairfax County 

Parkway and the street that provides access to Greenspring Village to the north 

and to the residential development to the south. 

• Comment noted 

• Incorporating “demand management” of traffic. • Comment noted 

• Conduct annual audits and publication of mandatory mass transit for all 

employees, and contractors, and residents. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Build links to mass transit at Springfield and Huntington Metro. • Comment noted 

• Need to evaluate the density of the project and the adequacy of infrastructure to 

support development; rail extension, more road construction, etc. 

• Will be analyzed in the EIS 

• Need to study the BRAC impacts on the GW Parkway and the GW Memorial 

Highway. 

• Impacts to traffic in the vicinity of 

Fort Belvoir will be analyzed in this 

EIS 

• Do not include the replacement of the Woodlawn Road project in the BRAC EIS. • It is being addressed in the EA 

being prepared for the Federal 

Highway Administration 

• Request that the Army coordinate with the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) on 

any proposals to mitigate BRAC impacts that rely on increased use of VRE 

• The Army will coordinate with VRE 

• The alternatives should identify approaches and mitigation that promote 

transportation mobility, accessibility and mulit-modal transportation choices, 

minimizes single-occupant vehicle use and encourages transit use. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

10

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

• The Council on Government's (COG) Traffic model is not appropriately scaled 

for use in this analysis 

• The traffic analysis will use both 

the regional COG model and a 

scaled sub-area model to assess 

the changes in travel patterns and 

volumes; using these two models 

will provide the appropriate scale 

Land use 

• The hospital should not be located at EPG because it is too difficult to find. • Comment noted 

• Need to design development projects to minimize impacts on natural resources. 

 

• Comment noted 

• Need to consider constructing all buildings in accordance with principles of 

sustainable development, including building parking areas to minimize runoff 

and impermeable surfaces, using green roofing and solar power, and recycling 

of grey water. 

• Comment noted 

• Recommend conducting any in-stream activities during low- or no-flow 

conditions, using nonerodible cofferdams to isolate the construction area, 

blocking no more than 50 percent of the streamflow at any time, stockpiling 

excavated material in a manner that prevents reentry into the stream, restoring 

original streambed and streambank contours, revegetating barren areas with 

native vegetation, and implementing strict erosion and sediment control 

measures. 

• Comment noted 

• Ensure that all, or at least part of, the development is Low Impact Development. 

Use any unoccupied buildings for expansion instead of building new structures if 

they are not needed. 

• Comment noted 

• Request for the continued accommodation of the Mount Vernon High School 

Crew Team on-base. 

• Comment noted 

• Request that, due to noise issues, the National Army Museum not be located 

near the Friends Meetinghouse at Woodlawn, that its proposed location be 

moved to EPG. 

• Comment noted 

• Suggest use of parking garages instead of parking lots to minimize footprint. • Comment noted 

• Eliminate free employee parking. • Comment noted 

Natural resources

• Need to consider relocating stream channels rather than filling or channelizing. • Comment noted 

• Need to maintain undisturbed wooded buffers of at least 100 feet in width 

around all on-site wetlands and on both sides of all perennial streams. 

• Comment noted 

• Consider not using storm water management ponds or in-stream storm water 

management ponds for mitigation of wetland impacts. 

• Comment noted 

• Suggest designing storm water controls to replicate and maintain the 

hydrographic condition of the site prior to construction. 

• Comment noted 

• Consider the use of Low Impact Development practices such as bioretention 

areas and grass swales. 

• Comment noted 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

11

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

• Consider building parking decks instead of parking lots because of 

environmental impact studies that have been done that show the ways in which 

parking lots affect wetlands and runoff. 

• Comment noted 

• Include a wildlife corridor at all costs to conserve what wildlife there is on and 

near the installation. 

• Comment noted 

• Preserve wetlands to prevent damage to the river system and to preserve 

endangered and threatened species. 

• Comment noted 

• Consider construction of stream crossings using clear-span bridges rather than 

culverts if possible. If not, recommend countersinking culverts below the 

streambed at least 6 inches, or use bottomless culverts to allow passage of 

aquatic organisms. 

• Comment noted 

• EIS should identify all 100-year floodplains and Resource Protection Areas • Will be evaluated in the EIS 

• Fort Belvoir should participate in ongoing watershed planning efforts • Comment noted 

• Concern with potential intensification of development in the southwest area • Comment noted 

• Consider installing floodplain culverts to carry bankfull discharges. • Comment noted 

• EIS should analyze the use of LEEDS certifications for all buildings and site 

development. 

• Will be evaluated in the EIS 

• Use of green roofs. • Comment noted 

• Evaluate all alternatives for how, and how effectively, they can achieve the 

compact, mixed use, pedestrian-friendly, sustainable and connected urban 

designs that represent a significant component of the "Belvoir New Vision 

Goals." 

• Will be addressed under the 

master plan analysis 

• It is essential to commit to avoidance of impacts to tidal and nontidal wetlands. • Will be analyzed in the EIS 

Other

• Include the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association (MVCCA) as a formal 

entity among your cooperating agencies. 

• Comment noted 

• Please create a forum to better involve conservation organizations. • Comment noted 

• Information presented at the scoping meeting was insufficient. • Comment noted 

• A more holistic appraisal of the impacts of the BRAC action was expected. • Direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects from the preferred 

alternative for the BRAC action will 

be in the Draft EIS in the winter of 

2006–2007 

• Design all BRAC EIS public scoping components and outreach programs to 

follow precisely the procedures used in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. 

• Comment noted 

• All project mitigation must be unequivocally included in the projects and the 

project funding. 

• Mitigation requiring funding will be 

included in the Record of Decision 

(ROD) 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

12

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

• The public has never been presented the alternatives or the BRAC project in a 

meaningful way. 

• The alternatives are being 

developed with the public feedback 

throughout the scoping process. 

The alternatives will be presented 

in the Draft EIS in winter 2006–

2007 

• The public comments are due the same week that the alternatives are being 

narrowed. This violates the principles of NEPA, and the community is opposed 

to this process. 

• The public comments collected 

during the initial phase of the 

scoping process will be used to aid 

in the process of selecting a range 

of alternatives. The alternatives 

will be presented in the Draft EIS 

in winter 2006–2007. A 45-day 

public comment period begins after 

releasing the Draft EIS. During 

this comment period the public will 

have additional opportunities to 

provide feedback before the Final 

EIS is published. 

 

• Conduct new baseline studies that reflect the cumulative effects of the nonBRAC projects that have occurred since the 1994 master plan, including DTRA, 

RCI, DLA, etc. for air quality, water quality, open space, traffic counts, child 

attendance in local schools. 

• Will be analyzed in the cumulative 

impacts section of the EIS, which 

covers effects of past, present and 

future reasonable and foreseeable 

actions 

• Conduct multiple scoping meetings using the public hearing forum of audience 

and podium with microphone. 

• A public hearing will occur 

following release the Draft EIS in 

winter 2006–2007. 

• Address the statutory requirements for threat reduction measures and define 

how the projects meet or exceed the standards and where in the National 

Capital Region the standards are not followed. 

• The EIS will address security 

issues on Fort Belvoir, however, 

security issues outside of the 

installation are beyond the scope 

of this EIS. 

• The EIS should include information on risk and threat assessments sufficient to 

identify and evaluate appropriate security measures. 

• Security measures will be 

addressed in the master plan 

analysis 

• EIS should address potential need for additional utilities • Will be addressed in the EIS 

• Due to inadequate public notifications and public information, extend the 

deadline for receipt Scoping Comments to September 15, 2006. 

• The scoping process continues 

beyond the deadline for 

submission of comments to be 

included in the Scope of 

Statement. The Army will continue 

to accept comments beyond 

July 2, 2006, for use in defining the 

scope of the EIS. In addition, a 

45-day public comment period 

begins after releasing the Draft EIS 

in the winter of 2006–2007. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

13

SECTION 4.0 

CONCLUSIONS 

Comments submitted by members of the public and representatives of federal, state, and local 

agencies generally fall into one of four categories: impacts on Fairfax County Public Schools 

(33 percent); traffic and transportation (27 percent); potential impacts to the environment 

(20 percent); and preservation of cultural resources/historic properties (13 percent). The 

consistency of comments received has provided the Army with an understanding of the issues 

that the public would like the EIS to address. 
Appendix A 

BRAC Recommendations 
2005 BRAC Recommendations for Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

The BRAC Commission made 35 recommendations concerning Fort Belvoir. The essence of each 

recommendation is outlined below. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA by relocating and consolidating Sensors, Electronics, and Electronic Warfare 

Research, Development and Acquisition activities to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD except the Night 

Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (the Night Vision Lab) and the Project Manager Night 

Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (PM NV/RSTA), and by relocating and 

consolidating Information Systems Research and Development and Acquisition (except for the Program 

Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems) to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign the PM Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Enterprise Systems and Services (ALTESS) 

facility at 2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA, a leased installation, by relocating and consolidating 

into the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Army Prime Power School training to Fort Leonard Wood, MO. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) to Marine 

Corp Base Quantico, VA. 

Realign Ballston Metro Center, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the U.S. Army Legal 

Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close 1500 Wilson Boulevard and Presidential Towers, leased installations in Arlington, VA, by 

relocating offices accommodating Pentagon Renovation temporary space to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close Metro Park III and IV (6350 and 6359 Walker Lane), a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by 

relocating the Defense Contract Management Agency Headquarters to Fort Lee, VA. 

Realign 400 Army Navy Drive, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and the DoD Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Realign the Webb Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Department of 

Defense Education Activity and the Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Rosslyn Plaza North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating offices accommodating 

Pentagon Renovation temporary space, Washington Headquarters Services and the Defense Human 

Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Gateway North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and the DoD Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Realign 2001 North Beauregard Street, 621 North Payne Street, Ballston Metro Center, Crystal Square 4, 

Crystal Square 5, Crystal Plaza 6, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Skyline 5, and Skyline 6, leased installations 

in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 3, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service at Fort Belvoir, VA. 
Realign Hoffman 1, Crystal Gateway 1, Crystal Gateway 2, Crystal Gateway 3, and the James K. Polk 

Building, leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

Washington Headquarters Services to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign the Nash Street Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Defense 

Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Alexandria Tech Center IV, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the Defense 

Technology Security Administration to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1400-1450 South Eads Street, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the DoD 

Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1401 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort 

Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1555 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating offices of the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense and Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 2-3-4 and Skyline 4, leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating Washington 

Headquarters Services to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close the Suffolk Building, a leased installation in Falls Church, VA. Relocate all Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) functions, except the Ballistic Missile Defense System Sensors Directorate, to Redstone 

Arsenal, AL. 

Realign176 the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) Building, a leased installation in 

Huntsville, AL. Relocate all functions of the Missile Defense Agency to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Federal Office Building 2, Arlington, VA, by relocating a Headquarters Command Center for the 

Missile Defense Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA, and by relocating all other functions of the Missile Defense 

Agency, except the Command and Control Battle Management and Communications Directorate, to 

Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Soldier Magazine to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA by relocating Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the Security Assistance 

Command (USASAC, an AMC major subordinate command) to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Dalecarlia and Sumner sites, Bethesda, MD; 

Reston 1, 2 and 3, leased installations in Reston, VA; Newington buildings 8510, 8520, and 8530, 

Newington, VA; and Building 213 a leased installation at the South East Federal Center, Washington, 

DC. Relocate all functions to a new facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. Realign the National Reconnaissance 

Office facility, Westfields, VA, by relocating all NGA functions to a new facility at the Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Consolidate all NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence College functions on Fort Belvoir into the new 

facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, as follows: relocate all tertiary (subspecialty and complex care) medical services to National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, 
establishing it as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD; relocate Legal 

Medicine to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD; relocate sufficient 

personnel to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD, to establish a 

Program Management Office that will coordinate pathology results, contract administration, and quality 

assurance and control of DoD second opinion consults worldwide; relocate all non-tertiary (primary and 

specialty) patient care functions to a new community hospital at Ft Belvoir, VA; relocate the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense supporting unit to Fort Belvoir, VA; disestablish all elements of the Armed Forces 

Institute of Pathology except the National Medical Museum and the Tissue Repository; relocate the 

Armed Forces Medical Examiner, DNA Registry, and Accident Investigation to Dover Air Force Base, 

DE; AFIP capabilities not specified in this recommendation will be absorbed into other DoD, Federal, or 

civilian facilities, as necessary; relocate enlisted histology technician training223 to Fort Sam Houston, 

TX; relocate the Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function (with the exception of those organizational 

elements performing neuroprotection research) of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest 

Glen Annex) and the Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function of the Naval Medical Research Center 

(Forest Glen Annex) to the Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX; relocate Medical 

Biological Defense Research of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest Glen Annex) and 

Naval Medical Research Center (Forest Glen Annex) to Fort Detrick, MD, and consolidate it with US 

Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases; relocate Medical Chemical Defense Research of 

the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest Glen Annex) to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and 

consolidate it with the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense; and close the main 

post. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Chemical Biological Defense Research component of the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency to Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD. 

Realign Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg, PA, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items, except those Navy items 

associated with Nuclear Propulsion Support, Level 1/Subsafe and Deep Submergence System Program 

(DSSP) Management, Strategic Weapon Systems Management, Design Unstable/Preproduction Test, 

Special Waivers, Major End Items and Fabricated or Reclaimed items to Defense Supply Center 

Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point functions; 

disestablish the procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables and 

designate them as Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions; and relocate 

the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, 

Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements 

Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for 

Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement management and related support functions for Depot 

Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Marine Corps Base, Albany, GA, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon 

System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for any residual Consumable Items to Defense 

Supply Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point 

functions; disestablish the procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level 

Reparables and designate them as Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point 

functions; and relocate the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, 

Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, 
Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control 

Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement management and related support 

functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, by relocating the oversight of Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of 

procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense 

Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by assigning the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, 

Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System 

Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical 

Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement 

management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, 

Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Defense Threat Reduction Agency National Command Region 

conventional armament Research to Eglin Air Force Base, FL. 
Appendix B 

Notice of Intent 
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70793 

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 

In addition to those disclosures 

generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 

552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records 

or information contained therein may 

specifically be disclosed outside the 

DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The 

‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the 

beginning of the Air Force’s compilation 

of record system notices apply to this 

system. 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, 

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

STORAGE: 

Maintained in file folders, note books/ 

binders, in computers and on computer 

output products. 

RETRIEVABILITY: 

Retrieved by name, Social Security 

Number and detachment number. 

SAFEGUARDS: 

Records are accessed by person(s) 

responsible for servicing the record 

system in performance of their official 

duties and by authorized personnel who 

are properly screened and cleared for 

need-to-know. records are stored in 

locked rooms and cabinets. Those in 

computer storage devices are protected 

by computer system software. 

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: 

Records at unit of assignment are 

destroyed one year after acceptance of 

commission or one year after 

disenrollment. Records at HQ AFROTC 

for disenrolled cadets are destroyed 

after three years. Computer records are 

destroyed when no longer needed. 

Records are destroyed by tearing into 

pieces, shredding, pulping, macerating 

or burning. Computer records are 

destroyed by erasing, deleting or 

overwriting. 

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 

Director of Senior Program, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110, and Commander 

of appropriate AFROTC detachment. 

Official mailing addresses are 

published as an appendix to the Air 

Force’s compilation of systems of 

records notices. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: 

Individuals seeking to determine 

whether this system of records contains 

information on them should address 

inquiries to the AFROTC Detachment 

Commander at location of assignment. 

Official mailing addresses are published 

as an appendix to the Air Force’s 

compilation of system of records 

notices. 

Request for information involving an 

investigation for disenrollment should 

be addressed to Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should 

include full name and SSN. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

Individuals seeking to access records 

about themselves contained in this 

system should address requests to the 

AFROTC Detachment Commander at 

location of assignment. Official mailing 

addresses are published as an appendix 

to the Air Force’s compilation of 

systems of records notices. 

Request for information involving an 

investigation for disenrollment should 

be addressed to Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should 

include full name and SSN. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

The Air Force rules for accessing 

records, and for contesting contents and 

appealing initial agency determinations 

are published in Air Force Instruction 

33–332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be 

obtained from the system manager. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Sources of records in the system are 

educational institutions, secondary and 

higher learning; government agencies; 

civilian authorities; financial 

institutions; previous employer; 

individual recommendations, 

interviewing officers; and civilian 

medical authorities. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

Portions of this system may be exempt 

under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(5), as applicable, but only to the 

extent that disclosure would reveal the 

identity of a confidential source. 

Parts of this system may be exempt 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only 

to the extent that disclosure would 

reveal the identity of a confidential 

source. 

[FR Doc. 05–23131 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Intent To Prepare Environmental 

Impact Statements for Realignment 

Actions Resulting From the 2005 Base 

Closure and Realignment 

Commission’s Recommendations 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment (BRAC) Commissions were 

established by Public Law 101–510, the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

Act of 1990 (BRAC Law), to recommend 

military installations for realignment 

and closure. The 2005 Commission’s 

recommendations were included in a 

report which was presented to the 

President on September 8, 2005. The 

President approved and forwarded this 

report to Congress on September 16, 

2005. Since a joint resolution to 

disapprove these recommendations did 

not occur within the statutorily 

provided time period, these 

recommendations have become law and 

must be implemented in accordance 

with the requirements of the BRAC Law. 

The BRAC Law exempts the decisionmaking process of the Commission from 

the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Law also relieves the 

Department of Defense from the NEPA 

requirement to consider the need for 

closing, realigning, or transferring 

functions and from looking at 

alternative installations to close or 

realign. Nonetheless, the Department of 

the Army must still prepare 

environmental impact analyses during 

the process of property disposal, and 

during the process of relocating 

functions from a military installation 

being closed or realigned to another 

military installation after the receiving 

installation has been selected but before 

the functions are relocated. These 

analyses will include consideration of 

the direct and indirect environmental 

and socioeconomic effects of these 

actions and the cumulative impacts of 

other reasonably foreseeable actions 

affecting the installations. 

The Department of the Army intends 

to prepare individual Environmental 

Impact Statements (EIS) pursuant to 

section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, regulations 

of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR 1500–1508), and the 

Army NEPA regulation (32 CFR 651 et 

seq.) for each of the actions listed below. 

Opportunities for public participation 

will be announced in the respective 

local newspapers. The public will be 

70794 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 

invited to participate in scoping 

activities for each EIS and comments 

from the public will be considered 

before any action is taken to implement 

these actions. 

Environmental Impact Statements are 

planned for each of the following 

realignment actions: 

a. Fort Meade, Maryland. The BRAC 

realignment action will co-locate and 

consolidate Department of Defense 

information and information technology 

missions at Fort Meade. 

(1) EIS alternatives could include 

evaluating siting locations for structures 

and related projects within Fort Meade 

that involve new building construction 

only or new building construction 

combined with renovation of existing 

facilities. The alternatives would 

evaluate areas to provide for 

construction of, but not be limited to, 

six to eight 4-story administration 

buidlings, a full day care child 

development center, a standard-design 

Whole Barracks Complex, and a 

physical fitness center. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the infrastructure and facilities 

construction that will be required to 

accommodate an estimated increase of 

over 5,500 personnel. Significant issues 

to be analyzed in the EIS may include 

potential impacts to air quality from 

increased vehicle emissions, installation 

and regional traffic increases, land use 

changes, natural resources, water use, 

solid waste, cultural resources, and 

cumulative impacts from increased 

burdens to the facility based on 

projected growth. 

b. Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), 

Maryland. APG will be receiving 

numerous Army, Navy and Air Force 

activities to transform it into a full 

spectrum research, development, 

acquisition center for Command, 

Control, Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Defense 

Chemical and Biological Systems. The 

Army Test and Evaluation Command 

Headquarters and Civilian Personnel 

Offices will also be consolidated at 

APG. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS could include alternative 

distribution of new activities between 

APG and the Edgewood Area for 

military field training exercises; 

alternative siting schemes for placement 

of buildings and related infrastructure to 

accommodate an increase of about 

15,000 Army personnel within the APG 

and Edgewood Area. These may include 

siting schemes for new building 

construction only, or new building 

construction combined with renovation 

of existing facilities. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an increase of 

personnel and military training 

operations. Significant issues to be 

analyzed in the EIS will include on-post 

and local air quality conditions, on-post 

and regional traffic conditions, housing, 

socioeconomics, noise due to increased 

vehicle use, threatened and endangered 

species to include bald eagle habitat, 

historic buildings and archeological 

resources, wetlands, biological 

resources, land use, and community 

facilities and services. 

c. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Fort Belvoir 

will be receiving numerous Department 

of Defense activities from leased space 

within the National Capital Region 

(NCR); National Geospatial Intelligence 

Agency units from various NCR leased 

locations and Bethesda, Maryland; 

primary and secondary medical care 

functions from Walter Reed Medical 

Center to a new, expanded DeWitt Army 

Hospital; and inventory control point 

functions for consumable items to the 

Defense Logistics Agency from the 

Naval Support Activist, Mechanisburg 

and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio. 

(1) EIS alternatives may consist of 

moving all activities to the Fort Belvoir 

Main Post, moving all activities to the 

Engineer Proving Ground (EPG), or 

moving a portion of the activities to the 

Main Point and a portion to the EPG. 

Other alternatives could include 

alternative land locations for specific 

projects within Fort Belvoir, within the 

EPG, or a combination of both; new 

construction only; new construction 

combined with renovation of existing 

facilities; alternative facility siting 

schemes, or other modifications of 

specific projects. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an estimated 

increase of over 18,000 personnel. 

Significant issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS will include potential impacts to air 

quality condition in the Northern 

Virginia region, transportation systems 

in the Northern Virginia region, traffic 

conditions with Fort Belvoir, threatened 

and endangered species, historic 

buildings and archeological resources, 

wetlands, biological resources, land use, 

and community facilities and services. 

d. Fort Lee, Virginia. Fort Lee will 

receive the Transportation Center and 

School from Fort Eustis, Virginia, and 

the Ordnance Center and School from 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 

These functions will be consolidated 

with the Quartermaster Center and 

School, the Army Logistics Management 

College, and Combined Arms Support 

Command to establish a Combat Service 

Support Center at Fort Lee. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS may include the usage of only Fort 

Lee for field training exercises, the 

usage of other military installations 

(Fort A.P. Hill) for field training 

exercises, or a combination of both; 

alternative land locations for specific 

projects with Fort Lee and Fort A.P. 

Hill; new construction only; new 

construction combined with renovation 

of existing facilities; alternative facility 

siting schemes, or other modifications of 

specific projects. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an estimated 

increase of over 7,000 personnel. 

Significant issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS will include air quality conditions, 

traffic conditions, noise due to 

increased training activities, threatened 

and endangered species, historic 

buildings and archeological resources, 

wetlands, biological resources, land use, 

and community facilities and services. 

e. Fort Benning, Georgia. Fort Benning 

will receive the Armor Center and 

School from Fort Knox, Kentucky; 81st 

Regional Readiness Center from Fort 

Gillem, Georgia; and the U.S. Army 

Reserve Center from Columbus, Georgia. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined by the 

EIS may consist of alternative siting 

locations with Fort Benning for facility 

construction projects, new construction 

only, renovation and use of existing 

facilities, or a combination of both new 

construction and use of existing 

facilities, and usage of alternatives land 

locations within Fort Benning for 

training activities. 

(2) As a result of new construction 

and training activities associated with 

moving nearly 10,000 personnel to Fort 

Benning, the BRAC action has the 

potential to cause significant 

environmental impacts to threatened 

and endangered species such as the redcockaded woodpecker, archeological 

sites, wetlands, soil erosion, and 

increased noise impacts to the 

surrounding public. 

f. Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Navy and 

Air Force medical training activities 

from various locations within the U.S. 

and the 59th Medical Wing from 

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will 

move to Fort Sam Houston to form a 

Department of Defense medical training 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70795 

center. The Army Installation 

Management Agency (IMA) 

Headquarters from Virginia, the 

Northwest IMA Regional office from 

Illinois, and the Army Environmental 

Center from Maryland will also move to 

Fort Sam Houston. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS could consist of alternative 

locations within Fort Sam Houston for 

siting facility construction, new 

construction only, renovation and use of 

existing facilities (to include historic 

buildings), or a combination of both 

new construction and use of existing 

facilities, and usage of alternative 

locations within Camp Bullis, a sub-post 

of Fort Sam Houston, for training 

activities. 

(2) As a result of moving 

approximately 9,000 new personnel to 

Fort Sam Houston and associated new 

construction, renovation and training 

activities, implementing the proposed 

BRAC action could have potential 

significant impacts to traffic on and off 

post, air quality and historic properties, 

to include contributing elements of the 

Fort Sam Houston National Historic 

Landmark District. 

g. Fort Carson, Colorado. Fort Carson 

will receive a Heavy Brigade Combat 

team and a Unit of Employment 

Headquarters from Fort Hood, Texas, 

and the inpatient care services from the 

U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado. 

Another Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

from overseas could also be transferred 

to Fort Carson as a result of the BRAC 

recommendation. 

(1) Alternatives that may be 

considered in the Fort Carson EIS could 

include phasing movement of units to 

the fort, alternative siting locations 

within the post of placement of new 

facilities, construction of only new 

facilities, utilization and renovation of 

existing facilities, a combination of new 

construction and utilization of existing 

facilities, and utilization of alternative 

locations within Fort Carson for training 

activities. 

(2) Fort Carson will gain 

approximately 10,000 Army personnel 

as a result of the BRAC action. 

Construction of new facilities, 

renovation of existing infrastructure and 

additional training activities could have 

significant environmental impacts on 

Fort Carson and its environs. Impacts 

could concur to local air and water 

quality, archaeological resources, noise 

and traffic. 

h. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site, 

Colorado. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site 

(PCMS) is a subpost of Fort Carson and 

a primary training area for units 

stationed at Fort Carson and other Army 

posts. The new combat units stationed 

at Fort Carson will increase the training 

tempo at the PCMS. 

(1) The EIS to be prepared for the 

PCMS will examine a number of 

implementation alternatives that could 

include alternative placement of new 

construction projects, alternative 

locations within the PCMS for training 

activities, and alternative timing for 

units to conduct training activities at the 

PCMS. 

(2) The Fort Carson BRAC action has 

the potential to significantly impact 

natural resources at the PCMS since the 

approximately 10,000 new personnel to 

be stationed there will now be training 

at the PCMS on a regular basis. New 

construction and increased training 

activities at the PCMS could have an 

impact on archaeological resources, 

natural resources, air and water quality, 

and soil erosion. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Public Affairs Office of the affected 

installations or the appropriate higher 

headquarters as indicated: (1) Fort 

Meade, MD—(301) 677–1301; (2) 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD—(410) 

278–1147; (3) Fort Belvoir, VA—(703) 

805–2583; (4) Fort Lee, VA—(804) 734–

6862; (5) Fort Benning, GA—(706) 545–

3438; (6) Fort Sam Houston, TX—(210) 

221–1099; (7) Fort Carson and Pinion 

Canyon Maneuver Site, CO—(910) 396–

2122/5600. 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

Addison D. Davis IV, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health), OASA(I&E). 

[FR Doc. 05–23162 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Logistics Agency 

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records 

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency. 

ACTION: Notice to add a system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency 

proposes to add a system of records 

notice to its inventory of record systems 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

DATES: This action will be effective 

without further notice on December 23, 

2005 unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, 

Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–6221. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Susan Salus at (703) 767–6183. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Defense Logistics Agency notices for 

systems of records subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 

have been published in the Federal 

Register and are available from the 

address above. 

The proposed system report, as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was 

submitted on October 5, 2005, to the 

House Committee on Government 

Reform, the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) pursuant to 

paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB 

Circular No. A–130, ‘Federal Agency 

Responsibilities for Maintaining 

Records About Individuals,’ dated 

February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 

FR 6427). 

Dated: November 17, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Information Technology Access and 

Control Records. 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

Director, Information Operations, 

Headquarters Defense Logistics Agency, 

ATTN: J–6, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, 

Stop 6226, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–

6221, and the Defense Logistics Agency 

field activities. Official mailing 

addresses are published as an appendix 

to DLA’s compilation of systems of 

records notices. 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM: 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

civilian and military personnel, 

contractor employees, and individuals 

requiring access to DLA-controlled 

networks, computer systems, and 

databases. 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

System contains documents relating 

to requests for and grants of access to 

DLA computer networks, systems, or 

databases. The records contain the 

individual’s name; social security 

number; citizenship; physical and 

electronic addresses; work telephone 

numbers; office symbol; contractor/ 

employee status; computer logon 

addresses, passwords, and user 

identification codes; type of access/ 

permissions required; verification of 

need to know; dates of mandatory 

Appendix C 

Scoping Newspaper Advertisements 
Department of the Army, Fort Belvoir 

Public Notice of Scoping Meeting For 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Action 

June 7, 2006 

Hilton Springfield Hotel 

6550 Loisdale Road, Springfield, VA

 7:00 p.m.—9:30 p.m. 

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Department of the Army will conduct a 

Public Scoping Meeting on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at the location and time listed above to solicit input 

on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

action for Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The purpose of the Scoping Meeting is to seek public input on the issues 

that should be addressed in the EIS. Federal, state, and local agencies, federally recognized tribes, 

individuals, and organizations that have an interest are urged to participate. The meeting is open to the 

public and will be held open-house style. Members of the public may attend at their convenience during 

the above time period. 

The Department of the Army invites open comment on the activities proposed to implement the BRAC 

Commission’s recommendation pertaining to Fort Belvoir. The EIS will evaluate the potential 

environmental, socioeconomic, and transportation effects associated with the proposed BRAC action. The 

EIS will consider a range of alternatives to accommodate the BRAC Commission’s recommendations. The 

EIS will also evaluate updating the Fort Belvoir Master Plan to accommodate the proposed action. 

Written and oral comments concerning issues to be addressed in the EIS will be taken at the Scoping 

Meeting. A court reporter will be available to record oral comment and a translator for the hearing 

impaired will also be available. In addition, written questions or comments may be submitted to 

Directorate of Public Works, ATTN: BRAC EIS Comments, 9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100, Fort Belvoir, 

VA 22060-5116 or by e-mail to environmental@belvoir.army.mil. Information is also available online by 

going to the www.belvoirnewvision.net website and clicking on EIS. Please call the Fort Belvoir Public 

Affairs Office at 703-805-5001 with any questions about the Scoping Meeting. The deadline for 

submitting written comments on the scope of the EIS is July 2, 2006. 
Appendix D 

Public and Agency Scoping Letters 





Appendix E 

Public and Agency Scoping 

Mailing Lists 
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

The Virginia Conservation Network Mr. Tim Aiken Honorable David Albo

1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL 35-C Congressman Moran's Office, 8th District, Virginia State Senate

Richmond, VA 23219 House of Rep. 6350 Rolling Mill Pl, Ste. 102

5115 Franconia Rd, Ste B Springfield, VA 22150

Washington, DC 20510-4603

Honorable George Allen Honorable Kristen Amundson Mr. Frank Anderson

United States Senate 44th District Defense Acquisition University

204 Russell Senate Office Bldg. P.O. Box 143 9820 Belvoir Road

Washington, DC 20510-4603 Mt. Vernon, VA 22121 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565

Honorable Hilda Barg Ms. Glynn Bates Ms. Lucy Beauchamp

Prince William County Board of Supervisors Hayfield Secondary School Prince William County School Board

15941 Donald Curtis Drive 7630 Telegraph Road P. O. Box 389

Woodbridge, VA 22191 Alexandria, VA 22310 Manassas, VA 20108

Mr. Sylvester Berdux Mr. Errol Bergsagel Reverend Donald Binder

Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations Pohick Church

4201 Pickering Place 4402 Grenada Street 9301 Richmond Highway

Alexandria, VA 22309-2820 Alexandria, VA 22309 Lorton, VA 22079

Ms. Stephanie Bisson Mr. Al Bornman Mr. Eric Brent

Woodlawn Elementary School Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations Mt Vernon High School

8505 Highland Lane 1903 Sword Lane 8515 Old Mt. Vernon Rd.

Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22308 Alexandria, VA 22309

Ms. Courtney Bulger Dr. Douthard Butler Mr. John Byers

Fairfax County Public Schools Rotary Club Mount Vernon Planning Commission

10700 Page Avenue 6909 Lamp Post Lane 8218 Chancery Court

Fairfax, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22306 Alexandria, VA 22308

Honorable Maureen Caddigan Mr. Mike Campbell Ms. Isis Castro

Prince William County Board of Supervisors Prince William County Schools Mt. Vernon School Board

15941 Cardinal Drive PO Box 389 2404 Culpepper Road

Woodbridge, VA 22191 Manassas, VA 20108 Alexandria, VA 22308

Mr. Joseph Chudzik Mr. John Cogbill, IIII Mr. Frank Cohn

Mason Neck Citizen Association National Capital Planning Commission Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association

Post Office Box 612 401 9th St., NW, North Lobby, Ste.500 PO Box 7041

Lorton, VA 22079 Washington, DC 20576 Alexandria, VA 22307-7041

Ms. Heather Colistra Honorable Sean Connaughton Doctor Jack Dale

Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Prince William County Board of Supervisors Fairfax County Public Schools

8230 Old Courthouse Road, Ste.350 1 County Complex Court 10700 Page Avenue

Vienna, VA 22182-3853 Woodbridge, VA 22192 Fairfax, VA 22030

Ms. Karen Darner Honorable Thomas Davis Mr. Otha Davis

Arlington Committee of 100 11th District, Virginia Walt Whitman Intermediate School

969 S. Buchanan Streeet 224 Cannon House Office Bldg 2500 Parkers Lane

Arlington, VA 22204 Washington, DC 20515-4611 Alexandria, VA 22306
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

Mr. Jim Davis Delegate Nicole Denike Honorable Jeannemarie Devolites Davis

Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association Virginia House of Delegates Virginia's 34th District

8810 Old Mount Vernon Rd. P.O. Box 8 PO Box 936

Alexandria, VA 22309 Occoquan, VA 22125 Vienna, VA 22183-0966

Mr. Dave Dickson Ms. Holly Dougherty Ms. Jackie Edwards

Virginia Commission for Military Bases Mount Vernon-Lee Chamber of Commerce Fort Belvoir Federal Credit Union

PO Box 798 8804-D Pear Tree Village Center 8725 John J. Kingsman, Ste.1842

Richmond, VA 23218 Alexandria, VA 22309 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6220

Mr. Mark Emery Honorable William Euille Mr. John Fedorshik

Fairfax Cty Public Schools School Board Mayor's Office City of Alexandria Federation of Lorton Communities

10700 Page Avenue 301 King St. 2nd Fl, Ste. 2300 PO Box 442

Fairfax, VA 22030 Alexandria, VA 22314 Lorton, VA 22199

Ms. Betsy Fenske Ms. Katy Fike Mr. William Files

Fairfax County Schools Mount Vernon-Lee Chamber of Commerce Quander Road School

6520 Diana Lane 8804-D Pear Tree Village Center 6400 Quander Road

Alexandria, VA 22310 Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22307

Honorable Jay Fisette Ms. Merni Fitzgerald Mr. Earl Flanagan

Arlington Boardof Supervisors Fairfax County Office of Public Affairs Transportation Committee, Fairfax County

2100 Clarendon Blvd Ste 300 12000 Government Center Pkwy, Ste.551 3117 Waterside Land

Arlington, VA 22201 Fairfax, VA 22035-0065 Alexandria, VA 22309

Mr. Dave Foreman Ms. Laura Fritts Mr. Lou Genuario

Office of Congressman Tom Davis Southeast Fairfax Development Corp. Mount Vernon/Lee Chamber of Commerce

4115 Annandale Rd Ste 103 8800-A Pear Tree Village Center 8400 Radford Avenue

Annandale, VA 22003 Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22309

Mr. Craig Gerhart Mr. Harry Glasgow Mr. Todd Hafner

Prince William County Friends of Huntley Meadows Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority

1 County Complex Court C/O Huntley Meadows Park 5400 Ox Road

Prince William, VA 22192 3701 Lockheed Blvd. Fairfax, VA 22039 

 Alexandria, VA 22306

Ms. Sara Elizabeth Hall Mr. David Harned Ms. Marilyn Hildelbeidel

4020 University Drive Suite 300 10715 Harley Road Mason Neck Civic Association

Fairfax, VA 22030 Mason Neck, VA 22079 10900 Harley Road 

 Lorton, VA 22079-3904

Dr. Sam Hill Mr. Michael Hines Ms. Nancy James

Northern Virginia Community College Office of Comprehensive Planning Alexandria Meeting House

15200 Neabsco Mils Road 12055 Government Center Pkwy, Ste. 700 2405 Nemeth Court

Woodbridge, VA 22191 Fairfax, VA 22035 Alexandria, VA 22306

 

Mr. Short James, Park Manager Honorable John Jenkins Mr. Bruce Jennings

Pohick Bay Regional Park Prince William County Board of Supervisors Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce

6501 Pohick Bay Drive 4361 Ridgewood Center Drive 3975 University Drive, Ste. 350

Lorton, VA 22079 Woodbridge, VA 22192 Fairfax, VA 22030

 
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

 Mr. Robert Keller Mrs. Sharon Kelso Mr. Brett Kenney

Washington Mills Elementary School United Community Ministries, Inc. Mount Vernon District Supervisor's Office

9100 Cherry Tree Drive 7511 Fordson Road 2511 Parkers Lane

Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22306 Alexandria, VA 22306

Mr. Bobbie Green Kilberg Ms. Kathleen Kilpatrick Ms. Patty Kimmel

Northern Virginia Technology Council Department of Historic Resources FT. Belvoir Federal Credit Union

2214 Rock Hill Rd Ste 300 2801 Kensington Avenue 14040 Central Loop

Herndon, VA 22201 Richmond, VA 23221 Woodbridge, VA 22193

Ms. Nordis King CAPT Michael Klein Mr. Louis Kobus

Mt Vernon High School Fairfax County Police Mount Vernon Community Coalition

8515 Old Mt. Vernon Rd. 2511 Parkers Lane PO Box 289

Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22306 Mount Vernon, VA 22121

Ms. Stella Koch Mr. William Lecos Ms. Barbara Leibbrandt

Northern Virginia Environment Network Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Fairfax County Schools, Cluster IV

1056 Manning Street 8230 Old Courthouse Road, Ste. 350 Virginia Hills Center, 6420 Diana Lane

Great Falls, VA 22066 Vienna, VA 22182 Alexandria, VA 22310

Mr. Michael Lewis Ms. Bonnie Lilley Honorable L. Scott Lingamfelter

Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Mount Vernon Community Coalition Virginia's 31st District

8230 Old Courthouse Road, Ste. 350 3011 Cunningham Drive 5420 Lomax Way

Vienna, VA 22182 Alexandria, VA 22309 Woodbridge, VA 22193

President Robert Lundy Ms. Molly Lynch Pat Malone

Federation of Lorton Communities Lorton Community Action Center PO Box 9807/Friendship Station

P.O. Box 442 P.O. Box 154 Washington, DC 20016-9807

Lorton,, VA 22199-0442 Lorton, VA 22199 

Mrs. Nancy-Jo Manney Mr. Neil McBride Mr. Jeff McKay

Springfield Chamber of Commerce Lorton Community Federal Group Lee District Supervisor's Office

6434 Brandon Avenue, Ste. 3A 8105 Winter Blue Court 6121 Franconia Road

 Springfield, VA 22150 Springfield, VA 22153 Alexandria, VA 22310

Mr. Patrick McLaughlin MG(Ret) Carl McNair Ms. Pamela Michell

Directorate of Public Works and Logistics Mount Vernon Community Coalition New Hope Housing, Inc.

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 107 7871 Rolling Woods Ct, Apt. #407 Eleanor U. Kennedy Shelter

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5130 Springfield, VA 22152 8407-E Richmond Highway 

 Alexandria, VA 22309

Mr. Jason Money Honorable James Moran LTC(Ret) Gerald Musarra

Office of Senator George Allen 8th District, Virginia House of Rep. Chairman, Fort Belvoir Retiree Council

708 Hart Building 2239 Rayburn House Office Building 6601 Cherry Valley Lane

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515-4610 Alexandria, VA 22309

Honorable Marty Nohe Hon. Jay O'Brien Commanding Officer

Prince William County Board of Supervisors State Senate US Coast Guard Marine Safety Office

4360 Ridgewood Center Dr. 7903 Clifton Hunt Court Hampton Roads

Prince William, VA 22192 Clifton, VA 20124 200 Granby Street, Room 700 

 Norfolk, VA 23510
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

Ms. Anda Ostergard LTC James Overbye Mr. Larry Padberg

Lorton Community Action Center George Mason University Color Guard New Hope Housing, Inc.

PO Box 154 4400 University Drive MSN 2F9 Eleanor U. Kennedy Shelter

Lorton, VA 22199 Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 8407-E Richmond Highway 

 Alexandria, VA 22309 

Ms. Lois Passman Mr. J. Thomas Payne Honorable Linda Puller

Mt. Vernon Council Transportation Committee Fred Lynn Middle School Virginia State Senate

8354 Orange Court 2451 Longview Drive PO Box 146 

Alexandria, VA 22309 Woodbridge, VA 22191 Mount Vernon, VA 22121

Ms. Jeannie Purdy Mr. David Randall Mr. Ross Randall

Lorton Community Action Center Newington Community Association Woodlawn Plantation

PO Box 154 PO Box 351 PO Box 37

Lorton, VA 22199 Springfield, VA 22150 Mount Vernon, VA 22121

Mr. James Rees, Director Mr. Harold Reniere Ms. Judy Riggins

Mount Vernon Ladies Association Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce Alexandria Society of Friends

P.O Box 110 3975 University Drive, Ste. 350 8990 Woodlawn Road

Mount Vernon, VA 22121 Fairfax, VA 22030 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

Mr. Edward Risley Colonel David Rohrer Mr. Gary Roisum

7212 Beechwood Road Fairfax County Police Huntley Meadows Park

Alexandria, VA 22307 2511 Parkers Lane 3701 Lockheed Boulevard

Alexandria, VA 22306 Alexandria, VA 22306

Delegate Jack Rollison President Chase Ronald Ms. Kay Rutledge

Virginia House of Delegates Gum Springs Historical Society Fairfax County Park Authority

13512 Minnieville Road 8100 Fordson Road 12055 Government Center Pkwy, Ste. 421

Woodbridge, VA 22192 Alexandria,, VA 22306 Fairfax, VA 22035

Honorable Richard Saslaw Mr. Howard Savage Mr. Daniel Schmidt

Virginia State Senate Mason Neck Civic Assn. Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Dept.

PO Box 10628 10658 Gunston Road 4100 Chain Bridge Road

Alexandria, VA 22310 Lorton, VA 22079-3915 Fairfax, VA 22030

 

 Mr. Greg Schuckman LTC Peter Schultheiss Mr. Paul Seelman

South County Federation National Capital District Veterinary Command Raceway Farms C.A.

P.O. Box 442 10002 Caples Road 8315 Frosty Court

Lorton, VA 22199 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 Lorton, VA 22079

Honorable Mark Sickles Ms. Patricia Simmons LTC Janet Simmons

House of Delegates Sun Trust Bank Headquarters Battalion

PO Box 10628 PO Box 179, ALX6008 6089 Abbot Road Suite 1

Alexandria, VA 22310 Alexandria, VA 22313 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5205

Ms. Patricia Soriano Mr. Cord Sterling Ms. Laura Stevens

Mt Vernon Group Chair/Mount Vernon Group, Office of Senator John Warner Operator of Administrations/The Audubon 

Sierra Club 225 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Society of Northern Virginia

5405 Barrister Place Washington, DC 20510-4601 P.O. Box 128

Alexandria, VA 22304 Annandale, VA 22003-0128
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

Honorable Corey Stewart Mr. Phil Sunderland Mr. Richard Taube

Prince William County Board of Supervisors 8th District, Virginia House of Rep. Northern Virginia Transportation Commission

13083 Chinn Park Dr. 2239 Rayburn House Office Building 4350 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 720

Prince William, VA 22192 Washington, DC 20515-4610 Arlington, VA 22203

Mr. Hansel Taylor Dr. Robert Templin Mr. David Thomas

American Legion Post 1775 Northern Virginia Community College Cong. Tom DavisUS House of 

5823 Russell Leaf Ct. 4001 Wakefield Chapel Rd Rm 305C Representatives (Davis, 11th District)

Woodbridge, VA 22193 Annandale, VA 22003-3723 224 Cannon House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515-4611

Mr. Lainhoff Thomas, Director Mr. E. Tommy Thompson Mr. and Mrs. Jack Thorson

Gunston Hall Plantation Hybla Valley Elementary School 8601 Accotink Road

10709 Gunston Road 3415 Lockheed Blvd. Lorton, VA 22079

Mason Neck, VA 22079-3901 Alexandria, VA 22306

Honorable Patsy Ticer Ms. Tyson Tish Dr. Calanthia Tucker

Virginia State Senate 8641 Mount Vernon Highway Mount Vernon Cluster, Fairfax County 

301 King Street Rm 2007 Alexandria,, VA 22309 6520 Diana Lane

Alexandria, VA 22314 Alexandria, VA 22310

Mrs. Rima Vesilind Mr. Dick Wadhams Honorable John Warner

Woodley Hills Elementary School United States Senate United States Senate

8718 Old Mt. Vernon Road 204 Russell Senate Office Building 225 Russell Senate Office Bldg.

Alexandria, VA 22309 Washington, DC 20510-4603 Washington, DC 20510-4601

Ms. Susan Warner Honorable Mark Warner Dr. Steven Watts

Congressman Moran's Office Office of the Governor Prince William County Schools

5115 Franconia Road, Suite B State Capital, P.O. Box 1475 PO Box 389

Alexandria, VA 22310 Richmond, VA 23218 Manassas, VA 20108

Mrs. Virginia Weber Mrs. Paige Weber Ms. Laurie Weider

Mount Vernon Community Coalition Mount Vernon Community Coalition Prince William Regional Chamber of 

 3120 Waterside Lane 3120 Waterside Lane Commerce 

Alexandria, VA 22309-2132 Alexandria, VA 22309-2132 4320 Ridgewood Center Drive

 Woodbridge, VA 22191

 Mr. Greg Weiler Dr. Belle Wheelan Honorable Mary Margaret Whipple

Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Office of the Governor Virginia's 31st District

Complex P.O. Box 1475 3556 North Valley Street

14344 Jefferson Davis Highway Richmond, VA 23218 Arlington, VA 22207-4445

Woodbridge, VA 22191

Mrs. Jane Wilson Mr. Bill Womack Mr. Richard Wood

Fort Belvoir Elementary School Office of Congressman Tom Davis Defense Commissary Agency

5970 Meers Road 2348 Rayburn Bldg. 6020 Gorgas Road, Suite 101

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 Washington, DC 20515 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6209

Mr. Harry Zimmerman, Jr.

Office of the Lee District Supervisor

6121 Franconia Road

Alexandria, VA 22310
Fort Belvoir 

Agency Scoping Mailing List 

NEPA Coordinator NEPA Coordinator NEPA Coordinator

U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of the Treasury U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development

14th Street & Independence Ave., SW, Treasury Annex, Rm 6140, 1500 Office of Env. And Energy 

Washington, DC 20250 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 451 Seventh St, SW, Rm 7154 HUD Bldg.

Washington, DC 20220-0001 Washington, DC 20410-0001

NEPA Coordinator William Arguto Mark Canale,

U.S. Department of the Interior Environmental Assessment & Innovation Div. Fairfax County Department of Transportation

Office of Env. Policy and Compliance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 3 12055 Government Center Parkway, 

 1849 C Street, NW, Rm 2340 1650 Arch Street, Suite 1034

Washington, DC 20240 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Fairfax, VA 22035-5511

 

Mary Colligan, Assistant Regional Honorable Gerald Connolly, Linda Cornish, Historic Preservation Planner

National Marine Fisheries Services Protected Fairfax County Government Center Fairfax County Department of Planning and 

Resources 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 530 Zoning

One Blackburn Dr., Fairfax, VA 22035-0071 12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730

Gloucester, MA 01930-2298 Fairfax, VA 22035

Eric Davis, NEPA Coordinator Frank de la Fe, Chairman Kathy Graham,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fairfax County Planning Commission Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Virginia Office 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 330 Fisheries

6669 Short Lane, Fairfax, VA 22035-0042 4010 West Broad Street,

Gloucester, VA 23061 Richmond, VA 23230

Anthony Griffin, Marcia Hanson, Mount Vernon District Marc Holma, Architechtural Historial

Fairfax County Government Center Supervisor's Staff Department of Historic Resources

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 552 2511 Parkers Lane, 2801 Kensington Avenue,

Fairfax, VA 22035-0071 Alexandria, VA 22306 Richmond, VA 23221

Honorary Pierce Homer, Honorable Gerald Hyland, Rene Hypes, Division of Natural Heritage

Virginia Department of Transportation Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation

P.O. Box 1475, 2511 Parkers Lane, 217 Governor Street,

Richmond, VA 23218 Alexandria, VA 22306 Richmond, VA 23219

Kathy Ichter, Ellie Irons Noel Kaplan,

Fairfax County Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Impact Review Fairfax County Department of Planning and 

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 1034 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Zoning

Fairfax, VA 22035-5511 629 East Main Street, Suite 600 12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730

Richmond, VA 23219 Fairfax, VA 22035

Honorable Dana Kauffman, Eugene Keller, Planner Kathleen Kilpatrick 

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors National Capitol Planning Commission State Historic Preservation Officer

6121 Franconia Road, 401 Ninth Street NW, Suite 500 North Lobby Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Franconia, VA 22310 Washington, DC 20576 2801 Kensington Avenue,

Richmond, VA 23221

Don Klima, Council on Historic Preservation Honorable Elaine McConnell, Robert McDonald, Chief, Planning Section

Old Post Office Building Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Virginia Department of Transportation

Office of Federal Agency Programs 8825 Beulah Street, Suite 115 14685 Avion Parkway,

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 809 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5246 Chantilly, VA 20151-1104

Washington, DC 20004

Peter Murphy, John Nichols Robert Nieweg, Director 

Fairfax County Planning Commission Oxford Habitat Conservation Office National Trust for Hstoric Preservation

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 330 National Marine Fisheries Service Southern Field Office

Fairfax, VA 22035-0042 904 South Morris Street, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,

Oxford, MD 21654 Washington, DC 20036-2117
Fort Belvoir 

Agency Scoping Mailing List 

Richard Pepino, Water Protection Division Doug Pickford Dave Robertson, Executive Director

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 3 Environmental and Heritage Resources Metropolitan Washington Council of 

1650 Arch Street, Northern Virginia Regional Commission Governments

Philadelphia, PA 19103 7535 Little River Turnpike, Suite 100 777 N. Capitol Street, NE, Suite 300

Annandale, VA 22003 Washington, DC 20002

Ralph Spagnolo Wendy Stills, Project Development Specialist Ed Sundra, Environmental Specialist

Environmental Services Division U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 3 400 Seventh Street, SW, Virginia Division

1650 Arch Street, Washington, DC 20590-0001 400 North 8th Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Richmond, VA 23240

Lynn Tadlock Mary Ann Welton John Wolflin, Supervisor, Annapolis Field

Planning and Development Division Fairfax County Wetlands Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Fairfax County Park Authority Fairfax County Department of Planning and 117 Admiral Cochrane Drive,

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 421 Zoning Annapolis, MD 21401-7307

Fairfax, VA 22035-1118 12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730

Fairfax, VA 22035

James Zook,

Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive 

Planning

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 700

Fairfax, VA 22035-5505
Appendix F 

Public Scoping Meeting Displays 
Welcome

Welcome to the Public Scoping 

meeting for the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 

2005 Implementation and Master 

Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

The purpose of this meeting is to 

solicit input on the scope of the 

EIS and to identify issues and 

alternatives to be addressed in 

the study.

June 7, 2006

7:00 p.m.–9:30 p.m.

Information Stations

Welcome (sign-in)

NEPA

BRAC Action 

Transportation

1.

2.

3.

4.

Natural & Cultural Resources

Written Comments

Oral Comments

Media

5.

6.

7.

8.
EIS Scoping Meeting 

Participant’s Guide

1)	 Please sign in at the Welcome Station and take a brochure.

2)	 View the displays in any order you choose.

3)	 To submit written comments on the scope of the EIS:

At the Written Comments station, please complete a hard copy

Comment Form and place it in the basket provided.

OR

To submit comments later, see below and visit the Written

Comments station for further instructions.

4)	 To submit oral comments on the scope of the EIS:

Oral comments may be submitted to the court reporter at the

Oral Comments station.







If you wish to submit comments at a later time, 

you may use the following methods:

Online Comment Form:

www.belvoirnewvision.com

(click on EIS)

E-mail:

environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail:

Attn: EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED OR POSTMARKED BY JULY 2, 2006
Master Plan Update

Fort Belvoir’s Master Plan Update will produce a new standard of excellence for 

federal urban design and development at Fort Belvoir; develop and implement a 

new vision for Fort Belvoir that is creative, achievable, and lasting; and create a 

program for integration and development that is structured and proactive.

The Master Plan Update will occur concurrently with the implementation of the Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) action at Fort Belvoir. This Master Plan Update 

will involve a comprehensive look at how Fort Belvoir has evolved since its 1993 

Master Plan and how best to accommodate for its anticipated growth and expanded 

missions due to BRAC and other actions in the future. A team of experienced 

planners, engineers, architects, and environmental and transportation experts have 

been selected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to lead the realignment of Fort 

Belvoir. The team is going by the name of Belvoir New Vision Planners (BNVP).

Growth

Fort Belvoir anticipates a twofold increase in its workforce by 2011 with the addition 

of approximately 22,000 people. Its expanding role as a Community Support Center 

for its approximately 150,000 regional clients is a key component of this growth.

Key tenant agencies contributing to this substantial increase include the National 

Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense (DoD) Washington 

Headquarters Services, and the Army Lease Service. Other development includes 

expansion of DeWitt Army Hospital and construction of the National Museum of the 

U.S. Army.

Vision

Fort Belvoir will be the mission support center for the U.S. Army and the DoD in the 

National Capital Region. Regionally, the BRAC Program will relocate Army and DoD 

activities from around the Capital region (some from unsecured locations) to Fort 

Belvoir. Fort Belvoir is preparing to accept these missions and, concurrently, grow as 

the Community Support Center for this expanded client base.

Fort Belvoir is transforming into a world-class installation with diversity, 

sustainability, and connectivity, while conserving and protecting sensitive natural 

habitats and respecting its history. Community support facilities and services would 

also be expanded as part of this growth.

Fort Belvoir Master Plan Update

Planning Principles

Fort Belvoir is using smart growth principles and mixed-use development in its 

planning. Goals and guiding principles for planning include:

Transform Fort Belvoir 

Create a world-class installation 

Achieve a diversity of use and 

activities 

Build an urban place of high quality 

Achieve high-sustainability 

standards 











Conserve and protect sensitive 

natural habitats 

Emphasize connectivity 

Establish walkable neighborhoods 

Emphasize the public realm 

Respect Fort Belvoir’s history










Approximately 4,500 acres 

of land on Fort Belvoir are 

suitable for development. 

Of this land, approximately 

one-half has already been 

developed. A significant 

portion of Fort Belvoir 

land that was deemed 

less than ideal for 

development, however, 

could be developed with 

proper mitigation and/or 

specialized engineering.

A few areas that were 

identified as developable 

are in areas identified 

as having constraints. 

These exceptions lie in 

areas where buffers and 

environmentally sensitive 

lands were designated 

after existing structures 

were built (e.g., the Officer’s Club, eastern portions of 

Dogue Creek Village, and northeastern portions of George 

Washington Village).

BRAC

Development Scenarios Being Considered

Using its guiding principles, BNVP is evaluating six potential development 

areas. Each development scenario involves new development, 

redevelopment, and infill. Some combination of the development areas 

below would be used to support the BRAC program.

North Post

South Post

Engineer Proving Ground (EPG)







Davison Army Airfield

North Post Golf Course

Southwest Area







Development Scenarios
Land Use

Aesthetics and 

Visual Resources

Air Quality

Noise

Geology and Soils

Water Resources













Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Socioeconomics

Transportation

Utilities

Hazardous and 

Toxic Substances













The EIS will consider impacts to the 

following resource areas in the vicinity 

of Fort Belvoir:

Agency Coordination

To achieve smart growth and make on-post transportation 

and development decisions that are strategic within a regional 

perspective, the Army continues to coordinate closely with federal, 

state, and local agencies, and with state and local leaders including 

but not limited to:

National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Viriginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

Virginia State Historic Preservation Office (VA SHPO)

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VGIF)

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR)

Fairfax County

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)






















Transportation

Background

Fairfax County has more than 1 million 

residents and is expected to grow to 1.2 

million residents by 2025

Many regional transportation facilities already 

provide insufficient levels of service

Previous planning efforts have identified many 

improvement options

BRAC Impacts

Approximately 22,000 employees will relocate 

to Fort Belvoir

Consistent with previous and current land use 

plans (but on an accelerated schedule)

Proposed action is within employment and 

population forecasts for the area

The vast majority of expected additional 

employees already live and work in the region















Transportation Goals

Support and enhance an integrated, multimodal 

transportation system that includes:

Improved transit service

Increased road and transit capacity

Connections between potential activity centers

Recognize the linkage between transportation and 

land use

Develop proactive transportation management 

programs

Promote a “park once” strategy

Promote ridesharing

Respect historical and environmental factors



















The above map highlights major roads in the transportation network 

in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir. Arrows show the origins and estimated 

numbers of workers commuting to Fort Belvoir following BRAC 2005 

Implementation.

Fort Belvoir Traffic Network

Potential Improvements

The EIS will identify transportation improvements 

required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed 

action. Improvement concepts and designs are 

likely to come from either approved planning 

documents or ongoing studies in the area 

including:

Improvements proposed in regional, state, and 

local, long-range plans

TransAction 2030 (regional)

Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP)

Six-Year Improvement Program

Fairfax County Transportation Plan (local)

Improvements developed as part of ongoing 

studies

Fort Belvoir Master Plan

Springfield Connectivity Study

I-95 HOT Lanes Study



















Commitment of Approach

Regional

Cumulative impacts

Sub-regional

Secondary impacts

Local

Access and facility design

On-post 

Internal circulation

















Southbound–13,000

Westbound–8,000

Eastbound–6,000

Northbound–19,000
Natural and Cultural 

Resources

Wetlands

Floodplains 

Regulated wildlife habitats

Regulated historic and 

archaeological features

Riparian and foraging buffer along 

the installation’s waterways (Dogue 

Creek, Potomac River, Gunston 

Cove, Accotink Bay, and Pohick Bay)











The forest and wildlife corridor that 

diagonally traverses the North Post 

from the installation’s boundary 

at Huntley Meadow’s Park to the 

Davison Army Airfield

Steep slopes (>15 percent)





A detailed analysis of Fort Belvoir’s 

environmental and cultural resources 

is being performed utilizing data from 

Fort Belvoir’s Directorate of Public Works 

and Geographic Information Systems 

Department.

Natural and cultural features will be 

analyzed to identify potential development 

conflicts and areas potentially suitable for 

development.

Current Conditions

Fort Belvoir supports rich flora and fauna. 

Fort Belvoir has a rich history and is home to a 

variety of historic and cultural resources.

Analysis 

Studies of wetlands, flora, fauna, endangered 

species, and historic and archaeological 

resources are being undertaken.

The EIS will use the results of these studies to determine impacts of 

the BRAC action to natural, historic, and archaeological resources.

Areas that are considered generally not suitable for development 

include land within:















Small-whorled pogonia (state 

endangered, federally threatened) 

Wood turtle (state threatened) 

Bald eagle (federally threatened) 







263 species of birds including 61 

Partners in Flight priority species, 

one of which is only known to occur 

at Fort Belvoir.

Wetlands (1,700 acres) 




!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!! !

!! !! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!! !

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

! ! !

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !!

!

!!!!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!

!!

! !

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !!!

!!!!

!

!!

! ! !

!

!!

!!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !!!

!

! ! !! ! ! !

! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! ! ! !

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

! !!

!

! !

! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !! !

!!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! !!

!! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !!! !

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Southwest

Area

South

Post

North

Post

Davison

Army Airfield

Engineer

Proving

Ground

Airf

ei dl B

ui dl ni g

H

eig

ht

Restriction

Zone

Natural, Cultural, and

Operational Features

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

LEGEND

- Airfield Approach Zone

- Building Height Restriction Zone

- Easements

- Former Training Ranges

- Solid Waste Management Units

- Former Landfills

- Threatened and Endangered Species

- Forest and Wildlife Corridor

- EPG Environmental Quality Corridor

- Steep Slopes

- Wildlife Refuges and Conservation Areas

- Resource Protection Areas

- 100-Year Flood Zones

- Riparian Areas

- Wetlands

- Fort Belvoir Main Post Historic District

- Historic Buildings

- Other Historic District Overlays

- Cemeteries

- Archaeological Sites

Natural Features

Cultural and Historic Features

Operational Features
Written Comments

All comments received will be used to assist in identifying alternatives and determining the scope of the EIS. A summary 

of the comments and responses will be included in the Draft EIS. Following publication of the Draft EIS, a 45-day public 

comment period will allow input from the public on the proposed action and alternatives and the adequacy of the 

evaluation. The Army will make the Final EIS available for public review no less than 30 days prior to issuing the Record of 

Decision (ROD). The BNVP website (www.belvoirnewvision.com) will be updated regularly as a means to keep the public 

informed of the most current information regarding the BRAC action at Fort Belvoir.

If you would like to submit written comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement, please complete a hard copy 

Comment Form and place it in the basket. 

If you wish to submit comments at a later time, you may use the following methods:

Online Comment Form:

Go to the www.belvoirnewvision.com Web site and click on EIS

E-mail: environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail:

Attn: BRAC EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED OR POSTMARKED BY JULY 2, 2006






Oral Comments

All comments received will be used to assist in identifying alternatives and 

determining the scope of the EIS. A summary of the comments and responses 

will be included in the Draft EIS. Following publication of the Draft EIS, a 45-day 

public comment period will allow input from the public on the proposed action and 

alternatives and the adequacy of the evaluation. The Army will make the Final EIS 

available for public review no less than 30 days prior to issuing the Record of Decision 

(ROD). The BNVP website (www.belvoirnewvision.com) will be updated regularly as 

a means to keep the public informed of the most current information regarding the 

BRAC action at Fort Belvoir.

Oral comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement may be recorded 

for the public record. Oral comments may be submitted to the court reporter at this 

station.
Appendix G 

Public Scoping Meeting 

National Environmental Policy Act 

PowerPoint Presentation 
Slide 1/26

Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIfor BRAC 2005 Implementation and MUpdate of Fort Belvoir, Virginia
Slide 2/26

What is the National Environmental Policy Act (NE

 A federal law that requires the iden

analysis of potential environmentacertain proposed federal actions aalternatives before those actions t

 A "full disclosure" law with provis

public access to and public particfederal decision-making process
Slide 3/26

What is NEPA? (continued)

 A statutory requirement triggere

federal actions that could signifthe quality of the human environ

 A mechanism for

• Evaluating potential environmenta• Incorporating public involvement i

decision-making process
Slide 4/26

An EIS...

 Is prepared in accordance with 

presents the results of analyses environmental effects of a propoand its alternatives.

 Includes opportunities for publi

involvement in agency planning

 Is prepared when a proposed ac

cause significant environmenta
Slide 5/26

An EIS...(continued)

 Includes analyses of land use, 

socioeconomics, cultural resoutransportation, air, noise, utilitieand toxic materials and wastes, soils, water resources, and bioloresources.

 Includes a description of the ba

environmental and socioeconomconditions against which effects proposed action are evaluated.
Slide 6/26

An EIS...(continued)

 Identifies potential consequenc

appropriate mitigation (methods adverse impacts). 
Slide 7/26

What is Scoping?

 Scoping is a part of the EIS prep

process through which a federadescribes a proposed action and alternatives and seeks input from agencies, organizations, and the on potentially affected resourceenvironmental issues to be consand the agency’s planned approanalysis to be conducted.
Slide 8/26

Elements of the Scoping Proc

 Identifying issues to be address

EIS

 Identifying major issues of conc Eliminating nonrelevant issues Delineating the study area(s) Identifying potential alternatives
Slide 9/26

Purposes of this Scoping Mee

 To inform the public of what is c

being considered for inclusion i

 To collect public input that will 

Army prepare the EIS

 To use public input to develop t

the EIS, modify or update the dethe proposed action and alternaidentify the resource areas likelaffected
Slide 10/26

Legislative, Regulatory & Interagency Framework

 The National Environmental Pol

of 1969 (NEPA): PL 91-190

 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

1500-1508: Council on EnvironmQuality Regulations for Implemethe Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy A

 32 CFR Part 651: Environmental 

Analysis of Army Actions
Slide 11/26

Legislative, Regulatory & Interagency Framework(continued)

 National Historic Preservation A Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination A Clean Air Act Coastal Zone Management Act
Slide 12/26

Steps in Preparing an EIS

 Define the proposed action, alte

decisions to be made.

 Identify what needs to be analyz

(scoping); refine the proposed aalternatives.

 Gather data, conduct analyses, 

environmental effects of the proand alternatives.

 Publish a Draft EIS for public an

review.
Slide 13/26

Steps in Preparing an EIS(continued)

 Conduct a public meeting on th

solicit comments.

 Publish a Final EIS for public an

review.

 Publish a Record of Decision.
Slide 14/26

What are the Decisions to be 

 How best to implement the BRA

recommendation for Fort Belvoi

 How best to accommodate Fort 

anticipated long-term growth
Slide 15/26

What is the Proposed Action?

 The proposed action is to realig

Belvoir according to BRAC law update the Fort Belvoir Master PCommission recommended the of approximately 22,000 people of 59 agencies or activities to reFort Belvoir. These include, but limited to:

• Primary and secondary medical ca

from Walter Reed Medical Center texpanded DeWitt Hospital
Slide 16/26

What is the Proposed Action?(continued)

• Army and DoD organizations from 

Capital Region (NCR) leased space

• National Geospatial-Intelligence A

units from various NCR leased locBethesda, Maryland

• Selected Defense Intelligence Age

activities from leased space to RivCharlottesville, Virginia (to be anaseparate NEPA document).
Slide 17/26

What this EIS WILL evaluat

 BRAC 2005 Implementation Update of the Fort Belvoir Master Pla Impacts that the BRAC 2005 Impleme

Belvoir will have on the transportatio

 Cumulative effects: 

• National Museum of the U.S. Army• Potential off-post transportation impr• Proposed connector road between Ro

Telegraph Road

• Information Dominance Center (DoD A• Full analysis for each of these project

under separate NEPA documents
Slide 18/26

What this EIS will NOT eval

 Effects to Crystal City resulting from 

Army and Department of Defense (Doorganizations to Fort Belvoir. The decwhether to realign Fort Belvoir was mBRAC Commission and Congress, beNovember 9, 2005, and is not subject 

 Effects of the potential off-post trans

improvements identified in the EIS

 Ongoing installation construction pro
Slide 19/26

Alternatives

 A “no action” alternative: A “ba

alternative required by NEPA. Balternative is the set of conditioNovember 2005.

 Development center locations (i

Post, South Post, Engineer Prov(EPG), Davidson Army Airfield, Golf Course, Southwest Area, ocombinations of locations).

 New construction, renovation, o

combination of the two.
Slide 20/26

Alternatives(continued)

 Evaluation of a single land use 

iterations of alternative land use they are developed
Slide 21/26

Resource Areas to be Considein the EIS

 Land Use Aesthetics and 

Visual Resources

 Air Quality Noise Geology and Soils Water Resources

 Biologic Cultural  Socioec Transpo Utilities Hazardo

Substan
Slide 22/26

Impacts to be Identified and Discussed in the EIS

 Direct and indirect impacts Short-term and long-term impa Cumulative impacts Mitigation of impacts Irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources

 Adverse impacts that cannot b Short-term uses of the environ

maintenance and enhancementerm productivity
Slide 23/26

Public Involvement Opportun Scoping meeting (oral or written  Public review of Draft EIS (45 day Public meeting on Draft EIS (oral 

comments)

 Final EIS (written comments)Public notices will be issued when and Final EISs are released for revi
Slide 24/26

Projected EIS Schedule

 Public Scoping Meeting

• June 7, 2006, Hilton Springfield Ho

Springfield, Virginia

• Deadline to Submit Scoping Comm

July 2, 2006

 Draft EIS Available for Review

• December 2006 (45 days)

 Draft EIS Public Meeting

• January 2007
Slide 25/26

Projected EIS Schedule (continued)

 Draft EIS Comments Due

• 45 days from publication of Notice 

Federal Register; February 2007

 Final EIS Available for Review

• May 2007 (30 days)

 Final EIS Comments Deadline

• 30 days from Final EIS publication
Slide 26/26

 Record of Decision Available

• Minimum of 30 days after release o

Draft and Final EISs will be availibraries and on the Web.

Projected EIS Schedule (continued)
Appendix H 

Public Scoping Meeting Handouts 
EIS Timeline

Public Scoping Meeting

Springfield, VA ...........................................................................June 7, 2006

Scoping Comments Deadline.....................................................July 2, 2006

Draft EIS Available for Review..................................................Winter 2007

Draft EIS Public Hearing............................................................Winter2007

Draft EIS Comments Due................... 45 days from publication of the Notice of 

Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register

Final EIS Available for Review ............................................... Summer 2007

Record of Decision................................................................. Summer 2007

How do I submit comments on the scope of the EIS?

The Department of the Army and Fort Belvoir welcome your input on the issues and concerns that 

should be addressed in the EIS. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:

Scoping Meeting

Oral comments and written comments may be submitted at the 

June 7, 2006, scoping meeting.

Web Site

Comments may be submitted online at: www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on EIS)

E-mail

Comments may be e-mailed to: environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail

Comments may be mailed to:

Attn.: EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

All comments must be received or postmarked by July 2, 2006, 

to be considered in preparation of the Draft EIS.
What is BRAC?

Congress passed a law authorizing Base Realignment

and Closure (BRAC) recommendations at Department

of Defense (DoD) installations in November 2005, the

fifth BRAC round since 1988. The purpose of the BRAC 

recommendations was to authorize another round of

realignments and closures to keep up with evolving

global security requirements. The BRAC action at Fort 

Belvoir includes relocating 59 DoD agencies and activities, primarily from the DC metropolitan area, onto

Fort Belvoir.

What is the National Environmental 

Policy Act?

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

requires the analysis of potential environmental effects associated with major federal actions. NEPA 

ensures that federal agencies consider social and

environmental factors along with the technical and

economic components of a decision. The agency must 

identify potential impacts on resources such as water,

air, wildlife, cultural resources, land use, recreation,

and aesthetics, and consider alternatives to the proposed action. NEPA also requires that the responsible 

federal official consult with relevant federal and state 

agencies, federally recognized tribes, and the public to

determine these impacts.

NEPA is a “full disclosure” law with provisions for 

public access to, and full participation in, the federal

decision-making process. The Act’s intent is to protect, restore, and enhance the environment through

well-informed federal decisions. Two NEPA documents 

will be created in the course of this action:

• An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

that analyzes any potential significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with

implementing the BRAC recommendations and the

updated Master Plan.

• A Record of Decision (ROD) that documents the

final decision on the proposed action, on the basis 

of the information presented in the EIS. It may 

specify mitigation measures (methods to lessen

negative impacts) and monitoring programs to be

undertaken.

What is the U.S. Army’s Enhanced Use Lease 

(EUL) Program?

The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes 

Department of Defense installations to obtain leasing opportunities. The program is intended to improve 

federal property utilization, provide revenue to the

installation, reduce installation operating costs, enhance mission performance by fostering cooperation

between military services and the private sector, and

introduce valuable federal property into the local job

market. A lease may be entered into only if the Secretary of the Army considers it advantageous to the

United States in terms that promote national defense 

or are in the public interest. EULs may be considered 

for the Master Plan and EIS efforts at Fort Belvoir.

What is the purpose of this scoping meeting?

The purpose of this scoping meeting is to seek input 

from individuals, community organizations, federally

recognized Indian tribes, and federal, state, and local 

agencies on issues and concerns relating to the scope

of an EIS that is being prepared for implementation of 

the BRAC Commission’s recommendation for realignment of Fort Belvoir and update of the Fort Belvoir 

Master Plan. Specifically, the Army is seeking public 

input on the action alternatives to be analyzed and

the environmental and socioeconomic impacts to be

addressed in the EIS. This meeting also serves as an 

opportunity, consistent with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, for interested parties to submit their views

on any potential historic preservation issues raised by

the proposed action.

What is the meeting format and what topics 

will be addressed?

This meeting is open-house style, with information 

booths available to help attendees identify potential

issues and concerns to be addressed in the EIS. The 

booths provide information on such topics as the development plans under consideration for Fort Belvoir, 

the timeline for preparing the EIS, and other public 

involvement opportunities that will occur throughout

the EIS process. Army and Fort Belvoir representatives are available to answer questions.

You can submit written comments concerning the EIS 

at the Written Comments station or by sending them

via regular mail or via e-mail (see How do I submit 
What is BRAC?

Congress passed a law authorizing Base Realignment

and Closure (BRAC) recommendations at Department

of Defense (DoD) installations in November 2005, the

fifth BRAC round since 1988. The purpose of the BRAC 

recommendations was to authorize another round of

realignments and closures to keep up with evolving

global security requirements. The BRAC action at Fort 

Belvoir includes relocating 59 DoD agencies and activities, primarily from the DC metropolitan area, onto

Fort Belvoir.

What is the National Environmental 

Policy Act?

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

requires the analysis of potential environmental effects associated with major federal actions. NEPA 

ensures that federal agencies consider social and

environmental factors along with the technical and

economic components of a decision. The agency must 

identify potential impacts on resources such as water,

air, wildlife, cultural resources, land use, recreation,

and aesthetics, and consider alternatives to the proposed action. NEPA also requires that the responsible 

federal official consult with relevant federal and state 

agencies, federally recognized tribes, and the public to

determine these impacts.

NEPA is a “full disclosure” law with provisions for 

public access to, and full participation in, the federal

decision-making process. The Act’s intent is to protect, restore, and enhance the environment through

well-informed federal decisions. Two NEPA documents 

will be created in the course of this action:

• An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

that analyzes any potential significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with

implementing the BRAC recommendations and the

updated Master Plan.

• A Record of Decision (ROD) that documents the

final decision on the proposed action, on the basis 

of the information presented in the EIS. It may 

specify mitigation measures (methods to lessen

negative impacts) and monitoring programs to be

undertaken.

What is the U.S. Army’s Enhanced Use Lease 

(EUL) Program?

The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes 

Department of Defense installations to obtain leasing opportunities. The program is intended to improve 

federal property utilization, provide revenue to the

installation, reduce installation operating costs, enhance mission performance by fostering cooperation

between military services and the private sector, and

introduce valuable federal property into the local job

market. A lease may be entered into only if the Secretary of the Army considers it advantageous to the

United States in terms that promote national defense 

or are in the public interest. EULs may be considered 

for the Master Plan and EIS efforts at Fort Belvoir.

What is the purpose of this scoping meeting?

The purpose of this scoping meeting is to seek input 

from individuals, community organizations, federally

recognized Indian tribes, and federal, state, and local 

agencies on issues and concerns relating to the scope

of an EIS that is being prepared for implementation of 

the BRAC Commission’s recommendation for realignment of Fort Belvoir and update of the Fort Belvoir 

Master Plan. Specifically, the Army is seeking public 

input on the action alternatives to be analyzed and

the environmental and socioeconomic impacts to be

addressed in the EIS. This meeting also serves as an 

opportunity, consistent with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, for interested parties to submit their views

on any potential historic preservation issues raised by

the proposed action.

What is the meeting format and what topics 

will be addressed?

This meeting is open-house style, with information 

booths available to help attendees identify potential

issues and concerns to be addressed in the EIS. The 

booths provide information on such topics as the development plans under consideration for Fort Belvoir, 

the timeline for preparing the EIS, and other public 

involvement opportunities that will occur throughout

the EIS process. Army and Fort Belvoir representatives are available to answer questions.

You can submit written comments concerning the EIS 

at the Written Comments station or by sending them

via regular mail or via e-mail (see How do I submit 
EIS Timeline

Public Scoping Meeting

Springfield, VA ...........................................................................June 7, 2006

Scoping Comments Deadline.....................................................July 2, 2006

Draft EIS Available for Review..................................................Winter 2007

Draft EIS Public Hearing...........................................................Winter 2007

Draft EIS Comments Due................... 45 days from publication of the Notice of 

Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register

Final EIS Available for Review ............................................... Summer 2007

Record of Decision................................................................. Summer 2007

How do I submit comments on the scope of the EIS?

The Department of the Army and Fort Belvoir welcome your input on the issues and concerns that 

should be addressed in the EIS. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:

Scoping Meeting

Oral comments and written comments may be submitted at the 

June 7, 2006, scoping meeting.

Web Site

Comments may be submitted online at: www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on EIS)

E-mail

Comments may be e-mailed to: environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail

Comments may be mailed to:

Attn.: EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

All comments must be received or postmarked by July 2, 2006, 

to be considered in preparation of the Draft EIS.
(More comment sheets are available if you need additional space.) 

Comment Form 

Environmental Impact Statement for BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

NOTE: All information submitted will become public record. 

1. Your information: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________ 

Title: ______________________________________________________________ 

Agency/Organization: _________________________________________________ 

Address: ____________________________________________________________ 

City, State, Zip: ______________________________________________________ 

Phone: _____________________________________________________________ 

E-mail: _____________________________________________________________ 

□ Please send a CD copy of the EIS to me. 

2. Please check the one affiliation that best represents your role or interest in the EIS: 

□ Fort Belvoir Resident □ Recreational Organization 

□ State Government □ Private Citizen 

□ School/University □ Federal Government 

□ Civic Organization □ Business/Commercial Organization 

□ Federally Recognized Tribe □ Environmental Organization 

□ County □ Other: ____________________ 

3. EIS Areas of Concern. Please check the appropriate boxes and write your specific 

comments about the area of concern in # 4 below. More Comment Forms are 

provided at the Comment station if you need additional space. 

□ Construction □ Noise 

□ Traffic and Transportation □ Native American Resources 

□ Cultural Resources/Historic Properties □ Air Quality 

□ Socioeconomics □ Water Quality 

□ Wetlands, Wildlife, Endangered Species □ Other: _____________________ 
(More comment sheets are available if you need additional space.) 

4. Please write your comments in the space provided below. 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

Web Site

Comments may be submitted online at: www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on EIS)

E-mail Comments may be e-mailed to: environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail

Comments may be mailed to:

Attn.: EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

All comments must be received or postmarked by July 2, 2006 

to be considered in preparation of the Draft EIS.
Appendix I 

Public Scoping Meeting 

Attendance Roster 
















Appendix J 

Agency Scoping Meeting 

Discussion Points 

and Attendance Roster 
Fort Belvoir Agency Scoping Meeting 

June 7, 2006 1:30PM – Springfield Hilton Hotel – Springfield, VA 

Discussion Points 

1 of 3 

 Will the public have the same input opportunity as the agencies? 

o Yes, using the written comment form or online comment form, via email, 

or through the court reporter to submit oral comments. 

 Will the public have the group forum opportunity as the agencies do this 

afternoon?

o No, there will be a formal public hearing later in the EIS process (winter 

of 2006–2007)

o All the public comments received throughout the scoping process will be 

compiled and presented in the Scope of Statement, which will become part 

of the public record. 

o Ask questions of technical experts

 How will the BRAC EIS and the master plan be coordinated, in particular, the 

siting of the facilities on Fort Belvoir? 

o The EIS and the master plan are being prepared concurrently.

 The Master Plan needs to be decided first to do NEPA analysis of a preferred 

alternative. 

o Typically the master planning process is conducted ahead of the EIS 

process; however, because of the accelerated schedule for implementation 

of the BRAC actions, the master planning and EIS teams are working 

closely to coordinate the two efforts. 

 If the NEPA process (EIS) reveals issues with the Master Plan’s preferred 

alternative (facility locations) late in the process, (winter 2006–2007), will there 

be time to change/modify alternatives (facility locations?)

o Yes, it is possible for the Army to revise alternatives. 

o An EIS can go forth to the Public Draft EIS stage without a preferred 

alternative and determine a preferred alternative at that point on the basis 

of public input.

 Will there still be enough time if that happens–it is a very narrow window of time 

to complete the EIS and master plan. 

o The EIS will analyze the entire footprint for proposed facilities, so some 

movement of siting of facilities within the footprint could occur without 

significantly impacting the schedule.

o If it is determined that the preferred alternative is no longer viable, we will 

already have done the investigation at other locations (through analysis of 

other alternatives considered) to determine their suitability for 

development.

o If an area is added to an alternative that was not previously considered, the 

EIS schedule would be affected. 
Fort Belvoir Agency Scoping Meeting 

June 7, 2006 1:30PM – Springfield Hilton Hotel – Springfield, VA 

Discussion Points 

2 of 3 

o Additional follow-up NEPA analysis such as a Supplemental EA could be 

done if needed for specific sites. 

 What about agency coordination? 

o Coordination letters to federal, state, and local agencies will be sent. 

o The Commonwealth of Virginia has a “one stop shop” for distribution of 

EIS materials (i.e., Public Draft EIS) in which Ms. Ellie Irons of the 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) coordinates 

distribution of the EIS to all Virginia agencies. 

 What is the relationship between the Belvoir New Vision Planners (BNVP) and 

the BRAC NEPA Support Team (NST)? 

o There is direct overlap between the two, and consistent coordination and 

sharing of information between them. In fact there are two firms that are 

members of both teams. 

 The July 7 report will identify site locations of 80 percent of the proposed 

facilities on Fort Belvoir. The locations of the facilities will change the nature of 

transportation and infrastructure required to accommodate the facilities. State and 

local agencies will be impacted by these facility sitings, particularly transportation 

agencies. We (State and local representatives) need enough time to budget and 

plan to accommodate growth on Fort Belvoir (roads, rail, etc.). Where will the 

money come from to fund all these improvements? 

o The BRAC NST will take all concerns back to the planners regarding 

timing of the Master Plan and EIS and the impact on local agency 

planning constraints. 

 What if the master plan finds that Fort Belvoir cannot accommodate the proposed 

square footage? 

o BNVP has determined that the proposed square footage will fit in multiple 

configurations. At this time that is not a concern. A screening process to 

minimize impacts to sensitive environmental areas on Fort Belvoir is also 

being conducted. 

 

 What is the region of influence of transportation and other impacts of BRAC 

action analyzed in the EIS? What about mitigation? 

o The region of influence has not been defined at this stage. 

o The EIS will propose mitigation, but will not conduct analysis of the 

proposed mitigation or implement the mitigation. Who is responsible for 

the proposed mitigation will depend on what the proposed mitigation is. 

 Will there be specific detail in the EIS about the potential for off-post 

transportation improvements (transportation mitigation)? 
Fort Belvoir Agency Scoping Meeting 

June 7, 2006 1:30PM – Springfield Hilton Hotel – Springfield, VA 

Discussion Points 

3 of 3 

o There will be general recommendations put forth for transportation 

improvements in the EIS that are based on the results of the impacts 

analysis. 

o There will be a negotiation process between the Army and appropriate 

agencies to determine funding mechanisms for the required transportation 

improvements. 

 Will the federal government lease office space on Fort Belvoir to the private 

sector? This would affect local transportation issues/development. The local 

government needs to be made aware of this decision. 

o Leasing of federal land (Enhanced Use Leases [EULs]) is being 

considered for developers to construct office space. 

 22,000 jobs will be relocated to Fort Belvoir. What about collateral contractors 

that will be subsequently drawn to Fort Belvoir? 

o This will be addressed in the EIS. Planners are analyzing the issue and 

will be making estimates. The EIS will also analyze impacts on the local 

economy, schools, and utilities. 

 I’m concerned that the mitigation will not be analyzed, just proposed. How do we 

know the mitigation will be sufficient? 

o Mitigation measures will be recommended on the basis of the results of 

the impacts analysis to be conducted as part of the EIS. 

 The master plan is to be completed in May 2007. Will the EIS be finalized at this 

time? 

o Development of the master plan and the Draft EIS are being conducted 

concurrently. 

o The Public Draft EIS with the master plan update is anticipated to be 

available in the winter of 2006-2007. 

 It would help local agencies/commenting agencies to have interim drafts and 

comment periods, and longer comment periods. We need to see this document 

before it is final. 

o The Public Draft EIS will have a 45-day comment period in the Winter of 

2006–2007. The Final EIS will have a 30-day comment period in the 

summer of 2007. 

 Will the comments received today be on the BNVP Web site? If so, when? 

o Yes. The comment period ends July 2. Comments received will be 

included as part of the Scope of Statement report to be posted on the Web 

site sometime in mid-July. 






Appendix K 

Debriefing Meeting Summary 
Following the Public Scoping Meeting, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Support Team (NST) and the Belvoir New 

Vision Planners (BNVP) convened for a debriefing meeting. Technical staff from each 

of the information booths provided comments on issues that the public raised; frequently 

asked questions, comments, or concerns; and general feedback. Below is a summary of 

the information gathered at that meeting. 

Verbal comments given to the BRAC NST and BNVP at the scoping meeting: 

Planning issues 

• Commented on planning principles; hope they can be adhered to. 

• Wanted to know impacts of significant areas of development for BRAC on Fort 

Belvoir. 

• What would the density of the development proposed for the Engineering Proving 

Ground (EPG) be, and how would the access roads be aligned? 

• Several questions were asked about where things were going to be sited, and the 

siting process in general. 

• Will the new Dewitt Hospital partner with INOVA Fairfax Hospital? 

• A gentleman who had formerly worked for the Veterans Administration felt the 

hospital needs to be at EPG. Keeping the hospital on Main post would be a traffic 

nightmare, and that EPG was a better location from the transportation aspect. 

Transportation issues 

• Liked map showing directions and origins of relocated workers. 

• Why does there not appear to be a tree buffer being maintained along the western 

edge of EPG to shield the residential neighborhoods from the Parkway. This 

[may have] been an agreement made in the past. 

• The discussion at the transportation booth was almost exclusively focused on the 

issue of where people are coming from and whether there is likely to be a 

significant shift in employee’s residential locations. Most citizens the BNVP staff 

spoke with were satisfied with our sample size and approach. However, the 

agencies, Fairfax County in particular continues to be very concerned that we do 

not have a full Zip Code listing of current and incoming employees. While they 

recognize that while we have about 15,000 Zip Codes from incoming agencies, 

these were obtained at different times from different sources. The BNVP staff 

does not believe the overall pattern would change. It has been the similar for 

years, and how it changes over the next 5 years is driven by several factors. It is 

unlikely to shift percentages more than 2 to 4 percent from any direction. 

• Most citizens seemed supportive of the development but were very concerned or 

even alarmed that the program would proceed without adequate funding for 

transportation improvements. 

• Most citizens felt extending Metro or some form of rail transit was essential. 
• In terms of specific suggestions, most are waiting to see specific proposals and 

concepts. However, quite a few asked what would be done to Route 1, and there 

were suggestions to extend a road across Southwest Post parallel to Route 1. 

• There was strong support for rail south along Route 1 to Fort Belvoir. 

• There were a lot of questions regarding what we would study and how far off-post 

our studies would go. In that regard it does take up to 6 or 7 miles before traffic 

destined to Fort Belvoir drops below 10 percent of the traffic flow or becomes 

insignificant. 

Socioeconomic issues 

• Wanted to know if the number of housing units on-post will increase. 

• What will happen to school enrollment as a result of BRAC influx of personnel 

into the area? 

• Retirees versus active workers: very different perspectives of development. 

Environmental issues 

• Want to see preservation of the Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) on EPG 

and the wildlife refuges on the Main Post. 

• Could the EQC be open to public access? A past agreement Fort Belvoir made to 

delineate and adopt the EQC and the refuges was cited. 

• Want to continue to have or allow public access to Accotink Creek 

• Wanted to know why the Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge was being shown on a 

display board as "secondary development area." Did not agree with that area 

being indicated for development. 

• General questions were asked about existing environmental conditions. One 

person seemed most interested in conservation of shoreline areas and eagle 

habitats. 

• Several people were concerned with the maintenance of the wildlife corridor 

through the installation. One person asked what effect the connector road would 

have on the corridor. 

Cultural issues 

• One resident lives within the Mount Air historic overlay district. Her house is 

directly across the street from the North Post Golf Course and was concerned by 

its development. She wants to retain the wooded scene presented by the golf 

course. She was also concerned about the idea that the hospital would be moved 

off of South Post. She feels that having the hospital on Main Post is more 

convenient for both patients and visitors as they have access to the PX, Officers’ 

Club, and so on. That would not be the case if the hospital were to move to EPG. 
Scoping issues 

• This process is not far enough along to be able to provide substantive comments. 

• A representative of the Audubon Society of Northern Virginia provided a letter of 

scoping comments to the BRAC NST. 

• Copies of the display boards were requested to be made available on the BNVP 

Web site. 

Other notes 

• Media representatives were in attendance, including reporters from the 

Washington Post and Mount Vernon Gazette. Overall reaction from the media 

was positive 

• Some members of the public questioned if this all there is. Data is lacking and 

there was no formal public forum or presentation. 
Appendix L 

Submitted Comments 
















Tuesday, June 06, 2006 

How is the I-495 to I-95 S arrangement going to be structured to prevent the bottleneck of having 

to cross 2 lanes to get into I-95 South? 

Lee P. Schroeder
Did you ever consider conducting a poll of the DeWitt Health Care Network beneficiaries to get 

their ideas for the location of the BRAC hospital at Fort Belvoir?

You apparently did such a survey for commuters to Ft. Belvoir.. Isn't service and easy access to 

healthcare beneficiaries just as important? Many of those commuters will probably

be healthcare beneficiaries who will get their health care at the new hospital.

 

Francis C. Houts

LTC USA (RTD)

703-780-3374

houtsf@erols.com 
I am a 75 year old army veteran. I have lived in the Mt. Vernon area for 33 years and have 

received at least 95% of my medical care at DeWitt. Of the various locations I have heard 

mentioned for the location of the new DeWitt, the Engineering Proving ground is absolutely the 

worse.

In the 33 years I have lived here, when I heard this location mentioned I did not know how to drive 

to it. I knew roughly where it was located but could not give specific directions to anyone. Many 

people asked me where it was located and I could not tell them how to get to the roving Ground.

I have been to some meetings and it is clear that the Fairfax County Supervisors, the local state 

delegate and senator and the 2 Virginia senators and local Representatives have all given their 

support to locating the hospital at the Engineering Proving Grounds. This is for the benefits of the 

local jurisdictions rather than for the benefits to those service personnel, active and retired and 

their families, who will use this medical facility.

Fairfax supervisors always complain about what the army has wanted to do at Ft. Belvoir.

The bottom line with Fairfax County is the dollar and they don't want to pay anything but want to 

get all the benefits. The Army always seems to "cave in" and give the County what it wants or 

gets the messy end of the stick. Of course, it is always shown to be a "win/win" situation.

The Engineering Proving Grounds is not considered by many of us to be part of Ft. Belvoir.

There is no physical connection between the Proving Ground and Ft. Belvoir like between North 

and South Post.

My choice would be the 9-hole golf course at the Route 1 entrance; followed by the location for 

the proposed Army Museum or across Route 1 from the main entrance on the area used for 

soccer and other activities.

 

Francis C. Houts

LTC USA (RTD)

703-780-3373

fhouts@erols.com 
Patricia Tyson 

8641 Mount Vernon Highway 

Alexandria Virginia 22309

T_Tyson@mindspring.com

793 780-0925

Fort Belvoir BRAC EIS Scoping Comments

June 7, 2006

Public Involvement The website link for providing comments did not work. I am submitting this US Mail and 

by email to Fort Belvoir EIS (environmental@belvoir.army.mil). 

The public scoping for BRAC EIS for Fort Belvoir has been totally inadequate. Design all BRAC 

EIS public components and outreach programs to follow precisely the procedures used in the 

Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project: include presentations to small groups throughout the process, 

use multiple media forums for outreach and adjust the design of the project and phasing based 

on public input received throughout the process of design and implementation.

Background Completely separate from BRAC, Fort Belvoir has undertaken huge growth in facilities and 

infrastructure. But the Master Plan has not been updated since 1994. An EIS Scoping public 

meeting was held Nov. 17, 2003. Nothing further has been done on the Master Plan EIS, to 

respond or address the cumulative effects of these multiple facilities, many in non-conformance 

with the 1994 Master Plan, nor to address the public comments made submitted for that. How will 

the public scoping comments for the Updated Master Plan be addressed in the propose EIS to 

address both BRAC and the Master Plan update. 

Cumulative effects have not been addressed on the change to population, traffic patterns, loss of 

habitat, air and water quality degradation or loss of open space resulting from this incremental 

growth. The base line for this information also has not been updated to reflect this growth and 

destruction in natural resources and species of concern or listed Endangered Species. In this 

unknown baseline data is the enormous growth in the use of private contractors for military and 

non-military functions on Post, yet there has not been a count of these, non-civilian and nonmilitary employees since 1994. All of these effects must be evaluated prior to initiating a study of 

the effect of BRAC on the environment and community.

US Army Garrison Fort Belvoir has a long history of hollow and unfulfilled commitments made in 

multiple Environmental Assessments and in the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

and in Agreements to protect the Chesapeake Bay (the Federal Facilities Compliance 

Agreement). Among these are unfulfilled and unfunded commitments to mass transit, water 

quality Best Management Practices (BMP's), conservation protection areas including Refuge 

boundary definitions. Therefore, all mitigation identified in the BRAC and Master Plan EIS 

documents must be based on commitments of real funding and real enforcement mechanisms, 

including annual audits for compliance with all conditions; public disclosures of all violations with 

fines that prevent subsequent phases of project completion. The Army must be accountable for 

non-compliance. Nothing less will assure the public that these measures will be undertaken.
BRAC Federal undertakings in the routine growth on Fort Belvoir have to meet the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement to evaluate all the viable alternatives. The 

BRAC EIS must thoroughly examine all methods to minimize the enormous, destructive and 

disruptive consequences of this Fort Belvoir BRAC 2005 and to commit to adopting the most 

stringent measures to minimize adverse project impacts. All project mitigation must be 

unequivocally included in the projects and the project funding. All mitigation noted in the EIS 

study narrative text must be included in any charts and graphic or other sections of the EIS 

indicating degree of impact. 

The scoping for this EIS is vital to the adequacy of the EIS in addressing all specific impacts, in 

order to define any necessary mitigation measures and in order to identify the funding of all 

mitigation measures necessary to minimize the anticipated environmental, social, economic and 

quality of life impacts from this huge project on the environment, and the community. 

Nevertheless, the public has never been presented the alternatives or the BRAC project in a 

meaningful way. The public comments are due the same week that the Alternatives are being 

narrowed. This violates the principles of NEPA and the community is opposed to this process.

The EIS must include studying mitigation that will minimize impacts, including: 

 The use of parking garages to reduce the footprint of parking lots  Incorporating LEEDS certified standards for all buildings and site development  The use of "Green roofs" 

 Maintenance of 250 foot vegetated buffers along all streambeds, 

 Incorporating "demand management" of traffic, 

 Eliminating free employee parking  Annual audits and publication of mandatory mass transit for all employees, and 

contractors, and residents. 

 Building links to mass transit at Springfield and Huntington Metro  Evaluation of the density of project and the adequacy of infrastructure to support 

development; i.e. dense projects may support rail extension; sprawl will require more 

road construction.  In order to determine where the commuters will be originating, provide the precise zip 

code numbers and the employees who reside in these zip codes for all the relocating 

entities and use these to determine BRAC impacts to local road networks.  Study the impacts to the GW Parkway and the GW Memorial Highway from BRAC.  In order to plan the precise number of children to be schooled in Fairfax County public 

schools, include the precise numbers of bedrooms in the proposed housing.  In order to examine the real commuter and road and air quality impacts, include the 

precise number of contractors currently serving DOD entities to be relocated and the 

dollar figures of the contracts under which these contractors perform. 

 Include precise lease language for any commercial, for-profit, opportunities on Federal 

property and include an assessment of the economic impact of these commercial 

activities if they had been located in adjacent Fairfax County commercial space. 

1) As is always true with DoD projects, funding for mitigation is not likely to be forthcoming, 

unless it is clearly part of the project and is timed sequentially to occur first as a condition of the 

project and completion of subsequent phases. Concurrency of necessary infrastructure and 

mitigation measures will only come with an exhaustive, scientific, reasoned EIS and the mitigation 

measures designed as project integral components. We expect these infrastructure 

improvements to be funded through BRAC to benefit BRAC implementation and minimize the 

disruptions anticipated on the community. Anything less is unacceptable.
2) Anything that should have been included in the stalled, incomplete updated Master Plan EIS 

that is addressed in the BRAC EIS, must be subject to evaluation of all viable alternatives. 

3) Using the base line information contained in the outdated Master Plan 1994 for the BRAC EIS, 

will not reflect the real, degraded environmental and traffic conditions from this incremental 

growth that has occurred since. None of the subsequent Environmental Assessments has 

addressed cumulative effects, as required by law. Undertake new baseline studies reflecting the 

cumulative effects of these multiple non-BRAC projects, including DTRA, RCI, DTRA, etc. for air 

quality, water quality, open space, traffic counts, child attendance in local schools (reflecting RCI 

bedroom counts and projections), etc. 

4) It is essential to commit to avoidance of impacts to tidal and non-tidal wetlands; if avoidance is 

not possible, proximate mitigation sites and proven methods. Update the new species and 

habitat information from recent surveys conducted by the DPW Public Works Natural Resources 

office and incorporate the findings and recommendations of the Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan into the EIS and mitigation measures for the BRAC project.

5) Conduct multiple scoping meetings using the public hearing forum of audience and podium 

with microphone. Advertise these at a minimum of three weeks in advance of meetings on radio, 

newspapers, etc. The format of multiple displays and self-education proposed for the June 7th

meeting does not adequately inform the public, nor does the public have an opportunity to 

adequately present views to their elected officials and project officers.

6) Design all BRAC EIS public components and outreach programs to follow precisely the 

procedures used in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project: include presentations to small groups 

throughout the process, use multiple media forums for outreach and adjust the design of the 

project and phasing based on public input received throughout the process of design and 

implementation.

7) Address the statutory requirements for threat reduction measures and define how the 

projects meet or exceed the standards and where in the National Capital Region the standards 

ARE NOT FOLLOWED. Examine the threat of creating a target by consolidation the disparate 

offices dealing with sensitive intelligence.

8) Do not include the replacement of the Woodlawn Road project in the BRAC EIS. Initiate 

necessary traffic counts to project traffic impacts to the George Washington Parkway and the 

George Washington Memorial Highway.

9. Due to inadequate public notifications and public information, extend the deadline for 

receipt Scoping Comments to September 15, 2006. 

10) Post all the public scoping comments on a public website and publish this web address in the 

Washington Post, the Alexandria Gazette, the Mount Vernon Gazette and the Washington Post 

Examiner. 












~ p~

,..... """"y ""'" - 'j\Lt'l-J,trT \ ~l'.'''Il~'rl l ~,"l'\,' I\'l'5flT5, J t1~..

.p () '.K') .:::L'.:-

!.ILhil't \ '~"'f!O,;" \ '1, "j't",1 ':::':::_":.1<''::05 ,

June 15, 2006

The MountVernon HighSchool Crew team requests the Master planner to consider the

following information while developing the Fort Belvoir master plan. Crew is a club sport

offered at Mount Vernon, the assigned high school for all high school aged students of those

stationed or living near Fort Belvoir. As a youth sport, Mount Vernon Crew relies on Fort

Belvoir's support by allowing access to the water from the base as well as a small area on the

base for team assets. With the estimated influx of 21,000 additional personnel to Fort Belvoir,

the number of students being assigned to MountVernonHighSchoolwill increase as well.

This year alone, the crew team had 62% of its members military affiliated. We anticipate that

our military affiliation will increase as more personnel are assigned to the Fort Belvoir area.

Space needs for the Crew on Fort Belvoir:

The MountVernon Crew needs access to the water from Fort Belvoir either from the marina

or another suitable location where we can place a water level floating dock of least 55 feet

long into launchable water. The team also needs space to secure 4 flat bottom jonboats, open

space to place several racks for crew shell storage 60 feet apart in length and 10 feet apart in

width without obstacles nearby to allow for movement of the crew shells off and on the racks,

open space to place 2 racks 10 feet tall by 5 feet wide for storage of oars, space that meets

environmental standards for a 4 x 4 gas storage shed, space near the crew shell racks to

place a 10 x 8 vinyl storage building and several small vinyl storage containers for team

equipment, and a flat area large enough to be able to park the team's 45 foot long trailer for

loading and unloading team equipment.

Current use of space on Fort Belvoir:

The MountVernon High School Crew team has used the marina located on the south post of

Fort Belvoir for 5 years. The team practices out of the marina during the crew season from

mid February through the end of May (Monday through Sunday) but maintains some assets

there throughout the year. The drainage ditch that separates the main marina and the Point

serves as the crew area. Static crew assets include: 3 sets of wooden storage crew shell

racks placed directly in the ditch, a 10 x 8 vinyl storage shed and a few small vinyl containers

near the edge of the ditch, a wooden oar rack near the vinyl containers, a small floating dock

at the extreme outer area of the marina channel, and a metal gas storage building near the

floating dock ramp. Team launches are secured to the floating dock during the season and

stored under the wooden crew shell racks during the off-season. Crew shells are stored on

the team's trailer in the RV lot also located on the south post of Fort Belvoir. The team does

not use the marina office, building, bathrooms or docks either during the season or offseason.
op (1 '.f.." ..::(~.:::

]1.1 l ,t ",-I'ILl,; \"il'li,1':"::_"::J.-,."'''::''~ \.'

Requested additions to the crew space at the Fort Belvoir marina:

The team requests permission to put up an additional set of wooden storage crew shell

racks near the ones currently in the crew site and a second gas shed. Additionally, the team

would like to build protective covers on top and around the storage racks to help preserve

crew shells and be allowed to store our shells on the racks during the off season.

Secondary location for crew space on Fort Belvoir:

Should the marina close or become unsuitable for use by the crew team, we request access

to Tompkins Basin in the area near the Archery range on south post. Crew has low impact to

the surrounding area and wildlife and uses access to the water for only the 14 weeks of the

crew season. The floating dock that would be built and placed in Tompkins Basin by the team

would remain at this location throughout the year for use by anyone authorized base access.

Thank you for your time and consideration of the needs of the Mount Vernon High School

Crew team on Fort Belvoir.

Attachments:

1) Google map of crew assets at the Fort Belvoir marina

2) Proposed secondary location for crew on Fort Belvoir (Attachment 1:Tompkins Basin)

3) Proposed layout of crew assets at Tompkins Basin
Proposed position

of temporary racks

Proposed

position of

Mount Vernon

Fuel shed
Boat Racks

Floating dock

Fuel shed

Shed

Oar Rack
Tomkins Basin, Fort Belvoir

Proposed Crew site

Archery 

Ca




Monday, June 19, 2006 

We received a meeting notice and request for comments on the scope of the 

upcoming EIS related to BRAC actions at Fort Belvoir. We offer the 

following comments and recommendations: 

According to our records, numerous wildlife and wildlife resources are known 

from the Fort Belvoir area of Fairfax County. This includes doucmentations 

of the following listed species: Federal Threatened State Threatened bald 

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), State Threatened wood turtle (Clemmys 

insculpta) and State Threatened peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Also 

known in the project area are a number of streams listed as either confirmed 

or potential anadromous fish use areas and streams designated a Threatened 

and Endangered Species Waters known to support wood turtle. We recommend 

that the EIS fully address the habitats available in areas expected to be 

impacted by the BRAC actions at Fort Belvoir and how the proposed impacts 

may affect these habitats and the wildlife that inhabit them. 

We typically recommend the following to reduce impacts associated with 

development on our natural resources: 

 We recommend that the project be designed so as to avoid and 

minimize impacts to undisturbed forest, wetlands, and streams to the fullest 

extent practicable. Avoidance and minimization of impact may include 

relocating stream channels as opposed to filling or channelizing as well as 

using, and incorporating into the development plan, a natural stream channel 

design and wooded buffers. We recommend maintaining undisturbed wooded 

buffers of at least 100 feet in width around all on-site wetlands and on 

both sides of all perennial and intermittent streams. We recommend 

maintaining wooded lots to the fullest extent possible. We generally do not 

support proposals to mitigate wetland impacts through the construction of 

stormwater management ponds, nor do we support the creation of in-stream 

stormwater management ponds. We are willing to assist the applicant in 

developing a plan that includes open-space, wildlife habitat, and natural 

stream channels which retain their wooded buffers. We recommend that the 

stormwater controls for this project be designed to replicate and maintain 

the hydrographic condition of the site prior to the change in landscape. 

This should include, but not be limited to, utilizing bioretention areas, 

and minimizing the use of curb and gutter in favor of grassed swales. 

Bioretention areas (also called rain gardens) and grass swales are 

components of Low Impact Development (LID). They are designed to capture 

stormwater runoff as close to the source as possible and allow it to slowly 

infiltrate into the surrounding soil. They benefit natural resources by 

filtering pollutants and decreasing downstream runoff volumes. We recommend 

conducting any in-stream activities during low or no-flow conditions, using 

non-erodible cofferdams to isolate the construction area, blocking no more 

than 50% of the streamflow at any given time, stockpiling excavated material 

in a manner that prevents reentry into the stream, restoring original 

streambed and streambank contours, revegetating barren areas with native 

vegetation, and implementing strict erosion and sediment control measures. 

Due to future maintenance costs associated with culverts, and the loss of 

riparian and aquatic habitat, we prefer stream crossings to be constructed 

via clear-span bridges. However, if this is not possible, we recommend 

countersinking any culverts below the streambed at least 6 inches, or the 

use of bottomless culverts, to allow passage of aquatic organisms. We also 

recommend the installation of floodplain culverts to carry bankfull 
discharges. 

We recommend that the EIS address these recommendations and ways that the 

Department of the Army can proceed with needed activities on the base while 

adhering to our recommendations and protecting our natural resources to the 

greatest extent possible. Without a clear understanding of what activities 

may occur, we are unable at this time to make specific recommendations on 

how such activities may impact the wildlife of the Commonwealth and/or how 

the Army may mitigate or compensate for such impacts. 

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries maintains a system of 

databases called the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service 

(VAFWIS). The VAFWIS contains up-to-date information on all of Virginia's 

wildlife resources. We recommend use of the VAFWIS during the initial 

planning stages of any project in order to identify wildlife resources 

(e.g., threatened or endangered species, trout streams, colonial waterbird 

nesting colonies) that may be impacted by a project. Basic access to the 

VAFWIS is available via our website, http://vafwis.org/WIS/ASP/default.asp. 

Subscriptions to the VAFWIS, which allow a greater level of access, also are 

available. Alternatively, project managers can request Initial Project 

Reviews by our VAFWIS staff. For information on these services, please 

contact Shirl Dressler at 804-367-6913. There is no charge to government 

bodies/agencies for these services. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact 

us as needed during this EIS process. 

Amy Martin 

Environmental Services Biologist 

VDGIF, Wildlife Diversity 













Page 1 of 11 

Fairfax County 

Department of Planning and Zoning 

Fort Belvoir BRAC – EIS Scoping Comments 

July 2, 2006 

General

1. The EIS and Master Plan should be comprehensive in nature, to include consideration of 

development on the Main Post, the Engineer Proving Ground and the GSA Warehouses, as 

well as the broader context of regional development conditions (e.g., future development in 

Springfield and along the Richmond Highway corridor). 

2. With respect to the Master Plan update and NEPA documentation, the county should be 

integrated into the review of each key deliverable product (e.g., 30%, 60%, 95% submissions 

of the Master Plan and related maps), and sufficient time (at least three weeks for each 

document) should be built into the schedule to allow for a county review of, and comment on, 

these materials. Coordination with the county should occur prior to formal submissions to 

Army and/or Department of Defense staff in the decision making process. This would allow 

county concerns to be addressed prior to the documentation gaining Army/DOD-level 

approval. 

3. We appreciate the opportunity that was provided to us to meet with project consultants on May 

9, 2006 and recommend continued, regular coordination between the project team and county 

review staff. Further, we recommend that county staff be provided with specific points of 

contact for coordination and communication on land use, transportation, environmental, parks 

and recreation, public facilities, and school issues. 

4. The planning process should be flexible enough to adapt to changes that may occur to Fairfax 

County’s Comprehensive Plan as well as development and redevelopment projects that may 

occur in the area during the process. 

Alternatives

1. A “no action” alternative should incorporate an appropriate “baseline” that identifies existing 

development and should recognize the transportation improvements necessary to correct 

existing deficiencies and achieve an acceptable level of service on the supporting 

transportation network. The no action alternative should also address how Fort Belvoir has 

increased its working population at a pace that has exceeded the ability of the infrastructure to 

support this level of development. A “no action” alternative that is based on the existing 

Master Plan would, in our view, be inappropriate, as Fort Belvoir has already exceeded the 

projected 2015 working population that was envisioned in the 1993 Master Plan, while many 

of the planned road improvements anticipated to serve this working population have not been 

completed. Future land use alternatives can then be compared with this baseline. 
Page 2 of 11 

2. At the June 22 Board of Advisors meeting, Belvoir New Vision Planners presented three 

potential development strategies for the accommodation of BRAC requirements: one approach 

would concentrate new development on the Main Post; another approach would concentrate 

new development at EPG (as well as the General Services Administration property in 

Springfield); and the third would disperse development on the Main Post (including Davison 

Army Airfield), EPG, and the GSA site. We look forward to analyses documenting what the 

effects that each of these approaches would have on the environment and recommend that 

particular scrutiny be placed on the effects that concentration of development in any one 

location could have on transportation facilities and other infrastructure. 

3. We encourage the Army to consider alternative locations for BRAC development that might be 

outside of Fort Belvoir but close to a transit facility. Toward this end, we are encouraged that 

the GSA property is now being considered for BRAC facilities. 

4. With respect to the GSA site, we recommend that the Belvoir New Vision Planners work 

closely with county staff on the development of potential connections between this site and the 

nearby Franconia-Springfield Metrorail/Virginia Rail Express stations. 

Transportation--General

1. Transportation analyses performed in support of the EIS should be coordinated with modeling 

and analyses that have been performed as part of the County’s Transportation Plan update 

process. 

2. The EIS should clearly document, for all alternatives, where both current and relocated 

employees and contractors reside and what the anticipated number and timing of vehicular trips 

to and from both the Main Post and the EPG site will be. To what extent will highway 

facilities be able to accommodate increased trips? 

3. Transportation improvements should be provided and appropriately phased in order to correct 

transportation deficiencies and to achieve an acceptable level of service on the transportation 

network in support of existing and new development. Road and transit improvements based on 

present and projected commuting patterns through Fairfax County should be provided to 

accommodate the existing and additional trips to and from the Main Post and EPG sites. 

Analysis should be sufficiently comprehensive to consider the need for improvements beyond 

the immediate vicinity of the Main Post and EPG. 

4. Are current access points into Fort Belvoir and EPG as currently constructed able to handle the 

number of vehicles entering the installation at the peak hour period? Will signal modifications 

need to be implemented along Richmond Highway and the Fairfax County Parkway to 

accommodate the changes in commuting patterns? 

5. The EIS should identify specific measures that will be applied to optimize the use of Metro, the 

Fairfax Connector, Virginia Rail Express, and Park and Ride facilities in order to reduce single 

occupancy vehicle use. 
Page 3 of 11 

6. An effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program should be incorporated for 

existing and future development. Goals should be established for specific percentage 

reductions in single-occupant vehicle usage. Ridesharing, carpooling, van pooling, bus, VRE, 

Metro, establishment of park and ride/transit facilities, and limiting available parking are just 

some of the methods that can be incorporated into an effective TDM program. 

7. In addition to commuting patterns of employees, the EIS should address the extent to which 

transit service will be available to provide connections between new office development at Fort 

Belvoir/EPG and commercial establishments in neighboring areas. The establishment of a 

fixed guideway link and/or a shuttle bus service from the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail/VRE 

stations as well as an on-post shuttle system should also be considered, and the EIS should 

address both on- and off-post transit service. 

8. The EIS should evaluate the possible use of the abandoned coal train line right-of-way for 

some type of transit link to and from Fort Belvoir Main Post. 

9. The completion of the Fairfax County Parkway and the Connector Road that will establish a 

new link between Richmond Highway and Telegraph Road are two current projects that are 

critical needs in the area. In our view, both projects must be in place prior to the BRACrelated relocations of employees. These projects face funding and/or environmental issues that 

may delay their completion in sufficient time to support these relocations. The EIS should 

consider and identify the impacts that will occur if either or both of these projects are not in 

place by 2011. 

10. The EIS must address how BRAC related development will be phased to the availability of 

necessary roadway and transit improvements. 

Transportation—Main Post

1. The EIS should consider improvements to transit connections between existing transit facilities 

(Metrorail, VRE, bus service, park and ride lots, etc.) and Fort Belvoir and EPG. The 

extension of Metrorail should be considered, but implementation of such an extension within 

the BRAC time frame is unrealistic and should only be considered as a long range 

enhancement. Construction of park and ride facilities to the south of Fort Belvoir, a bus rapid 

transit extension from the existing REX service, and/or implementation of express service from 

Franconia-Springfield Metro/VRE, the Lorton VRE station, or from Prince William County are 

all possible considerations. 

2. The EIS should address the over-capacity projected in past environmental assessments for the 

Richmond Highway/Fairfax County Parkway, Richmond Highway/Backlick Road, Richmond 

Highway/Pohick Road, Richmond Highway/Belvoir Road, and Kingman Road/Fairfax County 

Parkway intersections, as well as over-capacity at the I-95 ramps and the Fairfax County 

Parkway. Improvements should be provided to correct these deficiencies. 
Page 4 of 11 

3. The EIS should consider the provision of an additional grade-separated connection between the 

North and South Post areas along with access that would improve traffic flow and reduce 

backups at the existing entrance gates.

Transportation—Engineer Proving Ground

1. The proximity of the Engineer Proving Ground site to the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail and 

Virginia Railway Express stations may afford opportunities to optimize the use of this transit 

resource. The EIS should address the extent to which employees can be expected to commute 

to the area via Metrorail and the extent to which transit connections between the EPG site and 

the Franconia-Springfield station could increase commuting via transit to the site. Will such 

transit connections be provided? Will development design at the EPG site emphasize these 

connections if the proposed development indicates a demand for them? 

2. The remaining segment of the Fairfax County Parkway should be constructed prior to the 

relocation of significant numbers of employees to Fort Belvoir. The EIS should address the 

timing of this critical transportation project as it relates to any “build” alternative. 

3. The EIS should address future over-capacity concerns associated with Backlick Road at EPG 

and the I-95 ramps at the Fairfax County Parkway (which will relate to development at both 

the Main Post and EPG). The EIS should also discuss the current design concept for the 

Fairfax County Parkway and access to EPG from the Parkway. Improvements should be 

provided to correct any deficiencies associated with these intersections and facilities. 

Nonmotorized Transportation

1. The EIS should include a map of planned pedestrian and bicycle trails and demonstrate how 

they will connect to those shown on the adopted Countywide Trails Plan. Development of 

appropriate segments within and adjacent to Fort Belvoir should be examined. Furthermore, 

trails along Richmond Highway and the Richmond Highway/Telegraph Road connector road 

as well as the Potomac Heritage Trail should be identified and incorporated onto the map of 

planned trails. The EIS should identify mechanisms through which new trails will be funded 

and constructed. 

2. The EIS should address the extent to which pedestrian and bicycle connections will be 

provided between on-post and/or near-post housing and on-site employment areas. 

3. The EIS should address the extent to which pedestrian connections and facilities (e.g. bus 

shelters) will be provided in order to facilitate transit use by new and existing employees. 

4. The EIS should address the extent to which new office buildings will be designed to 

accommodate bicycle commuting (e.g., secure parking facilities, locker and shower facilities). 

5. The Accotink Stream Valley provides a major greenway corridor through the Springfield area 

of Fairfax County. The Cross County Trail, a 40-mile trail that runs from the Occoquan River 

in Lorton to the Potomac River in Great Falls, traverses a portion of the Accotink Stream 

Valley. As the EPG site is developed, additional trails along the Accotink Stream Valley 
Page 5 of 11 

should be developed and planned to link up with the Cross County Trail to provide a link 

between the EPG area and the Springfield Community Business Center as well as Lake 

Accotink to the north. 

Development Envelopes/Design—General

1. Fort Belvoir should continue to incorporate high quality landscape and architectural design 

elements in its Master Plan. The EIS should address landscaping and design considerations; 

natural landscaping and green building approaches should be considered. The EIS should 

encourage the establishment of a vegetation management plan that would control invasive 

species and promote the establishment of native species in open space areas.

2. The EIS should identify design concepts that will result in compact development envelopes, 

thereby increasing open space, reducing impervious cover, and reducing associated adverse 

environmental impacts. Toward this end, the use of shared parking and structured parking 

should be evaluated. 

3. The EIS should address the extent to which support retail uses will be provided to serve new 

office development. 

4. The development associated with BRAC provides and opportunity for implementation of 

“Green Building” practices such as those promoted by the U.S. Green Building Council. The 

EIS should identify the extent to which new development will be designed to meet or exceed 

federal guiding principles for high performance and sustainable buildings.

Development Envelopes—Engineer Proving Ground

1. The EIS should document how development of the EPG site will occur in a manner that is 

consistent with Fairfax County’s Comprehensive Plan. Toward this end, development should 

be concentrated to the east of the Accotink Creek stream valley (recognizing the 

Environmental Quality Corridor, as noted later in these comments). The area west of the EQC 

is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for public park use and other needed public uses; 

planned park land should be dedicated to the Fairfax County Park Authority for park purposes. 

The 2003 Defense Authorization included dedication of a 135-acre portion of this area to 

FCPA. 

2. The Engineer Proving Ground represents an opportunity to address much of the existing and 

projected parkland and recreational facility deficits in the Springfield Planning District. The 

Comprehensive Plan for this area includes 225 acres of Stream Valley/Greenway parkland, 60 

acres to be developed as a complex of lighted active recreation fields for use as a sports 

complex, and 25 acres to be developed as a multi-use activity center for cultural and seasonal 

events. 

Development Envelopes—GSA Warehouses
Page 6 of 11 

1. The EIS should evaluate the opportunities and challenges that are posed by the immediate 

proximity of this site to transit, as well as the site’s proximity to the consortia health care 

university campus. 

Demand for Services—General

1. The EIS should provide information regarding the estimated number of employees who will 

probably move their residences to the Fort Belvoir area as a result of the BRAC actions and 

should document the effects that these relocations will have on county services. Particular 

housing, schools, utilities, park and recreation, and emergency service concerns are noted 

below. 

2. Similarly, the EIS should provide information regarding the estimated number of contractors 

who will probably move their businesses to the Fort Belvoir area as a result of the BRAC 

actions and should document the effects that these relocations will have on community 

services. 

Housing

1. Increases in on-site housing supply and off-site housing demand associated with growth at Fort 

Belvoir should be clearly documented. For off-site housing, estimates should include that 

range of sales and rental rates that would be considered affordable to residents. 

Schools

1. The EIS should identify the magnitude of the anticipated increase in number of school age 

children that will result from the anticipated on-post and off-post development resulting from 

employment growth at Fort Belvoir. 

2. If a significant increase in the number of school age children is anticipated, the EIS should 

identify sites for new schools that will be sufficient to accommodate the expected increase and 

should identify federal funding that can be made available for school construction. 

Utilities

1. The EIS should address capacities of sewer and water facilities as they relate to anticipated 

levels of development. 

2. Where needed to accommodate anticipated growth, sewer and water facilities should be 

expanded in capacity. For each alternative, the EIS should identify the need and funding 

sources for any system expansions that will be needed as a result of the alternative. 

Parks and Recreation
Page 7 of 11 

1. Fort Belvoir provides recreation and community services that support its residents and 

employees. The EIS should include a needs assessment that projects the overall needs of its 

population for indoor and outdoor recreation and leisure facilities, open space, community 

services, and cultural and environmental programs. The EIS should address how the needs 

identified will be met on-site, and if not met on-site, the impact of the demand for these 

facilities on existing park and recreation resources in the area. Project consultants are 

encouraged to consult guidance regarding service levels for ten key types of recreational 

facilities that has been developed by the Fairfax County Park Authority; this guidance has been 

incorporated into the Parks and Recreation section of Policy Plan volume of Fairfax County’s 

Comprehensive Plan. FCPA has recently conducted a Countywide Park and Recreation Needs 

Assessment that projects park and recreation needs through 2013 and will be pleased to 

provide information collected through this process. The Mount Vernon and Lee District areas 

are deficient in many recreational facility types and additional impacts cannot be easily 

absorbed without expanding or building new facilities. This deficiency is especially high for 

athletic fields, specifically rectangular fields. 

2. The EIS should identify the extent to which, if any, each alternative would result in future 

development on areas that are now developed with (or designated for) recreational use. To 

offset any loss of redesignated recreation areas, additional recreation facilities should be 

identified and evaluated as part of the EIS process. 

3. Pole Road Park, Grist Mill Park, Woodlawn Park, Huntley Meadows Park, Historic Huntley, 

Mount Air Historic Site, the Berman Tract, Kingstowne Park, Island Creek Park, Levelle W. 

Dupell Park, Pohick Estates Park, Southgate Park and Lorton Park are located in the immediate 

vicinity of Fort Belvoir. Other parkland in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir includes Pohick Bay 

Regional Park, as well as state- and federally-owned parkland on Mason Neck. Hooes Road 

Park, West Springfield Park, Rolling Forest Park, Rolling Wood School Site Park, Saratoga 

Park, Accotink Stream Valley Park and Pohick Stream Valley Park are located in the 

immediate vicinity of the EPG site. Laurel Hill is a large countywide park that also serves this 

area. Most of these parks contain extensive environmental and cultural resource preservation 

areas. The EIS should comprehensively analyze impacts to FCPA-owned land in the area that 

may include air quality, water quality and quantity, noise levels, flora and fauna habitat 

changes, cultural and historic resources, environmental resources, and park facility capacity 

and recreation service levels. It is imperative that any off-site impacts to parkland from 

development, stormwater management changes, construction, or other activities at Fort Belvoir 

be anticipated and mitigated. 

4. As noted earlier, much of the area west of the EQC on the Engineer Proving Ground site 

should be dedicated for park purposes, consistent with the county’s Comprehensive Plan. 

Emergency Services

1. The EIS should address the additional demands that 22,000 new employees (and the still to be 

determined number of employees with associated federal contractors) will create on emergency 

services and the extent to which Fort Belvoir will be providing these services. The EIS should 

document funding needs and sources for additional emergency service needs. 
Page 8 of 11 

DeWitt Army Hospital Relocation and Expansion

1. The EIS should evaluate opportunities that INOVA Mount Vernon Hospital may provide in 

supporting the post and the relocation of medical care functions from the Walter Reed Medical 

Center. 

Air Quality

1. Air quality analyses should consider both on- and off-post traffic congestion and measures that 

will be taken to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The analysis should not be 

limited to carbon monoxide and particulate concentrations but should also evaluate 

development options with respect to emissions of precursors of atmospheric ozone. 

Ecological Resources--General

1. The EIS should address how impacts to wetlands will be minimized. 

2. The EIS should address how any unavoidable impacts to wetlands will be mitigated. 

Mitigation/compensation should occur as close to the areas of impact as possible; the 

Stormwater Planning Division of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and 

Environmental Services (703-324-5500) may be able to provide guidance regarding wetland 

mitigation/compensation opportunities. 

3. Environmental Quality Corridors (EQCs) as defined in the County’s Policy Plan should be 

protected. The EIS should recognize the EQC policy and address how new development will 

be designed consistent with this policy. 

Ecological Resources—Main Post

1. We commend Fort Belvoir for its environmental stewardship efforts and recommend that the 

BRAC-related efforts serve to reinforce and, where possible, expand upon these efforts. The 

ecologically significant natural resource areas identified in Fort Belvoir’s Integrated Natural 

Resource Management Plan (INRMP) should be recognized as a fundamental planning factor, 

and efforts should continue to be made to protect and enhance these areas. Toward that end, 

the EIS should address the compatibility of all options with the full extent of significant natural 

resources as identified in the INRMP, with particular focus on the southwestern portion of the 

post (see below) and efforts to protect, and perhaps augment, Fort Belvoir’s Forest and 

Wildlife Corridor (particularly in areas where this corridor is narrow). Direct and indirect 

impacts (e.g., potential for impacts by invasive species due to edge effects) should be 

addressed, as should be potential mitigation measures. 

2. We are particularly concerned with the possible intensification of development in the 

southwestern portion of the post. This area contains mature upland forest with low levels of 

fragmentation, adjoins the Accotink Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and protects both the 

Accotink and Pohick Creeks as they enter the tidal regime of the Potomac River at Pohick Bay 
Page 9 of 11 

and Gunston Cove. Combined with the federal, state and regional park land already existing in 

this area, the southwest area represents an area of particular ecological significance that should 

be protected to the greatest extent possible. 

3. The EIS should identify sensitive areas along the Accotink Creek corridor that are critical for 

protection of the main stem of Accotink Creek as it approaches the Accotink Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

4. The EIS should assess potential impacts to the Jackson Abbot Wildlife Refuge on Dogue 

Creek. This refuge is southwest of Huntley Meadows Park on the main stem of Dogue Creek. 

Protection and expansion of this refuge is critical to protect the wetlands and sensitive wildlife 

along the Dogue Creek corridor and in close proximity to the county’s wildlife preserve at 

Huntley Meadows Park. This action would also support the county’s Comprehensive Plan, 

which calls for the protection of the Environmental Quality Corridor associated with Dogue 

Creek. 

5. The EIS should assess the impacts of shoreline development, to include recreational, office, 

residential, etc. on Gunston Cove, the Potomac River and the mouth of Dogue Creek. Of 

particular note is possible recreational facility development on Gunston Cove. This area 

already has high use by recreational boats from Pohick Bay Regional Park and is experiencing 

conflicts with natural resource protection and passive recreation. This area also has one of the 

highest year-round concentrations of Bald Eagles and other species of concern. 

6. New development should be concentrated within areas of the Post that have already been 

developed or otherwise disturbed. 

Ecological Resources—Engineer Proving Ground

1. The entirety of the Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) associated with Accotink Creek and 

its tributaries as well as other RPA and wetland areas, as delineated by staff and represented on 

the attached map (the areas in question are those that are identified as “non-buildable area” 

located outside of the area being dedicated for the Fairfax County Parkway), should be 

preserved in, and, where applicable, restored to, a natural condition. The EQC should be 

dedicated to the County for incorporation into the Stream Valley Park system. The RPA along 

the eastern property boundary and disconnected wetland area in the northeastern portion of the 

site should also be dedicated to FCPA. 

Water Resources

1. The EIS should identify all 100-year floodplains (applying the county’s definition) and all 

Resource Protection Areas (applying the recently revised designation criteria) on the Main Post 

and the Engineer Proving Ground. These areas should be protected consistent with county 

policy and regulations. 

2. In defining boundaries of Resource Protection Areas, Post-specific information regarding 

locations of perennial streams and wetlands should be used to augment county maps of 
Page 10 of 11 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. Where perennial streams are known to exist, protection 

of these streams and associated buffer areas consistent with the text of the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Ordinance should be pursued, even if these areas are not identified as RPAs on 

county maps (note that the county has not performed perennial stream evaluations on Fort 

Belvoir property). 

3. The EIS should recognize watershed management planning efforts that are under way in 

Fairfax County; Fort Belvoir should participate in the watershed management planning efforts 

for Dogue Creek, Accotink Creek, and Pohick Creek as these efforts get started. 

4. Project consultants should coordinate with the Stormwater Planning Division of the 

Department of Public Works and Environmental Services on the identification of stream and 

stormwater management projects in the area of the Main Post and EPG. A point of contact 

within the Stormwater Planning Division is Matt Meyers, who can be reached at 703-324-

5500. 

5. The EIS should identify any body of water on or near the Main Post or EPG that is included 

on the list of impaired waters designated pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act 

and should address the implications of these designations. Pohick Bay, other tidal waters, and 

nontidal portions of Accotink Creek on the Main Post and EPG are considered to be impaired. 

6. The EIS should address how impacts to streams will be minimized. 

7. The EIS should address how any unavoidable impacts to streams will be mitigated. 

Mitigation/compensation should occur as close to the areas of impact as possible; the 

Stormwater Planning Division of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and 

Environmental Services (703-324-5500) may be able to provide guidance regarding stream 

mitigation/compensation opportunities. 

8. At a minimum, Fort Belvoir should provide erosion and sediment control measures, 

stormwater management measures, and water quality best management practices that are 

consistent with county requirements. The EIS should clearly establish that these requirements 

will be satisfied. 

9. The EIS should address opportunities to minimize impervious cover and to use other low 

impact development and better site design techniques. For all new development and 

redevelopment at Fort Belvoir, designs should be pursued that would serve, to the extent 

possible, to replicate predevelopment hydrologic conditions through infiltration of stormwater 

runoff. 

Site Contamination

1. The EIS should identify sites on the Main Post, Engineer Proving Ground, and GSA 

Warehouses that have been subject to contamination and the status of efforts to clean these 

sites. The EIS should further identify the relationship, if any, between site contamination 

issues and siting decisions for new development. 
Page 11 of 11 

Cultural Resources

1. The EIS should identify the potential impacts of each alternative on historic and archaeological 

resources. Projects impacting on cultural resources should comply with the Secretary of 

Interior’s Standards and planning should be done in accordance with these standards. If a 

determination is made that project activities (undertakings) have the potential to adversely 

affect cultural resources on or near Fort Belvoir, the Areas of Potential Effect should be 

identified and mitigation to protect the resources should include the preparation of a 

Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement allowing for the involvement of the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Fairfax 

County Park Authority Cultural Resource Management and Protection Section, Alexandria 

Friends Meeting – Religious Society of Friends, and the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation as signatories to such agreements. Any new development and construction 

activities within the Fairfax County Woodlawn and Pohick Church Historic Overlay Districts 

and within the District’s viewsheds should be subject to review and comment by Fairfax 

County. 

2. A statement should be included in the EIS that would require all Section 106 archeological 

work (scopes of work and reports) be coordinated with the Fairfax County Park Authority. It is 

a requirement under Section 106 that consultation be made with all interested parties, of which 

the Park Authority is the prime one regarding archeology. Having done much of the survey 

work in that area and conducted data recovery on the Barnes/Owsley Plantation located there, 

FCPA is the most knowledgeable entity regarding the archeology on Fort Belvoir. The 

property has numerous significant prehistoric and historic sites including the ca. 1700 grave of 

Maj. Thomas Owsley, which has yet to be located. 

Other

1. We have previously expressed concern about a possible Old Colchester Road site for the 

proposed National Museum of the U.S. Army and wish to reiterate this concern in light of new 

uncertainty regarding where on Fort Belvoir this facility may be located. The cumulative 

impacts of the museum, BRAC, and other programmed development at Fort Belvoir should be 

addressed in the EIS. In addition to environmental and transportation impacts, impacts to the 

Fairfax County Woodlawn and Pohick Church Historic Overlay Districts and viewsheds 

associated with these districts should be considered in any siting decision for this facility.

2. The EIS should document anticipated operations at Davison Army Airfield and identify 

associated noise impacts. Of particular interest would be any differences that might occur in 

airfield operations under the various options. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-1

Appendix C 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

Consistency Determination 

for Proposed BRAC Implementation 

at Fort Belvoir 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-2

This page is intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-3

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination 

For Proposed Implementation of BRAC at Fort Belvoir

This document provides the Commonwealth of Virginia with the Fort Belvoir Consistency 

Determination under CZMA section 307(c) (1) and 15 CFR Part 930, sub-part C, for 

implementation of BRAC actions at the installation. The information in this Consistency 

Determination is provided pursuant to 15 CFR section 930.39. The proposed action involves 

those activities described below. 

[The following paragraphs of text summarize the proposed federal activity. A full 

description of the proposed activity may be found in the Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Implementation of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission’s 

Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which is 

incorporated by reference into this Consistency Determination]. 

In July 2006, the Army considered three conceptual development strategies to address the 

question of where facilities could be sited for a net increase of 22,000 personnel being assigned to 

Fort Belvoir.1 That review process resulted in identification of a preferred land use strategy that 

reflected the best aspects of each of the three conceptual development strategies.2 The preferred 

land use strategy was then used as the basis for the proposed amendment to Fort Belvoir’s land 

use plan. 

Accommodation of personnel being realigned must take into account the needs of six major 

groups slated for realignment by the BRAC Commission: Washington Headquarters Services 

(WHS), consisting of WHS and elements of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and defense 

agencies; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); various Army entities moving from 

leased space in the National Capital Region (NCR) (collectively referred to as Army Lease); U.S. 

Army Medical Command3 (MEDCOM); Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information 

Systems (PEO EIS); and Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center (MDA 

HQCC). Details of the BRAC Commission’s recommendation can be found at 

http://www.brac.gov. 

Proposed Facilities 

The proposed BRAC facilities would be sited as follows. NGA and WHS would be on the 

eastern portion of EPG. Army lease units, agencies, and activities would be on South Post at sites 

on Gunston Road and Belvoir Road. The Dewitt Army Community Hospital complex would be 

on the South Post golf course. PEO EIS and MDA would be on South Post at sites on Gunston 

Road and Belvoir Road. Other associated actions supporting these functions, such as child care 

facilities and the Post Exchange expansion, would be located at various sites throughout Fort 

Belvoir. 

Construction and renovation of facilities to support approximately 22,000 additional personnel at 

Fort Belvoir would result in more than 7 million square feet of new and renovated built space and 

about 7 million square feet of parking structures. 

 

1

 The three conceptual development strategies—Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campus—are discussed in 

detail in Section 3.0, Alternatives. 

2

 Chief considerations in evaluating the conceptual development strategies included transportation needs, 

environmental constraints, utilities and infrastructure requirements and availability, security, existing and future 

development potential, constructability, implementation (schedule and risk), and cost. 

3

 This group essentially involves relocations of functions and personnel from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to a 

new DeWitt Army Community Hospital proposed at Fort Belvoir. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-4

Fort Belvoir would require essentially two types of construction projects. First, Fort Belvoir must 

construct or renovate facilities to create working space or other types of special use space for the 

proposed additional workforce. Second, Fort Belvoir must expand its general support capabilities 

to meet the needs of a larger on-post population. 

The following provides details on facilities construction and renovation projects that are proposed 

to occur through fiscal year 2011. 

• NGA Administrative Facility (65416, Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-11, Map Number (MN) 1

in Figure 2-6). This project would provide a 2,419,000-square-foot Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facility for use by the NGA sited on east EPG. 

• WHS Administrative Facility (64234, FY 2008–10, MN 2). This project would 

provide 2,219,000 square feet of secure administrative space for various units, agencies, 

and activities relocating to Fort Belvoir from leased facilities in the NCR sited on east 

EPG. The project would include uninterruptible power supply and standby power 

generation. 

• MDA Facility (MDA 580, FY 2008–09, MN 3). This project would provide a 107,000 

square foot administrative facility to serve as the MDA Headquarters Command Center 

sited in the 200 Area on the South Post. 

• Hospital (64238, 65676, and 65677, FY 2008–10, MN 4). This project, incrementally 

funded, would provide a new hospital. Primary facilities would include the hospital 

(868,800 square feet), special foundations, central energy plant, helipad, ambulance 

shelter (2,200 square feet), vehicle parking garage, and building information systems sited 

on South Post golf course. 

• Dental Clinic (64241, FY 2010-11, MN 5). This project would provide a 16,000-squarefoot expansion to the existing dental clinic in Building 1099. 

• North Atlantic Regional Medical Center Headquarters (NARMC HQ) Building

(65871, FY 2009, MN 6). This project would construct a 50,000-square-foot general 

administration building sited on South Post golf course. 

• Corps of Engineers Integration Office (Temporary) (FY 2007, MN 7). This project 

would involve the location of approximately 36,100 square feet of temporary facilities to 

house personnel of the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers. One facilitys would be 

located on EPG, north of existing Cissna Road and northwest of Building 5073, and 

another on the proposed hospital site.

• Infrastructure (64097, 67487, and 67959, FY 2008–10, MN 8). This project would 

provide a 25,000-square-foot communications center, access control facilities, one 

10,000-square-foot heating plant building, one 10,000-square-foot refrigeration and air 

conditioning, and water, sewer, and electrical services for the EPG. The project includes 

approximately 80 acres of new road surfaces, replacement of two bridges, and 

construction of one new bridge. The project also includes demolition of 57,000 square 

feet of existing space. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-5

• Emergency Services Center (64076, FY 2008, MN 9). This project would provide

14,700 square feet of space and 15,000 square yards of maintenance apron for emergency 

services functions at EPG. 

• Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS) (65448, FY 2010, MN 10). This project 

would provide a 6,525-square-foot operations center, a 10,000-square-foot storage area, 

and a 14,000-square-yard satellite yard sited on southern portion of South Post. 

• U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency Support Facility (65447, FY 2008, MN 

11). This project, which would provide 20,000 square feet of space, is required to support 

U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency (USANCA) personnel as part of BRAC 2005. 

Building 238 would be renovated to accommodate USANCA personnel.

• Child Development Center (NGA) (55661, FY 2011, MN 12). This project would 

provide a child development center having 19,590 square feet of space and a 24,430- 

square-foot outdoor area for 244 children sited on east EPG. 

• Child Development Center (EPG) (55662, FY 2011, MN 13). This project would 

provide a child development center having 24,000 square feet of space and a 40,300-

square-foot outdoor area for 303 children sited on east EPG. 

• Administrative Facility (Buildings 211, 214, 215, and 220) (65450, FY 2011, MN 14). 

This project is required to implement BRAC 2005 by modernizing existing facilities to 

provide 133,000 square feet of general and secure administrative space and structured 

parking for various units, agencies, and activities relocating to Fort Belvoir from leased 

facilities in the NCR sited in the 200 Area on the South Post. 

• Access Control Point (63571, FY 2009, MN 15). This project would construct an 

access control point (ACP) with vehicle inspection station, access control building (280 

square feet), booth, and canopy, vehicle turnarounds, security lighting, and backup 

generator, and a two-lane access road (306,000 square feet) with sidewalks/bike path, 

street lighting, drainage, traffic signal, and Richmond Highway (U.S. Route 1) left and 

right turns. The access point is sited just north of U.S. Route 1. 

• AMC Relocatables (66228, FY 2007, MN 16). This project would purchase the 

facilities at Fort Belvoir that were procured to house the headquarters function of the U.S. 

Army Materiel Command (AMC). Facilities consist of two modular, two-story office 

buildings having a total of 230,000 square feet of space. These buildings include open 

and closed office space along with special purpose areas to include an Emergency 

Operations Center (EOC), sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF), 

auditorium, secure and nonsecure conference rooms, video teleconference center, 

technical library, data process center, and office support space. The facilities are located 

along Gunston Road. 

• PEO EIS Administrative Facility (65592/67231, FY 2007, MN 17). Project Number 

65592 would provide 290,000 square feet of general administrative space and a parking 

garage, and Project Number 67321 would provide an additional 157,400 square feet of 

secure administrative space sited in the 200 Area on the South Post. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-6

• Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (54347, FY 2011, MN 18). This project would 

construct a parking structure with a capacity of 400 parking spaces in the 200 Area of 

South Post. 

• Modernize Barracks (62892, FY 2011, MN 19). This project would provide 

renovations to six barracks buildings in the McRee Barracks Complex on North Post. 

• MWR Family Travel Camp (66807, FY 2007–10, MN 20). This project would provide 

a Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Family Travel Camp with 52 recreational 

vehicle (RV) campsites, a camp support facility, 15 cabins, and 12 tent sites in four 

phases, each of which would be complete and usable upon completion. The camp support 

facility would include a laundry section, camper’s lounge space, restrooms/showers, and 

vending machine space. The project would also include relocating the existing Johnson 

Road to provide better camp circulation and space, landscaping, site lighting, sewage lift 

stations, and utility upgrades. The area is sited on the southwest corner of South Post.

Refer to Section 4.0, Affected Environment and Consequences, for further discussion.

Consistency Determination 

The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program contains the applicable enforceable 

policies in the left column of the table below. Fort Belvoir has determined that the 

implementation of the BRAC Commission’s recommendations would affect the land or water 

uses or natural resources of Virginia as described in the right column of the table below. 

Based upon the information, data, and analysis, as contained in the EIS, Fort Belvoir finds that 

the proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program. Pursuant to 15 CFR section 930.41, the 

Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program has 60 days from the receipt of this document 

in which to concur with or object to this Consistency Determination, or to request an extension 

under 15 CFR section 930.41(b). Virginia’s concurrence will be presumed if its response is not 

received by Fort Belvoir on the 60th day from receipt of this determination. The 

Commonwealth’s response should be sent to Mr. Patrick McLaughlin, Fort Belvoir Department 

of Public Works-Environmental and Natural Resources Division, 9430 Jackson Loop, Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia, 22060. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-7

Applicable Enforceable Policy Effects of the Federally Proposed Action 

Fisheries Management 

The program stresses the conservation and 

enhancement of finfish and shellfish resources and 

the promotion of commercial and recreational 

fisheries to maximize food production and 

recreational opportunities. This program is 

administered by the Virginia Marine Resources 

Commission (VMRC) (Virginia Administrative 

Code (VAC) §28.2-200 to §28.2-713) and the 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

(VDGIF) (VAC §29.1-100 to §29.1-570). 

The State Tributyltin (TBT) Regulatory Program 

has been added to the Fisheries Management 

program. The General Assembly amended the 

Virginia Pesticide Use and Application Act as it 

related to the possession, sale, or use of marine 

antifoulant paints containing TBT. The use of TBT 

in boat paint constitutes a serious threat to important 

marine animal species. The TBT program monitors 

boating activities and boat painting activities to 

ensure compliance with TBT regulations 

promulgated pursuant to the amendment. The 

VMRC, VDGIF, and Virginia Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) share 

enforcement responsibilities (VAC §3.1-249.59 to 

§3.1-249.62). 

NO EFFECT 

The proposed action would not involve 

building, dumping, or otherwise trespassing on or 

over, encroaching on, taking or using any material 

from the beds of the bays, ocean, rivers, streams, or 

creeks within Virginia. The proposed action would 

not have a reasonably foreseeable effect on fish 

spawning, nursery, or feeding grounds, and 

therefore none on fisheries management. 

No paints containing TBT will be used under 

this proposed action.

Subaqueous Lands Management 

The management program for subaqueous lands 

establishes conditions for granting or denying 

permits to use state-owned bottomlands based on 

considerations of potential effects on marine and 

fisheries resources, wetlands, adjacent or nearby 

properties, anticipated public and private benefits, 

and water quality standards established by the 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

(VDEQ), Water Division. The program is 

administered by VMRC (VAC §28.2-1200 to §28.2-

1213). 

NO EFFECT 

No subaqueous land use is proposed under this 

action. This project involves no encroachments in, 

on, or over state-owned submerged lands. Should it

be determined that utility crossings be required 

under Accotink Creek instead of under road bridge 

decks, the installation would apply for a 

subaqueous lands permit. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-8

Wetlands Management 

The purpose of the wetlands management 

program is to preserve tidal wetlands, prevent their 

despoliation, and accommodate economic 

development in a manner consistent with wetlands 

preservation. 

(i) The tidal wetlands program is administered 

by VMRC (VAC §28.2-1301 through §28.2-1320). 

(ii) The Virginia Water Protection Permit 

program administered by VDEQ includes protection 

of wetlands—both tidal and non-tidal. This program 

is authorized by VAC §62.1-44.15.5 and the Water 

Quality Certification requirements of Section 401 of 

the Clean Water Act of 1972. 

MINOR EFFECT 

The proposed action would not affect any tidal 

wetlands at Fort Belvoir. Up to two acres of nontidal wetland disturbance could occur, and the 

proposed action would require a Virginia Water 

Protection (VWP) Permit if any of the following 

activities are conducted in a wetland: 

1. New activities to cause draining that 

significantly alters or degrades existing wetland 

acreage or functions. 

2. Filling or dumping. 

3. Permanent flooding or impounding. 

4. New activities that cause significant alteration

or degradation of existing wetland acreage or 

functions. 

During the course of the proposed action, once 

the precise amount of impact is determined, the 

installation would apply for a VWP permit prior to 

commencing the activity. Additionally, the 

installation would prepare and adhere to a Sediment

and Erosion Control Plan to prevent sedimentation 

from entering surface waters (see non-point source 

pollution control section below). 

Dunes Management 

Dune protection is carried out pursuant to The 

Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act and is 

intended to prevent destruction or alteration of 

primary dunes. This program is administered by 

VMRC (VAC §28.2-1400 through §28.2-1420). 

NO EFFECT 

No permanent alteration of or construction upon 

any coastal primary sand dune will take place under

the proposed action. 

Non-point Source Pollution Control 

Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Law 

requires soil-disturbing projects to be designed to

reduce soil erosion and to decrease inputs of 

chemical nutrients and sediments to the Chesapeake 

Bay, its tributaries, and other rivers and waters of 

the Commonwealth. This program is administered 

by the Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation (VDCR) (VAC §10.1-560 et seq.). 

MINOR EFFECT 

The proposed action would require a substantial 

amount of ground disturbance for facility 

construction. The construction activities would 

comply with the installation’s Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Virginia 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) 

Municipal Sanitary Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) 

permit requirements. Construction contractors 

would be using phase erosion, sediment control, 

and post-construction best management practices 

(BMPs) as effective storm water controls. Sitespecific storm water management plans developed 

by the construction contractors will provide 

information relevant to each activity. A storm water 

drainage system master plan study is planned to be 

conducted by the installation to identify current 

deficiencies and determine infrastructure needs to 

meet BRAC requirements and long-term growth to 

2030. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-9

Point Source Pollution Control 

The point source program is administered by the 

State Water Control Board pursuant to VAC §62.1-

44.15. Point source pollution control is 

accomplished through the implementation of the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit program established pursuant to 

Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act and 

administered in Virginia as the VPDES permit 

program. 

MINOR EFFECT 

Fort Belvoir holds the following VPDES permits: 

MS4, wastewater treatment for mobile reverse 

osmosis water purification units, general permit for 

storm water discharges from construction sites, and

general permit for storm water discharges 

associated with industrial activities. Fort Belvoir

would work with VDEQ to revise the permits as 

necessary as the BRAC program was implemented, 

and would adhere to all conditions of the permits. 

Storm water discharged through conveyances, such 

as separate storm sewers, ditches, channels or other 

conveyances are considered point sources under the 

Clean Water Act (CWA), and subject to regulation 

through the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Fort 

Belvoir’s MS4 permit requires the contractor to 

comply with the installations’ permit prior to 

construction activities. This includes submitting a 

sediment and erosion control plan to DPW-ENRD 

when more than 1 acre of ground is disturbed. 

Shoreline Sanitation 

The purpose of this program is to regulate the 

installation of septic tanks, set standards concerning 

soil types suitable for septic tanks, and specify 

minimum distances that tanks must be placed away 

from streams, rivers, and other waters of the 

Commonwealth. This program is administered by 

the Virginia Department of Health (VAC §32.1-164 

through §32.1-165). 

NO EFFECT 

Fort Belvoir relies on its sanitary sewer system 

and does not employ septic systems. 

Air Pollution Control 

The program implements the federal Clean Air 

Act to provide a legally enforceable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment and 

maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). This program is administered 

by the State Air Pollution Control Board (VAC §10-

1.1300). 

MINOR EFFECT 

The estimated emissions from the Preferred 

Alternative would cause minor increases in 

emissions, which would conform to the SIP, would 

not be expected to contribute to a violation of any

federal, state, or local air regulations, or introduce 

localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations 

greater than the NAAQS. 

Coastal Lands Management 

A state–local cooperative program administered 

by the VDCR’s Division of Chesapeake Bay Local 

Assistance and 84 localities in Tidewater, Virginia

established pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Act; VAC §10.1-2100 through §10.1-

2114 and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 

Designation and Management Regulations; Virginia 

Administrative Code 9 VAC10-20-10 et seq. 

MINOR EFFECT 

Buffer areas of not less than 100 feet adjacent to 

and landward of the components listed in 9 VAC 

10-20-80. Approximately 14 acres of Resource 

Protection Areas would be impacted by the 

Preferred Alternative, however, encroachment 

would be limited to road and utility corridors. 

BMPs will be developed and implemented in 

accordance with the NPDES SWPPP. Site-specific 

storm water management plans will be developed 

by the construction contractors prior to site 

disturbance activities. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

C-10

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-1 

Appendix D 

TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-3 

Appendix D Tables

Table D-1 Turning Movement Counts—Existing Conditions ............................................................ D-5 

Table D-2 Turning Movement Counts—No Action Alternative ........................................................ D-6 

Table D-3 Turning Movement Counts—Preferred Alternative .......................................................... D-7 

Table D-4 Turning Movement Counts—Town Center Alternative .................................................... D-8 

Table D-5 Turning Movement Counts—City Center Alternative ...................................................... D-9 

Table D-6 Turning Movement Counts—Satellite Campuses Alternative ........................................ D-10 

Appendix D Figures

Figure D-1 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Existing Conditions—North ............... D-11 

Figure D-2 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Existing Conditions—South ............... D-12 

Figure D-3 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for No Action Alternative—North ........... D-13 

Figure D-4 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for No Action Alternative—South ........... D-14 

Figure D-5 2011 Population and Employment for the Preferred Alternative................................... D-15 

Figure D-6 AM Peak Period Influence Area—Preferred Alternative............................................... D-16 

Figure D-7 PM Peak Period Influence Area—Preferred Alternative ............................................... D-17 

Figure D-8 Key Locations Comparison Between Preferred Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—AM Peak Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG................. D-18 

Figure D-9 Key Locations Comparison Between Preferred Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—PM Peak Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG ................. D-19 

Figure D-10 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Preferred Alternative—North ............. D-20 

Figure D-11 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Preferred Alternative—South ............. D-21 

Figure D-12 Town Center Alternative Population and Employment ................................................. D-22 

Figure D-13 AM Peak Period Influence—Town Center Alternative ................................................. D-23 

Figure D-14 PM Peak Period Influence Area—Town Center Alternative ......................................... D-24 

Figure D-15 Key Locations Comparison Between Town Center Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—AM Peak Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG................. D-25 

Figure D-16 Key Locations Comparison Between Town Center Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—PM Peak Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG ................. D-26 

Figure D-17 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Town Center Alternative—North ....... D-27 

Figure D-18 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Town Center Alternative—South ....... D-28 

Figure D-19 City Center Alternative Population and Employment.................................................... D-29 

Figure D-20 AM Peak Period Influence Area—City Center Alternative........................................... D-30 

Figure D-21 PM Peak Period Influence Area—City Center Alternative............................................ D-31 

Figure D-22 Key Locations Comparison Between City Center Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG ......................... D-32 

Figure D-23 Key Locations Comparison Between City Center Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG .......................... D-33 

Figure D-24 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for City Center Alternative—North.......... D-34 

Figure D-25 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for City Center Alternative—South.......... D-35 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-4 

Appendix D Figures, continued

Figure D-26 Satellite Campuses Alternative Population and Employment........................................ D-36 

Figure D-27 AM Peak Period Influence Area—Satellite Campuses Alternative............................... D-37 

Figure D-28 PM Peak Period Influence Area—Satellite Campuses Alternative................................ D-38 

Figure D-29 Key Locations Comparison Between Satellite Campuses Alternative and No 

Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG.............. D-39 

Figure D-30 Key Locations Comparison Between Satellite Campuses Alternative and No 

Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG .............. D-40 

Figure D-31 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Satellite Campuses 

Alternative—North ........................................................................................................ D-41 

Figure D-32 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Satellite Campuses 

Alternative—South ........................................................................................................ D-42 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-5 

Table D-1: Turning Movement Counts—Existing Conditions 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

Commerce St./ Old Keene Mill Rd. am 0 0 0 60 0 130 275 2385 0 0 845 45

 pm 0 0 0 170 0 450 290 1280 0 0 2345 150 

Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. am 20 1175 90 85 375 115 245 105 15 100 60 20

 pm 110 460 95 135 1015 370 265 245 90 170 245 30

Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. am 50 165 240 200 40 45 65 255 40 50 165 290

 pm 80 345 360 460 95 75 60 380 40 80 345 360

Commerce St./ Franconia Rd. am 590 205 165 255 135 260 80 405 615 45 1145 367

 pm 795 285 275 570 360 225 70 695 990 105 945 440

Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. am 80 1710 890 5 585 25 20 10 30 30 5 5

 pm 75 855 390 15 1800 40 25 10 30 180 15 20

Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. am 0 430 210 140 260 0 225 270 45 200 0 170

 pm 0 400 205 625 620 0 200 265 20 245 0 185

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 40 5 190 95 5 25 50 4055 15 55 1380 90

Spring Village Dr. pm 45 5 150 90 10 50 70 1905 95 250 4130 100

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 170 1380 5 5 565 85 1375 5 250 5 5 5

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 260 990 5 5 1095 255 615 5 160 5 5 5

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 275 2480 0 0 470 325 180 0 185 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 470 1135 0 0 1095 1115 215 0 260 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 195 0 240 0 0 0 195 2725 0 0 1330 155

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 270 0 500 0 1590 300 530 2975 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 230 120 325 495 0 615 5 825 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 990 520 1055 250 0 525 5 165 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 140 705 0 0 890 165 0 0 0 20 5 570

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 580 755 0 0 1540 910 0 0 0 20 5 625

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1055 670 145 95 210 340 420 1420 500 95 1140 200

Beulah St. pm 780 515 235 220 455 365 410 2120 860 205 1270 165

Fairfax County Parkway./ Fullerton am 10 235 1150 670 685 5 10 15 10 600 10 50

Rd. pm 5 310 1290 985 520 5 5 20 15 640 20 170

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 60 1185 20 90 2345 335 25 5 145 10 5 75

Rd. pm 25 1900 15 40 1305 80 215 10 5 20 5 55

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 120 0 220 0 1160 110 190 230 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 225 0 575 0 450 35 165 980 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 20 5 225 0 0 0 330 950 0 0 400 175

Telegraph Rd. pm 115 0 325 0 0 0 205 470 0 0 1030 220

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 30 940 395 1095 910 60 15 60 20 20 20 130

Kingman Rd. pm 30 885 45 160 760 10 40 20 55 430 25 1015

Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. am 5 110 50 260 490 275 380 770 20 230 300 70

 pm 30 405 190 95 210 465 335 465 15 90 740 265

Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. am 0 0 0 310 0 85 145 885 0 0 645 395

 pm 0 0 0 480 0 260 85 670 0 0 820 400

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 15 170 260 50 20 210 880 2115 5 15 580 75

Colchester Rd. pm 5 25 30 70 175 800 220 715 55 150 1960 35

Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. am 0 0 0 840 0 20 340 2085 0 0 650 920

 pm 0 0 0 635 0 350 65 730 0 0 1880 675

Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. am 115 15 10 165 75 10 15 1840 1070 100 1445 100

 pm 1100 70 25 185 15 10 5 1220 140 10 1430 90

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. am 155 0 85 0 0 0 0 1720 295 270 1590 0

 pm 80 0 185 0 0 0 0 1420 20 170 1450 0

Route 1./ Woodlawn Rd. am 0 0 0 70 0 25 70 1735 0 0 1835 130

 pm 0 0 0 240 0 80 85 1510 0 0 1540 165

Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. am 445 50 85 25 60 150 120 1245 440 180 1370 10

 pm 340 135 110 25 25 100 200 1210 340 55 1285 20

Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd am 0 605 10 100 975 0 0 0 0 15 0 85

 pm 0 505 10 30 525 0 0 0 0 15 0 55
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-6 

Table D-2: Turning Movement Counts—No Action Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 40 1270 120 90 430 120 250 130 30 120 70 20 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 130 470 140 180 1050 380 280 320 110 190 260 30

am 50 170 320 260 50 50 60 310 40 70 190 360 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 90 390 440 510 120 80 80 510 50 90 370 370

am 100 1790 990 10 770 30 30 10 40 40 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 100 970 420 15 1910 40 30 10 50 210 20 20

am 0 490 220 150 360 0 250 300 60 250 0 190 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 470 205 700 810 0 240 280 30 250 0 200

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 50 10 210 110 10 30 60 4090 20 60 1390 100

Spring Village Dr. pm 50 10 160 110 20 70 100 1900 110 270 4130 130

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 170 1410 10 10 620 110 1500 10 220 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 250 1020 10 10 1140 350 750 10 140 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 240 2550 0 0 490 400 250 0 180 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 460 1170 0 0 1070 1370 330 0 310 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 250 0 280 0 0 0 310 2970 0 0 1380 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 420 0 530 0 1640 350 600 3300 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 250 140 400 560 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 540 1070 280 0 590 5 190 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 150 790 0 0 930 190 0 0 0 30 5 610

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 670 770 0 0 1570 950 0 0 0 30 5 680

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1100 780 150 110 220 390 550 1540 520 90 1110 230

Beulah St. pm 760 680 260 290 570 430 480 2260 810 230 1400 220

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 90 1200 40 150 2380 400 30 10 170 20 10 80

Rd. pm 40 1950 30 60 1355 90 230 30 10 30 10 50

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 180 0 270 0 1450 150 230 230 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 290 0 690 0 560 60 230 1120 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 30 5 320 0 0 0 440 1170 0 0 430 200

Telegraph Rd. pm 160 0 370 0 0 0 280 570 0 0 1210 240

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 40 1020 460 1110 1010 60 20 90 20 20 20 160

Kingman Rd. pm 40 970 60 200 820 10 50 30 70 490 20 1130

am 10 140 60 270 480 290 560 910 30 250 320 100 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 30 420 190 130 220 620 430 490 20 120 730 320

am 0 0 0 450 0 130 220 1020 0 0 660 460 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 630 0 360 140 680 0 0 830 580

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 190 250 80 20 250 1190 2120 10 30 540 130

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 30 100 190 950 280 700 50 150 1990 60

am 0 0 0 930 0 30 390 2050 0 0 660 1000 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 660 0 360 70 760 0 0 1900 710

am 130 20 20 180 80 20 20 1780 1190 120 1460 110 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1180 110 40 190 20 10 10 1280 140 20 1490 60

am 120 0 110 0 0 0 0 1760 210 310 1590 0 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 80 0 180 0 0 0 0 1480 30 170 1490 0

am 460 130 100 310 140 260 240 1250 320 250 1420 250 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 360 260 120 340 60 230 340 1200 260 100 1300 280

am 0 640 20 110 1000 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 650 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 20 0 60
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-7 

Table D-3: Turning Movement Counts—Preferred Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 40 1260 150 120 480 120 260 160 30 170 100 40 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 140 550 160 210 1070 380 300 350 100 210 290 50

am 70 180 310 260 110 60 100 350 60 70 230 320 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 100 430 450 510 120 110 100 560 60 90 390 390

am 100 1800 1010 10 1090 30 30 10 50 60 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 100 1090 430 20 1920 40 30 10 50 220 30 30

am 0 490 240 200 430 0 260 310 70 260 0 200 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 520 230 700 840 0 240 340 30 260 0 200

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 170 20 470 60 60 30 60 3820 250 670 1570 80

Spring Village Dr. pm 330 60 780 90 30 70 90 1790 270 500 3900 90

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 140 1420 10 10 780 190 1510 0 140 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 280 1000 10 10 1060 390 820 0 210 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 220 2540 0 0 580 610 290 0 150 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 430 1200 0 0 1020 1340 340 0 290 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 310 0 290 0 0 0 380 2930 0 0 1780 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 420 0 580 0 1860 340 620 3380 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 260 140 400 570 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 560 1080 280 0 840 5 200 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 170 790 0 0 940 490 0 0 0 30 5 620

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 660 1020 0 0 1560 960 0 0 0 30 5 700

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1110 810 170 120 220 370 460 1560 460 100 1240 240

Beulah St. pm 720 680 240 290 580 440 540 2320 860 220 1340 230

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 100 1540 40 130 2450 410 40 10 170 20 10 70

Rd. pm 70 1925 50 40 1470 70 220 40 30 50 10 30

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 170 0 290 0 1360 160 260 250 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 280 0 750 0 530 70 260 1050 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 80 5 470 0 0 0 600 930 0 0 420 190

Telegraph Rd. pm 170 0 380 0 0 0 280 520 0 0 1150 250

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 50 1390 680 910 1340 50 20 40 60 80 20 220

Kingman Rd. pm 40 1280 70 250 1080 20 50 40 60 450 20 1140

am 10 140 50 310 420 290 580 800 20 240 300 130 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 30 410 180 140 230 660 420 470 20 110 720 330

am 0 0 0 460 0 130 230 1010 0 0 750 480 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 640 0 360 160 790 0 0 850 570

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 180 260 70 10 280 1100 2240 10 30 990 160

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 40 200 140 860 260 1040 40 210 2000 80

am 0 0 0 1260 0 90 710 1860 0 0 1070 1240 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 730 0 440 150 1130 0 0 1870 870

am 260 70 110 250 90 10 20 2010 1100 200 1690 140 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1240 110 110 170 90 10 10 1680 180 80 1850 110

am 320 0 280 0 0 0 0 2040 320 400 1600 0 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 210 0 120 0 0 0 0 1790 160 320 1840 0

am 530 130 120 310 120 270 290 1420 440 260 1400 250 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 560 210 140 370 60 380 440 1220 340 90 1440 270

am 0 650 20 110 1110 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 760 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 20 0 60
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-8 

Table D-4: Turning Movement Counts—Town Center Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 40 1290 130 110 460 130 260 150 30 140 80 30 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 130 530 150 200 1070 380 310 340 110 220 300 50

am 60 180 310 280 70 70 80 340 50 70 210 350 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 90 410 460 510 120 100 90 550 60 100 410 390

am 100 1790 1010 20 930 40 30 10 50 50 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 90 1030 420 30 1910 40 30 10 50 210 20 30

am 0 480 250 230 410 0 260 300 70 250 0 210 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 530 220 700 820 0 260 320 30 250 0 240

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 50 10 210 110 10 30 60 4060 20 60 1500 100

Spring Village Dr. pm 50 10 160 110 20 70 100 1940 110 270 4090 130

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 170 1410 10 10 700 130 1500 0 220 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 280 1000 10 10 1080 390 780 0 140 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 220 2560 0 0 530 460 270 0 170 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 440 1190 0 0 1050 1340 330 0 290 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 250 0 280 0 0 0 310 2950 0 0 1470 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 410 0 500 0 1640 320 540 3300 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 260 140 620 570 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 560 1080 280 0 640 5 200 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 150 790 0 0 1150 270 0 0 0 30 5 620

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 660 780 0 0 1560 960 0 0 0 30 5 900

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1140 730 190 110 310 330 520 1320 830 180 1050 270

Beulah St. pm 870 710 290 280 580 430 450 2310 850 230 1430 210

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 70 1550 30 160 2990 450 50 10 160 10 10 70

Rd. pm 40 2370 30 70 1500 100 250 20 10 30 10 50

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 220 0 310 0 1380 170 270 230 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 280 0 750 0 520 70 270 1020 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 100 5 530 0 0 0 560 1000 0 0 450 150

Telegraph Rd. pm 180 0 390 0 0 0 300 500 0 0 1130 260

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 40 1930 900 1810 1840 50 20 90 20 70 20 340

Kingman Rd. pm 30 1450 170 460 1130 10 40 50 60 900 20 1840

am 10 210 70 260 1080 320 580 900 50 370 320 80 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 70 800 290 90 320 600 380 490 30 100 830 220

am 0 0 0 500 0 130 240 1020 0 0 850 480 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 640 0 360 200 880 0 0 830 590

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 170 270 80 10 260 1120 2480 10 30 1010 170

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 40 190 150 840 240 910 40 200 2340 90

am 0 0 0 1560 0 160 1090 1730 0 0 1070 1420 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 860 0 820 230 910 0 0 1820 1060

am 700 20 80 240 120 20 20 1580 1690 250 1570 200 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1210 430 150 150 110 10 10 1500 270 120 1670 100

am 220 0 630 0 0 0 0 1780 130 650 1790 0 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 250 0 320 0 0 0 0 1700 100 430 1710 0

am 630 150 100 370 130 400 350 1380 440 260 1680 260 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 540 230 130 350 60 340 450 1410 380 90 1440 270

am 0 650 20 110 1150 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 800 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 20 0 60
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-9 

Table D-5: Turning Movement Counts—City Center Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 30 1270 140 140 530 120 260 160 30 170 100 40 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 150 610 160 210 1070 380 310 330 90 210 320 60

am 80 180 320 260 120 100 100 360 60 70 240 310 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 120 450 460 520 120 120 100 530 60 90 400 390

am 100 1800 1020 20 1130 30 30 10 50 60 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 100 1140 430 20 1920 50 40 10 50 210 20 30

am 0 490 240 200 875 0 260 310 420 335 0 200 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 1190 380 700 830 0 240 350 30 260 0 230

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 180 30 480 60 60 30 60 3800 270 680 1600 80

Spring Village Dr. pm 360 20 780 80 40 70 120 1690 390 680 3710 110

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 140 1420 10 10 780 190 1510 0 140 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 270 1010 10 10 1070 400 840 0 210 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 240 2530 0 0 570 620 300 0 160 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 410 1220 0 0 1060 1350 340 0 290 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 310 0 290 0 0 0 390 2950 0 0 1870 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 410 0 580 0 1950 330 620 3380 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 260 140 400 570 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 560 1080 280 0 890 5 200 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 170 790 0 0 940 540 0 0 0 30 5 620

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 660 1070 0 0 1560 960 0 0 0 30 5 700

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1120 810 170 120 220 380 480 1550 460 100 1240 240

Beulah St. pm 730 670 250 290 590 420 510 2300 870 230 1320 230

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 100 1560 40 130 2360 410 40 10 170 20 10 70

Rd. pm 70 1925 40 40 1530 70 220 40 30 50 10 30

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 170 0 280 0 1380 140 240 270 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 290 0 750 0 530 60 250 1060 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 80 5 470 0 0 0 600 930 0 0 420 190

Telegraph Rd. pm 170 0 370 0 0 0 280 540 0 0 1160 240

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 40 1270 580 1000 1230 50 30 10 90 100 20 270

Kingman Rd. pm 40 1230 80 240 1090 10 50 30 70 560 20 1080

am 10 140 50 300 410 280 570 810 20 240 310 120 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 30 410 180 150 240 680 420 480 20 90 720 330

am 0 0 0 450 0 130 220 1010 0 0 720 460 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 640 0 360 130 740 0 0 850 560

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 180 260 70 10 300 1130 2180 10 30 880 130

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 40 170 170 870 270 980 50 180 2030 70

am 0 0 0 1120 0 70 580 1910 0 0 980 1090 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 730 0 560 170 1010 0 0 1790 850

am 330 30 20 340 90 40 40 1800 1190 80 1710 150 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1060 200 70 210 50 10 10 1530 200 40 1570 90

am 150 0 180 0 0 0 0 1950 220 400 1600 0 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 60 0 190 0 0 0 0 1770 30 350 1810 0

am 520 130 110 310 130 260 280 1430 440 270 1390 250 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 550 170 150 380 60 360 420 1190 330 90 1440 270

am 0 650 140 1000 1110 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 760 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 170 0 960
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-10 

Table D-6: Turning Movement Counts—Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 40 1290 130 110 480 130 260 150 30 140 80 30 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 130 530 160 220 1060 380 290 360 100 230 290 50

am 60 180 310 280 70 70 80 340 50 70 210 350 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 90 410 460 510 120 100 140 550 60 100 410 390

am 100 1790 1010 20 910 40 30 10 50 40 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 90 1010 410 30 1910 40 30 10 50 210 20 30

am 0 480 250 210 430 0 260 300 70 250 0 210 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 550 240 720 800 0 260 320 30 270 0 260

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 50 10 210 110 10 30 60 4040 20 60 1480 100

Spring Village Dr. pm 50 10 160 110 20 70 100 1970 110 270 4090 130

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 140 1440 10 10 690 140 1470 0 200 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 290 990 10 10 1070 380 780 0 180 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 210 2580 0 0 540 460 250 0 150 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 440 1190 0 0 1030 1340 350 0 330 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 250 0 280 0 0 0 310 2950 0 0 1370 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 410 0 500 0 1640 320 550 3380 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 260 140 580 570 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 560 1080 280 0 630 5 200 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 150 790 0 0 1110 250 0 0 0 30 5 620

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 660 770 0 0 1560 960 0 0 0 30 5 850

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1130 750 180 110 310 350 510 1390 770 160 1070 260

Beulah St. pm 840 740 290 280 580 410 420 2330 790 220 1410 200

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 70 1560 30 160 3080 440 50 10 170 20 10 70

Rd. pm 50 2480 40 60 1410 90 240 30 10 30 10 50

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 250 0 420 0 1410 110 290 470 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 320 0 700 0 720 80 270 1020 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 230 5 460 0 0 0 700 860 0 0 510 90

Telegraph Rd. pm 210 0 310 0 0 0 340 690 0 0 1220 170

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 340 1280 950 1270 1450 330 100 20 330 160 20 420

Kingman Rd. pm 60 1400 150 340 1020 20 430 30 230 690 20 1360

am 10 210 70 350 850 350 530 890 20 250 470 120 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 50 650 250 100 260 600 450 450 30 120 730 300

am 0 0 0 470 0 130 240 1020 0 0 850 480 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 640 0 360 170 880 0 0 830 590

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 190 250 60 10 280 1240 2260 10 30 1030 150

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 40 240 200 990 230 930 30 160 2170 90

am 0 0 0 1550 0 140 940 1620 0 0 980 1420 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 830 0 720 210 1000 0 0 1820 930

am 290 10 10 210 70 50 70 1780 1330 50 1890 170 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1100 390 100 140 120 10 10 1570 260 80 1640 80

am 230 0 350 0 0 0 0 1810 200 520 1760 0 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 310 0 250 0 0 0 0 1660 140 390 1600 0

am 600 160 100 350 130 350 350 1440 450 270 1620 260 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 510 280 110 360 60 410 450 1410 370 90 1420 270

am 0 650 20 110 1180 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 830 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 20 0 60
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-11 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Existing Conditions—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-1 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-12 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Existing Conditions—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-2 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-13 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for No Action Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-3 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-14 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for No Action Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-4 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-15 

2011 Population and Employment 

for the Preferred Alternative 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-5

LEGEND 

Interstate Highway 

Highway 

River/ Water
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-16 

AM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Preferred Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-6

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-17 

PM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Preferred Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-7

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-18 Key Locations Comparison Between Preferred Alternative and No Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Fi

gure D-8 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-19 Key Locations Comparison Between Preferred Alternative and No Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Fi

gure D-9 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-20 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Preferred Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-10 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-21 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Preferred Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-11 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-22 

Town Center Alternative 

 Population and Employment 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-12

LEGEND 

Interstate Highway 

Highway 

River/ Water
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-23 

AM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Town Center Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-13

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-24 

PM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Town Center Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-14

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-25 Key Locations Comparison Between Town Center Alternative and No Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Fi

gure D-15 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-26 Key Locations Comparison Between Town Center Alternative and No Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Fi

gure D-16 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-27 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Town Center Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-17 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-28 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Town Center Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-18 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-29 

City Center Alternative 

 Population and Employment 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-19

LEGEND 

Interstate Highway 

Highway 

River/ Water
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-30 

AM Peak Period Influence Area 

 City Center Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-20

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-31 

PM Peak Period Influence Area 

 City Center Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-21

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-32 Key Locations Comparison Between City Center Alternative and No Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Fi

gure D-22 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-33 Key Locations Comparison Between City Center Alternative and No Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Fi

gure D-23 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-34 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for City Center Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-24 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-35 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for City Center Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-25 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-36 

Satellite Campuses Alternative 

 Population and Employment 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-26

LEGEND 

Interstate Highway 

Highway 

River/ Water
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-37 

AM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Satellite Campuses Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-27

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-38 

PM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Satellite Campuses Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-28

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-39 Key Locations Comparison Between Satellite Campuses Alternative and No Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Fi

gure D-29 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-40 Key Locations Comparison Between Satellite Campuses Alternative and No Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Fi

gure D-30 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-41 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Satellite Campuses Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-31 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

D-42 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Satellite Campuses Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Fi

gure D-32 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E-1

Appendix E 

AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

E.1 – Draft General Conformity Determination 

E.2 – Vehicle Micro-scale CO Concentration Modeling

E.3 – Criteria Air Pollutant—Sources and Impacts

E.4 – Permitted Sources of Air Emissions—Potential-to-emit Calculations 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
APPENDIX E.1 

DRAFT GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Recommendations and Related 

Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Prepared for 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

March 2007 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Army is in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to 

assess implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission’s 

recommendations at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and the update to the installation’s land use plan. Fort 

Belvoir is within an area currently designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) as in non-attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone 

(O3; 8-hour standard) and fine particulates (PM2.5). Therefore, under Section 176(c) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Army must demonstrate that its actions within the region conform to 

EPA’s and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s plans to attain these NAAQS. 

EPA promulgated two sets of conformity rules to implement Section 176(c) of the CAA––

Transportation Conformity Rules and General Conformity Rules. The Transportation Conformity 

Rules establish the criteria and procedures for determining that transportation plans, programs, 

and projects funded under Title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) or the Federal Transit Act 

conform to State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Because the Proposed Action and Alternatives are 

not transportation projects, the transportation conformity rules do not apply. 

The General Conformity Rules (GCR) are applicable to federal actions that are not encompassed 

by the Transportation Conformity Rules and are within non-attainment areas. The GCR are not 

applicable to certain federal actions, such as those which would result in total emission levels 

below applicable thresholds, those that would result in no emissions increase or an increase that is 

de minimis (of minimal importance), or actions for which the emissions are not reasonably 

foreseeable. In addition, general conformity determinations are not required for portions of 

actions that include major new or modified stationary sources that require a permit under the New 

Source Review (NSR) program (USEPA and FAA 2002). 

Currently, the region has no applicable SIP for the 8-hour O3 or PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP 

revisions to address non-attainment conditions with respect to the new 8-hour O3 and PM2.5

NAAQS are being developed and are expected to be approved by EPA by 2008 and 2009, 

respectively. In the interim, EPA has published some guidance to help address compliance with 

the CAA with respect to the new NAAQS. The applicable SIP revision in the Northern Virginia 

Area is for the 1-hour O3 NAAQS. Although EPA recently revoked the 1-hour O3 NAAQS, the 

GCR dictate the use of the in-place “applicable” SIP for determining the conformance of the 

proposed federal action. The 1-hour attainment demonstration O3 SIP was developed and 

submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and approved by EPA 

on May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688). 

This purpose of this Draft General Conformity Determination (GCD) is to demonstrate that the 

emissions associated with two proposals at Fort Belvoir––implementation of base realignment 

and the update of the land use plan––conform to the purpose and intent of the applicable SIP. 

On September 8, 2005, the BRAC Commission recommended numerous realignment and closure 

actions for domestic military installations. President Bush concurred with the 2005 BRAC 

Commission’s report and sent it to Congress on September 15, 2005. Therefore, the BRAC 

actions at Fort Belvoir must be initiated by no later than September 15, 2007, and completed by 

no later than September 15, 2011. On November 9, 2005, the recommendations became law, and 

now they must be implemented as provided for in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 

of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), as amended. The BRAC Commission’s recommendations will 

generate a net increase of approximately 22,000 people in the workforce on Fort Belvoir. The 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-2 

vast majority of these people, however, are already located within the National Capital Region 

(NCR). Fort Belvoir established its RPMP in 1993. In light of substantial changes at the post 

due to base realignment, the land use plan needs to be updated. 

Fort Belvoir is approximately 15 miles south of Washington, D.C., in northern Virginia (Figure 

ES-1). The post is the host for one major command headquarters (Army Material Command), 

two Direct Reporting Unit headquarters (U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and U.S. 

Army Criminal Investigation Command), and more than 100 other elements of the Army and 

Department of Defense (DoD), including the Defense Logistics Agency headquarters, Army 

Management Staff College, Defense Acquisition University, and the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency College. 

The following paragraphs summarize the methodologies used to evaluate the applicability of the 

GCR to the Army’s proposed action and alternatives, the methodologies used to evaluate total 

direct and indirect project-related emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the sources subject to the GCR, and the 

results of the conformity evaluation. 

Applicability. To determine whether the GCR are applicable, net (project-related) emission levels 

of VOC, NOx, PM2.5, and SO2 were compared to applicability threshold levels. The applicability 

threshold levels for the 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS were used (50 tons of VOCs or 100 tons of 

NOx, PM2.5, and SO2). On the basis of the results of the comparison, it was determined that the 

GCR apply to the proposed realignment activities at Fort Belvoir with respect to both NOx and 

VOCs. 

Construction Activity. The construction emission budgets in the currently approved SIP do not 

identify specific or individual projects with respect to emissions resulting from regional 

construction activity. Therefore, the BRAC-related emission estimates were compared to SIPbased projected emissions for the region for this type of activity to determine whether the 

emissions could reasonably be accounted for in the regional (nonroad and area) totals. The 

results of the comparison indicate that the greatest level of construction-related VOC and NOx

emissions would represent approximately 0.7 and 1.9 percent of VDEQ’s regional emissions, 

respectively (Table ES-1). Because the project-related construction emissions would represent a 

relatively small percentage of the regional projections, the U.S. Army, in consultation with 

VDEQ, determined that it is reasonable to assume that the construction emissions can be 

accounted for in the inventories for the 1-hour O3 SIP for the Proposed Actions and Alternatives 

(VDEQ 2007). 

Motor Vehicles. The realignment of Fort Belvoir would decrease both the number of vehicles and 

the total vehicle miles traveled within the region. In turn, motor vehicle emissions would 

decrease. This decrease would be primarily due to a net reduction of approximately 1,700 

personnel from the region and a slight overall decrease in vehicle miles traveled by the people 

remaining. These BRAC-related reductions in emissions would constitute an ongoing net benefit 

to the region’s air quality. Therefore, although there is a SIP-based regional budget for on-road 

vehicles, it was unnecessary to perform a direct comparison. 

The GCR state that notwithstanding the other requirements of the rules, a proposed action may 

not be determined to conform unless the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action is in 

compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements and milestones in the applicable SIP 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-3 

Table ES-1 

Comparison of 2010 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based Inventories: 

Construction Activities 

Approved 1-hour SIP 

Pollutant 

SIP regional 

emission inventory 

(tons/summer 

weekday) 

Project-related 

non-road emissions 

 (tons/summer 

weekday) 

Percent of 

regional 

emissions 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 82.8a 1.58 1.9% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 147.3b

 0.98 0.7% 

Draft 8-hour SIP 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 76.9c 1.58 2.1% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 191.8d

 0.98 0.5% 

Source: MWCOG, 2004a 

a

 Reflects 2005 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory b

 Reflect 2005 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

c

 Reflects 2009 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory d

 Reflect 2009 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

(Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 93.158(c)). This requirement 

includes but is not limited to such issues as reasonable further progress schedules, assumptions 

specified in the attainment or maintenance demonstration, prohibitions, numerical emission 

limits, and work practice standards. 

EPA and VDEQ have already promulgated, and will continue to promulgate, numerous 

requirements to support the goals of the CAA with respect to the NAAQS. Typically, these 

requirements take the form of rules regulating emissions from significant new sources, including 

emission standards for major stationary point sources and classes of mobile sources, as well as 

permitting requirements for new stationary point sources. Because states have the primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing requirements under the CAA and can impose 

stricter limitations than EPA, the EPA requirements often serve as guidance to the states in 

formulating their air quality management strategies. 

In operating Fort Belvoir, the U.S. Army observes, and will continue to act in accordance with, a 

myriad of rules and regulations implemented and enforced by federal, state, regional, and local 

agencies to protect and enhance ambient air quality in the Metropolitan Washington Region. The 

U.S. Army will continue to act in accordance with all existing applicable air quality regulatory 

requirements for activities over which it has direct control and will meet in a timely manner all 

regulatory requirements that become applicable in the future. Likewise, the U.S. Army actively 

encourages all tenants and users of its facilities to comply with applicable air quality 

requirements. 

In accordance with Section 176 of the CAA, the U.S. Army has assessed whether pollutant and 

pollutant precursor emissions that would result from its actions with respect to the proposed 

realignment at Fort Belvoir would conform to the Virginia SIP. Emission estimates for the GCD 

were prepared: 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-5 

• Using the latest planning assumptions 

• Using the latest and most accurate emission estimation techniques 

• Based on the applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in 

the most recent version of EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models, including 

supplements 

On the basis of the results of the evaluation, the total direct and indirect project-related emissions 

of NOx, VOCs, PM2.5, and SO2 were determined to be below the applicability threshold levels, 

accounted for in the emission projections incorporated into the 1-hour O3 attainment 

demonstration SIP (the applicable SIP), or reasonably accounted for in established emission totals 

and/or excess regional emission estimates. 

For these reasons, the U.S. Army has determined that the emissions associated with the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives conform to the CAA and, by definition, will not significantly impede the 

timely attainment of the NAAQS in the region.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-6 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

i 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1-1 

SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE................................................................................ 2-1 

2.1.1 Fort Belvoir’s Existing Land Use Plan ..................................................................2-2

2.1.2 Proposed Land Use Plan Revision .........................................................................2-4

2.2 BASE REALIGNMENT ....................................................................................... 2-8 

2.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................2-8

2.2.2 Allocation of Facilities and Personnel .................................................................2-10

2.2.3 Construction and Renovation...............................................................................2-10

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED 

CONSIDERATION ............................................................................................. 2-18 

2.3.1 Town Center.........................................................................................................2-19

2.3.2 City Center ...........................................................................................................2-21

2.3.3 Satellite Campuses ...............................................................................................2-23

2.3.4 Preferred Alternative............................................................................................2-23

2.4 ALTERNATIVES FOR BRAC IMPLEMENTATION ...................................... 2-25 

SECTION 3.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY ................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 EMISSIONS ESTIMATIONS AND METHODOLOGY..................................... 3-3 

3.1.1 Demolition and Construction Emissions................................................................3-4

3.1.3 Operational Activities ............................................................................................3-9

3.1.4 Total Annual Emission.........................................................................................3-13

3.2 APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS........................................................................... 3-13 

3.3 CONFORMITY EVALUATION ........................................................................ 3-14 

3.3.1 Evaluation Cases ..................................................................................................3-14

3.3.2 Comparison Project-Related Emissions to SIP-Based Inventories ......................3-16

3.3.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in Applicable SIP ....................3-21

3.4 SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 3-21 

3.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS/FREQUENCY OF DETERMINATIONS.... 3-22 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... R-1 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................... R-3 

LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................... R-5 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ii 

TABLES 

Table ES-1 Comparison of 2010 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based 

Inventories: Construction Activities................................................................................3

Table 2-1 Comparison of 1993 and 2011 Land Use Allocations..................................................2-6

Table 2-2 Personnel Realigning to Fort Belvoir .........................................................................2-10

Table 2-3 Proposed Construction and Renovation Projects........................................................2-11

Table 3-1 Attainment status of Fairfax County and Fort Belvoir ................................................3-2

Table 3-2 Estimated Construction Emissions ...............................................................................3-4

Table 3-3 Estimated Annual Emissions from Construction and Demolition 

Equipment.....................................................................................................................3-6

Table 3-4 Estimated Annual Emissions from Construction Worker Vehicles..............................3-7

Table 3-5 Annual VOC Emissions from Architectural Coatings.................................................3-8

Table 3-6 Annual VOC Emissions from Asphalt Curing .............................................................3-8

Table 3-7 Annual PM2.5 Emissions from Surface Disturbance.....................................................3-9

Table 3-8 Estimated Net Operating Emissions Subject to the General 

Conformity Rule.........................................................................................................3-10

Table 3-9 Annual Emissions from New Small Heating and Cooling Sources............................3-12

Table 3-10 Annual Emissions from New Employees’ Vehicles (Net Decrease).......................3-12

Table 3-11 Total Annual Emissions from the 2005 Realignment of Fort Belvoir......................3-13

Table 3-12 Applicability Thresholds for the National Capital Interstate Air 

Quality Control Region ..............................................................................................3-14

Table 3-13 Annual Project-related Emission Levels Subject to Conformity 

Determination .............................................................................................................3-15

Table 3-14 Daily Project-related Emission Levels Subject to Conformity 

Determination .............................................................................................................3-16

Table 3-15 Regional NOx Emission Inventory ...........................................................................3-17

Table 3-16 Regional VOC Emission Inventory..........................................................................3-17

Table 3-17 Comparison of 2008 and 2009 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based 

Inventories ..................................................................................................................3-19

Table 3-18 Comparison of 2010 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based 

Inventories ..................................................................................................................3-20

Table A1-1 Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions.....................................................................A-2

Table A1-2 Worker Vehicle Emissions .......................................................................................A-6

Table A1-3 Architectural Coating Emissions ............................................................................A-14

Table A1-4 Paving Off-gas Emissions ......................................................................................A-15

Table A1-5 Fugitive Particle Emissions ....................................................................................A-16

Table A1-6 Emissions from Small Heating and Cooling Activities..........................................A-17

Table A1-7 Employee Vehicle Emissions .................................................................................A-18

Figures 

Figure ES-1 Location of Fort Belvoir........................................................................................ ES-4

Figure 2-1 1993 Land Use Designations.......................................................................................2-3

Figure 2-2 Proposed Land Use Plan .............................................................................................2-5

Figure 2-3 Construction Project Locations .................................................................................2-12

Figure 2-4 Town Center Conceptual Development ....................................................................2-20

Figure 2-5 City Center Conceptual Development.......................................................................2-22

Figure 2-6 Satellite Campuses Conceptual Development...........................................................2-24
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

1-1 

SECTION 1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

Within areas designated non-attainment or maintenance for any of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that federal agencies ensure that 

their actions conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIPs). The requirements for determining 

conformity to SIPs are detailed in Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 51 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 51). 

In accordance with Section 176 of the CAA, in consultation with VDEQ, the U.S. Army has 

assessed whether pollutant and pollutant precursor emissions that would result from the update of 

the installation’s land use plan and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)-related activities 

at Fort Belvoir conform to the Virginia SIP. This document provides the supporting material, 

analytical methods, and conclusions relied on by the U.S. Army in performing the applicability 

analysis described in 40 CFR Part 51 and making a General Conformity Determination (GCD). 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

1-2 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-1 

SECTION 2.0 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The U.S. Army proposes to update Fort Belvoir’s land use plan and to implement the BRAC 

Commission’s recommendations. The BRAC realignment actions would involve constructing 

and renovating facilities and, consistent with the BRAC law, relocating units, agencies, and 

activities to the post by September 2011. 

2.1 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE 

Fort Belvoir’s mission is to provide a secure, safe operating environment for numerous missions 

and functions, including the following:

• Administrative, logistics, and operations support for regional and worldwide military 

missions 

• A creative learning environment for Army and DoD school students 

• Military support for a variety of National Capital Region (NCR) contingency missions 

• Regional housing for active duty military families 

• Quality of life support for the military community, that includes health and recreation 

• Environmental stewardship in concert with adequate land and facilities. 

Land Use Plan Update Long-range Component. To support the foregoing, the Army proposes 

to adopt and implement a land use plan update to respond to changing conditions at the post to 

comply with AR 210-20, Real Property Master Planning for Army Installations, which mandates 

updates of existing plans as circumstances require. This GCD pertains to the initial step of the 

land use plan update process, the revision of the land use plan, which is necessary to siting of 

facilities for BRAC implementation. The update to the RPMP centers on the land use analysis 

and plan portion of the long-range component (LRC). This portion of the LRC shows the current 

and future relationships and use of installation land by generalized areas, including such facilities 

as family housing, troop housing, administration, and range and training areas. 

Planning Principles. The following principles embody the aspirations for the future evolution of 

Fort Belvoir. These principles, compiled by Belvoir New Vision Planners and Fort Belvoir, 

provide guidance in deciding the future direction of facilities, space needs and meeting the goals 

of the installation, the Army, and the community. Adherence to these principles can provide the 

most efficient use of land, maximum use of previously disturbed areas, the least environmental 

impact and, ultimately, a world-class installation. 

• Transform Fort Belvoir: Create a world-class installation. 

• Achieve a diversity of use and activities: Enrich the program—a 24/7 environment. 

• Achieve environmental brilliance: A sustainable approach in everything that is done. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-2 

• Strengthen the natural habitat: Protect and enhance the creeks, wetlands, and wildlife 

corridors.

• View the installation as arboretum.

• Build compact neighborhoods: Strengthen the sense of community and place. 

• Improve connectivity: Consider strategies that allow people to park once.

• Emphasize the public realm: Create walkable neighborhoods. 

• Respect Fort Belvoir history: Continue the legacy for future generations. 

• Community benefits: Strengthen existing Army and surrounding neighborhoods. 

Land use planning is a continual, collaborative, and integrated process, primarily performed at the 

installation level. While land use planning reflects local mission requirements, it is strongly 

influenced by the plans, guidance, and initiatives of higher headquarters. An installation RPMP 

is, therefore, the principal real property management tool in support of overall installation real 

property operation, management, development, privatization, realignment, cleanup, and disposal. 

2.1.1 Fort Belvoir’s Existing Land Use Plan 

The land use plan that is the subject of this GCD is the 1993 land use plan and a 2002 update of 

the Fort Belvoir RPMP. The 1993 master plan consisted of four elements: Real Property Master 

Plan Long-Range Component—1993; Real Property Master Plan Short-Range Component—

1993–2000; a Capital Investment Strategy; and a Mobilization Mission Planning Component. 

Figure 2-1 illustrates the 1993 land use plan. 

Fort Belvoir created its current master plan in 1993 to reflect the post’s transition from primarily 

a troop support and training mission to that of an administrative center providing support to 

multiple organizations within the NCR. Specifically, the U.S. Army Engineer School moved to 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, in 1988, and BRAC directives realigned the Belvoir Research and 

Development Engineering Center (BRDEC). BRAC directives also resulted in relocating 

administrative functions to Fort Belvoir. 

The 1993 long-range component identified Fort Belvoir’s role as the “major administrative and 

logistics center for the Northern Virginia portion” of the Military District of Washington (MDW). 

As such, and recognizing that Fort Belvoir would continue to attract military tenants, the plan 

attempted to determine total build out (TBO—defined as the total daily employment when all land 

uses have been fully developed under the constraints and limitations of the plan). The plan 

recognized that TBO might never be reached and that “Progress toward TBO is mission-driven 

but infrastructure-constrained.” The plan articulated goals, objectives, and assumptions that 

focused on the amount and type of development anticipated and attempted to limit impacts on the 

natural and man-made environments. The EPG was not included in the 1993 plan. 

The 1993 land use plan shown in Figure 2-1 identified 3,287 acres on Main Post as developable. 

The TBO that could be supported was estimated to be 74,230 people housed in 30.5 million 

square feet of space. By comparison, in 2005 about 24,000 personnel work at Fort Belvoir daily; 

they are housed in about 10.8 million square feet of space. 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-4 

The 1993 Real Property Master Plan was revised in 2002 upon the adoption of a Regional 

Community Support Center Subarea Development Plan. The plan revision addressed a desire to 

locate additional related activities in the portion of the Lower North Post area designated in 1993 

as the Regional Community Support Center. In particular, the 2002 Subarea Plan recommended 

that DeWitt Hospital (now on South Post) be relocated to the Regional Community Support 

Center area, that the post exchange (PX) be expanded, and a chapel be developed. The 

amendment also decreased the amount of land classified for community facilities, designated land 

for medical use, and increased the amount of land classified as environmentally sensitive. 

2.1.2 Proposed Land Use Plan Revision 

The proposed land use plan is shown in Figure 2-2. It differs from the 1993 land use plan in 

several important respects in that it: 

• Includes the EPG in planning for future development. 

• Uses fewer—but broader—land use designations that encompass compatible land uses. 

For example, the 1993 land use plan provided for Administration and Education and 

Research and Development categories; these are now included in the category of 

Professional/Institutional. These new categories allow for more flexible groupings of 

compatible types of facilities. 

• Identifies additional areas for present and future Professional/Institutional and Residential 

uses. 

• Relocates the Troop area from North Post to South Post. 

• Changes land use designations for a number of areas on the basis of revised assessment 

of their suitability for particular uses, projection of future needs, and the desire to make 

land uses broader and more encompassing. 

Table 2-1 provides a comparison of the land use areas in the 1993 master plan, as amended in 

2002, to those proposed in the long-range component of the RPMP revision. 

The difference between the total number of acres for the 1993 land use plan as amended in 2002 

(7,687) and the total for the proposed land use plan (8,508) is the result of including the EPG and 

several land areas being added or recognized as belonging to Fort Belvoir since 1993. These 

include 4 acres of islands in Accotink Bay and Gunston Cove; 16 acres west of Colchester Road 

that became part of Fort Belvoir following realignment of Colchester Road; a net increase of 16 

acres resulting from the swap of the McNaughton ballfields; and an area of Humphreys 

Engineering Center (HEC) west of the proposed Connector Road shown as Residential and 

designated for potential acquisition on the proposed land use plan. 

The proposed land use plan aggregates land uses into larger, more flexible areas than did the 1993 

plan (compare Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). Reflecting the evolution in Fort Belvoir’s mission, the 

land use categories gaining land are those that support its regional mission as an administrative, 

logistics, and operations center; military support center; classroom center; housing center; 

military community support center; and a leader in environmental stewardship. The Airfield land 

use gained land because it consumed areas formerly designated as Environmentally Sensitive 

around the airfield. Land use categories losing land—particularly Training Range and Supply, 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-6 

Table 2-1 

Comparison of 1993 and 2011 Land Use Allocations 

1993 master plan Proposed land use plan 

Land use Acres Land use Acresa

Administration & Education 724 Airfield 697 

Airfield 391 Community 2,950 

Community Facilities 452 Industrial 213 

Family Housing 576 Professional/Institutional 2,132 

Industrial 126 Residential 1,116 

Medical 97 Training 1,287 

Outdoor Recreation 1,006 Troop 101 

Research & Development 340 

Supply, Storage, & Maintenance 378 

Training Range 462 

Troop Housing 72 

Environmentally Sensitive 3,063 

Total 7,687 8,508 

a

 All proposed land use designation acreages were calculated in GIS, and the totals may differ from the official acreages 

for the installation. 

Storage & Maintenance—reflect Fort Belvoir’s earlier missions that require fewer resources and 

less land today. 

Principal features and elements of the proposed land use plan include the following: 

• Professional/Institutional. The Administration & Education and Research & 

Development land use categories used in the 1993 land use plan would change to 

Professional/Institutional. The proposed land use plan increases the amount of land 

designated for Professional/Institutional use. A substantial part of the increase is due to 

the inclusion of EPG as well as medical facilities in the Professional/ Institutional 

category. 

• Residential. The proposed land use plan would increase the land area dedicated to family 

housing on both the North and South Posts. Fort Belvoir Residential Communities, the 

program through which family housing has been privatized, is in the process of building 

and rehabilitating 2,070 family housing units. A portion of the land designated for 

Residential would be reserved for future development related to long-term growth on the 

installation. 

• Open Space. Much of the area designated as Environmentally Sensitive in the 1993 land 

use plan would be redesignated as Community. This category includes safety clearances, 

security areas, water areas, wetlands, conservation areas, resource protection areas 

(RPAs), forest stands, and former training areas. These lands could be used for 

recreation, conservation, outdoor training, and general uses not involving the construction 

of facilities. Environmentally constrained land areas would continue to have all 

regulatory protections in place. 

• McNaughton Ballfields Land Swap. The three McNaughton ballfields along Pole Road on 

the southern border of Woodlawn Village are pending exchange for the Berman Tract

immediately east of Woodlawn Village, which will result in a net increase of 16 acres for 

Fort Belvoir. This area would be designated as Community land use. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-7 

• South Post Golf Course. The proposed land use plan would change the land use 

designation of most of the South Post golf course from Outdoor Recreation to 

Professional/Institutional. 

• Supply, Storage, and Maintenance Facilities. The proposed land use plan would enable 

demolition of outdated and inefficient warehouses; relocation of most of the Supply, 

Storage, and Maintenance Operations in the 1400 Area to the 700/1100 Areas; and 

redevelopment of the eastern portion of the 1400 Area east of Gunston Road for 

Professional/Institutional uses. 

• Unaccompanied Personnel Housing. The proposed land use plan would change the land 

use designation from Troop Housing to Troop and convert North Post areas designated 

for Troop uses to Professional/Institutional. A new Troop land use area would be 

provided on South Post, west of Gunston Road. 

• DeWitt Army Community Hospital. In the 2002 master plan amendment, Fort Belvoir 

planned to site a new DeWitt Army Community Hospital on a parcel of land south of 

Kingman Road on North Post. The proposed land use plan now enables the new hospital 

to be sited on the South Post Golf Course in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of 

Route 1 and Belvoir Road. The present DeWitt hospital site would be designated for 

Community use. 

In the revised land use plan, a new Troop Area would be established on South Post on 

approximately 75 acres west of Gunston Road in the western portion of the 1400 Area. Industrial 

uses in that area would relocate to other designated Industrial sites on post. The present Troop 

Area in the 2100 Area and consisting of approximately 50 acres generally bounded by Gunston, 

Abbot, Beauregard, and Goethals Roads on North Post, would become available for 

Professional/Institutional uses upon relocation of Soldier billeting and activities to the new Troop 

Area. Notwithstanding the proposed changes in land use classifications of these two areas, 

current land uses would continue until such time as the Army constructs and occupies necessary 

troop facilities at the new location on South Post. 

In several cases the change in land use designations from the 1993 plan would allow Fort Belvoir 

to prepare for potential changes to its mission in the future even though, except to accommodate 

BRAC realignment actions, no specific uses for the sites are currently under consideration. For 

example, this is the case with the area that would be designated for Community at the site now 

occupied by Woodlawn Village. 

The proposed land use plan has been structured so that only the best development sites are 

identified for growth. The best sites are those that have the fewest environmental, operational, 

cultural resource, and constructability constraints. 

Force Protection Standards. The proposed land use plan has been developed to achieve 

compliance with force protection requirements for military facilities as set forth in DoD Unified 

Facilities Criteria 4-010-01, Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings (2003). The effect of the 

standards on the master plan is to require that buffer zones around buildings and roads be 

reserved as force protection standoff areas. The buffer zones affect the amount of land needed for 

any one facility as well as dictate its relationship to other facilities. Future military construction 

projects will be required to adhere to force protection setbacks. Buildings already built are 

exempt; however, it is strongly recommended that these requirements be implemented to the 

fullest extent possible. Any major investment requiring renovations or modifications where costs 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-8 

exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the building require the entire building to be in 

compliance with the standards.

Buildings that are affected by the standoff requirements include those routinely occupied by 50 or 

more personnel (designated as a primary gathering structure) or buildings inhabited by 11 or more 

personnel and with a population density of greater than one person per 430 gross square feet 

(GSF). The standoff buffer for inhabited structures is 33 feet minimum; for primary gathering 

structures, it is 82 feet minimum, and some facilities require much greater distances than the 

minimum. Standoff distances from uncontrolled roads (such as U.S. Route 1) are to be 148 feet 

minimum, and for controlled roads, 82 feet minimum. 

The standards recommend that a vulnerability assessment be conducted for existing buildings and 

that changes be made as necessary to improve building security. These changes can take varying 

form, from procedures and planning to physical changes to the buildings, such as replacing glass 

windows with reinforced glass in key areas. 

2.2 BASE REALIGNMENT 

2.2.1 Introduction 

In July 2006 the U.S. Army considered three conceptual development strategies to address the 

question of where facilities could be sited to accommodate an increase of 22,000 additional 

personnel being assigned to Fort Belvoir from their existing locations in the NCR. That review 

process resulted in identifying a preferred land use strategy that reflected the best aspects of each 

of the three conceptual development strategies. The preferred land use strategy was then used as 

the basis for the proposed amendment to Fort Belvoir’s land use plan. 

BRAC realignment would result in a net increase of approximately 22,000 personnel at Fort 

Belvoir. The increase in personnel and facilities requires an updated land use plan. Siting of new 

facilities for the base realignment action would then comport with the updated land use plan. The 

land use planning, facilities construction, and personnel assignment functions are closely 

interrelated. 

Most BRAC realignment actions for the U.S. Army conform to existing, sufficient master plans 

that are flexible and recognize future needs. BRAC realignment at Fort Belvoir involves two 

important considerations. First, the post’s current master plan does not encompass the EPG 

because of past intentions to dispose of that 800-acre area for other development. The EPG must 

be incorporated into a new master plan. Second, the proposed increase of 22,000 personnel 

represents the largest relocation of personnel in the BRAC 2005 round. Approximately 7 million 

square feet of new and renovated facilities and approximately 7 million square feet of parking 

must be ready for use before September 15, 2011. 

The following are the specific federal actions under this provision that are associated with the 

proposed realignment of Fort Belvoir. 

• Realign the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), with various U.S. Army 

entities moving from leased space in the NCR (Army Lease) to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

• Realign the Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), consisting of WHS and 

elements of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and defense agencies to Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-9 

• Realign U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

• Realign Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS) to 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

• Realign Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center (MDA HQCC) to 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating U.S. Army Prime Power School to Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating and consolidating Sensors, Electronics, 

and Electronic Warfare Research, Development and Acquisition activities to Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, Maryland. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 

Command (CID) to Marine Corp Base Quantico, Virginia. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating Soldier magazine to Fort Meade, 

Maryland. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) 

and the Security Assistance Command (USASAC, an AMC major subordinate command) 

to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating the Chemical Biological Defense Research 

component of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to Edgewood Chemical Biological 

Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating the U.S. Army Research Office to the 

National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. Realign the Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency Telegraph Road facility, Alexandria, Virginia, by relocating the 

Extramural Research Program Management function (except conventional armaments 

and chemical biological defense research) to the National Naval Medical Center, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

National Command Region conventional armament research to Eglin Air Force Base, 

Florida. 

Accommodation of personnel being realigned must take into account the needs of six major 

groups slated for realignment by the BRAC Commission: Washington Headquarters Services 

(WHS), consisting of WHS and elements of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and defense 

agencies; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); various U.S. Army entities moving 

from leased space in the NCR (Army Lease); U.S. Army Medical Command (MedCom); Program 

Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS); and Missile Defense Agency 

Headquarters Command Center (MDA HQCC). The numbers of personnel associated with each 

of these groups are shown in Table 2-2. Details of the BRAC Commission’s recommendation 

can be found at http://www.brac.gov. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-10 

Table 2-2 

Personnel Realigning to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Staff Contractors Total 

Washington Headquarters Services 7,759 1,504 9,263 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 4,400 4,100 8,500 

Army Lease 2,720 0 2,720 

U.S. Medical Command 2,069 0 2,069 

Program Executive Office, Enterprise Info Systems 480 0 480 

Missile Defense Agency (HQ Command Center) 137 155 292 

Total 17,565 5,759 23,324 

Note: Personnel being realigned from Fort Belvoir to other installations result in a net increase at Fort Belvoir of 

approximately 22,000 personnel. Realignments from Fort Belvoir include the relocation of Army Materiel Command 

Headquarters and U.S. Army Security Assistance Command to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; Prime Power School to Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri; U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division Headquarters to Marine Corps Base, Quantico, 

Virginia; Soldiers magazine to Fort Meade, Maryland; Biomedical Science and Technology programs of the Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Defense Threat Reduction Agency conventional 

armaments research to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; and Information Systems, Research, Development and Acquisition 

to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Evaluation of environmental impacts associated with these realignments will be 

performed by the receiving locations. 

2.2.2 Allocation of Facilities and Personnel 

The July 2006 preferred land use strategy translates to an amended siting plan. Accommodations 

of BRAC requirements would involve the following siting of facilities: 

• NGA and WHS would be on the eastern portion of EPG. 

• Army lease units, agencies, and activities would be on South Post at sites on Gunston 

Road and Belvoir Road. 

• The Dewitt Army Community Hospital would be on the South Post Golf Course. 

• PEO EIS and MDA HQCC would be on South Post at sites on Gunston Road and Belvoir 

Road. 

2.2.3 Construction and Renovation 

Construction and renovation of facilities to support additional personnel at Fort Belvoir would 

result in more than 7 million square feet of additional built space and about 7 million square feet 

of parking structures. 

Fort Belvoir would require essentially two types of construction projects. First, Fort Belvoir must 

construct or renovate facilities to create working space or other types of special use space for the 

proposed additional workforce. Second, Fort Belvoir must expand its general support capabilities 

to meet the needs of a larger on-post population. Table 2-3 identifies these projects, and Figure 

2-3 shows where they would be sited under the preferred alternative. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-11 

Table 2-3 

Proposed Construction and Renovation Projects 

Map 

number 

Project 

number Project title Fiscal year 

Building 

size (ft2

) 

Estimated 

impervious 

acreage 

1 65416 NGA Administrative Facility 2007–2011 2,419,000 20.3 

2 64234 WHS Administrative Facility 2008–2010 2,219,000 22.8 

3 MDA 580 MDA Facility 2008–2009 107,000 1.3 

4 64238 Hospital 2008 868,800 7.5 

4 65676 Hospital 2009 - - 

4 65677 Hospital 2010 - - 

5 64241 Dental Clinic 2010–2011 16,000 0.2 

6 65871 NARMCa Headquarters Building 2009 50,000 1.0 

7 n/a Corps of Engineers Project Integration Offices 2008 58,600 n/a 

8 64097 Infrastructure 2008 n/a n/a 

8 67487 Infrastructure 2009 n/a n/a 

8 67959 Infrastructure 2010 25,000 0.6 

9 64076 Emergency Services Center (EPG) 2008 14,700 3.4 

10 65448 Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS) 2010 21,525 0.3 

11 65447 USANCAb Support Facility 2008 20,000 n/a 

12 55661 Child Development Center (NGA) 2011 19,590 0.5 

13 55662 Child Development Center 2011 24,036 0.6 

14 65450 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 214, 215, 220) 2011 133,000 0.0 

15 63571 Access Road/Control Point 2009 280 8.2 

16 66228 AMCc Relocatables 2007 230,000 0.0 

17 65592/67231 PEO EIS Administrative Facility 2008 290,000 2.2 

17 67231 PEO EIS Administrative Facility 2008 157,400 1.2 

18 54347 Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area 2011 n/a 1.0 

19 62892 Modernize Barracks 2011 171,000 n/a 

20 54898 MWRd Family Travel Camp 2007–2010 1658 1.5 

Notes: Project number is the construction project number assigned by the Army. Estimated impervious footprint acreage column was 

calculated based on the estimated number of building floors and adjacent parking spaces for each project. Parking garages were assumed for 

the larger projects. 

a

North Atlantic Regional Medical Center 

b

U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency 

c

Army Materiel Command 

d

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-13 

The following paragraphs provide details on facility construction and renovation projects listed in 

Table 2-3 that are proposed to occur through fiscal year 2011. 

• NGA Administrative Facility (Project number 65416, FY 2007-2011, Map number [MN] 

1 in Figure 2-6). This project would provide a 2,419,000-square-foot Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) for use by the NGA. This project is required 

to implement the BRAC 2005 recommendation to consolidate NGA intelligence and 

training operations; provide a secure facility to enhance command and control; promote 

acquisition, assimilation, and analysis of real-time intelligence; and enhance 

organizational productivity and intra-agency connectivity and operability. NGA elements 

are currently housed in numerous government-owned and leased facilities in and around 

the NCR. Their physical separation negatively affects their intelligence mission. There 

are no existing facilities at Fort Belvoir sufficient to support consolidation of all NGA 

intelligence operations, administrative functions, and training programs. 

• WHS Administrative Facility (64234, FY 2008–2010, MN 2). This project would provide 

2,219,000 square feet of secure administrative space for various units, agencies, and 

activities relocating to Fort Belvoir from leased facilities in the NCR. The project would 

include uninterruptible power supply and standby power generation. It would provide 

facilities on a secure installation, thereby improving force protection. This project would 

consolidate a number of similar activities with a resultant improvement in coordination, 

information exchange, and productivity. Various DoD offices are in leased facilities, 

primarily in Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia. Most of these facilities do not meet 

minimal DoD antiterrorism/force protection (AT/FP) construction standards for setbacks, 

progressive collapse, laminated windows, and so on. The facilities are dispersed 

throughout the NCR, negatively affecting direct coordination. 

• MDA Facility (MDA 580, FY 2008–2009, MN 3). This project would provide a 107,000 

square-foot administrative facility to serve as the MDA Headquarters Command Center 

for approximately 292 personnel. The project would consist of a multistory reinforced 

concrete or structural steel building on concrete footings. Functional areas that would be 

provided include administrative space, command suite, security operations center, 

sensitive compartmentalized information facilities, special access areas, and meeting 

rooms. AT/FP measures would include building standoff distances, structural preventive 

collapse, laminated glass, lighting, bollards, and control gates. 

• Hospital (64238, 65676, and 65677, FY 2008–2010, MN 4). This project would provide a 

new hospital. Primary facilities would include the hospital (868,800 square feet), special 

foundations, central energy plant, helipad, ambulance shelter (2,200 square feet), vehicle 

parking garage, and building information systems. This project is required to provide a 

hospital to support BRAC 2005 restationing actions within the NCR affecting Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in Washington, D.C.; National Naval Medical 

Center (NNMC) at Bethesda; Malcolm Grow Medical Center (MGMC) at Andrews Air 

Force Base; and Dewitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir. This project is 

required for integrating WRAMC and NNMC and for establishing the new Walter Reed 

National Military Medical Center at Bethesda and a large Army community hospital at 

Fort Belvoir. The NCR medical service market supports care for more than 439,000 

beneficiaries. A robust Army community hospital is required to support the relocation of 

nontertiary patient care functions consequent to the BRAC 2005 restationing actions, 

which include the closure of WRAMC and closure of inpatient care at MGMC. The 

restationing actions result in a growth of the NCR South Submarket (supported by a new 

Army community hospital) of more than 76,000 eligible beneficiaries to a total of 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-14 

220,803 beneficiaries; a tripling of inpatient workload to more than 9,500 annual 

admissions; and a doubling of outpatient care, most of which is specialty care. The 

existing DeWitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir was constructed in 1957 as a 

250-bed inpatient facility and still has the original heating, ventilating, and air 

conditioning system; plumbing system; medical gas system; and electrical distribution 

system. The building structure remains intact and usable, but the facility and its major 

utility systems fall far short of meeting the requirements of a modern medical treatment 

facility. Outpatient care must be performed in areas designed for inpatient care, resulting 

in personnel and space inefficiency and patient inconvenience. There are asbestoscontaining materials in the existing pipe insulation, floor tile, and mastic at various 

locations, which significantly delays and escalates the cost of projects to upgrade and 

improve the facility.

• Dental Clinic (64241, FY 2010-2011, MN 5). This project would provide renovation of, 

and construction to add to, Building 1099 for a 16,000-square-foot dental clinic. The 

project is required to provide a quality dental clinic to support BRAC 2005 restationing 

actions of assigned troops working and living on or near Fort Belvoir. The existing 

facility, Building 1099, is not large enough to provide 40 dental treatment rooms, the 

necessary number to serve the larger population at Fort Belvoir. There is no available 

capacity elsewhere to support the increase in dental workload generated by the projected 

increase at Fort Belvoir of 4,200 active duty Soldiers as directed by the BRAC 2005 

restationing actions. 

• NARMC HQ Building (65871, FY 2009, MN 6). This project would construct a 50,000-

square-foot general administration building for the North Atlantic Regional Medical 

Command (NARMC), as well as other Office of the Secretary of Defense Supporting 

Units and regional support offices, such as the North Atlantic Regional Dental Command, 

North Atlantic Regional Veterinary Command, and the North Atlantic Regional 

Contracting Office. The project is required to provide administrative and operational 

space for activities to be relocated to Fort Belvoir in accordance with the 

recommendations of BRAC 2005. Related medical administrative activities are currently 

located at the WRAMC, Washington, D.C. Currently, there is no adequate, permanent 

administrative space available at Fort Belvoir to accommodate proposed relocations of 

medical activities. This project would accommodate such activities by constructing a 

new, permanent multi-story administrative facility at Fort Belvoir within the proposed 

hospital campus. 

• Corps of Engineers Project Integration Offices (Temporary) (FY 2007, MN 7). This 

project would place temporary facilities for personnel of the Baltimore District Corps of 

Engineers Integration Office, which would provide integration of BRAC construction 

management for facilities being developed to accommodate realigned units, agencies, and 

activities. There would be approximately 22,500 square feet of temporary facilities 

(relocatable buildings) on EPG, north of Cissna Road and northwest of Building 5073. 

There would be another 36,100 square feet of temporary facilities on the northwest 

portion of the South Post golf course. These facilities would be in use for the duration of 

facilities construction in support of BRAC requirements. 

• Infrastructure (64097, 67487, and 67959, FY 2008–2010, MN 8). These three projects 

would provide a 25,000-square-foot communications center, access control facilities, one 

10,000-square-foot heating plant building, one 10,000-square foot refrigeration and air 

conditioning unit, and water, sewer, and electrical services for the EPG. The projects 

include demolishing 57,000 square feet of existing space. They are required to provide 

necessary infrastructure for units, agencies, and activities relocating to EPG and to 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-15 

maintain adequate levels of infrastructure support at Main Post. Current infrastructure at 

EPG is minimal. There is no access control, and heating and air conditioning is provided 

through self-contained systems adequate to support only past or current use requirements. 

Communications are virtually nonexistent. The road network consists of a two-lane road 

in poor condition. The Bailey Bridge over Accotink Creek is structurally compromised 

and is closed to vehicular traffic. The projects would provide replacement of the present 

bridge over Accotink Creek, as well as an additional bridge over Accotink and 

replacement of the bridge over Dogue Creek (South Post). Water, sanitary sewer, and 

electrical support are sized to the one occupied building. The perimeter fencing is in such 

poor condition that it affords little impediment to unauthorized access. Table 2-4 

identifies the principal elements of infrastructure included in these projects, as well as 

infrastructure that would be constructed or installed in support of Main Post 

requirements. 

• Emergency Services Center (64076, FY 2008, MN 9). This project would provide 14,700 

square feet of space and 15,000 square yards of maintenance apron for emergency 

services functions at EPG. The project is required to provide military police, Enhanced 

911, hazardous materials response, and fire prevention and protection services at EPG in 

support of the facilities proposed to be constructed to implement BRAC 2005. The 

project would provide a combined police and fire station to provide traffic control and 

law enforcement in support of the agencies and activities on EPG and to provide rapid 

response to structural fires and medical emergencies. Currently, there is no police or fire 

station at EPG. There are three fire stations at Fort Belvoir—Building 191 constructed in 

1934 and in poor condition, Building 2119 constructed in 1993, and Building 3242 

constructed in 2003 at Davison Army Airfield. The military police station, Building 

2124, was constructed in 2002. Because of their physical separation, none of these 

facilities is adequate to support EPG with emergency services. The fire stations are too 

far away to meet minimum response times. The police station is capable of supporting 

EPG with patrols but is too distant to effectively deliver any other law enforcement 

services. 

• Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS) (65448, FY 2010, MN 10). This project 

would provide a 6,525-square-foot operations center, a 10,000-square-foot storage area, 

and a 14,000-square-yard satellite yard. The project is required to provide satellite test 

facilities in support of the BRAC 2005 recommendation to station Project Manager 

Defense Communications and Army Transmission Systems (PM DCATS) at Fort 

Belvoir. There are no facilities at Fort Belvoir to support satellite testing and stationing of 

PM DCATS. 

• USANCA Support Facility (65447, FY 2008, MN 11). This project, which would 

approximately 20,000 square feet of renovated spaced in Building 238 required to 

support additional U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency (USANCA) personnel as 

part of BRAC 2005. The project would provide replacement facilities for the USANCA 

facilities on EPG, thereby allowing construction of multimillion-square-foot campuses 

for units, agencies, and activities relocating to EPG. USANCA is the unit charged with 

providing the Army’s core critical nuclear and chemical expertise. Primary USANCA 

missions include enhanced force survivability in nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) 

environments; communication of the impact of nuclear and other weapons of mass 

destruction on military operations; enhanced interoperability of forces in NBC 

environments; planning Army employment of and assessing vulnerability to nuclear 

weapons; safe and secure storage and demilitarization of the DoD chemical weapons 

stockpile; and safe and secure operation and maintenance of Army nuclear reactors, 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-16 

active or deactivated. USANCA now occupies Building 5073, a 13,618-square-foot 

facility constructed in 1954 at the EPG. Building 5073 is in the center of the most 

developable portion of EPG. Its location and associated access and force-protection 

issues significantly reduce possible development in support of BRAC 2005. 

• Child Development Center (NGA) (55661, FY 2011, MN 12). This project would provide 

a child development center with 19,590 square feet of space and a 24,430 square-foot 

outdoor area for 244 children. The project is required to provide a safe, healthy, and 

affordable developmental environment for dependent children of eligible personnel 

assigned to EPG. This project would improve morale and performance by providing 

affordable, on-site developmental services, thereby improving employees’ peace of mind 

and reducing the time of daily commutes. There are currently three child development 

centers at Fort Belvoir. They are in Buildings 1028, 1745, and 2468, which were 

constructed in 1988, 1992, and 1997, respectively. Though in relatively good condition, 

the facilities are at or near capacity, with waiting lists for some categories of services. 

• Child Development Center (55662, FY 2011, MN 13). This project would provide a child 

development center with 24,000 square feet of space and a 40,300-square-foot outdoor 

area for 303 children. See the description for the similar project MN 12 above. 

• Administrative Facility (Buildings 211, 214, 215, and 220) (65450, FY 2011, MN 14). 

This project is required to implement BRAC 2005 by modernizing existing facilities to 

provide 133,000 square feet of general and secure administrative space and structured 

parking for various units, agencies, and activities relocating to Fort Belvoir from leased 

facilities in the NCR. This project would provide facilities on a secure installation, 

thereby improving force protection. It would consolidate a number of similar activities, 

improving coordination, information exchange, and productivity. Currently, the 

following are in leased facilities, primarily in Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia: 

administrative assistants to the Secretary of the Army (SA); Office of the Assistant SA 

Financial Management and Comptroller; Office of the Chief of Chaplains; 

Communication and Electronics Command; Defense Finance and Accounting Service; 

Defense Human Resource Activities; Defense Technology Security Administration; 

Department of Defense Education Activity; Deputy Under SA—Operations Research; 

DoD Inspector General; MDA HQCC; Office of the Secretary of Defense; PM 

Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology Enterprise Systems and Services; Senior 

Executive Public Affairs Training; U.S. Army Audit Agency; U.S. Army Environmental 

Policy Institute; U.S. Army G1/Army Research Institute; U.S. Army G1/Civilian 

Personnel Office; U.S. Army G3/Army Simulation; U.S. Army G6; U.S. Army G8/Force 

Development; U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command; U.S. Army Office 

of Environmental Technology; U.S. Army Office of the Chief of Army Reserve; U.S. 

Army Safety Office; U.S. G1/Personnel Transformation; and U.S. Army Legal Services 

Agency. The majority of these facilities do not meet minimal DoD AT/FP construction 

standards for setbacks, progressive collapse, laminated windows and the like. The 

facilities are dispersed throughout the NCR, negatively affecting direct coordination. 

• Access Road/Control Point (63571, FY 2009, MN 15). This project would construct an 

access control point (ACP) with vehicle inspection station; access control building (280 

square feet); booth, and canopy, vehicle turnarounds; security lighting; backup generator; 

two-lane access road (306,000 square feet) with sidewalks/bike path; street lighting; 

drainage; traffic signal; and Richmond Highway (U.S. Route 1) left and right turns. The 

ACP, directly across Richmond Highway from Pence Gate, is required to provide safe 

force protection-compliant controlled access from Richmond Highway onto Fort Belvoir 

North Post. It would provide an ACP meeting DoD AT/FP construction standards with 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-17 

sufficient marshalling area and an adequate vehicle inspection station. This project is 

required to provide a second access onto North Post reducing congestion on Gunston 

Road and providing alternate access during periods of force protection conditions Charlie 

and Delta. The only access point from U.S. Route 1 onto North Post is Woodlawn Gate 

(Route 618). Woodlawn Gate is currently closed. The existing ACP is inadequate. 

Constructed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, the ACP meets minimal DoD 

criteria for an ACP; however, the staging area is inadequate, the vehicle inspection 

station is temporary, the guard post is not hardened, and there is no overhead cover. The 

configuration of the ACP places the guard force at risk of being hit by vehicles while 

performing their force protection duties. If this project is not provided, the level of 

service on U.S. Route 1 would be such that there would be a breakdown in traffic flow 

resulting in extreme congestion during peak periods. AT/FP would not be provided in 

accordance with DoD standards. Traffic flow would be degraded, control and inspection 

of vehicles and personnel entering the installation would be inadequate, and military and 

contract law enforcement personnel would continue to be at risk from inadequate 

separation from vehicles and inadequate protective facilities. 

• AMC Relocatables (66228, FY 2007, MN 16). This project would purchase the facilities 

at Fort Belvoir that were leased to house the headquarters function of the U.S. Army 

Materiel Command (AMC). The facilities consist of two modular, two-story office 

buildings having a total of 230,000 square feet of space. The buildings include open and 

closed office space, along with special-purpose areas like an Emergency Operations 

Center (EOC), SCIF, auditorium, secure and nonsecure conference rooms, video 

teleconference center, technical library, data process center, and office support space. The 

facilities, located along Gunston Road, will be vacated upon the tenant’s relocation to 

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, as required by BRAC 2005. Several Fort Belvoir tenants 

occupy buildings that do not meet minimum requirements. Inadequate office space 

negatively affects individual job performance, as does lack of special use space such as 

training and conference rooms, on-site storage, video conferencing, and so on. In 

addition, one-tenth of the general-purpose administrative space inventory is inadequate 

and exacerbates space deficit impacts. Fort Belvoir anticipates that its working population 

increase will place a further strain on the capacity of the general-purpose administrative 

space inventory. The two two-story, contractor-owned buildings are available for 

purchase. 

• PEO EIS Administrative Facility (65592 and 67231, FY 2007, MN 17). Project Number 

65592 would provide 290,000 square feet of general administrative space and a parking 

garage, and Project Number 67321 would provide an additional 157,400 square feet of 

secure administrative space. The projects are required to accommodate elements of PEO 

EIS relocating to Fort Belvoir as a consequence of BRAC 2005 and to consolidate 

operations to enhance operational efficiencies and to reduce total square footage 

requirements. Approximately 370 personnel assigned to PEO EIS are at the post in 

Building 1445 (a converted barracks and dining facility constructed in 1969) and 

Buildings 322 and 323 (World War II facilities originally constructed as vehicle 

maintenance shops). Another 454 personnel are at Fort Monmouth, and 802 personnel 

are in leased space in the NCR. Overall mission performance is degraded by the physical 

separation of activities, and the lack of adequate space negatively affects mission 

readiness. 

• Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (54347, FY 2011, MN 18). This project would 

construct a parking structure with a capacity of 400 parking spaces in the 200 Area of 

Fort Belvoir. The structure would be constructed of reinforced concrete with structural 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-18 

steel framing, and it would have parking decks and a sloped interior ramp system. Fort 

Belvoir is required to provide parking for both its military personnel and civilian 

workforce. Based on 60 percent of the working population in this area, 1,730 parking 

spaces are required to accommodate vehicle parking. The 200 Area is extensively used 

by Defense Systems Management College and numerous administrative activities. 

Parking in this area is extremely inadequate. All land suitable for parking is being used, 

and there is no room for expansion. The only means of accommodating the shortfall of 

parking spaces is to construct a parking structure on the existing area. If the project is not 

provided, the lack of adequate parking will continue to adversely affect the morale and 

efficiency of personnel who work or conduct business the 200 Area. 

• Modernize Barracks (62892, FY 2011, MN 19). This project would provide renovations 

to 171,000 square feet of space in six barracks buildings in the McRee Barracks 

Complex. Renovation work would extend to living modules, hallways, stairwells, 

utilities, fire alarms and suppression systems, and building information systems. The 

existing barracks do not meet current standards for privacy, space, or amenities. The 

barracks are severely deteriorated. Inadequate heating, air conditioning, and ventilation 

systems contribute to mold growth and unhealthy living conditions. 

• MWR Family Travel Camp (54898, FY 2007–2010, MN 20). This project would provide 

a Family Travel Camp with 52 recreational vehicle (RV) campsites, a camp support 

facility, 15 cabins, and 12 tent sites in four phases, each of which would be usable upon 

completion. The camp support facility would include a laundry section, camper’s lounge 

space, restrooms and showers, and vending machine space. The project would also 

include relocating the existing Johnson Road to provide better camp circulation and 

space, landscaping, site lighting, sewage lift stations, and utility upgrades. Provisions for 

persons with disabilities would be provided. This project is required to provide adequate 

outdoor camping opportunities for the Belvoir/NCR customers. The project would 

provide for the high demand for RV camp sites, and for those looking for cabin camping 

opportunities. This project would enhance the morale and quality of life of Soldiers, 

family members, retirees, and DoD civilians. Currently, there are no family travel 

campgrounds on-post for customers assigned to or supported by Fort Belvoir, or for those 

visiting the area. Customers are forced to seek service from commercially operated 

facilities that are overcrowded in the peak travel times, have higher cost, and are an 

average of 45 minutes from Washington, D.C. 

2.2.2.4 Schedule 

Implementation of the various aspects of the proposed actions would occur until approximately 

the end of fiscal year 2011. Actions with respect to the land use plan revision would begin upon 

issuance of the EIS ROD and continue until further revision of the master plan. Construction and 

renovation of facilities in support of base realignment and other requirements of Fort Belvoir 

would begin in fiscal year 2007 and continue through fiscal year 2011. 

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED 

CONSIDERATION 

In June and July 2006, the Army considered three conceptual development strategies for 

accommodating the increase in units, agencies, and activities associated with base realignment at 

Fort Belvoir. The strategies, named in a manner suggesting the principal concept of each, were 

identified as Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campuses. Each strategy had two 

alternative plans for allocating land to specific functions (e.g., NGA, Army Lease) being 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-19 

realigned to Fort Belvoir; thus, the Army considered six different ways to meet base realignment 

requirements. 

The following sections present alternatives related to each of the strategies. Also presented is the 

preferred alternative which emerged as a hybrid of the three conceptual development strategies. 

2.3.1 Town Center 

Under the Town Center alternative, the majority of new facilities to accommodate base 

realignment would be sited between J.J. Kingman Road on North Post and 12th Street on South 

Post. Developed areas bounded by 16th and 21st Streets and Gunston Road and Belvoir Road 

would be available for future redevelopment. The EPG, Davison Army Airfield, and the North 

Post golf course would remain available for future growth after 2011. Figure 2-4 shows the 

Town Center alternative. For land use planning, several land parcels affected by the Town Center 

strategy would be redesignated for Professional/Institutional or Community uses. 

Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative would result in the following major 

sitings: 

• NGA and associated parking structures would be sited in the area bounded by Route 1, 

Belvoir Road, 9th Street, and Gunston Road. This would be facilitated by changing the 

South Post golf course land use designation from Community to 

Professional/Institutional. 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-21 

• WHS and associated parking structures would be sited in the area bounded by Route 1, 

Belvoir Road, 9th Street, and Gunston Road and in the adjacent area north of Route 1 that 

is bounded by Constitution Drive, Route 1, and Gunston, Abbot, and Beauregard Roads. 

This would be facilitated by changing the South Post golf course land use designation 

from Community to Professional/Institutional and by changing the land use designations 

north of Route 1 from Community and Troop to Professional/Institution. 

• Army Lease and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the 

southern half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbott, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman 

Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from 

Community to Professional/Institutional. Army Lease would also be located in the 200 

area, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Belvoir Road and 21st Street. 

• Medical Command and MDA and associated parking structures would be sited in the area 

that is bounded by Constitution Drive, Route 1, and Gunston, Abbot, and Beauregard 

Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the land use designations north of Route 1 

from Community and Troop to Professional/Institution. 

• PEO EIS and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the southern 

half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbott, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman Roads. This 

would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from Community to 

Professional/Institutional. 

Since EPG would not be developed in order to accomplish BRAC realignment actions, the 

proposed emergency services center project and much of the infrastructure project would not be 

required and would not proceed at EPG. Under this alternative, areas of EPG west of Accotink 

Creek would be designated for Community use, and areas east of the creek would be designated 

for Professional/Institutional use to support future development. 

2.3.2 City Center 

Under the City Center alternative, all new facilities to accommodate base realignment would be 

sited on EPG and a nearby 65-acre parcel currently occupied by the General Services 

Administration (GSA). North and South Posts at Fort Belvoir would remain available for future 

growth after 2011. Figure 2-5 shows the City Center alternative. For land use planning, parcels 

affected by the City Center alternative would be redesignated for Professional/Institutional use. 

Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative would result in the following major 

sitings: 

• NGA, Army Lease, Medical Command, PEO EIS, and MDA and associated parking 

structures would be sited at EPG. 

• Portions of Army Lease would be sited in existing facilities along the east side of 

Gunston Road between Route 1 and 9th Street, and in the northwest quadrant of the 

intersection of Belvoir Road and 21st Street. Units, agencies, and activities that could not 

be assigned to the existing facilities would occupy EPG. 

• WHS would be sited at the GSA parcel on Loisdale Road. 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-23 

Army adoption of the City Center alternative would require measures not inherent in other 

alternatives. The Army would expect GSA to vacate its facilities, relocate GSA functions to 

other facilities at a location other than Fort Belvoir,1

 demolish all existing structures, conduct any 

cleanup required under hazardous waste laws, and transfer administrative control of the property 

to the Army. These actions would have to occur within a timeframe that would provide the Army 

sufficient time to construct facilities for WHS use. 

2.3.3 Satellite Campuses 

Under the Satellite Campuses alternative, new facilities to accommodate base realignment would 

be sited on Davison Army Airfield, North Post golf course, and North Post and South Post (from 

Kingman Road to 12th Street). Figure 2-6 shows the Satellite Campuses alternative. For land use 

planning, land parcels affected by the Satellite Campuses strategy would be redesignated for 

Professional/Institutional or Community uses. Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this 

alternative would result in the following major sitings: 

• NGA and associated parking structures would be sited at Davidson Army Airfield. This 

would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from Airfield to 

Professional/Institutional. 

• WHS and MDA and associated parking structures would be sited in the North Port area 

that is bounded by Constitution Drive, Route 1, and Gunston, Abbott, and Beauregard 

Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the land use designations north of Route 1 

from Community and Troop to Professional/Institution. 

• Army Lease would be sited in existing facilities along the east side of Gunston Road 

between Route 1 and 9th Street, and in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 

Belvoir Road and 21st Street in renovated facilities. 

• Medical Command and associated parking structures would be sited on the southern 

portion of the North Post golf course. This would be facilitated by changing the land use 

designation from Recreation to Community. 

• PEO EIS and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the southern 

half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbot, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman Roads. This 

would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from Community to 

Professional/Institutional. 

2.3.4 Preferred Alternative 

Consideration of the Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campuses conceptual development 

strategies resulted in a determination that any single strategy was insufficient to meet Fort 

Belvoir’s base realignment needs. The Army reached this determination based on giving high 

priority to traffic-related issues and development density; specifically, use of EPG for all base 

realignment units, agencies, and activities would have resulted in development densities that 

 

1

The Army estimates that relocation of GSA warehouse functions would require a site of 40 to 60 acres. In areas 

classified for industrial use, no such site is available at Fort Belvoir. 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-25 

might not be supportable due to traffic congestion. In light of these circumstances, the Army 

identified the Preferred Land Use Strategy. 

The Preferred Land Use Plan contains two sub-alternatives with respect to the present and 

proposed Troop Area. The proposed plan would change the Troop Area on North Post to 

Professional/Institutional uses and create a new Troop Area on South Post in an Industrial area 

(the western portion of the 1400 area) along Gunston Road. Availability of funding, however, 

might cause current uses in the present and proposed Troop Areas to continue for an 

indeterminate period. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES FOR BRAC IMPLEMENTATION 

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act requires implementation of base realignment 

actions by not later than September 15, 2011, 6 years following the President’s sending the 

BRAC Commission’s recommendation to Congress. Because those recommendations became 

law effective November 9, 2005, the Army is required to implement them in accordance with 

their terms. Consideration of alternatives such as not relocating personnel or relocating them to 

other installations is not legally permissible. 

The implementation of base realignment at Fort Belvoir essentially centers on what facilities must 

be provided, where those facilities would be sited, and which personnel would be assigned to new 

or renovated facilities. The determinations on these matters are, in large part, guided by the 

post’s land use plan, which identifies areas appropriate for Professional/Institutional purposes. 

This GCD examines four land use plan alternatives that serve as the surrogate for alternative 

means of accommodating the units, agencies, and activities being relocated. No other alternatives 

to BRAC implementation are evaluated in this GCD.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-26 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-1 

SECTION 3.0 

GENERAL CONFORMITY 

In November 1993 EPA promulgated two sets of conformity rules to implement Section 176(c) of 

the CAA––Transportation Conformity Rules (58 FR 62188) and General Conformity Rules (58 

FR 63214). The Transportation Conformity Rules are applicable to highways and mass transit 

projects within non-attainment areas and establish the criteria and procedures for determining that 

transportation plans, programs, and projects that are funded under Title 23 of the U.S.C., or the 

Federal Transit Act, conform to SIPs. Projects adopted, accepted, approved, or funded by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) must be 

included in a conforming transportation improvement plan (TIP). Because the Proposed Action 

and Alternatives are not transportation projects and not adopted, accepted, approved, or funded by 

the FHWA or FTA, the Transportation Conformity Rules do not apply. 

The General Conformity Rules (GCR) are applicable to all federal actions within non-attainment 

areas that are not covered by the Transportation Conformity Rules. Because the proposed Fort 

Belvoir BRAC action is a non-transportation project supported by a federal agency, compliance 

with the GCR must be assessed. Notably, some actions are exempt from the GCR. In addition to 

exempt actions, some other action-related emissions are also not subject to conformity. These 

include emissions from sources subject to New Source Review; those covered by the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or by other 

environmental laws; actions that are not reasonable foreseeable; and those for which federal 

agencies would have no continuing program responsibility. 

Fort Belvoir is within Fairfax County, Virginia. Fairfax County is included in an area that EPA 

has designated as in moderate non-attainment for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS and in non-attainment 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA had designated Fairfax County as within a severe non-attainment area for the 1-hour O3

NAAQS (56 FR 56694). In April 2004, EPA published the final rules that are guiding the 

implementation of a new 8-hour O3 NAAQS (69 FR 23951). These rules specified that the 1-

hour NAAQS would be revoked on June 15, 2005 (69 FR 23954 and 69 FR 23858). The 

mandated date by which the area is to attain the 8-hour NAAQS is June 15, 2010. Areas are not 

obligated to continue to demonstrate conformity to the 1-hour O3 NAAQS as of the effective date 

of the revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS (June 15, 2005). At that time, conformity to the 8-hour 

O3 NAAQS became required. Until such time that states are required to submit SIPs that will 

address the 8-hour O3 NAAQS (2007), the SIP that addresses the 1-hour O3 NAAQS is the 

“applicable” SIP. In addition, in December of 2006 a federal appellate court partially invalidated 

EPA’s implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard (United States Court of Appeals 2006). 

As of this time, no changes in effective regulations or guidances have been issued based on this 

court decision. 

On December 17, 2004, EPA designated areas of the United States with respect to the NAAQS 

for PM2.5 (70 FR 944). The CAA mandates areas designated non-attainment for fine particulate 

matter to attain the NAAQS for this pollutant by no later than the year 2010. 

Finally, there are areas within the NCR designated as maintenance areas for carbon monoxide. 

These areas include Washington, D.C.; Arlington County; Alexandria; and parts of Montgomery 

and Prince George counties (MWCOG 2004). None of these areas encompasses (partially or 

wholly) Fort Belvoir. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-2 

Fairfax County (and, therefore, Fort Belvoir) is designated in attainment for all other criteria air 

pollutants. Table 3-1 summarizes the air quality status of Fairfax County with respect to the 

NAAQS. 

Table 3-1 

Attainment status of Fairfax County and Fort Belvoir 

Pollutant Designation Mandated Attainment Year 

Carbon monoxide Attainment NA 

Nitrogen dioxide Attainment NA 

O3 Non-attainment (moderate) 2010 

PM10 Attainment NA 

PM2.5 Non-attainment 2010 

Sulfur dioxide Attainment NA 

Lead Attainment NA 

Notes: NA = not applicable. 

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in size. 

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in size. 

Source: 40 CFR Part 81, Air Quality Designations and Classifications. 

For the purpose of the Fort Belvoir BRAC GCD, the following discussion of conformity is 

limited to the air pollutants and criteria that are applicable to the National Capital Interstate Air 

Quality Control Region and, specifically, Fort Belvoir. The criteria for determining whether the 

GCR apply or the action conforms to the applicable SIP are as follows: 

• Total project-related direct and indirect emissions are below applicability threshold levels

or 

• Total project-related direct and indirect emissions are specifically identified and 

accounted for in the SIP or 

• The total project-related emissions from the action(s) are fully offset within the same 

non-attainment or maintenance area through a revision to the SIP, or similarly 

enforceable measure, that effects emission reductions so that there is no net increase in 

emissions of that pollutant or 

• VDEQ determines that the level of emissions, which together with all other emissions in 

the non-attainment (or maintenance) area, would not exceed the emission targets 

specified in the SIP, or 

• VDEQ commits to include the project-related emissions in the upcoming SIP and to 

accommodate the increased emissions by achieving reductions from other sources or 

• Any combination of the above. 

Emissions associated with BRAC-related programs are not typically identified or accounted for in 

SIPs. Therefore, guidance issued by EPA states that if emissions are not readily identifiable in a 

SIP inventory, the federal agency should coordinate with the state to determine what portion of a 

category, if any, could or would be allocated to any given project. The determination of whether 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-3 

a project/action is specifically identified in a SIP is made case by case in consultation with the 

state/local air quality agency and the EPA regional office (USEPA and FAA 2002). The EPA 

guidance also states that if total emissions for the project/action are below the levels identified or 

accounted for in the SIP, it has been demonstrated that the project/action conforms to the 

applicable SIP. 

3.1 EMISSIONS ESTIMATIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

The GCR require the federal agency to consider net emissions generated from all direct and 

indirect sources of air emission that are reasonably foreseeable. Direct emissions are emissions 

that are caused or initiated by a federal action and occur at the same time and place as the action. 

Indirect emissions are defined as reasonably foreseeable emissions that are caused by the action 

but might occur later in time and/or be farther removed in distance from the action itself, and that 

the federal agency can practicably control. For the evaluation of the RPMP update and the Fort 

Belvoir realignment, direct emissions subject to the GCR are considered emissions from 

construction activities, motor vehicles, and point sources that are not large enough to be subject to 

the Major New Source Review permitting process (USEPA and FAA 2002). More specifically, 

project-related direct emissions would result from the following: 

• Demolition and construction activities: the use of nonroad equipment (e.g., bulldozers, 

backhoes), worker vehicles, the use of VOC paints, paving off-gasses, and fugitive 

particles from surface disturbances 

• Operational activities: Emergency generators and small heating boilers not subject to 

major new source review, and the use of private motor vehicles 

No direct or indirect emissions are associated with the planning activities associated with the 

federal action; all direct and indirect emissions would be associated with the BRAC activities. 

Regardless of the alternative, all activities associated with the BRAC action that would generate 

direct and indirect emissions would be identical in magnitude and occur within the region. Slight 

variation in the siting of the new facilities on Fort Belvoir would not change the emission 

estimations, the applicability of the GCR, or the determination of conformity. Therefore, the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives were carried forward under a single analysis regardless of 

planning alternative. 

The emissions from major new or modified stationary sources subject to the Major New Source 

Review will undergo analysis as part of the review required by those programs, and it is not 

necessary to include them in the general conformity review. The GCR specifically exempt those 

emissions (40 CFR 93.153(d)(1)). 

Permits for minor stationary and area sources under VDEQ’s new minor source review program 

are not specifically exempt from analysis under the regulations. To issue such a permit, however, 

VDEQ must determine that the emissions are in conformity with the SIP (40 CFR 51.160(a) and 

9 VAC 5-160-160(5)(A)(1).). The permits, once issued, will demonstrate emissions from the 

minor permitted sources were determined and documented by the state agency primarily 

responsible for the applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other 

emissions in the nonattainment (or maintenance) area, would not exceed the emissions budgets 

specified in the applicable SIP. Therefore, the U.S. Army presumes that all stationary sources of 

emission subject to the permitting process will conform, and the U.S. Army will use the permit as 

evidence in documentation that the emissions are included in the SIP (40 CFR 3.158(a)(5)(i)(A)) 

(USEPA and FAA 2002) (VDEQ 2007). The only stationary units of air emissions carried 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-4 

forward for detailed analysis are those small enough not to be subject to VDEQ’s permitting 

procedures. 

3.1.1 Demolition and Construction Emissions 

Demolition and construction emissions associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., 

bulldozers, backhoes), worker vehicles, the use of VOC paints, paving off-gasses, and fugitive 

particles from surface disturbances are tabulated in Table 3-2 for all the years of construction. 

Table 3-2 

Estimated Construction Emissions 

 Construction Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

2007 129 76 10 19 

2008 323 188 21 48 

2009 329 216 21 52 

2010 374 238 26 63 

2011 130 69 13 24 

 

2007 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 128 12 8 19 

Worker trip emissions 2 1 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 63 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 1 0 

Total 129 76 10 19 

 

2008 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 318 29 20 48 

Worker trip emissions 5 4 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 155 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 1 0 

Total 323 188 21 48 

 

2009 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 323 29 20 52 

Worker trip emissions 6 5 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 181 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 0 0 

Total 329 216 21 52 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-5 

Table 3-2 

Estimated Construction Emissions (continued)

 Construction Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

2010 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 368 33 24 63 

Worker trip emissions 6 6 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 200 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 1 0 

Total 374 238 26 63 

2011 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 128 11 12 24 

Worker trip emissions 2 2 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 56 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 1 0 

Total 130 69 13 24 

 Note: Rounded to the nearest whole number. 

This section also outlines all the calculations and assumptions made to derive these construction 

emission estimations. 

3.1.1.1 Heavy Construction Equipment 

Pollutant emissions resulting from activities associated with constructing the new buildings, 

parking facilities, and roadways were estimated. The typical demolition and construction would 

involve such activities as demolition of existing buildings or structures, utility installation, road 

construction, site clearing and grading, building construction, asphalt paving, and landscaping. 

Demolition and construction would involve the use of various nonroad equipment, power 

generators, and trucks. Pieces of equipment to be used for building construction include, but are 

not limited to, backhoes, loaders, excavators, air compressors, chain saws, chipping machines, 

dozers, cranes, pavers, graders, rollers, and heavy trucks. Information regarding the number of 

pieces and types of construction equipment to be used on the project, the schedule for deployment 

of equipment (monthly and annually), and the approximate daily operating time (including power 

level or usage factor) were estimated for each individual construction project based on a schedule 

of construction activity. 

Emissions from construction activities were estimated based on the projected construction 

activity schedule, the number of vehicles/pieces of equipment, and vehicle/equipment utilization 

rates. Emission factors for heavy-duty diesel equipment were obtained from EPA’s

NONROAD2005 Emissions Model (USEPA 2004). This model, which is the current EPA 

standard for nonroad vehicle emission, calculated emission factors based on information in the 

following documents: 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-6 

• Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling––CompressionIgnition (USEPA 2004a); 

• Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling––Spark-Ignition (USEPA 

2004b); 

• Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions 

Modeling (USEPA 2004c) 

• Nonroad Engine Population Estimates (USEPA 2004d) 

The equipment and vehicle operation hours were estimated based on R.S.Means’ Building Cost 

Construction Data, 64th annual edition (Waier 2006), and field experience from similar projects. 

Emission factors in grams of pollutant per hour were multiplied by the estimated running time to 

calculate total grams of pollutant from each piece of equipment. Finally, these total grams of 

pollutant were converted to tons of pollutant. The following formula was used to calculate hourly 

emissions from nonroad engine sources, including cranes, backhoes, and the like: 

Mi = N x EFi

where 

Mi = mass of emissions of ith pollutant during inventory period; 

N = source population (units); and 

EFi = average emissions of ith pollutant per unit of use (e.g., grams per hour). 

The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-3. In addition, estimated emissions 

from the potential demolition and construction are presented in Attachment 1. 

Table 3-3 

Estimated Annual Emissions from Construction and Demolition Equipment 

 Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2007 127.6 11.7 8.1 18.5 

2008 318.5 28.5 19.7 48.3 

2009 323.4 29.4 20.4 51.9 

2010 367.9 32.6 24.1 62.9 

2011 127.8 11.2 11.5 23.5 

Sources: USEPA NONROAD2005; SQAQMD 1993. 

3.1.1.2 Construction Worker Vehicle Operations 

The emissions due to construction worker vehicle use were included in the analysis. Emission 

factors for motor vehicles were conservatively calculated using the EPA MOBILE6.2 mobile 

source emission factor model associated with input parameters provided by Metropolitan 

Washington Council of Government (MWCOG 2004). These emission factors were then 

multiplied by the vehicle operational hours to determine motor vehicle emissions. The analysis 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-7 

assumed conservatively that the worker’s vehicle would drive 30 miles per day on post at an 

average speed of 35 miles per hour. The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-

4. 

Table 3-4 

Estimated Annual Emissions from Construction Worker Vehicles 

Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2007 1.6 1.4 0.1 0.1 

2008 4.8 4.5 0.2 0.1 

2009 5.6 5.1 0.2 0.2 

2010 6.2 5.7 0.2 0.2 

2011 1.9 1.8 0.1 0.1 

Sources: USEPA 2002, MOBILE6.2, SQAQMD 1993. 

In addition, estimated emissions from the potential demolition and construction are presented in 

Attachment 1. 

3.1.1.3 Emissions from Architectural Coatings 

Emission factors relating emissions to total square footage to be built were used to estimate VOC 

emissions from architectural coating activities. For office space, the area to be painted was 

assumed to be approximately twice the heated area of the facility and the dry film thickness was 

assumed to be three mils. The following formula was used to calculate emissions from the 

painting of the facilities: 

E = [(F x G) / 1000] x H

where 

E = emissions of VOCs from architectural coatings; 

F = pounds of VOC emissions per 1,000 ft2

 for a dry film thickness of 1 mil; 

G = total area to be coated (heated area x 2); and 

H = dry film thickness (3 mils). 

A sample calculation for an architectural coating VOC emissions during construction of example 

facility is provided below: 

Heated area = 100,000 ft2

Dry film thickness = 3 mils 

Standard water-based paint = 18.5 lb of VOCs per 1000 ft2 perfor a dry film thickness of 1 

mil 

E = [(18.5 [lb/1000 ft2

/mil] x (100,000 [ft2] x 2) / 1000] x 3 mils]/2,000 [lb/ton] 

 = 2.77 tons 

The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-5. In addition, estimated emissions 

from the potential demolition and construction are presented in Attachment 1. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-8 

Table 3-5 

Annual VOC Emissions from 

Architectural Coatings 

Year Annual VOC Emissions 

(tons/yr) 

2007 62.9 

2008 155.2 

2009 181.3 

2010 200.0 

2011 55.5 

Source: SQAQMD 1993. 

3.1.1.4 Asphalt Curing Emissions 

Asphalt paving would generate emissions from (1) asphalt curing, (2) operation of on-site paving 

equipment, and (3) operation of motor vehicles, including paving material delivery trucks and 

worker commuting vehicles. Because the emissions resulting from the operation of on-site 

paving equipment, trucks, and vehicles were included in the previous section, only asphalt curingrelated emissions are discussed in this section. Asphalt curing-related VOC emissions were 

calculated based on the amount of paving anticipated for the on-site parking lot and new 

roadways. The following assumptions were used in VOC emission calculations for asphalt curing 

(SQAQMD 1993): 

E = area paved x 2.62 lb VOC/ac 

A sample calculation is provided below: 

Paved area = 100 ac 

E = 100 ac x 2.62 lb VOC/ac/2000 lb/ton 

 = 0.131 ton 

The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-6. In addition, estimated emissions 

from the potential demolition and construction are presented in Attachment 1. 

Table 3-6 

Annual VOC Emissions from Asphalt Curing 

Year Annual VOC Emissions (tons/yr) 

2007 0.00 

2008 0.02 

2009 0.03 

2010 0.06 

2011 0.06 

Source: SQAQMD 1993. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-9 

3.1.1.5 Surface Disturbance 

The quantity of dust emissions from construction operations is proportional to the area of land 

being worked and to the level of construction activity. The following assumptions were used in 

PM2.5 emission calculations for fugitive dust emissions (AP-42 Section 13.2.3; USEPA 2005c). 

E = open area x EF x PM10/TSP x PM2.5/PM10 x capture fraction 

where 

Open area = number of acres open 

EF = 80 lb TSP/acre 

PM10/TSP = 0.45 lb PM10/lb TSP 

PM2.5/PM10 = 0.15 lb PM2.5/lb PM10 

Capture fraction = 0.5 

A sample calculation is provided below: 

Paved area = 100 acres 

E = 100 ac x 80 lb TSP/ac x 0.45 lb PM10/lb TSP x 0.15 lb PM2.5/ lb PM10 x 2000 lb/ton 

 = 1.35 tons 

The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-7. In addition, estimated emissions 

from the potential demolition and construction are presented in Attachment 1. 

Table 3-7 

Annual PM2.5 Emissions from Surface Disturbance 

Year Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons/yr) 

2007 1.36 

2008 0.81 

2009 0.02 

2010 1.11 

2011 1.43 

Sources: AP-42 Section 13.2.3, USEPA 2005c. 

3.1.3 Operational Activities 

Operational emissions occur as a result of the operation of the new facilities associated with the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives. As previously stated, some action-related emissions are not 

subject to the GCR. These include emissions from sources subject to major New Source Review. 

Major New Source Review is a term used to describe EPA’s preconstruction permitting program. 

In addition, the minor new source review permitting procedures ensure that air quality conditions 

are not significantly degraded as a result of the addition of new and modified factories, industrial 

boilers, and power plants above a certain size. In non-attainment areas, this program ensures that 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-10 

new emissions do not slow progress toward cleaner air. With respect to the Fort Belvoir BRAC 

action, emissions associated with the heating/cooling plant, standby generators, and large boilers 

are subject to permitting. Therefore, emissions, although considered, have not been carried 

forward for detailed analysis in the conformity evaluation. The remaining direct and indirect 

emissions due to small heating boilers and commuter vehicles constitute a small net decrease in 

emissions when compared to the no-action (no-build) scenario. The total annual operational 

emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-8. Notably, the operating emissions are less than the 

no-build alternative; this is primarily due to the decrease in communing distance and the net 

decrease in commuters. 

Table 3-8 

Estimated Net Operating Emissions Subject to 

the General Conformity Rule 

 Operating Emissions (tons/yr) 

Roll-up (Total Operating Emissions) NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

2008 -4.4 -4.5 -0.2 -0.1 

2009 -8.1 -9.1 -0.3 -0.3 

2010 -9.6 -13.7 -0.2 -0.4 

2011 -10.2 -14.8 -0.2 -0.4 

2012 -11.6 -16.2 -0.3 -0.5 

 

2008 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 0 0 0 0 

Employee commuting emissions -4.4 -4.5 -0.2 -0.1 

Total -4.4 -4.5 -0.2 -0.1 

 

2009 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 0.9 0 0.1 0 

Employee commuting emissions -4.5 -4.6 -0.2 -0.1 

Total -3.6 -4.5 -0.1 -0.1 

 

2010 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 3.2 0.2 0.2 0 

Employee commuting emissions -4.7 -4.8 -0.2 -0.1 

Total -1.5 -4.6 0.1 -0.1 

 

2011 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 0.4 0 0 0 

Employee commuting emissions -1.1 -1.1 0 0 

Total -0.6 -1.1 0 0 

2012 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 0 0 0 0 

Employee commuting emissions -1.4 -1.4 -0.1 0 

Total -1.4 -1.4 -0.1 0 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-11 

3.1.3.1 Heating Boiler Emissions 

According to Virginia’s air pollution control regulations (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40), any fuel-burning 

equipment using a liquid and gaseous fuel with a maximum heat input of less than 10 million 

British thermal units (BTU) per hour is exempt from the air permitting process and is normally 

considered an insignificant emission source with minimal air quality impacts. Based on the size 

of the buildings that would be constructed as the action is implemented, many of the new heating 

boilers to be installed would likely have a heating capacity of less than 10 million BTU per hour. 

Emissions from these boilers would not be regulated under Virginia’s New Source Review airpermitting regulations, and therefore the emissions are subject to the GCR. 

The action also includes several large-scale facilities, such as NGA, WHS, Dewitt Hospital, and 

Army leased space. These facilities would likely be equipped with heating boilers that are 

regulated under Virginia’s air permitting regulations or connected to the proposed heating plant. 

When these projects reach the design phase, the developer will need to determine the actual size 

of the boilers and the amount of new emissions associated with each building to allow VDEQ to 

determine whether a stationary source air permit is required and establish whether significant 

stationary source impacts would occur. Those boilers are not subject to the GCR and therefore 

are not considered in this analysis. 

Each building is assumed to be adequately heated, with heating values based on the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Census Region for Sum of 

Major Fuels, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (DOE 1999). The heating area 

used is the net change of heating space, calculated by subtracting the known existing building 

spaces to be demolished, when applicable. In the case of a new facility where the demolition area 

would be greater than the area to be constructed, no net increase in boiler emissions was 

considered. An example calculation of heating gas requirements for an individual project is 

presented below: 

Total building size = 26,000 GSF 

Natural gas energy intensity = 31.4 ft3

/GSF 

 

Total natural gas = 26,000 GSF x 31.4 cubic feet/GSF 

 = 816,400 ft3

Emission estimates were calculated based on the EPA-provided AP-42 emission factors for a 

natural-gas boiler. An example calculation for the annual emission rate for VOCs from building 

boiler operations for a sample project is presented below: 

AP-42 emission factor = 5.5 lb/106 ft3

Annual emission level = 816,400 ft3

/year x 5.5 lb/106 ft3

 = 4.5 lb/year 

 = 0.0022 tons/yr 

It is expected that building boiler emissions from each building would occur immediately after 

the completion of the project. The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-9. In 

addition, estimated emissions from the potential demolition and construction are presented in 

Attachment 1. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-12 

Table 3-9 

Annual Emissions from New Small Heating and Cooling Sources 

Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2009 0.85 0.05 0.06 0.01 

2010 3.17 0.17 0.24 0.02 

2011 0.45 0.02 0.03 0 

Sources: AP-42 Section 1.4, DOE 1999. 

3.1.3.2 Employee Commuting Vehicular Emissions 

Emission factors for motor vehicles were conservatively calculated for the year 2010 for 

commuter vehicles (modeled as light-duty gasoline vehicles and light-duty gasoline trucks such 

as SUVs) using the EPA MOBILE6.2 mobile source emission factor model. Metropolitan 

Washington Council of Government (MWCOG 2004) provided the most current input parameters 

containing the current planning assumptions for the region. A sample calculation for the annual 

emission rate for NOx from new employee vehicles from a sample project is presented below: 

Additional employees = 150 

Number of trips per day = 2 

Number of days per year = 250 

Average vehicle commute distance = 20 miles 

MOBIEL6.2 emission factor = 0.3 grams/mile 

Annual emission level = 150 x 2 x 250 x 20 x 0.3/907,185 grams/ton 

 = 0.49 ton/yr 

The estimated net annual vehicular emissions for applicable projects are calculated in detail in 

Table 3-10 and presented in Attachment 1. 

Table 3-10 

Annual Emissions from New Employees’ Vehicles (Net Decrease) 

 Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2008 -4.44 -4.55 -0.16 -0.14 

2009 -4.47 -4.58 -0.16 -0.14 

2010 -4.71 -4.82 -0.17 -0.15 

2011 -1.05 -1.08 -0.04 -0.03 

2012 -1.38 -1.42 -0.05 -0.04 

Sources: USEPA 2002; MOBILE6.2. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-13 

3.1.4 Total Annual Emission 

Table 3-11 provides the total annual estimated action-related emissions of VOC, NOx, PM2.5, and 

SO2 respectively. The annual estimates are provided for the proposed construction schedule and 

for conditions estimated to occur under all the alternatives except the No Action Alternative. 

Notably, the construction-related activities would be the predominate source of emissions. 

Table 3-11 

Total Annual Emissions from the 2005 Realignment of Fort Belvoir 

Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2007 129.2 76.0 9.5 18.5 

2008 318.9 183.6 20.5 48.3 

2009 320.9 206.7 20.4 51.7 

2010 364.5 224.7 25.3 62.7 

2011 119.5 53.8 12.8 23.2 

2012+ -11.6 -16.2 -0.3 -0.5 

Sources: USEPA NONROAD2004; SQAQMD 1993; USEPA 2002; MOBILE6.2; USEPA AP-42; USEPA 2005; DOE 1999. 

3.2 APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 

The GCR apply to federal actions in non-attainment areas. EPA established applicability 

threshold levels to exclude federal actions from the requirements to provide a GCD. It is 

understood that emissions below these levels would not impede an area’s ability to attain the 

NAAQS. If the total direct and indirect action-related emissions are below the applicability 

threshold levels, and the action-related emissions are determined not to be regionally significant, 

it is assumed that the emission level conforms to a state’s plans to attain or maintain the NAAQS. 

Project/action-related emissions are determined to be regionally significant if the emission level 

represents 10 percent or more of the regional total of emissions for which the area is in nonattainment. The applicability threshold levels for O3 and PM2.5 within the NCR are provided in 

Table 3-12. 

With respect to the proposed Fort Belvoir BRAC action, project-related emissions are those 

emissions that would occur with the action when compared to the emissions that would occur 

without the action (the net change in emission level). Table 3-12 presents the estimated increase 

in emissions with the proposed Fort Belvoir BRAC action (the project-related emissions). 

Because the total of direct and indirect emissions of NOx and VOC exceed the respective general 

conformity applicability thresholds, the general conformity requirements apply to these 

pollutants. Consequently, a formal conformity determination is required and these pollutants will 

be carried forward for detailed analysis. Notably, because the project-related emissions of these 

pollutants exceed the applicability threshold, performing the regional significance applicability 

test would be redundant. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-14 

Table 3-12 

Applicability Thresholds for the National Capital Interstate 

Air Quality Control Region 

Criteria pollutants 

Greatest Annual 

Project- Related 

Emissions 

Applicability 

 Threshold Levels

(tons/yr) 

Exceeds 

Applicability 

Threshold (yes/no) 

O3 (NOx or VOCs)

Marginal and moderate NAAs inside an O3 transport region

VOC 225 50 Yes 

NOx 365 100 Yes 

PM2.5 (PM2.5 , NOx, SO2) 

PM2.5 25 100 No 

NOx 365 100 Yes 

SO2 63 100 No 

Sources: 40 CFR 93.153; USEPA 2006. 

Note: 

NAA = non-attainment area. 

The total of direct and indirect emissions of PM2.5 and of SO2 is less than the applicability 

thresholds. Pending the full implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, there is no current regional 

emission budget for PM2.5 or SO2. However, due to the limited size and scope of the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives when compared to the overall regional activity, it is not anticipated that 

emissions of PM2.5 or SO2 would be regionally significant. Therefore, the general conformity 

requirements do not apply to these pollutants, and there will be no further evaluation of these 

pollutants herein. 

3.3 CONFORMITY EVALUATION 

This section evaluates the ability of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to conform to the SIP 

with respect to the pollutants NOx and VOC, as outlined under the GCR. 

3.3.1 Evaluation Cases 

The GCR require that the analysis of project-related emissions reflect the scenarios expected to 

occur under each of the following cases: 

• The CAA-mandated attainment year or, if applicable, the farthest year for which 

emissions are projected in the maintenance plan 

• Any year for which the applicable SIP specifies an emission budget 

• The year during which the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action is 

expected to be the greatest on an annual basis 

The following paragraphs discuss each of the above cases as each relates to the proposed Fort 

Belvoir BRAC action. 

CAA-Mandated Attainment Year. The CAA-mandated attainment year for both the 8-hour O3

and the PM2.5 NAAQS is 2010, and therefore, project-related emissions in 2010 are subjected to 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-15 

the conformity evaluation. There are currently no maintenance plans in place for Fairfax County. 

Therefore, the GCR requirement to evaluate the farthest year for which emissions are projected in 

the maintenance plan is not applicable. 

Regional Emission Budgets. The 1-hour O3 attainment demonstration SIP also includes Rate of 

Progress-based regional emission target levels for the years 2002 and 2005. The earliest that the 

proposed action or alternatives would affect local or regional air quality conditions is the year 

2007 (assuming that the U.S. Army issues a Record of Decision for the proposed improvements 

in 2007 and construction begins). Therefore, project-related emission estimates for the year 2005 

were not subjected to the conformity evaluation. 

The draft 8-hour O3 attainment demonstration SIP also includes Rate of Progress-based regional 

emission target levels for the years 2008 and 2009. The proposed action or alternatives would 

included emissions during these years. Therefore, project-related emission estimates for the year 

2008 and 2009 were carried forward for informational purposes. 

Greatest Annual Project-Related Emissions. As shown, the greatest total direct and indirect 

project-related emissions would occur in the year 2010. Coincidentally, this is the CAAmandated attainment year for both the 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Table 3-13 summarizes the years and levels of project-related emissions meeting the requirements 

of the GCR. It should be noted that the project alternatives vary by scenario and by pollutant 

precursor. These combinations of years and emissions reflect the levels of project-related 

emissions that would occur in (1) the CAA-mandated attainment years for the 1-hour and 8-hour 

O3 NAAQS, (2) the year in which the SIP contains an emissions budget and the project would 

affect local and/or regional air quality conditions, and (3) the years in which the greatest projectrelated emissions of VOC and NOx are estimated to occur with the realignment of Fort Belvoir. 

The greatest annual project-related emissions of VOCs and NOx (409.7 and 264.3 tons, 

respectively) would occur in the year 2010. These levels of emissions are the greatest total 

project-related direct and indirect emissions estimated to occur over the planning horizon, 

regardless of year or alternative. 

Table 3-13 

Annual Project-related Emission Levels Subject to Conformity Determination 

 Annual Emissions (tons per year] 

Year

Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOx) 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOCs) 

Act-mandated attainment year 

(O3 and PM2.5) 2010 364 224 

Regional emission budgets 2008 347 203 

2009 321 207 

Greatest annual project-related 

emissions 2010 364 224 

The current SIP emission estimates are expressed in tons of VOC and NOx emitted on a summer 

weekday. States use summer weekday emissions to assess regional emissions of VOCs and NOx, 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-16 

precursor emissions to the air pollutant O3, because the O3 NAAQS are generally exceeded during 

O3 season weekdays when the precursor emissions are greatest and meteorological conditions are 

more conducive to O3 formation. For comparing the Fort Belvoir-related emission estimates to 

the MWCOG-prepared regional inventories, the source emissions were converted from tons per 

year to tons per summer weekday. They are shown in Table 3-14. 

Table 3-14 

Daily Project-related Emission Levels Subject to Conformity Determination 

 Annual Emissions (tons per day] 

Year

Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOx) 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOC) 

Act-mandated attainment year 

(O3 and PM2.5) 2010 1.58 0.98 

Regional emission budgets 2008 1.39 0.80 

2009 1.40 0.90 

Greatest annual project-related 

emissions 2010 1.58 0.98 

3.3.2 Comparison Project-Related Emissions to SIP-Based Inventories 

This section outlines a comparison of the project-related emissions with the regional emissions of 

like pollutants. As previously stated, the GCR state that when projects are within O3 nonattainment areas and project-related emissions of VOCs and NOx exceed the applicability 

thresholds, one of the criteria for determining conformity is that the emissions from the 

project/action are specifically identified and accounted for in the SIP. As also stated, EPA 

recognizes that emissions associated with BRAC programs are not specifically identified or 

accounted for in SIPs (USEPA and FAA 2002). 

3.3.2.1 The State Implementation Plan 

The CAA, as amended in 1990, mandates that state agencies adopt SIPs that target the 

elimination or reduction of the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS. SIPs set forth 

policies to expeditiously achieve and maintain attainment of the NAAQS. Currently, the region 

has no applicable SIP for the 8-hour O3 or the PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP revisions to address nonattainment conditions with respect to the new 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS are being developed 

and are expected to be approved by EPA by 2008 and 2009, respectively. 

Because monitored levels of O3 in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area exceeded the 1-hour 

NAAQS, the Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland, and Washington, D.C., were 

required to develop SIPs that outline the actions that would be taken to achieve the 1-hour 

NAAQS before 2007. The current SIP presents the regional air quality plan for attaining the 

federal 1-hour NAAQS for ground-level O3 developed by the Metropolitan Washington Air 

Quality Committee (MWAQC) for the Washington, D.C., multi-jurisdictional non-attainment 

area. MWAQC was established in accordance with Section 174 of the CAA by the governors of 

Maryland and Virginia and the mayor of the District of Columbia to prepare a regionally 

coordinated air quality plan to comply with these requirements. On June 13, 2005, EPA approved 

the State Implementation Plan––Plan to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-17 

Region (MWCOG 2004). The plan predicted that the 1-hour O3 NAAQS would be attained by 

2005. In addition, a draft SIP for the 8-hour ozone standard was recently developed (MWAQC 

2006). Although not finalized or approved by the region or EPA, information developed for the 

draft SIP was carried forward for informational purposes. 

Following requirements of the CAA, the MWCOG and VDEQ prepared a 1990 base year 

emissions inventory for the Washington non-attainment area. The inventory serves as the base 

year by which attainment plans were prepared for the 1-hour O3 NAAQS. The base year 1990 

emissions inventory was also used by the VDEQ, along with growth and control factors, to 

project year 2005 emission estimates. The general categories of sources included in the 

MWCOG’s inventory are point, area, nonroad, and on-road. General descriptions of these 

categories are outlined below, and the regional emission inventories for the categories are shown 

on Table 3-15 and 3-16. 

• Point Sources. Point sources are stationary, commercial, or industrial operations that 

emit more than 10 tons per year (tons/yr) of VOCs, or 100 tons/yr or more of NOx or 

carbon monoxide. The point source inventory within the SIP consists of actual emissions 

sources within the geographical area of the Washington DC-MD-VA non-attainment 

area. 

• Area Sources. Area sources are sources of emissions that are too small to be inventoried 

individually and collectively contribute significant emissions. Area sources include 

smaller stationary point sources not included in the states’ point source inventories, such 

Table 3-15 

Regional NOx Emission Inventory 

 Controlled Emissions (tons/d) 

Source Category 

1-Hour Attainment 

Year (2005) 

8-Hour 

 Rate-of-progress 

Year (2008) 

8-Hour 

Attainment Year 

(2009) 

Point 109 229 123 

Area 60 27 27 

Nonroad 82 77 75 

On-road 234 160 147 

Total 487 493 372 

Source: MWCOG 2004, MWAQC 2006. 

Table 3-16 

Regional VOC Emission Inventory 

 Controlled Emissions (tons/d) 

Source Category 

1-Hour Attainment 

Year (2005) 

8-Hour 

 Rate-of-progress 

Year (2008) 

8-Hour 

Attainment Year 

(2009) 

Point 16 14 14 

Area 147 192 192 

Nonroad 68 92 88 

On-road 97 71 67 

Total 325 369 362 

Source: MWCOG 2004, MWAQC 2006. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-18 

as printing establishments, dry cleaners, and auto refinishing companies, as well as nonstationary sources. 

• Nonroad Vehicle and Engine Sources. Nonroad sources include a wide variety of 

categories, including industrial, lawn and garden, construction, recreational, and farm 

equipment. Within the SIP, emissions from this category were obtained from a 1991 

EPA contractor's report titled “Non-Road Engine and Vehicle Emission Inventories for 

Carbon Monoxide and O3 Non-attainment Boundaries, Washington, D.C. MSA.” This 

group of sources is of primary interest because heavy construction vehicles are the 

primary source of emissions due to the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

• On-road Mobile Sources. In the SIP, emissions from on-road mobile sources were 

derived from the use of the MWCOG travel demand forecasting procedure, which 

simulates vehicle travel across the region’s transportation system. Travel was simulated 

on all highways in the region, including both volume and speed of travel for each hour of 

the day. Input for this simulation included locally specific information such as age 

distribution of registered vehicles, evaporation characteristics of motor fuel, and 

temperature data. 

3.3.2.2 Milestone Budget Years 

The year 2005 was the last milestone year with an emission budget with respect to attaining the 1-

hour O3 NAAQS. In 2005 there were no project-related emissions. The earliest that the proposed 

action or alternatives would affect local or regional air quality conditions is the year 2007 

(assuming that the U.S. Army issues a Record of Decision for the proposed improvements in 

2007 and construction begins). Therefore, project-related activities are not subjected to the 

conformity evaluation for the year 2005 milestone budget year. 

The draft 8-hour O3 attainment demonstration SIP also includes Rate of Progress-based regional 

emission target levels for the years 2008 and 2009. The proposed action or alternatives would 

included emissions during these years. Therefore, project-related emission estimates for the year 

2008 and 2009 were evaluated. 

To evaluate whether the level of year 2008 and 2009 project-related construction emissions could 

be considered included within the regional estimates for this type of activity, the project-related 

construction emissions were compared with the total emissions for the non-attainment area (Table 

3-17). As shown, when comparing the project-related construction emissions of VOC and NOx

with the 2008 and 2009 draft emissions for the non-attainment area, project-related emissions 

would represent a small percentage of the like regional emissions, respectively. Notably, the 

regional inventory for nonroad sources was used for the NOx comparison because of the 

overwhelming contribution of these sources to the project-related NOx emissions. In addition, the 

regional inventory for area sources was used for the VOC comparison because of the 

overwhelming contribution of architectural coatings and paving off-gasses to the project-related 

emissions of VOCs. 

Because the project-related construction emission estimates represent a relatively small 

percentage of the regional projection, it is reasonable to assume that the project-related 

construction emissions can be accounted for in the inventories for the draft 8-hour O3 attainment 

demonstration SIP (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5); USEPA and FAA 2002; VDEQ 2007). 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-19 

Table 3-17 

Comparison of 2008 and 2009 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based Inventories 

 

Pollutant 

SIP regional 

emission inventory 

(tons/summer 

weekday) 

Project-related 

non-road emissions 

 (tons/summer 

weekday) 

Percent of 

regional 

emissions 

Draft 8-hour SIP (2008) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 75.0a 1.39 1.9% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 192.5b

 0.80 0.4% 

Draft 8-hour SIP (2009) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 76.9c 1.40 1.8% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 191.8d

 0.90 0.4% 

Source: MWCOG, 2006 

a

 Reflects 2008 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory b

 Reflect 2008 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

c

 Reflects 2009 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory d

 Reflect 2009 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

3.3.2.3 Act-mandated Attainment Year and Greatest Annual Project-related Emissions 

(2010) 

This section of the documentation discusses the evaluation of project-related emissions that 

would occur in the act-mandated attainment year for both the 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the year when the greatest annual project-related emissions are expected (2010). Project-related 

emissions from construction activities and from the operation of motor vehicles within the 

defined study area were evaluated. 

The draft 8-hour SIP does not contain a regional emission projection for the 2010 attainment year. 

Consequently, it is not possible to compare project-related year 2010 emission estimates with 

regional estimates for the same years. To be conservative and to provide an indication of the 

magnitude of project-related emissions beyond the attainment year with respect to emission levels 

in the 1-hour O3 and the draft 8-hour attainment demonstration SIP, the 2010 project-related 

emissions were compared with the regional projections previously presented for the year 2005 

and 2009 respectively. 

Construction. At the time that EPA prepared VDEQ’s 1990 estimates of emissions from 

construction-related activities for the non-attainment area, VDEQ or MWCOG would not have 

had an estimate of construction-related equipment emissions for the 2005 BRAC action at Fort 

Belvoir. Furthermore, because of the methodology used by MWAQC to calculate the regional 

emissions from this type of source, it can be said that no individual projects were considered. 

Therefore, the inventories prepared in support of the attainment demonstration for the 1-hour O3

or the 8-hour NAAQS do not specifically identify construction-related emissions for any of the 

alternatives under consideration. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-20 

To evaluate whether the level of year 2010 project-related construction emissions could be 

considered included within the regional estimates for this type of activity, the project-related 

construction emissions were compared with the total emissions for the non-attainment area (Table 

3-18). As shown, when comparing the project-related construction emissions of VOC and NOx

with the emissions inventories for the non-attainment area, project-related emissions would 

represent a small percentage of the like regional emissions. Notably, the regional inventory for 

nonroad sources was used for the NOx comparison because of the overwhelming contribution of 

these sources to the project-related NOx emissions. In addition, the regional inventory for area 

sources was used for the VOC comparison because of the overwhelming contribution of 

architectural coatings and paving off-gasses to the project-related emissions of VOCs. 

Table 3-18 

Comparison of 2010 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based Inventories 

 

Pollutant 

SIP regional 

emission inventory 

(tons/summer 

weekday) 

Project-related 

non-road emissions 

 (tons/summer 

weekday) 

Percent of 

regional 

emissions 

Approved 1-hour SIP (2005) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 82.8a 1.58 1.9% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 147.3b

 0.98 0.7% 

Draft 8-hour SIP (2009) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 76.9c 1.58 2.1% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 191.8d

 0.98 0.5% 

Source: MWCOG 2004a and MWAQC 2006 

a

 Reflects 2005 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory b

 Reflect 2005 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

c

 Reflects 2009 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory d

 Reflect 2009 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

Because the project-related construction emission estimates represent a relatively small 

percentage of the regional projection, it is reasonable to assume that the project-related 

construction emissions can be accounted for in the inventories for the 1-hour O3 attainment 

demonstration SIP (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5); USEPA and FAA 2002; VDEQ 2007). 

On-road Vehicle Emissions. The realignment of Fort Belvoir would decrease both the number of 

vehicles and subsequently the total vehicle miles traveled within the region. In turn, regional 

motor vehicle emissions would decrease. This decrease would be primarily because of a net 

reduction of approximately 1,700 personnel leaving Fort Belvoir to locations outside the region. 

Although overall additional personnel at Fort Belvoir is expected to increase, the new personnel 

and the miles they currently commute are already with in the NCR. In addition, many of the new 

personnel are expected to either relocated to or be replaced by individuals living in areas outside, 

primarily south of, the region. These BRAC-related reductions in emissions would constitute an 

ongoing net benefit to the region’s air quality. Therefore, although there is an SIP-based regional 

budget for motor vehicles, it was unnecessary to perform a direct comparison. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-21 

3.3.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in Applicable SIP 

The GCR state that notwithstanding the other requirements of the rules, a proposed action or 

alternatives may not be determined to conform unless the total of direct and indirect emissions 

from the action is in compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements and milestones in the 

applicable SIP (40 CFR 93.158(c) and 9 VAC 5-160-160(c)). This requirement includes but is 

not limited to such issues as reasonable further progress schedules, assumptions specified in the 

attainment or maintenance demonstration, prohibitions, numerical emission limits, and work 

practice standards. This section briefly addresses how the Proposed Action and Alternatives were 

assessed for SIP consistency for this evaluation. 

EPA and VDEQ have already promulgated, and will continue to promulgate, numerous 

requirements to support the goals of the CAA with respect to the NAAQS. Typically, these 

requirements take the form of rules regulating emissions from significant new sources, including 

emission standards for major stationary point sources and classes of mobile sources as well as 

permitting requirements for new major stationary point sources. Because states have the primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing requirements under the CAA and can impose 

stricter limitations than EPA, the EPA requirements often serve as guidance to the states in 

formulating their air quality management strategies. 

In operating Fort Belvoir, the U.S. Army already observes, and will continue to act in accordance 

with a myriad of rules and regulations implemented and enforced by federal, state, regional, and 

local agencies to protect and enhance ambient air quality in the Metropolitan Washington Region. 

The U.S. Army will continue to act in accordance with all existing applicable air quality 

regulatory requirements for activities over which it has direct control and will meet in a timely 

manner all regulatory requirements that become applicable in the future. Likewise, the U.S. 

Army actively encourages all tenants and users of its facilities to comply with applicable air 

quality requirements.

3.4 SUMMARY 

Within areas designed non-attainment or maintenance for any of the NAAQS, the CAA requires 

that federal agencies ensure that their actions conform to SIPs. The requirements for determining 

conformity to SIPs are detailed in Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 51 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 51). 

In accordance with Section 176 of the CAA, in consultation with VDEQ, the U.S. Army has 

assessed whether the pollutant and pollutant precursor emissions that would result from the U.S. 

Army’s actions with respect to the proposed realignment at Fort Belvoir are in conformance with 

the Virginia SIP. 

The emission estimates for the GCD were prepared 

• Using the latest planning assumptions 

• Using the latest and most accurate emission estimation techniques 

• Based on the applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in 

the most recent version of EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models, including 

supplements. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-22 

On the basis of the results of the evaluation, the total direct and indirect project-related emissions 

of NOx, VOCs, PM2.5, and SO2 and were determined to be 

• Below the applicability thresholds or 

• Accounted for in the emission projections incorporated into the 1-hour O3 attainment 

demonstration SIP (the applicable SIP) or

• Reasonably accounted for in established emission totals and/or excess regional emission 

estimates 

For these reasons, the U.S. Army has determined that the emissions associated with the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives conform to the CAA. 

3.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS/FREQUENCY OF DETERMINATIONS 

Following the requirements of the GCR, federal agencies must make public their draft and final 

conformity determinations by placing a notice in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the 

area affected by the action and by providing 30 days to obtain any written public comments prior 

to taking any formal action on the determinations. Also required are responses to all comments 

received on the Draft GCD. The federal agency must make these responses available within 30 

days of the agency’s final conformity determination. 

It is the intent of the U.S. Army to publish a notice of the availability of this Draft GCD and the 

Final GCD in the Washington Post, Springfield Times, Mt. Vernon Gazette, Mt. Vernon Voice, 

and Belvoir Eagle. 

This Draft GCD is being published as an appendix to the DEIS. The DEIS provides a detailed 

evaluation of the affect of the realignment at Fort Belvoir on air quality. The U.S. Army intends 

to publish the Final GCD as an appendix to the Final EIS. 

The conformity status of a federal action automatically lapses after a period of 5 years (from the 

date a final conformity determination is reported) unless the federal action has been completed or 

a continuous program has been commenced to implement the federal action within a reasonable 

time. Furthermore, if, after the final conformity determination is made, the federal action is 

changed so that there is an increase in the total direct and indirect emissions from the action, 

above the applicability threshold levels, a new conformity determination is required.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-1 

REFERENCES

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2004. State Implementation Plan––Plan 

to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA Region.

South Coat Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration). 1999. Consumption and Gross 

Energy Intensity by Census Region for Sum of Major Fuels, Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey. 

MWAQC (Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee). 2006. Moderate Area SIP November 7, 

2006 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 

AP-42, 5th edition, Vol. I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. User’s Guide to MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source 

Emission Factor Model. EPA420-R-02-028. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004a. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for 

Nonroad Engine Modeling––Compression-Ignition, NR-009c. EPA420-P-04-009. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004b. Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine 

Modeling––Spark-Ignition, NR-010d. EPA420-P-04-010. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004c. Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor 

Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling, NR-005c. EPA420-P-04-005. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004d. Nonroad Engine Population Estimates, NR006b. EPA420-P-02-004. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005d. User’s Guide for the Final NONROAD2005 

Model. EPA420-R-05-013. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004e. 40 CFR Parts 50, 51 and 81. Federal 

Register Vol. 69, No. 84; Friday, April 30, 2004. Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour O3 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 80. Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 228 ;/Tuesday, November 29, 2005. Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour O3 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard; 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-2 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52. Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 210; Tuesday, November 1, 2005. Proposed Rules Part II Proposed Rule To Implement 

the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005c. Methodology to Estimate the Transportable 

Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. PM2.5 De Minimis Emission Levels for 

General Conformity Applicability. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0491; FRL-8197-4. 

USEPA and FAA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Aviation Administration). 2002. 

General Conformity Guidance for Airports––Questions and Answers. September 25. 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Electronic Communication. Fort Belvoir 

BRAC General Conformity February 5th 2007

Waier, Phillip R. 2006. Building Cost Construction Data, 64th annual edition. R.S.Means Construction 

Publishers and Consultants, Kingston, MA. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-3 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AAFES Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

ACP access control point 

AKO Army Knowledge Online 

AMC Army Materiel Command 

AR Army Regulation 

AT/FP Antiterrorism/ Force Protection 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

BRDEC Belvoir Research and Development Engineering Center 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CID Criminal Investigations Command 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DGCD Draft General Conformity Determination 

DOE Department of Energy 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPG Engineer Proving Ground 

FTA Federal Transit Authority 

FWHA Federal Highway Administration 

FY fiscal year 

GCR General Conformity Rules 

GSA General Services Administration 

GSF gross square feet 

HEC Humphreys Engineering Center 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

LRC long-range component 

MDA HQCC Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center 

MDW Military District of Washington 

MedCom U.S. Army Medical Command 

MGMC Malcolm Grow Medical Center 

MN map number 

MWAQC Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee 

MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

MWR Army and Air Force Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical 

NCR National Capital Region 

NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

NNMC National Naval Medical Center 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPS National Park Service 

NSF net square feet 

NSR New Source Review 

O3 ozone 

PCS Permanent Change of Station 

PDA Physical Disability Agency 

PEO EIS Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems 

PM DCATS Project Manager Defense Communications and Army Transmission Systems 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-4 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PX post exchange 

RFI request for information 

ROD Record of Decision 

RPA Resource Protection Area 

RPMP real property master plan 

RV recreational vehicle 

SA Secretary of the Army 

SCIF sensitive compartmented information facility 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

TBO total build- out 

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USASAC Secretary Assistance Command 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

VAC Virginia Administrative Code 

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WHS Washington Headquarters Services 

WRAMC Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

WWII World War II 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-5 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

LPES, Inc. Engineering and Planning 

Timothy Lavallee, P.E. 

M.S., Environmental Health, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, 1997. 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, 1992. 

15 Years of Experience 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-6 

This page is intentionally left blank.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-1 

Attachment 1 

Emission Calculations 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-2 

 Table A1-1 

Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions 

Project NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM2.5 (tons) SO

Family Travel Camp, Clearing and Grading 0.99 0.09 0.07 MDA (2007), Building Construction 3.85 0.36 0.23 MDA, Clearing and Grading 0.15 0.01 0.01 

NGA Admin (EPG), Clearing and Grading 14.79 1.27 1.05 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility - Parking Garage, Building Construction 37.27 3.50 2.25 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Building Construction 37.27 3.50 2.25 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Clearing and Grading 1.77 0.15 0.13 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Clearing and Grading 16.76 1.44 1.19 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Building Construction 0.98 0.09 0.06 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG), Clearing and Grading 5.60 0.36 0.37 

Family Travel Camp, Building Construction 1.77 0.16 0.11 

Gunston Road Improvements, Clearing and Grading 3.41 0.22 0.22 

Gunston Road Improvements, Paving 5.07 0.33 0.34 

Hospital (2008), Building Construction 30.74 2.82 1.89 

Hospital, Clearing and Grading 10.92 0.71 0.72 

MDA (2008), Building Construction 5.52 0.51 0.34 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Building Construction 4.49 0.41 0.28 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Clearing and Grading 0.73 0.05 0.05 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Demolition 0.17 0.01 0.01 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 64.20 5.89 3.95 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 64.20 5.89 3.95 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Landscaping 0.25 0.03 0.01 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Paving 0.20 0.01 0.01 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Building Construction 117.78 10.81 7.25 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Clearing and Grading 0.91 0.06 0.06 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Demolition 0.04 0.00 0.00 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-3 

Table A1-1

Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions (continued)

Project NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM2.5 (tons) 

USANCA Support Facility, Building Construction 1.05 0.10 0.06 USANCA Support Facility, Clearing and Grading 0.10 0.01 0.01 Access Road/Control Point, Clearing and Grading 0.07 0.00 0.00 

Access Road/Control Point, Paving 0.09 0.01 0.01 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Building Construction 1.29 0.12 0.08 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.04 0.00 0.00 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) , Paving 1.08 0.07 0.07 

Family Travel Camp, Paving 0.16 0.01 0.01 

Gunston Road Improvements, Landscaping 0.37 0.04 0.02 

Hospital (2009), Building Construction 28.92 2.63 1.83 

MDA, Landscaping 0.03 0.00 0.00 

MDA, Paving 0.06 0.00 0.00 

NARMC HQ Building, Building Construction 0.66 0.06 0.04 

NARMC HQ Building, Clearing and Grading 0.06 0.00 0.00 

NARMC HQ Building, Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 

NARMC HQ Building, Paving 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Landscaping 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Paving 0.28 0.02 0.02 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Building Construction 0.29 0.03 0.02 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Clearing and Grading 0.09 0.01 0.01 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 60.39 5.50 3.82 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009 Parking Garage), Building Construction 99.85 9.10 6.31 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009), Building Construction 110.79 10.09 7.00 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2009), Building Construction 12.78 1.16 0.81 

USANCA Support Facility, Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 

USANCA Support Facility, Paving 0.06 0.00 0.00 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Building Construction 0.56 0.05 0.04 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Clearing and Grading 0.04 0.00 0.00 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-4 

Table A1-1 

Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions (continued) 

Project NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM2.5 (tons) 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Clearing and Grading 0.31 0.02 0.02 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Demolition 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Parking Garage 8.24 0.75 0.54 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Building Construction 0.91 0.08 0.06 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.32 0.02 0.02 

Child Development Center (EPG), Building Construction 1.68 0.15 0.11 

Child Development Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.40 0.03 0.03 

Dental Clinic, Building Construction 1.40 0.13 0.09 

Dental Clinic, Clearing and Grading 0.08 0.00 0.01 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Paving 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Family Travel Camp, Landscaping 0.08 0.01 0.00 

Hospital (2010), Building Construction 27.29 2.48 1.78 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Building Construction 1.74 0.16 0.11 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 25.22 1.63 1.77 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 9.56 0.61 0.67 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Paving 0.03 0.00 0.00 

NGA Admin (EPG) , Landscaping 0.68 0.08 0.04 

NGA Admin (EPG) , Paving 0.18 0.01 0.01 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 57.00 5.19 3.71 

NGA Admin (EPG), Parking Structure, Building Construction 227.99 20.76 14.83 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Landscaping 0.81 0.10 0.05 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Paving 0.30 0.02 0.02 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2010), Building Construction 2.97 0.27 0.19 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Landscaping 0.03 0.00 0.00 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Paving 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Landscaping 0.03 0.00 0.00 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-5 

Table A1-1 

Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions (continued) 

Project NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM2.5 (tons) 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Paving 0.05 0.00 0.01 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Landscaping 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Paving 0.09 0.01 0.01 

Child Development Center (EPG), Landscaping 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Child Development Center (EPG), Paving 0.06 0.00 0.01 

Dental Clinic , Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 Dental Clinic , Paving 0.03 0.00 0.00 

Hospital (2011 Parking Garage), Building Construction 85.77 8.27 7.57 

Hospital , Landscaping 0.42 0.06 0.04 

Hospital , Paving 0.27 0.02 0.03 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 30.99 2.09 2.89 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Landscaping 1.30 0.17 0.12 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 8.71 0.58 0.81 Source: USEPA NONROAD2004; SQAQMD 1993. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-6 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions 

Project 

Trips Per Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx

(g/mile) 

NOx

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

 EF PM2.5

(g/mile) 

PM2.

(tons

Family Travel Camp, Clearing and Grading 2 170 10605 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0MDA (2007), Building Construction 37 151 169865 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.0MDA, Clearing and Grading 3 19 1560 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

NGA Admin (EPG), Clearing and Grading 46 113 157765 0.32 0.05 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility - Parking Garage, Building Construction 322 170 1644177 0.32 0.57 0.29 0.53 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Building Construction 322 170 1644177 0.32 0.57 0.29 0.53 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Clearing and Grading 17 38 18860 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Clearing and Grading 53 113 178771 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.06 0.01 0.0

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Building Construction 18 85 45937 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0

EPG Infrastructure (EPG), Clearing and Grading 23 85 57780 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-7 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued) 

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx

(g/mile) 

NOx

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5

(g/mile) 

PM2.

(tons

Family Travel Camp, Building Construction 12 230 82757 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.0Gunston Road Improvements, Clearing and Grading 21 57 35157 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0Gunston Road Improvements, Paving 16 170 79902 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.0

Hospital (2008), Building Construction 209 230 1438733 0.32 0.50 0.29 0.46 0.01 0.0

Hospital, Clearing and Grading 33 113 112727 0.32 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.01 0.0MDA (2008), Building Construction 37 230 258336 0.32 0.09 0.29 0.08 0.01 0.0Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Building Construction 53 132 210085 0.32 0.07 0.29 0.07 0.01 0.0

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Clearing and Grading 7 38 7538 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Demolition 1 57 1702 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 435 230 3004398 0.32 1.04 0.29 0.96 0.01 0.0

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 435 230 3004398 0.32 1.04 0.29 0.96 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Landscaping 5 28 4377 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Paving 4 28 3203 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Building Construction 799 230 5511996 0.32 1.92 0.29 1.76 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-8 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx 

(g/mile) 

NOx 

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5(g/mile) 

PM2.

(tons

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Clearing and Grading 3 113 9392 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Demolition 0 38 423 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0USANCA Support Facility, Building Construction 14 113 48999 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0

USANCA Support Facility, Clearing and Grading 2 19 1038 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Access Road/Control Point, Building Construction 0 38 229 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Access Road/Control Point, Clearing and Grading 1 19 721 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Access Road/Control Point, Paving 1 38 1423 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Building Construction 14 151 64353 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 1 19 456 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0EPG Infrastructure (EPG) , Paving 21 28 18037 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0

Family Travel Camp, Paving 1 170 2664 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Gunston Road Improvements, Landscaping 4 57 6818 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Hospital (2009), Building Construction 209 230 1438733 0.32 0.50 0.29 0.46 0.01 0.0

MDA, Landscaping 1 28 509 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

MDA, Paving 1 28 1068 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-9 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx 

(g/mile) 

NOx

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5(g/mile) 

PM2.5

(tons) 

NARMC HQ Building, Building Construction 6 170 33075 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0NARMC HQ Building, Clearing and Grading 1 19 649 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0NARMC HQ Building, Landscaping 0 19 117 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

NARMC HQ Building, Paving 1 19 356 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Landscaping 0 28 360 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Paving 6 28 4754 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Building Construction 4 132 14292 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Clearing and Grading 1 38 1038 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 435 230 3004398 0.32 1.04 0.29 0.96 0.01 0.04 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009 Parking Garage), Building Construction 720 230 4968000 0.32 1.73 0.29 1.59 0.01 0.0

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009), Building Construction 799 230 5511996 0.32 1.92 0.29 1.76 0.01 0.0

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2009), Building Construction 92 230 635904 0.32 0.22 0.29 0.20 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-10 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx 

(g/mile) 

NOx(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5

(g/mile) 

PM2.5 

(tons

USANCA Support Facility, Landscaping 0 28 196 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0USANCA Support Facility, Paving 1 28 1068 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Building Construction 6 151 29400 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Clearing and Grading 1 19 440 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Clearing and Grading 3 38 3592 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Demolition 0 19 221 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Parking Garage 96 151 434462 0.32 0.15 0.29 0.14 0.01 0.0

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Building Construction 14 113 47995 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Clearing and Grading 3 38 3717 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Child Development Center (EPG), Building Construction 17 170 88331 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.0

Child Development Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 3 57 4710 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Dental Clinic, Building Construction 12 214 74044 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0

Dental Clinic, Clearing and Grading 2 19 878 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Paving 0 19 135 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Family Travel Camp, Landscaping 1 57 1466 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-11 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx 

(g/mile) 

NOx 

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5 

(g/mile) 

PM2

(ton

Hospital (2010), Building Construction 209 230 1438733 0.32 0.50 0.29 0.46 0.01 0.Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Building Construction 18 170 91874 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 58 170 294734 0.32 0.10 0.29 0.09 0.01 0.

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 50 113 169488 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Landscaping 0 28 98 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Paving 1 28 534 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

NGA Admin (EPG) , Landscaping 16 28 13214 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

NGA Admin (EPG) , Paving 4 28 3203 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 435 230 3004398 0.32 1.04 0.29 0.96 0.01 0.

NGA Admin (EPG), Parking Structure, Building Construction 1742 230 12017592 0.32 4.18 0.29 3.84 0.01 0.

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Landscaping 19 28 15746 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-12 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx

(g/mile) 

NOx

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5(g/mile) 

PM2

(ton

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Paving 6 28 5329 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2010), Building Construction 46 113 156798 0.32 0.05 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Landscaping 1 19 626 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Landscaping 0 19 117 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Paving 0 19 147 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Landscaping 1 28 651 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Paving 1 28 1068 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Landscaping 0 28 383 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Paving 2 28 1830 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Child Development Center (EPG), Landscaping 1 28 470 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Child Development Center (EPG), Paving 1 28 1179 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Dental Clinic , Landscaping 0 28 313 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Dental Clinic , Paving 1 28 534 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Hospital (2011 Parking Garage), Building Construction 720 230 4968000 0.32 1.73 0.29 1.59 0.01 0.

Hospital , Landscaping 11 28 9141 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-13 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued) 

Project 

Trips 

Per Day 

Duration 

(days) VMT 

EFNOx

(g/mile) 

NOx 

(tons) 

EFVOC 

(g/mile) 

VOC 

(tons) 

EF PM2.5 

(g/mile) 

PM2.

(tons

Hospital , Paving 6 28 5329 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 58 230 398436 0.32 0.14 0.29 0.13 0.01 0.0Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Landscaping 12 76 28149 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 50 113 169488 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.0

Sources: USEPA and FAA 2002; MOBILE 6.2; SQAQMD 1993. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-14 

Table A1-3 

Architectural Coating Emissions 

Project Heated Area Wall Surface Expand and Renovate PX and Commissary, Building Construction 186300 372600 MDA (2007), Building Construction 52000 104000 PEO EIS Administrative Facility - Parking Garage, Building Construction 447400 894800 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Building Construction 447400 894800 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Building Construction 25000 50000 

Family Travel Camp, Building Construction 16658 33316 

Hospital (2008), Building Construction 289600 579200 

MDA (2008), Building Construction 52000 104000 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Building Construction 73500 147000 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 604750 1209500 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 604750 1209500 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Building Construction 1109500 2219000 

USANCA Support Facility, Building Construction 20000 40000 

Access Road/Control Point, Building Construction 280 560 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Building Construction 19700 39400 

Hospital (2009), Building Construction 289600 579200 

NARMC HQ Building, Building Construction 9000 18000 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Building Construction 5000 10000 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 604750 1209500 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009 Parking Garage), Building Construction 1000000 2000000 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009), Building Construction 1109500 2219000 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2009), Building Construction 128000 256000 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Building Construction 9000 18000 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Parking Garage 133000 266000 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Building Construction 19590 39180 

Child Development Center (EPG), Building Construction 24036 48072 

Dental Clinic, Building Construction 16000 32000 

Hospital (2010), Building Construction 289600 579200 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-15 

Table A1-3 

Architectural Coating Emissions (continued) 

Project Heated Area Wall Surface Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Building Construction 25000 50000 NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 604750 1209500 NGA Admin (EPG), Parking Structure, Building Construction 2419000 4838000 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2010), Building Construction 64000 128000 

Hospital (2011 Parking Garage), Building Construction 1000000 2000000 Source: SQAQMD 1993. 

Table A1-4 

Paving Off-gas Emissions 

Project Paved Area (Acres) EFVOC (lbs/acre) VOC (toGunston Road Improvements, Paving 12.52 2.62 0.016 PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Paving 3.01 2.62 0.004 

Access Road/Control Point, Paving 1 2.62 0.001 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) , Paving 16.96 2.62 0.022 

Family Travel Camp, Paving 0.42 2.62 0.001 

MDA, Paving 1 2.62 0.001 

NARMC HQ Building, Paving 0.5 2.62 0.001 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Paving 4.47 2.62 0.006 

USANCA Support Facility, Paving 1 2.62 0.001 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Paving 0.19 2.62 0.000 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 39.85 2.62 0.052 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Paving 0.5 2.62 0.001 

NGA Admin (EPG) , Paving 3.01 2.62 0.004 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Paving 5.01 2.62 0.007 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Paving 0.21 2.62 0.000 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Paving 1 2.62 0.001 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Paving 1.72 2.62 0.002 

Child Development Center (EPG), Paving 1.11 2.62 0.002 

Dental Clinic , Paving 0.5 2.62 0.001 

Hospital , Paving 5.01 2.62 0.007 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 39.85 2.62 0.052 Source: SQAQMD 1993. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-16 

Table A1-5 

Fugitive Particle Emissions 

Project PM10/TSP 

PM2.5/

PM10

EF TSP 

(lb/ac/d) 

Capture 

Fraction 

Duration 

of Grading 

(days) 

 Cleared 

Area 

(acres) 

Family Travel Camp, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 170.14 1.66 MDA, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 2.2 NGA Admin (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 113.42 37.09 PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 13.3 Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 113.42 42.03 EPG Infrastructure (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 85.07 18.11 Gunston Road Improvements, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 56.71 16.53 Hospital, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 113.42 26.5 Network Enterprise Communications Facility 

(AKO), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 5.32 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Demolition 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 56.71 0.8 Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 113.42 2.21 Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Demolition 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 0.3 USANCA Support Facility, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 1.46 Access Road/Control Point, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 1.02 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 0.64 NARMC HQ Building, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 0.92 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-17 

Table A1-5 

Fugitive Particle Emissions (continued) 

Project PM10/TSP 

PM2.5/

PM10

EF TSP 

(lb/ac/d) 

Capture 

Fraction 

Duration 

of Grading 

(days) 

 Cleared 

Area 

(acres) 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 0.73 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 0.62 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 2.53 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Demolition 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 0.31 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 2.62 Child Development Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 56.71 2.21 Dental Clinic, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 1.24 Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 170.14 46.2 Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 230 46.2 Total Fugitive Dust Emissions Sources: AP-42 Section 13.2.3; USEPA 2005c. 

Table A1-6 

Emissions from Small Heating and Cooling Activities 

Project Name Heated Area

 Fuel Used 

(cubic feet) NOx VOC PM2.5 

Access Road/Control Point, Operations 280 26796 0.0013 0.0001 0.0001 EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Operations 25000 2392500 0.1196 0.0066 0.0091 MDA (2007), Operations 104000 3036800 0.1518 0.0084 0.0115 

NARMC HQ Building, Operations 9000 861300 0.0431 0.0024 0.0033 

NARMC HQ Building, Operations 39825 3811252.5 0.1906 0.0105 0.0145 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 73500 2528400 0.1264 0.007 0.0096 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 73500 2528400 0.1264 0.007 0.0096 

USANCA Support Facility, Operations 20000 1914000 0.0957 0.0053 0.0073 

Dental Clinic, Operations 16000 1531200 0.0766 0.0042 0.0058 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-18 

Table A1-6 

Emissions from Small Heating and Cooling Activities (continued) 

Project Name Heated Area

 Fuel Used 

(cubic feet) NOx VOC PM2.5 

Family Travel Camp, Operations 16658 1594170.5 0.0797 0.0044 0.0061 Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 5000 478500 0.0239 0.0013 0.0018 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Operation 9000 861300 0.0431 0.0024 0.0033 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Operations 133600 3901120 0.1951 0.0107 0.0148 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Operations 19590 1874763 0.0937 0.0052 0.0071 

Child Development Center (EPG), Operations 24036 2300245.25 0.115 0.0063 0.0087 Sources: AP-42 Section 1.4; DOE 1999. 

Table A1-7 

Employee Vehicle Emissions 

Project Name 

 Number of Employees

 Average 

Commutea

 EFNOx

 (tons) 

 NOx

 (tons)

EFVOC 

(tons) 

VOC 

 (tons)

EF PM2.5

 (tons) 

PM2.5

(tons)

EF S

 (ton

PEO EIS, Commuters 480 -3 0.31 -0.24 0.31 -0.25 0.01 -0.01 0.0Realigned Away From Belvoir, Commuters -1769 14 0.31 -4.2 0.31 -4.3 0.01 -0.15 0.0NGA , Commuters 8500 -3 0.31 -4.32 0.31 -4.43 0.01 -0.16 0.0

MDA, Commuters 292 -3 0.31 -0.15 0.31 -0.15 0.01 -0.01 0.0

WHS , Commuters 9263 -3 0.31 -4.71 0.31 -4.82 0.01 -0.17 0.0

MEDCOM , Commuters 2069 -3 0.31 -1.05 0.31 -1.08 0.01 -0.04 0.0

Army Lease , Commuters 2720 -3 0.31 -1.38 0.31 -1.42 0.01 -0.05 0.0Sources: USEPA and FAA 2002, MOBILE6.2. a Represents the net change in commuting distance due to the action. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-1 

APPENDIX E.2 

VEHICLE MICROSCALE 

CO CONCENTRATION MODELING 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-3 

The CO microscale air quality analysis is based on procedures outlined in the following 

documents: 

• Guideline for Modeling CO From Roadway Intersections (USEPA 1992); and 

• Mobile 6.2 User’s Guide (USEPA 2003). 

Carbon monoxide concentrations are determined in two steps: 1) vehicle exhaust emission factors 

are calculated using the USEPA Mobile 6.2 computer model; and 2) these emission factors are 

subsequently used as input for the USEPA CAL3QHC dispersion model. The models used are 

described as follows: 

• Mobile 6.2 generates vehicular emission factors based on locality-specific vehicle fleet 

characteristics including vehicle age, operating mode of vehicles (hot/cold starts), and 

percentage of oxygenated fuel used. Input files containing the latest planning assumptions 

for Fairfax County were provided by the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments (MWCOG) (MWCOG 2005). 

• CAL3QHC predicts the level of CO or other pollutant concentrations from motor 

vehicles traveling near roadway intersections. The model incorporates inputs such as 

roadway geometry, traffic volumes, vehicular emission rates, and meteorological 

conditions. 

The intersection location determinations and CO estimations were made through the following 

process: 

1. Traffic, operating conditions, roadway configurations and geometry information was 

gathered for roadways and intersections of interest. 

2. Potential worst-case roadways were identified based on the level of service and traffic 

flow. 

3. Worst-case receptor locations were identified as the location of maximum CO 

concentration. 

4. Mobile 6.2 and CAL3QHC were used to calculate CO concentrations due to vehicle 

traffic at identified “worst-case” roadway and receptor locations. Assumptions outlined 

in the 1985 Caltrans Report, Development of Worst Case Meteorology Criteria (Nokes 

and Benson 1985) were used for the analysis. 

5. Persistence factor of 0.7 was used to estimate the 8-Hour concentration from the 1-Hour 

concentration. 

6. Background concentrations at the intersection were determined using local monitoring 

data obtained from the VDEQ and added to modeled concentrations. 

Data Inputs and results tabulated below (Table E.2-1). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-4 

Table E.2-1 

Peak hour CO levels for all alternative and intersections analyzed 

Intersection Location 1-hour [CO] 8-hour [CO]

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. Existing 6.6 4.6 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. No-Action 6.7 4.7 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. Preferred 6.8 4.8 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. Town Center 7.0 4.9 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. City Center 6.7 4.7 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. Satellite 7.0 4.9 

 

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB Ramp./ Backlick Rd. Existing 7.6 5.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB Ramp./ Backlick Rd. No-Action 7.6 5.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB Ramp./ Backlick Rd. Preferred 7.6 5.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB Ramp./ Backlick Rd. City Center 7.6 5.3 

 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. Existing 6.7 4.7 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. No-Action 7.0 4.9 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. Preferred 6.8 4.8 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. Town Center 6.8 4.8 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. City Center 6.8 4.8 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. Satellite 6.8 4.8 

 

Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr. Existing 6.2 4.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr. No-Action 6.7 4.7 

Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr. Preferred 7.3 5.1 

Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr. City Center 7.3 5.1 

 

Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. Existing 5.2 3.6 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. No-Action 5.6 3.9 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. Preferred 6.0 4.2 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. Town Center 6.3 4.4 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. City Center 5.7 4.0 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. Satellite 6.1 4.3 

 

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. Existing 5.0 3.5 

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. No-Action 5.0 3.5 

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. Preferred 5.7 4.0 

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. Town Center 5.4 3.8 

 

Route 1/Fairfax County Parkway. Existing 5.8 4.1 

Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway. No Action 5.9 4.1 

Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway. Preferred 6.2 4.3 

Route ./ Fairfax County Parkway. Town Center 6.6 4.6 

Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway. City Center 6.1 4.3 

Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway. Satellite 6.4 4.5 

 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. Existing 6.2 4.3 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. No-Action 6.6 4.6 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. Preferred 6.9 4.8 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. Town Center 6.8 4.8 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. City Center 6.8 4.8 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. Satellite 6.8 4.8 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-5 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 208 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -96 -96 108 108 108 18 36 54 -24 -48 -66

START YI (FEET) -6 -18 6 18 30 -72 -72 -60 84 84 -60

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 500 500 500 18 36 54 -24 -48 -66

END Y2 (FEET) -6 -18 6 18 108 -500 -500 -500 500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 15 60 20 20 20 130 30 940 395 1095 910 60

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 12 12 12 12 12 12 24 12 24 24 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 176 176 161 161 84 186 156 156 131 101 101

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW RATE 

(per lane) 1770 1792 1681 1770 1583 1770 1769.5 1583 1716.5 1769.5 1583

AVERAGE GREEN 32 32 47 47 124 22 52 52 77 107 107

SATURATION FLOW RATE 1770 1792 1681 1770 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 36 36 -48 -48

START YI (FEET) -18 -18 18 18 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 36 36 -48 -48

END Y2 (FEET) -18 -18 18 18 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 95 1550 170 110 2430 1085 2065 950

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 34 34 46 22 46 34 70 34

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 2 2 3 1 3 2 5 2

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 50 30 70 490 20 1130 40 970 60 200 820 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 196 196 87 87 73 196 149 149 194 147 147

AVERAGE GREEN 12 12 121 121 135 12 59 59 14 61 61

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 150 290 1640 70 1230 2150 1030 1380

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-6 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 50 40 60 450 20 1140 40 1280 70 250 1080 20

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 196 196 101 101 85 196 137 137 192 133 133

AVERAGE GREEN 12 12 107 107 123 12 71 71 16 75 75

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 150 360 1610 80 1600 2470 1350 1590

 

Town Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 20 90 20 70 20 340 40 1930 900 1810 1840 50

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 194 194 196 196 111 195 111 111 123 39 39

AVERAGE GREEN 14 14 12 12 97 13 97 97 85 169 169

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 130 2800 430 110 4640 2290 3700 1930

 

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 50 30 70 560 20 1080 40 1230 80 240 1090 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 196 196 102 102 85 196 137 137 191 132 132

AVERAGE GREEN 12 12 106 106 123 12 71 71 17 76 76

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 150 350 1660 70 1550 2360 1340 1720

 

Satellite Campus Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 430 30 230 690 20 1360 60 1400 150 340 1020 20

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 174 174 121 121 103 196 141 141 190 135 135

AVERAGE GREEN 34 34 34 87 87 105 12 67 67 18 73 73

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 690 520 2070 100 1890 3190 1380 1940
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-7 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - FSP and Backlick

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 150 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 

START X1 (FEET) -48 -48 6 60 -6 -18

START YI (FEET) -12 -30 -48 -48 48 48

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 6 24 -6 -18

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -30 -500 -500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1375 250 170 1380 565 85

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE 

WIDTH 

12 12 12 24 24 12

NUMBER OF 

LANES IN QUEUE 

1 1 1 2 2 1

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

150 150 150 150 150 150

AVERAGE RED 101 59 101 101 131

CLEARANCE LOST 

TIME 

2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION 

FLOW RATE (per 

lane) 

1681 1583 1770 1769.5 1769.5 1583

AVERAGE GREEN 49 91 49 49 19 19

SATURATION 

FLOW RATE 

1681 1583 1770 3539 3539 1583

 EBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD FSP WBFSP EB I95

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 60 60 -6 -6 144 144 264

START YI (FEET) -18 24 0 0 0 0 0 -120 1000

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 60 60 -6 -6 0 0 264

END Y2 (FEET) -18 24 -500 500 500 -500 -114 -222 -1000

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1625 255 1380 2755 650 815 1270 2120 2280

0

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE 

WIDTH 

46 34 46 34 46 34 46 82 178

NUMBER OF 

LANES IN QUEUE 

3 2 3 2 3 2 3 6 14

No-Action Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1500 10 220 10 10 10 170 1410 10 10 620 110

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

150 150 150 150 150 150

AVERAGE RED 81 51 51 81 111 111

AVERAGE GREEN 69 99 99 69 39 39

 EBA WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1730 30 290 1430 2920 740 850
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-8 

Preferred Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1510 0 140 10 10 10 140 1420 10 10 780 190

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

150 150 150 150 150 150

AVERAGE RED 81 51 51 81 111 111

AVERAGE GREEN 69 99 99 69 39 39

 EBA WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1650 30 340 1440 2940 980 930

City Center Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1510 0 140 10 10 10 140 1420 10 10 780 190

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

150 150 150 150 150 150

AVERAGE RED 81 51 51 81 111 111

AVERAGE GREEN 69 99 99 69 39 39

 EBA WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1650 30 340 1440 2940 980 930
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-9 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. 13 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -60 -60 60 60 0 24 -6 -24

START YI (FEET) -6 -24 -6 12 -60 -60 48 48

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 500 500 0 24 -6 -24

END Y2 (FEET) -6 -24 -6 12 -500 -500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 410 2120 860 205 1270 165 780 515 235 220 445 365

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 12 24 12 24 24 24 12 24

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 91 91 80 106 146 146 149 149

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE (per lane) 

1641 1769.5 1770 1769.5 1716.5 1769.5 1770 1769.5

AVERAGE GREEN 89 89 100 74 34 34 31 31

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE 

1641 3539 1770 3539 3433 3539 1770 3539

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 24 24 -24 -24

START YI (FEET) -24 -24 12 12 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 24 24 -24 -24

END Y2 (FEET) -24 -24 12 12 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 3390 2575 1640 2415 970 1090 1030 1510

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 58 46 58 46 58 46 58 46

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 480 2260 810 230 1400 220 760 680 260 290 570 430

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 44 84 88 106 145 140 154 149

AVERAGE GREEN 136 96 92 74 35 40 26 31

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 3550 2810 1850 2590 1230 1380 1290 1610

Preferred Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

540 2320 860 220 1340 230 720 680 240 290 580 440

TOTAL SIGNAL 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-10 

LENGTH 

AVERAGE RED 36 80 90 107 148 143 154 149

AVERAGE GREEN 144 100 90 73 32 37 26 31

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

3720 2850 1790 2500 1210 1450 1310 1660

Town Center Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

540 2320 860 220 1340 230 720 680 240 290 580 440

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 36 80 90 107 148 143 154 149

AVERAGE GREEN 144 100 90 73 32 37 26 31

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

3720 2850 1790 2500 1210 1450 1310 1660

City Center Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

510 2300 870 230 1320 230 730 670 250 290 590 420

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 41 83 89 107 147 141 154 148

AVERAGE GREEN 139 97 91 73 33 39 26 32

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

3680 2840 1780 2470 1210 1410 1300 1690

Satellite Campus Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

420 2330 790 220 1410 200 840 740 290 280 580 410

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 51 84 83 100 144 138 155 149

AVERAGE GREEN 129 96 97 80 36 42 25 31

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

3540 2900 1830 2660 1310 1360 1270 1590
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-11 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr.

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -48 -48 -48 48 48 48 -6 6 18 6 -6 -18

START YI (FEET) -6 -30 -42 -6 18 42 -72 -72 -72 72 72 72

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 -500 500 500 500 -6 6 18 6 -6 -18

END Y2 (FEET) -6 -30 -42 -6 18 42 -500 -500 -500 500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 70 1905 95 250 4130 100 45 5 150 90 10 50

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 12 36 12 12 36 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 53 53 53 45 45 45 152 152 152 152 152 152

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW RATE 

(per lane) 

60 1695 1583 1770 1695 1583 1770 1863 1583 1711 1863 1583

 

SATURATION FLOW RATE 60 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1711 1863 1583

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 6 6 -6 -6

START YI (FEET) -30 -30 18 18 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 6 6 -6 -6

END Y2 (FEET) -30 -30 18 18 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2070 2145 4480 4225 245 175 150 355

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 46 46 46 46 34 34 34 34

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 100 1900 110 270 4130 130 50 10 160 110 20 70

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 76 88 88 16 58 58 134 134 134 134 134 134

AVERAGE GREEN 104 92 92 164 122 122 46 46 46 46 46 46

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2110 2170 4530 4250 280 240 200 400
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-12 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 60 3820 250 670 1570 80 170 20 470 60 60 30

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276

AVERAGE RED 108 120 120 58 58 58 230 230 230 230 230 230

AVERAGE GREEN 168 156 156 218 218 218 46 46 46 46 46 46

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 4130 4350 2320 1770 550 160 150 980

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 60 3800 270 680 1600 80 180 30 480 60 60 30

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276

AVERAGE RED 108 120 120 58 58 58 230 230 230 230 230 230

AVERAGE GREEN 168 156 156 218 218 218 46 46 46 46 46 46

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 4130 4340 2360 1810 570 170 150 1010
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-13 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -60 -60 -60 48 48 -6 6 -30 -18 -6

START YI (FEET) 6 -12 -30 -6 12 -60 -60 60 60 -72

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 500 500 500 -6 6 -30 -18 -6

END Y2 (FEET) 6 -12 -30 -6 12 -500 -500 500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 5 1220 140 10 1430 90 110 70 25 185 15 10

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 12 24 12 12 24 12 12 12 12 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 74 90.5 90.5 74 90.5 130 130 156 156 156

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE (per lane) 

1770 1769.5 1583 1770 1753.5 1681 1689 1593 1676 1478

AVERAGE GREEN 106 89.5 89.5 106 89.5 50 50 24 24 24

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE 

1770 3539 1583 1770 3507 1681 1689 1593 1676 1478

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 6 6 -18 -18

START YI (FEET) -12 -12 12 12 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 6 6 -18 -18

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -12 12 12 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1365 1430 1530 1550 280 165 210 165

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 58 34 58 34 34 22 46 22

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

4 2 4 2 2 1 3 1

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1280 140 20 1490 60 1180 110 40 190 20 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 96 107.5 107.5 96 107.5 121 121 143 143 143

AVERAGE GREEN 84 72.5 72.5 84 72.5 59 59 37 37 37

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1430 1510 1570 2680 340 180 220 180
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-14 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1680 180 80 1850 110 890 350 110 170 90 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 89 100.5 100.5 89 100.5 128 128 143 143 143

AVERAGE GREEN 91 79.5 79.5 91 79.5 52 52 37 37 37

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1870 1960 2040 2750 630 470 270 350

Town Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1500 270 120 1670 100 1210 430 150 150 110 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 98 109.5 109.5 98 109.5 119 119 143 143 143

AVERAGE GREEN 82 70.5 70.5 82 70.5 61 61 37 37 37

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1780 1800 1890 2890 730 540 270 500

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1530 200 10 1570 90 1060 200 70 210 50 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 94 105.5 105.5 94 105.5 123 123 123 123 123

AVERAGE GREEN 86 74.5 74.5 86 74.5 57 57 57 57 57

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1740 1810 1670 2640 480 300 270 260

 

Satellite Campus Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1570 260 80 1640 80 110 390 100 140 120 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 96 107.5 107.5 96 107.5 121 121 143 143 143

AVERAGE GREEN 84 72.5 72.5 84 72.5 59 59 37 37 37

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1840 1810 1800 1760 630 480 270 460
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-15 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Route 1/ Belvoir 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR 

[GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2

 

Existing Conditions 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -36 -36 36 36 6 18

START YI (FEET) -12 -18 6 24 -48 -48

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 500 6 18

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -18 6 24 -500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1720 295 270 1590 155 85

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 24 12 12 24 12 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN QUEUE 2 1 1 2 1 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 65 65 138.5 23.5 156.5 156.5

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW RATE (per lane) 1769.5 1583 1770 1769.5 1770 1583

AVERAGE GREEN 115 115 41.5 156.5 23.5 23.5

SATURATION FLOW RATE 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1583

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 0 0

START YI (FEET) -12 -12 24 24 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 0 0

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -12 24 24 -500 0

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2015 1805 1860 1745 85 565

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 34 34 46 34 34 34

NUMBER OF LANES IN QUEUE 2 2 3 2 2 2

 

No-Action Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1760 210 310 1590 120 110

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 66 66 23 23 137 157

AVERAGE GREEN 114 114 157 157 43 23

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1970 1870 1900 1710 110 520

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-16 

Preferred Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2050 320 410 1600 430 390

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 80 80 143 43 137 137

AVERAGE GREEN 100 100 37 137 43 43

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2370 2440 2010 2030 390 730

 

Town Center Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1780 130 650 1790 220 630

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 92 92 32 32 148 148

AVERAGE GREEN 88 88 148 148 32 32

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1910 2410 2440 2010 630 780
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-17 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR 

[GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2

 

Existing Conditions 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -60 -60 60 -24 -42

START YI (FEET) -12 -36 12 60 48

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 500 -24 -42

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -36 12 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 340 2085 650 920 840 20

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 24 24 24 24 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN QUEUE 2 2 2 2 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 150 57.5 87.5 122.5 150

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW RATE (per lane) 1716.5 1769.5 1769.5 1716.5 1583

AVERAGE GREEN 30 122.5 92.5 57.5 30

SATURATION FLOW RATE 3433 3539 3539 3433 1583

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

START YI (FEET) -36 -36 12 12 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 0 0 0

END Y2 (FEET) -36 -36 12 12 -500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2425 2925 1570 670 840 1260 860

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 58 34 46 34 46 34 46

NUMBER OF LANES IN QUEUE 4 2 3 2 3 2 3

 

No-Action Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 390 2050 660 1000 930 30

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 147 59 92 121 88

AVERAGE GREEN 33 121 88 59 92

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2440 2980 1660 690 930 1390 960 0

 

Preferred Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 710 1860 1070 1240 1260 90

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 150 57.5 87.5 122.5 92.5

AVERAGE GREEN 30 122.5 92.5 57.5 87.5

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2570 3120 2310 1160 1260 1950 1350 0

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-18 

Town Center Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1090 1730 1070 1420 1560 160

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 128 74 126 106 54

AVERAGE GREEN 52 106 54 74 126

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2820 3290 2490 1230 1560 2510 1720 0

 

City Center Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 580 1910 980 1090 1120 70

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 150 57.5 87.5 122.5 92.5

AVERAGE GREEN 30 122.5 92.5 57.5 87.5

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2490 3030 2070 1050 1120 1670 1190 0

 

Satellite Campus Alternative 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 940 1620 980 1420 1550 140

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 131 78 127 102 53

AVERAGE GREEN 49 102 53 78 127

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2560 3170 2400 1120 1550 2360 1690 0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-19 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Route 1/ Telegraph 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR 

[GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2

 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -72 -72 84 84 84 -6 6 18 0 -18 -42

START YI (FEET) -12 -42 -6 12 42 -84 -84 -84 60 60 60

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 -500 500 -500 -6 6 18 0 -18 -42

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -42 -6 12 42 500 500 500 500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 220 715 55 150 1960 35 5 25 30 70 175 800

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 24 36 12 48 12 12 12 12 24 12 36

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 3

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 154.5 84 162.5 92 92 158 158 158 135.5 135.5 135.5

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE (per lane) 1716.5 1695 1770 1602 1583 1770 1863 1583 1716.5 1860

1203.3

33

AVERAGE GREEN 25.5 96 17.5 88 88 22 22 22 44.5 44.5 44.5

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE 3433 5085 1770 6408 1583 1770 1863 1583 3433 1860 3610

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 -84 -84 60 60

START YI (FEET) -42 -42 12 12 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 -84 -84 60 60

END Y2 (FEET) -42 -42 12 12 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 990 815 2145 2765 125 280 1045 380

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 70 46 82 58 46 34 82 22

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 5 3 6 4 3 2 6 1

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 280 700 50 150 1990 60 10 30 30 100 190 950

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 129 158 122 122 130 130 130 130 130 130

AVERAGE GREEN 22 51 22 58 58 50 50 50 50 50 50

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1030 830 2200 2950 160 370 1240 390

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.2-20 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 260 1040 40 210 2000 80 10 30 40 200 140 860

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 128 149 119 72 130 130 130 133 133 133

AVERAGE GREEN 22 52 31 61 108 50 50 50 47 47 47

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1340 1280 2290 2870 270 370 1200 390

 

Town Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 240 910 40 200 2340 90 10 30 40 190 150 840

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 127 144 113 72 130 130 130 139 139 139

AVERAGE GREEN 22 53 36 67 108 50 50 50 41 41 41

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1190 1140 2630 3190 260 360 1180 390

 

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 270 980 50 180 2030 130 10 30 40 170 170 870

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 124 153 119 130 130 130 130 133 133 133

AVERAGE GREEN 22 56 27 61 50 50 50 50 47 47 47

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1300 1190 2340 2910 240 430 1210 400

 

Satellite Campus Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 230 930 30 160 2170 90 10 30 40 240 200 990

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 127 149 118 72 130 130 130 134 134 134

AVERAGE GREEN 22 53 31 62 108 50 50 50 46 46 46

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1190 1210 2420 3170 310 350 1430 390
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.3-1 

APPENDIX E.3 

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS—SOURCES AND IMPACTS 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.3-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.3-3 

Criteria Pollutants—Sources and Impacts 

Pollutants and Their Sources Health and Environmental Impacts 

Ozone (O3): a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. It is not 

usually emitted directly into the air, but at ground level is 

created by a chemical reaction between oxides of NOx and 

VOC in the presence of heat and sunlight. Ozone has the 

same chemical structure whether it occurs miles above the 

earth or at ground level and can be "good" or "bad," depending 

on its location in the atmosphere. "Good" ozone occurs 

naturally in the stratosphere approximately 10 to 30 miles 

above the earth's surface and forms a layer that protects life on 

earth from the sun's harmful rays. In the earth's lower 

atmosphere, ground-level ozone is considered "bad." 

a) VOC + NOx + Heat + Sunlight = Ozone 

Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline 

vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources 

of NOx and VOC, that help to form ozone. Sunlight and hot 

weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful

concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a 

summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high 

levels of "bad" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to 

increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and 

pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original 

sources. 

Health Problems: 

Ozone can irritate lung airways and cause inflammation much 

like a sunburn. Other symptoms include wheezing, coughing, 

pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties 

during exercise or outdoor activities. People with respiratory 

problems are most vulnerable, but even healthy people that are 

active outdoors can be affected when ozone levels are high. 

Repeated exposure to ozone pollution for several months may 

cause permanent lung damage. Anyone who spends time 

outdoors in the summer is at risk, particularly children, and 

other people who are active outdoors. Even at very low levels, 

ground-level ozone triggers a variety of health problems 

including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and 

increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia 

and bronchitis. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Ground-level ozone interferes with the ability of plants to 

produce and store food, which makes them more susceptible to 

disease, insects, other pollutants, and harsh weather. Ozone 

damages the leaves of trees and other plants, ruining the 

appearance of cities, national parks, and recreation areas. 

Ozone reduces crop and forest yields and increases plant 

vulnerability to disease, pests, and harsh weather. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO): a colorless, odorless gas that is 

formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a 

component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 

56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Other non-road 

engines and vehicles (such as construction equipment and 

boats) contribute about 22 percent of all CO emissions 

nationwide. Higher levels of CO generally occur in areas with 

heavy traffic congestion. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO 

emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other 

sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as 

metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential 

wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. 

Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas 

and kerosene space heaters are sources of CO indoors. The 

highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the 

colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more 

frequent. The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground 

beneath a layer of warm air. 

Health Problems

CO can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen 

delivery to the body's organs (like the heart and brain) and 

tissues. 

Cardiovascular Effects. The health threat from lower levels of 

CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease, like 

angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a 

person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low 

levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person's ability to 

exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other 

cardiovascular effects. 

Central Nervous System Effects. Even healthy people can 

be affected by high levels of CO. People who breathe high 

levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to 

work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty 

performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is 

poisonous and can cause death. 

Smog. CO contributes to the formation of smog and ground

level O3, which can trigger serious respiratory problems. 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): SO2 belongs to the family of sulfur oxide 

gases (SOx). Sulfur is prevalent in all raw materials, including 

crude oil, coal, and ore that contains common metals like 

aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, and iron. SOx gases are formed 

when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is burned, and 

when gasoline is extracted from oil, or metals are extracted 

from ore. SO2 dissolves in water vapor to form acid, and 

interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form 

sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and 

their environment. 

SO2 causes a wide variety of health and environmental impacts 

because of the way it reacts with other substances in the air. 

Particularly sensitive groups include people with asthma who 

are active outdoors and children, the elderly, and people with 

heart or lung disease. 

Health Problems: 

Respiratory Effects from Gaseous SO2 

Peak levels of SO2 in the air can cause temporary breathing 

difficulty for people with asthma who are active outdoors. 

Longer-term exposures to high levels of SO2 gas and particles 

cause respiratory illness and aggravate existing heart disease. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.3-4 

Over 65% of SO2 released to the air, or more than 13 million 

tons per year, comes from electric utilities, especially those that 

burn coal. Other sources of SO2 are industrial facilities that 

derive their products from raw materials like metallic ore, coal, 

and crude oil, or that burn coal or oil to produce process heat. 

Examples are petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing, and 

metal processing facilities. Also, locomotives, large ships, and 

some non-road diesel equipment currently burn high sulfur fuel 

and release SO2 emissions to the air in large quantities. 

Respiratory Effects from Sulfate Particles 

SO2 reacts with other chemicals in the air to form tiny sulfate 

particles. When these are breathed, they gather in the lungs 

and are associated with increased respiratory symptoms and 

disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death. 

Visibility Impairment 

Haze occurs when light is scattered or absorbed by particles 

and gases in the air. Sulfate particles are the major cause of 

reduced visibility in many parts of the U.S., including our 

national parks. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Acid Rain 

SO2 and nitrogen oxides react with other substances in the air 

to form acids, which fall to earth as rain, fog, snow, or dry 

particles. Some may be carried by the wind for hundreds of 

miles. 

Plant and Water Damage 

Acid rain damages forests and crops, changes the makeup of 

soil, and makes lakes and streams acidic and unsuitable for 

fish. Continued exposure over a long time changes the natural 

variety of plants and animals in an ecosystem. 

Aesthetic Damage 

SO2 accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, 

including irreplaceable monuments, statues, and sculptures 

that are part of our nation's cultural heritage. 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): the generic term for a group of highly 

reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in 

varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless 

and odorless. However, one common pollutant, NO2, along 

with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish-brown 

layer over many urban areas. 

Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, 

as in a combustion process. The primary sources of NOx are 

motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, 

commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels. 

NOx causes a wide variety of health and environmental impacts 

because of various compounds and derivatives in the family of 

nitrogen oxides, including nitrogen dioxide, nitric acid, nitrous 

oxide, nitrates, and nitric oxide. 

Health Problems: 

Ground-level ozone (smog) is formed when NOx and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of heat and 

sunlight. Children, people with lung diseases such as asthma, 

and people who work or exercise outside are susceptible to 

adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in 

lung function. Ozone can be transported by wind currents and 

cause health impacts far from original sources. Millions of 

Americans live in areas that do not meet the health standards 

for ozone. 

Particles 

NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to 

form nitric acid and related particles. Human health concerns 

include effects on breathing and the respiratory system, 

damage to lung tissue, and premature death. Small particles 

penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can 

cause or worsen respiratory disease such as emphysema and 

bronchitis, and aggravate existing heart disease. 

Toxic Chemicals 

In the air, NOx reacts readily with common organic chemicals 

and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products, some 

of which may cause biological mutations. Examples of these 

chemicals include the nitrate radical, nitroarenes, and 

nitrosamines. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.3-5 

Visibility Impairment

Nitrate particles and nitrogen dioxide can block the 

transmission of light, reducing visibility in urban areas and on a 

regional scale in our national parks. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Direct impacts from ozone include damaged vegetation and 

reduced crop yields.

Acid Rain 

NOx and sulfur dioxide react with other substances in the air to 

form acids, which fall to earth as rain, fog, snow, or dry 

particles. Some may be carried by wind for hundreds of miles. 

Acid rain damages; causes deterioration of cars, buildings and 

historical monuments; and causes lakes and streams to 

become acidic and unsuitable for many fish. 

Water Quality Deterioration 

Increased nitrogen loading in water bodies, particularly coastal 

estuaries, upsets the chemical balance of nutrients used by 

aquatic plants and animals. Additional nitrogen accelerates 

"eutrophication," which leads to oxygen depletion and reduces 

fish and shellfish populations. NOx emissions in the air are 

one of the largest sources of nitrogen pollution in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Global Warming 

One member of the NOx family, nitrous oxide, is a greenhouse 

gas. It accumulates in the atmosphere with other greenhouse 

gasses causing a gradual rise in the earth's temperature. This 

will lead to increased risks to human health, a rise in the sea 

level, and other adverse changes to plant and animal habitat. 

Particulates (PM10 and PM2.5): Particulate matter (PM) is the 

term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, 

smoke, and liquid droplets. Particles can be suspended in the 

air for long periods of time. Some particles are large or dark 

enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small that 

individually they can only be detected with an electron 

microscope. 

Some particles are directly emitted into the air. They come from 

a variety of sources such as cars, trucks, buses, factories, 

construction sites, tilled fields, unpaved roads, stone crushing, 

and burning of wood. 

Other particles may be formed in the air from the chemical 

change of gases. They are indirectly formed when gases from 

burning fuels react with sunlight and water vapor. These can 

result from fuel combustion in motor vehicles, at power plants, 

and in other industrial processes. 

Health Problems: 

Many scientific studies have linked breathing PM to a series of 

health problems, including: 

• aggravated asthma 

• increases in respiratory symptoms like coughing and

difficult or painful breathing 

• chronic bronchitis 

• decreased lung function 

• premature death 

Visibility Impairment

PM is the major cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the 

United States, including many of our national parks. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Atmospheric deposition 

Particles can be carried over long distances by wind and then 

settle on ground or water. The effects of this settling include: 

• making lakes and streams acidic 

• changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.3-6 

large river basins 

• depleting the nutrients in soil 

• damaging sensitive forests and farm crops 

• affecting the diversity of ecosystems 

Aesthetic damage 

Soot, a type of PM, stains and damages stone and other 

materials, including culturally important objects such as 

monuments and statues. 

Lead (Pb): a metal found naturally in the environment as well 

as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead 

emissions have historically been motor vehicles (such as cars 

and trucks) and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of 

leaded gasoline, metals processing is the major source of lead 

emissions to the air today. The highest levels of lead in air are 

generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources 

are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery 

manufacturers. 

People, animals, and fish are mainly exposed to lead by breathing 

and ingesting it in food, water, soil, or dust. Lead accumulates in 

the blood, bones, muscles, and fat. Infants and young children 

are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead.

Health Problems: 

Damages organs - Lead causes damage to the kidneys, liver, 

brain and nerves, and other organs. Exposure to lead may 

also lead to osteoporosis (brittle bone disease) and 

reproductive disorders. 

Affects the brain and nerves - Excessive exposure to lead 

causes seizures, mental retardation, behavioral disorders, 

memory problems, and mood changes. Low levels of lead 

damage the brain and nerves in fetuses and young children, 

resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ. 

Affects the heart and blood - Lead exposure causes high 

blood pressure and increases heart disease, especially in men. 

Lead exposure may also lead to anemia, or weak blood. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Affects animals and plants - Wild and domestic animals can 

ingest lead while grazing. They experience the same kind of 

effects as people who are exposed to lead. Low 

concentrations of lead can slow down vegetation growth near 

industrial facilities. 

Lead can enter water systems through runoff and from sewage 

and industrial waste streams. Elevated levels of lead in the 

water can cause reproductive damage in some aquatic life and 

cause blood and neurological changes in fish and other 

animals that live there. 

Source: (USEPA 2006a)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-1 

APPENDIX E.4 

PERMITTED SOURCES OF AIR EMISSIONS— 

POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-3 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-4 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-5 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-6 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-7 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-8 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-9 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-10 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-11 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-12 

Preferred Alternative– Stationary Source Emissions Project Name Heated Area

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] VOC [tons] 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Operations 25000 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Operations 19590 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Development Center (EPG), Operations 24036 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 14700 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 2219000 17.22 7.17 2.05 0.12 1.36 NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 2419000 16.98 8.2 2.34 0.14 1.56 EPG Total 4721326 34.53 15.77 4.42 0.26 2.94 Project Name 

Number of 

Generators 

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 5 2000 250 1.49 18.36 3.43 NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 8 2500 250 3.18 39.14 7.63 

EPG Total 4.67 57.5 11.06 

Project Name Heated Area

CO 

[tons] NOx [tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] VOC [tons] 

Access Road/Control Point, Operations 280 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 MDA (2007), Operations 104000 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.0084 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0024 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 39825 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.0105 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.007 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.007 

Dental Clinic, Operations 16000 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.0042 Family Travel Camp, Operations 16658 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.0044 Medical Guest House, Operations 100000 0.12 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.008 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Operation 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0024 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Operations 

133600 0.16 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.0107 

Hospital (2008), Operations 868800 1.17 1.39 0.11 0.01 0.0767 USANCA Support Facility, Operations 20000 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.0053 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-13 

Preferred Alternative– Stationary Source Emissions Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

5000 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.0013 

Main Post Total 1469163 2.26 2.69 0.20 0.02 0.1484 Sources: AP-42 Section 1.4 and DOE 1999 Project Name 

Number of 

Generators 

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

Hospital (2008), Operations 6 1500 500 0.00 33.21 0.20 USANCA Support Facility, Operations 1 125 500 0.28 1.29 0.09 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 1 45 500 0.10 0.46 0.03 Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 1 30 500 0.07 0.31 0.02 Total Main Post Total 0.45 35.27 0.34 Sources: AP-42 and Manufacturers SpecificationRoll-up 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2 

[tons] VOC [tons] 

Main Post 3 38 1 1 2 EPG 39 73 15 11 4 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-14 

Town Center and Satellite Campuses Alternative– Stationary Source Emissions Project Name 

Heated 

Area 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

Access Road/Control Point, Operations 280 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Operations 

25000 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 

MDA (2007), Operations 104000 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 39825 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.01 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Dental Clinic, Operations 16000 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 Family Travel Camp, Operations 16658 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 Medical Guest House, Operations 100000 0.12 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Operation 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Operations 

133600 0.16 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Operations 19590 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Development Center (EPG), Operations 

24036 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Hospital (2008), Operations 868800 1.17 1.39 0.11 0.01 0.08 USANCA Support Facility, Operations 20000 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.01 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 

14700 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

5000 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 

2219000 17.22 7.17 2.05 0.12 1.36 

NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 2419000 16.98 8.20 2.34 0.14 1.56 Main Post Total 6495489 36.80 18.46 4.63 0.28 3.09 Sources: AP-42 Section 1.4 and DOE 1999 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-15 

Town Center and Satellite Campuses Alternative– Stationary Source Emissions Project Name 

Number of 

Generators

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

Hospital (2008), Operations 6 1500 500 0.00 33.21 0.20 USANCA Support Facility, Operations 1 125 500 0.28 1.29 0.09 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 

1 45 500 0.10 0.46 0.03 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

1 30 500 0.07 0.31 0.02 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 

5 2000 250 2.98 18.36 3.43 

NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 8 2500 250 3.18 39.14 7.63 Main Post Total 6.61 92.77 11.40 Source: AP-42 and manufacturer specificationsRoll-up 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

Main Post 43 111 16 11 6 EPG 0 0 0 0 0 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-16 

City Center Alternative – Stationary Source Emissions 

Project Name (EPG) 

Heated 

Area 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Operations 

25000 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 

MDA (2007), Operations 104000 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 39825 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.01 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Family Travel Camp, Operations 16658 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 Medical Guest House, Operations 100000 0.12 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Operations 19590 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Development Center (EPG), Operations 

24036 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Hospital (2008), Operations 868800 1.17 1.39 0.11 0.01 0.08 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 

14700 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

5000 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 

2219000 17.22 7.17 2.05 0.12 1.36 

NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 2419000 16.98 8.20 2.34 0.14 1.56 EPG Total 36.35 17.92 4.58 0.28 3.06 Project Name (EPG) 

Number of 

Generators 

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

Hospital (2008), Operations 6 1500 500 0.00 33.21 0.20 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 

1 45 500 0.10 0.46 0.03 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

1 30 500 0.07 0.31 0.02 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 

5 2000 500 2.98 18.36 3.43 

NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 8 2500 500 3.18 39.14 7.63 EPG Total 6.33 91.48 11.31 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-17 

City Center Alternative – Stationary Source Emissions

Project Name (Main Post) 

Heated 

Area 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

Access Road/Control Point, Operations 280 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Dental Clinic, Operations 16000 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Operation 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Operations 

133600 0.16 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.01 

USANCA Support Facility, Operations 20000 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.01 Main Post Total 6495489 0.45 0.54 0.04 0.00 0.03 Project Name(Main Post) 

Number of 

Generators 

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

USANCA Support Facility, Operations 1 125 500 0.28 1.29 0.09 Main Post Total 0.28 1.29 0.09 Roll-up 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

Main Post 1 2 0 0 0 EPG 43 109 16 11 6 

Notes: Only actual equipment for the NGA and WHS facilities has been chosen at this time. Detailed methodologies for emissions calculations for Appendix E.1. Potential to emit estimation for emergency generators were based on a 250 hours of operations federally enforceable permit limitati

facilities, and 500 hours for all the other facilities. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

E.4-18 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-1

Appendix F 

Storm Water and Watershed Modeling Methodology 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-3

Storm Water Runoff Modeling 

To estimate baseline storm water runoff and peak flow volumes and the potential impacts of each of the

proposed development scenarios on Fort Belvoir, affected streams were modeled using Technical Release 

55 (TR-55), Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (NRCS, 1986). TR-55 includes simplified 

procedures for estimating storm-event runoff and peak discharges in small watersheds. 

An assessment of land cover and hydrologic factors that characterize the current flow conditions of 

streams located within proposed development areas was made to determine the potential environmental 

consequences that would result from the adoption of each of the BRAC proposed alternatives. The 

assessment included analysis of the existing distribution of land uses and soil types, characterization of 

surface elevations, subwatersheds, and stream networks. TR-55 model input data were developed based 

on the proposed development footprint coverage for each of the alternatives and current GIS data layers 

for land cover, streams, soils, topography, and other watershed attributes. 

Hydrologic conditions on Fort Belvoir are characterized based on storm water management units. The 

delineation of these subwatersheds was provided by the Fort Belvoir GIS Center (US Army Garrison Fort 

Belvoir DPW GIS Center, 2005). Hydrologic soil types and areas were characterized using the State Soil

Geographic (STATSGO) coverage for Virginia, developed by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). Land cover, surface elevations, and stream networks were derived from the 2001 

National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), 30-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and National 

Hydrography Dataset (NHD), developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The 

assessment of current conditions was used as a baseline from which potential impacts on storm water 

runoff volumes and stream flow velocity were estimated for each of the proposed alternatives. Note that 

BMPs required by state and federal regulations have various percent efficiencies depending on their 

design and site characteristics; therefore, BMP implementation was not considered in the storm water 

modeling scenarios. 

Model Background

TR-55 model scenarios for each subwatershed were run using local precipitation data for the 1, 2, 5, 10, 

25, 50, and 100-year design storm events over a 24-hour period. 24-hour rainfall distributions for the 

Washington, DC, metropolitan region were packaged with the TR-55 model and were used to simulate 

precipitation and runoff conditions for each of the subwatersheds modeled. These data were derived from 

NOAA isoline precipitation maps for the eastern United States. Precipitation data were used to estimate 

runoff volumes by assigning a weighted curve number to the land area of each modeled subwatershed 

based on the distribution of land cover and hydrologic soil types. Peak stream flow was then estimated

based on flow routing procedures that calculate runoff travel time, also known as time of concentration, 

through the subwatershed. Runoff travel time between two locations was used as a measure of flow 

velocity. For each TR-55 model scenario, travel time was assumed to be implicitly dependent on stream

flow length. Other important model parameters are discussed below. 

The runoff curve number determines the fraction of total precipitation that either infiltrates into ground 

water storage or enters surface water as over-land runoff. Curve numbers are calculated based on the 

distribution of land use/cover and hydrologic soil types within each subwatershed. Area weighted curve 

numbers for Fort Belvoir subwatersheds were calculated using available land cover (2001 NLCD) and 

soils (STATSGO) GIS data layers. 

To estimate stream flow velocity, TR-55 divides surface flow into three distinct types—sheet flow, 

shallow concentrated flow, and open channel flow—that together form a continuous flow route from the 

most hydrologically distant point to the farthest downstream point within a watershed. The algorithm to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-4

calculate flow velocity varies for each type, but all consider slope and surface roughness. Calculated

velocities for sheet flow and concentrated shallow flow are impacted primarily by land use and slope, 

while channel flow also considers channel geometry.

Sheet flow usually occurs at the headwaters of a stream and is characterized by the volume of water that 

flows over land surfaces. Sheet flow is restricted in the model to a maximum length of 300 feet. This

maximum was assumed for all subwatersheds due to the lack of site-specific information. The flow 

velocity associated with sheet flow is a function of Manning’s roughness coefficient for overland flow

and slope of the hydrologic grade line. Manning’s roughness coefficients were derived from land cover 

data (NLCD), and hydraulic grade lines (land slope) were calculated using 30-meter DEM data. 

Sheet flow is usually conveyed into shallow concentrated flow once the maximum length of 300 feet is 

reached. The velocity of shallow concentrated flow is a function of slope and land cover. Land cover 

types were simplified and classified as either pervious or impervious surfaces. Shallow concentrated flow 

was assumed to occur at the end of sheet flow and beginning of stream channel flow, based on the 

location of streams depicted in the NHD streams coverage (USGS). 

Average channel flow velocity was calculated using Manning’s roughness coefficient for open channel 

flow, channel slope, and channel geometry. It was assumed that no natural channels would be converted

to artificial materials (concrete, metal, or polyethylene). Stream channel geometries were estimated using 

regional curves that depict the relationship between bankfull and drainage area for the Eastern United

States hydro-physiographic province (Dunn and Leopold, 1978). 

 

For each of the BRAC proposed alternatives (Preferred, Town Center, City Center, and Satellite 

Campuses), the current land use grid (2001 NLCD) was edited to reflect the locations of the proposed 

development projects. Estimated footprints for planned facilities and associated developed areas within 

each subwatershed were added to the land cover grid as either high or medium intensity development 

areas. These changes in land cover were used to update the weighted curve number and time of 

concentration values for each subwatershed and estimate potential changes in peak flow discharge that 

may result from each of the proposed alternatives. 

Table F-1 presents the peak flow modeling results for all subwatersheds under each of the proposed 

alternatives. The percent change in peak flow discharge for the 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year storm 

event scenarios are shown in this table. The results for the 1-year and 10-year storm events are 

summarized in Section 4.7. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-5 

Table F-1 

TR-55 Runoff modeling results (percent change from baseline to future condition) 

Preferred Alternative Town Center Alternative City Center Alternative Satellite 

Peak discharge % change Peak discharge % change Peak discharge % change Peak 

Storm Frequency (years) Storm Frequency (years) Storm Frequency (years) Stor

Subwatershed 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 5 10 25 5 0 100 1 2 

1 100 83 70 63 61 56 51 131 106 86 75 71 65 59 10 6 5 4 4 4 3 54 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 7 6 5 5 4 4 22 15 12 10 9 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

22 9 7 6 5 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

25 36 23 19 16 14 12 10 36 23 19 16 14 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 19 15 13 12 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 19 

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16 12 10 9 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16 

31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-6 

Table F-1 

TR-55 Runoff modeling results (percent change from baseline to future condition) (contin

Preferred Alternative Town Center Alternative City Center Alternative Satellite 

Peak discharge % change Peak discharge % change Peak discharge % change Peak 

Storm Frequency (years) Storm Frequency (years) Storm Frequency (years) Stor

Subwatershed 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 5 10 25 5 0 100 1 2 

32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 11 7 6 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 11 

33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 29 

39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 14 

43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 72 

44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

53 77 46 27 22 20 18 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 46 27 22 20 18 16 0 0 

54 29 20 13 10 10 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 13 6 4 5 4 4 0 0 

55 56 35 21 17 15 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 33 20 17 15 13 12 0 0 

56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

57 93 58 40 33 29 26 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 58 40 32 29 25 22 0 0 

58 70 51 38 31 28 25 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 51 38 31 28 25 21 0 0 

59 82 59 42 34 31 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 60 42 34 31 27 22 0 0 

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-7

Watershed Modeling (Nutrient Analysis and Cumulative Impacts Analysis) 

The Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) model was used to estimate current (baseline) 

conditions and potential changes in flow volume and pollutant loads. Separate watershed models were 

developed for Accotink Creek, Pohick Creek, and Dogue Creek. A fourth watershed model was 

developed to incorporate direct drainage areas (watershed areas that flow directly into Gunston Cove, 

Accotink Bay, Pohick Bay, and the Potomac River). Average annual flow volume and nutrient loads 

(total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP)) were calculated in order to assess potential cumulative 

impacts on water quality that may result from the Preferred Alternative and anticipated future 

development within each watershed. In addition, loading coefficients were calculated for TN and TP 

based on the Accotink Creek watershed model results in order to estimate the percent change in nutrient 

loads for the modeled subwatersheds under each BRAC development alternative. Table F-2 presents the 

subwatershed nutrient loading results. Subwatersheds with greater than a ten percent change in nitrogen 

and phosphorus loads are summarized in Section 4.7. Watershed results for the cumulative impacts 

analysis are presented in Section 5.7. 

The 2001 NLCD GIS coverage was modified to account for future development in each watershed as a 

result of the BRAC Preferred Alternative and planned development within these watersheds based on 

information provided by the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning (2006). The NLCD grid 

was modified as discussed in the storm water modeling section above. Future development locations 

within the vicinity of Fort Belvoir were represented in a GIS point coverage provided by the Fairfax 

County Planning Department. The planned development area associated with each location was 

reclassified as high intensity development. BRAC and other future on- and off-post development projects 

located within each watershed that drains part of Fort Belvoir are shown in Table F-3. Fairfax County

development projects located in other watersheds are shown in Table F-4. Note that BMPs required by 

state and federal regulations have various percent efficiencies depending on their design and site 

characteristics; therefore, BMP implementation was not considered in the watershed modeling scenarios.

Model Background

The watershed models for Accotink Creek, Pohick Creek, Dogue Creek, and Direct Drainage watersheds 

were developed using GWLF and the BasinSim 1.0 interface. The GWLF model, which was originally 

developed by Cornell University (Haith et al., 1992), provides the ability to simulate runoff and pollutant 

loadings from watersheds given variable-size source areas (e.g., agricultural, forested, and developed

land). GWLF is a continuous simulation model that uses daily time steps for weather data and water 

balance calculations. Monthly calculations are made for pollutant loads based on daily water balance 

totals that are summed to give monthly values. The BasinSim 1.0 watershed simulation program is a 

Windows based modeling system that facilitates the development of model input data and provides 

additional functionality for simulating daily flows and flow and pollutant routing (Dai et al., 2000) 

GWLF is an aggregate distributed/lumped parameter watershed model. For surface loading, it is 

distributed in the sense that it allows multiple land use/cover scenarios. Each area is assumed to be

homogeneous with respect to various attributes considered by the model. In addition, the model does not 

spatially distribute the source areas, but aggregates the loads from each area into a watershed total. In 

other words, there is no spatial routing. For subsurface loading, the model acts as a lumped parameter 

model using a water balance approach. No distinctly separate areas are considered for subsurface flow

contributions. Daily water balances are computed for an unsaturated zone as well as for a saturated 

subsurface zone, where infiltration is computed as the difference between precipitation and snowmelt 

minus surface runoff plus evapotranspiration. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-8

GWLF models surface runoff using the Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number (NRCSCN) approach with daily weather inputs of temperature and precipitation. Erosion and sediment yield are 

estimated using monthly erosion calculations based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) 

algorithm (with monthly rainfall-runoff coefficients) and a monthly composite of KLSCP values for each

source area (e.g., land cover/soil type combination). The KLSCP factors are variables used in the 

calculations to depict changes in soil loss/erosion (K), the length/slope factor (LS), the vegetation cover 

factor (C), and the conservation practices factor (P). A sediment delivery ratio, based on watershed size, 

and a transport capacity, based on average daily runoff, are applied to the calculated erosion to determine 

pollutant yield for each source area. 

Surface nutrient losses are determined by applying dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus coefficients to 

surface runoff and applying a sediment coefficient to the yield portion for each agricultural source area. 

Urban nutrient inputs are all assumed to be solid phase, and the model uses an exponential accumulation 

and washoff function for these loadings. Subsurface losses are calculated using dissolved nitrogen and 

phosphorus coefficients for shallow groundwater contributions to stream nutrient loads, and the 

subsurface submodel considers only a single, lumped-parameter contributing area. Evapotranspiration is 

determined using daily weather data and a cover factor dependent on land use/cover type. Finally, a 

water balance is performed daily using supplied or computed precipitation, snowmelt, initial unsaturated 

zone storage, maximum available zone storage, and evapotranspiration values. All the equations used by 

the model can be found in the original GWLF paper (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987) and GWLF User’s 

Manual (Haith et al., 1992). 

Nonpoint source pollution is driven by rainfall, and therefore precipitation data are necessary to drive the 

watershed model. Local rainfall and temperature data were used to simulate flow conditions in modeled

watersheds. Daily precipitation and temperature data were obtained from local National Climatic Data 

Center (NCDC) weather stations. There was one station in close proximity to the modeled watersheds—

Reagan National Airport. Temperature and precipitation data recorded at this station from April 1995 

through December 2004 were used in the simulations.

Table F-2 

GWLF nutrient loading results (percent change from baseline to future condition) 

Preferred Town Center City Center 

Satellite 

Sub- Campuses 

watershed TP TN TP TN TP TN TP TN 

1 -3 -4 9 15 4 6 -9 -10

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 -1 -4 -1 -4 2 3 0 -1

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-9

Table F-2 

GWLF nutrient loading results (percent change from 

baseline to future condition) (continued)

Preferred Town Center City Center 

Satellite 

Sub- Campuses 

watershed TP TN TP TN TP TN TP TN 

14 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 -2 -6 5 3 0 0 0 0

26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 2 3 5 6 2 3 12 13

30 3 4 -3 -3 3 4 2 2

31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3

33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2

39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

43 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 2

44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

53 51 68 0 0 61 83 0 0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-10

Table F-2 

GWLF nutrient loading results (percent change from 

baseline to future condition) (continued)

Preferred Town Center City Center 

Satellite 

Sub- Campuses 

watershed TP TN TP TN TP TN TP TN 

54 8 17 0 0 7 14 0 0

55 26 39 0 0 26 39 0 0

56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

57 19 31 1 1 11 19 1 1

58 22 33 0 0 13 19 0 0

59 2 -3 0 0 5 0 0 0

60 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

Accotink Creek BRAC PROJECTS 

 8 

67959/ 67487/ 

64097 INFRASTRUCTURE (INCLUDES GUNSTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS)

 4 64238 HOSPITAL 

 5 64241 DENTAL CLINIC 

 16 66228 PURCHASE AMC RELOCATABLES 

 15 63571 ACCESS ROAD/CONTROL POINT 

 2 64234 WHS 

 1 65416 NGA 

 12 55661 CHILD DEV CENTER – 244 (NGA) 

 13 55662 CHILD DEV CENTER – 303 (EPG) 

 7 N/A CORPS OF ENGINEERS INTERGRATION OFFICE 

 6 65871 NARMC HEADQUARTERS BLDG 

 19 62892 MODERNIZE BARRACKS 

 9 64076 EMERGENCY SVCS CENTER (EPG) 

OTHER ON-POST PROJECTS 

26a 58466 

MUSEUM OF THE US ARMY ALTERNATIVE LOCATION AT 

NORTH POST 

17 65317 GOLF CLUBHOUSE/CART STORAGE 

31 n/a INFO DOMINANCE CENTER 

 2 61458 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION CENTER 

20 57495 SOLDIER SUPPORT CENTER 

 3 64231 PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER (TROOP CANTONMENT AREA) 

18 63206 ADDITION TO MP STATION 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-11

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

15 n/a DCNG RESOURCES TRAINING CENTER 

14 65139 EXPAND ARTS/CRAFT/AUTO 

19 55523/ 52694 POTOMAC HERITAGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL 

29 n/a 

OPERATIONS SECURITY EVALUATION GROUP TRAINING 

FACILITY 

16 62134 DLA RECEIVING AND SCREENING FACILITY 

30 n/a FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY EXTENSION 

28 n/a FLIGHT CONTROL TOWER

25 64230 PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER (EPG) 

24 64742 CONSTRUCT SHOPPETTE 

30 64531 PX EXPANSION 

OFF-POST PROJECTS

84 002463-Sp -002-2 OLD KEENE MILL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES 

 1 002981-SP-004-2 

WEST SPRINGFIELD BUSINESS CENTRE SITE 5 PARKING 

ADDN 

 30 003330-SP -007-2 TELEGRAPH ROAD WAREHOUSE 

 31 006839-SP-006-2 THE FAIRFAX BUILDING ADDITION 

 25 006384-SD-001-3 MAZZELLO COVE 

 55 000187-SP-002-1 UPS IN NEWINGTON 

 128 000503-SP-001-3 U-HAUL RETAIL CENTER 8207 TERMINAL ROAD 

 130 004198-SP-009-2 M AND S HOLDINGS LLC (FORM MILLERS OFFICE PRODUCTS) 

 129 009730-SP-001-2 CROWN CENTER 

 125 000497-SP-002-2 HUNTER PLAZA PHASE 2 

 124 000497-SP-001-2 HUNTER PLAZA, PHASE ONE 

 16 008082-SP-001-3 HOOES ROAD PARK 

 106 005833-SP-002-2 ECHO INC 

 3 005219-PI-001-2 ACCOTINK STREAM VALLEY TRAIL (REVIT AREA) (BR/SP) 

 4 006945-SP-001-2 ACCOTINK PARK 

 131 003189-SP -004-2 8501 BACKLICK ROAD (FORMERLY 8521) 

 126 000230-SP-001-2 TAVARES/ALLEN PROPERTY 

 127 001130-SP-001-2 ISLAND CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

 15 004998-PI-001-2 MOHTARAM MOZAFARI RESIDENCE 

 107 007207-SP-002-2 VW SPRINGFIELD 

 14 005694-SP-001-2 VA TIRE AND AUTO REPAIR 

 87 006754-SD-005-3 TALBERT SUBDIVISION 

 70 009990-SP -003-2 SPRINGFIELD METRO CENTER II ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-12

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

 99 006561-SP-001-2 6715 COMMERCE STREET 

 64 004072-SP-003-1 BOB EVANS RESTAURANT (SP) OLD KEENE MILL ROAD 

 40 001988-SP-002-1 RESIDENCE INN SPRINGFIELD 

 60 024588-SP-001-1 HOA NGHIEM PAGODA 

 44 013408-SD-001-1 KENDRICK 

 17 006836-SP-009-2 METRO PARK PHASE SEVEN 

 112 009639-SP-008-2 SILVER LAKE IHOP RESTAURANT 

 110 006836-SP-010-2 METRO PARK PHASE SIX 

 108 001414-SP-001-2 

2ND PARK STRUCTURE AT FRANC-SPRINGFIELD METRO 

STATION 

 73 000438-SP-002-3 LOYAL ORDER OF THE MOOSE FRANCONIA LODGE 646 INC 

 109 000677-SP-003-2 CALVARY ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION 

 118 004099-SD-001-2 CHAPEL BRIDGE ESTATES 

 2 002981-SP-005-2 WEST SPRINGFIELD BUSINESS CENTRE SITE 6 

 178 009754-SP-005-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER LAND BAY B 

 24 001343-SP-003-2 CIFUENTES PROPERTY PCLS 15 AND 15A 

 181 RZ-2005-LE-025 Mid-Town Springfield Development (mixed use) 

 182 PA-506-IV-SI Springfield Mall Expansion 

 183 05-IV-2MV Mixed Use (Office, Hotel, Retail)

 184 05-IV-4MV Mixed Use (Residential, Office, Retail, Hotel)

 185 05-IV-10S Mixed Use (Residential, Office, Recreation/Open Space, Retail)

 186 05-IV-6S Mixed Use (Office, Industrial)

 187 05-IV-1LP Mixed Use (Office, Retail)

Direct Drainage BRAC PROJECTS 

 4 64238 HOSPITAL 

 5 64241 DENTAL CLINIC 

 16 66228 PURCHASE AMC RELOCATABLES 

 17 65592/ 67321 PEO EIS ADMIN FACILITY 

 8 

64097/ 67487/ 

67959 INFRASTRUCTURE (INCLUDES GUNSTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS)

 6 66877 NARMC HQ BLDG 

 15 63571 ACCESS ROAD/ CONTROL POINT 

 18 54347 STRUCTURED PARKING FACILITY, 200 AREA 

 14 65450 ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG (211, 214, 215, 220) 

 3 MDA 580 MDA 

 11 65447 USANCA REPLACEMENT 

 10 65448 NETWORK OPS – PEO EIS 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-13

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

OTHER ON-POST PROJECTS 

 10 58697 MUSEUM SUPPORT CENTER 

 26c 58466 

MUSEUM OF THE US ARMY ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS AT 

PENCE GATE 

 4 54897 MARINA MODERNIZATION AND DOGUE CREEK DREDGING 

 23 61453 REPLACE SOUTH POST FIRE STATION 

 5 65218 EXPAND MAIN POST LIBRARY 

 12 59554 BATTALION HEADQUARTERS FOR 249 ENGINEER BATTALION 

 13 63035 

SHOPETTE WITH GAS, BURGER KING, CAR WASH (SOUTH 

POST) 

 21 65141 EXPAND BOWLING CENTER 

 22 57837/ 51326 SOUTH POST FITNESS FACILITY & MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS 

 6 65314 EXPAND RECREATION CENTER 

 11 50356 INSTALLATION INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT CENTER 

 9 62539 VET CLINIC ADDITION 

 8 56184 JPRA RENOVATION/ADDITION (BLDG) 358 

 7 63815 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING PEO SOLDIER 

OFF POST PROJECTS 

 161 003642-SD-007-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY G

 34 008461-SP-001-2 ST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Dogue Creek OTHER ON-POST PROJECTS 

 27 n/a DCEETA Remote Delivery Facility 

 29 n/a Operations Security Evaluation Group Training Facility 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-14

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued)

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

OFF- POST PROJECTS

 133 001881-SD-001-2 ASHBY HEIGHTS 

 132 001497-SD-001-2 PINEY GLEN 

 74 003365-SP-006-1 

HILLTOP RECLAMATION PROJECT (3365-LF-01, FOR BOND 

ONLY) 

 111 007818-SD-002-2 GAYFIELDS ROAD 

 90 006105-SP-002-1 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF KINGSTOWNE 

 19 004388-SD-001-2 WINDSOR KNOLL 

 88 005318-SP-007-2 BB+T BANK DRIVE THRU ADDN- MANCHESTER LAKES SC 

 6 006790-SP-001-2 SAINT JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH 

 8 000623-SP-002-4 NORTHAMPTON (FORMERLY OVERBROOK) 

 43 006105-SP-023-1 APPLE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 

 89 009405-SP-001-2 WALMART STORE #2194 KINGSTOWNE CENTRE 

 18 006105-SP-082-2 KINGSTOWNE SECTION 36A 

 91 004838-SP-001-2 HAYFIELD ANIMAL HOSPITAL 

 136 004124-SP-001-3 EVERGREEN FARM 

 32 001938-SP-001-2 JETT MECHANICAL 8753 RICHMOND HIGHWAY 

 161 003642-SD-007-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY G 

 33 009465-SP-002-2 

MOUNT VERNON COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE 

IMPROVEMENTS 

 34 008461-SP-001-2 ST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

 96 001900-SP-001-2 EPIPHANY LUTHERAN CHURCH 

 81 024570-SD-001-2 HALLEY FARM SUBDIVISION 

 27 006090-SP-001-2 HOPKINS HOUSE 

 137 004989-SD-001-2 CECIL CASE ESTATES 

 57 005223-SP-002-2 MASTER ROOFING AND SIDING INC (MV) 8463 RICHMOND HY 

 67 008375-SD-001-2 ROSE HILL RESERVE 

 10 000542-SP-001-2 COX COMMUNICATIONS SOUTHEAST HUB SITE 

 76 002697-SD-001-2 LOFTY OAKS PLACE LOTS 41A 41B 41C 

 45 022564-SP-001-1 GROVETON HEIGHTS 

 134 005127-SP-003-2 FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT/SOUTH VALLEY SHOP CTR 

173 

004687-SP-004-2 

MT VERNON ORIENTATION CNTR EDUCATION CENTER AND 

MUSEUM 

Pohick Creek OFF-POST PROJECTS 

 72 006454-SD-023-2 SILVERBROOK FARMS LOT 7 

 12 005466-SD-002-2 LAKEWOOD HILLS SECTION 10 PHASE 2 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-15

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued)

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

 104 005466-SD-001-2 LAKEWOOD HILLS SECT 10 PHASE I 

 97 001687-SP-001-2 THEMEADOWBROOK DRIVE PROPERTY 

 122 001697-SD-001-2 MONACAN ESTATES 

 54 004698-PI-003-1 8404 HELLER ROAD SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 

 51 008043-SD-003-2 COVINGTON WOODS ADDITION 

 50 000258-SD-002-1 7706 GAMBRILL ROAD (MV) 

 119 001225-SP-001-2 ST RAYMOND PENAFORT CHURCH 

 105 003303-SP-002-2 FAIRFAX PARK 

 175 002144-SD-001-2 EVANS PROPERTY 

 61 005787-SD-001-1 FERRY LANDING PRESERVE 

 169 003642-SP-008-2 LORTON STATION SCHOOL 

 79 006441-SP-006-1 AAA VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY 

 176 005395-SP-007-3 GUNSTON SQUARE SECTION 2 PARCEL D 

 167 004865-SP-010-2 LORTON STATION SOUTH SECTION 6

 168 006909-SD-001-2 BARNES PROPERTY 

 80 005430-SP-003-2 COMMONWEALTH CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC 

 158 003642-SP-010-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY D/F

 159 003864-SD-002-2 MEEKER PROPERTY 

 160 001276-SP-001-2 

LAUREL RIDGE CROSSING (FORMERLY PULTE PLASKETT 

LANE) 

 162 003642-SD-008-2 GRACE BIBLE CHURCH 

 157 001565-SP-001-2 POHICK ROAD SELF STORAGE FACILITY 

 123 001859-SD-001-2 ROLLING OAKS 

 52 000122-SP-006-2 GIANT #149 SARATOGA SHOPPING CENTER 

 121 008043-SD-002-2 COVINGTON WOODS 

 53 005638-SD-001-1 SABINA ESTATES 

 120 005638-SP-002-2 HARVESTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 

 172 006839-SP-004-2 COOK INLET RESIDENTIAL SECTION THREE 

 13 007732-SD-001-2 STREAM VALLEY ESTATES 

 83 015444-SD-001-2 CARDINAL ESTATES 

 94 006441-SP-005-2 BEST FOODS INC 9525 GUNSTON COVE ROAD 

 95 004478-SD-001-2 ADKINS PROPERTY 

 154 001183-SP-009-2 LAUREL HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

 164 003642-SP-009-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY "B-2" 

 163 003642-SP-011-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY C 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-16

Table F-4 

Off-post projects located outside modeled watersheds 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

Occoquan 

78 001183-SP-014-1 LORTON WORK HOUSE 

145 001657-SD-001-2 OCCOQUAN PARK 

153 001183-SP-006-2 SOUTH COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 

144 001811-SD-001-2 OCCOQUAN OVERLOOK 

142 001222-SD-001-2 DAVISON WOODS 

46 001653-SP-002-1 GROVETON PHASE II 

156 001183-SP-010-2 LAUREL HILL RECREATION CENTER 

147 001183-SD-002-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH SEC 1 LANDBAY C 

148 001183-SD-003-2 LAUREL HILL NORTH 

149 001183-SD-005-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH LANDBAY D SECTION 1 

151 001183-SP-004-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH LANDBAYS E AND F, SECTION 1 

152 001183-SP-005-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH LANDBAY E AND F SECTION 2 

 

Mill Branch 

143 001100-SD-001-2 NIRVANA PALACE 

29 001183-SP-011-2 LAUREL HILL GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY 

28 001733-SD-001-2 MALCOLM AT OX ROAD 

93 008036-SP-002-2 NEW HOPE CHURCH 

150 001183-SD-007-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH LANDBAY D SECTION 2 

58 004204-SD-001-1 LAUREL OVERLOOK (FORMERLY HOOES ROADBLACKSTONE) 

141 000848-SD-001-2 COOKE PROPERTY 

140 008733-SD-001-2 REMINGTON PLACE FORMERLY COOKE PROPERTY 

69 006510-SP-002-1 SOUTH RUN RECREATIONAL CENTER FITNESS CENTER 

ADDN 

37 009754-SP-004-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER BUILDING 1 

180 001001-SP-001-2 GUNSTON CENTER 

35 003800-SP-001-3 FURNACE ROAD RECYCLING FACILITY 

82 001883-SP-001-1 LORTON DEBRIS LAND FILL 

166 009101-SP-002-2 GUNSTON COMMONS TOWNHOUSES 

165 001126-SP-004-2 LORTON VALLEY RECREATION CENTER 

155 001183-SP-009-2 SPRING HILL SENIOR CAMPUS SENIOR HOUSING 

BUILDING 

170 007713-SP-015-1 GUNSTON CORNER RESTAURANT 

174 007334-SP-002-4 GUNSTON COVE BUSINESS CENTER 

62 001664-SD-001-1 CRANFORD AT GUNSTON COVE 

36 006103-SP-003-5 ROCK STONE AND SAND YARD INC 

171 004865-SP-011-2 LORTON STATION SOUTH SECTION 7 

63 009754-SP-009-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER LAND BAY D 

155 001183-SP-012-2 SPRING HILL SENIOR CAMPUS 

177 009754-SP-006-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER LAND BAY C 

 

Little Hunting 

Creek 

113 001653-SP-001-2 GROVETON WOODS 

114 002174-SP-001-2 HOLLY ACRES 

146 001183-SD-001-2 LAUREL HILL LAND BAY A SECTION 1 

20 000871-SP-002-2 PROVIDENT BANK 

47 001860-SP-001-2 K AND M SHOPPING CENTER 

116 000871-SP-001-2 MOUNT VERNON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-17

Table F-4 

Off-post projects located outside modeled watersheds (continued) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

115 009644-SP-002-2 SHURGARD MOUNT VERNON 

135 000106-SD-001-2 THE WOODLANDS 

138 015459-SD-001-2 GALLAHAN PROPERTY 

56 008972-SP-002-1 MOUNT VERNON GATEWAY 

139 004097-SP-001-2 VERNON HEIGHTS 

75 001850-SP-001-3 8214 AND 8218 RICHMOND HIGHWAY 

179 009754-SP-002-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER BUILDING 2 LB A 

92 007175-PI -001-1 SHERWOOD HALL LIBRARY 

77 009083-SP-004-1 INOVA MOUNT VERNON 

71 007473-SP-011-1 BEACON MALL FAMOUS DAVES 

48 007473-SP-010-1 BEACON MALL SILVER DINNER 

23 003484-SP-002-2 COMMERCE BANK BEACON HILL GROVETON 

21 007473-SP-008-2 BEACON MALL PROP DRIVE-THRU BANK AND FAST FOOD 

26 006468-SP-005-2 ROXBURY MEWS 

 

Cameron Run 

38 001381-SP-023-1 LOT 16 SHELL OIL PARK 

39 006367-SP-005-3 BREN MAR IV 

98 003195-SP-002-2 BACKLICK PLAZA 

42 006989-SP-002-2 VERIZON ADDITION TO FRANCONIA CENTRAL OFFICE 

102 009163-SD-009-2 DEVERS PROPERTY 

41 005307-SD-001-1 WOODLAND CREST 

86 002725-SP-002-3 RICKS CARPET AND FLOORS 

100 009163-SD-006-2 HIGHGROVE ESTATES SECTION 5 

101 004178-SP-001-2 JEFFERSON AT SULLIVAN PLACE 

5 017901-SP-001-2 PBS 

103 000623-SP-001-2 LDS CHURCH FRANCONIA WARD 

7 000220-SD-002-2 ANNE LY ESTATE 2 

9 001656-SD-001-2 CROWN ROYAL GATE 

65 000220-SD-003-1 WHEELER PROPERTY 

67 008375-SD-001-2 ROSE HILL RESERVE 

11 001260-SD-001-3 HIGHLANDS ESTATES 

66 000542-SP-002-1 SPICER CENTER 

85 007364-SP-004-1 PARCEL 8A SHELL OIL PARK 

 

Belle Haven 

49 016842-SP-001-1 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH 

22 000180-SP-003-2 DEL RAY GLASS 

117 007950-SP-001-2 CHILIS BEACON HILL, 6601 RICHMOND HIGHWAY 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

F-18

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

G-1

Appendix G 

Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) 

Analysis and Population Estimations 

G.1 – EIFS Model Analysis for Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

G.2 – Population Estimate Calculations
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

G-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-1 

APPENDIX G.1 

ECONOMIC IMPACT FORECAST SYSTEM (EIFS) MODEL ANALYSIS FOR 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment 

Socioeconomic impacts are linked through cause-and-effect relationships. Military payrolls and 

local procurement contribute to the economic base for the ROI. In this regard, base realignment at 

Fort Belvoir would have a multiplier effect on the local and regional economy. With the proposed 

action, local expenditures would increase, generating new business sales, employment, and 

income. This spending generally creates secondary jobs, increases business volume, and increases 

revenues for schools and other social services. 

The EIFS Model 

The U.S. Army, with the assistance of academic and professional economists and regional 

scientists, developed EIFS to address the economic impacts of NEPA-requiring actions and to 

measure their significance. As a result of its designed applicability, and in the interest of 

uniformity, EIFS should be used in NEPA assessments for BRAC. The entire system is designed 

for the scrutiny of a populace affected by the actions being studied. The algorithms in EIFS are 

simple and easy to understand but still have firm, defensible bases in regional economic theory. 

EIFS was developed under a joint project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Army 

Environmental Policy Institute, and the Computer and Information Science Department of Clark 

Atlanta University. EIFS is implemented as an online system supported by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Mobile District. The system is available to anyone with an approved user-ID and 

password. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff are available to assist with the use of EIFS. 

The databases in EIFS are national in scope and cover the approximately 3,700 counties, parishes, 

and independent cities that are recognized as reporting units by federal agencies. EIFS allows the 

user to define an economic ROI by identifying the counties, parishes, or cities to be analyzed. 

Once the ROI is defined, the system aggregates the data, calculates multipliers and other variables 

used in the various models in EIFS, and prompts the user for forecast input data. 

The basis of the EIFS analytical capabilities is the calculation of multipliers that are used to 

estimate the impacts resulting from Army-related changes in local expenditures or employment. 

In calculating the multipliers, EIFS uses the economic base model approach, which relies on the 

ratio of total economic activity to basic economic activity. Basic, in this context, is defined as the

production or employment engaged to supply goods and services outside the ROI or by federal 

activities (such as military installations and their employees). According to economic base theory, 

the ratio of total income to basic income is measurable (as the multiplier) and sufficiently stable 

so that future changes in economic activity can be forecast. This technique is especially 

appropriate for estimating aggregate impacts and makes the economic base model ideal for the 

EA and EIS process. 

The multiplier is interpreted as the total impact on the economy of the region resulting from a unit 

change in its base sector; for example, a dollar increase in local expenditures due to an expansion 

of its military installation. EIFS estimates its multipliers using a location quotient approach on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-2 

basis of the concentration of industries within the region relative to the industrial concentrations 

for the nation. 

The user inputs into the EIFS model the data elements that describe the Army action: definition of 

the ROI; the change in local expenditures; number of affected (moving) civilian personnel and 

their salaries; number of affected (moving) military employees and their salaries; and the percent 

of affected military living on-post. 

Although there would be a net gain of about 22,000 jobs (military and civilian) to Fort Belvoir, 

the installation would also lose some jobs due the proposed realignment. Per the 2005 Defense 

BRAC Commission Report to the President, Volumes I and 2, almost 1,800 jobs would be 

realigned from Fort Belvoir to several other DoD installations in the continental U.S. (Defense 

Base Closure and Realignment Commission 2005). It is assumed these jobs would be transferred 

in 2011, the year when BRAC actions must be completed. Because the jobs would be transferred 

outside the ROI, they were entered in to the EIFS model as the change in military and civilian 

employment. Average annual income for the military personnel was estimated at $30,000, and 

average annual income for civilian personnel was about $45,000 (Webster 2005). It was assumed 

that 100 percent of the military personnel would relocate to their new assignment, and it was 

estimated that 50 percent of the civilian personnel would relocate. 

Implementation of the proposed realignment action also would require renovation of existing 

facilities and construction of new facilities to accommodate the increase in personnel and 

functions assigned to Fort Belvoir. The installation would construct about 6.2 million square feet 

of new built space and renovate about 320,000 square feet of existing space (see Table 2-3). 

These facilities would be new work space for the incoming personnel and general support 

facilities to meet the needs of the larger working population. Construction would begin about 

2007 and be completed by 2011 (5 years). The EIFS model output assumes that changes occur at 

one time, when in fact the effects of the preferred alternative’s changes in construction 

expenditures and employment would be spread out over the 5-year development period. 

Therefore, the multiyear activity was modeled using EIFS by determining the changes in amount 

of construction spending and employment in each year of the project cycle (2007 through 2011), 

and a separate EIFS model run was completed for each year. Fort Belvoir’s expected construction 

expenditures for the BRAC action and associated other facility projects were input into the model 

as the change in local expenditures. The realignment of almost 1,800 jobs from Fort Belvoir to 

other DoD installations in 2011 was entered as the change in employment. Table G.1-1 lists the 

EIFS model input parameters for each year. 

Once the input variables are entered into the EIFS model, the model is run and it projects changes 

to the local economy’s business sales volume, income, employment, and population. These four 

indicator variables are used to measure and evaluate socioeconomic impacts. Sales volume is the 

direct and indirect change in local business activity and sales (total retail and wholesale trade 

sales, total selected service receipts, and value-added by manufacturing). Employment is the total 

change in local employment due to the proposed action, including the direct and secondary 

changes in local employment. Income is the total change in local wages and salaries due to the 

proposed action, which includes the sum of the direct and indirect wages and salaries, plus the 

income of the civilian and military personnel affected by the proposed action. Population is the 

increase or decrease in the local population as a result of the proposed action. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-3 

Table G.1-1 

EIFS Model Input Parameters for the Proposed BRAC Action at Fort Belvoir 

Input Parameter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Construction Expendituresa

$161,337,500 $2,134,221,000 $655,818,800 $578,870,800 $254,050,000 

Change in Civilian Employmentb

0 0 0 0 -1,560 

Average Income of Affected 

Civilianc

$45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000

Percent Civilian Expected to 

Relocate 

0 0 0 0 50% 

Change in Military Employmentb 0 0 0 0 -210 

Average Income of Affected 

Militaryc

$30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 

Percent of Military Living OnPost 0 0 0 0 0 

Sources: 

a

Fort Belvoir Detailed Facilities Project List, November 6, 2006 (updated February 15, 2007) 

bDefense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 2005 

cWebster 2005 

The Significance of Socioeconomic Impacts 

Once model projections are obtained, the RTV profile allows the user to evaluate the significance 

of the impacts. This analytical tool reviews the historical trends for the defined region and 

develops measures of local historical fluctuations in sales volume, income, employment, and 

population. These evaluations identify the positive and negative changes within which a project 

can affect the local economy without creating a significant impact. The greatest historical changes 

define the boundaries that provide a basis for comparing an action’s impact on the historical 

fluctuation in an area. Specifically, EIFS sets the boundaries by multiplying the maximum 

historical deviation of the following variables: 

 

Increase Decrease 

Sales volume X 100% 75% 

Income X 100% 67% 

Employment X 100% 67% 

Population X 100% 50% 

These boundaries determine the amount of change that will affect an area. The percentage 

allowances are arbitrary, but sensible. The maximum positive historical fluctuation is allowed 

with expansion because economic growth is beneficial. While cases of damaging economic 

growth have been cited, and although the zero-growth concept is being accepted by many local 

planning groups, military base reductions and closures generally are more injurious to local 

economics than are expansion. 

The major strengths of the RTV are its specificity to the region under analysis and its basis on 

actual historical data for the region. The EIFS impact model, in combination with the RTV, has 

proven successful in addressing perceived socioeconomic impacts. The EIFS model and the RTV 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-4 

technique for measuring the intensity of impacts have been reviewed by economic experts and 

have been deemed theoretically sound. 

The following are the EIFS inputs and output data and the RTV values for the ROI. These data 

form the basis for the socioeconomic impact analysis presented in Section 4.10.2.1.2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-5 

EIFS REPORT 

PROJECT NAME: Fort Belvoir BRAC EIS 

STUDY AREA 

11001 District of Columbia 

24009 Calvert County, MD 

24017 Charles County, MD 

24021 Frederick County, MD 

24031 Montgomery County, MD 

24033 Prince George’s County, MD 

51013 Arlington County, VA 

51059 Fairfax County, VA 

51107 Loudoun County, VA 

51153 Prince William County, VA 

51179 Stafford County, VA 

51510 Alexandria City, VA 

51600 Fairfax City, VA 

51610 Falls Church City, VA 

51683 Manassas City, VA 

51685 Manassas Park City, VA 

2007 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $161,337,500 

Change In Civilian Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $0 

Percent Expected to Relocate 0 

Change In Military Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Military $0 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2007 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $161,337,500 

Sales Volume – Induced $283,954,000 

Sales Volume – Total $445,291,500 0.21% 

Income – Direct $34,259,020 

Income - Induced $60,295,860 

Income – Total (place of work) $94,554,870 0.06% 

Employment – Direct 702 

Employment – Induced 1,235 

Employment – Total 1,937 0.06% 

Local Population 0 

Local Off-base Population 0 0.00% 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-6 

2008 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $2,134,221,000 

Change In Civilian Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $0 

Percent Expected to Relocate 0 

Change In Military Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Military $0 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2008 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $2,134,221,000 

Sales Volume – Induced $3,756,228,000 

Sales Volume – Total $5,890,449,000 2.82% 

Income – Direct $453,188,500 

Income - Induced $797,611,700 

Income – Total (place of work) $1,250,800,000 0.84%

Employment – Direct 9,286 

Employment – Induced 16,343 

Employment – Total 25,628 0.85% 

Local Population 0 

Local Off-base Population 0 0.00% 

2009 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $655,818,800 

Change In Civilian Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $0 

Percent Expected to Relocate 0 

Change In Military Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Military $0 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2009 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $655,818,800 

Sales Volume – Induced $1,154,241,000 

Sales Volume – Total $1,810,060,000 0.87% 

Income – Direct $139,259,000 

Income - Induced $245,095,900 

Income – Total (place of work) $384,354,900 0.26% 

Employment – Direct 2,853 

Employment – Induced 5,022 

Employment – Total 7,875 0.26% 

Local Population 0 

Local Off-base Population 0 0.00% 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-7 

2010 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $578,870,800 

Change In Civilian Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $0 

Percent Expected to Relocate 0 

Change In Military Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Military $0 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2010 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $578,870,800 

Sales Volume – Induced $1,018,813,000 

Sales Volume – Total $1,597,683,000 0.77% 

Income – Direct $122,919,600 

Income - Induced $216,338,500 

Income – Total (place of work) $339,258,100 0.23% 

Employment – Direct 2,519 

Employment – Induced 4,433 

Employment – Total 6,951 0.23% 

Local Population 0 

Local Off-base Population 0 0.00% 

2011 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $254,050,000 

Change In Civilian Employment -1,560 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $45,000 

Percent Expected to Relocate 50 

Change In Military Employment -210 

Average Income of Affected Military $30,000 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2011 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $194,528,500 

Sales Volume – Induced $342,370,200 

Sales Volume – Total $536,898,700 0.26% 

Income – Direct $-22,554,060 

Income - Induced $72,700,180 

Income – Total (place of work) $50,146,120 0.03% 

Employment – Direct -924 

Employment – Induced 1,490 

Employment – Total 566 0.02% 

Local Population -2,465 

Local Off-base Population -2,465 -0.06% 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-8 

RTV SUMMARY 

 Sales Volume Income Employment Population 

Positive RTV 12.03% 11.56% 3.44% 1.15% 

Negative RTV -4.46% -3.85% -2.92% -0.75% 

RTV DETAILED 

SALES VOLUME 

 Year Value Adj_Value Change Deviation %Deviation 

 1969 12487987 54572502 0 0 0 

 1970 13822532 57087059 2514557 -464206 -0.81 

 1971 15319874 60666702 3579643 600880 0.99 

 1972 16879944 64650184 3983483 1004720 1.55 

 1973 18540008 66929427 2279243 -699520 -1.05 

 1974 20302148 65981981 -947446 -3926209 -5.95 

 1975 22302194 66460539 478558 -2500205 -3.76 

 1976 24627620 69449887 2989348 10585 0.02 

 1977 27185027 71768474 2318587 -660176 -0.92 

 1978 30016402 73840350 2071876 -906887 -1.23 

 1979 33336113 73672811 -167539 -3146302 -4.27 

 1980 37300698 72363356 -1309455 -4288218 -5.93 

 1981 41309891 72705408 342052 -2636711 -3.63 

 1982 44564161 73976506 1271098 -1707665 -2.31 

 1983 48491783 78071771 4095266 1116503 1.43 

 1984 54481740 83901878 5830106 2851343 3.4 

 1985 60194608 89689966 5788089 2809326 3.13 

 1986 65885847 96193339 6503373 3524610 3.66 

 1987 72734574 112738586 16545247 13566484 12.03 

 1988 80522543 109510660 -3227927 -6206690 -5.67 

 1989 86932341 112142717 2632057 -346706 -0.31 

 1990 91886260 113020102 877385 -2101378 -1.86 

 1991 94796472 111859832 -1160270 -4139033 -3.7 

 1992 100451351 114514539 2654707 -324056 -0.28 

 1993 105432219 117029765 2515226 -463537 -0.4 

 1994 109805076 118589487 1559722 -1419041 -1.2 

 1995 113723153 119409305 819818 -2158945 -1.81 

 1996 118472471 120841918 1432613 -1546150 -1.28 

 1997 125654346 125654346 4812428 1833665 1.46 

 1998 135111444 132409218 6754872 3776109 2.85 

 1999 146647589 140781682 8372465 5393702 3.83 

 2000 161175166 149892906 9111223 6132460 4.09 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-9 

INCOME 

 Year Value Adj_Value Change Deviation %Deviation 

 1969 14319990 62578355 0 0 0 

 1970 16042780 66256683 3678329 195972 0.3 

 1971 17719588 70169569 3912886 430529 0.61 

 1972 19433040 74428542 4258973 776616 1.04 

 1973 21318070 76958230 2529689 -952668 -1.24 

 1974 23463564 76256583 -701647 -4184004 -5.49 

 1975 25725858 76663057 406474 -3075883 -4.01 

 1976 28261512 79697462 3034405 -447952 -0.56 

 1977 31032678 81926273 2228811 -1253546 -1.53 

 1978 34216866 84173492 2247218 -1235139 -1.47 

 1979 38043291 84075675 -97817 -3580174 -4.26 

 1980 42908340 83242182 -833493 -4315850 -5.18 

 1981 48269158 84953718 1711536 -1770821 -2.08 

 1982 52670305 87432705 2478987 -1003370 -1.15 

 1983 57174793 92051418 4618713 1136356 1.23 

 1984 64363606 99119951 7068533 3586176 3.62 

 1985 70729098 105386357 6266406 2784049 2.64 

 1986 76800017 112128028 6741671 3259314 2.91 

 1987 84333410 130716781 18588754 15106397 11.56 

 1988 93310155 126901812 -3814969 -7297326 -5.75 

 1989 101616400 131085152 4183340 700983 0.53 

 1990 107884900 132698429 1613277 -1869080 -1.41 

 1991 112366744 132592752 -105677 -3588034 -2.71 

 1992 118331091 134897442 2304690 -1177667 -0.87 

 1993 124570964 138273772 3376330 -106027 -0.08 

 1994 130517765 140959192 2685420 -796937 -0.57 

 1995 135260856 142023892 1064701 -2417656 -1.7 

 1996 141360695 144187906 2164014 -1318343 -0.91 

 1997 149327565 149327565 5139659 1657302 1.11 

 1998 161042530 157821682 8494117 5011760 3.18 

 1999 172078384 165195245 7373562 3891205 2.36 

 2000 187111593 174013783 8818538 5336181 3.07 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-10 

EMPLOYMENT 

 Year Value Change Deviation %Deviation 

 1969 1546829 0 0 0 

 1970 1579734 32905 -22196 -1.41 

 1971 1618189 38455 -16646 -1.03 

 1972 1667964 49775 -5326 -0.32 

 1973 1722489 54525 -576 -0.03 

 1974 1755495 33006 -22095 -1.26 

 1975 1775487 19992 -35109 -1.98 

 1976 1803567 28080 -27021 -1.5 

 1977 1852213 48646 -6455 -0.35 

 1978 1927282 75069 19968 1.04 

 1979 1989586 62304 7203 0.36 

 1980 2027170 37584 -17517 -0.86 

 1981 2052751 25581 -29520 -1.44 

 1982 2056252 3501 -51600 -2.51 

 1983 2120560 64308 9207 0.43

 1984 2253186 132626 77525 3.44 

 1985 2382829 129643 74542 3.13 

 1986 2509977 127148 72047 2.87 

 1987 2642149 132172 77071 2.92 

 1988 2749641 107492 52391 1.91 

 1989 2824890 75249 20148 0.71 

 1990 2858498 33608 -21493 -0.75 

 1991 2791759 -66739 -121840 -4.36 

 1992 2781002 -10757 -65858 -2.37 

 1993 2827096 46094 -9007 -0.32 

 1994 2860240 33144 -21957 -0.77 

 1995 2913551 53311 -1790 -0.06 

 1996 2952105 38554 -16547 -0.56 

 1997 3015129 63024 7923 0.26 

 1998 3078562 63433 8332 0.27 

 1999 3175123 96561 41460 1.31 

 2000 3310059 134936 79835 2.41 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-11 

POPULATION 

 Year Value Change Deviation %Deviation 

 1969 2983912 0 0 0 

 1970 3048875 64963 15489 0.51 

 1971 3098045 49170 -304 -0.01 

 1972 3163102 65057 15583 0.49 

 1973 3178494 15392 -34082 -1.07 

 1974 3183067 4573 -44901 -1.41 

 1975 3204590 21523 -27951 -0.87 

 1976 3219203 14613 -34861 -1.08 

 1977 3220039 836 -48638 -1.51 

 1978 3242642 22603 -26871 -0.83 

 1979 3245124 2482 -46992 -1.45 

 1980 3266262 21138 -28336 -0.87 

 1981 3321358 55096 5622 0.17 

 1982 3361545 40187 -9287 -0.28 

 1983 3411617 50072 598 0.02

 1984 3484327 72710 23236 0.67 

 1985 3559580 75253 25779 0.72 

 1986 3646331 86751 37277 1.02 

 1987 3738922 92591 43117 1.15 

 1988 3828498 89576 40102 1.05 

 1989 3895185 66687 17213 0.44 

 1990 3936904 41719 -7755 -0.2 

 1991 3994176 57272 7798 0.2

 1992 4053539 59363 9889 0.24 

 1993 4109779 56240 6766 0.16 

 1994 4164663 54884 5410 0.13 

 1995 4212186 47523 -1951 -0.05 

 1996 4267192 55006 5532 0.13 

 1997 4326258 59066 9592 0.22 

 1998 4392813 66555 17081 0.39 

 1999 4477130 84317 34843 0.78 

 2000 4567091 89961 40487 0.89 

****** End of Report ****** 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

 G.1-12 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

G.2-1

Appendix G.2 

Population Estimate Calculations 

The following tables list the data and calculations for the population estimates presented in Section 

4.10.2.1.2. The number and percentage of Fort Belvoir employees by location, as well as the number 

of Arlington (WHS and DoD) and NGA employees by location, was derived by VHB (2006). The 

transportation model assumed that 50 percent of the current Arlington employees and 50 percent of 

the current NGA employees would be redistributed as the current Fort Belvoir employees are 

distributed. It was assumed that one employee represents one household. The percentage of 

households that are family households (65 percent) and nonfamily households (35 percent) is from 

the U.S. Census Bureau Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Demographic 

Characteristics for 2005 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c). The average family size (3.27 persons) also is 

from the U.S. Census Bureau Washington MSA Demographic Characteristics for 2005 (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2006c). The number of children per family (1.8) is from the 2000 Census, Average Number 

of Children Per Family for Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 

Table G.2-1 

Home zip code of existing Fort Belvoir employees

District Location 

Derived number of 

employees 

Fort Belvoir % of 

employees by location

A Arlington/Alexandria 986 4% 

B Northern Fairfax Co./Loudoun Co. 1,601 7% 

C Southern Fairfax Co. 8,607 38% 

D Prince William Co. 5,116 23% 

E Near South (Fredericksburg/Stafford Co) 2,069 9% 

F Remainder of Virginia 1,613 7% 

G District of Columbia 266 1% 

H Prince Georges Co. 1,045 5% 

I Montgomery Co. 240 1% 

J Remainder of Maryland 949 4% 

 Total 22,492 100% 

Source: VHB 2006 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

G.2-2

Table G.2-2 

Calculations for Arlington (WHS and DoD) employees 

District Location 

Home zip code of existing Arlington (WHS & DOD) employees Assume 50% would move by 2011 Percent distribution of current Fort Belvoir employees by location Arlington redistribution based on current Fort Belvoir distribution Percentage that would be family households Number that would be family households Percentage that would be nonfamily households Number that would be nonfamily households 

A 

Arlington/ 

Alexandria 1,302 651 4% 203 0.65 132 0.35 71 

B 

Northern Fairfax 

Co./Loudoun Co. 1,349 675 7% 329 0.65 214 0.35 115 

C 

Southern Fairfax 

Co. 1,638 819 38% 1,769 0.65 1,150 0.35 619 

D 

Prince William 

Co. 1,230 615 23% 1,051 0.65 683 0.35 368 

E 

Near South 

(Fredericksburg/ 

Stafford Co) 557 279 9% 425 0.65 276 0.35 149 

F 

Remainder of 

Virginia 358 179 7% 331 0.65 215 0.35 116 

G 

District of 

Columbia 437 219 1% 55 0.65 36 0.35 19 

H 

Prince Georges 

Co. 1,149 575 5% 215 0.65 140 0.35 75 

I Montgomery Co. 336 168 1% 49 0.65 32 0.35 17 

J 

Remainder of 

Maryland 889 445 4% 195 0.65 127 0.35 68 

 Total 9,245 4,623 100% 4,623 3,005 1,618
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

G.2-3

Table G.2-3 

Calculations for NGA Employees 

District Location 

Derived number of employees Assume 50% would move by 2011 Percent distribution of current Fort Belvoir employees by location NGA redistribution based on current Fort Belvoir distribution Percentage that would be family households Number that would be family households Percentage that would be nonfamily households Number that would be nonfamily households 

A 

Arlington/ 

Alexandria 574 287 4% 167 0.65 109 0.35 59

B 

Northern Fairfax 

Co./Loudoun Co. 2,313 1,157 7% 293 0.65 191 0.35 103

C 

Southern Fairfax 

Co. 649 325 38% 1,591 0.65 1,034 0.35 557

D 

Prince William 

Co. 645 323 23% 963 0.65 626 0.35 337 

E 

Near South 

(Fredericksburg/ 

Stafford Co) 95 48 9% 377 0.65 245 0.35 132 

F 

Remainder of 

Virginia 306 153 7% 293 0.65 191 0.35 103 

G 

District of 

Columbia 399 200 1% 42 0.65 27 0.35 15 

H 

Prince Georges 

Co. 791 396 5% 209 0.65 136 0.35 73 

I Montgomery Co. 1,218 609 1% 42 0.65 27 0.35 15 

J 

Remainder of 

Maryland 1,384 692 4% 167 0.65 109 0.35 59 

 Total 4,187 99% 4,145 2,694 1,451
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

G.2-4

Table G.2-4 

Estimated redistribution of population due to Fort Belvoir BRAC action

District Location 

Number of employees (i.e., households) that would be redistributed (Arlington + NGA) Number redistributed that would be family households Average Family Size Family Pop Average number of children per family Total number of children (18 and under) in family households Total number of adults in family households Number redistributed that would be non-family households Total number of adults in non-family households Total population that would be redistributed 

A 

Arlington/ 

Alexandria 370 229 3.27 749 1.80 411 338 123 461 872 

B 

Northern Fairfax 

Co./Loudoun Co. 622 401 3.27 1,311 1.80 720 591 216 806 1,527 

C 

Southern Fairfax 

Co. 3,360 2176 3.27 7,115 1.80 3,909 3,206 1,172 4,378 8,287 

D 

Prince William 

Co. 2,014 1317 3.27 4,307 1.80 2,366 1,941 709 2,650 5,016 

E 

Near South 

(Fredericksburg/ 

Stafford Co) 805 515 3.27 1,685 1.80 926 759 277 1,037 1,963 

F 

Remainder of 

Virginia 625 401 3.27 1,311 1.80 720 591 216 806 1,527 

G 

District of 

Columbia 97 57 3.27 187 1.80 103 84 31 115 218 

H 

Prince Georges 

Co. 424 286 3.27 936 1.80 514 422 154 576 1,090 

I Montgomery Co. 91 57 3.27 187 1.80 103 84 31 115 218 

J 

Remainder of 

Maryland 363 229 3.27 749 1.80 411 338 123 461 872 

 Total 8,768 5,669 18,537 1.80 10,184 8,353 3,052 11,406 21,590 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

H-1

Appendix H 

Off-Post Cumulative Projects List 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

H-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

H-3

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects 

Map ID Project name Total acres 

1 West Springfield Business Centre Site 5 Parking Addn. 5.1 

2 West Springfield Business Centre Site 5 Parking Addn. 6.3 

3 Accotinck Stream Valley Trail (Revitalization Area) 9.1 

4 Accotink Park 4.8 

5 PBS 4.3 

6 Saint John's Lutheran Church 3.8 

7 Anne Ly Estate 2 2.6 

8 Northampton (formerly Overbrook) 18.3 

9 Crown Royal Gate 1.3 

10 Cox Communications Southeast Hub Site 0.9 

11 Highlands Estates 3.9 

12 Lakewood Hills Section 10 Phase 2 17.0 

13 Stream Valley Estates 7.3 

14 VA Tire and Auto Repair 0.4 

15 Mohtaram Mozafari Residence 1.6 

16 Hooes Road Park 21.4 

17 Metro Park Phase Seven 3.5 

18 Kingstowne Section 36A 4.5 

19 Windsor Knoll 9.0 

20 Provident Bank 1.1 

21 Beacon Mall Prop Drive-Thru Bank and Fast Food 2.0 

22 Del Ray Glass 2.0 

23 Commerce Bank Beacon Hill Groveton 1.6 

24 Cifuentes Property PCLS 15 and 15A 8.6 

25 Mazzello Cove 3.1 

26 Roxbury Mews 1.8 

27 Hopkins House 1.8 

28 Malcolm at Ox Road 20.2 

29 Laurel Hill Golf Course Expansion 348.6 

30 Telegraph Road Warehouse 5.7 

31 The Fairfax Building Addition 5.2 

32 Jett Mechanical 8753 Richmond Highway 2.9 

33 Mount Vernon Country Club Golf Course Improvements 127.7 

34 St. James Episcopal Church 5.1 

35 Furnace Road Recycling Facility 9.7 

36 Rock Stone and Sand Yard Inc. 1.6 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

H-4

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

37 Gunston Commerce Center Building 1 1.9 

38 Lot 16 Shell Oil Park 2.8 

39 Bren Mar IV 5.7 

40 Residence Inn Springfield 1.3 

41 Woodland Crest 2.8 

42 Verizon addition to Franconia Central Office 2.0 

43 Apple Federal Credit Union 1.0 

44 Kendrick 3.0 

45 Groveton Heights 4.6 

46 Groveton Phase II 11.6 

47 K and M Shopping Center 0.7 

48 Beacon Mall Silver Dinner 1.1 

49 Mount Calvary Baptist Church 1.5 

50 7706 Gambrill Road 1.2 

51 Covington Woods addition 1.9 

52 Giant #149 Saratoga Shopping Center 11.3 

53 Sabina Estates 3.6 

54 8404 Heller Road Sanitary Sewer Service 0.0 

55 UPS in Newington 21.2 

56 Mount Vernon Gateway 17.0 

57 Master Roofing and Siding Inc. 8463 Richmond HY 1.2 

58 Laurel Overlook (Formerly Hooes Road-Blackstone) 10.1 

59 Spring Hill Senior Campus Senior Housing Building 46.8 

60 Hoa Nghiem Pagoda 1.3 

61 Ferry Landing Preserve 5.4 

62 Cranford at Gunston Cove 8.0 

63 Gunston Commerce Center Land Bay D 23.7 

64 Bob Evans Restaurant Old Keene Mill Road 1.6 

65 Wheeler Property 0.8 

66 Spicer Center 0.9 

67 Rose Hill Reserve 1 23.7 

68 Rose Hill Reserve 2 23.7 

69 South Run Recreational Center Fitness Center Addn. 182.3 

70 Springfield Metro Center II Road Improvements 4.9 

71 Beacon Mall Famous Daves 1.1 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

H-5

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

72 Silverbrook Farms Lot 7 1.0 

73 Loyal Order of The Moose Franconia Lodge 646 Inc. 6.2 

74 Hilltop Reclamation Project (3365-LF-01, for bond only) 1.0 

75 8214 and 8218 Richmond Highway 1.2 

76 Lofty Oaks Place Lots 41A 41B 41C 1.6 

77 Inova Mount Vernon 1.7 

78 Lorton Work House 52.1 

79 AAA Vehicle Maintenance Facility 5.3 

80 Commonwealth Construction Management Inc. 2.7 

81 Halley Farm Subdivision 3.7 

82 Lorton Debris Land Fill (1883-LF-002-2, for bond only) 1.0 

83 Cardinal Estates 1.8 

84 Old Keene Mill Professional Offices 2.3 

85 Parcel 8A Shell Oil Park 6.0 

86 Ricks Carpet and Floors 1.2 

87 Talbert Subdivision 1.2 

88 BB+T Bank Drive Thru Addn- Manchester Lakes SC 1.3 

89 Wal-Mart Store #2194 Kingstowne Centre 14.8 

90 First Baptist Church of Kingstowne 2.0 

91 Hayfield Animal Hospital 1.5 

92 Sherwood Hall Library 4.4 

93 New Hope Church 8.9 

94 Best Foods Inc 9525 Gunston Cove Road 5.6 

95 Adkins Property 25.7 

96 Epiphany Lutheran Church 3.0 

97 Meadowbrook Drive Property 2.2 

98 Backlick Plaza 7.8 

99 6715 Commerce Street 4.4 

100 Highgrove Estates Section 5 26.9 

101 Jefferson at Sullivan Place 17.2 

102 Devers Property 2.1 

103 LDS Church Franconia Ward 7.6 

104 Lakewood Hills Sect. 10 Phase I 35.1 

105 Fairfax Park 5.3 

106 Echo Inc. 0.9 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

H-6

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

107 VW Springfield 6.8 

108 2nd Park Structure at Frank-Springfield Metro Station 0.0 

109 Calvary Road Baptist Church Expansion 8.1 

110 Metro Park Phase Six 11.2 

111 Gayfields Road 13.9 

112 Silver Lake IHOP Restaurant 1.1 

113 Groveton Woods 11.6 

114 Holly Acres 8.9 

115 Shurgard Mount Vernon 5.3 

116 Mount Vernon Square Shopping Center 8.7 

117 Chilis Beacon Hill 6601 Richmond Highway 1.9 

118 Chapel Bridge Estates 6.6 

119 St. Raymond Penafort Church 9.9 

120 Harvester Presbyterian Church 3.9 

121 Covington Woods 4.7 

122 Monacan Estates 3.6 

123 Rolling Oaks 8.0 

124 Hunter Plaza, Phase One 0.8 

125 Hunter Plaza Phase 2 1.3 

126 Tavares/Allen Property 11.4 

127 Island Creek Elementary School 18.1 

128 U-Haul Retail Center 8297 Terminal Road 2.5 

129 Crown Center 13.2 

130 M and S Holdings LLC (formerly Millers Office Prod.) 11.4 

131 8501 Backlick Road (formerly 8521) 4.6 

132 Piney Glen 9.3 

133 Ashby Heights 6.1 

134 Federal Reality Investment/South Valley Shop Ctr. 24.1 

135 Woodlands, The 4.0 

136 Evergreen Farm 2.5 

137 Cecil Case Estates 8.1 

138 Gallahan Property 3.4 

139 Vernon Heights 7.7 

140 Remington Place (formerly Cooke Property) 14.4 

141 Cooke Property 10.3 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

H-7

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

142 Davison Woods 5.1 

143 Nirvana Palace 30.3 

144 Occoquan Overlook 100.6 

145 Occoquan Park 15.8 

146 Laurel Hill Land Bay A Section 1 24.5 

147 Laurel Hill South Sec 1 Landbay C 24.7 

148 Laurel Hill North 23.2 

149 Laurel Hill South Landbay D Section 1 22.7 

150 Laurel Hill South Landbay D Section 2 33.2 

151 Laurel Hill South Landbays E and F, Section 1 48.0 

152 Laurel Hill South Landbay E and F Section 2 33.1 

153 South County High School 69.4 

154 Laurel Hill Elementary School 18.5 

155 Spring Hill Senior Campus 59.7 

156 Laurel Hill Recreation Center 2.5 

157 Pohick Road Self Storage Facility 3.9 

158 Lorton Town Center Landbay D/F 18.9 

159 Meeker Property 5.6 

160 Laurel Ridge Crossing (formerly Pulte Plaskett Lane) 4.9 

161 Lorton Town Center Landbay G 13.1 

162 Grace Bible Church 3.5 

163 Lorton Town Center Landbay C 3.0 

164 Lorton Town Center Landbay "B-2" 1.7 

165 Lorton Valley Recreation Center 0.5 

166 Gunston Commons Townhouses 3.1 

167 Lorton Station South Section 6 4.7 

168 Barnes Property 8.7 

169 Lorton Station School 12.8 

170 Gunston Corner Restaurant 1.1 

171 Lorton Station South Section 7 20.2 

172 Cook Inlet Residential Section Three 60.6 

173 Mt. Vernon Orientation Cntr. Education Center and Museum 8.4 

174 Gunston Cove Business Center 8.8 

175 Evans Property 6.2 

176 Gunston Square Section 2 Parcel D 0.9 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

H-8

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

177 Gunston Commerce Center Land Bay C 39.9 

178 Gunston Commerce Center Land Bay B 11.7 

179 Gunston Commerce Center Building 2 LB A 10.2 

180 Gunston Center 14.1 

181 Mid-Town Springfield Development (mixed use) 9.5 

182 Springfield Mall Expansion 82.0 

183 Mixed Use (Office, Hotel, Retail) 5.0 

184 Mixed Use (Residential, Office, Retail, Hotel) 8.5 

185 Mixed Use (Residential, Office, Recreation/Open Space, Retail) 160.5 

186 Mixed Use (Office, Industrial) 117.8 

187 Mixed Use (Office, Retail) 6.0